Jan. 20, 2009

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
61

[quote]Razorslim wrote:

USS Cole - 2000 (President Clinton)
US Embassy Bombings in Kenya and Tanzania - 1998 (President Clinton)
Khubar Towers, Saudi Arabia - 1996 (President Clinton)
WTC 1993 (President Clinton)

Each one of those attacks and the corresponding lack of a firm cohesive response directly led to the 9/11 attacks. Put the direct blame on Clinton’s weak terrorism policies which emboldened them to attack us on our soil[/quote]

Ahhh I got you. Good answers to everything else, those were clearly standup points.

Saudia Arabia is not American soil, by the way. I know it killed Americans, but that wasn’t what we were talking about.

As for the USS Cole- attacking a warship is not an act of terrorism. Plus, it is, as of yet, it is still unknown who did it. Al-Queda is suspected, but so is the Sudanese government, or just Sudanese nationals.

Again, embassy bombings- yea, technically US soil, but it wasn’t in this country.

Should they have been more active in investigating these things? I guess. I don’t really know how active they were or weren’t, and neither do you.

The FBI could have taken members off of the mafia squads and put them on Al-Queda as they did after 9/11, but there are still internal problems here. It could have been run better, as I’ve said.

The fact is, the shit’s gonna happen. There’s no way to stop bombings like the ones you mentioned except through intelligence. It’s not a conventional war, and you can’t fight it like one.

So what you want to do? Show a stiff upper lip and bomb every country where people are Muslim? Start a whole damn war with every country we come across that might have had someone connected?

Diplomacy, combined with active intelligence, is the only way to be safe. They proved that we can’t ignore them, and that our regular way of putting tanks on the ground and troops in the street won’t work in this kind of war. So why would you want to fight it like that?

See, this is how all your posts are. Sound real nice, but there ain’t any substance anywhere. You’re probably not even fooling the glancing readers who don’t check your bullshit out.

62

[quote]bald eagle wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:

He said Iraq had WMD. They didn’t.

When you call this a lie you start to lose credibility irish. Every intelligence agency in the world also believed this so were they also lying?

I understand opposition to the war - that is a very legitimate argument to make but to call Bush a liar is ignoring everything they had to go on. It means that all these itelligence agencies knew Bush was distorting their info but did not say anything.

That is quite a stretch. And he also fooled every Senator and Congressman who had access to the same intelligence. How likely is that?

Just be a little fair here on this one. It was not a lie.
[/quote]

I don’t know. I don’t know W’s motives, and I don’t know what went on in his head.

What I do know, and has been documented, is that not everyone was convinced that he had WMDs. Bush actively sought to make that connection, as he did with them and 9/11.

So as I said, either he was lying, or blatantly ignorant. Neither is excusable, and both are crimes when you’re president, and commander in chief of the army.

63

I’m gonna smoke a whole lot of weed.

64

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

He said Iraq had a hand in 9/11. They didn’t.[/quote]

He never said that, not once. Find a quote from an accurate source.

Now I was going line by line arguing with you, but decided it was too long.

First you need to use a more accurate source then one of the “I Hate Bush” websites out there.

On the WMD issue, you can try to say he lied, but to prove that you need to prove that they did not have WMD’s when Bush said they did, then you need to prove that Bush knew that when he said it.

But another problem is that we did find some WMD’s there. We also found pre-cursors, and enough yellow cake uranium to make 1 nuke.

But more importantly we found fully operational WMD programs, and labs that could churn out this stuff in an instant. The weapons inspectors, and documents found there back this up.

This means that regardless, he might as well have had them.

But we did find some:

I look at the WMD programs in place, even if they were not producing, they were capable. Then the mass graves found there, and the oil for food that was filling his bank account with billions. What we end up with is a ticking time bomb.

Call me a “fuck” if you want, but I understand what all this means. I understand what could have been. Bush may have stopped a disaster that made 911 look like a tea party. And you are so wrapped up in hating him you, and others, cannot see that.

65

[quote]The Mage wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:

He said Iraq had a hand in 9/11. They didn’t.

He never said that, not once. Find a quote from an accurate source.

Now I was going line by line arguing with you, but decided it was too long.
[/quote]

That may be true- it’s not likely that I could find a direct quote. But that was the basis of the whole war- references and allusions to 9/11, then the reasons why we had to attack Iraq. It doesn’t take a genius to see his strategy of putting Iraq in people’s minds, and linking it to 9/11. He said that there were numerous links and contacts between Iraq and Al-Queda, and he was clearly trying to use that as justification for the attack.

In retrospect, it was a smart plan, because then he could run back and say, “Well, I never really said that.” Another thing is that this war, because it was never based on facts, was based on the perception of the people. As I recall, many polls found that the American people thought there was a link between Iraq and 9/11. That didn’t come from thin air, it came from the administration.

Bush said just enough so that if he found a link, he could say, “Well, we knew all along,” but when he didn’t, he could still say, “I never said there was.” Misleading and lying are not far from each other, and misleading is the politically correct term. But having read many of his speeches, I’ll stick with the “lying”. Deliberately instilling the idea into the heads of Americans that Iraq and 9/11 were somehow connected was Bush’s Gulf of Tonkin, and it worked out just as well.

Sorry. You don’t tell me what’s credible and what’s not.

[quote]
On the WMD issue, you can try to say he lied, but to prove that you need to prove that they did not have WMD’s when Bush said they did, then you need to prove that Bush knew that when he said it.

But another problem is that we did find some WMD’s there. We also found pre-cursors, and enough yellow cake uranium to make 1 nuke.

But more importantly we found fully operational WMD programs, and labs that could churn out this stuff in an instant. The weapons inspectors, and documents found there back this up.

This means that regardless, he might as well have had them.

But we did find some:

I look at the WMD programs in place, even if they were not producing, they were capable. Then the mass graves found there, and the oil for food that was filling his bank account with billions. What we end up with is a ticking time bomb.

Call me a “fuck” if you want, but I understand what all this means. I understand what could have been. Bush may have stopped a disaster that made 911 look like a tea party. And you are so wrapped up in hating him you, and others, cannot see that.[/quote]

Wrong. Nothing there.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7634313/

66

[quote]malonetd wrote:
Worst president in history? Please. That’s William Henry Harrison. That guy didn’t do shit while in office.[/quote]

Actually, that puts him pretty high up on the list of best presidents in my book. The sad part of this whole debacle is that despite how little I like Bush, he’s better than either of the men who will take his job. I’m just thankful that I’m from Idaho because I can vote my conscience and not put Obama in office for it.

At this point, I think the best thing for our republic is an Obama presidency and a republican congress.

mike

67

[quote]AssOnGrass wrote:
Razorslim wrote:

As far as attack on US soil and sovereignity I give you:

USS Cole - 2000 (President Clinton)
US Embassy Bombings in Kenya and Tanzania - 1998 (President Clinton)
Khubar Towers, Saudi Arabia - 1996 (President Clinton)
WTC 1993 (President Clinton)

Each one of those attacks and the corresponding lack of a firm cohesive response directly led to the 9/11 attacks. Put the direct blame on Clinton’s weak terrorism policies which emboldened them to attack us on our soil

My personal opinion is that we have not been attacked here in as long because we have woken up at defending ourselves better within our own borders. Also we are being attacked overseas in battle virtually every day.

It’s all a matter of perception really.[/quote]

I’m going with the fact that we haven’t been attacked as the fact that our enemies are retarded. Consider the fact that these are the guys who carry rifles without stocks as a status symbol because “Allah will guide the bullets”.

mike

68

[quote]Mikeyali wrote:
malonetd wrote:
Worst president in history? Please. That’s William Henry Harrison. That guy didn’t do shit while in office.

Actually, that puts him pretty high up on the list of best presidents in my book.

mike[/quote]

You’re the second to “debate” my statement. First, let me say this: It was a joke. Sort of like calling Bush the worst president ever.

Second, I get your point about that putting him high on the list, but unless everything’s peaches and cream, there needs to be some action from the presidency. But, since my comment wasn’t meant to be serious, I’m not trying debate best and worst presidents.

69

[quote]The Mage wrote:
[/quote]

And I still want to know what the Jewish comment was about.

70

[quote]malonetd wrote:
Mikeyali wrote:
malonetd wrote:
Worst president in history? Please. That’s William Henry Harrison. That guy didn’t do shit while in office.

Actually, that puts him pretty high up on the list of best presidents in my book.

mike

You’re the second to “debate” my statement. First, let me say this: It was a joke. Sort of like calling Bush the worst president ever.

Second, I get your point about that putting him high on the list, but unless everything’s peaches and cream, there needs to be some action from the presidency. But, since my comment wasn’t meant to be serious, I’m not trying debate best and worst presidents.[/quote]

I didn’t think you were. It just brought up a good point. Most of the overacheivers in the white house have done more harm than good. The ones that stuck to drinking and philandering often did the least amount of harm.

71

[quote]dhickey wrote:

The ones that stuck to drinking and philandering often did the least amount of harm.
[/quote]

So you must love John F. Kennedy. That man was a champion drinker and philanderer.

72

[quote]Mikeyali wrote:
malonetd wrote:
Worst president in history? Please. That’s William Henry Harrison. That guy didn’t do shit while in office.

Actually, that puts him pretty high up on the list of best presidents in my book. The sad part of this whole debacle is that despite how little I like Bush, he’s better than either of the men who will take his job. I’m just thankful that I’m from Idaho because I can vote my conscience and not put Obama in office for it.

At this point, I think the best thing for our republic is an Obama presidency and a republican congress.

mike[/quote]

I tend to agree, although that’s not what we’re gonna get. You going Baldwin or Barr?