New Yorker's Sy Hersh: Bush Admin Helped Plan Israeli Offensive...

"tomcervo" wrote:

:
:Fred J. McCall wrote:
: Lawson English wrote:
:
: :I know a lot of Republicans who think we need to get rid of the
: :Republicans [in power right now]. Many old-school Republicans don't
: :think of neocons as Republicans.
:
: Yes, and most of those 'old-school Republicans' are known as
: Democrats. Real Republicans want a big tent.
:
:They also want a balanced budget, a strong military and intelligent
:diplomacy. The bunch in now are acting like looters--run up unpayable
:debts here and abroad, and then retire to a gated community, and let
:the rabble stew. Now they seem to be saying that they'll let the NEXT
:administration decide to leave Iraq--they really seem to think it's up
:to the US to decide that.
:It's looking like the First Afghan War all over again, especially at
:the top.

And where did you ever get the idea that a political party MUST be
monolithic in ideas, Tom?

--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn

Lawson English wrote:

:Fred J. McCall wrote:
: Lawson English wrote:
:
: :I know a lot of Republicans who think we need to get rid of the
: :Republicans [in power right now]. Many old-school Republicans don't
: :think of neocons as Republicans.
:
: Yes, and most of those 'old-school Republicans' are known as
: Democrats. Real Republicans want a big tent.
:
:So Howard Berkowitz is really a Democrat?

You'll find that Howard is well able to speak for himself.

--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn

"John P. Mullen" wrote:

:Nah! The "Neocons" are RHINOs (Republicans in Name Only).

One more time, you stupid ******* - what does the 'H' in your "RHINO"
stand for? It's RINO! It's also stupid to use it as you do, since
it's something the idiot right-wing uses to describe anyone who isn't
as extreme as they are.

Gods, what an ignorant putz!

--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
-- Thomas Jefferson

On 8/14/06 10:21 PM, in article , "John P. Mullen"
wrote:
tomcervo wrote:
Fred J. McCall wrote:
Lawson English wrote:
Yes, and most of those 'old-school Republicans' are known as
Democrats. Real Republicans want a big tent.

They also want a balanced budget, a strong military and intelligent
diplomacy. The bunch in now are acting like looters--run up unpayable
debts here and abroad, and then retire to a gated community, and let
the rabble stew. Now they seem to be saying that they'll let the NEXT
administration decide to leave Iraq--they really seem to think it's up
to the US to decide that.

It's looking like the First Afghan War all over again, especially at
the top.

No to mention getting the damn feds out of state's business and fiscal
responsibility (not just a balanced budget, but intelligent use of funds).

We used to say the Democrats like to tax and spend. These birds just
want to spend and spend.

John and I can agree on this at least. Federal spending has been
hemorrhaging during the Bush administration. My primary complaint with
George W. Bush has been his unwillingness or inability to control federal
spending. This isn't the Republicanism I thought I knew. That's why I
think Bush's presidency is a failure and, I believe, why his approval
numbers are so low.

Even those of us who agree with Bush on the Iraq War, and his other
initiatives against Islamic fascism, think that he has failed on the home
front. Bush's fundamentalism, most recently evidenced by his veto of the
bill to federally fund stem cell research, is another example of that
failure.

Grey Satterfield

On 13 Aug 2006 15:50:43 -0700, "Walt" wrote:


wrote:
See the comments on pages 1 and 2 of the following blog entry:

New Yorker's Sy Hersh: Bush Admin Helped Plan Israeli Offensive...




Thanks for sharing. Most of the guys that post on RAM don't want to
hear that the leaders they put so much trust are criminal incompetents
-- that's the best inperpretation.

I personally thing Bush and Cheney are actively working to undo
everything good about this country.
I personally "thing" you're an idiot. So what??
Regards,


Walt

Grey Satterfield wrote:

:On 8/14/06 10:21 PM, in article , "John P. Mullen"
wrote:
: tomcervo wrote:
: Fred J. McCall wrote:
: Lawson English wrote:
: Yes, and most of those 'old-school Republicans' are known as
: Democrats. Real Republicans want a big tent.
:
: They also want a balanced budget, a strong military and intelligent
: diplomacy. The bunch in now are acting like looters--run up unpayable
: debts here and abroad, and then retire to a gated community, and let
: the rabble stew. Now they seem to be saying that they'll let the NEXT
: administration decide to leave Iraq--they really seem to think it's up
: to the US to decide that.
:
: It's looking like the First Afghan War all over again, especially at
: the top.
:
: No to mention getting the damn feds out of state's business and fiscal
: responsibility (not just a balanced budget, but intelligent use of funds).
:
: We used to say the Democrats like to tax and spend. These birds just
: want to spend and spend.
:
:John and I can agree on this at least. Federal spending has been
:hemorrhaging during the Bush administration. My primary complaint with
:George W. Bush has been his unwillingness or inability to control federal
:spending. This isn't the Republicanism I thought I knew. That's why I
:think Bush's presidency is a failure and, I believe, why his approval
:numbers are so low.

Yes, but he does have a war on. That tends to wreck any budget. Too
large a percentage of the budget is non-discretionary spending.

:Even those of us who agree with Bush on the Iraq War, and his other
:initiatives against Islamic fascism, think that he has failed on the home
:front. Bush's fundamentalism, most recently evidenced by his veto of the
:bill to federally fund stem cell research, is another example of that
:failure.

This is the real failure, to my mind. There was no good reason to
veto that bill. There is no 'slippery slope' here that suddenly leads
to additional abortions or the death of any embryo not already slated
for the dustbin. On the flip side, there was a large potential that
this would act to the greater good of everyone; both already born and
yet to be born. I seem to recall hearing at some point that a high
percentage of the currently existing cell lines have become
compromised and are thus not very useful or trustworthy.

Having this recorded as his first veto in two terms as President is
simply shameful. Having it upheld by Congress is even more shameful.

--
You are
What you do
When it counts.

Grey Satterfield wrote:

On 8/14/06 10:21 PM, in article , "John P. Mullen"
wrote:

tomcervo wrote:

Fred J. McCall wrote:

Lawson English wrote:
Yes, and most of those 'old-school Republicans' are known as
Democrats. Real Republicans want a big tent.

They also want a balanced budget, a strong military and intelligent
diplomacy. The bunch in now are acting like looters--run up unpayable
debts here and abroad, and then retire to a gated community, and let
the rabble stew. Now they seem to be saying that they'll let the NEXT
administration decide to leave Iraq--they really seem to think it's up
to the US to decide that.

It's looking like the First Afghan War all over again, especially at
the top.

No to mention getting the damn feds out of state's business and fiscal
responsibility (not just a balanced budget, but intelligent use of funds).

We used to say the Democrats like to tax and spend. These birds just
want to spend and spend.


John and I can agree on this at least. Federal spending has been
hemorrhaging during the Bush administration. My primary complaint with
George W. Bush has been his unwillingness or inability to control federal
spending. This isn't the Republicanism I thought I knew. That's why I
think Bush's presidency is a failure and, I believe, why his approval
numbers are so low.

Even those of us who agree with Bush on the Iraq War, and his other
initiatives against Islamic fascism, think that he has failed on the home
front. Bush's fundamentalism, most recently evidenced by his veto of the
bill to federally fund stem cell research, is another example of that
failure.

Grey Satterfield


Just remember that the Iraqi war and the unbounded spending are
connected. You can't spend a few hundred billion dollars on a war and
not have it affect spending.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11880954/

This does not count the cost of having our bright, energetic people over
in Iraq instead of here, contributing to economic growth or that of
young children deprived of a parent early in life.

It will be a very long time before this debt is paid off.

John Mullen

Walt wrote:

wrote:

See the comments on pages 1 and 2 of the following blog entry:

New Yorker's Sy Hersh: Bush Admin Helped Plan Israeli Offensive...





Thanks for sharing. Most of the guys that post on RAM don't want to
hear that the leaders they put so much trust are criminal incompetents
-- that's the best inperpretation.

I personally thing Bush and Cheney are actively working to undo
everything good about this country.

They're certainly a bigger threat than Al Qaida. Too bad the GOP
mouthbreathers haven't yet figured it out.

==bob


Walt

On 8/15/06 8:45 PM, in article ,
"Fred J. McCall" wrote:
This is the real failure, to my mind. There was no good reason to
veto that bill. There is no 'slippery slope' here that suddenly leads
to additional abortions or the death of any embryo not already slated
for the dustbin. On the flip side, there was a large potential that
this would act to the greater good of everyone; both already born and
yet to be born. I seem to recall hearing at some point that a high
percentage of the currently existing cell lines have become
compromised and are thus not very useful or trustworthy.

Having this recorded as his first veto in two terms as President is
simply shameful. Having it upheld by Congress is even more shameful.

Yeah, I disapproved of Bush's failure to exercise leadership to control
spending but there was nothing visceral about my feelings. But when he
vetoed the stem cell research bill it was a slap in the face. Not only was
Bush's veto profoundly misguided, it provided solid evidence to support his
enemies' claim that his lock-step Christian fundamentalism has detrimentally
affected his judgment. Alas, it appears to be so.

Grey Satterfield

On 8/15/06 8:53 PM, in article , "John P. Mullen"
wrote:

Grey Satterfield wrote:

On 8/14/06 10:21 PM, in article , "John P. Mullen"
wrote:

tomcervo wrote:

Fred J. McCall wrote:

Lawson English wrote:
Yes, and most of those 'old-school Republicans' are known as
Democrats. Real Republicans want a big tent.

They also want a balanced budget, a strong military and intelligent
diplomacy. The bunch in now are acting like looters--run up unpayable
debts here and abroad, and then retire to a gated community, and let
the rabble stew. Now they seem to be saying that they'll let the NEXT
administration decide to leave Iraq--they really seem to think it's up
to the US to decide that.

It's looking like the First Afghan War all over again, especially at
the top.

No to mention getting the damn feds out of state's business and fiscal
responsibility (not just a balanced budget, but intelligent use of funds).

We used to say the Democrats like to tax and spend. These birds just
want to spend and spend.


John and I can agree on this at least. Federal spending has been
hemorrhaging during the Bush administration. My primary complaint with
George W. Bush has been his unwillingness or inability to control federal
spending. This isn't the Republicanism I thought I knew. That's why I
think Bush's presidency is a failure and, I believe, why his approval
numbers are so low.

Even those of us who agree with Bush on the Iraq War, and his other
initiatives against Islamic fascism, think that he has failed on the home
front. Bush's fundamentalism, most recently evidenced by his veto of the
bill to federally fund stem cell research, is another example of that
failure.

Grey Satterfield


Just remember that the Iraqi war and the unbounded spending are
connected. You can't spend a few hundred billion dollars on a war and
not have it affect spending.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11880954/

This does not count the cost of having our bright, energetic people over
in Iraq instead of here, contributing to economic growth or that of
young children deprived of a parent early in life.

It will be a very long time before this debt is paid off.

Absolutely wrong, it seems to me. The spending on the war and the other
aspects of the fight against Radical Islam has been money well spent. It is
the other spending by a Republican congress the president has not attempted
to control that I disapproved of.

Grey Satterfield