OT Is anyone really surprised?

On Jan 27, 9:24*am, Bill C wrote:
On Jan 27, 12:35*am, Howard Kveck wrote:



* *Bill, the situation in those camps, village and cities in the Palsetinian areas is
terrible. Hamas has done a lot to help alleviate some of the problems. Fatah was
corrupt and did not do any of that stuff. So it seems logical that the people voted
for them, as it was a ****ty pair of choices, but Hamas was less bad.

--
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * tanx,
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *Howard

* * * * * * * * * *Now it's raining pitchforks and women,
* * * * * * * * * * *But I've already got a pitchfork...

* * * * * * * * * * *remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

So that excuses them from any involvement in the terrorist attacks?
****in A noone is responsible for anything except us and the
Israelis.
*Bill C

Howard I surrender.
I'm awarding myself the Internet Special Olympics prize for
discussion with you on the subject.
I'm awarding you the Karl Rove/James Carville RBR Chair for objective
and open political discussion.
Bill C

In article ,
Bill C wrote:

On Jan 27, 12:35?am, Howard Kveck wrote:


Bill, the situation in those camps, village and cities in the Palsetinian areas is terrible.
Hamas has done a lot to help alleviate some of the problems. Fatah was
corrupt and did not do any of that stuff. So it seems logical that the people voted
for them, as it was a ****ty pair of choices, but Hamas was less bad.

So that excuses them from any involvement in the terrorist attacks?
****in A noone is responsible for anything except us and the Israelis.

I didn't say it excuses them, just offered a few reasons why they might have
chosen to vote for Hamas. It's not such a black and white situation.

--
tanx,
Howard

Now it's raining pitchforks and women,
But I've already got a pitchfork...

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

In article ,
Bill C wrote:

On Jan 27, 12:35*am, Howard Kveck wrote:

* *The thing is, most, if not all, of this was predicted by the people who
opposed the war in the first place. But we were labeled traitors and dirty ****ing
hippies who didn't know ****. Tell me what seems like a better situation, Bill: the
****ty one under a contained Saddam, or the mess we have now. I think pragmatism
tells you the answer is easy.

Have you been reading anything I've posted? Given the information the
Bush folks were peddling then, and thinking they were even vaguely
competent, I'd support it again.
Noone knew the degree to which they lied, the intel was cooked, the
heights of incompetence they'd reach. That's why you don't see me
slamming the Dem's who did vote to take action to protect America. Now
they need to hold Bush responsible as soon as he's out of office.

I think that it was obvious that Iraq was contained. The evidence that Iraq was
related to 9-11 (which they were trying to peddle by insinuation) was not there. I
know that you think the UN inspections were a waste but they did indicate pretty
strongly that the weapons were not there, and even if there were some question that
there might be some that were being hidden, Iraq was *not a threat to the US* at that
time.

What I got from the polks who just blew all the information off was
they'd never fight, for any reason, or threat, period. They'd still be
trying to get the UN to arrest the terrorists.

Oh, there was plenty of people who were saying the stuff I listed. We all got
shouted down and called traitors.

--
tanx,
Howard

Now it's raining pitchforks and women,
But I've already got a pitchfork...

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?