|
Well Ray....
|
Well Ray....
|
Well Ray....
wrote:
On Wed, 9 Jul 2014 04:40:06 -0700 (PDT), Tim wrote: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/s...,7880506.story Get ready to say goodbye to 'chocolate city' They never addressed the diversion of federal money intended to strengthen the levees before Katrina. That was the real crime. He used it to prop up shipping interests in New Orleans and screw the poor, mostly black, people in the 9th ward. They couldn't contribute much to his campaign and they would vote for him anyway. I was helping Habitat For Humanity in Slidell after Katrina. Nagen was running for reelection. One local was voting for him. When asked why, seeing his performance, she said what do you expect, he was mayor for only 2 years before. Sad. |
Well Ray....
Califbill wrote:
wrote: On Wed, 9 Jul 2014 04:40:06 -0700 (PDT), Tim wrote: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/s...,7880506.story Get ready to say goodbye to 'chocolate city' They never addressed the diversion of federal money intended to strengthen the levees before Katrina. That was the real crime. He used it to prop up shipping interests in New Orleans and screw the poor, mostly black, people in the 9th ward. They couldn't contribute much to his campaign and they would vote for him anyway. I was helping Habitat For Humanity in Slidell after Katrina. Nagen was running for reelection. One local was voting for him. When asked why, seeing his performance, she said what do you expect, he was mayor for only 2 years before. Sad. Sorry, Nagin. |
Well Ray....
On Wednesday, July 9, 2014 11:45:54 PM UTC-7, Califbill wrote:
Califbill wrote: wrote: On Wed, 9 Jul 2014 04:40:06 -0700 (PDT), Tim wrote: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/s...,7880506.story Get ready to say goodbye to 'chocolate city' They never addressed the diversion of federal money intended to strengthen the levees before Katrina. That was the real crime. He used it to prop up shipping interests in New Orleans and screw the poor, mostly black, people in the 9th ward. They couldn't contribute much to his campaign and they would vote for him anyway. I was helping Habitat For Humanity in Slidell after Katrina. Nagen was running for reelection. One local was voting for him. When asked why, seeing his performance, she said what do you expect, he was mayor for only 2 years before. Sad. Sorry, Nagin. Looks like Ray got 10 years. But over a bit of time I'm sure it will get reduced, and if he ran again for Mayor of N.O. he'd probably be re-elected.Then write a book and make the talk circuit. Hey, It worked for Marion Barry in DC. http://www.wwltv.com/news/Nagin-sent...266311411.html |
Well Ray....
On Sat, 12 Jul 2014 14:22:45 -0700 (PDT), Tim wrote:
On Wednesday, July 9, 2014 11:45:54 PM UTC-7, Califbill wrote: Califbill wrote: wrote: On Wed, 9 Jul 2014 04:40:06 -0700 (PDT), Tim wrote: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/s...,7880506.story Get ready to say goodbye to 'chocolate city' They never addressed the diversion of federal money intended to strengthen the levees before Katrina. That was the real crime. He used it to prop up shipping interests in New Orleans and screw the poor, mostly black, people in the 9th ward. They couldn't contribute much to his campaign and they would vote for him anyway. I was helping Habitat For Humanity in Slidell after Katrina. Nagen was running for reelection. One local was voting for him. When asked why, seeing his performance, she said what do you expect, he was mayor for only 2 years before. Sad. Sorry, Nagin. Looks like Ray got 10 years. But over a bit of time I'm sure it will get reduced, and if he ran again for Mayor of N.O. he'd probably be re-elected.Then write a book and make the talk circuit. Hey, It worked for Marion Barry in DC. http://www.wwltv.com/news/Nagin-sent...266311411.html They'd re-elect Barry in a minute. I keep waiting for his book, "I was a Cocaine Pushing Mayor". |
Well Ray....
On 7/12/14, 5:22 PM, Tim wrote:
On Wednesday, July 9, 2014 11:45:54 PM UTC-7, Califbill wrote: Califbill wrote: wrote: On Wed, 9 Jul 2014 04:40:06 -0700 (PDT), Tim wrote: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/s...,7880506.story Get ready to say goodbye to 'chocolate city' They never addressed the diversion of federal money intended to strengthen the levees before Katrina. That was the real crime. He used it to prop up shipping interests in New Orleans and screw the poor, mostly black, people in the 9th ward. They couldn't contribute much to his campaign and they would vote for him anyway. I was helping Habitat For Humanity in Slidell after Katrina. Nagen was running for reelection. One local was voting for him. When asked why, seeing his performance, she said what do you expect, he was mayor for only 2 years before. Sad. Sorry, Nagin. Looks like Ray got 10 years. But over a bit of time I'm sure it will get reduced, and if he ran again for Mayor of N.O. he'd probably be re-elected.Then write a book and make the talk circuit. Hey, It worked for Marion Barry in DC. http://www.wwltv.com/news/Nagin-sent...266311411.html And yet, dick cheney, who did a lot more damage, is still running around free and heartless. -- Republicans . . . the anti-immigrant, anti-contraception, anti-student, anti-middle class, pro-impeachment party that shut down the government last year for no reason. |
Well Ray....
On 7/12/2014 5:28 PM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 7/12/14, 5:22 PM, Tim wrote: On Wednesday, July 9, 2014 11:45:54 PM UTC-7, Califbill wrote: Califbill wrote: wrote: On Wed, 9 Jul 2014 04:40:06 -0700 (PDT), Tim wrote: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/s...,7880506.story Get ready to say goodbye to 'chocolate city' They never addressed the diversion of federal money intended to strengthen the levees before Katrina. That was the real crime. He used it to prop up shipping interests in New Orleans and screw the poor, mostly black, people in the 9th ward. They couldn't contribute much to his campaign and they would vote for him anyway. I was helping Habitat For Humanity in Slidell after Katrina. Nagen was running for reelection. One local was voting for him. When asked why, seeing his performance, she said what do you expect, he was mayor for only 2 years before. Sad. Sorry, Nagin. Looks like Ray got 10 years. But over a bit of time I'm sure it will get reduced, and if he ran again for Mayor of N.O. he'd probably be re-elected.Then write a book and make the talk circuit. Hey, It worked for Marion Barry in DC. http://www.wwltv.com/news/Nagin-sent...266311411.html And yet, dick cheney, who did a lot more damage, is still running around free and heartless. You certainly aren't any stranger to heartless runarounds. -- "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 |
Well Ray....
On Saturday, July 12, 2014 3:28:20 PM UTC-7, F*O*A*D wrote:
And yet, dick cheney, who did a lot more damage, is still running around free and heartless. Harry in case you didn't notice, we weren't talking about Cheney, we were talking about Nagin. |
Well Ray....
On 7/12/2014 8:36 PM, Tim wrote:
On Saturday, July 12, 2014 3:28:20 PM UTC-7, F*O*A*D wrote: And yet, dick cheney, who did a lot more damage, is still running around free and heartless. Harry in case you didn't notice, we weren't talking about Cheney, we were talking about Nagin. Harry doesn't have the mental capacity to follow a conversation... |
Well Ray....
On 7/12/14, 8:36 PM, Tim wrote:
On Saturday, July 12, 2014 3:28:20 PM UTC-7, F*O*A*D wrote: And yet, dick cheney, who did a lot more damage, is still running around free and heartless. Harry in case you didn't notice, we weren't talking about Cheney, we were talking about Nagin. Cheney is a far more serious criminal. -- Republicans . . . the anti-immigrant, anti-contraception, anti-student, anti-middle class, pro-impeachment party that shut down the government last year for no reason. |
Well Ray....
|
Well Ray....
|
Well Ray....
On Saturday, July 12, 2014 3:28:20 PM UTC-7, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 7/12/14, 5:22 PM, Tim wrote: On Wednesday, July 9, 2014 11:45:54 PM UTC-7, Califbill wrote: Califbill wrote: wrote: On Wed, 9 Jul 2014 04:40:06 -0700 (PDT), Tim wrote: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/s...,7880506.story Get ready to say goodbye to 'chocolate city' They never addressed the diversion of federal money intended to strengthen the levees before Katrina. That was the real crime. He used it to prop up shipping interests in New Orleans and screw the poor, mostly black, people in the 9th ward. They couldn't contribute much to his campaign and they would vote for him anyway. I was helping Habitat For Humanity in Slidell after Katrina. Nagen was running for reelection. One local was voting for him. When asked why, seeing his performance, she said what do you expect, he was mayor for only 2 years before. Sad. Sorry, Nagin. Looks like Ray got 10 years. But over a bit of time I'm sure it will get reduced, and if he ran again for Mayor of N.O. he'd probably be re-elected.Then write a book and make the talk circuit. Hey, It worked for Marion Barry in DC. http://www.wwltv.com/news/Nagin-sent...266311411.html And yet, dick cheney, who did a lot more damage, is still running around free and heartless. -- Republicans . . . the anti-immigrant, anti-contraception, anti-student, anti-middle class, pro-impeachment party that shut down the government last year for no reason. I see Krause could stand by no longer and watch his comrade Nagin be crucified and had to hop aboard and try to ricochet the thread. Poor Krause |
Well Ray....
On Saturday, July 12, 2014 5:58:20 PM UTC-7, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 7/12/14, 8:36 PM, Tim wrote: On Saturday, July 12, 2014 3:28:20 PM UTC-7, F*O*A*D wrote: And yet, dick cheney, who did a lot more damage, is still running around free and heartless. Harry in case you didn't notice, we weren't talking about Cheney, we were talking about Nagin. Cheney is a far more serious criminal. -- Republicans . . . the anti-immigrant, anti-contraception, anti-student, anti-middle class, pro-impeachment party that shut down the government last year for no reason. Why was he not prosecuted? |
Well Ray....
On Saturday, July 12, 2014 6:17:59 PM UTC-7, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 7/12/14, 9:04 PM, wrote: On Sat, 12 Jul 2014 20:58:20 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote: On 7/12/14, 8:36 PM, Tim wrote: On Saturday, July 12, 2014 3:28:20 PM UTC-7, F*O*A*D wrote: And yet, dick cheney, who did a lot more damage, is still running around free and heartless. Harry in case you didn't notice, we weren't talking about Cheney, we were talking about Nagin. Cheney is a far more serious criminal. What crime Cooking the intel. -- Republicans . . . the anti-immigrant, anti-contraception, anti-student, anti-middle class, pro-impeachment party that shut down the government last year for no reason. Cooking the Intel? Like you cooking the books at Unico? Krause your argument is so out of date. And by the way, your signature line shows how little thought you actually have left to process |
Well Ray....
On Saturday, July 12, 2014 6:06:22 PM UTC-7, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 7/12/14, 9:00 PM, wrote: On Sat, 12 Jul 2014 17:36:00 -0700 (PDT), Tim wrote: On Saturday, July 12, 2014 3:28:20 PM UTC-7, F*O*A*D wrote: And yet, dick cheney, who did a lot more damage, is still running around free and heartless. Harry in case you didn't notice, we weren't talking about Cheney, we were talking about Nagin. Harry can't help it, he is still obsessed with Bush and Cheney. This country is in an extended period of disaster thanks to Bush and Cheney, and it'll take us decades to recover, especially with a do-nothing Republican House. Bush was a total ****-up as a president, and Cheney was the master criminal. Oh, Krause is showing a sign of despiration now. I see! |
Well Ray....
|
Well Ray....
|
Well Ray....
On Sun, 13 Jul 2014 09:49:12 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote: I agree that the ramifications of removing Saddam were not clearly understood, specifically the power struggle among the religious/political sects, but I don't think any of that was clearly understood during Clinton's watch either. === The ramifications were clearly understood by the Saudi's who tried to warn Bush that deposing Saddam would lead to instability in the region. They were right on the money with that call but no one in Bush's advisory group understood the warning and it went unheeded. Chalk it up to stupidity, brashness, naivete or whatever. |
Well Ray....
On 7/13/2014 11:33 AM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 7/13/14, 11:10 AM, wrote: On Sun, 13 Jul 2014 08:47:04 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote: The big difference is that while Clinton talked the talk, Bush walked the walk. http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/02/17/transcripts/clinton.iraq/ 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. Clinton was extremely lucky that his term was over in 2001 instead of 2002 or he would have been placed in the position of having to back up his rhetoric or back down. Al Gore lights a candle every day thanking the SCOTUS for Bush v Gore. How do you think things would have worked out if Saddam was still in Baghdad? The apologeticas for Bush just never end. :) They will end as soon as the lefties stop blaming Bush and Co. for everything they determine as being wrong with the country and realize that hindsight is 20/20. Serious mistakes have been made throughout history by representatives of both parties. It doesn't mean that at the time, with the information available, they weren't trying to do what they thought was best or right. |
Well Ray....
On 7/13/14, 12:07 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 7/13/2014 11:33 AM, F*O*A*D wrote: On 7/13/14, 11:10 AM, wrote: On Sun, 13 Jul 2014 08:47:04 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote: The big difference is that while Clinton talked the talk, Bush walked the walk. http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/02/17/transcripts/clinton.iraq/ 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. Clinton was extremely lucky that his term was over in 2001 instead of 2002 or he would have been placed in the position of having to back up his rhetoric or back down. Al Gore lights a candle every day thanking the SCOTUS for Bush v Gore. How do you think things would have worked out if Saddam was still in Baghdad? The apologeticas for Bush just never end. :) They will end as soon as the lefties stop blaming Bush and Co. for everything they determine as being wrong with the country and realize that hindsight is 20/20. Serious mistakes have been made throughout history by representatives of both parties. It doesn't mean that at the time, with the information available, they weren't trying to do what they thought was best or right. Bush left this country in ruins in many ways. It is going to take a long, long time to fix his damage. -- Republicans . . . the anti-immigrant, anti-contraception, anti-student, anti-middle class, pro-impeachment party that shut down the government last year for no reason. |
Well Ray....
On 7/13/14, 1:26 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 13 Jul 2014 11:33:57 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote: On 7/13/14, 11:10 AM, wrote: On Sun, 13 Jul 2014 08:47:04 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote: The big difference is that while Clinton talked the talk, Bush walked the walk. http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/02/17/transcripts/clinton.iraq/ 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. Clinton was extremely lucky that his term was over in 2001 instead of 2002 or he would have been placed in the position of having to back up his rhetoric or back down. Al Gore lights a candle every day thanking the SCOTUS for Bush v Gore. How do you think things would have worked out if Saddam was still in Baghdad? The apologeticas for Bush just never end. :) You still have not answered the question. What do you think would have happened if we did not depose Saddam? Would you be happy if Bush let him stay? Do you think the Israelis would have? How long would we have tolerated Saddam rebuilding his nuclear infrastructure? It is clear Europe was not going to stop him. The Israelis would have assassinated him. -- Republicans . . . the anti-immigrant, anti-contraception, anti-student, anti-middle class, pro-impeachment party that shut down the government last year for no reason. |
Well Ray....
On 7/13/2014 11:45 AM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 7/13/14, 12:07 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 7/13/2014 11:33 AM, F*O*A*D wrote: On 7/13/14, 11:10 AM, wrote: On Sun, 13 Jul 2014 08:47:04 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote: The big difference is that while Clinton talked the talk, Bush walked the walk. http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/02/17/transcripts/clinton.iraq/ 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. Clinton was extremely lucky that his term was over in 2001 instead of 2002 or he would have been placed in the position of having to back up his rhetoric or back down. Al Gore lights a candle every day thanking the SCOTUS for Bush v Gore. How do you think things would have worked out if Saddam was still in Baghdad? The apologeticas for Bush just never end. :) They will end as soon as the lefties stop blaming Bush and Co. for everything they determine as being wrong with the country and realize that hindsight is 20/20. Serious mistakes have been made throughout history by representatives of both parties. It doesn't mean that at the time, with the information available, they weren't trying to do what they thought was best or right. Bush left this country in ruins in many ways. It is going to take a long, long time to fix his damage. Once the campaigner in chief steps down the process will begin. -- "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 |
Well Ray....
On 7/13/14, 4:50 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 13 Jul 2014 13:46:05 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote: On 7/13/14, 1:26 PM, wrote: On Sun, 13 Jul 2014 11:33:57 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote: On 7/13/14, 11:10 AM, wrote: On Sun, 13 Jul 2014 08:47:04 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote: The big difference is that while Clinton talked the talk, Bush walked the walk. http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/02/17/transcripts/clinton.iraq/ 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. Clinton was extremely lucky that his term was over in 2001 instead of 2002 or he would have been placed in the position of having to back up his rhetoric or back down. Al Gore lights a candle every day thanking the SCOTUS for Bush v Gore. How do you think things would have worked out if Saddam was still in Baghdad? The apologeticas for Bush just never end. :) You still have not answered the question. What do you think would have happened if we did not depose Saddam? Would you be happy if Bush let him stay? Do you think the Israelis would have? How long would we have tolerated Saddam rebuilding his nuclear infrastructure? It is clear Europe was not going to stop him. 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. -- Republicans . . . the anti-immigrant, anti-contraception, anti-student, anti-middle class, pro-impeachment party that shut down the government last year for no reason. |
Well Ray....
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? -- Republicans . . . the anti-immigrant, anti-contraception, anti-student, anti-middle class, pro-impeachment party that shut down the government last year for no reason. |
Well Ray....
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. -- Republicans . . . the anti-immigrant, anti-contraception, anti-student, anti-middle class, pro-impeachment party that shut down the government last year for no reason. |
Well Ray....
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? |
Well Ray....
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. -- Republicans . . . the anti-immigrant, anti-contraception, anti-student, anti-middle class, pro-impeachment party that shut down the government last year for no reason. |
Well Ray....
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. |
Well Ray....
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. |
Well Ray....
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. |
Well Ray....
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? |
Well Ray....
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. |
Well Ray....
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. |
Well Ray....
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? |
Well Ray....
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. |
Well Ray....
|
Well Ray....
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. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:35 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com