On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 09:06:38 CST, Chris Morton <cmorton@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrote:
>>for regular military. It never was. It's a job for something like
>>Delta or the Seals, cell by cell. You don't kill a cockroach with a
>>grenade...
>
>But oddly enough, when we won economically in Afghanistan by using
Special
>Forces, we were told that Bin Laden got away because we didn't have
enough
>troops...
...because Bush was ramping up for Iraq and needed another excuse to
put together more forces. C'mon...
>
>>>If we hadn't invaded Iraq, would you feel better about a terrorist
attack?
>>
>>..and again, totally beyond the point and not applicable. Iraq had
>>little or nothing to do with the terrorists. That was another of
>
>Hey, I'm just repeating what you say. I think the problem is that you're
so
>emotionally invested in dislike for Bush, you just say whatever comes to
mind
>without examining the logical implications.
...I don't deny that I dislike Bush intensely. He lied and cheated his
way into office and has done damage to this country that will take
years (many) to make right...if ever. But the fact remains that Iraq
had little or nothing to do with the terrorists.
>>shrubya's lies. Truth be told, Hussein was probably had as much to
>>lose from them as we do. He was not a true Islamic type like they
>>claim themselves to be.
>
>The argument that Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein COULDN'T have ties (which
they
>did) is simply fatuous. That would imply either that Stalin was really a
>capitalist, or that FDR was a communist, because they assisted each other
in
>WWII.
...prove the ties. I'm semi-kidding because there weren't any. It's
like the WMD...just another lie to get us into Iraq.
>
>>>No lies... unless they're also Clinton, Chiracq and Schroeder's lies as
well.
>>
>>..no one is exempting them. Using another's lies to sup****t your
>>boy's inadequacies ain't happenin'.
>
>Of course that supposes that THEY lied too... which few people are
claiming.
...Clinton is a proven liar, what more do you need? The other two,
Chiraq in particularly are chicken**** nothings. We've been bailing
the French out of problems since before WWII, they have strained the
"Allie" thing to the max. You can't expect much from a garbage society
such as they have. The Germans? I don't even want to get into
that...they have enough of their own problems to settle before they
start giving advice...
>>..and the first was a fizzle. I doubt Georgie would have reacted much
>>differently with the same criteria. If you remember correctly, his
>>first reaction to the WTC on 9-11 was to freeze like a deer in the
>>headlights and then hide for a day. After all the crap he's spewed in
>>the interim, we still don't have bin Laden and Al Quaida is still
>>alive and well...
>
>I have to ask you what you expected Bush to do. Should he have put on
BDUs,
>picked up an M60 and gone after Bin Laden himself? It's pretty hilarious
to see
>people who spend half their waking days *****ing that Bush is a "cowboy",
then
>*****ing the other half that he ISN'T. Pick one...
...I expected him to lead. It's what he's being paid to do. He isn't a
cowboy, he's all hat and no cattle. He's a freaking Yalie cheerleader
masquerading as a man on daddy's money. He's a Karl Rove construction,
and Rove is one of the most destructive men to have a hand in American
politics since we began. He's a cross-eyed, pouty-mouthed, gibberish
speaking little wimp that couldn't even get his own military service
right but sends out real troops to do the dying while he spouts "bring
it on" behind the protection of his office. His presidency will go
down as the worst of all time and that description is well earned...
|
