Yes, He Was A Dubious President, But This?

Tampa Tribune ^ | 10/22/01 | Daniel Ruth

[Aerial]

Weren't you the one posting the false claim about Osama "not being indicted" for the USS Cole bombing?

I posted what I got off this site.

I don't think it's false. It seems there is not enough evidence to "charge" him yet.

[mountainfolk]

Along with other selective ommissions, i.e. Hammas and Hillary, Bill and Hill and the pardoning of the Puerto Rican terrorists, this columnist also failed to mention that the Dubious President charged Al Gore with signing up as new citizens as many aliens as possible to vote democrat in the pres election. Background checks were suspended along with any other impediments to the processing of these new democrat voters. Who is to be held responsible for any terrorists who were welcomed into this country for political expediency? Could it be His Doubiousness?

[Exigence]

Star wars, even if fully deployed, would have done nothing to prevent what happened on 9/11.

You're so right. GWB should wait until after we are attacked by long-range missiles and then begin planning and implementing a defense. /sarcasm

The fact the claim that GWB did nothing to defend against terrorism until 9/11 is indefensible. He put a crack team in place and we have no idea what all they were looking at. However, given the talent and foresight they have exhibited and the freshness of the attack on the USS Cole, I'm willing to bet they were considering the possibility.

Secondly, if you want the GWB team to be fully effective, climb on the cases of senators such as Biden who are still blocking Bush appointees out of political spite. Half of the bureaucrats in Washington are still Clinton-era dinosaurs because the Dems won't get off the dime and the liberal press, who should be reporting it, are their silent accomplices.

[Exigence]

The fact the claim

Forgive my faulty proofreading. The correct wording is "The claim" as you have not established a fact.

[Robert Lomax]

If SDI is a pipe dream why are Russia and China against it?

[marsis]

If you think that the nuclear matierals will explode when the missle is shot down, you've been watching too many movies. It just doesn't work that way.

Nope, don't that at all, maybe I didn't make myself clear enough. I do know that once a missile has split into it's multiple warhead status, it becomes almost impossible to get all of them.

China, N. Korea, (and Iraq before them) aren't working on suicide sea captains. They are building and improving Inter Continental Ballistic Missles

I don't think Sadam is hell bent on self destruction. I am reasonably sure that N. Korea and China are not. Any launch from these nations means instant retaliation. This new world where a despot wants to start a war and cares not for life, actually looks forward to his people dying for his cause does make it a new game. So I would be much more afraid of the Mideast wackos than the countries you mention. Makes me wish that we were back in the cold war era where our enemy was defined and there was tacit agreement that neither one of us wanted start a nuclear holocast. Ah, the good ole days.

[marsis]

If SDI is a pipe dream why are Russia and China against it?

Good question. Reading about this years ago, I remember an article where it was understood that any country with a perfect defensive system, becomes an offensive war state. There would be no reason NOT to launch a war with anyone (if said country was bent on conquest) since it could not be retaliated against.

[Oschisms]

On the contrary, you just defined who you percieve to be the enemy. (Mid East fanatics) and how they are going to strike. (Suicide Sea Captains) Your argument for one kind of defense assumes one method of attack.

If the enemy is truly not known, it would make sense to develop defenses against all forms of attack, including SDI.

[TheGrimReaper]

Folks like Daniel Ruth, who continue to defend one of the most despicable, criminal human beings ever to hold public office in this nation, are - at best - DUBIOUS.

The 9/11 attacks took YEARS to plan.
The same YEARS that Billy Clinton was playing grab-ass in the Oval Office with barely-legal women.
Laying responsibility for today's terrorism at the doorstep of King Billy is not at all unreasonable.

[marsis]

On the contrary, you just defined who you percieve to be the enemy. (Mid East fanatics) and how they are going to strike. (Suicide Sea Captains) Your argument for one kind of defense assumes one method of attack. If the enemy is truly not known, it would make sense to develop defenses against all forms of attack, including SDI

You are correct that I see the Mid-east as our number one and only real threat at this this time. If we knew that a rogue state had ICBM capabilities then NMD would be in order but as of this time we are fairly certain that they do not. Last I read (and I could be way off), the cost for NMD was well over a trillion dollars and we don't even know if it will work. Right now, we have too mnay other areas to spend monies, and spend them we are. I am becoming somewhat anxious about the billions we are currently spending on this "war" we are involved with. The home protection funding, bailing out of corporations, and other expenses are just the beginning of expenditures to come. We broke Rusiia and won the cold war, could NMD break us and if not, who pays? The legislature and Governor in my state are already looking for new methods taxation and we have barely begun this campaign in the Mid-east.

[Oschisms]

the cost for NMD was well over a trillion dollars and we don't even know if it will work.

Then you would have opposed funding the cruise missile program. You would have opposed putting a man on the moon. See post 79. You currently oppose determining whether it is possible to defend ourselves from missile attack. If no one funded projects that weren’t 100% certain to work, there would be no light bulbs, transistors, or computer chips. You would be rendered technologically incapable of having this argument over the Internet. Speaking of the Internet, we still weren’t sure that it would do what we wanted it to do (provide communications in the event of a catastrophe) until Sept. 11, when email was the only form of communication in Manhattan.

If we knew that a rogue state had ICBM capabilities then NMD would be in order but as of this time we are fairly certain that they do not.

North Korea is developing ICBM's. China has developed ICBM's. See post 79. Chinese government officials have been quoted as saying that we care more about the survival of Los Angeles than the survival of Taiwan. So you’ve just agreed that we need NMD.

Seeing as I have to refer you back to my previous posts where your arguments are refuted, I think it’s fair to ask if you are even reading these.

[marsis]

Yes of course I do, question is, do you read mine? You missed entirely my point on China and Korea so I will repeat. China will not attack, neither will Korea, these people do have self preservation in mind.

As for technology, if the President called for a 3 trillion dollar dome over the entire US, would you go for it? We don't know if it is possible but hey, it would be unpatrotic to oppose it. How about a 5 trillion force field? And, oh my God, how would you feel if Clinton had proposed this instead of Reagan/Bush? Where are you going to say stop? I understand your point, I watched the entire space program being built and have always supported that and new technologies. But to use your example of "where would we be" is a cop out. I could say the same to you if you disagreed with ANY wacko scenario the military industrial complex came up with.

[Oschisms]

Recently the Chinese bumped into one of our planes and captured a bunch of our military. The entire time we weren't sure if the military or the political branch of the Chinese government were in charge. So for you to say that the Chinese would act in self preservation is ridiculous. We don't even know who's in charge over there. How can we presume to know how they're going to act?

The Chinese may or may not attack us, but they have already threatened to. We can do something about it, or we can stick our heads in the sand.

Did the nations that entered into WWI act in the interest of self preservation? They did not. A responsible defense plans for ALL possibilities, even irrational opponents.

As for supporting NMD- We haven't even found out if it's possible yet. How can you say that I support it wholeheartedly when we don't even know whether it works yet? I want to find out if we have this defense available to us. You don't.

Again, read my posts. I never accused you of being unpatriotic. That's something you brought up, possibly out of guilt. I refuse to debate accusations that exist only in your imagination.

[marsis]

The Chinese may or may not attack us, but they have already threatened to. We can do something about it, or we can stick our heads in the sand. Did the nations that entered into WWI act in the interest of self preservation? They did not. A responsible defense plans for ALL possibilities, even irrational opponents.

The stakes have never been as high as they are with nuclear warheads. Japan thought they could beat us and live the good life after victory. Today, only a nation bent on the destruction of the planet would throw warheads into the air. The people we have to worry about are those that care not for life, ours or theirs. This would include the Muslim fudamentalists, not in my opinion China or Korea.

As for supporting NMD- We haven't even found out if it's possible yet. How can you say that I support it wholeheartedly when we don't even know whether it works yet? I want to find out if we have this defense available to us. You don't.

I would agree here if it did not cost 200 billion (or possibly much much more)to find out. I don't know what Reagan spent, the current President is asking for something like 40 billion for testing. Many military projects throw mega bucks into losing propositions. This seems like one but I will give you this, if it was solid and workable and the workup was reasonable I would maybe be more for it.

Again, read my posts. I never accused you of being unpatriotic. That's something you brought up, possibly out of guilt. I refuse to debate accusations that exist only in your imagination.

Now that is an acusation. Guilt(?!), give me a break, a low handed attack. What I brought up was not about me, it was about anyone who posts to this site and doesn't tow the line and love President Bush, no matter what, being branded as communist etc. It is a common occurance here, luckily there are many who post here who's opinions and ideas I admire and seek. I will go one step further. Many "liberals" are branded as traitors, unpatriotic, communists, etc. Misguided, ok, wrong, ok, but this name calling separates the thinkers from the dittos. What this nation is about is freedom of thought and ideas. There should always be opposition, it is what makes us strong.

[N. Theknow]

Pretty sorry state of affairs when a supporter defends you as being "dubious." Kind of like the old line: they said you weren't fit to eat with the pigs, so I defended you. LOL

Remember the one about: "They said you ate $hit sandwiches and I stood up for you because I know you don't like bread."

[cardinal4]

And until this chapter is written 50 years from now,only we(conservatives of this era,)know that we were right along.A lying,cheating,grifter who traded the prestige and honor of the White House,by turning it into a rent by the hour whorehouse.Who is telling anyone will listen this was not his fault,maybe not,but Ill trash him anyway based on his complete lack of respect for the American people,the US Criminal Code,and human decency in general.And dont get me started on that awful wife of his........

[Oschisms]

What I brought up was not about me, it was about anyone who posts to this site and doesn't tow the line and love President Bush, no matter what, being branded as communist etc.

Then you had no business addressing that post to me. If the post is addressed to Oschisms, who is taking care to refute your arguments- not your character, and you complain about your character being smeared, what am I supposed to think? The first thing I thought of was subconscious guilt.

Many "liberals" are branded as traitors, unpatriotic, communists, etc. Misguided, ok, wrong, ok, but this name calling separates the thinkers from the dittos. What this nation is about is freedom of thought and ideas. There should always be opposition, it is what makes us strong.

In my posts, was I doing anything besides honestly opposing your ideas? You find someone in honest opposition, and rather than debate them, you complain how everyone on this site calls you names. Given that you are the one who brought in extraneous and irrelevant information about how the posters here call you names, how can you possibly say that you can’t find an honest argument? You found one, and then smeared me with the same brush you used to paint the rest of the posters on this site. You are obviously not looking for an honest argument at all.