Metrosexuals?

[Bluevetteracer]

I AM doing something, Indi! I am trying to get bluevette to see the light! haha

Anyway, bluevette, there are so many things I take issue with in your post, it would take me forever to respond to them all. (Why are you Republicans so long-winded?) Suffice it to say that I think you should spend a little more time seeking some alternative points of view. Yes, you CAN (and should!) turn off Rush Limbaugh; he is merely a form of entertainment and should not be taken seriously. Besides, he is a big, fat hypocrite. And don't start thinking that Ann Coulter is any better.

Don't you get NPR where you live?

We are long winded because we are RIGHT (pun)

Just using knowledge guided by experience and putting forth some facts.

You must know that the mainline press/media is feverantly Left, and of course CNN and the such. So what if FOX is a tad on the conservative side, they have not been so pro-Bush lately! One media outlet, One, is a conservative? ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, PBS, all left wing. Mary Mapes mean anything to you. Washington post, NY Times, LA Times, Star Tribune (Red Star to me) all notably left wing biased. Sure, things are OK, and what they say must be the truth, as long as you agree with them. Step back and look at if from my stand point. And the majority of the county for that matter. The dems are loosing at the ballot box and are containing to loose. There socialistic agenda has been outed and they are being called a spade.

Good on you for being politically active and taking an interest in our great country, for whatever reasons you have. May the ballot box be the great equalizer?

[Bluevetteracer]

If you blame Clinton for 9-11, under George W's watch, then you have to blame George Sr. for the 1993 World Trade center bombing under clinton's watch. They are the same people that bombed us!

There was not a tantamount reason to suspect on soil terrorism prior to 1993. Granted, I think the FBI and CIA have dropped the ball after the wall came down. But under Clinton, in 1993, and the following attacks abroad, there should have been a focus on this. Not every president is perfect, but this was a gross mistake letting 11 attacks occur on his watch and not calling it out. The tolerance given the enemy only emboldened them.

Good example, again using facts and history, weeks after Reagan took office the hostages in Beirut were released. They knew Carter was weak, and Reagan would take no crap. If memory serves, I was only 5 at the time; the hostages were in captivity for almost a year.

Appeasement does not work, ask Neville Chamberlain, and Joseph Kennedy how that worked for them when dealing with Hitler?

[misombra]

your knowledge and experience does not equal facts. it's funny that you complain about all these news media are biased. newsflash: YOU ARE BIAS! so of course anything you don't want to hear is going to seem bias to the other side. plus you are a bit fanatical. you're starting to freak me out.

[Bluevetteracer]

your knowledge and experience does not equal facts. it's funny that you complain about all these news media are biased. newsflash: YOU ARE BIAS! so of course anything you don't want to hear is going to bias to the other side. you are a bit fanatical. you're starting to freak me out.

Knowledge meaning an understanding of History, and Experience meaning have been alive to watch and view a part of history unfold. Using the Knowledge of past history, and applying it to my experience, having viewed a portion of history, makes for an understanding of facts.

I am not making history up?

[misombra]

your understanding of history doesn't make history itself. your understanding is not everybody's understanding. and you're so unwilling to try to understand that you sound really closed minded. that's what bothers me about people like you. you're not strong enough to bend.

[Bluevetteracer]

your understanding of history doesn't make history itself. your understanding is not everybody's understanding. and you're so unwilling to try to understand that you sound really closed minded. that's what bothers me about people like you. you're not strong enough to bend.

SO the history books at Dartmouth are wrong? Written by liberals by the way. I read the same books as many others. What should I bend on? Until history is re-written I guess we will have to assume that history, meaning it actually happened and took place, did actually exist, and therefore a fact. How it is presented of course can have a bias, but for the most part, having been a student of history in a Liberal school like Dartmouth and the USAF Accadamy (REP) I would say both were pretty much on the same que?

[Bluevetteracer]

your understanding of history doesn't make history itself. your understanding is not everybody's understanding. and you're so unwilling to try to understand that you sound really closed minded. that's what bothers me about people like you. you're not strong enough to bend.

Sorry if this turns your world upside down.

[shh!]

We are long winded because we are RIGHT (pun)

Just using knowledge guided by experience and putting forth some facts.

You must know that the mainline press/media is feverantly Left, and of course CNN and the such. So what if FOX is a tad on the conservative side, they have not been so pro-Bush lately! One media outlet, One, is a conservative? ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, PBS, all left wing. Mary Mapes mean anything to you. Washington post, NY Times, LA Times, Star Tribune (Red Star to me) all notably left wing biased. Sure, things are OK, and what they say must be the truth, as long as you agree with them. Step back and look at if from my stand point. And the majority of the county for that matter. The dems are loosing at the ballot box and are containing to loose. There socialistic agenda has been outed and they are being called a spade.

Good on you for being politically active and taking an interest in our great country, for whatever reasons you have. May the ballot box be the great equalizer?

Eh, at least you've refrained from blaming Dan Rather directly. IN any case, I believe Mary Maples was a producer who was trying to scoop a story. Besides, hasn't she been forced into retirement now? (Which incidently, I have no problem with.)

All of the news networks you mention are owned by corporations whose primary interest is in making money. As such, their political ideologies are more in line with a conservative agenda. Individual newsreporters, being of the educated portion of the American public, are indeed more likely to be liberal, but they work for conservative organizations. (If these organizations were so obviously liberal, why were they silent about the war buildup and supposed weapons of mass destruction?)

As for the ballot box being the great equalizer, I see it as an opportunity for every uneducated sap to get to participate in mob rule. All the conservative party had to do was exploit conservative homophobia, and all of the normally-apathetic right came running to the ballot box. The progressives need to work harder at motivating the apathetic portion of their own party.

[shh!]

There was not a tantamount reason to suspect on soil terrorism prior to 1993. Granted, I think the FBI and CIA have dropped the ball after the wall came down. But under Clinton, in 1993, and the following attacks abroad, there should have been a focus on this. Not every president is perfect, but this was a gross mistake letting 11 attacks occur on his watch and not calling it out. The tolerance given the enemy only emboldened them.

Good example, again using facts and history, weeks after Reagan took office the hostages in Beirut were released. They knew Carter was weak, and Reagan would take no crap. If memory serves, I was only 5 at the time; the hostages were in captivity for almost a year.

Appeasement does not work, ask Neville Chamberlain, and Joseph Kennedy how that worked for them when dealing with Hitler?

You neglet to mention the October surprise of that election, which was that Republicans were working behind the scenes to ensure that the hostages were not released to the Carter administration (before the election) because Reagan was offering a more friendly relationship with the PLO. Carter, in fact, worked hard negotiating their release, only to have his efforts undermined by Reagan and the Republican party.

[Lloyd95]

Not every president is perfect, but this was a gross mistake letting 11 attacks occur on his watch and not calling it out.

Clinton tried to do something about it, but you Republicans made it impossible. Everytime he tried to do something, you guys claimed "Wag the Dog", like clinton was trying to turn the focus away from Monica Lewinski. It was impossibel to get anything past the senate.

[Bluevetteracer]

Clinton tried to do something about it, but you Republicans made it impossible. Everytime he tried to do something, you guys claimed "Wag the Dog", like clinton was trying to turn the focus away from Monica Lewinski. It was impossibel to get anything past the senate.

Like when he bombed the aspirin factory on Intel that was over a month old?

This is still a running joke in the pentagon!

Or the time the Sudan offered Bin Laden to Clinton in 1998?
The NIA/CIA was furious that Clinton let him go or at least failed to bribe the Sudan govt to hold him. (Yes, these things happen under all presidents, it is a fact of life). I know, I was attached to the NIA around this time frame.

Clinton Quote as of 2004?
(Referring to 1998 Sudan Offer)
"He (Bin Laden) was a "hot potato" and we did not know what to do?

Clinton effectively stopped all CIA "Wet Works" (circa 1995) which is lingo for assassinations.

The CIA with aid from Special Forces could have taken Bin Laden out circa 1998 and it could have looked like a member of his own entourage did the hit.

I am not against wet works, but it was an option that was taken off the table.

I will capitulate on the finger pointing, because in all regards MOST presidents do what is best for the country. They are not a king, and make decisions based on the best Intel they have. Many members of the Joint staff, State Department, and Intel in the works today, have been there since Clinton. Powel was a Key Clinton hold over.

But, having been there, in the know, and around the action at a few key times, Clinton really let us down, based on some serious Intel we had at the time. Everyone in any intelligence community knows this. Many presidents before Clinton up to and including Bush have made such mistakes, but were lucky enough not to have them come home to roost.

There is a saying in the CIA, "our success's are never know, but our failures are front page news"

There seems to be a "code" amongst presidents, because if you notice, they never finger point or blame each other. Bush has never been critical of the past administration, and Clinton was never critical of Bush 1 or Reagan.

On a side note, take comfort in the fact the Bush has cracked the whip at the CIA and FBI.

[shh!]

Aren't you gonna respond to MY posts? Hmpf!