From Island's original topic:
I don't know about you guys, but I find Kerrys complete willingness to sell-out . ..to broadcast to the world our intensions, our weaknesses, rather disgusting.
Seems to me that what you see as "broadcasting intentions and weaknesses" is what I would see as discussing decisions, motives and abilities. I see that as part of democracy - I'm serious - ask yourself if Kerry wins this election, will you vilify any Republican who criticises Kerry's decisions post-election?
Of course you won't - you'll see it as democracy in action.
Another thing, Fint (and others) have once again referred to Bush getting into power and finding that Clinton had made a mess of everything
. I'm kinda prepared to accept this - certainly I think that the die is cast a long way before the outcome becomes apparent for certain things (eg economy) and equally I also think the president/govt has a pretty limited ability to influence certain things.
However, were Kerry to win the election, and the situation WRT terror or Iraq to improve (or deteriorate), who get the "credit" (in each case)? By your logic, it may well have to be Bush - succeed or fail. Or is it Clinton
.
Quote:
Originally posted by lendaddy
What made you think you would? Bush NEVER EVER EVER said that we invaded Iraq because they were responsible for 9/11. If that's what you're looking for, I suggest you find another read.
|
From the 1st debate:
Quote:
LEHRER: Mr. President, new question. Two minutes. Does the Iraq experience make it more likely or less likely that you would take the United States into another preemptive military action?
BUSH: I would hope I never have to. I understand how hard it is to commit troops. Never wanted to commit troops. When I was running -- when we had the debate in 2000, never dreamt I'd be doing that.
But the enemy attacked us, Jim, and I have a solemn duty to protect the American people, to do everything I can to protect us.
|
I couldn't believe it when he said that! Neither could Kerry...
Quote:
KERRY Jim, the president just said something extraordinarily revealing and frankly very important in this debate. In answer to your question about Iraq and sending people into Iraq, he just said, "The enemy attacked us."
Saddam Hussein didn't attack us. Usama bin Laden attacked us. Al Qaeda attacked us. And when we had Usama bin Laden cornered in the mountains of Tora Bora, 1,000 of his cohorts with him in those mountains. With the American military forces nearby and in the field, we didn't use the best trained troops in the world to go kill the world's number one criminal and terrorist.
|
Finally, Len ----> that "terrorist training camp" discussion with Mul is here:
http://forums.pelicanparts.com/showthread.php?postid=1375213&highlight=training+camp#post1375213
I found more info and posted a semi-rebuttal a couple of posts lower (I have no firm opinion as I think there is insufficient and/or contradictory evidence).
Hehe, the good times - that was when I called him a jackass.
BTW, as SoCal said, accusing the 911 Commission report of being biased because of who the Democrats are basically calls into question the character of the Republicans on the Committee - they haven't come out and stated they think it is flawed or what they decided on (together) is BS.