Bob Woodward. That is where I get the information that there was
really never any other plan. You should consider a look :)
And hate... you have been hanging around with Sam too much :) Just
because I think Bush is of limited intelligence, willing to bend the
truth to the screaming point and a hypocrite who is allowing himself
to be used for his buddies' profit doesn't mean I *hate* the man. Do I
think he is dangerous in the Oval Office though, yes,absolutely.
Dana
----- Original Message -----
From: Andy Ousterhout <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 4 Aug 2004 16:49:47 -0500
Subject: RE: Kerry's record in Senate
To: CF-Community <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
How do you know that the only plan that exists is to attack Iraq? This is not
something that should be public knowledge. And planning is not war.
While I am trying to understand Kerry, do the same for Bush. Take off your
"hate him" glasses and start viewing his actions in a balanced light. You do
yourself a disservice to let anyone push you to such extents that you loose
all objectivity.
I am done with this thread.
Andy
-----Original Message-----
From: dana tierney [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, August 04, 2004 4:38 PM
To: CF-Community
Subject: Re: Kerry's record in Senate
Plans are good. However when the plan is to attack Iraq and only to
attack Iraq it begins to look like the answer to a lot of things to
which it is not in fact an answer.
Also, isn't there something in the Constitution about Congress
declaring war... be nice if they were at least informed if not
consulted :)
Dana
----- Original Message -----
From: Andy Ousterhout <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 4 Aug 2004 16:28:56 -0500
Subject: RE: Kerry's record in Senate
To: CF-Community <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Dana,
I am not sure where you are going with this. Would you prefer we as a
country
didn't plan? My guess and hope is that the military has attack plans for
most potential actions out there. After Kuwait, we should have had an
ongoing
plan in case Sadaam went astray again. To not have such plans ready would
be
negligence.
It is also my guess that these plans are not regularly reviewed with the
President. When the President states this, is it possible that he meant
that
he is not planning one? How would your perspective change if you found out
that the plan pre-dates Bush?
I continue to see a bunch of people whom only own a hammer and therefore
every
screw they see looks like a nail.
Also, it was my hope that this thread had died. Then there you go again,
jumping in late and awakening the dead <g>
Andy
-----Original Message-----
From: dana tierney [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, August 04, 2004 4:06 PM
To: CF-Community
Subject: Re: Kerry's record in Senate
how can you abuse something that gives you almost unlimited power?
Remember this statement comes from the administration of a man who
eight months into planning the invasion of Iraq (at least -- more if
you believe those who say planning predated 9/11) was still
maintaining that there was no plan of attack on his desk. Ya. It was
on Cheney's desk. Or maybe Rice's.
Dana
----- Original Message -----
From: Kevin Graeme <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 4 Aug 2004 09:18:04 -0500
Subject: Re: Kerry's record in Senate
To: CF-Community <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Uh huh. IMO, ust because she was part of the Clinton administration
doesn't make her automatically right. Waco, clipper chip, etc.
-Kevin
On Tue, 3 Aug 2004 14:36:20 -0700 (PDT), Sam Morris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> There is no abuse of the Patriot Act. None.
Yeah, that's right. Snatch and grab of US citizens and holding them
without reprsentation or even admitting who they were wasn't an abuse
of power and totally unconstitutional. No, not at all. Oh wait, not an
"abuse of the Patriot Act". Well yeah, maybe that's true.
-Kevin
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings] [Donations and Support]
