Bush doesn't think we can win the War on Terror

[Guest Paul H.]

The EU still gives money to social programs of known terrosits(Hamas,Hessbollah,etc) groups so you can understand when I laugh at people who say Nato is our allies,our "allies need convicning"..what covincing?

 

We spend hundreds of BILLIONS on defense and we still got bicth-smacked,they got bicth-smacked(Spain) yet they apprease and accomadate these idiots just out of pure bling hatred of our country.Instead of waiting for their approval(like they're gonna do anything but bicth) we need to put pressure on them to help.

 

This war can't be put on by militarty action alone,it's intelligence and law enforcement.If our own CIA,FBI,NSA,Counter-Terrosrims agencies where completley on it's ass and looking the wrong way then what about theirs?What are our "Allies" doing to prevent us and themselves from being bombed?Probably nothing.

 

Some people just don't see this is the most dangerous our world has been.There a suit-case nukes gone missing,evidence of these guys having nerve gas,kidnapppings,executions,..this is not a time to be pussy-footing around bicth-made countries like France.I say we toughen up on these pussies too.

[NoCalMike 0]

The funny thing is, liberals have been screaming this at Bush and his administration for a couple of years now, and in return they were called unamerican, sissys, traitors, treasonous, unpatriotic etc.......It isn't like Bush dropped some enlightened opinion on us, in fact his lame attempts the last couple of days to make sure to get in the line, "we are winning it, and WILL WIN IT" shows he still hasn't a clue.

[Highland 0]

Exercising your democratic right to vote for whoever the fuck you want is not giving in to the terrorists.

[Guest MikeSC]

The funny thing is, liberals have been screaming this at Bush and his administration for a couple of years now, and in return they were called unamerican, sissys, traitors, treasonous, unpatriotic etc.......

Nobody referred to them as "traitors", "unamerican", "treasonous", etc.

It isn't like Bush dropped some enlightened opinion on us, in fact his lame attempts the last couple of days to make sure to get in the line, "we are winning it, and WILL WIN IT" shows he still hasn't a clue.

No, it shows he, thankfully, ignores the press and simply focuses on results.

 

It's becoming more and more baffling what, exactly, Kerry offers to the table. He wouldn't change the action in Iraq, he decided to not really mention a domestic agenda at the DNC, etc.

 

Heck, if Bush presents an agenda and allows his subordinates to deal with the War on Terror --- Kerry will be in deep trouble.

-=Mike

[Guest Olympic Slam]

It's becoming more and more baffling what, exactly, Kerry offers to the table. He wouldn't change the action in Iraq, he decided to not really mention a domestic agenda at the DNC, etc.

 

Heck, if Bush presents an agenda and allows his subordinates to deal with the War on Terror --- Kerry will be in deep trouble.

-=Mike

This is the case of the entire Democratic Party. I have no clue how anyone could vote for anyone out of that party. They offer NO ALTERNATIVE to the Bush doctrine in the War on Terror. There's almost no debate going on about what we should or shouldn't be doing. They add crap like "we shouldn't go it alone" and "we need to reach out to the International community." This offers nothing. This like arguing about where we should go out for dinner. Instead of deciding between Denny's and Red Lobster, the Dems are more concerned with how many Euros we can split the bill with.

 

Its just so crazy and frankly, dangerous that there's no serious alternatives to the War on Terror. Pat Buchanan was on O'Reilly last night and he was a breath of fresh air as he made a lot of sense when he said why going to Iraq was a bad idea. You get nothing like this from the Democrats. Its just anti-Bush rhetoric of "he lied." How can we turn the country over to a party that has no coherent solution? I'd settle for the socialist Green approach of appeasement just because at least its ANOTHER idea.

[NoCalMike 0]

This is the case of the entire Democratic Party.  I have no clue how anyone could vote for anyone out of that party.  They offer NO ALTERNATIVE to the Bush doctrine in the War on Terror.  There's almost no debate going on about what we should or shouldn't be doing.  They add crap like "we shouldn't go it alone" and "we need to reach out to the International community."  This offers nothing.  This like arguing about where we should go out for dinner.  Instead of deciding between Denny's and Red Lobster, the Dems are more concerned with how many Euros we can split the bill with. 

 

Its just so crazy and frankly, dangerous that there's no serious alternatives to the War on Terror.  Pat Buchanan was on O'Reilly last night and he was a breath of fresh air as he made a lot of sense when he said why going to Iraq was a bad idea.  You get nothing like this from the Democrats.  Its just anti-Bush rhetoric of "he lied."  How can we turn the country over to a party that has no coherent solution?  I'd settle for the socialist Green approach of appeasement just because at least its ANOTHER idea.

hence, why I am not voting for Kerry. Quite frankly, I am done with waiting to hear an alternate plan. Kerry has had ample time, and failed miserably. I dunno if Kerry is just to scared to talk about it, or if he in fact has no plan. I mean hell, his entire lead-in was talking about Vietnam which was probably the most irrelevent presentation I have seen in recent history(well besides Guliani's speech last night). I was hoping for Kerry to give us SOMETHING on the way he would differ in his approach in Iraq and abroad, and predictably, he offered nothing.

[Guest Cerebus]

I'll tell you one thing, the JCS and most of the military establishment (especially the "old school" warriors who now have a few stars on their shoulders) won't take too well to Kerry. Even if you put aside all this Vietnam junk, not many in the top military brass has much love for Kerry the Senator (yes, he had other jobs after leaving the Navy, not that you would know it hearing him babble on). It's truly amazing actually, we may have a president that most in the military hate even more than they hated Clinton or Carter.

[Guest MikeSC]

I'll tell you one thing, the JCS and most of the military establishment (especially the "old school" warriors who now have a few stars on their shoulders) won't take too well to Kerry. Even if you put aside all this Vietnam junk, not many in the top military brass has much love for Kerry the Senator (yes, he had other jobs after leaving the Navy, not that you would know it hearing him babble on). It's truly amazing actually, we may have a president that most in the military hate even more than they hated Clinton or Carter.

Will the Dems hate him as much as they hated Carter?

 

Jimmy Carter was the most despised man in the White House by all people.

-=Mike

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Some people just don't see this is the most dangerous our world has been.

That's because it's not and you've been eating what talk radio shovels at you.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

When would you consider the world to be at its most dangerous ever? I guess perhaps during the Bubonic Plague, but those rats and beasties couldn't leave a place uninhabitable for hundreds, if not thousands, of years...

[Jobber of the Week 0]

The world was a lot more dangerous when you were likely to die at a younger age from a simple illness that is among one of the many we have simple cures for now.

 

The world was a lot more dangerous when going anywhere on a trip meant riding along for days and days and days through the wilds on a horse or being pulled along by a herd of cattle. I learned that from the computer game "Oregon Trail."

 

 

Anyway, with so many industrialized nations so many improvements in medicine, it's a lot easier to live a longer, happier life than it was a number of generations ago. People seem to forget that the likelyhood that you will die in a terrorist attack is very small.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

Ah, I see where you're going with this. Instead of pondering the potentional for destruction you went for the back-in-the-day-20-years-was-considered-middle-age outlook.

 

Works for me...

[Guest Paul H.]

Some people just don't see this is the most dangerous our world has been.

That's because it's not and you've been eating what talk radio shovels at you.

Terrorits groups having access to Dirty bombs,anthrax,thirld world nations d/l Bomb-making Info apprently off the internet?This doesn't scare you?Back in the cold war we know the Soviest wouldn't be crazy enough to do something drastic but can you say the same about Al-Qaeda,N.Korea,Iran,Syria,or even Pakistn or India waking up with one of their missles gone?

 

I mean people say "Ohh..they don't have nukes" about the Iraqi's and but they said the same during Clinton's time the same about N.korea now everyone's concerned about them.We didn't take out Bin-Laden how many times? and look what everybody said after 9-11 they blamed the feds.

 

I assure you if we went into Afghanistan at that time or Sudan everyone would have been having a titty-attack just like now with Iraq.

 

Sometimes the public just doesn't think and need to be convinced.We need to do a better job of teaching everyone how far these countries have come in the WMD's department.

[Guest INXS]

The War On Terror will never be won simply because it benefits governments to have the threat hanging over it's people - people can be controlled much easier if they are scared and are willing to give up rights for 'protection'.

[Guest MikeSC]

The War On Terror will never be won simply because it benefits governments to have the threat hanging over it's people - people can be controlled much easier if they are scared and are willing to give up rights for 'protection'.

Castration cannot come quick enough for you.

-=Mike

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

Oh, but I like him.

 

It'd be great to have a bunch of lil' INXSes rolling around on the floor.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And then come in with a bulldozer...

[Special K 0]

This is the worst example of people culling quotes to make politicians look bad. When I heard the quote in context, I knew exactly what Bush meant.

[NoCalMike 0]

This is the worst example of people culling quotes to make politicians look bad. When I heard the quote in context, I knew exactly what Bush meant.

yet at the same time I bet you tout the "I voted for the 87 billion, before I voted against it" quote on a daily basis, knowing full well it was out of context. As well as the Kerry testimony talking about atrocities in Vietnam told to him by accounts of others, yet is cut and pasted in commercials and soundbytes to make it seem otherwise.......

[Guest MikeSC]

This is the worst example of people culling quotes to make politicians look bad. When I heard the quote in context, I knew exactly what Bush meant.

yet at the same time I bet you tout the "I voted for the 87 billion, before I voted against it" quote on a daily basis, knowing full well it was out of context. As well as the Kerry testimony talking about atrocities in Vietnam told to him by accounts of others, yet is cut and pasted in commercials and soundbytes to make it seem otherwise.......

MR. RUSSERT:  And what you're referring to there at the end is that you wanted to roll back the Bush tax cut in order to pay for the $87 billion for the troops in Iraq.  And yet, just a few weeks before that vote, you were on "Face the Nation" and this is what you said.  "I think we need to roll back the top end of the Bush tax cut."  Question...

 

SEN. KERRY:  Right.

 

MR. RUSSERT:  ..."If that amendment does not pass, will you then vote against the $87 billion?"

 

Kerry:  "I don't think any United States senator is going abandon our troops and recklessly leave Iraq to whatever follows as a result of simply cutting and running.  That's irresponsible.  ...I don't think anyone in Congress is going to not give our troops ammunition, not give our troops the ability to be able to defend themselves."

 

And yet you voted against that very amount of money.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4772030/

Seems pretty much in context.

 

As for atrocities --- from that same Meet the Press:

(Videotape, MEET THE PRESS, April 18, 1971):

 

MR. KERRY (Vietnam Veterans Against the War):  There are all kinds of atrocities and I would have to say that, yes, yes, I committed the same kind of atrocities as thousands of other soldiers have committed in that I took part in shootings in free-fire zones.  I conducted harassment and interdiction fire.  I used 50-caliber machine guns which we were granted and ordered to use, which were our only weapon against people.  I took part in search-and-destroy missions, in the burning of villages.  All of this is contrary to the laws of warfare.  All of this is contrary to the Geneva Conventions and all of this ordered as a matter of written established policy by the government of the United States from the top down.  And I believe that the men who designed these, the men who designed the free-fire zone, the men who ordered us, the men who signed off the air raid strike areas, I think these men, by the letter of the law, the same letter of the law that tried Lieutenant Calley, are war criminals.

As usual, you seem to think he ONLY discussed that in his Senate testimony and not elsewhere. Care to explain where, in THIS quote, Kerry implies ANYTHING but "I"(Kerry) doing this?

-=Mike

[NoCalMike 0]

This is the worst example of people culling quotes to make politicians look bad. When I heard the quote in context, I knew exactly what Bush meant.

yet at the same time I bet you tout the "I voted for the 87 billion, before I voted against it" quote on a daily basis, knowing full well it was out of context. As well as the Kerry testimony talking about atrocities in Vietnam told to him by accounts of others, yet is cut and pasted in commercials and soundbytes to make it seem otherwise.......

MR. RUSSERT:  And what you're referring to there at the end is that you wanted to roll back the Bush tax cut in order to pay for the $87 billion for the troops in Iraq.  And yet, just a few weeks before that vote, you were on "Face the Nation" and this is what you said.  "I think we need to roll back the top end of the Bush tax cut."  Question...

 

SEN. KERRY:  Right.

 

MR. RUSSERT:  ..."If that amendment does not pass, will you then vote against the $87 billion?"

 

Kerry:  "I don't think any United States senator is going abandon our troops and recklessly leave Iraq to whatever follows as a result of simply cutting and running.  That's irresponsible.  ...I don't think anyone in Congress is going to not give our troops ammunition, not give our troops the ability to be able to defend themselves."

 

And yet you voted against that very amount of money.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4772030/

Seems pretty much in context.

 

As for atrocities --- from that same Meet the Press:

(Videotape, MEET THE PRESS, April 18, 1971):

 

MR. KERRY (Vietnam Veterans Against the War):  There are all kinds of atrocities and I would have to say that, yes, yes, I committed the same kind of atrocities as thousands of other soldiers have committed in that I took part in shootings in free-fire zones.  I conducted harassment and interdiction fire.  I used 50-caliber machine guns which we were granted and ordered to use, which were our only weapon against people.  I took part in search-and-destroy missions, in the burning of villages.  All of this is contrary to the laws of warfare.  All of this is contrary to the Geneva Conventions and all of this ordered as a matter of written established policy by the government of the United States from the top down.  And I believe that the men who designed these, the men who designed the free-fire zone, the men who ordered us, the men who signed off the air raid strike areas, I think these men, by the letter of the law, the same letter of the law that tried Lieutenant Calley, are war criminals.

As usual, you seem to think he ONLY discussed that in his Senate testimony and not elsewhere. Care to explain where, in THIS quote, Kerry implies ANYTHING but "I"(Kerry) doing this?

-=Mike

The first quote was a small snippet of an interview, therefore will be ignored.

 

 

The second one, was not referring the senate hearings that everyone is so outraged about. I do not recall hearing people in the media talking about Meet the Press, moreso they complain ad naseum about the senate hearings, which is specifically and exclusively referring to.

[Guest MikeSC]

This is the worst example of people culling quotes to make politicians look bad. When I heard the quote in context, I knew exactly what Bush meant.

yet at the same time I bet you tout the "I voted for the 87 billion, before I voted against it" quote on a daily basis, knowing full well it was out of context. As well as the Kerry testimony talking about atrocities in Vietnam told to him by accounts of others, yet is cut and pasted in commercials and soundbytes to make it seem otherwise.......

MR. RUSSERT:  And what you're referring to there at the end is that you wanted to roll back the Bush tax cut in order to pay for the $87 billion for the troops in Iraq.  And yet, just a few weeks before that vote, you were on "Face the Nation" and this is what you said.  "I think we need to roll back the top end of the Bush tax cut."  Question...

 

SEN. KERRY:  Right.

 

MR. RUSSERT:  ..."If that amendment does not pass, will you then vote against the $87 billion?"

 

Kerry:  "I don't think any United States senator is going abandon our troops and recklessly leave Iraq to whatever follows as a result of simply cutting and running.  That's irresponsible.  ...I don't think anyone in Congress is going to not give our troops ammunition, not give our troops the ability to be able to defend themselves."

 

And yet you voted against that very amount of money.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4772030/

Seems pretty much in context.

 

As for atrocities --- from that same Meet the Press:

(Videotape, MEET THE PRESS, April 18, 1971):

 

MR. KERRY (Vietnam Veterans Against the War):  There are all kinds of atrocities and I would have to say that, yes, yes, I committed the same kind of atrocities as thousands of other soldiers have committed in that I took part in shootings in free-fire zones.  I conducted harassment and interdiction fire.  I used 50-caliber machine guns which we were granted and ordered to use, which were our only weapon against people.  I took part in search-and-destroy missions, in the burning of villages.  All of this is contrary to the laws of warfare.  All of this is contrary to the Geneva Conventions and all of this ordered as a matter of written established policy by the government of the United States from the top down.  And I believe that the men who designed these, the men who designed the free-fire zone, the men who ordered us, the men who signed off the air raid strike areas, I think these men, by the letter of the law, the same letter of the law that tried Lieutenant Calley, are war criminals.

As usual, you seem to think he ONLY discussed that in his Senate testimony and not elsewhere. Care to explain where, in THIS quote, Kerry implies ANYTHING but "I"(Kerry) doing this?

-=Mike

The first quote was a small snippet of an interview, therefore will be ignored.

 

 

The second one, was not referring the senate hearings that everyone is so outraged about. I do not recall hearing people in the media talking about Meet the Press, moreso they complain ad naseum about the senate hearings, which is specifically and exclusively referring to.

Actually, I GUARANTEE that anytime Hannity mentions it --- he is SPECIFICALLY referring to it. MOST conservatives, when referring to Kerry committing atrocities, ARE referring to this and NOT to the Senate testimony.

 

As for the first quote, I could've put up Kerry's full response --- but it would only serve to hurt him further.

-=Mike