Bushie's Loose Lips Endangers Troops

Quote:

The truth: If not for this administration's reckless steps to push America into war - and strategic blunder after strategic blunder that has satisfied the blood lust of the enemy - fewer evildoers would follow us home like the dogs that they are.

So,even Clarke agrees that terrorists will attack us here if we lose overseas.

mysteryman wrote:

Quote:

The truth: If not for this administration's reckless steps to push America into war - and strategic blunder after strategic blunder that has satisfied the blood lust of the enemy - fewer evildoers would follow us home like the dogs that they are.

So,even Clarke agrees that terrorists will attack us here if we lose overseas.

Um, they attacked us before lost overseas. You seem to forget that Bush and his crew committed a major error in allowing 9/11 to happen. There was warning that it was coming, but the warnings were ignored.

You misread Clarke - our overseas actions have strengthened the enemy greatly. Why continue to strengthen them with further actions along the same route?

Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn wrote:

mysteryman wrote:

Quote:

The truth: If not for this administration's reckless steps to push America into war - and strategic blunder after strategic blunder that has satisfied the blood lust of the enemy - fewer evildoers would follow us home like the dogs that they are.

So,even Clarke agrees that terrorists will attack us here if we lose overseas.

Um, they attacked us before lost overseas. You seem to forget that Bush and his crew committed a major error in allowing 9/11 to happen. There was warning that it was coming, but the warnings were ignored.

You misread Clarke - our overseas actions have strengthened the enemy greatly. Why continue to strengthen them with further actions along the same route?

Cycloptichorn

So,you believe that the previous admin bears NO RESPONSIBILITY for the 9/11 attack?

If you truly believe that,then if another 9/11 style attack occurs 5 minutes after the next dem President is sworn in,then that person will also bear full responsibility for that attack,right?

Also,using your logic,who bears FULL RESPONSIBILITY for the Khobar Towers attack,or the first WTC attack,or the USS Cole attack,or the 2 embassy bombings,or the attack on the federal building in OKC,or any other attacks on US citizens or US interests during the 1990's?

But,lets look at what you said...

TTH said this...

Quote:

Also, have you considered speaking to any of "the troops" that have actually been to Iraq or Afghanistan to hear what they have to say?
Since they are the ones directly involved and impacted by this invasion
their opinion should matter.

And your response was...

Quote:

Well, you might look at the opinion of the eleven men and women who went to fight in this Iraq war and, after they came home, decided to run for Congress last year. 10 of those 11 House hopefuls ran as Democrats, like Patrick Murphy and Tammy Duckworth - overwhelmingly on an anti-war platform.

You seem to be implying that their opinion was all that matters,since they are the only ones that ran for office.

If that wasnt your implication,then I apologize.

Quote:

The truth: If not for this administration's reckless steps to push America into war - and strategic blunder after strategic blunder that has satisfied the blood lust of the enemy - fewer evildoers would follow us home like the dogs that they are.

So,even Clarke agrees that terrorists will attack us here if we lose overseas.

Yet in the fantasyland of illogic in which the President dwells, shaped by slogans devised by spin doctors, America can "win" in Iraq. Then, we are to believe, the terrorists will be so demoralized that they will recant their beliefs and cease their terrorist ways.

In the real world, by choosing unnecessarily to go into Iraq, Bush not only diverted efforts from delivering a death blow to Al Qaeda, he gave that movement both a second chance and the best recruiting tool possible.

U.S. military raids in Iraq have uncovered evidence that Iraqis are planning attacks in America, perhaps to be carried out by terrorists with European Union passports that require no U.S. visas. But such attacks here over the next several years are likely now no matter what happens next in Iraq - and that is because of what Bush has already done, not because of any future course we choose in Iraq.

Quote:

The truth: If not for this administration's reckless steps to push America into war - and strategic blunder after strategic blunder that has satisfied the blood lust of the enemy - fewer evildoers would follow us home like the dogs that they are.

So,even Clarke agrees that terrorists will attack us here if we lose overseas.

mysteryman wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

mysteryman wrote:

Quote:

The truth: If not for this administration's reckless steps to push America into war - and strategic blunder after strategic blunder that has satisfied the blood lust of the enemy - fewer evildoers would follow us home like the dogs that they are.

So,even Clarke agrees that terrorists will attack us here if we lose overseas.

Um, they attacked us before lost overseas. You seem to forget that Bush and his crew committed a major error in allowing 9/11 to happen. There was warning that it was coming, but the warnings were ignored.

You misread Clarke - our overseas actions have strengthened the enemy greatly. Why continue to strengthen them with further actions along the same route?

Cycloptichorn

So,you believe that the previous admin bears NO RESPONSIBILITY for the 9/11 attack?

If you truly believe that,then if another 9/11 style attack occurs 5 minutes after the next dem President is sworn in,then that person will also bear full responsibility for that attack,right?

Also,using your logic,who bears FULL RESPONSIBILITY for the Khobar Towers attack,or the first WTC attack,or the USS Cole attack,or the 2 embassy bombings,or the attack on the federal building in OKC,or any other attacks on US citizens or US interests during the 1990's?

Why change the subject to Clinton? It's a common tactic of yours, but not germane to the current conversation at all.

I don't give a damn who you want to blame for whatever you like. It's immaterial to the fact that the terrorists were attacking us in America and elsewhere before Iraq was ever thought of. The 'they'll follow us home!' argument is a simple one for simple minded folks. Don't be that guy.

Cycloptichorn

As for the terrorists following us home,I agree they are already here.
Now,what do we do about that?
Do we work to eradicate them,or do we ignore them and HOPE they dont attack again?

Quote:

As for the terrorists following us home,I agree they are already here.
Now,what do we do about that?
Do we work to eradicate them,or do we ignore them and HOPE they dont attack again?

We rob them of support by being who we are supposed to be - stewards of truth and justice.

Cycloptichorn

But that compromise cannot be on the "my way or the highway" terms Mr. Bush is demanding

But,the dems will be seen by most people as being the problem in this case,not the President.

Quote:

But,the dems will be seen by most people as being the problem in this case,not the President.

Each and every poll that has come out lately completely disagrees with you.

You need to understand that 'most people' don't hold your viewpoints, man.

Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:

But,the dems will be seen by most people as being the problem in this case,not the President.

Each and every poll that has come out lately completely disagrees with you.

You need to understand that 'most people' don't hold your viewpoints, man.

Cycloptichorn

I know that "most people" on here dont hold with my viewpoint,but the people I trust and the people I know do.

Also,the majority of the people I know that are still in Iraq or that served in Iraq with me do agree with me.

As for the polls,I have said before that polls are meaningless.
If I was to word the question correctly,I could have you agreeing that Hitler was the greatest benefit to mankind ever,and that he was correct in everything he did.

So,dont quote polls to me,because they arent worth the paper they are printed on.

But,the dems will be seen by most people as being the problem in this case,not the President.

You say that the polls can't be trusted, but don't give any evidence of why they can't be trusted.

Quote:

You say that the polls can't be trusted, but don't give any evidence of why they can't be trusted.

You mean like all the polls that had Kerry winning in 04?
Or all the polls that showed that Desert Storm would be a bloodbath for American troops?
Or all the polls that showed Gore winning in 2000?

Gee,of course all of those polls were correct and accurate,werent they?

mysteryman wrote:

Quote:

You say that the polls can't be trusted, but don't give any evidence of why they can't be trusted.

You mean like all the polls that had Kerry winning in 04?
Or all the polls that showed that Desert Storm would be a bloodbath for American troops?
Or all the polls that showed Gore winning in 2000?

Gee,of course all of those polls were correct and accurate,werent they?

Actually, the polls saying that Kerry or Gore would win were quite accurate. If you recall, they both lost by the barest of percentages. So both polls which predicted them winning by a single percentage point were barely off.

Actually, knowing your penchant for referring to past events which didn't happen, I'm going to have to go ahead and ask you to link to the polls in question.

Now, the one about the 'bloodbath' for troops in Desert Storm - I don't believe that such a 'poll' of Americans ever showed that. Can you provide evidence?

Cycloptichorn

Seventy-seven percent of the public say they are not worried much that the U.S. will lose
the war with Iraq, while only 8% say they worry a great deal and 12% say they worry a fair amount
about this. In contrast, 57% of Americans worry a great deal that U.S. forces will sustain a lot of
casualties and 30% worry a fair amount about this. One in three said they worry a great deal about
a terrorist strike in the U.S. and 38% worry a fair amount about this. A comparable level of public
concern was expressed over the possibility that many Iraqi civilians will be killed (33% a great
deal, 35% a fair amount).
People 50 years of age and older expressed more fears about both American and Iraqi
causalities than younger people - 61% of those 50 & older worry a great deal about U.S. military
casualties and 38% a great deal about Iraqi civilian casualties. Among people under 30 years of
age, these figures were 48% and 30% respectively

Cycloptichorn wrote:

mysteryman wrote:

Quote:

You say that the polls can't be trusted, but don't give any evidence of why they can't be trusted.

You mean like all the polls that had Kerry winning in 04?
Or all the polls that showed that Desert Storm would be a bloodbath for American troops?
Or all the polls that showed Gore winning in 2000?

Gee,of course all of those polls were correct and accurate,werent they?

Actually, the polls saying that Kerry or Gore would win were quite accurate. If you recall, they both lost by the barest of percentages. So both polls which predicted them winning by a single percentage point were barely off.

Actually, knowing your penchant for referring to past events which didn't happen, I'm going to have to go ahead and ask you to link to the polls in question.

Now, the one about the 'bloodbath' for troops in Desert Storm - I don't believe that such a 'poll' of Americans ever showed that. Can you provide evidence?

Cycloptichorn

Here are some poll results from before Desert Storm...

http://people-press.org/reports/pdf/19910110.pdf

http://people-press.org/reports/pdf/19910131.pdf

Quote:

Seventy-seven percent of the public say they are not worried much that the U.S. will lose
the war with Iraq, while only 8% say they worry a great deal and 12% say they worry a fair amount
about this. In contrast, 57% of Americans worry a great deal that U.S. forces will sustain a lot of
casualties and 30% worry a fair amount about this. One in three said they worry a great deal about
a terrorist strike in the U.S. and 38% worry a fair amount about this. A comparable level of public
concern was expressed over the possibility that many Iraqi civilians will be killed (33% a great
deal, 35% a fair amount).
People 50 years of age and older expressed more fears about both American and Iraqi
causalities than younger people - 61% of those 50 & older worry a great deal about U.S. military
casualties and 38% a great deal about Iraqi civilian casualties. Among people under 30 years of
age, these figures were 48% and 30% respectively