Bush Declares Sacrifice in Iraq to Be 'Worth It'
loose cannon
soon. Get ready for Jeb in 2008.
Bush Declares Sacrifice in Iraq to Be 'Worth It'
FORT BRAGG, N.C., June 28 - President Bush, facing a growing
restiveness around the country and in his own party over the constant
stream of casualties in Iraq, declared Tuesday night that the daily
sacrifice of American lives in Iraq "is worth it, and it is vital to
the future security of our country."
Members of the 82nd Airborne Division at Fort Bragg, N.C., Tuesday
night during President Bush's address on the war on terrorism. He gave
no timetable for American withdrawal.
In an address to the nation from this Army base, in front of 750
members of the 82nd Airborne Division and the Army's Special Operations
unit based here, Mr. Bush spoke in somber tones of the need for staying
power in what has become a long conflict in Iraq. As he has in the
past, the president melded the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks with
the enemies Americans now face in Iraq.
Mr. Bush gave no timetables for American withdrawal other than an
assurance that "as the Iraqis stand up, we will stand down."
While offering no new strategies in a war that has now stretched for 25
months, with no diminishing of attacks on American forces, he explained
that he would not send more troops to face the insurgency in Iraq,
unless asked by commanders there, because it would "undermine our
strategy of encouraging Iraqis to take the lead in this fight."
osprey
loose cannon wrote:
> Doesn't sound like Mr. Bush plans on bringing our troops home anytime
> soon. Get ready for Jeb in 2008.
Approximately 1 in 8 American's think that Bush should bring the troops
home before the job is finished.
Regardless whether you think the war in Iraq was right or wrong, 7 out
of 8 Americans think we should finish the job and stablize the area. I
think most Americans are willing to support staying there until it's
finished so we don't have to go back again.
I don't think Jeb will run personally. I look for a Guilliani and
Clinton race. I am hoping Hillary Clinton runs.
I wouldnt' be surprised to see Rice run someday in her career and
possibly be the first woman to be President of the U.S.
Jenn
"osprey" <noneed...@mail.com> wrote:
> loose cannon wrote:
> > Doesn't sound like Mr. Bush plans on bringing our troops home anytime
> > soon. Get ready for Jeb in 2008.
>
> Approximately 1 in 8 American's think that Bush should bring the troops
> home before the job is finished.
> Regardless whether you think the war in Iraq was right or wrong, 7 out
> of 8 Americans think we should finish the job and stablize the area. I
> think most Americans are willing to support staying there until it's
> finished so we don't have to go back again.
> I don't think Jeb will run personally. I look for a Guilliani and
> Clinton race. I am hoping Hillary Clinton runs.
Guilliani will NEVER get the Repub nomination: pro gay rights, pro
choice, etc.
JTEM
Bush Declares Sacrifice of other people's children
in Iraq to Be 'Worth It'
FORT BRAGG, N.C., June 28 - President Bush, facing
a growing restiveness around the country and in his
own party over the constant stream of casualties in Iraq,
declared Tuesday night that the daily sacrifice of
other people's children in Iraq "is worth it, and it is vital
to the future security of my family's wealth and power."
Members of the 82nd Airborne Division at Fort Bragg,
N.C., Tuesday night during President Bush's address on
the war on terrorism. He gave no timetable for American
withdrawal. In an address to the nation from this Army
base, in front of 750 carefully screened members of the
82nd Airborne Division and the Army's Special Operations
unit based here, Mr. Bush spoke in somber tones of the
need for his staying in power in what has become a
difficult second term. As he has in the past, the president
tried his best to confuse the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks
with the in Iraq, mentioning 9/11 no less than six times in
the speech.
Mr. Bush gave no timetables for American withdrawal
other than an assurance that "When hell freezes over, we
will stand down."
While offering no new strategies in a war that has now
stretched for 25 months, with no diminishing of attacks
on American forces, he explained that he would not
send more troops to face the insurgency in Iraq, unless
asked by commanders there, ignoring the fact that the
Pentagon had been asking for additional troops since
prior to the start of the war. Worse still, the request for
additional troops assumed that there was already at least
one additional division involved in Iraq, a division that
never arrived after Turkey refused to allow them to land
on their soil.
Bill Baker
> loose cannon wrote:
> > Doesn't sound like Mr. Bush plans on bringing our troops home anytime
> > soon. Get ready for Jeb in 2008.
>
> Approximately 1 in 8 American's think that Bush should bring the troops
> home before the job is finished.
> Regardless whether you think the war in Iraq was right or wrong, 7 out
> of 8 Americans think we should finish the job and stablize the area. I
> think most Americans are willing to support staying there until it's
> finished so we don't have to go back again.
While I agree that we should stay and finish the job, I worry about how
long it will take and what the cost will be. I also worry about what
will happen if there is another terrorist attack on our nation. Will
Bush actually go after the terrorists responsible, or will he abandon
the search after a few months to attack another random country?
> I don't think Jeb will run personally. I look for a Guilliani and
> Clinton race. I am hoping Hillary Clinton runs.
I think she should run if that's what she really wants. I don't think
she will get past the primaries if she does, though.
> I wouldnt' be surprised to see Rice run someday in her career and
> possibly be the first woman to be President of the U.S.
I would. She has repeatedly stated that she has no desire to be
president.
Andrealphus
"osprey" <noneed...@mail.com> wrote in message
news:1120022153.0...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Guilliani? How in the world will he get the Republican nomination? Last
I heard he was pro women's rights, and pro gay rights. One of those alone
is enough to kill his nomination.
El Conquistador
"osprey" <noneed...@mail.com> wrote in message
news:1120022153.0...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>> Doesn't sound like Mr. Bush plans on bringing our troops home anytime
>> soon. Get ready for Jeb in 2008.
>
> Approximately 1 in 8 American's think that Bush should bring the troops
> home before the job is finished.
> Regardless whether you think the war in Iraq was right or wrong, 7 out
> of 8 Americans think we should finish the job and stablize the area.
No matter how long we stay there there will be no tranquility
However, I agree with Bush on one count, I think he should dres twins in the
uniform and send them to Iraq
I
> think most Americans are willing to support staying there until it's
> finished so we don't have to go back again.
> I don't think Jeb will run personally. I look for a Guilliani and
> Clinton race. I am hoping Hillary Clinton runs.
>
> I wouldnt' be surprised to see Rice run someday in her career and
> possibly be the first woman to be President of the U.S.
Another Ayatollah!
>
El Conquistador
"Bill Baker" <wba...@postini.spamcon.org> wrote in message
news:1120026190.6...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> osprey wrote:
>> loose cannon wrote:
>> > Doesn't sound like Mr. Bush plans on bringing our troops home anytime
>> > soon. Get ready for Jeb in 2008.
>>
>> Approximately 1 in 8 American's think that Bush should bring the troops
>> home before the job is finished.
>> Regardless whether you think the war in Iraq was right or wrong, 7 out
>> of 8 Americans think we should finish the job and stablize the area. I
>> think most Americans are willing to support staying there until it's
>> finished so we don't have to go back again.
>
> While I agree that we should stay and finish the job, I worry about how
> long it will take and what the cost will be.
NO MATTER HOW MUCH IT COSTS, WE SHOULD ALL BE READY TO DIE FOR ISRAEL!
El Conquistador
"JTEM" <gymr...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:2YOdnRK-Vvt...@comcast.com...
>
> Bush Declares Sacrifice of other people's children
> in Iraq to Be 'Worth It'
he is sending twins to die for Israel!
El Conquistador
WASHINGTON, June 13 (UPI) - Insider notes from United Press
International for June 8
(5433 bytes)
A former Bush team member during his first administration is now voicing
serious doubts about the collapse of the World Trade Center on 9-11. Former
chief economist for the Department of Labor during President George W.
Bush's first term Morgan Reynolds comments that the official story about the
collapse of the WTC is "bogus" and that it is more likely that a controlled
demolition destroyed the Twin Towers and adjacent Building No. 7. Reynolds,
who also served as director of the Criminal Justice Center at the National
Center for Policy Analysis in Dallas and is now professor emeritus at Texas
A&M University said, "If demolition destroyed three steel skyscrapers at the
World Trade Center on 9/11, then the case for an 'inside job' and a
government attack on America would be compelling." Reynolds commented from
his Texas A&M office, "It is hard to exaggerate the importance of a
scientific debate over the cause of the collapse of the twin towers and
building 7. If the official wisdom on the collapses is wrong, as I believe
it is, then policy based on such erroneous engineering analysis is not
likely to be correct either. The government's collapse theory is highly
vulnerable on its own terms. Only professional demolition appears to account
for the full range of facts associated with the collapse of the three
buildings."
-0-
Two years after President George W. Bush proclaimed "mission accomplished"
in Iraq, some thoughtful officers are beginning to question who the
insurgents actually are. In a recent interview the head of the US 42nd
Infantry Division which covers key trouble spots, including Baquba and
Samarra Major General Joseph Taluto said he could understand why some
ordinary Iraqis would take up arms against U.S. forces because "they're
offended by our presence." Taluto added, "If a good, honest person feels
having all these Humvees driving on the road, having us moving people out of
the way, having us patrol the streets, having car bombs going off, you can
understand how they could (want to fight us). There is a sense of a good
resistance, or an accepted resistance. They say 'okay, if you shoot a
coalition soldier, that's okay, it's not a bad thing but you shouldn't kill
other Iraqis.'" Taluto insisted however that the other foreign forces would
not be driven out of Iraq by violence, observing, "If the goal is to have
the coalition leave, attacking them isn't the way," he said. "The way to
make it happen is to enter the political process cooperate and the coalition
will be less aggressive and less visible and eventually it'll go away."
Taluto's comments are sure to raise hackles at the Pentagon, which insist
that all insurgents are either Baathists or al-Qaida. Taluto observed that
"99.9 per cent" of those captured fighting the U.S. were Iraqis.
-0-
Ah well, there's always Argentina. The German government is reportedly
blocking the deportation of Nazi war crimes suspects from the U.S. back to
Germany to be tried and punished. The German interior ministry has refused
to accept the suspects even though the United States already has stripped
them of their citizenship because of their World War II history and has
asked Germany to accept them; German officials worry the suspects might join
neo-Nazi groups. Deputy director of the Office of Special Investigations at
the Department of Justice Jonathan Drimmer said, "By and large we're talking
about concentration camp guards, we're talking about collaborators, people
who were involved in indigenous police forces, that kind of thing." German
interior ministry officials said that Washington had not given Berlin enough
proof that the suspects were war criminals, despite repeated requests from
Germany. Deportation in U.S. court cases requires not criminal, but just
civil, proceedings, with a burden of proof of "clear, convincing, and
unequivocal evidence." German Interior ministry officials noted that if
Germany accepted the deportees, they would be supported by the German social
system and possibly would involve themselves in the extreme right or
anti-Semitic political activities.
-0-
The first conflict that the newly independent United States engaged in began
in 1801 with the Barbary States; now descendents of those corsairs have
participated in naval exercises with their former enemies. On June 7
Algerian and U.S. Coast Guard warships conducted a joint naval exercise,
improving interoperability and developing cooperation in securing the
western Mediterranean. The vessels conducted maritime patrol missions,
testing their joint capabilities to monitor and board suspicious vehicles
and interdict illegal migration. U.S. Coast Guard Capt. Robert Wyner said
Washington regards Algeria as a strategic partner in the war against
terrorism and that Algeria would play a major role in U.S. efforts to
bolster the stability of North Africa and counter the threat of al-Qaida.
Interestingly enough, former counterterrorism adviser Richard A. Clarke
closed Boston harbor on 9-11 because of concerns that al-Qaida terrorists
were stowaways aboard liquefied natural gas tankers from Algeria bound for
Boston's Everett LNG facility.
-0-
Official WTC report false.
Sonewriter
[...]
>I don't think Jeb will run personally. I look for a Guilliani...
Rudi Guiliani supports gay and lesbian rights, racial justice and
supports for the accessibility of higher education to all. These are
things some more radical republicans don't favor, so how is it the
radicalism in the party going to support a progressive individual?
Sonewriter
Why?
Mickey
news:jennconducts-4424...@newssvr13-ext.news.prodigy.com...
Add yet, he may be the most electable republican out there.
Mickey
Bill Baker
news:<KUvwe.3116$qm....@bignews5.bellsouth.net>...
Is that the random country Bush is going to invade next?
--
Lurlean Lie #7:
Bill Baker is all "for" queers and defends everything they do no matter how
horrible or disgusting it is - even felching
news:7908c278.03111...@posting.google.com
Mickey
news:KUvwe.3116$qm....@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
>
No, the TRUTH (odd word for you, eh Alex) is that we should all be ready to
kill for freedom.
Mickey
>
> WASHINGTON, June 13 (UPI) - Insider notes from United Press
> International for June 8
>
>
So, it has been 3.5 years, and it is time the truth about 9-11 is known to
all.
One day, Elvis, the gray aliens and Charles K. Johnson, the president of the
Flat Earth society were hanging out, having a few beers (and some pills for
Elvis, of course), when Elvis came up with the idea to crash a few jets into
buildings, just to alleviate the boredom of living in abstentia in the hills
of Afghanistan. This sat real well with the flat earthers, as people were
getting too close to figuring out that the world ISN'T flat, and this would
serve as a great diversion. The grays, on the other hand, had concerns. They
expressed that they were worried as to who would get the blame. Elvis said
"Oh, they will blame the Arabs, I will see to that." The grays said "Ah, but
the anti-Semites will find a way to blame the Jews for it.". Elvis started
laughing HARD. "Blame the Jews? Why would anyone blame the Jews? Why would
they attack their strongest ally? Why would they attack and kill their
fellow Jews? Nah, no one would be that stupid.". The grays reminded him that
Muslims do nto need things to make sense, they just need to convince
themselves by repeating a lie 10,000 times" Charlie Johnson said "Shit, that
hasn't worked for us, heaven knows we've repeted the lie about the flat
earth for decades now." Ah, said the grays, but the world is a lot dumber
now, you have idiots ragings on the internet about conspiracies all over the
place. Just then, JFK walked in "Boy, this playing dead for 40 years is a
bitch and a half", he said. "So, what are you guys up to?, he asked. Charlie
said "We're planning to crash some jets into buildings in New York City and
Washington". JFK replied "Hey, that sounds like fun, can I help?" Elvis said
"Well, the grays seem to think people will blame the Jews for it". JFK let
loose a hearty belly laugh; "Blame the Jews? Why would anyone in their right
mind blame the Jews? What on earth would THEY have to gain by attacking
their closest ally? I think those grays have been eating the mushrooms
again." By now, JFK was really interested in the logistics of all this, and
started asking questions as to HOW this could be implemented. Elvis
suggested they simply mind control the Jets into the buildings, but JFK had
a better idea. He suggested a massive storm, which would push the jets into
the buildings. Well, as these things go, one thing lead to another and the
debate raged on for weeks. Just then, Osama's Your Mamma walked in, caught a
few snippets of the conversation and said "I want in". Elvis wasn't sure
about bringing an outsider in, but Charlie said "Hey, with groups like ours,
you have to take anyone you can get.", so they invited Osama to have a seat.
Osama then said "Why all this muss and fuss with storms and mind control, I
have idiots who will do anything I tell them to, as long as I promise them
virgins and el-lax". Well, now the planning began in earnest. Elvis asked
"Where do you get people who WILLINGLY kill themselves in an attack which
will only lead to more of them getting killed?" "Abdullah's used camel lot",
said Osama. "Abdullah is great that way, he points out the stupid ones for
me. You know how hard it is to tell a stupid one from the rest? It's an art
form, and Abdullah has it down pat. "Who's Pat", asked Elvis, ever in search
of a piece of ass and all. A few more days of debate, and they had the
details hammered out, and as we all know, Sept. 11, 2001 came.
And this is how the WTC attack was planned and carried out. So, next time
you see Elvis, JFK or a gray alient, do not hesitate to express your
displeasure.
Mickey
>
> "JTEM" <gymr...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:2YOdnRK-Vvt...@comcast.com...
> >
> > Bush Declares Sacrifice of other people's children
> > in Iraq to Be 'Worth It'
>
> he is sending twins to die for Israel!
What does Israel have to do with anything? It wasn't Israel that attacked
the USA on Sept. 11, 2001. It wasn't Israel that was mass-murdering Iraqis,
and it isn't Israel that is at war now. You real are dull, aren't you?
Mickey
news:3s25c19kfovm134dn...@4ax.com...
Ah, that's an easy one. Republicans will chose whoever they think will win.
Better a republican that is more left-leaning than a democrat.
Mickey
Johnny
"loose cannon" <loos...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1120021762....@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Bush Declares Sacrifice in Iraq to Be 'Worth It'
I thought that was Planned Parenthood's motto.
Why are you posting this in the abortion newsgroup?
Somewriter
wrote:
>
>"loose cannon" <loos...@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:1120021762....@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> Bush Declares Sacrifice in Iraq to Be 'Worth It'
>
>I thought that was Planned Parenthood's motto.
No, it's a repug's slogan.
Loose Cannon
MPD pedophile and stalker "J Young" youngo...@aol.com AKA "IBenGetiner
Lapp...@aol.com dressed up in his new sock "loose cannon"
<loos...@aol.com> wrote in message
1120021762....@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Doesn't sound like Mr. Bush plans on bringing our troops home anytime
> soon. Get ready for Jeb in 2008.
Much to your stated glee:
"It's quite obvious to ME that what this country really needs at this
point in time is in fact what we've got... a war. AND a draft. That
would give you girls something realllllly real to worry about, now
wouldn't it...? Sortuv put things in their proper perspectives, now
couldn't it...?
I'm glad it's here. And I hope it comes. Then we sane people will
finally see an end to you tree and bunny huggers. You'll be too busy
a-heading off to Canada to worry about such 'important matters' like
this pitiful sack-of-broken-eggs story above.
You people are a real work, you are. Is this the only thing to come
out of the 60s and all that civil rights crap? Emotional imbalance and
mental illness???" IBen
From: "IBen Getiner" <Lapp...@AOL.com>
Newsgroups: rec.pets.cats.health+behav
Subject: Re: Moving Two Cats at Different Times
Date: 29 Jun 2005 01:02:25 -0700
Message-ID: <1120032145.2...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
I particularly like the part where you refer to yourself as one of the "sane
people". Shows that you have a sense of humor. If nothing else...
LC~ Well, he does have a trailer in the swamp and a 20 year old Honda.
"I have a 1985 Honda Accord. It seems to be using small amounts of
radiator fluid and I can't find out why. It did overheat a few months
ago, but not all the way. No water is in the oil or anything. It uses
about a cup a week. If it were a cracked head gasket, wouldn't it be
getting worse by now? Wouldn't it be performing poorly? It seems to
run great. Any help would be greatly appreciated..."
From: Lapp...@aol.com (IBen Getiner)
Newsgroups: alt.autos.honda
Subject: Accord using fluid
Date: 16 Feb 2005 20:34:01 -0800
Message-ID: <396a5984.05021...@posting.google.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 64.12.116.132
Bill Baker
in message news:<E4mdneZjk62...@comcast.com>...
Yeah, that's why John McCain won the 2000 Republican primary.
--
Lurlean Lie #9:
Sodomy is more important to you than anything else.
news:7908c278.03110...@posting.google.com
Jenn
"Mickey" <mic...@comcast.net> wrote:
I agree; but the Right will never allow his nomination.
magilla
Well then, I might send the Religious Right a "thank you" note.
Speaking as a New Yorker, it disgusts me how Ghouliani has parlayed
9/11 into a career. And it perplexes me that so many people can think
he's so wonderful when his claim to fame is that, for 6 weeks of his
tenure as mayor of New York, he wasn't a prick.
Chris
aa2186
Bill
You seem unaware that the ONLY country "potentially" threated by Iraq was
Israel and that NON - NADA of
of Iraq's neighbors considered Iraq a sufficient threat to join us in our
war with Iraq - not even Israel.
>
Guenter Scholz
>> > in Iraq to Be 'Worth It'
>>
>> he is sending twins to die for Israel!
>
>What does Israel have to do with anything? It wasn't Israel that attacked
>the USA on Sept. 11, 2001. It wasn't Israel that was mass-murdering Iraqis,
>and it isn't Israel that is at war now. You real are dull, aren't you?
>
etc etc... of course there are the close US oil associates, the Saudis...
I hear human rights aren't particularly great there either.
hmmmm
Mickey
news:1120060628.8...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Yeah... and of course, minor things like cleaning up Times Square (exit the
bevy of porno shops) and reducing the crime rate, hiring cops, etc.
Mickey
news:rwAwe.3205$qm....@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
Yeah, I guess you're right. So what if he invaded 3 of his neighbors in the
prior 20 years, what threat would that construe?
Sheesh.
Pr0r3p
Johnny wrote:
> "loose cannon" <loos...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:1120021762....@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > Bush Declares Sacrifice in Iraq to Be 'Worth It'
>
> I thought that was Planned Parenthood's motto.
This is just more evidence that Johnny's idea of "thinking" means he
just shit his pants and decided to throw it in a newsgroup rather than
flush it.
Andrealphus
Okay, you first. I'll be right there in a minute...
Mickey
news:x8Fwe.13728$pa3....@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
LMAO!!!!!!!
Bill Baker
in message news:<1dydnazI1bZ...@comcast.com>...
>> > Better a republican that is more left-leaning than a democrat.
>>
>> Yeah, that's why John McCain won the 2000 Republican primary.
>
> Huh? It wasn't a choice between McCain and a democrat, it was a choice
> between McCain and Bush, as the shrub eventually "won" the election.
Well, duh. Since when have the Republicans ever chosen a Democrat to run?
--
Lurlean Lie #41:
"Straight people signs the queer agenda too a lot of the time."
news:1110439734....@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com
Mickey
news:d9uk86$bcf$1...@rumours.uwaterloo.ca...
Yeah, the Saudi royal family really has to go, the problem is that to remove
them is to invite Islamic extremeists into power.
Mickey
> On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 08:51:58 -0400, "Mickey" <mic...@comcast.net> wrote
> in message news:<E4mdneZjk62...@comcast.com>...
>
> > "Sonewriter" <sappy...@poetic.com> wrote in message
> > news:3s25c19kfovm134dn...@4ax.com...
> >> On 28 Jun 2005 22:15:53 -0700, "osprey" <noneed...@mail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> [...]
> >>
> >> >I don't think Jeb will run personally. I look for a Guilliani...
> >>
> >> Rudi Guiliani supports gay and lesbian rights, racial justice and
> >> supports for the accessibility of higher education to all. These are
> >> things some more radical republicans don't favor, so how is it the
> >> radicalism in the party going to support a progressive individual?
> >
> > Ah, that's an easy one. Republicans will chose whoever they think will
win.
> > Better a republican that is more left-leaning than a democrat.
>
> Yeah, that's why John McCain won the 2000 Republican primary.
Huh? It wasn't a choice between McCain and a democrat, it was a choice
between McCain and Bush, as the shrub eventually "won" the election.
Mickey
The Chief Instigator
:"loose cannon" <loos...@aol.com> wrote in message
:news:1120021762....@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
:> Bush Declares Sacrifice in Iraq to Be 'Worth It'
:I thought that was Planned Parenthood's motto.
You think you're an authority on legal matters, too.
:Why are you posting this in the abortion newsgroup?
Why are you too stupid and/or insane to edit the newsgroups you post to?
--
Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (pat...@io.com) Houston, Texas
chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (soon to be TCI's 2005-06 Houston Aeros)
LAST GAME: Chicago 5, Houston 3 (April 26)
NEXT GAME: Date/opponent/site TBA in August 2005
Mickey
> On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 13:28:29 -0400, "Mickey" <mic...@comcast.net> wrote
> in message news:<1dydnazI1bZ...@comcast.com>...
>
> >> > Better a republican that is more left-leaning than a democrat.
> >>
> >> Yeah, that's why John McCain won the 2000 Republican primary.
> >
> > Huh? It wasn't a choice between McCain and a democrat, it was a choice
> > between McCain and Bush, as the shrub eventually "won" the election.
>
> Well, duh. Since when have the Republicans ever chosen a Democrat to run?
Exactly, they select the candidate most likely to win. They do this MUCH
better than the Democrats do. What's the old saying "I belong to no
organized political party, I am a Democrat"?
nJb
> "Bill Baker" <wba...@postini.spamcon.org> wrote in message
> news:1120026190.6...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>
>>osprey wrote:
>>
>>>loose cannon wrote:
>>>
>>>>Doesn't sound like Mr. Bush plans on bringing our troops home anytime
>>>>soon. Get ready for Jeb in 2008.
>>>
>>>Approximately 1 in 8 American's think that Bush should bring the troops
>>>home before the job is finished.
>>>Regardless whether you think the war in Iraq was right or wrong, 7 out
>>>of 8 Americans think we should finish the job and stablize the area. I
>>>think most Americans are willing to support staying there until it's
>>>finished so we don't have to go back again.
>>
>>While I agree that we should stay and finish the job, I worry about how
>>long it will take and what the cost will be.
>
>
> NO MATTER HOW MUCH IT COSTS, WE SHOULD ALL BE READY TO DIE FOR ISRAEL!
>
>
$10 million per day isn't enough? We have to die too?
--
Jack
Plonked by Native American
bobo1148atxmissiondotcom
Mickey
news:d9vr62$n76$2...@news.xmission.com...
> El Conquistador wrote:
>
> > "Bill Baker" <wba...@postini.spamcon.org> wrote in message
> > news:1120026190.6...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> >
> >>osprey wrote:
> >>
> >>>loose cannon wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>Doesn't sound like Mr. Bush plans on bringing our troops home anytime
> >>>>soon. Get ready for Jeb in 2008.
> >>>
> >>>Approximately 1 in 8 American's think that Bush should bring the troops
> >>>home before the job is finished.
> >>>Regardless whether you think the war in Iraq was right or wrong, 7 out
> >>>of 8 Americans think we should finish the job and stablize the area. I
> >>>think most Americans are willing to support staying there until it's
> >>>finished so we don't have to go back again.
> >>
> >>While I agree that we should stay and finish the job, I worry about how
> >>long it will take and what the cost will be.
> >
> >
> > NO MATTER HOW MUCH IT COSTS, WE SHOULD ALL BE READY TO DIE FOR ISRAEL!
> >
> >
>
> $10 million per day isn't enough? We have to die too?
Nah, just Alex. Then again, he's going to die soon in any case.
Ray Fischer
>"Bill Baker" <wba...@postini.spamcon.org> wrote in message
>news:pan.2005.06.30....@postini.spamcon.org...
>> On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 13:28:29 -0400, "Mickey" <mic...@comcast.net> wrote
>> in message news:<1dydnazI1bZ...@comcast.com>...
>>
>> >> > Better a republican that is more left-leaning than a democrat.
>> >>
>> >> Yeah, that's why John McCain won the 2000 Republican primary.
>> >
>> > Huh? It wasn't a choice between McCain and a democrat, it was a choice
>> > between McCain and Bush, as the shrub eventually "won" the election.
>>
>> Well, duh. Since when have the Republicans ever chosen a Democrat to run?
>
>Exactly, they select the candidate most likely to win. They do this MUCH
>better than the Democrats do.
No, they're just a lot less moral and far better liars.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Martin Joseph
Actually Iraq was no threat to anyone, other then the poor Iraqi's who
suffered horribly at Saddam's hands (some of them that is).
The Iraqi military had already been repeatedly decimated and they had
effectively been blocked from getting new/better weapons or even parts.
They were in fact incredibly weak, that was why Bush got to celebrate
his "mission accomplished" so quickly. What a dick.
Marty
Bill Baker
> "Bill Baker" <wba...@postini.spamcon.org> wrote in message
> news:pan.2005.06.30....@postini.spamcon.org...
> > On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 13:28:29 -0400, "Mickey" <mic...@comcast.net> wrote
> > in message news:<1dydnazI1bZ...@comcast.com>...
> >
> > >> > Better a republican that is more left-leaning than a democrat.
> > >>
> > >> Yeah, that's why John McCain won the 2000 Republican primary.
> > >
> > > Huh? It wasn't a choice between McCain and a democrat, it was a choice
> > > between McCain and Bush, as the shrub eventually "won" the election.
> >
> > Well, duh. Since when have the Republicans ever chosen a Democrat to run?
>
> Exactly, they select the candidate most likely to win.
Which is usually not "a republican that is more left-leaning".
> They do this MUCH better than the Democrats do.
You mean like when the Democrats chose Bill Clinton? Or John Kerry
(who came the closest to beating a wartime president out of all
challengers in U.S. history)?
> What's the old saying "I belong to no organized political party, I am a
> Democrat"?
Sounds like a saying that was made up by a Republican.
Mickey
> Mickey wrote:
> > "Bill Baker" <wba...@postini.spamcon.org> wrote in message
> > news:pan.2005.06.30....@postini.spamcon.org...
> > > On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 13:28:29 -0400, "Mickey" <mic...@comcast.net>
wrote
> > > in message news:<1dydnazI1bZ...@comcast.com>...
> > >
> > > >> > Better a republican that is more left-leaning than a democrat.
> > > >>
> > > >> Yeah, that's why John McCain won the 2000 Republican primary.
> > > >
> > > > Huh? It wasn't a choice between McCain and a democrat, it was a
choice
> > > > between McCain and Bush, as the shrub eventually "won" the election.
> > >
> > > Well, duh. Since when have the Republicans ever chosen a Democrat to
run?
> >
> > Exactly, they select the candidate most likely to win.
>
> Which is usually not "a republican that is more left-leaning".
Agreed. However, Rudy is a different story, as he has a very high "hero"
factor in the eyes of many Americans.
>
> > They do this MUCH better than the Democrats do.
>
> You mean like when the Democrats chose Bill Clinton? Or John Kerry
> (who came the closest to beating a wartime president out of all
> challengers in U.S. history)?
Clinton was a great choice, he is the ultimate political animal. Kerry,
otoh, came with so much baggage, and was SO far to the left, he was almost
unelectable.
>
> > What's the old saying "I belong to no organized political party, I am a
> > Democrat"?
>
> Sounds like a saying that was made up by a Republican.
Actually, a democrat.
Mickey
Bill Baker
in message news:<toqdnX8Rwti...@comcast.com>...
> "Bill Baker" <wba...@postini.spamcon.org> wrote in message
> news:1120117299....@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> Mickey wrote:
>> > "Bill Baker" <wba...@postini.spamcon.org> wrote in message
>> > news:pan.2005.06.30....@postini.spamcon.org...
>> > > On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 13:28:29 -0400, "Mickey" <mic...@comcast.net>
>> > > wrote in message news:<1dydnazI1bZ...@comcast.com>...
>> > >
>> > > >> > Better a republican that is more left-leaning than a democrat.
>> > > >>
>> > > >> Yeah, that's why John McCain won the 2000 Republican primary.
>> > > >
>> > > > Huh? It wasn't a choice between McCain and a democrat, it was a
>> > > > choice between McCain and Bush, as the shrub eventually "won" the
>> > > > election.
>> > >
>> > > Well, duh. Since when have the Republicans ever chosen a Democrat
>> > > to run?
>> >
>> > Exactly, they select the candidate most likely to win.
>>
>> Which is usually not "a republican that is more left-leaning".
>
> Agreed. However, Rudy is a different story, as he has a very high "hero"
> factor in the eyes of many Americans.
Possibly, but there is still his support of abortion and gay rights which
would cancel out any hero factor in the eyes of many right-wingers.
>> > They do this MUCH better than the Democrats do.
>>
>> You mean like when the Democrats chose Bill Clinton? Or John Kerry
>> (who came the closest to beating a wartime president out of all
>> challengers in U.S. history)?
>
> Clinton was a great choice, he is the ultimate political animal. Kerry,
> otoh, came with so much baggage, and was SO far to the left, he was almost
> unelectable.
He was not far to the left, that is one of the Republican lies trotted out
during an election in an attempt to discredit him. And he was far from
unelectable. He got a higher percentage of the votes than Clinton ever
did.
>> > What's the old saying "I belong to no organized political party, I am a
>> > Democrat"?
>>
>> Sounds like a saying that was made up by a Republican.
>
> Actually, a democrat.
Which one, Zell Miller?
--
Lurlean Lie #26:
"This refers to Curtsybear's claim"
news:1dcee589.04082...@posting.google.com
Mickey
news:pan.2005.06.30....@postini.spamcon.org...
> On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 08:10:24 -0400, "Mickey" <mic...@comcast.net> wrote
> in message news:<toqdnX8Rwti...@comcast.com>...
>
> > "Bill Baker" <wba...@postini.spamcon.org> wrote in message
> > news:1120117299....@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >> Mickey wrote:
> >> > "Bill Baker" <wba...@postini.spamcon.org> wrote in message
> >> > news:pan.2005.06.30....@postini.spamcon.org...
> >> > > On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 13:28:29 -0400, "Mickey" <mic...@comcast.net>
> >> > > wrote in message news:<1dydnazI1bZ...@comcast.com>...
> >> > >
> >> > > >> > Better a republican that is more left-leaning than a democrat.
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >> Yeah, that's why John McCain won the 2000 Republican primary.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Huh? It wasn't a choice between McCain and a democrat, it was a
> >> > > > choice between McCain and Bush, as the shrub eventually "won" the
> >> > > > election.
> >> > >
> >> > > Well, duh. Since when have the Republicans ever chosen a Democrat
> >> > > to run?
> >> >
> >> > Exactly, they select the candidate most likely to win.
> >>
> >> Which is usually not "a republican that is more left-leaning".
> >
> > Agreed. However, Rudy is a different story, as he has a very high "hero"
> > factor in the eyes of many Americans.
>
> Possibly, but there is still his support of abortion and gay rights which
> would cancel out any hero factor in the eyes of many right-wingers.
Many, but he'd make it up with votes from Democrats.
>
> >> > They do this MUCH better than the Democrats do.
> >>
> >> You mean like when the Democrats chose Bill Clinton? Or John Kerry
> >> (who came the closest to beating a wartime president out of all
> >> challengers in U.S. history)?
> >
> > Clinton was a great choice, he is the ultimate political animal. Kerry,
> > otoh, came with so much baggage, and was SO far to the left, he was almo
st
> > unelectable.
>
> He was not far to the left, that is one of the Republican lies trotted out
> during an election in an attempt to discredit him. And he was far from
> unelectable. He got a higher percentage of the votes than Clinton ever
> did.
No, Clinton was a centrist. As to the higher percentage, Kerry ran in a 2
man race, Clinton in a 3 man race. Hardly a fiar comparison.
>
> >> > What's the old saying "I belong to no organized political party, I am
a
> >> > Democrat"?
> >>
> >> Sounds like a saying that was made up by a Republican.
> >
> > Actually, a democrat.
>
> Which one, Zell Miller?
Nope, Will Rogers.
Mickey
JTEM
"Mickey" <mic...@comcast.net> wrote
> Yeah, the Saudi royal family really has to go, the
> problem is that to remove them is to invite
> Islamic extremeists into power.
Isn't that what Bush wants? And, if not, why the mess
in Iraq?
Mickey
>
> "Mickey" <mic...@comcast.net> wrote
>
> > Yeah, the Saudi royal family really has to go, the
> > problem is that to remove them is to invite
> > Islamic extremeists into power.
>
> Isn't that what Bush wants?
Of course not.
> And, if not, why the mess in Iraq?
Because Saddam was a butcher who accounted for the deaths of 2 million, and
who invaded THREE of his neighbors.
JTEM
"Mickey" <mic...@comcast.net> wrote
> Because Saddam was a butcher who accounted for
> the deaths of 2 million, and who invaded THREE
> of his neighbors.
Ignoring the fact that Saddam doesn't rank in the top
ten of the world's worst butchers...
Actually, he only invaded two of his neighbors. The
first time the U.S. openly aided him, the second time
Bush senior gave the green light to the invasion in
advance.
Adam H.
wrote:
And THAT reason was so compelling that Bush had to make up a few other
reasons to invade instead. Take a break, Mickey. We all remember what
was really said.
JTEM
"Adam H." <ad...@mailinator.com> wrote
> And THAT reason was so compelling that Bush
> had to make up a few other reasons to invade
> instead.
Seriously. The mafia fell back on that reason after all
the others collapsed on them.
magilla
>
> Yeah, the Saudi royal family really has to go, the problem is that to remove
> them is to invite Islamic extremeists into power.
Um. Which Saudi Royal Family are you talking about? There must be more
than one, since the one I know about is already a bunch of Islamic
extremists. The Saudi Royal Family I know about recently had an
"election" and banned half the adult population from voting. That's
"extremist" in my book.
Chris
Bill Baker
in message news:<x_OdnbkCs4w...@comcast.com>...
Well, I'd probably vote for him. But the fact that many Democrats would
vote for him would probably make the extreme right-wingers not want him
even more.
>> >> > They do this MUCH better than the Democrats do.
>> >>
>> >> You mean like when the Democrats chose Bill Clinton? Or John Kerry
>> >> (who came the closest to beating a wartime president out of all
>> >> challengers in U.S. history)?
>> >
>> > Clinton was a great choice, he is the ultimate political animal.
>> > Kerry, otoh, came with so much baggage, and was SO far to the left, he
>> > was almost unelectable.
>>
>> He was not far to the left, that is one of the Republican lies trotted
>> out during an election in an attempt to discredit him. And he was far
>> from unelectable. He got a higher percentage of the votes than Clinton
>> ever did.
>
> No, Clinton was a centrist.
Never said he wasn't.
> As to the higher percentage, Kerry ran in a 2 man race, Clinton in a 3
> man race. Hardly a fiar comparison.
Perot took a negligible amount of votes away from both candidates. Even
factoring in the people who voted for Perot and assuming they would have
voted for Clinton, Kerry still got a higher percentage.
>> >> > What's the old saying "I belong to no organized political party, I
>> >> > am a Democrat"?
>> >>
>> >> Sounds like a saying that was made up by a Republican.
>> >
>> > Actually, a democrat.
>>
>> Which one, Zell Miller?
>
> Nope, Will Rogers.
Ah, you mean the same person who said, "I don't want to lay the blame on
the Republicans for the Depression. They're not smart enough to think up
all those things that have happened."
--
Funny Sister Lurlean quote #173:
"But I don't hate nobody you faggot!" --Lurlean causes everyone's irony meter
to simultaneously explode.
JTEM
"magilla" <chris.li...@gmail.com> wrote
> Um. Which Saudi Royal Family are you talking about?
> There must be more than one, since the one I know
> about is already a bunch of Islamic extremists.
Yes, the new "Democratic Monarchy" of Saudi Arabia,
where everybody who is king is free to vote...
Jenn
Bill Baker <wba...@postini.spamcon.org> wrote:
With his stated views, the Right will never let him win the nomination.
Can you imaging Farwell, Robertson, et al allowing that to happen? No
way.
Bill Baker
in message
news:<jennconducts-C942...@newssvr21-ext.news.prodigy.com>...
Exactly my point. The Dems like him, so he must be eeeeeevil! LOL!
--
Thurgood Lie #3:
"Bill Baker is a coprophiliac."
news:1108447889.3...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com
Mickey
That's where I disagree. They will run him out of sheer fear that if they
don't, the Democrats will run him :)
Mickey
Mickey
Which could only be a GOOD thing.
>
> >> >> > They do this MUCH better than the Democrats do.
> >> >>
> >> >> You mean like when the Democrats chose Bill Clinton? Or John Kerry
> >> >> (who came the closest to beating a wartime president out of all
> >> >> challengers in U.S. history)?
> >> >
> >> > Clinton was a great choice, he is the ultimate political animal.
> >> > Kerry, otoh, came with so much baggage, and was SO far to the left,
he
> >> > was almost unelectable.
> >>
> >> He was not far to the left, that is one of the Republican lies trotted
> >> out during an election in an attempt to discredit him. And he was far
> >> from unelectable. He got a higher percentage of the votes than Clinton
> >> ever did.
> >
> > No, Clinton was a centrist.
>
> Never said he wasn't.
>
> > As to the higher percentage, Kerry ran in a 2 man race, Clinton in a 3
> > man race. Hardly a fiar comparison.
>
> Perot took a negligible amount of votes away from both candidates. Even
> factoring in the people who voted for Perot and assuming they would have
> voted for Clinton, Kerry still got a higher percentage.
Hi there :) If you think 19% is negligible, I'd like you to open a bank so I
can deposit some money :)
>
> >> >> > What's the old saying "I belong to no organized political party, I
> >> >> > am a Democrat"?
> >> >>
> >> >> Sounds like a saying that was made up by a Republican.
> >> >
> >> > Actually, a democrat.
> >>
> >> Which one, Zell Miller?
> >
> > Nope, Will Rogers.
>
> Ah, you mean the same person who said, "I don't want to lay the blame on
> the Republicans for the Depression. They're not smart enough to think up
> all those things that have happened."
That's the one :)
Mickey
Mickey
news:ght7c1529p7isaodd...@4ax.com...
Again I will repeat for the hearing impaired. The right action, for the
wrong reasons, is still right.
Mickey
news:1120139010.8...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
Fair enough. In any case, they really need to be dealt with.
Mickey
Mickey
>
> "Mickey" <mic...@comcast.net> wrote
>
> > Because Saddam was a butcher who accounted for
> > the deaths of 2 million, and who invaded THREE
> > of his neighbors.
>
> Ignoring the fact that Saddam doesn't rank in the top
> ten of the world's worst butchers...
But the rest are dead.
>
> Actually, he only invaded two of his neighbors. The
> first time the U.S. openly aided him, the second time
> Bush senior gave the green light to the invasion in
> advance.
No, 3. Iran, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia.
Mickey
Bill Baker
in message news:<nZqdneDLF9W...@comcast.com>...
Agreed, but that also means that it will be a cold day in hell before
Giuliani ever gets the Republican nomination.
>> >> >> > They do this MUCH better than the Democrats do.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> You mean like when the Democrats chose Bill Clinton? Or John
>> >> >> Kerry (who came the closest to beating a wartime president out of
>> >> >> all challengers in U.S. history)?
>> >> >
>> >> > Clinton was a great choice, he is the ultimate political animal.
>> >> > Kerry, otoh, came with so much baggage, and was SO far to the
>> >> > left, he was almost unelectable.
>> >>
>> >> He was not far to the left, that is one of the Republican lies
>> >> trotted out during an election in an attempt to discredit him. And
>> >> he was far from unelectable. He got a higher percentage of the
>> >> votes than Clinton ever did.
>> >
>> > No, Clinton was a centrist.
>>
>> Never said he wasn't.
>>
>> > As to the higher percentage, Kerry ran in a 2 man race, Clinton in a
>> > 3 man race. Hardly a fiar comparison.
>>
>> Perot took a negligible amount of votes away from both candidates.
>> Even factoring in the people who voted for Perot and assuming they
>> would have voted for Clinton, Kerry still got a higher percentage.
>
> Hi there :) If you think 19% is negligible, I'd like you to open a bank
> so I can deposit some money :)
You got me there. I was going by memory, and I guess it's not as reliable
as I thought. :-)
How about this: Kerry got a larger percentage of the votes than Bush did
in 2000, and a higher percentage of votes of any challenger of a wartime
president.
>> >> >> > What's the old saying "I belong to no organized political
>> >> >> > party, I am a Democrat"?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Sounds like a saying that was made up by a Republican.
>> >> >
>> >> > Actually, a democrat.
>> >>
>> >> Which one, Zell Miller?
>> >
>> > Nope, Will Rogers.
>>
>> Ah, you mean the same person who said, "I don't want to lay the blame
>> on the Republicans for the Depression. They're not smart enough to
>> think up all those things that have happened."
>
> That's the one :)
So it sounds like he didn't have much respect for either party.
--
Lurlean Lie #10:
I'm sure old Curt-See-Bare (deep throats) all the time.
news:7908c278.03101...@posting.google.com
Bill Baker
in message news:<SOudnWRSVIL...@comcast.com>...
I hope so, but I think you're dreaming. Most likely, the Republicans will
put up another Bush clone and back him up with Karl Rove.
--
Thurgood Lie #6:
"...you used to swap dirty e-mails with her (Bernadette)."
news:1119937383....@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
Mickey
I'm not so sure of that.
Now I'm confused. Kerry ran in 2004, and got a lower % of the vote. Gore ran
in 2000, and got a higher %, but wasn't the challenger.
>
> >> >> >> > What's the old saying "I belong to no organized political
> >> >> >> > party, I am a Democrat"?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Sounds like a saying that was made up by a Republican.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Actually, a democrat.
> >> >>
> >> >> Which one, Zell Miller?
> >> >
> >> > Nope, Will Rogers.
> >>
> >> Ah, you mean the same person who said, "I don't want to lay the blame
> >> on the Republicans for the Depression. They're not smart enough to
> >> think up all those things that have happened."
> >
> > That's the one :)
>
> So it sounds like he didn't have much respect for either party.
No, he was a staunch Democrat, he just knew they aren't as well organized as
the Republicans.
Mickey
Bill Baker
in message news:<LfKdnRxLU_J...@comcast.com>...
Optimism can be a good thing.
My point was that Kerry was far from unelectable.
>> >> >> >> > What's the old saying "I belong to no organized political
>> >> >> >> > party, I am a Democrat"?
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Sounds like a saying that was made up by a Republican.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Actually, a democrat.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Which one, Zell Miller?
>> >> >
>> >> > Nope, Will Rogers.
>> >>
>> >> Ah, you mean the same person who said, "I don't want to lay the
>> >> blame on the Republicans for the Depression. They're not smart
>> >> enough to think up all those things that have happened."
>> >
>> > That's the one :)
>>
>> So it sounds like he didn't have much respect for either party.
>
> No, he was a staunch Democrat, he just knew they aren't as well
> organized as the Republicans.
In other words, he saw the Republicans as the Mafia of politics? :-)
--
Funny Lurlean quote #20:
"You got to come to our Church and pay your tithes. Then you'll see the Finger
of God!" --Lurlean offers viewings of the only picture of God stuck in rush
hour traffic.
Mickey
> On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 12:59:20 -0400, "Mickey" <mic...@comcast.net> wrote
> in message news:<LfKdnRxLU_J...@comcast.com>...
>
> >>
> >> Giuliani ever gets the Republican nomination.
> >
> > I'm not so sure of that.
>
> Optimism can be a good thing.
Except at the poker table.
>
> >> >> > As to the higher percentage, Kerry ran in a 2 man race, Clinton in
> >> >> > a 3 man race. Hardly a fiar comparison.
> >> >>
> >> >> Perot took a negligible amount of votes away from both candidates.
> >> >> Even factoring in the people who voted for Perot and assuming they
> >> >> would have voted for Clinton, Kerry still got a higher percentage.
> >> >
> >> > Hi there :) If you think 19% is negligible, I'd like you to open a
> >> > bank so I can deposit some money :)
> >>
> >> You got me there. I was going by memory, and I guess it's not as
> >> reliable as I thought. :-)
> >>
> >> How about this: Kerry got a larger percentage of the votes than Bush
> >> did in 2000, and a higher percentage of votes of any challenger of a
> >> wartime president.
> >
> > Now I'm confused. Kerry ran in 2004, and got a lower % of the vote. Gore
> > ran in 2000, and got a higher %, but wasn't the challenger.
>
> My point was that Kerry was far from unelectable.
I thnk he was. The fact that he got SO many votes, and still wasn't really
close says a lot. I thnk the religious right was far too well organized this
time around, Bush was their poster child.
>
> >> >> >> >> > What's the old saying "I belong to no organized political
> >> >> >> >> > party, I am a Democrat"?
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> Sounds like a saying that was made up by a Republican.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > Actually, a democrat.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Which one, Zell Miller?
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Nope, Will Rogers.
> >> >>
> >> >> Ah, you mean the same person who said, "I don't want to lay the
> >> >> blame on the Republicans for the Depression. They're not smart
> >> >> enough to think up all those things that have happened."
> >> >
> >> > That's the one :)
> >>
> >> So it sounds like he didn't have much respect for either party.
> >
> > No, he was a staunch Democrat, he just knew they aren't as well
> > organized as the Republicans.
>
> In other words, he saw the Republicans as the Mafia of politics? :-)
More or less, yes.
Mickey
Adam H.
wrote:
But that cannot be used to excuse the deceptions that occurred on the
way. If the action was right to begin with then it should have been
able to stand on its own merits instead of having to be supported by
deception.
Andrealphus
Exactly! At least give the U.S. public the right to decide for themselves
whether or not it is, "The right action." The ends does not always justify
the means, particularly when the means is based on deceit.
Bill Baker
in message news:<XuKdnUxRtYd...@comcast.com>...
> "Bill Baker" <wba...@postini.spamcon.org> wrote in message
> news:pan.2005.06.30...@postini.spamcon.org...
>> On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 12:59:20 -0400, "Mickey" <mic...@comcast.net> wrote
>> in message news:<LfKdnRxLU_J...@comcast.com>...
>>
>>
>> >> Agreed, but that also means that it will be a cold day in hell before
>> >> Giuliani ever gets the Republican nomination.
>> >
>> > I'm not so sure of that.
>>
>> Optimism can be a good thing.
>
> Except at the poker table.
True. :-)
>> >> >> > As to the higher percentage, Kerry ran in a 2 man race, Clinton
>> >> >> > in a 3 man race. Hardly a fiar comparison.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Perot took a negligible amount of votes away from both candidates.
>> >> >> Even factoring in the people who voted for Perot and assuming they
>> >> >> would have voted for Clinton, Kerry still got a higher percentage.
>> >> >
>> >> > Hi there :) If you think 19% is negligible, I'd like you to open a
>> >> > bank so I can deposit some money :)
>> >>
>> >> You got me there. I was going by memory, and I guess it's not as
>> >> reliable as I thought. :-)
>> >>
>> >> How about this: Kerry got a larger percentage of the votes than Bush
>> >> did in 2000, and a higher percentage of votes of any challenger of a
>> >> wartime president.
>> >
>> > Now I'm confused. Kerry ran in 2004, and got a lower % of the vote.
>> > Gore ran in 2000, and got a higher %, but wasn't the challenger.
>>
>> My point was that Kerry was far from unelectable.
>
> I thnk he was. The fact that he got SO many votes, and still wasn't
> really
> close says a lot. I thnk the religious right was far too well organized
> this time around, Bush was their poster child.
But he *was* really close. He only lost by 3 million votes, the smallest
margin of victory for a sitting president since Truman defeated Dewey. In
terms of percentage, Bush won by the smallest margin of victory in U.S.
history. That says a lot, considering wartime presidents never lose an
election, and usually win it by a much wider margin.
>> >> >> >> >> > What's the old saying "I belong to no organized political
>> >> >> >> >> > party, I am a Democrat"?
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> Sounds like a saying that was made up by a Republican.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > Actually, a democrat.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Which one, Zell Miller?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Nope, Will Rogers.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Ah, you mean the same person who said, "I don't want to lay the
>> >> >> blame on the Republicans for the Depression. They're not smart
>> >> >> enough to think up all those things that have happened."
>> >> >
>> >> > That's the one :)
>> >>
>> >> So it sounds like he didn't have much respect for either party.
>> >
>> > No, he was a staunch Democrat, he just knew they aren't as well
>> > organized as the Republicans.
>>
>> In other words, he saw the Republicans as the Mafia of politics? :-)
>
> More or less, yes.
>
> Mickey
--
Funny Lurlean quote #47:
But the floodgates are open, and the TIDE is rolling in and drowning the whole
country in bean dip. --Lurlean warns about the evils of nachos.
Ray Fischer
>> > They do this MUCH better than the Democrats do.
>>
>> You mean like when the Democrats chose Bill Clinton? Or John Kerry
>> (who came the closest to beating a wartime president out of all
>> challengers in U.S. history)?
>
>Clinton was a great choice, he is the ultimate political animal. Kerry,
>otoh, came with so much baggage, and was SO far to the left, he was almost
>unelectable.
Kerry?!? Far to the left???
The only reasn anybody would believe that is because Republcians are
shameless liars or irrational extremists.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
>> > Yeah, the Saudi royal family really has to go, the
>> > problem is that to remove them is to invite
>> > Islamic extremeists into power.
>>
>> Isn't that what Bush wants?
>
>Of course not.
>
>> And, if not, why the mess in Iraq?
>
>Because Saddam was a butcher who accounted for the deaths of 2 million, and
>who invaded THREE of his neighbors.
The US is responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands and Bush
has ordered the invasion of two countries for no good reasons.
So why isn't Bush on trial for war crimes?
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
>> > Yeah, the Saudi royal family really has to go, the problem is that to
>remove
>> > them is to invite Islamic extremeists into power.
>>
>> Um. Which Saudi Royal Family are you talking about? There must be more
>> than one, since the one I know about is already a bunch of Islamic
>> extremists. The Saudi Royal Family I know about recently had an
>> "election" and banned half the adult population from voting. That's
>> "extremist" in my book.
>
>Fair enough. In any case, they really need to be dealt with.
Poland, then Belgium, and Austria, and France, and then Britain ...
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Mickey
news:da25e5$p9s$1...@bolt.sonic.net...
Nope, democracies, no need to bother them. Just all the brutal dictatorships
currently oppressing in the middle-east
Mickey
> Mickey <mic...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >"JTEM" <gymr...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >> "Mickey" <mic...@comcast.net> wrote
>
> >> > Yeah, the Saudi royal family really has to go, the
> >> > problem is that to remove them is to invite
> >> > Islamic extremeists into power.
> >>
> >> Isn't that what Bush wants?
> >
> >Of course not.
> >
> >> And, if not, why the mess in Iraq?
> >
> >Because Saddam was a butcher who accounted for the deaths of 2 million,
and
> >who invaded THREE of his neighbors.
>
> The US is responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands and Bush
> has ordered the invasion of two countries for no good reasons.
Two countries for no good reason?
Bye-bye credibility, hello kill file
Mickey
Agreed. Don't get me wrong, I think Bush is an idiot of nearly epic
proportions. I dispise his stance on just about everything, especially his
goose stepping devotion to tax cuts for the rich. The ONLY topic I agree
with him on is his stance against terrorists and his move to remove the
Butcher of Baghdad.
Mickey
Ray Fischer
Estimate 100,000 people killed because of Bush and his lies.
The double-standard of the neocon.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
Polly want a cracker?
>Bye-bye credibility, hello kill file
Run away, lapdog.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
Not too smart, are you?
> Just all the brutal dictatorships
>currently oppressing in the middle-east
Kill millions of people that you don't like.
Been there, done that. Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, Idi Amin, Mao.
They all had really good reasons why millions of people should die.
Just like you.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Boed...@isp.com
Johnny wrote:
> "loose cannon" <loos...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:1120021762....@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > Bush Declares Sacrifice in Iraq to Be 'Worth It'
>
> I thought that was Planned Parenthood's motto.
> Why are you posting this in the abortion newsgroup?
Baby killers have their own newsgroup?? What do they discuss,
the best way to kill one who is born alive?
How about strangling them as one "doctor" did? How about
a lethal injection? How about just leave them on a gurney to die
from lack of care? Drowning in a sink? The list is
endless. Of course the best way is to stick a pair of
scissors in the brain as it emerges from the womb as these
"doctors" do in what they laughingly refer to as "late
term" abortions.
In the name of God what have we become when even the
innocent unborn can be put to death because some low
class tart is too lazy to raise her own flesh and blood.
Father forgive.
ריעין ברתון‎/Riain Barton‎
Afghanistan he had a reason.
"Ray Fischer" <rfis...@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
news:da25bv$p8l$1...@bolt.sonic.net...
:
ריעין ברתון‎/Riain Barton‎
Poland, Belgium, Austria, France, and Britain are in anyway whatsoever
similar to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia???????????????
You have some serious issues, beginning with no concept of reality, and
that is coming from a Liberal-Democrat!
"Ray Fischer" <rfis...@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
news:da25e5$p9s$1...@bolt.sonic.net...
:
ריעין ברתון‎/Riain Barton‎
Get off your fucking high-horse!
"Ray Fischer" <rfis...@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
news:da2hio$6bl$1...@bolt.sonic.net...
:
Ray Fischer
>He ordered the invasion of one country for no good reason, not two,
>Afghanistan he had a reason.
He didn't want to provide the Afgan government with evidence that
bin Laden was behind 9/11.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
>Poland, Belgium, Austria, France, and Britain are in anyway whatsoever
>similar to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia???????????????
Nope.
>You have some serious issues, beginning with no concept of reality, and
>that is coming from a Liberal-Democrat!
Anyone with any familiarity with history and invasions should
recognize that list of countries.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Bill Baker
> "Bill Baker" <wba...@postini.spamcon.org> wrote in message
> news:pan.2005.07.01....@postini.spamcon.org...
> > On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 13:33:17 -0400, "Mickey" <mic...@comcast.net> wrote
> > in message news:<XuKdnUxRtYd...@comcast.com>...
> >
> > > "Bill Baker" <wba...@postini.spamcon.org> wrote in message
> > > news:pan.2005.06.30...@postini.spamcon.org...
> > >> On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 12:59:20 -0400, "Mickey" <mic...@comcast.net>
> > >> wrote in message news:<LfKdnRxLU_J...@comcast.com>...
> > >
> > > really
> > > close says a lot. I thnk the religious right was far too well organized
> > > this time around, Bush was their poster child.
> >
> > But he *was* really close. He only lost by 3 million votes, the smallest
> > margin of victory for a sitting president since Truman defeated Dewey. In
> > terms of percentage, Bush won by the smallest margin of victory in U.S.
> > history. That says a lot, considering wartime presidents never lose an
> > election, and usually win it by a much wider margin.
>
> Agreed. Don't get me wrong, I think Bush is an idiot of nearly epic
> proportions. I dispise his stance on just about everything, especially his
> goose stepping devotion to tax cuts for the rich. The ONLY topic I agree
> with him on is his stance against terrorists and his move to remove the
> Butcher of Baghdad.
Well, I think we had no business being in Iraq, and that Bush dropped
the ball on the terrorists. Don't get me wrong, I'm glad that Saddam
is no longer in power, I just think we went about it the wrong way and
that Iraq may pay dearly for our mistake.
ריעין ברתון‎/Riain Barton‎
NOT CURRENT BEHAVIOUR!!!!!!!!
Good fucking grief!
"Ray Fischer" <rfis...@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
news:da2pvm$ga6$1...@bolt.sonic.net...
:
JTEM
"Mickey" <mic...@comcast.net> wrote
> > Actually, he only invaded two of his neighbors. The
> > first time the U.S. openly aided him, the second time
> > Bush senior gave the green light to the invasion in
> > advance.
> No, 3. Iran, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia.
He invaded Iran with U.S. help (thought the Republicans
were also helping Iran), and Bush senior gave the green
light to the invasion of Kuwait in advance. The supposed
"invasion" of Saudi Arabia was an attack meant to screw
up U.S. plans for our invasion of Iraq.
osprey
This is just my personal opinion on Iraq.
Did I believe Saddam had WMD? Yes
Do I think it possible he had them or was working towards getting them?
Yes, I do.
I base this on Saddam's history of using WMD and his many lies. I also
base this on his actions with kicking out the U.N. and trying to push
the U.S.
I also think it is very possible that if he did have WMD they are
either buried or they are somewhere else like Syria. If that is true,
it raises more concerns. Who has access to them and can they be placed
on the black market and terrorist get a hold of them.
I have feelings on both sides on the war in Iraq. Like you, I am glad
Saddam is not in power. I also question the war as well and wonder if
it is all worth it. I know it's hard to agree, but I think in the long
run we will see that going in was the right thing to do. I also think
it may show that we really didn't have too many options.
I believe that the war goes further than just searching for WMD.
We were given a black eye on 9/11. Our Government knew for years it
was coming, we just didn't know the when, where, how, who, and what.
Our Government, and it goes back years, failed in many ways. I think
one of the biggest blunders was the intelligence problems and lack of
communication between the FBI and the CIA.
After 9/11, Bush knew as well as other leaders that we were at war.
The main problem is not knowing the enemy. Sure we all knew about OBL;
however, OBL is not the only problem. Al Queda was too well organized
and spread out all over the world.
Several times Bush mentioned that we will not fight this war on U.S.
soil.
I think that Iraq was planned long before 9/11 as a staging ground for
the war if we were ever attacked. I think the reasons for going in
were long planned, we just needed the spark to light the fuse. 9/11
provided that spark.
Iraq is center and easily accessible for terrorist to go into. I think
that one of the hidden agenda's of going into Iraq was to get the
terrorist to come to us and we fight them there.
Just my opinion, based on observations and events.
We will never stop terrorism, we can't prevent terrorist from attacking
the U.S.
Right now, my main concern is North Korea, Iran (especially after the
election), and China.
Iraq, we will be there for a while. Right or wrong, I think most
American's agree we got to stay there until the job is done.
Mickey
I don't think there is a painless way to remove a dictator like that. It is
akin gto having a cancerous tumor. You know it will hurt having it removed,
you know that you may take out some living cells along with the tumor, but
you do it because the alternative (leaving it in) is far worse.
Mickey
Mickey
>
> "Mickey" <mic...@comcast.net> wrote
>
> > > Actually, he only invaded two of his neighbors. The
> > > first time the U.S. openly aided him, the second time
> > > Bush senior gave the green light to the invasion in
> > > advance.
>
> > No, 3. Iran, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia.
>
> He invaded Iran with U.S. help (thought the Republicans
> were also helping Iran),
Irrelevant, he invaded Iran, PERIOD.
> and Bush senior gave the green light to the invasion of Kuwait in advance.
Did Elvis help?
> The supposed "invasion" of Saudi Arabia was an attack meant to screw
> up U.S. plans for our invasion of Iraq.
Crossing a sovereign nations borders is an invasion, Hanging quote marks
around it doesn't lessen the fact.
Saddam invaded 3 of his neighbors, he was a rogue dictator, and the world is
a better place for having him in a cell.
Bill Baker
in message news:<7NSdnaT0VJ7...@comcast.com>...
That's true, but where do we draw the line? Are we going to overthrow
every dictator in the world now? What ever happened to letting countries
do it on their own? After all, we (Americans) overthrew a dictator (King
George III) mostly on our own (with some help from France, of course).
--
Funny Sister Lurlean quote #76:
"They just elected a uncut ex Nazi as governor of California. I'm afraid he's
gonna come down here and GROPE me." --Lurlean demonstrates her paranoid
delusions.
Andrealphus
Bill Baker
in message news:<1120207666.6...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>...
Many people did. Myself, I had doubts.
> Do I think it possible he had them or was working towards getting them?
> Yes, I do.
It's possible he may have been working towards getting them, I suppose.
You have many good points as usual, Osprey, but I think we should have
concentrated on arresting the man responsible for 9/11, Osama bin Laden,
first. If Bush had just done that and *then* gone after Saddam, I would
have a lot more respect for him.
tra...@optonline.net
suppose. "
Working toward getting them? There is absolutely no question that he
HAD WMDs. He used them on the Kurds. UN weapons inspectors found them
after the first gulf war and spent a decade playing cat and mouse with
Sadam, trying to enforce his agreement to fully disclose and eliminate
them. Hans Blix on the eve of the war stated that Sadam was still not
being forthcoming in providing required information and cooperation.
There was no question that there was sufficient cause to go to war with
Sadam. Whether it was the best decision or worth it only history will
tell. But, I can tell you one thing. If components of a WMD used
against the US were traced back to Iraq someday, guys like you who carp
at Bush now, would be calling for his impeachment for not protecting
the US against so obvious a threat.
"You have many good points as usual, Osprey, but I think we should have
concentrated on arresting the man responsible for 9/11, Osama bin
Laden,
first. If Bush had just done that and *then* gone after Saddam, I
would
have a lot more respect for him. "
Great idea. I suppose in WWII, we should have gone after Japan first
and ignored Hitler until we were done there. With all the resources
of the US, you think we can't do two things at a time, one of which is
hunt down a single man? And the obstacles to finding OBL have nothing
to do with resources being used in Iraq, unless you believe we should
launch an invasion on places like Pakistan, where he may be hiding.
But, you know what the best part is? Your use of the term "arrest" for
dealing with OBL. Just like Rove said, liberals just don't get it.
They don't realize this is a war on terrorism, not a police case. He
and his followers don't need to be arrested, they need to be destroyed,
before they destroy us.
Katt
news:1120223005....@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> "It's possible he may have been working towards getting them, (WMDs) I
> suppose. "
>
> Working toward getting them? There is absolutely no question that he
> HAD WMDs. He used them on the Kurds. UN weapons inspectors found them
> after the first gulf war and spent a decade playing cat and mouse with
> Sadam, trying to enforce his agreement to fully disclose and eliminate
> them. Hans Blix on the eve of the war stated that Sadam was still not
> being forthcoming in providing required information and cooperation.
> There was no question that there was sufficient cause to go to war with
> Sadam. Whether it was the best decision or worth it only history will
> tell. But, I can tell you one thing. If components of a WMD used
> against the US were traced back to Iraq someday, guys like you who carp
> at Bush now, would be calling for his impeachment for not protecting
> the US against so obvious a threat.
>
I can't believe people are still coming up with this horseshit: no grasp of
the timeline; imaginary WMDs; misrepresenting what Blix said; 'sufficient
cause to go to war'; the works. *Fascinating*. Doesn't even deserve rebuttal
any more...
Katt.
osprey
I didn't and here is why. Because he had WAY too much time. The U.N.
inspectors were booted out in the 90's and he was basically being
unobserved. His past history, we know what he is capable of and we
know the great lengths he will go to.
Now, there is another theory and it could very well hold true. There
is a theory that Saddam wanted the world to believe he had WMD,
thinking that no one would attack him. If that is the case, he fooled
a lot of people and is the cause of many to be killed.
Without a doubt, I agree. BUT...we were told and knew that this was
going to be a LONG war, and OBL wasn't the only person responsible.
OBL should have been killed or captured long ago, but as usual..we
turned the other cheek and didn't take the opportunity when they were
available.
Killing OBL is like taking a piece of straw from the hay stack, the hay
stack is still there.
If Bush had just done that and *then* gone after Saddam, I would
> have a lot more respect for him.
As usual you make good sense and I can certainly understand your
position. I can't say that I disagree with you. I think we should have
been more agressive as well against OBL; however, neither of us is in
the intelligence field and don't always know the reasons why our
Government does what it does. There could be another reason and we are
not being told for what ever reason.
osprey
I can't believe people are still naive as to how dangerous Saddam has
been and could still be. It's what Saddam counted on, he wanted people
to think he was not a threat so people would ignore him. It appears as
if his strategy worked well with some.
Bill Baker
>> "It's possible he may have been working towards getting them, (WMDs) I
>> suppose. "
>
> Working toward getting them? There is absolutely no question that he
> HAD WMDs.
The operative word being HAD. At the time Bush Jr. invaded Iraq in 2003,
he had NONE.
> He used them on the Kurds. UN weapons inspectors found them after the
> first gulf war and spent a decade playing cat and mouse with Sadam,
> trying to enforce his agreement to fully disclose and eliminate them.
> Hans Blix on the eve of the war stated that Sadam was still not being
> forthcoming in providing required information and cooperation. There was
> no question that there was sufficient cause to go to war with Sadam.
> Whether it was the best decision or worth it only history will tell.
> But, I can tell you one thing. If components of a WMD used against the
> US were traced back to Iraq someday, guys like you who carp at Bush now,
> would be calling for his impeachment for not protecting the US against
> so obvious a threat.
I'm not saying we shouldn't have gone into Iraq and taken out Saddam, but
we had other more important matters to deal with, first.
>> "You have many good points as usual, Osprey, but I think we should have
>> concentrated on arresting the man responsible for 9/11, Osama bin
>> Laden, first. If Bush had just done that and *then* gone after Saddam,
>> I would have a lot more respect for him. "
>
> Great idea. I suppose in WWII, we should have gone after Japan first
> and ignored Hitler until we were done there.
You're forgetting one thing: Germany was an avowed ally of Japan (the
Axis, remember?). The link between Iraq and OBL was tenuous at best.
> With all the resources of the US, you think we can't do two things at a
> time, one of which is hunt down a single man?
So why don't we?
> And the obstacles to finding OBL have nothing to do with resources being
> used in Iraq, unless you believe we should launch an invasion on places
> like Pakistan, where he may be hiding. But, you know what the best part
> is? Your use of the term "arrest" for dealing with OBL. Just like Rove
> said, liberals just don't get it. They don't realize this is a war on
> terrorism, not a police case. He and his followers don't need to be
> arrested, they need to be destroyed, before they destroy us.
So you think he should be killed instead of brought to justice? Good
idea, make him a martyr. That'll stop the terrorists from attacking us.
--
Lurlean Lie #43:
"She already tried to get me to try lesbo sex."
news:1113455796.5...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com
LC
<Boed...@isp.com> wrote in message
news:1120194820.6...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Baby killers have their own newsgroup?? What do they discuss,
> the best way to kill one who is born alive?
> How about strangling them as one "doctor" did? How about
> a lethal injection? How about just leave them on a gurney to die
> from lack of care? Drowning in a sink? The list is
> endless. Of course the best way is to stick a pair of
> scissors in the brain as it emerges from the womb as these
> "doctors" do in what they laughingly refer to as "late
> term" abortions.
> In the name of God what have we become when even the
> innocent unborn can be put to death because some low
> class tart is too lazy to raise her own flesh and blood.
> Father forgive.
LOL.
Another racist bigot masquerading as "pro-life" and citing "God".
Too funny.
LC~ Loves the way rightards expose themselves.
"The jew in spite of insisting on "free speech" where such
obscenities as filthy porn are concerned in the media they control,
are doing everything in their power to limit it on the net
for obvious reasons. The ACLU (jew inc) are very quick to rush in
and defend "free speech" when some vile "comedian" fills the
airways with filth but apparently those who post on the net
are "full of hate" when they post what everyone already knows
about your race. The world doesn't need the likes of Stern
etal, there is nothing amusing about the kind of filth that
the likes of Lenny Bruce, Buddy Hackett and the rest of the tribe
foist on the host peoples."
From: "Boed...@isp.com" Boed...@isp.com, just another rightard bigot.
Newsgroups:
alt.conspiracy,soc.men,alt.politics.nationalism.white,ca.politics,uk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Everything You'll Ever Need To Know About Jews
Date: 13 Jun 2005 22:04:36 -0700
Message-ID: <1118725476.8...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
osprey
Bill Baker wrote:
> On Fri, 01 Jul 2005 06:03:25 -0700, "tra...@optonline.net"
> <tra...@optonline.net> wrote in message
> news:<1120223005....@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>...
>
> >> "It's possible he may have been working towards getting them, (WMDs) I
> >> suppose. "
> >
> > Working toward getting them? There is absolutely no question that he
> > HAD WMDs.
>
> The operative word being HAD. At the time Bush Jr. invaded Iraq in 2003,
> he had NONE.
That we know of. You are correct in the sense that he didn't have, or
we didn't find, what we believed him to have. That still doesn't rule
out the possibility that if he had them, they are buried in the sand or
transported.
>
> > He used them on the Kurds. UN weapons inspectors found them after the
> > first gulf war and spent a decade playing cat and mouse with Sadam,
> > trying to enforce his agreement to fully disclose and eliminate them.
> > Hans Blix on the eve of the war stated that Sadam was still not being
> > forthcoming in providing required information and cooperation. There was
> > no question that there was sufficient cause to go to war with Sadam.
> > Whether it was the best decision or worth it only history will tell.
> > But, I can tell you one thing. If components of a WMD used against the
> > US were traced back to Iraq someday, guys like you who carp at Bush now,
> > would be calling for his impeachment for not protecting the US against
> > so obvious a threat.
>
> I'm not saying we shouldn't have gone into Iraq and taken out Saddam, but
> we had other more important matters to deal with, first.
I agree, but then again..we don't know everything or all the reasons.
There may be reasons that the Government simply isn't going to explain
for security reasons.
>
> >> "You have many good points as usual, Osprey, but I think we should have
> >> concentrated on arresting the man responsible for 9/11, Osama bin
> >> Laden, first. If Bush had just done that and *then* gone after Saddam,
> >> I would have a lot more respect for him. "
> >
> > Great idea. I suppose in WWII, we should have gone after Japan first
> > and ignored Hitler until we were done there.
>
> You're forgetting one thing: Germany was an avowed ally of Japan (the
> Axis, remember?). The link between Iraq and OBL was tenuous at best.
>
> > With all the resources of the US, you think we can't do two things at a
> > time, one of which is hunt down a single man?
>
> So why don't we?
>
> > And the obstacles to finding OBL have nothing to do with resources being
> > used in Iraq, unless you believe we should launch an invasion on places
> > like Pakistan, where he may be hiding. But, you know what the best part
> > is? Your use of the term "arrest" for dealing with OBL. Just like Rove
> > said, liberals just don't get it. They don't realize this is a war on
> > terrorism, not a police case. He and his followers don't need to be
> > arrested, they need to be destroyed, before they destroy us.
>
> So you think he should be killed instead of brought to justice? Good
> idea, make him a martyr. That'll stop the terrorists from attacking us.
Good point, it's much better if we capture them and not make them a
Martyr like you said. It only strengthens their cause.
Bill Baker
in message news:<1120224089.6...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>...
I know he did at one point, but I doubted it in 2003.
> Now, there is another theory and it could very well hold true. There
> is a theory that Saddam wanted the world to believe he had WMD,
> thinking that no one would attack him. If that is the case, he fooled
> a lot of people and is the cause of many to be killed.
That's true.
Absolutely.
>> If Bush had just done that and *then* gone after Saddam, I would
>> have a lot more respect for him.
>
> As usual you make good sense and I can certainly understand your
> position. I can't say that I disagree with you. I think we should have
> been more agressive as well against OBL; however, neither of us is in
> the intelligence field and don't always know the reasons why our
> Government does what it does. There could be another reason and we are
> not being told for what ever reason.
Well if that's the case, I hope we know someday.
--
Lurlean Lie #26:
"This refers to Curtsybear's claim"
news:1dcee589.04082...@posting.google.com