That's not what you said on the Going Down On Presidents forum.
US Presidential Election: Tuesday November 6th, 2012
- Thread starter Team Brian GB
- Start date
- Status
That's not what you said on the Going Down On Presidents forum.
I'm amazed that so many people know exactly how and why Kennedy was killed.
I'm sure that if Clinton had known how important OBL was (or would become) and assuming he was the one who directly stopped the air attack on OBL to protect a Saudi Prince then he would now regret that and have made a different decision in hindsight but OBL wasn't known as the threat that he became later. An intelligence failure for sure but I don't think that Clinton has that much to answer for. However, Bush's administration were an utter disaster with his stunned inaction at the school on 9/11 symbolic of his and his administrations incompetence in these matters.
I'm sure that if Clinton had known how important OBL was (or would become) and assuming he was the one who directly stopped the air attack on OBL to protect a Saudi Prince then he would now regret that and have made a different decision in hindsight but OBL wasn't known as the threat that he became later. An intelligence failure for sure but I don't think that Clinton has that much to answer for. However, Bush's administration were an utter disaster with his stunned inaction at the school on 9/11 symbolic of his and his administrations incompetence in these matters.
Dubya was a clown. Anyone who's reaction to seeing a report indicating an imminent terrorist strike is to say "you've covered your ass" to the person who brought it to your attention is not a serious person and should be held entirely responsible for what happened.
The difference between Clinton and Bush is that Clinton will actually have at least some level of regret over the past, and in hindsight he may have done something differently. Bush was negligent and lacks the thoughtfulness to even reflect on how he messed up.
The difference between Clinton and Bush is that Clinton will actually have at least some level of regret over the past, and in hindsight he may have done something differently. Bush was negligent and lacks the thoughtfulness to even reflect on how he messed up.
People praising Bush for his handling of 9/11 and just brushing off the wars like an afterthought....GTFO.
Seriously GTFO.
15 of the 19 terrorists were from Saudi Arabia, a couple from Egypt and UAE. So he went after them in Afghanistan...I'm all aboard that train. What about Saudi Arabia? Where were the drone attacks there? Why didn't we pulverize half of that shithole?
But to then destroy Iraq(and yes that is what happened to Iraq, destroyed after 13-14 years of sanctions - that ONLY hurt the average Iraqi, and then to make up a lame excuse to finish the job his old man didn't...was criminal).
Don't give a feck about the Iraqis...fine. How about giving a feck about the thousands of American soldiers killed and maimed for no good reason. Don't give me that bullshit about freedom either.
Sure big business did well out of it...and will continue to do so for the next 50 years...but these young soldiers died for NOTHING.
WMD...no wait, regime change, it was worth it.
Evil son of a bitch using the anger and sentiments of a stricken people to settle scores. feck him.
*Saddam Hussein was a bad, bad man. I don't believe Iraq was a utopia under him, and that he is no longer alive is a good thing. But the destruction of that country...I'm sorry, no justifications.
Seriously GTFO.
15 of the 19 terrorists were from Saudi Arabia, a couple from Egypt and UAE. So he went after them in Afghanistan...I'm all aboard that train. What about Saudi Arabia? Where were the drone attacks there? Why didn't we pulverize half of that shithole?
But to then destroy Iraq(and yes that is what happened to Iraq, destroyed after 13-14 years of sanctions - that ONLY hurt the average Iraqi, and then to make up a lame excuse to finish the job his old man didn't...was criminal).
Don't give a feck about the Iraqis...fine. How about giving a feck about the thousands of American soldiers killed and maimed for no good reason. Don't give me that bullshit about freedom either.
Sure big business did well out of it...and will continue to do so for the next 50 years...but these young soldiers died for NOTHING.
WMD...no wait, regime change, it was worth it.
Evil son of a bitch using the anger and sentiments of a stricken people to settle scores. feck him.
*Saddam Hussein was a bad, bad man. I don't believe Iraq was a utopia under him, and that he is no longer alive is a good thing. But the destruction of that country...I'm sorry, no justifications.
Like I said, no major homeland terrorist attacks. Kept American people in America safe.
The Afghanistan war was legitimate.
Saudi Arabia has a pro-western royals, if the pro-western government wasn't in power the country would be like Iran, but WORSE, ruled by extremely conservative religious nuts, rich, powerful and in a strategically important region. That is why we didn't attack Saudi Arabia - because regime change was counter productive. It's exactly the same region why our relations are so much worse with Egypt due to less west loving leaders.
You could also ask why we didn't bomb Pakistan, afterall all the UK terrorists were in some way connected with Pakistan. Again, there was a pro-western government, willing to do something about it. And regime change would be counter-productive.
I totally agree that the Iraq war was madness. But Bush wasn't the only one supporting it...
The list is absolute madness.... Talk about disrespecting Eisenhower, Truman and Clinton. Obama has done virtually nothing compared to both Truman and Eisenhower in terms of foreign policy. And Clinton really turned the US budget deficit around, intervened in the Balkans.
Umm the House of Saud spends billions to help spread Wahhabism all over the world. They are not Pro-Western - they pretend to be...like Pakistani generals.
I get why the Saudis didn't get bombed into oblivion, politics plain and simple...trust me, I get that. I just don't believe it was the right course of action, if we really wanted to put a dent in global terrorism and the spread of extremism.
I'd prefer someone like Iran to Saudi Arabia, an honest enemy than a dishonest 'friend'.
*By Saudis, I mean the establishment...not advocating the destruction of your average Saudi.
You're right, Obama has done nothing compared to Eisenhower in foreign policy. He hasn't even knocked over Guatemala and Iran or set up the next president with a Bay of Pigs fiasco! What a slacker!
BoP was a contributing factor too.
Well yeah apart from that one time..
Romney is now embracing Romneycare.... 
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0912/81729.html
If the teabaggers/neocons are resting their hopes on Romney beating Obama in a debate they really are scraping the bottom of the barrel.
If the teabaggers/neocons are resting their hopes on Romney beating Obama in a debate they really are scraping the bottom of the barrel.
Simple but effective
Romney is now embracing Romneycare....
Going against his own party's desire to repeal ACA.
Luv'it, jus' luv'it!
Obama should tear into him during the debates. So which is it today, Mittens?
Going after Bin Laden was legitimate, forcing regime change and bombing the country was not.
I'm no fan of the Iranian regime but they're a secular haven compared to the Kingdom. This is a country which treats women like animals, is bigoted to the core, and as Neutral touched on - provides billions of dollars of funding for the most deplorable and radical Islamic movement, Wahabism. Thats one country where regime change would have been very welcome, but since they're echoing the right mantra they get a free pass.
Going against his own repeated pledge throughout the nomination process.
And that video really is basically a golden goose for the democrats.
what he will say in the debates is 'it is each states right to have the health care program they want' btw the ACA has a clause in it that allows states to go for Single Payer in 2014 or something. I understand California and Vermont are already going to do this. If that happens, just think how attractive it would be for businesses to move to those states. Lower costs. This is how Single Payer came to Canada.
agree on both.
On Afghanistan, after getting the Taliban we should have come out....Nation Building was stupid.
From the article Ramshock linked:
and the President answers, "With all respect, Governor, the greatest hindrance to this recovery is the same thing it was in the 1930s: Republican obstructionism, focusing on deficits, kowtowing to extremely rich folks like yourself, when getting regular Americans back to work is what's needed.
It's not single payer, it's insurance exchanges run by the state.
and the President answers, "With all respect, Governor, the greatest hindrance to this recovery is the same thing it was in the 1930s: Republican obstructionism, focusing on deficits, kowtowing to extremely rich folks like yourself, when getting regular Americans back to work is what's needed.
It's not single payer, it's insurance exchanges run by the state.
correct Excal. Heard that is the route to Single Payer....hope so.
I disagree with this. The Taliban had been told repeatedly that they would be held responsible if there was an attack on the US by al-Qaeda while they were in Afghanistan. They refused to hand bin Laden over before 9/11, and they refused to hand him over after 9/11, so they were very much complicit in the attack.
Republicans have decided that they are indeed entitled to their own facts:
More to the point, what's happening to 15% of Democrats' brains?
Republicans have decided that they are indeed entitled to their own facts:
blame Fox and the RNC for the disinformation.
Eisenhower was born a foreign policy specialist.
Oh, so that's why he overthrew democratically elected governments in Guatemala and Iran (which we are still paying for) and tried to do it again in Cuba.
they watch Fox....
Republicans have decided that they are indeed entitled to their own facts:
Now now, let's not be biased. Remember that the truth is always somewhere in the middle. So I make it a 50/50 shot that they had WMD's.
The Taliban are indeed a nasty bunch, but I don't think the response to 9/11 was should have been to bomb the country to tomorrow, putting 5 million people at risk of starvation. The job should have been simple - go after the culprit which was OBL, but instead the US and her allies got hogged down on nation building. This war has actually had a counter-productive effect on fighting the Taliban by increasing sympathetic sentiment towards them.
Interestingly the Taliban had said that they would hand over OBL if the US had provided sufficient evidence that he was responsible for the 9/11 attacks but this was refused. Could have of course been complete bollocks, but I'm not sure why they outright refused it and jumped straight into the bombing.
RK, it's not as if the US just started bombing the entire country. The contingency was to bomb certain areas where Al Qaeda and Taliban camps and strongholds were located. They also had assistance from the Northern Alliance that had wanted AQ/Taliban out for years. This wasn't a carpet bombing campaign that your post alludes too (not indicating that's your belief).
And it was complete bullshit what the Taliban stated about OBL. Furthermore, OBL and his organization had already claimed responsibility for multiple terrorist acts around the world. That was proof enough, though there was plenty of proof OBL/AQ carried out the 9/11 attacks. The Taliban were playing political hardball thinking the US wouldn't do shit, that other nations would not support the US to invade Afghanistan, and they were shown up for their incompetence.
And it was complete bullshit what the Taliban stated about OBL. Furthermore, OBL and his organization had already claimed responsibility for multiple terrorist acts around the world. That was proof enough, though there was plenty of proof OBL/AQ carried out the 9/11 attacks. The Taliban were playing political hardball thinking the US wouldn't do shit, that other nations would not support the US to invade Afghanistan, and they were shown up for their incompetence.
posted elsewhere.
The true test of a man's character is what he is willing to say to a room full of people that agree with him and then tries to walk that comment back when the world is listening. Every living being in this country has a right to food and housing, unlike what Romney seems to think.
I would much rather my tax dollars go to support those that are hungry and need food. Read More... 1 million school students in this country are homeless and the only meal that they get in a day's time is their school lunches.
I would much rather my tax dollars go to help those that are sleeping in their car or on a park bench to find housing. 68,000 of them are Veterans who fought for the freedoms that we all enjoy and 14.000 of them have been homeless for over a year. But the Republicans in the Senate stopped a jobs bill, that was paid for, to help veterans last week.
I would much rather my tax dollars go to help the elderly that need Medicaid to be able to stay in the nursing home and get the care they need and for Medicaid to help those students be able to have healthcare.
So, let's talk about who doesn't pay taxes, Mr. Romney. You have released two tax returns that show that you pay 14% in federal income taxes. If you want to have an honest discussion about who is benefiting more from the government, then show us the previous 10 yrs of tax returns. That's what the President has done. But Romney won't do that, because he doesn't want that discussion
One of the main problems with many of the right-wingers in America is that they don't seem to understand how empowering the poor and the middle-class - making sure they get access to proper education, food and shelter - actually benefits everyone, economically and socially.
Their economic policy is a cartoon, and it does not work in the long run, simply because it can't work.
Their economic policy is a cartoon, and it does not work in the long run, simply because it can't work.
Truman is the greatest president after WWII, he stopped communist expansion, created NATO, helped UN come to fruition, created the Marshall Plan, started the greatest prosperity period in American History, is responsible for the highly successful Berlin Airlift, tried to create a NHS, supported the Civil Rights Movement, dissegregated the armed forces, etc. And the only money he earned from the Presidency (besides his sallary) was when he sold his memoirs, his 1948 victory is the greatest political upset in the XX century.
see if they went to a proper college instead of one where you get a degree by sending in bottle caps, they would understand what you just said.
difficult to argue with that. He was not well liked in his time.
He has grown to be a giant of a man since...
You commie feck.....is what they would say to that.
Republicans have decided that they are indeed entitled to their own facts:
Well...
http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=15918
Oh I know the bombing wasn't indiscriminatory, my issue was that it essentially forced out the dozens of charities and organisations which some 5 million Afghans relied on for food, medicine and basic supplies. Luckily, the results weren't as catastrophic but they likely could have been, hence why I believe the immediate response to have been irresponsible.
Well worth a read: http://www.chomsky.info/articles/20020201.htm
I think Bush's foreign policy and the way he handled the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq was extremely incompetent. But that doesn't necessarily mean I disagree with the decisions to invade Afghanistan and Iraq.
But I'm getting drunk, so wtf do I know.
- Status