Bubba still trying to salvage his tarnished legacy....

ChargerMike · Post by **ChargerMike** » Fri Nov 11, 2005 8:37 pm

...poor bastard just can't let it go. Kinda reminds me of..say T.O. wanting to be remembered as the greatest WR of all-time

You butcherd it Slick, let it go.

Strangely though, the way Dem's. are trying to rewrite history Bubber will probably end up being a glowing hero.

By FRANK ELTMAN, Associated Press Writer
Fri Nov 11, 5:02 AM ET

HEMPSTEAD, N.Y. - Former president Bill Clinton called Congress' impeachment of him an "egregious" :? abuse of the Constitution and challenged those who say history will judge him poorly because of his White House tryst with Monica Lewinsky.

Speaking at an academic conference examining his presidency here Thursday, Clinton challenged historian Douglas Brinkley's comments in a newspaper interview that Clinton would be deemed a great president were it not for his impeachment.

"I completely disagree with that," Clinton said in his speech at Hofstra University. "You can agree with that statement, but only if you think impeachment was justified. Otherwise, it was an egregious abuse of the Constitution and law and history of our country."

Clinton was acquitted by the Senate of perjury and obstruction of justice at his 1999 impeachment trial,

which he argued was not about what he called his "misconduct."

"Now if you want to hold it against me that I did something wrong, that's a fair deal," he said.

"If you do that, then you have a whole lot of other questions, which is how many other presidents do you have to downgrade and what are you going to do with all those Republican congressmen,

you know, that had problems?"

Clinton touted what he called the achievements of his eight-year presidency,

from Middle East peace initiatives to turning around the U.S. economy.

His remarks were cheered loudly by the audience.

Clinton said his administration's failures included its slowness to act to halt the genocide in Rwanda and the decision to allow federal agents to raid a cult leader's compound in Waco, Texas. Nearly 80 cult followers died in a fire during the 1993 confrontation.

"We should have waited them out," he said.

The presidential conference is the 11th to be held at Hofstra; the first in 1982 examined the presidency of Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Fri Nov 11, 2005 9:05 pm

Clinton was right.

sin

Andrew Johnson

ChargerMike · Post by **ChargerMike** » Fri Nov 11, 2005 9:17 pm

"Clinton said his administration's failures included its slowness to act to halt the genocide in Rwanda and the decision to allow federal agents to raid a cult leader's compound in Waco, Texas. Nearly 80 cult followers died in a fire during the 1993 confrontation."

Was it just an oversite that Bubba failed to mention Shillary's "it takes a villiage" and her abortion of a "Health (cough) plan" fiasco? He probably knew she'd take his head off if brought those two doozies up.

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Fri Nov 11, 2005 9:17 pm

Sirfindafold wrote:Bsmack is one his biggest ball-lickers.

That fact alone, makes him a failure.

I wouldn't like Clinton's sack if I knew every lick would cause you to go into excruciating pre death like agonies.

But feel free to indulge your homoerotic fantasy life all you want.

The health care plan Hillary was pimping looks brilliant compared to Chimpy's medicaid reform bill.

Mister Bushice · Post by **Mister Bushice** » Fri Nov 11, 2005 9:21 pm

BSmack wrote:Clinton was right.

sin

Andrew Johnson

It's not an impeachment if you don't get caught

sin,,

JFK

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Fri Nov 11, 2005 9:31 pm

Mister Bushice wrote:
BSmack wrote:Clinton was right.

sin

Andrew Johnson
It's not an impeachment if you don't get caught

sin,,

JFK

That Kennedy kid was a rank amateur.

sin

Warren G Harding

Mikey · Post by **Mikey** » Fri Nov 11, 2005 9:32 pm

ChargerMike wrote: Was it just an oversite that Bubba failed to mention Shillary's "it takes a villiage" and her abortion of a "Health (cough) plan" fiasco? He probably knew she'd take his head off if brought those two doozies up.

Yeah, those doozies rank right up there with Social Security reform and "bringing integrity back to the White House"

.

'Course Shrub's biggest fuckup is ongoing, and he's still got three years to screw the pooch even better.

Mister Bushice · Post by **Mister Bushice** » Fri Nov 11, 2005 9:34 pm

BSmack wrote:
Mister Bushice wrote:
BSmack wrote:Clinton was right.

sin

Andrew Johnson
It's not an impeachment if you don't get caught

sin,,

JFK
That Kennedy kid was a rank amateur.

sin

Warren G Harding

I beat you all. I sinned in my heart and admitted it.

sin,

J Carter

ChargerMike · Post by **ChargerMike** » Fri Nov 11, 2005 11:10 pm

Mikey wrote:'Course Shrub's biggest fuckup is ongoing, and he's still got three years to screw the pooch even better.

Not to mention "spending" like a drunken sailor, and our "Border" fiasco he's doing nothing about!

SCARY, it's just plain SCARY!

ChargerMike · Post by **ChargerMike** » Fri Nov 11, 2005 11:11 pm

Mister Bushice wrote:
BSmack wrote:
Mister Bushice wrote: It's not an impeachment if you don't get caught

sin,,

JFK
That Kennedy kid was a rank amateur.

sin

Warren G Harding
I beat you all. I sinned in my heart and admitted it.

sin,

J Carter

If he admitted it to God..he's forgiven!

Mister Bushice · Post by **Mister Bushice** » Fri Nov 11, 2005 11:33 pm

aren't they all?

mothster · Post by **mothster** » Sat Nov 12, 2005 8:31 am

rack eleanor, she understood-----------

fdt

Mister Bushice · Post by **Mister Bushice** » Sat Nov 12, 2005 7:45 pm

Franklin Delano - Truman?

mothster · Post by **mothster** » Sat Nov 12, 2005 7:49 pm

Mister Bushice wrote:Franklin Delano - Truman?

nixon would have a mistress before truman

Diogenes · Post by **Diogenes** » Sat Nov 12, 2005 7:55 pm

mothster wrote:
Mister Bushice wrote:Franklin Delano - Truman?
hillary would have a mistress before truman

mothster · Post by **mothster** » Sat Nov 12, 2005 8:04 pm

Diogenes wrote:
mothster wrote:
Mister Bushice wrote:Franklin Delano - Truman?
hillary would have a mistress before truman

she's got a harem of mistress' in n.o.w.-----wake up

Mister Bushice · Post by **Mister Bushice** » Sat Nov 12, 2005 8:13 pm

mothster wrote:rack eleanor, she understood-----------

fdt

Eleanor didn't really want it that way, but certainly that was her only option to have the influence, prestige, and control she wanted.

Must have sucked to see Frank head off for a weekend to bone someone else.

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Sat Nov 12, 2005 9:26 pm

Mister Bushice wrote:
mothster wrote:rack eleanor, she understood-----------

fdt
Eleanor didn't really want it that way, but certainly that was her only option to have the influence, prestige, and control she wanted.

Must have sucked to see Frank head off for a weekend to bone someone else.

Given his medical condition, I doubt there was much in the way of boning happening after 1921.

Mister Bushice · Post by **Mister Bushice** » Sat Nov 12, 2005 9:42 pm

He was getting something out of it. Maybe it was just getting away from the Face of Eleanor? She was not the prettiest first lady, for sure.

mothster · Post by **mothster** » Sun Nov 13, 2005 4:25 pm

BSmack wrote:
Mister Bushice wrote:
mothster wrote:rack eleanor, she understood-----------

fdt
Eleanor didn't really want it that way, but certainly that was her only option to have the influence, prestige, and control she wanted.

Must have sucked to see Frank head off for a weekend to bone someone else.
Given his medical condition, I doubt there was much in the way of boning happening after 1921.

she did a mean pedicure

Mister Bushice · Post by **Mister Bushice** » Sun Nov 13, 2005 6:22 pm

brings a whole new meaning to "getting my leg braces oiled"

MSUFAN · Post by **MSUFAN** » Mon Nov 14, 2005 2:32 am

Tarnished?

Dude was (is) head and shoulders a more accomplished, intelligent, respected leader than Chimpy ever was; or will EVER be.

Damn, where do you come up with this shit?

Mister Bushice · Post by **Mister Bushice** » Mon Nov 14, 2005 3:44 am

Dude,

Who mentioned the word tarnished?

Couldn't you have just found a past president who committed a sexual indiscretion?

Jefferson comes to mind...

But the big challenge is a calvin coolidge or Harry Truman type.

Step up.

Hell, Washington was banging French maids behind Marthas back.

MSUFAN · Post by **MSUFAN** » Mon Nov 14, 2005 4:16 pm

Mister Bushice wrote:Dude,

Who mentioned the word tarnished?

Couldn't you have just found a past president who committed a sexual indiscretion?

Jefferson comes to mind...

But the big challenge is a calvin coolidge or Harry Truman type.

Step up.

Hell, Washington was banging French maids behind Marthas back.

Dude; the thread title mentions "tarnished", man.

Get with it.

My post suggests that his "legacy" isn't tarnished at all. So, therefore I don't feel the need to conjur up dead presidents and their indiscretions.

Clinto was the best Pres. we've had since JFK.

Tom In VA · Post by **Tom In VA** » Mon Nov 14, 2005 4:51 pm

MSUFAN wrote:My post suggests that his "legacy" isn't tarnished at all. So, therefore I don't feel the need to conjur up dead presidents and their indiscretions.

Clinto was the best Pres. we've had since JFK.

Your posts suggest that the alleged intellectual superiority of Democrats is just that, alleged, and yet another out and out lie and delusion put forth by the DNC. The D = denial.

Bill Clinton is a man with an inspiring personal story, superior intelligence, eloquent as hell and a great capacity to lead. Unfortunately he opted to enjoy the trappings of office more than "leading". He fell way short of fullfilling his DUTY to the American people.

Cuda · Post by **Cuda** » Mon Nov 14, 2005 5:43 pm

MSUFAN wrote:Clinto was the best Pres. we've had since JFK.

Assassination was the only thing that saved JFK from being remembered as a total fuck-up as a president.

Fucking Marylin Monroe doesn't even come close to offsetting The Bay of Pigs debacle, the Berlin Wall, the Cuban Missile Crisis, and putting the first "advisors" into Vietnam.

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Mon Nov 14, 2005 6:12 pm

Cuda wrote:Assassination was the only thing that saved JFK from being remembered as a total fuck-up as a president.

Fucking Marylin Monroe doesn't even come close to offsetting The Bay of Pigs debacle, the Berlin Wall, the Cuban Missile Crisis, and putting the first "advisors" into Vietnam.

The Bay of Pigs- Unlike Chimpy, JFK realized the operation was a failure and got us the hell out before real damage ensued.

The Berlin Wall- Still trying to figure out how you pin that on JFK. If anything, the Berlin Wall was proof that containment as a policy was beginning to bear fruit.

Cuban Missile Crisis- More blowback from the Bay of Pigs. It was handled about as well as one could have expected given the Intel and the circumstances.

Advisors in Viet Nam- That would be Eisenhower who started putting advisors in Viet Nam. Anyway, it wasn't until LBJ decided to fabricate an incident in the Gulf of Tonkin that we became irrevocably committed to defeat in Viet Nam.

The real truth is that JFK's legacy as a President will never be fully known because so many of his policies became intertwined with the Johnson Administration. A case in point is JFK's movement towards support of Civil Rights legislation and the escalation in Viet Nam. Where JFK's influence ands and Johnson's begins is not always easy to tell.

Tom In VA · Post by **Tom In VA** » Mon Nov 14, 2005 6:52 pm

BSmack wrote: The Bay of Pigs- Unlike Chimpy, JFK realized the operation was a failure and got us the hell out before real damage ensued.

Iraq cannot be classified as a failure, yet. The only reason you and syncophants like you are trying to classify it as a failure is for political posturing. Good strategy, as indicative by last week's elections. Good strategy to win elections. Not so good when it comes to war strategy. But the next time a modern day democrat strategy conforms to something that's good for the country, will be .... the first time.

Cuda · Post by **Cuda** » Mon Nov 14, 2005 7:15 pm

BMonica wrote:
The Bay of Pigs- Unlike Chimpy, JFK realized the operation was a failure and got us the hell out before real damage ensued.

It was his operation, dumb fuck. His planning & his decision to start it in the first place. And the operation failed primarily because JFK canceled the air support part of his plan- AFTER the invasion was already underway.

The Berlin Wall- Still trying to figure out how you pin that on JFK.

Of course JFK gets the blame you dipshit- it happened while he was president. The wall was a clear violation of the treaty ending WW2, and even more of a provocation than the blockades were- yet the Soviets paid no price for it. They could have tried putting up the wall when Eisenhower was in office, but they didn't want to risk the consequences. The Soviets pretty well knew Kennedy wouldn't do dick.

If anything, the Berlin Wall was proof that containment as a policy was beginning to bear fruit.

Of all the fucking stupid things you've said over the years, Monica, I can't think of anything that tops that. If you know of anything dumber that you've said, I hope you'll provide a link.

Cuban Missile Crisis- More blowback from the Bay of Pigs. It was handled about as well as one could have expected given the Intel and the circumstances.

The fact that the Soviets were putting missiles in Cuba came as a big fucking surprise to JFK because he was fucking off on Cape Cod just like he was when the Berlin Wall started going up. And just as with the Berlin Wall, the Soviets pretty much knew they could pull shit like this and get away with it with JFK

As far as handling it, he probably could have fucked up worse, although just now, I can't think exactly how. Castro got a guarantee that we'd never invade Cuba no matter what he did. The Soviets got missiles taken out of Turkey, and reciprocal base priviledges with the Cuban Navy.

Mister Bushice · Post by **Mister Bushice** » Mon Nov 14, 2005 7:20 pm

Tom,

Hard to say if it will be a failure, only the future will determine that when we leave. If civil war breaks out and things revert to chaos, Failure is a good word.

However, in terms of it being what will end the "war on terror", It is a failure. What will end terrorism is attacks like what happened in Jordan last week. Muslims attacking other muslims. Already the Jordanian Government is calling for an anti terror campaign, and the people are protesting against al queda.

No way will we ourselves stop worldwide terrorism, and the only way many nations will ever get involved in putting an end to it is by experiencing being a victim themselves.

Tom In VA · Post by **Tom In VA** » Mon Nov 14, 2005 7:32 pm

Mister Bushice wrote:Tom,

Hard to say if it will be a failure, only the future will determine that when we leave. If civil war breaks out and things revert to chaos, Failure is a good word.

However, in terms of it being what will end the "war on terror", It is a failure. What will end terrorism is attacks like what happened in Jordan last week. Muslims attacking other muslims. Already the Jordanian Government is calling for an anti terror campaign, and the people are protesting against al queda.

No way will we ourselves stop worldwide terrorism, and the only way many nations will ever get involved in putting an end to it is by experiencing being a victim themselves.

I don't believe Bush ever claimed WE could stop terror by ourselves. In fact, the strategy has been to stick it out in Iraq, despite false claims of it being a quagmire and despite the inevitable parade of American Flag draped caskets.

Reason being. The U.S. had a name for itself, a very bad name, a name earned since Vietnam. That would be, we had a name as being an ally that would cut and run the moment things got tough.

When we cut and ran from Vietnam, we left behind thousands of supporters and integral assets. We left them behind to rot. That has a way of ruining ones reputation.

In the years since, we've depended upon air power, and quick and easy incursions.

That enabled the likes of Al Queda to undermine any promise we made to help other countries combat them. Their whole purpose for drawing us into a ground war ... i.e. the bombings in the 90's and 9-11, was to show the Muslim world, many of whom wish to rebel against them that having the U.S. as an ally was pointless and hopeless. Pointless and hopeless for one reason.

1. We would cut and run when the going got tough.

By sticking it out in Iraq, at great sacrifice to the men and women over there and their families. We are re-establishing our reputation as an ally that can be counted upon in time of need and no matter how bad or pressing things might get. This has invaluable strategic merit and value.

Mister Bushice · Post by **Mister Bushice** » Mon Nov 14, 2005 7:59 pm

There's a lot of Anti Us sentiment in Jordan, and OBL still has support there. Even with this bombing, the people aren't putting down the fact Americans were the intended target but that muslims were killed.
There are lots of palestinian born jordanians, so the occupation of iraq and support of israel naturally turn them against the US, but AL Q went too far with this bombing.

Edit:

Jordan is also one of only two countries that has a peace treaty with Israel. It's a little surprising that they haven't been hit until now, except that OBL and company have had a lot of support from the people.

Mister Bushice · Post by **Mister Bushice** » Mon Nov 14, 2005 8:12 pm

No, There's a lot of Anti Bush Administration sentiment here, and there's little or no OBL support. At least not publicly among the muslims.

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Mon Nov 14, 2005 8:16 pm

Cooter,

The Berlin Wall was a financial and PR disaster of epic proportions for the Soviets. And anyone who knew well enough knew that it was the beginning of the end. No nation can survive when it has to expend substantial resources just to keep its citizenry under literal lock and key. Furthermore, the Berlin Wall gave Kennedy (and Reagan) the ultimate in bully pulpits to bash away at the Soviets.

If Kennedy had PAID the Soviets to build the wall he couldn't have gotten a better result.

As for the missile crisis, the worse outcome you speak of would have been WWIII. As for the concessions Kennedy gave, not a one of them meant a damn thing. Especially next to the thought of the 17 second response time to a suspected nuclear attack that would have rendered the doctrine of Mutual Assured Destruction moot.

As for the Bay of Pigs, if you are unwilling to understand that the CIA began planning the invasion during the Eisenhower Administration, then you are beyond talking to. JFK blundered in accepting the plan on its face value without doing his own due diligence. Never mind that if the guy who planned and executed Operation Overlord gave you a battle plan, you also might be inclined to accept it without too many reservations.

However, had he sent the Marines in after the refugees, he would have created a Viet Nam right in our own backyard. He did the right thing in bailing when he did.

Cuda · Post by **Cuda** » Mon Nov 14, 2005 9:45 pm

BMonica wrote:Cooter,

The Berlin Wall was a financial and PR disaster of epic proportions for the Soviets. And anyone who knew well enough knew that it was the beginning of the end. No nation can survive when it has to expend substantial resources just to keep its citizenry under literal lock and key. Furthermore, the Berlin Wall gave Kennedy (and Reagan) the ultimate in bully pulpits to bash away at the Soviets.

If Kennedy had PAID the Soviets to build the wall he couldn't have gotten a better result.

I guess I'll continue being wrong about this thing or that thing being the Dumbest of all the Many Fucking Dumb things you've ever said. I guess the best I accuracy I can hope for is to say the Dumbest Thing You've Ever Said will be... the next thing you say.

As for the missile crisis, the worse outcome you speak of would have been WWIII. As for the concessions Kennedy gave, not a one of them meant a damn thing. Especially next to the thought of the 17 second response time to a suspected nuclear attack that would have rendered the doctrine of Mutual Assured Destruction moot.

No, I guess all those years of Castro exporting Communism throughout the Caribbean basin & into South America didn't mean a damn thing & neither did the existence of a Soviet client state- whose continued existence was guaranteed by US 90 miles away. Fucking idiot.

As for the Bay of Pigs, if you are unwilling to understand that the CIA began planning the invasion during the Eisenhower Administration, then you are beyond talking to. JFK blundered in accepting the plan on its face value without doing his own due diligence. Never mind that if the guy who planned and executed Operation Overlord gave you a battle plan, you also might be inclined to accept it without too many reservations.

1. That Kennedy would have blindly followed his predecessor's plan does NOT help your argument that he wasn't a fuck-up.

2. Castro didn't even declare himself to be a communist until late enough in 1960 that by that time, Eisenhower was doing little more than just putting in time until the new president was elected.

AS for the next thing you say being the Fuck-Dumbest thing you've ever said, the following proves me right:

However, had he sent the Marines in after the refugees, he would have created a Viet Nam right in our own backyard. He did the right thing in bailing when he did.

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Mon Nov 14, 2005 10:21 pm

Cuda wrote:I guess I'll continue being wrong about this thing or that thing being the Dumbest of all the Many Fucking Dumb things you've ever said. I guess the best I accuracy I can hope for is to say the Dumbest Thing You've Ever Said will be... the next thing you say.

How about you offer some proofs for your position? So far all I see from you is a lot of jaw flapping. I have outlined exactly why the Berlin Wall was a good thing for the NATO powers. Now how about you show me how an adversary forced to spend resources building walls, not to keep people from coming in, but to keep their own people from leaving is a bad thing for the US?

No, I guess all those years of Castro exporting Communism throughout the Caribbean basin & into South America didn't mean a damn thing & neither did the existence of a Soviet client state- whose continued existence was guaranteed by US 90 miles away. Fucking idiot.

Castro was a freakin minor nuisance. Name one country that Castro has had a lasting influence on OTHER than Cuba. You can't do it.

1. That Kennedy would have blindly followed his predecessor's plan does NOT help your argument that he wasn't a fuck-up.

Yea, but unlike you and your glorious leader El Presidente Chimpy, I can come correct. Which is what Kennedy did after it became obvious that the invasion would fail.

2. Castro didn't even declare himself to be a communist until late enough in 1960 that by that time, Eisenhower was doing little more than just putting in time until the new president was elected.

Eisenhower's most important policy speech was his last speech. You know, the one warning about the dangers of the military industrial complex? I seriously doubt he was just punching a metaphorical clock waiting for Kennedy to take the reigns. Besides, the real reason for the Bay of Pigs invasion was his expropriation of assets controlled by US corporations. And Eisenhower was certainly aware of these issues and sympathetic to the plight of his fellow Augusta National Members.

Cuda · Post by **Cuda** » Mon Nov 14, 2005 10:48 pm

BSmack wrote:
Cuda wrote:I guess I'll continue being wrong about this thing or that thing being the Dumbest of all the Many Fucking Dumb things you've ever said. I guess the best I accuracy I can hope for is to say the Dumbest Thing You've Ever Said will be... the next thing you say.
How about you offer some proofs for your position? So far all I see from you is a lot of jaw flapping. I have outlined exactly why the Berlin Wall was a good thing for the NATO powers. Now how about you show me how an adversary forced to spend resources building walls, not to keep people from coming in, but to keep their own people from leaving is a bad thing for the US?

NATO never saw the wall as a good thing you fucking moron, NATO saw the wall as overt soviet aggression that they had absolutely no way of dealing with other than to hide under Uncls Sam's nuclear umbrella.

No, I guess all those years of Castro exporting Communism throughout the Caribbean basin & into South America didn't mean a damn thing & neither did the existence of a Soviet client state- whose continued existence was guaranteed by US 90 miles away. Fucking idiot.
Castro was a freakin minor nuisance. Name one country that Castro has had a lasting influence on OTHER than Cuba. You can't do it.

Alphabetically, or chronologically? By size, or by geographic location?

A short list: Angola, Argentina, Columbia, Chile, Peru, Guatemala, Nickyrawaha, Venezuela, El Salvador, Haiti, Grenada, Panama... believe me, I can keep going but you do NOT want me to.

And "Lasting influence" is a cheap smokescreen, btw. Whether or not Castro's influence had staying power is irrelevant to the fact that 1) he had influence, and 2) that influence was not a good thing either for the people who lived there, or for American national interests.

1. That Kennedy would have blindly followed his predecessor's plan does NOT help your argument that he wasn't a fuck-up.
Yea, but unlike you and your glorious leader El Presidente Chimpy, I can come correct. Which is what Kennedy did after it became obvious that the invasion would fail.

It only became obvious that it would fail AFTER Kennedy withheld air support. And far from "coming correct" it was just about the worst fucking thing he could have done, strategically, as well as morally. Nothing like sending the message to every other anti-communist insurgent group on the planet that no matter how much encouragement we give you to overthrow your commuinist oppressors, you can depend on the good old USA to buttfuck you in the mouth the minute you do so.

Gunslinger · Post by **Gunslinger** » Tue Nov 15, 2005 3:52 am

mvscal wrote:
Mister Bushice wrote:There's a lot of Anti Us sentiment in Jordan, and OBL still has support there.
You could say the same about the United States.

Yep, there is a shitload of pro Osama support in the US. He hasn't been caught yet, and I wonder the fuck why.

As stated:

"I really don't think about Osama."

That is your president, black cocksucker.

Dr_Phibes · Post by **Dr_Phibes** » Tue Nov 15, 2005 5:07 am

mvscal wrote: Jordan is already deeply involved in helping us with the War on Political Islam.

Why the fuck do you think they got attacked? No reason? Just for kicks?

Anyone else been following that bombing?

First, Haaretz printed that all Jews were evacuated from the hotels three hours before the bombing - then pulled the story. Then Rueters gets a statement from the police saying the bombs were placed in the ceiling, not from suicide bombers (pictures of the ceilings blown out are all over the web now).

The tale of the 'suicide bombers' changes every six hours, growing more fanciful every time - complete with that stupid lying woman. Pravda is reporting that everyone in Jordon knows that Mossad is behind the whole thing despite what the Jordanian ruling class says.

Islamofascist my arse

Get ready for 'fake bullshit war' part II.

Tom In VA · Post by **Tom In VA** » Tue Nov 15, 2005 5:09 am

Gunslinger wrote: "I really don't think about Osama."

Al-Zarqawi is a much more formiddable foe, always has been IMHO. Al-Zarqawi is a much more appealing target, if we're talking about ONE person.

Osama symbolizes the aged wise warrior, but a sickly one. Al-Zarqawi has taken over and is much more appealing as both target and as leader if you're Al Q. He's strong, he's militant, and he's not willing to compromise.

Capturing and shaming him would be much more of a feather in our cap than Osama.

Killing him, would be effective but not as effective as capture.