The rightwing/leftwing prowar/antiwar supporters had no answer for this...

......which is apparently a magical crystal ball which gives you visions of alternative futures.

Amazing.

BTW, if republicans are so tough on terror, why did the republican congress water down or remove key provisions of the omnibus counterterrorism bill of 1996? Why didn't Bush respond to the b ombing of Pan Am flight 103? Why didn't Reagan respond to the bombing of the Beirut marine barracks? Why did Reagan illegally negotiate with terrorists by trading arms to Iran for hostages? You've really done an awful job responding to most of the points raised.

 

CASE CLOSED!!

 

Actually, there were at least two things in FBs post that were NOT widely reported in the "traditional" media, it was pointed out that only the Daily Show carried one of these items.

I did. I was pi$$ed when he looked at me and lied to my face.

When you stop sounding like a bobblehead, people will stop treating you like one.

FYI, Trader_Jorge has this bad habit of posting stupid anti-liberal garbage without addressing the substance of the post (s)he is responding to. If you do the same thing, you will most likely be addressed as Trader_Tim.

 

Uncle Tom, pull your head out of your ass and smell the roses. Remember this fact, and remember it well...9/11 happened on George W. Bush's watch. Perhaps if he was as serious about fighting terror in August 2001 as he was about his monthlong vacation in Crawford, he would have paid attention to the intelligence that predicted 9/11. George W. Bush, strong on terror? Hardly.

 

Dem spigots flowin' yet?

 

Than your not a "patriotic" american. It is your duty to be faithful to the country and it's democratic ideals, not some puppet sitting on a pedestal, regardless of his position.

Hrmmm. That's not really 100% is it? But, sure I agree with you here even though I'm not as well tuned to the U.N. conspiracy theory.

What will then?
Seriously, I think right here we've hit the stumbling block.
You WON'T sway your vote!
Well then, I reiterate that you are not a patriotic American. You are a weasel who votes for Bush strictly because he is a republican.

I know it's conveniant to think "if you're not with Bush, you're with the terrorists", but all you are doing is making yourself look less and less like an "American" and more a "neo-conservative" or whatever the hip phrase for the neo-facsist Bush-Cheney oligopoly is.

My thoughts:
1) The Clinton scandal did not result in his impeachment for two reasons I think:
a) Partisan politics sadly, where the democrats did not care the Clinton prejured himself.
b) The public was surprisingly behind him through it all. The vast majority of Americans thought that his sex-life was his own business. That does not make perjury ok, but the media ate that up like nothing else.

In the end, it was a slimy maneuver by both the republicans and the democrats. The republicans for making a big deal out of something the public was not all that interested in (and wasting time/money), and clinton et. al. for being frightened enough to lie about it.

I think the Spaniards would beg to differ. There is a reason they refer to it as M11...

Spoken like a true republican...

I agree, but this seems weird considering the previous sentence.

I don't think a reply here is needed. However, I do think that your ideology is disturbing. Calling an opponent a tree-hugger is really not a good argument though.

That is a tough call. I think most any president wuld have felt like some sort of military reprisal was in order. Of course, maybe a different president's "full scale invasion" would have included plans for rebuilding and stabilizing the nation to prevent further terrorrist harboring, rather than just securing enough area to re-consider a massive trans-eurasia pipeline with connections to everyone in his cabinet and family.

I rest my case. I am not a republican or a democrat. I am just a thinker who is skeptical of any president and/or government. Judge me as you will, I'm done here.

 

That's a good point and it would be relavent it Clinton was up for re-election instead of GW Bush.

 

I hear ya which is why I am looking at this election as voting to restore divided government. It seems pretty clear to me that when one party dominates government they don't do a very good job.

 

I can see that I'm in the lions den at this point, so I won't address every issue.
As regards to military action and the President and 9/11 and military invasion, etc......why didn't President Clinton authorize an invasion after the first WTC bombing? Why did President Clinton allow Gen. Garrison to take the fall for him in Mogadishu? Why are you ever blaming him for 9/11? As I stated before, it was in the works since 1998. President Bush wasn't in office then, now was he. Presidents inherit things from the previous president, and President Bush inherited an economic downswing and the beginning of wide scale US terror attacks.
As expected, my point was entirely missed. My point is why is everyone, especially the media, willingly diving into this mud puddle and slinging as much mud at the Bush Administration as possible? Remember the whole "Dubbya is a crack addict drunk?" What ever happened to that? Nobody gave a crap what thet man did back in the day. It died out. What do we have against President Bush? Hmm....not much, so let's delve into crap that is irrelevant. We shouldn't reelect him over this and this and that and this, but we can elect a supporter of Hanoi Jane (who should've been shot), a man who threw "his" medals over the White House fence. Why are we going to elect two anti-American individuals in 8 years? John Kerry is about as patriotic as Osama Bin Ladin. The enemies of Democracy and Christianity are running scared and are biting their nails over this election. They know with President Bush in office, they won't have much of a chance at doing their deeds. If the US gets another anti-military, liberal moron as chief executive, then they are going to mount attack after attack.
Don't say that I am not patriotic. I would take a bullet for any American, President Clinton included. I did my time. I just would never do my time under the UN. This is a place where it is shaky. For the American military to be put under the UN, we are giving up our sovereignity as a nation to be placed under the control of another world power. That is unacceptable. By a soldier refusing to wear the blue beret, he is being loyal and patriotic to his nation, regardless of where he is from.

 

Credibility, meet window.

 

Holy God you're a loony.

No rebuttal necessary, the time spent would be wasted.

 

Fore entertainment purposes only

An invasion of what? Pakistan? Egypt? That's where the bombers were from.....

Somehow, I'm pretty sure CLinton doesn't bear any responsibility for the tactical foul ups involved in that mission.

He inherited Clinton's anti-terror plan too, which he promptly abandoned in favor of concentrating on Iraq and missile defensse

It's documented proof that he was a drunk driver...he was cited for it and effectively plead guilty. If you mean the "liberal" media let him off for it, yup, they pretty much did.

Uhhh, no I would not consider Iraq & his failures against terror irrelevant, nor his fiscal irresponsibility, etc.

offf....the deep...end.

Ahh, nice to see you inject a crusading religiious component

LOL, you mean like they did to Reagan and Bush 1 and Bush 2?

Your irrational fear of Kofi Annan is kind of cute.

 

They're watching you Uncle Tim...

 

Uncle Tom is Trader_Georgia's alter-ego beeeeyotch!