Politics and Religion
Ingelligence had Zarqawi in sight twice and both times Bush let him go.....
Turns out even after 9/11 Shrub let Zarqawi escape, the second time because it would interfere with the planning of Iraq. So much for Bush waging a strong war on terrorism?? Atleast the extreme RepubliCON right cant't harp about how Willie let Osama go. Even after 9/11 Shrub let Zarqawi go.
Next time you hear that BS line from Shrubs mouth about how "we will not waver, we will not tire, blah blah blah blah etc....." don't forget he had Zarqawi twice.
Since the extreme right is so righteous about Shrub I would love to hear their defense for this one. I really do want to hear how all of you will defend Shrub allowing Zarqawi escape twice, and keep in mind this is after 9/11.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4431601/
Ding Chavez COULD HAVE done better than this crap. If Clinton let Bin Laden go twice before 9/11/2001, then his actions are shamless, he should have used any angle to wipe Bin Laden off the face of the earth. And if president Bush let a known murderer go twice after 9/11/2001 then his actions are worst than shamless and they are totally unworthy of any logical defense.
Anytime that a president, regardless of who that person is, gets a single chance at a killer that has committed acts of murder against our citizens and is planning on committing more on a massive scale, he or she should immediatley press the button, without debate, and wipe the scumass killer off the face of the earth.
As for the Ding Chavez thing, GET OVER YOURSELF! Let's just "move on," to quote the defenders of Clinton and the name of the website which apparently serves as the source for most of your far Left fantasies.
You assert that "Anytime that a president, regardless of who that person is, gets a single chance at a killer that has committed acts of murder against our citizens and is planning on committing more on a massive scale, he or she should immediatley press the button, without debate, and wipe the scumass killer off the face of the earth."
I guess you forgot about OBL's masterminding of the plots against our embassies in Africa, where hundreds died. So the "principle" your purport to espouse is simply one more device used as an excuse to bash Bush, one of convenience only.
But even recognizing that, your "principle" is nonsensical. So presidents should drop everything, and diminish the chances for success in broader strategic planning simply to satisfy your bloodlust for immediate, swift justice? Oh, were it that you lefties were so bloodthirsty to impose the death penalty here at home to "immediately" "wipe ... scumass killer[s] off the face of the earth."
One has to admire the consistency which you apply your principles, James. Particularly the principle that you ALWAYS apply a different set of rules for Bush and the right wingers, than for anything Clinton did. What wonderful hypocrisy.
since he is screaming about Bush's strategic decision, while holding Clinton blameless. That is the true double-standard. Ironic in the extreme is his comment about hypocrisy, since he knows from whence he speaks.
And whatever happened to his promised absence? Perhaps the Kerry campaign recognized that putting a rabid dog directly on the payroll was a bad idea. 'Guess he'll just have to promote his slanders independently, like Algore.
Clinton is yesterdays news, and all one can do about him is either to buy or not buy his book - and I choose not to buy. If he were running for re-election, I'd probably vote against him, unless a worse candidate such as the Shrub were his opposition. It's time stop living in the past, and judge the current Administration and hold THEM accountable for the past 40 some months of inept leadership.
As for my leaving the board, I find that it's hard to ignore some of the egregious crap that you and others of your misguided ilk keep putting on it. I am still devoting much of my time to defeating Bush, although I never was, and never SAID I WAS, directly on the Kerry payroll. I am, as I said previously, now in a full time role which is committed to Bush's defeat. But it is NOT on the Kerry payroll, and never was.
But I DO manage to sneek away every now and again, and when I find some of your hypocrisy too hard to ignore, I devote a few moments to highlighting it.
OTOH, I have, significantly cut down my time on this playground, so it is only when the most egregious and hypocritical BS surfaces that I will choose to participate. Alas James86, that pretty much guarantees that many of your posts will be the targets.
but if you're referring to President Bush, what it says is that he's willing to make strategic decisions to not go after a smaller target while a larger one looms. My guess is, not being privy to all that the NSC knew, that the determination was made that Saddam's links to al Quaeda and the potential that he would provide them with WMDs made him the greater threat.
It's a question of allocation of resources.
but the report discussed fails to mention that rather salient issue, and you fail to address it entirely. 'Fact is, more lives have probably been saved by ridding Iraq of Saddam's reign of terror than Zarqawi has taken.
Of course, I forgot that it's only American lives that are worth anything, and that Iraqi lives don't count.
What a humanitarian you are.
that we should not have waited for the coalition of the willing and/or the unwilling, we should have vaporized that fucker right then and there. BUT, if they had launched attacks in Iraq, which I think they should have, there probably would have been condemnation from the UN, Fucking France, Germany and who nows who else. "Bush the Cowboy" "American Agression" and a whole lot more. All this while trying to convince those above to step up, step in and quit stalling the process. I'd love to know what would have been the result had the whole free world come on board at the beginning. Although it may cost this administration and President their jobs, 5-10 years from now, I think Iraq will be a much better place. Maybe it will be the Region formally known as Iraq, who knows.
Yep. No good deed goes unpunished. I remember when this first came up prior to the launch of the war, while EvilBush(tm) was seeking to prompt the UN Security Council into upholding their responsibilities. EvilBush(tm) should have gone after him then, but they probably (correctly) believed that the anti-warriors and oil-for-food beneficiaries would howl and moan if they did. It was a strategic error. This was widely reported prior to the start of the war.
RLTW
Unfortunately it looks like your attempt to purchase VIP membership has failed due to your card being declined. Good news is that we have several other payment options that you could try.
We thank you for your purchase!
Membership should be activated shortly. You'll receive notification!
