Why do you still support Bush?

.....rolling in their graves....

Candidone said...

Quote:

I think that since 9/11 was the first attack on the American territory by a foreign enemy since, what, the British?....the odds of another strike were diminished more likely by other factors other than Bush's policies.
9/11 just allowed his PNAC agenda forward.

You apparently failed history,didnt you?
Does Pearl Harbor ring a bell with you?
Do the names Guam,Wake Island,Attu,Kiska,Midway Island,the oil refinery near Santa Barbara that was shelled by a Japanese sub,doesnt any of that ring a bell with you?

Of course,there was the attack by Pancho Villa on a border town in New Mexico...

Quote:

On March 9, 1916, Villa led 1,500 (disputed, one official US Army report stated "500 to 700") Mexican raiders in a cross-border attack against Columbus, New Mexico, in response to the U.S. government's official recognition of the Carranza regime [3]. They attacked a detachment of the [13th US Cavalry], seized 100 horses and mules, burned the town, killed 10 soldiers and 8 of its residents, and took much ammunition and weaponry.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pancho_Villa

Of course,you are correct,9/11 was the first attack on US Territory since the British.
Lets not let facts get in your way.

Candidone said...

Quote:

I think that since 9/11 was the first attack on the American territory by a foreign enemy since, what, the British?....the odds of another strike were diminished more likely by other factors other than Bush's policies.
9/11 just allowed his PNAC agenda forward.

You apparently failed history,didnt you?

Does Pearl Harbor ring a bell with you?

Do the names Guam,Wake Island,Attu,Kiska,Midway Island,.....

the oil refinery near Santa Barbara that was shelled by a Japanese sub,doesnt any of that ring a bell with you?

Of course,there was the attack by Pancho Villa on a border town in New Mexico...

Quote:

On March 9, 1916, Villa led 1,500 (disputed, one official US Army report stated "500 to 700") Mexican raiders in a cross-border attack against Columbus, New Mexico, in response to the U.S. government's official recognition of the Carranza regime [3]. They attacked a detachment of the [13th US Cavalry], seized 100 horses and mules, burned the town, killed 10 soldiers and 8 of its residents, and took much ammunition and weaponry.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pancho_Villa

Of course,you are correct,9/11 was the first attack on US Territory since the British.
Lets not let facts get in your way.

I have been tediously scrolling through and (yes), reading the "Is Bush a Liar" thread.
The usual suspects have donated their typical contributions, but I wonder why some people still unconditionally support Bush.
What are some of the things he is currently doing that makes him worthy of such support?.... and under what conditions would you cease to support him further?

My most pressing question has still yet to be answered, so I'll ask one more time.

Why are conservatives not at all worried and angry that Osama is still out there? It's a simple question, really!

In answer to wooda thunk:

If you want to know what Democrats are saying you have first stop listening to the shouting of the Republicans. Republicans have turned out to be very good shouters. About fifteen years ago, when the Democrats provided the first comprehensive plan for National Health Care, the shouters energized against it and the plan died before it even reached a Congressional Committee, but it was by all standards a workable plan that would have by this time covered most or all of Americans. Meanwhile, Republicans continue to find ways to enrich the insurance companies, see Plan D, and shout down or ignore Democratic alternatives.

It was at the about that same time that the Democrats had to pass their Economic Incentive Plan -it raised some taxes and made some cuts in both social and military areas- they passed it without a single Republican vote and jump started a solid eight years of economic growth.

You know what is a hot topic now? Global Climate Change. Al Gore was talking about that too some eight years ago, but the shouters and sloganeers jibed and laughed about Captain Ozone Layer, except that he was right about being concerned about the environment. And Democrats had the right ideas on energy policy too, not Cheney's and Skillings' ideas, actual energy savings ideas.

If you want to go way back, ask about the Carter years and his fight to make America independent of Middle East oil. We were on our way to that goal, we had reduced the amount of Arab oil imports by twenty million barrels a day by the time Carter left office. The big idea boys with Reagan put a stop to that sort of thinking. We now import 11 million more barrels per day than we did when Jimmy went to build houses for the poor.

And how are the poor anyway? Anybody even thinking about them these days? The Democrats are. They are fighting to keep the cuts away from Education funds and jobs training programs, they are trying to avoid the creation of a permanent lower class in this nation.

But to get back to Energy, did you hear about the Democrats Energy Policy? No? Hmmm. too much shouting I guess. Mostly over the removal of tax relief to corporations that are raking in the largest profits of their history.

And in today's Congress the leading voices of compromise on Immigration are Democrats, the leading voices on voter protection plans are Democrats, the leading voices on Social Security and Pension Plan Protection are Democrats, the leading voices on Health Care are Democrats, the leading voices against the erosion of our Constitutional rights are Democrats.

Meanwhile the Republicans just proposed making English the official language and raised the indecency fines by a factor of ten. Talk about being out of touch with what is important,,, ,

I have been a Democrat since I was nine years old. I liked the way Adlai Stevenson talked. I was proud to be a Democrat while the Civil Rights Marchs and Diner Sit-ins were going on and to this day cannot figure out why the Republicans were opposed to the Voting Rights Bill, but they were. And later, it was Republicans who were against the ERA, and, once Nixon was in, they were for continuing the Viet Nam War until the end of time.

I get a little deja vu these days when I hear the NSA is tapping phones again, just like they did for Dick.

Sorry, didn't mean to go on so long, you're going to think I'm Asherman, but if you listen to what Democrats are saying about nearly every subject under the sun, and shut off the shouters, you will hear the ideas that we need to be following as we stumble towards the future,

Joe(oh yeah and stop this fricking war too)Nation

mysteryman wrote:

Candidone said...

Quote:

I think that since 9/11 was the first attack on the American territory by a foreign enemy since, what, the British?....the odds of another strike were diminished more likely by other factors other than Bush's policies.
9/11 just allowed his PNAC agenda forward.

You apparently failed history,didn't you?

Does Pearl Harbor ring a bell with you?

Pearl Harbor was an act of war. 9/11 was an terrorist act.
You of all people should have been able to make this elementary distinction.

mysterman wrote:

Do the names Guam,Wake Island,Attu,Kiska,Midway Island,.....

Apparently you failed at Geography.
These regions have never been considered "The American Terrority" proper, otherwise they would be internationally recognized as states.
You're attempting to peddle these as "terrorist attacks on America?"
I'll come back to this at the bottom.

mysterman wrote:

the oil refinery near Santa Barbara that was shelled by a Japanese sub,doesnt any of that ring a bell with you?

These are al evidence of a coordinated offensive launched by the Japanese as an act of war. Any scholar can distinguish the difference between the two.

mysterman wrote:

Of course,there was the attack by Pancho Villa on a border town in New Mexico...

Quote:

On March 9, 1916, Villa led 1,500 (disputed, one official US Army report stated "500 to 700") Mexican raiders in a cross-border attack against Columbus, New Mexico, in response to the U.S. government's official recognition of the Carranza regime [3]. They attacked a detachment of the [13th US Cavalry], seized 100 horses and mules, burned the town, killed 10 soldiers and 8 of its residents, and took much ammunition and weaponry.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pancho_Villa

This, again, bore more similarities to a war, and ironically, more similarities to America's support for the Contras.
There are simply no parallels between what I have said and what you assert......but I didn't begin this thread to dispute something of tangential significance to the thread topic.

mysteryman wrote:

Of course,you are correct,9/11 was the first attack on US Territory since the British.
Lets not let facts get in your way.

Just for the sake of entertainment, let's take your claims that the above attacks by the Japanese were in fact "terrorist attacks", or that the retribution sought by Villa was in fact an act of "terror"....
What make of you the invasion of Panama in Operation Just Cause?
...or perhaps the invasion of Vietnam, where ~17% of the S. Vietnamese population was decimated by chemicals and other means?
...or the bombing of Iran Air 655?
....or the bombing of al Shifa in the Sudan?
...or that supporting the Contras was explicit support for terrorism?
...or that supporting the mujhideen in Afghanistan was explicit support for terrorism?
....or that the preemptive strike against a sovereign nation like Iraq was an acto of terrorist.

If what you have provided above constitutes acts of terror, then you must also acknowledge what I have offered as the same.

I think that since 9/11 was the first attack on the American territory by a foreign enemy since, what, the British?....the odds of another strike were diminished more likely by other factors other than Bush's policies.
9/11 just allowed his PNAC agenda forward.

Hillary 's plan was defeated in Congress
by an overwhelming, gigantic wave of
mail from freedom loving American citizens.

I voted for the Bushes
each time that thay ran for President
because of fear of Democratic subversion of my personal freedom.

We won them both.
Each one took about ten minutes b4 we broke Saddam 's back.