Time to shut up, Rudy...

O

Onceler

New member
Anyone remember when he took Ron Paul to task in a debate for daring to suggest that the terrorists might be attacking us for something other than "our freedoms"? Here's the latest:

""Throughout this campaign, I have been very concerned that the Democrats want to take a step back to the failed policies that treated terrorism solely as a law enforcement matter rather than a clear and present danger," Giuliani said in a statement released by the McCain campaign. "Barack Obama appears to believe that terrorists should be treated like criminals -- a belief that underscores his fundamental lack of judgment regarding our national security. In a post-9/11 world, we need to remain on offense against the terrorist threat which seeks to destroy our very way of life. We need a leader like John McCain who has the experience and judgment necessary to protect the American people."

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/06/17/1149742.aspx

I don't know if it's balls or stupidity, but can any war cheerleader really argue "failed policies" and "judgment regarding national security" with a straight face anymore?
 
One remarkable thing (among about a half a dozen) about this line of attack (the whole law-enforcement pre-9/11 mentality nonsense) is that at the same time McCain is lambasting Obama for supposedly treating terrorism as a law enforcement matter he is criticizing Obama for wanting to take the offensive against the fully reconstituted Al Qaeda operating the Pakistani tribal lands.

It's just poor message discipline, which I suppose you'll get when you have no real message.
 
Dungheap said:
One remarkable thing (among about a half a dozen) about this line of attack (the whole law-enforcement pre-9/11 mentality nonsense) is that at the same time McCain is lambasting Obama for supposedly treating terrorism as a law enforcement matter he is criticizing Obama for wanting to take the offensive against the fully reconstituted Al Qaeda operating the Pakistani tribal lands.

It's just poor message discipline, which I suppose you'll get when you have no real message.
Click to expand...

QFT
 
Onceler said:
Anyone remember when he took Ron Paul to task in a debate for daring to suggest that the terrorists might be attacking us for something other than "our freedoms"? Here's the latest:

""Throughout this campaign, I have been very concerned that the Democrats want to take a step back to the failed policies that treated terrorism solely as a law enforcement matter rather than a clear and present danger," Giuliani said in a statement released by the McCain campaign. "Barack Obama appears to believe that terrorists should be treated like criminals -- a belief that underscores his fundamental lack of judgment regarding our national security. In a post-9/11 world, we need to remain on offense against the terrorist threat which seeks to destroy our very way of life. We need a leader like John McCain who has the experience and judgment necessary to protect the American people."

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/06/17/1149742.aspx

I don't know if it's balls or stupidity, but can any war cheerleader really argue "failed policies" and "judgment regarding national security" with a straight face anymore?
Click to expand...


Terrorists should be treated like criminals. Track them down, put them on trial, and lock them up. I can't imagine a more degrading end for a crazy jihaddist.

Elevating them to the status of feared enemy warriors, just helps their cause.
 
Cypress said:
Terrorists should be treated like criminals. Track them down, put them on trial, and lock them up. I can't imagine a more degrading end for a crazy jihaddist.

Elevating them to the status of feared enemy warriors, just helps their cause.
Click to expand...

And the Republican cause as well, coincidentally.
 
ib1yysguy said:
And the Republican cause as well, coincidentally.
Click to expand...

I guess one can argue that it helped the Republican cause because many attacks occured after the '93 attack on the WTC but I wouldn't argue that. Obama said we caught the people responsible for the '93 attack and they are in jail. Yeah, I believe we caught six of them and they are in jail and that is great but what did that really do? We did not catch any of the higher ups of Al-Queda. They went on to orchastrate multiple other terrorist attacks.

Now this is not to say only the military can defeat terrorism because it can't. It takes a combination of military, diplomacy and nations working together to really get at the heart of terrorism.

I'd argue this is the wrong kind of change Obama is talking about here.
 
Since 9-11 every major Terrorist plot that has been foiled has been foiled by major civilian intelligence, the Brits have been very successful with some. The military has not, to my knowledge stopped any "in the works" terror plan. What has worked is that all of us, the US Britain, France etc have revamped how we gather intel. We have stopped relying solely on electronic intell and have gone back to field work. Not every plot will be foiled, as evidenced by the London Subway bombing. But it works better than thinking that by somehow engaging them in Iraq you are putting attacks else where to an end. IF that were the case then there should have been no subway bombing. IF they were ALL fighting us over there so we don't have to fight them over here then what were they doing over in England. Or was it just that because the English didn't have a big enough presence in Iraq that freed up some terrorists to bomb London. Is there anyone that sees how rediculous this assertion that fighting in Iraq has stopped terrorism. We've been fortunate, but not because there are so many Americans over in Iraq that they just can't get a cell out of there and over here.
 
cawacko said:
I guess one can argue that it helped the Republican cause because many attacks occured after the '93 attack on the WTC but I wouldn't argue that. Obama said we caught the people responsible for the '93 attack and they are in jail. Yeah, I believe we caught six of them and they are in jail and that is great but what did that really do? We did not catch any of the higher ups of Al-Queda. They went on to orchastrate multiple other terrorist attacks.

Now this is not to say only the military can defeat terrorism because it can't. It takes a combination of military, diplomacy and nations working together to really get at the heart of terrorism.

I'd argue this is the wrong kind of change Obama is talking about here.
Click to expand...

Cawacko I think you better stick to ding-a-ling analysis.
 
Darla said:
LOL. No way! I don’t want no part of what you were babbling about in the middle of the night! You can halve that and you would be talking my language then.
Click to expand...
Translation, "Yes, but I don't want to admit it.."

When you are a sex symbol like the Wackster, sometimes they like to play coy...

:D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top