New Bush/AWOL Ad

[PaceAdvantage]

I hear that another one of those "not-directly-affiliated-with-the-candidate" groups that BOTH parties enjoy these days is going to release an ad saying Bush was somehow AWOL during his National Guard service.....

These guys don't really get it, do they? Even if he WAS AWOL, at this point, IT DOESN'T MATTER. His LAST FOUR YEARS OF TRIAL-BY-FIRE EXPERIENCE AS COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF TRUMPS ANY SORT OF SERVICE (or non-service) HE MAY HAVE DONE 30 SOMETHING YEARS AGO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Don't you guys get it? The time to bring up all this AWOL crap was BEFORE GWB was elected 4 years ago.

At this point, IT'S A MOOT POINT!

Your guy (Kerry) is the one with SOMETHING TO PROVE, not George W. He's already proven himself.....

This ad will only come off as an act of desperation on the part of Kerry supporters. Come on! Get the ball rolling here Kerry people. You can do better than this, can't you?

[schweitz]

Originally posted by PaceAdvantage


Don't you guys get it? The time to bring up all this AWOL crap was BEFORE GWB was elected 4 years ago.



This ad will only come off as an act of desperation on the part of Kerry supporters. Come on! Get the ball rolling here Kerry people. You can do better than this, can't you?

They did and it didn't work then----and it definitely an act of desperation.

[JustMissed]

Not sure what the word is for "more than desparate", but that is where the Kerry campaign is at.

Had to get rid of all his folks and bring in Clinton's used up has beens, including that little naked guy from Lord of the Rings, uh, I mean James Carville.

Less than 60 days before the election and he is calling sick people in the hospital to get advice. Guess he though lying former impeached president Bill Clinton would die so he just had to ask"Hey Bill, what am I doing wrong".

If you were writing a screen play for a movie about a political party that for some reason wanted to LOSE an election, you could not pick a better leading character than lying John Kerry.

Anyway, that missed guard drill story will go nowhere.

That Kitty Kelly book about the Bushs will go no where(I think everone is burned out on all these books anyway). I guess they will be good items to re-gift to people you don't like for Christmas. I think Elizabeth Edwards luncheon selection at Wendy's might be more interesting.

Anyway, you should be prepared for future Swifty ads by placing several boxes of Kleenx tissue by your TV set. Prior to the election when they start running the ads of the testimony of the American POWs who were locked in cages in Viet Nam while they were forced to listen to the voice of lying John Kerry's as he lied to Congress about them. These ads will be heart wrenching and will turn a 4-6 point lead into a 8-9 point victory.

Hey, there are several things Bush has done that I am not happy with and I had hoped the DemLibs would at least nominate someone who could challenge him. Too bad they picked such a loser.

JM






:)

[ElKabong]

What a farce...People that go AWOL in the Reserves don't receive one of these below.

http://users.cis.net/coldfeet/ANG22.gif

Note the type of discharge is "HONORABLE".

[Equineer]

Both candidates need to page forward at least 30 years... to the present!

The Bush Administration needs to admit Iraq was a mistake. We found nothing that indicates Saddam was any more a threat to America than plenty of other unfriendly regimes, and Saddam was certainly less of a threat than several regimes that actually have nuclear warheads.

Ironically, Saudi Arabians have funded more international terrorism than any other Arab nationality... and they must be laughing their asses off behind closed doors while they reap the benefits of unprecendented crude oil prices.

After a thousand U.S. soldiers killed, thousands more seriously injured and robbed of any chance to pursue a normal life, and a military campaign where have spent many-$-millions to kill/capture each legitimate terrorist, what do we have to show for our efforts except enormous debt, bereaved/suffering families, and total chaos in Iraq?

Toppling Saddam has not produced a shortage of willing terrorists!

And for his part, Kerry has been gutless by promising to have our troops out of Iraq within FOUR YEARS! Simply pathetic!

Why is it so tragically difficult for our government to admit a mistake and pull the plug in Iraq right now? If this thing drags out four more years, we will have a country bitterly divided just as we did during Viet Nam.

Since the end of WW-II, conventional warfare has failed many times over to defeat guerrilla/terrorist tactics.

[ljb]

I kinda agree with PA here. The fact that Bush was AWOL during the Viet Nam war should have nothing to do with this election. We all know that Bush tends to run and hide when the going gets tough. Accept it and lets get on with life.

[Secretariat]

I figured negative advertising was going to really start ramming up after the Swift Boat people emerged, and although I did not watch the RNC convention, I have been told that almost every speaker bashed Kerry rather than outline their platform.

So I guess this is where we are. Unfortunate, but as the meida keeps reporting, "negative ads seem to affect the voters." Sad.

I'm not quite sure why though if Kerry's service record can be brought up as an issue continually why Bush's wouldn't also be.

However, personally, I find digging up dirt on both irrelevant to where we are today, and how we've got to move forward from this fiscal mess we are in.

I often think if one looked at any of the dumb stuff most of us did when we were 18-22 we'd all be in trouble, except maybe for Pat Robertson and Lefty.

[lsbets]

sec :
"I often think if one looked at any of the dumb stuff most of us did when we were 18-22 we'd all be in trouble'

We actually agree on this. Isn't this two times in one month?

[ljb]

lsbets:
What about me? What about me? how about agreeing with me? Aw come on just this once! ;)

[sq764]

I really think Kerry could prove Bush was piloting one of the planes headed for the Pentagon on 9/11 and it still wouldn't affect the election at this point.

Kerry had every opportunity to steal the election and blew it on so many levels.

From what I understand, he does not listen to his advisors and loves to make the final decision on everything.. So, maybe the blame does not sit on his campaign managers, maybe it sits squarely in his lap..

[ElKabong]

Originally posted by sq764
I really think Kerry could prove Bush was piloting one of the planes headed for the Pentagon on 9/11 and it still wouldn't affect the election at this point.

Kerry had every opportunity to steal the election and blew it on so many levels.

From what I understand, he does not listen to his advisors and loves to make the final decision on everything.. So, maybe the blame does not sit on his campaign managers, maybe it sits squarely in his lap..


The way Kerry has reacted to the swiftvets is proof enough for me to KNOW Kerry is Unfit for Command. He lost his cool, made every decision a wrong one. He attacked many outlets with lawsuits, but didn't file a lawsuit with the one and only person he could possibly do so with: John O'Neill. O'Neill even dared him to sue, Kerry backed down.

Kerry is a hothead with no leadership qualities.

[JustRalph]

I can't believe they are going back to this awol crap. Desperation is the right word

[kenwoodallpromos]

I agree. After 9/11 Bush was forced to run and hide in Nebraska while Cheney took care of things, while Kerry and Edwards were shaking in their boots in DC unable to think.
Accept it.

[Secretariat]

Originally posted by JustRalph
I can't believe they are going back to this awol crap. Desperation is the right word

JR,

After the SW lies what did you expect? C'mon. It's only going to get uglier now on both sides.

[ElKabong]

Sec,

Swiftvet lies?

They outed Kerry on his lie of being in Cambodia for xmas, his first purple heart, and other events as well. They've done this country a service, now two of Kerry's medals are under investigation by the Navy for being fraudulent.

The swifts have served their country honorably. They didn't exit from Vietnam as fast as possible. Some served multiple tours as swifts, **all** served in COSDIV's longer than Kerry did.

[PaceAdvantage]

Calling all Bush supporters (I'm one of them), don't count your chickens before they are hatched. It's a long way to November 2, and polls really don't mean a whole lot right now, except that they might give you a shallow kind of "good feeling" in the pit of your stomach.

You've been warned....lol

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally posted by Equineer
The Bush Administration needs to admit Iraq was a mistake. We found nothing that indicates Saddam was any more a threat to America than plenty of other unfriendly regimes, and Saddam was certainly less of a threat than several regimes that actually have nuclear warheads.

How about our ally Israel. Was he a threat to them? Saying he wasn't more of a threat to America than any other unfriendly regime is just plain wrong. Name another unfriendly regime in the last 10 years that has taken shots at our American soldiers in their fighter jets? This is just for starters.

Ironically, Saudi Arabians have funded more international terrorism than any other Arab nationality... and they must be laughing their asses off behind closed doors while they reap the benefits of unprecendented crude oil prices.

Oh really? And you know this how? How do you know how much Saddam Hussein has been aiding and abetting Al-Queda? Saddam was, up until the day American troops took to the streets of Iraq, a VERY wealthy man. You mean to tell me he never provided monetary aid to the enemies of the United States. You can't be that naive.....he openly said he would pay the families of Palestinian suicide bombers, did he not?

Toppling Saddam has not produced a shortage of willing terrorists!

But I betcha it cut out a major artery of funds for the bad guys.

Why is it so tragically difficult for our government to admit a mistake and pull the plug in Iraq right now?

Yeah, that's a solution.

If this thing drags out four more years, we will have a country bitterly divided just as we did during Viet Nam.

I heard that during the first Gulf War, from a Vietnam vet. It didn't happen then. No point in hoping for it now.

[JustRalph]

Originally posted by Equineer
The Bush Administration needs to admit Iraq was a mistake. We found nothing that indicates Saddam was any more a threat to America than plenty of other unfriendly regimes, and Saddam was certainly less of a threat than several regimes that actually have nuclear warheads.

Name me one "regime" that has "nuclear warheads" and more appropriately, one regime that bolsters your assertions?

[Tom]

Originally posted by ljb
I kinda agree with PA here. The fact that Bush was AWOL during the Viet Nam war should have nothing to do with this election. We all know that Bush tends to run and hide when the going gets tough. Accept it and lets get on with life.


I think you confused W with Clinton. HE was the one who ran to Paris to avoid Viet Nam. W was learning to pilot war planes and was on call to go if needed. Billy was not. You guys keep forgeting that.

[Tom]

Originally posted by JustRalph
I can't believe they are going back to this awol crap. Desperation is the right word

There are really 2 Americas. And I don't much want to unite them.

[Secretariat]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by PaceAdvantage
(1)How about our ally Israel. Was he a threat to them?

(2) How do you know how much Saddam Hussein has been aiding and abetting Al-Queda?

(3) But I betcha it cut out a major artery of funds for the bad guys.



(1) Our ally Israel. You mean the country that's been recently spying on us?

(2) We have no proof either way. Generally you don't go to war based on "maybes", especially when the culprits of 911 are still at large. (See Franks comments to Graham and the Al Queda Chechen link - seems we would have caputred more Al Queda in Chechyna, Pakistan, Iran or Saudi Arabia then we have ever caught in Iraq?)

(3) What do you base the comment, it took a major artery out of the funds for the bad guys? Powell has admitted terrorism has increased worldwide. It appears al Queda was linked to the Chechen tragedy, and possibly Madrid. Seems the only funding that is drying up is ours. 200 billion in Iraq THUS FAR, and 422 billion dollar estimate (which doesn't incldue everything) setting record levels. Now that's a major artery.

[Secretariat]

btw...I want to go on record here, that the "Texans for Truth" ads are wrong. Just as the "Swift Vote group" was wrong.

Both of these groups are wrong. It takes us away from where we are today, and how we have to deal with today's problems.

However, I think it is possible that these two groups may end up affecting the election, and that is a shame.

[JustRalph]

I can tell you this.........Saddam is not paying suicide bombers and their families to blow up buses in Israel anymore...........

[PaceAdvantage]

I'm sure we spy on Israel as well....it's all part of the game....

[JustRalph]

New Bumber Sticker.........emailed to me by a friend.......

[lsbets]

Israel spied on us - so what? How much do you want to bet that we spy on them. I'm sure we also spy on the rest of our allies - Britain, Germany, France(should probably pu them opn the enemies list, etc.........) That is the way the game is played. Everyone spies on everyone else, just sometimes it is more friendly than others.

[JustRalph]

This letter was sent to John McCain and reprinted in the USA Today........FYI

Subject:
John Kerry's Post Vietnam Record

To:
Sen. John McCain

September 1, 2004

Dear Senator McCain,

Has your staff looked into these allegations, which seem to have been culled from military records in part?

Subject: LT John F Kerry

If we can keep digging up dirt, there is a good chance November 2nd will arrive without our ever realizing the real reasons Kerry should not be elected !

On 18 Feb. 1966 John Kerry signed a 6 year enlistment contract with the Navy
(plus a 6-month extension during wartime).

On 18 Feb. 1966 John Kerry also signed an Officer Candidate contract for 6 years -- 5 years of ACTIVE duty & ACTIVE Naval Reserves, and 1 year of inactive standby reserves (See items #4 & $5).

Because John Kerry was discharged from TOTAL ACTIVE DUTY of only 3 years and 18 days on 3 Jan. 1970, he was then required to attend 48 drills per year, and not more than 17 days active duty for training. Kerry was also subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Additionally, Kerry, as a commissioned officer, was prohibited from making adverse statements
against his chain of command or statements against his country, especially during time of war. It is also interesting to note that Kerry did not obtain an honorable discharge until Mar. 12, 2001 even though his service obligation should have ended July 1, 1972.

Lt. John Kerry's letter of 21 Nov. 1969 asking for an early release from active US Navy duty falsely states, "My current regular period of obligated service would be completed in December of this year."

On Jan. 3, 1970 Lt. John Kerry was transferred to the Naval Reserve Manpower Center in Bainbridge, Maryland.

Where are Kerry's Performance Records for 2 years of obligated Ready Reserve, the 48 drills per year required and his 17 days of active duty per year training while Kerry was in the Ready Reserves? Have these records been released?

Has anyone ever talked to Kerry's Commanding Officer at the Naval Reserve Center where Kerry drilled?

On 1 July 1972 Lt. John Kerry was transferred to Standby Reserve - Inactive.

On 16 February 1978 Lt. John Kerry was discharged from US Naval Reserve.

Below are some of the crimes Lt. Kerry USNR committed as a Ready Reservist, while he was acting as a leader of Vietnam Veterans Against the War: 1. Lt. Kerry attended many rallies where the Vietcong flag was displayed while our flag was desecrated, defiled, and mocked, thereby giving aid and comfort to the enemy.

2. Lt. Kerry was involved in a meeting that voted on assassinating members of the US Senate.

3. Lt. Kerry lied under oath against fellow soldiers before the US Senate about crimes committed in Vietnam.

4. Lt. Kerry professed to being a war criminal on national television, and condemned the military and the USA.

5. Lt. Kerry met with NVA and Vietcong communist leaders in Paris, in direct violation of the UCMJ and the U.S. Constitution.

Lt. Kerry by his own words & actions violated the UCMJ and the U.S. Code while serving as a Navy officer. Lt. Kerry stands in violation of Article 3, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution. Lt. Kerry's 1970 meeting with NVA Communists in Paris is in direct violation of the UCMJ's Article 104 part 904, and U.S. Code 18 & U.S.C. 953. That meeting, and Kerry's subsequent support of the communists while leading mass protests against our military in the year that followed, also place him in direct violation of our Constitution's Article 3, Section 3, which defines treason as "giving aid and comfort" to the enemy in time of warfare.

The Constitution's Fourteenth Amendment, Section 3, states, "No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President ... having previously taken an oath...to support the Constitution of the United States, [who has] engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies
thereof."

A. L. "Steve" Nash, MAC Ret, UDT/SEAL SEAL Authentication Team - Director
AuthentiSEAL Phone 707 438 0120 "The only service where all investigators
are US Navy SEALs" <
John Walter Enercon Services SNL Dept 6328 (505)284-2939 Pager


Sun City , AZ

[Lance]

PA wrote:

"Name another unfriendly regime in the last 10 years that has taken shots at our American soldiers in their fighter jets?"

Afghanistan, Bosnia (Serbian part), Yugoslavia.

[JustRalph]

Stan Laurel........?

[Equineer]

Originally posted by JustRalph
Name me one "regime" that has "nuclear warheads" and more appropriately, one regime that bolsters your assertions? A nuclear terrorist attack in the U.S. requires a nuclear weapon, whether it is stolen, hijacked, or willingly supplied to terrorists.

Countries with nuclear weapons and estimates of their numbers, according to independent experts at the Nuclear Threat Initiative, the Centre for Defence Information and the Monterey Institute for International Studies:

- United States: About 6,000 strategic (intercontinental range) nuclear weapons; 1,670 to 3,300 tactical (short-range) nuclear weapons.

- Russia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, and Ukraine: About 5,500 strategic nuclear weapons; 3,000 to 4,000 tactical nuclear weapons.

- China: About 400 strategic and tactical nuclear weapons.

- France: 384 strategic nuclear weapons; 60 to 80 tactical nuclear weapons.

- Britain: 185 strategic nuclear weapons.

- Israel: 100 to 200 nuclear bombs

- India: 30 to 100 nuclear bombs.

- Pakistan: 15 to 50 nuclear bombs

- North Korea: One to two nuclear bombs

- Some intelligence sources report that Iran and Syria have at least one nuclear weapon. This has been denied by officials in both countries; however, both countries claim to have mature development capabilities, and Iran's Foreign Minister insists that the world must accept Iran into the Nuclear Club.

[Secretariat]

Originally posted by lsbets
Israel spied on us - so what? How much do you want to bet that we spy on them. I'm sure we also spy on the rest of our allies - Britain, Germany, France(should probably pu them opn the enemies list, etc.........) That is the way the game is played. Everyone spies on everyone else, just sometimes it is more friendly than others.

So what? You are kidding. You cannot be naive enough to believe that the manipulation of intelligence could not directly affect our foreign policy choices. Just look at Chalabi and the WD claims.

So because Israel spies on us it is more "friendly"? C'mon, if it was so friendly Jonathan Pollard wouldn't have got a life sentence for it.

Here's some excerpts from an AP article on this. This is one powerful lobbying group which may be involved. It is still being investigated:

"There is a huge, aggressive, ongoing set of Israeli activities directed against the United States," said a former intelligence official who was familiar with the latest FBI probe and who recently left government. "Anybody who worked in counterintelligence in a professional capacity will tell you the Israelis are among the most aggressive and active countries targeting the United States."

The former official discounted repeated Israeli denials that the country exceeded acceptable limits to obtain information.
"They undertake a wide range of technical operations and human operations," the former official said. "People here as liaison … aggressively pursue classified intelligence from people. The denials are laughable."

Franklin has not responded to requests for comment, and officials said he was cooperating with authorities. The FBI interviewed several American Israel Political Action Committee (AIPAC) officials last Friday and copied the contents of a computer hard drive. AIPAC has denied any wrongdoing and said it was cooperating fully with investigators.

In a statement released Thursday, AIPAC said the group's continued access to the White House, senior administration officials and ranking members of Congress during the two-year probe would have been "inconceivable … if any shred of evidence of disloyalty or even negligence on AIPAC's part" had been discovered.

AIPAC, has especially close ties to the Bush administration. Addressing the group's policy conference on May 18, President Bush (news - web sites) praised AIPAC for "serving the cause of America" and for highlighting the nuclear threat from Iran.
Washington and Tel Aviv differ on their assessments of Iran's nuclear weapons development. Israel considers Iran's nuclear ambitions its No. 1 security threat, and the issue is the top priority for AIPAC. The Bush administration takes the Iran nuclear threat seriously, but its intelligence estimates classify the danger as less imminent than do the Israeli assessments.

What mystifies those who know AIPAC is how one of the savviest, best-connected lobbying organizations in Washington has found itself enmeshed in a spy investigation.

Although never previously implicated in a potential espionage case, AIPAC has frequently been a subject of controversy. Its close ties to Israel and its aggressive advocacy of Israeli government positions has drawn criticism that it should be registered as an agent of a foreign country. Others, noting its ability to organize significant backing for or against candidates running for national office, have demanded that it be classified as a political action committee.

So far the group has avoided both classifications, either of which would impose major restrictions on its activities.

Three years ago, Fortune magazine ranked AIPAC fourth on its list of Washington's 25 most powerful lobbying groups — ahead of such organizations as the AFL-CIO and the American Medical Assn. "

[Equineer]

PaceAdvantage,

In response to your post...

For valid and obvious reasons, Saddam had many enemies.

Certainly Israelis and a majority of Iraqis hated Saddam. The Turks and Iranians also despised him for massacring Kurds and gassing Iranians... and most Arab countries, especially Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Jordan saw him as a threat... a tyrannical dictator with expansionist dreams.

Furthermore, moderate Islamic clerics and even extreme Jihad fundamentalists, including Bin Laden, have repudiated Saddam as a despot masquerading as an Islamic demigod.

Only oil kept the SOB in power for so many years... at various times, his oil enabled him to attract strange bedfellows, including the United States, France, and Germany.

Remember, like Noriega and the Taliban, Saddam at one time counted on America for weaponry and support.

So...

Is the world better off without Saddam? Of course, he was a murdering thug!

Was Saddam an imminent threat to go to war with America or invade Israel? Hardly! Israel would have nuked him in a New York second!

We invaded Iraq on the supposition that Saddam posed a WMD threat. Turns out we found no WMD threat. Our intelligence agencies have taken a lot of heat for faulty intelligence. However, if you step back and look at Saddam's circumstances, how many nations and political factions had a vested interest in feeding us misinformation? Plenty!!!!

Even the Jihadists benefit, because toppling the demigod Saddam empowers the fundamentalist Iraqi clerics who say good riddance to Saddam while demanding that we get out of Iraq. Iraq is now a more fertile breeding ground for terrorists than when Saddam ruled it with an iron fist. 100 U.S. soldiers killed before we declared victory... 900 more afterwards.

Finally, the cost/benefit argument that invading Iraq was a mistake has been voiced many times in this forum. If you think worldwide terrorism can be defeated by spending $5-10 million to kill/catch each terrorist, I guess that's your prerogative. I can understand why terrorist leaders would encourage us to pursue this strategy, but not why number-crunching handicappers can reach the same conclusion!

[ljb]

Equineer,
I urge you to use caution here. You are posting logic, the rightys hate it when someone posts logical truthful facts that disagree with their premises. Next thing you know they will be calling you names and suggesting you have a small penis. :D :D

[JustRalph]

Originally posted by Equineer
A nuclear terrorist attack in the U.S. requires a nuclear weapon, whether it is stolen, hijacked, or willingly supplied to terrorists.

Russia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, and Ukraine: About 5,500 strategic nuclear weapons; 3,000 to 4,000 tactical nuclear weapons.

They have had these weapons for 40 years as part of the soviet bloc. this is not a regime in the same light as you paint it in you post. In fact many estimates say that over 60% of these weapons no longer function due to the maintenance being sub standard

- China: About 400 strategic and tactical nuclear weapons.

They fall in the same boat as Russia except Bill Clinton and Ron Brown gave them the Technology that will allow them to increase the range of their missiles. Clinton's crew denies their missiles can reach the U.S.

- France: 384 strategic nuclear weapons; 60 to 80 tactical nuclear weapons.

Tactical Nukes can't hit the U.S. The range is usually within 600 miles and are mostly air dropped from Aircraft

- Britain: 185 strategic nuclear weapons.

You call Tony Blair a threatening Regime?

- Israel: 100 to 200 nuclear bombs

Our friend......where is the threat?...

- India: 30 to 100 nuclear bombs.

Wingnuts who need to be dealt with, but they can't reach us, yet

- Pakistan: 15 to 50 nuclear bombs

Same as India

- North Korea: One to two nuclear bombs

No way they threaten us, yet........The B-2's can end this threat in 48 hours or less. They have also been to the table unlike Saddam

- Some intelligence sources report that Iran and Syria have at least one nuclear weapon. This has been denied by officials in both countries; however, both countries claim to have mature development capabilities, and Iran's Foreign Minister insists that the world must accept Iran into the Nuclear Club.

But the Nukes are only a threat to localized Nations. They have no Air Force, nor Missile program. Israel is a possible victim though

Both of these countries now have a 140 thousand Americans not far from their borders. More importantly, the assets to bomb the hell out of them are much closer. The Iraq war has been mostly a ground engagement. If we turn the Navy and Air Force loose we can own any of those unfriendly countries you list in a few days

One other difference is that none of these nations openly threatened us, plotted to kill our president nor have they used Chemical Weapons on anybody.......although some say China has used them on their people........the proof is not yet in.....

[Equineer]

JustRalph,

You misread me... I said,Saddam was certainly less of a threat than several regimes that actually have nuclear warheadsTerrorists need to steal, hijack, or be given a nuclear weapon. Even Colin Powell admits that Saddam had none. So security flaws, accidents, or treachery in countries that actually have nukes are what we have to fear. There is no such thing as a friendly nuke if it falls into the wrong hands... we learned that about passenger jets on 9/11.

[Tom]

Originally posted by Lance
PA wrote:

"Name another unfriendly regime in the last 10 years that has taken shots at our American soldiers in their fighter jets?"

Afghanistan, Bosnia (Serbian part), Yugoslavia.

I think we had a go at Afghanistan. Clinton botched the other two.

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally posted by ljb
Equineer,
I urge you to use caution here. You are posting logic, the rightys hate it when someone posts logical truthful facts that disagree with their premises. Next thing you know they will be calling you names and suggesting you have a small penis. :D :D

What is with all the damn self-righteousness? It truly is a turn off.

[Tom]

Sec,
Are you planning a Greatest Posts CD?
Maybe get Charleton Heston to read them for you?
I'll buy a copy and listen to it when I drive to Toga next year.
Would save me a lot of time and ease the strain on my eyes!
:D