9
   

THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ, ELEVENTH THREAD

 
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 Nov, 2008 07:54 pm
@ican711nm,
ican, There are only two viable partys in the US; the liberals and the conservatives. Bush ran as a "Republican," and he won as a "Conservative."

He did not run as a "Democrat" or a "Liberal." These are simple facts you seem oblivious to.

More Republicans-Conservatives voted for Bush than did Democrats-Liberals. Simple fact. You need to study US politics; you only write ignorant statements.
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 Nov, 2008 08:10 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Bush is not nor never was a conserver of the rule of law. Therefore, regardless of how he ran his election campaignes, Bush was/is not a conservative. What presidents do and not what they say is what determines whether they are liberal or conservative.

You need to study reality more and campaign rhetoric less.

Not all Democrats are liberals, some are conservatives.

Not all Republicans are conservatives, some are liberals.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 Nov, 2008 09:35 pm
@ican711nm,
ican, Republicans voted Bush into office - twice. Funny how conservatives elect liberals into office for president - don't you think?
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 Nov, 2008 02:10 pm
@cicerone imposter,
That last post of yours is even stupider than your post that preceded it.

THINK!

Bush is not a conservative.

Bush is not a liberal.

Bush is a moderate.

Bush was elected president twice by Republicans, Democrats and Independents.

Not all Republicans are conservatives.

Not all Democrats are liberals.

Some moderates are conservative.

Some moderates are liberal.

Not all liberals are Democrats.

Not all conservatives are Republicans.

All hardcore liberals want the government to redistribute wealth.

Not all liberals are hardcore liberals.

All hardcore conservatives want to conserve the rule of law.

Not all conservatives are hardcore conservatives.

cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 Nov, 2008 02:16 pm
@ican711nm,
You miss the whole point; it was REPUBLICANS who voted Bush into office for two terms - no matter if they leaned conservative, moderate, or "liberal." Republicans. It was not the DEMOCRATS who voted him into office for two terms - whether they leaned far left liberals, moderates, or conservative.

There were democrats who voted for Bush, and republicans who voted for Gore, but without the base voted from republicans, Bush could not have won.
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 Nov, 2008 03:03 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Yes, Bush ran as a Republican and won as a Republican.

Bush did not run as a conservative and did not win as a conservative.

Yes, Bush would not have won without the Republican base that voted Republican.

Not all Republicans are conservatives. Not all conservatives are Republicans.

Not all of the Republican base are conservatives. Not all conservatives are members of the Republican base.

Bush is a Republican and not a conservative.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 Nov, 2008 04:12 pm
@ican711nm,
ican wrote:
Quote:
Yes, Bush ran as a Republican and won as a Republican.


That's the point. It doesn't matter whether they promote conservative, liberal, or moderate issues. The majority of Republicans that includes "conservatives" voted for him.
revel
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 Nov, 2008 09:59 am
@cicerone imposter,
Other than perhaps the prescription drug program and the immigration issue, I can't think of any other issues of Bush's nearly eight years in office, republicans or conservatives did not loudly endorse or simply did not verbally or written object. Including domestic spending, such as it has been these last eight years.

FEDERAL SPENDING, 2001 THROUGH 2008:
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 Nov, 2008 10:12 am
@revel,
revel, Bush increased defense spending at the expense of programs for America and Americans. Most of that increase in defense spending went to fund Halliburton's non-bid contracts that paid "civilians" at much higher rates than the soldiers doing the same jobs and more exposure to the front-line fighting.

I want to see Obama cease these non-bid contracts to Halliburton and the billions wasted on both wars.

That'll be a good start.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Nov, 2008 03:05 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Many of us conservatives voted for McCain rather than Obama, because we feared Obama more than we feared McCain. We did not vote for McCain because we believed he would support the Constitution of the USA as amended. We believed McCain would violate the Constitution of the USA as amended less than would Obama.

Many of us conservatives voted for Bush rather than Gore, because we feared Gore more than we feared Bush. We did not vote for Bush because we believed he would support the Constitution of the USA as amended. We believed Bush would violate the Constitution of the USA as amended less than would Gore.

Many of us conservatives voted for Bush rather than Kerry, because we feared Kerry more than we feared Bush. We did not vote for Bush because we believed he would support the Constitution of the USA as amended. We believed Bush would violate the Constitution of the USA as amended less than would Kerry.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Nov, 2008 03:15 pm
@ican711nm,
ican, You conservatives live in "fear." Do you sleep at nights? Your inability to properly analyze the presidential candidates have resulted in putting Bush in for two terms, and the essential destruction of our economy and good will world-wide. McCain ran on "change," but voted 95% with the Bush agenda during the last congress. Where's your ability to reason and rationalize with some common sense and logic?

You also had McCain who claimed to have had the right kind of experience and background, but selected Palin as his running mate. That only showed to many that McCain's judgement had much to be desired. His senility also poked his ugly head when he didn't remember where Pakistan was on the world map, and couldn't identify the enemies of the US in the Middle East.

Your "fear" was not only misplaced, but wrong-headed 100%.

ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Nov, 2008 05:55 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Where is your ability to describe reality? Silly question! You obviously do not possess the ability to describe reality.

Bush stopped al-Qaeda from more destruction and murder in the USA. So al-Qaeda turned its attention to destruction and murder elsewhere. India is its current target, and will remain so until the Indians adopt current Bush-like policies to crush them.

Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid spent the better part of the last two years obstructing Republicans trying to prevent the Democrat's Fanny&Freddie from destroying our economy. Their obstruction succeeded and Fanny&Freddie have destroyed our economy.

Democrats destroyed USA good will worldwide with their worldwide lying about the characteristics of the USA and the motives of George Bush.

Obama, while running for president, repeatedly declared he would redistribute the wealth of those who had earned it to those who had not, because he thought that was fairer. That would, of course, be a flagrant violation of the Constitution of the USA as amended.

Sarah Palin demonstrated clearly that she was the best candidate for president as well as vice president. Not only is she an experienced elected executive officer which the other candidates are not, she knows what has to be done to correct the mess made by the Fanny&Freddie Democrats. She also knows what has to be done to free the USA from dependence on foreign oil. She also knows what has to be done to recover the USA's worldwide good will. She also knows how to correct the federal government's failure to support the Constitution of the USA as amended.

Quote:

http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com/
Main Entry: 1sup·port
...
2 a
(1) : to uphold by aid, countenance, or adherence : actively promote the interests or cause of
...
(2) : to uphold or defend as valid, right, just, or authoritative : ADVOCATE
...
synonyms SUSTAIN, PROP, BOLSTER, BUTTRESS, BRACE
...


cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Nov, 2008 07:27 pm
@ican711nm,
ican, Bush is responsible for "increasing" al quida all over the world. Get your head out of your arse.
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Nov, 2008 07:33 pm
Constitution of the USA
Quote:
Article VI
...
This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution
....

0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Nov, 2008 07:34 pm
@cicerone imposter,
From US News:

Quote:
In Fighting al Qaeda, Bush's "Global War on Terrorism" Is Off Target
A New Rand Corp. study urges a "fundamental rethinking" of counterterrorism strategy
By Alex Kingsbury
Posted July 30, 2008

A terrorism study prepared for the Defense Department has some bad news for the Bush administration"and presents a sizable challenge for whoever is next in the Oval Office.

The current strategy for defeating al Qaeda has not been successful in diminishing the group's capabilities and is unlikely to do better without a shift in emphasis, the Rand Corp. study concludes.
This undated photo shows al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan.
This undated photo shows al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan.
Since 2001, al Qaeda has conducted a greater number of attacks across a larger geographic area than at any time in its history. "We find it hard to agree that al Qaeda has been significantly weakened since Sept. 11, 2001," says Seth Jones, coauthor with Martin Libicki of the report titled "How Terrorist Groups End: Lessons for Countering al Qaeda."

The authors evaluate al Qaeda since 2001 as being both "strong" and "competent."
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Nov, 2008 07:50 pm
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:
Bush is responsible for "increasing" al quida all over the world. Get your head out of your arse.

Gee! I thought al-Qaeda starting May 1996 was responsible for increasing al-Qaeda all over the world.

Osama bin Laden wrote:

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/terrorism/international/fatwa_1996.html
Osama Bin Laden "Declaration of War Against the Americans Occupying the Land of the Two Holy Places"-1996.

I say to you ... These youths [love] death as you love life.
…Those youths know that their rewards in fighting you, the USA, is double than their rewards in fighting some one else not from the people of the book. They have no intention except to enter paradise by killing you. An infidel, and enemy of God like you, cannot be in the same hell with his righteous executioner.

… Few days ago the news agencies had reported that the Defence Secretary of the Crusading Americans had said that "the explosion at Riyadh and Al-Khobar had taught him one lesson: that is not to withdraw when attacked by coward terrorists".

We say to the Defence Secretary that his talk can induce a grieving mother to laughter! and shows the fears that had enshrined you all. Where was this false courage of yours when the explosion in Beirut took place on 1983 AD (1403 A.H). You were turned into scattered pits and pieces at that time; 241 mainly marines solders were killed. And where was this courage of yours when two explosions made you to leave Aden in lees than twenty four hours!

But your most disgraceful case was in Somalia; where- after vigorous propaganda about the power of the USA and its post cold war leadership of the new world order- you moved tens of thousands of international force, including twenty eight thousands American solders into Somalia. However, when tens of your solders were killed in minor battles and one American Pilot was dragged in the streets of Mogadishu you left the area carrying disappointment, humiliation, defeat and your dead with you. Clinton appeared in front of the whole world threatening and promising revenge , but these threats were merely a preparation for withdrawal. You have been disgraced by Allah and you withdrew; the extent of your impotence and weaknesses became very clear. It was a pleasure for the "heart" of every Muslim and a remedy to the "chests" of believing nations to see you defeated in the three Islamic cities of Beirut , Aden and Mogadishu.

Where is your head, Cice?
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Nov, 2008 08:21 pm
@ican711nm,
You're short on memory. When the twin towers were attacked, we sent our troops to Afghanistan to search and kill bin Ladin. Bush, instead, through his "wisdom" changed course and started his unwarranted war in Iraq, and removed troops from Afghanistan to Iraq. After five years, bin Ladin and al Qaida is still alive and well, and the war in Afghanistan is still going strong.

The al Qaida recruitment in Iraq was at all time highs "after" Bush started his war there. As a matter of record, more al Qaida attacks throughout the world happened after March 2003. For you, that means it was during Bush's term - not Clinton.
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Nov, 2008 11:46 am
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:
Bush is responsible for "increasing" al quida all over the world.

cicerone imposter wrote:
more al Qaida attacks throughout the world happened after March 2003. ... during Bush's term ...

It is incredible that you actually believe that if Bush had not invaded Iraq:
al-Qaeda would not have increased all over the world;

and more al-Qaeda attacks would not have happened after March 2003 during Bush's term;

despite the fact that during Clinton's term,
al-Qaeda grew more all over the world than during HW Bush's term,

and despite the fact that during Clinton's term more al-Qaeda attacks happened than during HW Bush's term!


cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Nov, 2008 11:53 am
@ican711nm,
The only thing incredible around here is you. The following is from the NYT:.

Quote:
THREATS AND RESPONSES: THE OVERVIEW; Bush and Clinton Aides Grilled by Panel


By PHILIP SHENON AND ERIC SCHMITT
Published: March 24, 2004

Members of the commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks said on Tuesday that a series of intelligence reports sent to President Bush in 2001 warned of an imminent, possibly catastrophic attack by Al Qaeda. The disclosure prompted harsh questioning of Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and other administration officials about why they had not done more to pre-empt a possible terrorist strike.

The Clinton administration's counterterrorism policies were also the subject of sharp questioning at a hearing of the panel, with former Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright and former Defense Secretary William S. Cohen asked to explain why their colleagues had failed to eliminate the Qaeda network and take Osama bin Laden into custody.

But the harsher questioning, from Democrats and Republicans alike was reserved for Mr. Rumsfeld, especially after he and Secretary of State Colin L. Powell acknowledged in testimony that they had been aware of intelligence reports in 2001 warning of the especially dire terrorist threat against the United States.

The 10-member bipartisan commission is in the final weeks of its investigation. And though the panel has held other hearings in recent months, the questioning Tuesday of four top officials of the Bush and Clinton administrations offered the most exhaustive public examination of diplomatic and military failures in the years before Sept. 11.

''There was a good deal of concern,'' Mr. Rumsfeld said, referring to the intelligence warnings shared throughout senior levels of the administration in the months before Sept. 11. ''It was certainly not business as usual.''

He and Mr. Powell said that the government had spent much of 2001 devising a comprehensive policy not just to contain Al Qaeda, but also to destroy it, even, perhaps, by eventually using ground troops in Afghanistan. Mr. Rumsfeld questioned what more the Bush administration could have done. ''Even if bin Laden had been captured or killed in the weeks before Sept. 11, no one I know believes it would necessarily have prevented Sept. 11,'' he said. [Excerpts, Page A14.]

President Bush joined in the defense of his administration's performance, telling reporters after a Cabinet meeting on Tuesday that if ''my administration had any information that terrorists were going to attack New York City on Sept. 11, we would have acted. We have been chasing down Al Qaeda ever since the attacks.''

The Bush administration has refused to discuss details of the Oval Office intelligence briefings in the months before the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. The reports, known as the President's Daily Brief, are among the most highly classified documents in the executive branch.

But under an agreement with the White House last year, one member of the commission, Jamie S. Gorelick, former deputy attorney general in the Clinton administration, was allowed to read through a full library of the briefings, and two other commissioners were allowed a partial review.

Ms. Gorelick said at the hearing Tuesday that information in the documents ''would set your hair on fire, and not just George Tenet's hair on fire,'' referring to the director of central intelligence.

Though barred under secrecy regulations from discussing much of what was in the reports, she said that there had been ''an extraordinary spike'' of intelligence warning about Qaeda attacks in the Daily Brief during 2001 and that ''it plateaued at a spike level for months.''

Ms. Gorelick's comments came as the commission released a staff report finding that Mr. Rumsfeld did not order the preparation of any new military plans against Al Qaeda or its Taliban sponsors during the seven months between his arrival at the Pentagon and the Sept. 11 attacks.

The report said that despite the intelligence alerts throughout the year, there was an impression among specialists at the Pentagon that Mr. Rumsfeld and his new team were ''not especially interested in the counterterrorism agenda.''

A separate staff report on the government's diplomatic response to the terrorist threat found that Condoleezza Rice, Mr. Bush's national security adviser, and her deputies rebuffed a proposal by aides in early 2001 that the administration step up its support for anti-Taliban rebels in Afghanistan.
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Nov, 2008 12:53 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Oh! So you actually believe that Bush's invasion of Iraq []u]did not cause[/u]
al-Qaeda to increase all over the world, and did not cause more al-Qaeda attacks to happen after March 2003 during Bush's term.

What do you think actually caused al-Qaeda to increase all over the world, and more al-Qaeda attacks to happen after March 2003 during Bush's term?

 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 09/30/2024 at 05:36:51