Bush, the Phony Conservative

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
41

[quote]pookie wrote:

We’ll never know if 9/11 would’ve occurred under Gore; but don’t give me bullshit about Bush making you any safer. [/quote]

I’ve always maintained that in all likelihood no, it wouldn’t have. The Clinton administration and Gore were very familiar with bin Laden and the threat he presented. They would have taken the warnings very seriously, and the FBI reports regarding flight school students would have set off alarms big time, instead of being completely ignored.

The Bush administration, on the other hand, had only one thing on their minds from before they took office. They just couldn’t be bothered with this al Queda bullshit while Saddam was still out there.

They ignored multiple warnings and clear signals so that they could plan an invasion. Too bad they didn’t plan for post-invasion too, though.

42

[quote]pookie wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Tell you what, ‘gentlemen’: why don’t you describe the wonderful world we’d have if, say, Howard Dean had won? Or maybe E-Gore?

Yeah, well we can play “what-if” till the cows come home; but for the sake of discussion, let’s assume that Gore would’ve continued in Clinton’s vein.

Can you imagine the nightmare of another 8 years of peace, progress and prosperity? A budget surplus? 3000 troops not dead and buried?

As for your terrorist boogeyman, it’s old and dated. Fear mongering works for a time, but eventually people wake up and notice that they’re afraid of the wrong things. But still, look at it this way: After being hit in '93, Clinton managed 7 years without any attacks. Bush, even with the experience of the previous administration available (many staffers involved in security where still there) and with reports entitled “Bin Laden determined to strike US” lasted only nine months before getting hit, big time.

We’ll never know if 9/11 would’ve occurred under Gore; but don’t give me bullshit about Bush making you any safer. If anything, and plenty of reports confirm it, Bush’s action in the Middle East have created more terrorists. Not only that, but his and Rumsfeld mismanagement of the war have shown them how to beat the US. Great fuckin’ plan. Give them a cause; and then lose to them to embolden them.

Yup, hope you feel safe with Bush.
[/quote]

I’ll pass over a bunch of the other crazy things you posted here but the “terrorist boogeyman” line made me see red. 3000 + innocent people burned to death or were crushed not too far from me a little over 5 years ago. The “terrorist boogeymen” are’t done either. At least not if they can help it, and they are very real.

Im not saying Bush or even the Republicans are the guys for the job, but to post something like that is absurd.

Go stick your head back in the sand…

43

[quote]tme wrote:
Dickhunter wrote:
If your world is based upon SNL skits, you have replaced Wreckless as the King Of Dipshits.

Your worldview is based on Faux news, which is way more fucked up than SNL skits.

Wreckless or anyone else has a long ways to go to knock you off that throne, Your Majesty.

Long live the King, Dipshit.

[/quote]

LOL…Hahahaha.

44

Once again, horseshit. Gore had 7 F’s on his transcripts from divinity school (Wow, that’s good training for the job of president!) and claimed to have invented the internet. Conclusion: Whackjob.

Kerry was consistently the most liberal tax-and-spen guy in our Senate. He also publicly stated that our troops were the equivalent of the armies of Genghis Khan, that we cut off women’s breasts, tortured babies to death, burned villages for fun and laughs. He earned medals in 4 months that other guys didn’t earned in 2 or 3 tours. Conclusion: Whackjob

I have been disappointed in President Bush. He’s no conservative and was elected under false premises. BUT, he was a better choice than the whackos the Dems put up against him.

BTW: Have none of YOU ever been disappointed in a person? Could you see into the future through some magic mushrooms or something that they WOULD disappoint you? Well, whoop-de-fucking-do for you if so, and STFU.

Headhunter

45

[quote]tme wrote:

I’ve always maintained that in all likelihood no, it wouldn’t have. The Clinton administration and Gore were very familiar with bin Laden and the threat he presented. They would have taken the warnings very seriously, and the FBI reports regarding flight school students would have set off alarms big time, instead of being completely ignored.

The Bush administration, on the other hand, had only one thing on their minds from before they took office. They just couldn’t be bothered with this al Queda bullshit while Saddam was still out there.

They ignored multiple warnings and clear signals so that they could plan an invasion. Too bad they didn’t plan for post-invasion too, though.

[/quote]

I’m sure the families from the USS Cole or the Marine barricks (peacekeepers in Lebanon) would agree with everything you wrote. The threats would never have manifested but for Bush.

Tell me, do you think about what you write, or is it stream-of-consciousness?

Ms. Estrogen, you ARE a laugh riot!

46

[quote]Brad61 wrote:
Plus, it took you six years to decide that you don’t like George W. Bush??? That means you’re also not very bright, or you can’t think for yourself (or both).

Face it, if the GOP had won big on Tuesday, you would have never started this thread. You’re just a sore loser, with no credibility and not much integrity.[/quote]

B-f’ing-INGO!!!

47

[quote]Dickhunter wrote:

…more of his usual senseless drivel…

[/quote]

Hopefully your math skills are somewhat better than your reading comprehension, but that’s asking a lot. You really are a fucking tool, aren’t you Mr. “Teacher”?

I’ll say this s-l-o-w-e-r so you can grasp the concept. Ready? Gore would have taken the warnings and alerts seriously throughout the summer of 2001, instead of ignoring them in order to spend more cycles planning an invasion of Iraq. Maybe past attacks can be an indicator of your enemy’s intent and seriousness. Maybe “fuck that shit, tell me about Iraq” wasn’t such a great strategy in the months leading up to September 2001? Maybe when FBI agents warned of suspected al Queda members attending flight schools in the US a response other than “what’s that have to do with the WMDs in Iraq?” would have been more appropriate.

Nevermind, stooge. Go off and spank it in the janitor closet with the latest Ann Cuntler column, you’ll find the answers you’re looking for there.

48

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
I publicly renounce my support of this coward effective immediately. He is a phony. He came in as a conservative but is nothing of the sort. He is a Lib. I also denounce the Republican D0-NOTHING Congress — no term limits, increased spending and waste, no social security reform,…

[/quote]

Ummmm…yeah…politicians, huh? It took you 6 years to figure out GWB was a sham?

He’s beaten and has no choice but to bow to the dems–the plus side is that he has two years to take credit for all the good that may happen which will bolster his party back to the forefront…or the country will be smarter than that and remember the first 6 years–the years that will be forever remembered as the greatest lie ever told.

49

[quote]JD430 wrote:
I’ll pass over a bunch of the other crazy things you posted here but the “terrorist boogeyman” line made me see red. 3000 + innocent people burned to death or were crushed not too far from me a little over 5 years ago. The “terrorist boogeymen” are’t done either. At least not if they can help it, and they are very real.[/quote]

I’m not saying terrorists don’t exist or that they’re not trying to target you.

I’m saying that terrorism is being used as a reason to justify all manners of unethical or outright illegal behavior on the part of the government. Wiretapping, imprisonment, torture, surveillance, etc. Anything that might prove unpopular or that could face strong public opposition is justified with the security mantra.

Even before the last election, you still had republican candidates talking about how the dems where “soft of terror” or similar kind of nonsense. That’s what I mean by the term boogeyman. Terrorists are invoked at every turn to scare people into complying with what the government wants.

50

[quote]tme wrote:
Dickhunter wrote:

…more of his usual senseless drivel…

Hopefully your math skills are somewhat better than your reading comprehension, but that’s asking a lot. You really are a fucking tool, aren’t you Mr. “Teacher”?

I’ll say this s-l-o-w-e-r so you can grasp the concept. Ready? Gore would have taken the warnings and alerts seriously throughout the summer of 2001, instead of ignoring them in order to spend more cycles planning an invasion of Iraq. Maybe past attacks can be an indicator of your enemy’s intent and seriousness. Maybe “fuck that shit, tell me about Iraq” wasn’t such a great strategy in the months leading up to September 2001? Maybe when FBI agents warned of suspected al Queda members attending flight schools in the US a response other than “what’s that have to do with the WMDs in Iraq?” would have been more appropriate.

Nevermind, stooge. Go off and spank it in the janitor closet with the latest Ann Cuntler column, you’ll find the answers you’re looking for there.
[/quote]

Ms. Estrogen,

You seriously are fucked up in the head. It is so easy to sit there and say how someone else would have done it better or more efficiently. (Isn’t that like the apologists for Marxism: 'Oh, it would have worked in a more advanced country!") Clinton sat on his fucking hands for 8 years and left Bush a giant fucking mess — and you assholes blame him, the guy who tried to fight back. The Dems even held up his appointments, so it was DEMS who left us open to attack on 9/11, cumwad.

Tell you what: I’ll whack off to Annie while you whack off to your gay porn. Maybe you’ll get all your answers there, shitwad.

51

[quote]tme wrote:
Maybe when FBI agents warned of suspected al Queda members attending flight schools in the US a response other than “what’s that have to do with the WMDs in Iraq?” would have been more appropriate.

[/quote]

I’ve missed this tid-bit. Could you please provide a good source for this? I did not know that Bush was made aware of this. From my understanding, it died at the FBI. Now, I might be wrong, so I’d be glad for a reputable source.

However, if I am recalling this right, how would Gore have done anything different? Assuming the info was never acted on by the FBI.

52

[quote]Sloth wrote:
However, if I am recalling this right, how would Gore have done anything different? Assuming the info was never acted on by the FBI.

[/quote]
He would probably have been intelligent enough to finish in Afghanistan first before ‘chasing windmills’.

53

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Sloth wrote:
However, if I am recalling this right, how would Gore have done anything different? Assuming the info was never acted on by the FBI.

He would probably have been intelligent enough to finish in Afghanistan first before ‘chasing windmills’.
[/quote]

I don’t think you understood what I’m asking.

54

[quote]Sloth wrote:

I’ve missed this tid-bit. Could you please provide a good source for this? I did not know that Bush was made aware of this. From my understanding, it died at the FBI. Now, I might be wrong, so I’d be glad for a reputable source.

However, if I am recalling this right, how would Gore have done anything different? Assuming the info was never acted on by the FBI.[/quote]

I didn’t state that Bush was made aware of it, and for all I know he wasn’t. Who does the FBI work for? Who sets their priorities? Did it die at the FBI because word had already come down from on top that intelligence unrelated to Iraqi WMD wasn’t relevant or even wanted? I don’t know. Do you?

Maybe a Gore administration would have let the FBI know that domestic surveillance of al Queda activity was a bigger priority than making stuff up about Iraq. Maybe then instead of sitting on the Moussaoui investigation or terrorists in flight schools they would have followed up and acted on it? I don’t know. Do you?

55

[quote]tme wrote:
Sloth wrote:

I don’t know. Do you?

[/quote]

I sure don’t. But, as you admit, neither do you.

56

[quote]Sloth wrote:
I sure don’t. But, as you admit, neither do you.[/quote]

Neither do you know that things would have been worse under Gore, or that we’d have been attacked more, or reacted differently, or anything else.

Except for preemptively and unilaterally invading a country to settle an old grudge. We probably wouldn’t have had to go there.

57

I never claimed terrorism would have been worse under Gore. Or, that 9-11 wouldn’t have happened under Gore. It’s speculation either way.

58

Sloth, I know you didn’t and haven’t, and sorry if that sounded like it was directed specifically at you. It wasn’t.