Why did Bush give up the hunt fer bin Laden to go after Saddam?
Major Debacle
Or was it because Iraq sat atop the world's largest pool of untapped oil?
--
Beer... so much more than a breakfast drink
Kennewick Man; the first, the BEST!
wrote:
Why did Clinton, who had Bin Laden dead-to-rights 3 times, (one time,
literally in the crosshairs of a sniper's scope) let him go?
Joe Cool
Because he wasn't wanted by the US at the time thus it would have been
illegal.
Kickin' Ass and Takin' Names
Why do you lie???
Sparks
wrote:
>
> Was it because Saddam tried to kill his Daddy?
>
> Or was it because Iraq sat atop the world's largest pool of untapped oil?
Saddam was removed because Congress gave Bush the authority to remove
him if Saddam refused to cooperate with UN inspectors. Saddam refused
to cooperate, and sealed his own fate. Oh, and please don't tell me
Saddam cooperated. If you do, you'll prove you have no idea what
you're talking about.
Sparks
Not only that, but Clinton bombed the crap out of Iraq for four days
in 1998, after Bin Laden had been indicted by the United States. Do
leftists ever wonder why Clinton would avoid the hunt for bin Laden to
go after Saddam? Of course not!
Sparks
Not true. Bin Laden was indicted by the United States in 1998. The
three incidents mentioned above happened after that.
[quote] The pictures are part of a mass of evidence now emerging of
the missed opportunities to kill or capture Bin Laden and his
associates before they launched the terror attacks on America in 2001.
They include at least three further occasions in Afghanistan between
1998 and 2000 when the CIA had Bin Laden in its sights but was
prevented from acting. [end quote]
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article562390.ece
Sparks
<PopUlist...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 1 Aug 2010 19:23:53 -0700 (PDT), "Kennewick Man; the first,
>
> >On Aug 1, 10:18 pm, Major Debacle <Major_Deba...@invalid.invalid>
> >wrote:
> >> Was it because Saddam tried to kill his Daddy?
>
> >> Or was it because Iraq sat atop the world's largest pool of untapped oil?
> >> --
> >> Beer... so much more than a breakfast drink
>
> >Why did Clinton, who had Bin Laden dead-to-rights 3 times, (one time,
> >literally in the crosshairs of a sniper's scope) let him go?
>
> Why do you lie???
He didn't lie. If you think he lied, you're either ignorant or a liar.
I'll let you decide which you'd rather be.
thedockson
WHY DID REPUBLICANS IN CONGRESS FIGHT FUCKING TOOTH AND NAIL AGAINST
'DEMOCRATS MEASURES TO FIGHT TERRORISM AND SPECIFICALLY TRACK MONEY
TRAILS OF SUSPECTED TERRORISTS, INCLUDING BIN LADEN.
WHY DID BOOSCCHH AND REPUBLICANS COMPLETELY DISMANTLE ALL OF THOSE
EFFORTS DEMOCRATS TOOK TO HELP KEEP YOU WORTHLESS CLUELESS SNIVELING
SACKS OF SHIT
SAFE JUST DAYS INTO OFFICE.
WHY AREN'T REPUBLICANS 'CAPABLE' OF SHUTTING THE FUCK UP AND PAY
ATTENTION AND WORKING TO IMPROVE THE COUNTRY INSTEAD OF ALL YOUR
IRRATIONAL CONSTANT WHINING, PLAYING LIKE YOU DON'T DON'T KNOW SHIT
ABOUT ANYTHING.
FACT, WE D0N'T NEED YOU HELPLESS FREELOADING LOSERS FOR ANYTHING
WHATSOEVER.
Sparks
> Kennewick Man; the first, the BEST! wrote:
>
> > On Aug 1, 10:18 pm, Major Debacle <Major_Deba...@invalid.invalid>
> > wrote:
> > > Was it because Saddam tried to kill his Daddy?
>
> > > Or was it because Iraq sat atop the world's largest pool of untapped oil?
> > > --
> > > Beer... so much more than a breakfast drink
>
> > Why did Clinton, who had Bin Laden dead-to-rights 3 times, (one time,
> > literally in the crosshairs of a sniper's scope) let him go?
>
> WHY DID REPUBLICANS IN CONGRESS FIGHT FUCKING TOOTH AND NAIL AGAINST
> 'DEMOCRATS MEASURES TO FIGHT TERRORISM AND SPECIFICALLY TRACK MONEY
> TRAILS OF SUSPECTED TERRORISTS, INCLUDING BIN LADEN.
You forgot to mention the Democrats' proposed use of warrantless
wiretaps, an idea Republicans at the time didn't like. Isn't it ironic
that when Repubicans finally decided they liked the idea, the people
who originally had the idea no longer liked it?
>
> WHY DID BOOSCCHH AND REPUBLICANS COMPLETELY DISMANTLE ALL OF THOSE
> EFFORTS DEMOCRATS TOOK TO HELP KEEP YOU WORTHLESS CLUELESS SNIVELING
> SACKS OF SHIT
> SAFE JUST DAYS INTO OFFICE.
That's a myth. Here's the fact:
"Transcript: Clarke Praises Bush Team in '02"
[quoting from transcript]
RICHARD CLARKE: Actually, I've got about seven points, let me just go
through them quickly. Um, the first point, I think the overall point
is, there was no plan on Al Qaeda that was passed from the Clinton
administration to the Bush administration.
Second point is that the Clinton administration had a strategy in
place, effectively dating from 1998. And there were a number of issues
on the table since 1998. And they remained on the table when that
administration went out of office -- issues like aiding the Northern
Alliance in Afghanistan, changing our Pakistan policy -- uh, changing
our policy toward Uzbekistan. And in January 2001, the incoming Bush
administration was briefed on the existing strategy. They were also
briefed on these series of issues that had not been decided on in a
couple of years.
And the third point is the Bush administration decided then, you know,
in late January, to do two things. One, vigorously pursue the existing
policy, including all of the lethal covert action findings, which
we've now made public to some extent.
And the point is, while this big review was going on, there were still
in effect, the lethal findings were still in effect. The second thing
the administration decided to do is to initiate a process to look at
those issues which had been on the table for a couple of years and get
them decided.
So, point five, that process which was initiated in the first week in
February, uh, decided in principle, uh in the spring to add to the
existing Clinton strategy and to increase CIA resources, for example,
for covert action, five-fold, to go after Al Qaeda.
The sixth point, the newly-appointed deputies -- and you had to
remember, the deputies didn't get into office until late March, early
April. The deputies then tasked the development of the implementation
details, uh, of these new decisions that they were endorsing, and
sending out to the principals.
Over the course of the summer -- last point -- they developed
implementation details, the principals met at the end of the summer,
approved them in their first meeting, changed the strategy by
authorizing the increase in funding five-fold, changing the policy on
Pakistan, changing the policy on Uzbekistan, changing the policy on
the Northern Alliance assistance.
And then changed the strategy from one of rollback with Al Qaeda over
the course of five years, which it had been, to a new strategy that
called for the rapid elimination of Al Qaeda. That is in fact the
timeline.
JIM ANGLE: You're saying that the Bush administration did not stop
anything that the Clinton administration was doing while it was making
these decisions, and by the end of the summer had increased money for
covert action five-fold. Is that correct?
CLARKE: All of that's correct.
ANGLE: OK.
QUESTION: Are you saying now that there was not only a plan per se,
presented by the transition team, but that it was nothing proactive
that they had suggested?
CLARKE: Well, what I'm saying is, there are two things presented. One,
what the existing strategy had been. And two, a series of issues --
like aiding the Northern Alliance, changing Pakistan policy, changing
Uzbek policy -- that they had been unable to come to um, any new
conclusions, um, from '98 on.
QUESTION: Was all of that from '98 on or was some of it ...
CLARKE: All of those issues were on the table from '98 on.
ANGLE: When in '98 were those presented?
CLARKE: In October of '98.
QUESTION: In response to the Embassy bombing?
CLARKE: Right, which was in September.
QUESTION: Were all of those issues part of alleged plan that was late
December and the Clinton team decided not to pursue because it was too
close to ...
CLARKE: There was never a plan, Andrea. What there was was these two
things: One, a description of the existing strategy, which included a
description of the threat. And two, those things which had been looked
at over the course of two years, and which were still on the table.
ANGLE: So, just to finish up if we could then, so what you're saying
is that there was no -- one, there was no plan; two, there was no
delay; and that actually the first changes since October of '98 were
made in the spring months just after the administration came into
office?
CLARKE: You got it. That's right. [end quoted material]
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,115085,00.html
>
> WHY AREN'T REPUBLICANS 'CAPABLE' OF SHUTTING THE FUCK UP AND PAY
> ATTENTION AND WORKING TO IMPROVE THE COUNTRY INSTEAD OF ALL YOUR
> IRRATIONAL CONSTANT WHINING, PLAYING LIKE YOU DON'T DON'T KNOW SHIT
> ABOUT ANYTHING.
>
> FACT, WE D0N'T NEED YOU HELPLESS FREELOADING LOSERS FOR ANYTHING
> WHATSOEVER.
Where do you think revenue to the government comes from? Most small
and medium business owners are conservative. They provide a lot of
jobs in this country. You need people on payrolls and paying taxes so
the government can pay for the Democratic Party's social agenda.
sillapond
> Why do you lie???
Why do you still live?
*us*
>... Bin Laden ...
Bush ordered the FBI to stop investigating the bin Ladens
as soon as his occupation started.
Walter Harding
Where the Hell is Bin Laden?
Why hasn't Obama caught him yet? We were told for years, by you, that
such an action is the easiest thing in the world. So where is he?
How hard can it be to catch the tallest man in Afghanistan?
Walter Harding
So's rape - THAT didn't stop Clinton.
Walter Harding
> On Sun, 1 Aug 2010 20:13:05 -0700 (PDT), Sparks <energizedconservat...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >... Bin Laden ...
>
> Bush ordered the FBI to stop investigating the bin Ladens
> as soon as his occupation started.
Why hasn't Obama caught bin Laden yet? How hard can it be to catch
Walter Harding
<PopUlist...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 1 Aug 2010 19:23:53 -0700 (PDT), "Kennewick Man; the first,
>
> >On Aug 1, 10:18 pm, Major Debacle <Major_Deba...@invalid.invalid>
> >wrote:
> >> Was it because Saddam tried to kill his Daddy?
>
> >> Or was it because Iraq sat atop the world's largest pool of untapped oil?
> >> --
> >> Beer... so much more than a breakfast drink
>
> >Why did Clinton, who had Bin Laden dead-to-rights 3 times, (one time,
> >literally in the crosshairs of a sniper's scope) let him go?
>
> Why do you lie???
He's not lying. Why do you constantly accuse others of your own sins?
VFW
<9f12f783-0d73-4c5d...@k8g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
Walter Harding <gopart...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Or was it because Iraq sat atop the world's largest pool of untapped oil?
yep. that's one big reason.
In this shocking memoir, Confessions of an Economic Hit Man, John
Perkins tells of his own inner journey from willing servant of empire to
impassioned advocate for the rights of oppressed people. Covertly
recruited by the United States National Security Agency and on the
payroll of an international consulting firm, he traveled the world逆o
Indonesia, Panama, Ecuador, Colombia, Saudi Arabia,Iraq, Afghanistan,
Iran and other strategically important countries. His job was to
implement policies that promoted the interests of the U.S.
corporatocracy (a coalition of government, banks, and corporations)
while professing to alleviate poverty却olicies that alienated many
nations and ultimately led to September 11 and growing anti-Americanism.
Within a few weeks of its release , Confessions of an Economic Hit Man
landed onThe New York Times Bestseller List, then 19 other bestseller
lists including the Los Angeles Times, San Francisco Chronicle, USA
Today, Wall Street Journal, and Washington Post. The author has been
interviewed repeatedly on national radio and television shows, including
Amy Goodman's Democracy Now, CSPAN's Book TV, and PBS' Now with David
Brancaccio. And now the book is being published in 9 languages around
the world. According to John Perkins, "It is accomplishing an important
objective in inspiring people to think and talk and to know that we can
change the world."
for more;
http://www.economichitman.com/
--
Money! What a concept.
lab~rat >:-)
<Major_...@invalid.invalid> puked:
>Was it because Saddam tried to kill his Daddy?
>
>Or was it because Iraq sat atop the world's largest pool of untapped oil?
I've posted this before a number of times, but it bears repeating.
At one point, the Bush administration stopped the war cry about
finding Osama over night, and there was a reason behind it. Clearly a
deal was struck, and it's my belief that it was in relation to aid in
Iraq, or at least less obstruction.
But whatever the case, it's clear that there's more to the story than
just being bored with looking for him. Prior to the election, Obama
was rattling his sabre about catching him. Afterwards, very little
has been said, as if he were let in on the deal.
This isn't unusual, these deals are cut all the time. There must have
been pretty big stakes on the table for both Bush AND Obama to go
along with them.
--
lab~rat >:-)
Do you want polite or do you want sincere?
lab~rat >:-)
<energizedc...@yahoo.com> puked:
He violated a laundry list of UN Resolutions. One was to provide the
documentation of the dismantling of WMDs he claimed to have. Since it
appears he was lying about those, he couldn't provide the
documentation.
*us*
as soon as his occupation started.
The bin Ladens were in business with the Bush crime family.
*us*
>He violated a laundry list of UN Resolutions...
The UN did not approve of Bush's illegal invasion of Iraq.
If you weren't stupid, you'd know that.
Walter Harding
Yes, yes, we all enjoy a good insane rant.
But why hasn't Obama caught bin Laden? How hard can it be to catch
the tallest man in Afghanistan.
lab~rat >:-)
>On Mon, 02 Aug 2010 09:36:31 -0400, "flab~fat >:-)" <ch...@cheeze.net> wrote:
>
>>He violated a laundry list of UN Resolutions...
>
>The UN did not approve of Bush's illegal invasion of Iraq.
The UN had no say.
>
>If you weren't stupid, you'd know that.
I'm smarter than you.
*us*
as soon as his occupation started.
The bin Ladens were in business with the Bush crime family.
The war business, to be precise: see "Carlyle Group".
*us*
>He violated a laundry list of UN Resolutions...
The UN did not approve of Bush's illegal invasion of Iraq.
If you weren't stupid, you'd know that.
You are stupid, though.
lab~rat >:-)
The UN doesn't dictate what the US does. The UN is filled with 3rd
world scumbags that don't have the US interests at heart.
If you didn't have your head up your ass, you'd know that.
sillapond
WRONG!
http://www.infowars.com/saved%20pages/Prior_Knowledge/Clinton_let_bin_laden.htm
Clinton Let Bin Laden Slip Away and Metastasize
Sudan offered up the terrorist and data on his network. The
then-president and his advisors didn't respondd
By MANSOOR IJAZ
President Clinton and his national security team ignored several
opportunities to capture Osama bin Laden and his terrorist associates,
including one as late as last year.
I know because I negotiated more than one of the opportunities.
From 1996 to 1998, I opened unofficial channels between Sudan and the
Clinton administration. I met with officials in both countries,
including Clinton, U.S. National Security Advisor Samuel R. "Sandy"
Berger and Sudan's president and intelligence chief. President Omar
Hassan Ahmed Bashir, who wanted terrorism sanctions against Sudan
lifted, offered the arrest and extradition of Bin Laden and detailed
intelligence data about the global networks constructed by Egypt's
Islamic Jihad, Iran's Hezbollah and the Palestinian Hamas.
Among those in the networks were the two hijackers who piloted
commercial airliners into the World Trade Center.
The silence of the Clinton administration in responding to these offers
was deafening.
As an American Muslim and a political supporter of Clinton, I feel now,
as I argued with Clinton and Berger then, that their counter-terrorism
policies fueled the rise of Bin Laden from an ordinary man to a
Hydra-like monster.
Realizing the growing problem with Bin Laden, Bashir sent key
intelligence officials to the U.S. in February 1996.
The Sudanese offered to arrest Bin Laden and extradite him to Saudi
Arabia or, barring that, to "baby-sit" him--monitoring all his
activities and associates.
But Saudi officials didn't want their home-grown terrorist back where he
might plot to overthrow them.
In May 1996, the Sudanese capitulated to U.S. pressure and asked Bin
Laden to leave, despite their feeling that he could be monitored better
in Sudan than elsewhere.
Bin Laden left for Afghanistan, taking with him Ayman Zawahiri,
considered by the U.S. to be the chief planner of the Sept. 11 attacks;
Mamdouh Mahmud Salim, who traveled frequently to Germany to obtain
electronic equipment for Al Qaeda; Wadih El-Hage, Bin Laden's personal
secretary and roving emissary, now serving a life sentence in the U.S.
for his role in the 1998 U.S. embassy bombings in Tanzania and Kenya;
and Fazul Abdullah Mohammed and Saif Adel, also accused of carrying out
the embassy attacks.
Some of these men are now among the FBI's 22 most-wanted terrorists.
The two men who allegedly piloted the planes into the twin towers,
Mohamed Atta and Marwan Al-Shehhi, prayed in the same Hamburg mosque as
did Salim and Mamoun Darkazanli, a Syrian trader who managed Salim's
bank accounts and whose assets are frozen.
Important data on each had been compiled by the Sudanese.
But U.S. authorities repeatedly turned the data away, first in February
1996; then again that August, when at my suggestion Sudan's religious
ideologue, Hassan Turabi, wrote directly to Clinton; then again in April
1997, when I persuaded Bashir to invite the FBI to come to Sudan and
view the data; and finally in February 1998, when Sudan's intelligence
chief, Gutbi al-Mahdi, wrote directly to the FBI.
Gutbi had shown me some of Sudan's data during a three-hour meeting in
Khartoum in October 1996. When I returned to Washington, I told Berger
and his specialist for East Africa, Susan Rice, about the data
available. They said they'd get back to me. They never did. Neither did
they respond when Bashir made the offer directly. I believe they never
had any intention to engage Muslim countries--ally or not. Radical
Islam, for the administration, was a convenient national security threat.
And that was not the end of it. In July 2000--three months before the
deadly attack on the destroyer Cole in Yemen--I brought the White House
another plausible offer to deal with Bin Laden, by then known to be
involved in the embassy bombings. A senior counter-terrorism official
from one of the United States' closest Arab allies--an ally whose name I
am not free to divulge--approached me with the proposal after telling me
he was fed up with the antics and arrogance of U.S. counter-terrorism
officials.
The offer, which would have brought Bin Laden to the Arab country as the
first step of an extradition process that would eventually deliver him
to the U.S., required only that Clinton make a state visit there to
personally request Bin Laden's extradition. But senior Clinton officials
sabotaged the offer, letting it get caught up in internal politics
within the ruling family--Clintonian diplomacy at its best.
Clinton's failure to grasp the opportunity to unravel increasingly
organized extremists, coupled with Berger's assessments of their
potential to directly threaten the U.S., represents one of the most
serious foreign policy failures in American history.
Major Debacle
> On Mon, 02 Aug 2010 10:46:57 -0400, * US * puked:
>
>> On Mon, 02 Aug 2010 09:36:31 -0400, "flab~fat >:-)" <ch...@cheeze.net> wrote:
>>
>>> He violated a laundry list of UN Resolutions...
>> The UN did not approve of Bush's illegal invasion of Iraq.
>>
>> If you weren't stupid, you'd know that.
>>
>> You are stupid, though.
>
> The UN doesn't dictate what the US does. The UN is filled with 3rd
> world scumbags that don't have the US interests at heart.
Then why did you consider it so important to note in yer post that, "He
violated a laundry list of UN Resolutions..."?
If he violated resolutions of "3rd world scumbags that don't have the US
interests at heart", why would the US have a beef with him?
lab~rat >:-)
<Major_...@invalid.invalid> puked:
>lab~rat >:-) wrote:
The resolutions were our argument against him. Whether or not the UN
were on board with what we planned to do in response is immaterial.
If a group of American hating muslims saw fit to issue resolutions
against the UN, it was stronger ammunition in our condemnation.
As it turns out, we were wrong, or we waited too long, but a brutal
dictator is out of power, and that was the goal of the war. Whether
or not he would have WMDs had we not gone in isn't clear, but look at
N. Korea and Iran, we have to start somewhere.
It looks more and more like the US is ramping up for military action
against Iran, at least now we have a base right next door...
sillapond
*us*
>He violated a laundry list of UN Resolutions...
The UN did not approve of Bush's illegal invasion of Iraq.
If you weren't stupid, you'd know that.
You are stupid, though.
Keep displaying that.
*us*
Exactly.
*us*
>On Mon, 2 Aug 2010 16:24:50 +0000 (UTC), Major Debacle
><Major_...@invalid.invalid> puked:
>
>>lab~rat >:-) wrote:
>>> On Mon, 02 Aug 2010 10:46:57 -0400, * US * puked:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, 02 Aug 2010 09:36:31 -0400, "flab~fat >:-)" <ch...@cheeze.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> He violated a laundry list of UN Resolutions...
>>>> The UN did not approve of Bush's illegal invasion of Iraq.
>>>>
>>>> If you weren't stupid, you'd know that.
>>>>
>>>> You are stupid, though.
>>>
>>> The UN doesn't dictate what the US does. The UN is filled with 3rd
>>> world scumbags that don't have the US interests at heart.
>>
>>Then why did you consider it so important to note in yer post that, "He
>>violated a laundry list of UN Resolutions..."?
>>
>>If he violated resolutions of "3rd world scumbags that don't have the US
>>interests at heart", why would the US have a beef with him?
>
>The resolutions were our argument against him ...
Wrong.
Bush and Cheney had only their lies.
*us*
>... ignorant TURD.
You believe every lie Bush and Cheney told, don't you.
wy
> On 08/01/2010 07:48 PM, Joe Cool wrote:
>
> > On Aug 1, 10:23 pm, "Kennewick Man; the first, the BEST!"
> > <rander3...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Aug 1, 10:18 pm, Major Debacle<Major_Deba...@invalid.invalid>
> >> wrote:
>
> >>> Was it because Saddam tried to kill his Daddy?
>
> >>> Or was it because Iraq sat atop the world's largest pool of untapped oil?
> >>> --
> >>> Beer... so much more than a breakfast drink
>
> >> Why did Clinton, who had Bin Laden dead-to-rights 3 times, (one time,
> >> literally in the crosshairs of a sniper's scope) let him go?
>
> > Because he wasn't wanted by the US at the time
>
>
> Clinton Let Bin Laden Slip Away and Metastasize
> Sudan offered up the terrorist and data on his network. The
> then-president and his advisors didn't respondd
>
> By MANSOOR IJAZ
> President Clinton and his national security team ignored several
> opportunities to capture Osama bin Laden and his terrorist associates,
> including one as late as last year.
WRONG!
"In early 1996, American officials regarded Osama bin Laden as a
financier of terrorism and not as a mastermind largely because, at the
time, there was no real evidence that bin Laden had harmed American
citizens. So even if the Sudanese government really did offer to hand
bin Laden over, the U.S. would have had no grounds for detaining him.
In fact, the Justice Department did not secure an indictment against
bin Laden until 1998 – at which point Clinton did order a cruise
missile attack on an al Qaeda camp in an attempt to kill bin Laden."
http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/did_bill_clinton_pass_up_a_chance_1.html
And for the cruise missile attack story:
http://partners.nytimes.com/library/world/africa/082198attack-us.html
Stop relying solely on right wingnut sources, it causes major brain
damage.
Dakota
The Cheney/Bush regime didn't have US interests at heart either. They
had the interests of Haliburton and the other no-bid scammers at heart.
Those same interests are pushing us toward a war against Iran right now.
lab~rat >:-)
So let me get this straight, Obama's in bed with Halliburton?
Salad
Damn. If the invasion of Iraq isn't a sign of suffering from massive
brain farts I don't know what is.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d1WcxRaMmIM.
Instru Mental
news:i36q2t$16h$1...@news.datemas.de...
> On 08/01/2010 07:48 PM, Joe Cool wrote:
>> On Aug 1, 10:23 pm, "Kennewick Man; the first, the BEST!"
>> <rander3...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Why did Clinton, who had Bin Laden dead-to-rights 3 times, (one time,
>>> literally in the crosshairs of a sniper's scope) let him go?
>>
>> Because he wasn't wanted by the US at the time
>
> WR
Still jamming your nose up the sphincters of everyone who threatens you,
eh? Poor little skidmark. Do you ever dream of people talking to you
like the adult you will never be?
'Shit happens'
---Traitorous 'Spammy' Sam's reply to the fact that 34 Americans
died and 170 were injured when Israel attacked the USS Liberty.
Spammy is a gutless coward who has never served his country in
uniform.
Instru Mental
Russell Ronco
(snicker) at least the Birther's story makes sense.
Russell Ronco
> On Mon, 2 Aug 2010 07:27:33 -0700 (PDT), Walter Harding
>
> <gopartyani...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >But why hasn't Obama caught bin Laden? How hard can it be to catch
> >the tallest man in Afghanistan.
>
>
> One year after 9-11---Communication between Bin Laden and any/all
> supporters he knew was begging and pleading for money. He was broke,
> was injured, and had no significant amount of followers.
>
> The Islamic world had come to our aid--commiserated with America after
> that attack---and no one would support bin Laden
>
> THEN bush attacked Iraq---killing thousands of Muslims, and based on
> his rightwing christian rhetoric, turned the Islamic nations against
> us.
>
> THEN, the money, support, recruits came streaming in.
>
> Bin Laden COULD HAVE been killed or captured in 2002----but not after
> March 2003.
>
> BUSH made it impossible.
And you guys think the birther's are crazy, huh? Wow. Get the net.
Ronnie Raygun And The Rayonets
"Russell Ronco" <gopart...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:0e57080c-e34b-42cd...@n19g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
You don't agree that Bush was the best recruitment tool terrorists ever had?
Dakota
It's the hawks in the right wing media that are ramping up the fear factor.
Walter Harding
<RR...@BurningInHell.com> wrote:
> "Russell Ronco" <gopartyani...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Are you shitting me? Post 9/11, there wasn't a single violent attack
on US soil. Since Barry lied his way into office, we've had a
military base shot up, and almost lost hundreds in a Times Square
bombing. Both wildly avoidable, but Obama chose to do nothing.
Ronnie Raygun And The Rayonets
"Walter Harding" <gopart...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ef347f82-45c8-4305...@u38g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
So you do agree. OK
*us*
Bush and Cheney are still making money
on 9/11 and their illegal invasions.
*us*
>... sense.
How would you possibly know what that is?
Bush ordered the FBI to stop investigating the bin Ladens
as soon as his occupation started.
The bin Ladens were in business with the Bush crime family.
The war business, to be precise: see "Carlyle Group".
See also: "Tim Osman" ...
Sparks
> On Mon, 2 Aug 2010 14:48:08 -0700 (PDT), Russell Ronco <gopartyani...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >... sense.
>
> How would you possibly know what that is?
>
> Bush ordered the FBI to stop investigating the bin Ladens
> as soon as his occupation started.
You're that dishonest poster someone told me about, aren't you? Can
you show a source for your claim? I doubt it. Little lying leftists
like you life in a false reality. That would explain your dishonesty.
Buster Norris
<thedo...@lavabit.com> wrote:
>
>Kennewick Man; the first, the BEST! wrote:
>> On Aug 1, 10:18 pm, Major Debacle <Major_Deba...@invalid.invalid>
>> wrote:
>> > Was it because Saddam tried to kill his Daddy?
>> >
>> > Or was it because Iraq sat atop the world's largest pool of untapped oil?
>> > --
>> > Beer... so much more than a breakfast drink
>>
>> Why did Clinton, who had Bin Laden dead-to-rights 3 times, (one time,
>> literally in the crosshairs of a sniper's scope) let him go?
>
>WHY DID REPUBLICANS IN CONGRESS FIGHT FUCKING TOOTH AND NAIL AGAINST
>'DEMOCRATS MEASURES TO FIGHT TERRORISM AND SPECIFICALLY TRACK MONEY
>TRAILS OF SUSPECTED TERRORISTS, INCLUDING BIN LADEN.
>
>WHY DID BOOSCCHH AND REPUBLICANS COMPLETELY DISMANTLE ALL OF THOSE
>EFFORTS DEMOCRATS TOOK TO HELP KEEP YOU WORTHLESS CLUELESS SNIVELING
>SACKS OF SHIT
>SAFE JUST DAYS INTO OFFICE.
>
>WHY AREN'T REPUBLICANS 'CAPABLE' OF SHUTTING THE FUCK UP AND PAY
>ATTENTION AND WORKING TO IMPROVE THE COUNTRY INSTEAD OF ALL YOUR
>IRRATIONAL CONSTANT WHINING, PLAYING LIKE YOU DON'T DON'T KNOW SHIT
>ABOUT ANYTHING.
>
>FACT, WE D0N'T NEED YOU HELPLESS FREELOADING LOSERS FOR ANYTHING
>WHATSOEVER.
Frauds are Exposed:
From: duckstandard <duck...@lavabit.com>
From: monkeywintest <monkey...@yahoo.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 166.70.99.91
(???)
From: Andrew Usher <k_over...@yahoo.com>
From: duckstandard <duck...@lavabit.com>
From: For the Victims <stj...@googlemail.com>
From: Hurt <hurt_beyo...@yahoo.com>
From: JJ Main <john06...@yahoo.com>
From: larrylaundry <larryl...@yahoo.com>
From: monkeywintest <monkey...@yahoo.com>
From: RedDog <reddo...@budweiser.com>
From: squirlchatr <squir...@yahoo.com>
From: squirltop <squi...@yahoo.com>
From: thedockson <thedo...@lavabit.com>
From: VinDicator <r9htz...@mangusta.e4ward.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 192.251.226.206
Host: anonymizer2.blutmagie.de
From: duckstandard <duck...@lavabit.com>
From: monkeywintest <monkey...@yahoo.com>
From: Western Voice <whitem...@ymail.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 195.184.125.162
Frederiksholms Kanal
2300 Copenhagen, Denmark
1440 Fern Flat Rd
Aptos, CA 95003
From: duckstandard <duck...@lavabit.com>
From: monkeydeskstand <monkeyd...@yahoo.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 66.96.16.32
From: duckstandard <duck...@lavabit.com>
From: thedockson <thedo...@lavabit.com>
From: monkeydeskstand <monkeyd...@yahoo.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 85.17.254.135
From: thedockson <thedo...@lavabit.com>
From: monkeydeskstand <monkeyd...@yahoo.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 91.198.227.49
From: duckstandard <duck...@lavabit.com>
From: monkeydeskstand <monkeyd...@yahoo.com>
From: monkeywintest <monkey...@yahoo.com>
From: thedockson <thedo...@lavabit.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 173.244.197.211
From: duckstandard <duck...@lavabit.com>
From: larrylaundry <larryl...@yahoo.com>
From: monkeywintest <monkey...@yahoo.com>
From: Old Crow <oldga...@ymail.com>
From: squirltok <squi...@yahoo.com>
From: squirltop <squi...@yahoo.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 216.224.124.124
From: duckstandard <duck...@lavabit.com>
From: monkeywintest <monkey...@yahoo.com>
From: November 5 <november...@googlemail.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 85.10.209.67
Host: tor.catbull.com
From: "H. Altschul" <henrice....@gmail.com>
From: "Love Europe, Hate the EU" <eu...@yahoo.co.uk>
From: Andrew Usher <k_over...@yahoo.com>
From: benjie <bencr...@gmail.com>
From: duckstandard <duck...@lavabit.com>
From: larrylaundry <larryl...@yahoo.com>
From: monkeywintest <monkey...@yahoo.com>
From: squirlchatr <squir...@yahoo.com>
From: squirltok <squi...@yahoo.com>
From: squirltop <squi...@yahoo.com>
From: Western Voice <whitem...@ymail.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 85.214.73.63
Host: anonymisierungsdienst.foebud.org
From: "Love Europe, Hate the EU" <eu...@yahoo.co.uk>
From: Andrew Usher <k_over...@yahoo.com>
From: Baal <useaddr...@ymail.com>
From: duckstandard <duck...@lavabit.com>
From: JJ Main <john06...@yahoo.com>
From: monkeywintest <monkey...@yahoo.com>
From: Sarah Ehrett <conniel...@yahoo.com>
From: squirltop <squi...@yahoo.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 87.118.104.203
Host: spftor1.privacyfoundation.de
From: " Jeeze, what do we have to do to get an even break here?"
From: "\"Conservatives\" are out-of-the-loop. These thoughts are far
too complex"
From: "Death to the Bushite, death to the Enemies of God and Country -
Bush did 911"
From: "EVIL in AMERICA: bushite enemy gives you no evidence to
conclude something"
From: "Give Free to Banker Man, Loan Back a Little Some at High
Interest Maybe Not Scam"
From: "King Johnny has Ruled. But really, who cares?"
From: "newspapers don't tell you about it, why do you think that is
dying whores? "
From: "Pretend, I'm not really here.."
<ereperdpenrperepe...@hotmail.com>
From: ..and the Messiah <ewjwejejee...@hotmail.com>
From: a good man in a world going wrong
<pioatortatrortat...@hotmail.com>
From: Andrew Usher <k_over...@yahoo.com>
From: As R. So <aasrtsrsar...@hotmail.com>
From: Ask Mastermind KSM how he got the Thermate into the 911 Towers
for the Peenacker
From: B i g B r o t h e r <qgfbbbbb...@hotmail.com>
From: B. G. ZAS <jnkakrukjbe...@hotmail.com>
From: Be yourself instead how about!
From: Beyond the Pale <pbltptlyt...@hotmail.com>
From: BUDDIES <zBDDBDIEIDBI...@hotmail.com>
From: Bushite Grunts are the 'lawless' Enemy of God and America - Die
Bushite Die
From: Defend Innocent People America - or don't and die a Bushite
McCainiac evl dmbfuk
From: duckstandard <duck...@lavabit.com>
From: Fight Back for Christ Sake God Damn You
<vkvhbdkja...@hotmail.com>
From: found unbound <ioatotatrorta...@hotmail.com>
From: Give Our Taxes to Bankers for Free! on Hopes They'll Lend a
Little Back MAYBE
From: God Calls Glen Beck the Zionist Jew Enemy of the Synagogue to
Satan!!
From: God is Great - Freedom is Justice - Taxes to Bankers for Hoping
to Lend Maybe No
From: Hater of the Bushite Grunting Enemies
<hhbghhe...@hotmail.com>
From: I AM FANTASTIC <iiaafiafi...@hotmail.com>
From: I am unique like everyone else is as the same fool you
From: I stand on my own sides
<rithssrcitscri...@hotmail.com>
From: Irrelevant Elephant
From: Jezus Christus <67nslsln...@hotmail.com>
From: Johnny America <ohyjoynyjohnjo...@hotmail.com>
From: Johnny for NEW! Coast to Coast Radio Host - Vote Early and Vote
Often ! !
From: Johnny Justice for New Coast to Coast Radio Hosts
<jcjcncjcn...@hotmail.com>
From: Johnny Q. Public <qjbjqbjbjqbjb...@hotmail.com>
From: Johnny Victory <ocijtesjiuss...@hotmail.com>
From: Johnny Wizard is in the House
From: Justice for God <itrrpratpoirrt...@hotmail.com>
From: Justice for Johnny <jwwjwjwwjjw...@hotmail.com>
From: Kill a Bushite for Christ to Win God's Love
<kbcwwk...@hotmail.com>
From: King Johnny <jkfg67nsls...@hotmail.com>
From: King Johnny America
<ngkingikgnginnngig...@hotmail.com>
From: King of Earth <kookkeekeokeoo...@hotmail.com>
From: larrylaundry <larryl...@yahoo.com>
From: Lawlessness Is Tyranny - what? don't Believe?
<wltbwltbtwlb...@hotmail.com>
From: Men of Humanity <mmhhmhmom...@hotmail.com>
From: monkeywintest <monkey...@yahoo.com>
From: more you than me - you decide freely
<errflyfrerrl...@hotmail.com>
From: no brainer <brinbarniarbinba...@hotmail.com>
From: Not being dumb like Republican scum
<noynoylyno...@hotmail.com>
From: Orange Porridge
From: Peenacker Amerika - cowardly evil liars dying from self contempt
From: President and CEO of Sharewhare Earth Co.
<pcseps...@hotmail.com>
From: Rare Breed <tptpelht...@hotmail.com>
From: Real Patriot - not a bush bitch enemy liar as thief
<prprbpeebe...@hotmail.com>
From: Repuglicon and Demonrat LIARS are at war with the People
From: Rise Up for Justice Demanded Man
<ujdmdmbudr...@hotmail.com>
From: see what it takes to earn the title of MARINE - pro-rape
pro-torture pro-murder
From: Son to God and Man of Men Defends Innocent People
<vfbgk...@hotmail.com>
From: squirlchatr <squir...@yahoo.com>
From: squirltok <squi...@yahoo.com>
From: Ted Nugent is The Enemy <felnfenlfne...@hotmail.com>
From: The Captain <ctanipactnaic...@hotmail.com>
From: The Cookie Monster Lears <eismshi...@hotmail.com>
From: The Jew's Jew <deiesdds...@hotmail.com>
From: The Truther <thrrhthturu...@hotmail.com>
From: thedockson <thedo...@lavabit.com>
From: True American Patriot
From: Truth is Telling <epehtptpelh...@hotmail.com>
From: Ungodly Zionist Demon Enemies Attack God and Humanity to Escape
the Peenackers
From: unique like everyone else is as the same
<amsamema...@hotmail.com>
From: We be riding with the King
<notemailjkjjkjkjkjj...@hotmail.com>
From: Where's Daddy? <arpiaprflofolfof...@hotmail.com>
From: Who is What Where <wahorttwhoweaho...@hotmail.com>
From: who is what where as when I am friend
<eryfrerrly...@hotmail.com>
From: Wizard's World Wide Works of Wonder
From: Yeah Way Man
NNTP-Posting-Host: 66.230.230.230
1040-1076 Holt Dr
Placentia, CA 92870
Posted from:
The DemocRATs Hall of Shame!
http://www.democrathallofshame.com/
Russell Ronco
> On Mon, 2 Aug 2010 17:08:10 -0700 (PDT), Walter Harding
>
> BUsh FINALLY woke up, you idiot.
And Obama has gone back to sleep.
> >Since Barry lied his way into office, we've had a
> >military base shot up, and almost lost hundreds in a Times Square
> >bombing. Both wildly avoidable, but Obama chose to do nothing.
>
> That was the rise of the extremists AFTER Bush attacked Iraq, you
> dipshit.
9/11 was PRE-9/11.
Russell Ronco
> On Mon, 2 Aug 2010 14:48:48 -0700 (PDT), Russell Ronco
> Saudis and other supporters?
>
> You disputing the PUBLIC RECORD of support of Islamic nations?
>
> You disputing the flow of Intel between ISlamic Nations and the CIA
> aiding us in wiping out Al Queda and the Taliban?
>
> You Disputing the PUBLIC record of the flock of terrorists that began
> strapping bombs on themselves, women and children in a holy war
> against America?
>
> You disputing the PUBLIC RECORD of Bush's idiotic bellowing about
> Christian nations going to settle those Islamic extremists---??
>
> If you think Birthers are crazy----Denying the 7 year PUBLIC RECORD of
> Bush is crazier.
Seriously, get help.
lab~rat >:-)
Actually it's the Obama administration that's doing it. The media is
reporting it, including the left wing Time Magazine that did a whole
story on it last month.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1535817,00.html
lab~rat >:-)
>On Mon, 02 Aug 2010 10:32:54 -0400, "lab~rat >:-)" <ch...@cheeze.net>
>wrote:
>
>>>The UN did not approve of Bush's illegal invasion of Iraq.
>>
>>The UN had no say.
>
>That's why we were wrong.
So you're a big fan of the UN?
lab~rat >:-)
>On Tue, 03 Aug 2010 08:29:59 -0400, "lab~rat >:-)" <ch...@cheeze.net>
>wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 02 Aug 2010 14:47:35 -0600, Obi...@Dicta.net puked:
>>
>>>On Mon, 02 Aug 2010 10:32:54 -0400, "lab~rat >:-)" <ch...@cheeze.net>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>>The UN did not approve of Bush's illegal invasion of Iraq.
>>>>
>>>>The UN had no say.
>>>
>>>That's why we were wrong.
>>
>>So you're a big fan of the UN?
>
>Exactly why not
Because the UN is made up of people that don't have the US interests
at heart.
>
>If you're a "big fan" of Democracy---then stop yer fucking whining
>when democratic institution votes on a policy
>
>It isn't smart to Cram "democracy" down people throats by rhetoric or
>military force---then belittle a democratic institution and
>decision/policy
Of course, a vast number of members of the UN are from countries that
don't have a freakin' clue what a democracy is, so I don't know if you
can consider the UN a democracy in any stretch of the word.
*us*
>... dishonest ... dishonesty.
Tell us that one about the WMD in Iraq, again, bushfilth liar.
On Mon, 2 Aug 2010 14:48:08 -0700 (PDT), Russell Ronco <gopart...@gmail.com> wrote:
>... sense.
How would you possibly know what that is?
Bush ordered the FBI to stop investigating the bin Ladens
as soon as his occupation started.
The bin Ladens were in business with the Bush crime family.
*us*
Saudi royals soon after George Bush became president"
http://www.prisonplanet.com/fbi_was_told_to_back_off_bin_laden_family.html
Sparks
>
> On Mon, 2 Aug 2010 18:38:41 -0700 (PDT), Sparks <energizedconservat...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >... dishonest ... dishonesty.
>
> Tell us that one about the WMD in Iraq, again, bushfilth liar.
Look how you snipped up my post. You really are dishonest, aren't you?
As for the WMD in Iraq, I've already covered that earlier in the
thread. You have nothing of substance to rebut what I posted. As a
leftist, you're about as weak and dishonest as they come.
Sparks
>
> "London: United States special agents were told to back off the bin Laden family and the
> Saudi royals soon after George Bush became president"
>
You wrote that quote above as if it's a fact, when it's actually an
allegation made by one man, who said he heard it from some unnamed
source. If you're going to make this sort of claim, you should have a
better source than prisonplanet.com. How about the New York Times? Or
Washington Post? Or CNN? MSNBC? Anything? No, you have nothing other
than your leftist fantasies. What's it like to live in an alternate
reality?
*us*
>... it's a fact ...
It sure is.
"London: United States special agents were told to back off the bin Laden family and the
Saudi royals soon after George Bush became president"
http://www.prisonplanet.com/fbi_was_told_to_back_off_bin_laden_family.html
*us*
>...dishonest ...about as weak and dishonest as they come.
Tell us all about how you were so afraid that
the babies of Baghdad were going to nuke you.
On Mon, 2 Aug 2010 18:38:41 -0700 (PDT), Sparks <energizedc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>... dishonest ... dishonesty.
Tell us that one about the WMD in Iraq, again, bushfilth liar.
On Mon, 2 Aug 2010 14:48:08 -0700 (PDT), Russell Ronco <gopart...@gmail.com> wrote:
Sparks
> On Tue, 3 Aug 2010 15:02:37 -0700 (PDT), Sparks <energizedconservat...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >... it's a fact ...
>
> It sure is.
No, it's hearsay, and hearsay isn't fact no matter how much you'd like
it to be. Come up with a better source than prisonplanet.com, and see
if you can find some actual proof of your "fact" before you try again.
Hearsay just won't cut it.
Sparks
> On Tue, 3 Aug 2010 15:00:12 -0700 (PDT), Sparks <energizedconservat...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >...dishonest ...about as weak and dishonest as they come.
>
> Tell us all about how you were so afraid that
> the babies of Baghdad were going to nuke you.
No, I'll let the Democratic Leader (at the time) Richard Gephardt tell
you what he thought:
RICHARD GEPHARDT: "Now, I didn't listen to him [George W. Bush] about
the weapons of mass destruction. I went to the CIA, talked to George
Tenet, I talked with his top people. I talked to former Clinton
officials. I became convinced that Saddam Hussein either had weapons
or components of weapons that could wind up in the United States. We
cannot have a weapon of mass destruction used in the United States,
and I'll do anything in my power to prevent that from happening." [end
quote]
House Democratic Majority Leader Richard Gephardt on NBC's Meet the
Press, January 19, 2004
And here's the Democratic ranking member (at the time) of the Senate
Intelligence Committee:
JAY ROCKEFELLER: "There has been some debate over how 'imminent' a
threat Iraq poses. I do believe that Iraq poses an imminent threat,
but I also believe that after September 11, that question is
increasingly outdated. It is in the nature of these weapons, and the
way they are targeted against civilian populations, that documented
capability and demonstrated intent may be the only warning we get. To
insist on further evidence could put some of our fellow Americans at
risk. Can we afford to take that chance? We cannot!"
Senator John D. Rockefeller IV on the Senate Floor, October 10, 2002
Sparks
> On Tue, 3 Aug 2010 15:00:12 -0700 (PDT), Sparks
> <energizedconservat...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >As for the WMD in Iraq, I've already covered that earlier in the
> >thread.
>
Why don't you go back and read the thread, and see what I actually
said.
Sparks
> On Tue, 3 Aug 2010 15:02:37 -0700 (PDT), Sparks
> <energizedconservat...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >No, you have nothing other
> >than your leftist fantasies. What's it like to live in an alternate
> >reality?
>
>
> Trickle-down, Voodoo Reagonomics
Were you around for the 1980s, or are you relying on the lies of the
left about that time? I had some very good years thanks to Reagan's
economics. So did a lot of other people. He was reelected in 1984 by
landslide proportions. How do you think that happened if things were
so bad under his leadership? Please explain.
>
> WMD
I covered this earlier in the thread. Go back and read it.
>
> Wealthy tax cuts
Revenue to the government went up. What do you have against wealthy
people? Are you employed? Does your employer have more or less money
than you?
>
> "deficts don't matter"
Isn't it ironic that all the Democrats who complained about Bush's
deficits have nothing to say about Obama's tripling of Bush's largest
deficit?
>
> ???
That's all you've got?
Ray Fischer
>On Aug 3, 7:26 pm, Obi...@Dicta.net wrote:
>> On Tue, 3 Aug 2010 15:02:37 -0700 (PDT), Sparks
>> <energizedconservat...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >No, you have nothing other
>> >than your leftist fantasies. What's it like to live in an alternate
>> >reality?
>>
>> Well, speaking of "Fantasies"---how about
>>
>> Trickle-down, Voodoo Reagonomics
>
>Were you around for the 1980s, or are you relying on the lies of the
>left about that time? I had some very good years thanks to Reagan's
>economics.
And now the bill is coming due.
> He was reelected in 1984 by
>landslide proportions.
Snicker. Only if you ignore the popular vote.
> How do you think that happened if things were
>so bad under his leadership?
Well, there's that business of trading with America's enemies in order
to fund terrorism in Central America. Tripling the debt. Starting
the shift of wealth to the rich.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
> Dakota <ma...@NOSPAM.com> puked:
>>It's the hawks in the right wing media that are ramping up the fear factor.
>
>Actually it's the Obama administration that's doing it.
That coming from a neonazi racist who wants to kill people.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
*us*
>...dishonest ...about as weak and dishonest as they come.
Tell us all about how you were so afraid that
the babies of Baghdad were going to nuke you.
You sure swallowed a lot of lies.
*us*
>... hearsay, and hearsay isn't fact...
Tell us that one about the mushroom cloud in 45 minutes, again.
On Tue, 3 Aug 2010 15:02:37 -0700 (PDT), Sparks <energizedc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>... it's a fact ...
It sure is.
"London: United States special agents were told to back off the bin Laden family and the
Sparks
> Sparks <energizedconservat...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >On Aug 3, 7:26 pm, Obi...@Dicta.net wrote:
> >> On Tue, 3 Aug 2010 15:02:37 -0700 (PDT), Sparks
> >> <energizedconservat...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> >No, you have nothing other
> >> >than your leftist fantasies. What's it like to live in an alternate
> >> >reality?
>
> >> Well, speaking of "Fantasies"---how about
>
> >> Trickle-down, Voodoo Reagonomics
>
> >Were you around for the 1980s, or are you relying on the lies of the
> >left about that time? I had some very good years thanks to Reagan's
> >economics.
>
> And now the bill is coming due.
No, now the Obama administration is in the process of out-borrowing
all former presidents combined.
>
> > He was reelected in 1984 by
> >landslide proportions.
>
> Snicker. Only if you ignore the popular vote.
I'd say 59% to 41% is a huge landslide. You don't think so? Now if you
were talking about Obama's popular vote, you'd have a point.
>
> > How do you think that happened if things were
> >so bad under his leadership?
>
> Well, there's that business of trading with America's enemies in order
> to fund terrorism in Central America.
Not terrorism, freedom fighters to fight a Communist government after
Democrats in Congress cut off funding. And Reagan was never brought up
on charges for that. But what is it about leftists that they love
Communists and Communism so much? Can someone explain that, please?
>
> Tripling the debt.
There was a Democratic Congress in place for most of that. Or don't
you think Congress has any power?
>
> Starting the shift of wealth to the rich.
Oh that's right, leftists hate the wealthy. You do know that John F.
Kennedy was first to cut the tax rates of the wealthy, don't you? Why
don't leftists ever comment on that?
Sparks
> On Tue, 3 Aug 2010 19:59:23 -0700 (PDT), Sparks <energizedconservat...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >... hearsay, and hearsay isn't fact...
>
> Tell us that one about the mushroom cloud in 45 minutes, again.
Ah yes, the dishonest little leftist can't answer my question, so he
brings up something British Intelligence said. Do you understand that
British Intelligence thought Saddam had WMD? Do you understand that
George W. Bush had nothing to do with that 45 minute claim? Not that
you care about accuracy, you only care about how you *feel* about
it.
Sid9
"Sparks" <energizedc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:e2c573d1-4bad-407f...@v35g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
.
bush,jr was ego driven.
bush,jr is a liar.
bush,jr is an incompetent.
bush,jr is lazy.
bush,jr failed at everything he ever attempted.
bush,jr is a Republican.
*us*
>... dishonest... can't answer ...
Of course you're dishonest and can't answer:
you're a bushkultie.
On Tue, 3 Aug 2010 19:59:23 -0700 (PDT), Sparks <energizedc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>... hearsay, and hearsay isn't fact...
Tell us that one about the mushroom cloud in 45 minutes, again.
On Tue, 3 Aug 2010 15:02:37 -0700 (PDT), Sparks <energizedc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
*us*
[then] chief of US Central Command, said inaction might bring "the sight of the first
mushroom cloud on one of the major population centers on this planet.""
lab~rat >:-)
>lab~rat >:-) <SnapTrap@ouchyouf*cker.ork> wrote:
>> Dakota <ma...@NOSPAM.com> puked:
>
>>>It's the hawks in the right wing media that are ramping up the fear factor.
>>
>>Actually it's the Obama administration that's doing it.
>
>That coming from a neonazi racist who wants to kill people.
What does my wanting to see criminals killed have to do with your
dopey president out there scaring the public? And how does any of
that make me a Nazi?
I couldn't help but notice how much attention you've been giving me
lately. Let's keep this healthy, ok?
lab~rat >:-)
>On Tue, 03 Aug 2010 09:11:40 -0400, "lab~rat >:-)" <ch...@cheeze.net>
>wrote:
>
>>>>So you're a big fan of the UN?
>>>
>>>Exactly why not
>>
>>Because the UN is made up of people that don't have the US interests
>>at heart.
>
>The UN was pushed by the United States above the objections of scumbag
>isolationist republicans.
The UN has outgrown it's usefulness to the US and works counter to our
best interests.
>
>>>If you're a "big fan" of Democracy---then stop yer fucking whining
>>>when democratic institution votes on a policy
>>>
>>>It isn't smart to Cram "democracy" down people throats by rhetoric or
>>>military force---then belittle a democratic institution and
>>>decision/policy
>>
>>Of course, a vast number of members of the UN are from countries that
>>don't have a freakin' clue what a democracy is,
>
>Isn't that the best reason to show them how it works?
Isn't your side against infusing Democracy into other cultures?
Sparks
> On Wed, 4 Aug 2010 05:59:46 -0700 (PDT), Sparks <energizedconservat...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >... you're dishonest... you can't answer ...
>
> Of course you're dishonest and can't answer:
> you're a bushkultie.
I've answered everything, dishonest leftist. Have you shown me a valid
source yet for your previous claim that you've now dropped?
Sparks
> ""Bush evoked the mushroom cloud on Oct 7 [2002], and on Nov 12 General Tommy Franks,
> [then] chief of US Central Command, said inaction might bring "the sight of the first
> mushroom cloud on one of the major population centers on this planet.""
The intelligence was wrong, but it believed Saddam was trying to
reconstitute his nuclear program. But this doesn't answer why you're
so confused that you thought the 45-minute remark could be attributed
to Bush. You're a confused and dishonest little leftist, aren't you?
*us*
political reasons from carrying out full investigations into members of the Bin Laden
family in the US before the terrorist attacks of September 11."
On Wed, 4 Aug 2010 06:28:05 -0700 (PDT), Sparks <energizedc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>...dishonest...
You swallow, then regurgitate, lies.
On Wed, 4 Aug 2010 05:59:46 -0700 (PDT), Sparks <energizedc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>... dishonest... can't answer ...
Of course you're dishonest and can't answer:
you're a bushkultie.
On Tue, 3 Aug 2010 19:59:23 -0700 (PDT), Sparks <energizedc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
*us*
>... believed ...
>so confused ...
You believe instead of learning facts because
you're quite confused, indeed.
""Bush evoked the mushroom cloud on Oct 7 [2002], and on Nov 12 General Tommy Franks,
[then] chief of US Central Command, said inaction might bring "the sight of the first
mushroom cloud on one of the major population centers on this planet.""
Sid9
.
Which is it?
bush,jr is a liar?
bush,jr is a fool?
bush,jr is both a liar and a fool?
Sparks
> On Tue, 3 Aug 2010 20:06:48 -0700 (PDT), Sparks
> <energizedconservat...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >On Aug 3, 7:26 pm, Obi...@Dicta.net wrote:
> >> On Tue, 3 Aug 2010 15:02:37 -0700 (PDT), Sparks
> >> <energizedconservat...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> >No, you have nothing other
> >> >than your leftist fantasies. What's it like to live in an alternate
> >> >reality?
>
> >> Well, speaking of "Fantasies"---how about
>
> >> Trickle-down, Voodoo Reagonomics
>
> >Were you around for the 1980s, or are you relying on the lies of the
> >left about that time?
>
>
> 241 Banks and savings and loans failing Under Reagan
Please explain what you think Reagan did to cause those failures.
>
> Presiding over "the most criminal administration in history"?
That's certainly debatable.
>
> Lying about Selling arms to Iran
>
> Lying to Congress and the American people
You must be thinking of Bill Clinton.
>
> Committing perjury?
Ah yes, you are thinking of Bill Clinton. Reagan was never charged
with any of that.
>
> >> WMD
>
> >I covered this earlier in the thread. Go back and read it.
>
> Then you must have agreed that it was a pack of lies,
The intelligence was wrong. Not only ours, but British Intelligence
was wrong. So was the intelligence of many other countries. As
investigations in our country and the UK have shown, it wasn't lies.
The intelligence was wrong.
>
> that it caused is more international harm,
Do you long for the days of Saddam Hussein and his sons? Do you miss
hearing about his sons torturing Iraqi Olympic athletes who failed to
perform to expectations? Do you miss hearing about Saddam's torture
chambers, where children were tortured in front of their parents to
force the parents to confess to disloyalty to the regime (for
example)?
>
> created more terrorists,
And put Al Qaeda in a ditch.
>
> and turned the civilized world against us?
We had a lot of countries allied with us, and contributing to
rebuilding Iraq after all the damage done by Saddam. Do you miss the
UN sanctions that were killing 5000 Iraqi children per month? Would
you be happier if Saddam and his sons were still in power starving and
torturing the Iraqi people? And having wives of men deemed disloyal
gang-raped while the husband was forced to watch? Seriously, do you
miss all that and wish it was still taking place?
>
> >> Wealthy tax cuts
>
> >Revenue to the government went up. What do you have against wealthy
> >people? Are you employed? Does your employer have more or less money
> >than you?
>
> a) Revenue did not go up based on Reaganomics.
Yes it did, just as it went up after John F. Kennedy lowered taxes on
the wealthy (just as he predicted would happen).
>
> Revenue went up
> because of the lifting oil Embargo---a natural result of business and
> spending again.
That's just one aspect of the economy. There was a lot of other
economic activity that increased during the 1980s. Maybe if you'd been
around to experience it you'd know what you're talking about, rather
than relying on what you've heard from bitter angry leftists who hated
Reagan.
>
> b) Increased revenue was primarily due to massive increases in Defense
> spending---the added revenue was on money the government spent.
You really weren't around back then, were you? If you'd lived through
the disaster of Jimmy Carter, and then "Morning in America" under
Reagan, you might have an entirely different attitude about the
reality of the 1980s. Instead, you've got the revised history written
by angry bitter leftist Reagan haters.
>
> c) The THEORY of supply-side crap that Reagan produced does not
> work---except when a myiad of conditions are almost perfect---and that
> did not occur in ANY of the instances under reagan,
You have no idea what you're talking about. Don't try to tell this to
someone who lived through that time and enjoyed the robust economy of
the 1980s. Sheesh, go tell this to some lame naive college kid, who
will be happy to believe anything you tell him.
>
> or the re-warmed version of Bush.
The problem with the first Bush is that he thought he was smarter than
Reagan. He proved he wasn't. If he'd kept Reagan's policies, he might
have been reelected in 1992.
>
> It was a total failure. Proof? $2 Trillion debt
> after Clinton reversed failed policies and Bush put them back
Uh, the economy was tanking as Clinton left office. The recession he
left for Bush was compounded by 9/11. It's a miracle that the economy
rebounded as well as it did after that.
>
> d) Wealth class did NOT "trickle down"----it's not the nature in this
> modern era. The wealth class uses the massive deregulated financial
> sector to produce more wealth---rather than building businesses.
> That's why "derivitives" and schemers like Bernie Madoff were so
> successful
Wealthy people create other wealthy people. Wealthy people create jobs
for the rest of us. But let's try it your way. Let's do what the USSR
did in 1917 and take all the money away from wealthy people. Look how
well that worked out!
>
> >> "deficts don't matter"
>
> >Isn't it ironic that all the Democrats who complained about Bush's
> >deficits have nothing to say about Obama's tripling of Bush's largest
> >deficit?
>
> The $2 trillion fiasco of Bush, (even an idiot like you should figure
> out) REQUIRES massive amounts to fix.
Too bad he didn't focus on fixing it, then. The economy was the number
one concern of voters, and what did Obama and the Democratic
leadership in Congress focus on? Health care reform! No wonder their
job approval ratings are in the tank!
>
> New intentions of the GOP IF they get the majority back??
>
> Guess.
>
> Hint: "more tax cuts" for the wealth class
No, just continue the current tax rates. But don't worry, the
President still has the veto pen.
>
> >> ???
>
> >That's all you've got?
>
> That's all I need
No, you need a lot more than what you've shown.
Sparks
> On Wed, 4 Aug 2010 05:57:51 -0700 (PDT), Sparks
> <energizedconservat...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> >Were you around for the 1980s, or are you relying on the lies of the
> >> >left about that time? I had some very good years thanks to Reagan's
> >> >economics.
>
> >> And now the bill is coming due.
>
> >No, now the Obama administration is in the process of out-borrowing
> >all former presidents combined.
>
> dodo.
>
> It requires a LOT of money to get back to running
But that's not what he's spending all the money on. His proposed
borrowing for the next ten years will outdo every previous president
combined. Including George W. Bush. But if you're going to use the
excuse that he has to borrow a lot of money because of the economy he
inherited, why don't you give Reagan the same consideration? Because
you weren't around to experience Jimmy Carter's trainwreck of an
economy?
>
> >> Well, there's that business of trading with America's enemies in order
> >> to fund terrorism in Central America.
>
> >Not terrorism, freedom fighters to fight a Communist government after
> >Democrats in Congress cut off funding. And Reagan was never brought up
> >on charges for that. But what is it about leftists that they love
> >Communists and Communism so much? Can someone explain that, please?
>
> However, Reagan DID commit a REAL "impeachable offense" in doing that.
> It was CLEAR subversion of constitutional government, lying, and in
> the Pointdexter depositon---CLEAR PERJURY.
You forgot to explain why leftists love Communism so much. And the
brutal vicious dictators who run (and ran) Communist regimes.
>
> His Mea Culpa on National television proved it.
No, he had plausible denial of what had taken place. Oliver North was
charged and convicted, and then his conviction was overturned on
appeal.
>
> >> Starting the shift of wealth to the rich.
>
> >Oh that's right, leftists hate the wealthy.
>
> We hate the fact that idiots like you actually believe that if you
> make the wealth class richer---they eventually give some back to you
I want my boss to keep more of his own money in his pocket, rather
than send more of it to the government. Then when I ask for a raise,
he's far more likely to give it to me. I want our company's customers
to have more of their own money in their own pocket, so they can hire
us and spend more on our service. But if they have to give more of
their money to the government, they might not use our service as
often. See how that works?
Now you tell me the great benefit I'll get by having my customers send
more of their money to the government. Please explain it to me.
>
> That's the height of ignorance and outright stupidity
No, it's the height of wanting my customers to have more money to
spend on the service I provide. If I wanted them to have less money to
spend on my service, that would be the height of stupidity.
>
> NO human, for any reason connected to a democracy or free enterprise
> system, ought to consider the outright ownership of 90% of the
> national wealth reason to allow more and more to be held.
>
> That's a moral disgrace.
Do you long for the days of the old USSR, and their solution to what
you see as a problem?
Sparks
> "FBI and military intelligence officials in Washington say they were prevented for
> political reasons from carrying out full investigations into members of the Bin Laden
> family in the US before the terrorist attacks of September 11."
>
Nice try, but that's no better than prisonplanet.com. I asked for the
New York Times, or Washington Post, or CNN, or something like that.
Not Joe Blow's website.
Sparks
> On Wed, 4 Aug 2010 06:29:37 -0700 (PDT), Sparks <energizedconservat...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >... believed ...
> >so confused ...
>
> You believe instead of learning facts because
> you're quite confused, indeed.
What happened to the 45-minute thing? Did you forget to include it for
some reason?
>
> ""Bush evoked the mushroom cloud on Oct 7 [2002], and on Nov 12 General Tommy Franks,
> [then] chief of US Central Command, said inaction might bring "the sight of the first
> mushroom cloud on one of the major population centers on this planet.""
>
> http://www.counterpunch.org/cloughley08292003.html
The fact is, the intelligence was wrong. Bill Clinton thought Saddam
had WMD, too. That's why he and Tony Blair bombed the crap out of Iraq
for four days in 1998.
Sparks
> "Sparks" <energizedconservat...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> On Aug 4, 6:05 am, * US * wrote:
>
> >> ""Bush evoked the mushroom cloud on Oct 7 [2002], and on Nov 12 General
> >> Tommy Franks,
> >> [then] chief of US Central Command, said inaction might bring "the sight
> >> of the first
> >> mushroom cloud on one of the major population centers on this planet.""
>
> > The intelligence was wrong, but it believed Saddam was trying to
> > reconstitute his nuclear program. But this doesn't answer why you're
> > so confused that you thought the 45-minute remark could be attributed
> > to Bush. You're a confused and dishonest little leftist, aren't you?
>
> .
> .
> Which is it?
> bush,jr is a liar?
> bush,jr is a fool?
> bush,jr is both a liar and a fool?
None of the above.