Today on Meet the Press, Newt Gingrich said the Republican party would
be "incapable of competing" against Hillary Clinton if she ran for
president in 2016.

That would be nice but, sadly, Newt Gingrich hasn't been correct about
much of anything for a long, long time!

On 12/10/12 6:29 AM, Eisboch wrote:

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

We also should be looking for people who don't lie for their political
advantage.

Who do you have in mind? Every politician exaggerates, and some, like
Bush and Cheney, far worse than others, and with much deadlier consequences.

"ESAD" wrote in message ...

On 12/10/12 6:29 AM, Eisboch wrote:

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

We also should be looking for people who don't lie for their
political
advantage.

Who do you have in mind? Every politician exaggerates, and some, like
Bush and Cheney, far worse than others, and with much deadlier
consequences.

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

When Susan Rice erroneously reported "spontaneous demonstrations" in
Libya, "based on the best Intel at the time", she was given a free
pass.
I don't doubt her ... it was probably the only intelligence info at
first.

Think what you want of Bush and Cheney, but for at least 6 months not
only did the CIA and other American intelligence agencies, but pretty
much the rest of the world's agencies were reporting weapons of mass
destruction existing in Iraq. Personally, my hunch is they *did*
exist but were hurriedly transported to Syria. If you recall, there
were many reports of truck movements from Iraq to Syria in the months
leading up to the war.

But, whatever. There were still many mistakes made, probably more by
the egotistical Donald Rumsfeld than anyone else.

Question: When the overwhelming majority of Americans favor an
immediate troop withdrawal from Iran, isn't that a mandate to our
political leadership? It's not just Republicans dragging their feet
and trying to justify more dead.

On 12/10/12 10:32 AM, Eisboch wrote:


"ESAD" wrote in message ...

On 12/10/12 6:29 AM, Eisboch wrote:

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

We also should be looking for people who don't lie for their political
advantage.

Who do you have in mind? Every politician exaggerates, and some, like
Bush and Cheney, far worse than others, and with much deadlier
consequences.

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

When Susan Rice erroneously reported "spontaneous demonstrations" in
Libya, "based on the best Intel at the time", she was given a free pass.
I don't doubt her ... it was probably the only intelligence info at first.

Think what you want of Bush and Cheney, but for at least 6 months not
only did the CIA and other American intelligence agencies, but pretty
much the rest of the world's agencies were reporting weapons of mass
destruction existing in Iraq. Personally, my hunch is they *did*
exist but were hurriedly transported to Syria. If you recall, there
were many reports of truck movements from Iraq to Syria in the months
leading up to the war.

But, whatever. There were still many mistakes made, probably more by
the egotistical Donald Rumsfeld than anyone else.

Question: When the overwhelming majority of Americans favor an
immediate troop withdrawal from Iran, isn't that a mandate to our
political leadership? It's not just Republicans dragging their feet
and trying to justify more dead.







You mean Afghanistan, not Iran, I think. And I agree, we shouldn't wait
another two years to pull our troops out of Afghanistan. I would think a
schedule could be worked out for an orderly and safe withdrawal to take
place entirely within 2013. I don't know the logistics, but surely that
could be accomplished by the end of June.

I think everyone rational pretty much knows what is going to happen in
Afghanistan, whether they are willing to admit it or not. Because of
geography, lack of infrastructure, ignorance, and centuries of
vendettas, it is going to remain a mess long beyond the lifetimes of
anyone now alive. There's nothing happening there worth the life of any
other nation's men and women.

I don't much buy into the "mandate" business. We elect leaders to lead,
not to do whatever is popular at the moment. Sometimes leadership
requires taking action that may be really unpopular with large segments
of society, such as integrating the military or sending troops in to
enforce civil rights.

"ESAD" wrote in message
m...

On 12/10/12 10:32 AM, Eisboch wrote:


"ESAD" wrote in message ...

On 12/10/12 6:29 AM, Eisboch wrote:

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

We also should be looking for people who don't lie for their
political
advantage.

Who do you have in mind? Every politician exaggerates, and some,
like
Bush and Cheney, far worse than others, and with much deadlier
consequences.

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

When Susan Rice erroneously reported "spontaneous demonstrations"
in
Libya, "based on the best Intel at the time", she was given a free
pass.
I don't doubt her ... it was probably the only intelligence info at
first.

Think what you want of Bush and Cheney, but for at least 6 months
not
only did the CIA and other American intelligence agencies, but
pretty
much the rest of the world's agencies were reporting weapons of mass
destruction existing in Iraq. Personally, my hunch is they *did*
exist but were hurriedly transported to Syria. If you recall, there
were many reports of truck movements from Iraq to Syria in the
months
leading up to the war.

But, whatever. There were still many mistakes made, probably more
by
the egotistical Donald Rumsfeld than anyone else.

Question: When the overwhelming majority of Americans favor an
immediate troop withdrawal from Iran, isn't that a mandate to our
political leadership? It's not just Republicans dragging their
feet
and trying to justify more dead.







You mean Afghanistan, not Iran, I think. And I agree, we shouldn't
wait
another two years to pull our troops out of Afghanistan. I would think
a
schedule could be worked out for an orderly and safe withdrawal to
take
place entirely within 2013. I don't know the logistics, but surely
that
could be accomplished by the end of June.

I think everyone rational pretty much knows what is going to happen in
Afghanistan, whether they are willing to admit it or not. Because of
geography, lack of infrastructure, ignorance, and centuries of
vendettas, it is going to remain a mess long beyond the lifetimes of
anyone now alive. There's nothing happening there worth the life of
any
other nation's men and women.

I don't much buy into the "mandate" business. We elect leaders to
lead,
not to do whatever is popular at the moment. Sometimes leadership
requires taking action that may be really unpopular with large
segments
of society, such as integrating the military or sending troops in to
enforce civil rights.

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

Thanks, yes obviously I meant Afghanistan. I just can't think of a
single reason why we have any boots on the ground there at all. But
such is "politics". Not a lot of it makes any sense either.

In article , says...

On 12/10/12 6:29 AM, Eisboch wrote:

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

We also should be looking for people who don't lie for their political
advantage.

Who do you have in mind? Every politician exaggerates, and some, like
Bush and Cheney, far worse than others, and with much deadlier consequences.

Bush and Cheney paid their taxes.

On 12/11/12 12:07 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 11 Dec 2012 11:52:53 -0500, iBoaterer wrote:

In article ,
says...

Mathews should be taken only in extremely small doses with a large dose of Pepto Bismal following.
The guy was absolutely sickening last time I saw him, which has been a couple years ago. Has he
changed? Doesn't sound like it.

The truth bothers you and your fellow FOXites, eh?

Matthews and the truth seldom cross paths.
He just tells the radical left what they want to hear.
Then he pimps his book for a few minutes.


That's just more right-wing bull****. Matthews is only mildly left of
center, and while he sometimes is hyperbolic, he's far more honest and
straightforward than the mooks on Fox.

I prefer Rachel Maddow, though. She so politely skewers mindless righties.

On 12/11/12 3:01 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 11 Dec 2012 12:18:11 -0500, ESAD wrote:

On 12/11/12 12:07 PM, wrote:

Matthews and the truth seldom cross paths.
He just tells the radical left what they want to hear.
Then he pimps his book for a few minutes.


That's just more right-wing bull****. Matthews is only mildly left of
center, and while he sometimes is hyperbolic, he's far more honest and
straightforward than the mooks on Fox.

A agree about Fox but Matthews is as bad as O'Reilly.
The blondes and that other guy who sits with them are pretty dumb. I
really see more of it on the Daily show than anywhere else. I agree
Fox News is largely unwatchable.

I usually have CNN on during the day.
I do like Erin Burnett. I record it and watch the next day.


I prefer Rachel Maddow, though. She so politely skewers mindless righties.

Maddow is OK but still leans pretty far left. If you lean left you
probably think she is fair and balanced.


I recognize Rachel for what she is...a really bright and nice political
commentator with a lot of brainpower. It's not her job to be "fair and
balanced." It's the news shows on Fox I find disgustingly political. I
don't expect the network's nighttime commentators to be "fair and
balanced." On the other hand, I also don't expect them to tell the sorts
of whoppers they do.

I like Morning Joe, too. I also like Michael Steele as a commentator.
He's a lot more fun now that he's not running for political office in
the wingnut party. If he changed parties, I would vote for him for high
political office.

In article ,
says...

On 12/11/12 3:01 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 11 Dec 2012 12:18:11 -0500, ESAD wrote:

On 12/11/12 12:07 PM, wrote:

Matthews and the truth seldom cross paths.
He just tells the radical left what they want to hear.
Then he pimps his book for a few minutes.


That's just more right-wing bull****. Matthews is only mildly left of
center, and while he sometimes is hyperbolic, he's far more honest and
straightforward than the mooks on Fox.

A agree about Fox but Matthews is as bad as O'Reilly.
The blondes and that other guy who sits with them are pretty dumb. I
really see more of it on the Daily show than anywhere else. I agree
Fox News is largely unwatchable.

I usually have CNN on during the day.
I do like Erin Burnett. I record it and watch the next day.


I prefer Rachel Maddow, though. She so politely skewers mindless righties.

Maddow is OK but still leans pretty far left. If you lean left you
probably think she is fair and balanced.


I recognize Rachel for what she is...a really bright and nice political
commentator with a lot of brainpower. It's not her job to be "fair and
balanced." It's the news shows on Fox I find disgustingly political. I
don't expect the network's nighttime commentators to be "fair and
balanced." On the other hand, I also don't expect them to tell the sorts
of whoppers they do.

I like Morning Joe, too. I also like Michael Steele as a commentator.
He's a lot more fun now that he's not running for political office in
the wingnut party. If he changed parties, I would vote for him for high
political office.

Michael Steele and Anthony Weiner screwed up when they didn't attend law
school. If they were lawyers that wouldn't be out of a job.