I almost feel like the terrorists are going to be targeting my little village now that GWB won’t be protecting us anymore.
How will we be safe after we pull out of Iraq?
No more “Bring it on”? Didn’t that deter attacks?
Thanks George for keeping us safe.
I almost feel like the terrorists are going to be targeting my little village now that GWB won’t be protecting us anymore.
How will we be safe after we pull out of Iraq?
No more “Bring it on”? Didn’t that deter attacks?
Thanks George for keeping us safe.
Congrats, you continue to bolster and crystalize your position as the resident sewer rat of the LR.
He is pretty popular in the Womens forum as well …
The world is a lot more complex than you like to believe. Just imagine, the American public isn’t privy to ALL the intelligence gathered. I know you think you should know, but you, nor anybody on this forum does.
It appears from GWB’s decisions that a lot of that classified information isn’t very accurate.
Last time I checked, there has been no terrorist attack US soil since…oh, I dunno, 9/11?
No embassies bombed.
No US Navy ship attacked while in port.
Do you think that is becuase AQ is playing nice all of a sudden? Or is it a coincidence? Or dumb luck?
No one denies there have been a plethora of mistakes made by many people on both sides of the aisle. Didn’t Prez OB vote to allow GWB to go into Iraq? I sure as hell know that Sec Clinton did.
Yet everyone seems to point out the mistakes that have been made…never mind that we’ve not been subjected to any planes flying into buildings etc since 2001.
“Didn’t Prez OB vote to allow GWB to go into Iraq?”
Nope… not even close.
Sorry, how many Americans did you say were killed by terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan since 9/11?
Also, there was one Al quaida team sent for 9/11. There is no evidence there were more. Plus, their intention was to get us to react militarily so the muslim world would unite and rise against us. We played right into their hands.
You may want to check to see if we’ve had domestic terrorists since 9/11 - or don’t those count?
No more “Bring it on”? Didn’t that deter attacks?
I was somewhat shocked that on and in the inaugural speech, particularly after GWB’s folly, that Obama would use the following wording.
We will not apologize for our way of life, nor will we waver in its defense, and for those who seek to advance their aims by inducing terror and slaughtering innocents, we say to you now that our spirit is stronger and cannot be broken; you cannot outlast us, and we will defeat you.
I know it’s not “Bring it on”, but dam, can’t we get past this whole “Hey we’re America, we’ll kick your ass” mentality. Is it something about the office taht suddenly makes people loose their minds?
~Matt
Hey George, don’t let the door hit you in the ass on the way out, you miserable SOB of a president.
Obama made it a big issue during the campaign that he didn’t vote for the war and Clinton did. He was a Illinois State Senator when the vote to approve the war in Iraq was held, so in reality he had no more of a voice then you or I in the matter. Obama made it a point to say that he wouldn’t have voted for it either way, but there is a bit of hind sight in his favor. I’m sure if they would have found the WMD they were looking for he would have said the opposite.
No more “Bring it on”? Didn’t that deter attacks?
I was somewhat shocked that on and in the inaugural speech, particularly after GWB’s folly, that Obama would use the following wording.
We will not apologize for our way of life, nor will we waver in its defense, and for those who seek to advance their aims by inducing terror and slaughtering innocents, we say to you now that our spirit is stronger and cannot be broken; you cannot outlast us, and we will defeat you.
I know it’s not “Bring it on”, but dam, can’t we get past this whole “Hey we’re America, we’ll kick your ass” mentality. Is it something about the office taht suddenly makes people loose their minds?
~Matt
Funny, I thought that was one of the more memorable and fine lines from the speech.
Funny, I thought that was one of the more memorable and fine lines from the speech.
Of course it’s memorable, don’t you usually remember when a person challenges you to a duel or tells you they can beat someone up? Point is that how does one think this type of thing is viewed by everyone else not in the country? Seems to me the point could have been made more “Tactfully” and although more eloquent then Bush boils down to the same point, “Bring it on if you don’t like the way we live”
Also it would seem to me some of it contradicts other parts of the speech.
We will not apologize for our way of life, nor will we waver in its defense,
And then
And to those nations like ours that enjoy relative plenty, we say we can no longer afford indifference to suffering outside our borders; nor can we consume the world’s resources without regard to effect. For the world has changed, and we must change with it.
Seems to me he believes we should apologize for our way of life and change rather than defend it, but could be I’m misinterpreting.
~Matt
but there is a bit of hind sight in his favor.
Actually, he made a rather high profile (for a state senator) speech against the Iraq War in october of '02.
I know it’s not “Bring it on”, but dam, can’t we get past this whole “Hey we’re America, we’ll kick your ass” mentality. Is it something about the office taht suddenly makes people loose their minds?
Matt,
I was kinda taken aback by that part of the Obama speech as well. I found it odd that you never hear the leader of any other western democracy talking like that. In fact, the only world leader who has been recently speaking in public and using language like that( “Mess with us and we’ll kick your %$s”) is Robert Mugabe!
( “Mess with us and we’ll kick your %$s”) is Robert Mugabe!
And the Cowboy GWB 
I just don’t see any positive coming from that kind of language. It’s truly playground stuff and has no place in international politics. I about shat myself when Bush did it, but expected better from Obama.
~Matt
Up your ass Yahey-hey. Go fug yourself.
You stay classy, peckerhead.
One of the few things that the federal government must do is provide protection, i.e., defend the borders. All the social programs and such can be (and I think rightly should be) the province of the state governments. I don’t see how he can ignore his role as commander-in-chief in his speech. I think he needed to send a message to the country and to our enemies who are intent on doing us harm. I think it is naive to suggest that we don’t have such enenmies and I think it is equally naive to think that we can or even should change to the point that we have no enemies. So long as occupy the position of world leader on so many fronts, we will be the target of every nut job group who is intent on increasing their currency by giving the most powerful guy on the playground a bloody nose.
So long as occupy the position of world leader on so many fronts, we will be the target of every nut job group who is intent on increasing their currency by giving the most powerful guy on the playground a bloody nose.
I get it, but in so doing you basically lower yourself to their level. So that you are speaking at the level of . . . . . Robert Mugabe, as I pointed out.
It’s odd an ironic that in a ceremony that spoke so much about christian beliefs and invoked the sayings and beliefs of Jesus, that the, “don’t mess with me/us”, tone came up, several times! Jesus would never speak like that.