Newt Gingrich: “(if the CT insurgency wins)…it will be the beginning of extraordinarily important period in American politics, and in American history.”
Notice that he doesn’t guarantee anything. The obvious retort to any politician predicting doomsday if we withdrew from Iraq is the fact that everyone chirping about the ‘domino theory’ once we left Vietnam were 100% full of shit. We’re trading with Vietnam now. We’re also trading with China and they’re communist…Vietnam isn’t, but communism became someone else’s problem once America finally woke up and realized the military industrial complex was wagging the dog. Terrorism is no different.
I’ve argued for a long time that terrorism is a criminal enterprise, as it was when Tim McVeigh blew up the building in Oklahoma City. War is what it’s called by our government, but to put two and two together there, simply look at who benefits from our irrational aggression. While the politicians who deride “throwing money at” fixing education, eradiating poverty and suring up security – do just that when it comes to the Pentagon – let’s all remember that after Vietnam, nothing like what they warned about happening actually took place.
Gingrich is taking the opportunity to pretend he’s qualified to call this one way or the other, when in fact he’s a suit with much less credibility when it comes to war than say…
Chuck Hagel: “…(Iraq’s) a hopeless, winless situation…we cannot put American troops, and ask them to do the things that we’re asking them to do in the middle of a civil war.”
I thin Newt is right. If the last moderate, mainstream Democrat loses this election the Democrat party will be 100% radicalized. Kos and DU have been tearing the Democrats apart for years now and the seems abour finally about to rip.
Without Leiberman there will be no voice of reason within the Democratic party and we will end up with a bunch of idiots along the likes of Kerry, Reid, Schumer, Boxer, Kennedy and the king of idiots, Dean. This could be the death of the Democratic party or, if Americans have been turned into morons by poor quality education and the MSM then, the death of America.
You’re probably right…in fact, since Iraq and Afghanistan are going so well, perhaps the correct political move would be for Democrats to give Bush another chance to get it right…
Hasn’t he earned it? Shit, Clinton lost a couple troops in Somalia, got into Bosnia and Kosovo with Europe…not the pile of corpses and high flying defense stock prices and Republicans were tearing him up over it…you know, since we’re still losing our guys in all three of those places today…
I don’t know. Lieberman stuck to a strategy and it backfired on him. Good riddance if it takes place. It’s about time the soldiers had the voters stick up for them…opportunistic slop like Lieberman or Hillary sure aren’t going to any time soon!
Hagel is showing me something though.
I’ve argued for a long time that terrorism is a criminal enterprise, as it was when Tim McVeigh blew up the building in Oklahoma City. War is what it’s called by our government, but to put two and two together there, simply look at who benefits from our irrational aggression.
Was Germany 1939 a criminal enterprise? How about Japan 1940? Is North Vietnam or Iran a criminal enterprise? How about North Vietnam 1960? You are attemting to downplay the significance of a cultural invasion that is happening in over 100 countries right now.
This has nothing to do with crime and everything to do with the belief that Allah told muslims that they need to take the planet by force. And they are doing it. WW1 and 2 will pale next to the upcoming WW3 when 1/4 of the Earth’s population attempts to enslave the other 3/4. Europe has all but surrendered, Russia will be ok because of their penchant for violence and corrupt governemnt. Australia is hard to get to and Iceland is too cold.
You’re probably right…in fact, since Iraq and Afghanistan are going so well, perhaps the correct political move would be for Democrats to give Bush another chance to get it right…
I still have yet to hear why things are going soo badly in Iraq compared to other conflicts. You say everything is soo bad but don’t say what is wrong and why it is wrong. Is Saddam invading his neighbors? No. Is Al Queda using Iraq for it’s training camps? No. Is Saddam seeking chemical and nuclear tecnology? No. Have we lost the fewest troops in any war? Yes. Have we focused the terrorsim away from America? Yes. Bush doesn’t need a second chance, he is getting it right now.
Shit, Clinton lost a couple troops in Somalia, got into Bosnia and Kosovo with Europe
I con’t believe you are bringing up Clinton and Somalia. This is the core reason Al Queda came after us, he said it himself. America is a paper tiger, that is what Osama said, Clinton lost a few guys and ran like a coward, announcing to the world America won’t last 10 seconds in a fight. I’d venture to say Clinton is the one who opened the gate for everything that is happening now with terrorism. No one fucked with Reagan but Clinton would roll over like a kindergartener getting his lunch money taken. Talk about failure, Clinton and the Democrats will have America under sharia within a decade. Pray the dems don’t win.
I don’t know. Lieberman stuck to a strategy and it backfired on him. Good riddance if it takes place. It’s about time the soldiers had the voters stick up for them…opportunistic slop like Lieberman or Hillary sure aren’t going to any time soon!
That is because Leiberman did what was right and not what a radical superminority wanted him to do. Leiberman stuck up for the soldiers and now he’s being screwed for it. History is gong to shit on the current anti-war movement just like it is shitting on the movement form the 60s. At least in the 60s the pricks would come out and actually spit on the troops but now it is this false sense of of advocation for the troops.
How does taking away their jobs and imasculating them equate to sticking up for them. If you want to stick up for the troops then lets get these obstructionist liberals out of the way, who are only seeking political gain at the troops expense, and get this war won.
Taking away their jobs and imasculating them? Right, if the war ends, the soldiers still have jobs. Only this time their job is training for when there’s a REAL threat to the United States.
Saddam didn’t have a nuclear program, Iran does, Pakistan does and India of course does (we have the receipts), North Korea does…
But maybe you’re right, maybe we should be allowign our own to die and come home wounded, grind up all our equipment in a country that poses no threat to us.
Right now the soldiers are staying in a country longer than we were in Europe during WW2, and there’s no upside at this point. We’re playing referee, and our military is supposed to be used to kill people who are trying to kill us.
Haven’t heard of any Iraqi attacks on US soil at all recently. And as for the muslims – they can slaughter each other all they want, I don’t care.
Taking away their jobs and imasculating them? Right, if the war ends, the soldiers still have jobs. Only this time their job is training for when there’s a REAL threat to the United States.
If we ignore the REAl threat then our troops return to downsize papers and syonara college funds and many careers. If what is happening around the world isn’t a real threat then nothing is.
Saddam didn’t have a nuclear program, Iran does, Pakistan does and India of course does (we have the receipts), North Korea does…
Saddam has a chemical program and we have proof he was looking into a nuclear program in Africa. North Korea’s nuclear program was a gift from Bill Clinton.
But maybe you’re right, maybe we should be allowign our own to die and come home wounded, grind up all our equipment in a country that poses no threat to us.
Ok, then what country is responsible for terrorism? What country should we be disarming on the ground? Iran? Lebanon? Syria? Yemen? Somalia? What nationality is terrorism, then? Dutch? Indonesian? German? In what country should we be fighting terrorism? The United States?
Right now the soldiers are staying in a country longer than we were in Europe during WW2, and there’s no upside at this point. We’re playing referee, and our military is supposed to be used to kill people who are trying to kill us.
So, then, where are the people who are trying to kill us? How do we get them there? Germany was trying to kill us but we didn’t send troops there until 1943-1944. We didn’t take Japan until 1945 but they were tring to kill us since 1941. I don’t get the point. Since Islam is trying to kill us then, by this logic, we should be bombing every mosque we can find.
Haven’t heard of any Iraqi attacks on US soil at all recently. And as for the muslims – they can slaughter each other all they want, I don’t care.
Without our troops there, the muslims will be here slaughtering us. There is no border control and they have a huge foothold in South America. The Sunni and Shiites are fighting with eachother over who gets to enslave us.
How do you figure it was a gift from Bill Clinton? Right, there’s a difference between actually being able to launch a nuke and “looking into” being able to launch a nuke in the future. Are you suggesting that we just drop bombs all over the globe on anyone who we suspect is “looking into developing a nuke”?
And the chemical weapons weren’t a good enough justification for invading, since Saddam didn’t even have them until our government started helping him out with his war with Iran back in the 80s. And again, if we invade Iraq because of expired chemical munitions, then by that standard we should be bombing countries all over the globe.
Logically it doesn’t wash…in fact, even if the chemical munitions WERE current it wouldn’t be justified. Or was Bush Sr. wrong about that back in the 90s? He knew they had chemical weapons back then, but he didn’t invade. Are we to assume that Bush Sr’s war was handled wrong and Bush Jr’s war has been handled correctly?
You hit it right on the head. We should be fighting terrorism by policing our own and every other country in the world should be doing the same. The UK gets hit by local terrorists, it’s a UK problem. We ALLOWED these terrorists to hijack our planes and our air traffic control system combined with our air force was inefficient in taking down those planes before they crashed into three of our most crucial buildings.
It was a failure in airport security, cockpit security and ultimately a failure on the part of our air traffic control and military to react appropriately to the situation.
So you give no credit to our law enforcement or the FBI…so much for all that 9/11 “heros” talk. What constitutes a “huge foothold in South America”?
Where did you hear this Right? It’s ridiculous to pretend that our land would be occupied by these hacks, and to suggest that it would be a reality if we weren’t in Iraq is an insult to all the Americans whose job it is to make sure it doesn’t happen.
The USA is enormous, and we’re allowed to have guns…if terrorists came to Agawam, they wouldn’t get very far!
My question is… can you fight terrorism as if it is a nation? I think not.
The difference here is that they were nations that openly declared war. We are not dealing with a nation that has declared war. Islam hasn’t even declared war, or we would be in the middle of a much greater global bloodbath.
I’ve yet to get any kind of answer about when this war will be over.
RT: Please answer this one question.
How will YOU know when we have beaten terrorism?
When a Republican says we have.
If Hagel had any spine he would openly challenge the administration outright.
Our troops will soon be in the middle of an Iraqi civil war. Read some Arabic web sites and you will see that it’s already there. Lines have been drawn, neighborhoods have been claimed and the death toll mounts. Civil war exists in Baghdad and is highly likely to spread.
General Abizaid and Rumsfeld both dodged questions from Dem and Rep senators last week at an Armed Forces committee meeting. They were asked point blank “what will our troops do when civil war engulfs Iraq?”
“They will continue to support Iraqi security forces…”
Yes, and when the Iraqi security forces fracture along sectarian lines, then what will our forces do?
“They will continue to support Iraqi security forces…”
Yes, ahem, and when they are receiving incoming rounds from those Iraqi security forces, then what will our troops do?
“They will continue to… uh, Afghanistan is making great strides towards full democracy…”
Yeah, that’s what I thought.
I think Hagel has done just that, at least in what I’ve read. He and Murtha have been talking straight about it for a while…as opposed to Hillary, Kerry, everyone in the Bush administration, Lieberman, McCain and so on –
Murtha and Hagel both give me the impression that politics come second to the safety of our military. For the folks I listed above, it could be 100 civilian deaths a day in Iraq or 1000 and it wouldn’t matter. They’re not going to say an honest word about it.
Dismembering the body politic in Iraq
Interesting. Could our president be achieving his goals, and the rest of us aren’t even aware of it? Man, Bush must be getting a big payoff from somewhere because he’s taking a beating for it.
I see this from you CM, and then in USAToday…today, there’s this opinion column that’s basically a transcript of a right-left debate, and the outcome is exactally what you found:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/usatoday/20060808/cm_usatoday/awayoutofiraqdividethecountry;_ylt=Agp9rAgiNFU8lQt7wdEEYOMe6sgF
How do you figure it was a gift from Bill Clinton?
N. korea said they promise not to make nukes if the U.S. gives them a boat load of nuclear fuel rods. Bill Clinton, not one to miss a bargain, said, sure thing trustworthy ally. N Korea then said, uh, were making nuclear weapons with the fuel rods you sent us, sorry. Bill said, no one could have seen that coming!!!
Right, there’s a difference between actually being able to launch a nuke and “looking into” being able to launch a nuke in the future. Are you suggesting that we just drop bombs all over the globe on anyone who we suspect is “looking into developing a nuke”?
Are you saying that you want to wait for them to make a nuke and drop it in your home town and then do something about it? I’m fine with preemtive security to save millions of American lives.
And the chemical weapons weren’t a good enough justification for invading, since Saddam didn’t even have them until our government started helping him out with his war with Iran back in the 80s.
Ok, but using chemical weapons to commit genocide does make for a good reason, even if you were all for that little invasion of Kuwait thingy. Besides, the war with Iran was good for everyone, invading Kuwait was bad for everyone.
And again, if we invade Iraq because of expired chemical munitions, then by that standard we should be bombing countries all over the globe.
Expired??? Does mustard gas have a freshness seal? Having chemical weapons isn’t in itself bad, using them against civilians is bad. Remembbr auschwitz? Were we wrong to stop that too?
Or was Bush Sr. wrong about that back in the 90s?
Hellooooo, Kuwait!
We should be fighting terrorism by policing our own and every other country in the world should be doing the same. The UK gets hit by local terrorists, it’s a UK problem.
Great, that should ensure that terrorism is a part of our lives for centuries to come. Somalia and Iran are doing a bang up job of policing terrorism in their countries to keep it out of ours.
We ALLOWED these terrorists to hijack our planes and our air traffic control system combined with our air force was inefficient in taking down those planes before they crashed into three of our most crucial buildings.
Hindsight is 20/20. Why didn’t you call the authorities and report the hijacking? That’s where I see the failure. You allowed them to succeed with their plan by not reporting the hijacking.
There is no way anyone could expect something so despicable from a human being before 9/11. Now, we all know what Islam is really about but not before.
What constitutes a “huge foothold in South America”?
The largest base outside of a Muslim country. 30,000 is what I have read, I will try to find the article.
It’s ridiculous to pretend that our land would be occupied by these hacks, and to suggest that it would be a reality if we weren’t in Iraq is an insult to all the Americans whose job it is to make sure it doesn’t happen.
You just said that our airforce and air traffic control system couldn’t stop 11 guys with a 3 days worth of flight training. I don’t seem to see too many agents at the border either.
The USA is enormous, and we’re allowed to have guns…if terrorists came to Agawam, they wouldn’t get very far!
Do you live within half a mile of a school? If so, you have a gun illegally, depending on the state. Liberals should have us disarmed pretty soon, after religion is made illegal but that’s a whole different issue.
My question is… can you fight terrorism as if it is a nation? I think not.
No you can’t. You have to do what we are doing right now.
Islam hasn’t even declared war, or we would be in the middle of a much greater global bloodbath.
Let me introduce to you the word Jihad. It means holy war and it has been declared upon us and Israel. Check CNN to see the current bloodbath.
How will YOU know when we have beaten terrorism?
When there are no more terrorist attacks and Islam is able to live among other cultures with out attempting to dominate and destry them.
Interesting. Could our president be achieving his goals, and the rest of us aren’t even aware of it? Man, Bush must be getting a big payoff from somewhere because he’s taking a beating for it.
This is where Chris and I agree, they can slaughter each other as long as it’s over there.
I don’t give a fuck about the inability of neighbors across the globe to coexist or work together or whatever the hell makes it impossible. My guess is it has to do with a concentration of wealth in some of the more 1800ish versions, like Cuba, Egypt or Saudi Arabia, where the kings rule like our ancestors once were centuries ago – this creates unrest and misery amongst the populace, who then turn to something for comfort that here in the states we’d consider nuts, whether its a 20 hour day 6 days a week walking livestock from one place to another, or perhaps the thrill that Allah provides to go with the misery, that hope of a better life once this real one is over, up there in heaven.
The rest is just like it, only more like our own ghetto-sprawled cities, though in the Middle East’s desperation tends to run a lot higher. You see, at least we have famous people for everyone to grow up idolizing, perhaps provide some long stretches of hope whether reality justifies it or not – in the place we’re so concerned about all the time, life is shitty enough to turn people into rebels and entire neighborhoods into gaggles of their sympathizers.
Shit is bad in Baltimore and Boston for those catching lead all the time, not to mention those that have to live right upstairs from it…but missiles aren’t being launched into Roxbury on a regular basis.
Maybe they need to figure something out, maybe it’s going to take some time for them to figure it out on their own. You say someone could drop a nuke on American soil…I say they’d never be able to fly it above to drop, so how could they get it in?
Spend time, money and for God’s sake some intelligence on figuring out the answer to that problem and leave these people the fuck alone already. Contribute to a group effort if one ever comes together, but turn national defense into DEFENSE finally and quit with this nonsense.
Save up the money after the war is over, offer to transplant every single Israeli from there to Miami Beach and its surrounding areas. If that doesn’t sound right to them, then figure you’ll keep making money hand over fist for all the ammo we’re selling them daily, and wait for them to come back and take the offer finally…you know, since it’s a democracy, they’ll eventually be able to vote on it, right?
The religious power brokers would cry about moving away from the homeland, but in the end what’s more important? Fucking with the deranged neighbor all your life, or simply making a choice to move away finally.
There aren’t any cops for Israel to call…all they can get are US manufactured munitions and a lot of bodies to talk about with God once some lives lost get that review they’ve been praying all this time for.
My point being – if all that’s keeping them there is what they feel is a place that God would be angry about them leaving behind…then God is a petty fellow ain’t he? All that universe out there and it’s really all about a small portion of this one planet…
Ridiculous on an unfathomable level for most people…I’d hope at least.
So it’s a two part outcome?
1) No more terrorist tactics used on the planet Earth.
2) Islam is able to live among other cultures without attempting to dominate and destroy them
Point 1. Uh, as long as there are people with inferior weapons capabilities there will be terrorism.
Point 2. Muslims are living in every country on the planet. 19 of them fly jets into some buildings and suddenly every Muslim has a problem with anger management? Name one culture/religion besides Buddhists and Aborigines that hasn’t tried to dominate another nation or nations. The Mormons don’t count for this one, they’re just getting started.
You’re doomed.
Notice that the war-crazed-right-wing didn’t go on a crusade when McVeigh blew up Oklahoma City, or when Columbine went down…no, can’t launch a war against our own people of course…
Terrorism will happen because of the growth of angst within. 9/11 just enabled a certain portion of our government to ramp up the defense industry, and suddenly we’re all defenseless little babies here in the states and an arab terrorist is a mountain of a man, capable of killing 26 white suburbanites with his bare hands…shit, intelligence estimates that arab terrorists will be able to control the actions of children living in Utah within five years by only using their minds!!!
The threat is so real in fact, that since 9/11 nothing has happened. Right will attribute this to the Iraq War, but in the process will have to turn logic into magic, just like my stomach turns food into what ends up in the toilet every morning.
Supposedly we’re not scared of these terrorists, but come election time…the GOP wants you to be scared of them…hence Mike Dewine of Ohio, adding in special effects (more smoke) to the image of the WTC towers in an attack ad against his opponent, you know, to make it scary since it didn’t already look gruesome enough!
Playbooks such as these are used by individuals with nothing else to turn to. So the message is, “we need to be AFRAID of these terrorists ALL THE TIME”…and it’s as if they’ve forever sworn off that whole thing about “if we’re scared, THEY WIN”…
It’d be comical if it wasn’t so damned depressing!
I don’t give a fuck about the inability of neighbors across the globe to coexist or work together or whatever the hell makes it impossible
That’s what they said about Poland 1939 and China 1940
My guess is it has to do with a concentration of wealth in some of the more 1800ish versions, like Cuba, Egypt or Saudi Arabia, where the kings rule like our ancestors once were centuries ago – this creates unrest and misery amongst the populace,
You can’t buy off the Muslims, according to them, Allah gave them the Earth and demands one world religion, Islam. Giving a billion people a 50k a year job won’t stop the domination by Islam.
I think this discussion has completely missed what is really going on in the world and that is a country by country invasion of a totalitarian religion.
You see, at least we have famous people for everyone to grow up idolizing, perhaps provide some long stretches of hope whether reality justifies it or not – in the place we’re so concerned about all the time, life is shitty enough to turn people into rebels and entire neighborhoods into gaggles of their sympathizers.
They reject false idols, they idolize Mohammad and Allah and the twisted demands they say he has made. Role models will change nothing.
Save up the money after the war is over, offer to transplant every single Israeli from there to Miami Beach and its surrounding areas.
The Jews were there first, why not transplant all the Muslims. They have only been in that area for, what, 400 years, and the Jews for 4,000+.
Name one culture/religion besides Buddhists and Aborigines that hasn’t tried to dominate another nation or nations.
I don’t care about what happened 2,000 years ago, I care about now. Just because the coptics and Pharoahs didn’t get along doesn’t mean Islam has free reign to invade countries.
Notice that the war-crazed-right-wing didn’t go on a crusade when McVeigh blew up Oklahoma City, or when Columbine went down…no, can’t launch a war against our own people of course…
The right wing didn’t start this war so your wrong right off the bat. McVeigh attacked his own country, Columbine was a law enforcement issue and, finally, McVeigh behaves more like the liberals such a PETA and the enviro whackos than anyting Republican.
Unfortunately, time will tell how bad things will get for the world. I guess now World War 4 is the new mythical war of the future.
Behave’D’…he is dead now, and his beef was with the federal government. Call him a liberal to simplify things if you want to, but that would turn his actions into yet another historical point in our history that people would rather just forget than understand. We’re good at that, you know, slaping a label on something…any label we happen to have laying around, then forgetting about it.
McVeigh is what the London bombers were, only with different ideology. Radical beliefs, the impression that everyone is asleep and needs to be woken up…same as Columbine…a crazy element amidst what we’d like to perceive as widespread good, decent, hard-working, patriotic, blah blah blah.
It takes a moral indifference to kill one’s neighbors, whether it be over money, feeling slighted by society, feeling slighted by the government. Right, let’s get honest here…whereas you’re beating the drum about Islamic radicals, there are people beating the drum about the uprise in violence in our cities…I don’t think it’s right to ignore one and spotlight the other, as they’re equally dangerous, but radical Islam hasn’t killed nearly as many people in America as gun violence has this year.
Though combating radical Islam makes the military industrial complex fat with cash, solving violence in Indianapolis or Boston doesn’t…so one gets ignored and underfunded, while the other gets billions thrown at it.
If the victims of gang violence were white, it would be a different story, but that’s the GOP being what it is…and when Democrats are in charge, most likely the state law enforcement budgets will have more resources to work with, but still, as long as it’s minorities getting shot it still isn’t going to make it on the nightly news…
Not while Tom Cruise is spreading his seed, or Ann Coulter wants to start pointing out gays in our midst.
Role models are exactally what will change these situations…fathers and mothers who are successful, who raise children. Hard to do when a rocket blasts through your home in the middle of the night. Though, that’s what our inner cities need most, role models in their communities who don’t move out the second they make it.
Let the country being invaded ask for help. How about that?
A nation’s leader comes to our President and says, “hey, we’re being taken over by radical Islam, could you help us out?”
What country is saying that? Israel? What other country is saying it? Can you count five even? Countries that fit into your description of Islam’s goal…countries that are under siege and in need of the US military. Or should we assume that every Muslim in the world is an enemy?
How does your logic turn into an actual plan? Or does it just involve Iraq and nothing more? And if so, how is that a plan to stop radical Islam? Sounds kind of simple doesn’t it? Yet shit is heating up, not calming down over there since we went into Iraq, and Bush doesn’t have answers besides selling bombs and nuclear secrets to whoever’s buying. He doesn’t have any answers…all the right-wing has is images of the trade centers with smoke pouring out of them and that’s pretty much it. Nobody has a plan, obviously. Shit, the Taliban was bad news a few years ago…now they’re taking over Afghanistan again…what are the right-wing talkers shouting out about all of that?
Nothing most likely, as it doesn’t fit into the story they want to tell over and over and over and over and over and over and over again. What’s Limbaugh got to say about the Taliban?
Yea it will! If they’ve got to get their ass to work they won’t have time to be fucking around with jihad! What did Reagan say? “I think the best social program is a job”
So Reagan was full of shit when he said that? I don’t think so…I think that was one of the best things he ever said. The terrorists don’t have jobs to go to, they don’t have anything but anger and the urge to earn justice for something.
You simplify it by just saying “they want to take over the world and that’s that” – but it’s a lot more complicated than that.
Right, let’s get honest here…whereas you’re beating the drum about Islamic radicals, there are people beating the drum about the uprise in violence in our cities…I don’t think it’s right to ignore one and spotlight the other, as they’re equally dangerous, but radical Islam hasn’t killed nearly as many people in America as gun violence has this year.
You are getting off topic, and violence is declining, not rising. Crime was highest during Clinton but like I said, this isn’t the topic. Islam killed more people on one day in september than guns have all year. Guns kill less than islam and I’m including things like stoning to death retarded people and honor killings in addition to all the homicide bombings and insurgent attacks in places like Iraq, Phillipines, Chechnya, etc.
If the victims of gang violence were white, it would be a different story, but that’s the GOP being what it is…
This is a big myth that gets perpetuated only during election time. Hey look, it’s election time. Democrats have completely failed all minorities except for themselves, the mionority of white librals getting all the big busines hand outs while shedding crocodile tears for the racial minorities. Give them wellfare, keep them dependant and stupid is their mantra.
Let the country being invaded ask for help. How about that?
Kuwait begged for help, Saudi Arabia was their strongest advocate. Yemen, Quata all begged us to take out Saddam, damn, this was just 4 years ago. Phillipines have asked for help. Seriously, you couldn’t have forgotten all this.
Yea it will! If they’ve got to get their ass to work they won’t have time to be fucking around with jihad! What did Reagan say? “I think the best social program is a job”
No it won’t. Are you saying you can just pay people not to be Muslim or Jewish or Cathiolic. What is your salvation worth to you? Would you spend all eternity in hell for a PS2? How about a jet ski or a quad runner? This is absolutely ridiculous to think that you can buy people’s morality and culture. Would you stop being a Democrat for a 50k a year job? Drop the blog for $500?
Why don’t we just buy all the muslim children and use them for stem cell research? That would solve everyone’s problem!!
So Reagan was full of shit when he said that?
That was right when applied to Americans who want to work and contribute to society, not to a religion of destruction whose primary goal is to reign supreme through forced domination.
“You are getting off topic, and violence is declining, not rising. Crime was highest during Clinton”
Actually Crime is rising, especially violent crime, according to the FBI.
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/06/13/violent_crime_rates_spike_in_us/
And yeah crime peaked with Clinton… in 1992, but steadiily decreased during the rest of his tenure.
U.S.-bound flights targeted with explosives in liquids in carry-on luggage
Fox news headline. I bet if these guys had $19 per hour jobs they would forget about this whole religion thing.
And yeah crime peaked with Clinton… in 1992, but steadiily decreased during the rest of his tenure.
Not because of Clinton but in spite of him. Once Dinkins(Democrat) was booted out of New York and Guilliani(Republican) was brought in the murder rate went from around 2,000 per year down to under 800.
Democrats did everything they could to keep crime high with their Furlough-A-Killer program and Give-Yourself-A-Hug campaign but Republicans just felt so strongly that people need to be held responsible for their crimes.
Criminal justice experts said there were a number of possible explanations for the increase, including an influx of gangs into medium-sized cities and a predicted surge in the number of inmates released from US prisons.
Imagine that, a surge in inmate release, sounds familiar. A Democrat will only make it worse, it’s a historical fact. This isn’t really a federal issue since State, County and City law enforcement agencies have jurisdiction. You didn’t come out and blame Bush by name but the hint is there.
Right, a single mayor of a single city (Guliani-NYC) doesn’t affect crime across the entire nation. The streets of Indianapolis or Fort Worth weren’t affected by anything he did. A country-wide drop in crime is an achievement that Clinton can claim, rightly. It’s one of the primary responsibilities of ANY government, to maintain law and order.
I touch upon this once in a while, not beating the drum for a Bill Clinton lovefest…this is probably the first time I’ve linked the two, as someone else brought it up. I’m intrigued by how little attention street violence gets in the mainstream media these days. How it is justified?
Growing up I remember it being a big issue, on the news daily, politicians being pressed to explain what they were going to do about it.
This is an economic thing. More poor people equals more violent crime. There is a direct correlation. A politician’s crime prevention policies have almost no impact on violent crime. Guiliani’s efforts did not change the crime trend in NY. The crime trend was already heading south when he came in. The trend is your friend. It’s great for a politician when they are in power during a downturn in crime, but other than economic policy development, they have almost no control over crime rates. More prisons and more cops does not equal fewer violent crimes. Fewer people living in poverty equals fewer violent crimes.
It’s an allocation of resource issue, combined with economic realities and an evolved policy that takes into account trends and analyzes combined response initiatives.
Leadership and the correct redeployment of resources can work. It’s called managing.
Prisons and laws are not deterents as much as the higher chance of being caught.
The #1 problem right now that Washington DC could lead on is providing enough $$ to protect witnesses in criminal trials. Right now the situation is so bad that when a case can be made against someone, often times it unraveles due to witness intimidation, sometimes leading to murder. This is one that Bush could have pushed through years ago, a real idea that would make a difference, but what has he ever said about crime?
Right, a single mayor of a single city (Guliani-NYC) doesn’t affect crime across the entire nation.
In this case he did.
To reduce crime, he implemented a “zero tolerance” approach, placing an emphasis on enforcing laws against nuisance crimes as well as serious offenses. Since 1993, the city has experienced an unprecedented 44 percent drop in overall crime and a 61 percent drop in murder, making New York the safest large city in America.
http://www.nyc.gov/html/nyc100/html/classroom/hist_info/mayors.html#giuliani
This lowered the statisical average nationwide making it look like crime was going down when it was only going down in the largest city in America under Republican control.
A country-wide drop in crime is an achievement that Clinton can claim, rightly.
To this day Clinton talks about how great Dinkins was. Clinton can’t claim responsibility for lower crime any more than he can claim he never lied under oath or obstructed justice.
I’m intrigued by how little attention street violence gets in the mainstream media these days. How it is justified?
Reuters needs to add smoke to buring buildings to make them appear more dramitic, gang violence just doesn’t do it for the MSM anymore. They are too busy making up news about how bad Bush is.
How many articles does the NYT write that says Bush as a war criminal, hates minorities, rubs hit naughty parts with a bible and wants to use leeches for medical cures versus stories about street crime and the massive drug problem and this foolishness about releasing “non-violent” offenders?
The media is 90% run by the liberal elite, you will have to ask them why they care so little about social issues.
More poor people equals more violent crime.
Are you making the minorities commit the most crime argument here? While poverty may inspire property crimes such as theft and vandalism I don’t see how Rape, Murder, Kidnapping and the like are related to poverty.
Guiliani’s efforts did not change the crime trend in NY. The crime trend was already heading south when he came in.
Guiliani completely reversed the trend. I have not seen anything that shows crime was heading down during Dinkins. Guiliani’s impact was stark and easily corroborated. It started with guiliani.
Pledging to wage a comprehensive assault on drug abuse, and vowing to sustain and improve upon the successes of his first term, Giuliani ran for reelection to a second term in 1997. With the support of an unprecedented coalition of city leaders that transcended political, religious and ethnic affiliations, Giuliani defeated Manhattan Borough President Ruth Messinger — making him only the second Republican reelected as mayor since Fiorello LaGuardia.
Right, adding smoke to the towers is a sign of something…it’s that the candidate doesn’t feel that the image is as effective on voters as it once was, for whatever reason…
I don’t see the articles you’re talking about here. The NYTimes digs up more dirt on Hillary Clinton than it does Bush. I don’t see any difference between the news division of the NYTimes and the WSJournal to be honest.
You’re preaching to the choir Right – I don’t know of too many people who disapproved of the job Guiliani did as mayor of NYC. I’m just calling out your argument that Guiliani affected crime in the rest of the country. I’d like to see you find news articles attributing a drop in crime in the southwest with Guiliani.
Good luck – because it doesn’t make any sense why crime in LosAngeles would be effected at all by what NYC does. Or are you arguing that control over law enforcement all over the country was delegated to be managed by the office of mayor in NYC?
Did you see me mention minorities? Nope. But it is true that minorities commit a disproportionate number of crimes. Are you suggesting that are prisons aren’t disproportionately full of minorities?
I can understand that you DON’T WANT TO SEE IT. But it’s there if you look. The majority of people in jail (for any crime) are low income. Every now and then you’ll see an NBC Dateline show about a wife or husband that murdered their spouse. But that’s just good TV. The fact is that people die in ghettos and apparently it isn’t newsworthy.
Why do people with lower incomes commit more violent crimes? I don’t know. Perhaps it’s simply the environment that they were raised in.?
A politician cannot really defeat crime without addressing poverty.
I don’t see the articles you’re talking about here. The NYTimes digs up more dirt on Hillary Clinton than it does Bush. I don’t see any difference between the news division of the NYTimes and the WSJournal to be honest.
The point is none of these media outlets are writing about crime in the level that is warranted because they are all infatuated with the “get Bush” religion.
I’m just calling out your argument that Guiliani affected crime in the rest of the country. I’d like to see you find news articles attributing a drop in crime in the southwest with Guiliani.
I didn’t say he lowered crime in other states, what happened was the drop in crime in New York was so large among so many people that the national statistics for crim ewent down. So, when you see crime dropping during Clinton’s term we all know it was only due to one city skewing the numbers nationwide.
Clinton knows some people won’t look past the stats and so he takes credit for something that was just an anomaly created by Guiliani. New York, 8-9 million people wnt from a most dangerous city to a most safest in under four years. Clinton’s anti-crime agenda was as successful as his anti-terrorism agenda.
That’s crap – the newspapers are the ONLY place I ever hear about it! I just read in the NYTimes one or two days ago about the number of bodies in Indianapolis so far this year, how it’s up by about 40% from last year. I pick up the Hartford Courant twice a week and read about crime in Hartford, the Boston Globe runs stories about crime every day…
It’s out there, but goes ignored by Washington DC, because flag burning and gay marriage are just TOO IMPORTANT…it’s a joke!
It’s out there, but goes ignored by Washington DC, because flag burning and gay marriage are just TOO IMPORTANT…it’s a joke!
It’s ignored by Washington D.C. because the President and Legislators aren’t in the business of making traffic stops, answering domestic violence calls and patrolling the streets. If you have a problem with crime in Hartford or Indianapolis then you need to talk to the Sherrif, Mayor and Chief of Police.
Maybe they can take a few notes from the success Guiliani had in New York. Freedom of Speech, Marriage and Homeland Security are national issues.
I’d love for Las Vegas to get some personal attention from the U.S. Government to help with traffic but that is why we have City, County and State governemnt.
VP Cheney Quote:
“And when we see the Democratic Party reject one of its own, a man they selected to be their vice presidential nominee just a few short years ago, it would seem to say a lot about the state the party is in today if that’s becoming the dominant view of the Democratic Party, the basic, fundamental notion that somehow we can retreat behind our oceans and not be actively engaged in this conflict and be safe here at home, which clearly we know we won’t — we can’t be.”
Perfectly said!!!
I thought he was talking about politics in Iraq until I gave it a second read. Only you’d have to change “just a few short years ago” to a “few short months ago” – AND – “fundamental notion that somehow we can retreat behind our oceans” to “fundamental notion that somehow we can retreat behind our rubble”
This IS the man who thought over a year ago that the Iraqi insurgents were in their “LAST THROES”
I can’t wait to hear what Rumsfeld has to say about Lieberman losing in the primary!
Right – you need to watch The Wire!!!!!
Bodies being dropped in broad daylight with witnesses all around who won’t talk out of fear…that is a national problem, and stopping it has to do with REAL POLICE WORK…investigations, wiretaps, etc.
Traffic stops aren’t what I’m talking about here…it’s about giving police the tools they need to do the job. Because it’s not being done today.
I hear all the time about how the GOP is tough on crime and that the belief that every American has a chance for success is a reality…time to put your money where your mouth is. We’ve got mandatory minimums, still more crime. You’ve taken Guliani and paraded him around the past couple days, but what about right now? What about stoping what’s going on in our country TODAY?
I don’t think the GOP gives a damn about murders…that is, not until it’s a photogenic white girl or an insane mother who kills her kids to wash the satan outta them. Truth is, by calling it a “local problem” you’re condoning a lack of action from the top of our government.
FBI agents are wasting time chasing around bullshit NSA leads that end up nowhere (where are the terrorism convictions???), meanwhile the streets run red “WITH BURGANDY’S BLOOD”.
Traffic stops aren’t what I’m talking about here…it’s about giving police the tools they need to do the job. Because it’s not being done today.
When did they lose the tools to do the job? We have had nothing abut increases in police salaries, equipment and personnel. Our academy is full and we are looking for more so, again, it’s where you love and a local issue. The Feds aren’t even allowed to take jurisdiction from local governments.
OK, here’s underequiped:
Where’s the money for witness protection?
Where’s the FBI backup when an investigation requires a larger scope (hint: if it’s not a corrupt union or terrorism related, they don’t have time for you)?
Where’s this database and cooperation between agencies that we were promised after 9/11? A handgun taken off of a murder suspect in NYC cannot be traced to where it was bought.
Drugs come across borders, as do guns…when that happens, the ability of local law enforcement to complete an investigation strong enough to make a difference on their streets is only possible when states are forced to work together, and the Feds are available when the call is made.
WHERE IS THE FUNDING FOR AFTER-SCHOOL PROGRAMS IN THE INNER CITIES? Give these kids something to do after school and less of them will get too caught up to care about graduating high school.
THOSE ARE THE TOOLS we fail to provide local law enforcement!
Cops aren’t just there to bust people – they’re supposed to be visible in our communities, respected and looked up to. That can never happen unless the communities they’re in charge of policing are at least given a chance…right now they aren’t, and I can’t think of a single thing Bush has done to even MENTION this, let alone propose solutions.
I suppose the GOP would attack this problem if it meant privitizing all local law enforcement and creating live in detention/charter/school/jails all over the country.
Unless someone in the private sector can make a buck off of something, Republicans don’t give a fuck about it!
Right, the communities in jeopardy of turning back to the crime-infestested hell holes of the 1980s aren’t occupied by upper income residents who can donate enough time and money to provide these things for themselves. A kick up in the number of cops or their salaries won’t make a bit of difference.
How can we ignore this, call it a “local issue” and look the other way, when our government is spending billions of dollars every month to provide the same thing to Arabs?
Why are Iraqi citizens and their well-being more important to President Bush than that of AMERICANS in similar situations? Are you suggesting that in America today, it’s acceptable for a murder to take place with witnesses, yet all are too scared to testify?
That means a murderer goes free to do it again. There’s no JUSTICE for these people. Most of them aren’t looking to kill their neighbor and steal to make a living. I look back to Katrina for all the information I need on the topic of how much the US government actually cares about its own citizens. The black faces in trouble down there last summer will remain etched into my mind for a long time to come. We tried to wash our hands of the entire culture and point to the faults of the people themselves…basically saying that entire communities in America aren’t worth the time or the effort.
“…with Liberty and Justice for all.”
That’s the pledge I recited every day as a student growing up in predominantly white communities, and it was hard to understand at the time why I had it so good, when clearly there were kids just like me who weren’t.
There’s no Justice for millions of Americans today…so the government is a failure in my opinion. It cannot even validate the truth of it’s own constitution within it’s borders. And if you ask 10 Republican voters in any state about what’s the most important thing government needs to be doing, for some reason many will provide answers that point to fixing problems outside of our country.
The yammering satan of media and corrupt politicians has worked hard over a number of years to convince us that the answer to our problems lies outside rather than within. And look at where the money goes.
If a Democratic Congress becomes a reality in 2006, I’ll be the first to jump off the bandwagon if they intend to ruin this great republic like the crooks they replaced. We’re conditioned now to go get ours and say ‘fuck it’ to everything and everybody else…that’s where we’re at today.
Americans need to start getting as much attention as does the private sector and the military industrial complex, or we’re not even a country anymore. I find it hard to justify calling this collection of states a country as it is, but it’s getting worse.
That pipeline in Alaska was something to be proud of when it was built…then what happened? The energy sector corrupted state and federal officials to the point where it was allowed to go to shit, no upkeep…with all the money they’re raking in, STILL, there’s nobody in charge to make sure they do what they’re supposed to do.
Now watch for the tax breaks to whoever spends some of the hundreds of billions in profits in fixing it…then watch how federal oversight lessens during Bush’s final 2 years.
But hey, I don’t live in Alaska, so I can just say ‘fuck it’…’local issue’, right?
In that case, we’re not even a country anymore besides the fact that all of us have to pay taxes. Aside from that and a flag (an inanimate object), there’s nothing to justify calling what we have a country.