Well I finally got SOMETHING!
Jim,
From: "Tom Matzzie, MoveOn PAC" <moveo...@list.moveon.org> Add to
Address BookAdd to Address Book
To: <Jimd...@yahoo.com>
Subject: Tuesday in Rochester: Rally To Defeat Bush's Privatization Scam
This Tuesday in Rochester, as President Bush speaks nearby, help us show
the media and your neighbors the strong momentum we have against Bush's
Social Security privatization scam. Join our rally this Tuesday at
1:30am at The Liberty Pole in Rochester.
Sign up today!
Dear MoveOn member,
You can help save Social Security in Rochester this Tuesday.
On Tuesday, President Bush will visit Greece, New York to push his risky
Social Security privatization scam that would cut benefits and explode
the national debt.
The president's trip to the Congressional District of Republican Tom
Reynolds shows that he needs to buck up support for his unpopular Social
Security scam among his own base. But we can't yield an inch now,
especially since the U.S. Congress is now drafting a Social Security
bill. Any shift in momentum in favor of the president's privatization
plan would be bad for Social Security.
MoveOn is working with the coalition fighting to protect Social
Security, Americans United to Protect Social Security, to organize a
Tuesday rally to voice opposition to the president's privatization
scheme. You are invited to attend and join with local Members of
Congress, senior citizens, students, union members, people of faith and
others concerned about the future of Social Security.
WHAT: Rally to Protect Social Security from Privatization in Rochester
WHEN: Tuesday, May 24, 2005, 1:30 P.M.
WHERE: The Liberty Pole, near the corner of Main St. & East Ave.
Rochester, NY (Rain Location: First Universalist Church, 150 S. Clinton
Avenue, 4 blocks from the Liberty Pole)
RSVP ONLINE: www.americansforsocialsecurity.com/events
DOWNLOAD A FLYER: http://inthistogethercampaign.org/bushflyernew.pdf
SIGNS: Signs will be provided. By using the signs provided at the
event, you can help amplify the message that privatization means cuts
in benefits for middle-class families.
Thanks for all you do.
– Tom Matzzie and the MoveOn PAC Team
Monday, May 23, 2005
P.S. You can check out the amazing momentum these Social Security
rallies show by viewing the video on the front page of
www.americansforsocialsecurity.com. Here are some key points to talk
about if a reporter asks you why you're at the rally.
George Bush's privatization plan would make massive cuts in Social
Security benefits for future retirees and add trillions of dollars to
the national debt.
By replacing our Social Security system with new private accounts,
Social Security benefits will inevitably be cut—up to 46 percent for
future retirees.
In addition to privatization, Bush has proposed even more benefit cuts
that will slash benefits for every middle-class family that makes over
$20,000. Benefit cuts are the problem, not the solution.
George Bush has admitted that privatization does not solve Social
Security's solvency issues, so privatization is a sham meant to replace
a guaranteed benefit with a guaranteed gamble.
PAID FOR BY MOVEON PAC
Not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee.
-bithead-
> Mon, 23 May 2005 10:51:56 -0700
>From: "Tom Matzzie, MoveOn PAC" <moveo...@list.moveon.org> Add to
>Address BookAdd to Address Book
>To: <Jimd...@yahoo.com>
>Subject: Tuesday in Rochester: Rally To Defeat Bush's Privatization Scam
>
>This Tuesday in Rochester, as President Bush speaks nearby, help us show
>the media and your neighbors the strong momentum we have against Bush's
>Social Security privatization scam. Join our rally this Tuesday at
>1:30am at The Liberty Pole in Rochester.
>
>Sign up today!
>Dear MoveOn member,
>
The preceeding message was paid for by a Europian socialist.
---*
BitHead's Place: Political commentary from the REAL world.
http://home.rochester.rr.com/bitheads
Before you preach tolerance, THINK
Those who tolerate *everything*, stand for *nothing*
What do YOU stand for?
Jim,
> On Mon, 23 May 2005 17:58:41 GMT, "Jim," <Jimd...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>> Mon, 23 May 2005 10:51:56 -0700
>>From: "Tom Matzzie, MoveOn PAC" <moveo...@list.moveon.org> Add to
>>Address BookAdd to Address Book
>>To: <Jimd...@yahoo.com>
>>Subject: Tuesday in Rochester: Rally To Defeat Bush's Privatization Scam
>>
>>This Tuesday in Rochester, as President Bush speaks nearby, help us show
>>the media and your neighbors the strong momentum we have against Bush's
>>Social Security privatization scam. Join our rally this Tuesday at
>>1:30am at The Liberty Pole in Rochester.
>>
>>Sign up today!
>>Dear MoveOn member,
>>
>
>
> The preceeding message was paid for by a Europian socialist.
Do tell us who?
Scaly Lizard
>Sign up today!
Wow, "Jim,", you're an allstar organizer!
You post at 10:58 AM that you're lost and need
some way to vent your vitriol and can anyone
please kindly help your poor amateur grassroot
rage?
And by 1:58 PM, less than three hours later,
here you are again. Now, not only do you have
a clue, but you have a plan, a place, and
conveniently enough you also have flyers.
At the Librty Pole. Of course. Hey, didn't the
Rochester Cell of the Workers World Party stage
all their lightly-attended communist rallies in the
1980s right there at the Liberty Pole?
I can understand the attraction of Liberty, but
pehaps it's something about the Pole which
always attracts the communists?
What European Socialist overlord do you
serve, "Jim," ???
Is it Darth Tsoros?
You know, i haven't seen bums begging on highway
offramps since just before the 2004 election, and they
have been entirely absent since the election. But since
the announcement that Bush is coming to town, i have
seen a miraculous rebirth of the Offramp Begging Professional.
Geeee, that couldn't have anything to do with liberal
political actions, could it?
Good luck with the rally, "Jim," and if it works out for
you, then good luck running the NeoCon Re-Education
Camps that you're desperately begging for. No doubt
that internment for re-education is the best thing for
Liberty. No doubt.
One prediction: during your 'rally', all the troops of
beggars on offramps will be gone... they'll all be at
the Liberty Pole to hear Der Fuhrer speak of freedom.
Arbeit Macht Frei, "Jim,".
SL
John Passaniti
> The preceeding message was paid for by a Europian socialist.
The truth is the truth regardless of who says it.
-bithead-
>-bithead- wrote:
>> On Mon, 23 May 2005 17:58:41 GMT, "Jim," <Jimd...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Mon, 23 May 2005 10:51:56 -0700
>>>From: "Tom Matzzie, MoveOn PAC" <moveo...@list.moveon.org> Add to
>>>Address BookAdd to Address Book
>>>To: <Jimd...@yahoo.com>
>>>Subject: Tuesday in Rochester: Rally To Defeat Bush's Privatization Scam
>>>
>>>This Tuesday in Rochester, as President Bush speaks nearby, help us show
>>>the media and your neighbors the strong momentum we have against Bush's
>>>Social Security privatization scam. Join our rally this Tuesday at
>>>1:30am at The Liberty Pole in Rochester.
>>>
>>>Sign up today!
>>>Dear MoveOn member,
>>>
>>
>>
>> The preceeding message was paid for by a Europian socialist.
>
>Do tell us who?
Why, Soros, of course.
-bithead-
If a known liar tells you something, is it the truth?
Soros is a liar.
Which of course means he's got a leftist following.
Dick Margulis
-bithead- wrote:
> On Tue, 24 May 2005 02:50:46 GMT, "Jim," <Jimd...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>>-bithead- wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 23 May 2005 17:58:41 GMT, "Jim," <Jimd...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Mon, 23 May 2005 10:51:56 -0700
>>>>From: "Tom Matzzie, MoveOn PAC" <moveo...@list.moveon.org> Add to
>>>>Address BookAdd to Address Book
>>>>To: <Jimd...@yahoo.com>
>>>>Subject: Tuesday in Rochester: Rally To Defeat Bush's Privatization Scam
>>>>
>>>>This Tuesday in Rochester, as President Bush speaks nearby, help us show
>>>>the media and your neighbors the strong momentum we have against Bush's
>>>>Social Security privatization scam. Join our rally this Tuesday at
>>>>1:30am at The Liberty Pole in Rochester.
>>>>
>>>>Sign up today!
>>>>Dear MoveOn member,
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>The preceeding message was paid for by a Europian socialist.
>>
>>Do tell us who?
>
>
> Why, Soros, of course.
>
Last I checked he was an American citizen.
John Passaniti
>>The truth is the truth regardless of who says it.
>
> If a known liar tells you something, is it the truth?
The truth is independent of the history of the person speaking it. One
might certainly suspect lies from someone who has told lies in the past,
but that is an issue of credibility of the individual. The statements
made by the individual stand on their own.
> Soros is a liar.
So is President Bush and most of his administration. He and his
administration told us a wide variety of lies regarding Iraq, made false
and irrelevant linkages between Saddam and 9/11, claimed we would find
weapons of mass destruction, told us that the war would pay for itself,
told us we would be greeted with sweets and flowers, and on and on.
So let me ask your question: If a known liar (in this case Bush and
most of his administration) tells you something, is it the truth?
I don't know what specific lies you claim Soros has made. You (as
always) prefer to be vague whenever discussions call for details. So
feel free to detail your claims, but for added fun, I'd like you to put
a body count and dollar amount after each of Soros' lies.
David Lentz
"John Passaniti" <nn...@JapanIsShinto.com> wrote in message
news:FtSke.19938$i42....@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
Both Howard Dean and John Kerry said they thought that Iraq had weapons of
mass destruction. Everybody did.
David
Jim,
Everybody did, based on the lies where Bush "fixed" intelligence
(perhaps that should read Bush faked intelligence)
John Passaniti
> Both Howard Dean and John Kerry said they thought that Iraq had
> weapons of mass destruction. Everybody did.
Of course they did! They were told by the President and staff that
WMD's were a serious threat, and they believed it. And why wouldn't
they-- who would have believed that the President and his staff would be
so bold as to lie about (or to be charitable, "misinterpret") the
supposed threat?
Yet, that's exactly what this administration did.
Yeah, I guess I'm disappointed that Dean and Kerry and many others chose
to believe the President and staff without a more serious critical
inquiry into their supposed facts and motivations. But given that the
information used to base their decisions was controlled by the Bush
administration, I'm not sure what other conclusion they could have come to.
Well, at least it's typical for you. You don't see a problem that the
President lied, only that the Democrats followed him into that lie.
Personally, my biggest fear is that the next time this President decides
to inject his brand of freedom into the next oil-rich country, even if
the intelligence shows there is a genuine danger to America, nobody is
going to believe him.
Maybe instead of the President reading "My Pet Goat" he should have been
tried the parable of Chicken Little instead.
Gordon Gekko
"David Lentz" <dlen...@rochester.rr.com> wrote in message
news:mc5le.19414$tM3....@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
>
> Both Howard Dean and John Kerry said they thought that Iraq had weapons of
> mass destruction. Everybody did.
Only someone with no understandinf of both history and geopolitics would
think WMD was the only reason to attack Iraq. Bush had many reasons but
could not state them openly. But I guess the left thinks appeasement of a
murderer who supported terrorism is a good idea. Hell, it worked with
Germany in 1938.
John Passaniti
> Only someone with no understandinf of both history and geopolitics
> would think WMD was the only reason to attack Iraq. Bush had many
> reasons but could not state them openly. But I guess the left thinks
> appeasement of a murderer who supported terrorism is a good idea.
> Hell, it worked with Germany in 1938.
I love the logic here: Bush wasn't completely open with the American
people, but that's okay-- we shouldn't expect the leader of the free
world to expose the real motivations behind his decisions. We should
just blindly trust our President (unless of course, he is a Democrat).
And so sure, Bush lied by not being upfront with the American people,
but since when are lies a big deal? I mean, it's not like lying is part
of any fundamental moral code this country is supposedly rooted in, right?
(I guess you shouldn't ask former Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore that
question. The cognitive dissonance caused from supporting Bush lying to
the American people while at the same time fighting to protect display
of the Ten Commandments (and it's pesky "thou shall not lie or give
false testimony" clause) in a public building is likely to make his head
explode. And don't ask Bush either-- he reported that Jesus Christ was
his favorite philosopher, but I can't find in the Bible where Christ
allows lies in any context.)
Oh, but it gets better. Typical for a Republicans these days, for you
it's all about the ends justifying the means. The word for "had many
reasons but could not state them openly" is deception, no matter how you
want to spin it. So for you, deceiving the American people is perfectly
fine because Saddam is no longer in power. So it doesn't matter that we
were lied to; it doesn't matter that the war was horribly mismanaged; it
doesn't matter that Bush decided to tank the economy by not raising
taxes to pay for his war like every President prior. Oh, and it doesn't
matter that in the amount of time America has been in None of that
matters, because Saddam was captured.
But here's the thing that bothers me. Republicans who go with your
argument love to talk about how evil Saddam was. But when it comes to
the *other* psychotic dictators, leaders of repressive regimes, and
nations complicit in terrorism, you're strangely silent.
Jim,
Sort of in the same vein, may I refer you to the following John
http://www.writersontheloose.com/writers/JMartin/index.cfm?story=16797
John Passaniti
editing. The original paragraph:
> Oh, but it gets better. Typical for a Republicans these days, for you
> it's all about the ends justifying the means. The word for "had many
> reasons but could not state them openly" is deception, no matter how you
> want to spin it. So for you, deceiving the American people is perfectly
> fine because Saddam is no longer in power. So it doesn't matter that we
> were lied to; it doesn't matter that the war was horribly mismanaged; it
> doesn't matter that Bush decided to tank the economy by not raising
> taxes to pay for his war like every President prior. Oh, and it doesn't
> matter that in the amount of time America has been in None of that
> matters, because Saddam was captured.
The last part there should have been "Oh, and it doesn't matter that in
the amount of time America has been in Iraq bringing them justice and
freedom, we've helped to kill an estimated 100000 of them-- some of them
directly, many indirectly because we had a responsibility to bring order
after Saddam's regime collapsed and failed, and a few because torture is
apparently sanctioned by this administration."
I wonder what the Republican response to all this is. It's probably
"well, if you're going to make an omlette, you have to break a few
eggs." So much for the "culture of life" we hear so much about.
David Lentz
"Jim," <Jimd...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:%l5le.15892$zd5....@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
False. Senators like John Kerry were claiming that Sadam Hussien had WMD
back when B.J. Clinton was in office.
David
Gordon Gekko
"John Passaniti" <nn...@JapanIsShinto.com> wrote in message
> But here's the thing that bothers me. Republicans who go with your
> argument love to talk about how evil Saddam was. But when it comes to the
> *other* psychotic dictators, leaders of repressive regimes, and nations
> complicit in terrorism, you're strangely silent.
So, maintaining an embargo on Cuba is doing nothing? Supporting an elected
leader in Ukraine is nothing? Knocking out the Taliban is nothing? Going
into Haiti to throw out a crooked leader is nothing?
The left is upset because things are better and keep getting better in Iraq.
Their leaders set themselves up so they looked good only when things went
bad. They have no ideas and no conviction. Bush is helping build a better
world and it drives the Dems nuts. I mean, consider that most of the
Democrat candidates for president could not agree publicly with the simple
statement "Saddam was evil. We are better off without him!"
What would be the reaction of the average moveon Democrat if Bush found a
cure for cancer?
"Well, he did it without consulting our allies"
"Look at all the doctors and nurses who will be out of work now--they will
have to work at Wal-Mart!"
"It took too long!"
"Yeah, but what about AIDS?"
"What good is living if you can't mayyr your gay lover?"
Gordon Gekko
"John Passaniti" <nn...@JapanIsShinto.com> wrote in message
> The last part there should have been "Oh, and it doesn't matter that in
> the amount of time America has been in Iraq bringing them justice and
> freedom, we've helped to kill an estimated 100000 of them-- some of them
> directly, many indirectly because we had a responsibility to bring order
> after Saddam's regime collapsed and failed, and a few because torture is
> apparently sanctioned by this administration."
So, you are saying things would be better with Saddam killing, raping, and
tourturing many times as many? Do you understand the concept of war and
bringing order to a place after you invade? What about the terrorists
(liberals prefer "insurgents") that are killing most of the Iraqis in this
period?
> I wonder what the Republican response to all this is. It's probably
> "well, if you're going to make an omlette, you have to break a few eggs."
> So much for the "culture of life" we hear so much about.
Rule #1. in war---People die
Rule #2---no matter how much you try, you can't change rule #1.
GO BUSH!
Jim,
Can someone please explain to me how you "mayyr your gay lover"
Is this some secret sex practice I never heard of -- (I admit to living
a sheltered life)
Scaly Lizard
Perhaps he meant "martyr your lover", which many on
the left today would gladly do, if they were sure that
it would get the House, Senate, White House and
Supreme Court all back in comm-- errr, liberal hands.
Darth Tsoros' minions tried to martyr you, by telling
you to perch overlooking a presidential motorcade
route holding a stick.
Keep following them if you like; all i can do is warn
you that they have more interest in political power
than making the country a better place.
Used to be that the party out of power used their
position to come up with the most reasonable and
centrist ideas to solve problems, for that is the only
way back to power in a 2-party system. That's what
the Republicans did in the 1990s, 1930s and 1960s.
That's what the Democrats did in the 1980s and 1950s.
But not today. So far in the Twenty-Aughts, the
Democrats have behaved like spoiled petulant
children, making more accusation than legislation.
In Bush II's first term, i could understand that attitude,
because the election was so close and the Dems
lost the Senate, which was a poke in the eye too.
But now, after losing more ground in Congress in 2004
and losing another squeaker for the White House,
the Democrats' footdragging and attacks sound more
like a desperate whine than the indignation of an
injured party. Instead of coming up with centered
and solid alternatives to current Republican proposals,
the Dems only offer more flak and fud.
Tell your masters that they'd better snap out of it, or
pundits will be calling 2008 "The Year Of The Greens".
SL
Jim,
No one "told" me -- it was an individual act of conscience
Glad to give you the opportunity to rant
John Passaniti
>>> Both Howard Dean and John Kerry said they thought that Iraq had
>>> weapons of mass destruction. Everybody did.
>
> False. Senators like John Kerry were claiming that Sadam Hussien
> had WMD back when B.J. Clinton was in office.
When I was a kid, one of my favorite games to play with my mother and
brother was Scrabble. One time, my mother came up with a word we had
never seen before. I challenged the word, and she picked up a
dictionary, flipped some pages, and then read the definition. What we
didn't know at the time was that she was cheating. She simply read a
random definition. We didn't suspect a thing-- and why would we? Mom
wouldn't pull a trick like that on her own kids...
A few years before that-- I think I was 12-- I convinced my brother he
was psychic. I would say, "I'm thinking of a number between 1 and 10,"
and he would concentrate really hard and blurt out a number. And
amazingly enough-- probably about 90% of the time, far greater than
chance-- I would announce he got the right number. Presto, instant
psychic. And he didn't suspect a thing-- and why should he? His older
brother wouldn't pull a trick like that on him...
Senators like John Kerry were not out in Iraq personally inspecting for
WMD. They based their statements on intelligence gathered by the CIA
and others-- people supposedly who were expert at gathering and
analyzing such data. Of course John Kerry trusted that intelligence--
why wouldn't he?
Regardless, you're deflecting the issue (as always). The issue is that
President Bush and his administration-- not John Kerry-- led this nation
into war under the premise that Iraq had WMD and was substantially
involved in 9/11. We now know that the claims regarding WMD were simply
false. We also know that there is no credible or compelling connection
between Saddam Hussein and 9/11. But that was obvious to anyone with
half a brain-- al Qaeda is entirely based on a fundamentalist
interpretation of Islam, and Saddam's regime was secular with a history
of going after fundamentalist regiems... Iran. Osama bin Laden even
once made a point of pointing out that Saddam's regime was morally bankrupt.
But to Joe and Jane Sixpack who sit at home and watch Fox and can't tell
one funny Middle-Eastern name from another, it's all a blur. And that's
what the Bush administration has so wonderfully capitalized in this war.
Of course, faced with that, Bush supporters fall back to the "Saddam was
evil" argument, as if being wrong about WMD and connections to 9/11 were
irrelevant. It's mind boggling to hear such defenses, which basically
amount to "yeah, the President and his administration lied and many have
died, but Saddam was evil so there."
For them, we were supposedly there to topple an evil dictator all along.
And lucky for the Bush supporters, Saddam and his regime were indeed
evil. But more evil than Kim Jong-Il's? More evil than a half-dozen
other psychopaths running around? No, probably not. But those other
psychopaths don't live in oil-rich countries. And those other
psychopaths didn't try to kill Bush's dad (as Junior expressed in 2002
to the press).
John Passaniti
>> But here's the thing that bothers me. Republicans who go with your
>> argument love to talk about how evil Saddam was. But when it
>> comes to the *other* psychotic dictators, leaders of repressive
>> regimes, and nations complicit in terrorism, you're strangely
>> silent.
>
> So, maintaining an embargo on Cuba is doing nothing? Supporting an
> elected leader in Ukraine is nothing? Knocking out the Taliban is
> nothing? Going into Haiti to throw out a crooked leader is nothing?
Last time I checked, Castro was still in power-- as he has been all
throughout the years the embargo has been in effect. So no, I don't
consider that as terribly effective. It has great political value for
Cubans living in Florida.
Wooo-- we support Yushchenko. I'm not entirely sure why it's relevant
in this list (go back and read the paragraph you responded to) and be a
dear and write back, okay?
Knocking out the Taliban? Under what President was that again?
But hey, you got one with Haiti! Well, sort of. Jean-Bertrand Aristide
did take over for a while in 1990 (so I guess Bush Sr. automatically
gets some points). But it was 1994 when he got back in power... and who
was the President then? Awww, too bad.
Well, it was a good effort anyway. But when I was thinking of
repressive regimes, psychotic dictators, and nations complicit in
terrorism that we are ignoring with the Iraq diversion, I was thinking
about places like North Korea, Saudi Arabia, and whatever African leader
du jour is chopping off people's heads. I know why the Republicans
don't go after Saudi Arabia despite clear connections to terrorist
attacks and insane human rights violations-- Bush's financial
connections there. And I know why Republicans don't go after North
Korea-- Rumsfeld declared there were no good targets there for his
push-button war. And I know why Republicans aren't concerned about
genocides in Africa-- sorry, no oil, no help.
You can deflect the issue all you like. If you *really* believe that
Bush went to war with Iraq because he was so gosh-darn concerned about
the people there having freedom from their Froot-Loops leader, then if
you want to be consistent, there are *dozens* of places troops should be
sent to right now.
That they aren't tells you all you need to know about the true
motivations for this war.
> What would be the reaction of the average moveon Democrat if Bush
> found a cure for cancer?
I'm not entirely sure how a C student who got into Yale because his
daddy was rich and powerful could find a cure for cancer. But if by
some bizarre stroke of luck Bush ever did such a thing, you can be sure
that three things would happen:
1. He would be congratulated, maybe receive some awards.
2. He would sell the formula to pharmaceutical companies that were
campaign contributors. They would charge an outrageous amount for the
cure, of which only the top 1% would be able to afford. When the cure
went generic and could be produced in Canada, he would claim that the
less-expensive Canadian cure was tainted by terrorists (yet none of the
other products from Canada, like food) are.
3. As your cancer-ravaged body (mercury levels from the Bush EPA?) was
taking it's last breath, you would have thought to yourself that it sure
would have been nice if you had access to the cancer cure. But because
you're such a loyal Republican, as the room gets dimmer you don't dare
let a moment's cognitive dissonance stop you from thinking what a great
leader Bush is! He's helping the economy by giving the grave diggers a job!
Karmic justice is a bitch. Enjoy!
John Passaniti
> So, you are saying things would be better with Saddam killing,
> raping, and tourturing many times as many? Do you understand the
> concept of war and bringing order to a place after you invade? What
> about the terrorists (liberals prefer "insurgents") that are killing
> most of the Iraqis in this period?
I'm saying several things.
First, I am saying that the ends doesn't justify the means. You've
convinced yourself that the Iraq war was just because you choose to
narrowly focus on just one singular aspect of it. You aren't bothered
by the lies for some reason.
Second, I am saying that I'm all for America toppling repressive regimes
and getting rid of psycho dictators. And that means that yes, I agree
that getting rid of Saddam was a good thing. But that requires three
things:
1. Consistency: It makes no sense to claim we are going to Iraq to
free their people when we are ignoring places like North Korea, Saudi
Arabia, and parts of Africa.
2. Effectiveness: Rumsfeld who like most of the Bush administration
has never actually been in battle thought his push-button war could be
done on the cheap. He ignored military advice for handling the war in
Iraq that said we would need vastly more troops and more money. And the
rest of the Bush administration being the only war-time President who
hasn't raised taxes to properly fund the war has led to American deaths
(and serious injury).
3. Cooperation: The idiotic "coalition of the willing" (Hey! Don't
forget Poland!) is disproportionately American. This reflects on how
badly the Bush administration made the case to the world, and it
continues to put the responsibility nearly entirely on our own shoulders.
> GO BUSH!
How you can support an administration that reeks incompetence is beyond
me. I think it's related to Stockholm Syndrome.
John Passaniti
> If a known liar tells you something, is it the truth?
> Soros is a liar.
> Which of course means he's got a leftist following.
George Bush and his administration lied about Iraq. So do you trust
them? Oh, I forgot-- ends justify the means-- of course you do.
Gordon Gekko
The lie here is saying Bush "lied" about Iraq. He went off of intelligence
gathering, which is never exact. And we cannot here of intel that works,
only the failures.
Of course, I'm sure John "I got 4 'D's'" my freshman year would have done
better, right?
"John Passaniti" <nn...@JapanIsShinto.com> wrote in message
news:TVppe.30$yg...@news01.roc.ny...
John Passaniti
> The lie here is saying Bush "lied" about Iraq. He went off
> of intelligence gathering, which is never exact. And we cannot
> here of intel that works, only the failures.
Yeah, I believed that too. But since news of the "Downing Street memo"
came out, I no longer do.
> Of course, I'm sure John "I got 4 'D's'" my freshman year
> would have done better, right?
I have no idea what this weak attempt at an insult is supposed to mean.
Dick Margulis
John Passaniti wrote:
John Kerry's Yale transcript was released the other day. "Gordon" was
referring to _that_ John, not to you.