Is lying about the reason for a war an impeachable offense?

"Al Spohn" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:MPG.1bbcb5272b497c0e989707@mayonews...
I'm
> probably just sensitized to the Kerry treatment because I (grudgingly)
> come down on his side by a fairly narrow margin.
>

OK, well then I'll call off the attack dogs I had scheduled for you in the
morning.

(but you're still voting for the wrong guy. Who do you think the terrorists
in Iraq want to win the election?) ;)

dwhite

Not only is is "normal", apparently no other sitting president has ever done
a tailhook landing on a carrier. But what fun is there in riding in a
helicopter? What kind of pansy, given the choice to fly in a helicopter of
a jet fighter, opts for helo? FWIW, the Navy said it was more comfortable
with a jet landing as it afforded the opportunity to eject in case of a
problem. Personally, it wouldn't matter either way to me. I'll even
stipulate that it was partly political. Even so, so what? Any president is
a politician, so it's not surprising that some of what they do is political.

todd

"Renata" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I believe that a helicopter rather than a fighter jet is the "normal"
> means of transportation in this sort of case.
>
> Renata

I don't know, and I don;t care.

Is posting irrelevant political stuff on a woodworking group an PLONKable
offense?

Most definitely!

PLONK!

"ModerateLeft" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> It sure is.
>
> Is lying about the reason for a war an impeachable offense?
> By John W. Dean, *former counsel to President Nixon*
>
> http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/06/06/findlaw.analysis.dean.wmd/

On 1 Oct 2004 22:05:24 -0700, [email protected] (Fred the Red Shirt)
wrote:

>"Todd Fatheree" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
>> "sam" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:svQ%[email protected]...
>> > [My first post didn't make it past the censors...2nd try...]
>> >
>> > ...But don't forget the joint resolution allowing the President to attack
>> > Iraq: they had (or should have had) access to the same info the pres. did.
>> >
>> > -------------------
>> <snip>
>>
>> Heck, Kerry couldn't be bothered to attend Senate Intelligence committee
>> meetings 3/4 of the time while he was a member, so why would he bother with
>> reading the Iraq info? In fact, he was so concerned with intelligence that
>> you know how many of the four meetings he attended in the year following the
>> first WTC attack? That's right...none. I guess he feels it's better to be
>> able to play dumb in case things go wrong "duhhhh....I was only going with
>> what the President told me".
>>
>
>IIUC there are two kinds of Senate Intelligence meetings. Closed door
>during whihc the Senators have access to classified information and
>open meetings which are dog and pony shows for the public. Kerry
>missed a lot of the dog and pony shows. His attendence record at
>the closed sessions is not publicly available.

Slight quibble with your choice of words. Kerry *refuses* to make his
attendance record at the closed sessions known. The chairman of the
committee has indicated he will make the attendance record public, but
[just as with his military records] Kerry must request that the chairman do
so. As most engineering texts will say, "the conclusion is left to the
reader".

On 4 Oct 2004 18:24:09 -0700, [email protected] (Fred the Red Shirt)
wrote:

>Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<1096694685.ld1LJL/DlOPVcVqNnXQKdA@teranews>...
>> On 1 Oct 2004 22:05:24 -0700, [email protected] (Fred the Red Shirt)
>> wrote:
>>
>>> >
>> >IIUC there are two kinds of Senate Intelligence meetings. Closed door
>> >during whihc the Senators have access to classified information and
>> >open meetings which are dog and pony shows for the public. Kerry
>> >missed a lot of the dog and pony shows. His attendence record at
>> >the closed sessions is not publicly available.
>>
>> Slight quibble with your choice of words. Kerry *refuses* to make his
>> attendance record at the closed sessions known. The chairman of the
>> committee has indicated he will make the attendance record public, but
>> [just as with his military records] Kerry must request that the chairman do
>> so. As most engineering texts will say, "the conclusion is left to the
>> reader".
>
>My only quibble with yours is that I've read more than a few engineering
>texts and do not recall reading that in any.

Perhaps I am guilty of a slight paraphrase, the more common phrase is,
"the proof is left to the reader" and "it is obvious to the casual observer
..." And if you don't have any engineering texts with those words in them,
you don't have genuine engineering texts. :-)

>
>Do you nkow if GWB's discharge papers, equivalent to a DD218 or whatever
>it is, have been posted anywhere on the web?
>

Don't know for sure, I haven't gone looking for them. GWB did sign the
appropriate form such that the pentagon has released his records; I'd be
surprised if they don't exist somewhere.

>--
>
>
>FF

do to some political NG

"James T. Kirby" wrote in message

> But, then, uncovering wrongdoing was never the agenda.

In politics, and most anything to do with lawyers and/or government
bureaucracy, it rarely is ... and that's exactly what we've come to expect
from those quarters.

It is, however, an indictment of the times that the media has become
"proactive" along the same lines, with no end to the blind fools whom they
can sway.

The reasonable doubts cast upon the authenticity of the documents which CBS
based their latest anti-Bush "agenda" this past Wednesday night are a case
in point.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5955784/
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5956461/

To me this would have been expected and unremarkable coming from the Kerry
machine, or either side for that matter, but from those who foist themselves
off as "journalists" to the American public, it unconscionable, IMO.

I am not a Republican ... I just don't like being taken for a blind fool.

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

"CW" <no adddress@spam free.com> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> > I have this magical development on my keyboard called the "Page Down"
key.
> > It allows me to almost instantly get to the bottom of a post to see the
> > follow-up.
>
> If people posted they way they should, you wouldn't have to do this.
>
> > If Usenet posts weren't archived, top-posting would be fine.
>
> 98% of all posts are read in the orrriginal posting. The other 2% will
just
> have to deal with it.
>
> > However, when reading a series of archived posts,
> > I find it hard to read
> > top-posted replies
>
> This brings up questions as to your reading ability.


.pointer the for Thanks .read to easier way is This
.mean you what see I , Wow .differently taught were people some guess I
but, bottom to top
from read to taught was I , Personally .read to like you how is this guess
I

On Wed, 08 Sep 2004 14:14:11 -0400, James T. Kirby <[email protected]> wrote:
> Heh, if lying about sex is an impeachable offense (not!),

It wasn't about the blowjob, it was about lying to congress _under oath_.
Maybe that doesn't bother you, and maybe SW standing up, staring into
the camera, and saying "I want you to listen to this...I did not..." while
lying right in our faces, but apparently you're more tolerant than I am
of that sort of thing.

On Wed, 08 Sep 2004 20:35:24 GMT, John Emmons <[email protected]> wrote:
> weighing the balance...cost in lives from Mr. Clinton's lies, zero. Cost so
> far in American lives due to Mr. Bush's lies, 1000 and counting...yep, it's
> a good thing we're all less tolerant of lying these days...

There's a difference between lying, and working on the best available
intelligence. Even your boys Clinton and Kerry thought that the WMDs were
there, remember? Even Kerry says he would also have gone in to Iraq.

At least Bush sticks to his argument, instead of waffling on both sides
of the issue trying to play both sides.

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
> There's a difference between lying, and working on the best available
> intelligence. Even your boys Clinton and Kerry thought that the WMDs were
> there, remember? Even Kerry says he would also have gone in to Iraq.
>
I'll go along with you there Dave, although I think Bush was more than
willing to accept intelligence that the rest of the world thought was
wrong, including the inspectors on the scene.

But the "lying" that got to me was his inability to say "9/11" or
"terrorism" without saying "Iraq" or "Saddam" in close proximity.

No, he never said directly that Iraq was responsible for 9/11. In fact,
at one time he said they were not. But he implied it with that
proximity so many times that over half the American public (according to
surveys) believed him.

Strictly speaking, not a lie. But I've seen tornadoes with less "spin"
:-).

Once again, let me point out that I've voted for Republican presidential
candidates about as often as Democrats. And Kerry is just one more
lying politician whose only redeeming virtue is that he's not Bush.

It's Bush and his gang that scare me, not Republicans in general.

--
Where ARE those Iraqi WMDs?

On Wed, 8 Sep 2004 14:20:15 -0700, Larry Blanchard <[email protected]> wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
>> There's a difference between lying, and working on the best available
>> intelligence. Even your boys Clinton and Kerry thought that the WMDs were
>> there, remember? Even Kerry says he would also have gone in to Iraq.
>>
> I'll go along with you there Dave, although I think Bush was more than
> willing to accept intelligence that the rest of the world thought was
> wrong, including the inspectors on the scene.

Well, when you say "the rest of the world thought was wrong", how does
that reconcile with all of the UN resolutions that even the UN agreed
he (hussein) was violating?

> But the "lying" that got to me was his inability to say "9/11" or
> "terrorism" without saying "Iraq" or "Saddam" in close proximity.

Seems to be a lot of Al Queda in that part of the world these days?

> No, he never said directly that Iraq was responsible for 9/11. In fact,
> at one time he said they were not. But he implied it with that
> proximity so many times that over half the American public (according to
> surveys) believed him.

I didn't see him making that statement at the time, I saw him saying
"SH says he's got a bunch of nasties, and the UN and I and our allies
are inclined to believe him".

> Strictly speaking, not a lie.

And strictly speaking, Clinton's perpetual lies about the Brady Law
"stopping 300,000 felons" couldn't be interpreted as anything _but_
complete and utter lies. He counted any person who was initially
denied a firearm purchase as a "felon who was stopped", when in
reality nearly every one of them was someone with the same name,
who was later allowed to buy the gun they were trying to buy. In
all, exactly six people were prosecuted for trying to illegally
buy a gun. Now, _that_ is spin.

> But I've seen tornadoes with less "spin"
> Once again, let me point out that I've voted for Republican presidential
> candidates about as often as Democrats. And Kerry is just one more
> lying politician whose only redeeming virtue is that he's not Bush.
> It's Bush and his gang that scare me, not Republicans in general.

I think Kerry is cut from the same cloth as Clinton was.

On Thu, 09 Sep 2004 03:56:08 GMT, sam <[email protected]> wrote:
> [My first post didn't make it past the censors...2nd try...]

This isn't a moderated group, there are no "censors". If you posted something
that didn't show up, it's a technical issue.

> ...But don't forget the joint resolution allowing the President to attack
> Iraq: they had (or should have had) access to the same info the pres. did.

Your post did come thruogh both times.

On Wed, 8 Sep 2004 21:31:05 -0700, CW <> wrote:
> Doesn't matter. There is no declaration of war.

Last I checked, Gulf War 1 never ended, it was just a cease fire. No?
Hell, technically we could re-start Korea without a declaration, as
that one also isn't over.

On Thu, 09 Sep 2004 09:34:44 -0400, James T. Kirby <[email protected]> wrote:
> The notion that a perpetual witch hunt, coming up with nothing, devolved to the
> level of getting a guy under oath so he could be asked unanswerable questions
> about his sex life as basically a means of entrapment ... sorry, it boils my
> blood.

Entrapment my ass. Clinton is physically unable to tell the truth, he
lies habitually and continuously. He alone is responsible for taking an
oath to tell the truth and deciding that, once again, he would lie. That
is nobody's fault but his own.

> So there. Disagree all you want. What's this got to do with sawdust anyway.
> Heh, there's a nice hunk o' cherry sitting on the bench right now.

Long as you don't stain it, we'll get along relatively well.

Dave Hinz

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> Realizing that there is no way to overcome the visceral hatred of Bush,
> but it seems that the idea of taking the war to the terrorists rather than
> waiting around and letting the ACLU prevent any types of police actions
> that might "profile" or "inconvenience" or "limit the rights of" potential
> terrorists while they plan their next attack on us seems like a pretty good
> idea and a practical course of action.
>
Once again, I agree. I supported the war in Afghanistan (which is still
going on).

But Bush et al have yet to convince me that Iraq had anything to do with
terrorism except for supporting the Palestinians attacks on Israel. And
all the Arab states do that.

--
Where ARE those Iraqi WMDs?

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> Syria. But even without them, how could freedom loving people such as us
> let a tyrant such as Saddam keep murdering a man every 30 minutes, 24 hours
> a day, seven days a week, 52 weeks a year, for over 20 years? And that is
> not including the torture of countless more. All that simply because he
> could. We should have cleaned up this mistake long ago.
>
Nice troll :-). Or are you seriously suggesting we go to war with every
country controlled by a ruthless dictator? There's a lot of them :-).

--
Where ARE those Iraqi WMDs?

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
says...
> Well, actually, the simple fact that he waffled about it is more condemning
> than the fact that he did it. If it were me, my answer would be "That,
> sir, is not your concern."
>
Yeah. I've often wondered what would have happened if he'd just said
"As long as I'm not screwing children or animals, my sex life is none of
your $#@&! business. And I'm not sure animals should concern you."

But that would be too straightforward for a politician :-).

Witness Rumsfeldt the other day. The interviewer quoted him as saying
something and he denied ever saying it - twice. Then they played the
tape of him saying it - word for word :-). All he had to do was say
"Yes, I said that, but I've since found out I was wrong".

Once again, truth is too simple for a politician.

--
Where ARE those Iraqi WMDs?

On Thu, 9 Sep 2004 16:09:22 -0700, Larry Blanchard <[email protected]> wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] says...
>> Syria. But even without them, how could freedom loving people such as us
>> let a tyrant such as Saddam keep murdering a man every 30 minutes, 24 hours
>> a day, seven days a week, 52 weeks a year, for over 20 years?
>>
> Nice troll :-). Or are you seriously suggesting we go to war with every
> country controlled by a ruthless dictator? There's a lot of them :-).

How about we just limit it to ruthless dictators who have directly
threatened us, and have shown the ability and willingness to carry
through? Would that work for ya, Larry?

On Fri, 10 Sep 2004 14:34:44 -0400, James T. Kirby <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Dave Hinz wrote:
>>
>> How about we just limit it to ruthless dictators who have directly
>> threatened us, and have shown the ability and willingness to carry
>> through? Would that work for ya, Larry?
>
> have we gone to war with one of those recently?

Gee, let's see. Um, yes. The lesson here should be "If you say that you're
gonna do bad things to us, and we know that you have/had WMD because we
bloody well _sold_ 'em to you, then it's a really bad idea to fsck with us
because we'll take you seriously and take you out".

Why is it that people keep forgetting about Libya?

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> I'm not looking to get into a pissing contest with anyone, and I would
> vote for McCain in a heartbeat over either Kerry or Bush.
>
I probably would too. But before we canonize him, does the phrase
"Keating 5" ring any bells?

How can we remember the Vietnam war and forget the S&L fiasco?

--
Where ARE those Iraqi WMDs?

On Sat, 11 Sep 2004 03:53:19 GMT, Dan White <[email protected]> wrote:
> "CW" <no adddress@spam free.com> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>> "Dave Hinz" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>> > How about we just limit it to ruthless dictators who have directly
>> > threatened us, and have shown the ability and willingness to carry
>> > through? Would that work for ya, Larry?
>
>> And who would that be?
>
> The same one who tried to assassinate one of our presidents and shoot down
> our pilots. For me, there should be a simple policy. If you are caught
> trying to assissinate our president, we reserve the right to remove your
> regime.

Yup, that's the one. If you bluff, be prepared for us to take you
seriously. The end.

By the way, CM, when you top-post, people have to fix that to follow
up to you with context. Please dont' do that.

Dave Hinz

On Sat, 11 Sep 2004 09:51:04 -0700, PJMalone <[email protected]> wrote:
> Two cents worth from a lurker:
>
> The whole Swift Boat/National Guard stuff is a distraction. There are far
> more important issues than things that happened thirty years ago.

Yes, you're right, there are more important things. Like voting record
and attendance at meetings one is supposed to be at, for instance,
which is why I have a huge problem with Kerry.

> The
> question really should be "what kind of America do you want to have"?

Indeed.

> Do we want a president who thinks its okay to lock up people, including
> American citizens, simply on his say-so?

Let's see. If you're fighting against our army, not in uniform, then
you aren't an enemy soldier, you're someone pretending to be a
civilian but you aren't. Hm, what could _possibly_ go wrong with that?

> No charges placed, no access to
> council or even to family members, no trial, and no release date other than
> "when the war against terror" is over? Whatever happened to the US
> Constitution?

Doesn't apply; when you join the enemy, you forfeit that, don't you.

> Kerry may well NOT be the best person for the job. But Bush is the worst
> thing to happen to DC since the British burned it in the War of 1812. Kerry
> could hardly worse.

I disagree profoundly with Kerry on several issues that are important to
me, so I'll be voting against him. Seeing how he lied about the Assault
Weapons Ban, equating them to machine guns (they're not) and saying that
lifting the ban on cosmetic features such as bayonet lugs and flash
surpressors makes Americans more at danger from Terrorists (what an absurd
thing to say, yet he said it)... He's another slicky-boy politician who
can't tell the truth about anything. I don't trust him any more than
I trusted Clinton, they're both cut from the same cloth. Then the guy
misses what, 70%? 80%? of his senate obligations, and he wants a
freaking promotion?

I don't think so.

On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 08:13:05 GMT, Bob Martin <[email protected]> wrote:
> Larry Blanchard wrote:
>> are you seriously suggesting we go to war with every
>> country controlled by a ruthless dictator?
>
> There are worse things a major power could do !

Yup. Give notice; "Shape up or we'll take you out". They bluster and
ignore. We go in, take 'em out, and get out, giving notice "Behave or
we'll come back and take out the next one."

On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 19:25:16 GMT, Dan White <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> "Dave Hinz" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> I disagree profoundly with Kerry on several issues that are important to
>> me, so I'll be voting against him.
>
> Actually, the worst thing to happen to DC since the British burned it in the
> War of 1812 is the ramming of a commercial airplane into the pentagon. The
> problem with many people who don't like Bush is that they seem to forget
> what we are up against.

They don't _forget_, they make the mistake of thinking we should
_negotiate_ with 'em. Of course, the people who are intent on killing
us see that as a sign of weakness, as evidenced by the Clinton non-actions
in this regard. But, they'll not notice that it didn't work and caused
more problems, will they.

> 1000 deaths in the military including traffic
> accidents? That's GREAT! It is unbelieveable how low that number is. I'd
> have to look it up, but I think the military loses something like 350 every
> year in peace time just due to accidents. So take maybe 500 off that 1000.
> For those who don't think we should have lost any, you are really just
> saying that we shouldn't be fighting at all. Look at past wars and we lose
> far more than that in one battle.

It's not like anyone was drafted into today's army, and it's not like
one volunteers to join the army without knowing what they may be getting
into, considering the options, and deciding to do the noble thing and join.

Dave Hinz

On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 15:27:46 -0400, Renata <[email protected]> wrote:
> And your boy is a lily white pure truthful soul, huh?
>
> Let's take an example of his truthfulness:
> "Health Care Humbug

Snip of article from
> Thursday, September 16, 2004; Page A30 Washington Post
...which is the pinnacle of unbiased reporting

My point is that on an issue I understand intimately, Kerry's lies are
blatant and obvious. There are more subtle issues that I do not have
as complete of knowledge on, but it's reasonable to expect that since
he lies so completely on this one topic, it's likely that he's lying on
other topics to an equivalent degree.

My point also included the thought that, since neither one of 'em are
someone I'd care to take to dinner, I'm picking the one whose record is
closest to my personal point of view.

On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 18:23:47 -0700, CW <> wrote:
> Try to get the name right. When you bottom post, it forces people to wade
> through everything they have already read.

So learn to freaking _trim_ unneeded text. You don't talk backwards,
why would you write that way?

> Sorry for those that have 3
> minute memories but most of us don't have that problem.

So you're not only inconsiderate, but you're insulting. Lovely.
Are you like this in person, or just when hiding behind a fake name
on the Intarweb?

I notice you don't address my actual points. Does that mean you're
done?

On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 20:53:39 -0700, CW <> wrote:
> You really do have a problem, don't you? I would suggest professional help.
> It might not be to late.

Let me put this more simply. People come here to communicate. Your choice
of top-posting impedes that. That's a good way to get put into the
"killfile" and outright ignored. It's one thing to be ignorant, but
you're showing that ignorance isn't the problem here.

On Mon, 20 Sep 2004 10:03:26 -0500, Al Spohn <[email protected]> wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
>>
>> Doesn't apply; when you join the enemy, you forfeit that, don't you.
>
> Right, and who makes the determination that someone has "joined the
> enemy?"

Well, I'd say turning up in, say, Afghanistan, training with the Taliban,
would be one good sign that you've decided to join the enemy. Yes?

>> I disagree profoundly with Kerry on several issues that are important to
>> me, so I'll be voting against him. Seeing how he lied about the Assault
>> Weapons Ban, equating them to machine guns (they're not) (SNIP)

> I agree that Kerry's opinion in this regard is totally brain-dead.
> However it's also pretty run-of-the-mill and pretty broadly held
> (granted, doesn't say much for the average IQ.)

So you tolerate his lies since all politicians lie? OK, perhaps, but
if it's a given they're all untrustworthy, then at least decide which issues
matter most to you, and pick the one whose _actions_ agree with your
beliefs.

>> I don't trust him any more than
>> I trusted Clinton, they're both cut from the same cloth. Then the guy
>> misses what, 70%? 80%? of his senate obligations, and he wants a
>> freaking promotion? I don't think so.

> I see, but it doesn't bother you that Bush had taken 250 days off as of
> August 2003 (27% of his presidency spent on vacation) - compared to the
> average American having 13 days off a year?

"Not in the White House" does not equal "Not working". Kerry missing
say 75% of meetings he's supposed to be at, _does_ equal "not working".

> And if you want to bring
> Clinton into the mix, he took off a total of 152 days in the entirety of
> his first two terms.

Shame he wasn't gone more, actually.

> Please spare me the "working vacation" stuff - that's
> easily on par with Clinton's "didn't inhale."

OK, if you want to believe it, there's obviously no way I'll change that.
But even if you dislike W, wouldn't him not being at work be _good_ for
you then?

On Mon, 20 Sep 2004 11:04:38 -0500, Al Spohn <[email protected]> wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
> says...
(massive snip)

>> So you tolerate his lies since all politicians lie?
>
> Yes.

Hold your nose and pull the lever, yup.

>> OK, perhaps, but
>> if it's a given they're all untrustworthy, then at least decide which issues
>> matter most to you, and pick the one whose _actions_ agree with your
>> beliefs.
>
> I agree completely. And although Kerry's opinion on the weapons stuff
> is idiotic, it's not something that I'm passionate about. But I have no
> problem with it shaping your voting decision.

It's not just his view on them, it's how he completly misrepresents
what the issue is about. If it was "I agree with the AWB because
I'm anti-gun (he is)", fine, I disagree with him. But when he
says "Lifting the AWB is bad because it helps terrorists", and when
he equates the ban to anything involving machine guns (it doesn't),
it just turns my stomach. How badly is he lying to us on topics
I don't understand as completely? I don't know, but I'm not planning
to find out.

>> "Not in the White House" does not equal "Not working". Kerry missing
>> say 75% of meetings he's supposed to be at, _does_ equal "not working".
>
> I don't follow this logic. 2/3's of the meetings I am supposed to be at
> are a total waste of time.

According to http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=241 ,
Kerry missed 77.6% of the meetings of the Senate Intelligence Committee
while he was a member, from 1993 to January 2001. If 77.6% of the
meetings of that committee are a total waste of time, I would think
that someone who was on it for 8 years would have some pull in
fixing that...if he cared to bother... Note that I don't know the
slant if any of factcheck.org, so I don't know if it needs to
be checked.

> In fact, I'm serving my users/benefactors
> more by getting something 'real' done instead of sitting through the
> meeting. I don't know for a fact that this is the case with Kerry, but
> it certainly illustrates that not being at meetings does not necessarily
> mean not working.

Well, it certainly _sounds_ like something that should be important,
and apparently it wasn't important enough for him to attend, _or_
important enough to him for him to stay in. Now, for election time,
he says it's really important, conveniently enough.

> Why should I take for granted that Bush is working
> while not in the White House (translation, in Crawford or Kennebunkport)
> but that Kerry isn't while absent from meetings?

Well, if he wasn't at the meetings, he shouldn't be claiming he cared
about topic. His actions speak pretty loudly on this one.

>> > Please spare me the "working vacation" stuff - that's
>> > easily on par with Clinton's "didn't inhale."
>>
>> OK, if you want to believe it, there's obviously no way I'll change that.
>
> Sure you can, I'm all ears. But I would expect you to be open to the
> possibility that Kerry might be doing something worthwhile when not
> attending meetings in Washington.

Could be, but as I say, then he should explain why he missed 77.6% of
them. "They were BS meetings"? Great, then why are they having
meetings that don't mean anything? "I lost interest and didn't
feel it was important, until it became politically necessary
to pretend otherwise" is what I'm seeing. If you're not going
to participate fully in a group, don't participate at all, and
make room for someone else.

>> But even if you dislike W, wouldn't him not being at work be _good_ for
>> you then?
>
> It doesn't bother me for that very reason. I just thought it odd that
> you were bothered by Kerry's frequent absences but not by Bush's
> notorious vacation times.

I'm not _bothered by_ them, but I would like him to explain himself.

Dave Hinz

On Tue, 05 Oct 2004 11:08:35 -0700, Larry Jaques <novalidaddress@di> wrote:
> On Tue, 05 Oct 2004 02:25:42 GMT, "Lew Hodgett"
><[email protected]> calmly ranted:
>
>>After last week's debate, I understand why some identify our president by
>>using an nickname, "Shrub".
> What else would you call a small Bush?
>
>>It would seem to fit.
> Indubitably.

It's good to know you guys made your decision on, you know, things that
matter.

On Tue, 5 Oct 2004 15:28:22 -0500, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> This has been discussed before. Enter the CEO's with uncannily similar
> physical appearances, and you can also spot a congress critter by his
> coiffure ... no "haircuts" there.

Actually, our representative (Jim Sensenbrenner) has pretty much that
whole "regular guy" thing going on, no false pretenses. "Here's who
I am, here's what I believe, and if you agree with me more than you
disagree with me, I'd like to get your vote" kind of a guy.
Definately "haircut" rather than "hairstyle" there. Not saying he's
typical, though.

Guy has amazing memory. He comes to our Fireman's Picnic every
year to talk to folks. I ran into him elsewhere, completely out of
context, and he greeted me with "Hi Dave, how are things in (home town)?".
I see the guy once a year, and he's got _that_ good of a memory.
(No, I wasn't wearing a nametag or my home town on my jacket or
anything).

So, they're not all fakey like the two trying to become pres & VP
at the moment...


Dave Hinz

On Sat, 11 Sep 2004 03:53:19 GMT, "Dan White"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>> "Dave Hinz" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>> > How about we just limit it to ruthless dictators who have directly
>> > threatened us, and have shown the ability and willingness to carry
>> > through? Would that work for ya, Larry?
>> >
>
>"CW" <no adddress@spam free.com> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> And who would that be?
>>
>
>The same one who tried to assassinate one of our presidents and shoot down
>our pilots. For me, there should be a simple policy. If you are caught
>trying to assissinate our president, we reserve the right to remove your
>regime.
>
>dwhite
>



yabut....
that same president of ours tried to assasinate him. they both failed,
and I pretty much figured that score was even.

Statistics favor the tall in (presumably pre affirmative action) job
interviews and presidents.

When you can't/won't think, you pretty much have to go on trivial things.

"Dave Hinz" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Tue, 05 Oct 2004 11:08:35 -0700, Larry Jaques <novalidaddress@di>
wrote:
> > On Tue, 05 Oct 2004 02:25:42 GMT, "Lew Hodgett"
> ><[email protected]> calmly ranted:
> >
> >>After last week's debate, I understand why some identify our president
by
> >>using an nickname, "Shrub".
> > What else would you call a small Bush?
> >
> >>It would seem to fit.
> > Indubitably.
>
> It's good to know you guys made your decision on, you know, things that
> matter.

I'd probably get the Porter Cable, mostly because I don't like yellow tools.

[email protected] (ModerateLeft) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> It sure is.
>
> Is lying about the reason for a war an impeachable offense?
> By John W. Dean, *former counsel to President Nixon*
>
> http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/06/06/findlaw.analysis.dean.wmd/

Steve Knight <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> the debates are a joke. they have a 30 page list of what they can and can't do.
> there is no real debating anymore. 20/20 did a great report on it.


There is great fear on both sides about having a wide open real debate
ala Lincoln-Douglas. Personally I would prefer such a debate
between the candidates without interference from a moderator (except
for enforcing a very few administrative rules - like potty breaks and
time limits). Such a debate would not do well on TV though, as TV
needs short sound bites to be effective. It would also favor
substance over style which would tend to give Bush a huge advantage so
Kerry probably would never agree to such a thing, because eventually
he would be forced to say what he really believes as opposed to what
the Clinton people are telling him to say so he has a chance of being
elected.

Personally I think Kerry had a better shot at it if he had just come
clean and said what he thinks, although now he really can't do that.
After being lied to and scammed almost continuously for the 8 years of
the Clinton administration, I suspect enough of the voters are able to
spot someone who is just saying what he thinks he has to say to get by
instead of what he really believes.

Kerry came close to telling the truth about what he really believes
when he said US action has to pass a "global test". He has always
believed that the US should not use force in its national intersts
without permission from the UN and has been very clear about this
throughout the last 30+ years, and even voted against the first gulf
war which did have UN sanction. Interestingly, he did not apply this
logic to the Balkans effort of the Clinton era.

The other problem with such a format is that it cannot be controlled.
Its bound to get into areas no one wants to discuss such as the oil
for food scam where Sadaam used a humanatarian program to bribe
European and Russain officials to sell him arms. This is a huge hot
potatoe that no one wants to deal with. I have to wonder just what
will happen with the congressional investigation that is going on now.
Will anyone ever be locked up for this? Probably not since many UN
officials have diplomatic cover. It also might open up other areas
for discussion such as the selling of arms to Sadaam by the French,
Russians, and Germans while there were UN sanctions against such
sales.

My guess is Kerry really believes in the UN nonsense, which makes him
far more dangerous than a guy like Clinton who believed in nothing
other than what was in his own best interest at the time.

Its entirely likely that the Islamic terrorist problem will not go
away anytime soon. My guess is those of us over 40 will probably die
wondering if Americans will ever feel safe again getting on a
commercial aircraft. It's certainly far better to go after them where
they live, train, and are supported than allowing them to strike
first, even if the intelligence you have is not complete. You have to
act on the information available to you at the time and all this
Monday morning quarterbacking about "no WMD" found is just politics.
John Kerry and other high ranking democrats had access to the same
intelligence infomration the Bush administration did and I don't
recall a single one of them did anything other then support the
position that Sadaam had WMD and was likely to distribute and/or use
them, and needed to be dealt with, including the use of force. What
bothers me is that its an absolute fact that he had chemical weapons,
and may well have had biological weapons, and no one seems to be all
that worried about what happenned to them. I would certainly feel
better if they turned up in Iraq rather than in the hands of some
group that imported them into the USA, but I suspect they passed over
to Syria prior to the invasion (remember how Sadaam sent his Air Force
to Iran during Gulf War I), and God only knows where they are now, or
who is in control of them.

Doesn't matter. There is no declaration of war.

"ModerateLeft" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> It sure is.
>
> Is lying about the reason for a war an impeachable offense?
> By John W. Dean, *former counsel to President Nixon*
>
> http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/06/06/findlaw.analysis.dean.wmd/

I believe that a helicopter rather than a fighter jet is the "normal"
means of transportation in this sort of case.

Renata

On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 13:41:57 -0500, "Todd Fatheree" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>"Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>>
>> "Al Spohn" wrote in message
>>
>> > Kerry's emphasis on "serving" is pretty gross - bordering on being as
>> > ludicrous as Bush's visit to the aircraft carrier wearing a flight suit.
>>
>> Apples and oranges (or donkeys and elephants?). Last I heard it was
>required
>> by regulation to wear a flight suit in that type of aircraft ... at least
>it
>> was the only time I had the pleasure.
>>
>> --
>> www.e-woodshop.net
>> Last update: 7/10/04
>
>By God, if I ever got to fly in a AF jet, I'd want a flight suit, too. But
>you know, I never thought about it before...what else should he have been
>wearing? Maybe Air Force One should have been fitted with a hook so that it
>could just land on the carrier. I suppose the President should have just
>worn a business suit.
>
>todd
>

You really do have a problem, don't you? I would suggest professional help.
It might not be to late.

"Todd Fatheree" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:1qmdnXSt1sM_PtbcRVn-> .pointer the for Thanks .read to easier way is
This
> .mean you what see I , Wow .differently taught were people some guess I
> but, bottom to top
> from read to taught was I , Personally .read to like you how is this
guess
> I
>
>

"Al Spohn" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:MPG.1bbb3f76e36f4a229896f8@mayonews...
> In article <[email protected]>, dwhite110
> @optonline.net says...
> > "Al Spohn" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:MPG.1bb8d7cc493fd7a49896f7@mayonews...
> > >
> > > I'd be curious as to what the normal rate of absenteeism is in
> > > Washington, particularly for those running for the Presidency. His
> > > behavior in this regard only marks him as a politician in my book, and
> > > doesn't rule him out as a viable candidate for the presidency.
> > >
> >
> > I see you're setting the bar pretty high there for electing our next
> > president...leader of the free world. With that attitude it is no
wonder we
> > are getting what we deserve in politicians.
>
> Well, I could always loosen my standards a little if you really insist
> on electing Bush :-). If you think that anybody that bubbles to the top
> in Washington does so in the absence of dirty tricks, pandering to
> corporate interests (democrat and republican,) and otherwise doing
> whatever it takes to put themselves in a position to "make a
> difference," you're either terribly naive or are enjoying some form of
> chemically induced optimism (back away from the table saw :-))

No, I agree with you there. Bottom line is I see two candidates before us.
One who understands the challenges in the world today and is acting on it,
and one who is just saying anything to get elected.

>
> > > As would I, but I hope you'll hold Bush to the same standard regarding
> > > his vacation time.
> > >
> >
> > You keep saying it is vacation, but to anyone with an objective
viewpoint,
> > it is not. Why do you keep calling it vacation? It just isn't.
>
> How is it that when Kerry misses a meeting, or lots of meetings, the
> only possibility is that he's off screwing around wasting tax payers
> money (mind you, I'm not saying he isn't - I'm just saying the issue is
> never open to question.) But when Bush is in Crawford or Kennebunkport
> 27% of the time, he's obviously hard at work?
>
> From an *objective* standpoint, can you tell me why he needs to be in
> Crawford or Kennebunkport to do his job if it's not to be in a more
> vacation-like atmosphere? Better satellite coverage in Crawford, maybe?
> Or perhaps the decision enhancing nutrients inherent in Kennebunkport
> lobsters?
>
> My suspicion is that Kerry is screwing off some of the time and getting
> more important work done some of the time when he's supposed to be in
> meetings. And yes, Bush is probably getting a fair amount of work done
> between beers in Crawford and Kennebunkport. I just find it ironic for
> Bush supporters to point at Kerry's attendance record when Bush is
> setting records for his time away from Washington in places generally
> acknowledged to be more relaxation retreats than places associated with
> conducting presidential business.
>
Crawford? Vacation? I guess you've never been to Crawford. :) I really
don't see a parallel between Kerry missing meetings on national security vs
where Bush gets work done. Voters are looking for someone who can make the
country safer and to make the evaluation you have to look at the resume, not
only at what they say now. Here's a guy who missed most of his meetings on
national security -- not a good thing by any stretch. People make time for
the things they believe are important.

dwhite

In article <[email protected]>, "James T. Kirby" <[email protected]> wrote:
>Heh, if lying about sex is an impeachable offense (not!),

Actually, it is.

Ann Coulter's book "High Crimes and Misdemeanors" gives a thorough exposition
of the history of impeachment as a tool for removing corrupt public officials,
and shows convincingly that it was intended from the beginning, and has
historically been used, for just that purpose: removing officials whose
immoral or unethical behavior demonstrates that they are unworthy of public
office or trust.

In any event, Clinton was *not* impeached for "lying about sex". He was
impeached for having committed the _felony_crime_ of lying while _under_oath_.
The subject of the lie was not relevant to the bill of impeachment.

>then certainly a lie
>that has gotten many thousands of people killed certainly is.

Fine -- then let's impeach all the Democrats that said _exactly_ the same
things about Saddam and Iraq that GWB said. If he was lying, so were they.
See <http://www.rightwingnews.com/quotes/demsonwmds.php> for examples.

FWIW, the war has killed fewer people -- on both sides -- than typically died
in Saddam's prisons and torture chambers in an equivalent period of time.

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

Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter
by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
You must use your REAL email address to get a response.

"sam" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:svQ%[email protected]...
> [My first post didn't make it past the censors...2nd try...]
>
> ...But don't forget the joint resolution allowing the President to attack
> Iraq: they had (or should have had) access to the same info the pres. did.
>
> -------------------
<snip>

Heck, Kerry couldn't be bothered to attend Senate Intelligence committee
meetings 3/4 of the time while he was a member, so why would he bother with
reading the Iraq info? In fact, he was so concerned with intelligence that
you know how many of the four meetings he attended in the year following the
first WTC attack? That's right...none. I guess he feels it's better to be
able to play dumb in case things go wrong "duhhhh....I was only going with
what the President told me".

todd

"Fred the Red Shirt" wrote in message

> "Swingman" wrote in message

> > I am not a Republican ... I just don't like being taken for a blind
fool.
>
> I hope you're not a Democrat either. Political parties are fundamentally
> destructive of Democracy.

Have NO fear on that count ... ;>)

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

Australopithecus scobis <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> On Tue, 07 Sep 2004 19:38:13 -0400, Bill Rogers wrote:
>
> > Not half as much offensive as posting this useless crap in a
> > woodworking newsgroup.
> >
> > Bill.
>
> Just turn on a filter. Searching for '^OT' works well. OTOH, think of it
> as BSing around the cracker barrel. If your newsreader supports scores,
> you can hide the OT posts without zapping them; then when you're in the
> mood for some persiflage, the OTs are still there for your enjoyment.
>
> Anyway, it's Usenet.

Unfortunately, this thread is not marked as "OT" and doesn't include
many of the most common words that those not wanting politics with
their woodworking would normally filter on. I guess if your filter was
left over from the Clinton years you might still have "impeac*" in
your filter and I guess some might have "war" in the filter, but
otherwise this thread wouldn't get caught by most filters. By the same
token, the delete key still works.

Dave Hall

And your boy is a lily white pure truthful soul, huh?

Let's take an example of his truthfulness:

"Health Care Humbug

Thursday, September 16, 2004; Page A30 Washington Post

AMERICANS HAVE come to expect political ads to stretch the truth, but
a recent duo from the Bush campaign cross the line. One, titled
"Medicare Hypocrisy," tries to blame Democratic nominee John F. Kerry
for the recent hike in Medicare premiums. The second, called
"Healthcare: Practical vs. Big Government," says the Kerry health care
plan would amount to a "government-run healthcare plan" costing a
whopping $1.5 trillion over 10 years.

On the matter of Medicare premiums, Mr. Kerry landed the first
below-the-belt punch. Seizing on the news of a 17.5 percent increase
in Medicare premiums, the Kerry spot said President Bush "imposes the
biggest Medicare premium increase in history" -- as if the decision
about how much seniors would pay were up to Mr. Bush, rather than
determined by a preset formula. Still, if Mr. Bush didn't "impose" the
premium hike, he's not blameless, either: The biggest part of the
increase is attributable to higher payments to physicians provided by
the new Medicare bill that he backed; another chunk is the result of
the bill's extra payments to insurers to induce them to offer coverage
to seniors.

The Bush campaign responded with an ad that made the Kerry campaign
look like a model of honest rhetoric. "John Kerry: He actually voted
for higher Medicare premiums -- before he came out against them," the
Bush ad said, managing to simultaneously blame Mr. Kerry and summon
the Kerry-as-flip-flopper image. The ad seeks to score points off Mr.
Kerry's statement that a 1997 law instituting the premium formula was
a "day of vindication for Americans" -- as if Mr. Kerry had been
celebrating socking it to seniors. In fact, the law, the Balanced
Budget Act of 1997, included a well-intentioned effort to rein in
Medicare costs, but what Mr. Kerry was praising was its child tax
credits for working-class families and expanded coverage for uninsured
children. Does Mr. Bush disagree with that assessment?

This week the Bush campaign unveiled an ad accusing Mr. Kerry of
advocating "a government-run healthcare plan" that puts "Washington
bureaucrats in control." This is not a caricature of Mr. Kerry's plan
-- it's fiction. The cost of Mr. Kerry's plan is open to debate; the
Kerry campaign puts it at $653 billion, while the Bush campaign, not
surprisingly, cites the $1.5 trillion estimate of a conservative think
tank. What's not open to debate is the falsity of the Bush campaign's
description of the Kerry plan as "a hostile government takeover of our
nation's health care system."

In fact, what's striking about Mr. Kerry's approach is the degree to
which it builds on the existing system. There are no employer
mandates, no price controls, no premium caps; instead, Mr. Kerry seeks
to lessen the financial pressure on employers through a voluntary
program in which the government would shoulder some of the costs of
catastrophic care. He also attempts to lower insurance costs for
individuals and small businesses by letting them buy into a version of
the plan offered to federal employees. And he would expand coverage
for, among others, uninsured children -- in the very government
program for which Mr. Bush pledged, in his nomination acceptance
speech, to "lead an aggressive effort to enroll millions of poor
children who are eligible but not signed up."

There's a legitimate debate to be had about the wisdom of the two
campaigns' health plans. But so far no one's having it.
"

On 16 Sep 2004 15:17:41 GMT, Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote:

-snip-
>I disagree profoundly with Kerry on several issues that are important to
>me, so I'll be voting against him. Seeing how he lied about the Assault
>Weapons Ban, equating them to machine guns (they're not) and saying that
>lifting the ban on cosmetic features such as bayonet lugs and flash
>surpressors makes Americans more at danger from Terrorists (what an absurd
>thing to say, yet he said it)... He's another slicky-boy politician who
>can't tell the truth about anything. I don't trust him any more than
>I trusted Clinton, they're both cut from the same cloth. Then the guy
>misses what, 70%? 80%? of his senate obligations, and he wants a
>freaking promotion?
>
>I don't think so.

"Larry Jaques" writes:

> I did love Kerry's statement about the totally uninspected
> cargo areas vs. the overly-inspected person/baggage area
> on any given passenger flight.
<snip>

I'm glad I don't have to fly any more on a regular basis.

It's got to be a nightmare for the typical "Road Warrior" these days.

My boat yard is less than a mile from the Los Angeles/Long Beach port,
largest container port on the left coast.

The port security just makes you all warm and fuzzy<G>.

Lew

I guess a little common sense would do wonders for your out look. But I
guess your brain is set in Democrat mode.


"ModerateLeft" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> It sure is.
>
> Is lying about the reason for a war an impeachable offense?
> By John W. Dean, *former counsel to President Nixon*
>
> http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/06/06/findlaw.analysis.dean.wmd/

We had a war that I didn't hear about? When was that?

"Renata" <[email protected]> wrote in message , isn't not following a
> direct order during a time of war, treason (the ole skipped physical
> was actually an ole ordered-to-report-to physical)?
>

"Al Spohn" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:MPG.1bbb41862ea5addd9896f9@mayonews...

> Your point is well taken. And in the context of this thread, I think
> anyone involved with bureaucracy can site tons of meetings where showing
> up 10% of the time and getting real work done in meantime makes more
> sense than a consistent attendance record. I don't know enough to say
> that this is the case with the meetings Kerry is missing (although my
> experience with the Defense Dept bureaucracy surely makes this a
> believable possibility,) but I'm saying the concept at least warrants
> investigation before condemning him.
>

OK, bottom line, no BS. You have a guy tooting his horn on how he is a
member of the security council and that is a real feather in his cap at this
point in time. Then you find out he missed most of the meetings, staff or
no staff, he missed them. Doesn't this mean anything? How can an observer
not think this is a negative?

dwhite

I've never seen anything more than claims about the assassination attempt.
As for trying to shoot down our planes, they were in Iraqi airspace. What
would we do about unauthorized foreign fighter aircraft in our airspace?

"Dan White" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> > "Dave Hinz" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> > > How about we just limit it to ruthless dictators who have directly
> > > threatened us, and have shown the ability and willingness to carry
> > > through? Would that work for ya, Larry?
> > >
>
> "CW" <no adddress@spam free.com> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > And who would that be?
> >
>
> The same one who tried to assassinate one of our presidents and shoot down
> our pilots. For me, there should be a simple policy. If you are caught
> trying to assissinate our president, we reserve the right to remove your
> regime.
>
> dwhite
>
>

"George" wrote in message
> Statistics favor the tall in (presumably pre affirmative action) job
> interviews and presidents.
>
> When you can't/won't think, you pretty much have to go on trivial things.

This has been discussed before. Enter the CEO's with uncannily similar
physical appearances, and you can also spot a congress critter by his
coiffure ... no "haircuts" there.

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

In article <[email protected]>, Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote:

>[Kerry]'s another slicky-boy politician who
>can't tell the truth about anything. I don't trust him any more than
>I trusted Clinton, they're both cut from the same cloth.

There's one respect in which Kerry is a significant improvement over Clinton.
Although he's just as big a liar, he's nowhere *nearly* as skillful at it, nor
as convincing. Which makes his lies much easier to spot, and therefore much
less dangerous.

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

Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter
by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
You must use your REAL email address to get a response.

Two cents worth from a lurker:

The whole Swift Boat/National Guard stuff is a distraction. There are far
more important issues than things that happened thirty years ago. The
question really should be "what kind of America do you want to have"?

Do we want a president who thinks its okay to lock up people, including
American citizens, simply on his say-so? No charges placed, no access to
council or even to family members, no trial, and no release date other than
"when the war against terror" is over? Whatever happened to the US
Constitution? It could be that the people locked up (Jose Padilla for one)
are guilty of horrible crimes. If so its up to the government to prove that
in a court of law. This is supposed to be a government of laws, not of men.

Then there are the violations of the Geneva Conventions. These acts
strongly concern me as a veteran. Holding people as "ghost prisoners" (i.e.
without notice to anyone including the Red Cross) and the torture of the
prisoners at Abu Graib and so on violate the provisions of those conventions
which establish minimum standards for the treatment of prisoners of war.
That creates a moral precedent that other nations _will_ use against
captured Americans. Responsibility for Abu Graib starts at the top.

It could be argued that the Abu Graib torture does not violate the
conventions based on some legalistic interpretation of the documents. But
to the rest of the world this carries as much weight as Clinton's "meaning
of is is" did to his opponents. Remember: people act not on what is true
but on what they perceive to be true. The US being "bad guys" at that
prison predictably has to be the inspiration for the young and hot blooded
to strike out against us. Rather than make us safer Bush has made us less
safe.

Another issue: Bush's spending. Doesn't anybody's memory extend to ten
years back? One of the primary items in the Republicans 1994 "Contract for
America" was fiscal responsibility. Among other provisions that list of
proposed legislation included a constitutional amendment requiring a
balanced budget. Instead being fiscally responsibility Bush has been
throwing money into Iraq by the bushel full. From a surplus in the budget
to the current enormous deficit in just three years. What's wrong with this
picture? Whatever happened to paying as you go? The Republicans _were_ the
party of fiscal responsibility not that of profligate spending.

Much could be written about Bush's economic policies. Most of it bad. I
know that the US has lost over a million good paying jobs. The few jobs
created under Bush's economic policies mostly pay less. I am out of work
and have been for some time. If I am lucky I will get a job that pays half
of what I was making before. If lucky I might get paid as much in 2004 as I
did in 1985.

Kerry may well NOT be the best person for the job. But Bush is the worst
thing to happen to DC since the British burned it in the War of 1812. Kerry
could hardly worse.

Patricia Malone


"Todd Fatheree" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Man, I can't wait for this election. When Kerry loses, the left in this
> country is going to have their heads spinning right off their bodies! But
> nice way to try to confuse the issue. I'm not a military man, but I don't
> believe that not following a direct order, if that's what actually
> happened,
> would be considered treason. Perhaps insubordination. In fact, there are
> times when you should not follow a direct order. Say, for instance, that
> your superiors order you to establish a free-fire zone in an area with
> civilians. That is contrary to the Geneva convention and you have the
> duty
> to refuse the follow an illegal order. "I was just following orders"
> doesn't quite cut it.
>
> todd
>
> "Renata" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> I fixed your sentence for you.
>> I mean, really!, when discussing _questionable_ military service,
>> ole shrub is leaps and bounds ahead of poor ole kerry. and more keeps
>> coming outta the woodwork (hey! got in a OWWR).
>>
>> in fact, on a related note to impeachable, isn't not following a
>> direct order during a time of war, treason (the ole skipped physical
>> was actually an ole ordered-to-report-to physical)?
>>
>> Renata
>>
>> On Thu, 09 Sep 2004 17:48:31 GMT, "NoOne N Particular"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> -snip-
>> >I am more afraid of Bush. Questionable military service aside,
>> --------
>> -snip
>
>

After last week's debate, I understand why some identify our president by
using an nickname, "Shrub".

It would seem to fit.

Lew

"Fred the Red Shirt" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Reports are that Burkett first approached the Kerry Campaign with the
> material and they declined to use it.
>

LOL. You mean the way Clinton never had sexual relations with that woman?
No, actually "reports" are that the Kerry Campaign SAYS they had nothing to
do with it. The jury is still out and I have a feeling some enterprising
reporter will get close to the truth eventually.

dwhite

Man, I can't wait for this election. When Kerry loses, the left in this
country is going to have their heads spinning right off their bodies! But
nice way to try to confuse the issue. I'm not a military man, but I don't
believe that not following a direct order, if that's what actually happened,
would be considered treason. Perhaps insubordination. In fact, there are
times when you should not follow a direct order. Say, for instance, that
your superiors order you to establish a free-fire zone in an area with
civilians. That is contrary to the Geneva convention and you have the duty
to refuse the follow an illegal order. "I was just following orders"
doesn't quite cut it.

todd

"Renata" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I fixed your sentence for you.
> I mean, really!, when discussing _questionable_ military service,
> ole shrub is leaps and bounds ahead of poor ole kerry. and more keeps
> coming outta the woodwork (hey! got in a OWWR).
>
> in fact, on a related note to impeachable, isn't not following a
> direct order during a time of war, treason (the ole skipped physical
> was actually an ole ordered-to-report-to physical)?
>
> Renata
>
> On Thu, 09 Sep 2004 17:48:31 GMT, "NoOne N Particular"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> -snip-
> >I am more afraid of Bush. Questionable military service aside,
> --------
> -snip

"Dave Hinz" writes:

> It's good to know you guys made your decision on, you know, things that
> matter.

Interesting.

I made an observation, not a decision.

Lew

"PJMalone" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Two cents worth from a lurker:
>
> Do we want a president who thinks its okay to lock up people, including
> American citizens, simply on his say-so? No charges placed, no access to
> council or even to family members, no trial, and no release date other
than
> "when the war against terror" is over?

That's not a fair characterization of how enemy combatants and others are
treated, particularly under the Patriot Act.

> Whatever happened to the US
> Constitution? It could be that the people locked up (Jose Padilla for
one)
> are guilty of horrible crimes. If so its up to the government to prove
that
> in a court of law. This is supposed to be a government of laws, not of
men.

Why do people continue to bemoan the destruction of the Constitution when
the Supreme Court has already ruled that the Patriot Act is not
unconstitutional. I bet they know more about it than people with vague
accusations of wrongdoing for political spin.

>
> Then there are the violations of the Geneva Conventions. These acts
> strongly concern me as a veteran. Holding people as "ghost prisoners"
(i.e.
> without notice to anyone including the Red Cross) and the torture of the
> prisoners at Abu Graib and so on violate the provisions of those
conventions
> which establish minimum standards for the treatment of prisoners of war.
> That creates a moral precedent that other nations _will_ use against
> captured Americans. Responsibility for Abu Graib starts at the top.

No, what will creat a moral precedent is what we as a country do to the
handful of people out of over a hundred thousand who are going to be
convicted.

>
> It could be argued that the Abu Graib torture does not violate the
> conventions based on some legalistic interpretation of the documents. But
> to the rest of the world this carries as much weight as Clinton's "meaning
> of is is" did to his opponents. Remember: people act not on what is true
> but on what they perceive to be true. The US being "bad guys" at that
> prison predictably has to be the inspiration for the young and hot blooded
> to strike out against us. Rather than make us safer Bush has made us less
> safe.

Have you heard any of the inverviews with Iraqis just after the photos came
out? The reports I heard said that they didn't even see how this was
torture. Those people know torture. Barking dogs, underwear and nekked
pyramids ain't it. I'm not defending what they did. It was wrong for many
reasons, but let's have a little perspective here.

>
> Another issue: Bush's spending. Doesn't anybody's memory extend to ten
> years back? One of the primary items in the Republicans 1994 "Contract
for
> America" was fiscal responsibility. Among other provisions that list of
> proposed legislation included a constitutional amendment requiring a
> balanced budget.

Which stipulated exceptions in case of emergencies or time of war.

> Instead being fiscally responsibility Bush has been
> throwing money into Iraq by the bushel full.

Actually congress has done that. The president can't spend a nickel without
congress.

> From a surplus in the budget
> to the current enormous deficit in just three years. What's wrong with
this
> picture? Whatever happened to paying as you go? The Republicans _were_
the
> party of fiscal responsibility not that of profligate spending.

I agree that he is spending too much on domestic programs. The prescription
drug think is a travesty. I think you know what happened to that surplus,
but don't want to recognize it for some reason. 1) lagging economy at the
end of the Clinton admin and 90's market bubble burst, and 2) 9/11.

>
> Much could be written about Bush's economic policies. Most of it bad. I
> know that the US has lost over a million good paying jobs. The few jobs
> created under Bush's economic policies mostly pay less.

Alan Greenspan just refuted that notion as baseless. Please get back to
your leaders and ask for better talking points.

> I am out of work
> and have been for some time. If I am lucky I will get a job that pays
half
> of what I was making before. If lucky I might get paid as much in 2004 as
I
> did in 1985.

Sorry to hear that, but you think the president is responsible for whether
you find a job or not?

>
> Kerry may well NOT be the best person for the job. But Bush is the worst
> thing to happen to DC since the British burned it in the War of 1812.
Kerry
> could hardly worse.

A bit over the top, don't you think? You have yet to make a reasoned
conclusion based on real information, so I don't know what you have to be
upset about. If you learn the facts instead of repeating cliche's then
maybe you will see what's really going on, but somehow I doubt it.

I said my peace, and I realize that I shouldn't continue polluting this ng
with off topic stuff. So go ahead and call me some names and we'll be done
with this thread. :)

dwhite



>
> Patricia Malone
>
>
> "Todd Fatheree" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > Man, I can't wait for this election. When Kerry loses, the left in this
> > country is going to have their heads spinning right off their bodies!
But
> > nice way to try to confuse the issue. I'm not a military man, but I
don't
> > believe that not following a direct order, if that's what actually
> > happened,
> > would be considered treason. Perhaps insubordination. In fact, there
are
> > times when you should not follow a direct order. Say, for instance,
that
> > your superiors order you to establish a free-fire zone in an area with
> > civilians. That is contrary to the Geneva convention and you have the
> > duty
> > to refuse the follow an illegal order. "I was just following orders"
> > doesn't quite cut it.
> >
> > todd
> >
> > "Renata" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> >> I fixed your sentence for you.
> >> I mean, really!, when discussing _questionable_ military service,
> >> ole shrub is leaps and bounds ahead of poor ole kerry. and more keeps
> >> coming outta the woodwork (hey! got in a OWWR).
> >>
> >> in fact, on a related note to impeachable, isn't not following a
> >> direct order during a time of war, treason (the ole skipped physical
> >> was actually an ole ordered-to-report-to physical)?
> >>
> >> Renata
> >>
> >> On Thu, 09 Sep 2004 17:48:31 GMT, "NoOne N Particular"
> >> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> -snip-
> >> >I am more afraid of Bush. Questionable military service aside,
> >> --------
> >> -snip
> >
> >
>
>

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] (ModerateLeft) wrote:
>Is lying about the reason for a war an impeachable offense?

If it is, then we had *another* reason to impeach Clinton, and also John
Kerry, Teddy Kennedy, Tom Daschle, Madeleine Albright, Joe Lieberman, Dianne
Feinstein, Barbara Mikulski, Bob Graham, Tom Lantos, Sandy Berger, Barbara
Boxer, Robert Byrd, and many others, all of whom said _exactly_ the same
things about Saddam and Iraq that GWB did.
http://www.rightwingnews.com/quotes/demsonwmds.php


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

Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter
by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
You must use your REAL email address to get a response.

Dave Hinz wrote:
> On Wed, 8 Sep 2004 21:31:05 -0700, CW <> wrote:
>
>>Doesn't matter. There is no declaration of war.
>
>
> Last I checked, Gulf War 1 never ended, it was just a cease fire. No?
> Hell, technically we could re-start Korea without a declaration, as
> that one also isn't over.

There was no declaration of war in Korea either. Remember the term
"police action".
j4

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
[...]
> Kerry/4months-It bothers me a little that Kerry asked for and was
> denied a deferrment, then volunteered for the navy to avoid being
> drafted. It bothers me that after 4 months he asks to cut his tour
> short by almost a year using a loophole while others spent weeks in
> hospitals and still finished their tours. And the fact that he then
> went before congress and on TV calling all of us killers... yeah that
> stinks too. But it was all in the past and somewhat forgotten... and
> if he didn't make his "serving" the focal point of his campaign, it
> still would be forgotten. Kerry's bad.
[...]

And it doesn't bother you that Bush was in the national guard for the
same reasons? And that daddy used his influence to allow him to
leapfrog NG waiting lists to pull it off?

It's true that he does deserve some measure of credit for making it
through flight school, but for anyone that's ever been through the
process, there's flight school and there's VIP flight school. The
latter is all about the VIP saving face, keeping him alive, being
available for photo ops, and passing him on to the next level of
training responsibility at the earliest opportunity. I don't know
enough about Bush's record to say whether or not this is true in his
case (although he would be a prototypical candidate for such treatment)
- heck, he might have been a great pilot - but then again, so might have
Kerry had he decided on that particular flavor of evasion.

Kerry's emphasis on "serving" is pretty gross - bordering on being as
ludicrous as Bush's visit to the aircraft carrier wearing a flight suit.
I think it was an unfortunate question of percieved political expediency
in reaction to the public's perception that he wouldn't be "tough on
terror."

But I agree with the majority of your post. It's definitely "pick your
poison" time. I'd have been inclined to go with McCain too had he
decided to run, but more as a reward for what he suffered in Viet Nam
than anything else. That seems as valid a reason as any in today's
political climate.

- Al

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
>
> "Al Spohn" wrote in message
>
> > Kerry's emphasis on "serving" is pretty gross - bordering on being as
> > ludicrous as Bush's visit to the aircraft carrier wearing a flight suit.
>
> Apples and oranges (or donkeys and elephants?). Last I heard it was required
> by regulation to wear a flight suit in that type of aircraft ... at least it
> was the only time I had the pleasure.

Yeah, I guess that's probably still the case now that you mention it. I
think that he did jump into his Washington suit later on, too. All the
VIPs we flew with in the AF had to wear flight suits too, and they all
seemed to relish the swagger opportunity.

- Al

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
says...
> Not only is is "normal", apparently no other sitting president has ever done
> a tailhook landing on a carrier. But what fun is there in riding in a
> helicopter? What kind of pansy, given the choice to fly in a helicopter of
> a jet fighter, opts for helo? FWIW, the Navy said it was more comfortable
> with a jet landing as it afforded the opportunity to eject in case of a
> problem. Personally, it wouldn't matter either way to me. I'll even
> stipulate that it was partly political. Even so, so what? Any president is
> a politician, so it's not surprising that some of what they do is political.

Considering the tax payer dollars that go into keeping a president alive
(this was reinforced for me after witnessing Bush's urban assault
caravan scream through Rochester, MN yesterday,) it's ludicrous that any
standing president would travel to an aircraft carrier during time of
war regardless of the means of transport. I don't hold this against
Bush, though - political creatures that they are, I think any president
would have taken advantage of the opportunity. However, I would
stipulate that it was blatantly political - again, a motivation easily
within the comfort zone of any politician.

- Al

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
> On Sat, 11 Sep 2004 09:51:04 -0700, PJMalone <[email protected]> wrote:
[...]

> > No charges placed, no access to
> > council or even to family members, no trial, and no release date other than
> > "when the war against terror" is over? Whatever happened to the US
> > Constitution?
>
> Doesn't apply; when you join the enemy, you forfeit that, don't you.

Right, and who makes the determination that someone has "joined the
enemy?" How is it that they don't have the right to even contest that?
Because to do so might make then eligible for due process, which would
be *really* inconvenient in terms of getting another notch on Ashcroft's
belt.

> > Kerry may well NOT be the best person for the job. But Bush is the worst
> > thing to happen to DC since the British burned it in the War of 1812. Kerry
> > could hardly worse.
>
> I disagree profoundly with Kerry on several issues that are important to
> me, so I'll be voting against him. Seeing how he lied about the Assault
> Weapons Ban, equating them to machine guns (they're not) and saying that
> lifting the ban on cosmetic features such as bayonet lugs and flash
> surpressors makes Americans more at danger from Terrorists (what an absurd
> thing to say, yet he said it)... He's another slicky-boy politician who
> can't tell the truth about anything.

I agree that Kerry's opinion in this regard is totally brain-dead.
However it's also pretty run-of-the-mill and pretty broadly held
(granted, doesn't say much for the average IQ.) And since when have you
ever heard of a presidential candidate that wasn't a "slicky-boy
politician who can't tell the truth about anything." PLEASE don't say
that GW doesn't fit that description to a "T" as well.

> I don't trust him any more than
> I trusted Clinton, they're both cut from the same cloth. Then the guy
> misses what, 70%? 80%? of his senate obligations, and he wants a
> freaking promotion?
>
> I don't think so.

I see, but it doesn't bother you that Bush had taken 250 days off as of
August 2003 (27% of his presidency spent on vacation) - compared to the
average American having 13 days off a year? And if you want to bring
Clinton into the mix, he took off a total of 152 days in the entirety of
his first two terms. The only close runner up to GW in days off is his
father, who took off 543 vacation days (speaking of being "cut from the
same cloth"). Please spare me the "working vacation" stuff - that's
easily on par with Clinton's "didn't inhale."

- Al

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
>
> "Al Spohn" wrote in message
>
> > think that he did jump into his Washington suit later on, too. All the
> > VIPs we flew with in the AF had to wear flight suits too, and they all
> > seemed to relish the swagger opportunity.
>
> I can personally attest to the fact that the "swagger" is already built into
> the flight suit.
>
> AAMOF, it's sorta the same feeling when you put your hat back on in front of
> the crowd after riding your first bull, or throwing your first successful
> heel rope. :)

I agree, only I was only afforded a semi-swagger since I was a navigator
:-)

- Al

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
says...
> On Mon, 20 Sep 2004 10:03:26 -0500, Al Spohn <[email protected]> wrote:
> > In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
> >>
> >> Doesn't apply; when you join the enemy, you forfeit that, don't you.
> >
> > Right, and who makes the determination that someone has "joined the
> > enemy?"
>
> Well, I'd say turning up in, say, Afghanistan, training with the Taliban,
> would be one good sign that you've decided to join the enemy. Yes?

This might hold water if everyone having their civil rights suspended
was found to be training with the Taliban, but that's far from the case.

> >> I disagree profoundly with Kerry on several issues that are important to
> >> me, so I'll be voting against him. Seeing how he lied about the Assault
> >> Weapons Ban, equating them to machine guns (they're not) (SNIP)
>
> > I agree that Kerry's opinion in this regard is totally brain-dead.
> > However it's also pretty run-of-the-mill and pretty broadly held
> > (granted, doesn't say much for the average IQ.)
>
> So you tolerate his lies since all politicians lie?

Yes.

> OK, perhaps, but
> if it's a given they're all untrustworthy, then at least decide which issues
> matter most to you, and pick the one whose _actions_ agree with your
> beliefs.

I agree completely. And although Kerry's opinion on the weapons stuff
is idiotic, it's not something that I'm passionate about. But I have no
problem with it shaping your voting decision.

> >> I don't trust him any more than
> >> I trusted Clinton, they're both cut from the same cloth. Then the guy
> >> misses what, 70%? 80%? of his senate obligations, and he wants a
> >> freaking promotion? I don't think so.
>
> > I see, but it doesn't bother you that Bush had taken 250 days off as of
> > August 2003 (27% of his presidency spent on vacation) - compared to the
> > average American having 13 days off a year?
>
> "Not in the White House" does not equal "Not working". Kerry missing
> say 75% of meetings he's supposed to be at, _does_ equal "not working".

I don't follow this logic. 2/3's of the meetings I am supposed to be at
are a total waste of time. In fact, I'm serving my users/benefactors
more by getting something 'real' done instead of sitting through the
meeting. I don't know for a fact that this is the case with Kerry, but
it certainly illustrates that not being at meetings does not necessarily
mean not working. Why should I take for granted that Bush is working
while not in the White House (translation, in Crawford or Kennebunkport)
but that Kerry isn't while absent from meetings?

> > And if you want to bring
> > Clinton into the mix, he took off a total of 152 days in the entirety of
> > his first two terms.
>
> Shame he wasn't gone more, actually.

:-)

> > Please spare me the "working vacation" stuff - that's
> > easily on par with Clinton's "didn't inhale."
>
> OK, if you want to believe it, there's obviously no way I'll change that.

Sure you can, I'm all ears. But I would expect you to be open to the
possibility that Kerry might be doing something worthwhile when not
attending meetings in Washington.

> But even if you dislike W, wouldn't him not being at work be _good_ for
> you then?

It doesn't bother me for that very reason. I just thought it odd that
you were bothered by Kerry's frequent absences but not by Bush's
notorious vacation times.

- Al

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
> On Mon, 20 Sep 2004 11:04:38 -0500, Al Spohn <[email protected]> wrote:
> > In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
> > says...
> (massive snip)
>
> >> So you tolerate his lies since all politicians lie?
> >
> > Yes.
>
> Hold your nose and pull the lever, yup.

Has it ever been any other way? We're talking politics here.

> >> OK, perhaps, but
> >> if it's a given they're all untrustworthy, then at least decide which issues
> >> matter most to you, and pick the one whose _actions_ agree with your
> >> beliefs.
> >
> > I agree completely. And although Kerry's opinion on the weapons stuff
> > is idiotic, it's not something that I'm passionate about. But I have no
> > problem with it shaping your voting decision.
>
> It's not just his view on them, it's how he completly misrepresents
> what the issue is about. If it was "I agree with the AWB because
> I'm anti-gun (he is)", fine, I disagree with him. But when he
> says "Lifting the AWB is bad because it helps terrorists", and when
> he equates the ban to anything involving machine guns (it doesn't),
> it just turns my stomach. How badly is he lying to us on topics
> I don't understand as completely? I don't know, but I'm not planning
> to find out.

Yeah, the moveon rhetoric that he seems to perpetuate with regard to the
ban is pretty pathetic. But I think where we differ is that you believe
it is particularly low even for a politician, and I would maintain that
such a misrepresentation is "business as usual" for every political
figure on the national scene. You're just sensitized to it because
you're knowledgeable about the issue, and as such, aren't gullible
enough to blur the distinction between bayonet mounts and hip mounted
miniguns like so much of the public evidently is. But it's par for the
course. For example, your reaction to Kerry's take on this issue is
really not much different than what somebody in the know on weapons
technology (e.g., scientists and analysts Los Alamos, Albequerque,
Omaha...) thinks when they hear Rumsfeld and other senior staff members
talk about capabilities of future/proposed weapon systems.

> >> "Not in the White House" does not equal "Not working". Kerry missing
> >> say 75% of meetings he's supposed to be at, _does_ equal "not working".
> >
> > I don't follow this logic. 2/3's of the meetings I am supposed to be at
> > are a total waste of time.
>
> According to http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=241 ,
> Kerry missed 77.6% of the meetings of the Senate Intelligence Committee
> while he was a member, from 1993 to January 2001. If 77.6% of the
> meetings of that committee are a total waste of time, I would think
> that someone who was on it for 8 years would have some pull in
> fixing that...if he cared to bother... Note that I don't know the
> slant if any of factcheck.org, so I don't know if it needs to
> be checked.

Interesting site. Looks like it's associated with the Annenberg School
of Public Policy at Penn, so I'm assuming they're at least attempting to
be unbiased. Again, I'm not arguing that he wasn't absent.

> > In fact, I'm serving my users/benefactors
> > more by getting something 'real' done instead of sitting through the
> > meeting. I don't know for a fact that this is the case with Kerry, but
> > it certainly illustrates that not being at meetings does not necessarily
> > mean not working.
>
> Well, it certainly _sounds_ like something that should be important,
> and apparently it wasn't important enough for him to attend, _or_
> important enough to him for him to stay in. Now, for election time,
> he says it's really important, conveniently enough.

Is there anyone in the race who hasn't acquired a sudden interest in a
topic that also happens to be germane to their electability?

> > Why should I take for granted that Bush is working
> > while not in the White House (translation, in Crawford or Kennebunkport)
> > but that Kerry isn't while absent from meetings?
>
> Well, if he wasn't at the meetings, he shouldn't be claiming he cared
> about topic. His actions speak pretty loudly on this one.

Not terribly shrewd, politically, I'll admit. I think it's a clumsy
reaction on his part to the prevailing, current administration
manufactured opinion that the future of western civilization depends on
fixing the intelligence community. This might not earn him any merit
badges, but it's small fry in the grand scheme of political
indiscretions.

> >> > Please spare me the "working vacation" stuff - that's
> >> > easily on par with Clinton's "didn't inhale."
> >>
> >> OK, if you want to believe it, there's obviously no way I'll change that.
> >
> > Sure you can, I'm all ears. But I would expect you to be open to the
> > possibility that Kerry might be doing something worthwhile when not
> > attending meetings in Washington.
>
> Could be, but as I say, then he should explain why he missed 77.6% of
> them. "They were BS meetings"? Great, then why are they having
> meetings that don't mean anything?

I don't know... is Kerry to blame for that?

> "I lost interest and didn't
> feel it was important, until it became politically necessary
> to pretend otherwise" is what I'm seeing. If you're not going
> to participate fully in a group, don't participate at all, and
> make room for someone else.

I'd be curious as to what the normal rate of absenteeism is in
Washington, particularly for those running for the Presidency. His
behavior in this regard only marks him as a politician in my book, and
doesn't rule him out as a viable candidate for the presidency.

> I'm not _bothered by_ them, but I would like him to explain himself.

As would I, but I hope you'll hold Bush to the same standard regarding
his vacation time.

- Al

In article <[email protected]>, dwhite110
@optonline.net says...
> "Al Spohn" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:MPG.1bb8d7cc493fd7a49896f7@mayonews...
> >
> > I'd be curious as to what the normal rate of absenteeism is in
> > Washington, particularly for those running for the Presidency. His
> > behavior in this regard only marks him as a politician in my book, and
> > doesn't rule him out as a viable candidate for the presidency.
> >
>
> I see you're setting the bar pretty high there for electing our next
> president...leader of the free world. With that attitude it is no wonder we
> are getting what we deserve in politicians.

Well, I could always loosen my standards a little if you really insist
on electing Bush :-). If you think that anybody that bubbles to the top
in Washington does so in the absence of dirty tricks, pandering to
corporate interests (democrat and republican,) and otherwise doing
whatever it takes to put themselves in a position to "make a
difference," you're either terribly naive or are enjoying some form of
chemically induced optimism (back away from the table saw :-))

> > As would I, but I hope you'll hold Bush to the same standard regarding
> > his vacation time.
> >
>
> You keep saying it is vacation, but to anyone with an objective viewpoint,
> it is not. Why do you keep calling it vacation? It just isn't.

How is it that when Kerry misses a meeting, or lots of meetings, the
only possibility is that he's off screwing around wasting tax payers
money (mind you, I'm not saying he isn't - I'm just saying the issue is
never open to question.) But when Bush is in Crawford or Kennebunkport
27% of the time, he's obviously hard at work?

From an *objective* standpoint, can you tell me why he needs to be in
Crawford or Kennebunkport to do his job if it's not to be in a more
vacation-like atmosphere? Better satellite coverage in Crawford, maybe?
Or perhaps the decision enhancing nutrients inherent in Kennebunkport
lobsters?

My suspicion is that Kerry is screwing off some of the time and getting
more important work done some of the time when he's supposed to be in
meetings. And yes, Bush is probably getting a fair amount of work done
between beers in Crawford and Kennebunkport. I just find it ironic for
Bush supporters to point at Kerry's attendance record when Bush is
setting records for his time away from Washington in places generally
acknowledged to be more relaxation retreats than places associated with
conducting presidential business.

- Al

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
says...
> Dan White wrote:
>
> > "Al Spohn" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:MPG.1bb8d7cc493fd7a49896f7@mayonews...
> >>
> >> I'd be curious as to what the normal rate of absenteeism is in
> >> Washington, particularly for those running for the Presidency. His
> >> behavior in this regard only marks him as a politician in my book, and
> >> doesn't rule him out as a viable candidate for the presidency.
> >>
> >
> > I see you're setting the bar pretty high there for electing our next
> > president...leader of the free world. With that attitude it is no wonder
> > we are getting what we deserve in politicians.
> >
> >>
> >> As would I, but I hope you'll hold Bush to the same standard regarding
> >> his vacation time.
> >>
> >
> > You keep saying it is vacation, but to anyone with an objective viewpoint,
> > it is not. Why do you keep calling it vacation? It just isn't.
>
> FWIW, I used to work for a company whose CEO spent half his time skiing in
> Europe. And every time he came back he came back with millions of dollars
> worth of new business. He died. The company died shortly after. So was
> he working or vacationing? Or does it make a difference?

Your point is well taken. And in the context of this thread, I think
anyone involved with bureaucracy can site tons of meetings where showing
up 10% of the time and getting real work done in meantime makes more
sense than a consistent attendance record. I don't know enough to say
that this is the case with the meetings Kerry is missing (although my
experience with the Defense Dept bureaucracy surely makes this a
believable possibility,) but I'm saying the concept at least warrants
investigation before condemning him.

- Al

In article <[email protected]>, dwhite110
@optonline.net says...
> "Al Spohn" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:MPG.1bbb41862ea5addd9896f9@mayonews...
>
> > Your point is well taken. And in the context of this thread, I think
> > anyone involved with bureaucracy can site tons of meetings where showing
> > up 10% of the time and getting real work done in meantime makes more
> > sense than a consistent attendance record. I don't know enough to say
> > that this is the case with the meetings Kerry is missing (although my
> > experience with the Defense Dept bureaucracy surely makes this a
> > believable possibility,) but I'm saying the concept at least warrants
> > investigation before condemning him.
> >
>
> OK, bottom line, no BS.

Woops, that rules me out right off the bat :-)

> You have a guy tooting his horn on how he is a
> member of the security council and that is a real feather in his cap at this
> point in time. Then you find out he missed most of the meetings, staff or
> no staff, he missed them. Doesn't this mean anything? How can an observer
> not think this is a negative?

I'll grant you that it comes off as negative. For me it merely
reinforces the fact that he is a windbag, which is to say, a politician.
It's just that I get the impression that when something looks overtly
negative on it's face when it comes to Bush, his supporters are always
willing to delve into details and examine circumstances (e.g., NG
service... "Woops, I guess where did those dang records go?") but with
Kerry (e.g., missed meetings) a simple "gimme a break" is all the
consideration that is warranted. I know that goes both ways - I'm
probably just sensitized to the Kerry treatment because I (grudgingly)
come down on his side by a fairly narrow margin.

- Al

In article <[email protected]>, dwhite110
@optonline.net says...
[...]
> No, I agree with you there. Bottom line is I see two candidates before us.
> One who understands the challenges in the world today and is acting on it,
> and one who is just saying anything to get elected.

That's the crux of where we differ. I see one big-haired, predictably
political candidate with a somewhat bland agenda, that when taken in
total, generally promises a less dangerous and otherwise better future
for the country. I see another arriving on the national scene purely by
birthright, driven by special interests, utterly helpless and
universally disrespected in the world of diplomacy, environmentally
comatose, and prone to excessive manipulation by advisors with truly
diabolical intentions (but I like his wife and admire his running
ability.)

- Al

[...]

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
>
> "Al Spohn" wrote in message
>
> > I see one big-haired, predictably
> > political candidate with a somewhat bland agenda, that when taken in
> > total, generally promises a less dangerous and otherwise better future
> > for the country. I see another arriving on the national scene purely by
> > birthright, driven by special interests, utterly helpless and
> > universally disrespected in the world of diplomacy, environmentally
> > comatose, and prone to excessive manipulation by advisors with truly
> > diabolical intentions (but I like his wife and admire his running
> > ability.)
> >
> > - Al
>
> ROTFLMAO!! ... you just may have something there, Al!
>
> ;>)

Don't get me started... (is that different than "don't feed the troll?")
:-) I'll trade all of my double-talk for that shop of yours!

- Al

"PJMalone" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Two cents worth from a lurker:
>
> The whole Swift Boat/National Guard stuff is a distraction. There are far
> more important issues than things that happened thirty years ago. The
> question really should be "what kind of America do you want to have"?

Then why does Kerry seem to want to talk about nothing else? Even Clinton
has told him to shut up about it, a suggestion Kerry has apparently ignored.
Now we have someone on the left cooking up phoney documents to try to
discredit the president. They just can't stop shooting themselves in the
foot.

> Do we want a president who thinks its okay to lock up people, including
> American citizens, simply on his say-so? No charges placed, no access to
> council or even to family members, no trial, and no release date other
than
> "when the war against terror" is over? Whatever happened to the US
> Constitution? It could be that the people locked up (Jose Padilla for
one)
> are guilty of horrible crimes. If so its up to the government to prove
that
> in a court of law. This is supposed to be a government of laws, not of
men.

Just so we're clear, here...which people are we talking about, other than
Abdullah al Muhajir?

> Then there are the violations of the Geneva Conventions. These acts
> strongly concern me as a veteran. Holding people as "ghost prisoners"
(i.e.
> without notice to anyone including the Red Cross) and the torture of the
> prisoners at Abu Graib and so on violate the provisions of those
conventions
> which establish minimum standards for the treatment of prisoners of war.
> That creates a moral precedent that other nations _will_ use against
> captured Americans. Responsibility for Abu Graib starts at the top.

Well, Kerry is an admitted war criminal who concedes he has violated the
Geneva Convention. So, I guess you're voting for Nader? And by the way,
other nations were already treating POWs like this before Abu Ghraib. The
only difference is that they don't punish the people responsible.

> It could be argued that the Abu Graib torture does not violate the
> conventions based on some legalistic interpretation of the documents. But
> to the rest of the world this carries as much weight as Clinton's "meaning
> of is is" did to his opponents. Remember: people act not on what is true
> but on what they perceive to be true. The US being "bad guys" at that
> prison predictably has to be the inspiration for the young and hot blooded
> to strike out against us. Rather than make us safer Bush has made us less
> safe.

Man, it's too bad Abu Ghraib happened, because otherwise the middle east
would just be a happy place like Disneyworld and no one would be mad at us.

> Another issue: Bush's spending. Doesn't anybody's memory extend to ten
> years back? One of the primary items in the Republicans 1994 "Contract
for
> America" was fiscal responsibility. Among other provisions that list of
> proposed legislation included a constitutional amendment requiring a
> balanced budget. Instead being fiscally responsibility Bush has been
> throwing money into Iraq by the bushel full. From a surplus in the budget
> to the current enormous deficit in just three years. What's wrong with
this
> picture? Whatever happened to paying as you go? The Republicans _were_
the
> party of fiscal responsibility not that of profligate spending.

I'm sorry. I must have missed the change in the Constitution that says the
President gets to spend whatever he wants. The last I checked, spending
bills had to go through Congress. So, if the Democrats in Congress didn't
want things to go through, they could have stopped it. So, there's plenty
of blame to go around. Why did the budget go from a annual surplus to a
deficit? Are you kidding me? Does anything that happened three years ago
today ring a bell? The surplus in 2000 of $236 billion was basically due to
above-average receipts from higher-income taxpayers from capital gains from
the stock market bubble, stock options, and bonus income, which added up to
$300 billion. Since government budget people seem incapable of considering
anything except the best-case scenario, they just assume those receipts
would go on and on. In actuality, they were just another symptom of the
stock market bubble that was bound to come down.
Unfortunately, I haven't seen where Kerry plans to reign in that
spending...in fact, he has promised trillions more.

> Much could be written about Bush's economic policies. Most of it bad. I
> know that the US has lost over a million good paying jobs. The few jobs
> created under Bush's economic policies mostly pay less. I am out of work
> and have been for some time. If I am lucky I will get a job that pays
half
> of what I was making before. If lucky I might get paid as much in 2004 as
I
> did in 1985.

Try again...see http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=208. I'm sure
there are lots of people not making the money they made during the
phoney-baloney tech bubble.

> Kerry may well NOT be the best person for the job. But Bush is the worst
> thing to happen to DC since the British burned it in the War of 1812.
Kerry
> could hardly worse.

Well, we won't get the chance to find out, unless he chooses to run again in
2008. Don't worry, though...the Clintons won't let him win that election
either.

todd

> Patricia Malone
>
>

> "Dave Hinz" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > How about we just limit it to ruthless dictators who have directly
> > threatened us, and have shown the ability and willingness to carry
> > through? Would that work for ya, Larry?
> >

"CW" <no adddress@spam free.com> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> And who would that be?
>

The same one who tried to assassinate one of our presidents and shoot down
our pilots. For me, there should be a simple policy. If you are caught
trying to assissinate our president, we reserve the right to remove your
regime.

dwhite

<<<<<<<<<<<<<snippage >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> But the "lying" that got to me was his inability to say "9/11" or
> "terrorism" without saying "Iraq" or "Saddam" in close proximity.
>
> No, he never said directly that Iraq was responsible for 9/11. In fact,
> at one time he said they were not. But he implied it with that
> proximity so many times that over half the American public (according to
> surveys) believed him.
>
So where did the 9/11 terrorists train? Maybe in some of the Al-Queda
training camps located in Iraq? At least one of the Al-Queda training camps
in Iraq even had an aircraft fuselage used for terrorist training. Since
the camps were there, you know that Saddam knew about them and most likely
help fund them. He may not have participated DIRECTLY in 9/11, but he
certainly was helping Al-Queda.

> Once again, let me point out that I've voted for Republican presidential
> candidates about as often as Democrats. And Kerry is just one more
> lying politician whose only redeeming virtue is that he's not Bush.
>
In the case of John Kerry, his not being Bush is not a redeeming virtue.
There are worse things than being Bush (granted not many) and Kerry is one
of them.

> It's Bush and his gang that scare me, not Republicans in general.
>
I am more afraid of Kerry. Questionable military service aside, what he
wants the American people to believe he stands for is just 180 degrees out
from his near 20 year record in the Senate. I just cannot believe that he
has "seen the light" on nearly every issue before this country today. A few
issues maybe, but not a complete and total metamorphosis. I think more
Americans would die at the hands of terrorists under his leadership. I also
think more American soldiers would die at the hands of UN command under his
leadership. His socialized healthcare alone would cost the American
taxpayers trillions of dollars, and how would he pay for it? He would have
no choice but to raise taxes on the very people that he says he will provide
relief for. We would probably see some new taxes come in, and some
increased, most notably gasoline taxes.


> --
> Where ARE those Iraqi WMDs?
Syria. But even without them, how could freedom loving people such as us
let a tyrant such as Saddam keep murdering a man every 30 minutes, 24 hours
a day, seven days a week, 52 weeks a year, for over 20 years? And that is
not including the torture of countless more. All that simply because he
could. We should have cleaned up this mistake long ago.

"Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Al Spohn" wrote in message
>
> > Kerry's emphasis on "serving" is pretty gross - bordering on being as
> > ludicrous as Bush's visit to the aircraft carrier wearing a flight suit.
>
> Apples and oranges (or donkeys and elephants?). Last I heard it was
required
> by regulation to wear a flight suit in that type of aircraft ... at least
it
> was the only time I had the pleasure.
>
> --
> www.e-woodshop.net
> Last update: 7/10/04

By God, if I ever got to fly in a AF jet, I'd want a flight suit, too. But
you know, I never thought about it before...what else should he have been
wearing? Maybe Air Force One should have been fitted with a hook so that it
could just land on the carrier. I suppose the President should have just
worn a business suit.

todd

The last declaration of war was World War 2. We haven't had an official war
since then.

"Dave Hinz" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Wed, 8 Sep 2004 21:31:05 -0700, CW <> wrote:
> > Doesn't matter. There is no declaration of war.
>
> Last I checked, Gulf War 1 never ended, it was just a cease fire. No?
> Hell, technically we could re-start Korea without a declaration, as
> that one also isn't over.

> Is lying about the reason for a war an impeachable offense?
> By John W. Dean, *former counsel to President Nixon*
>
> http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/06/06/findlaw.analysis.dean.wmd/


...But don't forget the joint resolution allowing the President to attack
Iraq:


House of Representatives: 296-133
========================

[comment --- The following link no longer works...I guess they saw this
coming --- end comment by samofvt]

Source: http://clerkweb.house.gov/cgi-bin/vote.exe?year=2002&rollnumber=455


H.J. RES 114 10-OCT-2002 3:05 PM

--- YEAS 296 ---
Ackerman
Aderholt
Akin
Andrews
Armey
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop
Blagojevich
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Boozman
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carson (OK)
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Clement
Coble
Collins
Combest
Cooksey
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cubin
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis (FL)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal
DeLay
DeMint
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Dooley
Doolittle
Dreier
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
Engel
English
Etheridge
Everett
Ferguson
Flake
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fossella
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Granger
Graves
Green (TX)
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Grucci
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Harman
Hart
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoeffel
Hoekstra
Holden
Horn
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Isakson
Israel
Issa
Istook
Jefferson
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Kanjorski
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kennedy (RI)
Kerns
Kind (WI)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Lampson
Lantos
Latham
LaTourette
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Luther
Lynch
Maloney (NY)
Manzullo
Markey
Mascara
Matheson
McCarthy (NY)
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McIntyre
McKeon
McNulty
Meehan
Mica
Miller, Dan
Miller, Gary
Miller, Jeff
Moore
Moran (KS)
Murtha
Myrick
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Oxley
Pascrell
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Phelps
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reynolds
Riley
Roemer
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothman
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sandlin
Saxton
Schaffer
Schiff
Schrock
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shows
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Skeen
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Souder
Spratt
Stearns
Stenholm
Sullivan
Sununu
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauscher
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Thune
Thurman
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Toomey
Turner
Upton
Vitter
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins (OK)
Watts (OK)
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

-- NAYS 133 ---
Abercrombie
Allen
Baca
Baird
Baldacci
Baldwin
Barrett
Becerra
Blumenauer
Bonior
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson (IN)
Clay
Clayton
Clyburn
Condit
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Duncan
Eshoo
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank
Gonzalez
Gutierrez
Hastings (FL)
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hostettler
Houghton
Inslee
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kaptur
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kleczka
Kucinich
LaFalce
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Maloney (CT)
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McKinney
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moran (VA)
Morella
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pastor
Paul
Payne
Pelosi
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sawyer
Schakowsky
Scott
Serrano
Slaughter
Snyder
Solis
Stark
Strickland
Stupak
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Velazquez
Visclosky
Waters
Watson (CA)
Watt (NC)
Woolsey
Wu

--- NOT VOTING 3 ---
Ortiz
Roukema
Stump




Senate: 77-23
=============

Source:
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00237

H.J. RES 114 October 11, 2002 12:50AM

Grouped by Home State

Alabama: Sessions (R-AL), Yea Shelby (R-AL), Yea
Alaska: Murkowski (R-AK), Yea Stevens (R-AK), Yea
Arizona: Kyl (R-AZ), Yea McCain (R-AZ), Yea
Arkansas: Hutchinson (R-AR), Yea Lincoln (D-AR), Yea
California: Boxer (D-CA), Nay Feinstein (D-CA), Yea
Colorado: Allard (R-CO), Yea Campbell (R-CO), Yea
Connecticut: Dodd (D-CT), Yea Lieberman (D-CT), Yea
Delaware: Biden (D-DE), Yea Carper (D-DE), Yea
Florida: Graham (D-FL), Nay Nelson (D-FL), Yea
Georgia: Cleland (D-GA), Yea Miller (D-GA), Yea
Hawaii: Akaka (D-HI), Nay Inouye (D-HI), Nay
Idaho: Craig (R-ID), Yea Crapo (R-ID), Yea
Illinois: Durbin (D-IL), Nay Fitzgerald (R-IL), Yea
Indiana: Bayh (D-IN), Yea Lugar (R-IN), Yea
Iowa: Grassley (R-IA), Yea Harkin (D-IA), Yea
Kansas: Brownback (R-KS), Yea Roberts (R-KS), Yea
Kentucky: Bunning (R-KY), Yea McConnell (R-KY), Yea
Louisiana: Breaux (D-LA), Yea Landrieu (D-LA), Yea
Maine: Collins (R-ME), Yea Snowe (R-ME), Yea
Maryland: Mikulski (D-MD), Nay Sarbanes (D-MD), Nay
Massachusetts: Kennedy (D-MA), Nay Kerry (D-MA), Yea
Michigan: Levin (D-MI), Nay Stabenow (D-MI), Nay
Minnesota: Dayton (D-MN), Nay Wellstone (D-MN), Nay
Mississippi: Cochran (R-MS), Yea Lott (R-MS), Yea
Missouri: Bond (R-MO), Yea Carnahan (D-MO), Yea
Montana: Baucus (D-MT), Yea Burns (R-MT), Yea
Nebraska: Hagel (R-NE), Yea Nelson (D-NE), Yea
Nevada: Ensign (R-NV), Yea Reid (D-NV), Yea
New Hampshire: Gregg (R-NH), Yea Smith (R-NH), Yea
New Jersey: Corzine (D-NJ), Nay Torricelli (D-NJ), Yea
New Mexico: Bingaman (D-NM), Nay Domenici (R-NM), Yea
New York: Clinton (D-NY), Yea Schumer (D-NY), Yea
North Carolina: Edwards (D-NC), Yea Helms (R-NC), Yea
North Dakota: Conrad (D-ND), Nay Dorgan (D-ND), Yea
Ohio: DeWine (R-OH), Yea Voinovich (R-OH), Yea
Oklahoma: Inhofe (R-OK), Yea Nickles (R-OK), Yea
Oregon: Smith (R-OR), Yea Wyden (D-OR), Nay
Pennsylvania: Santorum (R-PA), Yea Specter (R-PA), Yea
Rhode Island: Chafee (R-RI), Nay Reed (D-RI), Nay
South Carolina: Hollings (D-SC), Yea Thurmond (R-SC), Yea
South Dakota: Daschle (D-SD), Yea Johnson (D-SD), Yea
Tennessee: Frist (R-TN), Yea Thompson (R-TN), Yea
Texas: Gramm (R-TX), Yea Hutchison (R-TX), Yea
Utah: Bennett (R-UT), Yea Hatch (R-UT), Yea
Vermont: Jeffords (I-VT), Nay Leahy (D-VT), Nay
Virginia: Allen (R-VA), Yea Warner (R-VA), Yea
Washington: Cantwell (D-WA), Yea Murray (D-WA), Nay
West Virginia: Byrd (D-WV), Nay Rockefeller (D-WV), Yea
Wisconsin: Feingold (D-WI), Nay Kohl (D-WI), Yea
Wyoming: Enzi (R-WY), Yea Thomas (R-WY), Yea

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

> But right
> now, Kerry's _only_ chance (IMHO) is to change tactics for the next 60
> days

Good post, and I agree with much of it. However, Kerry has no chance. This
will not be a close election, certainly nothing like the last one. BTW
Kerry's campaign has been in a constant state of change and it isn't
working.

dwhite

Not a war. Try again.

"Renata" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> You never heard of Vietnam?
>
> R
>
> On Fri, 10 Sep 2004 17:33:00 -0700, "CW" <no adddress@spam free.com>
> wrote:
>
> >We had a war that I didn't hear about? When was that?
> >
> >"Renata" <[email protected]> wrote in message , isn't not following a
> >> direct order during a time of war, treason (the ole skipped physical
> >> was actually an ole ordered-to-report-to physical)?
> >>
> >
>

"Al Spohn" wrote in message

> think that he did jump into his Washington suit later on, too. All the
> VIPs we flew with in the AF had to wear flight suits too, and they all
> seemed to relish the swagger opportunity.

I can personally attest to the fact that the "swagger" is already built into
the flight suit.

AAMOF, it's sorta the same feeling when you put your hat back on in front of
the crowd after riding your first bull, or throwing your first successful
heel rope. :)

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

> "Fred the Red Shirt" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > "CW" <no adddress@spam free.com> wrote in message
> news:<[email protected]>...
> > > Not a war. Try again.
> > >
> >
> > To deny that the Vietnam war was a war defies reason.
> >
> > --
> >
> > FF
>"CW" <no adddress@spam free.com> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Simple fact.

war : A state of open, armed, often prolonged conflict carried on between
nations, states, or parties.

Sounds to me like what happened in Vietnam. Or it isn't a war to you unless
some politicians somewhere say it is?

todd

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

>
> yabut....
> that same president of ours tried to assasinate him. they both failed,
> and I pretty much figured that score was even.

He did? In any case, that's a pretty silly argument. Remember the original
point of the thread.

dwhite

"Australopithecus scobis" wrote in message ...
> On Tue, 07 Sep 2004 19:38:13 -0400, Bill Rogers wrote:
>
>> Not half as much offensive as posting this useless crap in a
>> woodworking newsgroup.
>>
>> Bill.
>
> Just turn on a filter. Searching for '^OT' works well.


Not with this post - it didn't have OT in the subject.


> OTOH, think of it
> as BSing around the cracker barrel.

Perhaps. But this is *our* cracker barrel, and who the heck is this
one-time-wonder poster who introduces himself with a political thread in a
WW group? Why is his nick "ModerateLeft" instead of "Splinter"?


> If your newsreader supports scores,
> you can hide the OT posts without zapping them; then when you're in the
> mood for some persiflage, the OTs are still there for your enjoyment.

This is political crap and is anything but persiflage (Light good-natured
talk; banter.).

>
> Anyway, it's Usenet.


You say that like it's an excuse to be intrusive and rude.


Having said all that, I wouldn't have minded so much if the person was a
regular, and was in fact just BS'ing. Fact is, someone wandered in, pissed
his politics, and waddled out again. Probably a 1.5 on the troll scale.

cheers,

Greg

On Tue, 05 Oct 2004 02:25:42 GMT, "Lew Hodgett"
<[email protected]> calmly ranted:

>After last week's debate, I understand why some identify our president by
>using an nickname, "Shrub".

What else would you call a small Bush?


>It would seem to fit.

Indubitably.

I turned off the debate when they started talking about
"Making America Secure" as if they were interested...

I did love Kerry's statement about the totally uninspected
cargo areas vs. the overly-inspected person/baggage area
on any given passenger flight. One in 25 or 50 is frisked
which means 24-49 in 50 _could_ be carrying weapons.

I couldn't carry my 1-1/2" pocket knife on board but waltzed
right past all the security guards with a 9" sharpened weapon
(a pencil) sticking out of my shirt pocket. One DHS guard's
eyes were within 18" of my weapon at one point and he didn't
say a word. Who's kidding whom about security on flights?


--
Strong like ox, smart like tractor.
----------------------------------
www.diversify.com Oxen-free Website Design

On Tue, 05 Oct 2004 11:08:35 -0700, Larry Jaques
<novalidaddress@di\/ersify.com> wrote:

>On Tue, 05 Oct 2004 02:25:42 GMT, "Lew Hodgett"
><[email protected]> calmly ranted:
>
>>After last week's debate, I understand why some identify our president by
>>using an nickname, "Shrub".
>
>What else would you call a small Bush?
>
>
a bikini trim?


Mac

Heh, if lying about sex is an impeachable offense (not!), then certainly a lie
that has gotten many thousands of people killed certainly is.

Back to lurking :^)

JK



ModerateLeft wrote:
> It sure is.
>
> Is lying about the reason for a war an impeachable offense?
> By John W. Dean, *former counsel to President Nixon*
>
> http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/06/06/findlaw.analysis.dean.wmd/

--
James T. Kirby
Center for Applied Coastal Research
University of Delaware
Newark, DE 19716

phone: 302-831-2438
fax: 302-831-1228
email: [email protected]
http://chinacat.coastal.udel.edu/~kirby