Fmr. General Wesley Clark in Newsweek

[Imran Siddiqui]

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...

Perhaps because you are an idiot?

BEFORE the tax cut was passed people were giving record amounts to the Bush campaign. Of course, even though that runs counter to your example, you'll get change it up to say that it is theft and bribery anyway . They gave it so they could get a tax cut and then give all their tax cut money back to Bush. Yeah... sure....

There is no theft and no bribery in the process of giving hard money donations. People that want to see their guy get elected are giving money. Hmmm... also happens that they like tax cuts, so the person they are giving it will probably like tax cuts too. If not, they wouldn't give it to him!

Or are all the Dean givers simply doing it because of generosity and because it is Bush, all his givers are doing it for bribery and 'theft'

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

Yeah, you seem to be stuck in it (denial, that is).

[Sava]

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.

created bigger bureaucracy... CHECK
dispersed a terrorist network, making them harder to track... CHECK
lied about Iraq... CHECK
lost the WMD's... CHECK

Al Qaeda is still as much a threat to the US... probably even more so because now we don't know where they are. Where's Osama? Still at large... Where Saddam and those WMD's? Still both at large... if anything, Bush has put us in a worse position in terms of security because Americans seem to have a false sense of it. At least you do.

vote for Bush if you like... I'm sure the "dumb" need representation, too.

[TCO]

Sava,

You would (and should, considering your views) vote for any Demo against Bush. Except for Zell Miller. He is to the right of Bush.

On the issue:

Clark is an interesting and smart guy. Not that likeable. from my experience, but smart. I read his book in detail and was tangentially involved in a little of it and know some of the actors. I was a little disappointed that he didn't totally tee up the issues and show the points/counterpoints wrt the Balkans. He seemed to just get the thing moving by inertia and staff force amid a group with conflicting views. But he never really laid out clearly the different views and why his is better.

And Kosovo was no shining star. It WAS SUCCESSFUL. And there are some interesting aspects to it. But it had its serious issues. Way less forces in theater and way more evolutionary/reactive planning than in this last campaign. Which is of interest since that is what he complained about and got most egg on face for in the CNN commentary.

[Sava]

Clark is an interesting and smart guy. Not that likeable. from my experience, but smart. I read his book in detail and was tangentially involved in a little of it and know some of the actors. I was a little disappointed that he didn't totally tee up the issues and show the points/counterpoints wrt the Balkans. He seemed to just get the thing moving by inertia and staff force amid a group with conflicting views. But he never really laid out clearly the different views and why his is better.

And Kosovo was no shining star. It WAS SUCCESSFUL. And there are some interesting aspects to it. But it had its serious issues. Way less forces in theater and way more evolutionary/reactive planning than in this last campaign. Which is of interest since that is what he complained about and got most egg on face for in the CNN commentary.

The Kosovo issue is the only one I have a problem with. But Clark was more of a planner and not a policy maker, AFAIK. Milosevic was probably a bad guy, but the US bombed a lot of sh1t that didn't need to be bombed. They even bombed on Easter, which is why my grandfather mistakenly voted for Bush rather than Clinton's chosen successor.

Kosovo was successful in it's goals, however. Which is why I'm only half holding it against Clark. It was the wrong thing to do, but at least he accomplished the mission.

[Sava]

oh and BTW, the Demo candidate that makes me puke is Dennis Kucinich... I might vote Green or move to Canada if he wins the D nomination.

[Imran Siddiqui]

dispersed a terrorist network, making them harder to track... CHECK

So it would be better if they were concentrated and able to function in an area unfettered, as long as they could be 'tracked'!

[The diplomat]

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

What about the first WTC bombings? Clinton knew that Al queda was behind it and did nothing. There was also the Khobar Towers bombings (outside US granted) and the USS Cole attack which Clinton knew was from Al Queda. With three attacks against US interests, Clinton should have realized that Al Queda was a real and present threat to the US. What did he do about? nothing of substance. In fact, Yemen offered to help us capture Bin Laden and Clinton refused.

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

Of course they will try to reform. Bush never claimed the War on Terror would be quick or easy. But just because they are regrouping does not mean that we should not have attacked them in the first place.

Do you have anything to back this Bald faced assertion?

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

The reports are from congressional committees. These committees do not have the expertise or the knowledge to make such an assessment. How are they determining that the US is not safer? How do you measure something like that? You can't. You have to make an educated guess!

As for how I can say that the Democrats would be far worse. I am simply comparing what they propose to do about national security with what Bush proposes to do. The Dems want to go to the UN, put money in domestic security measures. Bush wants to use military force coupled with stopping funds. The Dems' proposals simply would not work!

[Sava]

There was also the Khobar Towers bombings (outside US granted) and the USS Cole attack which Clinton knew was from Al Queda. With three attacks against US interests, Clinton should have realized that Al Queda was a real and present threat to the US

and how many terror bombings have occurred around the world outside of the US since 9-11... and this does count US soldiers... security my ass.

[Sava]

The Dems want to go to the UN, put money in domestic security measures.

ahh they want legitimacy behind their foreign policy... WOW! What a concept..

domestic security? oh yeah, we can't let those liberal leftist bast4rds hurt America by putting more resources into domestic security...

okay read that diplomat and hopefully you will see how stupid it sounds...

[The diplomat]

Originally posted by Sava

created bigger bureaucracy... CHECK
dispersed a terrorist network, making them harder to track... CHECK
lied about Iraq... CHECK
lost the WMD's... CHECK

Al Qaeda is still as much a threat to the US... probably even more so because now we don't know where they are. Where's Osama? Still at large... Where Saddam and those WMD's? Still both at large... if anything, Bush has put us in a worse position in terms of security because Americans seem to have a false sense of it. At least you do.

And what do you propose we should have done after 9-11?

The fact is that nothing that the Dems have proposed would have worked.

vote for Bush if you like... I'm sure the "dumb" need representation, too.

Are calling me an idiot?

[GePap]

Originally posted by The diplomat


What about the first WTC bombings? Clinton knew that Al queda was behind it and did nothing. There was also the Khobar Towers bombings (outside US granted) and the USS Cole attack which Clinton knew was from Al Queda. With three attacks against US interests, Clinton should have realized that Al Queda was a real and present threat to the US. What did he do about? nothing of substance. In fact, Yemen offered to help us capture Bin Laden and Clinton refused.

hence the date of 1993.... first of all. As for under Bush, the Bali bombing, the Tunisia bombing, the Riyahd bombing, bombings in Pakistan: shall I continue?

Of course they will try to reform. Bush never claimed the War on Terror would be quick or easy. But just because they are regrouping does not mean that we should not have attacked them in the first place.

And you have no way to prove that there would have been no attack under a dem, since you can not see into alternate dimensions.

The reports are from congressional committees. These committees do not have the expertise or the knowledge to make such an assessment. How are they determining that the US is not safer? How do you measure something like that? You can't. You have to make an educated guess!

Disd you forget the republicans run the congress, and thus all committees?

As for how I can say that the Democrats would be far worse. I am simply comparing what they propose to do about national security with what Bush proposes to do. The Dems want to go to the UN, put money in domestic security measures. Bush wants to use military force coupled with stopping funds. The Dems' proposals simply would not work!

No dems. have opposed stopping funding, so this is a non-arguement: as for the UN, perhaps if we had gone with the UN on Iraq the situation there would be better, and given Bush tract record with WMD's, is it still a surprise that the UN would not back this war based on those claims?

[Sava]

And what do you propose we should have done after 9-11?

Increased domestic security... gone after REAL threats to America.

Are calling me an idiot?

you're a might squeemish... thin skinned, but certainly not an idiot. Just misguided and confused.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by GePap
He has no domestic policy experience: his positions on abortion, school vouchers, gay issues, the tax issue, gun control, blah, blah , blah..all of that would come up.

This is why I don't think he would be to valuable as a VP candidate. The presidency is out of the question. Too much of an unknown.

[Sava]

when the president isn't a puppet, the VP usually doesn't do much.

[DinoDoc]

That contradicts what I said in what way?