Dems Vow to Get Bin Laden, Tough Natl Security

[KCConservative]

Great. Now that we got that cleared up, how is putting the bulk of our troops in Iraq helping to get bin Laden dead or alive?

Does it require the "bulk" to get one man? I'd give your military more credit. I'm guessing they know how to multi-task.

 

[KCConservative]

What the heck does Katrina have to do with Bin Laden or National Security?

Shhh. Don't get in the way of the democrats platform. :lol:

 

[G-Man]

What the heck does Katrina have to do with Bin Laden or National Security?

Bringing up the almost criminal leadership of the local and State Goverment, their knowledge that such a disaster could happen for years yet did nothing, and the embezzling of millions ear-marked for maintaining and upgrading the levies, waiting until the last minute to declare a disaster, leaving their own people stranded while parking lots remained jam-packed with buses that could have been used to evacuate people, and the comment afterwards about making NO a Chocolate City has NOTHING to do with National Security

:roll:

If you SERIOUSLY want to improve national security I would advise appointing a qualified disaster management person to the Homeland Security role as opposed to a qualifed horse show organiser. Was it really a surprise 'ol browny' didn't have a clue what to do?

His only qualification for the role seems to be that he was a hardline supporter of G W Bush. Yeah, real tough with national security. Mickey mouse would have been just as usefull.

 

[KCConservative]

Yes, forget all about the suicide bombers and beheadings. Forget radical Islam and the killers within. Hurricanes are our real threat.

 

[easyt65]

If you SERIOUSLY want to improve national security I would advise appointing a qualified disaster management person to the Homeland Security ...

Again, WHAT does Katrina have to do with National Security? Nice try to divert the attention away from 1)the thread, and 2) the incompetence and racist attitude of the Local/State Govts down in NO/La! :roll:

 

[easyt65]

Hurricanes are our real threat.

Don't worry - the Democrats promise they can find them and eliminate them, too! (Maybe we had one of the biggest hurricane seasons in a long time last year because so many were caused by an extremely increased amount of Political :spin: in this country!? :rofl )

 

[KCConservative]

Don't worry - the Democrats promise they can find them and eliminate them, too! (Maybe we had one of the biggest hurricane seasons in a long time last year because so many were caused by an extremely increased amount of Political :spin: in this country!? :rofl )

I saw a bumper sticker recently. It said: Impeach Katrina Now

 

[disneydude]

I saw a bumper sticker recently. It said: Impeach Katrina Now

Damn, then she'll never get elected or re-elected.

 

[KidRocks]

Don't worry - the Democrats promise they can find them and eliminate them, too! (Maybe we had one of the biggest hurricane seasons in a long time last year because so many were caused by an extremely increased amount of Political :spin: in this country!? :rofl )

It just occurred to me that the biggest threat to this country is not bin Laden but the Bush administration.

Fortunately the Democrats are planing on capturing and freeing the White House from the Republicans who are currently occuppying it.

US Naval Station Guantanamo Bay will be readied for President Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld & Co.

 

[KCConservative]

It just occurred to me that the biggest threat to this country is not bin Laden but the Bush administration.

That just occurred to you? :lol: You've been telling us that forever.

 

[Gibberish]

Don't worry - the Democrats promise they can find them and eliminate them, too! (Maybe we had one of the biggest hurricane seasons in a long time last year because so many were caused by an extremely increased amount of Political :spin: in this country!? :rofl )

I thought the right was saying the hurricane was an act of God punishing us because of all the homosexuality and abortions in America?

 

[easyt65]

It just occurred to me that the biggest threat to this country is not bin Laden but the Bush administration.

Fortunately the Democrats are planing on capturing and freeing the White House from the Republicans who are currently occuppying it.

US Naval Station Guantanamo Bay will be readied for President Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld & Co.

What is really amusing is that the Democrats were never interested in attacking the terrorists who were killing Americans during the Clinton Administration, but they are ready to attack our troops and the nation's President today in order to get power back...and now they are talking about getting tough on National Security after their previous attempts have been such miserable failures!

Meanwhile, it is being reported that many Dems are angry at Hillary for pandering to Latinos recently, when she used the bible to try to schmooze votes in a photo op, and the funny thing is that the immigration/Illegal immigant issue is probably the Democrat's best opportunity to un-seat the GOP from power in the up-coming congresional election (the thing that swings the pendulum back the other way). The Latino vote is up for grabs to whoever will be willing to sell out America, instead of doing the right thing, for votes.

 

[G-Man]

Again, WHAT does Katrina have to do with National Security? Nice try to divert the attention away from 1)the thread, and 2) the incompetence and racist attitude of the Local/State Govts down in NO/La! :roll:

Protecting our citizens from natural disasters and their aftermath are very much part of national security. We failed to protect (secure) those caught up by Katrina despite prior warning. A competent homeland security office could have prepared for the hurricane rather than stumbling around after the event.

the govt. has a duty to protect is citizens period - not just protect them from terrorist attacks. They seriously failed with this duty in respect to Katrina.

As for incompetence - GW said 'no-one could have expected the leeves to breach' - this after being personally told by the experts that they could not be sure whether the leeves would hold or not.

Sorry, I take that back. Its not incompetence...its a straight forward lie. :roll:

 

[aquapub]

Of course Democrats want to get Bin Laden now-he's no longer a threat.

He is severed from his network, isolated, his assets frozen. When it comes to national security, Democrats are ALWAYS the preverbial white man dancing out of rythm; they are that jackass who instinctively knows how to stage dive just at that right moment when the crowd parts.

After nearly a decade of retreating from Bin Laden, senselessly missing opportunities to kill (and others to capture) Bin Laden, letting him attack us with impunity, and tying the hands of the FBI and CIA by making it illegal for them to talk about terrorism to each other, now liberals want to hunt down the least relevant terrorist figure on Earth to overcompensate for their knee-jerk reaction for siding with the enemy.

Losing six elections in a row must have really got to the treason lobby to have them reversing course like this.

In advertising, they call this, "positioning." It's where you find a position you want to be in, but that you aren't in (like liberals and patriotism/national security), and then start acting like you have been there all along. The idea is that everyone else will play along and you will eventually convince them that you were always in this position.

Luvs does this when they talk about parents first buying those pricy diapers, and then learning to buy Luvs. Anyone who's ever bought diapers knows Luvs IS one of the pricy brands.

This is positioning. And it is the same thing liberals are trying to do by acting concerned about Bin Laden; it's the same thing Hillary is doing to get elected-reinventing herself as some form of moderate.

 

[easyt65]

Protecting our citizens from natural disasters and their aftermath are very much part of national security..... A competent homeland security office could have prepared for the hurricane rather than stumbling around after the event.:

1. National Security is for another post, but you keep insisting on trying to change the focus from off the Democratic Party's record of complete National Security failures.

2. How in the HEL! is 1 man in Homeland Security going to make sure that the Local and state goverment leaders don't embezzle money from federal funds earmarked for preparation for such a hurricans. The Federal goverment has been giving them money for years for just such an occassion - are we supposed to go down there, hold their hand, and help 'em spend it too? The local goverment was tasked with completing the levy construction begun by the Army Corp of Engineers, but instead of filling the levies up with cement, the local goverment stold part of the money and filled them up instead with sand and cracked shells! How is 1 man in Homeland Security going to make sure that local leaders actually use the assets in their control (like all those buses) to evacuate their own people? How is 1 man in Homeland Security going to mobilize resources in the future unless supplies are stockpiled in strategic locations around the country - and even then it will take the military time and effort to mobilize and move the supplies?

just recently, a company offered to PAY N.O. $5 mil to take away all the cars damaged in the hurricane. The local govt said NO - they are now paying another private, local company $10 KIL to do the job! They went from getting paid $5 mil to having to PAY $10 Mil! How is a person in homeland Security going to stop stupidity and criminal goverment mis-management like THAT? :shock: :roll:

 

[Gibberish]

Of course Democrats want to get Bin Laden now-he's no longer a threat.

He is severed from his network, isolated, his assets frozen. When it comes to national security, Democrats are ALWAYS the preverbial white man dancing out of rythm; they are that jackass who instinctively knows how to stage dive just at that right moment when the crowd parts.

...now liberals want to hunt down the least relevant terrorist figure on Earth to overcompensate for their knee-jerk reaction for siding with the enemy.

I'm going to keep this quote for later use when we get attacked by Bin Laden again as he has stated several times he is planning to do.

 

[G-Man]

1. National Security is for another post, but you keep insisting on trying to change the focus from off the Democratic Party's record of complete National Security failures.

2. How in the HEL! is 1 man in Homeland Security going to make sure that the Local and state goverment leaders don't embezzle money from federal funds earmarked for preparation for such a hurricans. The Federal goverment has been giving them money for years for just such an occassion - are we supposed to go down there, hold their hand, and help 'em spend it too? The local goverment was tasked with completing the levy construction begun by the Army Corp of Engineers, but instead of filling the levies up with cement, the local goverment stold part of the money and filled them up instead with sand and cracked shells! How is 1 man in Homeland Security going to make sure that local leaders actually use the assets in their control (like all those buses) to evacuate their own people? How is 1 man in Homeland Security going to mobilize resources in the future unless supplies are stockpiled in strategic locations around the country - and even then it will take the military time and effort to mobilize and move the supplies?

just recently, a company offered to PAY N.O. $5 mil to take away all the cars damaged in the hurricane. The local govt said NO - they are now paying another private, local company $10 KIL to do the job! They went from getting paid $5 mil to having to PAY $10 Mil! How is a person in homeland Security going to stop stupidity and criminal goverment mis-management like THAT? :shock: :roll:

1) The post is titled 'Dems Vow to get Bin Laden, tough Natl security' - nothing you have said so far contradicts the title. Have you demonstrated they haven't vowed to get tough on security? No.

2) If you want to speak about the removal of funds perhaps you should ask why the Republicans decreased the spending budget for the leeves :roll:

As for 1 man making a difference...if he's supposed to be the focal point and lead organiser in cases of emergency - whereby all major decisions are made by this one man I suggest a suitably qualified candidate would make a SERIOUS difference to the outcome.

Maybe Donald Trump will let his secretary run his empire because 1 man can't make a difference :doh

A disaster of that magnitude cannot be handled by local authorities alone. They need the full back-up and support of the central govt. Whilst this was offered the man put in charge of running the govt. response had no qualifications or experience in disaster management and 'surprisingly' was unable to cope..hence his resultant dismissal (from a post he should never have occupied).

You can slate the Dems all you want...I ain't a Dem myself.

However, your blind ignorance of the present administrations short comings - do you even acknowledge 9/11 happened on Bush's watch? - make any reasoned depate impossible.

 

[easyt65]

1) However, your blind ignorance of the present administrations short comings - do you even acknowledge 9/11 happened on Bush's watch? - make any reasoned depate impossible.

Who is refusing to acknowledge the present administration's short-comings? I am the 1st to admit Bush is doing a HORRIBLE job on immigration and other things for which he is responsible! I do not blindly make excuses for Bush the way the Clinton-apologists do, unable to face facts!

What the heck are you talking about, do I even acknowledge that 9/11 happened on Bush's watch? That has got to be the stupidest question I have ever been asked! Of course 9/11 happened on Bush's watch. Are you saying it would never have happened if Clinton would have been President? (Yeah, like Kobar Towers, the U.S.S. Cole, and the 2 African Embassies didn't happen on his watch?! He prevented those, right? :roll: Oh yeah, Americans died in those attacks!)

Same thing with New Orleans! You think the levies were built, the local area corruption, and everything happened on Bush's watch? All this has been going on over a span of several Presidents, and they have known this was coming - that a direct head-on shot from a hurricane would turn NO into Atlantis - for YEARS! The local and state goverment had been stealing money for YEARS! (I noticed you didn't mention how 1 man in Homeland security is going to stop the CONTINUED bafoonery in NO, like that car deal where they went from getting paid $5 mil to PAYING twice that, rewarding a corrupt good 'ol La boy with the contract - kickbacks on that contract a given!)

You telling me that Bill clinton in office could have held back the waters from flooding NO, could have mobilized the military any faster, could have forced those LA officials to use their busses to evacuate their own people? The mere fact that you actually suggest THAT shows you are out of your biased/partisan ever-lovin' Bush-hatin' MIND!

Unless Moses could have been Clinton's FEMA Rep, there is nothing Slick Willey could have done any better to prevent NO from flooding!

 

[G-Man]

Who is refusing to acknowledge the present administration's short-comings? I am the 1st to admit Bush is doing a HORRIBLE job on immigration and other things for which he is responsible! I do not blindly make excuses for Bush the way the Clinton-apologists do, unable to face facts!

What the heck are you talking about, do I even acknowledge that 9/11 happened on Bush's watch? That has got to be the stupidest question I have ever been asked! Of course 9/11 happened on Bush's watch. Are you saying it would never have happened if Clinton would have been President? (Yeah, like Kobar Towers, the U.S.S. Cole, and the 2 African Embassies didn't happen on his watch?! He prevented those, right? :roll: Oh yeah, Americans died in those attacks!)

Same thing with New Orleans! You think the levies were built, the local area corruption, and everything happened on Bush's watch? All this has been going on over a span of several Presidents, and they have known this was coming - that a direct head-on shot from a hurricane would turn NO into Atlantis - for YEARS! The local and state goverment had been stealing money for YEARS! (I noticed you didn't mention how 1 man in Homeland security is going to stop the CONTINUED bafoonery in NO, like that car deal where they went from getting paid $5 mil to PAYING twice that, rewarding a corrupt good 'ol La boy with the contract - kickbacks on that contract a given!)

You telling me that Bill clinton in office could have held back the waters from flooding NO, could have mobilized the military any faster, could have forced those LA officials to use their busses to evacuate their own people? The mere fact that you actually suggest THAT shows you are out of your biased/partisan ever-lovin' Bush-hatin' MIND!

Unless Moses could have been Clinton's FEMA Rep, there is nothing Slick Willey could have done any better to prevent NO from flooding!

You know that is exactly the point I made earlier - ALL previous adminstrations have been severley lacking with regard to national security.

OBL began his terrorist attacks against the US years ago. Both Clinton and Bush KNEW he was being harboured by the Taliban in Afghanistan and BOTH did nothing - except of course till after 9/11.

You slate Clinton for doing nothing but where is your condemnation of Bush?

Lets see OBL launches terrorist attacks against the US and declare 'war'. BOTH Presidents are told he is hiding in Afghanistan with the full co-operation of the Taleban. BOTH Presidents do nothing and we suffer 9/11.

As I've said before...tough on terror? Only after the horse has bolted, before 9/11 Bush was just as useless as those before. A fact you will not recognise because of your bush blinkers.

 

[oldreliable67]

Its hard to argue with the positions taken by the Dems in their so-called 'strong and smart' strategy (as it was referred to by Pelosi). But, unfortunately, the Dem plan continues to lack specific details of a plan to capture OBL, although they do suggest they will double the number of special forces troops (which is already being done) and add more spies (efforts to do this have been ongoing since 9/11 and were intensified following the 9/11 commish report) to increase the chances of finding the elusive OBL.

Neither do they set a deadline for for when all of the 130,000+ troops now in Iraq should be withdrawn. Instead, they say ""We will ensure 2006 is a year of significant transition to full Iraqi sovereignty, with the Iraqis assuming primary responsibility for security and governing their country and with the responsible redeployment of U.S. forces." Not significantly different from the efforts currently underway, IMO.

So whats not to like about these positions? Everyone would like to see OBL captured and the US military presence in Iraq reduced, but because these goals depend on unknowable contingencies, no one can reasonably promise to acheive them a date certain. Strikes me that the Dem position on these matters, as articulated thus far, is essentially indistinguishable from the Repub position.

Source.

 

[Stinger]

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?

That explains nothing at all, where is your cite or evidence that Bush thinks OBL is in Iraq instead of Pakistan or Afghanistan where we have over 25,000 troops?

 

[KCConservative]

That explains nothing at all, where is your cite or evidence that Bush thinks OBL is in Iraq instead of Pakistan or Afghanistan where we have over 25,000 troops?

I already asked him for this source, but he was unable to come up with anything. Obviously, he doesn't think our military can multi-task. I correspond with soldiers in both Iraq and Afghanistan.

 

[teacher]

If there is one thing about ol' Bin Laden, he's pretty consistant. He don't like troops in Saudi Arabia, and he don't like the Jews. He's stood by that a long time. He never gives in on this. Yet all of a sudden he supposedly backs off to us just pulling out of Iraq and cutting the Taliban some slack. Not the chipper, stodgy curmudgeon I know and love. Why this sudden change of heart? He's always going on and on about the duty of a good Muslim, yet all of a sudden his old beefs are not his religious imperatives anymore? I don't think for a minute my boy Osama would back off his well held beliefs. I don't think he would allow others to say they were him and change his Fatwah, his call for Jihad, or whatever it is these stupid Arabs do. Put it all together. Just who are the Dems gonna get?

 

[Iriemon]

That explains nothing at all, where is your cite or evidence that Bush thinks OBL is in Iraq instead of Pakistan or Afghanistan where we have over 25,000 troops?

I did not contend that.

 

[KCConservative]

I did not contend that.

You didn't?

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).