On Thu, 06 Aug 2009 12:31:35 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 06 Aug 2009 06:39:13 -0400, H the K
wrote:

wrote:
On Wed, 05 Aug 2009 21:24:26 -0400, H the K
wrote:

When Kim Il-sung died in 1994, President Clinton sent a note of
condolence to his son, Kim Jong-il, the current dictator, who remembered
Clinton's thoughtfulness 15 years ago, and wanted to repay that act of
"kindness."

Also, as his term was ending, Clinton was involved in ways to improve
relations between the U.S. and North Korea. The idiot who succeeded
Clinton thought *that* was a bad idea, and now, eight years later, the
North Koreans have nuclear bombs. Yet another legacy of Bush the Idiot.

If you are right Kim III will drop his nuclear program now, stop
threatening Japan and maybe we can bring home the 50,000 guys we have
on his southern border.
I bet none of them happen


What are you talking about? Clinton *did* send a letter of condolence
and Clinton wanted to de-escalate the situation between the U.S. and
North Korea, and Bush did more or less ignore ways to improve relations
with North Korea and, worse, make our relationship with that nation
deteriorate even further.

That has nothing to do with me being "right." It has everything to do
with our failed diplomacy during the Dubya years.

What Kim does now after eight years of Bush is unpredictable. He may
respect Bill Clinton, but who knows how he feels about the U.S., whether
those feelings can be improved, or whether his illness totally clouds
his abilities.

The point is that we could have been in a better situation vis-a-vis
North Korea but for the incomptencies, failures and wrong-headedness of
the Bush Administration. You righties keeping wanting to forget that
Bush more or less ****ed the world over during his presidency.


TEN presidents in a row have ****ed up the Korean problem. Clinton had
8 years to do something and nothing happened.
It is like Iraq. That cluster **** has gone on for 18 years. A kid
born the day we started that war could be drafted to go fight in it
now.

As for JPs allegation that Bush ignored Israel, why does he think we
are in Iraq in the first place?

Oil.

On Thu, 06 Aug 2009 10:41:21 -0700, jps wrote:

On Thu, 06 Aug 2009 12:31:35 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 06 Aug 2009 06:39:13 -0400, H the K
wrote:

wrote:
On Wed, 05 Aug 2009 21:24:26 -0400, H the K
wrote:

When Kim Il-sung died in 1994, President Clinton sent a note of
condolence to his son, Kim Jong-il, the current dictator, who remembered
Clinton's thoughtfulness 15 years ago, and wanted to repay that act of
"kindness."

Also, as his term was ending, Clinton was involved in ways to improve
relations between the U.S. and North Korea. The idiot who succeeded
Clinton thought *that* was a bad idea, and now, eight years later, the
North Koreans have nuclear bombs. Yet another legacy of Bush the Idiot.

If you are right Kim III will drop his nuclear program now, stop
threatening Japan and maybe we can bring home the 50,000 guys we have
on his southern border.
I bet none of them happen


What are you talking about? Clinton *did* send a letter of condolence
and Clinton wanted to de-escalate the situation between the U.S. and
North Korea, and Bush did more or less ignore ways to improve relations
with North Korea and, worse, make our relationship with that nation
deteriorate even further.

That has nothing to do with me being "right." It has everything to do
with our failed diplomacy during the Dubya years.

What Kim does now after eight years of Bush is unpredictable. He may
respect Bill Clinton, but who knows how he feels about the U.S., whether
those feelings can be improved, or whether his illness totally clouds
his abilities.

The point is that we could have been in a better situation vis-a-vis
North Korea but for the incomptencies, failures and wrong-headedness of
the Bush Administration. You righties keeping wanting to forget that
Bush more or less ****ed the world over during his presidency.


TEN presidents in a row have ****ed up the Korean problem. Clinton had
8 years to do something and nothing happened.
It is like Iraq. That cluster **** has gone on for 18 years. A kid
born the day we started that war could be drafted to go fight in it
now.

As for JPs allegation that Bush ignored Israel, why does he think we
are in Iraq in the first place?

Oil.

That was funny the first time you said it. It's even funnier now.

Where's the oil?
--
John H

All decisions, even those made by liberals, are the result of binary thinking.

On Thu, 06 Aug 2009 13:55:24 -0400, Another John
wrote:

On Thu, 06 Aug 2009 10:41:21 -0700, jps wrote:

On Thu, 06 Aug 2009 12:31:35 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 06 Aug 2009 06:39:13 -0400, H the K
wrote:

wrote:
On Wed, 05 Aug 2009 21:24:26 -0400, H the K
wrote:

When Kim Il-sung died in 1994, President Clinton sent a note of
condolence to his son, Kim Jong-il, the current dictator, who remembered
Clinton's thoughtfulness 15 years ago, and wanted to repay that act of
"kindness."

Also, as his term was ending, Clinton was involved in ways to improve
relations between the U.S. and North Korea. The idiot who succeeded
Clinton thought *that* was a bad idea, and now, eight years later, the
North Koreans have nuclear bombs. Yet another legacy of Bush the Idiot.

If you are right Kim III will drop his nuclear program now, stop
threatening Japan and maybe we can bring home the 50,000 guys we have
on his southern border.
I bet none of them happen


What are you talking about? Clinton *did* send a letter of condolence
and Clinton wanted to de-escalate the situation between the U.S. and
North Korea, and Bush did more or less ignore ways to improve relations
with North Korea and, worse, make our relationship with that nation
deteriorate even further.

That has nothing to do with me being "right." It has everything to do
with our failed diplomacy during the Dubya years.

What Kim does now after eight years of Bush is unpredictable. He may
respect Bill Clinton, but who knows how he feels about the U.S., whether
those feelings can be improved, or whether his illness totally clouds
his abilities.

The point is that we could have been in a better situation vis-a-vis
North Korea but for the incomptencies, failures and wrong-headedness of
the Bush Administration. You righties keeping wanting to forget that
Bush more or less ****ed the world over during his presidency.


TEN presidents in a row have ****ed up the Korean problem. Clinton had
8 years to do something and nothing happened.
It is like Iraq. That cluster **** has gone on for 18 years. A kid
born the day we started that war could be drafted to go fight in it
now.

As for JPs allegation that Bush ignored Israel, why does he think we
are in Iraq in the first place?

Oil.

That was funny the first time you said it. It's even funnier now.

Where's the oil?

Don't you know that they (Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz) ****ed
the whole thing up?

They didn't have a plan other than to destabelize the country and
attempt to be the country's resource broker. They had long term
objectives but didn't have a plan. They were stupid.

On Fri, 07 Aug 2009 00:06:17 -0700, jps wrote:

On Thu, 06 Aug 2009 13:55:24 -0400, Another John
wrote:

On Thu, 06 Aug 2009 10:41:21 -0700, jps wrote:

On Thu, 06 Aug 2009 12:31:35 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 06 Aug 2009 06:39:13 -0400, H the K
wrote:

wrote:
On Wed, 05 Aug 2009 21:24:26 -0400, H the K
wrote:

When Kim Il-sung died in 1994, President Clinton sent a note of
condolence to his son, Kim Jong-il, the current dictator, who remembered
Clinton's thoughtfulness 15 years ago, and wanted to repay that act of
"kindness."

Also, as his term was ending, Clinton was involved in ways to improve
relations between the U.S. and North Korea. The idiot who succeeded
Clinton thought *that* was a bad idea, and now, eight years later, the
North Koreans have nuclear bombs. Yet another legacy of Bush the Idiot.

If you are right Kim III will drop his nuclear program now, stop
threatening Japan and maybe we can bring home the 50,000 guys we have
on his southern border.
I bet none of them happen


What are you talking about? Clinton *did* send a letter of condolence
and Clinton wanted to de-escalate the situation between the U.S. and
North Korea, and Bush did more or less ignore ways to improve relations
with North Korea and, worse, make our relationship with that nation
deteriorate even further.

That has nothing to do with me being "right." It has everything to do
with our failed diplomacy during the Dubya years.

What Kim does now after eight years of Bush is unpredictable. He may
respect Bill Clinton, but who knows how he feels about the U.S., whether
those feelings can be improved, or whether his illness totally clouds
his abilities.

The point is that we could have been in a better situation vis-a-vis
North Korea but for the incomptencies, failures and wrong-headedness of
the Bush Administration. You righties keeping wanting to forget that
Bush more or less ****ed the world over during his presidency.


TEN presidents in a row have ****ed up the Korean problem. Clinton had
8 years to do something and nothing happened.
It is like Iraq. That cluster **** has gone on for 18 years. A kid
born the day we started that war could be drafted to go fight in it
now.

As for JPs allegation that Bush ignored Israel, why does he think we
are in Iraq in the first place?

Oil.

That was funny the first time you said it. It's even funnier now.

Where's the oil?

Don't you know that they (Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz) ****ed
the whole thing up?

They didn't have a plan other than to destabelize the country and
attempt to be the country's resource broker. They had long term
objectives but didn't have a plan. They were stupid.

*They* were stupid?


--
John H

All decisions, even those made by liberals, are the result of binary thinking.

On Fri, 07 Aug 2009 11:20:34 -0400, wrote:

On Fri, 07 Aug 2009 00:06:17 -0700, jps wrote:

As for JPs allegation that Bush ignored Israel, why does he think we
are in Iraq in the first place?

Oil.

That was funny the first time you said it. It's even funnier now.

Where's the oil?

Don't you know that they (Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz) ****ed
the whole thing up?

They didn't have a plan other than to destabelize the country and
attempt to be the country's resource broker. They had long term
objectives but didn't have a plan. They were stupid.


We took out Saddam so Israel wouldn't have to.

Excuse me for objecting but I think that's hooey.

Bush didn't engage with Israel (or than to maintain status quo) until
his fourth or fifth year in office.

Cheney was after the oil and Bush was after retribution for Saddam
threatening his daddy. He was going to finish what his daddy couldn't
(because his daddy knew it was going to result in a Bagdhad
bloodbath).

It was also a Christian crusade, as is now being revealed. Fits right
into Bush's little brain and it's why Rumsfeld put bible quotes on his
daily briefings to Bush.

Chalk it up to Jesus for Bush, oil for Cheney. They were doing no
favors for Israel, since everyone knew Iran was the much bigger
problem.

On Fri, 07 Aug 2009 10:44:23 -0700, jps wrote:

On Fri, 07 Aug 2009 11:20:34 -0400, wrote:

On Fri, 07 Aug 2009 00:06:17 -0700, jps wrote:

As for JPs allegation that Bush ignored Israel, why does he think we
are in Iraq in the first place?

Oil.

That was funny the first time you said it. It's even funnier now.

Where's the oil?

Don't you know that they (Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz) ****ed
the whole thing up?

They didn't have a plan other than to destabelize the country and
attempt to be the country's resource broker. They had long term
objectives but didn't have a plan. They were stupid.


We took out Saddam so Israel wouldn't have to.

Excuse me for objecting but I think that's hooey.

Bush didn't engage with Israel (or than to maintain status quo) until
his fourth or fifth year in office.

Cheney was after the oil and Bush was after retribution for Saddam
threatening his daddy. He was going to finish what his daddy couldn't
(because his daddy knew it was going to result in a Bagdhad
bloodbath).

It was also a Christian crusade, as is now being revealed. Fits right
into Bush's little brain and it's why Rumsfeld put bible quotes on his
daily briefings to Bush.

Chalk it up to Jesus for Bush, oil for Cheney. They were doing no
favors for Israel, since everyone knew Iran was the much bigger
problem.

A 'Christian crusade'? Wow!

Were these the same Christians who planned 9/11and planted the charges
in the buildings? You and Rosie go well together!
--
John H

All decisions, even those made by liberals, are the result of binary thinking.

On Fri, 07 Aug 2009 16:37:35 -0400, John Leo
wrote:

On Fri, 07 Aug 2009 10:44:23 -0700, jps wrote:

On Fri, 07 Aug 2009 11:20:34 -0400, wrote:

On Fri, 07 Aug 2009 00:06:17 -0700, jps wrote:

As for JPs allegation that Bush ignored Israel, why does he think we
are in Iraq in the first place?

Oil.

That was funny the first time you said it. It's even funnier now.

Where's the oil?

Don't you know that they (Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz) ****ed
the whole thing up?

They didn't have a plan other than to destabelize the country and
attempt to be the country's resource broker. They had long term
objectives but didn't have a plan. They were stupid.


We took out Saddam so Israel wouldn't have to.

Excuse me for objecting but I think that's hooey.

Bush didn't engage with Israel (or than to maintain status quo) until
his fourth or fifth year in office.

Cheney was after the oil and Bush was after retribution for Saddam
threatening his daddy. He was going to finish what his daddy couldn't
(because his daddy knew it was going to result in a Bagdhad
bloodbath).

It was also a Christian crusade, as is now being revealed. Fits right
into Bush's little brain and it's why Rumsfeld put bible quotes on his
daily briefings to Bush.

Chalk it up to Jesus for Bush, oil for Cheney. They were doing no
favors for Israel, since everyone knew Iran was the much bigger
problem.

A 'Christian crusade'? Wow!

Were these the same Christians who planned 9/11and planted the charges
in the buildings? You and Rosie go well together!

Look up the latest Blackwater news. Eric Prince's mission was to kill
Muslims. He's a conservative Christian from a conservative Christian
family that believes we're in a war of religions.

That's the very definition of Crusade. But what would you know?

On Fri, 07 Aug 2009 14:15:51 -0700, jps wrote:

On Fri, 07 Aug 2009 16:37:35 -0400, John Leo
wrote:

On Fri, 07 Aug 2009 10:44:23 -0700, jps wrote:

On Fri, 07 Aug 2009 11:20:34 -0400, wrote:

On Fri, 07 Aug 2009 00:06:17 -0700, jps wrote:

As for JPs allegation that Bush ignored Israel, why does he think we
are in Iraq in the first place?

Oil.

That was funny the first time you said it. It's even funnier now.

Where's the oil?

Don't you know that they (Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz) ****ed
the whole thing up?

They didn't have a plan other than to destabelize the country and
attempt to be the country's resource broker. They had long term
objectives but didn't have a plan. They were stupid.


We took out Saddam so Israel wouldn't have to.

Excuse me for objecting but I think that's hooey.

Bush didn't engage with Israel (or than to maintain status quo) until
his fourth or fifth year in office.

Cheney was after the oil and Bush was after retribution for Saddam
threatening his daddy. He was going to finish what his daddy couldn't
(because his daddy knew it was going to result in a Bagdhad
bloodbath).

It was also a Christian crusade, as is now being revealed. Fits right
into Bush's little brain and it's why Rumsfeld put bible quotes on his
daily briefings to Bush.

Chalk it up to Jesus for Bush, oil for Cheney. They were doing no
favors for Israel, since everyone knew Iran was the much bigger
problem.

A 'Christian crusade'? Wow!

Were these the same Christians who planned 9/11and planted the charges
in the buildings? You and Rosie go well together!

Look up the latest Blackwater news. Eric Prince's mission was to kill
Muslims. He's a conservative Christian from a conservative Christian
family that believes we're in a war of religions.

That's the very definition of Crusade. But what would you know?

A one man crusade.

Again, wow!

You're a regular Rosie.

Congratulations.
--
John H

All decisions, even those made by liberals, are the result of binary thinking.

wrote in message
...
On Fri, 07 Aug 2009 00:06:17 -0700, jps wrote:

As for JPs allegation that Bush ignored Israel, why does he think we
are in Iraq in the first place?

Oil.

That was funny the first time you said it. It's even funnier now.

Where's the oil?

Don't you know that they (Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz) ****ed
the whole thing up?

They didn't have a plan other than to destabelize the country and
attempt to be the country's resource broker. They had long term
objectives but didn't have a plan. They were stupid.


We took out Saddam so Israel wouldn't have to.
He never threatened the US and he would have been more than happy to
sell us all the oil he could pump at bargain basement prices to build
up his military capability. As long as he was aiming it at Iran we
were happy to let him do it, even selling him technology. As soon as
he started saying he was going after Israel, we went to war with him.
You can't even say we were protecting democracy in kuwait since there
isn't any.
Whether protecting Israel is a good thing or not is worth the debate
but the government will not frame the question that way. It is totally
ignored when we talk about Iraq and, increasingly, Iran.
It is easier to just say this is all about oil.
The fact is we don't even get the majority of our oil from anywhere in
the middle east.

Country May-09 Apr-09 YTD 2009 May-08 YTD 2008

CANADA 1,746 1,854 1,860 1,846 1,923
VENEZUELA 1,228 803 1,025 1,030 994
MEXICO 1,088 1,177 1,174 1,116 1,210
SAUDI ARABIA 996 1,021 1,079 1,579 1,528
NIGERIA 552 673 608 851 1,053

Saddam threatened the US big time. If he had got control of Kuwait in the
first war, he would have set up a really bad for us Oil Cartel, and force
the petrodollar to the Euro. But would have caused massive upheavels in
this country. As well as maybe triggered another world war.

On Fri, 7 Aug 2009 16:31:08 -0700, "Calif Bill"
wrote:


wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 07 Aug 2009 00:06:17 -0700, jps wrote:

As for JPs allegation that Bush ignored Israel, why does he think we
are in Iraq in the first place?

Oil.

That was funny the first time you said it. It's even funnier now.

Where's the oil?

Don't you know that they (Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz) ****ed
the whole thing up?

They didn't have a plan other than to destabelize the country and
attempt to be the country's resource broker. They had long term
objectives but didn't have a plan. They were stupid.


We took out Saddam so Israel wouldn't have to.
He never threatened the US and he would have been more than happy to
sell us all the oil he could pump at bargain basement prices to build
up his military capability. As long as he was aiming it at Iran we
were happy to let him do it, even selling him technology. As soon as
he started saying he was going after Israel, we went to war with him.
You can't even say we were protecting democracy in kuwait since there
isn't any.
Whether protecting Israel is a good thing or not is worth the debate
but the government will not frame the question that way. It is totally
ignored when we talk about Iraq and, increasingly, Iran.
It is easier to just say this is all about oil.
The fact is we don't even get the majority of our oil from anywhere in
the middle east.

Country May-09 Apr-09 YTD 2009 May-08 YTD 2008

CANADA 1,746 1,854 1,860 1,846 1,923
VENEZUELA 1,228 803 1,025 1,030 994
MEXICO 1,088 1,177 1,174 1,116 1,210
SAUDI ARABIA 996 1,021 1,079 1,579 1,528
NIGERIA 552 673 608 851 1,053

Saddam threatened the US big time. If he had got control of Kuwait in the
first war, he would have set up a really bad for us Oil Cartel, and force
the petrodollar to the Euro. But would have caused massive upheavels in
this country. As well as maybe triggered another world war.

He thought he had our blessing. We were allies before his invasion of
Kuwait.

Do I need to direct you to the long history of our mutual business?