In article <[email protected]>, Dave Hinz
<[email protected]> wrote:
> Isn't he one of Kerry's election advisors, or is that another person of
> the same name?
It's him.
In article <[email protected]>, Dave Hinz
<[email protected]> wrote:
> So, just so I have this straight, one of John Kerry's election advisers,
> and Clinton's National Security Adviser, removed documents critical to
> the 9/11 investigation from the National Archives?
That is what's being reported.
<http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,126249,00.html>
> So did Berger lie to Kerry about having a very tarnished past, or did Kerry know about it
> and not care?
> This guy is looking more and more like SlickWillie all the time.
Willie's defending him, and apparently knew about the investigation
some months ago...
<http://www.drudgereport.com/flash2.htm>
djb
In article <[email protected]>, Joe Tylicki
<[email protected]> wrote:
> How's that possible, wasn't Willie disbarred?
Defending verbally, not legally...
On Tue, 20 Jul 2004 22:51:36 GMT, Doug Miller <[email protected]> wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, jo4hn <[email protected]> wrote:
>> http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=519&ncid=716&e=2&u=/ap/2004072
>>0/ap_on_re_us/sept__11_berger_probe
>>a bunch of neocons stole 'em.
>
> Stole what, Berger's pants? Looks from here like Berger's the thief.
Isn't he one of Kerry's election advisors, or is that another person of
the same name? If it's the same guy, hardly fits the definition of
a "neocon" (whatever that's supposed to be...), and probably not much
of a "trusted advisor".
Dave Hinz
On Tue, 20 Jul 2004 19:08:17 -0600, Dave Balderstone <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_S.balderstone.ca> wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, Dave Hinz
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Isn't he one of Kerry's election advisors, or is that another person of
>> the same name?
>
> It's him.
So, just so I have this straight, one of John Kerry's election advisers,
and Clinton's National Security Adviser, removed documents critical to
the 9/11 investigation from the National Archives?
What other scoundrels and/or Clinton leftovers (but I repeat myself) is
John Kerry keeping the company of? Doesn't say much for Kerry's judgement
if he had this sort of person advising him. Brings up the question -
Did Kerry not know, or did he not care? I mean, pretty big thing not
to mention in the job interview, isn't it? So did Berger lie to
Kerry about having a very tarnished past, or did Kerry know about it
and not care?
This guy is looking more and more like SlickWillie all the time.
On Tue, 20 Jul 2004 20:12:30 -0600, Dave Balderstone <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_S.balderstone.ca> wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, Dave Hinz
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> So, just so I have this straight, one of John Kerry's election advisers,
>> and Clinton's National Security Adviser, removed documents critical to
>> the 9/11 investigation from the National Archives?
>
> That is what's being reported.
><http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,126249,00.html>
abcnews.com has it as well, so the people who ignore Fox can't claim
it's just them. Looks like now that his adviser has been found out,
Kerry has given him the heave-ho. Obviously it's not the deed that
bothers Kerry, it's that Berger was caught. Good to know that Kerry
is following in his apparent role-model's footsteps. (NOT)
>> So did Berger lie to Kerry about having a very tarnished past, or did Kerry know about it
>> and not care?
>> This guy is looking more and more like SlickWillie all the time.
>
> Willie's defending him, and apparently knew about the investigation
> some months ago...
Slipperier and slipperier all the time. Cue the "waaah, you can't use
guilt by association" apologists in 3...2...1...
On 22 Jul 2004 21:36:16 -0700, Nate Perkins <[email protected]> wrote:
> Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> So, just so I have this straight, one of John Kerry's election advisers,
>> and Clinton's National Security Adviser, removed documents critical to
>> the 9/11 investigation from the National Archives?
>
> I think if you really wanted to get it straight, you would read the
> news reports directly from a couple of different sources.
I did.
> If you did
> that you'd realize that a) what was taken was a photocopy -- not the
> original -- of a report submitted to Berger on how the Millenium
> attacks were foiled, and that the 9/11 commission has the original
Oddly, I am seeing that Berger admitted a mistake in _thinking_ he was
only stealing a photocopy rather than the original. If I missed that
difference, apparently he did as well.
> (b)
> the other thing taken out was his handwritten notes in prep for the
> 9/11 commission; (c) all this happened more than 4 months ago, since
> which Berger has been cooperating and is just now being leaked;
What did Kerry know and when did he know it? He only kicked the guy off his
advisory staff once found out...
> (d)
> Berger probably has no motivation to steal a report that the 9/11
> commission has already seen and included in their report.
Then why did he admit to doing it and say it was a mistake?
> But I don't think you really want to get it straight, do you? I
> suspect knowing more about current events would cause you to question
> your comfortable political views.
I'm pretty comfortable that Berger's own admission is pretty obvious,
yes. What disturbs me is that Kerry either didn't know it and acted on
the best information he had which was incomplete, or he knew it and didn't
care. (Note that I am using a leftie's anti-Bush tactic here. How does it
feel?)
On Fri, 23 Jul 2004 15:31:40 -0700, [email protected] <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Fri, 23 Jul 2004 01:33:32 -0500, "Todd Fatheree"
><[email protected]> wrote:
> OK. You tell me why
>>he took the documents. Please come up with a story that doesn't make me
>>laugh out loud.
>
> the guy has a HUGE workload. he was taking them home to *read*
> them....
Riiiiight, he removed highly sensitive documents from a controlled
area to do a little homework.
On 23 Jul 2004 21:44:13 -0700, Nate Perkins <[email protected]> wrote:
> Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> I'm pretty comfortable that Berger's own admission is pretty obvious,
>> yes. What disturbs me is that Kerry either didn't know it and acted on
>> the best information he had which was incomplete, or he knew it and didn't
>> care. (Note that I am using a leftie's anti-Bush tactic here. How does it
>> feel?)
>
> I'm not sure I follow what you are driving at with your "leftie's
> anti-Bush tactic." Why do you think it's Kerry's job (or even
> appropriate) to know the details for how Berger prepared for testimony
> and how he testified for the 9/11 commission?
If he's got Berger as an adviser, that means that Berger is honest enough
to meet Kerry's standards, right? I mean, who would have an adviser they
don't trust?
At some point, Kerry learned that Berger had removed these documents.
When did he learn? If he learned a while ago and kept Berger on staff,
it's because he doesn't care about dishonesty. If he learned about it
only right before we did, and kicked Berger out then, why is his own
staff able to do this sort of criminal activity without Kerry knowing?
Either he knew and accepted dishonest advisers, or he didn't know
through a personal failing of his own. Does the analogy make more
sense to you now? Are your irony detectors going off yet? Do you
see the tactic that I am referring to?
On 24 Jul 2004 23:24:08 -0700, Nate Perkins <[email protected]> wrote:
>> > Nate Perkins <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> > I'm not sure I follow what you are driving at with your "leftie's
>> > anti-Bush tactic." Why do you think it's Kerry's job (or even
>> > appropriate) to know the details for how Berger prepared for testimony
>> > and how he testified for the 9/11 commission?
>
> Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> If he's got Berger as an adviser, that means that Berger is honest enough
>> to meet Kerry's standards, right? I mean, who would have an adviser they
>> don't trust?
> You're way out on a limb here. I don't see why I should debate
> Kerry's theoretical knowledge of a hypothetical wrongdoing and then
> speculate about what he knew and when he knew it.
Berger admitted wrongdoing. Presumably (follow me here, Nate), at some
pointhe admitted wrongdoing to his boss, Kerry. When did that happen?
Did it happen right before Kerry said "Er, yeah, go away please", or
did it happen a long time ago? If it happened long ago, and Kerry only
told him to take a hike once the wrongdoing became public, then I have
a problem with that.
> Besides, if we apply your impractical standard uniformly, then any of
> Bush's associates that have made a mistake should likewise resign.
> That would be what, half his cabinet?
Aha, so you _are_ seeing the tactic I'm referring to. Shoe on the other
foot and all that, how's it feel?
>> At some point, Kerry learned that Berger had removed these documents.
>> When did he learn? If he learned a while ago and kept Berger on staff,
>> it's because he doesn't care about dishonesty. If he learned about it
>> only right before we did, and kicked Berger out then, why is his own
>> staff able to do this sort of criminal activity without Kerry knowing?
>>
>> Either he knew and accepted dishonest advisers, or he didn't know
>> through a personal failing of his own. Does the analogy make more
>> sense to you now? Are your irony detectors going off yet? Do you
>> see the tactic that I am referring to?
>
> You are trying to ask questions that are really thinly-veiled innuendo
> about the honesty of both Berger and Kerry, and that innuendo is not
> substantiated by known facts.
Berger admitted he did wrong. Kerry now knows about it, so he learned
about it at some time. Nothing thinly veiled here, by the way, I'm asking
if Kerry just found out and kicked him out (which would be OK), or found
out a while ago and only kicked him out once it became public (which would
be Clinton-esque).
> The problem here is that Kerry has absolutely no authority over Berger
> with regard to anything related to the 9/11 testimony. And Berger has
> already resigned as an unpaid adviser to Kerry. What are you trying
> to point out? That Kerry's advisers resign as soon as error is
> apparent
Do they? How long ago did _Berger_ know he did this stuff?
> Of course I recognized the analogy you were trying to draw on your
> first posting; it seems as spurious now as it did then. Equating
> Sandy Berger with the war in Iraq is too ridiculous to bother with.
Yeah, because they're completely different tactics, right.
On 26 Jul 2004 09:03:22 -0700, Nate Perkins <[email protected]> wrote:
> Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote
>>
>> Berger admitted he did wrong. Kerry now knows about it, so he learned
>> about it at some time. Nothing thinly veiled here, by the way, I'm asking
>> if Kerry just found out and kicked him out (which would be OK), or found
>> out a while ago and only kicked him out once it became public (which would
>> be Clinton-esque).
>
> Who knows? Who cares?
See, this here is our fundamental difference. If Kerry knew about it
and didn't care until the press found out, that shows a trait which I
do not welcome in a President. Document-stealing aside, ignoring an
adviser's problems until the press finds out isn't the way things should
be done.
Is this going anywhere, Nate, or should we just agree to disagree?
On Fri, 23 Jul 2004 01:33:32 -0500, "Todd Fatheree"
<[email protected]> wrote:
OK. You tell me why
>he took the documents. Please come up with a story that doesn't make me
>laugh out loud.
the guy has a HUGE workload. he was taking them home to *read*
them....
Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> So, just so I have this straight, one of John Kerry's election advisers,
> and Clinton's National Security Adviser, removed documents critical to
> the 9/11 investigation from the National Archives?
>
> What other scoundrels and/or Clinton leftovers (but I repeat myself) is
> John Kerry keeping the company of? Doesn't say much for Kerry's judgement
> if he had this sort of person advising him. Brings up the question -
> Did Kerry not know, or did he not care? I mean, pretty big thing not
> to mention in the job interview, isn't it? So did Berger lie to
> Kerry about having a very tarnished past, or did Kerry know about it
> and not care?
>
> This guy is looking more and more like SlickWillie all the time.
I think if you really wanted to get it straight, you would read the
news reports directly from a couple of different sources. If you did
that you'd realize that a) what was taken was a photocopy -- not the
original -- of a report submitted to Berger on how the Millenium
attacks were foiled, and that the 9/11 commission has the original (b)
the other thing taken out was his handwritten notes in prep for the
9/11 commission; (c) all this happened more than 4 months ago, since
which Berger has been cooperating and is just now being leaked; (d)
Berger probably has no motivation to steal a report that the 9/11
commission has already seen and included in their report.
But I don't think you really want to get it straight, do you? I
suspect knowing more about current events would cause you to question
your comfortable political views.
Doug Winterburn <[email protected]> wrote:
> The question I have is why if this was all just a little misunderstanding
> - what's with the stuffing of the notes and whatever into the socks and
> pants rather than the briefcase?
Who of credibility actually claims that the ex-national security
adviser is stuffing notes into his socks and pants? Really, what
would he have to gain?
More likely this is just a little mudslinging episode with a high
amount of exaggeration.
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2004/07/23/national1120EDT0526.DTL
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A7104-2004Jul22.html
"Todd Fatheree" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Nate Perkins" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > I think if you
> > really wanted to get it straight, you would read the
> > news reports directly from a couple of different sources. If you did
> > that you'd realize that a) what was taken was a photocopy -- not the
> > original -- of a report submitted to Berger on how the Millenium
> > attacks were foiled, and that the 9/11 commission has the original
>
> The details seem to be a bit sketchy to nail down, but do we know this for a
> fact? I'm not sure we even know everything he took, since by Berger's own
> admission, he lost several documents. Which, of course, isn't the point
> anyway. The point is, he shouldn't have taken the documents in the first
> place. Unfortunately, it is yet another reflection on how seriously members
> of the Clinton administration took protection of classified information.
You are right that the details are sketchy to nail down, especially
the tripe about a respected ex-national security adviser stuffing
classified documents into his underwear. What you guys are doing is
repeating a lot of unsubstantiated rumor. Serious reports acknowledge
that the items taken were as I described. Try reading the news
reports instead of reading Usenet.
> > (b) the other thing taken out was his handwritten notes in prep for the
> > 9/11 commission;
>
> Which he also was not authorized to take.
A mistake which he has already admitted to. Did it hurt national
security? The Republican chairman of the 9/11 commission does not
think so:
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2004/07/23/national1120EDT0526.DTL
> (c) all this happened more than 4 months ago, since
> > which Berger has been cooperating and is just now being leaked
> Typical liberal response. More worried about the timing of the release of
> the information than the information itself. Look, I'm willing to stipulate
> that the release of the information is politically motivated. It's less
> than four months from the presidential election! Everything is politically
> motivated from here on out.
Typical knee-jerk Republican response. More eager to see nefarious
wrongdoing than to ask plausible questions about motivation, to be
able to think critically about a topic.
> > (d) Berger probably has no motivation to steal a report that the 9/11
> > commission has already seen and included in their report.
>
> I see. You know everything that was contained in the documents he was
> looking at? Including the ones that have disappeared? OK. You tell me why
> he took the documents. Please come up with a story that doesn't make me
> laugh out loud.
If you bothered to read the news you would know that the government
and the 9/11 committee already knows which documents were in question.
Clearly specified by Thomas Kean, chairman of the 9/11 commission, in
the above link.
> > But I don't think you really want to get it straight, do you? I
> > suspect knowing more about current events would cause you to question
> > your comfortable political views.
>
> But you've got it all straight, right?
No, but I read more than one news source which is apparently more than
you do.
Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote:
> Oddly, I am seeing that Berger admitted a mistake in _thinking_ he was
> only stealing a photocopy rather than the original. If I missed that
> difference, apparently he did as well.
Really? Berger admitted sloppiness in removing handwritten notes and
copies, nothing more. Nobody claims any original documents are
missing. This is confirmed by the Republican chair of the 9/11
commission.
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2004/07/23/national1120EDT0526.DTL
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/5463586/
What's more, the FBI agents investigating it for the last several
months said they did not regard the Berger inquiry "as a front-burner
type of investigation."
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2004-07-21-bush-berger_x.htm
Much ado about (almost) nothing.
> > (b)
> > the other thing taken out was his handwritten notes in prep for the
> > 9/11 commission; (c) all this happened more than 4 months ago, since
> > which Berger has been cooperating and is just now being leaked;
>
> What did Kerry know and when did he know it? He only kicked the guy off his
> advisory staff once found out...
Who says Kerry knew anything? Who says there was anything to know?
You guys are jumping from unnamed sources accusing a reputable
ex-national security adviser of stuffing classified documents in
underwear and socks (pretty silly on the face of it) to hiding info
from the 9/11 commission (which has already been refuted by the 9/11
commission) to Kerry being behind it all (which seems like blatant
political slander to me). Absolutely ridiculous.
I'll ask again: Maybe you can explain to me what possible motivation
Berger would have to steal copies of memos that the 9/11 commission
has already seen?
> > (d)
> > Berger probably has no motivation to steal a report that the 9/11
> > commission has already seen and included in their report.
>
> Then why did he admit to doing it and say it was a mistake?
Because it was a breach of protocols and sloppy handling of classified
documents. Why is that a mystery?
> > But I don't think you really want to get it straight, do you? I
> > suspect knowing more about current events would cause you to question
> > your comfortable political views.
>
> I'm pretty comfortable that Berger's own admission is pretty obvious,
> yes. What disturbs me is that Kerry either didn't know it and acted on
> the best information he had which was incomplete, or he knew it and didn't
> care. (Note that I am using a leftie's anti-Bush tactic here. How does it
> feel?)
I'm not sure I follow what you are driving at with your "leftie's
anti-Bush tactic." Why do you think it's Kerry's job (or even
appropriate) to know the details for how Berger prepared for testimony
and how he testified for the 9/11 commission?
> > Nate Perkins <[email protected]> wrote:
> > I'm not sure I follow what you are driving at with your "leftie's
> > anti-Bush tactic." Why do you think it's Kerry's job (or even
> > appropriate) to know the details for how Berger prepared for testimony
> > and how he testified for the 9/11 commission?
Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote:
> If he's got Berger as an adviser, that means that Berger is honest enough
> to meet Kerry's standards, right? I mean, who would have an adviser they
> don't trust?
You're way out on a limb here. I don't see why I should debate
Kerry's theoretical knowledge of a hypothetical wrongdoing and then
speculate about what he knew and when he knew it.
Besides, if we apply your impractical standard uniformly, then any of
Bush's associates that have made a mistake should likewise resign.
That would be what, half his cabinet?
> At some point, Kerry learned that Berger had removed these documents.
> When did he learn? If he learned a while ago and kept Berger on staff,
> it's because he doesn't care about dishonesty. If he learned about it
> only right before we did, and kicked Berger out then, why is his own
> staff able to do this sort of criminal activity without Kerry knowing?
>
> Either he knew and accepted dishonest advisers, or he didn't know
> through a personal failing of his own. Does the analogy make more
> sense to you now? Are your irony detectors going off yet? Do you
> see the tactic that I am referring to?
You are trying to ask questions that are really thinly-veiled innuendo
about the honesty of both Berger and Kerry, and that innuendo is not
substantiated by known facts. I don't see much evidence of dishonesty
here. Apparently neither does the FBI or the 9/11 commission (see
prev links). What I do see are a few politicos trying like heck to
manufacture a little stink and hoping it will stick on Kerry.
The problem here is that Kerry has absolutely no authority over Berger
with regard to anything related to the 9/11 testimony. And Berger has
already resigned as an unpaid adviser to Kerry. What are you trying
to point out? That Kerry's advisers resign as soon as error is
apparent -- but Bush's guys refuse to resign despite much bigger
screwups?
Of course I recognized the analogy you were trying to draw on your
first posting; it seems as spurious now as it did then. Equating
Sandy Berger with the war in Iraq is too ridiculous to bother with.
Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote
> >> > Nate Perkins <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> > I'm not sure I follow what you are driving at with your "leftie's
> >> > anti-Bush tactic." Why do you think it's Kerry's job (or even
> >> > appropriate) to know the details for how Berger prepared for testimony
> >> > and how he testified for the 9/11 commission?
> >
> > Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> If he's got Berger as an adviser, that means that Berger is honest enough
> >> to meet Kerry's standards, right? I mean, who would have an adviser they
> >> don't trust?
>
> > You're way out on a limb here. I don't see why I should debate
> > Kerry's theoretical knowledge of a hypothetical wrongdoing and then
> > speculate about what he knew and when he knew it.
>
> Berger admitted wrongdoing. Presumably (follow me here, Nate), at some
> pointhe admitted wrongdoing to his boss, Kerry. When did that happen?
> Did it happen right before Kerry said "Er, yeah, go away please", or
> did it happen a long time ago? If it happened long ago, and Kerry only
> told him to take a hike once the wrongdoing became public, then I have
> a problem with that.
I follow you just fine. Your logic just stinks. You are trying to
draw a parallel between Berger-Kerry and
Rumsfield-Rice-Tenet-Cheney-Bush. Berger is an unpaid adviser to
Kerry, and resigned at the first sign of flap. The 9/11 commission
thinks this is a matter that had no effect on their report.
Tenet, Cheney, Rumsfield, Rice, etc are all subordinates to Bush.
Bush directly approved (and advocated) their findings. They screwed
up on a matter of dire importance (WMDs) that led to the US starting a
preemptive war that costs hundreds of billions and at least a thousand
American lives.
For you to continue to try to draw such a weak analogy is just silly.
Rumors of underwear stuffing do not go in the same league as
international wars.
> > Besides, if we apply your impractical standard uniformly, then any of
> > Bush's associates that have made a mistake should likewise resign.
> > That would be what, half his cabinet?
>
> Aha, so you _are_ seeing the tactic I'm referring to. Shoe on the other
> foot and all that, how's it feel?
It makes me feel like I'm discussing a topic with a guy who
desperately wants to draw false and exaggerated analogies.
> >> At some point, Kerry learned that Berger had removed these documents.
> >> When did he learn? If he learned a while ago and kept Berger on staff,
> >> it's because he doesn't care about dishonesty. If he learned about it
> >> only right before we did, and kicked Berger out then, why is his own
> >> staff able to do this sort of criminal activity without Kerry knowing?
> >>
> >> Either he knew and accepted dishonest advisers, or he didn't know
> >> through a personal failing of his own. Does the analogy make more
> >> sense to you now? Are your irony detectors going off yet? Do you
> >> see the tactic that I am referring to?
> >
> > You are trying to ask questions that are really thinly-veiled innuendo
> > about the honesty of both Berger and Kerry, and that innuendo is not
> > substantiated by known facts.
>
> Berger admitted he did wrong. Kerry now knows about it, so he learned
> about it at some time. Nothing thinly veiled here, by the way, I'm asking
> if Kerry just found out and kicked him out (which would be OK), or found
> out a while ago and only kicked him out once it became public (which would
> be Clinton-esque).
Who knows? Who cares? What difference does it make except that you
want to sling some mud that you hope will stick to Kerry? Yeah, Kerry
and Berger are both Democrats. Yeah, Berger provides free advice to
the Kerry campaign. So what? Do you really want to engage in some
kind of Kerry vs Bush comparison of guild by third-degree association?
I think Bush would lose.
> > The problem here is that Kerry has absolutely no authority over Berger
> > with regard to anything related to the 9/11 testimony. And Berger has
> > already resigned as an unpaid adviser to Kerry. What are you trying
> > to point out? That Kerry's advisers resign as soon as error is
> > apparent
>
> Do they? How long ago did _Berger_ know he did this stuff?
>
> > Of course I recognized the analogy you were trying to draw on your
> > first posting; it seems as spurious now as it did then. Equating
> > Sandy Berger with the war in Iraq is too ridiculous to bother with.
>
> Yeah, because they're completely different tactics, right.
Yeah, they are completely different tactics.
One is presuming guilt beyond the evidence, assuming subordinate
relationships that don't exist, and exaggerating rumors to create a
minor scandal -- which is what you have done.
The other is questioning the judgement of our elected leaders and
their direct subordinates on matters that have been directly proven to
be false and have directly observable consequences to American life.
Drawing strained analogies between Sandy Berger's socks or underwear
or whatever and Bush's performance in Iraq is not likely to be helpful
to your cause.
Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> See, this here is our fundamental difference. If Kerry knew about it
> and didn't care until the press found out, that shows a trait which I
> do not welcome in a President. Document-stealing aside, ignoring an
> adviser's problems until the press finds out isn't the way things should
> be done.
Okay, well let's say that hypothetically Berger's error was actually
intentional, and hypothetically that Kerry was responsible for Berger,
and that hypothetically that Kerry knew about it. I guess that
hypothetically then Berger should resign or be fired. Of course he
did resign.
Hypothetically, if you want to blame Kerry then you have to show that
Kerry was responsible for Berger and that he knew about wrongdoing.
Of course if you want to belive that all of the evil liberals are
crooks, then it's easy to imagine the conclusion you want regardless
of any available information.
> Is this going anywhere, Nate, or should we just agree to disagree?
Well, I think it's pretty pointless. Even the congressional
Republicans only grandstanded on this for one day.
In article <[email protected]>, jo4hn <[email protected]> wrote:
>George wrote:
>
>> person in the previous administration who knew how to keep it in his pants.
>>
>>
> http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=519&ncid=716&e=2&u=/ap/2004072
>0/ap_on_re_us/sept__11_berger_probe
>>
>
>a bunch of neocons stole 'em.
Stole what, Berger's pants? Looks from here like Berger's the thief.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)
Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter
by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
You must use your REAL email address to get a response.
Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> On Tue, 20 Jul 2004 22:51:36 GMT, Doug Miller <[email protected]> wrote:
> > In article <[email protected]>, jo4hn <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=519&ncid=716&e=2&u=/ap/2004072
> >>0/ap_on_re_us/sept__11_berger_probe
> >>a bunch of neocons stole 'em.
> >
> > Stole what, Berger's pants? Looks from here like Berger's the thief.
>
> Isn't he one of Kerry's election advisors,
Not any more.
I guess no one thought it odd for someone from BJ Clinton's cabinet
to be seen walking out of the office with a bulge in his pants.
--
FF
Doug Winterburn <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> On Wed, 21 Jul 2004 01:30:02 +0000, Dave Hinz wrote:
>
> > So, just so I have this straight, one of John Kerry's election advisers,
> > and Clinton's National Security Adviser, removed documents critical to the
> > 9/11 investigation from the National Archives?
> >
> > What other scoundrels and/or Clinton leftovers (but I repeat myself) is
> > John Kerry keeping the company of? Doesn't say much for Kerry's judgement
> > if he had this sort of person advising him. Brings up the question - Did
> > Kerry not know, or did he not care? I mean, pretty big thing not to
> > mention in the job interview, isn't it? So did Berger lie to Kerry about
> > having a very tarnished past, or did Kerry know about it and not care?
I wasn't aware that Berger's PAST was tarnished, though it will be now.
I'm sure that not everyone in BJ's administration was dishonest, though
I have to base that on general principal rather than specific evidence,
same as with Baby Bush's administration. Hmm, Laura looks honest.
>
> One of the others on his re-election commitee is Joe Wilson, the nuetral,
> independent, objective investigator of the Yellowcake/Niger Bush lies
> false statements in his State of the Union address.
Wilson was never assigned to investigate false statements made in
the State of the Union message. He was assigned to investigate the
allegation that Iraq had tried to import yellowcake from Niger.
> Turns out his
> investigation was a farce,
Based on what, exactly? Please cite _something_.
> the false documents weren't the basis for the
> intelligence,
Yet those forgeries WERE submitted to the IAEA and were misrepresented
to the IAEA as authentic.
> his CIA employeed wife _did_ get him the trip to Niger to
> "investigate"
Indeed, she did recommend him for the task. Can anyone explain
how the fact that fact alone could mean he was unsuitable or biased?
Does anyone claim that his wife, a field agent, had so much authority
that she could get him picked for the job over better qualified
officials?
Please be specific in your answers, please cite something.
> and the British and our home grown investigators have
> completely discredited him.
Again, they say there was a basis for the claim but cite no evidence
beyond the fact that Niger received a single trade delegation from
Iraq.
According to Bush there is an old saying in Texas, maybe you never
heard it: "Fool us once, shame on you... and we won't be fooled
again!" It's rather good advice, from your good buddy Baby Bush.
How about if you try it out?
>
> I got a kick out of Daschle today saying Berger"should be given the
> benefit of the doubt" as if they haven't jumped on every unfounded piece
> of crap they can throw against the wall against Bush.
>
He's admitted to it. Doesn't leave much room for doubt. I can see
taking notes to be used for his testimony, but not sneaking them out.
he should have submitted his notes for review. And there is no
way he can justify removing anything of the stored materials, even
if it wasn't classified!
--
FF
Dang! And here I always thought it took two to tango....
Renata
On Thu, 22 Jul 2004 08:38:29 -0400, "Al Reid"
<[email protected]> wrote:
-snip-
> If a women can't keep her legs
>closed, or atleast use protection she should have to bare the brunt of _her_ actions.
>
-snip-
Renata responds:
>Dang! And here I always thought it took two to tango....
>
>Renata
>
>On Thu, 22 Jul 2004 08:38:29 -0400, "Al Reid"
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>-snip-
>> If a women can't keep her legs
>>closed, or atleast use protection she should have to bare the brunt of _her_
>actions.
Oh, c'mon now. You know it's always all the woman's fault. No man would take
advantage. Have you ever heard a more Victorian point of view? Thought that
concept had died some time in the '60s, one of the better results of feminism.
But it does seem like she had already gone to the "bare" point, so...does he
mean "bear" without knowing it?
Charlie Self
"I think the most un-American thing you can say is, 'You can't say that.' "
Garrison Keillor
"Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> "Things you have to believe to be a Republican today:
>
Here is the one I got, with earlier this week:
"Things you have to believe to be a Republican today:"
>Saddam was a good guy when Reagan armed him, a bad guy when Bush's daddy made war on him, a good guy when Cheney did business with
him and a bad guy when Bush needed a "we can't find Bin Laden" diversion.
Saddam was never considered a good guy "when Reagan armed him" he was considered the lesser of two evils. "Bush's daddy made war on
him" because he invaded a country to conquer and rule its people. When did Cheney do business with him? "We can't find Bin Laden"
diversion thats funny, obviously someone didn't pay attention after 9/11.
>Trade with Cuba is wrong because the country is communist, but trade with China and Vietnam is vital to a spirit of international
harmony.
Actually Cuba has nothing to offer anyone (except cigars) where as China being one of the largest industrialized nations has plenty
offer. Oh and it was also policy of the Clinton administration to trade with China as well. Except he took it a step further and
sold them top secret missle technology for campaign contributions. When did we start trading with Vietnam???
>The United States should get out of the United Nations, and our highest national priority is enforcing UN resolutions against Iraq.
The UN is worthless, it can't enforce its own resolutions. Yes we should leave the UN, but since we won't why not do what they are
supposed to do. They where created to stop people like Saddam, Khamer Rouge, and all the other warlords and murderous dictators of
the world. Yet they just sit by and appoint countries like Syria to the human rights commission.
>A woman can't be trusted with decisions about her own body, but multinational corporations can make decisions affecting all mankind
without regulation.
This makes no sense. What decisions do multinational corporations make that effect ALL mankind? If a women can't keep her legs
closed, or atleast use protection she should have to bare the brunt of her actions.
>Jesus loves you, and shares your hatred of homosexuals and Hillary Clinton.
I won't bother with this, but I bet Jesus is pretty disgusted with Hillary.
>The best way to improve military morale is to praise the troops in speeches while slashing veterans' benefits and combat pay.
So when did Bush slash veterans benefits? Or any republican? Infact active military ALWAYS benefits when a republican president is
in office. What was Bill Clintons first line of duty? Cut defense, military, intelligence... Not in that order.
>If condoms are kept out of schools, adolescents won't have sex.
No if adolescents are taught something else besides condoms like maybe abstence we wouldn't have such a problem. Why are 2nd, 3rd
and 4th graders forced to learn how to put a condom on a bananna?
>A good way to fight terrorism is to belittle our longtime allies, then demand their cooperation and money.
LoL I agree with this one. Who gives a crap if the French and Germans are mad. They stay mad, they're always mad. Since when does
fighting terrorism and defending our nation require the permission by the rest of the world. Last time I checked France, Germany and
Russia are helping fight terrorism just fine. Just because they aren't giving troops doesn't mean they aren't doing anything. Common
sense guys right out the window here.
>Providing health care to all Iraqis is sound policy. Providing health care to all Americans is socialism.
Again when was it stated that we would provide health care to all Iraqis? They have their own govnerment now that will make
decisions on their health care. Yes if you want to give "free" health care to ALL Americans it is socialism. Nothing is free, tax
payers will be paying for "free" health care of people who haven't worked a day in their lives, but can pop out 20 kids.
>HMOs and insurance companies have the best interests of the public at heart.
The point of this is? When has any republican said this or even hinted at it?
>Global warming and tobacco's link to cancer are junk science, but creationism should be taught in schools.
Global warming has no solid proof. It's still a theory.. A hypothosis. There is no definative proof that global warming is emminent.
No one has refutted tobacco's link to cancer, infact thats why ciggarette companies put warnings on their packages. Republicans just
don't think the companies should be held responsible because some more chooses to smoke and get cancer even though they've been
warned.
>A president lying about an extramarital affair is an impeachable offense.
No, only when he lies about it under oath to a grand jury then tries to bribe witnesses to be quiet.
>A president lying to enlist support for a war in which thousands die is solid defense policy.
Again please point out the Bush lied? He went on the intelligence that was given to him.
>Government should limit itself to the powers named in the Constitution, which include banning gay marriages and censoring the
Internet.
God forbid people want to keep the sactity of marriage between a man and women, and lord knows that we censor the internet somewhat
prevent children from being bombarded with pornography and be subjected to pedophiles.
>The public has a right to know about Hillary's cattle trades, but George Bush's driving/miltary record is none of our business.
I believe he has been honest and open about all these things. What else would you like him to do, prove he can fly a plane? Although
he did land one.
>Being a drug addict is a moral failing and a crime, unless you're a conservative radio host. Then it's an illness, and you need our
prayers for your recovery.
:rofl: This is the funniest. The only thing I will say about this is Rush Limbaugh was taking the medication (which is extremely
addictive to anyone) for legitimate pain. Drug users who get addicted to drugs do it on their own, and for no good reason.
>You support states' rights, which means Attorney General John Ashcroft can tell states what local voter initiatives they have the
right to adopt.
When did Ashcroft do this?
>What Bill Clinton did in the 1960s is of vital national interest, but what Bush did in the '80s is irrelevant.
Ok so what did Bush do in the 80's? Actually when Bill Clinton was running for office people wanted to know about his draf dodging.
Back then according to John Kerry peoples service in Vietnam was less then important. Now that he is running for President he can't
give a speech without mentioning Vietnam, and then he brings up Bush's service record.
>
>
> Charlie Self
> "When a stupid man is doing something he is ashamed of, he always declares that
> it is his duty." George Bernard Shaw, Caesar and Cleopatra (1901)
"Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>
> "Things you have to believe to be a Republican today:
>
<SNIP>
Just for balance:
"Things you have to believe to be a Democrat today"
1.. Drug addiction is a disease that should be treated with compassion and understanding...unless the addict is a Conservative
talk show host.
2.. The United States should be subservient to the United Nations. Our highest authority is not God and the U.S. Constitution, but
a collective of tinpot dictators (and their appeasers) and the U.N. charter.
3.. Government should relax drug laws regardless of the potential for abuse, but should pass new and unConstitutional anti-gun
laws because of the potential for abuse.
4.. Calls for increased security after a terrorist attack are "political opportunism," but calls for more gun control after a
criminal's spree killing is "a logical solution."
5.. "It Takes a Village" means everything you want it to mean...except creeping socialist government involvement in the nuclear
family.
6.. Disarming innocent, law-abiding citizens helps protect them from evil, lawless terrorists and other thugs.
7.. Slowly killing an unborn innocent by tearing it apart limb from limb is good. Slowly killing an innocent disabled woman by
starving her to death is good. Quickly killing terrorists, convicted murderers and rapists is BAD.
8.. Every religion should be respected and promoted in public schools the name of diversity, so long as that religion isn't
Christianity.
9.. The best way to support our troops is to criticize their every move. This will let them know they're thought of often.
10.. Sexual harassment, groping and drug use are degenerate if you're the governor of California, but it's okay if you're the
President of the United States.
11.. Sex education should be required so that teens can make informed choices about sex, but gun education should be banned
because it will turn those same teens into maniacal mass-murderers.
12.. Minorities are blameless for the hatred of the racist; women are blameless for the hatred of the rapist; but America is
entirely at fault for the hatred of Islamofascists.
13.. Poverty is the cause of all terrorism...which is why the leaders of al Qaeda are typically U.S.-educated and were raised in
wealth and luxury.
14.. The Patriot Act is a horrific compromise of Constitutional rights, but anti-Second Amendment laws and Franklin Roosevelt's
Presidential Order 9066 must be regarded "reasonable precautions."
15.. We should unquestioningly honor the wishes of our age-old allies, even when said allies no longer act like our allies and
have vested economic interests in propping up our enemies.
16.. Socialized medicine is the ideal. Nevermind all those people who spend every dime they have to get to the United States so
they can get quality medical care...that their nation's socialized medical community can't provide.
17.. Michael Moore, Noam Chomsky and Natalie Maines are perfectly qualified to criticize our leadership, but Arnold
Schwarzenegger, Charlton Heston, and Dennis Miller are just ignorant political hacks.
18.. John Lott's research on how gun ownership reduces crime is junk science, but Michael Bellesiles is still an authority on why
gun control is good (even though he was forced to resign from Emory due to research misconduct over his book "Arming America").
19.. Bush's toppling the Saddam regime was a "diversion," but Clinton's lobbing a couple of cruise missiles at Iraq in the thick
of the Lewinsky sex scandal was "sending a message."
20.. A president who lies under oath is okay, but a president who references sixteen words from an allies' intelligence report
should be dragged through the streets naked.
21.. Government should limit itself to the powers named in the Constitution, which include banning Second Amendment rights and
shopping the courts for judges sympathetic to causes that wouldn't pass in any legislature.
22.. "The People" in the First Amendment means The People; "the People" in the Fourth Amendment means The People; "the People" in
the Ninth Amendment means The People; "the People" in the Tenth Amendment means The People; but "the People" in the Second Amendment
(ratified in 1791) means the National Guard (created by an Act of Congress in 1903).
23.. You support a woman's "right to choose" to kill her unborn child, but don't believe that same woman is competent enough to
homeschool the children she bears.
24.. Proven draft-dodging is irrelevant, but baseless claims of AWOL status is crucial to national security.
25.. Threatening to boycott Dr. Laura's and Rush Limbaugh's advertisers is exercising Freedom of Speech, but threatening to
boycott CBS's "The Reagans" and Liberal actors over their asinine anti-American remarks is censorship and McCarthyist blacklisting.
>
> Charlie Self
> "When a stupid man is doing something he is ashamed of, he always declares that
> it is his duty." George Bernard Shaw, Caesar and Cleopatra (1901)
Al Reid posits:
Nonsense.
Bit of a stretch from my short list, which I edited with a heavy handy out of
compassion for conservatives--always a mistake, I see.
Charlie Self
"When a stupid man is doing something he is ashamed of, he always declares that
it is his duty." George Bernard Shaw, Caesar and Cleopatra (1901)
On 22 Jul 2004 13:44:49 GMT, Charlie Self <[email protected]> wrote:
> Al Reid posits:
>
> Nonsense.
>
> Bit of a stretch from my short list, which I edited with a heavy handy out of
> compassion for conservatives--always a mistake, I see.
Complete and utter lack of a substantive response, and the inherent
evasion, noted.
"Mark" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>
>
> Al Reid wrote:
> > "Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> >
> >
> >>"Things you have to believe to be a Republican today:
> >>
> >
> >
> > Actually Cuba ......
>
>
>
>
> Geez, Al, seems you have added statements Charlie didn't write, and are trying
> to make your added statements appear to be written by Charlie.
>
>
>
> That's a pretty sad action on your part.
>
>
No, I was not trying to put words in Charlie's mouth (or keyboard)<g> . If you read it It stated:
>>>>>> "Here is the one I got, with earlier this week:" <<<<<<<
Similar, but not exactly the same.
--
Al Reid
How will I know when I get there...
If I don't know where I'm going?
>
>
>
> --
> {neatly edited}
> --
>
> Mark
>
> N.E. Ohio
>
> In theory there is no difference between theory and practice, but in practice
> there is.
>
> Never argue with a fool, a bystander can't tell you apart. (S. Clemens, A.K.A.
> Mark Twain)
>
> When in doubt hit the throttle. It may not help but it sure ends the suspense.
> (Gaz, r.moto)
>
"Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> Al Reid responds:
>
> >> Geez, Al, seems you have added statements Charlie didn't write, and are
> >trying
> >> to make your added statements appear to be written by Charlie.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> That's a pretty sad action on your part.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >No, I was not trying to put words in Charlie's mouth (or keyboard)<g> . If
> >you read it It stated:
> >
> >>>>>>> "Here is the one I got, with earlier this week:" <<<<<<<
> >
> >Similar, but not exactly the same.
>
> No, those are part of what I edited out. But, then, that's your version of
> truth, adding in something that wasn't there.
Utter nonsense, since I stated that I posted one that I got earlier in the week. I posted it w/o editing. I suppose you dems
cannot read either<g>.
>
> Do unto others, because you won't do unto me again.
It appears that you can dish it out, but can't take it. Lighten up!
>
> Charlie Self
> "When a stupid man is doing something he is ashamed of, he always declares that
> it is his duty." George Bernard Shaw, Caesar and Cleopatra (1901)
Preferring Bush to the #1 most liberal member of the Senate (balanced by the
#4 guy) is not exactly hero-worship. I'm sure the folks who voted for
Clinton in 92 and 96 weren't into hero-worship either ('cept maybe for the
porn industry).
Joe
>
> Hey if your hero were Bush wouldn't _you_ emulate him too?
>
> --
>
> FF
Al Reid responds:
>> Geez, Al, seems you have added statements Charlie didn't write, and are
>trying
>> to make your added statements appear to be written by Charlie.
>>
>>
>>
>> That's a pretty sad action on your part.
>>
>>
>
>No, I was not trying to put words in Charlie's mouth (or keyboard)<g> . If
>you read it It stated:
>
>>>>>>> "Here is the one I got, with earlier this week:" <<<<<<<
>
>Similar, but not exactly the same.
No, those are part of what I edited out. But, then, that's your version of
truth, adding in something that wasn't there.
Do unto others, because you won't do unto me again.
Charlie Self
"When a stupid man is doing something he is ashamed of, he always declares that
it is his duty." George Bernard Shaw, Caesar and Cleopatra (1901)
[email protected] (Charlie Self) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> Al Reid responds:
>
> > >No, I was not trying to put words in Charlie's mouth (or keyboard)<g> . If
> >you read it It stated:
> >
> >>>>>>> "Here is the one I got, with earlier this week:" <<<<<<<
> >
> >Similar, but not exactly the same.
>
> No, those are part of what I edited out. But, then, that's your version of
> truth, adding in something that wasn't there.
>
> Do unto others, because you won't do unto me again.
>
Hey if your hero were Bush wouldn't _you_ emulate him too?
--
FF
On 22 Jul 2004 07:57:07 GMT, [email protected] (Charlie Self) wrote:
> Saddam was a good guy when Reagan armed him, a bad guy when Bush's daddy
>made war on him, a good guy when Cheney did business with him and a bad guy
>when Bush needed a "we can't find Bin Laden" diversion.
Flip flop No.1
> Trade with Cuba is wrong because the country is communist, but trade with
>China and Vietnam is vital to a spirit of international harmony.
Flip Flop No.2
> The United States should get out of the United Nations, and our highest
>national priority is enforcing U.N. resolutions against Iraq.
Flip Flop No.3
> The best way to improve military morale is to praise the troops in speeches
>while slashing veterans' benefits and combat pay.
Flop Flop No.4
> Providing health care to all Iraqis is sound policy. Providing health care to
>all Americans is socialism.
Flip Flop No.5
> A president lying about an extramarital affair is an impeachable offense.
>
> A president lying to enlist support for a war in which thousands die is solid
>defense policy."
Flip Flop No.6
>Charlie Self
>"When a stupid man is doing something he is ashamed of, he always declares that
>it is his duty." George Bernard Shaw, Caesar and Cleopatra (1901)
Any more flip flop? I always thot Kerry is the flip flop man?
On Fri, 23 Jul 2004 23:07:15 GMT, "Joe Tylicki" <[email protected]> wrote:
>All Americans have health care.
Are you sure or are you going to flip flop too?
Fredfighter responds:
>> > What other scoundrels and/or Clinton leftovers (but I repeat myself) is
>> > John Kerry keeping the company of? Doesn't say much for Kerry's
>judgement
>> > if he had this sort of person advising him. Brings up the question - Did
>> > Kerry not know, or did he not care? I mean, pretty big thing not to
>> > mention in the job interview, isn't it? So did Berger lie to Kerry about
>> > having a very tarnished past, or did Kerry know about it and not care?
>
>I wasn't aware that Berger's PAST was tarnished, though it will be now.
>I'm sure that not everyone in BJ's administration was dishonest, though
>I have to base that on general principal rather than specific evidence,
>same as with Baby Bush's administration. Hmm, Laura looks honest.
>
>>
>> One of the others on his re-election commitee is Joe Wilson, the nuetral,
>> independent, objective investigator of the Yellowcake/Niger Bush lies
>> false statements in his State of the Union address.
>
>Wilson was never assigned to investigate false statements made in
>the State of the Union message. He was assigned to investigate the
>allegation that Iraq had tried to import yellowcake from Niger.
>
>> Turns out his
>> investigation was a farce,
>
>Based on what, exactly? Please cite _something_.
>
>> the false documents weren't the basis for the
>> intelligence,
>
>Yet those forgeries WERE submitted to the IAEA and were misrepresented
>to the IAEA as authentic.
>
>
>> his CIA employeed wife _did_ get him the trip to Niger to
>> "investigate"
>
>Indeed, she did recommend him for the task. Can anyone explain
>how the fact that fact alone could mean he was unsuitable or biased?
>
>Does anyone claim that his wife, a field agent, had so much authority
>that she could get him picked for the job over better qualified
>officials?
>
>Please be specific in your answers, please cite something.
>
>> and the British and our home grown investigators have
>> completely discredited him.
>
>Again, they say there was a basis for the claim but cite no evidence
>beyond the fact that Niger received a single trade delegation from
>Iraq.
>
>According to Bush there is an old saying in Texas, maybe you never
>heard it: "Fool us once, shame on you... and we won't be fooled
>again!" It's rather good advice, from your good buddy Baby Bush.
>How about if you try it out?
True. The following is part of what I got from an old friend yesterday. Kind of
sums up my opinion of Bush & Babies.
"Things you have to believe to be a Republican today:
Saddam was a good guy when Reagan armed him, a bad guy when Bush's daddy
made war on him, a good guy when Cheney did business with him and a bad guy
when Bush needed a "we can't find Bin Laden" diversion.
Trade with Cuba is wrong because the country is communist, but trade with
China and Vietnam is vital to a spirit of international harmony.
The United States should get out of the United Nations, and our highest
national priority is enforcing U.N. resolutions against Iraq.
The best way to improve military morale is to praise the troops in speeches
while slashing veterans' benefits and combat pay.
Providing health care to all Iraqis is sound policy. Providing health care to
all Americans is socialism.
A president lying about an extramarital affair is an impeachable offense.
A president lying to enlist support for a war in which thousands die is solid
defense policy."
Charlie Self
"When a stupid man is doing something he is ashamed of, he always declares that
it is his duty." George Bernard Shaw, Caesar and Cleopatra (1901)
In article <[email protected]>, Larry Jaques
<novalidaddress@di\/ersify.com> wrote:
> Several thousand searchers (not counting
> the official weapons inspectors) for two years didn't turn anything
> up, but gee, one turning up just a few months before the ballot box
> sure was convenient, wasn't it?
Yup.Let's hope they don't catch Osama before November, too... Right
Larry?
And heaven forbid the foreign terrorists in Iraq are beaten out of the
country before then... Just another election stunt.
And if they actually take Falluja and kill or capture Abu Musab
al-Zarqaw... They were just waiting for the right poll numbers.
And I suppose if the Islamofascists manage another attack on US soil,
well... Bush will have staged that, too. Or will it be Bush's fault and
everyone will know that if Gore had rightfully become president it
never would have happened?
You guys crack me up... ANY success between now and the election is
going to be savaged by the LL as a stunt. Yup, America should just roll
back inside its borders and cower, while taking a stern position on
Israel, apppeasing the cesspool of corruption that's the UN, and
recognizing that it's to blame for the rabid Islamic fascism trying to
take over the world.
Just elect Kerry and he'll fix things, or he won't but will have voted
for it before he voted against it, or something...
On 22 Jul 2004 07:57:07 GMT, Charlie Self <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> "Things you have to believe to be a Republican today:
This should be an unbiased list, I bet. Let's see...
> Saddam was a good guy when Reagan armed him, a bad guy when Bush's daddy
> made war on him,
Right, because it's impossible for someone to go from "tolerable" to
"intolerable", is that it?
> a good guy when Cheney did business with him and a bad guy
> when Bush needed a "we can't find Bin Laden" diversion.
You are actually proposing that the war in Iraq was a diversion about
finding Bin Laden? You must be aware of all of the Democrats who also
held Hussein to be a danger and someone who must be stopped, right? The
whole thing with the UN inspections being deferred for a decade, that
whole bit?
> Trade with Cuba is wrong because the country is communist, but trade with
> China and Vietnam is vital to a spirit of international harmony.
Because of course, Cuba, China, and Vietnam are exactly the same in
regard to physical proximity, degree of intensity, and so on, riiiiight.
> The United States should get out of the United Nations, and our highest
> national priority is enforcing U.N. resolutions against Iraq.
Even the UN, in their perpetual bickering and ineffectiveness, was able
to see that Iraq was a problem.
> The best way to improve military morale is to praise the troops in speeches
> while slashing veterans' benefits and combat pay.
Cite please? Clinton's legacy in regards to military pay and benefits
is blisteringly clear - as with most recent Democrat presidents, the
military (and it's members and their families) suffered under him.
> Providing health care to all Iraqis is sound policy. Providing health care to
> all Americans is socialism.
The democrats failed to do anything about this during the 8 years Clinton
was president as well.
> A president lying about an extramarital affair is an impeachable offense.
A president lying under oath to congress, is an impeachable offense, yes.
> A president lying to enlist support for a war in which thousands die is solid
> defense policy."
A president acting on best available information to make decisions
(that even your boy Kerry agreed with and you know it), you mean.
On Fri, 23 Jul 2004 09:30:46 -0400, Renata <[email protected]> wrote:
> Ah!
> Is this why Bush refused to testify under oath to the 9/11 Commission
> (which (the lack of oath) was unprecedented,
Is it really?
> so save your excuses).
Can you back up your claim that it's unprecedented? Also, tell me again how
lying under oath isn't worse than not lying under oath?
On Fri, 23 Jul 2004 12:01:42 -0600, WD <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Any more flip flop? I always thot Kerry is the flip flop man?
Yeah, when you write both sides of the conversation, it's easy to counter
the arguments. Doesn't mean any of it is _accurate_, but at least you get
to claim it is, right?
However, motherhood is optional, while fatherhood is not. Takes a big load
off the female.
Until the male has the right to dispose of his responsibility toward that
no-viable tissue mass....
"Renata" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Dang! And here I always thought it took two to tango....
>
> Renata
>
> On Thu, 22 Jul 2004 08:38:29 -0400, "Al Reid"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> -snip-
> > If a women can't keep her legs
> >closed, or atleast use protection she should have to bare the brunt of
_her_ actions.
> >
> -snip-
Now either you're dense, or just trying to act so.
In this country, a woman may abort and avoid responsibility for her
reproductive actions, a male does not have that option.
Is that clear enough?
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Fri, 23 Jul 2004 11:02:52 -0400, "George" <george@least> wrote:
>
> >However, motherhood is optional, while fatherhood is not. Takes a big
load
> >off the female.
> >
> >Until the male has the right to dispose of his responsibility toward that
> >no-viable tissue mass....
>
>
> He *does* and always has. Don't put it in there in the first place.
>
> sheesh.
>
>
>
>
> >
> >"Renata" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]...
> >> Dang! And here I always thought it took two to tango....
> >>
> >> Renata
> >>
> >> On Thu, 22 Jul 2004 08:38:29 -0400, "Al Reid"
> >> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>
> >> -snip-
> >> > If a women can't keep her legs
> >> >closed, or atleast use protection she should have to bare the brunt of
> >_her_ actions.
> >> >
> >> -snip-
> >
>
Al Reid wrote:
> "Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>
>
>>"Things you have to believe to be a Republican today:
>>
>
>
> Actually Cuba ......
Geez, Al, seems you have added statements Charlie didn't write, and are trying
to make your added statements appear to be written by Charlie.
That's a pretty sad action on your part.
--
{neatly edited}
--
Mark
N.E. Ohio
In theory there is no difference between theory and practice, but in practice
there is.
Never argue with a fool, a bystander can't tell you apart. (S. Clemens, A.K.A.
Mark Twain)
When in doubt hit the throttle. It may not help but it sure ends the suspense.
(Gaz, r.moto)
On Sun, 25 Jul 2004 07:18:23 -0500, Casey Stamper
<[email protected]> calmly ranted:
>Larry Jaques <novalidaddress@di\/ersify.com> wrote
>> I was very surprised to see 25-30 Army (According to a guard,
>> the National Guard is now Army) soldiers guarding the little
>> air show at Grants Pass Airport last month, but what really
>> got to me was the fact that one of these guys was talking with
>> 2 other guards as they walked by the privvy I was in and they
>> were talking about how fun it would be to turn one over instead
>> of walking guard duty. This is the mentality of those who guard
>> our country?
>>
>I guess you never make jokes, huh Larry? And, I guess you were never a
>kid either? These soldiers will defend to the death your right to your
>opinion, though.
I am not enlisted OR on duty AND in uniform, sir.
The public could easily hear his joke for 30 feet in any direction,
and I would bet top dollar that if his CO had heard him make the
remark, he'd have been put in the brig for a few days so he could
think about how his remark weakens the public morale over their
defenders.
Sure, I make jokes and was a kid, but when I was working and the
joke was against the company or its clients, I kept it low in
volume, real low-key. That idiot should have done the same.
While I fully support our troops, I do NOT condone assinine actions
either in the states or overseas, especially when it affects world
opinion of our great nation. Additionally, Casey, as a US citizen,
it's my DUTY to keep watch over the politicians and our military.
I stand by my outrage at the guard's actions.
-
The advantage of exercising every day is that you die healthier.
------------
http://diversify.com Dynamic Websites, PHP Apps, MySQL databases
Larry Jaques remarks:
>
>I am not enlisted OR on duty AND in uniform, sir.
Fair enough. Most of us aren't.
>
>The public could easily hear his joke for 30 feet in any direction,
>and I would bet top dollar that if his CO had heard him make the
>remark, he'd have been put in the brig for a few days so he could
>think about how his remark weakens the public morale over their
>defenders.
You can bet all the dollars you want, but it's very difficult for the Navy or
Marines to turn someone into a brig rat, probably impossible on the strength of
a callow joke. Freedom of speech in the military is not as strong as in
civilian life, but it has some power. Too, the ANG would have one helluva time
putting anyone in the brig. That belongs to the Navy and Marines. The Army uses
"stockade" as a synonym.
>Sure, I make jokes and was a kid, but when I was working and the
>joke was against the company or its clients, I kept it low in
>volume, real low-key. That idiot should have done the same.
>While I fully support our troops, I do NOT condone assinine actions
>either in the states or overseas, especially when it affects world
>opinion of our great nation. Additionally, Casey, as a US citizen,
>it's my DUTY to keep watch over the politicians and our military.
I'm inclined to doubt a smart-assed remark by one trooper in the States, no
matter how asinine, is going to do much to change world opinion of the U.S. If
it does, piss on the world, IMO.
It is not your duty to keep watch over the military. I suggest you do not do so
out loud around some of these guys, especially ones who have recently been in
combat.
Yes, the joke was in bad taste. But who on earth ever told you that military
personnel were tasteful types. God knows, I wasn't back in the day. And I still
am not, and grateful for it.
You will find, too, another level of behavior and attitude in general when
these youngsters get overseas. Having stood my share of firewatch, and other
watches, on ship and land, I fully understand the temptation to tip over the
shithouse after a few hours of back and forth boredom.
Charlie Self
"I think the most un-American thing you can say is, 'You can't say that.'"
Garrison Keillor
On 25 Jul 2004 14:20:39 GMT, [email protected] (Charlie Self)
calmly ranted:
>>The public could easily hear his joke for 30 feet in any direction,
>>and I would bet top dollar that if his CO had heard him make the
>>remark, he'd have been put in the brig for a few days so he could
>>think about how his remark weakens the public morale over their
>>defenders.
>
>You can bet all the dollars you want, but it's very difficult for the Navy or
>Marines to turn someone into a brig rat, probably impossible on the strength of
>a callow joke. Freedom of speech in the military is not as strong as in
>civilian life, but it has some power. Too, the ANG would have one helluva time
>putting anyone in the brig. That belongs to the Navy and Marines. The Army uses
>"stockade" as a synonym.
So sue me for breach of
>I'm inclined to doubt a smart-assed remark by one trooper in the States, no
>matter how asinine, is going to do much to change world opinion of the U.S. If
>it does, piss on the world, IMO.
One MORE unprofessional stunt by any US citizen/military
personnel/CIA/hired corporate soldier/+ in today's climate
is not a good thing. It's a salt-in-the-wound kind of thing,
Charlie, and I just wish that his CO had heard it.
>It is not your duty to keep watch over the military.
Perhaps not _directly_, but...
>I suggest you do not do so out loud around some of these guys,
>especially ones who have recently been in combat.
Grok that. <g>
-
The advantage of exercising every day is that you die healthier.
------------
http://diversify.com Dynamic Websites, PHP Apps, MySQL databases
On Sun, 25 Jul 2004 08:39:51 -0700, Larry Jaques
<novalidaddress@di\/ersify.com> calmly ranted:
>On 25 Jul 2004 14:20:39 GMT, [email protected] (Charlie Self)
>calmly ranted:
>
>>>The public could easily hear his joke for 30 feet in any direction,
>>>and I would bet top dollar that if his CO had heard him make the
>>>remark, he'd have been put in the brig for a few days so he could
>>>think about how his remark weakens the public morale over their
>>>defenders.
>>
>>You can bet all the dollars you want, but it's very difficult for the Navy or
>>Marines to turn someone into a brig rat, probably impossible on the strength of
>>a callow joke. Freedom of speech in the military is not as strong as in
>>civilian life, but it has some power. Too, the ANG would have one helluva time
>>putting anyone in the brig. That belongs to the Navy and Marines. The Army uses
>>"stockade" as a synonym.
>
>So sue me for breach of
"Semantics" is the word I spaced there. I couldn't get beyond
the word "syntax".
-
The advantage of exercising every day is that you die healthier.
------------
http://diversify.com Dynamic Websites, PHP Apps, MySQL databases
jo4hn <[email protected]> wrote:
> I vote for those whose policies more closely follow my research and
> thinking regardless of party or label. I left the Republican party when
> a nephew informed me that I was not really a Republican anyway. I am
> now an independent which makes more sense. I value honesty and
> competence rather highly. The current administration displays precious
> little of these commodities. I will be voting for John Kerry.
Same here. In 2000 my candidate of choice was John McCain.
Previously I often (but not always) voted Republican.
But today's Republican party isn't really the Republican party of old.
Visionary Republican presidents like Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt and
Eisenhower wouldn't have a chance in today's Republican party --
they'd be branded as "liberals."
It used to be that the country had an understanding of what it meant
to be a Rockefeller Republican or a Southern Democrat. It used to be
that the parties understood what it meant to have a big tent. It used
to be that the parties worked for inclusion and consensus. Now the
Republicans are all racing each other to see who can move the farthest
to the right. The Democrats are confused in their message,
alternately trying to pander to the left to win the nomination and
then to move to the center so they can be elected, and are really only
unified by a common dislike of the incumbent.
And Bush is so inflexible and simplistic in his approach to
complicated long-term problems that you have to go back to the days of
Harding and Coolidge to find anything similar. Lots of people voted
for him because he promised to be a consensus builder, and would all
have our cake and eat it too. Now that the people know Bush, many
will be more skeptical the second time around.
At its core, this election is really about whether or not you believe
that Bush has screwed things up, and whether or not you believe that
Kerry is likely to do a better or a worse job. Myself, I will be
voting for Anybody But Bush.
>
> > Saddam was a good guy when Reagan armed him, a bad guy when Bush's
daddy
> >made war on him, a good guy when Cheney did business with him and a bad
guy
> >when Bush needed a "we can't find Bin Laden" diversion.
>
> Flip flop No.1
What does Bush 43 have to do with Reagan? How is this a flip flop?
>
> > Trade with Cuba is wrong because the country is communist, but trade
with
> >China and Vietnam is vital to a spirit of international harmony.
>
> Flip Flop No.2
When did Bush not support trade with China? Same question?
>
> > The United States should get out of the United Nations, and our highest
> >national priority is enforcing U.N. resolutions against Iraq.
>
> Flip Flop No.3
The UN resolutions were a result of an armistice on a war which we
shouldered 95% of the burden. They were simply a conduit. Again, same
question.
>
> > The best way to improve military morale is to praise the troops in
speeches
> >while slashing veterans' benefits and combat pay.
>
> Flop Flop No.4
>
Veterans benefits continue to outpace inflation, and everyone in the private
sector has seen their insurance plans change over time to fight the
escalating costs. Again, where is the flip flop?
> > Providing health care to all Iraqis is sound policy. Providing health
care to
> >all Americans is socialism.
>
> Flip Flop No.5
All Americans have health care. Oh, do you mean "health insurance"? Funny
how the left never wants to phrase it that way. Again, I don't see any flip
flop.
>
> > A president lying about an extramarital affair is an impeachable
offense.
> >
> > A president lying to enlist support for a war in which thousands die is
solid
> >defense policy."
>
> Flip Flop No.6
Show me one instance where Bush told us something he knew wasn't true.
I realize the DNC is fighting the Kerry flip flop charge tooth and nail, but
none of the six listed could be described as a flip flop. Kerry has flipped
on the exact same issues numerous times.
Joe
On 24 Jul 2004 00:28:06 GMT, [email protected] (Charlie Self) wrote:
>The density of the bone in Bush's head keeps him from knowing a lot of things.
Bush keep on hesitating every time he speaks, I wish Cheney was there to help
him. When he say. "Cheney can be Presiden!", for a minute I thot he say "Cheney
is President"
Joe Tylicki responds:
>Show me one instance where Bush told us something he knew wasn't true.
>
The density of the bone in Bush's head keeps him from knowing a lot of things.
>I realize the DNC is fighting the Kerry flip flop charge tooth and nail, but
>none of the six listed could be described as a flip flop. Kerry has flipped
>on the exact same issues numerous times.
WTF does the DNC have to do with the listed items, which, in fact, were listed
as faults, not as flip flops originally?
Charlie Self
"I think the most un-American thing you can say is, 'You can't say that.'"
Garrison Keillor
On 24 Jul 2004 00:28:06 GMT, Charlie Self <[email protected]> wrote:
> Joe Tylicki responds:
>
>>Show me one instance where Bush told us something he knew wasn't true.
>>
>
> The density of the bone in Bush's head keeps him from knowing a lot of things.
Resorting to a personal attack on anyone, is a sure sign that you have
no facts from which to build your argument. I expected you to be
above that, Charlie, I really did.
Snicker.
"Dave Hinz" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 24 Jul 2004 00:28:06 GMT, Charlie Self <[email protected]>
wrote:
> > Joe Tylicki responds:
> >
> >>Show me one instance where Bush told us something he knew wasn't true.
> >>
> >
> > The density of the bone in Bush's head keeps him from knowing a lot of
things.
>
> Resorting to a personal attack on anyone, is a sure sign that you have
> no facts from which to build your argument. I expected you to be
> above that, Charlie, I really did.
>
Dave Hinz wrote:
> On 22 Jul 2004 07:57:07 GMT, Charlie Self <[email protected]> wrote:
>
[snip]>
>
> You are actually proposing that the war in Iraq was a diversion about
> finding Bin Laden? You must be aware of all of the Democrats who also
> held Hussein to be a danger and someone who must be stopped, right? The
> whole thing with the UN inspections being deferred for a decade, that
> whole bit?
>
[more snippage]
I was one of a lot of Republicans who understand that war (viz. killing
people and destroying things) should be the absolute last resort. We
were told that Afghanistan was harboring Bin Laden and had been since
the Clinton administration. He was proven to be responsible, in the
main, for 9/11. To attack with the intent of destroying Al Qaeda and
removing its leadership: OK.
We sent in enough troops to scatter the Taliban and Al Qaeda. Both are
still very much in business. We bungled the operation.
Insofar as Iraq was concerned, we saw no evidence of WMDs. The aluminum
tubing and yellow cake incidents were debunked in the newspapers long
before the State of the Union address. We attacked anyway. Big
mistake. We have had several changes of reasons for attacking including
the current favorite: we are better off without Saddam. Puke. Now the
administration has lost all credibility. Toss in the multi-trillion
dollar national debt (much of which is held by Asian countries) and you
get two reasons why I cannot vote for Bush.
mahalo,
jo4hn
Larry Jaques <novalidaddress@di\/ersify.com> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> On Fri, 23 Jul 2004 09:30:46 -0400, Renata <[email protected]>
> calmly ranted:
>
>>Ah!
>>Is this why Bush refused to testify under oath to the 9/11 Commission
>>(which (the lack of oath) was unprecedented, so save your excuses).
>
> Most likely. Read this in your spare time. Excellent!
> http://www.backwoodshome.com/articles2/silveira77.html
>
> I was very surprised to see 25-30 Army (According to a guard,
> the National Guard is now Army) soldiers guarding the little
> air show at Grants Pass Airport last month, but what really
> got to me was the fact that one of these guys was talking with
> 2 other guards as they walked by the privvy I was in and they
> were talking about how fun it would be to turn one over instead
> of walking guard duty. This is the mentality of those who guard
> our country?
>
I guess you never make jokes, huh Larry? And, I guess you were never a
kid either? These soldiers will defend to the death your right to your
opinion, though.
--
remove nospam to use email
Casey Stamper
[email protected]
Also a soldier and damn proud of it and all of my brothers and sisters in
arms.
Larry Jaques <novalidaddress@di\/ersify.com> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> On Sun, 25 Jul 2004 07:18:23 -0500, Casey Stamper
> <[email protected]> calmly ranted:
>
>>Larry Jaques <novalidaddress@di\/ersify.com> wrote
>
>>> I was very surprised to see 25-30 Army (According to a guard,
>>> the National Guard is now Army) soldiers guarding the little
>>> air show at Grants Pass Airport last month, but what really
>>> got to me was the fact that one of these guys was talking with
>>> 2 other guards as they walked by the privvy I was in and they
>>> were talking about how fun it would be to turn one over instead
>>> of walking guard duty. This is the mentality of those who guard
>>> our country?
>>>
>>I guess you never make jokes, huh Larry? And, I guess you were never a
>>kid either? These soldiers will defend to the death your right to your
>>opinion, though.
>
> I am not enlisted OR on duty AND in uniform, sir.
What's your point?
>
> The public could easily hear his joke for 30 feet in any direction,
> and I would bet top dollar that if his CO had heard him make the
> remark, he'd have been put in the brig for a few days so he could
> think about how his remark weakens the public morale over their
> defenders.
I doubt it.
>
> Sure, I make jokes and was a kid, but when I was working and the
> joke was against the company or its clients, I kept it low in
> volume, real low-key. That idiot should have done the same.
I wonder if you would think he was an idiot if he wasn't in uniform.
>
> While I fully support our troops, I do NOT condone assinine actions
> either in the states or overseas, especially when it affects world
> opinion of our great nation. Additionally, Casey, as a US citizen,
> it's my DUTY to keep watch over the politicians and our military.
The military? Not really. It's the job of the NCO/senior enlisted corps
to keep watch over and take care of the individual soldier.
>
> I stand by my outrage at the guard's actions.
It's your right to do so - I think you are overreacting.
>
> -
> The advantage of exercising every day is that you die healthier.
> ------------
> http://diversify.com Dynamic Websites, PHP Apps, MySQL databases
>
--
remove nospam to use email
Casey Stamper
[email protected]
"The dogs bark . . . but the caravan moves on"
old Arabic saying
Larry Jaques <novalidaddress@di\/ersify.com> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> I was very surprised to see 25-30 Army (According to a guard,
> the National Guard is now Army) soldiers guarding the little
> air show at Grants Pass Airport last month, but what really
> got to me was the fact that one of these guys was talking with
> 2 other guards as they walked by the privvy I was in and they
> were talking about how fun it would be to turn one over instead
> of walking guard duty. This is the mentality of those who guard
> our country?
>
>
>
Appears you've never stood guard duty. Don't worry, even with that
mentality they'll still take a hit for you.
Larry Jaques wrote:
>...... but what really
> got to me was the fact that one of these guys was talking with
> 2 other guards as they walked by the privvy I was in and they
> were talking about how fun it would be to turn one over instead
> of walking guard duty. This is the mentality of those who guard
> our country?
>
Larry, I bet your ass is so tight you can't squeak out a fart.
--
Mark
N.E. Ohio
In theory there is no difference between theory and practice, but in practice
there is.
Never argue with a fool, a bystander can't tell you apart. (S. Clemens, A.K.A.
Mark Twain)
When in doubt hit the throttle. It may not help but it sure ends the suspense.
(Gaz, r.moto)
Larry Jaques wrote:
> I am not enlisted OR on duty AND in uniform, sir.
No kidding.
>
> The public could easily hear his joke for 30 feet in any direction,
> and I would bet top dollar that if his CO had heard him make the
> remark, he'd have been put in the brig for a few days so he could
> think about how his remark weakens the public morale over their
> defenders.
Oh Larry, your being such a little Girl.
--
Mark
N.E. Ohio
In theory there is no difference between theory and practice, but in practice
there is.
Never argue with a fool, a bystander can't tell you apart. (S. Clemens, A.K.A.
Mark Twain)
When in doubt hit the throttle. It may not help but it sure ends the suspense.
(Gaz, r.moto)
On Fri, 23 Jul 2004 09:30:46 -0400, Renata <[email protected]>
calmly ranted:
>Ah!
>Is this why Bush refused to testify under oath to the 9/11 Commission
>(which (the lack of oath) was unprecedented, so save your excuses).
Most likely. Read this in your spare time. Excellent!
http://www.backwoodshome.com/articles2/silveira77.html
I was very surprised to see 25-30 Army (According to a guard,
the National Guard is now Army) soldiers guarding the little
air show at Grants Pass Airport last month, but what really
got to me was the fact that one of these guys was talking with
2 other guards as they walked by the privvy I was in and they
were talking about how fun it would be to turn one over instead
of walking guard duty. This is the mentality of those who guard
our country?
>On 22 Jul 2004 15:11:11 GMT, Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote:
>-snip
>>A president lying under oath to congress, is an impeachable offense, yes.
>>
>-snip-
Agreed.
Perhaps lying to the country and Congress should be impeachable, too.
Where ARE those Iraqui WMDs? Several thousand searchers (not counting
the official weapons inspectors) for two years didn't turn anything
up, but gee, one turning up just a few months before the ballot box
sure was convenient, wasn't it?
---------------------------------------------------
I drive way too fast to worry about my cholesterol.
---------------------------------------------------
http://www.diversify.com Refreshing Graphic Design
On Fri, 23 Jul 2004 11:02:52 -0400, "George" <george@least> wrote:
>However, motherhood is optional, while fatherhood is not. Takes a big load
>off the female.
>
>Until the male has the right to dispose of his responsibility toward that
>no-viable tissue mass....
He *does* and always has. Don't put it in there in the first place.
sheesh.
>
>"Renata" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> Dang! And here I always thought it took two to tango....
>>
>> Renata
>>
>> On Thu, 22 Jul 2004 08:38:29 -0400, "Al Reid"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> -snip-
>> > If a women can't keep her legs
>> >closed, or atleast use protection she should have to bare the brunt of
>_her_ actions.
>> >
>> -snip-
>
Until men are able to get pregnant and carry children, the greater burden of
preventing unwanted pregnancies is placed on women. If you don't like it,
send your complaints to the designer.
todd
"Renata" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Dang! And here I always thought it took two to tango....
>
> Renata
>
> On Thu, 22 Jul 2004 08:38:29 -0400, "Al Reid"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> -snip-
> > If a women can't keep her legs
> >closed, or atleast use protection she should have to bare the brunt of
_her_ actions.
> >
> -snip-
Joe Tylicki wrote:
> So as a Republican you will vote for the most liberal ticket in the history
> of the Democratic party, or you just won't vote?
>
> Joe
I vote for those whose policies more closely follow my research and
thinking regardless of party or label. I left the Republican party when
a nephew informed me that I was not really a Republican anyway. I am
now an independent which makes more sense. I value honesty and
competence rather highly. The current administration displays precious
little of these commodities. I will be voting for John Kerry.
mahalo,
jo4hn
Ah!
Is this why Bush refused to testify under oath to the 9/11 Commission
(which (the lack of oath) was unprecedented, so save your excuses).
Renata
On 22 Jul 2004 15:11:11 GMT, Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote:
-snip
>A president lying under oath to congress, is an impeachable offense, yes.
>
-snip-
On Fri, 23 Jul 2004 09:30:46 -0400, Renata wrote:
> Ah!
> Is this why Bush refused to testify under oath to the 9/11 Commission
> (which (the lack of oath) was unprecedented, so save your excuses).
Hardly unprecedented - Clinton and Gore also testified to the 9-11
comission in private and not under oath. I suppose you could say they
also "refused" to testify under oath, but since none of them were asked
to, you'd be wrong.
<http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/29/bush.911.commission/>
-Doug
--
"If you have an apple and I have an apple and we exchange apples
then you and I will still each have one apple.
But if you have an idea and I have one idea and we exchange these
ideas,then each of us will have two ideas" George B. Shaw
On Mon, 26 Jul 2004 10:18:51 -0500, Casey Stamper
<[email protected]> calmly ranted:
>Larry Jaques <novalidaddress@di\/ersify.com> wrote in
>> I am not enlisted OR on duty AND in uniform, sir.
>
>What's your point?
If he was in civies it would have been a bad joke.
With him in uniform, on duty, and carrying arms, it
becomes an extremely unprofessional remark stated in
public and subject to scrutiny. If this is how they
act here, how must they be in foreign countries where
they think they can get away with crap like that. If
this is typical action/acceptance by "the new Army",
we're in trouble.
>> I stand by my outrage at the guard's actions.
>
>It's your right to do so - I think you are overreacting.
Overreacting would have been to go to his CO and report
his remark and demand his apology/arrest, etc.
-------------------------------------------------
- Clinton never - * Wondrous Website Design
- EXhaled.- * http://www.diversify.com
-------------------------------------------------
Larry Jaques responds:
>
>If he was in civies it would have been a bad joke.
>With him in uniform, on duty, and carrying arms, it
>becomes an extremely unprofessional remark stated in
>public and subject to scrutiny. If this is how they
>act here, how must they be in foreign countries where
>they think they can get away with crap like that. If
>this is typical action/acceptance by "the new Army",
>we're in trouble.
First, ANG is close to Army, but not quite. Second, most of those youngsters do
behave quite differently overseas than they do here, especially when in
hazardous situations. They usually behave very well.
>
>>> I stand by my outrage at the guard's actions.
>>
>>It's your right to do so - I think you are overreacting.
>
>Overreacting would have been to go to his CO and report
>his remark and demand his apology/arrest, etc.
Unprofessional remarks from someone making 1200 bucks a month and you want to
crucify the guy?
You're not overreacting, you're blowing your gaskets to no good purpose. And
the odds are his CO would have snickered when you left, turned the situation
over the first sergeant, who might have talked to the guy, but probably
wouldn't. He did nothing illegal, whether you like it or not.
Charlie Self
"I think the most un-American thing you can say is, 'You can't say that.'"
Garrison Keillor
Larry Jaques <novalidaddress@di\/ersify.com> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> On 27 Jul 2004 07:59:45 GMT, [email protected] (Charlie Self)
> calmly ranted:
>
>>Larry Jaques responds:
>>
>>>
>>>If he was in civies it would have been a bad joke.
>>>With him in uniform, on duty, and carrying arms, it
>>>becomes an extremely unprofessional remark stated in
>>>public and subject to scrutiny. If this is how they
>>>act here, how must they be in foreign countries where
>>>they think they can get away with crap like that. If
>>>this is typical action/acceptance by "the new Army",
>>>we're in trouble.
>>
>>First, ANG is close to Army, but not quite. Second, most of those
>>youngsters do behave quite differently overseas than they do here,
>>especially when in hazardous situations. They usually behave very
>>well.
>
> According to another guard I was talking with (a friendlier
> one) they report to the Army bases now. Evidently they're
> closer now than they were pre-9/11.
>
>
>>Unprofessional remarks from someone making 1200 bucks a month and you
>>want to crucify the guy?
>
> So you think I shouldn't get angry with anyone making less
> than $50k/yr, eh? Really now, Charlie. ;) And I'm not
> crucifying the little sh*t. I made the comment that I was
> angry and saddened by his actions. (If I'd wanted to crucify
> him, I'd have gotten his name and told a TV crew, perhaps
> after his CO snickered at me. But none of that happened.)
Why does his behavior upset you so much? People are people and soldiers
aren't exempt from questionable conduct. If he was a security guard,
would his actions have upset you as much? I must admit that I just don't
understand your vehement reaction to an offhand joke by a soldier. The TV
crew wouldn't have given a damn about what he said because it was not
worthy of note other than in passing.
>
>
>>You're not overreacting, you're blowing your gaskets to no good
>>purpose. And the odds are his CO would have snickered when you left,
>>turned the situation over the first sergeant, who might have talked to
>>the guy, but probably wouldn't. He did nothing illegal, whether you
>>like it or not.
>
> If a bigwig was in the can and heard that, they could
> have pressed for "unprofessional conduct", though that
> is worse for officers (conduct unbecoming).
On what grounds?
>
> Excuse me for thinking that our military (all forms of it)
> should be on good behavior AT LEAST during their duty hours.
What is so bad about the behavior? The soldier might have made an error
in judgement by making his comment so that it was audible to more people
than just his companion(s), but regardless, this is a non-issue.
You have no idea what he has gone through or what his future holds and I,
for one, get sick and tired of people holding soldiers up to a standard
that they wouldn't think of adhering to themselves.
Being a soldier (sailor, marine, airman) is one of the toughest jobs that
a young man or woman can have and this particular career currently
carries enough stress w/out petty complaints coming from the peanut
gallery.
If it bothered you so much, why /didn't/ you complain to the 1SG or the
Commander instead of whining about it to this newsgroup?
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------
> - Clinton never - * Wondrous Website Design
> - EXhaled.- * http://www.diversify.com
> -------------------------------------------------
>
--
remove nospam to use email
Casey Stamper
[email protected]
"The dogs bark . . . but the caravan moves on"
old Arabic saying
"Larry Jaques" <novalidaddress@di\/ersify.com> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> >>If he was in civies it would have been a bad joke.
> >>With him in uniform, on duty, and carrying arms, it
> >>becomes an extremely unprofessional remark stated in
> >>public and subject to scrutiny.
What does in uniform, on duty and carrying arms have to do with anything?
What makes you think you are empowered to scrutinize them just because
they're on duty? Just because you're a citizen does not empower you with
that authority. If you don't care for his sense of humor in such a trivial
matter, then shake your head and walk away and don't complain in a public
forum about it. I find the arbitrary and subjective standards that people
like to apply to situations which are no more critical than having offended
their delicate sensibilities to be unprofessional and out of order.
> >>If this is how they
> >>act here, how must they be in foreign countries where
> >>they think they can get away with crap like that. If
> >>this is typical action/acceptance by "the new Army",
> >>we're in trouble.
We're in more trouble when people with no real complaint resort to making
such big deals out of such trivial matters and attempt to cast an importance
on their claims with such statements as "with him in uniform, on duty, and
carrying arms". Go ahead and be personally insulted if you feel you must,
but why in the world would you think this is a big enough and important
enough issue to ostrasize this fellow in a public forum?
>
> According to another guard I was talking with (a friendlier
> one) they report to the Army bases now. Evidently they're
> closer now than they were pre-9/11.
Closer, but do a little research on the difference between the ANG and
Regular Army. Huge difference, no matter how closely they work together.
Not that it matters to the point of the rant.
>
> So you think I shouldn't get angry with anyone making less
> than $50k/yr, eh? Really now, Charlie. ;) And I'm not
> crucifying the little sh*t. I made the comment that I was
> angry and saddened by his actions. (If I'd wanted to crucify
> him, I'd have gotten his name and told a TV crew, perhaps
> after his CO snickered at me. But none of that happened.)
>
The TV crew would have probably gotten a good laugh at both his joke and
your reaction Larry. I mean, for Pete's sake - it was a joke, and not such
a horrible one at that. You'd think from your reaction that the fellow had
rocked and shaken the porta-john you were in to the point that you feared he
would actually tip it over.
>
> If a bigwig was in the can and heard that, they could
> have pressed for "unprofessional conduct", though that
> is worse for officers (conduct unbecoming).
"Unprofessional conduct"??? And by what standard are you so certain that
either enlisted staff or officers "could" be prosecuted for this simple act?
Because you're upset with it and are reaching way out too far in order to
try to argue a point?
>
> Excuse me for thinking that our military (all forms of it)
> should be on good behavior AT LEAST during their duty hours.
Your error is in thinking that they must adhere to your definition of good
behavior.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
On Tue, 27 Jul 2004 20:12:33 -0500, Casey Stamper
<[email protected]> calmly ranted:
>Why does his behavior upset you so much?
When you're in the particular porta-potty they're talking
about toppling, you have a very different perspective about
what's humorous, knowwhatImean,Vern?
>People are people and soldiers
>aren't exempt from questionable conduct. If he was a security guard,
>would his actions have upset you as much? I must admit that I just don't
>understand your vehement reaction to an offhand joke by a soldier. The TV
>crew wouldn't have given a damn about what he said because it was not
>worthy of note other than in passing.
You guys are giving this topic a lot more air time than it
would have received from me, so how does it feel to be a
part of the media circus?
>You have no idea what he has gone through or what his future holds and I,
>for one, get sick and tired of people holding soldiers up to a standard
>that they wouldn't think of adhering to themselves.
So you think that soldiers, cops, security people should all
make really bad, threatening jokes in front of people, further
diminishing the respect they get from everyone? Buy a Clue!
>Being a soldier (sailor, marine, airman) is one of the toughest jobs that
>a young man or woman can have and this particular career currently
>carries enough stress w/out petty complaints coming from the peanut
>gallery.
Being a civilian surrounded by armed guards making offhand
comments like that isn't exactly stressless, old chap. The
kid was bored stiff and wanted to do something destructive
as an outlet. The object of his frustration just happened to
be occupied by yours truly at that precise moment, too. I
wasn't the slightest bit uncomfortable around the guards until
that comment was made.
>If it bothered you so much, why /didn't/ you complain to the 1SG or the
>Commander instead of whining about it to this newsgroup?
I commented. You whined. ;) And had you read my replies,
you'd realize that it didn't bother me as much as this
thread implies; not even enough to report him at the time.
I probably would have forgotten about it if it didn't keep
coming up in this thread.
-------------------------------------------------
- Clinton never - * Wondrous Website Design
- EXhaled.- * http://www.diversify.com
-------------------------------------------------
On 27 Jul 2004 07:59:45 GMT, [email protected] (Charlie Self)
calmly ranted:
>Larry Jaques responds:
>
>>
>>If he was in civies it would have been a bad joke.
>>With him in uniform, on duty, and carrying arms, it
>>becomes an extremely unprofessional remark stated in
>>public and subject to scrutiny. If this is how they
>>act here, how must they be in foreign countries where
>>they think they can get away with crap like that. If
>>this is typical action/acceptance by "the new Army",
>>we're in trouble.
>
>First, ANG is close to Army, but not quite. Second, most of those youngsters do
>behave quite differently overseas than they do here, especially when in
>hazardous situations. They usually behave very well.
According to another guard I was talking with (a friendlier
one) they report to the Army bases now. Evidently they're
closer now than they were pre-9/11.
>Unprofessional remarks from someone making 1200 bucks a month and you want to
>crucify the guy?
So you think I shouldn't get angry with anyone making less
than $50k/yr, eh? Really now, Charlie. ;) And I'm not
crucifying the little sh*t. I made the comment that I was
angry and saddened by his actions. (If I'd wanted to crucify
him, I'd have gotten his name and told a TV crew, perhaps
after his CO snickered at me. But none of that happened.)
>You're not overreacting, you're blowing your gaskets to no good purpose. And
>the odds are his CO would have snickered when you left, turned the situation
>over the first sergeant, who might have talked to the guy, but probably
>wouldn't. He did nothing illegal, whether you like it or not.
If a bigwig was in the can and heard that, they could
have pressed for "unprofessional conduct", though that
is worse for officers (conduct unbecoming).
Excuse me for thinking that our military (all forms of it)
should be on good behavior AT LEAST during their duty hours.
-------------------------------------------------
- Clinton never - * Wondrous Website Design
- EXhaled.- * http://www.diversify.com
-------------------------------------------------
"Larry Jaques" <novalidaddress@di\/ersify.com> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Tue, 27 Jul 2004 20:12:33 -0500, Casey Stamper
> <[email protected]> calmly ranted:
>
> >Why does his behavior upset you so much?
>
> When you're in the particular porta-potty they're talking
> about toppling, you have a very different perspective about
> what's humorous, knowwhatImean,Vern?
Only if you leave your sense of humor and complete common sense at home.
>
>
> >People are people and soldiers
> >aren't exempt from questionable conduct. If he was a security guard,
> >would his actions have upset you as much? I must admit that I just don't
> >understand your vehement reaction to an offhand joke by a soldier. The TV
> >crew wouldn't have given a damn about what he said because it was not
> >worthy of note other than in passing.
>
> You guys are giving this topic a lot more air time than it
> would have received from me, so how does it feel to be a
> part of the media circus?
What a joke Larry. You plop your little tantrum here as if this guy had
spread-eagled you in the parking lot with his M16 at your head and then you
reply like this to people who tell you that you've made a mountain out of a
mole hill? You brought the issue here.
>
>
> >You have no idea what he has gone through or what his future holds and I,
> >for one, get sick and tired of people holding soldiers up to a standard
> >that they wouldn't think of adhering to themselves.
>
> So you think that soldiers, cops, security people should all
> make really bad, threatening jokes in front of people, further
> diminishing the respect they get from everyone? Buy a Clue!
Ohhhhhhhhhh.... really *bad*, *threatening* jokes. Hyperbole does not earn
extra points.
>
>
> >Being a soldier (sailor, marine, airman) is one of the toughest jobs that
> >a young man or woman can have and this particular career currently
> >carries enough stress w/out petty complaints coming from the peanut
> >gallery.
>
> Being a civilian surrounded by armed guards making offhand
> comments like that isn't exactly stressless, old chap. The
> kid was bored stiff and wanted to do something destructive
> as an outlet. The object of his frustration just happened to
> be occupied by yours truly at that precise moment, too. I
> wasn't the slightest bit uncomfortable around the guards until
> that comment was made.
Oh stop, for pete's sake. You're whining like a woman. "Armed guards
making offhand comments like that isn't exactly stressless"? If you're
really all that stressed over a simple joke, then you really need some help.
The kid was bored and wanted to do something destructive? My god man, you
are paranoid. You need to get out more around people.
>
>
> >If it bothered you so much, why /didn't/ you complain to the 1SG or the
> >Commander instead of whining about it to this newsgroup?
>
> I commented. You whined. ;) And had you read my replies,
> you'd realize that it didn't bother me as much as this
> thread implies; not even enough to report him at the time.
> I probably would have forgotten about it if it didn't keep
> coming up in this thread.
>
No - you brought this here as a whine. An exaggerated whine that you've
continued to try to justify with hyperbole. Guess if you didn't want to
hear how foolish you sounded by complaining about your little incident, then
you should not have plopped it on the floor here.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
On Wed, 28 Jul 2004 23:41:03 GMT, "Mike Marlow"
<[email protected]> calmly ranted:
>No - you brought this here as a whine. An exaggerated whine that you've
>continued to try to justify with hyperbole. Guess if you didn't want to
>hear how foolish you sounded by complaining about your little incident, then
>you should not have plopped it on the floor here.
(Putting on best teen voice) "What e v e r !"
-------------------------------------------------
- Clinton never - * Wondrous Website Design
- EXhaled.- * http://www.diversify.com
-------------------------------------------------
Glen <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> Fred the Red Shirt wrote:
>
>
> >... and we won't be fooled again!"
>
>
> Wasn't that a song by The Who?
Yes. I would've thought Baby Bush would have been more of a country fan,
excluding the Dixie Chicks, of course.
--
FF
"Nate Perkins" <[email protected]> wrote in message > I think if you
really wanted to get it straight, you would read the
> news reports directly from a couple of different sources. If you did
> that you'd realize that a) what was taken was a photocopy -- not the
> original -- of a report submitted to Berger on how the Millenium
> attacks were foiled, and that the 9/11 commission has the original
The details seem to be a bit sketchy to nail down, but do we know this for a
fact? I'm not sure we even know everything he took, since by Berger's own
admission, he lost several documents. Which, of course, isn't the point
anyway. The point is, he shouldn't have taken the documents in the first
place. Unfortunately, it is yet another reflection on how seriously members
of the Clinton administration took protection of classified information.
> (b) the other thing taken out was his handwritten notes in prep for the
> 9/11 commission;
Which he also was not authorized to take.
(c) all this happened more than 4 months ago, since
> which Berger has been cooperating and is just now being leaked
Typical liberal response. More worried about the timing of the release of
the information than the information itself. Look, I'm willing to stipulate
that the release of the information is politically motivated. It's less
than four months from the presidential election! Everything is politically
motivated from here on out.
> (d) Berger probably has no motivation to steal a report that the 9/11
> commission has already seen and included in their report.
I see. You know everything that was contained in the documents he was
looking at? Including the ones that have disappeared? OK. You tell me why
he took the documents. Please come up with a story that doesn't make me
laugh out loud.
> But I don't think you really want to get it straight, do you? I
> suspect knowing more about current events would cause you to question
> your comfortable political views.
But you've got it all straight, right?
todd
On Wed, 21 Jul 2004 01:30:02 +0000, Dave Hinz wrote:
> So, just so I have this straight, one of John Kerry's election advisers,
> and Clinton's National Security Adviser, removed documents critical to the
> 9/11 investigation from the National Archives?
>
> What other scoundrels and/or Clinton leftovers (but I repeat myself) is
> John Kerry keeping the company of? Doesn't say much for Kerry's judgement
> if he had this sort of person advising him. Brings up the question - Did
> Kerry not know, or did he not care? I mean, pretty big thing not to
> mention in the job interview, isn't it? So did Berger lie to Kerry about
> having a very tarnished past, or did Kerry know about it and not care?
One of the others on his re-election commitee is Joe Wilson, the nuetral,
independent, objective investigator of the Yellowcake/Niger Bush lies
false statements in his State of the Union address. Turns out his
investigation was a farce, the false documents weren't the basis for the
intelligence, his CIA employeed wife _did_ get him the trip to Niger to
"investigate" and the British and our home grown investigators have
completely discredited him.
I got a kick out of Daschle today saying Berger"should be given the
benefit of the doubt" as if they haven't jumped on every unfounded piece
of crap they can throw against the wall against Bush.
-Doug
--
"If you have an apple and I have an apple and we exchange apples
then you and I will still each have one apple.
But if you have an idea and I have one idea and we exchange these
ideas,then each of us will have two ideas" George B. Shaw
On Thu, 22 Jul 2004 21:36:16 -0700, Nate Perkins wrote:
> I think if you really wanted to get it straight, you would read the news
> reports directly from a couple of different sources. If you did that
> you'd realize that a) what was taken was a photocopy -- not the original
> -- of a report submitted to Berger on how the Millenium attacks were
> foiled, and that the 9/11 commission has the original (b) the other thing
> taken out was his handwritten notes in prep for the 9/11 commission; (c)
> all this happened more than 4 months ago, since which Berger has been
> cooperating and is just now being leaked; (d) Berger probably has no
> motivation to steal a report that the 9/11 commission has already seen and
> included in their report.
>
> But I don't think you really want to get it straight, do you? I suspect
> knowing more about current events would cause you to question your
> comfortable political views.
The question I have is why if this was all just a little misunderstanding
- what's with the stuffing of the notes and whatever into the socks and
pants rather than the briefcase?
-Doug
--
"If you have an apple and I have an apple and we exchange apples
then you and I will still each have one apple.
But if you have an idea and I have one idea and we exchange these
ideas,then each of us will have two ideas" George B. Shaw