Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-LA):
"In light of the rantings that went on for 30 minutes by two colleagues from the other side, I'd like to state for the record that America is not tired of fighting terrorism; America is tired of the wrongheaded and boneheaded leadership of the Republican party that has sent six and a half billion a month to Iraq while the front line was Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia. That led this country to attack Saddam Hussein, when we were attacked by Osama bin Laden. Who captured a man who did not attack the country and let loose a man that did. Americans are tired of boneheaded Republican leadership that alienates our allies when we need them the most. Americans are most certainly tired of leadership that despite documenting mistake after mistake after mistake, even of their own party admitting mistakes, never admit they do anything wrong. That's the kind of leadership Americans are tired of ... I'm not going to sit here as a Democrat and let the Republican leadership come to the floor and talk about Democrats not making us safe. They're the ones in charge and Osama bin Laden is still at loose."
- Log in to post comments
Not. It's just that Liberals are tired of not getting their way.
Let's break this down for Michael ...
Are we sending six and a half billion a month to Iraq while the front line was Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia?
Yes.
Did Republicans led this country to attack Saddam Hussein, when we were attacked by Osama bin Laden?
Yes.
Did we capture a man who did not attack the country and let loose a man that did?
Yes.
Have the administration alienated our allies when we need them the most?
Yes.
Are Republicans the ones in charge?
Yes.
Is Osama bin Laden is still at loose?
Yes.
And to this litany of facts, which even Michael cannot deny, we get "Not. It's just that Liberals are tired of not getting their way."
LIB'RULS BRWAHHHH!
Oh, sorry. What I meant was: no, liberals haven't been getting their way. Nor have most of the rest of us. Nor at least a decent amount of the conservatives. 6 and a half billion a month for the wrong country. 6. And a half. Billion. With a B(thanks, Sagan). Yeah, sure, it's going great.
Yes, he is alienating your allies. Us, amongst others. Look up. Waay up, to the north. Your number one trading partner, though few of you seem to know it. Props to the first American-born who gets the cultural reference.
It was nice of Condi to thank those of us that took Americans into our homes when they couldn't get back to their own for several days. Not that we can now forget the repeated false claims that the terrorists snuck in through our porous borders.
That would be because the fear mongers are still muttering about passports and smart ID cards for people crossing into the States. Even without being implemented, it is already affecting the willingness of tourists to come up and visit. Given our respective population sizes, the impact should be about ten times worse on our economy.
I live away from the city in an area where logging and fishing have become marginal contributors to the economy. The local pulp mill, always teetering on bankrupcy, has recently had to become a secure site against terrorists. I suppose they now have fences, bomb sniffing and xray equpment and triple the number of guards (up from one?).
Why? Because someone might smuggle hijackers with bad stuff onto a ship carrying rolls of paper to a US port. No, not what you are thinking. Big rolls of paper, too big even for a Texan to use. Most of the paper goes to Japan, where so far the government seems to be less concerned with the risk.
Not that we don't have our own home grown authoritarians dreaming up reasons to expand their empires at the expense of the public. It's just that they are mostly riding on the coat tails of your fear mongers. Our customs and immigration officers are getting guns for the first time. Well, they aren't actually saying it's because of terrorists. Apparently they want to protect themselves from armed American fugitives from justice who might rush the border. Wouldn't have happened without 9/11, I think.
Terrorists:
-Are a minority in their culture, especially at first.
-Cause relatively little damage, except to pride. compare London, Dresden
-Expect the defender's security efforts will be expensive and lower quality of life.
-Hope the defenders will be provoked into retaliating.
-Reap prestige and power gains over moderates when they suffer the retaliation.
-Are assisted by the victims' leaders who play the fear and 'let me protect you' gambit.
History has shown this over and over, even in our lifetimes. Ireland, Yugoslavia, Palestine.
You have an $8 trillion dollar debt. If your economy catches a sniffle because of it, ours will get pnemonia. Besides, what if the world's policeman is suddenly needed somewhere else, and you can't afford to go?
Mind you, I do admit Canada takes advantage of your military umbrella. 'Course if Denmark invades us over those islands off Greenland, we can count on you to counter invade, I'm sure, so what do we need with an army?
Please clean up your act and fly straight. It isn't just yourselves and your enemies that are suffering because of the failure of your leaders to learn from history. Your friends and allies are depending on you, too.
Here, try some of this patriot poutine. I'll grab us a couple of brews too, eh?
Here in the UK, a decent part of Tony Blair's lack of popularity comes from the perception that he is "George Bush's poodle".
I'll leave you to figure out what this implies about our opinion of Bush. At least our ultraconservative nutjobs are usually at least vaguely competent.
John,
Your questions are in italics, my answers are not.
Are we sending six and a half billion a month to Iraq while the front line was Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia?
Yes.
Did Republicans led this country to attack Saddam Hussein, when we were attacked by Osama bin Laden?
Yes.
Did we capture a man who did not attack the country We captured a man that had been assisting and encouraging terrorists, some of whom had been involved in attacks on US interests and some of whom were planning future attacks on the US. It's not about catching and punishing a particular criminal for a specific offense, it's about stopping future acts of terror against the US. Bush has properly recognized that the threat was from all Islamic fundamentalist terrorists, not just from Bin Laden's group. So continuing to focus on one guy offered diminishing returns.
and let loose a man that did? No, we didn't let him loose. We never had him. The spin that we had him and let him loose is just that, spin from the Liberals.
Have the administration alienated our allies
Yes, to some extent.
when we need them the most? I'm not sure this is when we need them the most. We could certainly use their help, of course. But things were in need of a shakeup because previous efforts from this international community (including the US) to control terrorism have been a complete failure. People never like shakeups. I relate this somewhat to a corporate bankruptcy: when the company is failing and headed toward bankruptcy (or already in bankruptcy) it takes a new leader (the turnaround guy) who is willing to cast aside previous processes and procedures and people and forge a new direction, restructure and refocus the company. Simply trying harder and closing a few plants rarely works. This "turnaround" leader is almost always hated by the company's workers - people do not like change and do not like to be reminded that their previous direction was wrong, and others do not like being cast aside.
What we are really arguing about is simply how to fight terror attacks to protect the US. Bush has one idea, and you (and others) have another idea of how to do it. I don't see any magic to your ideas or the ideas outlined by JohnnieCanuck (which is the failed approach the world was following before 9/11 - in this regard, and to continue the analogy to a bankrupt company, JohnnieCanuck speaks for the middle managers in the company that can't believe their policies could have led to the bankruptcy - those policies still make sense to them. The only problem is that the real world tests of those policies showed they were ineffective.) There is no objective evidence that your approach would be any better than Bush's, and there is evidence that Bush's approach is working (no more attacks, we've broken the trend line of attacks). All of this assumes that the proper test for "working" is lack of additional attacks on the US. You, and others, seem to think that the proper test should include our popularity among allies. I, and others, think that is a secondary issue that should not be included in any test of effectiveness of our anti-terror efforts.
So get this: George W. Bush, not the brightest knife in the drawer, who started a war in Iraq to deal with terrorists in Afghanistan, now gives lectures on logic:
Friend Fruit,
What is your point? Are you saying there is a valid comparison to be made between the compassion and decency of the American people and the terrorists in Afghanistan?
Michael said "Bush has properly recognized that the threat was from all Islamic fundamentalist terrorists, not just from Bin Laden's group."
Slight problem is that Hussein was not an "Islamic fundamentalist" and as a secularist did not support "Islamic fundamentalist terrorists".
A reasonable point. You're not quite right though, John. Saddam did, in fact, support Islamic terrorists: he provided money and facilities for training. But you are right that he did not support them idiologically, he was just using them for his own political gain.