Re-Evaluating Newt..

[JoeB131]

This is mind blowingly stupid. Do you remember 9/11? Do you grasp that Clarke and Clinton were right about bin Laden, and Bush and Condi were wrong?

I would say everyone was wrong about Bin Laden. But Clinton had eight years to do something substanive about the guy, from when the first WTC attack happened, to the bombing of USS Cole. And he did nothing. He let the guy walk out of the Sudan (after the Sudan had offered to turn him over) and into Afghanistan.

Bush on the other hand, wiped out most of his network, toppled the two regimes that Clinton said was aiding him (Iraq and Afghanistan) froze his assets, captured or killed most of his key subordinates. To the point that all he had left at the end was a house and his porn stash where he lived cowering in fear.

We nominated him because we thought he had the best shot.
.

Really? Doesn't that say something about you guys, then? You don't stand by your principles, you comprimise them because you want to win. Which is, of course, why you lost.

 

[Lumpy 1]

Okay, Lumpy, I'm ready now. I'm ready to start listening to what people have to say good for the guy.

Has anyone been saying anything good about him? More specific than how smart he is? I haven't been paying attention to the whole thread. Lotsa noise in it. But if you have, could you summarize the high points?

What does Newt plan for the nation starting in 2013?

I'm ready to listen!

I was kinda asking for the beefs, there's beefs a plenty...

I haven't read the whole thread. I did notice a theme of whining about his marital problems which seems odd to me coming from liberals. They seem to want to keep Republicans on a moral pedestal so that they can simultaneously tear it down.

I think Democrats have been successful in down grading religious faith and morals down to a bigots paradise. They use religion as a weapon..it just not appropriate..

Sorry I can't summarize the high points ...Sharks & NY Islanders starts in 15 minutes..

I started my own thread for high points instead of beefs.

But it was royally hijacked.



Hope it's a good game!

I'm flattered... and, most threads are ..and, Sharks won on a bad ref call..and a goal of course..

 

[The T]

I was kinda asking for the beefs, there's beefs a plenty...

I haven't read the whole thread. I did notice a theme of whining about his marital problems which seems odd to me coming from liberals. They seem to want to keep Republicans on a moral pedestal so that they can simultaneously tear it down.

I think Democrats have been successful in down grading religious faith and morals down to a bigots paradise. They use religion as a weapon..it just not appropriate..

Sorry I can't summarize the high points ...Sharks & NY Islanders starts in 15 minutes..

I started my own thread for high points instead of beefs.

But it was royally hijacked.



Hope it's a good game!

I'm flattered... and, most threads are ..and, Sharks won on a bad ref call..and a goal of course..

YOU do a great job,

 

[SAT]

This is mind blowingly stupid. Do you remember 9/11? Do you grasp that Clarke and Clinton were right about bin Laden, and Bush and Condi were wrong?

I would say everyone was wrong about Bin Laden. But Clinton had eight years to do something substanive about the guy, from when the first WTC attack happened, to the bombing of USS Cole. And he did nothing. He let the guy walk out of the Sudan (after the Sudan had offered to turn him over) and into Afghanistan.

Bush on the other hand, wiped out most of his network, toppled the two regimes that Clinton said was aiding him (Iraq and Afghanistan) froze his assets, captured or killed most of his key subordinates. To the point that all he had left at the end was a house and his porn stash where he lived cowering in fear.

No. Everyone wasn't wrong about bin Laden. Clarke was right. Bill Clinton was right. George Bush was wrong before 9/11. The people you're citing who attacked Clarke were wrong. They complained that Clarke kept coming in with his hair on fire---which means that he grasped the reality of the problem BEFORE 9/11. But in order to defend Bush, the right has been forced to attack Clarke for being overzealous...instead of having some degree of honesty and admitting that when Clarke's hair was on fire, Clarke was right.

Clinton was obsessed with bin Laden to the point that he was criticized for it.

snopes.com: Clinton Administration and Terrorists

As for Clinton passing on bin Laden, are you determined to bring up every right wing myth in existence in this thread?

FactCheck.org : Clinton Passed on Killing bin Laden?

We nominated him because we thought he had the best shot.

Really? Doesn't that say something about you guys, then? You don't stand by your principles, you comprimise them because you want to win. Which is, of course, why you lost.

Yes, it says that we are not rigid ideologues.

As for 'why we lost', that's pretty funny. Look at the crop of candidates that the Pubs have this go round....please, don't compromise your principles. Nominate Newt, and let him go down in flames.

 

[Synthaholic]

Two points.

1) The Democrats looked at the same evidence,and came to the same conclusions.

False. They looked at the evidence that Bush allowed them to see.

Oh, right. Because clearly, none of these guys who had been around Washington longer than Bush had knew anyone over at the CIA or Pentagon. Because they hadn't been looking at the same intelligence in the 1990's that said the same things.

So, because Bush withheld key intelligence that undermined his case for going to war with Iraq, Democrats should have just hit up 'Deep Throat"-like sources in underground parking lots to learn the truth?

We weren't allies with those countries. Americans didn't want a second war. They thought the first one was a pretty dumb idea. Had the Japanese not bombed Pearl Harbor, we'd have let Hilter win and not really cared.

We weren't allies with Britain and France????

I'm beginning to realize that I've given you much too much credit.

A dictator who wasn't a threat to us, hadn't caused us any problems, and who was actually co-operating with us at that point. And all he had to do was let power go to some crazy Islamists who are already sizing everyone up for Burhkas...

A dictator who killed hundreds of Americans by blowing up a plane over Scotland.

As opposed to a dictator in Iraq who never launched any terrorist attacks against the U.S.

 

[Synthaholic]

The famous 16 words were correct. The British did have evidence the Iraqis were trying to buy uranium. MI-6 stood by that statement. So it was an accurate statement. they didn't get it, but they asked for it.

Look, guy, George Tenat went into Bush's office and said "It's a slam dunk, Mr. President!"

Joe Wilson wrote in the LA Times that no only did Saddam have WMD's, but we needed to give him a graceful way out because he'd use them.

This is a lot of people playing CYA when something goes wrong. If you had a real job, you see it happens every day in the business world, who ends up holding the bag of dog poop.

Wow, you have totally drank the kool-aid. Next, you're gonna tell us that Saddam was behind 9/11.

Myself. Saddam was a scumbag and I'm glad he's dead. Aren't you?

Not at the cost of over $1 Trillion and over 5,000 U.S. military deaths. HELL NO!!!!

I believe we lost that many to the days leading to D-day and at D-day. Back then it was a united country ..today is weaker because of the self righteous press of Vietnam, Korea and relive a past

So? Does that make those 5,000 deaths inconsequential?

 

[Synthaholic]

Well, no. I'm interested in facts, I've posted facts and the links to back them up.

You attempt to rebut them by imagining conversations and motives that suit your bias. In almost every post, you put words into people's mouths, and have them act out scenes based on your suspicions and dislikes. That is not anything resembling a debate. That's you in a fight with reality.

Quoting Cecille:

First, calm down, and read what I'm actually saying.

Newt spoke in speeches about his wife's cancer. Both she and Newt say that she had cancer. This is not something you need to debate, because it's been established that she had cancer. She had surgery for uterine cancer, and then later went in to have a tumor removed. The tumor removed in the second surgery was benign. That doesn't make her not have cancer earlier. She still had uterine cancer.

I'm not sure where the "verge of death" comment comes from, but it isn't from me. Perhaps your let your imagination, or your anger, get the best of you.

Newt's wife said the divorce came as a surprise. Newt said that it didn't. We have both of them on the record making these statements. They do not agree. There's no point in you and I trying to figure out which of them is right, because they are the two people in the discussion, and they are not in agreement.

Newt has admitted that he cheated on both of his wives. This is not up for debate. He admits it.

Newt's second wife says that he dumped her a few months after she was diagnosed with MS.

PBS is a reputable source. The other sources are reputable as well.

You can't spend your life ignoring inconvenient facts and expect to get anywhere.

Take the car key out of your ear and listen to what I'M saying.

YOU say that he says these things. And then you cite ONLY quotes from him admitting to the one thing I've never argued. Furthermore, your sources for quotes are suspect, if not laughable. So this basically amounts to YOUR WORD FOR IT, which I absolutely DO need to argue. No, you do NOT get to state that something is so and tell me to just accept it and expect that to happen. I pay every bit as much attention to your half-assed declarations of reality as I do to your piece-of-shit sources.

PBS is a reputable source IN YOUR OPINION. That means nothing. Your other sources are as reputable as a conversation overheard in a high school girls' bathroom.

You can't spend your life declaring things to be facts with no substantiation and expect to get anything but laughed at. That's where we are now.

When you are ready to SHOW rather than TELL, come find me. Until then, you no longer deserve even the marginal respect of having me read your posts, let alone respond. Begone.

Who do you consider a reputable source? Give me five examples.

This should be entertaining.

Where did that crazy ***** run off to?

 

[zonly1]

I can't understand how anyone could be so lacking in common sense as to believe that Newt Gingrich could ever be elected president.

I sense fear from your lash out rant. Obama, "the manchild", would lose big in a one on one debate with ol' Newtie. No contest. He can't hide his gaffes, his hypocrisy on issues, his scandals on fast and furious, cronie capitalism on solyndra/sunpower/and his failed Keynesian approach to our economy. That alinsky/cloward-piven crap is running out of time.

I think michele should make a trip to target and stock on crybaby blankets and kleenix.

 

[JoeB131]

So, because Bush withheld key intelligence that undermined his case for going to war with Iraq, Democrats should have just hit up 'Deep Throat"-like sources in underground parking lots to learn the truth?

Well, if Bush withheld information, they should have impeached him. Oh, wait. They didn't do that. In fact, he escalated the war after they took Congress and they sat there like a bunch of stuffed poodles.

I'll tell you exactly what was going on in their heads. "Well, 70% of Americans thought Saddam had something to do 9/11, and we've been beating the anti-Saddam War Drum for a decade now, we don't have a leg to stand on. We'll let Bush have his war, which will be over in six weeks, and then we'll spend the next two years beating him up on the economy. That's what we did to his dad, and it worked just fine."

Please don't ascribe anything noble to them. They went with the war because that's where popular opinion was blowing. They learned their lesson from Vietnam that you don't ever want to appear weak.

We weren't allies with Britain and France????

I'm beginning to realize that I've given you much too much credit.

What formal alliance did we have with them in 1938? What treaty?

The reality- after World War I, the American public was damned angry the politicians dragged us into this pointless war in Europe to protect greedy empires. FDR tried his best to get us into the European War, and the public opposed him at every turn. Until Pearl Harbor.



[/quote]A dictator who killed hundreds of Americans by blowing up a plane over Scotland.

As opposed to a dictator in Iraq who never launched any terrorist attacks against the U.S.[/QUOTE]

You mean other than plotting the assassination of a US president and launching attacks against our ally, Israel?

Please, guy, we had settled up with Qadaffi over Lockerby. He paid restitution and turned over the perpetrators for trial in the UK. Come on, you fugnuts told us all through the Bush years that we needed to treat terrorism as a law enforcement issue, and putting out indictments was the way to go, and that is exactly what was done with Libya and you thought it was fine.

Until Obama got us involved helping the Islamists beat up the quasi-Socalist, (I'm sure that was a tough decision for him, being both himself, ha, ha) because he wanted a distraction from the fact he was screwing the pig on Iraq and Afghanistan.

 

[JoeB131]

No. Everyone wasn't wrong about bin Laden. Clarke was right. Bill Clinton was right. George Bush was wrong before 9/11. The people you're citing who attacked Clarke were wrong. They complained that Clarke kept coming in with his hair on fire---which means that he grasped the reality of the problem BEFORE 9/11. But in order to defend Bush, the right has been forced to attack Clarke for being overzealous...instead of having some degree of honesty and admitting that when Clarke's hair was on fire, Clarke was right.

Clinton was obsessed with bin Laden to the point that he was criticized for it.

As for Clinton passing on bin Laden, are you determined to bring up every right wing myth in existence in this thread?

Actually, the only person who supported the "Clarke was a prophet" BS is clarke. A guy who we already caught lying when he said Condi Rice didn't know what Al Qaeda was when she talked about it during several interviews in 1999 and 2000. Therefore, nothing he said was believable.

Clinton did nothing about Bin Laden. Come to think of it, that was pretty much his whole presidency, he just talked and talked and talked. And took credit for the work of others. Kind of like the Affirmative Action President.

Yes, it says that we are not rigid ideologues.

As for 'why we lost', that's pretty funny. Look at the crop of candidates that the Pubs have this go round....please, don't compromise your principles. Nominate Newt, and let him go down in flames.

Why, Newt doesn't represent where most of the party is right now. If we nominated a guy who was closest to where the rank and file is on the issues, we'd nominate Perry or Cain.

Not that it matters, though. The Affirmative Action President is going down.

 

[Synthaholic]

I can't understand how anyone could be so lacking in common sense as to believe that Newt Gingrich could ever be elected president.

I sense fear from your lash out rant. Obama, "the manchild", would lose big in a one on one debate with ol' Newtie. No contest. He can't hide his gaffes, his hypocrisy on issues, his scandals on fast and furious, cronie capitalism on solyndra/sunpower/and his failed Keynesian approach to our economy. That alinsky/cloward-piven crap is running out of time.

I think michele should make a trip to target and stock on crybaby blankets and kleenix.

Is Newtie still in favor of Cap & Trade?

 

[Rocko]

I can't understand how anyone could be so lacking in common sense as to believe that Newt Gingrich could ever be elected president.

I sense fear from your lash out rant. Obama, "the manchild", would lose big in a one on one debate with ol' Newtie. No contest. He can't hide his gaffes, his hypocrisy on issues, his scandals on fast and furious, cronie capitalism on solyndra/sunpower/and his failed Keynesian approach to our economy. That alinsky/cloward-piven crap is running out of time.

I think michele should make a trip to target and stock on crybaby blankets and kleenix.

Is Newtie still in favor of Cap & Trade?

I'd be in favor of capping you, and trading you in for someone with a brain.

 

[Full-Auto]

This is mind blowingly stupid. Do you remember 9/11? Do you grasp that Clarke and Clinton were right about bin Laden, and Bush and Condi were wrong?

I would say everyone was wrong about Bin Laden. But Clinton had eight years to do something substanive about the guy, from when the first WTC attack happened, to the bombing of USS Cole. And he did nothing. He let the guy walk out of the Sudan (after the Sudan had offered to turn him over) and into Afghanistan.

Bush on the other hand, wiped out most of his network, toppled the two regimes that Clinton said was aiding him (Iraq and Afghanistan) froze his assets, captured or killed most of his key subordinates. To the point that all he had left at the end was a house and his porn stash where he lived cowering in fear.

No. Everyone wasn't wrong about bin Laden. Clarke was right. Bill Clinton was right. George Bush was wrong before 9/11. The people you're citing who attacked Clarke were wrong. They complained that Clarke kept coming in with his hair on fire---which means that he grasped the reality of the problem BEFORE 9/11. But in order to defend Bush, the right has been forced to attack Clarke for being overzealous...instead of having some degree of honesty and admitting that when Clarke's hair was on fire, Clarke was right.

Clinton was obsessed with bin Laden to the point that he was criticized for it.

snopes.com: Clinton Administration and Terrorists

As for Clinton passing on bin Laden, are you determined to bring up every right wing myth in existence in this thread?

FactCheck.org : Clinton Passed on Killing bin Laden?

We nominated him because we thought he had the best shot.

Really? Doesn't that say something about you guys, then? You don't stand by your principles, you comprimise them because you want to win. Which is, of course, why you lost.

Yes, it says that we are not rigid ideologues.

As for 'why we lost', that's pretty funny. Look at the crop of candidates that the Pubs have this go round....please, don't compromise your principles. Nominate Newt, and let him go down in flames.

Clarkes story changed depending upon the audience. That was clearly proven.

Alright back to your rant.

 

[SAT]

No. Everyone wasn't wrong about bin Laden. Clarke was right. Bill Clinton was right. George Bush was wrong before 9/11. The people you're citing who attacked Clarke were wrong. They complained that Clarke kept coming in with his hair on fire---which means that he grasped the reality of the problem BEFORE 9/11. But in order to defend Bush, the right has been forced to attack Clarke for being overzealous...instead of having some degree of honesty and admitting that when Clarke's hair was on fire, Clarke was right.

Clinton was obsessed with bin Laden to the point that he was criticized for it.

As for Clinton passing on bin Laden, are you determined to bring up every right wing myth in existence in this thread?

Actually, the only person who supported the "Clarke was a prophet" BS is clarke. A guy who we already caught lying when he said Condi Rice didn't know what Al Qaeda was when she talked about it during several interviews in 1999 and 2000. Therefore, nothing he said was believable.

You have a problem with attacking the person with hyperbole rather than with facts. Thus, you feel you can dismiss Clarke by personally attacking him, dismiss Hill by claiming her students were bored, for example.

That's an illogical way to approach what we're talking about.

Clarke's story is backed up by the record. He asked for meetings on al Qaeda, repeatedly. We know that no meeting occurred, in spite of his asking for months, until shortly before 9/11. We know that the people who dismissed Clarke as having his "hair on fire" were wrong. We know that Clarke was right.

Clarke was right. Condi was wrong. Give the man credit.

Clinton did nothing about Bin Laden. Come to think of it, that was pretty much his whole presidency, he just talked and talked and talked. And took credit for the work of others. Kind of like the Affirmative Action President.

You're denying the reality of the record with more personal attacks on the person we're discussing.

Yes, it says that we are not rigid ideologues.

As for 'why we lost', that's pretty funny. Look at the crop of candidates that the Pubs have this go round....please, don't compromise your principles. Nominate Newt, and let him go down in flames.

Why, Newt doesn't represent where most of the party is right now. If we nominated a guy who was closest to where the rank and file is on the issues, we'd nominate Perry or Cain.

Not that it matters, though. The Affirmative Action President is going down.

So you're saying that you're not going to nominate Perry or Cain? As a prediction, I mean. Who's going to be the nominee?

 

[Synthaholic]

So, because Bush withheld key intelligence that undermined his case for going to war with Iraq, Democrats should have just hit up 'Deep Throat"-like sources in underground parking lots to learn the truth?

Well, if Bush withheld information, they should have impeached him. Oh, wait. They didn't do that. In fact, he escalated the war after they took Congress and they sat there like a bunch of stuffed poodles.

I'll tell you exactly what was going on in their heads. "Well, 70% of Americans thought Saddam had something to do 9/11, and we've been beating the anti-Saddam War Drum for a decade now, we don't have a leg to stand on. We'll let Bush have his war, which will be over in six weeks, and then we'll spend the next two years beating him up on the economy. That's what we did to his dad, and it worked just fine."

Please don't ascribe anything noble to them. They went with the war because that's where popular opinion was blowing. They learned their lesson from Vietnam that you don't ever want to appear weak.

It is not an impeachable offense.

The rest of it I don't disagree, except that Bush knew that Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11, yet exploited that 70%. So that's where the primary and almost exclusive blame belongs. He is CiC. No one else could have started that war, so any blame you want to ascribe to Democrats is peripheral at best.

We weren't allies with Britain and France????

I'm beginning to realize that I've given you much too much credit.

What formal alliance did we have with them in 1938? What treaty?

The reality- after World War I, the American public was damned angry the politicians dragged us into this pointless war in Europe to protect greedy empires. FDR tried his best to get us into the European War, and the public opposed him at every turn. Until Pearl Harbor.

A dictator who killed hundreds of Americans by blowing up a plane over Scotland.

As opposed to a dictator in Iraq who never launched any terrorist attacks against the U.S.

You mean other than plotting the assassination of a US president and launching attacks against our ally, Israel?

So, Britain and France were not allies to help when they were actually invaded by another country, but Israel is an ally that we must help because Saddam had some sort of shadowy money connection to terrorist groups in Palestine and Lebanon, sending money to the families of suicide bombers to boost his PR?

Iraq never attacked Israel. He launched some scuds 12 years previously, which you are about to discount as old news, in your next paragraph:

Please, guy, we had settled up with Qadaffi over Lockerby. He paid restitution and turned over the perpetrators for trial in the UK.

Old news!

Come on, you fugnuts told us all through the Bush years that we needed to treat terrorism as a law enforcement issue, and putting out indictments was the way to go, and that is exactly what was done with Libya and you thought it was fine.

Correct. A massive military response to some guys in caves was sure to fail, just as they wanted.

You can't have a huge War On Terror that enriches your corporate friends if you catch the bad guy within a few weeks, now can you?

Until Obama got us involved helping the Islamists beat up the quasi-Socalist, (I'm sure that was a tough decision for him, being both himself, ha, ha) because he wanted a distraction from the fact he was screwing the pig on Iraq and Afghanistan.

He stopped a massacre from happening, which Gaddafi announced was his intention. Pretty cut and dry.

The American public is going to view Obama as the guy who:

ended the Iraq War
killed Osama bin Laden
overthrew Gaddafi
decimated al Qaeda
brought home the troops

All the wingnut hand-waving and attempt at history rewriting will be laughable and ineffective.


Edit to add: please learn how to use the quote function properly. I'm tired of cleaning up your posts.

 

[Sallow]

You never heard of Clarke, but that's because you're not particularly well informed.

There's a record of Clarke attempting to get the Bushies to pay attention to bin Laden. They held a meeting, FINALLY, shortly before 9/11. Bush received a memo shortly before 9/11 called

That would be the same memo that called a hijacking plot NOT credible. In fact, Bush rightfully said after that breifing that gave him no new information, "Well, you've covered your ass."

Clark was a non-entity in an administration that just saw terrorism as a way to take attention away from bimbo eruptions.

This is mind blowingly stupid. Do you remember 9/11? Do you grasp that Clarke and Clinton were right about bin Laden, and Bush and Condi were wrong?





We nominated him because we thought he had the best shot.

I live in America. A place with freedom of speech, and that freedom of speech has helped to secure your liberty.

The only thing that secures my liberty is that there are big, burley men with guns ready to do violence on my behalf--- to paraphrase George Orwell. The ability of liberal morons to say stupid things is just an annoyance.

Bullshit. Reality is over your head.

The severe amnesia about the Bush years is rampant. Bush populated his cabinent with the PNAC folks, who were hellbent on attacking Iraq. Until they could unify under a reason to do so that made sense to the American public, they were busy re-igniting the cold war.

Bush had zero interest in Al-Qaeda or terrorism. And as the history shows, he lost interest, again, once the primary goal of invading Iraq was realized.

 

[SAT]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8bQQldsKJDU]Bush: "I'm not that concerned with bin Laden" - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Full-Auto]

Bush: "I'm not that concerned with bin Laden" - YouTube

LOL Obama said pretty much the same thing hack. Not to mention both presidents still pursued. The biggest difference is Obama sat on it for months afraid to pull the trigger.

 

[Sallow]

Bush: "I'm not that concerned with bin Laden" - YouTube

LOL Obama said pretty much the same thing hack. Not to mention both presidents still pursued. The biggest difference is Obama sat on it for months afraid to pull the trigger.

No, he absolutely didn't.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kKHsjRzUTLQ]Obama in 2008: 'We Will Kill Bin Laden, We Will Crush Al Qaeda' - YouTube[/ame]

Proof is in the puddin'.

 

[SAT]

Obama waited until the mission had the best chance of success.

He was right.

Booyah!