sherpa

On a side note. I've got a Kahr P40 pistol for sale. I bought it when Kahr offered a really good deal on it when guns in the cockpit was allowed after 9/11. Never fired. Never carried, just oiled every six months or so. My 270 Ruger I must keep for deer never graze zones, like my vineyard, though I haven't fired it for years either.

In addition, Pete's candidate for FAA Administrator, discussed here earlier and totally unqualified, has removed himself from consideration knowing he would never be approved, thank goodness. And....Airlines are withdrawing flights from JFK because of insufficient FAA staffing there. He's a great Sect. of Transportation doing a great job.

And that isn't what I said.

Just crazy.

Whatever anyone thinks about the war, both Saddam and Bin Laden were very bad guys. Nobody needed to make that up.

He also trashed the Thai Baht, putting millions of people in a far wore position than they were before. He was trying to do the same with the Mexican peso, all for personal, financial gain, until the US Fed intervened and supported the peso, ending his foray. He's a horrible man.

Rolling Stone lost whatever it had left with the "Rape on Campus" story featuring "Jackie," a lying attention seeker who basically plagiarized s book to create the story. Glad they had to pay for that. Just despicable.

What did they do with Vice President candidate John Edwards when he moved a bunch of bucks to his mistress' camp to hide their love child? Or Hillary, who paid a fine for mis-accounting campaign funds.

Saudi involvement, including individual Saudi gov individual involvement, is not really interesting.

Ya. He simply denied them what he had agreed to. That's kind of "kicking them out."

You are omitting the defining event. Saddam invaded and planned on occupying Kuwait, then grossly violated its' ceasefire agreements. That was what determined our "change our mind" to use your term.

Probably should do this as a message, but I would be interested in your many times expressed view that the 9-11 commission report is suspect. You have stuck that view in unrelated threads before, and I am interested in your view, as you seem rational. Maybe start a thread. Sorry for being off topic, and certainly not hostile, but its not the worst that happens here.

I really wish people would stop with obvious red herrings. At the time of this invasion, intel agencies across the globe, including US and British, among others, had concluded that Iraq was running a wmd program. This info was presented to Congressional Committees in both houses, and the President, who all decided to agree to what the US did. In addition, Iraq was in gross violation of its' cease fire agreement, numerous UN resolutions, countless warnings, and firing on no fly zone aircraft. The reality was that the no fly zone could not be maintained indefinitely, and there was no sign that Iraq would ever agree to abide by the ceasefire. Folks on both sides of the isle agreed to that situation, and we got the vote we got to authorize force.

As did Biden support it, which you seemingly forget. He was all in. Biden was head of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. He was responsible for approving other members. What did he say about the issue? "I do not believe this is a rush to war,” Biden said a few days before the vote. “I believe it is a march to peace and security. I believe that failure to overwhelmingly support this resolution is likely to enhance the prospects that war will occur …” The point is that if one continuously blames a group for what is perceived to be a mistake, then blame them all.

Not sure or your point, but there is noting isolationist about exposing the obvious lack of others living up to expressed obligations and causing great weakness in organizations they have agreed to support.