On 7/14/14, 10:33 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 7/14/2014 10:00 AM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 7/14/14, 9:55 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 7/14/2014 8:04 AM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 7/14/14, 7:22 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:



He also ignores the fact that the Bush administration used the same
arguments in support of taking military action against Iraq that Bill
Clinton and his administration had used. In fact, it was Bill Clinton
who signed the Iraq Liberation Act (voted on and passed by the United
States Congress) that established a US policy calling for regime
change
in Iraq. Reasons were the continued and increasing defiance of UN
Resolutions by Saddam Hussein.

Bush and Co. executed that policy.


Clinton was smart enough not to. Got it?



But fully supported the decision when Bush did.

Clinton lobbed 400 cruise missiles into Iraq for the same reasons.
Didn't change anything.

Bush finished what Clinton started.

Got it?




Of course Clinton supported it, just like presidents once out of office
either support or say next to nothing about their successors. Politics
and courtesy.

Clinton did not invade Iraq, no matter how many ways you try to spin it.




I have not claimed that he did. He set the stage however by endorsing
that a regime change was necessary in Iraq and tried to exert some
military influence to no avail. Bush inherited the continuum of issues
and, despite about 17 months of trying to persuade Saddam to comply or
leave, decided that the time for regime change had come.

I know you don't like to hear that a Democrat contributed in any way to
the invasion of Iraq but the reality of what happened cannot be swept
under the rug.






My point is and has been that Clinton was too smart to invade Iraq or be
talked into it. Bush wasn't as smart. That's it.

--
Republicans . . . the anti-immigrant, anti-contraception, anti-student,
anti-middle class, pro-impeachment party that shut down the government
last year for no reason.

On 7/14/14, 11:03 AM, wrote:

I know you don't care about that because they are just brown people.

Iraqis aren't "brown" people.

--
Republicans . . . the anti-immigrant, anti-contraception, anti-student,
anti-middle class, pro-impeachment party that shut down the government
last year for no reason.

On 7/14/2014 8:00 AM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 7/14/14, 9:55 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 7/14/2014 8:04 AM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 7/14/14, 7:22 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:



He also ignores the fact that the Bush administration used the same
arguments in support of taking military action against Iraq that Bill
Clinton and his administration had used. In fact, it was Bill Clinton
who signed the Iraq Liberation Act (voted on and passed by the United
States Congress) that established a US policy calling for regime
change
in Iraq. Reasons were the continued and increasing defiance of UN
Resolutions by Saddam Hussein.

Bush and Co. executed that policy.


Clinton was smart enough not to. Got it?



But fully supported the decision when Bush did.

Clinton lobbed 400 cruise missiles into Iraq for the same reasons.
Didn't change anything.

Bush finished what Clinton started.

Got it?




Of course Clinton supported it, just like presidents once out of office
either support or say next to nothing about their successors. Politics
and courtesy.

Clinton did not invade Iraq, no matter how many ways you try to spin it.



No doubt O'Bama will be blaming his failures on Bush. Bama is a CYA kind
of guy. He'll break courtesy and protocol, just watch.

--
"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the
government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of
taking care of them".
Thomas Jefferson

On 7/14/14, 12:16 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 14 Jul 2014 11:00:38 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

My point is and has been that Clinton was too smart to invade Iraq or be
talked into it. Bush wasn't as smart. That's it.

The democratic leadership in the democratically controlled Senate
agreed with him.
It was only the GOP controlled house that had any serious debate about
it.


Once again, in case you missed it, Clinton was too smart to invade
Iraq or be talked into it. Bush wasn't as smart.


--
Republicans . . . the anti-immigrant, anti-contraception, anti-student,
anti-middle class, pro-impeachment party that shut down the government
last year for no reason.

On 7/14/14, 12:17 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 14 Jul 2014 11:20:02 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 7/14/14, 11:03 AM, wrote:

I know you don't care about that because they are just brown people.

Iraqis aren't "brown" people.

They are browner than you



What does that mean? I almost went into an import/export business in the
1980s with an Iraq and an Egyptian, both naturalized Americans. I was
darker skinned than the Iraqi and a little lighter skinned than the
Egyptian. I have some Italian-born friends whose kids are strawberry
blondes and some American-born friends of Italian descent whose skin is
darker than mine. The point is with skin color, at least as far as I am
concerned, is that some folks have better tans than other folks.

--
Republicans . . . the anti-immigrant, anti-contraception, anti-student,
anti-middle class, pro-impeachment party that shut down the government
last year for no reason.

Harry, tan or no tan, I'll bet you're not browner than me. ?;^)

On 7/14/2014 9:20 AM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 7/14/14, 11:03 AM, wrote:

I know you don't care about that because they are just brown people.

Iraqis aren't "brown" people.

WHAT COLOR DO YOU PERCEIVE THEM TO BE?

--
"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the
government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of
taking care of them".
Thomas Jefferson

On 7/14/14, 12:43 PM, Tim wrote:
Harry, tan or no tan, I'll bet you're not browner than me. ?;^)


So, you have a better tan than I do. Welcome to the club.

--
Republicans . . . the anti-immigrant, anti-contraception, anti-student,
anti-middle class, pro-impeachment party that shut down the government
last year for no reason.

On 7/14/2014 10:17 AM, wrote:
On Mon, 14 Jul 2014 11:20:02 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 7/14/14, 11:03 AM, wrote:

I know you don't care about that because they are just brown people.

Iraqis aren't "brown" people.

They are browner than you

Browner than a Commie Pinko. No doubt about it.

--
"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the
government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of
taking care of them".
Thomas Jefferson

On 7/14/14, 12:58 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 14 Jul 2014 12:24:22 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 7/14/14, 12:17 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 14 Jul 2014 11:20:02 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 7/14/14, 11:03 AM, wrote:

I know you don't care about that because they are just brown people.

Iraqis aren't "brown" people.

They are browner than you



What does that mean? I almost went into an import/export business in the
1980s with an Iraq and an Egyptian, both naturalized Americans. I was
darker skinned than the Iraqi and a little lighter skinned than the
Egyptian. I have some Italian-born friends whose kids are strawberry
blondes and some American-born friends of Italian descent whose skin is
darker than mine. The point is with skin color, at least as far as I am
concerned, is that some folks have better tans than other folks.

There are exceptions to everything. If it wasn't for the crusades, all
of these people would be as dark as jesus.

Would you have been happier if I just said 3d world people?



What do you mean by "Third World"? Less developed, non-aligned? What?
Not that such terms matter to me any more than skin color. Why are you
so hung up on these mostly passe descriptors?

You've certainly taken this far afield.

--
Republicans . . . the anti-immigrant, anti-contraception, anti-student,
anti-middle class, pro-impeachment party that shut down the government
last year for no reason.