F*O*A*D wrote:
On 7/13/14, 9:01 PM, Califbill wrote:
F*O*A*D wrote:
On 7/13/14, 7:06 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 13 Jul 2014 18:19:18 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 7/13/14, 6:15 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 13 Jul 2014 17:59:21 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 7/13/14, 4:50 PM, wrote:

The Israelis would have assassinated him.

That would be harder to do than you seem to admit.


I didn't say or imply it would have been easy.

It is far more likely that they would have started a campaign of air
strikes and other stand off missions until this escalated into a real
war. Then the US would be faced with joining Israel and waging war
against half of the rest of the world, including countries we like to
call our allies.
World wars have started from far less.


Speculate away to fit your world view, eh?

We really don't have to. We will be able to see it play out again in
Iran. You better hope Hillary doesn't win or you may see the whole
process repeated.



I'm hoping Hillary or any other Dem who gets the nomination wins in 2016.
We don't need any of the bat**** crazy Repugnants in the White House, and
as far as can been seen, every one of the Repugnant front runners is bat**** crazy.

I've actually seen some Repugnants favorably discussing the ticket of Ted
Cruz and Allen West, and Ted Cruz and Herman Cain, and Ted Cruz and that
crazy old doctor whose name I cannot recall. Those sorts of Repugnant
ticket possibilities make us Dems smile.


Speculate away to fit your world view, eh?



You should look up the definition of speculate, d'ohboy. You obviously
don't know what it means.


I think your advice should be self administered by you.

wrote:
On Sun, 13 Jul 2014 20:01:19 -0500, Califbill
wrote:

F*O*A*D wrote:
On 7/13/14, 7:06 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 13 Jul 2014 18:19:18 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 7/13/14, 6:15 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 13 Jul 2014 17:59:21 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 7/13/14, 4:50 PM, wrote:

The Israelis would have assassinated him.

That would be harder to do than you seem to admit.


I didn't say or imply it would have been easy.

It is far more likely that they would have started a campaign of air
strikes and other stand off missions until this escalated into a real
war. Then the US would be faced with joining Israel and waging war
against half of the rest of the world, including countries we like to
call our allies.
World wars have started from far less.


Speculate away to fit your world view, eh?

We really don't have to. We will be able to see it play out again in
Iran. You better hope Hillary doesn't win or you may see the whole
process repeated.



I'm hoping Hillary or any other Dem who gets the nomination wins in 2016.
We don't need any of the bat**** crazy Repugnants in the White House, and
as far as can been seen, every one of the Repugnant front runners is bat**** crazy.

I've actually seen some Repugnants favorably discussing the ticket of Ted
Cruz and Allen West, and Ted Cruz and Herman Cain, and Ted Cruz and that
crazy old doctor whose name I cannot recall. Those sorts of Repugnant
ticket possibilities make us Dems smile.


Speculate away to fit your world view, eh?

I am not sure which democrats Harry thinks would do things differently

If you look at the vote on H. J. Res. 107-114 (the authorization to
invade Iraq), all of his favorites are there voting yes.
Clinton
Biden
Kerry
Dodd
Lieberman
Feinstein
Reid
Schumer

Heck, Mr. Clinton spent billions of bucks waging an air and missile war
upon Iraq. Same as getting us in to a war in the Balkans. No matter no
ground troops, was still an expensive war. The Dem's seem to like war
mongering. A lot. WW2, Korea, Viet Nam was originally Truman, but Ike got
us in deeper, and LBJ kicked up to really gross levels. Most Democrats.

On Sunday, July 13, 2014 8:17:10 AM UTC-7, wrote:
On Sun, 13 Jul 2014 09:13:06 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"

wrote:





Precisely. Clinton talked about the problems with Iraq but was smart

enough not to invade it and stick around, while Bush was dumb enough to

be talked into invading Iraq and sticking around. Clinton was smart

while Bush was...Bush.



BTW, I don't *hate* Bush. Why do you conservatives toss that "hate" word

around so much? I think Bush was a total failure, a moron, and a man

easily manipulated by the neocons, but I don't hate him.







400 cruise missiles fired into suspected weapons facilities by Clinton

wasn't exactly "talking" about the problem. Plus, it wasn't just

Clinton. It was most of Congress and Clinton's entire Cabinet that were

warning of WMDs in Iraq and Hussein's increasing refusal to adhere to

the UN Resolutions agreed to after the Gulf War.



Clinton called Saddam "the greatest threat to peace" and, by signing

the "Iraq Liberation Act" in 1998, officially established a US policy

calling for regime change in Iraq.



Seems to me that the seeds for the invasion of Iraq were planted long

before Bush took office and the reasons for planting the seeds were

pretty much the same ones that you complain about so often today.





Harry keeps forgetting that his sweety, Hillary, was one of the

biggest supporters of that invasion, along with the rest of the neocon

democrats. The vote in congress was bi-partisan and very lopsided.

Krause is a *true believer* that cannot be convinced differently, regardless of any sound presentation of truthful evidence.

On 7/14/2014 12:43 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 13 Jul 2014 20:01:19 -0500, Califbill
wrote:

F*O*A*D wrote:
On 7/13/14, 7:06 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 13 Jul 2014 18:19:18 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 7/13/14, 6:15 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 13 Jul 2014 17:59:21 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 7/13/14, 4:50 PM, wrote:

The Israelis would have assassinated him.

That would be harder to do than you seem to admit.


I didn't say or imply it would have been easy.

It is far more likely that they would have started a campaign of air
strikes and other stand off missions until this escalated into a real
war. Then the US would be faced with joining Israel and waging war
against half of the rest of the world, including countries we like to
call our allies.
World wars have started from far less.


Speculate away to fit your world view, eh?

We really don't have to. We will be able to see it play out again in
Iran. You better hope Hillary doesn't win or you may see the whole
process repeated.



I'm hoping Hillary or any other Dem who gets the nomination wins in 2016.
We don't need any of the bat**** crazy Repugnants in the White House, and
as far as can been seen, every one of the Repugnant front runners is bat**** crazy.

I've actually seen some Repugnants favorably discussing the ticket of Ted
Cruz and Allen West, and Ted Cruz and Herman Cain, and Ted Cruz and that
crazy old doctor whose name I cannot recall. Those sorts of Repugnant
ticket possibilities make us Dems smile.


Speculate away to fit your world view, eh?

I am not sure which democrats Harry thinks would do things differently

If you look at the vote on H. J. Res. 107-114 (the authorization to
invade Iraq), all of his favorites are there voting yes.
Clinton
Biden
Kerry
Dodd
Lieberman
Feinstein
Reid
Schumer



Plus, ex-President Bill Clinton, Al Gore, Madeline Albright and others
of Bill Clinton's cabinet indicated their support of the invasion. So,
in Harry's mind were all these people smart before they became stupid
and then became smart again?

On 7/14/2014 1:44 AM, Tom Nofinger wrote:
On Sunday, July 13, 2014 8:17:10 AM UTC-7, wrote:
On Sun, 13 Jul 2014 09:13:06 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"

wrote:





Precisely. Clinton talked about the problems with Iraq but was smart

enough not to invade it and stick around, while Bush was dumb enough to

be talked into invading Iraq and sticking around. Clinton was smart

while Bush was...Bush.



BTW, I don't *hate* Bush. Why do you conservatives toss that "hate" word

around so much? I think Bush was a total failure, a moron, and a man

easily manipulated by the neocons, but I don't hate him.







400 cruise missiles fired into suspected weapons facilities by Clinton

wasn't exactly "talking" about the problem. Plus, it wasn't just

Clinton. It was most of Congress and Clinton's entire Cabinet that were

warning of WMDs in Iraq and Hussein's increasing refusal to adhere to

the UN Resolutions agreed to after the Gulf War.



Clinton called Saddam "the greatest threat to peace" and, by signing

the "Iraq Liberation Act" in 1998, officially established a US policy

calling for regime change in Iraq.



Seems to me that the seeds for the invasion of Iraq were planted long

before Bush took office and the reasons for planting the seeds were

pretty much the same ones that you complain about so often today.





Harry keeps forgetting that his sweety, Hillary, was one of the

biggest supporters of that invasion, along with the rest of the neocon

democrats. The vote in congress was bi-partisan and very lopsided.

Krause is a *true believer* that cannot be convinced differently, regardless of any sound presentation of truthful evidence.



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.

You are correct. It's a religious experience for Harry. History and
facts don't matter if they offend or are at odds with his worship of
everything liberal and Democratic.

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?


--
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 8:04 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?

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.



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

In article , says...

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?

That resolution was sold one year after 9-11.
Cheney said AQ was in Iraq. You have to assume the VP knows what he's
talking about, and is sincere.
The biggest mistake the Senators made was in trusting GWB's judgment.
But the drums of war were beating due to 9-11, he was popular, and mid-
term elections were near.
I remember it well, and it was sold as getting Saddam's compliance
regarding inspections or a UN resolution for war.
But the UN wouldn't go for war because Iraq came into full compliance
as far as allowing access to its inspection teams, and the teams were
finding nothing.
The Iraq War resolution forced Saddam to give Hans Blix - leader of the
UN inspection teams - access to every spot in Iraq, including Saddam's
palaces.
The war was unnecessary. GW Bush and team engineered it, and pulled the
trigger on it. It's part of their legacy.
It's silly to blame anybody else.

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.