On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 13:53:31 -0500, DSK wrote:

... Do you remember that the claims about "targeting aspirin & baby
food factories" made by various pro-terrorist organizations right after
the cruise missile reprisals... claims that are repeated now by
Bush/Cheney supporters?



NOYB wrote:
Yes. I was one of 'em complaining. In retrospect, I was wrong. If
anything, Clinton should have ignored the polls and done a lot more in the
Middle East.


There it is... probably the only time the world will ever see this!

NOYB admits he was wrong!

Now all he has to do is continue the same deep painful thought and
reconsider some of his other opinions.

BTW Clinton was admired and respected by both the Israeli and
Palestinian negotiators; ditto the Republicans and Orangers in Northern
Ireland. Funny thing that you and your ilk seem to think that he "did
nothing" ... apart from your parrotting of propaganda straight from
America's enemies about aspirin factories etc etc.

DSK

In all his years of anti-terrorist activity, did he get Osama?


John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 13:30:51 -0500, John H wrote:


Bush didn't have the reasons during his first eight months that Clinton
had during his entire reign. Bush didn't waste much time taking action
once he had a reason to do so.

A classic. Clinton wasn't attacked, Americans were. Bush had all the
same reasons that Clinton had.

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 13:30:51 -0500, John H wrote:


Bush didn't have the reasons during his first eight months that Clinton
had during his entire reign. Bush didn't waste much time taking action
once he had a reason to do so.

A classic. Clinton wasn't attacked, Americans were. Bush had all the
same reasons that Clinton had.

Yet Clinton did nothing.

Look at the fantastic results being reported in the Middle East now as a
result of our overturning of Saddam's regime. These things are not
happening by accident. Credit GWB.

Clinton had a chance to do the same but did nothing. He sat on his hands.

If this all finally results in democracy spread across the Middle East and
terrorists eliminated, as it now looks like it will, GWB will go down as one
of the greatest POTUS in history.

On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 15:51:41 -0500, thunder wrote:

On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 13:24:03 -0500, John H wrote:

Should we just invade Pakistan and get him? Is that what you folks are
espousing now? Then, when he goes to Syria, you'd say, "See, we told you
he wasn't there!"

It's getting to be quite laughable!

"You folks?" And just what "folks" would that be? Wattage dimming a
little in your area?

The question?

John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 15:48:38 -0500, thunder wrote:

On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 13:25:42 -0500, John H wrote:

Defensive? Sounds like my wife when she screws up!

*You* are the one who said the fix was simple, yes?

Yes, I gave a simple fix for that particular attack. Instead, our CIC
makes us take our shoes of before boarding a plane. Sorry, but that won't
fix the problem.

Old OR/SA axiom: For every complex problem there is a simple, elegant, incorrect
solution.

I think you showed the truth to that.


John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 16:04:17 -0500, JimH wrote:

Look at the fantastic results being reported in the Middle East now as a
result of our overturning of Saddam's regime. These things are not
happening by accident. Credit GWB.

Clinton had a chance to do the same but did nothing. He sat on his hands.

If this all finally results in democracy spread across the Middle East and
terrorists eliminated, as it now looks like it will, GWB will go down as
one of the greatest POTUS in history.

You have been so starved for good news out of the mid-east, I can
understand you jumping on the least little glimmer of light. Not to rain
on your parade, but there is a reason we have historically preferred thugs
in leadership positions. They provide stability.

While it is possible, we are seeing the beginnings of a democratic
resurgence in the middle east, it is just as possible that we are seeing
the start of many years of complete instability. I'd point out, as much
American blood has been shed bringing, a yet to be seen, democracy to
Iraq, as we shed in our own Revolutionary War. I believe in democracy,
and I hope the Iraqis attain it, but I'm not quite sure an Iraqi democracy
will be worth the American lives already lost.

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 16:04:17 -0500, JimH wrote:

Look at the fantastic results being reported in the Middle East now as a
result of our overturning of Saddam's regime. These things are not
happening by accident. Credit GWB.

Clinton had a chance to do the same but did nothing. He sat on his hands.

If this all finally results in democracy spread across the Middle East
and
terrorists eliminated, as it now looks like it will, GWB will go down as
one of the greatest POTUS in history.

You have been so starved for good news out of the mid-east, I can
understand you jumping on the least little glimmer of light. Not to rain
on your parade, but there is a reason we have historically preferred thugs
in leadership positions. They provide stability.

While it is possible, we are seeing the beginnings of a democratic
resurgence in the middle east, it is just as possible that we are seeing
the start of many years of complete instability. I'd point out, as much
American blood has been shed bringing, a yet to be seen, democracy to
Iraq, as we shed in our own Revolutionary War. I believe in democracy,
and I hope the Iraqis attain it, but I'm not quite sure an Iraqi democracy
will be worth the American lives already lost.

Credit to JohnH for first posting this:

By Mark Steyn

Three years ago - April 6 2002, if you want to rummage through the old
Spectators in the attic - I wrote: "The stability junkies in the EU, UN and
elsewhere have, as usual, missed the point. The Middle East is too stable.
So, if you had to pick only one regime to topple, why not Iraq? Once you've
got rid of the ruling gang, it's the West's best shot at incubating a
reasonably non-insane polity. That's why the unravelling of the Middle East
has to start not in the West Bank but in Baghdad."

I don't like to say I told you so. But, actually, I do like to say I told
you so. What I don't like to do is the obligatory false self-deprecatory
thing to mitigate against the insufferableness of my saying I told you so.
But nevertheless I did.

Consider just the past couple of days' news: not the ever more desperate
depravity of the floundering "insurgency", but the real popular Arab
resistance the car-bombers and the head-hackers are flailing against: the
Saudi foreign minister, who by remarkable coincidence goes by the name of
Prince Saud, told Newsweek that women would be voting in the next Saudi
election. "That is going to be good for the election," he said, "because I
think women are more sensible voters than men."

Four-time Egyptian election winner - and with 90 per cent of the vote! -
President Mubarak announced that next polling day he wouldn't mind an
opponent. Ordering his stenographer to change the constitution to permit the
first multi-choice presidential elections in Egyptian history, His
Excellency said the country would benefit from "more freedom and democracy".
The state-run TV network hailed the president's speech as a "historical
decision in the nation's 7,000-year-old march toward democracy". After 7,000
years on the march, they're barely out of the parking lot, so Mubarak's move
is, as they say, a step in the right direction.

Meanwhile in Damascus, Boy Assad, having badly overplayed his hand in
Lebanon and after months of denying that he was harbouring any refugee
Saddamites, suddenly discovered that - wouldja believe it? - Saddam's
brother and 29 other bigshot Baghdad Baathists were holed up in
north-eastern Syria, and promptly handed them over to the Iraqi government.

And, for perhaps the most remarkable development, consider this report from
Mohammed Ballas of Associated Press: "Palestinians expressed anger on
Saturday at an overnight suicide bombing in Tel Aviv that killed four
Israelis and threatened a fragile truce, a departure from former times when
they welcomed attacks on their Israeli foes."

No disrespect to Associated Press, but I was disinclined to take their word
for it. However, Charles Johnson, whose Little Green Footballs website has
done an invaluable job these past three years presenting the ugly truth
about Palestinian death-cultism, reported that he went hunting around the
internet for the usual photographs of deliriously happy Gazans dancing in
the street and handing out sweets to celebrate the latest addition to the
pile of Jew corpses - and, to his surprise, couldn't find any.

Why is all this happening? Answer: January 30. Don't take my word for it,
listen to Walid Jumblatt, big-time Lebanese Druze leader and a man of
impeccable anti-American credentials: "I was cynical about Iraq. But when I
saw the Iraqi people voting three weeks ago, eight million of them, it was
the start of a new Arab world. The Berlin Wall has fallen."

Just so. Left to their own devices, the House of Saud - which demanded all
US female air-traffic controllers be stood down for Crown Prince Abdullah's
flight to the Bush ranch in Crawford - would stick to their traditional line
that Wahhabi women have no place in a voting booth; instead, they have to
dress like a voting booth - a big black impenetrable curtain with a little
slot to drop your ballot through. Likewise, Hosni Mubarak has no desire to
take part in campaign debates with Hosno Name-Recognition. Boy Assad has no
desire to hand over his co-Baathists to the Great Satan's puppets in
Baghdad.

But none of them has much of a choice. In the space of a month, the Iraq
election has become the prism through which all other events in the region
are seen.

Assad's regime knocks off a troublemaker in Lebanon. Big deal. They've done
it a gazillion times. But this time the streets are full of demonstrators
demanding an end to Syrian occupation.

A suicide bomber kills four Jews. So what's new? But this time the
Palestinians decline to celebrate. And some even question whether being a
delivery system for plastic explosives is really all life has to offer, even
on the West Bank.

Mubarak announces the arrest of an opposition leader. Like, who cares? The
jails are full of 'em. But this time Condi Rice cancels her visit and the
Egyptian government notices that its annual cheque from Washington is a
month late.

Three years ago, those of us in favour of destabilising the Middle East
didn't have to be far-sighted geniuses: it was a win/win proposition. As Sam
Goldwyn said, I'm sick of the old clichés, bring me some new clichés. The
old clichés - Pan-Arabism, Baathism, Islamism, Arafatism - brought us the
sewer that led to September 11. The new clichés could hardly be worse. Even
if the old thug-for-life had merely been replaced by a new thug-for-life,
the latter would come to power in the wake of the cautionary tale of the
former.

But some of us - notably US deputy defence secretary Paul Wolfowitz -
thought things would go a lot better than that. Wolfowitz was right, and so
was Bush, and the Left, who were wrong about the Berlin Wall, were wrong
again, the only difference being that this time they were joined in the
dunce's corner of history by far too many British Tories. No surprise there.
The EU's political establishment doesn't trust its own people, so why would
they trust anybody else's? Bush trusts the American people, and he's happy
to extend the same courtesy to the Iraqi people, the Syrian people, the
Iranian people, etc.

Prof Glenn Reynolds, America's Instapundit, observes that "democratisation
is a process, not an event". Far too often, it's treated like an event: ship
in the monitors, hold the election, get it approved by Jimmy Carter and the
UN, and that's it. Doesn't work like that. What's happening in the Middle
East is the start of a long-delayed process. Eight million Iraqis did more
for the Arab world on January 30 than 7,000 years of Mubarak-pace marching.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/m...3/01/ixop.html
================================================== ===========

Keep on with your sky is falling attitude. For every good thing that has
happened, thanks to GWB, the left has always answered with a "but", such
as.........You will never get a coalition of countries to back the invasion
of Iraq. So a coalition was formed "but" it did not include Germany, Russia
or France. So Germany, Russia and France (along with Kofi and his son) were
found to have been making millions from Saddam on the Oil for Food program
"but" you will never get the approval from the US Congress. So you got the
approval of the US Congress "but" the invasion of Iraq will result in tens
of thousands of troops killed. So we took Iraq with few casualties "but"
you will never find Saddam. Well you found Saddam "but" you will lose to
the terrorists. So you are beating the terrorists "but" Iraq will never
have a free election. So a date for a free election has been set "but"
thousands upon thousands will die and no one will vote. So the election was
held, only a hundred were killed and there was a record 70% turnout "but"
nothing good will happen as a result of it.

A shame the left will soon run out of "buts". ;-)

John H wrote:
On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 13:53:31 -0500, DSK wrote:

... Do you remember that the claims about "targeting aspirin &
baby
food factories" made by various pro-terrorist organizations right
after
the cruise missile reprisals... claims that are repeated now by
Bush/Cheney supporters?



NOYB wrote:
Yes. I was one of 'em complaining. In retrospect, I was wrong.
If
anything, Clinton should have ignored the polls and done a lot
more in the
Middle East.


There it is... probably the only time the world will ever see this!

NOYB admits he was wrong!

Now all he has to do is continue the same deep painful thought and
reconsider some of his other opinions.

BTW Clinton was admired and respected by both the Israeli and
Palestinian negotiators; ditto the Republicans and Orangers in
Northern
Ireland. Funny thing that you and your ilk seem to think that he
"did
nothing" ... apart from your parrotting of propaganda straight from
America's enemies about aspirin factories etc etc.

DSK

In all his years of anti-terrorist activity, did he get Osama?


John H

Has Bush?

On 2 Mar 2005 06:32:14 -0800, wrote:


John H wrote:
On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 13:53:31 -0500, DSK wrote:

... Do you remember that the claims about "targeting aspirin &
baby
food factories" made by various pro-terrorist organizations right
after
the cruise missile reprisals... claims that are repeated now by
Bush/Cheney supporters?



NOYB wrote:
Yes. I was one of 'em complaining. In retrospect, I was wrong.
If
anything, Clinton should have ignored the polls and done a lot
more in the
Middle East.


There it is... probably the only time the world will ever see this!

NOYB admits he was wrong!

Now all he has to do is continue the same deep painful thought and
reconsider some of his other opinions.

BTW Clinton was admired and respected by both the Israeli and
Palestinian negotiators; ditto the Republicans and Orangers in
Northern
Ireland. Funny thing that you and your ilk seem to think that he
"did
nothing" ... apart from your parrotting of propaganda straight from
America's enemies about aspirin factories etc etc.

DSK

In all his years of anti-terrorist activity, did he get Osama?


John H

Has Bush?

Where've you been?

John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."