On 11/15/13, 3:17 PM, Califbill wrote:
"F.O.A.D." wrote:
On 11/15/13, 3:08 PM, Califbill wrote:
"F.O.A.D." wrote:
On 11/15/13, 2:06 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 11/15/2013 12:24 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 15 Nov 2013 10:48:54 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

Bernie Sanders:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dq-xjwgol4Q

Bernie uses a lot of platitudes that are not exactly true in his
tirades against the job makers.

The Clinton "surplus" was mostly projections based on the dot com
bubble never ending.

The cost of the Iraq war is inflated. We were already in an Iraq war
when Bush came in and it wasn't cheap then. Pension costs are going to
be there no matter what.

The tax cuts were across the board, not just for the rich. That is why
almost half of the people pay no income taxes at all.



Clinton's "surplus" was also a result of excess Social Security revenues
that were transferred to the General Fund. The excesses were the result
of a robust but artificial economy based on dot.com companies that never
produced a product. The transfer of excess SS revenues to the General
Fund is legal but it's a bit of creative accounting to claim it erased
the deficit and produced a surplus.


I'm sorry, I must have missed the off budget accounting for the two wars Bush started.


Actually, they were wars Clinton was involved in, and Bush just continued.


Oh, right, because Clinton dispatched so many troops into Iraq and
Afghanistan. Right, I get it...Bush just "continued" the wars.



How much was that Naval carrier groups and bombing and missile firing
costing? Nothing? Not likely! How much did the Balkans cost? Somalia?
All Clinton failures!


You were discussing Bush's "continuation" of Clinton's
non-troop-involvement-on-Iraqi-Afghani soil. But I can play along with
stupid. How much did our involvement in the Balkans cost in terms of
American deaths and expenditures and time and our involvement in
Somalia, in the same terms, compared to Bush's misadventures in Iraq and
Afghanistan?

Oh, and our involvement in the Yugoslav wars was a restoration of peace
mission. It succeeded. In the Battle of Mogadishu, 18 U.S. troops were
killed. In the attack on the Beirut barracks during the Reagan
Administration, about 300 U.S. and French service personnel were killed.
You know, I don't recall any "Benghazi" bull**** claims against Reagan
from the Dems back then.

--
Religion: together we can find the cure.

In article 2056083870406239244.194704bmckeenospam-
, says...

"F.O.A.D." wrote:
On 11/15/13, 3:08 PM, Califbill wrote:
"F.O.A.D." wrote:
On 11/15/13, 2:06 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 11/15/2013 12:24 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 15 Nov 2013 10:48:54 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

Bernie Sanders:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dq-xjwgol4Q

Bernie uses a lot of platitudes that are not exactly true in his
tirades against the job makers.

The Clinton "surplus" was mostly projections based on the dot com
bubble never ending.

The cost of the Iraq war is inflated. We were already in an Iraq war
when Bush came in and it wasn't cheap then. Pension costs are going to
be there no matter what.

The tax cuts were across the board, not just for the rich. That is why
almost half of the people pay no income taxes at all.



Clinton's "surplus" was also a result of excess Social Security revenues
that were transferred to the General Fund. The excesses were the result
of a robust but artificial economy based on dot.com companies that never
produced a product. The transfer of excess SS revenues to the General
Fund is legal but it's a bit of creative accounting to claim it erased
the deficit and produced a surplus.


I'm sorry, I must have missed the off budget accounting for the two wars Bush started.


Actually, they were wars Clinton was involved in, and Bush just continued.


Oh, right, because Clinton dispatched so many troops into Iraq and
Afghanistan. Right, I get it...Bush just "continued" the wars.



How much was that Naval carrier groups and bombing and missile firing
costing? Nothing? Not likely! How much did the Balkans cost? Somalia?
All Clinton failures!

Sure, Scotty.

iBoaterer wrote:
In article 2056083870406239244.194704bmckeenospam-
, says...

"F.O.A.D." wrote:
On 11/15/13, 3:08 PM, Califbill wrote:
"F.O.A.D." wrote:
On 11/15/13, 2:06 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 11/15/2013 12:24 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 15 Nov 2013 10:48:54 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

Bernie Sanders:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dq-xjwgol4Q

Bernie uses a lot of platitudes that are not exactly true in his
tirades against the job makers.

The Clinton "surplus" was mostly projections based on the dot com
bubble never ending.

The cost of the Iraq war is inflated. We were already in an Iraq war
when Bush came in and it wasn't cheap then. Pension costs are going to
be there no matter what.

The tax cuts were across the board, not just for the rich. That is why
almost half of the people pay no income taxes at all.



Clinton's "surplus" was also a result of excess Social Security revenues
that were transferred to the General Fund. The excesses were the result
of a robust but artificial economy based on dot.com companies that never
produced a product. The transfer of excess SS revenues to the General
Fund is legal but it's a bit of creative accounting to claim it erased
the deficit and produced a surplus.


I'm sorry, I must have missed the off budget accounting for the two wars Bush started.


Actually, they were wars Clinton was involved in, and Bush just continued.


Oh, right, because Clinton dispatched so many troops into Iraq and
Afghanistan. Right, I get it...Bush just "continued" the wars.



How much was that Naval carrier groups and bombing and missile firing
costing? Nothing? Not likely! How much did the Balkans cost? Somalia?
All Clinton failures!

Sure, Scotty.

Dumbass, You are really showing you are a Dumbass.

"F.O.A.D." wrote:
On 11/15/13, 3:17 PM, Califbill wrote:
"F.O.A.D." wrote:
On 11/15/13, 3:08 PM, Califbill wrote:
"F.O.A.D." wrote:
On 11/15/13, 2:06 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 11/15/2013 12:24 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 15 Nov 2013 10:48:54 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

Bernie Sanders:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dq-xjwgol4Q

Bernie uses a lot of platitudes that are not exactly true in his
tirades against the job makers.

The Clinton "surplus" was mostly projections based on the dot com
bubble never ending.

The cost of the Iraq war is inflated. We were already in an Iraq war
when Bush came in and it wasn't cheap then. Pension costs are going to
be there no matter what.

The tax cuts were across the board, not just for the rich. That is why
almost half of the people pay no income taxes at all.



Clinton's "surplus" was also a result of excess Social Security revenues
that were transferred to the General Fund. The excesses were the result
of a robust but artificial economy based on dot.com companies that never
produced a product. The transfer of excess SS revenues to the General
Fund is legal but it's a bit of creative accounting to claim it erased
the deficit and produced a surplus.


I'm sorry, I must have missed the off budget accounting for the two wars Bush started.


Actually, they were wars Clinton was involved in, and Bush just continued.


Oh, right, because Clinton dispatched so many troops into Iraq and
Afghanistan. Right, I get it...Bush just "continued" the wars.



How much was that Naval carrier groups and bombing and missile firing
costing? Nothing? Not likely! How much did the Balkans cost? Somalia?
All Clinton failures!


You were discussing Bush's "continuation" of Clinton's
non-troop-involvement-on-Iraqi-Afghani soil. But I can play along with
stupid. How much did our involvement in the Balkans cost in terms of
American deaths and expenditures and time and our involvement in Somalia,
in the same terms, compared to Bush's misadventures in Iraq and Afghanistan?

Oh, and our involvement in the Yugoslav wars was a restoration of peace
mission. It succeeded. In the Battle of Mogadishu, 18 U.S. troops were
killed. In the attack on the Beirut barracks during the Reagan
Administration, about 300 U.S. and French service personnel were killed.
You know, I don't recall any "Benghazi" bull**** claims against Reagan
from the Dems back then.


Clinton failed in getting those 18 killed. Neglected to supply the men on
the ground with adequate equipment. Just because it is an air war, does
not mean it is free. Nor that the war can be won. More likely, just means
lots of people get killed, and nothing is resolved. 1920s, an Italian
general named Giulio Douhet had the theory of massive air bombardment
would win wars without ground troops. Did that work in WW2? Viet Nam?
Iraq? Clinton just farted around with 8 years of spending and killing, and
accomplished nothing. Should Bush have sent in massive ground troops. In
my opinion, NO. He should have sent in a couple Delta Teams to kill
Saddam, or instead of bombing the radar sites, drop bombs on all known
Saddam abodes.

On 11/15/13, 4:02 PM, Califbill wrote:
"F.O.A.D." wrote:
On 11/15/13, 3:17 PM, Califbill wrote:
"F.O.A.D." wrote:
On 11/15/13, 3:08 PM, Califbill wrote:
"F.O.A.D." wrote:
On 11/15/13, 2:06 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 11/15/2013 12:24 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 15 Nov 2013 10:48:54 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

Bernie Sanders:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dq-xjwgol4Q

Bernie uses a lot of platitudes that are not exactly true in his
tirades against the job makers.

The Clinton "surplus" was mostly projections based on the dot com
bubble never ending.

The cost of the Iraq war is inflated. We were already in an Iraq war
when Bush came in and it wasn't cheap then. Pension costs are going to
be there no matter what.

The tax cuts were across the board, not just for the rich. That is why
almost half of the people pay no income taxes at all.



Clinton's "surplus" was also a result of excess Social Security revenues
that were transferred to the General Fund. The excesses were the result
of a robust but artificial economy based on dot.com companies that never
produced a product. The transfer of excess SS revenues to the General
Fund is legal but it's a bit of creative accounting to claim it erased
the deficit and produced a surplus.


I'm sorry, I must have missed the off budget accounting for the two wars Bush started.


Actually, they were wars Clinton was involved in, and Bush just continued.


Oh, right, because Clinton dispatched so many troops into Iraq and
Afghanistan. Right, I get it...Bush just "continued" the wars.



How much was that Naval carrier groups and bombing and missile firing
costing? Nothing? Not likely! How much did the Balkans cost? Somalia?
All Clinton failures!


You were discussing Bush's "continuation" of Clinton's
non-troop-involvement-on-Iraqi-Afghani soil. But I can play along with
stupid. How much did our involvement in the Balkans cost in terms of
American deaths and expenditures and time and our involvement in Somalia,
in the same terms, compared to Bush's misadventures in Iraq and Afghanistan?

Oh, and our involvement in the Yugoslav wars was a restoration of peace
mission. It succeeded. In the Battle of Mogadishu, 18 U.S. troops were
killed. In the attack on the Beirut barracks during the Reagan
Administration, about 300 U.S. and French service personnel were killed.
You know, I don't recall any "Benghazi" bull**** claims against Reagan
from the Dems back then.


Clinton failed in getting those 18 killed. Neglected to supply the men on
the ground with adequate equipment. Just because it is an air war, does
not mean it is free. Nor that the war can be won. More likely, just means
lots of people get killed, and nothing is resolved. 1920s, an Italian
general named Giulio Douhet had the theory of massive air bombardment
would win wars without ground troops. Did that work in WW2? Viet Nam?
Iraq? Clinton just farted around with 8 years of spending and killing, and
accomplished nothing. Should Bush have sent in massive ground troops. In
my opinion, NO. He should have sent in a couple Delta Teams to kill
Saddam, or instead of bombing the radar sites, drop bombs on all known
Saddam abodes.


Nice wiggling and subject changing. I'm sure that works at your tea
bagger socials.

--
Religion: together we can find the cure.

"F.O.A.D." wrote:
On 11/15/13, 4:02 PM, Califbill wrote:
"F.O.A.D." wrote:
On 11/15/13, 3:17 PM, Califbill wrote:
"F.O.A.D." wrote:
On 11/15/13, 3:08 PM, Califbill wrote:
"F.O.A.D." wrote:
On 11/15/13, 2:06 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 11/15/2013 12:24 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 15 Nov 2013 10:48:54 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

Bernie Sanders:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dq-xjwgol4Q

Bernie uses a lot of platitudes that are not exactly true in his
tirades against the job makers.

The Clinton "surplus" was mostly projections based on the dot com
bubble never ending.

The cost of the Iraq war is inflated. We were already in an Iraq war
when Bush came in and it wasn't cheap then. Pension costs are going to
be there no matter what.

The tax cuts were across the board, not just for the rich. That is why
almost half of the people pay no income taxes at all.



Clinton's "surplus" was also a result of excess Social Security revenues
that were transferred to the General Fund. The excesses were the result
of a robust but artificial economy based on dot.com companies that never
produced a product. The transfer of excess SS revenues to the General
Fund is legal but it's a bit of creative accounting to claim it erased
the deficit and produced a surplus.


I'm sorry, I must have missed the off budget accounting for the two
wars Bush started.


Actually, they were wars Clinton was involved in, and Bush just continued.


Oh, right, because Clinton dispatched so many troops into Iraq and
Afghanistan. Right, I get it...Bush just "continued" the wars.



How much was that Naval carrier groups and bombing and missile firing
costing? Nothing? Not likely! How much did the Balkans cost? Somalia?
All Clinton failures!


You were discussing Bush's "continuation" of Clinton's
non-troop-involvement-on-Iraqi-Afghani soil. But I can play along with
stupid. How much did our involvement in the Balkans cost in terms of
American deaths and expenditures and time and our involvement in Somalia,
in the same terms, compared to Bush's misadventures in Iraq and Afghanistan?

Oh, and our involvement in the Yugoslav wars was a restoration of peace
mission. It succeeded. In the Battle of Mogadishu, 18 U.S. troops were
killed. In the attack on the Beirut barracks during the Reagan
Administration, about 300 U.S. and French service personnel were killed.
You know, I don't recall any "Benghazi" bull**** claims against Reagan
from the Dems back then.


Clinton failed in getting those 18 killed. Neglected to supply the men on
the ground with adequate equipment. Just because it is an air war, does
not mean it is free. Nor that the war can be won. More likely, just means
lots of people get killed, and nothing is resolved. 1920s, an Italian
general named Giulio Douhet had the theory of massive air bombardment
would win wars without ground troops. Did that work in WW2? Viet Nam?
Iraq? Clinton just farted around with 8 years of spending and killing, and
accomplished nothing. Should Bush have sent in massive ground troops. In
my opinion, NO. He should have sent in a couple Delta Teams to kill
Saddam, or instead of bombing the radar sites, drop bombs on all known
Saddam abodes.


Nice wiggling and subject changing. I'm sure that works at your tea bagger socials.


No wiggling and subject changing. You tried to say Iraq was Bush's fault.
He had enough guilt, but so did Clinton. Al Gore is probably very happy he
did not have to deal with 9/11 or Katrina.

On 11/15/13, 4:25 PM, Califbill wrote:
"F.O.A.D." wrote:
On 11/15/13, 4:02 PM, Califbill wrote:
"F.O.A.D." wrote:
On 11/15/13, 3:17 PM, Califbill wrote:
"F.O.A.D." wrote:
On 11/15/13, 3:08 PM, Califbill wrote:
"F.O.A.D." wrote:
On 11/15/13, 2:06 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 11/15/2013 12:24 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 15 Nov 2013 10:48:54 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

Bernie Sanders:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dq-xjwgol4Q

Bernie uses a lot of platitudes that are not exactly true in his
tirades against the job makers.

The Clinton "surplus" was mostly projections based on the dot com
bubble never ending.

The cost of the Iraq war is inflated. We were already in an Iraq war
when Bush came in and it wasn't cheap then. Pension costs are going to
be there no matter what.

The tax cuts were across the board, not just for the rich. That is why
almost half of the people pay no income taxes at all.



Clinton's "surplus" was also a result of excess Social Security revenues
that were transferred to the General Fund. The excesses were the result
of a robust but artificial economy based on dot.com companies that never
produced a product. The transfer of excess SS revenues to the General
Fund is legal but it's a bit of creative accounting to claim it erased
the deficit and produced a surplus.


I'm sorry, I must have missed the off budget accounting for the two
wars Bush started.


Actually, they were wars Clinton was involved in, and Bush just continued.


Oh, right, because Clinton dispatched so many troops into Iraq and
Afghanistan. Right, I get it...Bush just "continued" the wars.



How much was that Naval carrier groups and bombing and missile firing
costing? Nothing? Not likely! How much did the Balkans cost? Somalia?
All Clinton failures!


You were discussing Bush's "continuation" of Clinton's
non-troop-involvement-on-Iraqi-Afghani soil. But I can play along with
stupid. How much did our involvement in the Balkans cost in terms of
American deaths and expenditures and time and our involvement in Somalia,
in the same terms, compared to Bush's misadventures in Iraq and Afghanistan?

Oh, and our involvement in the Yugoslav wars was a restoration of peace
mission. It succeeded. In the Battle of Mogadishu, 18 U.S. troops were
killed. In the attack on the Beirut barracks during the Reagan
Administration, about 300 U.S. and French service personnel were killed.
You know, I don't recall any "Benghazi" bull**** claims against Reagan
from the Dems back then.


Clinton failed in getting those 18 killed. Neglected to supply the men on
the ground with adequate equipment. Just because it is an air war, does
not mean it is free. Nor that the war can be won. More likely, just means
lots of people get killed, and nothing is resolved. 1920s, an Italian
general named Giulio Douhet had the theory of massive air bombardment
would win wars without ground troops. Did that work in WW2? Viet Nam?
Iraq? Clinton just farted around with 8 years of spending and killing, and
accomplished nothing. Should Bush have sent in massive ground troops. In
my opinion, NO. He should have sent in a couple Delta Teams to kill
Saddam, or instead of bombing the radar sites, drop bombs on all known
Saddam abodes.


Nice wiggling and subject changing. I'm sure that works at your tea bagger socials.


No wiggling and subject changing. You tried to say Iraq was Bush's fault.
He had enough guilt, but so did Clinton. Al Gore is probably very happy he
did not have to deal with 9/11 or Katrina.


Bush invaded Iraq, Clinton did not. That makes Bush 100 times more
guilty. I don't play Greg Fretwell's game of "same-same."



--
Religion: together we can find the cure.

"F.O.A.D." wrote:
On 11/15/13, 4:25 PM, Califbill wrote:
"F.O.A.D." wrote:
On 11/15/13, 4:02 PM, Califbill wrote:
"F.O.A.D." wrote:
On 11/15/13, 3:17 PM, Califbill wrote:
"F.O.A.D." wrote:
On 11/15/13, 3:08 PM, Califbill wrote:
"F.O.A.D." wrote:
On 11/15/13, 2:06 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 11/15/2013 12:24 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 15 Nov 2013 10:48:54 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

Bernie Sanders:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dq-xjwgol4Q

Bernie uses a lot of platitudes that are not exactly true in his
tirades against the job makers.

The Clinton "surplus" was mostly projections based on the dot com
bubble never ending.

The cost of the Iraq war is inflated. We were already in an Iraq war
when Bush came in and it wasn't cheap then. Pension costs are going to
be there no matter what.

The tax cuts were across the board, not just for the rich. That is why
almost half of the people pay no income taxes at all.



Clinton's "surplus" was also a result of excess Social Security revenues
that were transferred to the General Fund. The excesses were the result
of a robust but artificial economy based on dot.com companies that never
produced a product. The transfer of excess SS revenues to the General
Fund is legal but it's a bit of creative accounting to claim it erased
the deficit and produced a surplus.


I'm sorry, I must have missed the off budget accounting for the two
wars Bush started.


Actually, they were wars Clinton was involved in, and Bush just continued.


Oh, right, because Clinton dispatched so many troops into Iraq and
Afghanistan. Right, I get it...Bush just "continued" the wars.



How much was that Naval carrier groups and bombing and missile firing
costing? Nothing? Not likely! How much did the Balkans cost? Somalia?
All Clinton failures!


You were discussing Bush's "continuation" of Clinton's
non-troop-involvement-on-Iraqi-Afghani soil. But I can play along with
stupid. How much did our involvement in the Balkans cost in terms of
American deaths and expenditures and time and our involvement in Somalia,
in the same terms, compared to Bush's misadventures in Iraq and Afghanistan?

Oh, and our involvement in the Yugoslav wars was a restoration of peace
mission. It succeeded. In the Battle of Mogadishu, 18 U.S. troops were
killed. In the attack on the Beirut barracks during the Reagan
Administration, about 300 U.S. and French service personnel were killed.
You know, I don't recall any "Benghazi" bull**** claims against Reagan
from the Dems back then.


Clinton failed in getting those 18 killed. Neglected to supply the men on
the ground with adequate equipment. Just because it is an air war, does
not mean it is free. Nor that the war can be won. More likely, just means
lots of people get killed, and nothing is resolved. 1920s, an Italian
general named Giulio Douhet had the theory of massive air bombardment
would win wars without ground troops. Did that work in WW2? Viet Nam?
Iraq? Clinton just farted around with 8 years of spending and killing, and
accomplished nothing. Should Bush have sent in massive ground troops. In
my opinion, NO. He should have sent in a couple Delta Teams to kill
Saddam, or instead of bombing the radar sites, drop bombs on all known
Saddam abodes.


Nice wiggling and subject changing. I'm sure that works at your tea bagger socials.


No wiggling and subject changing. You tried to say Iraq was Bush's fault.
He had enough guilt, but so did Clinton. Al Gore is probably very happy he
did not have to deal with 9/11 or Katrina.


Bush invaded Iraq, Clinton did not. That makes Bush 100 times more
guilty. I don't play Greg Fretwell's game of "same-same."




I guess someone is not attacking you at your house, if they do not break
down the front or rear door, and just lob bullets or explosives at your
house from a distance. You do not have a right to shoot your shotgun at
them as they are not breaking in.

"F.O.A.D." wrote:
On 11/15/13, 4:25 PM, Califbill wrote:
"F.O.A.D." wrote:
On 11/15/13, 4:02 PM, Califbill wrote:
"F.O.A.D." wrote:
On 11/15/13, 3:17 PM, Califbill wrote:
"F.O.A.D." wrote:
On 11/15/13, 3:08 PM, Califbill wrote:
"F.O.A.D." wrote:
On 11/15/13, 2:06 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 11/15/2013 12:24 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 15 Nov 2013 10:48:54 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

Bernie Sanders:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dq-xjwgol4Q

Bernie uses a lot of platitudes that are not exactly true in his
tirades against the job makers.

The Clinton "surplus" was mostly projections based on the dot com
bubble never ending.

The cost of the Iraq war is inflated. We were already in an Iraq war
when Bush came in and it wasn't cheap then. Pension costs are going to
be there no matter what.

The tax cuts were across the board, not just for the rich. That is why
almost half of the people pay no income taxes at all.



Clinton's "surplus" was also a result of excess Social Security revenues
that were transferred to the General Fund. The excesses were the result
of a robust but artificial economy based on dot.com companies that never
produced a product. The transfer of excess SS revenues to the General
Fund is legal but it's a bit of creative accounting to claim it erased
the deficit and produced a surplus.


I'm sorry, I must have missed the off budget accounting for the two
wars Bush started.


Actually, they were wars Clinton was involved in, and Bush just continued.


Oh, right, because Clinton dispatched so many troops into Iraq and
Afghanistan. Right, I get it...Bush just "continued" the wars.



How much was that Naval carrier groups and bombing and missile firing
costing? Nothing? Not likely! How much did the Balkans cost? Somalia?
All Clinton failures!


You were discussing Bush's "continuation" of Clinton's
non-troop-involvement-on-Iraqi-Afghani soil. But I can play along with
stupid. How much did our involvement in the Balkans cost in terms of
American deaths and expenditures and time and our involvement in Somalia,
in the same terms, compared to Bush's misadventures in Iraq and Afghanistan?

Oh, and our involvement in the Yugoslav wars was a restoration of peace
mission. It succeeded. In the Battle of Mogadishu, 18 U.S. troops were
killed. In the attack on the Beirut barracks during the Reagan
Administration, about 300 U.S. and French service personnel were killed.
You know, I don't recall any "Benghazi" bull**** claims against Reagan
from the Dems back then.


Clinton failed in getting those 18 killed. Neglected to supply the men on
the ground with adequate equipment. Just because it is an air war, does
not mean it is free. Nor that the war can be won. More likely, just means
lots of people get killed, and nothing is resolved. 1920s, an Italian
general named Giulio Douhet had the theory of massive air bombardment
would win wars without ground troops. Did that work in WW2? Viet Nam?
Iraq? Clinton just farted around with 8 years of spending and killing, and
accomplished nothing. Should Bush have sent in massive ground troops. In
my opinion, NO. He should have sent in a couple Delta Teams to kill
Saddam, or instead of bombing the radar sites, drop bombs on all known
Saddam abodes.


Nice wiggling and subject changing. I'm sure that works at your tea bagger socials.


No wiggling and subject changing. You tried to say Iraq was Bush's fault.
He had enough guilt, but so did Clinton. Al Gore is probably very happy he
did not have to deal with 9/11 or Katrina.


Bush invaded Iraq, Clinton did not. That makes Bush 100 times more
guilty. I don't play Greg Fretwell's game of "same-same."




Clinton attacked Iraq hundreds, probably thousands of times!

On 11/15/13, 5:17 PM, Califbill wrote:
"F.O.A.D." wrote:
On 11/15/13, 4:25 PM, Califbill wrote:
"F.O.A.D." wrote:
On 11/15/13, 4:02 PM, Califbill wrote:
"F.O.A.D." wrote:
On 11/15/13, 3:17 PM, Califbill wrote:
"F.O.A.D." wrote:
On 11/15/13, 3:08 PM, Califbill wrote:
"F.O.A.D." wrote:
On 11/15/13, 2:06 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 11/15/2013 12:24 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 15 Nov 2013 10:48:54 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

Bernie Sanders:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dq-xjwgol4Q

Bernie uses a lot of platitudes that are not exactly true in his
tirades against the job makers.

The Clinton "surplus" was mostly projections based on the dot com
bubble never ending.

The cost of the Iraq war is inflated. We were already in an Iraq war
when Bush came in and it wasn't cheap then. Pension costs are going to
be there no matter what.

The tax cuts were across the board, not just for the rich. That is why
almost half of the people pay no income taxes at all.



Clinton's "surplus" was also a result of excess Social Security revenues
that were transferred to the General Fund. The excesses were the result
of a robust but artificial economy based on dot.com companies that never
produced a product. The transfer of excess SS revenues to the General
Fund is legal but it's a bit of creative accounting to claim it erased
the deficit and produced a surplus.


I'm sorry, I must have missed the off budget accounting for the two
wars Bush started.


Actually, they were wars Clinton was involved in, and Bush just continued.


Oh, right, because Clinton dispatched so many troops into Iraq and
Afghanistan. Right, I get it...Bush just "continued" the wars.



How much was that Naval carrier groups and bombing and missile firing
costing? Nothing? Not likely! How much did the Balkans cost? Somalia?
All Clinton failures!


You were discussing Bush's "continuation" of Clinton's
non-troop-involvement-on-Iraqi-Afghani soil. But I can play along with
stupid. How much did our involvement in the Balkans cost in terms of
American deaths and expenditures and time and our involvement in Somalia,
in the same terms, compared to Bush's misadventures in Iraq and Afghanistan?

Oh, and our involvement in the Yugoslav wars was a restoration of peace
mission. It succeeded. In the Battle of Mogadishu, 18 U.S. troops were
killed. In the attack on the Beirut barracks during the Reagan
Administration, about 300 U.S. and French service personnel were killed.
You know, I don't recall any "Benghazi" bull**** claims against Reagan
from the Dems back then.


Clinton failed in getting those 18 killed. Neglected to supply the men on
the ground with adequate equipment. Just because it is an air war, does
not mean it is free. Nor that the war can be won. More likely, just means
lots of people get killed, and nothing is resolved. 1920s, an Italian
general named Giulio Douhet had the theory of massive air bombardment
would win wars without ground troops. Did that work in WW2? Viet Nam?
Iraq? Clinton just farted around with 8 years of spending and killing, and
accomplished nothing. Should Bush have sent in massive ground troops. In
my opinion, NO. He should have sent in a couple Delta Teams to kill
Saddam, or instead of bombing the radar sites, drop bombs on all known
Saddam abodes.


Nice wiggling and subject changing. I'm sure that works at your tea bagger socials.


No wiggling and subject changing. You tried to say Iraq was Bush's fault.
He had enough guilt, but so did Clinton. Al Gore is probably very happy he
did not have to deal with 9/11 or Katrina.


Bush invaded Iraq, Clinton did not. That makes Bush 100 times more
guilty. I don't play Greg Fretwell's game of "same-same."




Clinton attacked Iraq hundreds, probably thousands of times!


*invade* Bill. *invade* U.S. Troops on the ground in Iraq. And for no
good reason aside from Bush's ego and his administration's lies.

Q. Why did George W. Bush invade Iraq?

A. Because he failed to capture Osama bin Laden, and he needed something
really dramatic to convince the American voters he had what it took to
be re-elected.,



--
Religion: together we can find the cure.