AOPA credit card --- WARNING.

mike regish wrote:

Yeah. Like Bush has taken full responsibility for getting us into Iraq under
wrong and false pretenses. Wasn't HIS fault. It was bad intel. Yeah...that's
it...bad intel. That's the ticket.

Oh...wait...Bush isn't a liberal, is he?

Get back on your meds, Matt.

Better watch more news. Bush has taken full responsibility for being in
Iraq in a number of interviews. He was even asked if he'd do it again
knowing that the intel was wrong and he said yes. How much more
assumption of responsibility do you want?

Now do you have a legitimate example?

Matt

"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...
mike regish wrote:

Yeah. Like Bush has taken full responsibility for getting us into Iraq
under wrong and false pretenses. Wasn't HIS fault. It was bad intel.
Yeah...that's it...bad intel. That's the ticket.

Oh...wait...Bush isn't a liberal, is he?

Get back on your meds, Matt.

Better watch more news. Bush has taken full responsibility for being in
Iraq in a number of interviews. He was even asked if he'd do it again
knowing that the intel was wrong and he said yes. How much more
assumption of responsibility do you want?

Now do you have a legitimate example?

That just proves he is stupid

Taking responsibility for screwing up is what I'd like to see. Show me
where he's done that. Any idiot knows he's responsible for getting us there.
Saying that he'd screw up again is not exactly reassuring.


mike regish

"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...
mike regish wrote:

Yeah. Like Bush has taken full responsibility for getting us into Iraq
under wrong and false pretenses. Wasn't HIS fault. It was bad intel.
Yeah...that's it...bad intel. That's the ticket.

Oh...wait...Bush isn't a liberal, is he?

Get back on your meds, Matt.

Better watch more news. Bush has taken full responsibility for being in
Iraq in a number of interviews. He was even asked if he'd do it again
knowing that the intel was wrong and he said yes. How much more
assumption of responsibility do you want?

Now do you have a legitimate example?

Matt

mike regish wrote:

Taking responsibility for screwing up is what I'd like to see. Show me
where he's done that. Any idiot knows he's responsible for getting us there.
Saying that he'd screw up again is not exactly reassuring.

I'd like to see ANY politician admit they've screwed up. I don't think
I've ever seen that happen.


Matt

"mike regish" wrote in message
newsOupd.565787$mD.26031@attbi_s02...

Taking responsibility for screwing up is what I'd like to see. Show me
where he's done that. Any idiot knows he's responsible for getting us
there. Saying that he'd screw up again is not exactly reassuring.


What screw-up?

Using the wrong excuse to invade Iraq.

mike

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
news:4PIpd.53
What screw-up?

Don't confuse Matt with the truth. He is still trying to convince people
that our 18th century founding fathers felt that any 21st century alcoholic
with an assault rifle is a member of some nebulous "militia".

Earl G


"mike regish" wrote in message
news:8Wtpd.391984$wV.154119@attbi_s54...
Yeah. Like Bush has taken full responsibility for getting us into Iraq
under
wrong and false pretenses. Wasn't HIS fault. It was bad intel.
Yeah...that's
it...bad intel. That's the ticket.

Oh...wait...Bush isn't a liberal, is he?

Get back on your meds, Matt.

mike regish

"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...

Casey, you obviously don't understand liberals. They feel that they
shouldn't have to take responsibility for their actions, but rather be
protected and looked after by the government.

Matt

"Matt Whiting" wrote in message Nothing in
my post warranted your response. I'll put it this way, if
you don't like what they offer, close your account. MBNA isn't holding a
gun to your head. Sheesh!

Casey, you obviously don't understand liberals. They feel that they
shouldn't have to take responsibility for their actions, but rather be
protected and looked after by the government.

Fiscal responsibility? Excuse me while I laugh my ass off... such words are
a total riot coming from a so-called conservative.
Conservatives/Republicans/Bush are the very last people on this planet who
could talk about fiscal responsibility.

Conservatives drove us into ever increasing federal debt, oil prices through
the roof, the weakest dollar ever, growth in federal spending. And you want
to talk about taking responsibility. Yeah, right...

Mike V. wrote:

"Matt Whiting" wrote in message Nothing in
my post warranted your response. I'll put it this way, if

you don't like what they offer, close your account. MBNA isn't holding a
gun to your head. Sheesh!

Casey, you obviously don't understand liberals. They feel that they
shouldn't have to take responsibility for their actions, but rather be
protected and looked after by the government.


Fiscal responsibility? Excuse me while I laugh my ass off... such words are
a total riot coming from a so-called conservative.
Conservatives/Republicans/Bush are the very last people on this planet who
could talk about fiscal responsibility.

I mostly agree with you here, believe it or not. The current
administration hasn't done a good job at all of fiscal management. You
won't get any argument from me there. Do you really believe that all
conservative Republicans agree with everything the current
administration is doing?


Conservatives drove us into ever increasing federal debt, oil prices through
the roof, the weakest dollar ever, growth in federal spending. And you want
to talk about taking responsibility. Yeah, right...

Not conservatives in general, just the one's currently in power. I
agree that things could have been handled much better, however, I also
know that had the Clinton administration been able to continue four more
years with the recession that started on his watch and the 9/11 attacks,
we'd likely be in much the same situation. We likely wouldn't have
spent as much money on the war on terror as Clinton wouldn't have had
the stomach for that. The unknown downside is that this passive
approach likely would have encouraged more 9/11 like attacks and the
cost of them would have been horrendous.


Matt

Matt Whiting wrote in
:

Mike V. wrote:

Snip

... The unknown downside is that this passive
approach likely would have encouraged more 9/11 like attacks and the
cost of them would have been horrendous.


Matt

Your presumption is that there will not be anymore 9/11 like attacks.

In fact, both before and after 9/11/2001, there have been many Al Qaeda
sponsored terrorist attacks.

See http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0884893.html

In the 8 years between 1993 and 9/11/2001, there were 5 Al-Qaeda
sponsored terrorist attacks on US properties (including the 1993 bombing
of WTC, but not including the attack in Seattle that was foiled). None of
those properties were actually here on the MainLand.

In the 3 years between 9/11/2001 and today, there have been 15 Al-Qaeda
sponsored attacks, 3 of which were directly on Americans or American
properties (not including the Shoe Bomber who was foiled). Of course,
none of them has been on the MainLand either.

Statements like yours seem to be founded on some fantasy that the Bush
approach - our presence in Iraq and Afghanistan - has somehow discouraged
and curtailed terrorist attacks.

The unfortunate reality is that it clearly has not. And only time will
tell whether they will be able to deliver another attack on our MainLand
again. It is unclear what effect ANY other strategy would have had on
terrorism - whether more or less aggressive than Bush's. But make no
mistake. Terrorist attacks on the US are not DOWN as a result of Bush's
tactics...