Page 1 of 7 123456 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 130
  1.    #1  
    boxer to rice: " your loyalty to the administration blinds you from being able to determine the truth regarding iraq ( in so many words)

    in other words : "YOUR A LIAR"

    rice: " I hope we can contine this discussion without impugning my integrity here. "

    boxer's response to rice's self-defense?

    "mrs rice ATTACKED me while I was interrogating her"


    here's where we step into the theatre of the ridiculous folks.

    boxer can outwardly call someone a liar. that's ok. that's not an attack, right?

    condy rice simply defends herself and suddenly boxer is the one who is attacked?

    you see, now this is the reason democrats are hurting themselves badly. these people can bad-mouth you until they can't breathe anymore - and we're supposed to be right as rain with that.
    but god forbid someone merely asserts themselves in response and suddenly a ridiculous individual like boxer tries to claim the victim attacked HER.

    of course kerry will vote nay, he's sour grapes. ted kennedy... well, we neednt really go further about him do we? watching him interrogate is like watching a convicted murderer chastize someone for robbing a candy store.

    I mean these people make you feel like you're watching jerry springer show. they're utterly ridiculous.
  2. #2  
    wah wah what are you crying about? Trying to start trouble or something?
    Last edited by Joebar; 01/25/2005 at 11:37 PM.
  3. g.711's Avatar
    Posts
    550 Posts
    Global Posts
    571 Global Posts
    #3  
    Who or HOW do the Boxers and Kennedy keep a jobs? Are people in those states tha blind? I may not believe in everything Bush and his group standsfor but I do believe that what Bush says, he in fact does believes.
  4.    #4  
    lol. im not crying about anything here. quite the contrary, im laughing at this because I have to make note of a ridiculous situation.

    im not attacking the whole party. it is perfectly fine to question rice about her job performance. we need checks and balances.

    but to behave like these INDIVIDUALS are behaving really makes them look silly.
    question the administration all you want - there is absolutely no problem with that. but to have the attacker claim she is the victim when she is the one who went out with the club in her hand is quite embarrassing behavior for a person of that public position to engage in.

    its not with the intent of "starting something" that I post this, but rather pointing out behavior which I find staggeringly juvenile for people in such important positions.
  5. Talldog's Avatar
    Posts
    157 Posts
    Global Posts
    291 Global Posts
    #5  
    I didn't get too excited about Boxer's original exchange with Rice. That kind of tough rhetoric goes on all the time at hearings like this, from both sides of the aisle. What made it interesting was that Rice definitely got the better of the exchange, which is what made the headlines, causing Boxer to go on TV and play the victim card. She came out of it looking like a fool.
    Talldog
  6. #6  
    Quote Originally Posted by treobk214
    boxer to rice: " your loyalty to the administration blinds you from being able to determine the truth regarding iraq ( in so many words)

    in other words : "YOUR A LIAR"
    true.

    rice: " I hope we can contine this discussion without impugning my integrity here. "
    no integrity to impugn.

    ..(snip).. these people can bad-mouth you until they can't breathe anymore - and we're supposed to be right as rain with that.
    please check out Limbaugh, O'Reilly, Carlson et al before you get to far into accusing someone of bad mouthing.

    I mean these people make you feel like you're watching jerry springer show. they're utterly ridiculous.
    you probably meant to say Rush Limbaugh.
  7. #7  
    Quote Originally Posted by g.711
    Who or HOW do the Boxers and Kennedy keep a jobs? Are people in those states tha blind? I may not believe in everything Bush and his group standsfor but I do believe that what Bush says, he in fact does believes.
    Don't know about Teddy, but ol' Babs gets re-elected because of two reasons. San Francisco, and Los Angeles.

    Speaking of San Fran, in Leftism gone amock, they're debating a tax on shopping bags. Yep, go to the grocery store, and you'll have to pay $.17 for those bags. All in the name of the environment of course.
    MaxiMunK.com The Forum That Asks, "Are You Not Entertained?"

    Remember: "Anyone that thinks the Treo should just work right out of the box, shouldn't own a Treo..."
  8. #8  
    Quote Originally Posted by g.711
    Who or HOW do the Boxers and Kennedy keep a jobs? Are people in those states tha blind? I may not believe in everything Bush and his group standsfor but I do believe that what Bush says, he in fact does believes.
    Boxer has huge support, she was the third top vote getter in the national election behind Bush and Kerry. There are many millions of people who like the way she called Rice out. Sure Rice will be confirmed anyway, but at least Boxer articulated what many of us feel.

    http://www.usatoday.com/news/politic...r_x.htm?csp=34
  9. #9  
    Quote Originally Posted by cellmatrix
    Boxer has huge support, she was the third top vote getter in the national election behind Bush and Kerry. There are many millions of people who like the way she called Rice out. Sure Rice will be confirmed anyway, but at least Boxer articulated what many of us feel.

    http://www.usatoday.com/news/politic...r_x.htm?csp=34
    Actually Boxer got ZERO votes in the national election.
    MaxiMunK.com The Forum That Asks, "Are You Not Entertained?"

    Remember: "Anyone that thinks the Treo should just work right out of the box, shouldn't own a Treo..."
  10. #10  
    Did Boxer or Kennedy ever ask a question?
    Curt

    StarTAC ST7868W w/ Motorola StarTAC Clipon Organizer; Treo 600; Treo 700P; Palm Pre Plus all on Verizon
  11. #11  
    I think Kennedy asked for a Scotch...
    MaxiMunK.com The Forum That Asks, "Are You Not Entertained?"

    Remember: "Anyone that thinks the Treo should just work right out of the box, shouldn't own a Treo..."
  12. #12  
    Quote Originally Posted by Insertion
    Actually Boxer got ZERO votes in the national election.
    Sorry about the grammar error, obviously she was not running for national office. I'll rephrase it, because I want you to be happy with it:


    Boxer got more total votes than anyone except Bush and Kerry during the last elections.

    6.4 million to be exact.
  13. #13  
    Hmm. I'd turn it around. How do people like Rice, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz keep their jobs. They're responsible for the biggest debacle the American government has created since Vietnam.

    And why do people keep voting for the likes of Bush, Dennis Hastert, and other Republican leaders when those leaders keep cutting services and benefits to the middle class so that they can reward their wealth campaign contributers with huge tax cuts, anti-worker law and regulation changes, and the biggest deficits in our Nation's history (both by dollar and percentage of the total budget).
    Bob Meyer
    I'm out of my mind. But feel free to leave a message.
  14. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
    #14  
    are we talking about the same "Mushroom Cloud Condi"? The same lady that PUT OFF a top cabinet meeting for terrorism for NINE months? Same lady that thought space lasers was more important than stopping bin laden? Is this the same lady that lied, yes LIED through her teeth. Believe me you can squeeze some whoppers through those teeth. Let me give you some examples of her fine work:

    Pre-9/11 Intelligence

    CLAIM: "I don't think anybody could have predicted that they would try to use an airplane as a missile, a hijacked airplane as a missile." – National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, 5/16/02
    FACT: On August 6, 2001, the President personally "received a one-and-a-half page briefing advising him that Osama bin Laden was capable of a major strike against the US, and that the plot could include the hijacking of an American airplane." In July 2001, the Administration was also told that terrorists had explored using airplanes as missiles. [Source: NBC, 9/10/02; LA Times, 9/27/01]
    CLAIM: In May 2002, Rice held a press conference to defend the Administration from new revelations that the President had been explicitly warned about an al Qaeda threat to airlines in August 2001. She "suggested that Bush had requested the briefing because of his keen concern about elevated terrorist threat levels that summer." [Source: Washington Post, 3/25/04]
    FACT: According to the CIA, the briefing "was not requested by President Bush." As commissioner Richard Ben-Veniste disclosed, "the CIA informed the panel that the author of the briefing does not recall such a request from Bush and that the idea to compile the briefing came from within the CIA." [Source: Washington Post, 3/25/04]
    CLAIM: "In June and July when the threat spikes were so high…we were at battle stations." – National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, 3/22/04
    FACT: "Documents indicate that before Sept. 11, Ashcroft did not give terrorism top billing in his strategic plans for the Justice Department, which includes the FBI. A draft of Ashcroft's 'Strategic Plan' from Aug. 9, 2001, does not put fighting terrorism as one of the department's seven goals, ranking it as a sub-goal beneath gun violence and drugs. By contrast, in April 2000, Ashcroft's predecessor, Janet Reno, called terrorism 'the most challenging threat in the criminal justice area.'" Meanwhile, the Bush Administration decided to terminate "a highly classified program to monitor Al Qaeda suspects in the United States." [Source: Washington Post, 3/22/04; Newsweek, 3/21/04]
    CLAIM: "The fact of the matter is [that] the administration focused on this before 9/11." – National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, 3/22/04
    FACT: President Bush and Vice President Cheney's counterterrorism task force, which was created in May, never convened one single meeting. The President himself admitted that "I didn't feel the sense of urgency" about terrorism before 9/11. [Source: Washington Post, 1/20/02; Bob Woodward's "Bush at War"]
    CLAIM: "Our [pre-9/11 NSPD] plan called for military options to attack al Qaeda and Taliban leadership, ground forces and other targets -- taking the fight to the enemy where he lived." – National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, 3/22/04
    FACT: 9/11 Commissioner Gorelick: "There is nothing in the NSPD that came out that we could find that had an invasion plan, a military plan." Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage: "Right." Gorelick: "Is it true, as Dr. Rice said, 'Our plan called for military options to attack Al Qaida and Taliban leadership'?" Armitage: "No, I think that was amended after the horror of 9/11." [Source: 9/11 Commission testimony, 3/24/04]
    Condi Rice on Pre-9/11 Counterterrorism Funding

    CLAIM: "The president increased counterterrorism funding several-fold" before 9/11. – National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, 3/24/04
    FACT: According to internal government documents, the first full Bush budget for FY2003 "did not endorse F.B.I. requests for $58 million for 149 new counterterrorism field agents, 200 intelligence analysts and 54 additional translators" and "proposed a $65 million cut for the program that gives state and local counterterrorism grants." Newsweek noted the Administration "vetoed a request to divert $800 million from missile defense into counterterrorism." [Source: New York Times, 2/28/04; Newsweek, 5/27/02]
    Richard Clarke's Concerns

    CLAIM: "Richard Clarke had plenty of opportunities to tell us in the administration that he thought the war on terrorism was moving in the wrong direction and he chose not to." – National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, 3/22/04
    FACT: Clarke sent a memo to Rice principals on 1/24/01 marked "urgent" asking for a Cabinet-level meeting to deal with an impending al Qaeda attack. The White House acknowledges this, but says "principals did not need to have a formal meeting to discuss the threat." No meeting occurred until one week before 9/11. [Source: CBS 60 Minutes, 3/24/04; White House Press Release, 3/21/04
    CLAIM: "No al Qaeda plan was turned over to the new administration." – National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, 3/22/04
    FACT: "On January 25th, 2001, Clarke forwarded his December 2000 strategy paper and a copy of his 1998 Delenda plan to the new national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice." – 9/11 Commission staff report, 3/24/04
    Response to 9/11

    CLAIM: "The president launched an aggressive response after 9/11." – National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, 3/22/04
    FACT: "In the early days after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, the Bush White House cut by nearly two-thirds an emergency request for counterterrorism funds by the FBI, an internal administration budget document shows. The papers show that Ashcroft ranked counterterrorism efforts as a lower priority than his predecessor did, and that he resisted FBI requests for more counterterrorism funding before and immediately after the attacks." [Source: Washington Post, 3/22/04]
    9/11 and Iraq Invasion Plans

    CLAIM: "Not a single National Security Council principal at that meeting recommended to the president going after Iraq. The president thought about it. The next day he told me Iraq is to the side." – National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, 3/22/04
    FACT: According to the Washington Post, "six days after the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, President Bush signed a 2-and-a-half-page document marked 'TOP SECRET'" that "directed the Pentagon to begin planning military options for an invasion of Iraq." This is corroborated by a CBS News, which reported on 9/4/02 that five hours after the 9/11 attacks, "Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld was telling his aides to come up with plans for striking Iraq." [Source: Washington Post, 1/12/03. CBS News, 9/4/02]
    Iraq and WMD

    CLAIM: "It's not as if anybody believes that Saddam Hussein was without weapons of mass destruction." – National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, 3/18/04
    FACT: The Bush Administration's top weapons inspector David Kay "resigned his post in January, saying he did not believe banned stockpiles existed before the invasion" and has urged the Bush Administration to "come clean" about misleading America about the WMD threat. [Source: Chicago Tribune, 3/24/04; UK Guardian, 3/3/04]
    9/11-al Qaeda-Iraq Link

    CLAIM: "The president returned to the White House and called me in and said, I've learned from George Tenet that there is no evidence of a link between Saddam Hussein and 9/11." – National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, 3/22/04
    FACT: If this is true, then why did the President and Vice President repeatedly claim Saddam Hussein was directly connected to 9/11? President Bush sent a letter to Congress on 3/19/03 saying that the Iraq war was permitted specifically under legislation that authorized force against "nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11." Similarly, Vice President Cheney said on 9/14/03 that "It is not surprising that people make that connection" between Iraq and the 9/11 attacks, and said "we don't know" if there is a connection. [Source: BBC, 9/14/03]

    These are just a few.

    Next up who stood to make money from this war? Let's start with bush himself shall we? We got poopy Bush in The Carlyle Group. As we know the stock price went up with this terrible war. Which in turn enriches The Bush FAMILY! Next up Cheney, Halliburton: Sure you might say oh no not the ol' Halliburton thing. But if we really think about it it makes alot of sense, what do they do? They are an OIL field services corp. If any of you think that Cheney does not have a job offer after these 4 years you are as gullible as you are dumb for thinking that. NEXT, Condeleeza Rice: She was on the board of directors of Chevron, hell, she has an oil tanker named after her. What can Chevron stand to gain from this war? OIL. The list goes on.



    Also why did we get started in this war? I think it was the PNAC who pressed the war. Do you know who that is? Well here is a link to these fine peoples website here . Now pay close attention to the date of the letter, who it addressed to, and who signed it. Any of those names look familuar?


    This is one of most corrupt, disgraceful, greedy, backwards administrations I have ever read about. I just don't see how you guys/gals can stand behind all this crap. He "Bush" speaks of spreading "Freedom" and "Elections" why not start with Saudi Arabia!! Why oh they are connected with BUSH, think Bandar Bush. How bout' Pakistan Let's force them to have elections!! How bout' China, North Korea, and Cuba to name a few. Hell why we are at let's impose our views of what people should be across the world.
  15.    #15  
    ok, nrg. let's flashback. terrorism started with clinton. in the 90's - wtc.. do we REALLY have to go into this AGAIN?
    there were 2 attacks on the wtc. shouldn't that administration at that time started bolstering airport security with major overhauls in light of the fact that we are now being actively and repeatedly targeted for bombing attacks - and that it would make sense that they would try EVERY vehicle as potential bomb to drop the trade center then?

    huh, nrg?

    why don't you chastize the former administration as backward in its responses to terrorist attacks in ny and on the us cole when they were going on ALL AROUND THEM?!!

    you don't think doing nothing is backward? unbelievable.

    mushroom cloud clinton might as well have simply invite bin lade for a tour of all every level of the trade center for the amount of prevention he actively sought for us.

    you don't think standing by while we're being attacked is backward, huh? lol. ok, whatever.

    how about somalia? how about... oh you know what, this is tiring. we've been over this so many times its boring, but still you'd rather focus on how this is all rice's or bush's fault.

    whatever you wanna do, nrg. its your world too, I guess. I will certainly agree to strongly disagree with you - let's just say that.
  16.    #16  
    I appreciate your comments, chickdance. likewise I enjoy your contributions as well and think you bring a lot to this forum. easy to see this as many of your threads are very popular with the members of t/c.
    I don't take it as a personal attack, I realize you disagree with my positions here and there's no problem with that. you're right - democracy is a great thing.

    regarding smearing all democrats - I basically was speaking to how felt about Boxer's comments about Rice after the interrogation - that Rice attacked her.
    I wasn't directing my statements toward ALL democrats, just those in particular whom I mentioned above. there are democrats who I feel are terrific people. no doubt. I disagree with them on many things, but I still feel that certain democrats are good for america. others I don't feel this way about and I know you feel that way about many ( probably all) republicans wink. I don't know.

    but thankyou for your comments, chick. I enjoy your exchanges here as well. cheers.
  17. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
    #17  
    Quote Originally Posted by treobk214
    ok, nrg. let's flashback. terrorism started with clinton. in the 90's - wtc.. do we REALLY have to go into this AGAIN?
    yes I think we should. How bout it started with Carter and Nursed to health by the Reagan Admin. See here Let's not start this in the 90's on Clinton's watch.

    Quote Originally Posted by treobk214
    there were 2 attacks on the wtc. shouldn't that administration at that time started bolstering airport security with major overhauls in light of the fact that we are now being actively and repeatedly targeted for bombing attacks - and that it would make sense that they would try EVERY vehicle as potential bomb to drop the trade center then?
    Well let's clear this up. The perps that did the bombing of the WTC have been convicted in a court of law and are now in jail. Just in 2 years Clinton was able to do that. Where is Bin Laden? Where are the perps that commited acts against the towers on Bush's watch? How many perps have been convicted in a court of law for the 2001 attack? I'll tell you how many convictions there have been ...........ZERO, that's right ZERO convictions for the 2001 attack.

    How bout' when Clinton sent tomahawk cruise missiles into Afghanistan? I bet you were one of the people yelling "Wag the Dog", "Wag the Dog" during the Lewinsky thing.

    Quote Originally Posted by treobk214
    huh, nrg?
    See above

    Quote Originally Posted by treobk214
    why don't you chastize the former administration as backward in its responses to terrorist attacks in ny and on the us cole when they were going on ALL AROUND THEM?!!
    From Wikipedia:
    Then-President Bill Clinton declared, "If, as it now appears, this was an act of terrorism, it was a despicable and cowardly act. We will find out who was responsible and hold them accountable." As defined under U.S. law, this attack was not an "act of terrorism," since it was an attack on a military target, no matter who the perpetrators may be. The popular media and many government agencies did not make this distinction and many consider the bombing to be terrorism. Regardless, no known direct military action was taken by the United States. The attack is considered to be an example of the effective application of asymmetrical warfare.
    Plus not to mention a new admin was going to be sworn in and this was handed off to the new Bush admin. So where was the RETALIATION?

    Quote Originally Posted by treobk214
    you don't think doing nothing is backward? unbelievable.

    mushroom cloud clinton might as well have simply invite bin lade for a tour of all every level of the trade center for the amount of prevention he actively sought for us.

    you don't think standing by while we're being attacked is backward, huh? lol. ok, whatever.

    how about somalia? how about... oh you know what, this is tiring. we've been over this so many times its boring, but still you'd rather focus on how this is all rice's or bush's fault.

    whatever you wanna do, nrg. its your world too, I guess. I will certainly agree to strongly disagree with you - let's just say that.
    You are probaly right. There is blame on both sides. But I hold the Bush administration directly responsible because they had enough forewarning (see Aug. 6th PDB see here )
    Quote Originally Posted by treobk214
    that time started bolstering airport security with major overhauls in light of the fact that we are now being actively and repeatedly targeted
    Also this was about Rice being a good choice for SoS. Which I think she is...............for Bush, because she is a loyalist and will never tell him anything he doesn't want to hear. Look she was a cheerleader for the war plain and simple. She knew the intelligence was flawed, she just didn't care. Loyality is better than truth within the Bush Admin. This I hold them responsible for over 100,000 dead Iraqi civilians, 1,300 1,400 dead AMERICAN soldiers, and over 13,000 wounded. Tell me why are we in Iraq again. The orignal reason and not refried version.

    Again Just my opinion
    Last edited by NRG; 01/26/2005 at 03:32 PM.
  18.    #18  
    to answer your question regarding where the perps who are responsible for 9/11 are, my answer to that is straightforward - DEAD.

    where is bin laden. that, nrg, IS a good question. I cannot understand why we, a nation about to plant a satellite onto a comet hurdling through space at a clip of 40,000 miles per hour, can't find a primitively cloaked outlaw in the afghanistan mountains.
    I don't understand that either. it is my feeling that nasa should be temporarily redirected from space toward locating bin laden, if they are capable of such incredible human achievements.
    why are we in iraq? well, we trusted flawed intelligence which was accepted across the board by democrats and republicans alike. if I remember correctly, kerry was every bit as gung-ho for the war in iraq as bush was, if not more so at one point in time.
    Im not sure if anyone really knew what the true story was until sometime well after the invasion was begun. sure, im certain gw wanted to oust hussein bc of the prior assassination attempt on his father, but I think terrorism and its possible implications with iraq based on faulty intelligence bolstered our decision to go in.
    looking at iraq now, I believe we have to consider leaving very soon. im tired of americans dying over there. once the elections are achieved and a semblance of iraqi security is organized, we are OUTTA THERE.
    that, to me, is just how it ought to be. I realize the horrendous debt we as a nation are in right now. the american dollar value is plummeting in comparison to the value of the euro, and the stock market is reflecting this. given so much debt, the value of the american dollar is beginning to be affected, which worries me.
    so, as a result of that, I think it is time we pack up and come back home from iraq. why are we there? we went in because in my opinion it did not appear far from possible that someone like hussein wouldn't collaborate with terrorist minds such as bin laden.
  19. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
    #19  
    Quote Originally Posted by treobk214
    to answer your question regarding where the perps who are responsible for 9/11 are, my answer to that is straightforward - DEAD.

    where is bin laden. that, nrg, IS a good question. I cannot understand why we, a nation about to plant a satellite onto a comet hurdling through space at a clip of 40,000 miles per hour, can't find a primitively cloaked outlaw in the afghanistan mountains.
    I don't understand that either. it is my feeling that nasa should be temporarily redirected from space toward locating bin laden, if they are capable of such incredible human achievements.
    why are we in iraq? well, we trusted flawed intelligence which was accepted across the board by democrats and republicans alike. if I remember correctly, kerry was every bit as gung-ho for the war in iraq as bush was, if not more so at one point in time.
    Im not sure if anyone really knew what the true story was until sometime well after the invasion was begun. sure, im certain gw wanted to oust hussein bc of the prior assassination attempt on his father, but I think terrorism and its possible implications with iraq based on faulty intelligence bolstered our decision to go in.
    looking at iraq now, I believe we have to consider leaving very soon. im tired of americans dying over there. once the elections are achieved and a semblance of iraqi security is organized, we are OUTTA THERE.
    that, to me, is just how it ought to be. I realize the horrendous debt we as a nation are in right now. the american dollar value is plummeting in comparison to the value of the euro, and the stock market is reflecting this. given so much debt, the value of the american dollar is beginning to be affected, which worries me.
    so, as a result of that, I think it is time we pack up and come back home from iraq. why are we there? we went in because in my opinion it did not appear far from possible that someone like hussein wouldn't collaborate with terrorist minds such as bin laden.
    I agree!

    Except if we did this every time (invade a country) we thought about possibilty of something happening, we would be very busy and overstreched. Have read about the OSP (Office of Special Plans) this where the flawed intelligence came from. Google should have plenty.

    BTW: Good debate
  20.    #20  
    regarding imposing ourselves on the world, I can see your argument there, however, I also see a very real threat in the fact that certain nations such as iran and syria are clear and present dangers.
    I mean, what would you do in these cases? is it wise to allow such nations with histories with terrorism to proceed in developing nuclear capabilities unchecked?
    what would switzerland or germany or any other globally responsible nation do as opposed to the approach the US is taking?
    do you share our concern with these regions of the world? should we let them achieve nuclear arms?
    dictatorships and the like, is it wise to allow these structures of govt to remain in place or is it wiser longterm to try to introduce better alternatives for people there who may be suffering horrifically under those regimes?
    sure we can't impose ourselves, but then on one hand if we look back in history has it ever been shown that leaving dictatorships in place has been a good thing?
    I understand your reservations with bush and that he might scare you with his expensive policies, but in another sense there is merit to removing malevolent govts from the world when they cumulatively only amount to a degradation of any progress the world is making on one level or another.
    these are tough questions, ones that I believe only time will prove to be right or wrong.
Page 1 of 7 123456 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions