Can a Democrat/Republican joint ticket beat Bush/Cheney?
This is a very important election year. John F. Kerry needs to select a
suitable Vice Presidential candidate if he expects to have a chance of
beating George W. Bush in the 2004 election. His former Democratic
Primary rivals (John Edwards, Dick Gephardt, Howard Dean, etc.) are his
likely choices, but there has been an ever growing speculation that he
might choose someone more controversial......like Hillary Rodham Clinton,
or even Bush's Republican rival from Arizona, John McCain.
McCain denies that he would accept such a nomination, but so has Hillary
and Edwards, yet the VP candidate is likely to be one of these three
people.
Who do you think would be the greatest asset to J F Kerry as running
mate?
With the latest abuse photos and videos popping up (US military abuse of
Iraqis, possible Nick Berg video forgery), the polls are likely to be
less predictive of the election outcome than they have traditionally been
in the past.
Kerry's choice is critical.
"Elmer Marino" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> but there has been an ever growing speculation that he
> might choose someone more controversial......like Hillary Rodham Clinton,
> or even Bush's Republican rival from Arizona, John McCain.
>
This idea is very revealing of how you democrats don't even like your own
guy. The only reason that Kerry was nominated in the first place was
because he was a veteran. Now, this obviously isn't enough to win so he has
to get a true war hero, McCain to help out. Not only that, the feeling is
the only way he could win is to bring a republican to the ticket? What an
absolute joke.
> McCain denies that he would accept such a nomination, but so has Hillary
> and Edwards, yet the VP candidate is likely to be one of these three
> people.
>
Of course they are denying they will accept a nomination. They can see what
a joke this Kerry is as clearly as we all can. Anyone with any sense will
run screaming from the train wreck that is the Kerry campaign.
>
> Who do you think would be the greatest asset to J F Kerry as running
> mate?
>
If the dems hope to win the white house, there is only one thing they need
to change about their nominee; his identity.
> With the latest abuse photos and videos popping up (US military abuse of
> Iraqis, possible Nick Berg video forgery),
Berg video forgery? I suppose the headless corpse delivered back to the
states was a fake too? You people are such a joke. You are just lucky that
the mainstream media trying desperatly to bury the Berg story because of how
resonable people will react to it, and how it puts the "atrocities" of the
us soldiers in such clear focus.
Frank
[email protected] (David Hall) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> "Richard A." <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<in3rc.230$Sx2.148@okepread01>...
> > I agree with Dan but if McCain would run with Kerry it
> > would make for a very interesting race. Too bad we can't
> > see a McCain/Kerry ticket, now that would be worth going to
> > the polls for.
> Geez, you folks sound like all those who wanted a Reagan/Ford
> "co-presidency" in 1980.
> "The Vice-Presidency isn't worth a warm bucket of spit" or
> something like that - some vice president in the 1800's
That was back when the office really didn't matter, but VPs have been
important
in the administrations of Reagan, Clinton, and, most of all, George W.
Bush.
Bush could nullify the McCain issue moot by kicking out Rumsfeld and
nominating McCain as his replacement, and as much as McCain hates
Bush, I doubt that he'd turn down the post.
"Dave" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<_a1tc.27607$af3.1486929@attbi_s51>...
> Anybody who would vote for kerry should grab ahold of their
> left ear with their right hand and pull their head out of
> their ASS!
The other candidate isn't John McCain but George W. Bush, one of the
worst presidents in history. The choice in 2004 is obvious because
the incumbent is so bad.
> If he gets in will Jane Fonda be his Secretary of State.
You have to remember that Kerry denounced Fonda's Hanoi speech when
she made it, and he was in the minority in his party when he voted to
support Bush's call for the war with Iraq.
> I feel like Sen. Zell Miller I didn't desert the party it deserted me.
Zell Miller is nothing but an opportunist and a demagogue. He reminds
me of Phil "Enron" Graham.
> The only Democrat around that would make a great President is Sam Nunn,
Sam Nunn and greatness are mutually exclusive. That's not to say I
don't believe he's a good, decent man, but he's second rate and hardly
in the league of Washington, Lincoln, FDR, Kennedy, Reagan, or even
Bush #1.
> It's too bad that if a person is a Christian and does not agree
> with abortion, he is looked down upon by the party and considered
> to be a kook.
I'm neither a Democrat nor Republican, but I've noticed the Democratic
party tolerates differences of opinion much more than today's
Republican party, which is sometimes almost cult-like -- look at how
they recently tried to defeat one of their own in a primary, Arlen
Spector of Pennsylvania.
On Thu, 20 May 2004 21:29:53 GMT, Leon wrote:
> "Elmer Marino" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Can a Democrat/Republican joint ticket beat Bush/Cheney?
>
> Only if Bush or Cheney run for the Democratic vp position.
>
> snip
>>
>> Who do you think would be the greatest asset to J F Kerry as running
>> mate?
>
> Some one that does not flip flop on his position and has a brain.
That sentence could be applied to Bush.
> "Richard A." <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<in3rc.230$Sx2.148@okepread01>...
> "The Vice-Presidency isn't worth a warm bucket of spit" or something
> like that - some vice president in the 1800's
I forget his name, too, but he used that line as an excuse to stay
perpetually drunk. We're a little better than that, now.
On Fri, 21 May 2004 06:37:55 -0400, WouldRight wrote:
[snip]
> If Kerry's efforts saved a single life in
> the face of Nixon's evil, it speaks more than well of him.
[snip]
> Neither Kerry nor McCain has spent anytime since Vietnam, to my knowledge,
> bringing to justice those who killed John Kennedy and sent us there. It
> doesn't take much to reckon each of them is part of the problem.
If the above two statements reflect your knowledge of history, they and
the rest of your idiocy can be safely ignored. Now, where'd I put that
tinfoil hat...
-Doug
--
"A government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always
depend on the support of Paul." - George Bernard Shaw
On Fri, 21 May 2004 18:24:48 -0400, Tom Watson wrote:
> I'd like to see McCain 'slip the surly bonds' of the repuplican party and
> run in the lead position on the dem ticket.
>
> (watson - who dreams strange dreams but still has hopes - of a sort...)
Be careful what you wish for - you may get it. Having watched McCain up
close from here in AZ, it's not always as dreamy as the national press
would like you to believe.
-Doug
--
"A government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always
depend on the support of Paul." - George Bernard Shaw
On Fri, 21 May 2004 08:28:20 -0700, Shawn <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Thu, 20 May 2004 21:29:53 GMT, Leon wrote:
>
>> "Elmer Marino" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> Can a Democrat/Republican joint ticket beat Bush/Cheney?
>>
>> Only if Bush or Cheney run for the Democratic vp position.
>>
>> snip
>>>
>>> Who do you think would be the greatest asset to J F Kerry as running
>>> mate?
>>
>> Some one that does not flip flop on his position and has a brain.
>
>That sentence could be applied to Bush.
No matter what you think about Bush, that statement has no validity
applied to him. The one thing he does not do is flip-flop, you will find
no statements of "I voted for it before I voted against it", or "those
SUV's aren't mine, they belong to my family". Some of us think he
compromises too much, especially regarding domestic policy, but taking both
sides of an issue is not in his makeup.
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> Elmer Marino wrote:
>
> >Can a Democrat/Republican joint ticket beat Bush/Cheney?
> >
>
> Rather than criticising everything that Bush did, or didn't do, Kerry
> needs to build his own platform, but apparently, he is not a woodworker.
>
I'd almost rather have seen Al Sharpton as Democratic nominee
rather than Kerry. At least he makes some good wisecracks. But
Kerry may not need any platform other than not being George Bush
:-).
If Nader makes it on very many ballots, even that won't help the
Democrats. I still want to know how much of his campaign
financing could be traced back to the Bushites :-).
--
Where ARE those Iraqi WMDs?
On Thu, 20 May 2004 17:08:23 -0700, Larry Blanchard <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> If Nader makes it on very many ballots, even that won't help the
> Democrats. I still want to know how much of his campaign
> financing could be traced back to the Bushites :-).
Thanks for the reminder, I should write that boy a check.
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
Time to change the sig Larry:
> http://www.foxnews.com/story/0%2C2933%2C120268%2C00.html
>
You guys never stop grasping at straws, do you? One old
artillery shell that fizzled when it went off. Two soldiers
treated for "minor exposure" symptoms. Even Fox couldn't make
this sound like anything but a weapon of mass defectiveness :-).
Perhaps you didn't note the news stories about the false
intelligence given the US by Chalabi? Perhaps this excerpt will
do?
-----
The CIA - long suspicious of information provided by Chalabi's
group - has not been paying it for intelligence.
Last weekend, Secretary of State Colin Powell said for the first
time on NBC's "Meet the Press" that the United States was
intentionally misled about information on Iraq's much-debated
mobile labs. Not said during the show was that the information
came from a defector connected to the Iraqi National Congress.
"It turned out that the sourcing was inaccurate and wrong, and
in some cases deliberately misleading," Powell said, "and for
that I am disappointed, and I regret it."
------
Do your own Google if you want, I figure anyone who calls an odd
shell found here and there evidence won't listen to reason
anyway.
So the SIG is still valid - it stays.
--
Where ARE those Iraqi WMDs?
On Fri, 21 May 2004 09:17:34 -0700, Larry Blanchard <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
> You guys never stop grasping at straws, do you? One old
> artillery shell that fizzled when it went off. Two soldiers
> treated for "minor exposure" symptoms. Even Fox couldn't make
> this sound like anything but a weapon of mass defectiveness :-).
Larry. There was enough Sarin in there to kill thousands. The fact
that it "fizzled" doesn't invalidate the fact that he told everyone
that he didn't have _any_ of it, and yet it's there. Hell, even your
boy Kerry said he knew it was there, remember? That was pre-flop,
though, during one of his "flip" periods.
> Do your own Google if you want, I figure anyone who calls an odd
> shell found here and there evidence won't listen to reason
> anyway.
So, what's the truth, Larry? Was the shell not there, or did it not
contain Sarin? Or is this a "Well, it's only enough to kill a couple
thousand people, so it doesn't count" kind of thing?
On Fri, 21 May 2004 15:55:50 -0700, Fly-by-Night CC <[email protected]> wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> So, what's the truth, Larry? Was the shell not there, or did it not
>> contain Sarin? Or is this a "Well, it's only enough to kill a couple
>> thousand people, so it doesn't count" kind of thing?
>
> Why couldn't this sarin shell have originated via Syria/Iran/Jordan/etc
> via the black market? Is there *any* way to tell how long it's been
> inside Iraq? That it's been there the whole time and not recently
> reintroduced?
Fact is, it was there, being used against US troops. To take your
dodge one logical and plausible step further, who is to say that Iraq
didn't have Syria/Iran/Jordan/etc hold on to "a few things" while
those pesky UN folks were making fools of themselves?
> _____
> Did you read the news article in the last couple days about the US
> military buyback of weapons in Iraq? As of 5/18/04 - 56,536 weapons
> (bullets, assault rifles, RPGs, mortars, anti-aircraft missles, etc.)
> were traded for $761,357. Prices were set at slightly above the black
> market rates.
Bullets. Maybe you mean ammunition? (words do have specific meanings,
which is what's really cool about them). How many of these
56,536 items were rounds of ammo? 56,000 rounds of 7.62x39 ammo
(that which works in the AK-47 but of course you know that) would
take up less than a pickup truck bed of space.
> "We sell them the old ones and buy new ones on the black market," Ali
> Mohsin said. "I sold one AK-47 that I did not need, but what I am really
> good at is firing a rocket-propelled grenade launcher."
I'm sure you have a point here, but it's not coming across.
> The US military firmly believes weapons are being smuggled in via Syria
> since that's part of the justification for the bombing of the "wedding"
> party the other night.
Why did the wedding party have all that cash, weapons, and satellite
communication gear, I wonder?
> Back to the sarin bomb itself, I certainly hope this is a unique
> discovery - according to the "US officials", the shell was suspected to
> be an experimental munition produced before the '91 Gulf War - it didn't
> have any markings on it to indicate it contained a chemical agent.
YA THINK? Maybe if one is hiding something, they don't go and label
it clearly? Hell, it could be "Fifth digit in the part number is a
7" for all either of us would know. To them, it's obvious; to us it'snot.
> If
> I'm not mistaken as to my understanding of how munitions are destroyed,
> I think the military disposal units are incredibly lucky this piece
> wasn't collected and disposed of with other regular ordinance, likely
> causing the binary reaction necessary to create a cloud of poisonous gas.
Almost like that was the goal of planting this WMD where the US
would find it. You know, _using it as a weapon_.
On Sat, 22 May 2004 00:57:04 -0700, Fly-by-Night CC <[email protected]> wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> YA THINK? Maybe if one is hiding something, they don't go and label
>> it clearly? Hell, it could be "Fifth digit in the part number is a
>> 7" for all either of us would know. To them, it's obvious; to us it'snot.
>
> I'll take unmarked to mean unmarked - I believe, tho I don't know for
> sure, the markings on weapons around the world are known in the military
> circles. I'm not so sure that the fact it was unmarked means it was
> intended to be hidden and overlooked. I would think such regimes as
> Saddam's are much less stringent in labeling and making sure weaponry is
> fully accounted for - Hell, even in peacetime, our own military
> loses/misplaces/writes off some pretty lethal weapons every year.
Oh, yes, I'm _sure_ it was just an honest, innocent mistake. Kinda like
that whole Kurds thing. Silly me, I seem to have wiped out tens of
thousands of my own people. Woopsie!
> So you say this is a WMD and exonerates Bush's claims - we went to war
> for one shell (or three if you include the mustard gas shells noted
> previously on the group)?
I don't recall saying such, how about if you make your points, and I make
my points, OK?
> Are almost 800 US military lives worth three
> shells? How long into the future are you going to point to discovered
> banned weaponry proclaiming justification for invading Iraq when we
> don't know if it was in the country as of March 2003?
Hussein said he had 'em. Your boy Kerry said he had 'em (yes, I can
provide a cite for that, but it's a beutiful day right now, and you know
he said it anyway so what's the point). Well, Kerry said they had 'em
before he flipped (or was it flopped) to his current stance, or at least
his stance of last week (I haven't checked lately to see what it is, but
I'm sure it'll come around a few times eventually anyway).
> At what point are
> you willing to say Iraq is free of WMD and we can move on?
They apparently aren't, are they.
>> Almost like that was the goal of planting this WMD where the US
>> would find it. You know, _using it as a weapon_.
>
> There's very few who really know - and I don't think they're talkin'.
Your theory seems to be "It's just this shell, y'know? Stuff happens,
random shells filled with thosands of lethal doeses of WMD can just
get lost but it's no biggie", while mine seems to be "Why is this
insignificant in the minds of you and people like you?"
I prefer an oil finish on walnut, how about you?
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> So you'd have been happier if the idiots using this as an improvised
> explosive device had been more savvy and 100's had been killed? You miss
> the point, there aren't supposet to be *any* of those devices in Iraq.
>
My, my, did I say that?
No there weren't supposed to be "any", there were supposed to be
"massive stockpiles". And not leftovers from '91 as our own
folks said this probably was.
> ... and away we go with another attack, since the current one is no
> longer valid, let's throw something else against the wall and see if it
> sticks.
And that wasn't "another attack", Chalabi was the one who fed us
the false information about Saddams capabilities.
Your arguments are so consistently unrealistic, I've decided
you're a troll. Plonk!
--
Where ARE those Iraqi WMDs?
In article
<[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
>
> Why don't you provide use with your definition of WMDs?
>
One more time:
Massive stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons and an
active nuclear weapons development program.
That's what we claimed. Not some leftovers a decade old.
If you still believe that Saddam was a threat to anyone other
than his own people and probably Israel (Aha!), then nothing I
can say will change your mind.
--
Where ARE those Iraqi WMDs?
On Sat, 22 May 2004 15:00:21 GMT, Frank Ketchum <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> "Dave Hinz" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>> I prefer an oil finish on walnut, how about you?
>
> What type of oil and do you use a film finish over it? (see my thread "next
> stop- black walnut ":))
I _love_ the color bloom from Watco. I've got some black walnut that has
been stacked & stickered since at least 1960 (when the previous owner
died), and the colors are fantastic. As to a film finish - well, unless
you count wax, I rarely use them. I did use it on walnut once, over
Watco, for a table I purpose-built for a 29 gallon fishtank, expecting
(rightly) frequent splashes. It's not as nice as watco oil with a
good wax over it. I guess to me it depends on where it's going to be.
If it's a choice between nice wood and a less-than-optimal finish,
or not having nice wood, I'll use the nice wood and whatever finish is
needed for the application. I don't claim to be an expert, by any means,
I'm mostly just trying stuff I've read about here over my various periods
of visiting over the last decade or so.
Dave Hinz
On Sat, 22 May 2004 10:18:37 -0700, Larry Blanchard <[email protected]> wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] says...
>
>> ... and away we go with another attack, since the current one is no
>> longer valid, let's throw something else against the wall and see if it
>> sticks.
>
> And that wasn't "another attack", Chalabi was the one who fed us
> the false information about Saddams capabilities.
Well, him and Saddam saying he had it, Kerry saying they had it, and
Clinton saying they had it, and on and on, sure.
> Your arguments are so consistently unrealistic, I've decided
> you're a troll. Plonk!
This is one of the rare times when I see this line used by someone who
is completely wrong. He seems to be pointing out (as am I) that a
single shell that can kill more than 1000 people (do you at least
agree with that? 3-4 liters of Sarin, the LD50 of which is 1.7ml...do
the math) fits any reasonable description of a "Weapon" (is an artillery
shell a weapon? I say yes) of "mass destruction" (are 1000 dead "mass
destruction? I say yes).
He said he had WMDs. Clinton said he had WMDs. Kerry said he had WMDs.
Bush said he had WMDs. Hell, we _sold_ him WMDs. Now, we find WMDs, and
you're saying that they're not W-y enough, or MD-y enough, because we
haven't found the rest of his WMDs.
How many fatal doses would it take to be found before you'll admit that
there are, in fact WMDs in these WMDs?
Dave "Fully expecting to be plonked for asking a hard question" Hinz
On 22 May 2004 14:02:12 -0700, Norm De Plume <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> 1. Considering the Alcoholic Imbecile in Chief occupying the White
> House now, which one is the losing candidate?
Wow. Your namecalling has changed my mind, I think I'll vote for
Kerry. It is as though a veil has been lifted from mine very eyes.
Thank you for such a well crafted, logical point, it changes
everything.
On Sat, 22 May 2004 15:00:06 -0700, Fly-by-Night CC <[email protected]> wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Oh, yes, I'm _sure_ it was just an honest, innocent mistake. Kinda like
>> that whole Kurds thing. Silly me, I seem to have wiped out tens of
>> thousands of my own people. Woopsie!
>
> Wouldn't you think the guys firing nerve gas shells ought to know what's
> in them and therefore they be identified as such? (I'd think they'd want
> to make sure their own troops weren't in the dispersal area.)
Not obviously marked to us does not equal "they didn't know what
they had".
> According
> to the article it was an experimental shell - which sounds to me like a
> test shell that might have been stolen from the development facility and
> not one under manufacture and regular disbursement.
And yet, it was filled with WMDs that they didn't have. Odd, that.
>> > So you say this is a WMD and exonerates Bush's claims - we went to war
>> > for one shell (or three if you include the mustard gas shells noted
>> > previously on the group)?
>>
>> I don't recall saying such, how about if you make your points, and I make
>> my points, OK?
>
> You're correct you didn't put those thoughts together - I interpretted
> your comments that this sarin shell *is* a WMD and therefore justifies
> Bush's actions to date. So do you believe this is a WMD that justifies
> the war?
I believe the war was justified because he repeatedly, and for years,
violated the terms of the cease fire. The WMDs that he himself said
he had, and we are now finding in his country, are part of those reasons,
but his refusal to allow inspections, failure to provide records of
the destruction of these shells (which, surprise surprise, he didn't
destroy after all), and so on and on and on...it all adds up.
>> Hussein said he had 'em. Your boy Kerry said he had 'em (yes, I can
>> provide a cite for that, but it's a beutiful day right now, and you know
>> he said it anyway so what's the point). Well, Kerry said they had 'em
>> before he flipped (or was it flopped) to his current stance, or at least
>> his stance of last week (I haven't checked lately to see what it is, but
>> I'm sure it'll come around a few times eventually anyway).
>
> How about we spin this a different way... Hussein *thought* he had them.
Apparently, he was right.
> Kerry was told and believed he had them - as did Bush, Clinton,
> Albright, Powell, etc., etc. What if Hussein's people were merely
> *telling* him he had them?
Evidense seems to show that he _did_ have them. How can you be
this delusional?
> What if our informants wanted us to overthrow
> Hussein for their own gain and thus told lies? At some point we're going
> to have to face the fact that the stockpiles we were told were there
> just haven't materialized.
Yet. And when they do, your type will say "Aha, well, yeah, there they are,
but they were planted. After all, how long did the US have to plant
evidence, and there it is", ignoring that hussein had a decade to +hide+
the stuff.
>> > At what point are
>> > you willing to say Iraq is free of WMD and we can move on?
>>
>> They apparently aren't, are they.
>
> So how many WMDs does it take to justify the costs of the war? If one
> turns up every 3, 4, 5 months or so on average, at what point do we
> declare Iraq's WMD capability a non-issue? How many sarin, mustard or
> whatever shells do we need to discover before we pull our troops out
> with the declaration that Iraq is no longer a threat?
Last I heard, the June 30th turnover date is still in effect. Maybe
you know differently. No, it won't be an immediate, 100% pullout. Deal.
>> Your theory seems to be "It's just this shell, y'know? Stuff happens,
>> random shells filled with thosands of lethal doeses of WMD can just
>> get lost but it's no biggie", while mine seems to be "Why is this
>> insignificant in the minds of you and people like you?"
>
> It's not necessarily insignificant, but it's certainly not the quantity
> of what I was lead to believe existed as justification for the war.
Is 1000 dead people enough? 2000? 3000? How many can each of those
mustard gas shells kill? If it's an even thousand each, that adds up
to a WTC-scale death rate.
>> I prefer an oil finish on walnut, how about you?
> Absolutely - nothing better. I'm disappointed however in the quality of
> the walnut commercially available here in NW Oregon - lots of sapwood
> and the grain is too prominent to pay $8/bf. I believe they're selling
> lumber from less than mature trees. I've got a small stock of Black
> Walnut from my grandparent's home in central Illinois that was cut in
> the very early '60's - it's a beautiful purplish with straight grain and
> absolutely wonderful to work with. I guess I'm just spoilt.
I've got about 500 board feet of just that - nice straight, purply
black walnut from the early 60's or earlier. I hate to use it up, but
it doesn't do any good stacked.
On Sat, 22 May 2004 19:50:24 -0700, Fly-by-Night CC <[email protected]> wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
>
>> And yet, it was filled with WMDs that they didn't have. Odd, that.
>
> So are you saying this one is what we were looking for and is reason
> enough for the last 15 months?
You keep trying that, and it keeps not working. We're just now starting
to find what he had a decade to hide. Get it now?
>> I believe the war was justified because he repeatedly, and for years,
>> violated the terms of the cease fire. The WMDs that he himself said
>> he had, and we are now finding in his country, are part of those reasons,
>> but his refusal to allow inspections, failure to provide records of
>> the destruction of these shells (which, surprise surprise, he didn't
>> destroy after all), and so on and on and on...it all adds up.
>
> I believe that as he was contained both north and south and had no
> military to speak of
Isn't this the "no military to speak of" that continues to be a problem
for us? (same guys, same loyalty)
> his gas-bag antics were just that of a bratty,
> saber-rattling dictator who used the tactics to show his people he was
> courageous against the big, bad US. (He did conceed to allowing
> inspections a few months before the shock and awe - but I didn't think
> you put much value in them anyway.)
"OK, I'm done hiding everything, _now_ you can come in." is how I see
that. Apparently you trust that he was telling the truth when he said
he didn't have 'em, but that we should have known he was bluffing when he
said he _did_ have 'em.
>> > How about we spin this a different way... Hussein *thought* he had them.
>>
>> Apparently, he was right.
>
> Not as I see it. I think he may very well have been fooled by his own
> people.
If he said he had them, and we now find he did have them, then he was
right, even if he was right for the wrong reasons as you seem to be
proposing.
>> Evidense seems to show that he _did_ have them. How can you be
>> this delusional?
>
> Faulty evidence. Real evidence has yet to bear out any stockpiles of WMD
> that were an imminent threat to the US - unless you're saying one or
> three or whatever constitutes a stockpile.
How many lethal doses is enough? Please give a number. Is it more,
or less than say 880 lethal doses?
>> Yet. And when they do, your type will say "Aha, well, yeah, there they are,
>> but they were planted. After all, how long did the US have to plant
>> evidence, and there it is", ignoring that hussein had a decade to +hide+
>> the stuff.
>
> Heee. You're right that the reply may very well be that the Bush admin
> planted them - many people are distrustful of them. Me included - it
> appears to me they have a hard time giving a straight answer to many of
> the questions posed. And to think we were all bent out of shape over an
> adulterer...
Let's see. The entire world (except Germany and Frace, who continued to
sell stuff to 'em) said "He's got 'em", and a USA'n president being told
by his intelligence _and_ by Clinton that he's got 'em, and acting on that
information, -vs- lying under oath to congress, and going on TV, looking
us right in the eye, and bald-face lying to the entire country. Yeah,
there's a difference all right.
I can't help but wonder if your perspective is so distorted by the fact
that it's Bush, that you just can't see what's happening. If this was
Clinton's (or Gore's) war, and they had acted on all the available
intelligence, I wonder what your spin would be.
>> Last I heard, the June 30th turnover date is still in effect. Maybe
>> you know differently. No, it won't be an immediate, 100% pullout. Deal.
>
> And, who was it again we're turning things over to? Our troops are going
> to be there in an appreciable quantity for several years at least - to
> pull out any quantity very soon will likely allow a civil war to start
> up.
So you _don't_ want us out of there now? You're inconsistant. I want us
out of there too. If it was up to me, the message would be something like
this:
"OK, look. Your last boy got _way_ out of control, so we came in,
destroyed his stuff, took him away, and then rebuilt a bunch of your
infrastructure that he wasn't fixing for you. You're welcome. You're
on your own as of now, but be on notice that if your next leader starts
making enough noises towards us that we start noticing and getting
concerned, we'll come in and do it again. Now, play nice." - and leave.
>> > It's not necessarily insignificant, but it's certainly not the quantity
>> > of what I was lead to believe existed as justification for the war.
>>
>> Is 1000 dead people enough? 2000? 3000? How many can each of those
>> mustard gas shells kill? If it's an even thousand each, that adds up
>> to a WTC-scale death rate.
>
> Granted they'd be catastrophic horrible deaths - and I hope we find any
> more that may still be floating around.
But...?
> You know, the thing that gets my goat is the attitudes of the Iraqis and
> the Middle East in general. Let's hear the Arab countries speak up and
> offer assistance to the people of Iraq - they don't have to offer it to
> the US or condone our actions - but they could say, "the sooner you
> people get your shit together the sooner you'll be rid of the occupation
> forces. You don't like them there? Then show the US you can set up your
> own peace-keeping forces, show that you are supportive of getting your
> own government up and running."
See above. "And you'd better behave or the great smackdown will return".
We're not...actually...agreeing on something here, are we? Maybe we
should work something out & send it to someone.
>> I've got about 500 board feet of just that - nice straight, purply
>> black walnut from the early 60's or earlier. I hate to use it up, but
>> it doesn't do any good stacked.
>
> Lucky you! I've only got about 50 - and I treasure it as if it were gold.
Bought it at an auction; it was raining, cold, windy, and generally
crappy. There was a like pile of oak next to it. Two of us were
bidding on the walnut. He looked at me, looked at the pile of oak,
looked at me, looked at the walnut, looked at the oak, ...
He stopped bidding on the walnut, and he went home with the oak.
On 26 May 2004 04:44:02 -0700, Norm De Plume <[email protected]> wrote:
> Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
>>
>> Wow. Your namecalling has changed my mind, I think I'll vote for
>> Kerry. It is as though a veil has been lifted from mine very eyes.
>> Thank you for such a well crafted, logical point, it changes
>> everything.
>
> I did mean it in a positive way, and it's not as if he killed anybody,
> as Laura once did.
See? It's so effective that I'm not even motivated to clarify your
statement. Wow, you are just the rhetorical device _King_.
Namecalling, vague statements using loaded language, anonymous post.
I mean, you are just the master of trolling and eloquence.
On Thu, 20 May 2004 17:08:23 -0700, Larry Blanchard <[email protected]>
wrote:
... snip
>--
>Where ARE those Iraqi WMDs?
Time to change the sig Larry:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0%2C2933%2C120268%2C00.html
Tried to find a link for you on CNN, but the only article they have is
the "suspected to be sarin" comment before the definitive tests, and that
story is buried in amongst the story about how Iraq is replacing a slain
council leader: http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/05/17/iraq.main/
"Dan White" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Elmer Marino" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > Can a Democrat/Republican joint ticket beat Bush/Cheney?
> >
> > Kerry's choice is critical.
>
> Actually it doesn't matter a bit. A VP has never been influential enough
in
> any modern era election to change any minds.
Normally I agree but Elmer Fud,, uh er Gores choice for vp probably lost
Gore the election. Its not often that a 2 term vp looses the election to
become president.
"Larry Blanchard" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> --
> Where ARE those Iraqi WMDs?
Geez, I thought we answered that already! :)
dwhite
"Dan White" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> > Can a Democrat/Republican joint ticket beat Bush/Cheney?
> >
> > Kerry's choice is critical.
>
> Actually it doesn't matter a bit. A VP has never been
> influential enough in any modern era election to change any
> minds.
You're forgetting 1960, Kennedy/Johnson vs. Nixon/Lodge. Without
Johnson, Nixon would have grabbed some of the South.
It's also possible that in 1968, Nixon/Agnew vs. Humphrey/Muskie was
was won by Nixon because of Agnew's appeal to more-conservative
Democrats.
"Dan White" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> "Norm De Plume" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > > Can a Democrat/Republican joint ticket beat Bush/Cheney?
> > > Kerry's choice is critical.
>
> Actually it doesn't matter a bit. A VP has never been
> influential enough in any modern era election to change any
> minds.
>
> > You're forgetting 1960, Kennedy/Johnson vs. Nixon/Lodge. Without
> > Johnson, Nixon would have grabbed some of the South.
> OK, good points, but let me explain where I was coming from when
> I said that. I don't believe the election is anywhere near as
> close as everyone is making it out to be, and that Kerry will get
> beat decisively (not trounced, but beat). Given a losing candidate,
> I don't believe any VP candidate short of Jesus Christ (and even
> then, who knows?), can right a shipwreck like the Kerry campaign.
1. Considering the Alcoholic Imbecile in Chief occupying the White
House now, which one is the losing candidate?
2. What makes you think Dick Cheney is short of Jesus Christ? He's
excited entire Middle East more than anyone in the past 2,000 years,
and he's come back from the dead after 3-4 heart attacks.
Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> > 1. Considering the Alcoholic Imbecile in Chief occupying the
> > White House now, which one is the losing candidate?
>
> Wow. Your namecalling has changed my mind, I think I'll vote for
> Kerry. It is as though a veil has been lifted from mine very eyes.
> Thank you for such a well crafted, logical point, it changes
> everything.
I did mean it in a positive way, and it's not as if he killed anybody,
as Laura once did.
Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> On 26 May 2004 04:44:02 -0700, Norm De Plume <[email protected]> wrote:
> > 1. Considering the Alcoholic Imbecile in Chief occupying the
> > White House now, which one is the losing candidate?
>
> Wow. Your namecalling has changed my mind, I think I'll vote for
> Kerry. It is as though a veil has been lifted from mine very eyes.
> Thank you for such a well crafted, logical point, it changes
> everything.
> > I did mean it in a positive way, and it's not as if he killed
> > anybody, as Laura once did.
> See? It's so effective that I'm not even motivated to clarify your
> statement. Wow, you are just the rhetorical device _King_.
> Namecalling, vague statements using loaded language, anonymous post.
> I mean, you are just the master of trolling and eloquence.
I was actually trying to get you and others to donate to the
Bush-Cheney reelection campaign. BTW, back in the 1960s I sold cars,
my favorites being the 1963 Chevy Impala, which I called "The Corvair
Killer," but I was also partial to the 1968 Olds 88, which I referred
to as the "The Drunk Teddy."
On Fri, 21 May 2004 09:17:34 -0700, Larry Blanchard <[email protected]>
wrote:
>In article <[email protected]>,
>[email protected] says...
>
>Time to change the sig Larry:
>> http://www.foxnews.com/story/0%2C2933%2C120268%2C00.html
>>
>You guys never stop grasping at straws, do you? One old
>artillery shell that fizzled when it went off. Two soldiers
>treated for "minor exposure" symptoms. Even Fox couldn't make
>this sound like anything but a weapon of mass defectiveness :-).
>
So you'd have been happier if the idiots using this as an improvised
explosive device had been more savvy and 100's had been killed? You miss
the point, there aren't supposet to be *any* of those devices in Iraq.
Remember? zero, zilch, zip, nada. Now 3 shells have been found (1 sarin,
two mustard gas rounds) and the litany is "they were old, they were
ineffective, they don't count".
You don't suppose that there is maybe just a little chance that where one
shell exists, more might also exist? Now that the insurgents know that
somewhere one or two of them might have stumbled onto a cache of these
weapons, do you think there might just be a small possibility that they are
going to be a little smarter in how they try to use them in the future?
>Perhaps you didn't note the news stories about the false
>intelligence given the US by Chalabi? Perhaps this excerpt will
>do?
>
... and away we go with another attack, since the current one is no
longer valid, let's throw something else against the wall and see if it
sticks.
>-----
>The CIA - long suspicious of information provided by Chalabi's
>group - has not been paying it for intelligence.
>
>Last weekend, Secretary of State Colin Powell said for the first
>time on NBC's "Meet the Press" that the United States was
>intentionally misled about information on Iraq's much-debated
>mobile labs. Not said during the show was that the information
>came from a defector connected to the Iraqi National Congress.
>
>"It turned out that the sourcing was inaccurate and wrong, and
>in some cases deliberately misleading," Powell said, "and for
>that I am disappointed, and I regret it."
>------
alright, we got bad intelligence. How were we supposed to verify that?
The problem with this type of information is that verification and
corroboration is not 100% but the stakes for being wrong are devastating.
What if those intel reports had been correct and we failed to act? I
suspect that a different form of attack on the current administration would
then have been mounted -- "We knew but failed to act". Gee, I think I'm
hearing that exact argument regarding the 9/11 commission.
>
>Do your own Google if you want, I figure anyone who calls an odd
>shell found here and there evidence won't listen to reason
>anyway.
>
"odd shell" here and there. OK. Before, it was "there were no WMD's",
if Saddam had them, he destroyed them all. Now it's not enough have been
found.
So, what's your threshold? One box of shells? Two? Or do we need a cave
full? Or maybe we need a widespread network? Do you think that a
government with as widespread statism and overcontrol of its people as
Saddam's just lets a few shells lay around and be forgotten, or mixed with
conventional shells in some random fashion such that not even the users
know what they are using?
>So the SIG is still valid - it stays.
As you wish.
On Fri, 21 May 2004 15:59:40 -0700, Fly-by-Night CC
<[email protected]> wrote:
>In article <[email protected]>,
> Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> alright, we got bad intelligence. How were we supposed to verify that?
>> The problem with this type of information is that verification and
>> corroboration is not 100% but the stakes for being wrong are devastating.
>> What if those intel reports had been correct and we failed to act? I
>> suspect that a different form of attack on the current administration would
>> then have been mounted -- "We knew but failed to act".
>
>You're talking about Bill Clinton and the aspirin factory destruction
>and the cruise missles killing the camels in Afghanistan... right?
Certainly it applies across administrations. The intel regarding the
aspirin factory was suspect at the time according to various sources, but
for the cruise missiles hitting camels in Afghanistan certainly applies.
It was typical Clintonesque action: feeble attempt during a time of
publicity crisis, but one cannot fault (at least in the Afghanistan case)
the attempt. Intel folks can only provide probabilities and possibilities
with a certain degree of confidence, they are not omniscient.
"Larry Blanchard" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] says...
> > Elmer Marino wrote:
> >
> > >Can a Democrat/Republican joint ticket beat Bush/Cheney?
> > >
> >
> > Rather than criticising everything that Bush did, or didn't do, Kerry
> > needs to build his own platform, but apparently, he is not a woodworker.
> >
>
> I'd almost rather have seen Al Sharpton as Democratic nominee
> rather than Kerry. At least he makes some good wisecracks. But
> Kerry may not need any platform other than not being George Bush
> :-).
So far, that's definitely his biggest strength. You can tell how excited
people are about Kerry when the most exciting thing about his candidacy is
hoping that John McCain will be his running mate.
> If Nader makes it on very many ballots, even that won't help the
> Democrats. I still want to know how much of his campaign
> financing could be traced back to the Bushites :-).
>
> --
> Where ARE those Iraqi WMDs?
Nader in 2004! Go Ralph!.
todd
On Thu, 20 May 2004 10:06:49 -0400, Elmer Marino <[email protected]> wrote:
<snip>
>
>Kerry's choice is critical.
Can speak for no one but myself, but since my first participation in a presidential election in 1964, the VP candidate has had
absolutely no influence on my decision. At least, in my case, it is not only not critical, it is immaterial.
Tom Veatch
Wichita, KS USA
"Tom Watson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> I'd like to see McCain 'slip the surly bonds' of the repuplican party
> and run in the lead position on the dem ticket.
Me too, that way the Republicans would no longer have that time bomb.
"Richard A." <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<in3rc.230$Sx2.148@okepread01>...
> I agree with Dan but if McCain would run with Kerry it would make for a
> very interesting race. Too bad we can't see a McCain/Kerry ticket, now
> that would be worth going to the polls for.
>
> Richard
Geez, you folks sound like all those who wanted a Reagan/Ford
"co-presidency" in 1980.
Dave Hall
"The Vice-Presidency isn't worth a warm bucket of spit" or something
like that - some vice president in the 1800's
On Thu, 20 May 2004 11:37:45 -0400, WouldRight wrote:
> The Democrats and Republicans are two-sides of the same counterfeit
> CFR/Roman coin.
>
> The fascist plutocracy they serve is not monolithic and Kerry will be a
> very modest improvement.
Do any of you wear your tinfoil hats in the shop, or is all the cast iron
and aluminum in the tools enough to provide protection?
-Doug
--
"A government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always
depend on the support of Paul." - George Bernard Shaw
"Dave Hinz" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I prefer an oil finish on walnut, how about you?
What type of oil and do you use a film finish over it? (see my thread "next
stop- black walnut ":))
"WouldRight" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "Frank Ketchum" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > a true war hero, McCain to help out.
>
> If Kerry's Silver Star doesn't qualify,
I thought he threw that over the fence. Oh, yeah...those were his
ribbons....Or was it someone else's medal? I can't keep Kerry's story
straight. Kerry went to Vietnam on the John F. Kennedy war hero/politician
plan. Get your purple hearts, and then get back stateside as quick as you
can and leverage it into a political career. Comparing his service with
McCain's five and a half years in the Hanoi Hilton is a friggin' joke.
> do you think McCain having thrown away his jet, with the complete
> knowledge that he could have pulled out, evaded the SAM he knew had
> locked on, and survived to fight another day (read his "Faith of Our
> Fathers" ...we must admire his honesty) makes him a legitimate war
> "hero," or a hotdog of short stature and a death wish trying to impress
> a distant father?
>
> The Democrats and Republicans are two-sides of the same counterfeit
> CFR/Roman coin.
>
> The fascist plutocracy they serve is not monolithic and Kerry will be a
> very modest improvement.
Thank you Doug for that insightful response to an otherwise useless =
thread.
Puff
"Doug Winterburn" <[email protected]> wrote in message =
news:[email protected]...
> On Thu, 20 May 2004 11:37:45 -0400, WouldRight wrote:
>=20
> > The Democrats and Republicans are two-sides of the same counterfeit
> > CFR/Roman coin.
> >=20
> > The fascist plutocracy they serve is not monolithic and Kerry will =
be a
> > very modest improvement.
>=20
> Do any of you wear your tinfoil hats in the shop, or is all the cast =
iron
> and aluminum in the tools enough to provide protection?
>=20
> -Doug
>=20
> --=20
> "A government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always=20
> depend on the support of Paul." - George Bernard Shaw
>
Elmer Marino wrote:
>Can a Democrat/Republican joint ticket beat Bush/Cheney?
>
>This is a very important election year. John F. Kerry needs to select a
>suitable Vice Presidential candidate if he expects to have a chance of
>beating George W. Bush in the 2004 election. His former Democratic
>Primary rivals (John Edwards, Dick Gephardt, Howard Dean, etc.) are his
>likely choices, but there has been an ever growing speculation that he
>might choose someone more controversial......like Hillary Rodham Clinton,
>or even Bush's Republican rival from Arizona, John McCain.
>
>McCain denies that he would accept such a nomination, but so has Hillary
>and Edwards, yet the VP candidate is likely to be one of these three
>people.
>
>Who do you think would be the greatest asset to J F Kerry as running
>mate?
>
>With the latest abuse photos and videos popping up (US military abuse of
>Iraqis, possible Nick Berg video forgery), the polls are likely to be
>less predictive of the election outcome than they have traditionally been
>in the past.
>
>Kerry's choice is critical.
>
Kerry's best choice for vice president would be John F Kennedy. That
way, they can both use the same initials.
Rather than criticising everything that Bush did, or didn't do, Kerry
needs to build his own platform, but apparently, he is not a woodworker.
--
Bill
"Mark & Juanita" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Time to change the sig Larry:
> http://www.foxnews.com/story/0%2C2933%2C120268%2C00.html
>
It will be amusing to watch how the definition of WMD will change in the
near future. I predict that suddenly chemical weapons will no longer be
considered in the WMD category.
Frank
"Tom Watson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> I'd like to see McCain 'slip the surly bonds' of the repuplican party
> and run in the lead position on the dem ticket.
>
It would be a funny occasion for sure. It would validate the righty claim
that the only way for democrats to win is to go way left to get the
nomination of their base and then go straight for the middle to appeal to
swing voters. It would be as if they now think "we have to go further than
that, we have to actually start putting republicans on our ticket to win"!
A sad state of affairs indeed. Maybe they will nominate George Bush senior
as the VP and get some republican votes that way.
Frank
Could you explain to me what this had to do with woodworking?
Thanks
Marv
"Elmer Marino" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Can a Democrat/Republican joint ticket beat Bush/Cheney?
>
> This is a very important election year. John F. Kerry needs to select a
> suitable Vice Presidential candidate if he expects to have a chance of
> beating George W. Bush in the 2004 election. His former Democratic
> Primary rivals (John Edwards, Dick Gephardt, Howard Dean, etc.) are his
> likely choices, but there has been an ever growing speculation that he
> might choose someone more controversial......like Hillary Rodham Clinton,
> or even Bush's Republican rival from Arizona, John McCain.
>
> McCain denies that he would accept such a nomination, but so has Hillary
> and Edwards, yet the VP candidate is likely to be one of these three
> people.
>
> Who do you think would be the greatest asset to J F Kerry as running
> mate?
>
> With the latest abuse photos and videos popping up (US military abuse of
> Iraqis, possible Nick Berg video forgery), the polls are likely to be
> less predictive of the election outcome than they have traditionally been
> in the past.
>
> Kerry's choice is critical.
"Marv" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:Um6rc.85983$iF6.7330124@attbi_s02:
> Could you explain to me what this had to do with woodworking?
>
> Thanks
> Marv
>>
>> Kerry's choice is critical.
Bush/Giuliani vs Kerry/Hillary vs Nader/Bay Area Dave
Now that's a ticket.
;-)
--
Bill
WouldRight <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "Todd Fatheree" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> "WouldRight" <[email protected]> wrote in
>> message news:[email protected]...
>> > In article <[email protected]>,
>> > "Frank Ketchum" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >
>> > > a true war hero, McCain to help out.
>> >
>> > If Kerry's Silver Star doesn't qualify,
>>
>> I thought he threw that over the fence. Oh, yeah...those were his
>> ribbons....Or was it someone else's medal? I can't keep Kerry's
>> story straight. Kerry went to Vietnam on the John F. Kennedy war
>> hero/politician plan. Get your purple hearts, and then get back
>> stateside as quick as you can and leverage it into a political
>> career. Comparing his service with McCain's five and a half years in
>> the Hanoi Hilton is a friggin' joke.
>
> 58,000 of us died in Vietnam. If Kerry's efforts saved a single life
> in the face of Nixon's evil, it speaks more than well of him.
"Nixon's evil"...amazing that the guy who got us out of the war is the guy
most blamed for it, and the guy who got us in is a worshiped martyr.
"Woodchuck Bill" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Marv" <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:Um6rc.85983$iF6.7330124@attbi_s02:
>
> > Could you explain to me what this had to do with woodworking?
> >
> > Thanks
> > Marv
>
> >>
> >> Kerry's choice is critical.
>
> Bush/Giuliani vs Kerry/Hillary vs Nader/Bay Area Dave
>
> Now that's a ticket.
>
> ;-)
>
> --
> Bill
I notice the move is already on to try to discredit Giuliani by insinuating
he is responsible for the death of firemen on 9/11. If there's one thing
that strikes fear in the Democrats, it's Giuliani running for Senate or even
worse, the Presidency in 2008
todd
Anybody who would vote for kerry should grab ahold of their left ear with
their right hand and pull their head out of their ASS!
If he gets in will Jane Fonda be his Secretary of State. What about Ortega
will he be an ambassador at large? What about that Fat Hog Teddy Kennedy
will he find a post for him too?
I used to be a Democrat until they abandon the working man. I feel like Sen.
Zell Miller I didn't desert the party it deserted me.
The only Democrat around that would make a great President is Sam Nunn, but
he also is disenchanted with the party. It's too bad the Democratic Party
can't be like it was under FDR, Truman, and JFK. Hopefully some day the
Hollywood screwballs, and flaky ones will be forced out and excommunicated,
and the old Democrat Party will rein again. It's too bad that if a person
is a Christian and does not agree with abortion, he is looked down upon by
the party and considered to be a kook.
"do_not_spam_me" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> [email protected] (David Hall) wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> > "Richard A." <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<in3rc.230$Sx2.148@okepread01>...
>
> > > I agree with Dan but if McCain would run with Kerry it
> > > would make for a very interesting race. Too bad we can't
> > > see a McCain/Kerry ticket, now that would be worth going to
> > > the polls for.
>
> > Geez, you folks sound like all those who wanted a Reagan/Ford
> > "co-presidency" in 1980.
>
> > "The Vice-Presidency isn't worth a warm bucket of spit" or
> > something like that - some vice president in the 1800's
>
> That was back when the office really didn't matter, but VPs have been
> important
> in the administrations of Reagan, Clinton, and, most of all, George W.
> Bush.
>
> Bush could nullify the McCain issue moot by kicking out Rumsfeld and
> nominating McCain as his replacement, and as much as McCain hates
> Bush, I doubt that he'd turn down the post.
"Dan White" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> Actually it doesn't matter a bit. A VP has never been influential enough in
> any modern era election to change any minds. McCain will never do it,
> anyway, and Hillary would be his nail in the coffin.
That raises the critical question of what sort of nail should be used?
Finish nails or brads? Norm would probably recommend a dado round the
coffin
lid and using glue and a couple of brads to secure it.
Of course given that Kerry's opponent has been demonstrated to be
thick
as two short planks as we say in Yorkshire I guess you could run him
through the joiner, thickness planer and make him into the lid. Just
make sure that you do not use biscuit joinery since the guy once had a
nasty scare with a pretzel.
If this were a political group I would also point out that the
original
premise is clueless, McCain does not want to be Veep, Kerry does not
want him in that position. They would both much prefer McCain to be
secretary of defense.
On Sat, 22 May 2004 12:01:11 -0400, Tom Watson <[email protected]> wrote:
... snip
>
>We'd switch Bush Lite onto the lecture circuit...wait a minute...
>well, I'm sure we can find something for him to do.
>
Well, if somebody who dropped out of grad school and flunked out of
divinity school (or vice-versa) can become a guest lecturer at Harvard, I'm
sure someone with an MBA from Harvard can find something to speak about.
>
>
>Regards,
>Tom.
>
>Thomas J.Watson - Cabinetmaker (ret.)
>tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet (real email)
>http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1
> Can a Democrat/Republican joint ticket beat Bush/Cheney?
>
If you really want a different ticket, try McCain/Feingold. Yup, just
like the infamous bill they sponsored together, these are two guys
that don't fit any Democrat/Republican molds.
The often ultra-liberal Feingold actually enjoys a surprising amount
of support from Wisconsin Republicans due to his honest opinions and
fiscal restraint.
The maverick McCain needs no introduction; his unique positions are
legendary.
Unfortunately, any ticket we see at the polls in November will contain
at least one name from the list of Bush/Kerry/Nader.
Joe
On Sat, 22 May 2004 15:06:24 GMT, "Frank Ketchum"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>"Tom Watson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>>
>> I'd like to see McCain 'slip the surly bonds' of the repuplican party
>> and run in the lead position on the dem ticket.
>>
>
>It would be a funny occasion for sure. It would validate the righty claim
>that the only way for democrats to win is to go way left to get the
>nomination of their base and then go straight for the middle to appeal to
>swing voters. It would be as if they now think "we have to go further than
>that, we have to actually start putting republicans on our ticket to win"!
>A sad state of affairs indeed. Maybe they will nominate George Bush senior
>as the VP and get some republican votes that way.
I'm thinking that the good play would be to keep Kerry on as VP - he
prolly has enough horsepower for the job. We keep Cheney around and
get him a seat on OPEC - I love the image of Cheney in a burnoose -
and it's the job he's always wanted, anyways. Dick could keep an eye
on the store, this way.
We'd switch Bush Lite onto the lecture circuit...wait a minute...
well, I'm sure we can find something for him to do.
Regards,
Tom.
Thomas J.Watson - Cabinetmaker (ret.)
tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet (real email)
http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1
In article <[email protected]>,
"Todd Fatheree" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "WouldRight" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > In article <[email protected]>,
> > "Frank Ketchum" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > > a true war hero, McCain to help out.
> >
> > If Kerry's Silver Star doesn't qualify,
>
> I thought he threw that over the fence. Oh, yeah...those were his
> ribbons....Or was it someone else's medal? I can't keep Kerry's story
> straight. Kerry went to Vietnam on the John F. Kennedy war hero/politician
> plan. Get your purple hearts, and then get back stateside as quick as you
> can and leverage it into a political career. Comparing his service with
> McCain's five and a half years in the Hanoi Hilton is a friggin' joke.
58,000 of us died in Vietnam. If Kerry's efforts saved a single life in
the face of Nixon's evil, it speaks more than well of him.
>
> > do you think McCain having thrown away his jet, with the complete
> > knowledge that he could have pulled out, evaded the SAM he knew had
> > locked on, and survived to fight another day (read his "Faith of Our
> > Fathers" ...we must admire his honesty) makes him a legitimate war
> > "hero," or a hotdog of short stature and a death wish trying to impress
> > a distant father?
"Discretion is the better part of valor." The object in combat is to
win. McCain was reckless and wasteful in being shot down: It was
avoidable and he knew it.
While McCain and 9.2 million others get points as Americans for service
during Vietnam, which Bush does not, McCain also was unfaithful to the
woman who bore his children and waited for him during his captivity.
That his present wife is connected to Organized Crime through her father
puts him in standard company in Washington Babylon.
> >
> > The Democrats and Republicans are two-sides of the same counterfeit
> > CFR/Roman coin.
> >
> > The fascist plutocracy they serve is not monolithic and Kerry will be a
> > very modest improvement.
>
Neither Kerry nor McCain has spent anytime since Vietnam, to my
knowledge, bringing to justice those who killed John Kennedy and sent us
there. It doesn't take much to reckon each of them is part of the
problem.
Wood has to be worked to get righteous. America's no different.
See what happens to your garden if you don't pull the weeds.
In article <[email protected]>,
"Frank Ketchum" <[email protected]> wrote:
> a true war hero, McCain to help out.
If Kerry's Silver Star doesn't qualify,
do you think McCain having thrown away his jet, with the complete
knowledge that he could have pulled out, evaded the SAM he knew had
locked on, and survived to fight another day (read his "Faith of Our
Fathers" ...we must admire his honesty) makes him a legitimate war
"hero," or a hotdog of short stature and a death wish trying to impress
a distant father?
The Democrats and Republicans are two-sides of the same counterfeit
CFR/Roman coin.
The fascist plutocracy they serve is not monolithic and Kerry will be a
very modest improvement.
"Larry Blanchard" <[email protected]> wrote in
> > Rather than criticising everything that Bush did, or didn't do, Kerry
> > needs to build his own platform, but apparently, he is not a woodworker.
> >
>
> I'd almost rather have seen Al Sharpton as Democratic nominee
> rather than Kerry. At least he makes some good wisecracks. But
> Kerry may not need any platform other than not being George Bush
> :-).
>
> If Nader makes it on very many ballots, even that won't help the
> Democrats. I still want to know how much of his campaign
> financing could be traced back to the Bushites :-).
>
> --
> Where ARE those Iraqi WMDs?
What I really like about John Kerry is his two faces.
That way when I vote for him I know he'll support my views 50% of the time
On Fri, 21 May 2004 11:07:25 GMT, "Frank Ketchum" <[email protected]> wrote:
>It will be amusing to watch how the definition of WMD will change in the
>near future. I predict that suddenly chemical weapons will no longer be
>considered in the WMD category.
>
>Frank
>
I noticed one guy over in another thread who already seems to be maneuvering in that direction.
Tom Veatch
Wichita, KS USA
On Thu, 20 May 2004 10:06:49 -0400, Elmer Marino
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>Kerry's choice is critical.
Long as I remember the rain been comin down.
Clouds of mystry pourin confusion on the ground.
Good men through the ages, tryin to find the sun;
And I wonder, still I wonder, wholl stop the rain.
I went down virginia, seekin shelter from the storm.
Caught up in the fable, I watched the tower grow.
Five year plans and new deals, wrapped in golden chains.
And I wonder, still I wonder wholl stop the rain.
Heard the singers playin, how we cheered for more.
The crowd had rushed together, tryin to keep warm.
Still the rain kept pourin, fallin on my ears.
And I wonder, still I wonder wholl stop the rain.
(Creedence - c. 20th century.)
Regards,
Tom.
Thomas J.Watson - Cabinetmaker (ret.)
tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet (real email)
http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1
"Fly-by-Night CC" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> You seem to be incapable of considering that the longer the stockpiles
> are unfound the more it appears the intelligence we bought was faulty
> and/or fabricated.
My main problem with this is that we gave Saddam almost a year's worth of
warning that we were coming. My opinion is that Saddam thought we would
invade and eventually get tired of fighting and go home. I believe that the
logical thing for Saddam to do was to move his WMDs in hopes that he would
survive the war and maintain his power. He wanted to come back to fight
another day. Don't forget, it wasn't just Bush who claimed there were WMDs,
it was the collective intelligence of the world. The only question that I
want answered now is who has the WMDs now? The 3 bombs we found are
obviously not the extent of weapons that he had.
>
> Your lockstep support of the whole mess is admirable in its loyalty and
> I dearly hope our actions are vindicated for our own good for the coming
> decades.
I am not a staunch Bush supporter, but on the topic of national security, he
is dead on right. Lately it seems that this is the only topic that anyone
cares about however. Would you have supported Bush in the summer of 2001 if
he had sent troops to Afghanistan to fight and topple Al Qaida? It's called
a policy of pre-emption rather than reaction and I think it is reasonable
to choose the former over the latter.
The news in the mainstream about this war is so slanted to the left that it
is unbelievable. The way that news that is bad about the war effort is
trumpeted and the news that is good is silenced is borderline criminal. I
can understand how folks who don't hear both sides of the issue are so angry
and disheartened. I don't know how anyone anymore can claim that the media
has no political leanings.
Well, back to the shop!
Frank
"Elmer Marino" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Can a Democrat/Republican joint ticket beat Bush/Cheney?
Only if Bush or Cheney run for the Democratic vp position.
snip
>
> Who do you think would be the greatest asset to J F Kerry as running
> mate?
Some one that does not flip flop on his position and has a brain.
"Larry Blanchard" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> You guys never stop grasping at straws, do you? One old
> artillery shell that fizzled when it went off. Two soldiers
> treated for "minor exposure" symptoms. Even Fox couldn't make
> this sound like anything but a weapon of mass defectiveness :-).
>
Larry,
Why don't you provide use with your definition of WMDs?
> Where ARE those Iraqi WMDs?
In Iraq. Go figure.
Frank
In article <k%[email protected]>,
"Frank Ketchum" <[email protected]> wrote:
> My main problem with this is that we gave Saddam almost a year's worth of
> warning that we were coming. My opinion is that Saddam thought we would
> invade and eventually get tired of fighting and go home. I believe that the
> logical thing for Saddam to do was to move his WMDs in hopes that he would
> survive the war and maintain his power. He wanted to come back to fight
> another day. Don't forget, it wasn't just Bush who claimed there were WMDs,
> it was the collective intelligence of the world. The only question that I
> want answered now is who has the WMDs now? The 3 bombs we found are
> obviously not the extent of weapons that he had.
Perhaps Hussein did as you think. It's my hope that these three are the
only ones because the lack of containment of the comings and goings
since we've been there has certainly been less than comforting.
> > Your lockstep support of the whole mess is admirable in its loyalty and
> > I dearly hope our actions are vindicated for our own good for the coming
> > decades.
>
> I am not a staunch Bush supporter, but on the topic of national security, he
> is dead on right. Lately it seems that this is the only topic that anyone
> cares about however. Would you have supported Bush in the summer of 2001 if
> he had sent troops to Afghanistan to fight and topple Al Qaida? It's called
> a policy of pre-emption rather than reaction and I think it is reasonable
> to choose the former over the latter.
The problem with pre-emption is that you've got to be right every time -
otherwise innocent people die because of misjudgement. Would the US
rather accept our own innocent losses than causing those of others? I
believe so as long as we do all in our power in attempt to thwart
hostile action against us - and I also believe that's some of the
reasoning behind the conservative complaint of "where's the outcry over
Berg's death" in comparison to the Abu-Garaib situation. We have no
control over other countries, societies, cultures, etc. but we do have a
say in how we condone or condemn the actions of our representatives
around the world.
> The news in the mainstream about this war is so slanted to the left that it
> is unbelievable. The way that news that is bad about the war effort is
> trumpeted and the news that is good is silenced is borderline criminal. I
> can understand how folks who don't hear both sides of the issue are so angry
> and disheartened. I don't know how anyone anymore can claim that the media
> has no political leanings.
When has the news ever been a positive outlet? It's centered on the
criminal, disasterous, sensational and titilating - that's what sells ad
space and public consumption.
Just waiting for some glue to dry so I can finish turning the inside of
a Virginia Dotson inspired Maple burl...
--
Owen Lowe and his Fly-by-Night Copper Company
Offering a shim for the Porter-Cable 557 type 2 fence design.
<http://www.flybynightcoppercompany.com>
<http://www.easystreet.com/~onlnlowe/index.html>
In article <[email protected]>,
Larry Blanchard <[email protected]> wrote:
> Perhaps you didn't note the news stories about the false
> intelligence given the US by Chalabi? Perhaps this excerpt will
> do?
Me thinks Chalabi and his group really, *really*, wanted us to overthrow
Saddam Hussein for their own gains and furtherment of their own
standings - told Bush and his group the things they most wanted to hear
and fooled the admin into acting so unilaterally when much of the rest
of the world just didn't see (or hear) it the same.
The Chalabi and US relationship seemed to sour once Saddam was pulled
out of the hole...
--
Owen Lowe and his Fly-by-Night Copper Company
Offering a shim for the Porter-Cable 557 type 2 fence design.
<http://www.flybynightcoppercompany.com>
<http://www.easystreet.com/~onlnlowe/index.html>
In article <[email protected]>,
Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Why couldn't this sarin shell have originated via Syria/Iran/Jordan/etc
> > via the black market? Is there *any* way to tell how long it's been
> > inside Iraq? That it's been there the whole time and not recently
> > reintroduced?
>
> Fact is, it was there, being used against US troops. To take your
> dodge one logical and plausible step further, who is to say that Iraq
> didn't have Syria/Iran/Jordan/etc hold on to "a few things" while
> those pesky UN folks were making fools of themselves?
That's certainly possible though I don't agree the inspectors were
making fools of themselves. I believe they were doing a good job in a
difficult situation. How would you go about handling the situation with
the surrounding countries supporting insurgents- attempt to take over
the entire Middle East? Every place there is a huge can'o'worms. Any and
every action we take there will come back to haunt us in one way or
another in the coming decades.
> > _____
> > Did you read the news article in the last couple days about the US
> > military buyback of weapons in Iraq? As of 5/18/04 - 56,536 weapons
> > (bullets, assault rifles, RPGs, mortars, anti-aircraft missles, etc.)
> > were traded for $761,357. Prices were set at slightly above the black
> > market rates.
>
> Bullets. Maybe you mean ammunition? (words do have specific meanings,
> which is what's really cool about them). How many of these
> 56,536 items were rounds of ammo? 56,000 rounds of 7.62x39 ammo
> (that which works in the AK-47 but of course you know that) would
> take up less than a pickup truck bed of space.
The article was the source of the "bullet" word - I merely copied what
was written. (Additionally, I had no idea what ammo works in an AK-47 -
thanks.) I don't feel like digging out the article again, but as I
recall there were 3 collection points with piles of weaponry behind
soldiers seated at portable tables. They were paying about $160 per AK,
missle launchers were worth $500, genades were $20 each - whatever the
quantity of weapons, they paid out over 3/4 of a million bucks.
>
> > "We sell them the old ones and buy new ones on the black market," Ali
> > Mohsin said. "I sold one AK-47 that I did not need, but what I am really
> > good at is firing a rocket-propelled grenade launcher."
>
> I'm sure you have a point here, but it's not coming across.
The point is that in some cases we're likely paying them cash for
weapons that may be unuseable or a duplicate to something else in their
closet only to have them buy something different (maybe more potent) on
the black market.
>
> > The US military firmly believes weapons are being smuggled in via Syria
> > since that's part of the justification for the bombing of the "wedding"
> > party the other night.
>
> Why did the wedding party have all that cash, weapons, and satellite
> communication gear, I wonder?
I don't know. I had heard the comment that the amount of money wasn't
extraordinary for wedding gifts but I truly don't know the amount. Is it
possible the Iraqi's are lying? By the same token is it possible the US
military is lying as to what was really there? (It was an awful lot of
women and children to be killed but no matter who's lying, the plain
truth is that for each such action it only embitters their friends,
family and those who are looking for any justification to seek revenge.
How many future terrorists and sympathizers are being created every day
in Iraq?)
> > Back to the sarin bomb itself, I certainly hope this is a unique
> > discovery - according to the "US officials", the shell was suspected to
> > be an experimental munition produced before the '91 Gulf War - it didn't
> > have any markings on it to indicate it contained a chemical agent.
>
> YA THINK? Maybe if one is hiding something, they don't go and label
> it clearly? Hell, it could be "Fifth digit in the part number is a
> 7" for all either of us would know. To them, it's obvious; to us it'snot.
I'll take unmarked to mean unmarked - I believe, tho I don't know for
sure, the markings on weapons around the world are known in the military
circles. I'm not so sure that the fact it was unmarked means it was
intended to be hidden and overlooked. I would think such regimes as
Saddam's are much less stringent in labeling and making sure weaponry is
fully accounted for - Hell, even in peacetime, our own military
loses/misplaces/writes off some pretty lethal weapons every year.
So you say this is a WMD and exonerates Bush's claims - we went to war
for one shell (or three if you include the mustard gas shells noted
previously on the group)? Are almost 800 US military lives worth three
shells? How long into the future are you going to point to discovered
banned weaponry proclaiming justification for invading Iraq when we
don't know if it was in the country as of March 2003? At what point are
you willing to say Iraq is free of WMD and we can move on?
>
> > If
> > I'm not mistaken as to my understanding of how munitions are destroyed,
> > I think the military disposal units are incredibly lucky this piece
> > wasn't collected and disposed of with other regular ordinance, likely
> > causing the binary reaction necessary to create a cloud of poisonous gas.
>
> Almost like that was the goal of planting this WMD where the US
> would find it. You know, _using it as a weapon_.
There's very few who really know - and I don't think they're talkin'.
--
Owen Lowe and his Fly-by-Night Copper Company
Offering a shim for the Porter-Cable 557 type 2 fence design.
<http://www.flybynightcoppercompany.com>
<http://www.easystreet.com/~onlnlowe/index.html>
In article <[email protected]>,
Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote:
SNiP
> > I would think such regimes as
> > Saddam's are much less stringent in labeling and making sure weaponry is
> > fully accounted for - Hell, even in peacetime, our own military
> > loses/misplaces/writes off some pretty lethal weapons every year.
>
> Oh, yes, I'm _sure_ it was just an honest, innocent mistake. Kinda like
> that whole Kurds thing. Silly me, I seem to have wiped out tens of
> thousands of my own people. Woopsie!
Wouldn't you think the guys firing nerve gas shells ought to know what's
in them and therefore they be identified as such? (I'd think they'd want
to make sure their own troops weren't in the dispersal area.) According
to the article it was an experimental shell - which sounds to me like a
test shell that might have been stolen from the development facility and
not one under manufacture and regular disbursement.
> > So you say this is a WMD and exonerates Bush's claims - we went to war
> > for one shell (or three if you include the mustard gas shells noted
> > previously on the group)?
>
> I don't recall saying such, how about if you make your points, and I make
> my points, OK?
You're correct you didn't put those thoughts together - I interpretted
your comments that this sarin shell *is* a WMD and therefore justifies
Bush's actions to date. So do you believe this is a WMD that justifies
the war?
> > Are almost 800 US military lives worth three
> > shells? How long into the future are you going to point to discovered
> > banned weaponry proclaiming justification for invading Iraq when we
> > don't know if it was in the country as of March 2003?
>
> Hussein said he had 'em. Your boy Kerry said he had 'em (yes, I can
> provide a cite for that, but it's a beutiful day right now, and you know
> he said it anyway so what's the point). Well, Kerry said they had 'em
> before he flipped (or was it flopped) to his current stance, or at least
> his stance of last week (I haven't checked lately to see what it is, but
> I'm sure it'll come around a few times eventually anyway).
How about we spin this a different way... Hussein *thought* he had them.
Kerry was told and believed he had them - as did Bush, Clinton,
Albright, Powell, etc., etc. What if Hussein's people were merely
*telling* him he had them? What if our informants wanted us to overthrow
Hussein for their own gain and thus told lies? At some point we're going
to have to face the fact that the stockpiles we were told were there
just haven't materialized. Sporadically finding one here, one there just
doesn't seem to fit the bill of goods the US was sold.
> > At what point are
> > you willing to say Iraq is free of WMD and we can move on?
>
> They apparently aren't, are they.
So how many WMDs does it take to justify the costs of the war? If one
turns up every 3, 4, 5 months or so on average, at what point do we
declare Iraq's WMD capability a non-issue? How many sarin, mustard or
whatever shells do we need to discover before we pull our troops out
with the declaration that Iraq is no longer a threat?
> >> Almost like that was the goal of planting this WMD where the US
> >> would find it. You know, _using it as a weapon_.
> >
> > There's very few who really know - and I don't think they're talkin'.
>
> Your theory seems to be "It's just this shell, y'know? Stuff happens,
> random shells filled with thosands of lethal doeses of WMD can just
> get lost but it's no biggie", while mine seems to be "Why is this
> insignificant in the minds of you and people like you?"
It's not necessarily insignificant, but it's certainly not the quantity
of what I was lead to believe existed as justification for the war.
Saddam's imminent threat to US security just hasnt' panned out so far...
> I prefer an oil finish on walnut, how about you?
Absolutely - nothing better. I'm disappointed however in the quality of
the walnut commercially available here in NW Oregon - lots of sapwood
and the grain is too prominent to pay $8/bf. I believe they're selling
lumber from less than mature trees. I've got a small stock of Black
Walnut from my grandparent's home in central Illinois that was cut in
the very early '60's - it's a beautiful purplish with straight grain and
absolutely wonderful to work with. I guess I'm just spoilt.
--
Owen Lowe and his Fly-by-Night Copper Company
Offering a shim for the Porter-Cable 557 type 2 fence design.
<http://www.flybynightcoppercompany.com>
<http://www.easystreet.com/~onlnlowe/index.html>
In article <[email protected]>,
Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:
> alright, we got bad intelligence. How were we supposed to verify that?
> The problem with this type of information is that verification and
> corroboration is not 100% but the stakes for being wrong are devastating.
> What if those intel reports had been correct and we failed to act? I
> suspect that a different form of attack on the current administration would
> then have been mounted -- "We knew but failed to act".
You're talking about Bill Clinton and the aspirin factory destruction
and the cruise missles killing the camels in Afghanistan... right?
--
Owen Lowe and his Fly-by-Night Copper Company
Offering a shim for the Porter-Cable 557 type 2 fence design.
<http://www.flybynightcoppercompany.com>
<http://www.easystreet.com/~onlnlowe/index.html>
In article <[email protected]>,
Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote:
> Let's see. The entire world (except Germany and Frace, who continued to
> sell stuff to 'em) said "He's got 'em", and a USA'n president being told
> by his intelligence _and_ by Clinton that he's got 'em, and acting on that
> information, -vs- lying under oath to congress, and going on TV, looking
> us right in the eye, and bald-face lying to the entire country. Yeah,
> there's a difference all right.
You're right, there is a difference. Clinton caused much embarassment
while W's and his cohort's appear to have gotten us into a war that has
so far claimed thousands and cost hundreds of billions and resulted in
discovering an extremely small number of what might or might not be
determined (haven't heard an official report yet) to be *the* WMDs.
> I can't help but wonder if your perspective is so distorted by the fact
> that it's Bush, that you just can't see what's happening. If this was
> Clinton's (or Gore's) war, and they had acted on all the available
> intelligence, I wonder what your spin would be.
Again, you're absolutely right. I don't much care for W but I really
distrust Rumsfeld and Cheney. The secretive, clandestine atmosphere this
administration has ushered in will be the Republican's nightmare when a
Democrat follows the same path. (There's a book out now by one of
Nixon's guys who finds Bush's White House tactics very damaging to the
country... not Haldeman... John Dean maybe).
For an exercise in fair and balanced thinking, consider your own
response to the Energy Task Force meetings, the carrier landing, the
loss of millions of jobs, the 800 dead soldiers, the billions spent, and
the Abu-Garaib spectacle if it all took place during President Hillary
Clinton's term. Still cling to the notion that your own perspective is
undistorted?
> >> Last I heard, the June 30th turnover date is still in effect. Maybe
> >> you know differently. No, it won't be an immediate, 100% pullout. Deal.
> >
> > And, who was it again we're turning things over to? Our troops are going
> > to be there in an appreciable quantity for several years at least - to
> > pull out any quantity very soon will likely allow a civil war to start
> > up.
>
> So you _don't_ want us out of there now? You're inconsistant. I want us
> out of there too.> If it was up to me, the message would be something like
> this:
> "OK, look. Your last boy got _way_ out of control, so we came in,
> destroyed his stuff, took him away, and then rebuilt a bunch of your
> infrastructure that he wasn't fixing for you. You're welcome. You're
> on your own as of now, but be on notice that if your next leader starts
> making enough noises towards us that we start noticing and getting
> concerned, we'll come in and do it again. Now, play nice." - and leave.
I didn't believe we should be there in the first place; but now that we
are and have removed whatever social structure and control Saddam had
we've got to make sure we leave the place better than we found it. We
certainly don't want or need another Shiite-type massacre as happened
after the Gulf War.
> >> > It's not necessarily insignificant, but it's certainly not the quantity
> >> > of what I was lead to believe existed as justification for the war.
> >>
> >> Is 1000 dead people enough? 2000? 3000? How many can each of those
> >> mustard gas shells kill? If it's an even thousand each, that adds up
> >> to a WTC-scale death rate.
> >
> > Granted they'd be catastrophic horrible deaths - and I hope we find any
> > more that may still be floating around.
>
> But...?
No buts - if they're out there I hope we find them and get them out of
circulation.
> > You know, the thing that gets my goat is the attitudes of the Iraqis and
> > the Middle East in general. Let's hear the Arab countries speak up and
> > offer assistance to the people of Iraq - they don't have to offer it to
> > the US or condone our actions - but they could say, "the sooner you
> > people get your shit together the sooner you'll be rid of the occupation
> > forces. You don't like them there? Then show the US you can set up your
> > own peace-keeping forces, show that you are supportive of getting your
> > own government up and running."
>
> See above. "And you'd better behave or the great smackdown will return".
> We're not...actually...agreeing on something here, are we? Maybe we
> should work something out & send it to someone.
Not likely! Well maybe... You do seem to share the same appreciation for
Black Walnut...
> Bought it at an auction; it was raining, cold, windy, and generally
> crappy. There was a like pile of oak next to it. Two of us were
> bidding on the walnut. He looked at me, looked at the pile of oak,
> looked at me, looked at the walnut, looked at the oak, ...
> He stopped bidding on the walnut, and he went home with the oak.
I had to stop going to auctions - ended up spending hundreds I didn't
have on stuff that, while worth hundreds, didn't pay the bills.
--
Owen Lowe and his Fly-by-Night Copper Company
Offering a shim for the Porter-Cable 557 type 2 fence design.
<http://www.flybynightcoppercompany.com>
<http://www.easystreet.com/~onlnlowe/index.html>
In article <[email protected]>,
"Frank Ketchum" <[email protected]> wrote:
> You can't possibly believe that Iraq's WMD consist of exactly the three
> chemically charged shells that we have located. That would be a truly
> remarkable instance.
I honestly have no idea of what's there or not there. I pretty much
trusted the sources saying it was there - in quantities that would
justify invading, costing us 800 troops to date, hundreds of billions of
dollars and the world-wide negative consequences of those who didn't
agree with the decision. We've had 15 months to discover the stockpiles
but the three or six or whatever we've stumbled across so far certainly
don't seem to be the bill of goods I was sold.
> You shouldn't make this arguement (IMHO) because you
> have to know that we will be finding more, and more, and more as the days
> and weeks go by, don't you?
Like I said above, we've had 15 months to find the stockpiles that were
reported to be there and so far our efforts have generated practically
nothing other than Middle Eastern resentment and world scorn. I'd be
happy if we did find stockpiles - at least then we'd have some
justification for the lives lost and money spent - and perhaps most
important, our intelligence services wouldn't look like gullible idiots.
> I don't buy for one second that one day, Sadaam
> saw the error in his ways and disarmed his WMDs and was being a good boy.
> Sorry, but you would have to ignore a whole lot of recent history and
> intelligence to come to this conclusion. You have to want to come to this
> conclusion to believe it.
You seem to be incapable of considering that the longer the stockpiles
are unfound the more it appears the intelligence we bought was faulty
and/or fabricated. The Iraqi scientists may have just been tellin Saddam
they were developing WMDs to keep from being Abu-Garaib'd (sp?)
themselves. Chalabi and others like him may have been singing the tune
Bush wanted to hear merely to have someone else, namely the US,
overthrow Saddam to gain political control himself.
Your lockstep support of the whole mess is admirable in its loyalty and
I dearly hope our actions are vindicated for our own good for the coming
decades. On the other hand, I feel it was an ill-conceived decision with
the Bush administration seeing what they wanted to see and ignoring the
consequences.
--
Owen Lowe and his Fly-by-Night Copper Company
Offering a shim for the Porter-Cable 557 type 2 fence design.
<http://www.flybynightcoppercompany.com>
<http://www.easystreet.com/~onlnlowe/index.html>
In article <[email protected]>,
Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote:
> So, what's the truth, Larry? Was the shell not there, or did it not
> contain Sarin? Or is this a "Well, it's only enough to kill a couple
> thousand people, so it doesn't count" kind of thing?
Why couldn't this sarin shell have originated via Syria/Iran/Jordan/etc
via the black market? Is there *any* way to tell how long it's been
inside Iraq? That it's been there the whole time and not recently
reintroduced?
_____
Did you read the news article in the last couple days about the US
military buyback of weapons in Iraq? As of 5/18/04 - 56,536 weapons
(bullets, assault rifles, RPGs, mortars, anti-aircraft missles, etc.)
were traded for $761,357. Prices were set at slightly above the black
market rates.
"We sell them the old ones and buy new ones on the black market," Ali
Mohsin said. "I sold one AK-47 that I did not need, but what I am really
good at is firing a rocket-propelled grenade launcher."
_____
The US military firmly believes weapons are being smuggled in via Syria
since that's part of the justification for the bombing of the "wedding"
party the other night.
_____
Back to the sarin bomb itself, I certainly hope this is a unique
discovery - according to the "US officials", the shell was suspected to
be an experimental munition produced before the '91 Gulf War - it didn't
have any markings on it to indicate it contained a chemical agent. If
I'm not mistaken as to my understanding of how munitions are destroyed,
I think the military disposal units are incredibly lucky this piece
wasn't collected and disposed of with other regular ordinance, likely
causing the binary reaction necessary to create a cloud of poisonous gas.
_____
Back to woodworking... anyone been following the tale of the stolen $3.5
million 1684 Stradivarius cello that almost became a CD rack?
--
Owen Lowe and his Fly-by-Night Copper Company
Offering a shim for the Porter-Cable 557 type 2 fence design.
<http://www.flybynightcoppercompany.com>
<http://www.easystreet.com/~onlnlowe/index.html>
In article <[email protected]>,
Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Wouldn't you think the guys firing nerve gas shells ought to know what's
> > in them and therefore they be identified as such? (I'd think they'd want
> > to make sure their own troops weren't in the dispersal area.)
>
> Not obviously marked to us does not equal "they didn't know what
> they had".
Well with 15 months of occupation and the resulting confiscation of
prolly every record in Hussein's government (not to mention the decade
of scrutiny, inspections, and any scientist and military defections),
you'd think our intelligence outfits would know any codes they used for
such weapons.
> > According
> > to the article it was an experimental shell - which sounds to me like a
> > test shell that might have been stolen from the development facility and
> > not one under manufacture and regular disbursement.
>
> And yet, it was filled with WMDs that they didn't have. Odd, that.
So are you saying this one is what we were looking for and is reason
enough for the last 15 months?
Snip
> > You're correct you didn't put those thoughts together - I interpretted
> > your comments that this sarin shell *is* a WMD and therefore justifies
> > Bush's actions to date. So do you believe this is a WMD that justifies
> > the war?
>
> I believe the war was justified because he repeatedly, and for years,
> violated the terms of the cease fire. The WMDs that he himself said
> he had, and we are now finding in his country, are part of those reasons,
> but his refusal to allow inspections, failure to provide records of
> the destruction of these shells (which, surprise surprise, he didn't
> destroy after all), and so on and on and on...it all adds up.
I believe that as he was contained both north and south and had no
military to speak of his gas-bag antics were just that of a bratty,
saber-rattling dictator who used the tactics to show his people he was
courageous against the big, bad US. (He did conceed to allowing
inspections a few months before the shock and awe - but I didn't think
you put much value in them anyway.)
> >> Hussein said he had 'em. Your boy Kerry said he had 'em (yes, I can
> >> provide a cite for that, but it's a beutiful day right now, and you know
> >> he said it anyway so what's the point). Well, Kerry said they had 'em
> >> before he flipped (or was it flopped) to his current stance, or at least
> >> his stance of last week (I haven't checked lately to see what it is, but
> >> I'm sure it'll come around a few times eventually anyway).
> >
> > How about we spin this a different way... Hussein *thought* he had them.
>
> Apparently, he was right.
Not as I see it. I think he may very well have been fooled by his own
people.
> > Kerry was told and believed he had them - as did Bush, Clinton,
> > Albright, Powell, etc., etc. What if Hussein's people were merely
> > *telling* him he had them?
>
> Evidense seems to show that he _did_ have them. How can you be
> this delusional?
Faulty evidence. Real evidence has yet to bear out any stockpiles of WMD
that were an imminent threat to the US - unless you're saying one or
three or whatever constitutes a stockpile.
> > What if our informants wanted us to overthrow
> > Hussein for their own gain and thus told lies? At some point we're going
> > to have to face the fact that the stockpiles we were told were there
> > just haven't materialized.
>
> Yet. And when they do, your type will say "Aha, well, yeah, there they are,
> but they were planted. After all, how long did the US have to plant
> evidence, and there it is", ignoring that hussein had a decade to +hide+
> the stuff.
Heee. You're right that the reply may very well be that the Bush admin
planted them - many people are distrustful of them. Me included - it
appears to me they have a hard time giving a straight answer to many of
the questions posed. And to think we were all bent out of shape over an
adulterer...
Snip
> > So how many WMDs does it take to justify the costs of the war? If one
> > turns up every 3, 4, 5 months or so on average, at what point do we
> > declare Iraq's WMD capability a non-issue? How many sarin, mustard or
> > whatever shells do we need to discover before we pull our troops out
> > with the declaration that Iraq is no longer a threat?
>
> Last I heard, the June 30th turnover date is still in effect. Maybe
> you know differently. No, it won't be an immediate, 100% pullout. Deal.
And, who was it again we're turning things over to? Our troops are going
to be there in an appreciable quantity for several years at least - to
pull out any quantity very soon will likely allow a civil war to start
up.
Snip
> > It's not necessarily insignificant, but it's certainly not the quantity
> > of what I was lead to believe existed as justification for the war.
>
> Is 1000 dead people enough? 2000? 3000? How many can each of those
> mustard gas shells kill? If it's an even thousand each, that adds up
> to a WTC-scale death rate.
Granted they'd be catastrophic horrible deaths - and I hope we find any
more that may still be floating around.
You know, the thing that gets my goat is the attitudes of the Iraqis and
the Middle East in general. Let's hear the Arab countries speak up and
offer assistance to the people of Iraq - they don't have to offer it to
the US or condone our actions - but they could say, "the sooner you
people get your shit together the sooner you'll be rid of the occupation
forces. You don't like them there? Then show the US you can set up your
own peace-keeping forces, show that you are supportive of getting your
own government up and running."
Snip
> I've got about 500 board feet of just that - nice straight, purply
> black walnut from the early 60's or earlier. I hate to use it up, but
> it doesn't do any good stacked.
Lucky you! I've only got about 50 - and I treasure it as if it were gold.
--
Owen Lowe and his Fly-by-Night Copper Company
Offering a shim for the Porter-Cable 557 type 2 fence design.
<http://www.flybynightcoppercompany.com>
<http://www.easystreet.com/~onlnlowe/index.html>
"Elmer Marino" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Can a Democrat/Republican joint ticket beat Bush/Cheney?
>
> Kerry's choice is critical.
Actually it doesn't matter a bit. A VP has never been influential enough in
any modern era election to change any minds. McCain will never do it,
anyway, and Hillary would be his nail in the coffin.
imo,
dwhite
On Thu, 20 May 2004 10:06:49 -0400, Elmer Marino
<[email protected]> wrote:
>Can a Democrat/Republican joint ticket beat Bush/Cheney?
>
Yeah but it's kinda like when Sam Goldwyn heard that Ronnie Reagan was
gonna run for president, "No, no - the casting is all wrong - Jimmy
Stewart for president and Ronnie for his best friend."
I'd like to see McCain 'slip the surly bonds' of the repuplican party
and run in the lead position on the dem ticket.
(watson - who dreams strange dreams but still has hopes - of a
sort...)
Regards,
Tom.
Thomas J.Watson - Cabinetmaker (ret.)
tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet (real email)
http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1
"Norm De Plume" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Dan White" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
>
> > > Can a Democrat/Republican joint ticket beat Bush/Cheney?
> > >
> > > Kerry's choice is critical.
> >
> > Actually it doesn't matter a bit. A VP has never been
> > influential enough in any modern era election to change any
> > minds.
>
> You're forgetting 1960, Kennedy/Johnson vs. Nixon/Lodge. Without
> Johnson, Nixon would have grabbed some of the South.
>
> It's also possible that in 1968, Nixon/Agnew vs. Humphrey/Muskie was
> was won by Nixon because of Agnew's appeal to more-conservative
> Democrats.
OK, good points, but let me explain where I was coming from when I said
that. I don't believe the election is anywhere near as close as everyone is
making it out to be, and that Kerry will get beat decisively (not trounced,
but beat). Given a losing candidate, I don't believe any VP candidate short
of Jesus Christ (and even then, who knows?), can right a shipwreck like the
Kerry campaign. If you have a pretty even proposition between candidates,
then I concede that a choice selection can bring in a part of the country
that was on the fence anyway.
dwhite
"Fly-by-Night CC" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> That's certainly possible though I don't agree the inspectors were
> making fools of themselves. I believe they were doing a good job in a
> difficult situation.
>
They were certainly shown to be the clueless dolts that they are by Libya.
Suddenly Libya pops up out of nowhere to announces to the world that they
have nuclear weapons and they want to surrender them. That was a huge black
eye for the UN (as if one more makes much difference though).
>
> So you say this is a WMD and exonerates Bush's claims - we went to war
> for one shell (or three if you include the mustard gas shells noted
> previously on the group)? Are almost 800 US military lives worth three
> shells? How long into the future are you going to point to discovered
> banned weaponry proclaiming justification for invading Iraq when we
> don't know if it was in the country as of March 2003? At what point are
> you willing to say Iraq is free of WMD and we can move on?
>
You can't possibly believe that Iraq's WMD consist of exactly the three
chemically charged shells that we have located. That would be a truly
remarkable instance. You shouldn't make this arguement (IMHO) because you
have to know that we will be finding more, and more, and more as the days
and weeks go by, don't you? I don't buy for one second that one day, Sadaam
saw the error in his ways and disarmed his WMDs and was being a good boy.
Sorry, but you would have to ignore a whole lot of recent history and
intelligence to come to this conclusion. You have to want to come to this
conclusion to believe it.
Frank