W. and the damage done

[Enigma]

President Bush inherited a peaceful, prosperous America. As he exits, Salon consults experts in seven fields to try to assess the devastation. Jan. 8, 2009 | After a couple of presidential terms, mismanagement in every area of policy -- foreign, domestic, even extraterrestrial (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090101/ap_on_re_us/nasa_chief) -- starts to add up. When George W. Bush entered the White House in January 2001, he inherited peace and prosperity. The military, the Constitution and New Orleans were intact and the country had a budget surplus of $128 billion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_Federal_Debt%28gross%29.JPG). Now he's about to dash out the door, leaving a large, unpaid bill for his successors to pay.


http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2009/01/08/damage/

[SteamWake]

Sigh once again the attempt to blame the current situation created by past democratic presidents on Bush.

Inherated peace and prosperity? Well at least the illusion of such except for that darn 9/11 thing.

Dont you ever tire of this diatribe?

You do know he is for all intents an purposes he is no longer in office right?

Lets all hope that the incoming administration can do better than the past ones.

[Sea Demon]

This is utter stupidity. Peace and prosperity? Yeah, there was no Islamic terrorism before Bush. :roll: What planets do you Democrats live on? Seriously? The funny thing about this is the fact that Mr. Clinton ignored multiple terrorist attacks against our nation. He basically swept 4 terrorist attacks under the rug. Meaning no action whatsoever. I don't think the people who died in the Khobar towers incident, the African embassies, the USS Cole, or Bosnia believe in the "peace" angle of this idiotic article intended for the truly stupid among us. Surplus?!?!? As a former member of the Clinton military, I can directly attest to the lack of proper funding. I remember the pay freezes. I think I know how some of that Surplus was accounted for. Through neglect of vital Constitutional government obligations. As far as prosperity goes, I wonder if they forgot about the situation involving the influencing of lending institutions to give bad loans to people with no ability to pay it back.

Not to mention the Maneuvers made by the Clinton Democrats to move dual use technologies to the Commerce Department from the DoD. This has made things more dangerous potentially for our sailors who serve in the 7th fleet. Peace and prosperity?? Nonsense.

[August]

Not a budget surplus, a budget surplus FORECAST.

That's like saying you'll have enough money to buy that Lamborghini because you expect your salary to quadruple in coming years. :roll:

Democrat finances: Coming soon to a taxpayer wallet near you... :rotfl:

[Tchocky]

Sigh once again the attempt to blame the current situation created by past democratic presidents on Bush.
Hehe, it's like insulting a mirror.

[Sea Demon]

Democrat finances: Coming soon to a taxpayer wallet near you... :rotfl:

Even better. Democrat definitions: Tax credits or government handouts now are the same thing as tax cuts. :lol:

[Sea Demon]

Inherated peace and prosperity? Well at least the illusion of such except for that darn 9/11 thing.

Dont you ever tire of this diatribe?


Good call Steam. The idiots of the Left don't understand that there actually was no peace before Mr. Bush. Only an idiot would buy this article from salon. The Clinton Democrats simply ignored terrorist threats and actions against our nation.

[AVGWarhawk]

Inherated peace and prosperity? Well at least the illusion of such except for that darn 9/11 thing.

Dont you ever tire of this diatribe?

Good call Steam. The idiots of the Left don't understand that there actually was no peace before Mr. Bush. Only an idiot would buy this article from salon. The Clinton Democrats simply ignored terrorist threats and actions against our nation.

Yes, these incidents were ignored. But, American as whole, has a short memory span. We carry on. :up:

[Sea Demon]

Yes, these incidents were ignored. But, American as whole, has a short memory span. We carry on. :up:

Indeed we do. But this article is beyond just a short memory. It is colossal ignorance at large. Looks like the dopes at salon have an even shorter memory than most of us. Less than 2 days for them. I love this line in their junkpile:

Now he's about to dash out the door, leaving a large, unpaid bill for his successors to pay.

Didn't Mr. "Office of the President Elect" just say that we're going to see years of Trillion dollar deficits of his creation? More government spending and largess coined as "economic salvation"? I can't believe the ignorance. I guess the average Democrat dummy doesn't know that this means years of "Unpaid Bills". :lol: It would be funnier if this kind of ignorance wasn't so tragic.

[Morts]

Inherated peace and prosperity? Well at least the illusion of such except for that darn 9/11 thing.

Dont you ever tire of this diatribe?


Good call Steam. The idiots of the Left don't understand that there actually was no peace before Mr. Bush. Only an idiot would buy this article from salon. The Clinton Democrats simply ignored terrorist threats and actions against our nation.
ofcourse, everyone on the left is an idiot:dead: cant be no other way
now back to reality

[AngusJS]

The funny thing about this is the fact that Mr. Clinton ignored multiple terrorist attacks against our nation.
Wrong. Read the the 9/11 Commission Report. :roll:

[baggygreen]

[quote=Sea Demon]
ofcourse, everyone on the left is an idiot:dead: cant be no other way
now back to realityI read "the idiots of the left" more as "those who are idiots on the left of the political spectrum.."

But I can see how one can read that as a gross generalisation, too :)

[Sea Demon]

ofcourse, everyone on the left is an idiot:dead: cant be no other way
now back to reality

The Left doesn't seem to know or understand that Islamic terrorism actually precedes the Bush administration by many years. Perhaps peace to a Lib/Dem is allowing Islamic fanatics to have the ability to target U.S. national interests and people, without any response. Perhaps to them, Clinton Democrats could make it all go away by just sweeping it all under the rug. Also this article seems to believe that Mr. Bush can snap hurricanes into existence. Or the aftermath is his sole responsibility. What about the Dem mayor? What about the state governor? Looks like they really judge the intellect of their target audience as low. Sorry if you can't see the glaring ignorance and humor all wrapped up into one stupid little hit-piece.

[Enigma]

Sorry if you can't see the glaring ignorance and humor all wrapped up into one stupid little hit-piece.

I have similar feelings towards your posts on this thread....:lol:

[Morts]

ofcourse, everyone on the left is an idiot:dead: cant be no other way
now back to reality

The Left doesn't seem to know or understand that Islamic terrorism actually precedes the Bush administration by many years. Perhaps peace to a Lib/Dem is allowing Islamic fanatics to have the ability to target U.S. national interests and people, without any response. Perhaps to them, Clinton Democrats could make it all go away by just sweeping it all under the rug. Also this article seems to believe that Mr. Bush can snap hurricanes into existence. Or the aftermath is his sole responsibility. What about the Dem mayor? What about the state governor? Looks like they really judge the intellect of their target audience as low. Sorry if you can't see the glaring ignorance and humor all wrapped up into one stupid little hit-piece.



i wasnt talking about any of that, but the fact that you seem to think that every Dem. is a complete and utter retard

[Sea Demon]

The funny thing about this is the fact that Mr. Clinton ignored multiple terrorist attacks against our nation.
Wrong. Read the the 9/11 Commission Report. :roll:

I did. Other than labeling terrorist acts as "criminal"...nothing got done to alleviate more attacks. Truth is, Clinton Democrats simply did not choose to fight these radicals. More than one attack occured against U.S. interest in the 90's with no real response. Also, the Clinton administration helped Muslim fanatics gain an empowered leverage in Bosnia.

[Sea Demon]

Sorry if you can't see the glaring ignorance and humor all wrapped up into one stupid little hit-piece.
I have similar feelings towards your posts on this thread....:lol:

Of course you can't defend your own stupid trash article.

[Aramike]

You know, a few weeks ago I was filling my tank at the local gas station I was behind a car that had two bumper stickers proudly displayed. The first was an Obama/Biden one. The second was one that stated that gas was only $1.46/gallon when Bush was elected.

I had to chuckle as I filled my tank for $1.39/gallon.

I guess it's just so easy to blame Bush for everything, that certain people refuse to stretch their brains to find REAL problems.

Oh, and when Clinton was elected gas was $1.04/gallon. What does that mean?

Nothing at all.

[Morts]

Sorry if you can't see the glaring ignorance and humor all wrapped up into one stupid little hit-piece.

I have similar feelings towards your posts on this thread....:lol:
:rotfl: :rotfl:

[Tchocky]

The Left doesn't seem to know or understand that Islamic terrorism actually precedes the Bush administration by many years.
Do you actually mean this or are you making things up?

Also this article seems to believe that Mr. Bush can snap hurricanes into existence. Or the aftermath is his sole responsibility.
Bush appointed a man with no emergency management experience to the post of FEMA Director, an agency that failed to deal with the Katrina situation. Surely this act of gross incompetence makes him somewhat responsible for the aftermath.

Nowhere does it say that Bush has sole responsibility. The article is is an assessment of Bush's management, a comparison of two situations - 2000 and 2008. His management role in Katrina was to ensure that the government agencies were capable of response. They were not. His most personal involvement with FEMA was the naming of Michael Brown, a man with no experience of emergency management. Bush's role in this episode was a failure.

[Enigma]

Of course you can't defend your own stupid trash article.

Geez, settle down there, champ.

A) I didn't write it. I posted it. It's not "my" article/

B) I agree with most of it. Not all of it. I think this parroting of all of Bush's F up's being created by democrats is an old and tired one. Do I really want to spend my time in a chasing tails argument with someone who hates me for my political beliefs? Not really. Although it can be fun....

The man has been President for 8 years. You blame democrats for his failures. It took 8 years for him to wreck the countries confidence in Republicans, as the elections have demonstrated. I think it speaks for itself.

[Sea Demon]

Do you actually mean this or are you making things up?

If the left truly believe in the "peace and prosperity" angle of this article, I guess they don't know that Islamic terrorism precedes Bush's presidency. There was simply no peace in the 90's. They only pretend there was. Or perhaps you also think like them and don't know about some of the death and destruction of the 90's where the response to it was nothing.


Nowhere does it say that Bush has sole responsibility. The article is is an assessment of Bush's management. His management role in Katrina was to ensure that the government agencies were capable of response. They were not. His most personal involvement with FEMA was the naming of Michael Brown, a man with no experience of emergency management. Bush's role in this episode was a failure.

True. And I agree with this. I however think that the dolts who wrote this article forgot that the Governor of that state, and the mayor of that city have a huge responsibility in this instance. To lay this disaster solely at the federal level is intellectual dishonesty in the largest extent.

[AntEater]

I think Bush simply misunderestimated the size of these problems....
:rotfl:

[Sea Demon]

The man has been President for 8 years. You blame democrats for his failures. It took 8 years for him to wreck the countries confidence in Republicans, as the elections have demonstrated. I think it speaks for itself.
Absolute hogwash. I challenge the Democratic misconceptions of everything bad started and ends with Bush. It's alluded to in the article, and it's BS. If you buy this trash, I feel sorry for you. You haven't experienced much. Don't remember anything. And are easily fooled. Nor have you served in the Clinton military. The audience this article is meant for is the drones.

[Aramike]

It's funny how the Presidency is akin to "God" to certain people on the left. Maybe that's why they consider Obama their Messiah.

[Tchocky]

If the left truly believe in the "peace and prosperity" angle of this article, I guess they don't know that Islamic terrorism precedes Bush's presidency. What parts of the article? I can only see the first segment airing this sort of view, and nothing in it referring to the presence or lack of Islamic terrorism in the 1990's. You seem to believe that Islamic terrorism is the only component of peace or war. That is not the case.

As I've already stated, this is a comparison piece. The authors take the view that the US in 2008 is a considerably more warlike and less peaceful nation that it was in 2000. I agree, and I think many others would.
There was simply no peace in the 90's. Again, do you mean peace in a general context or peace as relating to the rather idiosyncratic and particular presence of Islamic terrorism? We certainly saw less of it in the 1990's.
There was also peace in those years, notably in Northern Ireland.
Or perhaps you also think like them and don't know about some of the death and destruction of the 90's where the response to it was nothing.
That's a rather ignorant statement.
To lay this disaster solely at the federal level is intellectual dishonesty in the largest extent. Well, yes. But the article does not do that, so it's not a valid or logical criticism. It deals with Bush's role in the disaster.

[Enigma]

I feel sorry for you.

And I you, sunshine. :yep:

[Onkel Neal]

President Bush inherited a lax and unguarded America.

Fixed.

[AngusJS]

The funny thing about this is the fact that Mr. Clinton ignored multiple terrorist attacks against our nation.
Wrong. Read the the 9/11 Commission Report. :roll:
I did. Other than labeling terrorist acts as "criminal"...nothing got done to alleviate more attacks.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Afghanistan_and_Sudan_(August_1998)

Something was done. If bin Laden was at one of those camps, we might not be talking about this now. You can say the response was ineffective, but don't say there was no response.

[SteamWake]

Hrm... no one mentions the event where Bin Laden was handed to Clinton on a silver platter yet Bill dident want to stir things up.

[August]

Something was done. If bin Laden was at one of those camps, we might not be talking about this now. You can say the response was ineffective, but don't say there was no response.

That's technically correct but there's no denying that it was a token response.

[PeriscopeDepth]

Hrm... no one mentions the event where Bin Laden was handed to Clinton on a silver platter yet Bill dident want to stir things up.
What event are you referring to? I'm curious because I just read Steve Coll's Ghost Wars (a history of Afghanistan, Islamic extremism, and the shadow war that was fought by various intelligence services there for several decades). The book mentions several different times intelligence thought it was somewhat feasible to whack Bin Laden and action wasn't taken. Are you referring to one of these?

By no means was OBL ever "handed on a silver platter" as far as I can tell from the book. Several times they felt they had "reliable" intelligence on where OBL would be during for a duration of time, but by the Agency's own admission it was shakey and chances of success were low. Clinton was not the only guy making a decision on this. Coll talks about how various branches of government, government offices, and government officials interacted about this decision. As you can probably imagine, what the author described sounds like a frustrating bureaucratic mess that itself made a "go" decision to take OBL out just as difficult as the actual task of doing so.

PD

[Enigma]

Clinton sits on his hands = Right says "He's weak! He ignores the threat of radical Islam!"

Clinton Bombs Afghanistan/Sudan = Right says "Token response!"

:roll:

I'm bored.

[Aramike]

Clinton sits on his hands = Right says "He's weak! He ignores the threat of radical Islam!"

Clinton Bombs Afghanistan/Sudan = Right says "Token response!"

:roll:

I'm bored.How, exactly, do those two statements contradict themselves??? :roll:

Weak people make token responses.

[AngusJS]

Something was done. If bin Laden was at one of those camps, we might not be talking about this now. You can say the response was ineffective, but don't say there was no response.
That's technically correct but there's no denying that it was a token response.

The goalposts are on the march. :D

And I don't think destroying four terrorist camps was a token response.

[Aramike]

Something was done. If bin Laden was at one of those camps, we might not be talking about this now. You can say the response was ineffective, but don't say there was no response.
That's technically correct but there's no denying that it was a token response.

The goalposts are on the march. :D

And I don't think destroying four terrorist camps was a token response.You're kidding, right? Destroying a few loose collections of low-tech buildings and shacks (many of which may have even been abandoned at the time) is hardly anything other than token. It certainly does nothing to stop an enemy who simply goes to another collection of low-tech buildings and shacks.

[August]

Clinton sits on his hands = Right says "He's weak! He ignores the threat of radical Islam!"

Clinton Bombs Afghanistan/Sudan = Right says "Token response!"

:roll:

I'm bored.How, exactly, do those two statements contradict themselves??? :roll:

Weak people make token responses.

Exactly.

The left makes a few impotent pin ***** strikes that accomplish absolutely nothing just so they can argue later that they did something.

[August]

The goalposts are on the march. :D

And I don't think destroying four terrorist camps was a token response.

Yeah the goal posts have been on the march alright. From criminally negligent to merely highly incompetent.

Care to tell us what blowing up a few tents in the desert actually accomplished?

[joegrundman]

Feel the hate boys!

Never forget, whatever happens, it was all the other team's fault! All of it, every last bit.

[Onkel Neal]

Well, invading Afghanistan and Iraq may be many things but not token :smug:

[nikimcbee]

do all your yapping now, because in 2 weeks, we have a new whipping boy.

[AngusJS]

The goalposts are on the march. :D

And I don't think destroying four terrorist camps was a token response.

Care to tell us what blowing up a few tents in the desert actually accomplished?
The previous posts said Clinton did nothing. That was false. Now, the goalposts have moved, and the intent of the Clinton administration is being questioned.

What matters is what was thought at the time.

From the Wikipedia article:

The Khost camp, Zawhar Kili, was reportedly the scene of a meeting of "senior leaders of Islamic militant and terrorist groups linked to bin Laden," and was regarded by Pakistani (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pakistan) intelligence as a "summit" convened by bin Laden.[8] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Afghanistan_and_Sudan_%28August_1998%29 #cite_note-7) Whether bin Laden would definitely attend was uncertain to the Americans, but the attack was made partly in hopes that bin Laden would attend and be killed.[9] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Afghanistan_and_Sudan_%28August_1998%29 #cite_note-8) After the attack, the CIA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Intelligence_Agency) heard that bin Laden had been at Zawhar Kili but had left some hours before the missiles hit.[10] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Afghanistan_and_Sudan_%28August_1998%29 #cite_note-9) As to the precise length of time between when bin Laden is thought to left the camp, and when the missile impacts occurred, there is some difference of opinion depending on information sources.
Based on the information available at the time, attacking those camps seemed like an effective response, i.e. not merely a token gesture. It wasn't effective, but that's hindsight, and irrelevant to determining intent.

[nikimcbee]

http://bp2.blogger.com/_dKaj1oOFv_c/RgSNyCscnVI/AAAAAAAAAE0/NKdQIiaPMBs/s400/Saddam+interview+02.jpg (http://bp2.blogger.com/_dKaj1oOFv_c/RgSNyCscnVI/AAAAAAAAAE0/NKdQIiaPMBs/s1600-h/Saddam+interview+02.jpg)

[Enigma]

Niki, you've proved yourself over and over to have the ability to post a picture you found on the internet, 'scuse me, internetS, but as I've asked you before, with no response of course, do you have any substance? Any original thought? Anything you haven't been spoon fed? Or is a dumb picture from some half assed web site all you have? Just sayin.....:hmm:

[1480]

Quote:
Niki, you've proved yourself over and over to have the ability to post a picture you found on the internet, 'scuse me, internetS, but as I've asked you before, with no response of course, do you have any substance? Any original thought? Anything you haven't been spoon fed? Or is a dumb picture from some half assed web site all you have? Just sayin.....
:hmm:

Enigma: It's called humor, something that, when viewed, may garner a chuckle or two. I come home after 8 hours of a day dealing with nonsense, death, violence and other neat things that are produced by the rag-ass of society has to offer, I need a chuckle.

[Tchocky]

Well, invading Afghanistan and Iraq may be many things but not token :smug:
I'd certainly consider the invasion of Iraq to be a token response to Islamic terrorism.

[nikimcbee]

Quote:
Niki, you've proved yourself over and over to have the ability to post a picture you found on the internet, 'scuse me, internetS, but as I've asked you before, with no response of course, do you have any substance? Any original thought? Anything you haven't been spoon fed? Or is a dumb picture from some half assed web site all you have? Just sayin.....
:hmm:

Enigma: It's called humor, something that, when viewed, may garner a chuckle or two. I come home after 8 hours of a day dealing with nonsense, death, violence and other neat things that are produced by the rag-ass of society has to offer, I need a chuckle.

M,
How was work? Glad you made it home okay, as I know how dangerous your job is.

Here's a variety of things to help you decompress:

Straight from the homeland:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bOjVeqTMn9k

This should cheer you up:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SG8OpQyY6TI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hPBw45ETm7o

go get some sleep,
love mom.

[Aramike]

The previous posts said Clinton did nothing. That was false. Now, the goalposts have moved, and the intent of the Clinton administration is being questioned.

What matters is what was thought at the time. Ironic how this could also apply to WMDs in Iraq...Based on the information available at the time, attacking those camps seemed like an effective response, i.e. not merely a token gesture. It wasn't effective, but that's hindsight, and irrelevant to determining intent.It was the very definition of "token". They took a couple shots and hoped it worked. When it was found that it didn't work, they didn't pursue it.

Hence, the objective wasn't considered urgent enough to take measures to see it completed.

Ergo, the firing of missiles was nothing more than a grand symbolic gesture.

A token response.

[August]

The previous posts said Clinton did nothing. That was false. Now, the goalposts have moved, and the intent of the Clinton administration is being questioned.

What matters is what was thought at the time. Ironic how this could also apply to WMDs in Iraq...Based on the information available at the time, attacking those camps seemed like an effective response, i.e. not merely a token gesture. It wasn't effective, but that's hindsight, and irrelevant to determining intent.It was the very definition of "token". They took a couple shots and hoped it worked. When it was found that it didn't work, they didn't pursue it.

Hence, the objective wasn't considered urgent enough to take measures to see it completed.

Ergo, the firing of missiles was nothing more than a grand symbolic gesture.

A token response.

Aramike nails it AngusJS.

[SUBMAN1]

Sorry if you can't see the glaring ignorance and humor all wrapped up into one stupid little hit-piece.
I have similar feelings towards your posts on this thread....:lol:I wonder if you should ask him if he cares! :D

-S

[SUBMAN1]

Good call Steam. The idiots of the Left don't understand that there actually was no peace before Mr. Bush. Only an idiot would buy this article from salon. The Clinton Democrats simply ignored terrorist threats and actions against our nation.
Yes, these incidents were ignored. But, American as whole, has a short memory span. We carry on. :up:

I do find the ones with the short memory span are on the left. How ironic is it that these are the same people that consider themselves intellectually superior to all the rest of us? :p

-S

[Tchocky]

The previous posts said Clinton did nothing. That was false. Now, the goalposts have moved, and the intent of the Clinton administration is being questioned.

What matters is what was thought at the time. Ironic how this could also apply to WMDs in Iraq..
Not quite.
Unless the intelligence concerning Bin Laden was manipulated in such a way to make it appear less important.

Also this business of blaming Clinton for ignoring Bin Laden and failing to take him out rings a little hollow, and a lot stupid.
It's not like George Bush raced into office hell-bent on destroying Bin Laden, nor has he done so. It's also not the case that GWB studiously reviewed warnings of terror plots that came across his desk.

I mean, it's so obviously the fault of one of them, the problem is which one?

[Dowly]

This thread really needs somekind of background music playing while everyone is posting/reading it.

I vote for this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ynoL3iGgEYc

:p

FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT!!! *Grabs more popcorn*

[SUBMAN1]

This thread really needs somekind of background music playing while everyone is posting/reading it.

I vote for this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ynoL3iGgEYc

:p

FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT!!! *Grabs more popcorn*

Nah. But I think everyone should lighten up a bit though.

-S

[SUBMAN1]

...Also this business of blaming Clinton for ignoring Bin Laden and failing to take him out rings a little hollow, and a lot stupid. ....

As the Pakistani president said, you go find him, and we will then go get him. You over simplify things. If I wanted to disappear, no one would find me either. Crap, they can't even find how many fugitives in our own country?

-S

[SteamWake]

What event are you referring to? I'm curious

http://www.infowars.com/saved%20pages/Prior_Knowledge/Clinton_let_bin_laden.htm

[August]

What event are you referring to? I'm curious
http://www.infowars.com/saved%20pages/Prior_Knowledge/Clinton_let_bin_laden.htm

Sounds pretty damning to me....

Clinton's failure to grasp the opportunity to unravel increasingly organized extremists, coupled with Berger's assessments of their potential to directly threaten the U.S., represents one of the most serious foreign policy failures in American history.

[Aramike]

Not quite.
Unless the intelligence concerning Bin Laden was manipulated in such a way to make it appear less important.All intelligence is manipulated and interpreted. You don't know if it is correct until after the fact.Also this business of blaming Clinton for ignoring Bin Laden and failing to take him out rings a little hollow, and a lot stupid.
It's not like George Bush raced into office hell-bent on destroying Bin Laden, nor has he done so. It's also not the case that GWB studiously reviewed warnings of terror plots that came across his desk.

I mean, it's so obviously the fault of one of them, the problem is which one?Bush was in office for just under 9 months when the attack occured. Clinton had just finished an 8 year term during which there were several terrorist attacks.

Seven years, 3 months later, the US has yet to be attacked again. This NOT happening during a period in which the left constantly claims that the world is hating us more and more...

You'd think we'd be getting struck by terrorist activities at an increased clip.

You know, we really can't completely blame any president for causing the problem of terrorism.

But, for more than 7 years of Bush, we've effectively confronted terrorism. All the while, for 8 years of Clinton, we did practically nothing.

[Kapt Z]

Well, the man did have a way with words....:smug:

That's got to count for something down the line.

[Digital_Trucker]

Doesn't this need to be merged with the "Bash Bush" thread?:D

[Christopher Snow]

Bah.

The America W inherited changed rather dramatically on 9-11. And for the rest of us too.

I didn't vote for him either time, but I really do think he did a pretty good job, under the circumstances.


CS

[SUBMAN1]

Bah.

The America W inherited changed rather dramatically on 9-11. And for the rest of us too.

I didn't vote for him either time, but I really do think he did a pretty good job, under the circumstances.


CS

I'll tell you one thing, out of the three jokers of Obama, Kerry, or Gore, if we have to have a Demo president, Obama would be my first choice.

Gore is out for self interest. At least I guess you know where he is coming from.

Kerry is a whack - the epitome of a politician. A liar, a cheat, and a stealer that one couldn't hold to have any moral value.

Obama seems to have half a head on his shoulders, though it is premature yet to judge him.

-S

[Onkel Neal]

Bah.

The America W inherited changed rather dramatically on 9-11. And for the rest of us too.

I didn't vote for him either time, but I really do think he did a pretty good job, under the circumstances.


CS

I'll tell you one thing, out of the three jokers of Obama, Kerry, or Gore, if we have to have a Demo president, Obama would be my first choice.

Gore is out for self interest. At least I guess you know where he is coming from.

Kerry is a whack - the epitome of a politician. A liar, a cheat, and a stealer that one couldn't hold to have any moral value.

Obama seems to have half a head on his shoulders, though it is premature yet to judge him.

-S

I'm 100% in agreement.

[1480]

Bah.

The America W inherited changed rather dramatically on 9-11. And for the rest of us too.

I didn't vote for him either time, but I really do think he did a pretty good job, under the circumstances.


CS

I'll tell you one thing, out of the three jokers of Obama, Kerry, or Gore, if we have to have a Demo president, Obama would be my first choice.

Gore is out for self interest. At least I guess you know where he is coming from.

Kerry is a whack - the epitome of a politician. A liar, a cheat, and a stealer that one couldn't hold to have any moral value.

Obama seems to have half a head on his shoulders, though it is premature yet to judge him.

-S

I'm 100% in agreement.

But he was bred into politics in my neck of the woods, don't say "I didn't warn youse guys"....

[nikimcbee]

Bah.

The America W inherited changed rather dramatically on 9-11. And for the rest of us too.

I didn't vote for him either time, but I really do think he did a pretty good job, under the circumstances.


CS

I'll tell you one thing, out of the three jokers of Obama, Kerry, or Gore, if we have to have a Demo president, Obama would be my first choice.

Gore is out for self interest. At least I guess you know where he is coming from.

Kerry is a whack - the epitome of a politician. A liar, a cheat, and a stealer that one couldn't hold to have any moral value.

Obama seems to have half a head on his shoulders, though it is premature yet to judge him.

-S

I'm 100% in agreement.

But he was bred into politics in my neck of the woods, don't say "I didn't warn youse guys"....

Hey, at least blago loves him.

i just don't like senators. They don't make desicions, just give speeches. I would prefer a govenor over a senator any day.

[Stealth Hunter]

Well, invading Afghanistan and Iraq may be many things but not token :smug:

Stupid?:hmm:

Seriously, Iraq had nothing to do with these terrorist organizations and they had nothing to do with 9/11.

[SUBMAN1]

Well, invading Afghanistan and Iraq may be many things but not token :smug:
Stupid?:hmm:

Seriously, Iraq had nothing to do with these terrorist organizations and they had nothing to do with 9/11.

They only bred terrorists. But of course, they had nothing to do with anything (cough cough...)

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/006/550kmbzd.asp

-S

[Aramike]

Well, invading Afghanistan and Iraq may be many things but not token :smug:

Stupid?:hmm:

Seriously, Iraq had nothing to do with these terrorist organizations and they had nothing to do with 9/11.It's silly to think that strategic military objectives should coincide directly with punishing those directly responsible for an attack.

There's a reason that factories and fuel dumps are bombed during wars, even though their outputs may not have been directly used against an opponent in combat.

The principle in Iraq is the same.

[nikimcbee]

do all your yapping now, because in 2 weeks, we have a new whipping boy.

Wow, that was quick. Nevermind W, BO already has a fan club in europe:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3453/3186002546_b8cd68cf35.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/57925480@N00/3186002546/)

[nikimcbee]

Whoa, just found this:

An open letter to obama: (from Afghanistan)

Afghan jihadist to Obama: "You should also cause one more addition to the U.S. history by becoming the first president to accept the Truth and by adopting the true faith of Islam"

In issuing this invitation to Obama to accept Islam, Maulawy Anwarulhaq Mujahid is following Muhammad's instructions:
Fight in the name of Allah and in the way of Allah. Fight against those who disbelieve in Allah. Make a holy war...When you meet your enemies who are polytheists, invite them to three courses of action. If they respond to any one of these, you also accept it and withold yourself from doing them any harm. Invite them to (accept) Islam; if they respond to you, accept it from them and desist from fighting against them....If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya. If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands. If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah's help and fight them. (Sahih Muslim 4294)In other words, the three options are conversion, subjugation, or war.
"In Open Letter to Barack Obama, the Chief of Tora Bora Battlefield In Afghanistan Warns: The Flames of this Fire will Blow Up on Washington," from MEMRI (http://www.memri.org/bin/latestnews.cgi?ID=SD217909), January 8 (thanks to M.):
In advance of Barack Obama’s upcoming inauguration as U.S. President, the Taliban in Afghanistan led by Mullah Omar have released an open letter. Entitled "An Open Letter to the White House from the Peaks of Tora Bora," the letter notes that Obama has created history by becoming the first African American to control the White House. The letter, dated December 27, 2008, urges him to create another history by accepting Islam. The letter was issued by Maulawy Anwarulhaq Mujahid, whose designation reads as the Chief of the Tora Bora Battlefield. It was simultaneously published in Pashtu, Urdu and English languages on the Pashtu language website, www.toorabora.com.
Following are some excerpts from the letter translated from the Urdu version:
"As Long as Baitul Muqaddas Remains in a State of Occupation, Israel and its Supporters will not Remain in Peace"
"President of the United States, Barack Hussein Obama!
"First of all, you must know that protection from the wretchedness in the world and the fire of Hell is only available in Islam. Islam is the only religion that guarantees success in this world and in the Hereafter.
"You are the first black in the U.S. history who has established control on the White House; you should also cause one more addition to the U.S. history by becoming the first president to accept the Truth and by adopting the true faith of Islam....
"Do you know that your nation has been pushed into a war against such an Ummah that is like a single body; there is a beginning to this war, but there is no end.


In other words, the three options are conversion, subjugation, or war.

I hope (god, I said hope:roll: ) he's up to this, because if not...:nope:


http://www.jihadwatch.org/

[FIREWALL]

I thought most African- Americans were Babtists. :-?

But I guess if you go Islam you get 47 or is it 48 Virgins. I like round numbers. How about 50.

Hell, where do I sign up. :p Hey, if there's a problem, they don't have to be Virgins. :rotfl:

[nikimcbee]

I thought most African- Americans were Babtists. :-?

But I guess if you go Islam you get 47 or is it 48 Virgins. I like round numbers. How about 50.

Hell, where do I sign up. :p Hey, if there's a problem, they don't have to be Virgins. :rotfl:

Just on your "jihad application", make sure you check the correct box. That would really suck if you checked the: Guys: x gals: Goats:

This could be you:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NqeFlaJItEc

Have fun on your wedding night!:rotfl:

[nikimcbee]

Firewall meets his 72 virgins:

Part 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ugk37TvIR8E

part 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nCtz4trJr_g&feature=related

Which of these buttons calls your parents?
:rotfl: