Right Wingers Are All Morons

[frankiegoestostoke]

lol sorry. It was late and I wasn't reading the post properly...

[Ian]

No problem. I'll try to type clearer next time.

[ldd]

My question to you liberal gurus is: What should be done about the war in Iraq? I hear only criticism coming from the left, and never any solutions. Kerry, himself, has said that his priority will be to "disarm" the terrorist states -- but he doesn't explain how he plans to do it. In the meantime, that is what Bush is doing now. At first Kerry voted for it, then against it - what kind of leadership and clear thinking does that show?

Liberals were the first to tell Bush that he was too late in reacting to 9/11 when he entered Afghanistan, and then said that he was too early in entering Iraq! Meanwhile, Bush is taking the fight to the people who would like nothing better than to see this country obliterated off the face of the earth, rather than lob a couple of missiles (a la Clinton) and wait for them to attack again inside our borders.

Everyone here understands that you hate Bush -- but rather than just generally attack the man personally out of emotion, why don't you introduce a few substantive suggestions about alternative means to end terrorist attacks on the free world? Kerry has not not laid out one single, solid plan that supports his "promises" for ending terrorism - he just says that he will.

Bush, on the other hand, is doing something that should have been done by another president (who obviously felt that his sexual satisfaction was a higher priority than national security) after the World Trade Center was bombed the first time.

Entering Iraq did not anger the terrorists. They were already angry - the first clue was the first bombing of the WTC. The solution to all of this isn't simple, but simply attacking and criticizing the President isn't the way to reach a solution.

Why do you think anyone wants to listen to anything you have to say if you begin with general, hate-spewing tirades? All of us want this to end, but perhaps you should be trying to fill us in one the actual plans and strategies to end this that Kerry has offered during his campaign. Of course, he hasn't offered anything but poorly thought-out slogans and statements, many of which he reverses himself on daily -- so hate-spewing and criticisms may be the only tools that you liberals have left in your arsenal.

They aren't working......

[rush22]

My question to you liberal gurus is: What should be done about the war in Iraq?

More troops for better security, get rid of corrupt members of Iraqi governing council, open bids for contracts to all countries, stop using uranium-depleted armour and weapons, fix the new Iraqi constitution (i.e. do not make it a constitutional right for foreign companies to be able to own 100% of all corporation in Iraq, and take 100% of all profits out of Iraq), re-instate the Iraqi army, and that's just to start.

I hear only criticism coming from the left, and never any solutions. Kerry, himself, has said that his priority will be to "disarm" the terrorist states -- but he doesn't explain how he plans to do it. In the meantime, that is what Bush is doing now. At first Kerry voted for it, then against it - what kind of leadership and clear thinking does that show?

It doesn't really, I'm not really a big fan of Kerry, you'll have to ask someone else.

Liberals were the first to tell Bush that he was too late in reacting to 9/11 when he entered Afghanistan, and then said that he was too early in entering Iraq!

Personally I didn't think it was too late, because the night of September 11th, if I recall correctly, CNN was broadcasting pictures of missiles in Afghanistan blowing up stuff. I don't know where you got that idea. Second, I think it is well known that "liberals" wanted to give the weapons inspectors more time, and therefore Bush's attack was too early.

Meanwhile, Bush is taking the fight to the people who would like nothing better than to see this country obliterated off the face of the earth, rather than lob a couple of missiles (a la Clinton) and wait for them to attack again inside our borders.

That's strange. First of all, I doubt Iraqis want their "country blown off the face of the earth," second of all, Iraq has never attacked the United States inside the country. (apologies if you are talking about Afghanistan, but you didn't make it clear, and I'd still say that first part. Noone wants their country "blown off the face of the earth")

Everyone here understands that you hate Bush -- but rather than just generally attack the man personally out of emotion, why don't you introduce a few substantive suggestions about alternative means to end terrorist attacks on the free world? Kerry has not not laid out one single, solid plan that supports his "promises" for ending terrorism - he just says that he will.

In my opinion, just not being Bush will help. If I knew something about the terrorist attacks than maybe I could make some suggestions, but the Bush administration has classified it all to hell and the media just talk about "the terrorists" all the time, and say "believed to be Al Qaeda" every 5 seconds.

Bush, on the other hand, is doing something that should have been done by another president (who obviously felt that his sexual satisfaction was a higher priority than national security) after the World Trade Center was bombed the first time.

If I recall, Clinton set up some sort of terrorist task force headed by Dick Clarke which, before September 11th 2001, was largely ignored by the Bush administration.

Entering Iraq did not anger the terrorists. They were already angry - the first clue was the first bombing of the WTC. The solution to all of this isn't simple, but simply attacking and criticizing the President isn't the way to reach a solution.

If you don't think entering Iraq didn't anger "the terrorists" you are forgetting that being in the middle east was one of the main reasons they attacked in the first place. Osama Bin Laden's main beef was with the US being on 'holy ground' in Saudi Arabia. He doesn't like Christians (the US army in particular) in the middle east at all. Furthermore, Iraq is now a good recruiting zone for new terrorists and terrorist cells which can be funded by bin Laden for example. There are many people with much more experience than you or I who would argue with you on that point (i.e. Dick Clarke, Gen. Zinni, etc.)

Why do you think anyone wants to listen to anything you have to say if you begin with general, hate-spewing tirades? All of us want this to end, but perhaps you should be trying to fill us in one the actual plans and strategies to end this that Kerry has offered during his campaign. Of course, he hasn't offered anything but poorly thought-out slogans and statements, many of which he reverses himself on daily -- so hate-spewing and criticisms may be the only tools that you liberals have left in your arsenal.

They aren't working.....

I personally don't like Kerry that much and I don't know what his strategies are. He doesn't have to be much better, he just has to not be a moron who plays right into the terrorists hands and makes a killing on killing. I think Bush is all-around bad for the US, and he has to go. If Kerry is just as bad, he'll definitely hear from democrats too; he knows what democrats are concerned about.

[scummybear]

Here's some information about Clarke for you. Your statement about the administration's lack of response to Dick Clarke is another false and overly simple view of events that actually occured.

brainstorming.typepad.com/brainstorming/2004/03/richard_clarke_.html[/quote]

Furthermore, terrorism wasn't very high on Clinton's agenda at the time, or much of anytime for that matter, it was only a concern to him when he sought to cover his antics in the oral office.


www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/8/11/212400.shtml

[scummybear]

rush22 said:

Personally I didn't think it was too late, because the night of September 11th, if I recall correctly, CNN was broadcasting pictures of missiles in Afghanistan blowing up stuff. I don't know where you got that idea. Second, I think it is well known that "liberals" wanted to give the weapons inspectors more time, and therefore Bush's attack was too early.


.

Isn't 10 plus years enough time? Hans Blix even said that we were being jerked around by Hussein; clear deadlines were made and not adhered to. We were given the proverbial finger time and time again.

[rush22]

Isn't 10 plus years enough time? Hans Blix even said that we were being jerked around by Hussein; clear deadlines were made and not adhered to. We were given the proverbial finger time and time again.

I meant in the context of the inspections in 2003. Those particular inspections were not given enough time in my opinion.

[rush22]

Here's some information about Clarke for you. Your statement about the administration's lack of response to Dick Clarke is another false and overly simple view of events that actually occured.

The link is mostly character assassination, and not the specific thing I was talking about anyway. This is what I was talking about:

"On January 24, 2001 I requested in writing an urgent meeting of the NSC Principals commitee to address the al Qida threat. That meeting took place on September 4, 2001."

"The Bush administration saw terrorism policy as important but not urgent, prior to 9-11. The difficulty in obtaining the first Cabinet level (Principals) policy meeting on terrorism and the limited Principals' involvement sent unfortunate signals to the bureaucracy about the Administration's attitude toward the al Qida threat."

The quotes are from page 5 of Clarke's submitted testimony to the 9-11 commission.

www.9-11commission.gov/hearings/hearing8/clarke_statement.pdf

Furthermore, terrorism wasn't very high on Clinton's agenda at the time, or much of anytime for that matter, it was only a concern to him when he sought to cover his antics in the oral office.

Just so you know, before he sent those missiles into Iraq (I'm assuming that's what you are talking about), George H. W. Bush was almost assassinated by Iraqi Intelligence on a trip outside the US (if I remember, the people working for Iraqi Intelligence got in a car accident before they could implement their plan). It was a retaliation by Clinton for the attempted assassination in the form of levelling the Iraqi Intelligence building with cruise missiles.

[scummybear]

I think your having a psychotic break, so I think I'll just back away . . . . very . . .slowly---------------

[rush22]

what? Idd wanted to know what liberals (I being one) thought, and then you asked me to clarify, and I did. Did I misinterpret you or something?

I'll explain it better I guess:

There was no cabinet level meeting on terrorism until September 2001 (even though Clarke asked for one in January). This indicates to me that the Bush administration was not concerned enough to warrant a cabinet level meeting.

While you believe Clinton was attempting to cover up his antics in the oral office by sending cruise missiles into Iraq (that's what you meant right?), I think it was in retaliation for the attempted assassination of George H. W. Bush by the IIS.

What's crazy about that?

[scummybear]

The articles that I posted aren't just somebody's opinion of Richard Clarke- If you'd care to take the time to read it, there is factual information there, that is very pertinent to what you are talking about. This isn't just the world according to you thread. And once again, your making those ridiculous one- liner blanket statements which are gross oversimplifications of what occured.

[lordjulius7]

"I meant in the context of the inspections in 2003. Those particular inspections were not given enough time in my opinion. "

They were given enough time for it to be proven that the Iraqi regime was obstructing the investigators. This wasn't meant to be a game of hide and seek, the inspectors were meant to verify Iraqi disarmament.
Without Iraqi co-operation, their was no job for them to perform. If the coalition haven't found WMD whilst running the place, how are half a dozen UN inspectors meant to find them whilst being actively obstructed?

[rush22]

scummy.

Bush's top anti-terrorism advisor asked for a cabinet level meeting to discuss terrorism in January 2001, and that cabinet level meeting did not occur until September 2001. That is a fact. I do not care about Richard Clarke's past. I do not care how well he did his job. I do not care about Clinton's policies or any other bull**** about Clarke.

The government's top anti-terrorism advisor asked for a cabinet level meeting in January of 2001 to discuss terrorism. and... The government did not believe that the top anti-terrorism advisor's suggestion was prudent at the time So...

The government did not have a cabinet level meeting on this subject until September of 2001. Therefore... The government believed a cabinet level meeting on anti-terrorism wasn't warranted in the period of January to September. Then...

September 11th proved that anti-terrorism should have been more of a priority. Therefore... In hindsight, Richard Clarke's suggestion of a cabinet level meeting on anti-terrorism can be considered prudent. and... In hindsight, the government's priorities concerning terrorism were not.

How the **** else can you look at that!?

[kerryedwards]

;D

[mogster]

Hi folks!

Haven't posted here before, but I think I'll post a comment found on a very rightie site recently.
An American 'celebrating' the 4th of July:

"Happy Fourth of July
To all of the patriotic Americans celebrating the Fourth, we salute you. For all of you anti-American *censored* Faces, (French, Towel Heads, Michael Moore, Etc.), do the world a favor and put a pistol in your mouth and blow your brains out. I will send you the money for bullets if you need it.

If this hurts your feelings or seems intolerant,too bad, I do not care. I have decided I am spending too much time justifying my beliefs to the critics. If you do not like my views, go cry (boo, *censored*ing, hoo) to your God, Michael Moore. If you hate America or Israel, then you are my enemy . As far as I am concerned my enemies can *censored*ing die!!!

I do not care if the spelling is wrong or if I forgot to put in a comma. I do not care if you don't like the word " *censored*". I pay for this site, not you, so *censored* Off. Put your money where your mouth is---start your own I hate America site if you want. I mean what I said: If you hate me, America, Jews, or Israel , YOU can *censored*ing die and I will not care."

Hope I'm not violating any lingo-rules here - I've left it as is

Funny enough, the guy got a reply from another American - I have no idea whether he's liberal or conservative. He's pissed, though

"Comment from: Dai [Visitor]
I love my country, and I am a true American. The author of this letter is indeed my sworn enemy. We don't mind you being butchers, but can you do it to your own family instead of making up excuses to blow the crap out other counties. I pay taxes too, and this costs. And in any case, why aren't you out there fighting if you are so blood thirsty. Back ache. Bad foot. "I'd love to come boys, but, well, you know, I'll be doing all I can. It is not that I am a coward, or a poof, or just a girls douche bag or something. It is just that my foot hurts, and I am a little too old to fight, so I want you to do it for me"

If you want to fight, go. Good *censored*ing riddance to all those big mouths with no bollocks of their own. Big mouths, small dicks. Now isn't that just the truth."

Biased, unfiltered comment is what makes politics endurable, let's not forget that. Niceties may be good in the official sphere but if every post on a forum looks like a damn application for acceptance no one wants to read it.

Am I Right? ;D