No Subject Entered

Rob made his analytical comment
"Add it up and you get a failure to defeat terrorism and a failure in Iraq for the whole duration of the Bush presidency and the republican control of the congress."

Which is factually inaccurate and misleading unless you considers Clinton's position in Iraq to also have been a failure.

Nevermind that, how about ignoring what GWB has said about the War On Terorism, that it was an ongoing process that might not be "winnable" in the classic sense. And the progressives did not understand this statement either it seems.

//Rob if you applied the same criteria to WWII and FDR, he would have been a failure given your logic and should not have been reelected
// But then again FDR's admin actually killed american citizens in their pursuit of defeating the Axis.

by Vulture (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 153 comments) on Sunday, October 1, 2006 at 1:13:51 PM
 

Comparing WWII to Bush's Bogus Terror War?

Come on!! Well, I guess you need to diss Roosevelt too. After all, he did create social security.

Oh well, why even bother trying to talk to koolaid?

There are holes in the holes of your logic

by Rob Kall (739 articles, 3816 quicklinks, 317 diaries, 1590 comments) on Sunday, October 1, 2006 at 1:44:08 PM
 

But Rob

This is the very first effort by this neocon to actually debate on the issues. I believe we should give credit for this attempt.

Whereas Clinton fired over 60 cruise missles at AlQaeda targets during his Presidency, whereas the incoming Bush administration was briefed thoroughly on the threat of AlQaeda and bin Laden by the outgoing team, and chose to ignore the briefings ( and then deny they had occured), whereas Richard Clark, who served under four Presidents was simply demoted and forced out because of his opposition to the Bush administrations failures to take this threat seriously I believe we can determine which of the two Presidents fought terrorism and which simply used it as political capital and as a profit center for his cronies.

by ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2388 comments) on Monday, October 2, 2006 at 7:16:04 AM
 

Condi Rice is Right!!

Condi Rice is Right!!
_____________________
There was an advertisement included with this comment. This is an abuse of the commenting system and won't be tolerated.

by Daniel H (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 28 comments) on Sunday, October 1, 2006 at 1:23:39 PM
 

There is no war on terror.

The global war on terrorism (a concept), can be twisted any way one wants. HR 6166 has proven that. The deciders that determine what terror is can change their definitions on a whim. Depending upon what point of view is taken, the whole concept of GWOT is beyond idiotic. These "wars" are almost as stupid as waging war on wind and rain.

For people that have lived under colonial rule or puppet regimes for the last several hundred years, the terrorists have always been those countries that are now beating their war drums for GWOT.

by Jim Reinhart (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 60 comments) on Sunday, October 1, 2006 at 2:16:51 PM
 

Madrino is right....

there is no war on terror. There is a war on freedom !

by Tony Forest (4 articles, 12 quicklinks, 127 diaries, 1142 comments) on Sunday, October 1, 2006 at 3:05:35 PM
 

war on terror

Bush is not going to win the War on Terror, just like Clinton didn't win the WOT, and whoever occupies the office next won't win the WOT. These people send their CHILDREN to commit suicide, willingly. There is a whole generation+ that has lived with this mindset since birth in the Middle East.

by sbaker (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 101 comments) on Monday, October 2, 2006 at 4:57:05 PM
 

Is there a real war on terror?

I do not believe it for an instant. There is a battle for human rights, dignity, control of their own nation and their own destiny, a battle for economic freedom from the tentacles of the western powers, a battle that will surely and certainly be won and not by us.

We have enslaved the third world for far too long, they now seek to throw off their chains and are willing to use whatever means necesary to do so. Noone who lives in the west, who lives in a luxury these people cannot even imagine, can understand a suicide bomber, I cannot understand them, but they understand very well indeed.

by ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2388 comments) on Monday, October 2, 2006 at 5:42:07 PM
 

No Subject Entered

Ardee you should have stopped at "I cannot undersstand".

You can't understand that unfettered third world countries don't unite with their brothers in harmony but form power cliques and commit genocides routinely. You don't understand that blaming their oppressors (ie the Palestinians) is the losers way and and creates nothing but misery. You don't understand that US actions abroad if curtailed would only be replaced by other nations (France, China, Russia).

But let's face it , you can't understand other people who don't think like you and that's sad.

by Vulture (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 153 comments) on Tuesday, October 3, 2006 at 8:58:28 AM
 

Speaking of not understanding

How do you manage to type anyway? I would have thought that, with your head so firmly up Cheney's ass that it would be impossible.....

Understand this oh gullible tool of those who dont give a flying f**k about you or yours, most of the regimes about which you prattle were installed by the CIA, and propped up by much graft and weaponry in order to provide stable and safe platforms for our business interests. Most of the worst dictators in this world are our firm allies, and the time is rapidly coming when the Chavez's of the world are going to tell your heroes to perform an anatomically impossible act upon themselves.

by ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2388 comments) on Tuesday, October 3, 2006 at 6:42:13 PM