# FUBARRed



## rayboyusmc (May 14, 2008)

It would be nice if he acknowledged that we weren't attacked by the Iraqis in the first place.  Now that they totally screwed up this war, we have to stay forever.



> President Bush warned in an interview Tuesday that the Democratic presidential candidates' plans to withdraw abruptly from Iraq could "eventually lead to another attack on the United States" and would "embolden" terrorists.
> 
> In a White House interview with Politico and Yahoo News  a president's first for an online audience  Bush said his doomsday scenario for a *premature withdrawal *  (something his father should have done many years ago) of course is that extremists throughout the Middle East would be emboldened, which would eventually lead to another attack on the United States."
> 
> ...



Attending one funeral for a service person from each branch would be nice.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0508/10314.html


----------



## Dogger (May 14, 2008)

Whenever George Bush makes a prediction, the smart money always bets against him. Almost everything he has predicted regarding the war, gas prices, jobs, the economy, etc. has been totally wrong. Indeed, I included the word "almost" in the last sentence simply out of caution.

When historians write the book on Bush's universally wrong series of predictions, he will be forever known as Nostradumbass.


----------



## jreeves (May 14, 2008)

Dogger said:


> Whenever George Bush makes a prediction, the smart money always bets against him. Almost everything he has predicted regarding the war, gas prices, jobs, the economy, etc. has been totally wrong. Indeed, I included the word "almost" in the last sentence simply out of caution.
> 
> When historians write the book on Bush's universally wrong series of predictions, he will be forever known as Nostradumbass.



You included the word *almost* to cover your ignorant over generalized comment.


----------



## jillian (May 14, 2008)

jreeves said:


> You included the word *almost* to cover your ignorant over generalized comment.



No. It's because Baby Bush is *almost* always wrong. And if one said he's always wrong, you'd probably come back with the one thing he ever said that was correct.


----------



## jreeves (May 14, 2008)

jillian said:


> No. It's because Baby Bush is *almost* always wrong. And if one said he's always wrong, you'd probably come back with the one thing he ever said that was correct.



Sure I guess when we're attacked we should just throw a few tomahawks at some tents in the desert (showing our enemy what dumbasses we are). It seems to me we haven't had any new terror attacks on the homeland since Bush responded after 9/11. Don't you think, Rayboy, that he was referring to terror attacks, you know it's called the War on Terror.


----------



## Dogger (May 14, 2008)

jreeves said:


> Sure I guess when we're attacked we should just throw a few tomahawks at some tents in the desert (showing our enemy what dumbasses we are). It seems to me we haven't had any new terror attacks on the homeland since Bush responded after 9/11. Don't you think, Rayboy, that he was referring to terror attacks, you know it's called the War on Terror.



Al-Qaeda let 8 years pass between attacks on the homeland. Proves nothing except their patience.

Bush's response after 9/11 was nothing compared to his lack of response the month before. Nostradumbass can't even make a solid prediction when it's handed to him in a PDB.


----------



## jreeves (May 14, 2008)

Dogger said:


> Al-Qaeda let 8 years pass between attacks on the homeland. Proves nothing except their patience.
> 
> Bush's response after 9/11 was nothing compared to his lack of response the month before. Nostradumbass can't even make a solid prediction when it's handed to him in a PDB.



This shows how ignorant you are, AQ only planned 9/11 for a month? It seems as though the majority of their planning occured in the previous adminstration. I agree their was all kinds of warning signs, Somalia, the African embassy bombings, the USS Cole, Bin Laden's declaration of war etc....wonder why Clinton had such an anemic response to those attacks?


----------



## RetiredGySgt (May 14, 2008)

jreeves said:


> This shows how ignorant you are, AQ only planned 9/11 for a month? It seems as though the majority of their planning occured in the previous adminstration. I agree their was all kinds of warning signs, Somalia, the African embassy bombings, the USS Cole, Bin Laden's declaration of war etc....wonder why Clinton had such an anemic response to those attacks?



There is also a reason Clinton sent Sandy Berger to steal classified documents from the archives. The report was that an intel group under the Clinton admin had raised red flags and nothing was done, the report buried.


----------



## Dogger (May 14, 2008)

jreeves said:


> This shows how ignorant you are, AQ only planned 9/11 for a month?


Motherfucking moron. Can't you read simple English? I never said that. 

I was being charitable. Bush sat on his ass the entire period, but he received the PDB on August 6, 2001, that warned "Bin Laden determined to strike within the USA", and continued to sit on his ass.



jreeves said:


> I agree their [sic] was [sic] all kinds of warning signs, Somalia, the African embassy bombings, the USS Cole, Bin Laden's declaration of war etc....wonder why Clinton had such an anemic response to those attacks?


You should read all of the vicious GOP criticism of Clinton's efforts to deal with al-Qaida. Many of those quislings now give a blank check to Bush for doing so much worse.

And the Cole was bombed in October 2000, right before the election. The culprits were identified right after the SCOTUS gave the election to Bush. Clinton and his team briefed the new administration and left the decision to Bush since he would be responsible for the aftermath. Clinton's biggest mistake was trusting Bush to be responsible.


----------



## jreeves (May 14, 2008)

Dogger said:


> Motherfucking moron. Can't you read simple English? I never said that.
> 
> I was being charitable. Bush sat on his ass the entire period, but he received the PDB on August 6, 2001, that warned "Bin Laden determined to strike within the USA", and continued to sit on his ass.
> 
> ...



So Bush sat on his ass for 6 months (during a transitional phase). While Clinton had warning signs for how many years? 

Dumbass, just because the election was held in November of 2000 doesn't mean Bush took office in November. Bush didn't take office until Jan. 20th, 2001. Clinton had about three months to respond to the USS Cole bombing. The biggest mistake of Clinton's was his lack of backbone. Obama I mean Osama said it this way......

"After leaving Afghanistan, the Muslim fighters headed for Somalia and prepared for a long battle, thinking that the Americans were like the Russians," bin Laden said. "The youth were surprised at the low morale of the American soldiers and realized more than before that the American soldier was a *paper tiger *and after a few blows ran in defeat. And America forgot all the hoopla and media propaganda ... about being the world leader and the leader of the New World Order, and after a few blows they forgot about this title and left, dragging their corpses and their shameful defeat." 
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/binladen/who/miller.html


----------



## RetiredGySgt (May 15, 2008)

Dogger said:


> Motherfucking moron. Can't you read simple English? I never said that.
> 
> I was being charitable. Bush sat on his ass the entire period, but he received the PDB on August 6, 2001, that warned "Bin Laden determined to strike within the USA", and continued to sit on his ass.
> 
> ...



What a laugh. No one reported to the Government in August 2001 any SPECIFIC threat. Nothing other than a nebulous " they are coming" report. And Clinton spent 8 years ensuring that the different Agencies would not and could not share information. There was a group that had strong suspicions of what was coming but Clinton ignored them and eventually shit canned them. That would be why he sent Berger to steal documents from the archive, to cover his ass on the matter.

As for doing something, you whine and bitch that Bush DID do something on what he felt were credible dangers from Iraq in 2002 and 2003. Yet after the fact he should have "done something" in August 2001 on a report that a terror organization wanted to attack us. No specifics, no dates, no uncovered plans, no names.

YOU bitch and moan about what the Government does NOW to try and catch terrorists and complain our rights have been eroded, BUT then in the same breath claim Bush should have "done something" in August 2001 on a non specific report of a potential threat.

You bitch and moan that 7 guys in Florida were rail roaded on terror charges when the Government has taped evidence of them announcing CLEAR plans to attack facilities, asking for training, money and association with a TERROR organization, BUT demand Bush should have done "something" in August 2001 on a non specific threat of an unknown terror attack "somewhere, someday, somehow" in the USA.

There is a word for that.

If we had caught the 19 terrorists on September 10 you would be demanding we release them because they hadn't actually done anything and Bush was "fear mongering". I mean all they had were box cutters and before September 11 2001 no one was worried about them.


----------



## Dogger (May 15, 2008)

Clinton Defends Record on Fighting Terrorism

Clinton said he authorized the CIA to kill bin Laden, and even "contracted with people to kill him." He also said he had a plan to attack Afghanistan, overthrow the Taliban and hunt for bin Laden after the attack on the USS Cole, but _the CIA and FBI refused to certify that bin Laden was responsible, and Uzbekistan refused to allow the United States to set up a base._ By contrast, Clinton said the Bush administration's neoconservatives "had *no meetings on bin Laden for nine months*," believing he had been "too obsessed with bin Laden."

"At least I tried," Clinton said. "That's the difference [between] me and some, including all of the right-wingers who are attacking me now. They ridiculed me for trying. They had eight months to try. They did not try. I tried. So I tried and failed. When I failed, I left a comprehensive anti-terror strategy and the best guy in the country, [Richard] Clarke, who got demoted."


----------



## jreeves (May 15, 2008)

Dogger said:


> Clinton Defends Record on Fighting Terrorism
> 
> Clinton said he authorized the CIA to kill bin Laden, and even "contracted with people to kill him." He also said he had a plan to attack Afghanistan, overthrow the Taliban and hunt for bin Laden after the attack on the USS Cole, but _the CIA and FBI refused to certify that bin Laden was responsible, and Uzbekistan refused to allow the United States to set up a base._ By contrast, Clinton said the Bush administration's neoconservatives "had *no meetings on bin Laden for nine months*," believing he had been "too obsessed with bin Laden."
> 
> "At least I tried," Clinton said. "That's the difference [between] me and some, including all of the right-wingers who are attacking me now. They ridiculed me for trying. They had eight months to try. They did not try. I tried. So I tried and failed. When I failed, I left a comprehensive anti-terror strategy and the best guy in the country, [Richard] Clarke, who got demoted."



So he fails to act and blames it on a Republican Adminstration...Wow, I couldn't have seen that happening....


----------



## jreeves (May 15, 2008)

Dogger said:


> Clinton Defends Record on Fighting Terrorism
> 
> *Clinton said he authorized the CIA to kill bin Laden, and even "contracted with people to kill him." *He also said he had a plan to attack Afghanistan, overthrow the Taliban and hunt for bin Laden after the attack on the USS Cole, but _the CIA and FBI refused to certify that bin Laden was responsible, and Uzbekistan refused to allow the United States to set up a base._ By contrast, Clinton said the Bush administration's neoconservatives "had no meetings on bin Laden for nine months," believing he had been "too obsessed with bin Laden."
> 
> "At least I tried," Clinton said. "That's the difference [between] me and some, including all of the right-wingers who are attacking me now. They ridiculed me for trying. They had eight months to try. They did not try. I tried. So I tried and failed. When I failed, I left a comprehensive anti-terror strategy and the best guy in the country, [Richard] Clarke, who got demoted."



So he was going to break international and US law...oh ok 

No matter what the public perception may be, one
thing is certain: assassination is illegal under both U.S. and
international law.3

http://www.law.duke.edu/shell/cite.pl?55+Duke+L.+J.+677+pdf.


----------



## Dogger (May 15, 2008)

jreeves said:


> So he was going to break international and US law...oh ok
> 
> No matter what the public perception may be, one
> thing is certain: assassination is illegal under both U.S. and
> ...


So, he's fucked either way he goes with you?

Q: What is the difference between targeting an individual terrorist, and dropping a bomb on a Baghdad restaurant because you believe Saddam Hussein is eating there?

A: The first option is not likely to kill children and innocent bystanders.



> Smart bombs aimed at Saddam killed families
> By David Blair in Baghdad
> Last Updated: 11:40PM BST 20/04/2003
> 
> ...


----------



## jreeves (May 15, 2008)

Dogger said:


> So, he's fucked either way he goes with you?
> 
> Q: What is the difference between targeting an individual terrorist, and dropping a bomb on a Baghdad restaurant because you believe Saddam Hussein is eating there?
> 
> A: The first option is not likely to kill children and innocent bystanders.



A separate question is the constitutional issues of limits to executive power and whether the president has the power to authorize targeted killings. In the case of the 2002 strike in Yemen, then-National Security Adviser Condoleeza Rice told reporters, I can assure you that no constitutional questions are raised here. There are authorities that the president can give to officials [and] hes well within the balance of accepted practice and the letter of his constitutional authority. During peacetime this might be a more contentious issue, but former Assistant Secretary of Defense Lawrence Korb explains that in this case, the congressional authorization of force gave [the president] the power to do this.

http://www.cfr.org/publication/9627/#2

No he's not fucked either way, he could have handed an ultimatum to the Taliban. In fact, he never did , we suffered attack after attack while his responses to these actions were anemic at best.


----------



## Dogger (May 15, 2008)

Clinton admits he tried, and failed. At least he tried. What was Bush's response to the 8/6/01 PDB? He told the briefer "You've covered your ass", and dismissed him. 

Even without specifics, there were many steps Bush could have taken to heighten security. Even AG Ashcroft has stopped flying commercial jets that summer.

What did Bush do? He stuck his thumb up his ass and sat on it.


----------



## jreeves (May 15, 2008)

Dogger said:


> Clinton admits he tried, and failed. At least he tried. What was Bush's response to the 8/6/01 PDB? He told the briefer "You've covered your ass", and dismissed him.
> 
> Even without specifics, there were many steps Bush could have taken to heighten security. Even AG Ashcroft has stopped flying commercial jets that summer.
> 
> What did Bush do? He stuck his thumb up his ass and sat on it.



Clandestine, foreign government, and media reports indicate Bin Ladin since 1997 has wanted to conduct terrorist attacks in the US. Bin Ladin implied in US television interviews in 1997 and 1998 that his followers would follow the example of World Trade Center bomber Ramzi Yousef and "bring the fighting to America." 
After US missile strikes on his base in Afghanistan in 1998, Bin Ladin told followers he wanted to retaliate in Washington, according to a [--] service. 
An Egyptian Islamic Jihad (EIJ) operative told an [--] service at the same time that Bin Ladin was planning to exploit the operative's access to the US to mount a terrorist strike. 
The millennium plotting in Canada in 1999 may have been part of Bin Ladin's first serious attempt to implement a terrorist strike in the US. Convicted plotter Ahmed Ressam has told the FBI that he conceived the idea to attack Los Angeles International Airport himself, but that Bin Ladin lieutenant Abu Zubaydah encouraged him and helped facilitate the operation. Ressam also said that in 1998 Abu Zubaydah was planning his own US attack. 
Ressam says Bin Ladin was aware of the Los Angeles operation. 
Although Bin Ladin has not succeeded, his attacks against the US Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998 demonstrate that he prepares operations years in advance and is not deterred by setbacks. Bin Ladin associates surveilled our Embassies in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam as early as 1993, and some members of the Nairobi cell planning the bombings were arrested and deported in 1997. 
We have found no indication of any further discussion before September 11 among the President and his top advisers of the possibility of a threat of an al Qaeda attack in the United States. DCI Tenet visited President Bush in Crawford, Texas, on August 17 and participated in PDB briefings of the President between August 31 (after the President had returned to Washington) and September 10. *But Tenet does not recall any discussions with the President of the domestic threat during this period.*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bin_Laden_Determined_to_Strike_in_U.S.

Nothing in the briefing gave any kind of specific threats and it was less than a month before 9/11.


----------



## Dogger (May 15, 2008)

Your link doesn't work.

As I said, "Even without specifics, there were many steps Bush could have taken to heighten security. Even AG Ashcroft has stopped flying commercial jets that summer.

What did Bush do? He stuck his thumb up his ass and sat on it."


----------



## jreeves (May 15, 2008)

Dogger said:


> Your link doesn't work.
> 
> As I said, "Even without specifics, there were many steps Bush could have taken to heighten security. Even AG Ashcroft has stopped flying commercial jets that summer.
> 
> What did Bush do? He stuck his thumb up his ass and sat on it."



He's the one that asked for the report your talking about. Obviously he did recognize a potential problem but he wasn't in office long enough.


----------



## Dogger (May 15, 2008)

jreeves said:


> He's the one that asked for the report your talking about. Obviously he did recognize a potential problem but he wasn't in office long enough.


Bullshit. You don't buy that excuse for Waco, do you?

Even if Bush asked to be briefed, that does not excuse inaction. It makes his dismissive treatment of the briefer even more puzzling and his decision to keep vacationing inexcusable.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (May 15, 2008)

RetiredGySgt said:


> What a laugh. No one reported to the Government in August 2001 any SPECIFIC threat. Nothing other than a nebulous " they are coming" report. And Clinton spent 8 years ensuring that the different Agencies would not and could not share information. There was a group that had strong suspicions of what was coming but Clinton ignored them and eventually shit canned them. That would be why he sent Berger to steal documents from the archive, to cover his ass on the matter.
> 
> As for doing something, you whine and bitch that Bush DID do something on what he felt were credible dangers from Iraq in 2002 and 2003. Yet after the fact he should have "done something" in August 2001 on a report that a terror organization wanted to attack us. No specifics, no dates, no uncovered plans, no names.
> 
> ...



You can ignore this all you want, it is NOT going away.


----------



## Dogger (May 15, 2008)

RetiredGySgt said:


> You can ignore this all you want, it is NOT going away.



I know. I've tried ignoring you, and you don't go away either.


----------



## rayboyusmc (May 15, 2008)

> Don't you think, Rayboy, that he was referring to terror attacks, you know it's called the War on Terror.



*The war in Iraq is NOT A WAR ON TERROR.  IT IS A WAR AGAISNT A BUNCH OF INSURGENTS AND SOME  TERRORISTS.   IF YOU KNEW THE DIFFERENCE, YOU WOULDN'T MAKE YOUR REMARK.

A war on terror goes to the root causes of terrorism, not the fucking symptoms.  If you just bandaid up a serious cut, it doesn't get any better.  You have to perform surgery on the cut to stop the bleeding.  

A real war on terror performs covert surgery on the infrastructure of the terrorist organizations.  It also looks at what causes for terrorism can be eliminated or alleviated.  Too often we are great at symptom fixing.  Unfortuantely all that does is put off the invetible for a while.  "The easy way out, often leads right back in."

The problem with this covert approach is that it is not as showy as launching an unneeded war so you can say  your a "War President" who doesn't golf anymore.  It also doesn't make billions for the war profiteers.

Firght the war on terror or get off the frigging bully pulpit.

You also don't make the arms deals "obscenely rich" (new sin for catholics) by giving them no bid contracts or worse open ended ones.*


----------



## jreeves (May 15, 2008)

rayboyusmc said:


> *The war in Iraq is NOT A WAR ON TERROR.  IT IS A WAR AGAISNT A BUNCH OF INSURGENTS AND SOME  TERRORISTS.   IF YOU KNEW THE DIFFERENCE, YOU WOULDN'T MAKE YOUR REMARK.
> 
> A war on terror goes to the root causes of terrorism, not the fucking symptoms.  If you just bandaid up a serious cut, it doesn't get any better.  You have to perform surgery on the cut to stop the bleeding.
> 
> ...



AQ in Iraq doesn't exist....ok...no terrorism there.  
AQ in Iraq isn't in shambles as a result of the Iraq war?
Of course....Bush and his friends are loading up on kinds of underhanded deals...please show me this proof?

Using your bandaid analogy, you keep the cut clean(AQ in Iraq) you don't allow the cut to get infected and spread throughout your body(terrorism spreading throughout the world).


----------



## jreeves (May 15, 2008)

Dogger said:


> Bullshit. You don't buy that excuse for Waco, do you?
> 
> Even if Bush asked to be briefed, that does not excuse inaction. It makes his dismissive treatment of the briefer even more puzzling and his decision to keep vacationing inexcusable.



What part of no specific threats do you not understand? So you would have spent millions, possibly billions of dollars protecting us from what, Bush didn't even have a specific threat to combat? It would be like trying to squash a gnat blindfolded.


----------



## Larkinn (May 16, 2008)

jreeves said:


> So he was going to break international and US law...oh ok
> 
> No matter what the public perception may be, one
> thing is certain: assassination is illegal under both U.S. and
> ...



From your article.



> The United States is entitled to kill Osama bin Laden to defend
> against a series of continuing threats,



Did you even read it?   Assassination is illegal, but its unclear what the difference between assassination and targeted killings (which are legal) are.  

Interesting article though.   



> AQ in Iraq doesn't exist....ok...no terrorism there.



It didn't exist *before the US invaded*.   



> AQ in Iraq isn't in shambles as a result of the Iraq war?



Actually compared to where it was before the Iraq War, its thriving.


----------



## Gunny (May 16, 2008)

jillian said:


> No. It's because Baby Bush is *almost* always wrong. And if one said he's always wrong, you'd probably come back with the one thing he ever said that was correct.



Nah ... conservatives don't much use liberal tactics.  There's only so much fertilizer to spread and y'all got to it first.


----------



## Gunny (May 16, 2008)

Dogger said:


> Al-Qaeda let 8 years pass between attacks on the homeland. Proves nothing except their patience.
> 
> Bush's response after 9/11 was nothing compared to his lack of response the month before. Nostradumbass can't even make a solid prediction when it's handed to him in a PDB.



It proves there have no terrorist attacks on US soil since 9/11.  

What lack of response do you refer to?  Last I checked, he hasn't done much in the way of responding to left wing mud being slung.  I just wanted to give you the benefit of doubt and allow you to clarify prior to calling it that.


----------



## Gunny (May 16, 2008)

Dogger said:


> Motherfucking moron. Can't you read simple English? I never said that.
> 
> I was being charitable. Bush sat on his ass the entire period, but he received the PDB on August 6, 2001, that warned "Bin Laden determined to strike within the USA", and continued to sit on his ass.



THAT's it?  As I suspected, left wing mud.  You DO realize that if we responded ot every threat prior to anything actually happening we'd be at war with half the world every day?

Not to mention having to listen to the chorus of parrots whining about preemptive strikes, needless wars, etc.

Had Bush arrested the 9/11 terrorists prior to 9/11 y'all lefties would be pissing all over yourselves in indignation over their civil rights being violated.

So please ...


----------



## Gunny (May 16, 2008)

Dogger said:


> Clinton Defends Record on Fighting Terrorism
> 
> Clinton said he authorized the CIA to kill bin Laden, and even "contracted with people to kill him." He also said he had a plan to attack Afghanistan, overthrow the Taliban and hunt for bin Laden after the attack on the USS Cole, but _the CIA and FBI refused to certify that bin Laden was responsible, and Uzbekistan refused to allow the United States to set up a base._ By contrast, Clinton said the Bush administration's neoconservatives "had *no meetings on bin Laden for nine months*," believing he had been "too obsessed with bin Laden."
> 
> "At least I tried," Clinton said. "That's the difference [between] me and some, including all of the right-wingers who are attacking me now. They ridiculed me for trying. They had eight months to try. They did not try. I tried. So I tried and failed. When I failed, I left a comprehensive anti-terror strategy and the best guy in the country, [Richard] Clarke, who got demoted."




Say it isn't so .... a Democrat President sanctioned the murder of a religious cleric? 

How come "I tried" is good enough excuse for Clinton but not Bush?  Such blatantly obvious partisanship.  

Tsk tsk


----------



## Gunny (May 16, 2008)

Dogger said:


> So, he's fucked either way he goes with you?



Why so shocked?  He deserves a better deal from conservatives than you liberals have given Bush?  

What goes around ....


----------



## Dogger (May 16, 2008)

GunnyL said:


> How come "I tried" is good enough excuse for Clinton but not Bush?  Such blatantly obvious partisanship.



Because Bush didn't try. They were more interested in weapons systems and oil. Richard Clark wrote an entire book about it. I can't repeat it all here.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (May 16, 2008)

Dogger said:


> Because Bush didn't try. They were more interested in weapons systems and oil. Richard Clark wrote an entire book about it. I can't repeat it all here.



Really? Provide us with a link to a report that in August 2001 the President was briefed on HOW, WHERE, and WHEN terrorists were going to strike the US. Clark is so smart perhaps he can provide you with that source?

Once again you have had a fit because Bush acted against a KNOWN terror State, Iraq, on what he considered good intell, but demand to know why he failed to act on a non specific report a month before a terror attack. Come on Counselor tell us EXACTLY what Bush could have and should have done in 2001. Be specific and explain how he had the authority and power to do what ever it is you are going to claim he should have done.


Remind us again how 7 men in Florida CAUGHT on TAPE asking for training, money, supplies and providing detailed plans of terror attacks were railroaded but if 19 Arabs had been arrested on September 10th with nothing more than box cutters we would have thrown them in prison for terror.


----------



## Dogger (May 16, 2008)

Dogger said:


> Because Bush didn't try. They were more interested in weapons systems and oil. Richard Clark wrote an entire book about it. I can't repeat it all here.



That's all you get RGS. Stop acting like a piece of shit, and I'll respond.


----------



## Larkinn (May 16, 2008)

GunnyL said:


> It proves there have no terrorist attacks on US soil since 9/11.
> 
> What lack of response do you refer to?  Last I checked, he hasn't done much in the way of responding to left wing mud being slung.  I just wanted to give you the benefit of doubt and allow you to clarify prior to calling it that.



No terrorist attacks on US Soil since 9/11?

Do you read the news?   Remember that bomb that went off at Times Square not that long ago?   Or that pipe bomb in San Diego?   What were those if not terrorist attacks?


----------



## RetiredGySgt (May 16, 2008)

Dogger said:


> That's all you get RGs. Stop acting like a piece of shit, and I'll respond.



In other words you can not answer because your claim is so idiotic you are at a loss to defend it. But hey "Thanks for playing" TM 2008 RGS


----------



## Dogger (May 16, 2008)

Dogger said:


> That's all you get RGS. Stop acting like a piece of shit, and I'll respond.



Read it again, asswipe.


----------



## rayboyusmc (May 16, 2008)

Be very careful, Dogger.  You are upsetting the Conservative gods on these threads. 

Liberal Loonies can not be taken seriously by compassionate conservatives. They are the holders of the  Holey Grale of political wisdumb.


----------



## jreeves (May 16, 2008)

Larkinn said:


> From your article.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



In Dogger's quote, Clinton said Assassination not targeted killing. 

I'm sure there were no terrorist in Iraq before the war started. 

No it's not, evidently you haven't been paying attention.

Though largely dismissed by the Democratic Left, Americas surge policy is paying attractive dividends. Al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) is in retreat, violence is down, and political reconciliation is up. 

In a 16-page letter that U.S. soldiers found last October near Baghdad, AQI leader Abu Tariq complained that his 600-man force had dwindled to 20 terrorists. 

We were mistreated, cheated, and betrayed by some of our brothers, he moaned, as Sunnis swapped AQI for the USA. This shift created panic, fear, and the unwillingness to fight, another AQI chief whined in his own missive discovered in November near Samarra. His network, he said, suffered total collapse.

Terrorism is collapsing across Iraq. In February 2007, when President Bush ordered 30,000 additional troops into Iraq -- as Senator John McCain (R-Ariz.) cheered and Senators Hillary Clinton (D-NY) and Barack Obama (D-Ill.) jeered -- only 8 percent of Baghdads neighborhoods were rated secure. That number is now 75 percent. In 2006, coalition troops defused 2,662 terrorist weapons caches. In 2007, they neutralized 6,956. Since June, attacks on U.S. soldiers have slid 60 percent. Meanwhile, sectarian violence fell 90 percent from January to December 2007, sparing Iraqi and U.S. lives alike.

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=25044

AQ is thriving in Iraq, I think not.....


----------



## jreeves (May 16, 2008)

Larkinn said:


> No terrorist attacks on US Soil since 9/11?
> 
> Do you read the news?   Remember that bomb that went off at Times Square not that long ago?   Or that pipe bomb in San Diego?   What were those if not terrorist attacks?



What were the fatality numbers from both of those attacks?


----------



## Larkinn (May 16, 2008)

jreeves said:


> In Dogger's quote, Clinton said Assassination not targeted killing.



If you expect politicians to speak in legalese, you are gravely mistaken.  



> I'm sure there were no terrorist in Iraq before the war started.



Did you say terrorist?   I could have sworn you said AQ.   


No it's not, evidently you haven't been paying attention.



> Though largely dismissed by the Democratic Left, Americas surge policy is paying attractive dividends. Al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) is in retreat, violence is down, and political reconciliation is up.
> 
> In a 16-page letter that U.S. soldiers found last October near Baghdad, AQI leader Abu Tariq complained that his 600-man force had dwindled to 20 terrorists.
> 
> We were mistreated, cheated, and betrayed by some of our brothers, he moaned, as Sunnis swapped AQI for the USA. This shift created panic, fear, and the unwillingness to fight, another AQI chief whined in his own missive discovered in November near Samarra. His network, he said, suffered total collapse.



You say its the surge, but then you cite a letter saying that negotiating with the Sunnis who had been killing American troops (wouldn't you Republicans call that negotiating with terrorists if a Democrat did it?).  



> Terrorism is collapsing across Iraq. In February 2007, when President Bush ordered 30,000 additional troops into Iraq -- as Senator John McCain (R-Ariz.) cheered and Senators Hillary Clinton (D-NY) and Barack Obama (D-Ill.) jeered -- only 8 percent of Baghdads neighborhoods were rated secure. That number is now 75 percent. In 2006, coalition troops defused 2,662 terrorist weapons caches. In 2007, they neutralized 6,956. Since June, attacks on U.S. soldiers have slid 60 percent. Meanwhile, sectarian violence fell 90 percent from January to December 2007, sparing Iraqi and U.S. lives alike.
> 
> http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=25044
> 
> AQ is thriving in Iraq, I think not.....



Compared to its nonexistance before we invaded?   Yes, actually it is.



> What were the fatality numbers from both of those attacks?



That makes it somehow more ok?


----------



## jreeves (May 16, 2008)

Larkinn said:


> If you expect politicians to speak in legalese, you are gravely mistaken.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Well in the article he cited, Clinton stated that he had already contracted the assassination of Osama...but that is legalese I am sure. 

Let me understand you completely here, if a terrorist organization isn't called AQ then they aren't deemed dangerous. I understand now, btw heard AQ in Iraq was changing their name to the Peace Flowers. 

The article stated it was because of the surge not me.

9-11 and the two things you cited hardly compare, so it appears to be an absurd attempt of claiming some type of terrorist activity.


----------



## Larkinn (May 16, 2008)

jreeves said:


> Well in the article he cited, Clinton stated that he had already contracted the assassination of Osama...but that is legalese I am sure.



No, point being is politicians DON'T talk in legalese.   That is, Clinton isn't going to differentiate between targeted killings and assassinations in a political speech, especially when the different is unclear.   



> Let me understand you completely here, if a terrorist organization isn't called AQ then they aren't deemed dangerous. I understand now, btw heard AQ in Iraq was changing their name to the Peace Flowers.



 

Were we talking about terrorist organizations or about AQ?  YOU said AQ, not me.   If you wanted to talk about terrorists, you should have spoken more generally.   



> 9-11 and the two things you cited hardly compare, so it appears to be an absurd attempt of claiming some type of terrorist activity.



Oh?   So now something isn't a terrorist attack unless it compares to 9/11?   9/11 wasn't the epitome of the terrorist attack, the perfect statement of what terrorism is.   It was just the terrorist attack that woke the US up.


----------



## jreeves (May 16, 2008)

Larkinn said:


> If you expect politicians to speak in legalese, you are gravely mistaken.
> 
> 
> 
> ...





Larkinn said:


> No, point being is politicians DON'T talk in legalese.   That is, Clinton isn't going to differentiate between targeted killings and assassinations in a political speech, especially when the different is unclear.
> 
> Well it sure seems as though it would have in fact been an assassination not a target killing.
> 
> ...



No, I'm saying 9-11 and a pipe bomb aren't comparable. That's absurd....


----------



## RetiredGySgt (May 17, 2008)

So according to Larkinn Terrorists and AQ are not the same thing.



> Did you say terrorist? I could have sworn you said AQ.



What fantasy world do you live in Larkinn?


----------



## rayboyusmc (May 17, 2008)

> What fantasy world do you live in Larkinn?



And you don't.  I wish I had some good swampland to sell you.


----------



## Larkinn (May 17, 2008)

jreeves said:


> No, I'm saying 9-11 and a pipe bomb aren't comparable. That's absurd....



Are they both terrorist acts, yes or no?


----------



## Larkinn (May 17, 2008)

RetiredGySgt said:


> So according to Larkinn Terrorists and AQ are not the same thing.
> 
> What fantasy world do you live in Larkinn?



Was Timothy McVeigh a terrorist?

Was he part of AQ?

Really simple concept RGS.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (May 17, 2008)

Larkinn said:


> Was Timothy McVeigh a terrorist?
> 
> Was he part of AQ?
> 
> Really simple concept RGS.



Ya simply concept indeed, one that you can not grasp.


----------



## Larkinn (May 17, 2008)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Ya simply concept indeed, one that you can not grasp.



Anwser the questions.  

Was Timothy McVeigh a terrorist.

Was Timothy McVeigh part of AQ.  

Since you get different anwsers from those 2 questions, how can AQ and terrorism be the same thing?

But I don't expect you to ever admit your wrong.  As usual.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (May 17, 2008)

Larkinn said:


> Anwser the questions.
> 
> Was Timothy McVeigh a terrorist.
> 
> ...



That you can, with a straight face, claim AQ is not Terrorists is hilarious if not so sad. McVey was a terrorists and SO are AQ. At least to anyone with a functioning brain cell. You keep claiming words have meanings then play these games, then wonder why most of us consider you an idiot.


----------



## jreeves (May 17, 2008)

Larkinn said:


> Are they both terrorist acts, yes or no?



Yes they are, Is an elephant and a kitten both animals? But would you say they are both comparable in size?


----------



## Larkinn (May 17, 2008)

RetiredGySgt said:


> That you can, with a straight face, claim AQ is not Terrorists is hilarious if not so sad. McVey was a terrorists and SO are AQ. At least to anyone with a functioning brain cell. You keep claiming words have meanings then play these games, then wonder why most of us consider you an idiot.



You are retarded.   I never claimed that AQ was terrorists.   The point was that not all terrorists are part of AQ.   Get it now?


----------



## Larkinn (May 17, 2008)

jreeves said:


> Yes they are, Is an elephant and a kitten both animals? But would you say they are both comparable in size?



Was the statement that there have been no more terrorist attacks, or was the statement there was no more terrorist attacks similar to 9/11?


----------



## RetiredGySgt (May 17, 2008)

Larkinn said:


> Was the statement that there have been no more terrorist attacks, or was the statement there was no more terrorist attacks similar to 9/11?



DId you or did you not say ... 





> Did you say terrorist? I could have sworn you said AQ.


----------



## Larkinn (May 18, 2008)

RetiredGySgt said:


> DId you or did you not say ...



Yes, I did.   AQ is a subset of terrorists.   The two terms aren't interchangable.

Learn the difference between a specific term and a general term and why they aren't the same.


----------



## jreeves (May 18, 2008)

Larkinn said:


> Was the statement that there have been no more terrorist attacks, or was the statement there was no more terrorist attacks similar to 9/11?



Ok, so yes there has been small scale attempts with limited damage, but nothing close to the magnitude of 9/11. Does that make you feel better?


----------



## jillian (May 19, 2008)

jreeves said:


> Ok, so yes there has been small scale attempts with limited damage, but nothing close to the magnitude of 9/11. Does that make you feel better?



there were 7 years between the two WTC attacks.

and?


----------



## jreeves (May 19, 2008)

jillian said:


> there were 7 years between the two WTC attacks.
> 
> and?



and.....there was also the USS Cole, bombings on embassies in between those two attacks as well....and??


----------



## jillian (May 19, 2008)

jreeves said:


> and.....there was also the USS Cole, bombings on embassies in between those two attacks as well....and??



Which has nothing to do with:



> Ok, so yes there has been small scale attempts with limited damage, but nothing close to the magnitude of 9/11. Does that make you feel better?



which is what I asked you.

Again... and?


----------



## jreeves (May 19, 2008)

jillian said:


> Which has nothing to do with:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Umm...bombings on embassies are bombings on US soil in case you didn't realize it.


----------



## jillian (May 19, 2008)

it has nothing to do with your comment.... about the years AFTER the WTC...

better think quick about why you said it....


----------



## AllieBaba (May 19, 2008)

I'm not sure where you're going with this. What's the significance of the number of years between the WTC attacks?


----------



## jreeves (May 20, 2008)

jillian said:


> it has nothing to do with your comment.... about the years AFTER the WTC...
> 
> better think quick about why you said it....



 I said that there were terror attacks between the two WTC attacks, is that not correct, maybe you could point out my mistake?


----------



## rayboyusmc (May 20, 2008)

Gross incompetence and partisan arrogance has been he hallmark of the War in Iraq.  

Don't blame, Bush, he was only the president.



> After the fall of Saddam Hussein's government in April 2003, the opportunity to participate in the U.S.-led effort to reconstruct Iraq attracted all manner of Americans -- restless professionals, Arabic-speaking academics, development specialists and war-zone adventurers. But before they could go to Baghdad, they had to get past Jim O'Beirne's office in the Pentagon.
> 
> 
> To pass muster with O'Beirne, a political appointee who screens prospective political appointees for Defense Department posts, applicants didn't need to be experts in the Middle East or in post-conflict reconstruction. What seemed most important was loyalty to the Bush administration.
> ...



Lest we forget why it is so screwed up.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/16/AR2006091600193.html


----------



## BrianH (May 20, 2008)

Dogger said:


> Clinton Defends Record on Fighting Terrorism
> 
> Clinton said he authorized the CIA to kill bin Laden, and even "contracted with people to kill him." He also said he had a *plan to attack *Afghanistan, overthrow the Taliban and hunt for bin Laden after the attack on the USS Cole, *but* _the CIA and FBI refused to certify that bin Laden was responsible, and Uzbekistan refused to allow the United States to set up a base._ By contrast, Clinton said the Bush administration's neoconservatives "had *no meetings on bin Laden for nine months*," believing he had been "too obsessed with bin Laden."
> 
> "At least I *tried*," Clinton said. "That's the difference [between] me and some, including all of the right-wingers who are attacking me now. They ridiculed me for trying. They had eight months to try. They did not try. I tried. So I tried and* failed*. When I failed, I left a comprehensive anti-terror strategy and the best guy in the country, [Richard] Clarke, who got demoted."



BS  I guess you're going to blame the depression on FDR also.    RGS owned you on this.


----------



## jillian (May 20, 2008)

BrianH said:


> BS  I guess you're going to blame the depression on FDR also.    RGS owned you on this.



Matter of opinion.


----------



## BrianH (May 20, 2008)

jillian said:


> Matter of opinion.



I know...It's a good thing we're all entitled to one. 
I just really liked what RGS said, if you can believe that.


----------

