Guest Simpson Posted February 16, 2008 Posted February 16, 2008 znuybv wrote: > On Feb 15, 3:36 pm, Mitchell Holman <Noem...@comcast.com> wrote: >> "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )" <tributyltinpa...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote innews:47B5C0CE.21CB971B@yahoo.co.uk: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> Mitchell Holman wrote: >>>> "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )" <tributyltinpa...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in >>>> news:47B5180E.9D003D59@yahoo.co.uk: >>>>> Gandalf Grey wrote: >>>>>> The Real Reason Congressional Democrats are Wimping Out on Iraq >>>>>> By Wagenvoord >>>>>> (9/11 was a criminal act and your exploitation of that tragedy has >>>>>> been unforgivable.) >>>>> You are disgusting. 9/11 was an attack on the US, you don't care. You >>>>> pretend that because everyone who attacked on 9/11 died on 9/11 that >>>>> it's over. You don't see, intentionally, that this is an epic clash of >>>>> ideas, between modernity and a warped ancient evil. Why you >>>>> intentionally don't see this is less clear. >>>>>> And when one sends them into combat, one does so with the best >>>>>> equipment money can buy. Rumsfeld's doctrine was that an army goes to >>>>>> war with the equipment it has. This left our brave men and women >>>>>> needlessly exposed to unnecessary death and injury. How many lives >>>>>> could have been saved had every vehicle sent to Iraq been properly >>>>>> armored up? >>>>> Why didn't America have the best arms available? Isn't it because it >> had >>>>> just come off of eight years of Clinton-Gore who never met a military >>>>> programme they didn't want to cut? Oh, and you do go to war with what >>>>> you have, it's absurd to claim you go to war with what you don't have. >>>> Let's see: Bush thinks the military is sufficient >>>> to win the War Against Iraq that HE STARTED and when his >>>> estimation proves wrong it is all Clinton's fault? >>> The war was and is vital to US security. You go to war with what you >>> have. >> Bush started the war. >> >> Bush underestimated the number of troops needed. >> >> Both of which are Clinton's fault, of course. >> >> Sheesh.............. > > How long did it take the American troops to reach Baghdad and topple > the Saddam Hussein government? A few days less than it took them to realize that they didn't have enough troops to secure the country. Quote
Guest Simpson Posted February 16, 2008 Posted February 16, 2008 znuybv wrote: > On Feb 15, 12:12 pm, David Johnston <da...@block.net> wrote: >> On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 04:41:50 +0000, "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )" >> >> >> >> <tributyltinpa...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: >> >>> Gandalf Grey wrote: >>>> The Real Reason Congressional Democrats are Wimping Out on Iraq >>>> By Wagenvoord >>>> (9/11 was a criminal act and your exploitation of that tragedy has >>>> been unforgivable.) >>> You are disgusting. 9/11 was an attack on the US, you don't care. You >>> pretend that because everyone who attacked on 9/11 died on 9/11 that >>> it's over. You don't see, intentionally, that this is an epic clash of >>> ideas, >> The problem with trying to win clashes of ideas with guns is that guns >> shoot bullets, not memes. > > When you have a gun people get the idea. Without guns you would not > have liberty or freedom. Those wh will not fight for their freedom do > not deserve it. > > "War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and > degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that > nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for > which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his > own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of > being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than > himself." -- John Stuart Mill John Stuart Mill was a liberal. Look it up. Having said that, I would like to point out that Iraq was not a threat to the mighty United States and for the mighty United States to attack Iraq with such overwhelming force was nothing short of the act of a coward. Quote
Guest Mitchell Holman Posted February 16, 2008 Posted February 16, 2008 "Jerry Okamura" <okamuraj005@hawaii.rr.com> wrote in news:47b6335f$0$24119 $4c368faf@roadrunner.com: > > "znuybv" <thowilson@gmail.com> wrote in message > news:9edc45ef-2aee-4ccf-a743-bf050adca938@s37g2000prg.googlegroups.com... >> On Feb 15, 6:09 am, Mitchell Holman <Noem...@comcast.com> wrote: >>> "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )" <tributyltinpa...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote >>> innews:47B5180E.9D003D59@yahoo.co.uk: >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> > Gandalf Grey wrote: >>> >>> >> The Real Reason Congressional Democrats are Wimping Out on Iraq >>> >>> >> By Wagenvoord >>> >>> >> (9/11 was a criminal act and your exploitation of that tragedy has >>> >> been unforgivable.) >>> >>> > You are disgusting. 9/11 was an attack on the US, you don't care. You >>> > pretend that because everyone who attacked on 9/11 died on 9/11 that >>> > it's over. You don't see, intentionally, that this is an epic clash of >>> > ideas, between modernity and a warped ancient evil. Why you >>> > intentionally don't see this is less clear. >>> >>> >> And when one sends them into combat, one does so with the best >>> >> equipment money can buy. Rumsfeld's doctrine was that an army goes to >>> >> war with the equipment it has. This left our brave men and women >>> >> needlessly exposed to unnecessary death and injury. How many lives >>> >> could have been saved had every vehicle sent to Iraq been properly >>> >> armored up? >>> >>> > Why didn't America have the best arms available? Isn't it because it >>> > had >>> > just come off of eight years of Clinton-Gore who never met a military >>> > programme they didn't want to cut? Oh, and you do go to war with what >>> > you have, it's absurd to claim you go to war with what you don't have. >>> >>> Let's see: Bush thinks the military is sufficient >>> to win the War Against Iraq that HE STARTED and when his >>> estimation proves wrong it is all Clinton's fault? >>> >>> Sheesh....... >>> >>> Mitchell Holman >>> >> When America goes to war it should go all out to win the war. Bush >> and you do not believe that. > > That would be true if Bush believed in cutting and running, and so far he > has not said he is willing to do that. And why not? None of his family is serving in Iraq so what does he care what happens to the troops he is marooning there? Mitchell Holman "I heard somebody say, 'Where's Nelson Mandela?' Well, Mandela's dead. Because Saddam killed all the Mandelas." George W. Bush, on the former South African president who is still very much alive, Sept. 20, 2007 Quote
Guest Mitchell Holman Posted February 16, 2008 Posted February 16, 2008 Simpson <zwei-part@epoxy.com> wrote in news:nLqtj.11428$Ch6.3049@newssvr11.news.prodigy.net: > znuybv wrote: >> On Feb 15, 3:36 pm, Mitchell Holman <Noem...@comcast.com> wrote: >>> "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )" <tributyltinpa...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote >>> innews:47B5C0CE.21CB971B@yahoo.co.uk: >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> Mitchell Holman wrote: >>>>> "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )" <tributyltinpa...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in >>>>> news:47B5180E.9D003D59@yahoo.co.uk: >>>>>> Gandalf Grey wrote: >>>>>>> The Real Reason Congressional Democrats are Wimping Out on Iraq >>>>>>> By Wagenvoord >>>>>>> (9/11 was a criminal act and your exploitation of that tragedy has >>>>>>> been unforgivable.) >>>>>> You are disgusting. 9/11 was an attack on the US, you don't care. >>>>>> You pretend that because everyone who attacked on 9/11 died on 9/11 >>>>>> that it's over. You don't see, intentionally, that this is an epic >>>>>> clash of ideas, between modernity and a warped ancient evil. Why >>>>>> you intentionally don't see this is less clear. >>>>>>> And when one sends them into combat, one does so with the best >>>>>>> equipment money can buy. Rumsfeld's doctrine was that an army goes >>>>>>> to war with the equipment it has. This left our brave men and >>>>>>> women needlessly exposed to unnecessary death and injury. How many >>>>>>> lives could have been saved had every vehicle sent to Iraq been >>>>>>> properly armored up? >>>>>> Why didn't America have the best arms available? Isn't it because >>>>>> it >>> had >>>>>> just come off of eight years of Clinton-Gore who never met a >>>>>> military programme they didn't want to cut? Oh, and you do go to >>>>>> war with what you have, it's absurd to claim you go to war with >>>>>> what you don't have. >>>>> Let's see: Bush thinks the military is sufficient >>>>> to win the War Against Iraq that HE STARTED and when his >>>>> estimation proves wrong it is all Clinton's fault? >>>> The war was and is vital to US security. You go to war with what you >>>> have. >>> Bush started the war. >>> >>> Bush underestimated the number of troops needed. >>> >>> Both of which are Clinton's fault, of course. >>> >>> Sheesh.............. >> >> How long did it take the American troops to reach Baghdad and topple >> the Saddam Hussein government? > > A few days less than it took them to realize that they didn't have > enough troops to secure the country. And a few days more than it took to realize that Saddam didn't have any WMD's after all. Quote
Guest Jerry Okamura Posted February 16, 2008 Posted February 16, 2008 "Mitchell Holman" <Noemail@comcast.com> wrote in message news:Xns9A45CB7E42671ta2eene@216.196.97.131... > "Jerry Okamura" <okamuraj005@hawaii.rr.com> wrote in news:47b6335f$0$24119 > $4c368faf@roadrunner.com: > >> >> "znuybv" <thowilson@gmail.com> wrote in message >> news:9edc45ef-2aee-4ccf-a743-bf050adca938@s37g2000prg.googlegroups.com... >>> On Feb 15, 6:09 am, Mitchell Holman <Noem...@comcast.com> wrote: >>>> "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )" <tributyltinpa...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote >>>> innews:47B5180E.9D003D59@yahoo.co.uk: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> > Gandalf Grey wrote: >>>> >>>> >> The Real Reason Congressional Democrats are Wimping Out on Iraq >>>> >>>> >> By Wagenvoord >>>> >>>> >> (9/11 was a criminal act and your exploitation of that tragedy has >>>> >> been unforgivable.) >>>> >>>> > You are disgusting. 9/11 was an attack on the US, you don't care. You >>>> > pretend that because everyone who attacked on 9/11 died on 9/11 that >>>> > it's over. You don't see, intentionally, that this is an epic clash > of >>>> > ideas, between modernity and a warped ancient evil. Why you >>>> > intentionally don't see this is less clear. >>>> >>>> >> And when one sends them into combat, one does so with the best >>>> >> equipment money can buy. Rumsfeld's doctrine was that an army goes > to >>>> >> war with the equipment it has. This left our brave men and women >>>> >> needlessly exposed to unnecessary death and injury. How many lives >>>> >> could have been saved had every vehicle sent to Iraq been properly >>>> >> armored up? >>>> >>>> > Why didn't America have the best arms available? Isn't it because it >>>> > had >>>> > just come off of eight years of Clinton-Gore who never met a military >>>> > programme they didn't want to cut? Oh, and you do go to war with what >>>> > you have, it's absurd to claim you go to war with what you don't > have. >>>> >>>> Let's see: Bush thinks the military is sufficient >>>> to win the War Against Iraq that HE STARTED and when his >>>> estimation proves wrong it is all Clinton's fault? >>>> >>>> Sheesh....... >>>> >>>> Mitchell Holman >>>> >>> When America goes to war it should go all out to win the war. Bush >>> and you do not believe that. >> >> That would be true if Bush believed in cutting and running, and so far he >> has not said he is willing to do that. > > > And why not? None of his family is serving in Iraq > so what does he care what happens to the troops he is > marooning there? Truman had no one serving when he took us to war with Korea. Clinton had no one in his family serving when he sent our military into Yugoslavia. Your point????? > > > > Mitchell Holman > > "I heard somebody say, 'Where's Nelson Mandela?' Well, > Mandela's dead. Because Saddam killed all the Mandelas." > George W. Bush, on the former South African president who > is still very much alive, Sept. 20, 2007 > > > > > Quote
Guest Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) Posted February 16, 2008 Posted February 16, 2008 Gandalf Grey wrote: > > "Lamont Cranston" <Lamont.Cranston@umbra.com> wrote in message > news:fp4oir$eh7$1@news.albasani.net... > > Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote: > >> Mitchell Holman wrote: > >>> > >>> "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )" <tributyltinpaint@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in > >>> news:47B5180E.9D003D59@yahoo.co.uk: > >>> > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > Gandalf Grey wrote: > >>> >> > >>> >> The Real Reason Congressional Democrats are Wimping Out on Iraq > >>> >> > >>> >> By Wagenvoord > >>> >> > >>> >> (9/11 was a criminal act and your exploitation of that tragedy has > >>> >> been unforgivable.) > >>> >> > >>> > You are disgusting. 9/11 was an attack on the US, you don't care. > >>> > You pretend that because everyone who attacked on 9/11 died on > >>> > 9/11 that it's over. You don't see, intentionally, that this is an > >>> > epic clash of ideas, between modernity and a warped ancient evil. > >>> > Why you intentionally don't see this is less clear. > >>> > > >>> > > >>> >> > >>> >> And when one sends them into combat, one does so with the best > >>> >> equipment money can buy. Rumsfeld's doctrine was that an army > >>> >> goes to war with the equipment it has. This left our brave men > >>> >> and women needlessly exposed to unnecessary death and injury. How > >>> >> many lives could have been saved had every vehicle sent to Iraq > >>> >> been properly armored up? > >>> >> > >>> > Why didn't America have the best arms available? Isn't it because > >>> > it had just come off of eight years of Clinton-Gore who never met > >>> > a military programme they didn't want to cut? Oh, and you do go to > >>> > war with what you have, it's absurd to claim you go to war with > >>> > what you don't have. > >>> > >>> Let's see: Bush thinks the military is sufficient > >>> to win the War Against Iraq that HE STARTED and when his > >>> estimation proves wrong it is all Clinton's fault? > >>> > >> The war was and is vital to US security. You go to war with what you > >> have. > > > > The war has nothing to do with U.S. security. Iraq was not a threat to > > the U.S. It was a war of choice, plain and simple. > > Note that Bonde...ever the disingenous troll...has nothing to back up his > claim that Iraq war was "vital to US security." > I've repeatedly explained why Iraq was and is vital to US security. You simply ignore the reasons and assert that I've not explained it to you. -- "What do you value in your bulldogs? Gripping, is it not? It's their nature? It's why you breed them? It's so with men. I will not give in because I oppose it. Not my pride, not my spleen, nor any other of my appetites, but I do. Is there in the midst of all this muscle no single sinew that serves no appetite of Norfolk's but is just Norfolk? Give that some exercise. Because, as you stand, you'll go before your Maker ill-conditioned. He'll think that somewhere along your pedigree, a bitch got over the wall." -+Paul Scofield, "A Man For All Seasons" Quote
Guest Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) Posted February 17, 2008 Posted February 17, 2008 Simpson wrote: > > Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote: > > > > Gandalf Grey wrote: > >> The Real Reason Congressional Democrats are Wimping Out on Iraq > >> > >> By Wagenvoord > >> > >> (9/11 was a criminal act and your exploitation of that tragedy has > >> been unforgivable.) > >> > > You are disgusting. 9/11 was an attack on the US, you don't care. You > > pretend that because everyone who attacked on 9/11 died on 9/11 that > > it's over. You don't see, intentionally, that this is an epic clash of > > ideas, between modernity and a warped ancient evil. Why you > > intentionally don't see this is less clear. > > This is what modernity did: > > http://www.dtman.com/covert/images/child.jpg > http://www.dtman.com/covert/images/child.jpg > http://www.peterwhitecycles.com/images/ali.jpg > > You are every bit as much to blame as any supporter of Osama bin Laden. > What are you talking about? -- "What do you value in your bulldogs? Gripping, is it not? It's their nature? It's why you breed them? It's so with men. I will not give in because I oppose it. Not my pride, not my spleen, nor any other of my appetites, but I do. Is there in the midst of all this muscle no single sinew that serves no appetite of Norfolk's but is just Norfolk? Give that some exercise. Because, as you stand, you'll go before your Maker ill-conditioned. He'll think that somewhere along your pedigree, a bitch got over the wall." -+Paul Scofield, "A Man For All Seasons" Quote
Guest Mitchell Holman Posted February 17, 2008 Posted February 17, 2008 "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )" <tributyltinpaint@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in news:47B77517.DB21F49C@yahoo.co.uk: > > > Gandalf Grey wrote: >> >> "Lamont Cranston" <Lamont.Cranston@umbra.com> wrote in message >> news:fp4oir$eh7$1@news.albasani.net... >> > Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote: >> >> Mitchell Holman wrote: >> >>> >> >>> "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )" <tributyltinpaint@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in >> >>> news:47B5180E.9D003D59@yahoo.co.uk: >> >>> >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > Gandalf Grey wrote: >> >>> >> >> >>> >> The Real Reason Congressional Democrats are Wimping Out on Iraq >> >>> >> >> >>> >> By Wagenvoord >> >>> >> >> >>> >> (9/11 was a criminal act and your exploitation of that tragedy has >> >>> >> been unforgivable.) >> >>> >> >> >>> > You are disgusting. 9/11 was an attack on the US, you don't care. >> >>> > You pretend that because everyone who attacked on 9/11 died on >> >>> > 9/11 that it's over. You don't see, intentionally, that this is an >> >>> > epic clash of ideas, between modernity and a warped ancient evil. >> >>> > Why you intentionally don't see this is less clear. >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> >> >> >>> >> And when one sends them into combat, one does so with the best >> >>> >> equipment money can buy. Rumsfeld's doctrine was that an army >> >>> >> goes to war with the equipment it has. This left our brave men >> >>> >> and women needlessly exposed to unnecessary death and injury. How >> >>> >> many lives could have been saved had every vehicle sent to Iraq >> >>> >> been properly armored up? >> >>> >> >> >>> > Why didn't America have the best arms available? Isn't it because >> >>> > it had just come off of eight years of Clinton-Gore who never met >> >>> > a military programme they didn't want to cut? Oh, and you do go to >> >>> > war with what you have, it's absurd to claim you go to war with >> >>> > what you don't have. >> >>> >> >>> Let's see: Bush thinks the military is sufficient >> >>> to win the War Against Iraq that HE STARTED and when his >> >>> estimation proves wrong it is all Clinton's fault? >> >>> >> >> The war was and is vital to US security. You go to war with what you >> >> have. >> > >> > The war has nothing to do with U.S. security. Iraq was not a threat to >> > the U.S. It was a war of choice, plain and simple. >> >> Note that Bonde...ever the disingenous troll...has nothing to back up his >> claim that Iraq war was "vital to US security." >> > I've repeatedly explained why Iraq was and is vital to US security. You > simply ignore the reasons and assert that I've not explained it to you. Was Iraq "vital to US security" when the US government was both arming Saddam and then attacking Saddam? Quote
Guest Wolfie Posted February 17, 2008 Posted February 17, 2008 Gandalf Grey wrote: > The Real Reason Congressional Democrats are Wimping Out on Iraq > > By Wagenvoord > > Created Feb 12 2008 - 9:59am > > > By Case Wagenvoord > > Rolling Stone writer Matt Taibbi has called Senate Majority Leader Harry > Reid "one of the biggest pussies in U.S. political history." While this may > be true, there is a deeper explanation for Reid's timidity. > > Democrats cower in fear of being called "soft on terror/national > defense/national security by Republicans. The very act of cowering is > political suicide because it confirms the Republican charges. Completely bogus assertion, The real reason is that the Dems are on the same special interest payroll as the GOP. Any fool can see that the GOP were and are completely incompetent at National Security. They have a list of failures not seen since Pearl Harbor. -- Wolfie Quote
Guest Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) Posted February 17, 2008 Posted February 17, 2008 Mitchell Holman wrote: > > "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )" <tributyltinpaint@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in > news:47B77517.DB21F49C@yahoo.co.uk: > > > > > > > Gandalf Grey wrote: > >> > >> "Lamont Cranston" <Lamont.Cranston@umbra.com> wrote in message > >> news:fp4oir$eh7$1@news.albasani.net... > >> > Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote: > >> >> Mitchell Holman wrote: > >> >>> > >> >>> "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )" <tributyltinpaint@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in > >> >>> news:47B5180E.9D003D59@yahoo.co.uk: > >> >>> > >> >>> > > >> >>> > > >> >>> > Gandalf Grey wrote: > >> >>> >> > >> >>> >> The Real Reason Congressional Democrats are Wimping Out on Iraq > >> >>> >> > >> >>> >> By Wagenvoord > >> >>> >> > >> >>> >> (9/11 was a criminal act and your exploitation of that tragedy > has > >> >>> >> been unforgivable.) > >> >>> >> > >> >>> > You are disgusting. 9/11 was an attack on the US, you don't care. > >> >>> > You pretend that because everyone who attacked on 9/11 died on > >> >>> > 9/11 that it's over. You don't see, intentionally, that this is an > >> >>> > epic clash of ideas, between modernity and a warped ancient evil. > >> >>> > Why you intentionally don't see this is less clear. > >> >>> > > >> >>> > > >> >>> >> > >> >>> >> And when one sends them into combat, one does so with the best > >> >>> >> equipment money can buy. Rumsfeld's doctrine was that an army > >> >>> >> goes to war with the equipment it has. This left our brave men > >> >>> >> and women needlessly exposed to unnecessary death and injury. How > >> >>> >> many lives could have been saved had every vehicle sent to Iraq > >> >>> >> been properly armored up? > >> >>> >> > >> >>> > Why didn't America have the best arms available? Isn't it because > >> >>> > it had just come off of eight years of Clinton-Gore who never met > >> >>> > a military programme they didn't want to cut? Oh, and you do go to > >> >>> > war with what you have, it's absurd to claim you go to war with > >> >>> > what you don't have. > >> >>> > >> >>> Let's see: Bush thinks the military is sufficient > >> >>> to win the War Against Iraq that HE STARTED and when his > >> >>> estimation proves wrong it is all Clinton's fault? > >> >>> > >> >> The war was and is vital to US security. You go to war with what you > >> >> have. > >> > > >> > The war has nothing to do with U.S. security. Iraq was not a threat > to > >> > the U.S. It was a war of choice, plain and simple. > >> > >> Note that Bonde...ever the disingenous troll...has nothing to back up > his > >> claim that Iraq war was "vital to US security." > >> > > I've repeatedly explained why Iraq was and is vital to US security. You > > simply ignore the reasons and assert that I've not explained it to you. > > Was Iraq "vital to US security" when the US government > was both arming Saddam and then attacking Saddam? > What are you talking about? -- "What do you value in your bulldogs? Gripping, is it not? It's their nature? It's why you breed them? It's so with men. I will not give in because I oppose it. Not my pride, not my spleen, nor any other of my appetites, but I do. Is there in the midst of all this muscle no single sinew that serves no appetite of Norfolk's but is just Norfolk? Give that some exercise. Because, as you stand, you'll go before your Maker ill-conditioned. He'll think that somewhere along your pedigree, a bitch got over the wall." -+Paul Scofield, "A Man For All Seasons" Quote
Guest Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) Posted February 17, 2008 Posted February 17, 2008 Wolfie wrote: > > Gandalf Grey wrote: > > The Real Reason Congressional Democrats are Wimping Out on Iraq > > > > By Wagenvoord > > > > Created Feb 12 2008 - 9:59am > > > > > > By Case Wagenvoord > > > > Rolling Stone writer Matt Taibbi has called Senate Majority Leader Harry > > Reid "one of the biggest pussies in U.S. political history." While this may > > be true, there is a deeper explanation for Reid's timidity. > > > > Democrats cower in fear of being called "soft on terror/national > > defense/national security by Republicans. The very act of cowering is > > political suicide because it confirms the Republican charges. > > Completely bogus assertion, The real reason is that the Dems > are on the same special interest payroll as the GOP. > > Any fool can see that the GOP were and are completely > incompetent at National Security. > They have a list of failures not seen since Pearl Harbor. > What are you talking about? The Republicans won the Cold War, and are doing a good job against the instant threat from hypernihilism. Not being able to get good poll numbers isn't a foreign policy failure. Quote
Guest Mitchell Holman Posted February 17, 2008 Posted February 17, 2008 "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )" <tributyltinpaint@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in news:47B87514.221E3984@yahoo.co.uk: > > > Mitchell Holman wrote: >> >> "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )" <tributyltinpaint@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in >> news:47B77517.DB21F49C@yahoo.co.uk: >> >> > >> > >> > Gandalf Grey wrote: >> >> >> >> "Lamont Cranston" <Lamont.Cranston@umbra.com> wrote in message >> >> news:fp4oir$eh7$1@news.albasani.net... >> >> > Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote: >> >> >> Mitchell Holman wrote: >> >> >>> >> >> >>> "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )" <tributyltinpaint@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in >> >> >>> news:47B5180E.9D003D59@yahoo.co.uk: >> >> >>> >> >> >>> > >> >> >>> > >> >> >>> > Gandalf Grey wrote: >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> The Real Reason Congressional Democrats are Wimping Out on >> >> >>> >> Iraq >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> By Wagenvoord >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> (9/11 was a criminal act and your exploitation of that >> >> >>> >> tragedy >> has >> >> >>> >> been unforgivable.) >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> > You are disgusting. 9/11 was an attack on the US, you don't >> >> >>> > care. You pretend that because everyone who attacked on 9/11 >> >> >>> > died on 9/11 that it's over. You don't see, intentionally, >> >> >>> > that this is an epic clash of ideas, between modernity and a >> >> >>> > warped ancient evil. Why you intentionally don't see this is >> >> >>> > less clear. >> >> >>> > >> >> >>> > >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> And when one sends them into combat, one does so with the >> >> >>> >> best equipment money can buy. Rumsfeld's doctrine was that an >> >> >>> >> army goes to war with the equipment it has. This left our >> >> >>> >> brave men and women needlessly exposed to unnecessary death >> >> >>> >> and injury. How many lives could have been saved had every >> >> >>> >> vehicle sent to Iraq been properly armored up? >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> > Why didn't America have the best arms available? Isn't it >> >> >>> > because it had just come off of eight years of Clinton-Gore >> >> >>> > who never met a military programme they didn't want to cut? >> >> >>> > Oh, and you do go to war with what you have, it's absurd to >> >> >>> > claim you go to war with what you don't have. >> >> >>> >> >> >>> Let's see: Bush thinks the military is sufficient >> >> >>> to win the War Against Iraq that HE STARTED and when his >> >> >>> estimation proves wrong it is all Clinton's fault? >> >> >>> >> >> >> The war was and is vital to US security. You go to war with what >> >> >> you have. >> >> > >> >> > The war has nothing to do with U.S. security. Iraq was not a >> >> > threat >> to >> >> > the U.S. It was a war of choice, plain and simple. >> >> >> >> Note that Bonde...ever the disingenous troll...has nothing to back >> >> up >> his >> >> claim that Iraq war was "vital to US security." >> >> >> > I've repeatedly explained why Iraq was and is vital to US security. >> > You simply ignore the reasons and assert that I've not explained it >> > to you. >> >> Was Iraq "vital to US security" when the US government >> was both arming Saddam and then attacking Saddam? >> > What are you talking about? When did Iraq first become "vital to US security"? Quote
Guest Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) Posted February 17, 2008 Posted February 17, 2008 Mitchell Holman wrote: > > "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )" <tributyltinpaint@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in > news:47B87514.221E3984@yahoo.co.uk: > > > > > > > Mitchell Holman wrote: > >> > >> "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )" <tributyltinpaint@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in > >> news:47B77517.DB21F49C@yahoo.co.uk: > >> > >> > > >> > > >> > Gandalf Grey wrote: > >> >> > >> >> "Lamont Cranston" <Lamont.Cranston@umbra.com> wrote in message > >> >> news:fp4oir$eh7$1@news.albasani.net... > >> >> > Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote: > >> >> >> Mitchell Holman wrote: > >> >> >>> > >> >> >>> "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )" <tributyltinpaint@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in > >> >> >>> news:47B5180E.9D003D59@yahoo.co.uk: > >> >> >>> > >> >> >>> > > >> >> >>> > > >> >> >>> > Gandalf Grey wrote: > >> >> >>> >> > >> >> >>> >> The Real Reason Congressional Democrats are Wimping Out on > >> >> >>> >> Iraq > >> >> >>> >> > >> >> >>> >> By Wagenvoord > >> >> >>> >> > >> >> >>> >> (9/11 was a criminal act and your exploitation of that > >> >> >>> >> tragedy > >> has > >> >> >>> >> been unforgivable.) > >> >> >>> >> > >> >> >>> > You are disgusting. 9/11 was an attack on the US, you don't > >> >> >>> > care. You pretend that because everyone who attacked on 9/11 > >> >> >>> > died on 9/11 that it's over. You don't see, intentionally, > >> >> >>> > that this is an epic clash of ideas, between modernity and a > >> >> >>> > warped ancient evil. Why you intentionally don't see this is > >> >> >>> > less clear. > >> >> >>> > > >> >> >>> > > >> >> >>> >> > >> >> >>> >> And when one sends them into combat, one does so with the > >> >> >>> >> best equipment money can buy. Rumsfeld's doctrine was that an > >> >> >>> >> army goes to war with the equipment it has. This left our > >> >> >>> >> brave men and women needlessly exposed to unnecessary death > >> >> >>> >> and injury. How many lives could have been saved had every > >> >> >>> >> vehicle sent to Iraq been properly armored up? > >> >> >>> >> > >> >> >>> > Why didn't America have the best arms available? Isn't it > >> >> >>> > because it had just come off of eight years of Clinton-Gore > >> >> >>> > who never met a military programme they didn't want to cut? > >> >> >>> > Oh, and you do go to war with what you have, it's absurd to > >> >> >>> > claim you go to war with what you don't have. > >> >> >>> > >> >> >>> Let's see: Bush thinks the military is sufficient > >> >> >>> to win the War Against Iraq that HE STARTED and when his > >> >> >>> estimation proves wrong it is all Clinton's fault? > >> >> >>> > >> >> >> The war was and is vital to US security. You go to war with what > >> >> >> you have. > >> >> > > >> >> > The war has nothing to do with U.S. security. Iraq was not a > >> >> > threat > >> to > >> >> > the U.S. It was a war of choice, plain and simple. > >> >> > >> >> Note that Bonde...ever the disingenous troll...has nothing to back > >> >> up > >> his > >> >> claim that Iraq war was "vital to US security." > >> >> > >> > I've repeatedly explained why Iraq was and is vital to US security. > >> > You simply ignore the reasons and assert that I've not explained it > >> > to you. > >> > >> Was Iraq "vital to US security" when the US government > >> was both arming Saddam and then attacking Saddam? > >> > > What are you talking about? > > When did Iraq first become "vital to US security"? > Iraq has always been a very important part of US security. -- "What do you value in your bulldogs? Gripping, is it not? It's their nature? It's why you breed them? It's so with men. I will not give in because I oppose it. Not my pride, not my spleen, nor any other of my appetites, but I do. Is there in the midst of all this muscle no single sinew that serves no appetite of Norfolk's but is just Norfolk? Give that some exercise. Because, as you stand, you'll go before your Maker ill-conditioned. He'll think that somewhere along your pedigree, a bitch got over the wall." -+Paul Scofield, "A Man For All Seasons" Quote
Guest Mitchell Holman Posted February 17, 2008 Posted February 17, 2008 "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )" <tributyltinpaint@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in news:47B87FF0.53629F2C@yahoo.co.uk: > > > Mitchell Holman wrote: >> >> "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )" <tributyltinpaint@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in >> news:47B87514.221E3984@yahoo.co.uk: >> >> > >> > >> > Mitchell Holman wrote: >> >> >> >> "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )" <tributyltinpaint@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in >> >> news:47B77517.DB21F49C@yahoo.co.uk: >> >> >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > Gandalf Grey wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> "Lamont Cranston" <Lamont.Cranston@umbra.com> wrote in message >> >> >> news:fp4oir$eh7$1@news.albasani.net... >> >> >> > Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote: >> >> >> >> Mitchell Holman wrote: >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )" <tributyltinpaint@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in >> >> >> >>> news:47B5180E.9D003D59@yahoo.co.uk: >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> > >> >> >> >>> > >> >> >> >>> > Gandalf Grey wrote: >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >>> >> The Real Reason Congressional Democrats are Wimping Out on >> >> >> >>> >> Iraq >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >>> >> By Wagenvoord >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >>> >> (9/11 was a criminal act and your exploitation of that >> >> >> >>> >> tragedy >> >> has >> >> >> >>> >> been unforgivable.) >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >>> > You are disgusting. 9/11 was an attack on the US, you don't >> >> >> >>> > care. You pretend that because everyone who attacked on 9/11 >> >> >> >>> > died on 9/11 that it's over. You don't see, intentionally, >> >> >> >>> > that this is an epic clash of ideas, between modernity and a >> >> >> >>> > warped ancient evil. Why you intentionally don't see this is >> >> >> >>> > less clear. >> >> >> >>> > >> >> >> >>> > >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >>> >> And when one sends them into combat, one does so with the >> >> >> >>> >> best equipment money can buy. Rumsfeld's doctrine was that an >> >> >> >>> >> army goes to war with the equipment it has. This left our >> >> >> >>> >> brave men and women needlessly exposed to unnecessary death >> >> >> >>> >> and injury. How many lives could have been saved had every >> >> >> >>> >> vehicle sent to Iraq been properly armored up? >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >>> > Why didn't America have the best arms available? Isn't it >> >> >> >>> > because it had just come off of eight years of Clinton-Gore >> >> >> >>> > who never met a military programme they didn't want to cut? >> >> >> >>> > Oh, and you do go to war with what you have, it's absurd to >> >> >> >>> > claim you go to war with what you don't have. >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> Let's see: Bush thinks the military is sufficient >> >> >> >>> to win the War Against Iraq that HE STARTED and when his >> >> >> >>> estimation proves wrong it is all Clinton's fault? >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> The war was and is vital to US security. You go to war with what >> >> >> >> you have. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > The war has nothing to do with U.S. security. Iraq was not a >> >> >> > threat >> >> to >> >> >> > the U.S. It was a war of choice, plain and simple. >> >> >> >> >> >> Note that Bonde...ever the disingenous troll...has nothing to back >> >> >> up >> >> his >> >> >> claim that Iraq war was "vital to US security." >> >> >> >> >> > I've repeatedly explained why Iraq was and is vital to US security. >> >> > You simply ignore the reasons and assert that I've not explained it >> >> > to you. >> >> >> >> Was Iraq "vital to US security" when the US government >> >> was both arming Saddam and then attacking Saddam? >> >> >> > What are you talking about? >> >> When did Iraq first become "vital to US security"? >> > Iraq has always been a very important part of US security. Prove it. Quote
Guest Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) Posted February 17, 2008 Posted February 17, 2008 Mitchell Holman wrote: > > "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )" <tributyltinpaint@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in > news:47B87FF0.53629F2C@yahoo.co.uk: > > > > > > > Mitchell Holman wrote: > >> > >> "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )" <tributyltinpaint@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in > >> news:47B87514.221E3984@yahoo.co.uk: > >> > >> > > >> > > >> > Mitchell Holman wrote: > >> >> > >> >> "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )" <tributyltinpaint@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in > >> >> news:47B77517.DB21F49C@yahoo.co.uk: > >> >> > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > Gandalf Grey wrote: > >> >> >> > >> >> >> "Lamont Cranston" <Lamont.Cranston@umbra.com> wrote in message > >> >> >> news:fp4oir$eh7$1@news.albasani.net... > >> >> >> > Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote: > >> >> >> >> Mitchell Holman wrote: > >> >> >> >>> > >> >> >> >>> "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )" <tributyltinpaint@yahoo.co.uk> wrote > in > >> >> >> >>> news:47B5180E.9D003D59@yahoo.co.uk: > >> >> >> >>> > >> >> >> >>> > > >> >> >> >>> > > >> >> >> >>> > Gandalf Grey wrote: > >> >> >> >>> >> > >> >> >> >>> >> The Real Reason Congressional Democrats are Wimping Out on > >> >> >> >>> >> Iraq > >> >> >> >>> >> > >> >> >> >>> >> By Wagenvoord > >> >> >> >>> >> > >> >> >> >>> >> (9/11 was a criminal act and your exploitation of that > >> >> >> >>> >> tragedy > >> >> has > >> >> >> >>> >> been unforgivable.) > >> >> >> >>> >> > >> >> >> >>> > You are disgusting. 9/11 was an attack on the US, you don't > >> >> >> >>> > care. You pretend that because everyone who attacked on 9/11 > >> >> >> >>> > died on 9/11 that it's over. You don't see, intentionally, > >> >> >> >>> > that this is an epic clash of ideas, between modernity and a > >> >> >> >>> > warped ancient evil. Why you intentionally don't see this is > >> >> >> >>> > less clear. > >> >> >> >>> > > >> >> >> >>> > > >> >> >> >>> >> > >> >> >> >>> >> And when one sends them into combat, one does so with the > >> >> >> >>> >> best equipment money can buy. Rumsfeld's doctrine was that > an > >> >> >> >>> >> army goes to war with the equipment it has. This left our > >> >> >> >>> >> brave men and women needlessly exposed to unnecessary death > >> >> >> >>> >> and injury. How many lives could have been saved had every > >> >> >> >>> >> vehicle sent to Iraq been properly armored up? > >> >> >> >>> >> > >> >> >> >>> > Why didn't America have the best arms available? Isn't it > >> >> >> >>> > because it had just come off of eight years of Clinton-Gore > >> >> >> >>> > who never met a military programme they didn't want to cut? > >> >> >> >>> > Oh, and you do go to war with what you have, it's absurd to > >> >> >> >>> > claim you go to war with what you don't have. > >> >> >> >>> > >> >> >> >>> Let's see: Bush thinks the military is sufficient > >> >> >> >>> to win the War Against Iraq that HE STARTED and when his > >> >> >> >>> estimation proves wrong it is all Clinton's fault? > >> >> >> >>> > >> >> >> >> The war was and is vital to US security. You go to war with > what > >> >> >> >> you have. > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > The war has nothing to do with U.S. security. Iraq was not a > >> >> >> > threat > >> >> to > >> >> >> > the U.S. It was a war of choice, plain and simple. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Note that Bonde...ever the disingenous troll...has nothing to back > >> >> >> up > >> >> his > >> >> >> claim that Iraq war was "vital to US security." > >> >> >> > >> >> > I've repeatedly explained why Iraq was and is vital to US security. > >> >> > You simply ignore the reasons and assert that I've not explained it > >> >> > to you. > >> >> > >> >> Was Iraq "vital to US security" when the US government > >> >> was both arming Saddam and then attacking Saddam? > >> >> > >> > What are you talking about? > >> > >> When did Iraq first become "vital to US security"? > >> > > Iraq has always been a very important part of US security. > > Prove it. > You can go back to the 80s when the US was worried about an expansionist Iran. -- "What do you value in your bulldogs? Gripping, is it not? It's their nature? It's why you breed them? It's so with men. I will not give in because I oppose it. Not my pride, not my spleen, nor any other of my appetites, but I do. Is there in the midst of all this muscle no single sinew that serves no appetite of Norfolk's but is just Norfolk? Give that some exercise. Because, as you stand, you'll go before your Maker ill-conditioned. He'll think that somewhere along your pedigree, a bitch got over the wall." -+Paul Scofield, "A Man For All Seasons" Quote
Guest Mitchell Holman Posted February 17, 2008 Posted February 17, 2008 "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )" <tributyltinpaint@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in news:47B8859E.68EEADA5@yahoo.co.uk: > > > Mitchell Holman wrote: >> >> "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )" <tributyltinpaint@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in >> news:47B87FF0.53629F2C@yahoo.co.uk: >> >> > >> > >> > Mitchell Holman wrote: >> >> >> >> "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )" <tributyltinpaint@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in >> >> news:47B87514.221E3984@yahoo.co.uk: >> >> >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > Mitchell Holman wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )" <tributyltinpaint@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in >> >> >> news:47B77517.DB21F49C@yahoo.co.uk: >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Gandalf Grey wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> "Lamont Cranston" <Lamont.Cranston@umbra.com> wrote in message >> >> >> >> news:fp4oir$eh7$1@news.albasani.net... >> >> >> >> > Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote: >> >> >> >> >> Mitchell Holman wrote: >> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >>> "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )" <tributyltinpaint@yahoo.co.uk> >> >> >> >> >>> wrote >> in >> >> >> >> >>> news:47B5180E.9D003D59@yahoo.co.uk: >> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >>> > >> >> >> >> >>> > >> >> >> >> >>> > Gandalf Grey wrote: >> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> The Real Reason Congressional Democrats are Wimping Out >> >> >> >> >>> >> on Iraq >> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> By Wagenvoord >> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> (9/11 was a criminal act and your exploitation of that >> >> >> >> >>> >> tragedy >> >> >> has >> >> >> >> >>> >> been unforgivable.) >> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >>> > You are disgusting. 9/11 was an attack on the US, you >> >> >> >> >>> > don't care. You pretend that because everyone who >> >> >> >> >>> > attacked on 9/11 died on 9/11 that it's over. You don't >> >> >> >> >>> > see, intentionally, that this is an epic clash of ideas, >> >> >> >> >>> > between modernity and a warped ancient evil. Why you >> >> >> >> >>> > intentionally don't see this is less clear. >> >> >> >> >>> > >> >> >> >> >>> > >> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> And when one sends them into combat, one does so with >> >> >> >> >>> >> the best equipment money can buy. Rumsfeld's doctrine >> >> >> >> >>> >> was that >> an >> >> >> >> >>> >> army goes to war with the equipment it has. This left >> >> >> >> >>> >> our brave men and women needlessly exposed to >> >> >> >> >>> >> unnecessary death and injury. How many lives could have >> >> >> >> >>> >> been saved had every vehicle sent to Iraq been properly >> >> >> >> >>> >> armored up? >> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >>> > Why didn't America have the best arms available? Isn't >> >> >> >> >>> > it because it had just come off of eight years of >> >> >> >> >>> > Clinton-Gore who never met a military programme they >> >> >> >> >>> > didn't want to cut? Oh, and you do go to war with what >> >> >> >> >>> > you have, it's absurd to claim you go to war with what >> >> >> >> >>> > you don't have. >> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >>> Let's see: Bush thinks the military is sufficient >> >> >> >> >>> to win the War Against Iraq that HE STARTED and when his >> >> >> >> >>> estimation proves wrong it is all Clinton's fault? >> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> The war was and is vital to US security. You go to war with >> what >> >> >> >> >> you have. >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > The war has nothing to do with U.S. security. Iraq was not >> >> >> >> > a threat >> >> >> to >> >> >> >> > the U.S. It was a war of choice, plain and simple. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Note that Bonde...ever the disingenous troll...has nothing to >> >> >> >> back up >> >> >> his >> >> >> >> claim that Iraq war was "vital to US security." >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > I've repeatedly explained why Iraq was and is vital to US >> >> >> > security. You simply ignore the reasons and assert that I've >> >> >> > not explained it to you. >> >> >> >> >> >> Was Iraq "vital to US security" when the US government >> >> >> was both arming Saddam and then attacking Saddam? >> >> >> >> >> > What are you talking about? >> >> >> >> When did Iraq first become "vital to US security"? >> >> >> > Iraq has always been a very important part of US security. >> >> Prove it. >> > You can go back to the 80s when the US was worried about an expansionist > Iran. The US was worried about Iran expanding so Reagan responded by selling them missles. Sure, Bonde - whatever you say.............. Quote
Guest Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) Posted February 17, 2008 Posted February 17, 2008 Mitchell Holman wrote: > > "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )" <tributyltinpaint@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in > news:47B8859E.68EEADA5@yahoo.co.uk: > > > > > > > Mitchell Holman wrote: > >> > >> "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )" <tributyltinpaint@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in > >> news:47B87FF0.53629F2C@yahoo.co.uk: > >> > >> > > >> > > >> > Mitchell Holman wrote: > >> >> > >> >> "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )" <tributyltinpaint@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in > >> >> news:47B87514.221E3984@yahoo.co.uk: > >> >> > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > Mitchell Holman wrote: > >> >> >> > >> >> >> "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )" <tributyltinpaint@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in > >> >> >> news:47B77517.DB21F49C@yahoo.co.uk: > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > Gandalf Grey wrote: > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> "Lamont Cranston" <Lamont.Cranston@umbra.com> wrote in message > >> >> >> >> news:fp4oir$eh7$1@news.albasani.net... > >> >> >> >> > Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote: > >> >> >> >> >> Mitchell Holman wrote: > >> >> >> >> >>> > >> >> >> >> >>> "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )" <tributyltinpaint@yahoo.co.uk> > >> >> >> >> >>> wrote > >> in > >> >> >> >> >>> news:47B5180E.9D003D59@yahoo.co.uk: > >> >> >> >> >>> > >> >> >> >> >>> > > >> >> >> >> >>> > > >> >> >> >> >>> > Gandalf Grey wrote: > >> >> >> >> >>> >> > >> >> >> >> >>> >> The Real Reason Congressional Democrats are Wimping Out > >> >> >> >> >>> >> on Iraq > >> >> >> >> >>> >> > >> >> >> >> >>> >> By Wagenvoord > >> >> >> >> >>> >> > >> >> >> >> >>> >> (9/11 was a criminal act and your exploitation of that > >> >> >> >> >>> >> tragedy > >> >> >> has > >> >> >> >> >>> >> been unforgivable.) > >> >> >> >> >>> >> > >> >> >> >> >>> > You are disgusting. 9/11 was an attack on the US, you > >> >> >> >> >>> > don't care. You pretend that because everyone who > >> >> >> >> >>> > attacked on 9/11 died on 9/11 that it's over. You don't > >> >> >> >> >>> > see, intentionally, that this is an epic clash of ideas, > >> >> >> >> >>> > between modernity and a warped ancient evil. Why you > >> >> >> >> >>> > intentionally don't see this is less clear. > >> >> >> >> >>> > > >> >> >> >> >>> > > >> >> >> >> >>> >> > >> >> >> >> >>> >> And when one sends them into combat, one does so with > >> >> >> >> >>> >> the best equipment money can buy. Rumsfeld's doctrine > >> >> >> >> >>> >> was that > >> an > >> >> >> >> >>> >> army goes to war with the equipment it has. This left > >> >> >> >> >>> >> our brave men and women needlessly exposed to > >> >> >> >> >>> >> unnecessary death and injury. How many lives could have > >> >> >> >> >>> >> been saved had every vehicle sent to Iraq been properly > >> >> >> >> >>> >> armored up? > >> >> >> >> >>> >> > >> >> >> >> >>> > Why didn't America have the best arms available? Isn't > >> >> >> >> >>> > it because it had just come off of eight years of > >> >> >> >> >>> > Clinton-Gore who never met a military programme they > >> >> >> >> >>> > didn't want to cut? Oh, and you do go to war with what > >> >> >> >> >>> > you have, it's absurd to claim you go to war with what > >> >> >> >> >>> > you don't have. > >> >> >> >> >>> > >> >> >> >> >>> Let's see: Bush thinks the military is sufficient > >> >> >> >> >>> to win the War Against Iraq that HE STARTED and when his > >> >> >> >> >>> estimation proves wrong it is all Clinton's fault? > >> >> >> >> >>> > >> >> >> >> >> The war was and is vital to US security. You go to war with > >> what > >> >> >> >> >> you have. > >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> > The war has nothing to do with U.S. security. Iraq was not > >> >> >> >> > a threat > >> >> >> to > >> >> >> >> > the U.S. It was a war of choice, plain and simple. > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> Note that Bonde...ever the disingenous troll...has nothing to > >> >> >> >> back up > >> >> >> his > >> >> >> >> claim that Iraq war was "vital to US security." > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> > I've repeatedly explained why Iraq was and is vital to US > >> >> >> > security. You simply ignore the reasons and assert that I've > >> >> >> > not explained it to you. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Was Iraq "vital to US security" when the US government > >> >> >> was both arming Saddam and then attacking Saddam? > >> >> >> > >> >> > What are you talking about? > >> >> > >> >> When did Iraq first become "vital to US security"? > >> >> > >> > Iraq has always been a very important part of US security. > >> > >> Prove it. > >> > > You can go back to the 80s when the US was worried about an expansionist > > Iran. > > The US was worried about Iran expanding so Reagan > responded by selling them missles. > > Sure, Bonde - whatever you say.............. > What are you talking about? If it's the trivial materials that Reagan used to get American hostages released, why don't you just admit that? -- "What do you value in your bulldogs? Gripping, is it not? It's their nature? It's why you breed them? It's so with men. I will not give in because I oppose it. Not my pride, not my spleen, nor any other of my appetites, but I do. Is there in the midst of all this muscle no single sinew that serves no appetite of Norfolk's but is just Norfolk? Give that some exercise. Because, as you stand, you'll go before your Maker ill-conditioned. He'll think that somewhere along your pedigree, a bitch got over the wall." -+Paul Scofield, "A Man For All Seasons" Quote
Guest Mitchell Holman Posted February 17, 2008 Posted February 17, 2008 "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )" <tributyltinpaint@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in news:47B88F61.27659F0D@yahoo.co.uk: > > > Mitchell Holman wrote: >> >> "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )" <tributyltinpaint@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in >> news:47B8859E.68EEADA5@yahoo.co.uk: >> >> > >> > >> > Mitchell Holman wrote: >> >> >> >> "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )" <tributyltinpaint@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in >> >> news:47B87FF0.53629F2C@yahoo.co.uk: >> >> >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > Mitchell Holman wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )" <tributyltinpaint@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in >> >> >> news:47B87514.221E3984@yahoo.co.uk: >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Mitchell Holman wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )" <tributyltinpaint@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in >> >> >> >> news:47B77517.DB21F49C@yahoo.co.uk: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > Gandalf Grey wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> "Lamont Cranston" <Lamont.Cranston@umbra.com> wrote in message >> >> >> >> >> news:fp4oir$eh7$1@news.albasani.net... >> >> >> >> >> > Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> Mitchell Holman wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >>> "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )" <tributyltinpaint@yahoo.co.uk> >> >> >> >> >> >>> wrote >> >> in >> >> >> >> >> >>> news:47B5180E.9D003D59@yahoo.co.uk: >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >>> > >> >> >> >> >> >>> > >> >> >> >> >> >>> > Gandalf Grey wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> The Real Reason Congressional Democrats are Wimping Out >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> on Iraq >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> By Wagenvoord >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> (9/11 was a criminal act and your exploitation of that >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> tragedy >> >> >> >> has >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> been unforgivable.) >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> > You are disgusting. 9/11 was an attack on the US, you >> >> >> >> >> >>> > don't care. You pretend that because everyone who >> >> >> >> >> >>> > attacked on 9/11 died on 9/11 that it's over. You don't >> >> >> >> >> >>> > see, intentionally, that this is an epic clash of ideas, >> >> >> >> >> >>> > between modernity and a warped ancient evil. Why you >> >> >> >> >> >>> > intentionally don't see this is less clear. >> >> >> >> >> >>> > >> >> >> >> >> >>> > >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> And when one sends them into combat, one does so with >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> the best equipment money can buy. Rumsfeld's doctrine >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> was that >> >> an >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> army goes to war with the equipment it has. This left >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> our brave men and women needlessly exposed to >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> unnecessary death and injury. How many lives could have >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> been saved had every vehicle sent to Iraq been properly >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> armored up? >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> > Why didn't America have the best arms available? Isn't >> >> >> >> >> >>> > it because it had just come off of eight years of >> >> >> >> >> >>> > Clinton-Gore who never met a military programme they >> >> >> >> >> >>> > didn't want to cut? Oh, and you do go to war with what >> >> >> >> >> >>> > you have, it's absurd to claim you go to war with what >> >> >> >> >> >>> > you don't have. >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >>> Let's see: Bush thinks the military is sufficient >> >> >> >> >> >>> to win the War Against Iraq that HE STARTED and when his >> >> >> >> >> >>> estimation proves wrong it is all Clinton's fault? >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> The war was and is vital to US security. You go to war with >> >> what >> >> >> >> >> >> you have. >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> > The war has nothing to do with U.S. security. Iraq was not >> >> >> >> >> > a threat >> >> >> >> to >> >> >> >> >> > the U.S. It was a war of choice, plain and simple. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Note that Bonde...ever the disingenous troll...has nothing to >> >> >> >> >> back up >> >> >> >> his >> >> >> >> >> claim that Iraq war was "vital to US security." >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > I've repeatedly explained why Iraq was and is vital to US >> >> >> >> > security. You simply ignore the reasons and assert that I've >> >> >> >> > not explained it to you. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Was Iraq "vital to US security" when the US government >> >> >> >> was both arming Saddam and then attacking Saddam? >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > What are you talking about? >> >> >> >> >> >> When did Iraq first become "vital to US security"? >> >> >> >> >> > Iraq has always been a very important part of US security. >> >> >> >> Prove it. >> >> >> > You can go back to the 80s when the US was worried about an expansionist >> > Iran. >> >> The US was worried about Iran expanding so Reagan >> responded by selling them missles. >> >> Sure, Bonde - whatever you say.............. >> > What are you talking about? If it's the trivial materials that Reagan > used to get American hostages released, why don't you just admit that? > Two THOUSAND missles sold to the Iranians who kidnapped American citizens is a "trivial matter"? I guess you thought Saddam's attack on the USS Stark (about which Reagan did nothing) was also a trivial matter. Funny then that you got so worked up over all the unconfirmed reports about Saddam and his WMD's........ Quote
Guest Jerry Okamura Posted February 17, 2008 Posted February 17, 2008 "Mitchell Holman" <Noemail@comcast.com> wrote in message news:Xns9A478235D2AA4ta2eene@216.196.97.131... > "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )" <tributyltinpaint@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in > news:47B87FF0.53629F2C@yahoo.co.uk: > >> >> >> Mitchell Holman wrote: >>> >>> "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )" <tributyltinpaint@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in >>> news:47B87514.221E3984@yahoo.co.uk: >>> >>> > >>> > >>> > Mitchell Holman wrote: >>> >> >>> >> "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )" <tributyltinpaint@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in >>> >> news:47B77517.DB21F49C@yahoo.co.uk: >>> >> >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > Gandalf Grey wrote: >>> >> >> >>> >> >> "Lamont Cranston" <Lamont.Cranston@umbra.com> wrote in message >>> >> >> news:fp4oir$eh7$1@news.albasani.net... >>> >> >> > Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote: >>> >> >> >> Mitchell Holman wrote: >>> >> >> >>> >>> >> >> >>> "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )" <tributyltinpaint@yahoo.co.uk> wrote > in >>> >> >> >>> news:47B5180E.9D003D59@yahoo.co.uk: >>> >> >> >>> >>> >> >> >>> > >>> >> >> >>> > >>> >> >> >>> > Gandalf Grey wrote: >>> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> The Real Reason Congressional Democrats are Wimping Out on >>> >> >> >>> >> Iraq >>> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> By Wagenvoord >>> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> (9/11 was a criminal act and your exploitation of that >>> >> >> >>> >> tragedy >>> >> has >>> >> >> >>> >> been unforgivable.) >>> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >>> > You are disgusting. 9/11 was an attack on the US, you don't >>> >> >> >>> > care. You pretend that because everyone who attacked on 9/11 >>> >> >> >>> > died on 9/11 that it's over. You don't see, intentionally, >>> >> >> >>> > that this is an epic clash of ideas, between modernity and a >>> >> >> >>> > warped ancient evil. Why you intentionally don't see this is >>> >> >> >>> > less clear. >>> >> >> >>> > >>> >> >> >>> > >>> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> And when one sends them into combat, one does so with the >>> >> >> >>> >> best equipment money can buy. Rumsfeld's doctrine was that > an >>> >> >> >>> >> army goes to war with the equipment it has. This left our >>> >> >> >>> >> brave men and women needlessly exposed to unnecessary death >>> >> >> >>> >> and injury. How many lives could have been saved had every >>> >> >> >>> >> vehicle sent to Iraq been properly armored up? >>> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >>> > Why didn't America have the best arms available? Isn't it >>> >> >> >>> > because it had just come off of eight years of Clinton-Gore >>> >> >> >>> > who never met a military programme they didn't want to cut? >>> >> >> >>> > Oh, and you do go to war with what you have, it's absurd to >>> >> >> >>> > claim you go to war with what you don't have. >>> >> >> >>> >>> >> >> >>> Let's see: Bush thinks the military is sufficient >>> >> >> >>> to win the War Against Iraq that HE STARTED and when his >>> >> >> >>> estimation proves wrong it is all Clinton's fault? >>> >> >> >>> >>> >> >> >> The war was and is vital to US security. You go to war with > what >>> >> >> >> you have. >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > The war has nothing to do with U.S. security. Iraq was not a >>> >> >> > threat >>> >> to >>> >> >> > the U.S. It was a war of choice, plain and simple. >>> >> >> >>> >> >> Note that Bonde...ever the disingenous troll...has nothing to back >>> >> >> up >>> >> his >>> >> >> claim that Iraq war was "vital to US security." >>> >> >> >>> >> > I've repeatedly explained why Iraq was and is vital to US security. >>> >> > You simply ignore the reasons and assert that I've not explained it >>> >> > to you. >>> >> >>> >> Was Iraq "vital to US security" when the US government >>> >> was both arming Saddam and then attacking Saddam? >>> >> >>> > What are you talking about? >>> >>> When did Iraq first become "vital to US security"? >>> >> Iraq has always been a very important part of US security. > > > Prove it. > OIL Quote
Guest Wolfie Posted February 17, 2008 Posted February 17, 2008 Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote: > > Wolfie wrote: >> Gandalf Grey wrote: >>> The Real Reason Congressional Democrats are Wimping Out on Iraq >>> >>> By Wagenvoord >>> >>> Created Feb 12 2008 - 9:59am >>> >>> >>> By Case Wagenvoord >>> >>> Rolling Stone writer Matt Taibbi has called Senate Majority Leader Harry >>> Reid "one of the biggest pussies in U.S. political history." While this may >>> be true, there is a deeper explanation for Reid's timidity. >>> >>> Democrats cower in fear of being called "soft on terror/national >>> defense/national security by Republicans. The very act of cowering is >>> political suicide because it confirms the Republican charges. >> Completely bogus assertion, The real reason is that the Dems >> are on the same special interest payroll as the GOP. >> >> Any fool can see that the GOP were and are completely >> incompetent at National Security. >> They have a list of failures not seen since Pearl Harbor. >> > What are you talking about? The Republicans won the Cold War, and are > doing a good job against the instant threat from hypernihilism. Not > being able to get good poll numbers isn't a foreign policy failure. More nonsense from you. There's an endless litany of GOP failure on security, starting on 911 and featuring things like Katrina and even trying to sell the operation of our ports to Muslim countries. -- Wolfie Quote
Guest Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) Posted February 17, 2008 Posted February 17, 2008 Jerry Okamura wrote: > > "Mitchell Holman" <Noemail@comcast.com> wrote in message > news:Xns9A478235D2AA4ta2eene@216.196.97.131... > > "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )" <tributyltinpaint@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in > > news:47B87FF0.53629F2C@yahoo.co.uk: > > > >> > >> > >> Mitchell Holman wrote: > >>> > >>> "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )" <tributyltinpaint@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in > >>> news:47B87514.221E3984@yahoo.co.uk: > >>> > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > Mitchell Holman wrote: > >>> >> > >>> >> "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )" <tributyltinpaint@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in > >>> >> news:47B77517.DB21F49C@yahoo.co.uk: > >>> >> > >>> >> > > >>> >> > > >>> >> > Gandalf Grey wrote: > >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> "Lamont Cranston" <Lamont.Cranston@umbra.com> wrote in message > >>> >> >> news:fp4oir$eh7$1@news.albasani.net... > >>> >> >> > Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote: > >>> >> >> >> Mitchell Holman wrote: > >>> >> >> >>> > >>> >> >> >>> "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )" <tributyltinpaint@yahoo.co.uk> wrote > > in > >>> >> >> >>> news:47B5180E.9D003D59@yahoo.co.uk: > >>> >> >> >>> > >>> >> >> >>> > > >>> >> >> >>> > > >>> >> >> >>> > Gandalf Grey wrote: > >>> >> >> >>> >> > >>> >> >> >>> >> The Real Reason Congressional Democrats are Wimping Out on > >>> >> >> >>> >> Iraq > >>> >> >> >>> >> > >>> >> >> >>> >> By Wagenvoord > >>> >> >> >>> >> > >>> >> >> >>> >> (9/11 was a criminal act and your exploitation of that > >>> >> >> >>> >> tragedy > >>> >> has > >>> >> >> >>> >> been unforgivable.) > >>> >> >> >>> >> > >>> >> >> >>> > You are disgusting. 9/11 was an attack on the US, you don't > >>> >> >> >>> > care. You pretend that because everyone who attacked on 9/11 > >>> >> >> >>> > died on 9/11 that it's over. You don't see, intentionally, > >>> >> >> >>> > that this is an epic clash of ideas, between modernity and a > >>> >> >> >>> > warped ancient evil. Why you intentionally don't see this is > >>> >> >> >>> > less clear. > >>> >> >> >>> > > >>> >> >> >>> > > >>> >> >> >>> >> > >>> >> >> >>> >> And when one sends them into combat, one does so with the > >>> >> >> >>> >> best equipment money can buy. Rumsfeld's doctrine was that > > an > >>> >> >> >>> >> army goes to war with the equipment it has. This left our > >>> >> >> >>> >> brave men and women needlessly exposed to unnecessary death > >>> >> >> >>> >> and injury. How many lives could have been saved had every > >>> >> >> >>> >> vehicle sent to Iraq been properly armored up? > >>> >> >> >>> >> > >>> >> >> >>> > Why didn't America have the best arms available? Isn't it > >>> >> >> >>> > because it had just come off of eight years of Clinton-Gore > >>> >> >> >>> > who never met a military programme they didn't want to cut? > >>> >> >> >>> > Oh, and you do go to war with what you have, it's absurd to > >>> >> >> >>> > claim you go to war with what you don't have. > >>> >> >> >>> > >>> >> >> >>> Let's see: Bush thinks the military is sufficient > >>> >> >> >>> to win the War Against Iraq that HE STARTED and when his > >>> >> >> >>> estimation proves wrong it is all Clinton's fault? > >>> >> >> >>> > >>> >> >> >> The war was and is vital to US security. You go to war with > > what > >>> >> >> >> you have. > >>> >> >> > > >>> >> >> > The war has nothing to do with U.S. security. Iraq was not a > >>> >> >> > threat > >>> >> to > >>> >> >> > the U.S. It was a war of choice, plain and simple. > >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> Note that Bonde...ever the disingenous troll...has nothing to back > >>> >> >> up > >>> >> his > >>> >> >> claim that Iraq war was "vital to US security." > >>> >> >> > >>> >> > I've repeatedly explained why Iraq was and is vital to US security. > >>> >> > You simply ignore the reasons and assert that I've not explained it > >>> >> > to you. > >>> >> > >>> >> Was Iraq "vital to US security" when the US government > >>> >> was both arming Saddam and then attacking Saddam? > >>> >> > >>> > What are you talking about? > >>> > >>> When did Iraq first become "vital to US security"? > >>> > >> Iraq has always been a very important part of US security. > > > > > > Prove it. > > > OIL > The US imports a lot of oil therefore oil is vital to American security. Do you deny this? -- "What do you value in your bulldogs? Gripping, is it not? It's their nature? It's why you breed them? It's so with men. I will not give in because I oppose it. Not my pride, not my spleen, nor any other of my appetites, but I do. Is there in the midst of all this muscle no single sinew that serves no appetite of Norfolk's but is just Norfolk? Give that some exercise. Because, as you stand, you'll go before your Maker ill-conditioned. He'll think that somewhere along your pedigree, a bitch got over the wall." -+Paul Scofield, "A Man For All Seasons" Quote
Guest Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) Posted February 17, 2008 Posted February 17, 2008 Wolfie wrote: > > Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote: > > > > Wolfie wrote: > >> Gandalf Grey wrote: > >>> The Real Reason Congressional Democrats are Wimping Out on Iraq > >>> > >>> By Wagenvoord > >>> > >>> Created Feb 12 2008 - 9:59am > >>> > >>> > >>> By Case Wagenvoord > >>> > >>> Rolling Stone writer Matt Taibbi has called Senate Majority Leader Harry > >>> Reid "one of the biggest pussies in U.S. political history." While this may > >>> be true, there is a deeper explanation for Reid's timidity. > >>> > >>> Democrats cower in fear of being called "soft on terror/national > >>> defense/national security by Republicans. The very act of cowering is > >>> political suicide because it confirms the Republican charges. > >> Completely bogus assertion, The real reason is that the Dems > >> are on the same special interest payroll as the GOP. > >> > >> Any fool can see that the GOP were and are completely > >> incompetent at National Security. > >> They have a list of failures not seen since Pearl Harbor. > >> > > What are you talking about? The Republicans won the Cold War, and are > > doing a good job against the instant threat from hypernihilism. Not > > being able to get good poll numbers isn't a foreign policy failure. > > More nonsense from you. > There's an endless litany of GOP failure on security, starting > on 911 > Republicans didn't fail on 9/11. > and featuring things like Katrina and even trying to sell > the operation of our ports to Muslim countries. > What are you talking about? -- "What do you value in your bulldogs? Gripping, is it not? It's their nature? It's why you breed them? It's so with men. I will not give in because I oppose it. Not my pride, not my spleen, nor any other of my appetites, but I do. Is there in the midst of all this muscle no single sinew that serves no appetite of Norfolk's but is just Norfolk? Give that some exercise. Because, as you stand, you'll go before your Maker ill-conditioned. He'll think that somewhere along your pedigree, a bitch got over the wall." -+Paul Scofield, "A Man For All Seasons" Quote
Guest Wolfie Posted February 18, 2008 Posted February 18, 2008 Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote: > > Wolfie wrote: >> Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote: >>> Wolfie wrote: >>>> Gandalf Grey wrote: >>>>> The Real Reason Congressional Democrats are Wimping Out on Iraq >>>>> >>>>> By Wagenvoord >>>>> >>>>> Created Feb 12 2008 - 9:59am >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> By Case Wagenvoord >>>>> >>>>> Rolling Stone writer Matt Taibbi has called Senate Majority Leader Harry >>>>> Reid "one of the biggest pussies in U.S. political history." While this may >>>>> be true, there is a deeper explanation for Reid's timidity. >>>>> >>>>> Democrats cower in fear of being called "soft on terror/national >>>>> defense/national security by Republicans. The very act of cowering is >>>>> political suicide because it confirms the Republican charges. >>>> Completely bogus assertion, The real reason is that the Dems >>>> are on the same special interest payroll as the GOP. >>>> >>>> Any fool can see that the GOP were and are completely >>>> incompetent at National Security. >>>> They have a list of failures not seen since Pearl Harbor. >>>> >>> What are you talking about? The Republicans won the Cold War, and are >>> doing a good job against the instant threat from hypernihilism. Not >>> being able to get good poll numbers isn't a foreign policy failure. >> More nonsense from you. >> There's an endless litany of GOP failure on security, starting >> on 911 >> > Republicans didn't fail on 9/11. Sure they did. They failed to protect us. Then they lied us into a war against the wrong country. > > >> and featuring things like Katrina and even trying to sell >> the operation of our ports to Muslim countries. >> > What are you talking about? Look it up. -- Wolfie Quote
Guest Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) Posted February 18, 2008 Posted February 18, 2008 Wolfie wrote: > > Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote: > > > > Wolfie wrote: > >> Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote: > >>> Wolfie wrote: > >>>> Gandalf Grey wrote: > >>>>> The Real Reason Congressional Democrats are Wimping Out on Iraq > >>>>> > >>>>> By Wagenvoord > >>>>> > >>>>> Created Feb 12 2008 - 9:59am > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> By Case Wagenvoord > >>>>> > >>>>> Rolling Stone writer Matt Taibbi has called Senate Majority Leader Harry > >>>>> Reid "one of the biggest pussies in U.S. political history." While this may > >>>>> be true, there is a deeper explanation for Reid's timidity. > >>>>> > >>>>> Democrats cower in fear of being called "soft on terror/national > >>>>> defense/national security by Republicans. The very act of cowering is > >>>>> political suicide because it confirms the Republican charges. > >>>> Completely bogus assertion, The real reason is that the Dems > >>>> are on the same special interest payroll as the GOP. > >>>> > >>>> Any fool can see that the GOP were and are completely > >>>> incompetent at National Security. > >>>> They have a list of failures not seen since Pearl Harbor. > >>>> > >>> What are you talking about? The Republicans won the Cold War, and are > >>> doing a good job against the instant threat from hypernihilism. Not > >>> being able to get good poll numbers isn't a foreign policy failure. > >> More nonsense from you. > >> There's an endless litany of GOP failure on security, starting > >> on 911 > >> > > Republicans didn't fail on 9/11. > > Sure they did. They failed to protect us. > Then they lied us into a war against the wrong country. > I can see you are a kook. -- "What do you value in your bulldogs? Gripping, is it not? It's their nature? It's why you breed them? It's so with men. I will not give in because I oppose it. Not my pride, not my spleen, nor any other of my appetites, but I do. Is there in the midst of all this muscle no single sinew that serves no appetite of Norfolk's but is just Norfolk? Give that some exercise. Because, as you stand, you'll go before your Maker ill-conditioned. He'll think that somewhere along your pedigree, a bitch got over the wall." -+Paul Scofield, "A Man For All Seasons" Quote
Guest Wolfie Posted February 18, 2008 Posted February 18, 2008 Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote: > > Wolfie wrote: >> Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote: >>> Wolfie wrote: >>>> Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote: >>>>> Wolfie wrote: >>>>>> Gandalf Grey wrote: >>>>>>> The Real Reason Congressional Democrats are Wimping Out on Iraq >>>>>>> >>>>>>> By Wagenvoord >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Created Feb 12 2008 - 9:59am >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> By Case Wagenvoord >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Rolling Stone writer Matt Taibbi has called Senate Majority Leader Harry >>>>>>> Reid "one of the biggest pussies in U.S. political history." While this may >>>>>>> be true, there is a deeper explanation for Reid's timidity. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Democrats cower in fear of being called "soft on terror/national >>>>>>> defense/national security by Republicans. The very act of cowering is >>>>>>> political suicide because it confirms the Republican charges. >>>>>> Completely bogus assertion, The real reason is that the Dems >>>>>> are on the same special interest payroll as the GOP. >>>>>> >>>>>> Any fool can see that the GOP were and are completely >>>>>> incompetent at National Security. >>>>>> They have a list of failures not seen since Pearl Harbor. >>>>>> >>>>> What are you talking about? The Republicans won the Cold War, and are >>>>> doing a good job against the instant threat from hypernihilism. Not >>>>> being able to get good poll numbers isn't a foreign policy failure. >>>> More nonsense from you. >>>> There's an endless litany of GOP failure on security, starting >>>> on 911 >>>> >>> Republicans didn't fail on 9/11. >> Sure they did. They failed to protect us. >> Then they lied us into a war against the wrong country. >> > I can see you are a kook. Maybe, but then the majority of Americans is on my side while you are the minority view. -- Wolfie Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.