Are you a Republican, a Democrat, or a Southerner?

[singpilot]

Subject: Are you a Democrat, a Republican or a Southerner?



Here is a little test that will help you decide. The answer can be found by posing the following question:

You're walking down a deserted street with your wife and two small children.

Suddenly, an Islamic Terrorist with a huge knife comes around the corner, locks eyes with you, screams obscenities, praises Allah, raises the knife, and charges at you. You are carrying a Glock 40-caliber, and you are an expert shot. You have mere seconds before he reaches you and your family.


What do you do?

.................................................. ............


Democrat's Answer:

Well, that's not enough information to answer the question!
Does the man look poor! Or oppressed?
Have I ever done anything to him that would inspire him to attack?
Could we run away?
What does my wife think?
What about the kids?
Could I possibly swing the gun like a club and knock the knife out of his hand?
What does the law say about this situation?
Does the Glock have appropriate safety built into it?
Why am I carrying a loaded gun anyway, and what kind of message does this send to society and to my children?
Is it possible he'd be happy with just killing me?
Does he definitely want to kill me, or would he be content just to wound me?
If I were to grab his knees and hold on, could my family get away while he was stabbing me?
Should I call 9-1-1 ?
Why is this street so deserted?
We need to raise taxes, have a paint and weed day and make this a happier, healthier street that would discourage such behavior.
This is all so confusing! I need to debate this with some friends for few a days and try to come to a consensus.

.................................................. ............


Republican's Answer:

BANG!


.................................................. ............

Southerner's Answer:


BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! click..... (sounds of reloading).
BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! click

Daughter: "Nice grouping, Daddy! Were those the Winchester Silver Tips or Hollow Points?
Son: Can I shoot the next one!
Wife: You ain't taking that to the Taxidermist!

[widebody911]

...like deja vu all over again...

[Overpaid Slacker]

Originally posted by singpilot


Democrat's Answer:

Why am I carrying a loaded gun anyway, and what kind of message does this send to society and to my children?

.................................................. ............

Bwaaahhhhhahahahahahahahha {snort, gasp} waaahahhhahaahahaa!

JP

[techweenie]

Ah yes. the precious myth that Republicans are somehow 'strong on terrorism.'

Before 9/11, Clinton: directed the CIA to eliminate al Quaeda, issued an executive order allowing the government to kill OBL, tracked OBL and attacked training camps and the Tora Bora hideout with over 50 cruise missiles. The latter actions bringing criticism from Republicans.

Before 9/11, Bush couldn't be bothered to meet with the "terrorism czar," but was already focusing on attacking Iraq.

The record is clear for any who are willing to see.

[Overpaid Slacker]

Well, it's clear that Clinton and Sandy Burgler et al. are trying to re-write their record:

From a 9/2002 Byron York article:

Saxby Chambliss is a little perplexed. The Republican congressman from Georgia is chairman of the House Subcommittee on Terrorism and Homeland Security and a key player in the congressional investigation into the roots of the September 11 attacks. He knows a lot about the subject. Yet it was not until he read a recent issue of Time magazine that he learned that in late 2000 the Clinton administration came up with a new, aggressive, wide-ranging plan to topple the al Qaeda terrorist network. In an article headlined "Could 9/11 Have Been Prevented?" Time reported that top Clinton officials handed the plan to the incoming Bush administration, but, tragically, the Bush team chose not to act until it was too late. The heroes of the article were Richard Clarke, a top antiterrorism aide who is said to have put together the plan, and Samuel Berger, President Clinton's national-security adviser, who is portrayed as a tough-talking hardliner on terrorism.

And that's what has Chambliss perplexed. "I've had Dick Clarke testify before our committee several times, and we've invited Samuel Berger several times," Chambliss says, "and this is the first I've ever heard of that plan." If it was such a big deal, Chambliss wonders, why didn't anyone mention it?

Sources at the White House are just as baffled. In public, they've been careful not to pick fights with the previous administration over the terrorism issue. But privately, they say the Time report was way off base. "There was no new plan to topple al Qaeda," one source says flatly. "No new plan." When asked if there was, perhaps, an old plan to topple al Qaeda, which might have been confused in the story, the source says simply, "No."

The Time article, which was the work of a team of 15 reporters, said that after the October 12, 2000, attack that killed 17 American sailors on board the USS Cole, Clarke began work on "an aggressive plan to take the fight to al-Qaeda." Clarke reportedly wanted to break up al Qaeda cells, cut off their funding, destroy their sanctuaries, and give major support to the anti-Taliban Northern Alliance. In addition, Time reported, "the U.S. military would start planning for air strikes on the camps and for the introduction of special-operations forces into Afghanistan." It was, in the words of a senior Bush administration official quoted by Time, "everything we've done since 9/11."

According to the magazine, Clarke presented the plan to Berger on December 20, 2000, but Berger decided not to act on it. "We would be handing [the Bush administration] a war when they took office," an unnamed former Clinton aide told Time. "That wasn't going to happen." Instead, Berger urged his successor, Condoleezza Rice, to take action. To the Clinton team's dismay, the Bush White House did not come up with its own finished plan against al Qaeda until September 4, 2001.

On its face, the story was a sensational indictment of the Bush administration's response to terrorism. But if the president's critics hoped it would inflict political damage on the Bush White House, it has instead had the opposite effect, backfiring on Clinton's defenders and causing them to back away from the story's main conclusion.

Indeed, even a cursory look at the Clinton administration's record on terrorism raises questions about the article's premise. For example: If there was indeed such a plan, why did the Clinton team wait so long to come up with it?

In the past, former Clinton officials have said that they moved into fully engaged anti-terrorism mode after the August 7, 1998, bombings of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. More than 200 people, including twelve Americans, were killed, and an investigation quickly showed the attack to be the work of Osama bin Laden. In an interview with National Review last year, Daniel Benjamin, a former National Security Council official, said the Africa bombings were a turning point in the administration's response to terrorism. "I and a whole lot of people basically did very little else other than Osama bin Laden for the next year and a half," Benjamin said.

At the time, top Clinton officials vowed a long, tough campaign. "This is, unfortunately, the war of the future," Secretary of State Madeleine Albright told reporters on August 21, shortly after the U.S. fired cruise missiles at al Qaeda camps in Afghanistan. "This is going to be a long-term battle against terrorists who have declared war on the United States." Other officials, including President Clinton, said similar things.

So why, when by their own account the war unquestionably began in August 1998, did Clinton administration officials wait until December 2000, a few weeks before leaving office, to come up with a plan to fight it? Why was the plan created so late that it could not be implemented but was instead presented to the incoming Bush administration with the admonition, "Here — do this"? There's no answer in the Time story.

In addition, the Clinton defenders' account is plagued by some internal contradictions. For example, Time says the Clinton administration was constrained from taking action in the aftermath of the Cole bombing because "the CIA and FBI had not officially concluded [that bin Laden was behind the attack] and would be unable to do so before Clinton left office." But the article also documents the frustrations of John O'Neill, a top FBI official who had "run afoul of Barbara Bodine, then the U.S. ambassador to Yemen, who believed the FBI's large presence was causing political problems for the Yemeni regime." Time says that "when O'Neill left Yemen on a trip home for Thanksgiving, Bodine barred his return." It is hard to avoid the conclusion that the Clinton administration, for whatever reason, made the investigation more difficult and then claimed it could not act against al Qaeda because the investigation had not yielded conclusive results.

It didn't quite make sense, and indeed, after the Bush White House denied the Time story, some former Clinton officials began to pull back on some of its claims. Now, one of them — who asks not to be named — says Time didn't have it quite right. "There were certainly ongoing efforts throughout the eight years of the Clinton administration to fight terrorism," the official says. "It was certainly not a formal war plan. We wouldn't have characterized it as a formal war plan. The Bush administration was briefed on the Clinton administration's ongoing efforts and threat assessments."

That's pretty much what the Bush White House says happened. So why make all the headline-grabbing charges in the first place? More than anything, the article's appearance is evidence of the dogged determination of former Clinton officials to portray their administration as tough on terrorism. Sometimes that public-relations campaign has involved positive defenses of Clinton's record, and sometimes it has involved attacks on the Bush White House. The Time piece was the most spectacular example yet of the latter; it was, in Saxby Chambliss's words, "a full-bore shotgun blast at the Bush administration." And even though it missed, there will no doubt be more. For their part, Bush officials say they don't want to "get into this game." But they'd better get used to it.

[Overpaid Slacker]

I'd also recommend this, written by Mansoor Ijaz, who was personally involved in trying to get the Clinton administration to pay attention to numerous overtures by Sudan to share intelligence prior to the Khartoum bombings.

Though Ijaz tactfully spares mention of offers to hand bin Laden over to the Clinton administration, which were initially ignored and then refused...

Not buying this whole revisionism thing, personally. No matter what agenda is behind Time's willingness to tell a convenient story.

Oh, and Dems in the Congress hadn't allowed quite a bit of Bush's appointees to be confirmed, even through the late summer of 2001; so partisan obstructionism by the D's can be credited with at least some of the problem. The record is clear, for those who wish to see it.

JP

[Moneyguy1]

I used to like Dick Clarke when he hosted "Rockin' New Years Eve".

Oops...sorry, wrong guy....

Hey Slack..When it comes to obstructionism of one party or another, check your history. Thus has it always been. Depends on who's ox is getting gored.

P.S. History is continually being revised.....Nothing new...

[Overpaid Slacker]

Bob. You and I don't disagree on the notion that each party does to the other. All I'm saying is that, in the instance of Blaming Bush for so many things pre-9/11, take that into consideration (which the vast majority don't).

There is, however, a difference in what each side "gets away with" in the court of public opinion (read: MSM).

It's not new to try to spin history, but that doesn't mean I have to let such attempts slink by w/o comment or context.

JP

[Overpaid Slacker]

[RPKESQ]

Ahhh, theres the rub!
Both parties are full of lying self serving rat bastards. Until the public stops playing this Rebuplican or Democrat BS, we will just have more and more of this nonesense.
I feel that anyone who is a fanatic R or D is a lazy thinking moron. One party never has all the right answers. One must pick through the polictical garbage for any pearls of truth. That cannot be done by unquestioned support of either party. Few people even try to think for themselves.

[Tim Hancock]

I would have to say Bang Bang (2 shots) just to be sure the POS is down for good.

One has to admit this little made up scenario has some truth buried in it's stereotyping.

[nostatic]

only 9 shots? Doesn't the southerner know how to load a clip correctly?

[Seahawk]

I'm a conservative Libertarian, thus, I'd have stopped after the first clip.

No need to pile on.

[VINMAN]

It's a magazine... not a clip!

[hytem]

what about Independent--where most people are these days.

[KFC911]

Originally posted by nostatic
only 9 shots? Doesn't the southerner know how to load a clip correctly?

A real southerner would use less...'cause it'd be .45 ACP

[nostatic]

Originally posted by VINMAN
It's a magazine... not a clip!

you clip things from a magazine?

you're not one of those coupon guys, are you?

pardon me while I add cartridges to my periodical.

[VINMAN]

I periodically add cartriges to my magazines...

[techweenie]

Originally posted by Overpaid Slacker
I'd also recommend this, written by Mansoor Ijaz, who was personally involved in trying to get the Clinton administration to pay attention to numerous overtures by Sudan to share intelligence prior to the Khartoum bombings.

Though Ijaz tactfully spares mention of offers to hand bin Laden over to the Clinton administration, which were initially ignored and then refused...

Try to spin it all you like. Clinton sent missiles after OBL, Bush didn't have time to take a meeting.

The alledged 'offers' of bin Laden have never been clearly identified. Only talked about. I'd like to see some evidence, please, from some other source than right wing pundits.

[VINMAN]

While we are on the subject of magazines.
Why is it neccesary to have 25 subsription cards stuffed into the magazine I get in the mail????? That just irks me!

Oh never mind.......