flipper wrote:

On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 13:10:44 -0800, "Paul Hovnanian P.E."
wrote:

flipper wrote:

On Mon, 18 Feb 2008 16:45:01 -0800, "Paul Hovnanian P.E."
wrote:

John Larkin wrote:

On Mon, 18 Feb 2008 01:23:02 -0800, UltimatePatriot
wrote:

Bush is a far cry from the kind of president Jefferson was.


I haven't seen a real statesman since Kennedy.

Read this:

http://www.amazon.com/Dark-Side-Came...38389&sr= 1-3

JFK was a charismatic, diseased, sex-addicted bungler who almost got
the world incinerated.

And that's why those who shared that opinion had him taken out, right?

That preoccupation with sex makes me think Oliver Stone was on to
something when he portrayed the right winger plot to assassinate JFK as
being infiltrated by homosexuals.

Oliver Stone might have been 'on' something because his movie JFK is
in the finest Alice Through the Looking Glass tradition.

"Charismatic" seems to be enough to impress some people.

In the long run, history may be kinder to W than to JFK.

JFK didn't actually get more that 3000 people killed. Bush was perceived
as weak, which encouraged al Qaida.

Amazing how Al Qaeda knew Bush would be elected when they plotted the
9-11 attacks and put their operatives in place during the Clinton
Administration.

And they planned and organized their first WTC attack during George HW
Bush's administration.

Which is even further back than G.W.'s administration.

What it is with liberals and nonsensical fantasies? I mean, do you all
actually have to 'work' at it or do they just come naturally?

Rational thought just doesn't seem to be liberal's strong suit and the
fact of the matter is Al Qaeda considered the U.S. 'weak' (not the
first to do so) because, until 2001, Presidents of both parties had a
tendency to behave a lot like what 'liberals' claim they want: a boat
loads of talk followed up by talk, and if that fails then some talk,
with little, preferably no, 'action'. And what little action that was
taken liberals opposed so the last people who should be casting
'appearance of weakness' stones is the left wing.

I could also point out that during GHW's administration it was "Bin
who?" because he hadn't attacked us yet so unless you're making a case
that the U.S. should go around assassinating anyone they suspect
'might' become a nut case one day then you have no point. But that's
probably being too rational.

The Cole attack was, no doubt, a premature election celebration.

Perhaps only possible due to the administration's attention being
engaged by the GOP's fascination with Bill's sex life.

Not according to Billy Boy. He TRIED and TRIED and TRIED his damndest
wag angry finger to kill the S.O.B.

And how could he have legitimately done that without a Congressional
declaration of war? Congress (guess who was running that show at the
time) was too upset over heterosexual behavior.


A few missile attacks proved to be useless, but that wasn't Clinton's
fault. There's only so much you can do at long distances against mobile
targets.


And he wouldn't lie. Oh wait, that's what the impeachment was about.

The only real data point we have for the perceived strength of a US
president discouraging terrorists is Iran's return of the US hostages
when Reagan was elected.

Expecting to 'discourage' someone who's determined to kill themselves
'for the cause' is an exercise in futility.

The Iranians weren't trying to kill themselves. Fortunately, they
weren't trying to kill the hostages either. A point that the neo-cons
seem to have overlooked when lumping them in with other factions in the
area.

We've killed far more Iranian civilians than they have Americans.


--
Paul Hovnanian
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Procrastinators: The leaders for tomorrow.