Here We Go Again... More Failed Policies
November 17th 2008 17:41
As I've said many times before, B.O. is planning a retutn to all the failed policies of the past. One of them is the biggest failure of the Clinton regime. "Let's make nice with the terrorists, after all, they're just like us and we have offended them somehow." Bill (the Zipper) Clinton was much too busy with Monica to use his Oval Office time in constructive ways. He allowed terrorist attacks to slide with little or no reaction. When he tried to pretend to have a backbone and fight back, he ran away in terror at the first sign of blood.
The terrorists think B.O. is the greatest thing they could hope for. A weak, soft, squishy, inexperienced pacifist in control of the most powerful country on Earth. His grandiose pre-election promises will either prove him to be the fraud he is or put us directly in harms way.
Instead of standing up for his country and the rest of the free world, he intends to cut back our military, keep us dependent on foreign oil, release dangerous terrorists into our midst, kill even more helpless babies, and pretend to go after Osama bin Laden. Even Joe (the mouth) Biden knows that we'll be attacked during the beginning of the B.O. regime. Maybe he'll call on John (the traitor) Kerry or Al (the village idiot) Gore to assist him in the best tactics for surrender.
Really Long Link
The terrorists think B.O. is the greatest thing they could hope for. A weak, soft, squishy, inexperienced pacifist in control of the most powerful country on Earth. His grandiose pre-election promises will either prove him to be the fraud he is or put us directly in harms way.
Instead of standing up for his country and the rest of the free world, he intends to cut back our military, keep us dependent on foreign oil, release dangerous terrorists into our midst, kill even more helpless babies, and pretend to go after Osama bin Laden. Even Joe (the mouth) Biden knows that we'll be attacked during the beginning of the B.O. regime. Maybe he'll call on John (the traitor) Kerry or Al (the village idiot) Gore to assist him in the best tactics for surrender.
Really Long Link
| 51 |
| Vote |
subscribe to this blog
Comment by NoaIzumi
Fine Politics
Anime Bottle
And if the attack takes place before Obama even takes office, I find it hard to see how anyone could come to a different conclusion. I suppose you could try blaming the Democrats in Congress, but they're not the Commander-in-Chief.
Comment by S.L.
The Political Brief
If B.O. has to deal with an attack, he'll be as weak and pathetic as Clinton was. Either do nothing or make a few apologies (to impress the left) and some pitiful half-hearted measures to prove how weak we really are. It has already been made clear that he plans to deflate our military and has no real interest in out national security. Ask Barney Frank. Ask B.O. himself. They can't blame Bush, because President Bush is a man, stood up against terrorism, and has led us through years without another attack on our homeland. The terrorists factions all over the world know what a weakling B.O. is and will attack as soon as they feel safe in doing so.
Comment by NoaIzumi
Fine Politics
Anime Bottle
If an attack happens eight months into the Bush administration, it's all Clinton's fault.
If an attack happens five minutes into the Obama administration, it's all Obama's fault.
Comment by S.L.
The Political Brief
Comment by Lester Caudill
Round Politics
Comment by S.L.
The Political Brief
Comment by Anonymous
As you might remember, Bush's invasion of Iraq sparked even more hatred and anti-Americanism across the Middle East. So, ironically, Bush was only stirring up the very thing he was trying to squash.
Now that a more diplomatic person is in office, the terrorists might finally lose their reason for hating the USA so much. Because, after all, the thing they hate the most is a foreign power interfering in the Middle Eastern world and telling them what to do.
And also let's not forget that good diplomacy is an art that only the very gifted and intellectually blessed can master. Getting your guns out is always the more primitive, easy solution.
-EW
Comment by S.L.
The Political Brief
B.O. is such a brilliant diplomat, I'm quite sure he can make the terrorists abandon their jihad (which we caused by fighting back after they killed 3,000 of our people, right?) It'll probably be done with the same penache that he used when telling the government of Georgia not to over-react while Russia was invading them.
So far, EW, neither B.O. nor Biden have been on the right side of anything. It doesn't look likely to change, either.
Comment by Anonymous
BUT...
There were several major terrorist attacks in the last years on the unfortunate Westerm allies that were dragged into this messy war along with the US. Think subway explosions in Madrid and bus explosions in London. Remember those? They put the whole world on alert.
And time and time again, those terrorists gave the message that they had commited these acts to punish the West (not just the US) for invading Iraq. It came across pretty clearly.
You know what bothers me in this whole thing? One simple, glaring gap in logic. Namely:
how on earth did the US go from hunting Bin Laden and Al Qaeda to invading Iraq?
Considering that:
1. Bin Laden was not hiding in Iraq;
2. Iraq was never a militant Islamic state (under Saddam Hussein's strict regime, religion was, in fact, supressed in Iraq);
3. Bush was even explicitely advised by UN experts and intelligence that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and therefore was advised not to attack it -- but he ignored all this,
and yet, once they got over the whole Afghanistan thing (having failed to capture Bin Laden to this day), there they suddenly were... in Iraq! Funny that.
And funny you should support the Iraq war, actually. You seem to be a proud Christian, but are you aware of the fact that since Saddam Hussein was abolished, the Iraqi Christian minority have a more miserable existence than ever, as the country has been overrun by militant Sunni and Shiite Muslims who now (thanks to the removal of the dictator who had kept them in check) are free to run amok? They are now free to threaten and terrorise that Iraqi Christians.
Saddam was rather anti-clerical (as most dictators are!), so even though he was an awful person, the one advantage of his rule was that the various religions co-existed more harmoniousy in Iraq.
But now, thanks to the US, one of the last Christian outposts in the Middle East is going down the drain.
-EW
Comment by S.L.
The Political Brief
Your first sentence is wrong. Pres. Bush did retaliate after 9/11.
EW, your ideas are incredibly naieve!
Saddam Hussein had rape rooms, mass graves for those who disagreed with him, torture for anyone who dared have an opinion, and a population that was living in grinding poverty while he and his elites enjoyed every luxury you can imagine. Do you really think the Iraqi people were better off then than they are now? They risked their lives to vote. They have their own constitution and government. Shall we abandon them as B.O. swore he would do? If you think that Christians have it rough now, just wait until terrorists take over and kill even more innocents than their suicide/homicide bombers do.
The UN and several other intelligence agencies around the world believed that Saddam had WMD's. The UN even hit him with 17 of their ineffectual "or else's" to no avail. Osama bin Laden was a frequent visitor to Bagdad for dialysis.
The attacks on Spain and other places were made by terrorists, not the USA. We are not responsible for what monsters do. Cowering down in fear or pretending that they'll go away if you don't defend yourself is insane. Try to remember they attacked US, we didn't attack THEM!
Comment by NoaIzumi
Fine Politics
Anime Bottle
Comment by S.L.
The Political Brief
I don't have time to waste on fantasies of how there was anything done towards the threat of more terrorism during the 90's, noaIzumi. The Zipper was too busy with Monica to devote any time to a little thing like national security. I remember those days quite well.
Comment by Anonymous
I was actually agreeing with you.
You said:
"All those attacks the terrorists made against us were done before we ticked them off by retaliating?"
And I was agreeing with that particular statement by saying:
"No, September 11 did not happen before Bush retaliated -- true."
The thing is, SL, it's not really the USA's business what Saddam Hussein did. He wasn't doing it to the US after all.
The problem with this kind of response is, why pick THIS particular country? There are many other countries with cruel, unfair leaders. So why doesn't the USA attack all of them? Well, probably because there is no oil there. Or because they are scared.
Look at North Korea, for example. Awful regime, and the last outpost of oppressive communism too. Lots of people are starving there, because the country is unable to provide for all its citizens, but despite this chooses to isolate itself from others.
So why doesn't the USA go and "free" those poor North Koreans from their leader too?
And just one more thing -- regarding your last statement:
"Try to remember they attacked US, we didn't attack THEM!"
Yes, "them" is Al-Qaeda. Al-Qaeda attacked the USA -- not a nation. Al-Qaeda is not a nation! No Muslim country ever declared war on the USA.
And yet, the US retaliated by attacking two nations.
Don't you see anything wrong with this equation?
At least with Afghanistan it made more sense, because there was a lot of evidence that the Taliban was harbouring terrorists. (See? I analyse situations on an individual-case basis.)
But the Iraq thing seemed bizarre to me from the start.
And, to be logical, if the US is so set on attacking countries with "potential terrorist links", then how come they haven't attacked Saudi Arabia yet?? Or Yemen?? These two countries are openly extremist Muslim theocracies. And Saudi Arabia has plenty of financial means to support terrorists, too!
Oh, and let's also go back in time and have a look at the nationalities of the September 11 plane hijackers themselves. Not many Iraqis among them, hey?
I could go on, but I think you have enough to chew over for now, so to speak.
-EW
P.S. Too bad about your comment loss. I'd recommend typing the comments into Word first and then pasting them into Orble. This way you won't lose them if your internet connection drops out.
Comment by S.L.
The Political Brief
If the international community gave a rats behind about the brutality or oppression in Darfur and other countries under evil regimes, they could have done something, don't you think? Instead, they wag their impotent finger and wheeze useless threats. Would you like it if the USA took action against every bad government in the world? Or would it be just a little extra item for you to gripe about?
And yes, our national interests were involved in the middle east. B.O. wants to keep getting our oil supplies from people who don't like us (rather than securing our own). What's wrong with keeping our supplies safe? Is our national interest now a crime? I'm sure B.O. will take every possible measure to keep our fate in the hands of our enemies.
Too many enemies of America control to much of our security, EW. And everyone gripes like crazy when we try to protect ourselves.
In case your understanding of history is as sparse at it seems, EW. Here's a little lesson for you. Back when America was a real country (before Democrats had the opportunity to ruin it) we came to the rescue when facism was taking over. We fought with our allies and defeated Hitler, Mussolini and Imperial Japan. We saved the butts of the rest of the world. And when we needed their help with the war on Terror, where were they? Kissing Muslim butts and whining, that's where.
Comment by NoaIzumi
Fine Politics
Anime Bottle
And that attack you refer to, you seem to be forgetting the strike in Afghanistan, which killed twenty Al-Qaeda terrorists. I'll grant that it (and the other attempts, too) weren't enough, but whatever motives you attribute to them, the Clinton administration took multiple actions against terrorism.
And a few of them were very effective. Google "Operation Sapphire Iran" sometime.
Comment by S.L.
The Political Brief
Comment by Anonymous
My understanding is not sparse. I read a lot and I am interested in the world around me. I am also a journalist.
And I am not saying that your understanding is sparse, either, but what you are doing is just picking out the "good" bits which illustrate your point, while ignoring other things.
How about THIS historical fact?
In their fanatic quest to free the world form communism (being self-appointed world policemen), the Americans assisted Afghanistan in its resistance against the Soviet Union (which was trying to take over it). In doing so, they helped to set up the Taliban regime. What's more, the CIA personally trained people like Bin Laden.
Fast forward a couple of decades, and the Taliban regime, along with Mr Bin Laden, begins to terrorize the gulliable suckers (the USA) that helped them get to power in the first place.
Ironic, huh? This is the perfect example of how meddling in too many world affairs can come back and bite you on the butt.
This example also illustrates that the USA is only interested in "helping" nations, as long as it's in their own interest at the time.
If there was no oil in Iraq, I'm sure the USA would not lift a finger to free the poor Iraqis from Saddam Hussein.
-EW
Comment by S.L.
The Political Brief
Friends and enemies on the international scale change quite often. We once had a war with Japan and now they own factories in the USA. We twice had wars with Germany and their science and technology are in use everywhere these days. At the time we helped bin Laden, it seemed like a good idea (helping a small country to resist an assault by a larger one). It is not possible to see into the future and know who will be our friend or our enemy a few decades from now.
Comment by NoaIzumi
Fine Politics
Anime Bottle
Comment by S.L.
The Political Brief
Comment by NoaIzumi
Fine Politics
Anime Bottle
OK, that makes perfect sense. Thanks.
Comment by S.L.
The Political Brief