You probably should put it up for a poll.....

Is Le HockeyDad right wing, left wing, centrist, none of the above, or globalist who manipulates both parties.


Because you're a controlled partisan hack, you see me as right wing. (and everyone else as well.) You are supposed to. That is your role.

HockeyDad wrote:

Le Hockey Dad is French.
The only important thing is being on the winning side.

ZRX1200 wrote:

Yes, that reminds me. I need to have my strings replaced. I see you as right wing only because of the arguments you make and your ardent defense of anything conservative. The globalist thing is a nice little running joke you have going, but until I see you arguing the conservatives on this board you are nothing more than a right wing hack.

FuzzNJ wrote:

Fortunately it doesn't matter how you see me. You may see me however you like and clearly you must have not been paying attention when I am arguing with conservatives. That's OK, you still have a role.

Maybe I'll play Democrat for a week and excite you.

HockeyDad wrote:

And you can continue to discount the overwhelming evidence of how the previous administration changed priorities because of the Iraq invasion. I choose not to. It was a bad decision for a number of reasons, not the least of which, it hindered the 'war on terror'.

FuzzNJ wrote:

Um no. I despise Bush. It pains me to give any credit to him. I just think its assinine to think he somehow took his foot of the gas pedal on the terrorism issue. He just didn't. It is nonsense. He did try to minimize the fact he hadn't gotten OBL yet. I wish he had. But the dude had a woodie for the terrorists. The other nonsense you want to attach to him somehow losing interest is just silly.

teedubbya wrote:

I agree he had a woody for the terrorists, no doubt, and I'm sure he didn't lose interest, personally. All those warnings given to the American people bear that out. No disagreement there, never has been from the beginning of the thread. Going all the way to post 22 "It just was further down the priority list as our resources were more focused in Iraq, a much bigger problem."

FuzzNJ wrote:

I don't think he bumped the war on terror down on the priority list. It was always a top priority. Still is. He did bump Iraq up (a mistake in my opinion) and I think he actually viewed it as part of the war on terror. I don't think he ever bumped going after OBL down although he did try to publicly minimize his "failure"

His efforts going after terrorists should never be minimized and it is happening in the media. And Obama did not ride in on a white horse and get the job done. Thats just not reality to me.

Bush started it, was like a dog on a bone and Obama kept it going leading to closing hte deal. Both should be commended.

Bush should be ripped on just about everything else though.

teedubbya wrote:

And jpotts is horribly gay. If he lost enough weight so he could see his p en i s he'd prolly try to suck it.

WTF P e n i s is now a bad word?

teedubbya wrote:

But this can not be denied. Unfortunately since he can not see his own p e n i s he has had to resort to a life of smokin others

teedubbya wrote:

OBL dead or in Gitmo ?

donutboy2000 wrote:

First, Bush never "took his eye off the ball" when it came to Afghanistan. People seem to forget that there was a whole chorus of people whining about how we need to hand it over to an "international authority" after the invasion for "peacekeeping" purposes. One of those in the chorus, if I recall correctly, was John Kerry.

So we handed over to NATO.

And, like most European nations do, they f**ked it up. So we're back there again.

Afghanistan, post-invasion was administered by NATO. Period.

Second, I find it funny that the dimwits here thing that Iraq was a "distraction." They have been a LONG TIME sponsor of terrorism - since the 1970s. They have been long-time hosts for the likes of Abu Abbas, Carlos the Jackal, and Abu Nidal. Plus, they had an extensive global spy network - perhaps one of the most extensive in the Middle East.

Not to mention their ties to the first World Trade Center bombing.

Not to mention the fact that they've bombed one of our ships pre-1991.

Not to mention the fact that these guys gassed their own people, and had an extensive chemical weapons infrastructure.

Now imagine Saddam Hussein, who often used the philosophy of "the enemy of my enemy is also my friend," hooking up with the likes of Iran or even Al Qaeda. Plus his penchant with blood fueds, which is common in the Middle East. What you have is not only another well-organized incubator for new al Qaeda cells, but a means by which they could expand their operational tactics.

Bush was criticized for not "connecting the dots." Now idiots like Fuzz are criticizing him the connecting the "wrong" dots. Well, the fact is that Bush indeed connected the correct dots. A major player in terrorism was taken out, and we've bled off umbelievable amounts of men and resources from Al Qaeda and Iran in post-invasion Iraq. No one denies any of this.

Well, except the Fuzzes of the world.

Anyone who thinks that Iraq was not a threat to the US is profoundly ignorant in ways that the term can hardly describe.

Our success in Iraq also got Libya to stand down. In fact, old Momar went pleading to the West to not invade after we captured Saddam. So we got two for the price of one.

I suggest all of you Iraq War crybabies watch the interview of Condi Rice on Last Gasp with Lawrence O'Donnel, and watch how she dismantles the man over War in Iraq on his own show (not that this is all that hard because Lawrence is a socialist and a mental-defective by default). Mabe then you'll begin to realize what schmucks you are...

jpotts wrote:

Whole lotta lies and information in that post. Condi was also on CNN and stated "RICE: Oh, it was a top priority. We wanted to get Osama Bin Laden every single day. And there was a unit at the - the agency that worked on nothing else. "

Another lie by omission since the administration closed the department, as noted here on this thread.

FuzzNJ wrote:

Iraq was not behind the first trade center bombing, that claim has been dismissed by all intelligence agencies and is only still being talked about by some right wing conspiracy nut woman who the Bush administration was using to sell the war. Can't remember her name atm.

FuzzNJ wrote:

Touting what Iraq did in the 80's to justify invading the country in 2003 is really stupid and there is still arguments as to whether or not Saddamm gassed the Kurds (not his own people, but countrymen forced on Iraq by the West when they created borders) or if it was Iran during their long war. Still, chemical weapons were used, in 1988.

FuzzNJ wrote:

Even if, IF Saddam had chemical weapons, he had no way of delivering them to kill Americans, and if he had them we would have found them and/or he would have used them as we invaded.

FuzzNJ wrote:

"the enemy of my enemy is my friend' is pretty much our foreign policy for the last century at least. It is why we gave Iraq weapons and support for years because they were Iran's enemy. So to say Iraq and Iran were hooking up is a joke. Never happened, just as the Al-Qaeda 'hook up' never happened. But you did say 'imagine' so you only meant that as a 'scare' tactic, just like the Bush administration did?

FuzzNJ wrote:

I saw that interview with Condi. She wouldn't even entertain the idea of looking back knowing what we know now, nor look at the situation based on what the detractors at the time were saying. She would only comment on what information the administration was pushing and how they interpreted it at the time. From that prism, of course their steps look perfect, because they set up the parameters. Not how the world works.

Hindsight is usually 20/20, but in this case Condi is blind as a bat.

FuzzNJ wrote: