PDA

View Full Version : House Speaker Pelosi calls Bush 'a total failure'



SarasotaRepub
07-17-2008, 09:31 PM
Jul 17, 7:35 PM (ET)

By LAURIE KELLMAN

WASHINGTON (AP) - President Bush has been a "total failure" in everything from the economy to the war to energy policy, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Thursday. In an interview on CNN, the California Democrat was asked to respond to video of the president criticizing the Democratic-led Congress for heading into the final 26 days of the legislative session without having passed a single government spending bill.

Pelosi shot back in unusually personal terms.

"You know, God bless him, bless his heart, president of the United States, a total failure, losing all credibility with the American people on the economy, on the war, on energy, you name the subject," Pelosi replied. She then tsk-tsked Bush for "challenging Congress when we are trying to sweep up after his mess over and over and over again."

White House spokeswoman Dana Perino defended Bush.

"What the president said is a fact - this is the longest a Congress has gone in 20 years without passing a single spending bill, so it's clear that the speaker is feeling some frustration at their inability to do so."


Linky (http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080717/D91VTG9G0.html)


:rolleyes:

blueyonder
07-17-2008, 09:54 PM
President Bush has been a "total failure" in everything from the economy to the war to energy policy, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said.

NO he has not been! And what approval rating does congress have again. Oh thats right 9%, much lower then the President.

Tantal
07-17-2008, 11:55 PM
Actually, Bush has only been a "moderate dissappointment". Nancy's plastic surgeon, OTOH, has been a "total failure".

jeskibuff
07-18-2008, 06:14 AM
Actually, Bush has only been a "moderate dissappointment". Nancy's plastic surgeon, OTOH, has been a "total failure".In a related story, Pelosi is the top choice for the role of Scarecrow in an upcoming remake of The Wizard of Oz. While she may not be able to sing as well as Ray Bolger, she'll be far more convincing as someone who has no brain.

AmPat
07-18-2008, 06:20 AM
Somebody ought to tell Nancy that "I know you are but what am I?" doesn't work at the adult level.

She and Dirty Harry are masters at flinging pooh and laying blame everywhere but at their own steps.

Sonnabend
07-18-2008, 06:25 AM
Someone should tell Pelosi that after all her high flying ideals and plans, she and the Dems have been pathetic failures at accomplishing anything..and please lets not go into the Congress approval figures. :D

megimoo
07-18-2008, 07:22 AM
Actually, Bush has only been a "moderate dissappointment". Nancy's plastic surgeon, OTOH, has been a "total failure".
Second only to Michael Jackson's nose !The 'Old Critter' has seen better days,much better days many years ago !And for her calling anyone a failure is an exercise in total egoism .Between them ,Pelosi and Reid ,are the most hated incompetents in America,even the hard left hate them for not being evil enough !

wilbur
07-18-2008, 07:44 AM
http://www.tshirthell.com/shirts/products/a812/a812_bm.gif

Cold Warrior
07-18-2008, 07:45 AM
Second only to Michael Jackson's nose !The 'Old Critter' has seen better days,much better days many years ago !And for her calling anyone a failure is an exercise in total egoism .Between them ,Pelosi and Reid ,are the most hated incompetents in America,even the hard left hate them for not being evil enough !

I don't know about that, megs. I think that the vast majority of people in this country couldn't tell you who Harry Reid is! More probably know Pelosi.

megimoo
07-18-2008, 07:58 AM
I don't know about that, megs. I think that the vast majority of people in this country couldn't tell you who Harry Reid is! More probably know Pelosi.
True enough.Most Americans are content to go about their lives and not worry about political crap.That's what keeps the Ugly Liberal/Socialistic agends alive in this country.Sheeple,American Sheeple !

submarinepainter
07-18-2008, 10:21 AM
San Fran Nan is a dripping Cow twat

LogansPapa
07-18-2008, 10:30 AM
Well, the up-side is that Nancy’s constituents are going to put an item on San Francisco’s next voting ballet to name one of their local sewage plants for the soon-to-be ex-president, in honor of the mess he’s left for the American people to clean up.

LibraryLady
07-18-2008, 10:42 AM
And don't forget this guy!

http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c12/dtharman/clinton_sexoffender.jpg

LogansPapa
07-18-2008, 11:09 AM
3,102 days after leaving office and BubbaCheeseBurger's still having mud slung at him. That's got to be a record.:rolleyes:

asdf2231
07-18-2008, 11:39 AM
3,102 days after leaving office and BubbaCheeseBurger's still having mud slung at him. That's got to be a record.:rolleyes:


Suckage (No Pun Intended) like that has a long half life.

Odysseus
07-18-2008, 11:44 AM
Well, the up-side is that Nancy’s constituents are going to put an item on San Francisco’s next voting ballet to name one of their local sewage plants for the soon-to-be ex-president, in honor of the mess he’s left for the American people to clean up.

That would be the liberation of 50 million people, a tax cut that maintained eight straight years of sustained economic growth, the effective destruction of Al Qaeda in Iraq and the prevention of a major terrorist attack on the US since 9/11. Some mess.:rolleyes:

lacarnut
07-18-2008, 11:57 AM
That would be the liberation of 50 million people, a tax cut that maintained eight straight years of sustained economic growth, the effective destruction of Al Qaeda in Iraq and the prevention of a major terrorist attack on the US since 9/11. Some mess.:rolleyes:

Yea, but L.P. can point to that awful, awful, awful 5.5% unemployment figure. Wow, many EU countries would love to have that unemployment rate but not a doom and gloomer.

Zeus
07-18-2008, 12:49 PM
California as No. 1 (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121625150189660215.html?mod=djemEditorialPage)
(http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121625150189660215.html?mod=djemEditorialPage)Ju ly 17, 2008; Page A14



New York City has long been the highest tax jurisdiction in the United States, but California politicians are proposing to steal that brass tiara. California faces a $15 billion budget deficit and Democrats who rule the state Legislature have proposed closing the gap with a $9.7 billion tax hike on business and "the rich." There's a movie that describes this idea: Clueless.

The plan would raise the top marginal income tax rate to 12% from 10.3%; that would be the highest in the nation and twice the national average. This plan would also repeal indexing for inflation, which is a sneaky way for politicians to push middle-income Californians into higher tax brackets every year, especially when prices are rising as they are now. The corporate income tax rate would also rise to 9.3% from 8.4%. So in the face of one of the worst real-estate recessions in the state's history, the politicians want to raise taxes on businesses that are still making money.

This latest tax gambit was unveiled, ironically enough, within days of two very large California employers announcing they are saying, in the famous words of Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, "hasta la vista, baby" to the state. First, the AAA auto club declared it will close its call centers in California, meaning that 900 jobs will move to other states. "It costs more to do business in California," said a AAA press release, in the understatement of the year.

Then last week Toyota announced it is canceling plans to build its new Prius hybrid at its plant in the San Francisco Bay area because of the high tax and regulatory costs. Adding to the humiliation is that Toyota will now take this investment and about 1,000 jobs to a more progressive and pro-business state: Mississippi.

lacarnut
07-18-2008, 01:10 PM
California as No. 1 (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121625150189660215.html?mod=djemEditorialPage)
(http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121625150189660215.html?mod=djemEditorialPage)Ju ly 17, 2008; Page A14



New York City has long been the highest tax jurisdiction in the United States, but California politicians are proposing to steal that brass tiara. California faces a $15 billion budget deficit and Democrats who rule the state Legislature have proposed closing the gap with a $9.7 billion tax hike on business and "the rich." There's a movie that describes this idea: Clueless.

The plan would raise the top marginal income tax rate to 12% from 10.3%; that would be the highest in the nation and twice the national average. This plan would also repeal indexing for inflation, which is a sneaky way for politicians to push middle-income Californians into higher tax brackets every year, especially when prices are rising as they are now. The corporate income tax rate would also rise to 9.3% from 8.4%. So in the face of one of the worst real-estate recessions in the state's history, the politicians want to raise taxes on businesses that are still making money.

This latest tax gambit was unveiled, ironically enough, within days of two very large California employers announcing they are saying, in the famous words of Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, "hasta la vista, baby" to the state. First, the AAA auto club declared it will close its call centers in California, meaning that 900 jobs will move to other states. "It costs more to do business in California," said a AAA press release, in the understatement of the year.

Then last week Toyota announced it is canceling plans to build its new Prius hybrid at its plant in the San Francisco Bay area because of the high tax and regulatory costs. Adding to the humiliation is that Toyota will now take this investment and about 1,000 jobs to a more progressive and pro-business state: Mississippi.

What is so pathetic is that a flaming liberal like Arnuld Swartzzinger will sign it and play the blame game. Shell Oil came close to pulling out of that f. up state also. Refineries closing down because of high taxation would be catastrophic for CA. The only reason Swartzie is greasing Obama pole by stating that he will work with him in any capacity is to get the law changed so that he can run for Prez.

Teetop
07-18-2008, 04:40 PM
Teetop says, Pelosi is the most out of touch bitch, known to man.

:cool:

Zeus
07-18-2008, 04:47 PM
California faces a $15 billion budget deficit and Democrats answer is to eliminate Jobs,prevent job creation and reduce the tax base and tax the hell out of those follish enough to stick around.

Glad I live in Texas.

Teetop
07-18-2008, 04:56 PM
California faces a $15 billion budget deficit and Democrats answer is to eliminate Jobs,prevent job creation and reduce the tax base and tax the hell out of those follish enough to stick around.

Glad I live in Texas.

I'm just sick of the Californians moving to Texas....

j/k!

:D

LogansPapa
07-18-2008, 05:10 PM
Only cheap/uncompetitive Californians move to Texas. Most are transplants anyway.:p

AmPat
07-18-2008, 07:42 PM
California as No. 1 (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121625150189660215.html?mod=djemEditorialPage)
(http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121625150189660215.html?mod=djemEditorialPage)Ju ly 17, 2008; Page A14
This latest tax gambit was unveiled, ironically enough, within days of two very large California employers announcing they are saying, in the famous words of Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, "hasta la vista, baby" to the state. First, the AAA auto club declared it will close its call centers in California, meaning that 900 jobs will move to other states. "It costs more to do business in California," said a AAA press release, in the understatement of the year.

Then last week Toyota announced it is canceling plans to build its new Prius hybrid at its plant in the San Francisco Bay area because of the high tax and regulatory costs. Adding to the humiliation is that Toyota will now take this investment and about 1,000 jobs to a more progressive and pro-business state: Mississippi.

Alas, the "tax the crap out of them DIMS" will still not learn anything. Volkswagon also shunned the former seat of automaking in the USA,Michigan, for the Great State of Tennessee. I predict Honda will find its way out of Ohio and move south one of these days.

Odysseus
07-18-2008, 08:02 PM
Only cheap/uncompetitive Californians move to Texas. Most are transplants anyway.:p

I wouldn't call myself cheap or uncompetitive, although I was a transplant, but after eight years in California, I was happy to PCS to NY, and even happier to PCS to TX. California and NY were high-tax, highly regulated states where every time I turned around, someone was trying to rip me off or impose some idiotic hurdle against moving up in the world. Example:

At one point, I considered buying a property in Los Angeles that had a tear-down house (a 1-bedroom shack that had some serious fire damage and was really not liveable) on it. The property was going for $200,000, whichs was actually a good deal in West LA. Construction would have cost about half that again, and I had planned to build a triplex, sell two of them as condos and use the revenue to help cover the building cost and mortgage, which would have allowed me to own my own home relatively inexpensively. I had everything set, but the city of Los Angeles would not allow any building on the site until they did a complete review of all of the plans, zoning issues and permits, which would take a full year, however, they were willing to waive the one-year delay if I was willing to make one of the units into low-income housing. In other words, the one-year delay was bureaucratic extortion designed to force me to build a home for welfare recipients. I couldn't afford a year's mortgage without building and I wouldn't subject myself and my family to the kinds of neighbors that LA wanted to impose on me, so I walked away from the deal. Had the city of Los Angeles not tried to screw me, I'd have built three condo units, sold two of them, and generated thousands of dollars in tax revenues, building costs and infrastructure improvements. Instead, they were left with a lot with an ugly shack on it, which was probably bought by a speculator who had the money to wait out the review period, and who eventually built a single house which he sold for a lot more than three condos would have gone for. Thus, the rich got richer, the poor got nothing and the middle class guy, me, left.

When we moved to Texas, we were able to buy a home and move in within a month of arriving, all for $157,000. So, for about half the cost, I got a larger home, with my choice of neighbors and no bureaucratic abuse, and I live in a community that has real law enforcement, decent schools and good people. That's why I'll take Texas over California any day of the week.

Odysseus
07-18-2008, 08:03 PM
I'm just sick of the Californians moving to Texas....
j/k!
:D

But you don't mind the New Yorkers, right? :D

lacarnut
07-18-2008, 08:20 PM
With politicians like Pisslosi, Boxer, Fein., Swartzzie, G.Davis and the Democ. controlled legislature, the kool-aid state has little chance of digging itself out of its financial hole. The dumb asses are too stupid to drill in the offshore area plus they they keep putting new env. controls on everything from autos to water heaters. Business are going in the toilet not from Bush's policies but from their own stupidity.

John
07-18-2008, 08:42 PM
When the mud starts to fly between Pelosi, Reid and Bush, things get a little surreal. Like I'm waiting for Eric Cartman to stand up in the back and shout *cripple fight!*. Seriously. Quite possibly the two most retarded human beings in this country are grappling with the 2nd most retarded. It's hilarious! With a combined IQ of 17 Pelosi & Reid are almost a match for Bush's IQ of 20 or so.


That would be the liberation of 50 million people,
Whether they wanted it or not and at great expense to the American people.



a tax cut that maintained eight straight years of sustained economic growth,


While sustained growth in government spending has destroyed the currency by flooding the U.S. Dollar market.



the effective destruction of Al Qaeda in Iraq


Let's not forget that Iraq had no Al Qaeda (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/05/AR2007040502263.html) before we invaded.



and the prevention of a major terrorist attack on the US since 9/11.

What prevented major terrorist attacks on U.S. soil before 9/11 & Bush? Not to mention, didn't the attack happen on Bush's watch?

So, you see Bush hasn't made the best and brightest decisions. He hasn't been a good president, or even a decent president. He's just been calling shots, for better or worse, the way he sees fit. That's a far sight more than the dims in congress have been doing. However, I'd take his leadership over Pelosi and Reid's any day. With the state this country and the middle east is in today, the thought of Pelosi or Reid leading America makes me a little sick to my stomach. They can't even lead their party or their majority in congress. Seems to me like they can't do anything but whine.

CLibertarian
07-18-2008, 09:25 PM
Alas, the "tax the crap out of them DIMS" will still not learn anything. Volkswagon also shunned the former seat of automaking in the USA,Michigan, for the Great State of Tennessee. I predict Honda will find its way out of Ohio and move south one of these days.

Toyota set up plant outside of my hometown (10 years ago). They make the Tundra there. Low taxes and being business friendly were the major reasons for locating there.

AmPat
07-18-2008, 11:44 PM
[QUOTE=John;21733]

Let's not forget that Iraq had no Al Qaeda (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/05/AR2007040502263.html) before we invaded.
Let's also not forget that it makes it easier to kill the SOB's now when they congregate in one area. What difference does it make to you that Al Quakis die in Iraq instead of us killing them in several different countries? The answer is the cost. You make it clear cost is important so ask yourself what the cost would be if:
1. We took no action at all?
2. We took Klintoon style action with the same net effect as in 1 above?
3. We answer with force and determination regardless of cost as in our two present wars?

The better alternative is to declare (and undertake) all out total war. No country safe that assists or harbors the murderous bastards!


What prevented major terrorist attacks on U.S. soil before 9/11 & Bush? Not to mention, didn't the attack happen on Bush's watch?
Uh, could it be that the attack was planned and executed on schedule?:rolleyes: PUHLEEEEZE, Attacks against US interests were rampant before 9/11. Don't try that weak crap about "on US soil." What difference does that make? Klintoon was a weak coward reacting only when his legacy was threatened or when he needed a distraction from the attention his uncontrolled penis attracted. He FAILED and is revered. Bush reacted and is castigated.

Bush may have made mistakes but he acted like a leader and a man.


So, you see Bush hasn't made the best and brightest decisions. He hasn't been a good president, or even a decent president. He's just been calling shots, for better or worse, the way he sees fit. That's a far sight more than the dims in congress have been doing. However, I'd take his leadership over Pelosi and Reid's any day. With the state this country and the middle east is in today, the thought of Pelosi or Reid leading America makes me a little sick to my stomach. They can't even lead their party or their majority in congress. Seems to me like they can't do anything but whine.
Pelosi and Reid ARE in charge and all they do is whine. THEY don't catch the brunt of the attacks though. Our President has that reserved entirely for him. Our Congress is the WORST in the history of the country and yet they presume to denigrate the Iraqi legislature.:rolleyes:

John
07-19-2008, 06:58 AM
Let's also not forget that it makes it easier to kill the SOB's now when they congregate in one area.


Wow. What the hell is wrong with you? Sure it's easier to kill Al Qaeda when they are drawn like moths to a flame. Does the ease justify the expense? Hell no. Just my humble 30 years of experience on this earth dictates that what is easy is seldom right. By your thinking it's acceptable to displace and disrupt the lives of 50 million people for the sole purpose of dragging our enemies into confrontation? Are you insane? The simplest of facts remains. Al Qaeda had no foothold in Iraq before we invaded. Saddam had no love for them. Now they have a presence there and the American taxpayer/voter has to deal with it. The taxpayer/voter can thank G.W. Bush for that. Sure, we may not be taxed specifically for this war effort, but the devaluation of the currency is a tax unto itself that every American is paying. Seriously, was there a minimum intelligence test when you signed up for the G.W. cheer & flag squad! The man's an idiot, get over it.



What difference does it make to you that Al Quakis die in Iraq instead of us killing them in several different countries? The answer is the cost.


You must have been raised by bloodhounds, because you are very perceptive. I'm surprised you aren't a global real estate tycoon given your dominance in R&D Vs. Reward Of course the problem lies within the cost! How very perceptive of you! What sort of naivety does it take to expect otherwise? Don't you realize that out of 113 million actual taxpayers in the U.S.* this 'war on terror' bullshit has cost each of us about 13 grand! That's 13 thousand dollars which are solely represented by my time on this earth. That means I've labored for about two months time, which I will not get back in my mortal life, to pay for this ineffectual absurdity.

When the government goes to war, they pay for the costs by borrowing money from the Federal Reserve. That's money you and I are law bound to pay back at some point! Money is only earned by laboring for a certain amount of time. Therefore the federal government, with it's stupid ass war on terror is spending our precious time on this earth for very little gain. The gain is to make Iraq 'safe for democracy'. Fuck Iraq's democracy! If I'm spending my time, my mortal time, than I want America to be 'safe for democracy' not some fuck off backwater.



You make it clear cost is important so ask yourself what the cost would be if:
1. We took no action at all?


Now you are talking! Let's pretend that there was no FAA. No Federally Regulated mandates that state how a man or a board should run their assets. If the government had taken no action, and thus let Americans be Americans, there would have been no 9/11. It's pretty simple reasoning actually. If I was a business owner, responsible for multi million dollar aircraft, plus incalculable liability you can bet your sweet candy ass I would have armed, no nonsense, guards on my flights.

The above is what happens when no action is taken. So, in the wake of 9/11 had we sought no vengeance, and had we realized that the government is not capable of personal protection, we would have come to the right solution. That solution is every single person, business or organization has the absolute right to defend itself from mortal danger from any threat that presents itself. If this sort of ideal hadn't been fucked over by the idea of government 'protection', the landscape of New York would be accented by two towers standing in triumph of western ideology over middle eastern mysticism.

Plainly put, your ass is too busy worrying over symptoms to look for a cure.



2. We took Klintoon style action with the same net effect as in 1 above?


Um...yeah.. So Clinton's style of action was a style of involvement and taxing the people of the United States in order to pay for said involvement. Bush's style of involvement is to cut taxes, increase spending, and obtain the value of his involvement through inflation of the currency. Way to go genius, considering they are one and the same. The net result is that Americans shoulder the burden of defending the same plots of extra-US land they've been paying to defend for decades.



3. We answer with force and determination regardless of cost as in our two present wars?


Regardless of cost? Are you stupid? Deranged? Mad? What the fuck good does it do to spend America into poverty? What good does it do to sacrifice American rights and values to defeat an enemy? If the terrorists are dead and gone, leaving American streets in Detroit and Philadelphia looking something out of an eastern block 1991 country, who won? If the American currency is so devalued and debased that we no longer attract illegal immigrants, who can claim victory? To put in bluntly how far do you think this little 'war on responsible government' can go before it has to answer to hungry, angry, armed people?

Government owns nothing that is hasn't taken by consent or force. I sure as hell haven't willingly given my wealth or time to securing Iraq, Israel, or even the Saudi's. As far as I'm concerned, my wealth and time that have been put into these goals have been taken by force, against my will. There's a lot of Americans who see things my way, but just can't explain it as well. Yet they feel as I feel, and it will become apparent to politicians very soon.



The better alternative is to declare (and undertake) all out total war. No country safe that assists or harbors the murderous bastards!


Uh...yeah!...Duh. If you are going to go, then go like hell is following. If you're mind isn't made up.. ...restrict your spurs.


Uh, could it be that the attack was planned and executed on schedule?:rolleyes: PUHLEEEEZE, Attacks against US interests were rampant before 9/11. Don't try that weak crap about "on US soil." What difference does that make? Klintoon was a weak coward reacting only when his legacy was threatened or when he needed a distraction from the attention his uncontrolled penis attracted. He FAILED and is revered. Bush reacted and is castigated.

Bush may have made mistakes but he acted like a leader and a man.


Pelosi and Reid ARE in charge and all they do is whine. THEY don't catch the brunt of the attacks though. Our President has that reserved entirely for him. Our Congress is the WORST in the history of the country and yet they presume to denigrate the Iraqi legislature.:rolleyes:[/QUOTE]

John
07-19-2008, 07:22 AM
Let's also not forget that it makes it easier to kill the SOB's now when they congregate in one area.

Wow. What the hell is wrong with you? Sure it's easier to kill Al Qaeda when they are drawn like moths to a flame. Does the ease justify the expense? Hell no. Just my humble 30 years of experience on this earth dictates that what is easy is seldom right. By your thinking it's acceptable to displace and disrupt the lives of 50 million people for the sole purpose of dragging our enemies into confrontation? Are you insane? The simplest of facts remains. Al Qaeda had no foothold in Iraq before we invaded. Saddam had no love for them. Now they have a presence there and the American taxpayer/voter has to deal with it. The taxpayer/voter can thank G.W. Bush for that. Sure, we may not be taxed specifically for this war effort, but the devaluation of the currency is a tax unto itself that every American is paying. Seriously, was there a minimum intelligence test when you signed up for the G.W. cheer & flag squad! The man's an idiot, get over it.




What difference does it make to you that Al Quakis die in Iraq instead of us killing them in several different countries? The answer is the cost.


You must have been raised by bloodhounds, because you are very perceptive. I'm surprised you aren't a global real estate tycoon given your dominance in R&D Vs. Reward Of course the problem lies within the cost! How very perceptive of you! What sort of naivety does it take to expect otherwise? Don't you realize that out of 113 million actual taxpayers in the U.S.* this 'war on terror' bullshit has cost each of us about 13 grand! That's 13 thousand dollars which are solely represented by my time on this earth. That means I've labored for about two months time, which I will not get back in my mortal life, to pay for this ineffectual absurdity.

When the government goes to war, they pay for the costs by borrowing money from the Federal Reserve. That's money you and I are law bound to pay back at some point! Money is only earned by laboring for a certain amount of time. Therefore the federal government, with it's stupid ass war on terror is spending our precious time on this earth for very little gain. The gain is to make Iraq 'safe for democracy'. Fuck Iraq's democracy! If I'm spending my time, my mortal time, than I want America to be 'safe for democracy' not some fuck off backwater.



You make it clear cost is important so ask yourself what the cost would be if:
1. We took no action at all?


Now you are talking! Let's pretend that there was no FAA. No Federally Regulated mandates that state how a man or a board should run their assets. If the government had taken no action, and thus let Americans be Americans, there would have been no 9/11. It's pretty simple reasoning actually. If I was a business owner, responsible for multi million dollar aircraft, plus incalculable liability you can bet your sweet candy ass I would have armed, no nonsense, guards on my flights.

The above is what happens when no action is taken. So, in the wake of 9/11 had we sought no vengeance, and had we realized that the government is not capable of personal protection, we would have come to the right solution. That solution is every single person, business or organization has the absolute right to defend itself from mortal danger from any threat that presents itself. If this sort of ideal hadn't been fucked over by the idea of government 'protection', the landscape of New York would be accented by two towers standing in triumph of western ideology over middle eastern mysticism.

Plainly put, your ass is too busy worrying over symptoms to look for a cure.



2. We took Klintoon style action with the same net effect as in 1 above?


Um...yeah.. So Clinton's style of action was a style of involvement and taxing the people of the United States in order to pay for said involvement. Bush's style of involvement is to cut taxes, increase spending, and obtain the value of his involvement through inflation of the currency. Way to go genius, considering they are one and the same. The net result is that Americans shoulder the burden of defending the same plots of extra-US land they've been paying to defend for decades.



3. We answer with force and determination regardless of cost as in our two present wars?


Regardless of cost? Are you stupid? Deranged? Mad? What the fuck good does it do to spend America into poverty? What good does it do to sacrifice American rights and values to defeat an enemy? If the terrorists are dead and gone, leaving American streets in Detroit and Philadelphia looking something out of an eastern block 1991 country, who won? If the American currency is so devalued and debased that we no longer attract illegal immigrants, who can claim victory? To put in bluntly how far do you think this little 'war on responsible government' can go before it has to answer to hungry, angry, armed people?

Government owns nothing that is hasn't taken by consent or force. I sure as hell haven't willingly given my wealth or time to securing Iraq, Israel, or even the Saudi's. As far as I'm concerned, my wealth and time that have been put into these goals have been taken by force, against my will. There's a lot of Americans who see things my way, but just can't explain it as well. Yet they feel as I feel, and it will become apparent to politicians very soon.

The better alternative is to declare (and undertake) all out total war. No country safe that assists or harbors the murderous bastards!



Uh, could it be that the attack was planned and executed on schedule?:rolleyes:


By all means, please, try your best and hardest to paint me as some sort of conspiracy theorist. I'll give you a dollar...or ten dollars. You may not know this, but I'm the guy who's sent several cons;piracy theorists packing. So, go ahead, try to make me into a conspiracy theorists. I'll make you into confused onslaught of sound bites. I beg you, explore this argument further.




PUHLEEEEZE, Attacks against US interests were rampant before 9/11. Don't try that weak crap about "on US soil." What difference does that make? Klintoon was a weak coward reacting only when his legacy was threatened or when he needed a distraction from the attention his uncontrolled penis attracted. He FAILED and is revered. Bush reacted and is castigated.


So, attacks against Americans were 'rampant' before 9/11 eh? After all, if all these 'attacks' were rampant before 9/11 how did any politician stay in office between the rampant pre-9/11 attacks and 9/11? If 'attacks' were commonplace, how did any republican take the idea of 9/11 seriously?


Well, when idiocy is on parade, one can ex;pect statements such as "Clinton caused 9/11". It doesn't' make it any more factual.

In all actuality, America straying from the American founding father's vision government is what made America vulnerable to hard times.

Bush may have made mistakes but he acted like a leader and a man.


Pelosi and Reid ARE in charge and all they do is whine. THEY don't catch the brunt of the attacks though. Our President has that reserved entirely for him. Our Congress is the WORST in the history of the country and yet they presume to denigrate the Iraqi legislature.:rolleyes:

Molon Labe
07-19-2008, 09:55 AM
[QUOTE]
The better alternative is to declare (and undertake) all out total war. No country safe that assists or harbors the murderous bastards!

Do you completely understand the implications of the U.S. being on an all out total war footing? There are few on this board who can even remember what it was like in the 1940's. I think you're just talking...and don't really mean what you say. This country is so spoiled rotten that we would have no idea the type sacrifices that would mean. That's another reason why I dispise the comparison between this war and WW2. If this is really a similar struggle..then why aren't every American having trouble finding food stuffs, and going on rubber drives and planting victory gardens? Because it's not the same thing.

Your'e going to have to wage total war on about a dozen more countries if you want keep the promise of "no country being safe who harbors "terrorists". Are you up for it?

marinejcksn
07-19-2008, 11:04 AM
I'm forced to steal a classic line from "Way of the Gun":

Someone shut this C*** up before I ****-start her face.

:D

Teetop
07-19-2008, 12:49 PM
Only cheap/uncompetitive Californians move to Texas. Most are transplants anyway.:p

Yeah, building those 15 million dollar dairies everywhere sure shows how cheap they are...

:rolleyes:

:D

Molon Labe
07-19-2008, 04:33 PM
Now you are talking! Let's pretend that there was no FAA. No Federally Regulated mandates that state how a man or a board should run their assets. If the government had taken no action, and thus let Americans be Americans, there would have been no 9/11. It's pretty simple reasoning actually. If I was a business owner, responsible for multi million dollar aircraft, plus incalculable liability you can bet your sweet candy ass I would have armed, no nonsense, guards on my flights.

You can pretty much bet that if the government had never gotten involved with regulating the airline industry 40 years ago, there would have been common sense procedures like..pilot's with guns way back when terrorism on planes became the norm in the 70's.

lacarnut
07-19-2008, 05:15 PM
Only cheap/uncompetitive Californians move to Texas. Most are transplants anyway.:p

Dream on cause it's only going to get worse with higher taxes and higher cost of living coming out the yang yang. Arnuld Swartzzinger & the Democraptic legislature will see to it.

CLibertarian
07-20-2008, 11:47 AM
Dream on cause it's only going to get worse with higher taxes and higher cost of living coming out the yang yang. Arnuld Swartzzinger & the Democraptic legislature will see to it.

I have a coworker that just transferred back to the midwest after living in the CA for 12 years. His taxes and cost of living were constantly increasing to the point that there was no way he could contunue to live there without losing financial ground. It was also an unfriendly enviroment for parents with fairly traditional values. The school systems are always trying to undermine such things. Since his daughter is 12, it was a good time to get out.

Odysseus
07-20-2008, 05:43 PM
[QUOTE=AmPat;21814]

Do you completely understand the implications of the U.S. being on an all out total war footing? There are few on this board who can even remember what it was like in the 1940's. I think you're just talking...and don't really mean what you say. This country is so spoiled rotten that we would have no idea the type sacrifices that would mean. That's another reason why I dispise the comparison between this war and WW2. If this is really a similar struggle..then why aren't every American having trouble finding food stuffs, and going on rubber drives and planting victory gardens? Because it's not the same thing.

Your'e going to have to wage total war on about a dozen more countries if you want keep the promise of "no country being safe who harbors "terrorists". Are you up for it?

I am. It's my job.

Americans aren't sacrificing in this war because no one has tried to mobilize the public the way that it was done during WWII, but that's not entirely a bad thing. Often, that mobilization is accompanied by massive power grabs by the federal government. The claims that the Bush administration have somehow taken on unprecedented executive powers flies in the face of the actions of the Roosevelt and Wilson administrations, which imposed wartime socialism under the aegis of the war effort, accompanied by very real attacks on dissent and basic constitutional rights. People who questioned US entry into WWI were often jailed, and thousand of Americans of German descent were interned. During WWII, the internment of Japanese-Americans, regardless of citizenship, was only the most famous example of Roosevelt's crackdowns. German and Italian-Americans were also interned, although at a lesser rate, and their property was confiscated as well. Opposition to the National Recovery Act could result in government-orchestrated boycotts of any business and even violence against its employees.

There's a lot of room between a full-scale mobilization of the American public and a committed administration using its legitimate authority to fight a war against enemies who have no compunction against the murder or enslavement of millions of Americans in order to advance their global order on us.

AmPat
07-20-2008, 10:42 PM
[QUOTE=AmPat;21814]

Do you completely understand the implications of the U.S. being on an all out total war footing? There are few on this board who can even remember what it was like in the 1940's. I think you're just talking...and don't really mean what you say. This country is so spoiled rotten that we would have no idea the type sacrifices that would mean. That's another reason why I dispise the comparison between this war and WW2. If this is really a similar struggle..then why aren't every American having trouble finding food stuffs, and going on rubber drives and planting victory gardens? Because it's not the same thing.

Your'e going to have to wage total war on about a dozen more countries if you want keep the promise of "no country being safe who harbors "terrorists". Are you up for it?

Then you are totally mistaken. I don't believe in half hearted war anymore than half-stupid. I also don't believe in sitting back and waiting for the inevitable. You take the fight to the enemy. You pound him until he is no longer a threat. You do not half step or "Hope" he sees reason. The war is the end of negotiation and diplomacy and the beginning of the punishment phase. Trying to equate this war with the past static/classic wars isn't possible. We have to find and kill the enemy wherever he is. There can be no safe haven. I don't see salvaging rubber and victory gardens for all Americans any more necessary in this war as blitkreig lights and ramparts. This is a different ind of war.

marinejcksn
07-21-2008, 02:43 AM
[QUOTE=Molon Labe;21868]

I am. It's my job.

Americans aren't sacrificing in this war because no one has tried to mobilize the public the way that it was done during WWII, but that's not entirely a bad thing. Often, that mobilization is accompanied by massive power grabs by the federal government. The claims that the Bush administration have somehow taken on unprecedented executive powers flies in the face of the actions of the Roosevelt and Wilson administrations, which imposed wartime socialism under the aegis of the war effort, accompanied by very real attacks on dissent and basic constitutional rights. People who questioned US entry into WWI were often jailed, and thousand of Americans of German descent were interned. During WWII, the internment of Japanese-Americans, regardless of citizenship, was only the most famous example of Roosevelt's crackdowns. German and Italian-Americans were also interned, although at a lesser rate, and their property was confiscated as well. Opposition to the National Recovery Act could result in government-orchestrated boycotts of any business and even violence against its employees.

There's a lot of room between a full-scale mobilization of the American public and a committed administration using its legitimate authority to fight a war against enemies who have no compunction against the murder or enslavement of millions of Americans in order to advance their global order on us.

Sir, I aplaude your knowledge of history on the subject of war and it's true motivating factors throughout American History. As a Marine, I've always been taught of the Battle of Belleau Wood, the great Marine Corps victories of WWI. What is convieniently left out is that WWI was largely unnecessary, much more so then the Left claims the War on Terror is today. WWI was largely the means of mobilizing the masses as you stated above, perputrated by argueably the worst and most fascist administration in American history; that of Wilson.

I myself have fallen victim to chastizing those who seem to not sacrifice anything for our current war effort, especially while I'm in Iraq like I am now. But NOT sacrificing for the war effort is what makes America truly great. The freedom to support our troops, or call us "baby killers" is what I signed up to defend. It's what I'm willing to die in defense of.

What I'm NOT willing to die in defense of is inconsiderate, arrogant idiots like the current congress. I refuse to have my memory tarnished or my service trivialized as a statistic to promote an agenda. The people can say what they want about our Commander in Chief, but he's one person in Politics I know in my heart actually gives a crap about all of us here in the sandbox.

Goldwater
07-21-2008, 11:07 AM
WWI was largely the means of mobilizing the masses as you stated above, perputrated by argueably the worst and most fascist administration in American history; that of Wilson.

He wasn't fascist, he was the first of many who thought he could "do good" with an army though.

Odysseus
07-21-2008, 11:55 AM
He wasn't fascist, he was the first of many who thought he could "do good" with an army though.

Wilson's use of a military structure for civilian institutions was very much fascistic, even if the term didn't exist then. In addition, most of his wartime socialism program and propaganda efforts were eerie precursors to the Italian and German fascism that followed. Wilson considered himself a progressive, but much of the progressive program was identical to the programs of the fascist states, especially in regards to eugenics and birth control policies. For a really superb history and analysis, see Jonah Goldberg's Liberal Fascism (http://www.amazon.com/Liberal-Fascism-American-Mussolini-Politics/dp/0385511841/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1216655353&sr=8-1).

marinejcksn
07-22-2008, 06:57 AM
Wilson's use of a military structure for civilian institutions was very much fascistic, even if the term didn't exist then. In addition, most of his wartime socialism program and propaganda efforts were eerie precursors to the Italian and German fascism that followed. Wilson considered himself a progressive, but much of the progressive program was identical to the programs of the fascist states, especially in regards to eugenics and birth control policies. For a really superb history and analysis, see Jonah Goldberg's Liberal Fascism (http://www.amazon.com/Liberal-Fascism-American-Mussolini-Politics/dp/0385511841/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1216655353&sr=8-1).

Excellent reference Sir, I finished that excellent book in a little less then a week, couldn't put it down. He draws amazing parallels between the Wilson and Roosavelt administrations. Funny that FDR is seemingly remembered as one of this nations better presidents by some, when in my opinion he was dismal at best. Really made me look at the actual history of this country, rather then the versions I'd been handed before.

Interesting that the whole Uncle Sam "I want You" poster came from this era, I never knew it before.

Molon Labe
07-23-2008, 12:10 PM
Then you are totally mistaken. I don't believe in half hearted war anymore than half-stupid. I also don't believe in sitting back and waiting for the inevitable. You take the fight to the enemy. You pound him until he is no longer a threat. You do not half step or "Hope" he sees reason. The war is the end of negotiation and diplomacy and the beginning of the punishment phase. Trying to equate this war with the past static/classic wars isn't possible. We have to find and kill the enemy wherever he is. There can be no safe haven. I don't see salvaging rubber and victory gardens for all Americans any more necessary in this war as blitkreig lights and ramparts. This is a different ind of war.

I am not one iota safer today from what Bush did after 9/11 than I was prior. Lately, some of us seem to have fallen into that Liberal mantra that suggests taking some action is better than no action at all. Yes.. There was action needed, but overreaction was a key component to Bin laden's ideas. That doesn't mean you go into it with a bull in a china shop mentality just because it's not "half hearted".
Of course we should hunt him and his cronies down and kill him, but to think him some dumb ass Islamic crazy who hasn't thought this through is a mistake. This enemy is far more savy than the policy makers understand. The military men understand it alot better now after 8 years. There were alot people who have been in theatre that were all gung ho early on....but few who actually face it day to day talk like this now.

ConJinx
07-23-2008, 12:31 PM
Now wait ... wasn't it the liberals that wanted this to be a law enforcement issue. No we are not anymore or less safe, but we have lost some freedoms. Nazi-pelosi and her ilk are truly upset that 9/11 didn't happen on their watch. Not to go of the deep end or anything, but history history tells me that had 9/11 happened during a democratic administration things would have been far,far worse with less being said about it in the msm. Wilson suspended far more constitutional rights, pushed propaganda after sitting long on the fence. FDR fiddled while Britain burned as his "progressive" policies regressed American society. All the while he knew as Hitler did, it was bancruptcy or war. And who was it that instituted the draft during Viet-Nam. Which party was it that first brought the FBI to bear on anti-war activists and other so-called subversives. We will soon be doomed to repeat history, because far too few understand it.

Molon Labe
07-23-2008, 12:53 PM
Now wait ... wasn't it the liberals that wanted this to be a law enforcement issue. No we are not anymore or less safe, but we have lost some freedoms. Nazi-pelosi and her ilk are truly upset that 9/11 didn't happen on their watch. Not to go of the deep end or anything, but history history tells me that had 9/11 happened during a democratic administration things would have been far,far worse with less being said about it in the msm. Wilson suspended far more constitutional rights, pushed propaganda after sitting long on the fence. FDR fiddled while Britain burned as his "progressive" policies regressed American society. All the while he knew as Hitler did, it was bancruptcy or war. And who was it that instituted the draft during Viet-Nam. Which party was it that first brought the FBI to bear on anti-war activists and other so-called subversives. We will soon be doomed to repeat history, because far too few understand it.

I can't totally disagree with that assessment.
I despise Wilson's for allowing government to creep into the stratosphere. It has been mostly Democratic presidencies that have gotten us into stupid engagements. I used to think "thank God it wasn't a democrat after 9-11.....but what's the difference when your RINO President's policies and incompetancy mimic the heyday of LBJ and Wilson?
I'm more apt to believe that if the current course continues, the future will more resemble bankruptcy because of war.

And thanks to Bush...he may have ensured we get one most horrid examples of Presidential leadership in 08 in Obama. Good God!

marinejcksn
07-24-2008, 04:28 AM
I can't totally disagree with that assessment.
I despise Wilson's for allowing government to creep into the stratosphere. It has been mostly Democratic presidencies that have gotten us into stupid engagements. I used to think "thank God it wasn't a democrat after 9-11.....but what's the difference when your RINO President's policies and incompetancy mimic the heyday of LBJ and Wilson?
I'm more apt to believe that if the current course continues, the future will more resemble bankruptcy because of war.

And thanks to Bush...he may have ensured we get one most horrid examples of Presidential leadership in 08 in Obama. Good God!

Bush has done more then anyone I can think of in recent years to kill Conservatism. We should've seen the signs immediately when he jumped onto the Pat Buccanan phrase of "Compassionate Conservatism". When G.W. said that "When somebody hurts, it's the Government's responsibility to move", that should've been the smoking gun, Red flag to all of us. Bush created the largest government entitlement since the "Great" Society under LBJ for crying out loud!

We need real conservatives, not the illusion of those who call themselves ones. We need Barry Goldwater, not Barry Obama. Sadly, I think most people will just drift back to slumberland. I almost want Obama to win, 4 years of hell might be worth the wake up call. We made it through President Planters and got the Gipper. Who knows.

I'll say one thing: If Mac doesn't pick a STRONG conservative as his VP I'm voting for Bob Barr. It might be "throwing away my vote" but I'd rather pick a long shot Libertarian candidate then vote the lesser of 2 evils again.

AmPat
07-24-2008, 04:41 AM
I am not one iota safer today from what Bush did after 9/11 than I was prior. Lately, some of us seem to have fallen into that Liberal mantra that suggests taking some action is better than no action at all. Yes.. There was action needed, but overreaction was a key component to Bin laden's ideas. That doesn't mean you go into it with a bull in a china shop mentality just because it's not "half hearted".
Of course we should hunt him and his cronies down and kill him, but to think him some dumb ass Islamic crazy who hasn't thought this through is a mistake. This enemy is far more savy than the policy makers understand. The military men understand it alot better now after 8 years. There were alot people who have been in theatre that were all gung ho early on....but few who actually face it day to day talk like this now.

I'm one of them.:cool:
Next?

Molon Labe
07-24-2008, 10:58 AM
I'm one of them.:cool:
Next?

A good friend. soldier won a high leverl award in Iraq. He was one of those "let's kick some ass" soldiers with at "take no prisoner's attitude". His observation a year later was that by driving people off the roads into ditches, as is the procedure, he concluded, "if someone occupying my country drove me off the road into a ditch here, I'd probably go join an insurgency too..they don't want democracy....they just want to shit and piss in the street and live their f'ed up Haji way of life".
Someone said here recently and best....


We are not allowing middle easterners to live as they see fit! We are dictating to them how they will live under the duress of military action. You people on this board had better damn well learn to accept that U.S. military might is currently being used to tell people how they should behave.

If you wnat to see how our unitended consequences affect our ability to nationbuild then look no further than last weeks example in Saladin Province with the Governor's son. The Gov vowed that his son's death will not be in vain. Another example of someone who could care less about Muslim extremism may now be another feather in the insurgency cap.



I'll say one thing: If Mac doesn't pick a STRONG conservative as his VP I'm voting for Bob Barr. It might be "throwing away my vote" but I'd rather pick a long shot Libertarian candidate then vote the lesser of 2 evils again.

I voted for Bush twice. if I even vote at all this year, it's a choice between Bob Barr or Chuck Baldwin....
I think Nader may be a principled person...but I could never bring myself to pull the lever for a socialist.
At least when everything goes to hell I can say I didn't vote for McCain or Obama.

LogansPapa
07-24-2008, 11:18 AM
Point of Order:

Please never refer to the next President of the United States as "Mac". His call sign was "McNasty" and that’s what he goes by. Thank you for your time and attention.

:cool:

AmPat
07-25-2008, 12:24 AM
A good friend. soldier won a high leverl award in Iraq. He was one of those "let's kick some ass" soldiers with at "take no prisoner's attitude". His observation a year later was that by driving people off the roads into ditches, as is the procedure, he concluded, "if someone occupying my country drove me off the road into a ditch here, I'd probably go join an insurgency too..they don't want democracy....they just want to shit and piss in the street and live their f'ed up Haji way of life".
Someone said here recently and best....
I don't disagree. I sldo don't appreciate being patronized. I have not been a cheerleader for or against the war. I am a soldier and I follow orders. While we are there and being shot at, I don't give a Rat's Red you know what as to why, I return fire. I don't aim for the leg either.

If we send our troops into harm's way to do our bidding, we do it with the idea of kicking the grease totally out of the enemy. There is always unforseen consequences and collateral damage/deaths. As terrible and unfortunate as that is, it should never be used as an excuse to go to war without winning it decisively. Troops are there. let them do their job, not powder Iraqi behinds.

marinejcksn
07-25-2008, 12:50 AM
I don't disagree. I sldo don't appreciate being patronized. I have not been a cheerleader for or against the war. I am a soldier and I follow orders. While we are there and being shot at, I don't give a Rat's Red you know what as to why, I return fire. I don't aim for the leg either.

If we send our troops into harm's way to do our bidding, we do it with the idea of kicking the grease totally out of the enemy. There is always unforseen consequences and collateral damage/deaths. As terrible and unfortunate as that is, it should never be used as an excuse to go to war without winning it decisively. Troops are there. let them do their job, not powder Iraqi behinds.

Spoken like a true Soldier, I salute you my friend. We don't ask to be over here for the most part, it's just part of the job and we follow orders to a T. What boils my blood is when civilians back home have the audacity and arrogance to accuse our guys of murder, ala Jack Murtha. It's easy to pick apart a split second, life or death battlefield decision when they're sitting thousands of miles away comfortably on their big fat @$$.

Another thing is the incredibly inflated Iraqi civilian casualties numbers. I've heard dimb-bulb lefties try to claim we killed over half a million Iraqi innocent civilians. Funny, since the WHO speculates less then 20% of that bogus number. It's war, bad things happen and it's a terrible price to pay. But the idiots who think we need a "more humane war" are the reason OBL is still alive, Al Qaeda isn't totally destoyed and the war is still on. If we had the monkey off our back and could fight this thing like the great General George Patton would, this war would've been over years ago. Quote me on that.

John
07-25-2008, 07:43 AM
You can pretty much bet that if the government had never gotten involved with regulating the airline industry 40 years ago, there would have been common sense procedures like..pilot's with guns way back when terrorism on planes became the norm in the 70's.

Uh, yeah. Precisely. I'm not an airline pilot, but I still want to make sure I can get home to my wife and kids everyday I leave for work. This shouldn't be a trivial game. This desire should be birthright. the simplest, most inexpensive solution would be to allow people like you and me to carry on flights. Unfortunately, the stupidness of the the liberal:right won't let that happen. Admitting that the government was wrong to interfere in the free market of aviation is beyond the capacity of both.

Even though 9/11 could have been prevented by a single 9mm automatic, or even a will to live when told to lay down....if only those Americans had the tools to do what needed to be done.

Odysseus
07-25-2008, 06:58 PM
Excellent reference Sir, I finished that excellent book in a little less then a week, couldn't put it down. He draws amazing parallels between the Wilson and Roosavelt administrations. Funny that FDR is seemingly remembered as one of this nations better presidents by some, when in my opinion he was dismal at best. Really made me look at the actual history of this country, rather then the versions I'd been handed before.

Interesting that the whole Uncle Sam "I want You" poster came from this era, I never knew it before.

Isn't that a great book? You can e-mail Goldberg at National Review online.

James Montgomery Flagg did a number of WWI and WWII posters, but that's his masterpiece. He also posed for Uncle Sam himself. It's up there with Norman Rockwell's Four Freedoms and JC Leyendecker's portraits of Patton and MacArthur for war bond drive posters.

What's not widely known is that the government rationing extended to film stock, which is why Hollywood made so many "Why We Fight" type movies, although given the makeup of the entertainment industry at the time, they'd have done a lot of them anyway.

Molon Labe
07-26-2008, 11:31 AM
I don't disagree. I sldo don't appreciate being patronized. I have not been a cheerleader for or against the war. I am a soldier and I follow orders. While we are there and being shot at, I don't give a Rat's Red you know what as to why, I return fire. I don't aim for the leg either.

If we send our troops into harm's way to do our bidding, we do it with the idea of kicking the grease totally out of the enemy. There is always unforseen consequences and collateral damage/deaths. As terrible and unfortunate as that is, it should never be used as an excuse to go to war without winning it decisively. Troops are there. let them do their job, not powder Iraqi behinds.

No patronizing intended. I don't disagree with getting the job done now that we are committed, but for those that start calling every Iraqi citizen that was on the sideline and now choose to picks up arms because of those "unintended consequences" or "collateral damages" ....let's just be honest when labeling them all "Al Qaeda" and terrorists. And from what you are saying I certainly don't beleive that applies to you, but it sure does for alot of Bush apologists in the Republican party.