If 9/11 happened on Jan 21, 2001, you'd probably still blame Bush. Your dislike for Bush is evident. We get it. You don't have to convince us.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
If 9/11 happened on Jan 21, 2001, you'd probably still blame Bush. Your dislike for Bush is evident. We get it. You don't have to convince us.Was it as clear under the Clinton Administration that al Qaeda posed a greater threat from any other terrorist organization, as it was under Bush's first few months?
That's not the question I was asking, though; the question was, "Was there any evidence that al Qaeda was more of a threat than any other terrorist threat to the U.S.?"
That's a fascinating leap in logic, considering that I have yet to say that Bush was fully responsible for any of it.
Then we would call it a liberal Republican duck.
His actions were his votes. The liberal organizations were obviously pleased enough with his votes to give him 100% ratings for them.
In 2003? I realize that in this presidential cycle the campaigning has already started . I'm not so sure that that was the case in 2003. At least, not near to the degree of the current situation.
Or hottest doesn't mean least cold??
In the absence of any polls, can we really know how the Kurdish people feel as a whole?
Did not!
Interesting. So far as I can see, all of my criticisms of the Bush Administration are based upon documented facts, so I don't see any hint of sensationalism.Your comments in this thread. That's cool. You don't like Bush. Just try to stick to the facts & leave the sensationalism to the filmmakers.
I do believe you would have blamed it in him. "It was under Bush's watch" is a familiar refrain by Bush bashers.
This makes it Bush's fault even though the government knew about terrorists like AQ since 1993.
If you consider that personally than I guess I think you blame him personally.
This has been the administration's raison d'etre from day one. It's a constant, from the partisan hacks at the Coalition Provisional Authority to the firing of attorney generals that wouldn't indict Democrats in time for the midterm elections.You and me both; I find it positively sickening, personally, that a representantive of the people like Bush would put national security on the back-burner in favor of ideological considerations.
You missed my reference. I was referring to Lieberman, and his recent threats to caucus with the GOP.
It's not just one or two liberal policies. He votes almost exclusively liberal on domestic policies.Lieberman may endorse a liberal policy or two on the domestic end of things, but any fool knows that that's not where a senator's political responsibilities end.
Calling Joe Lieberman a staunch neoconservative is just extreme ignorance. You are stuck on his position on Iraq as if that were the sole describer of his foreign policy ideology. When he gets 56% rating from Peace Action, 63% from Council For A Livable World, and an "A" Citizens for Global Solutions, he can hardly be considered a foreign policy conservative , let alone a staunch neoconservative.There is also foreign policy, an area in which Lieberman is a staunch neoconservative. Therefore, calling him a liberal is terribly misleading.
See for yourself; I already posted her rebuttal about a page back.
I didn't miss your reference. Why do you assume that I did?
Calling Joe Lieberman a staunch neoconservative is just extreme ignorance. You are stuck on his position on Iraq as if that were the sole describer of his foreign policy ideology. When he gets 56% rating from Peace Action, 63% from Council For A Livable World, and an "A" Citizens for Global Solutions, he can hardly be considered a foreign policy conservative , let alone a staunch neoconservative.
It wasn't much of a rebuttal I'm afraid.
If they were holding off indictments until after the elections, they should be firedThis has been the administration's raison d'etre from day one. It's a constant, from the partisan hacks at the Coalition Provisional Authority to the firing of attorney generals that wouldn't indict Democrats in time for the midterm elections.
Because since you were talking about a liberal Republican, you clearly weren't referring to Lieberman.
I'm afraid I've gone far as I can go with that one. Votes are actions, and it is those actions that Lieberman has been rated on.You still haven't told me why these ratings that you cite so much mean anything.
But I digress...
She offers nothing that would disprove Rubin charges. So, why should I believe her over him?Tell us why, or everyone's going to know that it's because you can't find any fault in the rebuttal.
Ummm, everybody??Actually, I think everyone's already pretty clear on that, at this point, anyway.
Don't be so dense! "If it quacks like a duck and walks like a duck then it's probably a duck. Lieberman is a liberal". You do remember that, right? If "it" (meaning Lieberman) were to caucus with the Republicans that would make "it", for all intents and purposes, a liberal Republican, would it not?
I'm afraid I've gone far as I can go with that one. Votes are actions, and it is those actions that Lieberman has been rated on.
She offers nothing that would disprove Rubin charges. So, why should I believe her over him?
Ummm, everybody??
One of many indeed."The policy was set. The war in Iraq was coming and they were looking for intelligence to fit into the policy." -- CIA official, Tyler Drumheller a 26-year veteran of the agency
Just one of many..........
"The policy was set. The war in Iraq was coming and they were looking for intelligence to fit into the policy." -- CIA official, Tyler Drumheller a 26-year veteran of the agency
Just one of many..........
Nonsense, for two main reasons.
One, caucusing with the Republicans would not mean that Lieberman is necessarily changing his party affiliation.
You did no such thing! In fact, I demonstrated that he is most likely a moderate that leans towards the liberal side on foreign affairs.Two, as I've already established, Lieberman's foreign policy is very, very, very, very not-liberal.
LOL!Right, as far as domestic policy is concerned. But his foreign policy is a different story - so much so that one can't honestly call him a liberal.
Well, there we are!Rubin offers nothing to prove his own charges, so why should I believe him?
Except you, of course. Silly me, I should've added that.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?