Politics – President Bush, prodding Congress to extend the Iraq war without calling troops home, said Monday that Democratic leaders owe it to veterans and their families to pass the war-spending bill he wants.
« < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 > »
The one where he promised them arms if they just held the hostages until he was inaugurated?
No, that would be the lie regarding the same.
Sorry but I guess YOU have an accurate handle here. It was the truth or are you forgetting Ollie North. Keep spinnin BOBO, ROFLMAO.
Doah!!!
You have serious chronological issues here. The whole Oliver North affair occured in the mid eighties. The Iran hostage crisis occured in 1979-80.
When you stop laughing Dunkirk you might realize that the real object of amusment is your enormous knowledge deficit.
It seems YOU have the chronological issues there Sparky, North broke in the mdi 80's around 83 detailing his activities in the late 70's i.e 79-81. But then again you;ve never let facts stand in the way of your idealogical BS.
LOL
From Wiki - Notice that North didn't even work for the White House until 1981.
Heed your own advice "never let facts stand in the way of your idealogical BS"
"After Okinawa, North was reassigned stateside to Marine Headquarters in Arlington, Virginia for four years, was promoted to Major, then served two years as operations officer of Second Marine Division in Camp Lejeune in North Carolina. He then attended the Command and Staff Course at the Naval War College in Newport, Rhode Island and graduated in 1981.
After Newport, North began his now-famous assignment to the National Security Council in Washington, D.C., where he served until his firing in 1986."
Wiki? ROFOLMAO, the online reference you can modify at the drop of a hat. How convenient. ROFLMAO, History does have a way of geting inthe way of a COns story so, rewrite it.
So you think that the dates of North's service have been altered in Wiki? What historical reference would you find acceptable? They will all have the same dates refuting your frankly silly and non-fact based story. But I will happily cite one that you deem trustworthy just to cement my point.
My bet is that this is the last post on this thread since you have been caught in a pretty embarrassing position.
ROFLMAO, try reading my other posts there Goober. Seems Casey is the official that dealth with the Iranians via the Algerians. Altho he denied it, its pretty odd that when the evidence was being gathered the pages in his daybook that covered the days in question were missing. Kinda odd about how Republicans always seem to be missing pages from daybooks, minutes from a tape, emails. WHAT a coincidence.
Bobo: Were you one of those criticizing Nancy Pelosi and the Congresional delegation that talked to Syria? I hope not, because that's exactly what Reagan did. Oh--except he wasn't conducting congressional business when he did it, as opposed to Pelosi.
polosi does not have the autheriation to nagotiate with anyone however the president of the united states does
Really? THen what about RayGun seems all the negotiation with Iraq was done BEFORE he was inaugurated.
Any proof for that lie of the Left?
Must have forgotten all about Ollie North. What aurprise that is.
You and your friends remarkable ignorance is amusing in a sad sort of way.
"You and your friends remarkable ignorance is amusing in a sad sort of way."
Yeah history does have a way of making your spin look pretty bad. Especially when people remember the history as it actually happened. Tends to be a common problem with a lot of the way COns say things happened,
Your misrembering issues are both extensive and amusing.
From Wiki - "Although U.S. Senate and House of Representatives investigations in the 1990s declared the allegations to be unfounded, the conspiracy's existence or lack thereof remains a subject of as yet unsupported conjecture."
As I previously stated, all lies with no facts supporting some wacky conspiracy theory. Sure tin foil hat territory.
ROFLMAO Wikipedia? The online resource you can change anytime you want? THAT Wikipedia. ROFLMAO, as I said history has a way of getting in the way of the idealogical BS you spout.
Actually it wasn't North, he did come into the picture later with Iran-COntra, you're right on that part. I confused him with William Casey who negotiated with the Algerians concerning the hostages. Seems when this was being looked into he claimed he wasn't there BUT when his daybook was checked hte pages covering the period that the meeting was held seemed tpo be missing. What a surprise that was given a REPUBLICAN Administration to be. LOL, you can read the rest of the story toward the end iof the posts.
Another good source on the arrangement between RayGun's Administration and the Iranians BEFORE Raygun took office
http://www.btinternet.com/~nlpWESSEX/Documents/...
Wow. You don't trust Wiki do do trust a site full of conspiracy tales that have been disproven by numerous Congressional investigations!
Oh, but I forgot, they are all a part of the Conspiracy too! So they can't be trusted. In fact, only a handful of highly intelligent and remarkably gifted persons such as yourself have any idea at all what is really going on.
Anyone who confuses Oliver North with William Casey and uses Raygun twice in the same sentence is living on a completely different plane from the rest of us mere mortals.
Numerous congressional investigations???? ROFLMAO, there was ONE and what hapened Sparky is Casey's daybook seemed to be missing a few pages, the ones that covered the time in question as to where he was. Altho I guess with Cons its not as much looking at ALL the evidence but just picking the site that supports what they want. EVEN when the site can be modified on the fly.
"Anyone who confuses Oliver North with William Casey and uses Raygun twice in the same sentence is living on a completely different plane from the rest of us mere mortals"
Yes Ive noticed that BOOBOO, reading YOUR posts and logic Ive concluded you haven't been in touch with the human plane in quite a while. Keep Spinning.
Seriously. You don't remember the hostages in Iran, or their release on the day of Reagan's inauguration in 1980?
Yes, of course I do. The key point is that they were released on his inauguration day when the Iranians feared a more powerful US response as opposed to the familiarly impotent, Carter led, "talks".
The lie is that Reagan was involved in some secret negotiations with the Iranians. There is abso;ut;y no so;id evidence for that no matter what sort of unfounded accusation are regurgitated by the Left.
"The key point is that they were released on his inauguration day when the Iranians feared a more powerful US response as opposed to the familiarly impotent, Carter led, "talks"."
Actually in answering your prior p[osts above what did come up was that William Casey who was to become RayGuns CIA director was negotiating with the Iranians via the Algerians to make sure the hostages would be released AFTER the election. Seems the Republicans feared Carter and his "impotent" talks was about to free the hostages and damage Rayguns chances. Altho the VERY VERY interesting thing is that when this was being investigated the pages in Casey's daybook that covered the dates of the alleged meeting were missing. Golly gee what is it with Republicans and missing documents. ROFLMAO.
BoBo in Texas,
You can't be that stupid but you seem to be. It was Carter's negotiations that freed the hostages in Iran. Reagan kept himself out of it so as not to mess things up. The Iranians waited until Reagan took office to actually free the hostages to tweak Carter.
Speculating? What rock have you been hiding under? There have been ongoing "peace" talks with Syria and Iran for the past 30 years in various forms.>>>
So what? Are the same people in power that were there 30 years ago? No? Well then, don't be silly. You don't stop trying because of 30 years ago.
"Are the same people in power that were there 30 years ago? No? Well then, don't be silly"
No they are not the same people in charge. The people running the show now are the ones who actually organized the kidnapping. Not to mention they are Halocaust denyiers, and known terrorists who are open about their wishes to obtain wmds to destroy Israel.
Not to mention they are Holocaust deniers, and known terrorists who are open about their wishes to obtain wmds to destroy Israel.>>>
First of all, the loud mouth you're speaking about is the President. And guess what, he doesn't have a lot of power in Iraq. However, being a 'Holocaust denier' has nothing to do with the situation in Iraq. Stay on subject. If everyone was a 'friend' we wouldn't need to negotiate with people, now would we?
capecoralM,
You asked, "Peace at what cost? Under who's terms? Iran's and it's proxy Syria? That is a little naive don't you think?"
That's what talks are for. To find out whose terms, whether they're acceptable, and whether there's room for negotiation. At least we could try. What other options are you considering?
Some of our leaders prefer to assume outcomes and then proclaim tham as results before they ever sit down to do anything that resembles negotiations. That way they're justified in taking military (pre-emptive) actions - because they know it's no use talking to anyone that doesn't speak (babble) English.
Don't you think we might as well go to war with both Iran and Syria instead, spend 100's of billions more, deplete our armed services to the point we have to draft amount-to-nothing young adults, and profit from it through umbrella corporations?
So? the point of your little rant is?
If there is to be a solution to the problem in Iraq then discussion has to take place with both Syria and Iran - there are no other alternatives!
What part of that are you unable or rather unwilling to understand!
btw - He is proper title is - Supreme Leader Ali Hoseini-Khamenei - the least you could do is get it right!
You forget one of my questions. Iraq will have oil money, Al Queda will have droves of supporters, Iran will develop Nukes... a bloodbath over there (much like Vietnam or Korea) is not the problem, its when it comes over here.... and if the planned date pullout does not work, why would it not come here? They will have money, power and respect. More so because they defeated the great Satan. If you were after America's head, would you stop after you took over Iraq?
There really is only one line of logic as to how this will go. I am looking forward to someone proving these points wrong. I really do.
« < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 > »
Not a member? Sign-up today!
mekhifranks1975
adamhowe1980
leeharris1969
uhexivy
yhovica
nuzalivo
koqezuca
icyvexu
bicysemu
yhuwazi
adivohy
jelofuki
ebypola
ugidaze
ygamote
ilotemu
gacewoti
elyjiwo
Raiderwall
rytujoza
wijahenu
paqivule
bexiwymu
miloqyka
rusakyno
hujeboxa
wekasonu
iworany
rofydepi
stwor
tanglang
ishmuga
AMATEUR
HonestlyNow
HonestlyTruly
rdkenr
rever
klpzilltiff
greeneyes
Matteu00
Rayman
doncatterson
DutchScot
Leemck02
RealTruth
Nowalive
Leonard77
Nixon7
dicklovelace
linktothepresent
564)
"Would a business finance a project with a track record of failure, no end date, no real defined goals?"
Wouldn't that include any number of Government programs?
If we apply that standard, we can probably cut Government at all levels by about 50%.
It would include all of government. I am glad that you agree that the current Iraq situation fits this description.
So why is it wrong for Congress to ask Mr. Bush as to expected results, a timeframe to acheive those results, and his plan to accomplish the mission? Our problem is that these questions were not asked originally.