wmw999 2,461 #26 September 22, 2006 QuoteI think he is a good leader. He isn't afraid to make a decision. Critics be damned. Sometimes all those critics are a sign that you're wrong. Kind of like the jumper who goes ahead and buys that 120 to swoop.QuoteClinton was SO AFRAID to make a decision it cost MANY lives. Somalia.........cost us 18 American Soldiers. On ONE DAY!That's a lot in one day. How many days like that were there under Clinton's administration?Quote Why............Clinton insisted on being diplomatic. My friends were on the ground trying to call air support. Yep............the requests went ALL THE WAY TO THE WHITE HOUSE........and were denied. The blood of those 18 Rangers and Delta guys is on Clintons hands. If Clinton personally denied the support then there may well have been a fuckup on his part. Either way, the buck stops where he is regardless. I don't know enough about the situation. Really.QuoteFrom there it just got worse. After a "defeat" i SOmalia it emboldened the terrorists. After they attacked the World Trade Center, Two American Embassies, and a US Navy ship. Clinton did....................yes nothing. And we lost -- how many people total? Again, they were soldiers, with mothers and fathers and families and buddies who loved them. Not to deny their worth. But we're losing a shitload more now, just to prove what bad motherfuckers we are. Sorry. It really doesn't fly. I'll take the diplomatic approach until I really have to. When is that? Well, Afghanistan was a good time to do that; we were fucked with on our territory. But this whole preemptive strike thing does not look very good right now. If we were to go down, half the world would think it justified, which kind of sucks. That doesn't make them wrong, or us right, or the other way around. But it does make us more vulnerable if a real attack on the US does come. And that worries me. Wendy W.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sundevil777 102 #27 September 22, 2006 Quote***The US threatened to bomb Pakistan "back to the stone age" if it did not fight against al-Qaeda, the country's president claims. General Pervez Musharraf said the warning was delivered after the 11 September attacks. David Chazan reports. clicky If a country is harboring them, he had already said we would not distinguish... Seems perfectly reasonable. We gave them an opportunity to help us. Even if they were only guilty of negligence in not caring about the bad guys in their midst, we were making it clear we would take them out if Pakistan didn't help. Pakistan made the right choice. If only more middle eastern leaders were able to make such a choice. I think this decision is comparable to Sadat's choice to make peace with Israel. He was a reasonable guy, he was truly able to seek peace because it was in everybody's interest.People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
vortexring 0 #28 September 22, 2006 Yes, but do you trust them? Do you? 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.' Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
WeakMindedFool 0 #29 September 23, 2006 QuoteQuotecan't even make a proper speach Bush, is just crazy! Yes..........he is a HORRIBLE public speaker. I laugh at his speaches all the time. I could do better than that. However..........I think he is a good leader. He isn't afraid to make a decision. Critics be damned. Clinton was SO AFRAID to make a decision it cost MANY lives. Somalia.........cost us 18 American Soldiers. On ONE DAY! Why............Clinton insisted on being diplomatic. My friends were on the ground trying to call air support. Yep............the requests went ALL THE WAY TO THE WHITE HOUSE........and were denied. The blood of those 18 Rangers and Delta guys is on Clintons hands. From there it just got worse. After a "defeat" i SOmalia it emboldened the terrorists. After they attacked the World Trade Center, Two American Embassies, and a US Navy ship. Clinton did....................yes nothing. Or right next to it...........in fact he did worse. He made Americans look like pussies so the Muslim extemeists came after us harder. Now we are having to prove otherwise every day. reply] Defeat? How do you figure? 18 Americans vs. 5000+ Somalis...Talk about A-symetric force structure! You have like 180 dudes vs. a city and who comes out ahead? You think Specters would have made the situation better? Lets be honest here. The reason Somalia blew up was because we pulled the Marines out...who were doing a great job BTW. Who was it that was crying about nation building? Don't worry, extreamists don't hate you because of Clinton...they hate you because your not an extreamist...or mabey they don't hate youFaith in a holy cause is to a considerable extent a substitute for lost faith in ourselves. -Eric Hoffer - Check out these Videos Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites freeflir29 0 #30 September 23, 2006 QuoteBut we're losing a shitload more now, just to prove what bad motherfuckers we are. If you really believe that you need to wake up. DO you really think that terrorism wouldn't personally effect you if the US pulled every single military force back within it's borders? How long do you think it would take before we were fighting these assholes in our own streets? QuoteAnd we lost -- how many people total? I'm not sure and I'm not going to look it up and count them. Are you saying it's just fine that leadership negligence gets people killed because it's better than actually fighting. Yeah Clinton tried that. His policy of doing nothing invited the terrorist to visit New York and DC. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites freeflir29 0 #31 September 23, 2006 QuoteDefeat? How do you figure? 18 Americans vs. 5000+ Somalis...Talk about A-symetric force structure! You have like 180 dudes vs. a city and who comes out ahead? Not in a military sense...........it was political. The Somalis and much of the world felt like they DID defeat the US. QuoteYou think Specters would have made the situation better? Yep............I KNOW they would have. Instead of all those hours it took to finally extract everyone plus the weeks it took to get back Michael Durant it would have all been over in a matter of MINUTES.........not hours. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Royd 0 #32 September 23, 2006 And we lost -- how many people total? Again, they were soldiers, with mothers and fathers and families and buddies who loved them. Not to deny their worth. But we're losing a shitload more now, just to prove what bad motherfuckers we are. QuoteSorry. It really doesn't fly. I'll take the diplomatic approach until I really have to. So, how many warships have to be attacked before words become action. Some people with that attitude would still be talking to Japan about Pearl Harbor. I say one attack, such as on the USS Cole, is enough to stomp a country into oblivion, unless there is full cooperation on their part to reveal the perpetrators, and it would be our call to say when we were satisfied. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites likearock 2 #33 September 23, 2006 QuoteQuoteThe US threatened to bomb Pakistan "back to the stone age" Ooo! Upgrade! t If there were a DZ.com prize for the highest /postsize ratio, you totally get it for that. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites wmw999 2,461 #34 September 23, 2006 Quote I say one attack, such as on the USS Cole, is enough to stomp a country into oblivion, unless there is full cooperation on their part to reveal the perpetrators, and it would be our call to say when we were satisfied.So we decide which country it was that was involved? What if we'd decided it was France who bombed the Cole, or Saudi Arabia, or Kuwait? It sure wasn't the nation of Iraq. Wendy W.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites freeflir29 0 #35 September 23, 2006 QuoteWhat if we'd decided it was France who bombed the Cole We would have accepted their immediate surrender. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites SkyDekker 1,465 #36 September 25, 2006 QuoteIf he had balls he would take a couple of walks around town without a security detail... -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Yeah...........POTUS is just going to take a stroll. Are you fucking stupid? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Quote -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- if he had balls he would have at some point seen active duty -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Why? He had a good deal because of who his daddy was. Dont be jealous. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Quote -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- If it wasn't for his family name his life is mediocre at best. He really is no better than the majority of the Kennedy clan. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- They were certainly shit bags. But............are they supposed to somehow ignore the fact that they are part of a certain family. My Dad was a mechanic in the ANG. Does that make him somehow less of a man? I have a friend that was born into the Rockefellar family. Is he supposed to give away the $90M he inherited just so people won't think he got an easy ride. Sooty please. That still doesn't address why you think he has balls, or why you made that statement. To most people around the world his actions portray stupidity, not that he "has balls". QuoteThey were certainly shit bags. But............are they supposed to somehow ignore the fact that they are part of a certain family. My Dad was a mechanic in the ANG. Does that make him somehow less of a man? Nope, what I said was that if it wasn't for his family connections Bush Jr. life would have been mediocre at best. He isn't smart or astute enough to lead a company. Almost every company he has ever been associated with has gone bankrupt. If it wasn't for his family name he would have been a junior manager in a bank somewhere. The man has an abysmal track record and he is showing that he is just as stupid running a country..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites freeflir29 0 #37 September 25, 2006 QuoteThat still doesn't address why you think he has balls, or why you made that statement. He has had the courage to act meaningfully in order to protect this country. In spite of what other countries think. What was Clinton's response to a MAJOR terrorist attack on US soil? He was worried so much about international pressure that he acted in such an inept way he might as well have not done anything. Then..........he cowered when there was bitching over what he did do. That attack occured about 1 month after he took office. The entire world took notice that the US was open to attack with NO repercussions. QuoteNope, what I said was that if it wasn't for his family connections Bush Jr. life would have been mediocre at best. I don't think you can say that. I think he might have turned out very differently had he been a "regular joe." I still don't think he owes anyone an apology for being born well off. QuoteThe man has an abysmal track record and he is showing that he is just as stupid running a country..... That's your opinion. Not a fact. Edit: Excuse me..........even worse Clinton did ABSOLUTELY NOTHING after the first large scale terrorist attack on US Soil. NOTHING. He FINALLY made a half assed inept attempt at retaliation AFTER the 2 US Embassies in Africa were attacked. Had there been a swift and meaningful response I think it would have stopped the enitre cycle that we are now in. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites SkyDekker 1,465 #38 September 25, 2006 Only in the long term we will be able to see who has done more damage to the country. My money is on Bush, your's is obvious on Clinton. I just wonder what will happen when the US can't make the interest payments on the debt Bush is accumulating anymore. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites freeflir29 0 #39 September 25, 2006 QuoteI just wonder what will happen when the US can't make the interest payments on the debt Bush is accumulating anymore. What runs up more debt? Financing a war and a shitload of homeland security.........or cleaning up after multiple large scale terrorist attacks? I'll take the war please. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites SkyDekker 1,465 #40 September 25, 2006 QuoteWhat runs up more debt? Financing a war and a shitload of homeland security.........or cleaning up after multiple large scale terrorist attacks? I'll take the war please. That either or scenario is a pretty big assumption. 16 Of your intelligence agencies agree that the War in Iraq has just bred more terrorists and made the world a less safe place. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,009 #41 September 25, 2006 >Financing a war and a shitload of homeland security.........or >cleaning up after multiple large scale terrorist attacks? With Bush, we don't have to make such a tough call - we can have both! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites idrankwhat 0 #42 September 25, 2006 Quote ..........I think he is a good leader. He isn't afraid to make a decision. Critics be damned. Clinton was SO AFRAID to make a decision it cost MANY lives. Somalia.........cost us 18 American Soldiers. On ONE DAY! Why............Clinton insisted on being diplomatic. My friends were on the ground trying to call air support. Yep............the requests went ALL THE WAY TO THE WHITE HOUSE........and were denied. The blood of those 18 Rangers and Delta guys is on Clintons hands. From there it just got worse. After a "defeat" i SOmalia it emboldened the terrorists. After they attacked the World Trade Center, Two American Embassies, and a US Navy ship. Clinton did....................yes nothing. Or right next to it...........in fact he did worse. He made Americans look like pussies so the Muslim extemeists came after us harder. Now we are having to prove otherwise every day. Ok, let's take the revisionist, 20/20 hindsight view that Clinton did nothing and run with it. Ok, so then what happened? Bush's response to the al Qaeda threat was to actively ignore it for the first eight months of his term (while simultaneously having plans drawn up for an Iraq offensive.....oooops...I mean "defensive"). Then what did he do after 9/11? He responded just enough to oust the Taliban then he left OBL and al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan and pulled almost all of the resources so that we could engage in a premeditated nation building project in Iraq. If your definition of good leadership is being decisive then Bush is certainly your man. Too bad that his decisions are bad ones.....you know, ones that leave us with fewer allies, overstreached military, as human rights violators and war criminals, half a trillion more in debt and (in case you missed the headlines) the poster child for terrorist recruitment. Feel free to be ticked off about the 18 dead soldiers in Somalia. Fair enough. I'm ticked off about the more recent 2700. Clinton fucked his intern. Bush fucked everyone else. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites idrankwhat 0 #43 September 25, 2006 Quote>Financing a war and a shitload of homeland security.........or >cleaning up after multiple large scale terrorist attacks? With Bush, we don't have to make such a tough call - we can have both! Just to clarify, that's "shitload of homeland security SPENDING", not necessarily security. What was the most recent grade we got for implementing 9/11 commission recommendations? I can't recall off the top of my head but I'm pretty sure it was even lower than the proverbial "gentleman's C". Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites freeflir29 0 #44 September 26, 2006 Quoteones that leave us with fewer allies, overstreached military, as human rights violators and war criminals, half a trillion more in debt and (in case you missed the headlines) the poster child for terrorist recruitment. OK............... "Overstreached military" I don't know the numbers..........but HAS the US military recovered from the GUTTING it got during the Clinton years? "Human rights violators and war criminals" Where? There has been a few individuals that have been prosecuted for illegal acts. Certainly not any more than in any other conflict. At least the US recognizes and prosecutes when there is a problem. Quotehalf a trillion more in debt and (in case you missed the headlines) the poster child for terrorist recruitment Yes.......fighting the GWOT and simultaneously trying to recover from the Clinton gutting of the military has been expensive. Poster child for terrorist recruitment? Ya know........I don't know how old you are.......I'm almost 35. I STILL remember the Iranian revolution. The flag burning. The hostages. I'm NOT sure Bush had anything to do with anyone hating the US more. Speaking of left wing presidents. How bout that Jimmy Carter? He was a REAL winner! Yayyy for the Dems. BTW..........Clinton got a blowjob. There......I was tired of YOU being the only person that ever brought that up. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites SkyDekker 1,465 #45 September 26, 2006 QuoteYa know........I don't know how old you are.......I'm almost 35. I STILL remember the Iranian revolution. The flag burning. The hostages. I'm NOT sure Bush had anything to do with anyone hating the US more. 16 US Intelligence Agencies disagree with you. Are you telling us you know more than them? Should we start calling you spectre? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites freeflir29 0 #46 September 26, 2006 Quote16 US Intelligence Agencies disagree with you. Are you telling us you know more than them? Should we start calling you spectre? Can you point me to some proof of that? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites SkyDekker 1,465 #47 September 26, 2006 Yeah just search the news for a leaked report by the National Intelligence Council. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Amazon 7 #48 September 26, 2006 Quote16 US Intelligence Agencies disagree with you. Are you telling us you know more than them? Should we start calling you spectre? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Can you point me to some proof of that? http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5375064.stm US report says Iraq fuels terror The violence in Iraq shows little sign of abating The New York Times newspaper has published what it says are the findings of a classified US intelligence paper on the effects of the Iraq war. The document reportedly blames the three-year-old conflict for increasing the threat of terrorism and helping fuel Islamic radicalism worldwide. However, a White House spokesman said the newspaper report was "not representative of the entire document". The paper has not seen the report, but spoke to people familiar with it. The BBC's defence correspondent Rob Watson says this is not the first time the US intelligence community has said that the war in Iraq has made the problem of Islamist extremism worse. Indeed it had warned that might happen even before the US-led invasion in 2003. There goes that daym Liberal media again. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites freeflir29 0 #49 September 26, 2006 QuoteThe paper has not seen the report, but spoke to people familiar with it. Interesting.............. QuoteHowever, a White House spokesman said the newspaper report was "not representative of the entire document". So a paper writes a story about a report that it hasn't seen based on hearsay from people that obviously have an axe to grind. Wow........that's bound to be factual. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Amazon 7 #50 September 26, 2006 Its been all over the news here..... you know.. without the filters provided "in country" where its much better to only supply the party line for moral. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 Next Page 2 of 4 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
freeflir29 0 #30 September 23, 2006 QuoteBut we're losing a shitload more now, just to prove what bad motherfuckers we are. If you really believe that you need to wake up. DO you really think that terrorism wouldn't personally effect you if the US pulled every single military force back within it's borders? How long do you think it would take before we were fighting these assholes in our own streets? QuoteAnd we lost -- how many people total? I'm not sure and I'm not going to look it up and count them. Are you saying it's just fine that leadership negligence gets people killed because it's better than actually fighting. Yeah Clinton tried that. His policy of doing nothing invited the terrorist to visit New York and DC. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
freeflir29 0 #31 September 23, 2006 QuoteDefeat? How do you figure? 18 Americans vs. 5000+ Somalis...Talk about A-symetric force structure! You have like 180 dudes vs. a city and who comes out ahead? Not in a military sense...........it was political. The Somalis and much of the world felt like they DID defeat the US. QuoteYou think Specters would have made the situation better? Yep............I KNOW they would have. Instead of all those hours it took to finally extract everyone plus the weeks it took to get back Michael Durant it would have all been over in a matter of MINUTES.........not hours. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Royd 0 #32 September 23, 2006 And we lost -- how many people total? Again, they were soldiers, with mothers and fathers and families and buddies who loved them. Not to deny their worth. But we're losing a shitload more now, just to prove what bad motherfuckers we are. QuoteSorry. It really doesn't fly. I'll take the diplomatic approach until I really have to. So, how many warships have to be attacked before words become action. Some people with that attitude would still be talking to Japan about Pearl Harbor. I say one attack, such as on the USS Cole, is enough to stomp a country into oblivion, unless there is full cooperation on their part to reveal the perpetrators, and it would be our call to say when we were satisfied. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
likearock 2 #33 September 23, 2006 QuoteQuoteThe US threatened to bomb Pakistan "back to the stone age" Ooo! Upgrade! t If there were a DZ.com prize for the highest /postsize ratio, you totally get it for that. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,461 #34 September 23, 2006 Quote I say one attack, such as on the USS Cole, is enough to stomp a country into oblivion, unless there is full cooperation on their part to reveal the perpetrators, and it would be our call to say when we were satisfied.So we decide which country it was that was involved? What if we'd decided it was France who bombed the Cole, or Saudi Arabia, or Kuwait? It sure wasn't the nation of Iraq. Wendy W.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
freeflir29 0 #35 September 23, 2006 QuoteWhat if we'd decided it was France who bombed the Cole We would have accepted their immediate surrender. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #36 September 25, 2006 QuoteIf he had balls he would take a couple of walks around town without a security detail... -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Yeah...........POTUS is just going to take a stroll. Are you fucking stupid? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Quote -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- if he had balls he would have at some point seen active duty -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Why? He had a good deal because of who his daddy was. Dont be jealous. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Quote -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- If it wasn't for his family name his life is mediocre at best. He really is no better than the majority of the Kennedy clan. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- They were certainly shit bags. But............are they supposed to somehow ignore the fact that they are part of a certain family. My Dad was a mechanic in the ANG. Does that make him somehow less of a man? I have a friend that was born into the Rockefellar family. Is he supposed to give away the $90M he inherited just so people won't think he got an easy ride. Sooty please. That still doesn't address why you think he has balls, or why you made that statement. To most people around the world his actions portray stupidity, not that he "has balls". QuoteThey were certainly shit bags. But............are they supposed to somehow ignore the fact that they are part of a certain family. My Dad was a mechanic in the ANG. Does that make him somehow less of a man? Nope, what I said was that if it wasn't for his family connections Bush Jr. life would have been mediocre at best. He isn't smart or astute enough to lead a company. Almost every company he has ever been associated with has gone bankrupt. If it wasn't for his family name he would have been a junior manager in a bank somewhere. The man has an abysmal track record and he is showing that he is just as stupid running a country..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
freeflir29 0 #37 September 25, 2006 QuoteThat still doesn't address why you think he has balls, or why you made that statement. He has had the courage to act meaningfully in order to protect this country. In spite of what other countries think. What was Clinton's response to a MAJOR terrorist attack on US soil? He was worried so much about international pressure that he acted in such an inept way he might as well have not done anything. Then..........he cowered when there was bitching over what he did do. That attack occured about 1 month after he took office. The entire world took notice that the US was open to attack with NO repercussions. QuoteNope, what I said was that if it wasn't for his family connections Bush Jr. life would have been mediocre at best. I don't think you can say that. I think he might have turned out very differently had he been a "regular joe." I still don't think he owes anyone an apology for being born well off. QuoteThe man has an abysmal track record and he is showing that he is just as stupid running a country..... That's your opinion. Not a fact. Edit: Excuse me..........even worse Clinton did ABSOLUTELY NOTHING after the first large scale terrorist attack on US Soil. NOTHING. He FINALLY made a half assed inept attempt at retaliation AFTER the 2 US Embassies in Africa were attacked. Had there been a swift and meaningful response I think it would have stopped the enitre cycle that we are now in. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #38 September 25, 2006 Only in the long term we will be able to see who has done more damage to the country. My money is on Bush, your's is obvious on Clinton. I just wonder what will happen when the US can't make the interest payments on the debt Bush is accumulating anymore. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
freeflir29 0 #39 September 25, 2006 QuoteI just wonder what will happen when the US can't make the interest payments on the debt Bush is accumulating anymore. What runs up more debt? Financing a war and a shitload of homeland security.........or cleaning up after multiple large scale terrorist attacks? I'll take the war please. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #40 September 25, 2006 QuoteWhat runs up more debt? Financing a war and a shitload of homeland security.........or cleaning up after multiple large scale terrorist attacks? I'll take the war please. That either or scenario is a pretty big assumption. 16 Of your intelligence agencies agree that the War in Iraq has just bred more terrorists and made the world a less safe place. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,009 #41 September 25, 2006 >Financing a war and a shitload of homeland security.........or >cleaning up after multiple large scale terrorist attacks? With Bush, we don't have to make such a tough call - we can have both! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
idrankwhat 0 #42 September 25, 2006 Quote ..........I think he is a good leader. He isn't afraid to make a decision. Critics be damned. Clinton was SO AFRAID to make a decision it cost MANY lives. Somalia.........cost us 18 American Soldiers. On ONE DAY! Why............Clinton insisted on being diplomatic. My friends were on the ground trying to call air support. Yep............the requests went ALL THE WAY TO THE WHITE HOUSE........and were denied. The blood of those 18 Rangers and Delta guys is on Clintons hands. From there it just got worse. After a "defeat" i SOmalia it emboldened the terrorists. After they attacked the World Trade Center, Two American Embassies, and a US Navy ship. Clinton did....................yes nothing. Or right next to it...........in fact he did worse. He made Americans look like pussies so the Muslim extemeists came after us harder. Now we are having to prove otherwise every day. Ok, let's take the revisionist, 20/20 hindsight view that Clinton did nothing and run with it. Ok, so then what happened? Bush's response to the al Qaeda threat was to actively ignore it for the first eight months of his term (while simultaneously having plans drawn up for an Iraq offensive.....oooops...I mean "defensive"). Then what did he do after 9/11? He responded just enough to oust the Taliban then he left OBL and al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan and pulled almost all of the resources so that we could engage in a premeditated nation building project in Iraq. If your definition of good leadership is being decisive then Bush is certainly your man. Too bad that his decisions are bad ones.....you know, ones that leave us with fewer allies, overstreached military, as human rights violators and war criminals, half a trillion more in debt and (in case you missed the headlines) the poster child for terrorist recruitment. Feel free to be ticked off about the 18 dead soldiers in Somalia. Fair enough. I'm ticked off about the more recent 2700. Clinton fucked his intern. Bush fucked everyone else. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
idrankwhat 0 #43 September 25, 2006 Quote>Financing a war and a shitload of homeland security.........or >cleaning up after multiple large scale terrorist attacks? With Bush, we don't have to make such a tough call - we can have both! Just to clarify, that's "shitload of homeland security SPENDING", not necessarily security. What was the most recent grade we got for implementing 9/11 commission recommendations? I can't recall off the top of my head but I'm pretty sure it was even lower than the proverbial "gentleman's C". Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
freeflir29 0 #44 September 26, 2006 Quoteones that leave us with fewer allies, overstreached military, as human rights violators and war criminals, half a trillion more in debt and (in case you missed the headlines) the poster child for terrorist recruitment. OK............... "Overstreached military" I don't know the numbers..........but HAS the US military recovered from the GUTTING it got during the Clinton years? "Human rights violators and war criminals" Where? There has been a few individuals that have been prosecuted for illegal acts. Certainly not any more than in any other conflict. At least the US recognizes and prosecutes when there is a problem. Quotehalf a trillion more in debt and (in case you missed the headlines) the poster child for terrorist recruitment Yes.......fighting the GWOT and simultaneously trying to recover from the Clinton gutting of the military has been expensive. Poster child for terrorist recruitment? Ya know........I don't know how old you are.......I'm almost 35. I STILL remember the Iranian revolution. The flag burning. The hostages. I'm NOT sure Bush had anything to do with anyone hating the US more. Speaking of left wing presidents. How bout that Jimmy Carter? He was a REAL winner! Yayyy for the Dems. BTW..........Clinton got a blowjob. There......I was tired of YOU being the only person that ever brought that up. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #45 September 26, 2006 QuoteYa know........I don't know how old you are.......I'm almost 35. I STILL remember the Iranian revolution. The flag burning. The hostages. I'm NOT sure Bush had anything to do with anyone hating the US more. 16 US Intelligence Agencies disagree with you. Are you telling us you know more than them? Should we start calling you spectre? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
freeflir29 0 #46 September 26, 2006 Quote16 US Intelligence Agencies disagree with you. Are you telling us you know more than them? Should we start calling you spectre? Can you point me to some proof of that? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #47 September 26, 2006 Yeah just search the news for a leaked report by the National Intelligence Council. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #48 September 26, 2006 Quote16 US Intelligence Agencies disagree with you. Are you telling us you know more than them? Should we start calling you spectre? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Can you point me to some proof of that? http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5375064.stm US report says Iraq fuels terror The violence in Iraq shows little sign of abating The New York Times newspaper has published what it says are the findings of a classified US intelligence paper on the effects of the Iraq war. The document reportedly blames the three-year-old conflict for increasing the threat of terrorism and helping fuel Islamic radicalism worldwide. However, a White House spokesman said the newspaper report was "not representative of the entire document". The paper has not seen the report, but spoke to people familiar with it. The BBC's defence correspondent Rob Watson says this is not the first time the US intelligence community has said that the war in Iraq has made the problem of Islamist extremism worse. Indeed it had warned that might happen even before the US-led invasion in 2003. There goes that daym Liberal media again. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
freeflir29 0 #49 September 26, 2006 QuoteThe paper has not seen the report, but spoke to people familiar with it. Interesting.............. QuoteHowever, a White House spokesman said the newspaper report was "not representative of the entire document". So a paper writes a story about a report that it hasn't seen based on hearsay from people that obviously have an axe to grind. Wow........that's bound to be factual. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #50 September 26, 2006 Its been all over the news here..... you know.. without the filters provided "in country" where its much better to only supply the party line for moral. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
