Bush pisses off 9/11 victims trying to get re-elected...

Quote from aphexcoil:

That's all well and good, but let's face facts -- 9/11 is now a part of American History. A lot of good people died on that day and millions more had to suffer from anxiety attacks, depression and a host of other problems while learning to cope with the magnitude of the event.

Now today, in 2004, we have the same old song and dance that we've had since day one -- and that is the simple fact that this administration has perpetually painted a "doom and gloom" picture for our country.

When I wake up in the morning, I want to look out my window and get excited about the day and what I'm going to do. I don't want to get constantly jerked around by changing color codes, constant erosion of my rights, finger-printing Brazilians, reactionary tactics from Ashcroft, more wars, etc.

Frankly, I'm sick of this bullshit. I'm ready to move on with my life. Let's rebuild the towers and get on with our life. Let's scrap the stupid color codes, because when on God's green Earth are we ever going to use the two colors below yellow? Give me a break.

This administration treats everyone like a bunch of kids who are stupid, naive and easily led like sheep. I'm not going to turn this into a republican vs. democratic debate, but I'm sure I'm not the only REGISTERED REPUBLICAN who feels that this administration has done enough and it is time for a change.

I wouldn't be surprised if they jerked with the color codes just before election to inject yet more fear into the populace and milk more votes.

This entire administration is based on FEAR. How can a country move forward when our own government is more interested in keeping people scared, anxious and bewildered?
More...

I',m sure a lot of people, indeed most people, agree with you but we aren't allowed to choose the world we live in. It's interesting that half the posters here are slamming Bush for not doing enough and the other half think they ae manipulating fears to get reelected.

Let's face facts, something that Kerry et al have so far managed to avoid doing. We face a determined adversary in Islamic terrorism than no amount of money, foreign aid, UN resolutions or anything else can deter. They only understand force. While I have not been very impressed by some elements of Homeland Security, we can't put our heads in the sand and pretend the problem is not real. I have to give the administration credit for the fact that there has not been a single incident of largescale terrorism here since 9/11. Obviously they have done something right.

Now we face the choice of who will lead this effort in the future. To me, Bush is not a compelling leader, but his administration has made huge strides in damaging al qaeda and cutting off its support. I for one am glad that Saddam is outof power. I am glad that Khaddafi has seen the light. I will be even happier when North Korea is dealt with.

To me, Kerry is totally lacking in credibility as either a wartime leader or as the leader in the fight against terrorism. His four months riding around in a boat in Vietnam are totally overshadowed by his shameful activities in support of the communists. He has a clear and unbroken record of voting against defense measures, against CIA funding, against anti-communist support in Latin America and now he apparently thinks we should have left Saddam inpower. He has presented no credible plan for continuing the fight against terrorism. His big idea is to work with the UN, like that ever did us any good, and our european allies, who could care less what happens to us.
 
Hmmm.

Let's see. Bush had not fought in a war, and became president.

He became a "war time president" and responded as any other president would have responded initially.

You seem to think it was the man that rose to the occasion, I see it as a situation that forced a man to act like one for a change.

There is this fallacy that Gore, or Kerry, or any other leader would have responded to 9/11 by cowering in a corner and weeping like a baby.

Nonsense. Presidents listen to, and depend on the military for their decisions about war, and how to defend our country. The military advisors for a democratic president would have done much of what Bush has done.

Giving Bush credit for "security" following 911 is like giving Clinton credit for the economic boom during his administration, and we know you would never do that....

It is the policy decision that shape our world, not the individual battles of soldiers.

Bush made a policy decision to ignore Europe, Russia, China and go after Hussein.

While you may believe that since we have the "power" to do that, the action was right, I don't. It was pre-emptive and elective when it was not necessary to do so.

Only now does the adminstration talk about Bin Laden again...because, well, they have to talk about something to keep people's attention on terrorism.

Countries have long memories. There will come a time when we actually need our allies, and they will not forget how they were treated.

What goes around, comes around.

Quote from AAAintheBeltway:

I',m sure a lot of people, indeed most people, agree with you but we aren't allowed to choose the world we live in. It's interesting that half the posters here are slamming Bush for not doing enough and the other half think they ae manipulating fears to get reelected.

Let's face facts, something that Kerry et al have so far managed to avoid doing. We face a determined adversary in Islamic terrorism than no amount of money, foreign aid, UN resolutions or anything else can deter. They only understand force. While I have not been very impressed by some elements of Homeland Security, we can't put our heads in the sand and pretend the problem is not real. I have to give the administration credit for the fact that there has not been a single incident of largescale terrorism here since 9/11. Obviously they have done something right.

Now we face the choice of who will lead this effort in the future. To me, Bush is not a compelling leader, but his administration has made huge strides in damaging al qaeda and cutting off its support. I for one am glad that Saddam is outof power. I am glad that Khaddafi has seen the light. I will be even happier when North Korea is dealt with.

To me, Kerry is totally lacking in credibility as either a wartime leader or as the leader in the fight against terrorism. His four months riding around in a boat in Vietnam are totally overshadowed by his shameful activities in support of the communists. He has a clear and unbroken record of voting against defense measures, against CIA funding, against anti-communist support in Latin America and now he apparently thinks we should have left Saddam inpower. He has presented no credible plan for continuing the fight against terrorism. His big idea is to work with the UN, like that ever did us any good, and our european allies, who could care less what happens to us.
More...
 
Quote from ARogueTrader:

Hmmm.

Let's see. Bush had not fought in a war, and became president.

He became a "war time president" and responded as any other president would have responded initially.

You seem to think it was the man that rose to the occasion, I see it as a situation that forced a man to act like one for a change.

There is this fallacy that Gore, or Kerry, or any other leader would have responded to 9/11 by cowering in a corner and weeping like a baby.

Nonsense. Presidents listen to, and depend on the military for their decisions about war, and how to defend our country. The military advisors for a democratic president would have done much of what Bush has done.

Giving Bush credit for "security" following 911 is like giving Clinton credit for the economic boom during his administration, and we know you would never do that....

It is the policy decision that shape our world, not the individual battles of soldiers.

Bush made a policy decision to ignore Europe, Russia, China and go after Hussein.

While you may believe that since we have the "power" to do that, the action was right, I don't. It was pre-emptive and elective when it was not necessary to do so.

Only now does the adminstration talk about Bin Laden again...because, well, they have to talk about something to keep people's attention on terrorism.

Countries have long memories. There will come a time when we actually need our allies, and they will not forget how they were treated.

What goes around, comes around.
More...

I don't have tiem to correct all the obvious fallacies in your post, just as I didn't have time to correct you yesterday about "falling" revenues, but we KNOW that Kerry's approach would be different. On second thought, let me just say we know that Kerry has said his approach would be different. What he says and does from one day to the next can change, as we have learned.

Bush "ignored" europe, UN, etc? I'd sya he tried his best to get them to come along, but for their own reasons, importantly the enormous bribes and corruption that we are now learnign Saddam used to "shape" opinion, they refused. Just as Clinton did not let the absence of such consensus or UN action deter him in places like Kososvo, where we had no interests, this President didn't let it stop him in Iraq, where we obviously did have interests.

Anyway, it is our supposed allies who are desperately trying to suck up to us, not the other way around. But if the French-looking Kerry wants to run his campaign on the basis of letting the French have a veto over our foreign and defense policy, so be it.
 
Quote from ARogueTrader:

Hmmm.

Let's see. Bush had not fought in a war, and became president.

He became a "war time president" and responded as any other president would have responded initially.

You seem to think it was the man that rose to the occasion, I see it as a situation that forced a man to act like one for a change.

There is this fallacy that Gore, or Kerry, or any other leader would have responded to 9/11 by cowering in a corner and weeping like a baby.

Nonsense. Presidents listen to, and depend on the military for their decisions about war, and how to defend our country. The military advisors for a democratic president would have done much of what Bush has done.

Giving Bush credit for "security" following 911 is like giving Clinton credit for the economic boom during his administration, and we know you would never do that....

It is the policy decision that shape our world, not the individual battles of soldiers.

Bush made a policy decision to ignore Europe, Russia, China and go after Hussein.

While you may believe that since we have the "power" to do that, the action was right, I don't. It was pre-emptive and elective when it was not necessary to do so.

Only now does the adminstration talk about Bin Laden again...because, well, they have to talk about something to keep people's attention on terrorism.

Countries have long memories. There will come a time when we actually need our allies, and they will not forget how they were treated.

What goes around, comes around.
More...


I could have sworn Jimmy Carter put his head in the sand when Iran took our citizens hostage........Nice to hear these countries have long memories....maybe they can remember to py back the money and the freedom they enjoy becuase of our efforts in two World Wars that , quite frankly we could have just stayed on the sideline ....


anyway, back to the issue at hand.....CAN SOMEBODY PLEASE TELL ME THE PLAN THE DEMS HAVE FOR NATIONAL SECURITY AND WHAT THEY WOULD DO?????
 
Quote from AAAintheBeltway:

I don't have tiem to correct all the obvious fallacies in your post, just as I didn't have time to correct you yesterday about "falling" revenues, but we KNOW that Kerry's approach would be different. On second thought, let me just say we know that Kerry has said his approach would be different. What he says and does from one day to the next can change, as we have learned.

Bush "ignored" europe, UN, etc? I'd sya he tried his best to get them to come along, but for their own reasons, importantly the enormous bribes and corruption that we are now learnign Saddam used to "shape" opinion, they refused. Just as Clinton did not let the absence of such consensus or UN action deter him in places like Kososvo, where we had no interests, this President didn't let it stop him in Iraq, where we obviously did have interests.

Anyway, it is our supposed allies who are desperately trying to suck up to us, not the other way around. But if the French-looking Kerry wants to run his campaign on the basis of letting the French have a veto over our foreign and defense policy, so be it.
More...

The Bush administration's ham-fisted foreign policy has hurt our anti-terror efforts. It was STUPID! The arrogance, the hubris! It will haunt this nation for a long time to come. Yes, Kerry would have done things differently and we'd be more secure today.

This administration is intoxicated with US military power and blinded by ideology.

BTW, comments like "I just don't have time to correct all the obvious fallacies in your post..." are a cheap shot and meaningless. It's just your way of trying to sound superior.

m
 
Quote from MackieMesser:

The Bush administration's ham-fisted foreign policy has hurt our anti-terror efforts. It was STUPID! The arrogance, the hubris! It will haunt this nation for a long time to come. Yes, Kerry would have done things differently and we'd be more secure today.

This administration is intoxicated with US military power and blinded by ideology.

BTW, comments like "I just don't have time to correct all the obvious fallacies in your post..." are a cheap shot and meaningless. It's just your way of trying to sound superior.

m
More...
...tell me what the foreign community is not doing now for us towards terrorism????? and what additional things can they do for us??? $$$??? ....how will it 'haunt' the usa???
 
I don't have "tiem" to research all the falling revenue streams for the US Government, here is one that provides data that tax revenues are down from corporate from 2000 to 2003 by 1/3rd! http://www.cbpp.org/10-20-03tax-fact.pdf

If corporate profits are down, if the volume of stock trading is down, there is less tax revenue from capital gains.

Do I really need to post a link to show you that tax revenue from non-corporate sources are down too?

Honestly AAA, sometimes I don't know if you are just being stubborn or stupid. Maybe I give you too much credit.

Speaking of Bush, did Bush go to the UN to listen and work out a solution, or to tell them what he was going to do?

When you don't listen to the other side's point of view, why bother.

He was going to go into Iraq and remove Saddam no matter what. Nothing would have stopped him, nothing.

French-looking Kerry?

Geez.

Monkey-looking Bush?

pic81.jpg


pic75.jpg


When Bush is on stage with Kerry during the debates, we will clearly see who is the small man, if not the small thinker.




Quote from AAAintheBeltway:

I don't have tiem to correct all the obvious fallacies in your post, just as I didn't have time to correct you yesterday about "falling" revenues, but we KNOW that Kerry's approach would be different. On second thought, let me just say we know that Kerry has said his approach would be different. What he says and does from one day to the next can change, as we have learned.

Bush "ignored" europe, UN, etc? I'd sya he tried his best to get them to come along, but for their own reasons, importantly the enormous bribes and corruption that we are now learnign Saddam used to "shape" opinion, they refused. Just as Clinton did not let the absence of such consensus or UN action deter him in places like Kososvo, where we had no interests, this President didn't let it stop him in Iraq, where we obviously did have interests.

Anyway, it is our supposed allies who are desperately trying to suck up to us, not the other way around. But if the French-looking Kerry wants to run his campaign on the basis of letting the French have a veto over our foreign and defense policy, so be it.
More...
 
....Just asking questions here.....but could sombeody please explain what the United Nations did when Hussein kicked out all the inspectors in 1998 and snubbed his nose at them???????
What did the UN do when Iraq broke resolution after resolution and failed to live up to the UN cease fire??????
 
I nearly lost family members in 9/11. I think 9/11 is relevant and important enough of an issue that Bush can bring it up in the campaign. What the h-ell is wrong with that? Get over it, sounds like a bunch of whining Democrats here.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top