Australian PM attacking Obama?

[Fishfan79]

Obama hits back after Australian PM slams his Iraq stance

 

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/02/11/oba...ment/index.html

 

CANBERRA, Australia (CNN) -- Australia's conservative Prime Minister John Howard said Sunday that victory for Democratic Sen. Barack Obama and his party in next year's presidential election would be a boon for terrorists.

 

"If I were running al Qaeda in Iraq, I would put a circle around March 2008, and pray, as many times as possible, for a victory not only for Obama, but also for the Democrats," Howard said, speaking on "Sunday," a TV show on Australia's Nine Network.

 

March 2008 is when Obama has said he would bring U.S. troops home from Iraq, according to legislation he introduced in the Senate.

 

Obama, who represents Illinois in the U.S. Senate, declared his candidacy for the Democratic presidential nomination in a speech on Saturday in his home state. (Obama makes his announcement Video)

 

Howard -- who faces reelection this year -- is a staunch supporter of President Bush and committed Australian troops to help the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003.

 

Like Bush, Howard has come under increased criticism at home for supporting the unpopular war.

 

Australia has more than 1,000 troops in and around Iraq, many in non-combat roles.

 

Obama, campaigning in Iowa, told reporters Sunday he's flattered that one of Bush's allies "started attacking me the day after I announced (his presidential run) -- I take that as a compliment."

 

The Democratic presidential hopeful said if the Australian prime minister was "ginned up to fight the good fight in Iraq," he needs to send another 20,000 Australians to the war.

 

"Otherwise, it's just a bunch of empty rhetoric," Obama said.

 

The Illinois Democrat dismissed the suggestion that his election would help terrorist groups, noting that even the Bush administration's "own intelligence agencies have indicated that the threat of terrorism has increased as a consequence of our actions over there."

 

When asked about Howard's comment, a senior White House official voiced support for the Australian leader.

 

"Prime Minister Howard knows that setting a timeline for a withdrawal sends the wrong signal to our enemies and sends the wrong signal to the Iraqi people," the official told CNN.

[CapeFish]

I *heart* Howard.....he is one of my favorite world leaders. He has the cojones to say what he thinks and then defends it on a regular basis to the public and parliament.

[Jimmy42Jack0]

I *heart* Howard.....he is one of my favorite world leaders. He has the cojones to say what he thinks and then defends it on a regular basis to the public and parliament.

its funny...i didnt think he would have been able to say that much with W's man junk in his mouth...this is a huge suck job...why doesnt he just tell us that the democrats are morally inferior for starting a war that has killed thousands and thousands of people in unspeakable ways

[prinmemito]

Stay out of it, dude. This isn't your country.

[Dodge]

I think it's a really, really stupid thing to say and I hear it all too often from the conservative side of the spectrum - "If I were a terrorist I would want a Democratic candidate to be the President of the US"

[Buckeye]

Of course they're going to play up "a vote for a Democrat is a vote for terrorism" card. Just wait, I really expect this to be one of the dirtiest races for the presidency ever. I mean, the Republicans have to follow a f*** up like Bush and they've already got that smear spot, so of course this is the best they could come up with.

 

How about the great job Bush has done not only fighting the terrorists and finding Osama, but actually finding a way to MULTIPLY willing future terrorists with his awesome "plan" in Iraq? Guess he forgot that portion of his "I've got big Australian cajones and always tell the truth, mate," philosophy on speaking to the press.

[Hotcorner]

yeah, hasn't that line gotten old yet?

 

 

If I was every evil person in the world I'd sure hope the Democrats win!

 

:drool

 

 

& tough talk there with your 1000 non-combat troops.

[FutureGM]

Obama owned him by saying that he should put his money where his mouth is and call up 20,000 more Australian troops to send to Iraq.

 

Howard's son, unsurprisingly, worked for the Bush/Cheney 2004 campaign.

[HelmsE]

It is a bit absurd that he's already jumping out and making these claims for no apparent reason. Either way, Howard seems to be all show with nothing to back it up. It's a shame that this race is already starting out this way with unneeded commentary from people such as Howard.

[Fishfan79]

Obama owned him by saying that he should put his money where his mouth is and call up 20,000 more Australian troops to send to Iraq.

 

Howard's son, unsurprisingly, worked for the Bush/Cheney 2004 campaign.

 

 

yeah I loved that line too. Obama is fun to listen to.

 

Dang I miss Accord, he would make a comment here about how the Australian prime minster is right somehow

[WildMarlinMan2003]

Of course they're going to play up "a vote for a Democrat is a vote for terrorism" card. Just wait, I really expect this to be one of the dirtiest races for the presidency ever. I mean, the Republicans have to follow a f*** up like Bush and they've already got that smear spot, so of course this is the best they could come up with.

 

How about the great job Bush has done not only fighting the terrorists and finding Osama, but actually finding a way to MULTIPLY willing future terrorists with his awesome "plan" in Iraq? Guess he forgot that portion of his "I've got big Australian cajones and always tell the truth, mate," philosophy on speaking to the press.

 

 

Sorry man but I understand Bush is not the greatest President of all time, however he's light years better than Kerry or Gore would have been. So sadly enough, Dems couldn't come up with anything better than a lying Kerry or a nut job in Gore.

 

Now they have another flip flopper in Hillary and a candidate Obama (who seems like a nice guy) but will never win the election because of his race and inexperience.

 

Giuliani will tear apart both Hillary and/or Obama in a debate even if they were together.

 

 

oh and by the way.....terrorists do want a Democrat in office. Think....Clinton should have had Osama.

 

Obama owned him by saying that he should put his money where his mouth is and call up 20,000 more Australian troops to send to Iraq.

 

Howard's son, unsurprisingly, worked for the Bush/Cheney 2004 campaign.

 

 

yeah I loved that line too. Obama is fun to listen to.

 

Dang I miss Accord, he would make a comment here about how the Australian prime minster is right somehow

 

 

Yeah Obama is fun to listen to if you want a candidate for President who has no experience and honestly will not beat Hillary and all her money.

[DcFishFan]

terrorists do want a Democrat in office. Think....Clinton should have had Osama.

 

How you got into college, Wild Marlin Man, still perplexes me.

 

Are you so blinded by your conservative ideology that you can't see that it was BUSH (not CLINTON) that was poised to capture Osama once he murdered the thousands of Americans in 9-11, and he let Osama slip through his fingers by:

 

1) not sending enough U.S. troops over to Afghanistan in Oct., Nov., Dec. of 2001 and allowing a bunch of Afghan warload militia take the laboring oar in the hunt for Al-Qaeda's leadership

 

2) diverting what troops had been sent to Afghanistan to fight an inane war in Iraq

 

You and your conservative buddies oughta scrape away the crap that Karl Rove has dabbed onto your eyes and realize a couple of things:

 

1) Al Qaeda and the radical Islamists WANT knee-jerk conservative Republicans in the W.H. because it makes their job of recruitment MUCH, MUCH easier. Let's face it, the only way Al Qaeda will survive is to indoctrinate as many people as possible in their radical ideology. A letter found on Khalid Sheik Mohammed stated as much.

 

Having a crazy cowboy talk about "crusades" and launch a pre-emptive war against a muslim country -- that's Al-Qaeda's wet dream for recruitment. They WANT us to over-react, and broaden our war against Islam. Then they can go to the streets of Cairo, of Riyadh, of Amman and draw moderates or borderline radicals to their cause.

 

2) Al Qaeda *HEARTS* us for going into Iraq -- not only because it makes their recruitment job easier, but because it provides real-world terrorism experience for their new recruits. Much like Afghanistan served as a training ground for Bin Laden and more senior members of Al Qaeda in the 1980s.

 

So go ahead, parrot Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and others and say Kerry was a liar, Gore was a nutjob. Show everyone your true level of intelligence.

 

Or think for yourself for a change, and realize that by keeping us out of Iraq and in Afghanistan to finish the job against Bin Laden -- as both Kerry AND Gore would have done -- we'd actually be winning the war on terrorism, instead of losing miserably.

[Fishfan79]

Of course they're going to play up "a vote for a Democrat is a vote for terrorism" card. Just wait, I really expect this to be one of the dirtiest races for the presidency ever. I mean, the Republicans have to follow a f*** up like Bush and they've already got that smear spot, so of course this is the best they could come up with.

 

How about the great job Bush has done not only fighting the terrorists and finding Osama, but actually finding a way to MULTIPLY willing future terrorists with his awesome "plan" in Iraq? Guess he forgot that portion of his "I've got big Australian cajones and always tell the truth, mate," philosophy on speaking to the press.

 

 

Sorry man but I understand Bush is not the greatest President of all time, however he's light years better than Kerry or Gore would have been. So sadly enough, Dems couldn't come up with anything better than a lying Kerry or a nut job in Gore.

 

I completely disagree with that. Gore would of never placed us into the middle of the conflict in Iraq like this moron has done. He would of also used the world public outcry in a better way. He would of most likely stayed in Afghanistan till it was fixed properly not having it pretty much in civil war like it is now

 

Now they have another flip flopper in Hillary and a candidate Obama (who seems like a nice guy) but will never win the election because of his race and inexperience.

Now we are bringing out that term again in Flip flopper? I could go down every democrat and republic senator and point to them flip flopping over bills. That is a BS word used for trying to fool ignorant people you know bette then that.

 

 

Giuliani will tear apart both Hillary and/or Obama in a debate even if they were together.

 

Giuliani will never win the republican ticket anyways because he is a pro choice individual with many shadey parts of his past. Do you really see the republicans nominating someone not white and protestant? He is Italian, he wont get past the south because half of the republicans there are raciest SOBs sadly. But if you want to talk about inexperienced, a major to a president? you want to rip into a senator?

 

oh and by the way.....terrorists do want a Democrat in office. Think....Clinton should have had Osama.

 

Clinton actually went after Osama unlike the current administration

 

Obama owned him by saying that he should put his money where his mouth is and call up 20,000 more Australian troops to send to Iraq.

 

Howard's son, unsurprisingly, worked for the Bush/Cheney 2004 campaign.

 

 

yeah I loved that line too. Obama is fun to listen to.

 

Dang I miss Accord, he would make a comment here about how the Australian prime minster is right somehow

 

 

Yeah Obama is fun to listen to if you want a candidate for President who has no experience and honestly will not beat Hillary and all her money.

 

 

Obama is a solid canidate and a wonderful speaker, but I dont think Hillary will get the nomination honestly, unless it is a VP one. As for no experience your favorite for President lacks experience as well upon the world stage. The other McCain is pretty much a nutjob. Newt is a complete joke and pycho.

 

Personally I would rather Gore run, he would make a good president and Obama as the VP would fit well.

[Dodge]

terrorists do want a Democrat in office. Think....Clinton should have had Osama.

 

How you got into college, Wild Marlin Man, still perplexes me.

 

Are you so blinded by your conservative ideology that you can't see that it was BUSH (not CLINTON) that was poised to capture Osama once he murdered the thousands of Americans in 9-11, and he let Osama slip through his fingers by:

 

1) not sending enough U.S. troops over to Afghanistan in Oct., Nov., Dec. of 2001 and allowing a bunch of Afghan warload militia take the laboring oar in the hunt for Al-Qaeda's leadership

 

2) diverting what troops had been sent to Afghanistan to fight an inane war in Iraq

 

You and your conservative buddies oughta scrape away the crap that Karl Rove has dabbed onto your eyes and realize a couple of things:

 

1) Al Qaeda and the radical Islamists WANT knee-jerk conservative Republicans in the W.H. because it makes their job of recruitment MUCH, MUCH easier. Let's face it, the only way Al Qaeda will survive is to indoctrinate as many people as possible in their radical ideology. A letter found on Khalid Sheik Mohammed stated as much.

 

Having a crazy cowboy talk about "crusades" and launch a pre-emptive war against a muslim country -- that's Al-Qaeda's wet dream for recruitment. They WANT us to over-react, and broaden our war against Islam. Then they can go to the streets of Cairo, of Riyadh, of Amman and draw moderates or borderline radicals to their cause.

 

2) Al Qaeda *HEARTS* us for going into Iraq -- not only because it makes their recruitment job easier, but because it provides real-world terrorism experience for their new recruits. Much like Afghanistan served as a training ground for Bin Laden and more senior members of Al Qaeda in the 1980s.

 

So go ahead, parrot Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and others and say Kerry was a liar, Gore was a nutjob. Show everyone your true level of intelligence.

 

Or think for yourself for a change, and realize that by keeping us out of Iraq and in Afghanistan to finish the job against Bin Laden -- as both Kerry AND Gore would have done -- we'd actually be winning the war on terrorism, instead of losing miserably.

 

 

Nice post!

[Baldeagle037]

Its too bad Clinton missed his opportunities to kill Osama (treated it like a law enforcement issue)... that fact will never be forgotten. End.

[Buckeye]

Its too bad Clinton missed his opportunities to kill Osama (treated it like a law enforcement issue)... that fact will never be forgotten. End.

 

Fact: Like that time he went to Congress and asked for help and they flat out turned him down?

 

END.

 

Keep reading Bill O'Reilly books, and believing everything FOX News tells you, though. It's a NO-SPIN ZONE!

 

Of course they're going to play up "a vote for a Democrat is a vote for terrorism" card. Just wait, I really expect this to be one of the dirtiest races for the presidency ever. I mean, the Republicans have to follow a f*** up like Bush and they've already got that smear spot, so of course this is the best they could come up with.

 

How about the great job Bush has done not only fighting the terrorists and finding Osama, but actually finding a way to MULTIPLY willing future terrorists with his awesome "plan" in Iraq? Guess he forgot that portion of his "I've got big Australian cajones and always tell the truth, mate," philosophy on speaking to the press.

 

 

Sorry man but I understand Bush is not the greatest President of all time, however he's light years better than Kerry or Gore would have been. So sadly enough, Dems couldn't come up with anything better than a lying Kerry or a nut job in Gore.

 

Now they have another flip flopper in Hillary and a candidate Obama (who seems like a nice guy) but will never win the election because of his race and inexperience.

 

Giuliani will tear apart both Hillary and/or Obama in a debate even if they were together.

 

 

oh and by the way.....terrorists do want a Democrat in office. Think....Clinton should have had Osama.

 

Obama owned him by saying that he should put his money where his mouth is and call up 20,000 more Australian troops to send to Iraq.

 

Howard's son, unsurprisingly, worked for the Bush/Cheney 2004 campaign.

 

 

yeah I loved that line too. Obama is fun to listen to.

 

Dang I miss Accord, he would make a comment here about how the Australian prime minster is right somehow

 

 

Yeah Obama is fun to listen to if you want a candidate for President who has no experience and honestly will not beat Hillary and all her money.

 

You are aware that when it's all said and done Bush II will go down as one of the worst presidents, right? Other than being a warmonger and doing ABSOLUTELY nothing he'll be the stem of future problems in the mid-east, not to mention he didn't find Osama with six years to do so.

 

But, continue living in fantasy land.

 

Not the greatest, correct. But to say he's better than ANYONE "would have been" is absolutely ridiculous because it's damn near impossible to predict how they would have done/what they would have done under the circumstances. Plus, I didn't think Kerry was the greatest, but a lame duck over Bush would still be an upgrade. I'm amazed anyone can rationally justify this guy's presidency on any level at this point other than the fact that the second time he was actually nominated to office by the people.

 

I love the republican revision of history where Clinton failed to get Osama even though he was turned down by Congress, etc. first. But, it's all good, you're going to vote republican come hell or high water anyways. Simple slogans like "A vote for democrats is a vote for terror" always work for idiots.

[HelmsE]

Its too bad Clinton missed his opportunities to kill Osama (treated it like a law enforcement issue)... that fact will never be forgotten. End.

 

Fact: Like that time he went to Congress and asked for help and they flat out turned him down?

 

END.

 

Keep reading Bill O'Reilly books, and believing everything FOX News tells you, though. It's a NO-SPIN ZONE!

 

Of course they're going to play up "a vote for a Democrat is a vote for terrorism" card. Just wait, I really expect this to be one of the dirtiest races for the presidency ever. I mean, the Republicans have to follow a f*** up like Bush and they've already got that smear spot, so of course this is the best they could come up with.

 

How about the great job Bush has done not only fighting the terrorists and finding Osama, but actually finding a way to MULTIPLY willing future terrorists with his awesome "plan" in Iraq? Guess he forgot that portion of his "I've got big Australian cajones and always tell the truth, mate," philosophy on speaking to the press.

 

 

Sorry man but I understand Bush is not the greatest President of all time, however he's light years better than Kerry or Gore would have been. So sadly enough, Dems couldn't come up with anything better than a lying Kerry or a nut job in Gore.

 

Now they have another flip flopper in Hillary and a candidate Obama (who seems like a nice guy) but will never win the election because of his race and inexperience.

 

Giuliani will tear apart both Hillary and/or Obama in a debate even if they were together.

 

 

oh and by the way.....terrorists do want a Democrat in office. Think....Clinton should have had Osama.

 

Obama owned him by saying that he should put his money where his mouth is and call up 20,000 more Australian troops to send to Iraq.

 

Howard's son, unsurprisingly, worked for the Bush/Cheney 2004 campaign.

 

 

yeah I loved that line too. Obama is fun to listen to.

 

Dang I miss Accord, he would make a comment here about how the Australian prime minster is right somehow

 

 

Yeah Obama is fun to listen to if you want a candidate for President who has no experience and honestly will not beat Hillary and all her money.

 

You are aware that when it's all said and done Bush II will go down as one of the worst presidents, right? Other than being a warmonger and doing ABSOLUTELY nothing he'll be the stem of future problems in the mid-east, not to mention he didn't find Osama with six years to do so.

 

But, continue living in fantasy land.

 

Not the greatest, correct. But to say he's better than ANYONE "would have been" is absolutely ridiculous because it's damn near impossible to predict how they would have done/what they would have done under the circumstances. Plus, I didn't think Kerry was the greatest, but a lame duck over Bush would still be an upgrade. I'm amazed anyone can rationally justify this guy's presidency on any level at this point other than the fact that the second time he was actually nominated to office by the people.

 

I love the republican revision of history where Clinton failed to get Osama even though he was turned down by Congress, etc. first. But, it's all good, you're going to vote republican come hell or high water anyways. Simple slogans like "A vote for democrats is a vote for terror" always work for idiots.

 

 

Nice post. Summed everything up quite well so I don't have much to add. Baldeagle and WildMarlinMan, I'd recommend not passing the buck and blame for once and actually taking a good look at the current administation. The fact that you still hold Bush in some form of high regard while looking down upon Clinton on the same issue is quite absurd if you actually take a minute to look at it. But Buckeye is sadly right, no matter what is said or done you will never change your views or look deep enough into the issue to make a valid point or decision. The ghost of Accord lives on...

[Shaq-Man]

I love the republican revision of history where Clinton failed to get Osama even though he was turned down by Congress, etc. first.

que???

[Buckeye]

I love the republican revision of history where Clinton failed to get Osama even though he was turned down by Congress, etc. first.

que???

 

A lot of people may not remember this, but Clinton fired missiles at what we suspected was his Al Queda hideout. Killed something in the neighborhood of 22 people, many of which were Al Queda and the Afghans got all pissed off at us. Clinton wanted to keep going after him, but Congress in their infinite wisdom decided to focus on Monica Lewinsky. So, all the problems with Afghanistan and Osama went out the window and all we heard about was Monica, Monica, Monica because a blowjob became more important than capturing terrorists.

 

All the terrorist stuff was swept under the rug and as we only heard about morality and the president.

[Shaq-Man]

Clinton wanted to keep going after him, but Congress in their infinited wisdom decided to focus on Monica Lewinsky.

what does that mean? where exactly did congress turn him down in his hunt for osama?

[CapeFish]

The commander in chief can order target attacks without congressional approval. If these target attacks last longer than a certain time period (5 days rings a bell), then the president must get congressional approval.

 

Hence the football for nuclear retaliation on presidential order.

[Baldeagle037]

Its too bad Clinton missed his opportunities to kill Osama (treated it like a law enforcement issue)... that fact will never be forgotten. End.

 

Fact: Like that time he went to Congress and asked for help and they flat out turned him down?

 

END.

 

Keep reading Bill O'Reilly books, and believing everything FOX News tells you, though. It's a NO-SPIN ZONE!

 

Of course they're going to play up "a vote for a Democrat is a vote for terrorism" card. Just wait, I really expect this to be one of the dirtiest races for the presidency ever. I mean, the Republicans have to follow a f*** up like Bush and they've already got that smear spot, so of course this is the best they could come up with.

 

How about the great job Bush has done not only fighting the terrorists and finding Osama, but actually finding a way to MULTIPLY willing future terrorists with his awesome "plan" in Iraq? Guess he forgot that portion of his "I've got big Australian cajones and always tell the truth, mate," philosophy on speaking to the press.

 

 

Sorry man but I understand Bush is not the greatest President of all time, however he's light years better than Kerry or Gore would have been. So sadly enough, Dems couldn't come up with anything better than a lying Kerry or a nut job in Gore.

 

Now they have another flip flopper in Hillary and a candidate Obama (who seems like a nice guy) but will never win the election because of his race and inexperience.

 

Giuliani will tear apart both Hillary and/or Obama in a debate even if they were together.

 

 

oh and by the way.....terrorists do want a Democrat in office. Think....Clinton should have had Osama.

 

Obama owned him by saying that he should put his money where his mouth is and call up 20,000 more Australian troops to send to Iraq.

 

Howard's son, unsurprisingly, worked for the Bush/Cheney 2004 campaign.

 

 

yeah I loved that line too. Obama is fun to listen to.

 

Dang I miss Accord, he would make a comment here about how the Australian prime minster is right somehow

 

 

Yeah Obama is fun to listen to if you want a candidate for President who has no experience and honestly will not beat Hillary and all her money.

 

You are aware that when it's all said and done Bush II will go down as one of the worst presidents, right? Other than being a warmonger and doing ABSOLUTELY nothing he'll be the stem of future problems in the mid-east, not to mention he didn't find Osama with six years to do so.

 

But, continue living in fantasy land.

 

Not the greatest, correct. But to say he's better than ANYONE "would have been" is absolutely ridiculous because it's damn near impossible to predict how they would have done/what they would have done under the circumstances. Plus, I didn't think Kerry was the greatest, but a lame duck over Bush would still be an upgrade. I'm amazed anyone can rationally justify this guy's presidency on any level at this point other than the fact that the second time he was actually nominated to office by the people.

 

I love the republican revision of history where Clinton failed to get Osama even though he was turned down by Congress, etc. first. But, it's all good, you're going to vote republican come hell or high water anyways. Simple slogans like "A vote for democrats is a vote for terror" always work for idiots.

 

 

Nice post. Summed everything up quite well so I don't have much to add. Baldeagle and WildMarlinMan, I'd recommend not passing the buck and blame for once and actually taking a good look at the current administation. The fact that you still hold Bush in some form of high regard while looking down upon Clinton on the same issue is quite absurd if you actually take a minute to look at it. But Buckeye is sadly right, no matter what is said or done you will never change your views or look deep enough into the issue to make a valid point or decision. The ghost of Accord lives on...

 

Its funny how people automatically assume someone is a Republican just because they remember how history has been played out and make an observation. Its unfortunate but yes we were attacked quite often under Clintons watch. I was upset during the whole Monica Lewinsky deal. For one the president getting busted and two the republicans making a deal out of it. If you have read my previous posts I did mention my voting history. I voted for Clinton twice then Al Gore. I decided to vote this time around for the current administration. My voter card says N.P.A. non party affiliation. You people make some comments on these boards blinded by your own hate for the president. So who really is absurd now? You mean to tell me you can make a fair opinion based on your own hate for the president? Sadly enough these boards will not be interesting if all you hear is a bunch of Bush bashers. I don't agree with everything he has done but I rather have him than Kerrry any day.

[bobbob1313]

Its funny how people automatically assume someone is a Republican just because they remember how history has been played out and make an observation. Its unfortunate but yes we were attacked quite often under Clintons watch. I was upset during the whole Monica Lewinsky deal. For one the president getting busted and two the republicans making a deal out of it. If you have read my previous posts I did mention my voting history. I voted for Clinton twice then Al Gore. I decided to vote this time around for the current administration. My voter card says N.P.A. non party affiliation. You people make some comments on these boards blinded by your own hate for the president. So who really is absurd now? You mean to tell me you can make a fair opinion based on your own hate for the president? Sadly enough these boards will not be interesting if all you hear is a bunch of Bush bashers. I don't agree with everything he has done but I rather have him than Kerrry any day.

 

 

I think most people who read my posts will agree that I'm not a blind bush hater, but the guy has been absolutely atrocious every step of the way in the war. And I'm really feeling like we are playing a dangerous game by saying the terrorists pray for a Dem. victory, or that Clinton blew his chance to get Osama. Congress refused to approve further military action aside from the bombing of his hideout, and unlike Bush, Clinton has some idea of what the constitution says, so he had to stop going after him. He didn't have the aide of a massive hype machine banging the drum for war to help him catch Osama, like Bush did.

 

If anyone blew catching Osama, it was George Bush. The guy should be in an American Prison or dead right now. We f***ed it up, and there is no one to blame but this administration, and this was public knowledge before the election, so there is no way to justify voting for Bush.

[Hotcorner]

1) Al Qaeda and the radical Islamists WANT knee-jerk conservative Republicans in the W.H. because it makes their job of recruitment MUCH, MUCH easier. Let's face it, the only way Al Qaeda will survive is to indoctrinate as many people as possible in their radical ideology. A letter found on Khalid Sheik Mohammed stated as much.

 

Having a crazy cowboy talk about "crusades" and launch a pre-emptive war against a muslim country -- that's Al-Qaeda's wet dream for recruitment. They WANT us to over-react, and broaden our war against Islam. Then they can go to the streets of Cairo, of Riyadh, of Amman and draw moderates or borderline radicals to their cause.

 

2) Al Qaeda *HEARTS* us for going into Iraq -- not only because it makes their recruitment job easier, but because it provides real-world terrorism experience for their new recruits. Much like Afghanistan served as a training ground for Bin Laden and more senior members of Al Qaeda in the 1980s.

 

great post man, it's very simple and yet so many people in the country keep right on with their bumper sticker jingo-politics.

[Flying_Mollusk]

1) Al Qaeda and the radical Islamists WANT knee-jerk conservative Republicans in the W.H. because it makes their job of recruitment MUCH, MUCH easier. Let's face it, the only way Al Qaeda will survive is to indoctrinate as many people as possible in their radical ideology. A letter found on Khalid Sheik Mohammed stated as much.

 

Having a crazy cowboy talk about "crusades" and launch a pre-emptive war against a muslim country -- that's Al-Qaeda's wet dream for recruitment. They WANT us to over-react, and broaden our war against Islam. Then they can go to the streets of Cairo, of Riyadh, of Amman and draw moderates or borderline radicals to their cause.

 

2) Al Qaeda *HEARTS* us for going into Iraq -- not only because it makes their recruitment job easier, but because it provides real-world terrorism experience for their new recruits. Much like Afghanistan served as a training ground for Bin Laden and more senior members of Al Qaeda in the 1980s.

 

great post man, it's very simple and yet so many people in the country keep right on with their bumper sticker jingo-politics.

 

Yep. Here is what the next one will be: We are fighting them on their soil and not ours. All of this blatantly ignores the fact that we have no clue how to get the Shiites and Sunnis to cease fire against each other. We are in a bona fide civil war and the rhetoric just continues to come out. Meanwhile we are supposed to figure out how to deal with Al Queda in this situation.

 

How about this idea? Instead of surging our troops into a hornet's nest, we try to use some diplomacy to get the Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds to live in peace so they can organize and take AQ out?