Re: OT but very important to us all

"Nate Perkins" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Bush is the only guy I've ever seen that can do endlessly stupid things
> and still be considered a heroic man of virtue to his followers.
>

Maybe you should consider taking the blinders off and try to change your
paradigm for just a minute. Did you consider that maybe the majority of the
population that reelected him knows something that you clueless to?

dwhite

Dave Hinz wrote:
> ...
>
> See above. Best available intel said he was being a problem.

Wrong. An examination of the data available at the time the
October, 2002 NIE was released shows that intel was carefully
selected to exaggerated the danger psoed by Iraq.

By March 2003 far better intel was available that clearly showed
the NIE to be wrong.

> Maybe
> he was - we gave him more than a decade to hide the stuff, y'know?

No matter how often you repeat that lie it remains a lie.

>From 1991 to 1998 UNSCOM was on the ground in Iraq searching,
removing and destroying. From 1999 to 2002 Iraq had time to
hide anything that wasn't destroyed in Operation Desert Fox.
and anything produced during the inspections hiatus.

In 2002, and 2003, inspections showed that materials that
had been inventoried and tagged were still intact under
IAEA and UNSCOM seal providing storng evidence that no
WMD programs were resumed during that period. The
'discrepencies' Blix referred to in his reports between
the Iraqi declarations and what UNMOVIC could acccount for
were almost all a 'discrepency' between Iraqi documentation
and US _estimates_.

Given that the US was caught red-handed foisting forged
documents on the IAEA how much trust would any reasonable
person have for the Bush administration? That's the
major point. To believe that Iraq was in compliance one
need only rely on independently verified FACT. To believe
that Iraq was not in compliance one has to trust a proven
lian.

--

FF

Fletis Humplebacker wrote:
> "mp"
> > >> Really. On that day, how could anyone have performed worse than
Bush? Do
> > >> you
> > >> think Gore or any other sane person would have stood around and
listened
> > >> to
> > >> goat stories while New York burned?
> > >
> > > And he should have rushed out and peed on the towers to put the
flames out
> > > right? Kerry said they sat around stunned for 45 minutes. I think
it was a
> > > normal reaction, not much could have been done after the fact but
your
> > > criticism is typical of the left. Keep it up, I like the results.
>
>
> > It's pretty hard to argue against someone who thinks a normal
reaction is
> > sitting around listening to goat stories with a dumb
deer-in-the-headlights
> > stare while the country you're responsible for (specifically the
commerce
> > center of the world) is being attacked and destroyed.
>
>
> At least you aren't one of those who thinks he knew before the
> attacks happened or was in on it. I'm still not sure what you think
> he should have done at the moment.

Clearly he did nothing for the rest of the day except make a
brief speech. It was one thing to leave Cheney in charge while
en route to AF1 from the school. But Cheney stayed in charge
of the nation's defense that day even after Bush was aboard AF1.

AF1 is designed specifically to permit the US president to
manage the national defense while airborne. That Bush left the
defense of the nation to Cheney is a clear indication that
Bush knew he was the less competent of the two.

I'm glad that when the chips were down he stepped aside and
let the more competent person take over. I'm not happy to
have a President who is not competent to be Comander-in-Chief.

--

FF

Fletis Humplebacker wrote:
> <[email protected]>
> >
> > Fletis Humplebacker wrote:
>
>
> > > At least you aren't one of those who thinks he knew before the
> > > attacks happened or was in on it. I'm still not sure what you
think
> > > he should have done at the moment.
> >
> > Clearly he did nothing for the rest of the day except make a
> > brief speech. It was one thing to leave Cheney in charge while
> > en route to AF1 from the school. But Cheney stayed in charge
> > of the nation's defense that day even after Bush was aboard AF1.
>
>
> Clearly? According to who? Michael Moore?

According to all the documentaries about the attacks. For
example, it was Cheney who gave the order to shoot down
Flight 93, after receiving authorization from Bush to make
the decision.


>
> > AF1 is designed specifically to permit the US president to
> > manage the national defense while airborne. That Bush left the
> > defense of the nation to Cheney is a clear indication that
>
>
>
> What's your source? Or do you need one?

Documentaries on AF1.

>
>
> > Bush knew he was the less competent of the two.
> > I'm glad that when the chips were down he stepped aside and
> > let the more competent person take over. I'm not happy to
> > have a President who is not competent to be Comander-in-Chief.
>
>
> I see things differently. The fact that there's not been a repeat
> occurance is evidence of competency.

Check your calendar. In March 1993, two months after Clinton
took office AL Queda attacked the WTC. There were no significant
domestic attacks by foreign paramilitary groups during the remainder
of Clinton's two terms of office. The perpetrator's of the 1993
attack were tried, convicted, sentenced and in prison befor Clinton
was re-elected in 1996.

Al Queda turned to attacking AMerican interests on foreign soil,
most particularly in Saudi Arabia and the embassy bombings in East
Africa. The perpetartors of the East African bombings were
aprehended, tried, convicted, sentenced and imprisoned.

It was eight (8) years after the 1993 attack before Al Queda struck
again in the US, this time eight months after Bush took office.

IOW, Al Queda struck very early during the Clinton Administration,
befor Clinton had time ot get his national security policies in
place, and struck again during the bush administration just after
Bush had HIS national security policies in place. That may
just be coincidence but it sure as hell isn't evidence of
competency.

If Al Queda sticks to their history, the next domestic attack
will be in 2009. Meanwhile, they'll attack us aborad.

Bush has yet to bring any perpetrator of the 2001 attacks
to trial. Although he was able to take effective military
action in Afghanistan as the Republicans have dropped their
previous objections to the use of military force against Al
Queda assets abroad. As you will recal the Republicans
called his use of force in the Sudan and Afghanistan
'wag the dog' and George Will called Clinton a murderer.

--

FF

Dan White wrote:
> "Nate Perkins" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > Bush is the only guy I've ever seen that can do endlessly stupid
things
> > and still be considered a heroic man of virtue to his followers.
> >
>
> Maybe you should consider taking the blinders off and try to change
your
> paradigm for just a minute. Did you consider that maybe the majority
of the
> population that reelected him knows something that you clueless to?
>

I think the accuracy of polling is overstated.

That said, polls have indicated that a majority of people who
cliam to support Bush also take positions on major issues
that the opposite of the position Bush espouses, AND also
thought that Bush's position was the same as theirs.

IOW, they didn't vote for Bush because of what they knew about
him, they voted for Bush because of what they didn't know
about him.

E.g. the triumph of image over substance is the key to
winning an election. Other recent examples include Ronald
Reagan and Bill Clinton.

No surprise, that certainly does not distinguish Bush from
any other successful politician.

--

FF

Fletis Humplebacker wrote:
> "Nate Perkins"
>...
> > What was Cheney's "secure location?" I haven't ever seen it
reported.
>
>
> I don't think you quite understand what 'secure location' means.
Secret
> locations are generally not publicized.


It doesn't matter anyways. Cheney spent that day at the White House.

--

FF

Rick Cook wrote:
>
> >
> Actually it did come out later. Cheney was in the alternate national
> command center.
>
>

Cheney has SAID he was at the white house when word came that
another plane was headed toward DC and he was bodily carried
by Secret Service to a bunker under the White House.

--

FF

Dave Hinz wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 19:43:20 GMT, Ned <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On 24 Feb 2005 16:23:03 GMT, Dave Hinz <[email protected]>
wrote:
> >
> >>> U.S. dollar falling hard and fast
> >>
> >>Yes, and what does that have to do with Gore vs. Bush?
> >
> > Are we really better off today than before Bush took office?
>
> I think yes, but still, that's the wrong question. The question
should
> be, "are we better off today that Bush was elected, than we would
have
> been had Gore been elected?" 9/11 would have still happened, and I
> think Gore would have, er, "protested in the strongest means
possible"
> rather than going into Afghanistan and making OBL's infrastructure,
and
> OBL himself, mostly ineffective and irrelevant.

Supposing Gore was elected do you think he would have tabled the
regulation scheduled to go into effect in the Spring of 2001 that
would have required airliners to fly with the cockpit doors locked?
Do you think he would have appointed an Attorney General who was
a religious nut-case that thought porn was more important than
national security? Do you think his administration would have
ignored all the warnings about Al Queda passed on by the Clinton
Administration?

I do not think there has ever been an American President who
would not have invaded Afghanistan under the circumstances as
the existed post September 11, 2001. Some might have done better
others worse, but not one would have not acted.

Some would have gotten OBL instead of diverting resources
away from Afghanistan while OBL was still at large.

--

FF

Dave Hinz wrote:
> On 24 Feb 2005 11:45:02 -0800, [email protected]
<[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > Dave Hinz wrote:
> >> On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 19:43:20 GMT, Ned <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> > On 24 Feb 2005 16:23:03 GMT, Dave Hinz <[email protected]>
> > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>> U.S. dollar falling hard and fast
> >> >>
> >> >>Yes, and what does that have to do with Gore vs. Bush?
> >> >
> >> > Are we really better off today than before Bush took office?
> >>
> >> I think yes, but still, that's the wrong question. The question
> > should
> >> be, "are we better off today that Bush was elected, than we would
> > have
> >> been had Gore been elected?" 9/11 would have still happened, and
I
> >> think Gore would have, er, "protested in the strongest means
> > possible"
> >> rather than going into Afghanistan and making OBL's
infrastructure,
> > and
> >> OBL himself, mostly ineffective and irrelevant.
> >
> > Supposing Gore was elected do you think he would have tabled the
> > regulation scheduled to go into effect in the Spring of 2001 that
> > would have required airliners to fly with the cockpit doors locked?
>
> How long did Clinton/Gore ignore that issue, exactly, Fred.

I dunno that they EVER ignored it. Neither did the Bush admin-
istration IGNORE it. The Bush administration TABLED the regulation
that could have prevented the hijackings.

>
> > Do you think he would have appointed an Attorney General who was
> > a religious nut-case that thought porn was more important than
> > national security? Do you think his administration would have
> > ignored all the warnings about Al Queda passed on by the Clinton
> > Administration?
>
> The ones that Clinton didn't do anything about either?

Not only were Clinton's retaliatory attacks against OBL and
Al Queda more than nothing, the REPUBLICANS in Congress
considered them to be so excessive they called it 'wag the
dog'. George Will even alleged that becuase of the retaliation
Clinton might be a murderer.

--

FF

Doug Miller wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] wrote:
>
> >Not only were Clinton's retaliatory attacks against OBL and
> >Al Queda more than nothing,
>
> Yeah, they accomplished a whole lot, didn't they?
>
> >the REPUBLICANS in Congress
> >considered them to be so excessive they called it 'wag the
> >dog'.
>
> Not because they were "excessive", but because of their timing.

Regardless, the Republicans were very vocally opposed to action
against AL QUeda.

>
> >George Will even alleged that becuase of the retaliation
> >Clinton might be a murderer.
>
> I'm not familiar with that; however, considering that one of
Clinton's targets
> was an aspirin factory with no connection at all to AQ, there might
be some
> substance to that idea.

I remind you that the aspirin factory was financed by bin Laden
and the Clinton administration presented evidence in the form
of chemicl residues in the nearby soils, that the factory was
being used for chemical weapons production. Though that evidence
was weak, I also remind you that the Bush administration has thus
far failed to present any similar evidence from Iraq.

--

FF

Doug Miller wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] wrote:
> >
> >Doug Miller wrote:
> >> In article
<[email protected]>,
> >[email protected] wrote:
> >>
> >> >Not only were Clinton's retaliatory attacks against OBL and
> >> >Al Queda more than nothing,
> >>
> >> Yeah, they accomplished a whole lot, didn't they?
> >>
> >> >the REPUBLICANS in Congress
> >> >considered them to be so excessive they called it 'wag the
> >> >dog'.
> >>
> >> Not because they were "excessive", but because of their timing.
> >
> >Regardless, the Republicans were very vocally opposed to action
> >against AL QUeda.
>
> I don't remember that at all. Can you substantiate it?

Your memory is different from mine. Can you recall the date of
the attack? I'll see what I can find.

>
> My memory is that Republicans were opposed to *useless* actions, like
blowing
> up aspirin factories and empty tents.

Can you substantiate that? Not that you remember it this way,
I'll take you on your word on that--rather that your memory
is accurate.

> >
> >>
> >> >George Will even alleged that becuase of the retaliation
> >> >Clinton might be a murderer.
> >>
> >> I'm not familiar with that; however, considering that one of
> >Clinton's targets
> >> was an aspirin factory with no connection at all to AQ, there
might
> >be some
> >> substance to that idea.
> >
> >I remind you that the aspirin factory was financed by bin Laden
>
> Was it?

I do not recall anone ever challenging that assertion. Can
you refer me to anyone who does?


>
> >and the Clinton administration presented evidence in the form
> >of chemicl residues in the nearby soils, that the factory was
> >being used for chemical weapons production. Though that evidence
> >was weak,
>
> "Weak"?? Try "later proven absolutely, totally false".

Can you substantiate that?

>
> > I also remind you that the Bush administration has thus
> >far failed to present any similar evidence from Iraq.
>
> What about that Sarin shell, Fred? Might not be much... but it's
something.

Since the Sarin shell was produced prior to 1991 and declared to
UMSCOM it is evidence of the truthfulness of the Iraqi
declarations. It was most likely a dud, recovered from a
test range. Iraq was not always open, accurate and truthful,
far from it, but the sarin shell is one example of when they
were. That hasn't changed since the last time I commented on
this in this thread.

See: http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0521-06.htm
(Reprinted from the Christian Science Monitor)

The author, Scott Ritter, is a former Marine intelligence officer
and UN weapons inspector. The Christian Science Monitor has the
best reputation for accuracy of any newspaper in the US. Not
that the others set the bar particularly high.

--

FF

Dave Hinz wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 22:24:22 GMT, Doug Miller <[email protected]>
wrote:
> > In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] wrote:
> >>
> >> I also remind you that the Bush administration has thus
> >>far failed to present any similar evidence from Iraq.
> >
> > What about that Sarin shell, Fred? Might not be much... but it's
something.
>
> He already answered that. It had flown through the air once, so it
> doesn't count, y'see.

Is it now, anything short of obvious that Mr Hinz is trolling
rec.woodworking?

Oh, upon review I misremembered the numbers. 170 were declared
and 150 declared to have been test fired.

Inasmuch as Mr Miller appears to be sincere, I woudl guess he
does not consider a failure of Iraq to recover all of the
test-fired duds to be a substantive breach of any UN resolution.

--

FF

Doug Miller wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, GregP
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Can you substantiate it?
>
> Sure thing. Google on <clinton "osama bin laden" sudan> and you'll
find
> everything you ever wanted to know about the whole sorry affair.
>
> Examples:
> http://www.nationalreview.com/interrogatory/interrogatory091103b.asp

Given that their hompage includes gems like "Which organizaiton is the
most liberal?" and "Do vitamins kill you?" I have rather low
expectations
but reading the article in more detail we see:

Begin exerpt:

On March 3, 1996, U.S. ambassador to Sudan, Tim Carney, Director of
East African Affairs at the State Department, David Shinn, and a member
of the CIA's directorate of operations' Africa division met with
Sudan's then-Minister of State for Defense Elfatih Erwa in a Rosslyn,
Virginia hotel room. Item number two on the CIA's list of demands was
to provide information about Osama bin Laden. Five days later, Erwa met
with the CIA officer and offered more than information. He offered to
arrest and turn over bin Laden himself. Two years earlier, the Sudan
had turned over the infamous terrorist, Carlos the Jackal to the
French. He now sits in a French prison. Sudan wanted to repeat that
scenario with bin Laden in the starring role.

Clinton administration officials have offered various explanations for
not taking the Sudanese offer. One argument is that an offer was never
made. But the same officials are on the record as saying the offer was
"not serious." Even a supposedly non-serious offer is an offer. Another
argument is that the Sudanese had not come through on a prior request
so this offer could not be trusted. But, as Ambassador Tim Carney had
argued at the time, even if you believe that, why not call their bluff
and ask for bin Laden?

end exerpt

The various explanations offered do not exclude each other, meaning
that even if one is true it does not mean that the others are not also
true. "The offer was never made" is close enough to "The offer was
not serious" as to not be a conflict and if the Sudanese had not
carried through on an earlier agreement why trust them again? You
don't suppose the Sudanese wanted something in ADVANCE, do you?

I also question his statement that [paraphrasing: Even if the US
could not convict bin Laden] "the U.S. could have turned bin Laden
over to Yemen or Libya, ..." I'm quite sure that at the time the
US and Lybia did not have a extradition treaty in effect and the
same may have been true for Yemen. IIUC when a person is deported,
as opposed to estradited, he, not the US government, decides on
the country of destination.

Miniter also refers to another opportunity through a 'back channel'
but tells us nothing else about it.

So, I find this particular source to be highly questionable.

However I did find two articles by farmer Clinton Administration
official Mansoor Ijaz which do indicate that the Clinton
Administration passed on ONE such opportunity:

http://www.nyu.edu/globalbeat/syndicate/ijaz121101.html

http://www.infowars.com/saved%20pages/Prior_Knowledge/Clinton_let_bin_laden.htm

> http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/12/5/153637.shtml

Did you just happen to find this or do you often read newsmax?

--

FF

Dave Hinz wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 08:01:58 -0500, Renata <[email protected]>
wrote:
> > You mean as opposed to GBush's target of a country w/no WMD?
>
> "no WMD" is an absolute, and is absolutely wrong. Even Fred doesn't
> deny the Sarin shell that injured a couple of our guys, and says
there
> are 149 or 169 more of 'em unaccounted for out there.

How dishonest of you.

As you know, I told you that of the 170 Iraq declared to UNSCOM,
it also declared that 150 had been test fired. I did not
say, nor would I presume that of those 150, all were duds.

I said nothing at all about the other 20, as I do not remember
their disposition but anyone interested in that information
could read the UNSCOM reports or the Duelfer report.

--

FF

Dave Hinz wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 08:01:58 -0500, Renata <[email protected]>
wrote:
> > You mean as opposed to GBush's target of a country w/no WMD?
>
> "no WMD" is an absolute, and is absolutely wrong. Even Fred doesn't
> deny the Sarin shell that injured a couple of our guys, and says
there
> are 149 or 169 more of 'em unaccounted for out there.

How dishonest of you.

As you know, I told you that of the 170 Iraq declared to UNSCOM,
it also declared that 150 had been test fired. I did not
say, nor would I presume that of those 150, all were duds.

I said nothing at all about the other 20, as I do not remember
their disposition but anyone interested in that information
could read the UNSCOM reports or the Duelfer report.

--

FF

Dave Hinz wrote:
> On 25 Feb 2005 08:43:20 -0800, [email protected]
<[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> ...
> >> And,
> you miss the point of my post which is that even by your
> standards of what is acceptable or not, that one sarin shell
> is direct evidence that "no WMDs" is not an accurate statement.
>
> Can you at least agree to that point,

Agreed. Can we also agree that when a person writes:
"No WMD in Iraq" that is shorthand for "No substantive
violations of the UN resolutions on Iraqi WMD."?

--

FF

Dave Hinz wrote:
> > Gimme a break.. A bunch of fruitcakes in japan made sarin. It
> > ain't difficult, and it proved, in the end, to be a less serious
> > threat than the scaremongers would have you think.
>
> Only because they dispersed it inefficiently.
>

ummm....hate to weigh in here so late, but this one caught my eye.
The Sarin in the Tokyo subway stations was distributed almost
perfectly. Large group of people, in a crowded station(if you've never
been on a train/subway in Asia, the word "crowd" might mislead you into
thinking that there was a scene something like Grand Central or Penn
Stations. Think more of the crowd at the Super Bowl all crammed into
one stadium bathroom-men, women, children, animals, vendors,
employees), no wind, optimal temperature and environmental conditions.
11 out of 5,500 killed. (http://www.sma.org/smj/97june3.htm)

.2%, if my math works out right.

Nate Perkins wrote:
> "Fletis Humplebacker" <!> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
>
> >
> > "Ned"
> >> Are we really better off today than before Bush took office?
> >
> >
> > You bet. The liberals are even more livid and hysterical,
> > proving that something good must have happened.
> >
>
> Heh heh. I bet you have a pinup of Ann Coulter on your wall, too.

Eeeeewwwwww!

--

FF

"I'd rather see Hillery, OR even Bill nekkid."

David Sizemore wrote:
> Dave Hinz wrote:
> > > Gimme a break.. A bunch of fruitcakes in japan made sarin. It
> > > ain't difficult, and it proved, in the end, to be a less serious
> > > threat than the scaremongers would have you think.
> >
> > Only because they dispersed it inefficiently.
> >
>
> ummm....hate to weigh in here so late, but this one caught my eye.
> The Sarin in the Tokyo subway stations was distributed almost
> perfectly. Large group of people, in a crowded station(if you've
never
> been on a train/subway in Asia, the word "crowd" might mislead you
into
> thinking that there was a scene something like Grand Central or Penn
> Stations.

Not quite waht he was writing about. The target was close to
optimal NOT the distribution method. Like most nerve 'gasses'
sarin is a liquid at room temperature, though it has a relatively
high vapor pressure meaning that like many solvents used in
wood finishes it evaporates rapidly. (VX, by contrast has a very
low vapor pressure and is more like motor oil. The accepted
method for disposal is simply to pour it onto a concrete pad
esposed to the open air where UV from sunlight and oxidation
will destroy it over a period of several hours or a couple of
days.)

Sarin has the advantage of being easier to deploy than
most chemical warfare agents but also the property that
dispersion and diffusion in the open air will reduce it
an ineffective concentration relatively quickly in
tactical terms. That may be advantages should the
attacker wish to rapidly seize the area of deployment,
but a disadvantage if the object is to deny an area to
the enemy, a more typical approach to tactical use of
chemical weapons. VX on the other hand while being
much harder to deploy will settle onto the ground and
remain hazardous for at least several hours and up to
a couple of day depending on conditions.


Anyhow, in the Tokyo attack the sarin was in plastic bags that
were perforated by jabbing them with an umbrella and left
to evaporate. That is a very sub-optimal way to disperse it
even on a near optimal target population, though it did make
it easy for the perpetrators to get away without being ex-
posed themselves.

Some sort of sprayers might have been more effective so
if you see someone boarding the subway wearing a chemical
hazard suit and carrying an insecticide sprayer I suggest
you wait for the text train.

--

FF

> If your sentence fragment means what I think it means, then yes,
> I think Gore would have performed badly that day.

Really. On that day, how could anyone have performed worse than Bush? Do you
think Gore or any other sane person would have stood around and listened to
goat stories while New York burned?

"mp"
> > If your sentence fragment means what I think it means, then yes,
> > I think Gore would have performed badly that day.


> Really. On that day, how could anyone have performed worse than Bush? Do you
> think Gore or any other sane person would have stood around and listened to
> goat stories while New York burned?



And he should have rushed out and peed on the towers to put the flames out
right? Kerry said they sat around stunned for 45 minutes. I think it was a
normal reaction, not much could have been done after the fact but your
criticism is typical of the left. Keep it up, I like the results.

>> Really. On that day, how could anyone have performed worse than Bush? Do
>> you
>> think Gore or any other sane person would have stood around and listened
>> to
>> goat stories while New York burned?
>
> And he should have rushed out and peed on the towers to put the flames out
> right? Kerry said they sat around stunned for 45 minutes. I think it was a
> normal reaction, not much could have been done after the fact but your
> criticism is typical of the left. Keep it up, I like the results.

It's pretty hard to argue against someone who thinks a normal reaction is
sitting around listening to goat stories with a dumb deer-in-the-headlights
stare while the country you're responsible for (specifically the commerce
center of the world) is being attacked and destroyed.

"mp"
> >> Really. On that day, how could anyone have performed worse than Bush? Do
> >> you
> >> think Gore or any other sane person would have stood around and listened
> >> to
> >> goat stories while New York burned?
> >
> > And he should have rushed out and peed on the towers to put the flames out
> > right? Kerry said they sat around stunned for 45 minutes. I think it was a
> > normal reaction, not much could have been done after the fact but your
> > criticism is typical of the left. Keep it up, I like the results.


> It's pretty hard to argue against someone who thinks a normal reaction is
> sitting around listening to goat stories with a dumb deer-in-the-headlights
> stare while the country you're responsible for (specifically the commerce
> center of the world) is being attacked and destroyed.


At least you aren't one of those who thinks he knew before the
attacks happened or was in on it. I'm still not sure what you think
he should have done at the moment.

<[email protected]>
>
> Fletis Humplebacker wrote:


> > At least you aren't one of those who thinks he knew before the
> > attacks happened or was in on it. I'm still not sure what you think
> > he should have done at the moment.
>
> Clearly he did nothing for the rest of the day except make a
> brief speech. It was one thing to leave Cheney in charge while
> en route to AF1 from the school. But Cheney stayed in charge
> of the nation's defense that day even after Bush was aboard AF1.


Clearly? According to who? Michael Moore?



> AF1 is designed specifically to permit the US president to
> manage the national defense while airborne. That Bush left the
> defense of the nation to Cheney is a clear indication that



What's your source? Or do you need one?


> Bush knew he was the less competent of the two.
> I'm glad that when the chips were down he stepped aside and
> let the more competent person take over. I'm not happy to
> have a President who is not competent to be Comander-in-Chief.


I see things differently. The fact that there's not been a repeat
occurance is evidence of competency.

"Nate Perkins"
> Rick Cook
> > Fletis Humplebacker wrote:
> >> <[email protected]>
> >>>Fletis Humplebacker wrote:


> >>>>At least you aren't one of those who thinks he knew before the
> >>>>attacks happened or was in on it. I'm still not sure what you think
> >>>>he should have done at the moment.


> >>>Clearly he did nothing for the rest of the day except make a
> >>>brief speech. It was one thing to leave Cheney in charge while
> >>>en route to AF1 from the school. But Cheney stayed in charge
> >>>of the nation's defense that day even after Bush was aboard AF1.

> >> Clearly? According to who? Michael Moore?


> > That's certainly what Michael Moore would like us to believe. The
> > evidence is otherwise, of course, but since Bush didn't do it in
> > public, that can be safely ignored.


> OK ... what exactly did Bush do aside from the brief speech and flight
> on AF1?

> Do you agree that Cheney was left in charge while Bush was on AF1?


Put in charge would be a better decription, for reasons already
discussed. Or do you have some kind of national security expertise
that we haven't seen yet?



> >>>AF1 is designed specifically to permit the US president to
> >>>manage the national defense while airborne. That Bush left the
> >>>defense of the nation to Cheney is a clear indication tha


> >> What's your source? Or do you need one?


> > His source is one part ignorance and one part malice. While it's true
> > that AF1 has some capability to manage national defense, it doesn't
> > have _nearly_ the capability that Cheney's 'secure location' does.


> What was Cheney's "secure location?" I haven't ever seen it reported.


I don't think you quite understand what 'secure location' means. Secret
locations are generally not publicized.

"Ned"
> Are we really better off today than before Bush took office?



You bet. The liberals are even more livid and hysterical,
proving that something good must have happened.

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

>Some would have gotten OBL instead of diverting resources
>away from Afghanistan while OBL was still at large.
>
Some would have *taken* him when offered by the Sudanese, too, instead of
refusing. Twice.

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

Nobody ever left footprints in the sands of time by sitting on his butt.
And who wants to leave buttprints in the sands of time?

On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 21:02:11 GMT, Ned <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 11:19:34 -0800, Larry Blanchard
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>That pretty much describes my position as well. Thanks, Nate.
>>
>>I'm afraid Bush is now working up to an excuse for invading Iran and
>>Syria.
>
> Our President is on a Crusade. His first agenda, to invade Afghan,

Do you think that, after 9/11, he should have not have invaded
Afghanistan?

> We should ask, are we really better off before Bush took office in
> 2001?

I am.

> The US dollar continues to falls and more than 80% of the rest
> of the World looks at us with negative feeling.

Eh... (a) so what, (b) us as individuals, or our government, and
(c) see (a).

> Our debts continue to
> climb with imports mounting and exports falling.

Do you ever buy foreign goods, Ned?

> Bush continues to
> spins that our Social Security will go bankrupt and so forth.

Anyone who doesn't think there is a social security problem is
delusional. Whoever takes the problem on is going to be in for
a shit-storm; the Dems just prefer to let someone else do what has
to be done.

> Are we
> really better off today than before Bush took office?

I'd say yes. And vastly better than if Gore had been in on 9/11/01.

On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 23:11:32 GMT, Ned <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 17 Feb 2005 19:15:08 GMT, Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>> Are we really better off today than before Bush took office?
>>
>>I'd say yes. And vastly better than if Gore had been in on 9/11/01.
>
> I'm just speechless.

Well, _that_ would certainly be an improvement.

> You can even predict if, Gore had been the
> President?

If your sentence fragment means what I think it means, then yes,
I think Gore would have performed badly that day.

> Hallelujah, God is Great!

Here we have an example of "I disagree with person, therefore
person must obviously hold a specific believe that I also disagree
with".

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
says...
> Anyone who doesn't think there is a social security problem is
> delusional. Whoever takes the problem on is going to be in for
> a shit-storm; the Dems just prefer to let someone else do what has
> to be done.
>
Now THAT's the Dave I love to disagree with :-).

Yes, SS has a problem. No, SS is NOT in a crisis, as Bush would have us
believe.

1. His estimates are based on a peeimistic forecast of grwoth at half
the rate it has averaged for 50 years or so.

2. Private accounts will do nothing to solve the problem - Bush glosses
over the fact that his solution requires reducing benefits. That would
work without the private accounts.

3. With the private accounts, the SS "crisis" is replaced by massive
borrowing to finance the transition - but that's OK, whats another
trillion or so on the debt.

4. The "crisis", if any, is more properly called a "bubble". By the
time it occurs, the baby boomers will start dying off and the ration of
retirees to workers will improve again - although how much is anyones
bet.

5. Removing the limit on SS taxable earnings and slightly increasing
the rate at which retimement age is slated to rise would, if not
eliminate any fund shortage, at least push it considerably further into
the future.

And it seems nobody knows (or will say) what'll happen to the employers
share of the taxes employees take out for the private accounts. Wanna'
bet the companies would get to keep them?

--
Homo sapiens is a goal, not a description

On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 16:51:05 -0800, Larry Blanchard <[email protected]> wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
> says...
>> Anyone who doesn't think there is a social security problem is
>> delusional. Whoever takes the problem on is going to be in for
>> a shit-storm; the Dems just prefer to let someone else do what has
>> to be done.
>>
> Now THAT's the Dave I love to disagree with :-).

Oh good. The normal order of things has been restored.

> Yes, SS has a problem. No, SS is NOT in a crisis, as Bush would have us
> believe.

But, that's word games. The sooner something gets done to get it
steered in the right direction (or at least, less in the _wrong_
direction), the less that steering will hurt. Deciding if the word
"problem" or "crisis" is more accurate, is just a pointless waste of
effort. I think everyone agrees that it's headed in the wrong
direction.

> 1. His estimates are based on a peeimistic forecast of grwoth at half
> the rate it has averaged for 50 years or so.

I'd prefer the word "conservative" rather than "pessimistic", but OK.
If things turn out better than predicted, then so much the better.

> 2. Private accounts will do nothing to solve the problem - Bush glosses
> over the fact that his solution requires reducing benefits. That would
> work without the private accounts.

Yes, but I'd prefer to self-direct _some_ of my own investment. (I
honestly don't think I'll ever see any of it, so anything non-zero is
a plus, but that's beside the point.)

> 4. The "crisis", if any, is more properly called a "bubble". By the
> time it occurs, the baby boomers will start dying off and the ration of
> retirees to workers will improve again - although how much is anyones
> bet.

Shouldn't that be simple to calculate? We've got birth rate data up
to and including 2004, after all. Why is it "anyone's bet"? Death
rates on a population the size of the US should be pretty calculable
as well?

> 5. Removing the limit on SS taxable earnings and slightly increasing
> the rate at which retimement age is slated to rise would, if not
> eliminate any fund shortage, at least push it considerably further into
> the future.

That's another approach, yes. Something in the right direction needs
to be done, and at least Bush has the balls to start things moving
in the right direction. No matter who touches it, they're gonna
get burned. A lame-duck President is the ideal person to do that;
it's gonna piss off peole no matter what or who does whatever needs
to get done.

> And it seems nobody knows (or will say) what'll happen to the employers
> share of the taxes employees take out for the private accounts. Wanna'
> bet the companies would get to keep them?

I don't see your point here, sorry.

On Fri, 18 Feb 2005 07:20:37 GMT, Nate Perkins <[email protected]> wrote:
> Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote in news:37k8psF5gscjvU8
> @individual.net:
>
>> On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 21:02:11 GMT, Ned <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 11:19:34 -0800, Larry Blanchard
>>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>That pretty much describes my position as well. Thanks, Nate.
>>>>
>>>>I'm afraid Bush is now working up to an excuse for invading Iran and
>>>>Syria.
>>>
>>> Our President is on a Crusade. His first agenda, to invade Afghan,
>>
>> Do you think that, after 9/11, he should have not have invaded
>> Afghanistan?
>
> Retaliating against an attack on our country, and eliminating the
> government that provided sanctuary for our attackers is one thing.

So, you agree with that war. Would you have agreed with going to war
there a year earlier, based on intelligence, or would you be doing the
same thing you're doing about Iraq now?

> Going off on a preemptive war based on "bad intelligence" against a
> country that was not involved in the attack is a totally separate thing.

See above. Best available intel said he was being a problem. Maybe
he was - we gave him more than a decade to hide the stuff, y'know?

>>> We should ask, are we really better off before Bush took office in
>>> 2001?

>> I am.

> By any measurable statistic, most people in the US are not.

If you say so. Sounds like a judgement call in any case.
But, the real question should be "Are you better off with Bush in
office than you would have been with Gore in office?" - equally
unanswerable of course, but I've got my feelings on that matter.

>>> The US dollar continues to falls and more than 80% of the rest
>>> of the World looks at us with negative feeling.
>>
>> Eh... (a) so what, (b) us as individuals, or our government, and
>> (c) see (a).

> You seem to be convinced that neither the stability of our currency nor
> the respect of our country in the world is important. Most people would
> probably disagree with you on one or both counts.

I'm not convinced that our currency's value has anything to do with
us being disliked by the man in the street somewhere.

>>> Our debts continue to
>>> climb with imports mounting and exports falling.
>>
>> Do you ever buy foreign goods, Ned?
>
> What's your point?

My point is, if our imports are increasing, then one should look no
further than the shelves of the local wal-mart where they shop, buying
imported goods. If people didn't buy it, it wouldn't be imported.

>>> Bush continues to
>>> spins that our Social Security will go bankrupt and so forth.
>>
>> Anyone who doesn't think there is a social security problem is
>> delusional. Whoever takes the problem on is going to be in for
>> a shit-storm; the Dems just prefer to let someone else do what has
>> to be done.

> Bush is the only guy I've ever seen that can do endlessly stupid things
> and still be considered a heroic man of virtue to his followers.

Where did I say that above? I'm glad he's got the balls to start
working on something that _nobody_ has wanted to deal with for decades.

> We have lots of problems, of which social security is neither the most
> severe or the most pressing.

And the sooner someone starts working on SS, the less difficult and
painless it will be to get it going in a positive direction. Wait until
it's too late, and there _will_ be a crisis. Oh damn, Bush is once again
doing something before the shit hits the fan. Damn that Bush! He's
doing something pre-emptive. What the hell is he thinking?

Sheesh. You bitch when the guy does something before it blows up,
you bitch when the guy _doesn'_ do something before it blows up. There's
a pattern here.

On Fri, 18 Feb 2005 10:27:35 -0600, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> "Dave Hinz" wrote in message
>>
>> But, that's word games. The sooner something gets done to get it
>> steered in the right direction (or at least, less in the _wrong_
>> direction), the less that steering will hurt. Deciding if the word
>> "problem" or "crisis" is more accurate, is just a pointless waste of
>> effort. I think everyone agrees that it's headed in the wrong
>> direction.
>
> Move down here, run for office and I'd vote for you in a heartbeat ... I
> like your style!

I'm not sure if I should be honored, or offended?

If the Libertarians would get their act together (as defined by -
get some LOCAL offices and work up before just shooting for the top
spot), I might be interested in politics, but...I hate meetings.
Probably wouldn't work.

In the meantime, I just pick the party whose choice doesn't turn my
stomach as much and pull the lever, y'know?

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
says...
> > And it seems nobody knows (or will say) what'll happen to the employers
> > share of the taxes employees take out for the private accounts. Wanna'
> > bet the companies would get to keep them?
>
> I don't see your point here, sorry.
>
My point is that I've seen people claim that Bush is engineering a
payback to Wall Street. I don't see that, as it's hard to make a lot of
money on millions of small accounts that can't be churned. No, they
won't lose money, but they have easier ways to make larger profits.

But if an employer can reduce his tax burden by up to $1000 (and more in
later years) per employee, that's a giant payback to Bush's corporate
supporters.

--
Homo sapiens is a goal, not a description

On Fri, 18 Feb 2005 12:35:12 -0600, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> "Dave Hinz" wrote in message
>> On Fri, 18 Feb 2005 10:27:35 -0600, wrote:
>
>> I'm not sure if I should be honored, or offended?
>
> It would be interesting to know _why_ you would be offended?

Well, calling someone a politician could be interpreted in several
ways. I'll take it as it seems you meant it, though, and say "thanks".

Dave

On Fri, 18 Feb 2005 21:03:48 GMT, Ned <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 17 Feb 2005 22:02:46 GMT, Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote:
>
><snip for brevity>

Great. Now I don't know what specifically I said that you're responding
to. There's brevity, then there's "leave in some freaking context,
wouldja?".

> Trying to understand you and BTW, Are you a Christians and which
> Church do you go to?

Not relevant. The points I make aren't related to membership or
attendance at a church. That's my point - you're assuming something
that (a) doesn't relate, and (b) doesn't matter, based on a disagreement
that we apparently have.

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
says...
> As for the employer "contribution", if you've ever become self-employed,
> that deception will soon be revealed... :)
>
I was self-employed for many years - that's why I'm so aware of that
other half :-).

--
Homo sapiens is a goal, not a description

On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 16:46:37 GMT, Ned <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 17 Feb 2005 19:15:08 GMT, Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>> Are we really better off today than before Bush took office?
>>
>>I'd say yes. And vastly better than if Gore had been in on
>>9/11/01.
>
> U.S. dollar falling hard and fast

Yes, and what does that have to do with Gore vs. Bush?

On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 19:43:20 GMT, Ned <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 24 Feb 2005 16:23:03 GMT, Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>> U.S. dollar falling hard and fast
>>
>>Yes, and what does that have to do with Gore vs. Bush?
>
> Are we really better off today than before Bush took office?

I think yes, but still, that's the wrong question. The question should
be, "are we better off today that Bush was elected, than we would have
been had Gore been elected?" 9/11 would have still happened, and I
think Gore would have, er, "protested in the strongest means possible"
rather than going into Afghanistan and making OBL's infrastructure, and
OBL himself, mostly ineffective and irrelevant.

On 24 Feb 2005 11:45:02 -0800, [email protected] <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Dave Hinz wrote:
>> On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 19:43:20 GMT, Ned <[email protected]> wrote:
>> > On 24 Feb 2005 16:23:03 GMT, Dave Hinz <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>> >
>> >>> U.S. dollar falling hard and fast
>> >>
>> >>Yes, and what does that have to do with Gore vs. Bush?
>> >
>> > Are we really better off today than before Bush took office?
>>
>> I think yes, but still, that's the wrong question. The question
> should
>> be, "are we better off today that Bush was elected, than we would
> have
>> been had Gore been elected?" 9/11 would have still happened, and I
>> think Gore would have, er, "protested in the strongest means
> possible"
>> rather than going into Afghanistan and making OBL's infrastructure,
> and
>> OBL himself, mostly ineffective and irrelevant.
>
> Supposing Gore was elected do you think he would have tabled the
> regulation scheduled to go into effect in the Spring of 2001 that
> would have required airliners to fly with the cockpit doors locked?

How long did Clinton/Gore ignore that issue, exactly, Fred?

> Do you think he would have appointed an Attorney General who was
> a religious nut-case that thought porn was more important than
> national security? Do you think his administration would have
> ignored all the warnings about Al Queda passed on by the Clinton
> Administration?

The ones that Clinton didn't do anything about either? The ones that
wouldn't have been needed if Clinton had done anything after the
various escalations from AQ that he 'got really really mad about'?
Clinton's continuing show of weakess (wups, I mean "outrage") is
what emboldened AQ and OBL in the first place.

> I do not think there has ever been an American President who
> would not have invaded Afghanistan under the circumstances as
> the existed post September 11, 2001. Some might have done better
> others worse, but not one would have not acted.

If you say so.

> Some would have gotten OBL instead of diverting resources
> away from Afghanistan while OBL was still at large.

OBL may still be at large; he may be a smudge in a cave. The
important thing is that he's much less likely to be able to
carry something off, what with his support base and infrastructure
gone.

...but of course, your boy would've found him, no problem. Ya right.

On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 21:59:19 GMT, Ned <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 24 Feb 2005 18:18:51 GMT, Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>I think yes, but still, that's the wrong question.
>
> "Are we really better off today than before Bush took office? "

Bad things have happened since then. Those things would have gone
worse had Gore been in. If you feel we're worse off, then I feel
we'd be _even_ worse off with Gore/Kerry.

On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 22:24:22 GMT, Doug Miller <[email protected]> wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] wrote:
>>
>> I also remind you that the Bush administration has thus
>>far failed to present any similar evidence from Iraq.
>
> What about that Sarin shell, Fred? Might not be much... but it's something.

He already answered that. It had flown through the air once, so it
doesn't count, y'see.

On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 00:33:22 GMT, Ned <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 24 Feb 2005 20:06:51 GMT, Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Bad things have happened since then. Those things would have gone
>>worse had Gore been in. If you feel we're worse off, then I feel
>>we'd be _even_ worse off with Gore/Kerry.
>
> In another words, whatever happened during Bush watch you "feel" we
> would be EVEN WORSE off regardless which Democrat elected.

No, with those specific two Democrats, each from their own election
failure, respectively.

On 24 Feb 2005 15:54:12 -0800, [email protected] <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Dave Hinz wrote:
>> On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 22:24:22 GMT, Doug Miller <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>> > In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] wrote:
>> >>
>> >> I also remind you that the Bush administration has thus
>> >>far failed to present any similar evidence from Iraq.
>> >
>> > What about that Sarin shell, Fred? Might not be much... but it's
> something.
>>
>> He already answered that. It had flown through the air once, so it
>> doesn't count, y'see.
>
> Is it now, anything short of obvious that Mr Hinz is trolling
> rec.woodworking?

Good thing there's an OT in the subject line, eh Fred?

> Oh, upon review I misremembered the numbers. 170 were declared
> and 150 declared to have been test fired.

> Inasmuch as Mr Miller appears to be sincere, I woudl guess he
> does not consider a failure of Iraq to recover all of the
> test-fired duds to be a substantive breach of any UN resolution.

Why don't you let him speak for himself?

On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 08:01:58 -0500, Renata <[email protected]> wrote:
> You mean as opposed to GBush's target of a country w/no WMD?

"no WMD" is an absolute, and is absolutely wrong. Even Fred doesn't
deny the Sarin shell that injured a couple of our guys, and says there
are 149 or 169 more of 'em unaccounted for out there.

On 25 Feb 2005 08:43:20 -0800, [email protected] <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Dave Hinz wrote:
>> On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 08:01:58 -0500, Renata <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>> > You mean as opposed to GBush's target of a country w/no WMD?
>>
>> "no WMD" is an absolute, and is absolutely wrong. Even Fred doesn't
>> deny the Sarin shell that injured a couple of our guys, and says
> there
>> are 149 or 169 more of 'em unaccounted for out there.
>
> How dishonest of you.

Not very, thanks for asking this time instead of accusing.

> As you know, I told you that of the 170 Iraq declared to UNSCOM,
> it also declared that 150 had been test fired. I did not
> say, nor would I presume that of those 150, all were duds.

> I said nothing at all about the other 20, as I do not remember
> their disposition but anyone interested in that information
> could read the UNSCOM reports or the Duelfer report.

OK, so they're _accounted for_ rather than _unaccounted for_.
Thanks for clearing that up, I feel ever so much safer. And,
you miss the point of my post which is that even by your
standards of what is acceptable or not, that one sarin shell
is direct evidence that "no WMDs" is not an accurate statement.

Can you at least agree to that point, or will you weasel yet further?

Oh, and you forgot to troll out to the politics group this time.
You're getting careless, Fred.

On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 19:08:07 GMT, Scott Lurndal <[email protected]> wrote:
> Dave Hinz <[email protected]> writes:
>>On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 08:01:58 -0500, Renata <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> You mean as opposed to GBush's target of a country w/no WMD?
>>
>>"no WMD" is an absolute, and is absolutely wrong. Even Fred doesn't
>>deny the Sarin shell that injured a couple of our guys, and says there
>>are 149 or 169 more of 'em unaccounted for out there.
>>
>
> Gimme a break.. A bunch of fruitcakes in japan made sarin. It
> ain't difficult, and it proved, in the end, to be a less serious
> threat than the scaremongers would have you think.

Only because they dispersed it inefficiently.

> I'll bet even you have things in your garage you don't remember
> that you have; how is it beyond the bounds of credibility that there
> may be things tucked away in an area the size of a country that
> even the leaders aren't aware of? Even shells that formerly
> contained sarin?

I'm thinking that if I had something that could get me in legal trouble
(the equivalent for this analogy, I think), that (a) I'd know it, and
(b) I'd know where it was. "Gosh, Officer, I forgot that pot was in
my glove compartment" doesn't work as a defense, does it?

On 25 Feb 2005 11:53:10 -0800, [email protected] <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Dave Hinz wrote:
>> On 25 Feb 2005 08:43:20 -0800, [email protected]
><[email protected]> wrote:
>> >
>> ...
>> >> And,
>> you miss the point of my post which is that even by your
>> standards of what is acceptable or not, that one sarin shell
>> is direct evidence that "no WMDs" is not an accurate statement.
>>
>> Can you at least agree to that point,
>
> Agreed. Can we also agree that when a person writes:
> "No WMD in Iraq" that is shorthand for "No substantive
> violations of the UN resolutions on Iraqi WMD."?

Not by any means. "No WMD" is an absolute, "We haven't found
much, and what we did find was test-fired so it's OK" are two
different things, Fred.

On 26 Feb 2005 06:12:19 -0800, David Sizemore <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Dave Hinz wrote:
>> > Gimme a break.. A bunch of fruitcakes in japan made sarin. It
>> > ain't difficult, and it proved, in the end, to be a less serious
>> > threat than the scaremongers would have you think.
>>
>> Only because they dispersed it inefficiently.
>>
>
> ummm....hate to weigh in here so late, but this one caught my eye.
> The Sarin in the Tokyo subway stations was distributed almost
> perfectly. Large group of people, in a crowded station(if you've never
> been on a train/subway in Asia, the word "crowd" might mislead you into
> thinking that there was a scene something like Grand Central or Penn
> Stations. Think more of the crowd at the Super Bowl all crammed into
> one stadium bathroom-men, women, children, animals, vendors,
> employees), no wind, optimal temperature and environmental conditions.
> 11 out of 5,500 killed. (http://www.sma.org/smj/97june3.htm)
> .2%, if my math works out right.

My understanding is that they got droplets when they should have
been going for vapor.

On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 21:56:13 GMT, [email protected] (Doug Miller)
wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] wrote:
>
>>Some would have gotten OBL instead of diverting resources
>>away from Afghanistan while OBL was still at large.
>>
>Some would have *taken* him when offered by the Sudanese, too, instead of
>refusing. Twice.


I don't remember that at all. Can you substantiate it?

Larry Blanchard wrote:
...
> But if an employer can reduce his tax burden by up to $1000 (and more in
> later years) per employee, that's a giant payback to Bush's corporate
> supporters.

No, if it <were> true (which it certainly isn't at least yet and I
sincerely doubt it would ever be part of the final plan) it would aid
immensely in maintaining US industry competiveness which would enhance
economic growth and probably spur additional hiring...

My expectation would be that if there were contributions to personal
accounts, the employer "contribution" (a mismonmer if ever there were
one, btw) would be added to the account as well...at least if I were the
individual who had the opportunity to opt into such a plan I'd <really>
be p-o'ed if that weren't the case.

As for the employer "contribution", if you've ever become self-employed,
that deception will soon be revealed... :)

On 18 Feb 2005 20:01:16 GMT, Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote:

>> Trying to understand you and BTW, Are you a Christians and which
>> Church do you go to?
>
>Not relevant. The points I make aren't related to membership or
>attendance at a church. That's my point - you're assuming something
>that (a) doesn't relate, and (b) doesn't matter, based on a disagreement
>that we apparently have.

So you dun belong to any church nor do you go to one, right?
Do you believe in God and do you talk to him or he talk to him?

On 17 Feb 2005 22:02:46 GMT, Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote:

<snip for brevity>

Trying to understand you and BTW, Are you a Christians and which
Church do you go to?

Nate Perkins wrote:
>
> The difference is that many of us believe that Bush's plan for
> privatization will steer things more in the _wrong_ direction. That his
> plan will cause more harm than good.

In what way(s)?

On Fri, 18 Feb 2005 20:59:31 GMT, Rick Cook
<[email protected]> wrote:

Bye..

On 17 Feb 2005 19:15:08 GMT, Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote:

>> Are we really better off today than before Bush took office?
>
>I'd say yes. And vastly better than if Gore had been in on 9/11/01.

I'm just speechless. You can even predict if, Gore had been the
President?

Hallelujah, God is Great!

Nate Perkins wrote:
>
> Duane Bozarth <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
> > Nate Perkins wrote:
> >>
> >> The difference is that many of us believe that Bush's plan for
> >> privatization will steer things more in the _wrong_ direction. That his
> >> plan will cause more harm than good.
> >
> > In what way(s)?
> >
>
> It's the wrong direction because it increases the deficit, and in the short
> term the deficit is a far more pressing problem than is social security.
> Borrowing more money (a couple trillion) to finance the parallel
> privatization plan is risky because it increases the risk that foreign
> debtors will decrease confidence in our committment to fiscal discipline.
> There are a host of other problems as well: inconsistent projection basis
> for SS solvency vs privatization returns, unlikely projection of future
> stock values based on recent historical values, and erosion of return
> differences due to administrative fees.
>
> Privatizers like to accurately point out that SS revenues/expenditures are
> not practically separate from the general federal revenues/expenditures.
> With that being true, then the best thing to do to ease multiple problems
> is to restore fiscal discipline.

That's what I figured you were going after...

What's wrong w/ the <direction>, not what's wrong w/ details of how to
implement a change in direction?

That's what bugs me about the whole debate--it's a pissing contest
between two extremes with neither taking the time nor effort to consider
a combination of changes. My contention is the <idea> of increasing
personal stake in one's own retirement is almost mandatory while
retaining commitments made to those close enough to retirement that it
is only responsible to maintain those within reason. News organizations
only exacerbate the problem as their primary purpose seems to be to
foment dissension to sell headlines. If you listened to Greenspan the
other day, you would get a feel for what could realistically be done.

The <real> problem is the other out-of-control entitlement spending
(MediCare, MedicAid, etc.) that both political parties are almost
equally responsible for.

On 17 Feb 2005 19:15:08 GMT, Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote:

>> Are we really better off today than before Bush took office?
>
>I'd say yes. And vastly better than if Gore had been in on
>9/11/01.

U.S. dollar falling hard and fast

London, England, Feb. 22 (UPI) -- South Korea's decision to
ell most of its U.S. government bonds triggered similar moves
in East Asia and hammered the U.S. currency's value.

South Korea's action was mimicked by at least Taiwan,
another economy that holds a huge amount of U.S.
government debt, sending the dollar to new lows, CNN
reported Tuesday.

In London, the euro soared against the dollar to $1.3216,
up from $1.3065 late Monday, as the dollar sank against
Japan's yen 103.87 from 105.57.

The benchmark 10-year note lost 2/32 of a point to
97-26/32 to yield 4.27 percent, up from 4.26 late Friday.

Numerous economists have been warning the U.S. balance
of payments deficit and budget deficit, both at record levels,
are exposing the dollar to extreme downward pressure.

Source: Washington Times, USA.

Please read the full report:-
http://www.theinsider.org/mailing/article.asp?id=0968

On 24 Feb 2005 18:18:51 GMT, Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote:


>I think yes, but still, that's the wrong question.

"Are we really better off today than before Bush took office? "

On 24 Feb 2005 20:06:51 GMT, Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote:

>Bad things have happened since then. Those things would have gone
>worse had Gore been in. If you feel we're worse off, then I feel
>we'd be _even_ worse off with Gore/Kerry.

In another words, whatever happened during Bush watch you "feel" we
would be EVEN WORSE off regardless which Democrat elected.

"Are we really better off today than before Bush took office?"

On 24 Feb 2005 16:23:03 GMT, Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote:

>> U.S. dollar falling hard and fast
>
>Yes, and what does that have to do with Gore vs. Bush?

Are we really better off today than before Bush took office?

On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 15:08:12 -0500, GregP <[email protected]>
wrote:

> by the American taxpayer. Heck, if Gore were president, we
> would be in a lot of trouble now.

If what you say are corrects than, I would rather be in "DEEP" trouble
with Gore than "better off" with Bush.
In another words, whatever happened during Bush watch you "feel" we
would EVEN WORSE off regardless which Democrat elected.

"Are we really better off today than before Bush took office?"

On Sat, 19 Feb 2005 07:38:46 GMT, Nate Perkins <[email protected]>
wrote:

>"Dan White" <[email protected]> wrote in
>news:%[email protected]:
>
>> "Nate Perkins" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>>
>>> Bush is the only guy I've ever seen that can do endlessly stupid
>>> things and still be considered a heroic man of virtue to his
>>> followers.
>>>
>>
>> Maybe you should consider taking the blinders off and try to change
>> your paradigm for just a minute. Did you consider that maybe the
>> majority of the population that reelected him knows something that you
>> clueless to?
>
>You mean the same majority that has insights like this?
>http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=508

Having just looked at that poll, the "majority" agreed with the
following:
" * 90 percent of U.S. adults believe that Saddam Hussein would have
made weapons of mass destruction if he could have.
* 76 percent believe that the Iraqis are better off now than they were
under Saddam Hussein.
* 63 percent believe that history will give the U.S. credit for
bringing freedom and democracy to Iraq.
* 63 percent believe that Iraq, under Saddam Hussein, was a serious
threat to U.S. security.
* 62 percent believe that Saddam Hussein had strong links to Al Qaeda
(a claim which Vice President Cheney has made more than President Bush)."

Those are not unsupportable claims.

Now, what you are continually railing about were *NOT* supported by the
*majority* of those polled, i.e.:
" * 41 percent believe that Saddam Hussein helped plan and support the
hijackers who attacked the U.S. on September 11, 2001.
* 38 percent believe that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction when the
U.S. invaded.
* 37 percent actually believe that several of the hijackers who
attacked the U.S. on September 11 were Iraqis."

Note to Nate: 41 percent is only a majority if you are President Clinton
running for office.

Now, more importantly, you continue to use this as an example of how the
Republicans who voted for Bush are a bunch of morons and believed the above
claims. Take a look further down in the poll where the population sample
is identified:
"a nationwide cross section of 1,016 adults (ages 18 and over) of whom 405
prefer George W. Bush and 362 prefer John Kerry in the 2004 Presidential
Election."

i.e., only 40% of the poll sample preferred Bush, and 36%
preferred Kerry.

So, if you are [mis]using this poll to bash Bush supporters, you
better take another look.




+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
The absence of accidents does not mean the presence of safety
Army General Richard Cody
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

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

>Not only were Clinton's retaliatory attacks against OBL and
>Al Queda more than nothing,

Yeah, they accomplished a whole lot, didn't they?

>the REPUBLICANS in Congress
>considered them to be so excessive they called it 'wag the
>dog'.

Not because they were "excessive", but because of their timing.

>George Will even alleged that becuase of the retaliation
>Clinton might be a murderer.

I'm not familiar with that; however, considering that one of Clinton's targets
was an aspirin factory with no connection at all to AQ, there might be some
substance to that idea.

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

Nobody ever left footprints in the sands of time by sitting on his butt.
And who wants to leave buttprints in the sands of time?

Fletis Humplebacker wrote:
> <[email protected]>
>
>>Fletis Humplebacker wrote:
>
>
>
>>>At least you aren't one of those who thinks he knew before the
>>>attacks happened or was in on it. I'm still not sure what you think
>>>he should have done at the moment.
>>
>>Clearly he did nothing for the rest of the day except make a
>>brief speech. It was one thing to leave Cheney in charge while
>>en route to AF1 from the school. But Cheney stayed in charge
>>of the nation's defense that day even after Bush was aboard AF1.

> Clearly? According to who? Michael Moore?
>

That's certainly what Michael Moore would like us to believe. The
evidence is otherwise, of course, but since Bush didn't do it in public,
that can be safely ignored.

>>AF1 is designed specifically to permit the US president to
>>manage the national defense while airborne. That Bush left the
>>defense of the nation to Cheney is a clear indication that
>
> What's your source? Or do you need one?

His source is one part ignorance and one part malice. While it's true
that AF1 has some capability to manage national defense, it doesn't have
_nearly_ the capability that Cheney's 'secure location' does.

So rather than acting like an arrogant, power-hungry jerk in a national
emergency, Bush did the smart thing and delegated command to someone
better positioned to exercise it.

That's pretty obviously good sense -- unless of course you hate George
Bush so much you can't possibly give him credit for any positive action.
>

--RC

[email protected] wrote:
> Fletis Humplebacker wrote:
>
>><[email protected]>
>>
>>>Fletis Humplebacker wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>At least you aren't one of those who thinks he knew before the
>>>>attacks happened or was in on it. I'm still not sure what you
>
> think
>
>>>>he should have done at the moment.
>>>
>>>Clearly he did nothing for the rest of the day except make a
>>>brief speech. It was one thing to leave Cheney in charge while
>>>en route to AF1 from the school. But Cheney stayed in charge
>>>of the nation's defense that day even after Bush was aboard AF1.
>>
>>
>>Clearly? According to who? Michael Moore?
>
>
> According to all the documentaries about the attacks.

Wrong.

> For
> example, it was Cheney who gave the order to shoot down
> Flight 93, after receiving authorization from Bush to make
> the decision.

So in other words, Bush was in overall command, but he was delegating to
Cheney because Cheney was better positioned to exercise immediate
command. Sounds like smart management to me.

>
>
>>>AF1 is designed specifically to permit the US president to
>>>manage the national defense while airborne. That Bush left the
>>>defense of the nation to Cheney is a clear indication that
>>
>>
>>
>>What's your source? Or do you need one?
>
>
> Documentaries on AF1.

Why am I not surprised? Now, do you want to go beyond those
documentaries and take the time to find out more what AF1's defense
management capabilities are? I thought not.

But here's a hint for you. Air Force One doesn't even have the best
airborne suite for managing national defense. Ever hear of an aircraft
called "Looking Glass?". It's not a VIP transport and it's a hell of a
lot less comfortable than Air Force One, but it has a hell of a lot more
ability to manage a crisis.

Oh, and guess what? Looking Glass is considered a fallback because it
doesn't have nearly the capability of the 'secure location' where Cheney
was holed up.

In other words, Bush's action in delegating authority for running
operations before he got back to Washington is strong evidence of his
management ability. He had the wisdom and the courage to delegate in a
crisis. That takes leadership ability of a high order, believe it or not.

I've got no great love for George Bush, but some of you people are
simply absurd.

--RC

"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
>
> But, that's word games. The sooner something gets done to get it
> steered in the right direction (or at least, less in the _wrong_
> direction), the less that steering will hurt. Deciding if the word
> "problem" or "crisis" is more accurate, is just a pointless waste of
> effort. I think everyone agrees that it's headed in the wrong
> direction.

Move down here, run for office and I'd vote for you in a heartbeat ... I
like your style!

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 11/06/04

Ned wrote:
> On 17 Feb 2005 22:02:46 GMT, Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> <snip for brevity>
>
> Trying to understand you and BTW, Are you a Christians and which
> Church do you go to?
>
Why? Is there some sort of religious purity test you have to pass before
your comments are to be taken seriously?

Or are you just searching for an excuse to write off posts you can't
argue with logically?

--RC

Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote in news:37k8psF5gscjvU8
@individual.net:

> On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 21:02:11 GMT, Ned <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 11:19:34 -0800, Larry Blanchard
>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>That pretty much describes my position as well. Thanks, Nate.
>>>
>>>I'm afraid Bush is now working up to an excuse for invading Iran and
>>>Syria.
>>
>> Our President is on a Crusade. His first agenda, to invade Afghan,
>
> Do you think that, after 9/11, he should have not have invaded
> Afghanistan?

Retaliating against an attack on our country, and eliminating the
government that provided sanctuary for our attackers is one thing.

Going off on a preemptive war based on "bad intelligence" against a
country that was not involved in the attack is a totally separate thing.


>> We should ask, are we really better off before Bush took office in
>> 2001?
>
> I am.

By any measurable statistic, most people in the US are not.


>> The US dollar continues to falls and more than 80% of the rest
>> of the World looks at us with negative feeling.
>
> Eh... (a) so what, (b) us as individuals, or our government, and
> (c) see (a).

You seem to be convinced that neither the stability of our currency nor
the respect of our country in the world is important. Most people would
probably disagree with you on one or both counts.


>> Our debts continue to
>> climb with imports mounting and exports falling.
>
> Do you ever buy foreign goods, Ned?

What's your point?


>> Bush continues to
>> spins that our Social Security will go bankrupt and so forth.
>
> Anyone who doesn't think there is a social security problem is
> delusional. Whoever takes the problem on is going to be in for
> a shit-storm; the Dems just prefer to let someone else do what has
> to be done.

Bush is the only guy I've ever seen that can do endlessly stupid things
and still be considered a heroic man of virtue to his followers.

We have lots of problems, of which social security is neither the most
severe or the most pressing.

Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

...
> But, that's word games. The sooner something gets done to get it
> steered in the right direction (or at least, less in the _wrong_
> direction), the less that steering will hurt. Deciding if the word
> "problem" or "crisis" is more accurate, is just a pointless waste of
> effort. I think everyone agrees that it's headed in the wrong
> direction.
...

The difference is that many of us believe that Bush's plan for
privatization will steer things more in the _wrong_ direction. That his
plan will cause more harm than good.

[email protected] (Ned) wrote in news:4217582d.1069035
@news.individual.net:

> On 17 Feb 2005 22:02:46 GMT, Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> <snip for brevity>
>
> Trying to understand you and BTW, Are you a Christians and which
> Church do you go to?
>

ROFL.

Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> On Fri, 18 Feb 2005 07:20:37 GMT, Nate Perkins
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote in news:37k8psF5gscjvU8
>> @individual.net:
>>
>>> On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 21:02:11 GMT, Ned <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 11:19:34 -0800, Larry Blanchard
>>>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>That pretty much describes my position as well. Thanks, Nate.
>>>>>
>>>>>I'm afraid Bush is now working up to an excuse for invading Iran
>>>>>and Syria.
>>>>
>>>> Our President is on a Crusade. His first agenda, to invade Afghan,
>>>
>>> Do you think that, after 9/11, he should have not have invaded
>>> Afghanistan?
>>
>> Retaliating against an attack on our country, and eliminating the
>> government that provided sanctuary for our attackers is one thing.
>
> So, you agree with that war. Would you have agreed with going to war
> there a year earlier, based on intelligence, or would you be doing the
> same thing you're doing about Iraq now?

Sort of like this? http://www.cnn.com/US/9808/20/us.strikes.01/
and here's an example of how the "conservatives" called that a "wag the
dog":
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=1250


>> Going off on a preemptive war based on "bad intelligence" against a
>> country that was not involved in the attack is a totally separate
>> thing.
>
> See above. Best available intel said he was being a problem. Maybe
> he was - we gave him more than a decade to hide the stuff, y'know?

"Best available intel" -- what a lame excuse. The guy's the President
of the United States. It's his job to exercise judgement in matters of
war and peace.

If you're a working man and you screw up massively on the job, it won't
help if you shrug your shoulders and say "sorry, boss, best available
intel." In the real world, it gets you fired. In the world of Bush and
Iraq, it gets you a presidential Medal of Freedom
(http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,141468,00.html).


>>>> We should ask, are we really better off before Bush took office in
>>>> 2001?
>
>>> I am.
>
>> By any measurable statistic, most people in the US are not.
>
> If you say so. Sounds like a judgement call in any case.
> But, the real question should be "Are you better off with Bush in
> office than you would have been with Gore in office?" - equally
> unanswerable of course, but I've got my feelings on that matter.

It's not a subjective question. Is unemployment higher or lower? Is
wage growth after inflation comparable to previous periods? Are
personal savings higher compared to previous periods? What about the
big things like the deficit, the trade imbalance, the state of national
security? Are personal bankruptcies up or down? Or for one that hits
the conservative button - is the abortion rate higher or lower? All of
those things are worse now compared to when Bush took office.

As for Gore, that's history. You guys ought to move on.


>>>> The US dollar continues to falls and more than 80% of the rest
>>>> of the World looks at us with negative feeling.
>>>
>>> Eh... (a) so what, (b) us as individuals, or our government, and
>>> (c) see (a).
>
>> You seem to be convinced that neither the stability of our currency
>> nor the respect of our country in the world is important. Most
>> people would probably disagree with you on one or both counts.
>
> I'm not convinced that our currency's value has anything to do with
> us being disliked by the man in the street somewhere.

Nobody said they were related except you now. They were presented as
two separate pieces of evidence to illustrate that things are not as
rosy as some would have us believe.


>>>> Our debts continue to
>>>> climb with imports mounting and exports falling.
>>>
>>> Do you ever buy foreign goods, Ned?
>>
>> What's your point?
>
> My point is, if our imports are increasing, then one should look no
> further than the shelves of the local wal-mart where they shop, buying
> imported goods. If people didn't buy it, it wouldn't be imported.

So you think the solution to the trade imbalance is a boycott or tariff?

I'd suggest that the problem isn't that we are consuming imports from
abroad. The problem is that our exports aren't ramping competitively
compared to our imports. To have valuable exports, you need to
cultivate industry, manufacturing, technology, and a well trained
workforce. Unfortunately our current government creates structures that
favor outsourcing, short term corporate speculation, and little to no
long range technology or manufacturing initiatives.


>>>> Bush continues to
>>>> spins that our Social Security will go bankrupt and so forth.
>>>
>>> Anyone who doesn't think there is a social security problem is
>>> delusional. Whoever takes the problem on is going to be in for
>>> a shit-storm; the Dems just prefer to let someone else do what has
>>> to be done.
>
>> Bush is the only guy I've ever seen that can do endlessly stupid
>> things and still be considered a heroic man of virtue to his
>> followers.
>
> Where did I say that above? I'm glad he's got the balls to start
> working on something that _nobody_ has wanted to deal with for
> decades.

Having the "balls" to push something stupid is hardly admirable.


>> We have lots of problems, of which social security is neither the
>> most severe or the most pressing.
>
> And the sooner someone starts working on SS, the less difficult and
> painless it will be to get it going in a positive direction. Wait
> until it's too late, and there _will_ be a crisis. Oh damn, Bush is
> once again doing something before the shit hits the fan. Damn that
> Bush! He's doing something pre-emptive. What the hell is he
> thinking?
>
> Sheesh. You bitch when the guy does something before it blows up,
> you bitch when the guy _doesn'_ do something before it blows up.
> There's a pattern here.

The pattern is contempt for poor judgement, bad performance, and wrong
priorities. You appear to be willing to tolerate (and even admire) any
failure so long as Bush is being "bold."

One big problem with Bush's SS plans is that they all require borrowing
huge amounts of money in the interim ... and for the next decade (at
least) the deficit is a much larger problem than SS. There are other
problems as well; namely, that the casing studies use an inconsistent
baseline and don't realistically account for administrative costs.

"Dan White" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:%[email protected]:

> "Nate Perkins" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> Bush is the only guy I've ever seen that can do endlessly stupid
>> things and still be considered a heroic man of virtue to his
>> followers.
>>
>
> Maybe you should consider taking the blinders off and try to change
> your paradigm for just a minute. Did you consider that maybe the
> majority of the population that reelected him knows something that you
> clueless to?

You mean the same majority that has insights like this?
http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=508

Rick Cook <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> Fletis Humplebacker wrote:
>> <[email protected]>
>>
>>>Fletis Humplebacker wrote:
>>
>>>>At least you aren't one of those who thinks he knew before the
>>>>attacks happened or was in on it. I'm still not sure what you think
>>>>he should have done at the moment.
>>>
>>>Clearly he did nothing for the rest of the day except make a
>>>brief speech. It was one thing to leave Cheney in charge while
>>>en route to AF1 from the school. But Cheney stayed in charge
>>>of the nation's defense that day even after Bush was aboard AF1.
>
>> Clearly? According to who? Michael Moore?
>>
>
> That's certainly what Michael Moore would like us to believe. The
> evidence is otherwise, of course, but since Bush didn't do it in
> public, that can be safely ignored.

OK ... what exactly did Bush do aside from the brief speech and flight
on AF1?

Do you agree that Cheney was left in charge while Bush was on AF1?

>>>AF1 is designed specifically to permit the US president to
>>>manage the national defense while airborne. That Bush left the
>>>defense of the nation to Cheney is a clear indication that
>>
>> What's your source? Or do you need one?
>
> His source is one part ignorance and one part malice. While it's true
> that AF1 has some capability to manage national defense, it doesn't
> have _nearly_ the capability that Cheney's 'secure location' does.

What was Cheney's "secure location?" I haven't ever seen it reported.

...

Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

...
> Now, what you are continually railing about were *NOT* supported by
> the *majority* of those polled, i.e.:
> " * 41 percent believe that Saddam Hussein helped plan and support
> the hijackers who attacked the U.S. on September 11, 2001.
> * 38 percent believe that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction
> when the
> U.S. invaded.
> * 37 percent actually believe that several of the hijackers who
> attacked the U.S. on September 11 were Iraqis."


Look at the table.

For the claim: "Saddam Hussein helped plan and support the hijackers who
attacked the U.S. on September 11, 2001"
% of Bush supporters who believed it to be true: 52 percent
% of Kerry supporters who believed it to be true: 23 percent

For the claim: "Iraq had weapons of mass destruction when the U.S.
invaded"
% of Bush supporters who believed it to be true: 58 percent
% of Kerry supporters who believed it to be true: 16 percent

The vote on election day was Bush by a 3% margin.

Duane Bozarth <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> Nate Perkins wrote:
>>
>> The difference is that many of us believe that Bush's plan for
>> privatization will steer things more in the _wrong_ direction. That his
>> plan will cause more harm than good.
>
> In what way(s)?
>

It's the wrong direction because it increases the deficit, and in the short
term the deficit is a far more pressing problem than is social security.
Borrowing more money (a couple trillion) to finance the parallel
privatization plan is risky because it increases the risk that foreign
debtors will decrease confidence in our committment to fiscal discipline.
There are a host of other problems as well: inconsistent projection basis
for SS solvency vs privatization returns, unlikely projection of future
stock values based on recent historical values, and erosion of return
differences due to administrative fees.

Privatizers like to accurately point out that SS revenues/expenditures are
not practically separate from the general federal revenues/expenditures.
With that being true, then the best thing to do to ease multiple problems
is to restore fiscal discipline.

Duane Bozarth <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> Nate Perkins wrote:
>>
>> Duane Bozarth <[email protected]> wrote in
>> news:[email protected]:
>>
>> > Nate Perkins wrote:
>> >>
>> >> The difference is that many of us believe that Bush's plan for
>> >> privatization will steer things more in the _wrong_ direction.
>> >> That his plan will cause more harm than good.
>> >
>> > In what way(s)?
>> >
>>
>> It's the wrong direction because it increases the deficit, and in the
>> short term the deficit is a far more pressing problem than is social
>> security. Borrowing more money (a couple trillion) to finance the
>> parallel privatization plan is risky because it increases the risk
>> that foreign debtors will decrease confidence in our committment to
>> fiscal discipline. There are a host of other problems as well:
>> inconsistent projection basis for SS solvency vs privatization
>> returns, unlikely projection of future stock values based on recent
>> historical values, and erosion of return differences due to
>> administrative fees.
>>
>> Privatizers like to accurately point out that SS
>> revenues/expenditures are not practically separate from the general
>> federal revenues/expenditures. With that being true, then the best
>> thing to do to ease multiple problems is to restore fiscal
>> discipline.
>
> That's what I figured you were going after...
>
> What's wrong w/ the <direction>, not what's wrong w/ details of how to
> implement a change in direction?
>
> That's what bugs me about the whole debate--it's a pissing contest
> between two extremes with neither taking the time nor effort to
> consider a combination of changes. My contention is the <idea> of
> increasing personal stake in one's own retirement is almost mandatory
> while retaining commitments made to those close enough to retirement
> that it is only responsible to maintain those within reason. News
> organizations only exacerbate the problem as their primary purpose
> seems to be to foment dissension to sell headlines. If you listened
> to Greenspan the other day, you would get a feel for what could
> realistically be done.
>
> The <real> problem is the other out-of-control entitlement spending
> (MediCare, MedicAid, etc.) that both political parties are almost
> equally responsible for.
>

I agree with you completely.

The concept of partial privatization is not inherently bad, provided it
could be done in a prudent way that did not kill the short term debt,
and provided the private investments could be done with minimal impact
to the markets and with minimal administrative overhead. It's just that
I don't see much chance of that happening.

I agree that the real problem is out of control spending in all areas,
including entitlements, as well as irresponsible tax revenue reductions,
since both have contributed significantly to the deficits.

"Fletis Humplebacker" <!> wrote in news:[email protected]:

>
> "Ned"
>> Are we really better off today than before Bush took office?
>
>
> You bet. The liberals are even more livid and hysterical,
> proving that something good must have happened.
>

Heh heh. I bet you have a pinup of Ann Coulter on your wall, too.

On 17 Feb 2005 19:15:08 GMT, Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote:

>
>> Are we
>> really better off today than before Bush took office?
>
>I'd say yes. And vastly better than if Gore had been in on 9/11/01.

I completely agree. I bet that if Gore was president, we'd
have seen an administration that ignored terrorist threats;
the destruction of two of our largest buildings and damage
to the Pentagon; an undermanned invasion of a country that
had nothing to do with the destruction; a free pass for Saudi
Arabia, which did; destruction of our fundamental human rights
principles; massive deficits and a complete refusal to address
them; a proposal to increase them by another two trillion or so
with another boondoggle gov't program; a gov't boondoggle
pharmaceutical company support program passed off as a
seniors drug program; lies to congress and the American
public about the costs of the program; giveaways of our natural
resources; destruction of our relationships with other countries;
transfer of federal expenses onto states; a cynical "tax reduction"
shell game in which rates were lowered with the knowledge
that taxes would actually go up via the minimum tax option; and
the evolution of an administration propaganda machine, funded
by the American taxpayer. Heck, if Gore were president, we
would be in a lot of trouble now.

"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
> On Fri, 18 Feb 2005 10:27:35 -0600, wrote:

> I'm not sure if I should be honored, or offended?

It would be interesting to know _why_ you would be offended?

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 11/06/04

On 24 Feb 2005 12:10:36 -0800, [email protected] wrote:

>
>Not only were Clinton's retaliatory attacks against OBL and
>Al Queda more than nothing, the REPUBLICANS in Congress
>considered them to be so excessive they called it 'wag the
>dog'. George Will even alleged that becuase of the retaliation
>Clinton might be a murderer.


Clinton was trashed, by an entire zoo of conservatives/right
wingers for pushing anti-terrorist legislation and airline security
legislation. And they shot down most of it, including a bill
allowing the gov't to freeze financial assets of organizations
suspected of funding Al Qaeda. Phil Gramm was the big
man on that one, pushed along by the banking industry.

In article <[email protected]>, GregP <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 21:56:13 GMT, [email protected] (Doug Miller)
>wrote:
>
>>In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] wrote:
>>
>>>Some would have gotten OBL instead of diverting resources
>>>away from Afghanistan while OBL was still at large.
>>>
>>Some would have *taken* him when offered by the Sudanese, too, instead of
>>refusing. Twice.
>
>
>I don't remember that at all.

You have a short memory. Or a selective one.

> Can you substantiate it?

Sure thing. Google on <clinton "osama bin laden" sudan> and you'll find
everything you ever wanted to know about the whole sorry affair.

Examples:
http://www.nationalreview.com/interrogatory/interrogatory091103b.asp
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/12/5/153637.shtml


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

Nobody ever left footprints in the sands of time by sitting on his butt.
And who wants to leave buttprints in the sands of time?

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] wrote:
>
>Doug Miller wrote:
>> In article <[email protected]>,
>[email protected] wrote:
>>
>> >Not only were Clinton's retaliatory attacks against OBL and
>> >Al Queda more than nothing,
>>
>> Yeah, they accomplished a whole lot, didn't they?
>>
>> >the REPUBLICANS in Congress
>> >considered them to be so excessive they called it 'wag the
>> >dog'.
>>
>> Not because they were "excessive", but because of their timing.
>
>Regardless, the Republicans were very vocally opposed to action
>against AL QUeda.

I don't remember that at all. Can you substantiate it?

My memory is that Republicans were opposed to *useless* actions, like blowing
up aspirin factories and empty tents.
>
>>
>> >George Will even alleged that becuase of the retaliation
>> >Clinton might be a murderer.
>>
>> I'm not familiar with that; however, considering that one of
>Clinton's targets
>> was an aspirin factory with no connection at all to AQ, there might
>be some
>> substance to that idea.
>
>I remind you that the aspirin factory was financed by bin Laden

Was it?

>and the Clinton administration presented evidence in the form
>of chemicl residues in the nearby soils, that the factory was
>being used for chemical weapons production. Though that evidence
>was weak,

"Weak"?? Try "later proven absolutely, totally false".

> I also remind you that the Bush administration has thus
>far failed to present any similar evidence from Iraq.

What about that Sarin shell, Fred? Might not be much... but it's something.

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

Nobody ever left footprints in the sands of time by sitting on his butt.
And who wants to leave buttprints in the sands of time?

Dave Hinz <[email protected]> writes:
>On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 08:01:58 -0500, Renata <[email protected]> wrote:
>> You mean as opposed to GBush's target of a country w/no WMD?
>
>"no WMD" is an absolute, and is absolutely wrong. Even Fred doesn't
>deny the Sarin shell that injured a couple of our guys, and says there
>are 149 or 169 more of 'em unaccounted for out there.
>

Gimme a break.. A bunch of fruitcakes in japan made sarin. It
ain't difficult, and it proved, in the end, to be a less serious
threat than the scaremongers would have you think.

I'll bet even you have things in your garage you don't remember
that you have; how is it beyond the bounds of credibility that there
may be things tucked away in an area the size of a country that
even the leaders aren't aware of? Even shells that formerly
contained sarin?

scott

You mean as opposed to GBush's target of a country w/no WMD?

Renata

On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 22:01:39 GMT, [email protected] (Doug Miller)
wrote:
-snip-
>
>I'm not familiar with that; however, considering that one of Clinton's targets
>was an aspirin factory with no connection at all to AQ, there might be some
>substance to that idea.

Fletis Humplebacker wrote:
> "Nate Perkins"
>
>>Rick Cook
>>
>>>Fletis Humplebacker wrote:
>>>
>>>><[email protected]>
>>>>
>>>>>Fletis Humplebacker wrote:
>
>
>
>>>>>>At least you aren't one of those who thinks he knew before the
>>>>>>attacks happened or was in on it. I'm still not sure what you think
>>>>>>he should have done at the moment.
>
>
>
>>>>>Clearly he did nothing for the rest of the day except make a
>>>>>brief speech. It was one thing to leave Cheney in charge while
>>>>>en route to AF1 from the school. But Cheney stayed in charge
>>>>>of the nation's defense that day even after Bush was aboard AF1.
>
>
>>>>Clearly? According to who? Michael Moore?
>
>
>
>>>That's certainly what Michael Moore would like us to believe. The
>>>evidence is otherwise, of course, but since Bush didn't do it in
>>>public, that can be safely ignored.
>
>
>
>>OK ... what exactly did Bush do aside from the brief speech and flight
>>on AF1?
>
>
>>Do you agree that Cheney was left in charge while Bush was on AF1?
>
>
>
> Put in charge would be a better decription, for reasons already
> discussed. Or do you have some kind of national security expertise
> that we haven't seen yet?
>
>
>
>
>>>>>AF1 is designed specifically to permit the US president to
>>>>>manage the national defense while airborne. That Bush left the
>>>>>defense of the nation to Cheney is a clear indication tha
>
>
>
>>>>What's your source? Or do you need one?
>
>
>
>>>His source is one part ignorance and one part malice. While it's true
>>>that AF1 has some capability to manage national defense, it doesn't
>>>have _nearly_ the capability that Cheney's 'secure location' does.
>
>
>
>>What was Cheney's "secure location?" I haven't ever seen it reported.
>
>
>
> I don't think you quite understand what 'secure location' means. Secret
> locations are generally not publicized.
>
>
Actually it did come out later. Cheney was in the alternate national
command center.

--RC