he came so close to actually admitting they f**ked up by going after Iraq, and then went back to their tried and true "but I acted to defend america" lines. 
ummmm, how did he defend america?
ummmm, how did he defend america?wow, feeling dumber the more I listen to GWB...
- Thread starter dante
- Start date
Well, we damn sure weren't safe before as painfully demonstrated on Sept 11th.
There have been no more repeats since, yet.
There have been no more repeats since, yet.
That means nothing at all. I don't know how to explain that any better. Al-Quaeda isn't bound to a term-of-presidency timeline. They're patient, and they're bleeding us dry, or just watching us bleed dry, as we overextend overseas. There will be a time when they think it's opportune to do it again...probably just after we get done heartily congratulating ourselves on a few more domestic-terror-free years.N8 said:
Actually three times more people died from all other causes (mostly old age and car wrecks) in the US than terrorism on 9/11. N8! You arn't safe from automobiles! Quick! Better start a war on cars! Ford - GM - Mitsubishi - The new Axels (get it?) of evil!
Back to Lisa's rock again.N8 said:
How many times do we really have to explain this one?
I don't think it's so much that N8 doesn't get it, it's that he's incapable of getting it. If the inevitable does occur on Dubya's watch I wonder who N8'll blame then.Silver said:
Oh, that one is easy.valve bouncer said:
It'll be Clinton's fault, for sure...after all, it occured on Dubya's watch once allready...
Silver said:
No, 9/11 was Clinton's fault; future attacks are going to have to be borne on the contemporary administration's shoulders.
And I'm not kidding about Clinton. I can't stand all this retro-glorification of Clinton by Democrats these days...the man was a terrible leader with terrible character whose 'brilliant foreign policy' had terrible consequences for this nation in the long term. Not that GW's doing any better, mind you, and Clinton was a product of national naivete and short attention span, like any politician these days.
Man, I'm depressed, especially because I can't offer some world-saving plan in the face of all this negativity.
MD
Partially. Still, Bush didn't do much about Bin Laden either. Remember the memo Condi didn't want to testify about?MikeD said:
And if you want to go further back, you can lay the blame on Carter and Reagan for arming Bin Laden in Afghanistan in the first place. (Ah ha! A Democrat started it again!) Sure, Bin Laden had some of Daddy's money, but he really didn't get rolling until the US set him up nicely.
As far as Clinton goes, he just ends up looking good in comparison to Bush, sort of the same way a full moon looks really bright at night because you only have distant stars to compare it to...
anyone see the RNC w/ all the banners proclaiming "A Safer World"? safer for who? do any of you feel safer? i sure as hell don't.
Slugman said:
:yawn:
Zzzzzzzzzzzz.....
Personally I don't think it was anyone in the governments fault. They are elected officials and must respond to the masses to keep their jobs. Before 9-11 the public was more interested in oval office hummers, flag burning, getting entitlements and tax cuts. There were no special interest groups beating down the doors of Senaters or public outcry after the first WTC bombings. Even now the public is not willing to do what is needed to take care of terrorism, they just want to hear good news, pound their chests and cry out God Bless America.MikeD said:
N8 said:
N8 why dont you just think about the fact that things are cyclical. we did not get attacked for years and suddenly bam it happens. you dont think it will happen again now that the all powerful all knowing W is in power? did he actually do anything to prevent another attack?could he have? are we safer now than we were before? maybe, maybe not but i can assure you that attacking iraq did nothing to stop terrorist attacks.
biggins said:
Yes Your Honorable Rumpness!
:bow:
Those things work, since I have gotten mine I have had no problems with tigers, lions, bigfoot, loch ness monsters or fire breathing dragons.Silver said:
Those protestors who broke into the RNC (at least a few times I might add) should have said who is safer now buddy, we got in no problem when they were taken away. Maybe also add for affect:narlus said:
"Boom and you are dead if we were terrorists"
Would have been great if they did it when some was giving a hubris speech about it
:nuts:
Nothing to do with Iraq. Those plans took years to set into motion, dont think for a secong that GW stopped any terrorism plans with his actions in Iraq, if anything he inspired even more plans to begin.N8 said:
No worse that your broken record bull shizz hat you spout on a regular basis. Talk about yawn.N8 said:
Kerry watches his chance for the presidency receding in the distance...
Do you ever have a point?N8 said:
DEFINITELY not a clinton fan, at least not during his presidency, but I can only wish for times when the biggest crisis in the country is whether the president got a bj in the oval office. The men who bombed the WTC in 1993 were tried and convicted, Wilderness areas were protected, the budget was balanced and everybody was making LOTS of money. Its not glorification of clinton, it's just comparing him and the country during that time to the state we're in now makes you realize exactly how non-bad it was during that time. 
Yo N8,
I see your Vietnam vet and raise you one cheerleader:
I see your Vietnam vet and raise you one cheerleader:
fluff said:Yo N8,
I see your Vietnam vet and raise you one cheerleader:
You want to blow me..???
Dude, I wouldn't piss on you if you were on fire...N8 said:You want to blow me..???
1st attack on the WTC:N8 said:
Wednesday, on Feb. 26, 1993
We have awhile yet till someone strikes again.
But the organization which used them as patsies got off scot-free. It's nice to think we 'did something about it,' but we did absolutely nothing on a meaningful scale or in the long term, and we certainly didn't deter or pre-empt future attacks.dante said:
It sure was nice when we weren't forced to think about anything but an oval office BJ...but that doesn't mean we weren't all negligent by failing to consider reality outside our comfy little American world.
MD
I lost faith in the system a long time ago. But these days it is starting to piss me off. As much as I would like, I can't blame Bush or Clinton. Half of the voting public still does not know the truth behind current events of the last 10 years, has no idea how the economy works and really just votes for a caricature of a candidate as drawn by the media and spin doctors. I am starting to wonder if voting should no longer be a right but a privilege.MikeD said:
dr. evil said:
Wow, you contribute some great thoughts.dr. evil said:
Actually, it's all the fault of an ignorant American public when you really get down to it, and that's what we've been saying. Whose 'fault' do you think it is, the Democrats'?dr. evil said:
Why do you think I'm a democrat or a liberal, anyhow?
It's astounding how 95% of Americans just want to fall in on a pre-fab, pre-polarized political identity and endlessly spout the rhetoric it provides them.
MD
You obviously don't bow down before the wisdom of our God given leader, and that makes you a democrat or a liberal.MikeD said:
Allah wouldn't have elected Bush if He didn't want Bush to be President, you know...
Sounds like you've been influenced by the N8 media too muchMikeD said:
The Clinton Administration had actual results against real terrorists instead of a nation (Iraq) that was known to Osama Bid Laden in the same category as the "infidels"
Someone posted this on RM before: