Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 62
  1.    #1  
    If the new Osama tape is real, it only underscores that Bush has spent two hundred billion dollars and the lives of a thousand Americans without actually making the U.S. any safer from Osama.

    You and I are trapped behind Homeland Security, hassled at airports, spied upon, frisked, and confined to "free speech zones", while this latest Osama, clearly rested and healthy, goes where he will, into TV studios, and is able to send taunting video tapes with impunity.

    When the Osamas of the world are free while we who pay the bills are prisoners, this must be counted a complete failure by the administration which claims so many extraordinary powers under the banner of the "war on terror".
  2. #2  
    You are crazy. Bin Laden was campaigning against the President. What does that tell you? Obviously, they think they will be better off with Kerry. That ought to tell you and the rest of the country something--and certainly signals that the President is doing the right thing.

    Kerry's first response? His usual canard and shameful attack on our troops about Tora Bora. BTW, that's totally untrue. Not only has Tommy Franks set the record straight there, but at the time Kerry was full of praise for the operation.

    Sort of like his support for removing the threat posed by Saddam Hussein. He supported that way back to the days of the CLINTON administration, when he criticized Clinton for doing too little to deal with Saddam. Kerry saw the threat and was with the President, until Howard Dean came along.

    If John Kerry can't stand up to Howard Dean, how can he stand up to Al Qaeda? He can't.

    And, furthermore, to the extent to which people are thinking about terrorism and security on Tuesday, Bush wins. Despite all that has been thrown at the President, he has not budged off of a nearly 20 percent advantage on the question of who is the better person to fight terrorism and keep us secure.

    I'm not even going to get into your nonsensical rant about being hassled at the airport. It is readily apparent you do not understand the world, so there is no sense in going there.

    The good news is, the President will win on Tuesday, and he will continue to do all he can to keep all of us, including you, safe--even if you don't get it or don't appreciate it.

    All the best.
  3. #3  
    Oh, and BTW, he hasn't made us any safer from Al Qaeda? Let me remind you, Al Qaeda first attacked the US when Clinton was President, with the 1993 bombing of the WTC. His response? Refer the matter to the US Attorney's office and deal with it as a criminal justice matter.

    Then there was the USS Cole and the embassy bombings. And MULTIPLE opportunities to get Bin Laden, when nervous and typically not so friendly governments alerted us to his presence. What did Clinton do? Nothing.

    On the other hand, how many times have we been attacked here by Al Qaeda since 9/11? In case you missed it, 0. Do you think that's because they were satisfied with what they did that day? Do you think that's because they haven't tried to do even more terrible things? If you do, you are sadly deluded.

    It's hard to prove a negative. It's hard to be given credit because nothing happened. But the President--and even more, the men and women of our armed services and the homeland security and law enforcement professionals from the local level on up--deserve a great deal of credit for that.

    If the President had said on 9/12/01 that we would not have another attack on American soil more than three years from that day, would anyone have believed it? Unlikely. But we haven't. That's success. And we are safer.

    Bin Laden making videos is a far cry from Bin Laden making plans to kill Americans. And clearly his ability to do that has been severely hampered.
  4. #4  
    It seems a strange measure of success to only count an absence of attacks on U.S. soil. I think you have to take a more holistic view of where Bush has taken the world in the last 4 years and whether everyone is safer as a result (including troops and the rest of the world).

    - Tens of thousands of Iraqi's are dead,
    - 1000+ coalition troops are dead,
    - There are hundreds of people dead in the Madrid train bombings,
    - Hundreds of people dead in Bali bombings,
    - America has lost the support of the majority of people in the world (due to various actions like failure to uphold the Geneva Convention),
    - And the number of muslims in the world who would now support an attack on US interests have multiplied 100 fold

    If all that makes you feel safer just because they haven't come across a U.S. border recently then I think you are kidding yourself. With the amount of resentment and ill-will stirred up by Bush and the vast supply of explosive (and possibly even nuclear material) left in the hands of potential US enemies its simply a matter of time before an attack even bigger than 9/11 hits US soil.
    Last edited by mjw; 10/30/2004 at 11:05 AM.
  5.    #5  
    Quote Originally Posted by MikeElmendorf
    You are crazy.
    This is a typical Bush supporter response. Anyone who questions the benevolent dictator is "crazy". Reminds me a lot of Nazi Germany.
  6.    #6  
    Quote Originally Posted by mjw
    It seems a strange measure of success to only count an absence of attacks on U.S. soil. I think you have to take a more holistic view of where Bush has taken the world in the last 4 years and whether everyone is safer as a result (including troops and the rest of the world).

    - Tens of thousands of Iraqi's are dead,
    - 1000+ coalition troops are dead,
    - There are hundreds of people dead in the Madrid train bombings,
    - Hundreds of people dead in Bali bombings,
    - America has lost the support of the majority of people in the world (due to various actions like failure to uphold the Geneva Convention),
    - And the number of muslims in the world who would now support an attack on US interests have multiplied 100 fold

    If all that makes you feel safer just because they haven't come across a U.S. border recently then I think you are kidding yourself. With the amount of resentment and ill-will stirred up by Bush and the vast supply of explosive (and possibly even nuclear material) left in the hands of potential US enemies its simply a matter of time before an attack even bigger than 9/11 hits US soil.

    I agree with your post. Just because there have been no attacks here does not mean we are safer. Of course, Bush's supporters could care less about all the people in Spain who died and those in Bali and elsewhere. It is the typical narrowminded attitude- if it does not affect THEM then it must not matter.
  7. #7  
    Quote Originally Posted by MikeElmendorf
    You are crazy. Bin Laden was campaigning against the President. What does that tell you? Obviously, they think they will be better off with Kerry. That ought to tell you and the rest of the country something--and certainly signals that the President is doing the right thing.

    Kerry's first response? His usual canard and shameful attack on our troops about Tora Bora. BTW, that's totally untrue. Not only has Tommy Franks set the record straight there, but at the time Kerry was full of praise for the operation.

    Sort of like his support for removing the threat posed by Saddam Hussein. He supported that way back to the days of the CLINTON administration, when he criticized Clinton for doing too little to deal with Saddam. Kerry saw the threat and was with the President, until Howard Dean came along.

    If John Kerry can't stand up to Howard Dean, how can he stand up to Al Qaeda? He can't.

    And, furthermore, to the extent to which people are thinking about terrorism and security on Tuesday, Bush wins. Despite all that has been thrown at the President, he has not budged off of a nearly 20 percent advantage on the question of who is the better person to fight terrorism and keep us secure.

    I'm not even going to get into your nonsensical rant about being hassled at the airport. It is readily apparent you do not understand the world, so there is no sense in going there.

    The good news is, the President will win on Tuesday, and he will continue to do all he can to keep all of us, including you, safe--even if you don't get it or don't appreciate it.

    All the best.
    Dude, ease off on the Kool Aid!
    << My command as we escape Palm HQ with a new Pre 3>>.

    Treo 300 >> Treo 600 >> Treo 650 >> Treo 755 >> Instinct >> Pre- >> TouchPad
  8. #8  
    Quote Originally Posted by MikeElmendorf
    Oh, and BTW, he hasn't made us any safer from Al Qaeda? Let me remind you, Al Qaeda first attacked the US when Clinton was President, with the 1993 bombing of the WTC. His response? Refer the matter to the US Attorney's office and deal with it as a criminal justice matter.
    It was Ramsey Usef in 1993, not Osama Bin Laden.

    Quote Originally Posted by MikeElmendorf
    Then there was the USS Cole and the embassy bombings. And MULTIPLE opportunities to get Bin Laden, when nervous and typically not so friendly governments alerted us to his presence. What did Clinton do? Nothing.
    Remember the Republican chant, "No war for Monica." Heck, if you guys would have just let him do his job instead of harassing him over his sexual proclivities, we may not be dealing with him now.

    Quote Originally Posted by MikeElmendorf
    On the other hand, how many times have we been attacked here by Al Qaeda since 9/11? In case you missed it, 0. Do you think that's because they were satisfied with what they did that day? Do you think that's because they haven't tried to do even more terrible things? If you do, you are sadly deluded.
    No they sat back and baited us into chasing them, spreading our resources thinly throughout the world. They understand Sun-Tzu, we don't.

    Quote Originally Posted by MikeElmendorf
    It's hard to prove a negative. It's hard to be given credit because nothing happened. But the President--and even more, the men and women of our armed services and the homeland security and law enforcement professionals from the local level on up--deserve a great deal of credit for that.
    I could use these same words to defend President Clinton.

    Quote Originally Posted by MikeElmendorf
    If the President had said on 9/12/01 that we would not have another attack on American soil more than three years from that day, would anyone have believed it? Unlikely. But we haven't. That's success. And we are safer.
    Unless you are one of the Reservists and National Guardsmen who have been mobilized, as well as their families.

    Quote Originally Posted by MikeElmendorf
    Bin Laden making videos is a far cry from Bin Laden making plans to kill Americans. And clearly his ability to do that has been severely hampered.
    What happened to the "We're going to hunt him down and bring him to justice" battlecry? Here you have a guy, identified as Public Enemy #1 and he has the time to get rested and walk into what looks like a well electrified and modern recording facility to make a video addressing the American people.

    He doesn't say he supported President Bush or Senator Kerry, in fact he said that he doesn't care about either one. His message was pretty simple, imo -- the American people will need to pressure whomever is elected President to change our current foreign policy in the Middle East.

    Now I am one that supports the belief that we can't have our foreign policy dictated by a madman intent on destroying our way of life. But we need to have progress on many fronts (Iraq, Iran, Israel, Palestine, Korea, Taiwan, Cuba, Rwanda, Sudan, the Balkans, and a few more) that perhaps we need to look at what we are doing, foreign policy wise. I'm not saying change it, just re-evaluate it.

    To say that just because there have been no attacks here in the past 3+ years that we have reduced Al-Qaeda is laughable. This tape proves the President's policy to invade Iraq was, "the wrong war at the wrong time."

    Open your mind to ideas that are different than your own ... you don't have to agree with them, just consider them when you make absolute statements like you made in your two posts.
    << My command as we escape Palm HQ with a new Pre 3>>.

    Treo 300 >> Treo 600 >> Treo 650 >> Treo 755 >> Instinct >> Pre- >> TouchPad
  9. #9  
    Quote Originally Posted by mjw
    and the vast supply of explosive (and possibly even nuclear material) left in the hands of potential US enemies its simply a matter of time before an attack even bigger than 9/11 hits US soil.

    Tread lightly on that......... Remember Kerry's entire campaign has been built on the lack of any Nuclear weapons in Iraq. If you go around blabbing your mouth the rest of the world might hear ya. But of course this enormous quantity of, as you call it, "nuclear material" really shouldn't be taken into consideration. I am sure Kerry campaign will do a 180 (again) and find some other reason why this is the wrong war at the wrong time. And completely deny any previous mention about the absence of WMD's (They will probably even make reference that they knew where to find them and Bush just wouldn't listen.... I can hear it now.) I just hope for your sake they can find something before tuesday.
  10. #10  
    Quote Originally Posted by mjw
    It seems a strange measure of success to only count an absence of attacks on U.S. soil. I think you have to take a more holistic view of where Bush has taken the world in the last 4 years and whether everyone is safer as a result (including troops and the rest of the world).

    - Tens of thousands of Iraqi's are dead, I'd like to see some real proof of the numbers
    - 1000+ coalition troops are dead, Uh it's a war, people die. common fact of military life
    - There are hundreds of people dead in the Madrid train bombings, Terrorsists did that not Bush
    - Hundreds of people dead in Bali bombings,Terrorsists did that not Bush
    - America has lost the support of the majority of people in the world (due to various actions like failure to uphold the Geneva Convention), You did a poll right? Must have been expensivew to call all the people in the world and ask them their opinions
    - And the number of muslims in the world who would now support an attack on US interests have multiplied 100 fold Polled all the muslims too? You are something

    If all that makes you feel safer just because they haven't come across a U.S. border recently then I think you are kidding yourself. With the amount of resentment and ill-will stirred up by Bush and the vast supply of explosive (and possibly even nuclear material) left in the hands of potential US enemies its simply a matter of time before an attack even bigger than 9/11 hits US soil.

    So everything bad that happens in the world is america's fault. Nice way to look at things. Why do you live here if it's such a horrible place? What beating did you get a s a child that now makes you think that everything bad that happens is the fault of this country.

    Are you not aware that there are bad people in the world who just flat out enjoy torturing and killing others? I suppose Hitler was somehow our fault too?

    If you feel so strongly about the plight of the muslim world at the hand of the evil America, why dont you go live with them and do what you can to make their lives better. You'll probably be safer there right?
    “There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order.”
    — Ed Howdershelt
    "A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have."- Thomas Jefferson
  11. #11  
    Quote Originally Posted by Eurokitty
    I agree with your post. Just because there have been no attacks here does not mean we are safer. Of course, Bush's supporters could care less about all the people in Spain who died and those in Bali and elsewhere. It is the typical narrowminded attitude- if it does not affect THEM then it must not matter.
    Big surprise there. If you hate this country and what it does why do you stay?

    You say we dont care as if we are to blame. I care, but what would you have me do? I did not kill them. I did not do anything to cause the people who did to act that way. I fully support the extermination of people who wantonly kill others for no logical reason.

    I wonder what exactly would make you happy. Perhaps if terrorists came here and killed thouands in Seattle you would feel better about those others that have died. What exactly do you want Eurokitty?
    “There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order.”
    — Ed Howdershelt
    "A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have."- Thomas Jefferson
  12. #12  
    Thread title and OP are slighty off the mark. Of course maybe there is a new definition of devastating that I havent been made aware of.

    "`In every poll since the campaign began, voters have said they trust Bush more than Kerry to handle the challenges of terrorism and homeland security -- usually by a 15-to-20-point margin.''

    http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news...top_world_news


    Oh wait. Eurokitty said 'devistating' not devastating. She'll have to define her word for us. It clearly doesnt mean the same as the one that shows up in Webster's
    “There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order.”
    — Ed Howdershelt
    "A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have."- Thomas Jefferson
  13. #13  
    Would bin Laden be alive if the military was allowed to follow its instinct? Devastating is right . . . the primary target is bin Laden and somehow we got destracted. We are watching another UbL lecture is an indication of civilian leadership interfering in military decision making or maybe some form of political ADHD has popped up.
    "The willingness with which our young people are likely to serve in any war, no matter how justified, shall be directly Proportional to how they perceive the Veterans of earlier wars were treated and appreciated by their Nation" - Geo. Washington
  14. #14  
    Quote Originally Posted by sxtg
    Tread lightly on that......... Remember Kerry's entire campaign has been built on the lack of any Nuclear weapons in Iraq.
    sxtg, there doesn't have to have been nuclear weapons in Iraq for there to be the risks I mentioned, a few pounds of Uranium or Plutonium from a reactor would do for a "dirty bomb" if brought across a US border into a major city. Also, don't forget about all the nuclear material floating around and available for sale after the breakdown of the former Soviet Union. And then there's North Korea...

    On a relative scale of risk, it's amazing and incompetent that Bush prioritized invading Iraq higher than mitigating these kinds of risks. I just hope that America and the rest of the world doesn't have to pay the price of another 4 years of Bush incompetance.
  15. #15  
    [QUOTE=mjw]sxtg, there doesn't have to have been nuclear weapons in Iraq for there to be the risks I mentioned, a few pounds of Uranium or Plutonium from a reactor would do for a "dirty bomb" if brought across a US border into a major city. QUOTE]


    Agreed. I just cant believe the number of times I have heard the Dems refer to the explosives as nuclear after trying to cram the lack thereof down our throats every chance they get. Its seems like Kerry's flip flopping is Democratic policy.

    There are plenty of democratic issues I do agree with and one might even say I have left lean. But even a blind man can see Kerry's campaign is dillusional at best.
  16. #16  
    Woof, much like Bush you clearly don't have a very clear perspective on anything that it happening outside of the U.S. and it sounds like you don't really care very much what happens.

    Here's a poll for you (and don't worry it didn't cost me anything except a brief google search). Take a look at how the rest of the world views Bush

    I think it says a lot that 88% of them want him out of the Whitehouse.
  17. #17  
    Quote Originally Posted by mjw
    It seems a strange measure of success to only count an absence of attacks on U.S. soil. I think you have to take a more holistic view of where Bush has taken the world in the last 4 years and whether everyone is safer as a result (including troops and the rest of the world).

    - Tens of thousands of Iraqi's are dead,
    - 1000+ coalition troops are dead,
    - There are hundreds of people dead in the Madrid train bombings,
    - Hundreds of people dead in Bali bombings,
    - America has lost the support of the majority of people in the world (due to various actions like failure to uphold the Geneva Convention),
    - And the number of muslims in the world who would now support an attack on US interests have multiplied 100 fold

    If all that makes you feel safer just because they haven't come across a U.S. border recently then I think you are kidding yourself. With the amount of resentment and ill-will stirred up by Bush and the vast supply of explosive (and possibly even nuclear material) left in the hands of potential US enemies its simply a matter of time before an attack even bigger than 9/11 hits US soil.
    yup.
  18. #18  
    Quote Originally Posted by Eurokitty
    This is a typical Bush supporter response. Anyone who questions the benevolent dictator is "crazy". Reminds me a lot of Nazi Germany.

    fine.. you know what, people, screw it all. lets just give these dems what they want.. put their damn boy in office and lets just continue ignoring terrorists...


    just like their hero clinton did.

    what a difference that will make.


    NOT. i think THEY are the ones who should ease of the kool aid.
  19. #19  
    Quote Originally Posted by mjw
    Woof, much like Bush you clearly don't have a very clear perspective on anything that it happening outside of the U.S. and it sounds like you don't really care very much what happens.

    Here's a poll for you (and don't worry it didn't cost me anything except a brief google search). Take a look at how the rest of the world views Bush

    I think it says a lot that 88% of them want him out of the Whitehouse.

    Yeah, why don't we vote in to office someone that the rest of the world wants there...
    WHO GIVE A FLYING F... WHO THE REST OF THE WORLD WANTS, Huh ???

    Global test???
  20. #20  
    Quote Originally Posted by mjw
    Woof, much like Bush you clearly don't have a very clear perspective on anything that it happening outside of the U.S. and it sounds like you don't really care very much what happens.

    Here's a poll for you (and don't worry it didn't cost me anything except a brief google search). Take a look at how the rest of the world views Bush

    I think it says a lot that 88% of them want him out of the Whitehouse.

    There were only 2 countries that favored Bush. also...

    United States John Kerry by 51% 16652 50956 24 % 75 %
Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast

Posting Permissions