Let's Just Take Out Iran's Launchpads!!!!
U.S. says Iran nuclear response not enough
WASHINGTON - The United States said on Wednesday that Iran's request for talks fell short of the U.N. Security Council's demand for it to halt its nuclear program.
Washington, in its first reaction to Iran's reply, did not reject Tehran's response outright. It said it would review it.
French Foreign Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy at the United Nations in New York, August 11, 2006. Douste-Blazy described the Iran's nuclear reply as "a very long, complex document" and said the six powers would decide in a few days what to do in the Security Council.
The White House said it was consulting closely with other Council members over what steps to take and France said Iran's offer of talks could only be accepted if it first halted uranium enrichment.
.......................Iranian President Lunatic
"We acknowledge that Iran considers its response as a serious offer and we will review it," White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said.
"The response, however, falls short of the conditions set by the Security Council which require the full and verifiable suspension of all enrichment-related and reprocessing activities."
Iran handed over its formal response on Tuesday to a nuclear incentives offer from major powers and said it contained ideas that would allow serious talks about its standoff with the West to start immediately.
Tehran gave no sign of heeding a key United Nations Security Council demand that it freeze uranium enrichment by Aug. 31 or face the prospect of sanctions.
The enrichment work can be used to make fuel for nuclear power plants or material for warheads.
The five permanent Council members -- Britain, China, France, Russia and the United States -- plus Germany offered Iran economic and other incentives to stop enrichment.
Analysts say Iran's answer, described by diplomats as complex and nuanced, was probably designed to divide Security Council members Russia and China, both key trade partners of Tehran, from the United States, Britain and France, which have backed tougher sanctions. All five have a veto on the Council.
French Foreign Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy said earlier that world powers, who fear Iran aims to make nuclear bombs, were ready to take up Iran's call for talks only if it first suspends uranium enrichment.
"As we have always said ... a return to the negotiating table is tied to the suspension of uranium enrichment," he told a news conference in Paris.
Read Full Story Here
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Cant we just skip all these stupid UN resolutions and just take out Iran's launchpad's? This is getting to be a real threat here, and Ahmadinejad, is becoming more of a pain in the ass every day!
WASHINGTON - The United States said on Wednesday that Iran's request for talks fell short of the U.N. Security Council's demand for it to halt its nuclear program.
Washington, in its first reaction to Iran's reply, did not reject Tehran's response outright. It said it would review it.
French Foreign Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy at the United Nations in New York, August 11, 2006. Douste-Blazy described the Iran's nuclear reply as "a very long, complex document" and said the six powers would decide in a few days what to do in the Security Council.
The White House said it was consulting closely with other Council members over what steps to take and France said Iran's offer of talks could only be accepted if it first halted uranium enrichment.
.......................Iranian President Lunatic
"We acknowledge that Iran considers its response as a serious offer and we will review it," White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said.
"The response, however, falls short of the conditions set by the Security Council which require the full and verifiable suspension of all enrichment-related and reprocessing activities."
Iran handed over its formal response on Tuesday to a nuclear incentives offer from major powers and said it contained ideas that would allow serious talks about its standoff with the West to start immediately.
Tehran gave no sign of heeding a key United Nations Security Council demand that it freeze uranium enrichment by Aug. 31 or face the prospect of sanctions.
The enrichment work can be used to make fuel for nuclear power plants or material for warheads.
The five permanent Council members -- Britain, China, France, Russia and the United States -- plus Germany offered Iran economic and other incentives to stop enrichment.
Analysts say Iran's answer, described by diplomats as complex and nuanced, was probably designed to divide Security Council members Russia and China, both key trade partners of Tehran, from the United States, Britain and France, which have backed tougher sanctions. All five have a veto on the Council.
French Foreign Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy said earlier that world powers, who fear Iran aims to make nuclear bombs, were ready to take up Iran's call for talks only if it first suspends uranium enrichment.
"As we have always said ... a return to the negotiating table is tied to the suspension of uranium enrichment," he told a news conference in Paris.
Read Full Story Here
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Cant we just skip all these stupid UN resolutions and just take out Iran's launchpad's? This is getting to be a real threat here, and Ahmadinejad, is becoming more of a pain in the ass every day!
posted by Marie's Two Cents | 6:24 AM
29 Comments:
The Iranians are using our own media and defeatist left against us. They percieve the weak and squishy left has accomplished in just a few years what they couldn't in their wildest dreams since 1979. They see that the left in this country would rather see Iran have a nuke than to confront them toe to toe eye to eye because the left doesn't understand how the world works.
The left lives in a utopian state of mind and believe the Irananians will negotiate in good faith and stick to an agreement if we promise to wring our hands and not attack them and even buy their pistachios.
Time and time again this type of weakness gets us attacked and it encourges our enemies to plan our destrucion because they know that we have the John Kerrys, Ted Kennedys, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reids who faint when it is time to stand up.
If we are negotiating from a weak position it's the left that has brought this on with their constant anti American rhetoric. OK I'll say it. You stupid liberals have become so much of a liability that there is no discerable difference between you and the people that flew the planes into the towers and into the Pentagon because of constant weakknee carping. A pox on all your houses.
It used to be that Americans spoke with one voice when we got attacked. My how things have changed since short term political gain has become more important than the future
of the Nation as a whole. Spell this - UNPATRIOTIC!
Things have been made so much more difficult because the hate these people have for George Bush trumps every bit of common sense.
JG,
Very well said!
You hit the nail right on the head.
Brilliant Post!
Thanks Marie, I've about had it with all the obstruction by people interested only in short term political gain. If we don't get a handle on this the country will be in more danger than we've known since WWII. Our enemies are very focused and very determined to destroy us and our own countrymen make it much more difficult than it has to be defending ourselves. I'm very angry at that self serving and very dangerous attitude.
After the 9/11 attacks, the country stood solidly behind Bush. That included liberals. You seem to have forgotten that the country, including liberals, stood behind and supported Bush in his plan to go after Al Qaeda in Afghanistan. We were united and supported the president.
Before Bush finished the job and then allowed bin Laden to escape from Tora Bora, the administration planned on an invasion of Iraq, which it turns out had no WMDs, and as Bush just admitted a few days ago, HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH 9/11!
We diverted our resources in fighting the terrorists to Iraq and it's weakend paper tiger dictator.
And that's when there was a disagreement on going to war.
It turns out that those who disagreed with the invasion were correct.
We've gotten nothing out of it except paying out $1 billion dollars a week, the loss of treasure and blood, and allowing Iran to be strengthened by taking out its arch enemy, Saddam, and having a Shiite majority installed. The Iranians' dream come true. Plus our presence in the ME is a terrorist's recruiting dream come true. Great.
Go educate yourself before you blame the liberals for Bush's Fiasco.
The liberals have absolutely no power in this country. None. How does the opposition implement any sort of plan without the power within the administration to do so? Blaming others for Bush's failures isn't going to work. The American people already see the horrible consequences of Bush's folly.
What happened in Iraq and the consequences of this monumental mistake is all a function of Bush and his administration's incompetence.
Go blame someone else for Bush's blunders, it's what people who can't take responsiblity for their actions always do.
We have the most powerful military in the world. Why didn't Rumsfeld use it? Why did he insist on a small invasion? Why? Why didn't they plan for the ensuing chaos? Why.
We could have won in Iraq. But it was the Bush administration that decided to go in with a small force to accomplish a monumental task. And now we're seeing how wrong that was.
The liberals didn't make the choice to go into Iraq with an inadequate number of troops, the Bushitas did.
The liberals are angry that so many brave men and women had to perish as a result of Bush/Cheney/Rummy/Rice incompetence.
They are the ones you should be angry with.
That's some pretty fancy usage of those big words there purple. Does your Mom know you talk like that around the adults?
You still don't get it liberal lady. The liberals still occupy nearly half of the seats in both houses of Congress. The Conservative majority is only in the House. Liberals have enough power to be obstructionists and they are giving it all they have. This is unprecedented in the history of our nation that one side of the Congress has decided it is better to obstruct the progress in the "war on terror" than to become active participants and lend a hand at helping out.
I'm impressed with your knowledge of military tactics, what year did you go to War College? I'm sure Mr. Rumsfeld could use a person like you on his staff with the knowledge that you possess. That’s exactly what I mean, when someone like Mrs. Green has such a great knowledge on military strategy then make a contribution and volunteer it to help out. Don’t just sit on the sidelines call up the DoD and tell them what they’re doing wrong. I’m sure they will be glad to hear from you. You may be an expert on the military Mrs. Green but you sure are lost when it comes to politics in the Congress.
I served 10 years of my life in the military little purple fella. I’ve done more than my share of protecting this country so you can use your ignorant and foul mouth freely. I don’t ask anything for it except to support the men and women fighting the war we are in now. Mouthing “I support the troops and not the war” isn’t going to cut it. The troops want us to be behind them all the way. They wan to win this thing and then come home. Send a Soldier, Airmen, Sailor or Marine a care package and to say Thank You instead of F---K You!
JG,
Thanks Marie, I've about had it with all the obstruction by people interested only in short term political gain. If we don't get a handle on this the country will be in more danger than we've known since WWII.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
We already are! The Liberals just dont want to believe it until Habib blows himself up in thier front yard!
And even then they would say: "The Government should have provided Habib with mental counciling"
Mrs. Green,
After the 9/11 attacks, the country stood solidly behind Bush. That included liberals. You seem to have forgotten that the country, including liberals, stood behind and supported Bush in his plan to go after Al Qaeda in Afghanistan. We were united and supported the president.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
And we did go after them in Afghanistan, Usama isnt there anymore, HE IS IN A CAVE IN PAKISTAN! Presumably making love with his donkey.
Now it is a NATO mission.
You guys maybe for a second were behind the President, and then you guys had this brilliant idea that we attacked our own Country! P'Shaw! Just because you were still pissed off about the 2000 election.
Before Bush finished the job and then allowed bin Laden to escape from Tora Bora, the administration planned on an invasion of Iraq, which it turns out had no WMDs, and as Bush just admitted a few days ago, HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH 9/11!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Well maybe if the previous administration would have gotten Bin Laden when the Sudan tried to hand him over to Clinton 3 TIMES we wouldnt have had to go ANYWHERE, there would have been no 9-11, and we wouldnt be in Iraq which is part of the "Global War On Terror".
Bin Laden decalred his "Jihad" on America in 1998! Under Clinton's watch! But did Clinton do anything about him? Hell NO! Clinton was to busy poking Monica with a Cigar to be bothered with Bin Laden.
Had Clinton divoted resources to get Bin Laden instead of sending missiles into an Asprin factory, none of this would have happened.
Instead of going after Al-Quaeda during the Clinton administration, instead of sending our troops to KOSOVO who never attacked us, and tearing down the Military and bringing it up to speed to combat terrorism, instead of fighting the cold war which was no longer in existance, we got attacked repeatedly. Kohbar Towers, WTC 1993, USS Cole just to name a few.
Dont tell me about wasted resources, had Clinton done his job, we wouldnt be dealing with any of this crap!
We've gotten nothing out of it except paying out $1 billion dollars a week, the loss of treasure and blood, and allowing Iran to be strengthened by taking out its arch enemy, Saddam, and having a Shiite majority installed. The Iranians' dream come true. Plus our presence in the ME is a terrorist's recruiting dream come true. Great.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The Iranians have been gaining thier strength since 1978 when then President Jimmy Carter let the Iranians play around with our hostages for 444 days!
But when a Republican was about to enter office PRESIDENT RONALD WILSON REAGAN said he wasnt going to play around with them and sure enough as Reagan was getting sworn in, the hostages were in the air, you know why? Because Republicans don play around when it comes to National Security.
So dont hand me IRAN just got this new-found strength, it's just a new voice from an old hostage taker, who just happens to be the President of Iran now.
Go educate yourself before you blame the liberals for Bush's Fiasco.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You better go educate yourself on all the screw ups Liberals have made on National Security, the FDR's of this Country are GONE! Wiped out by flakes like you who are all beholden to George Soros now!
The liberals have absolutely no power in this country. None. How does the opposition implement any sort of plan without the power within the administration to do so? Blaming others for Bush's failures isn't going to work. The American people already see the horrible consequences of Bush's folly.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Oh sure you do, you guys fillibuster everything, you try like hell to take away the tools we need to fight the terrorists, and as Harry Reid famously said "We Killed the Patriot Act" which was a needed tool in this fight against the people that want ALL of us DEAD, not just one person, EVERYONE Republican and Democrat alike, boy you Liberals have alot to be proud of!
What happened in Iraq and the consequences of this monumental mistake is all a function of Bush and his administration's incompetence.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
What happened in Iraq? The Iraqi's have had 3 major elections with a higher voter turnout than WE HAVE, they have an elected government, they are free, and the tyrant that slaughtered millions of people, "Saddam" is out of power. I hardly call that incompetance!!
What did Clinton do? Sent a few Cruise missiles into an asprin factory!
Please, the only one incompetant was Clinton, and the entire previous Liberal administration.
Liberals just cant be trusted with our National Security!!
They dont know or understand how to protect us and you know it, and the people of this Country know it.
Liberals have enough power to be obstructionists and they are giving it all they have.--jg
Please provide me evidence on how the liberals in the Senate or the House are obstructing the Bush administration in doing exactly what it wants to do in Iraq. How are the liberals interfering with Donald Rumsfeld. Please give me specifics and not generalization. I want proof for your assertions.
This is unprecedented in the history of our nation that one side of the Congress has decided it is better to obstruct the progress in the "war on terror" than to become active participants and lend a hand at helping out.--jg
You've got a conveniently faulty memory. On December 13, 1995, the House, under the control of Speaker Gingrich, considered HR 2770. This bill, a “prohibition of funds for deployment of Armed Forces in Bosnia,” was introduced by Rep. Bob Dornan (R-CA). Many leading Republicans, such as Tom DeLay, Dennis Hastert, Bill Thomas, Duncan Hunter and Henry Hyde, voted to cut-off funds for the military action while troops were deployed in Bosnia. In fact, 82% of Republicans voted to cut off the funds while troops were deployed in Bosnia.
Unprecedent, eh? Yeah. Right. While we were at war, while our troops were fighting, conservatives VOTED TO CUT OFF FUNDING!!
I'm impressed with your knowledge of military tactics, what year did you go to War College? I'm sure Mr. Rumsfeld could use a person like you on his staff with the knowledge that you possess. That’s exactly what I mean, when someone like Mrs. Green has such a great knowledge on military strategy then make a contribution and volunteer it to help out. Don’t just sit on the sidelines call up the DoD and tell them what they’re doing wrong. I’m sure they will be glad to hear from you. You may be an expert on the military Mrs. Green but you sure are lost when it comes to politics in the Congress.
Nice snark. Doesn't work. The fact that there weren't enough troops in Iraq to do the job is held by many high ranking military people. I'm just repeating it. You can start with General Shenseki. He was right. General Zinni, he was right. And many others.
There is nothing our military could not accomplish. It is the mightiest since the Roman Empire. How is it, then, that we could not contain the insurgency in Iraq?
NOT. ENOUGH. TROOPS. NO PLANNING FOR AFTER THE INVASION. 3 years into the war and there is no security in the most densely populated regions. Baghdad is in flames.
Blame the liberals all you like, history will not treat Bush and his administration well. It is already happening.
Blaming liberals for Bush's mistakes isn't working.
A majority of Americans do not approve of his handling of the war.
This just in, jg,
Gen. Batiste: Rumsfeld ‘Served Up Our Great Military A Huge Bowl of Chicken Feces’
Today on MSNBC, retired General John Batiste — former commander of the First Infantry division in Iraq — said that it was “outrageous” Rumsfeld was still in charge of the Pentagon. Batiste added, “He served up our great military a huge bowl of chicken feces, and ever since then, our military and our country have been trying to turn this bowl into chicken salad.”
Marie's two cents...Had Clinton divoted resources to get Bin Laden instead of sending missiles into an Asprin factory, none of this would have happened.
The Sudan had him, they actually had Bin laden in their hands and Clinton told them he didn't want him. Now there's a good reason for blowing up their aspirin factory. The only thing Clinton accomplished was killing an innocent janitor keeping the place clean. My friend Effy used to call the Clinton gang "the gang that couldn't shoot straight".
Bill Clinton loathed the military and Hillary treated the White House Naval attachés like they were busboys and was seen by the staff dressing them down because of their service in the military. That will make her a great leader for the armed forces huh?
Bin Laden got away at Tora Bora because he is slick and it was a difficult place to seal up in the best of conditions but the firefight that happened there that day was fierce and many Taliban were killed or buried by a couple of thousand pounders that scored direct hits on the Taliban possitons. Even with a full scale invasion of the entire region there would still be no guarantee they would of been able to capture or kill Bin Laden. Anyone that says anything different is just reapeating bilge that is put out by some liberal focus group.
It makes me so angry when ignorant people try and justify completely innacurate and unrealistic statements about military engagements. There are no guarantees that anyone will survive a fierce battle like that let alone sneak away while you leave your underlings to sacrifice their lives. If Osama had any belief in his own words he would have stood his ground and died like the rest of them did that day in Tora Bora.
There's still a lot of work to do, this isn't some nintendo game with contollers you shove under the couch when you get tired. It's hard, nasty, dirty warfare and keeping the pressure on the enemy day and night to defeat him is the only way we can win this. Carping by uninformed repeaters of misinformation isn't going to get it.
While we were at war, while our troops were fighting, conservatives VOTED TO CUT OFF FUNDING!!
Nice Try Mrs. Green. Newty and the boys voted to cutoff funding for the US portion of the NATO peace keeping mission before there was one boot on the ground in Bosnia because they weren't satisfied that the Dayton accords had specified clearly enough that we would limit our troops to being peace keepers rather than fighting a full-fledged engagement. That was not a war like Iraq is a war for US ground troops. Bill Clinton used air power to fight the war in Bosnia and he aimed our missiles and sent bombs in from above the clouds at the Serbs. I’m not taking anything away from my Navy and the Air Force flyboys but we could of put our planes away to change the oil and check the air in the tires and let the lazy Europeans duke it out with the Serbs and the outcome would have still been the same. Until you have troops on the ground taking casualties it not a full engagement. I felt bad for the guys (but we got a laugh at the results) that accidentally blew up the Chinese embassy in Belgrade because Clinton had cut the intelligence budget to the bone and they had to use an outdated tourist map for targeting.
Clinton was so eager to have some kind of military legacy but he was so concerned that if we lost any troops his popularity would drop. That's no way to fight a war. American ground troops were sent in to keep the peace and rebuild the infrastructure.
Funding was finally released when guarantees where given that the ground troops would only be deployed for one year from the time the first units arrived in Bosnia on December 16th 1995. Warren Christopher was the Secretary of State at the time and was charged with coming up with this Dayton Accord but he didn’t believe in it and right afterwards he resigned and Madeline Albright came to as Secretary of State. Then you had the three blind mice, Albright, William Cohen Secretary of Defense and Sandy Berger as National security advisor. (Yes, the same Sandy Berger that was stuffing his pants with incriminating classified documents at the library of Congress during the 9/11 Commission Hearings to hide the ineptitude of the Clinton administration’s to protect us from attacks from terrorists like Bin laden)
To top that off for the first time in an unprecedented decision by the Clinton administration, US Troops were forced to come under the command of foreign commanders and forced to wear UN insignias on their uniforms instead of American flags. This did not sit well with us in the US military community and we still consider Bill Clinton a phony baloney that tried to make himself look good on the backs of the very people he loathed so much.
You’re all washed up again. Mrs. Green. It would be better for you to go and harangue some people trying to make a living cutting down trees or hunting animals for food and sport or try to convince someone that my SUV is causing global warming because you certainly haven’t convinced anyone that you understand anything about fighting wars or the politics that go with it. Ehh, maybe you should stick around and listen to people that understand these matters and maybe you might learn something.
which it turns out had no WMDs,
Too simplistic. But that's the liberal mantra, now.
and as Bush just admitted a few days ago, HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH 9/11!
Which is to refute a liberal fabrication that President Bush ever said Iraq and Saddam had a hand in 9/11. What you neglected to mention is his reclarification of why Iraq was part of the greater war on terrorism. That's the connection. And liberals always confuse links between Iraq and al Qaeda as synonymous with "Saddam responsible for 9/11". They are two different arguments.
A majority of Americans do not approve of his handling of the war.
ROFL...like that's supposed to mean anything to me....do you just toss that into every comment-post you make? What is that...like your message board signature/banner or something?
Yes there have been plenty of mistakes made during this war as there is with every war.
Imagine the liberals of today responding to the news of the Civil war or WWI and WWII. How would they have responded to the tactics of Union Army under George McClelland when they had an obvious overwhelming firepower and he refused to attack?
Maybe the liberals of today would look back and see some really extreme screw ups like what happened at "The Somme", “Verdun” or "Gallipoli" where hundreds of thousands lost their lives in a matter of days not years. Do you think the liberal press could possibly get that right?
There were some major malfunctions on the Normandy D-Day invasion when the 101st Airborne troops were dropped miles away from their drop zones right into the teeth of the German army. They took huge casualties but they managed to cover many of their assignments.
What do you think the liberals of today would do or say if our Bombers dropped bombs right on our own troops (30th division) and killed one of our top generals (LT General Leslie McNair) as what happened at St LO in France just after the Normandy invasion not just once but two days in a row!
I could go on but what is the point when the only thing liberals understand is that this is such an inconvenience for them. Imagine, the US Military being used to wage war to protect the nation from terrorists and fighting them on the ground of our choosing. It’s unthinkable to them because they have no concept or perspective of what is actually going on.
I wonder how the liberals would like it if one of their wine and cheese tasting “crawls” were interrupted by a battalion of Hezbollah, al Qaeda and Taliban fighters on Fire Island, Provincetown or Marta's Vineyard. I suppose them “wood be fighten werds! Or more likely “that would make then terribly upset and they would then have to consider calling their attorneys to see what could be done to put a stop to this barbaric behavior.
I don’t need Karl Rove or anyone else for that matter to tell me because I know all too well what elitist liberal pompousness looks and sounds like.
Thanks for the forum Marie, I'm just getting warmed up.
JG,
Marie's two cents...Had Clinton divoted resources to get Bin Laden instead of sending missiles into an Asprin factory, none of this would have happened.
The Sudan had him, they actually had Bin laden in their hands and Clinton told them he didn't want him. Now there's a good reason for blowing up their aspirin factory. The only thing Clinton accomplished was killing an innocent janitor keeping the place clean. My friend Effy used to call the Clinton gang "the gang that couldn't shoot straight".
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
It is a sickening thought to me that Clinton could have put a stop to this whole mess, yet he passed it on for future President's to handle.
Thank God President Bush was that future President!
Mrs. Green,
Gen. Batiste: Rumsfeld ‘Served Up Our Great Military A Huge Bowl of Chicken Feces’
Today on MSNBC, retired General John Batiste — former commander of the First Infantry division in Iraq — said that it was “outrageous” Rumsfeld was still in charge of the Pentagon. Batiste added, “He served up our great military a huge bowl of chicken feces, and ever since then, our military and our country have been trying to turn this bowl into chicken salad.”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Batiste is one of 7 or 8 Generals that were left over from the Clinton administration that have an axe to grind with Secretary Rumsfeld and President Bush for political gain only. I wouldnt take thier word for anything Mrs. Green, when there are 4000 4 star Generals who dont agree with those 7 or 8 Generals.
Bush made a mistake alright, he should have cleaned out all the waste leftovers from the Clinton administration.
You should stay away from "Nutball" with Chris Matthews, he will melt your brain!
Seaspook,
The problem is liberalism and political correctness which liberalism has infected society with is the reasons for the above.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Thank You, I am so glad Military people such as yourself and JG enter this blog and add wisdom to it and not distortion!!!
Word,
ROFL...like that's supposed to mean anything to me....do you just toss that into every comment-post you make? What is that...like your message board signature/banner or something?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
LOL, Mrs. Green does tend to use that line alot doesnt she?
JG,
Imagine the liberals of today responding to the news of the Civil war or WWI and WWII. How would they have responded to the tactics of Union Army under George McClelland when they had an obvious overwhelming firepower and he refused to attack?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
It's sad the day's of FDR are OVER!
FDR said once before we got drug into WW2 litterally "This Country thinks the problems going on over in Europe arent our business, I say then what is"?
FDR also stood up from his wheelchair when he had polio and looked everyone in his cabinet straight in the eyes and said "Dont tell me it cant be done"!
Liberals dont even remember what it was like to be united against the enemy.
JG,
Thanks for the forum Marie, I'm just getting warmed up.
LOL go for it!
Glad to have you aboard! :-)
My friend Effy used to call the Clinton gang "the gang that couldn't shoot straight".
LOL! No, my friend, that's actually Big Dick Cheney. LOL!
Almost 6 years into the Bush administration and holding all the power in all three branches of government and you guys still blame Clinton for Bush's failures? LOL!
Mrs. Green,
LOL! No, my friend, that's actually Big Dick Cheney. LOL!
Almost 6 years into the Bush administration and holding all the power in all three branches of government and you guys still blame Clinton for Bush's failures? LOL!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Get a grip on yourself you sound like a third grader.
Even the Democrats know Clinton should have and could have gotten Bin Laden, Grow Up!
jg said:
"Liberals have enough power to be obstructionists and they are giving it all they have.--jg"
Please provide me evidence on how the liberals in the Senate or the House are obstructing the Bush administration in doing exactly what it wants to do in Iraq. How are the liberals interfering with Donald Rumsfeld. Please give me specifics and not generalization. I want proof for your assertions.
Still waiting...
So Bill Clinton's responsible for not capturing bin Laden? I see. But it appears that when the war hero, Bush, had bin Laden on the run, bin Laden escaped too! Nasty business, hunting down terrorist and getting it right, isn't it?
Now let me hear how it was Bill Clinton's fault for not getting bin Laden at Tora Bora.
U.S. Concludes Bin Laden Escaped at Tora Bora Fight
Failure to Send Troops in Pursuit Termed Major Error
By Barton Gellman and Thomas E. Ricks
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, April 17, 2002; Page A01
The Bush administration has concluded that Osama bin Laden was present during the battle for Tora Bora late last year and that failure to commit U.S. ground troops to hunt him was its gravest error in the war against al Qaeda, according to civilian and military officials with first-hand knowledge.
Intelligence officials have assembled what they believe to be decisive evidence, from contemporary and subsequent interrogations and intercepted communications, that bin Laden began the battle of Tora Bora inside the cave complex along Afghanistan's mountainous eastern border. Though there remains a remote chance that he died there, the intelligence community is persuaded that bin Laden slipped away in the first 10 days of December.
•
After-action reviews, conducted privately inside and outside the military chain of command, describe the episode as a significant defeat for the United States. A common view among those interviewed outside the U.S. Central Command is that Army Gen. Tommy R. Franks, the war's operational commander, misjudged the interests of putative Afghan allies and let pass the best chance to capture or kill al Qaeda's leader.
A day-by-day account of how Osama bin Laden eluded the world's most powerful military machine.
By Philip Smucker | Special to The Christian Science Monitor
TORA BORA, AFGHANISTAN - All 1,000 of the regional tribal leaders rose to their feet and shouted " Zindibad, Osama!" ("Long Live Osama!").
Mr. bin Laden, with that speech, was laying his plans to stay a step ahead of the US campaign. He would travel to his favored fortified redoubt in Tora Bora, as the US expected him to, but he would also pave a way out. After his rousing speech, he bestowed cash gifts on key people who could later help him escape.
The US-led war in Afghanistan was going exceedingly well up to that point.
Newsweek
Aug. 15, 2005 issue - During the 2004 presidential campaign, George W. Bush and John Kerry battled about whether Osama bin Laden had escaped from Tora Bora in the final days of the war in Afghanistan. Bush, Kerry charged, "didn't choose to use American forces to hunt down and kill" the leader of Al Qaeda. The president called his opponent's allegation "the worst kind of Monday-morning quarterbacking." Bush asserted that U.S. commanders on the ground did not know if bin Laden was at the mountain hideaway along the Afghan border.
But in a forthcoming book, the CIA field commander for the agency's Jawbreaker team at Tora Bora, Gary Berntsen, says he and other U.S. commanders did know that bin Laden was among the hundreds of fleeing Qaeda and Taliban members. Berntsen says he had definitive intelligence that bin Laden was holed up at Tora Bora—intelligence operatives had tracked him—and could have been caught. "He was there," Berntsen tells NEWSWEEK. Asked to comment on Berntsen's remarks, National Security Council spokesman Frederick Jones passed on 2004 statements from former CENTCOM commander Gen. Tommy Franks. "We don't know to this day whether Mr. bin Laden was at Tora Bora in December 2001," Franks wrote in an Oct. 19 New York Times op-ed. "Bin Laden was never within our grasp." Berntsen says Franks is "a great American. But he was not on the ground out there. I was."
This is why it is so important that the news outlets have some smeblence of integrity. No one believes a word that is wrtten anymore by so-called maintream news outlets. You have the New york Times reporters being fired because of outright lies. Then you have the daily retratcions by Washington Post. Your story may or may not be true Mrs Green no one will ever be able to determine if the CIA agent was telling the or if the Newsweek story is a complete fabrication like so many times before.
When news oraganaztions are so intent to push a political agenda as the Washinton Post and New York Times are, in very real terms "at the outset of war the first casualty is the truth"
Too tired for any more responses today. This Conservative woman works the night shift to earn a living. It's time to forget about liberals and hope they will be gone when I wake up.
so, jg, your conservative media is always right?
I see.
Only so-called liberal media outlets tell lies and I'm sure you believe everything that, say, the Washington Times and other conservative media report is truthful and accurate?
And I'm sure you don't see how silly you are if you answer yes to those questions.
And, my friend, liberals will always be around. If, in your comment, you imply you wish us dead, shame on you.
We liberals are Americans, just like you. We are Americans who Karl Rove and his lackeys have demonized, and you've fallen for it. We work hard and under difficult conditions. Our children serve in the armed forces, and some of them died on 9/ll.
Yes.
It's hard for you to believe that liberal parents actually lost loved ones on that terrible day and that liberal parents want to see terrorism wiped out. But, you see, jg, we disagree on Bush's methods. That does not make us your enemy. You've fallen for Rove's game plan.
Hate your fellow Americans who hold a different point of view--divide and conquer. And keep one party in power.
That is not the American way. Why do you demonize someone you don't know? I'm an American like you and love my country just as you do.
Yes, at the outset of a war "truth is the first casualty." And it has never occurred to you that those who would not tell you the truth may be the very government you follow so blindly?
Blah, blah, blah... being a Christian and a conservative the only wish I have for you liberals is for you to wake up. The Alice in Wonderland thinking has not benefitted you and your kind as is readily apparent by your ongoing non-sensical blathering.
This year's Democratic plan for the future is another inane sound bite designed to trick American voters into trusting them with national security.
To wit, they're claiming there is no connection between the war on terror and the war in Iraq, and while they're all for the war against terror — absolutely in favor of that war — they are adamantly opposed to the Iraq war. You know, the war where the U.S. military is killing thousands upon thousands of terrorists (described in the media as "Iraqi civilians," even if they are from Jordan, like the now-dead leader of al-Qaida in Iraq, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi). That war.
As Howard Dean put it this week, "The occupation in Iraq is costing American lives and hampering our ability to fight the real global war on terror."
This would be like complaining that Roosevelt's war in Germany was hampering our ability to fight the real global war on fascism. Or anti-discrimination laws were hampering our ability to fight the real war on racism. Or dusting is hampering our ability to fight the real war on dust.
Maybe Dean is referring to a different globe, like Mars or Saturn, or one of those new planets they haven't named yet.
Assuming against all logic and reason that the Democrats have some serious objection to the war in Iraq, perhaps they could tell us which part of the war on terrorism they do support. That would be easier than rattling off the long list of counterterrorism measures they vehemently oppose.
They oppose the National Security Agency listening to people who are calling specific phone numbers found on al-Qaida cell phones and computers. Spying on al-Qaida terrorists is hampering our ability to fight the global war on terror!
Enraged that the Bush administration deferred to the safety of the American people rather than the obstructionist Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act court, one Clinton-appointed judge, James Robertson, resigned from the FISA court in protest over the NSA spying program.
Democratic Sen. Russell Feingold called for a formal Senate censure of President Bush when he found out the president was rude enough to be listening in on al-Qaida phone calls. (Wait until Feingold finds out the White House has been visiting Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's "MySpace" page!)
Last week a federal judge appointed by Jimmy Carter ruled the NSA program to surveil phone calls to al-Qaida members in other counties unconstitutional.
Democrats oppose the detainment of Taliban and al-Qaida soldiers at our military base in Guantanamo, Cuba. Democrats such as Rep. Jane Harman, the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, have called for Guantanamo to be shut down.
The Guantanamo detainees are not innocent insurance salesmen imprisoned in some horrible mix-up like something out of a Perry Mason movie. The detainees were captured on the battlefield in Afghanistan. You remember — the war liberals pretended to support right up until approximately one nanosecond after John Kerry conceded the 2004 election to President Bush.
But apparently, imprisoning al-Qaida warriors we catch on the battlefield is hampering our ability to fight the global war on terror.
Democratic Sen. Dick Durbin has compared Guantanamo to Nazi concentration camps and Soviet gulags, based on a report that some detainees were held in temperatures so cold that they shivered and others were forced to listen to loud rap music — more or less approximating the conditions in the green room at "The Tyra Banks Show." Also, one of the detainees was given a badminton racket that was warped.
New York Times columnist Bob Herbert complained this week that detainees in Guantanamo have "no hope of being allowed to prove their innocence." (I guess that's excluding the hundreds who have been given administrative hearings or released already.)
Of course all the usual "human rights" groups are carping about how brutally our servicemen in Guantanamo are treating the little darlings who are throwing feces at them.
Democrats oppose the Patriot Act, the most important piece of legislation passed since 9/11, designed to make the United States less of a theme park for would-be terrorists.
The vast majority of Senate Democrats (43-2) voted against renewing the Patriot Act last December, whereupon their minority leader, Sen. Harry Reid, boasted: "We killed the Patriot Act" — a rather unusual sentiment for a party so testy about killing terrorists.
In 2004, Sen. John Kerry — the man they wanted to be president — called the Patriot Act "an assault on our basic rights." At least all "basic rights" other than the one about not dying a horrible death at the hand of Islamic fascists. Yes, it was as if Congress had deliberately flown two commercial airliners into the twin towers of our Constitution.
They oppose profiling Muslims at airports.
They oppose every bust of a terrorist cell, sneering that the cells in Lackawanna, New York City, Miami, Chicago and London weren't a real threat like, say, a nondenominational prayer before a high school football game. Now that's a threat.
J_G said...
Blah, blah, blah... being a Christian and a conservative the only wish I have for you liberals is for you to wake up. The Alice in Wonderland thinking has not benefitted you and your kind as is readily apparent by your ongoing non-sensical blathering.--jg
Take a long hard look in the mirror, friend. You're one angry person. Could it be because Bush and his policies are increasingly being rejected by more and more Americans?
August 28, 2006 6:58 PM
Mr. Red said...
Mrs. Red posted a litany of conservative talking points. And I'm sure she and her fellow travelers believe the American people concur.
They don't.
Period.
End. Of. Discussion.
Post a Comment
<< Home