One mistake Bush should admit...

Oh brother!

We kicked Al Qaeda's butt for 6 months following 9/11 and continue to hunt them down as they hide out in holes in the middle of desert. Saying that Bush lost focus on terrorism by going after Saddam in Iraq is like saying Jesus lost focus on Peter by converting Paul. Both apostles need to be discipled and Paul helped Peter in the long run. Both Osama and Saddam were threats and to think that we should have only focused on one of them is near sighted and so obviously politically motivated that it reeks.

I have no doubt in my mind that Bush could have done EXACTLY what Kerry is now recommending that he should have done with his armchair quarterbacking critiques and still you Democrates would be whinning a belly aching about how horrible Bush is. It is pure politics!

Bologna! That is a bunch of HOG WASH and you know it. Sight one crediable source to back up this outrageous claim and then explain why that source isn't being played by all the liberal media outlets 24/7.

I agree that Bush should have been putting military pressure on Osama, duh! Everyone knows that now with the benefit of hindsight. Clinton didn't put military pressure on Osama like he should have in response to the Cole and other acts he did during his 8 years but I don't blame him, at that time the system was flawed and the thinking was that diplomacy would keep Osama at bay. 9/11 taught us all a lesson...well most of us. Kerry still thinks more sanctions and summits would be the way to handle real threats.

I don't remember Saddam taking part in the attack on 9/11.</font>[/QUOTE]I NEVER said he did. That is just like you liberals. You can't see that we are talking about more than one threat to our nation. The connection between Osama and Saddam is minor as far as the Al quada Iraq connection. But the real connection is that they both posed a threat to our country, both Bush and Kerry admit that, and Osama succeeded in caring out his threat so what should we do about the other? Handle it the same way we handled the first threat, with more diplomacy and sanctions, we already saw how that works. Wake up!

You just don't listen do you! I never said Saddam hit us and neither did Bush. That has been a Democratic talking point and you have swallowed it hook line and sinker. The issue is the way we handle threats to our country.

Neither threat was being handled well before 9/11, we all see that now. We need to drop the parisian rhetoric and learn from our mistakes, that includes Bush. We handled Osama poorly and he hit us at home, so another DIFFERENT and UNCONNECTED threat called Saddam also should be handled poorly? Of course not. Correct the mistake. Learn to act when you see a threat instead of waiting from them to hit us.

 

Huh????

How many, 14 (?), of the hijackers on 09/11 were from Saudi Arabia? Saudi Arabia has been the motherlode funder of terror throughout the Middle East, including OBL and the Palestinians. So why didn't we go after the King / Prince Dudes? And why did we let the relatives of OBL leave from Boston?

Oh. Diplomacy. And of course those pesky business connections. </font>[/QUOTE]I totally agree! I think he should have gone into Saudi Arabia too. I'm not so partisan as to think its because of Oil business. That's stupid! As a Texan I know Bushes history in the oil business and it didn't last long because he lost money and he had much more success owning the Rangers. Maybe there are baseball connections in Saudi Arabia??

Actually I think I read we do have a number of troops there too. I think we should do more there too but just think what you liberals would do if he did that. He might be even more unpopular in the world. Oh no!

 

Oh, well then you must be right.

So well documented that CBS was willing to run its piece on a National Gaurd story they had no real documents to support and pass up this supposedly well documented story of a lifetime? Get real!

Joseph, Roswell is better supported than this jibberish. Its amazing how partisian politics blinds people's judgement. Bush failed miserably in the oil business and then later found his fortune in baseball. I bet Bush is connected with the Rose family and illegal baseball gambling, what do you think? Let's document it. I'll call the Enquirer, you call the Star. Maybe they'll run it on their front page right beside the articals about the 200 pound new born with 13 eyes and the alien Oprah married.

 

Galatian,

You missed the point. As usual your partisan blinders prevent you from any rational thought.

I couldn't care less about whether or not Bush reported for duty or broke a command or two over 20 years ago, just like I don't care about the accusations brought against Kerry concerning Veitnam. It tells us very little about their current policies and leadership. Good night, if that really matter to you liberals why in the world did you vote for a draft dogding Bill Clinton over Bob Dole?

The point was that CBS was willing to run with a story about Bush with very scetching documentation and you and Lady Eagle expect us to believe that they have just neglected to run the well documented and crediable story about "Bush, Carlisle, and Bin Laden connection."

If this stroy is so crediable then why have all the crediable news sources ignored it? There a thousands of liberal reporters in all of those major news agencies who are chomping at the bit to take out Bush with a story like this, yet somehow they must have missed it....hmmmm.

Galatian, please never leave the Baptist Board. You are a great comedic relief. I just wouldn't believe people like you actually exist if you weren't here.

 

Terry due to the medium of a written message board you mistook my being amused with anger. People with such views as Galatian (and apparently you) support make me laugh because you're so obviously blinded by your partisian opinions. I don't like a lot of things about Bush. I think he spends like a liberal. I hate his immigration policies but I can be objective and I feel Bush is much lessor of the two evils.

The fact that Kerry supports the use of the partial birth abortion proceedure alone should disqualify him from any decent person from voting for him. I wish third parties were given a fair opportunity to compete, and I'm willing to do what I can to help support those who are going to make that happen, but until then I will vote for the man who best represents my views. By far that would be GW.

 

Here's reality:

Results 1 - 10 of about 27,300 for bush carlyle bin laden. (0.81 seconds)

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=bush+carlyle+bin+laden


Like I said. It's well documented. </font>[/QUOTE]First, a search on google is hardly considered as crediable documentation. Second, many of those results could be denouncing such absurd conclusion. Third, there are over a million results for "Roswell" but does that make it true? Fourth, this still doesn't answer the question as to the reputable news organizations (many of which are quite liberal) lack of coverage of this so-called well documented story.