PDA

View Full Version : Having it both ways



nAz
08-30-2004, 04:58 AM
I was just wondering about what impact another Terrorist attack would have on the election. it seems to me that Bush would benefit the most whether there is one or not, if there is one he could spin that and say he needs to be in charge because the "job ain't done" and the demos are too weak to finish the job. If there is not one he could spin it and say that there has not been one thanks to his policy.
sounds like a win win situation for the Prez what do you think?

Wally_in_Cincy
08-30-2004, 06:12 AM
Actually, the win-win situation was when the Democrats offered up the liberal John Kerry and the wacky Howard Dean as Bush's main rivals. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

But you I believe your original point is correct. If there is another major attack, Bush is a shoe-in. If not, he can claim credit.

dg-in-centralpa
08-30-2004, 02:52 PM
My wife is a Democrat and for the most part, a hardline Democrat. After 9/11, she admitted, with no prompting from me, that she was glad GW was in office rather Al Bore. She doesn't think Al would have been able to handle the pressure. I agree that GW could have it both ways.

DG - not thrilled with either person

nAz
08-30-2004, 03:08 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote dg-in-centralpa:</font><hr> She doesn't think Al would have been able to handle the pressure. I agree that GW could have it both ways.
<hr /></blockquote>

curious DG what did she base that on? Bush had absolutely no experience on the terrorist front or any other front for that matter, not that Gore had much more but still it is not like Gore couldn't look at a map and point to Afghanistan and say Bomb this place now! /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

Naz thinks W did even know where Afghanistan was or still is, i think he confused it with Iraq.

dg-in-centralpa
08-30-2004, 03:19 PM
Her feeling was that the Republicans are more shoot from the hips and ask later, and the Dems are more diplomatic, even tho you'e fighting a losing battle, they are more the diplomat.

DG

nAz
08-30-2004, 03:27 PM
ahh, hey let me ask you how do the Amish feel about the War and Bush in general?

eg8r
08-30-2004, 03:38 PM
Naz, I guess hindsight is 20/20. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif You are very correct stating Gore had more experience in dealing with this type of act. When the WTC were bombed in the early 90's the Clinton/Gore group did nothing. This was a pretty similar reaction to the rest of the terrorists acts that happened during their time in the White House.

Now after seeing someone actually doing something about it (Afghanistan) it should be tough to believe Gore would have handled it any better. Given Gore's past it is a fair bet to believe the Taliban would still be in control. You might not agree with Iraq, but do you not think Bush did a good job in Afghanistan (still on-going)?

I also agree Bush could have it both ways. Becuase of his action he has put himself in a preferable position.

eg8r

dg-in-centralpa
08-30-2004, 03:54 PM
I have very little contact with the Amish. I used to work with them 25 years ago and at that time, they never talked politics. They pretty much kept to themselves and still do. There are places were they are, but they are very quiet. Unless they are going through "Rumspringa". Then all bets are off.

DG - loves food from the Amish

Qtec
08-30-2004, 05:41 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote dg-in-centralpa:</font><hr> Her feeling was that the Republicans are more shoot from the hips and ask later, <font color="blue"> Dumb,stupid, trigger happy, etc etc /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif </font color> and the Dems are more diplomatic, even tho you'e fighting a losing battle, they are more the diplomat. <font color="blue"> Intelligent, logn term thinking,aware, etc, etc /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif </font color>

DG <hr /></blockquote>

Shooting from the hip is a reflex, done without thinking.Do you really want a Govt that does things, without examining the consequences?

Q [ dont like Kerry that much either]

dg-in-centralpa
08-30-2004, 06:28 PM
Q - for your information, shooting from the hip is an expression meaning that they won't take any bull$hit from anyone. Unlike the Dems who have to kiss everyone's a$$. Which one are you? I have an idea. Since you don't like Kerry, are you going to be as vocal about him if he wins? I doubt it. You don't have the balls.

DG

Ross
08-30-2004, 09:03 PM
sorry dg - that is not the meaning of "shooting from the hip."

From Miriam-Webster:

"shoot from the hip : to act or speak hastily without consideration of the consequences"

I've done it, and usually regretted it. /ccboard/images/graemlins/crazy.gif

Chris Cass
08-31-2004, 12:30 AM
Anytime there's a war the pres in place will win the next election. Especially, if it look like we're winning. America needs war every so often to keep the economy going.

Regards,

C.C.~~I think it's every 10 yrs?

cheesemouse
08-31-2004, 04:49 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote nAz:</font><hr> I was just wondering about what impact another Terrorist attack would have on the election. it seems to me that Bush would benefit the most whether there is one or not, if there is one he could spin that and say he needs to be in charge because the "job ain't done" and the demos are too weak to finish the job. If there is not one he could spin it and say that there has not been one thanks to his policy.
sounds like a win win situation for the Prez what do you think? <hr /></blockquote>


Naz,

I agree that Bush is in win/win situation as regards terrorism...this is a classic case of 'events making the man'...as I have said before Elmer Fudd could have been president before 9/11 and the strong quick response demanded for this cowardly attack would have made Elmer look very strong, tough(bring it on!), resolute, and a man of action...minus 9/11 Bush would have remained 'Elmer' and this election would be about the domestic issues that effect all our lives...are you better off???.......this election would be a retirement party. Elmer would get his watch and he would ride off into the sunset on his little pony....

eg8r
08-31-2004, 05:43 AM
[ QUOTE ]
this is a classic case of 'events making the man'...as I have said before Elmer Fudd could have been president before 9/11 and the strong quick response demanded for this cowardly attack would have made Elmer look very strong, tough(bring it on!), resolute, and a man of action...minus 9/11 Bush would have remained 'Elmer' and this election would be about the domestic issues that effect all our lives...are you better off???.......this election would be a retirement party. Elmer would get his watch and he would ride off into the sunset on his little pony.... <hr /></blockquote> Could you give us some examples of how Bill Clinton/Al Gore reacted to the MANY terrorist attacks on Americans? Heck, the two did not even do anything when the WTC were bombed. Surely no one will ever remember the two of them as being tough on terrorism, just tough talkers.

eg8r

cheesemouse
08-31-2004, 06:02 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> &lt;/font&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font class="small"&gt;Quote:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;
this is a classic case of 'events making the man'...as I have said before Elmer Fudd could have been president before 9/11 and the strong quick response demanded for this cowardly attack would have made Elmer look very strong, tough(bring it on!), resolute, and a man of action...minus 9/11 Bush would have remained 'Elmer' and this election would be about the domestic issues that effect all our lives...are you better off???.......this election would be a retirement party. Elmer would get his watch and he would ride off into the sunset on his little pony.... <hr /></blockquote> Could you give us some examples of how Bill Clinton/Al Gore reacted to the MANY terrorist attacks on Americans? Heck, the two did not even do anything when the WTC were bombed. Surely no one will ever remember the two of them as being tough on terrorism, just tough talkers.

eg8r <hr /></blockquote>


Ed,

I think even you would have to admit that 9/11 tipped the scale and, as I said "DEMANDED" a strong quick responce...9/11 was bigger than Pearl Harbor and more cowardly because the dead were helpless civilians.

Terrorism has been and will be with us forever. A war on terrorism is a misnomer. By definition a war is something that can be 'won' there is an end, a winner.

We could have beat Binny boy but have we??? Elmer got side tracked and you and I are paying the price for his mis-steps...like it or not.

Stay in the present Ed...just like when your running a rack... /ccboard/images/graemlins/shocked.gif

eg8r
08-31-2004, 07:03 AM
[ QUOTE ]
I think even you would have to admit that 9/11 tipped the scale and, as I said "DEMANDED" a strong quick responce... <hr /></blockquote> Sounds like you are taking the easy way out. There were many attacks during Clinton's presidency and ALL of them should have tipped the scale. I personally believe, if Gore was President he would have carried on much like the past 8 years. After 8 years, he was a creature of habit, and that was talk, not action.

[ QUOTE ]
9/11 was bigger than Pearl Harbor and more cowardly because the dead were helpless civilians.
<hr /></blockquote> I totally agree it was cowardly, but to try and say this one is bigger than that one does not really matter to me. They are both the same, a terrorist attack on US citizens.

[ QUOTE ]
We could have beat Binny boy but have we??? <hr /></blockquote> Have we not??? Is your quote a statement or question? You seem to give both.

[ QUOTE ]
Stay in the present Ed...just like when your running a rack... /ccboard/images/graemlins/shocked.gif <hr /></blockquote> No, that is definitely the wrong thing to do. Not learning from your past is the wrong thing to do. The only way to learn from the past is to look back on it, and do something different. If 8 years is so far in the past that you don't believe it is relevant any more, then there is not much to say. Besides if we were to live in the present as you suggest, then nothing would EVER tip the scales as it would just be a new beginning each time, forgetting every other time something happened. Maybe that was Clinton's problem.

As far as running a rack, I wish I understood the reference, I nearly never run a rack. /ccboard/images/graemlins/confused.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

eg8r

nAz
08-31-2004, 07:33 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> Naz, I guess hindsight is 20/20. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif You are very correct stating Gore had more experience in dealing with this type of act. When the WTC were bombed in the early 90's the Clinton/Gore group did nothing. This was a pretty similar reaction to the rest of the terrorists acts that happened during their time in the White House.
<font color="brown">ya but i do not think any sitting Prez would have reacted too different to the first WTC attack, it was not like the horrible 2nd one /ccboard/images/graemlins/frown.gif </font color>

Now after seeing someone actually doing something about it (Afghanistan) it should be tough to believe Gore would have handled it any better. Given Gore's past it is a fair bet to believe the Taliban would still be in control. You might not agree with Iraq, but do you not think Bush did a good job in Afghanistan (still on-going)?

I also agree Bush could have it both ways. Because of his action he has put himself in a preferable position.

eg8r <hr /></blockquote> <font color="brown"> Na I'm sure Gore would have gone all out in Afgan no matter how he would personal;y feel about it, the U.S. public was screaming for blood and they would have taken Gores if he did nothing,
I thought Bush was doing a excellent job in Afghan except when Osama got a way, i think he should have gone all out to track him down no matter where he was hiding (Pakistan) he really should have finished the job.
you know from what little news is reported form there i read that the new Gov. is adopting a lot of the Taliban laws, women are being beating if they are not covered up and man are starting to get harassed for not having a long beard, i tell you if we are not careful there it could all blow up in are face /ccboard/images/graemlins/frown.gif </font color>

Rich R.
08-31-2004, 07:45 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> Heck, the two did not even do anything when the WTC were bombed. <hr /></blockquote>
Please tell us what you think Clinton and Gore should have done. /ccboard/images/graemlins/confused.gif

At the time of the WTC bombing, neither was in public office. They were private citizens, like you and me.

Yes, they could have gone on TV and publicly criticized what was or was not being done. But, instead, they did the right thing. The were quiet and let the elected officials, regardless party affiliation, do their jobs.

Wally_in_Cincy
08-31-2004, 08:26 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote nAz:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> ...I thought Bush was doing a excellent job in Afghan except when Osama got a way, i think he should have gone all out to track him down no matter where he was hiding (Pakistan) he really should have finished the job. ....
<hr /></blockquote>

just one problem. they can't go into that wild country to get him. it's ruled by muslim warlords and our guys would never make it out.

[ QUOTE ]
you know from what little news is reported form there i read that the new Gov. is adopting a lot of the Taliban laws, women are being beating if they are not covered up and man are starting to get harassed for not having a long beard, <hr /></blockquote>

where did you hear that? at least it's not as bad as it was.

highsea
08-31-2004, 09:28 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Rich R.:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> Heck, the two did not even do anything when the WTC were bombed. <hr /></blockquote>
Please tell us what you think Clinton and Gore should have done. /ccboard/images/graemlins/confused.gif

At the time of the WTC bombing, neither was in public office. They were private citizens, like you and me.
<hr /></blockquote>Hellooo... /ccboard/images/graemlins/confused.gif eg8r was referring to the '93 WTC bombing. Clinton was Pres. and Gore was VP. Their resonse to the bombing was to launch a few cruise missiles at one of bin laden's training camps in Afghanistan. We spent about 80 million dollars and blew up a couple tents.

Anyway, I don't see how another attack could possibly help Bush. The left has been saying that America is no safer today than we were 3 years ago, and another attack would give them the opportunity to say "we told you so".

As it stands, there have been no new attacks on the US or our embassies. No new "Cole style" attacks on naval assets, and the battle has been taken to the enemy. The Taliban rule in Afghanistan is history. Pakistan, who traditionally supported the Taliban and bin laden is fighting with us rather than against us, Saddam is in jail, Libya is disarming, attacks on Israel have been greatly reduced and the Palestinians are changing their tactic to work to a political solution. The A.Q. Khan nuclear black market has been broken up, and several thousand al qaeda have been sent to meet their maker.

The war may not be "winnable" in the sense of previous wars where you fought an army, and there was a winner and a loser, but I don't think anyone can resaonably say the US is "losing" in the war on terror.

-CM

Rich R.
08-31-2004, 09:55 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote highsea:</font><hr>
<hr /></blockquote>Hellooo... /ccboard/images/graemlins/confused.gif eg8r was referring to the '93 WTC bombing. <hr /></blockquote>
My bad. I was assuming the more recent WTC bombing. /ccboard/images/graemlins/confused.gif

highsea
08-31-2004, 10:02 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote nAz:</font><hr>Na I'm sure Gore would have gone all out in Afgan no matter how he would personal;y feel about it, the U.S. public was screaming for blood and they would have taken Gores if he did nothing,

<font color="blue"> I'm not as confident as you, nAz. I think Gore would have launched a bunch of air strikes, and sent some more CM's at'em, but that's it. I really doubt he would've committed any troops to the downfall of the Taliban. </font color>

I thought Bush was doing a excellent job in Afghan except when Osama got a way, i think he should have gone all out to track him down no matter where he was hiding (Pakistan) he really should have finished the job.

<font color="blue"> OBL may be in Pakistan, he may be in Iran. As long as Pakistan is working with us, we can't reasonably go after OBL on Pak's territory. It would have a very destabilizing effect on Musharraf's gov't. The US is not well liked in Pakistan, due to Clinton policies in the '90's.

Bush is trying to turn that around, but the Pak's are not a very trusting bunch. Al-qaeda are definitely crippled in the border areas, and cannot operate openly. If the US maintains it's current stance with Pakistan (MNNA, economic aid, etc.), they will continue to help us. Pak has 75,000 troops on the western border, which is a lot for them, considering their major problem is the J&amp;K dispute with India. </font color>

you know from what little news is reported form there i read that the new Gov. is adopting a lot of the Taliban laws, women are being beating if they are not covered up and man are starting to get harassed for not having a long beard, i tell you if we are not careful there it could all blow up in are face /ccboard/images/graemlins/frown.gif

<font color="blue"> This is not a policy of the Karzai gov't. While it is still true for many of the areas in the north, where Karzai does not have a lot of influence, it is not something that Karzai supports, and is not the case in Kabul. Hopefully the situation will improve after elections, and there are some new "sheriffs" in town in some of the more rural areas.

The big problem in Afghanistan is lack of International support, as well as a too small NATO and US contingent to really provide security. The ISAF has under 10,000 NATO forces in country, and there are about 20,000 US troops patrolling the border and maintaining the base in Kandahar. There will be an additional 6,500 NATO forces during the election, but they will leave after the elections.

This is an inadequate number to provide security in Afghanistan. The result of this is that local security is still being handled by warlords, and Karzai only really has control of Kabul.

Both the ISAF peacekeeping force and US troops should be at least doubled, imo. Remember that the US forces are not really involved in peacekeeping. They are hunting al-qaeda and taliban remnants along the Pak border.</font color> <hr /></blockquote>

eg8r
08-31-2004, 10:40 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Please tell us what you think Clinton and Gore should have done. /ccboard/images/graemlins/confused.gif

At the time of the WTC bombing, neither was in public office. They were private citizens, like you and me.
<hr /></blockquote> Clinton was not the President of the United States on Feb 26, 1993? He gave his inaugural address on Wednesday, January 21, 1993. How much more "Presidential" do you think he need be?

Bush had a quite a few more months on his plate, but he reacted swiftly. Clinton DID NOTHING for 8 years while terrorists continued to happened.

eg8r

eg8r
08-31-2004, 10:49 AM
[ QUOTE ]
ya but i do not think any sitting Prez would have reacted too different to the first WTC attack, it was not like the horrible 2nd one <hr /></blockquote> I guess you just have to compare the differences...Clinton/Gore did nothing for eight years. Bush reacted a bit more quickly. I, with no doubt, do not think Gore would have reacted in the same way.

[ QUOTE ]
I thought Bush was doing a excellent job in Afghan except when Osama got a way, i think he should have gone all out to track him down no matter where he was hiding (Pakistan) he really should have finished the job. <hr /></blockquote> I don't think we have given up on Osama there are still plenty of soldiers looking for him. As you point out he did get away he was not passed on. Anything can happen and I don't think it is Bush's fault for him getting away.

[ QUOTE ]
you know from what little news is reported form there i read that the new Gov. is adopting a lot of the Taliban laws, women are being beating if they are not covered up and man are starting to get harassed for not having a long beard, i tell you if we are not careful there it could all blow up in are face <hr /></blockquote> I have not read any of that.

eg8r

dg-in-centralpa
08-31-2004, 07:36 PM
While that may be the official terminology, I look at it as Jimmy Carter let how many US citizens prisoners in Iran for 444 days. He tried one mission to get them out and it failed. Most of his tactics were diplomatic. Reagan having just been elected threatened to use force to get them out. When were they released? On Reagans' inauguration day. They didn't want to face a prez with balls who's willing to fight. That, my friend, is my definition of shooting from the hip. Someone who's not going to back down from a fight. Clinton/Gore did. They vowed to go to the ends of the earth to get the ones responsible for the 1st WTC attack, Cole bombing, plus others. They did nothing.

DG

nAz
09-01-2004, 04:44 AM
DG wasn't there some deal to hold of the hostage release till after the Nov. election?

Ross
09-01-2004, 05:17 AM
You are right Naz. I think it was called "making deals with terrorists." By the same president that did nothing after our Marines were blown up in Lebanon. But of course he was a Republican, so he is judged on a different scale than Clinton.

Wally_in_Cincy
09-01-2004, 06:35 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote nAz:</font><hr> DG wasn't there some deal to hold of the hostage release till after the Nov. election? <hr /></blockquote>

That was a rumor that never came close to being verified.

Wally_in_Cincy
09-01-2004, 06:39 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Ross:</font><hr> You are right Naz. I think it was called "making deals with terrorists." By the same president that did nothing after our Marines were blown up in Lebanon. But of course he was a Republican, so he is judged on a different scale than Clinton.

<hr /></blockquote>

At least he admitted that putting the Marines there in the first place was the biggest mistake of his Presidency.

I'm not sure what he was supposed to do. It was a different time. I'll even give Clinton some slack, things were different pre- 9/11

eg8r
09-01-2004, 06:46 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Wally:</font><hr> I'm not sure what he was supposed to do. It was a different time. I'll even give Clinton some slack, things were different pre- 9/11 <hr /></blockquote> LOL, you are right, they were different. Pre-9/11 Clinton and Gore just let the terrorists do whatever they wanted. Bush saw that that was not very effective so he tried something different.

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Ross:</font><hr> think it was called "making deals with terrorists." By the same president that did nothing after our Marines were blown up in Lebanon. But of course he was a Republican, so he is judged on a different scale than Clinton. <hr /></blockquote> What about Milosevic? Clinton went in there without UN approval and he got a free ticket. Bush does the same thing (however he did have approval, just not from France) and he gets blasted.

eg8r