Prove ANY of these statements incorrect:


Failed to safeguard our borders and ports.

Failed to provide the needed funding for first responders.

Failed to destroy the al-Qaeda operations especially in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Diverted our resources to Iraq that has enabled al-Qaeda et al to have yet another base of operation in Iraq.

Provided a recruiting tool to radical Islam by invading and occupying Iraq.

OK



Actually the Democrats are partially responsible because they have not approved the funding for the fence yet. Read
here titled Democrats Slow to Approve Funding for Border Fence.



OK you got this.



Actually he did destroy their operations in Afghanistan, that is why they are in Pakistan now. It took them this long to regroup, no thanks to the Pakistani Gov't. But of course don't blame them for not being helpful.



There is no base in Iraq as far as I know. Al-qaeda is not as strong in Iraq as you wanna believe. They are just taking advantage of the fighting between the factions.



You can't give them something they already had.

There I did it. How do you like that?

Of course you did, and that's why you don't link directly to the NIE because it doesn't say what your analysis is.  You have already had to use quotes from liberals newspapers to back your story up.  LOL. 

Failed to safeguard our borders and ports.


“Actually the Democrats are partially responsible because they have not approved the funding for the fence yet. Read
Here titled Democrats Slow to Approve Funding for Border Fence.”

I said prove it is not true. Bush spend 5 years after 9/11 not enforcing existing laws and did not request the funding from the GOP controlled Congress for the manpower or fence/equipment.

“Actually he did destroy their operations in Afghanistan that is why they are in Pakistan now. It took them this long to regroup, no thanks to the Pakistani Gov't. But of course don't blame them for not being helpful.”

Then how has al-Qaeda reconstituted itself as the NIE states? The truth is we never finished the job in Afghanistan and not al-Qaeda is as strong as before 9/11 per out intelligence estimate.

You can't give them something they already had. The NIE clearly said the Iraq war was the main reason al-Qaeda was an able to recruit new converts that are willing to attack the U.S.

You have just shown you can not disprove any of the points I made.

“Of course you did, and that's why you don't link directly to the NIE because it doesn't say what your analysis is. You have already had to use quotes from liberal’s newspapers to back your story up. .”


EVERY news agency is saying the very same thing. You are full of BS. All you can ever say is if its is a liberal newspaper or TV network by your definition they misrepresent the truth. It is Bush and his spin doctors that twist the truth. The NIE clearly shows Bush has failed to reduce the threat from al-Qaeda. The Sec of Homeland Security is running around warning of another attack on the U.S. this summer. How is that possible if we have destroyed al-Qaeda?

they reconstituted themselves in Pakistan among sympathizers.

“They reconstituted themselves in Pakistan among sympathizers.”

The NIE said they are in Afghanistan and Pakistan as well as Iraq. In other words the Bush war on Terrorism took al-Qaeda that was principally in Afghanistan and allowed it to expand to three countries. Great Work George!

Regardless where al-Qaeda is operating the point is that the threat from al-Qaeda is as strong as before 9/11. That after Bush attacked Iraq to fight the War on terrorism. Sounds like the Bush approach has failed because the group that was responsible for 9/11 is as dangerous as ever after 6 years of our effort, ½ Trillion dollars, thousands of dead American Military and over 26,000 injured. That is NOT what I would call a successful operation. We need to end our involvement in the Civil war in Iraq and concentrate on al-Qaeda in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq or where ever they operate.

LOL.  New agencies are typically anti-war, and anti-Bush, so they have about as much credibility on reporting the real story as you do.




You just don't get it do you?  Nobody said we have destroyed al-qaeda, but have certainly made them weaker, and they are certainly not walking around freely like they were before Bush.  But once again, just tell blame Bush and go on with your usual rants about Iraq.  LOL.

". New agencies are typically anti-war, and anti-Bush, so they have about as much credibility on reporting the real story as you do. "

That does not mean what they report is not accurate!


"You just don't get it do you? Nobody said we have destroyed al-Qaeda, but have certainly made them weaker, and they are certainly not walking around freely like they were before Bush. But once again, just tell blame Bush and go on with your usual rants about Iraq. ."

The problem is they are as strong as before 9/11 per the NIE and now are operating in three countries. We also have Hezbollah operating in Iraq where they did not operate before Bush invaded Iraq. You refuse to understand that our invasion of Iraq has not only put us in the middle of a Civil War but allowed al-Qaeda and Hezbollah to operate in Iraq. In addition because we did not finish al-Qaeda in Afghanistan they have now spread into Pakistan. If you believe the way Bush has fought terrorism is effective you are out of your mind. This is a poor result given the 6 years we have been at this fight and given the cost in lives, injuries and dollars. What is worse we are now in just as much danger from these NUTS and that puts more pressure on our homeland security who must be right 100% of the time to prevent another 9/11 or worse!

what i have been hearing is that al quida and the taliban are attacking out of pakistan.

so yes they are in afghanistan but only during a short time everyday and then they run back to pakistan.

we have been in just as much danger from these nuts since the 1990s.

no according to the nie they are as strong since 9/11

That's funny, I thought I did. Here's the web page. See for yourself. You blamed Bush but in reality it was the Democrats.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,244264,00.html

Here's what it said:





YOu blamed Bush but in reality it was the Dems. Want more?



I guess I'll take a tip from your own rule book and repeat myself again to you. Al-qaeda is not an organization that is sitting in an office conducting terrorist attacks like a business. Al-qaeda is spread all across the world. It is what makes it difficult to destroy them. Al-qaeda can not be destroyed regardless of what Bush says. But they can be slowed down and sent hiding which is what we did. The report says they are getting stronger, well what did you expect? They are determined to destroy the US. You didn't really think they would just go away once we entered Afghanistan and removed the corrupt Gov't and disrupt their training camps. You really are ignorant. And they may be growing but they are not capable of coordinating a large enough of an attack because we have them on the run. What you are talking about are what are being called Al-qaeda wanna-be's. People who are inspired by Al-qaeda and using the name to attempt attacks that have not worked. Which to me would say we are doing good. Of course you are too stupid to see that.



Really? Then tell me how did they recruit people before 9/11? Tell me how Al-qaeda was what it was before we went to Iraq? These people may be willing to attack us, but they can't. You, Sir, are a coward. You fear Al-qaeda, you fear we are nothing but an incompetent country that can not defend itself. If you are so afraid maybe it's time for you to leave the country. Move to somewhere where Al-qaeda will scare you no more. If you too afraid to stand up to them, get the fuck out then.



That's an opinion. I did a good job disproving most of your points, except 1 and I admitted that from the beginning. You are a coward that's all that is to it.

Actually it does.  The media in this country take a one-sided view of Iraq and rarely, if every, report progress and good news, and have been caught many times reporting false stories related to Iraq.  Something you should be familiar with.

Reply | Edit | Delete




Reply By: danielost Posted: Thursday, July 19, 2007
What I have been hearing is that al Qaeda and the Taliban are attacking out of Pakistan.

So yes they are in Afghanistan but only during a short time everyday and then they run back to Pakistan.

We have been in just as much danger from these nuts since the 1990s.

no according to the NIE they are as strong since 9/11

YES the NIE does say al-Qaeda is AS STRONG AS 9/11. After 6 Years of trying to destroy al-Qaeda to conclude they are as strong as when we stared shows the Bush Fight On Terrorism is NOT WORKING!!!!!

\Bush wants us to believe we are in Iraq and must WIN as he puts it because of al-Qaeda and like groups. EVERY senior Military leader past and present has acknowledged :

85-90% of the fighting is between the factions within Iraq NOT al-Qaeda.

They have acknowledged we can not militarily win a Civil conflict between the Iraqi factions. ONLY by political accommodations can the sectarian violence end. That is what is NOT taking pace and so this surge is like "Whack -a- Mole” In those areas where we have sent added force the violence is down. In areas that have been stable for YEARAS the violence is out of control. When we remove the added forces from the areas where the fighting has been reduced the is almost 100% chance the fighting will return. The reason for this the surge has not and CAN NOT work is because it can NOT resolve the reason for MOST of the fighting which for control of Iraq!

yes but that is not our work that is the work of their government.

really i thought i heard on the news that the tribal leaders in anbar have switched to our side. and tribal leaders in another area are also starting to change sides.

“yes but that is not our work that is the work of their government.”

Correct and we were to provide then the time to accomplish that. However it is NOT taking place and now they are going on recess while our military continues to die giving them a chance to NOT ACT. That is BS. Time to GET OUT. I told my Senators and Congressman in no event do I want them to vote for the Defense funding Bill without a timetable to pull out of Iraq! If Bush vetoes that then HE will be the reason the troops have no funding!

no your demo buddies will be at fualt for trying to tie his hands

if someone held a gun to your head and told you to rape someone. he is the one at fault not you.

this is what you want the congress to do with the president. no timetable no money that is the same thing

Reply By: danielost Posted: Thursday, July 19, 2007
No your demo buddies will be at fault for trying to tie his hands


WORNG Again. Congress has the authority under our Constitution to appropriate money and define how it is spent! There is no requirement to follow what the President would like when it comes to the Budget! If Bush defies the legislation and vetoes the bills it will be Bush that will prevent the funding of the troops.

“This is what you want the congress to do with the president. No timetable no money that is the same thing”

Congress has the power to declare war not the President. They in essence did that with the Iraq War Resolution. They could revoke that prior law or just say the war is over and therefore the funding will end.

I have yet to see an answer as to WHY should the U.S. continue to fight in Iraq after the Iraqi PM said that HIS military and police can defend Iraq?

WHO wants to Field that question?

then let them do that. but let them stop playing politics with the lives of our troops.


i take it you didn't stay up and watch the senate. i did and almost ever Dem. i watched was politicing not caring about the troops or the people.

then let them do that. but let them stop playing politics with the lives of our troops.


They are trying. It is the GOP and Bush that are creating the problem. They may have NO choice but to place restrictions on the DoD funding and if Bush vetoes the appropriations they need to simply change the bill number pass the SAME bill and continue sending the Will of Congress to Bush. At some point the spending authority will end and Bush will have no choice buy bring the troops home. We need an up or down vote NOW! That will be up to the GOP.

cant win by the rules. so it is now time to change the rules.

Reply By: danielost Posted: Thursday, July 19, 2007
cant win by the rules. so it is now time to change the rules.

The issue is not the rules. It is voting on the funding for the military.