More Stupid Democrat Criticisms

[suprbuick7]

TTA,
Former cabinet members of your beloved GWB say it is so; even those not profiting from recent books eg. O'neill. but your blindness and sheep mentality will lead you to disbelief. I have admitted Clinton was no saint and failed but you guys really look stupid to paint every Bush detractor as liars

 

[suprbuick7]

Silver,should we take this discussion of "empty chairs back over several administrations. I 'm sure we can find many from both sides of the aisle that even you would classify as absent. Your comments from that side have been very thought out. I can't say the same for some of your commrades though

 

[TurboJunky]

Originally posted by suprbuick7
TTA,
Former cabinet members of your beloved GWB say it is so; even those not profiting from recent books eg. O'neill. but your blindness and sheep mentality will lead you to disbelief. I have admitted Clinton was no saint and failed but you guys really look stupid to paint every Bush detractor as liars

Again, I challenge you to prove your point that I have "sheep mentality" and love GWB. I differ with him on many issues and know he's not the perfect President. However, the far left on this board shows no PROOF of anything. You and others simply spew factless drivel. Show me the PROOF I'm blind and a sheep. As I've said before in a previous post....I'm all ears.

Compared to others here, I'm open to honest, non name calling debate and willing to be convinced by clear and convincing evidence our President has less than honorable intentions. Leave out the innuendo, rumor, DNC talking points and wishful thinking...I'm interested in HARD FACTS. The challenge is there, convince me I'm a lemming.

 

[TurboJunky]

Originally posted by We4ster
"If you can't debate intelligently with facts, divert attention from the issues and make a fool of yourself"

Sounds like a good ploy for the present administration to use during the current hearings..

Politics, Politics, Politics....

Looks like you took detailed notes from them and turned the spin cycle to high.

Where's that IGNORE button? Ahhh, found it. I'm sorry, but if you had something more intelligent to post in the last few days this wouldn't be necessary, but since you ran out of ammunition and stooped to unintelligent and insulting posts not worthy of reading, it had to happen.....bye.

 

[suprbuick7]

Calm down tta,
You show me where you disagree w/ GWB. Of the one's I have viewed, your posts are all pro GOP? Aren't they? I consider myself an independent thinker that feels the right is too narrowly focused on many issues, I agree on many of their social policies, but the economics of big business first above the middle class is hard for me to reconcile. I stand by my post Clarke, O'Neill and other GOP holdovers tell of the Wolfowitz, Cheyney Neo conservatism, regime change mentality of this administration. If you chose to not believe so be it.

 

[suprbuick7]

TTA,
I would really like to hear what you think is wrong in this administration. Are you afraid of alienating yourself to those who sling GOP rhetoric here and risk being labeled a socialist?

 

[Red Regal T]

Originally posted by suprbuick7
Red regal, you use" bragging". I think that is a stretch

Well, maybe he didn't speak of his specific exploits, but as he was working on securing the nomination, the guy never failed to mention his Vietnam service, ad nauseum. It was downright embarassing. I think by now his advisers told him, "please, shut up".

 

[Red Regal T]

Originally posted by TT/A1233
GWB. I differ with him on many issues and know he's not the perfect President.

Who could possibly be a "perfect President"? I agree, George Bush is not perfect, but he's the best President since Reagan, maybe better. He simply chose to lead........Something the democrats haven't seen. The nomination of John Kerry is almost laughable. The guy is pathetic. He takes both sides of every issue, has the personality of, and looks like Lurch, and thinks the UN can help us out. I mean, this is the best the dems could do? At least Clinton had some personality even though he thought he was on vacation for eight years.

 

[GNandGS]

Originally posted by suprbuick7
*snip*, regime change mentality of this administration. If you chose to not believe so be it.

You are thinking... and out loud too. Problem is where you missed some history.

IF you can show he was just chomping at the bit to hit Iraq you would have to ignore any prior conflicts, and most importantly, the previous administrations POLICY to remove SH.

The UN has had a long history of problems with Iraq, as have 3 administrations from 2 parties in the US. Hardly a Bush only issue. Had there been NO 9/11 attack one could certainly make a good argument for Iraq being an issue (among others). If you look at documented SH behavior in general you have to go back to the 70's. Or was it 60's? Does it matter? "This" administrations "regime" blahblah's are a sneaky way to say Imerialistic - a popular, tho innaccurate description of America by some protest groups.

I give you points though for not using "cowboy" or "unilateral" in your post.

 

[TurboJunky]

Originally posted by suprbuick7
Calm down tta,
You show me where you disagree w/ GWB. Of the one's I have viewed, your posts are all pro GOP? Aren't they? I consider myself an independent thinker that feels the right is too narrowly focused on many issues, I agree on many of their social policies, but the economics of big business first above the middle class is hard for me to reconcile. I stand by my post Clarke, O'Neill and other GOP holdovers tell of the Wolfowitz, Cheyney Neo conservatism, regime change mentality of this administration. If you chose to not believe so be it.

I'm calm, trust me. I don't get angry or riled very easily and it's quite evident when I do.

I've issued many challenges to those on this board to point to specific facts regarding anti-administration allegations, so far I've seen none. I base my opinions on FACTS and facts alone.

Let's hear DETAILED and SPECIFIC criticisms of this administration and their corrupt decisions. Not general complaints which is all I've been reading so far, including your complaints above.

If someone will be very specific regarding my challenges, I'd be happy to share my disdain with certain policy decisions by the Bush administration. Quip-pro-quo if you will - nothing's free.

Originally posted by suprbuick7
TTA,
I would really like to hear what you think is wrong in this administration. Are you afraid of alienating yourself to those who sling GOP rhetoric here and risk being labeled a socialist?

I've already posted I'm conservative but NOT a Republican. I'm afraid of nothing politically and voice my opinion unabated. Again, this administration is not perfect as no one is.

 

[suprbuick7]

great argument!?. Corrupt in my book means illegal. It wasn't illegal to target SH, just not a good time to focus on the minor league of terroism while OBL is out there. and please, I could care less but your refusal to elaborate is however crytal clear to me

 

[suprbuick7]

GOP here is always chirping about "proof" Right? I want conclusive proof from you, beecause I have read it posted here about the false accusations about the Cinton administration's refusal to take OBL in '96. It never happened. the Sudanese govt. in a feeble attempt to reverse pending UN sanctions denied supporting terrorism, they tried to kill Mubarek which pissed off the Egyptians. The majority of their officials were from a sympathetic radical faction (NIF) under the control of Arab extremeist Turabi also found were traces of Chemical weapons. He left the Sudan for Afghanistan. They were trying to smoke screen the UN to save their own ASSES

 

[GNandGS]

Originally posted by suprbuick7
GOP here is always chirping about "proof" Right? I want conclusive proof from you, beecause I have read it posted here about the false accusations about the Cinton administration's refusal to take OBL in '96. It never happened. the Sudanese govt. in a feeble attempt to reverse pending UN sanctions denied supporting terrorism, they tried to kill Mubarek which pissed off the Egyptians. The majority of their officials were from a sympathetic radical faction (NIF) under the control of Arab extremeist Turabi also found were traces of Chemical weapons. He left the Sudan for Afghanistan. They were trying to smoke screen the UN to save their own ASSES

In over your head now. Clinton is on record as NOT wanting OBL as there wasnt enough to hold him on (legally). You see, without an offer, there isnt anything to turn down.

At this point I can either:

1. Believe Clinton had something to turn down, because he said so. Believe Monsoor Ijaz (US ambassador to Sudan) when he says he was in on the deal.

or

2. Believe some conspiracy theory.

Note that I dont actually "blame" anyone for the OBL issue. Nor do I even dispute some things in that last post - makes no difference to me what faction did what. The question was something related to the offer and if its true. I think it is.

 

[suprbuick7]

I am right here. No Proof from you yet though.

 

[Silver 6]

suprbuick7

"Silver,should we take this discussion of "empty chairs back over several administrations."

I thing we could cover that in short order. President Nixon was not in office when he ran. President Ford was a Senator and appointed, so he never campaigned prior. President Reagon was not in office when he ran. President Bush (SR) was the sitting Vice President. And last President Bush (JR) was a Governor when he ran. Or do I need to go back prior to 1960?

From that list I would certainly welcome you finding the "empty" seats to match Senator Kerry's conduct.

" I want conclusive proof from you, beecause I have read it posted here about the false accusations about the Cinton administration's refusal to take OBL in '96. It never happened. the Sudanese govt."

OK:

Transcript of Clinton's admission:

We'd been hearing that the Sudanese wanted America to start dealing with them again.

They released him. At the time, 1996, he had committed no crime against America so I did not bring him here because we had no basis on which to hold him, though we knew he wanted to commit crimes against America.

So I pleaded with the Saudis to take him, 'cause they could have. But they thought it was a hot potato and they didn't and that's how he wound up in Afghanistan. [End of Excerpt

Admission to the Long Island Association on Feb. 15, 2002.

I do feel sad for you. I know you want to believe these guys, but just try looking things up for yourself sometimes. I can't be here to do it for you ALL the time.

 

[UNGN]

Originally posted by suprbuick7
GOP here is always chirping about "proof" Right? I want conclusive proof from you, beecause I have read it posted here about the false accusations about the Cinton administration's refusal to take OBL in '96. It never happened. the Sudanese govt. in a feeble attempt to reverse pending UN sanctions denied supporting terrorism, they tried to kill Mubarek which pissed off the Egyptians. The majority of their officials were from a sympathetic radical faction (NIF) under the control of Arab extremeist Turabi also found were traces of Chemical weapons. He left the Sudan for Afghanistan. They were trying to smoke screen the UN to save their own ASSES

Do you want proof?

How about Bill Clinton in his own words?

How could Bill Clinton Plead for the Saudi's to take Bin ladin if Bin Ladin wasn't Offered to him, first?

Bill Clinton told Bob Kerrey he NEVER SAID THE ABOVE. This obviously came as a shock to Bob Kerrey after he heard the above audio.

 

[suprbuick7]

I did look it up not in GOP rags like you guys did apparently. #41 really had great relations w/ those Saudi's that they wouldn't take him. The offer was disingenuous ( I don't think Silver has to look up that word but the rest of you might) at best I have read much about it but you presume your facts on half truths spewn by those addicted to controlled substances

 

[suprbuick7]

You guys aren't the least bit embarrassed by the way GWB stutters and stammers and couldn't answer the questions posed to him last night? Even Pat Buchanan was critical of his performance

 

[suprbuick7]

That interview did absolutely nothing to prove your point

 

[We4ster]

"Let's hear DETAILED and SPECIFIC criticisms of this administration and their corrupt decisions. Not general complaints which is all I've been reading so far, including your complaints above".

TT/A1233,

As a candidate for the presidency in 2000, George W. Bush insisted that, if elected, he would not allow U.S. military forces to engage in "nation building."
Now that we have blasted Iraq to save it (does that have a familiar ring?), Bush is in the business of nation building as U.S. military forces struggle to put that broken nation back together.
Nation building in Iraq means not only getting the water and electrical supply going and arranging garbage collections.
It also means writing a new constitution and creating a government. In the meantime, U.S. troops are performing basic police functions like directing traffic

Bush's pledge to avoid nation building came during a debate with Democrat Al Gore at Wake Forest University in Winston-Salem, N.C., on Oct. 11, 2000. It was their second debate of the election campaign.

At that debate Bush recalled that the U.S. humanitarian mission in Somalia -- begun by his father, President George H.W. Bush -- had "changed into a nation-building mission, and that's where the mission went wrong."

Bush also pledged during the same debate to be "humble" in his foreign policy and not appear to be throwing our superpower weight around.

As the U.S. attack on Iraq shows, it's difficult being humble. When the United States could not get its way before the U.N. Security Council, Bush barged ahead on his own, careful to at least pay lip service to British Prime Minister Tony Blair so that the White House could always been seen to be acting in the name of a "coalition," such as it was.

No matter how the president's foreign policy is viewed by Americans or others around the world, the word "humble" couldn't possibly fit.