Terrorists endorse Pelosi's 'good policy of dialogue' and praise the democrats!

[jdavionic]

First, I find this interesting that you're relatively new and yet your post is remarkably similar to the posts by a recently banned individual. Not a personal attack, just an observation

Originally Posted by 808xd45

I love to see all the bandwagon I'm-for-the-current-administration-no-matter-how-much-sense-they don't-make people here...

This statement is a rather broad-brush reply that, as far as I can tell, is completely inaccurate. I have yet to see anyone on this forum who wholeheartedly supports the president and his administration regardless of their actions. If I'm wrong here, feel free to show an example. Otherwise I would recommend refraining from making blanket statements. They only serve to lessen the affect of any valid statements that may be introduced later.

Originally Posted by 808xd45

Where is Bin Laden?

A valid point. But I wonder whether you are equally as critical of the previous president. And at one time, the running rhetoric included Saddam and his sons. I see these have been dropped without any recognition for accomplishments. WRT OBL, the Bush administration is handling Pakistan quite delicately, perhaps too delicately and with too much concern for politics. That is certainly a fair criticism.

Originally Posted by 808xd45

Why have we not addressed with the Saudis their 19 countrymen that were hijackers on 9/11/01?

You're mixing apples & oranges. The hijackers all shared something that you have not acknowledged - ideology. Saudi Arabia is not consistent in this ideology. Afghanistan had the Taliban who shared the same ideology and actively supported it. Therefore action was taken to purge this threat, which was a good decision in my opinion.

Originally Posted by 808xd45

Bush family makes bucks with their aggreeance.. Carlyle? Bush's Arbusto? Bandar Bush?

Wow, those are some amazing accusations. Any unbiased source to back these up? It is simply amazing that the press that so despises Bush hasn't been flashing these headlines every day. I wonder why.

Originally Posted by 808xd45

Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11/01. Plain and simple.

Agreed. Iraq was invaded due to Saddam's continued violations of the UN mandates and intelligence data that suggested he was stockpiling WMDs and failure to dispose of those WMDs that were previously identified by the UN. The only part (and admittedly the biggest part) that has not been proven is the stockpiling of WMDs in the quantities that we presented at the UN. Were we wrong? Were they moved to another country? Were they buried and have not yet been found? I believe the intelligence data was flawed. To what extent, we will likely never know. At the time when we invaded Iraq, the country was mostly (vast majority) united in the decision.

We invaded & defeated Saddam and his army with unprecedented speed. Here's where Bush and his administration failed in my opinion. They failed to react effectively to the quick demise of this threat. Bush also failed by changing the mission from eliminating the perceived threat to building a flourishing democracy in this country, along with assuming these people want the same freedom that you and I enjoy. Once he made this change, the enemy (terrorists, former Iraqi army members, etc) took the initiative to simply cause chaos and ignite civil war tensions that have existed there for a long time. They have the easy goal. Our goal was changed from easily achievable (and achieved) to impossible.

Originally Posted by 808xd45

If you can't see that there is no pure military solution to Iraq then you need to sign up and if you are too old sign your children up.

Odd statement. I would agree if you said there is no way to win a war when politics is guiding your actions.

Originally Posted by 808xd45

Pelsoi was very responsible in following the republican visits to syria.. yep you can't deny it. We made a mistake in going to Iraq.

Sorry, but I can deny it. She is in a position to facilitate changes in this country. She (and the republicans that preceded her) are doing nothing more than undermining the president for their own political gain. That is shameful, IMO.

Originally Posted by 808xd45

It is time to cowboy down and admit our mistakes.

What would your wise old grandpa say?

Exactly.

Amusing...this part is so similar to the above mentioned former member that I'd almost swear it was stated verbatim in some of his old threads.

[deepdiver]

But her talking points and policy positions are chamberlinesque.

I did and do support our military action in Iraq and Afgahnistan. I do not support the way it was and is being carried out. Rumsfeld never should have been Secretary of Defense IMO and should have been booted a long time ago. President Bush, unfortunately, IMO has been a very poor president overall. Besides the tax cuts and original military action and possibly his SCOTUS nominees (we'll have to see how that turns out over time) he has been a poor, ineffectual leader. Even when he does do something right he fails utterly in the media to rally the country, or fails to keep a "stiff upper lip" and fight for his agenda. While I typically vote republican (I'm actually libertarian and find both parties despicable) it have been a long time since I voted "for" someone rather than "against" someone I thought was a worse option.

Still, regardless of whether or not we should have gone into Iraq, the fact is we are there now. If we do not finish what we started, I believe that will be much more bloodshed later because of that failure.

[Broadside]

I agree with one of the comments made by AZXD. The people need to be united regardless of party. To have an individual steping around the administration holding dialogs with the enemy is a black eye to the current administration and the US citizens. Once we have made a decision right or wrong we need to be united. Its the fractures and divisions that are going to break us as a whole and we have way to many of them.

[deepdiver]

I agree. It's as simple as the old adage of "don't wash your dirty linen in public". Such discussions belong here, not overseas and certainly not in a way that undermines our gov't because that undermines all of us. Like him or not, President Bush is our elected president and that is just the way it works. As much as I detest(ed) Bill Clinton, I would have been just as outraged if Newt Gingrich had pulled crap like this.

[jdavionic]

Originally Posted by deepdiver

Such discussions belong here, not overseas and certainly not in a way that undermines our gov't because that undermines all of us.

I agree. I have no issues with her pushing for her position here in her role as Speaker of the House, which is pretty powerful. I would caveat this statement by stating that I'm assuming she represents her constituents in her withdrawal stance. But she is tackling her goal in the wrong way with presenting her position abroad...and even more so considering the country in question. If she truly believed that forcing a withdrawal was the right thing to do, she could facilitate the same goal at home. If she really felt that strengthening relations with Syria was the right thing to do, again she could do so at home. Given this, it is clear that her real goal is to undermine the president and his administration at the expense of the country. She obviously is not concerned about conveying a divisive position with countries that are questionable in their actions. I don't ever recall a former speaker of the house going abroad to visit countries against the wishes / advisement of the administration.

WRT Newt, I honestly cannot stand the man. I know he never did the same during his reign as speaker. However he was relentless in his effort to waste our time & money in attempting to impeach Clinton. He is exactly the type of Washington DC politician that we need removed from power. I truly hope he drops out of the bid for the Oval Office.

[Brickboy240]

What ever side of the war you happen to be on...you have to admit that the terrorist organizations are LOVING our split over this issue...our indecisiveness and in-fighting. They see it as our biggest weakness and could ultimately use it to their advantage.

If anything, THIS will be our un-doing.

I am not a huge conspiracy nut or overly paranoid, but this much I know is true.

- Brickboy240

[FrankRizzoXD40]

Originally Posted by AZXD

FrankRizzoXD40 – I also understand what you are saying, but really do think it is an us-vs-them mentality.

Let me try to explain this again. I agree that there is an "us vs them" mentality out there. I am saying that neither me, nor this thread, is a part of it. I am not pushing an "us vs them" mentality. I am trying to make 3 specific points about this news story.

The point of this thread was to demonstrate 3 things:

1. Nancy Pelosi traveled to the middle east against the wishes of our state department and met with our enemies

2. By doing so, she gained the support of terrorists. The terrorists are now continuing to voice support for the democrat party. It seems that the majority of people here at home do not support her actions, but the terrorists do. This is not a good position to be in.

3. Terrorists voicing support for the democrat party is NOT a good thing for them. As powerman and I have mentioned, the democrat party should make it clear that they will not tolerate terrorists. IMO, if they did, they would absolutely dominate American politics. They are being perceived as being weak on terror and this story illustrates that. Why the dems are not trying to be clear that they will not tolerate terrorists, I have no idea. It is ridiculous.

Originally Posted by AZXD

Please do not consider this a personal attack, but consider your choice of words when you said:
“I believe that almost all Americans (including a good part of the left) want us to be successful in combating terror and protecting the country.”

This is a reinforcement of the aspects that I presented over how we as a society have been changed. Conscious or subconscious choices are made that create separations within the ranks. By stating, “including a good part of the left” the us-vs-them perpetuates.

I do not consider that a personal attack. Most of the times when I have been attacked personally, the member doing so has directly stated "this is a personal attack". Anyhow, I can easily explain my choice of wording. I included "including a good part of the left", because I did not want to make a broad-brush/blanket statement. I know there are people on the far-left who do NOT want us to be sucessful in combating terror and protecting the country. One example would be Ward Churchill, who has repeatedly stated that we deserved the attacks of 9/11 and that our country deserves to have innocent people die. Most of the people (but not all) who criticize the adminstration's efforts against terrorism come from the left.

Originally Posted by AZXD

Re-read the first line of the article. Some guy expressed hope that Pelosi would continue winning elections. What office is she running for? The House elected her on its first day in session. The guy has no clue who or what her true position might be, yet with a few simple words to someone in the press, a headline was made, an attack delivered and the divide made greater because of the psychological warfare being used within this country to undermine the country and its people.

I would disagree. That terrorist obviously knew that there were recent elections and that the democrats were victorious and captured majorities in the house and senate. You might be right, but to me his comments are voicing support that the democrats will continue to be victorious in our elections.

Again, this thread is not trying to force anyone to take sides. It is to get people to take a look at the reasons why the democrat party is earning the support of terrorists and what they can do to change this. I really think that the dems are squandering a HUGE opportunity by failing to focus on terrorism and instead focusing on minimum wage, "big oil", haliburton and "bush sucks". If they came up with some viable alternatives, they could be more successful. However, I have my doubts that the majority of dems believe that protecting us from terror is a HUGE priority. Why else would they fail to take advantage of this opporunity?

Frank

[AZXD]

Originally Posted by FrankRizzoXD40

Let me try to explain this again. I agree that there is an "us vs them" mentality out there. I am saying that neither me, nor this thread, is a part of it. I am not pushing an "us vs them" mentality. I am trying to make 3 specific points about this news story.

Frank

OK,
I understand your points, and completely agree with everything you wrote.

I guess I was looking at why the endorsement occurred and what could have prevented it from occurring. I agree that the Democratic party is viewed as weak on this issue and thus allows for an easy target of endorsement to be developed. But on the bigger picture, if Washington would put the partisan issues aside and actually work together, the MSM would have to follow suit and the terrorist organizations would not be able to develop a statement of endorsement. They would not be able to do this because of a common goal and a lack of petty bickering and finger pointing/accusations.

I think we are both correct in what has been stated and realize you are able to see my view on why we (all peoples of this nation) need to stop using tactics that create divisions. I will only add that we need to demand that our elected officials do the same, as it truly tears at the fabric of this great nation.

Oh, and thanks you for allowing me to vent within a post you started and side track it a little.

I look forward to our next discusion.

[FrankRizzoXD40]

Originally Posted by AZXD

OK,
I understand your points, and completely agree with everything you wrote.

I guess I was looking at why the endorsement occurred and what could have prevented it from occurring. I agree that the Democratic party is viewed as weak on this issue and thus allows for an easy target of endorsement to be developed. But on the bigger picture, if Washington would put the partisan issues aside and actually work together, the MSM would have to follow suit and the terrorist organizations would not be able to develop a statement of endorsement. They would not be able to do this because of a common goal and a lack of petty bickering and finger pointing/accusations.

I agree. The bickering is definitely distracting. I would like to see the dems propose some viable alternatives, instead of just opposing everything that Bush days/does no matter what.

I also agree that an "us vs. them" mentality does exist on a huge scale--I'm just not part of it. This article may have, in fact, been written from an "us vs them" mindset. I'm not using it that way, though.

You are right, if congress could actually work together it would be good.

Originally Posted by AZXD

I think we are both correct in what has been stated and realize you are able to see my view on why we (all peoples of this nation) need to stop using tactics that create divisions. I will only add that we need to demand that our elected officials do the same, as it truly tears at the fabric of this great nation.

I think intent is a big part of it. There are those who draw attention to these kinds of things that do it to purposefully create division. Then there are others, like me, who did it to illustrate and point out a problem. It is hard to tell the two groups apart sometimes. Purposefully creating a division, just for the sake of creating one, is counterproductive. Bringing to light an issue and voicing criticism in order to bring about change may create a division, but the intent is much better.

Originally Posted by AZXD

Oh, and thanks you for allowing me to vent within a post you started and side track it a little.

Originally Posted by AZXD

I look forward to our next discusion.

No problem and same to you. I enjoy your perspective very much.

Frank

[FrankRizzoXD40]

Originally Posted by AZXD

OK,
I understand your points, and completely agree with everything you wrote.

I guess I was looking at why the endorsement occurred and what could have prevented it from occurring. I agree that the Democratic party is viewed as weak on this issue and thus allows for an easy target of endorsement to be developed. But on the bigger picture, if Washington would put the partisan issues aside and actually work together, the MSM would have to follow suit and the terrorist organizations would not be able to develop a statement of endorsement. They would not be able to do this because of a common goal and a lack of petty bickering and finger pointing/accusations.

I agree. The bickering is definitely distracting. I would like to see the dems propose some viable alternatives, instead of just opposing everything that Bush days/does no matter what.

I also agree that an "us vs. them" mentality does exist on a huge scale--I'm just not part of it. This article may have, in fact, been written from an "us vs them" mindset. I'm not using it that way, though.

You are right, if congress could actually work together it would be good.

Originally Posted by AZXD

I think we are both correct in what has been stated and realize you are able to see my view on why we (all peoples of this nation) need to stop using tactics that create divisions. I will only add that we need to demand that our elected officials do the same, as it truly tears at the fabric of this great nation.

I think intent is a big part of it. There are those who draw attention to these kinds of things that do it to purposefully create division. Then there are others, like me, who did it to illustrate and point out a problem. It is hard to tell the two groups apart sometimes. Purposefully creating a division, just for the sake of creating one, is counterproductive. Bringing to light an issue and voicing criticism in order to bring about change may create a division, but the intent is much better.

Originally Posted by AZXD

Oh, and thanks you for allowing me to vent within a post you started and side track it a little.
I look forward to our next discusion.

No problem and same to you. I enjoy your perspective very much.

Frank