Ted Re.. don't know who Schumer is nor do I get your point.
Schummer is the senior democratic senator from NY. The point is that Chris has been trying to convince everyone he can yell at, that the way to fight Al qaeda is to appease them. Don't do anything which might increase Al qaeda's ability to recuit personal. To a man, every senator said no, that isn't the way to fight Al qaeda. We need to go after him, and all agreed that Saddam is part of the war on terrorism.
I find it hard to believe that anyone would say that except maybe bin Laden himself......esp. someone from NYC but I will take your word on it. As for the comments of the stupid ass senators, like I said this AM, I think our leadership is intellectually bankrupt.
After yesterdays tape, I cannot understand how you can't see the importance of getting Saddams WMD away, before OBL gets them. It is just incredible how you can't even coutanence the possibility.
Like I said to Ten, I don't think Saddam is a sharing kind of guy plus I think you all have exaggerated the numbers of WMD he has.
The paranoia of the American public has been elevated to great heights and most people now are convinced Saddam has nukes in every palace.
Its not defensiveness you hear from me......its frustration. This turn of events was predictable as early as three months ago.
If you knew 3 months ago that there was the possibility that Saddam would give his wmd to Al qaeda, then why all of the stalling for more time.. Maybe it is too late to keep all of Saddams WMD out of Al qaedas hands, but we have to keep the amount as miminal as possible.
Not that.....that there would an open schism between the allies. For a smart guy, you sure can be slow sometimes. <g>
Ted Re...First I have never called Bush a liar........what I have said is that he and others on his staff use innuendo/allegation so often it begins to sound like facts. Its a common ploy used in politics and I don't like it.
However, your accusation makes no sense when you look at what I said above. Things are screwed up and the only one at this point who can clean things up is Bush.
Don't you really need to think about what you are saying first, before you say it. In the first sentence, you claim GW is using innuendo/ allegations, and that you don't like it; then in the next sentence, you do the exact thing you are accusing Gw of doing. I don't like it either, when you use innuendo/ allegations against Gw, just to satisfy this intense hatred you have.
I am not using innuendo......what I am saying is that its Bush who took the lead on this issue and now he has to follow through and straighten out the problems that have erupted. I don't see how my saying that at all compares with what I am accusing Bush and company of doing.
GW and some leaders in Europe have differences on how to deal with Iraq. I doubt if anyone can possibly know the perfect course of action to take. However, my point is, however imperfect that course is, it has to be better than doing nothing. Lets quit arguing, draw straws to see which countries are going to do what, and get it done. Frankly, whichever country is doing the work should be sble to chose the methods. This arguing is worse than the action.
I absolutely agree....but I think you understand Bush has handled Iraq in such a way that its forced Germany, France et al into new roles. And he could well have opened up a can of worms.
Things were going to change anyway sometime in the future but Bush's actions speeded up the process and its happening now at a very inopportune time.
ted |
