aspasia wrote in :
On 14 Oct 2006 00:57:22 GMT, Jim Yanik wrote:
"dpb" wrote in
groups.com:
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"dpb" wrote in message
ups.com...
wrote:
One might add that Chavez has been very generous in helping folks
with free heating oil ...
Not really much at all in the overall scheme of things. A few here
and there for the political advantage, not at all motivated by
actual humanitarian objectives says the cynic in me... 
No more of a political stunt than Bush sending out those tax rebate
checks at a time when he's spending like a drunken sailor with no end
in sight.
Defending the country is expensive.
Even moreso since the last administration neglected so much. B-)
Excuse me, but which country was attacking us? I mean, against which
country did we need to defend ourselves?
Does it have to be a COUNTRY that attacks us? What about countries that
support groups that attack us? Have you already forgotten 9-11?
There's a new paradigm in warfighting,if you haven't noticed.
And the Clinton admin neglected US defense in MANY ways,not just one.
He weakened the US Military,ignored terrorism -including many attacks
against the US by state-sponsored groups,not just 9-11.He depended on talk
and pieces of paper instead of concrete action,with people known to be
deceitful.
ISTR that a group of crazies armed with box cutters attacked us -
thanks to the utter stupidity and inattentiveness of our institutions,
who ignored the warnings of a few alert officials. Plus, of course,
the utter arrogance of the Administration, disregarding explicit
warnings..
Or Clinton letting OBL go unharmed.
Presumably the crazies were organized and funded under OBL auspices.
(and funded by Bush's good friends, the Saudis).
Created long before Bush was in office.
So why didn't we
follow up in Afg. rather than recklessly invade Iraq? The Admin.
deliberately failed to go after OBL when the military had definite
info of his whereabouts in Afg. Interesting...
Yes,since it was CLINTON who failed there.
Then when OBL fled into Pakistan,the task became much more difficult,due to
the Paki political situation.
Saddam was in no way, shape or form allied with the Islamist
terrorists.
There's now plenty of evidence this statement is wrong.
You should not let the MSM lead you around so much.
He hated OBL guts,
But agreed that he could operate as long as he left Iraq alone.Salman Pak
was a training site for terrorists,Saddam sheltered wanted terrorists.
and used his dictatorial powers to
keep Iraq SECULAR! Women were free;
HAH!
they could study, dress normally,
and exercise professions.
and get RAPED by Saddam,his sons or flunkies,then murdered and dumped in
the Tigris or Euphrates.
Unless you were on Saddam's S-list, life
was pretty good for his fellow Sunnis -- jobs, cafes, entertainment; a
reasonable standard of living.
But Saddam -- not exactly in touch with reality -- was whacky enough
to think that he could turn down the US offer to keep him in power as
long as he would guarantee the supply of oil.
Now you've gone off the deep end.(joining Saddam)
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net