Terrorists are not covered under
Posted By: Trigger Happy on 2009-06-12
In Reply to: they should be prosecuted for war crimes - steady eddie
The Geneva Convention. I don't know how many times I have to repeat that tid bit of information to you people. What our government did was in an attempt to keep Americans safe and yet all you want is Bush and Cheney's head on a platter no matter what extra danger that might put our troops in.
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
Terrorists are not covered under
the Geneva Convention.
I believe all children should be covered.
health care plans. My husband pays a portion just like everyone else. We hardly use the health coverage, only for minor sinus infections, and I did have a hysterectomy last year.
There are others walking around that have had multiple surgeries including bypass, and they pay the same amount towards the plan.
How is that fair? I feel the contribution should be paid on the usage, per se, and not so much (everyone is equal) because we are not. I had a friend that had a lap band (fully covered), thyroid surgery, neck surgery, and goes the doctor every other week for something or other. So, when we worked together, we both paid the same; yet, I did not go to the doctor or have any surgeries.
Is that fair? Why not look at something like that for cost effectiveness? Would this turn people away from receiving the healthcare they need (not likely)?
The ten's of thousands not covered by media
Perhaps that's why they declared open season on reporters who tried to get the truth out, especially about the heavy-handed police gestapo tactics, all too common in a post 9/11 Patriot Act world (where misdemeanors are ratcheted up to charges of terrorism), riddled with politics of fear and being promoted inside the convention hall.
yep. talk radio covered this. sm
Rush said that's why they went after him. Seriously, for those who have never explored talk radio, it's like getting your doctorate in history. It's so different than what many think. Of course, I like all of it, but this is a fabulous encyclopedia for sources other than the "drivebys." Of course, that's why the far-left Dems want that so-called Fairness Doctrine. The centrists (what few are left flailing with little or now face time, for obvious reasons) know full well that if it happens to the conservatives, it'll come right back around and hit them in the butts, too.
The Dems are very divided but put on a show for the cameras. If a centrist or a new Rep. doesn't follow The Pelosi Principle, he/she will never get $ for another run, and certainly won't get to introduce anything of interest to that Rep. The domino effect on that trickles down to the Rep's state, which in turn essentially gets nothing.
It's quite refreshing to be able to have a friendly exchange here. What on earth happened? Let's hope it lasts!
The reason the media covered
Tiller like they did was so they could push this horrible accusation about how conservatives are to blame for this psycho gunning down Tiller. However, this Muslim who attacked those soldiers doesn't benefit them by truly reporting on it. Just like the Muslim who beheaded his wife because she was going to leave him....you barely heard a snitch about that story.
I think the news should have covered Tiller's murder. No one has the right to gun down anyone like that. However, it would have been nice if they would have given the same respect to an American soldier who was gunned down as well. It truly does make you wonder what is happening to our country. Pretty sad when we care more about the death of a man who had no trouble killing babies and yet we have no problem with one of our soldiers being gunned down by a Muslim.
No they didn't.....FOX covered it from minute one....
nm
Nah. Bush has already got the "socialism" thing covered!
(I think it happened when he decided to buy BANKS. I remember the gist of his statement at the time, how he's a "free market" kinda guy, but this is absolutely necessary. I guess that means capitalism is a toddler that rambles about, but when it's about to run out in front of a speeding car, it can always run back to socialism to save it. As for me, I think Bush is runnin' around with a few trillion in his pockets, since there is so much secrecy surrounding the Wall Street bailouts, with transparency and accounting flat-out refused by the Bush administration from the get-go!)
Tuesday, December 30, 2008
EXCLUSIVE: RNC draft rips Bush's bailouts
Ralph Z. Hallow (Contact)
EXCLUSIVE:
Republican Party officials say they will try next month to pass a resolution accusing President Bush and congressional Republican leaders of embracing "socialism," underscoring deep dissension within the party at the end of Mr. Bush's administration.
Those pushing the resolution, which will come before the Republican National Committee at its January meeting, say elected leaders need to be reminded of core principles. They said the RNC must take the dramatic step of wading into policy debates, which traditionally have been left to lawmakers.
"We can't be a party of small government, free markets and low taxes while supporting bailouts and nationalizing industries, which lead to big government, socialism and high taxes at the expense of individual liberty and freedoms," said Solomon Yue, an Oregon member and co-sponsor of a resolution that criticizes the U.S. government bailouts of the financial and auto industries. Republican National Committee Vice Chairman James Bopp Jr. wrote the resolution and asked the rest of the 168 voting members to sign it.
"The resolution also opposes President-elect Obama's proposed public works program and supports conservative alternatives," while encouraging the RNC "to engage in vigorous public policy debates consistent with our party platform," said Mr. Bopp, a leading attorney for pro-life groups who has also challenged the campaign finance legislation that Mr. Bush signed.
See related story: Jeb Bush Senate bid a GOP remedy?
If enacted, the resolution would put the party on record opposing the $700 billion bailout of the financial sector, which passed Congress with Republican support and was signed by Mr. Bush, and opposing the bailout of the auto industry. The auto bailout bill was blocked by Senate Republicans, but Mr. Bush then reversed course and announced that he would use financial bailout money to aid the auto manufacturers.
The RNC usually plays a policy role only every four years when it frames the national party platform, which typically is forgotten quickly.
In 2006, some party members presented a resolution challenging Mr. Bush's plan to legalize illegal immigrants and enact a guest-worker program. Mr. Bush's lieutenants fought back, arguing that the party should not tie the president's hands on a policy issue, and the RNC capitulated, passing an alternate White House-backed resolution instead.
This time, the backers of the new resolution say they will not be deterred by a fight, and say they have the numbers to pull off this rebellion.
"We have enough co-sponsors to take this to the RNC floor" at the party's Jan. 28-31 annual winter meeting in Washington, Mr. Bopp said. "I will take it to the Resolutions Committee, but I intend to press this issue to the floor for decision."
North Dakota Republican Party Chairman Gary Emineth said it's time for the RNC to end the disconnect between what the party platform says and what elected Republicans do.
"It is time the party gets involved in policy issues and forces candidates to respond to the platform," Mr. Emineth said. "Frankly the way we view the platform is a joke. We work hard to drive our principles into the platform, then candidates ignore it."
"If the party doesn't move in this direction, we will continue to be irrelevant. Whoever has the larger star power will continue to win, and what they stand for and believe will become less relevant," Mr. Emineth said.
House Minority Leader John A. Boehner and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, both of whom voted for the financial bailout but opposed the auto bailout, declined to comment.
White House spokesman Tony Fratto defended the Bush administration's actions, saying, "We understand the opposition to using tax dollars to support private businesses we also oppose using tax dollars to support private businesses. But this was the necessary and responsible thing to do to prevent a collapse of the American economy."
Several RNC members including some of Mr. Bopp's fellow conservatives are not pleased with the idea of having it make policy instead of simply minding the campaign fundraising store.
Ron Nehring, chairman of the California Republican Party, said the party also can't be seen endorsing a do-nothing approach.
"We have to be careful not to confuse passing resolutions for action, or creating a situation where people interpret the lack of some resolution as an excuse for inaction on an important issue," he said.
The resolution says: "WHEREAS, the Bank Bailout Bill effectively nationalized the Nation's banking system, giving the United States non-voting warrants from participating financial institutions, and moving our free market based economy another dangerous step closer toward socialism; and WHEREAS, what was needed, and is still needed, to fix the banking industry is not a bailout, but rather a commitment to fiscal responsibility."
The financial sector bailout passed the House by a vote of 263-171 with 91 Republicans backing it, and passed the Senate by a 74-25 vote with 34 Republicans in favor. The auto bailout passed the House by a 237-170 vote with 32 Republicans supporting it, but was blocked by a Republican-led filibuster in the Senate, with just 10 Republicans voting to advance the bill.
The RNC's sole job historically has been to raise money for candidates and to pass the party line down the food chain to state and local leaders. Policy has been set by the party's congressional leaders and, when a Republican sits in the White House, by the president.
The same has been true for the Democratic National Committee.
The Bopp-Yue vanguard say they are determined to change that.
"For the past eight years, the RNC has been the political outreach of the White House," said Arizona Republican Party Chairman Randy Pullen, another resolution co-sponsor who led the 2006 immigration fight and who opposed Mr. Bush's "economic policies promoting the 'ownership society' because they would eventually lead to the financial meltdown we are currently experiencing."
"It is now time for the RNC to assert itself in terms of ideas and political philosophy," Mr. Pullen added. "If we don't do it now, when will we?"
Mr. Bopp, a social conservative who has served as counsel to pro-life groups, said, "We must stand for and publicly advocate our conservative principles as a party 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 365 days of the year."
The RNC revolutionaries leave no doubt they mean to turn the committee into policy-producing and enforcing machine.
"In the long run, we want to see this committee play an active philosophical-policy leadership role for the national GOP," Mr. Yue said.
But it remains unclear whether the rules or the machinery exist for enforcing such a resolution on Republican elected officials.
Jon Ward contributed to this report.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/dec/30/rnc-pushes-unprecedented-criticism-of-bailouts/
Nah. Bush has already got the "socialism" thing covered!
(I think it happened when he decided to buy BANKS. I remember the gist of his statement at the time, how he's a "free market" kinda guy, but this is absolutely necessary. I guess that means capitalism is a toddler that toddles about, but when it's about to run out in front of a speeding car, it's up to socialism to save it. As for me, I think Bush is runnin' around with a few trillion in his pockets, since there is so much secrecy surrounding the Wall Street bailouts, with transparency and accounting flat-out refused by the Bush administration from the get-go!)
Tuesday, December 30, 2008
EXCLUSIVE: RNC draft rips Bush's bailouts
Ralph Z. Hallow (Contact)
EXCLUSIVE:
Republican Party officials say they will try next month to pass a resolution accusing President Bush and congressional Republican leaders of embracing "socialism," underscoring deep dissension within the party at the end of Mr. Bush's administration.
Those pushing the resolution, which will come before the Republican National Committee at its January meeting, say elected leaders need to be reminded of core principles. They said the RNC must take the dramatic step of wading into policy debates, which traditionally have been left to lawmakers.
"We can't be a party of small government, free markets and low taxes while supporting bailouts and nationalizing industries, which lead to big government, socialism and high taxes at the expense of individual liberty and freedoms," said Solomon Yue, an Oregon member and co-sponsor of a resolution that criticizes the U.S. government bailouts of the financial and auto industries. Republican National Committee Vice Chairman James Bopp Jr. wrote the resolution and asked the rest of the 168 voting members to sign it.
"The resolution also opposes President-elect Obama's proposed public works program and supports conservative alternatives," while encouraging the RNC "to engage in vigorous public policy debates consistent with our party platform," said Mr. Bopp, a leading attorney for pro-life groups who has also challenged the campaign finance legislation that Mr. Bush signed.
See related story: Jeb Bush Senate bid a GOP remedy?
If enacted, the resolution would put the party on record opposing the $700 billion bailout of the financial sector, which passed Congress with Republican support and was signed by Mr. Bush, and opposing the bailout of the auto industry. The auto bailout bill was blocked by Senate Republicans, but Mr. Bush then reversed course and announced that he would use financial bailout money to aid the auto manufacturers.
The RNC usually plays a policy role only every four years when it frames the national party platform, which typically is forgotten quickly.
In 2006, some party members presented a resolution challenging Mr. Bush's plan to legalize illegal immigrants and enact a guest-worker program. Mr. Bush's lieutenants fought back, arguing that the party should not tie the president's hands on a policy issue, and the RNC capitulated, passing an alternate White House-backed resolution instead.
This time, the backers of the new resolution say they will not be deterred by a fight, and say they have the numbers to pull off this rebellion.
"We have enough co-sponsors to take this to the RNC floor" at the party's Jan. 28-31 annual winter meeting in Washington, Mr. Bopp said. "I will take it to the Resolutions Committee, but I intend to press this issue to the floor for decision."
North Dakota Republican Party Chairman Gary Emineth said it's time for the RNC to end the disconnect between what the party platform says and what elected Republicans do.
"It is time the party gets involved in policy issues and forces candidates to respond to the platform," Mr. Emineth said. "Frankly the way we view the platform is a joke. We work hard to drive our principles into the platform, then candidates ignore it."
"If the party doesn't move in this direction, we will continue to be irrelevant. Whoever has the larger star power will continue to win, and what they stand for and believe will become less relevant," Mr. Emineth said.
House Minority Leader John A. Boehner and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, both of whom voted for the financial bailout but opposed the auto bailout, declined to comment.
White House spokesman Tony Fratto defended the Bush administration's actions, saying, "We understand the opposition to using tax dollars to support private businesses we also oppose using tax dollars to support private businesses. But this was the necessary and responsible thing to do to prevent a collapse of the American economy."
Several RNC members including some of Mr. Bopp's fellow conservatives are not pleased with the idea of having it make policy instead of simply minding the campaign fundraising store.
Ron Nehring, chairman of the California Republican Party, said the party also can't be seen endorsing a do-nothing approach.
"We have to be careful not to confuse passing resolutions for action, or creating a situation where people interpret the lack of some resolution as an excuse for inaction on an important issue," he said.
The resolution says: "WHEREAS, the Bank Bailout Bill effectively nationalized the Nation's banking system, giving the United States non-voting warrants from participating financial institutions, and moving our free market based economy another dangerous step closer toward socialism; and WHEREAS, what was needed, and is still needed, to fix the banking industry is not a bailout, but rather a commitment to fiscal responsibility."
The financial sector bailout passed the House by a vote of 263-171 with 91 Republicans backing it, and passed the Senate by a 74-25 vote with 34 Republicans in favor. The auto bailout passed the House by a 237-170 vote with 32 Republicans supporting it, but was blocked by a Republican-led filibuster in the Senate, with just 10 Republicans voting to advance the bill.
The RNC's sole job historically has been to raise money for candidates and to pass the party line down the food chain to state and local leaders. Policy has been set by the party's congressional leaders and, when a Republican sits in the White House, by the president.
The same has been true for the Democratic National Committee.
The Bopp-Yue vanguard say they are determined to change that.
"For the past eight years, the RNC has been the political outreach of the White House," said Arizona Republican Party Chairman Randy Pullen, another resolution co-sponsor who led the 2006 immigration fight and who opposed Mr. Bush's "economic policies promoting the 'ownership society' because they would eventually lead to the financial meltdown we are currently experiencing."
"It is now time for the RNC to assert itself in terms of ideas and political philosophy," Mr. Pullen added. "If we don't do it now, when will we?"
Mr. Bopp, a social conservative who has served as counsel to pro-life groups, said, "We must stand for and publicly advocate our conservative principles as a party 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 365 days of the year."
The RNC revolutionaries leave no doubt they mean to turn the committee into policy-producing and enforcing machine.
"In the long run, we want to see this committee play an active philosophical-policy leadership role for the national GOP," Mr. Yue said.
But it remains unclear whether the rules or the machinery exist for enforcing such a resolution on Republican elected officials.
Jon Ward contributed to this report.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/dec/30/rnc-pushes-unprecedented-criticism-of-bailouts/
Been covered today already, and over past few days..
Like phoney food stamp flyers covered with racial stereotypes,
Obama Halloween ghost hung in effigy to greet 5-year old trick-or-treaters weren't there? How about straight from the horse's mouth? Books have been written on the subject. Here's just one excerpt:
1. McCains use of the anti-Asian slur "Gook" publicly for 27 years before dropping the term for his current presidential run.
2. McCain's endorsement of George Wallace Jr., a frequent speaker at white supremacist events.
3. His vote against establishing a holiday for MLK's birthday and another vote to rescind the holiday, turning hypocrite to say "I was wrong" at a campaign rally.
4. While answering a question about divorced fathers and child support, McCain called the children "tar babies."
There is certainly no shortage of example of racial hatred out of the McCain camp? I could research the subject some more if necessary to prove this point, but I think you get the general idea.
Terrorists
Why in hell would I want to convey anything to terrorists but stay hell out of our country or they will die? You, on the other hand want them to like us....I couldn't give a rat's behind what terrorists think about us except that they know we will kick their asses all the way to the meeting with virgins they want so desperately to get their hands on.
If you want to stick flowers in their guns go ahead. I would like to stand back and watch that.
Besides, since when do we let terrorists
decide who is going to be our next President? Are we so insane that we let a suspect endorsement by a terrorist organization sway our votes one way or another? OMG! I honestly can't believe this! I'm wondering what the people in the Twin Towers or the people on those planes on 9/11 (especially the ones that fought the hijackers) would think about their country now? Makes me sad to think that there are people who would cowtow to terrorist organizations. We should really all know better than that.
We will never have terrorists
under control per se, but at least we can give power back to the Muslims who don't want us dead. The more control the terrorists have and the bigger area they have to work in....the more of a threat they are to us. That is what this war means to me.
As for Obama....he himself has ridiculed this war and yet states that he will find Osama Bin Laden. Is he not raging war here? Obama himself has said that he will not take military force off of the table. Who is to say that Obama won't pull us out of Iraq and sent us to Pakistan to rage war there. We can't fight terrorists in Iraq because that is wasteful and wrong, but Obama wants to go to Pakistan and hunt down terrorists....same thing isn't it. Talk about double standards.
He is going to be spending all this money with no funding and says he will save money ending this war but it sounds to me like he could be starting a war elsewhere and then what money will he use to fund his programs.....TAXES....TAXES.....TAXES.........ON EVERYONE!!! Including the middle class that he now supposedly is looking after even though he voted before to raise taxes on us middle folks. Nothing but rhetoric to get in the office.
You mean terrorists,
x
Well when terrorists...
and yes I dared to use the word TERRORISTS....strike us again on US soil....what will happen to us then? Will Obama go after them and strike back or will the US turn the other cheek to be struck again? If Obama goes after them and no other country backs us.....what will you say then?
The reason these leaders like Obama is because they see weakness. They see an opportunity for the US to fall and they are all chomping at the bit.
North Korea is still talking of launching their missile but hey....I guess since it can hit Alaska that is okay because maybe they will get Palin....huh? One less pub to worry about.
China says they hate us and blame us for the global economy issues and they are using all the money they get from our country to build up their defense.
The Taliban have already said they are planning a strike on Washington. Right there is a warning. So if the Taliban succeed....are ya'll gonna give Obama crap too for not stopping it like you did W. for 9/11 since they had "warnings."
Once again, the die hard party liners here refuse to see the mistakes in their own political party and all they can do is point the finger at the other political party.....which is why I'm an independent.
You all can go on and on about Bushy's war in Iraq but the botton line is this....would you prefer that terrorists still have control of that area? Would you prefer that the woman in that region be beaten by the taliban for talking to a man or not wearing the appropriate attire. Regardless of why we went there or not....we helped the Iraqi's. Yes we tortured to get information that would save people's lives while they captured our people and beheaded them.....yet we are the bad guys. Their whole purpose of existence is to wipe us out. They want us DEAD and now we can't even call them terrorists....are you kidding me?
Seriously.....what is your solution to this problem? Talking to terrorists who want us dead and have no problem blowing themselves up at the same time isn't going to work. The brutal beating of woman just because they exist and are inferior to men......and yet you never hear women's rights group protesting THAT.
But hey.....we have our warning from the Taliban and Obama is cutting money from defense.......makes sense.....doesn't it? I guess the only ones it makes sense too are the MSNBC watching, kool-aid drinking, far-left liberals who swoon everytime Obamanation reads from the teleprompter.
How many terrorists
have died being waterboarded? How many terrorists have we brutally tortured to where they have begged for death? How many terrorists have had their head cut off at Gitmo?
It isn't like these acts are done merely for entertainment purposes. They were used to get information out of known terrorists. It was done in an attempt to save lives. It wasn't done in an attempt to destroy lives. All terrorists want to do is destroy us.
As for the treatment at Gitmo, they have it better than prisoners here in the US have it. They get reading material, food, clean clothes, etc. Of all the terrorists at Gitmo....how many were waterboarded? 2-3? Oh my. It isn't like we have waterboarded each and every terrorist and the ones we did waterboard were done because they were high up in the ranks that they would more than likely know more information/plans, etc.
As for my religious beliefs....I would much rather do what has to be done in order to keep our country, families, children, parents, etc. safe than to cuddle people who hate us and wish nothing upon us but death.
This shows you exactly how much you know about the terrorists. sm
And THAT has been the worst part about all this. Bush hatred has not only fried you to crispy critters, it has made you dangerously ignorant.
you are the ones helping the terrorists
It is Bush and you and people who think like you who have put us at risk. We now have a full fledged terrorist state/breeding ground in Iraq because of Bush's war..That has put us at great risk for decades to come. Before Bush invaded, we had a few radicals that if we kept our focus we could have hunted down in Afghanistan and eliminated. Instead Bush invaded Iraq for no go reason other than to have a presence in the Middle East for control of the Middle East. Where is bin Laden? Why are we fighting in Iraq? Why are we there? The real murderer is somewhere in Afghanistan or Pakistan. Yet, you people continue to back this war when there is no logical good reason to have entered into it or to stay there. You and your man Bush are helping the terrorists, you have given them every reason to continue to multiply and hate us even more. You are throwing oil on fire. I want to put out the fire.
How many terrorists attacks have we had since 911
nm
Christian Terrorists
Christian terrorism is religious terrorism by groups or individuals, the motivation of which is typically rooted in an idiosyncratic interpretation of the Bible and other Christian tenets of faith. From the viewpoint of the terrorist, Christian scripture and theology provide justification for violent political activities.
Abortion clinics have been frequent targets of violence. Christian anti-abortion terrorists and terrorist organizations include the Army of God, The Lambs of Christ, Clayton Waagner, Mike Bray, James Kopp, Paul Jennings Hill and Eric Robert Rudolph.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_terrorism
Exactly. Just like not all Muslims are terrorists. nm
nm
I am sure that we all know that not all Muslims are terrorists.
Why is that anyone who does not support Obama is automatically a bigot who hates everyone who is not a white Christian? And then I am called narrow minded--interesting!
But it's okay for terrorists to tortue,
maime (sp), and kill innocent men, women, children, news people, and our servicemen? I don't think so.
Give it up. Ain't worth it. Concentrate on more pressing issues as the above poster said.
O said nothing about negotiating with terrorists.
nm
Must have been palling around with terrorists
hahahahahaha
So, we are no better than terrorists? That answer
nm
We waterboarded known terrorists, not just
nm
So you want to send a message to the terrorists.....
That Americans are all a bunch of corrupt liars who go unchecked and unpunished? I think that if you truly wanted to protect the American people that you would want dishonesty and corruption investigated. Guess not.
I don't think the terrorists will knock at our doors..
..and announce themselves as terrorists so we can shoot them. Iraq, London and 9/11 would teach us that they are much smarter and more covert than that. Besides, when the London bobbies waved their guns around they ended up killing a Brazilian electrician (I think it was Brazil).
I don't spend my days worrying about what if a terrorist shows up at my house. There really are too many other things in my life that are genuine to wonder about implausible situations such as the one you describe.
That's exactly right!! The terrorists seem to utilize the "unexpected" rather than
fdfd
Speaking of muslim terrorists
tell me, if Bush is such a great leader how come he has not gotten Bin Laden..remember him? the planner of 09/11? I think you have forgotten 09/11. Oh and imagine if Bush and the administration had actually paid some attention to the memos coming across their desks, you know, the ones about how bin laden was goingto use airplanes to attack etc..maybe just maybe, 09/11 wouldnt have happened at all.
Bush says terrorists are coming again. sm
Well, he should know. 
http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Bush_says_terrorists_are_coming_again_0915.html
That might have worked, if all the terrorists were in Afghanistan. nm
.
There were no terrorists in Iraq... Saddam would not have
allowed anyone other than himself to be the terror! He would have had their heads if they were amassing there as he had TOTAL control of who and what was in his country. He also kept his peoples: the Sunis, the Shiites, and the Kurds on track. He would have never let a civil war happen. As stated, he had total control, now we have unleashed, and helped to create more, infidels.
You should be happy, the terrorists love you.
They are praying to Allah that Democrats will win in this election. Democrats believe in immediate withdrawal from Iraq. If they succeed in forcing us to leave under these circumstances, the United States will suffer a stinging defeat in the war on terror. The terrorists already believe that they drove the Russians from Afghanistan and Israel from Lebanon and Gaza. They are convinced they chased us out of Lebanon in 1983 and from Somalia in 1993. According to Osama bin Laden and those who share his views, we are militarily strong but psychologically and spiritually weak. Like it or not—and no one likes it—we cannot leave Iraq now without utterly and decisively validating this analysis. We might as well run a white flag up the flagpole at the Capitol. But then, that would probably be fine with the left, too.
The fact that you think you can negotiate with terrorists....
shows you don't have a grasp of the threat. THEY scoff at diplomacy.
Look at history if you please. Europe loves America at will...when they need us, they love us. WHen they don't, they view us with disdain. If two World Wars have not taught you that, me repeating it here will not help.
And if they yell help again, we will be there, because that is what we do, because we are America. In the mean time, I could not care less if the average German is in love with Barack Obama. When the chips are down for US, they run like scalded dogs. But let them get in a crack, and who do they yell for? It ain't the UN and NATO. THAT is the real world.
Obama does not want to negotiate with terrorists.
nm
At least they're not Muslim terrorists
--
Aah, don't get stuck on color here.... Terrorists
they have been home grown right here in this country.....Ayers, Dohrn, just to name a couple. You know, Obama's pals that his supporters keep hearing the news media they get their info from tell everyone how he hasn't had any dealings with these two or the corrupt white multi-millionnaire realtor he has many associations with AND bought his 1.6 million dollar home from at a STEAL!
His name is Muslim. You want to pretend it's not? Now, that alone is not the issue...his Islamic relationship with terrorists in terrorist countries is the problem, of which you want to ignore. His Islamic teachings is also an issue, of which you also choose to ignore. His own family members say he is Muslim through and through. They say he is NOT a Christian, but of course, you know more than they I'm sure.
Terrorists arrived there AFTER our brilliant
x
The quote "hanging around with terrorists"
came from Sarah Palin. She got the ball rolling on attacking Obama's credibility. Actually she said Obama "palls around with terrorists." Then the McCain/Palin camp started in with the Ayer's subject, trying to dig up dirt on Obama. That is pretty much all they have done throughout the campaign is sling mudd. Obviously the American people are intelligent and not gullible because the majority are casting their votes for Obama.
May the better man win and that man is Obama.
Obama bringing terrorists to the US?
The president-elect's advisers QUIETLY craft a proposal to ship dozens, if not hundreds, of imprisoned terrorism suspects to the United States to face criminal trials.
Under plans being put together in Obama's camp, some detainees would be released and many others would be prosecuted in U.S. criminal courts.
Sorry, but I want my tax dollars and priority to focus more on our economy, jobs, war, health care, then bringing terrorists to our country for court. Not a priority on my list. What is he up to, bringing terrorists to the US? Afraid to find out.
http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/11/10/obama-planning-trials-guantanamo-detainees/
I agree. It was the TERRORISTS who decided...
...to attack on 9/11. Likewise, it will be the TERRORISTS who will decide when and how to attack again.
I don't believe this has anything to do with WHO the President is, so while Bush shouldn't take the blame, he also shouldn't claim the credit for what the TERRORISTS HAVEN'T done. It's the timetable of the TERRORISTS that controls what does or doesn't happen.
The Republicans felt that another terror attack would be helpful to McCain's campaign (they came out and said so). I don't recall any Democrat uttering anything so UGLY in regards to Obama.
Kept us 'safe' from terrorists for 7 years?
I'll betcha that if he'd never been elected in 2000, that 9/11 would never have happened in 2001.
Yeah, we were plenty safe, alright.
Do you know how long the terrorists were planning that?
That was their second attack on the towers.
The first time, they rented a truck and tried to knock the towers down by detonating it in the underground parking garage.
When that failed, they regrouped, formed another plan, and meticulously set it in motion. Took years, but they accomplished their objectives, save for that heroic United flight.
The problem with Americans is that they have very short attention spans. They think if the war's not over in 2 or 3 years, it's 'old news' and they move on. If it's not on their TV screens every night, with flashing lights and music like an MTV video, they can't process the information. Out of sight, out of mind. Like the victims of 911 and the noble men and women fighting the war on terror. All forgotten, for the most part, by an impatient, clock-watching public.
Terrorists, on the other hand, know a little something about watching and waiting. In a religious war like they're fighting, time is measured in centuries.
So, I'm sorry, but your little theory just doesn't hold water, and was naive in the extreme.
The simple truth is that there has not been another attack on US soil since Bush has been in office.
Why don't you try to sound just a teensy bit thankful that your hide is safe, and not in a foxhole somewhere, or digging out of the rubble of a bombed-out apartment complex? A little dose of humility, and reality, goes a long way.
Good question. Why don't you ask the terrorists
Having witnessed public beheadings in an Iraqi soccer stadium, I'd say your heart is soft for the wrong folks, JTBB.
I'm kind of happy for you, though, because you seem to have no idea of the sort of things that went on in that country before the liberation. Your mind would probably explode.
Fine, YOU can have the terrorists live
Maybe he will move them to Chicago.
Terrorists...human rights...sm
I don't think the terrorists were too worried about the human rights of the 9-11 victims.
Moderate Muslims are not terrorists.
I find it interesting that you twisted President Obama's words from "winning over moderate Muslims" to "winning over terrorists." How very "pro-American" of you!
Don't forget most of the terrorists of 911 were Saudis.......
Who is rich enough to put a run on our banks? $550 billion in 2 hours' time of electronic transfers? Pretty smart move to cause our collapse, wasn't it. I would call that terrorism, wouldn't you? It was also pretty smart to use our own airlines to bomb our country.......but we stick our thumbs up our a$$e$ and invade Iraq......for oil we never got......makes ya wonder, doesn't it?
What makes you so sure they WEREN'T terrorists?
nm
|
