|
|
|
"Trying to eliminate Saddam . . . would have incurred incalculable
human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible .
.. . We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule
Iraq . . . there was no viable 'exit strategy' we could see, violating
another of our principles. Furthermore, we had been self-consciously
trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-Cold War
world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the
United Nations' mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of
international response to aggression that we hoped to establish. Had
we gone the invasion route, the United States could conceivably still
be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land."
- Source: "A World Transformed," President
George H.W.Bush
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that
we are to stand by the president right or wrong, is not only
unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American
public."
- Theodore
Roosevelt
|
| |
| |
In article <7571b5ea.0410021047.4107142c@posting.google.com>,
laddiejr@aol.com (BillyJoe) wrote:
"Trying to eliminate Saddam . . . would have incurred incalculable
human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible .
.. . We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule
Iraq . . . there was no viable 'exit strategy' we could see, violating
another of our principles. Furthermore, we had been self-consciously
trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-Cold War
world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the
United Nations' mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of
international response to aggression that we hoped to establish. Had
we gone the invasion route, the United States could conceivably still
be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land."
- Source: "A World Transformed," President
George H.W.Bush
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that
we are to stand by the president right or wrong, is not only
unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American
public."
- Theodore
Roosevelt
It has now been several years since your emasculated ejaculation, yet
here you are, still as stupid as ever.
--
Lady Chatterly
"haven't you got a gardener to molest somewhere?" -- Vampi Fangs
|
| |
| |
laddiejr@aol.com (BillyJoe) wrote in message news:<7571b5ea.0410021047.4107142c@posting.google.com>...
"Trying to eliminate Saddam . . . would have incurred incalculable
human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible .
Apparently not.
. . We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule
Iraq . . .
Like we did with Germany and Japan after WWII?
there was no viable 'exit strategy' we could see, violating
another of our principles.
It really isn't all that difficult to see the exit strategy in the
current conflict.
Furthermore, we had been self-consciously
trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-Cold War
world.
Which doesn't appear to be working. The UN is pretty much toothless
in those areas where it's not completely corrupt.
Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the
United Nations' mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of
international response to aggression that we hoped to establish.
That situation doesn't appear to have been a precedant so much as an
isoltated incident.
Had
we gone the invasion route, the United States could conceivably still
be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land."
Or it could have conceivably brought democracy to Iran 12 years
sooner. We can play the 'conceivable' game just about any way.
|
| |
| |
In article <581ee38e.0410021728.42c27977@posting.google.com>,
ArGee45@hotmail.com (Ben) wrote:
laddiejr@aol.com (BillyJoe) wrote in message news:<7571b5ea.0410021047.4107142c@posting.google.com>...
Apparently not.
The chances of you ever finding true love are so remote they're
virtually non-existent.
. . We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule
Iraq . . .
Like we did with Germany and Japan after WWII?
Darkness reigns at the foot of the lighthouse.
there was no viable 'exit strategy' we could see, violating
another of our principles.
It really isn't all that difficult to see the exit strategy in the
current conflict.
Descrepancies? Really now?
Furthermore, we had been self-consciously
trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-Cold War
world.
Which doesn't appear to be working. The UN is pretty much toothless
in those areas where it's not completely corrupt.
Lie much?
Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the
United Nations' mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of
international response to aggression that we hoped to establish.
That situation doesn't appear to have been a precedant so much as an
isoltated incident.
During evolution your ancestors must have been in the control group.
Had
we gone the invasion route, the United States could conceivably still
be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land."
Or it could have conceivably brought democracy to Iran 12 years
sooner. We can play the 'conceivable' game just about any way.
A good denial, the best point in law.
--
Lady Chatterly
"I doubt you think more than the Lady Chatterly bot, but at least
she's somewhat coherent. What's your excuse, Goofy?" -- Cujo
DeSockpuppet
|
| |
| |
Lady Chatterly <ArGee45@catcher.in.the.rye> wrote in message news:<e98bd1e.1d34716a@chatterly.bignews5.bellsouth.net>...
In article <581ee38e.0410021728.42c27977@posting.google.com>,
ArGee45@hotmail.com (Ben) wrote:
The chances of you ever finding true love are so remote they're
virtually non-existent.
Too late--already did. :) My wife says hello.
. . We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule
Iraq . . .
Darkness reigns at the foot of the lighthouse.
And in the recesses of your mind.
there was no viable 'exit strategy' we could see, violating
another of our principles.
Descrepancies? Really now?
Furthermore, we had been self-consciously
trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-Cold War
world.
Lie much?
Tell me about the latest genocide the UN stopped swiftly and
decisively.
Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the
United Nations' mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of
international response to aggression that we hoped to establish.
During evolution your ancestors must have been in the control group.
The ones the ended up in control, yes.
Had
we gone the invasion route, the United States could conceivably still
be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land."
A good denial, the best point in law.
As compared to an unprovable assertion--they're really the same thing,
aren't they?
Activism is a way for useless people to feel important, even if the
consequences of their activism are counterproductive for those they
claim to be helping and damaging to the fabric of society as a whole.
Thomas Sowell
"If John Kerry had a dollar for every time he bragged about serving in
Vietnam oh wait, he does." -- Ann Coulter
"Democrats couldn't care less if people in Indiana hate them. But if
Europeans curl their lips, liberals can't look at themselves in the
mirror." -- Ann Coulter
"...Conservatives have excellent credentials to speak about human
rights. By our efforts, and with precious little help from self-styled
liberals, we were largely responsible for securing liberty for a
substantial share of the world's population and defending it for most
of the rest." -- Margaret Thatcher
"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and
degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that
nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for
which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his
own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of
being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than
himself" -- John Stuart Mill
|
| |
| |
ArGee45@hotmail.com (Ben) wrote in message news:<581ee38e.0410021728.42c27977@posting.google.com>...
laddiejr@aol.com (BillyJoe) wrote in message news:<7571b5ea.0410021047.4107142c@posting.google.com>...
Apparently not.
Like we did with Germany and Japan after WWII?
Missing the point. What he was saying was apprehending Sadam Hussein
would have been impossible UNLESS we occupied Baghdad, which is
EXACTLY what has happened. And this is QUITE a different situation
than Germany and Japan after WWII. Unlike those countries, which were
more unified and were seeking essentially the same national goals
after the war, this is a very fractured land with different ethnic
groups that are in conflict with one another and which do not share
the same vision. That's why this is a mess.
It really isn't all that difficult to see the exit strategy in the
current conflict.
Really? Please explain.
Which doesn't appear to be working. The UN is pretty much toothless
in those areas where it's not completely corrupt.
"Toothless" because the current adminstration undermines its authority
and defies it, except on those occasions when the UN passes
resolutions the administration had been pushing, then suddenly its all
about how the world must respect those resolutions.
Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the
United Nations' mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of
international response to aggression that we hoped to establish.
That situation doesn't appear to have been a precedant so much as an
isoltated incident.
Well I would HOPE the Bush adminstration isn't trying to set a new
precedent with this invasion, but unfortunately that's the way the
world sees it. We've lost credibility and respect in the world
community. We're being seen as imperialists, opportunists and
occupiers, not as benevolent promoters of democracy and freedom.
Had
we gone the invasion route, the United States could conceivably still
be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land."
Or it could have conceivably brought democracy to Iran 12 years
sooner. We can play the 'conceivable' game just about any way.
How would taking over Iraq 12 years ago have brought democracy to
Iran?
|
| |
| |
In article <581ee38e.0410030928.e509672@posting.google.com>,
ArGee45@hotmail.com (Ben) wrote:
Lady Chatterly <ArGee45@catcher.in.the.rye> wrote in message news:<e98bd1e.1d34716a@chatterly.bignews5.bellsouth.net>...
Too late--already did. :) My wife says hello.
Who me? I just wander from group to group.
. . We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule
Iraq . . .
Like we did with Germany and Japan after WWII?
Darkness reigns at the foot of the lighthouse.
And in the recesses of your mind.
But in reply out of my door, you witch, you hag, you baggage, you
polecat, you ronyon!
there was no viable 'exit strategy' we could see, violating
another of our principles.
It really isn't all that difficult to see the exit strategy in the
current conflict.
Descrepancies? Really now?
Furthermore, we had been self-consciously
trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-Cold War
world.
Which doesn't appear to be working. The UN is pretty much toothless
in those areas where it's not completely corrupt.
Lie much?
Tell me about the latest genocide the UN stopped swiftly and
decisively.
I worship the ground that awaits you.
Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the
United Nations' mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of
international response to aggression that we hoped to establish.
That situation doesn't appear to have been a precedant so much as an
isoltated incident.
During evolution your ancestors must have been in the control group.
The ones the ended up in control, yes.
Make somebody happy. Mind your own business.
Had
we gone the invasion route, the United States could conceivably still
be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land."
Or it could have conceivably brought democracy to Iran 12 years
sooner. We can play the 'conceivable' game just about any way.
A good denial, the best point in law.
As compared to an unprovable assertion--they're really the same thing,
aren't they?
Are you always so stupid or is today a special occasion?
Activism is a way for useless people to feel important, even if the
consequences of their activism are counterproductive for those they
claim to be helping and damaging to the fabric of society as a whole.
Thomas Sowell
Away. Thou art poison to my blood.
"If John Kerry had a dollar for every time he bragged about serving in
Vietnam oh wait, he does." -- Ann Coulter
I could make a monkey out of you, but why should I take all the
credit?
"Democrats couldn't care less if people in Indiana hate them. But if
Europeans curl their lips, liberals can't look at themselves in the
mirror." -- Ann Coulter
What are you looking at?
"...Conservatives have excellent credentials to speak about human
rights. By our efforts, and with precious little help from self-styled
liberals, we were largely responsible for securing liberty for a
substantial share of the world's population and defending it for most
of the rest." -- Margaret Thatcher
What shall I call thee when thou art a human?
"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and
degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that
nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for
which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his
own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of
being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than
himself" -- John Stuart Mill
So? Were you sharing a brain today and it wasn't your turn?
--
Lady Chatterly
"Lady Chatterly is a software program that generates posts, Stupid."
-- Meat-->Plow
|
| |
| |
In article <7571b5ea.0410030950.29d9c15b@posting.google.com>,
laddiejr@aol.com (BillyJoe) wrote:
ArGee45@hotmail.com (Ben) wrote in message news:<581ee38e.0410021728.42c27977@posting.google.com>...
Missing the point. What he was saying was apprehending Sadam Hussein
would have been impossible UNLESS we occupied Baghdad, which is
EXACTLY what has happened. And this is QUITE a different situation
than Germany and Japan after WWII. Unlike those countries, which were
more unified and were seeking essentially the same national goals
after the war, this is a very fractured land with different ethnic
groups that are in conflict with one another and which do not share
the same vision. That's why this is a mess.
She looks hassled and depressed.
there was no viable 'exit strategy' we could see, violating
another of our principles.
It really isn't all that difficult to see the exit strategy in the
current conflict.
Really? Please explain.
Cause I heard the only reason you are here is cause you got paroled.
Furthermore, we had been self-consciously
trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-Cold War
world.
Which doesn't appear to be working. The UN is pretty much toothless
in those areas where it's not completely corrupt.
"Toothless" because the current adminstration undermines its authority
and defies it, except on those occasions when the UN passes
resolutions the administration had been pushing, then suddenly its all
about how the world must respect those resolutions.
Are you a politician or does lying just run in your family?
Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the
United Nations' mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of
international response to aggression that we hoped to establish.
That situation doesn't appear to have been a precedant so much as an
isoltated incident.
Well I would HOPE the Bush adminstration isn't trying to set a new
precedent with this invasion, but unfortunately that's the way the
world sees it. We've lost credibility and respect in the world
community. We're being seen as imperialists, opportunists and
occupiers, not as benevolent promoters of democracy and freedom.
I don't consider you a vulture. I consider you something a vulture
would eat.
Had
we gone the invasion route, the United States could conceivably still
be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land."
Or it could have conceivably brought democracy to Iran 12 years
sooner. We can play the 'conceivable' game just about any way.
How would taking over Iraq 12 years ago have brought democracy to
Iran?
What color is the sky in your world?
--
Lady Chatterly
"haven't you got a gardener to molest somewhere?" -- Vampi Fangs
|
| |
| |
laddiejr@aol.com (BillyJoe) wrote in message news:<7571b5ea.0410030950.29d9c15b@posting.google.com>...
ArGee45@hotmail.com (Ben) wrote in message news:<581ee38e.0410021728.42c27977@posting.google.com>...
Missing the point. What he was saying was apprehending Sadam Hussein
would have been impossible UNLESS we occupied Baghdad, which is
EXACTLY what has happened.
No, I got the point. My cut into the OP wasn't the smoothest.
And this is QUITE a different situation
than Germany and Japan after WWII. Unlike those countries, which were
more unified and were seeking essentially the same national goals
after the war, this is a very fractured land with different ethnic
groups that are in conflict with one another and which do not share
the same vision. That's why this is a mess.
Well, I wasn't alive then, so I can only go on what I read and from
what those who were alive tell me, but from what I understand, Germany
and Japan were both chaotic places to be for the first year or so.
Many of the citizens there didn't appreciate our presence. Back in
the U.S., there was some stringent opposition to us remaining behind
in those countries and trying to bolster them back up.
With regards to Iraq being a fractured land with different ethnic
groups that are in conflict and don't share the same vision, a
pessimist might be able to say you're also describing the United
States. I'm not a pessimist, but I do know that a common acceptance
of a rule of law, while not smoothing over the differences, can give
groups resources with which to address them.
Really? Please explain.
Explain what? Enabling the Iraqis to hold their own elections?
Training their police and military to take over responsibility? Aid
in reconstruction and then pull out in stages? This, among other
things, is all stuff that's been pretty well publicized. Now, if you
want to talk about how *well* this has been going, that's another
thing.
"Toothless" because the current adminstration undermines its authority
and defies it, except on those occasions when the UN passes
resolutions the administration had been pushing, then suddenly its all
about how the world must respect those resolutions.
No, toothless because they themselves don't enforce their resolutions.
But "toothless" might actually be the wrong word, because it's pretty
clear that France and Russia had been back-dooring aid to Hussein
during the years of the "sanctions" (one might be able to argue that
because of this, because Hussein was able to skirt the sanctions, it
made war in one form or another inevitable), and Kofi Anon himself has
less than clean hands over the oil for food program. Yeah, the more I
think about it, the more I think "toothless" is being too charitable.
How's the U.N. doing with the genocide in Darfur, by the way? I
understand they've upped their response to "stern frowning".
Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the
United Nations' mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of
international response to aggression that we hoped to establish.
Well I would HOPE the Bush adminstration isn't trying to set a new
precedent with this invasion, but unfortunately that's the way the
world sees it.
I was referring to the precedent of an international response to
aggression. It doesn't appear that the U.N. is willing to walk the
walk.
We've lost credibility and respect in the world
community.
I don't worry about France's respect--do you? I would think that
Great Britain, Australia, Italy, and Poland would count for more than
France and Germany.
And did you notice that the four countries I mentioned don't appear to
have been involved in skirting the U.N. sanctions? Hmmmm....
We're being seen as imperialists, opportunists and
occupiers, not as benevolent promoters of democracy and freedom.
Have you spoken to many service people returning from Iraq? CBS, ABC,
and NBC might not be the best sources of accurate news.
Had
we gone the invasion route, the United States could conceivably still
be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land."
How would taking over Iraq 12 years ago have brought democracy to
Iran?
Mistake on my part. I meant to type 'Iraq'.
|
| |
| |
States. I'm not a pessimist, but I do know that a common acceptance
of a rule of law, while not smoothing over the differences, can give
groups resources with which to address them.
thats nice
how many soldiers are you willing sacrafice to see if youre right
arf meow arf
|
| |
| |
ArGee45@hotmail.com (Ben) wrote in message news:<581ee38e.0410030928.e509672@posting.google.com>...
The person who has nothing for
which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his
own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of
being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than
himself" -- John Stuart Mill
A rather fitting elegy for Bush's tour with the National Guard.
|
| |
| |
or Clinton's service (not!)
|
| |
| |
How many more citizens do you want to
sacrifice here?
|
| |
| |
In article <Py18d.6484$Rf1.4697@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com>,
"R&B Wiz" <RB@Wiz.com> wrote:
or Clinton's service (not!)
the last few months every republican has being
saying vietnam doesnt matter anymore
does it or doesnt it?
arf meow arf
|
| |
| |
In article <aa5e6c97.0410031713.771ba13d@posting.google.com>,
cfleming331@hotmail.com (ShazBot) wrote:
ArGee45@hotmail.com (Ben) wrote in message news:<581ee38e.0410030928.e509672@posting.google.com>...
A rather fitting elegy for Bush's tour with the National Guard.
Arrest them if they violate your state sovereignty.
--
Lady Chatterly
"Do you make a habit of chatting up bots?" -- Qasim
|
| |
| |
In article <Fz18d.6485$Rf1.3231@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com>,
"R&B Wiz" <RB@Wiz.com> wrote:
How many more citizens do you want to
sacrifice here?
how many of what citizens where?
and waht was endangering them?
arf meow arf
|
| |
| |
~3000 in New York. Either we take it to them
or they bring it to us. Too many people just
don't get it. It's not about oil or Iraq. It's about
sucking them out of their rat holes over there.
Do you suggest we kiss an make up? Kerry-Pussy
is only going to make it easier for them to come
here.
|
| |
| |
In article <2x28d.6510$Rf1.5386@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com>,
"R&B Wiz" <RB@Wiz.com> wrote:
~3000 in New York. Either we take it to them
only people too stupid to realize dick cheney is liar believe that
everyone else knows iraq had nothing to do with that
or they bring it to us. Too many people just
don't get it. It's not about oil or Iraq. It's about
sucking them out of their rat holes over there.
why not egypt or jordan? no oil there
why not sudan? no oil there
why was afghanistan abandoned? no oil ther
arf meow arf
|
| |
| |
On Sun, 03 Oct 2004 19:35:46 -0700, mariposas morgan mair fheal
greykitten tomys des anges <mair_fheal@yahoo.com> wrote:
In article <2x28d.6510$Rf1.5386@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com>,
"R&B Wiz" <RB@Wiz.com> wrote:
only people too stupid to realize dick cheney is liar believe that
everyone else knows iraq had nothing to do with that
why not egypt or jordan? no oil there
why not sudan? no oil there
why was afghanistan abandoned? no oil ther
arf meow arf
Your going to end up in the kill file if you don't start doing
something other then satisfying (no matter how embarrassing). You're
ego stroking makes you look pretty stupid and it's not funny or witty
(are you a guy by chance?).
|
| |
| |
In article <5sd1m01gs203aomf1lmcaa97d7rj0ft450@4ax.com>,
Bob <Smokes@lot.here.com> wrote:
On Sun, 03 Oct 2004 19:35:46 -0700, mariposas morgan mair fheal
greykitten tomys des anges <mair_fheal@yahoo.com> wrote:
Your going to end up in the kill file if you don't start doing
now im so afraid
arf meow arf
|
| |
| |
On Sun, 03 Oct 2004 19:59:39 -0700, mariposas morgan mair fheal
greykitten tomys des anges <mair_fheal@yahoo.com> wrote:
In article <5sd1m01gs203aomf1lmcaa97d7rj0ft450@4ax.com>,
Bob <Smokes@lot.here.com> wrote:
now im so afraid
arf meow arf
Dang woman, you're offered spelling and grammar mistakes and you don't
even bat an eyelash.
We'll write this up as a therapy session, bill you 150 and forget
about it in a few days.
|
| |
| |
n Sun, 03 Oct 2004 17:51:49 -0700, mariposas morgan mair fheal
greykitten tomys des anges <mair_fheal@yahoo.com> wrote:
arf meow arf
....and some from the democrap's candidate:
KERRY VS. KERRY Kerry's Top Ten Iraq Flip Flops From First Debate
___________________________________________________
VIEW THE "KERRY VS. KERRY" DEBATE VIDEO HERE:
http://media1.streamtoyou.com/rnc/100104v1.wmv
ONE: Claimed "I'll Never Give A Veto To Any Country Over Our
Security." (Sen. John Kerry, First Presidential Debate, Miami, FL,
9/30/04)
Preemption Must Pass "Global Test" First. "No president, though all
of American history, has ever ceded, and nor would I, the right to
preempt in any way necessary to protect the United States of America.
But if and when you do it, Jim, you have to do it in a way that passes
the test, that passes the global test where your countrymen, your
people understand fully why you're doing what you're doing and you can
prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons." (Sen. John
Kerry, First Presidential Debate, Miami, FL, 9/30/04)
Kerry Would Wait On French And Russians To Defend America. SEN.
JOHN KERRY: "I would have done what was necessary to know that you had
exhausted the available remedies with the French and the Russians."
(MSNBC's "Hardball," 10/20/03)
TWO: Claimed "Reason For Going To War Was Weapons Of Mass Destruction,
Not The Removal Of Saddam Hussein." (Sen. John Kerry, First
Presidential Debate, Miami, FL, 9/30/04)
Kerry Said "Greatest Threat" Was Saddam's "Miscalculation," Not
"Actual" WMDs. KERRY: "I would disagree with John McCain that it's
the actual weapons of mass destruction he may use against us, it's
what he may do in another invasion of Kuwait or in a miscalculation
about the Kurds or a miscalculation about Iran or particularly Israel.
Those are the things that - that I think present the greatest danger.
He may even miscalculate and slide these weapons off to terrorist
groups to invite them to be a surrogate to use them against the United
States. It's the miscalculation that poses the greatest threat." (CBS'
"Face The Nation," 9/15/02)
THREE: Claimed "This President Has Made, I Regret To Say, A Colossal
Error Of Judgment. And Judgment Is What We Look For In The President
Of The United States Of America." (Sen. John Kerry, First Presidential
Debate, Miami, FL, 9/30/04)
Kerry Questioned Judgment Of Those Claiming Saddam's Capture Didn't
Help U.S. Security. "Those who doubted whether Iraq or the world
would be better off without Saddam Hussein and those who believe today
that we are not safer with his capture don't have the judgment to be
president or the credibility to be elected president." (CNN's "Capital
Gang," 12/20/03; Anne Q. Hoy, "Dean Faces More Criticism," [New York]
Newsday, 12/17/03)
FOUR: Complained "We Are 90 Percent Of The Casualties And 90 Percent
Of The Cost: $200 Billion - $200 Billion That Could Have Been Used For
Health Care, For Schools, For Construction, For Prescription Drugs For
Seniors, And It's In Iraq." (Sen. John Kerry, First Presidential
Debate, Miami, FL, 9/30/04)
Kerry Pledged To Fund Reconstruction With "Whatever Number" Of
Dollars It Took. NBC'S TIM RUSSERT: "Do you believe that we should
reduce funding that we are now providing for the operation in Iraq?"
SEN. JOHN KERRY: "No. I think we should increase it." RUSSERT:
"Increase funding?" KERRY: "Yes." RUSSERT: "By how much?" KERRY: "By
whatever number of billions of dollars it takes to win. It is critical
that the United States of America be successful in Iraq, Tim." (NBC's
"Meet The Press," 8/31/03)
FIVE: Claimed "You Don't Send Troops To War Without The Body Armor
That They Need." (Sen. John Kerry, First Presidential Debate, Miami,
FL, 9/30/04)
Kerry Said It Would Be Reckless And "Irresponsible" To Vote Against
Funding For Troops. LOS ANGELES TIMES' DOYLE McMANUS: "If that
amendment does not pass, will you then vote against the $87 billion?"
KERRY: "I don't think any United States senator is going to abandon
our troops and recklessly leave Iraq to whatever follows as a result
of simply cutting and running. That's irresponsible. What is
responsible is for the administration to do this properly now. And I
am laying out the way in which the administration could unite the
American people, could bring other countries to the table, and I think
could give the American people a sense that they' re on the right
track. There's a way to do this properly. But I don't think anyone in
the Congress is going to not give our troops ammunition, not give our
troops the ability to be able to defend themselves. We're not going to
cut and run and not do the job." (CBS' "Face The Nation," 9/14/03)
Kerry Voted Against Senate Passage Of Iraq/Afghanistan
Reconstruction Package That Included "Money For Body Armor For
Soldiers." (S. 1689, CQ Vote #400: Passed 87-12: R 50-0; D 37-11; I
0-1, 10/17/03, Kerry Voted Nay; "Highlights Of Iraq, Afghanistan
Measures," The Associated Press, 10/17/03)
'"I Actually Did Vote For The $87 Billion Before I Voted Against
It,' [Kerry] Said."(Glen Johnson, "Kerry Blasts Bush On Protecting
Troops," The Boston Globe, 3/17/04)
SIX: Said Americans In Iraq Not Dying For "Mistake." PBS' JIM LEHRER:
"Are Americans now dying in Iraq for a mistake?" KERRY: "No, and they
don't have to, providing we have the leadership that we put - that I'm
offering." (Sen. John Kerry, First Presidential Debate, Miami, FL,
9/30/04)
Earlier In Debate, Kerry Called Iraq War "Mistake." "We can't leave
a failed Iraq. But that doesn't mean it wasn't a mistake of judgment
to go there and take the focus off of Osama bin Laden. It was." (Sen.
John Kerry, First Presidential Debate, Miami, FL, 9/30/04)
"But The President Made A Mistake In Invading Iraq." (Sen. John
Kerry, First Presidential Debate, Miami, FL, 9/30/04)
SEVEN: Said Knowing What He Knows Now, "Would Not" Have Authorized Use
Of Force. "What I think troubles a lot of people in our country is
that the president has just sort of described one kind of mistake. But
what he has said is that, even knowing there were no weapons of mass
destruction, even knowing there was no imminent threat, even knowing
there was no connection with al Qaeda, he would still have done
everything the same way. Those are his words. Now, I would not."
(Sen. John Kerry, First Presidential Debate, Miami, FL, 9/30/04)
Said Knowing What He Knows Now, "Would Have Voted For The
Authority." SEN. JOHN KERRY: "Yes, I would have voted for the
authority. I believe it's the right authority for a president to have.
But I would have used that authority as I have said throughout this
campaign, effectively. I would have done this very differently from
the way President Bush has." (CNN's "Inside Politics," 8/9/04)
EIGHT: Claimed "The President Says That I'm Denigrating These Troops.
I Have Nothing But Respect For The British, Tony Blair, And For What
They've Been Willing To Do." (Sen. John Kerry, First Presidential
Debate, Miami, FL, 9/30/04)
Kerry Dismissed Coalition Partners As "Window Dressing" And Claimed
They're Not Sharing Burden Of War And Reconstruction. CNN'S BILL
HEMMER: "The White House would say that dozens of countries are
helping now in the effort on the ground in Iraq and they are engaged
with the U.N., as well, how would more international i
|
| |
| |
In article <1096870205.L9djaunVxrqmqs6ScXhdsw@teranews>,
S. O. Damocles <so@damocl.es> wrote:
On Sun, 03 Oct 2004 17:51:49 -0700, mariposas morgan mair fheal
greykitten tomys des anges <mair_fheal@yahoo.com> wrote:
...and some from the democrap's candidate:
do say
so you realize shrub is indefensible
so you want to divert by attacking kerry
arf meow arf
|
| |
| |
cfleming331@hotmail.com (ShazBot) wrote in message news:<aa5e6c97.0410031713.771ba13d@posting.google.com>...
ArGee45@hotmail.com (Ben) wrote in message news:<581ee38e.0410030928.e509672@posting.google.com>...
A rather fitting elegy for Bush's tour with the National Guard.
Kerry applied for, but failed, to get a deferrment. But if he'd
succeeded, I doubt if you'd be disparaging the National Guard.
|
| |
| |
mariposas morgan mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges <mair_fheal@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<mair_fheal-930E52.17514903102004@corp.supernews.com>...
States. I'm not a pessimist, but I do know that a common acceptance
of a rule of law, while not smoothing over the differences, can give
groups resources with which to address them.
thats nice
how many soldiers are you willing sacrafice to see if youre right
What a stupid question.
|
| |
| |
In article <581ee38e.0410040200.a00df00@posting.google.com>,
ArGee45@hotmail.com (Ben) wrote:
mariposas morgan mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges <mair_fheal@yahoo.com>
States. I'm not a pessimist, but I do know that a common acceptance
of a rule of law, while not smoothing over the differences, can give
groups resources with which to address them.
What a stupid question.
what an evasive answer
arf meow arf
|
| |
| |
mariposas morgan mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges <mair_fheal@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<mair_fheal-C3D64D.03055004102004@corp.supernews.com>...
In article <581ee38e.0410040200.a00df00@posting.google.com>,
ArGee45@hotmail.com (Ben) wrote:
what an evasive answer
It's an inane question. It's like asking how many fire fighters we're
willing to sacrifice to fight fires, or how many construction workers
we're willing to sacrifice to build bridges and tunnels, or how many
cops we're willing to sacrifice to fight crime, or how many farmers
we're willing to sacrifice to produce food, etc, etc, etc.
But keep trying. :)
|
| |
| |
In article <581ee38e.0410040157.4746ebbe@posting.google.com>,
Ben <ArGee45@hotmail.com> wrote:
cfleming331@hotmail.com (ShazBot) wrote in message news:<aa5e6c97.0410031713.771ba13d@posting.google.com>...
Kerry applied for, but failed, to get a deferrment.
Too bad he wasn't as resourceful as Cheney, who managed to get five of them.
But if he'd
succeeded, I doubt if you'd be disparaging the National Guard.
Bush disparaged the National Guard, when he used connections to jump
to the head of the line and then failed to meet his obligations.
|
| |
| |
In article <581ee38e.0410040555.73a8b30a@posting.google.com>,
ArGee45@hotmail.com (Ben) wrote:
mariposas morgan mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges <mair_fheal@yahoo.com>
It's an inane question. It's like asking how many fire fighters we're
willing to sacrifice to fight fires, or how many construction workers
how many firefighters start the fires they die in?
we're willing to sacrifice to build bridges and tunnels, or how many
cops we're willing to sacrifice to fight crime, or how many farmers
we're willing to sacrifice to produce food, etc, etc, etc.
etc
youre confusing different issues
accidental death is inevitable and some of the soldiers wouldve died anyway
in training accidents
thats quite different from sending soldiers into danger for no reason
and hoping it will all work out before too many are killed
arf meow arf
|
| |
| |
"mariposas morgan mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges"
In article <2x28d.6510$Rf1.5386@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com>,
"R&B Wiz" <RB@Wiz.com> wrote:
only people too stupid to realize dick cheney is liar believe that
everyone else knows iraq had nothing to do with that
why not egypt or jordan? no oil there
why not sudan? no oil there
why was afghanistan abandoned? no oil ther
When was Afghanistan abandoned?
Rich Soyack
|
| |
| |
tjab@wam.umd.edu (tjab) wrote in message news:<cjs0ce$eq3@rac2.wam.umd.edu>...
In article <581ee38e.0410040157.4746ebbe@posting.google.com>, Ben <ArGee45@hotmail.com> wrote: Too bad he wasn't as resourceful as Cheney, who managed to get five of them.
Bush disparaged the National Guard, when he used connections to jump
to the head of the line and then failed to meet his obligations.
Bush has an honorable discharge. Did Kerry finish his obligations?
Oh, wait, he won't release those records.
|
| |
