Inserting a foot in a mouth

[D_Raay]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6101178.stm

US Vice-President Dick Cheney has said that insurgents in Iraq have increased their attacks in order to influence the upcoming US mid-term elections.

He blamed a recent rise in violence on al-Qaeda and others trying to "break the will of the American people".

"They're very sensitive to the fact that we've got an election scheduled," he said, claiming the militants monitor US public opinion via the internet.

Leave it to this asshole (and I use that term definitively as I am not want to use it lightly) to play politics of the worst kind when it comes to potentially losing his own power.

First, the very mention of this is suggesting that the "militants" he speaks of have some sort of vested interest in the Democrats gaining power which in and of itself is a fabrication. It's a "fart in the wind" so to speak. Lest he somehow can prove that they are in fact in cahoots with each other which he can't. The very mention of it is misleading and downright dirty.

Second, the way it looks to me is that the terrorists would like nothing better than for Bush co. to remain in power. Their numbers are increasing, their money is flowing, and they have support now that they never had before. And it isn't from Democrats or anyone else who opposes this foolish war on terror, it's from every nut out there who has always had it in for us and never had the avenue to pursue to get to us. Now they do.

Wait, what am I ranting for? This guy said he had nothing to do with Halliburton getting all the "no-bid" contracts in Iraq. He has the credibility of, well, his boss!

[kaiser soze]

Fear (http://beastieboys.com/bbs/showthread.php?t=72822) is the only thing these fools can try to use to gain control

Let us remember who helped fuel the Taliban and Alqaeda...Reagan and Bush Sr.

Let us remember who sat in a classroom reading a children's book while the nation was being attacked...Bush Jr.

Let us remember who said he wasn't too concerned about Bin Laden...Bush Jr.

Let us remember who is failing at securing the Mexican/U.S. border at which many suspect terrorists could easily come in...Bush Jr.

Bush threatens the terrorists will win if repubs don't win polls (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20680272-31477,00.html)

How can he say the Democratss and their constituents support terrorism when he and his family have done much worse with helping proliferate terrorism?!

"The Democrat goal is to get out of Iraq," Mr Bush said in the district of Sugar Land, Texas. "The Republican goal is to win in Iraq. I'm not saying that these Democrats are unpatriotic, I'm just saying they're wrong. You can't win a war unless you're willing to fight the war."

Well said from a guy who went AWOL and have of his cabinet dodged the Vietnam war (n)

[sam i am]

So many half-truths, so little time...

Fear (http://beastieboys.com/bbs/showthread.php?t=72822) is the only thing these fools can try to use to gain control

Was it fear that got them elected in the first place or the shortcomings of the previous administration and their horrible candidate, Al Gore?

Let us remember who helped fuel the Taliban and Alqaeda...Reagan and Bush Sr.

And why did they fuel the Taliban and Al-Qaeda? Could it be that the Cold War and the Soviet invasion/occupation of Afghanistan had something to do with it? Forgot the history, have you?

Let us remember who sat in a classroom reading a children's book while the nation was being attacked...Bush Jr.

And this means what? Have you had children? Do you know what effect panis has on children? I think not. Shock and reaction times are often different in different people. Have some compassion, why don't you?

Let us remember who said he wasn't too concerned about Bin Laden...Bush Jr.

Rightfully so, thus far. No further attacks on US soil since 9/11.

Let us remember who is failing at securing the Mexican/U.S. border at which many suspect terrorists could easily come in...Bush Jr.

Any proof that terrorists have come through the border? And I guess that little bill he just signed that will build new border walls is being wholeheartedly endorsed by you and those who are like-minded, eh?:rolleyes:

Bush threatens the terrorists will win if repubs don't win polls (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20680272-31477,00.html)

He's entitled to his opinion, especially as the Democrats have, in the past, proven so tough on fighting terrorists.;)

How can he say the Democratss and their constituents support terrorism when he and his family have done much worse with helping proliferate terrorism?!

Because it tweaks the Democrats, hopefully depressing their votes. Been effective thus far (see elections of 2000 and 2002 and 2004)

Well said from a guy who went AWOL and have of his cabinet dodged the Vietnam war (n)

So.....in order to have military opinions, one must have been in the military? Are you in the military?

Some of our greatest military leaders came from no background in the military (FDR, Lincoln, etc. come to mind easily and readily).

[D_Raay]

Was it fear that got them elected in the first place or the shortcomings of the previous administration and their horrible candidate, Al Gore?
Now wait a minute there sam. I am going to have to strongly disagree with that, at least with your wording of it.

Gore was mismanaged by the DNC,and he was forced to cowtow to the same monetary influences as Bush. However, he is quite the American and I think the true Al Gore would win in a landslide over W.

It will be very interesting to see what kind of fellow Bush will turn out to be after he is no longer president.

[sam i am]

Now wait a minute there sam. I am going to have to strongly disagree with that, at least with your wording of it.

Gore was mismanaged by the DNC,and he was forced to cowtow to the same monetary influences as Bush. However, he is quite the American and I think the true Al Gore would win in a landslide over W.

It will be very interesting to see what kind of fellow Bush will turn out to be after he is no longer president.

Agreed. We'll see if he's as narcissistic as Bill C. or will fade away more along the lines of Ford.

Gore was a bad candidate...with the economy supposedly as great as it was and no major foreign issues, Gore shoulda won in a landslide.

I'll agree that Gore was penalized for the excesses of Clinton's overreaching on some issues, but if Gore had been able to have half a personality, he'd have had it in the bag.

[QueenAdrock]

And this means what? Have you had children? Do you know what effect panis has on children? I think not. Shock and reaction times are often different in different people. Have some compassion, why don't you?

Who said he needed to panic? I mean, he didn't have to jump up and say HOLY SHIT, CHILDREN WE'S ALL A-GONNA DIE! and run. You know what a mature, smart leader would do? Smile at the children and say "Hey kids. I'm really super sorry that I have to go now, I really want to come back. I have some big important Presidential stuff that I have to do right now, so I'll have to return back to see you all again very soon."

Would the children be harmed by that? Would those 20 children in the classroom say "Holy fuck, something's wrong. Let's all start screaming and panicking ourselves!"? No. There is a calm way to handle all situations, as to not scare anyone. And you KNOW that if it was a Democrat in this position, you would be saying he was "soft on terrorism" because he sat for 7 minutes with the deer-in-the-headlights expression and didn't do anything during our time of need.

I would argue that that point in time was the single BIGGEST emergency in our nation's history, and the President had NO idea how to handle it in a way to not scare those children and yet make sure he was safe. They knew where he was! The media knew that he was in Florida, it was well known, it wasn't a "secret visit." What if Al Qaeda had people going after that school in Florida? Would it be a good idea for him to sit there for 7 minutes, or would it be a good idea to get the leader-in-chief of the United States to a secure area so he could direct everyone on that day of crisis? That day was possibly the only day that every emergency response that was taken was needed and warranted, and understood after the fact. The President had NO emergency response, on one of our biggest emergency days in the nation's history.



Rightfully so, thus far. No further attacks on US soil since 9/11.


Sam, you're a smart fellow. Please don't use that argument either. 1993-2001 = 8 years. 8 years between Al Qaeda attacks on US soil. Yet I don't hear you singing the praises of Clinton for keeping us "free of terrorism" from 1993-2000. Just because it hasn't happened doesn't mean we're safe. You know that just as much as I do.

[DroppinScience]

Sam, you're a smart fellow. Please don't use that argument either. 1993-2001 = 8 years. 8 years between Al Qaeda attacks on US soil. Yet I don't hear you singing the praises of Clinton for keeping us "free of terrorism" from 1993-2000. Just because it hasn't happened doesn't mean we're safe. You know that just as much as I do.

Yeah, and when the first WTC attack in '93 occured, Clinton was a newly-elected President. Same as how when 9/11 happened, Bush was a newly-elected President. Since the Bush team likes to blame the previous administration for their current inadequacies, I think it's high-time the Clinton team just blame the previous administration for not stopping the '93 bombing!

IT WAS ALL GEORGE H.W. BUSH'S FAULT!!!!!!!!!! :mad:

[sam i am]

Who said he needed to panic? I mean, he didn't have to jump up and say HOLY SHIT, CHILDREN WE'S ALL A-GONNA DIE! and run. You know what a mature, smart leader would do? Smile at the children and say "Hey kids. I'm really super sorry that I have to go now, I really want to come back. I have some big important Presidential stuff that I have to do right now, so I'll have to return back to see you all again very soon."

Would the children be harmed by that? Would those 20 children in the classroom say "Holy fuck, something's wrong. Let's all start screaming and panicking ourselves!"? No. There is a calm way to handle all situations, as to not scare anyone. And you KNOW that if it was a Democrat in this position, you would be saying he was "soft on terrorism" because he sat for 7 minutes with the deer-in-the-headlights expression and didn't do anything during our time of need.

I would argue that that point in time was the single BIGGEST emergency in our nation's history, and the President had NO idea how to handle it in a way to not scare those children and yet make sure he was safe. They knew where he was! The media knew that he was in Florida, it was well known, it wasn't a "secret visit." What if Al Qaeda had people going after that school in Florida? Would it be a good idea for him to sit there for 7 minutes, or would it be a good idea to get the leader-in-chief of the United States to a secure area so he could direct everyone on that day of crisis? That day was possibly the only day that every emergency response that was taken was needed and warranted, and understood after the fact. The President had NO emergency response, on one of our biggest emergency days in the nation's history.

Again, different people handle shock differently. The conjecture that Al-Qaeda was after him personally doesn't jibe with all the arguments made that Bush is the best thing to happen to Al-Qaeda (aren't their recruitment numbers supposedly up?).

I can't imagine what it would be like to be in the situation myself, so it's well-nigh impossible to posit how I'd react, just as it is for you. We're all wired differently and can't know what our reaction would be in a similar situation. That's all I'm saying.

Sam, you're a smart fellow. Please don't use that argument either. 1993-2001 = 8 years. 8 years between Al Qaeda attacks on US soil. Yet I don't hear you singing the praises of Clinton for keeping us "free of terrorism" from 1993-2000. Just because it hasn't happened doesn't mean we're safe. You know that just as much as I do.

Ok : Clinton did a good job of no terrorist attacks on American soil from 1993 to 2001, when he left office.

Now you've heard it.

Doesn't detratct from the USS Cole bombing, the embassy bombings in Africa, the build-up of Al-Qaeda bases in Afghanistan, etc., et al with nary an intercept of top Al-Qaeda figures when they were still travelling rather freely, but, hey....let's not blame the Clinton administration....have to be "fair-minded" and all.

[FunkyHiFi]

See it before NBC makes Youtube delete it:

Last Saturday, the Saturday Night Live show aired a new (really graphic!) "TV Funhouse" episode (http://youtube.com/watch?v=kDgy48PqM9c) about this same exact fear issue using Halloween activities as a backdrop. It was funny and to the point as usual but also very sobering.

and another about the same issue............

President Bush uses Little Richard as translator (http://youtube.com/watch?v=w-rBc9jxG1U)

BTW: it helps a lot if you saw the *original* version of this commercial which is still airing (for the Geico car insurance company).

[sam i am]

See it before NBC makes Youtube delete it:

Last Saturday, the Saturday Night Live show aired a new (really graphic!) "TV Funhouse" episode (http://youtube.com/watch?v=kDgy48PqM9c) about this same exact fear issue using Halloween activities as a backdrop. It was funny and to the point as usual but also very sobering.

and another about the same issue............

President Bush uses Little Richard as translator (http://youtube.com/watch?v=w-rBc9jxG1U)

BTW: it helps a lot if you saw the *original* version of this commercial which is still airing (for the Geico car insurance company).

Both were very brilliant and funny.

Nice links (y)


I don't know why he doesn't do that for every speech either, Jon.

[QueenAdrock]

Ok : Clinton did a good job of no terrorist attacks on American soil from 1993 to 2001, when he left office.

Now you've heard it.

Doesn't detratct from the USS Cole bombing, the embassy bombings in Africa, the build-up of Al-Qaeda bases in Afghanistan, etc., et al with nary an intercept of top Al-Qaeda figures when they were still travelling rather freely, but, hey....let's not blame the Clinton administration....have to be "fair-minded" and all.

So, how did he do a good job of keeping terrorist attacks off of American soil? What policies of his did he implent that kept the terrorists off of our shores? Because to me, it seems like he didn't have much to do with it. Just like Bush doesn't have anything to do with "keeping" terrorism off our soil. But if you think he did a good job of keeping terrorist attacks away from America, I'd like to know why exactly you think that.

[The Notorious LOL]

Was it fear that got them elected in the first place or the shortcomings of the previous administration and their horrible candidate, Al Gore?



nah it was the Supreme Court.

[D_Raay]

See it before NBC makes Youtube delete it:

Last Saturday, the Saturday Night Live show aired a new (really graphic!) "TV Funhouse" episode (http://youtube.com/watch?v=kDgy48PqM9c) about this same exact fear issue using Halloween activities as a backdrop. It was funny and to the point as usual but also very sobering.

and another about the same issue............

President Bush uses Little Richard as translator (http://youtube.com/watch?v=w-rBc9jxG1U)

BTW: it helps a lot if you saw the *original* version of this commercial which is still airing (for the Geico car insurance company).

Vun gay marriage, two gay marriage, ... funny stuff

[D_Raay]

Agreed. We'll see if he's as narcissistic as Bill C. or will fade away more along the lines of Ford.

Gore was a bad candidate...with the economy supposedly as great as it was and no major foreign issues, Gore shoulda won in a landslide.

I'll agree that Gore was penalized for the excesses of Clinton's overreaching on some issues, but if Gore had been able to have half a personality, he'd have had it in the bag.
Hate to be repetitive, but I explained why that was.

You have observed Mr. Gore recently haven't you?

[DroppinScience]

Doesn't detratct from the USS Cole bombing, the embassy bombings in Africa, the build-up of Al-Qaeda bases in Afghanistan, etc., et al with nary an intercept of top Al-Qaeda figures when they were still travelling rather freely, but, hey....let's not blame the Clinton administration....have to be "fair-minded" and all.

Here's the thing, sam:

CLINTON WAS NOT THE PRESIDENT ON SEPTEMBER 11, 2001

Even if Clinton did a horrible job at terrorism during his years in office (just remember, they thwarted the millennium bombings on THEIR WATCH), there were still lots of warning signs for the new Bush administration that they didn't even heed.

Opine all you like about how your predecessor sucked, but take responsibility for things when you're the guy on watch, ok?

[Documad]

I hate these discussions.

I'll just note that when NYC was attacked during the Clinton administration, Clinton punished the one who did it instead of invading some other country that had nothing to do with it.

[yeahwho]

hey not that it matters, but remember "Don't Stop Thinking About Tomorrow" I actually like that song again after these past six years.

just sayin' it's become real listenable again.

[sam i am]

So, how did he do a good job of keeping terrorist attacks off of American soil? What policies of his did he implent that kept the terrorists off of our shores? Because to me, it seems like he didn't have much to do with it. Just like Bush doesn't have anything to do with "keeping" terrorism off our soil. But if you think he did a good job of keeping terrorist attacks away from America, I'd like to know why exactly you think that.

Because there weren't any after the '93 bombing of the WTC. Unless you want to count domestic terrorism : Oklahoma City and Waco, for examples. Or maybe the riots in Seattle during the World Trade Conference.

[sam i am]

Here's the thing, sam:

CLINTON WAS NOT THE PRESIDENT ON SEPTEMBER 11, 2001

Even if Clinton did a horrible job at terrorism during his years in office (just remember, they thwarted the millennium bombings on THEIR WATCH), there were still lots of warning signs for the new Bush administration that they didn't even heed.

Opine all you like about how your predecessor sucked, but take responsibility for things when you're the guy on watch, ok?

Alrighty then. Bush was to blame for 9/11 :eek:






























Ok, back to reality....even if you want Bush to take the blame, the truth is that very little could have been done beforehand to stop the exact kind of attck that occurred on 9/11 given the political/socioeconomic prevailing conditions of the day. No one would have accepted the restrictive travel policies and reinforced airplane cocpit doors expenditures and the Feds taking over airport security pre-9/11.

At least Bush went after the terrorists at their base : in Afghanistan. He disrupted them enough that no more attacks have, thus far, occurred. Clinton lobbed a few missiles and called it a day.

[sam i am]

Hate to be repetitive, but I explained why that was.

You have observed Mr. Gore recently haven't you?

Yes. So?

Think he'd win in '08? Against the characters of Obama & Hillary?

Good luck.

[FunkyHiFi]

Check this out: both those videos I linked to above are now gone BUT other TV Funhouse episodes that aren't political are still there (FYI: I didn't check every one - just did a quick sampling of five videos).

Things that make you go hmmm. :mad:

[sam i am]

Check this out: both those videos I linked to above are now gone BUT other TV Funhouse episodes that aren't political are still there (FYI: I didn't check every one - just did a quick sampling of five videos).

Things that make you go hmmm. :mad:

There was an article in my local paper about youtube coming to some kind of agreement with posters of such video. Guess that one didn't make anyone money posted on youtube, and thus got pulled.

[QueenAdrock]

Because there weren't any after the '93 bombing of the WTC.

I still fail to see the correlation between presidency (and policy) and lack of terrorism. I asked HOW the Presidents have kept terrorism off of our land. You seem to believe that they have some sort of influence over terrorist activity, I am arguing that they have no influence. Let me refer you to the Simpsons argument yet again for a refresher:

Homer: Ah, not a bear in sight. The Bear Patrol must be working like a charm!
Lisa: That's specious reasoning, Dad.
Homer: Thank you, honey.
Lisa: By your logic, I could claim that this rock keeps tigers away!
Homer: Uh-huh, and how does it work?
Lisa: It doesn't work.
Homer: Uh-huh.
Lisa: It's just a stupid rock.
Homer: Uh-huh.
Lisa: But I don't see any tigers around here, do you?
Homer: (Looks around) Lisa, I'd like to buy your rock.

See how silly it sounds?

[FunkyHiFi]

^ (y)

I have that episode on a 6 hour VHS tape (among many) that I've watched for years - every time I see that part I want to write that exact quote for discussions like this.

The Simpsons series deserves some kind of trophy for its "stealth" education concerning countless political and social issues (not to mention giving much classic rock/pop music a fresh place to be heard, even if sometimes only small snippets of it).

[sam i am]

See : Patriot Act, etc. for Bush's way of "handling" terrorism.

Countless reports have been out, after the fact, of cells arrested and broken up that were plotting attacks in the US.

Facts.