redblueamerica.com

Yes I agree with you!

jason rich print
[url=http://infostuff.seitenclique.net/print2a9.html]1971 windberg print [/url]
print scrapbook free
http://infstuff.t35.com/print54b.html japanese landscape prints
http://infstuff.webng.com/print092.html general sherman prints
http://members.lycos.nl/infastuff/print4... palm sunday print

rolls-royce silver ghost
[url=http://gretlohis.co.cc/silver-exchange/map.html]cyberage platinum shemale [/url]
savannah gold healthy
http://hopinc.co.cc/mike-stern/map.html gold shere rocks
http://drodlok.co.cc/large-roll/map.html cabo gold coarses
http://opigre56.co.cc/iowa-investing/map... gold charms dogs

Rom 12921,

You said " The Federal government has absolutely no responsibility for your property other than to provide a common defense from foreign attack".

You are joking, right? Do you know what FEMA stand for? It is FEDERAL Emergency Management Agency.

The failure of FEMA in New-Orleans post Katrina was a failure from the Federal government...therefore my charge of incompetency is very rational and well documented.

With all due respect. The Federal Government has absolutely no responsibility for your property other than to provide a common defense from foreign attack.

You are responsible for your property. Therefore, your charge of incompetency is irrational.

I agree with your assessment of the Bush era Republicans. I see very little correlation between professed principles by the Congress in 1994 and then losing the majority in 2006.

As you may remember I am also against the preemptive strike idea. It is a liberal use of military forces that cannot applied logically and consistently

BTW thanks for asking about my sign on, not a zip code, but maybe a blog topic.

John,

I am glad we can agree on something. In a response to Hamilton on this blog, I was mentioning Eisenhower and his caution against the industrial-military complex...well,I think it's too late for that. We now have the oil/industrial-military complex on a rampage and calling the shots in the background.

My concern,right now, following the logic of more wars and conflicts is an attack on Iran. An insane strategy of making things worse building up on the fear of Iran acquiring nuclear weapons, while the real threat is now an unstable Pakistan.

This is one of the reason why I think McCain would be a disaster if elected president. He is the one more likely to listen to the hawks in Israel and actup on the lunatic theory of the " preemptive strike " corner stone of the Bush doctrine

Only three places produced weapons-grade Anthrax: The United States, Moscow, and...Baghdad.

It was stunningly naive for the military leadership to assume everything was going to be a cakewalk after the statue of Saddam day in Baghdad. Even I could sense that it was far from over with so many factions involved and no government in place. So maybe naive is too neutral of a word to use. Military people study a lot of military history, and Rumsfeld always claims to be a history buff, and he was a royal smart ass about it at the same time. He was the most direct connect to Bush, so I blame him at least as much as Frank. But trusting everything as much as do these days, maybe the long festering mess was the plan all along. Bush was just the fall guy. Cheney, now that's a different matter.

The democrats, in the run-up to the war were bigger cheerleaders and flame-fanners than republicans as Hamilton pointed out in your recent 1929 world is ending blog recently. Here is what he posted. Read it carefully and respond:

THE TRUTH REVEALED
Clinton Secretary of State Madeleine Albright > February 1, 1998"We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and the security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction."

President Bill Clinton > February 4, 1998“One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."

Tom Daschle > February 11, 1998 "The (Clinton) administration has said, 'Look, we have exhausted virtually our diplomatic effort to get the Iraqis to comply with their own agreements and with international law. Given that, what other option is there but to force them to do so?' That's what they're saying. This is the key question. And the answer is we don't have another option. We have got to force them to comply, and we are doing so militarily."

President Bill Clinton > February 17, 1998"If Saddam rejects peace, and we have to use force, our purpose is clear: We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."

President Bill Clinton > February 17, 1998 "We have to defend our future from these predators of the 21st Century.... They will be all the more lethal if we allow them to build arsenals of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them. We simply cannot allow that to happen. There is no more clear example of this threat than Saddam Hussein."

President Bill Clinton > February 17, 1998"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow."

National Security Advisor Sandy Berger > February 18, 1998"(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he has 10 times since 1983"

Senator John Kerry (D-MA) > February 23, 1998 "Saddam Hussein has already used these weapons and has made it clear that he has the intent to continue to try, by virtue of his duplicity and secrecy, to continue to do so. That is a threat to the stability of the Middle East. It is a threat with respect to the potential of terrorist activities on a global basis. It is a threat even to regions near but not exactly in the Middle East."

Bill Richardson (D-NM) > May 29, 1998 "The threat of nuclear proliferation is one of the big challenges that we have now, especially by states that have nuclear weapons, outlaw states like Iraq."

Letter to President Clinton Signed by Senators Levin, Lieberman, Lautenberg, Dodd, Kerrey, Feinstein, Mikulski, Daschle, Breaux, Johnson, Inouye, Landrieu, Ford and Kerry -- all Democrats > October 9th, 1998"We urge you, after consulting with Congress and consistent with the US Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions, including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."

Al Gore > December 16, 1998 "[I]f you allow someone like Saddam Hussein to get nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, chemical weapons, biological weapons, how many people is he going to kill with such weapons? He has already demonstrated a willingness to use such weapons..."

Nancy Pelosi - House Minority Leader > December 16, 1998Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology, which is a threat to countries in the region, and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection processes."

President Bill Clinton > December 17, 1998 "Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq.... Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors."

Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL) > September 30, 1999 "One of the most compelling threats we in this country face today is the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Threat assessments regularly warn us of the possibility that North Korea, Iran, Iraq, or some other nation may acquire or develop nuclear weapons."

Clinton Secretary of State Madeleine Albright > November 10, 1999"Hussein has chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."

Letter to President Bush signed by Senator Bob Graham (D-FL), Senator Joe Lieberman (D-CT), Congressman Harold Ford (D-TN), Congressman Tom Lantos (D-CA) and others > December 6, 2001"This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to refine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."

Madeline Albright > February 18, 2002 Iraq is a long way from (here), but what happens there matters a great deal here, for the risk that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest national security threat we face -- and it is a threat against which we must and will stand firm."

Senator John Edwards (D-NC) > February 24, 2002"I think Iraq is the most serious and imminent threat to our country."Joe Biden > August 4, 2002"[H]e does have the capacity, as all terrorist-related operations do, of smuggling stuff into the United States and doing something terrible. That is true. But there's been no connection, hard connection made yet between he and al-Qaida or his willingness or effort to do that thus far. Doesn't mean he won't. This is a bad guy."

Senator Joe Biden (D-DE) > August 4, 2002 "This is a guy who is an extreme danger to the world, and this is a guy who is in every way possible seeking weapons of mass destruction."
> August 4, 2002 "I think he has anthrax. I have not seen any evidence that he has smallpox, but you hear them say, Tim (Russert), is the last smallpox outbreak in the world was in Iraq; ergo, he may have a strain." > August 4, 2002 "We know he continues to attempt to gain access to additional capability, including nuclear capability." > August 4, 2002 "First of all, we don't know exactly what he has. It's been five years since inspectors have been in there, number one. Number two, it is clear that he has residual of chemical weapons and biological weapons, number one."

Senator Evan Bayh (D-IN) > August 4, 2002 "I'm inclined to support going in there and dealing with Saddam, but I think that case needs to be made on a separate basis: his possession of biological and chemical weapons, his desire to get nuclear weapons, his proven track record of attacking his neighbors and others."

Senator Bill Nelson (D-FL) > August 25, 2002 "[M]y own personal view is, I think Saddam has chemical and biological weapons, and I expect that he is trying to develop a nuclear weapon. So at some point, we might have to act precipitously."

Jane Harman > August 27, 2002 "I certainly think (Hussein's) developing nuclear capability which, fortunately, the Israelis set back 20 years ago with their preemptive attack which, in hindsight, looks pretty darn good."

Senator Bill Nelson (D-FL) > September 14, 2002 "I believe he has chemical and biological weapons. I think he's trying to develop nuclear weapons, and the fact that he might use those is a considerable threat to us."

Senator Carl Levin (D-MI) > September 19, 2002"We begin with a common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations, is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."

Al Gore > September 23, 2002"We know that he has stored nuclear supplies, secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."> September 23, 2002"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter, and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."

Dick Gephardt > September 23, 2002 "(I have seen) a large body of intelligence information over a long time that he is working on and has weapons of mass destruction. Before 1991, he was close to a nuclear device. Now, you'll get a debate about whether it's one year away or five years away."

Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA) > September 27, 2002"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." > September 27, 2002"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed."

Senator Robert Byrd (D-WV) > October 3, 2002"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of '98. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons."

Senator John Kerry (D-MA) > October 9, 2002"I will be voting to give the president of the US the authority to use force if necessary to disarm Saddam because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."

Russell Feingold > October 9, 2002 "With regard to Iraq, I agree Iraq presents a genuine threat, especially in the form of weapons of mass destruction: chemical, biological and potentially nuclear weapons. I agree that Saddam Hussein is exceptionally dangerous and brutal, if not uniquely so, as the president argues."

Senator Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) > October 10, 2002"There was unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years. We also should remember that we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."

Senatorc Chuck Schumer (D-NY) > October 10, 2002 "It is Hussein's vigorous pursuit of biological, chemical and nuclear weapons, and his present and future potential support for terrorist acts and organizations that make him a danger to the people of the united states."

Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY) > October 10, 2002"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock. His missile delivery capability, his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists including Al-Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."

Senator John Edwards (D-NC) > October 10, 2002"Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal."

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi > October 10, 2002 "Yes, he has chemical weapons. Yes, he has biological weapons. He is trying to get nuclear weapons."

Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA) > October 10, 2002"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do."

Senator John Edwards (D-NC) > January 7, 2003 "Serving on the intelligence committee and seeing day after day, week after week, briefings on Saddam's weapons of mass destruction and his plans on using those weapons, he cannot be allowed to have nuclear weapons. It's just that simple. The whole world changes if Saddam ever has nuclear weapons."

Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY) > January 22, 2003 "I voted for the Iraqi resolution. I consider the prospect of a nuclear-armed Saddam Hussein who can threaten not only his neighbors but the stability of the region and the world, a very serious threat to the United States."

Senator John Kerry (D-MA) > January 23, 2003“Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. He miscalculated an eight-year war with Iran. He miscalculated the invasion of Kuwait. He miscalculated America's response to that act of naked aggression. He miscalculated the result of setting oil rigs on fire. He miscalculated the impact of sending scuds into Israel and trying to assassinate an American President. He miscalculated his own military strength. He miscalculated the Arab world's response to his misconduct. And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm.So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real” > January 31, 2003 "If you don't believe Saddam Hussein is a threat with nuclear weapons, then you shouldn't vote for me."

Hope you don't mind, Hamilton.

But, I know that you won't because your brain only runs on a single track.

War should be the politics of last resort. And when we go to war, we should have a purpose that our people understand and support.
Colin Powell

You don't know what you can get away with until you try.
Colin Powell

You don't think that's a good enough reason for a first hand experience, on my part, of incompetency?

Remember Bush's crack guy head of FEMA...Mr Brown? Yeah! " Brownie, you doin'a hec of a job" another great quote from " the decider" himself.
Where do you live rom 12921?Is 12921 a zip code on Mars?

Hamilton,

I don't have an " irrational hate " for Bush.

However, I do have contempt for him and the Bush Administration in general for their complete lack of competence in all aspects of government ( I should know, I have a house in New-Olreans). Nothing irrational here, quite the opposite.....

As far as the support of the Dems for the folly of the war in Iraq, you are correct. Few of them(such as John Edwards) are now saying they were wrong to vote in favor of the war....some still don't. A lot of folks( myself included) were against it from the get go.

And, Hamilton, it is not getting old to attack Bush for a bunch of reasons. The main one is that Bush's heir ( John McCain ) has all intentions, if elected, to continue the same disastrous policies than Bush in Iraq and elsewhere.

It’s a shame that your irrational hate for Bush, completely colors all your other opinions. Need I remind you of my pervious response and the Dems robust war support. This is really getting old.

B. Hamilton Langrehr:

The Hamilton Post: www.thehamiltonpost.blogspot.com

blangrehr@gmail.com