kennedy was all for scaling back in nam. he died in texas. LBJ, a texan automatically became prez…“i ain’t gonna be the first american president to lose a war!” nixon,ford,carter…non-texans all and none has a “real” war of their own. poppy bush, a texan in everything but residency comes into power…“this will not stand”…“iraq1”. clinton plays bullyboy but never has a war. george w., a texan, comes in and “surprise, surprise, surprise” we’re off to the biggest war since the last texan, which had the biggest war since the last texan. yeah, yeah…“don’t mess with texas” and “everything is bigger in texas” but aw c’mon ya’ll. three texas presidents in my life and each one rolls us out to war? coincidence?
No skeptic yank. It makes perfect sense because you see both Bush and son are shape shifting lizards aligned with the Illuminati and backed by the Jews but what the Jews don’t realize is that they are only being used because that’s the trouble with the Jews you see. They always overplay their hand and then they get whacked. Yeah. I see where you are going with this and I am surprised no one else has noticed this incredible fact. Coincidence? Yeah. right. I’m with you!
jews, illuminati…i dunno, it all fits together too nicely. all the jews i know are nice folks. the texas presidents? bunch of rich pricks with no conscience who have no qualms about killing? yep. all the way. stooges for smarter guys? LBJ and Jr. for sure. Daddy Bush is a sharpie. director of cia AND ambassador to china. gotta know his way aroundthe backroom. prolly the straw that stirs the drink yet.
what was jr’s quote? something like “you need a CIA that is gonna cut a guy’s throat.” yeah, a real fan of the democratic process there.
if we spent as much money building up peace instead of building up armies and blowing peasants to hell they wouldn’t have much reason to hate us.
i dislike bush as much as i disliked clinton. clinton ruled by executive order whereas w rules the same way using a “state of emergency” as the pretext. aren’t presidents to preside and not rule?
Ah but if we had no armies would the al Qaeda not attack us? I doubt it. Peace through strength is a safe motto. I stick with that.
JFK, the man who got the U.S. into Vietnam in the first place, was on the contrary all for escalating U.S. involvement, according to recently unearthed archive material.
here’s another piece for fred smith & co. to spin and mock. hahahah.
did you read the article? did you see what the black lawmakers wanted the us to do instead? they wanted us to send troops in to fight a civil war for aristide against the rebels.
frankly, i think the us handled that about as well as we could have. i do agree that we shouldn’t be sending all those refugees back, though.
It’s the same as supposed US culpability in Chile and that’s why we are responsible for Allende’s overthrow and Pinochet, the big problem: The US did not help. That’s right. No troops, but also no aid earlier and they let it be known that they did not support Aristide nor would US troops protect him so ergo the US is responsible for the entire mess because we are obligated to help people who are not US citizens in nations of absolutely no strategic significance to us and if we do not we are racist and if we do we are carrying the white man’s burden. Jesus H. Christ. Damned if you do and damned if we do not. Guess I will vote to be damned and damn the consequences. Since nothing we do is acceptable, let’s just do what we want. I vote for unilateral US action against Syria, Iran and perhaps France?
What malfeasance must the US bear? It’s no wonder you have such righteous indignation, fred.
Maybe you should make out a list.
I suggest you visit the flag forums instead of slumming about as Forumosa’s emotional vampire. You may find some admiration for your ‘intellect’ and plans for the new world order over here:
That’s hilarious Alien.
Particularly the link to daily prayers for Dubya:
I’d suggest marking this as a “favorite” on your computer for easy reference before you go to bed.