Terrorist to hit around election!!!

[Displaced Flames fan]

I don't get that perception when I'm watching network news. Maybe you're seeing what you want to see.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally posted by FlamesAddiction@Oct 24 2004, 05:40 AM
I'm just wondering what exactly is Bush's tough stance on terrorism.

He let himself get distracted from capturing Osama bin Laden, and twice has said he doesn't care about him.

He has ignored and continued to be buddy-buddy with the Saudis.

And worst of all, he has started a war that is proving to antagonize a nation that before was no threat to America. You know, sooner or later, these people who started beheading Americans in Iraq after the invasion are going to make there way overseas if this thing does not get solved.

I just don't see where he gets off using the war on terrorism as something positive he has done.

So, can we then expect John Kerry to do the following?

1. Abandon any amicable relationship with the Saudi's.
2. Deploy 130,000 troops to Afghanistan to hunt for a single man.
3. State repeatedly that he is obsessed with captruring bin Laden.
4. Pull out of Iraq immediately to relieve that atagonistic relationship.


Would that be a good start for our new tough on terror President?

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally posted by Displaced Flames fan@Oct 23 2004, 11:58 PM
I don't get that perception when I'm watching network news. Maybe you're seeing what you want to see.

Or maybe I'm seeing what I don't want to see?

That's it for me. I'm going to watch the news.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally posted by RougeUnderoos+Oct 24 2004, 06:08 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (RougeUnderoos @ Oct 24 2004, 06:08 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Displaced Flames fan@Oct 23 2004, 11:58 PM
I don't get that perception when I'm watching network news. Maybe you're seeing what you want to see.

Or maybe I'm seeing what I don't want to see?

That's it for me. I'm going to watch the news. [/b][/quote]
You're a liar, just like Cowperson. :P

He didn't go to bed...you won't go watch the news....you'll post again in this thread...tonight...right now....

Why?

Because I'm about to tell you how much I love your new signature! :woot:

(I'm familiar with it's source for the record)

[Flame On]

DIS, I know I'm probably not the most popular person with you right now, and honestly it's not my intention to wind up anyone. So I'm sorry if I have (called names and stuff I mean). I just want to add here though, that even if the perception is that Bush Cheney are tougher on terror, that doesn't mean they'd be more effective against terror than anyone else might be, IMO. I mean we can't know that now can we, who might be more effective in the future or if it isn't going to come to pass (i.e. Kerry doesn't get it)? I don't want another war with you, so i do concede that it does look from the outset that Bush is tougher :P

[FlamesAddiction]

So, can we then expect John Kerry to do the following?

1. Abandon any amicable relationship with the Saudi's.

Do you want to amicable relations with country whose leaders are oppressive and whose population is largely anti-American?

2. Deploy 130,000 troops to Afghanistan to hunt for a single man.

Uh, yeah! Isn't that what Bush should be doing? Bin Laden probably would have been caught and buried by now.

3. State repeatedly that he is obsessed with captruring bin Laden.

Talk is cheap. He also said that he doesn't care about him. The flippiest of flops.

4. Pull out of Iraq immediately to relieve that atagonistic relationship.

I don't expect Kerry to do this. He is stuck with it if he wins, and he knows that. The idea is to not let something like this happen to begin with. It's not what Kerry does, but rather what he won't do.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally posted by Flame On@Oct 24 2004, 06:38 AM
DIS, I know I'm probably not the most popular person with you right now, and honestly it's not my intention to wind up anyone. So I'm sorry if I have (called names and stuff I mean). I just want to add here though, that even if the perception is that Bush Cheney are tougher on terror, that doesn't mean they'd be more effective against terror than anyone else might be, IMO. I mean we can't know that now can we, who might be more effective in the future or if it isn't going to come to pass (i.e. Kerry doesn't get it)? I don't want another war with you, so i do concede that it does look from the outset that Bush is tougher :P

No we can't know, and I didn't say that it was impossible for anyone to be tougher.

What I did say, and what can't be refuted is that Bush has a record to run on regarding the issue, and Kerry doesn't.

[TheCommodoreAfro]

Originally posted by Displaced Flames fan+Oct 24 2004, 03:47 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Displaced Flames fan @ Oct 24 2004, 03:47 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Flame On@Oct 24 2004, 06:38 AM
DIS, I know I'm probably not the most popular person with you right now, and honestly it's not my intention to wind up anyone. So I'm sorry if I have (called names and stuff I mean). I just want to add here though, that even if the perception is that Bush Cheney are tougher on terror, that doesn't mean they'd be more effective against terror than anyone else might be, IMO. I mean we can't know that now can we, who might be more effective in the future or if it isn't going to come to pass (i.e. Kerry doesn't get it)? I don't want another war with you, so i do concede that it does look from the outset that Bush is tougher :P

No we can't know, and I didn't say that it was impossible for anyone to be tougher.

What I did say, and what can't be refuted is that Bush has a record to run on regarding the issue, and Kerry doesn't. [/b][/quote]
Bush's record is as thus:

He wasn't looking for Bin Laden. Just wasn't worried about him. No context, just that he's done and we don't think he's the heart of any command structure.

He ignored the briefing on imminent terror attacks that crossed his desk a month earlier.

He precided over My Pet Goat in a Florida classroom after he knew the first plane hit the WTC. And continued to read on as the second one crashed into the second tower.

He sent a nominal force into Afghanistan to oust the Taliban (whom he welcomed to Texas as governer of Texas, BTW) and cature Bin Laden. He didn't so....

He invaded Iraq to oust a guy who had nothing to do with the attacks or Al-Queda. He attacked and detained his own citizens without trial. He attacked the constitution by rolling back constitutional freedoms with the patriot attack and attacked those who attack these policies as "traitors of America".

You call it "tough on terror". It's actually really just a whole bunch of misplaced anger and wrong priorities.

But Cheney sure looks tough when he scowls, though. Maybe that's it.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally posted by Displaced Flames fan@Oct 24 2004, 04:24 AM
Didn't see/hear the show....but....

Could be poor wording for simply suggesting that it's not time for Americans to rest on their laurels. It's been 3 years now, and people have a short memory. We do need to continue to be vigilant.

Fear isn't the right word though, I'm not going to be afraid and I don't need to be afraid. That doesn't mean I'm safe either.

No Dis, the wording was very clear. Hannity and Will were discussing the election and how the race was too close. Will went so far as to say that no encumbent has been elected ina race this tight. Hannity said that America needs to find fear to ensure that the President is re-elected, and Will whole heartedly agreed. It was a discussion of strategty to re-elect the President and nothing more. I was disgusted by the program, but I usually am. Anyone who sits that afr on the right is a borderline Facist and a threat to this country IMO.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally posted by Displaced Flames fan@Oct 24 2004, 05:58 AM
I don't get that perception when I'm watching network news. Maybe you're seeing what you want to see.

Of course you don't Dis. The networks are telling people what they want to hear, not what they need to know. They are all guilty of it. On this week's Bill Maher he had RFK Jr. on, who is a huge environmentalist, and he was asked why the environment is not on the list of major issues for this election? His response was that the media is killing the issue. They do not show the issues that matter the most because they don't sell. Sex, violence and controversy sells. Dead mercury laden fish, poor air quality and heavy metals in the soils do not jazz up the viewers. Kennedy stated that the media, now owned almost completely by six corporations, are looking to make a buck and fully comply with the whims of the of Whitehouse because it sells. It makes them huge profits and that's what matters to the stockholders. Journalistic integrity never lined the pocket of an investor, so it has gone the way of the dodo. This is the third week in a row where someone high profile has crucfied the media for not doing its job and being in the Whitehouse's pocket. It seems there are a lot of people out there that recognize it and are commenting on it, but it does not get reported. I guess its not "sexy" enough to report that media is being manipulated to support the Whitehouse and rackup record profits while doing so. The last thing these corporations want is to be labelled unAmerican and cut into the stockholders pockets.

[sjwalter]

Originally posted by TheCommodoreAfro+Oct 24 2004, 01:28 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (TheCommodoreAfro @ Oct 24 2004, 01:28 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

No we can't know, and I didn't say that it was impossible for anyone to be tougher.

What I did say, and what can't be refuted is that Bush has a record to run on regarding the issue, and Kerry doesn't.

Bush's record is as thus:

He wasn't looking for Bin Laden. Just wasn't worried about him. No context, just that he's done and we don't think he's the heart of any command structure.

He ignored the briefing on imminent terror attacks that crossed his desk a month earlier.

He precided over My Pet Goat in a Florida classroom after he knew the first plane hit the WTC. And continued to read on as the second one crashed into the second tower.

He sent a nominal force into Afghanistan to oust the Taliban (whom he welcomed to Texas as governer of Texas, BTW) and cature Bin Laden. He didn't so....

He invaded Iraq to oust a guy who had nothing to do with the attacks or Al-Queda. He attacked and detained his own citizens without trial. He attacked the constitution by rolling back constitutional freedoms with the patriot attack and attacked those who attack these policies as "traitors of America".

You call it "tough on terror". It's actually really just a whole bunch of misplaced anger and wrong priorities.

But Cheney sure looks tough when he scowls, though. Maybe that's it. [/b][/quote]
Wasn't looking for him eh?

Whats this then,

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article....RTICLE_ID=41059

Of course we all said that he would turn up before the election.

And i bet you think we should go get him, like Kerry would and get American's slaughtered in the process. Or maybe Kerry would back off his word now since Bin Laden is supposedly located. And sending 130,000 troops into the Afghan isn't going to help because Bin Laden isn't there.

[sjwalter]

Originally posted by TheCommodoreAfro@Oct 24 2004, 01:28 AM
He precided over My Pet Goat in a Florida classroom after he knew the first plane hit the WTC. And continued to read on as the second one crashed into the second tower.

He sent a nominal force into Afghanistan to oust the Taliban (whom he welcomed to Texas as governer of Texas, BTW) and cature Bin Laden. He didn't so....

What would you have done? Bush showed resiliance when he continued reading, showed he can lead a nation, showed that he isn't going to be afraid to back the terrorists down. And don't BS me, how do you expect Bush to react, run out of the room screaming his head off? He is President of the strongest country in the world, should he show he is afraid? Don't listen to everything that the left wing media tells you, because that is one of the weakest attacks they have made.

----------------------------------

So its a problem if Bush supposedly meets with the Taliban, which hasn't been proven, but of course its perfectly alright if Kerry meets with the Viet Cong, when he knew they were the enemy and America was or had been at war with them. America wasn't at War with the Taliban when they came to Texas.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally posted by sjwalter@Oct 24 2004, 11:34 AM
What would you have done? Bush showed resiliance when he continued reading, showed he can lead a nation, showed that he isn't going to be afraid to back the terrorists down. And don't BS me, how do you expect Bush to react, run out of the room screaming his head off? He is President of the strongest country in the world, should he show he is afraid? Don't listen to everything that the left wing media tells you, because that is one of the weakest attacks they have made.

Lol. Someone called you a stooge the other day. I thought it was kind of harsh, but really, it's the only word that fits.

You are aware, I'm sure, that there are more than 2 options. He doesn't have to sit there reading the book, and he doesn't have to run out of the room screaming his head off. How about he stands up, says "sorry kids, but I have to go" and walks out of the room. What's wrong with that?

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally posted by RougeUnderoos+Oct 24 2004, 06:32 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (RougeUnderoos @ Oct 24 2004, 06:32 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-sjwalter@Oct 24 2004, 11:34 AM
What would you have done? Bush showed resiliance when he continued reading, showed he can lead a nation, showed that he isn't going to be afraid to back the terrorists down. And don't BS me, how do you expect Bush to react, run out of the room screaming his head off? He is President of the strongest country in the world, should he show he is afraid? Don't listen to everything that the left wing media tells you, because that is one of the weakest attacks they have made.

Lol. Someone called you a stooge the other day. I thought it was kind of harsh, but really, it's the only word that fits.

You are aware, I'm sure, that there are more than 2 options. He doesn't have to sit there reading the book, and he doesn't have to run out of the room screaming his head off. How about he stands up, says "sorry kids, but I have to go" and walks out of the room. What's wrong with that? [/b][/quote]
I'm curious as to what is wrong with what he actually did.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Well Dis, as I have pointed out in several other threads when this comes up, sitting there for seven minutes was the wrong thing to do. Only the president of the United States can give the order to down a civilian aircraft on American soil. Him sitting in the room for seven minutes is seven minutes in which a response could have been made. As I have pointed out, an F-18 travelling at full burn can cover 193 miles in those seven minutes. When you add in the distance that missles can cover you're talking about a range of 220 miles. By Bush sitting in that classroom he gave those airliners, and others that were considered risks, a chance to get closer to their targets or take them out all together. Based on the protocols for dealing with this threat is was a terrible decision to sit in that classroom IMO. A leader? A commander in chief? Hardly. A scared little man hiding from responsibility.

BTW... to sjwalter. How do you show resilience and leadership to a nation when you sit in a classroom of seven year olds while the nation is under attack? Please explain this logic to me.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally posted by Lanny_MacDonald@Oct 24 2004, 07:05 PM
Well Dis, as I have pointed out in several other threads when this comes up, sitting there for seven minutes was the wrong thing to do. Only the president of the United States can give the order to down a civilian aircraft on American soil. Him sitting in the room for seven minutes is seven minutes in which a response could have been made. As I have pointed out, an F-18 travelling at full burn can cover 193 miles in those seven minutes. When you add in the distance that missles can cover you're talking about a range of 220 miles. By Bush sitting in that classroom he gave those airliners, and others that were considered risks, a chance to get closer to their targets or take them out all together. Based on the protocols for dealing with this threat is was a terrible decision to sit in that classroom IMO. A leader? A commander in chief? Hardly. A scared little man hiding from responsibility.

BTW... to sjwalter. How do you show resilience and leadership to a nation when you sit in a classroom of seven year olds while the nation is under attack? Please explain this logic to me.

And you are privy to the exact information that Card whispered in Bush's ear? You seem to be implying that he knew their were 3 other rogue aircraft....and that the first one that hit was an intended incident and not an accident.

Please enlighten me.

[Displaced Flames fan]

and I'll pull a card from the deck of Lanny/Flames Addiction/Afro/Roos et al.....and respond by saying that Kerry has admitted he was incapable of thought for 45 minutes after the attack. Should this disqualify him from my consideration by your logic?

[Table 5]

Originally posted by Displaced Flames fan@Oct 24 2004, 02:09 PM

And you are privy to the exact information that Card whispered in Bush's ear? You seem to be implying that he knew their were 3 other rogue aircraft....and that the first one that hit was an intended incident and not an accident.

Please enlighten me.

Well im pretty sure he wasnt giving him proper grammar techniques during his book reading session. Whatever he was told must have been very concise and to the point, as I doubt an aid or whover told him would tip-toe around an issue in that circumstance. Even if it was a simple as " a plane rammed into the World Trade Center ", people in that position should assume the worst, get up, and further assess the situation.

[Table 5]

Originally posted by Displaced Flames fan@Oct 24 2004, 02:11 PM
and I'll pull a card from the deck of Lanny/Flames Addiction/Afro/Roos et al.....and respond by saying that Kerry has admitted he was incapable of thought for 45 minutes after the attack. Should this disqualify him from my consideration by your logic?

yes, perhaps it should.

[sjwalter]

Originally posted by Lanny_MacDonald@Oct 24 2004, 12:05 PM
Well Dis, as I have pointed out in several other threads when this comes up, sitting there for seven minutes was the wrong thing to do. Only the president of the United States can give the order to down a civilian aircraft on American soil. Him sitting in the room for seven minutes is seven minutes in which a response could have been made. As I have pointed out, an F-18 travelling at full burn can cover 193 miles in those seven minutes. When you add in the distance that missles can cover you're talking about a range of 220 miles. By Bush sitting in that classroom he gave those airliners, and others that were considered risks, a chance to get closer to their targets or take them out all together. Based on the protocols for dealing with this threat is was a terrible decision to sit in that classroom IMO. A leader? A commander in chief? Hardly. A scared little man hiding from responsibility.

BTW... to sjwalter. How do you show resilience and leadership to a nation when you sit in a classroom of seven year olds while the nation is under attack? Please explain this logic to me.

First of all Lanny, how would they know exactly where the plane was that was going to hit the other Trade Center? And can you imagine if they US Air Foce would have shot it down, how people would have reacted because we all know how people sue over anything and they certainly would sue they US Government to sh*t because they can't prove that the plane was actually going to hit the other Trade Center or even the Pentagon. And there were over 200 planes in the air at the time the attacks took place, how do they know which one to shoot down? Of course people called in for help, but who's to say it wouldn't be a prank? And now you're blaming Bush for allowing the terrorists to hit the Trade Center. Pure left wing media BS. You know the government better then i do, and i'm sure there is a hell of a lot or red tape and people to go through regardless if he is president or not in order to shoot the planes down. You're now talking what might have been, instead of dealing with what happened. I would pay to see how Kerry would have reacted and knowing his history he would have probably called it a nusicance.


And Lanny, if the President made one wrong move in that Classroom, all of America would have been over him. There is nothing wrong like Dis said with what he did.