OT: Politics: Vocabulary List For Dubya To Study

"Nate Perkins" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Edwin Pawlowski" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:<c%D6d.11487$XC.3414@trndny08>...
>> "Nate Perkins" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> >
>> > Rathergate crapola,
>>
>> Crapola? ANY news organization that puts falsified documents on the air
>> should be taken to task. I don't care if it is political, economic,
>> public,
>> private, whatever, Fake is fake and not checking sources in just plain
>> unacceptable. IMO, Rather should stuff his half hearted apology and
>> retire.
>> Yes, retire before his ass is fired.
>
> Right, crapola. I think democracy is best served by a discussion of
> the serious issues facing the country, and by honestly evaluating the
> policies and performance of the incumbent and challenger. The media
> focus on the sleazy aspects of this campaign, and on the manufactured
> scandals, is a huge distraction from the issues.
>
> Dan Rather is not on the ballot.

With you Nate, evertime the Lacy Peterson thing comes on the tube I change
stations, and every time the loud car ads come on the radio the radio gets
turned off....mjh

On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 17:49:59 -0400, Tom Watson <[email protected]> wrote:

>Gulf of Tonkin Incident.
... snip of 1960's redux
>Kent State.
>


Why is it that *every* military involvement is now always the "next
Vietnam"? Afghanistan was going to the a "quagmire" and the "next Vietnam"
until we went into Iraq -- that is now the "quagmire" and next "Vietnam".
Given the fact that the very same people decrying how Vietnam turned out
were the ones who gave us the rules of engagement and lack of will that
resulted in the defeat in Vietnam seems to be a somewhat self-fulfilling
prophecy.

On 25 Sep 2004 23:24:58 -0700, [email protected] (Nate Perkins)
wrote:

>Tom Watson <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
>> Gulf of Tonkin Incident.
>> War Powers Resolution.
>...
>
>To add a few:
>
>Uniter not a divider
>Reformer with results
>Smaller government
>Balanced budget
>Humble foreign policy
>Trust the people
>Social security lockbox
>Fuzzy math
>Scare tactics
>
>These may not ring a bell for those who have already forgotten the 2000 election.

Nope, people haven't forgotten those terms. Seems that some people have
forgotten a somewhat history-changing event that occured September 11,
2001. This is not September 10. A choice had to be made, we could have
done what the French and other Europeans have done in the wake of terrorist
attacks, or we could take a different direction and stop the problem at its
source(s). Seems the latter approach has more upside potential, i.e. stop
wringing our hands over the fact that although foreign gov's may coddle
terrorists, we really can't do anything because those terrorists aren't
really acting at the behest of those foreign gov'ts. Instead, hold those
governments accountable for hosting those terrorist groups. As far as debt
and budget deficits, those are of concern to us on the right as well. It's
time we stop spending money on government programs that are not
constitutionally identified (such as welfare, education, other
entitlements) and spend that money on what is constitutionally required
(seeing to the security of the country. When the constitution used the
words, "see to the common welfare", the founders did *not* intend that to
mean assure that everyone in the country be eligible to receive a check for
the government for sustenance.

On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 01:04:34 GMT, "Frank Ketchum"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>"Tom Watson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>Ok Tom,
>
>>
>> Ya know what Frank, you're right - almost.
>>
>> I should have headlined this under both candidates names.
>>
>True, Kerry has supported the Iraq war.
>
... snip


One of Kerry's positions on the war was that he is for it, but would
build a broader coalition and "do it smarter" (whatever the heck that
means). He wants to bring in other nations, ....

Funny thing though, he says how wasteful of lives this war is, why should
other countries feel inclined to send their troops if Kerry thinks it is a
waste?

He wants to build a broader coalition, yet is trying to tear down the
coalition already built, even to the extent of attempting to influence
foreign elections and disband the existing coalition:

<http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,10797507%255E2703,00.html>

" JOHN Kerry's campaign has warned Australians that the Howard Government's
support for the US in Iraq has made them a bigger target for international
terrorists."

What the @#$% is he trying to do here? This goes beyond mere debate over
philosophy of how the US will prosecute a war and is now actively into
visibly trying to influence foreign policy in a direction opposite that
which the duly elected government of the US has established. I suppose he
believes that if he becomes president, everyone will be so awed by his
qualifications for the job that no such actions undermining his policies
will be done. However, for now, he is doing the same thing he has done in
the past, providing aid and comfort for the enemy while our own troops are
at risk and in harm's way all to advance his own personal political agenda.

One could infer that Kerry was rejoicing over the outcome and results of
the Spanish election and welcomes any actions that result in putting our
troops more at risk rather than less.

Every war now and forever is NOT the Vietnam conflict (even that was
winnable but for the influence of people like Kerry and Hanoi Jane who
managed to influence the home front to the point of turning victory into
defeat).

This conflict is one in which we are engaging people who not only have
expressed dislike for us, they have indicated mulitiple times and in
multiple ways that they want to kill us, destroy our way of life, and that
we are the only thing standing between them and an Islamic Sharia ruled
paradise. So much so, that they declared war on this country by attacking
both civilian and military targets in this country. This is not another
chance for the 60's radicals to have one final fling before retirement --
this is serious stuff that we either squash these islamic fascists like the
bugs they are, or surrender to a slow sweep of their "way of life" across
Europe, into Canada and into our country. What's really ironic about this,
it's the culture created by those same 60's radicals (free love, free porn,
etc) that is what most infuriates the islamic fascists. When they say they
don't want western, christian culture, that is the culture to which they
refer.

On 27 Sep 2004 15:53:50 -0700, [email protected] (Nate Perkins)
wrote:

>Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<1096250240.BknWeGMrtNGM9DP/cSSlaQ@teranews>...
>...
>> Nope, people haven't forgotten those terms. Seems that some people have
>> forgotten a somewhat history-changing event that occured September 11,
>> 2001. This is not September 10. A choice had to be made, we could have
>> done what the French and other Europeans have done in the wake of terrorist
>> attacks, or we could take a different direction and stop the problem at its
>> source(s). Seems the latter approach has more upside potential, i.e. stop
>> wringing our hands over the fact that although foreign gov's may coddle
>> terrorists, we really can't do anything because those terrorists aren't
>> really acting at the behest of those foreign gov'ts. Instead, hold those
>> governments accountable for hosting those terrorist groups.
>
>Of course everyone remembers September 11, 2001 as well. We just
>don't believe that 9/11 gives Bush an excuse for all of his screwups.
>Standing on a pile of rubble and giving a firefighter a hug doesn't
>excuse his expansion of government entitlements, growth of government
>bureaucracy, and his irresponsibility in fiscal policy.

Where did you see me agreeing that spending additional money on
entitlements was a good thing? That is one area that I definitely am
disappointed with Bush. However, that said, I certainly cannot envision
that Kerry is going to spend less on entitlements, AAMOF he has indicated
that he is going to expand entitlements and make sure that people making
money are duly punished by increasing taxes on those who are successful.

> The events of
>9/11 don't excuse Bush from making tremendous screwups on the
>questions of WMD,

Operating on the best intelligence information you have available hardly
qualifies as a "tremendous screw-up" on Bush's part. The irony here is how
he is excoriated for not acting on supposed intelligence information that
led to 9/11.

> making terrible progress in the rebuilding Iraq and
>Afghanistan,

... and how long did it take to fully pacify Germany and Japan following
WWII? In addition, in those countries, their armed forces had been
completely and decisively crushed, unlike in Iraq and Afghanistan where the
watchful eye of the world almost dictated that armed forces not crush those
who laid down their weapons and disappeared into the woodwork, only to
re-emerge as guerilla fighters.

> and ineffectiveness in controlling the insurgency.

... and if effective actions to control the insurgency were being taken
right now, the discussion would be how brutal and evil Bush is because of
the lack of concern for human life.

> It
>doesn't excuse the lackluster performance of the economy -- despite
>passing all the tax cuts he asked for at huge expense to the debt.
>

The economy is recovering if you hadn't noticed.

>The notion of personal accountability and responsibility is a point
>that a person of privilege won't understand. You and I know that if
>we screw up, we are held responsible. But guys like Bush will always
>find someone else to blame, and will always expect to get off the hook
>no matter how badly they screw up.
>
>...

On 28 Sep 2004 23:39:30 -0700, [email protected] (Nate Perkins)
wrote:

>Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<1096342027.ICUXaH/M6F7Lf3NBFK1Cvw@teranews>...
>> On 27 Sep 2004 15:53:50 -0700, [email protected] (Nate Perkins)
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<1096250240.BknWeGMrtNGM9DP/cSSlaQ@teranews>...
.. snip
>> >bureaucracy, and his irresponsibility in fiscal policy.
>>
>> Where did you see me agreeing that spending additional money on
>> entitlements was a good thing? That is one area that I definitely am
>> disappointed with Bush. However, that said, I certainly cannot envision
>> that Kerry is going to spend less on entitlements, AAMOF he has indicated
>> that he is going to expand entitlements and make sure that people making
>> money are duly punished by increasing taxes on those who are successful.
>
>Bush is growing entitlements and government. You are a Bush
>supporter. You might be "disappointed," but you are not mad enough
>about it to stop supporting the guy.
>

When the alternative is going to make it worse, no, I'm not going to stop
supporting him.

>The other digs on Kerry are standard scare tactics, claiming that
>Kerry is just going to raise middle class taxes (blatantly false) or

Where in my comments did I say middle class? I said people making money
and also intended the people helping to expand the economy. Who do you
think invests in new businesses and grows their business by re-investing
profits? [Hint, it's not people below poverty line]. Punishing those
people making over some arbitrary amount does nothing to help what you say
is one of the big problems facing you -- the economy.

>spend bigger than Bush. Of course the question of Kerry's spending
>more than Bush could be true -- nobody can predict the future.

Based upon Kerry's own comments regarding what he believes are important
programs, assuming he plans to increase spending is more than mild
speculation.

> But it
>seems unlikely for the simple reason that Bush has increased spending
>faster than any President since LBJ.

Given that war was declared on this country during his watch, this in not
unreasonable.

> He's in a class by himself.
>Nobody in recent history rivals him. Odds are that whoever succeeds
>Bush will be a smaller spender.
>

The only reason that Kerry might not be so successful in expanding
entitlements is that there will still be a republican controlled congress,
who might actually grow some brazos and stop the spending expansion.

>> > The events of
>> >9/11 don't excuse Bush from making tremendous screwups on the
>> >questions of WMD,
>>
>> Operating on the best intelligence information you have available hardly
>> qualifies as a "tremendous screw-up" on Bush's part. The irony here is how
>> he is excoriated for not acting on supposed intelligence information that
>> led to 9/11.
>
>This is a bit of an overstatement to claim that Bush operated on "the
>best intelligence information (he) had." Bush disregarded the Iraq
>intel from his own State Department intel unit, from the UN
>inspectors,

Whose testimony was more than suspect.

> and from some of his own generals. True, there was intel
>claiming Iraq had WMDs -- just as there was intel suggesting he did
>not. In the end he made a judgement call with conflicting data, and
>he chose wrong. But much worse than that, he portrayed the WMDs as a
>certainty to the UN, to Congress, and to the American people ... even
>though he knew that some of his intel disagreed!

The bulk of the world's intelligence community supported the conclusion
that Iraq had WMD's. You are downplaying the weight on the pro- side and
up-playing the con- side.

> He and his
>adminstration also portrayed Iraq as having links to 9/11 to the
>people and even in the letter to Congress -- even though he knew he
>had no direct proof of that and later retracted the claim.
>

He portrayed links to Al Queida (later shown to be true based upon papers
found in Iraq). The Czechs still stand by their intel report.

>With regards to the intel info leading to 9/11, that's also a mixed
>bag. Bush claimed there was no way he could have known about an
>impending attack, but then in testimony it became clear that there was
>the Aug 6 PDB as well as other lesser warnings. Could Bush have
>prevented 9/11? Maybe, maybe not. But it wasn't even on their radar
>map! They were not focused on attacks, even when they had been warned
>repeatedly (by the outgoing Clinton guys, by Richard Clarke, and in
>PDBs) that Al Qaeda was a big threat. Remember that only 10 months
>earlier the Clinton guys prevented a set of terrorist attacks at the
>millenium -- and you know how the Bush guys love to sneer at how
>ineffective the Clinton people were. It should have been on the radar
>map, and they should have been focused on preventing it.
>

Again, you are excoriating Bush for acting on strong intelligence
regarding WMD's and not acting on weak, uncertain intelligence prior to
9/11.

BTW, citing Richard Clark is not the smartest choice of cites -- he has
been shown to have his own agenda and much of what he said has been
discredited.

>> > making terrible progress in the rebuilding Iraq and
>> >Afghanistan,
>>
>> ... and how long did it take to fully pacify Germany and Japan following
>> WWII? In addition, in those countries, their armed forces had been
>> completely and decisively crushed, unlike in Iraq and Afghanistan where the
>> watchful eye of the world almost dictated that armed forces not crush those
>> who laid down their weapons and disappeared into the woodwork, only to
>> re-emerge as guerilla fighters.
>
>Neither Germany nor Japan had any appreciable insurgency at this point
>after they had been conquered. It's a false analogy -- insurgencies
>don't compare, cultures don't compare, policies don't compare,
>reconstruction funding doesn't compare, awarding of contracts doesn't
>compare, military occupation strength doesn't compare.
>

That is the point, it took 7 YEARS to pacify Germany and Japan -- and
they had their armed forces totally crushed. To expect perfect
pacification in just a little over 1 year when the armed forces had not
been crushed is just plain silly.

>And I don't think you can blame the "watchful eye of the world" for
>letting the insurgents escape. The US didn't much care about the
>"watchful eye of the world" when it decided to unilaterally invade
>Iraq. Why claim the US cares about world opinion now?
>

Unilaterally with Britain, Australia, Poland and several other former
Eastern block countries, Italy, Spain (before they allowed themselves to be
emasculated and surrendered to the terrorists), Philipines. [I know,
really France and Russia are the rest of the world, the other countries
don't count]

... and yes, the US does care, it has placed our own troops at higher
risk rather than swiftly and decisively crushing the insurgency. By all
rights, the cemetary and mosques in Falujah should have been reduced to
rubble the moment the insurgents turned them into military outposts and
fortifications. Instead, our soldiers fought gravestone to gravestone to
avoid destroying this "holy treasure".


>> > and ineffectiveness in controlling the insurgency.
>>
>> ... and if effective actions to control the insurgency were being taken
>> right now, the discussion would be how brutal and evil Bush is because of
>> the lack of concern for human life.
>
>No, you seem to imply that the only way to control the insurgency is
>to kill more Iraqis. Really to win the US policy has to use all of
>its weapons -- military, political, and economic. By taking steps
>immediately after the invasion to insure security with our own troops
>in the cities, to rapidly train the Iraqis, and to rapidly begin the
>rebuilding process using Iraqi and labor and international companies,
>we could have gained the support of the Iraqi people and weakened the
>base for the insurgency. We didn't take advantage of that window.
>Now it will be much harder. That's a huge failure.
>

No, you're right, we should try to sit down with the insurgents and
*understand* where they are coming from. Perhaps you would like to
volunteer to go talk to them?

Seems like we did start training the Iraqi's as soon as was practical.
There was a little issue of having to secure the cities, then identify who
were the good guys and who were Saddam's folks in hiding. There was
sufficient embarassment over a few Saddam thugs who were able to bypass the
screening as it was.

>> > It
>> >doesn't excuse the lackluster performance of the economy -- despite
>> >passing all the tax cuts he asked for at huge expense to the debt.
>> >
>>
>> The economy is recovering if you hadn't noticed.
>
>Personally I haven't noticed much. My company is still laying off
>(they will probably keep me around as one of the last ones to teach
>the Malaysians how to do our work, though).
>

... and why are you training your replacement? Unless you've been paid a
hefty severence, you are part of the problem, not part of the solution. If
the Malaysians can do your work cheaper, they ought to be able to figure
out how to do it themselves.


>Nationally, I agree that the economy is slowly recovering. But many
>of the jobs and manufacturing base that are gone are permanently gone,
>and the new jobs pay less than the old ones. We've had a Fed prime of
>less than 2% and massive "tax cut stimulation" that was supposed to
>produce 6 million jobs. It lost 1.5 million instead.

I think your timeline is skewed. The tax cuts did not lose jobs, jobs
have increased, as you allude to below.

> My stocks are
>stinking out as the Dow and the Nasdaq continue to steadily fall under
>Bush.

Funny, all the financial sites I look at show the Dow and Nasdaq are
increasing and recovering from the 2001 9/11 induced crash as well as the
fall started by the Clinton recession.

> Corporate profits are up and corporate tax payments are down at
>the same time that worker productiity is up and worker wages are down.
> Consumer spending is slightly up, but because wages are down the
>consumer debt is also increased.
>
>This is not a well balanced or sustainable recovery.
>

Woe, Woe, all is woe! Soup lines and soup kitchens, the sun no longer
shines. Doom and gloom on all.

>> >The notion of personal accountability and responsibility is a point
>> >that a person of privilege won't understand. You and I know that if
>> >we screw up, we are held responsible. But guys like Bush will always
>> >find someone else to blame, and will always expect to get off the hook
>> >no matter how badly they screw up.
>> >
>> >...
>
>Why is it that instead of talking about Bush's policies and his
>performance (as you'd expect would be the case with an incumbent
>president), instead we're all talking about Swift Boat

Maybe because KERRY brought up his service in Vietnam as one of his
primary qualifications for the office he is seeking? I realize this
offends an elitist like Kerry, but there were some people who served with
and around him who took exception to his rosy portrayal of himself.

> and Rathergate
>crapola?

A major news organization attempted to influence the outcome of a
presidential election by portraying forged documents as real, using its
status as an "impartial" journalistic source and you call peoples' focus on
this crapola? Would you have said the same thing back in 1972? The
possibility that Kerry campaign operatives were involved in this story
makes this more than a minor perturbation in the election process -- it is
every bit as significant as the watergate break-in in the fact that the
results of a presidential election were trying to be influenced and a
felony (falsification of official government documents) was committed in
the process.

> Instead of focusing on Iraq policy, the voters are getting
>another jibe on how Kerry's a flip-flopping sailboarding quiche eater.

OK, which John Kerry are you voting for? What do *you* think you will
get if Kerry is elected?

> Instead of talking about the debt the voters are told (scared) by the
>VPOTUS that electing Kerry will insure that "Al Qaeda hits us again."

Neglecting the fact the other side has been making similar comments, when
you have a presidential candidate who is saying that we should never have
gone into Iraq, we should have gone into Iraq but done it smarter, we
should have gone in but taken the French with us, we should have waited to
go in; when you have a presidential candidate who has sent his sister to
Australia to influence an election in order to get someone who would remove
their troops from Iraq in order to help destroy the existing coalition,
what other conclusion can one draw?


>Instead of talking about how the middle class are sucking it up with
>the Bush tax cuts,

Gee, I'm middle class, I'm paying less in taxes, I'm using that money
saved in various ways in the economy -- I don't feel like I'm sucking
anything up.

> we are told that a vote for Kerry is a vote for the
>Michael Moore/Hillary Clinton/Ted Kennedy socialists who want to raise
>your taxes.

Hillary Klinton, "some of you have benefited from the Bush tax cuts,
we're going to have to ask you to give that back" -- recent political
speech to a group of west coast supporters

John Kerry: Wants to raise taxes on those making more than $200k (this
includes many small businesses and entrepreneurs who are actually expanding
the economy -- making them pay more taxes is not going to allow them to
expand as much). In a recent interview, when confronted by the question of
his "I voted for it before I voted against it" gaffe stated that when he
made that comment [along with a few other waffles] said he was thinking
that "I thought to have the wealthiest people in America share the burden
of paying for that war " [to Dianne Sawyer during pre-debate interview on
GMA]

> Instead of honestly talking about ways to fix the
>healthcare mess and thereby improve corporate competitiveness, the
>POTUS lies and says that Kerry has a master plan to socialize all
>medicine.
>
>Fear, uncertainty, and distortion -- if you don't have a good
>incumbent record to run on, at least you can try to tear down your
>opponent.

... and what *did* Kerry do during his 20 years as a US senator?

On Wed, 29 Sep 2004 23:13:09 -0700, "mp" <[email protected]> wrote:

>> You are absolutely correct that Kerry has been talking about issues for
>> months. Actually, much longer. In Fact, he has talked about and taken so
>> many positions on the issues that no one can remember what his position
>is.
>> He has taken so many positions in Iraq that every time ho speaks on the
>> subject, he contradicts a previous position.
>
>You forgot to mention another notable flip-flop artist.
>
>http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/09/28/politics/main646142.shtml
>

Well, just for grins, let's take a look at one of those "flip-flops":
From the cbsnews (you're first mistake, they have about as much credibility
as Jason Blair at the NYT, but let's go on):
>In a press conference in September 2002, six months before the invasion of Iraq, President Bush said, “you can't distinguish between al Qaeda and Saddam when you talk about the war on terror... they're both equally as bad, and equally as evil, and equally as destructive.”
>

OK, Bush said that both Saddam and Al Queda are equally evil,
destructive, and bad.

>In September of 2004, Mr. Bush said: “We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with September 11th."

So where's the flip-flop here, doesn't contradict the statement that
Saddam is evil, bad, or destructive.

> Though he added that “there's no question that Saddam Hussein had al Qaeda ties,”

Again, a simple statement of fact, there is adequate information that
Saddam had ties to various Al Queada operatives. He harbored terrorists
(does the name Abu Nadal ring any bells?). He paid out stipends to the
families of homicide bommbers.

>the statement seemingly belied earlier assertions that Saddam and al Qaeda were “equally bad.”
>

Huh? What colossal leap of [il]logic lead to this conclusion? Saddam
cuts people's hands off, crushed them in plastic shredders, tortured
dissenters, had his thugs cut out peoples' tongues, along with a few other
such atrocities. Al Queada is pursuing WMD's, has flown airplanes into
buildings and cuts the heads of its hostages off. Seems no flip-flop
there, they are both equally bad and evil.

>The Sept. 11 commission found there was no evidence Saddam was linked to the 9/11 attacks, which killed nearly 3,000 people.

So? How does this indicate a flip-flop in Bush's position that both al
Queada and Saddam are equally bad and evil and were both elements of the
war on terror?



I haven't got time to parse the other Bush "flip-flops" and I know it
wouldn't do any good anyway. I am just amused that something like the
above is considered the same as "I voted for it before I voted against it",
or “We should not have gone to war knowing the information that we know
today," Kerry said Wednesday on ABC’s “Good Morning America.” then "But on
Aug. 9, 2004, when asked if he would still have gone to war knowing Saddam
Hussein did not possess weapons of mass destruction, Kerry said: “Yes, I
would have voted for the authority. I believe it was the right authority
for a president to have.”

On Thu, 07 Oct 2004 09:39:37 -0400, Renata <[email protected]> wrote:

>Kerry ain't Jewish.
>
>Renata

Better tell him that. Just like Hillary, Kerry has "discovered" a jewish
heritage:
<http://www.suntimes.com/output/elect/cst-nws-kerrya10.html>

>
>On Sat, 02 Oct 2004 04:51:38 GMT, "Mike Hide" <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>>
>>
>>I am no Kerry supporter but if he became president, the result could be
>>interesting, the country run by two trial lawyers.
>>
>>The first Jewish president
>>
>>The first white African first lady.
>>
>>Quite a combination.....mjh

Bored again? The list is pointless, as Dumbya himself says he doesn't read;
that he has people that who tell him what he needs to know.

> Agent Orange.

Looks like the effects of DU are going to make Agent Orange look like fruit
juice in comparison.

WoodMangler wrote:

>>http://bushorchimp.com/pics.html
>>
>
> Laughed myself silly!
And don't forget New-q-lur...

Philski

Well,
My two cents worth...
> Over a thousand young Americans have died and a hell of a lot more
> Iraqis.<
Yes indeed. On September 11, 2001 3000 Americans died inside of 24 hours
as a result of terrorist attacks against US! Thank GOD that we have
VOLUNTEER forces to help defend this country and it's freedoms and ideals!
George Bush has been nothing other than a stalwart defender of democracy.
Of course things are tough in Iraq, because the worst thing that could
happen to those theocracies is for democracy to take hold. They are going
to fight their asses off to keep their women barefoot, ignorant and totally
submissive. The thought of actual freedom and education scares the hell out
of them, because it takes their power away. Any of you anti war shitheads
have daughters?? Imagine them living in those conditions as opposed to the
"infidels" in the United States where they can raise a family of FREE
children who choose their course in life as opposed to having their life
dictated to them. The problem with Saddam being gone is what??
George Bush will be appreciated by history as an American President who
actually had the balls to defend this country and to have a long term vision
to establish freedom and democracy in a region which largely still exists in
many respects in the 7th century.
Thank God for George Bush.

"Tom Watson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 23:03:35 GMT, "Frank Ketchum"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Tom Watson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]...
> >
> >Truly pathetic. This campaign has set a new record for lacking
substance.
> >Hey, why don't you guys recycle the DUI again? Just keep going through
the
> >laundry list of past failed criticisms. This is becoming truly boring.
> >
>
> Ya know what Frank, you're right - almost.
>
> I should have headlined this under both candidates names.
>
> I do like taking shots at Dubya, because I don't trust him and don't
> think he's smart enough for his job.
>
> But I'm no lover of Curry, either.
>
> I would like anyone who is in the position of prosecuting this
> conflict to read that list; it might be worthwhile.
>
> We have invaded a sovereign nation under false pretenses and continue
> to be there as an occupying force.
>
> Over a thousand young Americans have died and a hell of a lot more
> Iraqis.
>
> The other day I read a news report that referenced a study done by the
> provisional government of Iraq. In it was a statement that two thirds
> of the civilian casualties in this conflict have been caused by the
> Combined Forces, as opposed to those caused by the insurgents. One
> third of those casualties were in the form of women and children.
>
> And this is a report from our hand selected officials.
>
> It's wrong Frank.
>
> It was wrong from the beginning and it gets more wrong every day that
> we are there.
>
> Some people would say that the analogy to Vietnam is invalid.
>
> I'm not one who agrees.
>
> If Kerry had the strength of his convictions he would run as the
> candidate who would end the conflict - but he wants to be President
> too much - it's a damned shame.
>
>
>
> Regards,
> Tom.
>
> "People funny. Life a funny thing." Sonny Liston
>
> Thomas J.Watson - Cabinetmaker (ret.)
> tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet (real email)
> http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1

> Of course things are tough in Iraq, because the worst thing that could
> happen to those theocracies is for democracy to take hold. They are going
> to fight their asses off to keep their women barefoot, ignorant and
totally
> submissive.

You need some lessons. First of all, Iraq is not a theocracy. Iraq was/is a
democracy. Of course, Saddam was the only choice on the ballot, but that's a
minor issue.

Speaking of opressed women, Iraq had a higher percentage of doctors per
capita than the US and many other western nations, and many of the Iraqi
doctors were women. Same with other professions. There were many prominent
senior level women scientists in Iraq, including the two women currently in
US custody. Women in Iraq enjoyed more freedom than most if not all of the
other middle eastern countries.

> The thought of actual freedom and education scares the hell out
> of them, because it takes their power away.

You're so wrong. Once Saddam nationalized the oil industry and applied some
of the revenues towards improving the educational infrastructure, Iraq
developed one of the best educational systems in the middle east. Rather
than restricting education, Saddam, true to his character, went so far as to
imprison Iraqis who failed to show up for school. Should I mention that in
Iraq university education was free to both men and women?

> Any of you anti war shitheads
> have daughters??

Here's a better definition of shithead: One who sends the country's
daughters off to fight an illegal war and refuses to pay respect to their
souls when they come back in a body bag.

> Imagine them living in those conditions as opposed to the
> "infidels" in the United States where they can raise a family of FREE
> children who choose their course in life as opposed to having their life
> dictated to them.

Having the benefit of free university education, Iraqi women had more career
options than 20% of American women at the bottom of the socio-economic
ladder. The irony of the situation is that one of the few ways these women
could ever hope to get a post secondary education is to enlist and head off
to fight an illegal war in Iraq. Just imagine how much farther ahead the US
and the world would be if the cost of the war so far, roughly $250 billion,
was put towards helping the lower socio-economic groups become better
educated.

>The problem with Saddam being gone is what??

The problem with Saddam being gone? For one, the Shiite majority, which
makes up over 60% of Iraq's population, will in a few bloody and civil war
torn years gain political control and result in a theocracy much like Iran.
So much for women's rights.

> George Bush will be appreciated by history as an American President who
> actually had the balls to defend this country and to have a long term
vision
> to establish freedom and democracy in a region which largely still exists
in
> many respects in the 7th century.

George Bush will likely go down in history as a bumbling inarticulate
mis-speaking failed statesman, a religious fanatic who brought turmoil,
destruction, unrest, and civil war to Iraq and the middle east. That's just
my guess, of course.

Here's what the world thinks of him so far http://www.betavote.com/ . So
much for historical appreciation.

> I'm sorry, mp, but this post of yours is the biggest load I've read here
> yet.

Your opinion doesn't change reality. In many ways Iraq suffered under
Saddam's rule but not everything he did was evil and despicable. He did a
lot to improve Iraq's education system and the nations health services. In
those respects Iraq was one of the more progressive middle eastern
countries.

> As for the statement above, what happened to the 500,000 American dead
> solders the Garafolo's kept telling us about?

I have no idea what you're talking about or who the Garafolo's are.

> Now you're an expert on the
> future of Iraq?

Despite the advice, suggestions, and impassioned pleas of numerous world
leaders ol' Dumbya decided to go it alone. What's happening now in Iraq is
what the world at large (Dumbya and Blair excluded) has predicted would
happen. And with a 60% Shiite majority in Iraq it follows that they'll
likely determine the political outcome of the country in the years to come.
That is, if in their new "democracy" they're actually allowed to vote.

> As for the rest of your post, it sounds like someone trying
> to convince us of how wonderful Cuba is because they SUPPOSEDLY have low
> infant mortality.

Cuba would be a lot more wonderful if it wasn't under the stranglehold of US
economic sanctions. The US must be the only country in the world that thinks
this tiny island nation is a threat to national security. Give me a break.

Funny though, that you should bring up Cuba, as a number of my friends have
vacationed there. Wonderful people, good food and reasonable prices make for
a great time. In fact, I'm planning to vacation there myself next year.
Shall I bring you back a box of Cohiba's?

> Hehe, ever wonder why those prices are so reasonable? Do you really want
to
> vacation amongst political prisoners? Actually if I smoked I'm sure that
> would make a very nice (illegal???) gift. Thanks for the offer!

It's well known Cuba has some political prisoners. It's also well known that
the US has some political prisoners too, some of which are also being
detained, surprisingly enough, in Cuba. What a coincidence! Must the
climate. If I was a political prisoner I'd sure like to be somewhere warm,
like Cuba.

The US may be one up on Cuba though. I could be wrong, but I don't think
Cuba incarcerates 13 year olds for several years at a time without charges,
access to family or legal counsel.

> > Rathergate crapola,
>
> Crapola? ANY news organization that puts falsified documents on the air
> should be taken to task. I don't care if it is political, economic,
public,
> private, whatever, Fake is fake and not checking sources in just plain
> unacceptable. IMO, Rather should stuff his half hearted apology and
retire.
> Yes, retire before his ass is fired.



I couldn't agree more. Verifying document authenticity and checking sources
is of paramount importance. When someone goes public with fake documents we
need to hold them accountable, regardless of whether they're a journalist
or, say, a president from Texas.

> You are absolutely correct that Kerry has been talking about issues for
> months. Actually, much longer. In Fact, he has talked about and taken so
> many positions on the issues that no one can remember what his position
is.
> He has taken so many positions in Iraq that every time ho speaks on the
> subject, he contradicts a previous position.

You forgot to mention another notable flip-flop artist.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/09/28/politics/main646142.shtml

> > You forgot to mention another notable flip-flop artist.
> >
> > http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/09/28/politics/main646142.shtml
>
> And because I like to be "fair and balanced"
>
> http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/09/29/politics/main646435.shtml


Maybe that's why they're pretty much neck to neck in the polls.

"Mark & Juanita"
> Based upon Kerry's own comments regarding what he believes are important
> programs, assuming he plans to increase spending is more than mild
> speculation.


WASHINGTON, DC (AP) -

Congress approved sweeping legislation, which provides new benefits for
many Americans. The Americans With No Abilities Act (AWNAA), signed into
law by President John Kerry shortly after its passage, is being hailed as
a major victory by advocates of the millions of Americans who lack any
real skills or ambition.



"Roughly 50 percent of Americans do not possess the competence and drive
necessary to carve out a meaningful role for themselves in society," said
Kerry, a longtime AWNAA supporter.



"This is why many of them voted for me. We can no longer stand by and
allow People of Inability to be ridiculed and passed over. With this
legislation, employers will no longer be able to grant special favors to a
small group of workers, simply because they do a better job, or have some
idea of what they are doing", said Kerry.



President Kerry pointed to the success of the US Postal Service, which has
a long-standing policy of providing opportunity without regard to
performance. Approximately 80 percent of postal employees lack job skills,
making this agency the single largest US employer of Persons of Inability.



Private sector industries with good records of nondiscrimination against
the Inept include retail sales (72%), the airline industry (68%),and home
improvement "warehouse" stores (65%)



President Kerry has also set an example, personally selecting hundreds of
Nonabled people for top government positions, including many cabinet-level
jobs.



Under the Americans With No Abilities Act, more than 25 million "middle
man" positions will be created, with important-sounding titles but little
real responsibility, thus providing an illusory sense of purpose and
performance.



Mandatory non-performance-based raises and promotions will be given, to
guarantee upward mobility for even the most unremarkable employees. The
legislation provides substantial tax breaks to corporations which maintain
a significant level of Persons of Inability in top positions, and gives a
tax credit to small and medium businesses that agree to hire one clueless
worker for every two talented hires.



Finally, the AWNAA contains tough new measures to make it more difficult
to discriminate against the Nonabled, banning discriminatory interview
questions such as "Do you have any goals for the future?" or "Do you have
any skills or experience which relate to this job?" and "Are you awake?"



"As a Nonabled person, I can't be expected to keep up with people who have
something going for them," said Mary Lou Gertz, who lost her position as a
lug-nut twister at the GM plant in Flint, MI due to her lack of notable
job skills. "This new law should really help people like me." With the
passage of this bill, Gertz and millions of other untalented citizens can
finally see a light at the end of the tunnel.



Said Kerry, "It is our duty as lawmakers to provide each and every
American citizen, regardless of his or her adequacy, with some sort of
space to take up in this great nation."

Seems like another guy with a VN obsession.

"Tom Watson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Gulf of Tonkin Incident.
> War Powers Resolution.
> Domino Theory.
> Escalation.
> Body Count.
> The Light At The End Of The Tunnel.
> Draft Lottery.
> Vietnamization.
> Secret Plan To End The War.
> Khmer Rouge.
> Hearts and Minds.
> Sideshow.
> Pol Pot.
> Ho Chi Minh.
> Operation Rolling Thunder.
> Khe Sanh.
> Back In The World.
> Tet.
> Deros.
> Operation Pegasus.
> Destroying The Village In Order To Save It.
> My Lai.
> Chu Lai.
> Napalm.
> Saturation Bombing.
> Agent Orange.
> Hue.
> Cambodia.
> Laos.
> William Westmoreland.
> Maxwell Taylor.
> Daniel Ellsberg.
> Kent State.
>
>
>
> Regards,
> Tom.
>
> "People funny. Life a funny thing." Sonny Liston
>
> Thomas J.Watson - Cabinetmaker (ret.)
> tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet (real email)
> http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1

Thomas wrote:
> Well,
> My two cents worth...
>
>>Over a thousand young Americans have died and a hell of a lot more
>>Iraqis.<
>
> Yes indeed. On September 11, 2001 3000 Americans died inside of 24 hours
> as a result of terrorist attacks against US! Thank GOD that we have
> VOLUNTEER forces to help defend this country and it's freedoms and ideals!
> George Bush has been nothing other than a stalwart defender of democracy.
> Of course things are tough in Iraq, because the worst thing that could
> happen to those theocracies is for democracy to take hold.
Um, Iraq was the only secular state over there (aside from Isreal,
and that's debatable).

> They are going to fight their asses off to keep their women barefoot, ignorant and totally
> submissive. The thought of actual freedom and education scares the hell out
> of them, because it takes their power away. Any of you anti war shitheads
> have daughters?? Imagine them living in those conditions as opposed to the
> "infidels" in the United States where they can raise a family of FREE
> children who choose their course in life as opposed to having their life
> dictated to them.

As a matter of fact this shithead does have a daughter. And exactly
what part of her life is, as you say, FREE? I'd really like to know
just what FREE means to you? Free to do what? Free to protest at a
political rally perhaps? How about free to travel unimpeded amongst the
various States? How 'bouut free to NOT say "under God"? How 'bout free
to reject the "Standard White Jesus"? How bout this: Free to think for
herself and express her opinion without fear of being labeled a heratic
or traitor?

This shithead also has a son. Is he going to be FREE to protest wars
in far off places? I seriously doubt it. More than likely his life
will be wasted in some far off place where the locals would just as soon
he went home.

> The problem with Saddam being gone is what??
No problem here with him being gone. Just a HUGE problem with how he
got gone.

> George Bush will be appreciated by history as an American President who
> actually had the balls to defend this country and to have a long term vision
> to establish freedom and democracy in a region which largely still exists in
> many respects in the 7th century.

Um, ya know not everyone in the world HAS to be an American. How dare
you think that your way of life is the ONLY way of life. Have you heard
of the Ugly American? Well we're all pretty hideous right now, and a
lot of it comes from folks like you who think their way is the only
way, their God is the only God, America is the only way.

> Thank God for George Bush.
Which God? I'm willing to bet that there are several billion Muslims
who aren't thanking their God for Bush right now.

And before you trash me as a wimpy, leftist traitor, remember that YOU
said that we're fighting for freedom. And that includes the freedom
to dissent. The freedom to reject the dominant paradigm. And yes,
God forbid, the freedom to think for myself.


> "Tom Watson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 23:03:35 GMT, "Frank Ketchum"
>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Tom Watson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>news:[email protected]...
>>>
>>>Truly pathetic. This campaign has set a new record for lacking
>
> substance.
>
>>>Hey, why don't you guys recycle the DUI again? Just keep going through
>
> the
>
>>>laundry list of past failed criticisms. This is becoming truly boring.
>>>
>>
>>Ya know what Frank, you're right - almost.
>>
>>I should have headlined this under both candidates names.
>>
>>I do like taking shots at Dubya, because I don't trust him and don't
>>think he's smart enough for his job.
>>
>>But I'm no lover of Curry, either.
>>
>>I would like anyone who is in the position of prosecuting this
>>conflict to read that list; it might be worthwhile.
>>
>>We have invaded a sovereign nation under false pretenses and continue
>>to be there as an occupying force.
>>
>>Over a thousand young Americans have died and a hell of a lot more
>>Iraqis.
>>
>>The other day I read a news report that referenced a study done by the
>>provisional government of Iraq. In it was a statement that two thirds
>>of the civilian casualties in this conflict have been caused by the
>>Combined Forces, as opposed to those caused by the insurgents. One
>>third of those casualties were in the form of women and children.
>>
>>And this is a report from our hand selected officials.
>>
>>It's wrong Frank.
>>
>>It was wrong from the beginning and it gets more wrong every day that
>>we are there.
>>
>>Some people would say that the analogy to Vietnam is invalid.
>>
>>I'm not one who agrees.
>>
>>If Kerry had the strength of his convictions he would run as the
>>candidate who would end the conflict - but he wants to be President
>>too much - it's a damned shame.
>>
>>
>>
>>Regards,
>>Tom.
>>
>>"People funny. Life a funny thing." Sonny Liston
>>
>>Thomas J.Watson - Cabinetmaker (ret.)
>>tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet (real email)
>>http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1
>
>
>

"Scott Lurndal" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:_3%[email protected]...
> "Dan White" <[email protected]> writes:
>
> > I find it interesting that you not only know that there is a secret
> >list of interrogation techniques, but have even presumed that it violates
> >the UCMJ.
>
> See Seymour Hirsch's new book for all the grody details on the
Presidential Finding
> signed by the president which allows snatch squads and interrogation
techniques
> that would have formerly been considered torture.
>

and these secret techniques approved for use where and under what
circumstances?

dwhite

"Dan White" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> "Fred the Red Shirt" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > "Dan White" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:<[email protected]>...
> > > "Fred the Red Shirt" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > > news:[email protected]...
> > > >
> > > > A better criticism is that he ignored the intelligence prior to
> > > > September 11, 2001, and then after, selectively presented and
> > > > fabricated intelligence that supported the case for invading Iraq.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Tell me again what Bush's motivation was for lying so that he could go
> into
> > > Iraq?
> > >
> >
> > I don't recall telling you befor so this will be the first time.
> > No need to take notes, google is your freind.
>
> Well, I meant "you" in the same sense that John Kerry meant all the other
> soldiers when he said "I" committed atrocities. ;)
>
>
> >
> > Three obvious reasons:
> >
> > 1) Replace a Dictatorship with a Democracy, helping to stabilize
> > the Mideast.
> >
> > 2) Further isolate Iran and establish a potential base for
> > military operations. Although Iraq was already hostile
> > to Iran, it was also hostile to us. Now we have our
> > military massed on Iran's border. Maybe they'll stop
> > couterfeiting US currency now.
> >
> > 3) Switch the contracts for Iraqi oil reserves from France,
> > Russia and China to the US and UK.
> >
> > What can you come up with?
> >
>
> I think those are all good reasons, but the overriding reason for going in
> is the change in mindset, or paradigm, after 9/11. Of course number 3
> smacks of the conspiracy theorist kook viewpoint, but it is quite a nice
> fringe benefit.
>
> dwhite


It's not just about Dubya. In some respects he's the puppet of
Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz etc. It has been reported that minutes
after the 9/11 attack, Rumsfeld penned a memo about getting Saddam.
Seems there was an irrational predisposition to go to war with Iraq-
"he tried to kill my daddy!" But, let the facts fall where they may.

Dubya could have put some time in at Yale getting an education- as it
is, he's an embarrassment, and his coterie a threat to democracy.

"Fred the Red Shirt" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Dan White" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> > "Fred the Red Shirt" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> > > "Dan White" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:<[email protected]>...
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I think those are all good reasons, but the overriding reason for
going
> > in
> > > > is the change in mindset, or paradigm, after 9/11. Of course number
3
> > > > smacks of the conspiracy theorist kook viewpoint, but it is quite a
nice
> > > > fringe benefit.
> > > >
> > >
> > > That may be the strongest reason. Cetainly that is the reason we
> > > jailed 1200 Middle Easterners without so much as a reasonable
suspician
> > > that they had comitted crimes. That is the reason the USDOJ wants
> > > to be able to strong-arm librarians into telling the government what
> > > we are reading. That is why we rejected the due process provisions
> > > of the Geneva Conventions and our own Uniform Code of Military
Justice.
> > > That is why the Secretary of Defense has approved a secret list of
> > > interrogation techniques that no doubt violate the UCMJ.
> > >
> > > Our nation has been like a wounded beast tearing at itslef and lashing
> > > out ar whomever is in reach. And like a wounded beast it has not
helped
> > > us heal or made us safer.
> > >
> >
> > I think you are seeing things that do not exist.
> >
>
> Are you attempting to evade rebuttal by keeping your criticism
> deliberately vague?
>

I'm simply trying to cut through all the bs. You characterize our nation as
a "wounded beast tearing at itself and lashing out." I see things
completely differently. You and I will never agree on this and there's no
reason we have to. Let me restate my comment above; IN MY OPINION you see
things that do not exist. I believe you attribute motives where there are
none. I find it interesting that you not only know that there is a secret
list of interrogation techniques, but have even presumed that it violates
the UCMJ.

dwhite

Kerry ain't Jewish.

Renata

On Sat, 02 Oct 2004 04:51:38 GMT, "Mike Hide" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>
>
>I am no Kerry supporter but if he became president, the result could be
>interesting, the country run by two trial lawyers.
>
>The first Jewish president
>
>The first white African first lady.
>
>Quite a combination.....mjh

"Nate Perkins" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> Again, who cares? It's certainly not the most serious issue facing
> voters. It's just another cheap distraction. Haven't we had about
> enough of those? When does Bush have to start talking about issues
> and his record?

It is serious to me. If I cannot trust the news sources I cannot make a
proper decision. It is not a distraction to the candidates, it is a serious
issue involving what is one of the most used sources of information in the
USA. If they lied about this, what else are they lying about?

Would you feel the same way if they showed falsified information about your
favorite candidate?

Politics aside, it is a very serious issue that affects all of us. It is
more than just the minor distraction you make it out to be. Distance
yourself from who the information was about and look at is as a consumer of
news and tell me you can trust Dan Rather 100% for everything in the future.
As well as all the news media that is tainted when this sort of thing
happens. . Why have some major newspaper editorial boards called for his
resignation? Because it is a serious ethics violation.
Ed

"mp" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
dwhite says:
> > As for the rest of your post, it sounds like someone trying
> > to convince us of how wonderful Cuba is because they SUPPOSEDLY have low
> > infant mortality.
>
> Cuba would be a lot more wonderful if it wasn't under the stranglehold of
US
> economic sanctions. The US must be the only country in the world that
thinks
> this tiny island nation is a threat to national security. Give me a break.

Well then if you believe that then you're just a run of the mill socialist
(or as I think Horowitz says, a "neo-communist"). If you really believe the
US creates more of a stranglehold on Cuba than Castro does then there's not
much I can say. At least I know where you are coming from now.

>
> Funny though, that you should bring up Cuba, as a number of my friends
have
> vacationed there. Wonderful people, good food and reasonable prices make
for
> a great time. In fact, I'm planning to vacation there myself next year.
> Shall I bring you back a box of Cohiba's?
>

Hehe, ever wonder why those prices are so reasonable? Do you really want to
vacation amongst political prisoners? Actually if I smoked I'm sure that
would make a very nice (illegal???) gift. Thanks for the offer!

dwhite

"Todd Fatheree" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Jake" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...

> > Got me there. My point is, many people in this country (Cheney is
> > the standard example) seem quite ready to call anyone who dissents,
> > "unpatriotic". This is what we're dying for?
>
> You're going to have to provide a link for Cheney calling dissenters
> unpatriotic. The only hits I got in my search were for Teresa Heinz Kerry
> calling Cheney unpatriotic.
>

Kerry keeps claiming that Cheney called him and/or Edwards unpatriotic. The
irony is that Cheney went out of his way to laud Kerry's heroics and
patriotism. Never fearing to blunder into the fray, Kerry goes off lying
about other's statements to people, like Jake, who have neither the time nor
interest to pay much attention to this stuff.

dwhite

Tom Watson <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> Gulf of Tonkin Incident.
> War Powers Resolution.
...

To add a few:

Uniter not a divider
Reformer with results
Smaller government
Balanced budget
Humble foreign policy
Trust the people
Social security lockbox
Fuzzy math
Scare tactics

These may not ring a bell for those who have already forgotten the 2000 election.

Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<1096250240.BknWeGMrtNGM9DP/cSSlaQ@teranews>...
...
> Nope, people haven't forgotten those terms. Seems that some people have
> forgotten a somewhat history-changing event that occured September 11,
> 2001. This is not September 10. A choice had to be made, we could have
> done what the French and other Europeans have done in the wake of terrorist
> attacks, or we could take a different direction and stop the problem at its
> source(s). Seems the latter approach has more upside potential, i.e. stop
> wringing our hands over the fact that although foreign gov's may coddle
> terrorists, we really can't do anything because those terrorists aren't
> really acting at the behest of those foreign gov'ts. Instead, hold those
> governments accountable for hosting those terrorist groups.

Of course everyone remembers September 11, 2001 as well. We just
don't believe that 9/11 gives Bush an excuse for all of his screwups.
Standing on a pile of rubble and giving a firefighter a hug doesn't
excuse his expansion of government entitlements, growth of government
bureaucracy, and his irresponsibility in fiscal policy. The events of
9/11 don't excuse Bush from making tremendous screwups on the
questions of WMD, making terrible progress in the rebuilding Iraq and
Afghanistan, and ineffectiveness in controlling the insurgency. It
doesn't excuse the lackluster performance of the economy -- despite
passing all the tax cuts he asked for at huge expense to the debt.

The notion of personal accountability and responsibility is a point
that a person of privilege won't understand. You and I know that if
we screw up, we are held responsible. But guys like Bush will always
find someone else to blame, and will always expect to get off the hook
no matter how badly they screw up.

...

Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<1096342027.ICUXaH/M6F7Lf3NBFK1Cvw@teranews>...
> On 27 Sep 2004 15:53:50 -0700, [email protected] (Nate Perkins)
> wrote:
>
> >Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<1096250240.BknWeGMrtNGM9DP/cSSlaQ@teranews>...
> >...
> >> Nope, people haven't forgotten those terms. Seems that some people have
> >> forgotten a somewhat history-changing event that occured September 11,
> >> 2001. This is not September 10. A choice had to be made, we could have
> >> done what the French and other Europeans have done in the wake of terrorist
> >> attacks, or we could take a different direction and stop the problem at its
> >> source(s). Seems the latter approach has more upside potential, i.e. stop
> >> wringing our hands over the fact that although foreign gov's may coddle
> >> terrorists, we really can't do anything because those terrorists aren't
> >> really acting at the behest of those foreign gov'ts. Instead, hold those
> >> governments accountable for hosting those terrorist groups.
> >
> >Of course everyone remembers September 11, 2001 as well. We just
> >don't believe that 9/11 gives Bush an excuse for all of his screwups.
> >Standing on a pile of rubble and giving a firefighter a hug doesn't
> >excuse his expansion of government entitlements, growth of government
> >bureaucracy, and his irresponsibility in fiscal policy.
>
> Where did you see me agreeing that spending additional money on
> entitlements was a good thing? That is one area that I definitely am
> disappointed with Bush. However, that said, I certainly cannot envision
> that Kerry is going to spend less on entitlements, AAMOF he has indicated
> that he is going to expand entitlements and make sure that people making
> money are duly punished by increasing taxes on those who are successful.

Bush is growing entitlements and government. You are a Bush
supporter. You might be "disappointed," but you are not mad enough
about it to stop supporting the guy.

The other digs on Kerry are standard scare tactics, claiming that
Kerry is just going to raise middle class taxes (blatantly false) or
spend bigger than Bush. Of course the question of Kerry's spending
more than Bush could be true -- nobody can predict the future. But it
seems unlikely for the simple reason that Bush has increased spending
faster than any President since LBJ. He's in a class by himself.
Nobody in recent history rivals him. Odds are that whoever succeeds
Bush will be a smaller spender.

> > The events of
> >9/11 don't excuse Bush from making tremendous screwups on the
> >questions of WMD,
>
> Operating on the best intelligence information you have available hardly
> qualifies as a "tremendous screw-up" on Bush's part. The irony here is how
> he is excoriated for not acting on supposed intelligence information that
> led to 9/11.

This is a bit of an overstatement to claim that Bush operated on "the
best intelligence information (he) had." Bush disregarded the Iraq
intel from his own State Department intel unit, from the UN
inspectors, and from some of his own generals. True, there was intel
claiming Iraq had WMDs -- just as there was intel suggesting he did
not. In the end he made a judgement call with conflicting data, and
he chose wrong. But much worse than that, he portrayed the WMDs as a
certainty to the UN, to Congress, and to the American people ... even
though he knew that some of his intel disagreed! He and his
adminstration also portrayed Iraq as having links to 9/11 to the
people and even in the letter to Congress -- even though he knew he
had no direct proof of that and later retracted the claim.

With regards to the intel info leading to 9/11, that's also a mixed
bag. Bush claimed there was no way he could have known about an
impending attack, but then in testimony it became clear that there was
the Aug 6 PDB as well as other lesser warnings. Could Bush have
prevented 9/11? Maybe, maybe not. But it wasn't even on their radar
map! They were not focused on attacks, even when they had been warned
repeatedly (by the outgoing Clinton guys, by Richard Clarke, and in
PDBs) that Al Qaeda was a big threat. Remember that only 10 months
earlier the Clinton guys prevented a set of terrorist attacks at the
millenium -- and you know how the Bush guys love to sneer at how
ineffective the Clinton people were. It should have been on the radar
map, and they should have been focused on preventing it.

> > making terrible progress in the rebuilding Iraq and
> >Afghanistan,
>
> ... and how long did it take to fully pacify Germany and Japan following
> WWII? In addition, in those countries, their armed forces had been
> completely and decisively crushed, unlike in Iraq and Afghanistan where the
> watchful eye of the world almost dictated that armed forces not crush those
> who laid down their weapons and disappeared into the woodwork, only to
> re-emerge as guerilla fighters.

Neither Germany nor Japan had any appreciable insurgency at this point
after they had been conquered. It's a false analogy -- insurgencies
don't compare, cultures don't compare, policies don't compare,
reconstruction funding doesn't compare, awarding of contracts doesn't
compare, military occupation strength doesn't compare.

And I don't think you can blame the "watchful eye of the world" for
letting the insurgents escape. The US didn't much care about the
"watchful eye of the world" when it decided to unilaterally invade
Iraq. Why claim the US cares about world opinion now?

> > and ineffectiveness in controlling the insurgency.
>
> ... and if effective actions to control the insurgency were being taken
> right now, the discussion would be how brutal and evil Bush is because of
> the lack of concern for human life.

No, you seem to imply that the only way to control the insurgency is
to kill more Iraqis. Really to win the US policy has to use all of
its weapons -- military, political, and economic. By taking steps
immediately after the invasion to insure security with our own troops
in the cities, to rapidly train the Iraqis, and to rapidly begin the
rebuilding process using Iraqi and labor and international companies,
we could have gained the support of the Iraqi people and weakened the
base for the insurgency. We didn't take advantage of that window.
Now it will be much harder. That's a huge failure.

> > It
> >doesn't excuse the lackluster performance of the economy -- despite
> >passing all the tax cuts he asked for at huge expense to the debt.
> >
>
> The economy is recovering if you hadn't noticed.

Personally I haven't noticed much. My company is still laying off
(they will probably keep me around as one of the last ones to teach
the Malaysians how to do our work, though).

Nationally, I agree that the economy is slowly recovering. But many
of the jobs and manufacturing base that are gone are permanently gone,
and the new jobs pay less than the old ones. We've had a Fed prime of
less than 2% and massive "tax cut stimulation" that was supposed to
produce 6 million jobs. It lost 1.5 million instead. My stocks are
stinking out as the Dow and the Nasdaq continue to steadily fall under
Bush. Corporate profits are up and corporate tax payments are down at
the same time that worker productiity is up and worker wages are down.
Consumer spending is slightly up, but because wages are down the
consumer debt is also increased.

This is not a well balanced or sustainable recovery.

> >The notion of personal accountability and responsibility is a point
> >that a person of privilege won't understand. You and I know that if
> >we screw up, we are held responsible. But guys like Bush will always
> >find someone else to blame, and will always expect to get off the hook
> >no matter how badly they screw up.
> >
> >...

Why is it that instead of talking about Bush's policies and his
performance (as you'd expect would be the case with an incumbent
president), instead we're all talking about Swift Boat and Rathergate
crapola? Instead of focusing on Iraq policy, the voters are getting
another jibe on how Kerry's a flip-flopping sailboarding quiche eater.
Instead of talking about the debt the voters are told (scared) by the
VPOTUS that electing Kerry will insure that "Al Qaeda hits us again."
Instead of talking about how the middle class are sucking it up with
the Bush tax cuts, we are told that a vote for Kerry is a vote for the
Michael Moore/Hillary Clinton/Ted Kennedy socialists who want to raise
your taxes. Instead of honestly talking about ways to fix the
healthcare mess and thereby improve corporate competitiveness, the
POTUS lies and says that Kerry has a master plan to socialize all
medicine.

Fear, uncertainty, and distortion -- if you don't have a good
incumbent record to run on, at least you can try to tear down your
opponent.

"Mike Hide" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<m8u6d.278039$mD.153605@attbi_s02>...
...
> So who exactly is muzzling Kerry,Why only now is Kerry talking about Iraq ?
...

Eh? Kerry's been talking about issues for months now. It's just that
the only thing the media has been covering has been the Swift Boat
nonsense, Rathergate crapola, and snide accusations of flip-flopping.
Transcripts and archives for speeches for both candidates are on their
respective websites.

"Edwin Pawlowski" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<c%D6d.11487$XC.3414@trndny08>...
> "Nate Perkins" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >
> > Rathergate crapola,
>
> Crapola? ANY news organization that puts falsified documents on the air
> should be taken to task. I don't care if it is political, economic, public,
> private, whatever, Fake is fake and not checking sources in just plain
> unacceptable. IMO, Rather should stuff his half hearted apology and retire.
> Yes, retire before his ass is fired.

Right, crapola. I think democracy is best served by a discussion of
the serious issues facing the country, and by honestly evaluating the
policies and performance of the incumbent and challenger. The media
focus on the sleazy aspects of this campaign, and on the manufactured
scandals, is a huge distraction from the issues.

Dan Rather is not on the ballot.

Greg G. wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
>
> Kudos to you...
>

Thanks :-)

"Al Reid" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<FkE6d.2728$va.301@trndny03>...
...
> You are absolutely correct that Kerry has been talking about issues for
> months. Actually, much longer. In Fact, he has talked about and taken so
> many positions on the issues that no one can remember what his position is.
> He has taken so many positions in Iraq that every time he speaks on the
> subject, he contradicts a previous position.

Well, that is certainly the perception that the Republicans have spent
more than $100 million in advertising to cultivate. You can't watch
any Republican on TV for more than 3 minutes without them saying "flip
flop" at least 3 times. In reality, Kerry *has* done some flipping --
but on the other hand, Bush's guys have greatly exaggerated Kerry's
positions and inconsistencies. And in truth, Bush has done a fair
amount of flipping on his own (e.g., see Dan Froomkin, Wash Post, Sept
29 2004; or W. Saletan, Slate, Sept 28 2004 at
http://www.slate.com/id/2107383/ ).

The common trick the Republicans are using is to attack the opponent
personally as a flip-flopper, as unsupportive of the war, as dishonest
on a service record, etc etc. If Kerry points out the failings of our
policy, then he's being unpatriotic or even subversive. Create fear
by telling the voters that Osama will nuke them if they vote for
Kerry.

By using tactics like this, the President doesn't actually have to
talk issues. Because if the discussion comes down to an actual
evaluation of Bush's job performance, then Bush is in some trouble.

> Rathergate crapola? A news organization tries to unseat a sitting president
> by using fraudulent documents and that is not newsworthy?

Yes, crapola. Yet another distraction from the bigger issues. I mean
is this really the biggest issue facing the country? Or even one of
the top 10?

"Mike Hide" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<BYF6d.138653$D%.5123@attbi_s51>...
> "Nate Perkins" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > "Mike Hide" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:<m8u6d.278039$mD.153605@attbi_s02>...
> > ...
> >> So who exactly is muzzling Kerry,Why only now is Kerry talking about Iraq
> >> ?
> > ...
> >
> > Eh? Kerry's been talking about issues for months now. It's just that
> > the only thing the media has been covering has been the Swift Boat
> > nonsense, Rathergate crapola, and snide accusations of flip-flopping.
> > Transcripts and archives for speeches for both candidates are on their
> > respective websites.
>
> And I thought Kerry was running on his so called Vietnam service ,seems to
> me he started off with "reporting for duty"didn't he ? I think the swift
> boat ads show Kerry for all to see someone who stabbed his comrades in the
> back as soon as he got out and someone who has a lot of difficulty telling
> the truth and flips on issues almost daily .

So it's actually *Kerry's* fault that millions have been spent against
him in vicious personal attack ads? Interesting idea. Imagine the
same tactics being used against your candidate, and then ask yourself
if it's a good situation for the future of democracy.

You'll be seeing more of these kinds of personal attack ads in the
future -- the politicians all see that it works now.

> as far as the web sites go what about the millions who do not have
> computers. mjh

I don't think that applies to anyone reading this thread. Regardless,
there are ways to follow the issues; the real problem is that the
average voter doesn't want to take the time.

"Edwin Pawlowski" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> "Nate Perkins" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > Dan Rather is not on the ballot.
>
> So? What does sleazy reporting have to do with politics. His ass should be
> gone. The NYT dumped Jason Blair, Boston Globe dumped Mike Barnacle, CBS
> should dump Dan Rather.
>
> He is preventing, not encouraging, the proper free discussion of the
> candidates.
> Ed

Again, who cares? It's certainly not the most serious issue facing
voters. It's just another cheap distraction. Haven't we had about
enough of those? When does Bush have to start talking about issues
and his record?

"Mike Hide" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<EkN6d.144200$D%.142345@attbi_s51>...
> > So it's actually *Kerry's* fault that millions have been spent against
> > him in vicious personal attack ads? Interesting idea. Imagine the
> > same tactics being used against your candidate, and then ask yourself
> > if it's a good situation for the future of democracy.
> >
> > You'll be seeing more of these kinds of personal attack ads in the
> > future -- the politicians all see that it works now.
> >
> >> as far as the web sites go what about the millions who do not have
> >> computers. mjh
> >
> > I don't think that applies to anyone reading this thread. Regardless,
> > there are ways to follow the issues; the real problem is that the
> > average voter doesn't want to take the time.
>
> Up until recently I think the Kerry people have spent on similar ads about
> 50 times the amount that the swift boat people have. Most of the Swift boat
> "vicious ads" have featured Kerry himself, so what is there to complain
> about.
>
> In all honesty and this has come to light with the Dan Rather fiasco, the
> press is biased and nine times out of ten they make the news or at least
> taint it rather than reporting it ....mjh

That's fine, Mike. You believe what you want to believe.

"Edwin Pawlowski" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<6JV6d.11222$Xd2.10693@trndny01>...
> "Nate Perkins" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >
> > Again, who cares? It's certainly not the most serious issue facing
> > voters. It's just another cheap distraction. Haven't we had about
> > enough of those? When does Bush have to start talking about issues
> > and his record?
>
> It is serious to me. If I cannot trust the news sources I cannot make a
> proper decision. It is not a distraction to the candidates, it is a serious
> issue involving what is one of the most used sources of information in the
> USA. If they lied about this, what else are they lying about?

www.mediamatters.org
www.factcheck.org

> Would you feel the same way if they showed falsified information about your
> favorite candidate?

I think they have been for some months now. Check out some of the
above links.

> Politics aside, it is a very serious issue that affects all of us. It is
> more than just the minor distraction you make it out to be. Distance
> yourself from who the information was about and look at is as a consumer of
> news and tell me you can trust Dan Rather 100% for everything in the future.
> As well as all the news media that is tainted when this sort of thing
> happens. . Why have some major newspaper editorial boards called for his
> resignation? Because it is a serious ethics violation.
> Ed

I agree with you, the lack of focus on the issues and the lack of
truthfulness in this campaign is a very serious issue. Lack of
journalistic accuracy is also a big problem (but personally I still
think Rather has more credibility in that regard than many others do
-- YMMV).

I think Rather screwed up. He apologized. I also think the country
has wasted enough time rehashing Vietnam, for God's sake. I'm ready
to stop seeing Rathergate, Swift Boat, Kitty Kelly, etc etc on the
news. I'm ready to see the news media accurately reporting on what
the candidates are saying and doing. Real policy issues for a change.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/content/login.aspx?ci=13222

On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 01:04:34 GMT, "Frank Ketchum"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Tom, I respect your opinion, but I have to disagree with you.


OK Frank, you gave me a fair shot.

We'll just have to disagree.

Best Regards,



Regards,
Tom.

"People funny. Life a funny thing." Sonny Liston

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

Todd Fatheree wrote:
> "Jake" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>As a matter of fact this shithead does have a daughter. And exactly
>>what part of her life is, as you say, FREE? I'd really like to know
>>just what FREE means to you? Free to do what? Free to protest at a
>>political rally perhaps?
>
>
> Happens just about every day here.

Where? In "protest zones"? I can't attend a Bush rally without
breaking some law. And if I chose to do that I'd probably get kicked
in the head and have my hair (what's left of it) pulled out.

Oh I get it. Duh. "Here" being this psuedo reality which allows
us to vent our views and frustrations rather than going down town and
shouting on the street corner, or waving a sign as the motorcade rolls
by. Gee, this is medium is real effective protest isn't it?

>
>
>>How about free to travel unimpeded amongst the
>>various States?
>
>
> Hmmm....I just traveled to Wisconsin from Illinois. I don't recall being
> "impeded". In fact, I've driven in quite a large number of states and don't
> recall having to go through any checkpoints at the state lines.

A man was arrested in Texas for not "producing his papers". Sounds like
an impendiment to me. BTW, have you flown lately? I can tell you
stories 'bout people (myself included) being hassled simply for asking a
question. Freedom of speech indeed.

>
>>How 'bouut free to NOT say "under God"?
>
>
> Is your daughter being forced to say "under God"? Where do you live?

As in "one nation under...".

>
>>How 'bout free to reject the "Standard White Jesus"?
>
>
> There seem to be lots of Jews and Muslims in this country that are free to
> do so. I can name a long list of countries where the opposite is not true.

In case you haven't noticed, there's a battle going in this country
between those that believe that the "Christian Way" is the only way
and the rest of us.

>
>>How bout this: Free to think for herself and express her opinion without
>
> fear of being labeled a heratic
>
>>or traitor?
>
>
> Oh, no. Your daughter might be "labeled". Call the ACLU. As long as the
> government isn't tatooing "heratic" (sic) on her forehead, anyone doing the
> "labelling" is just excercising their own right to free speech.

Got me there. My point is, many people in this country (Cheney is
the standard example) seem quite ready to call anyone who dissents,
"unpatriotic". This is what we're dying for?

>
>>This shithead also has a son. Is he going to be FREE to protest wars
>>in far off places? I seriously doubt it. More than likely his life
>>will be wasted in some far off place where the locals would just as soon
>>he went home.
>
>
> Is he planning to join the Army? I hope you're not talking about a draft,
> because that's just a bunch of Democrat panic talk.

Panic talk? I sincerely hope you're right. As for me, the cynicism I've
developed in the last few years just won't let me believe it.

>
>>>George Bush will be appreciated by history as an American President who
>>>actually had the balls to defend this country and to have a long term
>
> vision
>
>>>to establish freedom and democracy in a region which largely still
>
> exists in
>
>>>many respects in the 7th century.
>>
>>Um, ya know not everyone in the world HAS to be an American. How dare
>>you think that your way of life is the ONLY way of life. Have you heard
>>of the Ugly American? Well we're all pretty hideous right now, and a
>>lot of it comes from folks like you who think their way is the only
>>way, their God is the only God, America is the only way.
>
>
> He said "establish freedom and democracy" not make it a US territory. Are
> you saying that some people in the world deserve to live in totalitarian
> regimes? Do you believe that there is not an innate yearning in the human
> soul for freedom?

No. I heartily agree that _liberty_ and democracy are worthy goals and
MAY be the choices of others. My point is that is shoving it down their
throats is not only arrogant, it's wrong.

Do you honestly believe that we're over there to allow them to set up
their own government? Their own way of life?
What do you s'pose is going to happen if the Iraqis vote for a
theocracy? Then what? My point is, we (America) are not going to
let the Iraqis set up their own system. It's going to be a system of
which we approve - nothing less will be acceptable.

Read this http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0924-13.htm and tell me
different.

If democracy is so great, then why aren't we at war with half the
world? (I know, I know, it's only 38.4%, right?) Our hypocrisy is
showing. And the worst of it is that Bush seems perfectly willing
to flaunt it.


>>>Thank God for George Bush.
>>
>>Which God? I'm willing to bet that there are several billion Muslims
>>who aren't thanking their God for Bush right now.
>
>
> First, unless you count "less than 2" as "several", there aren't "several
> billion Muslims" in the world to start with. Of those, I think it's a
> mistake to believe that they all think the same way. .
Is that a strawman argument or an ad hominem? I get 'em mixed up.
Okay, how's this: There's a few more of them than there are of us. Is
that better? Does that change the argument?

>
>>And before you trash me as a wimpy, leftist traitor, remember that YOU
>>said that we're fighting for freedom. And that includes the freedom
>>to dissent. The freedom to reject the dominant paradigm. And yes,
>>God forbid, the freedom to think for myself.
>
>
> I missed the post where people wanted to think for you.
No, no one really wants to think for me (not worth the time, I'm
pretty boring), it's just more desirable to the "powers that be"
that I don't think at all.


JaKe
--
To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we
are to stand by the president right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic
and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. -
Theodore Roosevelt

"Tom Watson" wrote in message

> Deros.

Hadn't thought of that in years.

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

"Nate Perkins" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Mike Hide" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:<m8u6d.278039$mD.153605@attbi_s02>...
> ...
>> So who exactly is muzzling Kerry,Why only now is Kerry talking about Iraq
>> ?
> ...
>
> Eh? Kerry's been talking about issues for months now. It's just that
> the only thing the media has been covering has been the Swift Boat
> nonsense, Rathergate crapola, and snide accusations of flip-flopping.
> Transcripts and archives for speeches for both candidates are on their
> respective websites.

And I thought Kerry was running on his so called Vietnam service ,seems to
me he started off with "reporting for duty"didn't he ? I think the swift
boat ads show Kerry for all to see someone who stabbed his comrades in the
back as soon as he got out and someone who has a lot of difficulty telling
the truth and flips on issues almost daily .

as far as the web sites go what about the millions who do not have
computers. mjh

"Tom Watson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
Ok Tom,

>
> Ya know what Frank, you're right - almost.
>
> I should have headlined this under both candidates names.
>
True, Kerry has supported the Iraq war.

> I do like taking shots at Dubya, because I don't trust him and don't
> think he's smart enough for his job.
>
Typical Liberal bilge. Every Republican is an idiot doofus miscreant.

> But I'm no lover of Curry, either.
>
Nobody is. It is Bush vs "whoever" this year.

> I would like anyone who is in the position of prosecuting this
> conflict to read that list; it might be worthwhile.
>
> We have invaded a sovereign nation under false pretenses and continue
> to be there as an occupying force.
>
We as a sovereign nation can do this in our own national security interest.
To use the knee jerk left response that Iraq has nothing to do with our
security interest is a bit like putting your head under the sand.

> Over a thousand young Americans have died and a hell of a lot more
> Iraqis.
>
Be careful about bringing up numbers here Tom. If you want to see
staggering numbers of dead Iraqis just take a look at Saddam's years behind
the wheel. This is what gets me. It seems that the numbers of dead Iraqis
only matter when they can damage Bush. Where was the outrage at the
uncovered mass graves? None, instead we are treated to the "atrocities" of
Abu Grab (sp?).

> The other day I read a news report that referenced a study done by the
> provisional government of Iraq. In it was a statement that two thirds
> of the civilian casualties in this conflict have been caused by the
> Combined Forces, as opposed to those caused by the insurgents. One
> third of those casualties were in the form of women and children.
>
This is the regrettable part about war. Nobody said this would be easy or
uncostly in terms of life and capital. It's too bad, but I must ask what is
anyone else's better plan? Come home and try to understand terrorists more
and then they will like us and leave us alone? I don't think a majority of
people believe this.

> And this is a report from our hand selected officials.
>
> It's wrong Frank.
>
Tom, I respect your opinion, but I have to disagree with you.

> It was wrong from the beginning and it gets more wrong every day that
> we are there.
>
This reminds me of the intense criticism after WWII about rebuilding Germany
and Japan. Why bother? We are making it worse by our presence. Really?

> Some people would say that the analogy to Vietnam is invalid.
>
> I'm not one who agrees.
>
It is valid only in the sense that the only force that can defeat our armed
forces is our own media. The Viet Cong said after the war that the only
reason they were able to continue fighting was that our own media was
winning the war for them. They realized that it was just a matter of time
before we left. We did not loose, we quit.

> If Kerry had the strength of his convictions he would run as the
> candidate who would end the conflict - but he wants to be President
> too much - it's a damned shame.
>
Then why is he running? Who put him in the position to run?

regards,
Frank

"Tom Watson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Gulf of Tonkin Incident.
> War Powers Resolution.
<snip>

*yawn*

"Tom Watson" wrote in message
> On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 01:04:34 GMT, "Frank Ketchum"
> wrote:
>
> >Tom, I respect your opinion, but I have to disagree with you.

> OK Frank, you gave me a fair shot.

Actually, he did more than that ... it appears that Frank shredded each of
your arguments to little bits and rolled them up like snot balls. :)

You don't get off that easy, Tom. You started this, and you said earlier
"Answer on the merits, Frank".

He did ... now let's hear the same from you.

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

> So it's actually *Kerry's* fault that millions have been spent against
> him in vicious personal attack ads? Interesting idea. Imagine the
> same tactics being used against your candidate, and then ask yourself
> if it's a good situation for the future of democracy.
>
> You'll be seeing more of these kinds of personal attack ads in the
> future -- the politicians all see that it works now.
>
>> as far as the web sites go what about the millions who do not have
>> computers. mjh
>
> I don't think that applies to anyone reading this thread. Regardless,
> there are ways to follow the issues; the real problem is that the
> average voter doesn't want to take the time.

Up until recently I think the Kerry people have spent on similar ads about
50 times the amount that the swift boat people have. Most of the Swift boat
"vicious ads" have featured Kerry himself, so what is there to complain
about.

In all honesty and this has come to light with the Dan Rather fiasco, the
press is biased and nine times out of ten they make the news or at least
taint it rather than reporting it ....mjh

"Frank Ketchum" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Tom Watson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> But I'm no lover of Curry, either.
>>
>
> Then why are you being a puppet for him? This is exactly what his
> campaign said last week, something to the effect that it took ten years to
> turn the public opinion against Vietnam and Kerry only has 6 weeks to do
> it in Iraq. Next thing I know it is the Vietnam quagmire comparison
> everywhere I look including here. It just seemed a little transparent,
> that's all.
>
>>
>> If Kerry had the strength of his convictions he would run as the
>> candidate who would end the conflict - but he wants to be President
>> too much - it's a damned shame.
>>
>
> I think the only conviction Kerry has is to appear to be everything to
> everyone. I don't think he has any personal convictions. He is on record
> for being pro-Iraq action from up till the primaries this year. This
> election was a farce ever since the primaries. There was a strong anti
> war Dem who had no record of wavering (Dean) but he was bypassed in favor
> of Kerry. Now Kerry has decided that taking the Dean position is the only
> thing to save his candidacy. It's very puzzling.
>
> BTW, isn't it odd that every Republican president we've had since I can
> recall is a stupid, racist, homophobe hell bent on destroying the world?
> I just get tired of the same criticisms over and over and over and over
> and over. You know, history remembers the Neville Chamberlains as the
> idiots, not the Winston Churchills.
>
> Maybe the debates will be entertaining. Kerry is supposed to be a good
> debater (insert master-debater joke here).
> Frank
>