The World Mocks Your President

[FJO]

The world's been mocking our president for at least four years. That's about the hopeychangey thing came tumbling down along with Red Lines and so on.

That's what happens when you send a boy to do a man's job.
And gets worse when that boy does not grow up to be a man in eight years.

 

[Meathead]

The world's been mocking our president for at least four years. That's about the hopeychangey thing came tumbling down along with Red Lines and so on.

That's what happens when you send a boy to do a man's job.
And gets worse when that boy does not grow up to be a man in eight years.

Yup. we squared off Pajama Boy against a black belt. What could have possibly gone wrong?

 

[there4eyeM]

Better to be a mocked President than a mock President (Reagan, "W", Trump).

Coming from a leftist that's a compliment to Republican presidents. Trump isn't even in office yet and you call him a mock president. Stupidity and hate is all the left has to offer anymore.

If it came from a 'leftist', and if a real 'leftist' would even be recognized.

 

[there4eyeM]

Any enemy of America could only dream of doing as much damage to it as "W" did.

How so?

Been away for a couple of decades?

 

[Iceweasel]

Better to be a mocked President than a mock President (Reagan, "W", Trump).

Coming from a leftist that's a compliment to Republican presidents. Trump isn't even in office yet and you call him a mock president. Stupidity and hate is all the left has to offer anymore.

If it came from a 'leftist', and if a real 'leftist' would even be recognized.

You're a liberal and modern day liberals are leftists.

Any enemy of America could only dream of doing as much damage to it as "W" did.

How so?

Been away for a couple of decades?

That's not an answer.

 

[there4eyeM]

Wrong and wrong.

 

[danielpalos]

One Russian response to US sanctions was actually pretty amusing

We have a real estate mogul coming into office now; want to make any real estate deals?

 

[there4eyeM]

"Deal" with it is the operative phrase. Nice, comfortable deals.

 

[danielpalos]

"Deal" with it is the operative phrase. Nice, comfortable deals.

Location, location, location; the deal is where the action is.

 

[Camp]

No contradiction. Terrorism specifically aimed at American targets by middle eastern terrorist was practically non-existent unless you count the take over of the Iranian Embassy. American targets took hold under the Reagan administration, particularly with the bombing of our Embassy in Beruit followed by the bombing of the Marine Barracks that killed over 240 Marines and maimed more. Those attacks alone caused a perceptible victory for the terrorist and caused Reagan to pull out and run without viable retaliation or justice dealt for the perpetrators or those attacks. Simply google terrorism of the eighties to see what followed and ended with the Christmas present that was given to Reagan just before he left office. It is best known as the Lockerbie Bombing when an American commercial jet full of Americans, including students, was bombed out of the sky.

Stop with all the blame republicans BS. Exactly what action did Clinton and the democrats do in regards to how terrorism needed to be dealt with? There is a vast difference to be found in finally admitting to an attack, with taking measures to actually respond and prevent them. Waiting for a devastating event to occur FIRST is not exactly a role model in how to respond towards a terrorist attack. If Clinton had any national security concerns at all, terrorists wouldn't find so many attacks they could get away with under that administration, with ample ability to comfortably plot and plan 9-11.

First, I did not blame Republicans, I put the emphasis and blame on President Reagan. Second, I do not consider deflecting away from the thesis and foundation of a debate by deflecting to how situations and circumstances of other parties such as another President in this case as being a valid argument. Whether Clinton or democrats behaved poorly years after Reagan left office has nothing to do with how Reagan reacted to terrorist attacks. It is just a way of admitting there is no viable excuse for Reagan's failure in this particular issue in his Presidency.
The direct response to your question is that policies towards terrorist attacks against the USA began to immediately change under President Bush 41 and the changes continued into the Clinton administration. Perhaps not enough, certainly a viable argument and even obvious one that the responses after Reagan left were still not certain and aggressive enough, however, the terrorist changed from the usual ME suspects and culprits to the cult of al Queda.

You really don't get it, do yo?. The Lt. Col.'s opinion is subjective and not "objective fact". Yours, on the other hand, is absolutely meaningless. You're getting annoying and petulant.

I am not sorry that Reagan was a prime force in toppling the USSR and I will not say so to calm your nerves. Neither do I accept that terrorism, in the modern sense, started with the Reagan administration. you need to do your homework before presuming to challenge the more learned kid.

As usual with you Mr. Head, all you have is talk with nothing to back up your claims. The lack of terrorist attacks before Reagan took office are objective facts. I asked you to provide examples of mid-east terror group attacks on America and you failed to produce examples. The fact that numerous attacks against America by mid east terrorist groups and entities began during the Reagan administration are objective facts. The bombing of the Embassy in Beirut and the Marine Barracks early in the Reagan administration and the bombing of Pan Am 103 at the very end of his second term are objective facts. All the terrorist attacks in between those attacks and the responses or lack thereof are objective facts. There is little that is remotely subjective about them. You could argue that the amount of the response, when responses were made is subjective. Go ahead, make the argument that the responses were adequate. Explain how the response to the attack on the Embassy in Beirut shortly before the attack on the barracks was adequate to prevent the attack on the barracks.

At some point you may even want to address the issue of Marines guarding the barracks being ordered to carry unloaded weapons and vehicle barriers not being in place to stop a terrorist attack like the one that occurred.

Knock yourself out you insipid little man. In fact I was in Greece in 1975 when Richard Welch was killed, although I was not in Munich in 1972 when the Israeli team was murdered. They probably don't count because they were Jews. Of course your heroes killed a US Ambassador in Sudan in 1974. Reagan was governor of California at the time since your history is very garbled. It is not for me to do your homework for you.

These are "objective facts", not the rantings of an anonymous and ill-informed dingbat on some internet site:

Historic Timeline | National Counterterrorism Center

Lame and dishonest answer to the challenge you were given. The Ambassador in Sudan was one of the several westerners and others taken hostage during an attack on the Saudi Embassy. Nixon absolutely refused to negotiate with the terrorist. Your other example was an assassination of the CIA station chief by a Marxist Greek guerrilla group.So you managed to find two cases that occurred during the Nixon administration and had little to do with the sort of terrorist attacks of the 80's under Reagan, although the Sudan attack was conducted by Black September, they targeted Saudi Arabia, not the US.

You address none of the conclusions reached by Col. Geraghty and his conclusions. Nor do you address the claims I have posted. Your response is of the basic insult post trash talk variety with no actual data to back up your nonsense, Your response to being challenced with factual data is to name call and babble.

Please note that both Nixon and Carter refused to negotiate with terrorist even though the terrorist held Americans captive. Negotiating with terrorist held as hostages didn't occur until Ron Reagan became President. Specifically targeting Americans didn't begin until Ron Reagan abandoned the doctrine and policy of not negotiating with terrorist for kidnapped hostage Americans.

 

[Meathead]

Stop with all the blame republicans BS. Exactly what action did Clinton and the democrats do in regards to how terrorism needed to be dealt with? There is a vast difference to be found in finally admitting to an attack, with taking measures to actually respond and prevent them. Waiting for a devastating event to occur FIRST is not exactly a role model in how to respond towards a terrorist attack. If Clinton had any national security concerns at all, terrorists wouldn't find so many attacks they could get away with under that administration, with ample ability to comfortably plot and plan 9-11.

First, I did not blame Republicans, I put the emphasis and blame on President Reagan. Second, I do not consider deflecting away from the thesis and foundation of a debate by deflecting to how situations and circumstances of other parties such as another President in this case as being a valid argument. Whether Clinton or democrats behaved poorly years after Reagan left office has nothing to do with how Reagan reacted to terrorist attacks. It is just a way of admitting there is no viable excuse for Reagan's failure in this particular issue in his Presidency.
The direct response to your question is that policies towards terrorist attacks against the USA began to immediately change under President Bush 41 and the changes continued into the Clinton administration. Perhaps not enough, certainly a viable argument and even obvious one that the responses after Reagan left were still not certain and aggressive enough, however, the terrorist changed from the usual ME suspects and culprits to the cult of al Queda.

You really don't get it, do yo?. The Lt. Col.'s opinion is subjective and not "objective fact". Yours, on the other hand, is absolutely meaningless. You're getting annoying and petulant.

I am not sorry that Reagan was a prime force in toppling the USSR and I will not say so to calm your nerves. Neither do I accept that terrorism, in the modern sense, started with the Reagan administration. you need to do your homework before presuming to challenge the more learned kid.

As usual with you Mr. Head, all you have is talk with nothing to back up your claims. The lack of terrorist attacks before Reagan took office are objective facts. I asked you to provide examples of mid-east terror group attacks on America and you failed to produce examples. The fact that numerous attacks against America by mid east terrorist groups and entities began during the Reagan administration are objective facts. The bombing of the Embassy in Beirut and the Marine Barracks early in the Reagan administration and the bombing of Pan Am 103 at the very end of his second term are objective facts. All the terrorist attacks in between those attacks and the responses or lack thereof are objective facts. There is little that is remotely subjective about them. You could argue that the amount of the response, when responses were made is subjective. Go ahead, make the argument that the responses were adequate. Explain how the response to the attack on the Embassy in Beirut shortly before the attack on the barracks was adequate to prevent the attack on the barracks.

At some point you may even want to address the issue of Marines guarding the barracks being ordered to carry unloaded weapons and vehicle barriers not being in place to stop a terrorist attack like the one that occurred.

Knock yourself out you insipid little man. In fact I was in Greece in 1975 when Richard Welch was killed, although I was not in Munich in 1972 when the Israeli team was murdered. They probably don't count because they were Jews. Of course your heroes killed a US Ambassador in Sudan in 1974. Reagan was governor of California at the time since your history is very garbled. It is not for me to do your homework for you.

These are "objective facts", not the rantings of an anonymous and ill-informed dingbat on some internet site:

Historic Timeline | National Counterterrorism Center

Lame and dishonest answer to the challenge you were given. The Ambassador in Sudan was one of the several westerners and others taken hostage during an attack on the Saudi Embassy. Nixon absolutely refused to negotiate with the terrorist. Your other example was an assassination of the CIA station chief by a Marxist Greek guerrilla group.So you managed to find two cases that occurred during the Nixon administration and had little to do with the sort of terrorist attacks of the 80's under Reagan, although the Sudan attack was conducted by Black September, they targeted Saudi Arabia, not the US.

You address none of the conclusions reached by Col. Geraghty and his conclusions. Nor do you address the claims I have posted. Your response is of the basic insult post trash talk variety with no actual data to back up your nonsense, Your response to being challenced with factual data is to name call and babble.

Please note that both Nixon and Carter refused to negotiate with terrorist even though the terrorist held Americans captive. Negotiating with terrorist held as hostages didn't occur until Ron Reagan became President. Specifically targeting Americans didn't begin until Ron Reagan abandoned the doctrine and policy of not negotiating with terrorist for kidnapped hostage Americans.

The more convoluted you need to make an argument, the weaker it invariably becomes. One way to avoid that is to know restrict confrontations to that of which you are well informed. It would be limiting for you, I understand. However, you would not be thought a fool that others have to suffer.

 

[Camp]

First, I did not blame Republicans, I put the emphasis and blame on President Reagan. Second, I do not consider deflecting away from the thesis and foundation of a debate by deflecting to how situations and circumstances of other parties such as another President in this case as being a valid argument. Whether Clinton or democrats behaved poorly years after Reagan left office has nothing to do with how Reagan reacted to terrorist attacks. It is just a way of admitting there is no viable excuse for Reagan's failure in this particular issue in his Presidency.
The direct response to your question is that policies towards terrorist attacks against the USA began to immediately change under President Bush 41 and the changes continued into the Clinton administration. Perhaps not enough, certainly a viable argument and even obvious one that the responses after Reagan left were still not certain and aggressive enough, however, the terrorist changed from the usual ME suspects and culprits to the cult of al Queda.

You really don't get it, do yo?. The Lt. Col.'s opinion is subjective and not "objective fact". Yours, on the other hand, is absolutely meaningless. You're getting annoying and petulant.

I am not sorry that Reagan was a prime force in toppling the USSR and I will not say so to calm your nerves. Neither do I accept that terrorism, in the modern sense, started with the Reagan administration. you need to do your homework before presuming to challenge the more learned kid.

As usual with you Mr. Head, all you have is talk with nothing to back up your claims. The lack of terrorist attacks before Reagan took office are objective facts. I asked you to provide examples of mid-east terror group attacks on America and you failed to produce examples. The fact that numerous attacks against America by mid east terrorist groups and entities began during the Reagan administration are objective facts. The bombing of the Embassy in Beirut and the Marine Barracks early in the Reagan administration and the bombing of Pan Am 103 at the very end of his second term are objective facts. All the terrorist attacks in between those attacks and the responses or lack thereof are objective facts. There is little that is remotely subjective about them. You could argue that the amount of the response, when responses were made is subjective. Go ahead, make the argument that the responses were adequate. Explain how the response to the attack on the Embassy in Beirut shortly before the attack on the barracks was adequate to prevent the attack on the barracks.

At some point you may even want to address the issue of Marines guarding the barracks being ordered to carry unloaded weapons and vehicle barriers not being in place to stop a terrorist attack like the one that occurred.

Knock yourself out you insipid little man. In fact I was in Greece in 1975 when Richard Welch was killed, although I was not in Munich in 1972 when the Israeli team was murdered. They probably don't count because they were Jews. Of course your heroes killed a US Ambassador in Sudan in 1974. Reagan was governor of California at the time since your history is very garbled. It is not for me to do your homework for you.

These are "objective facts", not the rantings of an anonymous and ill-informed dingbat on some internet site:

Historic Timeline | National Counterterrorism Center

Lame and dishonest answer to the challenge you were given. The Ambassador in Sudan was one of the several westerners and others taken hostage during an attack on the Saudi Embassy. Nixon absolutely refused to negotiate with the terrorist. Your other example was an assassination of the CIA station chief by a Marxist Greek guerrilla group.So you managed to find two cases that occurred during the Nixon administration and had little to do with the sort of terrorist attacks of the 80's under Reagan, although the Sudan attack was conducted by Black September, they targeted Saudi Arabia, not the US.

You address none of the conclusions reached by Col. Geraghty and his conclusions. Nor do you address the claims I have posted. Your response is of the basic insult post trash talk variety with no actual data to back up your nonsense, Your response to being challenced with factual data is to name call and babble.

Please note that both Nixon and Carter refused to negotiate with terrorist even though the terrorist held Americans captive. Negotiating with terrorist held as hostages didn't occur until Ron Reagan became President. Specifically targeting Americans didn't begin until Ron Reagan abandoned the doctrine and policy of not negotiating with terrorist for kidnapped hostage Americans.

The more convoluted you need to make an argument, the weaker it invariably becomes. One way to avoid that is to know restrict confrontations to that of which you are well informed. It would be limiting for you, I understand. However, you would not be thought a fool that others have to suffer.

You have now lowered yourself to generalized mumbo jumbo to evade answering the questions that were given to you hours ago.
Excuse me while I go visit one of my favorite sea port eateries and see what the catch of the day happens to be and sample some locally brewed beir.

 

[Meathead]

You really don't get it, do yo?. The Lt. Col.'s opinion is subjective and not "objective fact". Yours, on the other hand, is absolutely meaningless. You're getting annoying and petulant.

I am not sorry that Reagan was a prime force in toppling the USSR and I will not say so to calm your nerves. Neither do I accept that terrorism, in the modern sense, started with the Reagan administration. you need to do your homework before presuming to challenge the more learned kid.

As usual with you Mr. Head, all you have is talk with nothing to back up your claims. The lack of terrorist attacks before Reagan took office are objective facts. I asked you to provide examples of mid-east terror group attacks on America and you failed to produce examples. The fact that numerous attacks against America by mid east terrorist groups and entities began during the Reagan administration are objective facts. The bombing of the Embassy in Beirut and the Marine Barracks early in the Reagan administration and the bombing of Pan Am 103 at the very end of his second term are objective facts. All the terrorist attacks in between those attacks and the responses or lack thereof are objective facts. There is little that is remotely subjective about them. You could argue that the amount of the response, when responses were made is subjective. Go ahead, make the argument that the responses were adequate. Explain how the response to the attack on the Embassy in Beirut shortly before the attack on the barracks was adequate to prevent the attack on the barracks.

At some point you may even want to address the issue of Marines guarding the barracks being ordered to carry unloaded weapons and vehicle barriers not being in place to stop a terrorist attack like the one that occurred.

Knock yourself out you insipid little man. In fact I was in Greece in 1975 when Richard Welch was killed, although I was not in Munich in 1972 when the Israeli team was murdered. They probably don't count because they were Jews. Of course your heroes killed a US Ambassador in Sudan in 1974. Reagan was governor of California at the time since your history is very garbled. It is not for me to do your homework for you.

These are "objective facts", not the rantings of an anonymous and ill-informed dingbat on some internet site:

Historic Timeline | National Counterterrorism Center

Lame and dishonest answer to the challenge you were given. The Ambassador in Sudan was one of the several westerners and others taken hostage during an attack on the Saudi Embassy. Nixon absolutely refused to negotiate with the terrorist. Your other example was an assassination of the CIA station chief by a Marxist Greek guerrilla group.So you managed to find two cases that occurred during the Nixon administration and had little to do with the sort of terrorist attacks of the 80's under Reagan, although the Sudan attack was conducted by Black September, they targeted Saudi Arabia, not the US.

You address none of the conclusions reached by Col. Geraghty and his conclusions. Nor do you address the claims I have posted. Your response is of the basic insult post trash talk variety with no actual data to back up your nonsense, Your response to being challenced with factual data is to name call and babble.

Please note that both Nixon and Carter refused to negotiate with terrorist even though the terrorist held Americans captive. Negotiating with terrorist held as hostages didn't occur until Ron Reagan became President. Specifically targeting Americans didn't begin until Ron Reagan abandoned the doctrine and policy of not negotiating with terrorist for kidnapped hostage Americans.

The more convoluted you need to make an argument, the weaker it invariably becomes. One way to avoid that is to know restrict confrontations to that of which you are well informed. It would be limiting for you, I understand. However, you would not be thought a fool that others have to suffer.

You have now lowered yourself to generalized mumbo jumbo to evade answering the questions that were given to you hours ago.
Excuse me while I go visit one of my favorite sea port eateries and see what the catch of the day happens to be and sample some locally brewed beir.

Got it. Off you go with your tail between your legs. Next time don't delve into matters which you have only a passing knowledge.

Dobrou Chut

 

[Camp]

As usual with you Mr. Head, all you have is talk with nothing to back up your claims. The lack of terrorist attacks before Reagan took office are objective facts. I asked you to provide examples of mid-east terror group attacks on America and you failed to produce examples. The fact that numerous attacks against America by mid east terrorist groups and entities began during the Reagan administration are objective facts. The bombing of the Embassy in Beirut and the Marine Barracks early in the Reagan administration and the bombing of Pan Am 103 at the very end of his second term are objective facts. All the terrorist attacks in between those attacks and the responses or lack thereof are objective facts. There is little that is remotely subjective about them. You could argue that the amount of the response, when responses were made is subjective. Go ahead, make the argument that the responses were adequate. Explain how the response to the attack on the Embassy in Beirut shortly before the attack on the barracks was adequate to prevent the attack on the barracks.

At some point you may even want to address the issue of Marines guarding the barracks being ordered to carry unloaded weapons and vehicle barriers not being in place to stop a terrorist attack like the one that occurred.

Knock yourself out you insipid little man. In fact I was in Greece in 1975 when Richard Welch was killed, although I was not in Munich in 1972 when the Israeli team was murdered. They probably don't count because they were Jews. Of course your heroes killed a US Ambassador in Sudan in 1974. Reagan was governor of California at the time since your history is very garbled. It is not for me to do your homework for you.

These are "objective facts", not the rantings of an anonymous and ill-informed dingbat on some internet site:

Historic Timeline | National Counterterrorism Center

Lame and dishonest answer to the challenge you were given. The Ambassador in Sudan was one of the several westerners and others taken hostage during an attack on the Saudi Embassy. Nixon absolutely refused to negotiate with the terrorist. Your other example was an assassination of the CIA station chief by a Marxist Greek guerrilla group.So you managed to find two cases that occurred during the Nixon administration and had little to do with the sort of terrorist attacks of the 80's under Reagan, although the Sudan attack was conducted by Black September, they targeted Saudi Arabia, not the US.

You address none of the conclusions reached by Col. Geraghty and his conclusions. Nor do you address the claims I have posted. Your response is of the basic insult post trash talk variety with no actual data to back up your nonsense, Your response to being challenced with factual data is to name call and babble.

Please note that both Nixon and Carter refused to negotiate with terrorist even though the terrorist held Americans captive. Negotiating with terrorist held as hostages didn't occur until Ron Reagan became President. Specifically targeting Americans didn't begin until Ron Reagan abandoned the doctrine and policy of not negotiating with terrorist for kidnapped hostage Americans.

The more convoluted you need to make an argument, the weaker it invariably becomes. One way to avoid that is to know restrict confrontations to that of which you are well informed. It would be limiting for you, I understand. However, you would not be thought a fool that others have to suffer.

You have now lowered yourself to generalized mumbo jumbo to evade answering the questions that were given to you hours ago.
Excuse me while I go visit one of my favorite sea port eateries and see what the catch of the day happens to be and sample some locally brewed beir.

Got it. Off you go with your tail between your legs. Next time don't delve into matters which you have only a passing knowledge.

Dobrou Chut

Not running away. Everyone here who likes fish is waiting for the Rock to run. Often there is limited amounts when the weather is like it is now on the Atlantic seaboard. Today was not a day to gamble. Best time is to arrive for lunch is lunch time. Unfortunately, no one seemed to have caught Rock, but Blackfish (Tog) were caught and available both grilled and fried.
Thanks for the Dobrou Chut.

 

[WillowTree]

Russia hacks our country and all you can do is attack our president? Who's side are you on?

You laughed your ass off when they threw shoes at President Bush. This is your KARMA coming home to roost!

It was not a Russian who tossed a shoe at President Bush, but facts never seem to make it into you interesting thought process.

No it was a Muslim and ewe assholes laughed your asses off!

 

[Wry Catcher]

Russia hacks our country and all you can do is attack our president? Who's side are you on?

You laughed your ass off when they threw shoes at President Bush. This is your KARMA coming home to roost!

It was not a Russian who tossed a shoe at President Bush, but facts never seem to make it into you interesting thought process.

No it was a Muslim and ewe assholes laughed your asses off!

It was funny,

 

[WillowTree]

Russia hacks our country and all you can do is attack our president? Who's side are you on?

You laughed your ass off when they threw shoes at President Bush. This is your KARMA coming home to roost!

It was not a Russian who tossed a shoe at President Bush, but facts never seem to make it into you interesting thought process.

No it was a Muslim and ewe assholes laughed your asses off!

It was funny,

Yes, and Putin kicking obummer's ass is funny too! We got it.

 

[EverCurious]

"“We will not create problems for U.S. diplomats. We won’t expel anyone,” Putin said in a statement posted on the Kremlin’s website. “We will not prevent their families and children from using their usual traditional leisure sites during the New Year’s holidays. Moreover, I am invite all children of US diplomats accredited in Russia to the New Year and Christmas children’s parties in the Kremlin.”

“Although we have the right to retaliate, we will not resort to irresponsible ‘kitchen’ diplomacy, but will plan our further steps to restore Russian-U.S. relations based on the policies of the Trump administration,” Putin said.

“It is sad that the Obama administration that began its life by restoring cooperation is ending it with an anti-Russia agony. RIP," Prime Minister Dmitri Medvedev tweeted early Friday.

~ attempts to hold it in and fails ~ BUAHAHAHAHAHA

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

My objection to Reagan mostly regards his poor response to terrorist attacks that I and many experts believe led to the acceptance of terrorism as a viable and acceptable political tactic. That is not a subjective opinion. It is an objective fact.

Not the sharpest tack at the best of times, I know, but see if you can spot the contradiction.

That people like you are entitled to vote is indeed disturbing, but Trump won anyway.

No contradiction. Terrorism specifically aimed at American targets by middle eastern terrorist was practically non-existent unless you count the take over of the Iranian Embassy. American targets took hold under the Reagan administration, particularly with the bombing of our Embassy in Beruit followed by the bombing of the Marine Barracks that killed over 240 Marines and maimed more. Those attacks alone caused a perceptible victory for the terrorist and caused Reagan to pull out and run without viable retaliation or justice dealt for the perpetrators or those attacks. Simply google terrorism of the eighties to see what followed and ended with the Christmas present that was given to Reagan just before he left office. It is best known as the Lockerbie Bombing when an American commercial jet full of Americans, including students, was bombed out of the sky.

Stop with all the blame republicans BS. Exactly what action did Clinton and the democrats do in regards to how terrorism needed to be dealt with? There is a vast difference to be found in finally admitting to an attack, with taking measures to actually respond and prevent them. Waiting for a devastating event to occur FIRST is not exactly a role model in how to respond towards a terrorist attack. If Clinton had any national security concerns at all, terrorists wouldn't find so many attacks they could get away with under that administration, with ample ability to comfortably plot and plan 9-11.

First, I did not blame Republicans, I put the emphasis and blame on President Reagan. Second, I do not consider deflecting away from the thesis and foundation of a debate by deflecting to how situations and circumstances of other parties such as another President in this case as being a valid argument. Whether Clinton or democrats behaved poorly years after Reagan left office has nothing to do with how Reagan reacted to terrorist attacks. It is just a way of admitting there is no viable excuse for Reagan's failure in this particular issue in his Presidency.
The direct response to your question is that policies towards terrorist attacks against the USA began to immediately change under President Bush 41 and the changes continued into the Clinton administration. Perhaps not enough, certainly a viable argument and even obvious one that the responses after Reagan left were still not certain and aggressive enough, however, the terrorist changed from the usual ME suspects and culprits to the cult of al Queda.

If you want to try and place blame on President Reagan for the motive, driving force, and foundational excuse behind these terrorist attacks against the United States and other regions of the world, then you don't have the slightest clue as to the purpose behind these Islamic extremists efforts of waging terrorism.

Besides your "thesis and foundation of a debate" is not the subject of this thread.

 

[tigerred59]

The world's been mocking our president for at least four years. That's about the hopeychangey thing came tumbling down along with Red Lines and so on.

You have been mocked on USMB for four years and you still haven't learned anything worthwhile! Still spewing the same old bigoted BS, I see!

President Obama, unlike Bush can visit any country he choses without a bullet waiting for his back. He has an approval rating of 53% here in this country, higher than any president since Reagan, maybe higher. If anybody is laughing at us.....its because white people elected a racist, pussy grabbing con fuck that plan on fuckin rednecks down to pink clear skin tones