Z
Bulldog (over 250 posts)
Posts: 409
|
Post by Z on Mar 4, 2004 12:27:30 GMT -5
|
|
hoyarooter
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 10,224
|
Post by hoyarooter on Mar 4, 2004 13:54:35 GMT -5
Wow. This guy must be channelling Bob Dornan.
|
|
Z
Bulldog (over 250 posts)
Posts: 409
|
Post by Z on Mar 4, 2004 15:01:44 GMT -5
|
|
Z
Bulldog (over 250 posts)
Posts: 409
|
Post by Z on Mar 4, 2004 15:03:48 GMT -5
so the original newspaper story misconstrued the comments (he didnt equate a vote for kerry to a vote for hitler), but they are still worthy of condemnation. this is a perfect example of exploiting 9/11 for political gain.
|
|
|
|
Post by hlb2 on Mar 4, 2004 17:02:53 GMT -5
Hmm, don't get it. Is Cole trying to drive the Republican base over to Kerry?
|
|
thebin
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,848
|
Post by thebin on Mar 4, 2004 17:21:56 GMT -5
Maybe I am missing something here. It seems quite clear to me that the Hitler comparrison was to bin laden, not John Kerry. Hitler/Bin Laden would be happy to see FDR/Bush defeated at re-election. This is a hundred miles from comparing Kerry to Hitler- which is the only salient point I can think of to this thread being started with an analogy to all the left wing jerks who have compared the Bush administration itself to the Third Reich for years now. How were we all able to look past this massive difference and run with it in this thread? Do you all even read what the congressman said? The statements he made sound cliched and sloppy, perhaps not in the best taste, but they DO NOT EVEN COME CLOSE TO ASSOCIATING KERRY TO BIN LADEN unless having the actual words in proximity to each other is your standard.
And for the record, I don't think there is any doubt that the bin adens of the world will be happy to see Bush defeated in November to be replaced by a candidate on record as saying he wants to scale back the war on terror and revert it to a police action, not a war, in some part to appease the UN, EU, France, etc. Yes, he is on RECORD as saying those things. Do any of you here seriously doubt that bin laden would not rather deal with Kerry the multilaterlist who voted down just about every big fdefense bill that ever came his way than Bush the crazy cowboy unilaterlist? Be consistent, of course bin laden wants Kerry to win, and that is all this doofus said! This is NOT a Hitler comparrison at all, save that he is comparing Hitler to bin laden, which doesn't strike me as morally objectionable.
There is one area where a Kerry presidency TERRIFIES me. And it is the only issue I will vote on for the forseeable future. Kerry is on record as stating that he thinks the war on terror should be scaled back to a police and intel operation only- which is exactly what it was pre-9/11. I have no doubt that is what he intends to do. That prospect, reducing our pro-active war on terror for all its shortcomings, in some attempt to reduce the number of Europeans who hate us, strikes me as bad policy for post-9/11 US.
|
|
|
|
Post by hlb2 on Mar 4, 2004 17:34:20 GMT -5
Not sure about bin Laden's thoughts about defeating Bush. Do you think bin Laden is currently disappointed with the way things are in Iraq? Every day is a victory for bin Laden the way things are turning out there. Whether you think Bush was right or not for going in, it is hard to deny that bin Laden couldn't be happier with the mess that we have on our hands.
|
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Mar 4, 2004 17:56:31 GMT -5
And for the record, I don't think there is any doubt that the bin adens of the world will be happy to see Bush defeated in November to be replaced by a candidate on record as saying he wants to scale back the war on terror and revert it to a police action, not a war, in some part to appease the UN, EU, France, etc. Yes, he is on RECORD as saying those things. Do any of you here seriously doubt that bin laden would not rather deal with Kerry the multilaterlist who voted down just about every big fdefense bill that ever came his way than Bush the crazy cowboy unilaterlist? Be consistent, of course bin laden wants Kerry to win, and that is all this doofus said! This is NOT a Hitler comparrison at all, save that he is comparing Hitler to bin laden, which doesn't strike me as morally objectionable. There is one area where a Kerry presidency TERRIFIES me. And it is the only issue I will vote on for the forseeable future. Kerry is on record as stating that he thinks the war on terror should be scaled back to a police and intel operation only- which is exactly what it was pre-9/11. I have no doubt that is what he intends to do. That prospect, reducing our pro-active war on terror for all its shortcomings, in some attempt to reduce the number of Europeans who hate us, strikes me as bad policy for post-9/11 US. Links? Kerry has never said that he should scale back the war on terror. He has a separate strategy that offers a clear distinction to that of GWB. Kerry is for working with the international community to create better coordination in intelligence efforts, which is one aspect of his national security strategy. I have sent numerous links to you (via this board) that discuss Kerry's record and position on national secuirty. I would suggest reading the article that I linked in my recent thread on whether Kerry is weak on defense. I think it is offensive to even consider bin Laden when discussing our election. It is particularly offensive to those who support John Kerry. I would suggest eliminating it from your list of reasons to support Bush. I also question this idea that the war on terror is currently pro-active. In Afghanistan, it was clearly reactive, as we were attacked on 9/11. Iraq, however, was not a part on the war on terror at the beginning. At least, we can acknowledge that its relevance is questionable/controversial. What are we left with right now? Well, we are currently reacting to attacks in Afghanistan and Iraq. The proactive elements (asset freezing) have taken place in conjunction with law enforcement and intelligence, as have the captures of most top level terrorists, including Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. The question is how many of the top level leaders have we caught simply out on the battlefield? Not many. We've killed many of the people who implement the strategy via military attacks, but few have been killed who actually coordinate and plan if my observations are correct. I should also note that Iraq was not, by definition, a pre-emptive war. Pre-emptive war requires us to have knowledge of exactly when and where the enemy plans to strike. We know that we had none of that information. Hence, the war did not pre-empt anything. Rather, it was designed to prevent Iraq from becoming a credible threat to our national security, among other things. I would also recommend the following reading: www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4431601/. This, it seems, is a strong reason not to support George W. Bush. I'm sure bin Laden looks on in pleasure. |
|
thebin
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,848
|
Post by thebin on Mar 4, 2004 20:23:05 GMT -5
So hlb, you think bin laden is sitting back in glee reflecting on the possibility of a second Bush term? Let's analyze the facts. Before Bush, under say Clinton, bin laden and his like could strike at American targets like the Twin Towers, American embassies, American warships, and just freely move around Afghanistan with the assistance of the ruling regime to assist him, making sure to avoid being in any Sudanese aspirin factories during a presidential impreachment at any rate for that highly ineffective afternoon of tomahawk lobbing from afar. Post 9/11, the friendly regime has been destroyed. Al Queda? Probably 75% or so detroyed and running around a tiny portion of borderland in an ever-smaller area of no-man's land. Can't even communicate on his cell phones anymore. If he is in fact alive, he is almost certainly a pale shell of a man who has been hiding in a rock and is about to get killed or captured by American special forces. Its just a matter of time. Yes, he must be thrilled. But Iraq you state? Another Muslim army humiliated by a Zionist Crusader army- just what bin laden was looking for. The result? Muslims murdering muslims, shi'a against sunni-having failed to put up a formidible attack against the invading American armies, now Muslims slaughter one another. In iraq, its not muslim vs. Chsitian/jew but rather muslim killing Muslim, again, surely what bin laden wanted all along. Once again proving that to avoid Samuel Huntington's Clash of Civilizations, we will first need to see Thomas Friedman's Muslim Reformation. A nascent democracy forming in the heart of Arabia, replete with all the violence that all baby democracies encounter- whose greatest civil unrest is a mini Muslim civil war. Surely what bin laden wanted. Libya voluntarily giving up its WMD- by admission because its arab and muslim dictator was terrified by the American action in Iraq. The final Baathists in Syria? Finally admitting it would like to discuss Israel's right to exist now thank you very much, as the US 4th infantry division checks the border. Iran? The Mullahs losing control over the young, often pro-American democrats by the day. (Did you guys know the NFL was broadcast into Iran this year?)
Yes, bin laden must be loving this, if the miserable sob has access to news anymore as the Delta Force closes in on him. He must be over-joyed, and terrified at the prospects of a Kerry presidency. Kerry, who once said the US military should only move at the orders of the UN. Kerry, who has no significant legislation to show for his decades in the Senate but almost always voted down defense spending bills on silly little experiments like the tomahwak missile- which has probably saved thousands of American lives. Kerry who, AMAZINGLY, was against Gulf War 1 but for Gulf War 2. Kerry, who according to the ultra non-partisan and respected National Journal, is the single most left wing member of the Senate. Yep, his record is to the left of Boxer and Kennedy, which is truly astounding given how unbelievibly inconsistent it is. Bin laden must be terrified of Kerry, who can't wait to placate Paris and Berlin with an eye towards a more diplomatic assault in afghanistan/pakistan, and hoping he lives to see the second Bush term.
|
|
thebin
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,848
|
Post by thebin on Mar 4, 2004 20:36:15 GMT -5
Jersey... I just don't have the energy to answer your post tonight. How do I put this politely? Its really annoying to have to answer a post that goes something like this: "You are wrong. Want to know why? See the following pieces of poltical op ed I have linked for you:...." I will answwer people who make their own arguments. But it is a lot more work than I have time for to answer several other pundit's opinions.
I put out links for starting points of discussion all the time. But I NEVER use them as stand-ins for a response to someone else's argument. I will say, check out this George Will piece and then it often turns into a discussion. But I am quite certain that in the midst of that ensuing discusion, I have never reverted to saying "again, please see Washington Post page....." So I am not that inclined to answer your post at this time except to say that as you know, Kerry has said the war on terror should not be military in nature, but merely police/intel. Since the war now is all three, that MUST MEAN he advocates a scale back. Yes I know Kerry has a theory that we can "work together" better by compromising with the French and Germans so that they could give us more diplomatic or intelligence crumbs, but I am not compelled. I find your assertion that the war in Afghanistan is reactive to be precious. Reactive was Clinton lobbing a couple of tomahawks (which Kerry voted never to buy) at empty camps and aspirin factories in the Sudan in a one off, lame attempt. Bush sending and maintaining thousands of special forces on the ground, making sure that if the groundhog pops his head out of a rock, it gets blown off? That's is what I would call pro-active. And guess what 10,000 special forces boots on the ground isn't? It isn't a police operation with Frenech intelligence and diplomatic cover. It is a military operation, the kind Kerry has scoffed at in his criticism of this as a real war, that has immobilized Al-queda until the day, fast approaching, where every member of its leadership is a dirty stain on a cave wall, not just 3/4 of it as is the case now.
|
|
Z
Bulldog (over 250 posts)
Posts: 409
|
Post by Z on Mar 5, 2004 14:56:37 GMT -5
bin, on your point re: kerry's defense votes, his record is being spun out of control and out of context. as time reports this week, "Kerry did fight the MX, voted to cut funds for missile defense and the B-2 Stealth bomber, and proposed cutting the intelligence budget $300 million a year from 1996 to 2000. But it was the first President Bush who halted production of the MX, and Republicans including Senator John McCain have opposed building more B-2s. On intelligence, Kerry says he wanted to scale back money for expensive spy satellites and put more into human intelligence. Another G.O.P. charge: that Kerry voted 10 times in 1990 against weapons like the F-15, F-16, Patriot missile and M-1 tank. Actually it was only one vote — against an appropriations bill that funded all these weapons. Dick Cheney, then Defense Secretary, also wanted to reduce funding for these weapons."
|
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Mar 5, 2004 15:02:19 GMT -5
I think it is offensive to even consider bin Laden when discussing our election. It is particularly offensive to those who support John Kerry. I would suggest eliminating it from your list of reasons to support Bush. Why is it offensive to talk about bin laden in this election. I assume that you agree that national security is a big issue in this election? And didn't bin Laden have something to do with 9/11? So, if we're going to be debating how Kerry would have dealt with the Middle East/Terrorists/the International community versus what Bush did; and also talk about plans for the future, how can we ignore a central figure in the whole debate? And furthermore, not only do you say bin Laden should be an issue in the election, you say it's offensive to consider him when discussing this election? How is it offensive? |
|
Z
Bulldog (over 250 posts)
Posts: 409
|
Post by Z on Mar 5, 2004 15:14:36 GMT -5
thebin, i realize its tough to nitpick who said what about what on a given thread, but please note that i simply repeated the headline of the oklahoma paper in my original post (which was ultimately incorrect). i noted that in my later posts, and even provided a transcript of the congressman's comments to clear up the situation. i was certainly not being as myopic as you claim.
|
|
thebin
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,848
|
Post by thebin on Mar 5, 2004 19:45:40 GMT -5
Z....you have no need to explain. I do realize that you amended your post to expalin that the words were taken out of context a bit. It wasn't you that I had in mind when I was a bit flummoxed to see how people were going to town with the original unfair assesment of his words. I will try to explain more tomorrow, but you certainly don't owe any explanation, I have always known you to be a spirited but fair poster to this board.
|
|
