McCain: ""At least I don't plaster on the makeup like a trollop, you ****."

^^^ Considering you're a Brit, I'm sure you're happy that many other attacks on your soil have been stopped with help from the United States.
 
I didn't forget any of that, I never heard of it to begin with and I didn't see it in your Wiki.
 
Ok well I'm just going to say that my earlier comment implying that Al-Qaeda was "done" terrorising was dumb, but I do not believe Bush deserves any credit for any of this. I think the outcome would have been the same for anyone.
 
If you compare all the successful attacks during the 90's and the lack of successful attacks during the Bush years, it's hard to come to the conclusion that "Bush doesn't deserve any credit".
 
You count attacks on embassies under Clinton but not attacks on US embassy in Iraq?
 
I'm not doing the counting. Everything I got came from news websites and the bunch listed on Wiki.

I'd guess they don't count Iraq (much like they don't count Afghanistan) because they're currently in the middle of a war zone.

Plus my focus wasn't on embassies. Mostly targets like Airplanes, bridges, civilian buildings, etc.

Regardless, it seems that Al-Qaeda has yet to hit the US again. And I call that a success.
 
Andrew LB said:
Umm... he made a joke. Just like Reagan joked about bombing the Soviet Union.
Click to expand...
War is hilarious, it's really great to see a potential world leader being flippant about it!

Andrew LB said:
I find it interesting that none of the leftists in this country gave Bush the benefit of the doubt over 9/11 considering he was only 8 months into office and still running on the Clinton budget which included military spending, intelligence, etc. The first Bush budget went into effect in September of 2001.
Click to expand...
Bush's administration completely ignored the Clinton administration's recommendations on handling terrorism etc once they got into office. I can't remember what it was called but there was a report left behind basically outlining problems and solutions concerning national security et cetera. Bush completely ignored it... if he hadn't, 9/11 could very possibly have been completely averted.

Andrew LB said:
If you compare all the successful attacks during the 90's and the lack of successful attacks during the Bush years, it's hard to come to the conclusion that "Bush doesn't deserve any credit".
Click to expand...
No it's not. Afghanistan is a success to some extent, we have the ****ers on the run, but all of the violence in Iraq could be considered terrorism in a sense and just because it's a war doesn't mean we can't count it. Many more people have died as a result of terrorism or conflict with terrorism during Bush's administration than did during Clinton's.
 
Andrew don't shine your light of truth in their eyes for to long, you may blind them.
 
Oh, the irony. A thread about makeup eventually turns into a heated debate about Clinton and Bush and those Iraqi fellers.






Sorry, I couldn't find the original.
 
Andrew don't shine your light of truth in their eyes for to long, you may blind them.
Click to expand...

*gag
I think I just threw up a little in my mouth. I may need to write this down for posterity. I had no idea a bigoted, self-righteous, holier-than-thou phrase like this could EXIST outside of parody.

I'm sure homeland security and the CIA do an excellent job preventing attacks of all sorts. And I'm dead certain they don't trumpet it for intelligence and security reasons. Hell, I'll even admit that, due to higher funding, they may do an even better job than under the previous administration. But... was it worth the loss of civil liberties, the damage to our reputation all over the world, and the longstanding and extremely violent grudges from a demonstrably intelligent and fanatical group of people?

I say no. But really, what would it matter? I doubt there is anything I can do to change your opinions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top