On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 12:54:00 -0800, "Calif Bill"
wrote:


"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...
"BAR" wrote in message
news
wrote:
On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 14:09:05 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"BAR" wrote in message
...
HK wrote:
Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
have lost touch with America, read this.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0108/7888.html

Unbelievable.
The Bush legacy includes 9-11, the Katrina aftermath, torture,
secret energy policies, Halliburton, signing statements, Gonzales,
no WMDs, Blackwater, 4,000 US troops dead, tens of thousands
seriously
wounded or ill, recession, housing meltdown, 40 million without
health insurance, incredible national debt.
And not one successful attack on the US by Followers of Islam.

Every observer of recent history attributes the lack of attacks to
something else. What do YOU attribute it to? Please don't say "the war
on terror". That's too general. Please offer 2-3 specific actions that
you feel have prevented an attack on U.S. soil.

The war on terror is a global war. Not having an attack on US soil for
a period of time is pretty much meaningless. You haven't eliminated or
even subtantially reduced risk to US soil until you have eliminated
terrorism worldwide. If you claim that's not the mission, or that that
is not possible, then you are stating that the war on terror is
unwinnable. If you want to be picky, and only think you need to worry
specifically about Americans, their are thousands of American citizens
all over the world who are also at risk from terrorists.

The war on terrorism is not winnable. Terrorism by its own nature can
rise and fall as the clouds go by. What you have to do is make examples
of those who become terrorists. Summary executions will help. You can't
fight the war on terrorism with paper.




OK. But, you said the Bush legacy includes not one successful attack on
the US by followers of Islam.

This positive thing didn't happen just because Bush is the president. You
need to connect it with physical measures taken to prevent the attacks.
Can you name 2-3 measures which you believe prevented us from being
attacked?


According to You and Harry, 9/11 happened because of Bush as hit happened on
his watch. Conversely, since no attacks on US soil have succeeded durings
Bush's watch since 9/11. Bush is the reason we have been safe. Fill in
your rant he


They can easily counter that argument, to wit: 9/11 was Clinton's fault.

Hah! You lost that one.
--
John H

"John H." wrote in message
...
On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 12:54:00 -0800, "Calif Bill"

wrote:


"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...
"BAR" wrote in message
news wrote:
On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 14:09:05 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"BAR" wrote in message
...
HK wrote:
Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
have lost touch with America, read this.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0108/7888.html

Unbelievable.
The Bush legacy includes 9-11, the Katrina aftermath, torture,
secret energy policies, Halliburton, signing statements, Gonzales,
no WMDs, Blackwater, 4,000 US troops dead, tens of thousands
seriously
wounded or ill, recession, housing meltdown, 40 million without
health insurance, incredible national debt.
And not one successful attack on the US by Followers of Islam.

Every observer of recent history attributes the lack of attacks to
something else. What do YOU attribute it to? Please don't say "the
war
on terror". That's too general. Please offer 2-3 specific actions
that
you feel have prevented an attack on U.S. soil.

The war on terror is a global war. Not having an attack on US soil for
a period of time is pretty much meaningless. You haven't eliminated or
even subtantially reduced risk to US soil until you have eliminated
terrorism worldwide. If you claim that's not the mission, or that that
is not possible, then you are stating that the war on terror is
unwinnable. If you want to be picky, and only think you need to worry
specifically about Americans, their are thousands of American citizens
all over the world who are also at risk from terrorists.

The war on terrorism is not winnable. Terrorism by its own nature can
rise and fall as the clouds go by. What you have to do is make examples
of those who become terrorists. Summary executions will help. You can't
fight the war on terrorism with paper.




OK. But, you said the Bush legacy includes not one successful attack on
the US by followers of Islam.

This positive thing didn't happen just because Bush is the president.
You
need to connect it with physical measures taken to prevent the attacks.
Can you name 2-3 measures which you believe prevented us from being
attacked?


According to You and Harry, 9/11 happened because of Bush as hit happened
on
his watch. Conversely, since no attacks on US soil have succeeded durings
Bush's watch since 9/11. Bush is the reason we have been safe. Fill in
your rant he


They can easily counter that argument, to wit: 9/11 was Clinton's fault.

Hah! You lost that one.
--
John H

Most likely. But there were a lot of people here claiming 9/11 was Bush's
fault as he had the watch.

On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 13:33:20 -0800, "Calif Bill"
wrote:


"John H." wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 12:54:00 -0800, "Calif Bill"

wrote:


"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...
"BAR" wrote in message
news wrote:
On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 14:09:05 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"BAR" wrote in message
...
HK wrote:
Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
have lost touch with America, read this.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0108/7888.html

Unbelievable.
The Bush legacy includes 9-11, the Katrina aftermath, torture,
secret energy policies, Halliburton, signing statements, Gonzales,
no WMDs, Blackwater, 4,000 US troops dead, tens of thousands
seriously
wounded or ill, recession, housing meltdown, 40 million without
health insurance, incredible national debt.
And not one successful attack on the US by Followers of Islam.

Every observer of recent history attributes the lack of attacks to
something else. What do YOU attribute it to? Please don't say "the
war
on terror". That's too general. Please offer 2-3 specific actions
that
you feel have prevented an attack on U.S. soil.

The war on terror is a global war. Not having an attack on US soil for
a period of time is pretty much meaningless. You haven't eliminated or
even subtantially reduced risk to US soil until you have eliminated
terrorism worldwide. If you claim that's not the mission, or that that
is not possible, then you are stating that the war on terror is
unwinnable. If you want to be picky, and only think you need to worry
specifically about Americans, their are thousands of American citizens
all over the world who are also at risk from terrorists.

The war on terrorism is not winnable. Terrorism by its own nature can
rise and fall as the clouds go by. What you have to do is make examples
of those who become terrorists. Summary executions will help. You can't
fight the war on terrorism with paper.




OK. But, you said the Bush legacy includes not one successful attack on
the US by followers of Islam.

This positive thing didn't happen just because Bush is the president.
You
need to connect it with physical measures taken to prevent the attacks.
Can you name 2-3 measures which you believe prevented us from being
attacked?


According to You and Harry, 9/11 happened because of Bush as hit happened
on
his watch. Conversely, since no attacks on US soil have succeeded durings
Bush's watch since 9/11. Bush is the reason we have been safe. Fill in
your rant he


They can easily counter that argument, to wit: 9/11 was Clinton's fault.

Hah! You lost that one.
--
John H

Most likely. But there were a lot of people here claiming 9/11 was Bush's
fault as he had the watch.


That means nothing. Expediency is what matters.
--
John H

"Calif Bill" wrote in message
...



Most likely. But there were a lot of people here claiming 9/11 was Bush's
fault as he had the watch.


9/11 was Osama bin Laden's fault.

Eisboch

On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 18:53:39 -0500, Eisboch wrote:


9/11 was Osama bin Laden's fault.

Eisboch

100% true, but did you think 6 years later he would still be out and
about? I would argue *that* is Bush's fault.

wrote:
On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 18:53:39 -0500, Eisboch wrote:


9/11 was Osama bin Laden's fault.

Eisboch

100% true, but did you think 6 years later he would still be out and
about? I would argue *that* is Bush's fault.

What would you have done differently to capture OBL? Don't tell me how
Bush screwed it up and that the Democrats would have done it better.
What actions would you Thunder have taken to track down OBL and capture
or kill him?

"BAR" wrote in message
. ..
wrote:
On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 18:53:39 -0500, Eisboch wrote:


9/11 was Osama bin Laden's fault.

Eisboch

100% true, but did you think 6 years later he would still be out and
about? I would argue *that* is Bush's fault.

What would you have done differently to capture OBL? Don't tell me how
Bush screwed it up and that the Democrats would have done it better. What
actions would you Thunder have taken to track down OBL and capture or kill
him?


If I were president, my overall "flavor" would've been "**** national
borders". If I think he's in your country, it's not your country until OBL
is mine.

Nothing wrong with that. Bush did it, but not to catch OBL.

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...
"BAR" wrote in message
. ..
wrote:
On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 18:53:39 -0500, Eisboch wrote:


9/11 was Osama bin Laden's fault.

Eisboch

100% true, but did you think 6 years later he would still be out and
about? I would argue *that* is Bush's fault.

What would you have done differently to capture OBL? Don't tell me how
Bush screwed it up and that the Democrats would have done it better. What
actions would you Thunder have taken to track down OBL and capture or
kill him?


If I were president, my overall "flavor" would've been "**** national
borders". If I think he's in your country, it's not your country until OBL
is mine.

Gee. You are actually starting to sound like GWB ..... only worse.

Eisboch

On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 19:50:05 -0500, BAR wrote:

wrote:
On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 18:53:39 -0500, Eisboch wrote:


9/11 was Osama bin Laden's fault.

Eisboch

100% true, but did you think 6 years later he would still be out and
about? I would argue *that* is Bush's fault.

What would you have done differently to capture OBL? Don't tell me how
Bush screwed it up and that the Democrats would have done it better.
What actions would you Thunder have taken to track down OBL and capture
or kill him?

Two things I can think of right off the top of my head, I wouldn't of
been sidetracked by invading Iraq, or do you actually think there were
WMD? Secondly, I would have kept the man who murdered 3000 Americans a
priority.

"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care.
It's not that important. It's not our priority."
- G.W. Bush, 3/13/02

"I am truly not that concerned about him."
- G.W. Bush, repsonding to a question about bin Laden's whereabouts,
3/13/02 (The New American, 4/8/02)

Perhaps, you think differently, but I think the strongest statement that
can be make in this "War on Terror" is to track down those that attacked
us.

wrote in message
...
On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 19:50:05 -0500, BAR wrote:

wrote:
On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 18:53:39 -0500, Eisboch wrote:


9/11 was Osama bin Laden's fault.

Eisboch

100% true, but did you think 6 years later he would still be out and
about? I would argue *that* is Bush's fault.

What would you have done differently to capture OBL? Don't tell me how
Bush screwed it up and that the Democrats would have done it better.
What actions would you Thunder have taken to track down OBL and capture
or kill him?

Two things I can think of right off the top of my head, I wouldn't of
been sidetracked by invading Iraq, or do you actually think there were
WMD? Secondly, I would have kept the man who murdered 3000 Americans a
priority.

"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care.
It's not that important. It's not our priority."
- G.W. Bush, 3/13/02

"I am truly not that concerned about him."
- G.W. Bush, repsonding to a question about bin Laden's whereabouts,
3/13/02 (The New American, 4/8/02)

Perhaps, you think differently, but I think the strongest statement that
can be make in this "War on Terror" is to track down those that attacked
us.


Have you ever considered that bin Laden, as an individual, is *not*
important. What is important is the world-wide, religiously based uprising
against anything or anybody not believing in fundamental Islam. Bin Laden
may be a vocal centerpiece and symbol, but he by himself is not that
important.

It would be good to get him for symbolic reasons, but if bin Laden was
discovered dead tomorrow, nothing much would change.

Bush may actually have his eye on the ball. It's the public that may be
looking for a simplistic solution.

Eisboch