Do any of you feel at all a little "sqeemish" when you hear a supposed-bin Laden quoting your leaders in a audio tape meant to undermine President Bush?
Just wondering. What if during WWII Hitler had used the same technique? Unimaginable, eh? Not that he wouldn't have done it... but that there would be any "Americans" providing the material to do it. Just a thought.....
I haven't heard the tape. But should we feel squemish? Should leaders parse their words based on how they might be used or corrupted by another? Should leaders pander to the masses? Or should leaders speak the truth?
Again, let me get this straight. Bin Laden references Democrat leaders and conservatives all over are like, "See, Bin Ladens right! They're ruining America, listen to Bin Laden!"
But then in previous statements Bin Laden and others like Hussein and Hugo Chavez call Bush a dictator and a terrorist himself and you guys write that off as crazy talk coming from crazy people.
So it's only crazy talk when they're referencing your side of the isle, but it makes sense when they're talking about "the other guys." Ok got it
I haven't had time to read about it yet today, I'll check it out and get back to you with my actual thoughts on what Bin Laden said...
Again, let me get this straight. Bin Laden references Democrat leaders and conservatives all over are like, "See, Bin Ladens right! They're ruining America, listen to Bin Laden!"
But then in previous statements Bin Laden and others like Hussein and Hugo Chavez call Bush a dictator and a terrorist himself and you guys write that off as crazy talk coming from crazy people.
So it's only crazy talk when they're referencing your side of the isle, but it makes sense when they're talking about "the other guys." Ok got it
I haven't had time to read about it yet today, I'll check it out and get back to you with my actual thoughts on what Bin Laden said...
The way I read into this, is simple. There are people on the Democrat side that have a lot in common with OBL. They think the same way and OBL can relate to them.
So by proxy they are on his side..........against Bush. Allies if you will.
Ha, just messing around Alpha. Democrats disagree with the president. They do not want him killed and want American citizens killed as well. OBL is a heartless terrorists. Democrats are just the opposite opinion of Bush's in most cases. Keep in mind just about half of this country voted against Bush and more than half disapprove of his job right now, so it's not like the Dems are just there to spout meaningless opinions, they represent a large chunk of America's population.
Ha, just messing around Alpha. Democrats disagree with the president. They do not want him killed and want American citizens killed as well. OBL is a heartless terrorists. Democrats are just the opposite opinion of Bush's in most cases. Keep in mind just about half of this country voted against Bush and more than half disapprove of his job right now, so it's not like the Dems are just there to spout meaningless opinions, they represent a large chunk of America's population.
I kind of figured you were, but I've heard from people before (not on this board, of course ) that if you do not completely agree with everything Bush is doing then you're just as bad as OBL.
Do any of you feel at all a little "sqeemish" when you hear a supposed-bin Laden quoting your leaders ... What if during WWII Hitler had used the same technique?
What's the big deal? Hitler quoted Democrats routinely during WWII (he constanty thought he could make a mockery out of Franklin Delano Roosevelt by quoting FDR), and we know how well that worked for him in the end.
Of course, some of you will say, "that's different" in some feeble way, shape or form. For instance, someone might argue, "FDR was the president, and Republicans were not undermining the president." Democrats can't help the fact FDR was president. There's no way to paint a precise comparison to today, because the fact is, this country has never won a war with a Republican president in the White House (with the exception of Abe Lincoln in 1865).
There's no way to paint a precise comparison to today, because the fact is, this country has never won a war with a Republican president in the White House (with the exception of Abe Lincoln in 1865).
I'm not a Democrat. I just care about accuracy.
William McKinley, Spanish-American War?
George H W Bush, Desert Storm?
Do you not consider these guys republicans, not consider these wars, or not consider these wins? I'm confused?
There's no way to paint a precise comparison to today, because the fact is, this country has never won a war with a Republican president in the White House (with the exception of Abe Lincoln in 1865).
I'm not a Democrat. I just care about accuracy.
William McKinley, Spanish-American War?
George H W Bush, Desert Storm?
Do you not consider these guys republicans, not consider these wars, or not consider these wins? I'm confused?
I don’t consider them “wars” worth mentioning in historic terms. They were more like “skirmishes.” The American combat death count for those two “wars” was only one one-hundredth of one percent (that’s .01 %) of the death count for WWI and WWII. But if you insist on calling the Spanish-American skirmish and the Gulf War skirmish “wars,” go ahead. I hate to equate the number of body bags with the size of the task, but it’s as good a measure as any. I don’t consider the Gulf War a “win,” either. Why did we waste 147 American lives just to move Iraq out of Kuwait? If we were going to go over there in the first place, we should have finished the job and killed the Iraqi dictator instead of retreating like cowards. Bush #1 left a mess over there in ’91 that Bush #2 felt obsessed to go back and clean up, which was a hugely unfortunate distraction, because Bush #2 has failed to adequately pursue Bin Laden and Al Qaida the whole blasted time.
Spanish-American War: 385 American combat deaths.
Gulf War: 147 American combat deaths (that’s 100 fewer Americans than we lost in one single barracks truck bomb in 1983 during Reagan’s extended folly in Beirut).
There's no way to paint a precise comparison to today, because the fact is, this country has never won a war with a Republican president in the White House (with the exception of Abe Lincoln in 1865).
I'm not a Democrat. I just care about accuracy.
William McKinley, Spanish-American War?
George H W Bush, Desert Storm?
Do you not consider these guys republicans, not consider these wars, or not consider these wins? I'm confused?
I don’t consider them “wars” worth mentioning in historic terms. They were more like “skirmishes.” The American combat death count for those two “wars” was only one one-hundredth of one percent (that’s .01 %) of the death count for WWI and WWII. But if you insist on calling the Spanish-American skirmish and the Gulf War skirmish “wars,” go ahead. I hate to equate the number of body bags with the size of the task, but it’s as good a measure as any. I don’t consider the Gulf War a “win,” either. Why did we waste 147 American lives just to move Iraq out of Kuwait? If we were going to go over there in the first place, we should have finished the job and killed the Iraqi dictator instead of retreating like cowards. Bush #1 left a mess over there in ’91 that Bush #2 felt obsessed to go back and clean up, which was a hugely unfortunate distraction, because Bush #2 has failed to adequately pursue Bin Laden and Al Qaida the whole blasted time.
Spanish-American War: 385 American combat deaths.
Gulf War: 147 American combat deaths (that’s 100 fewer Americans than we lost in one single barracks truck bomb in 1983 during Reagan’s extended folly in Beirut).
I get it now. It's only a war if many lives are lost, and a republican is in office. It's only a war when it goes against your opinion and political preference.
I get it now. It's only a war if many lives are lost, and a republican is in office. It's only a war when it goes against your opinion and political preference.
Got it down now. Continue.
I don't think so, Alphagriz. I called WWI and WWII "wars," and it was Democrats in office (Wilson and Roosevelt). Also, I don't think I would have opposed WWI or WWII (I'm a boomer ... wasn't on earth for either one of them).
I don't politicize war. I'm not a Democrat or a Republican. I'm a moderate. If I wanted to politicize war, I could blame the Dems for being the party that gets us into wars (e.g., Wilson and Roosevelt ... even Kennedy). Or, if I wanted to politicize war, I could blame the Republicans for starting wars in Iraq in '91 and '03. But I don't blame either party. I like to hold LEADERS accountable, not PARTIES. We don't elect parties. Parties are merely 501(C)(3) non-profit corporations. Bush the LEADER is failing in his military policy. He should be going after the terrorists who hit us on 9-11 (uh, George ... it's Bin Laden, and he's in Afganistan or Pakistan!), and 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudi Arabian. What the heck are we in Iraq for again?
I haven't heard the tape. But should we feel squemish? Should leaders parse their words based on how they might be used or corrupted by another? Should leaders pander to the masses? Or should leaders speak the truth?
YES- They should chose thier words as to NOT Help someone who wants to destroy us. Thats how it used to be during war.
In a time of War the best way to get your point across to the President is FACE TO FACE not with JOE public.
These statement not only help OBL they hurt the dems because people remember what was said during a time of war.
Fat, Drunk and Bobcat is no way to go through life son!
Dean Wormer- Animal House
I haven't heard the tape. But should we feel squemish? Should leaders parse their words based on how they might be used or corrupted by another? Should leaders pander to the masses? Or should leaders speak the truth?
YES- They should chose thier words as to NOT Help someone who wants to destroy us. Thats how it used to be during war.
In a time of War the best way to get your point across to the President is FACE TO FACE not with JOE public.
These statement not only help OBL they hurt the dems because people remember what was said during a time of war.
BTW they are not pandering to the masses, just the far left, Move on types
Fat, Drunk and Bobcat is no way to go through life son!
Dean Wormer- Animal House
I get it now. It's only a war if many lives are lost, and a republican is in office. It's only a war when it goes against your opinion and political preference.
Got it down now. Continue.
I don't think so, Alphagriz. I called WWI and WWII "wars," and it was Democrats in office (Wilson and Roosevelt). Also, I don't think I would have opposed WWI or WWII (I'm a boomer ... wasn't on earth for either one of them).
I don't politicize war. I'm not a Democrat or a Republican. I'm a moderate. If I wanted to politicize war, I could blame the Dems for being the party that gets us into wars (e.g., Wilson and Roosevelt ... even Kennedy). Or, if I wanted to politicize war, I could blame the Republicans for starting wars in Iraq in '91 and '03. But I don't blame either party. I like to hold LEADERS accountable, not PARTIES. We don't elect parties. Parties are merely 501(C)(3) non-profit corporations. Bush the LEADER is failing in his military policy. He should be going after the terrorists who hit us on 9-11 (uh, George ... it's Bin Laden, and he's in Afganistan or Pakistan!), and 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudi Arabian. What the heck are we in Iraq for again?
Hey Dennison
Are you at all suprised we havent been hit in 4 years? I guess thats just pure luck
Fat, Drunk and Bobcat is no way to go through life son!
Dean Wormer- Animal House
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
