From: JDG [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
At 02:06 PM 9/7/2004 +1000 Andrew Paul wrote:
I still want someone to tell me what Iraq has to do with terrorism,
Or 'had' to do with terrorism, as it may well have a lot to do with it
in the future. I wish people would stop saying terrorism and Iraq in
the
There are a couple plausible interpretations of his
comment:
D) Bush was speaking realistically, but talks about
winning the war as election day double speak.
Damon.
=
Damon Agretto
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Qui desiderat pacem,
Behalf Of Doug Pensinger
JDG wrote:
It was a clear misspeak and retracted immediately. I am
sure that you
have never misspoken... just like you would never question
the patriotism
of *your* political opponents.
It was not a misstatement, he was speaking his mind and in
fact
On Sep 12, 2004, at 11:39 AM, Horn, John wrote:
Behalf Of Doug Pensinger
JDG wrote:
It was a clear misspeak and retracted immediately. I am
sure that you
have never misspoken... just like you would never question
the patriotism
of *your* political opponents.
It was not a misstatement, he was
Behalf Of Warren Ockrassa
In my mind, that's exactly what Cheney just did.
While you're 100% correct about Cheney (IMO), I think the above
discussion is in reference to Bush's statement that we won't win
the
war. (Taken to mean we won't win in the battle in Iraq.)
Yeah, I realized
At 09:36 AM 9/12/2004 -0700 Damon Agretto wrote:
There are a couple plausible interpretations of his
comment:
D) Bush was speaking realistically, but talks about
winning the war as election day double speak.
Option D doesn't even come close to explaining why Bush has described the
war as
Option D doesn't even come close to explaining why
Bush has described the
war as winnable just about every other day since
9/11.
Why on earth would he do anything other than describe
the war as winnable? How many votes do you think he
would get if every time he talked about the subject he
JDG wrote:
Lastly, in regards to Saudi Arabia - I agree with you that Saudi Arabia
is a real problam. I think, however, that it would have been suicidal
to
American interests to apply pressure to the Saudi regime so long as
Saddam Hussein remained in power. Quite simply, one Party is for
JDG wrote:
It was a clear misspeak and retracted immediately. I am sure that you
have never misspoken... just like you would never question the patriotism
of *your* political opponents.
It was not a misstatement, he was speaking his mind and in fact agree with
his logic (and not with Kerry's.)
At 12:45 AM 9/11/2004 -0700 Doug Pensinger wrote:
Maybe if they nuked NYC _and_ DC?
That's a low blow. :-(
JDG
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
On Sat, 11 Sep 2004 08:09:32 -0400, JDG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 12:45 AM 9/11/2004 -0700 Doug Pensinger wrote:
Maybe if they nuked NYC _and_ DC?
That's a low blow. :-(
Sorry. I see what you mean, but that's not how I meant it. Those are
just the two most likely targets, IMO.
--
Doug
Doug Pensinger wrote:
Maybe if they nuked NYC _and_ DC?
That's a low blow. :-(
Sorry. I see what you mean, but that's not how I meant it. Those are
just the two most likely targets, IMO.
If I were a muslim nuclear terrorist, I would nuke _Las Vegas_. Much
less civilian victims, and
At 12:54 AM 9/11/2004 -0700 Doug Pensinger wrote:
It was not a misstatement, he was speaking his mind and in fact agree with
his logic (and not with Kerry's.) Furthermore, he did not immediately
retract the statement, he did so the next day.
Bush has said we'll win the war on terror every day
At 02:06 PM 9/7/2004 +1000 Andrew Paul wrote:
I still want someone to tell me what Iraq has to do with terrorism,
Or 'had' to do with terrorism, as it may well have a lot to do with it
in the future. I wish people would stop saying terrorism and Iraq in
the same sentence, or else explain, with the
On Sep 10, 2004, at 5:41 AM, JDG wrote:
At 02:06 PM 9/7/2004 +1000 Andrew Paul wrote:
I still want someone to tell me what Iraq has to do with terrorism,
Or 'had' to do with terrorism, as it may well have a lot to do with it
in the future. I wish people would stop saying terrorism and Iraq in
the
On Fri, 10 Sep 2004 08:41:13 -0400, JDG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 02:06 PM 9/7/2004 +1000 Andrew Paul wrote:
I still want someone to tell me what Iraq has to do with terrorism,
Or 'had' to do with terrorism, as it may well have a lot to do with it
in the future. I wish people would stop
Warren Ockrassa wrote:
1) Following September 11th, it was clear that letting failed States
fester posed a threat to the United States.
Oh quit it. What about North Korea, Pakistan or the rapidly re-emergent
Russia? I find it baffling that those who advocate bombing the hell out
if Iraq
On Sep 10, 2004, at 3:39 PM, Alberto Monteiro wrote:
Warren Ockrassa wrote:
1) Following September 11th, it was clear that letting failed States
fester posed a threat to the United States.
Oh quit it. What about North Korea, Pakistan or the rapidly
re-emergent
Russia? I find it baffling that
On Tue, 07 Sep 2004 22:27:05 -0400, JDG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I guess you didn't hear that he said the war wasn't winnable the other day.
It was a clear misspeak and retracted immediately. I am sure that you
have never misspoken... just like you would never question the patriotism
of
On Sep 6, 2004, at 3:13 PM, Doug Pensinger wrote:
Robert wrote:
http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/9584265.htm
Two of the Sept. 11, 2001, hijackers had a support network in the
United States that included agents of the Saudi government, and the
Bush administration and FBI blocked a congressional
On Mon, 06 Sep 2004 22:38:09 -0700, Doug Pensinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
JDG wrote:
Winning this war motivates every decision with regards to terrorism
alerts and counter-intelligence that is made.And anyone who thinks
otherwise
has a particularly craven view of politics.
You
At 11:35 PM 9/6/2004 -0500 Robert Seeberger wrote:
JDG wrote:
At 10:32 PM 9/6/2004 -0500 Robert Seeberger wrote:
I dunno John. There are even a lot of republicans talking trash
about
Bush.
Like who?93% of Republicans claim to be voting for him.And I
know of no Republican who has
JDG wrote:
At 06:55 PM 9/6/2004 -0700 Doug Pensinger wrote:
That presumes a cover-up.
It doesn't presume a cover up. It presumes what Grahm says is true. If
it's true then there _is_ a cover up. So prove him wrong.
Uh yeah that's what I said. If, however, what Graham is saying is
not
JDG wrote:
At 11:35 PM 9/6/2004 -0500 Robert Seeberger wrote:
JDG wrote:
At 10:32 PM 9/6/2004 -0500 Robert Seeberger wrote:
I dunno John. There are even a lot of republicans talking trash
about
Bush.
Like who?93% of Republicans claim to be voting for him.And
I
know of no
At 07:13 PM 9/7/2004 -0500 Robert Seeberger wrote:
Lets make a point of looking at the voter breakdown after the
election.
Sure. In the meantime, Bush is consistently polling the support of 90%+
of Republicans, which is quite good by historical standards.
JDG
Well, sorry Doug, I guess that you are just going to have to live with my
conclusion that you are a hypocrite on this issue. Quite simply, I have
found your arguments that somehow Bush is a traitor working on behalf of
our enemies, whereas the Repubicans have unacceptably impugned the
patriotism
At 10:38 PM 9/6/2004 -0700 Doug Pensinger wrote:
Winning this war motivates every decision with regards to terrorism
alerts and counter-intelligence that is made.And anyone who thinks
otherwise
has a particularly craven view of politics.
I guess you didn't hear that he said the war
Robert wrote:
http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/9584265.htm
Two of the Sept. 11, 2001, hijackers had a support network in the
United States that included agents of the Saudi government, and the
Bush administration and FBI blocked a congressional investigation into
that relationship, Sen. Bob
Robert wrote:
Two of the Sept. 11, 2001, hijackers had a support network in the
United States that included agents of the Saudi government, and the
Bush administration and FBI blocked a congressional investigation into
that relationship, Sen. Bob Graham wrote in a book to be released
Tuesday.
IMO
On 6 Sep 2004, at 11:13 pm, Doug Pensinger wrote:
Robert wrote:
http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/9584265.htm
Two of the Sept. 11, 2001, hijackers had a support network in the
United States that included agents of the Saudi government, and the
Bush administration and FBI blocked a congressional
William wrote:
Which enemy?
(There must be a pun about enemas in there somewhere...)
Well, the only way we're likely to get aid and comfort in the coming years
is to give the executive branch a double dose of barium up the old wazoo,
but the Saudi thing goes beyond mere politics. If the
At 03:13 PM 9/6/2004 -0700 Doug Pensinger wrote:
Two of the Sept. 11, 2001, hijackers had a support network in the
United States that included agents of the Saudi government, and the
Bush administration and FBI blocked a congressional investigation into
that relationship, Sen. Bob Graham wrote
JDG wrote:
This is aid and comfort to the enemy, IMO.
Not that you would *ever* question the patriotism of _your_ political
opponents.
JDG - Uh huh, Maru
OK, John, justify the cover up. Please.
--
Doug
___
At 05:52 PM 9/6/2004 -0700 Doug Pensinger wrote:
This is aid and comfort to the enemy, IMO.
Not that you would *ever* question the patriotism of _your_ political
opponents.
JDG - Uh huh, Maru
OK, John, justify the cover up. Please.
That presumes a cover-up.
All I am pointing out,
JDG wrote:
That presumes a cover-up.
It doesn't presume a cover up. It presumes what Grahm says is true. If
it's true then there _is_ a cover up. So prove him wrong.
All I am pointing out, Doug, is that you have been the *most sensitive*
and the *loudest* person on this List to any perceived
JDG wrote:
President Bush knows that this country is at war. He specifically
gambled his entire Presidency on attacking Iraq because he deeply
felt it was the right and necessary thing to do. You may disagree
with the accuracy of his judgement on this, but you certainly cannot
doubt his
At 10:32 PM 9/6/2004 -0500 Robert Seeberger wrote:
JDG wrote:
President Bush knows that this country is at war. He specifically
gambled his entire Presidency on attacking Iraq because he deeply
felt it was the right and necessary thing to do. You may disagree
with the accuracy of his
From: JDG [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
The Democrats have such a craven view of politics that they
believe that the Republicans could place the nation on a
terrorism alert in order to
deflate their opponents' poll numbers. Now, we find that Democrats
believe that the Republicans would
Behalf Of JDG
This is aid and comfort to the enemy, IMO.
Not that you would *ever* question the patriotism of _your_
political
opponents.
I think there is just a *little* bit of difference in scope between
questioning someone's patriotism because they criticized the
President and this
JDG wrote:
At 10:32 PM 9/6/2004 -0500 Robert Seeberger wrote:
I dunno John. There are even a lot of republicans talking trash
about
Bush.
Like who?93% of Republicans claim to be voting for him.And I
know of no Republican who has called Bush a *traitor* - the single
most heinous
Horn, John wrote:
Behalf Of JDG
This is aid and comfort to the enemy, IMO.
Not that you would *ever* question the patriotism of _your_
political
opponents.
I think there is just a *little* bit of difference in scope between
questioning someone's patriotism because they criticized the
JDG wrote:
Winning this war motivates every decision with regards to terrorism
alerts and counter-intelligence that is made.And anyone who thinks
otherwise
has a particularly craven view of politics.
I guess you didn't hear that he said the war wasn't winnable the other day.
No time for a
42 matches
Mail list logo
