On Thu, 13 Mar 2008 16:47:01 -0500, John H. wrote:


You might want to consider, Republicans' were rather slow to come around
to the threat. As I recall, a BJ had all their focus. Remember "Wag
the Dog"?

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stori...onal.react.02/

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/09/25/wag-the-dog/

So you believe that Clinton was actually trying to do something other
than divert attention?

Why didn't he finish the job?

Why hasn't GWB? bin Laden is *still* missing.

On Mar 13, 5:03*pm, wrote:
On Thu, 13 Mar 2008 16:47:01 -0500, John H. wrote:
You might want to consider, Republicans' were rather slow to come around
to the threat. *As I recall, a BJ had all their focus. *Remember "Wag
the Dog"?

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stori...esstional.reac...

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/09/25/wag-the-dog/

So you believe that Clinton was actually trying to do something other
than divert attention?

Why didn't he finish the job?

Why hasn't GWB? *bin Laden is *still* missing.

yukity, yukity, yuk, that's sooooo 2003...Get with it, the mission
changes, like any war...

wrote:
On Mar 13, 5:03 pm, wrote:
On Thu, 13 Mar 2008 16:47:01 -0500, John H. wrote:
You might want to consider, Republicans' were rather slow to come around
to the threat. As I recall, a BJ had all their focus. Remember "Wag
the Dog"?
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stori...esstional.reac...
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/09/25/wag-the-dog/
So you believe that Clinton was actually trying to do something other
than divert attention?
Why didn't he finish the job?
Why hasn't GWB? bin Laden is *still* missing.

yukity, yukity, yuk, that's sooooo 2003...Get with it, the mission
changes, like any war...


Translation: Bush blew it, but we don't want to discuss that part of it
anymore.

On Mar 13, 5:13*pm, HK wrote:
wrote:
On Mar 13, 5:03 pm, wrote:
On Thu, 13 Mar 2008 16:47:01 -0500, John H. wrote:
You might want to consider, Republicans' were rather slow to come around
to the threat. *As I recall, a BJ had all their focus. *Remember "Wag
the Dog"?
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stori...esstional.reac....
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/09/25/wag-the-dog/
So you believe that Clinton was actually trying to do something other
than divert attention?
Why didn't he finish the job?
Why hasn't GWB? *bin Laden is *still* missing.

yukity, yukity, yuk, that's sooooo 2003...Get with it, the mission
changes, like any war...

Translation: Bush blew it, but we don't want to discuss that part of it
anymore.

You mean, because we did not win yet? You should do a little reading
on the history, and meaning of war before you come to the table
sounding so silly. First off, in war, there are usually two or more
sides. Each side tries to win, sometimes the other side moves, or
changes tactics. Niether side wants to lose, so they fight back...
Anyway, you should read up on it, facinating really...

wrote:
On Mar 13, 5:13 pm, HK wrote:
wrote:
On Mar 13, 5:03 pm, wrote:
On Thu, 13 Mar 2008 16:47:01 -0500, John H. wrote:
You might want to consider, Republicans' were rather slow to come around
to the threat. As I recall, a BJ had all their focus. Remember "Wag
the Dog"?
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stori...esstional.reac...
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/09/25/wag-the-dog/
So you believe that Clinton was actually trying to do something other
than divert attention?
Why didn't he finish the job?
Why hasn't GWB? bin Laden is *still* missing.
yukity, yukity, yuk, that's sooooo 2003...Get with it, the mission
changes, like any war...
Translation: Bush blew it, but we don't want to discuss that part of it
anymore.

You mean, because we did not win yet? You should do a little reading
on the history, and meaning of war before you come to the table
sounding so silly. First off, in war, there are usually two or more
sides. Each side tries to win, sometimes the other side moves, or
changes tactics. Niether side wants to lose, so they fight back...
Anyway, you should read up on it, facinating really...


Win *yet*? You don't really think we are going to put down the
Islamists, do you.

HK wrote:
wrote:
On Mar 13, 5:13 pm, HK wrote:
wrote:
On Mar 13, 5:03 pm, wrote:
On Thu, 13 Mar 2008 16:47:01 -0500, John H. wrote:
You might want to consider, Republicans' were rather slow to come
around
to the threat. As I recall, a BJ had all their focus. Remember
"Wag
the Dog"?
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stori...esstional.reac...

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/09/25/wag-the-dog/
So you believe that Clinton was actually trying to do something other
than divert attention?
Why didn't he finish the job?
Why hasn't GWB? bin Laden is *still* missing.
yukity, yukity, yuk, that's sooooo 2003...Get with it, the mission
changes, like any war...
Translation: Bush blew it, but we don't want to discuss that part of it
anymore.

You mean, because we did not win yet? You should do a little reading
on the history, and meaning of war before you come to the table
sounding so silly. First off, in war, there are usually two or more
sides. Each side tries to win, sometimes the other side moves, or
changes tactics. Niether side wants to lose, so they fight back...
Anyway, you should read up on it, facinating really...


Win *yet*? You don't really think we are going to put down the
Islamists, do you.

How do we settle this tiff? Do we do as your side, the "progressives",
advocates and roll over and let ourselves get walked on or do we stand
up to the tyranny that Islam is and fight it at ever turn?

"HK" wrote in message
...




Win *yet*? You don't really think we are going to put down the Islamists,
do you.


The ones that have sworn to Allah to kill you, me, our wives, kids,
families, neighborhoods? Those?

You betcha.

Eisboch

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



Win *yet*? You don't really think we are going to put down the Islamists,
do you.


The ones that have sworn to Allah to kill you, me, our wives, kids,
families, neighborhoods? Those?

You betcha.

Eisboch



Yeah, how? They're in 50 different countries. It is not going to happen
via military action.

On Mar 13, 5:48*pm, HK wrote:
wrote:
On Mar 13, 5:13 pm, HK wrote:
wrote:
On Mar 13, 5:03 pm, wrote:
On Thu, 13 Mar 2008 16:47:01 -0500, John H. wrote:
You might want to consider, Republicans' were rather slow to come around
to the threat. *As I recall, a BJ had all their focus. *Remember "Wag
the Dog"?
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stori...esstional.reac...
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/09/25/wag-the-dog/
So you believe that Clinton was actually trying to do something other
than divert attention?
Why didn't he finish the job?
Why hasn't GWB? *bin Laden is *still* missing.
yukity, yukity, yuk, that's sooooo 2003...Get with it, the mission
changes, like any war...
Translation: Bush blew it, but we don't want to discuss that part of it
anymore.

You mean, because we did not win yet? You should do a little reading
on the history, and meaning of war before you come to the table
sounding so silly. First off, in war, there are usually two or more
sides. Each side tries to win, sometimes the other side moves, or
changes tactics. Niether side wants to lose, so they fight back...
Anyway, you should read up on it, facinating really...

Win *yet*? You don't really think we are going to put down the
Islamists, do you.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

No, but I have always said by spreading the wealth, mass
communication, and real education we can eventually make them pretty
much impotent like our own KKK here in the US. If those kids had a
sneaker factory to work at, a car to drive a girl around with, and a
movie to go to, they would not be thinking about blowing themselves up
out of dispair..

wrote:
On Mar 13, 5:48 pm, HK wrote:
wrote:
On Mar 13, 5:13 pm, HK wrote:
wrote:
On Mar 13, 5:03 pm, wrote:
On Thu, 13 Mar 2008 16:47:01 -0500, John H. wrote:
You might want to consider, Republicans' were rather slow to come around
to the threat. As I recall, a BJ had all their focus. Remember "Wag
the Dog"?
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stori...esstional.reac...
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/09/25/wag-the-dog/
So you believe that Clinton was actually trying to do something other
than divert attention?
Why didn't he finish the job?
Why hasn't GWB? bin Laden is *still* missing.
yukity, yukity, yuk, that's sooooo 2003...Get with it, the mission
changes, like any war...
Translation: Bush blew it, but we don't want to discuss that part of it
anymore.
You mean, because we did not win yet? You should do a little reading
on the history, and meaning of war before you come to the table
sounding so silly. First off, in war, there are usually two or more
sides. Each side tries to win, sometimes the other side moves, or
changes tactics. Niether side wants to lose, so they fight back...
Anyway, you should read up on it, facinating really...
Win *yet*? You don't really think we are going to put down the
Islamists, do you.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

No, but I have always said by spreading the wealth, mass
communication, and real education we can eventually make them pretty
much impotent like our own KKK here in the US. If those kids had a
sneaker factory to work at, a car to drive a girl around with, and a
movie to go to, they would not be thinking about blowing themselves up
out of dispair..


Well, that makes a lot more sense than thinking we can send the US
military wherever we will to kill them.