Iran and U.S. Elections

PNAC was an open organization whose goals were clear Frank. They posted an open letter to Bill Clinton stating they wanted regiment change in Iraq. As a result, Clinton signed the Iraq Liberation Act into law.

You say that Bush had an agenda. If that were the case, then why didn't Congress question Donald Rumsfield on this when he was confirmed as Secretary of Defense? And why wasn't this brought up before we ever went to Iraq. It's not like PNAC tried to hide their desires from anyone/ So why are you trying to imply that is the case Frank?

PNAC had many valid reasons for their views. They were valid enough that Bill Clinton agreed with them, the H.O.R passed the bill by 90% and the US Senate, including ALL democrats, approved it unaminous consent. So how was this Bush's agenda?

I didn't ask you to concede anything Stephanie. I expressed my opinion, what I think. If you have proof to the contrary, I would love to read it.

Aaron,

Since I got hit with that hail storm yesterdy my dial-up connection has not exceeded 9.6 kbps. Currently my connection speed is 4.8. I wish I were kidding.

So, scrounging around looking for links to documents supporting my assertion will have to wait until this works it's butt ache out. I hate living in the sticks. I'm beyond fed up.

Aaron wrote:PNAC was an open organization whose goals were clear Frank. They posted an open letter to Bill Clinton stating they wanted regiment change in Iraq. As a result, Clinton signed the Iraq Liberation Act into law.

So are you accusing me of excusing Clinton for that too?

And why wasn't this brought up before we ever went to Iraq.

It was- by folks like Jim Haught and Dan Radmacher at the Charleston Gazette- and by the New York Times and other newspapers. But war hysteria had taken hold, and those who dared question it were marginalized as "traitors", as "Saddam supporters", and as enablers of "terrorists". It was "brought up"- many times in the months preceeding the invasion.

It's not like PNAC tried to hide their desires from anyone/ So why are you trying to imply that is the case Frank?

I did not say that. I am saying that the PNAC agenda became Bush's agenda, and that Bush then hid his real agenda for Iraq from Congress and other Americans with the WMD smokescreen along with all the mixing Saddam Hussein and terrorists together in the same sentences of dozens of speeches for up to a year before invading Iraq.

PNAC had many valid reasons for their views.

I do not say they didn't. So why didn't Bush use those reasons instead of that trumped up WMD garbage to justify the invasion of Iraq?

They were valid enough that Bill Clinton agreed with them, the H.O.R passed the bill by 90% and the US Senate, including ALL democrats, approved it unaminous consent. So how was this Bush's agenda.

Bill Clinton did not take the USA to war against Iraq in pursuit of that agenda. Bush did.

Stephanie wrote:Aaron,

Since I got hit with that hail storm yesterdy my dial-up connection has not exceeded 9.6 kbps. Currently my connection speed is 4.8. I wish I were kidding.

So, scrounging around looking for links to documents supporting my assertion will have to wait until this works it's butt ache out. I hate living in the sticks. I'm beyond fed up.

It won't matter anyway, Stephanie. No amount of evidence is enough for Aaron- unless it supports his own agenda- and then it takes damn little, if any.

You have brown eyes Frank, don't you. You have to because you are so full of shit it isn't even funny.

Two of the founding members of PNAC had to be confirmed by the Senate to fulfill Bush appointments.

Yet you say he hid his agenda.

Either he's really good or Congress is really stupid, don't you think!!!

As for agenda's Frank, the only one of us here who has one is you. But then so did Clement Vallandigham. People like you will say anything, twist any issue or tell any lie to promote your agenda.

Sorry Frank, but you've got less credibility then Sadaam Hussein, at least that's the way I see it!!!

Well I'm beyond frustrated.

Verizon has been working on one of these hub thingies perhaps 200 yards or so down the road from me. This has been going on since MARCH! Good grief they are slow. They dug a foundation and poured the concrete and some wood railing around it. The cables are visible poking out from these metal pipes coming out of the bottom of the concrete. DSL is coming, but when is anybody's guess.

I will ditch this dial-up and my satellite provider because I hate them too. I despise Direct TV and have been seriously considering ditching them before Verizon is finished and can provide me with whatever that tv service is they now offer.

Having an ISP is now essential and I simply can't do without it. Kate uses it for the AP classes she is enrolled in for next year now because the teachers are sending her stuff via email for summer work. She also has been searching for and applying for college scholarships with, unfortunately, great irregularity.

I use tons of online resources for Loyd in homeschooling, plus my homeschool group, it's great for communicating with the other Ron Paulites, and then there is this forum.

So I'm stuck for right now. But I'm really not pleased at all.

Have you looked into a satelite internet hook up Stephanie. I know they're available. I don't know what they run and they can be affected by the weather but they are available.

Either he's really good or Congress is really stupid, don't you think!!!

Yes.

I think that both are viable explanations- that Bush is good at hiding his real aganda, and that Congress can be really stupid.

I think you're giving Bush a lot more credit then he deserves. Congress, no but most definately Bush.

Yes, we did a long time ago. At that time it was a big initial investment. I want to say $600 or more. The monthly fee was pretty high too. We know DSL is coming here now and it can't be too far off in the distance.

It's very frustrating because they are up here CONSTANTLY and they seem to accomplish NOTHING. So we're waiting, impatiently.

Stephanie wrote:Well sure. It is impossible to prove with 100% of certainty. Of course, that doesn't mean we can't be reasonably sure.

The fact that you can't prove a nation doesn't have WMD is hardly a reason to invade it.

Stephanie, I believe the ATF and/or local Law Enforcement will disagree with that premise ....... and the Courts will back them up.

The ATF and/or local Law Enforcement can't prove a dwelling doesn't have a Meth Lab or drug stash on the "target property" ...... and that gives them "Legal reason" to invade said to search for the evidence of said Meth Lab or drug stash.

.

Aaron wrote:Have you looked into a satelite internet hook up Stephanie. I know they're available. I don't know what they run and they can be affected by the weather but they are available.

Steph, I have Dish Network for TV and am quite happy with it. Only during severe thunderstorms do I lose reception for short periods, say 10 to 15 minutes.

And they offer satellite internet service. Click below to read Ad.

http://www.dishnetwork.com/content/our_products/internet_access/high_speed/satellite_internet/index.shtml

.

Sam,

ATF & law enforcement agencies need just cause to bust in a search a home for a meth lab etc. When they do conduct these searches, they typically aren't rolling in tanks and dropping bombs.

Today I have a 12.0 kbps connection. I have seen no signs of life down there at that site Verizon has been working on today.......

Direct TV, seriously sometimes we lose signal if it's overcast. I'm not kidding. Sometimes it can rain at it will be ok, othertimes a raindrop falls (I wish I were kidding) and we lose picture on all but local channels, which I don't understand. We're getting them all by satellite, so why the distinction?

Stephanie wrote:Sam,

ATF & law enforcement agencies need just cause to bust in a search a home for a meth lab etc. When they do conduct these searches, they typically aren't rolling in tanks and dropping bombs.

Today I have a 12.0 kbps connection. I have seen no signs of life down there at that site Verizon has been working on today.......

Direct TV, seriously sometimes we lose signal if it's overcast. I'm not kidding. Sometimes it can rain at it will be ok, othertimes a raindrop falls (I wish I were kidding) and we lose picture on all but local channels, which I don't understand. We're getting them all by satellite, so why the distinction?

If it is that bad my 1st guess is .... the dish (antennae) or the signal head at the dish is not firmly attached.

Call Direct TV's 800# for technical service and the Tech will "walk you through" some diagnostics to see what the problem is.

Tell them you are no longer going to pay for such lousy reception, you will switch to Dish Network if they don't fix it .... and for free.

HA, and if you switch to Dish ..... make sure you claim I was the one that got you to subscribe ...... and I get $50 off my bill.

.