posted on February 4, 2004 10:13:28 AM new
What I am finding funny here is the deflection habits. There is one thing I have to give Bush credit for... at least he mixes his up....
Bush can't follow thru on his promise to find Bin Laden - Attack Saddam
Bush loses his justification for attacking Saddam - Lets go to the Moon
etc
Republican posters on this board however are stuck in a rut.
Bush can't follow thru on his promise to find Bin Laden - Well, Clinton didn't get him either
Bush loses his justification for attacking Saddam - Clinton thought he was a bad man too
If you trip on a sidewalk is that Clintons fault too? You seem to be a little obsessed. Personally I think it's envy.
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
posted on February 4, 2004 10:13:47 AM new
Well said Linda,
I will have to give Kerry his due... he is a good at playijng politics and catering to the left... of course if he gets the nomination you have to ask yourself... do you fell safe with him?
posted on February 4, 2004 10:37:59 AM newLinda, I am neither silly or stupid, but your unquestioning support of a liar that is frittering away the lives of our troops certainly calls into question your intelligence. Myself and more than 1/2 of America does not believe we've been lied to. We can read the reports, not op-ed's and make a decision. We were not lied to by Bush. Too many choose to make this a partisan issue, rather than seeing that the terrorists don't see us and dems and reps and Independents....they want us all removed. Those who can see clearly will be sure this president is re-elected. Even the well known dems are turning their support to Bush for exactly this reason.
The facts are there, you liberals just refuse to see them.
It has always amused me how you ask so many questions of others, but when questions are asked of you, you rarely respond. You just disappear.
The majority opinion rules? Yes, in that each American will vote their opinion come election time and the majority of the voters will decide what is the MOST important issue to them. I'm betting national security will be.
How do you explain world opinion on the war in Iraq being for the most part (that's the majority) negative then? I've stated MANY times I don't care what the 'world' thinks of our actions. Our president's job is to do whatever they feel is necessary to protect our nation. FIRST and foremost...period. If your side could be open and read the many, many reports that clearly spell out why many of our supposed 'allies' were against our actions, you will see they were putting their own countries FINANCIAL interests ahead of our reasons for this war. It's been in the news many times, but the left must not care about those forms of proof for why we didn't get their support. Or maybe they have read it and just don't really care.
But currently Kerry is leading the dem pack. He voted FOR the war. I don't think many would elect a president who can't make up his mind on whether or not we should have gone to war. First we should....then we shouldn't. Like clinton....whatever the latest poll shows is how they make their decisions....change their views. Bush has been steadfast in what he thinks needs to be done....and many respect him for his consistency. Consistancy....something few of the dem candidates can say about themselves.
The War on Terror? Where's Osama? Why don't you ask clinton that question? He's the one who refused to take custody of him when offered. And the ultra left was screaming 'where's Saddam' too. But then when he's found and detained, it's all of a sudden not so important. Guess it will be the same when binladen is captured....he won't be so important either.
What nationality were those hijackers again? Or do you think killing thousands of Muslims, no matter that they nothing to do with 9/11 is "a good thing" and you support it in the name of "the War on Terror"? Terrorists come in all nationalities. There are some American's who feel Saddam was just as big of a threat, per our 12 years with the UN resolutions and individual states intelligence info., as is binladen. Was clinton bombing Iraq thinking that SA's were at fault? lol Not.
The domestic terrorists seem to be a bit of a problem, don't you think? Where's the criminal that sent anthrax through the US Mail? Boy....your guy did absolutely nothing to protect this nation and you expect perfection from this president? My bet is you wouldn't be IF it were Kerry who ordered the attack on Iraq. Then it would have your full support.
Do you think this President is working to keep our investigators from finding out who was responsible for the anthrax problem? Do you think he's currently working to keep secret who's spreading the riocin? You and others know very well any president would be, and Bush's administration is, doing all humanly possible to stop this. Is Bush also responsible for not stopping the Riocin threat in the UK last year too? lol
What is a just war? This doesn't meet the criteria, LindaK. Well...that's just your opinion and more than 1/2 of American's don't see it that way. But also are able to recognize this would all be okay IF it were being done by your party.
posted on February 4, 2004 10:45:43 AM new I will have to give Kerry his due... he is a good at playijng politics and catering to the left... of course if he gets the nomination you have to ask yourself... do you fell safe with him?
You won't be alone in answering that question with a quick "NO" twelve. It's liberals like Kerry who are **fully responsible for the LACK OF INTELLIGENCE our agencies have**. Note his and other's voting records on defense. Should he get the nomination.....his voting record on defense will not 'fly' with those American's who want a president who takes our national security seriously....and that's not going to be a guy like Kerry who's not sure where he really stands on this issue. "I voted FOR this war, but I really was AGAINST it." LOL only a fool..........
posted on February 4, 2004 11:01:55 AM new"... his voting record on defense will not 'fly' with those American's who want a president who takes our national security seriously.
He's a heck of a lot better than a person that goes to war under the blanket called terrorism. Not EVERYTHING is terror-related like bush wants you to believe. Most people have already caught on. The few who lag behind will be the only ones voting for bush. I can't wait to wave goodbye!!!
posted on February 4, 2004 11:18:09 AM new
The Know-'Em-All
How President Bush is smarter than the intellectuals who disdain him.
BY MICHAEL SEGAL
Wednesday, February 4, 2004 12:01 a.m. EST
Many people look back on their college years and regret how much they missed of the great intellectual resources of the university. Not me. My regrets are about failing to meet more of the remarkable people who were my fellow undergraduates at Harvard and nearby MIT. I thought of such socializing as mere fun, which came after coursework. As a result, there were a lot of interesting students I never got to meet, from Benjamin Netanyahu to Benazir Bhutto, from Bill Gates to Scott McNealy, even though some of these people knew friends of mine. But my regrets are more wistful than realistic, since no one knew everyone in college.
Except George W. Bush. His Yale classmates claim that he knew everyone in their undergraduate class, and one can almost believe this was literally true. Classmate Clay Johnson recalled the time when he and George Bush were freshman pledges for the DKE fraternity. Upperclassmen were berating them as "the sorriest bunch of pledges that they had ever heard of," Mr. Johnson told PBS's "Frontline" in 2000:
Normally most pledge classes are very tight and very supportive of one another, and we were 50 individuals and were not interested in each other and there was no unity in our class. And they said it was really quite deplorable.
To make this point to us, they started calling on people to get up and name their fellow pledge members. And they called the first person, and he named four or five. And then he didn't know anybody else's name, and they told him what a sorry human being he was and how little he cared about his pledges. Then they called on somebody else and he named eight or ten but didn't know anybody else.
Anyway, the third or fourth person they called on was George. He got up and named all 50. There was this hush that fell over the room.
Mr. Bush went on to become the president of the fraternity. He didn't know just the names--classmates marvel about how he could sum up each person's essence with great insight and humor.
When intellectuals tell me how much they hate President Bush and how stupid they think he is, I know that he excelled at the crucial form of learning whose importance I didn't fully appreciate when I was in college. It sank in only years later as I watched people in business do wonders by drawing on their personal relationships, much as scientists do wonders by marshaling knowledge that is more abstract. This focus on personal relationships may be the key to the president's success--and to why so many intellectuals disdain him.
When Mr. Bush ran against John McCain in 2000 presidential primaries, the Arizona senator was quick on his feet and had a good answer for every question. The Texas governor, on the other hand, had a great team. Mr. McCain was the know-it-all; Mr. Bush was the know-'em-all. Both sets of skills are important, but the presidency is a job in which you can't know everything about every issue or make things happen just by yourself. Being a good judge of people and having a great team is of huge importance.
To a typical intellectual, how much you know is far more important than knowing whom you can trust and count on. This is why Mr. Bush is so infuriating to intellectuals. He makes no pretense that he has all the answers, and he talks like a regular guy--but the team he leads is reshaping the Middle East with a brashness and vision equal to that of his Reaganite predecessors, as well as making major changes in domestic policy.
Polls show that most Americans admire Mr. Bush's personal qualities, but to intellectuals he doesn't show the personal quality they most admire. Thus to them Mr. Bush's successes seems undeserved, attributable to others. Although the president's IQ is estimated (based on SAT scores) as greater than that of 90% of Americans, he is portrayed as the puppet of smarter men.
It's hard to budge stereotypes, but Mr. Bush could use his talents at personal relationships to reassure intellectuals, emulating some of his predecessors. John F. Kennedy made a big show of inviting intellectuals to the White House, and President Clinton had widely publicized policy sessions with thought leaders while president-elect. These actions were crucial to cementing their reputations for wisdom. President Bush, through a series of lunches with a wide variety of thought leaders at the White House, could get across the message that being a know-'em-all is a great way to pool the wisdom of the community and channel it into wise policy. And I bet he'd have a lot of fun doing it.
posted on February 4, 2004 11:18:47 AM new
I have to question the whole reasoning behind saying we are safer because more of the world is afraid of the United States. Yes when there was the cold war going on fear of retaliation was good to keep anyone from launching a massive attack on the US.
But when you embrace the policy of striking first to protect yourself from POSSIBLE attack you make anyone who can in the furthest stretch of your imagination launch any attack against the US a target. And when you start making lists of other countries that are evil who on that list can feel safe?
As big as the US is if you drive enough smaller powers together in fear you can create a big enough problem to have a problem dealing with it.
My folks always told me the last think you want to do to a man with a gun in his hand is make him afraid.
Well even without nuclear arms there are enough horrible weapons in this world that
systematically making their owners afraid does not seem like a productive course of action to me.
edited to add -
Invading Afganistan and Iraq may have prevented attacks on the American homeland though. Why should they spend huge sums of money and struggle with devious plans to enter the US with weapons when we have sent hundreds of thousands of targets right to their doorstep where they have the means right at hand to kill them? And when they do so many in the world will see it as a legitimate response to being invaded not as a terrorist act.
[ edited by gravid on Feb 4, 2004 11:25 AM ]
posted on February 4, 2004 11:24:40 AM new
Well...this method is working. Iran has opened up to inspectors and Libya has come clean about their womd. That wouldn't have happened if they didn't fear repercussions to their actions by the US. Iraq made a great example.
posted on February 4, 2004 11:30:15 AM new
You don't like questions, do you LindaK?
So, majority opinion. For you, only the opinion of the USA matters, even in matters pertaining to war, which in a volatile region such as the MidEast, can involve other players. Coalition, remember? Worked in 91.
Why did Bush try so hard to get a UN resolution then, if the world opinion is so unimportant?
A quote from James Baker on ABC "This Week with George Stephanopoulos" March 30, 2003:
This is a war of choice, more so, perhaps, than a war of necessity.
LindaK, I read and listen to both sides. Even the conservatives are questioning the WOMD claims, the ballooning deficits (hey! How much did Bush tell Congress the Medicare package would cost?) How about McGlaughlin calling Rumsfeld's statement "We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat." Lie of the Year for 2003?
" Now comes the president’s 2005 budget, revealing that the administration is now working with estimates more than 30 percent higher than those it was using to round up congressional support for the largest entitlement increase since Lyndon Johnson’s buddies ran around spending like drunken sailors in the ’60s."
" Indeed, House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas), who just two days earlier had spoken to conservatives in Florida about how awful he thought the bill was, led the effort to bribe, bludgeon and trick his colleagues into going along with it. We are now told that the president’s “estimators” didn’t actually let Bush in on their estimates until after the bill passed, but they did tell the congressional leaders rounding up votes for it. One has to assume that they didn’t tell Bush so that he could stick with the lower estimate without knowingly lying to lawmakers and others with whom he talked in the run up to the vote. Their now-apparent strategy was to stick publicly with the Congressional Budget Office estimate of $395 billion, though they knew it to be far below what they believed the legislation would cost. Congressional leaders, presumably including Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist R-Tenn.), House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) and DeLay, were told, however, and then lied to their troops who were scared even by the smaller number."
" The fact is the administration and the GOP congressional leadership have little credibility on budget and spending questions right now and without credibility, there are likely to be more than a couple of dozen conservatives on the Hill willing to take matters into their own hands."
Can't find Osama, can't find the anthrax mailer, that's good for national security, how?
Now the war is Kerry's fault? Lol!
The House and Senate acted on what was presented to them by the Executive branch. They were presented with false data by the Executive branch.
"Secretary of State Colin L. Powell said yesterday that he does not know whether he would have recommended an invasion of Iraq (news - web sites) if he had been told it had no stockpiles of banned weapons"
Do you think Gen. Colin Powell doesn't take national security seriously? You have the right to an informed opinion -Harlan Ellison
posted on February 4, 2004 11:47:28 AM new
Linda, a lot of people voted for going to war with Iraq because, like Snowy said, they believed Iraq had WOMD that were aimed at the U.S. How can anyone make an appropriate decision based on false information? I would like to see what the vote would NOW be, based on the fact Iraq wasn't a threat and didn't have nuclear weapons pointed our way. Do you honestly think there would be that many who would stand behind bush? If intelligence was so flawed as to conjure up the necessity for WAR, then what makes you think we are any safer now?
posted on February 4, 2004 11:49:56 AM new
Am I the only one that remembers that no one in congress but a very select few were allowed to even see the evidence about the WOMD prior to the vote about the war in Iraq?
This secretive administration expected most to vote for the war on faith in them..which they did. I can imagine that many feel betrayed and are now against the same policies they voted for.As facts come out minds do change.
posted on February 4, 2004 12:15:47 PM new
Gee...you three are just going to have to do a search on Hillary clinton's own words....both before she voted to support this president on this war, and after....giving her reasons for doing so. Or is that too unpleasant for you to acknowledge. lol
On the budget....only the democrats would have spent more. It's not been approved yet.....just brought up for review. The House and Senate will make those decisions. If you so oppose those expenditures, then write your representatives and complain. And Bush will veto items if he feels they are too far off base. But I really appreciate the belly laugh when I read liberals complaining about the Medicare bill, money NOT being spent on our military. Then when this president does allow more funding....they scream about how much is being spent. Kind of like them saying our deficits are way too high, but pushing for a national health care system that will costs billions and billions more. Think that's not going to increase our deficit? lol
Most dems who opposed the Medicare bill, did so because they felt enough money wasn't been put in the bill to properly care for our elderly. Now...they complain how much it will cost. lol Typical.
posted on February 4, 2004 12:23:58 PM new
snowy - I've never had a problem answering questions put to me, unlike yourself.
Why did Bush try so hard to get a UN resolution then, if the world opinion is so unimportant? Because all you liberals were screaming for it to be done. This president, just like clinton, knew full well why we would never get their approval. Think that was pretty clear from the beginning to anyone reading what France was saying. Read what clinton said on that same subject when he was asked why he didn't get our Congress to approve his bombing nor was he able to get our 'allies' approval. Read Russia's statement after clinton bombed Iraq in 1998. There was NO approval there either. No different in either administration. You siding with France, Germany, Russia against your own country surprises me totally. Many reports have stated their individual monetary interests in Iraq....but how easily you on the left overlook that and blame this President. Others don't overlook those countries special interests, and support this President for keeping our own nation interests in first place. And the UN didn't give permission in 1991 to remove Saddam....only to stop his actions. Bush 1 has stated the UN would not have allowed him to pursue Saddam at that time. Saddam has a track record of using these weapons, but the left appears to not see that as a threat like clinton, BushI and BushII did/do.
posted on February 4, 2004 12:26:18 PM new
About that "majority"
"The latest CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll shows Massachusetts senator and potential Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry leading President George W. Bush by a 53% to 46% margin in a trial-heat matchup among likely voters"
posted on February 4, 2004 12:26:32 PM new
Why do you persist in believing that any of us care what Hillary might have said or believed?
Hillary and Bill are not our God as Bush seems to be to you. I do not believe every word they have ever said. Why do you?
They are politicians for goodnesss sake, just like your boy is. They will say anything.
All religions are equally right
[ edited by rawbunzel on Feb 4, 2004 12:32 PM ]
posted on February 4, 2004 12:32:44 PM new
About those monetary interests in Iraq:
" Did it ever occur to you that when President Bush says, "Money is the lifeblood of terrorist operations," he's talking about your money -- and every other American's money?
Just about everyone with a 401(k) pension plan or mutual fund has money invested in companies that are doing business in so-called rogue states.
In other words, there are U.S. companies that are helping drive the economies of countries like Iran, Syria and Libya that have sponsored terrorists. Correspondent Lesley Stahl reports. "The revenue that is generated from the work that these companies are doing, we believe, helps to underwrite and support terrorism,” says William Thompson, the New York City comptroller who oversees the $80 billion in pension funds for all city workers.
He says he wants everyone with a retirement or investment portfolio to know what these companies are up to: “We're going to increase the public visibility on this issue until these companies change their practices.”
He’s actually identified specific companies that have invested in these rogue countries, includingHalliburton, Conoco-Phillips and[b] General Electric. And he points out that New York's pension funds own nearly a billion dollars worth of stock in these three Fortune 500 companies, which have operations in Iran and Syria.
What was Thompson’s reaction when he found out about this? “Anger that there were companies that could be contributing to attacks on our nation,” he says. “You’d think to yourself, well, why would they do that? … I didn't think they could. And more than anything it was, you thought, that the law prevented them from doing this.”
posted on February 4, 2004 12:47:24 PM newabout that majority.....Yes, snowy...and I've already stated those poll numbers should really be enjoyed by all of you on the left because the only reason they're that way is that ALL the media attention has been on what the dem candidates are saying. Doesn't mean it's true....most isn't. And when Bush starts campaigning, and his side of these issues are discussed, they'll change VERY quickly. So enjoy them while you can. And remember just two weeks ago what those same polls were saying about Dean taking the whole pot....lol...and now he's 40 million dollars down the road and already has lost his lead to Kerry.
Raw - Because she, more than most, hates Bush. She would do anything she could to discredit him....as you all try to do. But she knows the FACTS.....you know, those silly things you all overlook. Her views should matter to all democrats, just as I'd think most would want to be informed on which other democrats voted for the war without knowing what they were doing. Who voted for the war who didn't take the time, as Hillary did, to search out her own facts about Iraq, to discuss this most important matter with those in our intellegency communittee. Think they were unreachable to our elected reps? I don't. All should be interested in the reasons why EACH democrat who voted to support this President did so. To not be interested in their reasons, shows ignorance on the subject. There were MANY democrats who voted to go to war. Were they all so stupid they couldn't speak with our intelligence agencies BEFORE voting FOR this war....just like Hillary did? Funny..... they vote for the war and you guys give them all the excuses they need for why they did so. funny....in a sad sort of way.
posted on February 4, 2004 12:53:06 PM new
Well then that explains why I don't care what she says..I am not a Democrat even though in this election I will surely vote that way.
Maybe she does hate Bush...maybe she hates him because "she knows the facts"..
You don't make sense 90% of the time .
All religions are equally right
[ edited by rawbunzel on Feb 4, 2004 12:54 PM ]
posted on February 4, 2004 12:58:29 PM new
How true Linda, we haven't been attacked here, both of those countries are opening up and even Norht Korea is still wanting talks...
If it was because of "fear" we would not sit and just "chat" then GREAT!
posted on February 4, 2004 01:10:24 PM new
Helen, I was saving the 100% for Twelve and Bear. Linda does at least try to prove her points. However lamely most times. All religions are equally right
posted on February 4, 2004 01:37:12 PM new
Twelve also seems to forget that there were 8 years between the time extremists tried to take the towers down and when they actually suceeded in doing it.These people work slowly. When they want to do something they do not care how long it takes to get it done. Nothing happening here means nothing at all. If nothing happens for twenty years then it might mean something.
Look how safe Clinton kept us...only one terrorist attack in country on his watch. He must have done something right. After all we had those 8 terrorist free years. He was a good protector of Americans..no?
You of your "ilk" crack me up. So very blind to reality. All religions are equally right
posted on February 4, 2004 01:42:35 PM newLook how safe Clinton kept us...only one terrorist attack in country on his watch. He must have done something right. After all we had those 8 terrorist free years. He was a good protector of Americans..no?
A BIG NO!!! That statement only proves that you don't know what you're talking about. brother...........
posted on February 4, 2004 01:46:31 PM new
HaHaHa! Linda, that was a joke ...it was simply pointing out the stupidity of thinking Bush is a great protector because we have been terrorist attack free on our soil for three years. He is no great protector either.If it is stupid talk to
Twelvepole, it was his logic.Not mine.
Pull you head out of the soil and take a look around you. Things are not always what you think they are.
All religions are equally right
[ edited by rawbunzel on Feb 4, 2004 01:47 PM ]
[ edited by rawbunzel on Feb 4, 2004 01:49 PM ]
posted on February 4, 2004 01:49:06 PM newHe was a good protector of Americans..no?
Yeah, Bill Clinton was a very good protector of Americans when he turned down an offer to take custody of Osama Bin Laden. That little mistake cost us 3,000 plus lives. Thanks Bill Clinton!
Linda, trying to talk sense to these people is a lost cause.
------------------------------
It CAN be done. -Ronald Reagan
[ edited by ebayauctionguy on Feb 4, 2004 01:56 PM ]
posted on February 4, 2004 01:54:40 PM new
Talking to people is not a lost cause. Just don't expect us to be sheeple and agree with all you say. What you forget is we are not talking just amongst ourselves here ..there is a vast audience out there reading. Someone has to call bull**** on the lies being spewed daily here by the far far far right wingers that have roosted here.
If you want your side known you will have to keep talking. Or you can not. Your choice. All religions are equally right
