Scott in Florida, 8/12/2006,2:18:36 PM, wrote:

That's funny! ....and sad.

Unfortunately liberals hold more and longer grudges against people for
some reason. Maybe they don't know how to forGIVE, they just know how
to BEG for forgiveness.

--
"The laws in this city are clearly racist. All laws are racist. The law
of gravity is racist." ~ Marion Barry, Mayor of Washington, DC

On Sat, 12 Aug 2006 21:24:20 -0500, "dh" <dh (AT) stargate (DOT) com> wrote:

Billy Bob Clintoon had the chance to stop 9/11 by taking out Osama.

That is something that needs to be talked about forever.

That points out why NOT to vote for Dimocrats for anything higher than
a dog catcher....


--

Scott in Florida

'The Land of the Free because of the Brave'

Talking about hold a grudge, Rumsfeld outed the poor GI who exposed Abu
Ghraib and now his life is in danger:

http://apnews.excite.com/article/200...D8JDN2BG0.html

First the administation outs a CIA operative and now this.



"badgolferman" <REMOVETHISbadgolferman (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote

Scott in Florida wrote:
9/11 didn't happen on Clinton's watch but on Bush's, even though Bush
was warned to be on the lookout for something like that. Your boy was
sleeping at the wheel.

" dbu." <howard (AT) dynoisadork (DOT) com> wrote

I have the same habit:

Dimocrats
Unleaned Richard
(F)art
Stuart Kravits
ToMh Slick
Ellen Degenerate
Sodam Insane.
George Sore-A$$
MoveOffMyA$$.org

Charles of Schamuburg

dbu. wrote:
I don't absolve Clinton on this.

That's part of a long, sad tradition of U.S. presidents sending
American forces into battle without sufficient support or numbers, and
the results have always always been tragic, as the Iraqi war shows.

Probably because he had been in office for only a month and not warned
by the previous administration, unlike the case with Bush, who had
plenty of warnings and 8 months before 9/11.

dbu. wrote:
Why didn't Bush?

" dbu." <howard (AT) dynoisadork (DOT) com> wrote

I ordinarily regard you as an unthinking, uncritical, knee-jerk puppet of
BushCo but this question really tests the lower limits of my estimation of
your intellectual powers.

At that time, bin Laden had not managed to attack us here. Clinton had
taken steps to neutralize him (attempted assassination in '98, for instance
and sponsored sanctions against Afghanistan in an attempt to secure his
expulsion) but did not know what bin Laden would do in 2001 and, given that
we didn't have a useable reason for invading a sovereign country,
Afghanistan to get him, Clinton's options for dealing with bin Laden were
limited.

Post-9/11, Bush had no such restrtions. Bush could operate openly in
Afghanistan. Practically the whole world lined up behind us and said, "Go
get him!" Bush didn't get bin Laden because he stopped chasing him. He
wants this bogeyman on the loose, to help keep the population living in fear
and the NeoCons in power.

Look at the big picture. bin Laden's still on the loose, Afghanistan has
not been fixed in any meaningful way (both the Taliban and opium production
are on the rise) and Bush has royally screwed up a country that had never
attacked us, bogging down >100,000 troops, persuading the rest of the world
to oppose us in many areas of our foreign policy and has looked the other
way while NK and Iran have embarked on aggressive nuclear weapons programs.

Unfortunately, the Golden Age for dealing with bin Laden may be coming to a
close. The future's worse. James Clavell wrote a book about the Iranian
Revolution of 1978-9 called "Whirlwind," which could just about sum up the
way Saudi Arabia goes: suddenly, vigorously, without much warning and not
our way. There's probably no graceful way to steer this feudal society into
a democracy and keep their friendship - or rely on their regional support.
Just like Iran, the best organizatio outside of the government are the
clergy. Organization counts for a lot. Over in Pakistan, Musharraf lives
under the Sword of Damocles. Pakistan is extremely important in the drive
to eradicate terrorism (look at the recent terror plot uncovered in GB - the
Pakistani connection made this possible) and the Bush Administration does
little to show the Pakistani people that we appreciate their help. At some
point Musharraf will die and the odds of getting a replacement that's as
helpful is zilch.



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

" dbu." <howard (AT) dynoisadork (DOT) com> wrote

Oh, I see! Maybe you'd like to discuss the US's economy w/ its then-surplus
Vs. its present huge red hole status? ;-P

Cathy

Why didn't the clinton administration

On Fri, 18 Aug 2006 14:16:57 -0400, "Cathy F." <clfr (AT) adelphia (DOT) net>
wrote:

Sure.

The Republicans forced the surplus....which really was not a
surplus....cause you Dims lumped Social Security into the general
fund.

Let's talk about the deficit during our war on terror that is 100
BILLION less than forecast.

Sure...let's talk about the red hole...


--

Scott in Florida

'The Land of the Free because of the Brave'