What Bush COULD have said...

[stuckincincy]

When Kerry raised Tora Bora (that Laden was there was a speculation), the President could have spoke about the Clinton Adm. and the Sudanese possession of bin Laden in the '90's

 

The President could have brought up Somalia, the Kenya bombings, the 1993 WTC bombing, the USS Cole.

 

Could have brought up Frank Church.

 

Speak of the downgrading of the military under the Clinton administration.

 

The shooting at planes in the no-fly zone.

 

Spoke to the idiocy that somehow, Iraq, among all radical moslem entities, was an island of peace and non-involvement. Or the $10K payments to suicide bombers in Isreal.

 

Could have asked just how Kerry would bring on so-called allies...if they had any moxie, they would realize the threat, the fact that ancient hatred combined with modern capabilities is more that a bit of a problem. As if those "neglected" allies think of nothing but money.

 

Would have pointed out that the world is awash in AK-47's, not M-16's. That Iraq's bunkers, Iran's nuclear equipment was provided by the Europeans and the Russians.

 

Might have talked about Kerry's non-attendance at Senate Intelligence Committee meetings.

 

Could have raised the fact that we are an open nation, and the 100% inspection of overseas containers would result, in short order, in the collapse of the US economy and the loss of tens and tens of millions of jobs...the Wal-Marts, the Circuit City's and so forth will close. I have read the words on many of this forum, praising their foreign car purchases and their purchase of Everything Chinese, at the same time descrying loss of American jobs...You who buy your foreign cars and your overseas fashions - well tell me what YOU do, so if non-American goods and services are so much better, I'll buy from them and put you out of work...

 

It's a real problem when a President knows the past and understands that internicine warfare is a bad move...isn't it?

[PastaJoe]

How many elections will we have to go through before people realize that Bill Clinton isn't running? Should we bring up the alledged failed policies of Republican presidents and blame them on Bush? If that's the case, imagine the burden on the next Republican to run after Bush.

[stuckincincy]

How many elections will we have to go through before people realize that Bill Clinton isn't running?  Should we bring up the alledged failed policies of Republican presidents and blame them on Bush?  If that's the case, imagine the burden on the next Republican to run after Bush.

52578[/snapback]

 

Why do the Rep's control the HR after 50 years, the Senate, most State governorships and legislatures?

 

Seems you could only offer 2 answers here...people are 1) stupid or 2) don't buy into the Democratic party's socialism.

 

Your thoughts?...facts are tough things.

[Alaska Darin]

How many elections will we have to go through before people realize that Bill Clinton isn't running?  Should we bring up the alledged failed policies of Republican presidents and blame them on Bush?  If that's the case, imagine the burden on the next Republican to run after Bush.

52578[/snapback]

Yeah, because Democrats never do THAT.

[RkFast]

I loved his Tora Bora comment. It was right on, IMO.

 

Bush and the DOD !@#$ed up BIG TIME on that deal and believe me, there is no MMQBing here. As soon as I saw on CNN that we had Osama surrounded with those rag-tag fighters guarding the North and West flanks, me and everyone with half a brain knew Osama would slide those fellas a few bucks and get out that way.

[DC Tom]

I loved his Tora Bora comment. It was right on, IMO.

 

Bush and the DOD !@#$ed up BIG TIME on that deal and believe me, there is no MMQBing here. As soon as I saw on CNN that we had Osama surrounded with those rag-tag fighters guarding the North and West flanks, me and everyone with half a brain knew Osama would slide those fellas a few bucks and get out that way.

52657[/snapback]

 

Thus demonstrating your complete ignorance of both Special Forces operations and Afghan history and society...

[John from Riverside]

I loved his Tora Bora comment. It was right on, IMO.

 

Bush and the DOD !@#$ed up BIG TIME on that deal and believe me, there is no MMQBing here. As soon as I saw on CNN that we had Osama surrounded with those rag-tag fighters guarding the North and West flanks, me and everyone with half a brain knew Osama would slide those fellas a few bucks and get out that way.

52657[/snapback]

 

 

Hey Frankenberry,

 

Please allow me to explain something that you may or may not know about that portion of history.....

 

I dont know if you remember but we were getting reports of American forces being killed by sniper fire, trap bombs, etc etc as they were moving through this area attempting to locate bin ladin.....

 

The US military was using people in the region...that NAVIGATE the region on a regular basis to show both cooperation between us and those who would run that country and to AVOID losing american lives (in some of those areas you cannot get equipment into.....troops were riding on horseback for christ sake

 

Do you understand?

[Mickey]

Why do the Rep's control the HR after 50 years, the Senate, most State governorships and legislatures?

 

Seems you could only offer 2 answers here...people are 1) stupid or 2) don't buy into the Democratic party's socialism.

 

Your thoughts?...facts are tough things.

52592[/snapback]

 

Here we go again, the democrats are "fading into irrelevance" right?

The margins in the House and Senate are very close and the Democratic candidate received the most votes in the last three Presidential elections and this election, regardless of outcome, will be pretty close either way. Were the Republicans irrelevant during those 50 years of being in the minority in the House?

 

Seems to me both parties are pretty healthy and on some levels, more like one another now than ever before. You have to dig up fringe issues like abortion and gay marriage to try and show sharp differences between the two.

 

Frankly, I think one of the problems the democrats have is that they have won so many of the battles on issues over the years that they don't have much left. The issues that could be used to keep voters from even considering to vote republican are gone, there are no republicans holding those views anymore.

 

By the same token, there are issues the right used against the left that are also beginning to fade. Take welfare reform for example. Democrats fought it for years but the party realized, with help from new leaders, that it had to be done.

 

Look at the current President, on many levels he acts like a democrat or at least the type of democrat the right so often complains of, ie, spending like a madman to curry favor with the voters. The prescription drug benefit would be a pretty good example.

 

If a democrat has to act like a republican to get elected and a republican has to act like a democrat to get elected, aren't we moving closer together as a nation? If national elections are historically close, doesn't that mean that our views as a people on the issues are also historically close?

 

The issues that divide us are not "core" issues, they are distant branches we have had to track down to find something to argue about. Really, homosexual marriage? Is the health of the Republic going to be dramatically enhanced or brought to utter ruin if the relatively small number of gay couples living together have or do not have a marriage certificate stuffed in a drawer somewhere?

 

The fact that republicans are doing better now than they have in the past is more evidence of just how out of it they were as a result of the depression and the Roosevelt era than proof that they are on the verge of utter domination in American politics. Really, this is what is normal historically, the situation from 1932 until the late 1980's is what was an aberration. It only took the Republican party 48 years or so of moving to the left to get back in the game.