Calling all Belgians

On 7 Apr 2007 08:55:22 -0700, "Bill C"
wrote:

I'm still amazed though that there hasn't been a much harder look and
more real digging by Congress. Then there's all the **** that the GAO
has found that seems to have been just ignored.

It's too early to say it's being ignored -- the problem is things have
just started. Leahy said recently that every stone he's looked under
he's found something untoward.

I think the media's doing a worse job on this thing. In the US
attorney scandal it was some liberal blogs that started things and the
mainstream media just laughed at them till it turned out that there
was something real there.

The MSM should not be giving the current administration the benefit of
the doubt on things they say as they have done, too often, in the
past. BushCo's track record doesn't support it.
--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

On Sat, 07 Apr 2007 14:10:05 -0400, John Forrest Tomlinson
wrote:

On Sat, 07 Apr 2007 11:26:25 -0400, Jack Hollis
wrote:

. Bush understands the threat posed by the
Islamists and is doing something about it.

Even if he undertands this threat better than anyone, what has he
accomplshed other than to help them recruit more people, and
demonstrated the limites of American power.

He's emboldened the enemy!

Sorry to respond to my own post, but that's what makes this presidency
the worst in years.

Their interpretation of what are real threats to the US is probably
wrong, but reasonable people could make arguments that support their
overall views (though not specifics of it -- we see from the post Bill
C gave recently that Cheney is stil either delusional or deceptive
about the Al Queda/Hussein link.)

But beyond their interpretation of priorities, we see incompetence
and/or corruption in the execution of policies. If a key goal is to
stop extremist Islamic terrorists, why are they helping extremist
Islamic terrorists grow in power? They don't have a clue what they
are doing.

--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

On Sat, 07 Apr 2007 14:10:05 -0400, John Forrest Tomlinson
wrote:

. Bush understands the threat posed by the
Islamists and is doing something about it.

Even if he undertands this threat better than anyone, what has he
accomplshed other than to help them recruit more people, and
demonstrated the limites of American power.

He's emboldened the enemy!


I could never understand thinking that you shouldn't fight your enemy
because it will make him mad. If radical Islamists want to come to
Iraq to blow themselves up for Al Qaeda, that's fine. Better than
having them do it somewhere else, like the US.

And the only ones that are emboldening the enemy are the defeatists in
Congress. They can give the Islamists something that they could never
gain on the battlefield -- victory. All the talk of withdrawal gives
the terrorists hope.

On Sat, 07 Apr 2007 14:42:58 -0400, Jack Hollis wrote:

On Sat, 07 Apr 2007 14:10:05 -0400, John Forrest Tomlinson
wrote:

. Bush understands the threat posed by the
Islamists and is doing something about it.

Even if he undertands this threat better than anyone, what has he
accomplshed other than to help them recruit more people, and
demonstrated the limites of American power.

He's emboldened the enemy!


I could never understand thinking that you shouldn't fight your enemy
because it will make him mad. If radical Islamists want to come to
Iraq to blow themselves up for Al Qaeda, that's fine. Better than
having them do it somewhere else, like the US.

And the only ones that are emboldening the enemy are the defeatists in
Congress. They can give the Islamists something that they could never
gain on the battlefield -- victory. All the talk of withdrawal gives
the terrorists hope.

Withdrawal gives the terrorists hope? And staying there does not? There
was never any terrorist - Iraq connection. We should've never been there
in the first place. Iraq is in a civil war, and we aren't helping Iraq.

--
Bob in CT

On Sat, 07 Apr 2007 14:42:58 -0400, Jack Hollis
wrote:

I could never understand thinking that you shouldn't fight your enemy
because it will make him mad.

Fighting the enemy in a controlled and measured way makes sense.
Fighting the enemy in a way that makes broader populations that are
not the enemy come to sympathise with or even join the enemy is, at
best, dopey.

The war in a Iraq is great for Al Quaeda recruiting.

--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

In article ,
Jack Hollis wrote:

On Fri, 06 Apr 2007 21:27:20 -0700, Howard Kveck
wrote:


Kerry was being vindictive and Bush made him look like a powerless
fool. It's called twisting the knife.

You thnk that Kerry was being vindictive, and say that in a way that
makes it seem obvious that you believe that was a bad thing, Jack. But then you
celebrate Bush for "twisting the knife", which I'd define as "being vindictive" -
wouldn't you think so too? Rubbing someone's nose in it is a good sign of
immaturity. But it does seem to be a big part of GWB's personality.

Kerry was the one who started this. Blocking the nomination of the
Ambassador of Belgium for personal political reasons is the height of
pettiness. Kerry should have realized that Bush would win in the end
send the nomination to the floor and thus not end up looking like a
fool.

Kerry didn't actually "block" the nomination. If you recall, Bush withdrew the
nomination after it was obvious that he was going to have a hard time getting the
needed votes. Anyway, Jack, you are predisposed to thinking Kerry looks like a
fool, so it doesn't surprise me that you enjoy Bush going around the end on this.
But to me, it looks like Bush got mad, said (essentially) that he was taking his
ball and going home, then came back after everyone was gone and shot a bunch of
baskets so he could claim the "win". He frequently comes across as a petulant child.

--
tanx,
Howard

Never take a tenant with a monkey.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

On Fri, 06 Apr 2007 18:09:34 -0400, John Forrest Tomlinson
wrote:

In any event at least Grant and Nixon accomplished far more
than Bush

Err, Bush accomplished a lot. Destructive stuff, but he got the screw
ups done, big time.

I was thinking more in line with things you want listed on your
obituary or official biography, not attack ads from the DNC.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

On Sat, 07 Apr 2007 11:19:13 +0200, Donald Munro
wrote:

But it's all true in the Kunich-Cheney Universe where there are no
relativistic reality bending effects due to liberal bias.

As in a liberal bias to at least attempt to be open to the truth?

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

In article ,
John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:

On Sat, 07 Apr 2007 14:10:05 -0400, John Forrest Tomlinson
wrote:

On Sat, 07 Apr 2007 11:26:25 -0400, Jack Hollis
wrote:

. Bush understands the threat posed by the
Islamists and is doing something about it.

Even if he undertands this threat better than anyone, what has he
accomplshed other than to help them recruit more people, and
demonstrated the limites of American power.

He's emboldened the enemy!

Sorry to respond to my own post, but that's what makes this presidency
the worst in years.

Their interpretation of what are real threats to the US is probably
wrong, but reasonable people could make arguments that support their
overall views (though not specifics of it -- we see from the post Bill
C gave recently that Cheney is stil either delusional or deceptive
about the Al Queda/Hussein link.)

But beyond their interpretation of priorities, we see incompetence
and/or corruption in the execution of policies. If a key goal is to
stop extremist Islamic terrorists, why are they helping extremist
Islamic terrorists grow in power? They don't have a clue what they
are doing.

Exactly right, John. There is one thing that about this that amazes me: the
people who supported the war and now see that it's a disaster who say that it was a
good idea that was badly executed. In other words, if the people doing the fighting
or planning or whatever hadn't been incompetent, everything would be coming up
daisys. Sorry, the incompetence defense doesn't fly - it was a terrible idea and
has been badly executed (and not because of anything the soldiers did - they've
almost always done a great job).

--
tanx,
Howard

Never take a tenant with a monkey.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

On Sat, 07 Apr 2007 11:26:25 -0400, Jack Hollis
wrote:


History will judge Bush differently from the small, petty people who
bite as his heels today. Bush understands the threat posed by the
Islamists and is doing something about it. His critics are foolish.
They may have the best of intentions, but they are fools nonetheless.

Yep. He's even better at recognizing the threat posed by what used to
be called freedoms and principles and lauded in such liberal rags as
the Readers Digest. Gonzales and Bush have pushed unconscious irony
right into comatose.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...