Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama said this week that he would send troops into Pakistan if need be to hunt down al-Qaida head Osama bin Laden and his cohorts.
"If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf will not act, we will," he vowed.
Will the tough talk reassure voters unsure of Obama’s mettle and judgment as a war president? Or will it give new ammunition to Hillary Clinton’s recent charge that Obama is "naive" and "irresponsible" on foreign affairs, given the fragile political balance in Pakistan — a nuclear country?
Obama’s statement does highlight the fact that the perpetrator of 9/11 is still at large and planning new attacks six years after the event.
Why wouldn’t we want to take him out if we had the chance?
Posted by Randy Scholfield
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/22
- Regular on Open thread 11/22
- Regular on Open thread 11/22
- Rage on Open thread 11/22
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/22
- Chas on Open thread 11/22
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/22
- Boxlock20 on Open thread 11/22
- satatom on Open thread 11/22
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/22
216 Comments
Why wouldn’t we want to take him out?Well if Osama was gone, there would be no legitimate way to justify a continued ‘war on terror’ in its present state.
While I agree with Obama on this and also on meeting with adversaries I think this is one of those things best done covertly.
The sad thing is that there was such a window of opportunity in the weeks after Kabul fell but the decision was made to not act.
Planning? My ass. That is sooo propaganda, so let’s all be afraid while the bogeyman plans his awful “Plan of all Plans.”
Let the “Planning” begin along with the being afraid.
Remember that refrigerators kill 13 people every year, so in 5 years that’s 65 victims of “terrorist Refrigerators.”
If the area of Pakistan is not under Musharaff’s control, and is harboring/providing a safe haven for Al-Quida, why shouldn’t we go after them. I believe Bush firmly stated we would go after any country harboring Al-Quida, and no country in the world would be safe for them. But then, that was when bush actually thought about binnie.
Well, Randy, I’m all in favor of taking OBL out. However, if, in so doing, Musharaf becomes the late former President of Pakistan, with those more favorably disposed to OBL gaining control of the government and thereby the weapons, the stakes just got raised, didn’t they. Senator Obama’s statements are good political press, I assume, but seem a bit simplistic to me given the total seriousness of the potential consequences. Does this mean the U.S. gives up on taking OBL and his minions “out”? Of course not. Should there be very serious consideration given to all potential consequences of such action? Yes. Former SecDef Rumsfeld made the right call, it seems to me, in stopping the latest known attempt which was the subject of an earlier thread. It may come to pass that the risk of further instability in Pakistan is worth the effort, and, if so, I hope whoever it may be leading the Administration then in office does it.
In the late 1990s, didn’t the U.S. have Osama Bin Laden directly in their light of sight – one trigger pull and dead and no more Osama…
…and they inexplicably called it off.
Covertly is the key, as Ben stated. If we could send in a strike force of 12-25 men and/or air power; smoke the bastard. But as also stated by VT, the blow back HAS to be the #1 consideration.
Kansas, through the mists of time, my recollection is that there was a cruise missile attack planned, canceled at the last minute due to uncertainty of i.d., and the presence of other unrelated persons in the area.
I would appreciate Bush (at least as much as possible) if he would invite Osama to a meeting and do the job himself.
Yeah Vaughn, the version I remember.
I recall that we used up a lot of political capital with the Northern Alliance to arrange that and afterwards the aborted assassination directly resulted in the death of the Northern Alliance leader by those disguised “news” photographers with the bomb camera.
There was no concern for unrelated people in the area when the Northern Alliance leader was assassinated.
OBL is not the point. al-Qaeda is a battle cry for the killing of Arabs, Palestinians, Lebanese, Iraqis, Iranians, and introducing the Zionist-Jews, unrestrained and unbridled and financed while murdering their way onto Arab land.
You can’t kill an “Idea” especally when it’s true.
There is a solution which preserves an “All Jewish State” and a “Paestine” and the Saudi plan is fair to the Jews and stops violence against them by the Arab Nations themselves.
So?
Im guessing he did not get the OK from the Kossacks on this.
There seems to be lot of Tin-Foil on the ground over there…along with several small pieces of head from the small exploding ones.
A democrat threatening violence?A democrat who is appauled by interogating terrorists?
Give me a break!!
Osama is laughing his -SS off at Obama.
HAHAHAHAHA HEHE HEHE HAHA OHH HOOO.
ROTFLMAO!
In the late 1990s, didn’t the U.S. have Osama Bin Laden directly in their light of sight – one trigger pull and dead and no more Osama……and they inexplicably called it off.Posted by: Kansas | August 02, 2007 at 01:29 PM
You are correct and this is not to be confused with the cruise missile attack which inflicted heavy damage on the Osama outhouse.
The CIA hired locals to do the job while Osama was out hunting. BUT OSAMA WAS HUNTING WITH PROMINENT FAMILY MEMBERS FROM DUBAI’S RULING FAMILY (or something like that). WE DIDN’T WANT TO RISK KILLING GOOD ARABS.
(Interestingly, who do you suppose was and is funding Osama?)
The way … – that wouldn’t be the House of Saud would it?
If ever there was a dictator that needed propping up, it’s Musharaf, might as well do it militarilly, think of all the collateral al-quida/taliban sympathizers we could take out! But I guess it’s much easier taking out Iraq citizenry.
TWWW – Good call…
Thanks Sol,
I think it would have been more effective had I said, “Take out the Bin Laden family outhouse”,but I didn’t take creative writing.
Did I mention who was President at the time?
Clinton?
The way … – that wouldn’t be the House of Saud would it?Posted by: Ben | August 02, 2007 at 02:48 PM
Heck I don’t remember Ben. I got it from one of those 20-20, Sixty Minute specials, or maybe it was on the history channel. But the details are out there. Seems like it might have been Saudi princes,but I don’t remember to state as factual.
I’m sure someone can look it up. ;-)
I commend Obama for stating that he will go after the terrorists. I was wholeheartedly in support of the “war on terrorism” in its infancy, when it was in Afghanistan and we at least had the illusion that Bush was going after bin Laden and terrorists. I was appalled when he turned his sights on Iraq, and just could not believe the idiocy of Bush.
Posted by: TDT | August 01, 2007 at 11:23 AM
Sorry TDT, you better go back and look at the Congressional Record. The democrats in Congress voted to go to Iraq (yawn!).
And Osama is quaking in his boots over Obama. The prince of the surrendercrats threatens war! Obama doesn’t have a clue and it insults me that he thinks so little of the LIVES of our men and women in uniform as to make them into PAWNS for his political campaign.
http://in.rediff.com/news/2004/mar/25osama.htmhttp://www.guardian.co.uk/waronterror/story/0,1361,584444,00.htmlhttp://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11522484/http://thinkprogress.org/2006/02/22/bin-laden-uae-royals/http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=12684
Did Obama consider what affect his comments have on the wives and the mothers of our men in uniform? Put yourself in one of their places today and think about what Obama’s comments mean to your son or daughter.
“Osama is laughing his -SS off at Obama.”
Posted by: Rath | August 02, 2007 at 02:42 PM
OBL knows how to influence U.S politics.
‘Bush Is al-Qaeda’s Strategic Ally’http://www.consortiumnews.com/2007/071907.html“The last-minute intervention [in Fall 2004] by bin Laden – essentially urging Americans to reject Bush – had the predictable effect of driving voters to the President. After the videotape appeared, senior CIA analysts concluded that ensuring a second term for Bush was precisely what bin Laden intended….Bin Laden, a well-educated Saudi and a keen observer of U.S. politics, appears to have recognized the same point in cleverly tipping the election to Bush.”
Well I was close SOL. Here I was thinking my old age was creaping up on me.
However, the facts do not all agree within the links – but they are a GOOD place for someone to get close to the truth.
Thanx
Why wouldn’t we want to take him out if we had the chance?Posted by Randy Scholfield
Just wanting to axe if everyone here does realize Pakistan IS nuclear?
“Did Obama consider what affect his comments have on the wives and the mothers of our men in uniform? Put yourself in one of their places today and think about what Obama’s comments mean to your son or daughter.”
You ever think about what Bush has done to those same sons and daughters, and their families?
Bin Laden, a well-educated Saudi and a keen observer of U.S. politics, appears to have recognized the same point in cleverly tipping the election to Bush.”Posted by: cosmos | August 02, 2007 at 03:13 PM
I won’t disagree with you cosmos on this point. He is much more experienced than young Obama who never wore a uniform.
You ever think about what Bush has done to those same sons and daughters, and their families?Posted by: stumper | August 02, 2007 at 03:19 PM
Do two wrongs make a right?
Is it just me or does anyone else see huge connections between specific Arab nations and the Bushes. Saudi wanted Iraq contained and no longer a threat. Think Iraq is a threat now? Iran is the only Saudi threat now. Guess where GW has his sights set…
And y’all know the ties between the Saudis, the Bushes, and the Carlyle group. Are we sacrificing American troops to further the ties with the Saudis and the UAE to have a 3 party dictatorship over the bulk of the world’s oil supply?
Connecting the dots really isn’t that hard is it? Or am I just seeing spots…
Trolls, trolls and more trolls.
Why bother?
.
Absolutely true Sol. Check out Fahrenheit 911 for the details.
The only problem with that movis is that the actor portraying Bush was just too unbelievable. Nobody could be THAT stupid!
What kind of horse do you have Sol?
Very simple solution. Musharaf cedes dominion over the lawless tribal areas. We deliver the same ultimatum given to the Taliban, then we follow through. If Musharaff wants what’s left when we get done, he just reclaims it.
Trolls, trolls and more trolls.Why bother?Posted by: WSClark | August 02, 2007 at 03:26 PM
So just post your opinion and move along. Nothing stopping you other than your own fear. Move along now, or come on in, the waters fine!
I’ve always thought a little strange of conspiracy theorists, but the whole 9/11 deal… The way the buildings came down. And Bldg7… WTF is up with that?
We found Saddam in a hole in a tiny little town. We can’t find bin Laden?
The Bushes have deep ties with the bin Laden family
The Bushes have deep ties with the Saudis?
I am betting it goes well beyond the Bushes as far as presidents are concerned. There is too much that doesn’t add up. Or that adds up in the wrong direction.
I’ve had enough of the Bush appeasers, it’s time for definitive action. His latest strategy of giving 750 mil. in economic aid and duty free trade with the Pakistan tribal areas is another non-starter, and plain stupid. If they won’t give Osamma up for 60 mil. cash reward a little economic pandering isn’t goig to do the trick!
Sorry TDT, you better go back and look at the Congressional Record. The democrats in Congress voted to go to Iraq (yawn!).Eagle Beak | August 02, 2007 at 03:11 PM
First, not all the dems did vote for Iraq, specifically Obama DID NOT!! Second, the Congress was controlled by the Republicans. And last but not least, I am pointing out my opinion that I WAS NEVER FOR THE IRAQ WAR, and was PISSED that somehow our country went from going after OBL, to going after Saddam in Iraq.
We had Obama cornerd in bora bora, but bush the bright decided it would make better tv if we turned the operation to our afghan. buddies, who let him slip into Pakistan.
“other than your own fear”
No fear here – that is well known – but what a waste of a public blog when the trolls are allowed to run wild and the “Editors” do nothing about it.
What a joke – and the bad thing is that the trolls know who they are and seem to relish in their roles of trolling, nic switching and disrupting the blog.
Worse yet, MOST of the trolls are from the right wing.
This is a lost cause.
But then, the blog has folks like KSGrm that make up their own facts.
What more could you expect?
.
Dems did NOT vote to go to war. They FOOLISHLY voted to give Bush discretionary power to pressure Saddam. Bush then decided to invade. Just like Bush decided to abandon the hunt for the friend of the House of Saud.
Worse yet, MOST of the trolls are from the right wing.Posted by: WSClark | August 02, 2007 at 03:48 PM
Oh yes, this is an evil plot by the right wing to undermind the youth of America. HEHE. Shhhh!NOT!
Are the trolls posting their opinions? Are they respectful?
If you don’t like it lump it.
Don’t go away mad. Just go away.
I do relish in your insane focus on trolls, but that’s as far as it goes. If posters post opinions, oh never mind. It is lost on you who feel “ownership” of the blog.
It is lost on you who feel “ownership” of the blog.
Posted by: Troll Nbr 43987651.21B | August 02, 2007 at 03:56 PM
*****************************************
Thanks for your comment, Republank, but your opinion means absolutely zip around here.
Thanks for trying anyway.
Loser.
.
Thanks Ben, that’s my point but apparently I didn’t make it very well. That point, and the point that there WERE quite a few people out there like myself that were appalled when GWB moved his focus from OBL to Saddam. I thought, for about a minute mind you, that I would have to eat crow for bashing Bush from the moment…well, from the moment I found out he was running for President. He seemed to actually be on the right track, then…BAM!!! He totally derailed and took us on a flash back trip to Vietnam via the Iraq War.
He is much more experienced than young Obama who never wore a uniform.
Posted by: Rath | August 02, 2007 at 03:21 PM
Coming from a conservative, that’s really funny. I guess Bush wore a uniform….when he wasn’t AWOL. Cheney never wore a uniform thank God. We’d have a bunch of old vets with face wounds.
Imagine conservatives, party of the ChickenHawks, pointing out that Obama never wore a uniform. That’s so rich!
XXX – Apparently that was Rath trying to not tell a lie, by making a true statement that is misleading. It was funny, though, his pathetic attempt to make Bush, of all people, seem as though he had done SOMETHING worthy in his life. He WORE a uniform. Notice he didn’t mention him serving his country. Still shaking my head…
Actually TDT, Bush was trained as a pilot, jet qualified in the TNG.
Much better than some of the knuckle dragging vets on this blog who had to be taught how to wipe their backsides first before released back to the public.
I know that will piss off something of the Lib vets, but they deserve it for making comments about a fellow Veteran just because of their political views.
But hey, what can you expect from mindless grunts.
Did all the left wing get together to watch Farhencrap 9-11 this week or something?
You guys seem to be especially frothy at the mouth with the Bush is tied to Saudi crap this week.
Or was it in the latest Democratic Talking points?
So what if he has ties?
My my Nathan – I think YOU are the one frothing.
Attention all trolls, attention all trolls!
Troll Nbr 43987651.21AYou are hereby order to proceed and report to your new blog located at demspeak.com NLT 2359 on 20070802. You are authorized 1 bag of carry on repubican shields, no HHG shipment, 3 hours per diem and 0 preceed.
Troll Nbr 43987651.21B
You are hereby order to proceed and report to your new blog located at democraticunderground.com NLT 2359 on 20070802. You are authorized 1 bag of carry on repubican shields, no HHG shipment, 3 hours per diem and 0 preceed.
Failure to comply with these orders is a violation of Art 87, UCMJ (troll version) and is punishiable by loss of gold bond stamps.
SignedI. R. Troll SrCapt USMTrollsCommanding
Ok guys….
You post more posts about trolls than the Trolls post themselves.
Just ignore them.
Troll Nbr 43987651.21ATroll Nbr 43987651.21B
Did I ask you to speak! I’ve had it up to here with you christian conservative republican trolls. How many times do you have to be told: NEVER reveal your Troll Service Number when on duty. You are only bound to provide that if captured. Now you two have allowed the liberal enemy something with which to identify yourselves! Your insubordination brings potential danger all all your fellow repubican Trolls. And to be a Troll is to live forever. Trolls never die, because they never take a shower. You are an embarrasement to the frozen chosen Trolls. Keep it up and I’ll have your -ss assigned to the elementary school blogs where you will be forced to post repetitive brain washing conservative posts to children in nursery rhymes! No more USS Neverfloat for you two.
Now get your acts together on your next assignment or I’ll have you bending and thrusting all over the place!!! Begin M.F’s!
3rd Herd. heh
Been awhile since I’ve heard that Unit Designation. Can’t remember when I saw them last on their rotation. Was either in Wiesbaden GE or Tinker AFB.
Guys kept us from smacking into each other in the big sky. :)
Not without permission from Pakistan you won’t.
I guess Obama missed the news that when Pakistan sent their best army over to the badlands of that country, over 600 Pakistani soldiers were killed within a few days.
I’m all for it Obama. I think we should, but you will be tarnished with a huge casualty figure and I believe you won’t do it. Because it’s politics and your own ass above security for finding Osama.
Pssst! I seem to remember we had a President named Clinton. He served too.
(sitting there on that sack of seeds.)
Nathan. No joke brother. do some research. Look at the Bushes past and their ties to Saudi. GW in particular. Look at Bush Sr. and the Carlyle group.
The facts are there Nathan. Look it up, let’s talk about it. Party lines and personal attacks aside. Serioulsy, look it up.
3rd herd. Bonus points for the one that can -Name that unit- and why they are important.
Trolls, trolls and more trolls.
And Nathan is suggesting that we just ignore the trolls – he of the vicious attacks on Tracy via trolling.
Superman’s Cape anyone?
And good Lord – Republank is now claiming an opposition to trolls.
What is this blog/world coming to?
.
In the late 1990s, didn’t the U.S. have Osama Bin Laden directly in their light of sight – one trigger pull and dead and no more Osama…
…and they inexplicably called it off.
Posted by: Kansas
It was called off by Republicans refusing to let Bill Clinton take Bin laden out – that is why we still have the big bad boogeyman. So, Kansas, you can thank your beloved Republicans for that missed opportunity.
Just wanting to axe if everyone here does realize Pakistan IS nuclear?
Posted by: True American
and who helped them become nuclear? Bush and gang – that’s who.
WS Clark,
Are you still dragging that dead weight around your neck?
Why don’t you let Tracy fight his own battles?
If he has a problem with me then lets settle it like men instead of you using it as a hammer like some childish little girl.
My goodness man, that was years ago, get a life.
Nathan,
A jumping off point for you. Don’t believe the Bush/Saudi/Carlyle Group links. Prove it wrong…
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines01/1211-05.htm
http://www.hereinreality.com/carlyle.html
http://www.bushwatch.com/bushmoney.htm
http://www.truthout.org/docs_01/0662.Bush.Saudi.htm
http://www.pacifica.org/programs/dn/030703.html
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Corporate_Welfare/CarlyleGroup_HMOWD%3F.html
In the late 1990s, didn’t the U.S. have Osama Bin Laden directly in their light of sight – one trigger pull and dead and no more Osama…
…and they inexplicably called it off.
Posted by: Kansas
It was called off due to the proximity of UAE royalty.
Think there is no link to OBL/UAE/Funds/Saudi/
SolDevVB,
I think you are mistaken.
I know there is a connection.
My statement was that:
“So what if he has ties?”
and who helped them become nuclear? Bush and gang – that’s who.
Posted by: kate | August 02, 2007 at 06:21 PM
You are either not telling the truth or ignorant. Please look up when Paki became nuclear. (sigh)
SOL,
No disrespect intended, but the term third herd may stand for something other than what you expect from air force experience. As an example, in the Marine Corps infantry, the 3rd Squad in an infantry company is affectionately called “third herd”. Nothing special about them. All 0311 infanty, couple of 0369 leaders and an 0302 usually butter bar 2nd luee as commander.
Nathan,
You don’t understand how his ties to Saudi impact his presidency:? Let’s take a look. What was it 15 or 19 of the 9/11 terrorists were from Saudi? Just less than half of the foreign fighters in Iraq are Saudi. Half of those foreign fighters are suicide bombers.
I seem to remember Bush saying sooooomthing like – if you harbor or aid terrorist, we’ll be on you like stink on poop. But…. Nothing is really happening in Saudi.
How would you explain that Nathan?
“My goodness man, that was years ago, get a life.”
Why don’t you be a REAL man and admit that you made those dispicable statements regarding Tracy’s Dad, Nathan?
Be a man, little boy or STFU.
Easy, right?
.
SolDevVB,
Obviously, I don’t seem to understand what YOU THINK his ties to Saudi are doing to effect his Presidency.
What any of that has to do with people from Saudi fighting in Iraq I don’t know.
Is the Saudi government aiding them? No. Not that I know of or you can prove.
Is the Saudi government providing them training? No. Not that I know of or you can prove.
Is the Saudi government harboring them? No. Not that I know of or you can prove.
What I do know, is that the Saudi government has been very cooperative and supportive of us in our war on terror so far.
Do you have anything to add?
WS Clark,
I have admitted to what I said and what I did.
What I didn’t do was admit to what WS Clark is going around saying I said or did.
If you really want to get into this, then please feel free to tell me what horrendous things I said which I should be a man about admitting to?
I can tell you exactly what happened, which you seem to gloss over.
Tracy was the one who came into that thread accusing me and several others of prolonging his fathers ailment by refusing to support stem cell research.
Tracy was the one who was using his father as a bully club on us to say we should support stem cell research.
Tracy was the one saying those who opposed stem cell research were preventing his father from being cured.
I called Tracy on it.
I stand by what I said.
I also stand by my word to not talk about this unless someone like you brought it back up.
I also stand by my prayers for Tracy’s fathers health and recovery and words similar offered to Tracy.
So, go ahead and keep making a bid deal of it WS Clark.
I said nothing of which I am ashamed.
“The Bushes have deep ties with the bin Laden family
The Bushes have deep ties with the Saudis?”
Bush Likes holding and kissing
House votes for more leave for troops in Iraq By Susan Cornwell
2 hours, 1 minute ago
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The U.S. House of Representatives voted on Thursday to require more leave for U.S. troops in Iraq, defying a veto threat from the White House that said it infringed on President George W. Bush’s authority as commander in chief.
ADVERTISEMENTThe legislation, part of a stream of votes on the unpopular war, passed the Democratic-led House by 229-194. It was unclear if it would advance in the more closely divided Senate where a similar bill failed last month.
Supporters said overstretched U.S. forces were ground down by repeated redeployments in the 4 1/2-year Iraq war, often without adequate rest in between.
“We all know there are people on their third or fourth deployment” in a war that began in 2003, the bill’s sponsor, California Democratic Rep. Ellen Tauscher, said in a telephone interview with Reuters. “It’s obvious they are not getting enough downtime.”
U.S. soldiers were “deployed, depleted, desperate,” said Rep. Walter Jones of North Carolina, one of six Republicans to vote for the bill.
The legislation requires that active-duty troops spend as much time at home as the length of their previous deployment before they could be sent back to Iraq. National Guard and Reserve troops could not be sent back without having been home at least three times the period of their previous deployment.
It contains an emergency waiver for the president. But critics said it would tie the hands of commanders and infringe on the president’s constitutional authority — including that of the next president, who will be elected next year.
Pointing out that Democratic presidential hopeful Sen. Barack Obama said this week the United States must be willing to strike at al Qaeda targets inside Pakistan, Michigan Republican Rep. Candice Miller asked: “How would this legislation affect his ability to do that?
“Could they immediately be deployed to Pakistan by a President Obama?”
She and other Republicans said the House action was pointless just weeks before a September update on the war from U.S. Iraq commander Gen. David Petraeus.
Separately, an administration proposal for military aid packages worth billions of dollars to Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states drew more skepticism.
Rep. Mike Ferguson, a New Jersey Republican, and other lawmakers said they had collected signatures from more than 100 colleagues in both parties vowing to stop the deal when it goes to Congress later this year.
The Pentagon on Thursday gave members of the Senate Armed Services Committee a closed-door briefing on contingency planning for troop withdrawals from Iraq.Damn dems. still trying to give the troops time off!
You ever think about what Bush has done to those same sons and daughters, and their families?Posted by: stumper | August 02, 2007 at 03:19 PM
Do two wrongs make a right?
Posted by: Eagle Beak | August 02, 2007 at 03:22 PM
Well tiny weenione of the two is the prez, so you fool no one with your talk about the troops.
Phantom,
If you actually think the Dems are trying to give the troops time off, then I have no words for you.
It is a political ploy, nothing more.
If you want to give us more time off, then you need to increase the size of our military.
Otherwise, this is simply another round about way of trying to make fighting the war more difficult for the President to do.
Nathan,
You don’t understand how his ties to Saudi impact his presidency:? Let’s take a look. What was it 15 or 19 of the 9/11 terrorists were from Saudi? Just less than half of the foreign fighters in Iraq are Saudi. Half of those foreign fighters are suicide bombers.
I seem to remember Bush saying sooooomthing like – if you harbor or aid terrorist, we’ll be on you like stink on poop. But…. Nothing is really happening in Saudi.
How would you explain that Nathan?
Posted by: SolDevVB | August 02, 2007 at 06:39 PM
There are Saudis in Iraq fighting Americans. Fact. Disprove it.
What exactly are the Saudis doing about it?
What have the Saudis done for us lately, besides provide enemies that kill American troops?
So you are defending the Saudis now as well as Bush. do you own stock in the Carlyle Group or are you too blind to see what is going on?
Sol,
When you address my points instead of simply saying what you already said once before, again, then talk to me.
Nathan,Read the following. Turning a blind eye to terrorism is not much different from supporting it.
“The Saudis supported Al-Qa’ida, but now they are trying to destroy it. There are three ways the Saudis may have helped Al-Qa’ida.
The first way is direct state support. In his recent book, Senator Bob Graham says that the Saudis directly supported Al-Qa’ida. This allegation is not well-substantiated, but has not definitively been proven false. The 9-11 Commission found no evidence of direct government support, but it is unlikely to have found evidence of such support if it occurred. On the other hand, there is good evidence that the Saudis tried to have Bin Laden killed. Senator Graham says himself that what may have happened is that some individuals in the Saudi government supported Al-Qa’ida without government permission.
Second, Saudi individuals and NGOs tied to the government poured money into religious charities, fueling a network of jihad which benefited Al-Qa’ida. Much of the money flowed to terrorism, from Kashmir to Chechnya to Bosnia, to Afghanistan, and of course to the Palestinians. The Saudis have paid protection money to terror groups in the past. These sorts of payoffs may have occurred with Al-Qa’ida.
The Saudis also provided ideological support to Al-Qa’ida. Even though the Wahhabism of Saudi Arabia today differs somewhat from the salafist jihadism of Bin Ladin, Saudi institutions tied to government spread a virulent ideology that is anti-Israeli, anti-American, and promotes the idea that Islam is under Western attack. Since 1975, the Saudis have spent an estimated $70 billion to spread Wahhabism outside the Kingdom through mosques, schools, and Islamic centers.
Why give this support? There is tremendous domestic Saudi support for jihadist causes and anti-American ideas. The government followed public opinion. In Saudi Arabia, jihadis are heroes. Backing these people helps provide the rulers with legitimacy.
A second reason is the limited threat that the terrorists were thought to pose in Saudi Arabia. They were long content to let extremists travel to make jihad. One problem is that most of these people eventually came back.
The US ability to push a Saudi crackdown on terrorism is limited. The government is run by a few powerful people who have masses of incompetent underlings. Thus only a few people can actually accomplish change. It is thus hard get more than a couple things done when dealing with the Saudis.
Additionally, because they have no income tax, the government loses a huge degree of control over people and finances. On the other hand, because it is a closed society with strong family linkages, the government has advantages in domestic intelligence gathering.
Why did the Saudi attitude change? 9/11 helped, but May 12, 2003 was far more important. That was the first terrorist attack on Saudi soil. Because the attacks killed Arabs and Muslims, the regime could rally popular support. They got credible clerics to criticize the terrorists and began to develop a counter-terror capability.”
Maybe one way to increase the military would be to reinstitute the draft….once everyone in this country is sharing the sacrifice, we’d be out of there faster than you could blink an eye. The way it is now, it’s too easy to stay detached and focus on other things besides the war.
“Is the Saudi government aiding them? No. Not that I know of or you can prove.”
They aren’t stopping them. So, if you don’t stop an enemy, isn’t that aiding them. If your neighbor’s kid was kicking your dog and your neighbor did nothing about it…
Common sense. They do nothing to ebb the flow, so they must see nothing wrong with it. By Bush’s own words, we should overthrow their government. Disprove that.
“Is the Saudi government providing them training? No. Not that I know of or you can prove.”
Can’t be proved by me because I have no assets in place.
They are entering Iraq and killing Americans. Why is our government not investigating that? Shouldn’t that be a priority? I mean, Americans are dying because of it. Or is that not really a problem for you?
“Is the Saudi government harboring them? No. Not that I know of or you can prove.”
They are Saudi citizens. By default they are harboring. Again, they do nothing about it, so…
Or is it OK with you if they stream over the border and kill Americans, your brothers in arms. Starting to sound like you like the Saudis more than your fellow troops.
“What I do know, is that the Saudi government has been very cooperative and supportive of us in our war on terror so far.”
They have stated on a global forum that the war in Iraq is illegal. That is helping us exactly how? Can you show proof of what they are doing to help us?
“Do you have anything to add?”Yes. Saudis are killing Americans. The Saudis and Bush are doing nothing about it. Can you explain?
Bush has been bailed out to the tune of multi-million dollars by the Saudis on more than one occasion. Bush does nothing about the terrorists streaming out of Saudi to kill Americans. You defend the Saudis and Bush’s inaction towards the Saudis. Do you have anything to add?
http://www.dvorak.org/blog/?p=12751
If these people that believed in this war would stand up and put ass were their mouth is we could double the troops in Iraq and make the country like one big prison, and if they would stay as long as it takes some day we could claim victory, but until the people talking the talk walk the walk instead of believing some one else should fight for them, they should be shown for the chickens their are. Nathan I disagree with just about everything you say but you do walk the walk, instead of posting your remarks towards the people that don’t believe in this war why don’t you find away to convince the ones who believe like you to fight because surly their would be enough to do the job if the ones running their mouth would stand up and back it up.
I saw my name being thrown out by Woooos Clark again. Do you ever have anything new and relevent to add to any discussion? If the trolls all go away will you go away too?
Lets hear the list of my lies again. Start with the one about my son who spent 10 years in the Navy and served in the first Gulf War. I erronously said that he was in when the Cole was bombed and attacked your boy bill at the same time. I listed that one for you. Lets hear this long list you are supposed to have.
Poor woos, eventhough I admitted my error several times you still insist on throwing your lies around.
Maybe you should quit smoking pot – I heard yesterday that smoking it kills off 40% of your brain cells. I don’t think you have many more to lose.
SolDevVB,
“They aren’t stopping them.”
First of all, they do not condone it. You simply can’t stop every person who wants to leave Saudi to fight in Iraq from doing so.
Bush is stopping them on the other side. They are being killed and hunted down by our forces.
To sit here and say nothing is being done is absurd.
“Saudi Effort Draws on Radical Clerics to Combat Lure of Al-Qaeda”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/06/AR2006050601072_pf.html
“COLLINS CALLS U.S.-SAUDI EFFORT TO CRACK DOWN ON TERRORIST FINANCIERS A “POSITIVE STEP””
http://hsgac.senate.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressReleases.Detail&Affiliation=R&PressRelease_id=636&Month=1&Year=2004
I can post articles and government reports all day long Sol.
The simple fact is that since day one Saudi Arabia has been working with us to fight terrorism.
You make difinitive statements that they are not doing anything.
Well, you have been proven wrong.
“The simple fact is that since day one Saudi Arabia has been working with us to fight terrorism.”
Too bad that reality is not as neatly ordered as the “facts” in Nathan’s mind [sic].
This document disputes Nathan’s false assertion.
http://www.jcpa.org/jl/vp504.htm
Steven,
My statement didn’t say that Saudi Arabia had never been a part of terrorism in some way nor did my statement say that they do not still in some way.
My statement is still true.
Since day one they have been helping us to fight terrorism.
The situation and their dealing with Hamas and Israel is a whole different ball of wax.
Either way, it doesn’t disprove my statement.
Nathan, I heard the other day that the Shiite Militias are posing a bigger threat to our soldiers than Al-Qaeda, what do you think?Are things getting any better in Iraq from an insiders point if view?Are you going back?
For once I agree with you Repuke. Too many arm chair warriors and not enough “walking the walk”. It’s easy to be supportive of the war when your life or your loved one’s life isn’t the one on the line.
I have not been an “insider” since March.
I doubt I will be going back for at least a couple of years.
The Reserves forces are on a less frequent rotation than Active forces and on top of that I am now serving as a Staff Sergeant Armorer which is even less needed.
The Shiites and Sunnis have typically been killing themselves more than us.
So I am not sure where you heard that they were the bigger threat to us.
I think many things are getting better, while some areas are still not so great.
“Either way, it doesn’t disprove my statement.”
I wasn’t anticipating that you’d own up to your oversimplistic characterization.
The truth is the Saudis will tell us one thing, and go about supporting the Sunnis in Iraq at the same time. Is it in the U.S. interests to have Saudis supporting Sunni insurgents?
This article -http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/12/13/saudi.sunnis/index.html points out that while the Saudi government may not (at this time, anyway) officially support the Sunnis in Iraq, many wealthy Saudi citizens do. So, I guess you could argue that the government is not responsible for what its citizens do. I sure that would be the position of the U.S. government if any of our citizens were financially supporting anyone of interest to us in say Cuba, right?
It was called off by Republicans refusing to let Bill Clinton take Bin laden out – that is why we still have the big bad boogeyman. So, Kansas, you can thank your beloved Republicans for that missed opportunity.
Posted by: kate | August 02, 2007 at 06:18 PM
Not hardly kate.
If you read page 140 of the 911 Commission report you will find that the U.S. blew several opportunities to take Bin Laden out.
This was the statement of the field operative (military) who had “eyes on” Bin Laden in Afghanistan.
“It was a fat pitch, a home run.”
He expected the missiles to fly. When the decision came back that they should stand down, not shoot, the officer said, “We all just slumped. Bin Laden should have been a dead man that night,” he said.====It was rumored that the phone call that Sandy Berger made that night was to Richard Clarke and Clarke called it off.
Oh yeah, this was in the same month that the Chinese Embassy was blown up in the Yugo war, so the Clinton boys were gun shy.
Wrong again kate, must be frustrating for you.
Allow me to clarify my intentions here, since apparently now I am getting sucked into a discussion I never wanted.
I am not in anyway in support of Saudi or claiming they are above reproach.
My stance here is that when others, like Sol, are going to push their claims that somehow Bush’s connections are preventing him from fighting the war on terror and that he and Saudi Arabia are doing nothing, is wrong.
That in no way is meant to be an indicator of my faithfull and unyielding support and praise for Saudi Arabia.
It was rumored that the phone call that Sandy Berger made that night was to Richard Clarke and Clarke called it off.
Oh yeah, this was in the same month that the Chinese Embassy was blown up in the Yugo war, so the Clinton boys were gun shy.
Wrong again kate, must be frustrating for you.
Posted by: Kansas
Funny how you use the word ‘rumored’. That is all you base your facts on are rumors?
How about the fact that Clinton left a detailed plan to fight terror and Bush and his gang dismissed it like it was a bag of dog poop while they went busily on their way to start a war with Iraq.
And, yet, people like you are still defending the little emperor. How come you aren’t in the trenches in Iraq? If you feel so strongly about the war, then go fight it. Don’t be like Bush and be happy to send other peoples’ loved ones into the fight. Go fight your own fight.
I thought this blog was about Obama and Osama?
Or have all the WE BLOG deteriorated into the squirrely rampage of sick Bush haters?
Seriously, what is Open Thread was for most of this stuff? Or do you all just “hang out” together whereever that happens to be on this little red state blog?
PRESIDENT BUSH’S AMAZING ACCOMPLISHMENTS Pt #1
Abortion & Traditional Values1. Banned Partial Birth Abortion — by far the most significant roll-back of abortion on demand since Roe v. Wade.
2. Reversed Clinton’s move to strike Reagan’s anti-abortion Mexico Policy.
3. By Executive Order (EO), reversed Clinton’s policy of not requiring parental consent for abortions under the Medical Privacy Act.
4. By EO, prohibited federal funds for international family planning groups that provide abortions and related services.
5. Upheld the ban on abortions at military hospitals.
6. Made $33 million available for abstinence education programs in 2004.
7. Supports the Defense of Marriage Act — and a Constitutional amendment saying marriage is between one man and one woman.
8. Requires states to conduct criminal background checks on prospective foster and adoptive parents.
9. Requires districts to let students transfer out of dangerous schools.
10. Requires schools to have a zero-tolerance policy for classroom disruption (reintroducing discipline into classrooms).
11. Signed the Teacher Protection Act, which protects teachers from lawsuits related to student discipline.
12. Expanded the role of faith-based and community organizations in after-school programs.
Budget, Taxes & Economy1. Signed two income tax cuts, one of which was the largest dollar-value tax cut in world history.
2. Supports permanent elimination of the death tax.
3. Turned around an inherited economy that was in recession, and deeply shocked as a result of the 9/11 attacks.
4. Is seeking legislation to amend the Constitution to give the president line-item veto authority.
5. In process of permanently eliminating IRS marriage penalty.
6. Increased small business incentives to expand and to hire new people.
7. Initiated discussion on privatizing Social Security and individual investment accounts.
8. Killed Clinton’s “ergonomic” rules that OSHA was about to implement; rules would have shut down every home business in America.
9. Passed tough new laws to hold corporate criminals to account as a result of corporate scandals.
10. Reduced taxes on dividends and capital gains.
11. Signed trade promotion authority.
12. Reduced and is working to ultimately eliminate the estate tax for family farms and ranches.
13. Fight Europe’s ban on importing biotech crops from the United States.
14. Exempt food from unilateral trade sanctions and embargoes.
15. Provided $20 million to states to help people with disabilities work from home.
16. Created a fund to encourage technologies that help the disabled.
17. Increased the annual contribution limit on Education IRA’s from $500 to $2,000 per child.
18. Make permanent the $5,000 adoption tax credit and provide $1 billion over five years to increase the credit to $10,000.
19. Grant a complete tax exemption for prepaid or college tuition savings plans.
20. Reduced H1B visas from a high of 195,000 per year to 66,000 per year.
PRESIDENT BUSH’S AMAZING ACCOMPLISHMENTS Pt #2
Undeniable:
Character & Conduct as President1. Changed the tone in the White House, restoring HONOR and DIGNITY to the presidency.
2. Has reintroduced the mention of God and faith into public discourse.
3. Handled himself with enormous courage, dignity, grace, determination, and leadership in the aftermath of the September 11, 2001 hijackings and anthrax attacks. He almost single-handedly held this country together during those searing days:
Just three days after the attacks, in his address at the National Cathedral, the President reassured the nation when he said: “War has been waged against us by stealth and deceit and murder. This nation is peaceful, but fierce when stirred to anger. This conflict was begun on the timing and terms of others. It will end in a way, and at an hour, of our choosing.”
On Friday, September 14, 2001, President Bush visited Ground Zero. Standing on a crushed and burned fire engine atop the smoldering pile at Ground Zero, he put his arm around a retired firefighter who had volunteered to help, and began speaking to the crowd. Rescue workers shouted that they could not hear him. Someone handed him a small American flag and bullhorn. The President spontaneously shouted: “I can hear you. The rest of the world hears you. And the people who knocked these buildings down will hear all of us soon.” The crowd roared with cheers and chants of “USA! USA! USA!” Then he raised that American flag and rallied a nation.
Education & Employment Training1. Signed the No Child Left Behind Act, delivering the most dramatic education reforms in a generation (challenging the soft bigotry of low expectations). The very liberal California Teachers union is currently running radio ads against the accountability provisions of this Act.
2. Announced “Jobs for the 21st Century,” a comprehensive plan to better prepare workers for jobs in the new millennium by strengthening post-secondary education and job training, and by improving high school education.
3. Is working to provide vouchers to low-income students in persistently failing schools to help with costs of attending private schools. (Blocked in the Senate.)
4. Requires annual reading and math tests in grades three through eight.
5. Requires states to participate in the National Assessment of Education Progress, or an equivalent program, to establish a national benchmark for academic performance.
6. Requires school-by-school accountability report cards.
7. Established a $2.4 billion fund to help states implement teacher accountability systems.
8. Increased funding for the Troops-to-Teachers program, which recruits former military personnel to become teachers
PRESIDENT BUSH’S AMAZING ACCOMPLISHMENTS Pt #2
We need a national holidy named in his honor:
Environment & Energy1. Killed the Kyoto Global Warming Treaty.
2. Submitted a comprehensive Energy Plan (awaits Congressional action). The plan works to develop cleaner technology, produce more natural gas here at home, make America less dependent on foreign sources of energy, improve national grid, etc.
3. Established a $10 million grant program to promote private conservation initiatives.
4. Significantly eased field-testing controls of genetically engineered crops.
5. Changed parts of the Forestry Management Act to allow necessary cleanup of the national forests in order to reduce fire danger.
6. Part of national forests cleanup: Restricted judicial challenges (based on the Endangered Species Act and other challenges), and removed the need for an Environmental Impact Statement before removing fuels/logging to reduce fire danger.
7. Killed Clinton’s CO2 rules that were choking off all of the electricity surplus to California.
8. Provided matching grants for state programs that help private landowners protect rare species.
Defense & Foreign Policy1. Successfully executed two wars in the aftermath of 9/11/01: Afghanistan and Iraq. 50 million people who had lived under tyrannical regimes now live in freedom.
2. Saddam Hussein is now in prison. His two murderous sons are dead. All but a handful of the regime’s senior members were killed or captured.
3. Leader by leader and member by member, al Maida is being hunted down in dozens of countries around the world. Of the senior al Qaeda leaders, operational managers, and key facilitators the U.S. Government has been tracking, nearly two-thirds have been taken into custody or killed. The detentions or deaths of senior al Qaeda leaders, including Khalid Shaykh Muhammad, the mastermind of 9/11, and Muhammad Atef, Osama bin Laden’s second-in-command until his death in late 2001, have been important in the War on Terror.
4. Disarmed Libya of its chemical, nuclear and biological WMD’s without bribes or bloodshed.
5. Continues to execute the War On Terror, getting worldwide cooperation to track funds/terrorists. Has cut off much of the terrorists’ funding, and captured or killed many key leaders of the al Qaeda network.
6. Initiated a comprehensive review of our military, which was completed just prior to 9/11/01, and which accurately reported that ASYMMETRICAL WARFARE capabilities were critical in the 21st Century.
7. Killed the old US/Soviet Union ABM Treaty that was preventing the U.S. from deploying our ABM defenses.
8. Has been one of the strongest, if not THE strongest friend Israel has ever hand in the U.S. presidency.
9. Part of the coalition for an Israeli/Palestinian “Roadmap to Peace,” along with Great Britain, Russia and the EU.
10. Pushed through THREE raises for our military. Increased military pay by more than $1 billion a year.
11. Signed the LARGEST nuclear arms reduction in world history with Russia.
12. Started withdrawing our troops from Bosnia, and has announced withdrawal of our troops from Germany and the Korean DMZ.
13. Prohibited putting U.S. troops under U.N. command.
14. Paid back UN dues only in return for reforms and reduction of U.S. share of the costs.
15. Earmarked at least 20 percent of the Defense procurement budget for next-generation weaponry.
16. Increased defense research and development spending by at least $20 billion from fiscal 2002 to 2006.
17. Ordered a comprehensive review of military weapons and strategy.
18. Ordered a review of overseas deployments.
19. Ordered renovation of military housing. The military has already upgraded about 10 percent of its inventory and expects to modernize 76,000 additional homes this year.
20. Is working to tighten restrictions on military-technology exports.
21. Brought back our EP-3 intel plane and crew from China without any bribes or bloodshed.
“I said nothing of which I am ashamed.”
So a good christian like you (small caps deliberate) is okay making comments like you did about Tracy’s father, right Nathan?
What a f*ck’n’ hypocrite you are, boy.
It is no wonder that reasonable people are turning away from your faith, given that you are a prime example of the type of people that you represent.
And KSGrm – admit your lie and I will gladly back off – not until.
Say it, write it – you lied and that it all there is to it.
Until then, you are fair game.
ksgrm stick to your guns. Anyone reading these posts can see Clark is gunning for you. Picking fights, getting personal, and sounding like an electronic ping pong ball on it’s way to mars.
We can read through it all and support you.
Troll……………..
KSGrm has already admited that she lied, she just chalks it up to old age.
But go ahead and support her. She is a known liar and inventor of her own facts.
In other words, a typical Republican.
Loser.
Republican Troll’s of the Blog (RTB)
Trolls Basic Skills Troll Training (BST) formerly known as Essential Skills Training (EST).
All trolls in grades T1-T5 are scheduled for BST training during the month ofAugust. Trolls in the Senior Non-Commissioned Troll (SNCT) are also scheduledfor training during this period. Course description, location, and dates for SNCTtraining is TBD.
The following schedule applies:
Grades T1-T5
“The Basic Art of trolling” Provides basic skills related to liberal blog insertion, basic understanding of the democratic koolaid and associated tape recordings. (Troll Government equalivent of 3 semester hours, or 50 Gold Bond Stamps)
“Trolling through the night” Provides skills needed to remain alert and provide effective conservative opinions after having worked a full eight hour day to pay taxes. Course provides basic’s in late night coffee brewing, head call breaks, not waking the kids, and gawd forbid, not waking the old lady. (GE 2 sem hrs/30 GBS’s)
“Non-Commissioned Troll leadership” Provides basics needed to lead fellow trolls on the assigned blog. Incognito reconnaissance, proper front and rear opinion site alignment,and the basic troll leading steps: Begin Planning, Arrange for Recon, Make Recon, Complete the republican plan, Issue the Order, and Supervise (BAMCIS).
Courses begin at 0800 immediately following morning colors.Course location: Moria Cave # 303
Troll Central
WS I think you are seriously in need of therapy. Just not sure what kind could help you. Oh well some people are just beyond help.
Still waiting for something relevant or at least relating to a serious topic.
I saw WS Clark in a fast food restaurant. He’s about 400 pounds of morbidly obese lard with a grey goatee.
He’s probably been gone for awhile as his leg veins have become so clogged up, he had to get them reamed out by rotor rooter.
He’s such a liar about himself and who he is and everything he writes.
And Kansas what were you doing in that fast food restaurant? Buying a light salad with low-calorie dressing, right?
Actually, diet coke and bathroom break. :D
When WS Clark walked by did you experience the nauseating, noisome, objectionable,odious, off-putting and pugnacious, repellent, vile and revolting smell of smegma ?
WS Clark,
The suspense is killing me. What are these horrible things I said about Tracy’s father?
Tracy was the one trying to lambast us with guilt for not supporting stem cell research.
I called Tracy on it.
Eagle Beak–
You’re no f***ing Marine.
A true member of the beloved corps would have to be HELD BACK from taking out America’s enemy number one.
Here you are spitting and sputtering about “what will it do to the soldiers’ families?”
Let’s all weep and moan and go code brown in our dress whites.
Whatever the hell you were in the military, you’re no Marine.
Good night Chesty Puller wherever you are, and piss on the poseurs . . .
Eagle Beak shall now be known as Chicken Sh*t.
“It was a fat pitch, a home run.”
He expected the missiles to fly
*****
This right-wing BULLSHIZEN has already been debunked, but leave it to the right-wing, no good LIE should go unrepeated . . .
Here’s a fuller context:
An unnamed senior military officer later complains, “This was in our strike zone. It was a fat pitch, a home run.” CIA Director Tenet decides against acting three times, because of concerns about collateral damage and worries about the veracity of the single source of information. Earlier that month, the US mistakenly bombed the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade, Yugoslavia, due to outdated intelligence. It is speculated Tenet was wary of making another mistake. [Atlantic Monthly, 12/2004]
BTW, what really pi$$es off the right is hearing a Democrat talk about seriously kicking ass.
It’s so hard to paint them as lily-livered surrendercrats when Obama stands up and says the dead obvious–if Musharraf won’t take Bin Laden out, we will.
You won’t see anti-war protests against a military strike to kill Al Qaeda, just as there were no anti-war protests against our overthrow of the Taliban.
We need a president with the cajones to bring Bin Laden’s head home in a bag.
Bush obviously isn’t that man.
bush don’t care about obl.we could have taken him out in ‘03, but bush don’t care.
we spend billions in iraq and he doesn’t care about that either.
why should bush care, he’s rich and us little people are just workers to him.
Obama doesn’t have a clue and it insults me that he thinks so little of the LIVES of our men and women in uniform as to make them into PAWNS for his political campaign
you meat to say… bush, right?or have you forgotton 3800 dead kids wasted in the wrong country while obl is still out there, safe.
it’s sad when a neo-con hides behind thr troops families.
PRESIDENT BUSH’S AMAZING ACCOMPLISHMENTS Pt #2
We need a national holidy named in his honor:
THIS IS AN ATTEMPT AT HUMOR, RIGHT?
Environment & Energy1. Killed the Kyoto Global Warming Treaty.
WE LOVE THE SUN SITTING THROUHT A THICK HAZE OF SMOG. IT’S ALL ORANGE AND PRETTY.2. Submitted a comprehensive Energy Plan (awaits Congressional action). The plan works to develop cleaner technology, produce more natural gas here at home, make America less dependent on foreign sources of energy, improve national grid, etc.
THIS IS THE ONE CHENEY AND PEOPLE LIKE KEN LAY PUT TOGETHER, RIGHT?3. Established a $10 million grant program to promote private conservation initiatives.
AS LONG AS IT’S A FAITH BASED CONSERVATION PROJECT.
4. Significantly eased field-testing controls of genetically engineered crops.
FAKE VEGGIES… I’LL TAKE 1 SINCE THEY’RE SO DAMN HUGE.
5. Changed parts of the Forestry Management Act to allow necessary cleanup of the national forests in order to reduce fire danger.
WELL RUSH, I THINK THAT’S CALLED CLEAR CUTTING BY LUMBER COMPANIES.
6. Part of national forests cleanup: Restricted judicial challenges (based on the Endangered Species Act and other challenges), and removed the need for an Environmental Impact Statement before removing fuels/logging to reduce fire danger.
WELL RUSH I THINK THAT’S CALLED CLEAR CUTTING BY LUMBER COMPANIES WHO DON’T HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT THOSE PESKY ANIMALS WHO LIVE IN THE FORREST.7. Killed Clinton’s CO2 rules that were choking off all of the electricity surplus to California.
CHOKING OFF ALL THE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY TO CALIFORNIA… JEEEZ, COULD YOU PUT THAT IN A MORE DRAMTIC AND LESS FACTUAL WAY?8. Provided matching grants for state programs that help private landowners protect rare species.
Defense & Foreign Policy
THAT’S THE DEPARTMENT NOW HEADED BY A LUMBER COMPANY CEO AND LOBBYIST, RIGHT?
1. Successfully executed two wars in the aftermath of 9/11/01: Afghanistan and Iraq. 50 million people who had lived under tyrannical regimes now live in freedom.
SUCCESSFULLY?? ROFLMAO. WOW. PUT DOWN THE KOOL-AID. 50 MILLION PEOPLE NOW LIVE IN FREEDOM?? MOST OF THE PROFESSIONALS HAVE FLED THE COUNTRY. A HUGE NUMBER HAVE HAD A CHILD, A RELATIVE, A WIFE, A HUSBAND, OR THEMSELVES KILLED. MOST HAVE UTILITIES ABOUT ONLY 2 HOURS A DAY. THEY HAVE NO FRESH WATER. DRUGS ARE THE NUMBER 1 EXPORT IN AFGHANISTAN. IT’S GREAT TO BE LIBERATED.2. Saddam Hussein is now in prison. His two murderous sons are dead. All but a handful of the regime’s senior members were killed or captured.
SADDAM GOT HUNG… DID YOU MISS THAT ON YOUTUBE?3. Leader by leader and member by member, al Maida is being hunted down in dozens of countries around the world. Of the senior al Qaeda leaders, operational managers, and key facilitators the U.S. Government has been tracking, nearly two-thirds have been taken into custody or killed. The detentions or deaths of senior al Qaeda leaders, including Khalid Shaykh Muhammad, the mastermind of 9/11, and Muhammad Atef, Osama bin Laden’s second-in-command until his death in late 2001, have been important in the War on Terror.
WOW, I GUESS WE’RE IN THE CLEAR NOW, HUH?4. Disarmed Libya of its chemical, nuclear and biological WMD’s without bribes or bloodshed.
THAT’S UP FOR DEBATE.
5. Continues to execute the War On Terror, getting worldwide cooperation to track funds/terrorists. Has cut off much of the terrorists’ funding, and captured or killed many key leaders of the al Qaeda network.
IT’S GOOD THEY NEVER BOTHER TO REPLACE THE FEW LEADERS WE HAVE FOUND.
6. Initiated a comprehensive review of our military, which was completed just prior to 9/11/01, and which accurately reported that ASYMMETRICAL WARFARE capabilities were critical in the 21st Century.
WE ARE SO SHORT ON NEW RECRUITS WE RAISED THE MAX AGE TO 42 AND OFFER $20,000.00 TO ANYONE WILLING TO GO TO IRAQ ASAP, INCLUDING MENTAL CASES, GANG BANGERS, AND CONVICTED FELONS.
7. Killed the old US/Soviet Union ABM Treaty that was preventing the U.S. from deploying our ABM defenses.
WE’RE GETTING ALONG WELL WITH PUTIN, LOOK INTO MY EYES AND MY SOUL, I’M A NICE MAN, REALLY GEORGE. I LOVE YOU TOO.
8. Has been one of the strongest, if not THE strongest friend Israel has ever hand in the U.S. presidency.
THAT HAS GOTTEN US INTO A LOT OF TROUBLE SO FAR.
9. Part of the coalition for an Israeli/Palestinian “Roadmap to Peace,” along with Great Britain, Russia and the EU.
BUSH IS SUCH A DIPLOMAT. MOST OF THE WORLD ADMIRES HIM.
10. Pushed through THREE raises for our military. Increased military pay by more than $1 billion a year.
AFTER THEY ARE WOUNDED, HE KINDA FORGETS ABOUT THEM.
11. Signed the LARGEST nuclear arms reduction in world history with Russia.
OK, AND… ??
12. Started withdrawing our troops from Bosnia, and has announced withdrawal of our troops from Germany and the Korean DMZ.
WE NEED THEM IN THE WRONG COUNTRY… IRAQ RING A BELL??
13. Prohibited putting U.S. troops under U.N. command.
YEAH, THIS WAS A BIGGIE TO MEL IN THAT TAXI DRIVER MOVIE.14. Paid back UN dues only in return for reforms and reduction of U.S. share of the costs.
IT’S THAT TRIAD RULES THE WORLD THING?15. Earmarked at least 20 percent of the Defense procurement budget for next-generation weaponry.
WRONG.
16. Increased defense research and development spending by at least $20 billion from fiscal 2002 to 2006.
NOT ENOUGH.
17. Ordered a comprehensive review of military weapons and strategy.
YAWN.
18. Ordered a review of overseas deployments.
SURE HE DID, CAUSE HE NEEDS ALL OF THEM IN IRAQ.
19. Ordered renovation of military housing. The military has already upgraded about 10 percent of its inventory and expects to modernize 76,000 additional homes this year.
NOW IF THERE WERE ANY MILITARY MEMBERS THERE LIVING WITH THEIR SPOUSES AND KIDS THIS WOULD BE GOOD.20. Is working to tighten restrictions on military-technology exports.
CONGRESS IS THE ONE THAT FINALLY STOPPED EXPORT OF SPARE JET PARTS TO IRAN NOT BUSH.Posted by: God Bless Our President
BUSH HAS SCREWED UP EVERYTHING HE HAS TOUCHED SINCE HE WAS AROUND 15 YEARS OLD.
BUSH A FEDERAL HOLIDAY/ IS THERE A CRACK REHAB AGENCY CLOSE TO YOUR HOUSE OR DO I NEED TO CALL YOU A CAB?
At first I thought you had just copied and pasted from rush’s website, but I don’t think even rush cares this much.
Get a life, I bet your kids miss you.
God Bless Our President must be on the payroll of some republican spin machine. I worry if this poster actually believes all the crap they just spouted.
Bush restored honest and dignity to the White House? Since when is lying through your teeth honest? And dignity? When has Bush ever been dignified? And let’s not even get into his speeches. The man looks like a dufus everytime he opens his mouth.
Amen Kate, at least Americans like him who parrot all the spin and rhetoric are in the minority…the rest of us have the abiltiy to use our brain.
Mary,
There is no thought involved in simply believing what the democrats tell you to.
I use my brain very well.
It tells me that you may disagree with Bush, but the complete and total hate and vitriol spewed by many of those on the left here is simply irrational.
What is irrational about hating a man that is sytematically destroying this great country of ours?
Contrary to what the Religious Right and the Republicans think, this is our country too.
Troll Central: are you an ADULT?
I like to look at all sides, not just listen to the people who tell me what I want to hear. I’ve looked at this administration from every angle. Those who think Bush is a great man have their heads in the sand, he’s done more damage to our country than any president I’ve ever known.
WS Clark,
You never did get back to me with those horrible things I said about Tracy’s father.
And no, the simple act of hating someone is not irrational. The complete total hate and vitriol spewed by many of those on the left here is irrational.
Nathan,
I am not on the left and I can plainly see that Bush has done more damage to this country than any other president in history.
I hate Bill Clinton with a passion and thought he dragged the office to an all time low. Now I see he has been bested.
And are you still going to stand by your assessment that the Bush family’s DEEP involvement with the Saudis, the Carlyle Group, and the bin Ladens hold no pull over his dealings with Saudi? The country that sent 15 of its people in jets to kill 3000 Americans?
If you do, then it becomes plain to see you follow your party lines right off the cliff. Enjoy the ride down.
Amen to God I Hope Not – well put!
Bush will go down in history as the most ignorant and STUPID President ever.
I hate to say it, but he is an embarrassment to America. On his clock, we went from being a fairly well-liked country, to being hated all over the world. Most are so sick of us it’s pathetic. Makes me want to move to some remote tropical island and sip on some last Pina Coladas, that is, before Bush starts WWIII and begins the end of the world.
I’m still amazed at how a man of his obvious LACK of intelligence made it into office. No wait, I take that back – I know how, through the 50.0001% of the morons that live in this country and elected him in the first place. I deal with some of these idiots every day…it’s very scary how stupid this country has become.
whine whine whine
The mantra of the Leftists and their associated whiners (Libertarians)
Sol,
It is your statements like this where you go to far:
“The country that sent 15 of its people in jets to kill 3000 Americans?”
You have zero proof that Saudi Arabia sent those people to do 9-11.
Yet you make the claim. It is either a lie or insanity.
I’ll let you choose.
Libertarians are more conservative than the GOP and you associate them with the liberals? What a buffoon !!!!
Libertarians are among the biggest whiners.
Nathan, AMEN,AMEN&AMEN!!!! To your last post! To all of the Republican,& Bush hatemonger’s, real world check: Osama Bin Laden MAY NOT be in Pakistan. Barak Obama is attempting to sound like former DEM Pres. Clinton. Tough on terror talk, and talk and talk and.. our country still got hit: World Trade Center bombing.
Terrorists hated American’s long before Bush became Pres. and will continue; even if Obama gets to be Pres.
They were Saudis Nathan. Did you forget that?
God save us if Obama or Hitlery get in office.
Sol,
By your logic I guess we can assume that our own government sent Tim McVeigh to blow up thier own building?
So Sol,
All Saudis are terrorists then.
I like your logic assignments – it works for smooth brained animals and lower as well.
Nathan,
By your assessment we should ignore the country – of origin – of the actual people that killed 3,000 in the WTC. We should ignore the country of origin of almost half of the foreign fighters streaming into Iraq to kill Americans. Great strategy. No wonder we haven’t made in progress in 4 years.
If Tim McVeigh blew up a building in Canada, you bet your ass the Canadians would be holding us responsible.
Repub – you ignorant slut.
Did we say all Afghanis were terrorists when we invaded their country and overthrew their government?
Did we say all Iraqis were terrorists when we invaded their country and overthrew their government?
You are such a dipshit!!!
We in doubt Sol, start swearing and pounding the table.
Very chimp-like.
SolDevVB,
I grow tired of your immature debate tactics.
You go from one claim to another beating up your own strawman.
I feel like I am having a discussion with a 5 year old, no your not, yes you are, no your not, yes you are, no your not, yes you are….
You keep saying things which you can’t prove and have no evidence for and then put words in my mouth and argue agains them never admitting you are wrong.
So lets go back to the question which you glossed over with your illogic:
“The country that sent 15 of its people in jets to kill 3000 Americans?”
You have zero proof that Saudi Arabia sent those people to do 9-11.
Can you or can you not back up that statement with PROOF?
Did we say all Afghanis were terrorists when we invaded their country and overthrew their government?
Did we say all Iraqis were terrorists when we invaded their country and overthrew their government?
Nice dodge, try again.
Have a banana Sol.
WASHINGTON (CNN) — The FBI is investigating whether the Saudi Arabian government funneled money to associates of two of the September 11 hijackers, a senior White House official told CNN Saturday.
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/US/11/23/saudi.fbi.911/
It is no coincidence, he claims, that 15 of the 19 hijackers that day were Saudi nationals.http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/11/21/05155.shtml
(CBS/AP) President Bush refused on Tuesday to release a congressional report alleging possible links between Saudi Arabian officials and the Sept. 11 hijackers.http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/07/30/world/main565782.shtml
On September 27, 2001 the FBI released photos of the 19 hijackers, along with information about many of their possible nationalities and aliases [10]. All the suspected hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Lebanon or Egypt.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organizers_of_the_September_11,_2001_attacks
Just google it Nathan. There is page after page.
Still can’t own up to the content. Typical repub. Typical.
“You have zero proof that Saudi Arabia sent those people to do 9-11.”
Can you show me proof of Iraq’s involvement in 9/11 Nathan?
So Sol,All Saudis are terrorists then.I like your logic assignments – it works for smooth brained animals and lower as well.Posted by: Republican | August 03, 2007 at 09:38 AM
Repub – you ignorant slut.Did we say all Afghanis were terrorists when we invaded their country and overthrew their government?Did we say all Iraqis were terrorists when we invaded their country and overthrew their government?You are such a dipshit!!!Posted by: SolDevVB | August 03, 2007 at 09:43 AM
We in doubt Sol, start swearing and pounding the table.Very chimp-like.
Posted by: Republican | August 03, 2007 at 09:46 AM
Have a banana Sol.Posted by: Republican | August 03, 2007 at 09:48 AM
C’mon troll-monkey. Lets here what you have to say about the content.
Sol,
I see one link touting an investigation.
No proof of any ACTUAL government involvment in the act of 9-11.
Asking me about Iraq and 9-11 is yet again you weak debate tactics.
Quit changing the subject everytime I catch you in one of your mistruths.
Content? Sure Sol.
Let me point you to the 911 Commission Report, the OFFICIAL investigation of what happened before, during and after 911.
http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf
Please not the content on page 169 and 170 where it states that Bin Laden was the primary source of the funds and also I believe on page 170 it states that no evidence has been found that the Saudi government provided any funds.
The entire operation of the 911 incident was less than 500,000. Easy money for Osama who is worth hundreds of millions of dollars and from his supporting “charities” that supplied him with cash.
Or Sol, you can continue to link to the MSM and its chimpanzee screams write ups.
should read “Please note…”
THAT’S why we invaded Iraq…because the Taliban were behind the 9/11 attacks and we just knew that they’d all flock to Iraq as soon as we finished overthrowing their government in Afganistan…yeah, that’s the ticket!
WASHINGTON — Two of the Sept. 11, 2001, hijackers had a support network in the United States that included agents of the Saudi government, and the Bush administration and FBI blocked a congressional investigation into that relationship, Senator Bob Graham wrote in a book to be released Tuesdayhttp://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/09/05/911_hijackers_tied_to_saudi_government_graham_says_in_book/
WASHINGTON (CNN) — Lawyers representing two Saudi princes argued Friday that their clients have immunity from lawsuits relating to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, because they are diplomatic officials.
Saudi Defense Minister Prince Sultan bin Abdul Aziz and Prince Turki al-Faisal, formerly head of Saudi Arabia’s intelligence agency, have been sued by hundreds of relatives of the victims, who allege that they knowingly contributed money and support to al Qaeda through Islamic charitable organizations.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/10/17/saudis.lawsuit/
1) Khalid Almihdhar – Possible Saudi national2) Majed Moqed – Possible Saudi national3) Nawaf Alhazmi – Possible Saudi national4) Salem Alhazmi – Possible Saudi national5) Satam M.A. Al Suqami- Possible Saudi national6) Waleed M. Alshehri – Possible Saudi national7) Abdulaziz Alomari – Possible Saudi nationalEtc, etc, etchttp://www.fbi.gov/pressrel/pressrel01/092701hjpic.htm
Florida Senator Bob Graham, the Democrat who co-chaired Congress’s probe into the September 11 attacks, wrote that Saudi government agents were part of a support network in the United States for two hijackers who took part in the devastating strikes, the Miami Herald reported Sunday.http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0906-01.htm
The truth is out there Nathan, you just have to want to see it. And when you see it, you have to take the blinders off long enough to recognize it.
Or Sol, you can utilize the 911 Commission Report and get accurate data.
If we had stayed in Afghanistan to finish off the Taliban and al Qaeda, we would have eventually chased them into Pakistan. Those mountains were their safe haven in the 1980s, but I guess now magically they are not for some reason Republicans can’t explain.
Nor can they explain why we invaded Iraq. They stamp their feet and whine if you bring it up.
And Saudi Arabia is our ally, this from the same people who throw around terms like “Islamofascist” and “dictator” when it’s convenient.
So leftcoaster you wanted the U.S. to do a genocide on all Taliban or exactly what did you want them to do? :)
leftcoaster, you would rather have Saudi Arabia as an enemy then?
Would that make you feel all warm and fuzzy then?
Captain American,
Any idiot can talk trash on this blog as evidenced by you. Big man on the blog are you?
I don’t have to prove anything to a pencil dick like you. Your little comment about dress whites displays your true and total ignorance.
Your comment about what a “true member of the beloved corps” would do also pegs you to the worthless board. It’s a small club. Those who have never served cannot fathom what one who has would do or say. Even if I am a fraud, as you say, you must be smart enough to know – that you just plain can’t know.
Now go away toad. I think your mommie is calling. I know my sexual orientation, and I don’t need you following me around like a dog with it’s tongue hanging out admiring my gluteus maximus.
The Commission also concluded 15 of the 19 hijackers that carried out the attacks were from Saudi Arabiahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_Commission_Report
Omar al Bayoumi Saudi; assisted two 9/11 hijackers in San Diego,
Ahmed al Ghamdi Saudi; 9/11 hijacker (UA 175) (deceased)
Hamza al Ghamdi Saudi; 9/11 hijacker (UA 175) (deceased)
Saeed al Ghamdi Saudi; 9/11 hijacker (UA 93) (deceased)
Saeed (“Jihad”) al Saudi; candidate 9/11 hijackerMushabib al Hamlan Saudi; candidate 9/11 hijacker
Hani Hanjour Saudi; 9/11 pilot/hijacker (AA 77) (deceased)
Mustafa al Hawsawi Saudi; al Qaeda media committee member;
Finan cial and travel facilitator for 9/11 plot
Nawaf al Hazmi Saudi; 9/11 hijacker (AA 77) (deceased)
Salem al Hazmi Saudi; 9/11 hijacker (AA 77) (deceased)
Ahmad al Haznawi Saudi; 9/11 hijacker (UA 93) (deceased)Mohamed al Kahtani Saudi; candidate 9/11 hijacker; currently in U.S. custody
Ibn al Khattab Saudi; mujahid leader in Chechnya
Usama Bin Ladin (UBL) Saudi; head of al QaedaAhmed al Nami Saudi; 9/11 hijacker (UA 93) (deceased)
Khalid al Mihdhar Saudi; 9/11 hijacker (AA 77) (deceased)
Etc, etc, etchttp://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/911comm-appb.pdf
New Chairman of 9/11 Commission had business ties with Osama’s Brother in Lawhttp://www.nadir.org/nadir/initiativ/agp/free/chossudovsky/911commission.htm
Between April 1998 and May 2002, some $51-73,000 in checks and cashier’s checks were provided by the Saudi Ambassador to the United States and his wife to two families in southern California, who in turn bankrolled at least two of the 9/11 hijackers.http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2007/3426bandar_9-11.html
Support reform in Saudi Arabia: DMost of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudis, and the country is a wellspring of fundamentalist ideology. More than four years later, the Saudi Arabian government hasn’t stanched the flow of funds to extremist groups or moved to promote social tolerance and moderation, the commissioners said. Given the Bush family’s long-standing personal ties to the Saudi royal family, and the United States’ reliance on imports of Saudi oil, many critics have questioned the administration’s willingness to take a hard line with its Persian Gulf ally.http://www.govexec.com/story_page_pf.cfm?articleid=33166&printerfriendlyvers=1
New Chairman Of 9/11 Commission Had Business Ties With Osama’s Brother In Lawhttp://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0212/S00150.htm
SESNO: Step number three. FINANCIAL TIMES today reporting on the Congressional report. Report raises new questions on Saudi role in 9/11 attacks.
CLELAND: Absolutely.
SESNO: How far into that will your commission, A, be able to go, and B, actually be able to share with the public?
CLELAND: All right. We’re… first thing, if it walks like a duck, looks like a duck, talks like a duck, it’s a duck.
You can read between the lines and see that there were foreign governments that were much more involved in the 9/11 attack than just supporting Islamic fundamentalist teachings and schools. Now, that has been redacted. A whole 28 page section.
SESNO: And will you have access to all the documentation, including the redacted portion…
CLELAND: We darn well better.
SESNO:…of those committee reports?
CLELAND: Because… but look at what’s happening. The Administration, the White House, has put several blocks in the road. One, they run all the information to the 9/11 Commission through a political coordinator in Ashcroft’s Justice Department. Duh. Why that?
Secondly, they want to put minders — that’s people who sit in the room when we have an interview with people in NSA, FBI, CIA, Department of… in DIA — in the Pentagon, and Immigration and Naturalization Services. They want to put minders in there. That to shut down information. That’s not to reveal information.
SESNO: On the connection, if there is one, between the Saudi government and any funding or support for the 9/11 terrorists. Will you have access to the information that was redacted? Have you already had access to that?
CLELAND: We got it now.
SESNO: And how much…
CLELAND: It’s… but we’ve got it late…
SESNO: And how much of what you…
CLELAND: We got it eight months late.
http://www.pbs.org/now/transcript/transcript_cleland.html
“So leftcoaster you wanted the U.S. to do a genocide on all Taliban or exactly what did you want them to do? :)”
Unconditional surrender, life in prison for their top leaders and cessation of hostilities. Or do you prefer the situation we have now? They still are still fighting us, and we’re not putting up the resources to stop them.
“leftcoaster, you would rather have Saudi Arabia as an enemy then?”
What makes you think they are my friend?
Maybe they are your ally, which is why we sometimes refer to you guys as the American Taliban.
“Would that make you feel all warm and fuzzy then?”
Is feeling warm and fuzzy important to you? Does it make you feel warm and fuzzy when Bush says he doesn’t care about Bin Laden?
So leftcoaster, GITMO detention facility is just fine for you then. I mean we’d have to keep the Taliban somewhere. :)
I wonder what law precedent we could use to keep them in there on a life sentence? Any insight into that leftcoaster? :)
American Taliban…hmmm…does this mean I have to grow a long beard now?
Is that a trained hamster you’re feeding or do you always drop these pearls of wisdom about?
The thing that pisses me off the most about this whole thing is that Obama is Right about going after the real terrorists and the real threats to America.
However, we got so bogged down and hurt in this STUPID FLIPPING IRAQ WAR DISTRACTION that now we’re pretty much powerless to do anything that really needs to be done.
And for those who said “well Clinton could have taken out Osama but chose not to” Pee on you. Now we know Bush had the ability to AFTER HE ALREADY HIT US and chose not to.
God I’m so angry at the Bush Republicans and their crap that they did to this nation. YOU have put us in a position to let this POS go.
AMEN!
But no, let’s keep praising Bush and turning a blind eye to the Saudis and the UAE. Cause they’re or FRIENDS !!!!
hopeless…
You sure are
Actually TDT, Bush was trained as a pilot, jet qualified in the TNG.
Much better than some of the knuckle dragging vets on this blog who had to be taught how to wipe their backsides first before released back to the public.
I know that will piss off something of the Lib vets, but they deserve it for making comments about a fellow Veteran just because of their political views.
But hey, what can you expect from mindless grunts.
Posted by: Kansas | August 02, 2007 at 04:37 PM
Seriously Kansas, you need to do a little research into GWB’s military career.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush_military_service_controversy
By regulation, National Guard pilots were required to take and pass an annual physical in order to remain in flight status, in the three months prior to a pilot’s birthday (in Bush’s case, July 6). For reasons that are unclear, Bush apparently chose not to take this mandatory physical examination in mid-1972, thus ending his pilot’s career. He never flew again after April 15, 1972.”
That’s just the tip of the iceberg Kansas.
You mean investigation like the CBS report? :)
Bush was a trained pilot and jet qualified.
Regardless of how his time in the TANG ended, you can’t dispute the fact he was trained as a pilot.
Or does that fact just irk you too much TDT? :)
Bush had the ability to AFTER HE ALREADY HIT US and chose not to.
God I’m so angry at the Bush Republicans and their crap that they did to this nation. YOU have put us in a position to let this POS go.
Posted by: political_mom | August 03, 2007 at 11:04 AM
PM I would make the argument that the terrorists were emboldened by the repeated attacks with little or no response from our prez (Clinton). They hit one of our carriers with impunity for heavens sake.
I am so mad at the demos for putting us in the position to be attacked on 9/11 and now trying to be the party of power (Osama). Your own leading candidate says he is naieve and inexperienced. Just what we need!
I don’t agree with everything Bush has done but at least he did something. We haven’t been attacked on our own soil but once under him. Check Clinton’s record.
So get mad but direct that anger somewhere it will do some good.
Republican, stop being childish and stop ascribing views to me. The WTC was hit once before, and those who did it are serving life sentences, and we didn’t need Gitmo to put them away. Bush and his legal department have proven themselves so inept he probably couldn’t convict Bin Laden in an honest court of law.
And ksgrm, when you say they hit one of our carriers, I assume you mean the destoryer USS Cole? The retaliation plans were handed off to Bush. Condi Rice testified under oath that Bush chose not to retaliate.
And in case you haven’t been keeping up on current events, they have been hitting us with impunity in Iraq for 4 years now.
Clinton did retaliate for the other attacks you cited. Now tell me, if Clinton had decided to invade Iraq after the 1993 WTC attack, would you have supported that decision?
“I don’t agree with everything Bush has done but at least he did something. We haven’t been attacked on our own soil but once under him. Check Clinton’s record.”
Hmmmm… No attacks since late 2001, that’s almost 6 years.
Clinton’s record, no attacks between 1993 and 2001, that’s almost 8 years.
Bush still has some catching up to do.
And if you are going to say Tanzania and USS Cole, stop right there. Because if you want to count attacks on our foreign embassies and on our troops overseas, Bush’s record is much much worse than Clinton’s.
You refuse to put this into perspective Grm. Yes, it was incredibly tragic to have our embassies and carriers targeted out in other people’s lands. But reverse this situation.
Say the Lebonese embassy here in America was bombed by Syria. Lebanon is p’d off because they think America is doing nothing and they have intel that says Syrian operatives are hold up in a hotel in Washington DC.
Surely you wouldn’t be upset that Lebanon came and bombed the hell out of one of our hotels now would you? Then later find out the Syrians weren’t even at that hotel. Now who are we mad at?
THAT is what Clinton faced.
Yes leftie I would have. I feel very strongly that we can’t be a doormat for the muslim extremists. If he had the plans formulated why not execute them. He might have saved the lifes of thousands in the WTC.
There were many attacks that were unanwered. A barracks of our was hit and nothing was done.
The terrorists were testing the water and found us wanting, thus the attacks on the WTC.
This is one thing Hillary has right (even though she is now backing off that position). We have to be strong and not foolish like Obama is talking. When you embolden the enemy you just have to deal with a stronger enemy.
“After the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, which killed six and injured 1,000; President Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished.
After the 1995 bombing in Saudi Arabia, which killed five U.S. military personnel; Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished.
After the 1996 Khobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia, which killed 19 and injured 200 U.S. military personnel; Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished.
After the 1998 bombing of U.S. embassies in Africa, which killed 224 and injured 5,000; Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished.
After the 2000 bombing of the USS Cole, which killed 17 and injured 39 U.S. sailors; Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished.
Maybe if Clinton had kept his promise, an estimated 5,000 people in New York, Pennsylvania, and Washington, D.C. who are now dead would be alive today.”
A little history for those who choose to ignore it.
“Clinton’s record, no attacks between 1993 and 2001, that’s almost 8 years.”
Yes leftcoaster, let’s not include an American Warship, an American Embassy or that American building called the WTC as attacks.
Let’s see, there are several thousand Americans living abroad. Let’s feed them to the terrorist as they really don’t count.
Right leftcoaster?
Troll boy, you are an IDIOT!
The WTC was attacked in 1993. Two people went to JAIL for it. Between that attack and the WTC attact on BUSH’S watch, there were no attacks on American soil.
War ships by definition get attacked. Embassy attacks have happened under buchco’s watch too.
So, Clinton, 8 years without an attack on American soil
Bush, 6 years without an attack on American soil. You use that all the time to prove bushco’s policy is working.
So I guess Clinton’s worked too. Even better than bush? And if we get attacked AFTER bush leaves office, can we blame that on him too?
Jesus wept. You and germie and the whole hee haw gang have jumped the shark in defending the indefensible and attacking the unattackable.
Just HOW do a “disabled” welfare queen and a welfare educated grannie JUMP that freakin’ high to get over the shark?
And you wanna spin THAT? No shit, up is down and black is white in repuke land.
Clinton’s record, no attacks between 1993 and 2001, that’s almost 8 years. Posted by: leftcoaster | August 03, 2007 at 11:32 AM
The WTC was attacked in 1993.
Posted by: ksfarmgrrl | August 03, 2007 at 11:47 AM
Thanks for proving leftcoaster wrong KFG. Appreciate the assistance. :)
And there were no Saudis involved in 9/11
Bush is not in bed with the Saudis – sans a couple million dollar buy out deals, and whoops there’s that pesky Carlyle group.
Yup. Nothing wrong here…
Typical Republican demagoguery. First say “No attacks on American soil since 9/11.” You have to qualify that specifically with “On American soil to ignore the numerous attacks on our embassies in multiple countries.
Then when I point out the obvious, no attacks on American soil for an even longer period under Clinton, they start bringing up attacks on our embassies overseas, and on our Navy. Apples and oranges. If you want to include attacks on our Navy, you have to include several thousand dead marines since 9/11 in that equation. Embassies? How about the day long seige of our embassy in Saudi Arabia? The attackers got away and were never punished.
And you want me to ignore all that history for your political benefit? I don’t think so.
Hey right wingers. The sharks called, they’re tired of being jumped and would like you to stop now.
American embassies, not matter where they are located are American soil.
American embassies, not matter where they are located are American soil.
Posted by: SolDevVB | August 03, 2007 at 12:08 PM
No disrespect intended, but I think you are splitting hairs to prove a minor point. (You already win 95% of the time ;-))
So if American embassies are American soil, then we have had multiple attacks on American soil since 9/11 on Bush’s watch.
So when Dick Cheney says we haven’t been attacked since 9/11 (as he is often wont to do), would you say he is LYING?
American Way, I don’t think the often-repeated assertion of, “We haven’t been attacked since 9/11″ can be considered a minor point. I think it is a very major point, or else Dick Cheney wouldn’t be repeating it so often. I also think it’s time to put that notion to bed.
If on the one hand you mean successful attacks by Al Qaeda within the 50 states, then you must also concede we had a longer period of time under Clinton with no such attacks.
If, on the other hand, you mean to include attacks on foreign embassies, troops stationed overseas, or ships docked at friendly ports, then the assertion is a lie. We have been attacked far more under Bush’s watch.
So which is it? Or perhaps can you call Dick Cheney and tell him to stop making such misleading statements to the American people?
So which is it? Or perhaps can you call Dick Cheney and tell him to stop making such misleading statements to the American people?
Posted by: leftcoaster | August 03, 2007 at 12:20 PM
So what’s your point? I am not calling Cheney or Bush or anyone. I’m not exactly on their I LOVE ME list either.
What do you gain?
Why don’t we make this easier:
WEBLOG PLEASE CREATE A NEW BLOG CALLED “I HATE BUSH/CHENEY”.
The purpose of the new blog is:
1. Allow hatemongers to post more hate.
2. Allow Bush haters to call him and his staff liars.
3. Allow Republican haters to call them names, stereotypes, and dirty words.
4. Give Bush haters and lovers a place to creatively write:
He did to.He did not.Prove it.I can prove it.You can’t prove it.You are a liar.You @#%$@#.No you’re the @#$)#u*%I’m reporting you.You communist.I’m telling.Go ahead.That’s it you are banned.I’m back.You are still a liar.You are still a troll.Am not.Are to.
5. Finally, it might help to free up the other threads for people who might hate or love to discuss real events.
OK cool. Thread topic: Will Obama’s statement help or hurt him?
American Way, my point is this: When a Bush supporter says we haven’t been attacked since 9/11, is that Bush supporter telling the truth?
The statement that we haven’t been attacked is often cited as proof that Bush’s policies are working.
If that’s really the position Bush supporters are taking, then shouldn’t they also conceded a longer period of time under Clinton during which we were not attacked? How does that fit in their theory?
So can you address that, rather than attacking me?
Back to the topic: Obama is talking about doing what Bush should have done in early 2002.
But they have nukes. That’s right. Reagan turned a blind eye because he and Pakistan were helping the mujihadin, who would later for the Taliban and Al Qaeda.
So I guess we’re stuck. Bin Laden got away, and some would say it’s irresponsible to talk about going after him.
Will it hurt him or help him?
I think he needed to make a bold move in the media and this was it. He saw his numbers dropping against Hillary and he took a gamble. In the long run, it should help counter the perception of the weak female president Hillary with a strong and vocal VP Obama. I think it’s a toss as to him having gained from it long term.
Tactically, in the world I think it does give the Prez of Pakistan some pause to consider. Of course, you would have to believePakistan really has any control over the muslim extremists who control the streets and villages. But if Clinton/Obama are elected, and if Musharraf, by chance, is still in power, it might make him work harder to extract OBL.
Personally, I think Musharraf will be overrun as the Ayatolla (sp) did the Shaw of Iran. It will be quick and deadly. The extremists will then control the bomb.
And now what is Obama going to do?
My sister and Dad both turned away from Obama after his statement. I think it will hurt him.
I agree with your second point. If the extremists have the bomb… I fell for whomever is the president.
One has to wonder if the U.S. has the means to take out their nukes in that case. And if not, then Al Qaeda has a permanent safe haven. So what does that mean for us? Britain was attacked, and the attackers trained in those very safe haven areas of Pakistan.
There is not a lot Obama can say about it now. If he becomes President, he would have access to much more tactical and strategic information, but at least he would be doing something about it. Which is a long way from saying “I really don’t think about [bin Laden] that much.”
It would have been much easier to do this in 2002. Musharraf would have had political cover of a fight in Afghanistan spilling over into tribal areas. At this point, the iron is so cold, if we strike, it looks like an invasion of sovereignty.
What is the better alterantive? do nothing? Trust Musharraf? He already told us there were no training camps. Then the London subway blew up and we learned the bombers were trained in Pakistan.
I wonder what Musharraf worries about more: Taliban on his west, or India on his east? It must be a strategic nightmare for him.
Strike teams. We can stage special ops guys with limited logistical support in strategic areas. Strik targets then disappear. Just ensure adequate air support should missions go south.
I do find it ironic after all the name calling against people who opposed invading Iraq. A real fight with Al Qaeda? An enemy with actual WMD? I was told the whole world believed Saddam had WMD when we invaded. Why wasn’t that just as irresponsible and naive?
I don’t think you’re going to find OBL with just strike teams. That’s what Clinton did, and it didn’t work. I think a large sweep of troops through the area with house to house fighting is what it would take to clear out that hornets’ nest.
I also think our troops are more capable than Pakistan’s, who basically surrendered to the Sheiks and paid them off.
Ummm, Tom, Musharraf has been an ally of the Taliban for as long as he has been in power. The brief period after 9/11 was an exception to their long history of cooperation. The ISI built and armed the Taliban. He’s probably more worried about appearances. He wants to help the Taliban, while appearing to fight them.
Thank you for making a point I have pointed out so often.
“I was told the whole world believed Saddam had WMD when we invaded. Why wasn’t that just as irresponsible and naive?
Posted by: leftcoaster | August 03, 2007 at 01:26 PM
There were many demos that were sure this was right and now want to back away from their vote. This isn’t one of those things you can change your mind on after the fact. Hillary said she was convinced after talking to Madeline Albright, hardly a right wingnut.
I want a person who has resolve and won’t let it be influenced by the newest poll. This makes Obama and Hillary both losers as far as I can see.
Sweeping the country door to door would ensure the fall of Pakistan wouldn’t it? Enraging the Muslims with American presence?
ksgrm –
Ron Paul 2008 !!!!!
(Walter Brennan voice)
I hear tell they’s a new gunslinger in town. Goes by the name of Obama. (I think it rhymes with old ‘bama)Anyway, this young whippersnapper says he’s a runnin’ for sheriff.
And guess what he’s promisin’? He says he’s gonna git that outlaw Osama. No relation he says, ‘though they’re both tall, dark complected fellas.
Well, what a fool thing to promise! Everyone knows that Obama, I mean Osama, hides out in Indian territory. Now any fool knows that our relations with the Injuns is touchy. It hadn’t been long since we were fightin’. You think there gonna look kindly on some cowboys with six guns and rifles poking around on there land? That’d break the peace treaty.
Osama.. er Obama, said that if the chief wouldn’t give permission, he’d go in anyway, guns a blazin’. Says he’d just take a posse in there and brings him in, dead or alive.
I say, let that Osama feller rot there in Indian territory. We don’t need to be startin’ another Indian war. You folks think about this before you vote for him for sheriff. The scalp you save may be your own.
Sol I am open to every suggestion. I haven’t found a candidate I can back with a feeling of reassurance. The lesser runs like Ron Paul and Duncan Hunter are looking better and better.
All outlander has is “Osama.. er Obama”?
“Your name rhymes with a criminal’s, therefore, you can’t be President.”
So mature. So thoughtful. So respectful of our republic, and our democracy.
:::huge effin’ eyeroll:::
I hear that. If the GOP would back Paul, he would steal many a liberal vote ;->
What I know and have heard of Ron Paul, I have liked. I would vote for him over many of the Dem candidates.
Brian, make sure you vote for him in the primaries!!!
Well you know Obama has so much experience, I’d be reaaaalllly comfortable with him being Commander in Chief of the most powerful military in the world.
Will Obama attack Pakistan before or after surrendering and withdrawing in Iraq?
And what if the Pakistan war drags on for a couple of years, and thousands of Americans and Pakistani are slaughtered?
Will Obama commit troops like Clinton did, just a dab here, and dab there, and pull out when the going gets tough?
Bin Laden is dead! Terrorist leaders continue using old videos of Bin Laden to keep the soldiers of jihad faithful. The terrorists HATE the West. The new dawn of stepped up terror activities appeared in the late 80’s; & got bolder, better funded and organized by the 90’s. It doesn’t matter who was Pres during those periods. Each President had the best intel possible at the time. How their administration chose to act or respond may or may not have prevented the next move by the terrorists. Bush was handed a terrible set of circumstances. History will prove whether or not we should have taken the battle to Iraq. He cares about protecting American’s. Is he perfect,no.
I doubt the Clinton machine is going to allow newcomer Obama the nomination. His comments about Pakistan was meant to fuel the anit-Bush Iraq crowd. And since every other Dem. has been talking Afganistan and Bin Laden, Obama needed another country to invade to grab a headline!
I’m with ya Sol on Ron Paul, but I saw another poll where he didn’t do so hot.
Something has to happen soon to galvanize the republican race. Like about six candidates dropping out – for the overall cause.
There were many demos that were sure this was right and now want to back away from their vote…
I want a person who has resolve and won’t let it be influenced by the newest poll.
—
That’s a good argument for Al Gore. He was right all along.
And Max, if Obama doesn’t have enough experience for you, how strongly did you oppose George Bush when he was running?
As for a large invasion being provocative, it would be no more so than small operations. Do you think they would just sit back and take it when their houses start exploding?
Mostly, I think all this discussion makes the point that terrorism is best dealt with as a a law enforcement problem (provided we can use F-16s and smart bombs in law enforcement when necessary). The problem with calling this a war, aside from the many problems pointed out with any invasion of Pakistan (thanks for making that point guys), is this: Are you prepared to give amnesty when the terrorists surrender? Because that’s what you do with soldiers in war. When the war is over everyone goes home. A few top leaders are executed but the foot soldiers go free. You don’t do it with criminals.
Think about this. We lost 50 soldiers invading Iraq, and then 3,600 occupying it. We could have invaded the country twenty times over with less loss of life. We send in the army to “arrest” Al Qaeda (as criminals) and then leave. If they try any funny stuff, we do it again. Eventually they’ll tire of being invaded every time they want to blow up a building on the other side of the world.
I want a person who has resolve and won’t let it be influenced by the newest set of F A C T S.
Posted by: ksgrm | August 03, 2007 at 01:36 PM
There now thats what you really mean.
Well you know Obama has so much experience, I’d be reaaaalllly comfortable with him being Commander in Chief of the most powerful military in the world.– Max –
Right Max… Like Reagan had any experience with foreign policy or military before the Right Wing elected him??? Or Nixon???
Get a new LINE!!!
And like BUSH had any Real military experience??? ROFLMAO!!!
Sure Bush has military experience…how to avoid it!
That’s the type of leader the repubs are comfortable with DO AS I SAY NOT AS I DO
Yes, one who says the guard should fight the war, but who used the guard to not fight a war.
What the hell kind of “ally” is Pakistan if they won’t let us go after bin Laden?
Answer? They aint.
Obama is right. We should just drop some speccial ops folks in there and take out bin Laden.
Of course there isn’t a whole lot of MONEY to be made at that. Which is of course, exactly the point.
And while bush is in power? bin Laden is a safe as he would be on the bush tumblerdown ranch. Ya don’t kill the bogeyman that laid the golden excuse.
Obama is right. We should just drop some speccial ops folks in there and take out bin Laden.Posted by: J R | August 04, 2007 at 05:38 PM
Wow, JR is a military general with the technical expertise on how to wage and win wars. I declare this blog has more famous and skilled posters than anywhere in America. Too bad these at home quarterbacks don’t enlist and THEN see how they feel about these idiotic posts.
http://www.dvorak.org/blog/?p=12751
NO “Not” Too Bad these brave chicken shits for the war dont enlist instead of following the lead of the chicken shit repubs in the white house.
“If these people that believed in this war would stand up and put ass were their mouth is we could double the troops in Iraq and make the country like one big prison, and if they would stay as long as it takes some day we could claim victory, but until the people talking the talk walk the walk instead of believing some one else should fight for them, they should be shown for the chickens their are. “Not” instead of posting your remarks towards the people that don’t believe in this war why don’t you find away to convince the ones who believe like you to fight because surly their would be enough to do the job if the ones running their mouth would stand up and back it up.
Posted by: Repuke | August 02, 2007 at 07:55 PM
Enlist?
Shot NO! And they aint getting near my kid either. Not as long as we are engaging in for profit war.
bush is a failure.
In not securing our borders, he has violated the terms of his oath. In failing (I say deliberately) to get bin Laden, he has allowed the single most criminal act against this country to go unpunished.
(Well, unpunished by anyone who had anything to do with it anyway)
bush should be impeached.
And Obama is still right. Word to Pakistan. Prove you are an ally. Give up bin Laden!
My wife says Bin Laden is alive and well at the Bush Ranch in Texas… cutting brush… and other jobs americans wont do!! LOL Who knows?? Maybe she is right!!
Well bush certainly OWES bin Laden. bush was a beneficiary of the attack.bush approval 9/10/01 50%
bush approval 9/14/01 67%And it did give him a nation chomping at the bit to hit back at someone. AND the confusion to be very…..liberal…in his choice of targets.