Wolfowitz & Rumhead Blame Reporters

[spibble spab]

sounds like some ppl in here are just regurgitating crap that the media feeds (F U Michael Moore) )C'mon.
be more responsible than that! lets look at some facts that
you can "google" ALL you want. For decades the Left in America has stupidl and relentlessly attacked the very policies and institutions that have made our country a beacon of liberty and prosperity!
Try to dispute the FACTS not the liberal rhetoric above this post

in 1992 Al Gore published his book "Earth in the Balance"
i directly qoute his book. (remember the images of people jumping out of the WTC sept 9th as you read this quote)

"Consider that the united states spends tens of billions of dollars on frenzied programs to upgrade and improve the technology of bombers and fighter planes to counter an increasingly remote threat to our national security..." hmm

i know it's hard for some of you to discern fact from hearsay
but please be a little bit more responsible with your political diarrhea here. Ill take on any one from the left. I have to. Their a threat to global security. :firing: :thefinger :thefinger :thefinger

 

[spibble spab]

sept 11th!

 

[StevieD]

Spab, what does Iraq have to do with Sept. 11. We are in more danger now because of the wasted resources spent there. It is not a left or a right issue. It is an issue of where our resources should be spent. I remember Bush saying he would not get involved in nation building. You will answer that 9-11 changed everything. You would be correct in that 9-11 changed everything remember that when you quote someone from 12 years ago.

 

[spibble spab]

apparently, 9-11 did not change everything.

 

[spibble spab]

what resources are we wasting in your mind? Where on earth is bush himself "doing nation building"?be careful though,
its not a left or right thing, right? i mean, correct?

 

[StevieD]

I would say that it is universally agreed that Bush is nation building in Iraq.

 

[StevieD]

I would like to see our money spent on defending the rails and the borderes of our country. I would like to see money spent tracking down al-qaeda. I would like to see money spent finding the creeps who attacked us because appartenly we can't find them. I do not think that the billions spent on bombs and rebuilding Iraq were needed to take out Saddam. And if we are not nation building then what are we still doing over there?

 

[dr. freeze]

memo to StevieD:

we got rid of Saddam Hussein who defied 20+ resolutions....

it is now crystal clear that Mr. Hussein had dealings with al quaeda....

we are currently fighting al quaeda and other barbarics who would like nothing more than to place explosizes on themselves and walk into the stevied residence

you should be thankful to the President for standing up for America in spite of all the lies that are propagating by the left wing extremists

 

[spibble spab]

:iagree:

USA did the job in Iraq for countries ahem, jacques,

now they want to do the nation building. it is more multi lateral than you think stevied

 

[auspice]

StevieD

Work with me here as I ask you a question OK? I think it was Truman that came up with the catch phrase 'The Buck Stops Here' correct? And it's since been repeated by everyone from presidents to little league coaches. Those 'buzz words' have become a part of our collective conscience and culture re how we feel about shouldering responsiblity.

And years later Ronald Reagan (the father of the Republican compassionate conservative movement) stated 'I don't remember' one hundred and fifty times to a special prosecutor re his part in the fiasco known as Iran-contra. In that same investigation, a naval admiral that was thought of as one of the brighest people in the U.S. services with an incredible photographic memory, was forced into one hundred and thirty-five 'I don't remember' answers to cover for Reagan.

Question: During the Truman era, were those words actually meant by Truman or were they just words to 'manage' the masses as todays politicans do with catchy sound bites? I'm sure we're being 'managed' by both political parties not just the compassionate conservatives. I'm just unable to have a clearly defined historical perspective and I'm curious if politics has really changed that much or whether the 'audience' has gotten a little more sophisticated and more have caught on to the scams. I know politics has always been referred to as 'dirty business' but has it always been about 'managing the masses' while attending to their special interests? Just curious if you think it's changed that much. Thanks

 

[StevieD]

Auspice, in this administration the phrase should be "The buck stops somewhere else."
I do not care how you care about the prison problem in Iraq. But remember when Rummy addressed the commettee investgating it. Among the first words out of his mouth were "I accept the responsibility." Then he went on for about an hour explaining how it wasn't his fault! LOL! My point is either he accepts it or he doesn't, no excuses.
Freeze, no one can make a connection between Saddam and 9-11. Even the committee said that. But you say we attacked him because of the 20 resolutions he failed to comply with. Fine, then my point stands that this was not the time to take him out in the manner in which we did. The only possible explanation for the billions of dollars and lives spent would be that he was an immediate danger to the United States. Which, he was not. So at best Bush blundered, at worst it was pre-planned. Either way someone should stand up and take the blame for the loss of so many American lives.
I agree Spab that other countries want to get in on the nation building. And maybe they would have earlier and saved a few hundred American lives if Bush would have let them in on the contracts earlier.

 

[auspice]

StevieD

Well I never intended to talk about this administration. As a matter of fact, putting 'the buck stops here' and this administration in the same sentence ain't easy. I'm more interested from a historical perspective if the politicians of past years (Truman era) were genuinely trying to live by these terrific phrases and ideas of if they were just 'phrases' that were caught in print and saved with no real relevancy to their lives or service in government. Hard to gain a perspective on past presidencies and periods from just reading history books. Do you think the words of yester-year were sincere and examples to how they tried to serve the country or were they just 'managing' the masses like the politicians of today? If so, when did it all change so much?

 

[StevieD]

Auspice, I think that politicians were always trying to play with peoples emotions. I know Kennedy took blame for "The Bay of Pigs" when in reality it was Nixon who planned it while VP for Ike. But in those days we expected our politicians to own up to their mistakes and it was Kennedy who gave the final ok. I am sure they had meetings and decided it would be better if he just took the blame for it.
I think that Ken Starr and his relentless attack on the personal life of a standing president had a lot to do with it. We can all say that Clinton was to blame but to come home from work every day and hear that "liberal" media reporting about oral sex on the news was kind of hard to take. Especially when I was watching it with my 10 year old daughter. I never thought I would see the day when I had to change the channel when the news was on because there were children in the room.
Nixon, Clinton, Bush have erroded how we think of our Presidents. They are no longer bigger than life. We see them as humans with the same weaknesses we all have.

 

[dr. freeze]

whoever said anything about 9-11 and Saddam?

we are there because they have connections with Al Quaeda you fool....

get it right and quit trying to twist words like your liberal socialist elitist friends

you are like the rest of the liberal media...always trying to spin things and deny truth

amazing

 

[djv]

Doc, Doc come on. What they got connections with Al Qaeda. Why because there's info they MAY have talked and met in Sudan 3 times. Even you are not that easly fooled. No Saddam was no threat to us or world peace. But we rushed there instead of finishing our job in Afgan. In fact were still not done there either. And very slowley without getting to much attention. We have
sent 7500 soldiers back there. Afgan and Saudi. Now your talking 9/11.

 

[StevieD]

Doc, I am sure Saddam and Al-Qaeda have talked. About what I dunno but I am sure they talked just as Bush talked to the Taliban. So what? Following your logic we should throw out Bush simlpy for doing business with the Taliban about 5 months before 9-11. Or maybe you are right and they got evil sometime between that and 9-11?
Open up your eyes.

 

[dr. freeze]

open up your eyes genius we are fighting Al Quaeda right now in Iraq

 

[StevieD]

Doc, . I am sure Bush is making more Al-Qaeda everyday. Okay, how about this,please explain to me the immediate threat that Iraq was to the United States and how that is any different than any other country over there and how it is worth the lives and blood of the soldiers who served?

 

[dr. freeze]

again and again you need to have it explained to you

1. Saddam was destroying our credibility. 20 plus resolutions defied, a past history of cutting and running had emboldened terrorist organizations and regimes worldwide

2. Saddam WAS a threat. He was harboring terror, and from the evidence we now know and obviously the Bush and Clinton administration also knew previously -- he planned on attacking the US in similar fashions to 9-11.

3. We did not finish the Gulf War. Saddam had been a prior pain in the ass and what a better time to finish him off.

4. The US needed a presence in the Middle East. We had to start somewhere. We have started cleaning up Iraq and now the heat is on in Saudi with us right next door to clean them up.

5. For you to sit here and bitch about our servicemen dying for our freedom and mocking their sacrifice as if it is worthless makes yourself a disgrace. You politicize this war and you never ever find anything positive to say about the President. Bush could never do anything right in your eyes and because he is taking a stance right now which is a critical moment in history, you do not like it. And to drag the blood of the soldiers to a meaningless level insults every patriot still left in the country.

 

[ctownguy]

Freeze, you are talking to the wind with these guys. As I stated before this stevied, according to some of his most recent posts, is nothing more than michael moore in disguise. He is really a mental case on his hatred for the Republican party and Pres Bush.

Far worse than anything on the right, hopefully his family will get him some help