kallend 2,027 #326 September 5, 2008 Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Bush didn't ask for 911 or katrina but got them dropped in his lap and WE as a country have to deal with the results. 911 didn't happen because Bush was president, 911 happened because of the past. Bush didn't cause Katrina he just got blamed for it. No-one blamed Bush for Katrina (although I'm surprised God didn't tell him what to do about it in their nightly tete-a-tete). Bush was RIGHTLY blamed for his reorganization of FEMA and for placing an incompetent political crony in charge of it. Talk about a re-write of history!!!Maybe you should learn to use search tools Are you saying that Bush didn't reorganize FEMA, or that he didn't put an incompetent crony ("Brownie") in charge, or both? Now you throw out the Strawman I can only assume you hit "Post" before reading what you were replying to.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
normiss 806 #327 September 5, 2008 Never even suggested that. If he is hiding out in Pakistan (or the mountains near there depending on mood) if Pakistan won't actively seek him out, we're NOT going over the border...how do you suggest we snag him? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,006 #328 September 5, 2008 >Never even suggested that. So you agree with me, then! Cool. >If he is hiding out in Pakistan (or the mountains near there depending on mood) >if Pakistan won't actively seek him out, we're NOT going over the border...how >do you suggest we snag him? Go into Pakistan and get him. Being in Afghanistan looking for Bin Laden is like losing your wallet at the DZ and then looking for it at a local bar - because the light is better in the bar. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BillyVance 34 #329 September 5, 2008 Quote>Never even suggested that. So you agree with me, then! Cool. >If he is hiding out in Pakistan (or the mountains near there depending on mood) >if Pakistan won't actively seek him out, we're NOT going over the border...how >do you suggest we snag him? Go into Pakistan and get him. Being in Afghanistan looking for Bin Laden is like losing your wallet at the DZ and then looking for it at a local bar - because the light is better in the bar. I'd think the only way you're gonna get Bin Laden, is via unmanned remote-controlled armed attack planes, what was the name of those things? Getting him via troops on foot is just gonna get your ass blown up with him."Mediocre people don't like high achievers, and high achievers don't like mediocre people." - SIX TIME National Champion coach Nick Saban Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
normiss 806 #330 September 5, 2008 Think Pakistan is cool with that idea? hmmm...sounds rather "Bush-like" to me. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,006 #331 September 5, 2008 >Think Pakistan is cool with that idea? No "cooler" than Afghanistan or Iraq was. >hmmm...sounds rather "Bush-like" to me. Naah. Bush would be attacking Laos. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
marks2065 0 #332 September 6, 2008 i guess nobody saw the report the other day about how pissed off Pakastan was after we went a couple miles into pakastan to get some militants. Bush has tried to get in there for years. Mow the afgan gov doesn't want air attacks. this is going to get harder not easier. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
marks2065 0 #333 September 6, 2008 QuoteQuote 911 didn't happen because Bush was president, 911 happened because of the past. Bush didn't cause Katrina he just got blamed for it. I think you have failed to understand the nature of the Presidency and nature of leadership in general. Any monkey can lead if everything is going right. What makes a great leader and shows his true character is how he deals with the situation of everything going wrong. In this regard, George W. Bush has been an abysmal failure. I guess that makes Clinton a monkey As far as katrina goes Bush moved more and suplies into a disaster area faster than ever before. he just got a late start thanks to the democratic govener and mayor being stupid. but then why would we want to actually blame the ones that said "there is no need to evacuate" and " don't worry mister president the levees are ok" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FallingOsh 0 #334 September 6, 2008 Dude, make up your mind. Is invading another country ok or not. You think going into Iraq was wrong but want to march on over into Pakistan? -------------------------------------------------- Stay positive and love your life. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
marks2065 0 #335 September 6, 2008 perfect example of the left saying ok lets go then they stand back and blame everyone else for the results. just like Iraq , they said ok lets do it then they said look what bush did and how much he cost us Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #336 September 6, 2008 Quote perfect example of the left saying ok lets go then they stand back and blame everyone else for the results. just like Iraq , they said ok lets do it then they said look what bush did and how much he cost us They did? I know a lot of left leaning citizens who were against the invasion from the start - some of them (myself included) posted their views right here on SC- check out the archives. 61% of Dems in the House voted AGAINST the enabling resolution, which is hardly "ok let's do it".... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FallingOsh 0 #337 September 6, 2008 QuoteQuote perfect example of the left saying ok lets go then they stand back and blame everyone else for the results. just like Iraq , they said ok lets do it then they said look what bush did and how much he cost us They did? I know a lot of left leaning citizens who were against the invasion from the start - some of them (myself included) posted their views right here on SC- check out the archives. The left leaning democrats in washington voted to support it. I commend you in your foresight, though. I know plenty of right leaning citizens who thought it was a bad idea. The republicans in washington voted to support it. The difference now is that the dems are pointing fingers just like marks said -------------------------------------------------- Stay positive and love your life. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #338 September 6, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuote perfect example of the left saying ok lets go then they stand back and blame everyone else for the results. just like Iraq , they said ok lets do it then they said look what bush did and how much he cost us They did? I know a lot of left leaning citizens who were against the invasion from the start - some of them (myself included) posted their views right here on SC- check out the archives. The left leaning democrats in washington voted to support it. I commend you in your foresight, though. I know plenty of right leaning citizens who thought it was a bad idea. The republicans in washington voted to support it. The difference now is that the dems are pointing fingers just like marks said I'm finger pointing too.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FallingOsh 0 #339 September 6, 2008 Quote I'm finger pointing too. Yes, I've noticed. The problem is that you're only pointing a finger at Bush. He didn't order the military into Iraq by himself. That's the issue. -------------------------------------------------- Stay positive and love your life. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #340 September 6, 2008 QuoteQuote I'm finger pointing too. Yes, I've noticed. The problem is that you're only pointing a finger at Bush. He didn't order the military into Iraq by himself. That's the issue. Who is the co-CinC then? I can only assume you didn't actually read the congressional resolution.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FallingOsh 0 #341 September 6, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuote I'm finger pointing too. Yes, I've noticed. The problem is that you're only pointing a finger at Bush. He didn't order the military into Iraq by himself. That's the issue. Who is the co-CinC then? I can only assume you didn't actually read the congressional resolution. 29 dem senators voted in favor. 81 dems in the house voted aye. No doubt the republicans supported the action in larger numbers. That doesn't absolve the democratic party of being involved in the decision. If you want to point a finger, that's fine. Point it at washington. Bush is the CinC and has no excuse for his decisions. He is the one who made the decision. Congress approved it and dems were involved in that approval. -------------------------------------------------- Stay positive and love your life. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #342 September 6, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote I'm finger pointing too. Yes, I've noticed. The problem is that you're only pointing a finger at Bush. He didn't order the military into Iraq by himself. That's the issue. Who is the co-CinC then? I can only assume you didn't actually read the congressional resolution. 29 dem senators voted in favor. 81 dems in the house voted aye. No doubt the republicans supported the action in larger numbers. That doesn't absolve the democratic party of being involved in the decision. If you want to point a finger, that's fine. Point it at washington. Bush is the CinC and has no excuse for his decisions. He is the one who made the decision. Congress approved it and dems were involved in that approval. Try again - the vote total is not the resolution. What did they actually approve? What were the words? I guess you really did NOT read it, did you? By the way, 61% of Dems in the house voted "NAY". Under 3% of GOP representatives voted "NAY". So claiming the Dems said "let's do it" is inaccurate.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FallingOsh 0 #343 September 7, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuote I'm finger pointing too. Yes, I've noticed. The problem is that you're only pointing a finger at Bush. He didn't order the military into Iraq by himself. That's the issue. Who is the co-CinC then? I can only assume you didn't actually read the congressional resolution. 29 dem senators voted in favor. 81 dems in the house voted aye. No doubt the republicans supported the action in larger numbers. That doesn't absolve the democratic party of being involved in the decision. If you want to point a finger, that's fine. Point it at washington. Bush is the CinC and has no excuse for his decisions. He is the one who made the decision. Congress approved it and dems were involved in that approval. Try again - the vote total is not the resolution. What did they actually approve? What were the words? I guess you really did NOT read it, did you? By the way, 61% of Dems in the house voted "NAY". Under 3% of GOP representatives voted "NAY". So claiming the Dems said "let's do it" is inaccurate. If 39% voted aye then yes, they did have something to do with it. how can you absolve the entire party of any responsibility? Bush is the CinC and there's no denying it was his call. But, he could not have gone through with it if 100% of dems voted no. -------------------------------------------------- Stay positive and love your life. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
downwardspiral 0 #344 September 7, 2008 The vote would not have passed if WE as a nation didn't want it to.www.FourWheelerHB.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #345 September 7, 2008 Apparently you STILL haven't read the actual wording of the resolution.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
airdvr 210 #346 September 7, 2008 Apparently some others believed it was a problem. Iraq admitted, among other things, an offensive biological warfare capability, notably, 5,000 gallons of botulinum, which causes botulism; 2,000 gallons of anthrax; 25 biological-filled Scud warheads; and 157 aerial bombs. And I might say UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq has actually greatly understated its production.... Over the past few months, as [the weapons inspectors] have come closer and closer to rooting out Iraq's remaining nuclear capacity, Saddam has undertaken yet another gambit to thwart their ambitions by imposing debilitating conditions on the inspectors and declaring key sites which have still not been inspected off limits.... It is obvious that there is an attempt here, based on the whole history of this operation since 1991, to protect whatever remains of his capacity to produce weapons of mass destruction, the missiles to deliver them, and the feed stocks necessary to produce them. The UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq still has stockpiles of chemical and biological munitions, a small force of Scud-type missiles, and the capacity to restart quickly its production program and build many, many more weapons.... Now, let's imagine the future. What if he fails to comply and we fail to act, or we take some ambiguous third route, which gives him yet more opportunities to develop this program of weapons of mass destruction and continue to press for the release of the sanctions and continue to ignore the solemn commitments that he made? Well, he will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction. And some day, some way, I guarantee you he'll use the arsenal.... President Clinton ~ 1998 Even more telling is he felt this way in 1998 and didn't act on it. What was he waiting for?Please don't dent the planet. Destinations by Roxanne Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #347 September 7, 2008 Quote Even more telling is he felt this way in 1998 and didn't act on it. What was he waiting for? Good intel?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
airdvr 210 #348 September 7, 2008 QuoteQuote Even more telling is he felt this way in 1998 and didn't act on it. What was he waiting for? Good intel? He certainly wasn't going to get it from the assets he had gutted.Please don't dent the planet. Destinations by Roxanne Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FallingOsh 0 #349 September 7, 2008 Quote The vote would not have passed if WE as a nation didn't want it to. Completely agree Quote Apparently you STILL haven't read the actual wording of the resolution. Yes, I've read the resolution. The one short titled "This joint resolution may be cited as the `Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Iraq'" -------------------------------------------------- Stay positive and love your life. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #350 September 7, 2008 QuoteQuote The vote would not have passed if WE as a nation didn't want it to. Completely agree Quote Apparently you STILL haven't read the actual wording of the resolution. Yes, I've read the resolution. The one short titled "This joint resolution may be cited as the `Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Iraq'" Right - and it left the decision to the CinC to use force if all else failed! And all else had NOT failed, because the UNSCOM was still providing reports of compliance until Bush told them to leave. The Congress didn't vote to invade Iraq. The Congress gave no orders to the Pentagon.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
