America may be safer because of the procedures in place to stop
terrorism attacks like the one that was attempted this week, however,
I don't think that safety has anything to do with invading Iraq. If
anything, the money spent in Iraq could have been more appropriately
spent elsewhere on bringin
The real questions are these. Is America safer now than it was in 2001? Is
terrorism stronger now or in 2001? Does America and it's allies have more
international respect and diplomatic leverage than it did in 2001?
On Sun, Oct 31, 2010 at 7:56 PM, Maureen wrote:
>
> On Sun, Oct 31, 2010 at 2:
On Sun, Oct 31, 2010 at 2:47 PM, Robert Munn wrote:
>
> On Sun, Oct 31, 2010 at 1:44 PM, Maureen wrote:
>> > That was always a purpose of the Iraq War.
>>
>> Stated where? The rhetoric before the invasion was to find and
>> prevent the use of weapons of mass destruction, and eliminate a safe
>>
On Sun, Oct 31, 2010 at 2:23 PM, Sam wrote:
>
> On Sun, Oct 31, 2010 at 4:44 PM, Maureen wrote:
>
>> Saddam, or at least one of his body doubles, was killed. No WMDs were
>> found and even Bush admitted that.
>
> Actually the new wiki leaks doc show they do exist.
So Bush was wrong? Imagine t
On Sun, Oct 31, 2010 at 1:44 PM, Maureen wrote:
>
> On Sun, Oct 31, 2010 at 1:32 PM, Robert Munn wrote:
> >
> > On Sun, Oct 31, 2010 at 10:53 AM, Vivec wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> Oh come off it Robert.
> >> Since when did that become a defined purpose?
> >>
> >
> > That was always a purpose of the I
On Sun, Oct 31, 2010 at 4:44 PM, Maureen wrote:
> Saddam, or at least one of his body doubles, was killed. No WMDs were
> found and even Bush admitted that.
Actually the new wiki leaks doc show they do exist.
> According to the commander of the U.S. forces in Iraq, General Ray
> Odierno, Al-
On Sun, Oct 31, 2010 at 1:32 PM, Robert Munn wrote:
>
>> So your country bombed another country into sh** and spent trillions of
>> dollars to forcibly Install it's own democratic state in a sovereign
>> region?
>>
>
> So you liked Saddam's regime, you thought it was a good a just government
> fo
On Sun, Oct 31, 2010 at 1:32 PM, Robert Munn wrote:
>
> On Sun, Oct 31, 2010 at 10:53 AM, Vivec wrote:
>
>>
>> Oh come off it Robert.
>> Since when did that become a defined purpose?
>>
>
> That was always a purpose of the Iraq War.
Stated where? The rhetoric before the invasion was to find an
On Sun, Oct 31, 2010 at 10:53 AM, Vivec wrote:
>
> Oh come off it Robert.
> Since when did that become a defined purpose?
>
That was always a purpose of the Iraq War.
> So your country bombed another country into sh** and spent trillions of
> dollars to forcibly Install it's own democratic st
On Sun, Oct 31, 2010 at 10:42 AM, Robert Munn wrote:
>
> On Sat, Oct 30, 2010 at 8:36 PM, Maureen wrote:
>
>>
>> Withdrawal does not equal Win
>>
>> Of course, it's pretty impossible to win when there was no defined purpose.
>>
>>
>
> Of course there was a defined purpose - creating a democratic
On Sun, Oct 31, 2010 at 1:53 PM, Vivec wrote:
>
> Oh come off it Robert.
> Since when did that become a defined purpose?
>
> So your country bombed another country into sh** and spent trillions of
> dollars to forcibly Install it's own democratic state in a sovereign region?
Iraq is America? Is
Is that really fair to the people that were repressing?
:)
On Sun, Oct 31, 2010 at 1:42 PM, Robert Munn wrote:
>
>
> Of course there was a defined purpose - creating a democratic state among
> the repressive Arab regimes to give Arabs a path to live in a free country.
On Sun, Oct 31, 2010 at 1:23 PM, Maureen wrote:
>
> Since when do you listen to what Biden said?
Whenever I need a good chuckle.
> And why would it be a
> success for Obama to win Bush's war. Seems just the opposite.
Because Obama won the war that Bush lost two years ago.
Again Biden I believ
Oh come off it Robert.
Since when did that become a defined purpose?
So your country bombed another country into sh** and spent trillions of
dollars to forcibly Install it's own democratic state in a sovereign region?
Simultaneously your country actively supports and enforces the actions of
neigh
Speaking of Biden, I actually tried to go see him speak yesterday, on a
whim.
He was in town at a rally for a local Democratic race, an outdoor rally,
about a mile from here.
I got as close as 2 blocks to the location, and got no further. Couldn't
even hear them speak.
On Sun, Oct 31, 2010 at
On Sat, Oct 30, 2010 at 8:36 PM, Maureen wrote:
>
> Withdrawal does not equal Win
>
> Of course, it's pretty impossible to win when there was no defined purpose.
>
>
Of course there was a defined purpose - creating a democratic state among
the repressive Arab regimes to give Arabs a path to liv
Since when do you listen to what Biden said? And why would it be a
success for Obama to win Bush's war. Seems just the opposite.
On Sun, Oct 31, 2010 at 8:33 AM, Sam wrote:
>
> Biden said it was one of Obama's biggest successes.
>
>
> On Sat, Oct 30, 2010 at 11:36 PM, Maureen wrote:
>>
>> Wit
Biden said it was one of Obama's biggest successes.
On Sat, Oct 30, 2010 at 11:36 PM, Maureen wrote:
>
> Withdrawal does not equal Win
>
> Of course, it's pretty impossible to win when there was no defined purpose.
>
>
~|
Orde
Withdrawal does not equal Win
Of course, it's pretty impossible to win when there was no defined purpose.
On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 9:43 PM, Sam wrote:
>
> August, just like promised.
>
> Why do you think we left? Surrender?
>
>
> On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 11:09 PM, Maureen wrote:
>>
>> We won in
According to Obama the war is over and they even changed the name from
Operation Iraqi Freedom to Operation New Dawn. The 50K soldiers in
country are there for training and advising purposes only. They do NOT
go out on combat missions.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/
Are you tattling on me?
Really? It's like that now?
On Sat, Oct 30, 2010 at 1:25 PM, Eric Roberts
wrote:
>
> Or reading abilities...like how he asked if that was in 2008 in response to
> me posting that unemployment dropped a percentage point since Sept
> **2009**...reading is fundamental...
>
Are you calling Obama a liar? He clearly stated the war has ended.
On Sat, Oct 30, 2010 at 12:43 PM, Larry C. Lyons wrote:
>
> Again sometimes the right wing math abilities are amazing. 50.000
> soldiers stationed in Iraq is not leaving.
>
~~
:43 AM
To: cf-community
Subject: Re: An October Surprise?
Again sometimes the right wing math abilities are amazing. 50.000
soldiers stationed in Iraq is not leaving.
On Sat, Oct 30, 2010 at 12:43 AM, Sam wrote:
>
> August, just like promised.
>
> Why do you think we left? Surrender?
Again sometimes the right wing math abilities are amazing. 50.000
soldiers stationed in Iraq is not leaving.
On Sat, Oct 30, 2010 at 12:43 AM, Sam wrote:
>
> August, just like promised.
>
> Why do you think we left? Surrender?
>
>
> On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 11:09 PM, Maureen wrote:
>>
>> We won
First one wasn't his fault, but it should have made him focus.
Then maybe the second could have been avoided. That's a big maybe but still.
On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 11:13 PM, Maureen wrote:
>
> So let me see if I have this straight.
>
> The first bombing, which happened on February 26, 1993, 3
August, just like promised.
Why do you think we left? Surrender?
On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 11:09 PM, Maureen wrote:
>
> We won in Iraq? When?
~|
Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now!
http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion
So let me see if I have this straight.
The first bombing, which happened on February 26, 1993, 36 days after
Clinton took office, was Clinton's fault.
The second bombing, which happened on Sept. 11, 2001, almost nine
months after Bush 2 took office, was also Clinton's fault.
Quite a leap of logi
We won in Iraq? When?
On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 6:42 PM, Sam wrote:
>
> Remember in Iraq they attacked their own and that helped us win.
> They're not strategic, just hateful.
>
> On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 8:49 PM, Maureen wrote:
>>
>> So a terrorist attack now would make the President look really
Americans have short memories. The first WTC bombing was in 1993.
On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 7:15 PM, Casey Dougall <
ca...@uberwebsitesolutions.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 9:09 PM, Robert Munn wrote:
>
> >
> > On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 5:49 PM, Eric Roberts <
> > ow...@threeravensconsul
If the blow job was that good...w00t!
-Original Message-
From: Sam [mailto:sammyc...@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, October 29, 2010 9:46 PM
To: cf-community
Subject: Re: An October Surprise?
umm, he lost the codes for months on end. Maybe he should have focused.
On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at
umm, he lost the codes for months on end. Maybe he should have focused.
On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 10:17 PM, Eric Roberts
wrote:
>
> ROFL...no kidding. I have always said that if the guy with his fingers on
> our nuclear arsenal wants a blowjob...more power to him...whatever keeps him
> calm hehe
: cf-community
Subject: Re: An October Surprise?
On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 9:09 PM, Robert Munn wrote:
>
> On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 5:49 PM, Eric Roberts <
> ow...@threeravensconsulting.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > Yes, because they did such a good job on 9/11...
> >
>
On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 9:09 PM, Robert Munn wrote:
>
> On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 5:49 PM, Eric Roberts <
> ow...@threeravensconsulting.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > Yes, because they did such a good job on 9/11...
> >
> >
> A tragic legacy of the eight year failure of Bill Clinton's team to
> recognize a
Remember in Iraq they attacked their own and that helped us win.
They're not strategic, just hateful.
On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 8:49 PM, Maureen wrote:
>
> So a terrorist attack now would make the President look really, really
> bad. But of course none of our enemies would want him to look bad,
>
That still doesn't explain why it would benefit them for Republicans
to win elections.
On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 6:13 PM, Robert Munn wrote:
>
> They don't have a civilization, they are trying to revive a brutal,
> repressive 10th century Islamic civilization and spread it throughout the
> world.
On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 6:05 PM, Maureen wrote:
>
> And that is different from what we want to do to them in what way?
>
They don't have a civilization, they are trying to revive a brutal,
repressive 10th century Islamic civilization and spread it throughout the
world. They are not representati
On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 5:49 PM, Eric Roberts <
ow...@threeravensconsulting.com> wrote:
>
> Yes, because they did such a good job on 9/11...
>
>
A tragic legacy of the eight year failure of Bill Clinton's team to
recognize and properly deal with the looming threat of Al Qaeda and Islamic
terroris
And that is different from what we want to do to them in what way?
On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 5:57 PM, Robert Munn wrote:
> They don't care who is in charge. They hate all of us equally. They want to
> destroy our civilization and replace it with their own.
~~~
On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 5:49 PM, Maureen wrote:
>
> So a terrorist attack now would make the President look really, really
> bad. But of course none of our enemies would want him to look bad,
> cause they are so afraid of the scary Republicans, right?
>
They don't care who is in charge. They
Yes, because they did such a good job on 9/11...
-Original Message-
From: Robert Munn [mailto:cfmuns...@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, October 29, 2010 7:40 PM
To: cf-community
Subject: Re: An October Surprise?
On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 2:04 PM, Maureen wrote:
>
> How would the
So a terrorist attack now would make the President look really, really
bad. But of course none of our enemies would want him to look bad,
cause they are so afraid of the scary Republicans, right?
On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 5:39 PM, Robert Munn wrote:
> They do not benefit at all from this stuff. P
On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 2:04 PM, Maureen wrote:
>
> How would the Obama administration benefit by a terrorist scare?
> Seems it would be just the opposite because "..h, he didn't get
> rid of all the scary terrorists...Bush kept up safe...Obama fail..."
>
They do not benefit at all from thi
been wondering the same. apart from the Obama spin, but yah, I'm seeing a
pattern here too...
h...
Sent from my iPhone... Don't hate.
On Oct 29, 2010, at 5:04 PM, Maureen wrote:
>
> How would the Obama administration benefit by a terrorist scare?
> Seems it would be just the opposite be
How would the Obama administration benefit by a terrorist scare?
Seems it would be just the opposite because "..h, he didn't get
rid of all the scary terrorists...Bush kept up safe...Obama fail..."
On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 1:51 PM, Judah McAuley wrote:
>
> I don't see a narrative solid enoug
New government fiscal year on Sept 30, so terrorism budgets are full again
and we are looking for terrorists again?
(When I worked in the defense industry, I was always amazed at how seemly
vital defense projects would shut down for the year once money ran out,
sometimes for months, waiting for t
So there have been a bunch of rather nebulous, perhaps even odd,
terrorism-related threats today. There is now an announcement of two
explosives being sent from Yemen to a Chicago Synagogue via UPS and
causing alerts in London and Dubai. There are also reports of a flight
from the UAE being escort
WASHINGTON -- President Bush acknowledged Wednesday the heavy
bloodshed in Iraq this month, but sought to give assurances that the
U.S. is continually refining its tactics to help the country's nascent
government bolster its security forces and stop the violence.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB11
> > Robert wrote:
> > So in the end, our governments sat by watching and said nothing.
> Does that surprise you?
>
> No, and I think you're right. I'd go one step further:
>
> I think Mr. Bush traded Russian support for the war in Iraq with
> turning a blind eye to the weapons violations AND to
> Andy wrote:
> Very interesting perspective. And this makes sense. If any of the
> terrorist groups had the stash, they'd of probably filmed it and placed it
> on the web to increase the fear.
I thought one of these films did come out yesterday, but it wasn't confirmed.
~~
> Robert wrote:
> So in the end, our governments sat by watching and said nothing. Does that surprise
> you?
No, and I think you're right. I'd go one step further:
I think Mr. Bush traded Russian support for the war in Iraq with
turning a blind eye to the weapons violations AND to whatever Mr.
Very interesting perspective. And this makes sense. If any of the
terrorist groups had the stash, they'd of probably filmed it and placed it
on the web to increase the fear.
Andy
-Original Message-
From: Robert Munn
Here is the latest on the story:
Russia did not go "on its own". It h
Here is the latest on the story:
Russia did not go "on its own". It has been VERY well documented that Russian military
suppliers- that means the Russian government, essentially- were dealing arms to Saddam
in violation of the UN, over a period of years. When US troops got into Iraq and
started
Related reading and viewing:
Rumsfeld's War
The inside story of the war inside the Pentagon: Donold Rumsfeld's
battle to assert civilian control and remake the way America fights. A
joint report by FRONTLINE and the Washington Post.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/pentagon/
-Kevin
> Robert wrote:
> what could we have done to prevent it from happening - short of killing everything
I think the debate all thoughout the planning and war was did we have
enough troops? The Pentagon insisted we did, but it's turned out we
didn't.
There were many inside the Pentagon that differed
No I don't, and that's a problem with this story. What I don't understand is that the
Times quoted an official from the Pentagon by name, so other news organizations should
be able to follow up and get this information. So far I haven't seen anything else in
print about it. Pat Buchanan did ment
See, I'm fair and balanced.
It describes the disagreement but not exactly the way
you say. Just wanted to clear it up.
-sm
--- Gruss Gott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Fantastic article, thank you. It describes Mr.
> Shinseki's
> disagreements with Mr. Rumsfeld and how his
> "retirement" was rea
> Sam wrote:
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,925140,00.html
Gen Shinseki might say, "Mahalo Nui Loa for your kukoa" :)
~|
Purchase from House of Fusion, a Macromedia Authorized Affiliate and support the CF
> Sam wrote:
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,925140,00.html
Fantastic article, thank you. It describes Mr. Shinseki's
disagreements with Mr. Rumsfeld and how his "retirement" was really
"re-fire-ment".
~|
He came into office in June 1999 with a clear vision
for "transformation" and talked passionately about the
army's need to adjust from thinking about traditional
enemies to what he called "complicators", including
both terrorists and the then little-known phrase
"weapons of mass destruction". Gen S
Of course that is fair. The timing is unfortunate, but all papers and news programs
run on a timeline. the fact that it would have come out the day before the election is
actual complete coincidence, it looks like.
Had they had the story in the can for a whole week, and delayed the story, it wou
And that's fair to you?
Did you know they also have a 60 minutes on Wednesday?
I'm shocked that the NY Times had the decency to the
right thing.
Keller said "60 Minutes" executives asked the
newspaper to hold the story until this Sunday so they
could report it the same day, and "we said we weren
Sit up and pay attention!
=)
60 minutes is an hourly news show broadcast on Sunday nights.
Of course they were going to hold off on the story until the following Sunday night.
That is when they are on TV. And it was probably part of their agreement with the NY
Times that the Times also had to
thanks Sam, printing it for later perusal
Dana
On Thu, 28 Oct 2004 12:43:08 -0700 (PDT), Sam Morris
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Drudge is right 39% of the time :) Is this one of
> them?
>
> http://www.drudgereportarchives.com/data/2004/10/26/20041026_223804_nbcw6.htm
>
> Jeff Fager, executive
Well look at that, Drudge got this one right.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A3493-2004Oct27.html
On Sunday night, New York Times Executive Editor Bill
Keller told Jeff Fager, executive producer of CBS's
"60 Minutes," that the story they had been jointly
pursuing on missing Iraqi a
Drudge is right 39% of the time :) Is this one of
them?
http://www.drudgereportarchives.com/data/2004/10/26/20041026_223804_nbcw6.htm
Jeff Fager, executive producer of the Sunday edition
of 60 MINUTES, said in a statement that "our plan was
to run the story on October 31, but it became clear
that
Andy
I just searched Google News for CBS and found no reference to weapons.
Nor was there anything of the kind on CBS this morning. Maybe I wasn't
clear -- what I am questioning is your contention that CBS held the
story.
As always, I suppose it is possible that I am just not seeing something.
D
do you have a source for this besides the washington times? I don't
want to get my mouse dirty.
Dana
On Thu, 28 Oct 2004 00:21:47 -0400, Robert Munn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Here is the latest on this story:
>
> US troops got to the site in early April and killed or captured about 200 Iraqi
Its been all over the papers yesterday and today. I saw it in the Chicago
Tribune. The start of this thread had the story.
Andy
-Original Message-
From: dana tierneyse
why do you think CBS was holding the story? Generally, if the
broadcast media has a fault it is rushing a story onto
, the Sinclair
story was opinions of people who did not serve with Kerry (as far as I
know).
- Matt Small
-Original Message-
From: dana tierney [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, October 28, 2004 3:12 PM
To: CF-Community
Subject: Re: October Surprise
why do you think CBS was holding the
dy
>
> -Original Message-
> From: dana tierney [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, October 28, 2004 1:52 PM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: Re: October Surprise
>
> my understanding - the administration knew some time ago, and the
> story just came out, presu
EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, October 28, 2004 1:52 PM
To: CF-Community
Subject: Re: October Surprise
my understanding - the administration knew some time ago, and the
story just came out, presumably dure to a leak. I got it in the
followiing order:
1) the stuff is missing
2) the stuff is mi
my understanding - the administration knew some time ago, and the
story just came out, presumably dure to a leak. I got it in the
followiing order:
1) the stuff is missing
2) the stuff is missing but it wasn't there when our troops got there
3) Our troops didn't find it there but on the other h
> Andy wrote:
> My problem is both of your willingness to state opinion as fact when reality
> is so much more complicated. In many ways you are acting in the same
> fashion that you accuse the man you dislike, which seems somewhat
> disingenuous.
How about these facts then:
1.) General Shinseki
ebanon and Iran. You've got to be kidding.
I heard that Santa even participated by flying out a few loads in his sliegh.
-Original Message-
From: Robert Munn [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 2004 9:22 PM
To: CF-Community
Subject: Re: October Surprise - th
That's correct. And each required a different strategy. One could utilize
a broader coalition and therefore required less US troops and the other
couldn't. So Bush chose the correct strategy for each.
Andy
-Original Message-
From: Larry C. Lyons
The point is that Iraq and Afghanistan
The point is that Iraq and Afghanistan are entirely separate cases
with different backgrounds and causes. You cannot equate the two.
larry
On Thu, 28 Oct 2004 11:36:57 -0500, Andy Ousterhout
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Point is that a coalition was assembled when possible.
>
> -Original Me
Point is that a coalition was assembled when possible.
-Original Message-
From: Larry C. Lyons
Andy,
If you look at the nations involved with the coalition to out the
Taliban, you'll find it is composed of countries whose nationals were
killed by Alqueda on 9-11. Moreover the attack on
Andy,
If you look at the nations involved with the coalition to out the
Taliban, you'll find it is composed of countries whose nationals were
killed by Alqueda on 9-11. Moreover the attack on Afghanistan had
nothing to do with a coaltion. The Bush administration invoked article
5 of the NATO treat
oops:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A52673-2004Oct21.html
On Thu, 28 Oct 2004 11:19:32 -0500, Gruss Gott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Sam wrote:
> > Tommy Franks said they never reduced the troops in
> > Afghanistan they more then tripled them since the Iraq
> > war.
>
> I'm n
> Sam wrote:
> Tommy Franks said they never reduced the troops in
> Afghanistan they more then tripled them since the Iraq
> war.
I'm not sure that's accurate. From the Washington Post:
[A meeting in March 2002 began] a year-long drawdown of specialized
military and intelligence resources from t
Yikes. Sounds like Bush put together an international coalition. How dare
he! Just when Kerry & Co had him pegged. Guess it is time to bury the
truth...
-Original Message-
From: Sam Morris
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/19/opinion/19franks.html?ex=1255924800&en=dfe
849b12233309f&ei=50
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/19/opinion/19franks.html?ex=1255924800&en=dfe849b12233309f&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland
Second, we did not "outsource" military action. We did
rely heavily on Afghans because they knew Tora Bora, a
mountainous, geographically difficult region on the
border of Afghanis
Jerry Jwrote:
> On September 12th and 13th, Bush had top-level meetings to figure out what to DO
> after 9/11.
Well written! I would add that the special ops team that was closing
in Bin Laden was pulled out and moved to Iraq.
[A March 2002 meeting began] a year-long drawdown of specialized
mil
No disagreement.
-Original Message-
From: Matthew Small
Having been in the military, I know that a "retirement" is often as much a
firing as anything. I don't believe Shinseki was "fired" i.e. "Get your
crap and get out", but that he was made into a lame duck by announcing his
retirement
Did you just make this up or did Michael Moore make
another movie?
Tommy Franks said they never reduced the troops in
Afghanistan they more then tripled them since the Iraq
war.
Nice theory though.
--- Jerry Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Everything was going pretty well in Afghanistan
>
age-
From: Andy Ousterhout [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, October 28, 2004 11:34 AM
To: CF-Community
Subject: RE: October Surprise - the short version
When one disagrees with ones boss and is forced to quit, it is never because
the boss is correct. Only time shows whether the b
The difference is, to the best of my knowledge, my opining on these boards hasn't
killed or maimed a single person.
If I am wrong (and I often am), it does not matter too much.
(And which man do I dislike and what am I accusing him of?)
Jerry Johnson
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 10/28/04 11:33AM >>>
On September 12th and 13th, Bush had top-level meetings to figure out what to DO after
9/11.
The first and most obvious target was Afghanistan, and that is what many at the
meeting said should be our top priority. It was going to be hard, but they were
DANGEROUS.
Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld and others
When one disagrees with ones boss and is forced to quit, it is never because
the boss is correct. Only time shows whether the boss or subordinate where
correct. Many times, the disagreement has less to do with substance then
with style. The actual cause of Shinseki's leaving is likely never to b
> Andy wrote:
> Check your facts. From FactCheck:
Andy,
You're right that Gen. Shinseki filed his retirement sometime in 2002
and was not forced to retire solely due to his troops comment in 2003.
QED. No disagreement.
For 2 years, however, Gen Shinseki was not getting along with his
Pentagon
The Bush administration was against going into Afghanistan?? Where did
you come up with that?
As for the successes in Afghanistan, I don't know if i'd give as much credit
to the CIA as I would to the incredible desire amongst Afghanis to be free
to run their own countrysomething that is se
The problem being, the plans were not created by the Defense Department. Or the
Pentagon. Or the Military at all. They were created in back rooms by the people who
eventually became Bush's Defense team.
Not that this is even necessarily a problem. But if they want to create plans that do
not ha
> Andy wrote:
> Gruss,
> I am beginning to suspect that you are working for the Kerry campaign
I am KERRY! Ha ha ha ... no, I'm not. I'm a fiscal conservative and
I don't work for the campaign. I'm just making an analysis which is:
During war planning the Pentagon should've had a list of all I
I hope there were invasion plans in 1991. I hope those plans were retained
and updated throughout the 90's, ultimately finished off prior to the actual
assault in 2003.
Likewise, I hope invasion plans are in place, should they be necessary, for
any of the currently forseeable possibilities, includ
When do you think the invasion plans for Iraq were made? Around the beginning of 2003?
Around April 2002? Or Spring 2001? (Or, according to many reports, starting just after
the conclusion of the first Gulf war in 1992)
Yes, it is true that the General announced his retirement in the Spring of 2
Check your facts. From FactCheck:
Kerry claimed, as he had in the first debate, that the Army's Chief of
Staff, Gen. Eric K. Shinseki, was forced to retire for saying before the
invasion of Iraq that many more troops were needed than the administration
was planning to send.
It is true that Shins
No, he didn't. He resigned after the plans were in place (but before they were made
public). There is absolutely no doubt that he was forced out by Rumsfeld due to deep
differences between them.
He announced his retirement after the plans were in place because the troop
discussions were going o
:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, October 28, 2004 8:24 AM
To: CF-Community
Subject: Re: October Surprise - the short version
> Robert wrote:
> This all looks to be a gigantic blunder by Kerry
That's the best theory I've heard yet, but your final analysis is way off.
This cha
> Robert wrote:
> This all looks to be a gigantic blunder by Kerry
That's the best theory I've heard yet, but your final analysis is way off.
This charge works for Mr. Kerry if only because Mr. Bush should've
immediately been able to dispute it, yet he couldn't and still can't.
Further, since he
Here is the latest on this story:
US troops got to the site in early April and killed or captured about 200 Iraqi
troops- Saddam Fedayeen and Special Republican Guard units- who were positioned inside
the compound. US 3rd Infantry Division made a search of the facility and found none of
the wea
1 - 100 of 126 matches
Mail list logo
