Terrorists Said Planning Summer Attack

[dissention]

Originally Posted by gldstwmn

Oh so now you're pissed at him for endorsing Dean? Cripes, anything but putting the blame squearely where it belongs-on Howard.

Howard Dean killed his campaign because he only catered to the left-wingers, not democrats. While I liked some of the things he said because I'm quite the lefty ( ), his schtick was not going to work in battleground states and the primary voters knew it. So they voted for Kerry.

He can go to Oregon, he can go to California, he can go to West Virginia, he can go to New Mexico, he can go all the way to Washington DC ("Yeeeeeaaaaaaaahaaaaaaaw!"), but that doesn't mean he's going to appeal to the people.

[gldstwmn]

Originally Posted by Johnny Stew

It sounds to me like they only made matters worse, by half-heartedly going after bin Laden, leaving the job unfinished, and then changing their course to go after Hussein at the first possible opportunity.
I am bugged to no end by the fact that billions have dollars have been spent... and far more importantly, hundreds and hundreds of LIVES have been lost... and we still haven't stopped the man who orchestrated the events that spurred this War On Terrorism in the first place.

DING! DING! DING! DING! Give the man a cigar.

[gldstwmn]

Originally Posted by dissention

I think that Kerry's "staying the course" BS is just that: bull****. Once he's in office, he'll pull us outta there so fast that our heads will spin.

And Kerry would never have invaded Iraq as president. That's just crap. (No offense )

Absolutely!

Peace candidates don't win. SEE: McGovern.

[gldstwmn]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

But, Johnny - what was the alternative. We could have killed every living soul in Afgan. or we could have never invaded Afgan. (which many liberals still suggest ). So, do you honestly think anyone could have handled it any better. I mean W and crewe are FAR more hawkish than any D. So, I think they did a good job. Yes, they should have caught OBL (shut up Dissention ) - but they did not. Instead, they destroyed or captured most of the upper eschelon of Al-Q. That is a good thing. I mean it is not like we are fighting one country here. Al-Q is everywhere and in every country. So, again, what is a better plan than what W did? And, more importantly, what would Kerry do that is better? I submit nothing. They are essentially the same. But, people villify W and let Kerry get off for free.

We've been lied to so much that I can't say that I know for a fact if any of your statement is true. It's going to take a couple of years of de-Bushing ( I just made that up) for us to know what has really gone down here.

[gldstwmn]

Originally Posted by Johnny Stew

I have to say that I was not against the War On Terrorism in theory. I think 9/11 made it all too obvious that this a very real threat, and something needs to be done.
However, in execution I believe they have totally bungled things and have only made matters worse.

I think we need to get to the bottom of the "who" the threat is.

[gldstwmn]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Yet, he is supposed to have the sand when he is office to go againt the voting masses when they are incorrect?

The voting masses? Who are you talking about?

[gldstwmn]

Originally Posted by GypsySorcerer

I disagree that the US should pull out of Iraq now. I believe that will only WORSEN the situation. Al-Qaida groups are already there...they are responsible for the killing of Nick Berg.

They are? There was a trial?

[dissention]

Originally Posted by gldstwmn

de-Bushing ( I just made that up)

LUV IT!!!! I'm committing that one to mem'ry.

[gldstwmn]

Originally Posted by dissention

But the question is, why is it wimpy? Because they're sick of us and our schtick. If a real leader would go to the UN with open arms and ready to embrace and listen, it would work like a charm. The US needs to get rid of the ego and the politics and be willing to make the effort to make Iraq work. It's going to take a miracle to establish democracy in Iraq, which is why one country CANNOT do it whatsoever. We don't have the manpower, the will, or the right leader to do it.

Worked in Bosnia.

[dissention]

Originally Posted by gldstwmn

Worked in Bosnia.

You never fail to make me laugh, doll!

[gldstwmn]

Originally Posted by dissention

Howard Dean killed his campaign because he only catered to the left-wingers, not democrats. While I liked some of the things he said because I'm quite the lefty ( ), his schtick was not going to work in battleground states and the primary voters knew it. So they voted for Kerry.

He can go to Oregon, he can go to California, he can go to West Virginia, he can go to New Mexico, he can go all the way to Washington DC ("Yeeeeeaaaaaaaahaaaaaaaw!"), but that doesn't mean he's going to appeal to the people.

Howard wasn't up to it, no matter how good he sounded to people. The pols in Washington would've eaten his lunch.

[gldstwmn]

Originally Posted by dissention

You never fail to make me laugh, doll!

Bows. Thank you.

[CarneVaca]

Eh... this thread has become tiresome.

Shall we dance?

[sparky]

ANOTHER terroroist act...I can't keep track of all of them. I can scarcely leave the house, there are so many raining down upon us.

The sky is falling, the sky is falling !!!

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by dissention

Supporting Bush is '02 and '03 simply does not give any credence to your theory that Kerry himself would ahve invaded Iraq. It simply doesn't and I don't understand why you do not get that!!!!

I support my statement and conclusion by citing Kerry's own statements om his website that he would have gone to war just not the way W did it. So, chide me all you want, but Kerry said it himself Agaion, I do not understand why you do not get that 9/11 changed everything including our nation's formerly and comparatively passive insistence on regime change in Iraq. Again, everyone in politics and the U.N. by unanimous vote thought SH had WMD and SH never lifted a finger to prove he did not have them, as he was required by the U.N. resolutions for 11 years to do. Then, on his webdite, Kerry says exactly what I just said and then says he supported W's efforts to remove SH, but he would have done the invastion differently - then he spins it beyond reason I mean I am not making this up. If you can find where Kerry says "I would never ever have invaded Iraq" let's see it. I do not think you can, because he says he would have on his own website and had been calling for military action (which was far beyond Clinton's policies) in 1998.