On 30 Oct 2006 06:13:14 -0800, "salmobytes"
wrote:


Gene Cottrell wrote:
Here are a bunch of liars: http://www.6URL.com/0Z5A

The republicans are starting to wake up to to the nightmare of
their most recent legacy: Iraq was the biggest foreign policy blunder
in at least a century. They have done more to irretrievably damage
our national security than can easily be put into words.

Facing this agonizing reality, it's only natural they would
try to blame it on the democrats. That kind of trickery has
worked well for them in the past.

Right. Blame the Republicans. OTOH, it might serve you to research it
and learn that it took a lot more than just "the Republicans," and a
great number of years, to wind up with situation in which the US and
others find themselves with regard to Iraq. And no, "the Democrats"
(and/or Clinton) aren't totally responsible, either. I am curious as to
where you think all the Johnny-come-lately anti-Iraq-war Dems were
before this election cycle really heated up. It was all fine and dandy
with most of them until polls suggested it shouldn't be...and I'd offer
that come November 8, most in the US will go back to not really
caring...

This time, however, their unbridled stupidity is beyond hiding.

Which "their," _their_ their and the other "their?"

Even red-state morons

Golly! Even THOSE inbred cracker mouth-breathers? Sheesh, if THEY now
realize it, the geniuses in real, civilized states must have known it
from the get-go...I mean, they NEVER would have said that it was alright
to go into Ira...well, let's let them tell it in their own words:

Going into Iraq was "consistent with the United States and other
countries continuing to take necessary actions against international
terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those who planned,
authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks of September 11,
2001."

They also said...well, again, let's let them tell it..."Furthermore, the
resolution declares that this section is intended to constitute specific
statutory authorization for use of the armed forces..."

Gee, I didn't see a single thing that seems like it would be an attempt
at stopping the US military from going into Iraq, but maybe it's from
being around all these "red-state" morons...heck, they're so stupid,
they keep electing Democrats to all sorts of positions...

from the heartland now realize
we're in big trouble.

"We're" in big trouble? And just who the flock is "we," Kemosabe? If
you mean the US, it ain't even in "little trouble." Comparatively, no
one really gives a **** about Iraq. Oh, sure, some folks like to get
all worked up and protest, use it to weasel into office (or weasel
another out), or use it as a sad attempt to relive the "hippie" days
they missed out on or can't really remember, but at the end of the day,
most folks, from the US blue-collar factory worker to the wealthiest
Arab to the migrant worker from the south-of-the-US-Mexico border to the
Asian tycoon, and from Beirut to Beijing to Bogota to Boston, the vast
majority simply don't care, because it doesn't affect them, personally,
very much at all.

And they know who caused it.

No, "they" (just about whoever you mean by "they") don't have the
slightest clue as to who caused "it" or much else, and "they" don't know
for a variety of reasons, including apathy. The seminal cause is a
bunch of long-dead Brits and a smattering of Continentals, and since
none of the various babblers at the various world-wide "news networks"
babbles on about it, darned few know much about anything.

Of course, not knowing jack-**** never stopped most of the "they" from
demanding, while screaming out a litany of other "demands," that a whole
'nutha "they" DO SOMETHING RIGHT NOW about it "all"...

HTH,
R