In article ,
"Rod Speed" wrote:

Don Klipstein wrote:
In article , HeyBub wrote:
CJT wrote:

... and a very good thing that will be, too. Bush and his clan have
wrought enough destruction it'll take two terms of a Democrat just
to get things back close to normal.

If you're not with us, you're on the side of the terrorists.

I hope this is irony or some other class of humor!

Bush II got re-elected by being against the "terrorists" but
has gone through over 7 years, and over 6 of those after "9/11",
without capturing Osama bin Laden either dead or alive!

He has however ensured that there hasnt been another terrorist obscenity in
the US since 9/11

You know, the thing is that a criminal can do pretty much what they want
until they attract attention. Once the "heat" starts lookin' at you, it
is a whole other story. Maybe Osama had help with 9/11. maybe not. Maybe
it was just a coincidence that the neo-cons got just what they were
prayin' for. Fact is, Osama ain't theSoviet Union. He don't got no F-16,
no tomahawk missiles, no M1 Abrams tanks, and no freakin aircraft
carriers. Al Quaida is a gang man, a gang. If Bush didn't need a "War on
Terror" to keep the bucks flowin', Osama & CO. would be old news.
--

Billy

Bush, Cheney & Pelosi, Behind Bars
http://rachelcorriefoundation.org/site/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Movemen...George_W._Bush

Billy wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Don Klipstein wrote
HeyBub wrote
CJT wrote

... and a very good thing that will be, too. Bush and his
clan have wrought enough destruction it'll take two terms
of a Democrat just to get things back close to normal.

If you're not with us, you're on the side of the terrorists.

I hope this is irony or some other class of humor!

Bush II got re-elected by being against the "terrorists" but
has gone through over 7 years, and over 6 of those after "9/11",
without capturing Osama bin Laden either dead or alive!

He has however ensured that there hasnt been
another terrorist obscenity in the US since 9/11

You know, the thing is that a criminal can do pretty
much what they want until they attract attention.

bin Laden had got plenty of attention before 9/11.

No one did anything much about him because no one
expected him to be able to organise something like 9/11.

Once the "heat" starts lookin' at you, it is a whole other
story. Maybe Osama had help with 9/11. maybe not.

Its unlikely that whoever organised it expected the
towers to implode as spectacularly as they did.

Maybe it was just a coincidence that the
neo-cons got just what they were prayin' for.

Yep, thats what happened.

Fact is, Osama ain't theSoviet Union. He don't got no F-16, no tomahawk
missiles, no M1 Abrams tanks, and no freakin aircraft carriers.

And it aint that easy to find someone who chooses to hide out in some cave etc.

Al Quaida is a gang man, a gang. If Bush didn't need a "War on Terror"
to keep the bucks flowin', Osama & CO. would be old news.

Bullshit. He'd be disposed of if they could find him,
just like the others have been killed when they can be.

Dan Espen wrote
Kurt Ullman wrote
(Don Klipstein) wrote

I hope this is irony or some other class of humor!

Bush II got re-elected by being against the "terrorists" but has
gone through over 7 years, and over 6 of those after "9/11",
without capturing Osama bin Laden either dead or alive!

The horror! Of course the fact that there hasn't been a (successful)
attempt on US soil since then is all outweighed by not finding OBL.

Come on guys.

There's no need for an attack on US soil.
Plenty of American's right there in the middle east as easy targets.

Yes, but its a lot harder to ensure that they dont get targetted in a place like Saudi etc.

Count total American losses and then figure out how well this is working.

The death toll isnt any higher than with accidents if Iraq hadnt been invaded.

It's not working, whether you count losses as bodies or losses as dollars.

Depends on how you define working. Saddam has been eliminated
and hasnt been replaced by someone who is just as bad.

The personal circumstances for most Iraqis is much worse than it was under Saddam tho.

It remains to be seen whether it can ever be better for those than it was under
Saddam, but it certainly is for some of them, most obviously with the Kurds.

In fact it's a total disaster.

Nope. Nothing like one either.

Nate Nagel wrote
Don Klipstein wrote
CJT wrote
Shawn Hirn wrote
Doobie Keebler wrote
wrote

John McCain .. wants to remain in iraq for 20 years...

This is why McCain is not electable:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vf7HYoh9YMM&NR=1

"100 Years In Iraq" is not a good campaign slogan for 2008.
Nobody wants their grandkids to still be fighting this war.

Thats arguable. Not too many care about the US troops still in Germany and Japan etc.

Rudy's toast, Huckabee is a religious nut, Mitt is a douchebag,
so that leaves St. John of McCain and his Holy War.

There are no good choices on the GOP ticket: get ready for Hillary/ Obama

I agree. McCain will get the Republican nomination, but he ****es
off a lot of conservatives, and he won't be able to rely on the
religious wing-nut base, which means a lot of Republicans will
either sit out this election or vote third party. I know know who
will win the Democratic nomination, but whomever it turns out to
be will surely be our next president.

... and a very good thing that will be, too. Bush and his clan have
wrought enough destruction it'll take two terms of a Democrat just
to get things back close to normal.

I doubt anyone who is now or ever was a front-runner for the current presidential election is going to win the job by
honestly promising to fix what is now broken.

Because most dont agree on what is allegedly 'broken'

And very few candidates care about what YOU personally claim is 'broken'

I see winning the job by either promising to keep most broken things broken or by being expected to break promises to
fix what is broken.

More fool you.

I sorely wish that American voters would change this state!

Taint gunna happen.

A good start would be admitting that there's more wrong than a couple
minor issues and that there is stuff that's broken that needs fixed...

But again, there will never be general agreement on what is 'broken'

It's like there's this 400 lb. gorilla in the room and both parties are ignoring it... debt, war, recession, etc.
etc. etc...

No they arent ignoring it. They realise that the fed has avoided full depression
for getting on for 70 years now fine and that it will do this time too.

And they are both in agreement about how best to minimise a recession too.

No one cares much about the debt except a few rabid loons.

No one can think of any effective way of ending the fiasco in Iraq,
and it looks like the current approach is becoming relatively effective.

"Rod Speed" writes:

Dan Espen wrote
Kurt Ullman wrote
(Don Klipstein) wrote

I hope this is irony or some other class of humor!

Bush II got re-elected by being against the "terrorists" but has
gone through over 7 years, and over 6 of those after "9/11",
without capturing Osama bin Laden either dead or alive!

The horror! Of course the fact that there hasn't been a (successful)
attempt on US soil since then is all outweighed by not finding OBL.

Come on guys.

There's no need for an attack on US soil.
Plenty of American's right there in the middle east as easy targets.

Yes, but its a lot harder to ensure that they dont get targetted in a place like Saudi etc.

Count total American losses and then figure out how well this is working.

The death toll isnt any higher than with accidents if Iraq hadnt been invaded.

Huh?

You're trying to say, if that bomb hadn't killed that soldier
he would have died in a traffic accident with the same frequency?

I must have misread what you posted.
It makes no sense at all.

It's not working, whether you count losses as bodies or losses as dollars.

Depends on how you define working. Saddam has been eliminated
and hasnt been replaced by someone who is just as bad.

Try to follow along.

We were attacked by Saudis.

Number of terrorists from Iraq were zero.
What does replacing one dictator with another have to
do with this?

Any fool can see that Iraq will immediately revert to
dictatorship when we leave.

In fact it's a total disaster.

Nope. Nothing like one either.

Still a repressive monarchy in Saudi Arabia.
Not enough troops to find the nuts in Afghanistan.

Total, complete, utter failure.

In article ,
sherwindu wrote:

True, we are continuing to lose troops in Iraq, but putting things in
perspective, we lost almost as many troops in one day (D-Day), than we
have
lost
in the entire Iraq war. In those days, we did not see the daily names of
soldiers
and sailors lost in WWII because of lack of modern communications and
concerns for support of the war. Now we see daily reports of every single
causualty on our TV's. It keeps the TV networks and newspapers in
business,
but does little to support our troops.

Sherwin

With this kind of support who needs enemies? In WWII we didn't shot the
people that we were liberating. In WWII we didn't shot journalists who
weren't embedded with our citzen army. In WWII we weren't lied to about
why we were at war. True, this isn't like Vietnam, except for the
bullets, except for the bombs. No more vain-glorious Doo-Doo politics.
Bring our children home.

--
Bush Behind Bars

Billy
http://angryarab.blogspot.com/

In article ,
sherwindu wrote:

Billy wrote:

In article ,
sherwindu wrote:

Comics Momma WebTV wrote:

He McCain is a lefty pinko.
Did not fight in viet nam, helped and assisted the viet cong by
turning himself in and being a prisoner.

OK, Mr. brave guy. What wars did you fight in? What medals did
you get? I think this is big talk from someone who has never been
in battle.


Real patriot would not have surrendered.

That's what the Nazi SS did. We had to kill every one of the *******s.

Pinkos surrender. My son
comic would not have surrendered, he would hide under his bed like
during this war.
I see somebody left the door open. Thanks for the weirdoes "Doo", not
that a fascist, zionist pig would know any better.

Billy

Look what just crawled out from under a rock!

Zionists are to Judaism, what the Klan is to Christianity. Whatever they
claim their motives are, the reality is that they are about stealing
land. With no justice in the middle east, there will be no peace. Two
wrongs don't make a right. Re-unite Palestine.

--
Bush Behind Bars

Billy
http://angryarab.blogspot.com/

In article ,
"Rod Speed" wrote:

Dan Espen wrote
Kurt Ullman wrote
(Don Klipstein) wrote

I hope this is irony or some other class of humor!

Bush II got re-elected by being against the "terrorists" but has
gone through over 7 years, and over 6 of those after "9/11",
without capturing Osama bin Laden either dead or alive!

The horror! Of course the fact that there hasn't been a (successful)
attempt on US soil since then is all outweighed by not finding OBL.

Come on guys.

There's no need for an attack on US soil.
Plenty of American's right there in the middle east as easy targets.

Yes, but its a lot harder to ensure that they dont get targetted in a place
like Saudi etc.

Count total American losses and then figure out how well this is working.

The death toll isnt any higher than with accidents if Iraq hadnt been
invaded.

It's not working, whether you count losses as bodies or losses as dollars.

Depends on how you define working. Saddam has been eliminated
and hasnt been replaced by someone who is just as bad.

The personal circumstances for most Iraqis is much worse than it was under
Saddam tho.

It remains to be seen whether it can ever be better for those than it was
under
Saddam, but it certainly is for some of them, most obviously with the Kurds.

In fact it's a total disaster.

Nope. Nothing like one either.

What would you call the displacement of 15% of the population from their
homes? Those who do have homes face 60% unemployment, continuing
blackouts and, the constant threat of terrorism by people who don't want
peace (not necessarily arabs).
--

Billy

Bush, Cheney & Pelosi, Behind Bars
http://rachelcorriefoundation.org/site/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Movemen...George_W._Bush

Dan Espen wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Dan Espen wrote
Kurt Ullman wrote
(Don Klipstein) wrote

I hope this is irony or some other class of humor!

Bush II got re-elected by being against the "terrorists" but has
gone through over 7 years, and over 6 of those after "9/11",
without capturing Osama bin Laden either dead or alive!

The horror! Of course the fact that there hasn't been a (successful)
attempt on US soil since then is all outweighed by not finding OBL.

Come on guys.

There's no need for an attack on US soil.
Plenty of American's right there in the middle east as easy targets.

Yes, but its a lot harder to ensure that they
dont get targetted in a place like Saudi etc.

Count total American losses and then figure out how well this is working.

The death toll isnt any higher than with accidents if Iraq hadnt been invaded.

Huh?

You're trying to say, if that bomb hadn't killed that soldier he
would have died in a traffic accident with the same frequency?

Yes, that is what I am actually saying. There is no 'trying' involved.

I must have misread what you posted.
It makes no sense at all.

Its a fact, quite surprising tho that fact is.

It's not working, whether you count losses as bodies or losses as dollars.

Depends on how you define working. Saddam has been eliminated
and hasnt been replaced by someone who is just as bad.

Try to follow along.

Try retaking Bullshitting 101.

We were attacked by Saudis.

Nope, quite a few of them were egyptians.

Number of terrorists from Iraq were zero.

Iraq did financially support a number of terrorists, particularly in Palestine etc.

What does replacing one dictator with another

The current top monkey isnt a dictator, he was elected in democratic elections.

have to do with this?

Any fool can see that Iraq will immediately revert to dictatorship when we leave.

You're so stupid that you havent even noticed that they had elections
and most likely will have more of those when the US leaves.

In fact it's a total disaster.

Nope. Nothing like one either.

Still a repressive monarchy in Saudi Arabia.

Nothing like a total disaster tho.

Not enough troops to find the nuts in Afghanistan.

Nothing like a total disaster tho.

Total, complete, utter failure.

Nothing like that. The talibums no longer run Afghanistan
and afghanistan is no longer a base for terrorist training.

In article ,
"Rod Speed" wrote:

Billy wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Don Klipstein wrote
HeyBub wrote
CJT wrote

... and a very good thing that will be, too. Bush and his
clan have wrought enough destruction it'll take two terms
of a Democrat just to get things back close to normal.

If you're not with us, you're on the side of the terrorists.

I hope this is irony or some other class of humor!

Bush II got re-elected by being against the "terrorists" but
has gone through over 7 years, and over 6 of those after "9/11",
without capturing Osama bin Laden either dead or alive!

He has however ensured that there hasnt been
another terrorist obscenity in the US since 9/11

You know, the thing is that a criminal can do pretty
much what they want until they attract attention.

bin Laden had got plenty of attention before 9/11.

No one did anything much about him because no one
expected him to be able to organise something like 9/11.

Once the "heat" starts lookin' at you, it is a whole other
story. Maybe Osama had help with 9/11. maybe not.

Its unlikely that whoever organised it expected the
towers to implode as spectacularly as they did.

Maybe it was just a coincidence that the
neo-cons got just what they were prayin' for.

Yep, thats what happened.

Fact is, Osama ain't theSoviet Union. He don't got no F-16, no tomahawk
missiles, no M1 Abrams tanks, and no freakin aircraft carriers.

And it aint that easy to find someone who chooses to hide out in some cave
etc.

Al Quaida is a gang man, a gang. If Bush didn't need a "War on Terror"
to keep the bucks flowin', Osama & CO. would be old news.

Bullshit. He'd be disposed of if they could find him,
just like the others have been killed when they can be.

Never heard of Echelon, huh? Who did Osama work for before he went free
lance, hmmm.

It wasn't until after the USS Cole was attacked that Osama's name came
up, according to the NSA.

Without Osama, the last seven years wouldn't have been possible.

Osama was managed before. He may still be being managed.
--

Billy

Bush, Cheney & Pelosi, Behind Bars
http://rachelcorriefoundation.org/site/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Movemen...George_W._Bush

Billy wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Dan Espen wrote
Kurt Ullman wrote
(Don Klipstein) wrote

I hope this is irony or some other class of humor!

Bush II got re-elected by being against the "terrorists" but has
gone through over 7 years, and over 6 of those after "9/11",
without capturing Osama bin Laden either dead or alive!

The horror! Of course the fact that there hasn't been a (successful)
attempt on US soil since then is all outweighed by not finding OBL.

Come on guys.

There's no need for an attack on US soil.
Plenty of American's right there in the middle east as easy targets.

Yes, but its a lot harder to ensure that they dont get targetted in a place like Saudi etc.

Count total American losses and then figure out how well this is working.

The death toll isnt any higher than with accidents if Iraq hadnt been invaded.

It's not working, whether you count losses as bodies or losses as dollars.

Depends on how you define working. Saddam has been eliminated
and hasnt been replaced by someone who is just as bad.

The personal circumstances for most Iraqis is much worse than it was under Saddam tho.

It remains to be seen whether it can ever be better for those than it was under
Saddam, but it certainly is for some of them, most obviously with the Kurds.

In fact it's a total disaster.

Nope. Nothing like one either.

What would you call the displacement of 15% of the population from their homes?

What happens in many civil wars.

Those who do have homes face 60% unemployment,
continuing blackouts and, the constant threat of terrorism
by people who don't want peace (not necessarily arabs).

Yes, I clearly said that their circumstances are much worse than it was
under Saddam, and I personally dont think that Iraq should have been
invaded, essentially because they are so stupid that once Saddam was
deposed, they started enthusiastically ripping each others throats out.

Thats nothing like a total disaster tho.

In article ,
"Rod Speed" wrote:

Nate Nagel wrote
Don Klipstein wrote
CJT wrote
Shawn Hirn wrote
Doobie Keebler wrote
wrote

John McCain .. wants to remain in iraq for 20 years...

This is why McCain is not electable:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vf7HYoh9YMM&NR=1

"100 Years In Iraq" is not a good campaign slogan for 2008.
Nobody wants their grandkids to still be fighting this war.

Thats arguable. Not too many care about the US troops still in Germany and
Japan etc.

Rudy's toast, Huckabee is a religious nut, Mitt is a douchebag,
so that leaves St. John of McCain and his Holy War.

There are no good choices on the GOP ticket: get ready for Hillary/
Obama

I agree. McCain will get the Republican nomination, but he ****es
off a lot of conservatives, and he won't be able to rely on the
religious wing-nut base, which means a lot of Republicans will
either sit out this election or vote third party. I know know who
will win the Democratic nomination, but whomever it turns out to
be will surely be our next president.

... and a very good thing that will be, too. Bush and his clan have
wrought enough destruction it'll take two terms of a Democrat just
to get things back close to normal.

I doubt anyone who is now or ever was a front-runner for the current
presidential election is going to win the job by
honestly promising to fix what is now broken.

Because most dont agree on what is allegedly 'broken'

And very few candidates care about what YOU personally claim is 'broken'

I see winning the job by either promising to keep most broken things
broken or by being expected to break promises to
fix what is broken.

More fool you.

I sorely wish that American voters would change this state!

Taint gunna happen.

A good start would be admitting that there's more wrong than a couple
minor issues and that there is stuff that's broken that needs fixed...

But again, there will never be general agreement on what is 'broken'

It's like there's this 400 lb. gorilla in the room and both parties are
ignoring it... debt, war, recession, etc.
etc. etc...

No they arent ignoring it. They realise that the fed has avoided full
depression
for getting on for 70 years now fine and that it will do this time too.

And they are both in agreement about how best to minimise a recession too.

No one cares much about the debt except a few rabid loons.

No one can think of any effective way of ending the fiasco in Iraq,
and it looks like the current approach is becoming relatively effective.

Cut and run worked fine in Nam. Hung out to dry some folks who allied
themselves with us, for whatever reason (not always good ones). Cut and
run and, at least, muzzle that mad dog Israel. Ain't gonna be no peace,
as long as Israel keeps killing Palestinians and stealing their land and
water.
--

Billy

Bush, Cheney & Pelosi, Behind Bars
http://rachelcorriefoundation.org/site/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Movemen...George_W._Bush

Billy wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Billy wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Don Klipstein wrote
HeyBub wrote
CJT wrote

... and a very good thing that will be, too. Bush and his
clan have wrought enough destruction it'll take two terms
of a Democrat just to get things back close to normal.

If you're not with us, you're on the side of the terrorists.

I hope this is irony or some other class of humor!

Bush II got re-elected by being against the "terrorists" but
has gone through over 7 years, and over 6 of those after "9/11",
without capturing Osama bin Laden either dead or alive!

He has however ensured that there hasnt been
another terrorist obscenity in the US since 9/11

You know, the thing is that a criminal can do pretty
much what they want until they attract attention.

bin Laden had got plenty of attention before 9/11.

No one did anything much about him because no one
expected him to be able to organise something like 9/11.

Once the "heat" starts lookin' at you, it is a whole other
story. Maybe Osama had help with 9/11. maybe not.

Its unlikely that whoever organised it expected the
towers to implode as spectacularly as they did.

Maybe it was just a coincidence that the
neo-cons got just what they were prayin' for.

Yep, thats what happened.

Fact is, Osama ain't theSoviet Union. He don't got no F-16, no tomahawk
missiles, no M1 Abrams tanks, and no freakin aircraft carriers.

And it aint that easy to find someone who chooses to hide out in some cave etc.

Al Quaida is a gang man, a gang. If Bush didn't need a "War on
Terror" to keep the bucks flowin', Osama & CO. would be old news.

Bullshit. He'd be disposed of if they could find him,
just like the others have been killed when they can be.

Never heard of Echelon, huh?

Its completely useless if he has enough of a clue to not use any electronic communication.

Who did Osama work for before he went free lance, hmmm.

He didnt 'work for' anyone.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bin_laden

It wasn't until after the USS Cole was attacked that Osama's name came up, according to the NSA.

Irrelevant to what he got up to in afghanistan when the russians were attempting to occupy it.

Without Osama, the last seven years wouldn't have been possible.

Certainly without 9/11 Iraq wouldnt have been possible and maybe even afghanistan too.

Osama was managed before.

Nope.

He may still be being managed.

Nope.

Don Homuth wrote:
On Fri, 01 Feb 2008 18:13:09 -0800, Paul Knudsen
wrote:


After seven years of the Bush, Jesus Christ himself couldn't win on
the republican line.


Most probably because He wouldn't run as one.

Well said.

--
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam. Our true address is of the form .

HeyBub wrote:

Nate Nagel wrote:


I'm one of those right-of-center people who is disgusted by the
actions of the right wing. I won't vote for McCain simply because he
impressed me with his "agents of intolerance" rhetoric in the last
round of primaries but this past year he has been cozying up to the
religious right in a blatant attempt to get more votes.

I think he's really still the old "agents of intolerance" guy inside
but I have a hard time voting for someone with no convictions and/or
without the spine to stand up and say what he really thinks.



So you want another Bush? Me too.

Ah, but all your concerns pale into insignificance compared to security.
Look what recent presidents have done when faced with aggression:

When the Soviets invaded Afghanistan, Carter(D) cancelled the Olympics.
When Muslims did some nasties, Clinton(D) bombed an aspirin factory.
When Iraq invaded Kuwait, Bush 1(R) bombed 'em back to the stone age.
When Iraq just sat there, doing nothing, Bush 2(R), invaded, secured their
leader, killed his children, evicted him from his home, exiled his family,
confiscated his funds, and, eventually, had him hanged.

Now, which of the candidates still in the hunt do we believe is more
blood-thirsty? Who do we think can hate more intensely? Who is it that is
not disgusted by seeing body parts of our enemies strewn to the four
corners? Who would have the no regrets over the families of terrorists
destined to wander the plains, leaving bloody footprints in the snow, while
the lamentations of the widows and the cries of the children mix with the
foul north winds?

Kinda makes you wonder how they call themselves Christians.


Well, aside from me, there's probably only one of the four national
candidates.





--
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam. Our true address is of the form .