[RamCharger]

Originally Posted by SirMoby

Please spell it out and get your facts straight.

Ok...

Originally Posted by SirMoby

Gore, he got 1,000,000 more votes the Dubya in 2000.

Based on whose numbers? The people he sent to "recount" the votes? There's something wrong when a side with a vested interest in the outcome who dispatches people on his behalf that also have a vested interest in seeing their guy get in office is given more credibility than the system that never seemingly had any criticism until that point in time.

Not that I don't have complete faith in the honesty and integrity of everything that transpired, but if you'll recall Gore tried rather hard to discount legimate overseas absentee ballots using alot of technicality ploys. The vast majority of those ballots were from service members serving overseas. Tell me that someone wasn't desperately trying to supress some votes in that maneuver.

Originally Posted by SirMoby

Somalia - Who's daddy sent the troops there when he had less the 45 days left in office.

Should we have a pitty party for every president that rolls into office who is now in the drivers seat to handle the difficult decisions of his predecessor? That's like saying every incoming CEO of every company should be facing a clean slate when they get into office and not facing any problems from his predecessor. Life doesn't stand still and our international obligations can't either (bear in mind that our troops were deployed as part of a UN force). What is a problem in my mind was the subsequent mismanagement of our forces under the Clinton leadership.

Originally Posted by SirMoby

Remember where else he sent troops?

If you talking about GB I then yeah, Iraq, but after Sadam made a gigantic grab at the worlds oil supply by annexing Kuwait (which lead to a U.N. resolution that permitted the coalition invasion). I also distinctly remember seeing a bunch of bodies swinging in Kuwait (from cranes and other structures) courtesy of the Iraqi forces and how American civilians were held captive (and displayed sitting next to Sadam on CNN).

Originally Posted by SirMoby

The cruise missile didn't hit the Chinese Embassy.

I wasn't referencing that incident. I was referencing how Clinton blew up a aspirin factory in Africa (which had neither tactical nor strategic value to anyone and which we subsequently wound up paying the owner for). However, if you want to discuss the Chinese embassy bombing then I would like to know how you are arriving at the conclusion that seemingly nothing happened to the Chinese Embassy (or am I reading what you wrote wrong)? A quick search of news.google.com shows that the Chinese embassy in Belgrade was indeed hit in 1999. Hell, here's even one of the articles: http://www.buffalonews.com/editorial...31/1011532.asp

Originally Posted by SirMoby

Yes all Presidents make mistakes but you can't play that game with Dubya. He's made far more and ones that can NOT be repaired easily and maybe never.

I don't see the world cuddling up to Kim Jong Il, Khadafi, or Castro because of what GWB has done. Do those countries even know the meaning of the words "humanitarian program"? Where was there outreach when that sunami hit a few years back?

Originally Posted by SirMoby

Dude, we went to war with a country that was no threat to us and was an enemy of Iran and OBL.

Sadam only had bounties on our aircraft for when the flew over the no fly zone. The fact that he was an enemy of Iran is not really relevant since the middle east has a saying "the enemy of my enemy is my friend." The facts the lead us to our invasion have been since proven to be incorrect, but to think that Sadam would have never partnered up with someone to get us is unrealistic. He might have been caged, but that doesn't mean he couldn't have easilly provided money, material support, and training to others who weren't.

Originally Posted by SirMoby

He's doubled the debt and the growth in the economy will never catch up at the current rate.

Ever hear that past results don't necessarilly guarantee future results? Saying that something can't happen financially because of the way it was in the past is ludicrious. 100 years ago the financial and technological market were no where near as developed as the currently are. The vast majority of people were still in horse and buggies. To project that our war time expenditures will never be caught up with because no one here has the present vision of how it can be done doesn't mean that it can't.

Originally Posted by SirMoby

He's legalized torture.

Torture? You mean that our governments current information extraction policy using only mind fuck methods such as keeping people awake for hours on end, maybe humiliating them even, an occasional trip to a dunk tank, and scaring the holy hell out of them (all of which are probably less severe than the average college hazing ritual and none of which have physical dismemberment involved) fall into the same category as acid baths, beatings, breaking bones, using hot objects, and decapitation? How so? Here's a good page that's a bit more verbose on that thought (not affiliated with me): http://bushwacker.net/diversions/jokes/Patton.htm
What should be doing instead to get information from captured persons? Feed them ice cream, hand them a play boy, have a prostitute suck them off, and whisper pretty please in their ears?

Fact is our country is one of the few countries that if we capture you during war we'll still make sure that you get three meals a day. If you try to hunger strike we'll even stick a tube in you to make certain you get three meals a day. If you've been watching the news you'll even see that we have the decency to prosecute our OWN troops for rape and murder when they step out of line. Here's a nifty factoid: when the Abu Graib scandal broke it took may three months before the trial got under way, but it took more than a year for the trial of the soldier who tossed a grenade in to the command tent to start.

Originally Posted by SirMoby

You want to whine about silly stuff like Jesse having sex and that's your point. Get a life.

...

Originally Posted by SirMoby

BTW - How about Cheney's secret meetings and how much have they cost the USA?

There is an enormous difference between what Cheney and Hillary spent money on. Hillary spent loads of money on a committee that never even left their desks in the U.S. and wound up accomplishing nothing. Cheney, on the other hand, managed to funnel money in a civilian run corporation that is sending civilians in to places where there is gun fire, mortar fire, explosions, and decapitations every day. Now if I were a civilan heading to one of those places I sure would hell want my pockets lined with cash or I'm not leaving home and, unlike, military soldiers there's no recourse for the company to take against those people who stayed at home. That's a hard lesson that the U.S. military learned when the shit hit the fan initially: a lot of those civilians did stay home. You may not like the amount of money being spent on those civilians, but that's the only way they're being pursaded to go over there.