View Full Version : What Conservatives Don't Get
Rohirrim
10-13-2004, 11:51 AM
http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2004/09/10/conservatives/index/index_np1.html
Have fun attacking this guy's credentials.
Spider
10-13-2004, 12:09 PM
damming stuff .........
bendog
10-13-2004, 12:19 PM
BushII has been a very big disappointment to me - not least of all because Mrs Dog just smiles and says "told ya so."
Mile High Shack
10-13-2004, 12:57 PM
well...not getting into the article good or bad
but the guy didn't agree with Regan either...he didn't think Reagan was all that good either...quit his staff b/c he thought he wasn't doing a good job.
azbronco
10-13-2004, 01:31 PM
Pure drivel.
Have fun attacking this guy's credentials.
Conservatives like to talk about "limited government", "individual liberty", and so on, but they rarely act on those principles. That's (partly) why libertarians are around - a place for disillusioned conservatives (and liberals) who realize that the GOP and the Dems do a very poor job.
L.A. BRONCOS FAN
10-13-2004, 03:39 PM
Conservatives like to talk about "limited government", "individual liberty", and so on, but they rarely act on those principles.
Anyone who thinks bush and the current crop of neocons are "conservatives" by this definition is bullsh*tting himself.
Smirk has presided over more government spending than any Democrat in history.
Smirk has presided over more government spending than any Democrat in history.
Not quite - FDR beats Bush by a mile.
In any case, it's ironic that liberals are upset - it's not that they don't like big government and huge federal spending; it's just that Bush and the GOP are spending on things they don't like. And it's not clear that Kerry is any sort of fiscally-responsible politician - he'd move some spending into non-defense non-security programs, but there will be red ink for quite some time to come, Bush in the White House or not.
watermock
10-13-2004, 09:32 PM
Salon.com?
ClevelandBronco
10-14-2004, 12:11 AM
Conservatives like to talk about "limited government", "individual liberty", and so on, but they rarely act on those principles. That's (partly) why libertarians are around - a place for disillusioned conservatives (and liberals) who realize that the GOP and the Dems do a very poor job.
Or the other way around. I was an official in the Colorado Libertarian Party before I decided they were ineffectual and irrelevant. Now I'm a straight ticket Republican voter.
L.A. BRONCOS FAN
10-14-2004, 12:18 AM
it's ironic that liberals are upset - it's not that they don't like big government and huge federal spending; it's just that Bush and the GOP are spending on things they don't like.
Another skewed take.
It's not just liberals who are upset. Old-guard repubs and conservatives are voicing the very same complaints as they jump of the Smirk & Sneer bandwagon.
Why this Republican ex-governor will be voting for Kerry
By Elmer L. Andersen, Minneapolis Star Tribune
Throughout my tenure and beyond as the 30th governor of this state, I have been steadfastly aligned -- and until recently, proudly so -- with the Minnesota Republican Party.
It dismays me, therefore, to have to publicly disagree with the national Republican agenda and the national Republican candidate but, this year, I must.
The two "Say No to Bush" signs in my yard say it all.
The present Republican president has led us into an unjustified war -- based on misguided and blatantly false misrepresentations of the threat of weapons of mass destruction. The terror seat was Afghanistan. Iraq had no connection to these acts of terror and was not a serious threat to the United States, as this president claimed, and there was no relation, it's now obvious, to any serious weaponry.
http://www.startribune.com/stories/1519/5029512.html
watermock
10-14-2004, 12:23 AM
http://images.salon.com/opinion/feature/2004/09/10/conservatives/cover.jpg
First, it's total drivel because Dubya and Reagen have never been in the same photo.
watermock
10-14-2004, 12:25 AM
A Reaganite argues that Bush is a dangerous, profligate, moralizing radical -- and that his reelection would be catastrophic both for the right and for America.
Editor's Note: Welcome, Doonesbury fans, to Salon! We usually require readers to watch a short ad or join in order to view a complete article, but we thought this story was just too important, so we're giving you full access without further ado. If you like what you see, we encourage you to join Salon to under our special 50% off offer.
watermock
10-14-2004, 12:30 AM
This moron can't even spell reelection.
First, it's total drivel because Dubya and Reagen have never been in the same photo.
__________________
It's not his name, It's Reagan. dumbass.
watermock
10-14-2004, 12:33 AM
Elmer L. Andersen.
We should listen to Elmer shouldn't we LABF. He's so brilliant he can't manage to go Andersen instead of Anderson.
L.A. BRONCOS FAN
10-14-2004, 01:00 AM
Bush vs. Reality: Osama Bin Laden
BUSH CLAIMS:
"I don't think I ever said I'm not worried about Osama bin Laden. I think that's one of those exaggerations."
REALITY:
Check out this video clip:
http://a9.g.akamai.net/7/9/8082/v003/democratic1.download.akamai.com/8082/video/notconcerned.wmv
it's ironic that liberals are upset - it's not that they don't like big government and huge federal spending; it's just that Bush and the GOP are spending on things they don't like.
Another skewed take. It's not just liberals who are upset. Old-guard repubs and conservatives are voicing the very same complaints as they jump of the Smirk & Sneer bandwagon.
I didn't say "only liberals are upset", LABF, so no, my take wasn't "skewed".
When are you going to get over your ardor to pounce even when there's nothing there to attack? You come off as hypersensitive and hyperdefensive.
Pat Bowlen
10-14-2004, 10:39 AM
First, it's total drivel because Dubya and Reagen have never been in the same photo.
Jesus Christ... are you serious?
L.A. BRONCOS FAN
10-14-2004, 03:49 PM
When are you going to get over your ardor to pounce even when there's nothing there to attack? You come off as hypersensitive and hyperdefensive.
This from a guy who, until a week ago, sported an avatar tagline that read "liberals' worst nightmare" (complete with anti-Clinton avatar?)
ROFL!
This from a guy who, until a week ago, sported an avatar tagline that read "liberals' worst nightmare" (complete with anti-Clinton avatar?)
Apparently that bothered you just a wee bit.
You (try to) dish it out, but man, you sure can't take it.
L.A. BRONCOS FAN
10-14-2004, 04:07 PM
Apparently that bothered you just a wee bit.
Nah. It's the folks on your side of the aisle who can't handle political satire and cartoons, remember?
Even if I didn't like your avatar pic, I would never try to deny you your right to use it.
That's the difference between liberals and people on your side.
Nah. It's the folks on your side of the aisle who can't handle political satire and cartoons, remember?
It's a bit shameless to call the piffle you proffer "satire", LABF. More like "cheap shot", "vulgar", "juvenile" and "immature".
Even if I didn't like your avatar pic, I would never try to deny you your right to use it. That's the difference between liberals and people on your side.
Odd, there are no shortage of liberals who detest free expression for conservatives - and the further left one goes, the more censorious the Left becomes. Care to explain that, or are we gonna get a dose of the "true Scotsman" fallacy?
L.A. BRONCOS FAN
10-14-2004, 04:21 PM
It's a bit shameless to call the piffle you proffer "satire", LABF. More like "cheap shot", "vulgar", "juvenile" and "immature".
Funny--only Smirk supporters like you seem to think so.
I have to chuckle at your circular reasoning here.
Pat Bowlen
10-14-2004, 10:50 PM
First, it's total drivel because Dubya and Reagen have never been in the same photo.
Hey Mock, did you really think that the article was seriously trying to make you believe that was a real photograph? I mean, honestly. That's just too dumb to let slide, especially considering your know-it-all tone.
Funny--only Smirk supporters like you seem to think so.
If one applied a filter that removed the name-calling, insinuations, slurs, disingenuousness, dishonesty, lies and cheap shots from your posts, there'd be precious little left, LABF.
Safe to say you'd fail a class on debate, merely because of your style and your near-total lack of worthwhile content.
L.A. BRONCOS FAN
10-15-2004, 12:21 AM
If one applied a filter that removed the name-calling, insinuations, slurs, disingenuousness, dishonesty, lies and cheap shots from your posts, there'd be precious little left, LABF.
Safe to say you'd fail a class on debate, merely because of your style and your near-total lack of worthwhile content.
The foregoing ad hominem drivel is the first signal that W*GS is out of ammo in an argument.
How funny is it to watch him lose his composure in a debate just like his hero dubya?
watermock
10-15-2004, 12:38 AM
you didn't even manage an argument. Everything was true. Your disingenuous, you lie and provide cheap shots. Not only that, your the laughing stock of the board.
Go right on buddy, your a laugh a minute. It's not long till you will wimper away like some sort of small shrimp.
Just wait. It's funny actually.
Tell us again about how Kerry won the debate.
L.A. BRONCOS FAN
10-15-2004, 01:33 AM
Victory in Ohio battle for Provisional Votes
TOLEDO, Ohio (AP) In a victory for Democrats, a federal judge ruled Thursday that Ohio voters who show up at the wrong polling place on Election Day still can cast ballots as long as they are in the county where they are registered
http://www.cleveland.com/newsflash/cleveland/index.ssf?/base/politics-0/1097776745224121.xml&storylist=cleveland
This just puts the hammer to Secretary of State Ken Blackwell (R) and his attempt to stifle turnout in the State of Ohio.
A good solid victory for the good guys......
The foregoing ad hominem drivel is the first signal that W*GS is out of ammo in an argument.
It's not ad hominem, it's an accurate summary of your style.
How funny is it to watch him lose his composure in a debate just like his hero dubya?
The only real loss here is decorum and civility, thanks to you, LABF. Your tactics amount to defecating on the place, and when everyone else leaves due to the stench, you declare "victory".
Very mature and respectful, LABF.
L.A. BRONCOS FAN
10-15-2004, 02:34 PM
It's not ad hominem, it's an accurate summary of your style.
W*GS hasn't lost his proclivity for chasing his tail with circular arguments.
"Accurate summation" = "W*GS' perceptions."
When in doubt, he resorts to labeling and name-calling just like the rest of 'em.
The only real loss here is decorum and civility, thanks to you, LABF. Your tactics amount to defecating on the place, and when everyone else leaves due to the stench, you declare "victory".
Last I checked, the war and politics forum was thriving and new members were joining in the discussion everyday.
Like Rush Limbaugh, W*GS lives in a world that doesn't match his perceptions or his claims.
BTW, W*GS must be positively distraught at the number of liberals and non-bush supporters here who don't co-sign his bullsh*t. ;D
Last I checked, the war and politics forum was thriving and new members were joining in the discussion everyday.
No thanks to you.
I wonder why you've never seen fit to comment on "The Economist" articles I've posted that go into a level of detail about various issues that is beyond your soundbite brain to comprehend.
It was the doctrine of what US president to defend America's access to oil exports from the Persian Gulf by any means necessary?
L.A. BRONCOS FAN
10-15-2004, 02:51 PM
LOL
See W*GS deflect.
L.A. BRONCOS FAN
10-15-2004, 02:53 PM
No thanks to you.
Yep, I got all that positive rep because everyone shares W*GS' perceptions, don't you know?
LOL
See W*GS deflect.
Which president made that doctrine explicit, LABF?
Can you answer a simple question?
Yep, I got all that positive rep because everyone shares W*GS' perceptions, don't you know?
What's your rep-to-number-of-posts ratio? Mine is about 1:1 - 290 or so posts, 271 reps.
Your looks to be about 0.2:1 - one rep per 5 posts or so.
RocBronc
10-15-2004, 03:11 PM
As a conservative, I do get it... I know that George Bush is not a fiscal conservative... (and I am critical of him for this) If you ever listen to Rush Limbaugh (as an example of a "typical conservative"), you know that he has routinely criticized Bush for some of his domestic policies.(medicare/prescription, no child left behind).
But what "liberals" don't get is that when compared to Kerry, as opposed to an "absolute" consevative standard, Bush is very conservative. (based on the voting records during both of their tenures in the senate/white house.) To a large extent it's Kerry's liberalism, not necessarily Bush's conservatism that causes us to support Bush so much.
Also, people IMO, don't get that most conservatives after 9/11 are willing to "overlook" Bush's domestic policy because the war on islamofascism/terrorism is so much more important than domestic issues right now and Bush is following a much more "conservative" foreign policy (we can disagree on whether or not his foreign policy has been/will be good for America, but you can't argue that he's been pursuing a pretty conservative foreign policy).
So, honestly, I don't get how that article is so "damming"...
Rohirrim
10-15-2004, 04:04 PM
As a conservative, I do get it... I know that George Bush is not a fiscal conservative... (and I am critical of him for this) If you ever listen to Rush Limbaugh (as an example of a "typical conservative"), you know that he has routinely criticized Bush for some of his domestic policies.(medicare/prescription, no child left behind).
But what "liberals" don't get is that when compared to Kerry, as opposed to an "absolute" consevative standard, Bush is very conservative. (based on the voting records during both of their tenures in the senate/white house.) To a large extent it's Kerry's liberalism, not necessarily Bush's conservatism that causes us to support Bush so much.
Also, people IMO, don't get that most conservatives after 9/11 are willing to "overlook" Bush's domestic policy because the war on islamofascism/terrorism is so much more important than domestic issues right now and Bush is following a much more "conservative" foreign policy (we can disagree on whether or not his foreign policy has been/will be good for America, but you can't argue that he's been pursuing a pretty conservative foreign policy).
So, honestly, I don't get how that article is so "damming"...
Read the two threads just posted on "No More Troops" and "Troops Refuse Suicide Mission" to get an idea of Bush's competence in leading that fight. Not to even mention that it was a monumental blunder to go into Iraq in the first place. OBL is still running Al Queda after escaping from Tora Bora due to another ridiculous decision.
I really don't get this continuing allegiance to Bush no matter what he does, or what happens. I just don't get it. He was warned repeatedly about terrorism and did nothing about it until 9/11. He's taken more vacations than any President in history during, what he describes, as a "time of war." Hell, he received the August PDB warning of an Al Queda attack while he was on one of those vacations. The evidence that he has totally screwed up in Iraq is becoming an avalanche of bad news, day after day. And still, the Bushies tell us he's the best leader for this country right now. The guy can't even admit he's made any mistakes. For Christ's sake, people are dying for his mistakes! I just don't get it. I'm starting to wonder what it would take before the Right finally realizes, "Hey, maybe this guy isn't the best choice for our country right now." You keep talking about what he's going to do, stop for a minute and take a look at what he has done.
L.A. BRONCOS FAN
10-15-2004, 04:33 PM
Your looks to be about 0.2:1 - one rep per 5 posts or so.
Which proves your claims are a load of horsesh*t.
What a surprise.
Which proves your claims are a load of horsesh*t.
What is your rep count?
Mine was 271 as late Fri. I've posted about 300 times, so that's almost 1:1. Is your rep count over 5000? It would have to be, to have the same ratio, since you've posted over 5,200 times.
L.A. BRONCOS FAN
10-18-2004, 12:47 AM
What is your rep count?
Mine was 271 as late Fri. I've posted about 300 times, so that's almost 1:1. Is your rep count over 5000? It would have to be, to have the same ratio, since you've posted over 5,200 times.
I wasn't comparing my count with yours: I was pointing out that your foaming-at-the-mouth characterization of my presence/influence on this board doesn't square with my rep count.
As always, you seem to live in a world that doesn't resemble your perceptions or your claims.
L.A. BRONCOS FAN
10-18-2004, 12:49 AM
The Brownshirting of America
James Bovard, the great libertarian champion of our freedom and civil liberties, recently shared with readers his mail from Bush supporters (Lewrockwell.com, October 12). For starters here are some of the salutations: "communist bastard," "asshole," "a piece of trash, scum of the earth." It goes downhill from there.
Bush's supporters demand lock-step consensus that Bush is right. They regard truthful reports that Saddam Hussein had no weapons of mass destruction and was not involved in the September 11 attack on the US--truths now firmly established by the Bush administration's own reports--as treasonous America-bashing.
As well, Bovard is interpreted as throwing cold water on the feel-good, macho, Muslim butt-kicking that Bush's invasion of Iraq has come to symbolize for his supporters. "People like you and Michael Moore," one irate reader wrote, "is (sic) what brings down our country."
http://www.counterpunch.org/roberts10152004.html
I wasn't comparing my count with yours...
You should.
Nocturnal
10-18-2004, 08:22 AM
Wow, you really care that much about what people think about you?
Wow, you really care that much about what people think about you?
It was LABF who mentioned how he had such an incredible rep that the people here must love him. Personally, I don't care much one way or the other.
L.A. BRONCOS FAN
10-18-2004, 04:29 PM
It was LABF who mentioned how he had such an incredible rep that the people here must love him. Personally, I don't care much one way or the other.
On the contrary, W*GS claimed, in essence, that I was the official OM Emmanuel Goldstien, that I drove other members from the board, etc. I merely cited my rep as evidence that W*GS' perceptions/claims don't match reality.
On the contrary, W*GS claimed, in essence, that I was the official OM Emmanuel Goldstien, that I drove other members from the board, etc. I merely cited my rep as evidence that W*GS' perceptions/claims don't match reality.
I've decided to alter my claim - LABF does "more" to cheapen and vulgarize almost any debate than any other poster on the OM.
What is your exact rep count, anyway, LABF?
enjolras
10-18-2004, 09:46 PM
Also, people IMO, don't get that most conservatives after 9/11 are willing to "overlook" Bush's domestic policy because the war on islamofascism/terrorism is so much more important than domestic issues right now and Bush is following a much more "conservative" foreign policy (we can disagree on whether or not his foreign policy has been/will be good for America, but you can't argue that he's been pursuing a pretty conservative foreign policy).
So, honestly, I don't get how that article is so "damming"...
I didn't realize conservative meant stupid..
I guess I don't understand the philosophy. What your telling me is that a conservative is a fiscally prudent, christian, war-hawk. As a independent (libertarian really), that's what it looks like to me. Bush's foreign policy isn't 'conservative', it's agressive and ill-advised. Why would you be so proud of that? On what planet does being a grade-A dick make for good foreign policy? It seems so inconsistent with the rest of the Republican agenda (the Christianity thing in particular).
It's funny, your behind Bush BECAUSE of his most glaring and dangerous weakness. His chest-beating form of foreign policy is losing us the fight against terrorism, and I just don't understand what is conservative about that. If Reagan is your ideal conservative, then Bush's failings could not be any more clear.
Rohirrim
10-19-2004, 06:32 AM
What I find really sick about Bush, is that he was warned numerous times of a terrorist attack on U.S. soil. He had nine months to do something about it. Did nothing. Hell, he was on vacation when he got the sharpest warning - who knows if he ever read it? Even he admits, "I wasn't on point." And yet now, he's running around the country like he's the hero of 9/11. And half the American people are falling for it!! That's the real shock. Maybe that's his secret. He tells everybody he doesn't bother to read a newspaper, and half of Americans nod, "Me too." Maybe he's leading a celebration of ignorance!
Bush just says, "Everything is peachy in Iraq" and half the American people nod their heads and mumble happily, "Peachy, peachy." OBL, the man who has murdered thousands of Americans, is still alive because of Bush's little "adventure" in Iraq, and half the American people won't call Bush on it - probably because they don't know about it. I can't think of a President in American history who has effed up more than this guy, and half the American people thinks it's a insult if a journalist calls him on it. Of course, no journalist gets the chance to call him on it, because he holds fewer press conferences than any President.
And on top of all that, if the guy is asked if he's ever made a mistake, he just gets this befuddled look on his face and answers, "No, not really."
And half the American people don't even want the question asked!! The only time they ever see him, he's standing in front of cheering crowds, smiling and waving. Imagine what Bush would look like if you didn't read anything about what's going on in the world, if you never read a book, if you never even watched the news? The only time you'd see Bush would be when his ads break in on "Survivor" and you'd see him waving in front of a cheering crowd and you'd say to yourself, "Things must be going really well. I like Bush. He's doing a good job."
We live in very strange times. Maybe all those warnings about "too much TV" were right. Maybe we're turning into a nation full of morons.
And that proves Jimmy Carter's old dictum, "The American people get the President they deserve."
Does it ever occur to anybody, that say, during the Civil War, when people in this country were truly well-read (listen to the letters from common soldiers on Ken Burns' "Civil War") and they would sit for hours and listen to Lincoln and Douglas debate, that George W. Bush would have been thrown off the stage for his illiteracy? In that era, it would have been seen as shameful. Now, it's a badge of honor.
Times change, sure. But I'm worried for my country.
What I find really sick about Bush, is that he was warned numerous times of a terrorist attack on U.S. soil.
You need to read the 9/11 Commission report, instead of parroting what LABF has half-truthed you.
From page 348, section 11.2:
"Perhaps the most incisive of the advisors on terrorism to the new administration was the holdover Richard Clarke. Yet he admits that his policy advice, even if it had been accepted immediately and turned into action, would not have prevented 9/11."
Rohirrim
10-19-2004, 08:49 AM
You need to read the 9/11 Commission report, instead of parroting what LABF has half-truthed you.
From page 348, section 11.2:
"Perhaps the most incisive of the advisors on terrorism to the new administration was the holdover Richard Clarke. Yet he admits that his policy advice, even if it had been accepted immediately and turned into action, would not have prevented 9/11."
Again with the half-quotes and mis-quotes? What he said was "maybe not." The other side of that is "maybe." But by doing absolutely nothing, the choice that Bush made, it was assured that the attack would take place.
Again with the half-quotes and mis-quotes? What he said was "maybe not." The other side of that is "maybe."
Do you have a link to Clarke's quote?
But by doing absolutely nothing, the choice that Bush made, it was assured that the attack would take place.
The Bush administration did not do "absolutely nothing". Read the report.
football idiot
10-19-2004, 10:56 AM
LABF, the fact that some people 'rep' you because they find some of your cut&paste partisan hackery 'entertaining' doesn't mean you bring any contribution of value to this board. and anyone who was 'really' interested in what you bring to the board could just go to bartcop themselves instead of having you cater to their every need.
but I disgress. suffice it to say that you
A) do drive people away from this board,
B) do everything possible to take every conversation/debate down to the lowest possible, personal, name-calling level (cuz you can't step out of your partisan bias and have an honest dialogue with someone who doesn't agree with you 200%)
C) refuse to answer any direct questions or have any real discussion on topics.
D) refuse to have an opinion in your own words, or respond to any criticism of your cut&paste contributions.
LABF, are you Al Gore?
Again with the half-quotes and mis-quotes? What he said was "maybe not." The other side of that is "maybe."
I dug a little more and in http://www.9-11commission.gov/archive/hearing8/9-11Commission_Hearing_2004-03-24.pdf, we have this:
MR. GORTON: Now, since my yellow light is on, at this point my final question will be this. Assuming that the recommendations that you made on January 25th of 2001, based on the line of -- based on Blue Sky, including aid to the Northern Alliance which had been an agenda item at this point for two and a half years without any action, assuming that there had been more Predator reconnaissance missions, assuming that that had all been adopted, say, on January 26, year 2001, is there the remotest chance that it would have prevented 9/11?
MR. CLARKE: No.
patteeu
10-19-2004, 11:51 AM
Anyone who thinks bush and the current crop of neocons are "conservatives" by this definition is bullsh*tting himself.
Smirk has presided over more government spending than any Democrat in history.
I've never considered Bush a conservative. I supported Steve Forbes in 2000, and later voted for the Libertarian candidate because Bush was NOT a small government conservative IMO.
For the last 4 years, I've heard tons of complaints by conservatives that Bush isn't conservative enough. Ironically, I hear a lot of complaints from liberals about Bush being too conservative. Maybe it's really the libs who don't get it.
This election boils down to two issues for me. The war (both Iraq and the broader global war) and the supreme court.
On the war, I think Bush is more likely to fight the war to win (especially because he will be in his second term and won't be beholden to an anti-war base like Kerry would). IMO, Kerry's election would insure that Iraq will ultimately be remembered as a Vietnam-style failure. Bush gives our team the best chance to win (and I think that the difference between winning and losing is as simple as national resolve at this point).
WRT the Supreme Court, I have low confidence that Bush would appoint conservative justices, but I'm quite confident that Kerry would appoint liberals. The next president will most likely have a big impact on the shape of the court for many years to come. A Kerry court would be a disaster for the US IMO.
A Kerry presidency would probably be the better choice if spending restraint were the top priority. He is more likely to retreat from the war on terror and pull us out of Iraq and he would have to contend with a Republican congress. But I've got more important considerations. I'll worry about spending restraint in 2008.
bendog
10-19-2004, 12:23 PM
anti-war base? roflmao.
patteeu
10-19-2004, 12:58 PM
anti-war base? roflmao.
Were you unaware that there is a strong anti-war faction within Kerry's democrat coalition? They used to refer to themselves as Deaniacs. Some of the former Deaniacs will no doubt go for Nader this time around, but most of them will vote for the less hawkish of the two supposedly pro-WOT, win-in-Iraq candidates (Kerry) just as I will vote for the less liberal of the two non-conservative candidates (Bush).
bendog
10-19-2004, 02:52 PM
by your logic I should never vote gop because fascist nutbag racists like Falwell support the ticket. There's less difference between Kerry and BushII on defense than there is between Bush and McCain on taxes. though, presumably Kerry wouldn't have invaded Iraq AFTER we knew, or should have known, they had no womd programs.
Samiwindr
10-19-2004, 06:03 PM
I'll take a Kerry presidency for now because he'll definitely clean up the foreign policy carnage this administration has wrought for the past four years. There is no way he could do any worse and he'll be out in four years anyway.
I'm voting against Bush again because I never felt he deserved to be a President in the first place. The guy came in with no knowledge of the outside world, no foreign policy experience, Six total years of public service and about 10 years of adulthood under his belt.
My brother in Law is GW - 36 years old, nursing a few chemical dependencies, and still living off of my in-laws. Even if he's reborn 5 years from now, I sure as hell would never vote for him.
patteeu
10-19-2004, 06:41 PM
by your logic I should never vote gop because fascist nutbag racists like Falwell support the ticket. There's less difference between Kerry and BushII on defense than there is between Bush and McCain on taxes. though, presumably Kerry wouldn't have invaded Iraq AFTER we knew, or should have known, they had no womd programs.
Here is a more appropriate use of my logic in a Falwell scenario:
If you were electing a challenger that vowed to build an even bigger and stronger wall separating church and state than the incumbant (as opposed to Kerry vowing to prosecute the war in Iraq more successfully than GWB), then I wouldn't blame you if it gave you pause that the challenger's base included Falwell, Robertson, and the rest of the Christian Right. It would be reasonable for you to fear that re-election pressures could lead to concessions given to that wing of the candidate's party.
So it is with Kerry and Iraq IMO. Not only is Bush's camp relatively solidly supportive of his effort in Iraq, President Bush doesn't have to stand for re-election again. Kerry's support on Iraqi policy is much more mixed and he will eventually have to depend on support from the dovish wing of his party to get re-elected.
Bush needs to make Iraq a success for legacy reasons. Kerry would have a built-in excuse for failure because he would just blame Bush for getting us into a quagmire from which even Kerry's superior talents could not lead us to victory.
Rohirrim
10-19-2004, 07:41 PM
[QUOTE]This election boils down to two issues for me. The war (both Iraq and the broader global war) and the supreme court.
On the war, I think Bush is more likely to fight the war to win (especially because he will be in his second term and won't be beholden to an anti-war base like Kerry would). IMO, Kerry's election would insure that Iraq will ultimately be remembered as a Vietnam-style failure. Bush gives our team the best chance to win (and I think that the difference between winning and losing is as simple as national resolve at this point).
The big, and I do mean big, problem with that take is that yesterday Bush was asked, "What if the Iraqis decide to elect a fundamentalist Islamic government?" Bush's answer? "That's democracy." So, we spilled the blood of 1200 Americans and blown 200 billion to install another Ayatollah in the Mideast? An Ayatollah who will join in a collaboration with Iran? Two Islamic theocracies controlling half the world's oil which, in all likelihood, destabilize Saudi Arabia? For months, I've heard Bush wailing about how important it is to place a free state in the midst of the Mideast. "Democracy in the Mideast," he has pounded over and over. That was the goal (at least goal number 23), and now he can just shrug it off with, "That's democracy?" Give me Kerry any day. At least he has some grasp of geopolitical reality.
WRT the Supreme Court, I have low confidence that Bush would appoint conservative justices, but I'm quite confident that Kerry would appoint liberals. The next president will most likely have a big impact on the shape of the court for many years to come. A Kerry court would be a disaster for the US IMO.
From the numbers I've seen so far, it appears that the GOP will pick up 2 or 3 seats in the Senate. What do you think - Kerry is going to appoint Barbra Streisand to the court and somehow slip her past the Senate? Get real. The best he can hope for is a moderate with impeccable credentials. On the other hand, Bush will be able to install the most rabid Right Wing evangelical he can dig up without a peep from the Senate. How 'bout Pat Robertson in the SCOTUS?
A Kerry presidency would probably be the better choice if spending restraint were the top priority. He is more likely to retreat from the war on terror and pull us out of Iraq and he would have to contend with a Republican congress. But I've got more important considerations. I'll worry about spending restraint in 2008.
Try a little honesty and just say, "I'm voting for W no matter what" instead of all this rationalizing :bs:. The idea that the dogged prosecutor who brought down the Saudi terrorist bank (BCCI) and uncovered the Iran Contra scandal would go soft against terrorism takes a mind boggling leap of illogic.
Obviously, given his life experience, he would be ten times more efficient and capable of discovering and strangling the Saudi funding (something Bush hasn't even attempted), uncovering the international ties to terrorists and forcing the prosecution (and/or destruction) of terrorism to its end. I guarantee you, the Saudis know who Kerry is, and they sure as hell don't want him in the WH.
Given his understanding of geopolitics (having specialized in foreign policy for twenty years), he is less likely than Bush to cut and run, and even less likely to accept an Islamic theocracy in Iraq.
BTW, this:
WRT the Supreme Court, I have low confidence that Bush would appoint conservative justices
gets my coffee spitter of the month award. :spit:
patteeu
10-19-2004, 08:38 PM
The big, and I do mean big, problem with that take is that yesterday Bush was asked, "What if the Iraqis decide to elect a fundamentalist Islamic government?" Bush's answer? "That's democracy." So, we spilled the blood of 1200 Americans and blown 200 billion to install another Ayatollah in the Mideast? An Ayatollah who will join in a collaboration with Iran? Two Islamic theocracies controlling half the world's oil which, in all likelihood, destabilize Saudi Arabia? For months, I've heard Bush wailing about how important it is to place a free state in the midst of the Mideast. "Democracy in the Mideast," he has pounded over and over. That was the goal (at least goal number 23), and now he can just shrug it off with, "That's democracy?" Give me Kerry any day. At least he has some grasp of geopolitical reality.
If your scenario plays out, then I'll admit that I was wrong to back Bush. Since I support him, I'm obviously not expecting such dire results. There is quite a gulf between our expectations.
From the numbers I've seen so far, it appears that the GOP will pick up 2 or 3 seats in the Senate. What do you think - Kerry is going to appoint Barbra Streisand to the court and somehow slip her past the Senate? Get real. The best he can hope for is a moderate with impeccable credentials. On the other hand, Bush will be able to install the most rabid Right Wing evangelical he can dig up without a peep from the Senate. How 'bout Pat Robertson in the SCOTUS?
I don't expect Barbara Streisand, but I do know that history supports the idea that Democrats are better at blocking Republican nominees than the other way around.
We've already seen that Bush is pretty ineffective at nominating conservative judges. I don't see how he would be any more able to install "rabid" conservatives in a second term than he was in the first.
Try a little honesty and just say, "I'm voting for W no matter what" instead of all this rationalizing :bs:.
I can't envision a scenario in which I'd vote for someone else, but I'm not rationalizing. I'm explaining my priorities.
The idea that the dogged prosecutor who brought down the Saudi terrorist bank (BCCI) and uncovered the Iran Contra scandal would go soft against terrorism takes a mind boggling leap of illogic.
John Kerry has a 20 year record in the Senate that leads me to believe he'd be soft on terrorism. I'm sure he'd pursue terrorists in court, and I know he'd work hard at getting treaties signed, but I'm NOT confident he'd be willing to aggressively pursue terrorists being harbored by rogue states with military force if necessary.
Obviously, given his life experience, he would be ten times more efficient and capable of discovering and strangling the Saudi funding (something Bush hasn't even attempted), uncovering the international ties to terrorists and forcing the prosecution (and/or destruction) of terrorism to its end. I guarantee you, the Saudis know who Kerry is, and they sure as hell don't want him in the WH.
Given his understanding of geopolitics (having specialized in foreign policy for twenty years), he is less likely than Bush to cut and run, and even less likely to accept an Islamic theocracy in Iraq.
We just don't agree about this.
BTW, this:
WRT the Supreme Court, I have low confidence that Bush would appoint conservative justices
gets my coffee spitter of the month award. :spit:
ROFL! I should have said that I don't think he would succeed in getting a really conservative nominee through the process. I think he would have to appoint someone without a reliably conservative position on many important issues. I'd expect more Souters and Kennedys than Scalias.
The big, and I do mean big, problem with that take is that yesterday Bush was asked, "What if the Iraqis decide to elect a fundamentalist Islamic government?" Bush's answer? "That's democracy." So, we spilled the blood of 1200 Americans and blown 200 billion to install another Ayatollah in the Mideast? An Ayatollah who will join in a collaboration with Iran? Two Islamic theocracies controlling half the world's oil which, in all likelihood, destabilize Saudi Arabia? For months, I've heard Bush wailing about how important it is to place a free state in the midst of the Mideast. "Democracy in the Mideast," he has pounded over and over. That was the goal (at least goal number 23), and now he can just shrug it off with, "That's democracy?" Give me Kerry any day. At least he has some grasp of geopolitical reality.
So, the Iraqis will have self-determination only so far as the US allows them to?
For how much longer should we run Iraq?
L.A. BRONCOS FAN
10-20-2004, 12:31 AM
LABF, the fact that some people 'rep' you because they find some of your cut&paste partisan hackery 'entertaining' doesn't mean you bring any contribution of value to this board.
Don't you just love it when conserva-nazis like this guy consult their crystal balls or their magic eight balls or whatever they do to make this kind of stuff up?
And how funny is this slack-jawed moron's characterization of Bush criticism as "partisan hackery?"
Forget about all those admirals and generals and former joint chiefs of staff and intelligence experts and old-guard conservatives/repubs who are jumping off the BushCo bandwagon and/or endorsing Kerry.
At least we know one thing for sure: "Football Idiot" isn't just a clever handle.
bendog
10-20-2004, 08:01 AM
It's not just that BushII is not a conservative, it's that neithr Frist nor DeLay nor Hassert are either.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4117683
Is Kerry any better? I dunno. Clinton was, marginally.
bendog
10-21-2004, 08:31 AM
(-:
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1548&ncid=721&e=5&u=/afp/20041019/lf_afp/afplifestyle_britain_art_041019232838
errand
10-21-2004, 08:49 PM
What I find really sick about Bush, is that he was warned numerous times of a terrorist attack on U.S. soil. He had nine months to do something about it. Did nothing. .
So tell us Rohirrim, what did the Dems do to protect this nation from attack in the eight years prior to those 9 months?
...and please, be specific.
errand
10-21-2004, 08:54 PM
Again with the half-quotes and mis-quotes? What he said was "maybe not." The other side of that is "maybe." But by doing absolutely nothing, the choice that Bush made, it was assured that the attack would take place.
so tell us rohirrim,
when the WTC was bombed in '93, what action did Clarke recommend and what were the results of said action?
when the USS Cole was attacked, what action did Clarke recommend, and what were the results of said action?
when the Khobar towers were attacked, what action did Clarke recommend and what were the results of said action?
when the US embassies were blown up, what did Clarke recommend and what were the results of said action?
Seems to me like Bush isn't the only guy who didn't follow the advise of this so-called "expert"
errand
10-21-2004, 09:03 PM
though, presumably Kerry wouldn't have invaded Iraq AFTER we knew, or should have known, they had no womd programs.
...and there we have it people, Bendog has discovered what the rest of the libs have not. John Kerry has one thing going for him in this war in Iraq debate...the benefit of hindsight. Easy to make a bet on the SB when you already know the final score, wouldn't you say?
Prior to the war, EVERYONE, including Kerry believed that Saddam had those WMD's. To say Bush lied means that they all lied, and to say Bush misled, is to say they all misled. Our intel was not the only one to make claims of WMD's.....the British said he had them, the French said he had them, the Germans said he had them, the Russians said he had them, the Israelis said he had them and virtually every nation that had CIA type intel made the same exact claims.
Rohirrim
10-22-2004, 06:30 AM
Somebody's been visiting the GOP propaganda sites. Let's see... WTC '93. The leader of that one is right here in Colorado. 5 stories underground at Supermax. Khobar. The five leaders had their heads chopped off by the Saudis, with FBI help. The Cole investigation was turned over to the Bushies because Clinton didn't want to leave a military action in Bush's lap the way that Bush I left Mogadishu in his lap. And, as every document and investigation agrees, by the time Clinton left office no investigation had connected the dots on the Cole investigation. Oh, what about the Millenium Plot? No credit? Right. I understand perfectly.
Plus, what you so easily ignore, is that every time Clinton launched an attack against Al Queda, the GOP run Congress ripped him a new one. Want to hear some of the quotes?
Face the facts. Bush had nine months and plenty of warnings. Did nothing. He thought the presidency would just be another frat party.
patteeu
10-22-2004, 06:55 AM
Somebody's been visiting the GOP propaganda sites. Let's see... WTC '93. The leader of that one is right here in Colorado. 5 stories underground at Supermax. Khobar. The five leaders had their heads chopped off by the Saudis, with FBI help. The Cole investigation was turned over to the Bushies because Clinton didn't want to leave a military action in Bush's lap the way that Bush I left Mogadishu in his lap. And, as every document and investigation agrees, by the time Clinton left office no investigation had connected the dots on the Cole investigation. Oh, what about the Millenium Plot? No credit? Right. I understand perfectly.
Plus, what you so easily ignore, is that every time Clinton launched an attack against Al Queda, the GOP run Congress ripped him a new one. Want to hear some of the quotes?
Face the facts. Bush had nine months and plenty of warnings. Did nothing. He thought the presidency would just be another frat party.
So what you are saying is it's OK to allow attacks if you prosecute a few conspirators after the fact when you're Clinton, but when you're Bush you are held to the standard of preventing the attacks in the first place. Nice double standard.
errand
10-22-2004, 06:56 AM
Somebody's been visiting the GOP propaganda sites. Let's see... WTC '93. The leader of that one is right here in Colorado. 5 stories underground at Supermax. Khobar. The five leaders had their heads chopped off by the Saudis, with FBI help. The Cole investigation was turned over to the Bushies because Clinton didn't want to leave a military action in Bush's lap the way that Bush I left Mogadishu in his lap. And, as every document and investigation agrees, by the time Clinton left office no investigation had connected the dots on the Cole investigation. Oh, what about the Millenium Plot? No credit? Right. I understand perfectly.
Plus, what you so easily ignore, is that every time Clinton launched an attack against Al Queda, the GOP run Congress ripped him a new one. Want to hear some of the quotes?
Face the facts. Bush had nine months and plenty of warnings. Did nothing. He thought the presidency would just be another frat party.
But did those suggestions prevent other attacks? That's the point there Rohirrim....that Clarke's suggestions didn't prevent ANYTHING from happening.
None of his subsequent suggestions on how to defeat terrorism prevented other tattacks from occuring. And while no one can guarantee someone won't strap a bomb onto their ass and set it off in a downtown cafe' the fact remains that none of Richard Clarke's warnings or suggestions prevented another attack from happening now did they?
And are we to believe that Clarke gave advanced warning of the hijackings, but not the USS Cole?
That he could decipher terrorists plans of hijacking planes and flying them into buildings but he couldn't decipher terrorists using a boat loaded with explosives to attack the Cole? He couldn't figure out that terrorists were plotting to blow up the Khobar Towers? BTW, the first WTC bombing case was cracked open because of some Budget truck rental employee getting suspicious of a few ragheads wanting their deposit back on a truck that was destroyed....not due to crack intel provided by Richard Clarke.
And why did he wait for almost 3 years to inform we the people of these possible attacks? And only after being relieved of his post and only upon the publishing of his "tell all" book.
I mean, if you had alleged concrete info that another WTC-like attack was about to happen, and it fell on deaf ears as your claiming, would you just sit back and let it happen?
We already know what Richard Clarke did when faced with the same scenario......
Rohirrim
10-22-2004, 07:09 AM
What you are ignoring is that Richard Clarke was a staff member, not the Commander in Chief. With former Presidents, Clarke had access, with Bush he got zero access. Rice shut him down at every turn. He offered warnings and begged for meetings and wasn't given access to Bush until one week before 9/11. That's the point of his book. Bush was not paying attention. Bush didn't want to hear the info. If Rice ever gave him the August PDB or not, it's not clear that he ever read it. Clinton told Bush that "terrorism will be your number one priority." After 9/11 Bush admitted, "I wasn't on point." Clarke was "running around with his hair on fire" and couldn't get access to the WH. Whether or not Clinton was effective, there's ample evidence that he was "on point." The fact is that the Bush administration received numerous warnings, that the evidence was out there, and that if Bush had "shaken the tree" and used his power to force intel to get busy, 9/11 "might" have been headed off. The evidence is overwhelming that he did nothing.
Rohirrim
10-22-2004, 07:11 AM
So what you are saying is it's OK to allow attacks if you prosecute a few conspirators after the fact when you're Clinton, but when you're Bush you are held to the standard of preventing the attacks in the first place. Nice double standard.
I always find it funny that the Bushies so easily ignore the plot to blow up LAX that was stopped on Clinton's watch.
patteeu
10-22-2004, 07:56 AM
I always find it funny that the Bushies so easily ignore the plot to blow up LAX that was stopped on Clinton's watch.
I find it funny that you can say that and at the same time ignore all the terrorist attacks that Bush has prevented by neutralizing top Al Qaeda planners (75% of them if you believe the administrations claims, which I know you don't but you can't deny that several have been taken out), safe havens, and countless terror cells.
You similarly don't give Bush credit for eliminating the Libyan WMD programs without firing a shot (at them at least). Or for moving Pakistan from a posture of benevolent indifference toward Al Qaeda to a posture of major ally in the war against islamist terror. Or for taking down Kahn nuclear proliferation ring.
bendog
10-22-2004, 09:03 AM
If you give BushII credit for Libya you have to blame him for not stopping 9-11, ie the work was done before his watch by others.
But, I'd agree he's "used" Musharaff as well as anyone else could.
Rohirrim
10-22-2004, 09:19 AM
I find it funny that you can say that and at the same time ignore all the terrorist attacks that Bush has prevented by neutralizing top Al Qaeda planners (75% of them if you believe the administrations claims, which I know you don't but you can't deny that several have been taken out), safe havens, and countless terror cells.
You similarly don't give Bush credit for eliminating the Libyan WMD programs without firing a shot (at them at least). Or for moving Pakistan from a posture of benevolent indifference toward Al Qaeda to a posture of major ally in the war against islamist terror. Or for taking down Kahn nuclear proliferation ring.
British intelligence (and no doubt the CIA) know that those slots in Al Queda are filled as soon as there's a vacuum. Bush's policies have created more terrorists, not less. The bungling in Iraq has created more terrorists, not less. Bush keeps squawking about how this is not a law enforcement, etc. etc. problem and mixed in with that, are the social and economic problems that create terrorists. Bush's militarism creates more terrorists than it kills. As our troops in Iraq are discovering, tanks and airstrikes don't work against roadside bombs. The U.S. has to follow a comprehensive anti-terrorism program that includes social and economic facets. That's going to require opening diplomatic channels that Bush has slammed shut. You've got to know where to aim before you shoot.
bendog
10-22-2004, 09:37 AM
I don't know whether Iraq has made al Queda weaker or stronger. I'd think invading Afghan was a positive. But the BushII claim that has struck me as very spurious (not that Kerry doesn't have soem as well) is that "if Zarqawii weren't fighting us over there he'd be over here, in 'Merica, fighting us."
When in fact, Zarqawii's point of interst prior to our invasion of Iraq was overthowing the govt of Jordan, and the CIA still isn't sure of what the exact connection between this guy and bin laden is/was. Moreover, the neocons in the Admin have snubbed King AbdullahII' and Queen Noor's attempts to "broaden" their perceptions of not just Iraq but the whole ME.
patteeu
10-22-2004, 09:41 AM
If you give BushII credit for Libya you have to blame him for not stopping 9-11, ie the work was done before his watch by others.
Even if the work was done before his watch (which it wasn't), it wouldn't mean I'd have to blame him for not stopping 9/11. That doesn't make any sense.
The fact is that despite continued diplomatic efforts over the past several years, Khadafy didn't decide to abandon his WMD program until he saw what happened to Saddam.
Regardless of Libya's motivations for coming clean and regardless of who should get the credit, Bush is not to blame for 9/11.
patteeu
10-22-2004, 09:51 AM
British intelligence (and no doubt the CIA) know that those slots in Al Queda are filled as soon as there's a vacuum. Bush's policies have created more terrorists, not less. The bungling in Iraq has created more terrorists, not less. Bush keeps squawking about how this is not a law enforcement, etc. etc. problem and mixed in with that, are the social and economic problems that create terrorists. Bush's militarism creates more terrorists than it kills. As our troops in Iraq are discovering, tanks and airstrikes don't work against roadside bombs. The U.S. has to follow a comprehensive anti-terrorism program that includes social and economic facets. That's going to require opening diplomatic channels that Bush has slammed shut. You've got to know where to aim before you shoot.
The US IS following a comprehensive anti-terrorism program. That's the difference between the Bush approach and the Kerry/Clinton approach. I'm comfortable with the Bush approach. I'm sorry you aren't. Hopefully, we won't find out how effective (or ineffective) your approach would be.
patteeu
10-22-2004, 10:00 AM
I don't know whether Iraq has made al Queda weaker or stronger. I'd think invading Afghan was a positive. But the BushII claim that has struck me as very spurious (not that Kerry doesn't have soem as well) is that "if Zarqawii weren't fighting us over there he'd be over here, in 'Merica, fighting us."
When in fact, Zarqawii's point of interst prior to our invasion of Iraq was overthowing the govt of Jordan, and the CIA still isn't sure of what the exact connection between this guy and bin laden is/was. Moreover, the neocons in the Admin have snubbed King AbdullahII' and Queen Noor's attempts to "broaden" their perceptions of not just Iraq but the whole ME.
I agree with your first paragraph and about Zarqawi's goal. His goal is to "liberate" Jordan, much like Bin Laden's is to "liberate" Saudi Arabia.
The thing I don't agree with (maybe not your position, but the position of many Bush critics) is that our war is against Al Qaeda alone. Our war should be against the global militant islamist movement. As long as we continue to have vital national interests in the middle east (and I don't see that ending anytime soon), this movement is a threat to us that needs to be addressed.
If you read the 9/11 Commission report, especially the recommendations for changes, and the rationale for those changes, you'll understand that unless the US had gotten extremely lucky, 9/11 would not have been prevented. Some of the "dots" were there to be connected, but there was no mechanism, policy, procedure or plan in place to do that. I don't see how Bush, in 8 months in office, could have put into the place the large number of changes that would have been necessary for the 9/11 plot to have been discovered and averted.
The entire intelligence and military bureaucracy simply wasn't up to the task of figuring out what was going on - and it didn't fall apart after Bush took office, or during the Clinton administration. The systematic errors and mistakes and incorrect priorities, plans, and policies were the result of years, decades even, of failure to adapt to the post-Cold War threat from this new form of large-scale terrorism. I'll grant that Clarke was more attuned to this threat than almost the entire rest of the system (including both the Clinton and Bush administrations) but he admits that even if all his plans and ideas had been put in place almost as soon as he had recommended them, 9/11 would still have taken place.
Some have criticized the 9/11 Commission for not placing specific blame on specific individuals for their failures, but I tend to agree with their reasoning - 9/11 took place because of a massive failure of the government - the CIA, the FBI, the NSA, all the other intelligence agencies, the lack of communication between them, the incorrect interpretation of rules regarding interaction between the agencies, the turf wars, all that stuff.
Rohirrim
10-22-2004, 11:05 AM
Maybe Bush could have "shaken the tree", developed an immediate, focussed anti-terrorism plan (which Clinton suggested and gave ideas on), and pushed the FBI and CIA to concentrate their efforts toward uncovering Al Queda plots and still, 9/11 would have happened. We don't know. What we do know is what numerous individuals within the administration have reported: Bush did nothing. Rice did nothing. Cheney called the first meeting of his anti-terrorism group the week before 9/11. He was too busy doling out freebies to his oil buddies via his new, secret energy policy.
There are many Americans who ignore the failures of Bush and his crew. I'm not one of them. Too many Americans have died because of their incompetence.
Bottom line: They were warned. They did nothing.
Except prepare for Iraq.
The captain is responsible for his ship.
patteeu
10-22-2004, 11:11 AM
...
There are many Americans who ignore the failures of Bush and his crew. I'm not one of them.
No, you go to the other extreme. You manufacture failures that didn't really happen by taking advantage of hindsight that wasn't available at the time.
TailgateNut
10-22-2004, 11:18 AM
Maybe if George would have spent a bit more time at work, and less time vacationing he could have had someone explain things to him. The only thing he understands is the almighty $$$$.
bendog
10-22-2004, 11:32 AM
http://www.brookings.edu/views/op-ed/indyk/20040309.htm
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/text/2001820347_libya21.html
http://www.fpif.org/commentary/2004/0401libya.html
http://www.middle-east-online.com/english/libya/?id=8555
Samiwindr
10-22-2004, 11:49 AM
Bush can no more be blamed for 9/11 then he could for the stock market crash. Both of these events were set in motion long before he came into office. Reagan/Bush Sr. ultimately made an enemy out of OBL by failing to support the rebel cause after the cold war ended. Clinton only exacerbated the situation by lobbing cruise missles into OBL's terror camp.
Still, this 'war' on terror is lost if we continue with this foolish foreign policy. It is going to take an active and aggressive global partnership to slowly eradicate places for terrorists to hide. This is not being 'soft on terror' as some would suggest. It is simply owning up to the fact that we cannot do this alone and solely on our dime. We have to have the support of the people as well as their governments if we are going to find these pieces of s**t.
Even if we somehow manage to find the last remnants of terrorist factions in Afghanistan, they will simply move to Pakistan and Saudi Arabia (if they haven't already). As a global community, we have to tighten the noose on countries that allow the harboring of terrorists, whether or not they belong to Opec. This won't be accomplished if we continue a violent unilateral foreign policy that instills distrust among our allies and chaos in the coordination of a global anti-terrorist effort.
As an aside, I don't understand our dependence on using air strikes to kill a target. It didn't work in Afghanistan and it sure isn't working in Falluja. In terms of Clinton's retaliation, I don't understand the difference between violating airspace with cruise missles and landing an elite force on Afghan soil to kill/capture OBL and destroy his cell at the root. I'm sure both constituted some sort of UN violation, so why not just go for the whole enchilada then?
patteeu
10-22-2004, 12:00 PM
Maybe if George would have spent a bit more time at work, and less time vacationing he could have had someone explain things to him. The only thing he understands is the almighty $$$$.
And despite your concern for attendence records I assume you will be voting for Kerry? Were you going for irony or did you stumble into it?
Rohirrim
10-22-2004, 12:06 PM
No, you go to the other extreme. You manufacture failures that didn't really happen by taking advantage of hindsight that wasn't available at the time.
The failures of Bush pre-9/11 are debatable. The failures since, are not. I still see him clearly, without competition, as the most inept, unintelligent, incompetent President in American history.
Samiwindr
10-22-2004, 12:18 PM
The failures of Bush pre-9/11 are debatable. The failures since, are not. I still see him clearly, without competition, as the most inept, unintelligent, incompetent President in American history.
I'll second that. It's funny that Bush is so into prayer, because I'm betting roughly half the world population is praying he won't be re-elected at this point (and the other half are far more concerned with eating, avoiding bullets/machetes, and staying out of the rain to care in the first place).
patteeu
10-22-2004, 12:28 PM
http://www.brookings.edu/views/op-ed/indyk/20040309.htm
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/text/2001820347_libya21.html
http://www.fpif.org/commentary/2004/0401libya.html
http://www.middle-east-online.com/english/libya/?id=8555
I'll accept that there is some question about how much the Iraq war had to do with Libya's decision to disarm, but even if it wasn't the proximate cause, I don't accept your charge that if you give Bush credit for Libya that you have to blame him for 9/11. Here is a suggestion that the war did have an impact:
A spokesman for Mr Berlusconi said the prime minister had been telephoned recently by Col Gaddafi of Libya, who said: "I will do whatever the Americans want, because I saw what happened in Iraq, and I was afraid."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/09/04/wun04.xml
And from your own source, even the critics of the claim that the Iraq war was pivotal say that Bush deserves credit for finishing the deal:
The fact that Mr. Gadaffi was willing to give up his WMD programmes and open facilities to inspection four years ago does not detract from the Bush administration's achievement in securing Libya's nuclear disarmament.
Anyway, thanks for the links. They were interesting and informative.
TailgateNut
10-22-2004, 12:49 PM
And despite your concern for attendence records I assume you will be voting for Kerry? Were you going for irony or did you stumble into it?
What creates more of a problem? One out of 50 senators not attending, or the only "PRESIDENT" busy playing tiddlywinks in Texaaas and Maine half of the time he should be in the oval office! Then when he finds out the US is under attack, he sits there with a completly confused look (a Bush trademark), contemplating what to do next and how to help his Saudi friends get their asses out of the country! Frigging blind following the Dumb!
bendog
10-22-2004, 01:20 PM
btw, just so there's no misperception, I never blamed BushII for 9-11. I thought he shouldn't have reopened pipeling negotiations or given food aid to Afghan after the Cole and before 9-11, but I really don't think its possbile to blame anyone but al queda, and from what I've seen even they didn't know the jet fuel would burn so hot as to essentially melt the towers' strutural integrity
mosca
10-22-2004, 02:03 PM
Still, this 'war' on terror is lost if we continue with this foolish foreign policy. It is going to take an active and aggressive global partnership to slowly eradicate places for terrorists to hide. This is not being 'soft on terror' as some would suggest. It is simply owning up to the fact that we cannot do this alone and solely on our dime. We have to have the support of the people as well as their governments if we are going to find these pieces of s**t.
and what are we to do when the rest of the globe doesn't commit to joining us actively and aggressively? sit on our hands while the situation gets worse? as it stands we will probably never have the support of the -entire- globe on any major issue, particularly with the amount of misguided anti-american sentiment that exists (and has for a long while before gulfwarII). the wiser choice is to gather what allies we do have and go to work.
patteeu
10-22-2004, 03:56 PM
What creates more of a problem? One out of 50 senators not attending, or the only "PRESIDENT" busy playing tiddlywinks in Texaaas and Maine half of the time he should be in the oval office! Then when he finds out the US is under attack, he sits there with a completly confused look (a Bush trademark), contemplating what to do next and how to help his Saudi friends get their asses out of the country! Frigging blind following the Dumb!
You are the one who is confused if you think the President takes leisurely vacations. The guy is on the job 24/7 regardless of where he is.
I saw nothing wrong with the President's reaction to the news on 9/11. That particular critique is about as petty and insubstantial as you can get.
And what makes you think Kerry will have a better attendence record as president than he does as senator anyway?
Rohirrim
10-22-2004, 04:00 PM
Well, I know one thing; sixty years ago America was fighting the Nazis on one front and Imperial Japan on another, while at home we were suffering from the worst depression in our history. At that time, we had a Democratic President who looked the American people in the eye and told them, "We have nothing to fear but fear itself." That generation sacrificed their wealth, their blood, and their lives, and were victorious on all fronts.
Now we face a much smaller danger, by comparison, and we have a President and Vice President who run around the country telling the American people, "Vote from your fear, give us more power out of fear, trust us out of fear, listen to us out of fear."
Not exactly a rousing locker-room speech.
Will all this fear lead us to victory?
L.A. BRONCOS FAN
10-23-2004, 12:56 AM
"How nice that 75 percent of 'key members' of Al Qaeda have been captured, according to Bush. According to independent terrorism experts, the figure has no meaning at all."
http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?itemid=17851&area=dionne
http://www.bartcop.com/ballgag-oreilly.jpg
L.A. BRONCOS FAN
10-23-2004, 01:15 AM
How many Bush administration officials does it take to change a light bulb?
None. There's nothing wrong with that light bulb. There is no need to change anything. We made the right decision and nothing has happened to change our minds. People who criticize this light bulb now, just because it doesn't work anymore, supported us when we first screwed it in, and when these flip-floppers insist on saying that it is burned out, they are merely giving aid and encouragement to the Forces of Darkness.
-- John Cleese
L.A. BRONCOS FAN
10-23-2004, 01:18 AM
Part 2.
How many Bush administration officials does it take to change a light bulb?
SEVEN:
(1) one to deny that a light bulb needs to be replaced;
(2) one to attack and question the patriotism of anyone who has questions about the light bulb;
(3) one to blame the previous administration for the need of a new light bulb;
(4) one to arrange the invasion of a country rumored to have a secret stockpile of light bulbs;
(5) one to get together with Vice President Cheney and figure out how to pay Halliburton Industries one million dollars for a light bulb;
(6) one to arrange a photo-op session showing Bush changing the light bulb while dressed in a flight suit and wrapped in an American flag;
(7) and finally one to explain to Bush the difference between screwing a light bulb and screwing the country.
mosca
10-23-2004, 01:41 AM
Well, I know one thing; sixty years ago America was fighting the Nazis on one front and Imperial Japan on another, while at home we were suffering from the worst depression in our history. At that time, we had a Democratic President who looked the American people in the eye and told them, "We have nothing to fear but fear itself." That generation sacrificed their wealth, their blood, and their lives, and were victorious on all fronts.
Now we face a much smaller danger, by comparison, and we have a President and Vice President who run around the country telling the American people, "Vote from your fear, give us more power out of fear, trust us out of fear, listen to us out of fear."
Not exactly a rousing locker-room speech.
Will all this fear lead us to victory?
smart post. what i hate to say is that, in this day and age, with WMDs particularly nukes (found or not) proliferating to a level not seen in the WW2 era, we might actually have more to fear than we did back then.
patteeu
10-23-2004, 07:52 AM
smart post. what i hate to say is that, in this day and age, with WMDs particularly nukes (found or not) proliferating to a level not seen in the WW2 era, we might actually have more to fear than we did back then.
That's weird. First you say that Ro's post was smart and then you correctly point out that he was 180 degrees wrong on his central point.
mosca
10-23-2004, 10:01 PM
That's weird. First you say that Ro's post was smart and then you correctly point out that he was 180 degrees wrong on his central point.
maybe 'tis weird. i thought it was a clever comparison, but don't necessarily agree with the gist of it.
patteeu
10-25-2004, 08:26 AM
maybe 'tis weird. i thought it was a clever comparison, but don't necessarily agree with the gist of it.
I agree with your criticism of his post, I was just confused as to what was left of it that could be considered smart.
L.A. BRONCOS FAN
10-25-2004, 03:45 PM
"If a CEO took his company from record revenues to record debts, then bogged down his employees in a messy, costly project with no easy way out, shareholders would have no choice but to fire him. Given that, America's shareholders -- voters -- need to hire a new CEO on Nov. 2."
--Iowa City Press-Citizen, endorsing John Kerry
http://www.press-citizen.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20041023/OPINION03/410230304/1021
"Americans have gone from a generally happy time in the 1990s to disappointment. We pose the same question Reagan asked: Are you better off now than you were four years ago? Relatively few, we think, would answer that with "yes." It's definitely time for a fresh start."
--Pittsburgh Post Gazette Editorial, endorsing John Kerry
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/04298/400315.stm
L.A. BRONCOS FAN
10-25-2004, 04:24 PM
New Yorker magazine breaks with tradition, endorses Kerry
NEW YORK (AFP) - For the first time in its 80-year history, the venerable New Yorker magazine endorsed a presidential candidate, urging readers Monday to vote for Democrat John Kerry in next week's election.
"He is plainly the better choice," the weekly said in a lengthy editorial that excoriated the record of President George W. Bush on everything from health and the environment to his handling of the war in Iraq.
"As observers, reporters, and commentators we will hold (Kerry) to the highest standards of honesty and performance," the editorial said. "For now, as citizens, we hope for his victory."
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20041025/ts_alt_afp/us_vote_media_newyorker&cid=1506&ncid=2043
Rohirrim
10-26-2004, 06:09 AM
That's weird. First you say that Ro's post was smart and then you correctly point out that he was 180 degrees wrong on his central point.
This board has taught me one important thing: Don't argue with idealogues. They don't see, they don't hear - but they speak.
Let's see, one nuke goes off in an American city. A horrible thing to contemplate. But, is that it? The U.S. collapses? One bomb and the U.S. is dead? If we're that weak already, then the Bushies are absolutely right - we should be running around in terror shiiting in our collective pants. The wolfies win - we give up. What is the terrorist follow-up, after this hypothetical attack?
It's you that is strategically challenged, not me. Now picture the Nazis controlling all of Europe, including Great Britain and Russia, or Imperial Japan controlling the Pacific, including China. And in that context, imagine the second half of 20th Century. And you think some rughead in a cave is more dangerous than that? Bush has you right where he wants you.
patteeu
10-26-2004, 07:36 AM
This board has taught me one important thing: Don't argue with idealogues. They don't see, they don't hear - but they speak.
Let's see, one nuke goes off in an American city. A horrible thing to contemplate. But, is that it? The U.S. collapses? One bomb and the U.S. is dead? If we're that weak already, then the Bushies are absolutely right - we should be running around in terror shiiting in our collective pants. The wolfies win - we give up. What is the terrorist follow-up, after this hypothetical attack?
It's you that is strategically challenged, not me. Now picture the Nazis controlling all of Europe, including Great Britain and Russia, or Imperial Japan controlling the Pacific, including China. And in that context, imagine the second half of 20th Century. And you think some rughead in a cave is more dangerous than that? Bush has you right where he wants you.
One nuke in NYC will change your life dramatically. Moreso than a Nazi Europe, IMO. Bin Laden has you where he wants you.
Rohirrim
10-26-2004, 09:20 AM
One nuke in NYC will change your life dramatically. Moreso than a Nazi Europe, IMO. Bin Laden has you where he wants you.
Maybe Bush should rescind the 1.6 trillion dollar tax cuts to the wealthy, start securing nuclear weapons around the world, tripling customs and border guards, and inspecting every piece of cargo that comes into this country? No? Didn't think so. Everything is always peachy in Bushworld.
The same guys who were sitting on their hands waiting for 9/11 are now sitting on their hands waiting for the next one. Geez, you'd think somebody would have been fired by now.
patteeu
10-26-2004, 10:02 AM
Maybe Bush should rescind the 1.6 trillion dollar tax cuts to the wealthy, start securing nuclear weapons around the world, tripling customs and border guards, and inspecting every piece of cargo that comes into this country? No? Didn't think so. Everything is always peachy in Bushworld.
The same guys who were sitting on their hands waiting for 9/11 are now sitting on their hands waiting for the next one. Geez, you'd think somebody would have been fired by now.
Earlier in this thread you were telling us how little danger we face and suggesting that Bush was relying on unjustified fear to get re-elected. Now you are back telling us about the dramatic changes we need to make to protect ourselves and making fun of Bush supporters by sarcastically suggesting we think everything is "peachy in Bushworld." Which one is it, Chicken Little? Is the war against islamist militarism much ado about nothing or is the sky falling?
Rohirrim
10-26-2004, 10:06 AM
Earlier in this thread you were telling us how little danger we face and suggesting that Bush was relying on unjustified fear to get re-elected. Now you are back telling us about the dramatic changes we need to make to protect ourselves and making fun of Bush supporters by sarcastically suggesting we think everything is "peachy in Bushworld." Which one is it, Chicken Little? Is the war against islamist militarism much ado about nothing or is the sky falling?
I love those Repug twists of semantics. What did I really say?
Anyway, depends who's in charge. Under Bush, the threat has grown. Read the new thread I just posted on Nukes and Bush. His "gut instinct" approach creates more danger for us, not less. Iraq has created more terrorism. In the article posted, it seems they also have ideas on regime change in Iran. The more the militaristic approach is followed, the higher the danger level.
football idiot
10-27-2004, 10:56 AM
what's the point in inspecting this cargo F'n Kerry keeps squawking about when anybody who feels like it can waltz over the border with a nuke in his backpack?
you gotta look at the cost-benefits of some of these security measures. does J F'n K have a "PLAN" to spend trillions inspecting every piece of cargo shipped into the country? and if so, who's money is he using to pay for it?
Captain_Poncho
10-27-2004, 11:20 AM
Kerry's "plan" so far is to blame the President personally for anything that might be wrong, real or imagined:
According to Kerry, Bush is responsible for:
WMDs not being in Iraq.
380 tons of high yield explosives being missing from Iraq, despite overwhelming evidence that they were gone before our troops got there. (I guess THOSE weapons don't count)
Osama Bin Laden's attack on 9/11
A flu vaccine shortage
Oil prices rising (despite his claims that Bush was in bed with the Saudis to boost production and lower oil prices immediately before the election)
And next I suppose Kerry will be able to blame Bush for unfair temperature reductions around the country when winter approaches.
L.A. BRONCOS FAN
10-27-2004, 03:31 PM
According to Kerry, Bush is responsible for:
WMDs not being in Iraq.
Wrong. Smirk is responsible for deliberately manipulating intelligence and using bogus documents to make a case for non-existent WMD in Iraq. Team Smirk & Sneer not only assured us that WMD existed--they said they knew where the weapons were. Smirk deliberately misled us into an invasion of a country that had not attacked us and was no threat to us.
380 tons of high yield explosives being missing from Iraq, despite overwhelming evidence that they were gone before our troops got there. (I guess THOSE weapons don't count)
Wrong again. Your little Slate piece has been discredited. Our troops were already there before the explosives went missing. Further, AWOL Boy ignored his top military advisor when he was told we needed more boots on the ground to secure such caches.
Osama Bin Laden's attack on 9/11
Even a rethug on the 9/11 Commission has stated on the record that Smirk could have prevented the attacks. More-than-ample evidence has shown that BushCo was warned and did absolutely nothing.
A flu vaccine shortage
The buck stops at Smirk's desk. AWOL Boy also lied when he said we were getting vaccine from some British company and that vaccine made in Canada came from third world countries.
Oil prices rising (despite his claims that Bush was in bed with the Saudis to boost production and lower oil prices immediately before the election)
The rise in oil prices enriches Smirk and Dick and all their oil cronies. Long before the 2000 election, Cheney was working for higher oil prices. (Sources availible upon request.)
Anyway, I suppose you think higher prices and the presence of two oil men in the WH is just a coincidence, huh?
Stick to name-calling and bad jokes, Panocha: they're what you do best.
http://www.bartcop.com/lights-out-w.jpg
watermock
10-27-2004, 03:49 PM
According to Kerry, Bush is responsible for:
WMDs not being in Iraq.
Wrong. Smirk is responsible for deliberately manipulating intelligence and using bogus documents to make a case for non-existent WMD in Iraq. Team Smirk & Sneer not only assured us that WMD existed--they said they knew where the weapons were. Smirk deliberately misled us into an invasion of a country that had not attacked us and was no threat to us.
According to CBS, WMD was at his nuclear site. I guess Israel dien't count. That was the site they bombed that you have so much fun with, but there were no WMD.
[quote] 380 tons of high yield explosives being missing from Iraq, despite overwhelming evidence that they were gone before our troops got there. (I guess THOSE weapons don't count)
That is on his nuclear site and were supposed to be watched by the UN.
Wrong again. Your little Slate piece has been discredited. Our troops were already there before the explosives went missing. Further, AWOL Boy ignored his top military advisor when he was told we needed more boots on the ground to secure such caches.
Osama Bin Laden's attack on 9/11
Even a rethug on the 9/11 Commission has stated on the record that Smirk could have prevented the attacks. More-than-ample evidence has shown that BushCo was warned and did absolutely nothing.
push that comment. Your simply lying.
A flu vaccine shortageThe buck stops at Smirk's desk. AWOL Boy also lied when he said we were getting vaccine from some British company and that vaccine made in Canada came from third world countries
it was a British company you dimwit. It had zero to do with the FDA.
Oil prices rising (despite his claims that Bush was in bed with the Saudis to boost production and lower oil prices immediately before the election)
Fact of the matter is your buddy Soros has made millions. Only you would call increasing oil production some conspiracy.
The rise in oil prices enriches Smirk and Dick and all their oil cronies. Long before the 2000 election, Cheney was working for higher oil prices. (Sources availible upon request.)
Anyway, I suppose you think higher prices and the presence of two oil men in the WH is just a coincidence, huh?
Unreal. First, total assumption. The world market of oil doesn't revolve aroung Soros. They are running the price up, but it will stabilize. If LABF ran the country we would be swimming to Cuba.
Stick to name-calling and bad jokes, Panocha: they're what you do best.
http://www.bartcop.com/lights-out-w.jpg
There is always a Barcop image for LABS. He's a fool, he not well educated in economics whatsoever. He's able to become brainwashed like a Nazi, and quite honestly, is an idiot that can't even manage to get thru his own ego. He's incapable of looking at things thru wide eyes.
He is so willing to run with what his limited perception allows. It's like a Mel Brooks Movie but LABF is part of the comedy.
According to Kerry, Bush is responsible for: Osama Bin Laden's attack on 9/11
Even a rethug on the 9/11 Commission has stated on the record that Smirk could have prevented the attacks.
Have you read the report yet?
L.A. BRONCOS FAN
10-27-2004, 04:04 PM
Have you seen F 9/11 yet?
Have you seen F 9/11 yet?
I don't waste my time with ably discredited propaganda.
Read the 9/11 Commission report yet?
Been to opensecrets.org yet?
Found a time series graph of the US Gini coefficient yet?
Calculated the daily fill rate of the SPR since late 2001 and compared that to total US daily oil consumption yet?
L.A. BRONCOS FAN
10-27-2004, 04:07 PM
Consumer Confidence Hits 7-Month Low
How can the Monkey have a chance when America has no confidence in him?
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&ncid=749&e=1&u=/nm/20041026/bs_nm/economy_dc
L.A. BRONCOS FAN
10-27-2004, 04:11 PM
I don't waste my time with ably discredited propaganda.
Apparently, you don't waste your time with those facts which expose Bush incompetence, impropriety, and criminality either.
Have you decided on a new occupation for when your position as bush cabana boy ends six days from now?
L.A. BRONCOS FAN
10-27-2004, 04:12 PM
Only six more days to blow bush.
W*GS must be getting misty-eyed.
Apparently, you don't waste your time with those facts which expose Bush incompetence, impropriety, and criminality either.
The only thing F9/11 exposes is Moore's hatred and his willingness to lie, misrepresent, mislead, and manipulate to support that hatred.
Since you can't read the 9/11 report, I'm sure a child at the local elementary school can read it to you.
L.A. BRONCOS FAN
10-27-2004, 04:20 PM
Six more days until the likes of W*GS and watercock and their fellow extreme right-wingnuts slither back underneath the rocks from whence they came.
:thumbs:
I'm glad we can always count on LABF to keep the conversation mature, reasonable, vulgarity-free, and worthwhile.
PS - Why no comment on Carlyle/Soros?
patteeu
10-27-2004, 04:24 PM
Only six more days to blow bush.
W*GS must be getting misty-eyed.
Didn't you say in some other thread that you never resorted to ad hominem attacks unless it was in response to an attack on you?
LABF being honest and having integrity? You expect far too much of him, pateeu.
L.A. BRONCOS FAN
10-27-2004, 04:35 PM
Didn't you say in some other thread that you never resorted to ad hominem attacks unless it was in response to an attack on you?
You don't know the history.
W*GS directed so many ad hominem attacks my way at the old DPO that I owe him at least another years' worth of retribution.
Too bad I have to squeeze it all into just six days. ;)
You don't know the history.
Remember, pateeu, this is LABF's recollection. Be wary.
W*GS directed so many ad hominem attacks my way at the old DPO that I owe him at least another years' worth of retribution.
'Course, what LABF calls ad hominem is actually just plain ol' smackdown, since he dishes it out but obviously can't take it. He isn't interested in debate or discussion, he just wants revenge for being (rhetorically speaking) taken apart time and again.
Pity him.
L.A. BRONCOS FAN
10-27-2004, 10:46 PM
'Course, what LABF calls ad hominem is actually just plain ol' smackdown, since he dishes it out but obviously can't take it. He isn't interested in debate or discussion, he just wants revenge for being (rhetorically speaking) taken apart time and again.
ROFL!
"Taken apart?"
I'm starting to understand W*GS' fanatical defense of GeeDubya:
Both men suffer from the same napoleonic complex/delusions of grandeur.
Pity him.
But little fella: It is you who has only six days of shilling for the bush misadministration left to look forward to.
"Taken apart?"
I'm starting to understand W*GS' fanatical defense of GeeDubya:
Both men suffer from the same napoleonic complex/delusions of grandeur.
The irony of you saying such a thing is too much. I can always use a good guffaw in the morning.