ExiledInIllinois Posted September 8, 2004 Share Posted September 8, 2004 ‘‘It’s absolutely essential that eight weeks from today, on Nov. 2, we make the right choice, because if we make the wrong choice then the danger is that we’ll get hit again and we’ll be hit in a way that will be devastating from the standpoint of the United States,’’ Cheney told supporters in Des Moines, Iowa. I would interpret that to mean, we will get hit again if we make the wrong choice on Nov. 2. Which means if we make the right choice, then we won't get hit again. As to your other points. I don't think terrorists care who is in office. I'm not sure "with who" you mean when you say Kerry wants to negotiate? In this day and age I doubt very seriously any elected president will take the threat of terrorism lightly. In terms of acting against terrorism, we disagree over whether Bush made the right decision using most of our resources to topple Saddam--I think that was a huge mistake. I think Graham's new book quotes Gen. Franks in saying that Bush was redirecting resources into Iraq 6-8 months before the invasion, and that we should've finished the job in Afghanistan, and then Yemen and another country (I can't rember) where Al Queda actuall is. While I'm not voting for Kerry, I do think he will do a better job of focusing on the terrorist that are a threat to America, and not waste all our resources going after countries that are a threat to Isreal. As for the title, lighten up Francis! It was meant as humor. Sorry if I'm not being PC.... 22408[/snapback] Who are you voting for? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TPS Posted September 8, 2004 Author Share Posted September 8, 2004 Who are you voting for? 22419[/snapback] Haven't decided yet. It won't be Kerry, and it definitely won't be Bush. I won't vote for our one-two party system. I've posted in the past that people need to start voting for alternative parties, and I am putting my vote where my posts are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BadDad Posted September 8, 2004 Share Posted September 8, 2004 This statement is wrong in so many ways I can't believe you haven't self-deleted it yet. I guess Clinton was responsible for the dot-com boom since it happened on his watch. Or was he responsible for its bust? I always get those two mixed up. 21729[/snapback] You guys are slipping, it took 11 posts to shift the topic to Clinton. BTW, Sandy Berger and other Clinton admin. officals tried to warn the incoming Bush people about the threat from Al Qaeda, but they brushed him off. So Mr. Cheney does have some experience in coming in unprepared. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whynot Posted September 8, 2004 Share Posted September 8, 2004 From the details that Kerry/Edwards have provided about their plans for fighting the war on terror (e.g., nothing), what Cheney said is technically correct. 22357[/snapback] Explain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted September 8, 2004 Share Posted September 8, 2004 You guys are slipping, it took 11 posts to shift the topic to Clinton. BTW, Sandy Berger and other Clinton admin. officals tried to warn the incoming Bush people about the threat from Al Qaeda, but they brushed him off. So Mr. Cheney does have some experience in coming in unprepared. 22726[/snapback] Sure they did. Because they said so. They'd never lie about anything. Not them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted September 8, 2004 Share Posted September 8, 2004 Sure they did. Because they said so. They'd never lie about anything. Not them. 22748[/snapback] And I'm sure the Bush admin was real impressed with the way Clinton HANDLED Al Qaeda and was REALLY interested in what they had to say. "Hey, thanks for the heads up, Bill. Sorry you didn't handle it yourself but we'll take your advice to heart." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilverNRed Posted September 8, 2004 Share Posted September 8, 2004 You guys are slipping, it took 11 posts to shift the topic to Clinton. BTW, Sandy Berger and other Clinton admin. officals tried to warn the incoming Bush people about the threat from Al Qaeda, but they brushed him off. So Mr. Cheney does have some experience in coming in unprepared. 22726[/snapback] That must have been a funny warning. "Hey, sorry we ignored this for 8 years. You might want to look into it though. Probably nothing, just those guys who bombed the World Trade Center and the USS Cole. I mean, no rush, we could've gotten Osama ourselves but we didn't think it'd look good. Alright, talk to you later." Bush didn't do a good job but saying Clinton tried to warn them is so laughable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MichFan Posted September 9, 2004 Share Posted September 9, 2004 Explain. Okay -- Kerry has provided a broad description of what his war on terror will look like (more thoughtful, more sensitive) and added that he will get more international support. But there has been no plan, not even any details, provided. Domestically he has stated he will implement all of the 9/11 commission recommendations immediately. So the best I can assume is that Kerry is going to think harder about the problem, be more sensitive to the terrorists, magically pull France into the war, and kneejerk implement a significant restructuring of our intelligence community during a time of war. That sounds bad. Thoughtful + sensitive + France + kneejerk at this stage of the game = look the heck out. So technically Cheney is right -- based on what we know of Kerry's plans, if he wins we're gonna be heavily exposed for a while to getting nailed. Kerry is crazy for not laying out specifics of how he will wage the war on terror. This is one issue where pie in the sky is not cutting it with the American public, and it's his best opportunity to seal the deal on the election. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted September 9, 2004 Share Posted September 9, 2004 Okay -- Kerry has provided a broad description of what his war on terror will look like (more thoughtful, more sensitive) and added that he will get more international support. But there has been no plan, not even any details, provided. Domestically he has stated he will implement all of the 9/11 commission recommendations immediately. So the best I can assume is that Kerry is going to think harder about the problem, be more sensitive to the terrorists, magically pull France into the war, and kneejerk implement a significant restructuring of our intelligence community during a time of war. That sounds bad. Thoughtful + sensitive + France + kneejerk at this stage of the game = look the heck out. So technically Cheney is right -- based on what we know of Kerry's plans, if he wins we're gonna be heavily exposed for a while to getting nailed. Kerry is crazy for not laying out specifics of how he will wage the war on terror. This is one issue where pie in the sky is not cutting it with the American public, and it's his best opportunity to seal the deal on the election. 22859[/snapback] He also wants to take the money spent chasing down terrorists on their own turf, and spend that money beefing up reinforcements here...so when they show up on our soil, we're supposed to be standing around waiting for them. Pussification at it's best, and it will create a massive downfall in this world. Oh, but France will like us again...so that's a good thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blzrul Posted September 9, 2004 Share Posted September 9, 2004 Okay -- Kerry has provided a broad description of what his war on terror will look like (more thoughtful, more sensitive) and added that he will get more international support. But there has been no plan, not even any details, provided. Domestically he has stated he will implement all of the 9/11 commission recommendations immediately. So the best I can assume is that Kerry is going to think harder about the problem, be more sensitive to the terrorists, magically pull France into the war, and kneejerk implement a significant restructuring of our intelligence community during a time of war. That sounds bad. Thoughtful + sensitive + France + kneejerk at this stage of the game = look the heck out. So technically Cheney is right -- based on what we know of Kerry's plans, if he wins we're gonna be heavily exposed for a while to getting nailed. Kerry is crazy for not laying out specifics of how he will wage the war on terror. This is one issue where pie in the sky is not cutting it with the American public, and it's his best opportunity to seal the deal on the election. 22859[/snapback] And the Bushistas, when asked why Bush isn't specific on HIS plans, say 'WHAT ARE YOU FREAKING NUTS?! DO YOU WANT THE EVILDOERS TO KNOW OUR PLANS? YOU COMMIE PINKO FREAK!" So puhlease. Get real. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MichFan Posted September 9, 2004 Share Posted September 9, 2004 And the Bushistas, when asked why Bush isn't specific on HIS plans, say 'WHAT ARE YOU FREAKING NUTS?! DO YOU WANT THE EVILDOERS TO KNOW OUR PLANS? YOU COMMIE PINKO FREAK!" So puhlease. Get real. Link "puhlease"? I was gone for a while so I must have missed that debate. Seems to me Bush has been plenty specific since 9/11. Afghanstan was put in the cross hairs and taken down. Saddam was put in the cross hairs and taken down. Pakistan has been given an opportunity to play it straight. Iran, Syria, and North Korea are on notice. Military, economic, and diplomatic means are all being exercised. Intelligence is actively being shared. Etc, etc, etc... I'm plenty real, it's your candidate that needs to get there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted September 9, 2004 Share Posted September 9, 2004 Domestically he has stated he will implement all of the 9/11 commission recommendations immediately.22859[/snapback] Funny. I just read a long, detailed paper not too long ago on how the current administration was doing just that. So I guess, if Kerry gets elected, he'll have to dismantle all of that...since his campaign platform is "I'm not Bush, Bush sucks." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SactoBillFan Posted September 9, 2004 Share Posted September 9, 2004 All I can say is that if Kerry is elected, then the world will come to an end. Our economy, military strength, quality of living, diplomatic standing in the world, everything we stand for will be lost. The economy will go down the drain, we'll be excessively taxed and no one will have a either job or health insurance. Retirement? Forget about it. There is an alternative though. Vote George W. Bush. Look at his record. He's a hero. Remember him with a bullhorn at ground zero two days after the attack. After all, he's a war president, just watch him on TV. He's obviously an awesome diplomat, and truly fiscally conservative which is easily ascertained by the miniscule defict. Sometimes I'd like to think a third party pipe dream may work. Nah! IMHO I think it's time for a change. B) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted September 9, 2004 Share Posted September 9, 2004 All I can say is that if Kerry is elected, then the world will come to an end. Our economy, military strength, quality of living, diplomatic standing in the world, everything we stand for will be lost. The economy will go down the drain, we'll be excessively taxed and no one will have a either job or health insurance. Retirement? Forget about it. There is an alternative though. Vote George W. Bush. Look at his record. He's a hero. Remember him with a bullhorn at ground zero two days after the attack. After all, he's a war president, just watch him on TV. He's obviously an awesome diplomat, and truly fiscally conservative which is easily ascertained by the miniscule defict. Sometimes I'd like to think a third party pipe dream may work. Nah! IMHO I think it's time for a change. B) 23034[/snapback] It's too bad that all the people disgusted by the current situation are people of words instead of action. A message might actually get sent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted April 2, 2005 Share Posted April 2, 2005 Sure they did. Because they said so. They'd never lie about anything. Not them. 22748[/snapback] Obviously, I was wrong. Berger is a lying piece of crap. Big surprise here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted April 2, 2005 Share Posted April 2, 2005 Obviously, I was wrong. Berger is a lying piece of crap. Big surprise here. 293812[/snapback] You're being to nice D. Though, Buff65 will hail him as a hero. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slothrop Posted April 2, 2005 Share Posted April 2, 2005 Last night, Al Gore basically comapred the President to an Islamic Fascist terrorist. But that's OK. 21639[/snapback] YEp - finally Gore said something I argree with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted April 2, 2005 Share Posted April 2, 2005 Obviously, I was wrong. Berger is a lying piece of crap. Big surprise here. 293812[/snapback] Damn you'rewrong a lot lately. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted April 2, 2005 Share Posted April 2, 2005 For the past 6 months security analysts and administration officials have said another terrorist incident is inevitable, now Dick says "only if Kerry is elected."Dick knows no low. Terrorism and election By the way, while the linked article continues on a second page, I think it should've ended on the first page--with Edward's one-word quote... 21544[/snapback] It could happen no matter who is in office. Both sides took way too many cheap shots. Its a shame they have to pander to the pop culture demographic, but those people need to be entertained so they don't lose interest Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blzrul Posted April 2, 2005 Share Posted April 2, 2005 I did see yesterday that Dick's son-in-law has been nominated to head up the lawyer brigade at DHS. 1,500 lawyers. That's one thousand, five hundred. What the HELL does DHS need with 1500 lawyers? Loopholes for ways to hold people without due process? Defense against torture? Preparing petitions for wiretaps? Good lord. I feel safer knowing that somewhere there are 1500 lawyers working for Homeland Security. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts