Wow--"Decent Interval" Policy [N/A]

[spiderweb]

I had heard about this before, but last night on C-SPAN I got an earful. New tapes of Nixon and Kissenger have them discussing this policy, and very clearly show that this is how they thought of it. I just can't believe that Kissenger suggests that he let the war drag on, knowing it was all over, just to help Nixon get re-elected. Watergate Shmatergate.

 

[Eamon]

I had heard about this before, but last night on C-SPAN I got an earful. New tapes of Nixon and Kissenger have them discussing this policy, and very clearly show that this is how they thought of it. I just can't believe that Kissenger suggests that he let the war drag on, knowing it was all over, just to help Nixon get re-elected. Watergate Shmatergate.

Cant be any worse that the current adm starting a war so that all their oil company friends can get rich.

 

[Dave Krall CFII]

Cant be any worse that the current adm starting a war so that all their oil company friends can get rich.

Did anyone else see on TV last night the former general Sada of the Iraqi Air Force (trained in Texas of the USA in the 1960s...) telling about how his pilots moved WMDs out of Iraq to Syria just before the US troops arrived?

 

[Eamon]

Did anyone else see on TV last night the former general (Sada) of the Iraqi Air Force telling about how his pilots moved WMDs out of Iraq to Syria just before the US troops arrived?

I guess we should have invaded Syria instead. I guess Holly Burton would not have made enough money if we did a quick in & quick out like the last sand war.

Whatever happened, our gov knew it & sat on their hands. What happened to the "Mission Impossible" way we used to take care of bad people? Send in the CIA & no one dies.

http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/conspiracytheories/saudi.html

 

[SkyHog]

Cant be any worse that the current adm starting a war so that all their oil company friends can get rich.

Yeah, except they were already rich, and we went to war based on faulty intel.

Some people like to grasp at straws to keep Bush in the blame tho.

 

[poadeleted3]

Cant be any worse that the current adm starting a war so that all their oil company friends can get rich.

There isn't a lick of truth to this statement. Then again, lack of truth didn't keep Osama bin Laden from saying it either.

 

[poadeleted1]

Cant be any worse that the current adm starting a war so that all their oil company friends can get rich.

I think you need to show some proof of that eamon. real proof, not just conspiracy theories from soros.

 

[SCCutler]

I think that this is a topic better left to another forum, so we don't get tempted to insult our good friends with emotional responses.

 

[spiderweb]

Funny that no one is commenting on the actual post.

 

[SCCutler]

Funny that no one is commenting on the actual post.

'Deed it is, mea culpa.

Demonstrative of the arrogance with which politicians at the national level regard all of us, and a reminder of how wrong it is to entrust any more power than is absolutely necessary to those in DC.


Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts, absolutely.

 

[spiderweb]

'Deed it is, mea culpa.

Nah--it isn't your culpa

Demonstrative of the arrogance with which politicians at the national level regard all of us, and a reminder of how wrong it is to entrust any more power than is absolutely necessary to those in DC.


Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts, absolutely.

And it is the tapes which are the new part of this. Before, apparently, we only had suppositions, but I heard these things. And it isn't just a few seconds, either--more like five or six minutes, and that was just an excerpt.

 

[RotaryWingBob]

I had heard about this before, but last night on C-SPAN I got an earful. New tapes of Nixon and Kissenger have them discussing this policy, and very clearly show that this is how they thought of it. I just can't believe that Kissenger suggests that he let the war drag on, knowing it was all over, just to help Nixon get re-elected. Watergate Shmatergate.

Huh? And just what does "Shmatergate" mean?

 

[spiderweb]

Huh? And just what does "Shmatergate" mean?

LOL--you obviously do not have a Jewish Grandmother!

 

[poadeleted1]

LOL--you obviously do not have a Jewish Grandmother!

Oy Bubbie. LOL. You want I should get you some chicken soup?

 

[Eamon]

Nah--it isn't your culpa

And it is the tapes which are the new part of this. Before, apparently, we only had suppositions, but I heard these things. And it isn't just a few seconds, either--more like five or six minutes, and that was just an excerpt.

I think there is no real shock because we see the holders of these gov positions time & time again show that they are just there to line their pockets & the pockets of their friends. They care more about being elected again than fixing the problems of the US.

When an honest guy like Carter gets in on a fluke, he is powerless to change anything. ( I truly believe that he was/is a good man, Yes he did suck as a pres, but I have yet to see another Pres go out & build houses for the people)

When a smart man like Ross P. goes up for election, both sides make sure they don't back them so that with the split vote there is no chance.

Are there any leaders that are not corrupt on either side? Prolly not. Maybe the Pres seat should be given out like Jury Duty Better chance of getting someone with the good of the country on their mind.

I wish someone had a way to fix the gov. We are heading for a crash just like Rome. Remember, 100 yrs after the collapse of Rome, No one even remembered there was a Rome.

PS Birdman, If I could show you a cancled checks from Bush to Bin L and family (Arbusto Energy, Inc & Harken Energy). you still would not believe it. It is in the nature of the military to stand behind their leader till death. No need to waste my breath. Peace

What happened to the spell checker???

 

[spiderweb]

Oy Bubbie. LOL. You want I should get you some chicken soup?

LOL! Pretty close!

 

[poadeleted1]

Cant be any worse that the current adm starting a war so that all their oil company friends can get rich.

A few words from Mona Charen that would kinda blow that out of the water Eamon. You of course are perfectly entitled to continue your beliefs as is. *psssst* watch out for the stealth black helicopters. Don't forget your tinfoil chapeau......

President Bush has made errors, as all humans do, but one thing he has not been guilty of is bad faith. The same cannot be said of his critics. One thinks of those liberals and Democrats who accused President Bush of "lying" about weapons of mass destruction and about ties between al Qaeda and Iraq particularly now, because last week, after an unaccountable delay of three years, the administration declassified and released thousands of documents captured from Saddam's regime. They offer more proof of what we've already learned from other sources: that Hussein was in collusion with al Qaeda; that he did instruct his people on hiding evidence of WMDs; and that he did support worldwide terror.

Before turning to the documents though it is worth pausing for a moment to dwell on the bad faith of Bush's opponents. The whole world knew that Saddam had used chemical weapons at least twice: once against the Iranians and once against the Kurds within Iraq. (He had also threatened to use them against Israel.) The whole world further knew that Saddam engaged in a protracted game of cat and mouse with UN weapons inspectors, first throwing roadblocks in their path and finally expelling them from the country (a violation of the cease-fire agreement that followed the 1991 Gulf War, which required Iraq to account for its weapons and prove that they had been dismantled and destroyed). The entire world also knew that the U.S. and Britain had not rushed to war with Iraq. To the contrary, the build-up to the 2003 invasion was lengthy and deliberate, giving ample time to the Iraqi dictator to hide or destroy his WMDs.

And yet when coalition forces failed to find caches of weapons, the cry on the left was "Bush lied." It doesn't even make logical sense. Why would Bush want to launch a war on false pretenses? Would he purposely create a political problem for himself? Why? To enrich Halliburton? This is fever swamp talk. Yet it was heard among leading members of the Democratic Party, not just in the MoveOn.org milieu. Nor was it correct to claim, as so many on the left did, that Bush altered the rationale for war after he failed to find WMDs. In a speech to the American Enterprise Institute in February 2003, on the eve of the invasion, the president sketched his vision of a democratic Iraq that he hoped would begin the transformation of the despotic and violent Middle East into something more enlightened and free. He mentioned "disarming" Iraq by force, but it was far from the sole rationale for war.

Three years in, we are hearing from the summer soldiers. The pacification of Iraq is proving more difficult than anticipated. Even some on the right are throwing in the towel. But as The Wall Street Journal wisely editorialized, the consequences of failure -- by which they mean capitulation on our part -- would be utterly catastrophic.

The radical Islamists will claim that they defeated the United States and chased us out of Iraq just as they defeated the Soviets and chased them out of Afghanistan. And every moderate-leaning Arab and Muslim in the world will shrug his shoulders and give up. It will embolden the terrorists tremendously to see the U.S. withdraw from Iraq. The corresponding plunge in morale at home will rival if not exceed post-Vietnam syndrome. Iran will seize the opportunity to impose a Shiite theocracy on Iraq, and Afghanistan will feel the reverberations and tremble on its still shaky foundations.

Oh yes, the documents. One shows that an official from Iraq's government met with Osama bin Laden on Feb. 19, 1995, with the explicit permission of Saddam Hussein. When bin Laden was forced to leave Sudan, the Iraqi documents contain a handwritten note saying, "The relationship with him is still through the Sudanese. We're currently working on activating this relationship through a new channel in light of his current location" (Afghanistan). The notes also reveal that Osama bin Laden suggested "carrying out joint operations against foreign forces" in Saudi Arabia.

The documents further disclose that the Iraqi intelligence service issued detailed instructions to directors and managers of weapons sites regarding UN inspections. They were to remove files from computers, "remove correspondence with the atomic energy and military industry departments concerning the prohibited weapons" and "remove prohibited materials and equipment, including documents and catalogs and making sure to clear labs and storages (sic) of any traces of chemical or biological materials that were previously used or stored . . ."

 

[poadeleted1]

PS Birdman, If I could show you a cancled checks from Bush to Bin L and family (Arbusto Energy, Inc & Harken Energy). you still would not believe it. It is in the nature of the military to stand behind their leader till death. No need to waste my breath. Peace

Do you have such documents? And recall, if you will, that OBL was disowned by his family long ago. So other than in name, what is the connection? Is there a direct and proveable link to this President? I mean something as clear as the payments to Bill Clinton for his efforts on behalf of the KSA government toward the US?

As for Carter...if building houses makes him a good man, you ought to swoon over da mare (Daley). He builds houses for lots of poor folks. Takes airports away from rich people too.

Peace back atcha. Peace thru superior firepower. In Thrust We Trust.

PS - As the Commander in Chief, military people follow his orders and directives as passed down the chain of command. If you don't care for the way things are going, you can disobey and suffer the consequences or get out. The other option is the honorable one. Do your duty.

 

[poadeleted1]

LOL! Pretty close!

No kvetching!

 

[jkaduk]

Some people like to grasp at straws to keep Bush in the blame tho.

I think you can change that to "most people" since his approval rating has been in the 30's for some time now.

 

[poadeleted1]

I think you can change that to "most people" since his approval rating has been in the 30's for some time now.

I think that would depend....most people at moveon.org - yeah, ok. The rest of the country....outside the more liberal bastions where the major press organisms live.....he's probably doing better overall.

True that people are "getting tired" of it, but that is because, IMNSO, the press pushes the bad all the time. We would have surrendered to Japan on about 12 December with today's press. Oh, and recall that FDR, the more liberal democrat not only did wire taps without warrant, he opened US Mail and censored it, he forcibly evicted and relocated people of Japanese ancestry, he even controlled the press to the point that he supressed the bad news and allowed favorable ones to be printed.

You may hate the President and his policies, but he stands his ground (for the most part) and is not a poll driven Prez like WJC. He is doing what he thinks is right. He is not making his friends rich - he is trying to make the world a safer place by eliminating the vermin that would just as soon kill you......which is their goal, infidel.

 

[Dave Krall CFII]

He is not making his friends rich - he is trying to make the world a safer place by eliminating the vermin that would just as soon kill you......which is their goal, infidel.

Isn't their flag of the crossed swords of the meaning simply: "Join or Die"?

 

[Anthony]

I think you can change that to "most people" since his approval rating has been in the 30's for some time now.

Many Presidents Republican and Democrat including Klinton had very low approval ratings in their second term. Real leaders are sometimes unpopular as they lead instead of following polls.

The libs are loosing and it iratates them.

 

[poadeleted1]

Isn't their flag of the crossed swords of the meaning simply: Join or Die?

I am not sure, but my arab-american translator told me that the message under the scimitars was not a message of love....I will see if I can find the meaning.

Edit: From a CIA doc: The "base flag" of Saudi Arabia, the shahada or profession of faith ("There is no god but Allah and Muhammad is his Prophet") on solid green was an old flag, connected to the Wahhabi reformist movement of the late 18th century, with whose religious drive the as-Saud family first rose to power.

 

[wbarnhill]

Oh, and recall that FDR, the more liberal democrat not only did wire taps without warrant, he opened US Mail and censored it, he forcibly evicted and relocated people of Japanese ancestry, he even controlled the press to the point that he supressed the bad news and allowed favorable ones to be printed.

Of all the excuses open to you, "But Johnny did it" is the one you decide to come up with? Come on now.

As for the 30% approvals... I'm finding it awfully hard to locate any approval polls from Clinton's second term that show a sub 50% rating. (Anthony, feel free to refute.) Only Nixon and Truman have had lower job approval ratings than Bush has. In fact, Bush hasn't been able to hold a 50% approval rating since early 2005, the beginning of his second term. And perhaps the President SHOULD listen to the people. After all, is he not there as a representative of all United States citizens?

And finally... Making the world safer? A terrorist filled Iraq, an Afghanistan which slid right back into a dangerous theocracy, and the man behind 9/11 still on the loose. Do you actually feel safer? Think I can borrow those rose colored glasses?

 

[alaskaflyer]

I had heard about this before, but last night on C-SPAN I got an earful. New tapes of Nixon and Kissenger have them discussing this policy, and very clearly show that this is how they thought of it. I just can't believe that Kissenger suggests that he let the war drag on, knowing it was all over, just to help Nixon get re-elected. Watergate Shmatergate.

I can believe it. Gee, you think that stuff happens anymore?

 

[poadeleted1]

Of all the excuses open to you, "But Johnny did it" is the one you decide to come up with? Come on now.

As for the 30% approvals... I'm finding it awfully hard to locate any approval polls from Clinton's second term that show a sub 50% rating. (Anthony, feel free to refute.) Only Nixon and Truman have had lower job approval ratings than Bush has. In fact, Bush hasn't been able to hold a 50% approval rating since early 2005, the beginning of his second term. And perhaps the President SHOULD listen to the people. After all, is he not there as a representative of all United States citizens?

And finally... Making the world safer? A terrorist filled Iraq, an Afghanistan which slid right back into a dangerous theocracy, and the man behind 9/11 still on the loose. Do you actually feel safer? Think I can borrow those rose colored glasses?

1. Not an excuse, just statements of fact. Presidents in wartimes do things that sometimes seem a bit....of a stretch. But even dissenters know that if we are not a united front, the wall can tumble down. Of course, that's what they want. But an AF officer wannabe cannot be that. He has to follow orders and support the Commander in Chief. If not, then he is disloyal and a traitor to his oath and uniform.
2. I guess I was raised and trained differently, because I was taught that when you are the parent or the leader, you make choices and decisions that don't always meet with approval of the kids. If that were the case, you'd have ice cream and cake for dinner every night, a pony, all the cool kid stuff. But I know I didn't because someone else made the decision. When I was in the navy, someone led us. Not always the popular decisions, but what had to be done.
3. And finally, if you would rather fight them in Greenville, SC, that's your call. Maybe you do, and it's you who has the rose colored glasses, young infidel, thinking that we are the cause of all of this. Tell it to the millions who lived in orderly fear of the taliban's knock on the door. Tell it to the ones that Uday and Qusay had taken out to rape and fed into branch chippers. OBL and his key leaders have been pretty restricted in their movements, but even if they do kill him, it won't be enough for you. There's always another reason to hate this President.

 

[poadeleted3]

snip

And finally... Making the world safer? A terrorist filled Iraq, an Afghanistan which slid right back into a dangerous theocracy, and the man behind 9/11 still on the loose. Do you actually feel safer? Think I can borrow those rose colored glasses?

Yes, I do feel safer. Terrorists being forced into open battle in Iraq, not conducting the most deadly attack on this nation by a foreign power and safely fading back into the security of nations who shelter them. There are no such nation who can safely do so anymore. Afghanistan, which is in fact a democracy, not the unelected theocracy you falsely claim, is no longer a safe haven for our enemies. We did what the Soviet Union was unable to do in a decade of warfare, destroy a repressive government and give the people a say in their future. We may not like all their choices, but THEY chose. Libya, a safe haven for and supplier to terrorists, has been forced to renounce terrorism and destroy it's stockpile of WMDs.

Terrorists are having their communications intercepted and their intended attacks disrupted, instead of being coddled by those who support them. They are being hunted and killed on a daily basis, instead of being coddled by those, here and abroad, who support them.

Yes, I feel safer, and will continue to do so as long as we continue to kill our enemies and as long as this nation continues to so utterly reject those on the left who side with our enemies, so long as we continue to see radical leftists for the enemy sympathizers and terrorist supporters they have proven themselves to be.

 

[jkaduk]

Many Presidents Republican and Democrat including Klinton had very low approval ratings in their second term. Real leaders are sometimes unpopular as they lead instead of following polls.

The libs are loosing and it iratates them.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/11/02/opinion/polls/main1005327.shtml?CMP=ILC-SearchStories

 

[alaskaflyer]

.


Yes, I feel safer, and will continue to do so as long as we continue to kill our enemies and as long as this nation continues to so utterly reject those on the left who side with our enemies, so long as we continue to see radical leftists for the enemy sympathizers and terrorist supporters they have proven themselves to be.

Sigh.

I'm sorry Joe, but there was no need to say that here. Please keep your "we"s to yourself.

 

[poadeleted1]

"In any compromise between good and evil, it is only evil that can profit."


"There are two sides to every issue: one side is right and the other is wrong, but the middle is always evil."


Ayn Rand

 

[poadeleted1]

Sigh.

I'm sorry Joe, but there was no need to say that here. Please keep your "we"s to yourself.

You go Joe! If "they" are not part of "we", then "they" too are "them". Them who will not draw a line and say "that's far enough, Bub." Someone has to do something, and it won't get done sitting around saying that "they" want to live in peace. We all know they do, the problem is their peace means the elimination of many and the subjugation of the rest.

As for me, I may have stumbled onto a backdoor way to un-retire myself from the military. But first I have to get a mil doc to certify that the removal of most of my small intestine (due to gangrene) does not limit me too much. I think it is doable, especially since nothing else seems to be changing physically.

We shall see.

 

[poadeleted3]

Sigh.

I'm sorry Joe, but there was no need to say that here. Please keep your "we"s to yourself.

There was every need, and right, to say that here. You may not like the fact that in this nation we are free to hold our own opinion whether or not you agree with them or not, but it's a fact. I responded to a post I disagreed with, and I didn't resort to the near personal attack you did. Do you have anything to actually add to the conversation?

 

[gkainz]

I have to agree with Joe and KP on the use of "we" in the previous posts. The "WE" referred to is the United States of America and her citizens...that is the "WE".

I took this oath a long time ago:

The following oath is taken by all personnel inducted into the armed forces of the United States, as found in the US Code, Section 502.

I, _________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.

Here's an interesting analysis of a similar oath
http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/au-24/sampson.pdf

When an immigrant becomes a naturalized citizen, he or she swears an oath of allegiance as follows:

"I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the armed forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God."

As young children we learned:

I Pledge Allegiance

I Promise to be faithful and true (Promise my loyalty)​

to the flag

to the emblem that stands for and represents​

of the United States

all 50 states, each of them individual, and individually represented on the flag​

of America

yet formed into a UNION of one Nation.​

and to the Republic

And I also pledge my loyalty to the Government that is itself a Republic, a form of government where the PEOPLE are sovereign,​

for which it stands,

this government also being represented by the Flag to which I promise loyalty.​

one Nation under God,

These 50 individual states are united as a single Republic under the Divine providence of God, "our most powerful resource" (according to the words of President Eisenhower)​

Indivisible,

and can not be separated. (This part of the original version of the pledge was written just 50 years after the beginning of the Civil War and demonstrates the unity sought in the years after that divisive period in our history)​

with Liberty

The people of this Nation being afforded the freedom to pursue "life, liberty, and happiness",​

and Justice

And each person entitled to be treated justly, fairly, and according to proper law and principle,​

for All.

And these principles afforded to EVERY AMERICAN, regardless of race, religion, color, creed, or any other criteria. Just as the flag represents 50 individual states that can not be divided or separated, this Nation represents millions of people who can not be separated or divided.
​

Thus it is that when you Pledge Allegiance to the United States Flag, You:
*Promise your loyalty to the Flag itself.
*Promise your loyalty to your own and the other 49 States.
*Promise your loyalty to the Government that unites us all,
Recognizing that we are ONE Nation under God,
That we can not or should not be divided or alone,
And understanding the right to Liberty and Justice belongs to ALL of us.


That's the "WE" that they were referring to, a "WE" that I'm proud to be a part of.

 

[alaskaflyer]

There was every need, and right, to say that here. You may not like the fact that in this nation we are free to hold our own opinion whether or not you agree with them or not, but it's a fact. I responded to a post I disagreed with, and I didn't resort to the near personal attack you did. Do you have anything to actually add to the conversation?

As I said, I respect your right to have that opinion, but I considered it a personal attack myself (BTW I"m not sure what you mean by my making a "near personal attack" - what are you talking about )

"We" do not side with the enemy just because "we" think our president is a fool. (I'm sorry, that's Mr. Fool to me )

I took the same oath as the rest of you, and I live by that code. And I find it extremely offensive that someone thinks because I disagree with many things our country is doing at the direction of the current administration I should be considered a traitor.

There are those on both the left and right who actually "side" with our enemies, for different reasons, maybe if you can more specific with your accusations instead of throwing loose terms around like "left" then there would be no issue.

 

[poadeleted3]

As I said, I respect your right to have that opinion, but I considered it a personal attack myself (BTW I"m not sure what you mean by my making a "near personal attack" - what are you talking about )

"We" do not side with the enemy just because "we" think our president is a fool. (I'm sorry, that's Mr. Fool to me )

I took the same oath as the rest of you, and I live by that code. And I find it extremely offensive that someone thinks because I disagree with many things our country is doing at the direction of the current administration I should be considered a traitor.

There are those on both the left and right who actually "side" with our enemies, for different reasons, maybe if you can more specific with your accusations instead of throwing loose terms around like "left" then there would be no issue.

The rhetoric that comes from the far left is identical to the rhetoric that Osama bin Laden spouts in his videos. In nearly every respect. I consider many on the far left to be traitors because they knowingly and actively spread propaganda they know to be false, because they knowingly and actively seek to undermine the war effort by highlighting failures while seeking to hide successes. Because they make heroes out of known anti-Semites and liars like Cindy Sheehan, while degrading in the most foul terms the President and armed forces defending this nation. The far left has stood against this nation ever since Vietnam, when they helped defeat this nation's war effort. They are doing so again, engaging in the same tactics. Blaming this nation for being the victims of 9/11, claiming we went to war for oil, etc. The anti-war protests and movement are designed purely to lend aid and comfort to our enemies in wartime, to provide encouragement to terrorists while undermining the morale of our soldiers. There is NO other aim, and there hasn't been any other goal of the far left other than helping our enemies for at least 40 years. You are free to be as offended as you wish to be by my opinion. I assure you, you are no more offended by mine than I am by yours.

BTW... in my original response I quoted you in full. Can you show me where you said "As I said, I respect your right to have that opinion (snip)" as you claim to have? I cannot seem to find that anywhere in that post.

 

[alaskaflyer]

The rhetoric that comes from the far left is identical to the rhetoric that Osama bin Laden spouts in his videos. In nearly every respect. I consider many on the far left to be traitors because they knowingly and actively spread propaganda they know to be false, because they knowingly and actively seek to undermine the war effort by highlighting failures while seeking to hide successes. Because they make heroes out of known anti-Semites and liars like Cindy Sheehan, while degrading in the most foul terms the President and armed forces defending this nation. The far left has stood against this nation ever since Vietnam, when they helped defeat this nation's war effort. They are doing so again, engaging in the same tactics. Blaming this nation for being the victims of 9/11, claiming we went to war for oil, etc. The anti-war protests and movement are designed purely to lend aid and comfort to our enemies in wartime, to provide encouragement to terrorists while undermining the morale of our soldiers. There is NO other aim, and there hasn't been any other goal of the far left other than helping our enemies for at least 40 years. You are free to be as offended as you wish to be by my opinion. I assure you, you are no more offended by mine than I am by yours.

BTW... in my original response I quoted you in full. Can you show me where you said "As I said, I respect your right to have that opinion (snip)" as you claim to have? I cannot seem to find that anywhere in that post.

I meant in the past on "these" boards...in the words of George Lucas: a long time ago, on a planet far, far way.

I think that you have it backwards...Osama Bin Laden imitates the criticism from the American left, not the other way around. Wonder why...maybe because some of it is true? To hell with him and his cohorts (and I mean that literally), but even a broken watch is right twice a day.

As for the rest of the post...you're very wrong about the left, my friend, simple as that. You hate them/us...that's your burden. I wouldn't have called you on it above if I didn't actually feel you were out of line considering the tone and tenor (not to mention the rules) of this forum but - as I'm sure you will agree -that is not for me to say and I am content with that. I for one have no desire to make this another Soapbox, and because of that and because I think that we aren't going to change each other's mind and this only has a tenuous connection to the point of the original post I am content for you to have your say next (no doubt) and let it drop. I'm more interested in talking about immigration and airplanes in other threads.

 

[spiderweb]

Yeah, but that Richard Nixon guy! And wow, Kissenger!

 

[Henning]

I had heard about this before, but last night on C-SPAN I got an earful. New tapes of Nixon and Kissenger have them discussing this policy, and very clearly show that this is how they thought of it. I just can't believe that Kissenger suggests that he let the war drag on, knowing it was all over, just to help Nixon get re-elected. Watergate Shmatergate.

This surprizes you? A few years later the RNC bribed Ayatolla Rudolf Khomeni with a sweet arms deal, later to be known as the Iran-Contra scandal to keep the hostages till after the elections to get Ronny in. Same stuff has been done before and since all over the world.

 

[poadeleted1]

This surprizes you? A few years later the RNC bribed Ayatolla Rudolf Khomeni with a sweet arms deal, later to be known as the Iran-Contra scandal to keep the hostages till after the elections to get Ronny in. Same stuff has been done before and since all over the world.

Quite a theory. You of course have solid proof that would stand up in a court of law?