How Do You Like Us Now?

> what light?
>
> Am I still an idiot if support him half heartedly? Maybe that makes me
> a half-wit. :) I don't know any politician who comes down on the same
> side of important issues as I do. I look for someone who's positions
> are most nearly the same as mine, or more like mine than their opponent.
> I can't imagine any guy in office doing everything 100% the way I want
> them to, or to satisfy any other constituent 100%. That's asking too
> much, Tom.
>
> Dave

Bush is so damn dumb...voted for him
twice tho. Probably do something
'similar' next time around (at least from
what I've seen lately).

I am so freakin' stupid that way.

What I need is someone smart to
tell me why I'm so dumb.

Usually, I check the Times, but I guess
I can just hang out here now.

If this was "OT" I would not have chimed in.
Hate this shit.

Love woodworking (and TW's work).

Lou

In article <1129334868.937416bc8905d7c7df271733e22e9bc8@teranews>, Tom Watson <[email protected]> wrote:
>Pay back is a bitch, Dougie.

Not sure what you mean by that, Tommie. I haven't been pissing and moaning
about off-topic posts.
>
>
>On Fri, 07 Oct 2005 12:46:02 GMT, [email protected] (Doug Miller)
>wrote:
>
>>In article <[email protected]>, Tom Watson
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>Not all that long ago.
>>>
>>>When Bush The Lesser began his military adventure in Iraq; guys like
>>>me and certain others of a historical bent were warning of the
>>>potential quagmire which we currently find ourselves in.
>>
>>Odd how you piss and moan so much over off-topic political posts, at least
>>from those with whom you disagree -- and then post this.
>Tom Watson - WoodDorker
>tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet (email)
>http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1/ (website)

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

Tom Watson wrote:
> Having lived through the Vietnam Era, the Watergate Era, the
> Iran-Contra Era, and now being firmly engaged in the worst Presidency
> that the United States of America has ever seen, I can only hope that
> those who have supported the current administration can see the light.

I must be losing my mind, participating in a political thread on the
wreck (which I have complained about often enough) and not even one
that has OT in the tite. Not to mention I am not even an American.
Sigh.

Anyway, since all these things were abundantly clear only a short while
ago when he was elected *again*, one can only assume the the light
remains out and will stay that way indefinitely. On the other hand,
even I would have had trouble electing Kerry (and I consider Kerry
right wingish, like most up here); it takes true skill at fucking up to
make Dubya look like a viable alternative.

I thought this was a woodworking forum. Why would I care what your
opinion on anything else would be? Come to think of it, I don't much
care what a self described dork thinks about woodworking either. Why
don't you stick with wordworking? And try real hard to stop being such
a know-it-all.

I thought this was a woodworking forum. Why would I care what your
opinion on anything else would be? Come to think of it, I don't much
care what a self described dork thinks about woodworking either. Why
don't you stick with wordworking? And try real hard to stop being such
a know-it-all.

Guess who wrote:
> On 6 Oct 2005 17:40:43 -0700, "Paul Kierstead"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >I must be losing my mind, participating in a political thread
>
> It's not a "political thread". It is a troll. If it was a political
> thread, it would be in a political conference. This is a woodworking
> conference. Anything not related to woodworking, looking for outside
> opinion, is a troll.


Hence the "I must be losing my mind". Troll, politics, I don't see the
difference regardless of the forum. "Discussion" of politics, in the
current climate, is pretty much non-existent; one even doubts whether
anyone is even trying to sway opinion rather then just bash away at
someone.

For that matter, there are a fair number of woodworking trolls (some
wonderfully subtle). The question is: How many posts will I make?
Answer: On the politics, only that one, which makes it only a weak
troll for me.

Boredom is a bitch.

Paul Kierstead wrote:
> Tom Watson wrote:
> > Having lived through the Vietnam Era, the Watergate Era, the
> > Iran-Contra Era, and now being firmly engaged in the worst Presidency
> > that the United States of America has ever seen, I can only hope that
> > those who have supported the current administration can see the light.
>
> I must be losing my mind, participating in a political thread on the
> wreck (which I have complained about often enough) and not even one
> that has OT in the tite. Not to mention I am not even an American.
> Sigh.
>
> Anyway, since all these things were abundantly clear only a short while
> ago when he was elected *again*, one can only assume the the light
> remains out and will stay that way indefinitely. On the other hand,
> even I would have had trouble electing Kerry (and I consider Kerry
> right wingish, like most up here); it takes true skill at fucking up to
> make Dubya look like a viable alternative.

I don't think all the fuck-ups were Kerry's The American public
accepted the grease job applied to Kerry's combat service, as a start.
It is a strange, strange situation when a draft dodger is able to make
a combat veteran look like a coward BECAUSE he has received medals for
heroism. The public bit, swallowed the hook, and we've got dipso in his
second term.

Tom,

Having lived through the Vietnam Era in parts of Viet Nam, working at
the White House during the Watergate Era and having been very close to
the circumstances around Oliver North and the Iran-Contra Era. I
disagree with you!

I am not advocating the death of young men and women. Far from it. I
lost enough good friends during Viet Nam. I don't think YOU Tom have
enough information to put yourself in the Presidents shoes. You can
spout off in your arm chair Presidential Quarterbacking but it does not
change what threats there may or will be to this country. Most of which
are not televised on the 5:00 pm news. If you know of them it's only
because they were leaked to the press.

I know politicians have a unique way of phucking things up. I know
there are enough people who will call them on it, too. But I think
history is going to have to judge this President. What information has
he gotten that was bad, what decisions were made in self interest, was
there a pureness in his desire?

You are welcome to your opinions Tom but I think you make yourself the
idiot for the time and place you choose to make your comments.

Roy

Boy, that sure comes across as "know-it-all." :')

Maybe you have a problem with the OP representing the view
of many Americans even if OT?

There's plenty for us to fix here before we go managing anyone else's
affairs, IMHO.

W attacked Iraq despite the intel generated by Hans Blix and the IAEA.
Maybe the IAEA got the Nobel for standing up to W & Co.? Good on 'em.

Quick war, on the cheap? Cheney says think decades.

J

Charlie Self wrote:
>
> I don't think all the fuck-ups were Kerry's The American public
> accepted the grease job applied to Kerry's combat service, as a start.
> It is a strange, strange situation when a draft dodger is able to make
> a combat veteran look like a coward BECAUSE he has received medals for
> heroism. The public bit, swallowed the hook, and we've got dipso in his
> second term.

You'll have to provide some specifics on that one, Charlie - until and
unless Hillary runs against him, Clinton has been on Kerry's side. I
don't recall him ever calling him a coward.

And the grease job applied to Kerry's combat service was Kerry's,
beginning forty years ago.

John Martin

John Martin wrote:
> Charlie Self wrote:
> >
> > I don't think all the fuck-ups were Kerry's The American public
> > accepted the grease job applied to Kerry's combat service, as a start.
> > It is a strange, strange situation when a draft dodger is able to make
> > a combat veteran look like a coward BECAUSE he has received medals for
> > heroism. The public bit, swallowed the hook, and we've got dipso in his
> > second term.
>
> You'll have to provide some specifics on that one, Charlie - until and
> unless Hillary runs against him, Clinton has been on Kerry's side. I
> don't recall him ever calling him a coward.
>
> And the grease job applied to Kerry's combat service was Kerry's,
> beginning forty years ago.
>
> John Martin

The draft dodger was Bush and his phony ANG service, much of which he
didn't bother to do.

Bush's buddies, Swift Boat veterans and others did the grease job. You
still accept it, of course, even though no proof was ever offered.

Christ. Ronald Reagan was the Teflon president because none of the crap
that went on during his terms ever stuck to him, though he had to have
had an eight year nap to miss it. George Bush makes him look like
flypaper.

Charlie Self wrote:
>
> The draft dodger was Bush and his phony ANG service, much of which he
> didn't bother to do.
>
> Bush's buddies, Swift Boat veterans and others did the grease job. You
> still accept it, of course, even though no proof was ever offered.
>
> Christ. Ronald Reagan was the Teflon president because none of the crap
> that went on during his terms ever stuck to him, though he had to have
> had an eight year nap to miss it. George Bush makes him look like
> flypaper.

Thanks so much for setting things straight - I had somehow gotten the
notion that it was Clinton who dodged the draft. Guess I must have
been wrong. I'm probably also wrong in remembering that some of those
Guard units were called up and sent to Viet Nam, because George
wouldn't have taken that kind of a chance.

Did it make you wonder at all when all of those Swift Boat veterans
stated that Kerry wasn't fit to be CIC? Even a little bit? Or did you
assume that they were all just Karl Rove plants and political dirty
tricks? Just like all those WWII vets who served with Dole who claimed
that Dole wasn't fit to be president. I can't remember how many there
were, so it must have been a lot. Maybe you can refresh my memory.

Time to open your eyes, Charlie.

John Martin

John Martin wrote:
> Charlie Self wrote:
> >
> > The draft dodger was Bush and his phony ANG service, much of which he
> > didn't bother to do.
> >
> > Bush's buddies, Swift Boat veterans and others did the grease job. You
> > still accept it, of course, even though no proof was ever offered.
> >
> > Christ. Ronald Reagan was the Teflon president because none of the crap
> > that went on during his terms ever stuck to him, though he had to have
> > had an eight year nap to miss it. George Bush makes him look like
> > flypaper.
>
> Thanks so much for setting things straight - I had somehow gotten the
> notion that it was Clinton who dodged the draft. Guess I must have
> been wrong. I'm probably also wrong in remembering that some of those
> Guard units were called up and sent to Viet Nam, because George
> wouldn't have taken that kind of a chance.

GWB signed up to fly a plane that was being withdrawn from combat
in Viet Nam. Certainly the ANG could have pulled a changeup on him,
trained him for F-105s (or something that was used in VN) and sent
him there.

That still would not have put him in the infantry in country which
is where he was headed if he had NOT enlisted in the ANG.

Clinton and Bush both found ways to avoid service in Viet Nam.
CLintons was sneaky and probably illegal. Bush found a way to
serve, while staying out of Viet Nam. Kerry went to Viet Nam,
found out what it was like, and got the hell out. Off hand it
sounds like Bush was the smartest of the three.

>
> Did it make you wonder at all when all of those Swift Boat veterans
> stated that Kerry wasn't fit to be CIC?

All of those Swift Boat Vets who signed that list amounted to
less than about 5% of Swift Boat Vets, right? ISTR that less
than 3 on that list ever SAW Kerry in Viet Nam.

> ... Just like all those WWII vets who served with Dole who claimed
> that Dole wasn't fit to be president. I can't remember how many there
> were, so it must have been a lot. Maybe you can refresh my memory.
>

I'll bet several million voted against him.

--

FF

[email protected] wrote:
> John Martin wrote:
> GWB signed up to fly a plane that was being withdrawn from combat
> in Viet Nam. Certainly the ANG could have pulled a changeup on him,
> trained him for F-105s (or something that was used in VN) and sent
> him there.
>
> That still would not have put him in the infantry in country which
> is where he was headed if he had NOT enlisted in the ANG.
>
> Clinton and Bush both found ways to avoid service in Viet Nam.
> CLintons was sneaky and probably illegal. Bush found a way to
> serve, while staying out of Viet Nam. Kerry went to Viet Nam,
> found out what it was like, and got the hell out. Off hand it
> sounds like Bush was the smartest of the three.
>
> >
> > Did it make you wonder at all when all of those Swift Boat veterans
> > stated that Kerry wasn't fit to be CIC?
>
> All of those Swift Boat Vets who signed that list amounted to
> less than about 5% of Swift Boat Vets, right? ISTR that less
> than 3 on that list ever SAW Kerry in Viet Nam.
>
> > ... Just like all those WWII vets who served with Dole who claimed
> > that Dole wasn't fit to be president. I can't remember how many there
> > were, so it must have been a lot. Maybe you can refresh my memory.
> >
>
> I'll bet several million voted against him.
>
> --
>
> FF

Thanks, Fred, for admitting that Bush was at least taking a chance on
being sent as a combat pilot to Viet Nam. For which, I think you'll
agree, the risk was high. As was the risk during training, wherever he
ended up. Not exactly an office job.

Really think he would have ended up in the infantry in Viet Nam
otherwise? Maybe. Maybe not. I can't quote the figures, but I think
you'd find his chances of serving in Viet Nam in a front line combat
unit much less than not. I served as an active duty Marine 1966-1968.
While a four year hitch would pretty much guarantee you Viet Nam, an
awful lot of guys on two or three year enlistments never went. You
went where they sent you.

Kerry served honorably in Viet Nam. He was wounded, at least once.
After that, it gets a little murky. It seems that at least one of his
Purple Hearts was for a very minor wound that was probably
self-inflicted. A medal which he seems to have pursued against the
recommendation of his CO. Three Purple Hearts in three months -
imagine how many he'd have racked up in a full tour! I guess, though,
that after three he thought he had enough, because he used them to get
out of Viet Nam.

All of which makes me view Kerry's Viet Nam service as, more than
anything else, self-serving. Once he felt that he had what he needed
to further his political career, he got out.

Bonus Question: Max Cleland lost an arm and both legs in Viet Nam. How
many Purple Hearts, in round numbers, was he awarded? Hint: it's a
really round number.

As to the Swift Boat vets, your recollection is absolutely wrong. Take
a look at the photo on the Swift Boat site of Kerry with 19 of his
fellow Swift Boat commanders. Guys who knew him in Viet Nam, who
served with him in Viet Nam. Of those 19, 12 called him unfit to be
CIC. Two are dead, and six of 20 supported Kerry. The six, of course,
include Kerry himself. Show me that more than 2/3 of the guys who
actually fought with him consider Bob Dole unfit to be President and
I'll kiss your ass at high noon in Times Square. Hell, I'll even let
you add in the guys who fought against him.

John Martin

John Martin wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> >
>
> Thanks, Fred, for admitting that Bush was at least taking a chance on
> being sent as a combat pilot to Viet Nam. For which, I think you'll
> agree, the risk was high.

No, I will not agree the risk was high. I am quite sure the risk
was low. During the Vietnam era there was a long waiting list to
get into the National Guard for exactly that reason.

If you can find the numbers on how many guardsmen served
during the Viet Nam era, and how many of those served in Viet
Nam I'd appreciate it. Ditto for figures on fraftees.

> As was the risk during training, wherever he
> ended up. Not exactly an office job.

Agreed.

...
>
> Kerry served honorably in Viet Nam. He was wounded, at least once.
> After that, it gets a little murky. It seems that at least one of his
> Purple Hearts was for a very minor wound that was probably
> self-inflicted.

Like Robert Dole he was wounded by shrapnel from his own grenade.
Dole referred to his first would as the sort of thing the Army
patched up with mercurichrome and Purple Hearts.

'Self-Inflicted' typically refers to _deliberate_ self-injury,
that is how the term is used in the PH guidelines and not the
case IRT to Kerry or Dole's injuries. Both men were injured by
fire intended (even if mistakenly) to inflict harm on the enemy,
which is one of the requirements.

Kerry's subsequent injuries may be murky in your memory but
are not the subject of any general controversy. Dole's
subsequent inuries were permanently disabling.

> A medal which he seems to have pursued against the
> recommendation of his CO. Three Purple Hearts in three months -
> imagine how many he'd have racked up in a full tour! I guess, though,
> that after three he thought he had enough, because he used them to get
> out of Viet Nam.
>
> All of which makes me view Kerry's Viet Nam service as, more than
> anything else, self-serving. Once he felt that he had what he needed
> to further his political career, he got out.
>
> Bonus Question: Max Cleland lost an arm and both legs in Viet Nam. How
> many Purple Hearts, in round numbers, was he awarded? Hint: it's a
> really round number.

Max Cleland's injuries were either accidental or the result of a
fragging incident. He was wounded when he picked a grenade up
and it exploded. It is not clear how the grenade came to rest
on the ground at his feet after the pin had been pulled. Accidental
injuries and injuries resulting from a criminal assault donate
qualify for Purple Hearts.

>
> As to the Swift Boat vets, your recollection is absolutely wrong. Take
> a look at the photo on the Swift Boat site of Kerry with 19 of his
> fellow Swift Boat commanders. Guys who knew him in Viet Nam, who
> served with him in Viet Nam.

Well then they saw him when the photo was taken.

> Of those 19, 12 called him unfit to be
> CIC. Two are dead, and six of 20 supported Kerry. The six, of course,
> include Kerry himself.

The overwhelming majority who explain their opinion clearly state
that their opinions are not based on his service in Vietnam.

> ...

--

FF

mike hide wrote:
>
> ...
> So the US went into Iraq based on Saddam's WMD program . A program most
> countries agreed he was persuing .As it turns out we have yet to find the
> evidence although it might well exists somewhere. Had the WMD program
> existed and the current NY city scare been real, and was in fact one of
> Saddams nuks what would you be saying now, probably why didn't George take
> care of the situation before it got to this stage .
> ...

Before the US invaded Iraq the IAEA had completed its inspections,
declared Iraq to be in compliance with the prohibitions on nuclear
technology and exposed as forgeries, some of the evidence supplied
to the IAEA by the Bush administration.

The world knew Saddam Hussein had no 'nuks' befor the US invaded.

At that time, UNMOVIC, though also distracted by false information
supplied by the Bush Administration, was well on its way to showing
that Saddam Hussein had no chemical or biological weapons either,
something that has since been confirmed by the ISG and CIA.

--

FF

John Martin wrote:
> Charlie Self wrote:
> >
> > The draft dodger was Bush and his phony ANG service, much of which he
> > didn't bother to do.
> >
> > Bush's buddies, Swift Boat veterans and others did the grease job. You
> > still accept it, of course, even though no proof was ever offered.
> >
> > Christ. Ronald Reagan was the Teflon president because none of the crap
> > that went on during his terms ever stuck to him, though he had to have
> > had an eight year nap to miss it. George Bush makes him look like
> > flypaper.
>
> Thanks so much for setting things straight - I had somehow gotten the
> notion that it was Clinton who dodged the draft. Guess I must have
> been wrong. I'm probably also wrong in remembering that some of those
> Guard units were called up and sent to Viet Nam, because George
> wouldn't have taken that kind of a chance.
>
> Did it make you wonder at all when all of those Swift Boat veterans
> stated that Kerry wasn't fit to be CIC? Even a little bit? Or did you
> assume that they were all just Karl Rove plants and political dirty
> tricks? Just like all those WWII vets who served with Dole who claimed
> that Dole wasn't fit to be president. I can't remember how many there
> were, so it must have been a lot. Maybe you can refresh my memory.
>
> Time to open your eyes, Charlie.
>
> John Martin

Actually, my eyes are open. Bush dodged the draft legally by going in
the ANG, at a time when the ANG was used for little else. CLinton trod
theedge legally in the manner in which he got out of the draft. Neither
was prosecuted, but I know damned well that as a corporal in the USMC
I'd have been prosecuted, and convicted and served brig time, if I had
missed formations, and everything else, for any major part of a month,
never mind a year. But my daddy was an auto mechanic, not some hotshot
political ass-kisser.

World Traveler wrote:
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > mike hide wrote:
> >>
> >> ...
> >> So the US went into Iraq based on Saddam's WMD program . A program most
> >> countries agreed he was persuing .As it turns out we have yet to find the
> >> evidence although it might well exists somewhere. Had the WMD program
> >> existed and the current NY city scare been real, and was in fact one of
> >> Saddams nuks what would you be saying now, probably why didn't George
> >> take
> >> care of the situation before it got to this stage .
> >> ...
> >
> > Before the US invaded Iraq the IAEA had completed its inspections,
> > declared Iraq to be in compliance with the prohibitions on nuclear
> > technology and exposed as forgeries, some of the evidence supplied
> > to the IAEA by the Bush administration.
> >
> > The world knew Saddam Hussein had no 'nuks' befor the US invaded.
> >
> > At that time, UNMOVIC, though also distracted by false information
> > supplied by the Bush Administration, was well on its way to showing
> > that Saddam Hussein had no chemical or biological weapons either,
> > something that has since been confirmed by the ISG and CIA.
> >
...
> >
> No sale -- you can't rewrite history. The task of the arms inspectors was
> to find evidence that Iraq and destroyed the WMD that he was known to have
> (since he had used them!).

What, do you think WMD are reusable? (Actually, some can be see
below.)

> The inspectors were never able to find that
> evidence. So where are (or what happened) to Iraq's WMD?

The inspectors destroyed the factories in 1991-92. The shelf life
of the Iraqi WMD were at best, a few months. Without factories,
Iraq had no effective WMD by the end of 1993 and TEN years later,
in 2002, anything they had left would be utterly useless.

The only exception is mustard gas, which was well-accounted for,
although any unexploded munitions (duds) on old battlefields might
still have mustard in them it they hadn'tleaked.

>
> Realizing that no one has been able to find sufficient evidence that Saddam
> destroyed these weapons ought to make everyone more nervous, not less.
> Who's gottem?

Who has what, sludge?

You can't rewrite history to 'undestroy' the WMD factories that were
still destroyed when UNMOVIC reinspected them. As David Kay said,
no factories, no weapons.

--

FF

World Traveler wrote:
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> >
> [snip]
>
> >>So where are (or what happened) to Iraq's WMD?
> >
> > The inspectors destroyed the factories in 1991-92.
>
> [snip]> FF
> >
>
> The Inspectors destroyed the factories!?!?
>

Yes, Those that survived the bombings.

> ROTFLMAO!

Care to explain?

--

FF

John Martin wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> > John Martin wrote:
> > GWB signed up to fly a plane that was being withdrawn from combat
> > in Viet Nam. Certainly the ANG could have pulled a changeup on him,
> > trained him for F-105s (or something that was used in VN) and sent
> > him there.
> >
> > That still would not have put him in the infantry in country which
> > is where he was headed if he had NOT enlisted in the ANG.
> >
> > Clinton and Bush both found ways to avoid service in Viet Nam.
> > CLintons was sneaky and probably illegal. Bush found a way to
> > serve, while staying out of Viet Nam. Kerry went to Viet Nam,
> > found out what it was like, and got the hell out. Off hand it
> > sounds like Bush was the smartest of the three.
> >
> > >
> > > Did it make you wonder at all when all of those Swift Boat veterans
> > > stated that Kerry wasn't fit to be CIC?
> >
> > All of those Swift Boat Vets who signed that list amounted to
> > less than about 5% of Swift Boat Vets, right? ISTR that less
> > than 3 on that list ever SAW Kerry in Viet Nam.
> >
> > > ... Just like all those WWII vets who served with Dole who claimed
> > > that Dole wasn't fit to be president. I can't remember how many there
> > > were, so it must have been a lot. Maybe you can refresh my memory.
> > >
> >
> > I'll bet several million voted against him.
> >
> > --
> >
> > FF
>
> Thanks, Fred, for admitting that Bush was at least taking a chance on
> being sent as a combat pilot to Viet Nam. For which, I think you'll
> agree, the risk was high. As was the risk during training, wherever he
> ended up. Not exactly an office job.
>
> Really think he would have ended up in the infantry in Viet Nam
> otherwise? Maybe. Maybe not. I can't quote the figures, but I think
> you'd find his chances of serving in Viet Nam in a front line combat
> unit much less than not. I served as an active duty Marine 1966-1968.
> While a four year hitch would pretty much guarantee you Viet Nam, an
> awful lot of guys on two or three year enlistments never went. You
> went where they sent you.
>
> Kerry served honorably in Viet Nam. He was wounded, at least once.
> After that, it gets a little murky. It seems that at least one of his
> Purple Hearts was for a very minor wound that was probably
> self-inflicted.

Even if true, John, that does not disqualify him for being awarded a
Purple Heart. The seriousness (or lack thereof) of a wound isn't a
qualifier. Nor does being wounded by yourself, or friendly forces,
necessarily prevent one from being awarded a PH.

>A medal which he seems to have pursued against the
> recommendation of his CO. Three Purple Hearts in three months -
> imagine how many he'd have racked up in a full tour! I guess, though,
> that after three he thought he had enough, because he used them to get
> out of Viet Nam.
>
> All of which makes me view Kerry's Viet Nam service as, more than
> anything else, self-serving. Once he felt that he had what he needed
> to further his political career, he got out.
>
> Bonus Question: Max Cleland lost an arm and both legs in Viet Nam. How
> many Purple Hearts, in round numbers, was he awarded? Hint: it's a
> really round number.

It is "0", as in "zero", due to the fact that there was no combat going
on at the time -- he was involved in a re-supply mission via
helicopter. Another guy on the helicopter dropped his grenade (we know
this years later), and Cleland leaned over to pick it up, thinking it
was his. It blew up.

He was awarded a sort of sympathy Silver Star afterwards, for another
incident that occured days earlier. He admits in his book, and in
public, that he did nothing to deserve the SS.

> As to the Swift Boat vets, your recollection is absolutely wrong. Take
> a look at the photo on the Swift Boat site of Kerry with 19 of his
> fellow Swift Boat commanders. Guys who knew him in Viet Nam, who
> served with him in Viet Nam.

Ahh, but far from all who served with him. And a number of those in the
photo never went out with him (on other boats, of course) on missions.

And how many of those in the photo were with him for any of the
incidents for which he received an award? Precious few. I haven't
looked at the photo in quite a while, and forget just who is in it, but
the number is probably in the range of 1-3.

And then there's the guys who are NOT in the photo, who served on boats
alongside Kerry's (and in one case, ON Kerry's boat) out on missions.
And keep in mind that we are just talking about officers at this point.

All the following have spoken out, in one way or another, against the
dishonesty of the Swift Boat Veterans for "truth":

LtJg Don Droz -- was alongside Kerry's boat on a number of missions,
including the ones for which he received a Silver Star and Bronze Star.
(He was KIA April, 12, 1969. He was Kerry's best friend in Vietnam, and
excerpts of his letters home have been shared by his wife)

LtJg Charles Gibson -- He was actually on Kerry's boat for some
on-the-job-training during several missions, including the one where he
was awarded the Silver Star

LtJg Bill Rood -- He was out alongside Kerry's boat on a number of
missions, including the one where he was awarded the Silver Star.

LtJg ?? -- I forget this guy's name, but he was on the mission where
Kerry was awarded the Bronze Star.

LtJg Peter Upton -- A Navy UDT guy, alongside Kerry's boat for at least
the mission where he was awarded the Silver Star.

Lt Jim Rassmann -- The Army Special Forces guy who Kerry pulled out of
the water on March 13, 1969, and for which he was awarded the Bronze
Star.

Capt Bill Hirschler -- An Army advisor on two missions alongside
Kerry's boat, and with a number of South Vietnamese troops -- on the
mission for which Kerry was awarded the Silver Star, and 13 days later,
the Bronze Star. The Army advisors were with the Swifts most of the
day, but were dropped off at their village moments before the Swifts
hit the mine in the river.

Lt Doug Reese -- An Army advisor. See above re Bill Hirschler

Then, of course, we have the enlisted guys who served on Kerry's
boat(s), or alongside Kerry on missions.

Of the 11-12 who actually served on one of his boats, there's just one
who doesn't support him -- Steven Gardner.

Of the more than 100 other enlisted guys (my estimate) who served
alongside Kerry on missions, precisely two others have come out against
Kerry. While a few other Swift Boat enlisted guys have joined the Swift
Boat Veterans for "truth", I am not aware of any others who were
actually out on missions with kerry -- or even saw him in Vietnam.

But that has them with something in common with their fellow 254
members of SBV"t" -- most never saw Kerry in Vietnam.

But back to the two enlisted guys who are members of SBV"t" -- Van
ODell and Larry Lee.

I know that Van ODell was around for the Bronze Star incident, and he
spoke out against what Kerry said about that day. Just him and three
other guys spoke out against what Kerry said happened, vs about 10-12
who support what Kerry said happened. The others there that day, out of
a total of about 35, have remained silent. And keep in mind, the Swift
Boat Veterand for "truth" hired a private investigator to dig up as
much dirt on Kerry as possible -- and all he could come up with for
that day was the three officers, and Van ODell, out of 35 guys.

Larry Lee was present for the Silver Star incident. He was one of about
26 guys there that day. There isn't a single person who was there that
day who has disputed what Kerry said happened, or that he should not
have been awarded the Silver Star. Larry Lee has specifically said that
he supports Kerry's award of the Silver Star.

And that private investigator? He found, to repeat the round number
mentioned earlier -- "0" as in "Zero".

In the end, John, one can take those numbers (as you've done below),
and make them fit whatever scenerio or conclusion you want to believe.
However, you should take care that your source isn't just giving you
those facts which THEY want you to have, ignoring that which they do
NOT want you to have.

So here's a conclusion from me - - - In Kerry's two medal incidents
(Bronze Star and Silver Star), there were about 60 guys present. Only
four have spoken out against Kerry - - - If he's lied so much about
what he did in Vietnam, don't you think that number would be just a tad
higher?

Doug Reese

>Of those 19, 12 called him unfit to be
> CIC. Two are dead, and six of 20 supported Kerry. The six, of course,
> include Kerry himself. Show me that more than 2/3 of the guys who
> actually fought with him consider Bob Dole unfit to be President and
> I'll kiss your ass at high noon in Times Square. Hell, I'll even let
> you add in the guys who fought against him.
>
> John Martin

Doug Reese wrote:
> ...

Thanks.

--

FF

Doug Reese wrote:
>
> ...
>
> Even if true, John, that does not disqualify him for being awarded a
> Purple Heart. The seriousness (or lack thereof) of a wound isn't a
> qualifier.

There is a requirement that the person be treated by medical personell.

Kerry's shrapnel wound was, but arguably rather than treating it
himself he waited until it could be treated by a corpsman just
so that he would qualify for a PH. I tend to believe that arguement.

I'm pretty sure that one of the reasons Kerry gave for volunteering
to serve in Vietnam (something GWB avoided, wisely IMHO) was that
he was planning on a carreer in politics and felt (incorrectly it
would seem) that not serving in Vietnam would hurt his political
future. He was eager to get any medals he could, but not so
eager as to get them by outright fraud, like LBJ's silver star.

It seesm Kerry was naive. As history has shown, not serving
in the military at all during the war, even outright draft
evasion, has not prevented others from serving as Secretary
of Defense, Vice President, and even President. History
repeats itself.

--

FF

[email protected] wrote:
> Doug Reese wrote:
> >
> > ...
> >
> > Even if true, John, that does not disqualify him for being awarded a
> > Purple Heart. The seriousness (or lack thereof) of a wound isn't a
> > qualifier.
>
> There is a requirement that the person be treated by medical personell.
>
> Kerry's shrapnel wound was, but arguably rather than treating it
> himself he waited until it could be treated by a corpsman just
> so that he would qualify for a PH. I tend to believe that arguement.

That may well be true. But if so, I can't say as I blame him.

I had a similar wound, but just slightly more serious (the 1-2 pieces
of small shrapnel went too far in to be taken out easily), which was
caused almost certainly by one of our own grenades, although not mine.

It happened in the middle of the night.When morning came, they asked me
if I wanted to go out on a supply helicopter. I said no, it didn't
really hurt, and I would just wait until we got back to base camp in a
day or so . . . . big mistake.

Then, after getting ribbed for an hour or so by some of the guys ("I
can see the citation now . . . In spite of his wounds, Lt. Reese
refused medical evecuation, preferring instead, to stay with his men,
etc, etc").
Very amusing they were . . .

But as the morning wore on (we were walking thru the delta), it began
to hurt. I mean, for a couple of small pieces of shrapnel, it REALLY
hurt. With every step I took it felt like someone was jabbing an ice
pick in my back. Ouch!

My problem, of course, was by then there was NO WAY I was going to ask
to be taken back to the base camp. I mean, I would NEVER hear the end
of it. So, I had to tough it out.

Then, thank God, a helicopter was sent out to pick me up totake care of
some administrative matters. . . . all the time, I didn't let on that
my back/wound was killing me.

Back in camp, a doctor looked at it, and told me that he wouldn't take
it out, as to do so would cause more damamge than the original wound.
So, I still have that souvenier of Vietnam.

Our 1st Sgt said I should put in for a Purple Heart --- that you'd
never know, it might come in handy some day. This guy was a stickler
for following regulations, so I was surprised to hear him tell me that.
As it turns out, to my surprise, I really did qualify for a PH. And it
did come in handy when I applied for a job for the post office a few
years later.

If I knew then what I know now, I may well have asked for that Purple
Heart myself, instead of having my 1st Sgt make the suggestion.
Kerry may have been a few steps ahead of me. And, as I said earlier, if
that was the case, I can't say as I blame him.

Doug Reese

> I'm pretty sure that one of the reasons Kerry gave for volunteering
> to serve in Vietnam (something GWB avoided, wisely IMHO) was that
> he was planning on a carreer in politics and felt (incorrectly it
> would seem) that not serving in Vietnam would hurt his political
> future. He was eager to get any medals he could, but not so
> eager as to get them by outright fraud, like LBJ's silver star.
>
> It seesm Kerry was naive. As history has shown, not serving
> in the military at all during the war, even outright draft
> evasion, has not prevented others from serving as Secretary
> of Defense, Vice President, and even President. History
> repeats itself.
>
> --
>
> FF

On 7 Oct 2005 04:12:22 -0700, "ROYNEU" <[email protected]> wrote:

>Tom,
>
>Having lived through the Vietnam Era in parts of Viet Nam, working at
>the White House during the Watergate Era and having been very close to
>the circumstances around Oliver North and the Iran-Contra Era. I
>disagree with you!


Do not assume that those whom you choose to argue with have less
experience in your area than you.

Assumptions such as this make you vulnerable to the argument of
experience - which you may well lose.

Although I may be competent to argue on that field - my choice would
be to argue on the field of the right, rather than that of the
included.

Your apparent complicity in some of the nastier areas of our
governmental duplicity does not serve you well in the current
argument.


Tom Watson - WoodDorker
tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet (email)
http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1/ (website)

Pay back is a bitch, Dougie.


On Fri, 07 Oct 2005 12:46:02 GMT, [email protected] (Doug Miller)
wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>, Tom Watson <[email protected]> wrote:
>>Not all that long ago.
>>
>>When Bush The Lesser began his military adventure in Iraq; guys like
>>me and certain others of a historical bent were warning of the
>>potential quagmire which we currently find ourselves in.
>
>Odd how you piss and moan so much over off-topic political posts, at least
>from those with whom you disagree -- and then post this.
Tom Watson - WoodDorker
tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet (email)
http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1/ (website)

"Tom Watson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Not all that long ago.
>
> When Bush The Lesser began his military adventure in Iraq; guys like
> me and certain others of a historical bent were warning of the
> potential quagmire which we currently find ourselves in.
>
> We now have almost 2000 young Americans who have died in this useless
> enterprise.
>

I guess some just might have a different sense of world responsibility than
others......considering the massive crimes against humanity both the Taliban
and Saddam were guilty of I'm quite proud that our country and its
leadership has ignored narrow self interest and perfect safety and have
tried to make the world a better place. The 50 million people that now have
some choice in their lives and will have a better future once the current
terrorists are defeated are of some import.......The status quo in the
Middle-East was not working, in fact the violence reached out our way
repeatedly and rather dramatically in the previous decade......We're now
planting the seeds of change for a large number of people......It may be
simply innocence or maybe it is fact but the USA I grew up in .....was the
country that often paid the price here and abroad to make the world a better
place.....If we don't nobody will......Rod

"Bob" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I thought this was a woodworking forum. Why would I care what your
> opinion on anything else would be? Come to think of it, I don't much
> care what a self described dork thinks about woodworking either. Why
> don't you stick with wordworking? And try real hard to stop being such
> a know-it-all.
>

TW is a troll first and foremost. A fine woodworker perhaps, but a troll
nonetheless.

--
********
Bill Pounds
http://www.billpounds.com

On Fri, 14 Oct 2005 20:02:26 -0400, Waldo <[email protected]> wrote:

>> No sale -- you can't rewrite history. The task of the arms inspectors was
>> to find evidence that Iraq and destroyed the WMD that he was known to have
>> (since he had used them!). The inspectors were never able to find that
>> evidence. So where are (or what happened) to Iraq's WMD?
>>
>Well, it's probably hard to find evidence of destroying something that
>didn't exist any more, don't you think?

You may be surprise many still believe WMD still exists, even if they never
existed, you will never convince blind men following blind fools.

On Fri, 07 Oct 2005 12:46:02 GMT, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>, Tom Watson <[email protected]> wrote:
>>Not all that long ago.
>>
>>When Bush The Lesser began his military adventure in Iraq; guys like
>>me and certain others of a historical bent were warning of the
>>potential quagmire which we currently find ourselves in.
>
>Odd how you piss and moan so much over off-topic political posts, at least
>from those with whom you disagree -- and then post this.

A drunk will never admit he's drunk just like a blind fool never admits he's a
fool. You better start praying, your God is either drunk or sleeping!

Tom Watson wrote:

> Not all that long ago.
>
> When Bush The Lesser began his military adventure in Iraq; guys like
> me and certain others of a historical bent were warning of the
> potential quagmire which we currently find ourselves in.
>
> We now have almost 2000 young Americans who have died in this useless
> enterprise.
>
> Over 1800 of those deaths have occurred since Bush declared "Mission
> Accomplished".
>
> I hope that you idiots who have supported Bush in this have started to
> see the light.
>
> I don't hope that any of your children have or will be involved.
>
> I am damned sure that mine won't be.
>
> Having lived through the Vietnam Era, the Watergate Era, the
> Iran-Contra Era, and now being firmly engaged in the worst Presidency
> that the United States of America has ever seen, I can only hope that
> those who have supported the current administration can see the light.
>
>
> Tom Watson - WoodDorker
> tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet (email)
> http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1/ (website)


what light?

Am I still an idiot if support him half heartedly? Maybe that makes me
a half-wit. :) I don't know any politician who comes down on the same
side of important issues as I do. I look for someone who's positions
are most nearly the same as mine, or more like mine than their opponent.
I can't imagine any guy in office doing everything 100% the way I want
them to, or to satisfy any other constituent 100%. That's asking too
much, Tom.

Dave

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
>
[snip]

>>So where are (or what happened) to Iraq's WMD?
>
> The inspectors destroyed the factories in 1991-92.

[snip]> FF
>

The Inspectors destroyed the factories!?!?

ROTFLMAO!

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> mike hide wrote:
>>
>> ...
>> So the US went into Iraq based on Saddam's WMD program . A program most
>> countries agreed he was persuing .As it turns out we have yet to find the
>> evidence although it might well exists somewhere. Had the WMD program
>> existed and the current NY city scare been real, and was in fact one of
>> Saddams nuks what would you be saying now, probably why didn't George
>> take
>> care of the situation before it got to this stage .
>> ...
>
> Before the US invaded Iraq the IAEA had completed its inspections,
> declared Iraq to be in compliance with the prohibitions on nuclear
> technology and exposed as forgeries, some of the evidence supplied
> to the IAEA by the Bush administration.
>
> The world knew Saddam Hussein had no 'nuks' befor the US invaded.
>
> At that time, UNMOVIC, though also distracted by false information
> supplied by the Bush Administration, was well on its way to showing
> that Saddam Hussein had no chemical or biological weapons either,
> something that has since been confirmed by the ISG and CIA.
>
> --
>
> FF
>
No sale -- you can't rewrite history. The task of the arms inspectors was
to find evidence that Iraq and destroyed the WMD that he was known to have
(since he had used them!). The inspectors were never able to find that
evidence. So where are (or what happened) to Iraq's WMD?

Realizing that no one has been able to find sufficient evidence that Saddam
destroyed these weapons ought to make everyone more nervous, not less.
Who's gottem?

World Traveler wrote:
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>mike hide wrote:
>>
>>>...
>>>So the US went into Iraq based on Saddam's WMD program . A program most
>>>countries agreed he was persuing .As it turns out we have yet to find the
>>>evidence although it might well exists somewhere. Had the WMD program
>>>existed and the current NY city scare been real, and was in fact one of
>>>Saddams nuks what would you be saying now, probably why didn't George
>>>take
>>>care of the situation before it got to this stage .
>>>...
>>
>>Before the US invaded Iraq the IAEA had completed its inspections,
>>declared Iraq to be in compliance with the prohibitions on nuclear
>>technology and exposed as forgeries, some of the evidence supplied
>>to the IAEA by the Bush administration.
>>
>>The world knew Saddam Hussein had no 'nuks' befor the US invaded.
>>
>>At that time, UNMOVIC, though also distracted by false information
>>supplied by the Bush Administration, was well on its way to showing
>>that Saddam Hussein had no chemical or biological weapons either,
>>something that has since been confirmed by the ISG and CIA.
>>
>>--
>>
>>FF
>>
>
> No sale -- you can't rewrite history. The task of the arms inspectors was
> to find evidence that Iraq and destroyed the WMD that he was known to have
> (since he had used them!). The inspectors were never able to find that
> evidence. So where are (or what happened) to Iraq's WMD?
>
Well, it's probably hard to find evidence of destroying something that
didn't exist any more, don't you think?


> Realizing that no one has been able to find sufficient evidence that Saddam
> destroyed these weapons ought to make everyone more nervous, not less.
> Who's gottem?
>
>

Tom Watson <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> Not all that long ago.
>
> When Bush The Lesser began his military adventure in Iraq;
> <SNIP>
> Having lived through the Vietnam Era, the Watergate Era, the
> Iran-Contra Era, and now being firmly engaged in the worst Presidency
> that the United States of America has ever seen, I can only hope that
> those who have supported the current administration can see the light.
>
>
> Tom Watson - WoodDorker
> tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet (email)
> http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1/ (website)
>

Tom

This was totally off topic and should have been identified as such. As an
attempt to bring the thread back to a wood working theme ....

George W. Bush is as dumb as a sack of hammers!

Hope that helps to refocus on wood working

ALurker

[email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> In article <[email protected]>, Tom Watson
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>Not all that long ago.
>>
>>When Bush The Lesser began his military adventure in Iraq; guys like
>>me and certain others of a historical bent were warning of the
>>potential quagmire which we currently find ourselves in.
>
> Odd how you piss and moan so much over off-topic political posts, at
> least from those with whom you disagree -- and then post this.


Doug Miller still debating Iraq and WMDs! Fred still tilting windmills!
Now if we can get Dave Hinz and Fletis Humplebacker, the newsgroup could
start its nostalgia reunion tour.

On 6 Oct 2005 17:40:43 -0700, "Paul Kierstead"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>I must be losing my mind, participating in a political thread

It's not a "political thread". It is a troll. If it was a political
thread, it would be in a political conference. This is a woodworking
conference. Anything not related to woodworking, looking for outside
opinion, is a troll.

Definition of a troll: Type any sort of crap and reel 'em in. Not
fishin' for anything special, just trollin'.

Hear, hear.

- Andy Barss

In article <[email protected]>, Tom Watson <[email protected]> wrote:
>Not all that long ago.
>
>When Bush The Lesser began his military adventure in Iraq; guys like
>me and certain others of a historical bent were warning of the
>potential quagmire which we currently find ourselves in.

Odd how you piss and moan so much over off-topic political posts, at least
from those with whom you disagree -- and then post this.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

"Rod & Betty Jo" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Tom Watson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Not all that long ago.
>>
>> When Bush The Lesser began his military adventure in Iraq; guys like
>> me and certain others of a historical bent were warning of the
>> potential quagmire which we currently find ourselves in.
>>
>> We now have almost 2000 young Americans who have died in this useless
>> enterprise.
>>
>
> I guess some just might have a different sense of world responsibility
> than others......considering the massive crimes against humanity both the
> Taliban and Saddam were guilty of I'm quite proud that our country and its
> leadership has ignored narrow self interest and perfect safety and have
> tried to make the world a better place. The 50 million people that now
> have some choice in their lives and will have a better future once the
> current terrorists are defeated are of some import.......The status quo in
> the Middle-East was not working, in fact the violence reached out our way
> repeatedly and rather dramatically in the previous decade......We're now
> planting the seeds of change for a large number of people......It may be
> simply innocence or maybe it is fact but the USA I grew up in .....was the
> country that often paid the price here and abroad to make the world a
> better place.....If we don't nobody will......Rod
>
>
>
I would like to ask Tom, what exactly does his America stand for these days
. You have a president who in my opinion tries to do the right thing and
trashed left right and center by the media, both foreign and domestic, in
many cases with outright lies.

So the US went into Iraq based on Saddam's WMD program . A program most
countries agreed he was persuing .As it turns out we have yet to find the
evidence although it might well exists somewhere. Had the WMD program
existed and the current NY city scare been real, and was in fact one of
Saddams nuks what would you be saying now, probably why didn't George take
care of the situation before it got to this stage .

Well It might yet happen Tom only from another source, I would like to ask
what you would do right now about Irans nuke program, obviously not invade
or take action, probably wait until they make one and give it to Bin laden
.Kind of like closing the barn door after the horse has bolted, although the
loss of a horse is nothing compared to the consequences of the former...

If you liked Kerry so much perhaps George should ask him what his program to
run a much more efficient war in Iraq as expoused in his presidential
campaign was, obviously it would save time and lives if only he would only
divulge it ...