Just what part of war on terror does neo-demos support?

Umm actually the first WTC attack occured under the Clinton Admin. along with the OK city bombming.

 

For the love of God man don't stop watering your lawn!

 

First Coulter then Horowitz?

Neither of those articles is particularly accurate in the slightest. Others have already mentioned the numerous flaws in Coulter's article. But I will give you a long list of what the Dems are generally for.

1. Wiretapping terrorists.

2. Going after Al Qaeda leadership including Osama Bin Laden.

3. Holding terrorists as prisoners, interrogating them, and finding out information

4. Investigating Iran's nuclear program and discovering any connections it could have with terrorists in the middle east.

5. Taking action against Hezbollah

6. Cutting funds to terrorists and terrorist organizations.

7. The conflict in Afghanistan and rebuilding a stronger democratic Afghanistan

8. Helping democracy to flourish in the middle east.

9. (most importantly, and the big difference between the Dems ideas and Bush's) upholding our constitution, and preserving the document that our nation is based in.

I have posted several times monumental measures that Clinton took against terrorism, during his term in office. Many of which were rejected by the Republican majority, as well as statements by Republicans claiming that Clinton was too obsessed with getting Bin Laden or Al Qaeda.

Bush did next to nothing about terrorism until after 9/11 despite attempts by people appointed by Clinton to introduce Clinton's measures.

Trying to pass the buck is shameful.

For the record I am not a huge Clinton supporter, and never voted for the guy. I think he could have and should have done more to combat terrorism. But he did do more than other Presidents, and certainly more than Bush pre-9/11.

You posted to columns by hacks, and they were both inaccurate, and not a serious attempt to address the issues.

 

ACtually Clinton had the very first increase in spending directly tied to fighting terrorism, proposed other increases in intel spending which the Republicans voted down.

Prior to 9/11 Bush did zilch regarding terrorism. Post 9/11 he instituted a lot of the plans that Clinton had already made and tried to get him to institute pre-9/11.

If you would like I will once again post a list of a lot of the stuff that happened with regards to terrorism, Clinton and the GOP tonight or sometime this weekend.

 

Well that settles it, we all know that when ROXRAN comes out strongly against things they're doomed to failure.

 

At this point, I only support Democrats because they're not Republicans. Gotta stop going backward before you go forward. So, I guess you could call me a Democrat. I won't even address how r****ded the term "neo-demos" is.

What do I support on the war on terror? As it's defined right now -- and carried out right now -- virtually nothing. You fight terror with common sense and reason, not ego and violence. You withdraw from Iraq and compomise with Iran. We want peace, not bragging rights.

You treat terrorists as the criminals they are. Try them fairly, convict them and throw their asses in jail. Show the world (especially the Arab and Muslim worlds) that American values aren't all bad. Show them we can be fair and honest.

Reach out to Muslim communities -- instead of exporting rage, violence and military force, open a dialogue that addresses the similarities between Christianity and Islam. Instead of mutilating families with bombs, offer aid and assistance. Aid would go further in the so-called war on terror than all the missiles in our arsenal.

Share the freaking oil. It's on their land -- if we actually let them use some of it, it would diffuse a lot of tension in the Middle East. For us to do that, we must develop other energy sources. Yeah, it would be expensive, but the war on Iraq and the war on terror are costing us TRILLIONS of dollars. It will continue to cost TRILLIONS of dollars.

As much as Republicans rant about supply side economics, you'd think they would look at supply side terrorism. If terrorists lose support of entire populations, they lose their potency and they lose members. There's less supply. Yeah, there will always be wackjobs. But if you win the trust of the majority, you'll have eyes and ears all over the world.

You *defend* American values. You *defend* Americans. You don't treat the rest of the world as your chattel. Of course military force will always be needed. That's an obvious point. Sometimes force will have to be used to protect Americans. But we don't have to use it for every single problem, or as a first option.

You use defense for defense. "Going over there so they don't come here" is a simple-minded justification for killin' a bunch of "them."

You defend your home, you don't go out in your city looking to kill potential burglars.

 

I think what FranchiseBlade outlined is a very good summary of what most Democrats believe. In fact, I would say a very good majority of Democrats would be OK with that outline.

My opinions outlined above are only my opinions. They're no more valuable than ya'lls. I only hope that reason, objectivity and fairness played a larger role in the debate. Right now, the only options talked about are bombing, and bombing.

 

terrible article for the brainwashed bushbots.

 

"There's not a single bear in sight--the 'Bear Patrol' is working like a charm"

"That's specious reasoning," Lisa retorts.

"Thanks, honey," Homer says to her, adoringly.

"According to your logic," she says, picking up a stone from their lawn, "this rock keeps tigers away".

"Hmmm. How does it work?"

"It doesn't."

"How so?" Homer asks further.

"It's just a rock," she says.

"But I don't see a tiger, anywhere."

"Lisa," concludes Homer, while pulling out his wallet, "I want to buy your rock."

 

To say that SLICK WILLY did more than Bush again terrorism is laughable! How could he when the Lewinsky humidor is always around?

And on the topic of apologizing to slavery, isn't SLICK WILLI the first African-American president in the US? Then that makes perfect sense why he apologized.

Man, this board is way too left leaning for me. I served my country honorably for 4 years in the US Air force, accept for a few here, I bet the majority of you were never in the military.

 

To be serious for a second, it's really insulting ROXRAN when you try to explain to me and others what a terrorist attack is all about and how I don't realize it.

Quite honestly, having lived through september 11th while working in downtown manhattan (I still have a surgical mask covered in ash in my closet), I think it's fair to say that I understand exactly what it's all about, and probably have a different understanding than you did sitting around your house watching on TV back in Houston. How many terrorist attacks have there been on your subdivision, and why are you uniquely qualified to explain to us what they are like?

Those feelings from that day are precisely why I oppose the disastrous policies of the neocons and those like them that have resulted in conditions that make the repeat of such a day more likely.

 

well he did get more work done

what if this board was right leaning with the majority never being in the military.. is that better for you?

are you saying right leaning without military service >> left leaning without military service

i think not because a war mongering non-military person is a hypocrite to say at the very least

 

I like Greenvegan76's plan to fight terrorism: cut,run and surrender! And we can all hold hands, sing Kumbaya and apologizing to mister Osama while he and his peeps plant another explosive up our collective asses!

Typical lefty

 

This post has little substance and doesn't make very much sense. I applaude you serving in the military. My Nephew is currently in Iraq with the Marines, and my father was in the Navy, and my Grandfather in the army. I appreciate military service.

However, people who didn't serve aren't less American, less patriotic or less knowledgable about policy decisions of various administrations.

Your half-joking/non responsive answer about Clinton in Lewinsky has zero to do with his measures of counter-terrorism. To imply that because he had an affair he didn't have time to take any actions about terrorism is non-sensical.

I do agree that this board could use some thoughtful conservatives to post and debate. I hope we get some.

 

You shouldn't post things like that, giddy... I almost ruined another keyboard, spewing my coffee from laughing so hard!



Keep D&D Civil.

 

Actually to attribute 9/11 solely to Clinton's alleged lack of action is inaccurate, and a waste of time.

I'm not sure what you are talking about letting Bin Laden off the hook? You aren't talking about the myth where supposedly Sudan was going to hand over OBL are you?

Clinton issued a directive to kill Bin Laden. He attempted to kill Bin Laden, and barely missed. How many attempts did Bush make prior to 9/11? How may directives did Bush issue prior to 9/11 regarding terrorism in general or OBL, specifically?

I will definitely post the other measures he took toward fighting terrorism.

That being said I have no problem saying that Clinton did not do enough to combat terrorism during his tenure as President. I also don't have a problem saying that Clinton should have done more.