Bush & Saudi Royal Family: Working For Bush Re-Election...

Well, well, well. By that rationale, is Bill Clinton still the prez who did the most to fight terrorism? He ran away from Somalia and did nothing but bluster after Khobar Towers and the U.S.S. Cole were bombed.

Reagan made a mistake sending our Marines to Lebanon, but worse yet, our troops were handcuffed by restrictive ROE's thanks to the career liberal bureaucrats in the State Dept. Former Navy SEAL Dick Marcinko recalls that he advised the State Dept. to put these radio transmitters that would detonate car bombs (since the terrorists would put a remote detonator on the car in case the would-be suicide bomber chickened out on martyrdom) and they said no. Innocent civilians would be killed! So in other words, civilians are more important than our troops, eh? Well, Marcinko and his SEALs left and not long after, the Marine barracks was bombed along with our embassy. The Marine guards at the gates of the barracks did not have ammo in their weapons! If you knew anything about what really happened over there, getting the hell out was our best option. We were hated by all sides and we had no business being over there (I admit Reagan made a costly mistake, which is less than I can say for you and any liberal politician you slobberingly worship).

As for the deal for arms for hostages, we were unable to do what the Russkies did. See they went to a village where some of the terrorists' families lived and found some random folk. They cut them up piece by piece and left them for the terrorists to find. The Russian hostages were released with an apology. If we did that sort of thing, you little linguine-spined libs would be jumping up and down like organ grinder monkees because it offended your precious sensibilities. So we sold the Iranians some obsolete F-4 Phantom spare parts and some old HAWK SAM reloads, along with TOW missiles. So what? We raped them on the prices and the American taxpayer was not forced to fund the Contras. Instead our enemies did it. More power to us.

So in other words, Reagan could not have dealt with the terrorists approriately because.....you weak-kneed folks would not let him. He knew that the outcry would be deafening, especially from the "world community," full of more left-wing cowards. So he did the best he could, which is better than I can say for Bill Clinton, a president who got blown while our troops were getting blown up and not even bothering to retaliate seriously. Reagan bombed Libya in a successful operation that ended Libyan terrorism support and also helped end maritime terrorism in the Persian Gulf by dispatching U.S. forces to fight the Psardan Iranian death squads and their speedboats. In both instances, we stopped the threat with military force, something Bill Clinton only used when our national security or vital interests were not at stake.

 

(Iran Contra I had no problem with. Thanks to a bunch of weak-kneed liberal wussies in Congress, we could no longer fund an active insurgency in Nicaragua.) Bama

There you have it. Bama believes in lying, breaking laws to have illegal wars if in his paranoid thinking they are justified. No scandal in Iran Contra, so no scandal with Dubya.



Nixon is perhaps the most evil figure in American politics to me. Why you ask? Because he ushered in decades of liberal dominance in Congress, Bama

Bama thinks Nixon is evil, but only because he got caught and disgraced the conservative movement Otherwise he would be a hero like Ollie to Bama.

Sadly Bama will probably eventually view Dubya as another "evil figure in American politics" as Dubya's scandals disgrace the neocon world wview of Bama, who mistakenly calls himself a libertarian for some reason.


.

 

What color is the sky in your world, Glynch? God, you are one sick piece of work. Sometimes I think you are a conservative pretending to be every bad liberal stereotype in the playbook.

We were fighting the Cold War, but to liberal, pacifist idiots like John sKerry, we were being too confrontational at a foreign power establishing a satellite scant distance from our shores and in direct violation of the Monroe Doctrine, which puts a hands-off on the Americas (I know you probably were schooled by a bunch of tofu-eating, 60's radicals, so I just thought I'd inform you of what that was. Lemme guess, that is "imperialist," right?). But that did not matter to the U.S. Congress, eager to help despots whenever they could (since they always identified with Communists and deep down believed that socialism would work, if given a chance. I know you believe that in your heart, don't you?). So Reagan had to committ a few "irregularities." As the great Barry Goldwater said:

You think that the U.S. is the ultimate danger to world peace. You probably cringe when all the post-9/11 patriotism was in full force. Too insulting, you said. Little nattering nabobs of negativity (another Nixonian reference, from the mouth of old Spiro Agnew) like you will always be around, but thankfully, when you people ascend to power under false pretenses (pretending to be "centrists" like Clinton did), the effects can be largely minimalized in terms of damage to our national prestige and economy. But I'm still surprised that 9/11 did not jar you out of your naive, idealist worldview as it did a few libs (Dennis Miller being a big example). When the mainstream of the Democratic party is fringe kooks like you, I know that they are on their last legs.

 

I'm not about to enter this, uh, "debate", but I want to make sure bamaslammer knows that the Monroe Doctrine isn't actually an international accord/law/treaty, and it's also not an American law. It's exactly what it says it is - a doctrine.

The Monroe Doctrine (December 2, 1823): President Monroe's seventh annual message to Congress put "European Powers" on notice that American continents were off limits to European colonization, and that any attempts to intefere with American lands would be considered the "manifestation of an unfriendly disposition toward the United States".

(From a quick Google search)

 

I did say it was a doctrine and not a treaty or even the law of the land. It is fundamental policy.

 

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...u=/ap/20040425/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_war_saudis

 

Bamma the fact is that the Ortega leadership was far more easier on their people and their freedoms than the Samosa regime before it. The remnants of that corrupt dictatorship is what Reagan was funding in Nicaragua.

So what's your story now?
A.'Dictators like Iraq are bad we should remove them,'

or

B.'Dictators in Central America are good we should keep them in power, even if we have to lie to congress and go against the constitution which is the ruling document of our own country.'

Which is it?

In Nicaragua under Ortega they set up an area in town centers where a certain time each day people were allowed to come and voice dissent, or talk about whatever they want. Even during the war to overthrow them the govt. allowed an opposition newspaper run by the U.S. to continue to publish. These are things that would never be allowed under the previous dictatorship.