McCain is American Hero.

Overall, democrats are soft on national defense. Look at the history.

Kerry wanted to turn Iraq and Afghanistan over to the UN.

Clinton failed to respond when the USS Cole was blown up, he ran from Somila and he failed to respond when the WTC's were attacked in 93.

Carter let Iran hold American citizens hostage for 444 days and his one attempt at recovering them failed miserably.

The failure of Vietnam can be linked directly to Johnson.

Kennedy failed miserably in the Bay of Pigs and let Americans die with retailation.

You have to go back to 1945 and Truman dropping the bomb to find a democratic President with the cahona's to take swift, decisive action.

Obama and Clinton both have stated they would get out of Iraq which is difficult to comment on depending on how they deal with it.

Hillary might respond if America were attacked but not as much out of convictions. I think not wanting to appear weak as a woman would be her deciding factor.

Try as you might Sherm, you can’t change the facts.

Well the guys who did the first WTC attack are in jail or dead.

And the guys who orchestrated the 9-11 attack are not.

Facts are stubborn things.

You blame Somalia on Clinton, but it was Bush's baby and he said he would be out before Clinton came in.

And it was Reagan who "cut and ran" when the wackos blew up the Marine barracks.

Would you have been happier if Carter pulled a Waco attack and got the hostages killed?

(not to mention the underhanded Reagan/bush/schultz arms for hostages deal)

shermangeneral wrote:Well the guys who did the first WTC attack are in jail or dead.

Three of them were jailed. How many were left around to plot 9/11, including the mastermind. If democrat Bill Clinton had done his job, 9/11 likely wouldn't have happened.

shermangeneral wrote:And the guys who orchestrated the 9-11 attack are not.

More are dead as a result of a Republican then are as a result of a democrat. Hell, if the democrat wasn't a pu$$y, 9/11 wouldn't have happened.

shermangeneral wrote:Facts are stubborn things.

Yes they are. And they don't bode well for soft democrats no matter how you try to twist them or color them to go your way.

shermangeneral wrote:You blame Somalia on Clinton, but it was Bush's baby and he said he would bew out before Clinton came in.

Bush didn't run from a tribal war lord. Clinton did. As you say, Facts are stubborn things.

shermangeneral wrote:And it was Reagan who "cut and ran" when the wackos blew up the Marine barracks.

Reagan got our troops out of a nasty environment that the liberal UN put us in. Yes, he should of retailated directly, I agree. But he wasn't a pu$$y like Carter or Clinton.

He stopped communism and stood up to the USSR when the best Carter could do was boycot an olympics. As you say, Facts are a stubborn thing.

shermangeneral wrote:Would you have been happier if Carter pulled a Waco attack and got the hostages killed?

You seem to be big on restoring American credibility now but you don't seem to have a problem with the world viewing us as cowards in 1980 as a direct result of the actions of Carter. Why is that Sherm?

What Carter should have done was allowed the best trained military in the world to do their job and not have his balls cut off by a bunch of college protesters and went in and freed our citizens.

You want to point out what Reagan did in Beirut but you fail to mention that on the day he took office, the Iranian government, led by a bunch of fanatical Islamist, released American citizens and it wasn't becasue they suddenly felt all warm and fuzzy in side. It was because they knew what would happen if they didn't.

Those darned facts, huh Sherm!!!

"You want to point out what Reagan did in Beirut but you fail to mention that on the day he took office, the Iranian government, led by a bunch of fanatical Islamist, released American citizens and it wasn't becasue they suddenly felt all warm and fuzzy in side. It was because they knew what would happen if they didn't."

Yeah right.

Like you dont know full well about the underhanded deal alluded to above.

"Ronald Reagan cut a deal with Iran before the 1980 election to send arms in exchange for Iran’s agreeing to delay the release of our 52 hostages." - Barbara Honegar, former White House Policy Analyst under Reagan and a member of Bush’s 1980 election campaign staff

So you're saying it is Reagan's fault Jimmy Carter was a pu$$y President!!!

Well Aaron if you were one of the hostages I doubt you would appreciate reagan and bush undermining efforts for their release and trying to delay it for political reasons.

But I could be wrong.

You are pretty devoted in your rightwing dogma, so you might rather sit there another few months just so you could say reagan got you out not Carter.

But not too many as devoted to their dogma as you are.

If I can somehow find a way to tenfold it, I might be as devoted as you are Sherm.

So why wasn't Reagan and Bush charged with treason?

You tell me Aaron.

Are you denying the facts?

It is well documented.

For what that is worth.

Is it illegal?

UFO's are well documented. Do you believe in them???

You made the accusation with a link to proof. You tell me Sherm!!!

Well Aaron, I told you what happened, with a quote/link to the source.

As to whether that is illegal I do not know and made no such claim.

You were the one who asked why they were not charged.

Perhaps it is not illegal. Again, I do not know.

But it is low down and dirty though.

http://www.donhopkins.com/drupal/node/104

below is exerpt from this link...


"VI. The Release of the Hostages

In October 1980, the Carter Administration finally negotiated an agreement between the US and Iran, to unfreeze Iranian assets for the return of the hostages. As a result, the Iran-United States Claims Tribunal is set up at the Hague. [19]

On October 22, the Iranians' persistent demand of U.S. weapons was suddenly dropped. [25] Bani-Sadr says the demands were dropped because there were two separate agreements: the official one with Carter in Algeria, and the secret one with the Reagan campaign, that the hostages should not be released during Carter's Administration. In return, Reagan would give them arms.

On Jan 20, 1981, Ronald Reagan was sworn in as President of the United States. The hostages were released moments afterwards.

VII. Arms Shipped to Iran

There were shipments of U.S. arms to Iran well in advance of the Iran-Contra scandal. Iran desperately needed spare parts and ammunition. Their arsenal consisted of mainly of weapons that had been supplied by the US during the Shah's regime.

On Jan 25, 1981, a number of Arab countries announces they were convinced that the US was committed, unofficially, to releasing about half the military spare parts contracted for by the Shah. [8]

On July 8, 1981, Presidential Directive #13 was formally rescinded by Reagan Administration. The U.S. went back to the arms exporting policies of Nixon and Ford.

Mansur Rafisadeh said that once Reagan was in office in 1981, shipment of arms started from Tel Aviv to Iran, and high-level Israeli officials said that Reagan knew and approved of the arms dealings. [25] According to Bani-Sadr, the arms exchange was organized by CIA agents, former SAVAK secret police, and Israelis.

An Argentina cargo plane crashed on the Soviet-Turkish border on July 18, 1981, revealing an arms deal between Israel and Iran -- in direct defiance of the US embargo on arms supplies to Khomeini's regime. [9] [10] [11] [12] [26] The cargo was 360 tons of American-made tank spares and ammunition.

The spares were for M-48 tanks, which America supplied both to Israel and, in the Shah's day, to Iran. The deal involved 12 plane loads of weapons being shipped from Tel Aviv to Teheran via Larnaca in Cyprus.

Three loads, openly documented as tank spares (at the insistence of the Israelis), were delivered on July 12, 14, and 17. The plane was intercepted on its return from the third run. As it was flying over Turkey, it veered to starboard and headed into Soviet territory, where it allegedly (according to the Soviets) made dangerous maneuvers and collided with a Russian plane. Western intelligence sources believe it was shot down by a MiG-25 armed with air-to-air missiles.

On August 21, 1981, the State Department said the Israelis told the US that any further sales to Iran would not involve American made equipment, for which they would need American approval.

July 21, 1983, Iraq's foreign minister said that huge quantities of American weapons are pouring into Iran. Shipments made directly or through neutral countries had been going on for months and years without interference by Washington. The arms were likely to prolong the war. ..."

One Citizen would be proud Sherman.

You've given me a link to a computer programer probably best know for his work with SimCity.

No offense, but do you think you can possibly find a little more credible source!!!

Aaron wrote:

Stephanie wrote:She's baackkk!!!

Say what you will about GWB, but at least he never protested against the US government on foreign soil like old Bubba. Where I come from we call that treason. What do you call it????

I thought you were from the United States of America???

Since when is protesting anything treason?

Excellent point.

Also, Bush didn't even serve out his time, leaving to campaign for a political friend. I sure wish I had connections like that.