Democrats Responsible for War on Terror ?

[tntkop]

Have you ever noticed in life, that often the people who complain the loudest are largely responsible for their own plight? With all the anti-war rhetoric and 'Bush-bashing' occurring in the United States, the far-left Democrats and Hollywood liberals should talk a closer look at THEIR responibility for the increase in terrorist activity throughout the world.

The next time you hear the liberals blaming President Bush for the state of the world and the threat of terrorism against our country, consider the following...

The 9/11 attacks were conceived and planned during the Clinton administration.

The World Trade Center towers were bombed on February 26, 1993, during the Clinton administration. The terrorists' goal at that time was to topple the towers. In fact, had they been successful, 9/11 never would have occurred. How do I know? Because the towers would have already been knocked down! So, the terrorists went back to the drawing board during the Clinton administration and had full intentions of carrying out the second attack during his term. But the Dems would like you to believe that 9/11 was conceived only AFTER President Bush was elected.

In fact...

There were many terrorist attacks against U.S. interests and U.S. military targets during the Clinton administration...

* The bombing of the USS Cole
* Kobar Towers
* U.S. Embassy boming in Kenya
* U.S. Emabssy bombing in Tanzania
* Assassination of CIA agents in Washington
...just to name a few.

Not only were there a lot of foreign terrorist attacks during the Clinton administration, but the largest DOMESTIC terrorist attack in U.S. history occurred during the Clinton administration - the bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City (OK), killing 169 innocent men, women and children.

And let's not forget the motive of convicted OKC bombers Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols - they were upset over the botched raid against the Branch Davidian religious compound in Waco, Texas, resulting in the deaths of nearly 80 men, women and children. This ill-fated raid was under the guidance of U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno, who reported directly to Democratic President Bill Clinton.

How did President Bill Clinton respond to all the terrorist attacks abroad? Well, he had numerous opportunities to 'take out' Osama Bin Laden, but failed to do so. On one hand, Clinton says he tried to 'take him out' more times than any other president, admitting that he tried to have him assassinated.

But on the other hand, Clinton says he didn't 'take him out' because he could not 'certify' Bin Laden was responsible for any terrorist attacks against U.S. interests. Even though Osama Bin Laden himself claimed responsibility for terrorist attacks, Clinton maintained there was not enough evidence to go after him.

So, having said that, if Clinton DIDN'T have enough evidence to go after Osama Bin Laden, then explain to me WHY Clinton was tried "more times than any other president" to assassinate Osama Bin Laden. It just doesn't make sense. If Clinton had no reason to blame Osama Bin Laden for terrorist attacks against the United States, then why was he trying to have him killed?

Another issue...

The Dems don't want to shed one more drop of American blood in Iraq, saying we need to withdraw immediately. Since they are now the Congressional majority, then why aren't they exercising their muscle and doing exactly that?

Because they know IF we pull out of Iraq right now, the Middle East would destablize overnight and world economics would be adversely affected.

Here's why: Because the Dems also don't have the guts to pull out. So, they'll leave U.S. troops in harms way, all the while cutting off funding. Then they'll blame President Bush for every killed and wounded soldier from now to the end of time. They say they are concerned with the safety of our troops and the security of our nation, but the reality is, they won't bring them home. Why? Becuase they don't want the destablization of the Middle East to occur on their watch, and the Dems know that's exactly what will happen.

The Dems criticize our presence in Iraq, stating we're there only for oil, saying we're risking the lives of American soldiers for oil profits. They want us out of Iraq - no lives for oil.

But NOW....the Dems want to send troops to Darfur. Even Democratic Presidential candidate Joe Biden says he supports sending our military to Darfur.

But what does Darfur have? Nothing, absolutely nothing.

So, what this means is: the Dems don't mind risking the lives of American soldiers for NOTHING. They have absolutely no qualms about putting U.S. troops in harm's way, so long as we're not going to benefit anything for it.

But wouldn't it make more sense that IF we are going to risk the lives of our American fighting force, then we do so in an effort to secure our nation's economy, our way of life, and the abilitiy to continue living in a free nation? In other words, if we're going to send troops into a country, at least get SOMETHING for it; make our risks have worth.

But no. The Dems want to risk American lives for NOTHING.
Darfur has no oil.
Darfur has no agricultural exports.
Darfur has no economic impact on the world.
Darfur doesn't have a thing.
But the Dems want to send our troops in Darfur.

And for what?

[PPSH41]

Its funny, the same Dems that say we shouldnt be caught in the middle of a civil war in Iraq want to send troops straight into the middle of a civil war in Darfur.

[Dasein]

How many attacks occurred during the Reagan adminsitration?

[tntkop]

Exctly!

Their hyporisy astounds me. Here's a few examples of what I mean...

Hipocrisy Story #1.
Upon taking office, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi vows to establish the most ethical Congress in history. Her first orders of business? She nominates John Murtha and Alcee Hastings to prominent committee positions.

Alcee Hastings was impeached from his position on the bench as a federal judge for conspiring to extort $150,000.00 in a case before him, repeatedly lying about it under oath and manufacturing evidence at his trial.

John Murtha is an un-indighted co-conspirator in the ABSCAM scandal. One reason Murtha was not indighted is because when undercover FBI agents caught him in a sting operation, the FBI agents didn't offer him enough money. Murtha said he would break the law, but it would cost them more money.

Those were Nancy Pelosi's FIRST choices to establishing the "most ethical Congress in history".

Hipocrisy Story #2.
Remember when Republican Congressman Mark Foley was caught sending ******ly explicit emails to under-age male Congression pages? The Dems - led by Nancy Pelosi - called for Foley's immediate resignation. Foley resigned.

But what a lot of people DON'T know, is this: Before Republican Mark Foley sent ******ly explicit emails to under-age male Congressional pages, Democratic Congressman Jerry Studds actually HAD *** with under-age male Congressional male pages. Not only did the Democrats NOT call for Congressman Studds' resignation, they stood in unison and turned their backs on the Republican Congressional House Speaker when he spoke of it in session.

Then, the Democrats rallied around Studds and supported Jerry Studds' re-election campaign bid....FIVE TIMES!

And who was the the front of the line, leading the march for this homo****** child predator? NANCY PELOSI.

The hyprocisy is this:
A Republican "thinks" about ****** acts with an under-age males, and he is crucified and considered the poster child for homo****** child predators.

A Democrat actually COMMITS ****** acts with under-age males, but he's the re-elected and considered the poster child for moral, ethical conduct.

Hypocrisy Story #3.
I've said enough (for now), so I won't go into "Hypocrisy Story #3". But if I did, I'd talk about California Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein's resignation from her position as Chairperson and leading committee member of MILCON, the committee charged with approving government construction contracts to military intallations.

It seems Democratic Senator Feinstein used her official position to award her husband's construction company military contracts.

But hey, it's not like she awarded hundreds of thousands of dollars to her husband's construction company...
And it's not like she awarded millions of dollars to her husband's construction company...

No..., she awarded BILLIONS OF DOLLARS to her husband's construction company.

But like I said, I'm not going to talk about that...

[tntkop]

I don't know how many attacks occurred during the Regan administration. Don't you know?

Apparently not enough to impact this issue. But of the ones that did occur during the Regan administration, the were dealt with.

And let's not forget Regan's other accomplishments - like ending (winning) the Cold War, an historical event many consider World War III.

Then Jimmy Carter took over and left American citizens and soldiers be held captive for over a year in Iraq.

But hey, he wasn't the only embarassment on the left. Don't forget Vietnam. Of all the Dems who say the loss of 3,000 soldiers in Iraq is unacceptable, you have to remember, many of those same Democratic leaders were in office when Democratic President John F. Kennedy took our soldiers to Vietnam. Remember Vietnam? We lost over 58,000 soldiers in Vietnam.

So, G.W. and his Repbulican administration is about 55,000 lives ahead of
the Dems who took us to Southeast Asia.

And let's remember what happened when we pulled out of Vietnam - hundreds of thousands of innocent men, women and children were murdered and tortured.

If we pull out of Iraq now, the same thing will happen.
And the Dems want us to invade Darfur....(puh-lease)...

[tntkop]

I did forget to mention this...

President Clinton DID bomb an aspirin factory.

I wonder what evidence he had to do that....?

[RallyPointCebu]

is this a political compaign?

[tntkop]

No, this is not a political campaign. It's just a discussion topic, which is why it's posted in this forum - "Political Dissussions and Rants".

If this subject is not welcome, please advise what subjects ARE acceptable in the "Political Discussions and Rants" forum.

[9mmRifle]

How many attacks occurred during the Reagan adminsitration?

Perhaps you mean Nixon, Reagan, and Bush-Snr. If one studies the history of Islam and its violent roots, it is not difficult to understand it. Supposedly lone-gunman Sirhan Sirhan assassinated potential president Robert Kennedy.
Islamists have killed millions of people over the centuries and killing millions more to accomplish the goal of total Islamic rule does not disturb them.
http://knowledgenews.net/moxie/moxiepix/a1330.jpg
American embassy in Beirut was bombed again on September 20, 1984. Then, in December 1984 on a hijacked plane in Tehran, Islamic extremists tortured and murdered two Americans. This came alongside the abduction of more than a dozen Americans in Beirut between March 1984 and January 1985. Finally, in June 1985, Islamic militants hijacked yet another flight with more than 100 Americans aboard, killing one of them. The Saudi government supports a fundamentalist Islam called Wahhabism, named after a Muslim named Muhammad bin Abd al-Wahhab. The curriculum and textbooks refer to infidels (unbelievers in Islam) as the enemy and promote the hatred of Jews, Christians, and Muslims who reject Wahhabi beliefs. Muslims from around the world called for a jihad, or holy war in defense of Islam when Afghanistan fell to the Soviets. The 1980's was the decade of hostage taking and terrorism found a target in U.S. interests around the world. Between 1979 and 1988 there were at least twelve incidents of terrorism directed at the U.S. and her interests. These incidents included the hostages in 1979, the bombing of U.S. Embassies, murder, kidnaps, fatwas. When American soldiers arrived in Lebanon for a peacekeeping mission, militant Islam struck again. There were two deadly attacks against Americans in 1983. The first was the April 18 bombing of the American embassy in Beirut. Six months later came a suicide attack on the U.S. Marine barracks on October 23 that killed 241. There has been kidnappping and torture of American citizens, and the bombing of airplanes. Unfortunately Reagan ordering the Marines to run home with their tails between their legs probably have given the islamic radicals a lot of confidence.

[Hollis]

During the "cold war" a lot of terrorist groups where masked, or one might say, living under the umbrella of West Vs East conflict.

With the cold war over, just like Iraq today, there is a new confrontation for power.

In Iran in 1979, when the Shau fail, the collation to take him out was made up a many facets of Iran. A struggle ensued among those parts on who will take control. The Islamist took control, at the cost of about 35,000 lives.

What we have today, is a smaller scale cold war, of the remaining parts that where never much of a problem until now. Problem is that internally we, USA and Europe are still divided on cold war lines. Leftist are with the Jihadis and rightist are still in the same old position. We need to be united, left and right.

Medievalism is a far greater menace than the east vs west ever was.

[cover2]

To the original poster:

You say that 9/11 was conceived during the Clinton years. True. So you feel this exonerates Bush. But then you also blame Clinton for the first WTC attack in FEBRUARY of 1993. Notice my capital letters? That's because Clinton was in office almost exactly ONE MONTH when that attack occurred. Surely, that attack was conceived during Bush's father's Presidency? And Clinton is still the only president to take a legitimate shot at Bin Laden.

And to the person who said that Reagan ended the Cold war, and was followed by Carter....well, you might want to check out your timeline again. Carter came BEFORE Reagan.

All Reagan did was sell weapons to Iran in exchange for hostages. That didn't promote terrorism or anything!

Blaming one political party for terrorism is ridiculous. There's plenty of blame and plenty of people to share it.

[hauptman]

But no. The Dems want to risk American lives for NOTHING.
Darfur has no oil.
Darfur has no agricultural exports.
Darfur has no economic impact on the world.
Darfur doesn't have a thing.
But the Dems want to send our troops in Darfur.


As far as I know Donald Rumsfeld used "humanitarian aid" as a part of the offical rationale for the Iraq war.
Why would you risk American lives for humanitarian aid in Iraq but not in Dafur? ;)

And to your points: I doubt there is a causality between Democrats and the increase of terrorist attacks.
For example: Clinton got in power on January 20 1993. The bombing of the WTC was on February 26, 1993. So with the same logic you apply you can say that Bush Sen. was responsible for this attacks and therefor the Reps are responsible that there were terrorist attacks in the 90ies in the first place.

You see, such things are pretty complicated and can't be solved by simply blaming one group.

[Skutatos]

I dont blame him for the first WTC bombings, but that doesn't excuse the others. You would think that after the bombing he would have actively pursued and fought terrorism, but instead he was too busy using the military on american citizens, who apparently were the real threat to the american way of life.:roll:

[Dasein]

When did Clinton use the military against US citizens?

Further, Clinton did take steps to combat terrorism, however people as a whole were unaware of the threat posed by global terrorism, and so there was little public demand for more serious action. Terrorism was nothing new, so why would Clinton be expected to take more action that Bush Sr. and Reagan before him?

[Son of Damian]

And let's not forget Regan's other accomplishments - like ending (winning) the Cold War, an historical event many consider World War III.

Then Jimmy Carter took over and left American citizens and soldiers be held captive for over a year in Iraq.

Damn, there was a hostage crisis in Iraq too!?!?! And Carter came after Reagan???

What the hell have I been smoking???:cantbeli:

Am I the only one who is tired of the partisan BS???

Every president since Carter and both political parties are equally responsible for failures to counter the growth of terrorism. And both parties are equally corrupt, claims to the contrary are BS and everybody knows it.

I would really appreciate it if we could stop this partisan bickering and get back to the subject of this web site, military photos.

[Firetxmi]

Damn, there was a hostage crisis in Iraq too!?!?! And Carter came after Reagan???

What the hell have I been smoking???:cantbeli:

Am I the only one who is tired of the partisan BS???

Every president since Carter and both political parties are equally responsible for failures to counter the growth of terrorism. And both parties are equally corrupt, claims to the contrary are BS and everybody knows it.

I would really appreciate it if we could stop this partisan bickering and get back to the subject of this web site, military photos.

As for the partisan bickering, I am sick of it too. I see so many apologists for both sides it is truly sad! As I said in another thread, the two political parties are simply opposing wings of a very sick bird.

As for the last comment, if you don't want to see the political rants and only want to see the "military photos," then you should probably not come to the Political Discussions and Rants section.

[Dakota435]

As for the partisan bickering, I am sick of it too. I see so many apologists for both sides it is truly sad! As I said in another thread, the two political parties are simply opposing wings of a very sick bird.

As for the last comment, if you don't want to see the political rants and only want to see the "military photos," then you should probably not come to the Political Discussions and Rants section.

Rants are FUN!! This forum is a riot.

If the Dems were to get serious about dealing with the outside world, I would be very happy with that and a lot of the partisan bickering would end. Problem is the Dems are some otherworldly planet where bad people are really good, just misunderstood.

I desperately hope the Dems DO get serious, because we NEED both major parties in the US to be serious about it, for the worlds' sake.

[tntkop]

Thanks for all the responses. I do gotta apologize for my 'happy fingers' getting the time-lines wrong.

I agree with everyone who says there is enough blame to go around. Every administration could have - and should have - done more to combat the war against terrorism and Muslim extremists hell-bent on the persecution of all non-Muslims in the world.

My original post was just to get the conversation going and open up discussion regarding each political affiliation exhonerating their own party, all the while placing all the blame on the other political party.

Truly, there is enough blame to go around. But it seems like there is a divide in this country the likes we have never before. Lines are being drawn and everyone is pointing fingers. The division pits one side against the other and some politicians sympathize with leaders of terrorist states, all the while criticizing our own government.

Its time our government begin working together. We need serious leaders to solve serious problems.


To Cover2:
No, I don't think the planning of 9/11 during the Clinton administration exhonerates President Bush. And no, I don't blame President Clinton for the first attack on the WTC. But the 'left' DOES blame President Bush for 9/11 because it occurred on his watch. But they don't accept any responsibility for all the foreign and domestic terrorist attacks that occurred during their terms in office. The hiporisy of the 'left' is this: They blame Bush Sr. for the 1993 WTC attack because it was PLANNED while he was in office. And then they blame G.W. Bush for the attacks on 9/11 because it OCCURRED during his administration. Ironically, the 'left' denies responsibility for both attacks for the same reasons. They can't have it both ways.

And as far as Bill Clinton being "the only president to take a legitimate shot at Bin Laden"....I have seen video of him defending his position NOT to go after Bin Laden, because he says he didn't have evidence linking Bin Laden to ANY terrorist attack. And THAT video interview was done AFTER 9/11. So, like I said, if he didn't have any evidence to go after him, then why was he trying to have him assassinated?

As for Carter coming BEFORE Reagan....my bad - you're right.

Lastly, as for "blaming one political party for terrorism is ridiculous. There's plenty of blame and plenty of people to share it," - I definitely agree. Why is it that all us common-folk are the only ones who seem to understand that?

I don't think the Democrats and Republicans are able to agree on how to pour water out of a boot.

[ElHombre]

Truly, there is enough blame to go around. But it seems like there is a divide in this country the likes we have never before. Lines are being drawn and everyone is pointing fingers. The division pits one side against the other and some politicians sympathize with leaders of terrorist states, all the while criticizing our own government.

Do us a favor and name these politicians. So far, the only ones to actually help Al-Qaeda are the ones who've actually advanced AQ's strategy by deciding to invade Iraq. I doubt that they want to help AQ, but they don't want to change the strategy either.


Its time our government begin working together. We need serious leaders to solve serious problems.

The biggest roadblock to changing the situation resides in the White House. I imagine great improvements once the current admin has to leave. It certainly can't get any worse. [fingers crossed]

[tntkop]

Name some of the politicians who undermine our current administration?

Okay...but just a few...

Nancy Pelosi - Recently led a delegation to Syria, a country who supports terrorist organizations who attack coutries who support the United States, a country who supports terrorist attacks against U.S. troops. Nancy Pelosi - Who vows to implement the most ethical Congress in history, then appoints the John Murtha and Alcee Hastings (look 'em up).

John Kerry - Calls U.S. soldiers 'terrorists' who murder and rape in the cover of darkness. Kerry compares U.S. troops to Nazi gestapo soldiers. John Kerry says U.S. troops are uneducated. John Kerry voted for the Iraq war, opposed it, supported it and now opposes it again.

John Murtha - Says terrorism against the United States began with two incidents - the Abu Graib prison scandal, and when the United States went into Iraq. I guess that whole 9/11-thing wasn't a terrorist event. John Murtha blames Bush for ALL the problems with the war in Iraq. Murtha says he voted to support the war, but now he's apologized for voting for it. And in doing so, he and all the Dems who voted for it and later apologized for their support think they are no longer accountable for their vote to go to war. John Murtha criticized President Bush for acting on intelligence reports that were later proven to be false. Even though NO ONE who supported the war at the time knew the intel reports were false, they now blame Bush for acting on them. John Murtha voted for the war based on those same intelligence reports. What did they want Bush to do? Have intel reports and NOT act on them (like Clinton did)?

Those are just a few...

[Dasein]

Name some of the politicians who undermine our current administration?

Frankly, at this point, the Bush Administration deserves to be undermined.

[tntkop]

Undermined? For what?

For acting upon Congress' unilateral support?

Wow. If we're going to start hold presidents accountable for doing what Congress says, well....

[cover2]

I really wish people would stop blaming Congress now for what a Congress 6 years ago decided. There have been 3 elections involving congressmen and Senators since 9/11, and while incumbents usually win, this past year showed us that's not always the case. THIS Congress believes something different than Congress did in 2002-03. Congress is not a never-changing rock. It changes. And as it changes, opinions change.

Bush and the Iraqi people on our side (along with those against us, obviously) HAD to understand that, and know that they were working within a limited time-frame.

It seems Bush's only plan now is to stay in Iraq and let it become some other president's mess, so at least he'll only get half the blame for what happens instead of all of it.

As for the original poster, you say the "left" blames Bush Sr for the first attack and young Bush for 9/11, but you just did the exact opposite and blamed Clinton for both. Both sides are guilty of this blame game, which I suppose is your point. Personally, I don't think either President is to blame for either one. Perhaps Bush Sr. the most, since he's the one who abandoned the mujahadin in Afghanistan after the Soviet pullout.

And I'm pretty sure that Clinton did have cruise missiles launched at suspected Bin Laden sights in Afghanistan after one of the terrorist attacks during his tenure as President. It turned out OBL was missed by a few hours. Another time, he called off an attack b/c a foreign diplomat was believed to be in the area, and he wanted to avoid an international incident.

[Durandal]

I don't know how many attacks occurred during the Regan administration. Don't you know?

I do, all too well.


Apparently not enough to impact this issue. But of the ones that did occur during the Regan administration, the were dealt with.

Do not confuse your own ignorance as truth. What things were taken care of? The bombing of the marine barracks in Lebanon? How did we deal with that?

Oh yeah, we pulled out.

Hostages taken? How did we deal with that? Oh yeah, ILLEGALLY (according to the Constitution and American law), trading arms (DEALING WITH these scumbags) to Iran.


And let's not forget Regan's other accomplishmentS - like ending (winning) the Cold War, an historical event many consider World War III.

So, there is one. I can think of at least one more, but I thought I would let you prove to me that you knew of others.

I find it amusing how some of the loudest people seem the least informed.

[cover2]

Reagan also bombed Qaddafi in Libya. Which resulted in the blowing up of the jet over Scotland. So that went well.

Oh, and he did take care of the blowing up of the Marine barracks in Beirut, by invading Grenada a week later!

[XASA]

Also, Reagan didn't win the decades long Cold War by himself. He certainly stood up to the Warsaw Block but winning was a cumulative effort that began with Truman standing up to the Soviets in Berlin and the North Koreans in Korea and continued through the Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford and Carter administrations. By the time the old Soviet Union fell, it was both financially and politically bankrupt after almost 50 years of trying to keep up militarily with the West.

[Jobu]

Also, Reagan didn't win the decades long Cold War by himself. He certainly stood up to the Warsaw Block but winning was a cumulative effort that began with Truman standing up to the Soviets in Berlin and the North Koreans in Korea and continued through the Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford and Carter administrations. By the time the old Soviet Union fell, it was both financially and politically bankrupt after almost 50 years of trying to keep up militarily with the West.

Where and when exactly did Carter stand up to the Soviets?

He rolled over.

[XASA]

Where and when exactly did Carter stand up to the Soviets?

He rolled over.

How did Carter roll over? Are you referring to his continuation of Nixon's policy of normalization of relations with the Soviet Union by signing SALTII? IIRC, the West didn't lose any ground to the Soviet Block in the late 1970s. If you have evidence to the contrary, share it with us.

[cover2]

No doubt jobu will suggest Afghanistan. And I think now we see that Carter was right to more or less ignore that. In fact, we should have let the Soviets keep it, with hindsight! As it was, during the Reagan years we funded the mujahadeen who only became Taliban/AQ later!

[Jobu]

How did Carter roll over? Are you referring to his continuation of Nixon's policy of normalization of relations with the Soviet Union by signing SALTII? IIRC, the West didn't lose any ground to the Soviet Block in the late 1970s. If you have evidence to the contrary, share it with us.


According to Jeanne Kirkpatrick, in the late 70's:

Laos and Cambodia fell to the communists.
The Soviets created military alliances with Saddam in Iraq, Nasser in Egypt, in Yemen, and with Qaddafi in Syria.
They expanded their support for communists in Angola, Algeria, and Mozambique.
The Sandinistas took over Nicaragua and were trying to overthrow the government of El Salvador with Cuban and Soviet help.
The Soviets invaded Afghanistan.
The West lost military superiority.
etc.

In her own words:

I believe that American passivity and sort of retreat in the face of growing confidence and assertiveness on the part of the Soviet Union, was in fact encouraging further expansion and aggression, and I was not surprised when they turned down Carter's proposal (of sending Cyrus Vance to Moscow), because I believed that their policy was becoming progressively demanding, assertive and expansionist, and that they frankly sought military superiority over the United States in the West, and we were co-operating in this, unfortunately.

I can't disagree with her at all.

[Hollis]

Personally Blaming the D's is not much different than Blaming the R's. The Blame goes 100% on the shoulders of the Tangos.

What we are probably arguing about is which administration's Policies lead to the Tangos to believe They can act this way.

Rather than Blame the D's and R's maybe the tangos and their covert supporters. Obviously the tango reviewed past US responses and try to assume what the US would do. The tango failed to take in account the new administration was new and a unknown. They probably thought acting as soon as they did with a new administration the response of the US would be softer.


I doubt if any past President would knowingly set the US up for a terrorist attack. A lot of the blame game is nothing more than hind-sighting and arm chair quarterbacking. People act as if administrations have 100% control on the future, NO one does. At the time one makes their best quess-timation and runs with it. Just like arm chair quarterbacking, it is easy to say, we should have passed when we ran, we should have ran when we passed, all because we now know the outcome of the play that was called.

What is important is a United front against the Tangos. That does not mean My front, my party's Front, the wishful thinking front, I means team play. What is team play? The call is made we do out best to make it work.

Imagine a foot ball team. A play is called, because a few team member don't like they play;

1) they ignore it and do something else
2) they try to mess the play up (in a way helping the other team)
3) They don't do anything except say how bad the call was made to make that particular play, that they were right all along.

If we loose this conflict it will not be by the actions of the tangos, it will be our own self serving partisan political reasoning.

9/11 should have impressed every American (and others) how serious this situation is. As we are trying to help the Iraqis stabilize their country we are also trying to insure another 9/11 does not happen again.

[Jobu]

I don't personally blame Democrats for terrorist attacks. I blame the terrorists.

I do blame the Democrats for being their greatest source of propaganda though. Every Bin Laden or Al Zawahiri statement that comes out is loaded with Democrat talking points.

[Dasein]

I do blame the Democrats for being their greatest source of propaganda though. Every Bin Laden or Al Zawahiri statement that comes out is loaded with Democrat talking points.

Did you ever stop to think that maybe this is intentional, and the terrorists are trying to sabotage the Democrats? It is the Republicans who constantly try and present terrorism, especially Al Qaeda as a massive, global threat. Al Qaeda has come to represent all terrorism, and this is just what Al Qaeda wants. The Republicans, and Bush especially, have made Al Qaeda the global representative for all terrorists, and that empowers Al Qaeda greatly.

[Jobu]

Did you ever stop to think that maybe this is intentional, and the terrorists are trying to sabotage the Democrats? It is the Republicans who constantly try and present terrorism, especially Al Qaeda as a massive, global threat. Al Qaeda has come to represent all terrorism, and this is just what Al Qaeda wants. The Republicans, and Bush especially, have made Al Qaeda the global representative for all terrorists, and that empowers Al Qaeda greatly.

So when **** Durbin calls our troops in Guantanamo the equivalent of Pol Pot, NAZIs, and says the place is run like a Soviet gulag, you think it's AQ trying to sabotage the Democrats?

Ok dude, keep dreamin'.

[Dasein]

So when **** Durbin calls our troops in Guantanamo the equivalent of Pol Pot, NAZIs, and says the place is run like a Soviet gulag, you think it's AQ trying to sabotage the Democrats?

And what does this have to do with statements from Al Qaeda? Also, could you find me an exact quote where Durbin made those statements?

[XASA]

According to Jeanne Kirkpatrick, in the late 70's:

Laos and Cambodia fell to the communists.
The Soviets created military alliances with Saddam in Iraq, Nasser in Egypt, in Yemen, and with Qaddafi in Syria.
They expanded their support for communists in Angola, Algeria, and Mozambique.
The Sandinistas took over Nicaragua and were trying to overthrow the government of El Salvador with Cuban and Soviet help.
The Soviets invaded Afghanistan.
The West lost military superiority.
etc.

In her own words:


I can't disagree with her at all.

The fall of Laos and Cambodia were the results of policy put into effect by Nixon and perpetuated by Ford.

Creating military alliances with other nations were on-going events since the dawn of the Cold War. We formed alliances and established client states and the Soviets did the same thing.

Revolutionary wars in Central and South America were nothing new to the region. Been going on for centuries. Sometimes we intervened, sometimes we didn't. Do you blame Cuba becoming communist on Eisenhower?

The invasion of Afghanistan had nothing to do with Carter "rolling over" but with the internal politics of that country. The Carter administration reaction was to boycott the Olympics. Are you suggesting he should have counter-attacked?

How did the U.S. military lose superiority? Our main focus was NATO and stopping a Soviet attack on Western Europe. Didn't happen on Carter's or any other President's watch.

Being diplomatic doesn't mean rolling over.

[Mr. JOSHUA]

So when **** Durbin calls our troops in Guantanamo the equivalent of Pol Pot, NAZIs, and says the place is run like a Soviet gulag, you think it's AQ trying to sabotage the Democrats?

Ok dude, keep dreamin'.


...........X2 rofl

[Dasein]

Being diplomatic doesn't mean rolling over.

According to the conservatives, all diplomacy is appeasement, and all foreign leaders are little Hitlers.

[Mr. JOSHUA]

According to the conservatives, all diplomacy is appeasement, and all foreign leaders are little Hitlers.


That sounds like a swell foreign policy to me..........:roll:

Which foreign leaders do you acknowledge are like lil "Hitlers"?

[Dasein]

Which foreign leaders do you acknowledge are like lil "Hitlers"?

Any time anyone brings up diplomatic engagement in the mid-east, the right will trot out their usual litany of appeasement, 'Peace in our time' and so on.

[Jobu]

According to the conservatives, all diplomacy is appeasement, and all foreign leaders are little Hitlers.

The only real diplomacy is that which is backed up by the threat of force or some other form of coersion.

The rest is just appeasement.

[Dasein]

The only real diplomacy is that which is backed up by the threat of force or some other form of coersion.

The rest is just appeasement.

I don't disagree (hence the reason the idea of not negotiating with terrorists is pointless - we all agree that violence, or at least the threat of violence is a necessary component of diplomacy).

[Hollis]

Any time anyone brings up diplomatic engagement in the mid-east, the right will trot out their usual litany of appeasement, 'Peace in our time' and so on.

Let see, generally the Liberals (well some or lefties) use the hitler name. Who is calling Bush a hitler? Look at Israel Leadership, they are called that too.

The picture should be labeled Leftists. BTW attend a Pro-peace (if that term is any where applicable) rally and see who is calling who hitler.

[06USMC02]

Chew on this folks...
In 1996, Osama bin Laden openly declared war on the United States, that was during the CLINTON presidency. Since CLINTON was the commander and chief of arguably the premier armed forces on the planet, in addition to wielding all other elements of national power, he still chose to do nothing. Cruise missiles launched an innocuous targets in response to embassy bombings in Africa, nothing after Kobhar towers, nothing after the COLE, the list goes on. However, we must not forgive the sins of our "fathers" either. Jimmy Carter's limp wristed response to the Iranian hostage crisis, namely, and the failure of the Reagan adminstration to do anything after two suicide attacks against American targets in Lebanon. THe bottom line is, that although some might think that the current policy in Iraq is flawed, President Bush was the first president since before Jimmy Carter to stand up to terrorists, in this case Afghanistan.

[Mr. JOSHUA]

Any time anyone brings up diplomatic engagement in the mid-east, the right will trot out their usual litany of appeasement, 'Peace in our time' and so on.

How does this answer my question?

[06USMC02]

Mr. Joshua,
You are assuming that some groups can be negotiated with. For instance, there is no room to negotiate with Al Quaida, because there position is and their world view is black and white - no gray area. I don't think that there is any room to negotiate with terrorists or the states that sponsor them. There is some truth the axiom of keeping friends close and enemies closer, but the trick is finding a middle ground in the process without legitimizing terrorists and their sponsors.

[cover2]

I don't personally blame Democrats for terrorist attacks. I blame the terrorists.

I do blame the Democrats for being their greatest source of propaganda though. Every Bin Laden or Al Zawahiri statement that comes out is loaded with Democrat talking points.

Really? Wasn't it Bin Laden who said it was his belief that the US wanted to take over an Arab nation and then hold on indefinitely in order to establish military bases and then try to rule over it's neighbors. And then, AHEM, isn't that what the USA has sort of done, under the watch of a REPUBLICAN! Talk about propaganda!

[Firetxmi]

Mr. Joshua,
You are assuming that some groups can be negotiated with. For instance, there is no room to negotiate with Al Quaida, because there position is and their world view is black and white - no gray area.


"You're either with us or against us..."
-President Bush; Nov. 6. 2001


Doesn't get much more black and white....



I don't think that there is any room to negotiate with terrorists or the states that sponsor them.

We have, and possibly continue to, support terrorist organizations.

[Limeyfellow]

And let's not forget Regan's other accomplishments - like ending (winning) the Cold War, an historical event many consider World War III.


Oh come of it. David Hasselhoff had about as much effect on ending the cold war as Reagon. Going to Berlin and asking for the wall to be pulled down a few months after the planning for it had started and Gorbochov was being considered a man of peace and congratulated in ending the cold war does not mean Reagon won anything. Or he did was continue the cold war longer than it should have done and armed most the enemies we are fighting today having to clear up the mess his administration made in the world.

As for the Democrats starting the war on terror. They been on doing this fight before the Democratic party existed from as early as dealing with the Barbary Pirates. This thread is mostly bs attacks and pointless ranting.

[annihilation]

Thats the biggest crap I've read in a long time.

[tntkop]

My point is this:

The Democrats are not responsible for terrorist attacks against the U.S.

The Republicans are not responsible for terrorist attacks against the U.S.

The TERRORISTS are responsible.


The problem is, the 'left' blames the 'right', and the 'right' blames the 'left'.

Our elected leaders need to understand the terrorists aren't attacking Democrats or Republicans; they're attacking AMERICANS.

They need to quit their childish bickering and name-calling, and start acting like the leaders they promised us they were when they were on the campaign trail.

Until they do, the terrorists are just sitting back enjoying the show as we destroy ourselves from within, waiting for the right time to launch their next attack.

I just hope its not too late when the realize this.

[Durandal]

My point is this:

Bull$hit.

Your point was made quite clear here and in the "question" that forms the title of this thread:


With all the anti-war rhetoric and 'Bush-bashing' occurring in the United States, the far-left Democrats and Hollywood liberals should talk a closer look at THEIR responibility for the increase in terrorist activity throughout the world.

You never tried to place the blame on anyone's shoulders other than people you listed in the above, opening statement.

You have gone from the "left is to blame" to "politicians need to learn" in less than 2 pages of posts.

That's pretty damn amusing.

As an attempt to help you out though I will drop a little tidbit. Do a search on "informed argument".

[tntkop]

Durandal - Obviously you're an extreme leftist.

In case you haven't noticed and judging by the tone of your response, you haven't - the 'left' blames conservatives for everything from the war on terror to global warming.

The opening statement and the title of this thread merely points out Bill Clinton's democratic administration contributed their fair share of the predicament we're now in. Sorry, but that's a fact. You're just too consumed with hatred for the conservative right, that you can't see the failures of the 'left'.

The original post exposed some of those incidents, as well as Clinton's failure to respond. The article merely gives people the other side of the stroy.

The title of the post was worded specifically as a headline grabber, much how the New York Times does with our current administration. I just put the shoe on the other foot, and apparently you don't like wearing that shoe.

You can get your feathers ruffled all you want, but the fact is, you can't dispute a single thing I said. And that's normally the case with people like you - whenever confronted with the harsh realities of the failures on the 'left', you turn to personal attacks and start with the profanities.

Not only DIDN'T you dispute the facts I listed in my original post, you CAN'T dispute those facts.

People like you don't have a problem telling the world the Bush administration is responsible for America's plight against terrorism, because you really do believe there was no terrorist threat against our nation until 9/11 occurred.

And whenever anyone mentions the many terrorist attacks that occurred against the United States during Clinton's administration, you people on the left go berserk and launch personal attacks.

People like you don't have a problem with pointing out the flaws of conservatives, but whenever the same is done back at you, you throw up that old double standard and get your panties in a twist.

But that's okay...you're about the 100th person I've seen throw a tantrum when the 'left' is called into accountability.

I just hope you don't work in a post office.

[Durandal]

Durandal - Obviously you're an extreme leftist.


rofl rofl rofl rofl

Sorry, that's what I have time for right now.

[Firetxmi]

Durandal - Obviously you're an extreme leftist.

Oh, greenhorn, you have a lot to learn.

The irony!

[tntkop]

Firetxmi -
I suppose being from Upper Michigan, you're a lib as well?

My positions and opinions come from living in the real world.

You've posted over 1,600 times, and...
Durandal has posted over 8,200 times.

I think you and Durandal need to turn off "The View", log off the computer and get out and experience the real world.

[9mmRifle]

As for Carter coming BEFORE Reagan....my bad - you're right.




http://img208.imageshack.us/img208/6282/agateimagestn7.jpg

giving the ayatollah a birthday cake was an honest mistake

[Firetxmi]

Firetxmi -
I suppose being from Upper Michigan, you're a lib as well?

My positions and opinions come from living in the real world.

You've posted over 1,600 times, and...
Durandal has posted over 8,200 times.

I think you and Durandal need to turn off "The View", log off the computer and get out and experience the real world.

I think you try to categorize people too much.

I live in the real world also. I won't speak for Durandal, but I am more of a libertarian than I am a "lib."

I see the real world daily bud.

You need to stop trying to paint everyone and everything with a broad brush, it will serve you better.

[Durandal]

Durandal - Obviously you're an extreme leftist.

Not even close. More like a Conservative Libertarian (call it a Madisonian in truest sense).


In case you haven't noticed and judging by the tone of your response, you haven't - the 'left' blames conservatives for everything from the war on terror to global warming.

I don't care. Congress gave Bush quasi war powers (he did not come to Congress to ask for war powers and no war was EVER officially declared as per the Constitution), Bush went to war. Those are the facts. No political spin BS. Blame the Conservatives for the war is as silly as blaming the liberals for the mess we are in politically.


The opening statement and the title of this thread merely points out Bill Clinton's democratic administration contributed their fair share of the predicament we're now in.


Sorry, but that's a fact. You're just too consumed with hatred for the conservative right, that you can't see the failures of the 'left'.

Actually, the only fact you have listed are the most well known terrorist events that deal primarily with AQ. You have not listed all terrorist events nor have you listed the the hundreds that ALSO happened under Bush Sr. Reagan and Carter. You have been selective.

Your logic is faulty because the calim here is that because of events X, Y, and Z, we are in our current situation and thus the leader of that time is COMPLETELY to blame...in fact you go so far as to blame a political ideology...or rather a who group of ideologies lumped together as "leftist".


The original post exposed some of those incidents, as well as Clinton's failure to respond. The article merely gives people the other side of the stroy.

Other side of what story? We all know what happened under Clinton. Clinton, though certainly more savvy in the PR department than Bush (he had the leader of N.O.W. supporting him after he nearly raped a woman) was as big of a liar and failure as Bush...in some ways certainly committed more felonies.


The title of the post was worded specifically as a headline grabber, much how the New York Times does with our current administration. I just put the shoe on the other foot, and apparently you don't like wearing that shoe.

Except it wasn't. You keep doing this passive aggressive thing where at one moment you are rabidly anti-leftist and the other moment you are all damn politicians, the common man gets screwed every time. This is actually from the play books of several bad political groups...including the American Neo-nazi party. I am not claiming you are a neo-nazi, just pointing out that this form of speech is very similar to their more friendly recruitment style speech.


You can get your feathers ruffled all you want, but the fact is, you can't dispute a single thing I said. And that's normally the case with people like you - whenever confronted with the harsh realities of the failures on the 'left', you turn to personal attacks and start with the profanities.

My profanity was "bull$hit" toughen up kid. I start saying "ƒuck" soon. Its an automatic reply when I am astounded by such illogical ravings that I need to use something more than..."wow".

My REPLY was personal, it was directed at you. I even included your quote so you would know I was talking TO YOU (personal like) because when I asked you a question about terrorism and Reagan...all I heard was birds chirping.

Using your logic (trying not to make the personal, but you are the one who started the rant) Reagan (a President I respect very highly)was a miserable failure. There were, literally, well over a thousand of terrorist attacks and hostage takings during his presidency. On RARE occassion he answered them with direct or even covert action. Most went unanswered and even some...were actually dealt with diplomatically, paying bribes in the form of money and weapons.


Not only DIDN'T you dispute the facts I listed in my original post, you CAN'T dispute those facts.

My point is that the "facts" (and I am talking about the events you list) do not happen in a bubble. They are part of our history and to understand these you must go back to the beginning of all of this to understand them.

To simply blame Clinton as some sort of declaration that Democrats are at fault is not only wrong, but completely misleading. Clinton simply did not do anything to make things better.


People like you don't have a problem telling the world the Bush administration is responsible for America's plight against terrorism, because you really do believe there was no terrorist threat against our nation until 9/11 occurred.

This is where you comments simply get hysterical. Because this is false. We've been facing terrorist threats since the late 1700s. Our actions in A-Stan were direct and righteous.


And whenever anyone mentions the many terrorist attacks that occurred against the United States during Clinton's administration, you people on the left go berserk and launch personal attacks.

I called you suddenly started playing the "can't we all get along and blame ALL politicians" game after making crazy ass statements like
the far-left Democrats and Hollywood liberals should talk a closer look at THEIR responibility for the increase in terrorist activity throughout the world.


People like you don't have a problem with pointing out the flaws of conservatives, but whenever the same is done back at you, you throw up that old double standard and get your panties in a twist.

I figure after being here a year, on this forum and obviously knowing so much you would also know that I am equally critical of both political parties and all three of the branches of Federal government.


But that's okay...you're about the 100th person I've seen throw a tantrum when the 'left' is called into accountability.

You got that wrong...I am one of the few people these days that demands accountability from EVERYONE.

[Slug69]

How does a thread with a title like this last so long?

This is bizarre.

[Durandal]

Because we all enjoy throwing rocks at the village idiot. :)

[Atlantic Friend]

Wow. I've never seen so much political innuendo and so many factual errors cobbled together in the name of toeing the Holy Party Line.

Analysing a conflict is fine and commendable, but apparently, to a lot of people that means pinning the blame on the other side - regardless of what party or nation that "other side" is, might I add.

And judging by the energy devoted in a large number of similar threads on a large number of forums from both sides of the Great Political Divide, blaming a war sounds more important than winning it to those who have the luxury of not having to fight it.

Have we collectively lost our ability to engage our brains without checking our party membership card first ?

[tntkop]

Durandal says, "My profanity was "bull$hit" toughen up kid. I start saying "ƒuck" soon."

I could easily sink to your level and skip all the pleasantries and go straight to where you want to take it and just say...

But I won't.

[Hollis]

Wow. I've never seen so much political innuendo and so many factual errors cobbled together in the name of toeing the Holy Party Line.

Analysing a conflict is fine and commendable, but apparently, to a lot of people that means pinning the blame on the other side - regardless of what party or nation that "other side" is, might I add.

And judging by the energy devoted in a large number of similar threads on a large number of forums from both sides of the Great Political Divide, blaming a war sounds more important than winning it to those who have the luxury of not having to fight it.

Have we collectively lost our ability to engage our brains without checking our party membership card first ?


I think that about sums it up for a lot of people. It is the party line or nothing. No wonder nothing gets fixed.

[ElHombre]

The problem is not one of 'both parties not working together'. It's one of 'the party that had, until recently, total control of the US gov't has been out of touch with reality'. The folks in the Whote House can't bring themselves to admit that their ideological-based view of the world and how to deal with it have been given the fullest possible trial and have been found wanting. They had their party's compatriots in Congress turn a blind eye at the same time.

Americans realized this in '06 and demanded a change. The Dems are the only ones availbale to change that, so a Dem Congress was voted in.

[tntkop]

Yes, a Dem Congress has been voted in, but what have they done?

They pledged to make drastic changes. As House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has said, "This will be the most ethical Congress in history...", and "...there's a new Congress in town."

What are they waiting on? Surely they - (they being the Dems, for they ARE the majority, right?) - they hopefully did have a plan before they won the last election, didn't they? If so, then what in the world are they waiting on?

There's been a lot of 'talk' by the Dems, but not a lot of action. For example, the Dems vow not to shed one more drop of blood in Iraq, but then take an Easter vacation and delay sending a bill to the president.

Another example - Nancy Pelosi appoints John Murtha and Alcee Hastings to key intelligence committee positions. John Murtha turned down a bribe in the Abscam scandal because undercover agents didn't offer him ENOUGH money; and Alcee Hastings was impeached from his position as a federal judge for accepting over $150,000.00 to infleunce rulings against organized crime figures.

We [conservatives] are waiting for them to do something productive. Why aren't the Dems demanding their own party do what they said they would do?

This isn't a slam against the Dems, but really, did they make empty campaign promises just to get elected, or do they seriously have a plan to end the war?

Admittedly, there are a lot of problems in the Middle East . The Dems have never let up on bombarding President Bush and his administration for their handling of the war.

You have to concede this: although many things did not turn out well, at least this administration did do SOMETHING - and that "something" was done with bipartisan support. But the Dems have hung President Bush out to dry.

So now the Dems are in office. For several years, they've 'talked the talk' about how they would do things when they took control over Congress. Well, we're waiting. When ARE they going to do something? It's been over 100 days, what are they waiting on, are they going to do something or not? Or are they [as suspected] going to just sit on their butts and continue to criticize this administration for the remainder of his term?

If so, then they should at least have the courage to admit it. If not, then DO SOMETHING. I've got friends over there right now. If they have a plan to bring our troops home while reducing the terrorist threat to our nation, then DO IT!

Until then, how many drops of American blood will be shed....have been shed....since they vowed the most ethical Congress in U.S. history will put an end to U.S. servicemen being killed in Iraq?

Just wondering....? Are they going to do something (like they said they would), or not?

[budgie]

President Bush wanted this war. He and his neocon buddies lusted after it, packaged it and sold it to the American people (many Dems included) with a passion. To blame anyone else (except perhaps Saddam for not backing down fast enough) is ridiculous.

[Hollis]

President Bush wanted this war. He and his neocon buddies lusted after it, packaged it and sold it to the American people (many Dems included) with a passion. To blame anyone else (except perhaps Saddam for not backing down fast enough) is ridiculous.


Your post is ridiculous at best........... anymore boogieman stories?

[Firetxmi]

Your post is ridiculous at best........... anymore boogieman stories?



Before 9-11

2 Dec 1999 During a debate in New Hampshire, Presidential candidate George W Bush declares: "If I found in any way, shape or form that he was developing weapons of mass destruction, I'd take 'em out. I'm surprised he's still there." Asked if that meant he would overthrow Saddam, Bush said he was only talking about "the weapons of mass destruction."

11 Feb 2000 Stumping in South Carolina, Presidential candidate George W Bush declares: "If we catch them developing weapons of mass destruction, there won't be any weapons of mass destruction left in Iraq -- if I'm the Commander-in-Chief."

11 Oct 2000 During a debate at Wake Forest University in Winston-Salem, North Carolina, Presidential candidate George W Bush declares: "We don't know whether he's developing weapons of mass destruction. He better not be, or there's going to be a consequence -- should I be the President."

22 Feb 2001 President George W Bush declares: "The Secretary of State is going to go listen to our allies as to how best to effect a policy, the primary goal of which will be to say to Saddam Hussein: we won't tolerate you developing weapons of mass destruction, and we expect you to leave your neighbors alone."

24 Feb 2001 In Cairo, Secretary of State Colin Powell declares: "He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors."

17 May 2001 State Department spokesman Richard Boucher declares: "We're working toward what will be a significant change in our approach to Iraq in the United Nations... The focus is on strengthening controls to prevent Iraq from rebuilding military capability in weapons of mass destruction, while facilitating a broader flow of goods to the civilian population of Iraq."

7 Aug 2001 President George W Bush declares: "He's been a menace forever, and we will do -- he needs to open his country up for inspection, so we can see whether or not he's developing weapons of mass destruction."

But shortly after September 11, 2001, the Bush administration (and Tony Blair, and several members of Congress) suddenly began telling everybody that Saddam Hussein definitely possessed weapons of mass destruction, and that those things constituted a clear and present danger against the United States.

Whats that saying, "if you repeat a lie enough..."

[Geezah]

Firetxmi -
I suppose being from Upper Michigan, you're a lib as well?

My positions and opinions come from living in the real world.

You've posted over 1,600 times, and...
Durandal has posted over 8,200 times.

I think you and Durandal need to turn off "The View", log off the computer and get out and experience the real world.

I would suggest you lurk a little more, Durandal and myself may not agree on everything, but he is in no way a Lefty!?

[Laworkerbee]

Whats that saying, "if you repeat a lie enough..."

Perhaps...


Chuck Schumer > October 10, 2002
"It is Hussein's vigorous pursuit of biological, chemical and nuclear weapons, and his present and future potential support for terrorist acts and organizations that make him a danger to the people of the united states."


Senator Hillary Clinton > October 10, 2002
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock. His missile delivery capability, his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists including Al-Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."

Al Gore > September 23, 2002
"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter, and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."

Johnny Edwards > January 7, 2003
"Serving on the intelligence committee and seeing day after day, week after week, briefings on Saddam's weapons of mass destruction and his plans on using those weapons, he cannot be allowed to have nuclear weapons. It's just that simple. The whole world changes if Saddam ever has nuclear weapons."


Al Gore > September 23, 2002
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."


Nancy Pelosi > October 10, 2002
"Yes, he has chemical weapons. Yes, he has biological weapons. He is trying to get nuclear weapons."


Bill Clinton > February 17, 1998
"If Saddam rejects peace, and we have to use force, our purpose is clear: We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."


Hillary Clinton > October 10, 2002
"In the four years since the inspections, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability and his nuclear program."

**** Gephardt > September 23, 2002
"(I have seen) a large body of intelligence information over a long time that he is working on and has weapons of mass destruction. Before 1991, he was close to a nuclear device. Now, you'll get a debate about whether it's one year away or five years away."

Need more?

[Dasein]

The difference, by and large, is that the Democrats are making fairly broad statements that Saddam Hussein having WMDs would be bad, and many reference intelligence reports. They are also, with one exception, from during the Bush Adminsitration, when the push for war with Iraq was going full speed ahead.

The Bush quites, on the other hand, tnd to attach specific consequences to Iraqi WMD programs, in other words, the Democrats are saying that Hussein having WMDs is bad, and based on the intelligence we have, he likely does have them. Bush is saying if Hussein has WMDs, I'll take action - that is, invade.

[Laworkerbee]

They all read the same damned intelligence reports

Apparently you need more to get in into your skull that the entire government was duped by bad intel

[Dasein]

Was Bush reading those intel reports back in the late 90s? Did the Democrats say they would take action against Hussein or merely that they suspect he has WMDs, based on the intel and that's bad?

[Jobu]

I find it much worse that the Democrats said Saddam had the WMD's but were unwilling to do anything about it.

[nahimov]

I find it much worse that the Democrats said Saddam had the WMD's but were unwilling to do anything about it.

Plenty of other countries have WMD, including US. So what?

[Indiana Jones]

I find it much worse that the Democrats said Saddam had the WMD's but were unwilling to do anything about it.
Just for the record, Baathist Iraq possessed "WMD´s" since more than two decades.

[Jobu]

Just for the record, Baathist Iraq possessed "WMD´s" since more than two decades.

And for how much of that time was the possession of those WMD's a violation of UN Security Council resolutions?

[Laworkerbee]

Was Bush reading those intel reports back in the late 90s? Did the Democrats say they would take action against Hussein or merely that they suspect he has WMDs, based on the intel and that'sbad?

- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."

President Clinton
Oval Office Address to the American People
December 16, 1998
The hard fact is that so long as Saddam remains in power, he threatens the well-being of his people, the peace of his region, the security of the world.
The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government -- a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people."

John Kerry,s Speech to the floor of the Senate, Congressional Record, November 9, 1997
We must recognize that there is no indication that Saddam Hussein has any intention of relenting. So we have an obligation of enormous consequence, an obligation to guarantee that Saddam Hussein cannot ignore the United Nations. He cannot be permitted to go unobserved and unimpeded toward his horrific objective of amassing a stockpile of weapons of mass destruction.

September 3, 1998: Sen. John Kerry, Committee On Armed Services And Committee On Foreign Relations, U.S. Senate, Joint Hearing[/B]

“So we’ve got a major set of choices to make here. And we’d better make them. We’ve been sliding into a fundamental policy of containment, which I share with Major Ritter the notion is disastrous to our overall proliferation interests and disastrous with respect to the Middle East and our interests with respect to Saddam Hussein and Iraq . But we have to make a decision whether we’re prepared to do what is necessary, and I mean to the point of a sustained targeting of the regime; not the Iraqi people, but the regime.”

From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." --

[Laworkerbee]

Funny I post up quotes from Dem's in the late 90's and the debate ends eh?

Ok I'll chalk that one up for a win....:)

[Geezah]

Funny I post up quotes from Dem's in the late 90's and the debate ends eh?

Ok I'll chalk that one up for a win....:)

Of course it does, you see the Libtards have selective memories when it comes down to their heroes, after all it's all Bush's fault(sarcasm)

[Laworkerbee]

Of course it does, you see the Libtards have selective memories when it comes down to their heroes, after all it's all Bush's fault(sarcasm)

It's a bitch too since I'm not even a conservative but enjoy a good debate. I'm supporting Durandel's third party platform :)

[Kant]

Of course it does, you see the Libtards have selective memories when it comes down to their heroes, after all it's all Bush's fault(sarcasm)

Iraq should have been dealt with after Gulf War 1.
So I can't see how it's Clintons fault.

You see?
Some Libtards have better memories than Conservetards.:)

[Geezah]

Iraq should have been dealt with after Gulf War 1.
So I can't see how it's Clintons fault.

You see?
Some Libtards have better memories than Conservetards.:)

We couldn't due to the UN(once again those bumwipes) mandate that only authorized getting the Iraqi's out of Kuwait.

[Kant]

We couldn't due to the UN(once again those bumwipes) mandate that only authorized getting the Iraqi's out of Kuwait.

I thought the U.S doesn't care what the U.N says about Iraq?
Shouldn't you have gone in and taken care of buissness, no matter what they say?
Now that sounds familiar.

[Robbee]

Well, the whole world stood by and watched Saddam massacre the Kurds and Shia after Gulf War in '91.

The Ghosts of 1991 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A10874-2003Apr11)

[Dakota435]

I thought the U.S doesn't care what the U.N says about Iraq?
Shouldn't you have gone in and taken care of buissness, no matter what they say?
Now that sounds familiar.

Actually conservatards have criticised the decision not to finish the job then, which was due to Bush 1's being under the influence of the "realist" school of international relations.

[Geezah]

I thought the U.S doesn't care what the U.N says about Iraq?
Shouldn't you have gone in and taken care of buissness, no matter what they say?
Now that sounds familiar.

Yes they should, but due to popular demand it was not to be...............at that point.

[Kant]

Yes they should, but due to popular demand it was not to be...............at that point.

It's no fun when you agree with me.
I should do a ex-stab and start calling you names.

[Geezah]

It's no fun when you agree with me.
I should do a ex-stab and start calling you names.

I'll agree when I think you're right, and you can call me all the names you like..................p-)

[Kant]

Actually conservatards have criticised the decision not to finish the job then, which was due to Bush 1's being under the influence of the "realist" school of international relations.

Then why does what the world/U.N think of the U.S not matter any more?
If Bush sr was under the realist school, then I wish George jr would have hired them.

[natsu-chan]

i don't see any calls for direct invasion and occupation of iraq in those quotes attributed to democrats.
you'd have more success at bashing the democrats if you stuck to asking why they did'nt do their jobs in finding out more about the caveats put in the intel assessments that swayed them to rubber stamp bush policies for nigh on 6 years.
if anything, the quotes seem to suggest that the plague of neoconservatism afflicted both sides of the aisle at the fag ends of the decade.
the decision to invade iraq rests with the CinC. it was his adminstration that coined the phrase WoT (and subsequently abandoned it).
he claimed he was 'the decider'.
one of the areas of confidence expressed in the early bush admin. was the fact that he had surrounded himself with an extremely savvy and experienced foreign policy/nat. sec team. that confidence has been shattered, perhaps irreparably.
it was his policies that have brought us to this point. but somehow, in the cognitive dissonance that prevades analysis amongst conservatives, policy failures are the fault of the minority party.
why persist in shovelling blame and responsibility when the 'decider-in-chief' accepts it?
the democrats were unprincipled, craven enablers (not all, but the majority). i'll give ya that.

[Kant]

I'll agree when I think you're right, and you can call me all the names you like..................p-)
G.Gordon Liddy would be rolling in his grave.
If he was dead that is.:)

[Kant]

i don't see any calls for direct invasion and occupation of iraq in those quotes attributed to democrats.
you'd have more success at bashing the democrats if you stuck to asking why they did'nt do their jobs in finding out more about the caveats put in the intel assessments that swayed them to rubber stamp bush policies for nigh on 6 years.
if anything, the quotes seem to suggest that the plague of neoconservatism afflicted both sides of the aisle at the fag ends of the decade.
the decision to invade iraq rests with the CinC. it was his adminstration that coined the phrase WoT (and subsequently abandoned it).
he claimed he was 'the decider'.
one of the areas of confidence expressed in the early bush admin. was the fact that he had surrounded himself with an extremely savvy and experienced foreign policy/nat. sec team. that confidence has been shattered, perhaps irreparably.
it was his policies that have brought us to this point. but somehow, in the cognitive dissonance that prevades analysis amongst conservatives, policy failures are the fault of the minority party.
why persist in shovelling blame and responsibility when the 'decider-in-chief' accepts it?
the democrats were unprincipled, craven enablers (not all, but the majority). i'll give ya that.

Amen mate.

[Robbee]

Actually conservatards have criticised the decision not to finish the job then, which was due to Bush 1's being under the influence of the "realist" school of international relations.

"Not finishing the job" lead to mass slaughter in the North and South of Iraq when Saddam cracked down on the spring '91 uprisings.
With 20/20 hindsight vision it's pretty hard to deny that Bush 41 blew the pooch on that one.

[Kant]

"Not finishing the job" lead to mass slaughter in the North and South of Iraq when Saddam cracked down on the spring '91 uprisings.
With 20/20 hindsight vision it's pretty hard to deny that Bush 41 blew the pooch on that one.

Especially after he called on the to rise up and liberate themselves whilst promising help. Help being allowing Saddams forces to move by helicopter and massacre the uprisers.

[natsu-chan]

"I returned, and saw under the sun, that the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, neither yet bread to the wise, nor yet riches to men of understanding, nor yet favour to men of skill; but time and chance happeneth to them all." Ecclesiastes 9–11
if we don't have a genuine moral reason for continuing being in iraq, we will only exacerbate the situation there. jmho

[ElHombre]

Actually conservatards have criticised the decision not to finish the job then, which was due to Bush 1's being under the influence of the "realist" school of international relations.

Bush 1 didn't remove SH because no one in his admin could answer the very reasonable question of, 'then what?'.

Given events of the past four years, it's clear that no one in the Bush 2 admin ever thought of answering it, either (although it didn't keep them from doing it anyway).

[tntkop]

Laworkerbee stated, "Funny I post up quotes from Dem's in the late 90's and the debate ends eh?

Ok I'll chalk that one up for a win....:-)"

THANK YOU! THANK YOU! THANK YOU!

I have said that before. They sling all their mud at conservatives and when an opposing viewpoint is stated, they make threats to drop "f-bombs" - (like that really scares anyone.....).

They spew their hatred for President Bush and demonstrate time and time again their hyproisy. They champion themselves as the keepers of our constitutional rights, justifying their hatred as their right to free speech. But anyone giving an opposing viewpoint is targeted for personal attacks and accept no responsibility for the failures during the Clinton administration.

Thank you for also seeing them for who [and what] they are, and for calling them out....!!!!

Great post!

P.S. - Today (April 19) is the 12th anniversary of the bombing of the federal building in Oklahoma City - the biggest domestic terrorist attack in U.S. history - an incident motivated by the Clinton administration's fiasco against the Branch Davidian compound in Waco, Texas in which nearly 80 men, women and children were burned to death.

In the OKC bombing, 169 men, women and children were killed during that attack.

The Dems have no problem bashing the Bush administration about spilling American blood on foreign soil, but get all pissy when their record on terrorism is put on the table.

Could it be that Dems don't like spilling American blood on foreign soil because they're too busy spilling American blood on American soil?

Now watch the personal attacks fly....

[Firetxmi]

THANK YOU! THANK YOU! THANK YOU!

I have said that before. They sling all their mud at conservatives and threatend "f-bombs" -oooooooohhhh. They spew their hatred for President Bush and demonstrate time and time again the hyproisy. They champion themselves as the keepers of our constitutional rights to free speech, etc., but then go ballistic when anyone gives an opposing viewpoint. Its like talking to Rosie O'Donnell....

Thank you for also seeing them for who [and what] they are, and for calling them out....!!!!

Great post!

Hows that broad brush working out for you? :roll:

When will you (as well as others from both sides) realize that blaming one group or another is not solving our problem, but further dividing our nation? So I guess one can keep playing the old "left is stupid, right is stupid" childish game, while the puppet masters above laugh at their power, or someone can take the more competent route and actually debate things based on facts and merit and not "well your a lib therefore you are wrong."

Maybe I am asking too much though!

[Dasein]

At Waco, the Clinton Adminsitration end up killing a number of heavily armed religious fanatics, using women and children as human shields. However, these heavily armed religious fanatics had the good fortune of being nominally Christian and being killed by a rather despised Democrat, making them the darlings of the conservatives. Today, we would call them terrorists.

[tntkop]

Fire - You use a pretty broad brush too...

Dasein - Yet another example of the hypocrisy of the left. In your warped, twisted mind, you spin it to where it eventually is someone else's fault.

You can't even accept the fact the Clinton administration is directly responsible for the deaths of all those people in Waco. Why didn't Clinton [and the Dems] do back then, what they demand President Bush do today? Why didn't they negotiate? Why didn't they surround the compound and wait them out, cut off their supplies, etc.? Why didn't they withdraw the troops?

The Dems can't even take a small, rural religious compound in central Texas, so how the hell can they be expected to protect our country against terrorist attacks?

For every person the killed in Waco, two were killed in Oklahoma City. Imagine the onslaught the Dems would launch against President Bush if we had the same kill ratios in Iraq.

I guess that's why the Dems are so well-versed in "cut-n-run" tactics.

[Robbee]

Fire - You use a pretty broad brush too...

Dasein - Yet another example of the hypocrisy of the left. In your warped, twisted mind, you spin it to where it eventually is someone else's fault.

You can't even accept the fact the Clinton administration is directly responsible for the deaths of all those people in Waco. Why didn't Clinton [and the Dems] do back then, what they demand President Bush do today? Why didn't they negotiate? Why didn't they surround the compound and wait them out, cut off their supplies, etc.? Why didn't they withdraw the troops?

The Dems can't even take a small, rural religious compound in central Texas, so how the hell can they be expected to protect our country against terrorist attacks?

For every person the killed in Waco, two were killed in Oklahoma City. Imagine the onslaught the Dems would launch against President Bush if we had the same kill ratios in Iraq.

I guess that's why the Dems are so well-versed in "cut-n-run" tactics.

If you don't mind me asking tntkop, how old are you?
(I'm not going to be a d*ck about it, just want to know what administrations you've lived through)

[tntkop]

Age is irrelevant....just stick to the issue.

I am older than my son, but not as old as my dad.

But I'll tell you this....I never vote straight party tickets. Although I'm a registered Republican, I voted for a Democrat for my state's governor...twice.

I voted for Bush also - twice. The second time, not because I thought he was doing a fabulous job, but because I feared where Kerry/Edwards would lead our country. I'll never second-guess that vote either.

Bush was just the lesser of two evils.

[Robbee]

Age is irrelevant....just stick to the issue.

I'd just like to know whether you are making references to events that you lived through or are reading about on the internet. If you don't want to be specific, just say teens, 20s, 30s or 40s.

[Firetxmi]

Fire - You use a pretty broad brush too...



Please elaborate. You have peaked my interest.

[tntkop]

Mid 40s. And you?

[tntkop]

Fire - I was just generalizing....LOL

[Robbee]

Mid 40s. And you?

As it says on my profile, 35. I was wondering why you made the Carter/Regan mistake, that's all.

[tntkop]

Just a brain fart ....already said I made that mistake...(forgive me, I "am" human...).


I don't have alzheimer's disease yet....(just "some-timers" disease)....

[Robbee]

Hehe, I was going to recommend a CT scan. :)

[tntkop]

LOL

I don't have alzeheimer's disease yet....but I do think I have "some-timers" disease...


See...I'm repeating myself.....





See....I'm repeating myself....

[natsu-chan]

tntkop,
i re-read your opening foaming-at-the-mouth salvo. first in amazement, then with pity.
you're not interested in a discussion.
you're quite practiced in the arts of high slander.
gw said he was 'the decider'.
you voted for him. twice.
slick willy's adminstration is long gone.
get over it.
(ps-following republicAnt rhethoric, Mcveigh and Nicols were reponsible for the OK city bombing NoT the adminstration. by saying it was the adminstration responsible you're [un]consciously mimicking UBL's fallacies(and anti-american propagandists, whom in the aftermath of 9/11 posited) that america is responsible for attacking islam/muslim countries and therefore deserves to be struck herself, ie, justifying or rationalising the OK city bombing.
and he's an extremist.
why do you hate america?)

[Laworkerbee]

At Waco, the Clinton Adminsitration end up killing a number of heavily armed religious fanatics, using women and children as human shields. However, these heavily armed religious fanatics had the good fortune of being nominally Christian and being killed by a rather despised Democrat, making them the darlings of the conservatives. Today, we would call them terrorists.

Thats funny since I consider the governments actions to be deplorable in that incident. I don't blame you for quoting miss-truths since the government put out so much disinformation regarding Waco but I hereby challange you to find any proof that woman and children were used as human shields.

The people at Waco were miss guided and weird but were not terrorists by ANYONES definition

[Laworkerbee]

i don't see any calls for direct invasion and occupation of iraq in those quotes attributed to democrats.
you'd have more success at bashing the democrats if you stuck to asking why they did'nt do their jobs in finding out more about the caveats put in the intel assessments that swayed them to rubber stamp bush policies for nigh on 6 years.

Firstly I was not "bashing" Democrats, I don't bash on partisan lines since most politicians to me are douchebags regardless of party. I was pointing out both sides read wrongly into the intelligence provided.

Do you have any idea how many founders of the Neo Conservative movements are Democrats and Not Republicans?

Many of the movement's founders were originally liberals, Democrats or from socialist backgrounds yet it seems somehow it is now a catch phrase bad word to call a Republican....once again more disinformation :roll:

[natsu-chan]

laworkabee,
sorry for the misunderstanding.

i came across this
http://www.ohio.com/mld/ohio/news/17102685.htm

particulary..........
In a question-and-answer period after his speech, Rove was asked whose idea it was to start a pre-emptive war."
``I think it was Osama bin Laden's,'' Rove replied.


so, UBL was the 'decider'?
(shakes head in utter disbelief)

[Laworkerbee]

laworkabee,
sorry for the misunderstanding.

i came across this
http://www.ohio.com/mld/ohio/news/17102685.htm

particulary..........
In a question-and-answer period after his speech, Rove was asked whose idea it was to start a pre-emptive war."
``I think it was Osama bin Laden's,'' Rove replied.

so, UBL was the 'decider'?
(shakes head in utter disbelief)

Well in a way the United States played right into Al-Qaeda's hand (stop seeing AQ as just Bin Laden, he is merely a spoke in a wheel and the West is at war with an ideology). By attacking Iraq the United States lost almost any sympathy and goodwill generaly left in the Muslim world.

So perhaps Rove, douchebag that he is, might have a point after all.

[tntkop]

natsu -

After hearing YOUR opening "foaming-at-the-mouth salvo".....

You say, "slick willy's administration is long gone. get over it."

True, his administration IS long gone, but the ramifications of Clinton's failures are long-lasting and we're still suffering for it.

You - and many like you - believe the terrorist threats against America started the day President Bush took office. You truly believe terrorism was non-existent before then.

You don't recognize the failures of the Clinton administration, or acknowledge the impact those failure had on today's world events. And THAT is why Clinton's record against terrorism - or lack thereof - is important to today's discussions.

If you don't want to blame Clinton because he is 'long-gone', well, let's give G.W. a clean slate...after all, all 'that' happened in the past too, right? Where do you want to draw the line in the sand and absolve president's from responsiblity? Let me guess, you'll draw that line at the end of a Democratic administration, right?

You are absolutely wrong about me blaming the Clinton administration for the bombing in Oklahoma City. I never said that. I don't blame him or his administration for that incident, but I do blame his administration - led by Janet Reno - for the botched raid against the Branch Davidian compound. I do blame the Clinton administration for violating posse comitatus laws by deploying military armor and aircraft in a civilian law enforcement action.

As for who I actually blame for the OKC bombing? I blame Timothy McVeigh, Terry Nichols, Michael Fortier and his sister for the bombing. Likewise, I blame terrorists for the attacks on 9/11, just as I blame terrorist for the attacks during the Clinton administration.

I don't blame Clinton for all those attacks, just like I don't blame Bush for 9/11. The difference is, the 'left' DOES blame Bush for 9/11, but accepts no responsibility for the attacks foreign AND domestic terrorist attacks during the Clinton administration.

If the 'left' is going to blame Bush for terrorists attacking us, then shouldn't Clinton likewise be blamed for terrorist attacks that occurred during his administration?

[Durandal]

True, his administration IS long gone, but the ramifications of Clinton's failures are long-lasting and we're still suffering for it.

Trying to keep this civil, I do not see how you can look at one President and and not look at another (regardless of party and think the same thing).

Bush's legacy is this:

• A broken Iraq (we broke it worse than it was already broken and has certainly in no way helped us in the war on terror).

• An incomplete Afghanistan campaign.

• A broken checks and balances system as the Executive Branch strains to get more power.

• A bloated government.

• Poor vet treatment.

• Broken education system (no child left behind has pretty much failed as kids learn to test well rather than think well).

• Some of the single worst spending (with little return) we have ever seen in.

•And of course the undermining of certain freedoms we have enjoyed in this nation from gun control (giving anti-gun loons ammunition when he claimed he would sign the "assault" weapons ban if Congress got it passed) to privacy issues (mail, phone calls, and internet).

Now, I'll give Bush some help and throw in one of the crapiest Congresses we have had in my life time (Republicans and Democrats alike) who have done just as good of a job wrecking this great nation as he has (either through deliberate attempt to gain special interest money and outside gifts or because the system is so broken and the people we elect so completely ignorant that they sign everything without reading it).

Our nation is broken...

Not one of our elected leaders actually WRITES the bills. THey certainly do not have enough money to hire a staff to do it.

So guess what? They get free help, from "think tanks" and beltway groups that specialize in this sort of stuff. None of them actually represent us. The represent the corporations that PAY THE BILLS and the fat cats that contribute as individuals. No elected official today actually writes bills. That's why they are always floored, after not reading it when something gets slipped in. Like this BS about Congress not approving prosecutors in the latest version of the Patriot Act.

Nope, the problem with this discussion is that you somehow place blame on Democrats.

You don't agree with them, fine. BUT while in one breath you condemn them for doing things that the republicans have done or are doing just as poorly, just differently.

Its broken and bitching about the left as if they are responsible is silly and counter productive.

[tntkop]

Durandal -

I appreciate the civility. But let me be clear. I do NOT blame the predicament we are in soley on the Democrats.

I point out the failures of the Clinton administration and how those failure contribute to our current situation because the 'left' refuses to do so. The 'left' places all the balme squarely on President Bush and his administration.

The reasons I defend the Bush administration is this: The Clinton administration didn't do much - IMO - against the war on terror or equipping America in preparation for what was coming down the pike.

After 9/11, President Bush took a different approach. At least he did SOMETHING.

The course of actions - or lack thereof - during the Clinton administration didn't stop the attacks, right? You cannot expect to achieve different results if you continue to do the same thing, right?

As for your specific issues (I'll keep it short...)

• A broken Iraq - (we broke it worse than it was already broken and has certainly in no way helped us in the war on terror).
The Iraqis believe differently, as do the vast majority of the troops on the ground and the troops returning from Iraq, so I have to respectfully disagree.

• An incomplete Afghanistan campaign.
The most successful part of our involvement IS in Afghanistan. The Taliban has been virtually shut down. Having said that, there is a resurrection of the Taliban right now, partially due to reallocation of troops OUT of Afghanistan. But overall, Afghanistan is a huge success. So, I have to respectfully disagree with this as well.

• A broken checks and balances system as the Executive Branch strains to get more power.
I think we're closing ranks here though, I actually DO agree with you on this. I think there needs to be a lot more accountability from both parties. I don't have an answer for this. Maybe turn a fire hose on them and wash 'em all out to sea?

• A bloated government.
Again, I agree, not a bloated Repbulican government, and not a bloated Democratic government. A bloated government - Period! But I do like my $600.00 hammer I bought on E-Bay...

• Poor vet treatment.
Gotta disagree with this. Case in point - Walter Reed Hospital. All the hoopla over living conditions at Walter Reed were restricted really only to one part of the hospital. Deficiencies were quickly corrected, so that was really an easy fix. Could it be better? Absolutely. But the vets I know actually speak well of their treatment. My brother just received 100% disability after being discharged last year. Maybe it's just better in this par of the country...that could certainly be the case. I cannot speak for other areas.

• Broken education system (no child left behind has pretty much failed as kids learn to test well rather than think well).
What president has ever really solved this problem. Personally, I don't believe the failures of students to excel should fall soley on the education system. Frankly, there are a lot of dumb people in this world and no amount of education reform will ever change that. As for Bush's 'No Child Left Behind', I'm sure he felt if it wasn't broken when he took office, he wouldn't have tried to fix it. The same is true with every president. Education reform - IMO - is nothing more than a means of obtaining votes, because it's politically correct to promise to reform the education system.

• Some of the single worst spending (with little return) we have ever seen in.
I don't know about that. Really, the worst? Let's look at Homeland Security. After 9/11, DHS was created and billions of dollars went out to local, state and federal law enforcement agencies. I know, becuase my unit has receive hundreds of thousands of dollars in equipmtn since 9/11. Compare that to the aftermath of the first attack on the Trade Center and the OKC bombing. You know what we got? Not a dime. Absolutely nothing. To me, that speaks volumes of how serious President Clinton took the threat of terrorism. So, we ARE actually getting a lot of return on our government spending, and that's just ONE example I could give you.

•And of course the undermining of certain freedoms we have enjoyed in this nation from gun control (giving anti-gun loons ammunition when he claimed he would sign the "assault" weapons ban if Congress got it passed) to privacy issues (mail, phone calls, and internet).
I could speak forever about this. It's not the guns that kill, its the people. WHY do people kill? Because our society has become so desensitized by the violence in our media and entertainment industries, that killing en masse is no longer an uncommon occurrence. Ironically, our government forced our military to tone down desensitization of soldiers during training, because they DON'T want robots out there killing indiscriminately. But our own government refuses to do the same when it comes to the entertainment industry.

Ironically, the Hollywood libs like Rosie O'Donnell (et al) go on national television and call for all these gun control laws, but why don't those same Hollywood-types call for the elimination of violence in television, movies and video games? How many first-person shooter video games are out there that glorify killing cops, government officials, etc.? Society learns such killings are rewarded by peer recognition, etc.

The Hollywood 'left' wants to take away the "tools" of violence (i.e., the guns), but they don't want to take aways the causations of violence (i.e. movies & video games).

Why? Because they are consumed with money and greed.

(Suggested reading: "On Killing" and "On Combat" by Lt. Col. Dave Grossman, as well as "Terror At Beslan" by John Giduck. The "Beslan" book is a study on the Muslim terrorist who took 1,300 hostages at a school in Beslan, ultimately killing HUNDREDS. Osama Bin Laden called that attack a "dry run for America".

In conclusion (sorry for the length)...

The only people I blame for the terrorist attacks against our nation are the terrorists. Period.

How we react,
What we do to prevent future attacks,
What we do to apprehend those who attack us,
And whether we turn the other cheek or take the fight to them, that's where we differ.

When ambushed, what is the best military tactic? You turn turn left or right from your current course and attack.
We were attacked during Clinton's administration and turned 'left' and ran from the fight, resulting in continued attacks.
We were attacked during the Bush administration and we turned 'right', and took the fight to the enemy.

I guess some people are sheep and some are sheep dogs. I prefer to be the latter.