Why President Bush should apologize
Re: Why President Bush should apologize -- Jester_Fermaggio
Yes he should. After all, he DID say it would be a long and expensive war on terror. Apparently, he needed to define "long and expensive". But I'm sure he doesn't have to have "sex" defined for him.
Why President Bush should apologize
Re: Why President Bush should apologize -- hard69rock
| Posted by OIL_IS_GOD ® , Sep 13,2003,13:23 |
| |
MetroBlab
|
Slate, in his keen, subversive, abstract way, WAS saying GW had nothing to apologize for. Slate is a right wing fascist republican, and always has been.Its just hard for todays republicans to swallow a republican president with severely liberal spending habits.
Finally, someone who admits that W. Bush spends like a liberal!
Re: Why President Bush should apologize -- OIL_IS_GOD
| Posted by the county clark ® , Sep 13,2003,23:59 |
| |
MetroBlab
|
And I thought it would never happen!
W. Bush is a fantastic leader on certain issues like the protection of the American people and the war against terror (let's remember that 9/11 never would have happened if Bill Clinton had done his job and reacted appropriately after the Khobar Towers...or the U.S.S. Cole... or the first World Trade Center bombings...or when Bin Laden was offered to him at least three times on a silver platter by the Sudanese president; all irrefutable facts, if you're not a liberal, that is), but he's a decidedly bad president when it comes to spending programs.
Unfortunately, he's given the leftist democrats EVERY spending program they've asked for instead of using common sense and reducing the size of federal government.
Oh well, at least he knows the definition of the word "is."
Finally, someone who admits that W. Bush spends like a liberal!
Re: Finally, someone who admits that W. Bush spends like a liberal! -- the county clark
| Posted by fluffy ® , Sep 15,2003,10:41 |
| |
MetroBlab
|
i love how you guys still refuse to address the fact that if Reagan had done HIS job, he wouldnt have trained and armed Osama in the first place(which by the way, has your boy W caught him yet? so much for you claim that W is doing a "fantastic" job on that issue). it always goes back to Clinton. dont you know he was too busy getting his knob polished to bother with Osama anyway. if your boy is such a god, maybe his dad should have known what his boss was doing for Osama and advised him that maybe its not a good idea to train this guy. oh well, rumsfeld could have had hussein as well...if he hadnt been so busy shaking his hand. "Unfortunately, he's given the leftist democrats EVERY spending program they've asked for instead of using common sense and reducing the size of federal government." how bout some numbers to back that up, WITH the link?(i can already tell im not going to see it)..
Doing the job right.
Re: Finally, someone who admits that W. Bush spends like a liberal! -- fluffy
Let's see, when Jimmy Carter allowed an armed invasion of the U.S. and did NOTHING about it, it set a precedent that anyone could anything to us they wanted.
For clarification. An embassy is sovereign soil for the represented country regardless of where it is. For instance, go to Washington D.C., the seat of America, walk into the Russian embassy and you are in Moscow. So, when armed "students" entered the embassy in Iran by force, it was an invasion, which is called an act of war. Which nothing was done about.
So, every punk with a gripe now aims at us.
And you wonder why we let Saddam alone during the Iran/Iraq war.
Doing the job right.
Re: Doing the job right. -- hard69rock
| Posted by fluffy ® , Sep 15,2003,13:55 |
| |
MetroBlab
|
i asked from proof about every dem program getting copious amounts of funding, and you come back with carter setting some precedent for US embassy invasion?!? time to loosen the guitar strap or take the BC Rich Warlock off alltogether, i think its cutting off the bloodflow to your head. and aside from that, you still havent explained about reagan's backing of these guys in the first place. no precedent was set for US embassy invasions by carter, and we didnt leave hussein alone during the war: we BACKED him! your claim that carter did nothing about the tehran fiasco is also invalid; in late 1979 carter's state department put Iraq on list of countries sponsoring terrorist groups. in fact, it was reagan who removed Iraq from the list of terrorist sponors in 1982 and this meant that Iraq was now eligible for US dual-use and military technology. try and focus, ok?
|