🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <Xns971645DE0470FrvgIII@216.196.97.136>,
 Hardcore.Independent@No.Fearless.Leaders.Needed.edu wrote:

> SteveR <tex_driver@comcast.net> wrote in
> news:tex_driver-1F637D.16122321112005@comcast.dca.giganews.com: 
> 
> > In article <Nt4gf.8218$%i.4787@tornado.texas.rr.com>,
> >  "Peter Principle" <petesfeats@CUT IT OUThotmail.com> wrote:
> > 
> >>neither Clinton NOR Iraq had ANYTHING WHATSOEVER to do with 
> >> 9/11.
> > 
> > But 9/11 had *everything* to do with Bush's decision to invade Iraq, not
> > for retaliation, but for prevention in the new age of terror threat. I 
> > think it went over your head.
> 
> Although it always helps to consider protecting the borders of your own
> nation first, like preventing illegals from flowing in like rainwater,
> not all of whom are by any means Mexican, or even latin derived.

I agree. There is a perception by those with a singular focus on Bush 
that those who support his mid-east policies are as obssesively devoted 
to him as his detractors are obssesively opposed to him. I thb=ink they 
call that "projection"

> His ebullient answer to that, the highest priority threat that we had then
> and still have not really diminished, was that, "family values do not end
> at the border".  What an illogical, blithe, lamebrain!

Context.



> 
> > And you, Peter, even with your ebullient enthusiasm and belief that you 
> > and your "growing" cadre of marching minions were going to "stop the 
> > war", were unable to prevent Iraqi elections.
> 
> You are two ends of the same {ebullient enthusiasm} spectrum and neither
> of you can see the forest for the trees. ;-)

Wrong. Comparing me to dusty is a stretch. I neither employ his style of 
argument, and am not inclined to completely condemn, or completely 
endorse every aspect of any president, whether or not they got my vote. 
Peterdusty condemns Bush for the very act of breathing - one could 
correctly label him a "zealot"

To wit:

I voted for Clinton's first term, voted twice for Bush, based primarily 
on his mid-east policies.

I won't re-visit issues of the Clinton admin, but concerning this admin, 
I am in disagreement with the position on stem-cell funding, illegal 
immigration, faith-based initiatives (but from the perspective that it 
would be bad for the church).

On Illegal immigration, it appears the admin is at least beginning to 
give lip service to that which the great majority of the US finds a 
troubling concern. We'll see.

Spending is another issue, but in this I don't think the dem's are any 
different.

Tax cuts, yes.

SS reformation, yes (won't happen though)

Medidaid/care - No. Badly written.

McCain-Feingold: That he signed it into law is a jaw-dropper. (I believe 
he did so to mollify McCain, calculating the SCoTUS would overturn - bad 
gamble)

So, yeah I see the forest and that which composes same. I just tend to 
argue in these forums about the mid-east, and there are reasons for 
that. One, My kid was USMC for 5 years, and was in Iraq. That is why 
I've devoted almost all my research time to that issue in an effort to 
fully understand the issue. Two, my late, ex-father in law was heavily 
involved in business in Saudi Arabia, so I had that insight to draw from 
as well. After almost a decade of rather intense study of mid-eastern 
issues (almost to the point of obsession), my arguments "for" Bush are 
based on the issue, not neccessarily the man.

OTOH, With Dusty, it's Bush Bush Bush.

So puhleeeeze don't lump me in with the frothing nitwit.


> 
> > Better luck next time.
> 
> All that you ever really need do here is drop this slogan and run, to save
> yourself considerable time.
> 
> {__________My Junior Bu$h Baby, Right or Wrong!__________}

You got it exactly wrong, as I've pointed out in my "position paper" 
above. Just needed to set the record straight.


peace/out