In article , "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:
"Doug Miller" wrote in message
om...
In article , "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

Iraq is very different from Vietnam because President Nookular says we
have
god on our side. That's enough for me pass the pretzels.

Oh, really? When did he say that?

Stop...you're killin' me, Mr Miller. Your president is on a crusade, not a
rational mission. You know that. His own military people are saying it's
failure.


Can't back *that* claim up, either, can you?

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

In article , "Bob F" wrote:

"Doug Miller" wrote in message news:kx4_g.18584
You cannot name any president since the beginning of WWII who has NOT
done
something slimy.

Watch the attributions! I did NOT write the above. I wrote this below:


OK, I'll take the bait.

What "slimy" things were done by Eisenhower, Ford, orCarter? Eisenhower
was a
bit before my time (I was born during his second term), but I remember
Ford
and Carter pretty well. I'm no big fan of either of them... but they
didn't do
anything that I'd call "slimy". Plenty of things that I'd call *stupid* --
especially Carter -- but slimy??? Naaah.

Eisenhower - Overthrow of the legitimate government of Guatemala in 1954.

Bob



--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

Doug Miller wrote:
In article . net, Norminn wrote:

Only reason Carter was ever conceiveable as President was because we
were in a lather for "small govenment" and he had made Georgia smaller.

Oh, phooey. "Small government" had nothing at all to do with Carter's
election. People were still POed at Nixon over Watergate -- and at Ford for
pardoning him. *That* is the only thing that ever got that incompetent boob of
a peanut farmer elected.

Does your pursuit of the truth include reading the autobiography of a
man you obviously hate? If so, read Carter's autobiography. Whether
or not you approved of his leadership, the events that took place
during his administration, whatever, it doesn't matter - he wasn't
incompetent and he wasn't a boob.

You seem to think that the President is some sort of Lone Ranger, able
to singlehandedly direct the course of national and international
events without opposition. The world only works that way in comic
books. You seem to want an infallible leader. No problem, show me the
infallible man and we'll elect him. Deal?

R

HeyBub wrote:

Carter admitted in a Playboy (slimey) interview that he "lusted in his
heart" (slimey).

Did you read that interview? Carter was candidly admitting what he
considered to be a personal failure. Everyone has lusted at some
point. We're mammals. It's a hardwired reaction. Here's a hint -
anyone that tells you that they've never lusted after someone is lying.

At one time Playboy was one of the more respected periodicals
conducting interviews of notable figures. I don't know why Carter
agreed to the interview, considering his religious convictions, but
that interview was not slimy. If it were accompanied by him posing
naked with some altar boys, that would be slimy.

R

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote in message
...


Nixon, who you categorize as slimey, opened access to Red China and
ended the Viet Nam war, yet he is villified for trying to jack with
the Democrats. Oh well.

Maybe I was hallucinating, but I seem to recall our embassy staff
being hustled off a rooftop in a helicopter. Nixon had no choice but
to end the war.

You don't remember too well.

Nixon ended the war with a peace treaty (in 1973 which earned Nobel Prizes
for Kissinger and the North Vietnam representative). Our embassy in Viet Nam
was evacuated, and Saigon fell, on April 30, 1975, nine months into
President Ford's administration. Most believe South Vietnam fell because the
Democrats passed the Foreign Assistance Act of 1974 which cut off all
funding to support the South and effectively nullified the peace agreement
worked out by Nixon.


There are idiots in some newsgroups who think you can go forward
knowing nothing about history. This is why we failed in Vietnam, why
we will fail in Iraq, and why we are on the cusp of either failing or
succeeding in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Knowing "nothing" about history can be fixed. What cannot be fixed is
knowing something that is wrong.

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
et...


You made a claim. I challenged it. Three times, you've failed to back it
up.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

You've answered my question. Actually, you answered it over a year ago.

"RicodJour" wrote in message
ups.com...
Doug Miller wrote:
In article . net,
Norminn wrote:

Only reason Carter was ever conceiveable as President was because we
were in a lather for "small govenment" and he had made Georgia smaller.

Oh, phooey. "Small government" had nothing at all to do with Carter's
election. People were still POed at Nixon over Watergate -- and at Ford
for
pardoning him. *That* is the only thing that ever got that incompetent
boob of
a peanut farmer elected.

Does your pursuit of the truth include reading the autobiography of a
man you obviously hate? If so, read Carter's autobiography. Whether
or not you approved of his leadership, the events that took place
during his administration, whatever, it doesn't matter - he wasn't
incompetent and he wasn't a boob.

You seem to think that the President is some sort of Lone Ranger, able
to singlehandedly direct the course of national and international
events without opposition. The world only works that way in comic
books. You seem to want an infallible leader. No problem, show me the
infallible man and we'll elect him. Deal?

R


Miller told us he doesn't read books. Save your breath.

"HeyBub" wrote in message
...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote in message
...


Nixon, who you categorize as slimey, opened access to Red China and
ended the Viet Nam war, yet he is villified for trying to jack with
the Democrats. Oh well.

Maybe I was hallucinating, but I seem to recall our embassy staff
being hustled off a rooftop in a helicopter. Nixon had no choice but
to end the war.

You don't remember too well.

Nixon ended the war with a peace treaty (in 1973 which earned Nobel Prizes
for Kissinger and the North Vietnam representative). Our embassy in Viet
Nam was evacuated, and Saigon fell, on April 30, 1975, nine months into
President Ford's administration. Most believe South Vietnam fell because
the Democrats passed the Foreign Assistance Act of 1974 which cut off all
funding to support the South and effectively nullified the peace agreement
worked out by Nixon.


There are idiots in some newsgroups who think you can go forward
knowing nothing about history. This is why we failed in Vietnam, why
we will fail in Iraq, and why we are on the cusp of either failing or
succeeding in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Knowing "nothing" about history can be fixed. What cannot be fixed is
knowing something that is wrong.


Peace treaty in 1973. Saigon falls in 1975. Got it.

As far as fixing ignorance, you have seen that it is usually too late. We're
seeing it now in Iraq. Your president told the country "I don't read much.
Mostly newspapers." If your doctor told you that and you had a brain in your
head, you'd be out the door quickly.

"RicodJour" wrote in message
ups.com...
HeyBub wrote:

Carter admitted in a Playboy (slimey) interview that he "lusted in his
heart" (slimey).

Did you read that interview? Carter was candidly admitting what he
considered to be a personal failure. Everyone has lusted at some
point. We're mammals. It's a hardwired reaction. Here's a hint -
anyone that tells you that they've never lusted after someone is lying.

At one time Playboy was one of the more respected periodicals
conducting interviews of notable figures. I don't know why Carter
agreed to the interview, considering his religious convictions, but
that interview was not slimy. If it were accompanied by him posing
naked with some altar boys, that would be slimy.

R


Some prefer Newt Gingrich, who had fun throwing stones at Clinton for a
while, until it was revealed that he was no saint, either. Then, he became
strangely quiet.

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
news
In article , "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:
"Doug Miller" wrote in message
. com...
In article , "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

Iraq is very different from Vietnam because President Nookular says we
have
god on our side. That's enough for me pass the pretzels.

Oh, really? When did he say that?

Stop...you're killin' me, Mr Miller. Your president is on a crusade, not a
rational mission. You know that. His own military people are saying it's
failure.


Can't back *that* claim up, either, can you?
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

Holy ****.....today's news, professor. What do you do all day? Sit on a warm
rock like a lizard, waiting for something to happen?

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercu...d/15805172.htm
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/st...ectID=10406881
http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/9927782.htm

Your president's boss, Rumsfeld, is repeating what he's said every 3 months
for the past two years:
http://apnews.excite.com/article/200...D8KSNGJ00.html

In article , "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:
"Doug Miller" wrote in message
. net...


You made a claim. I challenged it. Three times, you've failed to back it
up.


You've answered my question. Actually, you answered it over a year ago.

Evasion once more -- you can't back it up.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

In article , "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:

Miller told us he doesn't read books. Save your breath.

I said nothing of the sort. You've moved from making claims you can't
substantiate, to outright lies.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

In article . com, "RicodJour" wrote:
Doug Miller wrote:
In article . net, Norminn
wrote:

Only reason Carter was ever conceiveable as President was because we
were in a lather for "small govenment" and he had made Georgia smaller.

Oh, phooey. "Small government" had nothing at all to do with Carter's
election. People were still POed at Nixon over Watergate -- and at Ford for
pardoning him. *That* is the only thing that ever got that incompetent boob
of
a peanut farmer elected.

Does your pursuit of the truth include reading the autobiography of a
man you obviously hate? If so, read Carter's autobiography. Whether
or not you approved of his leadership, the events that took place
during his administration, whatever, it doesn't matter - he wasn't
incompetent and he wasn't a boob.

Carter did nothing when our embassy was invaded by armed thugs acting with the
approval and complicity of their government -- and even stated publicly that
he was ruling out the use of military force to rescue our people who were
being held hostage.

And you call that competent?? I don't.

And that's just for starters.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

In article , "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:
"Doug Miller" wrote in message
news
In article , "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:
"Doug Miller" wrote in message
.com...
In article , "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

Iraq is very different from Vietnam because President Nookular says we
have
god on our side. That's enough for me pass the pretzels.

Oh, really? When did he say that?

Stop...you're killin' me, Mr Miller. Your president is on a crusade, not a
rational mission. You know that. His own military people are saying it's
failure.


Can't back *that* claim up, either, can you?


Holy ****.....today's news, professor. What do you do all day? Sit on a warm
rock like a lizard, waiting for something to happen?

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercu...d/15805172.htm
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/st...ectID=10406881
http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/9927782.htm

Your president's boss, Rumsfeld, is repeating what he's said every 3 months
for the past two years:
http://apnews.excite.com/article/200...D8KSNGJ00.html


None of which substantiate your claim (of course). Why am I not surprised?

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

In article ,
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:

"HeyBub" wrote in message
...


Nixon, who you categorize as slimey, opened access to Red China and ended
the Viet Nam war, yet he is villified for trying to jack with the
Democrats. Oh well.

Maybe I was hallucinating, but I seem to recall our embassy staff being
hustled off a rooftop in a helicopter. Nixon had no choice but to end the
war.


That was something like two years after most of the troops had left,
peace accords had been signed, etc... except of course for the Marines
of the Embassy Guards.

In article ,
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:

"RicodJour" wrote in message
ups.com...
HeyBub wrote:

Carter admitted in a Playboy (slimey) interview that he "lusted in his
heart" (slimey).

Did you read that interview? Carter was candidly admitting what he
considered to be a personal failure. Everyone has lusted at some
point. We're mammals. It's a hardwired reaction. Here's a hint -
anyone that tells you that they've never lusted after someone is lying.

At one time Playboy was one of the more respected periodicals
conducting interviews of notable figures. I don't know why Carter
agreed to the interview, considering his religious convictions, but
that interview was not slimy. If it were accompanied by him posing
naked with some altar boys, that would be slimy.

R


Some prefer Newt Gingrich, who had fun throwing stones at Clinton for a
while, until it was revealed that he was no saint, either. Then, he became
strangely quiet.

You will notice that it is only the Republicans who admit their
mistakes and resign. The Dems just stay in office.

Doug Miller wrote:
"RicodJour" wrote:

Does your pursuit of the truth include reading the autobiography of a
man you obviously hate? If so, read Carter's autobiography. Whether
or not you approved of his leadership, the events that took place
during his administration, whatever, it doesn't matter - he wasn't
incompetent and he wasn't a boob.

Carter did nothing when our embassy was invaded by armed thugs acting with the
approval and complicity of their government -- and even stated publicly that
he was ruling out the use of military force to rescue our people who were
being held hostage.

And you call that competent?? I don't.

And that's just for starters.

Gee, doesn't that just **** you off? A guy who walks the walk instead
of just talking it.

This from one web site:
"Jimmy Carter was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2002 for his
"decades of untiring effort to find peaceful solution to international
conflicts, to advance democracy and human rights, and to promote
economic and social development."" The only other US Presidents to
receive the Nobel Peace Prize were Roosevelt in 1906 and Wilson in
1919. Probably safe to say that Bush won't be holding his breath
waiting for a nomination.

What exactly did you expect Carter to do? Conduct Operation Shock and
Awe, the beta version? A rescue mission was attempted - it failed and
eight people died in the attempt. There were 52 hostages that were in
captivity for the entire 15 months. None of the hostages were killed.

Carter imposed sanctions, worked the diplomacy and kept the hostages
alive. Reagan won the election and promptly bought off Iran by
releasing $8 billion in Iranian assets and gave immunity to Iran which
prevented the hostages from collecting after they sued Iran. In other
words he bought off Iran and sold out the hostages.

Suppose Carter/Reagan did send in the Marines. How many Marines do you
figure would have been killed in such a rescue? How many hostages?

The objective in the hostage situation was getting them out alive.
Carter and Reagan did. Reagan's job was made a lot easier as Iran was
now at war with Iraq and was more willing to negotiate with a new
President willing to give them a large sum of money and immunity.

No hostages lost their lives, no billions spent on a war on foreign
soil, no "street cred" lost for the US. You might want to choose a
different example on which to base your allegation of Carter's
incompetence.

R

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
et...
In article , "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

Miller told us he doesn't read books. Save your breath.

I said nothing of the sort. You've moved from making claims you can't
substantiate, to outright lies.

What??? A right-wingbat in love with Jimmy Carter? A guy who helps poor
black folks get nice homes for cheap? Isn't that socialism?

"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:

"HeyBub" wrote in message
...


Nixon, who you categorize as slimey, opened access to Red China and
ended
the Viet Nam war, yet he is villified for trying to jack with the
Democrats. Oh well.

Maybe I was hallucinating, but I seem to recall our embassy staff being
hustled off a rooftop in a helicopter. Nixon had no choice but to end the
war.


That was something like two years after most of the troops had left,
peace accords had been signed, etc... except of course for the Marines
of the Embassy Guards.

I'd relate a scary theory about that war, but I don't think you'd believe
it. I didn't, either.

"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:

"RicodJour" wrote in message
ups.com...
HeyBub wrote:

Carter admitted in a Playboy (slimey) interview that he "lusted in his
heart" (slimey).

Did you read that interview? Carter was candidly admitting what he
considered to be a personal failure. Everyone has lusted at some
point. We're mammals. It's a hardwired reaction. Here's a hint -
anyone that tells you that they've never lusted after someone is lying.

At one time Playboy was one of the more respected periodicals
conducting interviews of notable figures. I don't know why Carter
agreed to the interview, considering his religious convictions, but
that interview was not slimy. If it were accompanied by him posing
naked with some altar boys, that would be slimy.

R


Some prefer Newt Gingrich, who had fun throwing stones at Clinton for a
while, until it was revealed that he was no saint, either. Then, he
became
strangely quiet.

You will notice that it is only the Republicans who admit their
mistakes and resign. The Dems just stay in office.

I could be wrong, but I'm not aware of rules saying politicians should
resign for not being able to keep their pants zipped. Matter of fact, they
can even get away with being accomplices to murder.

In article .com, "RicodJour" wrote:
Doug Miller wrote:
"RicodJour" wrote:

Does your pursuit of the truth include reading the autobiography of a
man you obviously hate? If so, read Carter's autobiography. Whether
or not you approved of his leadership, the events that took place
during his administration, whatever, it doesn't matter - he wasn't
incompetent and he wasn't a boob.

Carter did nothing when our embassy was invaded by armed thugs acting with
the
approval and complicity of their government -- and even stated publicly that
he was ruling out the use of military force to rescue our people who were
being held hostage.

And you call that competent?? I don't.

And that's just for starters.

Gee, doesn't that just **** you off? A guy who walks the walk instead
of just talking it.

This from one web site:
"Jimmy Carter was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2002 for his
"decades of untiring effort to find peaceful solution to international
conflicts, to advance democracy and human rights, and to promote
economic and social development."" The only other US Presidents to
receive the Nobel Peace Prize were Roosevelt in 1906 and Wilson in
1919. Probably safe to say that Bush won't be holding his breath
waiting for a nomination.

What exactly did you expect Carter to do? Conduct Operation Shock and
Awe, the beta version? A rescue mission was attempted - it failed and
eight people died in the attempt. There were 52 hostages that were in
captivity for the entire 15 months. None of the hostages were killed.

Carter imposed sanctions, worked the diplomacy and kept the hostages
alive. Reagan won the election and promptly bought off Iran by
releasing $8 billion in Iranian assets and gave immunity to Iran which
prevented the hostages from collecting after they sued Iran. In other
words he bought off Iran and sold out the hostages.

Suppose Carter/Reagan did send in the Marines. How many Marines do you
figure would have been killed in such a rescue? How many hostages?

The objective in the hostage situation was getting them out alive.
Carter and Reagan did. Reagan's job was made a lot easier as Iran was
now at war with Iraq and was more willing to negotiate with a new
President willing to give them a large sum of money and immunity.

No hostages lost their lives, no billions spent on a war on foreign
soil, no "street cred" lost for the US. You might want to choose a
different example on which to base your allegation of Carter's
incompetence.

Nice revisionist history. Some of it's even true.

The bottom line is real simple: Reagan, during his campaign, made no secret of
his intent to begin bombing Iran as soon as he took office if the hostages
were still in captivity -- and surprise! they were released about an hour
after he was sworn in.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

In article , "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:
"Doug Miller" wrote in message
. net...
In article , "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

Miller told us he doesn't read books. Save your breath.

I said nothing of the sort. You've moved from making claims you can't
substantiate, to outright lies.

What??? A right-wingbat in love with Jimmy Carter? A guy who helps poor
black folks get nice homes for cheap? Isn't that socialism?

No, it's socialism when government does it.

I have tremedous respect for Jimmy Carter as a _man_. His work with Habitat
for Humanity is a beautiful example for all Christians to follow.

But as a _President_ ... he was an incompetent boob, and I have nothing but
contempt for him as a politician.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

In article ,
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:

"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
..
.
In article ,
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:

"HeyBub" wrote in message
...


Nixon, who you categorize as slimey, opened access to Red China and
ended
the Viet Nam war, yet he is villified for trying to jack with the
Democrats. Oh well.

Maybe I was hallucinating, but I seem to recall our embassy staff being
hustled off a rooftop in a helicopter. Nixon had no choice but to end the
war.


That was something like two years after most of the troops had left,
peace accords had been signed, etc... except of course for the Marines
of the Embassy Guards.

I'd relate a scary theory about that war, but I don't think you'd believe
it. I didn't, either.

Thanks for sparing me that (g).

k

In article ,
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:


You will notice that it is only the Republicans who admit their
mistakes and resign. The Dems just stay in office.

I could be wrong, but I'm not aware of rules saying politicians should
resign for not being able to keep their pants zipped. Matter of fact, they
can even get away with being accomplices to murder.

Or manslaughter by their own hand...

In article ,
(Doug Miller) wrote:


What??? A right-wingbat in love with Jimmy Carter? A guy who helps poor
black folks get nice homes for cheap? Isn't that socialism?

No, it's socialism when government does it.
Yep and for some reason for many, it is only Good if the government
does it.


I have tremedous respect for Jimmy Carter as a _man_. His work with Habitat
for Humanity is a beautiful example for all Christians to follow.

But as a _President_ ... he was an incompetent boob, and I have nothing but
contempt for him as a politician.
With a few exceptions, there have been a couple of times he has sorta
forgot he was an ex-president and made agreements he had no authority to
make, he has been a very good EX-president.

"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:

"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
..
.
In article ,
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:

"HeyBub" wrote in message
...


Nixon, who you categorize as slimey, opened access to Red China and
ended
the Viet Nam war, yet he is villified for trying to jack with the
Democrats. Oh well.

Maybe I was hallucinating, but I seem to recall our embassy staff
being
hustled off a rooftop in a helicopter. Nixon had no choice but to end
the
war.


That was something like two years after most of the troops had left,
peace accords had been signed, etc... except of course for the Marines
of the Embassy Guards.

I'd relate a scary theory about that war, but I don't think you'd believe
it. I didn't, either.

Thanks for sparing me that (g).

k

If you're curious, read this first - it's orderly and easy to digest:
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/northwoods.html

These revelations have fueled the debate about whether the Gulf of Tonkin
incident really happened as advertised. After all, the same nut-cases were
still bouncing around the Pentagon. Since the Northwoods thing never came to
fruition, they were still looking to kick some commie ass, and needed a
reason.

"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:


You will notice that it is only the Republicans who admit their
mistakes and resign. The Dems just stay in office.

I could be wrong, but I'm not aware of rules saying politicians should
resign for not being able to keep their pants zipped. Matter of fact,
they
can even get away with being accomplices to murder.

Or manslaughter by their own hand...

Hey....fake detox clinics deserve to make money, too. :-)

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote in message
...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote in message
...


Nixon, who you categorize as slimey, opened access to Red China and
ended the Viet Nam war, yet he is villified for trying to jack with
the Democrats. Oh well.

Maybe I was hallucinating, but I seem to recall our embassy staff
being hustled off a rooftop in a helicopter. Nixon had no choice but
to end the war.

You don't remember too well.

Nixon ended the war with a peace treaty (in 1973 which earned Nobel
Prizes for Kissinger and the North Vietnam representative). Our
embassy in Viet Nam was evacuated, and Saigon fell, on April 30,
1975, nine months into President Ford's administration. Most believe
South Vietnam fell because the Democrats passed the Foreign
Assistance Act of 1974 which cut off all funding to support the
South and effectively nullified the peace agreement worked out by
Nixon.

There are idiots in some newsgroups who think you can go forward
knowing nothing about history. This is why we failed in Vietnam, why
we will fail in Iraq, and why we are on the cusp of either failing
or succeeding in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Knowing "nothing" about history can be fixed. What cannot be fixed is
knowing something that is wrong.


Peace treaty in 1973. Saigon falls in 1975. Got it.

As far as fixing ignorance, you have seen that it is usually too
late. We're seeing it now in Iraq. Your president told the country "I
don't read much. Mostly newspapers." If your doctor told you that and
you had a brain in your head, you'd be out the door quickly.

Heh! Let's try to fix - or try to fix - some things that are wrong.
1. "I don't read much. Mostly newspapers" is unbelievable. I understand it
is the reverse.
2. We SAW, with our own eyes on national TV, Bush reading "My Pet Goat."
3. His wife is a librarian and reads enough for both.
4. Here's the president's summer reading list.
http://www.booktv.org/misc/081706_bush.asp

And a news article on the subject:
"White House aides say the president has read 60 books so far this year
(while the brainy Rove, to Bush's competitive delight, has racked up only
50). The commander in chief delved into three volumes in August alone-two on
Abraham Lincoln and, more surprising for a man of unambiguous convictions,
The Stranger, Albert Camus's existential tale of murder and alienation "
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/ar...presidency.htm

And as for knowledge of history, don't forget that President Bush has a BA
from Yale.

In history.

Which should put to rest the canard: "If you're a history major, this is the
only job you'll ever have."

In article ,
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:

"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
..
.
In article ,
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:


You will notice that it is only the Republicans who admit their
mistakes and resign. The Dems just stay in office.

I could be wrong, but I'm not aware of rules saying politicians should
resign for not being able to keep their pants zipped. Matter of fact,
they
can even get away with being accomplices to murder.

Or manslaughter by their own hand...

Hey....fake detox clinics deserve to make money, too. :-)

One of the reasons I believe in a God with a rather nasty sense of
humor (over and above the existence of the platypus), is that when Foley
came on the TV an announced he was going to rehab, I was on the
treadmill listening to my iPod and on came "Detox Mansion". There HAS
to be a higher power involved when something like that happens.

"HeyBub" wrote in message
...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote in message
...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote in message
...


Nixon, who you categorize as slimey, opened access to Red China and
ended the Viet Nam war, yet he is villified for trying to jack with
the Democrats. Oh well.

Maybe I was hallucinating, but I seem to recall our embassy staff
being hustled off a rooftop in a helicopter. Nixon had no choice but
to end the war.

You don't remember too well.

Nixon ended the war with a peace treaty (in 1973 which earned Nobel
Prizes for Kissinger and the North Vietnam representative). Our
embassy in Viet Nam was evacuated, and Saigon fell, on April 30,
1975, nine months into President Ford's administration. Most believe
South Vietnam fell because the Democrats passed the Foreign
Assistance Act of 1974 which cut off all funding to support the
South and effectively nullified the peace agreement worked out by
Nixon.

There are idiots in some newsgroups who think you can go forward
knowing nothing about history. This is why we failed in Vietnam, why
we will fail in Iraq, and why we are on the cusp of either failing
or succeeding in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Knowing "nothing" about history can be fixed. What cannot be fixed is
knowing something that is wrong.


Peace treaty in 1973. Saigon falls in 1975. Got it.

As far as fixing ignorance, you have seen that it is usually too
late. We're seeing it now in Iraq. Your president told the country "I
don't read much. Mostly newspapers." If your doctor told you that and
you had a brain in your head, you'd be out the door quickly.

Heh! Let's try to fix - or try to fix - some things that are wrong.
1. "I don't read much. Mostly newspapers" is unbelievable. I understand it
is the reverse.
2. We SAW, with our own eyes on national TV, Bush reading "My Pet Goat."
3. His wife is a librarian and reads enough for both.
4. Here's the president's summer reading list.
http://www.booktv.org/misc/081706_bush.asp

That's silly.


And a news article on the subject:
"White House aides say the president has read 60 books so far this year
(while the brainy Rove, to Bush's competitive delight, has racked up only
50). The commander in chief delved into three volumes in August alone-two
on Abraham Lincoln and, more surprising for a man of unambiguous
convictions, The Stranger, Albert Camus's existential tale of murder and
alienation "
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/ar...presidency.htm

And as for knowledge of history, don't forget that President Bush has a BA
from Yale.

In history.

If that's true, then you've proven he is an idiot, not that any further
proof was needed. ("Is our children being educated?") Only an idiot could be
aware of history and then make the exact same mistakes as his predecessors.

"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:

"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
..
.
In article ,
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:


You will notice that it is only the Republicans who admit their
mistakes and resign. The Dems just stay in office.

I could be wrong, but I'm not aware of rules saying politicians should
resign for not being able to keep their pants zipped. Matter of fact,
they
can even get away with being accomplices to murder.

Or manslaughter by their own hand...

Hey....fake detox clinics deserve to make money, too. :-)

One of the reasons I believe in a God with a rather nasty sense of
humor (over and above the existence of the platypus), is that when Foley
came on the TV an announced he was going to rehab, I was on the
treadmill listening to my iPod and on came "Detox Mansion". There HAS
to be a higher power involved when something like that happens.

More proof - female architectu It took a sick god to place two waste
facilities so close to a recreational area.

Doug Miller wrote:
"RicodJour" wrote:

Gee, doesn't that just **** you off? A guy who walks the walk instead
of just talking it.

This from one web site:
"Jimmy Carter was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2002 for his
"decades of untiring effort to find peaceful solution to international
conflicts, to advance democracy and human rights, and to promote
economic and social development."" The only other US Presidents to
receive the Nobel Peace Prize were Roosevelt in 1906 and Wilson in
1919. Probably safe to say that Bush won't be holding his breath
waiting for a nomination.

What exactly did you expect Carter to do? Conduct Operation Shock and
Awe, the beta version? A rescue mission was attempted - it failed and
eight people died in the attempt. There were 52 hostages that were in
captivity for the entire 15 months. None of the hostages were killed.

Carter imposed sanctions, worked the diplomacy and kept the hostages
alive. Reagan won the election and promptly bought off Iran by
releasing $8 billion in Iranian assets and gave immunity to Iran which
prevented the hostages from collecting after they sued Iran. In other
words he bought off Iran and sold out the hostages.

Suppose Carter/Reagan did send in the Marines. How many Marines do you
figure would have been killed in such a rescue? How many hostages?

The objective in the hostage situation was getting them out alive.
Carter and Reagan did. Reagan's job was made a lot easier as Iran was
now at war with Iraq and was more willing to negotiate with a new
President willing to give them a large sum of money and immunity.

No hostages lost their lives, no billions spent on a war on foreign
soil, no "street cred" lost for the US. You might want to choose a
different example on which to base your allegation of Carter's
incompetence.

Nice revisionist history. Some of it's even true.

The bottom line is real simple: Reagan, during his campaign, made no secret of
his intent to begin bombing Iran as soon as he took office if the hostages
were still in captivity -- and surprise! they were released about an hour
after he was sworn in.

Key word being "campaign". I'm surprised that you put credence in a
campaign promise.

On the day of President Reagan's inauguration, the US released almost
$8 billion in Iranian assets and the hostages were freed. The
agreement gave Iran immunity from lawsuits arising from the incident.
That works out to $153 million per hostage for Iran, and nothing for
the hostages.

It went something like this:
"If elected I'm gonna bomb you! If elected I'm gonna bomb you! Hey,
I'm elected, would you like some money? No strings attached!" In
other words, diplomacy. Threaten the stick and offer the carrot.
Carter didn't threaten the military stick because he knew the situation
didn't warrant it.

Whether in personal or public life, the single most important attribute
is morality. Not intelligence, not charm, not looks nor connections.
It's what everyone admires and seeks in friends, employees, elected
officials, etc. It's tough to find in sufficient quantity. That's why
I took issue with your "incompetent boob" designation. Someone who
graduates in the top ten percent at the Naval Academy and commanded a
nuclear vessel is not a boob nor incompetent. In fact, it makes you
look like a boob to even suggest it. You simply didn't like his brand
of politics - the politics that were based on his morality which you
said you admire. He certainly was a square peg in a round hole. If
you ask me we need more four square people in office.

I find it interesting that Carter almost never spoke of his religion,
while Bush wears it on his sleeve. Which of those two do you feel is
following the tougher, more narrow moral road?

R

"RicodJour" wrote in message
oups.com...
Doug Miller wrote:
"RicodJour" wrote:

Gee, doesn't that just **** you off? A guy who walks the walk instead
of just talking it.

This from one web site:
"Jimmy Carter was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2002 for his
"decades of untiring effort to find peaceful solution to international
conflicts, to advance democracy and human rights, and to promote
economic and social development."" The only other US Presidents to
receive the Nobel Peace Prize were Roosevelt in 1906 and Wilson in
1919. Probably safe to say that Bush won't be holding his breath
waiting for a nomination.

What exactly did you expect Carter to do? Conduct Operation Shock and
Awe, the beta version? A rescue mission was attempted - it failed and
eight people died in the attempt. There were 52 hostages that were in
captivity for the entire 15 months. None of the hostages were killed.

Carter imposed sanctions, worked the diplomacy and kept the hostages
alive. Reagan won the election and promptly bought off Iran by
releasing $8 billion in Iranian assets and gave immunity to Iran which
prevented the hostages from collecting after they sued Iran. In other
words he bought off Iran and sold out the hostages.

Suppose Carter/Reagan did send in the Marines. How many Marines do you
figure would have been killed in such a rescue? How many hostages?

The objective in the hostage situation was getting them out alive.
Carter and Reagan did. Reagan's job was made a lot easier as Iran was
now at war with Iraq and was more willing to negotiate with a new
President willing to give them a large sum of money and immunity.

No hostages lost their lives, no billions spent on a war on foreign
soil, no "street cred" lost for the US. You might want to choose a
different example on which to base your allegation of Carter's
incompetence.

Nice revisionist history. Some of it's even true.

The bottom line is real simple: Reagan, during his campaign, made no
secret of
his intent to begin bombing Iran as soon as he took office if the
hostages
were still in captivity -- and surprise! they were released about an hour
after he was sworn in.

Key word being "campaign". I'm surprised that you put credence in a
campaign promise.

On the day of President Reagan's inauguration, the US released almost
$8 billion in Iranian assets and the hostages were freed. The
agreement gave Iran immunity from lawsuits arising from the incident.
That works out to $153 million per hostage for Iran, and nothing for
the hostages.

It went something like this:
"If elected I'm gonna bomb you! If elected I'm gonna bomb you! Hey,
I'm elected, would you like some money? No strings attached!" In
other words, diplomacy. Threaten the stick and offer the carrot.
Carter didn't threaten the military stick because he knew the situation
didn't warrant it.

Whether in personal or public life, the single most important attribute
is morality. Not intelligence, not charm, not looks nor connections.
It's what everyone admires and seeks in friends, employees, elected
officials, etc. It's tough to find in sufficient quantity. That's why
I took issue with your "incompetent boob" designation. Someone who
graduates in the top ten percent at the Naval Academy and commanded a
nuclear vessel is not a boob nor incompetent. In fact, it makes you
look like a boob to even suggest it. You simply didn't like his brand
of politics - the politics that were based on his morality which you
said you admire. He certainly was a square peg in a round hole. If
you ask me we need more four square people in office.

I find it interesting that Carter almost never spoke of his religion,
while Bush wears it on his sleeve. Which of those two do you feel is
following the tougher, more narrow moral road?

R


Side note: Measured by percentage of increased spending, Carter did more to
modernize our sub fleet than any president who came after him. Although he
was interested in their being armed every which way, he commented that they
would more than pay for themselves if the only functioned as movable signal
intelligence listening posts. Anyone who reads realizes he was correct, and
that SIGINT has had more value over the years than all the explosives we've
utilized.

Sadly, this doesn't do much for "folks" who jack off to war movies.

On Sat, 21 Oct 2006 14:19:17 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:

"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
..
.
In article ,
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:


You will notice that it is only the Republicans who admit their
mistakes and resign. The Dems just stay in office.

I could be wrong, but I'm not aware of rules saying politicians should
resign for not being able to keep their pants zipped. Matter of fact,
they
can even get away with being accomplices to murder.

Or manslaughter by their own hand...

Hey....fake detox clinics deserve to make money, too. :-)

One of the reasons I believe in a God with a rather nasty sense of
humor (over and above the existence of the platypus), is that when Foley
came on the TV an announced he was going to rehab, I was on the
treadmill listening to my iPod and on came "Detox Mansion". There HAS
to be a higher power involved when something like that happens.

More proof - female architectu It took a sick god to place two waste
facilities so close to a recreational area.

Poster sounds like a graduate of the Arnold Schwarzenegger school of
feminist sensitivity.

Anybody remember the detailed charges brought by women who had been
groped, insulted, and otherwise sexually abused by The Terminator?
This was all over the media before the last Calif. gub. elections.
Arnold hasn't changed a bit. Still the same droll troll.

Also, anybody notice that Russian PM Putin CONGRATULATED Israeli
(ceremonial) President Katzav for being near to indictment on massive
charges of sexual abuse? Putin thought it was way kewl to have
"raped" (not true) ten women. "What a mighty man..."

Tfui!

On Sat, 21 Oct 2006 14:18:01 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

2. We SAW, with our own eyes on national TV, Bush reading "My Pet Goat."

But did you notice that the book was held UPSIDE DOWN???

And in another photo-op, when he was gazing sternly through binoculars
at -- whatever -- THE CAPS WERE STILL ON THE BINOCS..

aspasia wrote in message
...

More proof - female architectu It took a sick god to place two waste
facilities so close to a recreational area.

Poster sounds like a graduate of the Arnold Schwarzenegger school of
feminist sensitivity.


I'll mention that to the woman who provided that silly line, while sitting
with two of her lady friends, who thought it was pretty funny.

On Sat, 21 Oct 2006 13:56:21 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:

"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
..
.
In article ,
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:

"HeyBub" wrote in message
...


Nixon, who you categorize as slimey, opened access to Red China and
ended
the Viet Nam war, yet he is villified for trying to jack with the
Democrats. Oh well.

Maybe I was hallucinating, but I seem to recall our embassy staff
being
hustled off a rooftop in a helicopter. Nixon had no choice but to end
the
war.


That was something like two years after most of the troops had left,
peace accords had been signed, etc... except of course for the Marines
of the Embassy Guards.

I'd relate a scary theory about that war, but I don't think you'd believe
it. I didn't, either.

Thanks for sparing me that (g).

k

If you're curious, read this first - it's orderly and easy to digest:
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/northwoods.html

These revelations have fueled the debate about whether the Gulf of Tonkin
incident really happened as advertised. After all, the same nut-cases were
still bouncing around the Pentagon. Since the Northwoods thing never came to
fruition, they were still looking to kick some commie ass, and needed a
reason.


WHAT "debate"? It's on the record that the incident never happened as
advertised. Johnson is on record as agonizing whether to go ahead and
pretend it happened -- or be honest.

History tells us his decision.

As do the families of the 58,000 killed and hundreds of thousands
crippled for life, physically and psychologically. Not to mention the
millions of Vietnamese killed and wounded, and their land sterilized
by Agent Orange.

Anybody remember how hard Ho Chi Minh* tried to get us as an ally
against China? And how the striped pants set in the State Department
simply disregarded communications from Ho, a Head of State -- oh that
little guy with the wispy beard, in the black pajamas.

* a much-traveled, well-educated, sophisticated leader who was a great
admirer of the U.S. ; modeled his Constitution after ours.

Santayana: Those who do not study history are doomed to relive it.

On Sat, 21 Oct 2006 04:45:39 GMT, Kurt Ullman
wrote:

In article ,
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:

"RicodJour" wrote in message
ups.com...
HeyBub wrote:

Carter admitted in a Playboy (slimey) interview that he "lusted in his
heart" (slimey).

Did you read that interview? Carter was candidly admitting what he
considered to be a personal failure. Everyone has lusted at some
point. We're mammals. It's a hardwired reaction. Here's a hint -
anyone that tells you that they've never lusted after someone is lying.

At one time Playboy was one of the more respected periodicals
conducting interviews of notable figures. I don't know why Carter
agreed to the interview, considering his religious convictions, but
that interview was not slimy. If it were accompanied by him posing
naked with some altar boys, that would be slimy.

R


Some prefer Newt Gingrich, who had fun throwing stones at Clinton for a
while, until it was revealed that he was no saint, either. Then, he became
strangely quiet.

You will notice that it is only the Republicans who admit their
mistakes and resign.

But only after -- in a vanishingly few very high-profile cases -- the
stink is so bad that even the ass-kissing pop media have to jump on
the scandal.


The Dems just stay in office.

On Sat, 21 Oct 2006 02:46:57 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"RicodJour" wrote in message
oups.com...
HeyBub wrote:

Carter admitted in a Playboy (slimey) interview that he "lusted in his
heart" (slimey).

Did you read that interview? Carter was candidly admitting what he
considered to be a personal failure. Everyone has lusted at some
point. We're mammals. It's a hardwired reaction. Here's a hint -
anyone that tells you that they've never lusted after someone is lying.

At one time Playboy was one of the more respected periodicals
conducting interviews of notable figures. I don't know why Carter
agreed to the interview, considering his religious convictions, but
that interview was not slimy. If it were accompanied by him posing
naked with some altar boys, that would be slimy.

R


Some prefer Newt Gingrich, who had fun throwing stones at Clinton for a
while, until it was revealed that he was no saint, either. Then, he became
strangely quiet.

When is he going to pay back the Treasury for the MILLIONS he cost
taxpayers when he shut down the government, in a snit because he
didn't get to sit in the front of the plane?

And did he ever apologize to his wife, not to mention the public, for
barging into her hospital room when she was dying of cancer, to
demand a divorce.

More...?

aspasia wrote in message
news
On Sat, 21 Oct 2006 13:56:21 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:

"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
..
.
In article ,
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:

"HeyBub" wrote in message
...


Nixon, who you categorize as slimey, opened access to Red China
and
ended
the Viet Nam war, yet he is villified for trying to jack with the
Democrats. Oh well.

Maybe I was hallucinating, but I seem to recall our embassy staff
being
hustled off a rooftop in a helicopter. Nixon had no choice but to
end
the
war.


That was something like two years after most of the troops had left,
peace accords had been signed, etc... except of course for the
Marines
of the Embassy Guards.

I'd relate a scary theory about that war, but I don't think you'd
believe
it. I didn't, either.

Thanks for sparing me that (g).

k

If you're curious, read this first - it's orderly and easy to digest:
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/northwoods.html

These revelations have fueled the debate about whether the Gulf of Tonkin
incident really happened as advertised. After all, the same nut-cases were
still bouncing around the Pentagon. Since the Northwoods thing never came
to
fruition, they were still looking to kick some commie ass, and needed a
reason.


WHAT "debate"? It's on the record that the incident never happened as
advertised. Johnson is on record as agonizing whether to go ahead and
pretend it happened -- or be honest.

I agree, but there are still many people who believe them thar commies
attacked our derned boat. In newsgroups, it's safer to leave doubts, or an
idea that should be communicated in 3 messages will turn into 12,000
messages.