At 09:24 AM 9/29/2004, Michael Baier wrote:
>Carter was working on the iran crises and doing a good job getting the
>hostages free. It was mainly his doing even so they were released after he
>was voted out of office.

A good job getting them released?  Holy crud, what do you consider a good
job?  Let's recap shall we?

In September of 1979 we admitted the deposed Shah of Iran to the US for
medical treatments, in response a crowd of about 500 people seized our
embassy in Iran, of the appx 90 people in the embassy, 52 remained in
captivity until the end of the crisis.  Carter then flew in to action using
diplomatic pressure and sanctions to get them freed.  In April 1980 (7
months later) they tried a rescue mission, which failed and saw 8 of our
men get killed, the secretary of state (who was against the mission)
resigned.  Later in 1980 the Shah died and Iraq invaded Iran, which got the
Iranians to start to consider it might be a good idea to stop pissing us
off.  After the election and before the inauguration of Reagan, Algerian
intermediaries essentially brokered the deal that got the hostages freed
when we agreed to release about $8 billion in frozen Iranian funds.  444
days those people were held hostage, and Carters pathetic mewlings did
nothing to free them.


>GWB however was given memo's and information about terrorist activity

You want to provide some specifics as to what your saying?  Please back it
up with some links

>and
>he was fishing or falling asleep as he usually does.

You wanna back that up too?  I haven't even seen the NYT say this

>He just completely
>ignored the situation as he ignored North Korea.

Ignored what situation?  Ignored what in North Korea?  Did you forget that
Clinton and Al(Not so)bright worked out that great deal with Czar Carter
that got the nukes to NK to begin with.  Bush hadn't even been in office
all that long when he properly identified them as the Axis of Evil -
Clinton had 8 years to deal with it and he buried it and Bush had to deal
with it.

>Now he's just focusing on
>Iran. Why? They have oil and Korea has none?

you actually totally misunderstand the dynamic, which isn't particularly
surprising.  With Korea there are a number of close and powerful interested
parties such as south korea, japan, china and even russia.  It really isn't
our problem as NK hasn't been trying to kill us much in the last half
century.  With Iran there isn't anyone in the area that is going to do
anything other than Israel, and Iran also hosts and funds terrorists that
are "out to get us".  Spend 30 to 60 seconds getting some additional
information and you will be well served.

>And where is the hunt for OBL?

maybe you missed the news, but it is ongoing and they are almost constantly
capturing or killing members of Al Qaeda.

>He's still not in Iraq. Everybody knows that
>except George and Dick. But they are on another planet anyway.

Please point to any statement at any time (a URL please, not your memory)
where the President or Vice President of this great land said that OBL was
in Iraq?  Of course Al Qaeda was in Iraq, there in almost every country on
the planet, and at the time we went in one of their top guys was
convalescing in Iraq from injuries, I have a hell of a time remembering
those muslim names, so I forget it at the moment, but there is all sorts of
connections between the two, and the recent UN Oil for Food scandal has
uncovered even more.  Anyone that thinks there weren't some ties were
likely living on that planet you seem so fond of that isn't earth.



>On Wed, 29 Sep 2004 09:17:58 -0400, Tim Cummings
><[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> >It just goes to show you that the WORST presidents in history needed every
> >day in office to do as much damage as possible.  Carter is the prime
> >example.  Nice guy, but by far the worst president.
> >
> >Tim
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: Gehan Gehale [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> >Sent: Tuesday, September 28, 2004 5:57 PM
> >To: [log in to unmask]
> >Subject: Re: [HP3000-L] OT: Good reason not to elect Kerry
> >
> >
> >> The previous holder of the office was playing grabass with Monica
> >> while this was going on.
> >
> >
> >At least Clinton was in the oval office for that grabass, I'm not even
> >sure bush knows where the oval office is... I think he spends all his
> >time at the ranch, or in the presidential play pen....
> >
> >Bush Jr. has taken 250 days off as of August 2003. That's 27% of his
> >presidency spent on vacation.
> >
> >As of December 1999, President Bill Clinton had spent only 152 days on
> >holiday during his two terms
> >
> >George Bush Sr. took all or part of 543 vacation days
> >
> >Ronald Reagan spent 335 days during his eight years in office.
> >
> >Jimmy Carter took only 79 days
> >
> >
> >http://ask.yahoo.com/ask/20031001.html
> >
> >* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
> >* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *
> >
> >* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
> >* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *
>
>* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
>* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *


Regards,

Shawn Gordon
President
theKompany.com
www.thekompany.com
949-713-3276

* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *