isn't it chilling to think if Gore won in 2000

[paleshadow]

Originally Posted by gldstwmn

Well, I have done that myself. I guess the most frustrating thing is the need for people to have their information in the form of a soundbite. Otherwise they don't have time, or I'm being partisan, etc... The majority of this group is pretty well informed, though. With everything that's happening now, it's hard to keep up with the developments.

Yeah, I think we all have our moments. I think it's great that so many people here give a damn one way or the other, wether we agree or not. Sometimes you just have to take a deep breath though before you hit "submit" and just make sure you aren't being disrespectful.

[MikeVielhaber]

Originally Posted by gldstwmn

Well, I have done that myself. I guess the most frustrating thing is the need for people to have their information in the form of a soundbite. Otherwise they don't have time, or I'm being partisan, etc... The majority of this group is pretty well informed, though. With everything that's happening now, it's hard to keep up with the developments.

your research is in itself partison. you only show me stuff that makes kerry look good. and you only talk about stuff or show articles that make bush look bad. like i said if you think kerry has only good qualities and bush has only bad qualities then i have no reason to take your side on anything you say cause its definitely one sided.

many people here may be informed but theyve all taken a side. and they will only say things, accept things, and show things that go for their side. it's only natural though. thats why i stick to my guns and am not swayed by the stuff written here because its all here with an agenda and by no means shows both sides of anything.

[DeeGeMe]

Originally Posted by MikeVielhaber

your research is in itself partison. you only show me stuff that makes kerry look good. and you only talk about stuff or show articles that make bush look bad. like i said if you think kerry has only good qualities and bush has only bad qualities then i have no reason to take your side on anything you say cause its definitely one sided.

So--let me see if based on what you just said that I am to understand your argument correctly. You want us to post Kerry's bad qualities because then you'll take our arguments for Kerry seriously? Yeah--you're the ideal W voter no doubt about it. That has to be the most bass-ackwards thing I've heard recently!


(Hi Dissention & Goldie--Sorry I'm late for the party!)

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by dissention

Hogwash.

They had a policy for Iraq that stressed regime change from within, not invading and taking over. However, that policy had all but been abandoned until the Bush administration charged in and used it as leverage to invade, even though they didn't tell the American people what the policy really said and when it had last been even looked at by the Clinton administration. Just like the myth that has been perpetuated about John Kerry advocating war on Iraq in '98, the "Clinton was set on removing Saddam" is just another myth. There's nothing to substantiate those claims but his policy of regime change from within, which I submit is 180 degrees different from what Bush and cronies advocated.

You know the Clinton admin. all but abandoned this policy? How do you know this. The reason I ask is because Clinton is still espousing it and he fully supports the reasons W gave for removing SH - Kerry does for that matter as well. Clinton agreed SH had to go after 9/11 - He has said SH was too large of a potential threat to leave unaccounted for. Clinton just argues that W was wrong for not waiting for Blix to finish the inspections So, I think you are incorrect here. If not, on what facts are you basing your argument that Clinton and/or the regime change policy was adandoned.

True, bombing a country with quasi-UN approval is not and never will be invading a country. We agree on that. My point was and is however, both Clionton and W did it on essentially the same info. and for the reason that SH was a dangerous person that left unchecked was a major threat to the world. The only difference in motive was W's assertion that after 9/11 the US could not longer afford to allow SH to be defiant of the UN. I submit that is not that bad of a reason and Clinton agrees with me. I mean Kay admitted that although WMD were not found SH had the ability to go back to making them at any minute with just a few alterations of some plants and although there was no collaborative relationship, SH had according to the 9/11 report met with Al-Q on a few sep occasions and SH helped that huigh ranking Al-Q official during the Afgan war. That suggests a link to me. AND - Al-Q is not the only terrorist organization out there So, I submit Gore or any other Pres. may have made a similar choice to W - perhaps not all out war or the improper rush to it that W did - but similar action if they are to be believed now. Again, all of this is speculation - and that is mine, which I submit is supported by many if not all facts.

Note: my tone is civil not contrary. Please do not respond by attacking me by saying what I am saying are right wing talking poins. If they are, then Clinton (Hillary and Bill), Kerry, and many other left wingers are all right wing talking point promoters because I am saying exactly what they pretty much all say I would much rather you cite facts and let's have a real debate Otherwise, I am not participating as I have said all I can say and have said this repeatedly and all I get is I am saying right wing talking points, which is an insult, not a debate

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by dissention

I was wondering when the talking points would appear. There is nothing to lend credence to those stories. Next.

Apparently, I had hope too soon. Well, at least you are consistent

I know this may come as a surprise to you and it may be hard for you as a far far ledt person to comprehend, but some of the things the Bush Admin. has said are true and admitting that is not the end of the world.

Again, please tell me why trying to stop SH from giving WMD, which the world agreed he had, to terrorists was a bad idea?

I am not excusing W's rush to war. I am talking only about that exact premise, which the world supports was true - see UN Res. 1441.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by dissention

Ha. That's the story told by Minute Rice, who said during her 9/11 commission testimony that she didn't know her job was national security advisor. That's the story told by Asscroft, who told his staff that he didn't want to hear a peep about bin Laden or terrorist attacks. So much for shaking the trees, eh?

Once again, sacrcasm and insults, but no facts to support what you say. in my book and to these old eyes, that is an excuse for not answering the question and changing the subject Again, please cite facts to support your position and leave the rhetoric aside as I have heard it all

[MikeVielhaber]

Originally Posted by DeeGeMe

So--let me see if based on what you just said that I am to understand your argument correctly. You want us to post Kerry's bad qualities because then you'll take our arguments for Kerry seriously? Yeah--you're the ideal W voter no doubt about it. That has to be the most bass-ackwards thing I've heard recently!


(Hi Dissention & Goldie--Sorry I'm late for the party!)

i know what you mean. and thats why people dont argue that way. but everything is shown to where kerry has all these good qualities and bush has all these bad qualities. i disagree for my own reasons. and i support who i support for my own reasons. but i do have those reasons and it is my opinion that kerry will do no better than george bush. and apparently approximately half the country agrees with me so we'll see who gets those few percentage points come november.

[dissention]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

You know the Clinton admin. all but abandoned this policy? How do you know this. The reason I ask is because Clinton is still espousing it and he fully supports the reasons W gave for removing SH - Kerry does for that matter as well. Clinton agreed SH had to go after 9/11 - He has said SH was too large of a potential threat to leave unaccounted for. Clinton just argues that W was wrong for not waiting for Blix to finish the inspections So, I think you are incorrect here. If not, on what facts are you basing your argument that Clinton and/or the regime change policy was adandoned.

Do you know what Clinton's policy was, Jason? Seriously, because you don't seem to, in all honesty.

I am speaking about his policy during his presidency, not what remarks he made after 9/11. They have no bearing on his policy.

[gldstwmn]

Originally Posted by MikeVielhaber

your research is in itself partison. you only show me stuff that makes kerry look good. and you only talk about stuff or show articles that make bush look bad. like i said if you think kerry has only good qualities and bush has only bad qualities then i have no reason to take your side on anything you say cause its definitely one sided.

many people here may be informed but theyve all taken a side. and they will only say things, accept things, and show things that go for their side. it's only natural though. thats why i stick to my guns and am not swayed by the stuff written here because its all here with an agenda and by no means shows both sides of anything.

Then why on earth are you wasting your precious time reading these threads? You've gone far out of your way to point out how very little extra time you have-especially for politics.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by dissention

You? Are Losing It.

The Bush administration dropped all investigations into the Cole bombing and practically murdered John Dean because of it.

Once again insults. Please explain to me why Clinton failed to stop it and the many other attacks, save the lucky border stop which prevented the Y2K attack.

Also, the Bush Admin. has arrested people in the Cole bombing. So, I am unsure what you are talking about. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5382646

[gldstwmn]

Originally Posted by DeeGeMe

So--let me see if based on what you just said that I am to understand your argument correctly. You want us to post Kerry's bad qualities because then you'll take our arguments for Kerry seriously? Yeah--you're the ideal W voter no doubt about it. That has to be the most bass-ackwards thing I've heard recently!


(Hi Dissention & Goldie--Sorry I'm late for the party!)

That's alright, honey. As long as you show up.

[dissention]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Once again, sacrcasm and insults, but no facts to support what you say. in my book and to these old eyes, that is an excuse for not answering the question and changing the subject Again, please cite facts to support your position and leave the rhetoric aside as I have heard it all

Sarcasm, yes. Insults, no.

Read the transcripts and the interim reports from the 9/11 commission, they fully back up what I say about Minute Rice and Asscroft.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by gldstwmn

The alleged Bin Laden offer was made in 1996. The USS Cole wasn't struck until 2000.


The alleged Bin Laden offer was made in 1996. The Kenya Embassy was strike in 1998.

Also, the 9/11 Commission report directly states there never was any offer to Clinton.

I nknow that. I agree the source of the 96 offer was tainted. I was talking about after the subsequent attacks we had reason to go after OBL but did not. Clinton has stated at times after those, the intelligence provided windows of opportunity to take OBL out. However, the decision to do so would essentially be an act of war on the nation in which OBL was. So, he did not act. That is what I am talking about. Make no mistake, I think Clinton did many good things to stop terrorism. I just think he failed not only to get OBL, but also to pick up on the intelligence that suggested OBL was planning to use planes as missles to ram into the WTC, the Pentagon, and a third target speculated as being the WH or the Congress. Again, a lot of that planning occurred during the Clinton Admin. - if we are going to hold W accountable for failing to stop it, I submit Clinton is just as accountable no matter how good he was at stopping it in other areas

[dissention]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Also, the Bush Admin. has arrested people in the Cole bombing. So, I am unsure what you are talking about. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5382646

As soon as the Bush administration took office and leading up to the 9/11 attacks, they stopped all investigations into the Cole bombing. John Dean was removed from Yemen and all inquiries were halted. Only after 9/11 did the investigations resume. Must we go into this again?

[gldstwmn]

Originally Posted by MikeVielhaber

i i disagree for my own reasons. and i support who i support for my own reasons.

Well, what are they? I'm open to reading them. but please...keep it short.