Dick Cheney brings the optimistic campaign

[Guest GreatOne]

Hey it's alright for the Kerry camp to go after Bush's camp but not vice versa, dontcha know

 

Sure Kerry can question Cheney's patriotism and say Bush is wrong for the US but how DARE 'The Empire Strike Back'

 

You know after seeing the guy from the South Carolina Democratic Committee on RNN ('The Republican News Network' aka Fox News) I must admit I was wrong..............

 

 

 

For thinking in the primaries that Dean would be the only one to bring the funny

[Styles 0]

Powerplay, thanks for assuring me I wasn't going insane.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Personally, I want the guy who will attack threats before the threats attack us, but that's just me...

"Bin-Laden Determined to Attack Inside America," while not the step-by-step retelling of the attacks that some uninformed people seem to think it is, would certainly qualify as a threat.

[Guest GreatOne]

"Bin-Laden Determined to Attack Inside America," while not the step-by-step retelling of the attacks that some uninformed people seem to think it is, would certainly qualify as a threat.

The above from the 'We should never attack pre-emptively' crowd.............

[Jobber of the Week 0]

You're right. I don't think we should attack people that pose no threat to us. However, I've thought we should go after Bin-Laden's ass since the Cole bombing.

 

Bush's defenders complain that the documents is too vague and wouldn't have been able to prevent 9/11, but that's not the point. Bush promotes himself as a risk-taker who's willing to rub people the wrong way to stop our threats.

 

The person that Bush projects himself as being is a guy who, upon reading that memo, would have left Crawford for Washington immediately and met with Congress ASAP to see about using military force to get OBL. And if they wouldn't go for it, it'd just officially be a "police action" like the last time we went in.

 

The person that Bush really is went outside and starting clearing wild brush.

[Guest GreatOne]

The person that Bush projects himself as being is a guy who, upon reading that memo, would have left Crawford for Washington immediately and met with Congress ASAP to see about using military force to get OBL. And if they wouldn't go for it, it'd just officially be a "police action" like the last time we went in.

Do you know that there was a meeting scheduled for JUST THAT? Guess which day it was supposed to happen on, just take a guess (read Bush At War)

 

Of course I'm opening up to the 'OK why wasn't it scheduled for August 7' crowd but seeing that nobody knows that there WASN'T any sort of planning or gathering of intel going on it's irrelevant.

[NoCalMike 0]

I find Cheney's comments hilarious, considering their entire campaign is based upon the assumption that we will be attacked again in the near future, and we need Bush in office to lead us through it. We will be attacked again in this country on some level, and whoever is President won't make one damn of a difference.

 

Oh and if I have to hear another "pre 9/11 world" "the world is different now" "9/11 changed things" etc.....comment, I am going to scream. The only thing 9/11 changed in this country is making it known how apparent people are willing to vote their fears, and how people can be scared into giving the president and his cronies freedom from accountability on a large variety of intelligence blunders and post-war planning strategies. Oh and there is that Patriot Act that is helping put away those drug offen...errrrr....TERRORISTS....

[Slayer 0]

Jesus, nice to meet you too, buddy. This how you usually enter new social groups, by delibirately insulting long standing members who you know nothing about?

Hi everyone! *kicks Slapnuts in dem nuts*

 

That's how I like to start off things

[Guest GreatOne]

I find Cheney's comments hilarious, considering their entire campaign is based upon the assumption that we will be attacked again in the near future, and we need Bush in office to lead us through it.

 

Not near as funny as, say, pick mostly any John Kerry quote, which can be related to the quote in my sig

 

'We are all about issues. We need a president who wasn't getting deferments or hiding out in the guard.........'

[Guest MikeSC]

Personally, I want the guy who will attack threats before the threats attack us, but that's just me...

"Bin-Laden Determined to Attack Inside America," while not the step-by-step retelling of the attacks that some uninformed people seem to think it is, would certainly qualify as a threat.

Again, Jobber, WHAT THE FUCK WAS BUSH SUPPOSED TO DO?

 

SHUT DOWN AMERICA?

 

Gee, "He'll strike in America in the future"? And Bush didn't respond to THAT? Damn, he IS negligent!

 

Again, remember the bitching about Bush "politicizing" the terror alerts? I'm sure doing something pre-9/11 would be, you know, POSSIBLE.

You're right. I don't think we should attack people that pose no threat to us.

He shot at our planes daily for years. He ignored UN resolutions for over a decade. He used WMD and was, at the bare minimum, working his ass off to get more (you know, the yellowcake story).

 

I love your mentality: The only time a President can act pre-emptively is AFTER the fact.

 

Keep in mind, BEFORE 9/11, in the eyes of many, bin Laden wasn't a threat.

Bush's defenders complain that the documents is too vague and wouldn't have been able to prevent 9/11, but that's not the point. Bush promotes himself as a risk-taker who's willing to rub people the wrong way to stop our threats.

And the people who are griping would piss their ever-loving pants if he did ANYTHING before 9/11.

 

Let's say he attacks the Taliban --- I can imagine the shitstorm that YOU, personally, would unleash.

The person that Bush projects himself as being is a guy who, upon reading that memo, would have left Crawford for Washington immediately and met with Congress ASAP to see about using military force to get OBL.

To deal with one of the untold thousands of threats (geez, I miss Marney. She, unlike you, had a clue of the volume of threats we receive daily) we get EVERY DAY OF THE WEEK.

 

Yeah, good plan. If you really want Bush to respond to all threats, we become imperial REAL quick.

I find Cheney's comments hilarious, considering their entire campaign is based upon the assumption that we will be attacked again in the near future

Them and virtually every expert on the planet.

We will be attacked again in this country on some level, and whoever is President won't make one damn of a difference.

I have little faith that Kerry would do a damned thing if France said not to.

Oh and if I have to hear another "pre 9/11 world" "the world is different now" "9/11 changed things" etc.....comment, I am going to scream.

Go ahead. We can't hear you.

The only thing 9/11 changed in this country is making it known how apparent people are willing to vote their fears

Yup, you've learned the lessons well.

and how people can be scared into giving the president and his cronies freedom from accountability on a large variety of intelligence blunders and post-war planning strategies.

Nothing to do with our being vulnerable, though, right?

Oh and there is that Patriot Act that is helping put away those drug offen...errrrr....TERRORISTS....

Well, thankfully, you'll never be in a position of power.

-=Mike

...EDIT: BTW, what, exactly, is the difference between Cheney's statements and Kerry's constant claims that Bush's policies made us "less safe"?

[Guest CronoT]

...EDIT: BTW, what, exactly, is the difference between Cheney's statements and Kerry's constant claims that Bush's policies made us "less safe"?

The difference, Mike, is that Cheney's statement is a vague implied threat/speculation, which, true, is based on past events. To me, it's little more than the "He could get hit by a bus tomorrow and die" line, only a little grander and with bigger words.

 

Kerry, on the otherhand, is citing specific situations in which direct actions taken by Bush has led to increased hostility and threats against the country. In fact, Cheney's "more imminent threat of attack" only bolsters Kerry's point that Bush has pissed off more people than he can now deal with.

 

Do you see the difference now, Mike? Or does it need to be simpler?

[Guest GreatOne]

I'm still waiting for an explanation of how somebody arrived to the conclusion of Cheney's speech meaning 'We're gonna be attacked again'.

 

Hell it's not like Al Qaeda was inspired by Clinton's lackluster efforts against terrorism or pulling out of Somalia right? So, no there's NO precedent set for a soft approach to terrorism by a Democratic President whatsover, gotcha.

 

Kerry good, Bush/Cheney bad we get it............

[St. Gabe 0]

Kerry good, Bush/Cheney bad we get it............

FINALLY! Sheesh!

[Guest GreatOne]

Ah, the power of sarcasm..........

 

Wait, somebody needs a tutorial................

[Guest GreatOne]

Oh btw, SHEESH!................

[Rob E Dangerously 0]

one correction.. the Kitty Kelley claim involved Mike Wallace having a relationship with Nancy Reagan, not Ronald Reagan.

 

That's all

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Again, Jobber, WHAT THE FUCK WAS BUSH SUPPOSED TO DO?

 

SHUT DOWN AMERICA?

Go into Afghanistan and get the bastard before he can do something.

 

He ignored UN resolutions for over a decade.

But I thought the UN was useless?

 

He used WMD

While he had our full support.

 

I love your mentality: The only time a President can act pre-emptively is AFTER the fact.

 

Keep in mind, BEFORE 9/11, in the eyes of many, bin Laden wasn't a threat.

Bin-Laden was a threat because he's been trying to get an attack in this country for years, has attacked our military targets, and the intelligence report said this. I'm saying we should have sent in the troops then, before 9/11. You don't seem to understand this.

 

Let's say he attacks the Taliban --- I can imagine the shitstorm that YOU, personally, would unleash.

 

To deal with one of the untold thousands of threats (geez, I miss Marney. She, unlike you, had a clue of the volume of threats we receive daily) we get EVERY DAY OF THE WEEK.

How many of them did something like the Cole bombing just the year before?

 

I have little faith that Kerry would do a damned thing if France said not to.

Hey there, Zell. He's said he would over and over. When has that position changed?

 

The only thing 9/11 changed in this country is making it known how apparent people are willing to vote their fears

Yup, you've learned the lessons well.

 

What lessons? 9/11 was a fluke. No way in hell should a pack of guys without even as much as a firearm coerce several jetliners full of people into behaving long enough to turn them around and fly them into a metropolitan center. You try that shit these days, everyone's going to get up and beat you down, you can be sure of it. You can also be sure the air force will be bearing down on your ass reasonably quick.

 

The point remains, however, that you likely won't die in a terrorist attack if you live here. You have a greater chance of dying in a plane crash because of a mechanical problem than you do dying of terrorism. You have a greater chance of dying in a car collision than you do from terrorism.

 

Should we get those guys? Of course, and for the most part I think the government is trying it's best, or at least the people in the government who don't have to be elected are trying their best. But it doesn't mean that our culture and our media have taken the massive scale of 9/11 and magnified it further into a product of fear that we're all gonna die from terrorism unless we all buy duct tape, report suspicious neighbors to the anti-terror line, and be extra alert when the color scale goes from Big Bird to Snuffleupagus.

 

...EDIT: BTW, what, exactly, is the difference between Cheney's statements and Kerry's constant claims that Bush's policies made us "less safe"?

I'll call a spade a spade and say you got a pretty good point here. However, I'll reserve saying you're right until Kerry says we'll get attacked again.

[Guest MikeSC]

...EDIT: BTW, what, exactly, is the difference between Cheney's statements and Kerry's constant claims that Bush's policies made us "less safe"?

The difference, Mike, is that Cheney's statement is a vague implied threat/speculation, which, true, is based on past events. To me, it's little more than the "He could get hit by a bus tomorrow and die" line, only a little grander and with bigger words.

 

Kerry, on the otherhand, is citing specific situations in which direct actions taken by Bush has led to increased hostility and threats against the country. In fact, Cheney's "more imminent threat of attack" only bolsters Kerry's point that Bush has pissed off more people than he can now deal with.

 

Do you see the difference now, Mike? Or does it need to be simpler?

No. The bitching is that Cheney is "implying" that a vote for the Dems is a vote for the terrorists.

 

Kerry is FLAT-OUT saying it.

Go into Afghanistan and get the bastard before he can do something.

OK. Since going into Iraq was so bad because they weren't a "threat" --- go ahead and justify going into Afghanistan before 9/11.

 

Please. I'm kinda waiting to hear how that'd be justified.

 

Mind you, Saddam had shot at military planes of ours for many years.

But I thought the UN was useless?

They are. We're trying to actually make them relevant --- a mistake on our part.

While he had our full support.

Actually, no. We never fully supported him. We simply wanted to prolong the Iraq/Iran war since it was taking apart two shitty regimes.

 

And, mind you, the moment we learned about the gassing, we couldn't distance ourselves from Saddam more. Too bad our "allies" refused to follow suit.

Bin-Laden was a threat because he's been trying to get an attack in this country for years

According to Putin, so was Saddam. Do you honestly think Saddam has never threatened to attack us?

has attacked our military targets

As did Saddam.

and the intelligence report said this

As it did about Saddam.

I'm saying we should have sent in the troops then, before 9/11. You don't seem to understand this.

Because you would not have supported it if we did. There is NO difference in Osama pre 9/11 and Saddam. You can't say it's wrong to pre-emptively attack Saddam who posed "no threat" to us when Osama, pre-9/11, appeared to present much less of a threat.

How many of them did something like the Cole bombing just the year before?

Do you know how many times we have to deal with attacks?

Hey there, Zell. He's said he would over and over. When has that position changed?

He's also said he wouldn't do it without allies. He's also said he wouldn't do it until every other channel was exhausted.

 

You'd be amazed at how long one can stall with such requirements.

What lessons? 9/11 was a fluke.

And the lesson is lost on you, too.

No way in hell should a pack of guys without even as much as a firearm coerce several jetliners full of people into behaving long enough to turn them around and fly them into a metropolitan center.

No, they shouldn't.

 

But they DID.

 

And they attacked us in a way we did not foresee with success we did not ever see coming.

 

But continue believing it was just a "fluke" --- and not simply a very well-orchestrated attack that CAN be duplicated if they are given the opportunity.

You try that shit these days, everyone's going to get up and beat you down, you can be sure of it.

BWA HA HA HA!

 

That is, to be generous, bullshit.

 

If the same thing happened today, the results would likely be about the same.

The point remains, however, that you likely won't die in a terrorist attack if you live here.

Ignoring that the effort is constantly there to change that fact.

 

Hell, you are highly unlikely to ever get AIDS. I suppose "safe sex" is unnecessary.

You have a greater chance of dying in a plane crash because of a mechanical problem than you do dying of terrorism. You have a greater chance of dying in a car collision than you do from terrorism.

Yup, lessons were learned.

But it doesn't mean that our culture and our media have taken the massive scale of 9/11 and magnified it further into a product of fear that we're all gonna die from terrorism unless we all buy duct tape, report suspicious neighbors to the anti-terror line, and be extra alert when the color scale goes from Big Bird to Snuffleupagus.

Like it or not --- THAT is the only way to stop the problem.

-=Mike

[Guest MikeSC]

one correction.. the Kitty Kelley claim involved Mike Wallace having a relationship with Nancy Reagan, not Ronald Reagan.

 

That's all

Kitty Kelley update: Sharon Bush, the woman who Kelley claimed told her that Bush did coke at Camp David while his dad was President, states that she never told Kitty that and that is was not true.

 

Wonder if she'll get asked about that.

-=Mike

[Guest CronoT]

one correction.. the Kitty Kelley claim involved Mike Wallace having a relationship with Nancy Reagan, not Ronald Reagan.

 

That's all

Kitty Kelley update: Sharon Bush, the woman who Kelley claimed told her that Bush did coke at Camp David while his dad was President, states that she never told Kitty that and that is was not true.

 

Wonder if she'll get asked about that.

-=Mike

Mike, you know in Washington that everyone says something and then denies it later. It's standard Beltway procedure.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Can't get the quote function to work properly. Oh well. Deal with it.

 

OK. Since going into Iraq was so bad because they weren't a "threat" --- go ahead and justify going into Afghanistan before 9/11.

 

Please. I'm kinda waiting to hear how that'd be justified.

 

Mind you, Saddam had shot at military planes of ours for many years.

Yes, but Saddam wasn't tied with the WTC truckbomb and the Cole bombing.

 

They are. We're trying to actually make them relevant --- a mistake on our part.

I've said this time and time again. If we're going to start enforcing UN resolutions, or saying that going after countries is okay because we're "trying to actually make them relevant," Israel has flatly ignored a big number of Security Counsel resolutions. This always sparks a debate about worldwide anti-Semetism and how in this situation it's perfectly okay because of who it is and because the rest of the world hates them for no good reason.

 

According to Putin, so was Saddam. Do you honestly think Saddam has never threatened to attack us?

 

As did Saddam.

 

As it did about Saddam.

 

This is getting reptitive. The Iraq war and the Bin-Laden hunt are two seperate issues, let's keep them that way. Saddam surely would have wanted to attack us, but there is nothing we see to give the impression that he could.

 

There is NO difference in Osama pre 9/11 and Saddam. You can't say it's wrong to pre-emptively attack Saddam who posed "no threat" to us when Osama, pre-9/11, appeared to present much less of a threat.

 

Saddam was a boxed-in rat kept in his trap. Al-Qaeda is free and a lot more mobile. Saddam had a whole government to run and a military to command, he coud not go get up and run away without losing contact with that, which is why he was found stuck in a whole. On the other hand, Al-Qaeda can get up and run away and reform elsewhere. That's the kind of target you have to pay utmost attention to because the only time you can strike is when you know where they are.

 

 

He's also said he wouldn't do it without allies.

He's said he would have tried harder for allies. Doesn't mean he wouldn't go if he couldn't get them, like this stupid Zell Miller "only defend America when Paris tells him to" fantasy.

 

He's also said he wouldn't do it until every other channel was exhausted.

Well thank fucking god. War should always be a last resort.

 

And the lesson is lost on you, too.

 

That's because there is no lesson. Nothing REALLY changed aside from a Department of Homeland Security and some stricter airport security. That's the problem. If you want to prevent attacks, you need to work harder domestically.

 

Bush operates on the belief that he doesn't need to inspect incoming cargo at ports or reform the visa programs. It's like he thinks we can just blow up everyone who wants to hate us or do harm to us and then we won't need to.

 

[qutoe]Hell, you are highly unlikely to ever get AIDS. I suppose "safe sex" is unnecessary.

Nah, if you looked at the numbers, AIDS is a much higher possibility than dying in someone's terrorist plot. You wouldn't believe it, though, because the media turns every Unabomber that appears into a fucking rock star with constant coverage, analysis, talking heads, etc.

 

Yup, lessons were learned.

Hey, all of the exapmles are true.

 

But it doesn't mean that our culture and our media have taken the massive scale of 9/11 and magnified it further into a product of fear that we're all gonna die from terrorism unless we all buy duct tape, report suspicious neighbors to the anti-terror line, and be extra alert when the color scale goes from Big Bird to Snuffleupagus.

Like it or not --- THAT is the only way to stop the problem.

-=Mike

 

Wow, you're even dumber than I thought.

Edited September 10, 2004 by Jobber of the Week

[Dr. Tom 0]

At least he can use the bloody quote function.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

I can't figure out why that happened. I checked all my openings and closings to make sure I didn't have one more open quote without a closing bracket, but that didn't seem to work. Eventually after removing a bunch of quotes to see what was causing it, I gave up and decided not to give a fuck.

 

But yes, that generally is the result of a [ quote ] without a [ /quote ] to end it with. That message is so huge I can't find it.

[Slayer 0]

[qutoe]Hell, you are highly unlikely to ever get AIDS. I suppose "safe sex" is unnecessary.

That took all of 10 seconds to find

 

Lazy bastard