Mishandling Terrorism

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by bamthin
Zogby says 49% as of January 18th.

-Bam

In other words, they polled only NH, and about .0000000001% of the nation.

 

[bamthin]

Originally posted by jimnyc
In other words, they polled only NH, and about .0000000001% of the nation.

No that sample was nationwide.

-Bam

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by bamthin
No that sample was nationwide.

-Bam

Even if it was, .00000001 of the population isn't any type of indicator. That poll is useless.

 

[wonderwench]

Nice use of selective polls results bammie.

Here's a wider perspective, most recent from a variety of sources:

Newsweek - 50%
Fox - 53%
ABC/Washingon Post - 58%
Zogby - 49%
CNN/Time - 54%
CBS/NY Time - 50%
Gallup & CNN/USA Today - 54%
NBC News & WSH - 54%
Pew Research Center - 56%

http://www.pollingreport.com/BushJob.htm

Take a look at the Negative ratings in each of these. Bush is still viewed for more favorably than he is negatively.

 

[bamthin]

Originally posted by wonderwench
Nice use of selective polls results bammie.

Here's a wider perspective, most recent from a variety of sources:

Newsweek - 50%
Fox - 53%
ABC/Washingon Post - 58%
Zogby - 49%
CNN/Time - 54%
CBS/NY Time - 50%
Gallup & CNN/USA Today - 54%
NBC News & WSH - 54%
Pew Research Center - 56%

http://www.pollingreport.com/BushJob.htm

Take a look at the Negative ratings in each of these. Bush is still viewed for more favorably than he is negatively.

You asked me for my source, I gave it to you. Even the other ones you mentioned have all shown a precipitous drop over the last couple weeks. What's up with that?

-Bam

 

[wonderwench]

Bush experience a brief surge right after Saddam was captured, and now his approval levels have dipped down again.

Nothing strange about that at all.

 

[bamthin]

Originally posted by wonderwench
Bush experience a brief surge right after Saddam was captured, and now his approval levels have dipped down again.

Nothing strange about that at all.

Where did you find an approval rating of over 60%?

-Bam

 

[Annie]

Bam it's becoming obvious that you refuse to actually discuss, just want to screed. While you make broad generalizations from your 'sources' you jump on a rounding factor that WW made.

 

[bamthin]

Originally posted by Kathianne
Bam it's becoming obvious that you refuse to actually discuss, just want to screed. While you make broad generalizations from your 'sources' you jump on a rounding factor that WW made.

I disagree completely. This was a thread someone started which was basically another dose of the right wing mantra that Clinton is somehow the cause of the current scourge on terrorism. I produced evidence to the contrary and discredited the theory.

If you review the thread, you will see it was my post that was scrutinized by WW and SHE made a statement that Bush's approval rating was over 60%. I proved my number, the one she was doubting, and only asked that she show me a link to hers.

And what is wrong with my "sources"? Certainly more reputable than the one WW used to start this thread. A right wing commentary by a right wing nut on a right wing web site.

-Bam

 

[jimnyc]

I produced evidence to the contrary and discredited the theory.

No you didn't, not even close. You made a post about Bush not acting swiftly enough to kill Bin Laden with the use of drones. That isn't evidence to the contrary, nor did it do a damn thing to discredit the theory.

Not to mention you failed to answer the question asked of you. I wonder why that is.

 

[bamthin]

Originally posted by jimnyc
I just love it how some are constantly speaking out against death of any sort, as ammunition against Bush. Then in the next breath they'll state he didn't do enough to kill someone, as ammunition against Bush.

Let's turn this around for a second. Bam, was war declared prior to 9/11? Are you saying you support murder?

I support my President protecting the country and Bush failed to do that. Clinton tried to take out bin Laden and I had no problem with that. I would have absolutely supported the killing of Bin Laden and still would. And why shouldn't war have been declared BEFORE 9/11 if all the evidence against Clinton is so damning? Bush had nine months to declare war before 9/11. Bush was sternly warned that Bin Laden was a real threat and needed to be pursued. Then, the CIA presented opportunities to Bush to take out Bin Laden, but Bush was too busy planning the Iraq invasion and not paying attention to the real threat.

The point here is that, if Clinton should be so maligned for not declaring war back when he was in office instead of treating the attacks on the WTC and the Cole as criminal events, didn't Bush have time to rectify that when he came in office? If what Clinton was doing was so deplorable as to lead to the escalation to 9/11, why did Bush do NOTHING to rectify it and then get blind-sided by 9/11? If Clinton should have declared war on the world of terrorists, Bush should have too and he didn't.

If Bush had capitlaized on taking out Bin Laden, I would have had no problem with it. He was responsible for killing Americans on the USS Cole and had to pay the price.

-Bam

 

[Bullypulpit]

...Osama Bin Laden was initially funded by the CIA during Russias invasion of Afghanistan, along with other mujahedin, many of whom later became the Taliban. And if we go back further, there are established financial ties between Dubbyuh when he headed up Harken Energy and Khalid bin Mafouhz, former BCCI banker and brother-in-law to Osama Bin Laden.

Bin Laden is another Frankenstein created by short-sighted US foreign policy, under Republicrat and Demopublican administrations.

 

[jimnyc]

I support my President protecting the country and Bush failed to do that.

And our government thinks the War on Terrorism is protecting our country. Iraq is a huge part of this war, but you don't support that initiative. Although it's part of the overall war on terror, you would rather focus on any issue you can to bash Bush.

Clinton tried to take out bin Laden and I had no problem with that.

When? Are you speaking of the 3 times Sudan offered to hand him over and Clinton declined?

And why shouldn't war have been declared BEFORE 9/11 if all the evidence against Clinton is so damning?

Declare war on one man? You can't support a war after nearly 3,000 deaths, do you expect us to believe you would have supported a declaration of war on one man?

Bush had nine months to declare war before 9/11. Bush was sternly warned that Bin Laden was a real threat and needed to be pursued

Declare war with whom?

Then, the CIA presented opportunities to Bush to take out Bin Laden, but Bush was too busy planning the Iraq invasion and not paying attention to the real threat.

And you have proof of this of course? Something other than that pathetic O'Neill please. You'll notice he still hasn't released any proof of his assertions. Why do you think it is he won't release this supposed evidence?

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by Bullypulpit
...Osama Bin Laden was initially funded by the CIA during Russias invasion of Afghanistan, along with other mujahedin, many of whom later became the Taliban. And if we go back further, there are established financial ties between Dubbyuh when he headed up Harken Energy and Khalid bin Mafouhz, former BCCI banker and brother-in-law to Osama Bin Laden.

Bin Laden is another Frankenstein created by short-sighted US foreign policy, under Republicrat and Demopublican administrations.

Missing the point? What the hell does this have to do with Clinton's actions in handling Bin Laden? When a terrorist is offered to you on a silver platter, you either accept or turn down the offer. Clinton declined.

 

[bamthin]

Originally posted by jimnyc
And our government thinks the War on Terrorism is protecting our country. Iraq is a huge part of this war, but you don't support that initiative. Although it's part of the overall war on terror, you would rather focus on any issue you can to bash Bush.

And I think that Bush is not to be trusted with a blank check to wage this war. Iraq has little, if anything, to do with 9/11 and is no threat to the US. Bush does not make me feel safer, on the contrary, he makes me feel LESS safe.

Originally posted by jimnyc
When? Are you speaking of the 3 times Sudan offered to hand him over and Clinton declined?

I am refering to the missle strike in Sudan, which, by the way was lambasted by the GOP witchhunters as a Lewinsky distraction tactic. The events that you are refering to in 1996 are a little more involved than that. But I guess you got the Drudge report version. Clinton tried to get Bin Laden from Sudan, but at the time, there was no case to indict him. It was our Constitution that prevented Bin Laden from coming here, not Clinton's refusal. Clinton tried to have Saudi Arabia accept and deal with Bin Laden because there justice system is more "streamlined", but they refused, That's how Bin Laden ended up in Afghanistan where he later was complicit in the Khartoum, Cole and 9/11 attacks.

Originally posted by jimnyc
Declare war on one man? You can't support a war after nearly 3,000 deaths, do you expect us to believe you would have supported a declaration of war on one man?

You seem to have wanted Clinton to do that. Isn't the gist of the argument against Clinton is that he treated the WTC attack as a criminal problem rather than declaring a war on terrorism? This is the underlying theme in the conspiracy to blame Clinton for 9/11. At least that's how I have read it. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

Originally posted by jimnyc
Declare war with whom?

The same "whom" we are now. The elements of terrorism responsible for 9/11. (not just peripheral countries that have no connection to 9/11)

Originally posted by jimnyc
And you have proof of this of course? Something other than that pathetic O'Neill please. You'll notice he still hasn't released any proof of his assertions. Why do you think it is he won't release this supposed evidence?

Another Bush administration official backed up O'Neill's assertion.


-Bam

 

[jimnyc]

And I think that Bush is not to be trusted with a blank check to wage this war. Iraq has little, if anything, to do with 9/11 and is no threat to the US. Bush does not make me feel safer, on the contrary, he makes me feel LESS safe.

Who said anything about Iraq having something to do with 9/11?

I am refering to the missle strike in Sudan, which, by the way was lambasted by the GOP witchhunters as a Lewinsky distraction tactic. The events that you are refering to in 1996 are a little more involved than that. But I guess you got the Drudge report version. Clinton tried to get Bin Laden from Sudan, but at the time, there was no case to indict him. It was our Constitution that prevented Bin Laden from coming here, not Clinton's refusal. Clinton tried to have Saudi Arabia accept and deal with Bin Laden because there justice system is more "streamlined", but they refused, That's how Bin Laden ended up in Afghanistan where he later was complicit in the Khartoum, Cole and 9/11 attacks.

I guess you have your version of the events.
http://www.cnsnews.com/ForeignBureaus/archive/200309/FOR20030904h.html

You seem to have wanted Clinton to do that.

I've stated Clinton should have 'declared war on Osama'? Humor me and show me where I stated this.

Isn't the gist of the argument against Clinton is that he treated the WTC attack as a criminal problem rather than declaring a war on terrorism?

That wasn't my argument.

This is the underlying theme in the conspiracy to blame Clinton for 9/11. At least that's how I have read it. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

I've stated no conspiracies. I simply feel Clinton should have done more.

The same "whom" we are now. The elements of terrorism responsible for 9/11. (not just peripheral countries that have no connection to 9/11)

The war is on terrorism, not solely against those responsible for 9/11.

Another Bush administration official backed up O'Neill's assertion.

And who was that? Why not just produce your evidence instead of beating around the bush.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Originally posted by jimnyc
Missing the point? What the hell does this have to do with Clinton's actions in handling Bin Laden? When a terrorist is offered to you on a silver platter, you either accept or turn down the offer. Clinton declined.

The Dems and Repubs have BOTH blown it. Dubbyuh blew a chance while Bin Laden was hospitalized in early 2001.

BTW, if Osama Bin Laden is still alive, where is he getting his dialysis supplies from?

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by Bullypulpit
The Dems and Repubs have BOTH blown it. Dubbyuh blew a chance while Bin Laden was hospitalized in early 2001.

BTW, if Osama Bin Laden is still alive, where is he getting his dialysis supplies from?

Care to elaborate on what you speak of with Osama in the hospital. A link to a reputable story would suffice.

The man can purchase just about any weapon known to man with the money he has, don't you think he can spend a few extra thousand on his supplies for his ailment? What point are you trying to make with this one. It always helps to type more than just your jibberish.

 

[bamthin]

Originally posted by jimnyc
Missing the point? What the hell does this have to do with Clinton's actions in handling Bin Laden? When a terrorist is offered to you on a silver platter, you either accept or turn down the offer. Clinton declined.

There wasn't sufficient evidence to indict Bin Laden in '96. He would have to be released after he was entered into the US justice system. That's why you have to decline because you can't hold him. That's why the US tried to get Saudi Arabia to take him and execute him because they don't have the justice system we do. Not really fair to say Clinton just declined, he had to decline and he tried to have the Saudis take care of it.

-Bam

 

[bamthin]

Originally posted by jimnyc

And who was that? Why not just produce your evidence instead of beating around the bush.

LINK

I thought you already knew this though. That's why I didn't post it.

-Bam