Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
In August 2001, President Bush signed the ILSA Extension Act into law. The final version left open a slim possibility of future change or termination of the legislation upon the recommendation of the President and implementing legislation by the Congress. When signing the bill, President Bush took advantage of this provision by saying: “I think we should review sanctions frequently to assess their effectiveness and continued suitability.” In view of events post September 11 and references to Iran as a member of the “Axis of Evil,” such change is unlikely to come any time soon.
And it doesn't take a political analyst to recognize hyperpartisan hackery.
That was your deadline - I don't think W ever issued a deadline, otherwise you'd link to it.
So...he gave Saddam 48 hours to leave and then when he didn't leave, Bush attacked his country? Do I have that right? Seems THAT is the way to deal with a deadline - if you don't meet it, there will be consequences.
Unlike the lamb obama, who can't muster the courage/stones to do anything about his missed deadlines. He should really stop making a fool of himself.
I agree with the last.
Quote:
I know how you hate historical articles, BUT anyway, what point were you trying to make on the amount of sanctions again?
Deadlines. She is talking about meaningless deadlines.
Quote:
On Iran, she deemed the president's deadlines "meaningless" and his speeches "pointless." She said that Mr. Obama's response to the protests following that country's election suggested he was "much more concerned about whether the mullahs in Iran would be offended by his actions."
All of it. It's nothing but her opinion. Backed up by nothing but her opinion. There isn't so much as the mere hint of a fact anywhere in that partisan screed. She's griping in front of a bunch of Obama-haters who probably paid admission to listen to this lightweight. And you think it's something substantive.
All of it. It's nothing but her opinion. Backed up by nothing but her opinion. There isn't so much as the mere hint of a fact anywhere in that partisan screed. She's griping in front of a bunch of Obama-haters who probably paid admission to listen to this lightweight. And you think it's something substantive.
Like I said before, you aren't very good at this.
Well, how meaningful is that, just your opinion, without facts to back it up.
Good thing she has a national platform to voice her opinions.
Well, how meaningful is that, just your opinion, without facts to back it up.
Good thing she has a national platform to voice her opinions.
Facts, you say?
You have quite a library of threads in this forum. All saying the same thing. Offering opinions with no facts, except as scenery.
Her output is similar to yours.
Your threads (and Cheney's screed) are nothing more than standard right wing boiler plate that reduces down to nothing more profound than,
"I think Obama sucks. And if you don't think so too, then you're a terrorist loving leftist sheep who blindly worships that foreign Muslim Obama. And no one can refute what I say. Neener."
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Like I said, you're just not very good at this.
