Obama's gone and done it
 

I can't believe Obama is already sitting down with an unpopular,
aggressive world leader without preconditions.

(Stolen from Talking Points Memo)

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

Obama's gone and done it
 

asadi wrote:
You'd rather he just shoot him?

Well, no, but I like it if Obama could start early. After all, Bush
already has his bags packed.

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

Obama's gone and done it
 

You'd rather he just shoot him?

john
"rw" wrote in message
m...
I can't believe Obama is already sitting down with an unpopular, aggressive
world leader without preconditions.

(Stolen from Talking Points Memo)

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

Obama's gone and done it
 

On Nov 10, 1:31*pm, rw wrote:
asadi wrote:
You'd rather he just shoot him?

Well, no, but I like it if Obama could start early. After all, Bush
already has his bags packed.


What does he need to pack for? The give everything you're allowed to
have in prison.

Obama's gone and done it
 

On 16-Nov-2008, Eric wrote:

What does he need to pack for? The give everything you're allowed to
have in prison.

He needs to appear cool and well dressed for the war crimes tribunal!

Fred

Obama's gone and done it
 

Fred wrote:
On 16-Nov-2008, Eric wrote:


What does he need to pack for? The give everything you're allowed to
have in prison.


He needs to appear cool and well dressed for the war crimes tribunal!

Fred

Give it up. It won't happen. GWB will spend the rest of his days
clearing brush in Crawford, Texas, shunned by everyone, and most
especially his own party.

Really, who gives a rat's ass about anything that this dangerous loser
has to say from here on out?

That he won a second term is an indelible blight on the reputation of
America.

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

Obama's gone and done it
 

On 16-Nov-2008, rw wrote:

ive it up. It won't happen. GWB will spend the rest of his days
clearing brush in Crawford, Texas, shunned by everyone, and most
especially his own party.

Really, who gives a rat's ass about anything that this dangerous loser
has to say from here on out?

That he won a second term is an indelible blight on the reputation of
America.

Re A tribunal - unfortunately you are right!

I agree with all that you say except this **** might even make money writing
his memoirs and on the speaking circuit
I would rather hear from my border collie or read tTewwed's pawproints than
hear from Bush

Re his 2nd term - again I could not sgree mnore w you

Perhaps they will indict Cheney and hang him jsut like Sadam- same type of
lowlife

Fred

fred

Obama's gone and done it
 

"Fred" wrote in message
...

On 16-Nov-2008, rw wrote:

ive it up. It won't happen. GWB will spend the rest of his days
clearing brush in Crawford, Texas, shunned by everyone, and most
especially his own party.

Really, who gives a rat's ass about anything that this dangerous loser
has to say from here on out?

That he won a second term is an indelible blight on the reputation of
America.

Re A tribunal - unfortunately you are right!

I agree with all that you say except this **** might even make money
writing
his memoirs and on the speaking circuit
I would rather hear from my border collie or read tTewwed's pawproints
than
hear from Bush

Re his 2nd term - again I could not sgree mnore w you

Perhaps they will indict Cheney and hang him jsut like Sadam- same type of
lowlife

Fred

fred

Maybe we can hang Clinton at the same time.
http://www.dissentmagazine.org/article/?article=1229

Obama's gone and done it
 

On 16-Nov-2008, "Calif Bill" wrote:

article

Maybe we can hang Clinton at the same time.
http://www.dissentmagazine.org/article/?article=1229

Sure why not - throw in Hillary also

and lets not forget George Sr
He had to be screwing around on his wife - She was and still is downright
ugly.
Hang her also

Fred

Obama's gone and done it
 

On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 06:44:05 +0000, Fred wrote:


and lets not forget George Sr
He had to be screwing around on his wife - She was and still is
downright ugly.

He was.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jennifer_Fitzgerald

Obama's gone and done it
 

On Nov 16, 7:46*pm, "Calif Bill" wrote:
Maybe we can hang Clinton at the same time.http://www.dissentmagazine.org/article/?article=1229- Hide quoted text -

I knew we were getting close and now you have it again ladies and
gentlemen, wait for it . . . repeat after me in unison now . . . IT
WAS BILL CLINTON"S FAULT. ALL BILL, ALL THE TIME. 24/7/365. There you
have it, well gosh almighty the prof from Orange County said so. Isn't
Chapman U where they filmed some of those crazy college hijinks's
films, and some Bullwinkle?

Dave
No, I think comparing how Clinton handled the Bosnian/Yugoslav/Kosovo
situation, compared with Cheney/Bush bungling, torture ridden,
Constitution violating, war profiteering, 4 million refugee creating,
Armed forces abusing, approach . . . might be interesting. No wingnut
ever will understand why.

Obama's gone and done it
 

On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 00:33:16 -0800 (PST), DaveS
wrote:

On Nov 16, 7:46*pm, "Calif Bill" wrote:
Maybe we can hang Clinton at the same time.http://www.dissentmagazine.org/article/?article=1229- Hide quoted text -

I knew we were getting close and now you have it again ladies and
gentlemen, wait for it . . . repeat after me in unison now . . . IT
WAS BILL CLINTON"S FAULT. ALL BILL, ALL THE TIME. 24/7/365. There you
have it, well gosh almighty the prof from Orange County said so. Isn't
Chapman U where they filmed some of those crazy college hijinks's
films, and some Bullwinkle?

Dave
No, I think comparing how Clinton handled the Bosnian/Yugoslav/Kosovo
situation, compared with Cheney/Bush bungling, torture ridden,
Constitution violating, war profiteering, 4 million refugee creating,
Armed forces abusing, approach . . . might be interesting. No wingnut
ever will understand why.

Howsabout how Clinton handled sub-Saharan Africa...the continent, not
the country...?

HTH,
R

Obama's gone and done it
 

"Fred" wrote in message
...

On 16-Nov-2008, "Calif Bill" wrote:

article

Maybe we can hang Clinton at the same time.
http://www.dissentmagazine.org/article/?article=1229

Sure why not - throw in Hillary also

and lets not forget George Sr
He had to be screwing around on his wife - She was and still is downright
ugly.
Hang her also

Fred

Read the article. Was not about sex. Other than screwing most of the
people in support of your friends.

Obama's gone and done it
 

On Nov 17, 4:07*am, wrote:

Howsabout how Clinton handled sub-Saharan Africa...the continent, not
the country...?

HTH,
R- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Excuse me? Did he create 4 million refugees/ etc etc. Richard, I used
to think you were just disingenuous or even just a serious supporter
of Republican policies. I have come to understand that your insistence
on lighter-than-air shows has less to do with honest disagreement, and
a lot more to do with self entertainment and mental exercise. Kind of
like Sudoku is for some people.

But you should really shift focus. Defending the worst Presidency
ever, versus Clinton's better than average, is such a ridiculous pose,
nor can it really be a properly plausible venue for your considerable
appetite for argument. Its the difference between being annoying and
being thought provoking.

You are starting to sound like that obnoxious Nun who snuggles with
the death row murderers. And using lib sources in your argument. . .
really. RW may be right. You are slipping lad.

Dave
Ideology still sucks

Obama's gone and done it
 

On Nov 17, 11:55*am, "Calif Bill" wrote:
SNIP
Read the article. *Was not about sex. *Other than screwing most of the
people in support of your friends.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I did read it and it is more of the spew from the revisionist
Trotskyite wing of the NeoCon controlled Republicrat party. Its
designed to fill the needs of folks who just cannot come to grips with
the fact that they helped elect the worst President of the USA in
modern times. Its the same kind of delusional nonsense that fuels the
Dittohead industry. I am rapidly comming to the reluctant conclusion
that this form of pseudo-political expression is actually a
personality disorder. And as i said in my other post . . .

I knew we were getting close and now you have it again ladies and
gentlemen, wait for it . . . repeat after me in unison now . . . IT
WAS BILL CLINTON"S FAULT. ALL BILL, ALL THE TIME. 24/7/365. There you
have it, well gosh almighty the prof from Orange County said so.
Isn't
Chapman U where they filmed some of those crazy college hijinks's
films, and some Bullwinkle?

Dave

Obama's gone and done it
 

Obama's gone and done it
 

On Nov 17, 10:09*pm, Peaceful Bill
wrote:
Nah, Bush is a shining example of success compared to Carter.

Yeah but Carter will not die of syphilis like Ronald Reagan, nor did
Carter ever take the fifth like Reagan. And Carter never had to be
asked to end an affair with a Red Chinese intell agent, like Nixon,
nor turn a blind eye to heroin shipments comming in on Air America
flights paid for by the CIA like Bush did as head of the CIA. I went
to school for a while with a former a former Air America mechanic. The
stories he could tell.

Dave
As late as the 90's Air America was still using a prop Constellation
flying 1 flite South, and one West out of Tom Bradley, Wed, or Tue
each week. Most beautiful plane ever that one.

Obama's gone and done it
 

On Nov 18, 2:09*pm, Peaceful Bill
wrote:
wrote:

But you should really shift focus. Defending the worst Presidency
ever, versus Clinton's better than average, is such a ridiculous pose,
nor can it really be a properly plausible venue for your considerable
appetite for argument. Its the difference between being annoying and
being thought provoking.

Nah, Bush is a shining example of success compared to Carter.

Bull****.

--riverman

Obama's gone and done it
 

Obama's gone and done it
 

On Nov 18, 7:53*am, Peaceful Bill
wrote:
SNIP

Every Republican President since Ike has been an alcoholic, wife
beating, child molesting, nun killer.
Dave

Obama's gone and done it
 

DaveS wrote:
On Nov 18, 7:53 am, Peaceful Bill
wrote:
SNIP

Every President since Ike has been an alcoholic, wife
beating, child molesting, nun killer.
Dave

fixed it for you. lol!!

Obama's gone and done it
 

wrote in message
...
On Nov 17, 11:55 am, "Calif Bill" wrote:
SNIP
Read the article. Was not about sex. Other than screwing most of the
people in support of your friends.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I did read it and it is more of the spew from the revisionist
Trotskyite wing of the NeoCon controlled Republicrat party. Its
designed to fill the needs of folks who just cannot come to grips with
the fact that they helped elect the worst President of the USA in
modern times. Its the same kind of delusional nonsense that fuels the
Dittohead industry. I am rapidly comming to the reluctant conclusion
that this form of pseudo-political expression is actually a
personality disorder. And as i said in my other post . . .

I knew we were getting close and now you have it again ladies and
gentlemen, wait for it . . . repeat after me in unison now . . . IT
WAS BILL CLINTON"S FAULT. ALL BILL, ALL THE TIME. 24/7/365. There you
have it, well gosh almighty the prof from Orange County said so.
Isn't
Chapman U where they filmed some of those crazy college hijinks's
films, and some Bullwinkle?

Dave

They filmed a couple movies but not the college hijinks. Actually a highly
rated, very liberal school. So you can not comment on the message, only the
messenger? Seems as if the messenger did not absolve Bush either. Equal
opportunity basher. And I have said for a long time that Greenspan was the
worse Fed chairman ever!

Obama's gone and done it
 

"riverman" wrote in message
...
On Nov 18, 2:09 pm, Peaceful Bill
wrote:
wrote:

But you should really shift focus. Defending the worst Presidency
ever, versus Clinton's better than average, is such a ridiculous pose,
nor can it really be a properly plausible venue for your considerable
appetite for argument. Its the difference between being annoying and
being thought provoking.

Nah, Bush is a shining example of success compared to Carter.

Bull****.

--riverman

I voted for Carter and work with HAB, but I have to agree with the statement
that Carter was the worst ever. Gave us a lot of the Middle East problems.
Letting the Iranians run rampant for a year, made the US look impotent, and
they could do what they wanted without any payback.

Obama's gone and done it
 

On Nov 18, 5:31*pm, "Calif Bill" wrote:

I voted for Carter and work with HAB, but I have to agree with the statement
that Carter was the worst ever. *Gave us a lot of the Middle East problems.
Letting the Iranians run rampant for a year, made the US look impotent, and
they could do what they wanted without any payback.

You are aware that Reagan's people were negotiating with the
Ayatollahs behind Carter's back while Reagan was pres-elect? That was
illegal. The Iranians agreed to hold the hostages thru Reagan's
election campaign, and release them on the first days of Reagan's
presidency. And you apparently have forgotten the arms for hostages
arrangements. But if you are interested YouTube and i believe Google
videos, have film of Reagan lying on camera about related stuff we now
know was untrue. American progressives may be a bit more aware of this
stuff because a number of them were murdered in central America with
the tacit approval of the Reagan administration. Ronald Reagan's crew
of McNasties included Cheney, and others from Bush's pack of rats
including a few that spied for Israel. The same crew that gave us the
Iraq war. You also seem to have forgotten Reagan's disaster in
Lebanon, and the hundreds of dead Marines.

Carter's biggest mistake was in trying to give the Russians some
payback for Vietnam, by secretly backing the Jihadis fighting the
Ruskies in Afghanistan. It backfired.

Reagan faked his military experiences, and in my opinion should have
been investigated for treason. Toward the end of his terms he didn't
even bother to submitt complete budgets to Congress. He could make me
smile, but I knew he was a disaster for my country.

Dave

Obama's gone and done it
 

On Nov 19, 9:31*am, "Calif Bill" wrote:
"riverman" wrote in message

...
On Nov 18, 2:09 pm, Peaceful Bill
wrote:

wrote:

But you should really shift focus. Defending the worst Presidency
ever, versus Clinton's better than average, is such a ridiculous pose,
nor can it really be a properly plausible venue for your considerable
appetite for argument. Its the difference between being annoying and
being thought provoking.

Nah, Bush is a shining example of success compared to Carter.

Bull****.

--riverman

I voted for Carter and work with HAB, but I have to agree with the statement
that Carter was the worst ever. *Gave us a lot of the Middle East problems.
Letting the Iranians run rampant for a year, made the US look impotent, and
they could do what they wanted without any payback.

Carter did not lie to the country to get us involved in a war that has
cost the lives of thousands, and did not lead the country toward
financial disaster. He did not pack washington with self-serving
cronies, declare his office and anyone associated with it above the
law, bend (or break) laws to serve his political goals, and redefine
the balance of powers in DC. He did not cause a rift between liberals
and conservatives, and did not seek to destroy or invalidate his
political opponents.

He did many things wrong out of a sense of trust in the system,
expectation of goodwill among others, and being naive about how
Washington and global politics works. Those errors are nothing
compared to the deliberate misleadings and manipulations of Bush.

Carter was a disaster. Bush was a disaster, wrapped in a catastrophe,
hidden in an apocolypse. They are nowhere in the same league, and
we'll feel the effects of Bush's presidency for years and years to
come.

--riverman

Obama's gone and done it
 

"riverman" wrote in message
...
On Nov 19, 9:31 am, "Calif Bill" wrote:
"riverman" wrote in message

...
On Nov 18, 2:09 pm, Peaceful Bill
wrote:

wrote:

But you should really shift focus. Defending the worst Presidency
ever, versus Clinton's better than average, is such a ridiculous pose,
nor can it really be a properly plausible venue for your considerable
appetite for argument. Its the difference between being annoying and
being thought provoking.

Nah, Bush is a shining example of success compared to Carter.

Bull****.

--riverman

I voted for Carter and work with HAB, but I have to agree with the
statement
that Carter was the worst ever. Gave us a lot of the Middle East problems.
Letting the Iranians run rampant for a year, made the US look impotent,
and
they could do what they wanted without any payback.

Carter did not lie to the country to get us involved in a war that has
cost the lives of thousands, and did not lead the country toward
financial disaster. He did not pack washington with self-serving
cronies, declare his office and anyone associated with it above the
law, bend (or break) laws to serve his political goals, and redefine
the balance of powers in DC. He did not cause a rift between liberals
and conservatives, and did not seek to destroy or invalidate his
political opponents.

He did many things wrong out of a sense of trust in the system,
expectation of goodwill among others, and being naive about how
Washington and global politics works. Those errors are nothing
compared to the deliberate misleadings and manipulations of Bush.

Carter was a disaster. Bush was a disaster, wrapped in a catastrophe,
hidden in an apocolypse. They are nowhere in the same league, and
we'll feel the effects of Bush's presidency for years and years to
come.

--riverman

Prove Bush lied to get us into the war. Bad point to open a 2nd front so
far from home, but Clinton was saying the same thing, and was spending a ton
of money with the flyovers. And the financial meltdown is not just Bush's
fault. Is a continuation of the same crap that got us the dot.com bubble.
Neither administration was watching out for the people. I still say Carter
laid the foundation for the Muslim Extremists to really prosper. And that
got the World Trade Center attacked twice. Carter was either really stupid,
or too naive to be POTUS. Clinton's Sec Treasury, Rubin should be hung for
this meltdown. Leaves "public Service" to head Citigroup and works to get
the rules changed that helped protect us since 1933 from a lot of the
financial shenanigans. Not say Bush was a good president, just stating my
opinon that Carter was worse.

Obama's gone and done it
 

riverman wrote:
On Nov 19, 9:31 am, "Calif Bill" wrote:
"riverman" wrote in message

...
On Nov 18, 2:09 pm, Peaceful Bill
wrote:

wrote:
But you should really shift focus. Defending the worst Presidency
ever, versus Clinton's better than average, is such a ridiculous pose,
nor can it really be a properly plausible venue for your considerable
appetite for argument. Its the difference between being annoying and
being thought provoking.
Nah, Bush is a shining example of success compared to Carter.
Bull****.

--riverman

I voted for Carter and work with HAB, but I have to agree with the statement
that Carter was the worst ever. Gave us a lot of the Middle East problems.
Letting the Iranians run rampant for a year, made the US look impotent, and
they could do what they wanted without any payback.

Carter did not lie to the country to get us involved in a war that has
cost the lives of thousands, and did not lead the country toward
financial disaster. He did not pack washington with self-serving
cronies, declare his office and anyone associated with it above the
law, bend (or break) laws to serve his political goals, and redefine
the balance of powers in DC. He did not cause a rift between liberals
and conservatives, and did not seek to destroy or invalidate his
political opponents.

Regardless of how you paint Carter, he was quite a bit worse than Bush.
He supported a violent takeover of Iran by radicals. The Middle East
has not been the same since. He was worse than ineffective in dealing
with the hyper-radical Iranian gov't. The world has NEVER recovered
from that. That was almost thirty years ago. Our lives are still
dominated by his failure.

Carter didn't need to attack his opponents, he was the Democrat that
came after Nixon/Ford. The Dems could have run anyone against Ford and
won. Carter had his political advantage. His party held the majority.
By the time he was up for election, his record was so bad that it
would not have done any good to go after Reagan. Carter knew it was no
good to try an attack, his own personal record of corruption would have
been exposed and he would probably have ended up resigning before his
term was up. Besides, he lost the 1980 election a year before the ballot.

He most certainly DID pack Washington with self-serving cronies. And he
let his family (even supported his family) break more laws then Bush and
Caney could. The FBI was getting close to unraveling all the **** Billy
was pulling. It was even an embarrassment to the administration in the
press. Carter reorganized the operation which had been focusing on
investigating international corruption which kept pointing to the White
House. Then he fired the investigators that got close to exposing his
family's crimes. Had the Republicans been in power, Carter probably
would have seen the same fate as Nixon.

Carter did lead the country into a financial crisis. Inflation rates
and interest rates were out of control. It took five years after he was
booted out of office to recover from that nightmare.


He did many things wrong out of a sense of trust in the system,
expectation of goodwill among others, and being naive about how
Washington and global politics works. Those errors are nothing
compared to the deliberate misleadings and manipulations of Bush.

Carter did mislead the country. But it was for personal gain and to
cover-up his own personal corruption and that of his family. Carter's
failings were not a matter of trust in the system, it was intentional.
Pure corruption. He was the naive bumbling idiot that many paint him,
but he used it effectively to cover his corruption.

Its good to see that you admit to Carter's obviously dangerous
deficiency in global politics. World has never recovered from that.


Carter was a disaster. Bush was a disaster, wrapped in a catastrophe,
hidden in an apocolypse. They are nowhere in the same league, and
we'll feel the effects of Bush's presidency for years and years to
come.

--riverman


Bush did botch the war in Iraq, that's indefensible. But he wasn't the
root cause of the Middle East problems that lead to the war. He was not
the root cause of the problems that lead to the 9-11 attack. He did not
marginalize or ignore the previous attacks on the U.S. by radical
Muslims prior to 9-11.

(BTW, its spelled "apocalypse")

We can only hope that Obama doesn't screw up too badly.

Obama's gone and done it
 

"Calif Bill" wrote in
m:

Prove Bush lied to get us into the war. Bad point to open a 2nd front
so far from home, but Clinton was saying the same thing, and was
spending a ton of money with the flyovers. And the financial meltdown
is not just Bush's fault. Is a continuation of the same crap that got
us the dot.com bubble.


For Christs' sake-- the man lost an American city, and produced an
incompetent response because of a crony in a key slot.


--
Scott
Reverse name to reply

Obama's gone and done it
 

Scott Seidman wrote:
"Calif Bill" wrote in
m:

Prove Bush lied to get us into the war. Bad point to open a 2nd front
so far from home, but Clinton was saying the same thing, and was
spending a ton of money with the flyovers. And the financial meltdown
is not just Bush's fault. Is a continuation of the same crap that got
us the dot.com bubble.


For Christs' sake-- the man lost an American city, and produced an
incompetent response because of a crony in a key slot.



That doesn't answer the question.

What American city? I just looked at a map and it looks like they're
all still there. Which one is lost?

Obama's gone and done it
 

Peaceful Bill wrote in news:jahVk.6049
:

What American city? I just looked at a map and it looks like they're
all still there. Which one is lost?


Tell me you're going to defend the Bushies for the Katrina response, so I
can plonk you, as you have squat that's realistic to say.


--
Scott
Reverse name to reply

Obama's gone and done it
 

Scott Seidman wrote:
Peaceful Bill wrote in news:jahVk.6049
:

What American city? I just looked at a map and it looks like they're
all still there. Which one is lost?


Tell me you're going to defend the Bushies for the Katrina response, so I
can plonk you, as you have squat that's realistic to say.



Tell me that Bush was responsible for Katrina.

History seems to indicate that there was a real clustering operation
between New Orleans and Baton Rouge that contributed mightily to that
response problem. Wasn't all Bush's fault. Plenty of blame to go
around on THAT one. If you can't see that, then you are far to partisan
to look at problems objectively.

Obama's gone and done it
 

Peaceful Bill wrote in news:EUhVk.8080
:

Tell me that Bush was responsible for Katrina.


Bush was responsible for the botched national response to Katrina, because
of his cronyistic FEMA appointment.

If he didn't hire an incompetant into the role, we wouldn't have to sit
here wondering if the cluster**** was because he hired an incompetent into
the role.

FWIW, it was Homeland Security's mandate to make sure that the proper
emergency responses were in place. http://www.dhs.gov/xprepresp/

--
Scott
Reverse name to reply

Obama's gone and done it
 

Scott Seidman wrote:
Peaceful Bill wrote in news:EUhVk.8080
:

Tell me that Bush was responsible for Katrina.


Bush was responsible for the botched national response to Katrina, because
of his cronyistic FEMA appointment.

Nah, certainly not completely to balme. At least half or more of the
response problem was attributed to the ****ing contest between the La.
gov and Nagin. Plenty of blame to go on them.


If he didn't hire an incompetant into the role, we wouldn't have to sit
here wondering if the cluster**** was because he hired an incompetent into
the role.

You're the one who brought it up. I don't wonder at all. When did the
La. Gov call FEMA? When did Nagin call FEMA? That's the issue.

Do you think there's anything that could have been done to stop all the
flooding once the levees broke?


FWIW, it was Homeland Security's mandate to make sure that the proper
emergency responses were in place. http://www.dhs.gov/xprepresp/


New Orleans was wrecked before any response would have been possible.
Once the levees gave way, N.O. and in particular St. Bernard (pronounced
sane buhnahd for those who haven't spent real time there) Parish was a
goner.

Obama's gone and done it
 

On Nov 20, 11:19*pm, Peaceful Bill
wrote:

We can only hope that Obama doesn't screw up too badly.- Hide quoted text -


Great attitude.

This is getting too nit-picky to be even worth discussing, but I
somehow wonder if you and I have lived through the same past 8 years.
Bush wasn't primarily accountable for the Katrina debacle? The
economy? The gross restructuring of presidential powers? The 'liberals
are unamerican' attitude in Washington? The NeoCon power grab? The
'insider trading' of the Energy and Fiscal policies? The most recent
rise of Islamist Anti-american sentiment? The decay of US esteem
internationally (or even worse, the apathy about it in the US)? The
two-faced nature of Guantanamo Bay? The US adoption of extra-judicial
killings (also known as 'the Bush Doctrine'). We sure have come a long
long way from 'the Buck Stops Here'....now you're trying to make him
the Teflon Kid.

The But I'll happily start with one point.

You challenged me to 'prove Bush lied'....of course if I could do
that, he'd be impeached in a heartbeat. But in the face of his botched
intelligence (and I mean that in more ways than one...), his rash
decision-making in the face of it, his marginalizing the UN and
pushing his pro-war agenda through congress, his allegiance to the
NeoCon plan to destablize the middle east, his 'politics before
policy' attitude, and his well-documented desire to be a War Time
President, the motive and opportunity are well-established. Prove he
DIDN'T lie.

Any efforts to deny that he 'lied' are going to get very very close to
trying to say "what is the meaning of 'is'".

Squirm away.

--riverman

Obama's gone and done it
 

riverman wrote:
On Nov 20, 11:19 pm, Peaceful Bill
wrote:

We can only hope that Obama doesn't screw up too badly.- Hide quoted text -


Great attitude.



Just being realistic. He comes in with no resume. That itself doesn't
inspire much confidence. Market doesn't seem to think he can do much.


The But I'll happily start with one point.

You challenged me to 'prove Bush lied'....of course if I could do
that, he'd be impeached in a heartbeat. But in the face of his botched
intelligence (and I mean that in more ways than one...), his rash
decision-making in the face of it, his marginalizing the UN and
pushing his pro-war agenda through congress, his allegiance to the
NeoCon plan to destablize the middle east, his 'politics before
policy' attitude, and his well-documented desire to be a War Time
President, the motive and opportunity are well-established. Prove he
DIDN'T lie.

So let me understand where you're coming from. Because its Bush, he's
guilty until proven innocent?

Because you didn't care for the way he ran his administration, he's a
liar?

Because he didn't align his administration with your point-of-view, he lied?

So where did he lie in all of this. Nothing you said indicates that he
lied. Sounds more like partisan differences than an objective analysis
of whether he lied.


Any efforts to deny that he 'lied' are going to get very very close to
trying to say "what is the meaning of 'is'".

Not at all. Clinton lied to a Grand Jury. Its not that he might have
lied or that what he said might have more than one meaning. He lied.
Period.

I'm not saying Bush lied or not. I'm challenging you to prove that he
did. You admit you can't.



Squirm away.

I can see that's what you had to do. But still you failed to prove your
accusation.


--riverman

Did I read in HK? Haven't been there since I retired. But have almost
always enjoyed my visits.

Obama's gone and done it
 

"Scott Seidman" wrote in message
. 1.4...
Peaceful Bill wrote in news:jahVk.6049
:

What American city? I just looked at a map and it looks like they're
all still there. Which one is lost?


Tell me you're going to defend the Bushies for the Katrina response, so I
can plonk you, as you have squat that's realistic to say.


--
Scott
Reverse name to reply

When did the Governor and Nagin the incompetant mayor ask for Federal help?
The Fed's could not go in without an invitation. Seems as if part of the
Constitution and laws were followed. There was more devastion in
Mississippi and they did not have the problems. Bush has sucked as a POTUS,
but so did Clinton. And 9/11 happened on Bush's watch, but was setup under
Clinton's watch. In fact the attack under Clinton's watch reduced the death
count on 9/11 as the people were smart enough to exit the building if they
could. Clinton and Greenspan (Worse Fed Chair ever) and Sec Treas. Rubin
are the main cause of the present economic morass. Rublin left to head
Citigroup and helped lobby to remove Glass-Steagall Act of 1933 that
prevented the cross ownship of insurance, bank and brokerages. This
happened under Clinton's watch. As well as the dot.bomb happened under
Clinton. Brought a lot of money into the treasury, but was a bubble just
like the real-estate boom of the last few years. Neither Clinton who
started it and Bush who went along with it are worth a crap.

Obama's gone and done it
 

"Calif Bill" wrote in
m:


When did the Governor and Nagin the incompetant mayor ask for Federal
help? The Fed's could not go in without an invitation. Seems as if
part of the Constitution and laws were followedInvestigation of State
of Emergency declaration

WIKPEDIA
In a September 26, 2005 hearing, former FEMA chief Michael Brown
testified before a U.S. House subcommittee about FEMA's response. During
that hearing, Representative Stephen Buyer (R-IN) inquired as to why
president Bush's declaration of state of emergency of August 27 had not
included the coastal parishes of Orleans, Jefferson, and Plaquemines.[16]
(In fact, the declaration did not include any of Louisiana's coastal
parishes, whereas the coastal counties were included in the declarations
for Mississippi[17] and Alabama.[18]) Brown testified that this was
because Louisiana Governor Blanco had not included those parishes in her
initial request for aid, a decision that he found "shocking." After the
hearing, though, Blanco released a copy of her letter, which requested
assistance for "all the southeastern parishes including the New Orleans
Metropolitan area and the mid state Interstate I-49 corridor and northern
parishes along the I-20 corridor that are accepting [evacuated
citizens]."[19]

So, with the possible exception of a few southern parishes (though that's
up in the air), the Feds were CLEARLY allowed to move in after Aug 27.
Nothing ambiguous about that.

The only ambiguity is whether Bush's legacy will be watching a city
drown, starting a war of aggression, or presiding over a huge economic
meltdown.

--
Scott
Reverse name to reply

Obama's gone and done it
 

Scott Seidman wrote:
"Calif Bill" wrote in
m:

When did the Governor and Nagin the incompetant mayor ask for Federal
help? The Fed's could not go in without an invitation. Seems as if
part of the Constitution and laws were followedInvestigation of State
of Emergency declaration

WIKPEDIA
In a September 26, 2005 hearing, former FEMA chief Michael Brown
testified before a U.S. House subcommittee about FEMA's response. During
that hearing, Representative Stephen Buyer (R-IN) inquired as to why
president Bush's declaration of state of emergency of August 27 had not
included the coastal parishes of Orleans, Jefferson, and Plaquemines.[16]
(In fact, the declaration did not include any of Louisiana's coastal
parishes, whereas the coastal counties were included in the declarations
for Mississippi[17] and Alabama.[18]) Brown testified that this was
because Louisiana Governor Blanco had not included those parishes in her
initial request for aid, a decision that he found "shocking." After the
hearing, though, Blanco released a copy of her letter, which requested
assistance for "all the southeastern parishes including the New Orleans
Metropolitan area and the mid state Interstate I-49 corridor and northern
parishes along the I-20 corridor that are accepting [evacuated
citizens]."[19]


What's the date on that letter from the gov?

Bush declared a state of emerggency on 27 Aug. Hurricane didn't hit
N.O. until 29 Aug. So how could Bush or anyone else know the extent of
the devastation along the coast?


So, with the possible exception of a few southern parishes (though that's
up in the air), the Feds were CLEARLY allowed to move in after Aug 27.
Nothing ambiguous about that.




Move in for what? Why move in when you're gonna get pounded and flooded
with the likely loss of whatever aid was brought in?

You're just regurgitating more partisan arguments. There was no way to
anticipate the N.O. disaster much less prepare for it. If it had been a
Democrat pres, it would only classified as a natural disaster of
unpredicted magnitude. One that nobody had foreseen.

But since it was Bush, it was the worst failure in history. And Only
because it was Bush.

Obama's gone and done it
 

On Nov 23, 10:31*pm, Peaceful Bill
wrote:
[snip]
You're just regurgitating more partisan arguments. *There was no way to
anticipate the N.O. disaster much less prepare for it. *If it had been a
Democrat pres, it would only classified as a natural disaster of
unpredicted magnitude. *One that nobody had foreseen.

People had been predicting a disastrous hurricane for NO for a long
time.

But since it was Bush, it was the worst failure in history. *And Only
because it was Bush.

That is probably correct: no other administration since the time of
Harding would have fouled up the gov't's response so badly.

Obama's gone and done it
 

On Nov 24, 11:31*am, Peaceful Bill
wrote:
Scott Seidman wrote:
"Calif Bill" wrote in
om:

When did the Governor and Nagin the incompetant mayor ask for Federal
help? The Fed's could not go in without an invitation. *Seems as if
part of the Constitution and laws were followedInvestigation of State
of Emergency declaration

WIKPEDIA
In a September 26, 2005 hearing, former FEMA chief Michael Brown
testified before a U.S. House subcommittee about FEMA's response. During
that hearing, Representative Stephen Buyer (R-IN) inquired as to why
president Bush's declaration of state of emergency of August 27 had not
included the coastal parishes of Orleans, Jefferson, and Plaquemines.[16]
(In fact, the declaration did not include any of Louisiana's coastal
parishes, whereas the coastal counties were included in the declarations
for Mississippi[17] and Alabama.[18]) Brown testified that this was
because Louisiana Governor Blanco had not included those parishes in her
initial request for aid, a decision that he found "shocking." After the
hearing, though, Blanco released a copy of her letter, which requested
assistance for "all the southeastern parishes including the New Orleans
Metropolitan area and the mid state Interstate I-49 corridor and northern
parishes along the I-20 corridor that are accepting [evacuated
citizens]."[19]

What's the date on that letter from the gov?

Bush declared a state of emerggency on 27 Aug. *Hurricane didn't hit
N.O. until 29 Aug. *So how could Bush or anyone else know the extent of
the devastation along the coast?

So, with the possible exception of a few southern parishes (though that's
up in the air), the Feds were CLEARLY allowed to move in after Aug 27.
Nothing ambiguous about that.

Move in for what? *Why move in when you're gonna get pounded and flooded
with the likely loss of whatever aid was brought in?

You're just regurgitating more partisan arguments. *There was no way to
anticipate the N.O. disaster much less prepare for it. *If it had been a
Democrat pres, it would only classified as a natural disaster of
unpredicted magnitude. *One that nobody had foreseen.

But since it was Bush, it was the worst failure in history. *And Only
because it was Bush.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You gotta keep your story straight, Bill. First you insist that Bush
was not asked to go in on time, so the fault lie with Nagin, et al,
for delaying their request for help:

Now you change your story and say there's no way he could have known
the extent of the damage because the request came too early.

Face it: Bush not only mismanaged a whole lot of things during his
tenure, the people he hired (and as a result, he was indirectly
responsible for their actions) also mismanaged a whole lot of things.
And now, to compound things, you are taking on his mantle of crying
"its not my fault!!" Last I saw, he even commissioned a full-length TV
movie to show how the mismanagment of bad Intel was 'not his fault'.

Well guess what; it WAS his fault. The response to Katrina happened
under his watch. The misguided invasion was under his watch. The
economic collapse was under his watch. The largest federal deficit in
the history of mankind was under his watch. And that's just the tip of
the iceberg.

And its not a matter of being 'partisan'....incompetence is not the
same as partisan politics. But of course, Bush (and Rove) were good at
covering their mismanagements up by claiming that opposition folks
were just being 'partisan'. Or "Liberals". Well guess what: try to
write revisionist history all you want...Bush's legacy is written
already.

--riverman