Only this time its Newsweek and it ended up killing some people. Left-wing journalists now have blood on their hands. Let's see them explain this one away!
===If you're a true PATRIOT, maybe you should step up, get on your knees, wrap your lips around the First Member, and give your President the release he seems to need so much, in order to stop him from swinging his dick in Iraq at the expense of 1600+ U.S. soldiers' lives, 10000+ injured U.S. soldiers, 100000+ Iraqi civilians' lives, and a total loss of respect for the U.S.A. around the globe...
Whatever Clinton did or did not do: he was smart enough to keep soldiers safe, and not to destroy the economy! ===
Oh no, another whiner about the Iraqi war. Won't the liberal dreamers ever get a grasp on reality?
Clinton did a poor job of keeping sleeper cells out of the USA, and because of his lax attitude we suffered through 9-11 and the resultant hit to our economy. Your argument is chock full of holes.
<<Whatever Clinton did or did not do: he was smart enough to keep soldiers safe, and not to destroy the economy!>>
He did not keep the sailors on the USS Cole safe, did he? Nor the people in the Kobar Towers, the African Embassies or the first WTC bombing. Indeed, Turd, pull yer head out of your ample arss and look at Clinton's do nothing legacy.
Oh, ps, the economy went into recession during Sept 2000, four full months before Bush became Prez. D'oh! You lost again Turd! BWAAAAHAHAHAAAHHAAAAAAA!!
>> Wrong again Turd. Your pal terrorists started the war during Klinton's first term, but he was too busy getting hummers from a fat chick to do anything effective about it. <<
Islamic terrorism became a BIG problem on Reagan's watch, but it really doesn't do much good now to assign credit or blame to President A, B or C. Right now it is Bush who is the one that unwisely stepped in the sh!t and is up to his armpits. After he is gone, the next president will undoubtably find himself in the same pile of manure.
"Peace loving nations" - ah, well that would exclude the U.S.A.!
Wrong again Turd. Your pal terrorists started the war during Klinton's first term, but he was too busy getting hummers from a fat chick to do anything effective about it.
>> Why then are we not simply eradiciating the middle eastern peoples from the face of the earth, wherever they may live, and getting it over with? <<
That would be a hard sell, even for W.
>> That provides a much better chance for American survival than what is happening in Iraq. <<
My prediction is that in 10 years Iraq will have completely disintegrated (unless a dictator is installed to hold it together by force or Iraq is partitioned) The presence of the US military will make no difference, much like what ultimately happened to "South" Vietnam. There is no f***ing way that 130,000 troops can do anything and nobody in the US Congress is going to sit still for a Vietnam-like ratcheting up of a unilateral commitment while the "elected government" of Iraq tries to get it's sh!t together (which is EXACTLY what happened during the Vietnam War). I don't give a sh!t how much Bush claims a "democratic" Iraq is the cornerstone of his global War on Terror. Saying it is critical doesn't make it so. I'll tell those 2 moroons, Huff 'n Puff and his Nazi chickenhawk buddy, that Congress ain't gonna fall for any more of Bush's crap. His credibility on these issues is now approaching 0.00 and he did it much quicker than LBJ on Vietnam. That is a helluva accomplishment.
Today's book recommendation:
"The Color of Truth : McGeorge Bundy and William Bundy: Brothers in Arms" by Kai Bird
Check it out. Aloha.
> But again, with respects to Muzzie terrorists, this convo should be approached as a matter of survival not politics.
Why then are we not simply eradiciating the middle eastern peoples from the face of the earth, wherever they may live, and getting it over with? That provides a much better chance for American survival than what is happening in Iraq.
> Ps. The problem with N. Ireland, as with Palestine, is poor leadership.
Whatever simplistic view you have is fine by me. I happen to think it is a bit more complicated than that.
Is it also poor leadserhip to bet our survival on, for example, random airport checks rather than scrutinizing pax who look like they might be terorrists.
Get over it. It is a game, and not being played very smartly inside the beltway, and lots of Americans are falling for the charade, political correctness and all.
<<Or do you have The Faith that if everybody in the world was instantly made an American Conservative Christian, all would be peaceful, including N.Ireland, and the national Baptists conferences?>>
Of course not. I am of the faith that all people will benefit from democracy, not the dogma of ancient inseccurities. But again, with respects to Muzzie terrorists, this convo should be approached as a matter of survival not politics.
Ps. The problem with N. Ireland, as with Palestine, is poor leadership.
Your point is fine, except for the lack of historical perspective. You see only the bad in others, and only the good in yourselves.
As with the hatreds in N.Ireland, the Balkans, the middle east, African tribalism, American ghettos, right wing Americans will never throw a switch and make past grievances right themselves.
Or do you have The Faith that if everybody in the world was instantly made an American Conservative Christian, all would be peaceful, including N.Ireland, and the national Baptists conferences?
You would be right biggis if Christians were still burning witches and flying airliners into tall towers. Additionally, I believe this subject should not be approach as a matter of politics, but a matter of survival. The Muzzie terrorists don't want to convert us, they want us dead. Period. People who want to slaughter me and my countrymen do not deserve the same rights and considerations extended to peace loving nations.