Democratic Convention

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by The diplomat
In his speech, Edwards said about Al Queda, "You cannot run, you cannot hide. We will destroy you."

How do you Democrats feel about that? I mean that is the kind of thing Bush says all the time, and the Left accuses Bush of warmongering and baiting the terrorists.

Bush says **** like "bring it on" to Iraqi and arab insurgents while keeping troop levels too low and deluding himself that there was no serious threat. How many US KIA and WIA since that comment? - saying we will destroy you isn't really the same thing.

Had Bush been more aggressive in Afghanistan, and more aggressive hunting al Qaeda before they got out of Afghanistan, that would be different, but "we" (Bush and his crowd, not the US) had to be prepared for Iraq, because that was the focal point to Bush's middle east "policy" even before Bush was elected. So we did Afghanistan on the cheap, while Rummy had a McNamara-esque fascination for SOF and high-tech toys.

After 9/11, we had a unique opportunity - the whole world knew we were out for blood, and nobody wanted to **** with us or be in our way - least of all Musharraf, who had his own domestic problems plus India to deal with. Bush half-assed Afghanistan, and then went on to his main show in Iraq, which has had no significant effect on al Qaeda.

Bush's rhetoric didn't match either his target (Saddam and Iraq, not Bin Laden, al Zawahiri and al Qaeda), or the results of his actions.

How come it is ok for a Democrat to say that but it is not ok for a republican to say that?

It's perfectly ok for a Republican to say that - as long as he focuses on the terrorists, and doesn't use it as a smoke screen to attack another ****hole country and get a major portion of our ground forces stuck there in "security and stabilization" operations, while far less force is applied to actual terrorists.

Remember the admin talking about how the Iraqis had UAV's that could be launched from ships and fly hundreds of miles into the US spraying bioweapons over American cities? I heard that nonsense on the radio the month before the invasion of Iraq and almost spit out a kidney, I was laughing so hard.

And how will Kerry and Edwards destroy the terrorists since they don't support the means necessary to do it?

How is corporate pork for Haliburton and operating funds for troops in Iraq related to hunting and killing al Qaeda members?

To a large extent, Kerry and Edwards are stuck managing the ****ups of Bush policy - we can't pull out of Iraq, and most of the *******s who were trappable in Afghanistan have scattered or gone to ground, so they are much harder to locate and destroy.

[Sava]

MtG

[MrFun]

Originally posted by GePap


I thought it was cheesy, but it plays to the crowd.

It was not cheesy -- too often, Republicans have fallaciously equated being Democrat with being weak on our national defense (aka flower children).

I mean, this malicious stereotyping is stupid, no question about it, but Democrats such as Edwards need to reassert that Democrats, contrary to the whismical imagination of Republicans, ARE for strong national defense.

[GePap]

Heck, dems were presidents over the victories of ww1 and ww2, and we started of Korean & Vietnam, while it was Republicans in office that signed a truce in KOrea and lost Vietnam!

[The diplomat]

Originally posted by MrFun
I mean, this malicious stereotyping is stupid, no question about it, but Democrats such as Edwards need to reassert that Democrats, contrary to the whismical imagination of Republicans, ARE for strong national defense.

It's not whimsical imagination. We are simply looking at Kerry and Edwards' voting record. You should too. They vote against funding our troops in Iraq. They vote to cut covert ops, and human intelligence gathering. They vote against major military technologies like the B-1 bomber, or the tomahawk cruise missile just to name a few.

Kerry and Edwards must think Americans are idiots. They vote against the means to fight terrorism, and bash Iraq and Bush's efforts to fight terrorism, and then when the election comes around suddenly they want us to believe that they are strong in the war on terror just because they say "We will hunt them down and kill them". Ha!

[GePap]

Wow, Diplo, do you cut and paste your responses straight out of the RNC, or have ou internalized their schtick so heavily it comes out naturally now?

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by The diplomat


It's not whimsical imagination. We are simply looking at Kerry and Edwards' voting record. You should too. They vote against funding our troops in Iraq. They vote to cut covert ops, and human intelligence gathering. They vote against major military technologies like the B-1 bomber, or the tomahawk cruise missile just to name a few.

Kerry and Edwards must think Americans are idiots. They vote against the means to fight terrorism, and bash Iraq and Bush's efforts to fight terrorism, and then when the election comes around suddenly they want us to believe that they are strong in the war on terror just because they say "We will hunt them down and kill them". Ha!

Bull****. Apparently, you've never read the full text of most defense appropriations bills. Nice labels, and tons of unnecessary, wasteful and in some cases, defense unrelated pork.

Tell me how sole source contracts to Halliburton are "the means to fight terrorism." Just more empty sloganeering.

[The diplomat]

Originally posted by GePap
Wow, Diplo, do you cut and paste your responses straight out of the RNC, or have ou internalized their schtick so heavily it comes out naturally now?

Well, when you have the truth on your side, it doesn't take much effort.

[GePap]

Originally posted by The diplomat


Well, when you have the truth on your side, it doesn't take much effort.

So how do you compose such difficult posts? Cause the effort you must put into them must be awful high.

[The diplomat]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
Tell me how sole source contracts to Halliburton are "the means to fight terrorism." Just more empty sloganeering.

Why do you bring up Halliburton all the time? Halliburton is completely irelevant to the conversation.

If you want to talk about Bush's policies in the fight against terrorism, then talk about his policies:
- invasion of Afghanistan
- freezing of terrorist financial assets
- NATO participation in reconstruction of Afghanistan
- Iraq war
- Homeland Security Department
- Patriot Act

Those are some of Bush's policies to fight terrorism. We can discuss whether these policies are good or not, but don't bring in off-topic and irelevant issues like Halliburton which have nothing to do with terrorism at all!

[Ramo]

That's the point. Much of the pork-laden defense bills that you condemn Kerry for voting against haven't a single thing to do with fighting terrorism.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


Tell me how sole source contracts to Halliburton are "the means to fight terrorism." Just more empty sloganeering.

As im sure youre aware, sole sourcing is allowed under federal procurement regs when the competitive bidding is not worth it (small procurements, for example), or when speed is required, as in national security emergencies in war time. Going into Iraq they didnt know what would be broken, and so couldnt put out bids in advance, and after it was broken they needed things done quickly.

Now it may be that sole sourcing was used more than can be justified. I presume thats under investigation.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap
Heck, dems were presidents over the victories of ww1 and ww2, and we started of Korean & Vietnam, while it was Republicans in office that signed a truce in KOrea and lost Vietnam!

Geez, and all this time I thought it was the North Koreans who started the Korean war what was I thinking?

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Ramo
That's the point. Much of the pork-laden defense bills that you condemn Kerry for voting against haven't a single thing to do with fighting terrorism.

You beat me to the punch, Ramo.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by The diplomat


Why do you bring up Halliburton all the time? Halliburton is completely irelevant to the conversation.

Inconvenient is not synonymous with irrelevant.

I know this might be a bit difficult for you to understand, but sole sourced Halliburton contracts, among many other poorly or loosely bid contracts, were included in the items funded by the 87 billion supplemental appropriations bill which you are *****ing about as "the means to fight terrorism."

Let's see if you can follow this, I know it's tough:

You state that Kerry and Edwards don't support "the means to fight terrorism" because they voted against this specific bill.

Therefore, the line items funded under this bill are (a) relevant, and (b) by virtue of your assertion, related to "the means to fight terrorism."

I'm sorry if you find the line of questioning inconvenient.