Democrats: Defend Your House Reps?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
41

[quote]pookie wrote:
JeffR wrote:
You are such an asswipe. You’d besmirch any source.

Besmirch? How is pointing out that your source leaves out half the story “besmirching” anything? Do you see the Patriot Act being mentioned anywhere? No? Why not? It’s still in effect and has direct relevance to the FISA statutes.

Don’t you think it would be a good idea to take what it says into account? It’s just law, after all.

If anything, you should be, again, thanking me for pointing out the missing information. You are now able to better assess the situation and come to a conclusion that won’t make you look like a loon to the informed, adult world.

There are undeniable truths to that article.

Well, yes, but not those you think.

[/quote]

42

[quote]JeffR wrote:
100meters wrote:
JeffR wrote:
100meters wrote:
JeffR wrote:
pookie wrote:

That’s hogwash of course.

You haven’t been paying attention.

The current dem party isn’t known to be “strong” on national security.

Don’t take my word for it, ask around.

JeffR

Factually, “stronger” on national security (more terror = less safe…if you asked around that is.) As always the goal is LESS terror.

lumpy/100meters:

Bless my soul, I’m glad to see you!!! We haven’t had a pure dem around for a while. I’m forced to slap around pseudo-dems (canadians). It’s like an appetizer.

Just out of curiosty, please tell me what segment of the population thinks you guys are strong on terrorism?

As a follow-up, what exactly have you done to deserve the mantra of “strong on terrorism?”

Thanks in advance.

JeffR

I don’t know the answer to number one,

as for number two, my contention is that “we” are “stronger” on terrorism for the most obvious reason of having been against, for the most part, the policies that have factually made us less safe against terrorism.

It’s very simple more terror means less safe. “We” want to have less terror (be more safe)

lumpy/100 meters:

Thanks for the honest answer. I was worried you’d come up with something I hadn’t heard about. I need not have worried.

Being against something doesn’t make you stronger.

Less safe against terrorism? Seems like the U.S. has been doing pretty well thwarting a repeat of 9/11. What’s the count? 6.5 years?

Hell, even your “attacking in Iraq will lead to more terrorism” is failing miserably.

If you were intellectually honest, you’d compare the attacks before and after the surge was instituted.

I won’t hold my breath.

In short, dems are weak on fighting terrorism.

JeffR
[/quote]

Republican rule has led to substantially more terrorism factually speaking. That would make them factually weak on terror wouldn’t it?

Also a second 9/11 is not the standard measure of terror? Besides, the one attack on your watch(missle defense bigger priority at the time) is quite enough, no?

43

[quote]100meters wrote:
JeffR wrote:
100meters wrote:
JeffR wrote:
100meters wrote:
JeffR wrote:
pookie wrote:

That’s hogwash of course.

You haven’t been paying attention.

The current dem party isn’t known to be “strong” on national security.

Don’t take my word for it, ask around.

JeffR

Factually, “stronger” on national security (more terror = less safe…if you asked around that is.) As always the goal is LESS terror.

lumpy/100meters:

Bless my soul, I’m glad to see you!!! We haven’t had a pure dem around for a while. I’m forced to slap around pseudo-dems (canadians). It’s like an appetizer.

Just out of curiosty, please tell me what segment of the population thinks you guys are strong on terrorism?

As a follow-up, what exactly have you done to deserve the mantra of “strong on terrorism?”

Thanks in advance.

JeffR

I don’t know the answer to number one,

as for number two, my contention is that “we” are “stronger” on terrorism for the most obvious reason of having been against, for the most part, the policies that have factually made us less safe against terrorism.

It’s very simple more terror means less safe. “We” want to have less terror (be more safe)

lumpy/100 meters:

Thanks for the honest answer. I was worried you’d come up with something I hadn’t heard about. I need not have worried.

Being against something doesn’t make you stronger.

Less safe against terrorism? Seems like the U.S. has been doing pretty well thwarting a repeat of 9/11. What’s the count? 6.5 years?

Hell, even your “attacking in Iraq will lead to more terrorism” is failing miserably.

If you were intellectually honest, you’d compare the attacks before and after the surge was instituted.

I won’t hold my breath.

In short, dems are weak on fighting terrorism.

JeffR

Republican rule has led to substantially more terrorism factually speaking. That would make them factually weak on terror wouldn’t it?

Also a second 9/11 is not the standard measure of terror? Besides, the one attack on your watch(missle defense bigger priority at the time) is quite enough, no?[/quote]

lumpy/100meters:

Of course, the difference being, the Republicans learned from the attack. bill clinton’s 1993 WTC attack? Didn’t learn, didn’t kill the majority of the al qaeda leadership, begin destroying it’s base of support (Anbar), etc.

The “Republican rule has led to substantially more terrorism” is like blaming FDR for “more combat deaths after Pearl Harbor.”

Terrorist wage terror. Americans have declared war on them. It follows that going right at the heart of the terrorists would lead to a short term spike in attacks.

It’s the peace on the other side that is worth having.

You can see it happening now.

Cut out the cancer at the root. Don’t just passively endure it’s ravages.

That’s the cardinal difference.

JeffR

44

[quote]JeffR wrote:
100meters wrote:
JeffR wrote:
100meters wrote:
JeffR wrote:
100meters wrote:
JeffR wrote:
pookie wrote:

That’s hogwash of course.

You haven’t been paying attention.

The current dem party isn’t known to be “strong” on national security.

Don’t take my word for it, ask around.

JeffR

Factually, “stronger” on national security (more terror = less safe…if you asked around that is.) As always the goal is LESS terror.

lumpy/100meters:

Bless my soul, I’m glad to see you!!! We haven’t had a pure dem around for a while. I’m forced to slap around pseudo-dems (canadians). It’s like an appetizer.

Just out of curiosty, please tell me what segment of the population thinks you guys are strong on terrorism?

As a follow-up, what exactly have you done to deserve the mantra of “strong on terrorism?”

Thanks in advance.

JeffR

I don’t know the answer to number one,

as for number two, my contention is that “we” are “stronger” on terrorism for the most obvious reason of having been against, for the most part, the policies that have factually made us less safe against terrorism.

It’s very simple more terror means less safe. “We” want to have less terror (be more safe)

lumpy/100 meters:

Thanks for the honest answer. I was worried you’d come up with something I hadn’t heard about. I need not have worried.

Being against something doesn’t make you stronger.

Less safe against terrorism? Seems like the U.S. has been doing pretty well thwarting a repeat of 9/11. What’s the count? 6.5 years?

Hell, even your “attacking in Iraq will lead to more terrorism” is failing miserably.

If you were intellectually honest, you’d compare the attacks before and after the surge was instituted.

I won’t hold my breath.

In short, dems are weak on fighting terrorism.

JeffR

Republican rule has led to substantially more terrorism factually speaking. That would make them factually weak on terror wouldn’t it?

Also a second 9/11 is not the standard measure of terror? Besides, the one attack on your watch(missle defense bigger priority at the time) is quite enough, no?

lumpy/100meters:

Of course, the difference being, the Republicans learned from the attack. bill clinton’s 1993 WTC attack? Didn’t learn, didn’t kill the majority of the al qaeda leadership, begin destroying it’s base of support (Anbar), etc.

The “Republican rule has led to substantially more terrorism” is like blaming FDR for “more combat deaths after Pearl Harbor.”

Terrorist wage terror. Americans have declared war on them. It follows that going right at the heart of the terrorists would lead to a short term spike in attacks.

It’s the peace on the other side that is worth having.

You can see it happening now.

Cut out the cancer at the root. Don’t just passively endure it’s ravages.

That’s the cardinal difference.

JeffR

[/quote]

Short-term?

Again, in the real world, 8 years after al qaeda attacked us at WTC, terrorism, was moved down as a priority by your “fast learning” admin. 6 years after the second attack, your admin is in Iraq. Unfortunately, the people who attacked us the first 2 times, and who are planning the 3rd attack, aren’t.

So yeah, not real strong on terror.

45

[quote]100meters wrote:
JeffR wrote:
100meters wrote:
JeffR wrote:
100meters wrote:
JeffR wrote:
100meters wrote:
JeffR wrote:
pookie wrote:

That’s hogwash of course.

You haven’t been paying attention.

The current dem party isn’t known to be “strong” on national security.

Don’t take my word for it, ask around.

JeffR

Factually, “stronger” on national security (more terror = less safe…if you asked around that is.) As always the goal is LESS terror.

lumpy/100meters:

Bless my soul, I’m glad to see you!!! We haven’t had a pure dem around for a while. I’m forced to slap around pseudo-dems (canadians). It’s like an appetizer.

Just out of curiosty, please tell me what segment of the population thinks you guys are strong on terrorism?

As a follow-up, what exactly have you done to deserve the mantra of “strong on terrorism?”

Thanks in advance.

JeffR

I don’t know the answer to number one,

as for number two, my contention is that “we” are “stronger” on terrorism for the most obvious reason of having been against, for the most part, the policies that have factually made us less safe against terrorism.

It’s very simple more terror means less safe. “We” want to have less terror (be more safe)

lumpy/100 meters:

Thanks for the honest answer. I was worried you’d come up with something I hadn’t heard about. I need not have worried.

Being against something doesn’t make you stronger.

Less safe against terrorism? Seems like the U.S. has been doing pretty well thwarting a repeat of 9/11. What’s the count? 6.5 years?

Hell, even your “attacking in Iraq will lead to more terrorism” is failing miserably.

If you were intellectually honest, you’d compare the attacks before and after the surge was instituted.

I won’t hold my breath.

In short, dems are weak on fighting terrorism.

JeffR

Republican rule has led to substantially more terrorism factually speaking. That would make them factually weak on terror wouldn’t it?

Also a second 9/11 is not the standard measure of terror? Besides, the one attack on your watch(missle defense bigger priority at the time) is quite enough, no?

lumpy/100meters:

Of course, the difference being, the Republicans learned from the attack. bill clinton’s 1993 WTC attack? Didn’t learn, didn’t kill the majority of the al qaeda leadership, begin destroying it’s base of support (Anbar), etc.

The “Republican rule has led to substantially more terrorism” is like blaming FDR for “more combat deaths after Pearl Harbor.”

Terrorist wage terror. Americans have declared war on them. It follows that going right at the heart of the terrorists would lead to a short term spike in attacks.

It’s the peace on the other side that is worth having.

You can see it happening now.

Cut out the cancer at the root. Don’t just passively endure it’s ravages.

That’s the cardinal difference.

JeffR

Short-term?

Again, in the real world, 8 years after al qaeda attacked us at WTC, terrorism, was moved down as a priority by your “fast learning” admin. 6 years after the second attack, your admin is in Iraq. Unfortunately, the people who attacked us the first 2 times, and who are planning the 3rd attack, aren’t.

So yeah, not real strong on terror.

[/quote]

Ok, lumpy/100meters:

Let’s try this: Ask lixy what party he prefers?

If he says, democrat, will you yield?

JeffR

46

[quote]JeffR wrote:

Let’s try this: Ask lixy what party he prefers?

If he says, democrat, will you yield?

JeffR

[/quote]

Last I heard, Lixy said he “despises” Hillary and Obama, and opined that Ron Paul is the only candidate who will return the United States to its original founding principles.

That doesn’t sound like a Democrat talking.

47

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
JeffR wrote:

Let’s try this: Ask lixy what party he prefers?

If he says, democrat, will you yield?

JeffR

Last I heard, Lixy said he “despises” Hillary and Obama, and opined that Ron Paul is the only candidate who will return the United States to its original founding principles.

That doesn’t sound like a Democrat talking.

[/quote]

Varq,

When it’s lixy, we have to consider some variables. First, American hatred. If he thinks the dem candidates have a chance to win, he’ll turn on them. It’s reflexive and predictable. Since ron paul is a nutjob with no chance to win, he’s a “safe” bet. It’s lixy’s way of trying to appear to have an “open-mind.” However, it’s guaranteed that if ron paul had a chance to win, he’d be lixy’s worst enemy.

My point to lumpy deals with who lixy would prefer to control the U.S. Government. I contend that he and his pals are much more likely to favor the democrats. Even lumpy has a hard time coming up with examples of why the dems should be considered tough on terrorism. He knows full well that opposing the Patriot Act or doing virtually nothing as we were steadily attacked in the 90’s, doesn’t exactly make lixy and his pals shake in their boots.

Therefore, I urge lumpy to ask lixy directly who he favors. If (and when) lixy responds that he favors democrats, I rest my case.

JeffR

48

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120399015444792445.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries

49

Well, you know, Jeff, the United States of America is a huge landmass. Nearly ten million square kilometers with over three hundred million people, and that’s not even counting Puerto Rico and Guam. I can’t believe that Lixy hates all of it and everybody.

I think his hatred is confined to specific national and foreign policies, which he imagines the Democrats will continue. Which they probably will, albeit with somewhat impotent vigor compared to the present administration. I agree, The current crop of Democrats typically are, and will continue to be, less tough on Terrorism than their Republican counterparts.

Lixy’s support for Ron Paul is no doubt linked to Paul’s stated policy of non-interventionism, which to Lixy probably means fewer bombs being dropped on Muslim countries, therefore a desirable situation. Ron Paul has no chance of being elected, perhaps, and even if by some fluke he were, the probability of him arranging an immediate pullout of all troops from Iraq, Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia are practically nil.

BUT in some kandy-colored streamline alternate reality, where a Ron Paul administration did do exactly that, while releasing all prisoners in Guantanamo, I imagine we would find Lixy’s hatred of America severely lessened, and probably even calling himself a Republican.

Obviously, we’ll never know.

50

[quote]JeffR wrote:
Varqanir wrote:
JeffR wrote:

Let’s try this: Ask lixy what party he prefers?

If he says, democrat, will you yield?

JeffR

Last I heard, Lixy said he “despises” Hillary and Obama, and opined that Ron Paul is the only candidate who will return the United States to its original founding principles.

That doesn’t sound like a Democrat talking.

Varq,

When it’s lixy, we have to consider some variables. First, American hatred. If he thinks the dem candidates have a chance to win, he’ll turn on them. It’s reflexive and predictable. Since ron paul is a nutjob with no chance to win, he’s a “safe” bet. It’s lixy’s way of trying to appear to have an “open-mind.” However, it’s guaranteed that if ron paul had a chance to win, he’d be lixy’s worst enemy.

My point to lumpy deals with who lixy would prefer to control the U.S. Government. I contend that he and his pals are much more likely to favor the democrats. Even lumpy has a hard time coming up with examples of why the dems should be considered tough on terrorism. He knows full well that opposing the Patriot Act or doing virtually nothing as we were steadily attacked in the 90’s, doesn’t exactly make lixy and his pals shake in their boots.

Therefore, I urge lumpy to ask lixy directly who he favors. If (and when) lixy responds that he favors democrats, I rest my case.

JeffR
[/quote]
I said they were “stronger”, and yes they could be stronger still, but the point is your party is definitely weaker with regards to terror. And you no doubt remember that according to the 9/11 commission “virtually nothing” isn’t true (you made this up), but factually your admin did lower the priority of counter-terrorism. So again, even if dems did “virtually nothing” which they didn’t, your party made a deliberate decision to do less, which you no doubt supported at the time.

51

[quote]100meters wrote:
…
I said they were “stronger”, and yes they could be stronger still, but the point is your party is definitely weaker with regards to terror. And you no doubt remember that according to the 9/11 commission “virtually nothing” isn’t true (you made this up), but factually your admin did lower the priority of counter-terrorism. So again, even if dems did “virtually nothing” which they didn’t, your party made a deliberate decision to do less, which you no doubt supported at the time.

[/quote]

Wait a minute. I thought evil Bush was violating all sorts of civil rights with his counter terrorism and now you are saying he is doing less.

Make up your mind.

52

[quote]100meters wrote:

I said they were “stronger”, and yes they could be stronger still, but the point is your party is definitely weaker with regards to terror. And you no doubt remember that according to the 9/11 commission “virtually nothing” isn’t true (you made this up), but factually your admin did lower the priority of counter-terrorism. So again, even if dems did “virtually nothing” which they didn’t, your party made a deliberate decision to do less, which you no doubt supported at the time.

[/quote]

lumpy/100 meters:

I was hoping that you’d take my bet regarding lixy. It was a clean and effective way to make my point.

Unfortunately, you’ve decided to start pointing fingers at Republicans regarding 9/11.

That puts me in an uncomfortable position. I’m torn between two priorities. First, we have a serious shortage of far-left, partisan democrats. Seriously, besides you (and your three + different screen names) all we have is a 17 year old dem-in-training (beowolf) and a bunch of pseudo-democrats (canadians like pookie). Therefore, I hesitate to humiliate you too badly. The past has shown that when you are shamed, you leave for months on end. As you know, the election season is upon us. It would be nice to have you here as a sounding board.

However, the other priority is that I cannot allow you to lay the blame for 9/11 at the foot of the Republicans. The VAST majority of that blame lies at the foot of the clinton Administration.

I’ve decided to take a middle ground. I will refute your argument without injecting adjectives that would make you slink away with your tail between your legs.

Let’s begin.

First of all, bill clinton had at least two documented chances (Former CIA operative Scheur claims he had 8-10) to kill or capture osama bin laden. He chose not to. It doesn’t take Nostradamus to predict that had he taken those opportunities, the towers would still be standing and the people who were killed on 9/11 would still be with us.

Here he is having been offered bin laden, he refused.

I apologize that the audio in the second link is poor. However, I thought it more instructive to hear bill clinton in his own words. This removes the usual liberal habit of attacking the messenger (Faux news, etc.).

I’m sorry, but, no amount of stealing archives or throwing temper tantrums over T.V. scripts is going to obscure these essential facts.

Now, would you PLEASE ask lixy which party he prefers to be in power.

Thanks.

JeffR

53

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
100meters wrote:
…
I said they were “stronger”, and yes they could be stronger still, but the point is your party is definitely weaker with regards to terror. And you no doubt remember that according to the 9/11 commission “virtually nothing” isn’t true (you made this up), but factually your admin did lower the priority of counter-terrorism. So again, even if dems did “virtually nothing” which they didn’t, your party made a deliberate decision to do less, which you no doubt supported at the time.

Wait a minute. I thought evil Bush was violating all sorts of civil rights with his counter terrorism and now you are saying he is doing less.

Make up your mind.[/quote]

Obviously one can “violate” civil rights domestically and still be weaker on terror. The rights violated weren’t what made us weak on terror in the first place, so certainly violating those rights wouldn’t make us any stronger.

54

[quote]JeffR wrote:
100meters wrote:

I said they were “stronger”, and yes they could be stronger still, but the point is your party is definitely weaker with regards to terror. And you no doubt remember that according to the 9/11 commission “virtually nothing” isn’t true (you made this up), but factually your admin did lower the priority of counter-terrorism. So again, even if dems did “virtually nothing” which they didn’t, your party made a deliberate decision to do less, which you no doubt supported at the time.

lumpy/100 meters:

I was hoping that you’d take my bet regarding lixy. It was a clean and effective way to make my point.

Unfortunately, you’ve decided to start pointing fingers at Republicans regarding 9/11.

That puts me in an uncomfortable position. I’m torn between two priorities. First, we have a serious shortage of far-left, partisan democrats. Seriously, besides you (and your three + different screen names) all we have is a 17 year old dem-in-training (beowolf) and a bunch of pseudo-democrats (canadians like pookie). Therefore, I hesitate to humiliate you too badly. The past has shown that when you are shamed, you leave for months on end. As you know, the election season is upon us. It would be nice to have you here as a sounding board.

However, the other priority is that I cannot allow you to lay the blame for 9/11 at the foot of the Republicans. The VAST majority of that blame lies at the foot of the clinton Administration.

I’ve decided to take a middle ground. I will refute your argument without injecting adjectives that would make you slink away with your tail between your legs.

Let’s begin.

First of all, bill clinton had at least two documented chances (Former CIA operative Scheur claims he had 8-10) to kill or capture osama bin laden. He chose not to. It doesn’t take Nostradamus to predict that had he taken those opportunities, the towers would still be standing and the people who were killed on 9/11 would still be with us.

Here he is having been offered bin laden, he refused.

I apologize that the audio in the second link is poor. However, I thought it more instructive to hear bill clinton in his own words. This removes the usual liberal habit of attacking the messenger (Faux news, etc.).

I’m sorry, but, no amount of stealing archives or throwing temper tantrums over T.V. scripts is going to obscure these essential facts.

Now, would you PLEASE ask lixy which party he prefers to be in power.

Thanks.

JeffR

[/quote]

You are aware of course that the Bush admin has had similar opportunities to take out top leaders and not taken them due to the EXACT same reasons. And of course I believe it was your admin who had OBL surrounded at tora bora, and when men on the ground ask for additional support, refused it(in a war where presumably one of the main goals would have been to capture/kill OBL?).

And again I’ll point out again, as weak as you think Clinton was on terror, your admin came in and decided to go weaker than that. That’s not really disputable.

Also, I didn’t blame republicans for 9/11, my contention is factually dems are stronger on terror than republicans, and that it’s silly to say that your party is stronger than another party because two 9/11’s didn’t happen on your watch. One was enough.

55

[quote]100meters wrote:

Also, I didn’t blame republicans for 9/11, my contention is factually dems are stronger on terror than republicans, and that it’s silly to say that your party is stronger than another party because two 9/11’s didn’t happen on your watch. One was enough.[/quote]

I have no qualms with conceding that Democrats are stronger on Terror.

Hell, Terror is the Democratic Party’s middle name. Half of Democratic policy is based on some deep-seated terror felt by Democratic legislators and their constituents.

However, I think recent history has shown that Republicans are harder on terrorists.

And the accomplices of terrorists.

And the governments which support the accomplices of terrorists.

Democrats bomb aspirin factories. Republicans remove sovereign regimes. That’s the difference.

56

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
100meters wrote:

Also, I didn’t blame republicans for 9/11, my contention is factually dems are stronger on terror than republicans, and that it’s silly to say that your party is stronger than another party because two 9/11’s didn’t happen on your watch. One was enough.

I have no qualms with conceding that Democrats are stronger on Terror.

Hell, Terror is the Democratic Party’s middle name. Half of Democratic policy is based on some deep-seated terror felt by Democratic legislators and their constituents.

However, I think recent history has shown that Republicans are harder on terrorists.

And the accomplices of terrorists.

And the governments which support the accomplices of terrorists.

Democrats bomb aspirin factories. Republicans remove sovereign regimes. That’s the difference.
[/quote]

Uhmmm, it took 9/11 for republicans to realize that lowering the priority of counter-terrorism might have been a mistake, and that stopping those predator drone flights over afghanistan may have been a tad naive. Their response initially was admirable, however it ended with al qaeda leadership being allowed to flee into Pakistan, where they remain to this day (presumably because they are a sovereign nation?) . And after nearly eliminating one training ground for terrorist, they went and created another one, in addition to new terrorists. Better to eliminate a fire than to pour gasoline on it which appears to be the only terrorist strategy this admin has.

So no the difference is republicans have created more terrorism, which to me makes them softer on terror.

again the goal as always is less terrorism/ists.

57

[quote]100meters wrote:
Varqanir wrote:
100meters wrote:

Also, I didn’t blame republicans for 9/11, my contention is factually dems are stronger on terror than republicans, and that it’s silly to say that your party is stronger than another party because two 9/11’s didn’t happen on your watch. One was enough.

I have no qualms with conceding that Democrats are stronger on Terror.

Hell, Terror is the Democratic Party’s middle name. Half of Democratic policy is based on some deep-seated terror felt by Democratic legislators and their constituents.

However, I think recent history has shown that Republicans are harder on terrorists.

And the accomplices of terrorists.

And the governments which support the accomplices of terrorists.

Democrats bomb aspirin factories. Republicans remove sovereign regimes. That’s the difference.

Uhmmm, it took 9/11 for republicans to realize that lowering the priority of counter-terrorism might have been a mistake, and that stopping those predator drone flights over afghanistan may have been a tad naive. Their response initially was admirable, however it ended with al qaeda leadership being allowed to flee into Pakistan, where they remain to this day (presumably because they are a sovereign nation?) . And after nearly eliminating one training ground for terrorist, they went and created another one, in addition to new terrorists. Better to eliminate a fire than to pour gasoline on it which appears to be the only terrorist strategy this admin has.

So no the difference is republicans have created more terrorism, which to me makes them softer on terror.

again the goal as always is less terrorism/ists.

[/quote]

lumpy/100 meters:

Since you seem incapable (or unwilling, politically) to understand the concept of dealing with the root cause, perhaps a simple analogy might breakthrough your mental morass.

Are you familiar with bees?

As you should know, bees live in a hive. The queen bee sends out drones. These drones can sting you.

Now, imagine you’ve been repeatedly stung in the same area. Do you kill the bee that stings you and declare victory? Of course not. You go after the hive. You go after the infrastructure that produced, nourished, and directed the stinging bee.

Going forward, imagine that you are proactive and identify the hive. When you spray the hive, initially, more bees come out. Do you say, “I’ve created more bees?” No, you’ve only brought the magnitude of the problem out into the open. Is it possible that the queen bee would call in reinforcements that weren’t part of the original hive? Yes. However, it’s always better to have all their friends out in the open. They are easier to kill. If they were friendly with the original bees, chances are you are going to have had to spray them in the future.

I hope that helps.

JeffR

P.S. Please, in the name of God, don’t vomit out the “If we wouldn’t have attacked Iraq, we would have gotten bin laden.” It’s utter nonsense. If you do puke this bilious crap out, then please remember to tell me how having more troops on the border of Pakistan makes a bit of difference if the Pakistians refuse to allow us to enter.

P.P.S: I noticed that your party is trying a new line of surrender. Instead of: “The surge is failing” and “Iraq isn’t meeting political goals” I noticed chucky schumer and your boy, russ feingold, screaming about the cost.

P.P.P.S: Remember when you were crying about Bush not putting more troops on the ground to begin with? Remember when I told you that you and your pals would cry about the financial cost? russ and chuckie made my point.

P.P.P.P.S: I laughed my ass off when the Republicans called their bluff and brought that stupid “it’s too expensive” bill to the floor. The dems were shamed and they withdrew it.

58

[quote]100meters wrote:

You are aware of course that the Bush admin has had similar opportunities to take out top leaders and not taken them due to the EXACT same reasons. And of course I believe it was your admin who had OBL surrounded at tora bora, and when men on the ground ask for additional support, refused it(in a war where presumably one of the main goals would have been to capture/kill OBL?).[/quote]

I think it’s fair to say that Tora Bora was a screw up. The difference, of course, is that the Bush Administration was actively trying to get him. That’s in stark contrast to being GIVEN the opportunity and then pissing it away.

The question becomes, if the Administration had maintained the clinton status quo, would it have made any difference with the advanced stage of planning in January 2001?

I doubt it.

Not very clever. You don’t blame them. But, you look to insert that a Republican happened to be President at the time.

The problem for you: Bush’s response to 9/11 was vastly more effective and proactive than clinton’s WEAK and TEPID response to the first WTC bombing, embassy bombings, and the U.S.S. Cole.

JeffR

59

[quote]100meters wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
100meters wrote:
…
I said they were “stronger”, and yes they could be stronger still, but the point is your party is definitely weaker with regards to terror. And you no doubt remember that according to the 9/11 commission “virtually nothing” isn’t true (you made this up), but factually your admin did lower the priority of counter-terrorism. So again, even if dems did “virtually nothing” which they didn’t, your party made a deliberate decision to do less, which you no doubt supported at the time.

Wait a minute. I thought evil Bush was violating all sorts of civil rights with his counter terrorism and now you are saying he is doing less.

Make up your mind.

Obviously one can “violate” civil rights domestically and still be weaker on terror. The rights violated weren’t what made us weak on terror in the first place, so certainly violating those rights wouldn’t make us any stronger.

[/quote]

Yes, breaking a law that was written for old technology and listening to AQ phone calls violated their civil rights and also was somehow weak on terror.

We would have been better off sending them flower baskets and not listening in on their phone calls.

60

[quote]JeffR wrote:
…

I think it’s fair to say that Tora Bora was a screw up. The difference, of course, is that the Bush Administration was actively trying to get him. That’s in stark contrast to being GIVEN the opportunity and then pissing it away.

…[/quote]

Of course Tora Bora can be characterized as a screw up. Any failure can be. There were excellent reasons we did what we did. If we had more reliable Afghan allies in certain positions Bin Laden probably would have been caught.

Tora Bora came too early in the war to have enough men and material in place in order to have done it alone.

We were so successful so quickly with limited ground forces and air power that we found ourselves in that position too early.

Of course the guys on the ground wanted more American soldiers but they were not quickly available and frankly at that point in the war they were not as competent at getting up and down the mountains as the Afghans were.

We were still gearing up!