On Sat, 24 Oct 2015 11:41:07 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 10/24/15 11:15 AM, wrote:
On Sat, 24 Oct 2015 08:37:10 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:



Except she wasn't "debating" a candidate for POTUS.
It's hard to imagine Trump, Carson, JEB or any of the other GOP
potentials scoring points against her in a debate but we'll have
to wait and see.

Her knowledge and command of international facts is certainly
impressive.


The question in a good debate would be how those "facts" contributed
to the failed policies in the middle east.
That was the problem with the hearings. They were trying to make bad
policy a criminal matter. It is as stupid as saying Dick Cheney should
be hauled into the dock for his bad policy decisions.
If we did that Sudan could charge Bill Clinton for murder in his
aspirin factory bombing.



You're a funny guy, especially when you don't mean to be.

It is hard to understand where you are going with these brain farts.

Are you saying the policies in North Africa were sound?
Are you saying bad policy is a criminal matter?
Are you saying they didn't bomb an aspirin factory and kill an
innocent night watchman?

On Sat, 24 Oct 2015 12:01:10 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 10/24/15 11:47 AM, wrote:

After he 96 debates where Perot and Browne sliced and diced Clinton
and Dole, with questions they did not want to answer, the parties made
sure that would never happen again. Now debates are just another stop
on the campaign trail where they get to recite lines from their stump
speech.


I remember that Perot made an ass of himself, as usual. Browne made no
impression whatsoever...

Perot is the one who put the focus on the debt and caused most of the
efforts at deficit reduction, although Clinton still never actually
did anything about the debt. (in spite of the legend)
Perot's charts would still be relevant today

Libertarians make a great show out of discussing the politically
impossible, which is one of the reasons why they'll never win a
presidential election.

That still does not make the message invalid. The libertarians are all
about rights. You agree with about 75% of their positions based on
what you criticized from the web site.
Your main disagreement is that you want a bigger, more unsustainable
government controlling all aspects of your life..


Who is fighting for the Libertarian nomination in 2016? Ron Paul? Bob
Barr? Someone else who can get 1/2 of 1% of the vote? So long as they
suck those votes from the Republicans, it's fine with me.

I doubt they get many votes from the fundies in the GOP. Things like
ending the drug war, gay rights, immigration, women's rights and
ending stupid wars will separate them.
I liked Harry Browne and Gary Johnson, Bob Barr not so much. (voted
for Paris Hilton in that one)
The Pauls are not Libertarians

On Sat, 24 Oct 2015 12:10:22 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:



Greg makes a great point about the "debates" though. They are not
debates. I remember one a while back ... maybe it was when Perot
was running ... when the participants were allowed to ask questions
of each other and have a give and take on whatever the issue they raised
was.


That was probably 96.
It was embarrassing for Dole and Clinton when they were not prepared
to answer questions from Perot and Browne. The next time, we only had
the 2 parties there and the questions were given in advance.

2000 was just the George and Al show. George made Al look like a moron
when he approached GWs podium like he was going to intimidate him.
GW just gave him a cursory nod and continued what he was saying.
Al just stood there a minute, looking like he was caught in his
underwear at the airport and slinked back to his spot.
No matter what else was said, that was what most people took away from
the debate. It was just reciting stump speeches anyway.

******

BTW spell check keeps wanting to change Perot to Peyote

On 10/24/2015 3:46 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 10/24/2015 1:14 AM, wrote:
On Fri, 23 Oct 2015 19:30:28 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 10/23/15 7:25 PM, wrote:

That is particularly true when every "freedom fighting" band we have
backed in 30 years in that region has turned out to be raving
fundamentalists who start out with "death to America" before the sun
sets on their revolution.


We have our own problems in this country with "raving fundamentalists,"
as was demonstrated yesterday by the Republicans on the "Get Hillary on
Benghazi No Matter What Committee."

I doubt you can put an 11 hour side show in the same category as
beheading 20 people at a time but hyperbole is the language of the
left.


They probably wanted to waterboard her.


They probably should have.

On 10/24/15 12:22 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 24 Oct 2015 11:41:07 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 10/24/15 11:15 AM, wrote:
On Sat, 24 Oct 2015 08:37:10 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:



Except she wasn't "debating" a candidate for POTUS.
It's hard to imagine Trump, Carson, JEB or any of the other GOP
potentials scoring points against her in a debate but we'll have
to wait and see.

Her knowledge and command of international facts is certainly
impressive.


The question in a good debate would be how those "facts" contributed
to the failed policies in the middle east.
That was the problem with the hearings. They were trying to make bad
policy a criminal matter. It is as stupid as saying Dick Cheney should
be hauled into the dock for his bad policy decisions.
If we did that Sudan could charge Bill Clinton for murder in his
aspirin factory bombing.



You're a funny guy, especially when you don't mean to be.

It is hard to understand where you are going with these brain farts.

Are you saying the policies in North Africa were sound?
Are you saying bad policy is a criminal matter?
Are you saying they didn't bomb an aspirin factory and kill an
innocent night watchman?


I'm saying that many of these events that trouble you so much are part
and parcel of living in today's world. And I don't for a moment believe
that "bad policy decisions" were the reason for Cheney's helping to lie
us into two unnecessary wars that required massive numbers of American
troops on the ground.

On Sat, 24 Oct 2015 14:48:08 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 10/24/15 12:22 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 24 Oct 2015 11:41:07 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 10/24/15 11:15 AM, wrote:
On Sat, 24 Oct 2015 08:37:10 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:



Except she wasn't "debating" a candidate for POTUS.
It's hard to imagine Trump, Carson, JEB or any of the other GOP
potentials scoring points against her in a debate but we'll have
to wait and see.

Her knowledge and command of international facts is certainly
impressive.


The question in a good debate would be how those "facts" contributed
to the failed policies in the middle east.
That was the problem with the hearings. They were trying to make bad
policy a criminal matter. It is as stupid as saying Dick Cheney should
be hauled into the dock for his bad policy decisions.
If we did that Sudan could charge Bill Clinton for murder in his
aspirin factory bombing.



You're a funny guy, especially when you don't mean to be.

It is hard to understand where you are going with these brain farts.

Are you saying the policies in North Africa were sound?
Are you saying bad policy is a criminal matter?
Are you saying they didn't bomb an aspirin factory and kill an
innocent night watchman?


I'm saying that many of these events that trouble you so much are part
and parcel of living in today's world. And I don't for a moment believe
that "bad policy decisions" were the reason for Cheney's helping to lie
us into two unnecessary wars that required massive numbers of American
troops on the ground.

The "lie" may be faulty intelligence but it would not be the first
time it happened and it won't be the last. It is still a policy
decision.
That was a decision supported by the current front runner on the
Democratic ticket, the UN and most of our allies, some of whom fed us
the flawed intel in the first place. .

I have never even heard the allegation that Afghanistan was a lie,
that is all you.
The problem there is Democrats were saying that was the "good war" and
encouraging Bush to go bigger. The reality was we missed OBL in Tora
Bora and we should have left as quietly as we entered.

Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 10/24/2015 7:32 AM, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 10/24/15 3:46 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 10/24/2015 1:14 AM, wrote:
On Fri, 23 Oct 2015 19:30:28 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 10/23/15 7:25 PM, wrote:

That is particularly true when every "freedom fighting" band we have
backed in 30 years in that region has turned out to be raving
fundamentalists who start out with "death to America" before the sun
sets on their revolution.


We have our own problems in this country with "raving fundamentalists,"
as was demonstrated yesterday by the Republicans on the "Get Hillary on
Benghazi No Matter What Committee."

I doubt you can put an 11 hour side show in the same category as
beheading 20 people at a time but hyperbole is the language of the
left.


They probably wanted to waterboard her.



I think the GOPers, in a way, provided Mrs. Clinton with the
opportunity of the first real presidential debate. She is formidable in
an adversarial venue in ways that her GOPer competitors are not.


Except she wasn't "debating" a candidate for POTUS.
It's hard to imagine Trump, Carson, JEB or any of the other GOP
potentials scoring points against her in a debate but we'll have
to wait and see.

Her knowledge and command of international facts is certainly
impressive.




She failed at enough of her foreign affairs as SOS to know foreign affairs.

On 10/24/2015 11:45 PM, Califbill wrote:
Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 10/24/2015 7:32 AM, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 10/24/15 3:46 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 10/24/2015 1:14 AM, wrote:
On Fri, 23 Oct 2015 19:30:28 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 10/23/15 7:25 PM, wrote:

That is particularly true when every "freedom fighting" band we have
backed in 30 years in that region has turned out to be raving
fundamentalists who start out with "death to America" before the sun
sets on their revolution.


We have our own problems in this country with "raving fundamentalists,"
as was demonstrated yesterday by the Republicans on the "Get Hillary on
Benghazi No Matter What Committee."

I doubt you can put an 11 hour side show in the same category as
beheading 20 people at a time but hyperbole is the language of the
left.


They probably wanted to waterboard her.



I think the GOPers, in a way, provided Mrs. Clinton with the
opportunity of the first real presidential debate. She is formidable in
an adversarial venue in ways that her GOPer competitors are not.


Except she wasn't "debating" a candidate for POTUS.
It's hard to imagine Trump, Carson, JEB or any of the other GOP
potentials scoring points against her in a debate but we'll have
to wait and see.

Her knowledge and command of international facts is certainly
impressive.




She failed at enough of her foreign affairs as SOS to know foreign affairs.

She failed at domestic affairs as well. She sat on her hands while
Willie was...............well you know.

On Sun, 25 Oct 2015 12:42:15 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 10/25/2015 12:32 PM, wrote:

The flaw in your logic is the no fly zones were not part of the
original cease fire and that essentially restarted the war.
Overflying a sovereign country with armed aircraft and shooting
missiles into the crowd is an act of war.
They were started right before the 1992 election and actually became
the Clinton policy.
By the time GW took office, a state of war had existed in Iraq for
over 8 years.
People are trying to reinstate that situation in Iraq again as we
speak.
What could possibly go wrong? ;-)

I also think the way we are parsing "combat deaths" with the rest of
the people dying is down right Orwellian. Most of the GIs who died in
Iraq were not "combat deaths" in the current twisted definition.



I stand corrected. The UN did not authorize the no fly zones. The US
Britain and France did, mostly to protect the Kurds.

"Protecting the Kurds" was just a euphemism for supporting a CIA
inspired coup. It became clear that we needed boots on the ground to
actually accomplish that so we did.

Regardless, it wasn't the only Resolution being broken and Saddam was
certainly starting to behave in a militaristic manner again.


He was simply emulating Bill Clinton and believing he was bullet
proof. We bombed him just about every day for a decade and he was as
powerful as ever,. The US was even losing the allies they had counted
on for most of that time.
By 2003, the only choice was becoming, walk away and let him have the
win or go get him. Pressure from the Eastern Med assured, walking away
was never going to be an option.
I doubt Al Gore would have come up with any better option either.
If we were seen as supporting an Israelis in a war with saddam it
would have been infinitely worse. You only have to look at 1974 to get
a clue and that did not even involve an invasion of a muslim state.

On 10/25/2015 1:21 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 25 Oct 2015 12:42:15 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 10/25/2015 12:32 PM, wrote:

The flaw in your logic is the no fly zones were not part of the
original cease fire and that essentially restarted the war.
Overflying a sovereign country with armed aircraft and shooting
missiles into the crowd is an act of war.
They were started right before the 1992 election and actually became
the Clinton policy.
By the time GW took office, a state of war had existed in Iraq for
over 8 years.
People are trying to reinstate that situation in Iraq again as we
speak.
What could possibly go wrong? ;-)

I also think the way we are parsing "combat deaths" with the rest of
the people dying is down right Orwellian. Most of the GIs who died in
Iraq were not "combat deaths" in the current twisted definition.



I stand corrected. The UN did not authorize the no fly zones. The US
Britain and France did, mostly to protect the Kurds.

"Protecting the Kurds" was just a euphemism for supporting a CIA
inspired coup. It became clear that we needed boots on the ground to
actually accomplish that so we did.

Regardless, it wasn't the only Resolution being broken and Saddam was
certainly starting to behave in a militaristic manner again.


He was simply emulating Bill Clinton and believing he was bullet
proof. We bombed him just about every day for a decade and he was as
powerful as ever,. The US was even losing the allies they had counted
on for most of that time.
By 2003, the only choice was becoming, walk away and let him have the
win or go get him. Pressure from the Eastern Med assured, walking away
was never going to be an option.
I doubt Al Gore would have come up with any better option either.
If we were seen as supporting an Israelis in a war with saddam it
would have been infinitely worse. You only have to look at 1974 to get
a clue and that did not even involve an invasion of a muslim state.



I've often thought that the morning after a new President's inauguration
a meeting is held in a secure room and he is briefed by the CIA, the
NSA, the FBI and other intelligence groups (that we probably don't even
know about) as to what the world situation *really* is. The public
never knows the details. We get the dumbed down versions that have gaps
that don't often make sense.