Ten years ago this weekend George W. Bush vomited forth one of the more
reprehensible defenses of his debacle in Iraq. Nineteen months after
launching the invasion, 17 months after announcing "major combat
operations in Iraq have ended" and 14 after declaring "bring 'em on" to
the growing ranks of insurgents, President Bush offered this lone lament
in an August 29, 2004 interview with Time magazine:

"Had we had to do it [the invasion of Iraq] over again, we would
look at the consequences of catastrophic success - being so successful
so fast that an enemy that should have surrendered or been done in
escaped and lived to fight another day."

- - -

Thanks, Dubya, for ****ing over America to fulfill your fantasies and
lining the pockets of the military-industrial complex.

On 9/1/2014 12:35 PM, F*O*A*D wrote:
Ten years ago this weekend George W. Bush vomited forth one of the more
reprehensible defenses of his debacle in Iraq. Nineteen months after
launching the invasion, 17 months after announcing "major combat
operations in Iraq have ended" and 14 after declaring "bring 'em on" to
the growing ranks of insurgents, President Bush offered this lone lament
in an August 29, 2004 interview with Time magazine:

"Had we had to do it [the invasion of Iraq] over again, we would
look at the consequences of catastrophic success - being so successful
so fast that an enemy that should have surrendered or been done in
escaped and lived to fight another day."

- - -

Thanks, Dubya, for ****ing over America to fulfill your fantasies and
lining the pockets of the military-industrial complex.


Must be embarrassing for you to travel and show your passport, eh?

On 9/1/2014 11:35 AM, F*O*A*D wrote:
Ten years ago this weekend George W. Bush vomited forth one of the more
reprehensible defenses of his debacle in Iraq. Nineteen months after
launching the invasion, 17 months after announcing "major combat
operations in Iraq have ended" and 14 after declaring "bring 'em on" to
the growing ranks of insurgents, President Bush offered this lone lament
in an August 29, 2004 interview with Time magazine:

"Had we had to do it [the invasion of Iraq] over again, we would
look at the consequences of catastrophic success - being so successful
so fast that an enemy that should have surrendered or been done in
escaped and lived to fight another day."

- - -

Thanks, Dubya, for ****ing over America to fulfill your fantasies and
lining the pockets of the military-industrial complex.

How do you suppose O'Bama's re-invasions into Afghanistan, and soon
Iraq, will be remembered in history.

Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting
different results.
Attributed To Albert Einstein

On 9/1/14 2:07 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 01 Sep 2014 12:35:39 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

Thanks, Dubya, for ****ing over America to fulfill your fantasies and
lining the pockets of the military-industrial complex.

It is hard to name a president who didn't do that.
Carter springs to mind but I doubt anyone wants to relive that 4 years
of defeats, inflation, recession and general "malaise" (his
description, not mine).
Every other president in my lifetime had no problem increasing the
military budget and getting us in foreign misadventures (covertly or
overtly). Your sweetie Hillary is just GW in a pants suit.


Hillary is neither my sweetie nor my first choice for the POTUS
nomination, but if she is the nominee, I will happily vote for her. I'm
certainly not going to vote for any of the Republican crazies who will
be nominated.

On 9/1/2014 3:09 PM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 9/1/14 2:07 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 01 Sep 2014 12:35:39 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

Thanks, Dubya, for ****ing over America to fulfill your fantasies and
lining the pockets of the military-industrial complex.

It is hard to name a president who didn't do that.
Carter springs to mind but I doubt anyone wants to relive that 4 years
of defeats, inflation, recession and general "malaise" (his
description, not mine).
Every other president in my lifetime had no problem increasing the
military budget and getting us in foreign misadventures (covertly or
overtly). Your sweetie Hillary is just GW in a pants suit.


Hillary is neither my sweetie nor my first choice for the POTUS
nomination, but if she is the nominee, I will happily vote for her. I'm
certainly not going to vote for any of the Republican crazies who will
be nominated.


Bernie Sanders is testing the political winds.

On 9/1/14 3:47 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 9/1/2014 3:09 PM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 9/1/14 2:07 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 01 Sep 2014 12:35:39 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

Thanks, Dubya, for ****ing over America to fulfill your fantasies and
lining the pockets of the military-industrial complex.

It is hard to name a president who didn't do that.
Carter springs to mind but I doubt anyone wants to relive that 4 years
of defeats, inflation, recession and general "malaise" (his
description, not mine).
Every other president in my lifetime had no problem increasing the
military budget and getting us in foreign misadventures (covertly or
overtly). Your sweetie Hillary is just GW in a pants suit.


Hillary is neither my sweetie nor my first choice for the POTUS
nomination, but if she is the nominee, I will happily vote for her. I'm
certainly not going to vote for any of the Republican crazies who will
be nominated.


Bernie Sanders is testing the political winds.


I like Bernie Sanders, and I think he's terrific as a U.S. Senator. He
has no more chance of being elected POTUS than you or I do.

On 9/1/2014 4:27 PM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 9/1/14 3:47 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 9/1/2014 3:09 PM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 9/1/14 2:07 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 01 Sep 2014 12:35:39 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

Thanks, Dubya, for ****ing over America to fulfill your fantasies and
lining the pockets of the military-industrial complex.

It is hard to name a president who didn't do that.
Carter springs to mind but I doubt anyone wants to relive that 4 years
of defeats, inflation, recession and general "malaise" (his
description, not mine).
Every other president in my lifetime had no problem increasing the
military budget and getting us in foreign misadventures (covertly or
overtly). Your sweetie Hillary is just GW in a pants suit.


Hillary is neither my sweetie nor my first choice for the POTUS
nomination, but if she is the nominee, I will happily vote for her. I'm
certainly not going to vote for any of the Republican crazies who will
be nominated.


Bernie Sanders is testing the political winds.


I like Bernie Sanders, and I think he's terrific as a U.S. Senator. He
has no more chance of being elected POTUS than you or I do.


The Democratic Party has it's share of looney's. Hopefully neither of
these screwballs have become your first choice:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vermin_Supreme

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff_Boss

On 9/1/14 5:04 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 9/1/2014 4:27 PM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 9/1/14 3:47 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 9/1/2014 3:09 PM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 9/1/14 2:07 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 01 Sep 2014 12:35:39 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

Thanks, Dubya, for ****ing over America to fulfill your fantasies and
lining the pockets of the military-industrial complex.

It is hard to name a president who didn't do that.
Carter springs to mind but I doubt anyone wants to relive that 4 years
of defeats, inflation, recession and general "malaise" (his
description, not mine).
Every other president in my lifetime had no problem increasing the
military budget and getting us in foreign misadventures (covertly or
overtly). Your sweetie Hillary is just GW in a pants suit.


Hillary is neither my sweetie nor my first choice for the POTUS
nomination, but if she is the nominee, I will happily vote for her. I'm
certainly not going to vote for any of the Republican crazies who will
be nominated.


Bernie Sanders is testing the political winds.


I like Bernie Sanders, and I think he's terrific as a U.S. Senator. He
has no more chance of being elected POTUS than you or I do.


The Democratic Party has it's share of looney's. Hopefully neither of
these screwballs have become your first choice:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vermin_Supreme

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff_Boss

Please. The Dems have nothing to compare in terms of craziness with the
nut cases seeking the Republican nomination, and I don't mean the
candidates of whom no one has heard.

On Monday, September 1, 2014 1:27:21 PM UTC-7, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 9/1/14 3:47 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:

On 9/1/2014 3:09 PM, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 9/1/14 2:07 PM, wrote:

On Mon, 01 Sep 2014 12:35:39 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:



Thanks, Dubya, for ****ing over America to fulfill your fantasies and

lining the pockets of the military-industrial complex.



It is hard to name a president who didn't do that.

Carter springs to mind but I doubt anyone wants to relive that 4 years

of defeats, inflation, recession and general "malaise" (his

description, not mine).

Every other president in my lifetime had no problem increasing the

military budget and getting us in foreign misadventures (covertly or

overtly). Your sweetie Hillary is just GW in a pants suit.





Hillary is neither my sweetie nor my first choice for the POTUS

nomination, but if she is the nominee, I will happily vote for her. I'm

certainly not going to vote for any of the Republican crazies who will

be nominated.





Bernie Sanders is testing the political winds.





I like Bernie Sanders, and I think he's terrific as a U.S. Senator. He

has no more chance of being elected POTUS than you or I do.

Of course you would Krause. Someone like you would.

On 9/1/14 6:45 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 01 Sep 2014 15:47:54 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:


Bernie Sanders is testing the political winds.

Hell Romney could beat him


Sanders would slaughter Romney in any discussion/debate about the
horrors the Romneys of this world have perpetuated on the average
working American. But Romney isn't on my list of GOP'ers I'd like to see
get the nomination. He's an asshole, but he's neither crazy nor stupid.
The GOP deserves one or the other or both.