What Play Will Hillary Clinton Run

[SCREAMING EAGLE-66]

The crash of the stock market was marked at the beginning of 2000. Crash Crash Crash Crash How the Democratic party figures that is Bush's fault I have yet to figure out. I am not implying that this crash was Bill's fault either, I am more of the belief that the stock market cycles. But that the crash started before he got there, not as the Democratic party had stated.

---Not sure why you continue to mention the stock market... I didn't to begin with and even stated you were mostly right. Not a lot of credible politicians mention it much or blame Bush for that. It was all about -- 1990 had no Internet and few computers --then came 10 years of rapid change and constant new developments and people constantly upgraded equipment to the point in 2000 the market was saturated with good equipment and ideas ---so many unsound companies then fell apart . It had little to do with politics.. The NASDAQ was very tech related the DOW was not so much. The number I quoted were correct... check this one of Dow averages....

http://finance.yahoo.com/q/hp?s=%5EDJI&amp...p;z=66&y=66

I am not pulling numbers from the sky... The Dow did not really decline until 2001. Even then I never implied Bush was to blame.. but you started defending it for some odd reason. Oh yeah --Gore never stated the "invented" the Internet and so many Republicans often claim he said. He did sponsor the legislation that changed it from a government communication system to put it into the "public domain". That legislation is largely responsible for the boom of the 90's. Be sure to read the final paragraph.

http://www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.asp

This is another GOP misrepresentation of truth... or a credibility problem.

___________________________

Your comment: "I not sure why anyone would ride Iraq into the ground, both parties voted for it and at the time most of the nation was hot for blood and Iraq was the best place to hit from a world opinion point of view".

---Both parties voted for it based on the fact that they thought what the WHITE HOUSE SAID about WMD and being in danger from Iraq because of that was true... It wasn't and the CIA apparently did not show that either..... That is the only reason the invasion occurred..... The nation wanted the GUILTY parties to pay for 9-11... Iraq was not involved in that either......meanwhile Ben Laden is still free......

Edited March 20, 2007 by SCREAMING EAGLE-66

[UNT_92_Fan]

So this priest walks into a bar....

OUCH!

[BeanCounterGrad'03]

So this priest walks into a bar....

OUCH!

Actually...Back in college, I use to meet up with my preacher at the Greenhouse for drinks...some of the best and deepest conversations I've had.

KingDL's quote:

"Anyway best of luck to you, we have differing ways of seeing things. I used to be a middle of the road guy and still feel like one, seems like the world shifted left on me. In the 80s I voted both ways depending on the candidate, Phil Gramm I voted for as a Democrat and as a Republican. I met Dick Army at UNT and he impressed the hell out of me. I still feel when I look at things I look for the truth regardless of party, I just feel that in recent years the Democratic Party distorts the truth way more."

Pretty much the same for me except I now perceive the Republican Party as distorting the truth more. Alot of it probably has to do with the environment you are in and how you are raised. I was raised in Midland and at times felt like right-wing "propaganda" was being shoved down my throat. Other friends of mine took it as truth.

I'm actually a fan of the Green party...GMG.

[greenminer]

She will run an Apple commercial spoof with a donkey and an elephant.

Then she'll set up a MySpace account. wait...

already done

Edited March 22, 2007 by greenminer

[SCREAMING EAGLE-66]

Pretty much the same for me except I now perceive the Republican Party as distorting the truth more. Alot of it probably has to do with the environment you are in and how you are raised. I was raised in Midland and at times felt like right-wing "propaganda" was being shoved down my throat. Other friends of mine took it as truth.

I'm actually a fan of the Green party...GMG.

----Midland.!! I have lived in Midland 40 years. Wife taught Latin MHS 30+ years but is now at Trinity and I taught math in Lee system but teach at MC only now. Agree with your comment and often refer to the local paper as the "Midland Republican Telegram" instead of Midland Reporter Telegram'. Guess it is that way because of Bush and Craddock have both lived here plus Midland is far from typical Texas town..... lot of people born out of state live here because of the oil industry. We may know each other. We are often refered to as Mr. and Mrs. T . The local paper is so slanted that one gets a totally different view of things when reading stories from newspapers printed elsewhere. I suppose that is partly why I have developed the attitudes I currently have.... a balanced truth does not exist here in the news. Lubbock and San Angelo papers tend to tell both sides, the local almost never does but has improved slightly since many are fed up with Iraq. People that live here and still get papers from their hometowns usually understand what the real situation is. The internet has helped some with those who read news on it.

(some of your your friends and mine) It is amazing how gullible some people are... they believe everything they are told is absolutely true and are shocked if we state something different. I never trust one sourse and keep an open mind and think for myself (which all educated people should).

---A couple of months my wife was scanning a magazine rack at a store and a lady (that she barely knew) told my wife she would not read magazines (Time, Newsweek etc.) anymore because they were too leftwing and anti-American... She also commented she didn't watch Leno and especially Letterman either because they made fun of the President.. My wife apparently did not say much but laughed about it when she got home.. In short don't confuse me with facts.. my mind is made up.

I too am a member of the (Mean) green party.

Edited March 22, 2007 by SCREAMING EAGLE-66

[UNTflyer]

--She voted for it---YES-- most of Congress thought that the "White House was been honest with them and had ABSOLUTE PROOF of that WMD existed and that we we in danger." ..

Sorry... that's a cop-out. Members of Congress get the same intelligence the president receives. Anyone in Congress who voted for the war and now claim to have been tricked into it are simply taking political advantage of the situation.

Occam's razor leads me to believe that everyone, including Bush, was deceived by Saddam... and not just in this country. The UN, Europe, Russia, even China were all convinced Iraq was hiding WMDs.

I am amused how the people who really hate Bush claim that on one hand he was a mad genius who deceived everyone (including Hillary, the smartest woman in the world), but on the other hand is too dumb to tie his own shoes.

[SCREAMING EAGLE-66]

Members of Congress get the same intelligence the president receives. Anyone in Congress who voted for the war and now claim to have been tricked into it are simply taking political advantage of the situation.

Occam's razor leads me to believe that everyone, including Bush, was deceived by Saddam... and not just in this country. The UN, Europe, Russia, even China were all convinced Iraq was hiding WMDs.

---Europe believed Saddam had those weapons.?? They had doubts. If that is absolutely true why did not assist in the invasion as they had in the Gulf War. Hans Blix had not completed his inspections and wanted more time but it was not granted. Only Britain sent combat troops. Spain and POLAND sent a few support personal. France, Holland, Italy, Germany, Norway, Russia, etc. sent nothing because they were not absolutely convinced based on what they knew. They believed it was possible but too early to take action without better information..

---Congress has access to the same inteligence..??.. not completely.... Congress was not even aware the US was working on an atomic bomb during WWII until we dropped it. Even Truman did not know until Roosevelt died. Giving 437 people access to America's convert/secret knowledge doesn't happen...They may have been told everything he (Bush) actually knew but assumed he knew a lot more than he was "publicly"stating.... No President reveals everything he knows for security reasons and the safety of his sources.

---You are believing a lot of BS and are too trusting of your sourses.

Edited March 22, 2007 by SCREAMING EAGLE-66

[KingDL1]

Germany, France and Russia all had broken UN Sanctions with Iraq and illegally traded and invested enormous amounts equipment in Iraq that reflects several billion dollars worth of investment. For any of these countries to support an attack was a conflict of interests. And nobody even talks about the maned presence we had in North Iraq since the 1st golf war or the routine bombing and missile attacks that happened on almost a weekly basis through out the Clinton administration.

[Guest JohnDenver]

And nobody even talks about the maned presence we had in North Iraq since the 1st golf war or the routine bombing and missile attacks that happened on almost a weekly basis through out the Clinton administration.

What would you want them to say? That the sanctions and bombings appeared to do what they were meant to do?

1) Keep the country poor.

2) Keep the government from attaining or creating WMDs.

3) Wait it out until Saddam dies or there is a revolt or some sort.

Looks 1 and 2 were successful. However, 3 is where this administration used lies and propaganda to generate support for a war to get Saddam out (and hanged).

[UNTflyer]

---Europe believed Saddam had those weapons.?? They had doubts. If that is absolutely true why did not assist in the invasion as they had in the Gulf War. Hans Blix had not completed his inspections and wanted more time but it was not granted. Only Britain sent combat troops. Spain and POLAND sent a few support personal. France, Holland, Italy, Germany, Norway, Russia, etc. sent nothing because they were not absolutely convinced based on what they knew. They believed it was possible but too early to take action without better information..

---Congress has access to the same inteligence..??.. not completely.... Congress was not even aware the US was working on an atomic bomb during WWII until we dropped it. Even Truman did not know until Roosevelt died. Giving 437 people access to America's convert/secret knowledge doesn't happen...They may have been told everything he (Bush) actually knew but assumed he knew a lot more than he was "publicly"stating.... No President reveals everything he knows for security reasons and the safety of his sources.

---You are believing a lot of BS and are too trusting of your sourses.

Most of Europe did believe Iraq had WMDs, however very few had the balls to do what needed to be done. Hans Blix was a pawn of the UN, the goal of which is to avoid conflict at all cost... so of course Blix was asking for more inspections. do you remember Saddam's response?

And while certainly ALL of Congress doesn't get ALL the same intelligence as the President, the House and Senate Intelligence Committees do. They get the same briefings as the POTUS. Not one member of the Intelligence Committees voted against the war.

Also, your list of countries that contributed combat troops is inaccurate. The complete list is: Albania, Armenia, Australia, Azerbaijan, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Denmark, El Salvador, Estonia, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Moldova, Mongolia, Poland, Romania, South Korea, and the United Kingdom. Countries which had troops in or supported operations in Iraq at one point but have pulled out since: Nicaragua, Spain, Dominican Republic, Honduras, Philippines, Thailand, New Zealand, Tonga, Portugal, The Netherlands, Hungary, Singapore, Norway, Ukraine, Japan, Italy, and Slovakia.

Did we screw it up? Yup, we sure did. Very few WMDs were found, although we did find tons of uranium and just over a ton of weapons grade uranium (conveniently forgotten today). But in my opinion, we screwed up in keeping the post-war peace, not in the justification for invading in the first place.

[SCREAMING EAGLE-66]

---I think the whole deal was a mistake but I guess time will tell ... but if the administration was going to do it, then sent enough troops to do the job... it is a very large country. In the early days the troops they found several "ammo dumps" or warehouses of ammo and weapons and were told to make note of location and then move on. We then went back 2-3 weeks later they were empty. We have been getting those explosives back one roadside bomb and bullet at a time. We also did not have enough men to secure many other sites that needed to be controlled.

---There is a lot to getting"control" of a country other than defeating or dispersing their army. Iraq had a pretty fang-less army anyway since the Gulf War had destroyed their most of their armour and modern aircraft...... and what the Gulf War did not destroy we continued to destroy during the rest of Papa Bush's term and even during the Clinton era while enforcing the "no-fly zone". A lot of "stuff" had been supplied to Saddam by us by Reagan during the Iran war and most of the rest was from the USSR which doesn't exactly exist now. They had very little capability to manufacture their own to replace what had been lost.

---Our army was far superior and did a good job with the limited number of troops we had. The problem is the Administration had no real plan or any idea to do with Iraq once they had taken it. I don't really think they understand that once Saddam was gone that various crazy religious groups would try to gain control (just as happened in Iran).... and that is what is happening now. Personally I think Saddam was really bad but maybe less dangerous than what will eventually take control of the place. (my opinion) so---- will it be worth the cost in American lives and money... doubt it. --- besides it is not our responsibility to rule to world and correct all its problems. We can help but not this way. Whether you want to admit it or not this administration had little intelligence to support any invasion and managed to convince Congress that they did.....unfortunately..... they trusted what was claimed by the Administration was the truth.

---Even at the time I felt that the Sudan was much more of a problem... Al-Qaeda absolutely was present there and they were killing various religious groups (Christians included) that disagreed with them (and still are). Ben Laden was far more likely to be there than in Iraq and he was/is the real enemy with connections to 9-11, not Saddam.

Edited March 23, 2007 by SCREAMING EAGLE-66

[SCREAMING EAGLE-66]

Most of Europe did believe Iraq had WMDs, however very few had the balls to do what needed to be done.

Also, your list of countries that contributed combat troops is inaccurate. The complete list is: Albania, Armenia, Australia, Azerbaijan, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Denmark, El Salvador, Estonia, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Moldova, Mongolia, Poland, Romania, South Korea, and the United Kingdom. Countries which had troops in or supported operations in Iraq at one point but have pulled out since: Nicaragua, Spain, Dominican Republic, Honduras, Philippines, Thailand, New Zealand, Tonga, Portugal, The Netherlands, Hungary, Singapore, Norway, Ukraine, Japan, Italy, and Slovakia.

You just contradicted yourself...... Besides not of lot of them sent COMBAT troops, they sent people later to aid more in humanitarian things.

[UNTflyer]

The enemy is not Afghanistan, or Iraq, or Sudan, or even specifically al-Qaeda. It is radical Islam and the nations that support them.

Saddam gave financial and material support to terrorists. Our fears were that we did not really know if he had WMDs or not; however it is not a very big leap of logic to assume that since he was refusing to allow inspectors into the country that he was probably hiding weapons. Those weapons could have fallen into the hands of terrorists. Also, keep in mind that failing to find the weapons does not mean they didn't exist. There were lots of trucks hightailing it to Syria in the weeks just before the war.

besides it is not our responsibility to rule to world and correct all its problems.

I completely agree- However it is our responsibility to act when we believe a nation threatens the stability of a critical economic region, and poses a threat to our country. Here we have a bunch of Bush-haters screaming how "Bush knew" about 9/11 and failed to act on some memo on how al-Qaeda might hijack airplanes. At the same time, they criticize him for acting when the CIA and intelligence agencies of our allies were all so certain that Saddam had WMDs. You guys can't have it both ways... either a President must trust his intelligence agency and act, or he sits on his hands waiting for the punch in the nose.

I for one think the risk was worth the payoff. We now know with 100% certainty that Iraq isn't going to give WMDs to anybody for a long time.

[SCREAMING EAGLE-66]

they criticize him for acting when the CIA and intelligence agencies of our allies were all so certain that Saddam had WMDs. You guys can't have it both ways... either a President must trust his intelligence agency and act, or he sits on his hands waiting for the punch in the nose.

I for one think the risk was worth the payoff. We now know with 100% certainty that Iraq isn't going to give WMDs to anybody for a long time.

The 9-11 commission states the CIA did not claim there were WMD in Iraq or connection to Al-Qaeda.... in fact believed the reverse... none.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...-2004Jun16.html

Not a great article but best I could find (quickly) from a good source that is believable and not some "hate-Bush" site.

[UNTflyer]

I'm going to respectfully disagree and then move on to sports talk, because we can go back and forth on this topic forever and a day.

I never claimed that Iraq was connected to al-Qaeda or 9/11... I said Iraq supported radical Islamic terrorism, and they did. That is not in dispute. Also, your assertion that the Commission claimed there was no connection to al-Qaeda is inaccurate. The Commission said: "We have no credible evidence that Iraq and al Qaeda cooperated on attacks against the United States." (Note the qualifying clause at the end of the statement)

However, later in the same report we see: "In addition, al Qaeda reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the Government of Iraq."

With their own words, they admit that there was some kind of militaristic connection between them. The 9/11 Commission was ambiguous and contradicting when it came to Iraq and al-Qaeda, but the media and Bush-haters glommed onto the "no relationship" story and counted on the American public to take their word for it.

And I don't recall the 9/11 Commission coming to any conclusion on the CIA reports of WMD programs in Iraq. Your link makes no mention of it.

But in a letter from George Tenet to Congress dated October 7, 2002:

"We have credible reporting that Al Qaeda leaders sought contacts in Iraq who could help them acquire W.M.D. capabilities. The reporting also stated that Iraq has provided training to Al Qaeda members in the areas of poisons and gases and making conventional bombs... Iraq's increasing support to extremist Palestinians coupled with growing indications of relationship with Al Qaeda suggest that Baghdad's links to terrorists will increase, even absent U.S. military action."

http://www.fas.org/irp/news/2002/10/dci100702.html

This reinforces my previous statement about Congress getting their own intelligence reports and that they have no legitimate cover for their support of the war when it was popular, and their current claims that Bush misled them. Tenet was a Clinton appointee.

I respect your right to dissent... in fact, I applaud it. Only good things can happen when citizens openly, respectfully, and honestly discuss the issues. But it seems that many who oppose the war in Iraq have the facts wrong and the popular media continues to feed half-truths to the public. This is where the public debate breaks down... While I hesitate to blame it on a "Left-Wing Media Bias", we are certainly being told far less than the truth by a national media whose main concerns are revenues and Nielsen ratings rather providing citizens with an unbiased reporting of facts.

Bush and Rumsfeld screwed up this war. I think they tragically underestimated the strength of the insurgency and failed to follow logical security precautions, like closing the borders with Iran and Syria. However, I strongly disagree that they "lied" to go to war. I believe that the President sincerely felt he had to act in order to disrupt Islamic terror networks.

[PlummMeanGreen]

----White Water was a development of 244 acres in the Arkansas wilderness ... [way overdone investigation] and after spending $60,000,000 in investigation fees ( or $230,000 per acre ) Starr could not find enough evidence to prosecute any of the Clintons for anything but did get one guy McDougal for some illegal acts. Either Starr was a very incompetent investigator or there wasn't much if anything there.

---None of the 9-11 people had ever lived in Iraq [ 16 of the 19 were from Saudi Arabia ] No terrorist acts against the USA or Europe have ever come from Iraq. Saddam was a very bad guy but most those he killed were Islamic crazies trying to overthrow him. ... as they had done in Iran. He was no supporter or friend of Al-queda... Yes they are there NOW causing us problems but not there before our invasion... Saddam just did them in because he also feared their influence. Saddam was a thug, not a Islamic crazy... We should have spend more efforts after Ben-Laden instead... he is OUR bad guy... and still out there.

---Fight them here..???... We heard that same comment about the Commies before and during Viet Nam. After we pulled out in 1975... I don't remember them coming here.

--She voted for it---YES-- most of Congress thought that the "White House was been honest with them and had ABSOLUTE PROOF of that WMD existed and that we we in danger." .. It turns out about all they had was the word of ONE Iraqi person that had left Iraq. No one has the answer for the mess we are in now... the problem is the the mess should have never occured to begin with. It seems likely now that Iraq may become what Iran is... a Crazy Islamic republic that hates us and we will be even worse off.

Yet the Islamic terrorist have already been here and are still among us all...............and some of them are your/our good "keeping to themselves" neighbors; just like the very "keeping to themselves" would-be American neighbors who flew planes into the WTC.

Islamic radicals are all out of the same melting pot no matter what nation they call home. Fact is, they hate the infidel and until that Great Day comes when the trumpet sounds (and when they look somewhat a bit surprised with all the ensuing events that will occur when it does) they will always hate each and every one of us, ie, the infidel. How many of you don't think they would kill to be the first in line to dirty bomb nuke an American city? If it is your city, then will you be happy with the Pelusi Gang (with all their self-serving agendas) then? The Peulusi crowd seems to be about just being opposite of whatever the Republicans do. If the Republicans say "salt" (and why), then the Democrats w/o a flinch automatically say "pepper' (with usually no viable reasons or answers as to why they say "pepper"). They had their boy (Clinton) impeached (for "only" perjuring himself before a grand jury) so it only makes sense that they try to get George W. impeached to balance the board? Real "concern for "ALL" U.S citizens" patriots we have with the Nancy Pelusi Gang. Please O Lord, give us public servants who have the American citizenry in mind, rather than those public servants who have their own politcal futures and self-serving agendas at the top of their lists.

I'm an Independent politically speaking but (as you might guess) I do lean toward conservate thought. I don't think much of this going on in Iraq or in any other part of the Middle East will have a happy Hollywood-type movie ending quite frankly. It seems the Hollywood crowd thinks if you ignore all this then it will (simply).................all go away.

I spoke to the spouse of a FEMA employee the other day and we were talking Iraq (of which I feel our presence is not only necessary but is essential) and that not so much for Iraq, but what is now going on in Iran.

BACK TO FEMA:

The spouse of the FEMA employee & I spoke for about 15 minutes and she told me if the American public really knew what was going on inside this country with potential terrorism post 9-11 that they would not want our troops to leave America's Middle East presence ever. I told her that had been my gut feeling on this all alone albeit not the popular one (as Bush would attest with all his low ratings).

I also told her I am glad the Nancy Pelusi Gang (who are IMHO the biggest bunch of "2-faced" gutless, no backboners who would sell us all out for the sake of advancing all their personal goverment careers (agendas) are the biggest bunch of hypocrites we've had in Washington D.C. in quite awhile); anyway, I'm glad none of that group (or those who think like them) were our leaders of Congress pre-WWII as they would have probably voted for the USA to stay neutral concerning the war in Europe AND because of it.................. in the USA today we all might be speaking German as our main language and the Green Brigade at half time would march "goose-step" style to appease those in charge of our country. (Personally, I think there will have to be another unfortunate major terrorism hit in the USA before most of the Democrats become true believers in what is going on right under their very noses and most of their home constituencies). When such US-based terrorism happens (and experts say its not a matter of if--but when) the Democrats will have a helluva' bunch of "esplaining" to do while at the same time they try to come up with damage control for each of their own political futures (if they would have such).

Unfortunately, President George W. Bush is just not a very effective communicator of his ideas like Ronald Reagan or others of his predeccessors--no comparison, but I think history will prove that he did the right thing with all this Iraq business. As always, it will take a few decades for history to prove who made the right decision on all this concerning Iraq.

We all know Viet Nam was a major disaster for this country, but we never had to worry about Viet Namese bombing New York City, the White House, the Washington Monument, the Pentagon, the US Capitol Bldg, etc, etc, etc, etc, If any of those things happen in the near future in the USA, the Democrats who pushed for this timetable of a pullout in Iraq will be dead in the water politically with the majority in this country because (as Roman mob mentality prevails) they willl be the ones who will be blamed for bringing all this back and inside our country's borders--which has not had any acts of terrorism since 9-11 (and since we've been in Iraq to prove to those in that part of the world that the United States of America will hardly remain neutral with any of their terrorists plans and shenanigannery whatsoever)

Hopefully, the present and future security of the United States of America, ie, the leading nation of the free world, will not be sacrificed or jeopardized by a few politicians in our nation's capital who would rather be right about their overall political philosophies as compared to their political rivals; that is, with their even being right at (possibly) the expense of our national security.

Edited March 24, 2007 by PlummMeanGreen

[MCMLXXX]

I think Hillary will run a play right out of the Denton High School Playbook called the Time Warp.

It is just a jump to the Left (to secure her base),

Then a step to the Right (To prove she is no left wing radical),

She will put her hands on her Hip (to show she is tough),

Then bring her knees in tight (to prove she is no Bill),

Then a pelvic thrust (to divert attention from her real agenda).

Then she will do it all over again.

[UNTflyer]

I think Hillary will run a play right out of the Denton High School Playbook called the Time Warp.

It is just a jump to the Left (to secure her base),

Then a step to the Right (To prove she is no left wing radical),

She will put her hands on her Hip (to show she is tough),

Then bring her knees in tight (to prove she is no Bill),

Then a pelvic thrust (to divert attention from her real agenda).

Then she will do it all over again.

Brilliant!

[SCREAMING EAGLE-66]

---Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11 or any terrorist act against the USA. If you think so --name one..!! Ben Laden did . Saddam was an evil man but not an Islamic crazy as is Ben Laden who is still loose and is extremely dangerous. We went after the wrong person...

---This is as Crazy as saying the European German Nazis are bad so let us attack Britain because they are European too....(plus they once tried to rule us and they even burned the White House in the War of 1812, it became called White House because we painted over the blackened fire damage). Obviously they are bad. If Iraq was such a threat to us why did we (Reagan) supply then weapons during the 1980's for Saddam to fight the Islamic crazies of Iran?? Saddam did have a nuclear program but no working weapons during the 1980's [ Israel bombed and destroyed it] but no program now and no CIA evidence that he did....

[eeally]

Hillary 2008!!!!! Why not a woman? Because White Business Men know what is best for our country!!!

[Eagle1855]

Because White Business Men know what is best for our country!!!

ah yes, its so "chic" to blame the white business man for everything these days.

Edited March 26, 2007 by Eagle1855