Nate,
One post, so many distortions of fact, lies, and DNC talking points.
Where to start? Well, first off, "I’m a recent graduate of Penn". That explains a lot.
"and what is it about Penn that rubs some of you the wrong way"
I have nothing agaisnt Penn. Penn is a very fine institution of higher learning. However, the professors there, like most other universities, are 95% liberal. I have problems with professors using their position to manipulate their students. I have poblems with liberal professors allowing their person political beliefs taint the subject matter.
I survided under-grad and graduate school unscathed. Of course, I had served three years on Active Duty in the United Staes Marine Corps prior to starting college, so the liberal professors had no chance in breaking me or converting me.
"The US thought things were fine, left the south after having supposedly prepared them to stand on their own, and the north came back and took over the country."
Supposedly prepared? The Democrat controlled Congress de-funded the South Vietnamese war efforts. Without the weapons, munitions, and logistical support, they were quickly overrun. In the ensuing bloodbath, millions died. Their blood is on the hands of the Democrats.
"If things continue as they did in Vietnam, it won’t matter when the US leaves—6 months or 6 years—there will be a civil war or some other such event because the US isn’t propping up some group and things will work out as they work out at that time."
That's why a responsible Media, one without an agenda, would be working with the US Government to help win the Global War on Terror, instead of against us. We need the support of all American to defeat Islamo-Fascism so the GWOT is not a repeat of Vietnam. That's why we need to keep a COngress that places national security above personal and party politics.
Another difference is that Iraq is not threatened by a culturally identical nation, like North Vietnam, who want's to merge the two nations. We don't need to "prop up" a post-stabilized Iraq. No more than we "proped up" the post-war governments of Germany and Japan. We need to show them at a vibrant economy, freedom, and a democratically elected government results in prosperity.
"But the bigger problem is that the Iraq conflict is a fight that didn’t have to happen. The people we wanted weren't there, they were in Afghanistan. Bush claimed victory without getting the people behind 9/11, and then, after “victory” he didn’t get the US out of there and now the US is stuck."
You couldn't be more wrong. If we hadn't stopped Saddam when we did, and sanctions were lifted, he would have become even more dangerous. We would be dealing with an Iraq with nukes. Then what would be your plan to stop him? Appeasement? You don't negotiate with murdering dictators.
If you check your history books (before they are re-written), we defeated the Taliban in Afghanistan in three weeks. They were the horborers and sponsors of those directly responsible for 9/11. Then we captured Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, mastermind behind the 9/11 attacks. We haven't caught OBL, but many liken him as al Qaeda's Chairman of the Board to Khalid Shaikh Mohammed's CEO status. Khalid Shaikh Mohammed was the more dangerous one. We got him.
Your problem is you are nearsighted. You think by catching those behind 9/11, the terrorist threat will go away. It will not. Most of those behind 9/11 are either dead or behind bars. Even if we capture or killed every single 9/11 planner, financier, and operator, there are still scores of terrorist organization with thousands of minions ready to strap bombs on their bodies and kill innocents. Their goal is to convert you, subjugate you, or kill you.
The Bush Administration, unlike the administrations before it, are looking at the big picture. Terrorism is not one small group of terrorists (like those responsible for 9/11) committing all the terrorist acts in the world. We are fighting against GLOBAL TERRORISM, trying to stop its growth, stops its attacks, and save innocent lives.
Most terrorist groups are not coordinating with each other on their attacks against humanity. They just want to kill infidels. They don't care if you are American, British, Israeli, Austrailian, Spanish, or anyone else. They have vowed to kill you. To you understand that?
"It’s nice to keep saying that when Iraq steps up the US will step down, but why should Iraq step up if the US doesn’t step down."
We have already turned over abuot 75-80% of the country to the Iraqi Security Forces. We are concentrating our forces in those areas where the terrorist insurgents are most heavily concentrated.
Why should the Iraqis step up? You obviously don't know the Iraqis. They are a fiercely proud people. They want to stand on their own. They want us out of Iraq. I want us out of Iraq (except for a contingency force to assist the Iraqis). The President wants us out of Iraq. But not until the Iraqis can provide for their own security. The day will come in the near future.
"Bush squandered the goodwill of the world when he didn’t go after ObL but instead made Iraq the focus of the conflict."
BS. The goodwill lasted until the flowers placed in front of US embassies died. IF we had so much "goodwill" why didn't every country join the coalition in Afghanistan, instead of the 30 or so that did? Why didn't the Russians help? or the Chinese? Or the French? Or the Germans?
He didn't go after OBL? Are you kidding? What the he** do you think we are doing in Afghanistan. We have nearly 20,000 troops in Afghanistan. Many are Special Ops hunting down OBL. We're stiil hunting him down? Where are the Russians, Chinese, Germans, French, and others? Why aren't they helping? They too are in the terrorists crosshairs.
Iraq is the central front in the GWOT, but we are working around the world, on many fronts, to defeat terrorism. We are tracking financial transactions to discover terrorist plots (oops, the Media blew that cover). We are intercepting terrorist communications (oops, the Media blew that cover also). We are interrogating terrorists we have captured (darn it, cover blown again). Do you detect a trend?
We are draining the swamp in Iraq. It was a nation that harbored, financed, and trained terrorists. Up to 8,000 terrorists were trained in Iraq from 1999 to 2002. Iraq isn't training any more terrorists. We are also drawing in terrorists so we can kill or capture them there, so we don't have to fight them here.
"What is the MSM—is it CNN, FOX, CBS, ABC, NBC, BBC, Reuters, AP, NPR?"
Yes, plus the hundreds of newspapers across the country. With the exception of Fox News, which for me is "Fair and Balanced", but for you, with your vantage point on the far left, is to the right, they pretty much have a liberal bias. This is proven by the voting records of "journalists" Over 805 of them vote Democrat.
The video is a reminder that there are still terrorists out there who want to kill us. We can't take our eye off the ball, we can't drop our defenses, we can't take away the tools we need to fight terrorism, as the Democrats tried to do. The current Administration is fighting terrorism, something the previous Administration did not. It viewed terrorism as a law encorcement problem. We need law enforcement to be part of the solution. But law enforcement cannot "drain the swamp" It cannot go into the caves in Afghanistan and root out terrorists, as our Spec Ops guys are doing every day. It cannot affect regime change when nation-states are primary supporters of terrorism.
"Why is the press irresponsible for reporting constitutionally questionable acts"?
Because is against federal law to publish classified information. Or don't you believe in the rule of law?
Every administration back to President Carter used signal intercepts to gather foreign intelligence. Why was it not "constitutionally questionable" then, but is now? Because President Bush is using the tool to fight terrorism, that's why. The democrats, liberals, and the MSM want us to lose the war as a means to damage the political fortunes of the Presidnet and the Republicans. That's putting politics before national interest, something the Democrats do every day.
Besides, five separate federal courts have ruled that it is within the President's Constitutional Authority to use the intercepts to gather foreign intelligence.
Additionally, who gave the press the authority to determine what is constitutionally acceptable? There are methods to question intelligence gathering techniques, and putting it on the front page of the NYT is not one of them. Those who leaked the classified information have violated the law, as have those who published it.
There, you have now been educated. You should have visited B4B four years ago and saved your parents 10's of thousands of dollars.
They should have added a mushroom cloud at the end.
Americans have been falling back asleep, with the help of the Democrats, since 1979. I am at a loss as to what it will take to wake them up since 9/11 seems to have been forgotten by so many.
Unfortunately, the same people who let 9/11 happen are still in control. Feel better now?
Unfortunately, the same people who let 9/11 happen are still in control.
TMY, one of the few things I've ever heard you say that I agree with. I don't think there is a Conservative who posts here that wouldn't like to see all the career Libs and Clinton holdovers in the CIA, DIA and State Department booted out on their ass.
How right you are Retired Spook. If it weren't for the inept Clintons, the "second 9/ll wouldn't have occurred. They showed the Terrorists how weak and vulnerable the U.S. was, since Clinton only treated many attacks on Americans as a common
'police matter' to be handled in our courts.
If people don't see, that it was President Bush,
who inherited these problems, and acted with the response that was necessary, then they are kidding
themselves.
THIS IS A WAR THAT NEEDS TO BE FOUGHT-OTHERWISE, WE ARE GOING TO BE FIGHTING IT HERE IN OUR STATES.
AND IF YOU BECOME COMPLACENT AFTER 9/11, THEN YOU BY STAYING HOME NOT VOTING FOR THE GOP, WILL BE ENABLING TERRORISTS TO KEEP FIGHTING, AS THEY "WANT THE DEMS TO IN THIS ELECTION, CAUSE THEY KNOW THEY WILL HAVE IT EASY ON THEMSELVES",
BECAUSE DEMS DON'T WANT TO CONTINUE TO FIGHT THEM,
AND ACTUALLY AID AND ABET THEM WITH THE DAILY RHETORIC THEY SPEW OUT ACTUALLY ALMOST SIDING WITH TERRORISTS. OR, AS PER "RANGLE-SO CALLED TERRORISTS"
VOTE FOR THE PARTY, THAT DID SOMETHING ABOUT THE AMERICANS THAT HAVE BEEN KILLED, AND THE PARTY THAT PUT IT'S FOOT DOWN TO FIGHT TERRORISTS-THE GOP. WE MAY NOT AGREE WITH CERTAIN MEMBERS OF THE GOP ALL THE TIME, BUT WOULD YOU RATHER SIT HOME, LETTING THE DEMS HAVE THEIR WAY, PANDERING TO TERRORISM, THUS, PUTTING MORE OF US IN HARM'S WAY?
Yea, the problem in 94 was that they were in power, now the problem is they are still in power, only they aren't. Nice arguement there spook. This means I get 8 free years of a democratic president's disasterous administration free of blame because of Bush's appointees right? YAY.
Wow! Take this warning to heart Americans!
Coming to a classroom in America? (Scary Pix!) Could you imagine your children being taught by this masked Muslim woman?
Muslim teacher awarded cash for 'injured feelings'
Telegraph.co.uk: The Muslim teaching assistant who sparked a political storm after she refused to remove her veil during lessons, has won her employment tribunal case for victimisation against the school which suspended her but lost her claims for discrimination and harassment.
Ms Azmi was awarded £1,000 for "injury to feelings" after she succeeded in her claim of victimisation. But her claims of direct and indirect discrimination, and her claim of harassment, were dismissed.
No one describes The Stakes better than Mark Steyn. (via)(Conservative Book Club)
"Mark Steyn: Why America will have to fight alone in the battle for Western civilization"
Are you ready for a conflict between America and the rest of the world? In America Alone: The End of the World As We Know It, Mark Steyn (the most widely read and wittiest columnist in the world today) argues that that's just what's coming. European and Islamic anti-Americanism, he explains, threatens to leave us isolated in the world: the global situation is rapidly reaching a point at which America will have to confront the enemies of civilization without help from anyone else. And when the world is divided between America and the rest, all those who don't want to see the world shrouded in a new Dark Ages should hope that America wins.
Steyn argues forcefully that much of the Western world as we know it will not survive the twenty-first century, and much of it will effectively disappear within our lifetimes -- including many if not most European countries. He shows how this process is already well advanced, and explains that whether we like the New Order in Europe and the world depends on whether America can summon the will to shape at least part of the emerging global picture. If not, then it will mean the end of the American moment and the beginning of the new Dark Ages: the return of much the planet to a primitive state.
America is facing this life-and-death challenge, says Steyn, because of the Western world's demographic decline; the unsustainability of the welfare state in Europe (as well as in the United States, Canada, and Australia); and the apparent exhaustion of western civilization. Suffused with Steyn's trademark wit and piercing insights, this book calls on us to summon the will to fight this great struggle for Western civilization. In America Alone, Mark Steyn provides an enlightening primer to just how bad things are likely to get, and what we must do now to ensure that our children and grandchildren live in the bright light of freedom.
****
From the inside flap of America Alone:
"It’s the end of the world as we know it…"
"Someday soon, you might wake up to the call to prayer from a muezzin. Europeans already are."
that clip speaks straight to the heart of the threat which must be dealt with,
and still I can't figure out why you sheep seem to want to aid the terrorist by ignoring them and focusing on Iraq...
oh wait, I know, it's because you're SHEEP who would follow bush into anything...
I'm sure Al Qaeda thanks you
I liked the video. It didn't say "VOTE GOP" or anything political. It just said VOTE. Sure it is paid for by the GOP, but I'd say this was a good video even if it was paid for by the DEMS. The point is, go out and VOTE. If you don't think we're fighting agaisnt these folks right, tell your elected officials by voting!
If you're like Opus and think it's all Bush's fault for focusing things in Iraq then vote those who support that out. If you think we're fighting them in Iraq and elsewhere rather than here is good then vote those folks in. The choice is yours America, don't sit this one out!
Whats with all the sheep here lately? Is that on some DNC talking point email?
No porter, It's just an opy thang! He keeps sheep in his yard........they make him feel good! You know, smart & stuff like that!!!
Excellent clip! We need to be reminded that we are at war! Physically with terrorist & Ideologically within our own country!
It's a great video. It reminds us of just what Bush and Co. hasn't done (and has caused) in the past 4 years. ObL is still out there making threats and guiding terrorists that are growing in number because of the current government's focus on Iraq.
Keep showing is, keep showing ObL who Bush didn't get, keep showing the growing number of terrorists in Iraq that continue to kill US soldiers as we approach 3000 dead US soldiers. Keep showing where the Bush says we are going to stay until 2010, until long after he is out of office. Hooray for all of that. What an incredible mess--and now Bush is acknowledging it's just like Vietnam.
For the conservative posters on this site...do you guys realling think it's a good idea airing an ad that admits that terrorism is worse now than it was 5 years ago?
I have to guess that this ad is not aimed at swing voters but to energize the wavering base. Assuming those righties who want to "punish" bush by staying home actually beleive the republicans are better on the war on terror, this may scare them back in line. And among those voters it will probably work.
The Dems voters are of course a lost cause but it's the Independents who really aren't going to buy this ad--they think Bush has made a complete hash of the war. This video will probably backfire among those voters who already give Bush dismal ratings...why would they want 2 more years of unchecked "stay the course?" These voters think we're losing..why would they want more losses?
So let me ask this....how many more years of not winning this war is it going to take before the elecorate makes a change? Would ten years of this be acceptable, with Iraq getting bloodier and the Taliban resurging and getting stronger every day? How about 20 years with no progress? Do you think that the Republican's slim voting margins will stand this onslaught of underacheivement for 20 more years?
Mark, you're the worst at this. You think the voters will never hold their representatives accountable. You think it can go on like this forever, with no success and no changes. Even if the voters hate the Democrats (and you know many do), they will eventually throw the bums out, in some election either now or in the future.
It's about results, Mark. The non-righty electorate just doesn't see it in these Republicans.
Nate, Give me a break! Can you quote the last time OBL threatened us? Can you tell me if it made you shiver in your boots? OBL....oblshmell! He can kiss my rosey red christian conservative booty! OBL is not scary, what obl represents IS SCARY! Please get a clue! PLEASE!
Now the second thing you said supports the IDEA that "All men should serve in the military"(I do not support this idea), you see then you would have a clue that......our responding to the attacks(It's called National Defense, look it up)and creating MORE terrorists is INEVITABLE! The question is, "do you want to fight them here or there", oops, you'd never fight them would you!
I am sooooooooo sick of the highly intelligent(non-military trained) defeatist attitude. If you guys have better ideas on how to make our soldiers safer without risking our National Security, PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE tell. It's my brothers that are dying(not that you give a rats behind)!
Oh yah, one more thing! I personally believe the the LSM(Lame stream media) creates more terrorists with it's insistence to report half truths, total lies, misperceptions, misconception, misinterpretations, etc. etc. etc.
Bush & Co. created about as many new terrorists as Bill Clintonian would have had he responded in defending our country the way that G.B. did!!!!
The GOP is putting "fear" on sale!
Don't miss the two-for one on isle 11.....
Wade
Jan 2006. And ObL represents what Bush and Co. have not been able to defeat because of misguided policy and poor decisions. And you also have Ayman al-Zawahiri (most recently heard from in Sept 2006) in that video which lets everyone know that the #2 terrorist leader continues to spew hate and violence--evading Bush. So, the video just reinforces failure of what used to be the goal. But the goals change and winning is redefined. And what is winning these days in a no-win situation? Run the video, over and over, please!!
Jim, that's not what the ad does. But let's say it does say that in your minds, the question then becomes do the American people want to treat these crazy fundamentalists as a police matter a la Carter, Clinton, Kerry or do they want us to continue to be aggressive and pound the crap out of them?
I'm happy to present that argument to the American people.
"I'm happy to present that argument to the American people."-Warriornation
I think you just did.
:)
I vote for option #2-
"to continue to be aggressive and pound the cr*p out of them?"
Britain is caving in to Islam and Shari'a...
British Man Convicted for Anti-Muslim Banner
lgf, "British police refuse to arrest and charge Muslim demonstrators who call for violence and murder, but a British man who hung a sign on his fence calling for the death of Muslim extremists has been convicted of 'causing distress.' And his neighbors filed the complaint because they were afraid of the Religion of Peace™."
Tivy-Side Advertiser: A protest in London against the publication of a cartoon depicting the prophet Mohammed as a terrorist incensed an Aberporth man, who painted an anti-Muslim slogan on a white sheet and draped it over his garden fence.
The words in bold red paint stated: “Kill all Muslims who threaten us and our way of life. Enoch Powell was right.”
Father of two Gary John Mathewson, who was arrested for displaying the banner, told a court: “This won’t stop until there is a Muslim president in the White House.”
And referring to MP Jack Straw questioning whether Muslim women should wear face veils he asked: “Are you going to arrest him?”
When prosecutor Maggie Hughes pointed out that the banner did not mention extremists Mathewson said: “That’s what I meant by those who threaten us and our way of life.’”
Adding that during the protest in London a Muslim was dressed as a suicide bomber he asked: “Why was he not arrested?”
One of his neighbours, a retired Army officer with 23 years service, told the court he reported the matter to the police because he feared a visit from Muslim extremists. ...
Finding Mathewson guilty presiding magistrate Anne Rees said she and her colleagues felt the words on the banner were likely to cause someone distress, and they did not find it as reasonable. The defendant was given a conditional discharge for two years and ordered to pay £150 costs.
Resorting to Scare Tactics... are the Republicans that desperate?
What would Jesus Do?
The World Wonders (Nimitz, 1945)
Freedom1, this is why we MUST;
A.) First, elect strong Conservatives and Republicans (and Democrats if there are any with moral conviction and backbone),
B.) Second, with the right people in office we must then place like minded people in the judicial system,
C.) Third, we must bring charges against those who work to destroy America and her people. That includes convicting corrupt politicians, lawyers and judges, lobbyist… convicting those responsible for destructive use of the media for such things as publishing national secrets.
A vote for those who profess the Liberal mindset is to shove us in the same direction as much of Europe and now Britain is headed.
Warriornation,
The Republicans are not getting the job done. Period. As I've said before if the Democrats were in charge and performed this badly you would be howling.
OK, let's just say for argument that the Democrats win, and they ease up on the terrorists, and the terrorists attack us, as you suggest. What, politically, do you think is going to happen to the Democrats?
Right--The Democrats will get their asses kicked back to the stone age. You guys will get your 60-seat majority in the senate and control the house for 50 years or more.
Now I know there are plenty of Democrats that don't see this but Hillary isn't one of them. She knows the cost of losing. She would see a terrorist attack (especially if she was president) as a personal, political attack on her. What do you think Hillary does to people who attack her politically?
Your fear of the Democrat takeover is justified only if you assume that all democrats are Jimmy Carters. Hillary is not Jimmy Carter and that's why the left hates her right now. There are other moderates that know we have to win this war.
I can't guarantee that the Democrats aren't going to cower behind the Terrorists after winning the election but I can assure you that if they do they will lose and lose big in the upcoming years. The United States will go on regardless, perhaps wiser but sadder, but it will go on.
But if the Dems pull themselves together and beat the terrorists, reduce spending and pass reasonable social legislation they will become the center party and rule for a long time. Is this more of a nightmare for you that losing to terrorism? By performing badly in the war the Republicans have opened the door for this possibility. The smarter Dems smell blood, and not just in 2006. Time will tell if they can see their way through liberal la-la land to be come the ruling party of the United States.
This reminds me alot of that Johnson political ad in 1964 with the little blonde girl picking flowers...
Hooray for scare tactics...
Jim, the fact that many of you guys are Jimmy Carters is the problem. You have too many of these peacenik clowns out there. Way too many. The influence of MoveOn.org, CodePink, Cindy Sheehan and crazies is too strong in your party and that has a lot of people nervous.
Hell, look at the likely speaker...NANCY PELOSI.
There are some good, strong Democrats out there but they are overshadowed constantly by the nitwits on the left.
Scare tactics?
You mean like the left uses on social security and tells grandma her check isn't going to be coming any more?
Yes, scare tactics. My SS benefit has gone down over the years even though my salary has gone up. Privatizing SS allows for the possibility that if the markets tank when you need your SS you may not have as much. As SS current stands it's an insurance policy, not an investment that could disappear (and just make investment firms more wealthy). 401Ks, 403Bs (similar to private SS) are fine when the markets are up, but a major decline--which can't be predicted--could severely deplete such an account. Having traditional SS completely funded would mean that it would survive as the insurance policy that it is. So, yeah, for folks who need it, there is fear there.
Fear vs. Hope...
This video only puts fear out there--what will happen to you because of these bad guys and because of that we need to be at war with the war party--the GoP.
Why not at least contrast the fear with the hope of rebuilt infrastructure, the new government, the purple fingers, video of the wonderful and productive lives that Iraquis are now experiencing?
Oh, right, the Iraq conflict isn't really about Iraquis--it's about US security, US access to oil, US controlling the middle east, all the while destroying the country of Iraq.
"If you guys have better ideas on how to make our soldiers safer without risking our National Security, PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE tell."
Uummm.. I think Nancy Pelosi (I know this name makes you guys freak out but please calm down) said that a Democratic congress would enact all the 9/11 commission's recommendations immediately. Things to, you know, actually secure our country.
Even if you agree that Iraq was the proper country to attack (why anyone thinks this I will never understand), you must admit that there are enough terrorists that simply "fighting them over there" is a soundbite and nothing more. All it takes is ONE terrorist to come over here and attack the highly vulnerable subway systems, buses, or god forbid set off a dirty or nuclear bomb. Being in Iraq doesn't stop terrorists from coming here, and if you think that it does may God help you.
ps: should have typed "projected SS benefit." I still have a few years until retirement. How are all of your projected benefits compared to 5 or 6 years ago?
Great commercial. It reminds everyone that:
A) OBL is still at large more than 5 years after 9/11, and after having him cornered in Tora Bora.
B) Meanwhile, instead of catching the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11, we are off creating legions of new terrorists by our invasion of Iraq, a nation not at all involved in 9/11. For every Iraqi we kill or capture, our actions in Iraq create 2 or 3 or 20 more terrorist recruits. Good job.
C) The GOP will consistently stoop to fear-mongering and shameless expolitiion of the trauma of 9/11 to win elections. This ploy worked in the past, but now only makes people disgusted with the blatant manipulation. It is especially insulting to the American people when this fear mongering is done in such a transparent manner.
So please, please run this ad over and over.
This ad shows the difference between Democrats and Republicans. With the Democrats it is simple, we want the son of a bitch dead. On the other hand Neocon Republicans parade Bin Laden out like "Santa Claus" every election cycle. I swear Republicans hand out Bin Laden dolls to their kids every November.
The absolute Republican blunders in Iraq has created the greatest number of "trained" terrorist the world has ever seen and we are to fill safe voting for a Republican. Give me a break.
Even if you agree that Iraq was the proper country to attack (why anyone thinks this I will never understand), you must admit that there are enough terrorists that simply "fighting them over there" is a soundbite and nothing more. All it takes is ONE terrorist to come over here and attack the highly vulnerable subway systems, buses, or god forbid set off a dirty or nuclear bomb. Being in Iraq doesn't stop terrorists from coming here, and if you think that it does may God help you.
Posted by: Moderate Voter at October 20, 2006 02:00 PM
Oh so intelligent one, Please, pray tell. Why haven't our vulnerable subways & bus systems have NOT been hit in the last few years, especially since they are SOOOOOO vulnerable. How about that dirty bomb everyone keeps talking about? Is it a possibility? Of course! Are we safer today? Absolutely & obviously! I guess, if you think George Bush & OBL are in league together, then that would explain everything, right? Pelosi would also enact the terrorist fairness act, & maybe she would start TTA(terrorist trainers Anonymous), you know so they have a shoulder to cry on while they are going through rehabilitation. You really need to change that moniker voter! Quick, before the election slams you!
"A vote for those who profess the Liberal mindset is to shove us in the same direction as much of Europe and now Britain is headed." Posted by: DM
Absolutely! VOTE REPUBLICAN!!!
Josh Keaton,
"With the Democrats it is simple, we want the son of a bitch dead."
Then tell me why you have fought tooth and nail against and obstructed each and every tool, means, and method to detect, kill, or capture terrorists?
"We killed the Patriot Act," boasted Minority Leader Harry Reid, Nevada Democrat, to cheers from a crowd at a political rally after the vote.
The Patriot Act, in which not one American has ever had their rights jeopardized, is a vital tool in fighting terrorism. The Democrats tried to defeat it. Republicans got it passed.
The Democrats are against using signal intercepts of international communications to gather foreign intelligence. These intercepts have been key to identifying and capturing terrorists and in stopping terrorists attacks.
The Democrats are against the tracking of financial records to detect and capture terrorists.
The Democrats are against using aggressive interrogation techniques, which stop far short of torture, to obtain intelligence from captured terrorists. These techniques were key in getting terrorists to divulge information that led to the capture or killing of numerous terrorists.
We patriotic, conservative Americans want him killed or captured as well. We also want to keep using the tools that have kept America safe from additional terrorist attacks for the past 5+ years. The Democrats do not seem to share these same desires.
Nate,
"Bush is acknowledging it's just like Vietnam."
In one sense it is. Do some reasearch on the Tet Offensive. It occurred from January 30, 1968 - June 8, 1969.
The Tet Offensive was a significant military defeat for the Communist forces. Furthermore, the operational cost of the offensive was dangerously high, with the Viet Cong essentially crippled by the huge losses inflicted by US and South Vietnamese forces. 45,000 Viet Cong and North Vietnam Army soldiers were killed and about 6,000 were captured. US, South Vietnam, and allied forces suffered 4,324 killed. Had the US had the will to capitalize on the Tet Offensive victory, the Vietnam War could have had a different ending.
But it was a huge psychological and propaganda victory for the Viet Cong. Why? Because the US Media protrayed the Tet Offensive as a Viet Cong victory, rather than an actual defeat. This turned the tide of public opinion against the war, which up to that time had seen the majority of Americans support the Vietnam War effort.
The similarity is that today's Media is portraying the "War" in Iraq the same way the portrayed the Tet Offensive: a US defeat. In actuality, we won the War in Iraq back in March-April of 2003. That's when we routed Saddam's Army and Revolutionary Guard. What we are now struggling with is the stabilization phase. Where were are trying to stabilize the country until the Iraqi Security Forces are capable of providing for their own security.
If today's Media portrayed the War in Iraq as a crushing US victory, which it was, what do you think the effect would be on the terrorists fighting against freedom and democracy in the Middle East? If today's Media reported on the thousands of infractructure projects that have been completed by US, Coalition, and Iraq forces, instead of solely focussing on the terrorist attacks, what woud the effect be on the terrorist's will to continue the fight?
Instead, today's Media, in concern with liberals and the Democrat Party, highlight the negative and never report on the positive.
The Media got real "heady" after their ability to influence US public opinion during Vietnam. They got another shot of self-importance with the Watergate affair and President Nixon's resignation. They are tried to do the same with President Bush. Does "fake, but accurate" ring a bell. Add to that the various reporting of classified program leaks. If the press was really responsible, rather than trying to destroy a President along with our national security, those stories would never have been published.
But with the scores of alternate sources of information on the internet, cable, and elsewhere, they are not as effective as they once where. Sure they have easy targets with the mush-for-brains liberals. You'll believe anything. But the rest of us aren't buying what the MSM is selling. And they're not selling the truth.
Posted by: A-10 [TypeKey Profile Page] at October 20, 2006 07:38 PM
The Patriot Act,The Democrats tried to defeat it.
Democrats wanted goddamn Afghanistan made into a lake if that is what it took to kill him and his merry little band of thieves. Instead Necons saw 911 as an opportunity to play games with the Constitution for a power grab and stake claim to Iraq oil rights. Give me a break. Keep playing the ad. It only shows us all, especially the Fox News +70 crowd after 5 years how incompetent the Neocon Republicans actually are; as if bodies floating in New Orleans did not already prove Republican incompetence.
I know that I’m a recent graduate of Penn (and what is it about Penn that rubs some of you the wrong way?), but yes, I know about the Tet Offensive—thanks. And I know how the rest of the war went—not because of media—but because of the realities. The US thought things were fine, left the south after having supposedly prepared them to stand on their own, and the north came back and took over the country. If things continue as they did in Vietnam, it won’t matter when the US leaves—6 months or 6 years—there will be a civil war or some other such event because the US isn’t propping up some group and things will work out as they work out at that time.
But the bigger problem is that the Iraq conflict is a fight that didn’t have to happen. The people we wanted weren't there, they were in Afghanistan. Bush claimed victory without getting the people behind 9/11, and then, after “victory” he didn’t get the US out of there and now the US is stuck.
It’s nice to keep saying that when Iraq steps up the US will step down, but why should Iraq step up if the US doesn’t step down. Really, the US needs to get out of Iraq and let if evolve on it’s own. It will never stabilize while the US props up what the US says is the government. Bush squandered the goodwill of the world when he didn’t go after ObL but instead made Iraq the focus of the conflict.
What is the MSM—is it CNN, FOX, CBS, ABC, NBC, BBC, Reuters, AP, NPR? Look again at the ad that the GoP just put out—a couple posts below this one. There’s nothing positive about Iraq in it—and that’s controlled by the GoP. It’s all about failure to capture the leaders of terror (for over 4 years!), it’s about FEAR, nothing positive. If the GoP can’t do a positive spin on Iraq and Bush’s War then why would you expect any other source to do so?
Why is the press irresponsible for reporting constitutionally questionable acts, poor decisions, the void of Civil Affairs post-conflict planning which is one reason we’re in the current quagmire? It is the responsibility of the press and anyone else (alternative media, etc.) to keep the government accountable to the people, and I’m happy they are doing it.
A-10
What would Bush know of Vietnam? He was in such a state of Cocaine and alcohol induced delirium he can't even show up for silver spoon guard duty.
Then he doesn't read the papers, he surrounds himself with people to tell him what he needs to know. Never mind that those meetings are choreographed and any dissention from the alternate universe of reality is not allowed.
If you were an aircraft you would be the polar opposite of the Warthog. You could not even get off the ground as a fixed wing aircraft. However with all that hot air you could be a lighter than air craft.
You rock, A-10! You should post more often!
:)
Nate,
One post, so many distortions of fact, lies, and DNC talking points.
Where to start? Well, first off, "I’m a recent graduate of Penn". That explains a lot.
"and what is it about Penn that rubs some of you the wrong way"
I have nothing agaisnt Penn. Penn is a very fine institution of higher learning. However, the professors there, like most other universities, are 95% liberal. I have problems with professors using their position to manipulate their students. I have poblems with liberal professors allowing their person political beliefs taint the subject matter.
I survided under-grad and graduate school unscathed. Of course, I had served three years on Active Duty in the United Staes Marine Corps prior to starting college, so the liberal professors had no chance in breaking me or converting me.
"The US thought things were fine, left the south after having supposedly prepared them to stand on their own, and the north came back and took over the country."
Supposedly prepared? The Democrat controlled Congress de-funded the South Vietnamese war efforts. Without the weapons, munitions, and logistical support, they were quickly overrun. In the ensuing bloodbath, millions died. Their blood is on the hands of the Democrats.
"If things continue as they did in Vietnam, it won’t matter when the US leaves—6 months or 6 years—there will be a civil war or some other such event because the US isn’t propping up some group and things will work out as they work out at that time."
That's why a responsible Media, one without an agenda, would be working with the US Government to help win the Global War on Terror, instead of against us. We need the support of all American to defeat Islamo-Fascism so the GWOT is not a repeat of Vietnam. That's why we need to keep a COngress that places national security above personal and party politics.
Another difference is that Iraq is not threatened by a culturally identical nation, like North Vietnam, who want's to merge the two nations. We don't need to "prop up" a post-stabilized Iraq. No more than we "proped up" the post-war governments of Germany and Japan. We need to show them at a vibrant economy, freedom, and a democratically elected government results in prosperity.
"But the bigger problem is that the Iraq conflict is a fight that didn’t have to happen. The people we wanted weren't there, they were in Afghanistan. Bush claimed victory without getting the people behind 9/11, and then, after “victory” he didn’t get the US out of there and now the US is stuck."
You couldn't be more wrong. If we hadn't stopped Saddam when we did, and sanctions were lifted, he would have become even more dangerous. We would be dealing with an Iraq with nukes. Then what would be your plan to stop him? Appeasement? You don't negotiate with murdering dictators.
If you check your history books (before they are re-written), we defeated the Taliban in Afghanistan in three weeks. They were the horborers and sponsors of those directly responsible for 9/11. Then we captured Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, mastermind behind the 9/11 attacks. We haven't caught OBL, but many liken him as al Qaeda's Chairman of the Board to Khalid Shaikh Mohammed's CEO status. Khalid Shaikh Mohammed was the more dangerous one. We got him.
Your problem is you are nearsighted. You think by catching those behind 9/11, the terrorist threat will go away. It will not. Most of those behind 9/11 are either dead or behind bars. Even if we capture or killed every single 9/11 planner, financier, and operator, there are still scores of terrorist organization with thousands of minions ready to strap bombs on their bodies and kill innocents. Their goal is to convert you, subjugate you, or kill you.
The Bush Administration, unlike the administrations before it, are looking at the big picture. Terrorism is not one small group of terrorists (like those responsible for 9/11) committing all the terrorist acts in the world. We are fighting against GLOBAL TERRORISM, trying to stop its growth, stops its attacks, and save innocent lives.
Most terrorist groups are not coordinating with each other on their attacks against humanity. They just want to kill infidels. They don't care if you are American, British, Israeli, Austrailian, Spanish, or anyone else. They have vowed to kill you. To you understand that?
"It’s nice to keep saying that when Iraq steps up the US will step down, but why should Iraq step up if the US doesn’t step down."
We have already turned over abuot 75-80% of the country to the Iraqi Security Forces. We are concentrating our forces in those areas where the terrorist insurgents are most heavily concentrated.
Why should the Iraqis step up? You obviously don't know the Iraqis. They are a fiercely proud people. They want to stand on their own. They want us out of Iraq. I want us out of Iraq (except for a contingency force to assist the Iraqis). The President wants us out of Iraq. But not until the Iraqis can provide for their own security. The day will come in the near future.
"Bush squandered the goodwill of the world when he didn’t go after ObL but instead made Iraq the focus of the conflict."
BS. The goodwill lasted until the flowers placed in front of US embassies died. IF we had so much "goodwill" why didn't every country join the coalition in Afghanistan, instead of the 30 or so that did? Why didn't the Russians help? or the Chinese? Or the French? Or the Germans?
He didn't go after OBL? Are you kidding? What the he** do you think we are doing in Afghanistan. We have nearly 20,000 troops in Afghanistan. Many are Special Ops hunting down OBL. We're stiil hunting him down? Where are the Russians, Chinese, Germans, French, and others? Why aren't they helping? They too are in the terrorists crosshairs.
Iraq is the central front in the GWOT, but we are working around the world, on many fronts, to defeat terrorism. We are tracking financial transactions to discover terrorist plots (oops, the Media blew that cover). We are intercepting terrorist communications (oops, the Media blew that cover also). We are interrogating terrorists we have captured (darn it, cover blown again). Do you detect a trend?
We are draining the swamp in Iraq. It was a nation that harbored, financed, and trained terrorists. Up to 8,000 terrorists were trained in Iraq from 1999 to 2002. Iraq isn't training any more terrorists. We are also drawing in terrorists so we can kill or capture them there, so we don't have to fight them here.
"What is the MSM—is it CNN, FOX, CBS, ABC, NBC, BBC, Reuters, AP, NPR?"
Yes, plus the hundreds of newspapers across the country. With the exception of Fox News, which for me is "Fair and Balanced", but for you, with your vantage point on the far left, is to the right, they pretty much have a liberal bias. This is proven by the voting records of "journalists" Over 805 of them vote Democrat.
The video is a reminder that there are still terrorists out there who want to kill us. We can't take our eye off the ball, we can't drop our defenses, we can't take away the tools we need to fight terrorism, as the Democrats tried to do. The current Administration is fighting terrorism, something the previous Administration did not. It viewed terrorism as a law encorcement problem. We need law enforcement to be part of the solution. But law enforcement cannot "drain the swamp" It cannot go into the caves in Afghanistan and root out terrorists, as our Spec Ops guys are doing every day. It cannot affect regime change when nation-states are primary supporters of terrorism.
"Why is the press irresponsible for reporting constitutionally questionable acts"?
Because is against federal law to publish classified information. Or don't you believe in the rule of law?
Every administration back to President Carter used signal intercepts to gather foreign intelligence. Why was it not "constitutionally questionable" then, but is now? Because President Bush is using the tool to fight terrorism, that's why. The democrats, liberals, and the MSM want us to lose the war as a means to damage the political fortunes of the Presidnet and the Republicans. That's putting politics before national interest, something the Democrats do every day.
Besides, five separate federal courts have ruled that it is within the President's Constitutional Authority to use the intercepts to gather foreign intelligence.
Additionally, who gave the press the authority to determine what is constitutionally acceptable? There are methods to question intelligence gathering techniques, and putting it on the front page of the NYT is not one of them. Those who leaked the classified information have violated the law, as have those who published it.
There, you have now been educated. You should have visited B4B four years ago and saved your parents 10's of thousands of dollars.
Freedom1,
Thanks for the kind words. I post whenever I can. I consider it a public service to those on the left who have been subjected to our educational system and have been turned to the dark side.
PS: I live in Michigan. Tiger's sweep the World Series.
A-10
What would Bush know of Vietnam? He was in such a state of Cocaine and alcohol induced delirium he can't even show up for silver spoon guard duty.
Then he doesn't read the papers, he surrounds himself with people to tell him what he needs to know. Never mind that those meetings are choreographed and any dissention from the alternate universe of reality is not allowed.
If you were an aircraft you would be the polar opposite of the Warthog. You could not even get off the ground as a fixed wing aircraft. However with all that hot air you could be a lighter than air craft.
Posted by: RAL at October 21, 2006 12:46 AM
What a typical Kooky, left, paraniod, thing to say RAL. You truly are a POSITIVELY, PARANOID, PATHETIC, PARROT!
Posted by: A-10 [TypeKey Profile Page] at October 20, 2006 07:38 PM
The Patriot Act,The Democrats tried to defeat it.
Democrats wanted goddamn Afghanistan made into a lake if that is what it took to kill him and his merry little band of thieves. Instead Necons saw 911 as an opportunity to play games with the Constitution for a power grab and stake claim to Iraq oil rights. Give me a break. Keep playing the ad. It only shows us all, especially the Fox News +70 crowd after 5 years how incompetent the Neocon Republicans actually are; as if bodies floating in New Orleans did not already prove Republican incompetence.
Posted by: Josh Keaton at October 20, 2006 09:45 PM
Two lies that need to be disputed there Joshy,
#1. Democrats didn't want to do whatever it took to get OBL. They started protesting the war in Afghanistan before it even started, well at least the kooky fringe that has now taken over your party did!
#2. fox news crowd is made up of ALOT more 20+ 30+ 40+ 50+ than you will like to admit. But you will find that out come Nov. 7th!
RAL,
"What would Bush know of Vietnam? He was in such a state of Cocaine and alcohol induced delirium he can't even show up for silver spoon guard duty."
As some who spend over 23 years in the Army National Guard (16 of it on Active Duty with the Guard), and who's father-in-law was a fighter pilot in the Air National Guard, and who's brother-in-law is a fighter pilot in the Air National Guard, I take personal exception to yuor characterization that President Bush's Texas Air National Guard service is less than honorable.
What the he** do you know about serving your country. You have probably been fed by a "silver spoon" your entire life.
"a state of Cocaine and alcohol induced delirium"
What? Another "fake, but accurate" allegation based on absolutely zero evidence?
"he can't even show up for silver spoon guard duty."
Hmmm, it seems that the records show that President Bush spent nearly two years on Active Duty in the Texas National Guard undergoing fighter pilot training, then accumulated more than enough IDT (that's Inactive Duty Training for those of you in the audience who haven't had the honor and privilege of serving in the Guard or Reserves) points each year to fulfill his obligation.
Besides, you cannot accumulate over 300 hours piloting a F-102, one of the most dangerous to fly aircraft in the US inventory at the time, if you don't show up for drill.
So the facts are: Bush wasn't drafted, but he voluntarily joined the Texas Air National Guard. He trained to fly one of the most dangerous types of fighter aircraft. Accumulated over 300 hours as a pilot. Volunteered for service in Vietnam, but was turned down due to a last of flight hours. Was honorable discharged.
One more libreal myth/lie debunked (for the 1,267,865th time).
As the rest of your comments are personal attacks by the un-informed and illiterate, I'll decline to lower myself to you level and respond.
A-10,
Once again you spout inaccurate Rovian talking points. There has never been any evidence that shows bush showed up for a large part of his duty requirement. Not only that but as I recall it was about 1/2 way through his duty term, when drug testing became part of the physical and poor poor little Georgie couldn't be bothered to take his physical and he lost his pilots status.
"As the rest of your comments are personal attacks by the un-informed and illiterate, I'll decline to lower myself to you level and respond."
Sounds like you are talking to yourself in your delirium again. Better take your medicine.
The right wing foaming at the mouth, hate anyone that is different than them, radicals seem to be so emotionally invested in their point of view that years after others have seen that this administration is based on lies and failed policies they still hold on the images of grandeur that they were sold.
It is like my neighbor in Boise that “still had contacts at the Pentagon”, which after all the rest of us knew that the WMD, nerve gas shells that were found in the desert were a left over gift from Donald Rumsfeld still held on to the notion that these were it. They were so old that even if they could have been fired, the chemicals in them had completely deteriorated to the point of being completely ineffective. This neighbor kept insisting that it was the WMD that we had been looking for. Alas he was the last to know with those great Pentagon connections.
Don’t you realize that Cheney and Rumsfeld have sold you down the river? They are more interested in funding the coffers of Halliburton than giving the soldiers adequate armor or funding Veterans benefits.
This ad proves we need to get the Republicans out of office and put people in who will actually attempt to capture Osama.
RAL,
Once again you prove your lack of knowledge. The entire Bush TX ANG service kerfuffle was laid to rest years ago. But you mindless autobots on the left continue to bring it up when you run out of DNC talking points.
To fulfil his National Guard drill requirements, President Bush needed to complete 48 IDT periods per year. The pay records released by the President show that he did indeed complete at least 48 IDT periods each year.
Contrary to popular belief, they do not have to be 4 periods per month. The National Guard allows members the flexibility to "lump" their drill performance together so they may work, for example, 3 claendar days in a row and be given credit for 6 IDT period. They do that now. They did that back in the 60's and 70's. It was even more frequent in the ANG, as many of their pilots are commerical airline pilots and the practice both meeets the needs of the service and the individual.
"They are more interested in funding the coffers of Halliburton than giving the soldiers adequate armor or funding Veterans benefits."
Obviously you didn't get the retraction of the DNC memo on the body armor. The body armor initially issued to the troops was a wast improvement over that used in Vietnam and Gulf War I. When the tactics of the enemy shifted from conventional warfare to IEDs, we modified the body armor accordingly.
As for vehicle armor, the HMMWV is a light, non-armored vehicle that replaced the M151 1/4 "jeep", M718A1 ambulance, half-ton Mule, 1.25-ton Gamma Goat, and M792 ambulance. It was intended to provide protection fro small arms fire, but nothing more. As with the body armor, as the tactics changed, so did our response. Up-armor kids were developed and fielded.
Veterans benefits. Once again, you know not what you speak. I am a Veteran. My benefits have not been cut. In fact the VA budget has been increased each and every year under the Bush Administration. The 2001 budget was about $48 billion, the 2007 budget is just over $80 billion, a 66.7% increase. Sounds like a cut to me.
WMD, blah, blah, blah. The bottom line, Saddam had them, he used them, he retained the capability to produce them, he was in material breach of the 17 UN Resolutions. Case closed. You lose. Freedom wins.
I don't see this ad as partisan. I thought the defense of our country was a non partisan issue.
So would any of the leftist trolls please explain to the rest of us why it is that you fail to believe the words of our enemies when they threaten us?
It must be BDS that has blinded you to reality.
A-10 out of 100,
Once again you lose all credibility with your continued regurgitation of GOP talking points that have yet to include anything resembling a fact.
Now all you are saying on Dubya's National Guard duty is that he accepted pay for duty he didn't perform. Why is it that the only person that came forward to say they remember him there... wasn't there? Why did he refuse his physical and then not get punished for it.
All the true information in your post, most of which isn't substantiated might be interesting if it had anything to do with your rebuttal, but like the body amour issue it has nothing to do with the fact that a large number of soldiers had to buy their own.
Once again your hate induced dementia has completely short circuited any connection with logic or truth.
RAL,
"Once again you lose all credibility with your continued regurgitation of GOP talking points that have yet to include anything resembling a fact."
I just went back and re-red my post. It was filled with facts. Perhaps you need remedial training on what constitutes a fact.
Its obvious you know nothing about the National Guard or the Reserve Components, otherwise you would post such silly remarks.
"Now all you are saying on Dubya's National Guard duty is that he accepted pay for duty he didn't perform. Why is it that the only person that came forward to say they remember him there... wasn't there?"
Never said that. We're talking about the time that Lt Bush was performing drills in Alabama. We're talking about a single individual showing up at a large Air National Guard training facility to pull their drill. We're talking about people trying to remember if that one individual, who was just an ordinary pilot, was there or not, 30 years later.
When I first joined the National Guard, 30 years ago last month, I joined a relatively small unit, compared to an ANG Wing. I couldn't tell you who was there for drill or who wasn't. I couldn't even tell you if the Commander was there on a specific date. But if the pay records say he was, then he was.
"Why did he refuse his physical and then not get punished for it.""
Don't know why. If you check the available facts, physical exams were only available by appointment on specific dates, as they are now. Perhaps the young LT was performing other training during the dates the physicals were available. You probably don't realize that by missing the flight physical, you don't get "punished", you are taken off flight status until you get the physical. Stop trying to read devious intentions into everying.
Why are you so consumed with hatred for President Bush that you question his ANG drill attendance 30 years ago? If the records say he was there, then we can be about 99.99% assured that he was. Let go of your hatred, it will make you a better person.
"Once again your hate induced dementia has completely short circuited any connection with logic or truth."
I don't hate you, or any other liberal. Amused by your juvenile antics? Yes. Perplexed by your ignorance? Certainly. But do I hate you? No.
Here's hatred:
"I hate the Republicans and everything they stand for". Dr. Howard Dean, DNC Chairman, January 30, 2005
It's just wonderful that the leader of your party's "hate induced dementia has completely short circuited any connection with logic or truth."