More Stupid Democrat Criticisms

[TurboJunky]

This thread is so pathetic it's almost funny. I'm truely astounded our radical libs actually believe what they've been typing/pasting. "If it's in print, it MUST be true" .

What's truely funny is:

We4ster This person is on your Ignore List.

I wonder what he's been trying to say? Eh, no matter...it'd be a waste of time anyway.

 

[suprbuick7]

I never said to pull out of Iraq.
If we had attacked Afghanistan, Taliban , OBL with as much or more vigor as in Iraq immediately after 9/11 and were relentless in our pursuit to decapitate those Islamic fundamentalist extremeists, we would have the entire world's ( which I know you don't care about) blessing ( probably even many Islamic states) for avenging the catastrophe inflicted upon us. and we could have stretched that action into many enemy fronts later on. GWB wasted that good will and wanted to be the tough guy on the block, the bully and not give a sh!t about a real coalition and go at it practically alone ( great Coalition 500 japs, 1000 polaks and the brits). What you people fail to understand this isn't just about kicking ass, we have to change the way these people think about us and our way of life. The Neocons think the only way is by point of gun. Fast forward----- Iraq now has a new Gov't where do we attack next, Iran, Syria because those extremeists will simply move around the middleeast, where I guess we we will just aim again. where does it end and how many attacks will we endure domestically as World War IV progresses. Your heros envision a future world where their are mini Americas w/ game boys, Mc Donalds, and Britney dancing on Stage in Iraq, Iran......where everyone embraces our way of life. It sounds Idyllic

 

[suprbuick7]

TTA you really believe" Perle" in my earlier post, did you read it. All those mistakes,and they aren't lies.... come on

 

[suprbuick7]

TTA can you answer those questions why SH didn't use those weapons on several occasions that I posted earlier, What is your take on why not?????

 

[suprbuick7]

TTA I posted that interview w/ Perle on page 13. Tell me what you think

 

[Red Regal T]

Why do you have so much respect for these "other" countries? They just "smile in our face", while they stab us in the back. They owe us their help even without those countless UN resolutions. They chose not to help because they had their hand in the cookie jar by having secret deals with Sadaam. They are not our friends.

You say chase, chase, UBL, and chase him again. He's in the bottom of some cave in Pakistan. We can't even operate in Pakistan. Afghanistan is somewhat under control and the Taliban only can offer pockets of resistance. Are we to roam all over Afghanistan for 40 years looking for one fanatic?

You want instant gratification, like, war over, everybody go home. It ain't gonna' be that way. I'd like it to be that way, too. This war was brought on by them, NOT US.........and we have to do what we have to do. George Bush, being the man he is, decided we're going to do whatever it takes to seek out, and destroy, all our enemies....one by one. It's not going to be over next week or next year. Get with the program!

 

[TurboJunky]

Originally posted by suprbuick7
TTA you really believe" Perle" in my earlier post, did you read it. All those mistakes,and they aren't lies.... come on

I don't know who Perle is and don't base my opinions on political hacks.

Originally posted by suprbuick7
TTA can you answer those questions why SH didn't use those weapons on several occasions that I posted earlier, What is your take on why not?????

Since you nor I have hard facts to rely on all we can do is speculate. I'm not a CIA intelligence officer and don't know the ins-outs of field intelligence. Tell you what, why don't you give me your logical anaylsis on this issue. No copying/pasting.

I know what the President said about WMD and Iraq but as far as I'm concerned I could care less if we ever find WMD. We were justified in reinitating hostilities with Iraq for numerous cease-fire violations. End of story.

 

[GNandGS]

Originally posted by suprbuick7
Red Regal, You have crossed the line of confirmed MORON status.

You obviously don't or can't read the previous posts; where I endorsed bombing, and attacking w/ troops the culprits of (9/11) not SH who is simply an ideological ( is that too big a word for you?) target of the neoconservative radical right.

"Takes one to know one" ?

If you can say out loud and believe that ONLY republicans (who MUST be radicals) wanted SH gone then I submit sir you didnt follow along in this thread or you read your internet news selectively.

I just scroll through your post when I see "neo" anything. Its intended as an insult which even tho you dont admit it, makes you biased beyond rational thought. You paint a broad-brush with a term that is still in dispute and has been warped over time to fit a desired definition. ie - Republicans bad.

At some point in its origin the term was supposed to be a "anti communist pro socialist" group. Historically made up in large part by Jewish decendants. Doh! Sounds Republican!

Anyway, I chose this post to remind you (again) that SH was a "target" by 3 administrations in my adult lifetime from two different parties and by the UN itself - of which "neo" anything probably doesnt really fit by definition, even yours. Whatever that is.

You guys need to be honest. NOTHING Bush, or perhaps any Republican, will do can satisfy you. You will not be happy with GB no matter what. Stop looking for excuses because quite frankly I too can find fault in most anyone if I look for it. Yer just looking reeeeal hard.

That whole "redneck" crap is really getting old also.

Shawn

 

[UNGN]

Sorry, not taking the bait on the whole neocon, thing. Pat's a smart guy and his sister Bay is super nice, but if Pat Buchanan was President in 1941, Germany would be the worlds only Super power today. I'll just leave it at that.

There were LOTS of mistakes made in the intelligence gathering as far as WMD's go, but I don't Fault Bush since members of BOTH parties have said the EXACT same things for 13 years. Because Bush said "I call" and Saddam was bluffing doesn't mean he's a "LIIIIAAAAR!" or "BETRAYED THIS COUNTRY!!!" to quote a few popular Democrats.

Again, I will say, WMD's have nothing to with it. It's about the War on Terror. It's about Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iran, North Korea and all the other countries bankrolling terrorists. C4, SAA-7's and RPG's aren't free for the asking anymore. If you want to kill americans, you have to pay the price.

 

[suprbuick7]

TTA :Richard Perle is one of the Priniciple architects of the invasion of Iraq, he is one of GWB's defense advisers, you called him a hack, so maybe you find some dishonesty in his remarks???. essentially he is why we are there, get it.

Maybe I 'm more cynical, but I base my opinions on the research I have accumulated. You are entitled to your opinions and if you feel you have backed them up w/ substance fine. I guess if this board remains active only time will tell who gets the" I told yo so". If I am wrong I will admit it, I can only hope some of you will be as honest.

 

[We4ster]

Instead of pointing fingers, how about trying to resolve the issue.
The administration doesnt have a clear cut plan to resolve this war. How are they going to turn over the government to the iraqis?
How are they going to get our troops out of iraq? How are they going to fight terrorism?
I did see one hopeful sign...They are talking to the U.N.
You can keep throwing the parties b/s and rhetoric back and forth, just like congress or.......................?

 

[TurboJunky]

Originally posted by suprbuick7
TTA :Richard Perle is one of the Priniciple architects of the invasion of Iraq, he is one of GWB's defense advisers, you called him a hack, so maybe you find some dishonesty in his remarks???. essentially he is why we are there, get it.

Perle was a general or part of the Joint Chiefs of Staff? I don't recall him being a part of Bush's cabinet or upper echelon of the military but he designed the invasion of Iraq? You may be right (or maybe not) but this sounds strange to me.

Originally posted by We4ster
This person is on your Ignore List. To view this post click [here]

I guess I just don't what to say to this post.

 

[suprbuick7]

TTA: there is the cabinet which includes among others: VP, Secretaries of State, treasury, defense...... and many others . These people have to be "confirmed" by the Senate. Presidential advisers or Saff are not on the cabinet, don't have to be" confirmed "people named Andy Card, Carl Rove, Karen Hughes, Richard Perle .... these are people closely trusted by the President and have daily access to GWB,, friends if you will , many of which have been with him since he was Governor of Texas. Most of these people help the president shape his policies because of the trust factor between them.
eg. The treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill, had only met GWB once in his life, he is a republican, knew Bush 1, worked for Nixon and Ford and is a Former mutimillionaire corporate (ALCOA) CEO who knows money matters, that is why he was chosen for that spot. He has since resigned / was fired depending who you get your info from, because in his own words "BUSH's agenda and policies were not a culmination of spirited debate among competing views even within his cabinet. He literally said "GWB was like a blindman in a room full of deaf people" it is in his book.

Paul O' Neill is extremely intelligent, a lifelong republican, worth 60 to 70 million dollars, left ALCOA reluctantly at the behest of GWB/ Cheney, is not making a dime from his book. Therefore, why would he disparage GWB?? and his policies, not just Iraq, but economics especially Deficits. I f he felt uncomfortable in his administration??????

 

[UNGN]

Originally posted by suprbuick7
Paul O' Neill is extremely intelligent, a lifelong republican, worth 60 to 70 million dollars, left ALCOA reluctantly at the behest of GWB/ Cheney, is not making a dime from his book. Therefore, why would he disparage GWB?? and his policies, not just Iraq, but economics especially Deficits. I f he felt uncomfortable in his administration??????

Gee and you know what? He said he is voting for Bush in '04.

Politicians have differences of opinion on policy. Ego's are huge in Washington (John Kerry is the poster child for the huge ego)

So not everyone in Bush's administration agree's with everything Bush has said or done. So what? They are entitled to their opinions and Bush is within his rights to cut them loose. If I was O'neill's boss, I'd ask for a little less jetting around the world with Bono, but that's just me.

If you think Paul O'neill is so Supergreat and respect his opinion so much, take his advice and vote for Bush also.

 

[suprbuick7]

UNGN: what about his statement about a"blindman in a room full of deaf people", lets hear your selective perceptions on this one. I'm sure it will reek of brilliance?! You don't know who he will vote for, He probably won't from what he indicates in his book, but I'm sure your too busy to read it .When did he say that??

 

[GNandGS]

Originally posted by suprbuick7
UNGN: what about his statement about a"blindman in a room full of deaf people", lets hear your selective perceptions on this one. I'm sure it will reek of brilliance?! You don't know who he will vote for, He probably won't from what he indicates in his book, but I'm sure your too busy to read it .When did he say that??

Blahblahblah "what about".... yeah, what about the others that were in the room that say different?

Oh, I get it. It must be true cuz its negative. Even Clinton said not to underestimate the man.

Its a book by Ron Suskind supposedly written from the perspective of O'neill. Of course when they make up stories of where they got there sources, then misrepresent those documents, you NATURALLY have to be suspect. Especially when you backpedal later.

I dont really care who he votes for but supposedly its been in the last few months (during interview? January?) a statment was made to who he plans to vote for.

The BIGGEST claim to fame for this book was about the early designs for war, and how that was the goal from the start (hence the 60 minutes interview). The problem with that however is - just like this thread - there are those that choose to ignore the prior administrations actions and POLICIES regarding Iraq. Oh whoops, O'neill backtracked on that one... and his deaf people comment.

S

 

[UNGN]

Originally posted by suprbuick7
You don't know who he will vote for, He probably won't from what he indicates in his book, but I'm sure your too busy to read it .When did he say that??

He said it in the 60 minutes interview or didn't you watch it?

Originally posted by suprbuick7
what about his statement about a"blindman in a room full of deaf people", lets hear your selective perceptions on this one. I'm sure it will reek of brilliance?!

Answer one question since you read his book: Was Paul Oneill on the National Security Council? Would he be there when our policy towards Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, North Korea, etc, etc. etc. was being discussed?

When he was there and would bring up his pet projects: more money for Africa post 9/11, do you think everybody would be as enthusiastic about it as he would be?