Teddy Kennedy in hot water for "Vietnam" remarks

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
Come on, let's get the truth out. They're funded by the Saudi's and they still are. They're not running from us. They brazenly blew up a railway in Spain. We can't find them.

I am not saying what we did in Afganistan was the end of Al-Q. What I am saying is that clearly, without a state in which to work unfettered, the strength of Al-Q is significantly lessened and even more so by our capture and/or killing of the vast majority of their top people and the seizing of their accounts So, yes, although it is still present, it is weakened. W did well on that account even though he did not capture or kill OBL, which he should have done.

Regading the Saudi's, I am unsure if the Saudi state officially or even unofficially sponsors Al-Q. But it really does not matter too much because they effectively do not lift a finger to stop Al-Q or any other terrorist organization. But, they have king oil so no politician (and I mean no politician) will raise their hand to them. If they did, the American companies and people would never forgive them because it would send our economy into a tailspin. Pity IMO. But, we are beholden to fossil fuel and until that changes . . .

[strandinthewind]

So there is no confusion, I am not saying W did anything anyone else could not have done in Afganistan. In fact, I think others could have done it better. All I am saying is the job done there was not bad. In fact it was pretty good and Al-Q is weakened because of it. I mean they lost something like 80% of their top people, that we knew of of course.

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by Johnny Stew
I'm sorry, but I still firmly believe that ANY president in a Post-9/11 world will HAVE TO BE strong on the war on terrorism.
Bush is not the be-all and end-all of go-to guys when it comes to something of that magnitude.

To paraphrase Bill Maher regarding the invasion of Afganistan "anyone could point to this country and say to the world's greatest army 'destroy this'"

Interestingly, has anyone notices that the R screamed from here to hell about how the US armed forces went to hell in a handbasket because of Clinton's neglect. Yet, W and his administration made no significant changes to the military (pay, budget, equipment, etc.) until after 9/11 and the whole Afganistan "event" was essentially over by the time any of those changes could possibly have taken place.

One more example of a politician telling you everything but how it really is

[dissention]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
To paraphrase Bill Maher regarding the invasion of Afganistan "anyone could point to this country and say to the world's greatest army 'destroy this'"

Yeah, all this admin had to do was kill the Afghani's by polluting them with depleted uranium, too.

[jwd]

strandinthewind:

So, yes, although it is still present, it is weakened. W did well on that account even though he did not capture or kill OBL, which he should have done.

THAT should have been done YEARS ago my friend.

[jwd]

strandinthewind:

So there is no confusion, I am not saying W did anything anyone else could not have done in Afganistan. In fact, I think others could have done it better.

If only Clinton were still in office.

[jwd]

dissention:

ITA - like I said earlier, the Dems need to take some cues from Ted Kennedy. He's the only one with a backbone.

That dude has to have a lot of backbone....his head is HUGE!

[Johnny Stew]

Originally posted by Rob67
That's not the only thing, it's the main thing.

An honest question... if his "war on terrorism" isn't the only reason you'll be voting for Bush in November, what are the other reasons?

Originally posted by Rob67
And couldn't it be short sighted to THINK he was "ineffectual" on everything else?

I don't find it to be short-sighted, since I don't merely "think" he's been ineffectual on virtually everything else... I've seen the proof.
Jason has already pointed out many of the things I was going to cite, so I won't bother to reiterate... and even most Bush supporters are only able to say he's "tough on terrorism" when discussing why he should be re-elected.

(By the way, Joe... Clinton may have bungled matters when it comes to Osama Bin Laden, but Bush hasn't brought him in yet either... and he's supposedly been actively hunting him for three years now. To quote Tom Petty, "I can't decide which is worse....")

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by jwd
If only Clinton were still in office.

Actually, I was referring to letting Collin Powell run the military operation instead of Rumsfeld. But, that is my opinion and I know others differ.

Plus, all of the testimony before this 9/11 panel and the WH and its minions all admit Cllinton was never attacked like we were attacked on 9/11 nor do they have disparaging remarks about Clinton on this issue (including the Cole and other bombings - they all concur actual hard proof is needed before war can be waged) as opposed to every other issue. Plus, the Clinton administration successfully stopped a major Y2K terrorist attack. W has stopped none despite the advance warning from Clinton and two Federal Agencies having the information but apparently letting ego get in the way. So, Clinton's record comparatively is not that bad But, people IMO are so enraged by 9/11 (as they should be mind you) that they blindly throw support to W and his campaign in the war on terror, even though he now has us spending billions on a preemptive strike on a nation that, despite his lying, was not an immediate threat to the US. IF your employee made this big of a mistake, wouldn't you fire them? I would.

Also, many assert Clinton was soft in not getting OBL. While this may be true in hindsight, OBL and Al-Q have eveolved. In 1992, they were not as important. Also, Bush I could have removed SH in 1991 but did not because the Saudi's (the root of almost all evil on this issue IMO) would have admonished him for doing so. So, I think we can blame Bush I for the current mess in Iraq if you go by the same reasoning that most assert on Clinton failing to get OBL. That is why I think gldstwmn is right in that W should be judged on being W, which is, at best, a D+ IMO and for the reasons stated earlier in this thread.

My $0.02

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by jwd
That dude has to have a lot of backbone....his head is HUGE!

ROTFLMAO

esp. when he incoherently is babbling with whiskey breath and his large head is listing to one side

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by strandinthewind

Also, many assert Clinton was soft in not getting OBL. While this may be true in hindsight, OBL and Al-Q have eveolved. In 1992, they were not as important. Also, Bush I could have removed SH in 1991 but did not because the Saudi's (the root of almost all evil on this issue IMO) would have admonished him for doing so. So, I think we can blame Bush I for the current mess in Iraq if you go by the same reasoning that most assert on Clinton failing to get OBL. That is why I think gldstwmn is right in that W should be judged on being W, which is, at best, a D+ IMO and for the reasons stated earlier in this thread.

My $0.02

Amen, brother.

[jwd]

Johnny Stew:

(By the way, Joe... Clinton may have bungled matters when it comes to Osama Bin Laden, but Bush hasn't brought him in yet either... and he's supposedly been actively hunting him for three years now.

True, but you have to agree that it would have been a "whole lot easier" if we had brought him in THEN as opposed to looking for him now.

[jwd]

strandinthewind:

So, Clinton's record comparatively is not that bad

I guess getting Slick Willy to testify under oath before the 9/11 Commission wouldn't mean a thing....considering his record.

[jwd]

strandinthewind:

esp. when he incoherently is babbling with whiskey breath and his large head is listing to one side

OMG, the vision in my head. That was good strandie!

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by jwd
I guess getting Slick Willy to testify under oath before the 9/11 Commission wouldn't mean a thing....considering his record.

Do you think ANY politician would tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth

Moreover, Clinton may have lied about getting a hummer from a fat chick because he something to hide from his ballbreaker of a wife, but I submit for the reasons set forth above his terrorism dossier is pretty good. Plus, the R's are not about to lambaste him anymore because they need him to give them credibility regarding the phantom but previously assured WMD in Iraq

Yep - ole Teddy boy is always fun for humor!!!!