Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
#1
![]()
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Jul 3, 5:18*pm, "Eisboch" wrote:
"HK" wrote in message ... The Democrats aren't chasing her out of office. She simply didn't have what it takes to take the heat in the kitchen. Let's give it some time and see what her reasons are. It would almost ...... I repeat for the record, **ALMOST* *be worth watching her take on BO in 2012 and win. * *It sure would put a bunch of people here into a major hissy fit. I said "almost". Eisboch No matter who takes on BO in 2012, it's almost a done deal that the incumbent will take a dive. Everyone is now seeing that the emperor has no clothes. |
#2
![]()
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Jack wrote:
On Jul 3, 5:18 pm, "Eisboch" wrote: "HK" wrote in message ... The Democrats aren't chasing her out of office. She simply didn't have what it takes to take the heat in the kitchen. Let's give it some time and see what her reasons are. It would almost ...... I repeat for the record, *ALMOST* be worth watching her take on BO in 2012 and win. It sure would put a bunch of people here into a major hissy fit. I said "almost". Eisboch No matter who takes on BO in 2012, it's almost a done deal that the incumbent will take a dive. Everyone is now seeing that the emperor has no clothes. Hehehe...your fondest hope...but unlikely. |
#3
![]()
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Jul 3, 5:32*pm, HK wrote:
Jack wrote: On Jul 3, 5:18 pm, "Eisboch" wrote: "HK" wrote in message ... The Democrats aren't chasing her out of office. She simply didn't have what it takes to take the heat in the kitchen. Let's give it some time and see what her reasons are. It would almost ...... I repeat for the record, **ALMOST* *be worth watching her take on BO in 2012 and win. * *It sure would put a bunch of people here into a major hissy fit. I said "almost". Eisboch No matter who takes on BO in 2012, it's almost a done deal that the incumbent will take a dive. Everyone is now seeing that the emperor has no clothes. Hehehe...your fondest hope...but unlikely. Really? Even Helen Thomas is going after him on his media control tactics. They are slowly growing some. Seen this plant in BHO's "commercials"? Was a present sent to him from his own organization. A plant... a lie. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cGp6u...eature=related Six months in and the wheels are already falling off. heh. |
#4
![]()
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Jack" wrote in message ... On Jul 3, 5:32 pm, HK wrote: Jack wrote: On Jul 3, 5:18 pm, "Eisboch" wrote: "HK" wrote in message ... The Democrats aren't chasing her out of office. She simply didn't have what it takes to take the heat in the kitchen. Let's give it some time and see what her reasons are. It would almost ...... I repeat for the record, *ALMOST* be worth watching her take on BO in 2012 and win. It sure would put a bunch of people here into a major hissy fit. I said "almost". Eisboch No matter who takes on BO in 2012, it's almost a done deal that the incumbent will take a dive. Everyone is now seeing that the emperor has no clothes. Hehehe...your fondest hope...but unlikely. Really? Even Helen Thomas is going after him on his media control tactics. They are slowly growing some. Seen this plant in BHO's "commercials"? Was a present sent to him from his own organization. A plant... a lie. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cGp6u...eature=related Six months in and the wheels are already falling off. heh. --------------------------------- When he called her "over here" and stuck out his hand, I thought he was going to shove her on the forehead and yell, "You are Healed". Well, maybe not. If her situation is for real, I feel badly for her. I did hear a report however that she was very active in his campaign as some kind of organizer or something. Don't know if I believe the stories of her being a plant. Eisboch |
#5
![]()
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Fri, 03 Jul 2009 17:32:24 -0400, HK wrote:
Jack wrote: On Jul 3, 5:18 pm, "Eisboch" wrote: "HK" wrote in message ... The Democrats aren't chasing her out of office. She simply didn't have what it takes to take the heat in the kitchen. Let's give it some time and see what her reasons are. It would almost ...... I repeat for the record, *ALMOST* be worth watching her take on BO in 2012 and win. It sure would put a bunch of people here into a major hissy fit. I said "almost". Eisboch No matter who takes on BO in 2012, it's almost a done deal that the incumbent will take a dive. Everyone is now seeing that the emperor has no clothes. Hehehe...your fondest hope...but unlikely. The emporor didn't have clothes in 2003 and that didn't stop Americans from hiring the ****in' idiot again. You think Obama can screw it up as badly as Bush did? Not a bloody chance. |
#6
![]()
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "jps" wrote in message news ![]() You think Obama can screw it up as badly as Bush did? Not a bloody chance. Reminds me of something. Did you happen to read the summary of the FBI report that was just made public. This is very recent. Obama's FBI. Didn't make major headlines, of course. It reports the results of a major post mortem of the Iraq issue, from beginning to end. It focuses on Saddam's activities, his state of understanding, his realization that Baghdad was lost and his hiding until captured. It also recounts the pre-war mindset of Saddam and the various intelligence agencies (ours and other nations) information and beliefs at the time. Simplified, the story was this: Saddam promoted the perception that he indeed was in possession of weapons of mass destruction. He was not concerned about the UN or the USA. He didn't believe Bush would pull the trigger and invade. His concern was Iran. He wanted to keep them at bay by perpetuating the rumors and stories of his WMD stockpiles. So, Saddam said he had WMDs. The CIA believed he had WMDs. The FBI believed he had WMDs. Intelligence agencies of other countries believed he had WMDs. Clinton believed he had WMDs. Kerry believed he had WMDs. In fact, most of Congress believed he had WMDs and are on record as saying so. Why not? Saddam said he had WMDs. But when Bush said Saddam had WMDs, he lied. Eisboch |
#7
![]()
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Fri, 3 Jul 2009 18:33:27 -0400, "Eisboch"
wrote: "jps" wrote in message news ![]() You think Obama can screw it up as badly as Bush did? Not a bloody chance. Reminds me of something. Did you happen to read the summary of the FBI report that was just made public. This is very recent. Obama's FBI. Didn't make major headlines, of course. It reports the results of a major post mortem of the Iraq issue, from beginning to end. It focuses on Saddam's activities, his state of understanding, his realization that Baghdad was lost and his hiding until captured. It also recounts the pre-war mindset of Saddam and the various intelligence agencies (ours and other nations) information and beliefs at the time. Simplified, the story was this: Saddam promoted the perception that he indeed was in possession of weapons of mass destruction. He was not concerned about the UN or the USA. He didn't believe Bush would pull the trigger and invade. His concern was Iran. He wanted to keep them at bay by perpetuating the rumors and stories of his WMD stockpiles. So, Saddam said he had WMDs. The CIA believed he had WMDs. The FBI believed he had WMDs. Intelligence agencies of other countries believed he had WMDs. Clinton believed he had WMDs. Kerry believed he had WMDs. In fact, most of Congress believed he had WMDs and are on record as saying so. Why not? Saddam said he had WMDs. But when Bush said Saddam had WMDs, he lied. Eisboch Congratulations Richard. Most on the left had this figured out six years ago. Everyone believed Saddam had weapons but there were a ton of folks who were arguing to let the inspectors do their job and had a pretty good idea Saddam was bluffing. This **** really started to stink when Bush went into full-rush mode. You probably didn't notice with all that flag waving and rah rah you were doing. To what end? We're ****ed for 3 trillion, everyone hates us and we've done nothing to rebuild education, infrastructure or ensure job retention in our country. Osama bin Laden just had to tip the first domino and our leadership took over from there. Good thing it only took you six years to discover the truth. Congratulations again. |
#8
![]()
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
jps wrote:
On Fri, 3 Jul 2009 18:33:27 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote: "jps" wrote in message news ![]() You think Obama can screw it up as badly as Bush did? Not a bloody chance. Reminds me of something. Did you happen to read the summary of the FBI report that was just made public. This is very recent. Obama's FBI. Didn't make major headlines, of course. It reports the results of a major post mortem of the Iraq issue, from beginning to end. It focuses on Saddam's activities, his state of understanding, his realization that Baghdad was lost and his hiding until captured. It also recounts the pre-war mindset of Saddam and the various intelligence agencies (ours and other nations) information and beliefs at the time. Simplified, the story was this: Saddam promoted the perception that he indeed was in possession of weapons of mass destruction. He was not concerned about the UN or the USA. He didn't believe Bush would pull the trigger and invade. His concern was Iran. He wanted to keep them at bay by perpetuating the rumors and stories of his WMD stockpiles. So, Saddam said he had WMDs. The CIA believed he had WMDs. The FBI believed he had WMDs. Intelligence agencies of other countries believed he had WMDs. Clinton believed he had WMDs. Kerry believed he had WMDs. In fact, most of Congress believed he had WMDs and are on record as saying so. Why not? Saddam said he had WMDs. But when Bush said Saddam had WMDs, he lied. Eisboch Congratulations Richard. Most on the left had this figured out six years ago. Everyone believed Saddam had weapons but there were a ton of folks who were arguing to let the inspectors do their job and had a pretty good idea Saddam was bluffing. This **** really started to stink when Bush went into full-rush mode. You probably didn't notice with all that flag waving and rah rah you were doing. To what end? We're ****ed for 3 trillion, everyone hates us and we've done nothing to rebuild education, infrastructure or ensure job retention in our country. Osama bin Laden just had to tip the first domino and our leadership took over from there. Good thing it only took you six years to discover the truth. Congratulations again. It is important to note that whatever Clinton believed, he was smart enough to not invade Iraq. Bush had a hard-on for Saddam before he even presumed his office. He was looking for excuses, no matter how tenuous, to invade Iraq and get Saddam. So he, Cheney and Rumsfeld initiated a war of convenience, and this country and Iraq paid and are paying the price for his hotheadedness. |
#9
![]()
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "jps" wrote in message ... On Fri, 3 Jul 2009 18:33:27 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote: Reminds me of something. Did you happen to read the summary of the FBI report that was just made public. This is very recent. Obama's FBI. Didn't make major headlines, of course. It reports the results of a major post mortem of the Iraq issue, from beginning to end. It focuses on Saddam's activities, his state of understanding, his realization that Baghdad was lost and his hiding until captured. It also recounts the pre-war mindset of Saddam and the various intelligence agencies (ours and other nations) information and beliefs at the time. Simplified, the story was this: Saddam promoted the perception that he indeed was in possession of weapons of mass destruction. He was not concerned about the UN or the USA. He didn't believe Bush would pull the trigger and invade. His concern was Iran. He wanted to keep them at bay by perpetuating the rumors and stories of his WMD stockpiles. So, Saddam said he had WMDs. The CIA believed he had WMDs. The FBI believed he had WMDs. Intelligence agencies of other countries believed he had WMDs. Clinton believed he had WMDs. Kerry believed he had WMDs. In fact, most of Congress believed he had WMDs and are on record as saying so. Why not? Saddam said he had WMDs. But when Bush said Saddam had WMDs, he lied. Eisboch Congratulations Richard. Most on the left had this figured out six years ago. Everyone believed Saddam had weapons but there were a ton of folks who were arguing to let the inspectors do their job and had a pretty good idea Saddam was bluffing. This **** really started to stink when Bush went into full-rush mode. You probably didn't notice with all that flag waving and rah rah you were doing. To what end? We're ****ed for 3 trillion, everyone hates us and we've done nothing to rebuild education, infrastructure or ensure job retention in our country. Osama bin Laden just had to tip the first domino and our leadership took over from there. Good thing it only took you six years to discover the truth. Congratulations again. Were you vacationing on Jupiter or something when this was happening? You don't recall Saddam kicking the inspectors out? You don't recall him letting them back in, but the Chief Inspector threw in the towel due to restrictions imposed by Saddam? You don't recall about 6 months of UN hearings and calling for Saddam to come clean? The left didn't catch on to anything. They have simply rewritten history for convenience. Eisboch |
#10
![]()
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Eisboch wrote:
"jps" wrote in message ... On Fri, 3 Jul 2009 18:33:27 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote: Reminds me of something. Did you happen to read the summary of the FBI report that was just made public. This is very recent. Obama's FBI. Didn't make major headlines, of course. It reports the results of a major post mortem of the Iraq issue, from beginning to end. It focuses on Saddam's activities, his state of understanding, his realization that Baghdad was lost and his hiding until captured. It also recounts the pre-war mindset of Saddam and the various intelligence agencies (ours and other nations) information and beliefs at the time. Simplified, the story was this: Saddam promoted the perception that he indeed was in possession of weapons of mass destruction. He was not concerned about the UN or the USA. He didn't believe Bush would pull the trigger and invade. His concern was Iran. He wanted to keep them at bay by perpetuating the rumors and stories of his WMD stockpiles. So, Saddam said he had WMDs. The CIA believed he had WMDs. The FBI believed he had WMDs. Intelligence agencies of other countries believed he had WMDs. Clinton believed he had WMDs. Kerry believed he had WMDs. In fact, most of Congress believed he had WMDs and are on record as saying so. Why not? Saddam said he had WMDs. But when Bush said Saddam had WMDs, he lied. Eisboch Congratulations Richard. Most on the left had this figured out six years ago. Everyone believed Saddam had weapons but there were a ton of folks who were arguing to let the inspectors do their job and had a pretty good idea Saddam was bluffing. This **** really started to stink when Bush went into full-rush mode. You probably didn't notice with all that flag waving and rah rah you were doing. To what end? We're ****ed for 3 trillion, everyone hates us and we've done nothing to rebuild education, infrastructure or ensure job retention in our country. Osama bin Laden just had to tip the first domino and our leadership took over from there. Good thing it only took you six years to discover the truth. Congratulations again. Were you vacationing on Jupiter or something when this was happening? You don't recall Saddam kicking the inspectors out? You don't recall him letting them back in, but the Chief Inspector threw in the towel due to restrictions imposed by Saddam? You don't recall about 6 months of UN hearings and calling for Saddam to come clean? The left didn't catch on to anything. They have simply rewritten history for convenience. Eisboch You don't recall a U.S. president named George W. Bush who was eager to start a war of convenience? |
Reply |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Why is Sarah Palin in... | General | |||
Why is Sarah Palin in... | General | |||
Why is Sarah Palin in... | General | |||
Sarah Paline uses voodoo to become Governor! | ASA | |||
Sarah Palin | ASA |