THE US, THE UN AND THE IRAQIS THEMSELVES, V. 7.0

Quote:

Those on the left are still trying to convince themselves that Bush is solely responsible for 9/11/2001...

I don't understand Ican. Are you admitting that Bush was partially to blame for 9/11 along with others?

You use the word solely. The implication is that those of you on the Right would admit or settle for Bush being partially responsible.

I don't know if you place me on the left or the right, I'm anti Bush certainly, but I have never implied that Bush might be even partially to blame for 9/11, let alone solely to blame. I've said that Bush has used the 9/11 tragedy to justify attacking Afghanistan and Iraq, something that is pretty obvious.

I don't hold with conspiracy theories, unless I have a leading role, and on 9/11 I most certainly did not. :wink:

0 Replies

After a survey on (online) left media and even on those, the US-Americans claim to be left (like right-wing French newspapers), none ever claimed that Bush was to baame for the 11th of September.

However, Ican, if you have some proof that President Bush is partly responsible for this .... Shocked

0 Replies

the reincarnation of suzy wrote:

Wow, you're WRONG on all counts! How can you even believe THE bunk you spew?

Your colorful descriptions of my posts are amusing, but I infer from the rest of your childish diatribe that you actually believe that what you posted is true. If you actually believe it true, such level of ignorance would be truly pitiful, and I would feel obliged to endeavor to rectify it, despite my uncertainty of success. If you don't actually believe what you post, then you're merely playing the role of a pernicious poster, an intellectual vandal, a neo-juvenile-delinquent. That of course would render your posts deserving to be ignored.

Alas, it is still difficult now to tell which is true.

0 Replies

I think the left who despise Bush would be delighted to pin 9/11 on him, and I think some of the more dense actuallydo try.

I don't know how many times I've read posts that suggest that it is America's "imperialistic, bullying, arrogant, greedy policies" that provokes people of the world to hate us, even attack us. And if it isn't said outright, there is an underlying suggestion that the terrorists' anger is understandable and justified.

Those who advocate some or part of what I just said frequently suggest that if we were more respectful, understanding, nicer or whatever, they would love us. And yes, I think some think that if Bush was more of a diplomat, 9/11 would never have happened; therefore, it was his fault.

I expect to see a bumper sticker any day now: "Have you hugged a terrorist today?"

0 Replies

Quote:

pernicious poster, an intellectual vandal, a neo-juvenile-delinquent.

I like some of these phrases. But I would prefer to be known as a clever Cattele.

A newbie on a2k might easily be a pernicious four-poster, which brings to mind all sorts of bedroom problems.

0 Replies

Quote:

And yes, I think some think that if Bush was more of a diplomat, 9/11 would never have happened; therefore, it was his fault.

What you mean like he farted at a cocktail party or something? Whatever it was, it must have been a pretty serious failure of diplomacy.

0 Replies

Steve (as 41oo) wrote:

... I don't understand Ican. Are you admitting that Bush was partially to blame for 9/11 along with others?

Yes!

Bush was far too slow. It took him almost nine months (e.g., 9/11) to perceive the horrendous crippling handicap the Jamie Gorelick Directive and other Clinton Administration policies placed upon US intelligence services. It wasn't until after 9/11 that Bush with the Homeland Security Bill finally was persuaded to rectify matters and destroy that and other handicaps (e.g., The Clinton administration treated terrorists as mere actual or potential criminals not enemy combatants making war on the US) . Surely this indicates Bush to be inadequately omniscient. Crying or Very sad

Steve (as 41oo) wrote:

I've said that Bush has used the 9/11 tragedy to justify attacking Afghanistan and Iraq, something that is pretty obvious.

We agree! Perhaps we do not agree whether that usage is appropriate or not. I think it was and is. If 9/11 never happened, I for one would perceive little need for a self-defense invasion of Afghanistan or Iraq. The only other reason for invading them would be to stop the persecution of their citizenry by their leaders. However, because of our severely limited military capabilities, before choosing to invade for that reason, it would be best if we first determined which states were most egregious in their persecutiion of their own citizenry: Cuba, North Korea, Afghanistan, Irag, Sudan, Rawanda, etc.

Steve (as 41oo) wrote:

I don't hold with conspiracy theories, unless I have a leading role, and on 9/11 I most certainly did not. :wink:

Well, I'm relieved to read both points! Laughing

0 Replies

To say that one understands the provenance of the hatred of the terrorist is not to say that it is justified. More warped, indirect accusations against those with whom you disagree, Fox . . .

0 Replies

Steve (as 41oo) wrote:

Quote:
pernicious poster, an intellectual vandal, a neo-juvenile-delinquent.

I like some of these phrases. But I would prefer to be known as a clever Cattele.

A newbie on a2k might easily be a pernicious four-poster, which brings to mind all sorts of bedroom problems.

Steve, sorry but those words were the content of a postulate directed only at suzy. You'll have to change your writing style and content significantly before you can even begin to earn those appellations.

Clever Cattele Confused

Does that bear any relation to a clever cow?

A pernicious four-poster -- bedroom problems Confused

No problem for a competent aviator! Just straighten-up and fly right (as opposed to left) Smile

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

To say that one understands the provenance of the hatred of the terrorist is not to say that it is justified. More warped, indirect accusations against those with whom you disagree, Fox . . .

Yes, Set, your "warped [direct] accusations against those with whom you disagree" are much to be preferred. Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

I certainly prefer them . . . and i certainly don't care what your opinion is on any topic, up to and including the weather.

0 Replies

THEORY

John-John-Kerry-Edwards (ignoring current election campaign rhetoric) has demonstrated in its senatorial voting record that it is inclined to diminish and not enhance America's ability to defend itself, and to diminsh not enhance the individual self-reliance of individual Americans. It has consistenly demonstrated a strong and relentless effort to diminish the desire and ability of individual Americans to support themselves, thereby crippling their sense of personal responsibility, their individual initiative and their individual accomplishments. The consequence of this inclination by its like-minded predecessors has been the creation of a growing, self-hating, underclass, totally and permanently dependent on the election of the likes of John-John-Kerry-Edwards. These are not nice prospects.

George-Richard-Bush-Chenney has demonstrated during its administration that it is inclined to enhance and not diminish America's ability to defend itself, and to enhance not diminish the self-reliance of individual Americans. While George-Richard-Bush-Chenney has not proceeded infallibly, making several substantial errors, it nonetheless has rescued America from much of the damage done by the previous administration. These past enhancements offer the promise of nice prospects for future enhancements.

0 Replies

Thinking on that Ican. Will respond later in the day.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

I certainly prefer them . . . and i certainly don't care what your opinion is on any topic, up to and including the weather.

Oh my! Then you too thereby confess yourself a neo-juvenile-delinguent. Pity! Crying or Very sad

0 Replies

That was typically pathetic ad hominem . . . i expect no more from you.

0 Replies

Quote:

George-Richard-Bush-Chenney has demonstrated during its administration that it is inclined to enhance and not diminish America's ability to defend itself, and to enhance not diminish the self-reliance of individual Americans.

If by 'enhancing the self-reliance' of Americans, you mean 'worsening the national debt while cutting funds for emergency services and veterans benefits simultaneously' then I would have to agree with you.

Quote:

Setanta wrote:
I certainly prefer them . . . and i certainly don't care what your opinion is on any topic, up to and including the weather.

Oh my! Then you too thereby confess yourself a neo-juvenile-delinguent. Pity!

This sort of name-calling is beneath you, Icann....

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

I certainly prefer them . . . and i certainly don't care what your opinion is on any topic, up to and including the weather.

ican711nm wrote:

Oh my! Then you too thereby confess yourself a neo-juvenile-delinguent. Pity!

Setanta wrote:

That was typically pathetic ad hominem . . . i expect no more from you.

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

If by 'enhancing the self-reliance' of Americans, you mean 'worsening the national debt while cutting funds for emergency services and veterans benefits simultaneously' then I would have to agree with you.

First, I did write:

Quote:

... George-Richard-Bush-Chenney has not proceeded infallibly, making several substantial errors ...

Second, domestically, George-Richard-Bush-Chenney has failed to begin making substantial decreases in federal spending thereby exasperating the size of the deficit. One area most ripe for cuts are so-called federal entitlements. Federal subsidies are another area. In fact, it has increased such spending (e.g., Farm Bill, Education Bill, Medical Bill].

Third, the cost of waging a war of self-defense constitutes a substantial but nonetheless necessary expense. When confronted with a threat to the security of our liberty, the federal government must economize in other areas in order to control deficits.

Fourth, the decrease in the top marginal income tax rate was insufficient. A top marginal rate of 28 to 29% would promote a more rapid expansion of our economy and consequently a more rapid decrease in the size of our deficits. Also the 28 to 29% tax rate is the optimimum for maximizing income tax revenue. A smaller rate will generate less; a larger rate will generate less.

I recognize that this tax theory is itself appropriate for considerable discussion and debate.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

This sort of name-calling is beneath you, Icann....

Thanks for the compliment! But alas, I have and will occassionally succumb to name-calling some of those who stoop to personal verbal abuse. I think the term neo-juvenile-delinguent is an appropriate euphemism for those who too frequently stoop to personal verbal abuse. Smile

0 Replies

There is no personal verbal abuse, Ican, for however much you are personally affronted that others do not agree with you.

I haven't the least illusion that this will sink in with you, though.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

I certainly prefer them . . . and i certainly don't care what your opinion is on any topic, up to and including the weather.

ican711nm wrote:

Oh my! Then you too thereby confess yourself a neo-juvenile-delinguent. Pity!

Setanta wrote:

That was typically pathetic ad hominem . . . i expect no more from you.

Setanta wrote:

There is no personal verbal abuse, Ican, for however much you are personally affronted that others do not agree with you.

I haven't the least illusion that this will sink in with you, though.

0 Replies

THE US, THE UN AND THE IRAQIS THEMSELVES, V. 7.0

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know