Hey, Galatian, don't worry about the Kerry bashing as President Bush is about to be hit by a huge political broadside in just a few weeks from the true conservative side of politics in these United States.
KERRY WAR COMRADES PREPARE BATTLE -- AGAINST KERRY
Discussion in 'Free-For-All Archives' started by bb_baptist, Jul 29, 2004.
Page 2 of 6
-
Yep...
Promises to be the most 'non-fact' rich, confusing, emotional, and irrational election year ever!
(On both sides, I'm afraid...) -
It's an established fact the neocons pushed the Bush administration into invading Iraq. Otherwise, President Bush would have finished the job in Afghanistan instead of diverting resources to Iraq and allowing the situation in Afghanistan to deteriorate so badly and fail to capture/kill Osama bin Laden.
-
Granted the region is still unstable, but name a war we’ve been in were a dictator or regime was replaced and peace prevailed overnight.
And how many times, as we now know, did Osama escape the cross hairs of the Clinton Administration?
Furthermore, we wouldn’t be diverting recourses if the Clinton Administration didn’t downsize and under-man our military as he did during the 8 years in office. Bush is only working with what he has available, which is what was left to him militarily. I joined the Navy in ’92 and my orders were changed twice because of Base closures and my assigned ship was changed once b/c of decommissioning and sold to other Countries. -
-
The situation in Afghanistan is not deteriorating. In fact, just this week another top Al Qaeda figure was reportedly captured. Hopefully that kind of deterioration will continue. The situation in Iraq continues to improve as the interim government continues to get settled in. Neither situation is perfect, and neither is as good as it should be, but both are better than they were a year ago, or even six months ago. The plan is working.
Judging from your links posted, you seem to think that we are not doing enough to help the Afghanis. Those articles seem to be saying that the US is giving enough humanitarian aid (something you have constantly said is outside the constitution) and is not doing enough to help the government, somehting you say is not constitutional. So why are you upset? Our job in Afghanistan is to get the terrorists, not to set up governments or give humanitarian aid since neither is provided for in teh constitution ... or did you change your mind on that because you though it was an opportunity to attack Bush??
Boy, Ken, your stand is confusing.
[ July 30, 2004, 04:04 PM: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ] -
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/1617727.stm
www.christian-aid.org.uk/afghanistan/011102.htm </font>[/QUOTE]As I said in my post the region is still unstable. I didn’t expect an overnight success story. And surely you’re not that gullible to believe that it would have been either. But you can’t deny that there is a number of success stories in both Afghanistan and Iraq that you want hear Tom Browkaw report on tonight, but they’re there. Bush said that this War on terror wasn’t going to be over anytime soon. -
-
-
-
Just who do you think is making the situation worse in Afghanistan, Pastor Larry? Little Orphan Annie?
-
I wanted to ask them if they believed the Bible was offensive to them, since God commanded the Israelites to kill every man, woman and child during the many wars throughout the O.T. My wife is a member of a Moms group who has a number of Liberal members who say they don’t read the Bible, b/c it offends them.
Granted no one wants a War, just as I didn’t want 3,000 souls to perish on 9/11/04, but we were attacked on our on soil and since the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq we haven’t had one terrorists attack in the US in the 4 years since Bush has been in office.
So Ken does the Bible offend YOU and was it wrong for the US to defend herself from any future planned attack on our soil again? And what diplomatic means of negotiation do YOU think would have worked with these Islamic militants who’ve been taught to hate the Jews and Christians? I’ll hang up and listen to your reply. -
Have you ever read where I disagreed with going into Afghanistan? I'll answer for you and the answer is "No". I have disagreed with removing our focus from Afghanistan to Iraq. And I think that history will show that President Bush was wrong to do so.
-
-
Let's see, our forces were only 11,500 in Afghanistan while we placed 160,000 in Iraq. We have begged NATO to send more troops to Afghanistan since we can't do the job while we have so many troops in Iraq.
Task Force 20, know as the Osama bin Laden hunters, were moved from Afghanistan to Iraq to hunt for Saddam Hussein.
A Pentagon adviser on counter-terrorism stated, "The guys who specialise in countering Islamic threats are pretty much all in Iraq now." He also said that al Qaeda has "been given breathing room, a second chance."
"We had the bin Laden operation pinned down so tightly that it couldn't operate. It can now... We took the pressure off to devote maximum resources" - a former CIA officer who worked in Pakistan.
"The best people were moved away from this operation. The best minds were moved to Iraq. It's a great shame. It's the biggest military failure in the war on terrorism so far. The Americans need more resources and more high-level people exclusively assigned to this task." - Rohan Gunaratna, head of terrorism research at the Institute of Defence and Strategic Studies.
Pakistani intelligence agents say that they rarely meet their FBI and CIA agents after some early successes. A senior officer stated, "It seems that either they have lost interest or their priorities have changed," said a senior officer in Karachi.(Not surprising after shifting focus to Iraq.) -
**DOUBLE POST**
-
Let's see, our forces were only 11,500 in Afghanistan while we placed 160,000 in Iraq. We have begged NATO to send more troops to Afghanistan since we can't do the job while we have so many troops in Iraq.
Task Force 20, know as the Osama bin Laden hunters, were moved from Afghanistan to Iraq to hunt for Saddam Hussein.
A Pentagon adviser on counter-terrorism stated, "The guys who specialise in countering Islamic threats are pretty much all in Iraq now." He also said that al Qaeda has "been given breathing room, a second chance."
"We had the bin Laden operation pinned down so tightly that it couldn't operate. It can now... We took the pressure off to devote maximum resources" - a former CIA officer who worked in Pakistan.
"The best people were moved away from this operation. The best minds were moved to Iraq. It's a great shame. It's the biggest military failure in the war on terrorism so far. The Americans need more resources and more high-level people exclusively assigned to this task." - Rohan Gunaratna, head of terrorism research at the Institute of Defence and Strategic Studies.
Pakistani intelligence agents say that they rarely meet their FBI and CIA agents after some early successes. A senior officer stated, "It seems that either they have lost interest or their priorities have changed," said a senior officer in Karachi.(Not surprising after shifting focus to Iraq.) </font>[/QUOTE]Ken, I am convinced that it is futile to try and get Larry to disagree with the way Bush is handling the war on terrorism. Although it is obvious that the invasion of Iraq was a mistake, but you will never get Larry or any other Neocon to agree. -
church mouse guy Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
Nor does Kerry publically disagree with Bush but merely says that he himself could have done it better and would have gotten his French cousin to help him.
Meanwhile it is reported that 90% of the Democrat delegates in Boston were totally against the war in Iraq. So I guess that you could conclude that the rank and file Democrats are for immediate withdrawal from the Iraq front on the war on terror. Doesn't that sound like Peroutka? -
So? Democrats can have some correct political positions.
Page 2 of 6