The first line is rhetoric. Nothing more. And as for the Camp David Accords, let me ask: How are things going in the Middle East? Seen any...uh...rockets being launched lately in Israel? There is no peace in the ME. Results matter. Rhetoric doesn't.
Camp David Accord, Egypt, Israel, seen any rockets going back and forth between the two?
TRYING to forge Peace agreements is a noble cause, trying to force Democracy on a country militarily is folly.
Especially when you ignore reports that say the situation may backfire on you and you go ahead and do it anyway with insufficient resources.
You could argue that the worsening situation in the Middle East is a result of Bush's policy of ignoring, refusing dialogue, calling some terrorist states, threatening military action.
So your indicting his entire foreign policy based in Iraq? What other complaints do you have? How about the breakthrough with NK's program? That was the epitomy of multilateralism. I see you just ignored that. Bush's way.
"Former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton said the agreement rewards North Korea for bad behavior while encouraging Iran to ignore international demands that it roll back its nuclear program and hold out for a better deal.
``I will be the saddest man in Washington'' if Bush goes along with the agreement, Bolton told reporters. ``I think the agreement is fundamentally flawed.''
"Analysts say that at the start of the Bush administration North Korea probably had enough material to build one or two weapons, and now probably could produce at least 10."
Sounds like Clinton's deal, except now they have the nukes.
Maybe you should have ignored this.
Um, could you please attempt to read and comprehend posts? I never claimed tax cuts=redistributing wealth. I am saying you clearly favor redistributing the wealth in this nation, because you feel the rich are not taxed fairly and take issue with them getting richer.
Tax Revenue does redistribute wealth, paying for services, roads, military government, etc.
I don't take issue with the rich getting richer, I take issue with the working class, according to Stein, aren't keeping up.
Now, you want more of a tax break for the middle class. OK, fine. Totally agree. However, you do realize that the middle class has already gotten huge tax breaks from the Bush cuts, yes? And you realize that the dollar to dollar comparison is useless and rehtorical nonsense, hmm? You have to talk about tax cuts in terms of percentages, not dollars. The rich pay more and therefore get more during a cut. It's simple math, screener. 4th grade math.
The dollar to dollar comparison was from the link I provided. From Fox News talking heads.
Give more of a tax cut to the working class that needs it more, and less of one to those that don't.
That's my feeling.
So you thought every major intel agency in the world was wrong? France was wrong? Britain? Russia? You thought Saddam dismantled his program even though he didn't provide evidence of doing so as required under international law? We've seen nations verifiably disarm. Saddam didn't. What made you think they/we were wrong?
Yes I did, Saddam wasn't a threat according to many, even the Intel community which never gave definitive proof, otherwise the weapons inspectors would have found them.http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/03/21/iraq.weapons/
"I think it's clear that in March, when the invasion took place, the evidence that had been brought forward was rapidly falling apart," Hans Blix, who oversaw the agency's investigation into whether Iraq had chemical and biological weapons, said on CNN's "Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer."
Blix described the evidence Secretary of State Colin Powell presented to the U.N. Security Council in February 2003 as "shaky," and said he related his opinion to U.S. officials, including national security adviser Condoleezza Rice."
I agree that the occupation phase was mismanaged. We didn't have enough troops. The should not have disbanded the Army. Those are all fair criticisms in my book.
And who decided, using the advisors he surrounded himself with, DECIDED.
No, not the same. I point to specific actions and approaches under Carter.
I never said Carter was a great President, I said Bush is worse and believe he will do nothing worthwhile in his post Presidency.
One that understands grammar.
Back at ya, "Fuck off".
Didn't the Administration and supporters say Bin Laden's capture didn't matter because he's in a cave and isn't a threat?
"It's funny how they [liberals] describe the war on terrorism in the most limited way possible – only as the pursuit of Osama bin Laden. He’s irrelevant now. He’s hiding in a cave. Al-Zarqawi was still killing people.”http://thinkprogress.org/2006/09/14/barnes-osama/
"Weekly Standard editor Fred Barnes appeared on Fox this morning to discuss his recent meeting with President Bush in the Oval Office. The key takeaway for Barnes was that “bin Laden doesn’t fit with the administration’s strategy for combating terrorism.” Barnes said that Bush told him capturing bin Laden is “not a top priority use of American resources.”
Yet Bush felt the need to bring up Bin Laden's relevancy, why?
2. Uh, you said that already. It's not true. Carter was at fault for the failed hostage rescue attempt. He allowed Iran's government to fall. He did nothing to stimulate the economy. His personal approach was not optimistic, not forward-looking. His ME peace initiatives were utter failures. All of that is Carter's fault.
Yet none of Bush's failings are his fault, truly amazing point of view.
3. Is Rice unqualified? Was Rod Paige? Margaret Spellings? I know you dislike Gonzales, but my feeling is that is a trumped up scandal. I suppose we can disagree. But I have some more for you to chew on: ? Martinez? He's hired a ton of women and minorities. I guess they are all incompetent though.
So what exactly has Rice accomplished, maybe still pondering how planes could be used as missiles.
We could list all that are competent or not, my point is Bush rewards loyalty above all else, competent or not.
I teach music. Not sure why that would be relevant, but I'm sure you'll find some way to pervert it to support your positions.
Just wondering why you feel the need to point out spelling mistakes.
Makes perfect sense now.