She used to be a friend...

[babylonsister]

I've already responded scathingly, but thought I'd post this for some additional zingers from y'all.


Hello-O-O -O----OUR country IS at WAR and has been at war since 9/11.
WE WERE ATTACKED !!! The world , our lives EVERYTHING is DIFFERENT
and it will never be the same----we can not go back.

WAKE UP all you hopeful sleepy- head ASSES of the '60s and '70s
! It is not time for a change
in our leadership. KERRY is WEAK and INDECISIVE
The debate ? More Bush- bashing from Kerry (not much else for him to do)
and he had " a slicker smart - ass " appearance for TV ---how cute !

Revel in what you SAW , but think hard and seriously about what you HEARD from the
(your ) Dem. candidate. I for one heard nothing new or anything that made
sense as to how he would be able to handle the huge task at hand.
Same dumb stuff " I can do it better " -------------he never says WHAT, HOW ,
WHY, or if it is for us-----AMERICA. He thinks OTHER countries are a priority
and we should go along with them ! This guy is a nut . All I hear from him is
GLOOM and DOOM !!

My dear sweet friend if you have so much hatred for GW vote for a REDNECK instead of Kerry
not much difference there (o:^~

[JimmyJazz]

1. You might want to be a little more clear in the future about who is

saying what -- I know need more coffee, but I read that as your post!

[blm]

2. Dear Friend, You mean you wouldn't trade GWBush for a president who READ

and acted on the Hart-Rudman Report on Global Terror that was handed to him on Jan.30,2001?

I find NO Republican who can answer this question.

[ronnykmarshall]

3. Post your responce!

What started it anyway?

[Stephanie]

4. Unless you can go to Macy's and buy her some additional IQ points

There is reason to respond. She is too dense.

[babylonsister]

5. My Response to 'friend'

DID YOU WATCH THE DEBATE??? Our country is at war WITH IRAQ because the smirking chimp put us there based upon lies!!! We were attacked by Bin Laden, NOT Saddam. And repeat after me: Iraq had NOTHING to do with 9/11!!! Kerry is weak and indecisive?? Funny, I thought he looked and sounded like a president should look and sound. Not the bumbling idiot that Bush appears to be. "Slicker, smart-ass appearance?" That is the 'look' of a man with intellect , intelligence and honesty, but I do realize how unused to that you are after the past four years.
ALL YOU HEAR FROM HIM IS DOOM AND GLOOM?? Get a grip and understand that's because 'your guy' created this current situation, making our world a whole lot less safe despite the spin that's been put on everything. Well, stand by because that is about to change.
Shrub and his speech the other night made me cringe; he embarrassed me as he could hardly string a complete sentence together, never mind repeating repeating repeating. He's a bumbler, and I'm embarrassed for our country. But then again, he never was actually voted in to begin with.
Me thinks you watch/listen to way tooooo much Rush and Fox. How about a bit of independent thought??

[JimmyJazz]

6. Then again, maybe it's just me?

I have no zingers. People like this aren't going to change. Take it from the one democrat in a family of republicans. Now my dad is saying, "okay, so Bush isn't an eloquent speaker and Kerry is a smooth talker - You know you have to watch those smooth talkers."

Oh, oh and I had to stand on my tongue when he said (as I was watching the Daily Show), "where are the republicans, don't they ever have republicans on these shows?" :puke:

(Yeah, Dad, is that why Bush was declared the winner of every OTHER debate, including one against Ann Richards, who is no slouch herself).

I am grateful they live in a solid blue state.

I know it's difficult, but if the person has other redeeming qualities, you might want to consider not writing off the friendship. I still have to have a relationship with my brother whose beliefs are the polar opposite of mine. It's difficult sometimes, but we manage.

[AP]

7. Just tell her this makes no sense.

Tell her Bush clearly had no command of the one thing he claims to do well. He couldn't tell us what he did on summer vacation, and he can't tell us what he plans to do. And what does it mean to be at war? Does it mean to accept a crappier America? No thank you. We can do better, and after the debates it's clear that only one of the two candidates can make things better, and that's the one who can make a clear argument about what has been happening in the world, and what can change. And that wasn't Bush.

Also tell her that she's basically sent you a email full of slogans and tag lines and that, in the spirit of informed debate, perhaps she could take a second look at what she wrote, revise it, fill it with substantiated arguments, and you'd be perfectly willing to engage in a friendly debate based on the facts.

Tell her to list a few of the old ("nothing new") things that she heard. (Was the information that N Korea has built 4-7 nuclear weapons since Bush pulled out of bilateral negotiations not new to her? Perhaps she knew before that Bush was loving the wives of soldiers killed in his war in Iraq. That was new to me. As for gloom and doom, Bush was the one making excuses for the crappiness of his government by saying its hard work (the same way a teenager excuses laziness and poor grades). He never gave any indication that he things harder work could have or would have solved the problems he created. If anything sounds like doom and makes me feel gloomy it's that the president doesn't realize that he needs to work harder to do the right thing. That, to me, says more of the same bad shit. Just as I'd expect a teenager who says "studying is hard work! Don't blame me!" to continue to get bad grades.

As for being indecisive, Kerry didn't contradict himself once. Bush on the other hand said that he did the right thing about Iraq throughout the debate...until the last ten minutes when he said maybe he'd change some things. While Kerry kept repeating exactly what he'd do. It sounds to me like Bush doesn't know what to do and doesn't know what he's going to do. It sounds to me like he realized after listening to Kerry that he would have sounded absurd if he said one more time that he was perfect. But I certainly don't believe Bush when says that he'd change to tactics that would work. I don't believe him because he lies all the time. He just says what he thinks people want to hear.

[Brian_Expat]

8. What a patronising b***h

I dumped a friend like that after a few faux-intellectual rants from her that say my politics are a "direct attack on her."

She was a big fan, BTW, of complaining how hard it was to live on $100,000 per year and sending out pictures of her feotus in the womb and talk about how she'll NEVER let the abortionists take the foetus from her. As though NOW were waiting to sedate her and perform a forced abortion or something.

[wildeyed]

9. Just my opinion, but don't waste your time on people like this.

She is too far gone, can't be helped. Concentrate on fence sitters and registering new dem voters.

[ant]

10. I ended a friendship over this

My friend's emails were similar in content but not so harsh - always a bit more passive aggressive and with a cutesty :) at the end to keep things "civil," i.e., to keep me from being honest and challenging her FOX news talking points. I simply could not respect someone so willfully ignorant, so I told her so and moved on with my life.

I'm not saying that's what you should do, of course, but this woman is clearly an idiot. Kerry was very clear about his plan for Iraq, and if she didn't hear it's because she just didn't want to hear it. I've heard this spin that Kerry won on looks while Bush won on substance, but how anyone could possibly believe that is just amazing to me.

If you do want to engage her, tell her Kerry's plan and then ask her to explain Bush's to you - in FULL detail. Ask her why Bush said that China would be pissed about bilateral talks with NK when China wants us to have bilateral talks with NK. Ask her why the chemical industry got to rewrite the homeland security bill (great article in Mother Jones about this a few weeks back). I guess my point is that, rather than simply lecturing and laying out Kerry's points, you should ask her for more details about Bush's record and see if trying to answer those questions doesn't open her eyes.

[IdaBriggs]

11. Did you point out that we were attacked BECAUSE of Bush?

Good luck with this. Below are some excerpts from e-mails I've sent to similar idiots (note -- many links thanks to the folks over in the 9/11 forum, and italics stuff is the e-mail I was responding to):

HIS failure? (re: 9/11)

Yup. HIS failure. Just like Clinton gets to take responsibility for the Cole and not getting Osama in the 90's, Bush had EIGHT MONTHS to do something about terrorism before we got hit. According to the 9/11 commission report, and most of the headlines during 2001, it wasn't a huge priority for him. (Testimony before the commission was VERY UPSETTING in this area -- See 9/11 Commission Hearing Transcripts: http://www.9-11commission.gov/hearings/index.htm.)

Three immediate things I can identify pretty easily: 1) the anti-terrorism task force was not convened despite memos by the (demoted?) guy and the low rank Ashcroft put on it in his department notes; 2) 42% of the first eight months on vacation (with video of him cutting brush on Aug 6 when the "Bin Ladin determined to strike in US" memo was delivered); and 3) cutting anti-terrorism funding on September 10, 2001. (Go Here for more details: "The Counter Terrorist" by The New Yorker: http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?020114fa_FACT1 and Condaleeza Rice's May 16, 2002 press briefing: http://www.fas.org/irp/news/2002/05/wh051602.html and the CRS Report for Congress on "Terrorsim and the Military's Role in Domestic Crisis Management" http://www.fas.org/irp/crs/RL30938.pdf for more details.)

And how prey tell is a president supposed to be psychic enough to predict with accuracy the exact moment and method of what happened?

Good point. No way ONE GUY could do all that, which is why before the Aug 6th memo was delivered to the President, it went through the following helpers:

1. The Counterterrorism & Security Group headed by Richard Clarke.

then on to...

2. The Counterterrorism & National Preparedness Policy Coordination Committee which is chaired by the National Coordinator for Security, Infrastructure Protection, and Counterterrorism.

then it went to...

3. The NSC Deputies Committee. Who was on this committee?
Deputy National Security Advisor
Deputy Chief of Staff to the President for Policy
Deputy Secretary of State
Deputy Secretary of Defense
Depurty Secretary of Treasury
Deputy Attorney General
Deputy Director of Central Intelligence
Deputy Director of Office Of Management & Budget
Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
Deputy Asst to the President for Intl Economic Affairs
Chief of Staff & National Security Advisor to the Vice President

and then it proceeded to....

4. The NSC Principals Committee. Who was on this committee?
Asst to the President for National Security Affairs
Chief of Staff to the President
Secretary of State
Secretary of Defense
Secretary of the Treasury
Attorney General
Director of Central Intelligence
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
Deputy National Security Advisor
Chief of Staff & National Security Advisor to the Vice President

AND NO ONE DID ANYTHING because in February, 2001 --

President George W. Bush recently signed National Security Presidential Directive-1 (NSPD-1) establishing the organization of the National Security Council under his Administration. Among other things, the document abolishes the previous system of interagency working groups and replaces them with policy coordination committees (PCC). (see above mentioned links)

which meant the Bush administration was busy playing bureaucratic games instead of actually like, you know, DOING ANYTHING. Not even a "quick heads up" to the airport folks was sent by our busy little vacationing dudes.

Here's the "insult to injury' in my mind: Not One Single Person -- including the airport screeners we have on video tape letting the hijackers through the security checkpoints -- have been held accountable or fired. Apparently 19 guys with box cutters are more powerful than our current administration when it comes to protecting our citizens!

And then there is the "day of" issue: I'm not going to talk about it with you until you've watched the video of Bush getting told our country is under attack. Its going to make you ill, especially the part where he sticks around the school having his photograph taken with the elementary school principal half an hour after the second plane crashes into the WTO instead of taking command and giving an order about whether the remaining hijacked passenger jets should be shot down or not.

Incorrect. National defense is not a nightmare, and honestly, I believe
it's stronger than it has ever been. No one has dared to attack the US
directly on our soil since the 9/11 attacks, so if anything, the increased
security of our country, as I see it, is a good thing.

Well, that's one way of looking at it. Personally, I'm in the "we needed to capture Osama" camp which meant diverting troops to Iraq (do I need to dig up the references?) instead of concentrating on finding him in Afganistan, WAS A MISTAKE. Its three years later, and I'm pretty confident he'll get captured "right before the election" but since the guy's had access to fax machines and cell phones, I'm pretty confident they've got contingency plans to keep Al-Quaida strong. But don't take my word for it: how about that of "top US intelligence officials"? http://www.boston.com/news/world/articles/2003/11/21/local_groups_giving_qaeda_strength_analysis_finds?mode=PF

And, since you don't want to blame Bush for 9/11 (sounds like it was all Clinton's fault in your mind), and there was NOTHING he could do to prevent it, please tell me why we are "safer" now? Did Bush do something different on 9/12 that he couldn't have been doing on 9/10? How about on 9/13? Just when did the President of the United States actually start taking responsibility for our national security? Give me a date, please, and explain what changed? Since 95% of our containers still aren't being inspected, our border crossings are pretty much a joke, I've personally found out how easy it is to get fake identification in New York City, no one has caught the ringleaders of the plot, tried to figure out WHY they went after us (other than that "they hate our freedom" crap, which argument can be dissected by a fifth grader before lunch), and every single guy who this administration has tried to prosecute turns out to be innocent, You Tell ME how things are better? Because we've pissed off more of the world and are using our military guys as "bait?" I don't think so.

But, I'll bite. If what you say is true, and we are safer with Bush in office than anyone else, does that mean he's going to resign if we have another terrorist attack before the elections? Which side of this nonsense argument are you taking: if we get attacked, its because they want Bush to win (like they've said in their press releases), or because they want Kerry to win? <eye roll>

Who, in your opinion, do you think Osama Bin Laden & the Insurgents in
Iraq, and the 'terrorists' would like to see elected as the next President
of the United States?

According to their press release (and the CIA), they don't want Kerry:

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/040317/325/eotq9.html

The statement said it supported U.S. President George W. Bush in his reelection campaign, and would prefer him to win in November rather than the Democratic candidate John Kerry, as it was not possible to find a leader "more foolish than you (Bush), who deals with matters by force rather than with wisdom."

In comments addressed to Bush, the group said:

"Kerry will kill our nation while it sleeps because he and the Democrats have the cunning to embellish blasphemy and present it to the Arab and Muslim nation as civilisation."

"Because of this we desire you (Bush) to be elected."

The CIA is thinking the incompetence of this administration when it comes to "accidentally" outing our undercover operatives is also a boon, but our CIA folks also have some pretty harsh things to say about the way the intelligence they presented was "edited" and "misused"; they have more details on Al-Quaida's positions (and our own intelligence folks) here --

http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0621/dailyUpdate.html

http://www.salon.com/opinion/conason/2004/09/24/hastert/index.html

I think the Terrorists would MUCH rather see a candidate from the traditionally 'weaker' Democratic Party (i.e. Carter, Clinton, etc) in office, especially one who wants to get the hell out of Iraq and leave that country ripe for the plundering as well as allowing them to have pretty much a free-reign to set up their future terrorist activities.

Reality versus Republican Spin. Here's what Kerry says about Iraq:

We need to end this confusion. We need national leaders who will face reality - not only in Iraq but in the war on terror. And we need a president who has no doubt that the war on terror can and must be won.

The invasion of Iraq was a profound diversion from the battle against our greatest enemy -- Al Qaeda -- which killed more than three thousand people on 9/11 and which still plots our destruction today. And there's just no question about it: the President's misjudgment, miscalculation and mismanagement of the war in Iraq all make the war on terror harder to win. Iraq is now what it was not before the war - a haven for terrorists. George Bush made Saddam Hussein the priority. I would have made Osama bin Laden the priority. As president, I will finish the job in Iraq and refocus our energies on the real war on terror.

I will wage this war relentlessly with a single-minded determination: to capture or kill the terrorists, crush their movement and free the world from fear. To destroy our enemy, we have to know our enemy. We have to understand that we are facing a radical fundamentalist movement with global reach and a very specific plan. They are not just out to kill us for the sake of killing us. They want to provoke a conflict that will radicalize the people of the Muslim world, turning them against the United States and the West. And they hope to transform that anger into a force that will topple the region's governments and pave the way for a new empire, an oppressive, fundamentalist superstate stretching across a vast area from Europe to Africa, from the Middle East to Central Asia. <snip>

http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=36871

[Vickers]

12. Go tell her to pray for a brain

Seriously.

[OnionPatch]

13. I ended a friendship too

because of his blind allegiance to Bush. He especially liked to rant off on all the "Hollywood elite" stuff...."Hollywood actors don't fight to defend our country...bla bla..." Thank God he's in Florida and is an ex-felon. (He had a little run-in with the law regarding a certain plant he tried to bring into the country. He can't vote, he can't enjoy his favorite plant because of Republicans but he's blind to that.)
When I hear people say "everything's changed" in reference to 9-11, it sends a chill down my spine. If everything has changed, then I guess Osama bin Laden and the terrorists have won, right? That's exactly what they wanted; for us to give up our freedoms here at home and our standing in the world. They wanted us to be afraid of our shadows and militarize our society.
I want to slap the "everything's changed" people. If you love America, like you say you do, you do not let the TERRORISTS allow EVERYTHING TO CHANGE!
Argh. :puke:
Edited to add: If we liberals weren't fighting tooth and nail against it, the terrorists would be responsible for ending democracy here in the US.