Democrats & Liberals Archives

Security after November

According to House Majority Leader John A. Boehner, the House is now starting “Security September,” a complete month devoted to legislation to boost America’s security. I wonder why Republicans make security the subject each September during a federal election year? Except for 2004, when the security “discussion” started during the summer when presidential conventions were held? Are Republicans interested in security or security propaganda?

Boehner said this:

"From homeland security to national security to border security, House Republicans will focus first and foremost on addressing the safety and security needs of the American people throughout the month of September."

It sounds great, doesn't it? Only Republicans will provide you with security. Democrats count for nothing.

I wonder why we need a special "Security September" now. This is 2006, 5 years after 2001, when 9/11 occurred. They talk a good line, but what did Republicans do about security during these long 5 years?

A long time ago, Bush said he wanted our number one enemy, Osama bin Laden, "dead or alive." What did he do about it? We invaded Afghanistan and fought the Taliban. Good action. Then he let bin Laden escape at Tora Bora. Bin Laden has been free for many years. Recently, Bush did more talk, saying that it does not matter if we catch bin Laden or not.

Bush and his Republicans left Afghanistan to attack Iraq. This too he did with the aid of lots of talk, mostly propaganda about "imminent threats" and "mushroom clouds." We've been there since 2003 and all this time Bush kept up a barrage of happy talk about "liberated Iraqis," "democracy" and "unity government." However, we have a civil war there, or as some say, it will soon be a civil war. Republicans tell us that we fight terrorists there so we would not need to fight them here. So we should celebrate that we lost 2700 troops in Iraq and not in the U.S.? And how about the tens of thousands that have been wounded and are living in the U.S.?

When Republican Senator Santorum, someone who votes with Bush 98% of the time, was asked on Meet the Press on Sunday, what he would do about Iraq, he blamed all the chaos on Iran and said we have to go after Iran. He is the same kind of Republican as Bush. To fight the "war on terror," Bush left Afghanistan and attacked Iraq. Santorum wants to leave Iraq and attack Iran.

Do these shenanigans make you feel safe?

Practically all reliable news sources tell us that America is isolated. We are hated by more people than ever before. The number of terrorists has risen greatly. The number of terrorist attacks around the world has risen too. Supposedly, we are the leader of the free world, but damn few countries follow us. We act like a bull in a china shop.

Does this isolation increase your sense of security?

Do you feel more secure when you are asked to come to the airport 3 or 4 hours before flight time? Maybe you feel nice and cozy if you are not burdened with carrying hair jel. Perhaps you would rather do without your laptop on board the plane? Don't worry, all this dangerous stuff goes in cargo. Who worries about bombs in cargo?

Do you feel our ports, where millions of products arrive daily, are secure, and that no jihadist can bring into the country noxious products for blowing us up? Does it bother you that very little of the cargo that reaches our seaports is inspected? No need to worry. This is "Security September."

We have an excellent idea of how prepared - or unprepared - we are to save as many people as possible in the event of another 9/11-type catastrophe. Just look at the Katrina aftermath. Our Republican government was so woefully unprepared, that even today we witness misery, poverty and chaos in New Orleans and other hard-hit areas.

Republicans are good at talking security, but not at producing security. They are excellent with security propaganda, but not with security action. They attract attention with a phony "Security September," but have no way of bringing real security during all the months of the year.

We can achieve real security after November by voting out the Republican security propagandists.

Posted by Paul Siegel at September 5, 2006 5:52 PM
Comments
Comment #179273

“The Pakistani military will no longer operate in the area where Osama bin Laden and other top al Qaeda operatives are believed to be hiding, according to terms of what the Pakistan government calls a “peace deal,” signed today with militant tribal groups allied to the Taliban and al Qaeda. “

—- Guess Pakistan didn’t get the September memo…

http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2006/09/pakistan_throws.html

Posted by: tony at September 5, 2006 6:06 PM
Comment #179275

September should be the month that all Democrats check to make sure they haven’t been purged from the voting rolls.

Posted by: Pat at September 5, 2006 6:50 PM
Comment #179276

I’m curious where did you get your sources? Because you seem to be very educated about this administration. I would personally like to keep track on politics and inform myself better. Does anyone know of any reputable sources? Maybe non-partisan, objective news sources?

Posted by: vicky at September 5, 2006 7:33 PM
Comment #179277
We can achieve real security after November by voting out the Republican security propagandists.

And irresponsible Democrat incumbent politicians too!

We can truly achieve real security and reform after every election by always doing the one simple, common-sense, non-partisan, responsible thing we were supposed to be doing all along, always. Don’t re-elect irresponsible, bought-and-paid-for incumbent politicians (in either party).

Bush and politicians talking about Homeland Security is such a hypocritical farce when our borders are wide-open. Politicians tell us that illegal aliens are not the danger. Tell that to all the survivors of all the homicide victims of illegal aliens. Those are crimes that should have never occurred.

Posted by: d.a.n at September 5, 2006 7:39 PM
Comment #179278

Paul:

That’s not really true: even when they seem to be talking about security, what they are really talking about is fear.

Whenver I’ve heard a Republican actually talking about security, i.e. taking steps to prevent the things they want us to fear, they (as well as most elected officials from any other party) come across to me as being woefully clueless.

So they come up with hare-brained initiatives like making you take your shoes off for inspection at the airport, banning all liquids on the plane, and rifling through all of our personal medical, financial and communication records on the outside chance that a terrorist might be stupid enough as to leave a trail like that for them to find. This is what Bruce Schneier calls “security theater”.

Meanwhile, 99% of containerized shipping comes into US ports and travels by railroad throughout the nation, with no inspection whatsoever - none.

Posted by: Crazy_joe_divola at September 5, 2006 7:39 PM
Comment #179279

Paul…put me in the “I feel more secure” column. No attack on the U.S. by terrorist since 9/11 makes me feel safer. All your B.S. about what we can take on airplanes is silly. Do you expect to be safer while flying with the old pre 9/11 rules?
Liberals talk a great game but we saw the results when the Dems were in charge. I didn’t like it very much. You complain when the Republicans don’t do enough and complain when they do nothing. Which is it? Get off the fence.

Posted by: Jim at September 5, 2006 7:47 PM
Comment #179280

“You complain when the Republicans don’t do enough and complain when they do nothing. “

Wow - sounds kind of the same thing to me. ??? I’d say that perfectly sums up the REP choices.

With all the recent hype bush has put out on Immigration Reform, what percentage increase has there been in workplace arrests and/or investigations?

How many of the 9/11 Commission Report’s suggestions have been carried out?

Of the original Coalition of the Willing, how many countries still are engaged with the US?

Name a single victory in the War on Terror.

Posted by: tony at September 5, 2006 8:12 PM
Comment #179283

Paul,

I agree that our port have been neglected. The last I heard was approximatly 2% of the containers were inspected. Also the fact that the borders could be better enforced. You suggested we vote out repulicans. Well I would if it were not for the fact that I haven’t heard anything about plans for national security from the other side of the isle. All that is being said is how bad the republicans are doing. Who has a solution that is plausable?

Posted by: Dwayne at September 5, 2006 8:53 PM
Comment #179284

ment republicans stupid spell check

Posted by: Dwayne at September 5, 2006 8:56 PM
Comment #179292

Good article Paul. I can’t help but wonder if abolishing the War Crimes Act of 1996 as mentioned in the following article won’t be included in legislation in “Security September”.

Bush Aims to Kill War Crimes Act
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060918/brecher

The authors point out, “the Administration’s decision to gut the War Crimes Act……….suggests that the Bush Administration itself recognizes the criminality of many of its actions.”

Security september indeed.

KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at September 5, 2006 10:03 PM
Comment #179296

“Don’t re-elect irresponsible, bought-and-paid-for incumbent politicians (in either party).”

As this is your usual stance, I’d be curious to know. What would actually happen if EVERY incumbent was voted out? Would they know how to do anything? Wouldn’t a lot of wisdom ALSO get voted out? And what about the next election? Do you once again vote out every incumbent?
Just wondering.

Posted by: Observer at September 5, 2006 10:19 PM
Comment #179299

“Paul…put me in the “I feel more secure” column. “No attack on the U.S. by terrorist since 9/11 makes me feel safer.”“

Why? The previous attack was 8 years before that. I don’t get your logic.

“All your B.S. about what we can take on airplanes is silly.”

No, what’s silly is only adding security measures AFTER some plot is uncovered. Liquid explosives have been around for decades. Detectors exist, but, of course, were told we can’t afford to install them at our airports.


“Liberals talk a great game but we saw the results when the Dems were in charge.I didn’t like it very much.”

Was it the peace or the prosperity that bothered you?

” You complain when the Republicans don’t do enough and complain when they do nothing. Which is it? Get off the fence.”

My complaint is that they do the WRONG thing. Tell me, which would have made us safer. Iraq, or using that half trillion dollars to secure all our airports, borders, sea ports, chemical and nuke plants, beef up intelligence and international policing, etc?

Posted by: Observer at September 5, 2006 10:26 PM
Comment #179300

Observer,

The founding father’s didn’t have a clue either but they seem to pull it off rather well. Some fresh minds may not be such a bad idea and nobody in congress seems to have a solution to the national security issue, so why not?

Posted by: Dwayne at September 5, 2006 10:29 PM
Comment #179305

Observer,
That half trillion (probably more, if you add up on going costs, medical, etc.) would have been much better spent as you say:

to secure all our airports, borders, sea ports, chemical and nuke plants, beef up intelligence

Posted by: d.a.n at September 5, 2006 11:15 PM
Comment #179308

The problem with this Administration is that in everything that they have said, in every thing that they have done, in every subject that they have talked about; they have said one thing, and ment (done) another.

“We the people”, have a major problem with this. We still want to “take them at their word”. This is not wise, according to their past history, and their past words vs. their conduct.

If the subject is “National Security”, then we need to look at the past, to determine what they really mean. And, the past conduct is more enlightening, than their words will ever be.

A normal person would take this phrase to mean that security (more security, better security) measures, for America & Americans must be taken for our country, to be free from “outside” attack by another Country, or by individuals. In reality, it should mean that steps would be taken to make us (us Americans) more secure as a Nation and as a People.

However, as I said, with the past history of this Administration, I have learned to scratch the surface and look a little deeper into their true meaning. Say, into the facts, and what is really being said here.

History teaches us that we can not take the “normal” meaning here. It surely can not be to protect the “People” of America, from outside attack, or from attacks by certain individuals, that “hate” us. I believe that “we the people” are not the ones that are getting the security from our governemnt. No, on the contrary, it is the government that is seeking a better way to be more secure, … from us.

Call me nutty. But, with the history of the past 5 years, I can not be that far off, from the truth.

And, besides … The election is just 60 days away. Do you really think that this Administration is going to give up its ill-gotten gain (power) so easily?

I think not!

Posted by: PlayNice at September 5, 2006 11:19 PM
Comment #179311

Jim:
“Liberals talk a great game but we saw the results when the Dems were in charge.”

In 1996 when Clinton was president, he asked for the ability to LEGALLY expand the ability to wiretap due to terrorist risks. The GOP majority made a great show of outrage at that time, and voted down the legislation. As usual the GOP put divisive politics before the good of our nation. Because of this, and later because of Bush’s disinterest in terrorist threats before 9/11, nothing was ever done.
After 9/11 of course, Bush decided not to consult Congress in any way, or ask for legislation to change the rules. Instead, he decided to break the law and disregard our Constitutional rights in order to illegally wiretap anyone he wants, whenever he wants to, without a warrant. And of course, this is now considered more than acceptable with the vast majority of Republicans.

The sad truth of the matter is, Republicans really don’t give a damn about American security. They didn’t care about it in 1996, and they’ve proven that they don’t care about it now. They’ll utilize the fear of terrorism as a political ploy and they love to throw around a lot of empty rhetoric about how Democrats don’t know how to keep our country safe, but what they have managed to do is to illegally usurp our rights with their secret wiretapping, while doing very little in almost every other way to secure this country.

Since I know that proof will be demanded to back up what I’m saying here, let me direct you to this article from July 30, 1996:
President wants Senate to hurry with new anti-terrorism laws

And in order to really grasp the entirely fake outrage and absurd posturing that GOP leaders once displayed about legally expanding the rules for wiretapping in order to combat terrorism, you must read some direct quotes from the House and Senate from that year. Courtesy TPM Cafe: Republican relativism: wiretap flip-flop

So Jim, in my opinion, it’s clear that you really don’t know what the hell you’re talking about.

PS. Nice piece, Paul.

Posted by: Adrienne at September 5, 2006 11:24 PM
Comment #179318

—-Paul Segel—-“Start Security In September”
Say’s John Bonehead Indeed??? how many more
times does any one believe these “most untrusted
Politicians think they are going to try fleecing the American populous ? Some If not many! So what is a real solution, I see no discussion on the issues or the politicians that
affect most Americans, when elections are just around the corner. Once anyone observes how many spinmeisters are going unchecked, certainly
can’t take what has transpired over the past few
weeks. What are the most important questions ??
1-Are all states going to have Qualified observer’s keeping an eye on the voting machines.
2-Do all voting machines leave a paper trail?
3-How many of you believe all the bad Politicians are in other states”A trick question” I saved the best question for last!
I am really tired of folks saying Bill Clinton did nothing about Terrorism, In 1996
President Clinton insisted on a terror bill
and was rebuffed by Trent Lott who was the Senate leader at the time.

Posted by: DAVID at September 5, 2006 11:47 PM
Comment #179320

—-Adrinenne— Sorry, I started my post before
yours was posted. I wrote about President Clinton
also You must have Projected Critical Thinking. Any way, I like your post!

Posted by: DAVID at September 5, 2006 11:55 PM
Comment #179322

“In 1996
President Clinton insisted on a terror bill
and was rebuffed by Trent Lott who was the Senate leader at the time.”

During the White house transition meetings in Jan 01, Sandy Berger gave a speach to the bush people naming Americas No.1 threat to be terrorism, specifically Al Queada.
Rice then stood up and gave a speach explaing that Iraq was Americas biggest threat.
History shows who bush listened to.
I hate to say this and sound like a cliche troll, but really, 9/11 wouldn’t have happened under Clinton. Zipper and all.

Posted by: Observer at September 6, 2006 12:22 AM
Comment #179323

“And in order to really grasp the entirely fake outrage and absurd posturing that GOP leaders once displayed about legally expanding the rules for wiretapping in order to combat terrorism, you must read some direct quotes from the House and Senate from that year. Courtesy TPM Cafe: Republican relativism: wiretap flip-flop

So Jim, in my opinion, it’s clear that you really don’t know what the hell you’re talking about. “


I’d like to formally declare Adrienne as my favorite poster.
Get em, girl!
Observer

Posted by: Observer at September 6, 2006 12:26 AM
Comment #179324

Observer:
“Rice then stood up and gave a speach explaing that Iraq was Americas biggest threat.
History shows who bush listened to.”

Indeed. And as we know from the 9/11 commission hearings, neither one took the “Bin Laden determined to strike in US” memo very seriously. Too busy kicking back on another of his many vacations to be bothered with that important nugget of information.

“really, 9/11 wouldn’t have happened under Clinton. Zipper and all.”

I agree. Nor to Gore, in my opinion, had he been able to fill the role of president. Both Clinton and Gore are smart, wonkish and detail-obsessed types. In other words, the complete opposite of Bush.

PS to DAVID, you know what they say… great minds think alike! ;^)

Posted by: Adrienne at September 6, 2006 12:41 AM
Comment #179325

Thanks very much, Observer! You’re not too shabby yourself! :^x

Posted by: Adrienne at September 6, 2006 12:43 AM
Comment #179356

Finally someone else with the same beliefs that I have. In my opinion, 9/11 would never have happened if it wasn’t for Bush. I feel that it was in retaliation for Bush Sr. Come on when you think about it that was a plan just waiting for the right time to happen. Bin Laden could have carried it out at any time. It is really sad that this administration says that they are creating a democracy in the middle east. How many administrations before them tried to do that and failed? What made Bush think that he could do what others before him have failed to do? Could it be his I am king or god complex? The article was great and so were most of the comments. I still have not grasped the concept of how Iraq was brought into this whole 9/11 thing anyway when it was proven that the majority of the hijackers were Saudi’s. But of course they wouldn’t stab Bush in the back, since he’s their best friend could they. With friends like that who needs terriorists, oooppppssss, my bad I mean friends.

Posted by: Sherri at September 6, 2006 7:24 AM
Comment #179383

Yep, 9/11 would never have happened if a “liberal” was President. Terrorists didn’t hate us when they were in power.

The 1993 World Trade Center bombing, which killed six and injured 1,000.

The 1995 bombing in Saudi Arabia, which killed five U.S. military personnel.

The 1996 Khobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia, which killed 19 and injured 200 U.S. military personnel.

The 1998 bombing of U.S. embassies in Africa, which killed 224 and injured 5,000.

The 2000 bombing of the USS Cole, which killed 17 and injured 39 U.S. sailors.

All had bin laden’s fingerprints on them, so why didn’t clinton go get bin laden?
Why did he leave the dirty work for the next guy to take care of?

“And as we know from the 9/11 commission hearings, neither one took the “Bin Laden determined to strike in US” memo very seriously. Too busy kicking back on another of his many vacations to be bothered with that important nugget of information”

We also know that clinton didnt take the warnings from the Pentagon, CIA and Dick Holbrooke very seriously. Too busy kicking back with Monica to be worried about major terrorist activity.

So, do these “shenanigans” make me feel safer? Not really. But having a President trying to do something is ALOT better than having a president who did NOTHING AT ALL to fight back.

Posted by: kctim at September 6, 2006 11:13 AM
Comment #179384

kctim,
Exactly right!!
Liberals would have you believe that these Islamic nuts would leave us alone or never hate us if their socialist agendas were in place. What a joke! They could care less who is in power, and if the Democrats end up taking the House, Senate, and the White House, this will be proven. They hate ALL of us! Want us DEAD! GET IT? I promise in 2008, when people walk into that voting booth, they will ask themselves “Who is going to protect my family and my country?” And the person who will win will be the one most tough on terrorist, be it Democrat or Republican. Because Health Care, Gas Prices, Environment..none of this seems to matter as much when your country is under attack and thousands are dying, just ask people who lived during WWII. Both political parties supported FDR, even those who hated him, during this time of crisis. We, as a country, have lost our spirit to defend ourselves..this nut in IRAN is proof enough..TAKE HIM OUT NOW! Imagine an Iranian suicide bomber carrying a Nuclear weapon..can’t talk to him much about Mutual Mass Destruction, especially when he thinks there are 70 virgins awaiting his arrival in paradise!

Posted by: Joe at September 6, 2006 11:30 AM
Comment #179387

Clinton
first towers attack
embassy attacks
Bombing of hotels
USS Cole attacked
911 planned under his nose…

Its really not about which party is in power though…

Radical Islamist will kill as many Christians, Jews, and unbelievers as possible…if they have nuclear weapons they will use them…regardless of what party is in office

Posted by: Joe at September 6, 2006 11:43 AM
Comment #179390

Exactly right Joe.
But the quest for power at all costs has the left believing, hoping and wishing for the worst to be true or to come true.

Posted by: kctim at September 6, 2006 12:30 PM
Comment #179393

Kctim-

Did you forget to mention who created and armed those people who began provoking us in the late 80’s and 90’s? Maybe Clinton didn’t do enough to stop them, but he didn’t create them, nor did he give them their motivation to attack. The mere fact that a democrat happened to be in office when these groups (at that point they were already formed, armed and motivated) began showing beligerence is no form of causation.

Despite team Bush’s assertions, timing and willingness to attack by terrorists has almost nothing to do with American partisan politics, and has almost everything to do with those people’s own local politics. 9/11 providing Osama with star power, and now people listen when he talks. I seriously doubt that was just an unforeseen consequence of his meddling in American politics.

Posted by: Kevin23 at September 6, 2006 1:06 PM
Comment #179394

“Radical Islamist will kill as many Christians, Jews, and unbelievers as possible…if they have nuclear weapons they will use them…regardless of what party is in office”

Do you really believe that we will be able to keep nuclear technology away from developing nations forever? If what you are saying is even half true, then start the countdown, because all they have to do is give scientists enough time. It only took Oppenheimer’s team a few years back in the 40’s.

Doom and Gloom. Radical Fascist Islam…Crusades…terror…war…blah blah blah.

What happened to human nature and common sense?

Posted by: Kevin23 at September 6, 2006 1:10 PM
Comment #179395

What this administration fails to realize is that we will never win the war against terror through purely military means. Radical Islamist terrorism is based on religious ideologies, not political platforms or governmental hatred. What’s more, those who cry jihad are not afraid to die. They want to die. In this regard, military force alone is not a strong enough deterrent. That’s this administration’s first of many mistakes in fighting a war we cannot win if all we do is “stay the course.”

Posted by: Mister Magoo at September 6, 2006 1:28 PM
Comment #179396

No, I didn’t forget to mention that. Leftist want to believe and need the American people to believe, that ALL of the problems concerning terrorists is because of Bush.
As shown above, many believe 9/11 would never have occurred if a liberal was president and that is BS.

“What happened to human nature and common sense?”

The terrorists have none and that is the problem we face today.
The crusades are in the past, they have no bearing whatsoever on todays world.

Posted by: kctim at September 6, 2006 1:33 PM
Comment #179397

—-Joe & Kctim —You for got to say the Clinton
Administration caught an prosecuted the thugs
who attempted to blow the towers the first time!!

clinton’s main man on terror tried telling Bush
about terrorist that might attempt another such attack, the Bush administration sent the man out of the office an told him they did not
need his services any longer. The rest of the
items you claim were Clinton’s fault, happened
off shore in other countries, which make a
very difficult premise, saying who was at fault

Posted by: DAVID at September 6, 2006 1:43 PM
Comment #179398

Bush is really really tough on terrorists, huh? Well, can any of you Bush ditto heads just tell me this.

When 9/11 happened Daddy Bush was at a meeting in a hotel with the Saudi family. All the “terrorists” from 9/11 were trained in Saudi Arabia.

When 9/11 happened, Pres. Bush finished a photo op reading “My pet goat” to a bunch of school kids. (He was that concerned!). His next move, when no planes were allowed to fly, was to secret out the Saudi family and the Ben Lauden family.

After the first plane hit, there was a half hour period when the second plane was determined missing from U.S. air space. Norad sent F-16s up to do circles, out in the Alantic Ocean (away from N.Y. & D.C. air space).

Bush wants to protect us from terrorism? How? He can not even handle National Security or Emergency response in a so-called “Natural Disaster” like Katrina. FEMA has been more of an obstruction to help, than any legitimate help at all. The situation of the levys was known in 2003, yet funding was cut to finish the job. After Katrina hit, FEMA obstructed gas at the port of New Orleans for emergency evacuation; cut the Emergency Communications; and kept people at bay with guns inside the city; while they barred any outside aid or rescue efforts into the city.

Bush is our biggest support from TERRORISM?

Good God, we are in big trouble!!!

Bush has very rarely told the truth about anything in his Administration. If his mouth is moving, he is lying. However, I do believe just one thing he has said. At a convention in 2003, Bush said about Ben Lauden, “I dont know where he is, I dont spend that much time on him”.

About “National Security” ,,,,,
I DO BELIEVE THAT!!!

So, just tell me all you Bush Co. fans. Just how in the world do YOU, feel any safer today knowing that Bush couldnt even handle an emergency from inside the United States? So, how has he been so very very effective in an outside attack? Unless of course you want to pull out your stupid list again about Clinton? Which is sooo irrelivent. We were never attacked HERE, with Clinton. And, from the time of the first Trade Towers attack untill 9/11 we were never attacked again on U.S. Soil under Clinton. And, under Clinton, those that did the first attack are in prison.

So, tell me,,,,,,Just where is, Bushs family friend, Ben Lauden, anyway? And, just when was he “Brought to Justice”?

Posted by: PlayNice at September 6, 2006 1:52 PM
Comment #179399

Uh, David.
In your blind partisanship and defense of clinton, you forgot to notice that I DID NOT blame clinton for the terrorist actions. I basically said it does not matter which party is in power, the terrorists will still continue their war against us.
clintons “main man on terror” was ignored by the Bush admin? Fine! clinton ignored his own man, Dick Holbrooke, when he told him about possible terrorist attacks. So what does that tell you? IT IS NOT ABOUT WHO IS IN OFFICE, IT IS ABOUT BEING AT WAR with a group of individuals who hate us.
Quit accepting the partisan paradigm crap and see the whole picture. A liberal president or conservative president doesnt matter when dealing with these terrorists. It is what actions they take that matter.

Posted by: kctim at September 6, 2006 1:58 PM
Comment #179402

—-An by the way, any time one country invades
another country, for what ever the reason, there
will be severe consequences, and you live or
die by the choices you sometimes make. Believing
in freedom would necessitate applying the same
policies an treatment equally towards all countries an all it’s people, this is not the case with our present course of action in Iraq as
compared to Africa or many other Countries.

Posted by: DAVID at September 6, 2006 2:03 PM
Comment #179405

to dwayne
i have a solution that is plauseable.
vote out the repubicans.

Posted by: albert colonomos at September 6, 2006 2:22 PM
Comment #179407

You have got to be kidding me!

“When 9/11 happened Daddy Bush was at a meeting in a hotel with the Saudi family. All the “terrorists” from 9/11 were trained in Saudi Arabia.”

I didnt think it was PC to associate a whole group with the actions of a few? So, because Bush Sr. was meeting with Saudi’s, that makes him partially responsible for 9/11? Even after he warned clinton?
I’m also going to bet that every terrorist began his training in Saudi Arabia the day Bush II was elected, right?

“When 9/11 happened, Pres. Bush finished a photo op reading “My pet goat” to a bunch of school kids. (He was that concerned!)

And if he would have panicked and left, you all would be complaining about how he didnt care about the kids mental trauma he would have caused. Either way would have been wrong to you guys.

“Bush wants to protect us from terrorism? How? He can not even handle National Security or Emergency response in a so-called “Natural Disaster” like Katrina. FEMA has been more of an obstruction to help, than any legitimate help at all.”

Dont forget how helpful it was during the terrible floods of the 90s. But its best to just ignore that isnt it.

“The situation of the levys was known in 2003, yet funding was cut to finish the job.”

Puleeze! The levy situation has been know since they were first built.

“Bush is our biggest support from TERRORISM?”

I wouldnt say that. But treating it as a war and not just some type of petty crime will have a better outcome.

“Good God, we are in big trouble!!!”

We have been for decades.

“Bush has very rarely told the truth about anything in his Administration. If his mouth is moving, he is lying. However, I do believe just one thing he has said. At a convention in 2003, Bush said about Ben Lauden, “I dont know where he is, I dont spend that much time on him”.”

Yes, blind partisanship does make people only see the side that supports their views.

“So, how has he been so very very effective in an outside attack?”

We had six in the previous 8 years and 1 in the proceeding 6 years. I wont say Bush is doing a very very effective job against it, but at least he is doing something.

“Unless of course you want to pull out your stupid list again about Clinton? Which is sooo irrelivent.”

Yes, a list concerning clinton is irrelevent but YOUR list against Bush must be taken as gospel.

“We were never attacked HERE, with Clinton. And, from the time of the first Trade Towers attack untill 9/11 we were never attacked again on U.S. Soil under Clinton. And, under Clinton, those that did the first attack are in prison.”

Um, BOTH clinton and Bush had an in-country terrorist attack happen on their watch.
But saying those that did the first attack are in prison because of clinton is like saying those that did the 9/11 attacks are dead because of Bush. The main guy, OBL, was not caught by either President.

“So, tell me,,,,,,Just where is, Bushs family friend, Ben Lauden, anyway? And, just when was he “Brought to Justice”?”

Again with the un-PC grouping.
Bush hasn’t “brought OBL to justice” has he. But at least he didn’t give up all those chances to get him.

Bin laden has been killing Americans for years. Too bad you only started to care when a Republican became President.

Posted by: kctim at September 6, 2006 2:24 PM
Comment #179414

—kctim- Your response to my post was with out
spin, an I can respect that opinion, I don’t mean to be quiet so critical of folks, but in
my profession, I must deal with some of the worst criminal minds imaginable, an I enjoy
discussions with out having to play games, or
sort out fact from fiction. Being somewhat new to the Blog. I am still learning, you can probably tell I am no wizard on politics. Anyway
a good debate is always better than a bad argument.

Posted by: DAVID at September 6, 2006 3:25 PM
Comment #179418

“The 2000 bombing of the USS Cole, which killed 17 and injured 39 U.S. sailors.”

The evidence linking Osama to the Cole did not become solid till after bush took office. It was bush that decided NOT to retaliate for that incident.

“Too busy kicking back with Monica to be worried about major terrorist activity.”

You KNOW that’s nonsense and, quite frankly, troll like statements like that are not going to help your credibility on this board. I expected better out of you.

Posted by: Observer at September 6, 2006 3:38 PM
Comment #179419

“Liberals would have you believe that these Islamic nuts would leave us alone or never hate us if their socialist agendas were in place. What a joke!”

Who on this board ever said ANYTHING like that??
Just a tip for you. We debate EACH OTHER on this forum, not the wackiest statement you can drudge up from the bowels of the internet.
The actual “facts” are that bush had ZERO interest in Al Quaeda, or Osama before 9/11, and IGNORED the outgoing adminstrations breifings about the threat.

Posted by: Observer at September 6, 2006 3:41 PM
Comment #179420

“You KNOW that’s nonsense and, quite frankly, troll like statements like that are not going to help your credibility on this board. I expected better out of you”

— “Too busy kicking back with Monica to be worried about major terrorist activity.”—

—Too busy kicking back on another of his many vacations to be bothered with that important nugget of information—

—I’d like to formally declare Adrienne as my favorite poster.
Get em, girl!
Observer—

My statement was nonsense and “troll like” but you mention nothing about what your “fav poster” said.
Please tell me how those two are different.

Posted by: kctim at September 6, 2006 3:48 PM
Comment #179421

“In your blind partisanship and defense of clinton, you forgot to notice that I DID NOT blame clinton for the terrorist actions.”

“We also know that clinton didnt take the warnings from the Pentagon, CIA and Dick Holbrooke very seriously. Too busy kicking back with Monica to be worried about major terrorist activity.”

Gee, sure sounds like you did.

“But the quest for power at all costs has the left believing, hoping and wishing for the worst to be true or to come true.”

Is this REALLY how you view us? What a pathetic little world you live in. Your by far the most brainwashed, lockstep bushbot I’ve ever wasted my time debating.

Posted by: Observer at September 6, 2006 3:48 PM
Comment #179423

Wrong Observer!
That was nothing but tit for tat for all the blaming Bush for everything, crap that you all were trying to spread.

“Is this REALLY how you view us?”

Yes. Your actions have proven it many times. But, I also view most Conservatives the same way.

“What a pathetic little world you live in.”

Through no fault of my own I might add. Its not me trying to change the Constitution to suit my personal views and opinions.

“Your by far the most brainwashed, lockstep bushbot I’ve ever wasted my time debating”

Thats too bad, really.
I really enjoy debating with everybody on here, even leftists.

Oh well, at least your fear of the truth and partisan views are nothing new to me.
I’ve gotten used to it.

Posted by: kctim at September 6, 2006 4:00 PM
Comment #179427

David
You consider my comments “spin” because you do not agree with them.
Just as there is info putting Bush in a negative light, there is just as much or more which puts clinton in a bad light.
I believe both of them were and are bad for our country. Why do you believe only one of them is?

“I don’t mean to be quiet so critical of folks,”

Sir, I have very thick skin and NOTHING you can say will ever be too critical. So please, be as critical as you want.

“Being somewhat new to the Blog”

Cool, welcome!

“I am still learning, you can probably tell I am no wizard on politics”

Neither am I, my friend.
State your opinions, let your voice be heard and above all else, learn and have fun.

Posted by: kctim at September 6, 2006 4:12 PM
Comment #179428

I feel secure, secure in the belief that we are much less secure than we were befor BushCheney invaded Iraq. Befor Iraq, only about half the Muslim world hated Americans, now they all want us dead.

I feel secure, secure in my belief that every step taken by the BushCheney whitehouse is a blatent attempt to enrich themselves, their cronies, their families and the ones pulling their
strings. see.”Haliburton and the big oil companies”

Posted by: Wolfey at September 6, 2006 4:15 PM
Comment #179432

“— ⦣x20AC;œToo busy kicking back with Monica to be worried about major terrorist activity.⦣x20AC;—

—Too busy kicking back on another of his many vacations to be bothered with that important nugget of information—”

“Please tell me how those two are different.”

Ok, how long does a BJ take? 10 minutes? And that was while he was working on the phone, late at night.
bush, on the other hand, broke the record for presidential vacations totalling several months.
You seem to forget as well, the several terror plots broken up by Clintons policies, the fact he HAD a terrorism Czar, that republican DENIED him a peice of legislation designed to help go after terrorists, the FACT that bush’s cabinet had ZERO meetings concerning terrorism up through 9/11, the most expert guy they had on terror was demoted and ignored, etc.
So, I’ll repeat my “point of view” that 9/11 would NOT have happened under Clinton.

Posted by: Observer at September 6, 2006 4:45 PM
Comment #179434

“I feel secure, secure in my belief that every step taken by the BushCheney whitehouse is a blatent attempt to enrich themselves, their cronies, their families and the ones pulling their
strings. see.”Haliburton and the big oil companies”

Then PROVE any of that Wolfey and get them out of power.

Posted by: kctim at September 6, 2006 4:48 PM
Comment #179436

“That was nothing but tit for tat for all the blaming Bush for everything, crap that you all were trying to spread.”

I never blamed bush for 9/11, I merely stated my opinion that it would not have been succesful under Clinton.

“Your actions have proven it many times. But, I also view most Conservatives the same way.”

So, who in your little world it worthy?

“I really enjoy debating with everybody on here, even leftists.”

Oh gee, we’re so honored you lower yourself to speak to EVEN US LEFTISTS. Do you have the slightest clue how condescending and arrogant your coming off?

“Oh well, at least your fear of the truth and partisan views are nothing new to me.”

You seem to misunderstand the point of this forum. We EXCHANGE ideas. If your convinced your version of the world is “truth”, and everyone else is thus “afraid of the truth”, why bother even being here? I was very carefull to couch my terminology when I made my assertion about Clinton and 9/11 as being my OPINION. Not “the truth”, just my opinion.
As for “partisan views”, read the name on this forum. I think your ‘not getting it’.

Posted by: Observer at September 6, 2006 4:54 PM
Comment #179437

“Then PROVE any of that Wolfey and get them out of power.”

Proof is irrelevant when bush’s own party refuses to investigate or prosecute him. Constitutional catch 22.
But, I’m sure the FACT that virtually every well connected company/industry that bush/cheney has ties to just HAPPENS to be enjoying unprecedented windfalls is just coincidence.
I’m sure the tax breaks for an industry recording the highest profits in the HISTORY OF THE WORLD were well deserved. And I’m sure Halliburton just misplaced that money and didn’t mean to overcharge us for everything.
The whole bush presidency is just one giant coincidence.

Posted by: Observer at September 6, 2006 4:58 PM
Comment #179438

“Ok, how long does a BJ take? 10 minutes?”

Don’t know, I’m married :)

“And that was while he was working on the phone, late at night.”

Yeah, I wonder who was on the other end?

“You seem to forget as well, the several terror plots broken up by Clintons policies,”

Nope, I’m sure some plots were thwarted. In fact, seems like many have been stopped by this administration too.

“the fact he HAD a terrorism Czar,”

A czar or a whole dept now, no difference.

“that republican DENIED him a peice of legislation designed to help go after terrorists,”

Would that have been Presidential Decision Directive, PDD 39? The one that sat in his office until the OK City bombing?

“the FACT that bush’s cabinet had ZERO meetings concerning terrorism up through 9/11, the most expert guy they had on terror was demoted and ignored, etc.”

Um, ok. I’m not privy to what meetings go on so I can’t speak on that one.

“So, I’ll repeat my “point of view” that 9/11 would NOT have happened under Clinton”

And I’ll repeat the facts:
Terrorists hit us when clinton was President and they have hit us while Bush has been President.
Pretending the terrorists give one damn about who our leader is, is naive.
Pretending Bush or Republicans in general are solely responsible for terrorism is equally naive.
Well, naive or wishful thinking for political gain I guess.

Posted by: kctim at September 6, 2006 4:59 PM
Comment #179441

“So, who in your little world it worthy?”

Reps who will stand up for the people and support the Constitution.

“Oh gee, we’re so honored you lower yourself to speak to EVEN US LEFTISTS.”

Lower myself? Sad you took it that way.

“Do you have the slightest clue how condescending and arrogant your coming off?”

Nope. Don’t care either. If you take it as me being condescending, so be it. You have already made up your mind anyway.

“You seem to misunderstand the point of this forum. We EXCHANGE ideas.”

I totally understand. You exchange ideas that support your position and ignore the other side.

“If your convinced your version of the world is “truth”, and everyone else is thus “afraid of the truth”, why bother even being here?”

My version? I never said that. In fact, I just offered the counter to your “opinions” that Bush is to blame for everything. Not my fault you all only wish to acknowledge one side of an issue.

“I was very carefull to couch my terminology when I made my assertion about Clinton and 9/11 as being my OPINION. Not “the truth”, just my opinion.”

Ok. And all I did was show that clinton was just as inept as Bush.

“As for “partisan views”, read the name on this forum. I think your ‘not getting it’.”

Ok. The name says Democrats and liberals. Does that mean anything showing their negatives is banned?

“Proof is irrelevant when bush’s own party refuses to investigate or prosecute him. Constitutional catch 22.”

PROOF is irrelevant? Nice.

“But, I’m sure the FACT that virtually every well connected company/industry that bush/cheney has ties to just HAPPENS to be enjoying unprecedented windfalls is just coincidence.”

Maybe it is, maybe it isn’t. I guess this is where that “irrelevant” proof would help you guys huh.

“I’m sure the tax breaks for an industry recording the highest profits in the HISTORY OF THE WORLD were well deserved. And I’m sure Halliburton just misplaced that money and didn’t mean to overcharge us for everything.”

Companies are supposed to make profits.
And, I happen to think Halliburton should be totally investigated and be forced to pay back for their mistake.
But still, how does that prove this administration committed a crime?

Posted by: kctim at September 6, 2006 5:12 PM
Comment #179442

—kctim— Thanks, I think Clinton has done great
harm to our country with the Chinese, an our
Labours by off shoring jobs. have to run!

Posted by: DAVID at September 6, 2006 5:17 PM
Comment #179444

True David.
But what has Bush done to correct those harms?
Nothing.
Sigh!

Posted by: kctim at September 6, 2006 5:21 PM
Comment #179446

“Proof is irrelevant when bush⦣x20AC;™s own party refuses to investigate or prosecute him. Constitutional catch 22.”

“PROOF is irrelevant? Nice.”

Am I speaking a language you don’t understand? I think 99.9% of posters here would have understood my above statement, but apparently were speaking different languages.
Let me dumb it down for you.
BUSH COULD KILL SOMEONE ON TAPE AND HIS LAPDOGS IN CONGRESS WOULD STILL NOT IMPEACH HIM.
Did that sink in?

“But still, how does that prove this administration committed a crime?”

Yep, just one giant coincidence.


“I totally understand. You exchange ideas that support your position and ignore the other side.”

I’ll ask everyone here if they think that’s true. If more than half agree, I’ll retire and never post again.
It IS quite funny how you claim to hate both sides, yet virtually every word from you is defending bush and attacking the left.
Again, just a coincidence?

Posted by: Observer at September 6, 2006 5:34 PM
Comment #179450

“Did that sink in?”

Oh, I understand where you are coming from. I’m just old fashioned I guess. You know, innocent until PROVEN guilty.
Trying to place the blame onto others is just sad.

“I’ll ask everyone here if they think that’s true. If more than half agree, I’ll retire and never post again.”

Then I hope its not true. I enjoy your posts.

“It IS quite funny how you claim to hate both sides, yet virtually every word from you is defending bush and attacking the left”

Attacking the left? Yes.
Defending Bush? Not sure about that though. Stating clintons faults and not blaming Bush for everything is not really “defending” him, is it?

Posted by: kctim at September 6, 2006 5:42 PM
Comment #179455

“Stating clintons faults and not blaming Bush for everything is not really “defending” him, is it?”

Again, when did I blame bush for 9/11? You seem to have heard things I did not say.
But, if your coherent and honest, you will have to admit that Clinton was VERY focused on terrorism, and bush before 9/11 was not.
Did you happen to read Adrienne’s links to the 1996 Terror bill debate?

“I enjoy your posts.”

Why? You claim I’m one sided, closed to the “truth”, don’t consider other opinions, etc.
Why the hell would you then claim to enjoy my posts??


Posted by: Observer at September 6, 2006 6:14 PM
Comment #179466

The Republicans seem content to blame all our security problems on Clinton. Yet when the time came to find a plan to used against the terrorists, guess whose plan they employed?

They use arguments about how long it’s been since we were last attacked, yet fail to realize that only five years from the WTC Bombing of 1993, we still had three years to go to 9/11.

They talk about what we liberals believe and want, despite the ample expression of our beliefs and desires.

We’re made into cartoon villains, cariactured to the point of losing all resemblance to the people whose honest expressions are all around. The way those on the right would have it, those on the left won’t tell you what they really believe. They’ll just lie and say they believe the same things as mainstream America as a cover for their true, perfidious beliefs.

In short, no matter what arguments Democrats might make, what proposals we forward, it’s all just a sham to them to cover up our hijacking of the nation in the name of our crypto-communist (or terrorist) ambitions.

Really. Like most conspiracy-oriented thinking, it’s not disprovable, because all countervailing evidence is manufactured, courtesy of the vast left-wing conspiracy. It’s not provable, either, though, because if there is no way that evidence can prove it false, there’s no way for the evidence to help verify it. If they relied on the purely evidence-based version of the argument, there would be a lot of negatives for a very few positives. And that wouldn’t be proof of the Liberal’s evil, now would it?

This conspiracy-drenched view of the Democrats has blinded the Republicans to how much they have in common with Democrats, especially those towards the center. It has also blinded them to how little they have in common with some of their own folks. It’s made them prisoners of their own fringe, feeding slander into their ears like whispering Wormtongues.

I hope to God my party doesn’t descend into this to far as the balance shifts. We need to realize that our fellow Americans are not the real enemy out there, and the real enemies will not wait for the “true” Americans to subjugate the “disloyal” dissenters. They don’t care who they kill. They would probably love to see us tear ourselves apart. It would save them the effort. The truth is, our interests are much more united than folks like Bush or his cronies would have us believe. If we started discussing these things like reasonable people, we’d find solutions that each side could live with, and which would help us to maintain a working defense of our country. The current partisanship with the GOP is helping to perpetuate a foreign and domestic security policy that is not helping to make America truly safe. The time has come to transcend such irrelevant political concerns for the sake of our defense in the real world.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 6, 2006 7:49 PM
Comment #179471

“I hope to God my party doesn’t descend into this to far as the balance shifts. We need to realize that our fellow Americans are not the real enemy out there,”

Good sentiment.
One big difference I see between my own political wishes, and that of the right, is that I don’t WANT my party to have total rule. America works best when power is split and the checks and balances work.
As for hating bush, truly, I didn’t set out to hate him. When he was “elected” (I’ll skip over that part), I was bummed, but decided “hey, lets just see what he does”. If anyone remembers, pre 911 bush was pretty much a big nothing. No big issues really, no big complaints.
After 9/11, I was behind OUR president, and thought Afghanistan was necessary. It was soon after that that the sh*t hit the fan, so to speak. Yes, now, I do hate the man. But NOT because he’s republican and “beat” our guy. I have VERY specific reasons, all reasonable. No, I don’t want to impeach him, it’s not worth it to the country. Ford was right to pardon Nixon.
What I DO want, is a return to the attitude that although we have different philosophies, slightly different views, both parties need to cooperate between elections and fix America faults.

Posted by: Observer at September 6, 2006 8:02 PM
Comment #179510

Kctim

No, I am not kidding.

FACTS:

1) When 9/11 happened Daddy Bush was at a hotel, meeting with members of the Saudi family and members of the Ben Lauden family for an Opec meeting.

2) I am not associcating a “whole group” of terrorists with the Saudi training schools, just Ben Lauden and many many of other Alkaita members.

3) I never said that Bush Sr. knew of, nor was in league with, the 9/11 attack. I only stated the facts and you may come to what ever conclusion you wish.

4) You are incorrect. Bush Sr. never warned Clinton of Ben Lauden and Alkaita, it was Clinton that warned our current president, about Alkaita and Ben Lauden in Jan 2000, just before he took office.

5) No. Terrorist camps in Saudi Arabia have been operational for years. They are not a recent event. But, they are left over from the 1980s and you know full well who was in office during those years. And, these training schools did help train Osama Ben Lauden and his followers, and they are sponcered and supported by the Saudi Government, and are still operational to this day.

6) I never suggested that Bush run out of a room full of kids screaming, “we are under attack, run for your lives”. However, if National Security was of any concern to a “normal” President, surely he would excuse himself politely and attend to Security matters like any normal person with such a responsibility would do. And, in keeping with what the people of the United States would rightfully expect him to do, as President.

Talking about Katrina:

1) The A.C.E. have worked on the levys for sum 37 years, up until funding was cut, in 2003. It was this de-funding of the levys, the shotty work of the A.C.E. (a government agency, not under the State of LA.) which caused the levy to break in New Orleans. This break of the levy in New Orleans caused ALL of the deaths, not Katrina. The levy break and the lack of response and the blatant obstruction to help and aid by the Federal Government, accounts for all the deaths in New Orleans. Not one person suffered a fatality from the direct result of the hurricane.

2) Yes. FEMA used to be a viable agency of the U.S. Government. That was before Bush, and before he de-funded it, and joined it to “Homeland Security” (another Government joke!).

3) “Puleeze”, yourself. The levy project has been in place in New Orleans since the 1930s. When work was stopped in 2003, the situation with the two pieces of levy, Ward 9 & 11 was well known to this Administration, before funding was stopped. Bush knew that these two sections remained unfinished. However, since they were not in an area that any of his rich donors were likely to live, it was less of a priority for him. With the Governments reaction to Katrina, both before and after Katrina, Bush has made it very clear to all of America that the war, ney the attack on the poor and on the middle class of in America….HAS BEGUN!

Back to Terrorism:

You say, “We had six in the previous 8 years and 1 in the proceeding 6 years. I wont say Bush is doing a very very effective job against it, but at least he is doing something”.

Fact: We have only had two attacks on U.S. soil in history. One on the World Trade Center under Clinton, (and I do not believe that there was loss of life, but I dont remember. It certainly was not 3 thousand people however). In this attack, we caught and procecuted and jailed the purpetrators.

The second one during Bushs watch, we have caught no one, procecuted no one, and jailed no one. Yet now we are feed a bunch of bull that it was not Ben Lauden but Sadam who attacked us, and we invade a foreign (soverign) country, depose its leader for no good reason, (who was not connected to 9/11 by the Presidents own mouth), and now terrorism is worse….Much Worse.

We now have new enemys, where once we had friends, and we now have more terror than ever before world wide; and, we have actually given terrorism a great big shot in the arm, not to mention our fall, in the eyes of the rest of the “free world”. (Your inaccuracies, and errors in logic, are becoming tiring)

***********

“But saying those that did the first attack are in prison because of clinton is like saying those that did the 9/11 attacks are dead because of Bush.”

NO, it is not. Those that did the first attack were not Al Quada. They were caught, and they are in prison. Those that did the 9/11 attack were Al Quada, are not caught, are not in prison. What is so difficult about that to understand?

” The main guy, OBL, was not caught by either President.”

RIGHT, but there is a little tiny fact here that you convienently leave out. OBL did not attack the U.S. on Clintons watch. Never happened. OBL attacked the U.S. on Bushs watch. So, where is he? What prison is he in? Where is the effort to find him? Who is doing something to catch him? I will tell you one thing. He was not in Iraq. Yet, we did “cut and run” from Afganistan, to go to Iraq. That is a fact. We pretty much put Afganistan on hold and ran to Iraq to depose Sadam. Iraq, a Country BTW, who never attacked us, and never was a threat to U.S. soil. A people that used to look up to us, and who now call our efforts in Iraq, “Butchery”. And, what about OBL? The CIA task force that was in charge of that, was disbanded a month ago!!!

“But at least he didnt give up all those chances to get him”. You mean like Clinton? From 1992-2000. Catch OBL for what? HE NEVER ATTACKED US, ON U.S. SOIL, BEFORE 2001, YOU TWIT! Just what was Clinton supposed to “catch him” for? Picking his nose?

“Bin laden has been killing Americans for years. Too bad you only started to care when a Republican became President”.

NO, I “started to care”, when it became personal, when 3,000 Americans died on American soil. That is when I started to “care” about Osama Ben Lauden. And, funny enough, that is when all the world started to care about this guy. That is, the whole world with the exception of the President of the United States, and his private onteraugue of brainless puppets.

Posted by: PlayNice at September 7, 2006 12:49 AM
Comment #179520

Kctim,
“twit” was an unfortunate remark, I am sorry.

Posted by: PlayNice at September 7, 2006 1:36 AM
Comment #179553

“Why? You claim I’m one sided, closed to the “truth”, don’t consider other opinions, etc.
Why the hell would you then claim to enjoy my posts??”

You speak your mind and tell it how you think it is.
You don’t back down either.
Just because I don’t agree with you or others does not mean I don’t have respect.

Posted by: kctim at September 7, 2006 9:16 AM
Comment #179560

Playnice
“Catch OBL for what? HE NEVER ATTACKED US, ON U.S. SOIL, BEFORE 2001, YOU TWIT! Just what was Clinton supposed to “catch him” for? Picking his nose?”

What for? Bombing and killing American servicemen seems like a good reason to me.

—Aug. 20, 1998, President Clinton declared bin Laden the world’s most dangerous terrorist—

—clinton has made a series of public statements claiming his administration came close to killing bin Laden during a cruise-missile raid in 1998—

—clinton ordered the military to pump as many as 20 Tomahawk missiles into what he said was a chemical-weapons plant in Sudan financed by bin Laden—

Sounds like clinton knew who OBL was and knew what he was responsible for.

I don’t blame clinton for 9/11 and I don’t blame Bush for 9/11. I blame the terrorists.
Blaming the actions or inactions or either is nothing but partisan BS.

As far as Katrina:
The people of NO are the ones responsible. Sitting around, doing nothing and expecting govt to take care of them is why people died.
It was and still is, the responsibility of the local govt and its people to ensure the levies work. The fed govt should aid them in this if needed. But instead, they sit around and expect the fed govt to do it all.
Did fema react to slow? I don’t know. But from personal experience, their reaction to the floods of the 90’s was much slower. Why not be concerned about that also? I didnt blame clinton personally for fema’s inability.
fema has needed fixing for many many years but since nobody cares until a major city needs them, nothing was done.

““twit” was an unfortunate remark, I am sorry”

Thank you. No harm done. We all get worked up.

Posted by: kctim at September 7, 2006 10:37 AM
Comment #179565

F.D.R. told us, “the only thing we have to fear is fear itself.” G.W.B. now tells us, “the only thing I have to exploit is fear.”

The present occupant of the White House has made a religion of fear. It has worked in 2000, 2002 and 2004. Fear anyone who is different than you, wheather that difference is in color of skin, launguage, dress and/or sexual orientation. The old
conservtives had Communism to hate and fear. Ron Reagan used it to get elected as Govenor and President. George H.W.Bush used it to fear the Willy Horton’s of the world and the “L” word. King George learned fear from very successful politicians, Daddy and Uncle Ronnie and of course his alter ego Karl Rove.

Fear is in our hearts and minds when we believe that dribble comming from King George, Prince Dick and Court Jesster Rummy. Voting for Democrats will NOT give terrorists relief and happiness. It will NOT reduce security and it will NOT increase everyone’s taxes and terrorist will NOT be marching down main street in Wichita, Kansas. If we are so afraid of our shadows then we do not deserve the protectins of the “Bill of Rights.” You remember the Constitution don’t you. It is the document that Bush II believes has an on/off switch. On for the people we like and off for all others, but of course King George will tell us who these people are.

Posted by: C.T.Rich at September 7, 2006 10:52 AM
Comment #179628

Observer, don’t mind kctim — I’ve never convinced him of anything (as far as I know). He’s always telling people on the left (yes including me) that we wrongly blame Bush for 9/11, yet his own hatred of Clinton always leads him to bring up what happened during those years whenever a finger is pointed at Bush.

kctim:
“I don’t blame clinton for 9/11 and I don’t blame Bush for 9/11. I blame the terrorists.
Blaming the actions or inactions or either is nothing but partisan BS.”

No it isn’t. Attaching blame is what one does after learning exactly what went wrong. If one never does this, then one cannot and will not ever understand very important lessons that need to be learned so the same thing doesn’t happen again.
Yes, Al Qaeda terrorists attacked us, but Bush was responsible for not protecting this nation on 9/11. Period. Bush didn’t want to know what went wrong, which is why he opposed the formation of the 9/11 Commission (but had to buckle under the pressure of the public demanding that we had a right to know). The reason he didn’t want to know anything was because they knew that it might have been thwarted — the same way that the Millennium terrorist plot was thwarted at the end of Clinton’s term — and it was BUSH”S FAULT that it wasn’t. It happened on his watch, and his administration ignored all the warnings.

Don’t believe me? Let me refresh your memory then:
Condoleezza Rice facing Ben-Veniste 9-11 Commission
Acting FBI director: Ashcroft “didn’t want to hear of al Qaeda” in high threat summer of 2001

Playnice, Observer, Stephen, CT Rich all very good posts.

CT Rich, it seems clear that all the days leading up to the coming election will be a constant Fear-a-Thon courtesy of the GOP — but I don’t think it’s going to work this time. The number of their lies and failures is now so great, that only a small percentage can ignore everything and still buy into their nonsense.

Posted by: Adrienne at September 7, 2006 2:24 PM
Comment #179639

Observer:

“No, I don’t want to impeach him it’s not worth it to the country, Ford was right to pardon Nixon.”

I’m sorry I can’t be so forgiving. This bunch of criminals make Nixon look like a choirboy.

Posted by: Wolfey at September 7, 2006 3:14 PM
Comment #179644

Wolfey quoted
Observer:
“No, I don’t want to impeach him it’s not worth it to the country, Ford was right to pardon Nixon.”

Wolfey:
“I’m sorry I can’t be so forgiving. This bunch of criminals make Nixon look like a choirboy.”

I agree. Never in our history have we had leaders who needed to be impeached more than this administration. Indeed, the number of impeachable offenses these clowns have committed is SO high that Congress would probably have difficulty trying to decide which ones to choose.
Also, I personally I don’t agree that it was a good thing for Ford to have pardoned Nixon. He got away with what he did with no punishment, and so, no example was ever set. The Republican Party missed learning a valuable lesson when it comes to secrecy and blatant dishonesty, and this has lead to the same kind of illegal abuses of power under Reagan (Iran-Contra), and now the many crimes of Bushco.

Posted by: Adrienne at September 7, 2006 3:41 PM
Comment #179696

kevin23
Liberal Socialist are two face hypocrites.They want to control the media and disseminate their socialist views. They are already teaching your children their revisionist history and ‘political correctness’ in school. They think they know what is best for the poor dumb Americans..anyone who does not see their views as correct!

Posted by: Joe at September 7, 2006 8:11 PM
Comment #179716

Adrienne,

Thanks for your support. I can not even write to Kctim any more. You counter one lie and two more pop up. It is useless. Most people that support this current Administration do not want to know the truth, they just want to spread the madness, the totally insane reality that only they can understand.

I am very depressed tonight. All day I have been listening to Air America and the talk about the crock-u-memtary that ABC is putting on by “Disney” this Sunday and Monday night. It is full of lies. It blames Clinton for 9/11. (Just like our friend Kctim). There is talk if Clinton and others involved in his Administration will sue Disney and ABC. I SURE AS HELL HOPE SO!!!

I just feel sick at heart. People will believe all those lies, and the Bush Propaganda machine rolls on. People dont care about the truth. I have a very sick feeling in my stomach, that as this Administration and their friends re-write history, we will all be just a memory, along with the Bill of Rights and the U.S. Constitution.

To top it off, there was a blood sun in the sky when I was driving home from work tonight. And, I can not shake this uneasy feeling that this may be a sign that America may already be lost, forever. Or, maybe it is just dirty air from burning all those fossil fuels that Bush and the oil companies have us adicted to.

G BUSH CO.
W ————————— FOR THE FUTURE
B REWRITTING HISTORY

Posted by: PlayNice at September 7, 2006 10:54 PM
Comment #179718

Sorry about the spacing. This site does not recognise spacing or centering.
:-(

Posted by: PlayNice at September 7, 2006 10:56 PM
Comment #179722

PlayNice,
I know how you feel, but don’t let it all get to you! We’ve just got to keep going — telling the truth and speaking our minds.

Regarding that ABC crock-u-mentary:
“There is talk if Clinton and others involved in his Administration will sue Disney and ABC. I SURE AS HELL HOPE SO!!!”

Me too. I was just reading Rawstory a while ago and saw this:
Full Text Of Letter From Bill Clinton Lawyer To ABC Obtained

Maybe kctim would like to try argue against all those facts…?

Posted by: Adrienne at September 7, 2006 11:49 PM
Comment #179773

Playnice
“It blames Clinton for 9/11. (Just like our friend Kctim)”

First, sorry I had to run yesterday, got really busy towards the end of the day. No disrespect towards you all.

Now Play. I do not blame clinton for 9/11! I do not blame Bush for 9/11! I blame the terrorists!
It has gotten to where, for political gain, many leftists blame Bush for 9/11 and that is wrong.

“People dont care about the truth. I have a very sick feeling in my stomach, that as this Administration and their friends re-write history, we will all be just a memory, along with the Bill of Rights and the U.S. Constitution”

I’ve felt that way since 1994.

“Thanks for your support. I can not even write to Kctim any more. You counter one lie and two more pop up”

Please, please, please, show me what lies you are speaking about and if indeed they proven as lies with facts, I will acknowledge that. So far, most of what you guys have posted on here is nothing but your opinions, wishes, hopes and moveon type hysterics.

Posted by: kctim at September 8, 2006 9:24 AM
Comment #179802

Adrienne,

Thank you again for your support and the link. I have been on line this morning and have found other links to this outrageous T.V. “event”.

http://ottawasun.com/Showbiz/Television/2006/09/08/1814292-sun.html

http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/entertainment/15461722.htm?source=rss&channel=dfw_entertainment

I personally find it dispicable, as to the no holds barred attitude of this most corrupt and criminal administration in American history, (And their powerful allies).

I have voiced my small opinion here. I hope others will scream out their objections also.

http://www.topix.net/forum/com/dis/THOCJS6BUHQT7B6OV

Posted by: PlayNice at September 8, 2006 11:08 AM
Comment #179806

CLINTON LIED
AND NO ONE DIED

How many American body bags and coffins have to pile up, for America to open its eyes?

Posted by: PlayNice at September 8, 2006 11:20 AM
Comment #179988

At the following link, there is an artical:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060909/tv_nm/sept11_abc_dc;_ylt=AmAny3rfAOAahMKQIeIhol0EtbAF;_ylu=X3oDMTBhZDJjOXUyBHNlYwNtdm5ld3M-

which contains the following paragraph.

“The newspaper quoted one unidentified ABC executive as saying changes were, “intended to make clearer that it was general indecisiveness” by federal officials, that left America vulnerable to attacks, “not any one individual”.

I certainly do not think that any general
“indecisiveness” or lack of interest, could possibaly compare to Bushs lack of interest, after being briefed by the out-going Administration about OBL. And, with complete disreguards of a true terrorist threat, as he sat on his thumbs for 9 months, planning how he was going to get into Iraq!

Posted by: PlayNice at September 8, 2006 10:55 PM
Comment #180003

——PlayNice—- Have you seen the new Senate Panel, “Finds NO Prewar Iraq-Al-Qaeda Link”

Posted by: DAVID at September 8, 2006 11:36 PM
Comment #180024

A lot of us Americans knew that there was no link between OBL and Sadam. Osama is a religious zelot and Sadam is a secularist. The two never got along, Sadam would not allow Osama inside his country, or Osamas crazy politics of fanatic radicalism.

Must of us knew this, since before we even went into Iraq. Too bad no one, ever told the President! However, the truth has never stopped him, or any of his followers before.

Posted by: PlayNice at September 9, 2006 12:44 AM
Post a comment