|
Good news for America is bad news for the Democrats
New Republic today has a three-person byline story:
John B. Judis, Spencer Ackerman & Massoud Ansari. The title of this piece is July Surprise. "Late last month, President Bush lost his greatest advantage in his bid for reelection. A poll conducted by ABC News... discovered that challenger John Kerry was running even with the president on the critical question of whom voters trust to handle the war on terrorism.... This spring, the administration significantly increased its pressure on Pakistan to kill or capture Osama bin Laden, his deputy, Ayman Al Zawahiri, or the Taliban's Mullah Mohammed Omar, all of whom are believed to be hiding in the lawless tribal areas of Pakistan." ********************************************* So the latest liberal conspiracy is that the White House is pressuring Pakistan to deliver bin Laden during the Democrat convention! ********************************************* Here is proof the liberals are afraid that bin Laden will be captured! They don't want him captures. It is their big fear that he will be capured before the election. So they are doing damage control in advance, just in case! It is always the case: Good news for America is bad news for the Democrats |
Good news for America is bad news for the Democrats
Well, it's about time. He should have pressured Pakistan from
day one. I guess that makes Bu**** a hero. Got it. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com "Bart Senior" wrote in message t... New Republic today has a three-person byline story: John B. Judis, Spencer Ackerman & Massoud Ansari. The title of this piece is July Surprise. "Late last month, President Bush lost his greatest advantage in his bid for reelection. A poll conducted by ABC News... discovered that challenger John Kerry was running even with the president on the critical question of whom voters trust to handle the war on terrorism.... This spring, the administration significantly increased its pressure on Pakistan to kill or capture Osama bin Laden, his deputy, Ayman Al Zawahiri, or the Taliban's Mullah Mohammed Omar, all of whom are believed to be hiding in the lawless tribal areas of Pakistan." ********************************************* So the latest liberal conspiracy is that the White House is pressuring Pakistan to deliver bin Laden during the Democrat convention! ********************************************* Here is proof the liberals are afraid that bin Laden will be captured! They don't want him captures. It is their big fear that he will be capured before the election. So they are doing damage control in advance, just in case! It is always the case: Good news for America is bad news for the Democrats |
Good news for America is bad news for the Democrats
"Bart Senior" wrote
Here is proof the liberals are afraid that bin Laden will be captured! They don't want him captures. It is their big fear that he will be capured before the election. So they are doing damage control in advance, just in case! If so, they learned it from Reagan. You did know that he cut a deal to provide Iran illegal military materials and in return they held onto the hostages they'd taken from the US embassy long enough to embarass Carter didn't you? |
Good news for America is bad news for the Democrats
"Bart Senior" wrote in message t... snip Here is proof the liberals are afraid that bin Laden will be captured! They don't want him captures. It is their big fear that he will be capured before the election. So they are doing damage control in advance, just in case! It is always the case: Good news for America is bad news for the Democrats I'm surprised that a (seemingly) intelligent person could forgive Bush for the lies that have led to the deaths of so many innocent Americans. It seems that political bias is able to overcome the critical facilties of any Republican supporter. Tell me, Bart! Do you still believe that Saddam had WMD? Regards Donal -- |
Good news for America is bad news for the Democrats
Talk about dumb questions....
-- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com "Donal" wrote in message ... Tell me, Bart! Do you still believe that Saddam had WMD? Regards Donal -- |
Good news for America is bad news for the Democrats
Of course Saddam had them. He used them on his own people.
I can think of a hundred thousand reasons why Saddam needed to be stopped. Can you doubt it? I don't believe Bush lied. He made the right decision based on the information he had. I also know that much of the intelligence the President has at his disposal will never be revealed to insure it won't be compromised. Bush sent a message to the world. Tyrants will be punished. I can only fault him for taking so long to respond. He has more patience that I. He showed great diplomatic restraint. He shows the proper resolve now, not to let thugs rule by terror. I fault many other nations for failing to step forward and address issues like this throughout the world. The USA can't do it alone. It is too bad the UN is inept and unable to take decisive action when it needs to be done. Donal wrote Tell me, Bart! Do you still believe that Saddam had WMD? |
Good news for America is bad news for the Democrats
The entire USA should be afraid if they ever capture Bin Laden..... it
would only spur far more retaliatory terrorist attempts and raise your code to red for the next 5 years. CM "Bart Senior" wrote in message | Here is proof the liberals are afraid that bin Laden will be | captured! |
Good news for America is bad news for the Democrats
Exactly.
-- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com OzOne wrote in message ... On Sat, 10 Jul 2004 02:27:53 GMT, "Bart Senior" scribbled thusly: Of course Saddam had them. He used them on his own people. HAD is the operative word here Bart. Bush & Co said he had them and was prepared to use them, and that was the reason to invade Iraq. Turns out it was a lie! Evidence shows that there was NO evidence that any WMD remained. I can think of a hundred thousand reasons why Saddam needed to be stopped. Can you doubt it? Sure, but the reason your Govt used to invade was a lie! Now they're glossing over that saying it was for the good of the Iraqui people....they now have a democracy...that YOU INSTALLED !? I don't believe Bush lied. He made the right decision based on the information he had. I also know that much of the intelligence the President has at his disposal will never be revealed to insure it won't be compromised. Nah, the evidence was manufactured to achieve an aim the GWB had to finish what his daddy started, No more, no less. Bush sent a message to the world. Tyrants will be punished. Nah, the message was "live like we do or be punished" I can only fault him for taking so long to respond. He has more patience that I. He showed great diplomatic restraint. He shows the proper resolve now, not to let thugs rule by terror. You're kidding, surely! I fault many other nations for failing to step forward and address issues like this throughout the world. The USA can't do it alone. It is too bad the UN is inept and unable to take decisive action when it needs to be done. Have you ever looked at the history of "issues like this"? Most have been caused by oher nations sticking their noses in other countries affairs, splitting countries, installing leaders, eliminating leaders, plotting the overthrow of governments, annexing land....you name it, it was done in the name of bringing peace but caused turmoil and ultimately the rise of the terrorist, the only way less powerful groups can fight the might of the US and her tag along allies. Donal wrote Tell me, Bart! Do you still believe that Saddam had WMD? Oz1...of the 3 twins. I welcome you to crackerbox palace,We've been expecting you. |
Good news for America is bad news for the Democrats
"Bart Senior" wrote in message ... Of course Saddam had them. He used them on his own people. When did he use them on his own people? Why did the Allies do nothing at the time? I can think of a hundred thousand reasons why Saddam needed to be stopped. Can you doubt it? Yes. In international law there is only *one* acceptable reason to invade a sovereign state. If you can think of more than one reason, then you are favouring the disregard of international law. I don't believe Bush lied. Really? He said that Saddam had WMD. Do you still believe that Saddam had WMD when the invasion occurred? He made the right decision based on the information he had. I also know that much of the intelligence the President has at his disposal will never be revealed to insure it won't be compromised. Nonsense! Bush sent a message to the world. Tyrants will be punished. No .... the message is that power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. I can only fault him for taking so long to respond. He has more patience that I. He showed great diplomatic restraint. He shows the proper resolve now, not to let thugs rule by terror. He is a thug. He rules Iraq by terror. I fault many other nations for failing to step forward and address issues like this throughout the world. The USA can't do it alone. It is too bad the UN is inept and unable to take decisive action when it needs to be done. So, you are saying that a mental defective, like Bush, can override the UN?? Regards Donal -- |
afraid
It's called the Cycle Of Repression. Again I reference Carlos Marighella, a
Brasilian and the Tupamaro rebellion in Uruguay. In 1979 we had the Washington DC Police, the White HousePolice, the BIA police andthe Panama Canal Zone Police. Care to guess how many federal police agencies exist today? But if you don't want to look it up just wait for circumstances to teach you a well deserved lesson. M. The entire USA should be afraid if they ever capture Bin Laden..... I got into an arguement one morning when in the 5th grade. We decided to fight afterschool. I was confident I'd win. But at lunch my opponant noted that he was bigger and a year older and at recess that he was taller with a longer reach. My confidence evaporated but I went to the appointed place where half the school had congregated. After a long wait, another kid brought a message: Joe's mother had picked him up unexpectedly so I'd have to wait til tomarrow for my beating. I worried all night. Next day brought more of the same. How much did I weigh? He was 10 pounds heavier. How many chin-ups could I do? He could do more. Pushups? Same answer. By days end I was terrified, but went to take my whupping like a man. I was spared. Seems he's had to rush right home for martial arts lessons on Wednesdays but would take care of me tomarrow. Oh jeeze, not another day of fearing that beating .... The truth finally dawned walking home - that kid was never going to show up! He didn't have to! I'd let fear hurt me far more than he ever could. Next day I told gossips that I was so scared I planned to sneak home early; then I went by, caught him bragging about scaring me off, and whupped his ass so bad his mama had the principal lecture me on the evil of violence. The lecture didn't take (I've been a student of creative violence ever since) but the kid's lesson did and thanks to him I was never afraid again. In fact, I cannot understand people who are. The country is letting itself get BS'd just like I had as a child. What can Al Quida do that's worse than we are not already doing to ourselves out of fear? Kill a few of us? Jeeze, 1000s of our forefathers died to protect the freedoms we're so eager to throw away just to feel safe. What will they say of us? Shameful cowards who borrowed $trillions for them to pay interest on and accepted Stalinist slavery just to feel safe? Shame on us!! |
Good news for America is bad news for the Democrats
"Bart Senior" wrote
I can think of a hundred thousand reasons why Saddam needed to be stopped. Can you doubt it? Then please share them with us. Frankly, I cannot come up with a single reason that justifies cutting short the hunt for Bin Laden to run after Saddam, let alone spend millions of dollars and hundreds of American lives - not to mention Iraqis. |
afraid
"Capt. Mooron" wrote in message
... The entire USA should be afraid if they ever capture Bin Laden..... I got into an arguement one morning when in the 5th grade. We decided to fight afterschool. I was confident I'd win. But at lunch my opponant noted that he was bigger and a year older and at recess that he was taller with a longer reach. My confidence evaporated but I went to the appointed place where half the school had congregated. After a long wait, another kid brought a message: Joe's mother had picked him up unexpectedly so I'd have to wait til tomarrow for my beating. I worried all night. Next day brought more of the same. How much did I weigh? He was 10 pounds heavier. How many chin-ups could I do? He could do more. Pushups? Same answer. By days end I was terrified, but went to take my whupping like a man. I was spared. Seems he's had to rush right home for martial arts lessons on Wednesdays but would take care of me tomarrow. Oh jeeze, not another day of fearing that beating .... The truth finally dawned walking home - that kid was never going to show up! He didn't have to! I'd let fear hurt me far more than he ever could. Next day I told gossips that I was so scared I planned to sneak home early; then I went by, caught him bragging about scaring me off, and whupped his ass so bad his mama had the principal lecture me on the evil of violence. The lecture didn't take (I've been a student of creative violence ever since) but the kid's lesson did and thanks to him I was never afraid again. In fact, I cannot understand people who are. The country is letting itself get BS'd just like I had as a child. What can Al Quida do that's worse than we are not already doing to ourselves out of fear? Kill a few of us? Jeeze, 1000s of our forefathers died to protect the freedoms we're so eager to throw away just to feel safe. What will they say of us? Shameful cowards who borrowed $trillions for them to pay interest on and accepted Stalinist slavery just to feel safe? Shame on us!! |
Good news for America is bad news for the Democrats
Frankly, I cannot come up with a single
reason that justifies cutting short the hunt for Bin Laden to run after Saddam...... You honestly believe they stopped the search for Bin Laden? Don't you remember all the reports where they thought they were closing in on him? Talk about twisting! You must base what you believe is going on by what the liberal press tells you. If you were on the inside and part of those seeking Bin Laden you would not make such STUPID statements. Some of these post make me laugh. The word "Blind" comes to mind. |
Good news for America is bad news for the Democrats
They didn't stop, but they didn't go after him full time either. Instead of
100K+ troops in Iraq, how about 100K troops in Afganistan??? Now if that had happened, I could say Bu**** was actually doing something. We only have about 10K troops "looking for BL." And, that includes trying to keep Afganistan stable. What a joke. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com "FamilySailor" wrote in message ... Frankly, I cannot come up with a single reason that justifies cutting short the hunt for Bin Laden to run after Saddam...... You honestly believe they stopped the search for Bin Laden? Don't you remember all the reports where they thought they were closing in on him? Talk about twisting! You must base what you believe is going on by what the liberal press tells you. If you were on the inside and part of those seeking Bin Laden you would not make such STUPID statements. Some of these post make me laugh. The word "Blind" comes to mind. |
Good news for America is bad news for the Democrats
That's bull****, and everyone who has read your carping knows it. If the US
had 100k troops in Afghanistan, you'd be carping about readiness elsewhere, Pakistan's rights, etc. They didn't stop, but they didn't go after him full time either. Instead of 100K+ troops in Iraq, how about 100K troops in Afganistan??? Now if that had happened, I could say Bu**** was actually doing something. We only have about 10K troops "looking for BL." And, that includes trying to keep Afganistan stable. What a joke. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com "FamilySailor" wrote in message ... Frankly, I cannot come up with a single reason that justifies cutting short the hunt for Bin Laden to run after Saddam...... You honestly believe they stopped the search for Bin Laden? Don't you remember all the reports where they thought they were closing in on him? Talk about twisting! You must base what you believe is going on by what the liberal press tells you. If you were on the inside and part of those seeking Bin Laden you would not make such STUPID statements. Some of these post make me laugh. The word "Blind" comes to mind. |
Good news for America is bad news for the Democrats
"FamilySailor" wrote in message ... You honestly believe they stopped the search for Bin Laden? Don't you remember all the reports where they thought they were closing in on him? Talk about twisting! You must base what you believe is going on by what the liberal press tells you. If you were on the inside and part of those seeking Bin Laden you would not make such STUPID statements. Some of these post make me laugh. The word "Blind" comes to mind. Do you really believe that Iraq hasn't distracted attention from the hunt for Bin Laden? The word "stupid" comes to mind..... so does the word "gullible" ..... along with the phrase "two short planks". Before the invasion of Iraq, we were told that Saddam had connections with Bin Laden. We now know that US administrations provided more support (financial and technical) for Bin Laden than Iraq ever did. Regards Donal -- |
Good news for America is bad news for the Democrats
"FamilySailor" wrote in message
... Frankly, I cannot come up with a single reason that justifies cutting short the hunt for Bin Laden to run after Saddam...... You honestly believe they stopped the search for Bin Laden? .... ...... If you were on the inside and part of those seeking Bin Laden you would not make such STUPID statements. You got the same grades in reading comprehention as Homer Simpson, eh? I didn't say "stopped" I said "cut short" and if YOU were on the inside you'd know that's exactly what happened - that "resources" who almost had O'Sammy in hand were diverted to Iraq. Hmmm...?? |
Good news for America is bad news for the Democrats
They didn't stop, but they didn't go after him full time either. Instead
of 100K+ troops in Iraq, how about 100K troops in Afganistan??? Now if that had happened, I could say Bu**** was actually doing something. We only have about 10K troops "looking for BL." And, that includes trying to keep Afganistan stable. What a joke. Bush has 10,000 people looking for Bin Laden (one man) and you still want more!!! Wow, you are pretty hard to please I would say. I know you said they are also keeping Afghanistan stable, but they are looking for ole Bin too. |
Good news for America is bad news for the Democrats
You got the same grades in reading comprehention as Homer Simpson, eh?
DOHHHH!!! I didn't say "stopped" I said "cut short" and if YOU were on the inside you'd know that's exactly what happened - that "resources" who almost had O'Sammy in hand were diverted to Iraq. Hmmm...?? Your right you said cut short. I guess it was cut down to only 10,000 soldiers according to Jonathan. 10,000 soldiers looking for ole Bin, or is that O-bee-whan, use the force Luke. (I digress) |
Good news for America is bad news for the Democrats
On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 13:26:54 -0500, "FamilySailor" wrote:
You got the same grades in reading comprehention as Homer Simpson, eh? DOHHHH!!! I didn't say "stopped" I said "cut short" and if YOU were on the inside you'd know that's exactly what happened - that "resources" who almost had O'Sammy in hand were diverted to Iraq. Hmmm...?? Your right you said cut short. I guess it was cut down to only 10,000 soldiers according to Jonathan. 10,000 soldiers looking for ole Bin, or is that O-bee-whan, use the force Luke. (I digress) Which is fewer than the number of police officers in Manhattan, while we sent 150,000 to get one man, Saddam, who had nothing to do with 9/11. In case you have failed to notice, we haven't gotten bin Laden. |
Good news for America is bad news for the Democrats
I've been telling my wife for some months that I expect we'll get him around
August or September, at which point the Dems will claim there was some deep dark plot to time the capture just before the election. Which there may have been, but if he is apprehended, who cares about little tweaks to the timing. It is not like michael moore's movie came out this summer coincidentally. |
Good news for America is bad news for the Democrats
On 13 Jul 2004 15:05:14 -0500, Dave wrote:
On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 19:28:02 GMT, felton said: In case you have failed to notice, we haven't gotten bin Laden. I've been telling my wife for some months that I expect we'll get him around August or September, at which point the Dems will claim there was some deep dark plot to time the capture just before the election. Better late than never. I did hear that the Bush administration is now really turning up the heat on Pakistan to get some high level Al-Qaeda terrorist prior to the election. Too bad that it took some low approval ratings for this group to resume the war on terrorism, but I guess they have their hands full in Iraq. I know one thing...if I were an unusally tall Arab, I would keep a low profile for the next few months...there are some desperate Republicans looking for a trophy. Whether real or imagined makes little difference to the party base. |
Good news for America is bad news for the Democrats
FamilySailor wrote:
Bush has 10,000 people looking for Bin Laden (one man) and you still want more!!! Wow, you are pretty hard to please I would say. I know you said they are also keeping Afghanistan stable, but they are looking for ole Bin too. I see, the Army has it's troops multitasking now? Most of the Army's approx 11,500 men in Afghanistan are assigned to keep the Karzai gov't stable & in power; training the new Afghan national army. Exactly how many are hunting for Osama Bin Laden is not clear (funny how the Army likes to obfuscate these things) but it's probably not more than 1500 and definitely not more than 3,000... that would be over 25% of deployed strength. An argument could be made that it is a job for the most elite units, not mass numbers, but would more troops decrease the odds??? If Bush & Cheney had not gone on their little spree in Iraq, for reasons they cannot seem to explain, there would be plenty of troops to hunt OBL. As it is, we have to rely on Pakistan to do it. And you know they are one of our biggest friends, right?!? Sometimes the "logic" of you Bush/Cheney fans is really amazing. DSK |
Good news for America is bad news for the Democrats
Yeah, I do want more. I want what's appropriate to the threat. We had
100K+ in Iraq to catch one guy, someone who had nothing to do with 9/11 or WMDs. Isn't that the point? They're unable to keep AG stable, because in part there are not enough troops. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com "FamilySailor" wrote in message ... They didn't stop, but they didn't go after him full time either. Instead of 100K+ troops in Iraq, how about 100K troops in Afganistan??? Now if that had happened, I could say Bu**** was actually doing something. We only have about 10K troops "looking for BL." And, that includes trying to keep Afganistan stable. What a joke. Bush has 10,000 people looking for Bin Laden (one man) and you still want more!!! Wow, you are pretty hard to please I would say. I know you said they are also keeping Afghanistan stable, but they are looking for ole Bin too. |
Good news for America is bad news for the Democrats
That's right. The Bu****s still don't really give a **** about capturing
him. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com "Dave" wrote in message ... On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 20:18:13 GMT, felton said: I did hear that the Bush administration is now really turning up the heat on Pakistan to get some high level Al-Qaeda terrorist prior to the election. Don't believe everything you hear, Felton. Could be, but I suspect the source of that information is some folks who are trying to build a foundation for just the claim I said they'd be making when it happens. The propaganda machines of both parties are extremely well-oiled. Dave S/V Good Fortune CS27 Who goes duck hunting with Jamie Gorelick? |
Good news for America is bad news for the Democrats -OT
"Dave" wrote I've been telling my wife for some months that I expect we'll get him around August or September, at which point the Dems will claim there was some deep dark plot to time the capture just before the election. It'd certainly be in character. Reagan bribed Iran to keep the US Embassy hostages in prison long enough to embarass Carter then illegally paid them off with embargoed military goodies. |
Good news for America is bad news for the Democrats -OT
"Vito" said:
Reagan bribed Iran to keep the US Embassy hostages in prison long enough to embarass Carter then illegally paid them off with embargoed military goodies. Dave wrote: Look out for those black helicopters. It's true, Reagan did negotiate with Iran to keep the hostages through the 1980 election. It's been admitted by several Reagan cabinet members and is mentioned in official Iran history (although you might note that they don't seem to be proud of it). http://www.iranchamber.com/history/a..._iraq_war1.php DSK |
Good news for America is bad news for the Democrats -OT
Dave wrote:
Doug, that chestnut's been kicking around for 23 years and will probably be kicking around for another 20 among the conspiracy theorists of the left. That's funny... lightly dismiss it as "conspiracy theory of the left" and then you don't have to face the truth. ... No doubt in your circles it's regarded as gospel. Not entirely. Most of my friends have a high regard for Reagan as President; not tremendously distant from my view BTW. ... Nevertheless the best your quoted source could say is "there is some evidence." That's just one source which I picked because it was from Iran. Different perspective. I have no idea what the politics of the writer of that web essay are. ... Not exactly a ringing solid conclusion. Maybe if Reagan himself appeared to you in a vision and confirmed it, you'd believe it? Maybe not. In any event, you can believe in the Tooth Fairy and the purity and innocence of your anointed politicians. It's easier than trying to figure things out. ... In my business "some evidence" may get you to the jury but it usually doesn't get you a verdict. Far less than "clear and convincing evidence," or even the "preponderance of the evidence," let alone "beyond a reasonable doubt." In my business, I have to cope with a variety of problems, none of which can be dismissed as conspiracy theory or leftist rhetoric. Precision machinery does not respond to flattery and it doesn't care what your theories are. It's either right or it's not. To troubleshoot complex systems requires careful observation and consistent adherence to principles. Nobody cares whether a given theory is "proven" as long as the machine works properly in the end. Frankly, I don't give a rat's hindpart what you believe. I never said I could prove beyond any shadow of a doubt that Reagan negotiated with Iran to keep the hostages; I said it was consistent with everything else I've observed. It fits, in other words. No hammer required... although it might help in your case ;) DSK |
Good news for America is bad news for the Democrats -OT
On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 21:03:50 -0400, DSK wrote:
Frankly, I don't give a rat's hindpart what you believe. I never said I could prove beyond any shadow of a doubt that Reagan negotiated with Iran to keep the hostages; I said it was consistent with everything else I've observed. It fits, in other words. No hammer required... although it might help in your case ;) I strongly suspect that it did happen, but I would put more of the blame on that spook Casey (and perhaps, Bush I), than Reagan. It is the one event that pulls all the pieces together right up to, and including, this Iraq mess. You are right about not being able to prove it, but one thing is certain, the Congressional investigation was a sham. I'm sure you have the x-files, but for those that haven't, an eye-opening read: http://www.consortiumnews.com/archive/xfile.html http://www.wrmea.com/backissues/0591/9105011.htm |
Good news for America is bad news for the Democrats -OT
"Dave" wrote
Look out for those black helicopters. Naw, there's one sitting less than a click away, but it ain't black, it's charcoal grey. |
Good news for America is bad news for the Democrats - OT - OT -OT
"Dave" wrote
Doug, that chestnut's been kicking around for 23 years and will probably be kicking around for another 20 among the conspiracy theorists of the left. ..... Left? I voted against JFK. I was a card-carrying Republican having worked for Goldwater and helped Nixon get elected twice. My job gave me insights into military intelligence and, since So American hot spots were closer to my folks in So Cal than I was in DC, I contributed $$ and time to Contra and other anti-communist organizations. Remember the Shaw? He'd bought a $jillion worth of US weapon systems in case he had to fight Iraq. Questioned on national TV, he put the blame for the first gas shortage squarely on the US, Brit and Dutch oil cartel vs OPEC. Nixon's people called his remarks "unfortunate" and "irresponsible" but not false and within months the Shaw was overthrown then, like Ruby, dead of cancer. Point is the CIA giveth and the CIA taketh away in those pre-carter days and it was CIA who let the Ayatollah in. No doubt they reminded him of his debt from time to time. So why did it take RR to get the hostages back? You tell me. Like many loyal Republicans, I was appalled when Reagan pulled the right wing rug out from under Ford to assure a Carter victory because he knew he'd be too sick if he had to wait thru 8 years of Ford to run. Four years later he cut the deal with Iran and paid them off through a mid-east arms dealer who made billions. Casey and Ollie leaned on that dealer to divert some of his profits to the Contras. That's why Democrats were on Iran-Contra like bull dogs - if Ollie had rolled over they prolly could have impeached RR, or at least tried. Of course everybody, especially Casey's kids, kept careful diaries of these events which they donated to libraries and are now available to you and I on the internet - right? So I otta be able to prove this "left wing theory" right? Ok, but first lets talk about some Florida land and a bridge I'd like to sell you (c: |
Good news for America is bad news for the Democrats -OT
DSK wrote in message . ..
"Vito" said: Reagan bribed Iran to keep the US Embassy hostages in prison long enough to embarass Carter then illegally paid them off with embargoed military goodies. Dave wrote: Look out for those black helicopters. It's true, Reagan did negotiate with Iran to keep the hostages through the 1980 election. Here is my take of the conversation and events. I was pert near the center of the action in Iran at the time. Atoyolla Komanie(sp? but who cares) said: Lets keep them tied up and force the filthy heathen dog to pay to release them. Carter: Well I could try another half assed assault with our wore out equipment and we could make a last ditch effort to free them maybe. Election day comes and the Gipper is elected. Regans call to Ayatolla Komanie: Listen here you *^#$!% rag head, you cut em lose today or Im going to send in the 1 calvery backed by a dozen B-52 and a couple 100 tomahawk missles. I guarrenty Im going to make sure we kill you after we kill 100 of your followers for every hostage that even has a scratch on a finger, do you understand you flea infested camel jockey? Next day the hostages were set free. Reagan knew how to make a deal IMO :0) Joe It's been admitted by several Reagan cabinet members and is mentioned in official Iran history (although you might note that they don't seem to be proud of it). http://www.iranchamber.com/history/a..._iraq_war1.php DSK |
Good news for America is bad news for the Democrats -OT
On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 12:26:40 -0700, Joe wrote:
Election day comes and the Gipper is elected. Regans call to Ayatolla Komanie: Listen here you *^#$!% rag head, you cut em lose today or Im going to send in the 1 calvery backed by a dozen B-52 and a couple 100 tomahawk missles. I guarrenty Im going to make sure we kill you after we kill 100 of your followers for every hostage that even has a scratch on a finger, do you understand you flea infested camel jockey? Next day the hostages were set free. A couple of problems with your take, the hostages were not set free the next day, the hostages were set free 15 minutes after Reagan was inaugurated. Just when was this call supposed to be made? Secondly, the arms shipments began a few weeks later. Why would we reward a country that had just held 52 hostages 444 days? Reagan knew how to make a deal IMO :0) Yeah, right, Reagan (more likely Casey) knew how to make a deal alright, but it wasn't the deal you're referring to. |
Good news for America is bad news for the Democrats - OT - OT -OT
Now I know why he lost. :-)
-- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com "Dave" wrote in message ... On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 11:14:13 -0400, "Vito" said: Left? I voted against JFK. I was a card-carrying Republican having worked for Goldwater and helped Nixon get elected twice. Back when I was young and foolish I worked in McGovern's NH primary campaign. So I otta be able to prove this "left wing theory" right? Ok, but first lets talk about some Florida land and a bridge I'd like to sell you (c: Hear those beating helicopter blades outside? Dave S/V Good Fortune CS27 Who goes duck hunting with Jamie Gorelick? |
Good news for America is bad news for the Democrats - OT - OT -OT
Dave, you are either way too thin-skinned or just stupid. I was
making a joke. If you worked for McG, then I can now for sure understand why he lost. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com "Dave" wrote in message ... On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 13:57:54 -0700, "Jonathan Ganz" said: Now I know why he lost. :-) I take it you were too young or too inattentive to pay any attention to the 1972 primaries. Else you would not advertise your ignorance with such a foolish statement. Dave S/V Good Fortune CS27 Who goes duck hunting with Jamie Gorelick? |
Good news for America is bad news for the Democrats - OT - OT -OT
"Dave" wrote
Hear those beating helicopter blades outside? Sure do Dave! Every day. I even get to see heavily armed men parachute out of helo's' only yards overhead, practicing to kill people. Almost got to try it but they found out I'm old. I used to hear 16 inch rifles firing but now settle for rapid fire 5 inch and 90mm guns. I work on a Navy base and Marines, SEALS and SWAT FBI fly over my house on their way to woodland training exercises. |
Good news for America is bad news for the Democrats -OT
thunder wrote in message ...
On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 12:26:40 -0700, Joe wrote: Election day comes and the Gipper is elected. Regans call to Ayatolla Komanie: Listen here you *^#$!% rag head, you cut em lose today or Im going to send in the 1 calvery backed by a dozen B-52 and a couple 100 tomahawk missles. I guarrenty Im going to make sure we kill you after we kill 100 of your followers for every hostage that even has a scratch on a finger, do you understand you flea infested camel jockey? Next day the hostages were set free. A couple of problems with your take, the hostages were not set free the next day, the hostages were set free 15 minutes after Reagan was inaugurated. Just when was this call supposed to be made? Legend is....He made the call first thing after he left the podium from the swearing in ceramony. It was the number 1 pressing issue in the USA at the time. Secondly, the arms shipments began a few weeks later. Why would we reward a country that had just held 52 hostages 444 days? Well it goes back to the trader days on the silk route thru the middle east. The are very skilled people in bartering and have a keen skill in the art of negotiating. Ronald by heart was a Texan, but the sad fact was he lived in California. Had he been a true Texas he would not of bartered with dogs, no matter how big a palace they live in. Not saying what he did was wrong looking at the big picture at the time. Thats one of the reasons I like Bush as president. It's been a tough hard road the last few years, and he's still stickin to his guns. BTW I just heard 8 out of the 10 suicide murders on the planes in NY on 9/11 passed thru Iran on the way to Canada. Coming out in the 911 commissions reports Joe Reagan knew how to make a deal IMO :0) Yeah, right, Reagan (more likely Casey) knew how to make a deal alright, but it wasn't the deal you're referring to. |
Good news for America is bad news for the Democrats -OT
Clearly, Iran is next on the hit list. Too bad, I placed my
bets on Syria. Maybe we could do both? -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com "Joe" wrote in message om... thunder wrote in message ... On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 12:26:40 -0700, Joe wrote: Election day comes and the Gipper is elected. Regans call to Ayatolla Komanie: Listen here you *^#$!% rag head, you cut em lose today or Im going to send in the 1 calvery backed by a dozen B-52 and a couple 100 tomahawk missles. I guarrenty Im going to make sure we kill you after we kill 100 of your followers for every hostage that even has a scratch on a finger, do you understand you flea infested camel jockey? Next day the hostages were set free. A couple of problems with your take, the hostages were not set free the next day, the hostages were set free 15 minutes after Reagan was inaugurated. Just when was this call supposed to be made? Legend is....He made the call first thing after he left the podium from the swearing in ceramony. It was the number 1 pressing issue in the USA at the time. Secondly, the arms shipments began a few weeks later. Why would we reward a country that had just held 52 hostages 444 days? Well it goes back to the trader days on the silk route thru the middle east. The are very skilled people in bartering and have a keen skill in the art of negotiating. Ronald by heart was a Texan, but the sad fact was he lived in California. Had he been a true Texas he would not of bartered with dogs, no matter how big a palace they live in. Not saying what he did was wrong looking at the big picture at the time. Thats one of the reasons I like Bush as president. It's been a tough hard road the last few years, and he's still stickin to his guns. BTW I just heard 8 out of the 10 suicide murders on the planes in NY on 9/11 passed thru Iran on the way to Canada. Coming out in the 911 commissions reports Joe Reagan knew how to make a deal IMO :0) Yeah, right, Reagan (more likely Casey) knew how to make a deal alright, but it wasn't the deal you're referring to. |
Good news for America is bad news for the Democrats -OT
Election day comes and the Gipper is elected.
Regans call to Ayatolla Komanie: Listen here you *^#$!% rag head, you cut em lose today or Im going to send in the 1 calvery backed by a dozen B-52 and a couple 100 tomahawk missles. I guarrenty Im going to make sure we kill you after we kill 100 of your followers for every hostage that even has a scratch on a finger, do you understand you flea infested camel jockey? Next day the hostages were set free. Umm.. problem... 1- Tomahawk missiles weren't invented yet 2- Without prepositioned forces (which Carter did some, but not anywhere near enough to support such an attack) it would be a totally empty threat, which the Iranians would know quite well 3- for a President to threaten war in such a manner would be a greivous violation of the Constitution. Clearly you think it's cool to just kill lots of people with no reason. So tell me, what seperates you from the average terrorist? DSK |
Good news for America is bad news for the Democrats -OT
"DSK" wrote in message | Clearly you think it's cool to just kill lots of people with no reason. | So tell me, what seperates you from the average terrorist? He's wearing a Cowboy Hat?? ;-) CM |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:00 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com