Bush asks for sacrifice he doesn't ask of himself

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Therefore, your point is moot.



[/ QUOTE ]

I think it's quite relevant.

[/ QUOTE ]

How is your point relevant if nearly all Americans of the same category are hypocrites under your definition? Why single out the so-called "chickenhawks" for criticism if nearly all others are hypocrites too?

It's just a mud-slinging tactic for political partisanship. It's spurious, and intellectually dishonest. Think about it.

[PorscheNGuns]

Turn off CNN and step into 2005 dumb dumb, you got it completely backwards.

We are not at war with Iraq.

We are at "war" with terrorism and will be at the very least until the capture or death of Osama Bin Laden.

What do you not comprehend about either of those two facts???

-Matt

[MMMMMM]

Porsche,

Please stop calling posters names. This goes for everyone not just for you. But please stop.

[PorscheNGuns]

oops, sorry, just read your other post.

-Matt

[mackthefork]

[ QUOTE ]
Turn off CNN and step into 2005 dumb dumb, you got it completely backwards.

We are not at war with Iraq.

We are at "war" with terrorism and will be at the very least until the capture or death of Osama Bin Laden.

What do you not comprehend about either of those two facts???

-Matt

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't watch CNN though thanks, I'll turn it on, just so I can switch it off again. Me thinks you listen too much to what crap you get fed by Bush and his mates, we are at war with Iraq, the war is over in name only. A war against terror is just a distraction, OBL is nothing but a thorn in our sides, there are a thousand people ready to pick up where he left off even if you do ever catch him. In all probability hes dead already, I mean why would they tell you when they have you all right where they want you, under control, ready to give up whatever they ask you to.

[ QUOTE ]
step into 2005 dumb dumb

[/ QUOTE ]

I like it, polite but effective, I have waived my right not to be insulted so I guess I'm fair game. [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

Regards Mack

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
How is your point relevant if nearly all Americans of the same category are hypocrites under your definition? Why single out the so-called "chickenhawks" for criticism if nearly all others are hypocrites too?

[/ QUOTE ]

Are 'chickenhawks' not relatively much louder than their counterparts ('chickenfirehawks' or 'chickenpolicehawks' or whatever cute name we might devise for such people). That is, are we not subject to the constant proclamations about 'how the war is necessary', 'if you don't believe in the war you're unamerican', 'these colors don't run', ‘support our troops you dirty liberals’, etc. etc. etc.

If people came here and defended fire-fighting as loudly as they defended the war, yet refused to fight fires, I'd be highly critical of them and/or single them out, too.

[ QUOTE ]
It's just a mud-slinging tactic for political partisanship.

[/ QUOTE ]

First, it's not really a tactic; I have no goals here other than my own entertainment. I cringe when I see how often this charge gets thrown around here.

Consider if I was really interested in tactics and strategies, and my goal was to convert people to my partisan-side, so to speak. WTF would I be doing at 2+2? It's an internet forum. Do you think I really give two [censored] about how people here behave politically? Do you really think that I’m here because I think I'm going to cause people to have some kind of political awakening?

I'm here because I like poker; I post in the politics forum because I get enjoyment from it. Nothing more, nothing less.

Anyone who sees their purpose here as somehow persuading other people to come join their partisan fight has went barking up the wrong tree, so to speak.

I agree, in a sense, that it's mudslinging. But it's not for political partisanship. It's merely because I enjoy it.

[ QUOTE ]
Think about it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks for the advice, because after what might be more than 50 posts on this subject, I really haven't given it any thought yet. Maybe I'll get around to that sometime.

[ QUOTE ]
How long was Bush in office before 9/11? Do you think a budget passed in the spring/early summer has anything whatsoever to do with an attack like the one in late summer??

[/ QUOTE ]

This kinda dodges the question, imo. The Bush administration ignored the final report of the Hart-Rudman commission, the Road Map for National Security: Imperative for Change, that was issued on January 31, 2001. Also, they blocked Senate hearings on the Hart-Rudman commission's report, scheduled for the week of May 7, 2001, by announcing a brand new commission led by Vice President Dick Cheney - which never met before 911. Also, they ignored repeated requests from the Hart-Rudman commission from January 2001 to September 6, 2001, when National Security adviser Condoleezza Rice said she would "pass on" their concerns. Moreover, they ignored repeated requests from Senator Dianne Feinstein to restructure US counter-terrorism and homeland defense programs, starting in July 2001 and continuing through September 10, 2001, when Dick Cheney's Chief of Staff told Feinstein to wait 6 months. Further, they ignored the report of the Gore Commission on Aviation Safety and Security. And, if Bush thought that Clinton had dropped the ball with respect to terrorism, then regardless of whether funding mattered or not, why did Bush rollback counter-terrorism funding in order to fund NMD??

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Sandy Berger (I know he is kinda a pos, but bracket that off) and others warned the new administration officials about terrorism, and those threats were more or less brushed off. Is it really fair to place none of the blame with this administration?

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
I wonder if any of this information was in the documents he STOLE from the national archive.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you understand what "bracket that off" means? Sandy Berger is shady and I'm not defending that. Yet, this seems to have nothing to do with Bush ignoring warnings about Bin Laden.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Also, you accuse Clinton of not capturing Bin Laden when he had an opportunity. Are you suggesting that there weren't any missed opportunities for Bush to have captured BL?

[/ QUOTE ]

None like the ones Clinton had. None that I have seen documented anywhere.

Read Dereliction of Duty by Col. Patterson.

[/ QUOTE ]


Have you read the 9/11 Commission report? Keep in mind that I am not saying Clinton was not culpable; I am just saying the Bush is also culpable and that it is fairly partisan to say that it was 100% Clinton and 0% Bush.

The Bush administration prevented FBI terrorism experts from investigating Saudi Arabian ties to Al Qaeda before 911, leading to the resignation of FBI Deputy Director John O'Neill only two weeks before 911. They also ordered the Naval Strike Force - which President Clinton deployed near Afghanistan on 24-hour alert in order to strike Osama Bin Laden - to "stand down" before 911. Explain that please?
Also, explain why the Bush administration gave $43 million to the Taliban in April 2001.

Why did the Bush administration ignore so many warnings about terrorism? They ignored warnings as early as June from the National Security Agency's Echelon electronic spy network that Middle Eastern terrorists were planning to hijack commercial aircraft to use as weapons to attack important symbols of American and Israeli culture. They ignored warnings from an FBI agent in Phoenix on July 10, 2001 about suspicious Arab pilots with ties to Al Qaeda who were training in a local flight school, urging a nationwide investigation of Arab students in flight schools. Bush personally ignored warnings from the CIA on August 6, 2001 that Al Qaeda planned to hijack US planes. They ignored warnings from Jordanian intelligence in the summer that a major attack was planned inside the US using airplanes. They ignored warnings from Israeli intelligence in August that large-scale terrorist attacks on highly visible targets on the American mainland were imminent, organized by a cell of as many of 200 terrorists said to be preparing a big operation. They ignored warnings from Russian intelligence in August that at least 25 terrorist were trained in Afghanistan and Pakistan to attack US targets, with future plans to attack financial, nuclear, and space facilities. They ignored warnings from Moroccan intelligence in August that Bin Laden was "very disappointed" by the failure of the 1993 WTC bombing, and planned "large-scale operations in New York in the summer or autumn of 2001." They rejected a search warrant requests by FBI agents in Minneapolis for Moussaoui's computer disk. They ignored warnings from Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak on August 31 of an impending attack on the US. They ignored phone calls from Abu Zubaida, bin Laden's chief of operations, to the United States that were intercepted by the National Security Agency shortly before 911. They ignored an extroardinary number of "puts" on the stocks which were hardest hit by the 911 attacks, including American and United airlines, in the days leading up to 911.

Also, inexplicably, the Bush administration allowed counterterrorism agencies to "stand down" from the highest level of alert before August 6, 2001, despite repeated warnings from CIA director George Tenet.

Then, right after 9/11, Ari Fleischer declared that there were "no warnings." Why this lie?

Regardless of whether or not Clinton was responsible, why do Republicans tend to fail to admit Bush's mistakes that lead up to 9/11?

[NCAces]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
We have plenty of people who do and are performing the essential job.

[/ QUOTE ]

You sure about that?

Seems to be an unbelievable amount of people on this board who thinks the military is full of [censored] when they claim they need more recruits.

[/ QUOTE ]

Uh, yeah. Please see previous threads re: recruitment. Why do you find it odd that recruitment is more difficult during a shooting war?

What is it with links in these debates. Linking to one article that supports your argument is not an arguemnt.

So, yeah, I am sure about that, and that.

NCAces

[jaxmike]

I am not saying that mistakes weren't made by everyone leading up to the attacks on 9/11. I do believe however, that the new information about Clinton's people supressing the information about Atta and some of the other hijackers is quite telling however.

[NCAces]

[ QUOTE ]
Methinks I know exactly what the point is. The point is to cast unfair aspersions on those of different political stripe, and to try to marginalize their opinions. But as can be seen, nearly all able-bodied men in this country are hypocrites in other equally valid ways--at least according to your definition of hypocrite. Therefore, your point is moot.

[/ QUOTE ]

I went back and looked that OP. This whole hypocrite thing is simply a way of saying, "I am not capable of defending my argument against the war, hence I will attack those who disagree with me." The line of thought goes something like this:

Pro-War: I think we are doing the right thing by being in Iraq because of reason, reason, reason.

Anti-War: I think you are wrong. We shouldn't be there because or reason, reason reason.

Pro-War: Hmmm, good points, but I think you are wrong because of reason, reason, reason.

Anti-War: You are a coward and a hypocrite. If you won't go down to the Army recruitment office right now, you have no right to support this war.

Pro-War: Well, that's an interesting way of looking at things. But, what about all the reasons I gave you as to why we are doing the right thing?

Anit-War: You are a coward and a hypocrite.

Pro-War: Ok, let's assume for the sake of argument that I am a coward and a hypocrite. Now, what about my reasons that what we are doing is the right thing.

Anti-War: You are a coward and a hyporcite.

Pro-War: Ok, goodbye.

There, that summarizes this thread. Please move on! [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

NCAces