Name good things Bush has done

[K0YNE]

I can state with facts how the Clinton years were good. Now put your list of good things Bush has done for us. This should bring out the best things Bush has done for the world and the United States of America. Be frank and tell us all. Paul KØYNE

[KA9VQF]

Looks like it's gonna be a short list on this thread.

[AI4EP]

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif Well, for one thing...being PATRIOTIC is far easier than before BUSH came into office ( lots more flags waving, folks that are PROUD to say the "pledge of allegiance " . Folks are actually saying the words out loud at ball games and other events where it used to be common place for 3/4 of the folks to just sit there and " hurry this ^%$# up " would be common place.

RESPECT for those who have fought / currently fighting in war is at an all - time high. ( getting respect for any thing is rare these days )

Folks VOLUNTEERING their time for various causes is still at an all - time high. They realize there is good to be done, and you do NOT have to be paid to show your good side.

73

---ai4ep---

[N0OV]

Well, it slowed down the number of Bill Clinton jokes in circulation.

Hillary is another topic http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[N0OV]

He replaced Clinton.
He prevented Gore from being put into office!

[KB1KIX]

Sure you can quote Clinton goodness.... but it was all a myth.

If I have to explain it to ya, then you are believing the evening broadcast news.

Jonathan

What good things came out of the Clinton years?

Parents all over the world were given the opportunity to teach their children (regardless of whether or not THE PARENTS THOUGHT IT WAS TIME) all about 'the birds and the bees -- AND the fact that oral pleasure IS NOT the same as sex!

We ALL learned the finer points of how to effectively use the American English language to achieve quite a few things. We learned that 'is' means more than just 'is. We learned that ' alone' depends on where you are and what you are doing.

We learned that lying is not REALLY lying if you are high enough placed powerful person and you don't get convicted of it.

We learned that LAWS are flexible and must accomodate the changing mores and cultural ideas.

We learned that 'standards' AREN'T. 'Regulations' are flexible. The Constitution is a 'living document'.

We learned that fidelity, honor, bravery, integrity, and the like are simply items to be bought, sold, bartered, and traded 'all in the pursuit of the greater good'.

We learned that by being brazen, never admitting anything, and using the power of your office for personal gain (or retribution) you can have an 8 year party at the expense of the public.

We also learned that 'if it's FOR the Children', then you can put forth, push for, and encourage just about any scatterbrained program.

We learned, by observation of example that 'DO AS I SAY, NOT AS I DO' is a valid proposition.

We learned the effective techniques of 'Deny, avoid, delay, admit' are EXCELLENT negotiation skills to learn and apply.

We learned that the ENDS justify the means.

We learned that people are to be USED, things are to be used, and #1 is the only real thing to be on the lookout for.

Those are but SOME of the things we've learned from 8 years.

This is NOT bashing.. this is factual stuff that has ALL Been in the public view and documented quite a bit in many venues.

K3FT

[W5JO]

Hummmmm! You haven't gotten your tax return yet.

W5JO

WHAT GOOD THINGS HAS BUSH DONE?

Restored the RESPECT for the Office of President as a place to be honored adn respected NOT dishonored and used as a convienent place to release some carnal desires.

Restored America to the place that the world sees WILL take action when America believes it be in the best interest of AMERICA and not simply kowtow to the international community 'just to get along'.

Installed mechanisms that return, to Americans THEIR money because he believes that AMERICANS know better than the Central Government how to BEST spend their own money.

Endevaour to restore some standards, references, and points of fixed reference in adminstrering programs. (Accountability and resopnsibility)

Endevaour to restore the foundational precepts, concepts, and ideas that the Country was founded upon.

Perfect? NOPE? always successfull? NOPE. But a darn sight better than what WAS and better than who is running against him.

Restored the notion that 'if you attack us, you will suffer the consequences of your actions, regardless of WHO you are or where you go'. In short he says, 'OK! 'F' with us and prepare to reap the results. Don't 'F' with us and we'll be friends"

K3FT
(of course.. there will be lots of posts to refute all of the above. It's expected&#33http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif


K3FT

[KG4LLQ]

The good things President George Bush has accomplished:
1. #Pres. Bush has caused the U.S. Supreme Court to decide, for the first time, the outcome of a Presidential election.
2. #Pres. Bush's election amounts to a non violent
coup 'd tat (sorry for any mispelling, but my family is NOT French); another first for the United States of America.
3. #Pres. Bush comes across as the most in-articulate President I've ever witnessed when making either a prepared or "off-the-cuff" comment(s), and I've been around since President Harry S. Truman.
Oh NO!!! I'm sorry, the third item is NEGATIVE. #Oh well, delete number 3. #The first two are the only ones which are "positive"?? #Are they positive?
My final thought on President George Bush leads me to belive the truth in this statement, which is VERY APPLICABLE to all my republican (notice the lower case "r") countrymen (and women):

"IN THE LAND OF THE BLIND, THE MAN WITH ONE EYE IS KING".

Thanks for allowing me to participate in this forum.
73,
Ken - KG4LLQ

[W5HTW]

Someone beat me to it. He replaced Clinton.

I made some bumper stickers during the Clinton years. Remember Hillary and her stock market? One of the stickers was:

Hillary: She played the stocks and we got the bull

Hell No I Won't Go. I'll Send Your Son.


One nice thing about Bush is he didn't go to a foreign country and organize anti-American protests.

And he didn't give me a retroactive tax increase, either! Man, that one hurt, Bill!

When asked if he tried marijuana, Bill said "I tried it and I didn't like it." What was wrong with saying, "Yes, and I realized it was wrong?" Oh, he never did realize that?

He taught the youth of America to practice oral sex at a very early age, since "It isn't really sex." Can't be bad if the President advocates it, huh?

He went to the Vietnam War Memorial. He should never have been permitted within a quarter mile of that. And he had the nerve to wear a military jacket when he went out! But this was the man who said, "I loathe the military." Yet, here I have to admit, it was the idiocy of the American people who elected a man who hated the military as its commander.

What has Bush done? He has begun to lead us back to a semblance of personal responsibility. Who knows, that may even affect ham radio one of these days!

73
Ed

[K9STH]

People forget that George W. Bush was NOT the first President of the United States who was elected by a majority of the Electoral College and who had less popular votes than his major opponent.

In 1856 James Buchanan, Democrat, won over John C. Fremont, the first Republican candidate for President, becoming the 15th President of the United States. Buchanan's actions at least hastened, if not resulted in, the American Civil War.

Thus, the score is now Democrats 1, Republicans 1. It took 144 years for the Republicans to "even the score"! Now, we will see who eventually takes over the "lead" again, maybe in another almost 150 years!

Glen, K9STH

[KI4BGO]

Don't forget, he squandered away a surplus into the usual republican style deficit! And in RECORD time! How 'bout ANOTHER 87 billion that we DON'T have for Iraq...screw the US and our homelessness, overcrowded schools, etc. SEND IT OVER THERE! Whose "president" IS this guy anyway? NOT MINE! http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/mad.gif The only thing about Clinton's "extra-marital" affair is he got CAUGHT! Who cares who he's doing? That's his and his WIFE'S problem. I'm sure ol' bushie's got his own p*cker-tracks on the floor in there too! http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif The POS needs to be shown the door!

[K0YNE]

huuuummmm. I'm still waiting to hear the good things about Bush. So far a few Clinton jokes. Where's the meat?

[KI4BGO]

Oh...GOOD things? ....hmmm, .....uh......, well......,..... http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[KC5BDK]

sorry im one sided democrat all the way, bush has done nothing good, and is only half way responding to the war the way he should

[KC7UP]

You want to hear one good thing he's done, well he got a lot of good and mad . For his party to be called conservatives, what a bunch of bull.
Curt

[KC7UP]

Sorry I meant to say a lot of US good and mad.
Curt

[W8EFA]

Wow, can't anyone come up with some factual accomplishments for GW? #

All I hear/see are how he makes his supporters feel - subjective words like respect, patriotic, etc.

[KB9YCO]

From 'Wild' Bill Clinton we learned new things to do with cigars and what the definition of is is, I think. We learned that any hillbilly can buy the office of president with enough friends, influence, and of course money, then let his wife run everything while he straight face lies to the country and makes a laughing stock of his supposedly 'liberal' party.

And from George 'Dubya yeehaw' Bush we learned that any hillbilly can buy the office of president with enough friends, influence, and of course money. We learned new "positive" ways to stimulate the business of bankruptcy lawyers, and positively trample The Bill Of Rights and censor free press. We learned positive ways to allow the government greater freedom to spy on it's own citizens and positive ways to spend the largest surplus in U.S. history.

I so look forward to more of these fine upstanding leaders guiding us with their wisdom and moral fiber, and providing for the best interests of the public instead of personal gain.

[N0PU]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KB9YCO @ April 22 2004,16:24)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">And from George &#39;Dubya yeehaw&#39; Bush we learned that any hillbilly can buy the office of president with enough friends, influence, and of course money.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Ya forgot relatives&#33;

[KA9VQF]

K3TF
Installed mechanisms that return, to Americans THEIR money because he believes that AMERICANS know better than the Central Government how to BEST spend their own money.

Yeah that ‘refund’ that was sent out was an attempt to buy me off for the smegged up way he ‘won’ the election.
and of course I wanted MY money to go to iraq to rebuild it.

Endevaour to restore some standards, references, and points of fixed reference in adminstrering programs. (Accountability and resopnsibility)

Like Enron??

Almost forgot.

Restored the RESPECT for the Office of President as a place to be honored adn respected NOT dishonored and used as a convienent place to release some carnal desires.

If getin’ busy in the oval office is what it takes to have a strong economy GW needs to start interviewing interns. I really didn’t mind the higher taxes when I had a job and could pay them&#33;&#33;
{by the way I write my posts in MS Works so I don’t have so many misspelled words then highlight, and copy and paste them to the post, you might consider this}

better now man drop one letter and....

[N0PU]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KA9VQF @ April 22 2004,18:25)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">{by the way I write my posts in MS Works so I don’t have so many misspelled words then highlight, and copy and past them to the post, you might consider this}[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
But ya gotta know how to spell &#39;paste&#39; first...
Then the spell checker can do its thing on the tough words&#33;

[K6UEY]

KB9YCO,
Which National Surplus are you refering to,the funds taken from the Social Securitry account to cover up the deficit,or the one created by changing the accounting procedures to cover the deficit (generally known as &quot;cooking the books&quot;. OH btw there were more bankrupcy&#39;s filed during the clinton term than for any other president or is that the is your refering to.Over 90% of the credit card accounts during the clinton term were maxed out,let the good times roll......
PS
Did anyone consider under who&#39;s administration the laws were passed in CONGRESS to allow ENRON to get away with their scheme ??

[KC2HJN]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (W3MIV @ April 22 2004,18:04)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (K6UEY @ April 22 2004,17:29)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Did anyone consider under who&#39;s administration the laws were passed in CONGRESS to allow ENRON to get away with their scheme ??[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Another one of those questions that seem to disappear without ever acquiring a reply.

On another thread I asked the Democrite whiners to please do a little research and see which party in the US Congress has the most millionaires. No reply.

No one ever wonders how an intellectual luminati like Robert Byrd got so rich. Once he threw off the hood and sheet, he was on the road to success. But, shhhhhh. Don&#39;t want to bring facts into the equation.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Ok, I&#39;ll admit I don&#39;t know a whole lot about Enron, but what laws were passed that allowed fraud. Now that it has been exposed, what is actualy being done? (besides a big show)

Enron is not a Bush or Clinton thing. It&#39;s both. Enron &#39;contributed&#39; large sums of money to both parties.

[KB9VXK]

this is to k3ft you dint answer what the man wanted to know . name one good thing that bush has done ,as i think about it you did .nothing

[N0PU]

OK, I&#39;ll do it...
Everyone put their seat belts on...
N0PU is gonna say something good about Bush Jr...

He DID go into Afghanistan and clean house...
It was, IMHO, a good call...
and he IS keeping the hunt for Bin Laden alive...
and I gotta give credit where credit is due...

The problem is:

1. ANY president would have done the same thing given the situation.
2. Then he screwed it up with the Iraqi thing...

Too bad too...he was on a roll...

If he had just put the money used for Iraq into education and other domestic needs, I think he would be a shoe in for November... The way it is, I think he is gonna have a tough fight... even against Kerry...

[AC7RI]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (K6UEY @ April 22 2004,17:29)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Did anyone consider under who&#39;s administration the laws were passed in CONGRESS to allow ENRON to get away with their scheme ??[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Did you consider who was in control of both halves of Congress during this time?

[kc0ebm]

Well, the first thing he did was graciously accept a call of concession from Al Gore.

Then, he graceously took a call of &quot;I take it back&quot; from Al Gore.

Then he graceously waited for all the recounts and final court decision.

Then he graceously took the pledge with his hand on the Bible, which he charishes.

Then he graceously set about to clean up all the mess and malicious sour grapes destruction of public property in the White House left behind by a bunch of junior league adolescents. And he never said a word about all the public property that was stolen by the Clintons.

Then he hastilly set about to formulate one of the most competent and trustworthy cabinets in presidential history.

In his first state of the union address, he faced one of the most hostile, bitter, and disrespectful audiences ever to be assembled in the House Chamber, and undaunted, he rose to the occassion making us all proud, while simultaneously making his bitter rivals look like whimpering children.

He presided over one of the worst tragedies in US history with grace and strength and resolve; and he united this country and gave us his vision and swore to bring terrorism to justice.

He destroyed the Taliban and installed a cooperative government in Afghanistan, which restored civil rights to its citizens.

He was Chief Commander over the absolute most swift and successful military operation of all time, liberating one of the most oppressed people on the face of the Earth, stopping another holocaust in the process by killing the sons of Iraq&#39;s Hitler, and capturing the Devil himself and kept him in preparation for justice BY the very people he victimized.

Despite the ravages of the Clinton administration, who LOATHED the military, GW led a weakened military out of sheer inspiration to capture or kill nearly every member of the &quot;deck of cards&quot; with a swiftness never before seen in the history of warfare.

Despite the hisses and howls of his political enemies desperately trying to minimize his accomplishments and raise doubts about his integrity, GW has stayed the course and maintained the allience, and within just over a year, he has rebuilt the Iraqi infrastructure to beyond prewar standards and is now ready to turn over control of Iraq to the Iraqi people.

His foreign policy has put the world on notice that the USA will no longer be trifled with. The fear that he has instilled caused Lybia without prompting to disclose and destroy its WMD programs. It caused Saudi Arabia to purge the terrorists out of its borders. It caused Iran to cooperate with UN weapons inspectors. It caused N. Korea to think twice about continuing the quest for nuclear weapons. It caused Egypt to strengthen ties with the US. It put the UN on notice that we will not allow the UN to dictate when it is appropriate for the US to use force to protect itself and its vital interests abroad. And it has emboldened Israel to deal more decisively with her sworn enemies who use terrorism to push her into the sea. In a word, GW has instilled a healthy fear of God Almighty in the hearts of ALL our enemies, which has infinitely strengthend our status in the world.

He has shown this country what a man of faith, a man of conviction, and a man of core values can do, having the wheel of power in his hands and the blessing of Almighty God upon his shoulders. Put in contrast to his predessesor, now we all understand the meaning of the words, &quot;A double minded man is unstable in all his ways.&quot;

Criticized as a &quot;simple&quot; man by his enemies, his plain spokenness is his strength. And when he speaks to the American people, we no longer need to consult an attorney to interpret the meaning of his words. Neither do we have to fear that he is misleading us.

He demonstrated, both, that he understands macroeconomics, and that he trusts Americans to have more control over their own money, recognizing that its NOT the governments money.....ITS OUR MONEY&#33; And with that attitude, he set our economy into recovery even before the horrific memories of 9/11 could even lose their sting.

And in spite of his greatness and power, he shows more humility and more humanity and more compassion than any president I&#39;ve ever known. And his greatest act of humanity was when he set off secretly in Air Force One on an extremely dangerous clandestine mission to Baghdad just to sit down with his troops and serve them Christmas dinner and deliver a well deserved &quot;thank you&quot; from all of us&#33;

GW&#39;s substance, his faith, has spontaneously set this country on a spiritual revival the likes of which has not been seen for several decades. Now, people of faith are strengthened by GW&#39;s demonstration of faith and his unapologetic public expression of faith.

Due partly to GW&#39;s faith, the American people are returning to faith and turning away from immorality and calling for reform of the entertainment industry which has led our community standards to all time lows of depravity and permissiveness. During GW&#39;s first term, America has shifted the paradigm and has set the left swinging pendulum on a reverse coarse toward the right and toward descency, respect, dignity, personal responsibility, and personal accountability.

GW has instilled the fear of his Almighty God into the hearts of Corporate swindlers. And if he can win a second term, maybe we investors can regain our confidence and faith in Wall Street.

And I just can&#39;t wait to see what this man can do in his second term, when he doesn&#39;t have to worry about getting reelected. If he wins, if I were Usama, I would dump Mohammed and get Jesus real quick.

Sorry so long, but you DID ask&#33;

KCØEBM

[kd5dhr]

I hardly ever post, I just read all the comments thrown out here. I didn&#39;t realize the Dixie Chicks had amateur licenses. Surely some of the post I have read were made by them.

Everyone has their opinions, of course. Bush has saved an entire country of oppressed people. Those people weren&#39;t free to make the kind of liberties we take forgranted. Many were put to death or, yes, sometimes even worse just for expressing themselves in the slightest ways. They would have no opportunity to make comments about Saddam as you do about your President. We&#39;re the big boys on the block and instead of being bullies, we fight for people who can&#39;t help themselves.

Clinton was an 8 year joke, as said before. I served in the military with Clinton as its Commander in Chief. Not only did he make a mockery of this country, he turned the Office of the President of the United States into a circus. In 8 years he did nothing to make this planet any better.

George W. is trying to make this world a safer place. I don&#39;t know why you Alec Baldwin types can&#39;t see that.

Ok. Just my opinion. Not meant to agitate anyone. Now please excuse me, I now have to listen to some Toby Keith music to restore my faith in the American spirit.

[K6UEY]

KCØEBM/KD5DHR,
The question was asked,what has GW done ,I think you answered the question very well,although not covering all he has done,if they can&#39;t see it plain now ,They must not be able to see the Forest for the Trees. Good Post&#33;&#33;

[W5KLB]

The economy is better right now than ever was during Klinton&#39;s administration. Back in December of 2003 we had the highest GNP in 19 years.

I can recall some things Klinton has brought us:

1. The highest tax increase in the history of the U.S. in which J(ane) F(onda) Kerry and Ted &quot;Chapaquetic&lt;sp&gt;&quot; Kennedy both voted for.

2. The defacing of public property, i.e. Air Force One, in which his people had taken (stolen) things like the aircraft logbook, a compass, etc. We really should be thankful for that. Less weight means burning less fuel-a savings for the taxpayer (ahem).

3.When the Klinton&#39;s left The White House, right after Hillary&#39;s staff were caught taking (stealing) the White House furniture,#they brought a house in New York. The morgage on their place runs about &#036;10,000 a month. Klinton needed Secret Service protection. Fair enough. But they HAD to build the Secret Service Residence ON THE PROPERTY. What the goverment pays them for building and keeping security on their propery nearly equals that of their morgage payments. Is this illegal? Nope. But IMHO, it certainly is questionable and unethical. But this about par for the course for them.

4.The Klinton&#39;s are the very same people that introduced us to White Water, The Rose Law Firm, Travelgate, Susan &quot;Mrs. Loyalty&quot; McDougal, and Jennifer Flowers.

What a scandel ridden administration.

We don&#39;t have those kinds of things going on in the White House right now.

To KB9VXK... I&#39;ll answer answer you, even though I should not, because you gave me NOTHING substantive to answer PLUS your response was (sadly) nothing more than a highly misspelled, uncapitalized, ad hominen attack. (BTW.. take a few minutes to, at least, learn how to punctuate, properly capitalize, and present SOME coherent thoughts.)

I only mention that because it&#39;s VERY tough to read sentences that have no capitalization or the like. If you have ANYTHING of substance to add, feel free, otherwise your posts will be viewed as nothing more than &#39;taunts from the crowd&#39; and disregarded as such.

Also.. if you noted.. KC0EBM, myself, and OTHERS (before and #after YOUR post) HAVE presented many things that Bush HAS done.

I believe, if you READ them.. and (here&#39;s a very good idea&#33http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif #GO AND CHECK IT OUT.. you JUST might find that what is being posted has its roots in a bit of factual evidenitiary truth.

However, what has Bush done that is good?

Restored the Presidency to its place of respect - which by default - restores the United States of America to a place a respect. Other Nations judge the United States by its&#39; President and HOW he carries out the office.

Bush has shown that the Americans, while NOT wanting to go and fight, WILL and SHALL do so when American national security interests - and that means - YOUR interests - are at stake.

Bush put in motion a plan to allow AMERICANS to decide what to do with their OWN money. #

Forr those who decry the &#39;measly tax cuts&#39;.. let me disabuse you of that notion right now. #MY personal &#39;in the pocket&#39; cash has increased about 10 percent since Bush took office.

My standard of living HAS improved and I HAVE seen my neighbors being able to improve their standard of living. I have seen my area business climate improve, I have seen people who NOW work who weren&#39;t before - and BTW - they work because they were WILLING to swallow their pride and/or egos and MOVE/ADJUST/ADAPT to find work.

&lt;Note - I speak N O T of people who CAN&#39;T work due to medical issues or the like. I speak of ABLE BODIED people who CAN work but for whatever reason CHOOSE not to do so&gt;

Bush removed a CONFIRMED MASS MURDERER who violated the basic international laws AND ignored NUMEROUS INTERNATIONAL LAWS, DIRECTIVES, AND ORDERS to cease and desist. #(Note.. THIS mass murderer AGREED to cease and desist but did not)

To the claim that he sent soldiers to their deaths.. well, to BE FAIR (as we KNOW all liberals are quite desirous to be, because they pound of others &#39;to be fair&#39http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

You will have to go back to ANY (repeat) ANY President who has had to issue an order comitting men (and women) to battle. You&#39;ll find that this group is non-partisan.

BTW... HAVE you &#39;convienently&#39; forgotten that thanks to Bill C. we lost quite a few of our troops to being murdered by folks because he failed to provide them the resources to protect themselves?

(OH&#33; Somalia.. I forgot about that Ranger&#39;s body being dragged across the sands because &#39;Uncle Bill&#39;s&#39; DoD wouldn&#39;t send the necessary equipment&#33;..

OH&#33; The USS Cole... I forgot about the rules that limited the ships ability to be able to take affirmative action if approached by unknown/hostile craft AND the fact that NOT ONE SERIOUS response was made to this attack EVEN after it was proven to be terrorists&#33;

OH&#33; The first WTC bombing.. I forgot that there was NO serious response against the terrorists after that attack..

OH&#33; Bin Laden&#33; I FORGOT that Uncle Bill was OFFERED Bin Laden by the Sudanese and said &#39;NOPE&#33; NO, thanks&#33;&#39;

But back to your question about Bush.. There are other things he&#39;s done.. but these are a few. Others have posted things.

Those who have &#39;eyes to see and ears to hear&#39; shall see and hear.

Those who do not, well they be the blind leading the blind. I shall let them alone and they shall fall into the ditch, of their own accord.

K3FT

[W5KLB]

Chuck, FT:


Go Chuck go... Go Chuck go... Go Chuck go... http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[W8EFA]

Again you have cited no specific accomplishments besides invading Iraq (definetely open to debate) and tax cuts (the economy sucks under this admin). #

All I hear from people like EBM is rhetoric like main of faith (how do you know - because he told you?) a man of conviction etc.

WHAT HAS HE DONE&#33;

Everyone else can&#39;t come up with anything except bashing Clinton so here are some examples of ACCOMPLISHMENTS achieved by the Clinton administration:
The longest and most widespread economic expansion in American history;


-- Turning a disastrous &#036;290 billion Republican federal deficit into a &#036;230 billion federal surplus;


-- Creating 22 million new jobs -- an average of nearly three million new jobs per year -- in contrast to 1.7 million jobs LOST since January 2001;


-- The greatest increase in average real wages in thirty years;


-- Lowest unemployment rate in thirty years;


-- Largest federal investment in education in thirty years;


-- Lowest crime rates in a generation, with a precipitous drop in violent crime;


-- Teen births down to the lowest rate on record;


-- Extending life of Medicare Trust Fund to 2025, putting the program in best financial shape since 1975;


-- Health insurance reform under the Kennedy-Kassenbaum Act;


-- Safe Drinking Water Act;


-- Active role in promoting peace in Israeli-Palenstine conflict;


-- Working with NATO (not against it) to end ethnic cleasing in Kosovo;


-- Brokering peace in Northern Ireland;


-- Restoring democratic government in Haiti;


-- Enlarging (not shattering) NATO;


-- Containing Saddam Hussein;


-- First national anti-terrorism strategy, appointing national coordinator;


-- Armed attacks on Iraq and Al Qaeda, over loud partisan Republican objections.

100,000 more police for our streets
As part of the 1994 Crime Bill, President Clinton enacted a new initiative to fund 100,000 community police officers. To date more than 11,000 law enforcement agencies have received COPS funding.


Enacted most sweeping gun safety legislation in a generation
Since the President signed the Brady bill in 1993, more than 600,000 felons, fugitives, and other prohibited persons have been stopped from buying guns. Gun crime has declined 40 percent since 1992.


Family and Medical Leave Act for 20 million Americans
To help parents succeed at work and at home, President Clinton signed the Family and Medical Leave Act in 1993. Over 20 million Americans have taken unpaid leave to care for a newborn child or sick family member.


Smallest welfare rolls in 32 years
The President pledged to end welfare as we know it and signed landmark bipartisan welfare reform legislation in 1996. Since then, caseloads have been cut in half, to the lowest level since 1968, and millions of parents have joined the workforce. People on welfare today are five times more likely to be working than in 1992

[N0OV]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (K3FT @ April 22 2004,06:16)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">To the claim that he sent soldiers to their deaths.. well, to BE FAIR (as we KNOW all liberals are quite desirous to be, because they pound of others &#39;to be fair&#39http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Let&#39;s echo something here

George Bush is commander and chief -- he may be sending troops in harms way but NOT WITHOUT THE SUPPORT OF CONGRESS

If memory serves -- there were alot of finger pointers who backed the president when it was needed. #Wish these jelly fish would stand their ground&#33;

Personally, I&#39;m not sure if I&#39;m going to vote for George again -- axis of eval speech put that doubt in my mind. #However, I am sure of one thing -- we are better off than we were when health care reform was promised, not delivered because of fear that a wife would be drawn in to white water or someone would find out optional ways to use a cigar&#33;

Also -- sanity check for Clinton. Taxes were the source of the funds that reduce national debt. When jobs are lost, you can&#39;t collect taxes -- thus the situation we&#39;re in now.

Fact of the matter is this -- it takes longer than two years to set up a recession -- Gore would have been dealing with the same mess George is. Only difference is Gore would still be standing outside the trade center crying &quot;someone bombed our building&quot;&#33; &quot;What is the environmental impact?&quot;

[N8CPA]

Before 2000, had there ever been a presidential candidate to concede and subsequently rescind the concession? I don&#39;t think so. Sure there were disputations of the outcome, but in no other case had there been a concession that I could find. If someone with more detailed historic knowledge knows, please post.

As far as the lawsuits, injunctions, etc. The Gore camp was the first to threaten suit--a detail which never seems to be mentioned anymore. All Bush did was to call the bluff by going to the courthouse. Even as President elect, he met threat with action--a highly desireable trait for a CiC.

His first deed, as installed President was to remove
the trailer skirt put around the Whitehouse by the previous regime. He gentlemanly never mentioned that he caught WJC trying to put his hand up it one last time.

When our nation was attacked, he embarked on a program to neutralize the threat at its core, rather than ineffectively retalliate incident for incident--even to the point of preemption. In all, he has behaved like a Commander in Chief, rather than a coward in course. Our nation is more secure because he is a real Commander in Chief.

Economically...well, I&#39;m no Adam Smith (Smythe?). But it doesn&#39;t take an economist to know that I&#39;m living better, despite making less money, than I did under the previous administration because less of my money is going to federal taxes.

I&#39;ll certainly vote for him again. But then I have a fondness for W, whether preceded by C or G.

--. .--

Steve

[N0PU]

I hardly know where to begin... How do you come up with some of this stuff??? ...

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">
Restored the Presidency to its place of respect - which by default - restores the United States of America to a place a respect. Other Nations judge the United States by its&#39; President and HOW he carries out the office.
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>[

This presidency has brought the the United States to a new low in foreign relations... This presidency lied to the UN, to the Congress, and to untold numbers of nations individually in order to get support for a war in Iraq that didn&#39;t need to be fought... Do I need to put the QUOTES here on this thread to prove it once more... When will you quit with this... Just because you say it over and over doesn&#39;t make it true...

Prove IT... Show me a quote from an independent, reliable, foreign source that indicates that Bush has brought honor to this country in ANY way ... I mean, I give him credit for Afghanistan... but even that is still a MESS... Think how much more could have been done there if he hadn&#39;t side-tracked to Iraq...

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">
Bush has shown that the Americans, while NOT wanting to go and fight, WILL and SHALL do so when American national security interests - and that means - YOUR interests - are at stake.
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

He gets credit for Afghanistan... BUT, Iraq was NOT a threat... show me the verified WMD... Wanna see the quotes again, out of Bush&#39;s mouth, and the rebutal from several reliable sources...

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">
Bush put in motion a plan to allow AMERICANS to decide what to do with their OWN money.
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

After he takes out 87 billion for HIS war... or should I say, daddy&#39;s war... And those tax cuts you have been so proud of came from one of two places... straight out of the education and domestic budgets OR from my social security money... take your pick... Nice work Bush and company&#33;

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">
For those who decry the &#39;measly tax cuts&#39;.. let me disabuse you of that notion right now. MY personal &#39;in the pocket&#39; cash has increased about 10 percent since Bush took office.
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

You obviously aren&#39;t on a fixed income, such as being retired... those folks got hurt BAD... hope you enjoy THEIR money... and by the way, the cost of living has climbed more than that... The minute those high end tax rebates were announced, prices jumped... and they haven&#39;t come down... and the folks on the low end and in the middle got caught in the cross fire... Thank you Mr. Bush...

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">
they work because they were WILLING to swallow their pride and/or egos and MOVE/ADJUST/ADAPT to find work.
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

Yep, it is good to see those engineers whose jobs were sent offshore out there flippin&#39; burgers... I think that is just the greatest... Unemployment is down because folks who are unemployed for long periods of time fall off the scale... they aren&#39;t counted... If they can&#39;t draw unemployment and still can&#39;t find suitable work, then they aren&#39;t counted... The employement situation for the middle class right now is terrible... professional and blue collar alike are having a horrible time... and tax aids to businesses that make it more profitable to ship jobs overseas has been the cause of it... and who is responsible for that little jewel... Why, thank you Mr. Bush...


</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">
Bush removed a CONFIRMED MASS MURDERER who violated the basic international laws AND ignored NUMEROUS INTERNATIONAL LAWS, DIRECTIVES, AND ORDERS to cease and desist. (Note.. THIS mass murderer AGREED to cease and desist but did not)
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

Here we go witht he Iraq crappola again... How many times do I have to say it... It was a BAD idea... It was a bad idea when it was first brought up in the first Bush security meeting BEFORE 9/11 and it was was a bad idea afterwards and it remain a bad idea tody..,. Face it, He flopped on this one... F for creativity [ it was daddy&#39;s thing], F for reasoning ability [ He had to lie to get the congress to go along with it], F for execution [ it never shoulda happened]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">
There are other things he&#39;s done.. but these are a few.
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

There certainly are... and I can&#39;t think of any good ones to mention... so I&#39;ll just quit for now... Bring some domestic things he&#39;s done up and we can discuss that...

[W5KLB]

EFA:

You are right that the economy numbers &quot;looked good&quot; when Klinton was in office. But ever wonder as to why it was so good? It&#39;s because we were &quot;Enroned&quot;. Yep, the Klinton administration cooked the books and Bush was left with an economic mess.

PU: The President DID NOT lie. If you will recall the UN agreed with that &quot;serious consequences&quot; should befall &quot;Bootlicker&quot; if he didn&#39;t change his ways. Then when it came time to &quot;walk the walk&quot; they (France, Russia, and Germany) baulked. So we went in with a &quot;Coalition of the Willing&quot;.

You all have to remember that we have a VOLUNTEER Armed Forces. When our men and women take &quot;The Oath&quot; to &quot;defend and protect The Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic&quot;, they are aware that there might be a bullet that comes with it. Yet they are willing to fight for the cause of freedom. These are the bravest souls I know. God bless them for their effort. I hope that we are able to finish the job we started so that their sacrifice WILL NOT GO IN VAIN.

[KC2HJN]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Well, the first thing he did was graciously accept a call of concession from Al Gore.
Then, he graceously took a call of &quot;I take it back&quot; from Al Gore.
Then he graceously waited for all the recounts and final court decision.
Then he graceously took the pledge with his hand on the Bible, which he charishes.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

I watched the hearings....nothing gracious there. Both sides behaved like little babies stamping their feet saying &#39;I want to be pres-i-dent.&#39;


</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Then he graceously set about to clean up all the mess and malicious sour grapes destruction of public property in the White House left behind by a bunch of junior league adolescents. #And he never said a word about all the public property that was stolen by the Clintons.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

One side says it happened, the other says it didn&#39;t. We will never know. I would probably agree that it did though.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Then he hastilly set about to formulate one of the most competent and trustworthy cabinets in presidential history.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

Competent, yes....trustworthy? Do some background reading. You may be suprised.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">In his first state of the union address, he faced one of the most hostile, bitter, and disrespectful audiences ever to be assembled in the House Chamber, and undaunted, he rose to the occassion making us all proud, while simultaneously making his bitter rivals look like whimpering children.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

Didn&#39;t watch it, but his rivals WERE like whimpering children so I&#39;ll have to give you that.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">He presided over one of the worst tragedies in US history with grace and strength and resolve; and he united this country and gave us his vision and swore to bring terrorism to justice.
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

If by &#39;presided&#39; you mean sat around and did nothing but give a good speech, I&#39;ll agree.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">He destroyed the Taliban and installed a cooperative government in Afghanistan, which restored civil rights to its citizens.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

He attacked, not destroyed.They&#39;re still there, still fighting. The poppy fields are doing great though. Lots of opium for everyone. There are talks now of appointing some of the Taliban back into power because the people of Afganistan don&#39;t like the puppet government we set up. It&#39;s still a mess there.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">He was Chief Commander over the absolute most swift and successful military operation of all time, liberating one of the most oppressed people on the face of the Earth, stopping another holocaust in the process by killing the sons of Iraq&#39;s Hitler, and capturing the Devil himself and kept him in preparation for justice BY the very people he victimized.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

Swift? We are still there, still getting killed. The bombing runs shown on TV were entertaining though(really). The &#39;coalition&#39; is falling apart, and GW is now asking the UN for help, the same UN he snubbed when they advised not to go there in the first place. I&#39;m not condoning listening to the UN, I personally think we should drop out of it, but GW now realizes it wasn&#39;t the piece of cake he spoon fed to the American public.


The Devil you say? Bad guy yes, but &#39;The Devil&#39;? http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif Didn&#39;t know he wore green.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Despite the ravages of the Clinton administration, who LOATHED the military, GW led a weakened military out of sheer inspiration to capture or kill nearly every member of the &quot;deck of cards&quot; with a swiftness never before seen in the history of warfare.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

The military is still ravaged. Short of basic supplies and stretched to it&#39;s limits. #

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Despite the hisses and howls of his political enemies desperately trying to minimize his accomplishments and raise doubts about his integrity, GW has stayed the course and maintained the allience, and within just over a year, he has rebuilt the Iraqi infrastructure to beyond prewar standards and is now ready to turn over control of Iraq to the Iraqi people.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

Hisssssss.....Howwwwllllllll
C&#39;mon now...prewar standards? Iraq is a big mess and our allies in Iraq (the Iraqi ones) are abandoning us. The turn over will be to a &#39;friendly&#39; government, not to the people of Iraq.


</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">His foreign policy has put the world on notice that the USA will no longer be trifled with. #The fear that he has instilled caused Lybia without prompting to disclose and destroy its WMD programs. #It caused Saudi Arabia to purge the terrorists out of its borders. #It caused Iran to cooperate with UN weapons inspectors. #It caused N. Korea to think twice about continuing the quest for nuclear weapons. #It caused Egypt to strengthen ties with the US. #It put the UN on notice that we will not allow the UN to dictate when it is appropriate for the US to use force to protect itself and its vital interests abroad. #And it has emboldened Israel to deal more decisively with her sworn enemies who use terrorism to push her into the sea. #In a word, GW has instilled a healthy fear of God Almighty in the hearts of ALL our enemies, which has infinitely strengthend our status in the world.
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

Hogwash....I could write a book on this paragraph alone...but I won&#39;t.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">He has shown this country what a man of faith, a man of conviction, and a man of core values can do, having the wheel of power in his hands and the blessing of Almighty God upon his shoulders. #Put in contrast to his predessesor, now we all understand the meaning of the words, &quot;A double minded man is unstable in all his ways.&quot;[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

Sounds like your talking about Bin Laden, or any other religious fundamentalist. A single minded man, unable to admit he might have been wrong is even more dangerous.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Criticized as a &quot;simple&quot; man by his enemies, his plain spokenness is his strength. #And when he speaks to the American people, we no longer need to consult an attorney to interpret the meaning of his words. #Neither do we have to fear that he is misleading us.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

Plain spokenness is one thing, making up your own words and making no sense is another.
Misleading.........no comment.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">He demonstrated, both, that he understands macroeconomics, and that he trusts Americans to have more control over their own money, recognizing that its NOT the governments money.....ITS OUR MONEY&#33; #And with that attitude, he set our economy into recovery even before the horrific memories of 9/11 could even lose their sting.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

Yes, a soaring national debt of around 7 trillion dollars (that&#39;s just the federal debt, the actual total including state debts is double that), which has increased by about 20 billion dollars just in the month of April(and it&#39;s not over yet), mass layoffs in nearly every industry, foreclosures and bankruptcies at near record levels.....yep Bush is doing real good with the economy. That chump change he gave us back really helped us didn&#39;t it. I, like most, don&#39;t want to pay more taxes but if you cut taxes you MUST cut spending. I think it&#39;s the first day of economics class that they teach you it&#39;s a good thing to make more than you spend.


</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">And in spite of his greatness and power, he shows more humility and more humanity and more compassion than any president I&#39;ve ever known. #And his greatest act of humanity was when he set off secretly in Air Force One on an extremely dangerous clandestine mission to Baghdad just to sit down with his troops and serve them Christmas dinner and deliver a well deserved &quot;thank you&quot; from all of us&#33;[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

The turkey was never served to the troops, it was a prop. The troops ate regular military food from cafeteria style trays. Bush got his picture taken with a few troops for publicity and split.


My god, I can&#39;t go on anymore...........

The reality is Bush did very little good, not nearly enough to outweigh the bad.

73 all

[KB9YCO]

All partisan opinion and rhetoric aside, I feel I must make one important point in all this. Regardless of how you may feel about the president, or our reasons (real or imagined) for being in Iraq, we now have an obligation to return a safer Iraq to it&#39;s people. To say that we should just pull out, or that President Bush and his administration is profiting in some way from this, seems naive and inaccurate. No president wants to be in office during a time of great loss for our country, in people, resources, or economy, and to assume that it is all some republican plot seems rather extreme. I can&#39;t imagine that any president would want to paint himself in the pages of history as a self serving profiteer of war and intolerance, or a destroyer of the economy; if it all goes down he goes down with it.
Does that mean that all of this administration&#39;s reasons for going to Iraq were solid? Absolutely not. But it also doesn&#39;t mean that we can just leave and put the people of Iraq back into a bad situation that could possibly be worse than before.
So, while I may strongly dislike our current administration, and it&#39;s often suspect actions, George W. Bush is the president (for now) and we need to stand behind our soldiers overseas instead spitting on their graves by not finishing what we started. Regardless of whether we should have been there or not, we&#39;re there now.
Also, I think we could all go back and forth a million times over and find good and bad things that each presidential administration has done; it won&#39;t help the situation now and we can only hope that whoever the next president is they understand that none of these issues are cut and and dry and that the world is much more complex than that, both politically and culturally.
I for one feel that the last 5 presidents (Carter, Reagan, Bush Sr., Clinton, Bush Jr.) have done more damage to the American way of life than any slew of devious terrorists could ever do, through overt campaigns of self interest and questionable motives; trampling The Constitution, weaking the defense and infra structrure of the U.S., turning the planet against us through arrogant self righteousness, continuing to foster an attitude of American &#39;supremacy&#39; in all cultural and political aspects.
I don&#39;t know the solution, nor do I think there will be one golden boy candidate that will instantly make the world a better place; but we had better start using common sense, tolerance, and a respect for world view, or we will be mired in the same difficulties for many more administrations to come.
Just a thought, or two, or three...

[N0PU]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (kd5wpw @ April 23 2004,07:45)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">PU: The President DID NOT lie. If you will recall the UN agreed with that &quot;serious consequences&quot; should befall &quot;Bootlicker&quot; if he didn&#39;t change his ways. Then when it came time to &quot;walk the walk&quot; they (France, Russia, and Germany) baulked. So we went in with a &quot;Coalition of the Willing&quot;.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
My comment: Horse Pucky...

-------------------

&quot;I went to Congress with the same intelligence Congress saw the same intelligence I had and they looked at exactly what I looked at.&quot; G.W Bush

----------------------------

Senators were outraged when the learned that &quot;intelligence info given to them omitted qualifications and countervailing evidence that had characterized the classified version and played up the claims that strengthened the administration&#39;s case for war.&quot;

Many House members were only convinced to support the war after the administration &quot;showed them a photograph of a small, unmanned airplane spraying a liquid in what appeared to be a test for delivering chemical and biological agents,&quot; even the US Air Force disputed the notion that Iraq&#39;s UAV&#39;s were being designed as attack weapons. (83)

(83) Meet the Press Claims 02.09.04;

-------------------

Somehow showing congress phony data and pictures to justify what you want to do seems like lying to me...

But then that may be the way you WANT your country run...
Lie to the American people through their representitives and then lie to them directly...

-------------------

HE LIED&#33; And he LIED to congress... and they won&#39;t impeach him because it is a republican controlled house... I mean this seems like it might be a WHOLE lot more important than a lie about a BJ... Two faced Bast***s...

-------------------

How many more people are gonna have to die before someone DOES something about the Napoleonic Tyrant&#33;

[N0PU]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KB9YCO @ April 23 2004,08:55)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">... turning the planet against us through arrogant self righteousness, continuing to foster an attitude of American &#39;supremacy&#39; in all cultural and political aspects.
I don&#39;t know the solution, nor do I think there will be one golden boy candidate that will instantly make the world a better place; but we had better start using common sense, tolerance, and a respect for world view, or we will be mired in the same difficulties for many more administrations to come.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
No truer words were ever spoken...

RESPECT... respect for other&#39;s way of life... even if it is unlike our own...

Most of what we are reaping today was caused by US 100 years ago when we insisted on putting our noses into the middle-east in the first place... and we didn&#39;t give two hoots and a hollar about them until the OIL thing came up.... and our desire to have their oil overrode all good sense and WE then started sowing the seeds of deceit and greed...

NOW its coming back to bite us in the butt and we don&#39;t like it... and so we find ways of making them the bad guys and trying to make ourselves righteous...

I love this country, but there are times when I wonder where the hell we are going... or maybe that is exactly where we are going if we don&#39;t CHANGE our ways and attitudes&#33;

YCO,, while you and I are (often) poles apart about how we see/view/observe the Current Adminstration, I find myself in the pleasant position of seconding your comments about what OUR mission must be in supporting the President in the daunting task of turning over, in an orderly fashion, an Iraq that can move from a old-method dictatorship to one that is ruled by an elected Government. (Whatever that turns out to be once elected by the Iraqui people).


As to HJN and others.. obviously you occupy one side of the table and have a fixed set of perspectives on the issues and myself and others occupy the other side with (usually) diametrically opposing positions. #For myself, I see no further value to continuing to put forth observations as you will have just as many observations of your own.

Space is quite limited, here, in this forum to provide the VAST array of supporting documentation needed to for you to accept what we have said as true, even though the documents and information are readily available.

Example - someone made a post about Bush &#39;stealing&#39; the election. Glen K9STH provided historical facts and evidence to SHOW that this was NOT the case and t hings proceeded from a KNOWN and ESTABLISHED base of case law.

The INTANGIBLES we debate - Bush having a PUBLICLY stated position on his belief in, and acceptance of, God as a viable and valuable part of his life, actions, and thoughts MAKES the left grit their teeth, puts their hair in a knot, and causes them to rail and rant about it. - even though the MAJORITY of Americans not only accept there is a GOD, BUT our own Founding Fathers PUBLICLY espoused, followed, and BELIEVED in God and that THEIR ACTIONS and DEEDS were to be done with a view towards keeping in mind God and what the Bible taught them #- as they understood it back then. (SHALL THOSE WHO RAIL AGAINST GEORGE BUSH AND JOHN ASHCROFT **NOW** RAIL AGAINST THE FOUNDING FATHERS??? # ??? # )

As to &#39;Iraq has nothing to do with 11 Sept&#39;, please.. is the left SO ignorant of history as to NOT understand that SIMPLE truth of &#39;CAUSE AND EFFECT&#39; **AND** the fact that there are - normally - quite a few years between the CAUSE and then the resulting EFFECT occuring as it relates to GEO POLITICAL ACTIONS.

ANY student of history will be able to, quite easily, SHOW YOU how actions taken back well before WW2 (years before&#33;) were directly the CAUSE of the actions that led to WW2 many years hence.

The actions that Ronald Reagan took during the 80&#39;s against the Soviet Union and its&#39; satellite nations/surrogate helpers DID NOT BEAR FRUIT until quite a few years later. IT STILL bears fruit to this day as the reverberations of the fall of the Soviet Union continue to be felt around the world. (This way Cuba???)


ECONOMY - NOTE TO LIBERALS.. THIS IS GOING TO SHOCK YOU&#33; #It cuts across MANY of your long-held beliefs and understandings. #However, it is TRUE what is to follow. Any honest economics student will tell you this is the case. History bears it out and truth stands on its own.

ARGUE IF YOU MUST&gt;. but you argue against YEARS of proof tot he contrary.


The economic changes wrought by Reagans tax cuts took a few years to take solid foothold and THEN they became part of the landscape. The Bush tax cuts.. as history will prove (and it has started already - can we say over 300,000 new jobs in -- how long was it??-- umm about a month? &lt;yeah, bad economy, for sure&#33;&gt;) TAKES TIME to gain momentum.

ANY change in the economic policies of the United States take T-I-M-E #(read this again, liberals) T-I-M-E (once more to make sure you get it&#33;) T--I--M--E #to take full effect and become rooted in the fabric of the Country. #People have to adapt their plans, adjust their business plans, change tax planning, adjust household investment strategies and businesses have to as well. #Agiain.. it takes T---I---M---E&#33;
(once again.. liberals now.. LOUDLY&#33; #&#39;IT TAKES T--I--M--E&#33; and is usually measured in YEARS.. not an election cycle or two. (remember&#33; T-I-M-E&#33;&#33;&#33;) Keep this in mind and you&#39;ll be light years ahead in understanding the entire concept. (I HATE to be so repetitious, but it seems like liberals (and other folks who believe in the centralized control) just can&#39;t seem to grasp the concept.

&lt;What was that magic word?? YES &#33;YOU GOT IT&#33; #Say it with me&#33;...T----I----M----E&#33;&#33; TIME&#33;&#33; #GOOD&#33;)&gt;

The United States economy is like #a VERY large supertanker. You don&#39;t STOP it in a short distance, you don&#39;t TURN it in short distance, and you don&#39;t REVERSE course in a short distance. #(Yes&#33; I see you shaking your head in understanding&#33; #YOU got it&#33; There&#39;s that magic word again&#33;
T--I--M--E&#33; TIME&#33;&#33;) By jove, I think you&#39;ve got it&#33; &lt;grin&gt;

The &#39;rudder&#39; of the United States&#39; ship (people&#39;s actions) being able to turn adn course correct the &#39;ship&#39; (United States) comes from

1) National security. When the Country (and its citizens) believe they are secure and can move about without fear, they THEN look to expand, spend, earn, produce, and explore.
&lt;Bush HAS helped to restore MUCH of the sense of national security that was lost after Sept 11&gt; #When the ship (United States) is secure and believes that the leadership is working to keep it that way.. the ship (the Country) will have activity and things ongoing to make it a productive ship.

2) People having CAPITAL to invest (which IS spending) and utilize. #WHEn people have MORe of their OWN money.. they SHALL (absolutely) &#39;spend&#39; (invest) it and it goes INTO the economy. THIS IS THE &#39;GAS&#39; that powers the engine of the ship (United States) #When there is capital available from the citizens to &#39;fuel&#39; the ship.. the ship will run.

Understand this.. the US economy is NOT a &#39;zero sum&#39; game where &#39;you lose and dollar, I gain a dollar, so the reuslts are zero&#33;&#39; UH UH. #NEW money (fuel) is earned and put ito the system (gas tank) as people, because they BELIEVE things are safe enough to go out and do so, PRODUCE and PROVIDE fresh sources of money (fuel) to the ship.

When there is leadership who KNOWS about these things (That magic word - say it LOUDLY - &quot;T--I--M--E&quot; EXCELLENT&#33;) has their hand on the rudder AND the throttle of the ship (the United States) they can adjust the rudder and gas flow to keep the ship moving along in a smooth and forward path.

Jerky motions on the tiller by leadership makes the ship wobble, people unsteady, causes jerking and shuddering as the fuel supply is interrupted then increased, and makes the ship (the Country) rather difficult to steer in a forward course. Sometimes the poor steering and throttle control OVERSTRESSES the mechanicals and the ship&#39;s engine BREAKS DOWN nad things go dead in the water (or) the currents push the ship backwards.

Then it takes &#39;TIME&#39; (theres ThAT word again&#33;) to fix the ship, reprime the engine, get it going, get moving, and begin making headway again. (UH OH&#33;&#33; Can you see that word again??? I know you can&#33; TIME&#33;&#33; WOW&#33; It crops up all over the place&#33;)

Gee.. what&#39;s the theme here? (anyhone? Yes, you, the liberal in the front row&#33; #What&#39;s that you say? &quot;It takes TIME to change things??&quot; #ABSOLUTELY RIGHT&#33;&#33; #100 Percent&#33; #

So, say what you will about Bush and Reagan and others. #

We have just begun the path to getting the ship (country) moving smoothly forward with a steady hand on the tiller and the throttle and increasing fuel in the tank and an engine that is being repaired and tuned to run well.

However, there are members of the ship&#39;s crew who DON&#39;T want the ship to run smoothly forward and have these things. They are down in the bilges, tossing mud onto the prop shaft, banging wrenches into the housings, and trying to get ahold of the governor to make it slow the ship down OR even grab the rudder to turn the ship around.


I know.. I know..
Liberals won&#39;t see the analogy I make OR they shall try to convince us that you CAN&#39;T compare the United States economy to a superatanker for teh US is not a ship.

&lt;can we say &#39;analogy&#39; class? yes, I know you can&#33; -) #&gt;

Again.. the theme.. TIME&#33;

However, to a liberal.. time is measured in &#39;between 4 year election cycles&#39;. To us, time is measured as being between event changes.

Stark difference.

K3FT

[W4CGP]

I can only wonder about the hypocrisy in the 9/11 commission and Iraq. Think about it.

We had intelligence about 9/11 that was sketchy at best. A kangaroo comission is now investigating this.

By the same token, intelligence gathered about Iraq during the Clinton and Bush administrations showed that even if there was no imminent threat to the U.S., Iraq did have weapons of mass destruction or the capability to produce them in short order. Now that we&#39;re in Iraq, the true colors of the Baath loyalists is coming out. They&#39;re killing their own people.

Strange, isn&#39;t it, that the Oil for Food program is now also coming under investigation. Could it be that many U.N. members didn&#39;t want us to go into Iraq because ale7d mean the end of their kickbacks?

[N0PU]

CGP:

The Iraq war was based of the allegation of WMD...

I live in Missouri... Show me the verified WMD... Show me the capability... It wasn&#39;t there... and, as you stated, there was no threat... immenent or potential... so we shoulda stuck our noses in our own business and tended to our problems... Afghanistan was not finished when we went into Iraq for NO reason... bad planning... It was opportunistic, trying to connect 9/11 to Iraq, and there was no connection...

What is hypocritical is a president who will do anything to get his way, and never mind the cost in dollars and lives&#33;

[KB9YCO]

&quot;...I find myself in the pleasant position of seconding your comments about what OUR mission must be in supporting the President in the daunting task of turning over, in an orderly fashion, an Iraq that can move from a old-method dictatorship to one that is ruled by an elected Government.&quot; K3FT

Hopefully, more people will maintain this attitude; we have a responsibilty to clean up the mess that was made, some by them and some by us. Arguing long after the fact does nothing to help the situation; like I said I&#39;m not convinced that we should have been there either, but we are.
Also, being as my father returned from Vietnam, only to be spit on by simiar extremists, I cannot stress enough how important it is to support the men and women that have to do the actual work of serving this country. Whether you agree that they should be there or not is irrelevant; they are our sons and daughters, our brothers and sisters, and to despise them for serving our country when called is wrong and un-American; that&#39;s what they signed up to do.

&quot;...even though the MAJORITY of Americans not only accept there is a GOD, BUT our own Founding Fathers PUBLICLY espoused, followed, and BELIEVED in God and that THEIR ACTIONS and DEEDS were to be done with a view towards keeping in mind God and what the Bible taught them #- as they understood it back then. (SHALL THOSE WHO RAIL AGAINST GEORGE BUSH AND JOHN ASHCROFT **NOW** RAIL AGAINST THE FOUNDING FATHERS??? # http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif # )&quot; K3FT

Let our differences begin OM heheh, #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
The founders of this country, during and after the revolution, were mostly deists and not strictly Christian. While they believed in the central principles of Christian religion, they realized that there is a place for all beliefs in a free society. They had a strong belief in the seperation of church and state since so many suffered from disavowing The Church Of England and other similar suppressions. Thusly, one of the main reasons that the United States was formed based on individual freedoms which included the right to be free from government intervention in respect to religion, or a lack of religion. Again, it&#39;s a matter of tolerance; the extreme liberals fighting against the extreme religious conservatives is in no way an example of tolerance or the &#39;mainstream majority&#39;, nor does it serve to better any of our current cultural differences or help us to progress as a united people with varying beliefs.
George Bush&#39;s often religious rhetoric is out of place and best left at home or in church where it belongs. Does that mean he doesn&#39;t have the right to practice his philosophy or to use his belief system to dictate administration policy? Of course not since they all do that whether it&#39;s religiously based or not. But his blatant disregard for others of varying viewpoints shows arrogance and a lack of caring of what so many others may disbelieve. He has the right to say what he thinks, but he does not have the right to force it upon the rest of us, which many of his administration policies have effectively done; too numerous to mention here as well. Again, a large part of the many reasons that this country was founded was based on freedom of, or from, religion. It seems that the current administration has no regard for others views even though they claim to. Just my observation.
Rant and rave with the Stray Cats, oops got lost in the 80&#39;s for a minute there.

[KC2HJN]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">As to HJN and others.. obviously you occupy one side of the table and have a fixed set of perspectives on the issues and myself and others occupy the other side with (usually) diametrically opposing positions. For myself, I see no further value to continuing to put forth observations as you will have just as many observations of your own.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

K3FT:

While sometimes these debates do seem to be going nowhere, I respect your, as well as others, opinions on these topics. A good debate is good for you now and then.

Oh, and please don&#39;t label me as a liberal. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif While we obviously disagree on Bush, you may be suprised at what my views are in general.

[W4CGP]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (N0PU @ April 23 2004,12:13)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">as you stated, there was no threat... immenent or potential[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
There was no known imminent threat either from anyone involved in 9/11 until it happened, either. Potential threat? Maybe not. But for someone who has killed so many of his own people and had a tendency to brutalize his captives, Saddam was definitely not low-risk.

We weren&#39;t finished in Afghanistan. We still aren&#39;t. Yes, I&#39;m a bit disappointed in the way Afghanistan was handled to a good degree. However, America can fight a two-front war. Last I checked, we were able to do it in WW2... http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif

One last note...the amount of money John Kerry has in his name is somewhere in the hundreds of millions. Running for President is for the rich, regardless of party. Makes ya feel good, right...they&#39;ve got money, they&#39;ve got power, they&#39;ve got control, and they want to keep it.

Oh well, I&#39;ve said more than my two cents here. Back to the radio portion of the forum.

YCO.. I retract my statement that you are a liberal. The views you posted tended to incite me think you are, but I shall retract that interpreation. Sorry about that.

God, The Bible, and the United States...

(WARNING&#33; The following is DECIDELY NOT &#39;politically correct&#39;. It will cause acid indegestion amongst atheists, liberals, and the unlearned&#33; DO NOT READ ON A FULL STOMACH OR HAVE YOUR MOUTH FULL&#33; It will cause a violent spasmodic physical reaction in liberals and they will splutter all over things around them.)

WARNING - The following information CAN be researched reasonasbly easily if one wants to do so. WARNING TO LIBERALS.. BE VERY VERY CAREFUL&#33; You will find things you don&#39;t want to like and you will have possible violent gastric upset. Please&#33; heed the above note about not doing your reasearch on an full stomach or with liquid in your mouth.)

Now. onto the items..

Now, Let me take you back in time to the Founding Father&#39;s time of living.

They had a firm belief in this.. they were accountable to God above themselves. (call them &#39;deists&#39; if you like it&#39;s semantics) Christianity is based on Jesus Christ who, Himself, states that HE bases his life and actions on God. So, by implication, the Founding Father&#39;s were Christian in that most of them believed in God (and Jesus Christ)

BUT&#33; THEY PUBLICLY stated that neither God nor the Bible was to be expunged, excised, or denied in the public square. Just the opposite&#33;

MANY of them (and many of the FAMOUS American figures of historical past) FOUNDED insitutitions of HIGHER LEARNING that were firmly rooted IN adn AROUND the Bible and God.

In fact.. if anyone goes back into the fairly recent past and looks at the &#39;where did it come from?&#39; records for some of our MOST WELL KNOWN colleges and universities, you&#39;ll see that the Bible and God WAS HIGHLY visible in thier makeup.

IN fact.. (and here&#39;s a kicker in the butt for you&#33; http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif )
Which one of the famous Americans once publicly stated that it was EXPECTED that someone involving themself with running the Country would have a knowledge of God and the Bible? &lt;&lt;ANSWER NOT PROVIDED AS I WANT YOU GO DO THE RESEARCH FOR YOURSELF&#33;&#33;&gt;&gt;

Thomas Jefferson wrote the one line about separation between church and State in DIRECT answer to a SPECIFIC quetion posed to him. In no way, shape, or form DID the Founding Fathers ever conceive that God, the Bible and things surrounding it would EVER be stricken, forbidden, or banned from the public square, the open debate, or the halls of Government&#33;

Yes, the DID NOT want a &#39;Church Of The United States&#39; that is correct&#33; BUT they MOST ASSUREDLY did not want to break the essential bond between man and God which THEY KNEW needed to be there.

They also WANTED folks to be taught the Biblical principles (See above - institutions of higher learning) in teh schools so that the citizenry would have STANDARDS AND REFERENCE POINTS to use in behaviour and actions with one anohter.

OH MY.. I brought up another REALLY BAD THING FOR LIBERALS&#33;

&quot;STANDARDS AND REFERENCES&#33;&quot; UH OH&#33;&#33; I&#39;ve violated the prime directive they hold&#33; &quot;THOU SHALT NOT HAVE ANYTING TO JUDGE ANOTHER&#33;&quot;

The Founding Fatherse KNEW (cuz they were taught it and studied it themselves) that a GOVERNMENT of UNFETTERED, UNCONTROLLED POWER WOULD BE (ABSOLUTELY) CORRUPTED&gt;

They knew.. that a citizenry NOT educated in the Standards and Refernces that have been proven through the test of time to work that they citizenry would QUICKLY become out of bounds, unruly, and quite split on various things unhealthy to the themselves and the Country.

(Ahh, gee&#33; I mean.. can we see this effect to the CAUSE of having God, the Bible,and such things EXPUNGED from the public square, learning institutions,a nd relegated &#39;to private home, private life, and private self&#39;&quot; To quote Mr. Rogers.

&quot;Yes.. I know you can&#33;&quot;

The preecedding items will set most liberals and atheists totally into a frentic world of apoplectic amazement and befuddlement. It may even result in a few of them passing out and requiring resuscitation.

:-)

I leave you with ONE small thought, based on CURRENT events.

IF God is so necessary to be &#39;private&#39; and OUT of the public eye.

Why does our money STILL say &#39;In God We Trust&#39;?

Why does the Supreme Court, Senate, House of Reps still have a prayer AND/OR end their opening with &#39;God Save This Honroable Court&#39;?

Why does our Pledge of Allegiance STILL retain the words &#39;Under God&#39; after all these years?

Why does our National Anthem STILL retain direct references to God after all these years?

WHY did the Mel Gibson movie about the last days of Christ&#39;s life make more than most movies before it, befuddled the &#39;learned critics&#39; and have SUCH an impact on people&#39;s lives and minds and hearts?

Why has the PUBLIC display of something that others want to keep bottled up iin the &#39;private world&#39; been SOO well attended by MILLLIIONS of people - just in the USA alone?

if the Founding Fathers were wrong.. then it would seem that none of the things that I have noted would remain viable or active or have happened. MUST BE something THEY knew.. and others know to day, huh?

YOu can NO MORE excise God, The Bible and Christianity from the warp and woof of the United States and have it REMAIN the United States than you can remove Hydrogen from water and have it remain water.

We&#39;ve tried that experiment to remove these things from the Country and teh results are evident in the daily news reports, police reports, and analysis of how fractured things have become here.

Again.. argue all you want.. but you argue against historical facts, documented evidence, and logical thought.

But you will argue, of this I am sure. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

K3FT

[KB9YCO]

I&#39;d gladly take on the title of &#39;liberal&#39; if it wasn&#39;t constantly, and wrongly, attributed to the Democratic party. These people, as a general rule, really aren&#39;t liberal in the true sense of the word.

Dictionary definition :
a. Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.
b. Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.

Also, I must point out that there are just as many writings by our forefathers stating why church and government should stay seperate as there are about their personal beliefs. Again, too many to post here, but go back and read Jefferson, Franklin, and even George Washington, and you will see why the importance of a secular (dictionary definition: Worldly rather than spiritual.) government is one of the bedrock foundations on which this country was formed.
I am as un-religious as it gets and yet I have no problem with &quot;In God We Trust&quot; or any of the other examples cited. Why? Because I have an appreciation for the traditions of this country and how &#39;God&#39; can mean vastly different things to different people. I have a tolerance for other&#39;s views, and hardly think that something as minor as God on money will cause the country to turn into a non thinking group of extremist religious followers; not a big thing to worry about by a long shot. That whole Pledge of Allegiance thing was a non-issue anyway, the &quot;under God&quot; portion was never there in the first place, intentionally. It was even a minister who wrote the thing and he left it out intentionally.
Now when the Bush administration starts allowing tax payer money to fund religious organizations, as has been proposed more than once, then I do have a problem with that. I also have a problem with basing policy on religious belief only, instead of using common sense and a tolerance for others that may not agree, as the Bush administration has also done.
To each their own, but when one group&#39;s religion begins to dominate the law books I get a little worried.
Have a nice weekend everyone, rant with ya next week.

[KB9YCO]

You must&#39;ve mistaken the real dictionary with a Rush Limbaugh book. &quot;...with talent on loan from Eli Lily, this is the partyline towing Rush Limbaugh show&#33;&quot;

Have a good weekend, and I am outta here...

[W5KLB]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (N0PU @ April 23 2004,08:20)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (kd5wpw @ April 23 2004,07:45)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">PU: The President DID NOT lie. If you will recall the UN agreed with that &quot;serious consequences&quot; should befall &quot;Bootlicker&quot; if he didn&#39;t change his ways. Then when it came time to &quot;walk the walk&quot; they (France, Russia, and Germany) baulked. So we went in with a &quot;Coalition of the Willing&quot;.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
My comment: Horse Pucky...

-------------------

&quot;I went to Congress with the same intelligence Congress saw the same intelligence I had and they looked at exactly what I looked at.&quot; #G.W Bush

----------------------------

Senators were outraged when the learned that &quot;intelligence info given to them omitted qualifications and countervailing evidence that had characterized the classified version and played up the claims that #strengthened the administration&#39;s case for war.&quot; #

Many House members were only convinced to support the war after the administration &quot;showed them a photograph of a small, unmanned airplane spraying a liquid in what appeared to be a test for delivering chemical and biological agents,&quot; even the US Air Force disputed the notion that Iraq&#39;s UAV&#39;s were being designed as attack weapons. #(83)

(83) Meet the Press Claims 02.09.04;

-------------------

Somehow showing congress phony data and pictures to justify what you want to do seems like lying to me...

But then that may be the way you WANT your country run...
Lie to the American people through their representitives and then lie to them directly...

-------------------

HE LIED&#33; And he LIED to congress... and they won&#39;t impeach him because it is a republican controlled house... I mean this seems like it might be a WHOLE lot more important than a lie about a BJ... Two faced Bast***s...

-------------------

How many more people are gonna have to die before someone DOES something about the Napoleonic Tyrant&#33;[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
That&#39;s right PU. You just keep on quoting that left wing socialist media. Tim Russert has ALWAYS presented his left wing views in whatever he reports. Remember: Spinning at these speeds will make one very dizzy.

G.W. Bush went on the best intellegence for that time. Faulty? Maybe. A lie-NEVER. If it was a lie, than why wasn&#39;t he impeached? Remember Klinton was impeached (but not convicted) for lying to a Federal Judge in Arkansas. Notice this hasn&#39;t happen The President and I don&#39;t think he ever will. The reasons have nothing to do with a Republican controlled Congress. The Democrats no evidence of this because there are none.

Interesting post. It nice to have a friendly debate. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

A perhaps relevant quote:

&quot;I voted Republican this year. The Democrats left a bad taste in my mouth.&quot;
- Monica Lewinsky

[AC7RI]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KC2HJN @ April 23 2004,06:47)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Then he graceously set about to clean up all the mess and malicious sour grapes destruction of public property in the White House left behind by a bunch of junior league adolescents. #And he never said a word about all the public property that was stolen by the Clintons.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

One side says it happened, the other says it didn&#39;t. We will never know. I would probably agree that it did though.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Then you&#39;ll be disagreeing with the General Accounting Office, which found that there was no property destruction.

I realize that the posters here that watch FOX News were just going along with what their network told them - and FOX never corrected nor apologized for their incorrect reporting - so I can&#39;t blame them too much. I&#39;d just suggest finding a better news source. Shouldn&#39;t be hard.

[AC7RI]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (kd5wpw @ April 23 2004,13:06)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">You just keep on quoting that left wing socialist media. Tim Russert has ALWAYS presented his left wing views in whatever he reports.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Tim Russert is a left wing socialist??? What, are you to the right of Attila the Hun?

Seriously, I&#39;d really like to know where you fall on the political line in order to make such a statement. Is FOX News too communist for you as well?

[KC2HJN]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (AC7RI @ April 23 2004,22:10)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KC2HJN @ April 23 2004,06:47)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Then he graceously set about to clean up all the mess and malicious sour grapes destruction of public property in the White House left behind by a bunch of junior league adolescents. #And he never said a word about all the public property that was stolen by the Clintons.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

One side says it happened, the other says it didn&#39;t. We will never know. I would probably agree that it did though.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Then you&#39;ll be disagreeing with the General Accounting Office, which found that there was no property destruction.

I realize that the posters here that watch FOX News were just going along with what their network told them - and FOX never corrected nor apologized for their incorrect reporting - so I can&#39;t blame them too much. I&#39;d just suggest finding a better news source. Shouldn&#39;t be hard.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
I stand corrected

[KI4BGO]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (AC7RI @ April 23 2004,21:10)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I realize that the posters here that watch FOX News were just going along with what their network told them - and FOX never corrected nor apologized for their incorrect reporting - so I can&#39;t blame them too much. I&#39;d just suggest finding a better news source. Shouldn&#39;t be hard.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
I agree 100% here&#33;

[KG4KWW]

Since President Bush has gone after the terrorist, there haven&#39;t been anymore attacks in the US since 9/11. Oh, how soon we forget. The democrats didn&#39;t go after the terrorists, Carter didn&#39;t do jack when they seized our people in IRAN. But, the people in IRAN knew don&#39;t fool around with Ronnie because, he will kick your ass&#33;&#33; and the Americans were freed.

When the USS COLE was attacked, did Clinton go after the terrorists? NOWAY, PALE FACE&#33;&#33; he was to busy teaching Monica the many uses of the cigar&#33;&#33;&#33;

When GW BUsh came into office, the Clinton people didn&#39;t give his crew the whole picture and 911 happened. Since then we have caught the people that bombed the COLE, took out the TALLABAN, who beat defenseless women for no reason at all. Then while we are searching for BIN-LADEN, he got got rid of SADAM who was killing his people left and right. SADAM is now in Jail and OSMA will soon follow.

Yes mistakes were made in IRAQ as they are made during any war but, the thing to remember here is that Bush has showed the world that he and the US are not afarid to go after the terrorist SOB&#39;s.

I don&#39;t know if he will be re-elected or not,but, I&#39;m greatful that the US is a little safer today because of him and his fight against terrorism.

And as the father of a US Service man, I can say without
reservation, that I support the war on terrorism and that I&#39;m proud that my son is helping to keep his country free so, that people like you and me can sit at our computers and respond to the crap I have read on some of these replies.

GOD BLESS AMERICA.
GOD BLESS PRESIDENT BUSH.

And May GOD bring peace to the hearts of all the Military familys how have loved ones fighting in the war on terrorism.

[kc0ebm]

I still remember when Saddam invaded Kuwait, a peaceful, sovereign, oil rich neighbor. #There was no way in hell that we could let that stand&#33; #So we, and a UN coalition, booted him out&#33; #And on his way out, he carried away Kuwait&#39;s wealth as the bootie of war and he blew up all of Kuwait&#39;s oil wells creating the worst environmental disaster in world history. #Half of the Liberals screamed that we had no right to be there, and the other half of the Liberals said that no US troops should ever be under UN control.

And I remember when US forces entered Iraq. #It looked like the entire Iraqi army was yanking off their underwear to wave as surrender flags. #Surrender hell, they didn&#39;t want to go back and be executed by Saddam for failing to hold Kuwait and its oil against coalition forces. #But we were following UN orders. #We couldn&#39;t exceed the UN mandate. #We couldn&#39;t go on to Baghdad to liberate them. #So we sent them home, and they all met the fate that they feared most. #Those are the mass graves that you see on TV now. #Then, half of the Liberals screamed that we should defy the UN mandate and unilaterally go all the way to Baghdad, even if we suffered criticism from the rest of the world. #The other half of the Liberals said we had no business over there at all. #But GHWB wouldn&#39;t violate his UN mandate and alienate the UN and the world by acting unilaterally to free the Iraqi people. #So we turned our backs on them and left them to their fate. #And in doing so, we forever lost the trust of the Iraqi people.

Saddam gassed the Kurds. #There was no fear of causing collateral damage in the Kurdish north, because Saddam wanted to kill them all, man, woman, and child&#33; #For Saddam, there is no such thing as a politically sensitive target. #The world was outraged that Saddam had chemical WMDs and used them on his own people. #

So, we set up no fly zones to protect Kuwait to the south, and the Kurds to the north. #But half of the Liberals said the US had no right to control parts of a sovereign nation, even to prevent Saddam from again attacking the Kurds or blowing up Kuwaits oil wells again. #The other half of the Liberals condemned GHWB for ever allowing the UN to prevent us from unilaterally finishing the war by going all the way to Baghdad to kill Saddam and to liberate the Iraqi people. #They condemned GHWB saying that because he let the UN control us, we would eventually have to return to Iraq and finish the job and it would cost a LOT more money and a LOT more lives.

But, to quarrantine the bad boy from Baghdad, we kept up the no fly zones. #And Saddam sent missiles out in the desert on suicide missions to shoot down our men and our planes. #Half of the Liberals condemned GHWB saying we had no right to be there risking our men and our planes. #The other half of the Liberals continued to condemn GHWB for not finishing the war in the first place.

There isn&#39;t a man among us that doesn&#39;t believe firmly in his heart that Saddam would have done ANYTHING in his power to avenge his humiliation in Gulf War I. #And he proved his intent when he made an assasination attempt on GHWB. #Still, half the Liberals said we had no right to be there, and the other half of the Liberals condemned GHWB for not acting unilaterally and taking out the murderous mad man from Baghdad.

The UN was united and declared Saddam a world threat if he were to achieve nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction. #So we sent in UN inspectors to find WMDs if they existed, and to assure the world that he didn&#39;t have any. #But Saddam wouldn&#39;t cooperate. #He kicked out the inspectors. #Still, half the Liberals said we had no right to inspect a sovereign nation. #The other half of the Liberals continued their condemnation for not going all the way and finishing the job that would eventually have to be done.

Throughout the Clinton years, we kept the no fly zones to protect the Kurds and Kuwait because Saddam couldn&#39;t be trusted. #We fooled with UN inspections and Saddam wouldn&#39;t cooperate leaving the world in doubt. #

As for the terrorists, we lobbed a few missiles, but for the most part, we just appeased the terrorists losing Embassies and other assets with no end in sight. #Americans were not safe anywhere in the world.

When GWB took office, he was faced with Islamic Extremeist terrorism that was raging out of control. #And he was faced with a lawless Iraqi dictator potentially having WMDs that he himself would not hesitate to use against the US if given a chance. #And if not, he would SURELY give them to Islamic terrorists to use against us, giving him the revenge he desired while providing him with deniability.

Within 8 months of taking office, NYC, DC, and the Pentagon were targetted on 9/11. #Upon hearing the news that morning, I, like most people, immediately assumed that it was the work of Saddam. #I expected that within hours there would be a huge mushroom cloud rising over Baghdad. #And I remember learning in utter shock that it was not Saddam, but Islamic Extremeists led by Usama Bin Laden.

Now lets be honest. #How many of you Liberal neysayers woke up that morning to the news of the Twin Towers falling in ruin that didn&#39;t immediately think it was the work of Saddam?

Now ask yourself, if it hadn&#39;t been the work of Usama Bin Laden, who on Earth do you think it might have been the work of?

Only one thing remains the same. #Half of the Liberals still condemn their own country and their own President for occupying a sovereign nation. #The other half of the Liberals still condemns GHWB for not finishing the job in Iraq 13 years ago.

And both halves of the Liberals have the audacity to call this war, &quot;Daddy&#39;s War&#33;&quot;

Now the Liberals condemn GWB for conducting a unilateral war against a sovereign nation without UN backing and taking on this war alone and footing the bill alone without waiting for other countries to voluntarilly come forward to share the financial burden and loss of life. #And after witnessing Saddams atrocities with their own eyes, they still have the gaul to call this a &quot;preemptive war&quot; which has destroyed the worlds trust in the USA.

And if all of this isn&#39;t shameful enough, now they are raising their voices of criticism at the most crucial time of the war. #They bitch about the cost of this war in terms of dollars and lives, yet they strengthen the hand of our enemies by sowing division, and thus, prolonging the war. #

You want this war overwith? #Then stop encouraging our enemies by quenching our determination and resolve. #Quit showing our enemies YOUR weakness. #Quit wringing your hands in front of our soldiers that depend on our support and single mindedness to complete this mission. #And for once in your life, take a good long look at the consequences of your selfish dessention.

[K6UEY]

KCØEBM,
Well said,but I think you are preaching to the choir.It would not matter if GOD himself was in the Whitehouse,some Liberals would find fault with his leadership. Once their mind is made up they refuse to be confused with the facts........

[N4EMS]

Well, to anyone who knows me, knows I am NOT a Bush-Boy by any stretch of the imagination. SO, it should go without saying, (but I will anyway ##http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif ##), that this reply IS NOT going the portray The Dishonable Dubya in a pretty light.

So, what has he done:

1. #Dropped the ball on 9/11. #You think the Whitey&#39;s in the House didn&#39;t know what was coming? #Bull puckey, they knew. #

2. #Went into Afghanistan and supposedly &quot;cleaned house&quot;. #Uh huh. #Yup. #I sure our friends the Spanish will agree with that one.

3. #Changed the overtime laws. #Took millions of dollars away from millions of Americans who depend on those dollars to make end meet. #Nice.

4. #Some have argued that Clinton lied in office. #He probably did. #Fact is he beat the lawyers at their own game. #He, like the lawyers, took the meanings of the words, (as defined by Webster none the less), and fought them on there level. #Do I agree, not really. #But he did. #Now, back to Dubya. #Lie huh. #Yup. &quot;Mr. President, how do you spell lie?&quot; #&quot;Well, the way I see it, yuck,yuck, is, ya see, its kinda like, well, yuck, yuck Dubya, kinda like my name, yuck, yuck, &#39;n than a M, kinda like in mo-ron, which is kinda like enron, yuck, yuck and, uh, D. #Like Dumb****. #Yuck, yuck.&quot;

I&#39;m sorry, what Clinton did really only effected his wife and family. #The business of the President&#39;s personal life IS NOT the business of the People. #He got funky with an intern. #No lives lost. #Dubya flat out lied to the world and thousands have died. #And that number rises every day. #

The best thing about the Bush Presidency will be it&#39;s conclusion. #As far as I am concerned, he should be thrown out of office by Congress, (or the Supreme Court who appointed him), tried and imprisoned for the BS he has done to the United States.

Thats all I gotta say about &#39;dat.

[K6UEY]

There is a typical example...........

President #G.W. BUSH you have my vote and the millions who believe in the EXCELLENT job you are doing.

[N0PU]

Well, here&#39;s a vote for ANYONE but Bush...
Hell, I&#39;d vote for Orv, before voting for Bush...

Because in my heart I believe that Orv, with the same data that Bush had would not make the same mistakes Bush did...
Because I believe in my heart that Orv, would not shade the information being sent to the congress in order to promote his own scheme for an Iraqi invasion...
Because I don&#39;t believe Orv would have asked for and signed bills that cut our education funding so deeply that our schools would have to lay off trained experienced teachers just to keep their doors open...

I could go on and on, but I won&#39;t bore ya&#39;ll to death with Orv&#39;s good points...

What I say is, Orv, as much as I&#39;d like to I won&#39;t vote ya in November, because If I did then that would distract one vote from whoever is really running against Bush... and I need to negate YOUR vote for Bush with mine against him...

Sorry buddy... maybe when things settle down... and this country gets stabilized again...

[KA8NCR]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (W3MIV @ April 23 2004,09:39)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Democrites=theftx435x&#036;1.5 billion.

[sfx: flushing roar][/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Bush: Trillions in new national debt. Which is essentially, stealing from the younger generations. Specifically, it&#39;ll be the middle and lower class that pays the most hefty price for this in a much lower standard of living and a higher percentage of income taken through taxes.

What&#39;s the difference?

[KC2HJN]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I still remember when Saddam invaded Kuwait, a peaceful, sovereign, oil rich neighbor. #There was no way in hell that we could let that stand&#33; #So we, and a UN coalition, booted him out&#33; #And on his way out, he carried away Kuwait&#39;s wealth as the bootie of war and he blew up all of Kuwait&#39;s oil wells creating the worst environmental disaster in world history. #Half of the Liberals screamed that we had no right to be there, and the other half of the Liberals said that no US troops should ever be under UN control.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

Again someone gives only part of the story. Saddam had, in his mind, good reason to invade Kuwait. He had a dispute with Kuwait, who was overproducing oil and ruining Iraq&#39;s economy. He and our ambassador to Bagdad, April Glaspie, met about a week or two before the invasion. He expressed a desire for better relations with the US, which we also expressed. He also expressed a fear that we would get involved and cause harm to his country. He had negotiations with Kuwait and other Arab states, which were breaking down, and basically said he had had enough. By the statements given by April Glespie, who was there on behalf of our government, he felt we would stay out of it and let him #deal with his problem.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">THE NEW YORK TIMES INTERNATIONAL SUNDAY, SEPTEMBER 23, 1990 # # # # # #19
Excerpts From Iraqi Document on Meeting with U.S. Envoy
Special to The New York Times
WASHINGTON, Sept. 22 -- On July 25,President Saddam Hussein of Iraq summoned the United States Ambassador to Baghdad, April Glaspie, to his office in the last high-level contact between the two Governments before the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait on Aug. 2. Here are excerpts from a document described by Iraqi Government officials as a transcript of the meeting, which also included the Iraqi Foreign Minister, Tariq Aziz. A copy was provided to The New York Times by ABC News, which translated from the Arabic. The State Department has declined to comment on its accuracy.
SADDAM HUSSEIN: I have summoned you today to hold comprehensive political discussions with you. This is a message to President Bush. You know that we did not have relations with the U.S. until 1984 and you know the circumstances and reasons which caused them to be severed. The decision to establish relations with the U.S. were taken in 1980 during the two months prior to the war between us and Iran.
When the war started, and to avoid misinterpretation, we postponed the establishment of relations hoping that the war would end soon.
But because the war lasted for a long time, and to emphasize the fact that we are a non-aligned country, it was important to re-establish relations with the U.S. And we choose to do this in 1984.
It is natural to say that the U.S. is not like Britain, for example, with the latter&#39;s historic relations with Middle Eastern countries, including Iraq. In addition, there were no relations between Iraq and the U.S. between 1967 and 1984. One can conclude it would be difficult for the U.S. to have a full understanding of many matters in Iraq. When relations were re-established we hoped for a better understanding and for better cooperation because we too do not understand the background of many American decisions. We dealt with each other during the war and we had dealings on various levels. The most important of those levels were with the foreign ministers.
U.S.-Iraq Rifts
We had hoped for a better common understanding and a better chance of cooperation to benefit both our peoples and the rest of the Arab nations.
But these better relations have suffered from various rifts. The worst of these was in 1986, only two years after establishing relations, with what was known as Irangate, which happened during the year that Iran occupied the Fao peninsula.
It was natural then to say that old relations and complexity of interests could absorb many mistakes. But when interests are limited and relations are not that old, then there isn&#39;t a deep understanding and mistakes could have a negative effect. Sometimes the effect of an error can be larger than the error itself.
Despite all of that, we accepted the apology, via his envoy, of the American President regarding Irangate, and we wiped the slate clean. And we shouldn&#39;t unearth the past except when new events remind us that old mistakes were not just a matter of coincidence.
Our suspicions increased after we liberated the Fao peninsula. The media began to involve itself in our politics. And our suspicions began to surface anew, because we began to question whether the U.S. felt uneasy with the outcome of the war when we liberated our land.
It was clear to us that certain parties in the United States -- and I don&#39;t say the President himself -- but certain parties who had links with the intelligence community and with the State Department -- and I don&#39;t say the Secretary of State himself -- I say that these parties did not like the fact that we liberated our land. Some parties began to prepare studies entitles: &quot;Who will succeed Saddam Hussein?&quot; They began to contact gulf states to make them fear Iraq, to persuade them not to give Iraq economic aid. And we have evidence of these activities.
Iraqi Policy on Oil
Iraq came out of the war burdened with &#036;40 billion debts, excluding the aid given by Arab states, some of whom consider that too to be a debt although they knew -- and you knew too -- that without Iraq they would not have had these sums and the future of the region would have been entirely different.
We began to face the policy of the drop in the price of oil. Then we saw the United States, which always talks of democracy but which has no time for the other point of view. Then the media campaign against Saddam Hussein was started by the official American media. The United States thought that the situation in Iraq was like Poland, Romania or Czechoslovakia. We were disturbed by this campaign but we were not disturbed too much because we had hoped that, in a few months, those who are decision makers in America would have a chance to find the facts and see whether this media campaign had had any effect on the lives of Iraqis. We had hoped that soon the American authorities would make the correct decision regarding their relations with Iraq. Those with good relations can sometimes afford to disagree.
But when planned and deliberate policy forces the price of oil down without good commercial reasons, then that means another war against Iraq. Because military war kills people by bleeding them, and economic war kills their humanity by depriving them of their chance to have a good standard of living. As you know, we gave rivers of blood in a war that lasted eight years, but we did not lose our humanity. Iraqis have a right to live proudly. We do not accept that anyone could injure Iraqi pride or the Iraqi right to have high standards of living.
Kuwait and the U.A.E. were at the front of this policy aimed at lowering Iraq&#39;s position and depriving its people of higher economic standards. And you know that our relations with the Emirates and Kuwait had been good. On top of all that, while we were busy at war, the state of Kuwait began to expand at the expense of our territory.
You may say this is propaganda, but I would direct you to one document, the Military Patrol Line, which is the borderline endorsed by the Arab League in 1961 for military patrols not to cross the Iraq-Kuwait border.
But go and look for yourselves. You will see the Kuwaiti border patrols, the Kuwaiti farms, the Kuwaiti oil installations -- all built as closely as possible to this line to establish that land as Kuwaiti territory.
Conflicting Interests
Since then, the Kuwaiti Government has been stable while the Iraqi Government has undergone many changes. Even after 1968 and for 10 years afterwards, we were too busy with our own problems. First in the north then the 1973 war, and other problems. Then came the war with Iran which started 10 years ago.
We believe that the United States must understand that people who live in luxury and economic security can each an understanding with the United States on what are legitimate joint interests. But the starved and the economically deprived cannot reach the same understanding.
We do not accept threats from anyone because we do not threaten anyone. But we say clearly that we hope that the U.S. will not entertain too many illusions and will seek new friends rather than increase the number of its enemies.
I have read the American statements speaking of friends in the area. Of course, it is the right of everyone to choose their friends. We can have no objections. But you know you are not the ones who protected your friends during the war with Iran. I assure you, had the Iranians overrun the region, the American troops would not have stopped them, except by the use of nuclear weapons.
I do not belittle you. But I hold this view by looking at the geography and nature of American society into account. Yours is a society which cannot accept 10,000 dead in one battle.
You know that Iran agreed to the cease-fire not because the United States had bombed one of the oil platforms after the liberation of the Fao. Is this Iraq&#39;s reward for its role in securing the stability of the region and for protecting it from an unknown flood?
Protecting the Oil Flow
So what can it mean when America says it will now protect its friends? It can only mean prejudice against Iraq. This stance plus maneuvers and statements which have been made has encouraged the U.A.E. and Kuwait to disregard Iraqi rights.
I say to you clearly that Iraq&#39;s rights, which are mentioned in the memorandum, we will take one by one. That might not happen now or after a month or after one year, but we will take it all. We are not the kind of people who will relinquish their rights. There is no historic right, or legitimacy, or need, for the U.A.E. and Kuwait to deprive us of our rights. If they are needy, we too are needy.
The United States must have a better understanding of the situation and declare who it wants to have relations with and who its enemies are. But it should not make enemies simply because others have different points of view regarding the Arab-Israeli conflict.
We clearly understand America&#39;s statement that it wants an easy flow of oil. We understanding American staying that it seeks friendship with the states in the region, and to encourage their joint interests. But we cannot understand the attempt to encourage some parties to hard Iraq&#39;s interests.
The United States wants to secure the flow of oil. This understandable and known. But it must not deploy methods which the United States says it disapproves of -- flexing muscles and pressure.
If you use pressure, we will deploy pressure and force. We know that you can harm us although we do not threaten you. But we too can harm you. Everyone can cause harm according to their ability and their size. We cannot come all the way to you in the United States, but individual Arabs may reach you.
War and Friendship
You can come to Iraq with aircraft and missiles but do not push us to the point where we cease to care. And when we feel that you want to injure our pride and take away the Iraqis&#39; chance of a high standard of living, then we will cease to care and death will be the choice for us. Then we would not care if you fired 100missiles for each missile we fired. Because without pride life would have no value.
It is not reasonable to ask our people to bleed rivers of blood for eight years then to tell them, &quot;Now you have to accept aggression from Kuwait, the U.A.E., or from the U.S. or from Israel.&quot;
We do not put all these countries in the same boat. First, we are hurt and upset that such disagreement is taking place between us and Kuwait and the U.A.E. The solution must be found within an Arab framework and through direct bilateral relations. We do not place America among the enemies. We pace it where we want our friends to be and we try to be friends. But repeated American statements last year make it apparent that America did not regard us as friends. Well the Americans are free.
When we seek friendship we want pride, liberty and our right to choose.
We want to deal according to our status as we deal with the others according to their statuses.
We consider the others&#39; interests while we look after our own. And we expect the others to consider our interests while they are dealing with their own. What does it mean when the Zionist war minister is summoned to the United States now? What do they mean, these fiery statements coming out of Israel during the past few days and the talk of war being expected now more than at any other time?
* * *
I do not believe that anyone would lose by making friends with Iraq. In my opinion, the American President has not made mistakes regarding the Arabs, although his decision to freeze dialogue with the P.L.O. was wrong. But it appears that this decision was made to appease the Zionist lobby or as a piece of strategy to cool the Zionist anger, before trying again. I hope that our latter conclusion is the correct one. But we will carry on saying it was the wrong decision.
You are appeasing the usurper in so many ways -- economically, politically and militarily as well as in the media. When will the time come when, for every three appeasements to the usurper, you praise the Arabs just once?
APRIL GLASPIE: I thank you, Mr. President, and it is a great pleasure for a diplomat to meet and talk directly with the President. I clearly understand your message. We studied history at school That taught us to say freedom or death. I think you know well that we as a people have our experience with the colonialists.
Mr. President, you mentioned many things during this meeting which I cannot comment on on behalf of my Government. But with your permission, I will comment on two points. You spoke of friendship and I believe it was clear from the letters sent by our President to you on the occasion of your National Day that he emphasizes --
HUSSEIN: He was kind and his expressions met with our regard and respect.
Directive on Relations
GLASPIE: As you know, he directed the United States Administration to reject the suggestion of implementing trade sanctions.
HUSSEIN: There is nothing left for us to buy from America. Only wheat. Because every time we want to buy something, they say it is forbidden. I am afraid that one day you will say, &quot;You are going to make gunpowder out of wheat.&quot;
GLASPIE: I have a direct instruction from the President to seek better relations with Iraq.
HUSSEIN: But how? We too have this desire. But matters are running contrary to this desire.
GLASPIE: This is less likely to happen the more we talk. For example, you mentioned the issue of the article published by the American Information Agency and that was sad. And a formal apology was presented.
HUSSEIN: Your stance is generous. We are Arabs. It is enough for us that someone says, &quot;I am sorry. I made a mistake.&quot; Then we carry on. But the media campaign continued. And it is full of stories. If the stories were true, no one would get upset. But we understand from its continuation that there is a determination.
GLASPIE: I saw the Diane Sawyer program on ABC. And what happened in that program was cheap and unjust. And this is a real picture of what happens in the American media -- even to American politicians themselves. These are the methods the Western media employs. I am pleased that you add your voice to the diplomats who stand up to the media. Because your appearance in the media, even for five minutes, would help us to make the American people understand Iraq. This would increase mutual understanding. If they American President had control of the media, his job would be much easier.
Mr. President, not only do I want to say that President Bush wanted better and deeper relations with Iraq, but he also wants an Iraqi contribution to peace and prosperity in the Middle East. President Bush is an intelligent man. He is not going to declare an economic war against Iraq.
You are right. It is true what you say that we do not want higher prices for oil. But I would ask you to examine the possibility of not charging too high a price for oil.
HUSSEIN: We do not want too high prices for oil. And I remind you that in 1974 I gave Tariq Aziz the idea for an article he wrote which criticized the policy of keeping oil prices high. It was the first Arab article which expressed this view.
Shifting Price of Oil
TARIQ AZIZ: Our policy in OPEC opposes sudden jumps in oil prices.
HUSSEIN: Twenty-five dollars a barrel is not a high price.
GLASPIE: We have many Americans who would like to see the price go above &#036;25 because they come from oil-producing states.
HUSSEIN: The price at one stage had dropped to &#036;12 a barrel and a reduction in the modest Iraqi budget of &#036;7 billion to &#036;6 billion is a disaster.
GLASPIE: I think I understand this. I have lived here for years. I admire your extraordinary efforts to rebuild your country. I know you need funds. We understand that and our opinion is that you should have the opportunity to rebuild your country. But we have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait.
I was in the American Embassy in Kuwait during the late 60&#39;s. The instruction we had during this period was that we should express no opinion on this issue and that the issue is not associated with America. James Baker has directed our official spokesmen to emphasize this instruction. We hope you can solve this problem using any suitable methods via Klibi or via President Mubarak. All that we hope is that these issues are solved quickly. With regard to all of this, can I ask you to see how the issue appears to us?
My assessment after 25 years&#39; service in this area is that your objective must have strong backing from your Arab brothers. I now speak of oil But you, Mr. President, have fought through a horrific and painful war. Frankly, we can see only that you have deployed massive troops in the south. Normally that would not be any of our business. But when this happens in the context of what you said on your national day, then when we read the details in the two letters of the Foreign Minister, then when we see the Iraqi point of view that the measures taken by the U.A.E. and Kuwait is, in the final analysis, parallel to military aggression against Iraq, then it would be reasonable for me to be concerned. And for this reason, I received an instruction to ask you, in the spirit of friendship -- not in the spirit of confrontation -- regarding your intentions.
I simply describe the position of my Government. And I do not mean that the situation is a simple situation. But our concern is a simple one.
HUSSEIN: We do not ask people not to be concerned when peace is at issue. This is a noble human feeling which we all feel. It is natural for you as a superpower to be concerned. But what we ask is not to express your concern in a way that would make an aggressor believe that he is getting support for his aggression.
We want to find a just solution which will give us our rights but not deprive others of their rights. But at the same time, we want the others to know that our patience is running out regarding their action, which is harming even the milk our children drink, and the pensions of the widow who lost her husband during the war, and the pensions of the orphans who lost their parents.
As a country, we have the right to prosper. We lost so many opportunities, and the others should value the Iraqi role in their protection. Even this Iraqi [the President points to their interpreter] feels bitter like all other Iraqis. We are not aggressors but we do not accept aggression either. We sent them envoys and handwritten letters. We tried everything. We asked the Servant of the Two Shrines -- King Fahd -- to hold a four-member summit, but he suggested a meeting between the Oil Ministers. We agreed. And as you know, the meeting took place in Jidda. They reached an agreement which did not express what we wanted, but we agreed.
Only two days after the meeting, the Kuwaiti Oil Minister made a statement that contradicted the agreement. We also discussed the issue during the Baghdad summit. I told the Arab Kings and Presidents that some brothers are fighting an economic war against us. And that not all wars use weapons and we regard this kind of war as a military action against us. Because if the capability of our army is lowered then, if Iran renewed the war, it could achieve goals which it could not achieve before. And if we lowered the standard of our defenses, then this could encourage Israel to attack us. I said that before the Arab Kings and Presidents. Only I did not mention Kuwait and U.A.E. by name, because they were my guests.
Before this, I had sent them envoys reminding them that our war had included their defense. Therefore the aid they gave us should not be regarded as a debt. We did not more than the United States would have done against someone who attacked its interests.
I talked about the same thing with a number of other Arab states. I explained the situation t brother King Fahd a few times, by sending envoys and on the telephone. I talked with brother King Hussein and with Sheik Zaid after the conclusion of the summit. I walked with the Sheik to the plane when he was leaving Mosul. He told me, &quot;Just wait until I get home.&quot; But after he had reached his destination, the statements that came from there were very bad -- not from him, but from his Minister of Oil.
And after the Jidda agreement, we received some intelligence that they were talking of sticking to the agreement for two months only. Then they would change their policy. Now tell us, if the American President found himself in this situation, what would he do? I said it was very difficult for me to talk about these issues in public. But we must tell the Iraqi people who face economic difficulties who was responsible for that.
Talks with Mubarak
GLASPIE: I spent four beautiful years in Egypt.
HUSSEIN: The Egyptian people are kind and good and ancient. The oil people are supposed to help the Egyptian people, but they are mean beyond belief. It is painful to admit it, but some of them are disliked by Arabs because of their greed.
GLASPIE: Mr. President, it would be helpful if you could give us an assessment of the effort made by your Arab brothers and whether they have achieved anything.
HUSSEIN: On this subject, we agreed with President Mubarak that the Prime Minister of Kuwait would meet with the deputy chairman of the Revolution Command Council in Saudi Arabia, because the Saudis initiated contact with us, aided by President Mubarak&#39;s efforts. He just telephoned me a short while ago to say the Kuwaitis have agreed to that suggestion.
GLASPIE: Congratulations.
HUSSEIN: A protocol meeting will be held in Saudi Arabia. Then the meeting will be transferred to Baghdad for deeper discussion directly between Kuwait and Iraq. We hope we will reach some result. We hope that the long-term view and the real interests will overcome Kuwaiti greed.
GLASPIE: May I ask you when you expect Sheik Saad to come to Baghdad?
HUSSEIN: I suppose it would be on Saturday or Monday at the latest. I told brother Mubarak that the agreement should be in Baghdad Saturday or Sunday. You know that brother Mubarak&#39;s visits have always been a good omen.
GLASPIE: This is good news. Congratulations.
HUSSEIN: Brother President Mubarak told me they were scared. They said troops were only 20 kilometers north of the Arab League line. I said to him that regardless of what is there, whether they are police, border guards or army, and regardless of how many are there, and what they are doing, assure the Kuwaitis and give them our word that we are not going to do anything until we meet with them. When we meet and when we see that there is hope, then nothing will happen. But if we are unable to find a solution, then it will be natural that Iraq will not accept death, even though wisdom is above everything else. There you have good news.
AZIZ: This is a journalistic exclusive.
GLASPIE: I am planning to go to the United States next Monday. I hope I will meet with President Bush in Washington next week. I thought to postpone my trip because of the difficulties we are facing. But now I will fly on Monday.
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

I&#39;m not defending Saddam, but if you read that, you can get a better idea of what was going on. It wasn&#39;t just big &#39;ol bad Saddam being evil again.

ps. it should be noted that that war also was &#39;about the oil&#39;

[N8CPA]

I am one who did not blame 9/11 on Saddam. When the second plane hit, I told a co-worker that I thought it was an attack by bin Laden. She didn&#39;t even know who he was, so I refreshed her memory about his role in the African embassies and the USS Cole incidents. There had just been a newpaper article about al-Qaeda a few days before, approaching the anniversary of the Cole attack.

Saddam was simply too well contained. Yes, he probably could have hired committed operatives, but he would more likely attack Israel, as he had during GW-I, than us. And his attack would have been more subtle I think, specifically un-creditable to him. He was well aware that we would find him, if he dared attack us directly.

Only someone with a huge ego and whose specific location was mostly unknown would feel safe enough to attack us directly, and in that case, it had to be bin Laden. According to the newpaper article, bin Laden was
shuttling somewhere among the Gulf states, everywhere and nowhere at the same time. A good place to be for the scale of the attack.

Steve

[W5KLB]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (ki4bgo @ April 23 2004,20&#60;&#33;--emo&amp;http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (AC7RI @ April 23 2004,21:10)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I realize that the posters here that watch FOX News were just going along with what their network told them - and FOX never corrected nor apologized for their incorrect reporting - so I can&#39;t blame them too much. I&#39;d just suggest finding a better news source. Shouldn&#39;t be hard.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
I agree 100% here&#33;[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Not this poster&#33; Yes, I like to watch Fox. I like Bill O&#39;Reilly. I have seen him go after Repubicans and rip&#39;em a new one as well as going after the liberals. I think he&#39;s fair even if I don&#39;t agree with him on everthing.

I get my news and information from other sources. But it will not ever come from, CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, MSNBC, or the BBC. All these guys are interested in is reporting the BAD news. Now if they would just learn to report some of the good that been going on, but they won&#39;t. Reporting the bad news and twisting the truth is far more profetable for them. Besides, they would lose their mostly liberal audience.

[KF7QQ]

lets see, what I remember about clinton, is he lied, cheated..........way to go&#33;

[KG4WRA]

Everyone keeps saying that unemployment is a major problem and it&#39;s Bush&#39;s fault. Well... actually, what the level heads wont realize is that the unemployment rate is exactly the same as it was when Clinton was elected for his 2nd term&#33;

GO BUSH&#33;

(CNN = Communist News Network)

[kc0ebm]

Hey Guys&#33;

No matter what side you are on in this debate, there is still the matter of the:

MISSING BOEING 727

There is also the matter of the:

MISSING SUITCASE NUKES

Now there is even talk of missing nuclear fuel rods, which could be used to produce a very effective &quot;DIRTY BOMB&quot;.

Also, there is much yet to be learned about the bomb making material that was recently captured in Amman Jorden, which it is said, was smuggled in from SYRIA&#33;

Shall we wait till these horrors actually reach our shores and our cities, or shall we continue to act preemptively?

You dessenters of the war in Iraq who NOW complain about our huge national debt and our so called sluggish economy, what will you be saying if these horrors actually reach our shores and our cities?

Compared to the devastation that is being prepared for use in this country, the events of 9/11 could prove to be relatively insignificant.

What if the planes of 9/11 were carrying suitcase nukes over NYC? What if they had been carrying bio-weapons? What if they had been carrying nuclear fuel rods when they struck the Twin Towers?

What if the pawl of dust from the fallen towers that hung over Lower Manhatten for hours was contaminated with Bio, or the remains of nuclear fuel rods?

As it was, the damage from the events of 9/11 was relatively confined to the attack sites themselves.

That would by no means be the case in the plausible scenario that I have just described.

Think of the mortality that would result in lower Manhattan if the whole area were contaminated with lethal concentrations of Bio, or nuclear fallout.

OR...Horror of horrors....a suitcase nuke carried by a missing 727 was detonated over the City.

I ask you again.....do we wait for that eventuality....or do we act preemptively?

You dessenters....you war protesters.....you who are worried about the current state of our economy and our tremendous national debt.....NOW you have but a GLIMPS of the potential scenarios that this administration must prepare for.

And you know what? If Al Gore were in office right now, the pressure and the consequences of decision making would be JUST AS GRAVE&#33;

The potential TERRORS that exist in the world in this day and age transcend partisanship. I know this is easy for me to say, seeing that the Party that I prefer is seated in power; but if it were different, I would hope that I could look past my partisanship and support the President.

[AB8RU]

Aw come on gang the Lame Duck Amendment rules here , Billy Bob took his retirement and now we can all say if you don&#39;t like the politician in office, go register to vote if you have not done so.

MTV web site (http://www.mtv.com)

on the right click on Choose or Lose in the Community Section and check out their site ..

I have been a registered voter since 1973 http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

Quit yer whining and vote &#33; http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif

[NZ3M]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (kc0ebm @ April 23 2004,20:31)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">And you know what? If Al Gore were in office right now, the pressure and the consequences of decision making would be JUST AS GRAVE&#33;[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
If Al Gore was in office right now, we would all be waiting for answers about 9/11. We would be wondiring if anything will ever be done about it.

He would also have most of the hairy toed liberals convinced that G. W. Bush did it.

If the Liberal outlook was all we had through history, there would be no USA.

Think about it, you left wingers would not consider a revolution because of taxes. You love taxes, so you can take from the workers and give to the non-workers. Spread the wealth out so everyone can have what the rich worked so hard for. I could ramble on here, but I&#39;ll stop.

Dave

[K6UEY]

AB3BK,
Thats known as EQUALITY, Redistribution of the FUNDS so that everyone can have their fair share. I know you might question the meaning of &quot;FAIR&quot; but first things first,it has to be decided what &quot;IS&quot; is before we worry about fair. By the reduction of everyone to the lowest common denominator,we can eliminate the &quot;ELITIST&quot; and those who think that you must earn to achieve. Only the STATE can earn,by their hard work collecting the Taxes that every citizen should be eager to volunteer,so that the Fair #Redristribution can take place.Some one has to be in a position to care for those who graduate from the public school system. With out the STATE to uplift them to the level that is recognized by the general society,all that they learned about Liberalism and Socialized Philosophy in the Educational system will be for naught.Their education will be limited to the skills devoloped in making demostration Posters and Protest marching.It is true and especially for Senior Politicians from the northeast,The Liberal Party has never thought of a TAX that they didn&#39;t like, but it is for the good of all that they labor so hard. Seldom is the cares of those who own business and provide jobs for the working class their primary concern, it is the poor and middle class that that must be elevated by the STATE to achieve EQUALITY and JUSTICE for ALL.

[W8AMD]

I&#39;m not a republican or democrat. One thing I find refreshing about Bush is no matter if I disagree with him he is one to stick to his guns. That I find admerable in any man. Been a long while since this country had a President that did not stick his moistend finger into the political winds before he opened his mouth.

[K9STH]

EBM:

One thing about the nuclear fuel rods that are used in the United States in the commercial production of electricity is that they are only 3 percent nuclear material. As such, it would take a lot of rods and the ability to refine the material to get enough radioactive material to really do any harm. This is one &quot;bit&quot; of information that I got when I was employed by TXU and had to spend a &quot;fair&quot; amount of time when their nuclear plant (Comanche Peak) was being built.

Now, the fuel rods that are used by the military (like onboard the nuclear powered ships) are a completely different matter&#33; Those rods have a very high concentration of nuclear material and it wouldn&#39;t take many of them to get enough material to make a &quot;dirty&quot; bomb.

The &quot;spent&quot; rods from a commercial power plant are often stored &quot;outdoors&quot; laying at the bottom of a &quot;fancy&quot; swimming pool just covered with water. This is until they are removed to an &quot;approved&quot; disposition facility. Military rods are again handled very differently&#33;

I read in a National Geographic a while back that one of the best ways of disposing of nuclear material is to mix it with the material that is being formed into glass. When the glass solidifies the material is, for all practical purposes, impossible to recover and the radioactivity levels from the glass are well within safe levels. These blocks can then be buried or disposed of in the very deep depths of the oceans (like the Marianas Trench in the Pacific).

Glen, K9STH

[KB9YCO]

&quot;...most of the hairy toed liberals convinced that G. W. Bush did it.&quot;

Damnit, now I&#39;ve got to start shaving my toes ?&#33;&#33; Maybe my insurance will cover some eletrolosis (sp?).

[NZ3M]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KB9YCO @ April 24 2004,10:15)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">&quot;...most of the hairy toed liberals convinced that G. W. Bush did it.&quot;

Damnit, now I&#39;ve got to start shaving my toes ?&#33;&#33; Maybe my insurance will cover some eletrolosis (sp?).[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif We all have hairy toes I guess. When I think of a liberal, I think of sandals and toes. I don&#39;t think you will find many sandals in a republicans closet. I think I have seen Clinton in Flip-Flops http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif

Dave

[kc0ebm]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (K9STH @ April 25 2004,09:02)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">EBM:

One thing about the nuclear fuel rods that are used in the United States in the commercial production of electricity is that they are only 3 percent nuclear material. #As such, it would take a lot of rods and the ability to refine the material to get enough radioactive material to really do any harm. #This is one &quot;bit&quot; of information that I got when I was employed by TXU and had to spend a &quot;fair&quot; amount of time when their nuclear plant (Comanche Peak) was being built.

Now, the fuel rods that are used by the military (like onboard the nuclear powered ships) are a completely different matter&#33; #Those rods have a very high concentration of nuclear material and it wouldn&#39;t take many of them to get enough material to make a &quot;dirty&quot; bomb.

The &quot;spent&quot; rods from a commercial power plant are often stored &quot;outdoors&quot; laying at the bottom of a &quot;fancy&quot; swimming pool just covered with water. #This is until they are removed to an &quot;approved&quot; disposition facility. #Military rods are again handled very differently&#33;

I read in a National Geographic a while back that one of the best ways of disposing of nuclear material is to mix it with the material that is being formed into glass. #When the glass solidifies the material is, for all practical purposes, impossible to recover and the radioactivity levels from the glass are well within safe levels. #These blocks can then be buried or disposed of in the very deep depths of the oceans (like the Marianas Trench in the Pacific).

Glen, K9STH[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Glen,

Excellent point....and it is well taken. The rods that I eluded to pose little threat. But still, there is much ado about those missing rods, or missing portions thereof, for good reason. That ado speaks to our security standards and methods.

The US sets the world standard for security in the nuclear industry. And since 9/11, our nuclear security measures and standards are bank vault tight. It boggles the mind that even we in this country can&#39;t utterly account for all nuclear material with which a dirty bomb could be made.

The fact that we, even WE, can&#39;t completely account for all of OUR nuclear material should raise real and legitimate concern for the security of the world stockpile of &quot;dirty material&quot;.

I believe that it is reasonable and prudent to assume that dirty material lies in the hands of those who would not hesitate to use it to make dirty bombs.

My point is, and I know that you personally got my point, that the scenario that I painted is plausible to the degree that it is even LIKELY.

Many good posters here are legitimately concerned about our economy and our national debt in light of the war in Iraq and our pursuit of Bin Laden. But I suggest to them that the high cost in terms of life and treasure and our economy and our national debt pales when compared to the concerns we would have if the eventuality of this scenario comes to fruition.

But thanks for pointing out the relative uselessness of the missing rods for bomb making.

73

EBM

[KA8NCR]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KG4WRA @ April 24 2004,19:30)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Everyone keeps saying that unemployment is a major problem and it&#39;s Bush&#39;s fault. Well... actually, what the level heads wont realize is that the unemployment rate is exactly the same as it was when Clinton was elected for his 2nd term&#33;

GO BUSH&#33;

(CNN = Communist News Network)[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Sorry, but you are wrong. Take a look at the real numbers http://www.economagic.com/em-cgi/charter.exe/feddal/ru

The current unemployment rate is the same as when Bush I was in office and on his way out.

Listen, Clinton was a turd that had little respect for his office and used his political party for his own twisted little fetishes. But you can&#39;t refute simple math; Bush II learned little from his father. He had ample warning about the souring economy before he even took office and a true leader would have walked up to the helm and taken the ship where it needed to go. Instead we find out that he was too busy planning to dispose of Saddam Huessein. Meanwhile, corporate misbehavior was a chronic problem and millions of American workers were learning they&#39;d have to find other ways of feeding their families.

That&#39;s not leadership.

[K6UEY]

What you are saying is your idea of a real leader would have known how crappy the economy was under clinton, as everyone else did, and would have stepped in and taken control away from clinton? I don&#39;t believe the system is set up so that a citizen can just walk into the whitehouse and take over. Fortunately when GW was sworn in one of the first things he did was to have Congress pass his tax rebate,to spur the economy back in the proper direction,so that qualifies as leadership.
In light of all the negativity from the Liberal sector I would reintegrate my intention to once again vote for Mr. G.W.Bush as president,it is a nice feeling to have some one in that office you can trust and who will do what he says he will do with out sampling the political wind for direction first.

[KA8NCR]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (K6UEY @ April 25 2004,14:27)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">What you are saying is your idea of a real leader would have known how crappy the economy was under clinton, as everyone else did, and would have stepped in and taken control away from clinton? I don&#39;t believe the system is set up so that a citizen can just walk into the whitehouse and take over. Fortunately when GW was sworn in one of the first things he did was to have Congress pass his tax rebate,to spur the economy back in the proper direction,so that qualifies as leadership.
In light of all the negativity from the Liberal sector I would reintegrate my intention to once again vote for Mr. G.W.Bush as president,it is a nice feeling to have some one in that office you can trust and who will do what he says he will do with out sampling the political wind for direction first.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
The economy started to cool during 2000. Even though the dot com investment games were still going strong, manufacturing was cooling long before the bubble burst. This represents twelve, maybe 18 months of the Clinton administration.

If you look at the economic numbers then, one of the only indicators were slagging durable goods orders that were colored pink by the still spending tech industries purchasing with borrowed dollars. Unemployment is a lagging indicator, so that didn&#39;t show the storm on the horizon.

By the time Bush took office though, things were pretty obvious. And if you go research through the magic of Google the early 2001 quotes about the economy by GWB, you can see he knew about it. But he sat on his hands well until after 9/11. Which incidentally, I greatly respect the way he handled that.

The man isn&#39;t a leader of the people. He&#39;s a puppet of his corporate string-pullers.

[KC9CFB]

All this stuff abovementioned is well and good, but is anyone else bothered by the fact that he pronounces the word &quot;nuclear&quot; as &quot;Nuke-yoo-lar&quot; and not &quot;New-cleer&quot; as it should be? I mean, come on&#33;&#33;&#33; Do YOU see a U between the C and the L? And what happened to the E? You can&#39;t just brush aside vowels like that&#33;

[K6UEY]

KC9CFB,
WOW&#33;&#33; You have really hit upon a valid reason to change my vote. Think of the WORLD WIDE repercussions that could have to the stability of the free world. I&#39;m sure the voting public will be forever in your debt for bringing that fact to the forefront of the discussion. Amazing, the deep thinkers the educational system is turning out, what a 21st Century this is going to be &#33;&#33;

[K9STH]

I have met every President since (including) Eisenhower except for Kennedy and Ford. Frankly, George W. Bush is MUCH easier to understand in person than Carter ever claimed to be&#33;

I don&#39;t really like to admit that I met Clinton, but, I did&#33;

By the way, LBJ also mispronounced the word &quot;nuclear&quot; and was bombarded with the wrath of the ASPCA for picking up Him and Her (his beagles) by their ears&#33;

With his Boston accent, I never did know if JFK pronounced the word correctly&#33; I do know that he could never pronounce the name of the City of Chicago correctly&#33; He always put an &quot;r&quot; on the end of the word&#33; Considering that it was the Daley Democrat &quot;machine&quot; in Chicago (Cook County) that came up with enough votes to put JFK in office (if Illinois went Republican then JFK would have lost).

Daley was involved in a very bitter battle with Adamoski (the State&#39;s Attorney that led the investigation into the Summerville District where many police officers of the City of Chicago were acting as lookouts as well as being actively involved in a rash of home burgularies - several hundred were eventually charged&#33;). Cook County held the ballot boxes until the next morning after the number needed for Kennedy to win was known&#33;

In the State of Illinois, anyone who calls for a recount (at least at that time) had to pay for the manpower necessary to do it. If the results were overtuned in favor of the person who asked for the recount, then the money would be returned. The votes for Daley were barely over the 50 percent mark and Adamoski called for a recount. The elections department in the City of Chicago kept increasing the amount of money that was needed to conduct the recount. Eventually, Adamoski ran out of money and the recount stopped.

However, before the recount was stopped, it was discovered that people who had been dead for up to 50 years had voted several times in precincts that went heavily for Daley. In fact, the total votes from those precincts usually were well in excess of the number of registered voters. Some of these were in the 200 to 300 percent &quot;over voting&quot;&#33;

After this, the down state counties started holding their vote counts until Cook County finally had to start releasing their vote talleys. As such, the Daley machine had to &quot;guess&quot; what the vote count would be needed to counteract the down state votes. The result was that the Chicago vote continued to be sufficient to keep Daley in power, but was no longer such a force in state wide and national offices.

Shades of the &quot;Tamminy Hall&quot; machine in New York City in the last half of the 1800s&#33;

Glen, K9STH

[N8CPA]

GWB is just paying homage to democrats. #Kennedy pronounced it &quot;New-Q-ler,&quot; #Carter pronounced it &quot;New-keyer.&quot; #

I remember a Robin Williams bit where he played an old man in the future. #The old man said, &quot;Remember World War Three--all ten minutes of it? #Remember President Carter&#39;s last words to the nation--&#39;Ya&#39;ll&#39;re on yer own. Thank ya very much and good night?&#39;&quot; #

Imagine President Gore on 9-11. #Not a very reassuring image&#33;

[kc0ebm]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KC9CFB @ April 25 2004,15:36)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">All this stuff abovementioned is well and good, but is anyone else bothered by the fact that he pronounces the word &quot;nuclear&quot; as &quot;Nuke-yoo-lar&quot; and not &quot;New-cleer&quot; as it should be? I mean, come on&#33;&#33;&#33; Do YOU see a U between the C and the L? And what happened to the E? You can&#39;t just brush aside vowels like that&#33;[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
CFB

Yeah it bothers me. And it bothered me when my college English teacher and my college Speech teacher, both of whom were doctorates, mispronounced the word.

My English teacher didn&#39;t appreciate me pointing out his error, and my Speech teacher couldn&#39;t even hear the difference between the correct pronunciation and the way she said it. Litterally couldn&#39;t tell the difference. So I just gave up.

But as long as GW continues to kick ass and take names, as far as I&#39;m concerned, he can say it any dang way he wants&#33;

73

EBM

[W8AMD]

I have never seen a person that pronounces every word correctly. Myself and several English teachers at various levels of my education included. Matter of fact I rarely notice it if not a constant deal. None of us are perfect. Yeah I get annoyed by someone who mispronounces a lot of words.

A person who constantly misuse English proves himself a fool. The man who misuses English occasionally proves himself human.

[N8CPA]

I had a problem with &quot;anachronistic.&quot; #As many times as I had read the word, and understood it, I never heard it pronounced until a few years ago. #Up until then, when I pronounced it, I put the accent on the wrong syllable.

Has anyone else noticed an increasing number of people eliding over the hard C in such words as &quot;Success,&quot; &quot;access,&quot; etc. #It drives me up a wall when I hear them pronounced &quot;SusSESS,&quot; and &quot;ASSess.&quot;

[KB9YCO]

&quot;I have met every President since (including) Eisenhower except for Kennedy and Ford.&quot; K9STH

Wow, how did you manage that? That is amazing; getting to meet any president, whether you agree with their personal philosophy or not, would be interesting to say the least. Just curious...

[K9STH]

YCO:

I met Eisenhower in 1952 when he was running for President the first time (I was 8). My father took me down to the New York Central rail yards to meet the &quot;General&quot; who was speaking from the back platform of an &quot;election special&quot; railroad train (this was 50 miles from Chicago).

I met LBJ one evening just after Kennedy was killed. He was in Atlanta, Georgia, at the time. They did not announce any of his schedule. There was an all-night bookstore on the first level of the Dinkler Plaza Hotel that I often walked down to from campus (Georgia Tech). One evening I came around the corner of the building and ran directly into a Secret Service agent (who was facing the wrong direction&#33;). Just at that moment LBJ got out of his &quot;limo&quot;. I immediately threw up my hands and, fortunately, the agent realized that I was not any threat. LBJ came over and shook my hand.

I met Nixon at a rally in Dallas.

I met Carter when he was running for the governorship of the State of Georgia. He was the &quot;keynote&quot; speaker at my wife&#39;s eldest niece&#39;s high school graduation. We talked for several minutes.

I met Regan at a rally in Mesquite, Texas (Dallas suburb) when he was out helping George H.W. Bush.

I was one of George H. W. Bush&#39;s personal escorts at the Texas State Republican Convention in Dallas in 1992.

I met Clinton as he was coming through Dallas in, I believe, 1995 or 1996.

I met George W. Bush the first time at a rally in Farmersville, Texas (when he was running for the governorship of Texas).

Former Senator Phil Gramm nominated me for a position as one of the FCC commissioners in 1988. I made it all the way up until the final &quot;cut&quot;. However, the final selections went to the &quot;usual&quot; Washington crowd&#33;

Anyway, I live in Collin County, the next county north of Dallas County, Texas. As such, since I have &quot;dabbled&quot; in politics (on the &quot;fringe&quot;) since 1973, I might be considered a fairly &quot;big&quot; fish in a very small pond&#33; If I lived 3/8 of a mile farther south, then I would be a very little fish in a great big pond&#33; The difference less than 2000 feet make&#33;

Glen, K9STH

[KB9YCO]

Very cool, like I said I think it would be cool to meet any president and you&#39;ve gotten some rare privileges. Thanks for the response.
Also, I know the area of which you speak, I use to live in the ever so lovely Plano, Texas.

[WF7I]

I&#39;ve read through about half of the posts and most of the positives seem to be on a touchy-feely level and not concrete positives.

The positives I can think of:
1. tax cut. Probably benefited the wealthy more than most of the rest of us (I know I didn&#39;t see much out of it)
2. went after Al Quada in Afghanistan after 9/11.
3. eliminated Saddam Hussein (arguable whether in the long term this will be a &quot;good&quot; thing or not)
4. talked about going to Mars (but most people think we shouldn&#39;t spend the money on it)

That&#39;s really about it. Some conservatives would say the war on Iraq makes us safer, but I think that&#39;s very very arguable. He put together the Homeland Security Dept., but so far it seems pretty confused and disorganized, to me anyway. And people are worried about loss of liberty that it might represent.

[KC9CFB]

((Just as a side note, I was trying to add a little humor to a sometimes hotheaded debating subject... http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif ))

[N3MVF]

Well, we got this new 51st state for 200 billion annum. It&#39;s west of Iran and east of Israel&#33; hi hi

73
Greg

[K4JSR]

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif2--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (n3mvf @ April 26 2004,18http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif2)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Well, we got this new 51st state for 200 billion annum. #It&#39;s west of Iran and east of Israel&#33; #hi hi

73
Greg[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Well Greg, if what you say was true it would put all of the
violence in Iraq into perspective.
The number of deaths over there would not be any worse than in any major metropolitan area on the &quot;Mainland&quot;.
And definitely would not run anywhere near as high as our
deaths caused by idiot drivers on any given weekend&#33;

Of course they do not have a Varsity over there, so they
do not have to worry about STH and I getting in a drag
race to get a Chili Steak or hotdog&#33; # http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif
&lt;Texas Troll Off&#33;&gt; #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif
73 # Cal #K4JSR

[N4EMS]

All this yuck-yuck about the way the President says the word nuclear.

You say vase (vace) I say vase (voz).
You say potato (po-ta-to) I say potato (po-tot-o)

You say nuclear (nu-klee-r) I say &quot;Dat&#39;s a REALLY BIG #BOMB&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&quot; # http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif

At least I will give this yuck-yuck of a President the benefit of the doubt on this one. #

Unlike another certain unnamed VP under another Bush administration, (oops, I gave it away, didn&#39;t I - oh well), who couldn&#39;t even SPELL potato.

I know I can, it&#39;s &quot;Tater&#33;&quot; #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif

Have a GREAT day&#33;&#33;&#33;

[W5KLB]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (n4dmj @ April 28 2004,17:32)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">All this yuck-yuck about the way the President says the word nuclear.

You say vase (vace) I say vase (voz).
You say potato (po-ta-to) I say potato (po-tot-o)

You say nuclear (nu-klee-r) I say &quot;Dat&#39;s a REALLY BIG #BOMB&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&quot; # http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif

At least I will give this yuck-yuck of a President the benefit of the doubt on this one. #

Unlike another certain unnamed VP under another Bush administration, (oops, I gave it away, didn&#39;t I - oh well), who couldn&#39;t even SPELL potato.

I know I can, it&#39;s &quot;Tater&#33;&quot; #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif

Have a GREAT day&#33;&#33;&#33;[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
(singing) &quot;...let&#39;s call the whole thing off&#33;&quot;

Sorry, I couldn&#39;t resist. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif

[K9STH]

DMJ:

Dan Quayle was &quot;set up&quot; by the &quot;liberal&quot; teacher with the &quot;potatoe&quot; spelling&#33; He was given a list of words with the &quot;correct&quot; spelling to ask the various spelling bee contestants. Potato was delibertly mis-spelled by the teacher to &quot;show up&quot; Quayle.

He knew how to spell potato, but, since spelling bee words are often a &quot;bit&quot; different from &quot;normally&quot; spelled words, he just went &quot;along&quot; with the spelling as was presented to him.

The teacher admitted several days later that she had wanted to embarass Dan Quayle and had done so by giving him a list of spelling words including a deliberately mis-spelled &quot;simple&quot; word. However, this admission was not &quot;picked up&quot; by the mass media like the supposed not knowing how to spell the word&#33; Thus, the impression that Dan Quayle was a &quot;real&quot; dunce got a great &quot;boost&quot; from a person who was a member of a union that was against George H. W. Bush and Dan Quayle&#33;

As such, &quot;dirty tricks&quot; to make politicians of the &quot;opposite&quot; party came into vogue again&#33;

Glen, K9STH

[N0PU]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (n4dmj @ April 28 2004,18:32)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">All this yuck-yuck about the way the President says the word nuclear.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
I don&#39;t care HOW he says it as long as he doesn&#39;t DO it...

[N0OV]

Now there&#39;s a statement I 100% agree with&#33;

[AI4EP]

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif The words at the top of the thread are &quot; Name good things Bush has done &quot; ---- we are all here alive to type good/bad things about him/his administration --- good or bad ---but we are all alive to do it.




The terrorists would like for Mr. Bush to not be re-elected. Simple and to the point.

73

---ai4ep---

[K6UEY]

AI4EP,
Mr. Kerry has made the statement several times that there are foreign powers that want him elected to the whitehouse,he has had encouraging memorandums from them. He however has not disclosed as to who they are ,be they Germany, France or Usama himself.It would appear all would have some thing to gain if Kerry was elected.

[W0LC]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (W3MIV @ April 22 2004,10:55)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (kn0yne @ April 22 2004,09:39)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I can state with facts how the Clinton years were good...[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Is that you, Monica?[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Oops...now how did those pants fall down&#33;

Let&#39;s see. I could name quite a few examples, Enron, WorldCom, etc. all under Clinton&#39;s administration of anything goes.

9-11 to mention a heavy hitter, was a known potential happening during Clinton&#39;s era, unfortunately, thanks to his wisdom and structuring, the two branches wouldn&#39;t share information and work together.

Beruit barracks bombing.
Somalia fiasco.
giving away of the Panama Canal.


It all depends how you want to attach &quot;blame&quot; for situations.



I could go on, but then again, the so called anti-Bush list must be much longer (pro family, pro American, Pro Patriotic, Pro go after the terrorists in Afghanistan, stronger measures to watch and control terrorism, yeah, all negatives for sure&#33http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif Hi.

[KI4BGO]

Name good things Bush has done? (or wants to do...) He want&#39;s BROADBAND in EVERY home&#33; ...BPL maybe? So when you go to vote in November, ask yourself how important, being able to hear ANYTHING, through the QRM is to you&#33; http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

[K6UEY]

The more I read how the new 21st Century Amateurs are going to change and improve Amateur Radio (since the previous stewards did such a lousy job ) the more appealing BPL becomes. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/sad.gif

[N0PU]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (W0LC @ April 29 2004,12:03)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">9-11 to mention a heavy hitter, was a known potential happening during Clinton&#39;s era, unfortunately, thanks to his wisdom and structuring, the two branches wouldn&#39;t share information and work together.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Ahhh... I don&#39;t think so...

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">
Rice in her public testimony before the 9-11 commission:

&quot;I do not remember any reports to us, a kind of strategic warning, that planes might be used as weapons.&quot;
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

BUT...

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">
The warnings received (see below) were sufficient for Attorney General Ashcroft to begin &quot;traveling exclusively by leased jet aircraft instead of commercial airlines&quot; because of what the Justice Department called &quot;a threat assessment.&quot; The Justice Department has yet to release this &quot;threat assessment.&quot;
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

and...

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">
the December 2002 report of the Joint Congressional Inquiry into 9-11 found:

&quot;In May 2001, the intelligence community obtained a report that Bin Laden supporters were planning to infiltrate the United States&quot; to &quot;carry out a terrorist operation using high explosives.&quot; The report &quot;was included in an intelligence report for senior government officials in August [2001].&quot; In the same month, the Pentagon &quot;acquired and shared with other elements of the Intelligence Community information suggesting that seven persons associated with Bin Laden had departed various locations for Canada, the United Kingdom, and the United States.&quot;
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

and...

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">
On the 4th day of the Bush administration (January 24), Clarke sent a memo to Rice marked &quot;urgent&quot; asking for a Cabinet-level meeting to deal with an impending al Qaeda attack. No meeting occurred until one week before 9/11 - eight months after the urgent request.

The administration does not dispute this fact but claims &quot;principals did not need to have a formal meeting to discuss the threat.&quot;

The 9/11 panel asked Clarke whether an eight-month delay was unusual. Clarke explained, &quot;[i]t is unusual when you are being told every day there is an urgent threat.&quot;(12)
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

and...

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">
Sibel Edmonds, a translator with the FBI, indicates &quot;that it was clear there was sufficient information during the spring and summer of 2001 to indicate terrorists were planning an attack.&quot;

&quot;President Bush said they had no specific information about 11 September and that is accurate but only because he said 11 September,&quot; she said. There was, however, general information about the use of airplanes and that an attack was just months away.
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

Sorry... they MAY not have know the date... but they knew something was coming and basically did NOTHING...

There is something else that bothers me:

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">
Rice spoke with a New York Times reporter after the briefing who then reported that &quot;Berger met with his successor, Condoleezza Rice, and gave her a warning. According to both of them, he said that the war on terrorism - and particularly Mr. bin Laden&#39;s brand of it - would consume far more of her time than she had ever imagined.&quot;

The Bush administration ignored this warning, focusing on Star Wars and restructuring the military instead. In fact, Rumsfeld threatened a veto when Congress proposed to shift &#036;0.6 billion from Star Wars to counter-terror programs.
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

and...

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">
Documents indicate that before Sept. 11, 2001, the Bush Administration &quot;did not give terrorism top billing in their strategic plans for the Justice Department, which includes the FBI.&quot; Gen. Henry H. Shelton, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff until Oct. 1, 2001, said during the summer, terrorism had moved &quot;farther to the back burner&quot; and recounted how the Bush Administration&#39;s top two Pentagon appointees, Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz, &quot;shut down&quot; a plan to weaken the Taliban.

Similarly, Gen. Don Kerrick, who served in the Bush White House, sent a memo to the new Administration saying &quot;We are going to be struck again&quot; by al Qaeda, but he never heard back. He said terrorism was not &quot;above the waterline. They were gambling nothing would happen.&quot;
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

SOMETHING just isn&#39;t quite right about all this...

There is a rat in the walls here and I think it has to do with the White House connection to PNAC...

[N0PU]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (N0PU @ April 29 2004,18:41)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Rice spoke with a New York Times reporter after the briefing who then reported that &quot;Berger met with his successor, Condoleezza Rice, and gave her a warning. According to both of them, he said that the war on terrorism - and particularly Mr. bin Laden&#39;s brand of it - would consume far more of her time than she had ever imagined.&quot;

The Bush administration ignored this warning, focusing on Star Wars and restructuring the military instead. In fact, Rumsfeld threatened a veto when Congress proposed to shift &#036;0.6 billion from Star Wars to counter-terror programs.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
You know I just re-read that statement and it hit me... hit me square between the eyes...

Who the hell is Rumsfeld to threaten a veto...
Just who IS running the White House...

Let&#39;s see... It ain&#39;t Bush... Must be Cheny, Rumsfeld, Abrahms, Wolfowitz, and the rest of PNAC...

Doesn&#39;t this scare anyone but me?

[K6UEY]

Conspiracy Theories are like rear ends,everyone has one of their own&#33;&#33;

[K6UEY]

N8LXR,
Tim I read your posting (all of it ) and I agree you are taking the approach that is correct for you,and I thank you for sticking to the Liberterian vote,I also will be voting for the candidate that I feel can and will do the job in the manner in which I believe is the best policy for this country,G.W. and I both thank you for your ballot.

[K6UEY]

In reality the title of this topic is rather absurd.To anyone who has come out of a cave into the daylight in the last 3 years can asses President Bush&#39;s record. Any one unable to see what has been accomplished is either totally biased (which I believe was the motivation) or they are totally blind. Just as the &quot;GIMMIE&quot; generation wants some one to spoon feed them radio theory,the liberal contingent would like to demonize the accomplishments by liberal application of their bias.
I for one am quite satisfied with the progress this administration has accomplished in only 3 + years. Considerating the chaos and disarray both foreign and domestic left by the previous administration to accomplish all that was promised in the first 100 days is some what remarkable.Iam willing to give him the next 4 years to complete #the programs started.

[K4KYV]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (N0PU @ April 22 2004,19:58)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">He DID go into Afghanistan and clean house...
It was, IMHO, a good call...

The problem is:

1. ANY president would have done the same thing given the situation.
2. Then he screwed it up with the Iraqi thing...

Too bad too...he was on a roll...

If he had just put the money used for Iraq into education and other domestic needs, I think he would be a shoe in for November...[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
This is to call your attention to one widely overlooked &quot;hidden Iraq war tax.&quot; #Have you attempted to buy building materials lately? #Plywood has doubled in price since &quot;reconstruction&quot; began. #At the local building supply store, a #salesman pointed out a certain kind of sheathing material that went from about &#036;5 for a 4&#39;X8&#39; sheet to over &#036;25.

The explanation for these price hikes, I am told, is that material is being shipped to Iraq, leaving a domestic shortage.

No doubt the material shipped overseas was purchased through agencies of the government at inflated prices.

As for Bush, I suspect he would be Mr. Nobody by now if the events of 11 Sept 01 hadn&#39;t occurred.

[KA8NCR]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (K6UEY @ May 09 2004,05:20)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Considerating the chaos and disarray both foreign and domestic left by the previous administration to accomplish all that was promised in the first 100 days is some what remarkable.Iam willing to give him the next 4 years to complete the programs started.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
I was right with you until this part. Let me help you understand what happens when the chickens of past foreign policy come home to roost.

What comes quickly to mind out of other administrations is the disaster in Afghanistan where the United States used it to hold its covert war against the Soviets. And when the war was over, we quickly called our CIA operatives home and dusted our hands of the situation. Talk about chaos and disarray, the country was an open invitation to Muslim fundamentalists who eventually took up residence and used it as a terrorist training camp.

Even worse, the way the US simply abandoned the country lead to one of the three main objections Osama Bin Laden has with the US. You know, he&#39;s right -- we used Afghanistan to stick a fork in the eye of the Soviets and when it was over, we left the country strewn with mines (provided by us) and no hope.

We all know how it plays out from there. You can thank Bush I for this blunder. So you can see, bad policy just didn&#39;t happen in the Clinton years.

Just wait for the Iraq legacy.

[N0PU]

LXR:

Did you notice that both UEY and MIV thanked you for voting Libertarian... Can&#39;t you see why... You are taking a vote away from the only candidate who can beat them...

Their neocon buddies will make it back into the white house and the world will continue to be turned upside down with globalist viewpoints and actions...

I truely admire your stand, I&#39;m just sorry that it works against everything you believe in... A vote for the liberatarian candidate is a vote for Bush, PNAC, and their neocon ideas... It really is sad, but it is true... Our neocon buddies on here are overjoyed at your opting to not vote against their candidate...

[kc0ebm]

LXR,

While I disagree with your phylosophy of &quot;military isolationism&quot;, I must say that your argument is the most rational one that I&#39;ve seen.

Despite the disagreement, you&#39;ve earned my respect.

Thanks for your post.

73

Tom

[AI4EP]

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif ...or is it more like the old saying &quot; dont DO as we do, do as we SAY &quot; ??

[N0PU]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (N8LXR @ May 09 2004,19:54)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Kerry and Bush are in a statistical dead heat despite the Bush campaign&#39;s unprecedented advertising blitz at this point in the campaign and this indicator does not take into account the recent Iraqi prisoner controversy. If you add to this that Kerry is not really running a strong campaign at this point, Bush&#39;s overall vulnerability becomes more apparent.)

TP[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Thanks for the info...

I&#39;m not as politically astute as you and don&#39;t pretend to be... I just know when I smell a rat... Your information made my day...

One can only hope the Neocons don&#39;t do something REALLY stupid just to get re-elected...

Its going to be interesting to see how the Libertarians do on election day... A large vote increase for that party may very well send a message that America is very pissed off...