PDA

View Full Version : Why Does The Right Support Terrorism



Gayle in MD
10-16-2010, 01:13 AM
Since Saudi Arabia is the main source of money and support for terrorists, why does the right try to block efforts to become energy Independent.

Why did they not flinch over George Bush's close relationshhip, and the Bush Families decades of being in business, with Saudies, and even with the bin Ladens, never inspire the kind of discriminatory attacks and accusations against Bush, that they have launched at President Obama, like "Paling around with terrorists" when W. went much further, than even paling arouud with them, but hugged, held hands with, and even kissed one of the SaudiPrince's on the mouth.

Why do they insist on keeping us dependent on pay billions upon billions to the Saudi Terrorist supporters, instead of spending money to support indeendence on oil, whiich in turn, supports all Islamic terrorits orgaizations.

Please don't join in this thread if you cannot debate without insults and sarcasm.

G.

llotter
10-16-2010, 04:11 AM
I don't think the Right has wholly come to terms with the fact that we are funding our enemy through our purchase of mid-east oil. Those who worship the market have long thought that it is the surest guarantor of peace, but they have not quite fully grasp the motive of those who don't see their 'best interest' in materialist terms. Market solutions that work great here don't necessarily have the same effect in other cultures.

The Saudis have been seen as a stabilizing influence and a friendly contact within the Arab world and, knowing how vulnerable we are to problems in the oil markets, we have always extended a friendly hand (I'm sure that the State Department advises Presidents on the specifics of Arab courtesy). I don't think it is related to the personal finances of Bush or his family even though they may have previously had good business relations.

It has always been the Left, however, that has thwarted energy independence here at home. Environmental extremes have put much our own energy resources off limits to us even as we subsidize foreign development. The whole 'green/renewable' concept that the Left markets is a total fraud on the American people.

LWW
10-16-2010, 04:23 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Since Saudi Arabia is the main source of money and support for terrorists, why does the right try to block efforts to become energy Independent.

G.
</div></div>

Actually that statement is entirely incorrect. If not for the far left the US would be entirely energy independent.

We have more oil available than the Saudis but the left has went to court with countless bogus arguments to keep it from being drilled.

The regime has stopped US offshore drilling while subsidizing Mexican and Brazilian offshore drilling.

We invented nuclear power plants yet trail the world because of the far left creating ridiculous boogey man scares about nuclear power.

We once led the world in hydroelectric technology ... but the left protests that a fish might get killed.

We developed wind technology ... but the far left protested because a bird might be harmed.

We developed solar technology ... but the left protested that building desert solar farms might upset the weasels.

I could go on, but the bottom line is that the far left will oppose any energy source which can be used to promote capitalist economies.

LWW

LWW
10-16-2010, 04:24 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Why did they not flinch over George Bush's close relationshhip, and the Bush Families decades of being in business, with Saudies, and even with the bin Ladens, never inspire the kind of discriminatory attacks and accusations against Bush, that they have launched at President Obama, like "Paling around with terrorists" when W. went much further, than even paling arouud with them, but hugged, held hands with, and even kissed one of the SaudiPrince's on the mouth.

G.
</div></div>

Misleading argument as our ties to the Hose of Saud go back to the Truman years.

LWW

LWW
10-16-2010, 04:27 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Why do they insist on keeping us dependent on pay billions upon billions to the Saudi Terrorist supporters, instead of spending money to support indeendence on oil, whiich in turn, supports all Islamic terrorits orgaizations.

G.
</div></div>

See post # 322200.

LWW

LWW
10-16-2010, 04:29 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Please don't join in this thread if you cannot debate without insults and sarcasm.

G.
</div></div>

Pointing out that your hypothesis is full of inaccurate and misleading data is neither insulting nor sarcastic.

Expecting that you can post something full of inaccurate and misleading data and then expect it to be believed without qualm nor trepidation is insulting to anyone possessed of intelligence and an open mind.

LWW

sack316
10-16-2010, 07:34 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Since Saudi Arabia is the main source of money and support for terrorists, why does the right try to block efforts to become energy Independent.

Why did they not flinch over George Bush's close relationshhip, and the Bush Families decades of being in business, with Saudies, and even with the bin Ladens, never inspire the kind of discriminatory attacks and accusations against Bush, that they have launched at President Obama, like "Paling around with terrorists" when W. went much further, than even paling arouud with them, but hugged, held hands with, and even kissed one of the SaudiPrince's on the mouth.

Why do they insist on keeping us dependent on pay billions upon billions to the Saudi Terrorist supporters, instead of spending money to support indeendence on oil, whiich in turn, supports all Islamic terrorits orgaizations.

Please don't join in this thread if you cannot debate without insults and sarcasm.

G.
</div></div>

So then shouldn't we use our own oil here as we seek out and develop alternative means of energy?

We NEED oil right now, unfortunately there's just no way around that for the immediate future. Which should we use... continue to import most of it from places you mentioned or use our own resources?

Sack

pooltchr
10-16-2010, 09:01 AM
It's so easy to tell us what is wrong, but what they seem to lack is an actual answer to what we should be doing.

We shouldn't buy oil from the middle east?
Fine! Where should we be getting it?
Why don't we just use our own oil?
Why not build refineries right here and put Americans to work?

Oh, we can't drill for our own oil. Obama put a stop to that!

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif

Steve

Gayle in MD
10-16-2010, 09:43 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sack316</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Since Saudi Arabia is the main source of money and support for terrorists, why does the right try to block efforts to become energy Independent.

Why did they not flinch over George Bush's close relationshhip, and the Bush Families decades of being in business, with Saudies, and even with the bin Ladens, never inspire the kind of discriminatory attacks and accusations against Bush, that they have launched at President Obama, like "Paling around with terrorists" when W. went much further, than even paling arouud with them, but hugged, held hands with, and even kissed one of the SaudiPrince's on the mouth.

Why do they insist on keeping us dependent on pay billions upon billions to the Saudi Terrorist supporters, instead of spending money to support indeendence on oil, whiich in turn, supports all Islamic terrorits orgaizations.

Please don't join in this thread if you cannot debate without insults and sarcasm.

G.
</div></div>

So then shouldn't we use our own oil here as we seek out and develop alternative means of energy?

We NEED oil right now, unfortunately there's just no way around that for the immediate future. Which should we use... continue to import most of it from places you mentioned or use our own resources?

Sack </div></div>

We should, and we do. Do you think the world isn't running out of oil? Should we rush to use up what little we have, compared to other regions of the world? It's the oil industry that refuses to buid more refineries here. It's i9larious to realize that the right would rether bloame environmentalists for our oil predicament, when envirnomentaloists, have neverr had any real power, if they did, we wouldn't be seeing ancer rates going through the roof. The oil Industry wants go get the oil where it's easiest to reach, and needs the least refining, which is the Middle East, which is exactly why from Reagan, through both Bush's, we've been killing Muslims in the Middle East for decades.

Check out the history of who blocks every effort for conservation, research and production of clean energy. It's always the oil invested Republicans, and the intire Bush Administration was filled with people linked to the oil industry, hcne, IRAQ.

American Oil would prefer to get that rich, pure oil, closere to the the ground, in the Middle East, and have access to slave labor. That's the real reason why they don't build more refineries here.

Then they get Fux noise to lie about why they aren't building refineries here, as though we "Tree Huggers" run the world.

Nothing could be funnier that the people who think that way. We can't even force the egg industry to stop crowding chickens into contaminated massive chicken pens, or stop feeding beef their own poop!

American oil controls where the oil and refineries are drilled, not environmentalists. That's one of the most ridiculous pieces of propaganda around.

If we had spent the money we wasted in Iraq, building more high speed rail, natural gas for transportation, solar farms, wind, and investing in technologically advanced builoding methods, we would have probably cut our oil needs by at least one third, or more.

Everytime we have a President, who works to get the country away frol dependence on fosile fuels, he is beaten out by another Republican, who rips the solar panels off the W.H. roof, and makes a joke about alternative fuels and conservation.

Republicans vote against every and any effort to raise cafe' standards, and Bush immediately removed his father's cloean air and cloean water regulations, and removed C;lintn's pressure on the automobile indsutry for higher cafe' standards.

Yes, we should be building more nuclear power plants, AND investing in other resources, but instead Bush put us into the Middle East, for oil contracts. Where might we have been right now if the Automobile Industry had been forced to get competitive with foreign auto industries, buildling cars with less fuel requirements?


The powerful oil industry, and the powerful Israeli lobby, and the American Entereprise Institute, were pushing for war with Iraq for over a decade. MONEY! Without conscience.

That's my view, friend...we could have built automobiles that were running on less than one third of the amount of gasoline they have been suing for the last three decades, if not for Republican policies. The Grand Oil Party, will not allow it.

Did you ever see the movie, "Who Killed The Electric Car?"

G.

pooltchr
10-16-2010, 10:29 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

It's the oil industry that refuses to buid more refineries here.

G. </div></div>

I'm sure the oil industry would love to build more refineries here. But the government won't issue the permits. And if they did, where do you propose we build them? If Exxon wanted to build one on the Maryland eastern shore, would you support it?

Steve

sack316
10-16-2010, 01:21 PM
You've said yourself many times how all the oil companies want is profit. Not many people will argue with you on that point, myself included.

So, if it were more profitable to obtain oil stateside (where allowable, mind you) don't you think they would do it?

But alas, it is not. As even you will say, it is more economically feasible for oil companies to get it from the Middle East.

The question then becomes "why?". If the gov't, both past and present, wanted to get off the teet of the Saudi's there are plenty of ways to do so. According to the Department of Interior's Bureau of Land Management we have an estimated 31 BILLION barrels of oil resources onshore alone. 62% of these resources are unavailable and "off-limits".

Now granted, it does go both ways. The oil companies could choose to absorb more cost and sacrifice to do what they can with what is available stateside... just as the gov't could budge a little on what is available. But alas, neither side will give I fear.

So still, I ask, which is it you would choose? Continue "as is" getting most of our oil imported... or do what we can stateside, stop doing business with Saudi's... but most likely do so at the expense of our economy... as gas prices would (in my own personal estimate) triple or quadruple at least here?

Sack

Qtec
10-16-2010, 06:33 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Why Does The Right Support Terrorism </div></div>

.......because they hate America /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/eek.gif

Its all about money.

It goes like this.

The US spends as much on defence as the rest of the world put together!
They used to be able to justify this huge spending when the USSR was still a country but now they have gone and went Capitalistic..........no threat.

Wait, there´s always those Commie Chinese.........AaaaaaaaaaaaaaRgh.......they don´t want to invade, they just want to sell us stuff!
















........and then there was 9-11.



An endless war against an invisible enemy.


Q

pooltchr
10-16-2010, 06:57 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> The US spends as much on defence as the rest of the world put together!
They used to be able to justify this huge spending when the USSR was still a country but now they have gone and went Capitalistic..........no threat.

Q



</div></div>

Absolutely correct, Q. The US should scale back their military and just be concerned with our own boarders. And when some rogue dictator with nukes decides to take over your little country, who will you be calling for help?

Steve

Qtec
10-16-2010, 07:27 PM
It really sounds like you have OUR best interests at heart.....chuckle.

Q

Qtec
10-16-2010, 07:40 PM
Imagine 9/11 never happened. Who is the big enemy, Iran...........geez, they haven't even got a bomb yet. They alone can hardly justify the huge Defence budget.

Q

pooltchr
10-16-2010, 08:42 PM
Laugh if you like. The US military has done more to protect the free world than any other country in history. Would you prefer to be speaking German?

Like I said, I would be fine with the US letting a few of the little European countries fall...then maybe the others would wake up.

Im sick of hearing how foreigners hate the US, and hearing foreigners constantly knock the US economic system, and then watch their governments come to us with hat-in-hand to get whatever they can from us.

You may not like us, but you sure like what we can do for you.

Steve

Stretch
10-17-2010, 01:17 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> The US spends as much on defence as the rest of the world put together!
They used to be able to justify this huge spending when the USSR was still a country but now they have gone and went Capitalistic..........no threat.

Q



</div></div>

Absolutely correct, Q. The US should scale back their military and just be concerned with our own boarders. And when some rogue dictator with nukes decides to take over your little country, who will you be calling for help?

Steve </div></div>

The ghostbusters? St.

LWW
10-17-2010, 02:25 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It's so easy to tell us what is wrong, but what they seem to lack is an actual answer to what we should be doing.

Steve </div></div>

Incorrect.

She believes we should be doing whatever the party says we should be doing.

If the party said tomorrow that we should "DRILL BABY DRILL ... AND ANYONE IN FAVOR OF ANYTHING ELSE IS AN ENEMY OF THE PEOPLE!" she would turn on a dime and shout the new "TRUTH" from her soapbox.

LWW

Gayle in MD
10-18-2010, 06:23 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sack316</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You've said yourself many times how all the oil companies want is profit. Not many people will argue with you on that point, myself included.

So, if it were more profitable to obtain oil stateside (where allowable, mind you) don't you think they would do it?

But alas, it is not. As even you will say, it is more economically feasible for oil companies to get it from the Middle East.

<span style="color: #FF0000"> Because they dont care about the country, or how much terrorism they are financing, because they, and they're other, war profiteering no bid contracting pigs, make as much money off war ad they do off oil, when the Middle East is destablized.

I have to laugh when certain RW nutjobs on this forum, write, follow the money, LMAO! If they had the intellect, or the independence from Republican Propafanda to "Fololow the Money" we wouldn't be in this mess in the first placed.

Republicans are the war mongers....not Democratics, the Dems are the ones that have to be LIED TO ABOUT TH </span>

The question then becomes "why?". If the gov't, both past and present, wanted to get off the teet of the Saudi's there are plenty of ways to do so. According to the Department of Interior's Bureau of Land Management we have an estimated 31 BILLION barrels of oil resources onshore alone. 62% of these resources are unavailable and "off-limits".

Now granted, it does go both ways. The oil companies could choose to absorb more cost and sacrifice to do what they can with what is available stateside... just as the gov't could budge a little on what is available. But alas, neither side will give I fear.


<span style="color: #FF0000"> <span style='font-size: 11pt'> When President Obama di budge on opeing up more drilling, every rightie on thie forum, bashed him for it, Remember? </span> </span>

So still, I ask, which is it you would choose? Continue "as is" getting most of our oil imported... or do what we can stateside, stop doing business with Saudi's...

<span style="color: #FF0000"> <span style='font-size: 14pt'> We should not buy ANY oil from the Mid East. NONE! All that we do when we do so, is finance terrorists, and terrorism. Remember where most of the 9/11 terrorists were actually born and raised???? </span> </span>
but most likely do so at the expense of our economy...


<span style="color: #FF0000"> <span style='font-size: 14pt'> Democratic Presidents, beginning with Carter, have pushed for conservation, and renewable fuels, Jimmy Carter, tried, Reagan threw it out. Clinton tried, Bush threw it all out. They don't call Republicans The Grand Oil Party, for nothing.

Let me ask you, how much could American CAN DO have accomplished in freeing us form oil dependence if not for Republicans being in the back pocket of OPEC ???? OPEC, was always a far greater enemy to America's economy, than any Republican prosecuted, "Shock Doctrine" to justify war in the M.D.

Why? China as well, Why? Go back in time and take a look at all of those pictures of Reagan, Bush,Bush, Rice, Rumsfeld, Cheney, all of them bowing and hugging the Saudi Sheiks, shaking hands with the oil cartel, including Saddam. WTH do you think that was all about? Peace Keeping? LMAO!

All you have to do is watch how the leading Repubs act anytime democratics try to push through legislation to force the polluters into paying a price for polluting the environment. There is one, only one, Repub who admits to the human contribution to climate change, even though 90% of the global scientific community, is warning us of the dire circumstances that we are facing. </span> </span>

as gas prices would (in my own personal estimate) triple or quadruple at least here?

Sack </div></div>


<span style="color: #FF0000"> <span style='font-size: 14pt'> Wake up Sack! They have already done just that, as they blocked every attempt at renewables, and freedom from oil dependence. Republicans going all the way back to the late sixties, and early seventies, have continued to be more and more heavily invested in Middle East oil! Special Interests....same Special Interests ARE the Tea Party.

G. </span> </span>

sack316
10-18-2010, 08:56 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
<span style="color: #FF0000"> <span style='font-size: 11pt'> When President Obama di budge on opeing up more drilling, every rightie on thie forum, bashed him for it, Remember? </span> </span> </div></div>

http://www.billiardsdigest.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=302350

Nope, not every righty. That's where I created a "bravo Obama" thread (above), remember? In fact I found a few threads where that discussion came into play, and the righties on the forum were happy---but skeptical of his commitment to it.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Let me ask you, how much could American CAN DO have accomplished in freeing us form oil dependence if not for Republicans being in the back pocket of OPEC ???? OPEC, was always a far greater enemy to America's economy, than any Republican prosecuted, "Shock Doctrine" to justify war in the M.D. </div></div>

I can see the validity in this point. I'd also suggest learning about who Dr. Khalid Abdullah Tario Al-Mansour is, what he does, who he is aligned with... and our current president's association with this man.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sack316</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So still, I ask, which is it you would choose? Continue "as is" getting most of our oil imported... or do what we can stateside, stop doing business with Saudi's...
<u>but most likely do so at the expense of our economy</u>...</div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">[color:#FF0000] [size:14pt] [b]We should not buy ANY oil from the Mid East. NONE! All that we do when we do so, is finance terrorists, and terrorism. Remember where most of the 9/11 terrorists were actually born and raised????

Democratic Presidents, <u>beginning with Carter</u>...</div></div>

Oh yeah, that's definitely what we need... the oil and gas situation to resemble something like what was going on in the Carter administration. Thanks for proving my point /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

Sack

Deeman3
10-18-2010, 09:29 AM
Yep, Carter really showed those Arabs a thing or two about their oil and the hostages they held, right? /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

sack316
10-18-2010, 01:28 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Deeman3</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Yep, Carter really showed those Arabs a thing or two about their oil and the hostages they held, right? /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif </div></div>

lol yep, they sure learned their lesson and worked out just peachy on our end /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif

Sack

Gayle in MD
10-18-2010, 02:45 PM
Sack,
Carter was trying to get the country on board in conservation. He warned us about our growing dependence on foreign oil.

It was the Neocons who were pusing us into the Middle Eat for decades.

Carter was right. Republicans have protected the oil industry for thirty years.
Why do you think they, and the oil corporations, deny human impact on global warming?

G.

Gayle in MD
10-18-2010, 02:47 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Deeman3</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Yep, Carter really showed those Arabs a thing or two about their oil and the hostages they held, right? /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif </div></div>

Carter got them out. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smirk.gif

pooltchr
10-18-2010, 03:22 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Deeman3</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Yep, Carter really showed those Arabs a thing or two about their oil and the hostages they held, right? /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif </div></div>

Carter got them out. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smirk.gif </div></div>

Don't I remember seeing pictures of Carter welcoming the hostages back home????????

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif

If history doesn't suit you, you just go ahead and re-write it.

Steve

sack316
10-18-2010, 03:38 PM
444 days in captivity for the hostages, and numerous failed rescue attempts. Carter did a heck of a job.

20 minutes into the Reagan presidency, and things were already getting better /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif

Sack

Gayle in MD
10-19-2010, 07:08 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sack316</div><div class="ubbcode-body">444 days in captivity for the hostages, and numerous failed rescue attempts. Carter did a heck of a job.

20 minutes into the Reagan presidency, and things were already getting better /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif

Sack </div></div>

Carter got them out, not Reagan.http://www.williambowles.info/ini/oct-surprise.html

G.

Deeman3
10-19-2010, 07:52 AM
/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

Only Gayle would remember the biggest embarrassment of the Carter Administration as him getting them out.

Carter, long gas lines, Irianian Hostages, Billy pissin on the White House lawn and he a Rosilyn being the only two allowed ot drink alcohol in the White House. Those were the successful, heady days of the Democratic Party, right? /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

Gayle in MD
10-19-2010, 10:00 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Deeman3</div><div class="ubbcode-body">:)

Only Gayle would remember the biggest embarrassment of the Carter Administration as him getting them out.




Carter, long gas lines, Irianian Hostages, Billy pissin on the White House lawn and he a Rosilyn being the only two allowed ot drink alcohol in the White House. Those were the successful, heady days of the Democratic Party, right? /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

</div></div>

The gas lines? You don't remember the gas lines in the Nixon administration, and continuing in the Ford administration?

You don't remember Nixon's criminal administration, most of them going to jail? Nixon resigning in disgrace, after his crimes DID rise to the level of impeachment?

You don't remember Reagan's arms for hostages, in secret?

Very convenient for your own TEAM, wouldn't you say?. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smirk.gif

G.

pooltchr
10-19-2010, 12:08 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Deeman3</div><div class="ubbcode-body">:)

Only Gayle would remember the biggest embarrassment of the Carter Administration as him getting them out.




Carter, long gas lines, Irianian Hostages, Billy pissin on the White House lawn and he a Rosilyn being the only two allowed ot drink alcohol in the White House. Those were the successful, heady days of the Democratic Party, right? /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

</div></div>

The gas lines? You don't remember the gas lines in the Nixon administration, and continuing in the Ford administration?

<span style="color: #FF0000">No, I remember gas lines during Carter's administration. If fact, I remember them very well, as I remember where I was living when it happened.

Which administration had to come up with the Odd/even gas rationing plan??????????????????? </span>

G. </div></div>

<span style="color: #FF0000">The rest of your post is just your typical attempt to divert attention away from a topic that is obviously uncomfortable for you to discuss.

Steve </span>

Gayle in MD
10-19-2010, 12:15 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Deeman3</div><div class="ubbcode-body">:)

Only Gayle would remember the biggest embarrassment of the Carter Administration as him getting them out.

Carter, long gas lines, Irianian Hostages, Billy pissin on the White House lawn and he a Rosilyn being the only two allowed ot drink alcohol in the White House. Those were the successful, heady days of the Democratic Party, right? /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

</div></div>


http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/02/on-c-span-histo.html

This morning we learn that C-SPAN has surveyed historians to again come up with a President's Day ranking of commanders-in-chief.

Fittingly, for this Abe-a-licious year, the 16th president comes in at #1, with Honest Abe Lincoln retaining his top slot.

He's followed by George Washington, FDR, Teddy Roosevelt, and Harry S Truman in the top five slots. JFK, Thomas Jefferson, Dwight D. Eisenhower, Woodrow Wilson, and Ronald Reagan finish out the Top Ten.

The worst president, as judged by the panel of historians, is James Buchanan.

Second worst -- Lincoln's successor, Andrew Johnson.

Third worst - Franklin Pierce. Fourth worst - William Henry Harrison. Fifth worst - Warren G. Harding. Sixth worst - Millard Fillmore.

And there he is, George W. Bush, ranked as 7th worst. (8th worst is John Tyler.)

Reagan, Clinton and George H.W. Bush have all advanced in rankings since the last time C-SPAN did this survey, in 2000. Bill Clinton back then was ranked 21st; he's now 15th. Reagan went from 11 to 10. Bush Sr. went from 20 to 18.



http://thinkprogress.org/2010/07/01/scholars-bush-worst-president/

Presidential scholars: Bush is the worst president of the modern era, bottom five of all time.
Since 1982, the Siena Research Institute has polled presidential scholars on whom they view to be best and worst presidents in American history, based on a variety of issues from “integrity” to economic stewardship. This year’s poll of 238 scholars found that President Franklin Roosevelt was once again ranked on top, joined by Presidents Lincoln, Jefferson, Washington, and Teddy Roosevelt to complete the top five. However, President George W. Bush did not fare well since the last poll was conducted in 2002. He dropped 16 places to 39th, making him the worst president since Warren Harding died in office in 1923, and one of the bottom five of all time, according to the experts:
<span style='font-size: 20pt'>
Today, just one year after leaving office, the former president has
found himself in the bottom five at 39th rated especially poorly in handling the economy, communication, ability to compromise, foreign policy accomplishments and intelligence. Rounding out the bottom five are four presidents that have held that dubious distinction each time the survey has been conducted: Andrew Johnson, James Buchanan, Warren G. Harding, and Franklin Pierce.

Bush was rated second from the bottom on “intelligence,” “foreign policy
accomplishments,” and “handling of U.S. economy.”</span> This despite promises from Bush supporters that “history will be very kind” to the former president, as his Attorney General John Ashcroft put it. Bush’s father’s legacy “held constant” in this year’s poll, with George H.W. Bush coming in at 22nd. President Reagan “dropped two places from 16th overall in 2002 to 18th today.” President Obama was ranked 15th. (HT: Taegan Goddard)


<span style="color: #FF0000">Since you voted for Bush twice, your opinions about Carter don't impress me.

Sorry.

G. </span> /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

pooltchr
10-19-2010, 12:34 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

<span style='font-size: 20pt'> Bill Clinton he's now 15th. Reagan went from 11 to 10. </span> /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif </div></div>

So tell us which is wrong....the poll, or your personal opinions???


Steve

sack316
10-19-2010, 01:23 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

Carter got them out, not Reagan.http://www.williambowles.info/ini/oct-surprise.html

G. </div></div>

If Carter had any kind of success in dealing with that situation, he probably would have won re-election. This debacle of his lack of effectiveness is one of the main reasons credited to him losing.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">In the United States, failure to resolve the crisis contributed to Ronald Reagan's defeat of Carter in the presidential election. <u>After the election</u>, with the assistance of Algerian intermediaries, successful negotiations began.

Read more: Iran hostage crisis — Infoplease.com http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/history/A0825448.html#ixzz12pmYdgXh </div></div>

Sack

sack316
10-19-2010, 01:25 PM
btw, note the excerpt above is referenced from one of the same sources used in your previous link: G. Sick, All Fall Down (1985)....

Sack

LWW
10-19-2010, 01:43 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Carter got them out, not Reagan.http://www.williambowles.info/ini/oct-surprise.html

G. </div></div>

Now you are channelling hippiepool and the crazy CT's?

To believe Gee's link one must believe that, immediately following the Carter-Reagan debate of 10/28/1980, George Herbert Walker Bush (A man of 6'5" stature.) and Richard Allen crammed into a single pilot's seat (Made for a pilot under 6' in stature.) and flew an SR-71 Blackbird non stop to Paris, France for meetings with the Iranians at am unknown location.

Only a handful of US bases could land such a plane. Flying supersonic over populated France would have been widely noticed and higher ups in the French air force would have to be in on the deal to stand down French forces, even though the French despised Reagan and supported Carter and had given Khomeini asylum.

None of the military personnel have ever came forward. No reports of supersonic over flight were ever reported. No evidence of a flight from Iran to France have ever been offered ... even though such a flight would have had to overfly Israeli air space.

The total "EYEWITNESS" evidence for this happening consists of a supposed US serviceman who called a talk show anonymously.

Oh, BTW, the dem controlled house conducted an investigation:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The House of Representatives’ 1993 report concluded “there is no credible evidence supporting any attempt by the Reagan presidential campaign—or persons associated with the campaign—to delay the release of the American hostages in Iran”. The task force Chairman Lee Hamilton also added that the vast majority of the sources and material reviewed by the committee were "wholesale fabricators or were impeached by documentary evidence".</div></div>

So did the dem controlled senate:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The US Senate’s 1992 report concluded that "by any standard, the credible evidence now known falls far short of supporting the allegation of an agreement between the Reagan campaign and Iran to delay the release of the hostages"</div></div>

So did NEWSWEEK:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Newsweek magazine also ran an investigation, and they said that most, if not all, of the charges made were groundless. Specifically, Newsweek found little evidence that the United States had transferred arms to Iran prior to Iran Contra, was able to account for Bill Casey's whereabouts when he was allegedly at the Madrid meeting, saying that he was at a conference in London. </div></div>

So did NEW REPUBLIC:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Steven Emerson and Jesse Furman of The New Republic, also looked into the allegations and found “the conspiracy as currently postulated is a total fabrication”. They were unable to verify any of the evidence presented by Sick and supporters, finding them to be inconsistent and contradictory in nature. They also pointed out that nearly every witness of Sick had either been indicted or were under investigation by the Department of Justice. Like the Newsweek investigation they had also debunked the claims of Reagan election campaign officials being in Paris during the timeframe Sick claimed they had been, contradicting Sick’s sources. </div></div>
MYTH BUSTED (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/October_surprise_conspiracy_theory#cite_note-22)

LWW

Gayle in MD
10-19-2010, 01:46 PM
I see you didn't read the link I provided about the release of the hostages.

Carter was responsible for the negotiations, not Reagan. Reagan just "Acted" like he did it all.

Reagan was the beginning of the end of democracy. Reagan was the beginning of the onslaught against the Middle Class Americans.

We can readily see where Republican policies have led us.

Why did they try so hard to stop the 9/11 investigations
Why did they out Valarie?

Why did they fear monger throughout the Bush Administration?

Why do they vote consistantly against campaign finance disclosures?

Why did the block all regulatory strengthening to safegaurd our environment?

Why do they fight so hard to prevent having subpeona power to investigate the BP fiasco?

If you can't see, how Bush's ownership society gave the message, we won't be watching you very closely, even after one of the NY FEC regulators told the NYT, that they didn't take any action, mostly because it was against the President's policies, to do anything to regulate the markets, I don't know how we can discuss any of it.

How many times did Reagan raise taxes???? I can tell you, six times. Bush senior, raised them also, remember "Read My Lips?".

Republican policies have destroyed this country. I've been watching it far longer than you have, before you wre even born, and believe me, I've seen it all.


I can't believe that the same people who were completely silent, and/or attacking all of our protests agains Bush's multi illegal activities throughout the Bush administration, and even watched him borrow us into oblivian, and spend us, into a pit, with the help of the spendoholic "Earmark recond breaking Republican majority, without one single veto, were so stupid that they thought that ANY president could turn this mess around in under two years!!!!


Bush walked out leaving the worst multi messes, EVER. All of the historians were sying that during the election.

Obama has saved millions of jobs, millions, and created jobs, and managed to get the beginning of a health care commitment, comething that all previous presidents, failed to do.l

Please, dont take that position, and then turn right around and accuse ME of partisanship! No president, has
ever inherited so many colossal messes as president Obama....even Bill Clinton, couldn't have pulled us out of THIS REPUBLICAN MESS, any faster.

The Obama nit-pickers, all of whom voted for Bush, TWICE, overlooked every failure and infraction during the Repiglican free for all.

Talk about partisan! None of you should ever even write the word, IMO!


G.

sack316
10-19-2010, 03:06 PM
Quite a post, but what did most of that have to do with Carter NOT being responsible for the release of hostages? Carter screwed up the situation for over a year! And no, Reagan is not responsible for their release either... I'm not saying he is. But losing the election was the closest thing to contributing to their release that Carter did!

Sack

p.s. did read through some of your link, but admittedly not all of it. Please do be so kind to point out the part that contradicts my last post... which was indeed taken from a source used within your link. Thanks!

LWW
10-19-2010, 04:39 PM
Rational discussion with agitprops is impossible.

LWW

sack316
10-19-2010, 04:48 PM
well I have now learned a new word today... thanks! /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

Sack

pooltchr
10-19-2010, 11:22 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sack316</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Quite a post, but what did most of that have to do with Carter NOT being responsible for the release of hostages? </div></div>

She thinks if she throws out a dozen different Dem talking points, you will forget the original topic...the one in which she knows she is completely wrong, and probably wishing she had never made such an ignorant comment in the first place.

Steve

LWW
10-20-2010, 02:24 AM
That's what agitprops do.

LWW

Gayle in MD
10-21-2010, 01:15 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sack316</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Quite a post, but what did most of that have to do with Carter NOT being responsible for the release of hostages? Carter screwed up the situation for over a year! And no, Reagan is not responsible for their release either... I'm not saying he is. But losing the election was the closest thing to contributing to their release that Carter did!

Sack

p.s. did read through some of your link, but admittedly not all of it. Please do be so kind to point out the part that contradicts my last post... which was indeed taken from a source used within your link. Thanks! </div></div>


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Final months
The death of the Shah on July 27 and the invasion of Iran by Iraq in September 1980 made Iran more receptive to the idea of resolving the hostage crisis. <span style='font-size: 20pt'>Despite losing the November 1980 presidential election to Ronald Reagan, President Jimmy Carter, in the final days of his office, negotiated the release of the hostages through Secretary of State Warren Christopher, Algerian intermediaries and members of the Iranian government.</span>In the closing days of Carter's Presidency, Algerian diplomat Abdulkarim Ghuraib opened fruitful, albeit biased, negotiations between the U.S. and Iran. This resulted in the "Algiers Accords" of January 19, 1981, which entailed Iran's commitment to free the hostages immediately.

Point I: Non-Intervention in Iranian Affairs, "The United States pledges that it is and from now on will be the policy of the United States not to intervene, directly or indirectly, politically or militarily, in Iran's internal affairs." Other provisions of the Algiers Accords were the unfreezing of $8 billion of Iranian assets and immunity from lawsuits Iran might have faced.

On January 20, 1981, minutes after Reagan was sworn in as President, the hostages were formally released into U.S. custody, having spent 444 days in captivity. The hostages were flown to Algeria as a symbolic gesture for the help of that government in resolving the crisis. The flight continued to Rhein-Main Air Base in West Germany, where former President Carter, acting as emissary, received them. After medical check-ups and debriefings, they took a second flight to Stewart Air National Guard Base in Newburgh, New York, with a refueling stop in Shannon, Ireland, where they were greeted by a large crowd. From Newburgh they travelled by bus to the United States Military Academy, receiving a heroes' welcome all along the route. Ten days after their release, the former hostages were given a ticker tape parade through the Canyon of Heroes in New York City.

http://www.worldlingo.com/ma/enwiki/en/Iran_hostage_crisis
</div></div>

<span style="color: #FF0000">President Carter Negotiated the release of the hostages.

Actually, I'm surprised that you didn't know this. Most people in the Carter administration, including his wife, have written in their books, about the negotiations, and President Carter, his Administration, blamed his unwavering attention to getting the hostages out, for his failed campaign.

The right, IMO, seems to admire politicians who break laws, and get away with it. Use the politics of persoal destruction. Lie to the American people, and it should be very obvious to all, that it is always the republican party, that protects our most damaging, greedy, destructive, corporate lawbreaking pigs.

Why else would Republicans have all voted in a block, to block subpoena power, to investigate BP's negligence?

Why is Kock Bros., two of the most polluting pigs in the country, be financing Tea Party Idiots, into office.



At any rate, RR, who committed Treason, like Bush II and like Nixon, did NOT negotiate the release of the Iranian hostages, President CARTER negotiated the release of the hostages. It is a very well known FACT.


G.</span>

LWW
10-21-2010, 02:12 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It really sounds like you have OUR best interests at heart.....chuckle.

Q </div></div>

If it wasn't for our blood and treasure the first time you would all be wearing spiked hats and nifty knicker while singing praise to Kaiser Wilhelm.

If it wasn't for our blood and treasure the second time you would all be working in slave labor camps.

LWW

LWW
10-21-2010, 02:12 AM
That was just precious.

LWW

LWW
10-21-2010, 02:16 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">RR did NOT negotiate the release, President CARTER negotiated the release of the hostages. It iw a very well known FACT.


G.[/color] </div></div>

According to your link, Jimmuh Cahtuh negotiated the release in exchange for illegal arms and technology shipments to Iran.

That would make Jimmuh Cahtuh guilty of treason.

Do you actually want to take the position that Jimmuh Cahtuh should be in prison?

LWW

sack316
10-21-2010, 04:59 AM
interesting take on 'facts'... odd how the excerpt highlighted there from this wiki is one of the very few portions of the article that is NOT cited from any source.

At any rate... IF (big if) Carter is indeed the one responsible for successful negotiations, then it is Carter who began the process of shipping illegal arms and technology to Iran. After all, that (along with the release of frozen funds) was a major part of "the deal". Another one of those "well known FACTS", as you put it.

Sack

LWW
10-21-2010, 05:01 PM
Only through extreme use of doublethink can Gee explain that one away.

LWW

Gayle in MD
10-22-2010, 01:31 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sack316</div><div class="ubbcode-body">interesting take on 'facts'... odd how the excerpt highlighted there from this wiki is one of the very few portions of the article that is NOT cited from any source.

At any rate... IF (big if) Carter is indeed the one responsible for successful negotiations, then it is Carter who began the process of shipping illegal arms and technology to Iran. After all, that (along with the release of frozen funds) was a major part of "the deal". Another one of those "well known FACTS", as you put it.

Sack </div></div>

Ronald Reagan, who became president in 1981, repudiated what little survived of the Carter arms policy and promised to expand U.S. military aid to threatened allies abroad. His administration's revised, pro-sales stance was initially spelled out in a speech by Undersecretary of State JamesL. Buckley before the Aerospace Industries Association on 21 May 1981. Rejecting the notion that arms sales are "inherently evil or morally reprehensible," Buckley affirmed that "this administration believes that arms transfers, judiciously applied, can complement and supplement our own defense efforts." These views were incorporated into a new presidential directive on arms transfers, signed by Reagan on 8 July 1981.

In contrast to the Carter directive on arms transfers, the Reagan policy did not portray the global arms flow as a potential threat to international peace and stability. Rather, U.S. arms exports were described as a vital adjunct to America's efforts to counter (what was seen as) the growing power and assertiveness of the Soviet Union. As Undersecretary Buckley explained on 21 May, "We are faced not only with the need to rebuild and modernize our own military forces, but also to help other nations in the free world to rebuild theirs."

In line with this outlook, Reagan repudiated the arms-export ceiling set by President Carter and abolished the ban on sales of high-tech weapons to friendly Third World nations. The new administration also eased the repayment terms for any U.S. arms purchased by developing countries with credits supplied through the Foreign Military Sales (FMS) program. And, in a move that was eagerly sought by American arms manufacturers, Reagan rescinded the "leprosy letter" of 31 August 1977, and instructed U.S. diplomatic personnel to assist American military firms in securing contracts abroad.

As a result of these and similar initiatives, U.S. arms exports soared during the Reagan era. According to the Department of Defense, military sales under the FMS program jumped from $8.2 billion in FY 1981 (the last year affected by the Carter policy) to $20.9 billion in FY 1982—a one-year increase of 155 percent. In addition to condoning a dollar increase in military exports, the Reagan administration approved the sale of some of America's most sophisticated aircraft, missiles, and tanks to Israel, Saudi Arabia, and other favored clients in the developing areas. All told, the United States exported approximately $92 billion worth of arms and military equipment during the Reagan era.

For the most part, President Reagan enjoyed strong congressional support for his efforts to boost U.S. arms sales abroad. He did, however, encounter significant opposition to a number of specific transactions. Most notable in this regard was his 1981 plan to sell five Advanced Warning and Control Systems (AWACS) aircraft, along with other sophisticated weapons, to Saudi Arabia for $8.5 billion—the largest single U.S. arms package until that date. Many members of Congress, including a substantial number of Republicans, announced their intention to block the AWACS sale in accordance with the veto provisions of the Arms Export Control Act, on the grounds that it would pose a potential threat to the security of Israel. Only after a major lobbying campaign by the president was the White House able to defeat the veto effort in the Senate by the narrow vote of 52–48.

Aside from the AWACS sales to Saudi Arabia, the arms transactions of the Reagan era that provoked the most controversy involved the covert delivery of weapons to anticommunist insurgents in countries ruled by allies of Moscow. As part of his drive to combat Soviet influence in the developing areas, President Reagan authorized the transfer of arms and ammunition to the Islamic mujahideen in Afghanistan, the rebel forces of Jonas Savimbi in Angola, and the anti-Sandinista contras in Nicaragua. Although these efforts were supported by some in Congress, the covert arms program provoked a major national crisis when it was discovered in 1986 that the National Security Council staff had sold U.S. anti-tank missiles to archenemy Iran, then ruled by the Ayatollah Khomeini, in order to finance arms deliveries to the contras. In what became known as the Iran-Contra affair, the administration's covert arms program came under intense congressional scrutiny and was subjected to a number of severe constraints.



Read more: http://www.americanforeignrelations.com/...l#ixzz134NJXhHA (http://www.americanforeignrelations.com/A-D/Arms-Transfers-and-Trade-Carter-and-reagan.html#ixzz134NJXhHA)



http://www.bestandworst.com/r/97223.htm

"US PRESIDENT REAGAN SHOULD HAVE BEEN IMPEACHED" DO YOU AGREE?

[+] serious ballot by Socrates
created Tue Jul 11, 06
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reagan’s master plan was to sell arms to Iran… the war with Iraq gave Iran an insatiable appetite for American arms and ammunition… The bonus was that the Iranians were willing to pay double and triple the value of the weapons; the profits would be diverted to the Contras in Nicaragua and provide them with a permanent source of funding. Long-term funding, in fact, as Reagan was simultaneously supplying Iraq with critical military intelligence, gathered by American spy satellites, which would ensure that even with the American arms, Iran could not win the war. Her need for arms might never end.

In implementing his plan, Reagan operated in the utmost secrecy. He failed to inform the State Department or his Secretary of State of the new policy. Thus he failed to build a base in the bureaucracy for the policy… In public… he continued to insist that… all nations impose on arms embargo on Iran, as he said the United States was doing.

… So at the beginning of 1986, Regan increased his pressure on Congress to get behind a policy of aid for the Contras. He demanded $100 million for ‘humanitarian aid’ and support… But he failed… the Congress narrowly defeated the Administration package. Regan funded the Contras anyway, through the arms sale to Iran and money privately raised…

In the fall of 1986… Attorney General Edwin Meese revealed parts of the Iran/Contras scam, and suddenly Reagan had a scandal within his Administration that rivalled Watergate for importance… Shocking closures were followed by incomprehensible statements. Reagan initially claimed that only a “few strictly defensive weapons” were shipped to Iran, denied that any third country had been involved, asserted that “no US law has been or will be violated”, and insisted that “our policy of not making concessions to terrorists remains intact.” Two days later he confessed that he had entered into discussions with the Iranians in the hope that they could lead to the release of the American hostages in Lebanon. The following day he said that it was “utterly false” to charge that the weapons he sent to Iran were a “ransom”. From this low point, things got worse. Secretary of State Schultz said he had opposed sensing any arms to Iran, that he had not been consulted about this major shift in American foreign policy, and that American ambassadors in the Middle-east were reporting directly to the White House ignoring the State Department. A week later, on November 25, 1986, Regan relieved his National Security Advisor, Admiral John Poindexter, and his assistant, Lieutenant Colonel Oliver North, who directed the Iran/Contra program for the NSC, because “serious questions of propriety” had been raised. Simultaneously, Reagan praised North as “an American hero”. North began immediately shredding documents in his White House office…

By the Spring of 1987, a series of investigations were underway. Former Senator John Tower was the head of an independent committee, appointed by Reagan, to look into the affair. The Tower Commission reported that laws had been violated, pointed to various serious flaws in the Reagan administration’s foreign policy structure, found the President negligent in meeting his duties, but stopped short of charging him with illegal actions. The Congress meanwhile created a select joint committee to conduct hearings. These hearings soon rivalled the Watergate hearings for public attention, as they were telecast daily and continued to reveal additional details of the scam. It was a sorry and sordid sight. Eventually, the congressional Iran/Contra committee concluded that in selling arms for hostages and in diverting some of the profits to the Contras, the Administration had brought “confusion and disarray at the highest levels of government, evasive dishonesty and inordinate secrecy, deception, and disdain for the law.” President Reagan, the committee charged, abdicated his “moral and legal responsibilities to take care that the laws be faithfully executed.”

Strong words, in some ways stronger than the impeachment charges brought against Richard Nixon. Why, then, did Congress make no move to impeach Reagan? One reason was timing- he had less than two years to go and it hardly seemed worth the effort. Besides, the Democrats did not want to run in 1988 against an incumbent President George Bush, nor did the Democrats want to be known as the party that went around impeaching Presidents. So Reagan survived, barely, but his Administration had been seriously crippled.”