

Announce a date by which U.S. forces in Iraq should surrender and withdraw, and you're officially a Democratic candidate for president.
![]()
Disclaimer: All health, fitness, diet, nutrition, anabolic steroid & supplement information posted here is intended for educational and informational purposes only, and is not intended as a substitute for proper medical advice from a medical doctor. We do not condone the use of anabolic steroids (AAS), all information about AAS is for educational and entertainment purposes only. If you choose to use AAS it's your responsibility to know the laws of the country that you live in. Consult your physician or health care professional before performing any of the exercises, or following any diet, nutrition or supplement advice described on this website.


What are the Republican reqs.?
" Cry 'Havoc,' and let slip the dogs of war"
While the rest of the US say's in unison:
"That this foul deed shall smell above the earth
With carrion men, groaning for burial."
Coarse edged youth, the irish pendants string from their smiles
not yet plucked as to slacken the seams
and drag down the features of age,
no folds or creases from unkempt wear
eyes of tranquilty, crystalline-beads
no sign of despair in their hair, nor their hearts
but oh they have yet to be experienced and that makes aging so very worth it...ML circa2012

Well the current republicans suck ass, you can put a rose on shit but it's still going to smell like shit.


Working hard for that "Dumb fuck of the year" award, eh, BigDyl?
It happened less than 6 months after his term was over, but most (perhaps all) of the attacks, and the failure to adequately respond to them, that led up to 9/11 happened on Slick Willie's watch.
It's the same thing that happened with the economy.
Both parties are carefully playing this out.
Sadly, politics has overtaken many of the decisions on Iraq, now.
There are huge elections coming in 19 months. And remember, not just for Prez, but for 1/3 of the Senate, and a lot of House seats.
The dilemma for both parties:
They cannot do what needs to be done military to stabalize the Al-Maliki coalition government.
But if the U.S. withdraws those who support withdrawing will be blamed for losing, or giving up.
Politicians of both parties are stuck in a rock and a hard place.![]()
The funny thing is, certain uber conservatives keep bringing up 9/11 and the word spineless.
Are democrat's spineless for not wanting to get involved in a war that never shouldve happened? Or are we retarded because we will finally accept that Iraq and 9/11 arent related??
Also, conservative British PM Chamberlain's "spineless" politics were a catalyst for WW2, while FDR's liberal politics arguably saved democracy in Europe.
Sadly, half the people who will participate in this thread won't honor my point, or anyone else's.
You guys are going to lose. You might as well just cheer for me, because Boston isn’t winning in Boston for the season opener. I’m sorry. " - Gilbert Arenas

You're confused. The attacks during Clinton's administration predate both 9/11 and GWB's war in Iraq; but don't let that stop you from a senseless line of questioning.
You're trying to compare the modern groups of Republicans and Democrats to their predecessors from over 60 years ago? And with those from another political group in another country, also from over 60 years ago?
Good luck with that.
Then how does the original attack during Clinton's presidency differ at all from GWB's presidential terrorism attacks? "Fools repeat mistakes, the intelligent learn from their mistakes, and the wise learn from other's mistakes." Sounds like GWB might be the former to me.
I brought up FDR because his politics were ahead of his time by a large, large margin, and dont vary much from today's political scene. Widely considered to be one of the greatest leaders of all time, I don't consider him spineless. You may, blindly b/c of his title of a democrat, but I don't.
You guys are going to lose. You might as well just cheer for me, because Boston isn’t winning in Boston for the season opener. I’m sorry. " - Gilbert Arenas
"Are democrat's spineless for not wanting to get involved in a war that never shouldve happened?"
They are spineless for backing the Iraq war when it was politically advantageous to do so and then condemning it as Bush's war, as polls changed.
Someone's got to grab the bull by the balls and kick these incompetent punks out of power.
Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld created the Office of Special Programs in the Pentagon which mischaracterized Iraq's WMD threat. These people disseminated these lies about WMDs to the Congress so that everyone 'is on the same page.'
The congress authorized Bush to use force, if necessary, to defuse Iraq's WMD threat as presented in the "evidence" supplied by Bush & Co.
Bush abuses that grant of authority from the Congress by illegally invading Iraq before the UN Inspectors can finish the inspections and prior to any okey dokey from the UN Security Council.
From where I'm sitting, it looks like the democrats, in their efforts to end this ongoing mistake and war crime in Iraq, are doing the right thing in calling for withdrawal.
Consider the steps offered by Clinton's 1996 omnibus anti-terror legislation, the pricetag for which stood at $1.097 billion. The following is a partial list of the initiatives offered by the Clinton anti-terrorism bill:
· Screen Checked Baggage: $91.1 million
· Screen Carry-On Baggage: $37.8 million
· Passenger Profiling: $10 million
· Screener Training: $5.3 million
· Screen Passengers (portals) and Document Scanners: $1 million
· Deploying Existing Technology to Inspect International Air Cargo: $31.4
million
· Provide Additional Air/Counterterrorism Security: $26.6 million
· Explosives Detection Training: $1.8 million
· Augment FAA Security Research: $20 million
· Customs Service: Explosives and Radiation Detection Equipment at Ports: $2.2 million
· Anti-Terrorism Assistance to Foreign Governments: $2 million
· Capacity to Collect and Assemble Explosives Data: $2.1 million
· Improve Domestic Intelligence: $38.9 million
· Critical Incident Response Teams for Post-Blast Deployment: $7.2 million
· Additional Security for Federal Facilities: $6.7 million
· Firefighter/Emergency Services Financial Assistance: $2.7 million
· PublicBuilding and Museum Security: $7.3 million
· Improve Technology to Prevent Nuclear Smuggling: $8 million
· Critical Incident Response Facility: $2 million
· Counter-Terrorism Fund: $35 million
· Explosives Intelligence and Support Systems: $14.2 million
· Office of Emergency Preparedness: $5.8 million
The Clinton administration poured more than a billion dollars into counterterrorism activities across the entire spectrum of the intelligence community, into the protection of critical infrastructure, into massive federal stockpiling of antidotes and vaccines to prepare for a possible bioterror attack, into a reorganization of the intelligence community itself. Within the National Security Council, "threat meetings" were held three times a week to assess looming conspiracies. Source: William Rivers Pitt
You make a senseless point. Retaliation is meaningless in the context of terrorism. What is not meaningless is tracking down terrorists and arresting them.
But we can play your game of retaliation or scaring the enemy to keep it from attacking us...actually I'm not sure what your point is.
Which enemy do we retaliate against?
Ireland had terrorists. Should we pre-emptively bomb them? How about Saudi Arabia or Pakistan. We could bomb them too to teach potential terrorists a lesson.
Where is this enemy located?
Terrorism is a tactic. It's everywhere and nowhere.
How do you go about scaring him/her/it?
Bombing.
I know, I know, asked/answered.