Announcement

**Sava** · July 8, 2003, 23:04

Which puts him about 1/4th of what Bush will raise for this election

that obscene figure should provoke outrage rather than compliment... but then again, when you give your constituency a huge fat government welfare check disguised as a tax cut, they can afford to give that money right back to you...

**GePap** · July 8, 2003, 23:05

Originally posted by The diplomat

That is what it is all about, beating Bush no matter what, isn't it?

Yes, Bush is bad for the US

Democrats are so piss poor pathetic in national security, that they think a famous general who bashes Bush would give them a chance at winning.

If you whish to run wth this stereotype, go ahead. I guess you just won;t ask were all the money for Homeland security went....

Which puts him about 1/4th of what Bush will raise for this election .

Yup, but its noice to know the president spends all his time making sure America is safe, and not eating hotdogs at a $2000 a plate dinner event.

**Sava** · July 8, 2003, 23:06

Democrats are so piss poor pathetic in national security, that they think a famous general who bashes Bush would give them a chance at winning.

Bush spent only 40 billion... (not even close to what he spent in welfare for the super-rich) and is failing at giving us security. Each day I see another report on how we're "vulnerable to attack" and "just as vulnerable as on Sept. 10th!".

Bush tough on National Security? pfffft smoke and mirrors... just another lie.

**Imran Siddiqui** · July 8, 2003, 23:06

that obscene figure should provoke outrage rather than compliment... but then again, when you give your constituency a huge fat government welfare check disguised as a tax cut, they can afford to give that money right back to you...

It's all hard money too

.

**Boris Godunov** · July 8, 2003, 23:06

Originally posted by The diplomat
That is what it is all about, beating Bush no matter what, isn't it?

Not "no matter what," but you can't deny the heft Clark would bring to a ticket as a VP candidate.

Democrats are so piss poor pathetic in national security, that they think a famous general who bashes Bush would give them a chance at winning.

Funny how we have a Republican president and congress, yet we hear constantly from experts that we are as vulnerable as we were before Septembet 11th. What has the GOP done for national security? Nothing, they've just used the situation for political gambits like the oh-so-wonderful Patriot Act and pretty photo ops for Bush.

**Sava** · July 8, 2003, 23:09

It's all hard money too

more like bribery and theft...

**GePap** · July 8, 2003, 23:09

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
It's all hard money too

.

Long live the New Guilded Age!

**Imran Siddiqui** · July 8, 2003, 23:11

more like bribery and theft...

Yes, giving money to support a candidate is exactly that

.

**Sava** · July 8, 2003, 23:17

Yes, giving money to support a candidate is exactly that

nah... getting in office, then giving fat tax cuts, then giving that tax cut money back to the candidate... sounds like theft and bribery to me...

Denial isn't just a river in Egypt, Imran.

**DRoseDARs** · July 8, 2003, 23:19

Seeing that President Jr. has led this country into two seperate wars under the banner of the "War on Terrorism," I'd feel more confidence in a President who has honest "military experience" under his/her belt than I would in an Oil Industry fat-cat who relies on others to tell him what is best. Someone with 34 years of "military experience" can certainly make better tactical decisions about combat than someone who's hardest decision prior to the "War on Terrorism" was figuring out how many "token minority" people he needed to add to his cabinent to appease the public's desire for diversity in Washington D.C.

Flying your well-to-do buddies around in the National Guard does not "military experience" make.

**Sava** · July 8, 2003, 23:22

Flying your well-to-do buddies around in the National Guard does not "military experience" make.

don't forget being AWOL for a year and a half.

**The diplomat** · July 8, 2003, 23:31

Originally posted by Sava
Bush spent only 40 billion... (not even close to what he spent in welfare for the super-rich) and is failing at giving us security. Each day I see another report on how we're "vulnerable to attack" and "just as vulnerable as on Sept. 10th!".

Bush tough on National Security? pfffft smoke and mirrors... just another lie.

There has not been a single attack against the US since 9-11. I call that success!

Bush has done many things that have made this country safer: he has created a department of homeland security that can implement and organize security measures on a national level, he has crippled Al queda and liberated Afghanistan from the Taliban, and eliminated Saddam's regime before it could provide WMD's to terrorists or destabilize the Middle East.

Those reports are completely false and just put out for purely political reasons.

Besides, the democrats would be far far worse. They are absolutely incapable of protecting this country.

**The diplomat** · July 8, 2003, 23:37

Originally posted by DRoseDARs
Seeing that President Jr. has led this country into two seperate wars under the banner of the "War on Terrorism,"

The war in Afghanistan was absolutely necessary. The only way to protect this country is by directly attacking Al Queda with military force. Going to the UN sure is not going to do anything.

**GePap** · July 8, 2003, 23:37

Originally posted by The diplomat
There has not been a single attack against the US since 9-11. I call that success!

There was no successful attack within the US from 1993 to 2001. By your defintion Bill Clinto did a stellar job at stopping Al qaeda during his terms.

Bush has done many things that have made this country safer: he has created a department of homeland security that can implement and organize security measures on a national level

The whole Homeland security department is a neightmare: it should never have passed, but now that it has, Bush is underfunding it.

as crippled Al queda and liberated Afghanistan from the Taliban

The Taliban is refomring in many areas, Al Qaedas top leadership remains

and eliminated Saddam's regime before it could provide WMD's to terrorists or destabilize the Middle East.

Given no proof of Iraqi WMD's or working ties with Al qaeda, I have to call BS on this.

Those reports are completely false and just put out for purely political reasons.

Do you have anything to back this Bald faced assertion?

Besides, the democrats would be far far worse. They are absolutely incapable of protecting this country.

UNless you can see alternate dimensions, you have nothing to base this on. Yet another Bald faced assertion.

**DRoseDARs** · July 8, 2003, 23:42

Originally posted by The diplomat

There has not been a single attack against the US since 9-11. I call that success!

Bush has done many things that have made this country safer: he has created a department of homeland security that can implement and organize security measures on a national level, he has crippled Al queda and liberated Afghanistan from the Taliban, and eliminated Saddam's regime before it could provide WMD's to terrorists or destabilize the Middle East.

Those reports are completely false and just put out for purely political reasons.

Besides, the democrats would be far far worse. They are absolutely incapable of protecting this country.

How many years went between the WTC bombings the first time around and the attacks of 9-11-2001? And how many of those years was GWB President?

Afghanistan is still far from stable outside Kabul. Taliban remanents and petty warlords still hold a great deal of influence.

WMD's? Still waiting... "Burden of Proof" still lies on Bush's shoulders.

***DISCLAIMER - Yes, I still believe Saddam had/sought-to-develope WMD's, but feelings don't outweigh cold hard evidence.***

Those reports are completely false and just put out for purely political reasons.

You do realize that is VERBATIM what some been saying about Bush Jr. and his "intelligence reports" all along, don't you?

Announcement

Fmr. General Wesley Clark in Newsweek

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment