OT: Did Dubya Learn To Talk That Way At Barbara Bush's Table?

Good points.
> > That said, W showed poor character for using influence to sign up for
> > something and then not seeing it through. For him to impugn the
character
> > of someone who chose to serve, apparently with distinction, is truly
> > reprehensible! Letting his minions and mouthpieces do so shows the
depth of
> > his cowardice and disqualifies him from any respect from me.
> >
>
> There is no evidence of any influence related to GWB getting into the
TANG.
> We have the statements of a guy who denied it under oath then later
changed his story, along with a bunch of forged documents. Does
> it not bother you to repeat lies and speculation without any proof?

I don't mean to repeat lies. I knew several people who did it and all "knew
someone" and had letters of support. It's too much to believe that the
Bush connections had no effect. MANY people were rejected. I said all
along I don't blame anyone for not wanting to be shot at.
>
> GWB served with distinction and ammassed enough pointe in each year of his
commitment to meet or exceed his commitment. He was
> subsequently issued an honerable discharge. That was over a 6 year
period.
>
> There are alot of questions about Kerry's service. Three purple hearts in
a four month period without ever missing a combat day.
> That equates to never having been injured bad enough to have spent one day
in the hospital.

Did he ask for the hearts? Did he bribe for them? I actually consider them
a ninor factor. The fact is he was out there allowing himself to be shot
at. What happened to him was largely a matter of luck. If I were a VC
sniper, I could have easily gotten him.

It seems by his own diary that at least
> one wound was self inflicted. So after 4 months of actively seeking to
get out of the war that he served with valor, he then comes
> back and undermines the soldiers and prisoners of war, both with his
testimony to congress and with his unauthorized meetings with
> the North Vietnamese in Paris in 70 and 71.

So he wised up. He was young, after all. I don't buy the idea of
undermining troops. If the troops don't have the strength of their own
convictions, they shouldn't be there. Dissent is not treason and it isn't
disrespect of those who serve. Several presidents have agreed with that
idea. I respect every individual who serves honorably but that has nothing
to do with my support of a war.
>
> It would be nice to get beyond all of this, but Kerry and his minions keep
bringing it up.
>
> > Do I admire Kerry for storming through the jungle shooting up trees and
> > people? Not particularly, but at least he went out there and took his
> > chances. Perhaps he and JFK were both grandstanders, but a single
bullet
> > would have brought them down just the same.
> >
>
> Kerry is an admitted war criminal. That alone should disqualify him for
the presidency.

I'm not sure of the crimes here. Torture, mutilation, genocide??
>
> > The statements of Cheney and others linking future terrorism to the
election
> > are equally without basis or relevance to the many more important issues
> > facing our nation. They show the true intellectual bankruptcy of this
> > administration, which is well on the way to financially bankrupting all
of
> > us. If Cheney knows something about terrorism, he should tell us.
> >
>
> Don't forget that 10 out of 10 terrorists support Kerry for president <g>
. Seriously, Kerry's criticism of the war (that is when
> he is not for the war, or would have voted for it even with what he knows
today, but now he is against it) and the President's
> handling of it are helping to sustain the terrorists hopes that they can
outlast the will of the USA to fight them.

This is like the troop thing. I don't think you know what the terrorists
think and I don't think they are particularly afraid of any particular
politician. They are whipping us on the field and in public opinion, even
with Bush. Political support of more allies would hurt them more than W's
mouth. Yes, they are losing more people, but they seem to be able to afford
them better than we can. I think we are, and always will be, vulnerable.
No one here is ready for the kind of "security" it would take to not be
vulnerable. All you need are a few people with clean records ready to come
in and get to work, not to mention the many already here and the many
natives willing to help them.
>
> > Sometime when it's quiet, ask yourself what you think W might be doing
> > without 9/11 to talk about.
> >
> > I don't think Kerry is wonderful, but I do think he will choose
competent
> > advisors and that he can think about more than one thing at a time. He
is
> > probably capable of rebuilding some of the respect of other nations that
W
> > has squandered over Iraq.
>
> Kerry will do no better in choosing competent advisons/cabinet members
than he has at choosing campaign advisors.

Good point. We expect way too much from campaigns. I don't think anyone
knows what they "will do". As long as we demand promises and handouts,
we'll keep getting slimy campaigns. We need an intellectual leader who will
build respect around the world and balance our budget. Who's gonna vote for
that?
>
> I would rather have strength and security over the respect of the likes
the UN and of France, who has now stated that even if Kerry
> is elected that they will not commit troops to support our efforts. Where
exactly are those world leaders that support Kerry?

I don't agree that W represents strength.
I don't think we are secure.
There are now far more "terrorists", whatever that is, than before the war.
The war is a wreck.
There were/are no real plans for the peace.
There is a real risk Iraq will revert to something worse than Saddam.

I didn't say anyone would support Kerry, just that he has a better chance
than W to gain respect.

I don't have much love for the UN or France. They are just what we have to
work with and I don't think we can function alone. BTW, France was
absolutely right about WMD, the main justification for the "war".

I don't agree it's a war. It's a rat shoot
>
For all the money spent, we could have hired every terrorist in the world to
carry food to Darfur!

Wilson

"Al Reid" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Fred the Red Shirt" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> > "Al Reid" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> > > "Fred the Red Shirt" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> > ...
> > >
> > > How many ways are there to misconstrue "I committed the same kind of
atrocities as thousands of other
> > > soldiers have committed..." I don't see any reference to "we" or "us"
in that statement. He is specifically referring to
> himself,
> > > first person singular.
> >
> > I see that too. The difference is that I ALSO see "as thousands of
> > other soldiers have committed..." Thus I see that to summarize the
> > entire statement as "Kerry is an admitted war criminal" is a
> > misconstruction, and a summary of only part of it is misleading
> > at best.
> >
> > Your opinion may differ. That's OK with me so long as you and others
> > reading this thread base your opinion on what Kerry said and the
> > context in which he said it, rather than on someone else's pararprhasal
> > whether misconstructed or not.
> >
> > The whole business reminds me a lot of a neocon's argument that
> > William T. Sherman was an admitted war criminal, based on a single
> > sentence taken entirely out of its original context.
> >
> > --
> >
> > FF
>
> One more time... there was nothing taken out of context.
>
> SEN. KERRY: There are all kinds of atrocities, and I would have to say
that,
> yes, yes, ** I ** committed the same kind of atrocities as thousands of
other
> soldiers have committed in that ** I ** took part in shootings in free
fire zones.
> ** I ** conducted harassment and interdiction fire. ** I ** used 50
calibre machine
> guns, which we were granted and ordered to use, which were our only weapon
> against people. ** I ** took part in search and destroy missions, in the
burning
> of villages. All of this is contrary to the laws of warfare, all of this
is
> contrary to the Geneva Conventions and all of this is ordered as a matter
of
> written established policy by the government of the United States from the
> top down. And I believe that the men who designed these, the men who
> designed the free fire zone, the men who ordered us, the men who signed
off
> the air raid strike areas, I think these men, by the letter of the law,
the
> same letter of the law that tried Lieutenant Calley, are war criminals.
>
> Five times in the above quote Kerry use the first person singular pronoun
** I **, in which he is referring to himself and his
> actions. He is admitting to committing "the same kind of atrocities as
thousands of other soldiers.." Just because he was one of
> thousands does not make it right.
>
> Either he is admitting to being a war criminal or he is just lying.
Choose the one that suits you best.
>
> --
> Al Reid

I lost the beginning of this thread, but did anyone post the question that
Kerry was responding to? This is a very important component of the context.
He was asked point blank whether he had committed these atrocities. Kerry's
answer was yes, just like others did. What is there to argue? He DID NOT
say that he feels responsible as if he did it himself because he did nothing
to report or stop it. Maybe someone will ask him the question again, point
blank, in one of the debates.

dwhite

"Fred the Red Shirt" <[email protected]> wrote in message > > Well,
there's a difference between just doing something to take up some
> > front page and newscast space (see bombing an aspirin factory in the
Sudan)
> > and taking effective action against Al Queda.
>
> See also Tomahawks vs training camps in Afghanistan. Or did you have
> some other effective action in mind?

"Effective" action would be sending them in while Bin Laden was there
instead of blowing up some camels.

> > > >
> > > That's not *my* understanding. I read that Clinton secretely
rescinded
> > > the Presidential directive banning assasination but also read later
> > > than he only authorized the capture of Bin Laden, though permitting
> > > deadly force to be used. Obviously we cannot know what the truth is.
> >
> > Here is what Clinton said at a business luncheon in February 2002.
> >
> > "Mr. Bin Laden used to live in Sudan ... And we'd been hearing that the
> > Sudanese wanted America to start meeting with them again. They released
him.
> > At the time, '96, he had committed no crime against America so I did not
> > bring him here because we had no basis on which to hold him, though we
knew
> > he wanted to commit crimes against America."
> >
>
> When were the East African Embassy bombings?
>
> When was Al Queda linked to them?

Hmmm.....let's see....does the World Trade Center bombings in 1993 ring a
bell in your head?

todd

I am not the one complaining about the noise, or the one that complained
about the noise, or the one trolling. ;~)

I find the thread interesting but wonder why you start the kind of threads
that you had been complaining about in your good bye post a couple of months
ago?

Bored today Tom? Need more fiber in your diet? Not enough wreck content
for you?

Well, if trolls are judged by quantity, not quality of replies, this one was
a winner.

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


"Tom Watson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Where is that phony Texas accent from?
>
> Is that how they talk back in Kennebunkport?
>
> Why doesn't Jeb sound like Dubya?
>
> Why doesn't Dubya sound like GHW?
>
> I won't be one to say that Dubya talks out of both sides of his mouth.
>
> Sumbitch can barely talk out of one side of his mouth.
>
> Do we really want someone running things who feels that he has to deny
> who he is in order to be what he wants to be?
>
> I sure wish that Billy C. was running again.
>
> At least I'd know how to vote.
>
>
>
>
> Regards,
> Tom.
>
> Thomas J.Watson - Cabinetmaker (ret.)
> tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet (real email)
> http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1

On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 23:14:09 GMT, "Mike Hide" <[email protected]> wrote:

>Sorry for top posting Dave, I guess thats the way the worm turns these days,
>ask Bill Gates, far more clever than I. mjh

Bill Gates also believes that when I paste a graphic onto a Powerpoint
slide, PowerPoint should resize the text and image such that they are
roughly equal size. Makes it neither right nor clever -- it's pretty @#$%
annoying, especially when I'm trying to paste a small thumbnail in a spare
corner to highlight a point.

Bill Gates also believes that the default selection should be to select
the whole word. That also, is neither necessarily right nor clever and it
is one of the first options I turn off when working an a different machine.

Bill Gates thinks a lot of things are "the way it's supposed to be"
mostly just to be different and to show his right to "innovate". Not
right, not clever, just pretty @#$% arrogant.

BTW, I do agree that top-posting is quite annoying, particularly if one
is following a thread for which the main post may not yet have posted or a
thread that one is following either late, or partially. Trim the
non-relevant parts, and put the comments in chronological order.

>
>--
>http://members.tripod.com/mikehide2
>"Dave Hinz" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 06:31:21 GMT, Mike Hide <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> If the vote was based on the popular vote count does that mean that the
>>> US
>>> ceases to be a constitutional republic and becomes a constitutional
>>> democracy ?
>>
>> Define "based on". And please don't top-post, it makes putting your
>> response
>> in context to my message impossible.
>>
>>> In turn doesn't that mean majority rule [mob rule as some call
>>> it] and to heck with minorities ? mjh
>>
>> You're commenting on something I'm not proposing, so I don't see how it
>> applies. I'm saying let each district decide where it's electoral vote
>> goes, rather than (for instance) disenfranchising most of a state that
>> has two very liberal, populous cities.
>>
>> Dave Hinz
>>

On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 17:38:19 GMT, "U-CDK_CHARLES\\Charles" <"Charles
Krug"@cdksystems.com> wrote:

>On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 11:57:14 -0500, Al Spohn <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>> In article <[email protected]>,
>> [email protected] says...
>>>
>>> >It is my vivid recollection that the whole focus of anyone 18 to 24 in those
>>> >days was to somehow escape the draft, and "privilege" was about all that
>>> >would get you into the NG.
>>>
>>> Not necessarily - I got into the guard in '69 and I wasn't
>>> "privileged". I also did not stick around for my last drills - my
>>> first sgt. knew I wasn't going to re-up and thought I might be bad for
>>> moral. :-)
>>
>> The nature of the job makes a difference, though. If you weren't in for
>> flying training, which was an incredibly good deal no matter how you
>> look at it (free jet training, fewer hoops to jump through than active
>> duty folks, generally less protocal BS, generally better maintainence
>> crews, etc,) different rules might have applied.
>>
>> - Al
>
>He also got assigned to an "Air Defense Intercepter" and not to a
>"Fighter." Once that happened, going to Vietnam was out of the
>question. Retraining him for a new plane would have used up his hitch.
>
>

You do realize that, unless terminology has changed, an "Air Defense
Interceptor" IS a "fighter". i.e. an airplane built for air to air
intercept and combat?

On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 08:25:22 -0400, "Gary" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>
>"Leon" <[email protected]> illogically wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>>
>>> I think Clinton is a dispicable person, however "nobody died when Clinton
>>> lied."
>>
>> Except those on the Cole.
>>

Or those abandoned and under-equipped in Rawanda


>The Cole had nothing to do with Clinton's lying about having sex with "that
>woman".
>
>Bush and Co. clearly lied about WMD; result = more than a thousand dead and
>more dying daily.
>

Utilizing the best intelligence information available (and that all sides
of the political spectra agreed was accurate) does NOT equal lying.

Look, the fact that a certain part of the political spectrum hates GWB
with every ounce of their being is one thing. Indicating that one
disagrees with a certain political philosophy is one thing. Accusing one's
opponent of evil when all sides of the political spectrum agreed on the
same information is merely revealing that hatred.

On 23 Sep 2004 11:04:23 -0700, [email protected] (Fred the Red Shirt)
wrote:

>"Leon" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
>> "Gary" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>> >
>> >
>> >> Clintons .. lack of action showed the terrorists what an easy target we
>> > were.
>
>The Clinton administration successfully aprehended prosecuted and
>convicted teh perpetrators of the first WTC bombing. The Clinton
>administration attacked Al Queada training camps in Afghanistan

By lobbing a few Tomahawks into empty tents. Once.

> and
>Bin Laden's aspirin factory in the Sudan,

Bin Laden's aspirin factory? ... and you accuse the sitting president of
using faulty intelligence? Actually, in fairness to the intelligence
community, Clinton was warned that the quality of information regarding the
aspirin factory was not as high as desired. But Monica was taking up too
much of the front page at the time.

> and was was widely criticized
>by the Republicans for 'wagging the dog'. The Clinton Administration
>went into Pakistan and aprehended Kanzi.
>
>Though the Clinton administration decided to kill or capture Bin
>Laden, they did fail in that endeavor.
>

My understanding was that the Clinton administration decided it had no
legal authority to capture or kill Bin Laden. It was only after 9/11 that
Clinton started claiming how he came "this close" to getting Bin Laden when
lobbing those Tomahawks into those empty tents.

.. snip

> Is that how they talk back in Kennebunkport?

Just guessing here, but that drawl might be due to cocanoid erosion of the
nasal passages.

"Eric Johnson" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> <snip>
> > When this is the concern of the other side, you know things are looking
> > good
> > for the President. Maybe you'll have better luck in 2008.
> >
> > todd
>
> Isn't it great, Michael Moore is even ranting that the liberals are rolling
> over and giving up. But you have to figure a hate campaign based on "anyone
> but" was destined to fail. Next they'll be trying to eliminate the electoral
> college so the election can be determined based on liberal urban
> populations.
> EJ
>
>

They actually are trying to eliminate the electoral college thru the back door. They have begun a campaign to introduce measures in
each state to have the electoral votes split in direct proportion to the popular vote. Currently, the measure is on the ballot in
Colorado this year and if approved could effect toe outcome of the current presidential election.
--
Al Reid

How will I know when I get there...
If I don't know where I'm going?

"Wilson" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> Speaking of W.
>
<snip>
>
> That said, W showed poor character for using influence to sign up for
> something and then not seeing it through. For him to impugn the character
> of someone who chose to serve, apparently with distinction, is truly
> reprehensible! Letting his minions and mouthpieces do so shows the depth of
> his cowardice and disqualifies him from any respect from me.
>

There is no evidence of any influence related to GWB getting into the TANG.
We have the statements of a guy who denied it under oath then later changed his story, along with a bunch of forged documents. Does
it not bother you to repeat lies and speculation without any proof?

GWB served with distinction and ammassed enough pointe in each year of his commitment to meet or exceed his commitment. He was
subsequently issued an honerable discharge. That was over a 6 year period.

There are alot of questions about Kerry's service. Three purple hearts in a four month period without ever missing a combat day.
That equates to never having been injured bad enough to have spent one day in the hospital. It seems by his own diary that at least
one wound was self inflicted. So after 4 months of actively seeking to get out of the war that he served with valor, he then comes
back and undermines the soldiers and prisoners of war, both with his testimony to congress and with his unauthorized meetings with
the North Vietnamese in Paris in 70 and 71.

It would be nice to get beyond all of this, but Kerry and his minions keep bringing it up.

> Do I admire Kerry for storming through the jungle shooting up trees and
> people? Not particularly, but at least he went out there and took his
> chances. Perhaps he and JFK were both grandstanders, but a single bullet
> would have brought them down just the same.
>

Kerry is an admitted war criminal. That alone should disqualify him for the presidency.

> The statements of Cheney and others linking future terrorism to the election
> are equally without basis or relevance to the many more important issues
> facing our nation. They show the true intellectual bankruptcy of this
> administration, which is well on the way to financially bankrupting all of
> us. If Cheney knows something about terrorism, he should tell us.
>

Don't forget that 10 out of 10 terrorists support Kerry for president <g> . Seriously, Kerry's criticism of the war (that is when
he is not for the war, or would have voted for it even with what he knows today, but now he is against it) and the President's
handling of it are helping to sustain the terrorists hopes that they can outlast the will of the USA to fight them.

> Sometime when it's quiet, ask yourself what you think W might be doing
> without 9/11 to talk about.
>
> I don't think Kerry is wonderful, but I do think he will choose competent
> advisors and that he can think about more than one thing at a time. He is
> probably capable of rebuilding some of the respect of other nations that W
> has squandered over Iraq.

Kerry will do no better in choosing competent advisons/cabinet members than he has at choosing campaign advisors.

I would rather have strength and security over the respect of the likes the UN and of France, who has now stated that even if Kerry
is elected that they will not commit troops to support our efforts. Where exactly are those world leaders that support Kerry?

>

<snip>

>

--
Al Reid

> Wilson
>
> "Tom Watson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > Where is that phony Texas accent from?
> >
> > Is that how they talk back in Kennebunkport?
> >
> > Why doesn't Jeb sound like Dubya?
> >
> > Why doesn't Dubya sound like GHW?
> >
> > I won't be one to say that Dubya talks out of both sides of his mouth.
> >
> > Sumbitch can barely talk out of one side of his mouth.
> >
> > Do we really want someone running things who feels that he has to deny
> > who he is in order to be what he wants to be?
> >
> > I sure wish that Billy C. was running again.
> >
> > At least I'd know how to vote.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Regards,
> > Tom.
> >
> > Thomas J.Watson - Cabinetmaker (ret.)
> > tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet (real email)
> > http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1
>
>

> There is no evidence of any influence related to GWB getting into the
TANG.

Then how did someone with only a 25% score in the pilot aptitude test jump
to the front of an 18 month waiting list? Not to mention that GW received a
direct appointment to second lieutenant right out of basic training without
having to go through officer candidate training.

> What ever happened to united we stand, divided we fall. Well I guess
> nothing happened as those that want to live here but not participate will
be
> those that make us fall. It is sickening really that we are at war with
> ourselves and do not appreciate the lives lost by those wanting to defend
> our freedom country and freedom.

Defending ones country and freedom is about as honourable as it gets. That's
one issue. Attacking a defenseless country under false pretences is another
issue. Let's not confuse the two.

"Dave Hinz" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 08:05:04 -0400, Al Reid <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > They actually are trying to eliminate the electoral college thru the back door. They have begun a campaign to introduce
measures in
> > each state to have the electoral votes split in direct proportion to the popular vote. Currently, the measure is on the ballot
in
> > Colorado this year and if approved could effect toe outcome of the current presidential election.
>
> My understanding is that it's going by house district, and popular vote
> within those districts. If that's the case, I'm in agreement.
> Why should my EV go for, say, Kerry, when the vast majority of my area
> is rural and votes for Bush? Let my district's EV go for Bush, that's
> great. Since each state gets (N)+2, where N is the number of
> members of the house for the state (and presumably the +2 is for
> the two senators), why not say "majority vote within the district
> determines where that EV goes, and majority vote for the state allocates
> the two extra EVs for the state"?
>
> More representative, better resolution, uses existing boundaries. Would
> it work? Would it be fair?
>
> Dave Hinz

It is completely up to the individual states how they choose to allocate their electoral votes. I am not saying it would be a bad
thing. It should, in my opinion be uniform throughout the country. Right now, the emphasis is to target states where a split could
help one party over the other.

"mp" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> > There is no evidence of any influence related to GWB getting into the
> TANG.
>
> Then how did someone with only a 25% score in the pilot aptitude test jump
> to the front of an 18 month waiting list? Not to mention that GW received a
> direct appointment to second lieutenant right out of basic training without
> having to go through officer candidate training.
>
>

Again, provide to proof of preferential treatment. The only one who is stating it existed is Ben Barnes, who testified under oath
that he did not intervene and now as a Kerry advisor.fund raiser states that he did.

It's easy to say, but where is the proof.

Kerry used self inflicted wounds (scratches) to get out of active duty. can you prove that never happened?

> Again, provide to proof of preferential treatment. The only one who is
stating it existed is Ben Barnes, who testified under oath
> that he did not intervene and now as a Kerry advisor.fund raiser states
that he did.
>
> It's easy to say, but where is the proof.

Kind of a catch 22, if you ask me. He got preferential treatment as
evidenced by his advancement over tens of thousands to the front of the NG
waiting list, his appointment to 2nd lieutenant with having to go through
the requisite officer training, and his bypassing the 18 month flight school
waiting list despite his minimal 25% score on the pilot aptitude test. No,
this isn't preferential treatment. He must have been quite a highly gifted
intellectual genius, not an alcoholic cokehead as friends and roommates
commonly reported.

Funny how his service records are missing some gaps, and the payroll records
for the period in question don't exist anymore. What an amazing coincidence.
Another amazing coincidence is the implementation of drug testing just
before his failure to show up for his mandatory medical exam. Do you think
you or any other average citizen, especially from a lower income or ethnic
demographic, would have been able to go AWOL at whim for months at a time
without spending any time behind bars?

No, there's no proof. That was taken care of before he ran for president.

> Nonsense. The insurgency in Iraq will last as long as there are foreign
> troops on Iraqi soil.

This is a good point and one I wish more people would understand. It would
be the same if the US was invaded and occupied by a foreign country.

> Had Iran been defenseless, we should have been able to just walk in and do
> what needed to be done. Plus, we are still fighting. Absolutely not
> defenseless. No confusion there.

I take it you meant Iraq and not Iran. Initially it was an easy invasion,
and basically, the US did indeed walk in and take over the place. Now the US
is not fighting the Iraqi army, they're fighting a guerrilla war and the
resistance is getting stronger all the time. I doubt it'll be over any time
soon, especially as it's rapidly eroding into a very Vietnam-like situation.

> And, I guess you totally are under the impression that the WTC would not
be
> a good enough indicator that we are under attack from these people waging
a
> holy war against us.

Don't tell me you still believe Iraq had anything at all to do with WTC. You
and Dick Cheney are the only ones still hanging on to that thought. If the
idea was to go after those responsible for WTC, rather than using WTC as a
pretext for action on PNAC ideology, then Saudi Arabia should have been the
first target.

I looked at a US Gov't map listing countries where al Qaeda has operated and
wonder of wonders, Iraq isn't on the list. I'll bet whoever put the list
together didn't obtain their information from Fox news.

http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/terrornet/12.htm

> While I meant Iraq, Iran may be just around the corner.

Seems like it.

> Exactly what is she going to keep an
> eye on?

His, ahh, hmmm...... little one-eyed Billy.

"Gary" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>
> "Leon" <[email protected]> illogically wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> >> I think Clinton is a dispicable person, however "nobody died when Clinton
> >> lied."
> >
> > Except those on the Cole.
> >
> The Cole had nothing to do with Clinton's lying about having sex with "that
> woman".
>
> Bush and Co. clearly lied about WMD; result = more than a thousand dead and
> more dying daily.
>
>
Here are quotes from John Kerry pre Iraq war:


"We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions
(including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's
refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." - Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin (D-MI), Tom
Daschle (D-SD), John Kerry ( D - MA), and others Oct. 9, 1998


"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein
because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002


"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He
presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation .. And now he is miscalculating
America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction... So the threat of Saddam
Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real." - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003


SO NOW YOU SAY THAT PRESIDENT BUSH LIED!



Then Kerry is a liar as well.

"Gary" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>
> "Al Reid" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > Here are quotes from John Kerry pre Iraq war:
> > >
> > "We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S.
> > Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions
> > (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi
> > sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's
> > refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." - Letter to
> > President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin (D-MI), Tom
> > Daschle (D-SD), John Kerry ( D - MA), and others Oct. 9, 1998
> >
> >
> Yes, and the UN sent investigators on-site searching for those WMD's and
> could find none. Mr. Blix reported to the UN on several occasions that the
> Iraqi's weren't the friendliest bunch of people (who would be?), but were
> cooperating and the investigation team could find no evidense of WMDs.
>
> > "I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority
> > to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein
> > because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in
> > his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -
> > Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002
> >
> >
> Purely based on information (mis-information) fed Congress by the
> Whitehouse.
>
>
> > "Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal,
> > murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He
> > presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently
> > prone to miscalculation .. And now he is miscalculating
> > America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for
> > weapons of mass destruction... So the threat of Saddam
> > Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real." - Sen. John F. Kerry
> > (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003
> >
> >
> See above.
>
> > SO NOW YOU SAY THAT PRESIDENT BUSH LIED!
> >
> >
> Yep, that's what I'm saying. Colin Powell went to the UN and tried to sell
> them a load of BS about "tons" of chemical and biological agents and many
> mobile chemical labs. They didn't buy it. Where are those WMD's? If they
> sneaked them off to Syria while we were bickering, then why aren't we
> attacking Syria? or Iran? or wherever the hell they went to?
>
> >
> > Then Kerry is a liar as well.
> >
> No doubt. He's a politician.
> >
> >
>
>

Gary,

Kerry was a member of the Senate Intelligence committee until, I think 2001 (now, admittedly, he missed alot of public meetings and
will not authorize the release of his attendance at closed door sessions). His information came from the same place as GWB's, the
intelligence community. Everyone had the same information and came to the same conclusions. It does no good to call one person a
liar and to dismiss the other as a patsy, when both were working with the same info.

Al

> Those gassed Kurd kids laying on the side of the road in Northern Iraq
were
> just playing dead? ... go ahead, tell them Iraq had no WMD.

There's always two sides to every story, and one tends to be closer to the
truth. GW and his gang are masters at manipulating the truth. Perhaps if you
repeat a lie long enough people eventually accept it as the truth.

http://www.twf.org/News/Y2003/0201-GasKurds.html

http://www.polyconomics.com/searchbase/11-18-98.html

"Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>
> "mp" wrote in message
> > > Those gassed Kurd kids laying on the side of the road in Northern Iraq
> > were
> > > just playing dead? ... go ahead, tell them Iraq had no WMD.
> >
> > There's always two sides to every story, and one tends to be closer to the
> > truth. GW and his gang are masters at manipulating the truth. Perhaps if
> you
> > repeat a lie long enough people eventually accept it as the truth.
>
> LOL ... what happens is that _you_ get fooled when relying on an apologist
> rag like the New York Times for your "spin".
>
> Here's the real story, from a well group of well respected
> (non-conservative) human rights organizations in 1993:
>
> http://www.phrusa.org/research/chemical_weapons/chemiraqgas2.html
>
> Now, just who is it attempting to be "masters at manipulating the truth"?
>
> --
> www.e-woodshop.net
> Last update: 7/10/04
>

In keeping with Michael Moore, many libs like to cling to and espouse their "version" of the facts and truth.

We all know that facts and truth are very subjective<g>.
--
Al Reid

How will I know when I get there...
If I don't know where I'm going?

"Fred the Red Shirt" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> "Kevin Singleton" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> > "Fred the Red Shirt" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> >
> > >> Kerry is an admitted war criminal. That alone should
> > >> disqualify him for the presidency.
> > >
> > > You misconstrue his statement befor "Meet the Press".
> > >
> > Which part is misconstrued? If Leiutenant Calley is a war criminal, then so
> > is John Kerry, by his own admission.
>
> As you show below, you misconstrued hsi remarks when you wrote:
> "Kerry is an admitted war criminal"
>
> > SEN. KERRY: There are all kinds of atrocities, and I would have to say that,
> > yes, yes, I committed the same kind of atrocities as thousands of other
> > soldiers have committed in that I took part in shootings in free fire zones.
> > I conducted harassment and interdiction fire. I used 50 calibre machine
> > guns, which we were granted and ordered to use, which were our only weapon
> > against people. I took part in search and destroy missions, in the burning
> > of villages. All of this is contrary to the laws of warfare, all of this is
> > contrary to the Geneva Conventions and all of this is ordered as a matter of
> > written established policy by the government of the United States from the
> > top down. And I believe that the men who designed these, the men who
> > designed the free fire zone, the men who ordered us, the men who signed off
> > the air raid strike areas, I think these men, by the letter of the law, the
> > same letter of the law that tried Lieutenant Calley, are war criminals.
>
> Reasonable literate people with a modicum of intelligence understand
> from context whean a person is referring to collective moral culpability
> as opposed to specific prosecutable acts.
>
> For instance, I say that we are all responsible for the abuses at
> Abu Ghraib. Do I assuce you of war crimes?
>
> --
>
> FF

How many ways are there to misconstrue "I committed the same kind of atrocities as thousands of other
soldiers have committed..." I don't se any reference to "we" or "us" in that statement. He is specifically referring to himself,
first person singular.

--
Al Reid

How will I know when I get there...
If I don't know where I'm going?

"Gary" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>
> I don't hate anybody. I just think if they impeached Clinton for getting
> his knob polished (possibly back on topic), then why isn't there an outcry
> for justice with Bush lying about WMDs? You're a big gullible fool if you
> think Bush didn't know there were no credible WMDs in Iraq.

By that logic, you would have to remove all leaders of all of the countries that believed that there were, indeed, WMD's in Iraq.
That's a pretty long list. You also have to disqualify Kerry from running because he believed there were as well. It's too late to
unelect Clinton for believing that Iraq had WMDs as well.

I haven't heard any quotes from Clint as to whether he believed that Iraq had WMD's. If he EVER believed that they did, the we have
to call him a liar and disqualify and humiliate him as well

>
> You infer that I'm taking sides. You're wrong, I have a strong dislike for
> all choices.
>
> Clint Eastwood for President!! Write it in.
>
>

--
Al Reid

How will I know when I get there...
If I don't know where I'm going?

"Renata" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 03:35:06 GMT, "Dan White"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> -snip-
> >
> > He is the Commander-in-Chief and prosecuted 2 wars
> >successfully.
> -snip-
>
> You have a funny definition of success.
>
> >Kerry uses his Vietnam experience as sort of evidence that he will be a good
> >Commander. We know how Bush performs as such. Whether you like or dislike
> >Bush's performance as Commander, isn't this infinitely more useful to
> >discuss rather than preferential treatment in the TANG??? It has proven
> >itself to be a losing argument for the dems. It has never worked against
> >Bush and shows desperation.
>
> How's this for desperation...
>
> Trying to instill great fear (misplaced) to get votes.
>
> Sickening. Disgusting.

Renata,

For once, I have to say that I agree with you. It is absolutely sickening, disgracefull, disgustion and down right underhanded of
John Kerry to behave in this way.

--
Al Reid

How will I know when I get there...
If I don't know where I'm going?

>
> >
> >dwhite
> >
>

"Gary" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>
> "Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > "Gary" wrote in message
> >
> >> I don't hate anybody. I just think if they impeached Clinton for getting
> >> his knob polished (possibly back on topic), then why isn't there an
> >> outcry
> >> for justice with Bush lying about WMDs?
> >
> > Because that the first happened is inarguable, and there is no proof
> > whatsoever for the second?
> >
>
> Bull... the fact that there are no WMDs is prima facia evidence that he
> wasn't truthful when he told the world, including the UN through Colin
> Powell, that there were. If he was misinformed, it was HIS inteligence
> agency who misinformed him.
> >
>
>

Gary,

Actually, the Intel community is more institutional that that. They are, for the most part, not political appointees. In fact the
head of the CIA was Clinton's appointee. Therefore, GWB had the same intelligence info that Clinton had. Inarguably, Clinton,
Kerry, GWB, et al. were all working with the same info, it is quite insincere to call one a liar and give the others a free pass.
Perhaps there was a major intel lapse, or perhaps, given the elapsed time between the warnings and the invasion, WMD's were moved,
hidden or destroyed. Who knows?

Can you provide a list of countries that publicly stated that Iraq had no WMD's prior to the war? There were those that opposed the
invasion, including France, Germany, Russia, etc, but none ever said he had no WMD's.

Considering the 57 different positions Kerry has had on Iraq and WMD's, one could easily call him a liar, totally misinformed, or
worse yet a poll driven ego-maniac.

It's time to stop the name calling and, if it is even possible giving the visceral hate of GWB by the left, discuss issues.

--
Al Reid

How will I know when I get there...
If I don't know where I'm going?

"Gary" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> >
> > Actually, the Intel community is more institutional that that. They are,
> > for the most part, not political appointees.
>
> Oh really, I didn't know there were FOUR branches of governement, the
> legislative, the judicial, the executive and now the intelligence branch.
> When was the constituion amended to create that one?
>

Since you obviously don't understand the structure of the government, it is pointless to discuss it. However, do you really believe
that all of the employees of the CIA, Defense Department, IRS, SSA, and the list goes on, are fired and replaces every time a new
administration takes office? You really can't believe that?

> > In fact thehead of the CIA was Clinton's appointee. Therefore, GWB had
> > the same intelligence info that Clinton had. Inarguably, Clinton,
> > Kerry, GWB, et al. were all working with the same info, it is quite
> > insincere to call one a liar and give the others a free pass.
>
> Neither Kerry nor Clinton manipulated the facts to justify a war with Iraq.
>

Nor did GWB.

> > Perhaps there was a major intel lapse, or perhaps, given the elapsed time
> > between the warnings and the invasion, WMD's were moved,
> > hidden or destroyed. Who knows?
> >
>
> Yeah, lets pass the buck. Who's desk does the buck stop on? If the WMDs
> were moved, can intelligence tell us where? Why are we not invading those
> countries? Because they do not exist.
>

You don't know that for sure.

>
> > Can you provide a list of countries that publicly stated that Iraq had no
> > WMD's prior to the war? There were those that opposed the
> > invasion, including France, Germany, Russia, etc, but none ever said he
> > had no WMD's.
> >
> You <bleep> are all alike, you take the obvious truth and turn it around.
> The fact that the majority of the UN (or at least the votes that count)
> voted against the invasion of Iraq is proof that they were not convnced that
> there were WMDs and that there was a clear and present danger.
>

So we resort to name calling. It is you who cannot see the obvious truth that the intel has been gathered over decades and has been
consistent from administration to administration. Kerry, who was on the Senate Intelligence Committee, had direct access to the
intel and data and came, independently, to the same conclusion. He only changed his tune when it became politically expedient to do
so.

> > Considering the 57 different positions Kerry has had on Iraq and WMD's,
> > one could easily call him a liar, totally misinformed, or worse yet a poll
> > driven ego-maniac.
> >
> Like most of you, I don't have a hidden agenda to get Kerry elected by
> bashing Bush. I strongly dislike him also. I think we are in an unjust war
> and I think the President is responsible.
>

I have no hidden agenda. I truly believe that GWB is the right person for the job at this time. It is those who have an agenda
that ignore history and call GWB a liar for using the same info the previous administration had at it's disposal, and who came to
the same conclusion.

It is the same people who accuse GWB of failing to act to stop 9/11 that attack him for taking action to stop SH.

> > It's time to stop the name calling and, if it is even possible giving the
> > visceral hate of GWB by the left, discuss issues.
> >
> I agree.
>
> This will be my last post on the subject. With the passage of the Patriot
> Act, I feel my freedom of speech and right to due process may be in
> jeopardy. Now where is my tin foil hat?
>

Good idea. I think Ashcroft is already on to you and you don't have much time left. Hurry up and fide that tin foil hat.

--
Al

"Dave Hinz" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 09:16:05 -0500, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:

<snip>
>
> Why is it that liberals don't give Bush any credit for convincing Libya
> to get rid of _their_ proven WMD program?
>
>

I suspect that the reason that Libya was so willing to give it up was that it really wasn't theirs in the first place. That is, I
suspect that much of it was inherited from SH.

--
Al Reid

How will I know when I get there...
If I don't know where I'm going?

"Fred the Red Shirt" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> "Al Reid" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> > "Fred the Red Shirt" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> ...
> >
> > How many ways are there to misconstrue "I committed the same kind of atrocities as thousands of other
> > soldiers have committed..." I don't see any reference to "we" or "us" in that statement. He is specifically referring to
himself,
> > first person singular.
>
> I see that too. The difference is that I ALSO see "as thousands of
> other soldiers have committed..." Thus I see that to summarize the
> entire statement as "Kerry is an admitted war criminal" is a
> misconstruction, and a summary of only part of it is misleading
> at best.
>
> Your opinion may differ. That's OK with me so long as you and others
> reading this thread base your opinion on what Kerry said and the
> context in which he said it, rather than on someone else's pararprhasal
> whether misconstructed or not.
>
> The whole business reminds me a lot of a neocon's argument that
> William T. Sherman was an admitted war criminal, based on a single
> sentence taken entirely out of its original context.
>
> --
>
> FF

One more time... there was nothing taken out of context.

SEN. KERRY: There are all kinds of atrocities, and I would have to say that,
yes, yes, ** I ** committed the same kind of atrocities as thousands of other
soldiers have committed in that ** I ** took part in shootings in free fire zones.
** I ** conducted harassment and interdiction fire. ** I ** used 50 calibre machine
guns, which we were granted and ordered to use, which were our only weapon
against people. ** I ** took part in search and destroy missions, in the burning
of villages. All of this is contrary to the laws of warfare, all of this is
contrary to the Geneva Conventions and all of this is ordered as a matter of
written established policy by the government of the United States from the
top down. And I believe that the men who designed these, the men who
designed the free fire zone, the men who ordered us, the men who signed off
the air raid strike areas, I think these men, by the letter of the law, the
same letter of the law that tried Lieutenant Calley, are war criminals.

Five times in the above quote Kerry use the first person singular pronoun ** I **, in which he is referring to himself and his
actions. He is admitting to committing "the same kind of atrocities as thousands of other soldiers.." Just because he was one of
thousands does not make it right.

Either he is admitting to being a war criminal or he is just lying. Choose the one that suits you best.

--
Al Reid

How will I know when I get there...
If I don't know where I'm going?

> with all the horrific violence going on in Iraq right now, there are fewer
> people being killed a day then when Saddam was in power, that alone
> warrants removing him.

You haven't been following the news, have you? In 18 months the US has
probably killed more Iraqi civilians that Saddam ever did. And this doesn't
include the lives lost in the previous Gulf war nor the effects of 12 years
of sanctions.

> Actually I heard on the news today that Sadam was killing about 4000
> civilians per day.. That kinda puts things into perspective. I doubt
that
> 2,000,000 civilians have been killed in the last 18 months.

Can you verify those numbers or did you just pick them out of a hat?

> In Houston AM radio 700 this or yesterday morning.

Geez. Give me a break. Right wing talk radio - well, that explains your
bias. You probably listen to Rush too and watch Fox news every night. If
that's what you rely on for your news you're sadly misinformed.

There's been so much misinformation about Iraq on Amercian media that it's
beyond laughable; it's downright pathetic.

> > There's been so much misinformation about Iraq on Amercian media that
it's
> > beyond laughable; it's downright pathetic.
>
> Damn, damn! ... media's "beyond laughable", presidents a liar and cheat,
> everyone who thinks otherwise is "sadly misinformed", all the jobs are
> leaving, health care is for the wealthy, the rich get richer and all the
tax
> breaks, and the entire GD world hates us because there ain't no *&^&^^$
WMD
> and never was ... I gotta admit at this point I am getting to where I
can't
> stand to see fellow American Kerry's mug for ONE reason only ... his
> "message" is so GD, cotton picking PESSIMISTIC!
>
> What an opportunity these Democrats have missed! ... that's what is
> "downright pathetic".
>
> Now, just WTF do all these immigrants who keep pouring in over here see
that
> the pessimistic nay sayers don't?

Interesting rant, but it doesn't have much to do with American mainstream
media and it's slant on Iraq.

> > Interesting rant, but it doesn't have much to do with American
mainstream
> > media and it's slant on Iraq.
>
> Which is what, "optimistic"? Suppress the kneejek and think again

Not a kneejerk, but the result of casually observing both foreign and US
media for the last 18 months. The BBC, Al Jazeera (yes, Al Jazeera), the
CBC, and much of the other foreign media were more accurate and more
responsible in their reporting and much of what they reported has stood the
test of time.

Early on, even before the invasion, a lot of the US media stopped using
modifiers such as "alleged" or "suspected" in reference to Iraq's supposed
weapons stockpile. Reporters were asking questions like "what is the precise
threat Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction pose to America?" when there
was no proof of either a threat to the US nor of any stockpiles of WMD's.
Not much attention was paid to the actual weapons inspectors such as Scott
Ritter, Hans Blix, or Rolf Ekeus who were saying that any remaning
stockpiles were eliminated in the early 90's. After all, wouldn't they be
the ones in the best position to know?

There was Fox news flaunting headlines such as "Huge Chemical Weapons
Factory Found in Southern Iraq", "30 Iraqis Surrender at Chemical Weapons
Plant", "Coalition Troops Holding Iraqi in Charge of Chemical Weapons" and
"US Troops Capture First Chemical Plant". ABC News ran an exclusive report
that "US troops discover chemical agents, missiles, and what could be a
mobile weapons laboratory in Iraq". Rush's website proclaimed "we're
discovering WMD's all over Iraq". All of these unverified reports turned out
to be false. Responsible media? Fair and Balanced? Hardly. Fox news seemed
to care more about cheerleading the war and selling it to the American
public and truth in reporting came in a distant second.

There was major outrage in the US when Al Jazeera and others showed images
of captured US troops, yet for the previous week footage of captured Iraqi
soldiers were featured daily as headline items. I recall Rumsfeld even had
the gall to refer to the aired footage of captured US troops as a violation
of the Geneva conventions.

There are many more examples. For instance, the Jessica Lynch story. The US
media made her out to be a war hero along with the troops that stormed an
unoccupied hospital for the "rescue". We saw repeated footage of troops in
camouflage storming though stairs, corridors and busting through unlocked
hospital doors. We were told Jessica suffered from multiple bullets wounds
and was raped an tortured by Iraqi soldiers, which turned out to be a lie.
Meanwhile, Al Jazeera accurately reported that Jessica was well cared for
and that it was totally unnecessary for the US troops to break down unlocked
doors, and that the Iraqis earlier tried to drop Jessica off at a US
checkpoint but had to abandon that effort when US troops opened fire on her
ambulance.

Then there's NY Times Judith Miller, the terrorism "expert" whose long list
of front page exclusives turned out to be fabrications sourced from
political exiles with an axe to grind.

I think there'd be much less support for the war and for GW if the American
public had an opportunity to really see what's happening in Iraq.

> > Not a kneejerk, but the result of casually observing both foreign and US
> > media for the last 18 months. The BBC, Al Jazeera (yes, Al Jazeera),
>
> You are talking about the Al Jazeera that had "Baghdad Bob" on TV every
day
> as a REAL event when there was no such thing?!. If you can't tell brain
> washing propaganda when you see it, you're a sicker puppy than I thought.

Big Deal. Baghdad Bob was also on western TV every day. Not everything
Rumsfeld says about Al Jazeera is true. In fact, very little of it is.

Al Jazeera can be and often is critical of American foreign policy but so
are countless other news networks from many other countries around the
world. Al Jazeera is also critical of many Arab regimes and as a result it's
been banned in several middle east countries. They're a lot more
professional and objective than you give them credit for.

I don't know if you have access to CBC programming; if you do they're
currently airing a documentary on Al Jazeera shot just before and during the
Iraq invasion. It's called Control Room and it's well worth watching if you
have an interest in world affairs. It was shot by an American and most of
the production crew are American, but I doubt it'll ever be aired on
American networks.

http://www.cbc.ca/passionateeyesunday/controlroom/notes.html

> How rich is this? Aren't you the one saying conclusively that "Bush lied"
> simply because he and his administration disagreed with the UN
> recommendations and/or findings that you like to cite? I still have yet
to
> see any evidence that he lied.

Ok, lets say he didn't lie. Let's say nothing that he that said was true.

> > Ok, lets say he didn't lie. Let's say nothing that he that said was
true.
> >
>
> There is a very large difference between the two. I'm glad you can make
> that distinction. A lie implies he acted against valid information he had
> to the contrary.

A good example of this is the Nigerian yellowcake fiasco. The forged
documents were rejected by the CIA, but this wasn't good enough for Cheney,
who then sent Joseph Wilson to investigate. Wilson also concluded that the
documents were fake. Both Bush and Cheney were told from at least two levels
that the documents were fake.

In his 2003 State of the Union address, Bush cited intelligence that
claimed Iraq had or had tried to import uranium from Niger to make nuclear
weapons (that's noo-klar in Bushspeak). Using your terminology, Bush acted
against valid information he had to the contrary. I guess this makes him a
liar.

> I have a question for you if you don't mind answering. I hear dem after
dem
> bemoaning the fact that we have lost a 1000 soldiers in this war.

Why doesn't anyone bemoan the 10,000 or so injured?

> To dems, these are 1000 wasted lives. Here's the question.
> Why do you care so much about military deaths when the military itself
seems
> to accept it?

Perhaps the mothers, fathers, husbands, wives, brothers, sisters, son's and
daughters do care, even if the military or Bush don't.

> Are you somehow their protectors? When Bush spoke to the
> American Legion he got 7 standing ovations.

Isn't a standing ovation a requirement of Bush's handlers?

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/page.cfm?objectid=12713155&method=full&

> Joseph Wilson has been shown to be politically motivated, and got that job
> from recommendation by his wife. They initially denied this link, and
then
> the letter exposed where she recommended him for the job. Last I heard he
> never even had access to the information he would have needed to make an
> assessment.

Wilson confirmed the documents were fake. It wasn't really that hard to do
as they were rather crude and amateurish forgeries, and his findings were
reported to Cheney. Regardless of Wilsons political motivations, the
documents are still forgeries.

Whats surprising, really, is that Bush would get up in front of the world
stage and use this discredited information in his state of the nation
address.

> British intel still stands by the info,

Would this be the same British intelligence that plagarized a 10 year old
student paper and used this as justification for war?

> and I also believe a couple of weeks
> ago there was further evidence pointing that there is truth to this story
> after all. I haven't looked further into it for lack of time, but you
can't
> just latch onto one report that says everything is fake and consider it a
> done deal and everybody lied.

I haven't heard anything new, but I seem to recall that every other nation
that saw the Niger documents quickly dismissed them as fakes.

The ironic part of the whole story is that Iraq didn't have to go to Niger
to obtain yellowcake. There are yellowcake deposits right in Iraq near the
Syrian border. And even if Iraq did have a mountain of the stuff, yellowcake
contains only a tiny trace of U-235, and to convert it to fissile material
would require that huge amounts of yellowcake be processed in gasification
plants and centrifuges, none of which existed in Iraq.

If Saddam wanted to build a nooklar bomb he would have been much further
ahead to go shopping for parts and materials, or maybe even a nooklar bomb
kit, in one of the "stan" countries, rather than trying to covertly process
thousands of tons of yellowcake under the nose of UN inspectors using
equipment he didn't have.

Pakistan for example, was apparently having a nooklar sale of some sort.
Lots of Pakistani scientists were selling North Korean technology at fire
sale prices. Buy two secrets get one free. Buy now don't pay for six months.
That sort of thing.

>
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/page.cfm?objectid=12713155&method=full&
>
> Guffaw! Next you'll be sending us links to the Enquirer and the Star...and
> al Jezeera.

Glad you liked it.

"Fred the Red Shirt" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> "Todd Fatheree" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> > "Fred the Red Shirt" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> > > "Todd Fatheree" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:<[email protected]>...
> > > > "Fred the Red Shirt" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > > > > > Hmmm.....let's see....does the World Trade Center bombings in 1993
> > ring
> > a
> > > > > > bell in your head?
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > When was bin Laden linked to the 1993 attack?
> > > >
> > > > According to http://www.worldhistory.com/binladen.htm, he was involved
> > in
> > > > the 1993 WTC attack. But if you look at the list, there was plenty of
> > other
> > > > stuff prior to 1996 that would have warranted us wanting Bin Laden.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Yes, I knew that. What I do not know is if that was understood in 1996.
> > >
> > > If bin Laden's involvement with the bombing of the Cole and assistance
> > > to Adid in Magadishu was understood prior to September 2001, it
> > > received damn little attention in the press.
> > >
> > > It is not at all clear when those connections were made.
> >
> > And what if we find just one legit story from the time that made the
> > connections? Then will Clinton have been wrong for not taking Bin Laden?
> > I'll bother looking if it will make any difference.
> >
>
> If it is correct that bin Laden was behind so many of those, and
> I'm not denying that he was, a failure on the part of the Clinton
> administration to connect the dots in a timely manner reflects
> rather poorly on them, right?
>
> --
>
> FF

FF,

Get a copy of the 911 Report (available on-line) and look at the info on the PDB provided to Clinton on December 4, 1998.

--
Al Reid

How will I know when I get there...
If I don't know where I'm going?

"mp" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> > dwhite said:
> > How rich is this? Aren't you the one saying conclusively that "Bush
lied"
> > simply because he and his administration disagreed with the UN
> > recommendations and/or findings that you like to cite? I still have yet
> to
> > see any evidence that he lied.
>
> Ok, lets say he didn't lie. Let's say nothing that he that said was true.
>

There is a very large difference between the two. I'm glad you can make
that distinction. A lie implies he acted against valid information he had
to the contrary. Saying nothing that is true implies the the information
itself was incorrect. Thanks for clearing all that up, and please tell the
rest of the guys on your side to put a sock in it. The man didn't lie,
plain and simple. There were just too many others, including Kerry with the
same intelligence info (well, since Kerry never showed up, maybe not) who
believed the same exact things. I also believe the weapons just haven't
been found yet. There is plenty of evidence of mass demolition and
deconstruction of facilies in Iraq. Someone else posted some of this info.

Whew, glad that issue is resolved!
dwhite

In article <fSD4d.3701$fa.2688@trndny09>, U-CDK_CHARLES\\Charles <
Krug"@cdksystems.com> wrote:

>
Snipped

> He also got assigned to an "Air Defense Intercepter" and not to a
> "Fighter." Once that happened, going to Vietnam was out of the
> question. Retraining him for a new plane would have used up his hitch.
>
I'm sure your learned opinion about the F-102 not going to Vietnam is
great comfort to 1st Lt Wallace Wiggins who was shot down by a Mig-21
flying a 102 in Vietnam during the Palace Alert Program. Incidently, a
program that GW volunteered for.

http://www.powmiaff.org/California/mia312.html

Pugs

On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 18:40:52 GMT, "Mike in Mystic"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>I never said that I thought George W. Bush was some brilliant presidential
>force that should receive accolade upon accolade. But do you honestly feel
>that it is an intelligent point of view to desire to have Bill Clinton back
>in the White House?

Yeah, I figure he'll have a had a nice long rest after the hard work
he had to do to clean up Bush The Elder's mess and will be ready to do
the same for Bush Lite. There's one Tax and Spender that knows how to
get us out of the Bushes.

I hope Hillary runs for VP so that she can keep a little closer eye on
him this time around.



Regards,
Tom.

Thomas J.Watson - Cabinetmaker (ret.)
tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet (real email)
http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1

"mp" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> You haven't been following the news, have you? In 18 months the US has
> probably killed more Iraqi civilians that Saddam ever did. And this
> doesn't
> include the lives lost in the previous Gulf war nor the effects of 12
> years
> of sanctions.


Actually I heard on the news today that Sadam was killing about 4000
civilians per day.. That kinda puts things into perspective. I doubt that
2,000,000 civilians have been killed in the last 18 months.

"mp" wrote in message
> > Those gassed Kurd kids laying on the side of the road in Northern Iraq
> were
> > just playing dead? ... go ahead, tell them Iraq had no WMD.
>
> There's always two sides to every story, and one tends to be closer to the
> truth. GW and his gang are masters at manipulating the truth. Perhaps if
you
> repeat a lie long enough people eventually accept it as the truth.

LOL ... what happens is that _you_ get fooled when relying on an apologist
rag like the New York Times for your "spin".

Here's the real story, from a well group of well respected
(non-conservative) human rights organizations in 1993:

http://www.phrusa.org/research/chemical_weapons/chemiraqgas2.html

Now, just who is it attempting to be "masters at manipulating the truth"?

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 7/10/04

"Jake" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> <snip>
>
> >
> > I have a question for you if you don't mind answering. I hear dem after
dem
> > bemoaning the fact that we have lost a 1000 soldiers in this war.
Everybody
> > knows this is a ridiculously low number, but the big difference between
the
> > dems and repubs is that the repubs believe the war was necessary and the
> > dems don't. To dems, these are 1000 wasted lives. Here's the question.
> > Why do you care so much about military deaths when the military itself
seems
> > to accept it? Are you somehow their protectors?
>
> Inasmuch as they work for and represent us, yes we do have a
> responsibility to protect them from unwarranted and needless dangers.
>
>
> When Bush spoke to the
> > American Legion he got 7 standing ovations. When Kerry went there a
week
> > later, he got lukewarm applause. Everywhere Bush goes before the
military
> > he gets standing o's. Kerry won't even speak before same. If the
people
> > who are living and dying by Bush's decisions seem to love him, why do
you
> > feel your opinion carries as much weight as the people who are in the
> > trenches?
>
> Considering that dissenters are not allowed in Bush rallies, I would
> give absolutely no credence to "standing o's" - military or not.
>
>

So how come Kerry got a cold reception at the American Legion while Bush got
7 standing O's the same week?

I don't recall Clinton EVER getting a standing O from the military. You
make it sound like these guys are tin soldiers with no ability to think.

dwhite

On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 08:05:04 -0400, Al Reid <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> They actually are trying to eliminate the electoral college thru the back door. They have begun a campaign to introduce measures in
> each state to have the electoral votes split in direct proportion to the popular vote. Currently, the measure is on the ballot in
> Colorado this year and if approved could effect toe outcome of the current presidential election.

My understanding is that it's going by house district, and popular vote
within those districts. If that's the case, I'm in agreement.
Why should my EV go for, say, Kerry, when the vast majority of my area
is rural and votes for Bush? Let my district's EV go for Bush, that's
great. Since each state gets (N)+2, where N is the number of
members of the house for the state (and presumably the +2 is for
the two senators), why not say "majority vote within the district
determines where that EV goes, and majority vote for the state allocates
the two extra EVs for the state"?

More representative, better resolution, uses existing boundaries. Would
it work? Would it be fair?

Dave Hinz

On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 13:13:04 -0400, Al Reid <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> "Dave Hinz" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>> Why not say "majority vote within the district
>> determines where that EV goes, and majority vote for the state allocates
>> the two extra EVs for the state"?
>
> It is completely up to the individual states how they choose to allocate their electoral votes. I am not saying it would be a bad
> thing. It should, in my opinion be uniform throughout the country. Right now, the emphasis is to target states where a split could
> help one party over the other.

Well, maybe, but based on polls Wisconsin is either Red or Blue this week,
depending on what time and day you look. Either way, the 10 votes will
go to one or the other, when the people of the state want it to be
6/4 or 5/5. If we pushed for it here, right now it's a toss-up as to who
would benefit most from it, so isn't that the _perfect_ time to bring it
up?

I don't know what Colorado's distribution is. I'd love to see a
breakdown of polls by congressional district, for the presidential vote,
but I suspect nobody publishes that. electoral-vote.com has some good
coverage, by the way.

Dave Hinz

On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 17:39:48 GMT, alexy <[email protected]> wrote:
> Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>why not say "majority vote within the district
>>determines where that EV goes, and majority vote for the state allocates
>>the two extra EVs for the state"?
>>
> If you think redistricting is politicized now, you ain't seen nothing
> yet if that proposal were to go through!

Well, those are already political, and it's the same players, and it
determines EVs already, so I'm not seeing it. And doing it when a state
is battleground is the _best_ time to do it. Obviously pushing for this in
California would be clearly for the purpose of getting more "red" votes,
and even though I am of that leaning I'd object to it because of the
obvious motivation. But, Wisconsin right now is a dead heat, the perfect
time to bring something like this up. Sure, gerymandering will continue,
but I'm not sure it'd get worse; the same players and motivations are
there today.


> If you don't like the current
> system, what's wrong with proportional to popular vote in the state --
> if Joe Blow gets 13% of the popular vote, he gets 13% of the electors.

How does that work for states with 3 EVs? The electoral college has a purpose
that I think is still valid; eliminating it isn't the answer; making it
more representative and a better resolution sampling, I think, _is_
appropriate.

Dave Hinz

On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 06:31:21 GMT, Mike Hide <[email protected]> wrote:
> If the vote was based on the popular vote count does that mean that the US
> ceases to be a constitutional republic and becomes a constitutional
> democracy ?

Define "based on". And please don't top-post, it makes putting your response
in context to my message impossible.

> In turn doesn't that mean majority rule [mob rule as some call
> it] and to heck with minorities ? mjh

You're commenting on something I'm not proposing, so I don't see how it
applies. I'm saying let each district decide where it's electoral vote
goes, rather than (for instance) disenfranchising most of a state that
has two very liberal, populous cities.

Dave Hinz

On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 23:14:09 GMT, Mike Hide <[email protected]> wrote:
> Sorry for top posting Dave, I guess thats the way the worm turns these days,
> ask Bill Gates, far more clever than I. mjh

Just because Bill puts the cursor there doesn't mean that's where you have
to type. It impedes effective communication when you do it that way,
and in a format where the purpose of the group is communication, it's
odd that someone would knowingly disregard something as obvious as talking
frontwards rather than backwards.

On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 09:16:05 -0500, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Let's analogize on a very simple level with your same (lack of) logic:
> You visit Crater of Diamonds State Park (Iraq) for a week (year) and you dig
> the entire time and find NO diamonds (WMD) ... now, as you put it, this is
> "prima facia" (sic) evidence that there are NO diamonds (WMD).

Not exactly. It's more like:
"Hi, I want to come in and dig for diamonds."
"Sorry, not yet. Wait a couple years."
"Hi, it's been a couple years, can I come in now?"
"Er, hang on, you can dig in a few minutes, just wait a second (shuffle
shuffle)"
"I'm tired of waiting to come in and dig for diamonds"
"Yes yes, almost ready for you, just a second."
"That's it, I'm coming in."
"OK, er, yeah, go ahead and look around, we have, er, nothing to
hide (that we haven't finished hiding already).
"Gee, that's funny; I see diamond processing centers, I see buried trailers
carefully stored which are full of diamond-polishing equipment,
there are a few scattered diamonds lying around at roadsides,
but oddly enough there aren't any diamonds in this diamond mine."
"So you were lying when you said we had diamonds, see?!?!?!"

We gave 'em years to hide the stuff. If it's still in country, it's
hidden where we haven't been allowed to look yet. Imagine that.

Why is it that liberals don't give Bush any credit for convincing Libya
to get rid of _their_ proven WMD program?

On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 17:07:31 GMT, Leon <[email protected]> wrote:
> I believe you have hit the nail on the head. I have been saying this for
> months.

What? Who? You give zero context as to who you're answering.

On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 20:10:55 GMT, Leon <[email protected]> wrote:
> If you will notice, I posted directly under and to your comment.

Ah, I see the confusion. Not all Usenet posts arrive in the same place
around the world at the same time, and not all newsreading programs handle
displays the same way. It's often suggested that you include enough context
in a reply to make it clear who/what you are responding to, to make
communication work better.

With as convoluted a path as most Usenet posts take to get from the
sender to the thousands of newshosts, the surprising thing isn't that
posts arrive out of order (or not at all) sometimes, it's that it almost
always works at all.

On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 20:31:30 GMT, Leon <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> "Dave Hinz" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...

>> With as convoluted a path as most Usenet posts take to get from the
>> sender to the thousands of newshosts, the surprising thing isn't that
>> posts arrive out of order (or not at all) sometimes, it's that it almost
>> always works at all.
>
> I can honestly say that I "seldom" have a problem knowing who the post is
> from or to.

OK, so I was trying to provide you a clue as to why answering a post with
zero context doesn't help you communicate. I now see that your communication
issues are more than merely not knowing that.

On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 21:21:04 GMT, Kim <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> "Dave Hinz" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 20:31:30 GMT, Leon <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>
>> OK, so I was trying to provide you a clue as to why answering a post with
>> zero context doesn't help you communicate. I now see that your
>> communication
>> issues are more than merely not knowing that.
>
> I am not sure where you have been hanging out but you are going to have a
> full time job here trying to enforce posting etiquette.

I'm not trying to enforce anything, I was telling Leon why posting a one
sentence "I agree with what you said" message, without saying what or
who he's agreeing with, isn't effective.

On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 21:27:42 GMT, Leon <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> "Dave Hinz" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 20:31:30 GMT, Leon <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> OK, so I was trying to provide you a clue as to why answering a post with
>> zero context doesn't help you communicate. I now see that your
>> communication
>> issues are more than merely not knowing that.
>
> Good luck with your frustrating effort to police the group.

I was trying to _educate_ you, Leon. Obviously thinking you were
educable was an error, although I notice that you are now providing
context with your responses. You and Kim should get together by the way,
you seem to have a lot in common.

On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 21:44:06 GMT, Leon <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> "Dave Hinz" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> I was trying to _educate_ you, Leon. Obviously thinking you were
>> educable was an error
>
> I thought I was trying to educate you. Funny huh?

Er, yeah. Bye, Leon/Kim.

On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 22:58:13 GMT, Tripod <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> I was trying to _educate_ you, Leon. Obviously thinking you were
>> educable was an error, although I notice that you are now providing
>> context with your responses. You and Kim should get together by the way,
>> you seem to have a lot in common.

> I knew exactly who Leon was talking to, as did others I am sure.

From a one-liner you could tell who he was talking to and which point he
was answering?

> Perhaps you should ask _if_ someone wishes to be educated before undertaking
> the task!

No, that's OK, Leon/Kim can go on posting less-effective-than-possible
posts for all I care. It's funny that the time he switched from Leon to
Kim, he didn't even bother doing _anything_ to his headers to hide his
sock-puppet ploy.

> As far as getting together, maybe you could get together with some wood and
> spend some time doing something constructive! Or maybe go get laid!!!! :)

"Hey, you know, when you do (stupid thing), you aren't going to accomplish
things as well as you intend". Pretty simple, really.

On Tue, 28 Sep 2004 03:26:02 GMT, Leon <[email protected]> wrote:
> You know, if you look at the post above yours I was defending you on calling
> me for using my wife's name to make a post.

You don't get it. "The post above yours" is meaningless in Usenet, unless
I'm looking over your shoulder, looking at your newsreader with your
configuration with the same newsserver at the same moment. That's why
context is important.

Bye, Leon. I can't see any value in spending any time on you.

On Tue, 28 Sep 2004 10:06:30 -0500, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Dave Hinz" wrote in message
>
>> Bye, Leon. I can't see any value in spending any time on you.
>
> Your loss ... Leon has a world of woodworking expertise, including a nifty
> router jig and other ideas, that he shares freely with the forum.

Well, that could be, but "it's right in the message above this one"
shows a _staggering_ lack of understanding, and the tone he uses shows
he isn't interested in changing that.

> Seems damn silly to get your panties in such a twist for one post without
> quotes on an off-topic thread ... although I agree with most of what you
> say, it sounds like these political discussions may have narrowed your
> perspective ... they'll do that.

Funny thing is, I think Leon and I might agree politically, but he never gives
enough content about who he's talking to or about to know for sure.

On Tue, 28 Sep 2004 12:43:25 -0500, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Dave Hinz" wrote in message
>
>> Well, that could be, but "it's right in the message above this one"
>> shows a _staggering_ lack of understanding, and the tone he uses shows
>> he isn't interested in changing that.
>
> After watching his posts for about four years now, I got the distinct
> impression that he was just being facetious with that remark ... later, and
> IIRC, he even used the word "jest" in place of "gist", which I thought was
> further confirmation of that.

Dunno. Hard to care.

"Fred the Red Shirt" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

>> Kerry is an admitted war criminal. That alone should
>> disqualify him for the presidency.
>
> You misconstrue his statement befor "Meet the Press".
>
Which part is misconstrued? If Leiutenant Calley is a war criminal, then so
is John Kerry, by his own admission.

SEN. KERRY: There are all kinds of atrocities, and I would have to say that,
yes, yes, I committed the same kind of atrocities as thousands of other
soldiers have committed in that I took part in shootings in free fire zones.
I conducted harassment and interdiction fire. I used 50 calibre machine
guns, which we were granted and ordered to use, which were our only weapon
against people. I took part in search and destroy missions, in the burning
of villages. All of this is contrary to the laws of warfare, all of this is
contrary to the Geneva Conventions and all of this is ordered as a matter of
written established policy by the government of the United States from the
top down. And I believe that the men who designed these, the men who
designed the free fire zone, the men who ordered us, the men who signed off
the air raid strike areas, I think these men, by the letter of the law, the
same letter of the law that tried Lieutenant Calley, are war criminals.

--
Kevin
-=#=-
www.freerepublic.com

"Eric Johnson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> So if the popular vote in Denver was completely opposite of the popular
> vote in Fort Collins then Fort Collins voice is not heard correct?


No, they will be heard, and they will loose.

Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote:

>On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 08:05:04 -0400, Al Reid <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> They actually are trying to eliminate the electoral college thru the back door. They have begun a campaign to introduce measures in
>> each state to have the electoral votes split in direct proportion to the popular vote. Currently, the measure is on the ballot in
>> Colorado this year and if approved could effect toe outcome of the current presidential election.
>
>My understanding is that it's going by house district, and popular vote
>within those districts. If that's the case, I'm in agreement.
>Why should my EV go for, say, Kerry, when the vast majority of my area
>is rural and votes for Bush? Let my district's EV go for Bush, that's
>great. Since each state gets (N)+2, where N is the number of
>members of the house for the state (and presumably the +2 is for
>the two senators), why not say "majority vote within the district
>determines where that EV goes, and majority vote for the state allocates
>the two extra EVs for the state"?
>
>More representative, better resolution, uses existing boundaries. Would
>it work? Would it be fair?
>
>Dave Hinz

If you think redistricting is politicized now, you ain't seen nothing
yet if that proposal were to go through! If you don't like the current
system, what's wrong with proportional to popular vote in the state --
if Joe Blow gets 13% of the popular vote, he gets 13% of the electors.
--
Alex
Make the obvious change in the return address to reply by email.

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

What ever happened to united we stand, divided we fall. Well I guess
nothing happened as those that want to live here but not participate will be
those that make us fall. It is sickening really that we are at war with
ourselves and do not appreciate the lives lost by those wanting to defend
our freedom country and freedom. If the majority sees a problem with the
present administration then this can be changed at election time. I have
pity for those that stand back and attack our leaders. Worthless as they
may seem at times they were elected to do a job as they and the law see fit.
Working with, instead of against will do more good for this country. Those
standing around whining about the current president, regardless of which
president is current are the same type slackers that most of us have had to
work with at our jobs that did nothing but complain.

On Tue, 21 Sep 2004 22:08:31 -0400, Tom Watson <[email protected]>
calmly ranted:

>Where is that phony Texas accent from?
>
>Is that how they talk back in Kennebunkport?
>
>Why doesn't Jeb sound like Dubya?
>
>Why doesn't Dubya sound like GHW?
>
>I won't be one to say that Dubya talks out of both sides of his mouth.
>
>Sumbitch can barely talk out of one side of his mouth.
>
>Do we really want someone running things who feels that he has to deny
>who he is in order to be what he wants to be?
>
>I sure wish that Billy C. was running again.
>
>At least I'd know how to vote.

I slapped a Badnarik sticker on my tailgate last weekend.
www.Badnarik.org I like (most of) Michael's stance.

--
Friends don't let friends vote Republican or Democrat.
ENOUGH IS ENOUGH. VOTE LIBERTARIAN

"Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Seems damn silly to get your panties in such a twist for one post without
> quotes on an off-topic thread ... although I agree with most of what you
> say, it sounds like these political discussions may have narrowed your
> perspective ... they'll do that.


Hell Swingman, I agreed with most of what he had to say politically also but
he just seemed to want to find fault in everything. He started in on some
one else for not posting "like he likes to see posts". I guessing he may be
wound a bit too tight. ;~)

Kerry DID ask for the Purple Hearts

Wilson wrote:

> Good points.
>> > That said, W showed poor character for using influence to sign up for
>> > something and then not seeing it through. For him to impugn the
> character
>> > of someone who chose to serve, apparently with distinction, is truly
>> > reprehensible! Letting his minions and mouthpieces do so shows the
> depth of
>> > his cowardice and disqualifies him from any respect from me.
>> >
>>
>> There is no evidence of any influence related to GWB getting into the
> TANG.
>> We have the statements of a guy who denied it under oath then later
> changed his story, along with a bunch of forged documents. Does
>> it not bother you to repeat lies and speculation without any proof?
>
> I don't mean to repeat lies. I knew several people who did it and all
> "knew
> someone" and had letters of support. It's too much to believe that the
> Bush connections had no effect. MANY people were rejected. I said all
> along I don't blame anyone for not wanting to be shot at.
>>
>> GWB served with distinction and ammassed enough pointe in each year of
>> his
> commitment to meet or exceed his commitment. He was
>> subsequently issued an honerable discharge. That was over a 6 year
> period.
>>
>> There are alot of questions about Kerry's service. Three purple hearts
>> in
> a four month period without ever missing a combat day.
>> That equates to never having been injured bad enough to have spent one
>> day
> in the hospital.
>
> Did he ask for the hearts? Did he bribe for them? I actually consider
> them
> a ninor factor. The fact is he was out there allowing himself to be shot
> at. What happened to him was largely a matter of luck. If I were a VC
> sniper, I could have easily gotten him.
>
> It seems by his own diary that at least
>> one wound was self inflicted. So after 4 months of actively seeking to
> get out of the war that he served with valor, he then comes
>> back and undermines the soldiers and prisoners of war, both with his
> testimony to congress and with his unauthorized meetings with
>> the North Vietnamese in Paris in 70 and 71.
>
> So he wised up. He was young, after all. I don't buy the idea of
> undermining troops. If the troops don't have the strength of their own
> convictions, they shouldn't be there. Dissent is not treason and it isn't
> disrespect of those who serve. Several presidents have agreed with that
> idea. I respect every individual who serves honorably but that has
> nothing to do with my support of a war.
>>
>> It would be nice to get beyond all of this, but Kerry and his minions
>> keep
> bringing it up.
>>
>> > Do I admire Kerry for storming through the jungle shooting up trees and
>> > people? Not particularly, but at least he went out there and took his
>> > chances. Perhaps he and JFK were both grandstanders, but a single
> bullet
>> > would have brought them down just the same.
>> >
>>
>> Kerry is an admitted war criminal. That alone should disqualify him for
> the presidency.
>
> I'm not sure of the crimes here. Torture, mutilation, genocide??
>>
>> > The statements of Cheney and others linking future terrorism to the
> election
>> > are equally without basis or relevance to the many more important
>> > issues
>> > facing our nation. They show the true intellectual bankruptcy of this
>> > administration, which is well on the way to financially bankrupting all
> of
>> > us. If Cheney knows something about terrorism, he should tell us.
>> >
>>
>> Don't forget that 10 out of 10 terrorists support Kerry for president <g>
> . Seriously, Kerry's criticism of the war (that is when
>> he is not for the war, or would have voted for it even with what he knows
> today, but now he is against it) and the President's
>> handling of it are helping to sustain the terrorists hopes that they can
> outlast the will of the USA to fight them.
>
> This is like the troop thing. I don't think you know what the terrorists
> think and I don't think they are particularly afraid of any particular
> politician. They are whipping us on the field and in public opinion, even
> with Bush. Political support of more allies would hurt them more than W's
> mouth. Yes, they are losing more people, but they seem to be able to
> afford
> them better than we can. I think we are, and always will be, vulnerable.
> No one here is ready for the kind of "security" it would take to not be
> vulnerable. All you need are a few people with clean records ready to
> come in and get to work, not to mention the many already here and the many
> natives willing to help them.
>>
>> > Sometime when it's quiet, ask yourself what you think W might be doing
>> > without 9/11 to talk about.
>> >
>> > I don't think Kerry is wonderful, but I do think he will choose
> competent
>> > advisors and that he can think about more than one thing at a time. He
> is
>> > probably capable of rebuilding some of the respect of other nations
>> > that
> W
>> > has squandered over Iraq.
>>
>> Kerry will do no better in choosing competent advisons/cabinet members
> than he has at choosing campaign advisors.
>
> Good point. We expect way too much from campaigns. I don't think anyone
> knows what they "will do". As long as we demand promises and handouts,
> we'll keep getting slimy campaigns. We need an intellectual leader who
> will
> build respect around the world and balance our budget. Who's gonna vote
> for that?
>>
>> I would rather have strength and security over the respect of the likes
> the UN and of France, who has now stated that even if Kerry
>> is elected that they will not commit troops to support our efforts.
>> Where
> exactly are those world leaders that support Kerry?
>
> I don't agree that W represents strength.
> I don't think we are secure.
> There are now far more "terrorists", whatever that is, than before the
> war. The war is a wreck.
> There were/are no real plans for the peace.
> There is a real risk Iraq will revert to something worse than Saddam.
>
> I didn't say anyone would support Kerry, just that he has a better chance
> than W to gain respect.
>
> I don't have much love for the UN or France. They are just what we have
> to
> work with and I don't think we can function alone. BTW, France was
> absolutely right about WMD, the main justification for the "war".
>
> I don't agree it's a war. It's a rat shoot
>>
> For all the money spent, we could have hired every terrorist in the world
> to carry food to Darfur!
>
> Wilson

Greetings and Salutations....

>
>I hear Mr. Pat Paulson is thinking about a resurrected comeback
>campaign.
>Bc
>path.walk.at.cen.tury.tel.net
>
It would not be the FIRST time that voters preferred a
dead guy....
<http://www.dailytexanonline.com/news/2000/11/09/Campaign2000/Ashcroft.Concedes.To.Late.Carnahan-700858.shtml>
It may not have been MUCH of a win, but, it was good
enough....and a much wider margin than SOME "winners" had.
Regards
Dave Mundt

On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 08:53:00 -0400, Richard Clements
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Kerry DID ask for the Purple Hearts
And went over his commanding officers head when he refused to award
one of them.

Greetings and salutations....

On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 07:03:51 -0700, Larry Jaques
<novalidaddress@di\/ersify.com> wrote:

>On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 04:36:26 GMT, [email protected] (Dave Mundt) calmly
>ranted:

Hum..."Calmly Ranted"...I like that...and it *is* often
the way I interact with reality...*smile*.

>
>> Greetings and Salutations....
>>
>>>
>>>I hear Mr. Pat Paulson is thinking about a resurrected comeback
>>>campaign.
>>>Bc
>>>path.walk.at.cen.tury.tel.net
>>>
>> It would not be the FIRST time that voters preferred a
>>dead guy....
>><http://www.dailytexanonline.com/news/2000/11/09/Campaign2000/Ashcroft.Concedes.To.Late.Carnahan-700858.shtml>
>> It may not have been MUCH of a win, but, it was good
>>enough....and a much wider margin than SOME "winners" had.
>
>That one cracked me up, and I agree with the dead-guy voters.
>Asscroft would never be my choice, period.
>
Yea...it was really funny to see the spin that his
side tried to put on it that it was a sympathy vote for
the widow...

>
>Michael Badnarik on Voting Third-Party:
>"If you were in prison and you had a 50% chance of lethal injection,
>a 45% chance of going to the electric chair, and only a 5% chance of
>escape, are you likely to vote for lethal injection because that is
>your most likely outcome? If you continue to vote for the Democrats
>or the Republicans, you are committing political suicide."
>
>Vote Libertarian and live. ;)
>
Indeed...I have voted Libertarian quite a number of times
over the years. While I realize it was more idealism than reality,
it always feels kind of good to make a statement.

>
>
>> Regards
>> Dave Mundt
>
>Dave, where can I find a Knowne World Handbook cheap?
>
>
Well, that is one of those publications that can
be a challenge. Of course, there is the "official" source...
https://secure.sca.org/cgi-bin/stockclerk/other.html
(scroll down a bit). That is $16 plus some shipping.
You might be able to do better at an event,
as many merchants carry copies (Shame that this question
came up just AFTER Pennsic...instead of before).
If you just want to poke through it a bit,
you MIGHT be able to pry one loose from a Scadian's hands...
But, I don't know how successful that would be.
You might also try posting to the Rialto newsgroup
(rec.org.sca), to see if someone has an extra copy they might
let go of for low money.
It is a very useful, basic reference, so I think
it is likely worth springing for a current edition if you
are seriously getting into the whole SCA thing.
Of course, a Google Search for "SCA" and/or "Knowne
World Handbook" will get you a LOT of direct and indirect
resources for getting going in the SCA (Of course, tis easier
if it is all in one volume).
Good Luck.
Dave Mundt

>It is my vivid recollection that the whole focus of anyone 18 to 24 in those
>days was to somehow escape the draft, and "privilege" was about all that
>would get you into the NG.

Not necessarily - I got into the guard in '69 and I wasn't
"privileged". I also did not stick around for my last drills - my
first sgt. knew I wasn't going to re-up and thought I might be bad for
moral. :-)

I really don't care if there where WMD. There where, the Polish troops found
a bunch of chemical war heads, old but so what, US solderers had a mustard
gas bomb used on them, the Iraqis didn't know what it was so what! they
had them. new or old I don't car in Desert storm the vast majority of
Munitions used where old WWII bombs with small modifications.

Saddam was a BAD MAN and I'm going to have a party the day they execute
him, why he killed his own people, he paid the Palestinians to kill people,
he protected terrorists from Justice in Iraq, he killed more people than
Hitler did, about the same as Stalin, Meow still killed more, but he had
more time. Saddam planed to have the former President assassinated, and
was violating the U.N. rules of his surrender, which alone gave us the
right to smack his ass. my personal opinion he NEVER should have been left
in office, we never should have listened to the U.N. and Euro's on that,
never leave a job unfinished and expect someone else to do it for you.

WWII never should have happened, if the candy-ass Europeans hadn't pissed
themselves and done what was needed right off the bat, and kicked Hitlers
butt before he had the chance to build up how many lives would have been
saved, if the US wasn't an Isolationists don't hurt me and we will be your
friend, WE LET THE JAPANESE KILL HOW MANY AMERICANS IN BATAAN? and we
didn't do anything, that's why the Japanese thought that if they hit Perl
Harbor they would scare us into staying out. Look what it took to make us
wake up. look at the Embassy bombings in Africa, and the bombing of the
Cole, it took 9/11 to make us realize there is a new threat to us, so we
took out the Tali-ban, Afghanistan isn't perfect now, but it's getting
there.

How dose Saddam fit into all of this you ask, you can say his intelligence
service was in contact with the Terrorist, we know he was funding the
terrorist in Israel, and other places, but I think there more excuses then
the real reason, which is he was an "Object lesson", and the reason we
picked him was he was the most convent murdering fuck-head available, did
he have and WMD? he did at one point and we know he used them, further more
since we removed him guess we found out did have them, our old buddy Momar
Kadafi and we know he would have given them to the terrorists, but when
Saddam fell look how fast he opened up.


with all the horrific violence going on in Iraq right now, there are fewer
people being killed a day then when Saddam was in power, that alone
warrants removing him. Today I'm just waiting for North Korea's murdering
Midget Kim Jong II to give us an excuse to remove him, maybe then his
people could get fed. and next will be the PRC. but I don't think that
will happen, they know if we don't have the UN holding us back we will
butch them, just like the Russians know it.

"The second worst thing a people can do is go to war, and only surpassed by
not going when they should have"
--Unknown


Gary wrote:

>>> "Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>> > "Gary" wrote in message
>>> >
>>> >> I don't hate anybody. I just think if they impeached Clinton for
>>> >> getting
>>> >> his knob polished (possibly back on topic), then why isn't there an
>>> >> outcry
>>> >> for justice with Bush lying about WMDs?
>>> >
>>> > Because that the first happened is inarguable, and there is no proof
>>> > whatsoever for the second?
>>> >
>>>
>>> Bull... the fact that there are no WMDs is prima facia evidence that he
>>> wasn't truthful when he told the world, including the UN through Colin
>>> Powell, that there were. If he was misinformed, it was HIS intelligence
>>> agency who misinformed him.
>>
>> Gary,
>>
>> Actually, the Intel community is more institutional that that. They are,
>> for the most part, not political appointees.
>
> Oh really, I didn't know there were FOUR branches of government, the
> legislative, the judicial, the executive and now the intelligence branch.
> When was the Constitution amended to create that one?
>
>> In fact the head of the CIA was Clinton's appointee. Therefore, GWB had
>> the same intelligence info that Clinton had. Inarguably, Clinton,
>> Kerry, GWB, et al. were all working with the same info, it is quite
>> insincere to call one a liar and give the others a free pass.
>
> Neither Kerry nor Clinton manipulated the facts to justify a war with
> Iraq.
>
>> Perhaps there was a major intel lapse, or perhaps, given the elapsed time
>> between the warnings and the invasion, WMD's were moved,
>> hidden or destroyed. Who knows?
>>
>
> Yeah, lets pass the buck. Who's desk does the buck stop on? If the WMDs
> were moved, can intelligence tell us where? Why are we not invading those
> countries? Because they do not exist.
>
>
>> Can you provide a list of countries that publicly stated that Iraq had no
>> WMD's prior to the war? There were those that opposed the
>> invasion, including France, Germany, Russia, etc, but none ever said he
>> had no WMD's.
>>
> You <bleep> are all alike, you take the obvious truth and turn it around.
> The fact that the majority of the UN (or at least the votes that count)
> voted against the invasion of Iraq is proof that they were not convnced
> that there were WMDs and that there was a clear and present danger.
>
>> Considering the 57 different positions Kerry has had on Iraq and WMD's,
>> one could easily call him a liar, totally misinformed, or worse yet a
>> poll driven ego-maniac.
>>
> Like most of you, I don't have a hidden agenda to get Kerry elected by
> bashing Bush. I strongly dislike him also. I think we are in an unjust
> war and I think the President is responsible.
>
>> It's time to stop the name calling and, if it is even possible giving the
>> visceral hate of GWB by the left, discuss issues.
>>
> I agree.
>
> This will be my last post on the subject. With the passage of the Patriot
> Act, I feel my freedom of speech and right to due process may be in
> jeopardy. Now where is my tin foil hat?

"Dave Hinz" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 20:31:30 GMT, Leon <[email protected]>
> wrote:

> OK, so I was trying to provide you a clue as to why answering a post with
> zero context doesn't help you communicate. I now see that your
> communication
> issues are more than merely not knowing that.

I am not sure where you have been hanging out but you are going to have a
full time job here trying to enforce posting etiquette.

I really have not had any complaints in the last 6 or 7 years about my
posting in general.

"Dave Hinz" wrote in message

> Bye, Leon. I can't see any value in spending any time on you.

Your loss ... Leon has a world of woodworking expertise, including a nifty
router jig and other ideas, that he shares freely with the forum.

Seems damn silly to get your panties in such a twist for one post without
quotes on an off-topic thread ... although I agree with most of what you
say, it sounds like these political discussions may have narrowed your
perspective ... they'll do that.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 7/10/04

"Fred the Red Shirt" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> I do not read it that way, nor do I read Kerry's remarks as anything
> that could be honestly summarized as 'admitting to war crimes.'

Well, perhaps saying that he participated in operations contrary to the
Geneva Convention doesn't equal a war crime to you. If "contrary to the
Geneva Convention" != "war crime", what equals a war crime in your mind?

> More to the point, I certainly do not believe that a young man making
> a statement such as Kerry's, thirty-odd years ago after returning
> to the US from Vietnam should be considered unsuitable for the
> presidency today on the basis of that statement alone.

There's a lot of Vietnam vets who were unfairly painted as war criminals by
John Kerry that would disagree with you.

>
> FF

Sorry for top posting Dave, I guess thats the way the worm turns these days,
ask Bill Gates, far more clever than I. mjh

--
http://members.tripod.com/mikehide2
"Dave Hinz" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 06:31:21 GMT, Mike Hide <[email protected]> wrote:
>> If the vote was based on the popular vote count does that mean that the
>> US
>> ceases to be a constitutional republic and becomes a constitutional
>> democracy ?
>
> Define "based on". And please don't top-post, it makes putting your
> response
> in context to my message impossible.
>
>> In turn doesn't that mean majority rule [mob rule as some call
>> it] and to heck with minorities ? mjh
>
> You're commenting on something I'm not proposing, so I don't see how it
> applies. I'm saying let each district decide where it's electoral vote
> goes, rather than (for instance) disenfranchising most of a state that
> has two very liberal, populous cities.
>
> Dave Hinz
>

"mp" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>> What ever happened to united we stand, divided we fall. Well I guess
>> nothing happened as those that want to live here but not participate will
> be
>> those that make us fall. It is sickening really that we are at war with
>> ourselves and do not appreciate the lives lost by those wanting to defend
>> our freedom country and freedom.
>
> Defending ones country and freedom is about as honourable as it gets.
> That's
> one issue. Attacking a defenseless country under false pretences is
> another
> issue. Let's not confuse the two.


Had Iran been defenseless, we should have been able to just walk in and do
what needed to be done. Plus, we are still fighting. Absolutely not
defenseless. No confusion there.
And, I guess you totally are under the impression that the WTC would not be
a good enough indicator that we are under attack from these people waging a
holy war against us.

On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 14:49:01 -0400, "Kevin Singleton"
<[email protected]> calmly ranted:

>"Larry Jaques" <novalidaddress@di\/ersify.com> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>
>> I slapped a Badnarik sticker on my tailgate last weekend.
>> www.Badnarik.org I like (most of) Michael's stance.
>>
>> --
>> Friends don't let friends vote Republican or Democrat.
>> ENOUGH IS ENOUGH. VOTE LIBERTARIAN
>
>Welcome aboard, Larry!

Thanks. Hey, Kevin, HOW THE HELL ARE YA? Long time no harass.


--------------------------------------------------
I survived the D.C. Blizzard of 2003 (from Oregon)
----------------------------
http://diversify.com Comprehensive Website Development
--------------------------------------------------------

"Renata" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Now, unless you know ole W personal-like, your impression of him as
> the one w/the balls and that good ole texas swagger comes from, well,
> the news and newspapers, and teevee.

Uh yeah, Governor of Texas before president. I live in Texas, and IMHO he
walked in took over and the government seemed to run well. Prior to him
being in office, it was politics as usual. So yeah, I believe I see the
same person here now.

> Perhaps a bit more reading and thinking are called for so one can get
> a little deeper than the image, and discover the foundation of the
> man, which ain't exactly fitting with the outward image.

Reading of newspapers and listening to more news slanted stories like the
CBS entertainment is the problem. Too much sensationalism and biased views.




Discover too
> that he and his cohorts aren't exactly promoting programs that are
> good for most of the people in this country (your l'il ole $200 tax
> cuts aside).
>
> Renata
>
> On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 16:04:22 GMT, "Leon"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> -snip-
>>
>>An easy way to determine who to vote for is to quit listening to the news
>>and reading the news paper for this type of imformation. Vote for the one
>>that has the balls to do what is right.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>

"mp" wrote in message

> Not a kneejerk, but the result of casually observing both foreign and US
> media for the last 18 months. The BBC, Al Jazeera (yes, Al Jazeera),

You are talking about the Al Jazeera that had "Baghdad Bob" on TV every day
as a REAL event when there was no such thing?!. If you can't tell brain
washing propaganda when you see it, you're a sicker puppy than I thought.

Say no more ...

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 7/10/04

On Tue, 21 Sep 2004 22:08:31 -0400, Tom Watson <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Where is that phony Texas accent from?
>
>Is that how they talk back in Kennebunkport?
>
>Why doesn't Jeb sound like Dubya?
>
>Why doesn't Dubya sound like GHW?
>
>I won't be one to say that Dubya talks out of both sides of his mouth.
>
>Sumbitch can barely talk out of one side of his mouth.
>
>Do we really want someone running things who feels that he has to deny
>who he is in order to be what he wants to be?
>
>I sure wish that Billy C. was running again.
>
>At least I'd know how to vote.
>
>
>
>
>Regards,
>Tom.
>
>Thomas J.Watson - Cabinetmaker (ret.)
>tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet (real email)
>http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1

I hear Mr. Pat Paulson is thinking about a resurrected comeback
campaign.
Bc
path.walk.at.cen.tury.tel.net

_______________________________________________________________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
<><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>

>
> I was trying to _educate_ you, Leon. Obviously thinking you were
> educable was an error, although I notice that you are now providing
> context with your responses. You and Kim should get together by the way,
> you seem to have a lot in common.
>
I knew exactly who Leon was talking to, as did others I am sure.

Perhaps you should ask _if_ someone wishes to be educated before undertaking
the task!

As far as getting together, maybe you could get together with some wood and
spend some time doing something constructive! Or maybe go get laid!!!! :)

"Tom Watson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I sure wish that Billy C. was running again.
>

Tom, most of your nonsensical posts are amusing, witty and intelligent fun.
This comment, however, is so glaringly idiotic that I can hardly believe you
said it.

It's just as nonsensical as your other posts, however.

While I meant Iraq, Iran may be just around the corner.
>
> Had Iran been defenseless, we should have been able to just walk in and do
> what needed to be done. Plus, we are still fighting. Absolutely not
> defenseless. No confusion there.
> And, I guess you totally are under the impression that the WTC would not
> be a good enough indicator that we are under attack from these people
> waging a holy war against us.
>

In Houston AM radio 700 this or yesterday morning.


"mp" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>> Actually I heard on the news today that Sadam was killing about 4000
>> civilians per day.. That kinda puts things into perspective. I doubt
> that
>> 2,000,000 civilians have been killed in the last 18 months.
>
> Can you verify those numbers or did you just pick them out of a hat?
>
>

"Renata" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Funny. Repeated this weekend, while channel surfing, I came across
> programs where folks were talking about what a mess Iraq is and how
> the administration's running around saying things are hunky dory over
> there. But, hey, we all know that W's an upright, honest, straight
> shootin' kinda dude, right?

Folks? Mostly political pundits and a handful of politicians. Everybody
expects there to be setbacks in war. This is what Bush has meant over the
last year when he says there will be challenges ahead.

>
> And, hey, I guess we accomplished the mission way back, was it in,
> April?

Yes it was. One of Bush's generals told him the first phase of the mission,
ie, taking Baghdad and the cease of major military combat, is complete.
Bush never uttered the words "Mission Complete." He said quite the
contrary, that there is a lot of hard work to be done yet. Yes, he went to
that ship for a photo op, and why not? I actually wouldn't even begrudge
Clinton for that, and I can't stand him. He also went there to thank this
crew who had been abroad for a very long time.

>
> But, which mission was it - the one where we get the guy who
> perpetrated the attack on our soil? The one where W said was our top
> priority, but now isn't even worth a mention?
>
> Renata

I have a question for you if you don't mind answering. I hear dem after dem
bemoaning the fact that we have lost a 1000 soldiers in this war. Everybody
knows this is a ridiculously low number, but the big difference between the
dems and repubs is that the repubs believe the war was necessary and the
dems don't. To dems, these are 1000 wasted lives. Here's the question.
Why do you care so much about military deaths when the military itself seems
to accept it? Are you somehow their protectors? When Bush spoke to the
American Legion he got 7 standing ovations. When Kerry went there a week
later, he got lukewarm applause. Everywhere Bush goes before the military
he gets standing o's. Kerry won't even speak before same. If the people
who are living and dying by Bush's decisions seem to love him, why do you
feel your opinion carries as much weight as the people who are in the
trenches?

thanks,
dwhite




>
> On Sat, 25 Sep 2004 03:04:22 GMT, "Dan White"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Renata" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]...
> >> On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 03:35:06 GMT, "Dan White"
> >> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> -snip-
> >> >
> >> > He is the Commander-in-Chief and prosecuted 2 wars
> >> >successfully.
> >> -snip-
> >>
> >> You have a funny definition of success.
> >
> >And you are showing a tremendous lack of perspective when it comes to
war.
> >
> >dwhite
> >
>

"mp" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>> Exactly what is she going to keep an
>> eye on?
>
> His, ahh, hmmm...... little one-eyed Billy.


I doubt it. It seemed obvious to the rest of the world that he was
unfaithful leading up to his last publicized tryst and it took an
impeachment for her to finally snap. We certainly do not need her watching
over the country.

"Gary" wrote in message

> >> "Swingman" wrote in message

> > Do you understand the meaning of the phrase "prima facie" better than
you
> > can spell it? There is arguably more evidence to rebut your presumption
of
> > fact than there is to accept it.
> >
> yep exactly, Ferdinand. Please excuze my spell checkur.

Your problem is demonstrably faulty logic, not your spell checker.

> > Start with:
> >
> > http://www.phrusa.org/research/chemical_weapons/chemiraqgas2.html
> >
> >
>
> OMG, Sadam killed his own people SIXTEEN years ago!! (1988)

Now you're getting it. And now tell the class ... and what did he use to
kill them with?

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 7/10/04

"Mike in Mystic" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Well, IMO, Clinton had next to nothing to do with "fixing" anything.

The only thing Clinton did right was not try to change what Bush Sr.
started. The economy got better and did well. But, things simply do not
run well by them selves and need to be monitored. Clintons lack of
monitoring started the current recession before he was out of office and his
lack of action showed the terrorists what an easy target we were.

"Dave Hinz" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 20:10:55 GMT, Leon <[email protected]>
> wrote:

Snip


It's often suggested that you include enough context
> in a reply to make it clear who/what you are responding to, to make
> communication work better.

Un Huh,, it is also very often suggested that you not be a bottom feeder and
not post at the bottom of a post. And often suggested not to waste the band
width by including and repeating comments from another post. And so onn and
so on.

> With as convoluted a path as most Usenet posts take to get from the
> sender to the thousands of newshosts, the surprising thing isn't that
> posts arrive out of order (or not at all) sometimes, it's that it almost
> always works at all.

I can honestly say that I "seldom" have a problem knowing who the post is
from or to.

"Mike in Mystic" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>I never said that I thought George W. Bush was some brilliant presidential
> force that should receive accolade upon accolade. But do you honestly
> feel
> that it is an intelligent point of view to desire to have Bill Clinton
> back
> in the White House? Opinions are like asses, you know?
>
> *amusing, in JEST, random insult generator result re: Tom, ON*
>
> You're the typical left-wing, know-nothing, good-for-nothing, bleeding
> heart
> bungling bum who thinks the world owes you a living for doing nothing but
> farting into the ozone layer. Calling you a pea brain would be an insult
> to
> peas, you jellyfish-sucking mental midget. Get a glass belly button; that
> way, if your head goes any further up your ass, you can still look out and
> see what the rest of the world is up to.
>
> *amusing, in JEST, random insult generator result re: Tom, OFF*
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> --
> "Curse the blasted, jelly-boned swines, the slimy, the belly-wriggling
> invertebrates, the miserable soddingrotters, the flaming sods, the
> sniveling, dribbling, dithering, palsied, pulse-less lot that make up
> *Democrats* today. They've got white of egg in their veins, and their
> spunk
> is that watery it's a marvel they can breed." - D.H. Lawrence, 1912

D. H. Lawrence was gay. Does that lessen his value as a source for political
commentary?

"Gary" wrote in message

>Yep, that's what I'm saying. Colin Powell went to the UN and tried to sell
>them a load of BS about "tons" of chemical and biological agents and many
>mobile chemical labs. They didn't buy it. Where are those WMD's? If they
>sneaked them off to Syria while we were bickering, then why aren't we
>attacking Syria? or Iran? or wherever the hell they went to?

Those gassed Kurd kids laying on the side of the road in Northern Iraq were
just playing dead? ... go ahead, tell them Iraq had no WMD.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 7/10/04

"Al Reid" wrote in message

> We all know that facts and truth are very subjective<g>.

Not necessarily ... just tell that to a nuclear physicist and see how far
you get. AAMOF, there is very little that is "subjective" about scientific
evidence ... you rely on that "fact" every time you go to your doctor.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 7/10/04

"Gary" wrote in message

> You <bleep> are all alike, you take the obvious truth and turn it around.
> The fact that the majority of the UN (or at least the votes that count)
> voted against the invasion of Iraq is proof that they were not convnced
that
> there were WMDs and that there was a clear and present danger.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc?

Let's analogize on a very simple level with your same (lack of) logic:

You visit Crater of Diamonds State Park (Iraq) for a week (year) and you dig
the entire time and find NO diamonds (WMD) ... now, as you put it, this is
"prima facia" (sic) evidence that there are NO diamonds (WMD).

Not to mention that you put way too much stock in the designs of members of
the UN.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 7/10/04

"Fred the Red Shirt" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Todd Fatheree" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> > "Fred the Red Shirt" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > > > Hmmm.....let's see....does the World Trade Center bombings in 1993
ring
> > a
> > > > bell in your head?
> > > >
> > >
> > > When was bin Laden linked to the 1993 attack?
> >
> > According to http://www.worldhistory.com/binladen.htm, he was involved
in
> > the 1993 WTC attack. But if you look at the list, there was plenty of
other
> > stuff prior to 1996 that would have warranted us wanting Bin Laden.
> >
>
> Yes, I knew that. What I do not know is if that was understood in 1996.
>
> If bin Laden's involvement with the bombing of the Cole and assistance
> to Adid in Magadishu was understood prior to September 2001, it
> received damn little attention in the press.
>
> It is not at all clear when those connections were made.

And what if we find just one legit story from the time that made the
connections? Then will Clinton have been wrong for not taking Bin Laden?
I'll bother looking if it will make any difference.

todd

"Mike Hide" wrote in message

> I think I had been in Jersey for a couple of weeks and received my first
> piece of mail, a draft card with a 1A on it with instructions to report to
> the nearest draft board ....I must say it was a bit of a shock.........mjh

It was an even bigger shock, getting out of a warm bed containing a
beautiful young wife and going down to the bus station for that ride to the
induction physical, not knowing whether you'd ever be there again.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 7/10/04

"Dave Hinz" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 21:27:42 GMT, Leon <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>>
>> Good luck with your frustrating effort to police the group.
>
> I was trying to _educate_ you, Leon. Obviously thinking you were
> educable was an error, although I notice that you are now providing
> context with your responses. You and Kim should get together by the way,
> you seem to have a lot in common.


I thought I was trying to educate you. Funny huh?

"Fred the Red Shirt" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Dan White" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> > "Fred the Red Shirt" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> > > "Dan White" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:<[email protected]>...
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > How rich is this? Aren't you the one saying conclusively that "Bush
> > lied"
> > > > simply because he and his administration disagreed with the UN
> > > > recommendations and/or findings that you like to cite?
> > >
> > > No.
> > >
> > > By any chance, do you work for Karl Rove? It seems you are very
> > > consistant about misrepresenting other people's opinions and the
> > > bases thereof.
> > >
> >
> > Fred, I quote you as saying in your discussion with Mark and Juanita:
> >
> > "Maybe that's why you criticize him [Clinton] but I crticize the current
> > president
> > first for fabricating and misrepresenting the evidence, then for
> > continuing to act on that evidence after it was proven wrong by the
> > inspection program he had demanded from the UN.
> >
> > Sounds like me that you are calling Bush a liar. Care to rephrase?
> >
>
> No. But I'll explain. For starters, in the paragraph you cited I
> did not write "Bush lied". I wrote that he fabricated and
> misrepresented
> evidence and that is exactly what I meant. If you conclude that
> "Bush lied" that is YOUR conclusion and you should attribute it to
> yourself. But that is somewhat of a nit.

Look up "fabricate" and "misrepresent" and you will find that they are
synonyms for lying. My conclusion was based on the context of your message
and the use of synonyms for "to lie." You are really splitting hairs that
I'm not even sure exist.

>
> You wrote:
>
> Aren't you the one saying conclusively that "Bush lied"
> simply because he and his administration disagreed with the UN
> recommendations and/or findings that you like to cite?
>
> Note your use of the word 'simply' which, if I understand the
> meaning of the word 'simply', implies that I have no other reasons.
> In fact, I do and I have explained some of them to you, and IIRC
> it was in one such explanation that I said "Bush lied".

So we're back to you calling Bush a liar again? :) I thought I interpreted
your opinion on the matter correctly the first time, too.

> Here's
> another, albeit more trivial example of Bush lying:
>
>
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A11253-2002Jul1&notFound=true
>
> No doubt more can be found, considering the old adage that it is
> easy to tell when a politician is lying. You can see his lips
> move.
>

I must say you have an extremely low tolerance for what you consider a lie
(I assume we are talking about the first article - deficits). This is
reeeally pushing it. Even in this article they back off on it in the last
paragraph.

I recall Bush saying that balanced budgets are off the table in times of
war, etc. I don't know whether he said it in 2000, and this article doesn't
convince me either way if he did or didn't at the time. In any case, you'd
have to be a complete moron to expect a balanced budget during the "triple
threat" events. Why would you even WANT one during those times? Do people
really want a balanced budget to stop their welfare checks and govt
subsidies just because of depression, war or natural disaster? Perish the
thought!

As far as politicians lying when their lips move, I can agree with you on
that one in a general sense.

dwhite