| Page 2 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
More fun with Sarah
jps wrote:
On Tue, 07 Jul 2009 07:02:41 -0400, Captain Marvel of Woodstock wrote: On Tue, 7 Jul 2009 06:27:57 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote: What are you liberals so worried about? She's everything they claim they like in women - strong personality, effective leadership, mother, interesting life story, good looking and smart, but... "Friends with a domestic terrorist" Said how many times? 20 - 30 - 40? Whips people into a frenzy and then says nothing when the audience suggests killing Obama? Extorts money from the state to pay for things that clearly aren't kosher expenses by any measure. That's not a woman I admire. She makes me sick. Since Palin is quitting her political office, I wouldn't mind seeing the media step back from reportage of her a bit, except, of course, when she makes a political appearance or speech. *Then* it is perfectly acceptable to slam her to the mat. |
More fun with Sarah
On Tue, 7 Jul 2009 08:46:18 -0400, "Eisboch"
wrote: "HK" wrote in message om... I guess that's hard for you and others here to understand. Oh...speaking of Sarah, I suppose she and her lawyer have never heard of New York Times v. Sullivan. Elected public officials, basically, cannot use the courts effectively to attempt to chill criticism or reportage about how they handle their jobs. You really need a new angle. There's a difference between legality and common decency. Those of the extreme left persuasion are walking away from the difference. Eisboch You've never encountered the "extreme left." What you imagine is extreme is within a very narrow band, that exists in your head. No matter, I don't expect it'll expand before you expire. |
More fun with Sarah
"jps" wrote in message ... On Tue, 7 Jul 2009 06:12:59 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote: "jps" wrote in message . .. On Mon, 6 Jul 2009 22:31:27 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote: "jps" wrote in message m... On Mon, 6 Jul 2009 22:11:42 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote: "HK" wrote in message news:uJKdnfxCzo7GNs_XnZ2dnUVZ_iydnZ2d@earthl ink.com... Palin Hit With Another Ethics Complaint Yawn. When will they stop? Batting average isn't very good. Even the FBI acknowledged that one of the allegations that may have violated a Federal statute was meaningless and without merit. And people wonder why she quit. She should have stood at the microphone, looked straight at the camera and given the media a one finger salute. Eisboch "The Media." Right. As if she didn't bring any of this on herself. So much for "personal responsibility." Given some of your posts of late, I don't consider you to be much of an expert on "personal responsibility". Screaming at a TV set in a fit of rage , using acute profanity in front of your kids and then bragging about here it isn't my kind of adult personal responsibilty. A thought while you are furiously typing your response ..... tough ****. Eisboch I suppose you never swore in front of your children. Nor did you ever yell at the television. You're just the picture of personal responsiblity, Dick. Of course I have done both. But never with the type of vulgar profanity you boast about. I have a degree of personal responsibility, you see. I am not a prude by any means, but I have more respect for people in general, my family and for myself to publically utter the type of vulgarity you seem to have no problem with. You must be a real trip in the conference room. Eisboch Vulgarity is in the eyes of the beholder. In my eyes vulgarity is sending kids to die in a war of choice. Dick Cheney is a vulgar person who rightly deserves my hatred. I hate him. He's an evil ******* who cares nothing for the people he's ****ed, apart from Scooter Libby. That's vulgarity, Dick. You were among the rah rah chorus of vulgarity that happened on our watch. You're among the selfish, vulgar citizenry who'd deny another medical care for 2% of your wages. You've said as much in your critiques of Obama's "out of control spending." That's vulgarity, Dick. My vulgarity is reserved for those who think others are less deserving than themselves, since they're successful and others had the same opportunities and choices. Unfortunately the world doesn't work in such a binary fashion and some people get screwed no matter their desire, fortitude, earnestness, willingness, indiustry, etc. To deny them health care is vulgar. That's vulgarity, Dick. Are you having fun slinging your BS? I really don't care what you think. You have little or no credibility in my eyes. Eisboch |
More fun with Sarah
On Tue, 7 Jul 2009 09:02:27 -0400, "Eisboch"
wrote: "HK" wrote in message om... Eisboch wrote: "HK" wrote in message m... I guess that's hard for you and others here to understand. Oh...speaking of Sarah, I suppose she and her lawyer have never heard of New York Times v. Sullivan. Elected public officials, basically, cannot use the courts effectively to attempt to chill criticism or reportage about how they handle their jobs. You really need a new angle. There's a difference between legality and common decency. Those of the extreme left persuasion are walking away from the difference. Eisboch Uh...the point here is that Sarah and her legal beagle last saturday threatened a reporter specifically with a lawsuit and other news organizations generally with lawsuits if they reported there were "rumors" floating around about her and potential legal problems. That's the "legality" here. Palin doesn't even have a stump to stand on in attempting to chill such reportage. Perhaps if she calmed down some, and stopped playing "poor, poor pitiful me" and the perpetual victim, she wouldn't be so obviously earning the reputation as a nutcase she now has. You know, if the internet had been around in the days of Joe McCarthy, he would have lasted about a week. It's important to stomp political demogogues into the ground, over and over and over and over, until they show no possibilities of being revived for future political games. Palin is a demogogue. Yada, yada, yada. You have fun. I have to go put the charger on the VW bus, then go sell some guitars. Eisboch Richard driving a VW bus is false advertising. |
More fun with Sarah
On Tue, 7 Jul 2009 13:03:06 -0400, "Eisboch"
wrote: "jps" wrote in message .. . On Tue, 7 Jul 2009 06:12:59 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote: "jps" wrote in message ... On Mon, 6 Jul 2009 22:31:27 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote: "jps" wrote in message om... On Mon, 6 Jul 2009 22:11:42 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote: "HK" wrote in message news:uJKdnfxCzo7GNs_XnZ2dnUVZ_iydnZ2d@earth link.com... Palin Hit With Another Ethics Complaint Yawn. When will they stop? Batting average isn't very good. Even the FBI acknowledged that one of the allegations that may have violated a Federal statute was meaningless and without merit. And people wonder why she quit. She should have stood at the microphone, looked straight at the camera and given the media a one finger salute. Eisboch "The Media." Right. As if she didn't bring any of this on herself. So much for "personal responsibility." Given some of your posts of late, I don't consider you to be much of an expert on "personal responsibility". Screaming at a TV set in a fit of rage , using acute profanity in front of your kids and then bragging about here it isn't my kind of adult personal responsibilty. A thought while you are furiously typing your response ..... tough ****. Eisboch I suppose you never swore in front of your children. Nor did you ever yell at the television. You're just the picture of personal responsiblity, Dick. Of course I have done both. But never with the type of vulgar profanity you boast about. I have a degree of personal responsibility, you see. I am not a prude by any means, but I have more respect for people in general, my family and for myself to publically utter the type of vulgarity you seem to have no problem with. You must be a real trip in the conference room. Eisboch Vulgarity is in the eyes of the beholder. In my eyes vulgarity is sending kids to die in a war of choice. Dick Cheney is a vulgar person who rightly deserves my hatred. I hate him. He's an evil ******* who cares nothing for the people he's ****ed, apart from Scooter Libby. That's vulgarity, Dick. You were among the rah rah chorus of vulgarity that happened on our watch. You're among the selfish, vulgar citizenry who'd deny another medical care for 2% of your wages. You've said as much in your critiques of Obama's "out of control spending." That's vulgarity, Dick. My vulgarity is reserved for those who think others are less deserving than themselves, since they're successful and others had the same opportunities and choices. Unfortunately the world doesn't work in such a binary fashion and some people get screwed no matter their desire, fortitude, earnestness, willingness, indiustry, etc. To deny them health care is vulgar. That's vulgarity, Dick. Are you having fun slinging your BS? I really don't care what you think. You have little or no credibility in my eyes. Eisboch Another selfish "conservative" who doesn't want to face the truth. Can't field an argument so you spew some nasty personal insults and run away. You have no credibility in my eyes either, Dick. No wonder you could side with a quitter like Palin. |
More fun with Sarah
On Tue, 07 Jul 2009 09:42:33 -0400, JustWait wrote:
Nothing for nothing, but she is a potential Presidential candidate. I would expect media coverage of her, especially when she does something as unusual as resigning in mid-term. Did you have a problem when Obama quit being a Senator to run for President? I mean, just because he didn't make an honest announcement, doesn't mean he kept the job.. Hey, I don't have a problem with Palin stepping down, but then, I'm not an Alaskan, nor did I vote for her. We did have a Governor step down recently, McGreevey, and while the circumstances were different, I wouldn't expect him to be able to win a race for local dogcatcher. There is an issue of public trust. McGreevey broke it, and Palin? It's for the public to decide, but I would say she did. |
More fun with Sarah
On Tue, 07 Jul 2009 13:23:31 -0500, thunder
wrote: On Tue, 07 Jul 2009 09:42:33 -0400, JustWait wrote: Nothing for nothing, but she is a potential Presidential candidate. I would expect media coverage of her, especially when she does something as unusual as resigning in mid-term. Did you have a problem when Obama quit being a Senator to run for President? I mean, just because he didn't make an honest announcement, doesn't mean he kept the job.. Hey, I don't have a problem with Palin stepping down, but then, I'm not an Alaskan, nor did I vote for her. We did have a Governor step down recently, McGreevey, and while the circumstances were different, I wouldn't expect him to be able to win a race for local dogcatcher. There is an issue of public trust. McGreevey broke it, and Palin? It's for the public to decide, but I would say she did. She's not running for another office, she's running away from a contract she signed with the state of Alaska to do a job until it was finished. She's a quitter in addition to being an incompetent ignoramus. |
More fun with Sarah
On Tue, 07 Jul 2009 11:56:54 -0700, jps wrote:
She's not running for another office, she's running away from a contract she signed with the state of Alaska to do a job until it was finished. She's a quitter in addition to being an incompetent ignoramus. She's also become quite adept at playing the "victim". The world's picking on me. The world's picking on my family. Whether true or not, it's not a quality wanted in a POTUS, IMO. |
More fun with Sarah
|
More fun with Sarah
On Tue, 07 Jul 2009 14:20:46 -0500, thunder
wrote: On Tue, 07 Jul 2009 11:56:54 -0700, jps wrote: She's not running for another office, she's running away from a contract she signed with the state of Alaska to do a job until it was finished. She's a quitter in addition to being an incompetent ignoramus. She's also become quite adept at playing the "victim". The world's picking on me. The world's picking on my family. Whether true or not, it's not a quality wanted in a POTUS, IMO. She eagerly embraced the kitchen long before she recognized the open flame. Poor Sarah. Lacking any personal gravitas or dignity, her problems are necessarily accounted to external forces. Charles Gibson, evildoer working for "the media." I wonder if she knows what the Bush doctrine is yet. |
More fun with Sarah
On Tue, 07 Jul 2009 15:20:43 -0400, gfretwell wrote:
I imagine she was simply driven from office by frivolous law suits and unfounded charges. I hear she is a half million in debt from the legal bills. I don't know, but does that pass the smell test? If they were all frivolous, why was she spending big bucks on legal fees? On top of that, most states have legal departments that are there to protect the state. Why was she going to outside representation? There were no charges, just ethics complaints. |
More fun with Sarah
|
More fun with Sarah
thunder wrote:
On Tue, 07 Jul 2009 11:56:54 -0700, jps wrote: She's not running for another office, she's running away from a contract she signed with the state of Alaska to do a job until it was finished. She's a quitter in addition to being an incompetent ignoramus. She's also become quite adept at playing the "victim". The world's picking on me. The world's picking on my family. Whether true or not, it's not a quality wanted in a POTUS, IMO. Half million in bogus legal charges... If that happened to you would you feel like you were a victim of a scam? |
More fun with Sarah
|
More fun with Sarah
|
More fun with Sarah
|
More fun with Sarah
On Jul 7, 9:09*am, HK wrote:
JustWait wrote: thunder wrote: On Tue, 07 Jul 2009 06:27:57 -0400, Eisboch wrote: What are you liberals so worried about? Nothing for nothing, but she is a potential Presidential candidate. *I would expect media coverage of her, especially when she does something as unusual as resigning in mid-term. Did you have a problem when Obama quit being a Senator to run for President? I mean, just because he didn't make an honest announcement, doesn't mean he kept the job.. * As for those 16 ethics complaints, one of which she filed against herself, they haven't all been without foundation. *She did have to repay moneys for her children's travel. * A minor offense I'll grant you, but most of the complaints are the result of political infighting in one of our more dysfunctional and corrupt states. *Still, none of this would be news worthy on a national level, if she wasn't a potential Presidential candidate. Uh...Obama did not quit his job as U.S. Senator nor did he quit "being a U.S. Senator" to run for a higher office. He remained in the Senate. Very true, Herr Krause. Now, can you name one of his many accomplishments in the four years of his office? |
More fun with Sarah
On Jul 7, 9:09 am, HK wrote: Uh...Obama did not quit his job as U.S. Senator nor did he quit "being a U.S. Senator" to run for a higher office. He remained in the Senate. Actually, Obama resigned early .... November 17th, I think. The last senator to do so was JFK. Obama didn't want to remain in his Senate seat during his lame duck period. Eisboch |
More fun with Sarah
|
More fun with Sarah
On Wed, 08 Jul 2009 15:32:16 -0400, wrote:
On Wed, 08 Jul 2009 09:50:01 -0700, jps wrote: On Wed, 08 Jul 2009 01:38:33 -0400, wrote: On Tue, 07 Jul 2009 14:59:34 -0700, jps wrote: I wonder if she knows what the Bush doctrine is yet. I am not sure I know what the Bush Doctrine is. Pre-emptive strikes against a country that has taken no action is among the main tenets of the Bush doctrine. That sounds more like an Olbermann rant than an official policy. What does Bush say the Bush doctrine is? You'll have to consult the neocons for the correct answer. People for a New American Century is the group. It certainly appears to me "the Bush Doctrine" is a term made up by the democrats and is anything they don't like about him. I have never actually heard a concise definition. It is also interesting that the best known "doctrine" the Monroe Doctrine was actually named many years after he left office. (according to the Presidents series on the History Channel) This seems pretty concise. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_Doctrine |
More fun with Sarah
Eisboch wrote:
On Jul 7, 9:09 am, HK wrote: Uh...Obama did not quit his job as U.S. Senator nor did he quit "being a U.S. Senator" to run for a higher office. He remained in the Senate. Actually, Obama resigned early .... November 17th, I think. The last senator to do so was JFK. Obama didn't want to remain in his Senate seat during his lame duck period. Eisboch I still contend that if a politician has enough confidence in their ability to be elected for a higher office, they should immediately resign so they can focus their efforts and not abandon their constituents. |
More fun with Sarah
|
More fun with Sarah
On Wed, 08 Jul 2009 16:02:16 -0400, wrote:
On Wed, 08 Jul 2009 12:48:17 -0700, jps wrote: It certainly appears to me "the Bush Doctrine" is a term made up by the democrats and is anything they don't like about him. I have never actually heard a concise definition. It is also interesting that the best known "doctrine" the Monroe Doctrine was actually named many years after he left office. (according to the Presidents series on the History Channel) This seems pretty concise. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_Doctrine Concise would be a paragraph, not a rambling 30 page Wiki with 86 footnotes. If the point was that Bush had a fractured foreign policy with unclear objectives and disastrous outcomes, no argument. Let's see how Obama does and if he will ever settle down on a policy. So far he is just extending what Bush was doing, right down to the date of this "camp outside the city" initiative. That was negotiated between two "sovereign" nations before Obama took office. The Iraqis can't wait to get rid of us. |
More fun with Sarah
On Wed, 08 Jul 2009 21:20:27 -0400, wrote:
On Wed, 08 Jul 2009 17:25:22 -0700, jps wrote: On Wed, 08 Jul 2009 16:02:16 -0400, wrote: On Wed, 08 Jul 2009 12:48:17 -0700, jps wrote: It certainly appears to me "the Bush Doctrine" is a term made up by the democrats and is anything they don't like about him. I have never actually heard a concise definition. It is also interesting that the best known "doctrine" the Monroe Doctrine was actually named many years after he left office. (according to the Presidents series on the History Channel) This seems pretty concise. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_Doctrine Concise would be a paragraph, not a rambling 30 page Wiki with 86 footnotes. If the point was that Bush had a fractured foreign policy with unclear objectives and disastrous outcomes, no argument. Let's see how Obama does and if he will ever settle down on a policy. So far he is just extending what Bush was doing, right down to the date of this "camp outside the city" initiative. That was negotiated between two "sovereign" nations before Obama took office. The Iraqis can't wait to get rid of us. I bet they do. (wait) We won't leave until they are no longer a threat to Israel. We certainly were nit out on Jan 20 as Obama started promising and he has been stepping back from that ever since. Sheesh. He said that during the campaign and almost immediately backed away by saying that he wouldn't do anything that would destabilize our responsible withdrawal. He took one large step backwards and when he became president he reassessed the situation and made what was a good call. Again, the terms of our withdrawal were negotiated with Iraq when Bush was in office. It was, in fact, on a schedule very similar to what Obama was promoting during the latter days of the election cycle. |
More fun with Sarah
On Thu, 09 Jul 2009 01:16:29 -0400, wrote:
On Wed, 08 Jul 2009 19:05:50 -0700, jps wrote: On Wed, 08 Jul 2009 21:20:27 -0400, wrote: On Wed, 08 Jul 2009 17:25:22 -0700, jps wrote: On Wed, 08 Jul 2009 16:02:16 -0400, wrote: On Wed, 08 Jul 2009 12:48:17 -0700, jps wrote: It certainly appears to me "the Bush Doctrine" is a term made up by the democrats and is anything they don't like about him. I have never actually heard a concise definition. It is also interesting that the best known "doctrine" the Monroe Doctrine was actually named many years after he left office. (according to the Presidents series on the History Channel) This seems pretty concise. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_Doctrine Concise would be a paragraph, not a rambling 30 page Wiki with 86 footnotes. If the point was that Bush had a fractured foreign policy with unclear objectives and disastrous outcomes, no argument. Let's see how Obama does and if he will ever settle down on a policy. So far he is just extending what Bush was doing, right down to the date of this "camp outside the city" initiative. That was negotiated between two "sovereign" nations before Obama took office. The Iraqis can't wait to get rid of us. I bet they do. (wait) We won't leave until they are no longer a threat to Israel. We certainly were nit out on Jan 20 as Obama started promising and he has been stepping back from that ever since. Sheesh. He said that during the campaign and almost immediately backed away by saying that he wouldn't do anything that would destabilize our responsible withdrawal. He took one large step backwards and when he became president he reassessed the situation and made what was a good call. Again, the terms of our withdrawal were negotiated with Iraq when Bush was in office. It was, in fact, on a schedule very similar to what Obama was promoting during the latter days of the election cycle. If he is just doing what Bush was going to do, where is the "change"? I was excited about a candidate who was going to end this stupid 18 year war, not keep it going another 18 years. Afghanistan is even worse. Now Obama is saying we will have the Russians "help" us in Afghanistan. How do you think the Afghan citizens will feel about that? We are certainly creating terrorists far faster than we can kill them. 1. Obama is keeping his word to get us out of Iraq. Bush took a 3 day raid and turned it into six years. Surely you understand that withdrawing is a sensitive endeavor for many reasons. 2. Afghanistan is complicated. I didn't want to go in originally and still would prefer we weren't there but the situation is among the scariests on the planet. Not in Afghanistan of course, but Pakistan. If al Qaeda and those Afghani fundamentalists team to take Pakistan, we've got a serious problem on our hands. That's not very far afield at this point. Our presence there is probably the best investment we could make to ensure nuclear war doesn't break out. |
More fun with Sarah
|
More fun with Sarah
|
More fun with Sarah
On Thu, 09 Jul 2009 19:35:43 -0500, Vic Smith
wrote: On Thu, 09 Jul 2009 15:21:02 -0400, wrote: Nobody has really explained why we went to Afghanistan in the first place or why we are still there. I'll explain it, as I remember it. We went in to get Osama Bin Laden. Remember 9/11/2001? Then he fled to Pakistan when we left it to ragheads to do our job in Tora Bora. Then we failed again, by not pursuing him into Pakistan. Killing him was the mission. Tommy Franks was a **** up. Glad he's gone. Best thing that ever happened to the U.S. Army. Of course Bush, Rumsfeld, and that whole crew were **** ups. We needed a Patton on the battlefield, and had Tommy Franks running things from an air-conditioned room in Tampa, Florida. Seems Franks always refers to Osama as "Mr. bin Laden." Wonder if Patton ever said "Mr. Hitler," or "Mr. Goering." Osama Bin Laden is still alive. Shame, shame. Why are we still there? Can't leave until Bin Laden dies. It would be an admission of our abject failure. He'll probably die of natural causes. Shame, shame. No vengeance for our victims and our country. All this talk of the Bush crowd being hard asses. Biggest bunch of pussies this country ever had. Talk, talk, talk. Osama Bin Laden is still alive. Businessmen running the country. A country isn't a business. That was Franks' college degree. Bachelor of Business Administration. --Vic It's morphed into something larger than bin Laden or al Qaeda. It's now threatening the further destabilization of Pakistan and access to nuclear weapons. We didn't take care of business the first time with the Taliban, now we've got the same problem the USSR had before Afghanistan helped cause their bankruptcy. Brilliant. |
More fun with Sarah
On Thu, 09 Jul 2009 18:32:39 -0700, jps wrote:
It's morphed into something larger than bin Laden or al Qaeda. It's now threatening the further destabilization of Pakistan and access to nuclear weapons. That's all overblown, IMO. The Pakis can take care of the Taliban, which come in different colors. And the Northern Alliance - former Taliban - may have been on the verge of defeating them when 9/11 interceded. 9/11 was Osama bin Laden, a Saudi, and Al Qeada. Taliban is a side show of the ever-changing tribal muslim savages holding sway in Afghanistan. Besides that, the Taliban are mortal enemies of Shia Iran. We can leave at any time - except bin Laden is alive. Once he's dead, and if we left - doubtful now because we would be abandoning "women's rights" - if Iran got nukes they'd probably nuke Afghanistan instead of Israel. Taliban can't strike back. They have no friends. Not even the Pakis, who are only about 15% Pashtun, mostly on the north border areas. We didn't take care of business the first time with the Taliban, now we've got the same problem the USSR had before Afghanistan helped cause their bankruptcy. Brilliant. Nation building. The only business we had there was to kill Al Qeada and bin Laden. And we didn't get the job done. Now we're stuck there to prevent women from being kept in burkhas and thrashed. BTW, the Soviets were fighting the Pakis, the U.S. and some others when they were there. U.S. and NATO strength is already more than half of the max strength the Soviets had there. Soviet total KIA was about 14,000 over about 8 years. Hard to compare then and now. Taliban have no allies. The big problem is telling people how to live. Social engineering. --Vic |
More fun with Sarah
On Thu, 09 Jul 2009 19:35:43 -0500, Vic Smith wrote:
Nobody has really explained why we went to Afghanistan in the first place or why we are still there. I'll explain it, as I remember it. We went in to get Osama Bin Laden. Lest we all forget, the Taliban offered up Bin Laden on several occasions. Not that I blame Bush for rejecting the offer. After 9/11, we all wanted blood, myself included, but then, who would have thought that 8 years later, bin Laden would still be breathing free air. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001...an.terrorism11 |
More fun with Sarah
thunder wrote:
On Thu, 09 Jul 2009 19:35:43 -0500, Vic Smith wrote: Nobody has really explained why we went to Afghanistan in the first place or why we are still there. I'll explain it, as I remember it. We went in to get Osama Bin Laden. Lest we all forget, the Taliban offered up Bin Laden on several occasions. Not that I blame Bush for rejecting the offer. After 9/11, we all wanted blood, myself included, but then, who would have thought that 8 years later, bin Laden would still be breathing free air. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001...an.terrorism11 If there was one thing the Bush misadministration mishandled perfectly, it was dealing with other nations, governments, and organizations. Besides, it *wanted* a war of convenience. Convenient, wasn't it? :) |
More fun with Sarah
On Fri, 10 Jul 2009 06:51:11 -0400, HK wrote:
thunder wrote: On Thu, 09 Jul 2009 19:35:43 -0500, Vic Smith wrote: Nobody has really explained why we went to Afghanistan in the first place or why we are still there. I'll explain it, as I remember it. We went in to get Osama Bin Laden. Lest we all forget, the Taliban offered up Bin Laden on several occasions. Not that I blame Bush for rejecting the offer. After 9/11, we all wanted blood, myself included, but then, who would have thought that 8 years later, bin Laden would still be breathing free air. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001...an.terrorism11 If there was one thing the Bush misadministration mishandled perfectly, it was dealing with other nations, governments, and organizations. Besides, it *wanted* a war of convenience. Convenient, wasn't it? :) If you wants a war, you gots to have an enemy. It would have been very inconvenient to have captured Osama. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:22 AM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com