"iBoaterer" wrote in message
...


I agree, I don't know why Bush got us in Afghanistan either.

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

My, what short memories we have.

The United States, United Kingdom, France and Australia "invaded"
Afghanistan in October, 2001, a month after the 9/11 attacks on the US
by al-Qaeda terrorist, led by Bin Laden. The purpose was to eliminate
the Taliban control of the country and it's use as an al-Qaeda
training ground. An important but secondary mission was to try to
hunt down Bin Laden.

There's no controversy about that.

The real question is, why are we still there?

On 1/8/13 3:23 PM, Eisboch wrote:


"iBoaterer" wrote in message
...


I agree, I don't know why Bush got us in Afghanistan either.

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

My, what short memories we have.

The United States, United Kingdom, France and Australia "invaded"
Afghanistan in October, 2001, a month after the 9/11 attacks on the US
by al-Qaeda terrorist, led by Bin Laden. The purpose was to eliminate
the Taliban control of the country and it's use as an al-Qaeda training
ground. An important but secondary mission was to try to hunt down Bin
Laden.

There's no controversy about that.

The real question is, why are we still there?


Indeed, that was the "stated" reason, but it was bull****. We invaded
Afghanistan because Bush needed something to restore his "prestige"
after 9-11, so his aides trumped up an invasion of Afghanistan. The
Taliban and other religious nutcases can set up shop anywhere, and, in
have, have.

If Bush had been serious about "getting" the 9-11 cells and their
backers and funders and the evil madrassas, he would have invaded Saudi
Arabia.

"ESAD" wrote in message
m...

On 1/8/13 3:23 PM, Eisboch wrote:


"iBoaterer" wrote in message
...


I agree, I don't know why Bush got us in Afghanistan either.

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

My, what short memories we have.

The United States, United Kingdom, France and Australia "invaded"
Afghanistan in October, 2001, a month after the 9/11 attacks on the
US
by al-Qaeda terrorist, led by Bin Laden. The purpose was to
eliminate
the Taliban control of the country and it's use as an al-Qaeda
training
ground. An important but secondary mission was to try to hunt down
Bin
Laden.

There's no controversy about that.

The real question is, why are we still there?


Indeed, that was the "stated" reason, but it was bull****. We invaded
Afghanistan because Bush needed something to restore his "prestige"
after 9-11, so his aides trumped up an invasion of Afghanistan. The
Taliban and other religious nutcases can set up shop anywhere, and, in
have, have.

If Bush had been serious about "getting" the 9-11 cells and their
backers and funders and the evil madrassas, he would have invaded
Saudi
Arabia.

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

Monday morning quarterbacking.

At the time the people (and, to the best of my knowledge) every member
of Congress wanted blood. He did the right thing.

On 1/8/13 3:51 PM, Eisboch wrote:


"ESAD" wrote in message
m...

On 1/8/13 3:23 PM, Eisboch wrote:


"iBoaterer" wrote in message
...


I agree, I don't know why Bush got us in Afghanistan either.

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

My, what short memories we have.

The United States, United Kingdom, France and Australia "invaded"
Afghanistan in October, 2001, a month after the 9/11 attacks on the US
by al-Qaeda terrorist, led by Bin Laden. The purpose was to eliminate
the Taliban control of the country and it's use as an al-Qaeda training
ground. An important but secondary mission was to try to hunt down Bin
Laden.

There's no controversy about that.

The real question is, why are we still there?


Indeed, that was the "stated" reason, but it was bull****. We invaded
Afghanistan because Bush needed something to restore his "prestige"
after 9-11, so his aides trumped up an invasion of Afghanistan. The
Taliban and other religious nutcases can set up shop anywhere, and, in
have, have.

If Bush had been serious about "getting" the 9-11 cells and their
backers and funders and the evil madrassas, he would have invaded Saudi
Arabia.

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

Monday morning quarterbacking.

At the time the people (and, to the best of my knowledge) every member
of Congress wanted blood. He did the right thing.




Everyone wanted blood from Afghanistan and then Iraq because the Bush
administration bull****ted everyone into believing its bull****.

In article ,
says...

On 1/8/13 8:19 AM, Eisboch wrote:


"ESAD" wrote in message
m...

On 1/7/13 10:24 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 07 Jan 2013 21:15:23 -0500, ESAD wrote:



Indeed. I think it is important to remind some people of Palin and her
stupidity. She could have been an old man's heartbeat away from the
presidency.

Well the old man is still alive so she would have just been sitting
around with nothing to do like Biden.
Sarah wasn't the scary one. The old man would very likely have us in
a war in Iran right now.

Remember "Bomb Bomb, Bomb Iran' (to the tune of Barbara Ann)?


All the GOP nominee wannabes this last election with the exception of
Portman were saber-rattling warmongers, and several of them (Santorum,
Perry, Bachman, Cain) were at least as stupid as Palin. Practical
intelligence, never mind intellectual intelligence, doesn't seem to be
an attribute much sought these days in the GOP.

Christine O'Donnell, Sarah Palin, Michele Bachmann, Jan Brewer...the
four GOP women of the apocalypse, and all bottom divers.

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

Harry,

It's ok. The election is over. Your man won.
P.S. You might want to remind Big Ed, Rachel, Big Al and the others of
the fact.
They still delight virtually every night in mocking Romney and other
Republican candidates who lost.
Doesn't contribute to developing any sense of bi-partisanship or harmony
in the country.
Lean Forward.



We're still plagued with GOP crazies holding or seeking high political
office, and some of them will be contending for the 2016 nomination, and
other non-candidates crazies will be attempting to "shape" the field.

I think it worthwhile to slam these individuals and the party that
supports them from time to time.

I don't see any opportunity for bipartisanship or political harmony in
this country until the current crop of bat**** crazy Republicans wanders
in the desert for a couple more presidential election cycles and the
party loses more seats in the U.S. Senate and House.

I remember when the northeast had a plethora of reasonable, responsible
Republicans who were willing to work in a bipartisan manner for the good
of the country. Now, there are hardly any Republicans in that part of
the country who hold high political office, and I think one of the major
reasons is that reasonable Republican wannabes simply cannot, for the
most part, get nominated.

While there are exceptions, the GOP these days is mostly a party
controlled by white southern men.

If the country was full of Harry Krause's we would cease to exist due to
the fact that the government wouldn't have any tax revenue to operate
with.

In article ,
says...

"ESAD" wrote in message
...

On 1/8/13 8:19 AM, Eisboch wrote:


"ESAD" wrote in message
m...

On 1/7/13 10:24 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 07 Jan 2013 21:15:23 -0500, ESAD wrote:



Indeed. I think it is important to remind some people of Palin and
her
stupidity. She could have been an old man's heartbeat away from
the
presidency.

Well the old man is still alive so she would have just been sitting
around with nothing to do like Biden.
Sarah wasn't the scary one. The old man would very likely have us
in
a war in Iran right now.

Remember "Bomb Bomb, Bomb Iran' (to the tune of Barbara Ann)?


All the GOP nominee wannabes this last election with the exception
of
Portman were saber-rattling warmongers, and several of them
(Santorum,
Perry, Bachman, Cain) were at least as stupid as Palin. Practical
intelligence, never mind intellectual intelligence, doesn't seem to
be
an attribute much sought these days in the GOP.

Christine O'Donnell, Sarah Palin, Michele Bachmann, Jan Brewer...the
four GOP women of the apocalypse, and all bottom divers.

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

Harry,

It's ok. The election is over. Your man won.
P.S. You might want to remind Big Ed, Rachel, Big Al and the others
of
the fact.
They still delight virtually every night in mocking Romney and other
Republican candidates who lost.
Doesn't contribute to developing any sense of bi-partisanship or
harmony
in the country.
Lean Forward.



We're still plagued with GOP crazies holding or seeking high political
office, and some of them will be contending for the 2016 nomination,
and
other non-candidates crazies will be attempting to "shape" the field.

I think it worthwhile to slam these individuals and the party that
supports them from time to time.

I don't see any opportunity for bipartisanship or political harmony in
this country until the current crop of bat**** crazy Republicans
wanders
in the desert for a couple more presidential election cycles and the
party loses more seats in the U.S. Senate and House.

I remember when the northeast had a plethora of reasonable,
responsible
Republicans who were willing to work in a bipartisan manner for the
good
of the country. Now, there are hardly any Republicans in that part of
the country who hold high political office, and I think one of the
major
reasons is that reasonable Republican wannabes simply cannot, for the
most part, get nominated.

While there are exceptions, the GOP these days is mostly a party
controlled by white southern men.
----------------------------------------------------------

While I agree with you about the ultra right Republicans, they will,
in time, lose influence. Politics goes in cycles.
If the MSNBC (and others) crowd wants to attack those running or who
may run, that's their choice. But to keep doing re-runs of the last
election doesn't do anybody any good in terms of creating a reasonable
or responsible debate for the future. It may end up back firing.

The only thing they know how to do is spike the football.

In article om,
says...

On 1/8/2013 6:59 AM, ESAD wrote:
On 1/7/13 10:18 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 07 Jan 2013 19:10:35 -0500, ESAD wrote:


Indeed, I think Palin is an ignorant bitch and if she had the chance,
she'd shoot a moose so she could stick its head on her wall.

It is not unlike a person who kills a marlin to put it on the wall or
a person who kills a rock fish to put it on the table.
Dead is dead.


Palin kills animals for "sport." Killing animals for sport ain't sporting.

Killing babies for convenience sake ain't human.

Planned Parenthood is pleased that they killed more babies in 2012 than
they did in 2011.

On 1/8/2013 6:58 PM, BAR wrote:
In article om,
says...

On 1/8/2013 6:59 AM, ESAD wrote:
On 1/7/13 10:18 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 07 Jan 2013 19:10:35 -0500, ESAD wrote:


Indeed, I think Palin is an ignorant bitch and if she had the chance,
she'd shoot a moose so she could stick its head on her wall.

It is not unlike a person who kills a marlin to put it on the wall or
a person who kills a rock fish to put it on the table.
Dead is dead.


Palin kills animals for "sport." Killing animals for sport ain't sporting.

Killing babies for convenience sake ain't human.

Planned Parenthood is pleased that they killed more babies in 2012 than
they did in 2011.



I bet they killed more people than guns...

On 1/8/13 7:11 PM, JustWait wrote:
On 1/8/2013 6:58 PM, BAR wrote:
In article om,
says...

On 1/8/2013 6:59 AM, ESAD wrote:
On 1/7/13 10:18 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 07 Jan 2013 19:10:35 -0500, ESAD wrote:


Indeed, I think Palin is an ignorant bitch and if she had the chance,
she'd shoot a moose so she could stick its head on her wall.

It is not unlike a person who kills a marlin to put it on the wall or
a person who kills a rock fish to put it on the table.
Dead is dead.


Palin kills animals for "sport." Killing animals for sport ain't
sporting.

Killing babies for convenience sake ain't human.

Planned Parenthood is pleased that they killed more babies in 2012 than
they did in 2011.



I bet they killed more people than guns...


Planned Parenthood has killed no babies nor more people than guns. The
bulk of Planned Parenthood's funding goes towards women's health issues
that have nothing to do with abortion.

Right wing assholes who despise women and women's rights, of course,
also hate Planned Parenthood. And so do the terminally stupid...likeyou
and your butt buddy there.

wrote:
On Tue, 08 Jan 2013 15:55:02 -0500, ESAD wrote:

Monday morning quarterbacking.

At the time the people (and, to the best of my knowledge) every member
of Congress wanted blood. He did the right thing.




Everyone wanted blood from Afghanistan and then Iraq because the Bush
administration bull****ted everyone into believing its bull****.

We were doing good work in Afghanistan until about December when OBL
ducked into Pakistan.
At that point, we had no real reason to be in Afghanistan.
I understand there was so much criticism of missing OBL based on not
having enough troops (whether that would have made any difference or
not) there that Bush invaded in force.

Doing good in afghanistan means not going in in the first place.