CarolinaTiger 0 Posted October 10, 2003 Share Posted October 10, 2003 i have become more and more disenchanted with the democratic presidential hopefuls. they don't discuss ideas, they bash each other and bush... hopefully when they decide on ONE candidate, the dems will discuss ideas and not merely hold a bashfest. they bashed clark last night for voting republican, and praising the bush administration edwards touted his "common-man" upbringing while kerry said, "in vietnam they don't care what your background is". some want to repeal all the tax cuts, others only part of them. lieberman said America needs someone who doesn't change their mind... WHAT? yet, on the flipside, i firmly believe the bush camp isn't managing image very well. ct Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CCTAU 3,333 Posted October 10, 2003 Share Posted October 10, 2003 We knew they would bash Bush. But they are starting to eat their own also. Yum Yum Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rexbo 104 Posted October 10, 2003 Share Posted October 10, 2003 "I have stood up to this president over and over and over, including back in 2001 when some on this stage had hope for President Bush," Edwards said. "I did not have hope for President Bush." This quite a scary statement from a US Senator. Why was he standing up AGAINST him in 2001, because of Bush's brave, forceful response to 9-11? If he doesn't have hope for Bush, who did he have hope for, Osama, Saddam? If he had no hope for Bush since 2001, has he been hoping for America to fail since then, has he been hoping for more terrorist attacks? Who's side is this guy really on? Once he drops out of the Presidential race, I hope the people of North Carolina are smart enough to drop him out of the Senate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenny AU-92 0 Posted October 10, 2003 Share Posted October 10, 2003 My biggest concern about this group of wannabes is that none of them could give an intelligent response in answer to the question "What would you have done had you been President on September 11?". I have a feeling, however, that with as far out of touch as this bunch of pinkos are, that any answer they might manage to offer would be totally unsat to the vast majority of Americans, regardless of political party. It is very easy to bash someone else's ideas and policies (meaning Bush's), but it is another matter entirely to come up with reasonable alternatives of your own (key word "Reasonable"). The only way anyone gets me to change my mind is to offer an acceptable alternative and none of them have done so. Bash all you want , but why would we want to elect any of these boneheads to the most powerful job in the world when all the electorate knows is that the person they just elected "won't do it like Bush did"??? That just doesn't cut it with me. At least I know where I stand with President Bush - he tells you flat out what he is going to do, and why he thinks it is right to do that, and he is sorry if you disagree with him, but this is the job he was elected to do, and he is going to do it, come hell or high water. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiger Al 0 Posted October 10, 2003 Share Posted October 10, 2003 "I have stood up to this president over and over and over, including back in 2001 when some on this stage had hope for President Bush," Edwards said. "I did not have hope for President Bush."This quite a scary statement from a US Senator. Why was he standing up AGAINST him in 2001, because of Bush's brave, forceful response to 9-11? If he doesn't have hope for Bush, who did he have hope for, Osama, Saddam? If he had no hope for Bush since 2001, has he been hoping for America to fail since then, has he been hoping for more terrorist attacks? Who's side is this guy really on? Once he drops out of the Presidential race, I hope the people of North Carolina are smart enough to drop him out of the Senate. This seems to be the rallying point for the Republicans. Everything seems to hinge on September 11th, 2001. Unfortunately, Bush has tried to get way too much political mileage out of that tragedy and Americans are beginning to see that this emperor isn't wearing any clothes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rexbo 104 Posted October 10, 2003 Share Posted October 10, 2003 Here is what we would have to look forward to if a Democrat is elected, the only alternative to not fighting this war, according to Hanson "...accept defeat and stay within our borders to fight a defensive war of hosing down fires, bulldozing rubble, arresting terrorist cells, and hoping to appease or buy off our enemies abroad..." Legends of the Fall - More myths about the current war. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Proud Tiger 4,261 Posted October 10, 2003 Share Posted October 10, 2003 The emperor isn't wearing any clothes? At least he has some. None of the democratic candidates seem to have any clothes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiger Al 0 Posted October 10, 2003 Share Posted October 10, 2003 Here is what we would have to look forward to if a Democrat is elected, the only alternative to not fighting this war, according to Hanson "...accept defeat and stay within our borders to fight a defensive war of hosing down fires, bulldozing rubble, arresting terrorist cells, and hoping to appease or buy off our enemies abroad..."Legends of the Fall - More myths about the current war. So, just to make sure I understand you, are you still saying that the war against Iraq is because of its' participation in the attack of 9/11? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rexbo 104 Posted October 10, 2003 Share Posted October 10, 2003 Here is what we would have to look forward to if a Democrat is elected, the only alternative to not fighting this war, according to Hanson "...accept defeat and stay within our borders to fight a defensive war of hosing down fires, bulldozing rubble, arresting terrorist cells, and hoping to appease or buy off our enemies abroad..."Legends of the Fall - More myths about the current war. So, just to make sure I understand you, are you still saying that the war against Iraq is because of its' participation in the attack of 9/11? No, I never said that, and this article doesn't say that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiger Al 0 Posted October 10, 2003 Share Posted October 10, 2003 In fact, those who employ terror of the type that culminated (rather than began) on September 11 are real people with real government backing. They cannot operate without money, havens, and at least passive complicity. Who are they? Aside from the deposed Taliban, al Qaeda, of course; but also Hezbollah and its sponsors in Iran — as well as Islamofascist groups funded and abetted by Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. After 9/11, any autocratic country in the Middle East that had recently gone to war with the United States and cumulatively required 350,000 American air sorties, twelve years, $20 billion of policing, and occupation of two-thirds of its airspace to prevent genocide was an enemy, both de facto and — given Iraq's violation of the armistice accords of 1991 — de jure. That Abu Abbas and Abu Nidal were in Baghdad before the war, and al Qaeda afterward, is the expected calculus of the Hussein regime and its noxious fumes. I counted at least six direct references to it in the article and many more that were somewhat subtle. I'll have to re-ask the question: So, just to make sure I understand you, are you still saying that the war against Iraq is because of its' participation in the attack of 9/11? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rexbo 104 Posted October 10, 2003 Share Posted October 10, 2003 Your quote from the article says it pretty well, and does not say that Iraq participated directly in 9-11. What is important is preventing ANOTHER 9-11. With Saddam gone, and a democratic, freely elected Government in Iraq, the chances go down considerably. This is a long term view, the spreading of democracy in the Middle East reduces Islamic fundamentalism and their use of terror against the United States. Not only that, with Saddam out of power, the chances of the next 9-11 happening with WMDs go down tremendously. That's what the Democrats do not understand, they were the same ones who were screaming after 9-11 that Bush did not do enough to prevent the first 9-11, but now are screaming he is doing too much to prevent a second 9-11. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenny AU-92 0 Posted October 10, 2003 Share Posted October 10, 2003 You libs are beating the "no Iraq-9/11 connection" absolutely to death but you are not looking at it in the right way. NO ONE ever said Hussein paid for, or directly contributed to 9-11. NO ONE. I defy you to find me a DIRECT QUOTE from someone in the Bush Administration that said that. Bin Laden was responsible for 9-11. But here is reality - Saddam Hussein did not have to be a baggage handler on those 9-11 flights to have had an indirect hand in it - there is no doubt that he gave indirect aid and comfort to the enemy, including a place to train, and open public support, including payment to suicide bombers. As Pres Bush said, either you are with us in the fight on terror or you are against us, and we will treat those countries who harbor and support terrorists as equals with the terrorists - in other words, as targets. The very nature of Iraq under Hussein meets all of those criteria. And that is enough for me. But again, you are dodging the point of my original question about the Party of Ten - if one of them had been President of the United States on 9-11, what would their response have been? I agree with this quote: accept defeat and stay within our borders to fight a defensive war of hosing down fires, bulldozing rubble, arresting terrorist cells, and hoping to appease or buy off our enemies abroad Except for the "arresting terrorist cells" part because a lib administration wouldn't want to infringe on anyone's civil rights to get enough evidence to arrest them, even if that person's goal was to blow up the Capital building with all those pinkos in it. And unfortunately, I believe this because those types of terrorists feed off of signs of weakness. And the economy??? Our economy would be non-existent, as I doubt 9-11 would have been the last attack on American soil and the travel industry would be a thing of the past and consumer confidence ZERO. SO the fact that members of this board are still traveling all over the world without fear of reprisal says MAGNITUDES about how Pres Bush has made this a safer world in which to live. So put THAT in your bong and smoke it!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rexbo 104 Posted October 10, 2003 Share Posted October 10, 2003 Jenny, when are YOU running for President? You got my vote! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenny AU-92 0 Posted October 10, 2003 Share Posted October 10, 2003 Thank you for your support, sweetie, but I am never going to run for political office - I much prefer to be an outside aggitator. However, I would be a very good benevolent dictator - I am kind hearted and understanding, but screw with me, my family or the people I have promised to protect, and you will not live to regret it. That is why I love GWB so much - someone messed with his country and he is not going to tolerate that. Remember Sean Connery's line from "The Untouchables"? "They put one of yours in the hospital, you put one of theirs in the morgue. What are you prepared to do?!?!?!?!?!!!!!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Proud Tiger 4,261 Posted October 10, 2003 Share Posted October 10, 2003 Yeah and at least we didn't have to be embarassed to see Al Gore's yellow butt running for cover. :ph34r: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiger Al 0 Posted October 11, 2003 Share Posted October 11, 2003 No, Jenny, I probably can't find a quote from Bush or any of his administration that says "Saddam Hussein and bin Laden were working together to attack us on 9/11." I give Dubya's handlers credit for being a little smarter than that. But, one example of how Bush has strategically placed the dots to be connected is this, from the State of the Union address this past January: Before September the 11th, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained. But chemical agents, lethal viruses and shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained. Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other plans -- this time armed by Saddam Hussein. It would take one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known. We will do everything in our power to make sure that that day never comes. Or, this from a speech in Michigan the next day: Saddam Hussein has terrorized his own people. He's terrorized his own neighborhood. He is a danger not only to countries in the region, but as I explained last night, because of al Qaeda connections, because of his history, he's a danger to the American people. And we've got to deal with him. We've got to deal with him before it is too late. Before September the 11th, during a period when a lot of us thought oceans would protect us forever from gathering threats far from our land, the thought of containing somebody like Saddam Hussein made sense -- so we could step back in America and say, gosh, well, don't worry, he's only a threat to somebody in the neighborhood, and we might pick or choose whether or not we're going to help in the neighborhood. This is from a joint speech with Tony Blair: QUESTION: Thank you, sir. Mr. President, is Secretary Powell going to provide the undeniable proof of Iraq's guilt that so many critics are calling for? THE PRESIDENT: Well, all due in modesty, I thought I did a pretty good job myself of making it clear that he's not disarming and why he should disarm. Secretary Powell will make a strong case about the danger of an armed Saddam Hussein. He will make it clear that Saddam Hussein is fooling the world, or trying to fool the world. He will make it clear that Saddam is a menace to peace in his own neighborhood. He will also talk about al Qaeda links, links that really do portend a danger for America and for Great Britain, anybody else who loves freedom. As the Prime Minister says, the war on terror is not confined to just a shadowy terrorist network. The war on terror includes people who are willing to train and to equip organizations such as al Qaeda. See, the strategic view of America changed after September the 11th. We must deal with threats before they hurt the American people again. And as I have said repeatedly, Saddam Hussein would like nothing more than to use a terrorist network to attack and to kill and leave no fingerprints behind. Time after time he has included three things very closely linked in his speeches: Hussein, bin Laden/al Quaida and 9/11. While not explicitly saying there was a connection, the implication has certainly been there. The same is true with virtually all of the information this administration has given the American people concerning Iraq. Like 'the gassing of Saddam's own people.' He always conveniently leaves off the part about how that happened in 1988, at a time when the U.S. was backing Iraq against Iran/USSR. For those who will simply take the soundbites and run, these gassings have seemingly just recently happened so there's another good reason to attack Iraq. The fact that terrorists were in Iraq does not collaboration make. Sixteen of them were here in the U.S. training for a year, were WE collaborating with them? And this "You're either with us or agin' us" propaganda crap is really getting used up. I'm sorry if you think I'm dodging the point of your original question, but, the fact is, I have no idea how any of the Democratic candidates would've reacted to 9/11 and neither do you. But, if it's any indication, Ramzi Yousef and the six other conspirators of the first WTC bombing in 1993 are in prison. The good guys got theirs; Bush can't even find a leak in his own administration, much less bin Laden or Saddam Hussein. It does make one wonder why, if the 'pinko libs' are so soft on terrorism, we weren't attacked when said 'pinko libs' were in office on 9/11/1999. Proud Tiger, why do you think Gore is yellow? He did his duty, voluntarily, I might add, in Vietnam. Where was the Crawford cowboy and his six-gun swagger at that time? Oh yeah, he had his daddy pull some strings and get him into the Texas Air Guard. I'm sure you know that at that time, the National Guard virtually never got called into active duty for overseas wars. Even then, Bush went AWOL for a year while he was working on 'Red' Blount's gubernatorial election here in Alabama. Oh, he talks a good game when he's sending someone else to do the job, but, back when it was his time to serve, he, as you alluded to Gore, went running for cover, proving that he is, indeed, a cowboy that's all hat and no cattle. And Jenny, btw, thanks for the offer, but I don't smoke anything that requires a bong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CCTAU 3,333 Posted October 13, 2003 Share Posted October 13, 2003 Yeah and at least we didn't have to be embarassed to see Al Gore's yellow butt running for cover. :ph34r: Hey PT, he wouldn't have been running away. He would have just been positioning himself so that he could "watch" and accurately "write" about it!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiger Al 0 Posted October 13, 2003 Share Posted October 13, 2003 Yeah and at least we didn't have to be embarassed to see Al Gore's yellow butt running for cover. :ph34r: Hey PT, he wouldn't have been running away. He would have just been positioning himself so that he could "watch" and accurately "write" about it!! At least he would be there. But, like I've said before; Dubya DOES have a very nice FLAG PIN patriotically affixed to his lapel. It makes for a really nice image. You can even see it in the picture below!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AURainman 6 Posted October 13, 2003 Share Posted October 13, 2003 edwards touted his "common-man" upbringing while kerry said, "in vietnam they don't care what your background is". I heard that and laughed out loud. "Mummmble mumble mumble Vietnam mumble Latinos mummble mummble mummble common man" Why is it, political debates always have to be so damn cliche' all the time. Why can't they have a political "cage match" or something. Maybe pit Ahnold vs. Davis in a battle to the death. But seriously, I have a hard time imagining any of these guys (Lieberman excluded) in the White House. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiger Al 0 Posted October 13, 2003 Share Posted October 13, 2003 Come November, 2004, you won't have to imagine!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rexbo 104 Posted October 13, 2003 Share Posted October 13, 2003 Come November, 2004, you won't have to imagine!!! And we won't have to imagine the glee of the Islamic terrorists either, there will be dancing in the streets all over the Middle East, except for Iraq. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MDM4AU 332 Posted October 13, 2003 Share Posted October 13, 2003 It does make one wonder why, if the 'pinko libs' are so soft on terrorism, we weren't attacked when said 'pinko libs' were in office on 9/11/1999. Or 9/11/1992 or 9/11/2000 or 9/11/1978, etc. Give me a break AL! That is such a ridiculous claim and a prime example of your propaganda spewage! The fact of the matter is (believe it or not) Saddam was not a friend, he did KNOWINGLY HARBOR the terrorists, did pay the families of suicide bombers, etc., etc., etc. The pinko libs could have taken care of Osama under Clinton, but nope! The terrorists in our nation did not simply arrive the day of GW Bush's inauguration. They were here the whole time Slick-Willy was in office as well. And you know those liberals weren't about to say anything because that's racist and would violate their civil rights even though they weren't citizens. You toe the Dem Party line quite well. It does make one wonder why, if the 'pinko libs' are so soft on terrorism, we weren't attacked when said 'pinko libs' were in office on 9/11/1999. And I can't help but point out the whole Jimmy Carter and the Iran Hostages! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rexbo 104 Posted October 13, 2003 Share Posted October 13, 2003 It does make one wonder why, if the 'pinko libs' are so soft on terrorism, we weren't attacked when said 'pinko libs' were in office on 9/11/1999. You cannot be serious? You were in the White House on Feb 26, 1993, and then wasted SEVEN years while bin Laden was building an even bigger network in Afghanistan. This is proof positive why the country is at a terrible risk of become a killing field if a Democrat is elected in 2004. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiger Al 0 Posted October 13, 2003 Share Posted October 13, 2003 You cannot be serious? You were in the White House on Feb 26, 1993, and then wasted SEVEN years while bin Laden was building an even bigger network in Afghanistan.This is proof positive why the country is at a terrible risk of become a killing field if a Democrat is elected in 2004. In two separate jury trials in Manhattan federal court, half a dozen men were later convicted of direct roles in the bombing. Mamed Salameh, Ahmad Ajaj, Mahmud Abouhalima and Nidal Ayyad were found guilty in March 1994. In November 1997, Ramzi Yousef was convicted of masterminding the plot, and Eyad Ismoil was convicted for driving the rented Ryder truck into the garage. Each man was sentenced to 240 years in prison, or one year for every year of expected life they deprived their victims. Like I said, the perpetrators of the WTC bombing on 2/26/1993 were captured, tried, found guilty and are now in prison. Maybe you should visit them, I bet they'd like that! And I can't help but point out the whole Jimmy Carter and the Iran Hostages! And I can't help but point out the Iran-Contra scandal. Maybe Carter should've thought to illegally sell weapons to Iran. I wonder if any Americans have been killed with those weapons? The Iran-Contra scandal can be traced to the October Surprise during the 1980 Presidential election between incumbent Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan. In the fall of 1980, Carter was marginally leading Reagan in the polls with the election right around the corner. The release of hostages before election day presumably would have insured the election for Carter. The Reagan team conspired to negotiate a deal with Ayatollah Khomeini of Iran. Campaign manager William Casey and George Bush met with Iranian Prime Minister Bani-sadr in Paris in October, only weeks before the election and with Carter having a slight lead over Reagan. Part of the deal cut between the Reagan team and Iran was to provide military weapons which Iran desperately needed in its war with Iraq. As it turned out, the 52 American hostages remained captive in Teheran. Carter's popularity continued to plummet, enabling Reagan to be elected in November, and ironically the hostages were returned at 12 o'clock noon on January 21, 1981 when Reagan was inaugurated. Hmmm...nothing like manipulating tragedies for political gain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rexbo 104 Posted October 14, 2003 Share Posted October 14, 2003 Like I said, the perpetrators of the WTC bombing on 2/26/1993 were captured, tried, found guilty and are now in prison. Maybe you should visit them, I bet they'd like that! Osama is in jail!!??? When did I miss that news event? (And don't tell me these guys were not receiving support from a terrorist network.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.