If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CNN)   John McCain applauds republican congress for making drunken sailors look good in comparison   (cnn.com) divider line 371
    More: Hero  
•       •       •

15168 clicks; posted to Main » on 30 Nov 2003 at 3:53 PM (10 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



371 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all
 
2003-11-30 05:20:14 PM
(Er, two things at a time.)
 
2003-11-30 05:20:23 PM
well put Lost_in_Korea
 
2003-11-30 05:20:30 PM
We coulda had that guy for president.

Instead we got the Chimpy-go-round.

If you don't feel frustrated and angry, you must have been stoned in civics class.

.
 
2003-11-30 05:21:28 PM
Fark It
Quit kicking a dead horse. You're really digging yourself in a hole. Friendly advice from a fellow farker.
Now I'm going to read outside. The New York Times and a magazine dedicated to Lennon should do better than this.
 
2003-11-30 05:21:30 PM
Fark It

UBL consistently stated that the US had no backbone and was a paper tiger after our retreat from Mogadishu, our retreat from Haiti (when some thugs shouted "Mohammad Farah Aideed" on the shore) and our strict reliance on PGM's and cruise missiles afterwards. This was the impetus for the 9/11 strike.
 
2003-11-30 05:22:01 PM
Fark It

How do I know that Bush hasn't stopped tons of other terrorist attacks?

Because unlike President Clinton (a real leader), Bush rules through fear. He takes every opportunity to keep the people stewing in fear so that they will acquiesce more unconstitutional police powers to the neocons.

That's why we would hear not only about any attack, but we are also fearmongered with every possible spectre of an attack...real or Rovian.

Clinton just did his job quietly, so that the people could get on with their peace and prosperity (which we have also lost since the 2000 coup.)
 
2003-11-30 05:23:01 PM
2003-11-30 05:16:16 PM eaturbrain


Another example of Karl Rove's campaign strategy against McCain...

In South Carolina there was a push poll before the republican primary asking members of right to life organizations and the like if they'd still vote for McCain if it came to light that he'd fathered a black child.
_____________________________

Since proven untrue.

/South Carolinian
 
2003-11-30 05:23:43 PM
I can't say I don't agree with him, but that's just my paleoconservative fiscal views and all..
 
2003-11-30 05:24:03 PM
Fark It
By the way, the Franken/Coulter thing wasn't even directed at you. Had you read the other posts you would see I was commenting on someone elses subject. So much for that.
 
2003-11-30 05:24:09 PM
Hyernel:

The fact that you're stewing in fear doesn't mean we all are, you know.

Are you really suggesting there are terrorist attacks going on that we don't know about, that Bush is somehow keeping quiet?
 
2003-11-30 05:25:24 PM
NavyBlues

I,.. know. I agree

I never said or believed Clinton was wagging the dog. I just think his cruise missile strikes were cowardly and emboldened people like Saddam Hussein and OBL, who were able to twist them into victories

Dyn0mite

I don't know what you're smoking right now, but I must be some good $hit. You seem to think that just because I'm conservative and say that you're changing the subject (which you did, as I pointed out numerous times), I don't have any merit. I guess it fits with the far left's "If I can't see you you're not there" attitude towards everything. You and your posts are a complete waste of bandwidth.
 
2003-11-30 05:25:30 PM
Woulda voted for McCain.
 
2003-11-30 05:29:14 PM
Fark it

You basically said that because the attacks were against the military and far away from here, it wasn't a big deal.

Are you a graduate from the Bill O'Reilly School of Distortion?

Of course that's not what I meant. But since the facts don't serve you, you have to go with a distorted misread. (Bill would be proud!)

Philbb

Source? You can use me as your source. Do you really think I'm going to hunt down a link for you?
 
2003-11-30 05:29:22 PM
I'd like a 50 page dissertation on what made Clinton a great leader. It's due as soon as you can type it up.

You want a "real" leader? You'll have to go back a few decades.
 
2003-11-30 05:29:49 PM
Actually, I was under the impression that there was a condition under the 'Handing over bin-laden bit': That he had to be tried in a Muslim Court of Law.

Moe , as far as I can tell, his word is as good as yours, since NEITHER of you have bothered to come up with any sites (LEGITIMITE NEWS SITES. Newsmax and DemocraticUnderground DO NOT COUNT.) supporting your side of the argument. You're both just screaming 'What you heard' as far as I can tell.
 
2003-11-30 05:29:57 PM
ghare

Then vote in the GOP Primary next time.

/ asshat.
 
2003-11-30 05:30:33 PM
dyn0mikeI;m done talking to you because you really don't make any sense. Who was it directed to, and why did you change the subject?

Hyernel

I'm not afraid of Bush. The peace and prosperity you speak of were an illusion. The stock market was overspeculated to shiat and the bubble burst BEFORE Bush took office.

How has Bush taken every opportunity to keep people stewing in fear?
 
2003-11-30 05:30:37 PM
DORSAI

---Also, as far as 'wag the dog' goes, the president is paid to lead. If he has critics in Congress running their mouth, he can ignore them. There's plenty of crap coming at Bush from the Democrats in Congress, but he's still doing the job. Blaming the critics is a weak excuse for failed leadership.----

This is a good point.

That being siad though, do you remember the lewisnky scandal? It was all-encompassing, it was like the OJ simpson trial or post 9/11... you couldnt get away from it. There was no way anyone in clintons position wouldve been able to cohesively lead when it went down. But, still, you've got a good point there.

However, and i think this is where the crux of the matter lies, noone had any idea about the extent of al qaeda or their plans, and noone gave em the threat level they deserved. The CIA and the intellegence services of the military dont change with the president, and the president bases his decisions on the basis of their advice; so if the CIA and military cant identify the danger or dot the lines, i think its wrong to blame any president for what has proven to be failures in the intellegence community for a long time.

In the same way its wrong to "blame busH" for 9/11, you cant really "blame clinton" for it, either, and seeing such catastrophes through partisan politic lenses is unhelpful at best and agenda-laden propaganda at the worst.

9/11 was a culmnation of years of bad policy and missed chances, starting with reagan in the 80s when he authorized the CIA to fund the mujahadeen in afghanistan against the soviets (thus forming al qaeda), then dropping them like a hot rock when the soviets left. Then Bush 1 fights a war in the middle east and gives the Jihadis a bone to pick since there are infidels on holy soil blah blah, then Clinton ignores the clouds gathering on the horizon, then Bush II backs israel unconditionally giving the Jihadis even more of bones to pick etc etc....

9/11 is the culmination in a series of errors dating back 20 years or so, and trying to place the blame for it, on one president or another, is short-sighted and unhelpful, and i think is trying to push the "i hate bush" or "i hate clinton" agenda.

much more complicated methinks.
 
2003-11-30 05:31:23 PM
"I wish you guys would have your election already so we can all forget Bush for good."

You're going to have to wait until 2008.

"Until he's called up for crimes against humanity. Then he can reappear in shackles."

*yawn*
 
2003-11-30 05:31:38 PM
Hell, I'm a registered Democrat, a fan of Michael Moore, a DFL volunteer for the last three years...and I still wouldn't have minded voting for McCain.

Bush, on the other hand, is a nut, and the sole reason I volunteer for the Minnesota branch of the Democratic party.
 
2003-11-30 05:32:42 PM
Hyernel

USS Cole, Khobar Towers, etc. I could be wrong, but none of those places were actually within the United States. PLUS they were military targets in dangerous places.

What did you mean?
 
2003-11-30 05:33:28 PM
No Dorsai

I said that, if there were anymore domestic terrorism, the Bushies would make sure we all knew about it. Their goal is to spread fear and blind nationalism. (So that Cheney can rape the treasury.)

Look up the definition of "integrity" and stop distorting what I write.
 
2003-11-30 05:34:05 PM
John McCain makes me feel warm and fuzzy. George Bush makes me feel dirty and used.
 
2003-11-30 05:34:19 PM
Felgraf-
You make an excellent point, and I agree. My word is as good as his. Only I didn't say mine was fact, but presented it as something I thought, or tried to. notice the "I believe". Hell, I got the country wrong, so obviously it wasn't concrete. And I'm not screaming. just presenting the idea.
 
2003-11-30 05:35:11 PM
Father_Jack
Your ideas intrigue me, and I would like to subscribe to your newsletter.
 
2003-11-30 05:35:29 PM
Father_JAck
It was all-encompassing, it was like the OJ simpson trial or post 9/11... you couldnt get away from it. There was no way anyone in clintons position wouldve been able to cohesively lead when it went down. But, still, you've got a good point there.

Last time I checked Bush was able to lead very well after September 11th, after all the Patriot Act was passed almost unanimously, he had a 90%+ approval rating, he took the fight directly to the enemy, didn't blame the liberals for the position he was in, etc.
 
2003-11-30 05:37:51 PM
Dorsai,

McCain also has the problem of having no clear philosophy of government; it's almost impossible to predict where he'll come down on any given issue. Given his positions on campaign finance reform and the tobacco industry, it's hard to put faith in him.

I see this as being indicators of a critical thinker. Different issues require varying actions under varying circumstances. He's looking at each issue in its context and going from there, instead of simply adopting a certain philosophy and trying to pigeonhole every issue into that philosophy.

This is the type of person that I want in office.
 
2003-11-30 05:38:01 PM
Fark it

How has Bush taken every opportunity to keep people stewing in fear?

DId you just arrive on this planet?

ORANGE ALERT!
 
2003-11-30 05:40:17 PM
fark it

no what i meant was there was no way anyone couldve done anything that didnt involve the scandal, in much the same way bush had to "take action" on 9/11, clinton, at least as i recall it, was obliged to adress the issues of the scandal and only the scandal.

but we're just arguing semantics at this point. i've said my two bits.

PUFFY999
if i had one, i'd subscribe you to it. cheers!
 
2003-11-30 05:40:29 PM
Yes, Orange Alert has the entire nation cowering in fear...
 
2003-11-30 05:40:58 PM
Fark It
And the Patriot act is turning out to be a rather large mistake, isn't it? It used some underhanded tactics to get passed as well. I'll put it to you this way: Would you feel letting, say, Hillary Clinton have access to all of those powers? Dean? Clark? Someone like Bill?
 
2003-11-30 05:41:25 PM
I don't think the whole code system is there to instill fear. just a way for the admin. to cover their butts. If something happens, then they can say,"We warned ya." They'd get more crap if there was an attack out of nowhere, and people could ask why they weren't prepared, or gave no warning.
 
2003-11-30 05:42:11 PM
Hyernel

I'm not afraid of Bush, Ashcroft maybe, but not of Bush. I'm not stewing in fear, the only people who are are the nutjobs on the West Coast who worship Jimmy Carter. In retrospect, Clinton did much scarier things than Bush is doing now.

But I forgot, far left dogma dictates that it's better to react to catastrophe than to prevent it.
 
2003-11-30 05:42:34 PM
Guess what CaptainCampbell...
that dimwit you've got in office is wrecking your beauitful country. Americans deserve better than Bush. The entire world deserves better than Bush.

This will become crystal clear when your elections are held. And if not?
Shame.
 
2003-11-30 05:43:55 PM
2003-11-30 03:58:03 PM micah476


How could you disagree with McCain on this point? He should switch parties and run in '04. I think he'd win if Bush spent $1 billion on his campaign
----------------------------------------
mccain is knocking bush for spending like a democrat. democrats want to vote for mccain for getting on bush for being too much like a democrat....interesting
 
2003-11-30 05:44:19 PM
Father_Jack:

I won't argue that it's a complex matter, and if you read my posts carefully, I think you'll see that I haven't actually tried to pin the blame for 9/11 on Clinton directly. I think you can trace some of the causes all the way back to the Ford and Carter administrations if you try, with some of the restrictions they put on our intelligence agencies and with our botched response to the 1979 revolution in Iran.

Despite what decisions (for good or ill) previous presidents have made, each incoming president has to deal with the world situation as it stands and has to be judged on that basis. With respect to global terrorism, Clinton gets very poor marks. And yes, part of his inability to lead stems from the constant pressure of the scandals he found himself in, but that just serves to illustrate why it's important that the president not compromise himself. Nixon made the same mistake in his time, but took the honorable way out, recognizing that his ability to govern had been fatally weakened by his mistakes. Had Clinton left back in '98, perhaps a President Gore would have been in a better position to comprehend the growing threat and mobilized the country to deal with it.

Then again, perhaps not. Who knows?
 
2003-11-30 05:44:35 PM
FARK IT
"But I forgot, far left dogma dictates that it's better to react to catastrophe than to prevent it."

well, here's to hoping that the war in iraq is "preventing" catastrophes.

i dont think you're right, but i hope you are.
 
2003-11-30 05:46:01 PM
Felgraph

The act itself was one of the best tools we could give to law enforcement, it's just that some of the provisions were a mistake, WHICH IS WHY THE BILL IS GOING TO SUNSET IN A FEW YEARS ANYWAY. I think the Patriot Act will sunset, and law enforcement will keep the most helpful provisions, and all of the nasty stuff the ACLU and constitutional experts are having a fit about will be discarded. The Patriot Act isn't going to exist long enough to cause any serious harm.
 
2003-11-30 05:46:53 PM
DORSAI

another good post, well done. Nice chattin with you!

i really need to get back to my finance... feck!
 
2003-11-30 05:47:56 PM
Hyernel:

Relax, I misread what you wrote. Lord knows I don't have to make up stuff to attack you on, your writings stand on their own for that just fine.
 
2003-11-30 05:48:03 PM
Bush had a high popularity simply because he was TRYING to do something about terrorism... Gore probably wouldn't have gone so gung-ho, and his rating would've suffered (not on Fark though...).

McCain? Holy sh*t, it would've been a sight if he was the President on 9/11... since he actually knows what it's like being in the sh*t, I have a feeling his Agent Orange would've kicked in.
 
2003-11-30 05:48:58 PM
Father_Jack:

A pleasure! I'm off to dinner myself.
 
2003-11-30 05:48:59 PM
Hell, I'm a registered Democrat, a fan of Michael Moore, a DFL volunteer for the last three years...and I still wouldn't have minded voting for McCain.

Bush, on the other hand, is a nut, and the sole reason I volunteer for the Minnesota branch of the Democratic party.


I'm always kind of shocked by the love of McCain amongst democrats, even though he is very conservative socially.
 
2003-11-30 05:50:16 PM
Fark it,

Last time I checked Bush was able to lead very well after September 11th, after all the Patriot Act was passed almost unanimously, he had a 90%+ approval rating, he took the fight directly to the enemy, didn't blame the liberals for the position he was in, etc.

To begin, I really don't see why people try to turn everything into a Clinton Vs. Bush issue. I think both of them are worthless.

To address your comment, however, I think anyone would've gotten the same response as president after Sept. 11th. Attacks on us, as with most other countries, tend to strengthen the resolve of the people, so long as the people are fairly prosperous. After Sep. 11th, the people rallied around the idea of the nation, and they rallied around the office of the presidency. The people simply wanted someone to take decisive action.

With the nationalistic fervor that had swept the nation, most politicians were extremely reluctant to vote against legislation called The PATRIOT Act.

Quite simply, the people wanted nothing more than the person that was president to take action. Anyone would have done, and anyone could have done. The majority of the tactical decisions are formulated by the military and intelligence leaders. They make their recommendations to the president and he approves them. Short of Bush deciding to invade Australia, there wasn't much he could do to screw up the wave of nationalism that he was riding on.
 
2003-11-30 05:50:38 PM
Felgraph

The act itself was one of the best tools we could give to law enforcement, it's just that some of the provisions were a mistake, WHICH IS WHY THE BILL IS GOING TO SUNSET IN A FEW YEARS ANYWAY. I think the Patriot Act will sunset, and law enforcement will keep the most helpful provisions, and all of the nasty stuff the ACLU and constitutional experts are having a fit about will be discarded. The Patriot Act isn't going to exist long enough to cause any serious harm.
 
TWX
2003-11-30 05:51:22 PM
LittleCamel:

The suggestion, or the contents of the suggestion?
 
2003-11-30 05:51:33 PM
All of this about Bin Laden and Syria is one of the best political tall tales ever. It just didn't happen. What did happen, was an egyptian with no ties to the Syrian government, said that he was acting as an emmisary for the Syrian government, to negotiate a trade of Bin Laden for some syrian nationals we are holding. So what happened, was the clinton adminstration said "We do not use emmisaries to negotiate with other countries", which has been the policy of the united states since WW1. We don't do 3rd party negotiations. So we made contact with Syria, who had no idea what they were talking about. It was at best a prank, and at worst, a way to get some Syrian nationals released.

As far as Clinton doing nothing to avoid terrorism. That's just a lie. The republican congress denied him more funding for the CIa, specifically for the funding of an anti-terrorism office, (The plans for which later became the Dept. of homeland security) and... the kicker... is that the in the campaigns, the Bush team criticized the Clintons for focusing on Bin Laden too much, and not hamas and other terrorist organizations more.. There was a quote from clinton, saying that he believed that the Bush team would spend more time on AL Queda than any other group. Of course, he was summarily ignored, because.. you know, he did that thing, with his thing...

A final little part, there were terrorism briefings, and an exchange of intelligence, when the 2 teams handed off. The contents of these meetings were lost on Condi Rice, who in interviews have said that no such meetings ever took place, even though she was interviewed directly after them, admitting them. In those meetings, Lots of info changed hands, and once again, the Clinton administration was criticized for focusing too much on one group of terrorists. (Essentially, the Bushies wanted to hear the name Saddam when talking terrorism. You know, since they were drawing up plans to attack prior to 9/11.... )
 
2003-11-30 05:52:48 PM
Hyernel

Source? You can use me as your source. Do you really think I'm going to hunt down a link for you?

It was a serious request. Everything I've been able to find on the subject claims that the Sudanese government offered to arrest Bin Laden and hand him over to the US in exchange for getting sanctions lifted.

You claim that "it was some third party guy claiming that he could deliver Osama from Sudan for a whole bunch of money.

The CIA checked into it, and concluded that the guy was full of crap, and just trying to score a big payday off the Americans."


I can't find any reference to this.
 
2003-11-30 05:55:15 PM
Dorsai A pleasure! I'm off to dinner myself.

A dinner? I'm off to pleasure myself.

I like McCain.
 
2003-11-30 06:00:38 PM
Fark it

But I forgot, far left dogma dictates that it's better to react to catastrophe than to prevent it.

FALSE!

It might be a good idea to notice that, if Pillpopper Limbaugh is telling you what "far left dogma" is, he's pulling it out of his OxyContin bloated ass.

But speaking of reacting to catastrophe:
Rather than reacting to an August 6th intelligence report that warned of al Qaeda flying planes into buildings, the Bushies opted to stay on vacation and let Osama have his fun, so that the PNAC war of permanent profiteering could get under way.

Is that what you mean by acting to prevent things?
 
Displayed 50 of 371 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report