Right Wing Swagger

[Ken'sPen]

No, I don't recall, and I don't know which people you are referring to that would say them. Please refresh my memory, otherwise, it just seems like a general hatred for everything on the right wing without any facts to back it up.

Fox news, specifically O'Reilly, I am sure you can find a link, cause he made the statement a LOT, I won't do the looking for you,

Sean Hannity, and his guests, be they active politicians, or those who left in disgrace like Mr. Newt.

and the callers to such shows.

The Republican Party has been led by VERY smug individuals for a while now.

Rumsfeld looks like he is ready to lash out in violence every time his actions are questioned.

[The Jays]

To capture Bin Laden, while being a great thing, would only be symbolic in nature. Terror cells act independent of its leaders, and Bin Laden is not the only one who hates America. We have captured alot of terrorists all over the world, remember Ramzi Bin Al Shib? Kalid Omar? You probably don't, but those were high ranking Al Queda operatives.
Terror cells? Do you remember the Lackawana Seven?

We had UN resolutions that have called for the use of force ever since the end of the Gulf War. In 1998, the ceasefire was truely broken. There were 17 resolutions regarding Iraq over the past decade, how many more did we need?

[Ken'sPen]

If Bin Laden is but a symbol, why are all the conservatives hanging 9-11 on clinton for his not authorizing his capture?

and you know that there is a difference between some years old agreement to be executed upon a date of OUR choosing, and a real coallition of nations....

A more "forceful" resolution was lacking.

there are UN edicts that Israel is currently ignoring,
I doubt we will attack soon.

[The Jays]

Clinton never did anything to significantly respond to terrorism, let alone try to capture its leader.

And Clinton wasn't responsible for 9/11. Terrorists were responsible.

Can you also stop interchanging conservative with Republican as if they are the same thing?

I won't do the looking for you,

I just asked for a link, you don't have to be a smug asshole about it all.

[Ken'sPen]

HUH?
my thread is dedicated to "right wing".....
I have attempted to stay on that thought.
using Right Wing to express the actual Republican Party.....(those applicable)
and mouthpieces such as 770AM and Fox News.

[Keyser Soze]

sorry for the late response, i was away for awhile. i was referring to bush, but forgot to quote whose post i was responding to.

dems and republicans are basically the same in the nature they attack each other. they will both do whatever it takes to get elected, drag out whatever personal information can work to their agenda. thats politics.

when it comes down to it, they're both gonna lie to you. bush lied about WMD, but i still back him going into Iraq cause despite them not finding WMD, i believe the Baath party was aiding terrorism. i dont need a direct link to Al Queda to believe that.

and talk show hosts jobs are to be controversial, so i put little stock into the agendas they push and the statements they make. rush and hannity dont speak for all conservatives or republicans, if anything they're further ailienating people.

[Sir O]

Democrats warned all along that we would need the support of the international community and the UN in order to successfully rebuild Iraq. Apparently, the Bush administration now agrees.


Democrats warned all along that Iraqi reconstruction would cost far more than we'd recover from Iraqi oil revenues. Apparently, the Bush administration now agrees.


Democrats said all along that we should negotiate with North Korea and demonstrate some flexibility in our approach. Apparently, the Bush administration now agrees.

Democrats said all along that in order to prevent the re-emergence of the Taliban and al-Qaeda in central Asia we needed to pay more attention to Afghanistan and allocate more money to its reconstruction. Apparently, the Bush administration now agrees.

Clinton never did anything to significantly respond to terrorism, let alone try to capture its leader.

If only Clinton had issued an executive order giving the CIA free reign to assisinate bin Ladin! Or entered into an agreement with the Premeire of Pakistan to train 5 dozen Pakistani Special Forces units for the express written purpose of executing cross-border hits on Al-Qaida leaders, including bin Ladin! Or signed an agreement with Uzbeistan allowing US Special Forces to use Uzbeki facilities as a launching pad for Al-Qaida assisination attempt!

Oh wait, you mean to say he did these things? No! That must be the librul media talking!

I'm not a fan of the guy, but Clinton was clearly the best anti-terrorism president this country ever had. Other pretenders staggered through the 2000 Elections claiming missile defense was our biggest national defense need, I can't image what they were thinking. The only time Dullard Dubya mentioned terrorism was in defending his decision to withdraw from the ABM treaty - Al-Qaida might get an ICBM and THEN what would we do?

In 1996, Bill Clinton supported an anti-terrorism bill which increased "multi-tapping" wire-tapping authority of suspected terrorists so that individuals could be monitored even if they switched cell-phones. Who opposed this and insisted it be dropped from the bill? Was such legislation passed after 9/11?

Tell me, when Bill Clinton endorsed legislation to freeze terrorist assets in 1998, who blocked the legislation? One person took credit for stopping the bill, calling it "totalitarian". Was it Ted Kennedy? Was such legislation finally passed after 9/11?

In December of 2000, two terrorist attacks in America were thwarted - one intended for LA International Airport, the other for Seattle's "Space Needle". For stopping a planned terrorist attack when he was President, Clinton gets no credit. For terrorist attacks that happened well after he was President, he gets the blame.

And that "Department of Homeland Security", why, that has a familiar ring to it. In fact, I recall such a department as being recommended by a report comissioned by by a certain Vice President and delivered to the Bush White House in January of 2001. Was this Dick Cheney's doing, or a leftover of Dan Quayle's? Tell me about this report - like what the White House response was do it's delivery? Were its recommendations implemented after 9/11?

And on Fenruary 9, 2001, a report was delivered to the White House implicating Al-Qaida as the perpetrators of the 2000 USS Cole attack. Tell me, what bold and chest-thumping actions did AWOL Dubya's mighty cadre of warriors take against Al-Qaida? Surely they must have done something grand and powerful, since they weren't wimps like Clinton!

But Bill Clinton must've gutted our counter-terrorism intelligence, right?

FBI Counter-terrorism Spending:

1994: 79.3 million

1995: $171 million

1996: $287 million

1997: $393 million

[source: Combating Terrorism: Spending on Governmentwide Programs Requires Better Management and Coordination (Letter Report, 12/01/97, GAO/NSIAD-98-39).]

The CIA budget is harder to pin down, but the declassified portions of it indicate that counter-terrorism funding increased 250%.

Dozens of anti-terrorism laws and legislative efforts were ceaseless promoted by Clinton, and ceasely attacked by conservatives, who knee-jerk opposed anything Clinton did and wasted America's time with a ceasely barrage of worthless investigations yielding nothing. No? Perhaps some recent historical reading will refresh your memory, since this isn't the kind of thing you'll hear in the "librul media".

Clinton Anti-Terrorism Bill Guts Bill of Rights!

I know how important it is for any good conservative to be able to blame everything bad that ever happens on some evil "librul" skulking in the weeds. If you hear in on Rush, read it in the times, and see it on FAUX News, you assume it must be true. Next thing you know you'll be dredging up that phony story about Sudan offering to deliver bin Ladin to the lawn of the White House as a token of their friendship with America.

"Interestingly, since Sept. 11 almost every one of our recommendations has either been enacted by the executive branch or been put into law by Congress, which suggests that we probably had a pretty good menu of things to do before Sept. 11."

- L. Paul Bremmer III, Chairman, National Commission on Terrorism under Bill Clinton

To capture Bin Laden, while being a great thing, would only be symbolic in nature.

Standard party line thinking.

"The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. It is our number one priority and we will not rest until we find him."
- G.W. Bush, 9/13/01

"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority."
- G.W. Bush, 3/13/02


Question- If Bin Laden was such a threat in the late 90s, wasn't it pretty fucked up that while Clinton was trying to protect the US that the repubs were rooting around in his zipper?

Question- If Clinton was so soft on terrorism, then exactly what did Bush do from Jan 20, 2001 - Sept 10, 2001 that was so radically different then what Clinton had done?

Question- Why isn't Condi called on the whole "we never dreamed they'd fly planes into buildings" comment, when they had information prior to 9-11 that suggested exactly that? Why are there so many former business execs in this administration?

Ronald Reagan sells weapons to known Islamic anti-American terrorists, and who is soft on terrorism? CLINTON! Republicans block legislation to freeze terrorist assets, and who is soft on terrorism? CLINTON! Clinton orders covert assisination attempts against Osama bin Ladin while Dubya does nothing after receiving the USS Cole report, and who is soft on terrorism? CLINTON! The Hart-Rudman Report gets thrown straight into the garbage because Dubya says Dick Cheney will do his own report on terrorism and who is soft on terrorism? CLINTON?

If you can't blame Clinton, the terrorists win! And the Republicans would have very little to say about anything at all.

[The Jays]

Why are you yelling at me?

[Sir O]

Not you per se, just the entire dittomonkey mentality. You just happened to be the last one to reply before my post.

[Galt]

Surely one of you collegeites has a paper to do and can plagerize this (which I read completely)

Since all of this is regarding specifics that I don't know, and don't care to check the only thing wrong with it is when you say Republicans prevented Clinton's bill, but cite Ted Kennedy as the person vocal against it. Might want to polish that up before you submit it to the publishers.

[The Jays]

Well, fine, but why the insults? They hurt.

[Sir O]

Of course it wasn't Ted Kennedy, it was Senator Phil Gramm (R-TX). Thank you for further proving my point.

[crx girl]

who's yelling?
i'm sure if and when i read that it'll be a concise and well written argument

[Ken'sPen]

Damn,
I love a guy like Sir O, who can back up my statements with fact.......

[Ken'sPen]

I am going to start another controversial thread, but only if Sir O promises to support my positions.

[diceisgod]

facts are overrated

[Ken'sPen]

amen

[Sir O]

I am going to start another controversial thread, but only if Sir O promises to support my positions.

What's in it for me?

[Ken'sPen]

being my henchman should be enough.

[Sir O]

I can't make any promises...though I do like a good fight.

Is a tentative "yes" enough for you?