easyt65 said:http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060329/ap_on_go_co/democrats_security_1
The Democrats are Vowing to get Bin laden and be tougher on National Security! :shock: Really?!
...
Can you provide the link or a shred of evidence that shows Bush or anyone else in the administration saying they believe bin Laden is in Iraq? Thanks.Iriemon said:I reckon we'd have a better chance of getting him "dead or alive" if we at least put our effort into the right country. (Hint to Bush Admin: Bin Laden is not in Iraq).
aps said:Am I a terrible democrat if the first words that went through my head when I saw that article in the New York Times was, "Oh brother"?
Right-Wing Blocks Funding For Port Security, Disaster Preparedness
KCConservative said:Can you provide the link or a shred of evidence that shows Bush or anyone else in the administration saying they believe bin Laden is in Iraq? Thanks.
Not any more than you already do.hipsterdufus said:7. America is hated throughout the world...
KCConservative said:Can you provide the link or a shred of evidence that shows Bush or anyone else in the administration saying they believe bin Laden is in Iraq? Thanks.
In other words, you have no link to anyone saying bin Laden is in Iraq. Thanks. Now, are you suggesting we have no presence in Afghanistan?Iriemon said:Since that is where he put the bulk of the invasion forces, that's probably a goes a ways to explain why we haven't found him, eh?
KCConservative said:In other words, you have no link to anyone saying bin Laden is in Iraq. Thanks. Now, are you suggesting we have no presence in Afghanistan?
Iriemon said:Well, since I never said that anyone in the Bush admin said bin Laden is in Iraq, I didn't need to defend a straw man.
And where did I say we have no presence in Afganistan?
KCConservative said:Your clever "hint for Bush", saying that bin Laden isn't in Iraq tries to paint the President as believing he is in Iraq. He never said that or implied that. This was your spin.
Saying the "bulk of our invasions" were in Iraq is untrue. We fight the war on terror around the globe. In Iraq, in Afghanistan...even here at home. Again, your spin.
Iriemon said:My "hint for Bush" was based on the fact that after 9-11, and saying he'd get bin Laden dead or alive, he put the bulk off our invasion forces into Iraq. That is spin?
There are over 100,000 US troops in Iraq and less than 20,000 in Afganistan. For the first year there was less than 10,000. Me saying the bulk of our invasion forces are in Iraq is spin?
KCConservative said:Except that your remarks were to suggest that Bush is looking for bin Laden in Iraq. That is, most definitely, spin. We are not looking for bin Laden in Iraq and no one has ever said such a thing. To say it here, is pure spin.
So you admit we have a presence in Afghanistan. That's a good start. So, you see, we fight terror in both places. We hunt bin Laden, we fight terrorists, we throw out terrorist dictators, we help Iraq rebuild, etc.
Glad I could help keep you honest.
No problem, Iriemon. Glad I could help.Iriemon said:Thanks for the clarification as to what I meant.
KCConservative said:No problem, Iriemon. Glad I could help.
easyt65 said:http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060329/ap_on_go_co/democrats_security_1
The Democrats are Vowing to get Bin laden and be tougher on National Security! :shock: Really?!
Where was the tough National Seciruty and the defense of oun country and its people when Bin laden declared war on us in 1995? (Bin Laden Declares WAR on U.S - http://www.themoscowtimes.com/storie...06/12/015.html)
Where was the tough national Security policy when Bin Laden and Al Qaeda was killing Americans around the globe in the Kobar Tpwers, U.S.S. Cole, and 2 African Embassy bombings? Where was the urgency to bring him to justice then?
In the 2004 election, John Kerry declared that he was an 'Internationalist', declared he put his full trust in the U.N., and stated that we should 'outsource' our National security to the U.N.
Since 9/11 the Democrats have approached the issue of our National Security by demanding that we surrender and retreat (Dean/Murtha) in the war aginst Bin Laden/Al Qaeda and the war on terror. In fact, the Democrats have tried convincing the American people that the war on terror is all a lie.
Democrats, like Kerry, have voted against bills that would provide money for defense spending (for things like flak vests and other items our military needs) then flip-flopping before the public when called on it by saying ridiculously pathetic things like "I voted 'for' the money before I voted AGAINST it!)
Since 9/11, the Democrats have apporached the issue of our National Security by calling our troops in combat (DEFENDING this nation by fighting the terrorists, who seek to destroy us, abroad instead of at home) 'Nazis' and 'Terrorists' (Durbin and Kerry).
Since 9/11, Democrats have approached the issue of National Security by playing Party-1st politics and the politics of Personal Destruction, trying to take down a President during a time of war by BOGUS means for personal/political gain! Feingold submitted legislation calling for the punishment of th President for using a LEGAL program designed to combat the terrorist enemy who attacked us on 9/11 and killed many American lives!
Now Hillary puts her own Political Goals ahead of this nation! Pandering for the Latino vote, even referencing the Bible (I thought Dems hated the ignorant, in-bred, redneck, BIBLE-thumpers after 2004?) in her shameless attempt to win votes, she tries to convince the new Immigration legislation will mean the U.S. Goverment will go after Soup kitchen Workers and those who care for immigrant children/babies! Where is the TRUTH? Where is the concern for National Security? Why aren't the Democrats advocating the closing of the borders and the enforcement of the existing laws if they are so worried about Natl. Security?!
What a load of CR@P! While the Dems are gearing up for the Congressional Votes coming up and the '08 election, I hope they are ready to face their own history and past when the debates start! Kerry wasn't ready to face scrutiny over his own past - people didn't forget, about his or the Dem's actions of the past! If Clinton's administration is an example of what we can expect from the Democrats in regards to our defense and National Security, we should all be worried! Regarding Bin laden and National Security, the past speks for itself - the Dems are ALL :spin: and NO ACTION!
KCConservative said:Your clever "hint for Bush", saying that bin Laden isn't in Iraq tries to paint the President as believing he is in Iraq. He never said that or implied that. This was your spin.
G-Man said:Well I ain't a Dem so I won't argue regarding the above but I am interested in how having full diplomatic ties with the Taleban and inviting them over as guests to the Whitehouse (prior to 9/11) is acting tough on terror? I would be interested in how you can defend the republicans on this one.
Whilst the Taleban (who were best buddies with Osama and Al-q) were busying planning the 9/11 attacks Bush was busying making oil deals with them. Tough on terror...I think not.
Bush/Republicans are just as guilty as all before them. Action only followed AFTER 9/11. Perhaps if he had been tough on terror before this atrocity it could have been avoided.
You are right on one point though..the past does speak for itself. Osama was well known to be in Afghanistan before 9/11 but Bush still invited the Afghan govt. over to the Whitehouse to make oil deals. That says a great deal about the Republican party on this matter.
hipsterdufus said:Yes you areSomeone has been spiking your Pinot Grigio w/ neo-con Koolaid.
Here is a GOP summary of their effectiveness with regards to our National Security:
1. OBL still on the loose.
hipsterdufus said:2. 9/11 happened on Bush's watch.
hipsterdufus said:3. 9/11 commission gives Bush administration failing grades on preparedness for next attack.
hipsterdufus said:4. Federal response to Katrina is perfect example of our unpreparedness for another emergency
hipsterdufus said:5. Security at Airports and Ports still abysmal - GOP voted, unanimously I think, to not fund resources to improve security at ports and prepare for disatsters. HR4939
hipsterdufus said:6. Resources and manpower to secure the country, including National Guard, and Reserves are in Iraq.
hipsterdufus said:7. America is hated throughout the world, now more than ever, we need to restore global alliances to fight terrorism.
Iriemon said:Interesting. I wasn't aware of this. Do you have a cite for this information?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?