heyholetsgogrant Posted October 3, 2006 Share Posted October 3, 2006 Bush: Democrats shouldn't be trusted to run CongressPOSTED: 11:53 a.m. EDT, October 3, 2006 Adjust font size: STOCKTON, California (AP) -- President Bush, on a campaign swing in the West, is arguing the Democratic Party is weak-kneed on national security and shouldn't be trusted to hold the reins of Congress. "If you listen closely to some of the leaders of the Democratic Party, it sounds like -- it sounds like -- they think the best way to protect the American people is, wait until we're attacked again," Bush said Monday at a $360,000 fundraiser in Reno, Nevada, for state Secretary of State Dean Heller's congressional campaign. Bush delivered the administration's oft-repeated claims about the Democrats as it struggles with persistent questions about a recent intelligence report that suggests the Iraq war has helped recruit more terrorists, and a new book, "State of Denial," by journalist Bob Woodward that contends Bush misled the country about the war. In the latest development, a State Department official confirmed that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice did receive a CIA briefing about terror threats just about two months before the Sept. 11 attacks. Rice has said repeatedly she could not specifically recall the meeting. (Spokeman: Rice didn't 'brush off' terror warning) Spokesman Sean McCormack said the information at the July 10, 2001 session is not new. http://www.cnn.com/200B6/POLITICS/10/03/bush.ap/index.htm/ -------------------------------------------------------------- Between the bumbling of Iraq, Afghanistan, creating more terrorist that want to kill us, Katrina, Abramoff, and people who hide child molesters, you have the audacity to say Democrats shouldn’t run congress…. :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: -Grant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarge Posted October 3, 2006 Share Posted October 3, 2006 Sounds about right. As bad as the Repubs are with "Bill I"m really French" Frist leadig the way, the Dems would be far worse At least Bush is willing to fight the bad guys Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stwasm Posted October 3, 2006 Share Posted October 3, 2006 Well, he ought to know about a party's inability to run Congress properly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hooper Posted October 3, 2006 Share Posted October 3, 2006 Republicans can't even protect young males pages. How can they protect our country? That said, the dems... oh man, we are f--ked either way! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted October 3, 2006 Share Posted October 3, 2006 Surely, he's right. Let's go with the Republican plan and reinstall the Taliban instead and give them US dollars in federal aid. Then to boot, let's continue to ignore our ports, train stations, borders (okay, they want a fence) and just attack Iraq. Because going on the offense only and completely ignoring the defense or protecting the quarterback worked so well for Spurrier. The Republican model is the Spurrier NFL game plan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nelms Posted October 3, 2006 Share Posted October 3, 2006 He left off the fact that Democrats shouldn't be trusted to run the White House either. If it weren't for the last Democrat in the oval office, we wouldn't be dealing with all these terrorists today. Things would be a lot different if it weren't for Clinton's lack of action in dealing with the terrorist attacks under his watch - talk about recruiting incentives for terrorists. At least under Bush we're killing them over there in Afghanistan and Iraq. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarge Posted October 3, 2006 Share Posted October 3, 2006 Surely, he's right. Let's go with the Republican plan and reinstall the Taliban instead and give them US dollars in federal aid. Then to boot, let's continue to ignore our ports, train stations, borders (okay, they want a fence) and just attack Iraq. Because going on the offense only and completely ignoring the defense or protecting the quarterback worked so well for Spurrier. The Republican model is the Spurrier NFL game plan. As bad as that plan is, I can see the Dems now. Committees, followed by more committees. Followed by a proper request certified byt he FBI so we can kill people. And we'll have to inform them before we can kill them so they can get a lawyer And maybe we can get those military knucle draggers to go back to leaving their weapons unloaded. I mean, afterall, loaded weapons are so .......fearsome Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsHokieFan Posted October 3, 2006 Share Posted October 3, 2006 Charles Rengel head of house ways and means commitee :doh: Enough said Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tizzod Posted October 3, 2006 Share Posted October 3, 2006 He left off the fact that Democrats shouldn't be trusted to run the White House either. If it weren't for the last Democrat in the oval office, we wouldn't be dealing with all these terrorists today. Things would be a lot different if it weren't for Clinton's lack of action in dealing with the terrorist attacks under his watch - talk about recruiting incentives for terrorists. At least under Bush we're killing them over there in Afghanistan and Iraq. Uh-oh...here we go! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexey Posted October 3, 2006 Share Posted October 3, 2006 He left off the fact that Democrats shouldn't be trusted to run the White House either. If it weren't for the last Democrat in the oval office, we wouldn't be dealing with all these terrorists today. Things would be a lot different if it weren't for Clinton's lack of action in dealing with the terrorist attacks under his watch - talk about recruiting incentives for terrorists. At least under Bush we're killing them over there in Afghanistan and Iraq.:notworthy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heyholetsgogrant Posted October 3, 2006 Author Share Posted October 3, 2006 He left off the fact that Democrats shouldn't be trusted to run the White House either. If it weren't for the last Democrat in the oval office, we wouldn't be dealing with all these terrorists today. Things would be a lot different if it weren't for Clinton's lack of action in dealing with the terrorist attacks under his watch - talk about recruiting incentives for terrorists. At least under Bush we're killing them over there in Afghanistan and Iraq. GOP="Grand old Pedophiles" -Grant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zen-like Todd Posted October 3, 2006 Share Posted October 3, 2006 The GOP sat on its ass regarding port security and border security, while spending a crapload of money and resources on a war that wasn't particularly necessary. That said, the war would have been reasonable (I argued at the time we went in that it was about democratizing the Middle East, not oil in such direct terms that the wacky lefty socialist protestors were screaming about, and not about WMD... a Powell Doctrine approach would have led to amazingly different results) had the administration not so horrifically bungled its execution. For the administration's horrible execution of matters it deemed important, and its willful ignorance of more important security matters at home, he has no basis to make those statements. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nelms Posted October 3, 2006 Share Posted October 3, 2006 GOP="Grand old Pedophiles"-Grant Nice retort. Too bad it doesn't address the issues that Clinton left this country because he was too pre-occupied with getting hummers and then covering them up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zen-like Todd Posted October 3, 2006 Share Posted October 3, 2006 Nice retort. Too bad it doesn't address the issues that Clinton left this country because he was too pre-occupied with getting hummers and then covering them up. And the Republican Congress was doing what, exactly, during that period of time? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
codeorama Posted October 3, 2006 Share Posted October 3, 2006 Nice retort. Too bad it doesn't address the issues that Clinton left this country because he was too pre-occupied with getting hummers and then covering them up. :laugh: You failed to see the irony... He was impersonating you... :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zguy28 Posted October 3, 2006 Share Posted October 3, 2006 http://www.cnn.com/200B6/POLITICS/10/03/bush.ap/index.htm/-------------------------------------------------------------- Between the bumbling of Iraq, Afghanistan, creating more terrorist that want to kill us, Katrina, Abramoff, and people who hide child molesters, you have the audacity to say Democrats shouldn’t run congress…. :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: -Grant Even though I think Iraq was a mistake, I am nonetheless amused when Democrats preach this stuff about "creating more terrorists" like its new stuff. This is what was said by UBL when Clinton Almighty was in office.He told "ABC News" in 1998 that America's humiliating retreat from Somalia emboldened his jihadists: "The youth were surprised at the low morale of the American soldiers and realized more than before that the American soldier was a paper tiger and after a few blows ran in defeat." What say you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zen-like Todd Posted October 3, 2006 Share Posted October 3, 2006 Even though I think Iraq was a mistake, I am nonetheless amused when Democrats preach this stuff about "creating more terrorists" like its new stuff. This is what was said by UBL when Clinton Almighty was in office.He told "ABC News" in 1998 that America's humiliating retreat from Somalia emboldened his jihadists: "The youth were surprised at the low morale of the American soldiers and realized more than before that the American soldier was a paper tiger and after a few blows ran in defeat." What say you? That wasn't directed to me, and I'm not a Democrat, but I think its fairly obvious the administration very much screwed the pooch. Had they gone full bore into Afghanistan, and dedicated themselves to making that country a full on success, without dicking around in Iraq, I think we would be in a much stronger position in terms of street cred, available military resources, and in relative terrorist activity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
codeorama Posted October 3, 2006 Share Posted October 3, 2006 "The youth were surprised at the low morale of the American soldiers and realized more than before that the American soldier was a paper tiger and after a few blows ran in defeat."What say you? There's a difference, IMO, in fighting someone else's war and fighting our own war. If some country attempted to invade us, I bet they'd get the smackdown like none before. But to go overseas and fight for others, It's not the same and I'd bet our troops for the most part feel that way as well. For the record, IMO, the Dems suck just as bad as the GOP... Neither deserves to run a Pakistani 7-11, much less the United States. :2cents: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zguy28 Posted October 3, 2006 Share Posted October 3, 2006 That wasn't directed to me, and I'm not a Democrat, but I think its fairly obvious the administration very much screwed the pooch. Had they gone full bore into Afghanistan, and dedicated themselves to making that country a full on success, without dicking around in Iraq, I think we would be in a much stronger position in terms of street cred, available military resources, and in relative terrorist activity.Agree totally. Why start a new campaign when the first isn't finished? Bad strategy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarge Posted October 3, 2006 Share Posted October 3, 2006 Agree totally. Why start a new campaign when the first isn't finished? Bad strategy. Once upon a time, up until the mid 90's, we had what was called a "Two Front" military, meaning we could take on two full blown adversaries at one time Then, along came a cluster**** whose name started with "C" and ended with "Linton" and "Poof" We don't have that anymore Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zen-like Todd Posted October 3, 2006 Share Posted October 3, 2006 Once upon a time, up until the mid 90's, we had what was called a "Two Front" military, meaning we could take on two full blown adversaries at one timeThen, along came a cluster**** whose name started with "C" and ended with "Linton" and "Poof" We don't have that anymore The question is, was that ever anything more than bull**** blustering for foreign policy purposes (deterrent effects)? Obviously we fell in love with our technology, and our standing army shrunk. Even if we wanted a larger standing army, which I always thought was important, is that even a reality now, given our country? Forget the current environment. We're a wealthy country, a service economy. The farm kids and manufacturing kids of generations past don't exist in thsoe numbers. You simply have a smaller % of the population that tends to go into the military. Beyond some radical restructuring, I think it will be difficult to get enough boots on the ground to ever make the 2-front concept a reality again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarge Posted October 3, 2006 Share Posted October 3, 2006 The question is, was that ever anything more than bull**** blustering for foreign policy purposes (deterrent effects)? Obviously we fell in love with our technology, and our standing army shrunk. Even if we wanted a larger standing army, which I always thought was important, is that even a reality now, given our country? Forget the current environment. We're a wealthy country, a service economy. The farm kids and manufacturing kids of generations past don't exist in thsoe numbers. You simply have a smaller % of the population that tends to go into the military. Beyond some radical restructuring, I think it will be difficult to get enough boots on the ground to ever make the 2-front concept a reality again. I'd be hard, but no where near impossible. For starters we could keep the 40,000 people Rummy wants to kick out of the Air Force next year Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted October 3, 2006 Share Posted October 3, 2006 We still have the ability to defeat 2 advisaries at once. What we lack are the stones needed to win a war. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarge Posted October 3, 2006 Share Posted October 3, 2006 We still have the ability to defeat 2 advisaries at once.What we lack are the stones needed to win a war. Two pissant adviseries. Two major ones simultaneously would be a challenge Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted October 3, 2006 Share Posted October 3, 2006 Two pissant adviseries. Two major ones simultaneously would be a challenge I disagree, but I know I wouldnt "fight" the way most people think we should fight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.