b1jercat 0
Recommended Posts
headoverheels 291
Why is it surprising that plans existed to invade Iraq before the 9/11 attacks? Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11; they are separate issues.
QuoteYeah, and in the mean time Dubya.s bringing oasama bin ladin to justice and making him pay for 9/11.
Oh wait, I almost forgot, screw oasama there's no oil in Affganastan, sorry my bad.
How many troops have died since the end of major combat?***
Yep gotta love the persistance of the left. Nothing to run on in the upcoming elections except "well, he hasn't found OBL yet." I predict OBL will be in custody before the elections.
Economies looking good since GWB got rid of that loser O'Neill.
SH in custody.
Tax cuts are working.
Democratic Prez. candidates are going at each other like a couple of poosies.
Elections in Iraq in June.
New Space Program.
Yep, gonna be fun watching the Libs get a thumping AGAIN. When will you guys EVER learn?
billvon 2,434
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)
>On a side note, I find it laughable that the lefties criticized Bush
>for not having a plan in place before going into Iraq and now we find
> out they had been working on it even before Sept 11.
I knew he had a plan to overthrow Saddam; the problem was he didn't have a plan for all those little other things, like what to do with Iraq after the war was over.
>Just because the President doesn't discuss verything he does with
> you doesn't mean he doesn't have a plan.
At this point you would be on _extremely_ safe ground to say that there was bit of a lack of planning, and a lack of good intelligence, before the war. And if I were you I'd stick to the "lack of good intelligence" angle - it sounds so much better than "he lied about Iraq's WMD programs."
> He only declared an end to "MAJOR COMBAT",
Interesting that way more soldiers get killed in minor combat than in major combat. Perhaps next he will declare Iraq a limited police action?
>for not having a plan in place before going into Iraq and now we find
> out they had been working on it even before Sept 11.
I knew he had a plan to overthrow Saddam; the problem was he didn't have a plan for all those little other things, like what to do with Iraq after the war was over.
>Just because the President doesn't discuss verything he does with
> you doesn't mean he doesn't have a plan.
At this point you would be on _extremely_ safe ground to say that there was bit of a lack of planning, and a lack of good intelligence, before the war. And if I were you I'd stick to the "lack of good intelligence" angle - it sounds so much better than "he lied about Iraq's WMD programs."
> He only declared an end to "MAJOR COMBAT",
Interesting that way more soldiers get killed in minor combat than in major combat. Perhaps next he will declare Iraq a limited police action?
i've got bad news and good news.
bad news first. thares no such thing as santa claus, theres not really an easteer bunny, theres no bogey men in the middle east who hate us cause we're free, and most all of the politicians out there and all of the ones with real power are full of shit.
now the good news. who cares. those politicians are a bunch of greedy bastards that can never be happy no matter how much they get. but we can. we know what it means to live . yo really live. so we have happiness and peace of mind.
peace in the middle east, and chicken grease
bad news first. thares no such thing as santa claus, theres not really an easteer bunny, theres no bogey men in the middle east who hate us cause we're free, and most all of the politicians out there and all of the ones with real power are full of shit.
now the good news. who cares. those politicians are a bunch of greedy bastards that can never be happy no matter how much they get. but we can. we know what it means to live . yo really live. so we have happiness and peace of mind.
peace in the middle east, and chicken grease
_________________________________________
people see me as a challenge to their balance
people see me as a challenge to their balance
Quote>On a side note, I find it laughable that the lefties criticized Bush
>for not having a plan in place before going into Iraq and now we find
> out they had been working on it even before Sept 11.QuoteI knew he had a plan to overthrow Saddam; the problem was he didn't have a plan for all those little other things, like what to do with Iraq after the war was over.
Seems to me he has a plan. Elections are next June, we are training Iraqi Army and Iraqi Police. Don't understand why you say there's no plan.
Quote
At this point you would be on _extremely_ safe ground to say that there was bit of a lack of planning, and a lack of good intelligence, before the war.
No, I'd say there's no way to plan for ALL contingencies.Quote
And if I were you I'd stick to the "lack of good intelligence" angle - it sounds so much better than "he lied about Iraq's WMD programs."Interesting that way more soldiers get killed in minor combat than in major combat. Perhaps next he will declare Iraq a limited police action?Quote
If I were you I'd start moving away from the "he lied" because that means the U.N., Clinton, Tony Blair etc were all part of some vast conspiracy. Not that I'm not entertained by Leftist Conspirists you understand.
I doubt the ability or willingness to understand what's said or meant will have much effect on what GWB does in the future.
billvon 2,434
>Seems to me he has a plan.
Statements like "the war might last six days, six weeks - I doubt six months" or "they will welcome us as liberators" lead one to believe they now have a very quickly rewritten plan, put in place after all their predictions failed to come to pass. I note the tune has now changed to statements like "It is pretty clear that the coalition can win in Afghanistan and Iraq in one way or another, but it will be a long, hard slog."
So we have a new plan, a plan that looks nothing like the old plans, ones that called for a light force of 40,000 troops to topple Saddam's 'house of cards' and then quickly leave the Iraqis to celebrate their newfound independence. Will this one work? I hope so.
>If I were you I'd start moving away from the "he lied" because that
> means the U.N., Clinton, Tony Blair etc were all part of some vast
>conspiracy.
?? Vast conspiracy? I bought Pollack's book that talked about the PNAC almost a year before we went to war. It's hardly a secret conspiracy if there are books on amazon.com about it.
>I doubt the ability or willingness to understand what's said or meant
>will have much effect on what GWB does in the future.
Nor, apparently, will the lack of a plan (or even a strategy) stay his hand.
Statements like "the war might last six days, six weeks - I doubt six months" or "they will welcome us as liberators" lead one to believe they now have a very quickly rewritten plan, put in place after all their predictions failed to come to pass. I note the tune has now changed to statements like "It is pretty clear that the coalition can win in Afghanistan and Iraq in one way or another, but it will be a long, hard slog."
So we have a new plan, a plan that looks nothing like the old plans, ones that called for a light force of 40,000 troops to topple Saddam's 'house of cards' and then quickly leave the Iraqis to celebrate their newfound independence. Will this one work? I hope so.
>If I were you I'd start moving away from the "he lied" because that
> means the U.N., Clinton, Tony Blair etc were all part of some vast
>conspiracy.
?? Vast conspiracy? I bought Pollack's book that talked about the PNAC almost a year before we went to war. It's hardly a secret conspiracy if there are books on amazon.com about it.
>I doubt the ability or willingness to understand what's said or meant
>will have much effect on what GWB does in the future.
Nor, apparently, will the lack of a plan (or even a strategy) stay his hand.
kallend 1,648
QuoteQuoteYeah, and in the mean time Dubya.s bringing oasama bin ladin to justice and making him pay for 9/11.
Oh wait, I almost forgot, screw oasama there's no oil in Affganastan, sorry my bad.
How many troops have died since the end of major combat?***
Yep gotta love the persistance of the left. Nothing to run on in the upcoming elections except "well, he hasn't found OBL yet." I predict OBL will be in custody before the elections.
Economies looking good since GWB got rid of that loser O'Neill.
Tell that to the unemployed, some 2M MORE than when GWB came into office
SH in custody.
Tax cuts are working.
Really, I hadn't noticed
Democratic Prez. candidates are going at each other like a couple of poosies.
Elections in Iraq in June.
Maybe: there's some doubt about that timetable now
New Space Program.
Talk is cheap. Let's defer judgement on that until something concrete happens
Yep, gonna be fun watching the Libs get a thumping AGAIN.
Let's not forget that 1/2M more Americans voted for Gore than for GWB before going on about being thumped again.
When will you guys EVER learn?...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
kiltboy 0
***How many more would they have to find for
you to consider it a threat? 50, 65, 75, 80, 100,???
Add this to the missles found that were capable of reaching Israel, Iran, Egypt, Saudi Arabia etc..
Oh, sorry I forgot. They are just Arabs and Jews.
They don't count as being International Security
concerns.
you to consider it a threat? 50, 65, 75, 80, 100,???
Add this to the missles found that were capable of reaching Israel, Iran, Egypt, Saudi Arabia etc..
Oh, sorry I forgot. They are just Arabs and Jews.
They don't count as being International Security
concerns.
Those were tactical battlefield munitions not startegic weapons.
I find your comment that it's not a worry because they are only jews and arabs quite disgusting.
The main players in the region Syria, Iran and Israel
also posess WMD. DO you remember the comcept
of mutually assured destruction? It kept Nato and
the Warsaw pact from starting WW3.
David
rehmwa 2
Did someone back in this thread wax nostalgic about Jimmy Carter?
Or was that sarcasm?
...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants
Or was that sarcasm?...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants
Quote
GWB never declared victory. He only declared an end to "MAJOR COMBAT", An end to "MAJOR COMBAT", An end to "MAJOR COMBAT". That means we had SH on the run, tanks weren't rolling as before, war planes eased up with the bombings. An End To MAJOR Combat. See thats why you lefties crack me up so much. First you twist what he says, then after you do that, you claim he doesn't know what he's doing.
I seem to remember big banners saying "Mission Accomplished"
A One that Isn't Cold is Scarcely a One at All
QuoteI find your comment that it's not a worry because they are only jews and arabs quite disgusting.
Then I'd suggest you go back and reread what I said. I was summerizing what you were saying, not making my own statement. If you have trouble following what was being said, PM me and I will try to simplify it for you.
QuoteQuote
GWB never declared victory. He only declared an end to "MAJOR COMBAT", An end to "MAJOR COMBAT", An end to "MAJOR COMBAT". That means we had SH on the run, tanks weren't rolling as before, war planes eased up with the bombings. An End To MAJOR Combat. See thats why you lefties crack me up so much. First you twist what he says, then after you do that, you claim he doesn't know what he's doing.QuoteI seem to remember big banners saying "Mission Accomplished"
Yep and even though it may help you feel better about your agenda by twisting the meaning of "Mission Accomplished" you are simply WRONG. Mission Accomplished was a comment on the work done by the troops on that particular ship. Not a comment on the war.
If Bush had congratulated the troops who found SH with the same comment, would you interpet it the same way? I doubt it.
Quote
Yep and even though it may help you feel better about your agenda by twisting the meaning of "Mission Accomplished" you are simply WRONG. Mission Accomplished was a comment on the work done by the troops on that particular ship. Not a comment on the war.
If Bush had congratulated the troops who found SH with the same comment, would you interpet it the same way? I doubt it.
Your skill at doublethink is strikingly Orwellian. I am fascinated by your ability to simultaneously accuse liberals of fact twisting while attempting to suggest that George's victory announcement with accompanying "Mission Accomplished" banners was something other than a proclamation of victory. Or perhaps these accusations of lies and spin are evidence of mere psychological projection?
A One that Isn't Cold is Scarcely a One at All
lummy 4
this is PURE rubbish.. and here's the proof
QuoteSuskind cited a Pentagon document titled "Foreign Suitors For Iraqi Oilfield Contracts," which, he said, outlines areas of oil exploration. "It talks about contractors around the world from ... 30, 40 countries and which ones have what intentions on oil in Iraq."
I promise not to TP Davis under canopy.. I promise not to TP Davis under canopy.. eat sushi, get smoochieTTK#1
QuoteQuote
Yep and even though it may help you feel better about your agenda by twisting the meaning of "Mission Accomplished" you are simply WRONG. Mission Accomplished was a comment on the work done by the troops on that particular ship. Not a comment on the war.
If Bush had congratulated the troops who found SH with the same comment, would you interpet it the same way? I doubt it.
Your skill at doublethink is strikingly Orwellian. I am fascinated by your ability to simultaneously accuse liberals of fact twisting while attempting to suggest that George's victory announcement with accompanying "Mission Accomplished" banners was something other than a proclamation of victory. Or perhaps these accusations of lies and spin are evidence of mere psychological projection?
Now doesn't your response directly contradict that little mantra you like to publish whenever you get frustrated? Or are you getting ready to publish it again?
Michele 1
Sigh...
~~~~
http://usinfo.state.gov/regional/nea/iraq/text/0919cngr.htm
"...105th Congress dealt with Iraq's threat to international order.
In that mid-term election year, Congress passed the Iraq Liberation Act, calling for the removal of Saddam Hussein's regime.
"It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime," according to the Iraq Liberation Act (Public Law 105-338)...."
~~~~~
http://www.fas.org/news/iraq/1998/12/16/981216-wh2.htm
The hard fact is that so long as Saddam remains in power, he threatens the well-being of his people, the peace of his region, the security of the world. The best way to end that threat once and for all is with the new Iraqi government, a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people.
Bringing change in Baghdad will take time and effort. We will strengthen our engagement with the full range of Iraqi opposition forces and work with them effectively and prudently.
~~~~~
And finally, a brief comparison between Clinton and Bush...
Clinton, Dec. 19, 1998: "Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. . . . Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors. . . . Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons." (see link above)
George W. Bush, Jan. 28, 2003: "Year after year, Saddam Hussein has gone to elaborate lengths, spent enormous sums, taken great risks, to build and keep weapons of mass destruction. But why? The only possible explanation, the only possible use he could have for those weapons is to dominate, intimidate or attack. With nuclear arms or a full arsenal of chemical and biological weapons, Saddam Hussein could resume his ambitions of conquest in the Middle East and create deadly havoc in that region." (State of The Union address, 2003)
Clinton: "Six weeks ago, Saddam Hussein announced that he would no longer cooperate with the United Nations weapons inspectors called UNSCOM. . . . Their job is to oversee the elimination of Iraq's capability to retain, create and use weapons of mass destruction, and to verify that Iraq does not attempt to rebuild that capability. . . . Iraq has failed to turn over virtually all the documents requested by the inspectors. Indeed, we know that Iraq ordered the destruction of weapons-related documents in anticipation of an UNSCOM inspection." (Statement contained in whole at above link, 12/16/1998)
Bush: "The dictator of Iraq is not disarming. To the contrary, he is deceiving. From intelligence sources, we know for instance, that thousands of Iraqi security personnel are at work hiding documents and materials from the U.N. inspectors, sanitizing inspection sites, and monitoring the inspectors themselves." (State of the Union, 2003)
Clinton: "Other countries possess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. With Saddam, there is one big difference: He has used them. Not once, but repeatedly. Unleashing chemical weapons against Iranian troops during a decade-long war. Not only against soldiers, but against civilians, firing Scud missiles at the citizens of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Iran. And not only against a foreign enemy, but even against his own people, gassing Kurdish civilians in Northern Iraq. . . . I have no doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again." (December 16, 1998)
Bush: "Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy and it is not an option. The dictator who is assembling the world's most dangerous weapons has already used them on whole villages, leaving thousands of his own citizens dead, blind or disfigured." (ditto)
Clinton: "The decision to use force is never cost-free. Whenever American forces are placed in harm's way, we risk the loss of life. And while our strikes are focused on Iraq's military capabilities, there will be unintended Iraqi casualties. . . . Heavy as they are, the costs of action must be weighed against the price of inaction. If Saddam defies the world and we fail to respond, we will face a far greater threat in the future. Saddam will strike again at his neighbors. He will make war on his own people. . . . But once more, the United States has proven that although we are never eager to use force, when we must act in America's vital interests, we will do so." (ditto)
Bush: "Sending Americans into battle is the most profound decision a president can make. The technologies of war have changed, the risks and suffering of war have not. For the brave Americans, this nation fights reluctantly because we know the cost and we dread the days of mourning that always come. We seek peace. We strive for peace. And sometimes, peace must be defended. A future lived at the mercy of terrible threats is no peace at all. If war is forced upon us, we will fight in a just cause and by just means, sparing, in every way we can, the innocent. And if war is forced upon us, we will fight with the full force and might of the United States military." (ditto)
I didn't research too much more than the above, but as far as I can tell, Iraqi regime change was initiated in 1998, Clinton signed it into law on 10/31/98...and yet Bush is lambasted by a disgruntled, fired employee, who has an axe to grind, and it makes news because he wrote a book...this is NOT news, this has been policy for a long time...
Interesting comparison, at least to me....
Ciels-
Michele
~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek
While our hearts lie bleeding?~
~~~~
http://usinfo.state.gov/regional/nea/iraq/text/0919cngr.htm
"...105th Congress dealt with Iraq's threat to international order.
In that mid-term election year, Congress passed the Iraq Liberation Act, calling for the removal of Saddam Hussein's regime.
"It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime," according to the Iraq Liberation Act (Public Law 105-338)...."
~~~~~
http://www.fas.org/news/iraq/1998/12/16/981216-wh2.htm
The hard fact is that so long as Saddam remains in power, he threatens the well-being of his people, the peace of his region, the security of the world. The best way to end that threat once and for all is with the new Iraqi government, a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people.
Bringing change in Baghdad will take time and effort. We will strengthen our engagement with the full range of Iraqi opposition forces and work with them effectively and prudently.
~~~~~
And finally, a brief comparison between Clinton and Bush...
Clinton, Dec. 19, 1998: "Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. . . . Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors. . . . Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons." (see link above)
George W. Bush, Jan. 28, 2003: "Year after year, Saddam Hussein has gone to elaborate lengths, spent enormous sums, taken great risks, to build and keep weapons of mass destruction. But why? The only possible explanation, the only possible use he could have for those weapons is to dominate, intimidate or attack. With nuclear arms or a full arsenal of chemical and biological weapons, Saddam Hussein could resume his ambitions of conquest in the Middle East and create deadly havoc in that region." (State of The Union address, 2003)
Clinton: "Six weeks ago, Saddam Hussein announced that he would no longer cooperate with the United Nations weapons inspectors called UNSCOM. . . . Their job is to oversee the elimination of Iraq's capability to retain, create and use weapons of mass destruction, and to verify that Iraq does not attempt to rebuild that capability. . . . Iraq has failed to turn over virtually all the documents requested by the inspectors. Indeed, we know that Iraq ordered the destruction of weapons-related documents in anticipation of an UNSCOM inspection." (Statement contained in whole at above link, 12/16/1998)
Bush: "The dictator of Iraq is not disarming. To the contrary, he is deceiving. From intelligence sources, we know for instance, that thousands of Iraqi security personnel are at work hiding documents and materials from the U.N. inspectors, sanitizing inspection sites, and monitoring the inspectors themselves." (State of the Union, 2003)
Clinton: "Other countries possess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. With Saddam, there is one big difference: He has used them. Not once, but repeatedly. Unleashing chemical weapons against Iranian troops during a decade-long war. Not only against soldiers, but against civilians, firing Scud missiles at the citizens of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Iran. And not only against a foreign enemy, but even against his own people, gassing Kurdish civilians in Northern Iraq. . . . I have no doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again." (December 16, 1998)
Bush: "Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy and it is not an option. The dictator who is assembling the world's most dangerous weapons has already used them on whole villages, leaving thousands of his own citizens dead, blind or disfigured." (ditto)
Clinton: "The decision to use force is never cost-free. Whenever American forces are placed in harm's way, we risk the loss of life. And while our strikes are focused on Iraq's military capabilities, there will be unintended Iraqi casualties. . . . Heavy as they are, the costs of action must be weighed against the price of inaction. If Saddam defies the world and we fail to respond, we will face a far greater threat in the future. Saddam will strike again at his neighbors. He will make war on his own people. . . . But once more, the United States has proven that although we are never eager to use force, when we must act in America's vital interests, we will do so." (ditto)
Bush: "Sending Americans into battle is the most profound decision a president can make. The technologies of war have changed, the risks and suffering of war have not. For the brave Americans, this nation fights reluctantly because we know the cost and we dread the days of mourning that always come. We seek peace. We strive for peace. And sometimes, peace must be defended. A future lived at the mercy of terrible threats is no peace at all. If war is forced upon us, we will fight in a just cause and by just means, sparing, in every way we can, the innocent. And if war is forced upon us, we will fight with the full force and might of the United States military." (ditto)
I didn't research too much more than the above, but as far as I can tell, Iraqi regime change was initiated in 1998, Clinton signed it into law on 10/31/98...and yet Bush is lambasted by a disgruntled, fired employee, who has an axe to grind, and it makes news because he wrote a book...this is NOT news, this has been policy for a long time...
Interesting comparison, at least to me....
Ciels-
Michele
~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek
While our hearts lie bleeding?~
billvon 2,434
>...and yet Bush is lambasted by a disgruntled, fired employee, who
> has an axe to grind, and it makes news because he wrote a
> book...this is NOT news, this has been policy for a long time...
I agree. I guess I was suprised at how many people were up in arms almost a year ago, claiming that the reason we were invading Iraq was to stop Hussein's WMD programs, and to prevent another 9/11. "The world is different now, we have to respond differently to threats." "We don't want the next warning to come in the form of a mushroom cloud," warned Bush during one of his speeches. Disappointing to find that all that rhetoric was window dressing to cover a plan that had been brewing well before 9/11.
> has an axe to grind, and it makes news because he wrote a
> book...this is NOT news, this has been policy for a long time...
I agree. I guess I was suprised at how many people were up in arms almost a year ago, claiming that the reason we were invading Iraq was to stop Hussein's WMD programs, and to prevent another 9/11. "The world is different now, we have to respond differently to threats." "We don't want the next warning to come in the form of a mushroom cloud," warned Bush during one of his speeches. Disappointing to find that all that rhetoric was window dressing to cover a plan that had been brewing well before 9/11.
QuoteQuoteQuote
Yep and even though it may help you feel better about your agenda by twisting the meaning of "Mission Accomplished" you are simply WRONG. Mission Accomplished was a comment on the work done by the troops on that particular ship. Not a comment on the war.
If Bush had congratulated the troops who found SH with the same comment, would you interpet it the same way? I doubt it.
Your skill at doublethink is strikingly Orwellian. I am fascinated by your ability to simultaneously accuse liberals of fact twisting while attempting to suggest that George's victory announcement with accompanying "Mission Accomplished" banners was something other than a proclamation of victory. Or perhaps these accusations of lies and spin are evidence of mere psychological projection?
Now doesn't your response directly contradict that little mantra you like to publish whenever you get frustrated? Or are you getting ready to publish it again?
I assume that you're referring to this:
QuoteRegarding the "typical liberal" part ... well, do a search for the bit about what it does for one's credibility when one makes a post claiming that anybody is a typical anybody.
I fail to see how I have contradicted myself, as I never called anyone a typical anyone. Rather, I suggested that it was in fact you (read: Gravitymaster) spinning the truth while accusing others of doing so. I can only read this diversionary tactic on your part as an attempt to do the same. Haven't you contradicted yourself by first claiming that liberals distort the truth, then accusing me of making a statement that I never made?
A One that Isn't Cold is Scarcely a One at All
Michele 1
QuoteDisappointing to find that all that rhetoric was window dressing to cover a plan that had been brewing well before 9/11.
Yes, I do agree with you to a point. When Clinton signed that law, it was interesting to note how it got skewed...by all parties.
Irrespective of "window dressing", I think it's rather sad that so many people don't understand the genisis of things like this, or the Mujahadin funding back with Carter, and lay the blame on the wrong folk. Perhaps the comments should be "if it was a wrong campaign, then let's change it..." but to state unequivocally that so-and-so was responsible for thus-and-such without understanding the origins, and indeed the temperament of the world during the initial stages of the plan saddens me. It's party rhetoric, depending upon who's party it is, and it changes.
The only real way to understand where we are, and how we got here is to research the origins of an issue, and understand the world's politics at that time...and then trace it through to present day.
The book is so much hogwash, written by a fired, unsuccessful employee, and simply a deliberate attempt to assault Bush during an election year...no other reason for it now.
Oh well...
Ciels-
Michele
~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek
While our hearts lie bleeding?~
Oh wait, I almost forgot, screw oasama there's no oil in Affganastan, sorry my bad.
How many troops have died since the end of major combat?
blues
jerry
---------------------------------------------------------------
The one thing I truly enjoy about the righty's is watching them swing on Dubya's Dick
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites