Army Sucides highest in 20 years

[KCFlyer]

Gore would make money on the carbon credits he sold the taliban.

Gore,Gore.Gore.....I don't think he would be any better or worse...but then again....we'll never know.

I'm pretty confident he wouldn't have been any worse than what we have. Nobody could be worse than what we have. Either of my two labrador retrievers could do a better job that cowboy Bush has done. No my friend...Bush has secured his place as the worst president in this nations history.

 

[delldude]

I'm pretty confident he wouldn't have been any worse than what we have. Nobody could be worse than what we have. Either of my two labrador retrievers could do a better job that cowboy Bush has done. No my friend...Bush has secured his place as the worst president in this nations history.

Dick Nixon leads by one percentage point.

Looks like Boy George isn't even in the running on this one:

Duh

 

[KCFlyer]

Dick Nixon leads by one percentage point.

Looks like Boy George isn't even in the running on this one:

Duh

History isn't done with W yet. He will go down as the worst president ever. Why...in the page you linked, did you bother to check the peoples votes? Try that link - those are the ones who will be making up this poll in the future.

 

[delldude]

It could be a moot point as for the most part we usually don't know what a Prez really did until well after they leave office.
Besides......sooner or later someone else will take the title.Obama may be on deck....Carter-lite?

 

[NewHampshire Black Bears]

Gore would make money on the carbon credits he sold the taliban.

Gore,Gore.Gore.....I don't think he would be any better or worse...but then again....we'll never know.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Sorry DELL....(You know I luv ya' like a brotha'),.......BUT,........That RETARDED IMBECILE is (already) the ABSOLUTE WORST ..POTUS in US History,...............BAR-NONE !!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Redbird]

It's a damn shame that we are battling the jihadists on the soil of a country that DID NOTHING to the US. And because we decided to bring Iraq into play..it certainly HAS resulted in the recruiting increases for jihadists. Better to have fought them on the distant battlefield of the country that supported and sheltered them.

WWII thinking in that you assume borders and boundaries. There are none. The jihadists declared war on the *western* cultures. And your assertion about it resulting in increased recruiting is opinion and unsubstantiated opinion at that.

While I have no doubt that Gore would have retaliated just as swiftly as Bush did, I also believe he would have retaliated more severely than Bush did to the ones that attacked us.

Where in the history of Al does one find such bold action to support your argument? But to use your operative verb (believe) you are certainly entitled to those beliefs albeit it just that.

And one has to wonder - if a war would have been waged against those that attacked us...and our pursuit of those that attacked us had been relentless - what message would that have sent to future terrorists?

Ah, the wonders of revisionist history and of using hindsight to support an argument. Remember, if you will that during the Clinton Admin, Clinton and his advisors were all talking about the threat posed by Saddam. The intel communities of other countries were also concerned about the *perceived* threat by Saddam. And it was obvious with the French circumventing the UN resolutions along with a few other countries as well as Saddam ignoring UN resolutions ( and Kofi's son making huge bucks off his little scam) that nothing of substance was going to be achieved. And Congress also voted to act, another fact often forgotten now.

Well, here's the news... be it Barrack or John, we are not going to be able to have the lions and lambs lie down together anytime in the near future. The jihadists are not going to quit whether we stay or leave Iraq. Iran WILL continue to pursue nuclear weapons and will use them as soon as they can deploy them. In the first six months of the new presidency, that President will have myriad opportunities to respond to significant challenges. Putin, not happy with being the Avis of nuke countries, will expand his efforts to re-awaken the "Bear" and extend its power. Expect Chavez, Kim Jung Il to create problems as will Amadinejad. The honeymoon for the 'change' candidate will be shorter than one following a Las Vegas wedding.

And just to make your day, ponder this little image... the John Belushi of world leaders...

 

[Redbird]

I'm pretty confident he wouldn't have been any worse than what we have. Nobody could be worse than what we have. Either of my two labrador retrievers could do a better job that cowboy Bush has done. No my friend...Bush has secured his place as the worst president in this nations history.

I am beginning to understand your posts better with each assertion and slur.

First, remember that Truman left almost in disgrace and now is considered one of the stronger Presidents. Jimmy was hailed as a great President by many but a brief scan of those years shows he set new standards for failing the American republic. And Jimmy continues to set NEW standards for former President. (It will be most interesting to see how the Democrats handle him this year at the party convention)

And as for your labs, keep them healthy. Considering the candidates the Democrat party has recently chosen and the leaders (and I use that term very loosely) the party has at its helm (Reid, Pelosi, Feinstein), and if your labs do little other than bark and poop your labs may have a place on some Democrat ticket.

 

[KCFlyer]

WWII thinking in that you assume borders and boundaries. There are none. The jihadists declared war on the *western* cultures. And your assertion about it resulting in increased recruiting is opinion and unsubstantiated opinion at that.

So...it was a GOOD decision to pull the bulk of our troops out of the hunt to eradicate the terrorists that attacked us and focus instead on a nutjob who did nothing to us?

Ah, the wonders of revisionist history and of using hindsight to support an argument. Remember, if you will that during the Clinton Admin, Clinton and his advisors were all talking about the threat posed by Saddam. The intel communities of other countries were also concerned about the *perceived* threat by Saddam. And it was obvious with the French circumventing the UN resolutions along with a few other countries as well as Saddam ignoring UN resolutions ( and Kofi's son making huge bucks off his little scam) that nothing of substance was going to be achieved. And Congress also voted to act, another fact often forgotten now.

I also remember in my revisionist history that the outgoing Clinton administration briefed the incoming Bush administration that their number one issue would be Osama bin laden. Of course, coming from Clinton, Bush did what any good republican would do....ignored it.

Now...Saddam posed a threat...Clinton even said so. And you Bush lovers enjoy pointing that out to justify our invasion of Iraq. But Clinton also said bin laden posed a threat. And lo and behold, bin laden and his group DID more than just threaten...they attacked. Yet he's still walking. Why? Geez - for 8 years if Clinton said the sky was blue, republicans would have argued about it. But when he said Saddam was a threat, by God, he might as well written the bible.

There were a lot of empires that thought they were the biggest, baddest boys on the block. They're not around anymore, I guess because there was strength in numbers...the numbers of others who really disliked the arrogance and bullying of those empires. Bush going into Iraq while giving the middle finger to the rest of the world did not help the US position in the world. Could he have started the downfall of the American empire?

 

[Redbird]

I also remember in my revisionist history that the outgoing Clinton administration briefed the incoming Bush administration that their number one issue would be Osama bin laden. Of course, coming from Clinton, Bush did what any good republican would do....ignored it.

Selective memory works very well with a poor argument. By your own statement, the Clinton admin knew the problem with Osama and did NOTHING. Nice try to deflect the inaction of Clinton to a fault of Bush.

Now...Saddam posed a threat...Clinton even said so.

We agree.

And you Bush lovers enjoy pointing that out to justify our invasion of Iraq.

This is the interesting thing about the left. IF one does not agree with them, IF one argues any point other than bashing Bush, one is a "Bush Lover". Sort of like the environmentalists where if one wants to drill for oil or one who notes that ethanol is a boondoggle jacking up prices of fuel, food and cost of living, one doesn't love Mother Earth.

I have said Bush was probably better than Gore or Kerry based solely on what Gore and Kerry have said prior. I admit it is an opinion.

But Clinton also said bin laden posed a threat. And lo and behold, bin laden and his group DID more than just threaten...they attacked. Yet he's still walking. Why? Geez - for 8 years if Clinton said the sky was blue, republicans would have argued about it. But when he said Saddam was a threat, by God, he might as well written the bible.

Why do you keep assailing the Clinton Admin as a do-nothing admin? I thought you liked Bill but thus far you have only said he was inept in dealing with a threat he and his entire admin acknowledged. ???
With friends like you, Bill and the left needs no vast right wing conspiracy.

 

[Veritas]

Selective memory works very well with a poor argument.

You have just described your own modus operandi to a t.

 

[KCFlyer]

Selective memory works very well with a poor argument. By your own statement, the Clinton admin knew the problem with Osama and did NOTHING. Nice try to deflect the inaction of Clinton to a fault of Bush.

It seems I recall that had Clinton even tried to do anything about bin laden, the right would have claimed that it was just to divert attention from the Lewinsky affair. Come on...admit that you would have. So in essence - the 8 year witch hunt that the right had for Clinton resulted in him being a "do nothing", which resulted in the US being attacked by bin laden. Therefore, the 9/11 attacks were a result of the right wing not allowing a president to handle presidential business, but instead defend himself against real estate deals, drug deals, travel deals, murder, blowjobs and heaven knows what else. I do believe the US had a greater stature under Clinton that we do with "bring 'em on" Bush. Speaking of "bring 'em on"...IMHO, that was far worse than a hundred blowjobs by an intern...and Bush should have been immediately impeached as unfit as commander in chief when he ENCOURAGED our enemy to ATTACK our troops.

This is the interesting thing about the left. IF one does not agree with them, IF one argues any point other than bashing Bush, one is a "Bush Lover". Sort of like the environmentalists where if one wants to drill for oil or one who notes that ethanol is a boondoggle jacking up prices of fuel, food and cost of living, one doesn't love Mother Earth.

Here's an intersting thing about the right - anybody who doesn't agree with them is a "liberal democrat". I'm actually more conservative than liberal, but the policies of Bush go against my views of conservatism. As for not wanting to drill for oil...the ANWR has a whopping 20 year supply under it (provided our useage remains the same). I guess I'm a tree hugging liberal because I believe in conservation...sure let's drill the ANWR...let's also assess the same gas hog tax on an Expedition as we do for the guy who buys a Ferrari that gets BETTER mileage than the Expedition.

I have said Bush was probably better than Gore or Kerry based solely on what Gore and Kerry have said prior. I admit it is an opinion.

And I admit it's my opinion that had Gore been president on 9/11/01, bin laden rather than Saddam would be dead now.

Why do you keep assailing the Clinton Admin as a do-nothing admin? I thought you liked Bill but thus far you have only said he was inept in dealing with a threat he and his entire admin acknowledged. ???
With friends like you, Bill and the left needs no vast right wing conspiracy.

Hmmm...I liked Bill enough to vote for Ross Perot in 1992 and Bob Dole in 1996. Yep.... I'm one of those lefties you like, but as you say...if one argues the point of bashing Bush, they are considered a "Clinton lover". I never voted for Bill, and because of that I am able to call a witch hunt a witch hunt.

 

[delldude]

It seems I recall that had Clinton even tried to do anything about bin laden, the right would have claimed that it was just to divert attention from the Lewinsky affair. Come on...admit that you would have. So in essence - the 8 year witch hunt that the right had for Clinton resulted in him being a "do nothing", which resulted in the US being attacked by bin laden. Therefore, the 9/11 attacks were a result of the right wing not allowing a president to handle presidential business, but instead defend himself against real estate deals, drug deals, travel deals, murder, blowjobs and heaven knows what else. I do believe the US had a greater stature under Clinton that we do with "bring 'em on" Bush. Speaking of "bring 'em on"...IMHO, that was far worse than a hundred blowjobs by an intern...and Bush should have been immediately impeached as unfit as commander in chief when he ENCOURAGED our enemy to ATTACK our troops.

Here's an intersting thing about the right - anybody who doesn't agree with them is a "liberal democrat". I'm actually more conservative than liberal, but the policies of Bush go against my views of conservatism. As for not wanting to drill for oil...the ANWR has a whopping 20 year supply under it (provided our useage remains the same). I guess I'm a tree hugging liberal because I believe in conservation...sure let's drill the ANWR...let's also assess the same gas hog tax on an Expedition as we do for the guy who buys a Ferrari that gets BETTER mileage than the Expedition.

And I admit it's my opinion that had Gore been president on 9/11/01, bin laden rather than Saddam would be dead now.



Hmmm...I liked Bill enough to vote for Ross Perot in 1992 and Bob Dole in 1996. Yep.... I'm one of those lefties you like, but as you say...if one argues the point of bashing Bush, they are considered a "Clinton lover". I never voted for Bill, and because of that I am able to call a witch hunt a witch hunt.

Spare us your litany....................

 

[delldude]

You have just described your own modus operandi to a t.

So you get checkmate and slither out the back door.....

 

[Cosworth]

By your own statement, the Clinton admin knew the problem with Osama and did NOTHING. Nice try to deflect the inaction of Clinton to a fault of Bush.

Out of curiosity, what do you think Clinton should/could have done?

 

[delldude]

Out of curiosity, what do you think Clinton should/could have done?

Kept it in his pants............