OT--new candidate
 

That'd be a helluva strategy to run on:
"Vote for Wesley Clark. He'll roll back the Bush tax cut and raise your
taxes."

Are you vying for Terry McAuliffe's job? 'Cause you're about as politically
astute as the moron that assuredly stated Jeb Bush was history in 2002...and
then won by 13 percentage points.




"jps" wrote in message
...
"WaIIy" wrote in message
...

LOL ! You guys are a riot.

You'll be giggling even more when we pull this out of google next winter.
That's the sort of giggle that precedes outright balling 'cause your guy
got
swamped and your taxes are goin' up!!!

OT--new candidate
 

"Mark Browne" wrote in message
news:9dR9b.369154

Now, back to the issue at hand - you did not answer my question: What
sorts
of signs would you accept that things are not working out - at what point
would you make the call that it *is* time to cut and run?


I certainly *did* answer your question:

"We remain in our bases indefinitely to assure that no Baathists seize the
country via a coup. If the newly democratically-elected government feels
secure enough and asks us to leave, then we should consider leaving."

OT--new candidate
 

"NOYB" wrote in message
om...
That'd be a helluva strategy to run on:
"Vote for Wesley Clark. He'll roll back the Bush tax cut and raise your
taxes."

Are you vying for Terry McAuliffe's job? 'Cause you're about as
politically
astute as the moron that assuredly stated Jeb Bush was history in
2002...and
then won by 13 percentage points.

People are looking for the truth. They know they cannot and will not get it
from Bush.

Even if Clark says that he'll roll back tax cuts, he'll make it sound like
heaven in comparison to four more years of moronic moves by the buffoon in
office now.

OT--new candidate
 

You righties are toast.

Because General Fruitcake is joining the race?

This joker almost started WWIII, and could have if not for a British
General.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/671495.stm

He has absolutely zero chance of beating Bush.


Toast.



I'm sure you thought your "espresso tax" would pass also.

OT--new candidate
 

"jps" wrote in message
...
"NOYB" wrote in message
om...

Clark is currently polling waaaaaay behind Bush, and the RNC hasn't even
begun to wail on the guy. They'll beat him to a pulp when the time
comes...if he can even win the nomination in the first place.

Duh. No one knows Clark yet. Give him a few weeks and the poll numbers
will be very different. Now go and do a little searching to find that
Clark
is the Bush Admin's worst nightmare.

Searching where? draftclark.com? democrat.com? Salon.com?

You go and do a little searching and show where Republicans have "already
said it themselves."



They've already said it themselves.

Bush can't use his war record against Clark.

Bush can use Clark's own flip-flops on what he would do in Iraq. I can show
you a January 2003 CNN piece where Clark said he "absolutely" could say
Saddam "does have WMD." I can show you an April 2003 piece in the London
Times where clark commended Bush and Blair's "resolve in the face of so much
doubt".

Mark my words:
Clark will be labelled as *indecisive* and a *waffler*. They'll point out
that the only time he takes decisive action is when he knows a war game
exercise is "fixed" to his benefit...or when he orders a NATO commander to
attack the Russians in Kosovo because his ego was bruised.

Despite his claims to the contrary, Wesley has been running for President
for awhile now...and saying things that will come back to haunt him.


Clark can crush Bush on his domestic failings.

Domestic failings? The economic recovery has been going since November
2001...and going strong for almost all of this year. GDP is poised to grow
at 4-6% this year alone. The unemployment rate has fallen for the last 2
months. The stock market has rebounded and is up almost 30% since it's
Sept. 2001 low. And there hasn't been a significant domestic terrorist
attack in more than 2 years since 9/11.

Bush can't be beat on the international front...and the domestic front is
shaping up in time to make the '04 a slaughter.

OT--new candidate
 

"Joe" wrote in message
...
You righties are toast.

Because General Fruitcake is joining the race?

This joker almost started WWIII, and could have if not for a British
General.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/671495.stm

He has absolutely zero chance of beating Bush.


Toast.



I'm sure you thought your "espresso tax" would pass also.


I voted against it. Although its proponents were well-intentioned, it was a
poor substitute for funding education properly.

Allow me to repeat myself:

"Toast"

Feel free to quote me.

OT--new candidate
 

"The guy is brilliant," said the general, who agreed to speak candidly about
Clark only if his name were not used. "He's very articulate, he's extremely
charming, he has the best strategic sense of anybody I have ever met. But
the simple fact is, a lot of people just don't trust his ability as a
commander.

----------------------------------------------

Hmmmm. You want a Commander in Chief who "a lot of people don't trust...as a
commander"?

OT--new candidate
 

"There are an awful lot of people," added another retired four-star, who
also requested anonymity, "who believe Wes will tell anybody what they want
to hear and tell somebody the exact opposite five minutes later."

------------------------------------------------
Remember my prediction:
*indecisive* and a *waffler*.

OT--new candidate
 

"NOYB" wrote in message
om...
LOL. You'd think that jps had a boner for Clark. He mustn't have read
much
up on the guy. Wesley's sordid past is easy pickins'.



My father in-law knows Wesley very well.
On more than a few occasions he has stated that Colin Powell, and Wesley
Clark were two of the biggest assholes he has worked with.

I'm going to try and milk him for some info this weekend.

OT--new candidate
 

"NOYB" wrote in message
om...

Searching where? draftclark.com? democrat.com? Salon.com?

Republicans for Dean
By DAVID BROOKS


he results of the highly prestigious Poll of the Pollsters are in! I called
eight of the best G.O.P. pollsters and strategists and asked them, on a
not-for-attribution basis, if they thought Howard Dean would be easier to
beat than the other major Democratic presidential candidates. Here, and I'm
paraphrasing, are the results:

"Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha!"

....major snip and skip right to the end of the article where David Brooks,
conservative editorialist says:

Which is why so many Republicans are quietly gleeful over Dean's continued
momentum. It is only the dark cloud of Wesley Clark, looming on the horizon,
that keeps their happiness from being complete.

You go and do a little searching and show where Republicans have "already
said it themselves."

Domestic failings? The economic recovery has been going since November
2001...and going strong for almost all of this year. GDP is poised to
grow
at 4-6% this year alone. The unemployment rate has fallen for the last 2
months. The stock market has rebounded and is up almost 30% since it's
Sept. 2001 low. And there hasn't been a significant domestic terrorist
attack in more than 2 years since 9/11.

Oh for God's sake!!! Everyone knows that Bush hasn't funded first
responders, left ports open, done a half assed job of federalizing the
airport security. His domestic agenda sucks -- it's quite obvious his tax
cuts for jobs was a ruse and contradicted by every respected economist in
the world.

Bush can't be beat on the international front...and the domestic front is
shaping up in time to make the '04 a slaughter.

God bless you've just fallen completely off the globe into some fantasy
world. Is this the same go-it-alone swashbuckler that decided we shouldn't
wait for the weapons inspectors to do their job, shirked Colin Powell's plea
for continued diplomacy and consensus building and rushed in to Iraq killing
thousands of innocents while costing America hundreds of its own kids --
only to find that all his administration's assumption were faulty or without
merit?

The same guy who's asking to spend another $87 billion while his
administration reserves the right to come back and ask for more?

Jesus Christ Almighty!!!!

Where are the jobs Bush promised from the three tax cuts he's gotten? Are
you going to try and tell me that we'd have lost more otherwise?
Poppycock!!!


I don't care whether you say you don't like that gas you have in your
office, you're either drinking heavily or there's a leak in one of the
fittings at the office.

OT--new candidate
 

"NOYB" wrote in message
om...
"The guy is brilliant," said the general, who agreed to speak candidly
about
Clark only if his name were not used. "He's very articulate, he's
extremely
charming, he has the best strategic sense of anybody I have ever met. But
the simple fact is, a lot of people just don't trust his ability as a
commander.

----------------------------------------------

Hmmmm. You want a Commander in Chief who "a lot of people don't trust...as
a
commander"?

And further into the article, those who promoted him and were his bosses
accounted the mistrust to jealousy and misunderstanding.

Clark is obviously very smart and an accomplished strategist.

Let's just see how it goes over the next couple of months...

OT--new candidate
 

"NOYB" wrote in message
om...
"There are an awful lot of people," added another retired four-star, who
also requested anonymity, "who believe Wes will tell anybody what they
want
to hear and tell somebody the exact opposite five minutes later."

The quote is "who believe." They don't say "he lied to me."

------------------------------------------------
Remember my prediction:
*indecisive* and a *waffler*.


Better than "tool of the rich" and "misleader" which is the truth.

OT--new candidate
 

"Joe" wrote in message
...

"NOYB" wrote in message
om...
LOL. You'd think that jps had a boner for Clark. He mustn't have read
much
up on the guy. Wesley's sordid past is easy pickins'.



My father in-law knows Wesley very well.
On more than a few occasions he has stated that Colin Powell, and Wesley
Clark were two of the biggest assholes he has worked with.

I'm going to try and milk him for some info this weekend.


They're military men. Did you expect them to be candyasses?

OT--new candidate
 

NOYB wrote:

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"NOYB" wrote in message
hlink.net...


He'll get mauled by Bush in the pressing palms and kissing babies arena.


So what. Anyone who bases votes on a handshake is an idiot anyway.

Unfortunately, it's the "swing" voters that vote this way. They make up
less than 7% of the electorate, and there's no common theme that appeals to
them. They vote for the guy they like best, many times basing their vote on
nothing more than charisma.


Of course. How do you think a guy like Clinton could actually win....

Clinton is a prime example of someone who is long on charisma, and short
on character.

Dave

OT--new candidate
 

Mark Browne wrote:

Reasonable armchair quarterback strategy. If you spend some time reading
about the Soviet experience in the area you may see some interesting
parallels with what is happening in Iraq now. We are in about the same place
in the Soviet timeline. In the first two years the losses were fairly light;
the number just about match what we are now seeing. It ended up just about
the way you are describing. Towards the end, the soviets did end up huddling
in their bases as the looses mounted. Nobody wanted to go out because it was
going so badly. They only came out to stage raids on the ever more brazen
resistance forces. Unfortunately, it helped the resistance forces because it
made the soldiers more predictable. The routes to and from the bases were
mined with tank busters. Gunships were shot from the skies as they tried to
fly above it all. In the end it was fairly common for the Mujahideen to
kidnap a solder, either from the base or on patrol, mutilate or kill him in
a most horrible way, and return the body for maximum terror effect. With any
luck at all (luck come in two flavors!) this could all be ours!

One item you are conveniently leaving out. In the case of the Soviets in
Afghanistan, the resistance fighters were being armed and assisted by us
(Which is part of the reason why we have a problem now). The resistance
fighters had almost unlimited arms and resources at their disposal.

In Iraq, there is no superpower supplying arms to the terrorists. Once
we cut off their supply lines completely, they'll soon be reduced to
throwing rocks.


Dave

OT--new candidate
 

On Tue, 16 Sep 2003 21:17:49 -0700, jps wrote:


Bush can't use his war record against Clark.

Is there anybody Bush can use his war record against?

OT--new candidate
 

"jps" wrote in message
...
"NOYB" wrote in message
om...
That'd be a helluva strategy to run on:
"Vote for Wesley Clark. He'll roll back the Bush tax cut and raise your
taxes."

Are you vying for Terry McAuliffe's job? 'Cause you're about as
politically
astute as the moron that assuredly stated Jeb Bush was history in
2002...and
then won by 13 percentage points.

People are looking for the truth. They know they cannot and will not get
it
from Bush.


Clark's candidacy is being orchestrated by the Clintonista's...and most
people know that "Clinton" and "truth" should not even appear in the same
sentence.


Even if Clark says that he'll roll back tax cuts, he'll make it sound like
heaven in comparison to four more years of moronic moves by the buffoon in
office now.

Rolling back tax cuts during a rebounding economy would result in a double
dip recession...and possibly a depression. That sound like "heaven" to you?

OT--new candidate
 

They're both ego-maniacs...but the difference is Clark actually believes he
could be President.


"jps" wrote in message
...
"Joe" wrote in message
...

"NOYB" wrote in message
om...
LOL. You'd think that jps had a boner for Clark. He mustn't have
read
much
up on the guy. Wesley's sordid past is easy pickins'.



My father in-law knows Wesley very well.
On more than a few occasions he has stated that Colin Powell, and Wesley
Clark were two of the biggest assholes he has worked with.

I'm going to try and milk him for some info this weekend.


They're military men. Did you expect them to be candyasses?

OT--new candidate
 

"NOYB" wrote in message . com...
LOL. You'd think that jps had a boner for Clark. He mustn't have read much
up on the guy. Wesley's sordid past is easy pickins'.


You are fighting with a guy that knows everything about everything! He
knows whats in Bush's head, your's, mine, and everyone elses.. he
knows what is going to happen next year, he knows what everyones final
agenda is, he knows weather or not Saddam was lying, he knows what's
going on at Gitmo, Afganastan, Washington, and even knows what the
American people, as well as the people of every other country in the
world are thinking and what their future will be.... all based on what
party the leaders of the country represent... Really, he knows little
about much at all but it does not matter, ideology is all that matters
to JPS, so why do you bother?

OT--new candidate
 

"NOYB" wrote in message
om...
That'd be a helluva strategy to run on:
"Vote for Wesley Clark. He'll roll back the Bush tax cut and raise your
taxes."

Are you vying for Terry McAuliffe's job? 'Cause you're about as
politically
astute as the moron that assuredly stated Jeb Bush was history in
2002...and
then won by 13 percentage points.


Photo of Nookular Boy on the screen:

"Your parents taught YOU to handle a budget. Why didn't this man learn the
same lesson?"

or:

"We're all concerned about the quality of our schools. Do you want your
children listening to a president who, after thousands of repetitions, can't
pronounce the name of the most dangerous weapons on the planet?"

OT--new candidate
 

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"NOYB" wrote in message
hlink.net...


He'll get mauled by Bush in the pressing palms and kissing babies
arena.


So what. Anyone who bases votes on a handshake is an idiot anyway.

Unfortunately, it's the "swing" voters that vote this way. They make up
less than 7% of the electorate, and there's no common theme that appeals
to
them. They vote for the guy they like best, many times basing their
vote on
nothing more than charisma.


Of course. How do you think a guy like Clinton could actually win....

Clinton is a prime example of someone who is long on charisma, and short
on character.

Dave

Once again, your dependence on kindergarten-level news is obvious.

After BOTH Clinton's and Bush's successful elections, NPR sent a reporter
wandering around a couple of college campuses, asking students why they
voted the way they did. Regarding both candidates, many young women said
they voted for the winner because "he was cute", or they liked the way his
eyebrows wrinkled when making an important point in a speech.

NOYB was making a generic statement.

OT--new candidate
 

On Wed, 17 Sep 2003 07:11:46 -0400, Dave Hall wrote:

In Iraq, there is no superpower supplying arms to the terrorists. Once
we cut off their supply lines completely, they'll soon be reduced to
throwing rocks.

Point taken about arms supply, but I wouldn't underestimate the power of a
rock. A motivated and resourceful enemy will find a way to kill. I think
this has been established in our not so distant past.

OT--new candidate
 

Well, that article certainly goes into plenty of depth, and completely
explains the motives and decisions of Clark and everyone else involved in
his decisions. If anyone in this NG criticized the decisions of officers
currently working in Iraq, you'd probably say that since we're not there, we
have no business questioning anyone, right?

"Joe" wrote in message
...


You righties are toast.

Because General Fruitcake is joining the race?

This joker almost started WWIII, and could have if not for a British
General.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/671495.stm

He has absolutely zero chance of beating Bush.

OT--new candidate
 

I guess we're all free to pick & choose from the article:
"certainly the military is suspicious of people who are intense and
passionate."

Sounds like quite a few other professional groups, like large police
departments, where people are expected to stay within a narrow job
definition, so the next level of rank doesn't fear for their pensions. If
Clark is a muckraker, he's got my vote.

"NOYB" wrote in message
om...
"The guy is brilliant," said the general, who agreed to speak candidly
about
Clark only if his name were not used. "He's very articulate, he's
extremely
charming, he has the best strategic sense of anybody I have ever met. But
the simple fact is, a lot of people just don't trust his ability as a
commander.

----------------------------------------------

Hmmmm. You want a Commander in Chief who "a lot of people don't trust...as
a
commander"?

OT--new candidate
 

"NOYB" wrote in message
hlink.net...
They're both ego-maniacs...but the difference is Clark actually believes
he
could be President.

Well, since we're embroiled in the Middle East, it might make sense to elect
someone who actually has a clue about how the military operates. You may
recall that the last person with such credentials was Eisenhower.

It's obvious that Bush is as unqualified in this regard as you or I.

OT--new candidate
 

"NOYB" wrote in message
om...
Mark,
I think the absolute worst thing that could happen would be if a guy like
Dean won the Presidency and pulled us out of Iraq too soon. The
repercussions would be awful. "Rack up enough US casualties, get the
media
to play along, and we can control the infidels".

At least if a guy like World War III Wesley was in charge, we could be
sure
he'd probably nuke someone over there before long...and that can't be
*all*
bad.


Hey...you're starting to sound like my father, around 1968-1969, who thought
we should "throw everything we've got" at North Vietnam. Suddenly, when I
got my draft card, he got a little antsy about what was going on over there.

How old are YOUR kids, NOYB?

OT--new candidate
 

"Mark Browne" wrote in message
news:9dR9b.369154$Oz4.147719@rwcrnsc54...

Now, back to the issue at hand - you did not answer my question: What
sorts
of signs would you accept that things are not working out - at what point
would you make the call that it *is* time to cut and run?


Mark, the Bush-bots NEVER provide a straight answer to your question.

OT--new candidate
 

"NOYB" wrote in message
om...

"Mark Browne" wrote in message
news:9dR9b.369154

Now, back to the issue at hand - you did not answer my question: What
sorts
of signs would you accept that things are not working out - at what
point
would you make the call that it *is* time to cut and run?


I certainly *did* answer your question:

"We remain in our bases indefinitely to assure that no Baathists seize the
country via a coup. If the newly democratically-elected government feels
secure enough and asks us to leave, then we should consider leaving."



You did NOT answer his question:

"What sorts of signs would you accept that things are not working out - at
what point would you make the call that it *is* time to cut and run?"

Every good manager (synonymous with military officer) has some idea when a
project needs to be abandoned. If the original idea for the project came
with a 2 year time line, a good manager knows how to evaluate it constantly
and either adjust techniques, or wind it down.

Answer the question.

OT--new candidate
 

"NOYB" wrote in message
hlink.net...

Clark's candidacy is being orchestrated by the Clintonista's...and most
people know that "Clinton" and "truth" should not even appear in the same
sentence.

THere's more honor and forthrightness in any Clinton bone (yes, including
that one) than in any of the buffoons who inhabit and control the White
House currently, apart from Colin Powell.

Even if Clark says that he'll roll back tax cuts, he'll make it sound
like
heaven in comparison to four more years of moronic moves by the buffoon
in
office now.

Rolling back tax cuts during a rebounding economy would result in a double
dip recession...and possibly a depression. That sound like "heaven" to
you?

Rolling back tax cuts on the richest Americans regains us close to $100
billion dollars in our annual budget. You think that'll cause a double dip
recession? Starting where, at Tiffany's?

OT--new candidate
 

"Backyard Renegade" wrote in message
om...
"NOYB" wrote in message
. com...
LOL. You'd think that jps had a boner for Clark. He mustn't have read
much
up on the guy. Wesley's sordid past is easy pickins'.


You are fighting with a guy that knows everything about everything! He
knows whats in Bush's head, your's, mine, and everyone elses.. he
knows what is going to happen next year, he knows what everyones final
agenda is, he knows weather or not Saddam was lying, he knows what's
going on at Gitmo, Afganastan, Washington, and even knows what the
American people, as well as the people of every other country in the
world are thinking and what their future will be.... all based on what
party the leaders of the country represent... Really, he knows little
about much at all but it does not matter, ideology is all that matters
to JPS, so why do you bother?


Damn BR, for once you've got it right.

OT--new candidate
 

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 17 Sep 2003 07:11:46 -0400, Dave Hall wrote:

In Iraq, there is no superpower supplying arms to the terrorists. Once
we cut off their supply lines completely, they'll soon be reduced to
throwing rocks.

Point taken about arms supply, but I wouldn't underestimate the power of a
rock. A motivated and resourceful enemy will find a way to kill. I think
this has been established in our not so distant past.

Yes. The VC moved quite a lot of material down the Ho Chi Minh trail, with
the stuff strapped to bicycles and pushcarts. They did it wearing sandles
and little not much else but rice.

OT--new candidate
 

Tiffany's didn't report record profits in the quarter the tax rebates and
tax cut went into effect...but Wal-mart did. I think you best be consultin'
with some new economics gurus.





"jps" wrote in message
...
"NOYB" wrote in message
hlink.net...

Clark's candidacy is being orchestrated by the Clintonista's...and most
people know that "Clinton" and "truth" should not even appear in the
same
sentence.

THere's more honor and forthrightness in any Clinton bone (yes, including
that one) than in any of the buffoons who inhabit and control the White
House currently, apart from Colin Powell.

Even if Clark says that he'll roll back tax cuts, he'll make it sound
like
heaven in comparison to four more years of moronic moves by the
buffoon
in
office now.

Rolling back tax cuts during a rebounding economy would result in a
double
dip recession...and possibly a depression. That sound like "heaven" to
you?

Rolling back tax cuts on the richest Americans regains us close to $100
billion dollars in our annual budget. You think that'll cause a double
dip
recession? Starting where, at Tiffany's?

OT--new candidate
 

"NOYB" wrote in message
hlink.net...
Tiffany's didn't report record profits in the quarter the tax rebates and
tax cut went into effect...but Wal-mart did. I think you best be
consultin'
with some new economics gurus.

That's the effect of several hundred thousand checks going out for between
400 and 800 dollars. It's not an every week thing bozo. Think what would
happen to our economy if the tax cuts were actually aimed at the folks who'd
spend money at WalMart. That's right, it'd go through the roof and we'd be
manufacturing jobs. The only problem with the Bush tax cut is that the
lower and middle classes were paid to keep their mouths shut with a one time
payment, while the wealthy will be banking some nice profits for the balance
of the year.

Wake up there doc, you're a member of the White Party of the Selfish.

There isn't a single economist who endorsed Bush's theory on tax cuts, other
than the shills he keeps in the administration.

OT--new candidate
 

Doug Kanter wrote:

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"NOYB" wrote in message
hlink.net...


He'll get mauled by Bush in the pressing palms and kissing babies
arena.


So what. Anyone who bases votes on a handshake is an idiot anyway.

Unfortunately, it's the "swing" voters that vote this way. They make up
less than 7% of the electorate, and there's no common theme that appeals
to
them. They vote for the guy they like best, many times basing their
vote on
nothing more than charisma.


Of course. How do you think a guy like Clinton could actually win....

Clinton is a prime example of someone who is long on charisma, and short
on character.

Dave

Once again, your dependence on kindergarten-level news is obvious.

Oh? Where am I wrong then?


After BOTH Clinton's and Bush's successful elections, NPR sent a reporter
wandering around a couple of college campuses, asking students why they
voted the way they did. Regarding both candidates, many young women said
they voted for the winner because "he was cute", or they liked the way his
eyebrows wrinkled when making an important point in a speech.

Thank you for making my point for me.


NOYB was making a generic statement.

Which I applied to a specific individual, as a testiment to the validity
of the point.

Dave

OT--new candidate
 

Doug Kanter wrote:

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 17 Sep 2003 07:11:46 -0400, Dave Hall wrote:

In Iraq, there is no superpower supplying arms to the terrorists. Once
we cut off their supply lines completely, they'll soon be reduced to
throwing rocks.

Point taken about arms supply, but I wouldn't underestimate the power of a
rock. A motivated and resourceful enemy will find a way to kill. I think
this has been established in our not so distant past.

Yes. The VC moved quite a lot of material down the Ho Chi Minh trail, with
the stuff strapped to bicycles and pushcarts. They did it wearing sandles
and little not much else but rice.

The VC were also being covertly supplied by the former Soviets. The VC
were very determined, and resourceful. The terrorists in Iraq are likely
equally motivated and resourceful. But they lack the "man behind the
curtain" supplying them the arms.

Dave

OT--new candidate
 

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"NOYB" wrote in message
om...

"Mark Browne" wrote in message
news:9dR9b.369154

Now, back to the issue at hand - you did not answer my question: What
sorts
of signs would you accept that things are not working out - at what
point
would you make the call that it *is* time to cut and run?


I certainly *did* answer your question:

"We remain in our bases indefinitely to assure that no Baathists seize
the
country via a coup. If the newly democratically-elected government feels
secure enough and asks us to leave, then we should consider leaving."



You did NOT answer his question:

"What sorts of signs would you accept that things are not working out - at
what point would you make the call that it *is* time to cut and run?"

I'd cut and run only if Saddam Hussein reemerges and is welcomed with open
arms by the majority of the population.

In any other scenario, we stay.

OT--new candidate
 

Just because you don't like the answer, doesn't mean it's not a *straight*
answer.

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"Mark Browne" wrote in message
news:9dR9b.369154$Oz4.147719@rwcrnsc54...

Now, back to the issue at hand - you did not answer my question: What
sorts
of signs would you accept that things are not working out - at what
point
would you make the call that it *is* time to cut and run?


Mark, the Bush-bots NEVER provide a straight answer to your question.

OT--new candidate
 

jps wrote:

"NOYB" wrote in message
hlink.net...

Clark's candidacy is being orchestrated by the Clintonista's...and most
people know that "Clinton" and "truth" should not even appear in the same
sentence.

THere's more honor and forthrightness in any Clinton bone (yes, including
that one) than in any of the buffoons who inhabit and control the White
House currently, apart from Colin Powell.

Blinded by partisanism eh? Clinton was a slippery as a greased pig. Who
else would try to define ther word "Is"? The Clinton presidency was a
prime example of setting policy by poll numbers, versus by character and
conviction to principles.


Even if Clark says that he'll roll back tax cuts, he'll make it sound
like
heaven in comparison to four more years of moronic moves by the buffoon
in
office now.

Rolling back tax cuts during a rebounding economy would result in a double
dip recession...and possibly a depression. That sound like "heaven" to
you?

Rolling back tax cuts on the richest Americans regains us close to $100
billion dollars in our annual budget. You think that'll cause a double dip
recession? Starting where, at Tiffany's?

Rolling back my tax break will do nothing but **** me off. And where do
you get off calling me "rich"? That's the biggest lie that the
Democtrats have been trying to pull over everyone's eyes. The tax break
was across the board, which means we ALL got a break, proportional to
what we put in. I'd never vote for anyone who is in favor of taking more
money from me.

Dave

OT--new candidate
 

4 months, 2 years, and 4 years. That's why I want those maniacs dealt with
now.

3000 people likely wouldn't have died in the WTC if a certain prior
President dealt with bin Laden when he had the chance...and the 300 or so
soldiers that recently were killed in Iraq likely wouldn't have died if Bush
41 didn't worry so much about what the UN thought, and marched Schwarzkopff
into Baghdad in the first Gulf War.



"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"NOYB" wrote in message
om...
Mark,
I think the absolute worst thing that could happen would be if a guy
like
Dean won the Presidency and pulled us out of Iraq too soon. The
repercussions would be awful. "Rack up enough US casualties, get the
media
to play along, and we can control the infidels".

At least if a guy like World War III Wesley was in charge, we could be
sure
he'd probably nuke someone over there before long...and that can't be
*all*
bad.


Hey...you're starting to sound like my father, around 1968-1969, who
thought
we should "throw everything we've got" at North Vietnam. Suddenly, when I
got my draft card, he got a little antsy about what was going on over
there.

How old are YOUR kids, NOYB?

OT--new candidate
 

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...

Rolling back my tax break will do nothing but **** me off. And where do
you get off calling me "rich"? That's the biggest lie that the
Democtrats have been trying to pull over everyone's eyes. The tax break
was across the board, which means we ALL got a break, proportional to
what we put in. I'd never vote for anyone who is in favor of taking more
money from me.

How much did your "tax break" amount to this year, as a function of
percentage?