... discussed in some detail here :

http://blog.news-record.com/staff/letters/archives/2005/06/mr_fixit_carter.html#comments

Charles has it right, Donald was just taking a reckless partisan swipe at an honorable man because he dared question the usefulness of Gitmo.

The supporters of what has happened at Gitmo must remember that our behavior is a weapon is this war which can either be pointed at the terrorist or at ourselves. So far it has been a self inflicted wound.

Being seen as the good guys in this conflict gains us far more than the information gained by the questionable methods used in our prisoner camps.

If these guys are bad guys try them. We must process them in some way or this is going to be an oozing sore for a long time.

The hostages made it home alive thanks to Ronald Reagan. After more than year of Carter's impotent attempts to talk to the fanatics, Ronald Reagan, upon his election declared the americans in Iran were not "hostages",but "prisoners of war". The fanatics saw the hand writing on the wall and knew it could not play Reagan as it had done the hapless Carter. As for the military being too weak to go into Iran and get them, GIVE ME A BREAK! I was in the military during the Nixon years and saw first hand how well funded the military was. It was when Carter and the libleral democrats took over the helm that they began to suffer huge budget cuts in the military.Carter was not personally to blame for the hostage crisis, but once the Iranians sae how weak he was, this prolonged the situation far longer than it should have gone on.

Carter also validated the rigged Venezulea Election results that allowed Chavez to retain power.

I can't think of one socialist dictator that Carter doesn't love.

The hostages were released the day Carter left office. I fail to see how that could be anything but a final dig at the man who had given shelter and support to the Shah after he was deposed.

If Iran was too big a problem for America's military while Carter was in office, how did it become no problem the day after he left? Sure, there were jokes about Ray-guns using nukes on Iran, but that couldn't have happened.

Hugh,

I plead ignorance on the charge of the Venezulean election being rigged. Do you have any evidence of this?

Eric has the release right. It's amusing to see true believers recasts events to give Ronnie credit for every good event under the sun.

Eric, the hostages were released the day Reagan TOOK office. This is not "recasting" events. This is the truth. You libs are the ones trying to revise history. Carter was (and still is in my book) a major embarresment to this country.But to the libleral mind that is a feather in his cap.

Jon
Where does NIXON stand in your book?

"Carter personally participated in the planning and execution of a rescue attempt that left two Americans dead in the desert and then took full responsibility for the debacle, pledging no further rescue attempts to prevent retaliations against the hostages."
And therein lies two of Carter's problems.
1. He was a micromanager, and got his feet all tangled up in the details while missing the big picture. The military commanders under him were constantly fighting for the ability to carry out operations in a military manner.
2. Inaction equals the "politics of appeasement." When you fail to take decisive action against your enemies, you embolden them. It's like deciding not to resist an armed aggressor in your home in hopes that if you don't make him mad he won't hurt you. A more recent example of this disastrous attitude is the inaction of Bill Clinton during the six attacks on US citizens by Al Quaeda occurring in his administration.

Hayes, Nixon was pretty much an impotent president. He inhearted the Kennedy/Johnson Vietnam war and never fully unleashed the military to win it. My point was that he never cut the military budget to the point that we only had two helicopters to send to Iran as implied by Charles Ward's letter. Nixon displayed bad judgment in the watergate scandal,true, but he was brought down by a FBI wannabee(deep throat)and a libleral media. Other than that,he was a pretty decent comander in chief. That is where Nixon stands in my book. (Head and shoulders above the peanut farmer from Ga.)

Uh, jon... the day Carter left office was the same day "Reagan TOOK office." What's your point? Do you know what time of that day the hostages left the embassy? I seem to recall that the news broke while Reagan was standing in front of the parade in his honor, meaning the release was timed for Carter's departure.

Dude, everyone recasts history for their point of view. You included. Deal with it.

Eric,the hostages were released BECAUSE Reagan took the office,not because it was Carter's last day. Deal with that.

Jon
You are making it sound like Nixon made a few bad decisions and it is only because of the FBI agent and the liberal perss as to why he was impeached. That is being extremely and I mean extremely kind.

First I would also say Carter was not one of our better presidents but for very different reasons.

Sorry if that is how you see Watergate then Clinton really has done nothing wrong.

But on to other points about the military. Yes Nixon didnt cut the budget the man was in a middle of a war. Naturally he wouldnt do that.Lets keep that in perspective here. Carter was not.

Second and I am not defending Carter here but lets remember the reduction of the military had as much to do with the the hangover of vietnam and with a society very much anti-war and anti-military at that time. And even if Reagan had been president in '76 he would have been hard pressed to convince the american people otherwise. Iranian hostage incident scared the american people and rightfully so making Reagans job a little easier post 1980.

Hayes, I am not defending Nixon's watergate record. I was pointing out (for the 2nd time now) that he was not to blame for the military being cut to the point that all we had left to send to Iran to rescue the hostages were 2 helicopters. This is what Mr. Ward was implying in his letter.
Also,I will point out that Nixon was not impeached. He resighned in the face of mounting pressure from the media and his political enemies.Of which there were many,granted.
One more point about Reagan: In 1980 the country was still very much "anti-military" and in spite of this,Reagan began to rebuild the military to the point where it toppled the Soviet regime without firing a shot. Think what you want about Reagan, but you must at least give him credit for that. There are too many liblerals in this country that STILL are in denial about this fact.They want to give Boris Yeltsin credit for the collapse of the Soviet empire. The result of Reagan's leadership has resulted in the liberation of countless numbers of people around the globe. Can anyone honestly say the same for Carter? Clinton? I think Jimmie Carter is a good man in his heart. But this does not translate to a good president.

I will say no more on the subject. Take your best shots.

Well let us not forget it was Jimmy Carter that allowed the Shah to fall, destablizing the whole area and with it allowing the most Anti-American dictorships ever to come into power. And that is how American citizens became hostages to begin with.

"Eric,the hostages were released BECAUSE Reagan took the office,not because it was Carter's last day. Deal with that."

Yeah, right. "An ancient, wrinkled actor/governor is on the way to the white house, so we better cut and run!" Yeah, I can just see Muslim extremists who believe they are God's favorites telling themselves that.

And Nixon was not to blame for corrupting the American political process... I would be amused by the neo-con view of history if it weren't for the danger they pose to the world right now.

"Well let us not forget it was Jimmy Carter that allowed the Shah to fall, destablizing the whole area and with it allowing the most Anti-American dictorships ever to come into power."

Hm... I agree that Carter handled the whole Iran affair poorly, but I have a slightly different take on it. Did we really have a responsibility to control Iran's internal politics? I would only expect that to be the attitude of an empire. But you have emphatically denied that we are such a thing.

When the Shah fled after the collapse of his regime, we took him in and protected him. If we had not done that, and turned him over to the new government, would they be so anti-American as they became? I wonder.

I mean, sure, we created the Shah, put him in power and supported his dictatorship, but we might have gotten off to a slightly better start if we'd allowed him to face his people, the way we're doing with Saddam now.

Jon
You are right about the impeachment I should have said he was about to be impeached and my criticism was also he was of a good heart which true doesnt make one a good president,so I agree as well.

As far as Reagan. He was the last key piece of a big puzzle. And you are right that without him we may not have seen the downfall of the Soviet Union. But to say he is the reason would be extremely unfair to all the everyday people in eastern europe who resisted the soviets long before Reagan became president as well as any leadership. WHat happened in Poland would have happened with or without Reagan. And Gorbachev also deserves credit. If he had been a hardliner who knows where we would be today. Reagan was a huge part what I call the last and biggest nail in the coffin of the Soviet Union but there were other nails in this coffin as well.

But NIxon was a criminal what he did was impeachable and to lay blame on the liberal press for him stepping down is not right.

Trish
I dont know what you mean by he "let" the shah fall because to me it would have made no difference who was in the white house it would have happened. Now the reaction under reagan may have been very different but it would have happened just the same.

Mr. Ward,

If we were to grade your letter, it would receive
and I (for incomplete).

Carter did inherit a military that was being drasticly cut. We were in a war during those previous years, which of course made a change in military spending, going from war to peace.

Why then did Carter continue to cut an additional 38% from defense spending? He cut 60 ships proposed by the Navy, stopped the B-1 bomber, delayed the cruise missle, stopped production of the minute-man missle, stopped production of the Trident submarine. This does not sound like a man who is interested in our national defense.

During the 8 years that Bill Clinton was in office, he cut our nation's defense from 785,000
soldiers to 365,000 soldiers. He was not interested in our nation's defense.

When George W.Bush came to office, he immediately
set out to rebulid our nation's defense. Carter and Clinton clearly demonstrated that the policy of appeasement, coupled with a decrease in military strength, our country would be at the mercy of any two-bit dictator, or terrorist.

George W. Bush, like Ronald Reagan rebuilt the military, and decided to carry the "Big Stick." Reagan defeated Communism through strength, not appeasement, and George W. Bush would follow that path.

Lonnie Burke was correct when stating that Carter micro-managed the hostage rescue. Rather than leaving up to the experts (the military), his
"Liberal" mindset destined this mission to failure.

Let us not forget how Carter abandoned the Shah of Iran, also. After Carter sent some of his business cronies to secure financial "aid" from the Shah, and he refused, suddenly when the Shah's government (which was pro-Western) was under sieige by the radical Islamists (Ayatollah), Carter abandoned the Shah. This also helped set the stage fo all the future Islamic headaches we would be encountering for the next 50 years.

Yes, the hostages were eventually released, because of Ronald Reagan.

Your "liberal" diatribe about "human rights" is
shear comedy. Perhaps, you were to young, or you have chosen to forget about the treatment, of the prisoners taken at the Iranian embassy. I have not forgotten!

When the embassy was seized by the Islamic radicals, I was a third generation, Liberal Democrat from New York. My cousin from Boston,
Malcom Kalp, was stationed at the Iranian embassy. Carter's impotent attempts to secure their release was tantamount to abandonment. When Reagan secured their release, the treament of the hostages became public.

Malcom came to visit my parent and family, he told us of his torture, the beating etc., he was in solitary confinement for a year, and can you imagine, how his wonderful Muslim jailers forgot to give him a bible.

Mr. Ward, did you complain how the "Human Rights" of these hostages were violated, probably not. This is only my assumption, however, if you or any other limp wristed, apppeasement minded, "liberals" don't care our former hostages, or our soldiers that are defending our countries, you should learn what it is to be a hostage.

That was not a "reckless partisan swipe," I truly
meant every word I said!

Needless to say, the hostages were released during the Reagan administration, and Reagan went on to defeat Communism, I then changed parties.

The "Liberal" mindset decided to treat terrorism as a Criminal/legal problem, which clearly proved to be a mistake. The appeasers gave rise to first World Trade Center bombing, "Black Hawk Down," the bombing at the Khobar Towers, and the U.S.S. Cole, and finally 9/11/2001, when the "Human Rights" of 3,000 innocent men, women, and children were taken by Osama bin Laden.

The problem was that OBL forgot that Carter and Clinton were no longer in office, the party was over, George W. Bush, the "Cowboy" from Texas, would now use the "Stick."

Human Rights violations at Gitmo, turning the air conditioner on and off, my cousin didn't have any air conditioning, honey crusted chicken, and lemon baked fish, if you fed a dog the way my cousin was fed, it would be considered animal
cruelty. If "liberals" consider the way these detainee's are being treated is abusive, TO BAD.

Michael Savage, radio talk show host and writer said it best, "Liberalism Is A Mental Disorder."
I agree.

Mr. Bernstein
I would like to say nice letter but I cant.

First with all this talk of us abandoning the shah lets remember he was basically a dictator who also tortured his people: I mean sort of a sadaam before we had sadaam but he did it right because he made sure he was our friend so that makes everything OK. A lesson Sadaam should have learned.

Mr. Bernstein maybe I am really missing something here. The republicans are suppose to be the party of GOD, the carrier of the words of Jesus, the symbolism of higher ethical standard

and yet you treat the word "human rights" as some sickening word. The liberal diatribe was a neat addition. A phrase that happens to get in the way of your intention to blast away anyone you dont like.

And I am sure most of those limp wristed liberals did and do care about what happened so you dont need to make it sound that the only people who care are republicans.

But wait there are conservative preachers who believe in this, and some conservative republicans and I know of a few conservatives voters, I included, who happen to believe in the importance of human rights. So to call this a liberal diatribe doesnt do justice to the conservatives you also support this so next time you should include them in your attack.

By the way good old bin laden couldnt give a rat a** about who was or is in the white house. Actually Bush has become his best friend.

"Mr. Ward, did you complain how the "Human Rights" of these hostages were violated, probably not."

Wow. You hear this a lot from the neo-con scream-meisters these days. "I bet you didn't complain about human rights in 1979!" I just love how these guys are so well able to tell us what we thought 26 years ago! I bet he could even tell me what I had for dinner on my first wedding anniversary that year!

Donald, would it be too much of an imposition to get you to ASK your opponents' opinions, rather than setting up your tired old straw men? I know it's a lot of fun to win arguments against make believe positions, but it doesn't really make a lot of sense.

Jon, Would just like to make a comment about the Kennedy/Johnson Vietman war. Kennedy inheirted it from Dwight David Eisenhour, so wouldn't that be the Eisenhour/Kennedy/Johnson war?

Donald Bernstein,

Michael Savage is a Nazi.

Republicans never start wars, they just end them!

Or at least that's what every republican would like us to think. Just look at all these messages here. They are a paradox in their thinking. As in: We need a strong military in order to ensure peace.

Then it's: Look at the democrats cutting the defense budget! Look at the liberals getting us in trouble with their concern for human rights! Where is their fault in this? That's right, everyone has fault in 9/11 and the other things you're discussing.

Oh yes! The democrats did things wrong and so did the republicans. For example, the Iranian hostage situation. How many realized that Carter tried in his final days to reach an accord with the captors only to have his presidential power usurped by the incoming administration? Oh yes! It's well documented in several of that republican administration memoirs.

Who is it that limited the ability for Clinton to put ground troops on Ossama Yo Mama's butt after the first bombing of the WTC? A republican congress. It took the actual fall of the towers before they had the intestinal fortitude to go after him. Couldn't they have gone after him before? Of course, they had all the info they needed and they were in control of the whole thing.

The deity Reagan didn't cause communism to fall. It was destined to fall. It is a faulty system. Reagan did nothing. Smoke and mirrors was all he had. One liners and sound bites is all he could muster. The military wasn't as all mighty as when George H.W. Bush was in office.

Sister Yvonne is right on the Vietnam thing. It started with Ike. Read your history.

While your at it, read the Bible! You know that thing you clutch at your chest and wave in everyone's face while you corrupt the very nature of its existence to your own means. Get to know its real meaning and realize Jesus was a liberal minded individual.

To quote Billy Graham, "It is every Christian's responsiblity to be concerned with social problems and human rights."

Love to you All,
Brother Love and the Gospel Train

Hoooooo! Hoooooo!

Jimmy Carter is clearly a Left Wing Hypocrite.

He has always been there to help any left wing
dictator, or communist.

He is one of the leaders in the "Blame America
First," crowd of losers.

Did he abandon the hostages, and the Shah?

Survey says; Yes, hostages were released when Reagan took office, Carter refused to help the Shah.

As to the Shah being a bad boy like Saddam, yes that's true, however, he still supported the U.S.

What can you say about the Ayatollah? He was a bad boy too, he helped the radical muslim students
take over the American embassy and take American's as hostages. To add insult to injury,
he was vehemently anti-American.

Now we have to ask ourselves, was the removal of the Shah good for America, or bad.

I say it was bad, we've had 50 years of grief to show for it.

If you agree with Carter's decision, and a member of the 'Blame American First' crowd, that's OK.

We will just ignore you!

Hayes said: "First with all this talk of us abandoning the shah lets remember he was basically a dictator who also tortured his people"

But let us also remember although a dictator look what they ended up with. The Shah at least was bringing Iran into the 20th century. He made many reforms including giving women the right to vote and own property. Look what happened to the country when he was ousted.

"By the way good old bin laden couldnt give a rat a** about who was or is in the white house. Actually Bush has become his best friend."

Hayes I always appreciate and respect your opinions even when I disagree. However this is the first time I have seen you write something so backward. Have you read any of the interviews that were done with former Taliban members? When asked what did you think was going to happen after 9/11? And they responded, well we just thought they would send over a few cruise missiles like before. Be that as it may, why in the world would you say Bush has become is friend?

Here is a question for you if a bully continues to pick on someone and nothing is ever done, does he suddenly turn good and mend his ways?

Yvonne, read your history.

Harry Truman gave 15 million to help the French
in Viet Nam. He refused to send troops.

Eisenhower continued to provide the French with money and no troops.

Kennedy was the first to send American troops.
During 1961, 400 Green Berets were sent, by the end of the year 16,000 Americans were in S.E. Asia.

Eric said: "Did we really have a responsibility to control Iran's internal politics?"

Yes we did. Not control but support those who are friendly to us. Look at it this way, all of the countries we support today our allies, does that make us an Empire? If say the UK can under attack, you don't think we should step in and help them? Or would that be empire building?

"When the Shah fled after the collapse of his regime, we took him in and protected him. If we had not done that, and turned him over to the new government, would they be so anti-American as they became? I wonder."

Actually we allowed him into the country for cancer treatments. When he fled he fled to: First he went to Egypt, Morocco, the Bahamas, and Mexico. After he left the United States and lived shortly in Panama. Finally he went back to Egypt where he died in Cairo on July 27, 1980. So if your theory is right, it seems to me that Iran would be Anti-all the above countries and their ambassies attacked also.

Mr. Bernstein, you truly have the libs number. It is evident from the shrill tone of "Eric&Yvonne" that you have commited the ultimate sin as far as liblerals are concerned: You ,sir, have spoken the truth! The lilly-livered libs who want to turn over these scumbag terrorists to the american judical system,(of which of course the taxpayer would foot the bill)should go to Iran or Syria and see how long they are able to keep their heads on their shoulders.
Not long I'd wager. What would be true justice is to try them by military tribunal and WHEN convicted, saw their heads off while taping it for the latest edition of the 6:00pm news.Yes,I would volunteer to weild the first saw blade.
Mr.Bernstein,Trish,&Jason, it is heartening to know there are still people in this country who are not afraid to stand up to these pansies and will tell them like it is. God (oops there is another libleral bad word) Bless you!! Yadd Dog

Mr.Bernstein, you truly have the libs number. You,sir,have commited the ultimate libleral sin:You have spoken the truth! This is evident by the shrill tone of the likes of "Eric$Yvonne". These lilly-livered liblerals who want to turn the Gitmo scumbags over to the american judical system(of which the taxpayer would no doubt foot the bill)should go to Iran or Syria and see how long they can keep their heads on their shoulders. Not long, I'd wager!
If true justice were to be served to these terrorists,they should be tried by military tribunal and WHEN convicted, Saw their heads off while taping it for the 6:00pm news. Yep, I will volenteer to weild the first saw.
Mr.Bernstein, Jason&Trish, it is heartening to know that the country has not gone COMPLETELY to hell in a handbasket. God(oops another lib.bad word) Bless, Yard Dog

Jason (& Trish a little on this point as well)

Being honest about our foreign policy where it has been good and more important where it has been wrong is not a "Blame america first" attitude. It is called being honest. We have done and still do many very good things in this world but we have also done some questionable things and I will use Iran as an example.

Jason & Trish you seem to feel the shah was OK because he was our friend. He could imprison people falsely, torture them and all this is acceptable because we liked him. But if we dont like you then you are a evil dictator that has to be removed. To many here and to most around the world this is hypocrisy and this hypocrisy has undermined our foreign policy and lessen the impact of the good we have done around the world.

And Trish you like to use simple,as in good, thinking questions so here is one for you.

If your friend beats and rapes a woman is he any less a rapist than someone you dont know or like and is his actions more OK and not punishable because he did things for you? More important if you were the girl raped how would you see the friends who stood behind your rapists and said it is not all that bad because they thought he was a good person? Maybe I am wrong here but I would imagine you would be ready to cut their throats.

We supported a torturing dictator and being pro-american doesnt change that and his ways and our support helped create the Iranian revolution and the anti-american attitude within the revolution.
So sorry we cant plead innocent here.

Trish
To your points. No I have not seen the interviews and would first ask where on the leadership line are they.

BUT my statement is based more the objectives of BinLaden and where he sees his role in this war to reach those objectives. He wants the US out of the middle east and I feel he believes strongly in this. He sees this as a long term war. Which means to me who sits in the White House is unimportant to him. It changes nothing about the goal he wants to achieve. Now if you,as in anyone, wants to argue he would prefer someone else in the white house other than Bush that is a differnt point but it doesnt change his goals.

And to the "best friend" point. I said that sarcastically in part so many people have said it I thought it would be picked up on. But Bush has made it easier for Bin laden to recruit and find friends. Our image in the islamic world prior to the Iraqi war was already low and going down. Bush going into Iraq,right or wrong, created a further backlash in the middle east. And I have never met BL or pretend to read his mind but dont you think he isnt hoping a little that Bush would move against Syria and Iran. Because the backlash there would be tremendous and the people who would want to join BL would be great. So yes in a recruiting standpoint Bush has been BL best recruiting tool. Who would you want in the WH someone who generates such emotional reaction or someone they dont think about?

Trish
to your question.
Most likely not and something would have to be done. I dont stand and watch someone bully another

BUT saying that if you are trying to suggest the US should do the same there is one huge difference. With the bully I endanger only my life and with the US we are playing with the lives of everyday good people,1750 now in Iraq, so my solution as an individual may not be the same if other lives were involved. This doesnt mean we dont fight for others but it would really have to be the LAST OPTION.

Tom, Perhaps YOU should read your history before making false statements.

"The Vietnam War was fought from 1957 to 1975 between Soviet-supported Vietnamese nationalist and Communist forces and an array of Western and pro-Western forces, most notably the United States."

The first sentence from this article from www.wikipedia.org/wiki/vietnam_war. I just don't think Kennedy was in the White House in 1957, unless I missed something. Eisenhour was the president who sent troops into Vietnam. It was actually February 12, 1955. It was July 8, 1959 when the first American soldiers were killed in conflict.

www.landscaper.net/timelin.htm
www.historylearningsite.co.uk/vietnam.htm

Yvonne,

Tom is correct.

Vietnam was "Colonized" by the French in 1882-1883. The French then divided the country.

www.fujitsu.com/vn/em/about/vietnam/city

1945 - Ho declares Independence from the French

Later that year, British forces land in
Saigon, return authority to French

1946 - Talks between French and Vietnam break down

Beginning of "Indochina War"

1945 - Sept. 26, First American Death in Vietnam

OSS Lt. Col. Peter Dewey

www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/timeline
www.historyplace.com/unitedstates/vietnam

Truman and Eisenhower sent money to assist the French. Eisenhower sent a few advisors.

The War in Vietnam actually began as the Indochina
War, when the French were defeated, Kennedy was the first to send thousands of American troops.

Jason...."advisor" is a euphemism for military personnel. What you meant to say or conveniently forgot was the word "hundred" after the word "few." Although the term "advisor" is meant in a clandestine manner it still means Ike started sending our military into Vietnam. We had to protect our "investment" of money that was meant to take out the communist insurgents of North Vietnam. Thus, when Kennedy took office he was advised to escalate troop involvement from the "few hundred" to thousands. He did put thousands of young men in Vietnam, but not on the scale of Johnson. Nixon didn't do much on his promise to end the war in his first term and did escalate involvement. Look into the cause of the Kent State shootings and why the students were protesting if you don't think Nixon raised the stakes in Vietnam.

No matter how you slice it, both sides of our two party system are to blame for that war. Stop trying to revise written history to fit the political needs of one party or the other. No matter how much you try to change it, there are those of us around who lived it and know it better than some of you here. I saw it happen. I lived it. When young men die, all politicians who vote to send them to die are to blame. Democrats and Republicans have blood on their hands. You can't wash it away by denying it happened or by playing with words.

Yes Jason, the war did escalate after Kennedy took office so he had to INCREASE the number of troops to Vietnam but Eisenhour sent the first troops. He sent about 100 "advisors" first, then troops. Note, in 1959 the first American SOLDIERS were killed, not advisors.

If anyone has a question about who bin laden wanted in the WH,go to en.wikipedia.org/wiki/september 11,_2001_terrorist_attack-100k-june-25,2005
Straight out of the horse's mouth, so to speak, Osama said it really didn't make any difference who was in the white house.

"The public speeches and writings of Osama bin Laden suggest that the majority of his hatred for the United States is directed at the United States government and three particular policies: its support for Israel, its stationing of American troops in the Middle East, and its support for sanctions against Iraq. Immediately prior to the 2004 U.S. presidential election, Bin Laden released a videotape specifically declaring that Al Qaeda actions toward the United States would be determined by US policy toward the Middle East, not by who was elected president. The three particular policies which fuel most of his hatred have been supported by both Democrats and Republicans"

Well let us remember which President was actually offered Bin Laden on a silver platter. Bill Clinton was offered in 1996, by the Sudaneese government, Bin Laden and he turned them down.

I do wonder what all the leftist would be saying if Bush had done that, yet not a peep.

Trish,

How about a link to a reputable source to back up that assertion?

I good friend of mine was one of the "advisors" during the Vietnam War and I can tell you that he disagrees with anyone who says they weren't fighting when he was there in the late 50's-early 60's. He was an Army Intelligence officer and said he saw body bags coming out og the jungle everyday and his was attacked quite a few times....yet they were there to only "advise". He was invited to be in the Veteran's of Foreign Wars "club" several years after he got back and declined the invitiation stating, "he would not join any such organization until the government, and the organization, reconized the hundreds (if not thousands) who died in the late 50's and early 60's, before the government actually recognized the Vietman War and the casualties it was bringing."

If you want a sad story you need to talk to this guy. I did a paper on him while I was in college and found it to be the most moving interview/paper I had ever done. He said that the government's actions didn't piss him off nearly as much as they "snot-nosed brats and hippies that spit on him when he walked in through the airport." It's a dag gum shame that all the idiots during that time period were too busy using drugs and "raging against the machine" to realize that they were causing undue stress and depression to the very men who giving them the right and freedom to express themselves in that manner.

To me, we owe the soldiers of this era a deep apology. Whether you agree with the war or not, or the actions that are taken during the war, always support the troops and we certainly didn't during that time perdiod. Troop are always there following orders and fighting for what our nation deems to be worthy of their life. I reckon that's why I get so upset when I hear the "libs" screeching about how horrible our soldiers are conducting themselves in Iraq, how we should hold them to a higher standard, and how they think "there are a few bad apples in the crowd." They are soldiers trained to kill our enemies and protect us....I have a hard time questioning their means or methods when I have never once walked in their shoes.

My Dear Jim,

If you read the 9/11 Commission Report and their findings you will see that Trish is correct and that is precisely why Clinton, Sandy Berger, etc. were all interviewed both in public and behind closed doors. Clinton was quoted as saying something along the lines of, "We didn't have a legal reason to get him during that time." Clinton/ Sandy Berger was also given an opportunity to shoot a Hellfire missile from a Predator drone and kill Osama in Afgahnistan and declined the opportunity for some unknown reason.

I will try to find the actual text from the report; however, Trish was correct in her statements.

P.S. Makes you wonder why Sandy was snatching documents out of the National Archives when "preparing" for the hearings and then having them be "misplaced" with the authorities when to retrieve them. Hmmm?

"I do wonder what all the leftist would be saying if Bush had done that, yet not a peep."

Are leftists supposed to speculate about something that might've happened, and then comment on it? I don't understand.

Carter did the one thing that an American President cannot do. He showed weakness. And he showed a lot of it. That just doesn't work when the buck stops with you.

Jim said: "How about a link to a reputable source to back up that assertion?"

Would an audio of Clinton be reputable enough for you?

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/6/17/105341.shtml
Sure Jim follow this link, scroll down to the end, link where it says listen to audio of Clinton. It is in his own voice.

Jim
I have to stand behind Trish and tater on this. Clinton was offered something when he was in Sudan but I forget as to the reason why he didnt do it. TATER if we are talking about the same thing BL was at some event in another arab country and the reason for not firing the missle had to do with the fact there were princes from other arab countries there.

And I offer to both sides in defence of Clinton and Bush, you can criticize them both for not doing more, but we keep looking at pre-911 bin laden with post 911 eyes. Sort of some major monday morning quaterbacking taking place here.

Clinton was quoted as saying to Bush during their first meeting that, "he believes Osama bin Laden to be the most dangerous enemy to the United States", yet he didn't take the opportunites he had to get rid of him? Kind of ironic if you ask me. Maybe that's why he has kept that trap shut when people try to get him to criticize Bush for not doing more in his first 8 months....he knows HE should have done more in his 8 YEARS.

But hey....that's neither here or now so enough with the "Clinton" crap. He was about as effective while President as he is now. (and that's my personal opinion)

Dough said: "Are leftists supposed to speculate about something that might've happened, and then comment on it? I don't understand."

First off all Dough it was not something that "might have happened". It did happen and the link to the audio is right up there. Right out of Clinton's own mouth. Also the guy who helped broker the deal, Monsour Ijaz (and just so you know this guy at the time was a big democrat fund raiser) confirmed the story.

Secondly, the leftist do it all the time to Bush. Heck can you imagine if Bush had done this, Michael Moore would do a 3 hour film on it.

Clinton said in that audio clip that the Sudanese government "released" OBL. Were they holding him? I'm curious about Clinton's use of the word "released."

He also said: "At the time, 1996, he had committed no crime against America so I did not bring him here because we had no basis on which to hold him, though we knew he wanted to commit crimes against America."

I wouldn't believe Clinton's word without checking, but if he's right, then he would've been asasinating OBL for being dangerous and planning to hurt us, not for actual actions.

Trish, I'm still confused. Do you mean if Bush had a chance like that, and taken it, that the leftists would've complained? If so, you're probably right.

Hayes:
On hypocrisy: Actually Hayes I have to disagree with you here. Every country plays this foreign policy game. It is called allies and which ones benefit you the most. Is this a good policy to have? Yes and no. What some people tend to forget is that there is evil out there. There is a choice between the lesser of two evils. Look at Saudi Arabia, their cultural is much different from ours. Where we say torture, they say the law. As Eric likes to comment, if we went in and said "no you can't do it that way" wouldn't that be "colonization", building an empire? The Shah was not a nice man, but he treated the people a lot better then what they got. Now between one evil dictator "hate America and destroy her" and the other "I am going to silence political dissent" which one would you chose? Because as people keep reminding us, we are not the world police.

Friend question: If my friend was the ruler of my street and keeping at bay the invaders from the other street who wants to chop my head off, well as cold hearted as this sounds, I would tell the woman to buck up at least you have your head. No Hayes the thing is we all do what we need to survive. It is making the choice between the lesser of two evils. If I had a choice between two evil dictators and one just raped and the other cut heads off with dull knives well I would have to go with the first. It is as simple as that. It is being able to see the reality instead of some fansty of the perfect "utopia".

Iranian revoultion: Actually and this is way off topic but it was the French who helped create the Iranian revolution, as they gave aid (and some even said helped plan) the revolution.

OBL: True enough. Doesn't matter who is President or what we do, OBL wants to defeat America. And no matter if we leave the Middle East, quit supporting the Jews or understand why he hates us, it will not change. So that leaves us doing what? The more people who are freed from dictatorships, the less there is to be foot soldiers in his war. (As a side note OBL did have time to put in a little campaigning for Kerry last election. Remember the warning we all got, whatever states voted for Bush?)

Recruiting tool. First off it didn't seem to matter that Clinton paid no attention, OBL didn't have any problem recruiting people.
Yeah we have made mistakes our biggest was encouraging the Shiities to overthrow Saddam and then cut and running leaving millions in mass graves. (Which I have to say sounds like what a lot of people want us to do a second time as if they didn't learned from our mistakes.) But the Middle East as always hated us. Why? First off our support of Israel, that is a given. But the second main reason is because of the dictators who run these countries, living the rich life while the citizens starve. There is a documentary on why they hate us. A reporter goes all around and talks with the citizens. Mostly the European Muslims, flocking into France, the Netherlands, etc. where they are not allowed to assimilate into the cultural, this causes them to turn into the radicals. It has nothing to do with us, so to speak, going into Iraq. Did some join for that reason, I'm sure they did.(and quite honestly I'm glad they are in Iraq and not the US)But did the majority? In my opinion it wouldn't matter one way or the other. I do know this, and I will find the article. A reporter at the beginning of the war, wrote about how wrong it was going into Iraq blah blah blah. But he went back this past winter (all over the Middle East) and talked with the people, and he realized he was wrong. The citizens of these Middle East countries, living under these dictatorships, watching the Iraqi's going to the polls gave them hope and they praised Bush. I am at work right now but I will find the link for you it might take some time but I will get it.

I am sorry, I do not agree with it was wrong to go into Iraq. First and foremost Saddam was as crazy as a loon, we had no idea what he would do. Suppose he did have weapons and decide to sell them to a terrorist and the next thing you know one goes off in America. All you people would be the first to scream "Bush did nothing, all Bush's fault". We had no way of knowing, the intelligence we had said he had those weapons and he hated America and he loved money. Not to mention all he had to do was prove he didn't have them, end of story. He could have showed Bush for a fool, opened up the country after all that military buildup and say sure, "I'll take a vacation, you look around, I have nothing". But he didn't do that, why? Secondly, too much good has come from this war. Lebanon (free elections and the withdrawal of Syria), Palestine (elections), Syria (high tailing it out of Lebanon), Saudi Ariba (little reforms but you have to start somewhere) Libya giving up their weapons, no more mass graves in Iraq, Iraq free elections. There is some I am probably missing, but regardless how can anyone look at this and say it was not worth it? Only those who hate Bush. If Clinton had done anything like this believe me the left in this country would have already built a monument to him.

Dough said: “Trish, I'm still confused. Do you mean if Bush had a chance like that, and taken it, that the leftists would've complained? If so, you're probably right.”
Actually, I was saying if Bush had not taken him, they would have blamed Bush or whatever Republican President. Although you are probably right they would have complained either way.

“Were they holding him?”

Yes they were, they wanted to get him off their hands. Clinton turned them down and they released him and I think, but don’t quote me on this on, kicked him out of the country and from there he went to Afgan. (Again my memory is not what it use to be and I would have to go back and check, but I think that was the time line, although I could be wrong)

According to Richard Clarke in "Aganist All Enemies" Clinton twice said to kill the bast*** but the Pentagon refused to back him. The Richard Clarke, who was a former National Security Council official and expert in counter-terrorism, who himself is a repub and served under 8 presidents. The Richard Clarke who was in the WH on almost a daily basis.

But you are absolutely right, Tater. That was then and speculation is not going to change whatever opinion one has for some folks. Carter, Clinton or Bush supporters support for their own reasons and arguing about it is counter-productive.

Hayes, Monday morning quarterbacking is the American way of life. Sad but true.

Well another member who worked in the Bush administration also said that planes did not crash into the World Trade Center, that the government actually blew them up. Do you believe him? It has been proven that Richard Clark was selling a book, he was not in the know. Regardless it all boils down to this: There are three types of people who did not support us going into Iraq, which catagory do you fall under: 1) peace activist (which I have to hand it to them they are not hypocrits they protest every war) 2) Those who forgot about 9/11, forgot what happen to 3000 people one peaceful morning. They thought, well only Afgan. had something to do with it. The UN will protect us and we are safe. Then you have the third group. These people hate anything George Bush and no matter what happens, if the whole middle east came out smelling like roses, they would be the first to complain that it wasn't rosy enough, then after a couple of years they would say that Bush had nothing to do with it, it would of happened regardless.

WHEW! I just re-read the posts from today and realized mine were typed about like a two year old.

Need....sleep....very tired today so please excuse the horrible typos, grammar errors, etc.

I'll try to do better since I have now put toothpicks under my eyelids.

Republicans began secret dealings with Iran early in 1980 when Ronald Reagan's future CIA director, William Casey, initiated stealth contact with Iranian intermediaries. The Reagan-Bush campaign feared that President Carter would make a deal to have the hostages released just before the election. Bill Casey met with high-level Iranians before the election and worked out an agreement to delay the hostage's release until after the election.

The Republican deal involved sending weapons to Iran. The Iranians released the hostages "minutes after Reagan took the oath of office." Almost immediately after Reagan took office, the flow of arms to Iran greatly increased.

Buck, Don't forget the exchange of money! The following taken from The History Channel:
www.historychannel.com/tdih/ tdih.jsp?month=10272963&day=10272969&cat=10272946 - 45k

"On January 20, 1981--the day of Reagan's inauguration--the United States freed almost $3 billion in frozen Iranian assets and promised $5 billion more in financial aid. Minutes after Reagan was sworn in, the hostages flew out of Iran on an Algerian airliner, ending their 444-day ordeal. The next day, Jimmy Carter flew to West Germany to greet them on their way home."

You must go easier on Yvonne. She is no doubt a product of our politically correct, woefully inept education system. They are taught that ALL wars are the product of a republican. Forget who was comander in chief! It dosen't matter! It is all the republicans' fault!!! Kennedy, start a war? No way! Johnson carrying it on and bragging about how "they can't even bomb an outhouse over there without my ok". Forget that drivel!! It was a REPUBLICAN'S FAULT!!!

Trish:
"Would an audio of Clinton be reputable enough for you?

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/6/17/105341.shtml
Sure Jim follow this link, scroll down to the end, link where it says listen to audio of Clinton. It is in his own voice."

Ok, I am going to take NewsMax's word that Clinton said this. And you are going to accept that the National Guard memos are authentic right?

Everything I have read tell me different. This 'recording' of whoever contradicts the majority of press.

Jim, I know I don't need to tell you NewsMax is a conservative, right winged, propaganda making "news" rag. Mike Crouch sends me articles from this "news" source all the time. I read it just to see how far the right will go in their assination of the left. It's incredible.

Yard Dog, Not only was I around when the Vietnam war was going on, I was already an adult. My brother served over there so I kept up with it and have read the history. (BTW, history supports the fact it was a repub who involved us in that war.) If you can't deal with facts, that's your problem, not mine. Perhaps it is you who is a product of an inept educational system.

Right on, Yvonne.
And NBC, CBS, ABC, MSNBC, CNN, and NPR are all liberal, left wing propaganda "news" rags. I listen to them just to see how far the left will go in their assination of the right. It's incredible.

Jim: "This 'recording' of whoever contradicts the majority of press."

Well let's see that rightwing mag also said: "Though the LIA videotaped his appearance, the group has refused requests for copies from NBC News, Fox News and NewsMax." I do wonder why if it was videotaped and that tape wasn't him, why in the world wouldn't he want it released to prove the tape was a fake.

Oh wait, Clinton himself said it wasn't a fake but he was actually misquoted: "During his private interview with the 9/11 Commission on Thursday, ex-President Bill Clinton denied that he told a New York business group in 2002 that he turned down an offer from Sudan for Osama bin Laden's extradition to the U.S., according to 9/11 Commissioner Bob Kerrey."Bill Clinton said yesterday that that was a misquote," Kerrey told WDAY Fargo, N.D., radio host Scott Hennen"

But I guess even if the so very rightwing mag Vanity Fair and Newsday also reported it isn't true.

Whatever, you guys are too funny. One word of advice though, please do not stand outside in a lightning storm with your tin hats on.

Yvonne said: "Jim, I know I don't need to tell you NewsMax is a conservative, right winged, propaganda making "news" rag"

Yeah I sure you probably get all your important news from the Democratic Underground. Kind of like that whole "secret airbase". You know that one what was so secrect that everyone knew about it.

Well don't believe what your own ears tell you, up to you. But again, try not to stand outside in the lightning with the tin hat on.

Jim said: "I am going to take NewsMax's word that Clinton said this"

Oh and Jim, NewsMax didn't say it, Cliton did and they recorded it, big difference.

It'a all about OIL.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammad_Reza_Pahlavi_of_Iran

And Trish - we'll never know, but my gut disagrees with this:

"Doesn't matter who is President or what we do, OBL wants to defeat America. And no matter if we leave the Middle East, quit supporting the Jews or understand why he hates us, it will not change."

... and obviously you listen carefully to Mr. Half-Truth Hypocrite Himself ...may I introduce Doper Rush Limbaugh (applause): (As a side note OBL did have time to put in a little campaigning for Kerry last election. Remember the warning we all got, "whatever states voted for Bush?")

Earlier I had given you a couple examples of the "subtle but real and pervasive" spins these guys use (Fox, Hannity - Rush and a bunch of others). This is just another example. The actual OBL quote is this:

"In conclusion, I tell you in truth, that your security is not in the hands of Kerry, nor Bush, nor al-Qaida. No.

"Your security is in your own hands. And every state that doesn't play with our security has automatically guaranteed its own security."

NOT in the hands of Kerry, nor Bush, nor al-Qaida ... which clearly shows Mr. 1/2 truth twisted that to mean red and blue American states, vs. several other possible interpertations - including the State of Israel and about 200 other National States.

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/79C6AF22-98FB-4A1C-B21F-2BC36E87F61F.htm

AGAIN....you are quoting AL JAZEERA!!!! NEED I SAY MORE?!?! Do you REALLY think they are going to post the TRUTH?! I swear these ridiculous arguments or starting to REALLY annoy me.

And you all have the nerve to criticize Trish's sources yet you allow this crap as a reference to support your cause? This tells me how desperate the left is to find someone/something to justify their thinking.

Ridiculous....

What I meant to say was:

"I swear these ridiculous arguments are starting to REALLY annoy me."

HUKED ON FONIX WURKED 4 ME!!!!!!!

James,

Actually I don't watch the news quite frankly. Nor do I read the newspapers. I think the OSB quote I got was NBC. This little bit of what you consider bias, I disagree. But I will not argue with you about. You will believe what you believe and the same for me. At least with Fox they define a terrorist for what they are. Here is an example for you. On September 1, 2004 in Russia innocent children were excited about their first day of school, until "guerillas" decided to take over the school. They tortured these kids and in the end killed 338 people, a lot of which were kids. Now you tell me are these guerillas or terrorist? By the way this story was told on the front page of the New and Record using an AP story. The reason terrorist wasn't used is because the AP felt that the world might offend, it is too harsh. So let us hope that one day a "guerilla" doesn't decide to take over your kids (or grandkids) school because we would really hate to give "guerillas" a bad image by calling them terrorist.

Oh and the last time I watched the news? The day after Carl Roves statements. Funny thing on the ABC report they talk about politicians using the word Nazi. They show a picture of Rick Santoram and then Durbin, they go on to say that well Durbin apologized. Now that is debatable in and of itself, however Santoram did also but did they say that? Nope.

Oh and speaking of the Rove statements, funny thing is all major news networks reported them the day after. (And let us be straight, Rove never said Democrats funny how they all ran out there though huh?) And the Durbin comment? Not until his so called apology. Now here you have one set of comments as told by a White House employee, the other set from the 2nd ranked Democrat in the Senate. One was said at a private function, the other on the floor of the Senate. One was picked up by Al Jeeza, the other by ABC, NBC, and CBS. Wow and there is no bias in the MSM is there?

Good point Tater. Although I do wonder about some people though. They hear a recording of Clinton and question it, but let some documents (which aren't even the original)be "found" (by the way has Lucy ever been found to clear Dan's name? haha) and why they are the truth. Unbelievable.

Trish, gotta say that I am glad you came in here. You have been quite pleasing to read and it's fun having someone else cause the libs to squirm a little.

Tater, Hate to rain on your parade but I don't see any libs squirming. What I see is an honest effort to have discussions with those of opposing views and not be attacked for their position. What I see is people asking for clear, concise posts without having to read a novel for anyone to get to their point. What I see is people wanting to participate in posting without having every sentence disected to infinity. In my humble opinion this is counterproductive to a balanced exchange or discussion.

Peace.

Tater said: "Trish, gotta say that I am glad you came in here. You have been quite pleasing to read and it's fun having someone else cause the libs to squirm a little."

Thank you so much for the kind words Tater, glad to be here and I'm having a blast!

"What I see is people wanting to participate in posting without having every sentence disected to infinity."

In other words, "how dare you question me".

I don't know how concise do you think that was?

Yo Trash....I mean Trish, quit the talkin' and start the walkin'.

We all saw your little post you threw out just to see how long it could be.

In other words, "I'm Trish. I love the way my words look on the screen. I think I'll just write and write and write until everyone bows to my opinion. I'm Princess Trish. I own the boards. They are mine, mine, mine! Don't post unless you agree with me. If you disagree, I'll just keep writing and writing and writing. My opinion is the only one that matters and I won't change my mind on anything. Daddy said I could always get what I want. I want this board all to myself and the playmates who I like. The rest of you go home until I'm through. I'm Trish the Spoiled Little Bitch."

In other words, "I'm Trish. I love the way my words look on the screen. I think I'll just write and write and write until everyone bows to my opinion. I'm Princess Trish. I own the boards. They are mine, mine, mine! Don't post unless you agree with me. If you disagree, I'll just keep writing and writing and writing. My opinion is the only one that matters and I won't change my mind on anything. Daddy said I could always get what I want. I want this board all to myself and the playmates who I like. The rest of you go home until I'm through. I'm Trish the Spoiled Little Bitch."

In other words, "I'm Trish. I love the way my words look on the screen. I think I'll just write and write and write until everyone bows to my opinion. I'm Princess Trish. I own the boards. They are mine, mine, mine! Don't post unless you agree with me. If you disagree, I'll just keep writing and writing and writing. My opinion is the only one that matters and I won't change my mind on anything. Daddy said I could always get what I want. I want this board all to myself and the playmates who I like. The rest of you go home until I'm through. I'm Trish the Spoiled Little Bitch."

In other words, "I'm Trish. I love the way my words look on the screen. I think I'll just write and write and write until everyone bows to my opinion. I'm Princess Trish. I own the boards. They are mine, mine, mine! Don't post unless you agree with me. If you disagree, I'll just keep writing and writing and writing. My opinion is the only one that matters and I won't change my mind on anything. Daddy said I could always get what I want. I want this board all to myself and the playmates who I like. The rest of you go home until I'm through. I'm Trish the Spoiled Little Bitch."

In other words, "I'm Trish. I love the way my words look on the screen. I think I'll just write and write and write until everyone bows to my opinion. I'm Princess Trish. I own the boards. They are mine, mine, mine! Don't post unless you agree with me. If you disagree, I'll just keep writing and writing and writing. My opinion is the only one that matters and I won't change my mind on anything. Daddy said I could always get what I want. I want this board all to myself and the playmates who I like. The rest of you go home until I'm through. I'm Trish the Spoiled Little Bitch."

In other words, "I'm Trish. I love the way my words look on the screen. I think I'll just write and write and write until everyone bows to my opinion. I'm Princess Trish. I own the boards. They are mine, mine, mine! Don't post unless you agree with me. If you disagree, I'll just keep writing and writing and writing. My opinion is the only one that matters and I won't change my mind on anything. Daddy said I could always get what I want. I want this board all to myself and the playmates who I like. The rest of you go home until I'm through. I'm Trish the Spoiled Little Bitch."

In other words, "I'm Trish. I love the way my words look on the screen. I think I'll just write and write and write until everyone bows to my opinion. I'm Princess Trish. I own the boards. They are mine, mine, mine! Don't post unless you agree with me. If you disagree, I'll just keep writing and writing and writing. My opinion is the only one that matters and I won't change my mind on anything. Daddy said I could always get what I want. I want this board all to myself and the playmates who I like. The rest of you go home until I'm through. I'm Trish the Spoiled Little Bitch."

In other words, "I'm Trish. I love the way my words look on the screen. I think I'll just write and write and write until everyone bows to my opinion. I'm Princess Trish. I own the boards. They are mine, mine, mine! Don't post unless you agree with me. If you disagree, I'll just keep writing and writing and writing. My opinion is the only one that matters and I won't change my mind on anything. Daddy said I could always get what I want. I want this board all to myself and the playmates who I like. The rest of you go home until I'm through. I'm Trish the Spoiled Little Bitch."

See we all can do it too......You're not special just because daddy says you're the best French Kisser in the county.

"See we all can do it too......You're not special just because daddy says you're the best French Kisser in the county."

In other words, I have nothing intelligent to add and I can't refute what you say, so I attack you personally.

Am I getting any better in the concise department?

Yeah, you're right Trash.

YOU wrote it yourself.

YOU have nothing intelligent to add and YOU can't refute what I say, so YOU attack me personally.

Hey, YOU wrote it without quotes so it's on YOU ya big dummy!!! :P

Oh yeah....let me see into the future and predict your response......

"blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, I'm right because I'm Princess Trish the Bitch. I'm perfect. Daddy said so before he left the family for my uncle. Daddy please come back!"

"YOU can't refute what I say"

True, I don't speak ebonics, will have to get my translation dictionary first.

I'm not using ebonics.

Too late on the quotes. YOU made the first post and now it's there for all to see what a moron you really are.

"blah, blah, blah! I'm so right whenever I say anything. Bow to me. I'm Pricess Trish. Don't critic me. I'm perfect. Will you ever come back Daddy? Your little princess needs attention. I won't tell mommy about you and the sheep. Please Daddy!"

"I'm not using ebonics."

Oh my bad thought you were speaking in code, because quite frankly I don't get your point. What is your point with these post?

"YOU made the first post and now it's there for all to see what a moron you really are."

Well go ahead then enlighten me all some more with your great insights. I am actually enjoying myself.

Oh and Yo, if you are going to quote me, please spell the words correctly, no ebonics I don't speak it. So intead of "Don't critic me." The proper way would be "Don't criticize me".

Oh and by the way, can you up my title from Princess to Queen? You know I do what to rule and all can't very well do being only a lowly Princess.

"Whaaaaaa....Whaaaaaaa.....Whaaaaaa.....leave me alone to be what I want to be. I'm a Queen now. These are my boards! I've found a way to compensate for daddy leaving me by being pseudo-intellectual bully. I'm ever so smart. I don't even realize that I'm arguing with someone who could give a damn about what I say. I know I'm making a point, but they keep attacking me. I'm too stupid to stop trying to be right. I could just ignore this person, but I have to be right. So I'll argue with them to my dying day. I'm right! I'm a princess damnit. Bow to me. I'm Trashy Trish. Please come home daddy."

God, you're an idiot to keep this up.

"God, you're an idiot to keep this up."

And that would make you what? Seems I'm not the only one. But I'm having fun and being educated, so please continue.

Yo Trash.....I saw yo Daddy!

He can't come home now 'cuz he's behind the WalMart on Wendover pulling a train from both ends.

"Oooooo.....tell me more. I'm uneducated in case you couldn't tell it from my posts. I'm such a republican I'd eat the peanuts out of Dubya's dooky. He's going to make me Queen Trish of the Internet. Why are you doing that daddy? Why daddy? Why?"

"I'm uneducated in case you couldn't tell it from my posts."

What a very compassionate and tolerant person. I am learning so much about my history, please continue. Gosh I keep moving up in the world, I go from being Princess of the boards to Queen of the Internet. Tell me more.

"I saw yo Daddy!
He can't come home now 'cuz he's behind the WalMart on Wendover pulling a train from both ends."

Oops sorry Yo, you are going to have to translate that ebonics talk, told you I speak English. Are you saying you saw your daddy, since you are Yo Mama and you said you say yo Daddy? And why would I care what your daddy was doing?

Wait I think I got it Yo Daddy is your husband/boyfriend/one night stand. But I am confused about the train are there trains behind Wal Mart? I have never seen them

"Please Daddy Please. Don't let your little Princess Trish go without knowing her daddy does guys on both ends. Please say the bad man was wrong about you and what you did with those men in the dumpsters so you can buy crack and cheap wine. I want to be Dubya's butt licker. It's my wildest dreams to sniff his sphincter and tell him it smells like roses. I'm Princess Trish of the N&R internet boards. Please come home. I won't tell mommy what you did."

If you don't know ebonics, I'm sure a couple of brothers can turn you out and help you with that.

Get over yourself. You just serve up tripe with no substance. You parrot other people's opinions and don't add to anything. You tow the party line and act just like a republican automaton. Zieg Heil Bush!!! You just need the jack boots.

Blah! Blah! Blah! Just like a Bushbot!

Give it a rest, people!

Please.