Read the commenting rules carefully because they will be enforced!
Spree:
You made some excellent points about who Bin Laden isn’t. It seems like we are caught between a rock and a hard place when it comes to figuring out what to do. I agree that we have better things to do than to run after him, and then what do we do when we catch him???
Problem is once again POLITICS.
Politically the GOP feel they need Bin Ladens capture.
Politically the Dems use it against the GOP and Bush.
Take political games out of the equation and there is a serious question as to whether or not a "public" announcement about Bin Laden and a capture/kill would do more harm than good safety wise.
Once again politics is indeed more important to some, from both sides of the aisle, than our national security.
That itself should be a crime.
Politics a crime? That, my friend, is called a dictatorship.
"A dictatorship would be a heck of a lot easier, there's no question about it, " [Bush] said.
-- Business Week, July 30, 2001
Personally I think they should go after Nancy Pelosi first
Elmer as usual you take half of what is said and try to distort it.
Politics being MORE important than our national security is what should be a crime.
But you remind everyone exactly how a liberal thinks...use HALF of what is said and ignore the rest so that you can distort what is really said.
Sad.
Sammy... same here. She is one of the biggest offenders in thinking more of power and politics and NOT our national security.
And who is to be the judge of that? I say politics was the overwhelming reason Cheney/Bush invaded Iraq. That is, politics was MORE important than national security. Would that be a crime?
yes Elmer and the monster that WAS Saddam had nothing to do with it right?
Or maybe the documented proof that he paid suicide bombers families.
I know, maybe it was his giving safe haven AND medical aid to Zarqawi BEFORE 9/11.
There were so many other reasons, if you had bothered to read the actual resolutions to authorize the war, than just WMD's that of course in your fantasy world THEY had nothing to do with it huh?
All those things which HAVE been documented and proven did have to do with national security...not politics.
Hillary's words are especially telling:
“In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program.
He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members.
It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.”
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10,2002
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/r...20021002-
2.html
Elmer try reading the WHOLE resolution that authorized the actions in iraq and I will make it easy for you...here are 7 reasons given IN that resolution OTHER than WMD's.
1. Iraq's harboring of Al-Queda terrorists
2. Iraq's support for International Terrorism
3. Iraq's "brutal repression" of its citizens
4. Iraq's failure to repatriate or give information on non-Iraqi citizens detained and captured during Gulf War I, including an American serviceman;
5. Failing to properly return property wrongfully seized during the Kuwait invasion
6. The attempted assassination of former President Bush in 1991
7. America's national security interests in restoring peace and stability to the Persian Gulf
Problem with repeating talking points without looking them up for yourself is the liberal sites ONLY use the ones they care about hoping you are too stupid to read the whole thing yourself.
Are they right?
Try again!!!
You once accused me of changing the subject. We were talking about criminalizing politics. There is no way, in this life or the next, that you would ever convince me that Cheney/Bush had even 51% national security in mind when they invaded. But that is not the point.
The point is if we criminalize 51% of politics who judges what is politics? How can you continue to have a democracy if you criminalize any politics? You can't. By advocating criminalizing ANY politics you show facist tendencies.
Elmer, despite your best efforts to CHANGE the words...the talk was about criminalizing putting poitics BEFORE national security, NOT criminalizing politics.
YOU brought up the Iraq war being done for "political" reasons and I showed you the proof of why we actually went into Iraq.
And calling anyone who you cannot argue valid points with a fascist is the oldest Democratic liberal game in the book.
What THAT means is you cannot bring proof to the table to back up your claims so instantly YOU scream FASCIST.
My job isn't to convince you of anything, I simply put FACTS (pesky lil things aren't they?) out there and you keep trying to distort them.
You make all my points about libs/dems FOR me....so, thank you :o)
By the way, if you want to get technical, this post was about Bin Laden and what would actually be gained by his capture.
You disavow your own words.
You said:
"Politics being MORE important than our national security is what should be a crime."
Here is an example from your original post. You talk a lot about the politics of capturing Bin Laden. Should we make the effort? Should we publicize the capture if we do get him? You make a calculation. You decide that it is not worth a herculean effort. If we get him we should not publicize it.
To those whose legitimate motivations are the capture of a mass murderer; to those who think that Bin Laden's freedom is a threat to our national security; to those who say we have the moral oblication to publicly punish him just to show his followers that we mean what we say when we want him "dead or alive;" you are a criminal who put politics ahead of national security.
In your world I would shut up if I were you.
are you kidding, you keep making my points about liberals left and right.
Yes I say it should not be publicized, because publicizing will do ONE thing only...help the GOP and the Bush administration. (THAT would be political)
I also said that it very well could and probably WILL make him into a martyr and therefore be used as an even MORE effective recruiting tool... go ahead, deny that.
MY point wasn't being political, MY point was NOT publicly screaming it from the rooftops WOULD keep us safer because of all the reasons I listed above. (Thats national security, since you seem to keep confusing the two)
Either you are slow or just do not read the words as they are written because you are too busy trying to put your own spin on MY words.
Put spin on YOUR words on YOUR blog but MY blog is written BY me, therefore I am the one that knows how I mean them...unless of course you think you can see into my mind...then we are talking a whole new problem in your mind...hehe
OH, one last point before I go watch my shows.... who did Bin Laden kill or as you put it, "mass murder"?
His ORGANIZATION killed 3000 some odd people, as far as I have seen PROOFWISE (that nasty proof word again) HE, personally didn't kill any of those people, he simply came out later and claimed responsibility for it.
By YOUR twisted logic that would mean I can simply buy some ad time, claim that I captured Saddam and that gives ME the credit?
Come on, think before you write, this is toooooooooo easy.
See ya tomorrow!!!
Thank you for a lively debate. I see you are from Chicago. I hope you were able to enjoy our beautiful day.
Oh Fudd Elmer! He’s just the typical circular thinking liberal who obviously doesn’t have his own blog and just wants to start another inane leftist rant. These “hate America first” people thrive on their own self-consuming anger. He probably can find some solace with the other mental cases on Daily Kos or MyDD.
I am no longer in Illinois, I moved to warmer weather.
Faultline, My thinkng is they like coming here cause all they hear there are half truths or downright lies used as talking points.
They may not admit it, but at least here we show full content of things like the original war resolution authorizing our actions in iraq and over on those sites they try to hide that from their readers and just show the WMD part.
That is only one small example of how they distort things.
we think osama was dead three years ago, and these are only computer generated images. So go ahead if you think this is what's really happening - - - it's more of the same if it's all a lie.
I would love to "think" the videos are false, but to assume something because you WANT it to be true, isn't exactly smart.
I will wait for verification of his death before making any such assumptions.
Commenting by HaloScan
