| Author | Message | ||
     Spinal Tap Citizen Username: Spinaltap11 Post Number: 191 Registered: 5-2006  |
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/09/20060905-4.html I agree with most of it but then you read stories like this: http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2006/09/06/bowi ng_to_iran/ Makes it kind of difficult for a Bush supporter like me. This is the kind of thing the Democrats could be shredding the Republicans on but instead they want to go after the NSA, GITMO, the PATRIOT Act, and Walmart. | ||
| cjc Citizen Username: Cjc Post Number: 5857 Registered: 8-2003 |
How could Democrat shred Bush for using diplomacy and the UN for trying to rein in Iran? What would they call for -- a military strike? Unilateral (read: worthless) sanctions? | ||
| Cryberry Supporter Username: Strawberry Post Number: 7843 Registered: 10-2001 |
The Democrats ask why diplomacy in Iran, not Iraq? So, you want war like in Iraq? They say no. So, you want diplomacy? They refer to Iraq, refusing to answer.. Again, the Dems won't take a position when a position needs to be taken. Instead, they prefer the "should of, could of, would of" approach. A worthless party. | ||
| notehead Supporter Username: Notehead Post Number: 3808 Registered: 5-2001  |
The Neoconflator-in-Chief, who has barely mentioned Osama at all for a few years now, suddenly sees fit to invoke his name FOURTEEN TIMES during his speech. So, why is Osama so relevant again? Because this administration has basically NOTHING TO SAY that can adequately explain our purpose, strategy, or performance, and as we approach the 5th anniversary of 9/11 they are grasping at every possible straw to get support (no pun intended.) | ||
| GOP Man Citizen Username: Headsup Post Number: 446 Registered: 5-2005  |
I am strongly in favor of Bush's Iran policy. | ||
| Joe Citizen Username: Gonets Post Number: 1347 Registered: 2-2004 |
"should of, could of, would of" You cons can't even master basic grammar. | ||
| T-Bone Supporter Username: Vandalay Post Number: 1795 Registered: 8-2004  |
Joe is right. It's coulda, woulda,shoulda. Never end a sentence with a preposition. | ||
| crabby Citizen Username: Crabbyappleton Post Number: 786 Registered: 1-2004 |
Now that's funny! | ||
| cjc Citizen Username: Cjc Post Number: 5858 Registered: 8-2003 |
Bush invokes the words of Osama and his cohorts to remind those who have forgotten or seek to push aside for political reasons what the aims are of the enemy we're fighting. To which the Democrats offer no purpose, strategy or means of measuring performance. They're trying to beat something with nothing except complaints. | ||
| Robert Livingston Citizen Username: Rob_livingston Post Number: 2082 Registered: 7-2004  |
cjc: blah blah blah. | ||
| Dr. Winston O'Boogie Citizen Username: Casey Post Number: 2436 Registered: 8-2003  |
Another straw man. What credible Democrat has "forgotten" or "pushed aside" the notion that al Qaeda is a threat? The only person I can think of who said he was "truly not that concerned" with bin Laden was Bush himself. | ||
| S.L.K. 2.0 Citizen Username: Scrotisloknows Post Number: 2040 Registered: 10-2005  |
Bush gives speech. Maplewoodian liberals foam at mouth... Move along folks, nothing to see here, move along now.... -SLK Dr., the only time your team is concerned with bin laden is when you feel it is necessary to remind everyone that he hasn't been caught yet (read: attempts at political gain).... | ||
| cjc Citizen Username: Cjc Post Number: 5859 Registered: 8-2003 |
Democrats who call for retreat from Iraq have forgotten and pushed aside the fact that it's a country that Osama and other terrorists have cited as the front line of this war. If Murtha had his way back in 2005, we'd be out of there today. | ||
| Dr. Winston O'Boogie Citizen Username: Casey Post Number: 2437 Registered: 8-2003 |
first slk, you didn't answer the question. second, as the minority party, what would you propose the Democrats actually do about bin Laden? third, I'm not on any "team." and fourth, I don't think the guy who started this thread is a "lib."  | ||
| Dr. Winston O'Boogie Citizen Username: Casey Post Number: 2438 Registered: 8-2003 |
cjc, believing Iraq is a continuing disaster that our presence isn't helping is not the same as "forgetting" or "pushing aside" the threat of al Qaeda. Please cite someone who has said there is no threat from al Qaeda. | ||
| tom Citizen Username: Tom Post Number: 5752 Registered: 5-2001 |
The only reason it's been cited as a front line in the war on terror is because we destabilized it. If we overthrew the government of Egypt, it would be a front line also. Bottom line: It's a screwup. The only time we're concerned about bin Laden is, well, all the time. It's Bush who hasn't spoken his name in about three years, and publicy stated he doesn't care about him. No liberal of any consequence that I know of has taken that position. Why raise the red herring of diplomacy here? The Globe article isn't about diplomacy, it's about the lack thereof. Diplomacy is about incentives and disincentives, respect and rebuke. Instead of a disincentive or a rebuke -- refusing a visa to this guy -- we've given them respect and an incentive. Like the author said, a disgrace. | ||
| Hoops Citizen Username: Hoops Post Number: 2093 Registered: 10-2004  |
cjc if I had my way the 'frontline' in the war would be where Osama lives. The fact that there is a 'frontline' somewhere else defies logic. Osama bin Laden is not a country he is a criminal on the most wanted list. Calling for the invasion or even the continued occupation of a place he is not does not help in his capture or killing. This thread is making me very sick and angry. The right is playing at politics here in order to defend themselves against the righteous accusations that the administration has done less then nothing to actually capture him. The fact of the matter is that if you are not angry with this administration for not focusing the full power of the United States on his capture then you are not patriotic but instead political hacks. | ||
| Dr. Winston O'Boogie Citizen Username: Casey Post Number: 2439 Registered: 8-2003 |
I think it's funny that the right wing folks cite bin Laden of all people as a source on Iraq being the front line of the fight against al Qaeda. since when did they start believing what he has to say? Did it occur to any of them that he's saying it because he's very happy to have us stay there? then he and his followers can stay safe in Pakistan or Afghanistan, while we remain distracted in Iraq. | ||
| cjc Citizen Username: Cjc Post Number: 5860 Registered: 8-2003 |
Boogie -- Please cite for me where I said Democrats think "Osama isn't a threat." I hardly think Osama is as safe there as the streets of Philadelphia if he's in Afghanistan. I believe the French military is there along with other NATO countries who's support would have been key in Iraq. | ||
| dave23 Citizen Username: Dave23 Post Number: 1978 Registered: 5-2001 |
cjc, Bin Laden called Iraq a front line because... [drumroll please]... we are there. In the perfectly circular Cheneyian logic, this means we must stay there. (It's an adjunct to the Last Throes theory.) Violence is peace. | ||
| Dr. Winston O'Boogie Citizen Username: Casey Post Number: 2440 Registered: 8-2003 |
cjc you wrote this:
I guess technically you didn't say they don't believe Osama is a threat. you said they have "forgotten" or "pushed aside." I'm not sure what the distinction between that and "don't think" he's a threat would be. of course you could also be taking about "those who have forgotten" as someone other than Democrats. But if they aren't Republicans, and they aren't Democrats, who is it you're referring to? | ||
| ina Citizen Username: Ina Post Number: 398 Registered: 6-2001 |
Dems aren't enthusiastic about goading Repubs into a military attack on Iran because it's the LAST thing any thinking person would want. Which means it's EXACTLY what some in this administration want: http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/09/white-house-fears-aumf-vote-on-iran.h tml | ||
| cjc Citizen Username: Cjc Post Number: 5862 Registered: 8-2003 |
Boogie -- my use of "forgotten" is to be charitable. "Pushed aside" as in for purposes of gaining political advantage is less so. dave23 -- and using your logic, if the US leaves, then Osama will to. And will go to where the US is which is would be.....? Maybe that's what's behind Murtha's retreat....sorry....redeployment. How many office towers are in Okinawa anyway? [rim shot] | ||
| Dr. Winston O'Boogie Citizen Username: Casey Post Number: 2441 Registered: 8-2003 |
So Bush is reminding them of bin Laden, even though they need no reminding, because in your mind, they are "pushing it aside." OK, fair enough. Then I change my question to - what mainstream Democrat has "pushed aside" the threat represented by al Qaeda, and what specifically have they said that indicates that? and what exactly does "pushed aside" mean? | ||
| dave23 Citizen Username: Dave23 Post Number: 1979 Registered: 5-2001 |
cjc, No, terrorists will stay in Iraq. They weren't there before, but they are there now. This is why people (like me) didn't want to go into Iraq in the first place. I don't think we should leave Iraq. It's a "you break it, you buy it" situation. We should have finished the job in Afghanistan. The next administration is going to have a terrible mess on its hands. Lets hope they are able to clean up the mess of these big-government Republicans and Cons. As John Lydon sang, "This is what you want, this is what you get." | ||
| Hoops Citizen Username: Hoops Post Number: 2100 Registered: 10-2004 |
cjc - your logic to dave23, no let me rephrase - your talking point to dave23 is utter nonsense. Why would bin Laden and al Qaeda want to attack armed troops who can shoot and kill them then to attack innocent civilians in America where they can foment their terror on our psyche and economy? Obviously al Qaeda is able to work in more then one place at once. There is no logical reason that they could not both be stirring the pot in Iraq and planning major attacks on our soil today. Especially when the leadership, money men and figure heads are STILL at large. The debate is not about democrats being soft on defense it is about democrats wanting to focus our defense where it belongs. At last. Your wonderful heroes have squandered our resources, both military and monetary. | ||
| cjc Citizen Username: Cjc Post Number: 5864 Registered: 8-2003 |
Hoops -- whoever is feeding you your stuff, get your money back. You seem to be of the opinion, possibly shared by Doctor Boogie, that Al Qada was in: France Germany UK Indonesia Pakistan Afghanistan Boston Florida NYC Spain Saudi Arabia Yemen Somalia Sudan Jordan ....but no WAY were they in Iraq. Also, they were firing directly at US troops at first. That's not practical now so they're picking on Iraqis instead. And Doctor -- to your belabored point. I've said that Democrats have pushed aside Osama/Al Qada's words that describe the enemy we face -- the threat they pose which is a desire for global jihad and an Islamic Crescent from Spain to central Asia and that includes Iraq. Dems are trying to convince people that Iraq has nothing to do with this and that retreat is an option when Al Qada itself has called Iraq a front line of their war. They are pushing aside this fact to play upon the difficulties in that effort to seek political advantage. Instead of seeking to conclude that war successfully, they are calling for redeployment/retreat/drawing down regardless of what shape the Iraqis are in. IF THAT. Some aren't even doing that and just complaining. No one -- not one Democrat (aside from Lieberman that I've seen) -- talks about winning that effort. And the reason they won't offer say a redoubled or increased troops presence (which is odd since they think not enough were there in the first place) is because politically they can't do that and win with their constituency. And they sure as hell can't talk about victory with that bunch. So they separate the two. WHICH....is why....they push aside the obvious conclusion as stated by our enemies that Iraq is key to Al Qada's dreams and just what those dreams are. Is Howard Dean mainstream? Kerry? Murtha? Pelosi? They're calling for withdrawal from Iraq regardless of the situation there. Not one of them talks about winning this thing. To do that you have to push aside -- or not admit -- that that would benefit Al Qada and Osama and what they're all about. This applies to Democrats (who should know better) and any of the general public who has bought the election-year line Democrats are offering. | ||
| Dr. Winston O'Boogie Citizen Username: Casey Post Number: 2442 Registered: 8-2003 |
I'm not "belaboring" anything. I'd just like to see some quotes that back up your point. It's telling that you don't have any. You're arguing tactics now. Which is not what you originall said. Your original point was far more fundamental than that. You said "Bush invokes the words of Osama and his cohorts to remind those who have forgotten or seek to push aside for political reasons what the aims are of the enemy we're fighting." You haven't backed that up with anything specifc. Democrats believe Iraq is a distraction from fighting al Qaeda. That is not "pushing it aside." That is a simply a difference from Bush in how they would choose to fight al Qaeda. So your point that Bush needs to mention bin Laden dozens of times in a speech to remind his opponents of him is not supported by any evidence. Or at least none that you can cite. The fact remains that Bush does not need to mention bin Laden over and over and over in order to remind anyone that al Qaeda remains a threat. He does it to try to keep voters scared, and to keep them distracted from his Iraq debacle. And it obviously works. I'd also like someone to explain how our troops withdrawing outside the borders of Iraq would be appreciably worse for us and better for al Qaeda than having our forces remain where they are, but no one seems to be able to do that either. | ||
| cjc Citizen Username: Cjc Post Number: 5867 Registered: 8-2003 |
Doc -- you're not listening or reading what I've said, or what Bush has said and how he's said it. It's beyond just identifying a threat. You can do that with any threat and problem and do the wrong thing (or nothing) about it -- see Social Security. You've provided the 'quote' when you describe Democrat beliefs. They've said as much themselves as it's become their prime talking point. So be it, and you can continue to push aside that Osama Bin Laden's war and the war over this terrorism against the US and the world is in Iraq, it's front line is in Iraq, Osama has said as much and walking away from that effort emboldens him and others and makes the world more dangerous. | ||
| Dr. Winston O'Boogie Citizen Username: Casey Post Number: 2443 Registered: 8-2003 |
as it so often does, an argument with you leads again leads nowhere. I give you credit for tenacity, but you never answered my first and only question.
You make the same assertions over and over and over and over. But as of yet you still don't have any examples of any Bush opponent saying they "push aside" the notion of al Qaeda as a threat. but I'm done. you've worn me down with your intransigence, if not your logic. |
