 | oscargamblesfro (76)
05/19/2006 |  Obvious failure- the guy wasn't caught. Whether he is alive or dead is something I do not know. I don't think that too many people in America were upset when we went in to Afghanistan because of 9-11, he was there, and because The Taliban was so sinister. This should have been the top priority. It's one thing to go there and fail to capture or wipe out Al-Qaeda, it's another to then rush into Iraq without sufficient cause.Look, it's a great thing that Saddam's gone, the guy was a foul tyrant- good riddance. But, we're in there not because of weapons of mass destruction. It's not because of ties to Bin Laden. What the powerful want the powerful get. Oil's a part of this, a big part. I don't even think anyone but an absolute diehard, makes the John Birch Society look like Che Guevara, off their rocker right- winger could honestly look someone in the eye and say we're in this to spread democracy to the Iraqis. Democracy? They've never had it there.I don't think, for the most part, they even want it, it is inimical to the experience, beliefs, and viewpoints of many in that part of the world. Absolute, 100% democracy doesn't even exist here, nor in Britain, nor in Japan...nowhere- never mind in these parts of the world. It's a nice ideal, but nothing, no political system, good, bad, or indifferent, is exactly what it says it is. We're still there even though the majority of the public wants out.How much of this Bush could have prevented is something that I don't know, but there's no way for him to come out of this smelling like roses.
(8 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree) |
 | edt4 (99)
05/19/2006 | Eddie? Ouch....
MY FINAL: Actually, Eschew, just re-read what I wrote previously, since you've refuted nothing, answered nothing, made no valid points, as usual. And the "hatred" line is really getting tired, don't you think? Time to come up with something new (send an email to Rush or Billy O or Sean or one of their clones so they can start working on that). You haven't responded, simply heaped on your customary "half-truths" (or, in your case, un-truths) and "sarcastic hatred." You brought in the name Bill Clinton, not me; if fact, you bring in Bill Clinton's name with nearly every post you make on this website that I've read (are you sure you aren't his press agent? After all, there's no such thing as bad publicity; only no publicity). If he never existed, you or the neo-cons you emulate and paraphrase so predictably would have to invent him. What else is new? Absolutely nothing, at least when it comes to your threadbare political rhetoric.
GRAND FINALE: Actually, in the fever of my liberal passion and hatred, I forgot we only get a certain amount of characters and erased my previous statements inadvertently, but it doesn't matter, because logic and rationality are lost on you, friend. I'm still trying to get over your contention that going after Hitler was ok cause he was "duly elected" but Osama is off-limits because he wasn't. In other words, if Osama kills 3,000 more (maybe in L.A. or San Francisco, which of course wouldn't matter, as its filled with Godless liberals, and even...DEAR GOD, HOMOSEXUALS!), or 10,000 more, he's still off-limits? I'm not even sure an intellectually-bankrupt media-clown like Sean Hannity would dare to make an absurd, asinine statement like that. But you're in a class of your own, my friend! To summarize my previous comments, the Al-Qaeda elements responsible for 9/11 (which allegedly was the impetus for Bush's entry into the "War on Terror") were from Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Egypt, etc. Iraq had absolutely NO CONNECTION to Osama or 9/11. Yet, for some reason, they've become our focus. Three years after "Mission Accomplished" (I guess that was the good news coming out of Iraq, right?), we're still involved in a bloody, fruitless struggle with no end in sight. How many more billions of dollars would staunch conservatives like yourself be willing to spend? How many more lives? I'm not surprised that that doesn't bother you, but it does me. It bothers me that our troops are being put in harm's way (neo-cons, better slap another "Support Our Troops" Tony-Orlando-style yellow ribbon on that SUV), it bothers me that innocent lives are being lost every week, it bothers me that we're squandering billions upon billions of dollars that we can ill-afford to lose, it bothers me that we're being led by a man who, to put it as kindly as possible, has the intellectual qualifications of Elmer Fudd, it bothers me that Iraq has now become a rallying point for fundamentalist Islamic terrorists, which it wasn't before, it bothers me that we've endangered future generations of Americans by our blind recklessness and greed (Halliburton anyone?), it bothers me that the people responsible for the murders of 3,000 Americans are still free-as-birds (with the exception of those currently enjoying those 75 virgins compliments of Allah)...Gee, Esch, how much more do you need? For most decent and reasonably intelligent people, that would be more than enough, no? I guess you're still losing sleep over Bill's b'job, liberal "hatred", and liberals in general (you might want to consult a psychiatrist over that obsession...there's not enough space here for me to start in on THAT).
(2 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree) |
 | EschewObfuscation (61)
05/19/2006 |  (Original Post Deleted by Exceeding the 5,000 Character Limit) Let me go back and re-state that criticizing Bush for the failure of our intelligence functions to capture or kill bin Laden is dumb. I don't think it's ok that he hasn't been captured (as eddie implies or accuses) I just don't think it's something that a President should be held accountable for.
Nor am I ok (not upset) that he hasn't yet been captured, as Mag implies. That is a sad failure on the part of the CIA. Nor do I believe that by invading Iraq and deposing Saddam did we "take our eye off the ball" and let bin Laden get away because we had depleted our troop concentration in Afghanistan. We could have our entire infantry, along with all the soldiers of all the European countries and Russia (the Russians were familiar with the terrain), and we would not have found him. To think that infantrymen would find this snake sounds really dumb to me, he will be found through an effective network of spooks, which we did not have in Afghanistan (or nearly anywhere else in the world) at the end of the Clinton Administration. I don't blame Clinton, that is just a reality.
What Bush did do effectively is to prevent bin Laden from planning and carrying out a follow-up attack on US soil, which I believe he had planned. For that he deserves some credit. The ridiculous stuff that our republican congress has passed and mandated at airports, and the failure to secure our ports and borders, which is a bit unsettling, is really the responsibility of Congress. They have failed miserably here and if the democrats could fashion anything resembling a platform for the mid-term elections, they should pay for it this fall. That will likely not happen and their ridiculous approach to security and wasteful spending will be confirmed by the re-election of the majority of republicans. Why are there no leaders among all of the democrats, only obstructionists?
(2 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree) |
