Bush's accoplishments - Page 2

Secretblend · 02-02-2009, 01:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hear Again

...but there wree 19 attempted terrist attacks. since 911.

You just proved the point, those were prevented cause of all the work that has been done since.

Jiro · 02-02-2009, 01:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hear Again

i don't know what he's so happy abour in tht picruew. we never accompused anything in iraq,

yep. agreed but then... few days ago - Iraq just had a miraculous Democratic election with more than 51% turnout.. compared to 3 years ago when only 2% voted.

Secretblend · 02-02-2009, 01:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jiro

yep. agreed but then... few days ago - Iraq just had a miraculous Democratic election with more than 51% turnout.. compared to 3 years ago when only 2% voted.

And very little violence.

Hear Again · 02-02-2009, 01:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jiro

yep. agreed but then... few days ago - Iraq just had a miraculous Democratic election with more than 51% turnout.. compared to 3 years ago when only 2% voted.

taht still dosen't change the fac t that terew will awlays be suicidebombers and terrorists in that country. we;ll never be able to cahnge that because it's been taht way for centruries.

Hear Again · 02-02-2009, 01:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Secretblend

You just proved the point, those were prevented cause of all the work that has been done since.

..,but they still happened. until bush ivaded iraq, the u.s. asn't seen that mnumber of attempted terrosit ataacks before.

Hear Again · 02-02-2009, 01:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Secretblend

And very little violence.

taht's debatable./

Jiro · 02-02-2009, 01:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hear Again

taht still dosen't change the fac t that terew will awlays be suicidebombers and terrorists in that country. we an't change that no matter how much bush thoughtotherwise.

and we will always have wackos in USA too. We'll have wacked shooting sprees, bombers (remember Oklahoma FBI Building & Olympic Bombing), etc. Point is - more than half a country participated in election compared to only 2% three years ago. I think that is a remarkable turnout... almost like our 2008 election!!

Secretblend · 02-02-2009, 01:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hear Again

taht's debatable./

Debate away. Only fact applies tho. Not your view.

Jiro · 02-02-2009, 01:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hear Again

..,but they still happened. until bush ivaded iraq, the u.s. asn't seen that mnumber of attempted terrosit ataacks before.

that is true. Here's a thing - Hint - see Abu Ghraib. Multiply that by 10x or more... what Saddam did to prevent those terrorist attacks is nothing comparable to what we do.

Secretblend · 02-02-2009, 01:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hear Again

..,but they still happened. until bush ivaded iraq, the u.s. asn't seen that mnumber of attempted terrosit ataacks before.

How would you know that? You only know what they release to media and what media choose to tell us. There may have been alot of attempts that we arent even aware of.

chris' mom · 02-02-2009, 02:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Secretblend

How would you know that? You only know what they released to media and what media choose to tell us. There may have been alot of attemptes that we arent even aware of.

That is true..but who really knows?

Secretblend · 02-02-2009, 02:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chris' mom

That is true..but who really knows?

I wish I could answer that but alas, I can't!

Hear Again · 02-02-2009, 02:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Secretblend

How would you know that? You only know what they release to media and what media choose to tell us. There may have been alot of attempts that we arent even aware of.

i've alrso read reports on the inertnet fromcertified sources. that's how i know.

Hear Again · 02-02-2009, 02:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jiro

that is true. Here's a thing - Hint - see Abu Ghraib. Multiply that by 10x or more... what Saddam did to prevent those terrorist attacks is nothing comparable to what we do.

tha's because the only thing saddam cared about ws huring his own poeple.

Hear Again · 02-02-2009, 02:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Secretblend

Debate away. Only fact applies tho. Not your view.

we haven't won the w ar in iraq -- and we never will. tha'tsd not my view. i'ts fact.

Jiro · 02-02-2009, 02:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hear Again

tha's because the only thing saddam cared about ws huring his own poeple.

only domestic dissents and the outsiders. Saddam's control was mostly Baghdad. his sons are worse

Secretblend · 02-02-2009, 02:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hear Again

i've alrso read reports on the inertnet fromcertified sources. that's how i know.

They still will only release what they want you to know. There is no such thing as one that releases everything. On top of that, they only know what is released to them! On top of even that, you choose what you want to know and discard based on what you want the world to be. That also goes for me and everybody that has ever lived on this earth. There is no such thing as knowing the whole truth!

Frisky Feline · 02-02-2009, 06:29 AM

yep, clinton has been ignoring the threaten comments and then he got away from this and dumped it to Bush. Bush looked bad from all of this, thanks to clinton. lol

Jiro · 02-02-2009, 06:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frisky Feline

yep, clinton has been ignoring the threaten comments and then he got away from this and dumped it to Bush. Bush looked bad from all of this, thanks to clinton. lol

no not ignored. He definitely did not ignore the threats but 2 things that led to weak security -

1. his hesitant decisions to issue firm orders necessary to neutralize the threats
2. he was cock-blocked by Republican-dominated Congress many times

Frisky Feline · 02-02-2009, 06:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jiro

no not ignored. He definitely did not ignore the threats but 2 things that led to weak security -

1. his hesitant decisions to issue firm orders necessary to neutralize the threats
2. he was cock-blocked by Republican-dominated Congress many times

yea thats true. i know it is not in clinton's control. you are right that why he couldn't reach the decision by your lists.

is it possible that his mind was so cloudy by the blue outfit chickie.

(this one i just made a bad joke)

overall, i agree with your two lists. i admit that i did like clinton.

Jiro · 02-02-2009, 06:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frisky Feline

yea thats true. i know it is not in clinton's control. you are right that why he couldn't reach the decision by your lists.

is it possible that his mind was so cloudy by the blue outfit chickie.

(this one i just made a bad joke)

overall, i agree with your two lists. i admit that i did like clinton.

we all do love him (except Reba). why? because of great economy, surplus budget, and successful short missions (Bosnia, Somalia). But that completely overshadowed his approach toward to national security. I guess you could say he tried his best to avoid/limited using any military actions.

Military Actions = a fast track to either popularity or unpopularity. Nobody wants to see a high causality rate of their own soldiers and/or dead/injured babies & women in newspapers. Longer the war is, the more unpopular President will become and the angrier people will get.

Hear Again · 02-02-2009, 08:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frisky Feline

yep, clinton has been ignoring the threaten comments and then he got away from this and dumped it to Bush. Bush looked bad from all of this, thanks to clinton. lol

clinton didn't ignore teroist threats. not at all.

Hear Again · 02-02-2009, 08:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jiro

only domestic dissents and the outsiders. Saddam's control was mostly Baghdad. his sons are worse

atually, saddam also killed innocent women and chilren -- not just opposers to his rule.

Jiro · 02-02-2009, 08:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hear Again

atually, saddam also killed innocent women and chilren -- not just opposers to his rule.

yes. I do not dispute that. but hey.... so do our Presidents.

Frisky Feline · 02-02-2009, 08:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hear Again

clinton didn't ignore teroist threats. not at all.

yes i am aware of this that he has no control over it like jiro's post. but in the concept of that he "ignored" it but it isn't his fault. Then now all of shit were dumping into bush's dept.

Frisky Feline · 02-02-2009, 08:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jiro

we all do love him (except Reba). why? because of great economy, surplus budget, and successful short missions (Bosnia, Somalia). But that completely overshadowed his approach toward to national security. I guess you could say he tried with his best to avoid/limited using any military actions. yes he did. i dont blame him for doing it

Military Actions = a fast track to popularity or unpopularity. Nobody wants to see a high causality rate of their own soldiers and/or dead/injured babies & women in newspapers. Longer the war is, the more unpopular President will become and the angrier people will get.

I agree!! i still like clinton.

i even shook his hand, and his hand was VERRRRY SOFT.

Hear Again · 02-02-2009, 09:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frisky Feline

yes i am aware of this that he has no control over it like jiro's post. but in the concept of that he "ignored" it but it isn't his fault. Then now all of shit were dumping into bush's dept.

actually, all of this terrosit shit began way before clinton. remember, pan am fluight 103 in lokcerbie was atacked during the regan adminstrtion in 1988.

Frisky Feline · 02-02-2009, 09:17 AM

double post lalalla

Frisky Feline · 02-02-2009, 09:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hear Again

actually, all of this terrosit shit began way before clinton. remember, pan am fluight 103 in lokcerbie was atacked during the regan adminstrtion in 1988.

yea, terriost shit started long way back. thats true. i remember that pam am flight well. that was tradegy. I was only making a statement on clinton and bush after everyone woke up about 9-11.

i am not into this presidency issues relating with terrorists. they scare me real bad!

Jiro · 02-02-2009, 09:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hear Again

actually, all of this terrosit shit began way before clinton. remember, pan am fluight 103 in lokcerbie was atacked during the regan adminstrtion in 1988.

yes but we're referring to what each Administration has done to deal with terrorism. Clinton did deal with it but in a shy way. Bush dealt with it in a very brute way.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Today
Deafness	Sponsored Links __________________ This advertising will not be shown in this way to registered members. Register your free account today and become a member on AllDeaf.com

02-02-2009, 06:29 AM	#48 (permalink)
Frisky Feline Provoke, Pounce, Purr Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 5,688	yep, clinton has been ignoring the threaten comments and then he got away from this and dumped it to Bush. Bush looked bad from all of this, thanks to clinton. lol

02-02-2009, 09:17 AM	#58 (permalink)
Frisky Feline Provoke, Pounce, Purr Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 5,688	double post lalalla