When Does A President Become "Responsible" Or When Can One Blame The Prior?

[Immanuel]

We can agree to disagree Immie

I do know how disappointed liberals are there have been no more attacks. Like in Iraq, the left was hoping for failure and only the worst occur. Now with Obama and the defeates left running things, I am sure if we are ht again - they will not take the responsibiity - they will blame Pres Bush

If I remember correctly, President Bush tried to blame President Clinton. After all, President Bush had not even been in office for nine months. Surely it took longer to plan this than nine months.

Immie

[red states rule]

If I remember correctly, President Bush tried to blame President Clinton. After all, President Bush had not even been in office for nine months. Surely it took longer to plan this than nine months.

Immie

Pres Bush never tried to blame anyone except the terrorists. Clinton did know about the 9-11 hijackers were in the US illegaly but did nothing

BY treating terrorism as a crime and not an act of war - they made the US a paper tiger

OBL summed it up when he said 'inflict casualities on the US and they will run away' - and that is what libs want to do

[retiredman]

If I remember correctly, President Bush tried to blame President Clinton. After all, President Bush had not even been in office for nine months. Surely it took longer to plan this than nine months.

Immie

President Bush never publicly blamed Clinton for 9/11. But the guy you're arguing with certainly did.:lol:

[red states rule]

President Bush never publicly blamed Clinton for 9/11. But the guy you're arguing with certainly did.:lol:

Clinton did nothing to pick them up when his administration knew they were in the US illegally

He even declined to take OBL when he was offered up on a silver platter

[Immanuel]

President Bush never publicly blamed Clinton for 9/11. But the guy you're arguing with certainly did.:lol:

Okay, you're right, Bush never did, but his minions did.

Immie

[retiredman]

Okay, you're right, Bush never did, but his minions did.

Immie

and RSR did too.... he even blames Clinton for WTC '93!

[red states rule]

and RSR did too.... he even blames Clinton for WTC '93!

Yep, Bill showed how hard he came down on terrorists when he ran away from them, took out an aspirin factory, fired a few rockets into Iraq and killed a janitor, and had the UN express their anger over the 5 attacks that happened on his watch

[retiredman]

see Immie...I told ya!:lol:

[red states rule]

see Immie...I told ya!:lol:

Having a problem addressing the facts I listed Virgil?

Or do you have me on ignore for the 6th time? :lol:

[Immanuel]

and RSR did too.... he even blames Clinton for WTC '93!

Well, who else would you blame? The terrorists? ;)

Immie

[Yurt]

so bill clinton is not responsible for '93, but bush is responsible for 9/11...

to say that bill clinton is not even partly at fault for 9/11 is the height of ignorance and shows an extreme biased towards party over country

[red states rule]

so bill clinton is not responsible for '93, but bush is responsible for 9/11...

to say that bill clinton is not even partly at fault for 9/11 is the height of ignorance and shows an extreme biased towards party over country

Even the liberal publication Salon does not give Bill Clinton high marks when it comes to fighting terrorism

http://dir.salon.com/story/politics/feature/2002/01/09/clinton/


snip

Jan 9, 2002 | To raise the question of former President Bill Clinton's record on terrorism in the wake of Sept. 11 is to invite a chorus of disapproval. For bringing the subject up, you will be accused of pathological "Clinton hatred," a vendetta, and so on and so forth. Whatever. Let's just go to the tape, shall we? What follows is a chronology of Bill Clinton's response to terrorism, as reported and compiled by major news organizations, in particular the Washington Post, the New York Times, the Sunday Times and the New Yorker. I cite nothing here that isn't already in the public record. Any defense of Clinton has to deal with these facts. So deal with them.

Clinton got his warning about Islamist terrorism very early on. Almost as soon as he got into office, terrorists struck at the World Trade Center in New York. Six people were killed and hundreds injured. Although the investigation found links to Osama bin Laden and a burgeoning network of Islamist terrorists, no commensurate response from the United States was unearthed by any of the major newspapers investigating the record. Was the danger conveyed to the president? "Clinton was aware of the threat and sometimes he would mention it," Leon Panetta told the New York Times. The president preferred to focus on the economy. "In retrospect, the wake-up call should have been the 1993 World Trade Center bombing," Michael Sheehan, counter-terrorism coordinator at the Clinton State Department, conceded to the New York Times. Some immigration laws were tightened marginally. But that was it. Why wasn't the threat taken more seriously? According to George Stephanopoulos, the White House ignored the implications of the first WTC attack because "it wasn't a successful bombing." Clinton never even paid a visit to the site.

If six dead and hundreds more injured were not enough to galvanize the new commander in chief, neither was the murder of 18 American soldiers in Somalia shortly afterward. The State Department confirmed that bin Laden had helped train the terrorists who killed these soldiers and dragged the body of one through the streets of Mogadishu. Clinton did nothing to retaliate after the incident, blamed Gen. Colin Powell privately for the mess and, indeed, according to administration sources, learned from the fracas only the importance of staying out of dangerous foreign entanglements. For his part, bin Laden learned that the United States was not serious about countering the public murder of its own soldiers abroad or civilians at home.

By the end of Clinton's first term, the government began to stir. The CIA finally set up a special unit to monitor al-Qaida. In the years since 1993, the network had gained traction and organization in its African client state of Sudan. Then the administration got an amazingly lucky break. The Sudanese government offered to hand over bin Laden to the United States, just as it had handed over Carlos the Jackal to the French in 1994. The Sudanese also offered to provide the United States with a massive intelligence file on al-Qaida's operations in Sudan and around the world. Astonishingly, the Clinton administration turned the offer down. They argued that there was no solid legal proof to indict bin Laden in the United States. This was despite the fact that internal government documents had fingered bin Laden for ties to the first WTC bombing, the murders in Mogadishu and the 1992 bombing of a hotel in Aden, Yemen. For all this, the administration still viewed al-Qaida as a matter for domestic civil and criminal law enforcement. Instead of seizing the terrorist, the administration wanted Saudi Arabia or some other third party to seize him. The Saudis demurred. "In the end they said, 'Just ask him to leave the country. Just don't let him go to Somalia,'" a Sudanese negotiator told the Washington Post. "We said he will go to Afghanistan, and they said, 'Let him.'" The administration didn't even use the negotiations with the Sudanese to disable bin Laden's financial assets in the Sudan. He was able to transfer them to his new base, where he used them essentially to buy the Taliban regime.

[retiredman]

so bill clinton is not responsible for '93, but bush is responsible for 9/11...

to say that bill clinton is not even partly at fault for 9/11 is the height of ignorance and shows an extreme biased towards party over country

bill clinton had been in office three weeks when wtc'93 happened. Bush had been in office for 20% of his first term when 9/11 happened.

I never said that Clinton didn't bear some responsibility for 9/11. Every American president for the past 60 years bears some responsibility... Carter a great deal... Reagan a great deal. Clinton to some degree...Bush I to some degree... Bush II to a much greater, more proximate degree.

[Yurt]

so you admit clinton was not prepared to be in office even after 3 weeks on the job...

what is the whole point of the transition period then? are you claiming that clinton did not have a transition period like obama is having now...such as getting briefings like the president so he can hit the ground running (of course if he isn't found to be a proper candidate).

so according to you, clinton shares no blame??, but bush all the more blame due to 16% more time in office...then bush should only be 16% more culpable than clinton, according to your logic

[manu1959]

so you admit clinton was not prepared to be in office even after 3 weeks on the job...

what is the whole point of the transition period then? are you claiming that clinton did not have a transition period like obama is having now...such as getting briefings like the president so he can hit the ground running (of course if he isn't found to be a proper candidate).

so according to you, clinton shares no blame??, but bush all the more blame due to 16% more time in office...then bush should only be 16% more culpable than clinton, according to your logic

how much responsibility does clinton get for the cole.....the first time the wtc got hit.....the two embassies.....somalia....rawanda....

[theHawk]

bill clinton had been in office three weeks when wtc'93 happened. Bush had been in office for 20% of his first term when 9/11 happened.

I never said that Clinton didn't bear some responsibility for 9/11. Every American president for the past 60 years bears some responsibility... Carter a great deal... Reagan a great deal. Clinton to some degree...Bush I to some degree... Bush II to a much greater, more proximate degree.

And what's your excuse for all the other blunders of B.J. Clinton?
What's your excuse for BJ ignoring the pleas of the commander of the 4404th Wing to build a concreate barrier to protect the airmen from attack at Khobar? What was BJ's reasoning? Oh, he was concerned that the indiginous people would feel isolated and alienated from the military there. So some terrorists parked a big tanker right next to the chain link fence and blew up the dorms and 19 airmen with it. But did BJ take any blame for the blunder? Did anyone in his administration? No. Instead they blammed the commander, Brig. Gen. Terryl Schwalier, and forced him to retire.

Truely honorable Commander-in-Chiefs those Dems make....

But hey, as long as the Party image isn't tarnished, to hell with patriots!

:lame2:

[retiredman]

so you admit clinton was not prepared to be in office even after 3 weeks on the job...

what is the whole point of the transition period then? are you claiming that clinton did not have a transition period like obama is having now...such as getting briefings like the president so he can hit the ground running (of course if he isn't found to be a proper candidate).

so according to you, clinton shares no blame??, but bush all the more blame due to 16% more time in office...then bush should only be 16% more culpable than clinton, according to your logic

where did I ever say that Clinton shares NO blame. Are you incapable of reading?

here...try again:

I never said that Clinton didn't bear some responsibility for 9/11

[retiredman]

how much responsibility does clinton get for the cole.....the first time the wtc got hit.....the two embassies.....somalia....rawanda....


Clinton bears all the responsibility for cole and the embassies. the question remains about WTC '93. If you wanna hang that on Clinton, then hang 9/11 on Bush.

[Immanuel]

Clinton bears all the responsibility for cole and the embassies. the question remains about WTC '93. If you wanna hang that on Clinton, then hang 9/11 on Bush.

I got a better idea. How about we place the blame on Islamic Extremists for all the attacks? Ultimately, they are the ones who are responsible unless someone can prove that Clinton or Bush or their administrations actually helped to plan the attacks

Immie

[Yurt]

where did I ever say that Clinton shares NO blame. Are you incapable of reading?

here...try again:

I never said that Clinton didn't bear some responsibility for 9/11

thanks for yelling preacher..


so according to you, clinton shares no blame[1993]??, but bush all the more blame due to 16% more time in office...then bush should only be 16% more culpable than clinton, according to your logic

i was talking about '93...hence the time in office before the event occurred :poke:

edited to help you

[Yurt]

how much responsibility does clinton get for the cole.....the first time the wtc got hit.....the two embassies.....somalia....rawanda....

how much for '93? i don't know, depends on how much he was briefed before he entered office and whether he listened after he was in office...i am not sure how much blame can be placed on any one person for one event

as to the later stuff, clinton is much more to blame, he was dickin around the oval office and not paying attention and basically giving a pass to osama which IMO, greatly attributed to the cause of 9/11.

[retiredman]

thanks for yelling preacher..



i was talking about '93...hence the time in office before the event occurred :poke:



Clinton bears little to no responsibility for WTC93. His cabinet had not even been confirmed. Bush, on the other hand, bears the lion's share of the responsibility for 9/11. His team was in place. He was briefed in August about an impending attack by OBL,and chose to keep on grillin' and golfin' in Crawford rather than ramp up our alert status. Terrorism was not a big priority for Dubya and Powell and Rice... star wars was. As a matter of fact, Condi was scheduled to give a major star wars address on 9/11. Terrorism was nowhere near as big a priority for Asscroft as pornography was. In fact, the day before 9/11 he cut $51M from the DoJ anti-terrorism task force budget. Face it: Rummy and Bush were caught napping by 9/11.... much like Kimmel and FDR were caught napping by Pearl Harbor.

[Yurt]

Clinton bears little to no responsibility for WTC93. His cabinet had not even been confirmed. Bush, on the other hand, bears the lion's share of the responsibility for 9/11. His team was in place. He was briefed in August about an impending attack by OBL,and chose to keep on grillin' and golfin' in Crawford rather than ramp up our alert status. Terrorism was not a big priority for Dubya and Powell and Rice... star wars was. As a matter of fact, Condi was scheduled to give a major star wars address on 9/11. Terrorism was nowhere near as big a priority for Asscroft as pornography was. In fact, the day before 9/11 he cut $51M from the DoJ anti-terrorism task force budget. Face it: Rummy and Bush were caught napping by 9/11.... much like Kimmel and FDR were caught napping by Pearl Harbor.

:lol:

i asked you if your claim is that clinton did not recieve the briefings as president elect? you did not answer that.

i fail to see the correlation of clinton not having a cabinent and his lack of responsibility for 93', if anything, it proves he was wholly unprepared to take the oath to be our president and commander in chief. since you admit he was not ready, i am surprised you hold him blameless, well, not really, he is a democrat. face it, clinton was caught sleeping (with some young thang :laugh2:) when 93' happened, perhaps if he took the office serious, he would have had a team in place, you know, like obama is doing and bush did in 2000.

further, i believe bush did ramp up alert status, just because it wasn't public doesn't mean people were not doing their job.

again, using your own logic:

clinton not responsible because only 3 weeks (actually over a month, so wrong on that count) in office

bush responsible because because in office less than 9 months, so using your logic bush is only a percentage wise culpable

i think the time issue is not your best argument, after 3 weeks, if clinton was not up to speed, then that is his fault. and the individuals involved in the bombings were known to the feds in the middle of 92, are you claiming clinton was unaware of this?

[retiredman]

:lol:

i asked you if your claim is that clinton did not recieve the briefings as president elect? you did not answer that.

i fail to see the correlation of clinton not having a cabinent and his lack of responsibility for 93', if anything, it proves he was wholly unprepared to take the oath to be our president and commander in chief. since you admit he was not ready, i am surprised you hold him blameless, well, not really, he is a democrat. face it, clinton was caught sleeping (with some young thang :laugh2:) when 93' happened, perhaps if he took the office serious, he would have had a team in place, you know, like obama is doing and bush did in 2000.

further, i believe bush did ramp up alert status, just because it wasn't public doesn't mean people were not doing their job.

again, using your own logic:

clinton not responsible because only 3 weeks (actually over a month, so wrong on that count) in office

bush responsible because because in office less than 9 months, so using your logic bush is only a percentage wise culpable

i think the time issue is not your best argument, after 3 weeks, if clinton was not up to speed, then that is his fault. and the individuals involved in the bombings were known to the feds in the middle of 92, are you claiming clinton was unaware of this?

Bolded sentence above is a lie. why am I not surprised?

I am sure that Clinton was briefed as president-elect. I do not believe that any of his briefers told him about any impending attacks.

It has nothing with Clinton not being up to speed...it has everything to do with an intelligence apparatus that had been in place under republican control for a dozen years that was woefully inadaquate to track the threats of islamic extremism. Clinton's was never told by any of that intelligence organization that an attack from islamic extremists was imminent. Bush was.

[red states rule]

I am sure that Clinton was briefed as president-elect. I do not believe that any of his briefers told him about any impending attacks.

It has nothing with Clinton not being up to speed...it has everything to do with an intelligence apparatus that had been in place under republican control for a dozen years that was woefully inadaquate to track the threats of islamic extremism. Clinton's was never told by any of that intelligence organization that an attack from islamic extremists was imminent. Bush was.

So now it is the Republicans fault Virgil? I bet if OBL was an intern, Bill would have nailed his ass

[Yurt]

Bolded sentence above is a lie. why am I not surprised?

I am sure that Clinton was briefed as president-elect. I do not believe that any of his briefers told him about any impending attacks.

It has nothing with Clinton not being up to speed...it has everything to do with an intelligence apparatus that had been in place under republican control for a dozen years that was woefully inadaquate to track the threats of islamic extremism. Clinton's was never told by any of that intelligence organization that an attack from islamic extremists was imminent. Bush was.

so i guess clinton must have had a great tracking system, so great that 9/11 happened.... i already informed you that the feds knew of the guys in the middle of 92...and yet you claim clinton wasn't briefed, with absolutely no evidentiary support...why i am not surprised

[retiredman]

so i guess clinton must have had a great tracking system, so great that 9/11 happened.... i already informed you that the feds knew of the guys in the middle of 92...and yet you claim clinton wasn't briefed, with absolutely no evidentiary support...why i am not surprised

knowing about people does not mean we knew about their plans to bomb the WTC. nice try.

[red states rule]

knowing about people does not mean we knew about their plans to bomb the WTC. nice try.

Sicne when are lib interested in enforcing our immigration laws. So what if they were here illegally - that is no reason to pick them up

[Yurt]

knowing about people does not mean we knew about their plans to bomb the WTC. nice try.

more denial, good try though

unless these sources are wrong, i would say clinton knew or should have known...and you have still offered no proof that clinton did not know, is it only your hunch? any sources?

i notice you ignored the reverse claim back on yours that since you blamed bush I intel, you must then blame clinton intel that had been in place for years before bush


Yousef arrived in the United States on September 1, 1992, traveling with Ahmed Ajaj from Pakistan, though both sat apart on the flight and acted as though they were traveling separately. Ajaj tried to enter with a Swedish passport, though it had been altered and thus raised suspicions among INS officials at John F. Kennedy International Airport. When officials put Ajaj through secondary inspection, they discovered bomb making instructions and other materials in his luggage, and arrested him


According to the journalist Steve Coll, Yousef mailed letters to various New York newspapers just before the attack, in which he claimed he belonged to 'Israel's Army, Fifth Battalion'.[7] These letters made three demands: an end to all US aid to Israel, an end to US diplomatic relations with Israel, and a demand for a pledge by the United States to end interference "with any of the Middle East countries' interior affairs." He stated that the attack on the World Trade Center would be merely the first of such attacks if his demands were not met. In his letters Yousef admitted that the World Trade Center bombing was an act of terrorism, but that this was justified because "the terrorism that Israel practices (which America supports) must be faced with a similar one."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Trade_Center_1993_bombings

http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/World_Trade_Center_bombing_(1993)


Allegations of FBI foreknowledge
In the course of the trial it was revealed that the FBI had an informant, a former Egyptian army officer named Emad Salem. Salem claims to have informed the FBI of the plot to bomb the towers as early as February 6, 1992. Salem's role as informant allowed the FBI to quickly pinpoint the conspirators out of hundreds of possible suspects. This article does not cite any references or sources. ... Emad A. Salem is an ex-Egyptian army officer turned FBI informant, who was a key witness in the trial of Ramzi Yousef, Abdul Hakim Murad, and Wali Khan Amin Shah, convicted in the World Trade Center Bombing of February 26, 1993. ... is the 37th day of the year in the Gregorian calendar. ... Year 1992 (MCMXCII) was a leap year starting on Wednesday (link will display full 1992 Gregorian calendar). ...



somehow i predict this to be an effort in futility for no matter what, you will not admit error and most certainly will defend a dem virtually no matter what...

[Yurt]

for the record, i do not believe either clinton or bush knew that the bombings would happen, as i alluded to earlier, only throwing someone's logic back at them

[red states rule]

http://www.nohillaryclinton.com/blog/blog_images/Osama-bin-Laden-Bill-Clinton.jpg

[retiredman]

more denial, good try though

unless these sources are wrong, i would say clinton knew or should have known...and you have still offered no proof that clinton did not know, is it only your hunch? any sources?any sources that he DID know. or is it just a hunch????

i notice you ignored the reverse claim back on yours that since you blamed bush I intel, you must then blame clinton intel that had been in place for years before bush

I blamed Bush/Reagan intell.... Dubya's team was in place for eight months... his own team warned hom of an imminent attack by OBL in AUGUST. He did nothing but stay on vacation, golfing and grilling

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Trade_Center_1993_bombings

http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/World_Trade_Center_bombing_(1993)
separate unsubstantiated claims from two "journalists" What else ya got? Oh wait...don't tell me..let me guess....you got SHIT.
somehow i predict this to be an effort in futility for no matter what, you will not admit error and most certainly will defend a dem virtually no matter what...

I will not defend democrats no matter what. I will defend them from legitimate piles of after the fact bullshit. NOBODY had a fucking clue that the WTC would be bombed in January '93. LOTS of folks knew that something big was up in August of 2001.

[Yurt]

I will not defend democrats no matter what. I will defend them from legitimate piles of after the fact bullshit. NOBODY had a fucking clue that the WTC would be bombed in January '93. LOTS of folks knew that something big was up in August of 2001.

there you have it, mfm has no proof for an assertation and deflects

that says it all, the government knew something big was happening in 1992 too...

something big, but not exactly what...

as i predicted, mfm would go round and round with no proof

fact is, mfm admitted clinton was unprepared and not ready for office, nuff' said

[retiredman]

there you have it, mfm has no proof for an assertation and deflects

that says it all, the government knew something big was happening in 1992 too...

something big, but not exactly what...

as i predicted, mfm would go round and round with no proof

fact is, mfm admitted clinton was unprepared and not ready for office, nuff' said

I have admitted no such thing. AND...You have produced NO evidence to prove your assertion that the government knew something big was happening in 1992. But hey, if you want to lay WTC 93 AND the Cole AND Khobar Towers AND the African embassies all on Clinton, then have the integrity to put 9/11 squarely on Dubya.... and then count up the bodies. See whose "unpreparedness" cost America more.

[Immanuel]

I will not defend democrats no matter what.

Can I ask a personal question?

When was the last time you truly took a Democrat to task; on this site, any other site, in a sermon or at any other time and what was it for?

Immie

[red states rule]

Can I ask a personal question?

When was the last time you truly took a Democrat to task; on this site, any other site, in a sermon or at any other time and what was it for?

Immie

I will defend Virgil on this one. Some of his posts to me reflect his dissatisfaction of some of his fellow liberals not being liberal enough

[Immanuel]

I will defend Virgil on this one. Some of his posts to me reflect his dissatisfaction of some of his fellow liberals not being liberal enough

Don't recall such a thing. :link:

Immie

[red states rule]

Don't recall such a thing. :link:

Immie

Immie, it is called sarcasm. I am sure MFM has has those reactions many times

[Immanuel]

Immie, it is called sarcasm. I am sure MFM has has those reactions many times

Duh! I knew that... I think ;)

Immie

[red states rule]

Duh! I knew that... I think ;)

Immie

I was hopeing you did. Bipartisanship to MFM is when the Republicans sit down, shut, and nod in agreement with whatever the Dems say

Unlike Obama, (who votes mostly "present") MFM expects Republicans to vote "Yes" on whatever the Dems bring up for a vote

Then, and only then, do Republicans get MFM's "respect" and "admiration"

[retiredman]

Can I ask a personal question?

When was the last time you truly took a Democrat to task; on this site, any other site, in a sermon or at any other time and what was it for?

Immie

I took Clinton to task for his immorality. I took Kerry to task for running a namby-pamby campaign in '04. I took Lieberman to task for his support of the Iraq war and I applauded his state democrats for not nominating him in '06. I took congressional democrats to task for not cutting off funding for the Iraq war. I took Maine democrats to task for not going to the mat for the Dirigo Health system.

[red states rule]

I took Clinton to task for his immorality. I took Kerry to task for running a namby-pamby campaign in '04. I took Lieberman to task for his support of the Iraq war and I applauded his state democrats for not nominating him in '06. I took congressional democrats to task for not cutting off funding for the Iraq war. I took Maine democrats to task for not going to the mat for the Dirigo Health system.

But you still voted for all of them - right?

[Immanuel]

I was hopeing you did. Bipartisanship to MFM is when the Republicans sit down, shut, and nod in agreement with whatever the Dems say

Unlike Obama, (who votes mostly "present") MFM expects Republicans to vote "Yes" on whatever the Dems bring up for a vote

Then, and only then, do Republicans get MFM's "respect" and "admiration"

Oh come on RSR, in all honesty the Republicans are not any different.

Immie

[retiredman]

But you still voted for all of them - right?


they were better than the alternative. I can take democrats to task on individual issues but agree with them on the vast majority of their positions.

I have never beena one issue voter. I am smarter than that.

[red states rule]

they were better than the alternative. I can take democrats to task on individual issues but agree with them on the vast majority of their positions.

I have never beena one issue voter. I am smarter than that.

As long as they have a "D" at the end of their name is all that matters to you when you cast your vote

That is common knowledge

[retiredman]

As long as they have a "D" at the end of their name is all that matters to you when you cast your vote

That is common knowledge


as long as the republican party believes in what they believe in..and the democrats believe in what THEY believe in... given the fact that I believe in the democratic party platform, I WILL continue to vote for democrats until they change their platform into something I cannot support.

[Immanuel]

I took Clinton to task for his immorality. I took Kerry to task for running a namby-pamby campaign in '04. I took Lieberman to task for his support of the Iraq war and I applauded his state democrats for not nominating him in '06. I took congressional democrats to task for not cutting off funding for the Iraq war. I took Maine democrats to task for not going to the mat for the Dirigo Health system.

Thank you. That was all I asked. I would not count your issue with Kerry as taking him to task, but I can live with it.

Immie

[red states rule]

as long as the republican party believes in what they believe in..and the democrats believe in what THEY believe in... given the fact that I believe in the democratic party platform, I WILL continue to vote for democrats until they change their platform into something I cannot support.

Translation - party over country. Character, truth, and honesty are not what I look for when voting. Only party affiliation

[retiredman]

Translation - party over country. Character, truth, and honesty are not what I look for when voting. Only party affiliation

that's wrong. my country always takes priority over everything except my God and my family.

And when was the last time YOU voted for a democrat for national office?:lol:

[Immanuel]

as long as the republican party believes in what they believe in..and the democrats believe in what THEY believe in... given the fact that I believe in the democratic party platform, I WILL continue to vote for democrats until they change their platform into something I cannot support.

I've got news for you. The current Republican Party is closer to your way of thinking then it is to conservative thought. In fact, there is not a whole hell of a lot of difference between your party and the Republican Party any longer.

Immie

[retiredman]

I've got news for you. The current Republican Party is closer to your way of thinking then it is to conservative thought. In fact, there is not a whole hell of a lot of difference between your party and the Republican Party any longer.

Immie


education, healthcare, reproductive rights, environment.... the war in Iraq.

there are still big differences immie.

[Immanuel]

education, healthcare, reproductive rights, environment.... the war in Iraq.

there are still big differences immie.

The War in Iraq? They all voted for it. They are all going to stay... no difference except maybe Obama will try a better strategy then Bush.

Education... Healthcare... both parties solutions... SEND MORE MONEY

Reproductive Rights... the one thing that separates the two parties.

Immie

[red states rule]

education, healthcare, reproductive rights, environment.... the war in Iraq.

there are still big differences immie.

Republicans spent record amounts on education

I guess you support government run healthcare and letting the folks who run Medicare run the entire healthcare system

So you support the slaughter of the unborn while sreaming for the "right" of terrorists????

Yes, Republicans want to poison the air and water, kill millons, then reun for reelection???

We have won th war in Iraq - much to your dismay - and Obama will not be poulling the troops out anytime soon. Can't wait to hear your spin on that one