Dick Cheney should really stop playing the blame game.

[Meister]

You can't even identify the "enemy." Do you know there is more than one way to solved a problem? Do you use a gun to solve your daily problems? If the batteries in the remote go dead do you just shoot it? If someone was rude do you pull out a gun? If you pull over a drunk driver do you want to just shoot the person?

Don't look now but there is a pattern forming. Afghanistan and Iraq both prove one clear point: there is no military solution. Do you know why?

Please by all means, show us where sitting down and talking to the terrorists has had positive effects. Anywhere

Buner Pakistan: Taliban Militants Move To Expand Control Outside Swat Valley
ISLAMABAD — Taliban militants have extended their grip in northwestern Pakistan, pushing out from a valley where the government has agreed to impose Islamic law and patrolling villages as close as 60 miles from the capital. Police and officials appear to have fled as armed militants also broadcast radio sermons and spread fear in Buner district, just 60 miles from Islamabad, officials and witnesses said Wednesday.

Sure. As soon as you show where I said we should do nothing but sit down and talk to terrorists. Why do you guys waste money on the internet? More often than not you put words in others mouths and that is your only dialogue.

That's fair enough. What would you do if you had the power?

 

[Claudette]

BO has been dismantling some of the protections that worked very well after 9-11. All in his effort for America to be liked around the world and to appease the left wing of his party. He is POTUS and his first responsibility is the safety of this country and we the citizens. I think he is beginning to catch a clue. He needs to smarten the hell up, get off his ass, and do whatever it takes to keep this country safe.

He had better hope and pray that we don't get hit again because if we do I doubt his explainations are going to fly with many.

This must be a right-wing talking point, because people keep using the exact same phrase, "dismantling protections" without explaining themselves.

So what right-wing web site told you to say this?

YOur right. THey are talking points but points I"ve heard on MSNBC, CNN and Fox. Must be some truth to it as they are on both the left and right leaning networks??

I also wonder if any of whats been done would be explained???

 

[Meister]

Please by all means, show us where sitting down and talking to the terrorists has had positive effects. Anywhere

Buner Pakistan: Taliban Militants Move To Expand Control Outside Swat Valley
ISLAMABAD — Taliban militants have extended their grip in northwestern Pakistan, pushing out from a valley where the government has agreed to impose Islamic law and patrolling villages as close as 60 miles from the capital. Police and officials appear to have fled as armed militants also broadcast radio sermons and spread fear in Buner district, just 60 miles from Islamabad, officials and witnesses said Wednesday.

Sure. As soon as you show where I said we should do nothing but sit down and talk to terrorists. Why do you guys waste money on the internet? More often than not you put words in others mouths and that is your only dialogue.

That's fair enough. What would you do if you had the power?

Eh, curvelight?......curvelight? <Chirp>

I see it's a lot easier just to hammer on opposing views to yours, than it is to actually have a solution of your own,...uh huh.
Carry on. How much wasted money do you spend on the internet?

 

[CMike]

Al Qaida terrorists don't qualify as POWs under the Geneva Convention.

They are unlawful combatants.

Third Geneva Convention - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Article 4 defines prisoners of war to include:
4.1.1 Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict and members of militias of such armed forces
4.1.2 Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, provided that they fulfill all of the following conditions:

that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance (there are limited exceptions to this among countries who observe the 1977 Protocol I);
that of carrying arms openly;
that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

Which makes them.... criminals.

They are either POW's or criminals. There is no 'unlawful combatant' category defined by the geneva convention.

Once you start to define anyone captured as an "unlawful combatant" with no rights, you open up the door for your enemies to do the same.

Anyone captured is not an unlawful combatant. To be a lawful combatant and be treated as a POW by the geneva convention they have to meet the criteria above. They don't.

Thus they are lawful unlawful combatants and not protected by the Geneva Convention.

 

[CMike]

1. Soldiers are tried by Military Tribunal. If you try them by Military Tribunal, you are giving them the same legitimacy as one of our soldiers. The same goes for calling them "enemy combatants" in a "war". They are nothing but sociopathic murderers, and deserve to be treated as common criminals, not soldiers.

2. Trying them outside the legal system and imprisoning them for political crimes is tantamount to resurrecting the Soviet-era Gulag system. Next we'll have concentration camps filled with political prisoners. That precedent leads to the next precedent and the next.

Once you start down the road of imprisoning people without a fair trial, not to mention torture, you become your enemy.

Are we now to become terrorists? Shall we kill the friends and families of our enemies in order to make them talk too?

Al Qaida terrorists don't qualify as POWs under the Geneva Convention.

They are unlawful combatants.

Third Geneva Convention - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Article 4 defines prisoners of war to include:
4.1.1 Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict and members of militias of such armed forces
4.1.2 Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, provided that they fulfill all of the following conditions:

that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance (there are limited exceptions to this among countries who observe the 1977 Protocol I);
that of carrying arms openly;
that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

What has SCOTUS ruled? I believe it gave at least one ruling that detainees qualify for some Geneva Conventions. It's simply insane to violate basic human rights then try to tell the world respect America for its rule of law.

I don't care about impressing the world, I care about stopping Al Qaida from being successful.

 

[CMike]

"An authoritative US intelligence report pooling the views of 16 government agencies concludes America's campaign in Iraq has increased the threat of terrorism."
Campaign in Iraq has increased terrorism threat, says American intelligence report | World news | The Guardian

That's what happens when you constantly kill people who have never attacked you. Iraq was not a threat as admitted by Cheney on 9/16/01:

Cheney (answering Russert's question if Iraq is harboring terrorists): Saddam Hussein's bottled up, at this point, but clearly, we continue to have a fairly tough policy where the Iraqis are concerned.

MR. RUSSERT: Do we have any evidence linking Saddam Hussein or Iraqis to this operation?

VICE PRES. CHENEY: No.
NBC News' Meet The Press: Dick Cheney

Since that is the transcript I sure hope you won't try to ignore the facts based on the link. This is verifiable through hundreds of links.

Yup, Cheney said that there wasn't evidence that Hussein did 911.

However, Cheney also said

Cheney: No link between Saddam Hussein, 9/11 - CNN.com

"I do not believe and have never seen any evidence to confirm that [Hussein] was involved in 9/11. We had that reporting for a while, [but] eventually it turned out not to be true," Cheney conceded.

But Hussein was "somebody who provided sanctuary and safe harbor and resources to terrorists. ... [It] is, without question, a fact."

Cheney restated his claim that "there was a relationship between al Qaeda and Iraq that stretched back 10 years. It's not something I made up. ... We know for a fact that Saddam Hussein was a sponsor -- a state sponsor -- of terror. It's not my judgment. That was the judgment of our [intelligence community] and State Department."
The former vice president said in 2004 that the evidence was "overwhelming" that al Qaeda had a relationship with Hussein's regime in Iraq, and that media reports suggesting that the commission investigating the 9/11 attacks reached a contradictory conclusion were "irresponsible."

"There clearly was a relationship. It's been testified to. The evidence is overwhelming," Cheney said at the time.

"It goes back to the early '90s. It involves a whole series of contacts, high-level contacts with Osama bin Laden and Iraqi intelligence officials."

On Monday, though, Cheney identified former CIA Director George Tenet as the "prime source of information" on the relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda.
Tenet "testified, if you go back and check the record, in the fall of [2002] before the Senate Intelligence Committee -- in open session -- that there was a relationship," Cheney said.

You totally ignored the link showing cheney said on 9/16 saddam was not a threat. Enough said.

This is what you posted

Cheney (answering Russert's question if Iraq is harboring terrorists): Saddam Hussein's bottled up, at this point, but clearly, we continue to have a fairly tough policy where the Iraqis are concerned.


Where did he say that Iraq wasn't a threat?

 

[CMike]

This must be a right-wing talking point, because people keep using the exact same phrase, "dismantling protections" without explaining themselves.

So what right-wing web site told you to say this?

I guess we will never know all the harm that Obama has done, since this war is mainly fought in the shadows. However, the fact that his people refused to even call it terrorism, and called it "man made disasters" shows how seriously he has taken the war.

Also the fact that he constantly spoken about protecting terrorists, and releasing them, more about taking the fight to the terrorists, says it all, as well.

What do you think provides more fuel for the fire?

1. Dumb obsessions on political rhetoric.

2. The bombs we drop that kill civilians.

Mmmm.....tough choice. If you got a father in iraq or afghanistan who just lost his wife or children to American bombs what do you think his reaction would be focused on?

"Oh look! Obama isn't calling it a War on Terror!"

Or

"Mother fuckers killed my family!"

The fact you guys focus on such petty shit instead of the real costs shows just how disconnected you people are as a group. Maybe that's why you're the first ones to make video game references?

Petty shit? I don't consider the worst attack in american history to be petty shit.

Al Qaida is waging all out war on us. Just pretending it isn't happening or it's going to go away if ignored won't solve the problem.

We have no choice.

If we ignore them, and leave them alone in their bases, they will get stronger and stronger, and eventually execute a devastating blow on the US such as a nuclear bomb.

We have to fight them where they are, and keep them on the run. Yes, it may go on for a very long time.

However, the alternative is much worse.

It's like my cancer example. Yes, radiation and chemo may be unpleasant, but what's the alternative? The cancer will grow all over the body and spread, until you are just about dead.

Some people just try to ignore the cancer, but that doesn't work.

Either we deal with them, or they will deal with us.

 

[CMike]

Which means, simply, that in order to continue to make this strategy work, we will have to be in a constant state of warfare continuously, forever.

By this reasoning we can never withdraw our troops from the countries we are occupying, or the terrorists will immediately begin hitting civilian targets.

I for one am not prepared to engage in an endless state of war, and I don't think the American people are either. If you were to explain to them that this is your solution to the terrorist threat, that we remain in a war until the end of time, then I think you would probably lose support very quickly.

Okay, great. We can just call all the troops home. Let Al Qaida gain more and more power. Let the Taliban take back power, and Al Qaida have a puppet government in Iraq.

Then Al Qaida can openly and with great freedom, train in those countries, get money, communications, and logistical, support.

Then Al Qaida can much more effectively attack america, perhaps securing a nuclear bomb next time and some really cool WMD.

Just because we don't decide to engage in the war, doesn't mean that the enemy won't.

You can't even identify the "enemy." Do you know there is more than one way to solved a problem? Do you use a gun to solve your daily problems? If the batteries in the remote go dead do you just shoot it? If someone was rude do you pull out a gun? If you pull over a drunk driver do you want to just shoot the person?

Don't look now but there is a pattern forming. Afghanistan and Iraq both prove one clear point: there is no military solution. Do you know why?

The enemy is Al Qaida, terror groups that do the same thing, and states that help them.

There is a talmudic saying, if you know someone is going to come and kill you, you are obligated to get up early in the morning and kill him first.

Someone just rude to you doesn't murder 3,000 american civilian lives

Batteries in the remote don't murder 3,000 american lives

Al Qaida has made it crystal clear that their goal is to kill as many americans as possible and spread terror among the american people for whatever reason.

They have shown that they are ready, willing, and able to execute this goal.

The way america keeps this from happening is by having an offensive war, not a defense war, going where they are and killing them.

 

[CurveLight]

I guess we will never know all the harm that Obama has done, since this war is mainly fought in the shadows. However, the fact that his people refused to even call it terrorism, and called it "man made disasters" shows how seriously he has taken the war.

Also the fact that he constantly spoken about protecting terrorists, and releasing them, more about taking the fight to the terrorists, says it all, as well.

What do you think provides more fuel for the fire?

1. Dumb obsessions on political rhetoric.

2. The bombs we drop that kill civilians.

Mmmm.....tough choice. If you got a father in iraq or afghanistan who just lost his wife or children to American bombs what do you think his reaction would be focused on?

"Oh look! Obama isn't calling it a War on Terror!"

Or

"Mother fuckers killed my family!"

The fact you guys focus on such petty shit instead of the real costs shows just how disconnected you people are as a group. Maybe that's why you're the first ones to make video game references?

Petty shit? I don't consider the worst attack in american history to be petty shit.

Al Qaida is waging all out war on us. Just pretending it isn't happening or it's going to go away if ignored won't solve the problem.

We have no choice.

If we ignore them, and leave them alone in their bases, they will get stronger and stronger, and eventually execute a devastating blow on the US such as a nuclear bomb.

We have to fight them where they are, and keep them on the run. Yes, it may go on for a very long time.

However, the alternative is much worse.

It's like my cancer example. Yes, radiation and chemo may be unpleasant, but what's the alternative? The cancer will grow all over the body and spread, until you are just about dead.

Some people just try to ignore the cancer, but that doesn't work.

Either we deal with them, or they will deal with us.

Stop celebrating 9/11 and grow the hell up.

 

[CurveLight]

Okay, great. We can just call all the troops home. Let Al Qaida gain more and more power. Let the Taliban take back power, and Al Qaida have a puppet government in Iraq.

Then Al Qaida can openly and with great freedom, train in those countries, get money, communications, and logistical, support.

Then Al Qaida can much more effectively attack america, perhaps securing a nuclear bomb next time and some really cool WMD.

Just because we don't decide to engage in the war, doesn't mean that the enemy won't.

You can't even identify the "enemy." Do you know there is more than one way to solved a problem? Do you use a gun to solve your daily problems? If the batteries in the remote go dead do you just shoot it? If someone was rude do you pull out a gun? If you pull over a drunk driver do you want to just shoot the person?

Don't look now but there is a pattern forming. Afghanistan and Iraq both prove one clear point: there is no military solution. Do you know why?

The enemy is Al Qaida, terror groups that do the same thing, and states that help them.

There is a talmudic saying, if you know someone is going to come and kill you, you are obligated to get up early in the morning and kill him first.

Someone just rude to you doesn't murder 3,000 american civilian lives

Batteries in the remote don't murder 3,000 american lives

Al Qaida has made it crystal clear that their goal is to kill as many americans as possible and spread terror among the american people for whatever reason.

They have shown that they are ready, willing, and able to execute this goal.

The way america keeps this from happening is by having an offensive war, not a defense war, going where they are and killing them.

You want solid proof this WOT against alkida is bullshit? When was the last time you petitioned to break alliance with Saudi Arabia? That natio has long been the world's number one supporter of terrorism and we haven't done a fucking thing. You love to celebrate 9/11 but fail to address the fact at least 15 of the hijackers came from SA. You truly don't have the first fucking clue about what is happening. You are so damn paralyzed by fear you can't see one millimeter past the WOT rhetoric. Your camp is doing nothing but hastening another attack and you know what? I believe you assholes truly desire an attack on US soil so you can say "See! See! We were right!"

If the alkida threat was as serious as you claim our borders would have been secured on 9/12. But they weren't. Our ports still haven't been secured. It's so damn easy to cross our borders that if the threat was as dangerous as you claim then why haven't more attacks happened? Are you really going to claim it's because the Bush Admin has made us secure? I've already shown the Bush admin's actions have increased terrorism so what's next?

 

[CurveLight]

Yup, Cheney said that there wasn't evidence that Hussein did 911.

However, Cheney also said

Cheney: No link between Saddam Hussein, 9/11 - CNN.com

"I do not believe and have never seen any evidence to confirm that [Hussein] was involved in 9/11. We had that reporting for a while, [but] eventually it turned out not to be true," Cheney conceded.

But Hussein was "somebody who provided sanctuary and safe harbor and resources to terrorists. ... [It] is, without question, a fact."

Cheney restated his claim that "there was a relationship between al Qaeda and Iraq that stretched back 10 years. It's not something I made up. ... We know for a fact that Saddam Hussein was a sponsor -- a state sponsor -- of terror. It's not my judgment. That was the judgment of our [intelligence community] and State Department."
The former vice president said in 2004 that the evidence was "overwhelming" that al Qaeda had a relationship with Hussein's regime in Iraq, and that media reports suggesting that the commission investigating the 9/11 attacks reached a contradictory conclusion were "irresponsible."

"There clearly was a relationship. It's been testified to. The evidence is overwhelming," Cheney said at the time.

"It goes back to the early '90s. It involves a whole series of contacts, high-level contacts with Osama bin Laden and Iraqi intelligence officials."

On Monday, though, Cheney identified former CIA Director George Tenet as the "prime source of information" on the relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda.
Tenet "testified, if you go back and check the record, in the fall of [2002] before the Senate Intelligence Committee -- in open session -- that there was a relationship," Cheney said.

You totally ignored the link showing cheney said on 9/16 saddam was not a threat. Enough said.

This is what you posted

Cheney (answering Russert's question if Iraq is harboring terrorists): Saddam Hussein's bottled up, at this point, but clearly, we continue to have a fairly tough policy where the Iraqis are concerned.


Where did he say that Iraq wasn't a threat?

Are you fucking serious? When he said Saddam is " bottled up." Are you really going to try and say that doesn't mean he wasn't a threat? It wouldn't surprise me but you would only be revealing your dishonesty

 

[Coyote]

There is no such "appearance." You're just goofy.



We don't KNOW if a FAIR trial can be held without giving some of these fuckers their "discovery." Forget the underpants fucker for a second. What of the schmucks held for YEARS at Gitmo before even being "charged" with any "crimes?" Did you ever hear of the right to a speedy trial? Haven't they all had their rights denied already? When they spoke, was it after having been afforded NO Miranda warnings? Was it after being subjected to interrogation techniques that denied them their right to remain silent? Did they have attorneys promptly appointed to represent their legal interests? Are THEY going to be denied the discovery in EVERY ONE of THEIR cases?

If so, is that fair? Is it "just?" Is it "right?" Is THIS the kind of "Justice" you think we stand for? If not, then what the fuck are we doing here?

What if they DO get a Judge to say "Look. If this is a criminal matter, then they have had so many of their rights violated and denied that it is now impossible to provide them with a fair trial. Case dismissed!" In that case, do you support returning them home to the warm embrace of their good buddies in al qaeda? Or, if you find that to be a remarkably ridiculous thing to even consider, then what do we do with these guys at that point? Ignore the determination of the court and just hold them anyway? Wasn't that what we were alredy DOING? Do you support using our courts as a stage prop?

So. To cut to the chase. You can't answer the question and provide me with any examples where national security has been compromised in any way in these trials?

You sound even more stupid with each post. That's difficult to get to, too. You were already fucking retarded.

Who, exactly, do you imagine would be telling us if something delivered to a "defendant" during a trial as "discovery material" had compromised National Security? The terrorist on trial? Why the fuck would he TELL us that we had given him too much information? Or perhaps the National Security folks? Yes. Of course. For there's no doubt that IF they shared something that should not have been shared they would REALIZE the error of their ways -- which makes it hard to conceive why they would have given it over in the first place. OR, after sharing the discovery, perhaps they belatedly said "Do'oh!"? And their incentive to announce to the world the stupid shit we had just done would be -- what exactly?

OR, perhaps some court has "ruled" that a "defendant" is NOT entitled to the classified material? No big deal UNLESS that means that the defendant is getting denied access to the very material needed to properly prepare a defense! Maybe you just don't give a shit if the trial is FAIR as long as it's IN one of our civilian criminal justice courts?

No matter how you slice it, you asked a stupid-ass meaningless question.

You, ma'am, are fucking dangerously stupid.

Ok, fair enough. You make a valid point though it's hard to find it wading through all the bullshit.

You claim: Maybe you just don't give a shit if the trial is FAIR as long as it's IN one of our civilian criminal justice courts?

Well, I do give a shit. I've previously said some cases are better suited to a military tribunal yet you seem to think all cases involving terrorism should go before them. I also think they did a fair job with Hamdan - but there are also unresolved jurisdictional issues that came up in 2 of the 3 cases tried under the system so far . So do you hold them in indefinate detention without charges until you resolve those issues? Is that fair? In addition hearsay evidence is allowable, as is evidence gotten under torture, the trials are held in secret thus opening their verdicts to questions of legitimacy and the right to appeal is curtailed. There are advantages to tribunals as you stated and disadvantages.

And by the way, this President most certainly has NOT consistently said that we are at war. He has said it, but far too infrequently. And he often undercuts that point with PC bullshit. It's not sufficient to SAY we are at war, anyway. One should conduct our natioanl affairs accordingly. He fucking has not.

Presumably nothing less than cowboy "yer with us or against us all options on the table" rhetoric repeated over and over again would satisfy you. That must be the rightwing version of PC bullshit.

 

[CMike]

You totally ignored the link showing cheney said on 9/16 saddam was not a threat. Enough said.

This is what you posted

Cheney (answering Russert's question if Iraq is harboring terrorists): Saddam Hussein's bottled up, at this point, but clearly, we continue to have a fairly tough policy where the Iraqis are concerned.


Where did he say that Iraq wasn't a threat?

Are you fucking serious? When he said Saddam is " bottled up." Are you really going to try and say that doesn't mean he wasn't a threat? It wouldn't surprise me but you would only be revealing your dishonesty

If he wasn't a threat why would he needed to be bottled up? And what happens when he becomes unbottled up?

 

[CMike]

You can't even identify the "enemy." Do you know there is more than one way to solved a problem? Do you use a gun to solve your daily problems? If the batteries in the remote go dead do you just shoot it? If someone was rude do you pull out a gun? If you pull over a drunk driver do you want to just shoot the person?

Don't look now but there is a pattern forming. Afghanistan and Iraq both prove one clear point: there is no military solution. Do you know why?

The enemy is Al Qaida, terror groups that do the same thing, and states that help them.

There is a talmudic saying, if you know someone is going to come and kill you, you are obligated to get up early in the morning and kill him first.

Someone just rude to you doesn't murder 3,000 american civilian lives

Batteries in the remote don't murder 3,000 american lives

Al Qaida has made it crystal clear that their goal is to kill as many americans as possible and spread terror among the american people for whatever reason.

They have shown that they are ready, willing, and able to execute this goal.

The way america keeps this from happening is by having an offensive war, not a defense war, going where they are and killing them.

You want solid proof this WOT against alkida is bullshit? When was the last time you petitioned to break alliance with Saudi Arabia? That natio has long been the world's number one supporter of terrorism and we haven't done a fucking thing. You love to celebrate 9/11 but fail to address the fact at least 15 of the hijackers came from SA. You truly don't have the first fucking clue about what is happening. You are so damn paralyzed by fear you can't see one millimeter past the WOT rhetoric. Your camp is doing nothing but hastening another attack and you know what? I believe you assholes truly desire an attack on US soil so you can say "See! See! We were right!"

If the alkida threat was as serious as you claim our borders would have been secured on 9/12. But they weren't. Our ports still haven't been secured. It's so damn easy to cross our borders that if the threat was as dangerous as you claim then why haven't more attacks happened? Are you really going to claim it's because the Bush Admin has made us secure? I've already shown the Bush admin's actions have increased terrorism so what's next?

1) Saudi Arabia threw bin Laden out of the country

2) I don't think it's so easy to get through our borders.

 

[Vast LWC]

Okay, great. We can just call all the troops home. Let Al Qaida gain more and more power. Let the Taliban take back power, and Al Qaida have a puppet government in Iraq.

Then Al Qaida can openly and with great freedom, train in those countries, get money, communications, and logistical, support.

Then Al Qaida can much more effectively attack america, perhaps securing a nuclear bomb next time and some really cool WMD.

Just because we don't decide to engage in the war, doesn't mean that the enemy won't.

"Gain more and more power"?!?!?

How would that be different from what has happened so far???

Do you seriously believe that invading a sovereign nation that had no part in the 9/11 attacks didn't create thousands of new radicals for Al Qaeda to use?

Al Qaeda has increased in number and world power since 9/11. And it is based mainly in PAKISTAN, not in Iraq, where it never existed UNTIL WE INVADED THE COUNTRY.

And "let them take over Iraq"???

AL QAEDA IN IRAQ DIDN'T EXIST UNTIL WE INVADED. Why do you think it would gain in power in that country if we left? Iran, the closest major power, HATES Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda is made up of Sunnis, and the Shiites HATE the Sunnis.

But YOUR plan is to occupy a foreign nation that had nothing to do with 9/11 FOREVER, so that hundreds of terrorist attacks can continue to happen in that nation against our soldiers, further infuriating muslims throughout the middle east and gaining more new recruits for Al Qaeda every day.

That is honestly pretty much the most moronic strategy I have EVER heard.

 

[Vast LWC]

I guess we will never know all the harm that Obama has done, since this war is mainly fought in the shadows. However, the fact that his people refused to even call it terrorism, and called it "man made disasters" shows how seriously he has taken the war.

Also the fact that he constantly spoken about protecting terrorists, and releasing them, more about taking the fight to the terrorists, says it all, as well.

How convenient for you that you can make a whole bunch of shit up, like "all the harm that Obama has done" without having to offer a shred of proof to back up your claim.

The amount of BS that I've heard from the Right-wing on this point has reached monumental proportions.

And none of what you said has disproven my original point.

 

[CurveLight]

This is what you posted

Cheney (answering Russert's question if Iraq is harboring terrorists): Saddam Hussein's bottled up, at this point, but clearly, we continue to have a fairly tough policy where the Iraqis are concerned.


Where did he say that Iraq wasn't a threat?

Are you fucking serious? When he said Saddam is " bottled up." Are you really going to try and say that doesn't mean he wasn't a threat? It wouldn't surprise me but you would only be revealing your dishonesty

If he wasn't a threat why would he needed to be bottled up? And what happens when he becomes unbottled up?

Holy shit man.

 

[Vast LWC]

Please by all means, show us where sitting down and talking to the terrorists has had positive effects. Anywhere

Buner Pakistan: Taliban Militants Move To Expand Control Outside Swat Valley
ISLAMABAD &#8212; Taliban militants have extended their grip in northwestern Pakistan, pushing out from a valley where the government has agreed to impose Islamic law and patrolling villages as close as 60 miles from the capital. Police and officials appear to have fled as armed militants also broadcast radio sermons and spread fear in Buner district, just 60 miles from Islamabad, officials and witnesses said Wednesday.

Please show us where declaring "war" on the terrorists has had a positive effect.

All we have to do is break it down into goals that were supposed to be accomplished:

1) Has Al Qaeda been diminished in global power?

2) Have Al Qaeda been denied a safe haven?

3) Have the people who orchestrated 9/11 been brought to justice?

4) Has world terrorism been diminished?

5) Has a framework been put in place to protect America from future attacks?

The answer to ALL of these questions, after hundreds of thousands of deaths, Trillions of dollars of debt spending, and thousands of US Soldiers dead and injured is a resounding:

NO

Which means your people failed, miserably.

And now Obama wants to try another strategy and you idiots have the audacity to criticize him for it?

Well, I'll say one thing about you right-wingers, you may lack intelligence, but you sure as hell have giant sets of brass balls.

 

[EriktheRed]

How convenient for you that you can make a whole bunch of shit up, like "all the harm that Obama has done" without having to offer a shred of proof to back up your claim.

The only real "harm" the President has done is to their poor, shattered psyches. All of the Shrub-loving talking heads on talk-radio, on a certain cable network that falsely claimed itself to be "fair and balanced" and even in some books assured them that the country would never elect a guy like President Obama, let alone let the Democratic Party back in power on a national level and they still can't seem to come to grips that they were wrong about that.


The straw-grabbing over this issue and others is both fun and sad at the same time, doncha think?

 

[Vast LWC]

YOur right. THey are talking points but points I"ve heard on MSNBC, CNN and Fox. Must be some truth to it as they are on both the left and right leaning networks??

I also wonder if any of whats been done would be explained???

You've heard them from right-wing talking heads on all those networks. That's their modus operandi.

FoxNews however doesn't generally allow any real left-wing talking heads on their network, or if they do, they talk over them and edit anything salient out, so you probably never hear the other side's talking points.

Personally I refuse to watch the talking heads anymore. I hate them all.