Printable View
I really think the term "Ally" can be dropped from any description of our relationship with France or Russia and, I'm not certain it's ever applied to our relationship with China or Syria.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Washington Times
"...undeclared coalition of the venal..." :hatQuote:
Originally Posted by The Washington Times
It's unraveling.
France will be our ally again...as soon as we win the war we will find out France was always on our side.
Give the French credit...they always manage to wind up on the winning side as long as they aren't doing the fighting by themselves.
Actually the French have a lot in common with John Kerry...no doubt we will see Kerry distancing himself from his UN comments fairly quickly...if he's smart he'll start distancing himself from his comments that he could have gotten France to send troops to Iraq...since they flat out said there were no circumstances in which they would do that and would veto any millitary action in Iraq.
But the bigger question that needs to be asked...why aren't Bush and Cheney attacking this issue like a mofo when Kerry is alleging we didn't really try to utilize the UN prior to kicking Iraq's ass?
Something is telling me that there's a sledgehammer with Kerry's name on it coming soon.
whott,
France and Germany came up last night in the VP debate. Edwards ducked it completely and rambled on about training troops in Iraq.
I wish Cheney woulda called him out on it, but there was so much ammunition for Cheney to fire away with last night, and so little time to do it.
I hope not. Frankly, I hope they're invaded by Germany again.Quote:
Originally Posted by Whottt
Oh like Cheney didn't duck some questions of his own.
Like Jobs, Joe? ;)
Well Kerry and Edwards keep saying they'd get France and Germany involved, and how that's how they'd handle Iraq differently. France and Germany effectively told them to fuck off in the last week, so I want to know who else they want to call on.
Kerry said that he wanted to give Iran nuclear fuel in the debate last week so that they could have fuel for reactors for generating power.
Iran came out not a day later and told Kerry to fuck off, that they'd never put their national interests in the hands of a foreign country or foreign countries.
Seems to me the Kerry foreign policy bubble has burst. Rather damning considering this is what he's constantly sniping at Bush about, don't you think?
They both ducked...but Edwards didn't pass on many opportunities for cheap shots at Cheney or Bush...
Cheney did pass on quite a few he could have taken, he pretty much passed on every one of them, it was a little bit frustrating to me if you want to be honest about it...
He could have bitchslapped Edwards on the differences between the Persian Gulf Coalition and this one...since he was one of the main people involved in putting that coalition together while Edwards momma was still changing his diapers.
The Haliburton attack is easily defensible.
While on the other hand...
Most of his attacks on Edwards were easily substantiated.....but the question is why didn't he go after the UN controversy since this is one of the biggest vulnerabilities Kerry has IMO... When there is plenty there to show how much of an error in judgement it would have been to rely on UN approval for this war....That's one of the key issues Kerry is using to justify his flip flopping stance on the war.
Why? Why did Cheney pass on that? It's a huge issue and point for the Republicans...it also doesn't really get into personal mudslinging which I think Bush and Cheney are trying to avoid.
The only thing that makes sense to me...I have to think there is going to be some big news coming out on this that really discredits what the UN has become and just how untrustworthy the UN is on the issue of Americas security.
I just have a feeling we are just seeing the tip of the iceberg on this. That the reason Bush and Cheney are taking the high road on this is issue is because they want total confirmation before they unload... I mean if some of the allegations against the UN, and Anan and Chiraq are true, this is a slam dunk justification for why the US was right to act unilaterally and it is going to make Kerry look really foolish and naive for wanting UN approval. It's going to absolutely justify the major criticism of Kerry as commander in chief...
To me it's the seminal issue of the campaign, and there is no way Bush and Cheney would be passing on attacking this unless they were really going to unload on Kerry at a later date.
No, I don't.
He didn't duck the jobs issue, he just talked about complex economic issues of which you and John Edwards have no understanding. A robust economy creates jobs, not the federal government.Quote:
Originally Posted by exstatic
I know, I know, you don't professionalize unless you federalize.
But, that's the whole problem with Liberal job creation. It's all about making them out of whole cloth with my tax dollars. Why not stimulate the economy into growing to accommodate jobs growth?
Here's what the Vice President said about jobs, (Jeeze, you people need an education.):
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vice President Dick Cheney
Well, that sounds great Yonivore but the fact remains that they have a net job loss during their administration and that fact is indisputable no matter how well president, err..vice-president Cheney spins it.
Well, gee, it didn't help that they entered the White House on the downward slope of near-recession. Then, it further didn't help that over a million jobs evaporated on September 11, 2001.Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeChalupa
I think this administration has performed phenomenally on the economy -- despite the sluggish jobs numbers -- in light of the obstacles over which they've had to overcome; and, all during a state of war.
Wow!
What should have been done differently?
They shouldn't have spent so much time blaming Clinton.
Why are you asking us? We're just a bunch of people on an internet board.Quote:
What should have been done differently?
The plain fact remains that net job loss during an administratoin hasn't happened in 70 years, through peacetime, wars, and recessions, GOP, Democrat...until now. All of your protestations are just excuses. The Bush administration is responsible because it happened on their watch. Aren't you conservatives big on accepting responsibility? Then do it, and stop your bellyaching.Quote:
Well, gee, it didn't help that they entered the White House on the downward slope of near-recession. Then, it further didn't help that over a million jobs evaporated on September 11, 2001.
I think this administration has performed phenomenally on the economy -- despite the sluggish jobs numbers -- in light of the obstacles over which they've had to overcome; and, all during a state of war.
What are you talking about?Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeChalupa
The President set right to work on his own agenda with tax cuts. I don't recall him blaming Clinton for the economy.
Answer the fucking question.Quote:
Why are you asking us? We're just a bunch of people on an internet board.
Ask the question of Bush.
If you don't have an answer to that question, why is it that you claim Bush is "responsible" for the "job loss"?
Because he's the fucking President, and SHOULD have the answers.
Really, MB, go have a beer and fuck something.
So it's more ignorant partisan bitching. Awesome.
Just like you.
You made the claim. Now back it up.
Cheney correctly noted that 1.7 million jobs have been added in the past year, since payroll employment bottomed out in August of last year.
New employment figures are due on Friday from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the last report before election day. It now appears certain that Bush and Cheney will end their term with payroll employment still below where it was when they took office, the first time that's happened since the Hoover administration.
Just the facts please...just the facts.