"HK" wrote in message
. ..

Eisboch wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
. ..

Eisboch wrote:

Stop. Again, most leading Dems advocated such action well before
Bush took office.
The fact that Clinton didn't is somewhat of a mystery.

Maybe Bill didn't trust the intel. I wouldn't trust a word from certain
federal intel or police agencies, e.g., the FBI.

Yet most of the Democratic leadership at the time, well before Bush took
office, trusted the intel and advocated action. You've been provided
with a partial list. The names are very familiar.

Why didn't Big Bill do something?

Eisboch





Because he thought doing so would be...stupid?

BTW, "advocating" sometimes is done for political posturing. You know
that, right?

The point remains.



The point remains that the whole damn thing is a massive screw-up and the
"blame" (if that's what it's called), should be shared equally between
political parties and administrations. I am not excusing Bush for screwing
things up, but I also don't believe for a moment that all the blame should
be directed to him or his administration.

That's one reason I respect Joe Lieberman. He was one of the Democrats,
pre-Bush, who talked about the threat Iraq posed and potential action. He,
unlike the rest of his Democratic associates who sang the same tune but now
waffle or deny, stuck to his guns.

Eisboch

Eisboch wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
. ..

Eisboch wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
. ..

Eisboch wrote:
Stop. Again, most leading Dems advocated such action well before
Bush took office.
The fact that Clinton didn't is somewhat of a mystery.

Maybe Bill didn't trust the intel. I wouldn't trust a word from certain
federal intel or police agencies, e.g., the FBI.
Yet most of the Democratic leadership at the time, well before Bush took
office, trusted the intel and advocated action. You've been provided
with a partial list. The names are very familiar.

Why didn't Big Bill do something?

Eisboch




Because he thought doing so would be...stupid?

BTW, "advocating" sometimes is done for political posturing. You know
that, right?

The point remains.



The point remains that the whole damn thing is a massive screw-up and the
"blame" (if that's what it's called), should be shared equally between
political parties and administrations. I am not excusing Bush for screwing
things up, but I also don't believe for a moment that all the blame should
be directed to him or his administration.

That's one reason I respect Joe Lieberman. He was one of the Democrats,
pre-Bush, who talked about the threat Iraq posed and potential action. He,
unlike the rest of his Democratic associates who sang the same tune but now
waffle or deny, stuck to his guns.

Eisboch


The decision to invade Iraq was entirely the responsibility of George W.
Bush. He has the con until next January. You guys sound like bookies,
trying to lay off bets.







--
George W. Bush - the 43rd Best President Ever!

"HK" wrote in message
...



The decision to invade Iraq was entirely the responsibility of George W.
Bush. He has the con until next January. You guys sound like bookies,
trying to lay off bets.



Well, fortunately and despite the public's unpopular view of the war, your
extreme position is somewhat unique and not shared by most .... even within
your political party of choice. Not to fear though. In short order you'll
have another Republican POTUS to call a dumbf...k.

Eisboch

Eisboch wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
...


The decision to invade Iraq was entirely the responsibility of George W.
Bush. He has the con until next January. You guys sound like bookies,
trying to lay off bets.



Well, fortunately and despite the public's unpopular view of the war, your
extreme position is somewhat unique and not shared by most .... even within
your political party of choice. Not to fear though. In short order you'll
have another Republican POTUS to call a dumbf...k.

Eisboch




I doubt it. Romney will be easy to beat and McCain, though a decent guy,
favors a hundred year war, is old, is disliked by much of the GOP base,
and...well, that's enough.

Romney likes to talk about his life as a businessman, but not his
failure as a governator and the boatloads of user fees (aka taxes) he
imposed. Add to that his flop-flops and they add to loser.



--
George W. Bush - the 43rd Best President Ever!

"HK" wrote in message
...
Eisboch wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
...


The decision to invade Iraq was entirely the responsibility of George W.
Bush. He has the con until next January. You guys sound like bookies,
trying to lay off bets.



Well, fortunately and despite the public's unpopular view of the war,
your extreme position is somewhat unique and not shared by most .... even
within your political party of choice. Not to fear though. In short
order you'll have another Republican POTUS to call a dumbf...k.

Eisboch


I doubt it. Romney will be easy to beat and McCain, though a decent guy,
favors a hundred year war, is old, is disliked by much of the GOP base,
and...well, that's enough.

Romney likes to talk about his life as a businessman, but not his failure
as a governator and the boatloads of user fees (aka taxes) he imposed. Add
to that his flop-flops and they add to loser.




Too close to call right now, even for the "pros". My gut feeling is if
Obama gets the nomination, the odds favor the Dems. If Hillary gets it, the
odds shift to the Republicans. It's an interesting election this time, for
sure.

Eisboch

"Eisboch" wrote in message
...

"HK" wrote in message
...



The decision to invade Iraq was entirely the responsibility of George W.
Bush. He has the con until next January. You guys sound like bookies,
trying to lay off bets.



Well, fortunately and despite the public's unpopular view of the war, your
extreme position is somewhat unique and not shared by most .... even
within your political party of choice. Not to fear though. In short
order you'll have another Republican POTUS to call a dumbf...k.

Eisboch


How about an Obama / Lieberman ticket? May be a winning ticket.