Bill Frist Supports Appeasing Terrorists

I heard an interesting analysis of what would come about because of Mr. Frist's approved rider to the port security bill that will criminalize financial institutions processing online gambling payments. The short end of it is that it will stop casual gamblers but there will be a large group of people that will move to underground financial institutions to continue their habit. And these underground financial companies are the same companies that also help funnel money for criminals and terrorists. This huge swath of underground gamblers will basically muddy the waters so much that federal investigators will find it harder than ever to not only keep tabs on the gamblers but they will also find it much more difficult now to track money going to and from criminals and terrorist organizations.
 
Oh no, a republican who's actually being pro-active and trying to come up wth a solution to a problem. How can that be?

Being the inanimate right hand arm of Satan, a republican couldn't possibly be capable of independent thought, much less an idea of, *GASP* - DIPLOMACY, a page torn directly from the democrat mantra checklist can only belong to them, after all... Only when the idea of diplomacy comes from a republican, it suddenly becomes a bad idea.

And he's invalidating that touchstone of Democrat safety - Afganistan. It's the conflict the democrats can agree on and praise president Bush for his actions. It's a safe way for them to look like they're "tough on terror" while at the same time admonishing Bush for Iraq and world war on terror. God forbid anyone should touch that outlet of indignation.

Unfortunately, myke's emotion gets the better of him because he's unable to look at situations objectively when they deal with republican ideas and dialog. He missed this part:

Sen. Mel Martinez, a Republican from Florida accompanying Frist, said negotiating with the Taliban was not "out of the question" but that fighters who refused to join the political process would have to be defeated.

"A political solution is how it's all going to be solved," he said.
Click to expand...

A politcal solution wth people who can be dealt with in a peaceful way, not the ones actively attacking US forces and attempting to take control by force. I guess you lefties can't have your cake and eat it too, so you end up shoving the cake in someone's face to spite them. And then you go hungry.
 
If Jow Biden were to have said the same things as in that article, you would be eating it up like butter. But then again, were he to have said it, republicans would call him a terrorist sympathizer.

Actaully, one of our senators in Michigan, Carl Levin, has proposed this for a while now. I'm not sure why you're complaining. Instead of agreeing with him, which I assume you do, you'd rather let your prejudice for all things republican get in the way of celebrating your philosophical victory.
 
You can assume all you want, but given the history of the Taliban in Afghanistan, as well as their alliances with terrorist organizations, I do not support negotiating with them. They have far clearer links to the groups who have or would attack us than, say...Iraq. Why negotiate with them? Why appease them? What happened to "fight them over there so we don't have to fight them here"?
 
um, the article says we'll still fight the ones who take up arms and commit violence. I'm still wondering of you wre too emotional to even read your own article.
 
Which is, again, quite a turnaround from the notion of preemptive war. It's reactive and going to emphasize post-hoc solutions to diplomacy.

Not to mention, of course, it's an empty phrase, like "nonuniformed enemy combatant."

Keep fishing for consistencies. You'll come up with something yet, I have faith in you.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Which is, again, quite a turnaround from the notion of preemptive war. It's reactive and going to emphasize post-hoc solutions to diplomacy.

Not to mention, of course, it's an empty phrase, like "nonuniformed enemy combatant."

Keep fishing for consistencies. You'll come up with something yet, I have faith in you.[/QUOTE]

So, every individual who calls himself Taliban is, in fact, a terrorist and should be shot on sight? I wouldn't have expected such a hard line stance from someone who understands the complexities of international political conflict, and the fact that every member of a group is not a homogeneous slice of the whole.

Aren't we supposed to be working for a solution here? Or should we just live with our spitefullness and "i told you so" attitudes and expect peace to spontaneously break out across the globe? You seem more interested in bashing a republican for changing tack instead of thinking about the situation objectively.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top