i put "won't" instead of "can't" because at this point i've come to the conclusion they have to be actively trying to fuck shit up. i mean seriously, there's a whole team of people that have to literally be on the same page of ineptitude to make this kind of shit keep happening.

why in the fuck would they need to be turning surgeons general into political hacks? health and health education is pretty cut and dry shit. forcing them to take up certain topics, ignore others and "mention the president and his initiatives at least 3 times per page" of press releases and health studies is fucking bullshit.

IS IT JANUARY 2009 YET?!?!

7/11/2007 6:13:01 PM

Welcome, we've been expecting you.

7/11/2007 6:22:26 PM

Shit, I created another thread on my other account that is like all the other threads I created about this shitty administration.

7/11/2007 8:59:53 PM

hello 30thAnnZ.

you look familiar somehow. have we met?

7/11/2007 9:21:09 PM

i don't know, maybe not having a single terrorist attack on US soil since 9/11

7/11/2007 9:44:01 PM

yeah, that 9/11... boy when the Bush Admin fucks up, they fuck up real good

7/11/2007 9:55:28 PM

^seriously.

Anyway, by ^^ this reasoning, Clinton had an even better record against terror attacks on US soil, and he didn't do jack shit! Come back to me when the results of Bush's efforts are distinguishable from not doing anything at all.

7/11/2007 10:26:35 PM

i cant wait til january 2009 either so all the whiners will at least be complaining about something new

7/11/2007 10:29:20 PM

^^^yeah 9/11 was bush's fault because 8 months in office is enough time to thwart an unprecidented terrorist attack that was likely 2 years in the making

^^yeah clinton had a better record, that whole not taking bin laden out when we had his exact location marked was a great move and i like how you conveniently forget to mention the 1993 WTC bombing or the USS Cole bombing in 2000, great record

[Edited on July 11, 2007 at 10:38 PM. Reason : /]

7/11/2007 10:33:14 PM

How frequent were our attacks before 9/11?

7/11/2007 10:53:16 PM

^^dont forget the US Embassy in Kenya, or the US Embassy in Zaire, ETC ETC ETC

course you know who I personally blame for 9/11, 93WTC, Cole, USEZ, USEK? Might sound crazy but...I blame the terrorists that carried out the attacks

7/11/2007 10:55:23 PM

^^^Nice, you can't refute my point (By your own method of counting, Clinton was better), so you've moved on to different arguments.

That's cool. I'll just defeat them:

Regarding the attacks you want to count for Clinton:

- If you want to count the 1993 WTC bombing, then I get to count 9/11 on Bush's record. You realize that Clinton had been in office an even shorter time than Bush was in office?
- I will quote your own words that you have forgotten:

Quote :

"i don't know, maybe not having a single terrorist attack on US soil since 9/11"

I didn't realize a port in Yemen counted as US soil. Oops. If you are going to count this, do you want me to go ahead and count all the terrorist attacks that happen against US troops daily in Iraq?

--------------
Regarding the assertion that Clinton should have gotten Bin Laden:

- Somehow Clinton was supposed to go into the future to find out that Bin Laden would become a greater threat to the US than anyone else in existence at that time.
- Then, he was supposed to use non-existent political capital to strike a seemingly minor threat. All of this is supposed to happen in a political climate where people were already criticizing him for acting out-of-the-blue against Iraq (known threat) (saying it was a distraction from the blow job investigation).
- Did you miss the recent news about Bush failing to take out al qaeda leadership in Pakistan (because of lack of political capital, coincidentally)? http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/08/washington/08intel.html. In other words, Bush's results are different from Clinton how?


[Edited on July 11, 2007 at 11:03 PM. Reason : jk]

7/11/2007 11:02:00 PM

actually the properties in Kenya and Zaire were technically US soil

but:

course you know who I personally blame for 9/11, 93WTC, Cole, USEZ, USEK? Might sound crazy but...I blame the terrorists that carried out the attacks

7/11/2007 11:03:45 PM

If you're really a fan of pointless technicalities that are irrelevant to the main point, one could note that the car bombs that blew up the two embassies were not actually on US soil.

I suppose by the power of pure fucking magic, someone in the admin should have known that attacks were going to happen in two worthless African countries. Then, they should have negotiated the power to police outside of the embassy confines in those worthless African countries.

(Humorous postscript: Clinton had so much political support to fight this terrorism, he was accused of "wagging the dog" after responding to these bombings, as well.

Humorous Post-postscript: Operation Desert Fox, for which Clinton was also accused of "wagging the dog," was extremely successful, effectively eliminating all of Saddam's WMD capability. This contrasts with Clinton's response to the Embassy bombing, which was terrible and didn't do anything. In other words, Clinton did a great job of taking care of the Iraq threat but a terrible job of taking care of the terrorist threat.

Flash forward a decade, and we see that Bush is devoting most of our resources to take care of the Iraq "threat," but comparatively little to take care of the terrorist threat. That's some kind of leadership. )

[Edited on July 11, 2007 at 11:33 PM. Reason : sdf]

7/11/2007 11:18:20 PM

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8QALM9G2&show_article=1

Quote :

" U.S. intelligence analysts have concluded al-Qaida has rebuilt its operating capability to a level not seen since just before the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, The Associated Press has learned. The conclusion suggests that the group that launched the most devastating terror attack on the United States has been able to rebuild despite nearly six years of bombings, war and other tactics aimed at crippling it. Still, numerous government officials say they know of no specific, credible threat of a new attack. A counterterrorism official familiar with a five-page summary of the new government threat assessment called it a stark appraisal that will be discussed at the White House on Thursday as part of a broader meeting on an upcoming National Intelligence Estimate. The official and others spoke on condition of anonymity because the secret report remains classified. Counterterrorism analysts produced the document, titled "Al-Qaida better positioned to strike the West." The document pays special heed to the terror group's safe haven in Pakistan and makes a range of observations about the threat posed to the United States and its allies, officials said. Al-Qaida is "considerably operationally stronger than a year ago" and has "regrouped to an extent not seen since 2001," the official said, paraphrasing the report's conclusions. "They are showing greater and greater ability to plan attacks in Europe and the United States." The group also has created "the most robust training program since with an interest in using European operatives," the official quoted the report as saying. At the same time, this official said, the report speaks of "significant gaps in intelligence" so U.S. authorities may be ignorant of potential or planned attacks."

Bush has sure done a great job with the whole thwarting terror thing

[Edited on July 11, 2007 at 11:33 PM. Reason : k]

7/11/2007 11:24:15 PM

after all, its so easy to "stop terror"

7/11/2007 11:29:51 PM

7/11/2007 11:36:23 PM

whats the name of the logical fallacy you just used that insinuated that a president should certainly be able to "thwart the whole terror thing"?

and i'm not the one who is in here trying to BLAME BUSH or BLAME CLINTON for terrorists attacks cause i blame the terrorist who carried out the attacks...but what do I know...lets just blame Bush and Clinton

7/11/2007 11:42:46 PM

I'm not trying to blame Bush or Clinton. I'm just trying to point out that as the left has been saying for a while, Bush's actions and his supposed "war on terror" aren't actually fighting terrorist.

And if fighting a "war on terror" isn't suppose to help decrease terrorism, then what the hell has Bush been doing? I can't think of any other interpretation of what "war on terror" could actually mean.

7/11/2007 11:48:26 PM

well i think most people would at least give bush the credit of preventing an attack on our soil since 9/11...obviously 9/11 was the worst terrorist attack on US soil and it happened while Bush was President...but doesnt the fact that we havent had any more mean SOMETHING? if bush only did one thing right, hasnt he at least done a good job of that?

and i think his "war on terror" is definitely fighting terrorists...we've detained terrorists...we've killed terrorists...we're fighting terrorists...i dont see what you mean when you say we're not actually fighting terrorists

[Edited on July 11, 2007 at 11:53 PM. Reason : .]

7/11/2007 11:50:19 PM

well, if we're fighting terrorists in iraq, they're certainly doing a good job of killing us over there.

7/11/2007 11:55:14 PM

not to sound crass, but they're not killing our civilians in our homecountry, so we're at least preventing attacks on the american public in america, by way of the defense of the military

[Edited on July 11, 2007 at 11:56 PM. Reason : .]

7/11/2007 11:56:16 PM

well to be equally crass, while deaths of our civilians are certainly demoralizing, deaths of soldiers are VERY expensive. we put a lot of money in training and equipment into these people.

[Edited on July 11, 2007 at 11:58 PM. Reason : .]

7/11/2007 11:58:31 PM

i agree but isnt one of the jobs of the military (an important one) to defend and protect the citizens of the US, which they seem to be doing in Iraq, even though they're doing it overseas...they still seem to be protecting the people of the US

7/11/2007 11:59:25 PM

Quote :

"well i think most people would at least give bush the credit of preventing an attack on our soil since 9/11..."

This isn't necessarily true. We had the anthrax mailer guy, and the DC snipers. Attacks on the mainland of America have always been rare. When terrorism world-wide is up, an Al-Qaeda is able to carry out significant bombings in other countries, all the while being able to regroup to pre 9/11 levels, I don't see anything to give Bush credit for.

Quote :

"obviously 9/11 was the worst terrorist attack on US soil and it happened while Bush was President...but doesnt the fact that we havent had any more mean SOMETHING? if bush only did one thing right, hasnt he at least done a good job of that?"

I wouldn't say if bush did something right, but I guess you could say if one thing has gone right, it's that we haven't had any more BIG attacks on our soil. I'm pretty sure no matter who was president, things in this area would have gone the same. I think it's less likely for a big attack to happen because people in general are more paranoid, not because Bush has actually done anything.

Quote :

"and i think his "war on terror" is definitely fighting terrorists...we've detained terrorists...we've killed terrorists...we're fighting terrorists...i dont see what you mean when you say we're not actually fighting terrorists "

We're mostly killing insurgents in Iraq. As many people predicted, destabilizing Iraq has created a breeding ground for terrorist and al-quada, and our foreign policy related to the "war on terror" has pissed off the middle east more than they were before, further inciting would-be terrorist. We may be killing some terrorist, but we're creating more than we're killing.

7/12/2007 12:02:14 AM

^^i don't feel any more safe since my military has been stretched incredibly thin by this war.

if there was a real threat that wasn't in the immediate vicinity of iraq, we'd be pretty fucked.

[Edited on July 12, 2007 at 12:03 AM. Reason : .]

7/12/2007 12:02:21 AM

^^oh noes, not the dc sniper and the anthrax mailer guy!!!

guess what buddy? i could load up my shotgun right now and head over to wal-mart and kill at least 10 people before the cops could get me. would that also be bush's fault???

7/12/2007 12:45:05 AM

7/12/2007 12:46:42 AM

^^ i believe that constitutes a threat.

http://www.fbi.gov
http://www.nccrimecontrol.org/shp/
http://www.wakegov.com/sheriff/
http://www.raleigh-nc.org/police/
http://www.wral.com


^ and that is a salmon. not a herring.



[Edited on July 12, 2007 at 12:51 AM. Reason : ]

7/12/2007 12:50:44 AM

Quote :

"^ and that is a salmon. not a herring. "

It was on the website for the "red herring" fallacy, so I just assumed it was a herring...

7/12/2007 12:56:50 AM

oh shit ... it is a herring.





damn they look a lot like salmon

(especially when someone goes and colors them pink )




[Edited on July 12, 2007 at 1:09 AM. Reason : ]

7/12/2007 1:00:03 AM

a little part of me died when they gave daddy's boy the nomination over a war hero (McCain).

i didn't want to vote for Gore. i desperately wanted to vote for McCain.


i'm just glad two of my friends and my cousin are back from over there alive and with all their limbs after fighting for your right to drive a gas guzzler.

7/12/2007 1:47:21 AM

^ my experience exactly.

although, i saw the moment McCain crashed and burned... it was self-inflicted. he brought out that stupid goddammed LightSaber in South Carolina right before the primary.

(*hand to forehead*)

still it doesn't lessen the fact that that worthless coke-snorting AWOL piece of shit GWB and his buddies were talking so much smack about McCain up to that point.




[Edited on July 12, 2007 at 2:13 AM. Reason : spell]

7/12/2007 2:13:19 AM

man i wish you guys could complain about something else

dont you get sick of complaining about some something after constantly bitching about it for 6 years straight

7/12/2007 9:57:56 AM