Jump to content

Bush Ads Expolit 9-11 Images


Black Dog

Recommended Posts

You couldn't say it any better angustia :) . Also Kerry wants to reduce our defenses (yet he tries to act like Bush is doing it) because it shows in his voting record in recent years, and recently Kerry blames Bush on Domestic Security funding etc. while Kerry states that it is uneeded. If Kerry could make up his mind then maybe he would have a case against Bush but his arrogance shows.

Read this article to yet prove my point. http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/n...ign_kerry_dc_21

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 59
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

QUOTE 

Cynical political ploys all.

Ploy on Clinton's part more likely...considering the scenario involved when he ordered the bombing of Iraq. As far as I can remember, there were no foreign aggressive attacks on American soil during Clinton's admin.

Let me get this straight: Clinton is pilloried for attacking Iraq to distract from the Lewinski "scandal, but Bush is praised for invading and occupying Iraq to distract from his failing domestic policies. Huh?

QUOTE 

That's the rub, isn't it? Who really knows? 

Exactly. You can not guarantee that all were false...especially when something horrific had already indeed happened.

I'm not saying the warnings don't have soem use. However, given their frequency and lack of specificity, they are useless. Yes, it's good that citizens be prepared. But it would help if they knew what for.

Can you cite some examples of fear and paranoia shown by the public due to these alerts?

I already did: hello? Duct tape?

Btw, when firemen go about telling us that smoke alarms save lives....and you see all these posters, the video tapes on how to survive during a fire, the fire drills in schools, hospitals, etc.., does this also foster a climate of fear and paranoia?

How about those "buckle up" ads...when you see those dummies going through the windshields simulating a human in an accident? Then just as when you thought those airbags are the answer...you find out whoaaa...you're better off without them!

Doesn't this also foster a climate of fear and paranoia?

Specific warnings against identifiable threats are not the same as the vague terror alerts.

By these alert warnings, at least people are given a choice on what to do. Either prepare yourselves as adviced...or ignore the advice.

Again: prepare for what?

You couldn't say it any better angustia  . Also Kerry wants to reduce our defenses (yet he tries to act like Bush is doing it) because it shows in his voting record in recent years, and recently Kerry blames Bush on Domestic Security funding etc. while Kerry states that it is uneeded. If Kerry could make up his mind then maybe he would have a case against Bush but his arrogance shows.

You should probably pick articles that support your position, not refute it.

Democratic White House candidate John Kerry accused President Bush on Monday of shortchanging domestic security and playing politics with the war on terror, calling him "big on bluster and short on action." ------------

"America doesn't need leaders who play politics with 9/11 or see the war on terror as just another campaign issue," Kerry told activists in the firefighters' union, the first labor group to back his campaign last year.

"This administration has put a tax giveaway for the very wealthiest of our nation over making sure we do all we can to win the war on terror here at home," he said.

So your assertion that Kerry claims domestic security funding is uneeded is a lie.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE

You couldn't say it any better angustia  . Also Kerry wants to reduce our defenses (yet he tries to act like Bush is doing it) because it shows in his voting record in recent years, and recently Kerry blames Bush on Domestic Security funding etc. while Kerry states that it is uneeded. If Kerry could make up his mind then maybe he would have a case against Bush but his arrogance shows.

You should probably pick articles that support your position, not refute it.

LOL!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let me get this straight: Clinton is pilloried for attacking Iraq to distract from the Lewinski "scandal, but Bush is praised for invading and occupying Iraq to distract from his failing domestic policies. Huh?

You gotta admit there's a big difference between bombing a country to distract from alleged failing domestic polices, after the fact that Ground Zero happened....and bombing a country over a bj and investigation of sexual harrassment, with the sole excuse that there were WMD's in existence (which btw, I believe).

Clinton's were over improprieties, abuse of power and conduct unbecoming a president.

Let me get this straight: Bush is pilloried for attacking Iraq when he accused Iraq of having hidden WMD, and of having had anything to do with funding of terrorists and ties with Al-Qaeda....prompted by simultaneous attacks on American soil that shocked the nation to its core, and by Iraq's repeated ignoring of the UN's demands for inspection!

But Clinton's bombing of Iraq over an allegation that WMD exists in Iraq, (which Bush also said)....happening suspiciously around the time he was being investigated for sexual harrassment, which was the biggest scandal around that time being followed and lapped at all over the world....and people outraged by the war now hardly even said boo.

Bush' allegations were backed by the drama over Iraq's inspection by the UN and by the actual attacks that happened on American soil. Clinton's allegation were....well, I mean...we gotta take his word for it, right?

Can you see the glaring comparison between those two acts by those two presidents?

I'm not saying the warnings don't have soem use. However, given their frequency and lack of specificity, they are useless. Yes, it's good that citizens  be prepared. But it would help if they knew what for.

But it's hard to really pinpoint where and when and what form of attack will be done by terrorists, isn't it?

Though we'd all want to have specificity as to what kind of danger it will be....the very nature of this act of crime relies on unpredictability and it is an INTENTIONAL inflicting of harm.

Ask Spain.

Fires....who can really pinpoint where and when we're going to have one? Only an arsonist can.

Same way with terrorism...who can really pinpoint where and when and how it's gonna be? Only the terrorist assigned to do that job can.

And if the government just keep mum about things...and something does happen...you bet, there'll be screams to high heavens blasting the government for failing to warn!

Can you cite some examples of fear and paranoia shown by the public due to these alerts?

I already did: hello? Duct tape?

Preparing is a sign of fear and paranoia? What happened to the boy scouts' rule "be prepared!"

What about the standard emergency preparedness by the Red Cross or health and safety...JUST IN CASE we got a brown out...or a freak storm....or a tornado? Those are examples of fear and paranoia?

What about SARS? Boy, that paranoia really cost Toronto big-time. They should not have said anything at all about SARS? Should've kept it under wraps?

See, we've all got our own way of looking at this. To you, preparedness is a sign of paranoia...whereas to me, it's not.

This is not about who's right and who's wrong. This is more about ....do what you will or not on this matter, and I wil choose to do what I will or not.

But by demanding the government to shut up about these what you took upon yourself to decide as "vague" and "useless" alerts, (therefore deciding for everyone else)...you are imposing your belief and denying me my rights to free choice.

Specific warnings against identifiable threats are not the same as the vague terror alerts.

Same answer as the one I gave above regarding fires.

"Describe what you mean exactly by "identifiable threats".

SARS is much more "vague" than those airliners slamming against the twin towers ! I saw it all on tv! The planes just slamming right through....people jumping to their deaths...the collapse...

To me, the threat of terorism is very very identifiable....although in what form it may take...or when...we never know.

We can "identify" the nature and consequences of terrorism....there's lots of them. Buses or buildings or planes blow up. Death is usually the result. Limbs get scattered and lost. Victims of all kinds!

Who would've thought thousands would get slaughtered on that beautiful morning? For this is what terrorism specializes in....slaughtering of the innocents.

By these alert warnings, at least people are given a choice on what to do. Either prepare yourselves as adviced...or ignore the advice.

Again: prepare for what?

Whatever it is they wish to prepare for...or not prepare for.

That's the good thing of having the freedom to choose.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You gotta admit there's a big difference between bombing a country to distract from alleged failing domestic polices, after the fact that Ground Zero happened....and bombing a country over a bj and investigation of sexual harrassment, with the sole excuse that there were WMD's in existence (which btw, I believe).

Clinton bombed Iraq. Bush invaded the place, expending billions of dollars and thousands of lives.

The connection between the Anglo-American assault on Iraq and the events of 9-11 is specious, since there is no evidence linking Saddam Hussein's regime with the WTC/pentagon attacks. As for WMDs, the issue of questionable intelligence used by the U.S. and its allies is well-documented. However its worth noting that Iraq was complying with UN weapons inspectors (albeit slowly). The Un inspection teams were withdrawn only when it became clear that Bush was hell-bent on invading, even without UN authorization. Now THAT'S what I'd calla n abuse of power.

Can you see the glaring comparison between those two acts by those two presidents?

Absolutely. Bush is much worse.

But it's hard to really pinpoint where and when and what form of attack will be done by terrorists, isn't it?

That's the government's job to determine. Warnings without specdifics are simply counterproductive.

Though we'd all want to have specificity as to what kind of danger it will be....the very nature of this act of crime relies on unpredictability and it is an INTENTIONAL inflicting of harm.

Ask Spain.

Fires....who can really pinpoint where and when we're going to have one? Only an arsonist can.

Same way with terrorism...who can really pinpoint where and when and how it's gonna be? Only the terrorist assigned to do that job can.

And if the government just keep mum about things...and something does happen...you bet, there'll be screams to high heavens blasting the government for failing to warn!

I'm not arguing against emergency public warnings. However, they should only be used in the case of an identifiable threat. The current system is just to vague too be of any use and contributes (neddlessly) to an atmosphere of fear, not to mention the potential for the systems abuse for political purposes.

Preparing is a sign of fear and paranoia? What happened to the boy scouts' rule "be prepared!"

What about the standard emergency preparedness by the Red Cross or health and safety...JUST IN CASE we got a brown out...or a freak storm....or a tornado? Those are examples of fear and paranoia?

What about SARS? Boy, that paranoia really cost Toronto big-time. They should not have said anything at all about SARS? Should've kept it under wraps?

Keeping a home safety kit and an emergency plan is always a good idea. SARS, severe weather: all examples of clear, identifiable threats to public safety.

Comparing, say, a severe weather advisory based on existing conditions with specific details of what to do and vague warnings of a terrorist threat is a matter of apples and oranges.

But by demanding the government to shut up about these what you took upon yourself to decide as "vague" and "useless" alerts, (therefore deciding for everyone else)...you are imposing your belief and denying me my rights to free choice.

Bollocks. If you want to choose to hide in your basement bunker with a helmet and gas mask and 10,000 rolls of duct tape, that's your business. However, the government's job is to safeguard public safety, not spread hysteria. I could just as easily argue that terror warning (and yes, they are extremely vague) take away my right to live free of fear and propaganda.

SARS is much more "vague" than those airliners slamming against the twin towers ! I saw it all on tv! The planes just slamming right through....people jumping to their deaths...the collapse...

To me, the threat of terorism is very very identifiable....although in what form it may take...or when...we never know.

We can "identify" the nature and consequences of terrorism....there's lots of them. Buses or buildings or planes blow up. Death is usually the result. Limbs get scattered and lost. Victims of all kinds

This speaks more to the power of media images than the threat of further terror attacks. How many Americans die each year in traffic accidents? Yet are people terrified of getting into their vehicles? No. Are the thousands of deaths that occur each year as a result of AIDs or otehr diseases somehow less tragic because they aren't on TV?

Fact is 9-11 was a drop in the bucket casualty wise (indeed, the subsequent bombing of Afghanistan claimed more civilian lives than the attacks on the WTC and Pentagon). However, the images, the psychic shock of seeing it unfold before our eyes left an indelible imprint and generates a very emotional response.

Who would've thought thousands would get slaughtered on that beautiful morning? For this is what terrorism specializes in....slaughtering of the innocents.

Actually, terrorism is less about numbers than it is about "shock and awe": that's why the 9-11 attackers chose symbols of America's economic and military power as their targets instead of, say, Disneyland or some othe rplace where they could have maximized the body count.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for WMDs, the issue of questionable intelligence used by the U.S. and its allies is well-documented. However its worth noting that Iraq was complying with UN weapons inspectors (albeit slowly). The Un inspection teams were withdrawn only when it became clear that Bush was hell-bent on invading, even without UN authorization. Now THAT'S what I'd calla n abuse of power.

The UN inspection team were all initially complaining about Iraq's uncooperative behaviour. But when it became clear that Bush was going to deal with this farce that makes a mockery of the UN and its members....the inspection team changed their tune to support the UN's stance regarding the war.

But it's hard to really pinpoint where and when and what form of attack will be done by terrorists, isn't it

That's the government's job to determine. Warnings without specdifics are simply counterproductive.

Aren't we letting an absolute hatred for a president cloud our better judgement by being very unrealistic with this statement?

If governments can easily determine where and when and how an attack is going to be made before it happens....then there wouldn't be anymore unnecessary slaughtering of innocents...for it makes them all preventable!

Just consider this scenario: The government learned that an attack will be made on the Golden Gate bridge on this date at this hour. So they warn the public to avoid this place at this date and time.

How do you warn the public in such a way that the terrorists don't know that we know?

If a public warning is made naming the specifics....what terrorist will be dumb enought to still go on and do it as planned?

So of course, it will be a no-show! See? Nothing happened, everyone will say!

Boy, even in ordinary investigative/intelligence work...like for example a drug sting....intelligence usually don't alert the would-be perpetrators of the crime.

Besides, for someone who questions the reliability and capability of the intelligence in the war...and a government whom you obviously distrust.....why do you put so much faith in them to the point of ENTIRELY entrusting your safety...and very existence?

That, to me, is a contradiction.

Comparing, say, a severe weather advisory based on existing conditions with specific details of what to do and vague warnings of a terrorist threat is a matter of apples and oranges

Yeah...come to think of it, the two are like apples and oranges....but both fruits, nevertheless.

You're right...the gravity and conditions of the situations are incomparable....but the results are the same in both being disastrous to the public.

Only all the more so with terrorist attacks for we're dealing with someone with obvious intelligence, with the capacity to think and plan....with the full intention to seek victims to hurt.

Keeping a home safety kit and an emergency plan is always a good idea. SARS, severe weather: all examples of clear, identifiable threats to public safety.

Red Cross and Disaster Preparedness had always adviced evberyone to have at least a stock of one week's grocery and water handy at all times, safety kit, flashlights and emergency plans. Same as in any disasters, including terrorist attacks that may upset the normal food distribution, power outage etc., Being prepared will help lessen the panic of people if indeed such disasters ever happen.

So, there's hardly any difference as far as preparedness goes...except that when there's an alert warning on terrorist attacks, we can also do our share of being vigilant of suspicious acts.

What's ticking you off is the sudden rise in duct tapes sales.

I mean, what's with the duct tapes? Aren't we being a little bit too unrealistically critical here?

Bollocks. If you want to choose to hide in your basement bunker with a helmet and gas mask and 10,000 rolls of duct tape, that's your business. However, the government's job is to safeguard public safety, not spread hysteria.

But there is a difference in our inetrpretation about these warnings. You see it as spreading of hysteria...and I see it as just a logical thing to do. The most effective way of prevention is awareness. And the best way of dealing with a situation is by preparedness.

Actually, terrorism is less about numbers than it is about "shock and awe": that's why the 9-11 attackers chose symbols of America's economic and military power as their targets instead of, say, Disneyland or some othe rplace where they could have maximized the body count.

Well, not all terrorist acts were done in places that give symbolic meanings. What you said may be true of the 9/11 attack...however a lot of terrorist acts happen in mostly crowded places. I wouldn't attempt to assume and believe an assumption what logic or reason goes in a lunatic mind.

I could just as easily argue that terror warning (and yes, they are extremely vague) take away my right to live free of fear and propaganda.

Aren't we using the word "right" quite loosely here?

There's no such things as a "right to live free of fear...for no one can control one's own personal make-up. We all have our own fear one way or another....how can one be free entirely of fear?

I've got fear of heights....so what are we gonna do about that to protect my rights?

And there's no such thing as a "right" to live free of propaganda! C'mon...you know you agree with me on this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The UN inspection team were all initially complaining about Iraq's uncooperative behaviour. But when it became clear that Bush was going to deal with this farce that makes a mockery of the UN and its members....the inspection team changed their tune to support the UN's stance regarding the war.

Again, if the UN Inspections were starting to work cause Bush parked the tanks right next door in Kuwait, then it sounds to me that we didn't need to rush into war...we finally got him complying! Now we're dealing with Bush's mistake in a costly quagmire and he turned a bad place into a horrific terrorists' Mecca and now the people are less safe then they were before.

Turns out that Saddam's defense mechanism was to keep everyone thinking that he had WMD so that everyone would think twice about attacking him...........and again, where are the WMD that the Bush administration told us they knew their locations and questioned the credibility of the UN....now his own credibility is gone???

NO SCENARIOS PLEASE! We could make scenarios all day for that matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The UN inspection team were all initially complaining about Iraq's uncooperative behaviour. But when it became clear that Bush was going to deal with this farce that makes a mockery of the UN and its members....the inspection team changed their tune to support the UN's stance regarding the war.

You're right: Buish made a mockery of the UN and its members. <_< You're playing politics with the facts, but whatever.

Just consider this scenario: The government learned that an attack will be made on the Golden Gate bridge on this date at this hour. So they warn the public to avoid this place at this date and time.

Have their been any such warnings? NO! Indeed, that's not even how the system works. The system simply indicates the "threat level" from nnon-specific terror attacks and advises how to prepare for it.

Danger! Danger!

If a public warning is made naming the specifics....what terrorist will be dumb enought to still go on and do it as planned?

Uh...isn't that a good thing? I though the point was to prevent terror attacks, not make sur ethey go off without a hitch, which is what the above implies.

Besides, for someone who questions the reliability and capability of the intelligence in the war...and a government whom you obviously distrust.....why do you put so much faith in them to the point of ENTIRELY entrusting your safety...and very existence?

That, to me, is a contradiction.

I never said or implie dI truste dtheir intelligence. Quite the opposite, really, which is why I think the terror alerts are a sham. We don't know what they are based on (and certainly have reason to doubt the credibility of the intellegence used), we don't know if they actually enhanc epublic safety and we don't know if they prevent terror attacks.

Being prepared will help lessen the panic of people if indeed such disasters ever happen.

I think we can both agree that emergency pre[paredness is a good thing under any circumstance. That's not the issue. The issue is the effectivenes sof the DHS Terror Alerts and whether they are useful or just political tools.

There's no such things as a "right to live free of fear...for no one can control one's own personal make-up. We all have our own fear one way or another....how can one be free entirely of fear?

Somethings been bugging me about tehse terror warnings that I haven't been able to put my finger on till now. And that's the capacity for these things to be abused. Since the public doesn't know what the government is basing changes to the threat level on, its not unrealistic to think that the DHS could raise or lower the threat level and take actions (for instance, suspension of civil liberties, matial law etc) whenever they felt like it, and we'd never know why. The capacity for abuse here is, IMO, quite high .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just released today from Homeland Security is that Americans all over the world be prepared for possible attacks on transportation vehicles etc. Isn't that good enough for you or should we say, "Hey terrorists this is to you, we know that you want to bomb the hell out of us, and you are in NY so change your plans and go to Detroit where we aren't." Saddam hasn't cooperated with the treaty he signed after the Gulf War. We could have bombed him during the Clinton administration but the "tree humping wussy hippies" don't see it that way. A brief part of history, the U.S. made the U.N. that is why the U.N. headquarters are in the U.S. Is it better fighting terrorists on foreign soil than domestic soil? You fail to realize all possibiltes of what can happen with terrorism, but lets not vote to go to war against terrorists we just want to appease them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
Just released today from Homeland Security is that Americans all over the world be prepared for possible attacks on transportation vehicles etc. Isn't that good enough for you or should we say, "Hey terrorists this is to you, we know that you want to bomb the hell out of us, and you are in NY so change your plans and go to Detroit where we aren't." Saddam

This isn't news. Gues sthiongs must be heating up at the 9-11 hearings, so it's time for the old Chicken Little routine from the Bushies.

Saddam hasn't cooperated with the treaty he signed after the Gulf War.

Can you indicate which parts he did not comply with. In the run up to last year's invasion, I never once heard Bush or any of his officials speak of violations of the 1991 ceasefire as a justification for invasion.

We could have bombed him during the Clinton administration but the "tree humping wussy hippies" don't see it that way.

I suggest you google "Operation Desert Fox".

. Is it better fighting terrorists on foreign soil than domestic soil? You fail to realize all possibiltes of what can happen with terrorism, but lets not vote to go to war against terrorists we just want to appease them.

Terrorism cannot be met with military force. That's the crux of the argument against the war on terror. So your argument (such as it is) is a non-starter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Terrorism cannot be met with military force. That's the crux of the argument against the war on terror.

Pierre Trudeau wouldn't agree with you.

And neither would the #1 columnist in North America today, Ann Coulter. She's got a top notch piece on this in today's National Post.

Read it & weep!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pierre Trudeau wouldn't agree with you.

And neither would the #1 columnist in North America today, Ann Coulter. She's got a top notch piece on this in today's National Post.

Funny, I don't remeber the RCAF bombing Quebec City to rubble.

As for the rest...Ann Coulter? You've got to be friggin' kidding me! :blink:

Read it & weep!

Oh believe you me: I weep everytime I read anything by that psycho. They're tears of shame for a society where Ann Coulter is considered a legitmate pundit and is not ensconced in a nice quiet room with padded walls, a spiffy jacket with extra-long arms and lots of buckles and a steady stupply of happy pills.

Ann Coulter: for those who find Joseph Goebbels "too liberal".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Black Dog, you know that I also believe that Terrorism cannot be vanguished by military force. We discussed that before. In detail,

Can you indicate which parts he did not comply with. In the run up to last year's invasion, I never once heard Bush or any of his officials speak of violations of the 1991 ceasefire as a justification for invasion.

Alas, Saddam did everything to make the invasion legal. However, Bush messed it all up propagandaising the sell. Need I repost the paras in the resolutions pertaining to the ceasefire? the ones that state that Iraq is not permitted to have 'any WMD or related material, facilities or ap[paratuses, including 'dual purpose equipment'?

Or that Blix found chemical agents in labs, unaccounted for stuff in the tonnage amount even after iraq had declard nothing was going on? That pages were renumbered from WMD documents and missiles with lesser ranges were built for no purpose other then to recieve engines capable of housing the larger engines to exceed the range of the UN prohibitions? It goes on and on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:lol:

Funny, I don't remeber the RCAF bombing Quebec City to rubble.

"The" plane was in for a tune up at the time.

Oh believe you me: I weep everytime I read anything by that psycho. They're tears of shame for a society where Ann Coulter is considered a legitmate pundit and is not ensconced in a nice quiet room with padded walls, a spiffy jacket with extra-long arms and lots of buckles and a steady stupply of happy pills.

Ok...so you don't get her sense of humor. No surprise there...lefties aren't known for having a sense of humor.

But just tell me what she said in that column that wasn't factual? Ok...so facts aren't important to lefties either.

Ann Coulter: for those who find Joseph Goebbels "too liberal".

Black Dog: for those who find Karl Marx "too conservative".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alas, Saddam did everything to make the invasion legal. However, Bush messed it all up propagandaising the sell. Need I repost the paras in the resolutions pertaining to the ceasefire? the ones that state that Iraq is not permitted to have 'any WMD or related material, facilities or ap[paratuses, including 'dual purpose equipment'?

Or that Blix found chemical agents in labs, unaccounted for stuff in the tonnage amount even after iraq had declard nothing was going on? That pages were renumbered from WMD documents and missiles with lesser ranges were built for no purpose other then to recieve engines capable of housing the larger engines to exceed the range of the UN prohibitions? It goes on and on.

Would that be the same Hans Blix who is now saying the invasion was not justified by the evidence that existed at the time?

U.S. ignored evidence against WMDs

The fact is this: Bush wanted war with Iraq. Whatever the reason (oil, a new base of ME operations, revenge for Daddy, whatever) the WMD angle was the selling point. It's clear that there are no WMD, so either the nmost powerful contry in the world was fooled, or the WMD allegations were trumped up beyond reasonable levels.

As to why Saddam stalled on inspections when he didn't possess WMD, Blix has raised the possibilities that Saddam wanted to create a mystique in the region that he had weapons; he had tremendous pride and saw himself as 'the emperor of Mesapotamia;' and he was engaging in brinkmanship, and belived the U.S. was bluffing.

Ok...so you don't get her sense of humor. No surprise there...lefties aren't known for having a sense of humor.

But just tell me what she said in that column that wasn't factual? Ok...so facts aren't important to lefties either.

I have a tremendous sense of humopur. I just don't find hateful scum like Coulter amusing. Thus I didn't waste any time or brain cells on her article.

Black Dog: for those who find Karl Marx "too conservative".

How original. :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a tremendous sense of humopur. I just don't find hateful scum like Coulter amusing. Thus I didn't waste any time or brain cells on her article.

I dare you to put Ann's said article out here!

Let others decide how "scummy and witless" she is.

Afraid that the other posters would side & laugh with her and shake their heads in your direction?

I KNOW they would!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I dare you to put Ann's said article out here!

Let others decide how "scummy and witless" she is.

Afraid that the other posters would side & laugh with her and shake their heads in your direction?

I KNOW they would!

I don't really give two shits what other posters think. I care even less for Coulter's latest screed, whatever it is. If folks want to find it, I can't stop them. if you want to post it yourself, go ahaead. I'm not going to sully myself with her. B)

Lies my Annie told me.

Slander errors.

Surely there must be some right-wing pundits out there with some credibility that you could cite?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know, Dog.

If the co-editors of Spincity was the best the left can do...I rest my case.

Don't NEED to pull out any big guns.

Then it's abundantly clear that you're just shooting blanks. Ta ta!

I have no idea why you have such an unhealthy hatred for Ann Coulter.

Not even the great left winger James Carville would go as overboard in disliking her as you have (and not only because he wouldn't get any whoopie from his great right winger wife, Mary Matalin, if he had either).

I'm sure I could find a zillion sites where intelligent individuals heap great adoration on her, but why bother.

Why not look at one of her articles instead and analyze it.

Sooo, tell me, Black Dog, what is wrong with this one

that Rupert put out?

http://forums.advancode.com/index.php?showtopic=419

BTW - Sorry for this awkward way of posting the article but Greg would probably skin me alive if I once again disobeyed his orders. Something about copyright infrigement, he says.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have no idea why you have such an unhealthy hatred for Ann Coulter.

Actually, I think it's a healthy hatred.

I hate Coulter because she embodies th edecline of intelligent discourse with her hysterical accusations of treason, her reliance on personal attacks and all around unplesantness. Hell, this was a person who was quoted as saying her only problem with Tim McVeigh was that he didn't target the New York Times. :blink:

As for her article, I'll bite:

Since then, Bush has won two wars against countries that harbored Muslim fanatics, captured Saddam Hussein, immobilized Osama bin Laden, destroyed al-Qaeda's base and begun to create the only functioning democracy in the Middle East other than Israel. Democrats opposed it all -- except their phony support for war with Afghanistan, which they immediately complained about and said would be a Vietnam quagmire. And now they claim to be outraged that in the months before 9-11, Bush did not do everything Democrats opposed doing after 911. What a surprise.

Well, in this paragraph alone she completely overstates Bush's "accomplishments".

1) Afghanistan. Here, the Taliban and regional warlords control most of the country outrside Kabul. Banditry and rape are th eorder of the day. Heroin production is skrocketing and Al Q'aeda is still active in the border regions. Some success.

2) Yes, the U.S. deposed Saddam. In his place, however, they've sowed the seeds of civil war as both Shia and Sunni factions are turning against the occupation. An dthere's still no trace of them WMD.

3) Finally the threat of terrorism has grown, not diminished under Bush. U.S. actions in the Mid East, including the Iraq invasion and continued support of Israel have spurred a huige growth in anti-American sentiment. In fact, there have been more Al Qaeda attacks since 9-11 than any time prior.

So Annie can bitch about the Democrats till the cows some home. fact is, under Bush, things have gotten much worse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hell, this was a person who was quoted as saying her only problem with Tim McVeigh was that he didn't target the New York Times.  :blink:

Now here's where I question your sense of humor again. Admit it...it's funny. Or do you not think the NYT has just a "teensy weensy" bias ?

1) Afghanistan. Here, the Taliban and regional warlords  control most of the country outrside Kabul. Banditry and rape are th eorder of the day. Heroin production is skrocketing and Al Q'aeda is still active in the border regions. Some success.

Before the Taliban was the official government of Afghanistan. It is no longer.That's a win. It's going to take more than a few years to calm down every damned agitated Taliban boy over there. They're still in Kosovo a decade later.

2) Yes, the U.S. deposed Saddam. In his place, however, they've sowed the seeds of civil war as both Shia and Sunni factions are turning against the occupation. An dthere's still no trace of them WMD.

And you're saying Saddam's idea of just gassing the Shia was the better option? Interesting point of view. Nope...no WMD...and who GIVES a damn? Iraq is one of the few countries in that area that actually has a bigger than minute educated population...it has a hope for a normal society. And if it succeeds (in a generation) it'll change the map over there. This is a GOOD thing.

3) Finally the threat of terrorism has grown, not diminished under Bush.  U.S. actions in the Mid East, including the Iraq invasion and continued support of Israel have spurred a huige growth in anti-American sentiment. In fact, there have been more Al Qaeda attacks since 9-11 than any time prior.

To quote George Jonas..."One doesn't shoot one's enemy to arouse his affection, but to kill them.".

If we don't do anything, they will attack. If we do do something, they will attack. At least now some are dead. And the more of them that are dead, the less of them will attack us.

You know, there IS a way to stop terrorism. All one has to do is inflict 5, then 10, then 20, then 30, then 40 etc. etc. times the pain they cause you. Personally, I think that by the time one was ready to pounce the terrorists 50 times worse than they pounced you, institutional terrorism would not exist. This may be a little outdated of an idea but it sure as hell worked throughout history. For both, the good rulers and the bad.

So how about those hilarious Clinton years Ann Coulter writes about, ending just about every paragraph with ..."Clinton, advised by Dick Clarke, did nothing"? I can't WAIT to see how you'll try to squirm out of that one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Galahad, I agree all the way down. Even the NYT comment! (It is funny - in adolescent way.

Afghanistan? True. (Compare the alternative -doing nothing through the UN via France/Germany.)

Saddam? True. (As a minimum, he can't finance anyone with the Oil-for-Food programme. And, whaddya think about Qaddafi?)

Threat of terrorism? Gawd knows. (BD, these guys want you dead. And believe me, they'll go for you first. Have you ever spoken to them, BD?)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now here's where I question your sense of humor again. Admit it...it's funny. Or do you not think the NYT has just a "teensy weensy" bias ?

I have to question the sense of humour of anyone who'd use the deaths of 168 people as a punchline. Imagine the hue and cry if someone like Michael Moore said that Osama bin Laden should have targette dplanes at Fox News.

As for the Times, reporter Judith Miller was a key figure in supporting administration claims of Iraq's WMD capability in the run up to war. Senior columnist Thomas Friedman is one of the biggest boosters of the war on terror. So there may be a bias, but it's not the one you and Coulter see.

Before the Taliban was the official government of Afghanistan. It is no longer.That's a win. It's going to take more than a few years to calm down every damned agitated Taliban boy over there. They're still in Kosovo a decade later.

The U.S. has 8,500 troops in Afghanistan right now, the bulk of the international force there. That's not exactly a figure that inspires much confidence. Remember, Afghanistan has a longhistory of turfing occupiers. As one Soviet general said, it's easy getting in, the hard part is getting out. Furthermore, perhaps I'd be a little less skeptical of your claims if the ADD president had stayed focused on the task of capturing bin Laden, smashing Al Q'aeda and rebuilding Afghanistan instead of rushing off with guns blazing into Iraq.

And you're saying Saddam's idea of just gassing the Shia was the better option? Interesting point of view. Nope...no WMD...and who GIVES a damn? Iraq is one of the few countries in that area that actually has a bigger than minute educated population...it has a hope for a normal society. And if it succeeds (in a generation) it'll change the map over there. This is a GOOD thing.

Putting aside your initial straw man, and assuming for the sake of argument that the Bush administration's intentions are, in fact, to democratize the Mid East, Iraq presents several problems. First, there is no historical or cultural basis for democracy in the region, making the establishment of a fully functioning democratic state unlikely. Secondly, and most importantly, it's becoming abundantley clear that, as much as the Iraqi people loathed Saddam, they have little love for foreign occupiers and their quislings.

But really, all that's beside the point. As the WMD fiasco showed (and yes, it matters), this administration is not above playing fasty and loose with the truth to suit its own ends. Why, then, should we expect them to be completely forthcoming with regard to its true intentions for the future of Iraq? It's called credibility and in the eyes of many Iraqis and many around the globe, it's something Bush and company are severely lacking.

If we don't do anything, they will attack. If we do do something, they will attack. At least now some are dead. And the more of them that are dead, the less of them will attack us.

Of course this flie sin the face of conventional wisdom, not to mention your notion of good intentions. As the growth of the Iraqi insurgency illustrates, the more of "them" you kill, the more you piss "them" off and the more they'll come at you. Violence begats violence.

You know, there IS a way to stop terrorism. All one has to do is inflict 5, then 10, then 20, then 30, then 40 etc. etc. times the pain they cause you. Personally, I think that by the time one was ready to pounce the terrorists 50 times worse than they pounced you, institutional terrorism would not exist. This may be a little outdated of an idea but it sure as hell worked throughout history. For both, the good rulers and the bad.

Actually, this has never worked. See: Israel vis a vis Palestine.

Nor is it the kind of policy that guarantees a peaceful world. No sane person would advocate such a policy. Only people like Ann "Kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity" Coulter.

So how about those hilarious Clinton years Ann Coulter writes about, ending just about every paragraph with ..."Clinton, advised by Dick Clarke, did nothing"? I can't WAIT to see how you'll try to squirm out of that one

Personally, I don't give a rat's ass about Clinton. He's not president and he's not strutting around in a flight suit claiming he's made the world safe from terror. But, just to shut you up, here's a selection of Clinton's anti-terrorism measures.

Click.

The point isn't what Clinton did or did not do. The point is that Bush has botched the job since 9-11.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
×
×
  • Create New...