|
|
08/06/2009, 10:45 AM
#986
 Originally Posted by clemgrad85
I think the previous administration (Clinton) could also have plenty of blame here. After all, the terrorists (oops, not supposed to use that word anymore, are we?) did start planning their attack while Clinton was Prez.
I see. So if we get attacked next year, you'll blame Bush? Yeah, right, uh-huh. It's documented that the NIE was ignored, and that Richard Clarke was kicked downstairs because he wouldn't shut up about the real threat and focus on Iraq.
I disagree...and besides...we took care of a dictator who while in jail made it clear he had every intention of starting his WMD program back. Saw that on 60 Minutes, by the way, didn't get much attention from the "main stream" media.....hmmm....wonder why?
You can't have it both ways. Either Hussein was a crazy blowhard or he wasn't. Why should I believe anything he says about his "intentions" in a 60 Minutes interview over the actual physical evidence that we now have in hand, which is in agreement with what was being assembled by Hans Blix et al. until we cut those efforts short 'cause Bush needed to get his war on?
Funny....every country in the world also believed he had WMDs....makes you realize how crazy Hussein (Saddam, not Obama) was as all he had to do was let us look where we wanted to look and we wouldn't have gone in. But no, he had to act like a tough guy.
Revisionist history. Weapons inspections were ongoing. See above.
Again....blame Hussein for not letting the UN inspectors look where they wanted to look. I again disagree...where as I HATE the loss of any American life over there, and the horrible injuries, I take the stance that it is better for our military to deal with these nuts over there (keep them busy) than for folks like you and me (civilians) dealing with the nuts on our own soil. I got to believe that while we kept them busy, killed some of them, and put some behind bars, we likely prevented other attacks on our soil. I can't prove that, of course, because additional attacks DIDN'T happen.
Again, I highly recommend No End In Sight. Sorry, I don't blame Saddam Hussein for failing to make proper preparations for what ensued after we invaded his country. And what, precisely, is your evidence that members of the Iraqi counterinsurgency (I presume that's who you mean by "nuts"?) had/have either the desire or wherewithal to commit a terrorist act within the borders of the most powerful country on Earth? Are you seriously proposing that American foreign policy should consist of sending our military to kill all the world's "nuts" who may have "intentions" to someday "do something," but also somehow uphold a bizarre exception for those countries from which people came and actually *did* do something?
Well....I can't argue that point....I am always disappointed when our troops don't have the proper equipment. We have a local company here in Charleston SC that makes these amazing vehicles but I guess they just weren't ready in time but I see them being shipped out.
Everybody's crying "what's the rush" about health insurance reform, though, aren't they? Strange we didn't hear from the same folks that about the invasion of Iraq when weapons inspections were in progress.
I don't think I've been wire tapped....so this doesn't really worry me. But if the Gov believes that it is in the best interest of the defense of the country to wire tap "Abdul" because he has been doing or buying suspicious items, I honestly don't have a problem with it.
That's a big "but," isn't it? It's not that I have a problem with it, it's the Constitution that has a problem with it, and, in the end, the Constitution is all America is. "The government can't run anything properly, but it's fine with me if they spy on us."  (BTW, the dude who killed all those people in Oklahoma City wasn't named "Abdul," so I'm not sure that's a great rule-of-thumb.)
Oh yes....the Katrina issue....are you also going to knock the idiotic Mayor of N.O.? Oh wait....he's a black guy...can't be critical of him. That guy should have been sent packing....living in a town that has seen a hurricane or two (fingers crossed for another hurricane free year), he did not adequately do what was needed to protect the citizens of N.O.
Please don't make presumptions about whether I'll criticize someone or not depending on his or her race. However, whatever Ray Nagin's culpability was, it doesn't excuse the de facto dismantling and politicization of FEMA, and the incompetent response to Katrina that resulted.
Again....we disagree here. Not enough space to go into this....but I do put Americans first....yes, I'm an arrogant American (sooooo sorry...wait....Obama has already begged the world to forgive us for being arrogant). All for saving American lives and have no problem with this one.
I know it's fashionable to caricature everything that Obama says, but what he has said about America's role in the world, and the role of other countries in making a contribution and cleaning up their own acts, is far more nuanced than that. The fact that government involvement in health care--which has already been in place for decades--terrifies you, but you don't have any problem with state-sponsored torture and incarceration without charge or trial--yeah, I'd say we part ways here.
What? I guess you're referring to the myth that man is causing global warming? If anyone is manipulating data, it's Al Gore....by the way....where is he flying today in his private jet?
Unfortunately science isn't a buffet. The same principles of physics that have enabled the development of cool stuff like the Pre (we both like that, right?) apply to the rest of the universe as well. As Al Gore might put it, that may be "inconvenient," but he is nothing more than a spokesperson for the overwhelming consensus among climate scientists.
Why is it that what arouses passion among liberals is when Americans start to question the government?
Way to miss my point. What I was expressing was that frustration that many Americans did *not* question their government with such passion until the health insurance reform initiative . . . even when the federal government--and the deficit--grew at exponential and unprecedented levels because of corruption and overspending on an unnecessary war. Or maybe I just missed all the outraged off-topic threads on TreoCentral back then . . .
Obama said back in '04 that he didn't understand why we can't "take our time" passing bills. Then in his election run, he talks about giving Americans time to read bills before they are passed. Now, when Americans do read them (as he tried to rush it through before we could) the liberals get upset that the citizens know more about the bills then the men and women voting on them! Doesn't that make YOU mad?
What makes me mad is all the lies and distortion about what is in those bills. Are these knowledgeable Americans you refer to the same ones screaming that "the government better keep their hands off my Medicare"?
|
|
|
Posting Permissions
