What Did You Do In The War On Terror, Daddy

[Annie]

No I think we as a people are beginning to accept mediocrity as a safe and acceptable alternative to world power...don't be too powerful, smart or rich. I am uncertain whether this is a 'stage' we go through or a steady state. Western Europe appears to be in that state (despite their attempts at regaining world influence through the European Union, etc.). Individual responsibility only occurs in new and growing nations on their way up, in my opinion. I have seen few examples in history where declining nations valued or encouraged individual enterprise or resposnibility.

Again, this all mere philisophical speculation on my part....

Well you are speaking to where I reside, philosophical. I must say, when the powers that 'be' fail to take due care and most of the citizenry agree that it's the right move, there is no other option than the individual acting alone. Not a good place to be.

 

[Gunny]

Well you are speaking to where I reside, philosophical. I must say, when the powers that 'be' fail to take due care and most of the citizenry agree that it's the right move, there is no other option than the individual acting alone. Not a good place to be.

An individual acting alone who knows what he is doing can do FAR MORE damage than a dozen trying to work together.

Having said that, likeminded individuals will band together.

 

[CSM]

Well you are speaking to where I reside, philosophical. I must say, when the powers that 'be' fail to take due care and most of the citizenry agree that it's the right move, there is no other option than the individual acting alone. Not a good place to be.

True enough.

Now it is late for me and I am an old guy. Today has been a GREAT day on the message board for me and I thank you, Gunny, MaineMan and Dirt for the thoght provoking discussions. You all have restored my faith in posting thoughts in this venue.

Gnite all!

 

[Annie]

An individual acting alone who knows what he is doing can do FAR MORE damage than a dozen trying to work together.

Having said that, likeminded individuals will band together.

But what about those that are not trained to do damage? What are we to do with the recognized threat, but lacking the tools and ability to utilize?

 

[Bullypulpit]

No I think we as a people are beginning to accept mediocrity as a safe and acceptable alternative to world power...don't be too powerful, smart or rich. I am uncertain whether this is a 'stage' we go through or a steady state. Western Europe appears to be in that state (despite their attempts at regaining world influence through the European Union, etc.). Individual responsibility only occurs in new and growing nations on their way up, in my opinion. I have seen few examples in history where declining nations valued or encouraged individual enterprise or resposnibility.

Again, this all mere philisophical speculation on my part....

Well, George W. Bush IS President, and I can hardly think of a more appropriate standard bearer for mediocrity...at least in the smarts department. The Bush clan's wealth and power have done little but grow, thanks more to Poppy than to Junior. As for encouraging enterprise or responsibility, Junior has show little inclination towards either in his life. His businesses tanked, and he was always rescued from his blunders by Poppy or Friends of Poppy. The Iraq Study Group, headed by Bush family consiglieri, James Baker was one such attempt. But, having the bit in his teeth, Junior has decided to listen to the voices in his head rather than those cooler, wiser voices of reason.

 

[red states rule]

Well, George W. Bush IS President, and I can hardly think of a more appropriate standard bearer for mediocrity...at least in the smarts department. The Bush clan's wealth and power have done little but grow, thanks more to Poppy than to Junior. As for encouraging enterprise or responsibility, Junior has show little inclination towards either in his life. His businesses tanked, and he was always rescued from his blunders by Poppy or Friends of Poppy. The Iraq Study Group, headed by Bush family consiglieri, James Baker was one such attempt. But, having the bit in his teeth, Junior has decided to listen to the voices in his head rather than those cooler, wiser voices of reason.

The terrorists are listening to the Dems - and they love what they are hearing

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20070510-120705-6975r.htm

 

[CSM]

Well, George W. Bush IS President, and I can hardly think of a more appropriate standard bearer for mediocrity...at least in the smarts department. The Bush clan's wealth and power have done little but grow, thanks more to Poppy than to Junior. As for encouraging enterprise or responsibility, Junior has show little inclination towards either in his life. His businesses tanked, and he was always rescued from his blunders by Poppy or Friends of Poppy. The Iraq Study Group, headed by Bush family consiglieri, James Baker was one such attempt. But, having the bit in his teeth, Junior has decided to listen to the voices in his head rather than those cooler, wiser voices of reason.

Well this is certainly a stellar contribution to the discussion! You have convinced me for sure....I promise I wont vote for Bush in '08.

 

[red states rule]

Well, George W. Bush IS President, and I can hardly think of a more appropriate standard bearer for mediocrity...at least in the smarts department. The Bush clan's wealth and power have done little but grow, thanks more to Poppy than to Junior. As for encouraging enterprise or responsibility, Junior has show little inclination towards either in his life. His businesses tanked, and he was always rescued from his blunders by Poppy or Friends of Poppy. The Iraq Study Group, headed by Bush family consiglieri, James Baker was one such attempt. But, having the bit in his teeth, Junior has decided to listen to the voices in his head rather than those cooler, wiser voices of reason.

Yea, and Bush stole the French election as well

Bush Steals French Elections
I return from my annual Yoga Redeployment to find the world crumbling all around me. The Shrub, it seems, has been as busy as a fascist beaver. California is burning, thanks to his refusal to ratify Kyoto. 10,000 inner-city blacks are dead in Kansas because of his illegal and immoral war in Iraq. Bush’s Fascist Bureau of Ethnic Cleansing is rounding up former Yugoslavian terrorists in New Jersey (what part of the word “former” doesn’t that stupid Chimp understand?), and to top it all off, my beloved France has now fallen under the jackboot of U.S. hegemony.

In the recent French SE-lections, the beautiful and naturally pungent Segolene Royal, who ran on a strongly “I wipe my derriere with the U.S. flag” platform, was soundly defeated by Nicolas Sarkozy, a man who was photographed on numerous occasions NOT wiping his derriere with the U.S. flag. Alarming behavior, indeed. Certainly not what you’d expect from a French leader. If the world looks to Canada for “moral leadership” as Al Gore says, then France is a veritible mecca of progressive thinking. Yet like Canada, France has chosen an ultra-conservative lapdog of the Bush junta to lead them down the path to destruction. This doesn’t bode well for Europe, nor for our own Presidential elections. After all, if a proud. America-hating socialist can’t win in an enlightened nation such as France, then what chance does Hillary have here in the land that time forgot?

http://blamebush.typepad.com/

 

[Bullypulpit]

Yea, and Bush stole the French election as well

Bush Steals French Elections
I return from my annual Yoga Redeployment to find the world crumbling all around me. The Shrub, it seems, has been as busy as a fascist beaver. California is burning, thanks to his refusal to ratify Kyoto. 10,000 inner-city blacks are dead in Kansas because of his illegal and immoral war in Iraq. Bush’s Fascist Bureau of Ethnic Cleansing is rounding up former Yugoslavian terrorists in New Jersey (what part of the word “former” doesn’t that stupid Chimp understand?), and to top it all off, my beloved France has now fallen under the jackboot of U.S. hegemony.

In the recent French SE-lections, the beautiful and naturally pungent Segolene Royal, who ran on a strongly “I wipe my derriere with the U.S. flag” platform, was soundly defeated by Nicolas Sarkozy, a man who was photographed on numerous occasions NOT wiping his derriere with the U.S. flag. Alarming behavior, indeed. Certainly not what you’d expect from a French leader. If the world looks to Canada for “moral leadership” as Al Gore says, then France is a veritible mecca of progressive thinking. Yet like Canada, France has chosen an ultra-conservative lapdog of the Bush junta to lead them down the path to destruction. This doesn’t bode well for Europe, nor for our own Presidential elections. After all, if a proud. America-hating socialist can’t win in an enlightened nation such as France, then what chance does Hillary have here in the land that time forgot?

http://blamebush.typepad.com/

The "Cut-and-Paste Kid" strikes again. Lacking the intellectual wherewithal to formulate his own replies, he once again whips out his trusty edit functions.

 

[red states rule]

The "Cut-and-Paste Kid" strikes again. Lacking the intellectual wherewithal to formulate his own replies, he once again whips out his trusty edit functions.

Sums up the anti war kook left very well

Rush had you in mind when we wrote it BP

 

[TheStripey1]

Son of a liberal: What did you do in the War On Terror, Daddy?

Liberal father: I fought the Americans, along with all the other liberals.

What did you do in the war on terror, rsr?

 

[red states rule]

What did you do in the war on terror, rsr?

I am not pushing for surrender

 

[Rosotar]

I am not pushing for surrender

Once again rsr, whos'e pushing for "surrender?"

The Bushies have been telling us all along about how we're "winning" the WOT. To hear them talk there's an incredible amount of progress that's been made that we're just not hearing about through the "librul" media. What you're calling a "surrender" bill is actually a call for Bush to finally show his cards. If what he's been saying all along is true there should be no problem meeting the benchmarks for success that continued war funding will depend upon.

It's interesting that you and your ilk are pushing this "defeatocrat, surrender" propaganda so intensely rsr. We all see through it. It's just a desperate attempt to shield your president from oversight and accountability at all costs!

It's all about the reputation of your political party isn't it?

The real shame is that you don't care how many of our troops have to die as long as you can put off forever having to admit the obvious.....

Your president is an incompetent failure and a liar to boot!

 

[red states rule]

Once again rsr, whos'e pushing for "surrender?"

The Bushies have been telling us all along about how we're "winning" the WOT. To hear them talk there's an incredible amount of progress that's been made that we're just not hearing about through the "librul" media. What you're calling a "surrender" bill is actually a call for Bush to finally show his cards. If what he's been saying all along is true there should be no problem meeting the benchmarks for success that continued war funding will depend upon.

It's interesting that you and your ilk are pushing this "defeatocrat, surrender" propaganda so intensely rsr. We all see through it. It's just a desperate attempt to shield your president from oversight and accountability at all costs!

It's all about the reputation of your political party isn't it?

The real shame is that you don't care how many of our troops have to die as long as you can put off forever having to admit the obvious.....

Your president is an incompetent failure and a liar to boot!

Dems are pushing for surredner by demanding to include their surrender date in the troops funding bills

You must not be up on current events. Dems have dropped the words "War on Terror" from their documents

This is the libs win the war - they simply do not call it what it is

Dems have a long history of appeasement - the current bunch of Dems are continuing the tradition

 

[Rosotar]

Dems are pushing for surredner by demanding to include their surrender date in the troops funding bills

Hey rsr...It appears that the very Iraqi government that our troops have been dying for now want us out.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/10/AR2007051000387.html?hpid=topnews

What do you say? Surely you would not dishonor the sacrifice of over 3,000 of America's finest by not wanting to honor the wishes of the very government our soldiers died to establish would you?

Of course this will be very hard for you to spin as the fault of the "librul" media or the Democrats. Now we see that it's been the Dems all along that have been in touch with the reality on the ground in Iraq while the Repugs have been in fairy land just making stuff up as they go along.

You must not be up on current events. Dems have dropped the words "War on Terror" from their documents

This is the libs win the war - they simply do not call it what it is

You really can't say you're "fighting a war" on something when your policies are actually working for the enemy like Bush's are.

Liberals didn't invent the "bait and switch, arguing semantics to change the meaning of a thing" game rsr. That's a Repuglican device! If libs are using it now they're simply beating cons at their own game.

Dems have a long history of appeasement - the current bunch of Dems are continuing the tradition

Is that what you call it now?

Would we be "appeasing" the Iraqi government by obeying their wishes and pulling our troops out soon?

Or maybe you're talking about the kind of "appeasement" that senile old phony Ronald Reagan practiced in the eighties?

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20070510_gops_reaganesque_tall_tales/

Between 1984 and 1986, the Reagan administration tried to free American hostages in Lebanon from their Shiite captors, not by confronting the terrorists militarily but by negotiating with their presumed Iranian sponsors. By then, Reagan had already retreated from Lebanon, withdrawing the Marines after the terrorist bombing of their Beirut barracks had claimed 241 American lives.

Instead of retaliating against Iran or any of the organizations that claimed responsibility for the Lebanon attack, Reagan approved a secret initiative to “improve relations” with the Iranian leadership by shipping advanced missiles to them. The immediate objective was to get the Iranians to lean on Hezbollah in Lebanon to release a group of six American hostages.

Although there was much more to the amazing scandal that nearly ended Reagan’s presidency—including the starring role of neoconservatives who have since masterminded another and worse disaster—the basic outline is clear: Terrorists killed our troops, and Reagan responded by retreating from Lebanon, kowtowing to the terrorists’ sponsors, meeting their demand for advanced weapons and pleading for the release of our hostages.

 

[TheStripey1]

I am not pushing for surrender

that wasn't my question... I asked what YOU DID in the war on terror... and you knew what I meant too... but let me make it perfectly clear...

have you taken any active role in the war on terror... you yourself...

anything besides typing, that is...

 

[TheStripey1]

Or maybe you're talking about the kind of "appeasement" that senile old phony Ronald Reagan practiced in the eighties?

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20070510_gops_reaganesque_tall_tales/

Between 1984 and 1986, the Reagan administration tried to free American hostages in Lebanon from their Shiite captors, not by confronting the terrorists militarily but by negotiating with their presumed Iranian sponsors. By then, Reagan had already retreated from Lebanon, withdrawing the Marines after the terrorist bombing of their Beirut barracks had claimed 241 American lives.

Instead of retaliating against Iran or any of the organizations that claimed responsibility for the Lebanon attack, Reagan approved a secret initiative to “improve relations” with the Iranian leadership by shipping advanced missiles to them. The immediate objective was to get the Iranians to lean on Hezbollah in Lebanon to release a group of six American hostages.

Although there was much more to the amazing scandal that nearly ended Reagan’s presidency—including the starring role of neoconservatives who have since masterminded another and worse disaster—the basic outline is clear: Terrorists killed our troops, and Reagan responded by retreating from Lebanon, kowtowing to the terrorists’ sponsors, meeting their demand for advanced weapons and pleading for the release of our hostages.

wow...

mind if I use this on other boards?

 

[Bullypulpit]

Dems are pushing for surredner by demanding to include their surrender date in the troops funding bills

You must not be up on current events. Dems have dropped the words "War on Terror" from their documents

This is the libs win the war - they simply do not call it what it is

Dems have a long history of appeasement - the current bunch of Dems are continuing the tradition

Surely you're not calling Gen. John Baptiste(Ret.), or Maj. Gen. Paul Eaton(Ret.) or Gen. Wesley Clarke(Ret.) a pack of left wing surrender monkey...Are you? Sure sounds like it to me. Why don't you tell them yourself? I'm sure they'll find your mealy-mouthed accusations amusing, particularly as Baptiste and Eaton both served in Iraq, and Clarke was Commander of NATO.

 

[musicman]

wow...

mind if I use this on other boards?

I think you should, by all means, because - unless the "other boards" you refer to are DU clones, the article to which Rosotar linked will be exposed for what it is: lies, lies, and more lies; lies of ommission - lies of wild, agenda-driven conjecture masquerading as fact - and good, old-fashioned baldfaced lies.

"Objective, dispassionate journalists" like Joe Conason are always a little fuzzy on the details of Iran-Contra - and with good reason. The Democrats come out of it looking like the shitty little traitors they are.

The constitutional crisis of which Conason speaks was precipitated by the Democrats, with the Boland Amendments. The Supreme Court ultimately struck these down as unconstitutional attempts by the Legislative Branch to usurp the President's conduct of foreign policy. In the meantime, however - and with the tireless support of Democrats like John Kerry - the Soviet Union was mounting an aggressive campaign of expansionism into the Western Hemisphere (the Soviet Union was the principal threat of this time, you see; Islamic terrorism against the U.S. was still very much in its infancy). Had President Reagan waited for the Supreme Court decision, the damage would have been done; Soviet aggression in our hemisphere posed an intolerable threat to our security.

Reagan was able to legally circumvent a treacherous law (arguably conceived and enacted with treasonous intent - and ultimately struck down as unconstitutional), and extinguish the potentially disastrous fire that threatened our very shores - a fire whose flames were being fanned by what could most charitably be called dangerously naive Democrats. That this Party, and its minions in the mainstream press, continue to try to bury the truth of these events makes me view them less than charitably. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, maybe it's just a treacherous, traitorous duck.

If anyone would like to try to bail the Democrats out of THIS mess, then we can move on to the other - secondary - part of Iran-Contra: the supposed "arms for hostages" deal. Here's a little teaser: Joe Conason is lying through his teeth.

 

[Gunny]

I think you should, by all means, because - unless the "other boards" you refer to are DU clones, the article to which Rosotar linked will be exposed for what it is: lies, lies, and more lies; lies of ommission - lies of wild, agenda-driven conjecture masquerading as fact - and good, old-fashioned baldfaced lies.

Oh .... you mean like everything he posts?