being a boxing fan and finally seeing the lower weight classifications get their due, I would certainly hope this could replace the heavyweight division on ppv. this would like Unreal Tourney without any technology on tv. more like 'the road warrior' which would be great.
Yeah, because God knows, the heavyweight division really sucks today. (Oops...can I say "God knows" without offending Rex? I really hope not.) :hihi: :hihi: :hihi:
And you've just answered the only outstanding question I've had on the theory...funding without raising taxes. Genius. This should be implemented immediately. Vegas would have a field day!
and this will eventually be final proof there is a god since even vegas knows god won't allow israel to lose a war, you'll have Israel as a 1200:1 chalk to win it all and they would. All nonbelievers would indirectly admit belief when it comes down to the cheese. :hihi: :hihi:
Let me put it to you this way. He has no credibility with me since he wrote a book criticizing the Bush Administration and gave the Clinton Administration a free pass. He quit because he didn't like what was going on well why did he stay during the Clinton Administration when they did far less to fight terrorism, Clinton was too busy golfing and womanizing to worry about anything else. The worlds oldest teenager, really! Btw consider the source, this is my view take it or leave it! Things aren't always like they seem to be, just maybe Clark didn't get along with Bush for other reasons and quit then tried to attack him. It doesn't make sense really, how could he not like the Bush's policies when they weren't totally established yet because his cabinet members weren't filled yet in 8 months but yet be totally happy with Clintons policy. The more controversy one can put in a book the better it will sell This is why I'm suspicious of Richard Clark, take things he says with a grain of salt. Its funny to me how credible you and Chaos think this guy is, usually the longer someone is in our government the less credible they become such as Ted Kennedy and John Kerry. Just because someone was in the government for 20 years doesn't mean they are a good or bad person or a genius, they can be just as good or bad as anyone else.
Lets remember to be fair here, Bush was only in office for 8 months and his cabinets weren't filled yet, this is one reason why people like Clark were still part of the big picture. I just want people to be fair here, I don't mind criticizing anyone if it is warranted, I criticize Bush and the government about our security, it sucks, no reason to go all out and leave our borders wide open. Clinton was in office for 8 years and did hardly anything while we were declared war on by Al Quada and attacks against the Cole and American Embasseys overseas and we did next to nothing. But what do you expect from an administration that cut and ran from Somolia, I don't care who took us there in the first place. The fact remains we ran away, reminds me of Carter's failed attempt to rescue the hostages from Iran. Instead of defending ourselves from an attack, we ran like rabbits. Yes, Democrats now days are soft on defense, this is why they will have trouble getting elected for some time to come.
Exactly, you discredit him only because he disagrees with you, even though he is the acknowledged expert in the field. And he you didn't even read the book or his 9/11 Commission testimony obviously, because he also pointed out the failures of the Clinton Administration. I've already pointed out several actions that Clinton took specifically to fight Al Qaida before 9/11. You still haven't listed one action Bush did before 9/11. Clinton acted on Clarks analysis. Bush ignored it and focused on Saddam. 9/11 only distracted Bush a short while before he returned to his Saddam obsession. Clark couldn't even get a meeting with Bush. He reported what happened in each administration and backed it up with documentation, none of which was refuted by the administration or Condoleeza Rice's testimony. Show me an "attack" on Bush in any of his testimony or in his book. Sourdough, it amazes me just how many facts you are willing to ignore to form your opinions. And where the hell did Kennedy and Kerry come from? We're talking about Richard Clark. Failing to discredit his professional credentials, you now feel the need to paint him with a Kennedy brush? If you are going to practice McCarthyism, you might was well go for the gold and proclaim Richard Clark to be a card-carrying member of the Communist Party.
I've already listed the major actions Clinton took in response. Did you bother to read it? Did Reagan cut and run from Lebanon? Did George Bush 41 cut and run from Iraq? I've already pointed out that strategic withdrawal is sometimes out best move when we have no vital national interests at stake. It's not enough to pound your shoe on the table. You also have to pound the right table. What attack? Carter tried to rescue the hostages in a military rescue that was stymied because of a sandstorm that knocked out two helicopters. When there were no longer enough helicopters to effect a rescue, the commanders on the ground had no choice but to withdraw. They never were attacked. Why are you accusing the Special Forces who conducted that operation of running like rabbits? They did their best under the circumstances. It was a very courageous attempt. You really should check the facts before making statements like that. Republicans have proven to be rash and irresponsible on defense. This is why this administration is dropping in the polls like flies. A change is coming in 2008. And you ain't going to like it.
