"That's like asking a bank robber to driver an amored truck for Wells Fargo."
Huh? Cute analogy, but false. Clinton wasn't a jihadist.
The article supports everything I said in my post. Bin Laden was in Afghanistan, not Iraq. By attacking a country that wasn't involved AT ALL in the bombing of the WTC, we weakened our ability to 1) eliminate the real terrorists and 2) provide for our own national defense. Iraq had a SECULAR government; Saudi Arabia (the homeland of 14 of the 9/11 hijackers) has as its "national" religion one of the most extreme forms of Islam. We're talking about public beheadings and stonings and hand amputations here. And profound contempt for all things Western. If we were really going to attack a COUNTRY because SOME of its CITIZENS were promoting jihad, that country would have been the logical target.
A quote from the article:
<<“We were not prepared to take the military action necessary,” said retired Gen. Wayne Downing, who ran counter-terror efforts for the current Bush administration and is now an NBC analyst.
“We should have had strike forces prepared to go in and react to this intelligence, certainly cruise missiles — either air- or sea-launched — very, very accurate, could have gone in and hit those targets,” Downing added.>>
We've seen just how successful the "military action necessary" has been so far. This guy is a cheerleader for a failed war. What credibility does he have?
Also from the article:
<>
There it is again: Afghanistan. We weakened our intervention there to support the "war effort" in Iraq. Now the Taliban is taking over again, according to recent reports. Yeah, I remember Whitewater. The Rose law firm. Monica. The Clintons were sort of a study in what happens when a small state governor gets to the big time. Compare and contrast to Troopergate, the bridge to nowhere, book censorship, and those of us who are gonna get "left behind". But the present prez isn't exactly an example of sterling leadership and character either (he's a drunk driving, cocaine sniffing guy who hasn't been able to account for how he got out of the military in the same era that McCain was sitting in a cage in Vietnam), and his hands are dirtied by the blood of our nation's children, and an estimated 100,000 (or more) Iraqi civilians. And his administration, for all its bluster, hasn't been successful in capturing bin Laden either.
On Saturday there was a devastating suicide bombing of a hotel in Pakistan, one of our allies. Is the world really safer than it was before September of 2001? Is it safer for Americans to travel to other countries? Do we still have a surplus in the budget? Do we get along better with our allies? Who is better off than they were before? (Right offhand I can't think of anyone except selected no-bid military contractors, who made out like bandits.)
I go to a lot of sources for my information, and doubtless some of it is tainted. That "liberal bias" in the news media, you know. Let's see what kind of info we can get from FOX tonight, because I know lots of people who are getting ALL of theirs news from FOX. (I just thought this up, let's see how it turns out. Okay, here goes):
THE CAMPAIGN TRAIL
PALIN TO MEET WITH PRESIDENTS OF IRAQ, GEORGIA, UKRAINE, PAKISTAN
excerpt: "The meetings will be in New York and coincide with the United Nations’ General Assembly, which meets this week and attracts leaders from all over the world. The meetings are an effort by the campaign to boost Palin’s foreign policy credentials and show her ability to hob knob with foreign leaders. Her lack of foreign policy experience has been widely criticized since John McCain’s selection of Palin as his running mate."
"Hob knob?" Who's writing this stuff anyway? The word is "hobnob".
PALIN: OBAMA “REFUSED TO EVEN TAKE A STAND” ON WALL STREET CRISIS
MCCAIN: OBAMA M.I.A. ON NATIONAL CRISES
PROTESTING OBAMA BY AIR
In Fox's defense, it must be said that the articles didn't present a very flattering picture of any of the candidates, although the negative comments made by McCain and Palin about the other ticket usually headed the articles. However, the "liberal media" usually includes articles about both campaigns, not just the "liberal" party. Odd.
<< I don't know if you ladies have checked out the site that was posted, but the economic questions you're raising are addressed there in a nonpartisan manner - I would suggest looking at it, it's pretty good information.
i would like to respond point by point with facts and not hear says or generalizations but i just dont have the time. but still id like to be heard.
i am pro obama. he is with us. he knows the issues. and that is the first step in solving a problem. really knowing the issue.
there will always be a tug of war in the policies. you know we all have our own interests to protect. or principles we stand for. we all will never take the same road you know. but when it comes to education, we all know we want to give our kids the best. and obama pays a lot more attention than the other. besides obama himself did so well in school. he valued it even in his youth.
i have a lot more points for obama but like i said, i don't have much time. but if for education alone, i will vote for obama. or im gonna have to home school my kids til high school or we all go back to the philippines. seriously, for a really powerful country, i have found my country's educational system a little better than here.
*******
Women wish to be loved without a why or a wherefore; not because they are pretty, or good, or well-bred, or graceful, or intelligent, but because they are themselves.
Henri Frederic Amiel
i remember reading that 15% of obama's introduced legislation were bipartisan. but i for one like that low number because i dont like most repbulican policies.
The statistic you are quoting was that legislation
'As far as the our "forefathers battled for religious freedom", actually, they came here so they would be free to oppress those who didn't agree with them, as opposed to being the oppressed.'
Wow. You're exactly right. I think fleur should have said "some of our forefathers" or "the framers of the US constitution." We could easily have become a religious autocracy in the beginning - and in some of the colonies we effectively were for some time. Separation of Church and State was not a "done deal." It took decades of consideration, experimentation, communication, argument, and compromise for us to get to the simple sentence in the first amendment - much of it occurring before there was any thought of writing a constitution.
Pages
If that's such a concern to you then why don't you tell us how
Chrissy
mom to Aidan 8/21/03
Grayson Blaine 12/30/07
"That's like asking a bank robber to driver an amored truck for Wells Fargo."
Huh? Cute analogy, but false. Clinton wasn't a jihadist.
The article supports everything I said in my post. Bin Laden was in Afghanistan, not Iraq. By attacking a country that wasn't involved AT ALL in the bombing of the WTC, we weakened our ability to 1) eliminate the real terrorists and 2) provide for our own national defense. Iraq had a SECULAR government; Saudi Arabia (the homeland of 14 of the 9/11 hijackers) has as its "national" religion one of the most extreme forms of Islam. We're talking about public beheadings and stonings and hand amputations here. And profound contempt for all things Western. If we were really going to attack a COUNTRY because SOME of its CITIZENS were promoting jihad, that country would have been the logical target.
A quote from the article:
<<“We were not prepared to take the military action necessary,” said retired Gen. Wayne Downing, who ran counter-terror efforts for the current Bush administration and is now an NBC analyst.
“We should have had strike forces prepared to go in and react to this intelligence, certainly cruise missiles — either air- or sea-launched — very, very accurate, could have gone in and hit those targets,” Downing added.>>
We've seen just how successful the "military action necessary" has been so far. This guy is a cheerleader for a failed war. What credibility does he have?
Also from the article:
<>
There it is again: Afghanistan. We weakened our intervention there to support the "war effort" in Iraq. Now the Taliban is taking over again, according to recent reports. Yeah, I remember Whitewater. The Rose law firm. Monica. The Clintons were sort of a study in what happens when a small state governor gets to the big time. Compare and contrast to Troopergate, the bridge to nowhere, book censorship, and those of us who are gonna get "left behind". But the present prez isn't exactly an example of sterling leadership and character either (he's a drunk driving, cocaine sniffing guy who hasn't been able to account for how he got out of the military in the same era that McCain was sitting in a cage in Vietnam), and his hands are dirtied by the blood of our nation's children, and an estimated 100,000 (or more) Iraqi civilians. And his administration, for all its bluster, hasn't been successful in capturing bin Laden either.
On Saturday there was a devastating suicide bombing of a hotel in Pakistan, one of our allies. Is the world really safer than it was before September of 2001? Is it safer for Americans to travel to other countries? Do we still have a surplus in the budget? Do we get along better with our allies? Who is better off than they were before? (Right offhand I can't think of anyone except selected no-bid military contractors, who made out like bandits.)
I go to a lot of sources for my information, and doubtless some of it is tainted. That "liberal bias" in the news media, you know. Let's see what kind of info we can get from FOX tonight, because I know lots of people who are getting ALL of theirs news from FOX. (I just thought this up, let's see how it turns out. Okay, here goes):
THE CAMPAIGN TRAIL
PALIN TO MEET WITH PRESIDENTS OF IRAQ, GEORGIA, UKRAINE, PAKISTAN
excerpt: "The meetings will be in New York and coincide with the United Nations’ General Assembly, which meets this week and attracts leaders from all over the world. The meetings are an effort by the campaign to boost Palin’s foreign policy credentials and show her ability to hob knob with foreign leaders. Her lack of foreign policy experience has been widely criticized since John McCain’s selection of Palin as his running mate."
"Hob knob?" Who's writing this stuff anyway? The word is "hobnob".
PALIN: OBAMA “REFUSED TO EVEN TAKE A STAND” ON WALL STREET CRISIS
MCCAIN: OBAMA M.I.A. ON NATIONAL CRISES
PROTESTING OBAMA BY AIR
In Fox's defense, it must be said that the articles didn't present a very flattering picture of any of the candidates, although the negative comments made by McCain and Palin about the other ticket usually headed the articles. However, the "liberal media" usually includes articles about both campaigns, not just the "liberal" party. Odd.
<< I don't know if you ladies have checked out the site that was posted, but the economic questions you're raising are addressed there in a nonpartisan manner - I would suggest looking at it, it's pretty good information.
That said, while I am not an evangelical christian, I have no more problem with them than I do with any other religion.
i would like to respond point by point with facts and not hear says or generalizations but i just dont have the time. but still id like to be heard.
i am pro obama. he is with us. he knows the issues. and that is the first step in solving a problem. really knowing the issue.
there will always be a tug of war in the policies. you know we all have our own interests to protect. or principles we stand for. we all will never take the same road you know. but when it comes to education, we all know we want to give our kids the best. and obama pays a lot more attention than the other. besides obama himself did so well in school. he valued it even in his youth.
i have a lot more points for obama but like i said, i don't have much time. but if for education alone, i will vote for obama. or im gonna have to home school my kids til high school or we all go back to the philippines. seriously, for a really powerful country, i have found my country's educational system a little better than here.
i remember reading that 15% of obama's introduced legislation were bipartisan. but i for one like that low number because i dont like most repbulican policies.
The statistic you are quoting was that legislation
Tell me, what propaganda am I cutting and pasting?
'As far as the our "forefathers battled for religious freedom", actually, they came here so they would be free to oppress those who didn't agree with them, as opposed to being the oppressed.'
Wow. You're exactly right. I think fleur should have said "some of our forefathers" or "the framers of the US constitution." We could easily have become a religious autocracy in the beginning - and in some of the colonies we effectively were for some time. Separation of Church and State was not a "done deal." It took decades of consideration, experimentation, communication, argument, and compromise for us to get to the simple sentence in the first amendment - much of it occurring before there was any thought of writing a constitution.
<
Pages