f



Don't worry, Kerry/Edwards will save us

Don't worry, if Kerry and Ambulance Chasing Edwards get elected, we can
expect a whole army of lawyers to be sent out after the terrorists with
threats of lawsuits all sorts of awful legal trouble if they don't stop
killing us and behave themselves, Boy that will show 'em! And just think
of the very lucrative jobs it would create for Edwards' trial lawyers
buddies in the event of a catastrophic terrorist hit, suing everybody
still breathing on behalf of the victims, and it's only fair that they be
rewarded, after all, they gave so unselfishly to his campaign! 
0
xomicron (578)
7/13/2004 8:16:32 PM
comp.sys.mac.advocacy 34242 articles. 0 followers. Post Follow

1212 Replies
1890 Views

Similar Articles

[PageSpeed] 36

"Xomicron" <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in
a2ec$40f44320$ca6c230c$23707@nf1.news-service-com on 7/13/04 1:16 PM:

> Don't worry, if Kerry and Ambulance Chasing Edwards get elected, we can
> expect a whole army of lawyers to be sent out after the terrorists with
> threats of lawsuits all sorts of awful legal trouble if they don't stop
> killing us and behave themselves, Boy that will show 'em! And just think
> of the very lucrative jobs it would create for Edwards' trial lawyers
> buddies in the event of a catastrophic terrorist hit, suing everybody
> still breathing on behalf of the victims, and it's only fair that they be
> rewarded, after all, they gave so unselfishly to his campaign!

It is a shame that there is some truth to you claim.  But the only other
possible choice with a chance to win is the GOP (Gas Oil Petroleum) party.

Sucks.

0
snit-nospam (5415)
7/13/2004 8:18:59 PM
"Xomicron" <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in message
news:a2ec$40f44320$ca6c230c$23707@nf1.news-service-com...
> Don't worry, if Kerry and Ambulance Chasing Edwards get elected, we can
> expect a whole army of lawyers to be sent out after the terrorists with
> threats of lawsuits all sorts of awful legal trouble if they don't stop
> killing us and behave themselves, Boy that will show 'em! And just think
> of the very lucrative jobs it would create for Edwards' trial lawyers
> buddies in the event of a catastrophic terrorist hit, suing everybody
> still breathing on behalf of the victims, and it's only fair that they be
> rewarded, after all, they gave so unselfishly to his campaign!

I wouldn't exactly call Clinton a Stone You to Death With Popcorn Commander
in Chief, and it's probably safe to assume that Kerry, a Vietnam Veteran/War
Hero, would behave at least as aggressively as Clinton.  Feed that to your
war machine!


0
righter (5)
7/13/2004 9:09:03 PM
Xomicron wrote:
> Don't worry, if Kerry and Ambulance Chasing Edwards get elected, we can
> expect a whole army of lawyers to be sent out after the terrorists with
> threats of lawsuits all sorts of awful legal trouble if they don't stop
> killing us and behave themselves, Boy that will show 'em! And just think
> of the very lucrative jobs it would create for Edwards' trial lawyers
> buddies in the event of a catastrophic terrorist hit, suing everybody
> still breathing on behalf of the victims, and it's only fair that they be
> rewarded, after all, they gave so unselfishly to his campaign! 


As much as the prospect of having Bushco removed from office 
pleases me, I'm not exactly thrilled with the alternative 
presented by Kerry.  In theory, he doesn't disagree with the 
neocon PNAC crew about the decision to invade Iraq, only 
about how it was done.

 From Counterpunch.org:

http://www.counterpunch.org/hand02182004.html

"In fall 2003, members of PPI joined with other tough-minded 
Democrats to unveil Progressive Internationalism: A 
Democratic National Security Strategy, a 19-page manifesto 
that calls for "the bold exercise of American power, not to 
dominate but to shape alliances and international 
institutions that share a common commitment to liberal values."

The New Democrats don't begrudge the Bush administration for 
invading Iraq. They take issue with the Bush 
administration's strategy of refusing to invite key members 
of the international community to the invasion of Iraq until 
it was too late. The neocons' unilateralist approach, the 
New Democrats believe, will do ultimately harm U.S. 
political and economic dominance around the world."

And further down:

"Kerry and his comrades in the progressive internationalist 
movement are as gung-ho about U.S. military action as their 
counterparts in the White House. The only noteworthy 
difference between the two groups battling for power in 
Washington is that the neocons are willing to pursue their 
imperial ambitions in full view of the international 
community, while the progressive internationalists prefer to 
keep their imperial agenda hidden behind the cloak of 
multilateralism."

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss...

-zolo


0
zolo (265)
7/13/2004 9:10:10 PM
In article <cd1j2o$179m$1@newsfeeds.rpi.edu>, zolo <zolo@nospam.net> 
wrote:

> Xomicron wrote:
> > Don't worry, if Kerry and Ambulance Chasing Edwards get elected, we can
> > expect a whole army of lawyers to be sent out after the terrorists with
> > threats of lawsuits all sorts of awful legal trouble if they don't stop
> > killing us and behave themselves, Boy that will show 'em! And just think
> > of the very lucrative jobs it would create for Edwards' trial lawyers
> > buddies in the event of a catastrophic terrorist hit, suing everybody
> > still breathing on behalf of the victims, and it's only fair that they be
> > rewarded, after all, they gave so unselfishly to his campaign! 
> 
> 
> As much as the prospect of having Bushco removed from office 
> pleases me, I'm not exactly thrilled with the alternative 
> presented by Kerry.  In theory, he doesn't disagree with the 
> neocon PNAC crew about the decision to invade Iraq, only 
> about how it was done.
> 
>  From Counterpunch.org:
> 
> http://www.counterpunch.org/hand02182004.html
> 
> "In fall 2003, members of PPI joined with other tough-minded 
> Democrats to unveil Progressive Internationalism: A 
> Democratic National Security Strategy, a 19-page manifesto 
> that calls for "the bold exercise of American power, not to 
> dominate but to shape alliances and international 
> institutions that share a common commitment to liberal values."
> 
> The New Democrats don't begrudge the Bush administration for 
> invading Iraq. They take issue with the Bush 
> administration's strategy of refusing to invite key members 
> of the international community to the invasion of Iraq until 
> it was too late. The neocons' unilateralist approach, the 
> New Democrats believe, will do ultimately harm U.S. 
> political and economic dominance around the world."
> 
> And further down:
> 
> "Kerry and his comrades

"Comrades;" has a nice ring to it doesn't it? Certainly befitting 
liberal Democrats.

> in the progressive internationalist 
> movement are as gung-ho about U.S. military action as their 
> counterparts in the White House. The only noteworthy 
> difference between the two groups battling for power in 
> Washington is that the neocons are willing to pursue their 
> imperial ambitions in full view of the international 
> community, while the progressive internationalists prefer to 
> keep their imperial agenda hidden behind the cloak of 
> multilateralism."
> 
> Meet the new boss, same as the old boss...

Yes, it's very unfortunate that we have no real choices.

-- 
George Graves
------------------

"This election is shaping up great. Our choices
are a guy who has a lot of second thoughts, or
a guy who has never had a first thought."
-- Jay Leno
0
gmgravesnos (8642)
7/13/2004 9:41:10 PM
On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 22:16:32 +0200, Xomicron wrote:

> Don't worry, if Kerry and Ambulance Chasing Edwards get elected, we can
> expect a whole army of lawyers to be sent out after the terrorists with
> threats of lawsuits all sorts of awful legal trouble if they don't stop
> killing us and behave themselves, Boy that will show 'em!

Well, that's not likely to work any worse than what we've _been_ doing.

-- 
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas

0
bdbryant (62)
7/13/2004 10:11:55 PM
"Xomicron" <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in message
news:a2ec$40f44320$ca6c230c$23707@nf1.news-service-com...
> Don't worry, if Kerry and Ambulance Chasing Edwards get elected, we can
> expect a whole army of lawyers to be sent out after the terrorists with
> threats of lawsuits all sorts of awful legal trouble if they don't stop
> killing us and behave themselves, Boy that will show 'em! And just think
> of the very lucrative jobs it would create for Edwards' trial lawyers
> buddies in the event of a catastrophic terrorist hit, suing everybody
> still breathing on behalf of the victims, and it's only fair that they be
> rewarded, after all, they gave so unselfishly to his campaign!

Sure, sure.

You do know Bush let did nothing about the Cole attack that killed 17 US
sailors, don't you? He let 8 months go by after the CIA id'd al Qaeda as the
source organization. Al Qaeda captives have been reported as saying that
took encouragement from that.

You do know that he did nothing to increase airliner security pre 9/11,
which could have precluded the terrorists (armed pilots, air marshals etc).

You do know Bush ignored pre 9/11 warnings about al qaeda, don't you?

You do know Bush resisted the 9/11 investigation that is analyzing what went
wrong, don't you? Why would he do that?

You do know that intelligence is the main factor in combating terrorism
don't you? Human intelligence largely depends on good will. Do you think
Bush has helped that by his "axis of Evil" talk and snubbing Europe and the
Iraq occupation and Abu Ghraib's affect on the Arab / Moslem world?

Kerry had the guts to volunteer his way into river boats in Vietnam while
Bush and Cheney were evading duty.
Bush talked big but backed down over taking Faluja and taking down Sadr when
he saw it would be a fight.
Kerry is the far better choice.



0
Bill549 (46)
7/13/2004 10:36:11 PM
"Bill Case" <Bill549@Hotmail.com> wrote in
news:vtZIc.1482$mL5.626@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net: 

> "Xomicron" <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in message
> news:a2ec$40f44320$ca6c230c$23707@nf1.news-service-com...
>
>> Don't worry, if Kerry and Ambulance Chasing Edwards get elected, we can
>> expect a whole army of lawyers to be sent out after the terrorists with
>> threats of lawsuits all sorts of awful legal trouble if they don't stop
>> killing us and behave themselves, Boy that will show 'em! And just
>> think of the very lucrative jobs it would create for Edwards' trial
>> lawyers buddies in the event of a catastrophic terrorist hit, suing
>> everybody still breathing on behalf of the victims, and it's only fair
>> that they be rewarded, after all, they gave so unselfishly to his
>> campaign! 
> 
> Sure, sure.
> 
> You do know Bush let did nothing about the Cole attack that killed 17 US
> sailors, don't you? He let 8 months go by after the CIA id'd al Qaeda as
> the source organization. Al Qaeda captives have been reported as saying
> that took encouragement from that.

The Cole bombing occurred under Clinton.
 
> You do know that he did nothing to increase airliner security pre 9/11,
> which could have precluded the terrorists (armed pilots, air marshals
> etc). 

Thanks for proving that hindsight it 20/20.

> You do know Bush ignored pre 9/11 warnings about al qaeda, don't you?

Bullshit.

> You do know Bush resisted the 9/11 investigation that is analyzing what
> went wrong, don't you? Why would he do that?

Because it's a sham.

> You do know that intelligence is the main factor in combating terrorism
> don't you? Human intelligence largely depends on good will. Do you think
> Bush has helped that by his "axis of Evil" talk and snubbing Europe and
> the Iraq occupation and Abu Ghraib's affect on the Arab / Moslem world?

Oh shut the fuck up. If the world is offended when we go after our enemies
then the world can go to hell. The Abu Ghraib incident was a bunch of
dumbasses living out their idiotic frat house fantasies. What that has to
do with Bush I'm not sure. 

> Kerry had the guts to volunteer his way into river boats in Vietnam
> while Bush and Cheney were evading duty.

Bush served and was honorably discharged.

> Bush talked big but backed down over taking Faluja and taking down Sadr
> when he saw it would be a fight.
> Kerry is the far better choice.

Oh please. If Bush had given the OK for taking down Falluja you left
wingnut pussies would be calling him a baby killer. 
0
xomicron (578)
7/13/2004 10:40:56 PM
In article <a2ec$40f44320$ca6c230c$23707@nf1.news-service-com>,
 Xomicron <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote:

> Don't worry, if Kerry and Ambulance Chasing Edwards get elected, we can
> expect a whole army of lawyers to be sent out after the terrorists with
> threats of lawsuits all sorts of awful legal trouble if they don't stop
> killing us and behave themselves, Boy that will show 'em! And just think
> of the very lucrative jobs it would create for Edwards' trial lawyers
> buddies in the event of a catastrophic terrorist hit, suing everybody
> still breathing on behalf of the victims, and it's only fair that they be
> rewarded, after all, they gave so unselfishly to his campaign! 

So you think Edwards is an ambulance chaser? How about putting up some 
proof to support that charge?
0
srhi (290)
7/13/2004 10:44:29 PM
Shawn Hearn <srhi@comcast.net> wrote in
news:srhi-69C545.18442913072004@news-40.sjc.giganews.com: 

> In article <a2ec$40f44320$ca6c230c$23707@nf1.news-service-com>,
>  Xomicron <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote:
> 
>> Don't worry, if Kerry and Ambulance Chasing Edwards get elected, we can
>> expect a whole army of lawyers to be sent out after the terrorists with
>> threats of lawsuits all sorts of awful legal trouble if they don't stop
>> killing us and behave themselves, Boy that will show 'em! And just
>> think of the very lucrative jobs it would create for Edwards' trial
>> lawyers buddies in the event of a catastrophic terrorist hit, suing
>> everybody still breathing on behalf of the victims, and it's only fair
>> that they be rewarded, after all, they gave so unselfishly to his
>> campaign! 
> 
> So you think Edwards is an ambulance chaser? How about putting up some 
> proof to support that charge?

Take a look at his career. He was a personal injury lawyer who made millions 
off his clients, always trying to bleed as much as he could from defendants.
0
xomicron (578)
7/13/2004 10:44:48 PM
Bill Case wrote:
> 
> "Xomicron" <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in message
> news:a2ec$40f44320$ca6c230c$23707@nf1.news-service-com...
> > Don't worry, if Kerry and Ambulance Chasing Edwards get elected, we can
> > expect a whole army of lawyers to be sent out after the terrorists with
> > threats of lawsuits all sorts of awful legal trouble if they don't stop
> > killing us and behave themselves, Boy that will show 'em! And just think
> > of the very lucrative jobs it would create for Edwards' trial lawyers
> > buddies in the event of a catastrophic terrorist hit, suing everybody
> > still breathing on behalf of the victims, and it's only fair that they be
> > rewarded, after all, they gave so unselfishly to his campaign!
> 
> Sure, sure.
> 
> You do know Bush let did nothing about the Cole attack that killed 17 US
> sailors, don't you? He let 8 months go by after the CIA id'd al Qaeda as the
> source organization. Al Qaeda captives have been reported as saying that
> took encouragement from that.

He did more about it than the administration under whom it happened did.
 
> You do know that he did nothing to increase airliner security pre 9/11,
> which could have precluded the terrorists (armed pilots, air marshals etc).

Speculation
 
> You do know Bush ignored pre 9/11 warnings about al qaeda, don't you?

Perhaps he was just following the previous administration's example.
 
> You do know Bush resisted the 9/11 investigation that is analyzing what went
> wrong, don't you? Why would he do that?

Probably because he has a difficult time admitting his mistakes. That's
just a guess though, I'd recommend asking him yourself if you want the
real answer.
 
> You do know that intelligence is the main factor in combating terrorism
> don't you? Human intelligence largely depends on good will.

Elaborate, if you would.

> Do you think Bush has helped that by his "axis of Evil" talk and snubbing Europe and the
> Iraq occupation and Abu Ghraib's affect on the Arab / Moslem world?

I'll refrain from addressing that until you elaborate on why you believe
human intelligence largely depends on good will.
 
> Kerry had the guts to volunteer his way into river boats in Vietnam while
> Bush and Cheney were evading duty.

Military service is not a prerequisite to serving as President.

> Bush talked big but backed down over taking Faluja and taking down Sadr when
> he saw it would be a fight.

He talked big but didn't back over taking down Saddam, so it appears
that you'll be complaining either way.

> Kerry is the far better choice.

I don't see Kerry jumping up to say why, so I'll ask you: Based on what?
0
fdwyer (46)
7/13/2004 11:46:57 PM
Xomicron wrote:
> 
> Shawn Hearn <srhi@comcast.net> wrote in
> news:srhi-69C545.18442913072004@news-40.sjc.giganews.com:
> 
> > In article <a2ec$40f44320$ca6c230c$23707@nf1.news-service-com>,
> >  Xomicron <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote:
> >
> >> Don't worry, if Kerry and Ambulance Chasing Edwards get elected, we can
> >> expect a whole army of lawyers to be sent out after the terrorists with
> >> threats of lawsuits all sorts of awful legal trouble if they don't stop
> >> killing us and behave themselves, Boy that will show 'em! And just
> >> think of the very lucrative jobs it would create for Edwards' trial
> >> lawyers buddies in the event of a catastrophic terrorist hit, suing
> >> everybody still breathing on behalf of the victims, and it's only fair
> >> that they be rewarded, after all, they gave so unselfishly to his
> >> campaign!
> >
> > So you think Edwards is an ambulance chaser? How about putting up some
> > proof to support that charge?
> 
> Take a look at his career. He was a personal injury lawyer who made millions
> off his clients, always trying to bleed as much as he could from defendants.

That's what every successful businessman does.
0
fdwyer (46)
7/13/2004 11:49:21 PM
"Frank Dwyer" <fdwyer@citlink.net> wrote in message
news:40F4749B.A37548D7@citlink.net...
> Bill Case wrote:
> >
> > "Xomicron" <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in message
> > news:a2ec$40f44320$ca6c230c$23707@nf1.news-service-com...
> > > Don't worry, if Kerry and Ambulance Chasing Edwards get elected, we
can
> > > expect a whole army of lawyers to be sent out after the terrorists
with
> > > threats of lawsuits all sorts of awful legal trouble if they don't
stop
> > > killing us and behave themselves, Boy that will show 'em! And just
think
> > > of the very lucrative jobs it would create for Edwards' trial lawyers
> > > buddies in the event of a catastrophic terrorist hit, suing everybody
> > > still breathing on behalf of the victims, and it's only fair that they
be
> > > rewarded, after all, they gave so unselfishly to his campaign!
> >
> > Sure, sure.
> >
> > You do know Bush let did nothing about the Cole attack that killed 17 US
> > sailors, don't you?

We captured the one responsible for that attack during Bush's term.

He let 8 months go by after the CIA id'd al Qaeda as the
> > source organization. Al Qaeda captives have been reported as saying that
> > took encouragement from that.
>
> He did more about it than the administration under whom it happened did.

Correct

>
> > You do know that he did nothing to increase airliner security pre 9/11,
> > which could have precluded the terrorists (armed pilots, air marshals
etc).
>
> Speculation

And these same people who are talking about arming the pilots were the same
ones screaming about it, saying how horrible it would be, prior to 9/11 when
this discussion was happening.


>
> > You do know Bush ignored pre 9/11 warnings about al qaeda, don't you?
>
> Perhaps he was just following the previous administration's example.

Along with the hundreds of other warnings our government receives on a daily
basis, just what do they suppose Bush was to do?



>
> > You do know Bush resisted the 9/11 investigation that is analyzing what
went
> > wrong, don't you? Why would he do that?
>
> Probably because he has a difficult time admitting his mistakes. That's
> just a guess though, I'd recommend asking him yourself if you want the
> real answer.
>
> > You do know that intelligence is the main factor in combating terrorism
> > don't you? Human intelligence largely depends on good will.
>
> Elaborate, if you would.
>
> > Do you think Bush has helped that by his "axis of Evil" talk and
snubbing Europe and the
> > Iraq occupation and Abu Ghraib's affect on the Arab / Moslem world?
>
> I'll refrain from addressing that until you elaborate on why you believe
> human intelligence largely depends on good will.
>
> > Kerry had the guts to volunteer his way into river boats in Vietnam
while
> > Bush and Cheney were evading duty.
>
> Military service is not a prerequisite to serving as President.

These same liberals who are touting Kerry's service are the same liberals
that prior to Clinton getting into office were telling everyone that his
lack of military experience did not matter.


>
> > Bush talked big but backed down over taking Faluja and taking down Sadr
when
> > he saw it would be a fight.
>
> He talked big but didn't back over taking down Saddam, so it appears
> that you'll be complaining either way.

exactly.

>
> > Kerry is the far better choice.
>
> I don't see Kerry jumping up to say why, so I'll ask you: Based on what?


0
noneedtoknow (858)
7/13/2004 11:52:16 PM
Xomicron <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote:

> > So you think Edwards is an ambulance chaser? How about putting up some 
> > proof to support that charge?
> 
> Take a look at his career. He was a personal injury lawyer who made millions 
> off his clients, always trying to bleed as much as he could from defendants.

Looking through his career, it says nothing about chasing ambulances, 
are you sure you are thinking of John Edwards?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Edwards
0
roylunn (7)
7/14/2004 12:00:50 AM
"Xomicron" <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in message
news:36d51cf3183ad221268accf5f2eb6df4@news.bubbanews.com...
> "Bill Case" <Bill549@Hotmail.com> wrote in
> news:vtZIc.1482$mL5.626@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net:
>
> > "Xomicron" <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in message
> > news:a2ec$40f44320$ca6c230c$23707@nf1.news-service-com...
> >
> >> Don't worry, if Kerry and Ambulance Chasing Edwards get elected, we can
> >> expect a whole army of lawyers to be sent out after the terrorists with
> >> threats of lawsuits all sorts of awful legal trouble if they don't stop
> >> killing us and behave themselves, Boy that will show 'em! And just
> >> think of the very lucrative jobs it would create for Edwards' trial
> >> lawyers buddies in the event of a catastrophic terrorist hit, suing
> >> everybody still breathing on behalf of the victims, and it's only fair
> >> that they be rewarded, after all, they gave so unselfishly to his
> >> campaign!
> >
> > Sure, sure.
> >
> > You do know Bush let did nothing about the Cole attack that killed 17 US
> > sailors, don't you? He let 8 months go by after the CIA id'd al Qaeda as
> > the source organization. Al Qaeda captives have been reported as saying
> > that took encouragement from that.
>
> The Cole bombing occurred under Clinton.

If you knew what were talking about you would know that no one claimed
credit for the attack, and that it took the CIA until around inaugaration
time to assign the blame to Al Qaeda. So why didn't Bush do anything if he's
so great on security.

>
> > You do know that he did nothing to increase airliner security pre 9/11,
> > which could have precluded the terrorists (armed pilots, air marshals
> > etc).
>
> Thanks for proving that hindsight it 20/20.
>
> > You do know Bush ignored pre 9/11 warnings about al qaeda, don't you?
>
> Bullshit.

The bullshit is all yours pal.


> > You do know Bush resisted the 9/11 investigation that is analyzing what
> > went wrong, don't you? Why would he do that?
>
> Because it's a sham.

Bullshit. It's bi-partisan and nobody with anything on the ball thinks it's
a sham.

Are you writing all this crap based on listening to Rush Limbaugh?


> > You do know that intelligence is the main factor in combating terrorism
> > don't you? Human intelligence largely depends on good will. Do you think
> > Bush has helped that by his "axis of Evil" talk and snubbing Europe and
> > the Iraq occupation and Abu Ghraib's affect on the Arab / Moslem world?
>
> Oh shut the fuck up. If the world is offended when we go after our enemies
> then the world can go to hell. The Abu Ghraib incident was a bunch of
> dumbasses living out their idiotic frat house fantasies. What that has to
> do with Bush I'm not sure.

No, you shut the fuck you stupid punk.


>
> > Kerry had the guts to volunteer his way into river boats in Vietnam
> > while Bush and Cheney were evading duty.
>
> Bush served and was honorably discharged.

Liar. He was AWOL, his records are misteriously destoyed that could prove
it, and he let his flight staus lapse by not showing up for a physical.


>
> > Bush talked big but backed down over taking Faluja and taking down Sadr
> > when he saw it would be a fight.
> > Kerry is the far better choice.
>
> Oh please. If Bush had given the OK for taking down Falluja you left
> wingnut pussies would be calling him a baby killer.

The only wing nut pussie here is you, punk. He backed down when he saw it
would be a fight.

Only a pussy would let petty criticism stop him when he's defending the
nation.
He should told all non-combatants to evacuate the city in 24 hours, and then
attacked.
If you had any military experience you would know that.

Your arguments are worthless. And don't call names unless you want it back
in spades pal.




0
Bill549 (46)
7/14/2004 12:49:31 AM
"Frank Dwyer" <fdwyer@citlink.net> wrote in message
news:40F4749B.A37548D7@citlink.net...
> Bill Case wrote:
> >
> > "Xomicron" <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in message
> > news:a2ec$40f44320$ca6c230c$23707@nf1.news-service-com...
> > > Don't worry, if Kerry and Ambulance Chasing Edwards get elected, we
can
> > > expect a whole army of lawyers to be sent out after the terrorists
with
> > > threats of lawsuits all sorts of awful legal trouble if they don't
stop
> > > killing us and behave themselves, Boy that will show 'em! And just
think
> > > of the very lucrative jobs it would create for Edwards' trial lawyers
> > > buddies in the event of a catastrophic terrorist hit, suing everybody
> > > still breathing on behalf of the victims, and it's only fair that they
be
> > > rewarded, after all, they gave so unselfishly to his campaign!
> >
> > Sure, sure.
> >
> > You do know Bush let did nothing about the Cole attack that killed 17 US
> > sailors, don't you? He let 8 months go by after the CIA id'd al Qaeda as
the
> > source organization. Al Qaeda captives have been reported as saying that
> > took encouragement from that.
>
> He did more about it than the administration under whom it happened did.

It's widely known the CIA didn't attribute it to Al Qaeda until around the
time of administration change.
I don't like Clinton, but he did launch attacks, one killed around 200 al
qaeda in Afghanistan. (Cruises missiles)
Irregardless,  why didn't Bush act?
On 9/11 he sat like a rabbit after being told of the 2 WTC hits.


>
> > You do know that he did nothing to increase airliner security pre 9/11,
> > which could have precluded the terrorists (armed pilots, air marshals
etc).
>
> Speculation

No it isnt', an armed man on each plane could have stopped the whole thing.


>
> > You do know Bush ignored pre 9/11 warnings about al qaeda, don't you?
>
> Perhaps he was just following the previous administration's example.

Then he's no better than Clinton is he?

>
> > You do know Bush resisted the 9/11 investigation that is analyzing what
went
> > wrong, don't you? Why would he do that?
>
> Probably because he has a difficult time admitting his mistakes. That's
> just a guess though, I'd recommend asking him yourself if you want the
> real answer.

He lies about everyhting. We know he resisted the investigation.

> > You do know that intelligence is the main factor in combating terrorism
> > don't you? Human intelligence largely depends on good will.
>
> Elaborate, if you would.

People who like you will tell you stuff that you need to know - those who
dont won't.
We lack humint.

> > Do you think Bush has helped that by his "axis of Evil" talk and
snubbing Europe and the
> > Iraq occupation and Abu Ghraib's affect on the Arab / Moslem world?
>
> I'll refrain from addressing that until you elaborate on why you believe
> human intelligence largely depends on good will.

See above. Read some books about why the USSR had so much good intel when
people thought they were the great coming thing in the 1920's and 30's. When
Stalin's camps and all that came to be known, the situation changed to favor
the west.


>
> > Kerry had the guts to volunteer his way into river boats in Vietnam
while
> > Bush and Cheney were evading duty.
>
> Military service is not a prerequisite to serving as President.

Evading it is a sign of lack of character. Somebody else had to go and take
the risks.


>
> > Bush talked big but backed down over taking Faluja and taking down Sadr
when
> > he saw it would be a fight.
>
> He talked big but didn't back over taking down Saddam, so it appears
> that you'll be complaining either way.

How do you whether I favored taking out Saddam or not? They had deals with
Iraqi generals not to fight. They did it over cell phones, did you knopw
that?


> > Kerry is the far better choice.
>
> I don't see Kerry jumping up to say why, so I'll ask you: Based on what?

Competence, honesty, character. Did you Kerry was in this thread?


0
Bill549 (46)
7/14/2004 1:01:19 AM
"Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote in message
news:ZuKdnXMPHZQP6GndRVn-iQ@comcast.com...
>
> "Frank Dwyer" <fdwyer@citlink.net> wrote in message
> news:40F4749B.A37548D7@citlink.net...
> > Bill Case wrote:
> > >
> > > "Xomicron" <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in message
> > > news:a2ec$40f44320$ca6c230c$23707@nf1.news-service-com...
> > > > Don't worry, if Kerry and Ambulance Chasing Edwards get elected, we
> can
> > > > expect a whole army of lawyers to be sent out after the terrorists
> with
> > > > threats of lawsuits all sorts of awful legal trouble if they don't
> stop
> > > > killing us and behave themselves, Boy that will show 'em! And just
> think
> > > > of the very lucrative jobs it would create for Edwards' trial
lawyers
> > > > buddies in the event of a catastrophic terrorist hit, suing
everybody
> > > > still breathing on behalf of the victims, and it's only fair that
they
> be
> > > > rewarded, after all, they gave so unselfishly to his campaign!
> > >
> > > Sure, sure.
> > >
> > > You do know Bush let did nothing about the Cole attack that killed 17
US
> > > sailors, don't you?
>
> We captured the one responsible for that attack during Bush's term.
>
> He let 8 months go by after the CIA id'd al Qaeda as the
> > > source organization. Al Qaeda captives have been reported as saying
that
> > > took encouragement from that.
> >
> > He did more about it than the administration under whom it happened did.
>
> Correct
>
> >
> > > You do know that he did nothing to increase airliner security pre
9/11,
> > > which could have precluded the terrorists (armed pilots, air marshals
> etc).
> >
> > Speculation
>
> And these same people who are talking about arming the pilots were the
same
> ones screaming about it, saying how horrible it would be, prior to 9/11
when
> this discussion was happening.
>
>
> >
> > > You do know Bush ignored pre 9/11 warnings about al qaeda, don't you?
> >
> > Perhaps he was just following the previous administration's example.
>
> Along with the hundreds of other warnings our government receives on a
daily
> basis, just what do they suppose Bush was to do?
>
>
>
> >
> > > You do know Bush resisted the 9/11 investigation that is analyzing
what
> went
> > > wrong, don't you? Why would he do that?
> >
> > Probably because he has a difficult time admitting his mistakes. That's
> > just a guess though, I'd recommend asking him yourself if you want the
> > real answer.
> >
> > > You do know that intelligence is the main factor in combating
terrorism
> > > don't you? Human intelligence largely depends on good will.
> >
> > Elaborate, if you would.
> >
> > > Do you think Bush has helped that by his "axis of Evil" talk and
> snubbing Europe and the
> > > Iraq occupation and Abu Ghraib's affect on the Arab / Moslem world?
> >
> > I'll refrain from addressing that until you elaborate on why you believe
> > human intelligence largely depends on good will.
> >
> > > Kerry had the guts to volunteer his way into river boats in Vietnam
> while
> > > Bush and Cheney were evading duty.
> >
> > Military service is not a prerequisite to serving as President.
>
> These same liberals who are touting Kerry's service are the same liberals
> that prior to Clinton getting into office were telling everyone that his
> lack of military experience did not matter.

Bullshit,. I didn't vote for Clinton. Quit listening to oxycontin Rush..



>
>
> >
> > > Bush talked big but backed down over taking Faluja and taking down
Sadr
> when
> > > he saw it would be a fight.
> >
> > He talked big but didn't back over taking down Saddam, so it appears
> > that you'll be complaining either way.
>
> exactly.
>
> >
> > > Kerry is the far better choice.
> >
> > I don't see Kerry jumping up to say why, so I'll ask you: Based on what?
>
>


0
Bill549 (46)
7/14/2004 1:02:43 AM
In article <d281f9b6a845bde2a0604d7186096447@news.bubbanews.com>,
 Xomicron <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote:

> Shawn Hearn <srhi@comcast.net> wrote in
> news:srhi-69C545.18442913072004@news-40.sjc.giganews.com: 
> 
> > In article <a2ec$40f44320$ca6c230c$23707@nf1.news-service-com>,
> >  Xomicron <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote:
> > 
> >> Don't worry, if Kerry and Ambulance Chasing Edwards get elected, we can
> >> expect a whole army of lawyers to be sent out after the terrorists with
> >> threats of lawsuits all sorts of awful legal trouble if they don't stop
> >> killing us and behave themselves, Boy that will show 'em! And just
> >> think of the very lucrative jobs it would create for Edwards' trial
> >> lawyers buddies in the event of a catastrophic terrorist hit, suing
> >> everybody still breathing on behalf of the victims, and it's only fair
> >> that they be rewarded, after all, they gave so unselfishly to his
> >> campaign! 
> > 
> > So you think Edwards is an ambulance chaser? How about putting up some 
> > proof to support that charge?
> 
> Take a look at his career. He was a personal injury lawyer who made millions 
> off his clients, always trying to bleed as much as he could from defendants.

Not all personal injury lawyers are ambulance chasers. So I ask you
again, do you have any proof at all that Edwards was an ambulance 
chaser, or are you simply repeating the mindless chants that Bush's
campaign is putting out?
0
srhi (290)
7/14/2004 1:12:08 AM
In article <ZuKdnXMPHZQP6GndRVn-iQ@comcast.com>,
 "Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:

> "Frank Dwyer" <fdwyer@citlink.net> wrote in message
> news:40F4749B.A37548D7@citlink.net...
> > Bill Case wrote:
> > >
> > > "Xomicron" <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in message
> > > news:a2ec$40f44320$ca6c230c$23707@nf1.news-service-com...
> > > > Don't worry, if Kerry and Ambulance Chasing Edwards get elected, we
> can
> > > > expect a whole army of lawyers to be sent out after the terrorists
> with
> > > > threats of lawsuits all sorts of awful legal trouble if they don't
> stop
> > > > killing us and behave themselves, Boy that will show 'em! And just
> think
> > > > of the very lucrative jobs it would create for Edwards' trial lawyers
> > > > buddies in the event of a catastrophic terrorist hit, suing everybody
> > > > still breathing on behalf of the victims, and it's only fair that they
> be
> > > > rewarded, after all, they gave so unselfishly to his campaign!
> > >
> > > Sure, sure.
> > >
> > > You do know Bush let did nothing about the Cole attack that killed 17 US
> > > sailors, don't you?
> 
> We captured the one responsible for that attack during Bush's term.

We did? Since when? People seem to forget that the Cole attack took
place very late in Clinton's second term. Clinton was in office a bit 
more than two months after the Cole attack before his term ended. Bush
had a lot more time to investigate the Cole attack than Clinton did, yet
he did nothing about it. Same with the 9/11 attacks. Where's bin Laden?
0
srhi (290)
7/14/2004 1:16:33 AM
"Bill Case" <Bill549@Hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:TC%Ic.1645$mL5.1167@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
> "Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote in message
> news:ZuKdnXMPHZQP6GndRVn-iQ@comcast.com...
> >
> > "Frank Dwyer" <fdwyer@citlink.net> wrote in message
> > news:40F4749B.A37548D7@citlink.net...
> > > Bill Case wrote:
> > > >
> > > > "Xomicron" <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in message
> > > > news:a2ec$40f44320$ca6c230c$23707@nf1.news-service-com...
> > > > > Don't worry, if Kerry and Ambulance Chasing Edwards get elected,
we
> > can
> > > > > expect a whole army of lawyers to be sent out after the terrorists
> > with
> > > > > threats of lawsuits all sorts of awful legal trouble if they don't
> > stop
> > > > > killing us and behave themselves, Boy that will show 'em! And just
> > think
> > > > > of the very lucrative jobs it would create for Edwards' trial
> lawyers
> > > > > buddies in the event of a catastrophic terrorist hit, suing
> everybody
> > > > > still breathing on behalf of the victims, and it's only fair that
> they
> > be
> > > > > rewarded, after all, they gave so unselfishly to his campaign!
> > > >
> > > > Sure, sure.
> > > >
> > > > You do know Bush let did nothing about the Cole attack that killed
17
> US
> > > > sailors, don't you?
> >
> > We captured the one responsible for that attack during Bush's term.
> >
> > He let 8 months go by after the CIA id'd al Qaeda as the
> > > > source organization. Al Qaeda captives have been reported as saying
> that
> > > > took encouragement from that.
> > >
> > > He did more about it than the administration under whom it happened
did.
> >
> > Correct
> >
> > >
> > > > You do know that he did nothing to increase airliner security pre
> 9/11,
> > > > which could have precluded the terrorists (armed pilots, air
marshals
> > etc).
> > >
> > > Speculation
> >
> > And these same people who are talking about arming the pilots were the
> same
> > ones screaming about it, saying how horrible it would be, prior to 9/11
> when
> > this discussion was happening.
> >
> >
> > >
> > > > You do know Bush ignored pre 9/11 warnings about al qaeda, don't
you?
> > >
> > > Perhaps he was just following the previous administration's example.
> >
> > Along with the hundreds of other warnings our government receives on a
> daily
> > basis, just what do they suppose Bush was to do?
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > > > You do know Bush resisted the 9/11 investigation that is analyzing
> what
> > went
> > > > wrong, don't you? Why would he do that?
> > >
> > > Probably because he has a difficult time admitting his mistakes.
That's
> > > just a guess though, I'd recommend asking him yourself if you want the
> > > real answer.
> > >
> > > > You do know that intelligence is the main factor in combating
> terrorism
> > > > don't you? Human intelligence largely depends on good will.
> > >
> > > Elaborate, if you would.
> > >
> > > > Do you think Bush has helped that by his "axis of Evil" talk and
> > snubbing Europe and the
> > > > Iraq occupation and Abu Ghraib's affect on the Arab / Moslem world?
> > >
> > > I'll refrain from addressing that until you elaborate on why you
believe
> > > human intelligence largely depends on good will.
> > >
> > > > Kerry had the guts to volunteer his way into river boats in Vietnam
> > while
> > > > Bush and Cheney were evading duty.
> > >
> > > Military service is not a prerequisite to serving as President.
> >
> > These same liberals who are touting Kerry's service are the same
liberals
> > that prior to Clinton getting into office were telling everyone that his
> > lack of military experience did not matter.
>
> Bullshit,. I didn't vote for Clinton. Quit listening to oxycontin Rush..


No where in this post did I ever refer to listening to Rush?


>
>
>
> >
> >
> > >
> > > > Bush talked big but backed down over taking Faluja and taking down
> Sadr
> > when
> > > > he saw it would be a fight.
> > >
> > > He talked big but didn't back over taking down Saddam, so it appears
> > > that you'll be complaining either way.
> >
> > exactly.
> >
> > >
> > > > Kerry is the far better choice.
> > >
> > > I don't see Kerry jumping up to say why, so I'll ask you: Based on
what?
> >
> >
>
>


0
noneedtoknow (858)
7/14/2004 1:40:54 AM
"Shawn Hearn" <srhi@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:srhi-44A408.21163313072004@news-40.sjc.giganews.com...
> In article <ZuKdnXMPHZQP6GndRVn-iQ@comcast.com>,
>  "Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
>
> > "Frank Dwyer" <fdwyer@citlink.net> wrote in message
> > news:40F4749B.A37548D7@citlink.net...
> > > Bill Case wrote:
> > > >
> > > > "Xomicron" <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in message
> > > > news:a2ec$40f44320$ca6c230c$23707@nf1.news-service-com...
> > > > > Don't worry, if Kerry and Ambulance Chasing Edwards get elected,
we
> > can
> > > > > expect a whole army of lawyers to be sent out after the terrorists
> > with
> > > > > threats of lawsuits all sorts of awful legal trouble if they don't
> > stop
> > > > > killing us and behave themselves, Boy that will show 'em! And just
> > think
> > > > > of the very lucrative jobs it would create for Edwards' trial
lawyers
> > > > > buddies in the event of a catastrophic terrorist hit, suing
everybody
> > > > > still breathing on behalf of the victims, and it's only fair that
they
> > be
> > > > > rewarded, after all, they gave so unselfishly to his campaign!
> > > >
> > > > Sure, sure.
> > > >
> > > > You do know Bush let did nothing about the Cole attack that killed
17 US
> > > > sailors, don't you?
> >
> > We captured the one responsible for that attack during Bush's term.
>
> We did? Since when? People seem to forget that the Cole attack took
> place very late in Clinton's second term. Clinton was in office a bit
> more than two months after the Cole attack before his term ended. Bush
> had a lot more time to investigate the Cole attack than Clinton did, yet
> he did nothing about it. Same with the 9/11 attacks. Where's bin Laden?

We will get him.  Let me ask you this. Do you think getting Bin Laden is
going to be the end of this?


0
noneedtoknow (858)
7/14/2004 1:41:35 AM
Xomicron <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in message news:<36d51cf3183ad221268accf5f2eb6df4@news.bubbanews.com>...
> "Bill Case" <Bill549@Hotmail.com> wrote in
> news:vtZIc.1482$mL5.626@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net: 
> 
> > "Xomicron" <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in message
> > news:a2ec$40f44320$ca6c230c$23707@nf1.news-service-com...
> >
> >> Don't worry, if Kerry and Ambulance Chasing Edwards get elected, we can
> >> expect a whole army of lawyers to be sent out after the terrorists with
> >> threats of lawsuits all sorts of awful legal trouble if they don't stop
> >> killing us and behave themselves, Boy that will show 'em! And just
> >> think of the very lucrative jobs it would create for Edwards' trial
> >> lawyers buddies in the event of a catastrophic terrorist hit, suing
> >> everybody still breathing on behalf of the victims, and it's only fair
> >> that they be rewarded, after all, they gave so unselfishly to his
> >> campaign! 
> > 
> > Sure, sure.
> > 
> > You do know Bush let did nothing about the Cole attack that killed 17 US
> > sailors, don't you? He let 8 months go by after the CIA id'd al Qaeda as
> > the source organization. Al Qaeda captives have been reported as saying
> > that took encouragement from that.
> 
> The Cole bombing occurred under Clinton.

Just before the election. Bush then let 9 months go by without doing
anything. Again you show your ignorance.
>  
> > You do know that he did nothing to increase airliner security pre 9/11,
> > which could have precluded the terrorists (armed pilots, air marshals
> > etc). 
> 
> Thanks for proving that hindsight it 20/20.

And, Ashcroft actually took forces away from anti-terrorism efforts.
This after the Clinton administration warned the Bushies that al Qaeda
was the main threat they would face.
> 
> > You do know Bush ignored pre 9/11 warnings about al qaeda, don't you?
> 
> Bullshit.

THere is a cogent reply, not.
> 
> > You do know Bush resisted the 9/11 investigation that is analyzing what
> > went wrong, don't you? Why would he do that?
> 
> Because it's a sham.

Or, more likely, because he knew he didn't do enough. Now, I'm not
really blaming him, but the investigation certainly was not a sham.
> 
> > You do know that intelligence is the main factor in combating terrorism
> > don't you? Human intelligence largely depends on good will. Do you think
> > Bush has helped that by his "axis of Evil" talk and snubbing Europe and
> > the Iraq occupation and Abu Ghraib's affect on the Arab / Moslem world?
> 
> Oh shut the fuck up. If the world is offended when we go after our enemies
> then the world can go to hell. The Abu Ghraib incident was a bunch of
> dumbasses living out their idiotic frat house fantasies. What that has to
> do with Bush I'm not sure. 

His administration set the precedents by announcing that Afghans
captured didn't have any rights under the Geneva Conventions. See the
memos flying around the Pentagon and White House after 9/11.
> 
> > Kerry had the guts to volunteer his way into river boats in Vietnam
> > while Bush and Cheney were evading duty.
> 
> Bush served and was honorably discharged.

In a "Champaigne" unit that had no chance of going to actually fight.
And, there is still the question of the last year of Bush's "service".
> 
> > Bush talked big but backed down over taking Faluja and taking down Sadr
> > when he saw it would be a fight.
> > Kerry is the far better choice.
> 
> Oh please. If Bush had given the OK for taking down Falluja you left
> wingnut pussies would be calling him a baby killer.

You are changing the subject, Snubis. The fact is that, in is usual,
flip-flopping way, Bush said he would do something, and didn't follow
through. That appears to be a hallmark of his entire life.

--
Dave Fritzinger
0
dfritzin (3022)
7/14/2004 2:07:12 AM
Xomicron <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in message news:<d281f9b6a845bde2a0604d7186096447@news.bubbanews.com>...
> Shawn Hearn <srhi@comcast.net> wrote in
> news:srhi-69C545.18442913072004@news-40.sjc.giganews.com: 
> 
> > In article <a2ec$40f44320$ca6c230c$23707@nf1.news-service-com>,
> >  Xomicron <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote:
> > 
> >> Don't worry, if Kerry and Ambulance Chasing Edwards get elected, we can
> >> expect a whole army of lawyers to be sent out after the terrorists with
> >> threats of lawsuits all sorts of awful legal trouble if they don't stop
> >> killing us and behave themselves, Boy that will show 'em! And just
> >> think of the very lucrative jobs it would create for Edwards' trial
> >> lawyers buddies in the event of a catastrophic terrorist hit, suing
> >> everybody still breathing on behalf of the victims, and it's only fair
> >> that they be rewarded, after all, they gave so unselfishly to his
> >> campaign! 
> > 
> > So you think Edwards is an ambulance chaser? How about putting up some 
> > proof to support that charge?
> 
> Take a look at his career. He was a personal injury lawyer who made millions 
> off his clients, always trying to bleed as much as he could from defendants.

You really shouldn't let your ideology get in the way of what actually
happened. Edwards helped people who were seriously hurt by the system,
usually poor people. No one doubts that he was very successful. You
have been caught in yet another lie, Snubis. One wonders why you
bother to post, when your lies are so easy to refute.

--
Dave Fritzinger
0
dfritzin (3022)
7/14/2004 2:09:22 AM
You are all missing the point.
Saudi Arabia is our problem. Where do you think the money for terrorism 
comes from?
The real terrorists are the Saudi royal family.
The most radical of all are from SA.
They are pretending to be a friend to the west while planning to rid the 
world of the "infidel". Listen to what is said. They call the west 
"crusaders".
-max


-- 
To help you stay safe see: http://www.geocities.com/maxpro4u/madmax.html
This message is virus free as far as I can tell.
Change nomail.afraid.org to neo.rr.com so you can reply
(nomail.afraid.org has been set up specifically for
  use in Usenet. Feel free to use it yourself.)
0
maxpro4u (27)
7/14/2004 3:27:51 AM
Bill Case wrote:
> 
> "Frank Dwyer" <fdwyer@citlink.net> wrote in message
> news:40F4749B.A37548D7@citlink.net...
> > Bill Case wrote:
> > >
> > > "Xomicron" <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in message
> > > news:a2ec$40f44320$ca6c230c$23707@nf1.news-service-com...
> > > > Don't worry, if Kerry and Ambulance Chasing Edwards get elected, we
> can
> > > > expect a whole army of lawyers to be sent out after the terrorists
> with
> > > > threats of lawsuits all sorts of awful legal trouble if they don't
> stop
> > > > killing us and behave themselves, Boy that will show 'em! And just
> think
> > > > of the very lucrative jobs it would create for Edwards' trial lawyers
> > > > buddies in the event of a catastrophic terrorist hit, suing everybody
> > > > still breathing on behalf of the victims, and it's only fair that they
> be
> > > > rewarded, after all, they gave so unselfishly to his campaign!
> > >
> > > Sure, sure.
> > >
> > > You do know Bush let did nothing about the Cole attack that killed 17 US
> > > sailors, don't you? He let 8 months go by after the CIA id'd al Qaeda as
> the
> > > source organization. Al Qaeda captives have been reported as saying that
> > > took encouragement from that.
> >
> > He did more about it than the administration under whom it happened did.
> 
> It's widely known the CIA didn't attribute it to Al Qaeda until around the
> time of administration change.
> I don't like Clinton, but he did launch attacks, one killed around 200 al
> qaeda in Afghanistan. (Cruises missiles)
> Irregardless,  why didn't Bush act?

What would you have liked him to do, "fire a 2 million dollar missile at
a 10 dollar empty tent and hit a camel in the butt"?

> On 9/11 he sat like a rabbit after being told of the 2 WTC hits.

Again, what should he have done? The teachers present that day have
commended him for staying calm and not scaring the kids.

> > > You do know that he did nothing to increase airliner security pre 9/11,
> > > which could have precluded the terrorists (armed pilots, air marshals
> etc).
> >
> > Speculation
> 
> No it isnt', an armed man on each plane could have stopped the whole thing.

Speculation

> > > You do know Bush ignored pre 9/11 warnings about al qaeda, don't you?
> >
> > Perhaps he was just following the previous administration's example.
> 
> Then he's no better than Clinton is he?

As far as presidencies go, Clinton was much better than G.W. Bush.

> > > You do know Bush resisted the 9/11 investigation that is analyzing what
> went
> > > wrong, don't you? Why would he do that?
> >
> > Probably because he has a difficult time admitting his mistakes. That's
> > just a guess though, I'd recommend asking him yourself if you want the
> > real answer.
> 
> He lies about everyhting. We know he resisted the investigation.

All politicians lie. It's the nature of the system.

> > > You do know that intelligence is the main factor in combating terrorism
> > > don't you? Human intelligence largely depends on good will.
> >
> > Elaborate, if you would.
> 
> People who like you will tell you stuff that you need to know - those who
> dont won't.
> We lack humint.

We don't get it from the terrorists.
 
> > > Do you think Bush has helped that by his "axis of Evil" talk and
> snubbing Europe and the
> > > Iraq occupation and Abu Ghraib's affect on the Arab / Moslem world?
> >
> > I'll refrain from addressing that until you elaborate on why you believe
> > human intelligence largely depends on good will.
> 
> See above. Read some books about why the USSR had so much good intel when
> people thought they were the great coming thing in the 1920's and 30's. When
> Stalin's camps and all that came to be known, the situation changed to favor
> the west.

I'm familiar with Soviet history.
To answer your previous statement, North Korea, Iran and Iraq weren't
contributing much to us in the form of intelligence (they were the ones
we were gathering it on), so I don't believe Bush's "Axis of Evil" talk
helped or hindered. It was inflammatory and a little too WWII-ish, so it
probably rubbed a few people the wrong way, but I don't believe it
affected our relationships with allies.
The Iraq occupation has "officially" ended, but I do believe we should
be regrouping back home and deploying fresh troops to
Afghanistan/Pakistan to finish the first priority.
Hopefully, Abu Ghraib is an isolated incident and it's adverse effects
will die down in time. It'll leave a scar, but all we can do is
prosecute those responsible and try to make sure it doesn't happen
again.

> > > Kerry had the guts to volunteer his way into river boats in Vietnam
> while
> > > Bush and Cheney were evading duty.
> >
> > Military service is not a prerequisite to serving as President.
> 
> Evading it is a sign of lack of character. Somebody else had to go and take
> the risks.

He served longer than many of our greatest presidents.

> > > Bush talked big but backed down over taking Faluja and taking down Sadr
> when
> > > he saw it would be a fight.
> >
> > He talked big but didn't back over taking down Saddam, so it appears
> > that you'll be complaining either way.
> 
> How do you whether I favored taking out Saddam or not? They had deals with
> Iraqi generals not to fight. They did it over cell phones, did you knopw
> that?

Does it matter?
 
> > > Kerry is the far better choice.
> >
> > I don't see Kerry jumping up to say why, so I'll ask you: Based on what?
> 
> Competence, honesty, character.

Unless and until he's elected, competence is unknown. He's made
promises, as does every other politician when campaigning, but he's also
contributed his share of spin, so his honesty is suspect. Character is a
combination of attributes, including honesty.

> Did you Kerry was in this thread?

I was referring to his campaign thus far, it's been vague.
0
fdwyer (46)
7/14/2004 3:48:53 AM
Well, they'll probably go after Al-Qaeda rather than some tin-horn 
dictator.  That's for starters.

Xomicron wrote:

> Don't worry, if Kerry and Ambulance Chasing Edwards get elected, we can
> expect a whole army of lawyers to be sent out after the terrorists with
> threats of lawsuits all sorts of awful legal trouble if they don't stop
> killing us and behave themselves, Boy that will show 'em! And just think
> of the very lucrative jobs it would create for Edwards' trial lawyers
> buddies in the event of a catastrophic terrorist hit, suing everybody
> still breathing on behalf of the victims, and it's only fair that they be
> rewarded, after all, they gave so unselfishly to his campaign! 

0
calaf (6)
7/14/2004 3:50:56 AM
"Xomicron" <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in message
news:a2ec$40f44320$ca6c230c$23707@nf1.news-service-com...
> Don't worry, if Kerry and Ambulance Chasing Edwards get elected, we can
> expect a whole army of lawyers to be sent out after the terrorists with
> threats of lawsuits all sorts of awful legal trouble if they don't stop
> killing us and behave themselves, Boy that will show 'em! And just think
> of the very lucrative jobs it would create for Edwards' trial lawyers
> buddies in the event of a catastrophic terrorist hit, suing everybody
> still breathing on behalf of the victims, and it's only fair that they be
> rewarded, after all, they gave so unselfishly to his campaign!

Great!
I've been looking for someone to sue ever since 9/11.
The wife absolutely will not set foot on a plane, causing all of our
vacations to be limited to a reasonable drive distance!
The mental anguish, pain & suffereing... I can't go on... Just thinking
about it is too much!
SOMEONE'S GONNA PAY, DAMN IT!!!!!


0
mikey117 (57)
7/14/2004 4:16:51 AM
"Frank Dwyer" <fdwyer@citlink.net> wrote in message
news:40F4AD51.B7095B00@citlink.net...
> Bill Case wrote:
> >
> > "Frank Dwyer" <fdwyer@citlink.net> wrote in message
> > news:40F4749B.A37548D7@citlink.net...
> > > Bill Case wrote:
> > > >
> > > > "Xomicron" <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in message
> > > > news:a2ec$40f44320$ca6c230c$23707@nf1.news-service-com...
> > > > > Don't worry, if Kerry and Ambulance Chasing Edwards get elected,
we
> > can
> > > > > expect a whole army of lawyers to be sent out after the terrorists
> > with
> > > > > threats of lawsuits all sorts of awful legal trouble if they don't
> > stop
> > > > > killing us and behave themselves, Boy that will show 'em! And just
> > think
> > > > > of the very lucrative jobs it would create for Edwards' trial
lawyers
> > > > > buddies in the event of a catastrophic terrorist hit, suing
everybody
> > > > > still breathing on behalf of the victims, and it's only fair that
they
> > be
> > > > > rewarded, after all, they gave so unselfishly to his campaign!
> > > >
> > > > Sure, sure.
> > > >
> > > > You do know Bush let did nothing about the Cole attack that killed
17 US
> > > > sailors, don't you? He let 8 months go by after the CIA id'd al
Qaeda as
> > the
> > > > source organization. Al Qaeda captives have been reported as saying
that
> > > > took encouragement from that.
> > >
> > > He did more about it than the administration under whom it happened
did.
> >
> > It's widely known the CIA didn't attribute it to Al Qaeda until around
the
> > time of administration change.
> > I don't like Clinton, but he did launch attacks, one killed around 200
al
> > qaeda in Afghanistan. (Cruises missiles)
> > Irregardless,  why didn't Bush act?
>
> What would you have liked him to do, "fire a 2 million dollar missile at
> a 10 dollar empty tent and hit a camel in the butt"?

Clinton killed around 200 of them in a crusie missle strike. I would have
liked to have seen raids on all their Afghan camps - how hard is that to fig
ure out?


> > On 9/11 he sat like a rabbit after being told of the 2 WTC hits.
>
> Again, what should he have done? The teachers present that day have
> commended him for staying calm and not scaring the kids.

You see, he was commander in chief of a country under an attack of unknown
type and dimension. He should have been up and around asking questions,
learning what he could and getting his mind on the problem.
But most of all, since he couldn't be sure if he had been somehow targeted,
he should have gotten out of a school full of kids.
Why would anybody need this explained to them?


0
Bill549 (46)
7/14/2004 5:09:06 AM
In article <lJmdnb44v7CAEmndRVn-uQ@comcast.com>,
 "Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
> 
> We will get him.  Let me ask you this. Do you think getting Bin Laden is
> going to be the end of this?

No, but getting bin Laden is a necessary act.

By the way, I am surprised that such an interesting question
came from you. Good job.
0
srhi (290)
7/14/2004 6:01:52 AM
(forum list trimmed, but probably not enough)

In article <40F4749B.A37548D7@citlink.net>,
 Frank Dwyer <fdwyer@citlink.net> wrote:

> > Do you think Bush has helped that by his "axis of Evil" talk and snubbing 
> > Europe and the
> > Iraq occupation and Abu Ghraib's affect on the Arab / Moslem world?
> 
> I'll refrain from addressing that until you elaborate on why you believe
> human intelligence largely depends on good will.

How much useful intelligence and co-operation do you think you'll get 
from people who don't like you?

-- 
C Lund, www.notam02.no/~clund
0
clund (6340)
7/14/2004 9:08:57 AM
**** Post for FREE via your newsreader at post.usenet.com ****

On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 22:16:32 +0200, Xomicron wrote:

> Don't worry, if Kerry and Ambulance Chasing Edwards get elected, we can

heh

> expect a whole army of lawyers to be sent out after the terrorists with
> threats of lawsuits all sorts of awful legal trouble if they don't stop
> killing us and behave themselves, Boy that will show 'em! And just think
> of the very lucrative jobs it would create for Edwards' trial lawyers
> buddies in the event of a catastrophic terrorist hit, suing everybody
> still breathing on behalf of the victims, and it's only fair that they be
> rewarded, after all, they gave so unselfishly to his campaign!

-- 
hmmmm... dumb...

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
 *** Usenet.com - The #1 Usenet Newsgroup Service on The Planet! ***
                      http://www.usenet.com
Unlimited Download - 19 Seperate Servers - 90,000 groups - Uncensored
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
0
d2004xx (197)
7/14/2004 12:02:48 PM
Xomicron <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in message news:<d281f9b6a845bde2a0604d7186096447@news.bubbanews.com>...
> Shawn Hearn <srhi@comcast.net> wrote in
> news:srhi-69C545.18442913072004@news-40.sjc.giganews.com: 
> 
> > In article <a2ec$40f44320$ca6c230c$23707@nf1.news-service-com>,
> >  Xomicron <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote:
> > 
> >> Don't worry, if Kerry and Ambulance Chasing Edwards get elected, we can
> >> expect a whole army of lawyers to be sent out after the terrorists with
> >> threats of lawsuits all sorts of awful legal trouble if they don't stop
> >> killing us and behave themselves, Boy that will show 'em! And just
> >> think of the very lucrative jobs it would create for Edwards' trial
> >> lawyers buddies in the event of a catastrophic terrorist hit, suing
> >> everybody still breathing on behalf of the victims, and it's only fair
> >> that they be rewarded, after all, they gave so unselfishly to his
> >> campaign! 
> > 
> > So you think Edwards is an ambulance chaser? How about putting up some 
> > proof to support that charge?

If Edwards was so concerned about his clients then he wouldn't have
taken 33% of the rewards from his clients. He did some class actions
that had hundreds of plantiffs, they got very little for their
suffering...while he got millions.
> 
> Take a look at his career. He was a personal injury lawyer who made millions 
> off his clients, always trying to bleed as much as he could from defendants.
0
twalk007 (15)
7/14/2004 12:50:25 PM
Xomicron <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in message news:<d281f9b6a845bde2a0604d7186096447@news.bubbanews.com>...
> Shawn Hearn <srhi@comcast.net> wrote in
> news:srhi-69C545.18442913072004@news-40.sjc.giganews.com: 
> 
> > In article <a2ec$40f44320$ca6c230c$23707@nf1.news-service-com>,
> >  Xomicron <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote:
> > 
> >> Don't worry, if Kerry and Ambulance Chasing Edwards get elected, we can
> >> expect a whole army of lawyers to be sent out after the terrorists with
> >> threats of lawsuits all sorts of awful legal trouble if they don't stop
> >> killing us and behave themselves, Boy that will show 'em! And just
> >> think of the very lucrative jobs it would create for Edwards' trial
> >> lawyers buddies in the event of a catastrophic terrorist hit, suing
> >> everybody still breathing on behalf of the victims, and it's only fair
> >> that they be rewarded, after all, they gave so unselfishly to his
> >> campaign! 
> > 
> > So you think Edwards is an ambulance chaser? How about putting up some 
> > proof to support that charge?
> 
> Take a look at his career. He was a personal injury lawyer who made millions 
> off his clients, always trying to bleed as much as he could from defendants.

He made millions HELPING his clients against big business monsters
like Cheney's halliburton.. Xomicron.. again try using real facts
instead of the useless garbage the GOP use

you are nothing but a robotic troll whose lost all credibility here!
0
7/14/2004 12:57:27 PM
corey_is_naked@antisocial.com (Corey Is Naked) wrote in
news:633ef77b.0407140457.738b808e@posting.google.com: 

> Xomicron <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in message
> news:<d281f9b6a845bde2a0604d7186096447@news.bubbanews.com>...
>
>> Shawn Hearn <srhi@comcast.net> wrote in
>> news:srhi-69C545.18442913072004@news-40.sjc.giganews.com: 
>> 
>>> In article <a2ec$40f44320$ca6c230c$23707@nf1.news-service-com>,
>>>  Xomicron <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Don't worry, if Kerry and Ambulance Chasing Edwards get elected, we
>>>> can expect a whole army of lawyers to be sent out after the
>>>> terrorists with threats of lawsuits all sorts of awful legal trouble
>>>> if they don't stop killing us and behave themselves, Boy that will
>>>> show 'em! And just think of the very lucrative jobs it would create
>>>> for Edwards' trial lawyers buddies in the event of a catastrophic
>>>> terrorist hit, suing everybody still breathing on behalf of the
>>>> victims, and it's only fair that they be rewarded, after all, they
>>>> gave so unselfishly to his campaign! 
>>> 
>>> So you think Edwards is an ambulance chaser? How about putting up
>>> some proof to support that charge?
>> 
>> Take a look at his career. He was a personal injury lawyer who made
>> millions off his clients, always trying to bleed as much as he could
>> from defendants. 
> 
> He made millions HELPING his clients against big business monsters
> like Cheney's halliburton..

If Edwards was truly concerned about helping his clients then he wouldn't
need to sue for millions while taking a third of the winnings for himself.
Or rake in millions off of class action suits while the clients got next
to nothing. Or use junk science to win cases.
0
xomicron (578)
7/14/2004 2:05:42 PM
dfritzin@hotmail.com (David Fritzinger) wrote in
news:b82925bb.0407131809.54bec8e0@posting.google.com: 

> Xomicron <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in message
> news:<d281f9b6a845bde2a0604d7186096447@news.bubbanews.com>...
>
>> Shawn Hearn <srhi@comcast.net> wrote in
>> news:srhi-69C545.18442913072004@news-40.sjc.giganews.com: 
>> 
>>> In article <a2ec$40f44320$ca6c230c$23707@nf1.news-service-com>,
>>> Xomicron <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Don't worry, if Kerry and Ambulance Chasing Edwards get elected, we
>>>> can expect a whole army of lawyers to be sent out after the
>>>> terrorists with threats of lawsuits all sorts of awful legal trouble
>>>> if they don't stop killing us and behave themselves, Boy that will
>>>> show 'em! And just think of the very lucrative jobs it would create
>>>> for Edwards' trial lawyers buddies in the event of a catastrophic
>>>> terrorist hit, suing everybody still breathing on behalf of the
>>>> victims, and it's only fair that they be rewarded, after all, they
>>>> gave so unselfishly to his campaign! 
>>> 
>>> So you think Edwards is an ambulance chaser? How about putting up
>>> some proof to support that charge?
>> 
>> Take a look at his career. He was a personal injury lawyer who made
>> millions off his clients, always trying to bleed as much as he could
>> from defendants. 
> 
> You really shouldn't let your ideology get in the way of what actually
> happened. Edwards helped people who were seriously hurt by the system,
> usually poor people.

If Edwards was truly concerned about helping his clients then he wouldn't
need to sue for millions while taking a third of the winnings for himself.
Or rake in millions off of class action suits while the clients got next
to nothing. Or use junk science to win cases.
0
xomicron (578)
7/14/2004 2:06:52 PM
Shawn Hearn <srhi@comcast.net> wrote in
news:srhi-7C7537.21120813072004@news-40.sjc.giganews.com: 

> In article <d281f9b6a845bde2a0604d7186096447@news.bubbanews.com>,
> Xomicron <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote:
> 
>> Shawn Hearn <srhi@comcast.net> wrote in
>> news:srhi-69C545.18442913072004@news-40.sjc.giganews.com: 
>> 
>>> In article <a2ec$40f44320$ca6c230c$23707@nf1.news-service-com>,
>>>  Xomicron <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Don't worry, if Kerry and Ambulance Chasing Edwards get elected, we
>>>> can expect a whole army of lawyers to be sent out after the
>>>> terrorists with threats of lawsuits all sorts of awful legal trouble
>>>> if they don't stop killing us and behave themselves, Boy that will
>>>> show 'em! And just think of the very lucrative jobs it would create
>>>> for Edwards' trial lawyers buddies in the event of a catastrophic
>>>> terrorist hit, suing everybody still breathing on behalf of the
>>>> victims, and it's only fair that they be rewarded, after all, they
>>>> gave so unselfishly to his campaign! 
>>> 
>>> So you think Edwards is an ambulance chaser? How about putting up
>>> some proof to support that charge?
>> 
>> Take a look at his career. He was a personal injury lawyer who made
>> millions off his clients, always trying to bleed as much as he could
>> from defendants. 
> 
> Not all personal injury lawyers are ambulance chasers. So I ask you
> again, do you have any proof at all that Edwards was an ambulance 
> chaser, or are you simply repeating the mindless chants that Bush's
> campaign is putting out?

Definition of "ambulance chaser":

An attorney who seeks to profit from someone's injury or accident; also,
an inferior lawyer. The practice of suing for damages on behalf of the
injured person in exchange for a contingency fee--usually a large
percentage of the amount so won.

Edwards made most of his millions in frivolous lawsuits against the
medical industry such as suing docs because kids were born with a genetic
defect known as cerebral palsy. People know that lawyers have played the
biggest role in screwing up the health care system, and driving good 
people away from the field of medicine. 

People like John Edwards are reason why health care costs are so exhorbant. 
He's the poster-boy for why tort reform and damage award caps are needed. 
He campaigns as a "mainstream centrist" but votes to the left of Ted 
Kennedy. The guy's a phoney from the word go. Had he been running again for 
the Senate, he'd probably have been beaten soundly. He's an empty suit. 
0
xomicron (578)
7/14/2004 2:25:31 PM
calaf <calaf@calaf.com> wrote in news:v42Jc.365$8v2.39@lakeread01:

> Well, they'll probably go after Al-Qaeda rather than some tin-horn 
> dictator.  That's for starters.

Your ignorance is astounding. Even for a top posting cockbite.
0
xomicron (578)
7/14/2004 2:25:36 PM
C Lund wrote:
> 
> (forum list trimmed, but probably not enough)
> 
> In article <40F4749B.A37548D7@citlink.net>,
>  Frank Dwyer <fdwyer@citlink.net> wrote:
> 
> > > Do you think Bush has helped that by his "axis of Evil" talk and snubbing
> > > Europe and the
> > > Iraq occupation and Abu Ghraib's affect on the Arab / Moslem world?
> >
> > I'll refrain from addressing that until you elaborate on why you believe
> > human intelligence largely depends on good will.
> 
> How much useful intelligence and co-operation do you think you'll get
> from people who don't like you?

None, so it doesn't really matter what we call them.
0
fdwyer (46)
7/14/2004 2:39:36 PM
"Xomicron" <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote
> Or use junk science to win cases.

I mark for anyone even remotely associated with the right complaining about
"junk science".


0
7/14/2004 2:39:50 PM
"Krusty" <rspwkrusty@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:cd3gjg$ds5b$1@news3.infoave.net: 

> "Xomicron" <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote
>> Or use junk science to win cases.
> 
> I mark for anyone even remotely associated with the right complaining
> about "junk science".

You mean like kook environmentalists and animal rights activists? Oh wait,
they're with the left. 
0
xomicron (578)
7/14/2004 2:45:06 PM
"Xomicron" <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote
> "Krusty" <rspwkrusty@yahoo.com> wrote in
> news:cd3gjg$ds5b$1@news3.infoave.net:
>
> > "Xomicron" <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote
> >> Or use junk science to win cases.
> >
> > I mark for anyone even remotely associated with the right complaining
> > about "junk science".
>
> You mean like kook environmentalists and animal rights activists? Oh wait,
> they're with the left.

What does animal rights have to do with science? If I philosophically
believe that everything that's living deserves equal treatment, and happen
to have the gift of empathy, what possible connection does that have to do
with science? Seriously? If, say for instance, I thought that mistreating a
dog or cat was as criminal as mistreating a person because they're both
living, breathing creatures, what *possible* connection to "science" does
that even have? You're equating a *philosophy* with science? For that matter
what does being an "environmentalist" have to do with science? And I notice
you don't even bother to *define* what an "environmentalist" is. Is it
someone who recycles their trash? Are they participating in "junk science"?
Or any science for that matter? What about if I decide that I want my
beaches clean? Am I a "kook left wing environmentalist" who participates in
"junk science"? Do you actually need science to tell you that dumping
chemicals in the ocean, or litter, or not recycling is bad policy? Honestly,
do you?

Dude, you just have NO idea what you're even talking about. Seriously.
You're WAY out of your league. You wouldn't know "science" if you were
beaten to death by a chemistry book.


0
7/14/2004 2:59:08 PM
"Krusty" <rspwkrusty@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:cd3hnm$dr61$1@news3.infoave.net: 

> Dude, you just have NO idea what you're even talking about. Seriously.
> You're WAY out of your league. You wouldn't know "science" if you were
> beaten to death by a chemistry book.

Lame noted.
0
xomicron (578)
7/14/2004 3:25:15 PM
"Xomicron" <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote...
> "Krusty" <rspwkrusty@yahoo.com> wrote
> > Dude, you just have NO idea what you're even talking about. Seriously.
> > You're WAY out of your league. You wouldn't know "science" if you were
> > beaten to death by a chemistry book.
>
> Lame noted.

Entire rest of the post conveniently ignored, that you happen to have no
response to, noted.

Want to try again?

I wrote:
"What does animal rights have to do with science? If I philosophically
believe that everything that's living deserves equal treatment, and happen
to have the gift of empathy, what possible connection does that have to do
with science? Seriously? If, say for instance, I thought that mistreating a
dog or cat was as criminal as mistreating a person because they're both
living, breathing creatures, what *possible* connection to "science" does
that even have? You're equating a *philosophy* with science? For that matter
what does being an "environmentalist" have to do with science? And I notice
you don't even bother to *define* what an "environmentalist" is. Is it
someone who recycles their trash? Are they participating in "junk science"?
Or any science for that matter? What about if I decide that I want my
beaches clean? Am I a "kook left wing environmentalist" who participates in
"junk science"? Do you actually need science to tell you that dumping
chemicals in the ocean, or litter, or not recycling is bad policy? Honestly,
do you?"

Have at it...if you think you can. Remember, this was in response to your
horribly blanket statement asserting that people who advocated animal
rights, and environmentalism were kooks (Lame noted) and from the left, and
followed "junk science". A point you seem to be scurrying away from at the
moment...


0
7/14/2004 3:32:12 PM
"Bill Case" <Bill549@Hotmail.com> wrote in
news:zB%Ic.1642$mL5.223@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net: 
 
> "Frank Dwyer" <fdwyer@citlink.net> wrote in message
> news:40F4749B.A37548D7@citlink.net...
>
>> He did more about it than the administration under whom it happened
>> did. 
> 
> It's widely known the CIA didn't attribute it to Al Qaeda until around
> the time of administration change.
> I don't like Clinton, but he did launch attacks, one killed around 200
> al qaeda in Afghanistan. (Cruises missiles)

More like blew up some empty tents.

> Irregardless,  why didn't Bush act?
> On 9/11 he sat like a rabbit after being told of the 2 WTC hits.

What should he have done? Keeping in mind that no one really knew what was
going on. 
0
xomicron (578)
7/14/2004 3:41:26 PM
"Xomicron" <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in
ae117$40f55426$45f0b78b$14525@nf1.news-service-com on 7/14/04 8:41 AM:

> "Bill Case" <Bill549@Hotmail.com> wrote in
> news:zB%Ic.1642$mL5.223@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net:
> 
>> "Frank Dwyer" <fdwyer@citlink.net> wrote in message
>> news:40F4749B.A37548D7@citlink.net...
>> 
>>> He did more about it than the administration under whom it happened
>>> did. 
>> 
>> It's widely known the CIA didn't attribute it to Al Qaeda until around
>> the time of administration change.
>> I don't like Clinton, but he did launch attacks, one killed around 200
>> al qaeda in Afghanistan. (Cruises missiles)
> 
> More like blew up some empty tents.
> 
>> Irregardless,  why didn't Bush act?
>> On 9/11 he sat like a rabbit after being told of the 2 WTC hits.
> 
> What should he have done? Keeping in mind that no one really knew what was
> going on. 

He should have been getting his butt to safety, gathering info, making
choices...

Really not a hard concept.

0
snit-nospam (5415)
7/14/2004 3:49:48 PM
"Xomicron" <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote
> What should he have done? Keeping in mind that no one really knew what was
> going on.

How about got up and left and tried to find out WHAT was going on? I mean,
don't you think the President should at least make an effort when the nation
is *apparently* under attack? Remember, this is after the second plane has
hit the World Trade center...so we can safely discount "accident" at thsi
point...


0
7/14/2004 4:00:07 PM
"Xomicron" <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in message
news:ae117$40f55426$45f0b78b$14525@nf1.news-service-com...
> "Bill Case" <Bill549@Hotmail.com> wrote in
> news:zB%Ic.1642$mL5.223@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net:
>
> > "Frank Dwyer" <fdwyer@citlink.net> wrote in message
> > news:40F4749B.A37548D7@citlink.net...
> >
> >> He did more about it than the administration under whom it happened
> >> did.
> >
> > It's widely known the CIA didn't attribute it to Al Qaeda until around
> > the time of administration change.
> > I don't like Clinton, but he did launch attacks, one killed around 200
> > al qaeda in Afghanistan. (Cruises missiles)
>
> More like blew up some empty tents.

If you actually knew anything about this war on terror, you would know that
intelligence is that they killed a lot of them, and OBL had left that camp
not long before.

>
> > Irregardless,  why didn't Bush act?
> > On 9/11 he sat like a rabbit after being told of the 2 WTC hits.
>
> What should he have done? Keeping in mind that no one really knew what was
> going on.

A commander, or just any guy with balls and brains, is going to want to know
all the info available, ask questions to get his staff going and thinking,
get his mind working on the problem he's facing, make sure his people are
all "up" and active.

In a situation like that, you might be asked to make a decision, maybe a big
one, quickly. To do that you need to have your mind active and focused. A
leader wants to be certain everybody is doing all they can and all the
available info on what's happening is getting to him.

Instead, he sat there like a passive receiver.

But first of all, get yourself away from children in case an attempt is
about to be made on you.

It's not political BS to say this guy and his encourage have not been up to
the challenges.


0
Bill549 (46)
7/14/2004 4:11:20 PM
"Todd Walker" <twalk007@aol.com> wrote in message
news:c0fbb02b.0407140450.71a8a2d8@posting.google.com...
> Xomicron <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in message
news:<d281f9b6a845bde2a0604d7186096447@news.bubbanews.com>...
> > Shawn Hearn <srhi@comcast.net> wrote in
> > news:srhi-69C545.18442913072004@news-40.sjc.giganews.com:
> >
> > > In article <a2ec$40f44320$ca6c230c$23707@nf1.news-service-com>,
> > >  Xomicron <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote:
> > >
> > >> Don't worry, if Kerry and Ambulance Chasing Edwards get elected, we
can
> > >> expect a whole army of lawyers to be sent out after the terrorists
with
> > >> threats of lawsuits all sorts of awful legal trouble if they don't
stop
> > >> killing us and behave themselves, Boy that will show 'em! And just
> > >> think of the very lucrative jobs it would create for Edwards' trial
> > >> lawyers buddies in the event of a catastrophic terrorist hit, suing
> > >> everybody still breathing on behalf of the victims, and it's only
fair
> > >> that they be rewarded, after all, they gave so unselfishly to his
> > >> campaign!
> > >
> > > So you think Edwards is an ambulance chaser? How about putting up some
> > > proof to support that charge?
>
> If Edwards was so concerned about his clients then he wouldn't have
> taken 33% of the rewards from his clients. He did some class actions
> that had hundreds of plantiffs, they got very little for their
> suffering...while he got millions.
> >
> > Take a look at his career. He was a personal injury lawyer who made
millions
> > off his clients, always trying to bleed as much as he could from
defendants.

That's the way the system works. Most of the cases don't make anything. If
the rewards weren't large, no lawyers would be around if and when you or a
family member were a victim of a mistake (and there always will be mistakes
even by the most competent physicians and staffs and drug companies).

In the absence of penalties, the system will shift to not giving a shit
about errors, except for politically fixed people who can cause trouble.

The problem lies with juries that have no expertise in the problems they are
evaluating. We probably need a system of expert jurors to evaluate specialty
cases. But then the system move toward co-opting them. It's an open problem.


0
Bill549 (46)
7/14/2004 4:21:43 PM
On 13 Jul 2004 19:07:12 -0700, dfritzin@hotmail.com (David Fritzinger)
added the following words, followed by my wisdom:

>Xomicron <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in message news:<36d51cf3183ad221268accf5f2eb6df4@news.bubbanews.com>...
>> 
>> Oh please. If Bush had given the OK for taking down Falluja you left
>> wingnut pussies would be calling him a baby killer.
>
>You are changing the subject, Snubis. The fact is that, in is usual,
>flip-flopping way, Bush said he would do something, and didn't follow
>through. That appears to be a hallmark of his entire life.

Well, that, and the fact that Bush is bumbling incompetent at anything
he does, including eating pretzels and riding bicycles.

--
Beware the Axis of Evil (Chimp, Cheney, Rumswilled, Asscroft)
0
george666 (65)
7/14/2004 4:30:37 PM
"Bill Case" <Bill549@Hotmail.com> wrote in
news:IWcJc.2968$Qu5.1720@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net: 

> "Xomicron" <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in message
> news:ae117$40f55426$45f0b78b$14525@nf1.news-service-com...
>
>> "Bill Case" <Bill549@Hotmail.com> wrote in
>> news:zB%Ic.1642$mL5.223@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net:
>>
>>> "Frank Dwyer" <fdwyer@citlink.net> wrote in message
>>> news:40F4749B.A37548D7@citlink.net...
>>>
>>>> He did more about it than the administration under whom it happened
>>>> did.
>>>
>>> It's widely known the CIA didn't attribute it to Al Qaeda until
>>> around the time of administration change.
>>> I don't like Clinton, but he did launch attacks, one killed around
>>> 200 al qaeda in Afghanistan. (Cruises missiles)
>>
>> More like blew up some empty tents.
> 
> If you actually knew anything about this war on terror, you would know
> that intelligence is that they killed a lot of them, and OBL had left
> that camp not long before.
> 
>>
>> > Irregardless,  why didn't Bush act?
>> > On 9/11 he sat like a rabbit after being told of the 2 WTC hits.
>>
>> What should he have done? Keeping in mind that no one really knew what
>> was going on.
> 
> A commander, or just any guy with balls and brains, is going to want to
> know all the info available, ask questions to get his staff going and
> thinking, get his mind working on the problem he's facing, make sure his
> people are all "up" and active.
> 
> In a situation like that, you might be asked to make a decision, maybe a
> big one, quickly. To do that you need to have your mind active and
> focused. A leader wants to be certain everybody is doing all they can
> and all the available info on what's happening is getting to him.
> 
> Instead, he sat there like a passive receiver.

So what should he have done? There were massively conflicting reports that
said anywhere from JUST ONE plane, to SIX different aircraft had been
either hijacked, or had some sort of malfunction. Which one of these
presumptions do you make? Keep in mind that if you're wrong, people die,
if you're right, people die. And also keep in mind that shooting them down
and being right in doing so, may destroy any proof that you were right. No
proof to your own conscience, no proof to your friends, no proof to your
staff, and just to also throw in the lowest common denominator, no proof
to the voters. 

And we all know how much proof it requires to convince people who hate
Bush of anything. Today we'd be hearing about how Bush is a murderer who
shoots down civilian airlines. 
 
> But first of all, get yourself away from children in case an attempt is
> about to be made on you.

What would events 1500 miles away have to do with Bush being
assassinated? 
0
xomicron (578)
7/14/2004 4:37:19 PM
Jeff George <george666@comcast.net.munged> wrote in
news:irnaf09v6hip4e7ci2484qi6ctd5j2svkb@4ax.com: 

> On 13 Jul 2004 19:07:12 -0700, dfritzin@hotmail.com (David Fritzinger)
> added the following words, followed by my wisdom:
> 
>> Xomicron <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in message
>> news:<36d51cf3183ad221268accf5f2eb6df4@news.bubbanews.com>... 
>>
>>> Oh please. If Bush had given the OK for taking down Falluja you left
>>> wingnut pussies would be calling him a baby killer.
>>
>> You are changing the subject, Snubis. The fact is that, in is usual,
>> flip-flopping way, Bush said he would do something, and didn't follow
>> through. That appears to be a hallmark of his entire life.
> 
> Well, that, and the fact that Bush is bumbling incompetent at anything
> he does, including eating pretzels and riding bicycles.

Kerry can't ride a bike or ski and then feels the need to lie about it.
0
xomicron (578)
7/14/2004 4:43:06 PM
dfritzin@hotmail.com (David Fritzinger) wrote in
news:b82925bb.0407131807.153aa84a@posting.google.com: 

> Xomicron <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in message
> news:<36d51cf3183ad221268accf5f2eb6df4@news.bubbanews.com>...
>
>> "Bill Case" <Bill549@Hotmail.com> wrote in
>> news:vtZIc.1482$mL5.626@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net: 
>> 
>>> "Xomicron" <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in message
>>> news:a2ec$40f44320$ca6c230c$23707@nf1.news-service-com...
>>>
>>>> Don't worry, if Kerry and Ambulance Chasing Edwards get elected, we
>>>> can expect a whole army of lawyers to be sent out after the
>>>> terrorists with threats of lawsuits all sorts of awful legal trouble
>>>> if they don't stop killing us and behave themselves, Boy that will
>>>> show 'em! And just think of the very lucrative jobs it would create
>>>> for Edwards' trial lawyers buddies in the event of a catastrophic
>>>> terrorist hit, suing everybody still breathing on behalf of the
>>>> victims, and it's only fair that they be rewarded, after all, they
>>>> gave so unselfishly to his campaign! 
>>> 
>>> Sure, sure.
>>> 
>>> You do know Bush let did nothing about the Cole attack that killed 17
>>> US sailors, don't you? He let 8 months go by after the CIA id'd al
>>> Qaeda as the source organization. Al Qaeda captives have been
>>> reported as saying that took encouragement from that.
>> 
>> The Cole bombing occurred under Clinton.
> 
> Just before the election. Bush then let 9 months go by without doing
> anything. Again you show your ignorance.
>  
>>> You do know that he did nothing to increase airliner security pre
>>> 9/11, which could have precluded the terrorists (armed pilots, air
>>> marshals etc). 
>> 
>> Thanks for proving that hindsight it 20/20.
> 
> And, Ashcroft actually took forces away from anti-terrorism efforts.
> This after the Clinton administration warned the Bushies that al Qaeda
> was the main threat they would face.
>
>>> You do know Bush ignored pre 9/11 warnings about al qaeda, don't you?
>> 
>> Bullshit.
> 
> THere is a cogent reply, not.
> 
>>> You do know Bush resisted the 9/11 investigation that is analyzing
>>> what went wrong, don't you? Why would he do that?
>> 
>> Because it's a sham.
> 
> Or, more likely, because he knew he didn't do enough. Now, I'm not
> really blaming him, but the investigation certainly was not a sham.
> 
>>> You do know that intelligence is the main factor in combating
>>> terrorism don't you? Human intelligence largely depends on good will.
>>> Do you think Bush has helped that by his "axis of Evil" talk and
>>> snubbing Europe and the Iraq occupation and Abu Ghraib's affect on
>>> the Arab / Moslem world? 
>> 
>> Oh shut the fuck up. If the world is offended when we go after our
>> enemies then the world can go to hell. The Abu Ghraib incident was a
>> bunch of dumbasses living out their idiotic frat house fantasies. What
>> that has to do with Bush I'm not sure. 
> 
> His administration set the precedents by announcing that Afghans
> captured didn't have any rights under the Geneva Conventions. See the
> memos flying around the Pentagon and White House after 9/11.
>
>>> Kerry had the guts to volunteer his way into river boats in Vietnam
>>> while Bush and Cheney were evading duty.
>> 
>> Bush served and was honorably discharged.
> 
> In a "Champaigne" unit that had no chance of going to actually fight.
> And, there is still the question of the last year of Bush's "service".
>
>>> Bush talked big but backed down over taking Faluja and taking down
>>> Sadr when he saw it would be a fight.
>>> Kerry is the far better choice.
>> 
>> Oh please. If Bush had given the OK for taking down Falluja you left
>> wingnut pussies would be calling him a baby killer.
> 
> You are changing the subject, Snubis. The fact is that, in is usual,
> flip-flopping way, Bush said he would do something, and didn't follow
> through.

Sorry. This is not an example of John Kerry's fort�. In war, things change. 
It no longer became necessary to take Falluja by force.
0
xomicron (578)
7/14/2004 4:47:17 PM
Ya, those Liberal assholes will throw you a brick if you're downing!


0
7/14/2004 4:49:16 PM
Bill Case wrote:
> This is from a university prof's website. 

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!

0
7/14/2004 5:36:23 PM
This is from a university prof's website. He's a left of center middle east
expert. It's in answer to Bush's latest line on his polices having been
effective.
You may or may not be in tune with it, but it's not just bullshit.
url: http://www.juancole.com/
Wednesday, July 14, 2004
Arguing with Bush yet Again

President Bush gave a speech on Tuesday in which he made specific claims
about how the United States is safer as a result of his military action. I
dispute assertions about particular Middle Eastern or South Asian countries.



  ' "The world is changing for the better because of American leadership.
America is safer today because we are leading the world. Afghanistan was
once the home of al-Qaeda. Now terror camps are closed, democracy is rising,
and the American people are safer," he said. '


Cole: The Afghanistan war was the right war at the right time, and it did
break up the network of al-Qaeda training camps from which terrorists would
have gone on hitting the United States. But the fact is that Bush, Cheney
and Rumsfeld did not want to fight that war after September 11. Rumsfeld
sniffed that "there were no good targets" in Afghanistan. Bush, Rumsfeld and
Cheney all wanted to leave al-Qaeda in Afghanistan and attack Iraq first. At
first Wolfowitz was leaked as the proponent of this crazy idea, and although
he did back it, it is now clear from insider accounts like that of Richard
Clark that the three top leaders just mentioned wanted Iraq first. The UK
ambassador to the US maintains that it was Tony Blair who talked Bush into
going after al-Qaeda in Afghanistan first, with a promise that he would
later support an Iraq war. MI6 would have been briefing Tony about the dire
threat coming from Afghanistan, and he, unlike the Bush team, could see the
dangers of getting bogged down in an Iraq quagmire while al-Qaeda and the
Taliban were still in control of Afghanistan. (Can you imagine the full
scope of that disaster that Bush had planned for us?)

Even after Bush was dragged kicking and screaming into doing the right thing
by Blair, he did it half-heartedly. He let Bin Laden and al-Zawahir escape.
(I'll repeat that. He let Bin Laden and al-Zawahiri escape). Instead of
rebuilding and stabilizing Afghanistan, as he promised, he put almost
nothing into reconstruction for that country.

Then he let the poppy growing industry come back with a vengeance.
Afghanistan's GNP is $5 billion a year. At least $2 billion of that is
poppies, and Afghanistan has become the top source for heroin in Europe.
With al-Qaeda and the Taliban still powerful in the country or its
borderlands, Afghanistan is on the way to becoming a terrorist's dream-- a
place worse than Colombia from which narco-terrorism can be funded and
launched. This looming disaster will certainly blow back on the American
homeland. Yet Bush is doing nothing to avert it.

As for democracy and liberating 50 million people, neither the people of
Afghanistan nor that of Iraq have elected national governments by popular
sovereignty. It is not entirely clear when they will be able to do so. For
the moment, there hasn't been any introduction of anything like democracy.
The US invaded each and installed a government of its choosing. That isn't
democracy. In Iraq, Paul Bremer repeatedly blocked democratic municipal
elections. That was a great lesson for the people in democracy, all right.


  ' The dictator in Iraq had the "capability of producing weapons of mass
murder. And now, the dictator is a threat to nobody, and the American people
are safer." '


Bush must think we are a nation of retards if he believes we will buy this
language of Saddam having the "capability" to produce weapons of mass
destruction. All countries have the "capability." The point is that Iraq had
given up its WMD programs and destroyed the stockpiles. The US was not in
any danger from Iraq, and so cannot be safer because it was invaded.

Worse, the American invasion of Iraq is a major recruitment poster for
al-Qaeda. Al-Qaeda's message was that the Americans are coming to Muslim
lands. 'They will invade your countries, expropriate your property, rape
your women, and humiliate your men,' al-Qaeda screams. What does Bush do? He
proves al-Qaeda right. More angry young Arab men are ready to fight the
United States now than ever before. Bush is less popular than Bin Laden in
most Muslim countries according to polls.

Not only has the Bush administration angered the Sunni Muslim world with its
invasion and hamhanded occupation of Iraq, but it has managed to turn the
Shiites against us too, by desecrating the holy cities of Najaf and Karbala
this past spring.

The US is arguably much less safe because of the invasion of Iraq.


  ' He said Pakistan used to be a safe transit point for terrorists on
missions of murder. "Now Pakistani forces are rounding up terrorists, and
the American people are safer." '


This is a nice sound bite but bears no resemblance to reality. The major
jihadi groups in Pakistan are still operating, and the Pakistani government
has been largely unable or unwilling to stop them. The Pakistanis did arrest
some 500 al-Qaeda Arabs, but Pakistani courts have not cooperated with its
attempts to subject the jihadis to mass arrests. A major jihadi leader was
sitting in parliament until he was assassinated recently!

Moreover, Pakistan remains virtually a military dictatorship, where
parliament is not sovereign and where Gen. Musharraf basically appoints and
removes prime ministers by fiat (PM Jamali was recently forced out).


  ' In Saudi Arabia, terrorists were meeting little opposition, but today
the Saudi Government is taking the fight to al-Qaeda, and the American
people are safer, he said. '


In Saudi Arabia, Americans were relatively safe before the Iraq war. Now
Americans are in danger in Saudi Arabia, and are fleeing the country. This
is an improvement?


  ' Not long ago, Libya was spending millions to acquire weapons of mass
destruction. "Now, thousands of Libya's chemical munitions have been
destroyed. Libya has given up nuclear processing equipment, and the American
people are safer," he claimed. '


Oh, give it up. Libya had been trying to make that deal for years. (The
European pressure and boycott was what had done the trick). What really
changed was that the Americans became more receptive to such a deal. But
then right in the middle of Qaddafi coming in from the cold it surfaced that
he had gotten up a plot to assassinate a Saudi leader! Made it hard to crow
too loud about rehabilitating him.

Plus Bush does not mention that the entire Muslim world is royally pissed
off at the United States for coddling Ariel Sharon while he gobbles up
nearly half of the West Bank, expropriating and brutalizing the Palestinians
in the process. Even the World Court has condemned his greedy fence, which
annexes massive amounts of Palestinian land. Bush has just lain down on the
ground and pleaded with Sharon to walk all over him with hobnail boots, and
then smiled for the privilege. Arab satellite television shows Israelis
repressing Palestinians every day. The Bush administration has actually
endorsed the forcible Israeli annexation of Palestinian land, which violates
the United Nations Charter and the Geneva Accords!

Pursuing a policy that makes us highly unpopular with 1.3 billion people is
not a means of making us safer.

So, no, Americans are not safer, Mr. Bush. They face the threat of
substantial narco-terrorism from Afghanistan. Iraq is a security nightmare
that could well blow back on the American homeland. Pakistan remains a
military dictatorship with a host of militant jihadi movements that had been
fomented by the hardline Pakistani military intelligence. Saudi Arabia is
witnessing increased al-Qaeda activity and attacks on Westerners. And the
Israeli-Palestine dispute is being left to fester and poison the world.

These are not achievements to be proud of. This is a string of disasters. We
are not safer. We face incredible danger because of the way the Bush
administration has grossly mishandled the Middle East.


posted by Juan @ 7/14/2004 09:07:16 AM


0
Bill549 (46)
7/14/2004 5:38:50 PM
"Xomicron" <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in message
news:Xns95268216158ABrt@fla.dragon.pl...
> dfritzin@hotmail.com (David Fritzinger) wrote in
> news:b82925bb.0407131807.153aa84a@posting.google.com:
>
> > Xomicron <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in message
> > news:<36d51cf3183ad221268accf5f2eb6df4@news.bubbanews.com>...
> >
> >> "Bill Case" <Bill549@Hotmail.com> wrote in
> >> news:vtZIc.1482$mL5.626@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net:
> >>
> >>> "Xomicron" <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in message
> >>> news:a2ec$40f44320$ca6c230c$23707@nf1.news-service-com...
> >>>
> >>>> Don't worry, if Kerry and Ambulance Chasing Edwards get elected, we
> >>>> can expect a whole army of lawyers to be sent out after the
> >>>> terrorists with threats of lawsuits all sorts of awful legal trouble
> >>>> if they don't stop killing us and behave themselves, Boy that will
> >>>> show 'em! And just think of the very lucrative jobs it would create
> >>>> for Edwards' trial lawyers buddies in the event of a catastrophic
> >>>> terrorist hit, suing everybody still breathing on behalf of the
> >>>> victims, and it's only fair that they be rewarded, after all, they
> >>>> gave so unselfishly to his campaign!
> >>>
> >>> Sure, sure.
> >>>
> >>> You do know Bush let did nothing about the Cole attack that killed 17
> >>> US sailors, don't you? He let 8 months go by after the CIA id'd al
> >>> Qaeda as the source organization. Al Qaeda captives have been
> >>> reported as saying that took encouragement from that.
> >>
> >> The Cole bombing occurred under Clinton.
> >
> > Just before the election. Bush then let 9 months go by without doing
> > anything. Again you show your ignorance.
> >
> >>> You do know that he did nothing to increase airliner security pre
> >>> 9/11, which could have precluded the terrorists (armed pilots, air
> >>> marshals etc).
> >>
> >> Thanks for proving that hindsight it 20/20.
> >
> > And, Ashcroft actually took forces away from anti-terrorism efforts.
> > This after the Clinton administration warned the Bushies that al Qaeda
> > was the main threat they would face.
> >
> >>> You do know Bush ignored pre 9/11 warnings about al qaeda, don't you?
> >>
> >> Bullshit.
> >
> > THere is a cogent reply, not.
> >
> >>> You do know Bush resisted the 9/11 investigation that is analyzing
> >>> what went wrong, don't you? Why would he do that?
> >>
> >> Because it's a sham.
> >
> > Or, more likely, because he knew he didn't do enough. Now, I'm not
> > really blaming him, but the investigation certainly was not a sham.
> >
> >>> You do know that intelligence is the main factor in combating
> >>> terrorism don't you? Human intelligence largely depends on good will.
> >>> Do you think Bush has helped that by his "axis of Evil" talk and
> >>> snubbing Europe and the Iraq occupation and Abu Ghraib's affect on
> >>> the Arab / Moslem world?
> >>
> >> Oh shut the fuck up. If the world is offended when we go after our
> >> enemies then the world can go to hell. The Abu Ghraib incident was a
> >> bunch of dumbasses living out their idiotic frat house fantasies. What
> >> that has to do with Bush I'm not sure.
> >
> > His administration set the precedents by announcing that Afghans
> > captured didn't have any rights under the Geneva Conventions. See the
> > memos flying around the Pentagon and White House after 9/11.
> >
> >>> Kerry had the guts to volunteer his way into river boats in Vietnam
> >>> while Bush and Cheney were evading duty.
> >>
> >> Bush served and was honorably discharged.
> >
> > In a "Champaigne" unit that had no chance of going to actually fight.
> > And, there is still the question of the last year of Bush's "service".
> >
> >>> Bush talked big but backed down over taking Faluja and taking down
> >>> Sadr when he saw it would be a fight.
> >>> Kerry is the far better choice.
> >>
> >> Oh please. If Bush had given the OK for taking down Falluja you left
> >> wingnut pussies would be calling him a baby killer.
> >
> > You are changing the subject, Snubis. The fact is that, in is usual,
> > flip-flopping way, Bush said he would do something, and didn't follow
> > through.
>
> Sorry. This is not an example of John Kerry's fort�. In war, things
change.
> It no longer became necessary to take Falluja by force.

It's acknowledged as being full of terrorists, and being run by people
fighting the US and the Iraqi govt. Zarqawi is thought or known to be hold
up in there, and that's what these 4 or 5 precision bombing attacks by the
US have been about.

When Bush backed off on taking the city, it was understood in the Arab world
as a sign of weakness. It's the current base of operations of much of these
car and truck bombings and beheadings.


0
Bill549 (46)
7/14/2004 5:45:16 PM
"Xomicron" <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in message
news:ac322$40f5613f$45f0b78b$30321@nf1.news-service-com...
> "Bill Case" <Bill549@Hotmail.com> wrote in
> news:IWcJc.2968$Qu5.1720@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net:
>
> > "Xomicron" <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in message
> > news:ae117$40f55426$45f0b78b$14525@nf1.news-service-com...
> >
> >> "Bill Case" <Bill549@Hotmail.com> wrote in
> >> news:zB%Ic.1642$mL5.223@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net:
> >>
> >>> "Frank Dwyer" <fdwyer@citlink.net> wrote in message
> >>> news:40F4749B.A37548D7@citlink.net...
> >>>
> >>>> He did more about it than the administration under whom it happened
> >>>> did.
> >>>
> >>> It's widely known the CIA didn't attribute it to Al Qaeda until
> >>> around the time of administration change.
> >>> I don't like Clinton, but he did launch attacks, one killed around
> >>> 200 al qaeda in Afghanistan. (Cruises missiles)
> >>
> >> More like blew up some empty tents.
> >
> > If you actually knew anything about this war on terror, you would know
> > that intelligence is that they killed a lot of them, and OBL had left
> > that camp not long before.
> >
> >>
> >> > Irregardless,  why didn't Bush act?
> >> > On 9/11 he sat like a rabbit after being told of the 2 WTC hits.
> >>
> >> What should he have done? Keeping in mind that no one really knew what
> >> was going on.
> >
> > A commander, or just any guy with balls and brains, is going to want to
> > know all the info available, ask questions to get his staff going and
> > thinking, get his mind working on the problem he's facing, make sure his
> > people are all "up" and active.
> >
> > In a situation like that, you might be asked to make a decision, maybe a
> > big one, quickly. To do that you need to have your mind active and
> > focused. A leader wants to be certain everybody is doing all they can
> > and all the available info on what's happening is getting to him.
> >
> > Instead, he sat there like a passive receiver.
>
> So what should he have done? There were massively conflicting reports that
> said anywhere from JUST ONE plane, to SIX different aircraft had been
> either hijacked, or had some sort of malfunction. Which one of these
> presumptions do you make? Keep in mind that if you're wrong, people die,
> if you're right, people die. And also keep in mind that shooting them down
> and being right in doing so, may destroy any proof that you were right. No
> proof to your own conscience, no proof to your friends, no proof to your
> staff, and just to also throw in the lowest common denominator, no proof
> to the voters.
>
> And we all know how much proof it requires to convince people who hate
> Bush of anything. Today we'd be hearing about how Bush is a murderer who
> shoots down civilian airlines.
>
> > But first of all, get yourself away from children in case an attempt is
> > about to be made on you.
>
> What would events 1500 miles away have to do with Bush being
> assassinated?

As I've described in a prior post, his actions were not those of tough smart
leader whose country is under attack.
What should he have done? Taken charge. Instead he sat there in a state of
confusion, with children around him.


0
Bill549 (46)
7/14/2004 5:51:41 PM
in article 4015e$40f54260$180d8dac$5533@nf1.news-service-com, Xomicron at
xomicron@wp.pl wrote on 14/7/04 3:25 pm:

> calaf <calaf@calaf.com> wrote in news:v42Jc.365$8v2.39@lakeread01:
> 
>> Well, they'll probably go after Al-Qaeda rather than some tin-horn
>> dictator.  That's for starters.
> 
> Your ignorance is astounding. Even for a top posting cockbite.

and it is only rivalled by your lack of manners and tolerance

0
sock
7/14/2004 5:52:52 PM
in article NoeJc.2427$mL5.2395@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net, Bill Case
at Bill549@Hotmail.com wrote on 14/7/04 6:51 pm:

> 
> "Xomicron" <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in message
> news:ac322$40f5613f$45f0b78b$30321@nf1.news-service-com...
>> "Bill Case" <Bill549@Hotmail.com> wrote in
>> news:IWcJc.2968$Qu5.1720@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net:
>> 
>>> "Xomicron" <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in message
>>> news:ae117$40f55426$45f0b78b$14525@nf1.news-service-com...
>>> 
>>>> "Bill Case" <Bill549@Hotmail.com> wrote in
>>>> news:zB%Ic.1642$mL5.223@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net:
>>>> 
>>>>> "Frank Dwyer" <fdwyer@citlink.net> wrote in message
>>>>> news:40F4749B.A37548D7@citlink.net...
>>>>> 
>>>>>> He did more about it than the administration under whom it happened
>>>>>> did.
>>>>> 
>>>>> It's widely known the CIA didn't attribute it to Al Qaeda until
>>>>> around the time of administration change.
>>>>> I don't like Clinton, but he did launch attacks, one killed around
>>>>> 200 al qaeda in Afghanistan. (Cruises missiles)
>>>> 
>>>> More like blew up some empty tents.
>>> 
>>> If you actually knew anything about this war on terror, you would know
>>> that intelligence is that they killed a lot of them, and OBL had left
>>> that camp not long before.
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> Irregardless,  why didn't Bush act?
>>>>> On 9/11 he sat like a rabbit after being told of the 2 WTC hits.
>>>> 
>>>> What should he have done? Keeping in mind that no one really knew what
>>>> was going on.
>>> 
>>> A commander, or just any guy with balls and brains, is going to want to
>>> know all the info available, ask questions to get his staff going and
>>> thinking, get his mind working on the problem he's facing, make sure his
>>> people are all "up" and active.
>>> 
>>> In a situation like that, you might be asked to make a decision, maybe a
>>> big one, quickly. To do that you need to have your mind active and
>>> focused. A leader wants to be certain everybody is doing all they can
>>> and all the available info on what's happening is getting to him.
>>> 
>>> Instead, he sat there like a passive receiver.
>> 
>> So what should he have done? There were massively conflicting reports that
>> said anywhere from JUST ONE plane, to SIX different aircraft had been
>> either hijacked, or had some sort of malfunction. Which one of these
>> presumptions do you make? Keep in mind that if you're wrong, people die,
>> if you're right, people die. And also keep in mind that shooting them down
>> and being right in doing so, may destroy any proof that you were right. No
>> proof to your own conscience, no proof to your friends, no proof to your
>> staff, and just to also throw in the lowest common denominator, no proof
>> to the voters.
>> 
>> And we all know how much proof it requires to convince people who hate
>> Bush of anything. Today we'd be hearing about how Bush is a murderer who
>> shoots down civilian airlines.
>> 
>>> But first of all, get yourself away from children in case an attempt is
>>> about to be made on you.
>> 
>> What would events 1500 miles away have to do with Bush being
>> assassinated?
> 
> As I've described in a prior post, his actions were not those of tough smart
> leader whose country is under attack.
> What should he have done? Taken charge. Instead he sat there in a state of
> confusion, with children around him.
> 
> 
at least he was surrounded by his intellectual equals, thats gotta count for
something

0
sock
7/14/2004 6:10:00 PM
"Bill Case" <Bill549@Hotmail.com> wrote in
news:NoeJc.2427$mL5.2395@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net: 

> 
> "Xomicron" <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in message
> news:ac322$40f5613f$45f0b78b$30321@nf1.news-service-com...
>> "Bill Case" <Bill549@Hotmail.com> wrote in
>> news:IWcJc.2968$Qu5.1720@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net:
>>
>> > "Xomicron" <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in message
>> > news:ae117$40f55426$45f0b78b$14525@nf1.news-service-com...
>> >
>> >> "Bill Case" <Bill549@Hotmail.com> wrote in
>> >> news:zB%Ic.1642$mL5.223@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net:
>> >>
>> >>> "Frank Dwyer" <fdwyer@citlink.net> wrote in message
>> >>> news:40F4749B.A37548D7@citlink.net...
>> >>>
>> >>>> He did more about it than the administration under whom it
>> >>>> happened did.
>> >>>
>> >>> It's widely known the CIA didn't attribute it to Al Qaeda until
>> >>> around the time of administration change.
>> >>> I don't like Clinton, but he did launch attacks, one killed around
>> >>> 200 al qaeda in Afghanistan. (Cruises missiles)
>> >>
>> >> More like blew up some empty tents.
>> >
>> > If you actually knew anything about this war on terror, you would
>> > know that intelligence is that they killed a lot of them, and OBL had
>> > left that camp not long before.
>> >
>> >>
>> >> > Irregardless,  why didn't Bush act?
>> >> > On 9/11 he sat like a rabbit after being told of the 2 WTC hits.
>> >>
>> >> What should he have done? Keeping in mind that no one really knew
>> >> what was going on.
>> >
>> > A commander, or just any guy with balls and brains, is going to want
>> > to know all the info available, ask questions to get his staff going
>> > and thinking, get his mind working on the problem he's facing, make
>> > sure his people are all "up" and active.
>> >
>> > In a situation like that, you might be asked to make a decision,
>> > maybe a big one, quickly. To do that you need to have your mind
>> > active and focused. A leader wants to be certain everybody is doing
>> > all they can and all the available info on what's happening is
>> > getting to him. 
>> >
>> > Instead, he sat there like a passive receiver.
>>
>> So what should he have done? There were massively conflicting reports
>> that said anywhere from JUST ONE plane, to SIX different aircraft had
>> been either hijacked, or had some sort of malfunction. Which one of
>> these presumptions do you make? Keep in mind that if you're wrong,
>> people die, if you're right, people die. And also keep in mind that
>> shooting them down and being right in doing so, may destroy any proof
>> that you were right. No proof to your own conscience, no proof to your
>> friends, no proof to your staff, and just to also throw in the lowest
>> common denominator, no proof to the voters.
>>
>> And we all know how much proof it requires to convince people who hate
>> Bush of anything. Today we'd be hearing about how Bush is a murderer
>> who shoots down civilian airlines.
>>
>> > But first of all, get yourself away from children in case an attempt
>> > is about to be made on you.
>>
>> What would events 1500 miles away have to do with Bush being
>> assassinated?
> 
> As I've described in a prior post, his actions were not those of tough
> smart leader whose country is under attack.
> What should he have done? Taken charge. Instead he sat there in a state
> of confusion, with children around him.

It seems that nothing Bush does or could have done would ever be good
enough for the loony left. 
0
xomicron (578)
7/14/2004 6:18:10 PM
sock <sock@6ih.net> wrote in news:BD1B3184.63C8%sock@6ih.net:

> In article 4015e$40f54260$180d8dac$5533@nf1.news-service-com, Xomicron
> at xomicron@wp.pl wrote on 14/7/04 3:25 pm:
> 
>> calaf <calaf@calaf.com> wrote in news:v42Jc.365$8v2.39@lakeread01:
>> 
>>> Well, they'll probably go after Al-Qaeda rather than some tin-horn
>>> dictator.  That's for starters.
>> 
>> Your ignorance is astounding. Even for a top posting cockbite.
> 
> and it is only rivalled by your lack of manners and tolerance

Tolerance. Another libbie buzzword.
0
xomicron (578)
7/14/2004 6:18:13 PM
in article Xns9526918059337x@dragon.pl, Xomicron at xomicron@wp.pl wrote on
14/7/04 7:18 pm:

> sock <sock@6ih.net> wrote in news:BD1B3184.63C8%sock@6ih.net:
> 
>> In article 4015e$40f54260$180d8dac$5533@nf1.news-service-com, Xomicron
>> at xomicron@wp.pl wrote on 14/7/04 3:25 pm:
>> 
>>> calaf <calaf@calaf.com> wrote in news:v42Jc.365$8v2.39@lakeread01:
>>> 
>>>> Well, they'll probably go after Al-Qaeda rather than some tin-horn
>>>> dictator.  That's for starters.
>>> 
>>> Your ignorance is astounding. Even for a top posting cockbite.
>> 
>> and it is only rivalled by your lack of manners and tolerance
> 
> Tolerance. Another libbie buzzword.

in that case : "Tolerance. Another libbie buzzword" = another right wing
generic statement.

so, what do you think of tolerance then?

0
sock
7/14/2004 6:39:07 PM
"Xomicron" <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in message
news:Xns9526917E1A2E7x@dragon.pl...
> "Bill Case" <Bill549@Hotmail.com> wrote in
> news:NoeJc.2427$mL5.2395@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net:
>
> >
> > "Xomicron" <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in message
> > news:ac322$40f5613f$45f0b78b$30321@nf1.news-service-com...
> >> "Bill Case" <Bill549@Hotmail.com> wrote in
> >> news:IWcJc.2968$Qu5.1720@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net:
> >>
> >> > "Xomicron" <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in message
> >> > news:ae117$40f55426$45f0b78b$14525@nf1.news-service-com...
> >> >
> >> >> "Bill Case" <Bill549@Hotmail.com> wrote in
> >> >> news:zB%Ic.1642$mL5.223@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net:
> >> >>
> >> >>> "Frank Dwyer" <fdwyer@citlink.net> wrote in message
> >> >>> news:40F4749B.A37548D7@citlink.net...
> >> >>>
> >> >>>> He did more about it than the administration under whom it
> >> >>>> happened did.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> It's widely known the CIA didn't attribute it to Al Qaeda until
> >> >>> around the time of administration change.
> >> >>> I don't like Clinton, but he did launch attacks, one killed around
> >> >>> 200 al qaeda in Afghanistan. (Cruises missiles)
> >> >>
> >> >> More like blew up some empty tents.
> >> >
> >> > If you actually knew anything about this war on terror, you would
> >> > know that intelligence is that they killed a lot of them, and OBL had
> >> > left that camp not long before.
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> > Irregardless,  why didn't Bush act?
> >> >> > On 9/11 he sat like a rabbit after being told of the 2 WTC hits.
> >> >>
> >> >> What should he have done? Keeping in mind that no one really knew
> >> >> what was going on.
> >> >
> >> > A commander, or just any guy with balls and brains, is going to want
> >> > to know all the info available, ask questions to get his staff going
> >> > and thinking, get his mind working on the problem he's facing, make
> >> > sure his people are all "up" and active.
> >> >
> >> > In a situation like that, you might be asked to make a decision,
> >> > maybe a big one, quickly. To do that you need to have your mind
> >> > active and focused. A leader wants to be certain everybody is doing
> >> > all they can and all the available info on what's happening is
> >> > getting to him.
> >> >
> >> > Instead, he sat there like a passive receiver.
> >>
> >> So what should he have done? There were massively conflicting reports
> >> that said anywhere from JUST ONE plane, to SIX different aircraft had
> >> been either hijacked, or had some sort of malfunction. Which one of
> >> these presumptions do you make? Keep in mind that if you're wrong,
> >> people die, if you're right, people die. And also keep in mind that
> >> shooting them down and being right in doing so, may destroy any proof
> >> that you were right. No proof to your own conscience, no proof to your
> >> friends, no proof to your staff, and just to also throw in the lowest
> >> common denominator, no proof to the voters.
> >>
> >> And we all know how much proof it requires to convince people who hate
> >> Bush of anything. Today we'd be hearing about how Bush is a murderer
> >> who shoots down civilian airlines.
> >>
> >> > But first of all, get yourself away from children in case an attempt
> >> > is about to be made on you.
> >>
> >> What would events 1500 miles away have to do with Bush being
> >> assassinated?
> >
> > As I've described in a prior post, his actions were not those of tough
> > smart leader whose country is under attack.
> > What should he have done? Taken charge. Instead he sat there in a state
> > of confusion, with children around him.
>
> It seems that nothing Bush does or could have done would ever be good
> enough for the loony left.

That won't work sport.
Bush quote regarding evading Vietnam war service:
"I was not prepared to shoot my eardrum out with a shotgun in
order to get a deferment. Nor was I willing to go to Canada. So I chose to
better myself by learning how to fly airplanes," Bush told an interviewer in
Houston. "




0
Bill549 (46)
7/14/2004 6:41:29 PM
sock <sock@6ih.net> wrote in news:BD1B3C5B.63DB%sock@6ih.net:

> in article Xns9526918059337x@dragon.pl, Xomicron at xomicron@wp.pl wrote
> on 14/7/04 7:18 pm:
> 
>> sock <sock@6ih.net> wrote in news:BD1B3184.63C8%sock@6ih.net:
>> 
>>> In article 4015e$40f54260$180d8dac$5533@nf1.news-service-com, Xomicron
>>> at xomicron@wp.pl wrote on 14/7/04 3:25 pm:
>>> 
>>>> calaf <calaf@calaf.com> wrote in news:v42Jc.365$8v2.39@lakeread01:
>>>> 
>>>>> Well, they'll probably go after Al-Qaeda rather than some tin-horn
>>>>> dictator.  That's for starters.
>>>> 
>>>> Your ignorance is astounding. Even for a top posting cockbite.
>>> 
>>> and it is only rivalled by your lack of manners and tolerance
>> 
>> Tolerance. Another libbie buzzword.
> 
> in that case : "Tolerance. Another libbie buzzword" = another right wing
> generic statement.
> 
> so, what do you think of tolerance then?

Define tolerance.
0
xomicron (578)
7/14/2004 6:48:46 PM
"Bill Case" <Bill549@Hotmail.com> wrote in
news:t7fJc.2473$mL5.1628@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net: 

> 
> "Xomicron" <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in message
> news:Xns9526917E1A2E7x@dragon.pl...
>> "Bill Case" <Bill549@Hotmail.com> wrote in
>> news:NoeJc.2427$mL5.2395@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net:
>>
>> >
>> > "Xomicron" <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in message
>> > news:ac322$40f5613f$45f0b78b$30321@nf1.news-service-com...
>> >> "Bill Case" <Bill549@Hotmail.com> wrote in
>> >> news:IWcJc.2968$Qu5.1720@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net:
>> >>
>> >> > "Xomicron" <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in message
>> >> > news:ae117$40f55426$45f0b78b$14525@nf1.news-service-com...
>> >> >
>> >> >> "Bill Case" <Bill549@Hotmail.com> wrote in
>> >> >> news:zB%Ic.1642$mL5.223@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net:
>> >> >>
>> >> >>> "Frank Dwyer" <fdwyer@citlink.net> wrote in message
>> >> >>> news:40F4749B.A37548D7@citlink.net...
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>> He did more about it than the administration under whom it
>> >> >>>> happened did.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> It's widely known the CIA didn't attribute it to Al Qaeda until
>> >> >>> around the time of administration change.
>> >> >>> I don't like Clinton, but he did launch attacks, one killed
>> >> >>> around 200 al qaeda in Afghanistan. (Cruises missiles)
>> >> >>
>> >> >> More like blew up some empty tents.
>> >> >
>> >> > If you actually knew anything about this war on terror, you would
>> >> > know that intelligence is that they killed a lot of them, and OBL
>> >> > had left that camp not long before.
>> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > Irregardless,  why didn't Bush act?
>> >> >> > On 9/11 he sat like a rabbit after being told of the 2 WTC
>> >> >> > hits. 
>> >> >>
>> >> >> What should he have done? Keeping in mind that no one really knew
>> >> >> what was going on.
>> >> >
>> >> > A commander, or just any guy with balls and brains, is going to
>> >> > want to know all the info available, ask questions to get his
>> >> > staff going and thinking, get his mind working on the problem he's
>> >> > facing, make sure his people are all "up" and active.
>> >> >
>> >> > In a situation like that, you might be asked to make a decision,
>> >> > maybe a big one, quickly. To do that you need to have your mind
>> >> > active and focused. A leader wants to be certain everybody is
>> >> > doing all they can and all the available info on what's happening
>> >> > is getting to him.
>> >> >
>> >> > Instead, he sat there like a passive receiver.
>> >>
>> >> So what should he have done? There were massively conflicting
>> >> reports that said anywhere from JUST ONE plane, to SIX different
>> >> aircraft had been either hijacked, or had some sort of malfunction.
>> >> Which one of these presumptions do you make? Keep in mind that if
>> >> you're wrong, people die, if you're right, people die. And also keep
>> >> in mind that shooting them down and being right in doing so, may
>> >> destroy any proof that you were right. No proof to your own
>> >> conscience, no proof to your friends, no proof to your staff, and
>> >> just to also throw in the lowest common denominator, no proof to the
>> >> voters. 
>> >>
>> >> And we all know how much proof it requires to convince people who
>> >> hate Bush of anything. Today we'd be hearing about how Bush is a
>> >> murderer who shoots down civilian airlines.
>> >>
>> >> > But first of all, get yourself away from children in case an
>> >> > attempt is about to be made on you.
>> >>
>> >> What would events 1500 miles away have to do with Bush being
>> >> assassinated?
>> >
>> > As I've described in a prior post, his actions were not those of
>> > tough smart leader whose country is under attack.
>> > What should he have done? Taken charge. Instead he sat there in a
>> > state of confusion, with children around him.
>>
>> It seems that nothing Bush does or could have done would ever be good
>> enough for the loony left.
> 
> That won't work sport.
> Bush quote regarding evading Vietnam war service:
> "I was not prepared to shoot my eardrum out with a shotgun in
> order to get a deferment. Nor was I willing to go to Canada. So I chose
> to better myself by learning how to fly airplanes," Bush told an
> interviewer in Houston. "

A lot better than our previous president ever did, yet the left fawns over
him. 
0
xomicron (578)
7/14/2004 6:51:51 PM
in article Xns952696AEFCC9Ax@dragon.pl, Xomicron at xomicron@wp.pl wrote on
14/7/04 7:48 pm:

> sock <sock@6ih.net> wrote in news:BD1B3C5B.63DB%sock@6ih.net:
> 
>> in article Xns9526918059337x@dragon.pl, Xomicron at xomicron@wp.pl wrote
>> on 14/7/04 7:18 pm:
>> 
>>> sock <sock@6ih.net> wrote in news:BD1B3184.63C8%sock@6ih.net:
>>> 
>>>> In article 4015e$40f54260$180d8dac$5533@nf1.news-service-com, Xomicron
>>>> at xomicron@wp.pl wrote on 14/7/04 3:25 pm:
>>>> 
>>>>> calaf <calaf@calaf.com> wrote in news:v42Jc.365$8v2.39@lakeread01:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> Well, they'll probably go after Al-Qaeda rather than some tin-horn
>>>>>> dictator.  That's for starters.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Your ignorance is astounding. Even for a top posting cockbite.
>>>> 
>>>> and it is only rivalled by your lack of manners and tolerance
>>> 
>>> Tolerance. Another libbie buzzword.
>> 
>> in that case : "Tolerance. Another libbie buzzword" = another right wing
>> generic statement.
>> 
>> so, what do you think of tolerance then?
> 
> Define tolerance.


well. i shouldn't have to define this for you. but here goes anyway :

tolerance - The capacity for or the practice of recognising and respecting
the beliefs or practices of others

there you go.

0
sock
7/14/2004 6:53:13 PM
"Xomicron" <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in message
news:48f5a03756b590d6dd4fdf877d722592@news.bubbanews.com...
> "Bill Case" <Bill549@Hotmail.com> wrote in
> news:t7fJc.2473$mL5.1628@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net:
>
> >
> > "Xomicron" <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in message
> > news:Xns9526917E1A2E7x@dragon.pl...
> >> "Bill Case" <Bill549@Hotmail.com> wrote in
> >> news:NoeJc.2427$mL5.2395@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net:
> >>
> >> >
> >> > "Xomicron" <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in message
> >> > news:ac322$40f5613f$45f0b78b$30321@nf1.news-service-com...
> >> >> "Bill Case" <Bill549@Hotmail.com> wrote in
> >> >> news:IWcJc.2968$Qu5.1720@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net:
> >> >>
> >> >> > "Xomicron" <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in message
> >> >> > news:ae117$40f55426$45f0b78b$14525@nf1.news-service-com...
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> "Bill Case" <Bill549@Hotmail.com> wrote in
> >> >> >> news:zB%Ic.1642$mL5.223@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>> "Frank Dwyer" <fdwyer@citlink.net> wrote in message
> >> >> >>> news:40F4749B.A37548D7@citlink.net...
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>>> He did more about it than the administration under whom it
> >> >> >>>> happened did.
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>> It's widely known the CIA didn't attribute it to Al Qaeda until
> >> >> >>> around the time of administration change.
> >> >> >>> I don't like Clinton, but he did launch attacks, one killed
> >> >> >>> around 200 al qaeda in Afghanistan. (Cruises missiles)
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> More like blew up some empty tents.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > If you actually knew anything about this war on terror, you would
> >> >> > know that intelligence is that they killed a lot of them, and OBL
> >> >> > had left that camp not long before.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> > Irregardless,  why didn't Bush act?
> >> >> >> > On 9/11 he sat like a rabbit after being told of the 2 WTC
> >> >> >> > hits.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> What should he have done? Keeping in mind that no one really knew
> >> >> >> what was going on.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > A commander, or just any guy with balls and brains, is going to
> >> >> > want to know all the info available, ask questions to get his
> >> >> > staff going and thinking, get his mind working on the problem he's
> >> >> > facing, make sure his people are all "up" and active.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > In a situation like that, you might be asked to make a decision,
> >> >> > maybe a big one, quickly. To do that you need to have your mind
> >> >> > active and focused. A leader wants to be certain everybody is
> >> >> > doing all they can and all the available info on what's happening
> >> >> > is getting to him.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Instead, he sat there like a passive receiver.
> >> >>
> >> >> So what should he have done? There were massively conflicting
> >> >> reports that said anywhere from JUST ONE plane, to SIX different
> >> >> aircraft had been either hijacked, or had some sort of malfunction.
> >> >> Which one of these presumptions do you make? Keep in mind that if
> >> >> you're wrong, people die, if you're right, people die. And also keep
> >> >> in mind that shooting them down and being right in doing so, may
> >> >> destroy any proof that you were right. No proof to your own
> >> >> conscience, no proof to your friends, no proof to your staff, and
> >> >> just to also throw in the lowest common denominator, no proof to the
> >> >> voters.
> >> >>
> >> >> And we all know how much proof it requires to convince people who
> >> >> hate Bush of anything. Today we'd be hearing about how Bush is a
> >> >> murderer who shoots down civilian airlines.
> >> >>
> >> >> > But first of all, get yourself away from children in case an
> >> >> > attempt is about to be made on you.
> >> >>
> >> >> What would events 1500 miles away have to do with Bush being
> >> >> assassinated?
> >> >
> >> > As I've described in a prior post, his actions were not those of
> >> > tough smart leader whose country is under attack.
> >> > What should he have done? Taken charge. Instead he sat there in a
> >> > state of confusion, with children around him.
> >>
> >> It seems that nothing Bush does or could have done would ever be good
> >> enough for the loony left.
> >
> > That won't work sport.
> > Bush quote regarding evading Vietnam war service:
> > "I was not prepared to shoot my eardrum out with a shotgun in
> > order to get a deferment. Nor was I willing to go to Canada. So I chose
> > to better myself by learning how to fly airplanes," Bush told an
> > interviewer in Houston. "
>
> A lot better than our previous president ever did, yet the left fawns over
> him.

I didn't vote for Clinton.

This election isn't about Clinton, he's not a candidate.

But since you bring it up, it's historical fact, that pre 9/11, Clinton DID
do more against terrorists than Bush did. He attacked them with cruise
missiles, killed hundreds of them. Pre 9/11, Bush never even tried to
retaliate for the USS Cole attack which killed 17 Americans.

Also, Bush didn't want to attack Al Qaeda in Afghanistan after 9/11 - he
wanted to attack Iraq first - he was dissuaded by PM Blair and others.

BC


0
Bill549 (46)
7/14/2004 7:14:03 PM
"Bill Case" <Bill549@Hotmail.com> wrote in
news:%BfJc.2508$mL5.1847@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net: 

> "Xomicron" <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in message
> news:48f5a03756b590d6dd4fdf877d722592@news.bubbanews.com...
>
>> "Bill Case" <Bill549@Hotmail.com> wrote in
>> news:t7fJc.2473$mL5.1628@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net:
>>
>> > "Xomicron" <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in message
>> > news:Xns9526917E1A2E7x@dragon.pl...
>> >> "Bill Case" <Bill549@Hotmail.com> wrote in
>> >> news:NoeJc.2427$mL5.2395@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net:
>> >>
>> >> > "Xomicron" <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in message
>> >> > news:ac322$40f5613f$45f0b78b$30321@nf1.news-service-com...
>> >> >> "Bill Case" <Bill549@Hotmail.com> wrote in
>> >> >> news:IWcJc.2968$Qu5.1720@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > "Xomicron" <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in message
>> >> >> > news:ae117$40f55426$45f0b78b$14525@nf1.news-service-com...
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> "Bill Case" <Bill549@Hotmail.com> wrote in
>> >> >> >> news:zB%Ic.1642$mL5.223@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net:
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>> "Frank Dwyer" <fdwyer@citlink.net> wrote in message
>> >> >> >>> news:40F4749B.A37548D7@citlink.net...
>> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >>>> He did more about it than the administration under whom it
>> >> >> >>>> happened did.
>> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >>> It's widely known the CIA didn't attribute it to Al Qaeda
>> >> >> >>> until around the time of administration change.
>> >> >> >>> I don't like Clinton, but he did launch attacks, one killed
>> >> >> >>> around 200 al qaeda in Afghanistan. (Cruises missiles)
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> More like blew up some empty tents.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > If you actually knew anything about this war on terror, you
>> >> >> > would know that intelligence is that they killed a lot of them,
>> >> >> > and OBL had left that camp not long before.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> > Irregardless,  why didn't Bush act?
>> >> >> >> > On 9/11 he sat like a rabbit after being told of the 2 WTC
>> >> >> >> > hits.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> What should he have done? Keeping in mind that no one really
>> >> >> >> knew what was going on.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > A commander, or just any guy with balls and brains, is going to
>> >> >> > want to know all the info available, ask questions to get his
>> >> >> > staff going and thinking, get his mind working on the problem
>> >> >> > he's facing, make sure his people are all "up" and active.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > In a situation like that, you might be asked to make a
>> >> >> > decision, maybe a big one, quickly. To do that you need to have
>> >> >> > your mind active and focused. A leader wants to be certain
>> >> >> > everybody is doing all they can and all the available info on
>> >> >> > what's happening is getting to him.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Instead, he sat there like a passive receiver.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> So what should he have done? There were massively conflicting
>> >> >> reports that said anywhere from JUST ONE plane, to SIX different
>> >> >> aircraft had been either hijacked, or had some sort of
>> >> >> malfunction. Which one of these presumptions do you make? Keep in
>> >> >> mind that if you're wrong, people die, if you're right, people
>> >> >> die. And also keep in mind that shooting them down and being
>> >> >> right in doing so, may destroy any proof that you were right. No
>> >> >> proof to your own conscience, no proof to your friends, no proof
>> >> >> to your staff, and just to also throw in the lowest common
>> >> >> denominator, no proof to the voters.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> And we all know how much proof it requires to convince people who
>> >> >> hate Bush of anything. Today we'd be hearing about how Bush is a
>> >> >> murderer who shoots down civilian airlines.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > But first of all, get yourself away from children in case an
>> >> >> > attempt is about to be made on you.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> What would events 1500 miles away have to do with Bush being
>> >> >> assassinated?
>> >> >
>> >> > As I've described in a prior post, his actions were not those of
>> >> > tough smart leader whose country is under attack.
>> >> > What should he have done? Taken charge. Instead he sat there in a
>> >> > state of confusion, with children around him.
>> >>
>> >> It seems that nothing Bush does or could have done would ever be
>> >> good enough for the loony left.
>> >
>> > That won't work sport.
>> > Bush quote regarding evading Vietnam war service:
>> > "I was not prepared to shoot my eardrum out with a shotgun in
>> > order to get a deferment. Nor was I willing to go to Canada. So I
>> > chose to better myself by learning how to fly airplanes," Bush told
>> > an interviewer in Houston. "
>>
>> A lot better than our previous president ever did, yet the left fawns
>> over him.
> 
> I didn't vote for Clinton.
> 
> This election isn't about Clinton, he's not a candidate.
> 
> But since you bring it up, it's historical fact, that pre 9/11, Clinton
> DID do more against terrorists than Bush did. He attacked them with
> cruise missiles, killed hundreds of them. Pre 9/11, Bush never even
> tried to retaliate for the USS Cole attack which killed 17 Americans.

Lobbing a few cruise missiles at tents is not cracking down on terrorism. 
Clinton had 8 years to deal with terrorism starting from when the WTC was 
bombed in 1993.

When 9-11 hit, Bush reacted and cracked down on terrorism.

> Also, Bush didn't want to attack Al Qaeda in Afghanistan after 9/11 - he
> wanted to attack Iraq first - he was dissuaded by PM Blair and others.

The facts don't support this.
0
xomicron (578)
7/14/2004 7:14:40 PM
"Xomicron" <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in message
news:99014b3a4d0deeefed2074466df35e25@news.bubbanews.com...
> "Bill Case" <Bill549@Hotmail.com> wrote in
> news:%BfJc.2508$mL5.1847@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net:
>
> > "Xomicron" <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in message
> > news:48f5a03756b590d6dd4fdf877d722592@news.bubbanews.com...
> >
> >> "Bill Case" <Bill549@Hotmail.com> wrote in
> >> news:t7fJc.2473$mL5.1628@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net:
> >>
> >> > "Xomicron" <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in message
> >> > news:Xns9526917E1A2E7x@dragon.pl...
> >> >> "Bill Case" <Bill549@Hotmail.com> wrote in
> >> >> news:NoeJc.2427$mL5.2395@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net:
> >> >>
> >> >> > "Xomicron" <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in message
> >> >> > news:ac322$40f5613f$45f0b78b$30321@nf1.news-service-com...
> >> >> >> "Bill Case" <Bill549@Hotmail.com> wrote in
> >> >> >> news:IWcJc.2968$Qu5.1720@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> > "Xomicron" <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in message
> >> >> >> > news:ae117$40f55426$45f0b78b$14525@nf1.news-service-com...
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> "Bill Case" <Bill549@Hotmail.com> wrote in
> >> >> >> >> news:zB%Ic.1642$mL5.223@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net:
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >>> "Frank Dwyer" <fdwyer@citlink.net> wrote in message
> >> >> >> >>> news:40F4749B.A37548D7@citlink.net...
> >> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >> >>>> He did more about it than the administration under whom it
> >> >> >> >>>> happened did.
> >> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >> >>> It's widely known the CIA didn't attribute it to Al Qaeda
> >> >> >> >>> until around the time of administration change.
> >> >> >> >>> I don't like Clinton, but he did launch attacks, one killed
> >> >> >> >>> around 200 al qaeda in Afghanistan. (Cruises missiles)
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> More like blew up some empty tents.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > If you actually knew anything about this war on terror, you
> >> >> >> > would know that intelligence is that they killed a lot of them,
> >> >> >> > and OBL had left that camp not long before.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> > Irregardless,  why didn't Bush act?
> >> >> >> >> > On 9/11 he sat like a rabbit after being told of the 2 WTC
> >> >> >> >> > hits.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> What should he have done? Keeping in mind that no one really
> >> >> >> >> knew what was going on.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > A commander, or just any guy with balls and brains, is going to
> >> >> >> > want to know all the info available, ask questions to get his
> >> >> >> > staff going and thinking, get his mind working on the problem
> >> >> >> > he's facing, make sure his people are all "up" and active.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > In a situation like that, you might be asked to make a
> >> >> >> > decision, maybe a big one, quickly. To do that you need to have
> >> >> >> > your mind active and focused. A leader wants to be certain
> >> >> >> > everybody is doing all they can and all the available info on
> >> >> >> > what's happening is getting to him.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > Instead, he sat there like a passive receiver.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> So what should he have done? There were massively conflicting
> >> >> >> reports that said anywhere from JUST ONE plane, to SIX different
> >> >> >> aircraft had been either hijacked, or had some sort of
> >> >> >> malfunction. Which one of these presumptions do you make? Keep in
> >> >> >> mind that if you're wrong, people die, if you're right, people
> >> >> >> die. And also keep in mind that shooting them down and being
> >> >> >> right in doing so, may destroy any proof that you were right. No
> >> >> >> proof to your own conscience, no proof to your friends, no proof
> >> >> >> to your staff, and just to also throw in the lowest common
> >> >> >> denominator, no proof to the voters.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> And we all know how much proof it requires to convince people who
> >> >> >> hate Bush of anything. Today we'd be hearing about how Bush is a
> >> >> >> murderer who shoots down civilian airlines.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> > But first of all, get yourself away from children in case an
> >> >> >> > attempt is about to be made on you.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> What would events 1500 miles away have to do with Bush being
> >> >> >> assassinated?
> >> >> >
> >> >> > As I've described in a prior post, his actions were not those of
> >> >> > tough smart leader whose country is under attack.
> >> >> > What should he have done? Taken charge. Instead he sat there in a
> >> >> > state of confusion, with children around him.
> >> >>
> >> >> It seems that nothing Bush does or could have done would ever be
> >> >> good enough for the loony left.
> >> >
> >> > That won't work sport.
> >> > Bush quote regarding evading Vietnam war service:
> >> > "I was not prepared to shoot my eardrum out with a shotgun in
> >> > order to get a deferment. Nor was I willing to go to Canada. So I
> >> > chose to better myself by learning how to fly airplanes," Bush told
> >> > an interviewer in Houston. "
> >>
> >> A lot better than our previous president ever did, yet the left fawns
> >> over him.
> >
> > I didn't vote for Clinton.
> >
> > This election isn't about Clinton, he's not a candidate.
> >
> > But since you bring it up, it's historical fact, that pre 9/11, Clinton
> > DID do more against terrorists than Bush did. He attacked them with
> > cruise missiles, killed hundreds of them. Pre 9/11, Bush never even
> > tried to retaliate for the USS Cole attack which killed 17 Americans.
>
> Lobbing a few cruise missiles at tents is not cracking down on terrorism.
> Clinton had 8 years to deal with terrorism starting from when the WTC was
> bombed in 1993.

He killed around 200 of them and apparnelty came close to catching OBL in
the attack, he had left the area shortly before the raid.

That's WAY more than Bush did in answer to the Cole. Bush was passive and
Afghan al qaeda prisoner interviews indicate that were encouraged by the
lack of retaliation. He had 8 months. He stated in intereviews that pre
9/11, terrorism was low on his priorities - he's stupid.

You keep trying to explain away Bush inaction by talking about Clinton.
That's Fox News and oxycontin Rush propaganda. It's not reality.

> When 9-11 hit, Bush reacted and cracked down on terrorism.

For gods sake, any US president or any other national leader who didn't
respond to an attack like 9/11 would have been thrown out of office.
Clinton, Mother theresa, little Bo Peep, anyone would have responded by
attacking them. Do you think Clinton would not have attacked??

> > Also, Bush didn't want to attack Al Qaeda in Afghanistan after 9/11 - he
> > wanted to attack Iraq first - he was dissuaded by PM Blair and others.
>
> The facts don't support this.

Wrong, your just wrong.
From Cole's website http://www.juancole.com/

Cole is a credible middle east expert who regularly appears on network news
programs. He's left of center but he also has a professional reputation to
protect and he can't just make crap up like oxy Rush and the Fox propaganda
machine can.

Quote from 7/14 website:

The Afghanistan war was the right war at the right time, and it did break up
the network of al-Qaeda training camps from which terrorists would have gone
on hitting the United States. But the fact is that Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld
did not want to fight that war after September 11. Rumsfeld sniffed that
"there were no good targets" in Afghanistan. Bush, Rumsfeld and Cheney all
wanted to leave al-Qaeda in Afghanistan and attack Iraq first. At first
Wolfowitz was leaked as the proponent of this crazy idea, and although he
did back it, it is now clear from insider accounts like that of Richard
Clark that the three top leaders just mentioned wanted Iraq first. The UK
ambassador to the US maintains that it was Tony Blair who talked Bush into
going after al-Qaeda in Afghanistan first, with a promise that he would
later support an Iraq war. MI6 would have been briefing Tony about the dire
threat coming from Afghanistan, and he, unlike the Bush team, could see the
dangers of getting bogged down in an Iraq quagmire while al-Qaeda and the
Taliban were still in control of Afghanistan. (Can you imagine the full
scope of that disaster that Bush had planned for us?)    end quote

Bush is NOT a competent war leader.

 Look at the bogged down mess we have in Iraq because of the stupid asses
dissolving the Iraqi army and police with nothing to replace it.

And don't tell me the Iraqi army posed a threat - their general were
constantly in communication with the CIA on cell phones, that's why we
blazed in there and didn't have costly urban combat.


0
Bill549 (46)
7/14/2004 8:50:30 PM
Xomicron <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in message news:<ae117$40f55426$45f0b78b$14525@nf1.news-service-com>...
> "Bill Case" <Bill549@Hotmail.com> wrote in
> news:zB%Ic.1642$mL5.223@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net: 
>  
> > "Frank Dwyer" <fdwyer@citlink.net> wrote in message
> > news:40F4749B.A37548D7@citlink.net...
> >
> >> He did more about it than the administration under whom it happened
> >> did. 
> > 
> > It's widely known the CIA didn't attribute it to Al Qaeda until around
> > the time of administration change.
> > I don't like Clinton, but he did launch attacks, one killed around 200
> > al qaeda in Afghanistan. (Cruises missiles)
> 
> More like blew up some empty tents.

At least he did something, unlike Bush (until 9/11). Of course, after
9/11 Bush certainly did something. He attacked Iraq, which had no WMD
and no connection with al Qaeda or OBL. Sort of like if we had
attacked Mexico after Pearl Harbor.
> 
> > Irregardless,  why didn't Bush act?
> > On 9/11 he sat like a rabbit after being told of the 2 WTC hits.
> 
> What should he have done? Keeping in mind that no one really knew what was
> going on.

Bush's problem is that he still doesn't.

--
Dave Fritzinger
0
dfritzin (3022)
7/14/2004 10:21:52 PM
Xomicron <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in message news:<Xns95268216158ABrt@fla.dragon.pl>...
> dfritzin@hotmail.com (David Fritzinger) wrote in
> news:b82925bb.0407131807.153aa84a@posting.google.com: 
> 
> > Xomicron <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in message
> > news:<36d51cf3183ad221268accf5f2eb6df4@news.bubbanews.com>...
> >
> >> "Bill Case" <Bill549@Hotmail.com> wrote in
> >> news:vtZIc.1482$mL5.626@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net: 
> >> 
> >>> "Xomicron" <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in message
> >>> news:a2ec$40f44320$ca6c230c$23707@nf1.news-service-com...
> >>>
> >>>> Don't worry, if Kerry and Ambulance Chasing Edwards get elected, we
> >>>> can expect a whole army of lawyers to be sent out after the
> >>>> terrorists with threats of lawsuits all sorts of awful legal trouble
> >>>> if they don't stop killing us and behave themselves, Boy that will
> >>>> show 'em! And just think of the very lucrative jobs it would create
> >>>> for Edwards' trial lawyers buddies in the event of a catastrophic
> >>>> terrorist hit, suing everybody still breathing on behalf of the
> >>>> victims, and it's only fair that they be rewarded, after all, they
> >>>> gave so unselfishly to his campaign! 
> >>> 
> >>> Sure, sure.
> >>> 
> >>> You do know Bush let did nothing about the Cole attack that killed 17
> >>> US sailors, don't you? He let 8 months go by after the CIA id'd al
> >>> Qaeda as the source organization. Al Qaeda captives have been
> >>> reported as saying that took encouragement from that.
> >> 
> >> The Cole bombing occurred under Clinton.
> > 
> > Just before the election. Bush then let 9 months go by without doing
> > anything. Again you show your ignorance.
> >  
> >>> You do know that he did nothing to increase airliner security pre
> >>> 9/11, which could have precluded the terrorists (armed pilots, air
> >>> marshals etc). 
> >> 
> >> Thanks for proving that hindsight it 20/20.
> > 
> > And, Ashcroft actually took forces away from anti-terrorism efforts.
> > This after the Clinton administration warned the Bushies that al Qaeda
> > was the main threat they would face.
> >
> >>> You do know Bush ignored pre 9/11 warnings about al qaeda, don't you?
> >> 
> >> Bullshit.
> > 
> > THere is a cogent reply, not.
> > 
> >>> You do know Bush resisted the 9/11 investigation that is analyzing
> >>> what went wrong, don't you? Why would he do that?
> >> 
> >> Because it's a sham.
> > 
> > Or, more likely, because he knew he didn't do enough. Now, I'm not
> > really blaming him, but the investigation certainly was not a sham.
> > 
> >>> You do know that intelligence is the main factor in combating
> >>> terrorism don't you? Human intelligence largely depends on good will.
> >>> Do you think Bush has helped that by his "axis of Evil" talk and
> >>> snubbing Europe and the Iraq occupation and Abu Ghraib's affect on
> >>> the Arab / Moslem world? 
> >> 
> >> Oh shut the fuck up. If the world is offended when we go after our
> >> enemies then the world can go to hell. The Abu Ghraib incident was a
> >> bunch of dumbasses living out their idiotic frat house fantasies. What
> >> that has to do with Bush I'm not sure. 
> > 
> > His administration set the precedents by announcing that Afghans
> > captured didn't have any rights under the Geneva Conventions. See the
> > memos flying around the Pentagon and White House after 9/11.
> >
> >>> Kerry had the guts to volunteer his way into river boats in Vietnam
> >>> while Bush and Cheney were evading duty.
> >> 
> >> Bush served and was honorably discharged.
> > 
> > In a "Champaigne" unit that had no chance of going to actually fight.
> > And, there is still the question of the last year of Bush's "service".
> >
> >>> Bush talked big but backed down over taking Faluja and taking down
> >>> Sadr when he saw it would be a fight.
> >>> Kerry is the far better choice.
> >> 
> >> Oh please. If Bush had given the OK for taking down Falluja you left
> >> wingnut pussies would be calling him a baby killer.
> > 
> > You are changing the subject, Snubis. The fact is that, in is usual,
> > flip-flopping way, Bush said he would do something, and didn't follow
> > through.
> 
> Sorry. This is not an example of John Kerry's fort�. In war, things change. 
> It no longer became necessary to take Falluja by force.

First, it is noted that you did not answer any of my other points.
Second, you are wrong, both about Kerry's flip-flops (Bush has
flip-flopped at least as much as Kerry-See:
http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=42263), and
about the reason for Bush's flip-flop on Falluja (and, on Sadr). Fact
was, he had no way to go into Falluja, but he made a dumbass promise
to do so. This is so typical of Bush.

--
Dave Fritzinger
0
dfritzin (3022)
7/14/2004 10:27:19 PM
Xomicron <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in message news:<48f5a03756b590d6dd4fdf877d722592@news.bubbanews.com>...
> "Bill Case" <Bill549@Hotmail.com> wrote in
> news:t7fJc.2473$mL5.1628@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net: 
> 
> > 
> > "Xomicron" <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in message
> > news:Xns9526917E1A2E7x@dragon.pl...
> >> "Bill Case" <Bill549@Hotmail.com> wrote in
> >> news:NoeJc.2427$mL5.2395@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net:
> >>
> >> >
> >> > "Xomicron" <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in message
> >> > news:ac322$40f5613f$45f0b78b$30321@nf1.news-service-com...
> >> >> "Bill Case" <Bill549@Hotmail.com> wrote in
> >> >> news:IWcJc.2968$Qu5.1720@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net:
> >> >>
> >> >> > "Xomicron" <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in message
> >> >> > news:ae117$40f55426$45f0b78b$14525@nf1.news-service-com...
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> "Bill Case" <Bill549@Hotmail.com> wrote in
> >> >> >> news:zB%Ic.1642$mL5.223@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>> "Frank Dwyer" <fdwyer@citlink.net> wrote in message
> >> >> >>> news:40F4749B.A37548D7@citlink.net...
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>>> He did more about it than the administration under whom it
> >> >> >>>> happened did.
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>> It's widely known the CIA didn't attribute it to Al Qaeda until
> >> >> >>> around the time of administration change.
> >> >> >>> I don't like Clinton, but he did launch attacks, one killed
> >> >> >>> around 200 al qaeda in Afghanistan. (Cruises missiles)
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> More like blew up some empty tents.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > If you actually knew anything about this war on terror, you would
> >> >> > know that intelligence is that they killed a lot of them, and OBL
> >> >> > had left that camp not long before.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> > Irregardless,  why didn't Bush act?
> >> >> >> > On 9/11 he sat like a rabbit after being told of the 2 WTC
> >> >> >> > hits. 
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> What should he have done? Keeping in mind that no one really knew
> >> >> >> what was going on.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > A commander, or just any guy with balls and brains, is going to
> >> >> > want to know all the info available, ask questions to get his
> >> >> > staff going and thinking, get his mind working on the problem he's
> >> >> > facing, make sure his people are all "up" and active.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > In a situation like that, you might be asked to make a decision,
> >> >> > maybe a big one, quickly. To do that you need to have your mind
> >> >> > active and focused. A leader wants to be certain everybody is
> >> >> > doing all they can and all the available info on what's happening
> >> >> > is getting to him.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Instead, he sat there like a passive receiver.
> >> >>
> >> >> So what should he have done? There were massively conflicting
> >> >> reports that said anywhere from JUST ONE plane, to SIX different
> >> >> aircraft had been either hijacked, or had some sort of malfunction.
> >> >> Which one of these presumptions do you make? Keep in mind that if
> >> >> you're wrong, people die, if you're right, people die. And also keep
> >> >> in mind that shooting them down and being right in doing so, may
> >> >> destroy any proof that you were right. No proof to your own
> >> >> conscience, no proof to your friends, no proof to your staff, and
> >> >> just to also throw in the lowest common denominator, no proof to the
> >> >> voters. 
> >> >>
> >> >> And we all know how much proof it requires to convince people who
> >> >> hate Bush of anything. Today we'd be hearing about how Bush is a
> >> >> murderer who shoots down civilian airlines.
> >> >>
> >> >> > But first of all, get yourself away from children in case an
> >> >> > attempt is about to be made on you.
> >> >>
> >> >> What would events 1500 miles away have to do with Bush being
> >> >> assassinated?
> >> >
> >> > As I've described in a prior post, his actions were not those of
> >> > tough smart leader whose country is under attack.
> >> > What should he have done? Taken charge. Instead he sat there in a
> >> > state of confusion, with children around him.
> >>
> >> It seems that nothing Bush does or could have done would ever be good
> >> enough for the loony left.
> > 
> > That won't work sport.
> > Bush quote regarding evading Vietnam war service:
> > "I was not prepared to shoot my eardrum out with a shotgun in
> > order to get a deferment. Nor was I willing to go to Canada. So I chose
> > to better myself by learning how to fly airplanes," Bush told an
> > interviewer in Houston. "
> 
> A lot better than our previous president ever did, yet the left fawns over
> him.

Is it? I don't think so. Clinton was against the war, and protested
against the war. Bush was for the war, so he got himself appointed
(over 500 other applicants) into a unit of the national guard that he
knew would never see service in Vietnam. Bush appears somewhat
hypocritical to me.

--
Dave Fritzinger
0
dfritzin (3022)
7/14/2004 10:32:01 PM
"David Fritzinger" <dfritzin@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:b82925bb.0407141427.4c800869@posting.google.com...
> Xomicron <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in message
news:<Xns95268216158ABrt@fla.dragon.pl>...
> > dfritzin@hotmail.com (David Fritzinger) wrote in
> > news:b82925bb.0407131807.153aa84a@posting.google.com:
> >
> > > Xomicron <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in message
> > > news:<36d51cf3183ad221268accf5f2eb6df4@news.bubbanews.com>...
> > >
> > >> "Bill Case" <Bill549@Hotmail.com> wrote in
> > >> news:vtZIc.1482$mL5.626@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net:
> > >>
> > >>> "Xomicron" <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in message
> > >>> news:a2ec$40f44320$ca6c230c$23707@nf1.news-service-com...
> > >>>
> > >>>> Don't worry, if Kerry and Ambulance Chasing Edwards get elected, we
> > >>>> can expect a whole army of lawyers to be sent out after the
> > >>>> terrorists with threats of lawsuits all sorts of awful legal
trouble
> > >>>> if they don't stop killing us and behave themselves, Boy that will
> > >>>> show 'em! And just think of the very lucrative jobs it would create
> > >>>> for Edwards' trial lawyers buddies in the event of a catastrophic
> > >>>> terrorist hit, suing everybody still breathing on behalf of the
> > >>>> victims, and it's only fair that they be rewarded, after all, they
> > >>>> gave so unselfishly to his campaign!
> > >>>
> > >>> Sure, sure.
> > >>>
> > >>> You do know Bush let did nothing about the Cole attack that killed
17
> > >>> US sailors, don't you? He let 8 months go by after the CIA id'd al
> > >>> Qaeda as the source organization. Al Qaeda captives have been
> > >>> reported as saying that took encouragement from that.
> > >>
> > >> The Cole bombing occurred under Clinton.
> > >
> > > Just before the election. Bush then let 9 months go by without doing
> > > anything. Again you show your ignorance.
> > >
> > >>> You do know that he did nothing to increase airliner security pre
> > >>> 9/11, which could have precluded the terrorists (armed pilots, air
> > >>> marshals etc).
> > >>
> > >> Thanks for proving that hindsight it 20/20.
> > >
> > > And, Ashcroft actually took forces away from anti-terrorism efforts.
> > > This after the Clinton administration warned the Bushies that al Qaeda
> > > was the main threat they would face.
> > >
> > >>> You do know Bush ignored pre 9/11 warnings about al qaeda, don't
you?
> > >>
> > >> Bullshit.
> > >
> > > THere is a cogent reply, not.
> > >
> > >>> You do know Bush resisted the 9/11 investigation that is analyzing
> > >>> what went wrong, don't you? Why would he do that?
> > >>
> > >> Because it's a sham.
> > >
> > > Or, more likely, because he knew he didn't do enough. Now, I'm not
> > > really blaming him, but the investigation certainly was not a sham.
> > >
> > >>> You do know that intelligence is the main factor in combating
> > >>> terrorism don't you? Human intelligence largely depends on good
will.
> > >>> Do you think Bush has helped that by his "axis of Evil" talk and
> > >>> snubbing Europe and the Iraq occupation and Abu Ghraib's affect on
> > >>> the Arab / Moslem world?
> > >>
> > >> Oh shut the fuck up. If the world is offended when we go after our
> > >> enemies then the world can go to hell. The Abu Ghraib incident was a
> > >> bunch of dumbasses living out their idiotic frat house fantasies.
What
> > >> that has to do with Bush I'm not sure.
> > >
> > > His administration set the precedents by announcing that Afghans
> > > captured didn't have any rights under the Geneva Conventions. See the
> > > memos flying around the Pentagon and White House after 9/11.
> > >
> > >>> Kerry had the guts to volunteer his way into river boats in Vietnam
> > >>> while Bush and Cheney were evading duty.
> > >>
> > >> Bush served and was honorably discharged.
> > >
> > > In a "Champaigne" unit that had no chance of going to actually fight.
> > > And, there is still the question of the last year of Bush's "service".
> > >
> > >>> Bush talked big but backed down over taking Faluja and taking down
> > >>> Sadr when he saw it would be a fight.
> > >>> Kerry is the far better choice.
> > >>
> > >> Oh please. If Bush had given the OK for taking down Falluja you left
> > >> wingnut pussies would be calling him a baby killer.
> > >
> > > You are changing the subject, Snubis. The fact is that, in is usual,
> > > flip-flopping way, Bush said he would do something, and didn't follow
> > > through.
> >
> > Sorry. This is not an example of John Kerry's fort�. In war, things
change.
> > It no longer became necessary to take Falluja by force.
>
> First, it is noted that you did not answer any of my other points.
> Second, you are wrong, both about Kerry's flip-flops (Bush has
> flip-flopped at least as much as Kerry-See:
> http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=42263), and
> about the reason for Bush's flip-flop on Falluja (and, on Sadr). Fact
> was, he had no way to go into Falluja, but he made a dumbass promise
> to do so. This is so typical of Bush.
>
> --
> Dave Fritzinger

Let's expand on the flip - flop topic, and light the Bushies up.

Bush does REAL wimp out flip flops as an executive directing a war, BIG
things like no UN, please help us UN; no Europe, please help us Europe; no
Baathists, yes to Baathists, take Faluja, punk out; arrest Sadr, punk
out.,,, on and on and on - important stuff.

Any oscillations Kerry ACTUALLY has shown were just a legislator debating
stuff back and forth in a political environment that was getting
conservative and in which he was trying to stay relevant.

The latest Bush lie he is giving speeches on is the supposed Kerry "waffle"
on
the war funding bill- it's crap, as might be expected.

Between the two votes on this Iraq war funding bill, Kerry became concerned
as it became clear that Bush was:

1] stupidly alienating most of the post ww2 allies of the US and leaving us
largely without significant allies in the Iraq war. We've all seen this last
year how well that is working out. Kerry was correct to be concerned about
this.

2] Bush was stupidly and irresponsibly intending to fund the war through
debt, while still pursuing tax cuts oriented toward higher income brackets.
In other words, he was passing the cost of the war to future generations, so
as not to cost him votes.
Kerry was right to be concerned about this.

At the FIRST funding vote, nobody in Congress thought Bush would be as
stupid and irresponsible in executing an Iraq war as he showed himself to be
prior to the SECOND vote.

Kerry made an attempt to stop the funding bill, so Congress could debate and
voice its desire to change from the stupid course Bush was going - it didn't
work but at least he had the brains, courage and decisiveness to try.








0
Bill549 (46)
7/14/2004 11:22:57 PM
"righter"  wrote in message

> "Xomicron" wrote in message

> I wouldn't exactly call Clinton a Stone You to Death With Popcorn
Commander
> in Chief, and it's probably safe to assume that Kerry, a Vietnam
Veteran/War
> Hero, would behave at least as aggressively as Clinton.  Feed that to your
> war machine!y

Kerry did political service of 4 months and couldn't get outa there quickly
enough.

Clinton was despised by the military and knew it. Just like old Adolph who
found himself in a similar situation he quickly replaced the real soldiers
at the top with butt kissing political types which didn't help his
reputation with the rank-and-file or folks likely to do the fighting. Funds
for training and maintenance were siphoned off for operational deployments
and the numbers of 'Federal Employees' Clinton bragged publicly about
getting off the rolls were soldiers, airmen, and sailors. The Clinton
Administration was a disaster for the military make no mistake about it
which everyone in the service knew and the reason soldier's absentee ballots
were contested in Florida. -the Troll


0
hippo8560 (4)
7/14/2004 11:57:17 PM
Bill Case wrote:
> 
> "Xomicron" <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in message
> news:ac322$40f5613f$45f0b78b$30321@nf1.news-service-com...
> > "Bill Case" <Bill549@Hotmail.com> wrote in
> > news:IWcJc.2968$Qu5.1720@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net:
> >
> > > "Xomicron" <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in message
> > > news:ae117$40f55426$45f0b78b$14525@nf1.news-service-com...
> > >
> > >> "Bill Case" <Bill549@Hotmail.com> wrote in
> > >> news:zB%Ic.1642$mL5.223@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net:
> > >>
> > >>> "Frank Dwyer" <fdwyer@citlink.net> wrote in message
> > >>> news:40F4749B.A37548D7@citlink.net...
> > >>>
> > >>>> He did more about it than the administration under whom it happened
> > >>>> did.
> > >>>
> > >>> It's widely known the CIA didn't attribute it to Al Qaeda until
> > >>> around the time of administration change.
> > >>> I don't like Clinton, but he did launch attacks, one killed around
> > >>> 200 al qaeda in Afghanistan. (Cruises missiles)
> > >>
> > >> More like blew up some empty tents.
> > >
> > > If you actually knew anything about this war on terror, you would know
> > > that intelligence is that they killed a lot of them, and OBL had left
> > > that camp not long before.
> > >
> > >>
> > >> > Irregardless,  why didn't Bush act?
> > >> > On 9/11 he sat like a rabbit after being told of the 2 WTC hits.
> > >>
> > >> What should he have done? Keeping in mind that no one really knew what
> > >> was going on.
> > >
> > > A commander, or just any guy with balls and brains, is going to want to
> > > know all the info available, ask questions to get his staff going and
> > > thinking, get his mind working on the problem he's facing, make sure his
> > > people are all "up" and active.
> > >
> > > In a situation like that, you might be asked to make a decision, maybe a
> > > big one, quickly. To do that you need to have your mind active and
> > > focused. A leader wants to be certain everybody is doing all they can
> > > and all the available info on what's happening is getting to him.
> > >
> > > Instead, he sat there like a passive receiver.
> >
> > So what should he have done? There were massively conflicting reports that
> > said anywhere from JUST ONE plane, to SIX different aircraft had been
> > either hijacked, or had some sort of malfunction. Which one of these
> > presumptions do you make? Keep in mind that if you're wrong, people die,
> > if you're right, people die. And also keep in mind that shooting them down
> > and being right in doing so, may destroy any proof that you were right. No
> > proof to your own conscience, no proof to your friends, no proof to your
> > staff, and just to also throw in the lowest common denominator, no proof
> > to the voters.
> >
> > And we all know how much proof it requires to convince people who hate
> > Bush of anything. Today we'd be hearing about how Bush is a murderer who
> > shoots down civilian airlines.
> >
> > > But first of all, get yourself away from children in case an attempt is
> > > about to be made on you.
> >
> > What would events 1500 miles away have to do with Bush being
> > assassinated?
> 
> As I've described in a prior post, his actions were not those of tough smart
> leader whose country is under attack.
> What should he have done? Taken charge. Instead he sat there in a state of
> confusion, with children around him.

He was in charge. He's the President, remember?
Now, that aside, what precisely should he have done? "Taken charge" is
not a good answer.
0
fdwyer (46)
7/15/2004 12:09:00 AM
Bill Case wrote:
> 
> "Xomicron" <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in message
> news:99014b3a4d0deeefed2074466df35e25@news.bubbanews.com...
> > "Bill Case" <Bill549@Hotmail.com> wrote in
> > news:%BfJc.2508$mL5.1847@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net:
> >
> > > "Xomicron" <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in message
> > > news:48f5a03756b590d6dd4fdf877d722592@news.bubbanews.com...
> > >
> > >> "Bill Case" <Bill549@Hotmail.com> wrote in
> > >> news:t7fJc.2473$mL5.1628@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net:
> > >>
> > >> > "Xomicron" <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in message
> > >> > news:Xns9526917E1A2E7x@dragon.pl...
> > >> >> "Bill Case" <Bill549@Hotmail.com> wrote in
> > >> >> news:NoeJc.2427$mL5.2395@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net:
> > >> >>
> > >> >> > "Xomicron" <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in message
> > >> >> > news:ac322$40f5613f$45f0b78b$30321@nf1.news-service-com...
> > >> >> >> "Bill Case" <Bill549@Hotmail.com> wrote in
> > >> >> >> news:IWcJc.2968$Qu5.1720@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net:
> > >> >> >>
> > >> >> >> > "Xomicron" <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in message
> > >> >> >> > news:ae117$40f55426$45f0b78b$14525@nf1.news-service-com...
> > >> >> >> >
> > >> >> >> >> "Bill Case" <Bill549@Hotmail.com> wrote in
> > >> >> >> >> news:zB%Ic.1642$mL5.223@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net:
> > >> >> >> >>
> > >> >> >> >>> "Frank Dwyer" <fdwyer@citlink.net> wrote in message
> > >> >> >> >>> news:40F4749B.A37548D7@citlink.net...
> > >> >> >> >>>
> > >> >> >> >>>> He did more about it than the administration under whom it
> > >> >> >> >>>> happened did.
> > >> >> >> >>>
> > >> >> >> >>> It's widely known the CIA didn't attribute it to Al Qaeda
> > >> >> >> >>> until around the time of administration change.
> > >> >> >> >>> I don't like Clinton, but he did launch attacks, one killed
> > >> >> >> >>> around 200 al qaeda in Afghanistan. (Cruises missiles)
> > >> >> >> >>
> > >> >> >> >> More like blew up some empty tents.
> > >> >> >> >
> > >> >> >> > If you actually knew anything about this war on terror, you
> > >> >> >> > would know that intelligence is that they killed a lot of them,
> > >> >> >> > and OBL had left that camp not long before.
> > >> >> >> >
> > >> >> >> >>
> > >> >> >> >> > Irregardless,  why didn't Bush act?
> > >> >> >> >> > On 9/11 he sat like a rabbit after being told of the 2 WTC
> > >> >> >> >> > hits.
> > >> >> >> >>
> > >> >> >> >> What should he have done? Keeping in mind that no one really
> > >> >> >> >> knew what was going on.
> > >> >> >> >
> > >> >> >> > A commander, or just any guy with balls and brains, is going to
> > >> >> >> > want to know all the info available, ask questions to get his
> > >> >> >> > staff going and thinking, get his mind working on the problem
> > >> >> >> > he's facing, make sure his people are all "up" and active.
> > >> >> >> >
> > >> >> >> > In a situation like that, you might be asked to make a
> > >> >> >> > decision, maybe a big one, quickly. To do that you need to have
> > >> >> >> > your mind active and focused. A leader wants to be certain
> > >> >> >> > everybody is doing all they can and all the available info on
> > >> >> >> > what's happening is getting to him.
> > >> >> >> >
> > >> >> >> > Instead, he sat there like a passive receiver.
> > >> >> >>
> > >> >> >> So what should he have done? There were massively conflicting
> > >> >> >> reports that said anywhere from JUST ONE plane, to SIX different
> > >> >> >> aircraft had been either hijacked, or had some sort of
> > >> >> >> malfunction. Which one of these presumptions do you make? Keep in
> > >> >> >> mind that if you're wrong, people die, if you're right, people
> > >> >> >> die. And also keep in mind that shooting them down and being
> > >> >> >> right in doing so, may destroy any proof that you were right. No
> > >> >> >> proof to your own conscience, no proof to your friends, no proof
> > >> >> >> to your staff, and just to also throw in the lowest common
> > >> >> >> denominator, no proof to the voters.
> > >> >> >>
> > >> >> >> And we all know how much proof it requires to convince people who
> > >> >> >> hate Bush of anything. Today we'd be hearing about how Bush is a
> > >> >> >> murderer who shoots down civilian airlines.
> > >> >> >>
> > >> >> >> > But first of all, get yourself away from children in case an
> > >> >> >> > attempt is about to be made on you.
> > >> >> >>
> > >> >> >> What would events 1500 miles away have to do with Bush being
> > >> >> >> assassinated?
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > As I've described in a prior post, his actions were not those of
> > >> >> > tough smart leader whose country is under attack.
> > >> >> > What should he have done? Taken charge. Instead he sat there in a
> > >> >> > state of confusion, with children around him.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> It seems that nothing Bush does or could have done would ever be
> > >> >> good enough for the loony left.
> > >> >
> > >> > That won't work sport.
> > >> > Bush quote regarding evading Vietnam war service:
> > >> > "I was not prepared to shoot my eardrum out with a shotgun in
> > >> > order to get a deferment. Nor was I willing to go to Canada. So I
> > >> > chose to better myself by learning how to fly airplanes," Bush told
> > >> > an interviewer in Houston. "
> > >>
> > >> A lot better than our previous president ever did, yet the left fawns
> > >> over him.
> > >
> > > I didn't vote for Clinton.
> > >
> > > This election isn't about Clinton, he's not a candidate.
> > >
> > > But since you bring it up, it's historical fact, that pre 9/11, Clinton
> > > DID do more against terrorists than Bush did. He attacked them with
> > > cruise missiles, killed hundreds of them. Pre 9/11, Bush never even
> > > tried to retaliate for the USS Cole attack which killed 17 Americans.
> >
> > Lobbing a few cruise missiles at tents is not cracking down on terrorism.
> > Clinton had 8 years to deal with terrorism starting from when the WTC was
> > bombed in 1993.
> 
> He killed around 200 of them and apparnelty came close to catching OBL in
> the attack, he had left the area shortly before the raid.

Let me guess, this came from the same intelligence sources that said
Iraq had WMDs, right?
 
> That's WAY more than Bush did in answer to the Cole. Bush was passive and
> Afghan al qaeda prisoner interviews indicate that were encouraged by the
> lack of retaliation. He had 8 months. He stated in intereviews that pre
> 9/11, terrorism was low on his priorities - he's stupid.

Terrorism was low on every American's priority list.
 
> You keep trying to explain away Bush inaction by talking about Clinton.
> That's Fox News and oxycontin Rush propaganda. It's not reality.
> 
> > When 9-11 hit, Bush reacted and cracked down on terrorism.
> 
> For gods sake, any US president or any other national leader who didn't
> respond to an attack like 9/11 would have been thrown out of office.
> Clinton, Mother theresa, little Bo Peep, anyone would have responded by
> attacking them. Do you think Clinton would not have attacked??

Of course he would have, because it was then obvious that his game of
Gorillas that you keep touting as "doing something" didn't accomplish
much at all.
 
> > > Also, Bush didn't want to attack Al Qaeda in Afghanistan after 9/11 - he
> > > wanted to attack Iraq first - he was dissuaded by PM Blair and others.
> >
> > The facts don't support this.
> 
> Wrong, your just wrong.
> From Cole's website http://www.juancole.com/
> 
> Cole is a credible middle east expert who regularly appears on network news
> programs. He's left of center but he also has a professional reputation to
> protect and he can't just make crap up like oxy Rush and the Fox propaganda
> machine can.
> 
> Quote from 7/14 website:
> 
> The Afghanistan war was the right war at the right time, and it did break up
> the network of al-Qaeda training camps from which terrorists would have gone
> on hitting the United States. But the fact is that Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld
> did not want to fight that war after September 11. Rumsfeld sniffed that
> "there were no good targets" in Afghanistan.

Was that not true?

> Bush, Rumsfeld and Cheney all
> wanted to leave al-Qaeda in Afghanistan and attack Iraq first. At first
> Wolfowitz was leaked as the proponent of this crazy idea, and although he
> did back it, it is now clear from insider accounts like that of Richard
> Clark that the three top leaders just mentioned wanted Iraq first. The UK
> ambassador to the US maintains that it was Tony Blair who talked Bush into
> going after al-Qaeda in Afghanistan first, with a promise that he would
> later support an Iraq war.

Like we'd expect the UK Ambassador to say anything else?

> MI6 would have been briefing Tony about the dire
> threat coming from Afghanistan, and he, unlike the Bush team, could see the
> dangers of getting bogged down in an Iraq quagmire while al-Qaeda and the
> Taliban were still in control of Afghanistan. (Can you imagine the full
> scope of that disaster that Bush had planned for us?)    end quote

Well, imagining it is all we can do, as it didn't happen that way.
 
> Bush is NOT a competent war leader.

Why?
 
>  Look at the bogged down mess we have in Iraq because of the stupid asses
> dissolving the Iraqi army and police with nothing to replace it.
> 
> And don't tell me the Iraqi army posed a threat - their general were
> constantly in communication with the CIA on cell phones, that's why we
> blazed in there and didn't have costly urban combat.

Yeah, it's all a secret conspiracy.
0
fdwyer (46)
7/15/2004 12:18:19 AM
On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 18:43:06 +0200, Xomicron <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote:

>Jeff George <george666@comcast.net.munged> wrote in
>news:irnaf09v6hip4e7ci2484qi6ctd5j2svkb@4ax.com: 
>
>> On 13 Jul 2004 19:07:12 -0700, dfritzin@hotmail.com (David Fritzinger)
>> added the following words, followed by my wisdom:
>> 
>>> Xomicron <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in message
>>> news:<36d51cf3183ad221268accf5f2eb6df4@news.bubbanews.com>... 
>>>
>>>> Oh please. If Bush had given the OK for taking down Falluja you left
>>>> wingnut pussies would be calling him a baby killer.
>>>
>>> You are changing the subject, Snubis. The fact is that, in is usual,
>>> flip-flopping way, Bush said he would do something, and didn't follow
>>> through. That appears to be a hallmark of his entire life.
>> 
>> Well, that, and the fact that Bush is bumbling incompetent at anything
>> he does, including eating pretzels and riding bicycles.
>
>Kerry can't ride a bike or ski and then feels the need to lie about it.

Kerry isn't the President.

Regards,
J
0
george6661 (13)
7/15/2004 12:55:43 AM
"Frank Dwyer" <fdwyer@citlink.net> wrote in message
news:40F5CD75.E7E11B27@citlink.net...
> Bill Case wrote:
> >
> > "Xomicron" <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in message
> > news:99014b3a4d0deeefed2074466df35e25@news.bubbanews.com...
> > > "Bill Case" <Bill549@Hotmail.com> wrote in
> > > news:%BfJc.2508$mL5.1847@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net:
> > >
> > > > "Xomicron" <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in message
> > > > news:48f5a03756b590d6dd4fdf877d722592@news.bubbanews.com...
> > > >
> > > >> "Bill Case" <Bill549@Hotmail.com> wrote in
> > > >> news:t7fJc.2473$mL5.1628@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net:
> > > >>
> > > >> > "Xomicron" <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in message
> > > >> > news:Xns9526917E1A2E7x@dragon.pl...
> > > >> >> "Bill Case" <Bill549@Hotmail.com> wrote in
> > > >> >> news:NoeJc.2427$mL5.2395@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net:
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> > "Xomicron" <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in message
> > > >> >> > news:ac322$40f5613f$45f0b78b$30321@nf1.news-service-com...
> > > >> >> >> "Bill Case" <Bill549@Hotmail.com> wrote in
> > > >> >> >> news:IWcJc.2968$Qu5.1720@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net:
> > > >> >> >>
> > > >> >> >> > "Xomicron" <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in message
> > > >> >> >> > news:ae117$40f55426$45f0b78b$14525@nf1.news-service-com...
> > > >> >> >> >
> > > >> >> >> >> "Bill Case" <Bill549@Hotmail.com> wrote in
> > > >> >> >> >> news:zB%Ic.1642$mL5.223@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net:
> > > >> >> >> >>
> > > >> >> >> >>> "Frank Dwyer" <fdwyer@citlink.net> wrote in message
> > > >> >> >> >>> news:40F4749B.A37548D7@citlink.net...
> > > >> >> >> >>>
> > > >> >> >> >>>> He did more about it than the administration under whom
it
> > > >> >> >> >>>> happened did.
> > > >> >> >> >>>
> > > >> >> >> >>> It's widely known the CIA didn't attribute it to Al Qaeda
> > > >> >> >> >>> until around the time of administration change.
> > > >> >> >> >>> I don't like Clinton, but he did launch attacks, one
killed
> > > >> >> >> >>> around 200 al qaeda in Afghanistan. (Cruises missiles)
> > > >> >> >> >>
> > > >> >> >> >> More like blew up some empty tents.
> > > >> >> >> >
> > > >> >> >> > If you actually knew anything about this war on terror, you
> > > >> >> >> > would know that intelligence is that they killed a lot of
them,
> > > >> >> >> > and OBL had left that camp not long before.
> > > >> >> >> >
> > > >> >> >> >>
> > > >> >> >> >> > Irregardless,  why didn't Bush act?
> > > >> >> >> >> > On 9/11 he sat like a rabbit after being told of the 2
WTC
> > > >> >> >> >> > hits.
> > > >> >> >> >>
> > > >> >> >> >> What should he have done? Keeping in mind that no one
really
> > > >> >> >> >> knew what was going on.
> > > >> >> >> >
> > > >> >> >> > A commander, or just any guy with balls and brains, is
going to
> > > >> >> >> > want to know all the info available, ask questions to get
his
> > > >> >> >> > staff going and thinking, get his mind working on the
problem
> > > >> >> >> > he's facing, make sure his people are all "up" and active.
> > > >> >> >> >
> > > >> >> >> > In a situation like that, you might be asked to make a
> > > >> >> >> > decision, maybe a big one, quickly. To do that you need to
have
> > > >> >> >> > your mind active and focused. A leader wants to be certain
> > > >> >> >> > everybody is doing all they can and all the available info
on
> > > >> >> >> > what's happening is getting to him.
> > > >> >> >> >
> > > >> >> >> > Instead, he sat there like a passive receiver.
> > > >> >> >>
> > > >> >> >> So what should he have done? There were massively conflicting
> > > >> >> >> reports that said anywhere from JUST ONE plane, to SIX
different
> > > >> >> >> aircraft had been either hijacked, or had some sort of
> > > >> >> >> malfunction. Which one of these presumptions do you make?
Keep in
> > > >> >> >> mind that if you're wrong, people die, if you're right,
people
> > > >> >> >> die. And also keep in mind that shooting them down and being
> > > >> >> >> right in doing so, may destroy any proof that you were right.
No
> > > >> >> >> proof to your own conscience, no proof to your friends, no
proof
> > > >> >> >> to your staff, and just to also throw in the lowest common
> > > >> >> >> denominator, no proof to the voters.
> > > >> >> >>
> > > >> >> >> And we all know how much proof it requires to convince people
who
> > > >> >> >> hate Bush of anything. Today we'd be hearing about how Bush
is a
> > > >> >> >> murderer who shoots down civilian airlines.
> > > >> >> >>
> > > >> >> >> > But first of all, get yourself away from children in case
an
> > > >> >> >> > attempt is about to be made on you.
> > > >> >> >>
> > > >> >> >> What would events 1500 miles away have to do with Bush being
> > > >> >> >> assassinated?
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> >> > As I've described in a prior post, his actions were not those
of
> > > >> >> > tough smart leader whose country is under attack.
> > > >> >> > What should he have done? Taken charge. Instead he sat there
in a
> > > >> >> > state of confusion, with children around him.
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> It seems that nothing Bush does or could have done would ever be
> > > >> >> good enough for the loony left.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > That won't work sport.
> > > >> > Bush quote regarding evading Vietnam war service:
> > > >> > "I was not prepared to shoot my eardrum out with a shotgun in
> > > >> > order to get a deferment. Nor was I willing to go to Canada. So I
> > > >> > chose to better myself by learning how to fly airplanes," Bush
told
> > > >> > an interviewer in Houston. "
> > > >>
> > > >> A lot better than our previous president ever did, yet the left
fawns
> > > >> over him.
> > > >
> > > > I didn't vote for Clinton.
> > > >
> > > > This election isn't about Clinton, he's not a candidate.
> > > >
> > > > But since you bring it up, it's historical fact, that pre 9/11,
Clinton
> > > > DID do more against terrorists than Bush did. He attacked them with
> > > > cruise missiles, killed hundreds of them. Pre 9/11, Bush never even
> > > > tried to retaliate for the USS Cole attack which killed 17
Americans.
> > >
> > > Lobbing a few cruise missiles at tents is not cracking down on
terrorism.
> > > Clinton had 8 years to deal with terrorism starting from when the WTC
was
> > > bombed in 1993.
> >
> > He killed around 200 of them and apparnelty came close to catching OBL
in
> > the attack, he had left the area shortly before the raid.
>
> Let me guess, this came from the same intelligence sources that said
> Iraq had WMDs, right?

Do you think the sources of intel for casualties from an attack in
Afghanistan are the same as those for WMD in Iraq?

>
> > That's WAY more than Bush did in answer to the Cole. Bush was passive
and
> > Afghan al qaeda prisoner interviews indicate that were encouraged by the
> > lack of retaliation. He had 8 months. He stated in intereviews that pre
> > 9/11, terrorism was low on his priorities - he's stupid.
>
> Terrorism was low on every American's priority list.

It was not. Richard Clarke wrote a whole book dealing with that. Clinton
told Bush on inaugaration day that his #1 problem was al qaeda and OBL.

You don't know enough about this subject to even post intelligently.


>
> > You keep trying to explain away Bush inaction by talking about Clinton.
> > That's Fox News and oxycontin Rush propaganda. It's not reality.
> >
> > > When 9-11 hit, Bush reacted and cracked down on terrorism.
> >
> > For gods sake, any US president or any other national leader who didn't
> > respond to an attack like 9/11 would have been thrown out of office.
> > Clinton, Mother theresa, little Bo Peep, anyone would have responded by
> > attacking them. Do you think Clinton would not have attacked??
>
> Of course he would have, because it was then obvious that his game of
> Gorillas that you keep touting as "doing something" didn't accomplish
> much at all.
>
> > > > Also, Bush didn't want to attack Al Qaeda in Afghanistan after
9/11 - he
> > > > wanted to attack Iraq first - he was dissuaded by PM Blair and
others.
> > >
> > > The facts don't support this.
> >
> > Wrong, your just wrong.
> > From Cole's website http://www.juancole.com/
> >
> > Cole is a credible middle east expert who regularly appears on network
news
> > programs. He's left of center but he also has a professional reputation
to
> > protect and he can't just make crap up like oxy Rush and the Fox
propaganda
> > machine can.
> >
> > Quote from 7/14 website:
> >
> > The Afghanistan war was the right war at the right time, and it did
break up
> > the network of al-Qaeda training camps from which terrorists would have
gone
> > on hitting the United States. But the fact is that Bush, Cheney and
Rumsfeld
> > did not want to fight that war after September 11. Rumsfeld sniffed that
> > "there were no good targets" in Afghanistan.
>
> Was that not true?

For Christ sake. That's where al qaeda's infrstructure was and where they
ran their training from which they sent future terrorists out into the
world. Don't you know anything?


>
> > Bush, Rumsfeld and Cheney all
> > wanted to leave al-Qaeda in Afghanistan and attack Iraq first. At first
> > Wolfowitz was leaked as the proponent of this crazy idea, and although
he
> > did back it, it is now clear from insider accounts like that of Richard
> > Clark that the three top leaders just mentioned wanted Iraq first. The
UK
> > ambassador to the US maintains that it was Tony Blair who talked Bush
into
> > going after al-Qaeda in Afghanistan first, with a promise that he would
> > later support an Iraq war.
>
> Like we'd expect the UK Ambassador to say anything else?

You're saying he's lying? where';s your proof?


>
> > MI6 would have been briefing Tony about the dire
> > threat coming from Afghanistan, and he, unlike the Bush team, could see
the
> > dangers of getting bogged down in an Iraq quagmire while al-Qaeda and
the
> > Taliban were still in control of Afghanistan. (Can you imagine the full
> > scope of that disaster that Bush had planned for us?)    end quote
>
> Well, imagining it is all we can do, as it didn't happen that way.
>
> > Bush is NOT a competent war leader.
>
> Why?

Probably his llack of intellkigence (IQ), lack of an active mind, lack of
experience from having evaded the VN war when he was young, alcohol abuse,
he practically admitted cocaine use - that doens't do the brain any good, a
lot of thing s enter into his incompetence and the mess we are in, in Iraq.

You do know authorities on terrorism say the Iraq things has created a new
pool of terrorists for us to deal with in the future, right?


>
> >  Look at the bogged down mess we have in Iraq because of the stupid
asses
> > dissolving the Iraqi army and police with nothing to replace it.
> >
> > And don't tell me the Iraqi army posed a threat - their general were
> > constantly in communication with the CIA on cell phones, that's why we
> > blazed in there and didn't have costly urban combat.
>
> Yeah, it's all a secret conspiracy.

Duhhhhhhhh ?


0
Bill549 (46)
7/15/2004 2:43:24 AM
"Frank Dwyer" <fdwyer@citlink.net> wrote in message
news:40F5CB46.53F1ADD8@citlink.net...
> Bill Case wrote:
> >
> > "Xomicron" <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in message
> > news:ac322$40f5613f$45f0b78b$30321@nf1.news-service-com...
> > > "Bill Case" <Bill549@Hotmail.com> wrote in
> > > news:IWcJc.2968$Qu5.1720@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net:
> > >
> > > > "Xomicron" <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in message
> > > > news:ae117$40f55426$45f0b78b$14525@nf1.news-service-com...
> > > >
> > > >> "Bill Case" <Bill549@Hotmail.com> wrote in
> > > >> news:zB%Ic.1642$mL5.223@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net:
> > > >>
> > > >>> "Frank Dwyer" <fdwyer@citlink.net> wrote in message
> > > >>> news:40F4749B.A37548D7@citlink.net...
> > > >>>
> > > >>>> He did more about it than the administration under whom it
happened
> > > >>>> did.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> It's widely known the CIA didn't attribute it to Al Qaeda until
> > > >>> around the time of administration change.
> > > >>> I don't like Clinton, but he did launch attacks, one killed around
> > > >>> 200 al qaeda in Afghanistan. (Cruises missiles)
> > > >>
> > > >> More like blew up some empty tents.
> > > >
> > > > If you actually knew anything about this war on terror, you would
know
> > > > that intelligence is that they killed a lot of them, and OBL had
left
> > > > that camp not long before.
> > > >
> > > >>
> > > >> > Irregardless,  why didn't Bush act?
> > > >> > On 9/11 he sat like a rabbit after being told of the 2 WTC hits.
> > > >>
> > > >> What should he have done? Keeping in mind that no one really knew
what
> > > >> was going on.
> > > >
> > > > A commander, or just any guy with balls and brains, is going to want
to
> > > > know all the info available, ask questions to get his staff going
and
> > > > thinking, get his mind working on the problem he's facing, make sure
his
> > > > people are all "up" and active.
> > > >
> > > > In a situation like that, you might be asked to make a decision,
maybe a
> > > > big one, quickly. To do that you need to have your mind active and
> > > > focused. A leader wants to be certain everybody is doing all they
can
> > > > and all the available info on what's happening is getting to him.
> > > >
> > > > Instead, he sat there like a passive receiver.
> > >
> > > So what should he have done? There were massively conflicting reports
that
> > > said anywhere from JUST ONE plane, to SIX different aircraft had been
> > > either hijacked, or had some sort of malfunction. Which one of these
> > > presumptions do you make? Keep in mind that if you're wrong, people
die,
> > > if you're right, people die. And also keep in mind that shooting them
down
> > > and being right in doing so, may destroy any proof that you were
right. No
> > > proof to your own conscience, no proof to your friends, no proof to
your
> > > staff, and just to also throw in the lowest common denominator, no
proof
> > > to the voters.
> > >
> > > And we all know how much proof it requires to convince people who hate
> > > Bush of anything. Today we'd be hearing about how Bush is a murderer
who
> > > shoots down civilian airlines.
> > >
> > > > But first of all, get yourself away from children in case an attempt
is
> > > > about to be made on you.
> > >
> > > What would events 1500 miles away have to do with Bush being
> > > assassinated?
> >
> > As I've described in a prior post, his actions were not those of tough
smart
> > leader whose country is under attack.
> > What should he have done? Taken charge. Instead he sat there in a state
of
> > confusion, with children around him.
>
> He was in charge. He's the President, remember?
> Now, that aside, what precisely should he have done? "Taken charge" is
> not a good answer.

Are you for real? Does everything have to be spelled out for you?


0
Bill549 (46)
7/15/2004 2:44:46 AM
In article <Sd3Jc.2000$mL5.944@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
 "Bill Case" <Bill549@Hotmail.com> wrote:

> Clinton killed around 200 of them in a crusie missle strike. I would have
> liked to have seen raids on all their Afghan camps - how hard is that to fig
> ure out?

So would Clinton have. The problem was that the army kept telling his 
secretary of defense that there wasn't enough "actionable intelligence," 
and there was no way the country would have let him start a war, what 
with all the muckraking the Republicans were doing. They would have just 
added that to the list of things he was doing wrong, saying he was 
trying to distract the country from the important stuff -- ancient 
financial dealings his buddies back home did and the affair with that 
Lewinsky chick. 

As for "actionable intelligence," we saw a considerable failure of that 
in the recent war. The US lobbed about fifty attacks on specific houses 
in Baghdad, based on neighbors saying they though they had seen Saddam 
Hussein there. The problem was that he never was where they thought he 
was, and these raids killed roughly three hundred to five hundred 
innocent people -- wives and kids living in those houses.

-- 
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com>
http://www.timberwoof.com
Baloney Detection Kit: http://www.xenu.net/archive/baloney_detection.html
0
timberwoof (3216)
7/15/2004 3:20:51 AM
In article <40F5CB46.53F1ADD8@citlink.net>,
 Frank Dwyer <fdwyer@citlink.net> wrote:

> > As I've described in a prior post, his actions were not those of tough smart
> > leader whose country is under attack.
> > What should he have done? Taken charge. Instead he sat there in a state of
> > confusion, with children around him.
> 
> He was in charge. He's the President, remember?
> Now, that aside, what precisely should he have done? "Taken charge" is
> not a good answer.

This particular question has been asked and answered many times over the 
past few weeks. 

Bush-loyalists seem to think that his only choices were to sit around 
looking like a dumbass and running around in a panic. But there is a 
sane alternative: Say, "Excue me, Miss ____. Excuse me, children. 
Something very important has come up that needs my attention right now. 
I have to leave, but I hope I an continue this visit some other time. 
Goodbye." Then get his ass into his limo and get in contact with the 
White House so he can get the facts and *act* like he's in charge.

-- 
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com>
http://www.timberwoof.com
Baloney Detection Kit: http://www.xenu.net/archive/baloney_detection.html
0
timberwoof (3216)
7/15/2004 3:29:21 AM
Jeff George <george666@comcast.net> wrote in
news:teibf0ltr4eem1tgedv3gapgq9p47nm4j6@4ax.com: 

> On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 18:43:06 +0200, Xomicron <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote:
> 
>> Jeff George <george666@comcast.net.munged> wrote in
>> news:irnaf09v6hip4e7ci2484qi6ctd5j2svkb@4ax.com: 
>>
>>> On 13 Jul 2004 19:07:12 -0700, dfritzin@hotmail.com (David Fritzinger)
>>> added the following words, followed by my wisdom:
>>> 
>>>> Xomicron <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in message
>>>> news:<36d51cf3183ad221268accf5f2eb6df4@news.bubbanews.com>... 
>>>>
>>>>> Oh please. If Bush had given the OK for taking down Falluja you left
>>>>> wingnut pussies would be calling him a baby killer.
>>>>
>>>> You are changing the subject, Snubis. The fact is that, in is usual,
>>>> flip-flopping way, Bush said he would do something, and didn't follow
>>>> through. That appears to be a hallmark of his entire life.
>>> 
>>> Well, that, and the fact that Bush is bumbling incompetent at anything
>>> he does, including eating pretzels and riding bicycles.
>>
>> Kerry can't ride a bike or ski and then feels the need to lie about it.
> 
> Kerry isn't the President.

He wants to be.
0
xomicron (578)
7/15/2004 3:53:42 AM
In article <Xns9526F32D4B0F0DW@dragon.pl>, Xomicron <xomicron@wp.pl> 
wrote:

> dfritzin@hotmail.com (David Fritzinger) wrote in
> news:b82925bb.0407141427.4c800869@posting.google.com: 
> 
> > Xomicron <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in message
> > news:<Xns95268216158ABrt@fla.dragon.pl>...
> >
> >> dfritzin@hotmail.com (David Fritzinger) wrote in
> >> news:b82925bb.0407131807.153aa84a@posting.google.com: 
> >> 
> >> > Xomicron <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in message
> >> > news:<36d51cf3183ad221268accf5f2eb6df4@news.bubbanews.com>...
> >> >
> >> >> "Bill Case" <Bill549@Hotmail.com> wrote in
> >> >> news:vtZIc.1482$mL5.626@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net: 
> >> >> 
> >> >>> "Xomicron" <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in message
> >> >>> news:a2ec$40f44320$ca6c230c$23707@nf1.news-service-com...
> >> >>>
> >> >>>> Don't worry, if Kerry and Ambulance Chasing Edwards get elected,
> >> >>>> we can expect a whole army of lawyers to be sent out after the
> >> >>>> terrorists with threats of lawsuits all sorts of awful legal
> >> >>>> trouble if they don't stop killing us and behave themselves, Boy
> >> >>>> that will show 'em! And just think of the very lucrative jobs it
> >> >>>> would create for Edwards' trial lawyers buddies in the event of a
> >> >>>> catastrophic terrorist hit, suing everybody still breathing on
> >> >>>> behalf of the victims, and it's only fair that they be rewarded,
> >> >>>> after all, they gave so unselfishly to his campaign! 
> >> >>> 
> >> >>> Sure, sure.
> >> >>> 
> >> >>> You do know Bush let did nothing about the Cole attack that killed
> >> >>> 17 US sailors, don't you? He let 8 months go by after the CIA id'd
> >> >>> al Qaeda as the source organization. Al Qaeda captives have been
> >> >>> reported as saying that took encouragement from that.
> >> >> 
> >> >> The Cole bombing occurred under Clinton.
> >> > 
> >> > Just before the election. Bush then let 9 months go by without doing
> >> > anything. Again you show your ignorance.
> >> >  
> >> >>> You do know that he did nothing to increase airliner security pre
> >> >>> 9/11, which could have precluded the terrorists (armed pilots, air
> >> >>> marshals etc). 
> >> >> 
> >> >> Thanks for proving that hindsight it 20/20.
> >> > 
> >> > And, Ashcroft actually took forces away from anti-terrorism efforts.
> >> > This after the Clinton administration warned the Bushies that al
> >> > Qaeda was the main threat they would face.
> >> >
> >> >>> You do know Bush ignored pre 9/11 warnings about al qaeda, don't
> >> >>> you? 
> >> >> 
> >> >> Bullshit.
> >> > 
> >> > THere is a cogent reply, not.
> >> > 
> >> >>> You do know Bush resisted the 9/11 investigation that is analyzing
> >> >>> what went wrong, don't you? Why would he do that?
> >> >> 
> >> >> Because it's a sham.
> >> > 
> >> > Or, more likely, because he knew he didn't do enough. Now, I'm not
> >> > really blaming him, but the investigation certainly was not a sham.
> >> > 
> >> >>> You do know that intelligence is the main factor in combating
> >> >>> terrorism don't you? Human intelligence largely depends on good
> >> >>> will. Do you think Bush has helped that by his "axis of Evil" talk
> >> >>> and snubbing Europe and the Iraq occupation and Abu Ghraib's affect
> >> >>> on the Arab / Moslem world? 
> >> >> 
> >> >> Oh shut the fuck up. If the world is offended when we go after our
> >> >> enemies then the world can go to hell. The Abu Ghraib incident was a
> >> >> bunch of dumbasses living out their idiotic frat house fantasies.
> >> >> What that has to do with Bush I'm not sure. 
> >> > 
> >> > His administration set the precedents by announcing that Afghans
> >> > captured didn't have any rights under the Geneva Conventions. See the
> >> > memos flying around the Pentagon and White House after 9/11.
> >> >
> >> >>> Kerry had the guts to volunteer his way into river boats in Vietnam
> >> >>> while Bush and Cheney were evading duty.
> >> >> 
> >> >> Bush served and was honorably discharged.
> >> > 
> >> > In a "Champaigne" unit that had no chance of going to actually fight.
> >> > And, there is still the question of the last year of Bush's
> >> > "service". 
> >> >
> >> >>> Bush talked big but backed down over taking Faluja and taking down
> >> >>> Sadr when he saw it would be a fight.
> >> >>> Kerry is the far better choice.
> >> >> 
> >> >> Oh please. If Bush had given the OK for taking down Falluja you left
> >> >> wingnut pussies would be calling him a baby killer.
> >> > 
> >> > You are changing the subject, Snubis. The fact is that, in is usual,
> >> > flip-flopping way, Bush said he would do something, and didn't follow
> >> > through.
> >> 
> >> Sorry. This is not an example of John Kerry's fort�. In war, things
> >> change. It no longer became necessary to take Falluja by force.
> > 
> > First, it is noted that you did not answer any of my other points.
> > Second, you are wrong, both about Kerry's flip-flops (Bush has
> > flip-flopped at least as much as Kerry-See:
> > http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=42263), and
> > about the reason for Bush's flip-flop on Falluja (and, on Sadr). Fact
> > was, he had no way to go into Falluja, but he made a dumbass promise
> > to do so. This is so typical of Bush.
> 
> Sorry. This isn't an example of a flip flop. You obviously are ignorant of 
> descision making in times of war.
> 
> A flip flop would be changing your stance on an issue, like saying life 
> begins at conception while at the same time saying you are pro-choice.

Actually, that is not a flip-flop. Saying you are against a commission 
to study what went wrong wrt 9/11, then saying you are for such a 
commission is a flip-flop. Saying that Condi Rice couldn't testify under 
oath to such a commission, then saying she could is a flip flop. Saying 
you don't want a commission to study intel leading up to Iraq, then 
changing your mind is a flip-flop. Face it, Snubis, Bush flip-flops at 
least as much as Kerry.

-- 
Dave Fritzinger
0
7/15/2004 5:33:07 AM
In article <Xns9526F3279F301DW@dragon.pl>, Xomicron <xomicron@wp.pl> 
wrote:

> dfritzin@hotmail.com (David Fritzinger) wrote in
> news:b82925bb.0407141421.3881105a@posting.google.com: 
> 
> > Xomicron <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in message
> > news:<ae117$40f55426$45f0b78b$14525@nf1.news-service-com>... 
> >> "Bill Case" <Bill549@Hotmail.com> wrote in
> >> news:zB%Ic.1642$mL5.223@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net: 
> >>  
> >> > "Frank Dwyer" <fdwyer@citlink.net> wrote in message
> >> > news:40F4749B.A37548D7@citlink.net...
> >> >
> >> >> He did more about it than the administration under whom it happened
> >> >> did. 
> >> > 
> >> > It's widely known the CIA didn't attribute it to Al Qaeda until
> >> > around the time of administration change.
> >> > I don't like Clinton, but he did launch attacks, one killed around
> >> > 200 al qaeda in Afghanistan. (Cruises missiles)
> >> 
> >> More like blew up some empty tents
> > 
> > At least he did something, unlike Bush (until 9/11).
> 
> From the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, Clinton had 8 years to do 
> something about terrorism. He failed to do anything of significance.

That is, to put it simply, pure and unadulterated bullshit. The Clinton 
Administration caught the people involved and they are currently in 
jail. His administration also stopped the Millenium terrorist plot. When 
he handed the keys to the White House to Bush, he warned him that the 
biggest threat he would face was al Qaeda. Bush promptly ignored him.

You really should get your facts straight before you tell your lies, 
Snubis.
> 
> > Of course, after
> > 9/11 Bush certainly did something. He attacked Iraq, which had no WMD
> > and no connection with al Qaeda or OBL.
> 
> The evidence doesn't support your bullshit.

Was or was not the nexus of terrorism in Afghanistan. The answer is yes. 
Did SH have WMD or connections to al Qaeda? The answer is no. So, why 
did Bush attack a country that had nothing to do with the attack on us, 
and virtually ignore the people who did? It appears that the south end 
of a bull facing north (ie, the one spouting the bs) is you, snubie.
> 
> > Sort of like if we had attacked Mexico after Pearl Harbor.
> 
> The Democrats of today would be whining about FDR going to war with
> Germany when the real threat was Japan. 

More lies from Snubie. Sorry, but it was the Republicans who were 
against us going to war in '41. Besides, Hitler declared war on us after 
Pearl Harbor. Please, for once in your poor, pitiful existence, try to 
get at least one thing right.

-- 
Dave Fritzinger
0
7/15/2004 5:41:40 AM
In article <Xns95266D5D0A388e@sina.com.cn>, Xomicron <xomicron@wp.pl> 
wrote:

> "Krusty" <rspwkrusty@yahoo.com> wrote in
> news:cd3gjg$ds5b$1@news3.infoave.net: 
> 
> > "Xomicron" <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote
> >> Or use junk science to win cases.
> > 
> > I mark for anyone even remotely associated with the right complaining
> > about "junk science".
> 
> You mean like kook environmentalists and animal rights activists? Oh wait,
> they're with the left. 

How about creationists, who are with the right. How about the fact that 
the right-wing Bush administration (and the right wing Reagan 
administration as well) have lied about global warming, so their 
business friends could continue to pollute. These are right-wingers who 
know nothing about science. Sort of like you, Snubis.

Again, I ask. When will you say something even remotely knowledgeable 
about any subject. Thus far, you have failed to do so.

-- 
Dave Fritzinger
0
7/15/2004 5:50:38 AM
"David Fritzinger" <dfritzinnospam@mac.com> wrote in message
news:dfritzinnospam-9ACC97.19514614072004@orngca-news03.socal.rr.com...
> In article <Xns95266D5D0A388e@sina.com.cn>, Xomicron <xomicron@wp.pl>
> wrote:
>
> > "Krusty" <rspwkrusty@yahoo.com> wrote in
> > news:cd3gjg$ds5b$1@news3.infoave.net:
> >
> > > "Xomicron" <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote
> > >> Or use junk science to win cases.
> > >
> > > I mark for anyone even remotely associated with the right complaining
> > > about "junk science".
> >
> > You mean like kook environmentalists and animal rights activists? Oh
wait,
> > they're with the left.
>
> How about creationists, who are with the right. How about the fact that
> the right-wing Bush administration (and the right wing Reagan
> administration as well) have lied about global warming, so their
> business friends could continue to pollute.

Not to involve myself in your multi-grouped, respond to a trollathon, but do
you have any concrete evidence of 'global warming'?  Haven't you received
the new environmental-whacko talking points?  'Global warming' is old and
busted.  'Global freezing' is the new hotness.  Please adjust your reference
cards for future use.




0
hmph
7/15/2004 6:48:00 AM
"Xomicron" <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in message
news:Xns9526F32D4B0F0DW@dragon.pl...
> dfritzin@hotmail.com (David Fritzinger) wrote in
> news:b82925bb.0407141427.4c800869@posting.google.com:
>
> > Xomicron <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in message
> > news:<Xns95268216158ABrt@fla.dragon.pl>...
> >
> >> dfritzin@hotmail.com (David Fritzinger) wrote in
> >> news:b82925bb.0407131807.153aa84a@posting.google.com:
> >>
> >> > Xomicron <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in message
> >> > news:<36d51cf3183ad221268accf5f2eb6df4@news.bubbanews.com>...
> >> >
> >> >> "Bill Case" <Bill549@Hotmail.com> wrote in
> >> >> news:vtZIc.1482$mL5.626@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net:
> >> >>
> >> >>> "Xomicron" <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in message
> >> >>> news:a2ec$40f44320$ca6c230c$23707@nf1.news-service-com...
> >> >>>
> >> >>>> Don't worry, if Kerry and Ambulance Chasing Edwards get elected,
> >> >>>> we can expect a whole army of lawyers to be sent out after the
> >> >>>> terrorists with threats of lawsuits all sorts of awful legal
> >> >>>> trouble if they don't stop killing us and behave themselves, Boy
> >> >>>> that will show 'em! And just think of the very lucrative jobs it
> >> >>>> would create for Edwards' trial lawyers buddies in the event of a
> >> >>>> catastrophic terrorist hit, suing everybody still breathing on
> >> >>>> behalf of the victims, and it's only fair that they be rewarded,
> >> >>>> after all, they gave so unselfishly to his campaign!
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Sure, sure.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> You do know Bush let did nothing about the Cole attack that killed
> >> >>> 17 US sailors, don't you? He let 8 months go by after the CIA id'd
> >> >>> al Qaeda as the source organization. Al Qaeda captives have been
> >> >>> reported as saying that took encouragement from that.
> >> >>
> >> >> The Cole bombing occurred under Clinton.
> >> >
> >> > Just before the election. Bush then let 9 months go by without doing
> >> > anything. Again you show your ignorance.
> >> >
> >> >>> You do know that he did nothing to increase airliner security pre
> >> >>> 9/11, which could have precluded the terrorists (armed pilots, air
> >> >>> marshals etc).
> >> >>
> >> >> Thanks for proving that hindsight it 20/20.
> >> >
> >> > And, Ashcroft actually took forces away from anti-terrorism efforts.
> >> > This after the Clinton administration warned the Bushies that al
> >> > Qaeda was the main threat they would face.
> >> >
> >> >>> You do know Bush ignored pre 9/11 warnings about al qaeda, don't
> >> >>> you?
> >> >>
> >> >> Bullshit.
> >> >
> >> > THere is a cogent reply, not.
> >> >
> >> >>> You do know Bush resisted the 9/11 investigation that is analyzing
> >> >>> what went wrong, don't you? Why would he do that?
> >> >>
> >> >> Because it's a sham.
> >> >
> >> > Or, more likely, because he knew he didn't do enough. Now, I'm not
> >> > really blaming him, but the investigation certainly was not a sham.
> >> >
> >> >>> You do know that intelligence is the main factor in combating
> >> >>> terrorism don't you? Human intelligence largely depends on good
> >> >>> will. Do you think Bush has helped that by his "axis of Evil" talk
> >> >>> and snubbing Europe and the Iraq occupation and Abu Ghraib's affect
> >> >>> on the Arab / Moslem world?
> >> >>
> >> >> Oh shut the fuck up. If the world is offended when we go after our
> >> >> enemies then the world can go to hell. The Abu Ghraib incident was a
> >> >> bunch of dumbasses living out their idiotic frat house fantasies.
> >> >> What that has to do with Bush I'm not sure.
> >> >
> >> > His administration set the precedents by announcing that Afghans
> >> > captured didn't have any rights under the Geneva Conventions. See the
> >> > memos flying around the Pentagon and White House after 9/11.
> >> >
> >> >>> Kerry had the guts to volunteer his way into river boats in Vietnam
> >> >>> while Bush and Cheney were evading duty.
> >> >>
> >> >> Bush served and was honorably discharged.
> >> >
> >> > In a "Champaigne" unit that had no chance of going to actually fight.
> >> > And, there is still the question of the last year of Bush's
> >> > "service".
> >> >
> >> >>> Bush talked big but backed down over taking Faluja and taking down
> >> >>> Sadr when he saw it would be a fight.
> >> >>> Kerry is the far better choice.
> >> >>
> >> >> Oh please. If Bush had given the OK for taking down Falluja you left
> >> >> wingnut pussies would be calling him a baby killer.
> >> >
> >> > You are changing the subject, Snubis. The fact is that, in is usual,
> >> > flip-flopping way, Bush said he would do something, and didn't follow
> >> > through.
> >>
> >> Sorry. This is not an example of John Kerry's fort�. In war, things
> >> change. It no longer became necessary to take Falluja by force.
> >
> > First, it is noted that you did not answer any of my other points.
> > Second, you are wrong, both about Kerry's flip-flops (Bush has
> > flip-flopped at least as much as Kerry-See:
> > http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=42263), and
> > about the reason for Bush's flip-flop on Falluja (and, on Sadr). Fact
> > was, he had no way to go into Falluja, but he made a dumbass promise
> > to do so. This is so typical of Bush.
>
> Sorry. This isn't an example of a flip flop. You obviously are ignorant of
> descision making in times of war.
>
> A flip flop would be changing your stance on an issue, like saying life
> begins at conception while at the same time saying you are pro-choice.

What an incredible thing to say.

Talking big then backing down on a war objective is a lot worse and has far
worse implications for US security, than do arguments about domestic social
policy issues.

You do know North Korea shows little fear of us now and is openly talking of
producing nukes. Do you think they don't notice what a phony Bush is?


0
Bill549 (46)
7/15/2004 1:55:18 PM
"Bill Case" <Bill549@Hotmail.com> wrote in
news:a1wJc.3716$Qu5.2951@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net: 

> "Xomicron" <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in message
> news:Xns9526F32D4B0F0DW@dragon.pl...
>
>> dfritzin@hotmail.com (David Fritzinger) wrote in
>> news:b82925bb.0407141427.4c800869@posting.google.com:
>>
>> > Xomicron <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in message
>> > news:<Xns95268216158ABrt@fla.dragon.pl>...
>> >
>> >> dfritzin@hotmail.com (David Fritzinger) wrote in
>> >> news:b82925bb.0407131807.153aa84a@posting.google.com:
>> >>
>> >> > Xomicron <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in message
>> >> > news:<36d51cf3183ad221268accf5f2eb6df4@news.bubbanews.com>...
>> >> >
>> >> >> "Bill Case" <Bill549@Hotmail.com> wrote in
>> >> >> news:vtZIc.1482$mL5.626@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net:
>> >> >>
>> >> >>> "Xomicron" <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in message
>> >> >>> news:a2ec$40f44320$ca6c230c$23707@nf1.news-service-com...
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>> Don't worry, if Kerry and Ambulance Chasing Edwards get
>> >> >>>> elected, we can expect a whole army of lawyers to be sent out
>> >> >>>> after the terrorists with threats of lawsuits all sorts of
>> >> >>>> awful legal trouble if they don't stop killing us and behave
>> >> >>>> themselves, Boy that will show 'em! And just think of the very
>> >> >>>> lucrative jobs it would create for Edwards' trial lawyers
>> >> >>>> buddies in the event of a catastrophic terrorist hit, suing
>> >> >>>> everybody still breathing on behalf of the victims, and it's
>> >> >>>> only fair that they be rewarded, after all, they gave so
>> >> >>>> unselfishly to his campaign! 
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> Sure, sure.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> You do know Bush let did nothing about the Cole attack that
>> >> >>> killed 17 US sailors, don't you? He let 8 months go by after the
>> >> >>> CIA id'd al Qaeda as the source organization. Al Qaeda captives
>> >> >>> have been reported as saying that took encouragement from that.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> The Cole bombing occurred under Clinton.
>> >> >
>> >> > Just before the election. Bush then let 9 months go by without
>> >> > doing anything. Again you show your ignorance.
>> >> >
>> >> >>> You do know that he did nothing to increase airliner security
>> >> >>> pre 9/11, which could have precluded the terrorists (armed
>> >> >>> pilots, air marshals etc).
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Thanks for proving that hindsight it 20/20.
>> >> >
>> >> > And, Ashcroft actually took forces away from anti-terrorism
>> >> > efforts. This after the Clinton administration warned the Bushies
>> >> > that al Qaeda was the main threat they would face.
>> >> >
>> >> >>> You do know Bush ignored pre 9/11 warnings about al qaeda, don't
>> >> >>> you?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Bullshit.
>> >> >
>> >> > THere is a cogent reply, not.
>> >> >
>> >> >>> You do know Bush resisted the 9/11 investigation that is
>> >> >>> analyzing what went wrong, don't you? Why would he do that?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Because it's a sham.
>> >> >
>> >> > Or, more likely, because he knew he didn't do enough. Now, I'm not
>> >> > really blaming him, but the investigation certainly was not a
>> >> > sham. 
>> >> >
>> >> >>> You do know that intelligence is the main factor in combating
>> >> >>> terrorism don't you? Human intelligence largely depends on good
>> >> >>> will. Do you think Bush has helped that by his "axis of Evil"
>> >> >>> talk and snubbing Europe and the Iraq occupation and Abu
>> >> >>> Ghraib's affect on the Arab / Moslem world?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Oh shut the fuck up. If the world is offended when we go after
>> >> >> our enemies then the world can go to hell. The Abu Ghraib
>> >> >> incident was a bunch of dumbasses living out their idiotic frat
>> >> >> house fantasies. What that has to do with Bush I'm not sure.
>> >> >
>> >> > His administration set the precedents by announcing that Afghans
>> >> > captured didn't have any rights under the Geneva Conventions. See
>> >> > the memos flying around the Pentagon and White House after 9/11.
>> >> >
>> >> >>> Kerry had the guts to volunteer his way into river boats in
>> >> >>> Vietnam while Bush and Cheney were evading duty.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Bush served and was honorably discharged.
>> >> >
>> >> > In a "Champaigne" unit that had no chance of going to actually
>> >> > fight. And, there is still the question of the last year of Bush's
>> >> > "service".
>> >> >
>> >> >>> Bush talked big but backed down over taking Faluja and taking
>> >> >>> down Sadr when he saw it would be a fight.
>> >> >>> Kerry is the far better choice.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Oh please. If Bush had given the OK for taking down Falluja you
>> >> >> left wingnut pussies would be calling him a baby killer.
>> >> >
>> >> > You are changing the subject, Snubis. The fact is that, in is
>> >> > usual, flip-flopping way, Bush said he would do something, and
>> >> > didn't follow through.
>> >>
>> >> Sorry. This is not an example of John Kerry's fort�. In war, things
>> >> change. It no longer became necessary to take Falluja by force.
>> >
>> > First, it is noted that you did not answer any of my other points.
>> > Second, you are wrong, both about Kerry's flip-flops (Bush has
>> > flip-flopped at least as much as Kerry-See:
>> > http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=42263), and
>> > about the reason for Bush's flip-flop on Falluja (and, on Sadr). Fact
>> > was, he had no way to go into Falluja, but he made a dumbass promise
>> > to do so. This is so typical of Bush.
>>
>> Sorry. This isn't an example of a flip flop. You obviously are ignorant
>> of descision making in times of war.
>>
>> A flip flop would be changing your stance on an issue, like saying life
>> begins at conception while at the same time saying you are pro-choice.
> 
> What an incredible thing to say.
> 
> Talking big then backing down on a war objective is a lot worse and has
> far worse implications for US security, than do arguments about domestic
> social policy issues.
> 
> You do know North Korea shows little fear of us now and is openly
> talking of producing nukes. Do you think they don't notice what a phony
> Bush is? 

They know Bush will kick their ass.
0
xomicron (578)
7/15/2004 1:56:11 PM
"Timberwoof" <timberwoof@stimpberawoofm.com> wrote in message
news:timberwoof-E290CE.20205114072004@typhoon.sonic.net...
> In article <Sd3Jc.2000$mL5.944@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
>  "Bill Case" <Bill549@Hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Clinton killed around 200 of them in a crusie missle strike. I would
have
> > liked to have seen raids on all their Afghan camps - how hard is that to
fig
> > ure out?
>
> So would Clinton have. The problem was that the army kept telling his
> secretary of defense that there wasn't enough "actionable intelligence,"
> and there was no way the country would have let him start a war, what
> with all the muckraking the Republicans were doing. They would have just
> added that to the list of things he was doing wrong, saying he was
> trying to distract the country from the important stuff -- ancient
> financial dealings his buddies back home did and the affair with that
> Lewinsky chick.

Even Clinton attacked the terrorists while Bush pre 9/11 was passive. When
Clinton did launch some strikes, a lot of these Bush phony patriots accused
him of "wag the dog" actions to divert from Lewinski and all that.

Bush was passive toward terrorism in the 8 months he was in office before
9/11. Since then, he's mishandled the efforts and most analysts say he's
created a bigger pool of Islamic recruits for terror operations.

The way Bush has handled Iraq, he's wasted billions that should have gone
into port security etc., to preclude a nuke being brought into a harbor /
airport etc and detonated.

This coming election is probably the most important ever? in terms of  US
national security.

> As for "actionable intelligence," we saw a considerable failure of that
> in the recent war. The US lobbed about fifty attacks on specific houses
> in Baghdad, based on neighbors saying they though they had seen Saddam
> Hussein there. The problem was that he never was where they thought he
> was, and these raids killed roughly three hundred to five hundred
> innocent people -- wives and kids living in those houses.

Yeah, no human intelligence sources. Increddible with all the hundreds of
billions the US has spent over the years.




>
> -- 
> Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com>
> http://www.timberwoof.com
> Baloney Detection Kit: http://www.xenu.net/archive/baloney_detection.html


0
Bill549 (46)
7/15/2004 2:04:53 PM
"Xomicron" <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in message
news:8f1f4570acc7e1a92dac87c3aa59b262@news.bubbanews.com...
> "Bill Case" <Bill549@Hotmail.com> wrote in
> news:a1wJc.3716$Qu5.2951@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net:
>
> > "Xomicron" <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in message
> > news:Xns9526F32D4B0F0DW@dragon.pl...
> >
> >> dfritzin@hotmail.com (David Fritzinger) wrote in
> >> news:b82925bb.0407141427.4c800869@posting.google.com:
> >>
> >> > Xomicron <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in message
> >> > news:<Xns95268216158ABrt@fla.dragon.pl>...
> >> >
> >> >> dfritzin@hotmail.com (David Fritzinger) wrote in
> >> >> news:b82925bb.0407131807.153aa84a@posting.google.com:
> >> >>
> >> >> > Xomicron <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in message
> >> >> > news:<36d51cf3183ad221268accf5f2eb6df4@news.bubbanews.com>...
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> "Bill Case" <Bill549@Hotmail.com> wrote in
> >> >> >> news:vtZIc.1482$mL5.626@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>> "Xomicron" <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in message
> >> >> >>> news:a2ec$40f44320$ca6c230c$23707@nf1.news-service-com...
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>>> Don't worry, if Kerry and Ambulance Chasing Edwards get
> >> >> >>>> elected, we can expect a whole army of lawyers to be sent out
> >> >> >>>> after the terrorists with threats of lawsuits all sorts of
> >> >> >>>> awful legal trouble if they don't stop killing us and behave
> >> >> >>>> themselves, Boy that will show 'em! And just think of the very
> >> >> >>>> lucrative jobs it would create for Edwards' trial lawyers
> >> >> >>>> buddies in the event of a catastrophic terrorist hit, suing
> >> >> >>>> everybody still breathing on behalf of the victims, and it's
> >> >> >>>> only fair that they be rewarded, after all, they gave so
> >> >> >>>> unselfishly to his campaign!
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>> Sure, sure.
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>> You do know Bush let did nothing about the Cole attack that
> >> >> >>> killed 17 US sailors, don't you? He let 8 months go by after the
> >> >> >>> CIA id'd al Qaeda as the source organization. Al Qaeda captives
> >> >> >>> have been reported as saying that took encouragement from that.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> The Cole bombing occurred under Clinton.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Just before the election. Bush then let 9 months go by without
> >> >> > doing anything. Again you show your ignorance.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >>> You do know that he did nothing to increase airliner security
> >> >> >>> pre 9/11, which could have precluded the terrorists (armed
> >> >> >>> pilots, air marshals etc).
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Thanks for proving that hindsight it 20/20.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > And, Ashcroft actually took forces away from anti-terrorism
> >> >> > efforts. This after the Clinton administration warned the Bushies
> >> >> > that al Qaeda was the main threat they would face.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >>> You do know Bush ignored pre 9/11 warnings about al qaeda, don't
> >> >> >>> you?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Bullshit.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > THere is a cogent reply, not.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >>> You do know Bush resisted the 9/11 investigation that is
> >> >> >>> analyzing what went wrong, don't you? Why would he do that?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Because it's a sham.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Or, more likely, because he knew he didn't do enough. Now, I'm not
> >> >> > really blaming him, but the investigation certainly was not a
> >> >> > sham.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >>> You do know that intelligence is the main factor in combating
> >> >> >>> terrorism don't you? Human intelligence largely depends on good
> >> >> >>> will. Do you think Bush has helped that by his "axis of Evil"
> >> >> >>> talk and snubbing Europe and the Iraq occupation and Abu
> >> >> >>> Ghraib's affect on the Arab / Moslem world?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Oh shut the fuck up. If the world is offended when we go after
> >> >> >> our enemies then the world can go to hell. The Abu Ghraib
> >> >> >> incident was a bunch of dumbasses living out their idiotic frat
> >> >> >> house fantasies. What that has to do with Bush I'm not sure.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > His administration set the precedents by announcing that Afghans
> >> >> > captured didn't have any rights under the Geneva Conventions. See
> >> >> > the memos flying around the Pentagon and White House after 9/11.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >>> Kerry had the guts to volunteer his way into river boats in
> >> >> >>> Vietnam while Bush and Cheney were evading duty.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Bush served and was honorably discharged.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > In a "Champaigne" unit that had no chance of going to actually
> >> >> > fight. And, there is still the question of the last year of Bush's
> >> >> > "service".
> >> >> >
> >> >> >>> Bush talked big but backed down over taking Faluja and taking
> >> >> >>> down Sadr when he saw it would be a fight.
> >> >> >>> Kerry is the far better choice.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Oh please. If Bush had given the OK for taking down Falluja you
> >> >> >> left wingnut pussies would be calling him a baby killer.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > You are changing the subject, Snubis. The fact is that, in is
> >> >> > usual, flip-flopping way, Bush said he would do something, and
> >> >> > didn't follow through.
> >> >>
> >> >> Sorry. This is not an example of John Kerry's fort�. In war, things
> >> >> change. It no longer became necessary to take Falluja by force.
> >> >
> >> > First, it is noted that you did not answer any of my other points.
> >> > Second, you are wrong, both about Kerry's flip-flops (Bush has
> >> > flip-flopped at least as much as Kerry-See:
> >> > http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=42263), and
> >> > about the reason for Bush's flip-flop on Falluja (and, on Sadr). Fact
> >> > was, he had no way to go into Falluja, but he made a dumbass promise
> >> > to do so. This is so typical of Bush.
> >>
> >> Sorry. This isn't an example of a flip flop. You obviously are ignorant
> >> of descision making in times of war.
> >>
> >> A flip flop would be changing your stance on an issue, like saying life
> >> begins at conception while at the same time saying you are pro-choice.
> >
> > What an incredible thing to say.
> >
> > Talking big then backing down on a war objective is a lot worse and has
> > far worse implications for US security, than do arguments about domestic
> > social policy issues.
> >
> > You do know North Korea shows little fear of us now and is openly
> > talking of producing nukes. Do you think they don't notice what a phony
> > Bush is?
>
> They know Bush will kick their ass.

Hahahaha.
The problem is that they think just the opposite, they're talking and acting
without fear of  him, and the US is doing nothing about it.


0
Bill549 (46)
7/15/2004 2:09:34 PM
"Timberwoof" <timberwoof@stimpberawoofm.com> wrote in message
news:timberwoof-3C833A.20292014072004@typhoon.sonic.net...
> In article <40F5CB46.53F1ADD8@citlink.net>,
>  Frank Dwyer <fdwyer@citlink.net> wrote:
>
> > > As I've described in a prior post, his actions were not those of tough
smart
> > > leader whose country is under attack.
> > > What should he have done? Taken charge. Instead he sat there in a
state of
> > > confusion, with children around him.
> >
> > He was in charge. He's the President, remember?
> > Now, that aside, what precisely should he have done? "Taken charge" is
> > not a good answer.
>
> This particular question has been asked and answered many times over the
> past few weeks.
>
> Bush-loyalists seem to think that his only choices were to sit around
> looking like a dumbass and running around in a panic. But there is a
> sane alternative: Say, "Excue me, Miss ____. Excuse me, children.
> Something very important has come up that needs my attention right now.
> I have to leave, but I hope I an continue this visit some other time.
> Goodbye." Then get his ass into his limo and get in contact with the
> White House so he can get the facts and *act* like he's in charge.

And try to find out how many kamikaze planes there might be; whether we can
id and locate them in the air; whether we have fighters in the air WITH
WEAPONS on them; how many and where;; take his role as commander in chief in
authorizing shoot downs etc.

Bush's main pull on votes is apparently "church grannies" who can't figure
out how men are supposed to behave or what wars and conflicts are all about.



>
> -- 
> Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com>
> http://www.timberwoof.com
> Baloney Detection Kit: http://www.xenu.net/archive/baloney_detection.html


0
Bill549 (46)
7/15/2004 2:16:05 PM
"Xomicron" <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in message
news:Xns9526F3279F301DW@dragon.pl...
> dfritzin@hotmail.com (David Fritzinger) wrote in
> news:b82925bb.0407141421.3881105a@posting.google.com:
>
> > Xomicron <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in message
> > news:<ae117$40f55426$45f0b78b$14525@nf1.news-service-com>...
> >> "Bill Case" <Bill549@Hotmail.com> wrote in
> >> news:zB%Ic.1642$mL5.223@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net:
> >>
> >> > "Frank Dwyer" <fdwyer@citlink.net> wrote in message
> >> > news:40F4749B.A37548D7@citlink.net...
> >> >
> >> >> He did more about it than the administration under whom it happened
> >> >> did.
> >> >
> >> > It's widely known the CIA didn't attribute it to Al Qaeda until
> >> > around the time of administration change.
> >> > I don't like Clinton, but he did launch attacks, one killed around
> >> > 200 al qaeda in Afghanistan. (Cruises missiles)
> >>
> >> More like blew up some empty tents.
> >
> > At least he did something, unlike Bush (until 9/11).
>
> From the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, Clinton had 8 years to do
> something about terrorism. He failed to do anything of significance.
>
> > Of course, after
> > 9/11 Bush certainly did something. He attacked Iraq, which had no WMD
> > and no connection with al Qaeda or OBL.
>
> The evidence doesn't support your bullshit.
>
> > Sort of like if we had attacked Mexico after Pearl Harbor.
>
> The Democrats of today would be whining about FDR going to war with
> Germany when the real threat was Japan.

Do you get this stuff from Rush Limbaugh and Fox news?
Seriously, I'm interested in where you go for news and opinion.



0
Bill549 (46)
7/15/2004 2:19:08 PM
"Bill Case" <Bill549@Hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9awJc.3727$Qu5.1141@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
> "Timberwoof" <timberwoof@stimpberawoofm.com> wrote in message
> news:timberwoof-E290CE.20205114072004@typhoon.sonic.net...
> > In article <Sd3Jc.2000$mL5.944@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
> >  "Bill Case" <Bill549@Hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Clinton killed around 200 of them in a crusie missle strike. I would
> have
> > > liked to have seen raids on all their Afghan camps - how hard is that
to
> fig
> > > ure out?
> >
> > So would Clinton have. The problem was that the army kept telling his
> > secretary of defense that there wasn't enough "actionable intelligence,"
> > and there was no way the country would have let him start a war, what
> > with all the muckraking the Republicans were doing. They would have just
> > added that to the list of things he was doing wrong, saying he was
> > trying to distract the country from the important stuff -- ancient
> > financial dealings his buddies back home did and the affair with that
> > Lewinsky chick.
>
> Even Clinton attacked the terrorists while Bush pre 9/11 was passive. When
> Clinton did launch some strikes, a lot of these Bush phony patriots
accused
> him of "wag the dog" actions to divert from Lewinski and all that.

Because it was a diversion.  Every single time Clinton was caught up in
another one of his scandals, he used the military.


>
> Bush was passive toward terrorism in the 8 months he was in office before
> 9/11.

What was he supposed to be doing?
We had to get through Pakistan.


Since then, he's mishandled the efforts and most analysts say he's
> created a bigger pool of Islamic recruits for terror operations.

Yes, some will say that and others will disagree.


> The way Bush has handled Iraq, he's wasted billions that should have gone
> into port security etc., to preclude a nuke being brought into a harbor /
> airport etc and detonated.

How many terrorist have successfully attacked the U.S. since 9/11?


>
> This coming election is probably the most important ever? in terms of  US
> national security.

Well if you want to trash national security you vote for Kerry.
If you want to keep national security as a top priority you vote for Bush.


>
> > As for "actionable intelligence," we saw a considerable failure of that
> > in the recent war. The US lobbed about fifty attacks on specific houses
> > in Baghdad, based on neighbors saying they though they had seen Saddam
> > Hussein there. The problem was that he never was where they thought he
> > was, and these raids killed roughly three hundred to five hundred
> > innocent people -- wives and kids living in those houses.
>
> Yeah, no human intelligence sources. Increddible with all the hundreds of
> billions the US has spent over the years.
>
>
>
>
> >
> > -- 
> > Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com>
> > http://www.timberwoof.com
> > Baloney Detection Kit:
http://www.xenu.net/archive/baloney_detection.html
>
>


0
noneedtoknow (858)
7/15/2004 2:46:07 PM
"Bill Case" <Bill549@Hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:wnwJc.3741$Qu5.2666@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
> "Xomicron" <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in message
> news:Xns9526F3279F301DW@dragon.pl...
> > dfritzin@hotmail.com (David Fritzinger) wrote in
> > news:b82925bb.0407141421.3881105a@posting.google.com:
> >
> > > Xomicron <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in message
> > > news:<ae117$40f55426$45f0b78b$14525@nf1.news-service-com>...
> > >> "Bill Case" <Bill549@Hotmail.com> wrote in
> > >> news:zB%Ic.1642$mL5.223@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net:
> > >>
> > >> > "Frank Dwyer" <fdwyer@citlink.net> wrote in message
> > >> > news:40F4749B.A37548D7@citlink.net...
> > >> >
> > >> >> He did more about it than the administration under whom it
happened
> > >> >> did.
> > >> >
> > >> > It's widely known the CIA didn't attribute it to Al Qaeda until
> > >> > around the time of administration change.
> > >> > I don't like Clinton, but he did launch attacks, one killed around
> > >> > 200 al qaeda in Afghanistan. (Cruises missiles)
> > >>
> > >> More like blew up some empty tents.
> > >
> > > At least he did something, unlike Bush (until 9/11).
> >
> > From the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, Clinton had 8 years to do
> > something about terrorism. He failed to do anything of significance.
> >
> > > Of course, after
> > > 9/11 Bush certainly did something. He attacked Iraq, which had no WMD
> > > and no connection with al Qaeda or OBL.
> >
> > The evidence doesn't support your bullshit.
> >
> > > Sort of like if we had attacked Mexico after Pearl Harbor.
> >
> > The Democrats of today would be whining about FDR going to war with
> > Germany when the real threat was Japan.
>
> Do you get this stuff from Rush Limbaugh and Fox news?
> Seriously, I'm interested in where you go for news and opinion.

Why can't you just stick to the issues?



0
noneedtoknow (858)
7/15/2004 2:46:50 PM
"Bill Case" <Bill549@Hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:yewJc.3735$Qu5.2039@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
> "Xomicron" <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in message
> news:8f1f4570acc7e1a92dac87c3aa59b262@news.bubbanews.com...
> > "Bill Case" <Bill549@Hotmail.com> wrote in
> > news:a1wJc.3716$Qu5.2951@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net:
> >
> > > "Xomicron" <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in message
> > > news:Xns9526F32D4B0F0DW@dragon.pl...
> > >
> > >> dfritzin@hotmail.com (David Fritzinger) wrote in
> > >> news:b82925bb.0407141427.4c800869@posting.google.com:
> > >>
> > >> > Xomicron <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in message
> > >> > news:<Xns95268216158ABrt@fla.dragon.pl>...
> > >> >
> > >> >> dfritzin@hotmail.com (David Fritzinger) wrote in
> > >> >> news:b82925bb.0407131807.153aa84a@posting.google.com:
> > >> >>
> > >> >> > Xomicron <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in message
> > >> >> > news:<36d51cf3183ad221268accf5f2eb6df4@news.bubbanews.com>...
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> >> "Bill Case" <Bill549@Hotmail.com> wrote in
> > >> >> >> news:vtZIc.1482$mL5.626@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net:
> > >> >> >>
> > >> >> >>> "Xomicron" <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in message
> > >> >> >>> news:a2ec$40f44320$ca6c230c$23707@nf1.news-service-com...
> > >> >> >>>
> > >> >> >>>> Don't worry, if Kerry and Ambulance Chasing Edwards get
> > >> >> >>>> elected, we can expect a whole army of lawyers to be sent out
> > >> >> >>>> after the terrorists with threats of lawsuits all sorts of
> > >> >> >>>> awful legal trouble if they don't stop killing us and behave
> > >> >> >>>> themselves, Boy that will show 'em! And just think of the
very
> > >> >> >>>> lucrative jobs it would create for Edwards' trial lawyers
> > >> >> >>>> buddies in the event of a catastrophic terrorist hit, suing
> > >> >> >>>> everybody still breathing on behalf of the victims, and it's
> > >> >> >>>> only fair that they be rewarded, after all, they gave so
> > >> >> >>>> unselfishly to his campaign!
> > >> >> >>>
> > >> >> >>> Sure, sure.
> > >> >> >>>
> > >> >> >>> You do know Bush let did nothing about the Cole attack that
> > >> >> >>> killed 17 US sailors, don't you? He let 8 months go by after
the
> > >> >> >>> CIA id'd al Qaeda as the source organization. Al Qaeda
captives
> > >> >> >>> have been reported as saying that took encouragement from
that.
> > >> >> >>
> > >> >> >> The Cole bombing occurred under Clinton.
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > Just before the election. Bush then let 9 months go by without
> > >> >> > doing anything. Again you show your ignorance.
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> >>> You do know that he did nothing to increase airliner security
> > >> >> >>> pre 9/11, which could have precluded the terrorists (armed
> > >> >> >>> pilots, air marshals etc).
> > >> >> >>
> > >> >> >> Thanks for proving that hindsight it 20/20.
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > And, Ashcroft actually took forces away from anti-terrorism
> > >> >> > efforts. This after the Clinton administration warned the
Bushies
> > >> >> > that al Qaeda was the main threat they would face.
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> >>> You do know Bush ignored pre 9/11 warnings about al qaeda,
don't
> > >> >> >>> you?
> > >> >> >>
> > >> >> >> Bullshit.
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > THere is a cogent reply, not.
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> >>> You do know Bush resisted the 9/11 investigation that is
> > >> >> >>> analyzing what went wrong, don't you? Why would he do that?
> > >> >> >>
> > >> >> >> Because it's a sham.
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > Or, more likely, because he knew he didn't do enough. Now, I'm
not
> > >> >> > really blaming him, but the investigation certainly was not a
> > >> >> > sham.
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> >>> You do know that intelligence is the main factor in combating
> > >> >> >>> terrorism don't you? Human intelligence largely depends on
good
> > >> >> >>> will. Do you think Bush has helped that by his "axis of Evil"
> > >> >> >>> talk and snubbing Europe and the Iraq occupation and Abu
> > >> >> >>> Ghraib's affect on the Arab / Moslem world?
> > >> >> >>
> > >> >> >> Oh shut the fuck up. If the world is offended when we go after
> > >> >> >> our enemies then the world can go to hell. The Abu Ghraib
> > >> >> >> incident was a bunch of dumbasses living out their idiotic frat
> > >> >> >> house fantasies. What that has to do with Bush I'm not sure.
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > His administration set the precedents by announcing that Afghans
> > >> >> > captured didn't have any rights under the Geneva Conventions.
See
> > >> >> > the memos flying around the Pentagon and White House after 9/11.
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> >>> Kerry had the guts to volunteer his way into river boats in
> > >> >> >>> Vietnam while Bush and Cheney were evading duty.
> > >> >> >>
> > >> >> >> Bush served and was honorably discharged.
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > In a "Champaigne" unit that had no chance of going to actually
> > >> >> > fight. And, there is still the question of the last year of
Bush's
> > >> >> > "service".
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> >>> Bush talked big but backed down over taking Faluja and taking
> > >> >> >>> down Sadr when he saw it would be a fight.
> > >> >> >>> Kerry is the far better choice.
> > >> >> >>
> > >> >> >> Oh please. If Bush had given the OK for taking down Falluja you
> > >> >> >> left wingnut pussies would be calling him a baby killer.
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > You are changing the subject, Snubis. The fact is that, in is
> > >> >> > usual, flip-flopping way, Bush said he would do something, and
> > >> >> > didn't follow through.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Sorry. This is not an example of John Kerry's fort�. In war,
things
> > >> >> change. It no longer became necessary to take Falluja by force.
> > >> >
> > >> > First, it is noted that you did not answer any of my other points.
> > >> > Second, you are wrong, both about Kerry's flip-flops (Bush has
> > >> > flip-flopped at least as much as Kerry-See:
> > >> > http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=42263),
and
> > >> > about the reason for Bush's flip-flop on Falluja (and, on Sadr).
Fact
> > >> > was, he had no way to go into Falluja, but he made a dumbass
promise
> > >> > to do so. This is so typical of Bush.
> > >>
> > >> Sorry. This isn't an example of a flip flop. You obviously are
ignorant
> > >> of descision making in times of war.
> > >>
> > >> A flip flop would be changing your stance on an issue, like saying
life
> > >> begins at conception while at the same time saying you are
pro-choice.
> > >
> > > What an incredible thing to say.
> > >
> > > Talking big then backing down on a war objective is a lot worse and
has
> > > far worse implications for US security, than do arguments about
domestic
> > > social policy issues.
> > >
> > > You do know North Korea shows little fear of us now and is openly
> > > talking of producing nukes. Do you think they don't notice what a
phony
> > > Bush is?
> >
> > They know Bush will kick their ass.
>
> Hahahaha.
> The problem is that they think just the opposite, they're talking and
acting
> without fear of  him, and the US is doing nothing about it.

Actually the way Bush has handled North Korea has been excellent.
I don't approve of how Bush has handled everything, but he has handled North
Korea
very well.

North Korea knows better, and they are just trying to push a few buttons
because they are having
a little temper tantrum. Bush has shown the world that the U.S. doesn't cave
into idol threats.
And you better think about something else.  North Korea has a very large
country right above them that they don't want to make too mad.

If North Korea ever attempted a nuclear strike, it would be the end of their
existence as we know it today.



>
>


0
noneedtoknow (858)
7/15/2004 2:49:17 PM
On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 19:10:00 +0100, sock <sock@6ih.net> added the
following words, followed by my wisdom:

>in article NoeJc.2427$mL5.2395@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net, Bill Case
>at Bill549@Hotmail.com wrote on 14/7/04 6:51 pm:
>
>> 
>> As I've described in a prior post, his actions were not those of tough smart
>> leader whose country is under attack.
>> What should he have done? Taken charge. Instead he sat there in a state of
>> confusion, with children around him.
>> 
>> 
>at least he was surrounded by his intellectual equals, thats gotta count for
>something

Actually he was surrounded by grade school children were smarter, and
more literate, than he.

--
Beware the Axis of Evil (Chimp, Cheney, Rumswilled, Asscroft)
0
george666 (65)
7/15/2004 3:30:22 PM
On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 05:53:42 +0200, Xomicron <xomicron@wp.pl> added
the following words, followed by my wisdom:

>Jeff George <george666@comcast.net> wrote in
>news:teibf0ltr4eem1tgedv3gapgq9p47nm4j6@4ax.com: 
>
>> On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 18:43:06 +0200, Xomicron <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote:
>> 
>>> Jeff George <george666@comcast.net.munged> wrote in
>>> news:irnaf09v6hip4e7ci2484qi6ctd5j2svkb@4ax.com: 
>>>
>>>> On 13 Jul 2004 19:07:12 -0700, dfritzin@hotmail.com (David Fritzinger)
>>>> added the following words, followed by my wisdom:
>>>> 
>>>>> Xomicron <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in message
>>>>> news:<36d51cf3183ad221268accf5f2eb6df4@news.bubbanews.com>... 
>>>>>
>>>>>> Oh please. If Bush had given the OK for taking down Falluja you left
>>>>>> wingnut pussies would be calling him a baby killer.
>>>>>
>>>>> You are changing the subject, Snubis. The fact is that, in is usual,
>>>>> flip-flopping way, Bush said he would do something, and didn't follow
>>>>> through. That appears to be a hallmark of his entire life.
>>>> 
>>>> Well, that, and the fact that Bush is bumbling incompetent at anything
>>>> he does, including eating pretzels and riding bicycles.
>>>
>>> Kerry can't ride a bike or ski and then feels the need to lie about it.
>> 
>> Kerry isn't the President.
>
>He wants to be.

No one can be more incompetent than the Chimp.

--
Beware the Axis of Evil (Chimp, Cheney, Rumswilled, Asscroft)
0
george666 (65)
7/15/2004 4:24:44 PM
Jeff George <george666@comcast.net.munged> wrote in
news:itbdf0pkstohmp1cfplad6js9ua9qf2bo2@4ax.com: 

> On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 05:53:42 +0200, Xomicron <xomicron@wp.pl> added
> the following words, followed by my wisdom:
> 
>>Jeff George <george666@comcast.net> wrote in
>>news:teibf0ltr4eem1tgedv3gapgq9p47nm4j6@4ax.com: 
>>
>>> On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 18:43:06 +0200, Xomicron <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Jeff George <george666@comcast.net.munged> wrote in
>>>> news:irnaf09v6hip4e7ci2484qi6ctd5j2svkb@4ax.com: 
>>>>
>>>>> On 13 Jul 2004 19:07:12 -0700, dfritzin@hotmail.com (David
>>>>> Fritzinger) added the following words, followed by my wisdom:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> Xomicron <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:<36d51cf3183ad221268accf5f2eb6df4@news.bubbanews.com>... 
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Oh please. If Bush had given the OK for taking down Falluja you
>>>>>>> left wingnut pussies would be calling him a baby killer.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You are changing the subject, Snubis. The fact is that, in is
>>>>>> usual, flip-flopping way, Bush said he would do something, and
>>>>>> didn't follow through. That appears to be a hallmark of his entire
>>>>>> life. 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Well, that, and the fact that Bush is bumbling incompetent at
>>>>> anything he does, including eating pretzels and riding bicycles.
>>>>
>>>> Kerry can't ride a bike or ski and then feels the need to lie about
>>>> it. 
>>> 
>>> Kerry isn't the President.
>>
>> He wants to be.
> 
> No one can be more incompetent than the Chimp.

You're right. Kerry is a chimp.
0
xomicron (578)
7/15/2004 4:25:06 PM
David Fritzinger <dfritzinnospam@mac.com> wrote in
news:dfritzinnospam-8B2FA5.19424814072004@orngca-news03.socal.rr.com: 

>> The evidence doesn't support your bullshit.
> 
> Was or was not the nexus of terrorism in Afghanistan. The answer is yes.
> Did SH have WMD or connections to al Qaeda? 

The link from Iraq to terrorist organizations has long been established.

> So, why did Bush attack a country that had nothing to do with the attack
> on us, and virtually ignore the people who did?

And we all know that 9-11 was the only terrorist attack ever.

>>> Sort of like if we had attacked Mexico after Pearl Harbor.
>> 
>> The Democrats of today would be whining about FDR going to war with
>> Germany when the real threat was Japan. 
> 
> More lies from Snubie. Sorry, but it was the Republicans who were 
> against us going to war in '41. 

So were the Democrats but that isn't the point.

> Besides, Hitler declared war on us after Pearl Harbor. Please, for once
> in your poor, pitiful existence, try to get at least one thing right.

As I said, Japan did attack us and Germany did not.  You agree?

Anyway, the left wingers in this thread (like most here) deal only with
over-simplifications. 

When one delves into the complications of war, rash statements like 
"Iraq never attacked the US" become a bit blurry.

On 12/5/1941 Zhukov began his counteroffensive. On 12/7/1941, Japan
attacked a US possession. On 12/8/1941, the US and Britain declared war on
Japan, forming an alliance with the Chinese and the Russians including
material support of Zhukov. Only then did the Japanese declare war on the
US. As the US was now allied with the Russians who were counterattacking
the Germans, Germany and Italy went through the formality of declaring war
on the US on 12/11/1941.

Iraq has been a strong and long time supporter of Wahabism, which aims 
to overthrow all Middle Eastern states, many of which are allies of the 
US. The Wahabis have attacked the US directly on at least fifteen 
occasions, and have attacked our allies a hundred times. When we look 
back at this nascent Middle East war, 50 years from now, the alliances 
made will be as strange as the alliances we made in 41 and 42. Remember 
our good friend Stalin and our enemy, the Italians? In war, our enemy's 
friends are our enemies. That's why we are in Iraq and why we are 
forcing states like Iran and Jordan to choose sides before the real 
fighting starts. The game has not yet begun, we are now just choosing up 
sides.
0
xomicron (578)
7/15/2004 4:45:24 PM
"hmph!" <Hmph!@none.net> wrote in message news:<eYOdnZ7QMMA3umvdRVn-gw@buckeye-express.com>...
> "David Fritzinger" <dfritzinnospam@mac.com> wrote in message
> news:dfritzinnospam-9ACC97.19514614072004@orngca-news03.socal.rr.com...
> > In article <Xns95266D5D0A388e@sina.com.cn>, Xomicron <xomicron@wp.pl>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > "Krusty" <rspwkrusty@yahoo.com> wrote in
> > > news:cd3gjg$ds5b$1@news3.infoave.net:
> > >
> > > > "Xomicron" <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote
> > > >> Or use junk science to win cases.
> > > >
> > > > I mark for anyone even remotely associated with the right complaining
> > > > about "junk science".
> > >
> > > You mean like kook environmentalists and animal rights activists? Oh
>  wait,
> > > they're with the left.
> >
> > How about creationists, who are with the right. How about the fact that
> > the right-wing Bush administration (and the right wing Reagan
> > administration as well) have lied about global warming, so their
> > business friends could continue to pollute.
> 
> Not to involve myself in your multi-grouped, respond to a trollathon, but do
> you have any concrete evidence of 'global warming'?  Haven't you received
> the new environmental-whacko talking points?  'Global warming' is old and
> busted.  'Global freezing' is the new hotness.  Please adjust your reference
> cards for future use.

The data is the best evidence (as it always is in science). The world
is definitely getting warmer. Look at Europe last summer. Look at the
length of winter in the mountains of the American west. All point to a
world that is getting warmer. The only question is how much of the
warming is attributable to humans, and how much is due to normal
climatic cycles.

--
Dave Fritzinger
0
dfritzin (3022)
7/15/2004 5:07:01 PM
Xomicron <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in message news:<8f1f4570acc7e1a92dac87c3aa59b262@news.bubbanews.com>...
> "Bill Case" <Bill549@Hotmail.com> wrote in
> news:a1wJc.3716$Qu5.2951@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net: 
> 
[real big snip]
> > What an incredible thing to say.
> > 
> > Talking big then backing down on a war objective is a lot worse and has
> > far worse implications for US security, than do arguments about domestic
> > social policy issues.
> > 
> > You do know North Korea shows little fear of us now and is openly
> > talking of producing nukes. Do you think they don't notice what a phony
> > Bush is? 
> 
> They know Bush will kick their ass.

Whatever are you taking, Snubis? You surely live in an alternate
universe, because almost everything you say is untrue.

--
Dave Fritzinger
0
dfritzin (3022)
7/15/2004 6:05:25 PM
"Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote in message news:<vrydnUvF05IfBWvdRVn-jw@comcast.com>...
> "Bill Case" <Bill549@Hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:9awJc.3727$Qu5.1141@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> >
> > "Timberwoof" <timberwoof@stimpberawoofm.com> wrote in message
> > news:timberwoof-E290CE.20205114072004@typhoon.sonic.net...
> > > In article <Sd3Jc.2000$mL5.944@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
> > >  "Bill Case" <Bill549@Hotmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Clinton killed around 200 of them in a crusie missle strike. I would
>  have
> > > > liked to have seen raids on all their Afghan camps - how hard is that
>  to
>  fig
> > > > ure out?
> > >
> > > So would Clinton have. The problem was that the army kept telling his
> > > secretary of defense that there wasn't enough "actionable intelligence,"
> > > and there was no way the country would have let him start a war, what
> > > with all the muckraking the Republicans were doing. They would have just
> > > added that to the list of things he was doing wrong, saying he was
> > > trying to distract the country from the important stuff -- ancient
> > > financial dealings his buddies back home did and the affair with that
> > > Lewinsky chick.
> >
> > Even Clinton attacked the terrorists while Bush pre 9/11 was passive. When
> > Clinton did launch some strikes, a lot of these Bush phony patriots
>  accused
> > him of "wag the dog" actions to divert from Lewinski and all that.
> 
> Because it was a diversion.  Every single time Clinton was caught up in
> another one of his scandals, he used the military.
> 

Wrong! It is true, however, that his scandals prevented him from doing
as much as he wanted. Read Richard Clarke's book.
> 
> >
> > Bush was passive toward terrorism in the 8 months he was in office before
> > 9/11.
> 
> What was he supposed to be doing?
> We had to get through Pakistan.

He did nothing. He didn't try to go through Pakistan. Ashcroft took
money out of the anti-terrorism budget. Clinton told him that al Qaeda
would be his biggest foreign policy challenge, and he said, no, it
would be Iraq.
> 
> 
> Since then, he's mishandled the efforts and most analysts say he's
> > created a bigger pool of Islamic recruits for terror operations.
> 
> Yes, some will say that and others will disagree.

Not if they are rational. 
> 
> 
> > The way Bush has handled Iraq, he's wasted billions that should have gone
> > into port security etc., to preclude a nuke being brought into a harbor /
> > airport etc and detonated.
> 
> How many terrorist have successfully attacked the U.S. since 9/11?

Yet, terrorism in the world is up (despite the fact that the State
Department tried to release a report saying the opposite). Also, how
many al Qaeda attacks were there in the US during the Clinton
Administration. One, WTCI. And that one was only about 6 weeks after
Clinton took office.

BTW, if we are so safe, why do we get constant terror alerts from the
DHS?
> 
> 
> >
> > This coming election is probably the most important ever? in terms of  US
> > national security.
> 
> Well if you want to trash national security you vote for Kerry.
> If you want to keep national security as a top priority you vote for Bush.

If you want to alienate our allies further, vote for Bush. If you want
to increase the pool of potential terrorists, vote for Bush. Sorry,
but your simplistic analysis just doesn't work.
> 
> 
> >
> > > As for "actionable intelligence," we saw a considerable failure of that
> > > in the recent war. The US lobbed about fifty attacks on specific houses
> > > in Baghdad, based on neighbors saying they though they had seen Saddam
> > > Hussein there. The problem was that he never was where they thought he
> > > was, and these raids killed roughly three hundred to five hundred
> > > innocent people -- wives and kids living in those houses.
> >
> > Yeah, no human intelligence sources. Increddible with all the hundreds of
> > billions the US has spent over the years.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > > -- 
> > > Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com>
> > > http://www.timberwoof.com
> > > Baloney Detection Kit:
>  http://www.xenu.net/archive/baloney_detection.html
> >
> >
0
dfritzin (3022)
7/15/2004 6:12:49 PM
"Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote in message news:<KLydnRuVr4qiBGvdRVn-uw@comcast.com>...
> "Bill Case" <Bill549@Hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:yewJc.3735$Qu5.2039@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> >
> > "Xomicron" <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in message
> > news:8f1f4570acc7e1a92dac87c3aa59b262@news.bubbanews.com...
> > > "Bill Case" <Bill549@Hotmail.com> wrote in
> > > news:a1wJc.3716$Qu5.2951@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net:
> > >
> > > > "Xomicron" <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in message
> > > > news:Xns9526F32D4B0F0DW@dragon.pl...
> > > >
> > > >> dfritzin@hotmail.com (David Fritzinger) wrote in
> > > >> news:b82925bb.0407141427.4c800869@posting.google.com:
> > > >>
> > > >> > Xomicron <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in message
> > > >> > news:<Xns95268216158ABrt@fla.dragon.pl>...
> > > >> >
> > > >> >> dfritzin@hotmail.com (David Fritzinger) wrote in
> > > >> >> news:b82925bb.0407131807.153aa84a@posting.google.com:
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> > Xomicron <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in message
> > > >> >> > news:<36d51cf3183ad221268accf5f2eb6df4@news.bubbanews.com>...
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> >> >> "Bill Case" <Bill549@Hotmail.com> wrote in
> > > >> >> >> news:vtZIc.1482$mL5.626@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net:
> > > >> >> >>
> > > >> >> >>> "Xomicron" <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in message
> > > >> >> >>> news:a2ec$40f44320$ca6c230c$23707@nf1.news-service-com...
> > > >> >> >>>
> > > >> >> >>>> Don't worry, if Kerry and Ambulance Chasing Edwards get
> > > >> >> >>>> elected, we can expect a whole army of lawyers to be sent out
> > > >> >> >>>> after the terrorists with threats of lawsuits all sorts of
> > > >> >> >>>> awful legal trouble if they don't stop killing us and behave
> > > >> >> >>>> themselves, Boy that will show 'em! And just think of the
>  very
> > > >> >> >>>> lucrative jobs it would create for Edwards' trial lawyers
> > > >> >> >>>> buddies in the event of a catastrophic terrorist hit, suing
> > > >> >> >>>> everybody still breathing on behalf of the victims, and it's
> > > >> >> >>>> only fair that they be rewarded, after all, they gave so
> > > >> >> >>>> unselfishly to his campaign!
> > > >> >> >>>
> > > >> >> >>> Sure, sure.
> > > >> >> >>>
> > > >> >> >>> You do know Bush let did nothing about the Cole attack that
> > > >> >> >>> killed 17 US sailors, don't you? He let 8 months go by after
>  the
> > > >> >> >>> CIA id'd al Qaeda as the source organization. Al Qaeda
>  captives
> > > >> >> >>> have been reported as saying that took encouragement from
>  that.
> > > >> >> >>
> > > >> >> >> The Cole bombing occurred under Clinton.
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> >> > Just before the election. Bush then let 9 months go by without
> > > >> >> > doing anything. Again you show your ignorance.
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> >> >>> You do know that he did nothing to increase airliner security
> > > >> >> >>> pre 9/11, which could have precluded the terrorists (armed
> > > >> >> >>> pilots, air marshals etc).
> > > >> >> >>
> > > >> >> >> Thanks for proving that hindsight it 20/20.
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> >> > And, Ashcroft actually took forces away from anti-terrorism
> > > >> >> > efforts. This after the Clinton administration warned the
>  Bushies
> > > >> >> > that al Qaeda was the main threat they would face.
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> >> >>> You do know Bush ignored pre 9/11 warnings about al qaeda,
>  don't
> > > >> >> >>> you?
> > > >> >> >>
> > > >> >> >> Bullshit.
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> >> > THere is a cogent reply, not.
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> >> >>> You do know Bush resisted the 9/11 investigation that is
> > > >> >> >>> analyzing what went wrong, don't you? Why would he do that?
> > > >> >> >>
> > > >> >> >> Because it's a sham.
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> >> > Or, more likely, because he knew he didn't do enough. Now, I'm
>  not
> > > >> >> > really blaming him, but the investigation certainly was not a
> > > >> >> > sham.
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> >> >>> You do know that intelligence is the main factor in combating
> > > >> >> >>> terrorism don't you? Human intelligence largely depends on
>  good
> > > >> >> >>> will. Do you think Bush has helped that by his "axis of Evil"
> > > >> >> >>> talk and snubbing Europe and the Iraq occupation and Abu
> > > >> >> >>> Ghraib's affect on the Arab / Moslem world?
> > > >> >> >>
> > > >> >> >> Oh shut the fuck up. If the world is offended when we go after
> > > >> >> >> our enemies then the world can go to hell. The Abu Ghraib
> > > >> >> >> incident was a bunch of dumbasses living out their idiotic frat
> > > >> >> >> house fantasies. What that has to do with Bush I'm not sure.
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> >> > His administration set the precedents by announcing that Afghans
> > > >> >> > captured didn't have any rights under the Geneva Conventions.
>  See
> > > >> >> > the memos flying around the Pentagon and White House after 9/11.
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> >> >>> Kerry had the guts to volunteer his way into river boats in
> > > >> >> >>> Vietnam while Bush and Cheney were evading duty.
> > > >> >> >>
> > > >> >> >> Bush served and was honorably discharged.
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> >> > In a "Champaigne" unit that had no chance of going to actually
> > > >> >> > fight. And, there is still the question of the last year of
>  Bush's
> > > >> >> > "service".
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> >> >>> Bush talked big but backed down over taking Faluja and taking
> > > >> >> >>> down Sadr when he saw it would be a fight.
> > > >> >> >>> Kerry is the far better choice.
> > > >> >> >>
> > > >> >> >> Oh please. If Bush had given the OK for taking down Falluja you
> > > >> >> >> left wingnut pussies would be calling him a baby killer.
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> >> > You are changing the subject, Snubis. The fact is that, in is
> > > >> >> > usual, flip-flopping way, Bush said he would do something, and
> > > >> >> > didn't follow through.
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> Sorry. This is not an example of John Kerry's fort�. In war,
>  things
> > > >> >> change. It no longer became necessary to take Falluja by force.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > First, it is noted that you did not answer any of my other points.
> > > >> > Second, you are wrong, both about Kerry's flip-flops (Bush has
> > > >> > flip-flopped at least as much as Kerry-See:
> > > >> > http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=42263),
>  and
> > > >> > about the reason for Bush's flip-flop on Falluja (and, on Sadr).
>  Fact
> > > >> > was, he had no way to go into Falluja, but he made a dumbass
>  promise
> > > >> > to do so. This is so typical of Bush.
> > > >>
> > > >> Sorry. This isn't an example of a flip flop. You obviously are
>  ignorant
> > > >> of descision making in times of war.
> > > >>
> > > >> A flip flop would be changing your stance on an issue, like saying
>  life
> > > >> begins at conception while at the same time saying you are
>  pro-choice.
> > > >
> > > > What an incredible thing to say.
> > > >
> > > > Talking big then backing down on a war objective is a lot worse and
>  has
> > > > far worse implications for US security, than do arguments about
>  domestic
> > > > social policy issues.
> > > >
> > > > You do know North Korea shows little fear of us now and is openly
> > > > talking of producing nukes. Do you think they don't notice what a
>  phony
> > > > Bush is?
> > >
> > > They know Bush will kick their ass.
> >
> > Hahahaha.
> > The problem is that they think just the opposite, they're talking and
>  acting
> > without fear of  him, and the US is doing nothing about it.
> 
> Actually the way Bush has handled North Korea has been excellent.
> I don't approve of how Bush has handled everything, but he has handled North
> Korea
> very well.

The vast majority of people who actually know something about NK
disagree with  you. I mean, it was a brilliant thing Bush did,
insulting the NK leader, and ignoring the NK issue during most of the
beginning of his administration.
> 
> North Korea knows better, and they are just trying to push a few buttons
> because they are having
> a little temper tantrum. Bush has shown the world that the U.S. doesn't cave
> into idol threats.
> And you better think about something else.  North Korea has a very large
> country right above them that they don't want to make too mad.
> 
> If North Korea ever attempted a nuclear strike, it would be the end of their
> existence as we know it today.

That is obvious. However, NK could give weapons to al Qaeda. After
all, when the Pakistani nuclear scientist Khan was discovered to have
given weapons technology to NK, Iran, and Libya,  Bush did nothing.
Bush, in my estimation, is the worst president we have had, probably
since Warren Harding.

--
Dave Fritzinger
0
dfritzin (3022)
7/15/2004 6:16:51 PM
Bill Case wrote:
> 
> "Timberwoof" <timberwoof@stimpberawoofm.com> wrote in message
> news:timberwoof-E290CE.20205114072004@typhoon.sonic.net...
> > In article <Sd3Jc.2000$mL5.944@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
> >  "Bill Case" <Bill549@Hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Clinton killed around 200 of them in a crusie missle strike. I would
> have
> > > liked to have seen raids on all their Afghan camps - how hard is that to
> fig
> > > ure out?
> >
> > So would Clinton have. The problem was that the army kept telling his
> > secretary of defense that there wasn't enough "actionable intelligence,"
> > and there was no way the country would have let him start a war, what
> > with all the muckraking the Republicans were doing. They would have just
> > added that to the list of things he was doing wrong, saying he was
> > trying to distract the country from the important stuff -- ancient
> > financial dealings his buddies back home did and the affair with that
> > Lewinsky chick.
> 
> Even Clinton attacked the terrorists while Bush pre 9/11 was passive. When
> Clinton did launch some strikes, a lot of these Bush phony patriots accused
> him of "wag the dog" actions to divert from Lewinski and all that.
> 
> Bush was passive toward terrorism in the 8 months he was in office before
> 9/11.

As was the rest of the country.

> Since then, he's mishandled the efforts and most analysts say he's
> created a bigger pool of Islamic recruits for terror operations.

Analysts? Is that what they're called now?
 
> The way Bush has handled Iraq, he's wasted billions that should have gone
> into port security etc., to preclude a nuke being brought into a harbor /
> airport etc and detonated.
> 
> This coming election is probably the most important ever? in terms of  US
> national security.
> 
> > As for "actionable intelligence," we saw a considerable failure of that
> > in the recent war. The US lobbed about fifty attacks on specific houses
> > in Baghdad, based on neighbors saying they though they had seen Saddam
> > Hussein there. The problem was that he never was where they thought he
> > was, and these raids killed roughly three hundred to five hundred
> > innocent people -- wives and kids living in those houses.
> 
> Yeah, no human intelligence sources.

Bad human intelligence sources.

> Increddible with all the hundreds of
> billions the US has spent over the years.

Not really. The government has proven numerous times that it is capable
of spending billions and still have nothing to show for it.
0
fdwyer (46)
7/15/2004 6:57:17 PM
"David Fritzinger" <dfritzin@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:b82925bb.0407151016.5c650691@posting.google.com...
> "Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote in message
news:<KLydnRuVr4qiBGvdRVn-uw@comcast.com>...
> > "Bill Case" <Bill549@Hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:yewJc.3735$Qu5.2039@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> > >
> > > "Xomicron" <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in message
> > > news:8f1f4570acc7e1a92dac87c3aa59b262@news.bubbanews.com...
> > > > "Bill Case" <Bill549@Hotmail.com> wrote in
> > > > news:a1wJc.3716$Qu5.2951@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net:
> > > >
> > > > > "Xomicron" <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in message
> > > > > news:Xns9526F32D4B0F0DW@dragon.pl...
> > > > >
> > > > >> dfritzin@hotmail.com (David Fritzinger) wrote in
> > > > >> news:b82925bb.0407141427.4c800869@posting.google.com:
> > > > >>
> > > > >> > Xomicron <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in message
> > > > >> > news:<Xns95268216158ABrt@fla.dragon.pl>...
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> >> dfritzin@hotmail.com (David Fritzinger) wrote in
> > > > >> >> news:b82925bb.0407131807.153aa84a@posting.google.com:
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >> > Xomicron <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in message
> > > > >> >> >
news:<36d51cf3183ad221268accf5f2eb6df4@news.bubbanews.com>...
> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> >> >> "Bill Case" <Bill549@Hotmail.com> wrote in
> > > > >> >> >> news:vtZIc.1482$mL5.626@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net:
> > > > >> >> >>
> > > > >> >> >>> "Xomicron" <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in message
> > > > >> >> >>> news:a2ec$40f44320$ca6c230c$23707@nf1.news-service-com...
> > > > >> >> >>>
> > > > >> >> >>>> Don't worry, if Kerry and Ambulance Chasing Edwards get
> > > > >> >> >>>> elected, we can expect a whole army of lawyers to be sent
out
> > > > >> >> >>>> after the terrorists with threats of lawsuits all sorts
of
> > > > >> >> >>>> awful legal trouble if they don't stop killing us and
behave
> > > > >> >> >>>> themselves, Boy that will show 'em! And just think of the
> >  very
> > > > >> >> >>>> lucrative jobs it would create for Edwards' trial lawyers
> > > > >> >> >>>> buddies in the event of a catastrophic terrorist hit,
suing
> > > > >> >> >>>> everybody still breathing on behalf of the victims, and
it's
> > > > >> >> >>>> only fair that they be rewarded, after all, they gave so
> > > > >> >> >>>> unselfishly to his campaign!
> > > > >> >> >>>
> > > > >> >> >>> Sure, sure.
> > > > >> >> >>>
> > > > >> >> >>> You do know Bush let did nothing about the Cole attack
that
> > > > >> >> >>> killed 17 US sailors, don't you? He let 8 months go by
after
> >  the
> > > > >> >> >>> CIA id'd al Qaeda as the source organization. Al Qaeda
> >  captives
> > > > >> >> >>> have been reported as saying that took encouragement from
> >  that.
> > > > >> >> >>
> > > > >> >> >> The Cole bombing occurred under Clinton.
> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> >> > Just before the election. Bush then let 9 months go by
without
> > > > >> >> > doing anything. Again you show your ignorance.
> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> >> >>> You do know that he did nothing to increase airliner
security
> > > > >> >> >>> pre 9/11, which could have precluded the terrorists (armed
> > > > >> >> >>> pilots, air marshals etc).
> > > > >> >> >>
> > > > >> >> >> Thanks for proving that hindsight it 20/20.
> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> >> > And, Ashcroft actually took forces away from anti-terrorism
> > > > >> >> > efforts. This after the Clinton administration warned the
> >  Bushies
> > > > >> >> > that al Qaeda was the main threat they would face.
> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> >> >>> You do know Bush ignored pre 9/11 warnings about al qaeda,
> >  don't
> > > > >> >> >>> you?
> > > > >> >> >>
> > > > >> >> >> Bullshit.
> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> >> > THere is a cogent reply, not.
> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> >> >>> You do know Bush resisted the 9/11 investigation that is
> > > > >> >> >>> analyzing what went wrong, don't you? Why would he do
that?
> > > > >> >> >>
> > > > >> >> >> Because it's a sham.
> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> >> > Or, more likely, because he knew he didn't do enough. Now,
I'm
> >  not
> > > > >> >> > really blaming him, but the investigation certainly was not
a
> > > > >> >> > sham.
> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> >> >>> You do know that intelligence is the main factor in
combating
> > > > >> >> >>> terrorism don't you? Human intelligence largely depends on
> >  good
> > > > >> >> >>> will. Do you think Bush has helped that by his "axis of
Evil"
> > > > >> >> >>> talk and snubbing Europe and the Iraq occupation and Abu
> > > > >> >> >>> Ghraib's affect on the Arab / Moslem world?
> > > > >> >> >>
> > > > >> >> >> Oh shut the fuck up. If the world is offended when we go
after
> > > > >> >> >> our enemies then the world can go to hell. The Abu Ghraib
> > > > >> >> >> incident was a bunch of dumbasses living out their idiotic
frat
> > > > >> >> >> house fantasies. What that has to do with Bush I'm not
sure.
> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> >> > His administration set the precedents by announcing that
Afghans
> > > > >> >> > captured didn't have any rights under the Geneva
Conventions.
> >  See
> > > > >> >> > the memos flying around the Pentagon and White House after
9/11.
> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> >> >>> Kerry had the guts to volunteer his way into river boats
in
> > > > >> >> >>> Vietnam while Bush and Cheney were evading duty.
> > > > >> >> >>
> > > > >> >> >> Bush served and was honorably discharged.
> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> >> > In a "Champaigne" unit that had no chance of going to
actually
> > > > >> >> > fight. And, there is still the question of the last year of
> >  Bush's
> > > > >> >> > "service".
> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> >> >>> Bush talked big but backed down over taking Faluja and
taking
> > > > >> >> >>> down Sadr when he saw it would be a fight.
> > > > >> >> >>> Kerry is the far better choice.
> > > > >> >> >>
> > > > >> >> >> Oh please. If Bush had given the OK for taking down Falluja
you
> > > > >> >> >> left wingnut pussies would be calling him a baby killer.
> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> >> > You are changing the subject, Snubis. The fact is that, in
is
> > > > >> >> > usual, flip-flopping way, Bush said he would do something,
and
> > > > >> >> > didn't follow through.
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >> Sorry. This is not an example of John Kerry's fort�. In war,
> >  things
> > > > >> >> change. It no longer became necessary to take Falluja by
force.
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > First, it is noted that you did not answer any of my other
points.
> > > > >> > Second, you are wrong, both about Kerry's flip-flops (Bush has
> > > > >> > flip-flopped at least as much as Kerry-See:
> > > > >> >
http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=42263),
> >  and
> > > > >> > about the reason for Bush's flip-flop on Falluja (and, on
Sadr).
> >  Fact
> > > > >> > was, he had no way to go into Falluja, but he made a dumbass
> >  promise
> > > > >> > to do so. This is so typical of Bush.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Sorry. This isn't an example of a flip flop. You obviously are
> >  ignorant
> > > > >> of descision making in times of war.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> A flip flop would be changing your stance on an issue, like
saying
> >  life
> > > > >> begins at conception while at the same time saying you are
> >  pro-choice.
> > > > >
> > > > > What an incredible thing to say.
> > > > >
> > > > > Talking big then backing down on a war objective is a lot worse
and
> >  has
> > > > > far worse implications for US security, than do arguments about
> >  domestic
> > > > > social policy issues.
> > > > >
> > > > > You do know North Korea shows little fear of us now and is openly
> > > > > talking of producing nukes. Do you think they don't notice what a
> >  phony
> > > > > Bush is?
> > > >
> > > > They know Bush will kick their ass.
> > >
> > > Hahahaha.
> > > The problem is that they think just the opposite, they're talking and
> >  acting
> > > without fear of  him, and the US is doing nothing about it.
> >
> > Actually the way Bush has handled North Korea has been excellent.
> > I don't approve of how Bush has handled everything, but he has handled
North
> > Korea
> > very well.
>
> The vast majority of people who actually know something about NK
> disagree with  you. I mean, it was a brilliant thing Bush did,
> insulting the NK leader, and ignoring the NK issue during most of the
> beginning of his administration.

Sorry but every paper I read, even congressional members agree, Bush did the
right thing
by not giving into N.K.'s demands.
Now, maybe you and other liberals would give in..but Bush didn't.


> >
> > North Korea knows better, and they are just trying to push a few buttons
> > because they are having
> > a little temper tantrum. Bush has shown the world that the U.S. doesn't
cave
> > into idol threats.
> > And you better think about something else.  North Korea has a very large
> > country right above them that they don't want to make too mad.
> >
> > If North Korea ever attempted a nuclear strike, it would be the end of
their
> > existence as we know it today.
>
> That is obvious. However, NK could give weapons to al Qaeda. After
> all, when the Pakistani nuclear scientist Khan was discovered to have
> given weapons technology to NK, Iran, and Libya,  Bush did nothing.
> Bush, in my estimation, is the worst president we have had, probably
> since Warren Harding.

Well if you want to vote for a worse one, then vote for Kerry.
I am not voting for Kerry.  I don't like everything about Bush, but I
certainly
feel safer with him as president than I would with someone like Kerry.


0
noneedtoknow (858)
7/15/2004 7:13:44 PM
"David Fritzinger" <dfritzin@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:b82925bb.0407151012.32bd681e@posting.google.com...
> "Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote in message
news:<vrydnUvF05IfBWvdRVn-jw@comcast.com>...
> > "Bill Case" <Bill549@Hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:9awJc.3727$Qu5.1141@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> > >
> > > "Timberwoof" <timberwoof@stimpberawoofm.com> wrote in message
> > > news:timberwoof-E290CE.20205114072004@typhoon.sonic.net...
> > > > In article <Sd3Jc.2000$mL5.944@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
> > > >  "Bill Case" <Bill549@Hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Clinton killed around 200 of them in a crusie missle strike. I
would
> >  have
> > > > > liked to have seen raids on all their Afghan camps - how hard is
that
> >  to
> >  fig
> > > > > ure out?
> > > >
> > > > So would Clinton have. The problem was that the army kept telling
his
> > > > secretary of defense that there wasn't enough "actionable
intelligence,"
> > > > and there was no way the country would have let him start a war,
what
> > > > with all the muckraking the Republicans were doing. They would have
just
> > > > added that to the list of things he was doing wrong, saying he was
> > > > trying to distract the country from the important stuff -- ancient
> > > > financial dealings his buddies back home did and the affair with
that
> > > > Lewinsky chick.
> > >
> > > Even Clinton attacked the terrorists while Bush pre 9/11 was passive.
When
> > > Clinton did launch some strikes, a lot of these Bush phony patriots
> >  accused
> > > him of "wag the dog" actions to divert from Lewinski and all that.
> >
> > Because it was a diversion.  Every single time Clinton was caught up in
> > another one of his scandals, he used the military.
> >
>
> Wrong! It is true, however, that his scandals prevented him from doing
> as much as he wanted. Read Richard Clarke's book.
> >
> > >
> > > Bush was passive toward terrorism in the 8 months he was in office
before
> > > 9/11.
> >
> > What was he supposed to be doing?
> > We had to get through Pakistan.
>
> He did nothing. He didn't try to go through Pakistan. Ashcroft took
> money out of the anti-terrorism budget. Clinton told him that al Qaeda
> would be his biggest foreign policy challenge, and he said, no, it
> would be Iraq.

Let me try this again.

What was he supposed to be doing?



> >
> >
> > Since then, he's mishandled the efforts and most analysts say he's
> > > created a bigger pool of Islamic recruits for terror operations.
> >
> > Yes, some will say that and others will disagree.
>
> Not if they are rational.

Oh, so now you decide who is rational.


> >
> >
> > > The way Bush has handled Iraq, he's wasted billions that should have
gone
> > > into port security etc., to preclude a nuke being brought into a
harbor /
> > > airport etc and detonated.
> >
> > How many terrorist have successfully attacked the U.S. since 9/11?
>
> Yet, terrorism in the world is up (despite the fact that the State
> Department tried to release a report saying the opposite). Also, how
> many al Qaeda attacks were there in the US during the Clinton
> Administration. One, WTCI. And that one was only about 6 weeks after
> Clinton took office.

Let me try this again.

How many terrorist have successfully attacked the U.S. since 9/11?




>
> BTW, if we are so safe, why do we get constant terror alerts from the
> DHS?

Because of 9/11.

> >
> >
> > >
> > > This coming election is probably the most important ever? in terms of
US
> > > national security.
> >
> > Well if you want to trash national security you vote for Kerry.
> > If you want to keep national security as a top priority you vote for
Bush.
>
> If you want to alienate our allies further, vote for Bush.

Right now I could care less what the rest of the world thinks.


 If you want
> to increase the pool of potential terrorists, vote for Bush. Sorry,
> but your simplistic analysis just doesn't work.
> >
> >
> > >
> > > > As for "actionable intelligence," we saw a considerable failure of
that
> > > > in the recent war. The US lobbed about fifty attacks on specific
houses
> > > > in Baghdad, based on neighbors saying they though they had seen
Saddam
> > > > Hussein there. The problem was that he never was where they thought
he
> > > > was, and these raids killed roughly three hundred to five hundred
> > > > innocent people -- wives and kids living in those houses.
> > >
> > > Yeah, no human intelligence sources. Increddible with all the hundreds
of
> > > billions the US has spent over the years.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > -- 
> > > > Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com>
> > > > http://www.timberwoof.com
> > > > Baloney Detection Kit:
> >  http://www.xenu.net/archive/baloney_detection.html
> > >
> > >


0
noneedtoknow (858)
7/15/2004 7:16:05 PM
Xomicron <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in message news:<4947dc1e07c3eac24b944fe79d48f6e9@news.bubbanews.com>...
> Jeff George <george666@comcast.net.munged> wrote in
> news:itbdf0pkstohmp1cfplad6js9ua9qf2bo2@4ax.com: 
> 
> > On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 05:53:42 +0200, Xomicron <xomicron@wp.pl> added
> > the following words, followed by my wisdom:
> > 
> >>Jeff George <george666@comcast.net> wrote in
> >>news:teibf0ltr4eem1tgedv3gapgq9p47nm4j6@4ax.com: 
> >>
> >>> On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 18:43:06 +0200, Xomicron <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote:
> >>> 
> >>>> Jeff George <george666@comcast.net.munged> wrote in
> >>>> news:irnaf09v6hip4e7ci2484qi6ctd5j2svkb@4ax.com: 
> >>>>
> >>>>> On 13 Jul 2004 19:07:12 -0700, dfritzin@hotmail.com (David
> >>>>> Fritzinger) added the following words, followed by my wisdom:
> >>>>> 
> >>>>>> Xomicron <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in message
> >>>>>> news:<36d51cf3183ad221268accf5f2eb6df4@news.bubbanews.com>... 
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Oh please. If Bush had given the OK for taking down Falluja you
> >>>>>>> left wingnut pussies would be calling him a baby killer.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> You are changing the subject, Snubis. The fact is that, in is
> >>>>>> usual, flip-flopping way, Bush said he would do something, and
> >>>>>> didn't follow through. That appears to be a hallmark of his entire
> >>>>>> life. 
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> Well, that, and the fact that Bush is bumbling incompetent at
> >>>>> anything he does, including eating pretzels and riding bicycles.
> >>>>
> >>>> Kerry can't ride a bike or ski and then feels the need to lie about
> >>>> it. 
> >>> 
> >>> Kerry isn't the President.
> >>
> >> He wants to be.
> > 
> > No one can be more incompetent than the Chimp.
> 
> You're right. Kerry is a chimp.

As a comeback, that was awfully lame. If you can't do better than that
(and we know you cannot), you should just give up.

--
Dave Fritzinger
0
dfritzin (3022)
7/15/2004 10:51:46 PM
Xomicron <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in message news:<e32e988d881362ab07dbb2a1cdbe791f@news.bubbanews.com>...
> David Fritzinger <dfritzinnospam@mac.com> wrote in
> news:dfritzinnospam-8B2FA5.19424814072004@orngca-news03.socal.rr.com: 
> 
> >> The evidence doesn't support your bullshit.
> > 
> > Was or was not the nexus of terrorism in Afghanistan. The answer is yes.
> > Did SH have WMD or connections to al Qaeda? 
> 
> The link from Iraq to terrorist organizations has long been established.

Then, why didn't the senate or the 9/11 commission find it. Me thinks
you are wrong. Or is it just delusional?
> 
> > So, why did Bush attack a country that had nothing to do with the attack
> > on us, and virtually ignore the people who did?
> 
> And we all know that 9-11 was the only terrorist attack ever.

So, what terrorist attacks eminating from Iraq have been done against
the US?
> 
> >>> Sort of like if we had attacked Mexico after Pearl Harbor.
> >> 
> >> The Democrats of today would be whining about FDR going to war with
> >> Germany when the real threat was Japan. 
> > 
> > More lies from Snubie. Sorry, but it was the Republicans who were 
> > against us going to war in '41. 
> 
> So were the Democrats but that isn't the point.

Do you actually have one? I doubt it. 
> 
> > Besides, Hitler declared war on us after Pearl Harbor. Please, for once
> > in your poor, pitiful existence, try to get at least one thing right.
> 
> As I said, Japan did attack us and Germany did not.  You agree?

Germany declared war on us. If they hadn't, it is an open question
whether Roosevelt (a Democrat) could have convinced Congress to go to
war against Germany.
> 
> Anyway, the left wingers in this thread (like most here) deal only with
> over-simplifications. 

Says the king of oversimplification.
> 
> When one delves into the complications of war, rash statements like 
> "Iraq never attacked the US" become a bit blurry.
> 
> On 12/5/1941 Zhukov began his counteroffensive. On 12/7/1941, Japan
> attacked a US possession. On 12/8/1941, the US and Britain declared war on
> Japan, forming an alliance with the Chinese and the Russians including
> material support of Zhukov. Only then did the Japanese declare war on the
> US. As the US was now allied with the Russians who were counterattacking
> the Germans, Germany and Italy went through the formality of declaring war
> on the US on 12/11/1941.

You forget the minor fact that Japan attacked us at Pearl Harbor. 
> 
> Iraq has been a strong and long time supporter of Wahabism, which aims 
> to overthrow all Middle Eastern states, many of which are allies of the 
> US. 

The above statement is a complete lie. Saudi Arabia is a supporter of
Whahabism, not Iraq. Indeed, for all his faults (and, they were many),
Hussein was a *secular* leader. That is part of the reason OBL hated
him so much. Since your opening premise is a lie, the rest of your
statements are untruthful as well. If you can't do better than to tell
such obvious lies, you really ought to shut up, Snubis.

>The Wahabis have attacked the US directly on at least fifteen 
> occasions, and have attacked our allies a hundred times. When we look 
> back at this nascent Middle East war, 50 years from now, the alliances 
> made will be as strange as the alliances we made in 41 and 42. Remember 
> our good friend Stalin and our enemy, the Italians? In war, our enemy's 
> friends are our enemies. That's why we are in Iraq and why we are 
> forcing states like Iran and Jordan to choose sides before the real 
> fighting starts. The game has not yet begun, we are now just choosing up 
> sides.

As I said, since you apparently know nothing about ME history, or who
the players are, your conclusions are obviously wrong. I don't know
what your sources are, but you really should get new ones. The ones
you have suck.

--
Dave Fritzinger
0
dfritzin (3022)
7/15/2004 10:59:14 PM
dfritzin@hotmail.com (David Fritzinger) wrote in
news:b82925bb.0407151459.d99b0a8@posting.google.com: 

> Xomicron <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in message
> news:<e32e988d881362ab07dbb2a1cdbe791f@news.bubbanews.com>... 
>> David Fritzinger <dfritzinnospam@mac.com> wrote in
>> news:dfritzinnospam-8B2FA5.19424814072004@orngca-news03.socal.rr.com: 
>> 
>> >> The evidence doesn't support your bullshit.
>> > 
>> > Was or was not the nexus of terrorism in Afghanistan. The answer is
>> > yes. Did SH have WMD or connections to al Qaeda? 
>> 
>> The link from Iraq to terrorist organizations has long been
>> established. 
> 
> Then, why didn't the senate or the 9/11 commission find it. Me thinks
> you are wrong. Or is it just delusional?
>> 
>> > So, why did Bush attack a country that had nothing to do with the
>> > attack on us, and virtually ignore the people who did?
>> 
>> And we all know that 9-11 was the only terrorist attack ever.
> 
> So, what terrorist attacks eminating from Iraq have been done against
> the US?
>> 
>> >>> Sort of like if we had attacked Mexico after Pearl Harbor.
>> >> 
>> >> The Democrats of today would be whining about FDR going to war with
>> >> Germany when the real threat was Japan. 
>> > 
>> > More lies from Snubie. Sorry, but it was the Republicans who were 
>> > against us going to war in '41. 
>> 
>> So were the Democrats but that isn't the point.
> 
> Do you actually have one? I doubt it. 
>> 
>> > Besides, Hitler declared war on us after Pearl Harbor. Please, for
>> > once in your poor, pitiful existence, try to get at least one thing
>> > right. 
>> 
>> As I said, Japan did attack us and Germany did not.  You agree?
> 
> Germany declared war on us. If they hadn't, it is an open question
> whether Roosevelt (a Democrat) could have convinced Congress to go to
> war against Germany.
>> 
>> Anyway, the left wingers in this thread (like most here) deal only with
>> over-simplifications. 
> 
> Says the king of oversimplification.
>> 
>> When one delves into the complications of war, rash statements like 
>> "Iraq never attacked the US" become a bit blurry.
>> 
>> On 12/5/1941 Zhukov began his counteroffensive. On 12/7/1941, Japan
>> attacked a US possession. On 12/8/1941, the US and Britain declared war
>> on Japan, forming an alliance with the Chinese and the Russians
>> including material support of Zhukov. Only then did the Japanese
>> declare war on the US. As the US was now allied with the Russians who
>> were counterattacking the Germans, Germany and Italy went through the
>> formality of declaring war on the US on 12/11/1941.
> 
> You forget the minor fact that Japan attacked us at Pearl Harbor. 
>> 
>> Iraq has been a strong and long time supporter of Wahabism, which aims 
>> to overthrow all Middle Eastern states, many of which are allies of the
>> US. 
> 
> The above statement is a complete lie. Saudi Arabia is a supporter of
> Whahabism, not Iraq. 

Iraq was indeed a supporter of Wahabism and was a know financeer of 
terrorism.
 
>> The Wahabis have attacked the US directly on at least fifteen 
>> occasions, and have attacked our allies a hundred times. When we look 
>> back at this nascent Middle East war, 50 years from now, the alliances 
>> made will be as strange as the alliances we made in 41 and 42. Remember
>> our good friend Stalin and our enemy, the Italians? In war, our enemy's
>> friends are our enemies. That's why we are in Iraq and why we are 
>> forcing states like Iran and Jordan to choose sides before the real 
>> fighting starts. The game has not yet begun, we are now just choosing
>> up sides.
> 
> As I said, since you apparently know nothing about ME history, or who
> the players are, your conclusions are obviously wrong. I don't know
> what your sources are, but you really should get new ones. The ones
> you have suck.

It's obvious your ignorance will always get in the way of the truth.
0
xomicron (578)
7/15/2004 11:34:03 PM
 
0
7/15/2004 11:55:55 PM
"Jona Lendering" <ADSL294196@tiscali.nl> wrote in
40F7198B.3218FB09@tiscali.nl on 7/15/04 4:55 PM:

> 

While I think your comments are a bit spacey, there is little to disagree
with.


-- 
"If A = B and B = C, then A = C, except where void or prohibited by law."
Roy Santoro, Psycho Proverb Zone (http://smallurl.com/?i=15235)

0
snit-nospam (5415)
7/15/2004 11:59:13 PM
"Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote in message
news:K-6dnVk6963ASmvd4p2dnA@comcast.com...
>
> "David Fritzinger" <dfritzin@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:b82925bb.0407151016.5c650691@posting.google.com...
> > "Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote in message
> news:<KLydnRuVr4qiBGvdRVn-uw@comcast.com>...
> > > "Bill Case" <Bill549@Hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > news:yewJc.3735$Qu5.2039@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> > > >
> > > > "Xomicron" <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in message
> > > > news:8f1f4570acc7e1a92dac87c3aa59b262@news.bubbanews.com...
> > > > > "Bill Case" <Bill549@Hotmail.com> wrote in
> > > > > news:a1wJc.3716$Qu5.2951@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net:
> > > > >
> > > > > > "Xomicron" <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in message
> > > > > > news:Xns9526F32D4B0F0DW@dragon.pl...
> > > > > >
> > > > > >> dfritzin@hotmail.com (David Fritzinger) wrote in
> > > > > >> news:b82925bb.0407141427.4c800869@posting.google.com:
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> > Xomicron <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in message
> > > > > >> > news:<Xns95268216158ABrt@fla.dragon.pl>...
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> >> dfritzin@hotmail.com (David Fritzinger) wrote in
> > > > > >> >> news:b82925bb.0407131807.153aa84a@posting.google.com:
> > > > > >> >>
> > > > > >> >> > Xomicron <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in message
> > > > > >> >> >
> news:<36d51cf3183ad221268accf5f2eb6df4@news.bubbanews.com>...
> > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > >> >> >> "Bill Case" <Bill549@Hotmail.com> wrote in
> > > > > >> >> >> news:vtZIc.1482$mL5.626@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net:
> > > > > >> >> >>
> > > > > >> >> >>> "Xomicron" <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in message
> > > > > >> >> >>>
news:a2ec$40f44320$ca6c230c$23707@nf1.news-service-com...
> > > > > >> >> >>>
> > > > > >> >> >>>> Don't worry, if Kerry and Ambulance Chasing Edwards get
> > > > > >> >> >>>> elected, we can expect a whole army of lawyers to be
sent
> out
> > > > > >> >> >>>> after the terrorists with threats of lawsuits all sorts
> of
> > > > > >> >> >>>> awful legal trouble if they don't stop killing us and
> behave
> > > > > >> >> >>>> themselves, Boy that will show 'em! And just think of
the
> > >  very
> > > > > >> >> >>>> lucrative jobs it would create for Edwards' trial
lawyers
> > > > > >> >> >>>> buddies in the event of a catastrophic terrorist hit,
> suing
> > > > > >> >> >>>> everybody still breathing on behalf of the victims, and
> it's
> > > > > >> >> >>>> only fair that they be rewarded, after all, they gave
so
> > > > > >> >> >>>> unselfishly to his campaign!
> > > > > >> >> >>>
> > > > > >> >> >>> Sure, sure.
> > > > > >> >> >>>
> > > > > >> >> >>> You do know Bush let did nothing about the Cole attack
> that
> > > > > >> >> >>> killed 17 US sailors, don't you? He let 8 months go by
> after
> > >  the
> > > > > >> >> >>> CIA id'd al Qaeda as the source organization. Al Qaeda
> > >  captives
> > > > > >> >> >>> have been reported as saying that took encouragement
from
> > >  that.
> > > > > >> >> >>
> > > > > >> >> >> The Cole bombing occurred under Clinton.
> > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > >> >> > Just before the election. Bush then let 9 months go by
> without
> > > > > >> >> > doing anything. Again you show your ignorance.
> > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > >> >> >>> You do know that he did nothing to increase airliner
> security
> > > > > >> >> >>> pre 9/11, which could have precluded the terrorists
(armed
> > > > > >> >> >>> pilots, air marshals etc).
> > > > > >> >> >>
> > > > > >> >> >> Thanks for proving that hindsight it 20/20.
> > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > >> >> > And, Ashcroft actually took forces away from
anti-terrorism
> > > > > >> >> > efforts. This after the Clinton administration warned the
> > >  Bushies
> > > > > >> >> > that al Qaeda was the main threat they would face.
> > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > >> >> >>> You do know Bush ignored pre 9/11 warnings about al
qaeda,
> > >  don't
> > > > > >> >> >>> you?
> > > > > >> >> >>
> > > > > >> >> >> Bullshit.
> > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > >> >> > THere is a cogent reply, not.
> > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > >> >> >>> You do know Bush resisted the 9/11 investigation that is
> > > > > >> >> >>> analyzing what went wrong, don't you? Why would he do
> that?
> > > > > >> >> >>
> > > > > >> >> >> Because it's a sham.
> > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > >> >> > Or, more likely, because he knew he didn't do enough. Now,
> I'm
> > >  not
> > > > > >> >> > really blaming him, but the investigation certainly was
not
> a
> > > > > >> >> > sham.
> > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > >> >> >>> You do know that intelligence is the main factor in
> combating
> > > > > >> >> >>> terrorism don't you? Human intelligence largely depends
on
> > >  good
> > > > > >> >> >>> will. Do you think Bush has helped that by his "axis of
> Evil"
> > > > > >> >> >>> talk and snubbing Europe and the Iraq occupation and Abu
> > > > > >> >> >>> Ghraib's affect on the Arab / Moslem world?
> > > > > >> >> >>
> > > > > >> >> >> Oh shut the fuck up. If the world is offended when we go
> after
> > > > > >> >> >> our enemies then the world can go to hell. The Abu Ghraib
> > > > > >> >> >> incident was a bunch of dumbasses living out their
idiotic
> frat
> > > > > >> >> >> house fantasies. What that has to do with Bush I'm not
> sure.
> > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > >> >> > His administration set the precedents by announcing that
> Afghans
> > > > > >> >> > captured didn't have any rights under the Geneva
> Conventions.
> > >  See
> > > > > >> >> > the memos flying around the Pentagon and White House after
> 9/11.
> > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > >> >> >>> Kerry had the guts to volunteer his way into river boats
> in
> > > > > >> >> >>> Vietnam while Bush and Cheney were evading duty.
> > > > > >> >> >>
> > > > > >> >> >> Bush served and was honorably discharged.
> > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > >> >> > In a "Champaigne" unit that had no chance of going to
> actually
> > > > > >> >> > fight. And, there is still the question of the last year
of
> > >  Bush's
> > > > > >> >> > "service".
> > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > >> >> >>> Bush talked big but backed down over taking Faluja and
> taking
> > > > > >> >> >>> down Sadr when he saw it would be a fight.
> > > > > >> >> >>> Kerry is the far better choice.
> > > > > >> >> >>
> > > > > >> >> >> Oh please. If Bush had given the OK for taking down
Falluja
> you
> > > > > >> >> >> left wingnut pussies would be calling him a baby killer.
> > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > >> >> > You are changing the subject, Snubis. The fact is that, in
> is
> > > > > >> >> > usual, flip-flopping way, Bush said he would do something,
> and
> > > > > >> >> > didn't follow through.
> > > > > >> >>
> > > > > >> >> Sorry. This is not an example of John Kerry's fort�. In war,
> > >  things
> > > > > >> >> change. It no longer became necessary to take Falluja by
> force.
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > First, it is noted that you did not answer any of my other
> points.
> > > > > >> > Second, you are wrong, both about Kerry's flip-flops (Bush
has
> > > > > >> > flip-flopped at least as much as Kerry-See:
> > > > > >> >
> http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=42263),
> > >  and
> > > > > >> > about the reason for Bush's flip-flop on Falluja (and, on
> Sadr).
> > >  Fact
> > > > > >> > was, he had no way to go into Falluja, but he made a dumbass
> > >  promise
> > > > > >> > to do so. This is so typical of Bush.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Sorry. This isn't an example of a flip flop. You obviously are
> > >  ignorant
> > > > > >> of descision making in times of war.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> A flip flop would be changing your stance on an issue, like
> saying
> > >  life
> > > > > >> begins at conception while at the same time saying you are
> > >  pro-choice.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > What an incredible thing to say.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Talking big then backing down on a war objective is a lot worse
> and
> > >  has
> > > > > > far worse implications for US security, than do arguments about
> > >  domestic
> > > > > > social policy issues.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You do know North Korea shows little fear of us now and is
openly
> > > > > > talking of producing nukes. Do you think they don't notice what
a
> > >  phony
> > > > > > Bush is?
> > > > >
> > > > > They know Bush will kick their ass.
> > > >
> > > > Hahahaha.
> > > > The problem is that they think just the opposite, they're talking
and
> > >  acting
> > > > without fear of  him, and the US is doing nothing about it.
> > >
> > > Actually the way Bush has handled North Korea has been excellent.
> > > I don't approve of how Bush has handled everything, but he has handled
> North
> > > Korea
> > > very well.
> >
> > The vast majority of people who actually know something about NK
> > disagree with  you. I mean, it was a brilliant thing Bush did,
> > insulting the NK leader, and ignoring the NK issue during most of the
> > beginning of his administration.
>
> Sorry but every paper I read, even congressional members agree, Bush did
the
> right thing
> by not giving into N.K.'s demands.
> Now, maybe you and other liberals would give in..but Bush didn't.
>
>
> > >
> > > North Korea knows better, and they are just trying to push a few
buttons
> > > because they are having
> > > a little temper tantrum. Bush has shown the world that the U.S.
doesn't
> cave
> > > into idol threats.
> > > And you better think about something else.  North Korea has a very
large
> > > country right above them that they don't want to make too mad.
> > >
> > > If North Korea ever attempted a nuclear strike, it would be the end of
> their
> > > existence as we know it today.
> >
> > That is obvious. However, NK could give weapons to al Qaeda. After
> > all, when the Pakistani nuclear scientist Khan was discovered to have
> > given weapons technology to NK, Iran, and Libya,  Bush did nothing.
> > Bush, in my estimation, is the worst president we have had, probably
> > since Warren Harding.
>
> Well if you want to vote for a worse one, then vote for Kerry.
> I am not voting for Kerry.  I don't like everything about Bush, but I
> certainly
> feel safer with him as president than I would with someone like Kerry.

You may not know it, but everybody else knows that N Korea has been going
ahead with a nuclear program, bragging about it, and almost daring Bush to
do something about it.

N Korea needs money and the only thing it has to sell is weapons. Also, they
hate the US for the Korean War. I think they would glad to see a US city go
up with a few million casualties. They could make money and stay low by
selling nukes to Islamic terror organizations - for all anybody knows they
already have.

Bush has been passive toward NK, neither trying to get a solid treaty to end
nuke work, or to attack and destroy their facilities. Also, Iran has as much
as told Bush to stick it up his ass regarding their nuke program.

Bush is dangerous to US security.
Can anybody be certain what Kerry will do? No, but at least he had the guts
to volunteer into combat duty when he was young, and he has an operative
brain undamaged by alcohol and drugs.
He at least is an honorable man who doesn't mount underground slander
campaigns against good men who are his opponents. That's cowardly.


0
Bill549 (46)
7/16/2004 12:04:06 AM
"Frank Dwyer" <fdwyer@citlink.net> wrote in message
news:40F6D3B8.1E4F884D@citlink.net...
> Bill Case wrote:
> >
> > "Timberwoof" <timberwoof@stimpberawoofm.com> wrote in message
> > news:timberwoof-E290CE.20205114072004@typhoon.sonic.net...
> > > In article <Sd3Jc.2000$mL5.944@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
> > >  "Bill Case" <Bill549@Hotmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Clinton killed around 200 of them in a crusie missle strike. I would
> > have
> > > > liked to have seen raids on all their Afghan camps - how hard is
that to
> > fig
> > > > ure out?
> > >
> > > So would Clinton have. The problem was that the army kept telling his
> > > secretary of defense that there wasn't enough "actionable
intelligence,"
> > > and there was no way the country would have let him start a war, what
> > > with all the muckraking the Republicans were doing. They would have
just
> > > added that to the list of things he was doing wrong, saying he was
> > > trying to distract the country from the important stuff -- ancient
> > > financial dealings his buddies back home did and the affair with that
> > > Lewinsky chick.
> >
> > Even Clinton attacked the terrorists while Bush pre 9/11 was passive.
When
> > Clinton did launch some strikes, a lot of these Bush phony patriots
accused
> > him of "wag the dog" actions to divert from Lewinski and all that.
> >
> > Bush was passive toward terrorism in the 8 months he was in office
before
> > 9/11.
>
> As was the rest of the country.

Hahaha.  God, are you for real?
He's the Presdient. HE directs national securuty efforts.
He had advisers, and even Clinton, telling him to put al qaeda at the top
priority.


>
> > Since then, he's mishandled the efforts and most analysts say he's
> > created a bigger pool of Islamic recruits for terror operations.
>
> Analysts? Is that what they're called now?

What??? are you on something?


>
> > The way Bush has handled Iraq, he's wasted billions that should have
gone
> > into port security etc., to preclude a nuke being brought into a harbor
/
> > airport etc and detonated.
> >
> > This coming election is probably the most important ever? in terms of
US
> > national security.
> >
> > > As for "actionable intelligence," we saw a considerable failure of
that
> > > in the recent war. The US lobbed about fifty attacks on specific
houses
> > > in Baghdad, based on neighbors saying they though they had seen Saddam
> > > Hussein there. The problem was that he never was where they thought he
> > > was, and these raids killed roughly three hundred to five hundred
> > > innocent people -- wives and kids living in those houses.
> >
> > Yeah, no human intelligence sources.
>
> Bad human intelligence sources.
>
> > Increddible with all the hundreds of
> > billions the US has spent over the years.
>
> Not really. The government has proven numerous times that it is capable
> of spending billions and still have nothing to show for it.


0
Bill549 (46)
7/16/2004 12:09:29 AM
"Xomicron" <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in message
news:459b795826d3e4f5080c0d04d46f8c37@news.bubbanews.com...
> dfritzin@hotmail.com (David Fritzinger) wrote in
> news:b82925bb.0407151459.d99b0a8@posting.google.com:
>
> > Xomicron <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in message
> > news:<e32e988d881362ab07dbb2a1cdbe791f@news.bubbanews.com>...
> >> David Fritzinger <dfritzinnospam@mac.com> wrote in
> >> news:dfritzinnospam-8B2FA5.19424814072004@orngca-news03.socal.rr.com:
> >>
> >> >> The evidence doesn't support your bullshit.
> >> >
> >> > Was or was not the nexus of terrorism in Afghanistan. The answer is
> >> > yes. Did SH have WMD or connections to al Qaeda?
> >>
> >> The link from Iraq to terrorist organizations has long been
> >> established.
> >
> > Then, why didn't the senate or the 9/11 commission find it. Me thinks
> > you are wrong. Or is it just delusional?
> >>
> >> > So, why did Bush attack a country that had nothing to do with the
> >> > attack on us, and virtually ignore the people who did?
> >>
> >> And we all know that 9-11 was the only terrorist attack ever.
> >
> > So, what terrorist attacks eminating from Iraq have been done against
> > the US?
> >>
> >> >>> Sort of like if we had attacked Mexico after Pearl Harbor.
> >> >>
> >> >> The Democrats of today would be whining about FDR going to war with
> >> >> Germany when the real threat was Japan.
> >> >
> >> > More lies from Snubie. Sorry, but it was the Republicans who were
> >> > against us going to war in '41.
> >>
> >> So were the Democrats but that isn't the point.
> >
> > Do you actually have one? I doubt it.
> >>
> >> > Besides, Hitler declared war on us after Pearl Harbor. Please, for
> >> > once in your poor, pitiful existence, try to get at least one thing
> >> > right.
> >>
> >> As I said, Japan did attack us and Germany did not.  You agree?
> >
> > Germany declared war on us. If they hadn't, it is an open question
> > whether Roosevelt (a Democrat) could have convinced Congress to go to
> > war against Germany.
> >>
> >> Anyway, the left wingers in this thread (like most here) deal only with
> >> over-simplifications.
> >
> > Says the king of oversimplification.
> >>
> >> When one delves into the complications of war, rash statements like
> >> "Iraq never attacked the US" become a bit blurry.
> >>
> >> On 12/5/1941 Zhukov began his counteroffensive. On 12/7/1941, Japan
> >> attacked a US possession. On 12/8/1941, the US and Britain declared war
> >> on Japan, forming an alliance with the Chinese and the Russians
> >> including material support of Zhukov. Only then did the Japanese
> >> declare war on the US. As the US was now allied with the Russians who
> >> were counterattacking the Germans, Germany and Italy went through the
> >> formality of declaring war on the US on 12/11/1941.
> >
> > You forget the minor fact that Japan attacked us at Pearl Harbor.
> >>
> >> Iraq has been a strong and long time supporter of Wahabism, which aims
> >> to overthrow all Middle Eastern states, many of which are allies of the
> >> US.
> >
> > The above statement is a complete lie. Saudi Arabia is a supporter of
> > Whahabism, not Iraq.
>
> Iraq was indeed a supporter of Wahabism

How abut a specific credible source on that. Wahabism is Sunni sect based in
Saudi Arabia - I doubt Saddam was supporting it.

and was a know financeer of  terrorism.

Other than payments to Palestinian suicide bombers families, what terrorism
was he supporting?



0
Bill549 (46)
7/16/2004 12:15:07 AM
In article <vrydnUvF05IfBWvdRVn-jw@comcast.com>,
 "Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:

> "Bill Case" <Bill549@Hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:9awJc.3727$Qu5.1141@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> >
> > "Timberwoof" <timberwoof@stimpberawoofm.com> wrote in message
> > news:timberwoof-E290CE.20205114072004@typhoon.sonic.net...
> > > In article <Sd3Jc.2000$mL5.944@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
> > >  "Bill Case" <Bill549@Hotmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Clinton killed around 200 of them in a crusie missle strike. I would
> > have
> > > > liked to have seen raids on all their Afghan camps - how hard is that
> to
> > fig
> > > > ure out?
> > >
> > > So would Clinton have. The problem was that the army kept telling his
> > > secretary of defense that there wasn't enough "actionable intelligence,"
> > > and there was no way the country would have let him start a war, what
> > > with all the muckraking the Republicans were doing. They would have just
> > > added that to the list of things he was doing wrong, saying he was
> > > trying to distract the country from the important stuff -- ancient
> > > financial dealings his buddies back home did and the affair with that
> > > Lewinsky chick.
> >
> > Even Clinton attacked the terrorists while Bush pre 9/11 was passive. When
> > Clinton did launch some strikes, a lot of these Bush phony patriots
> accused
> > him of "wag the dog" actions to divert from Lewinski and all that.
> 
> Because it was a diversion.  Every single time Clinton was caught up in
> another one of his scandals, he used the military.

Clinton gets in trouble for having used the military. Clinton gets in 
trouble for not having used the military. Let's just take it for granted 
that you think Clinton should be in trouble. Good thing he's not running 
in this election. 



> > Bush was passive toward terrorism in the 8 months he was in office before
> > 9/11.
> 
> What was he supposed to be doing?

Taking Clinton's advice on terrorism, for one thing. 

> We had to get through Pakistan.

What's that got to do with anything? 

> > Since then, he's mishandled the efforts and most analysts say he's
> > created a bigger pool of Islamic recruits for terror operations.
> 
> Yes, some will say that and others will disagree.

Whether people agree or disagree is irrelevant. It is a provable 
assertion, and it certainly passes all kinds of sanity checks. 

No, wait, here's one it doesn't pass: The US bombs the shit out of a 
country and then naturally all the young men become enamored of the 
United States and want only good things to happen to its people. 

> > The way Bush has handled Iraq, he's wasted billions that should have gone
> > into port security etc., to preclude a nuke being brought into a harbor /
> > airport etc and detonated.
> 
> How many terrorist have successfully attacked the U.S. since 9/11?

The fact that none have has nothing at all to do with the US invasion of 
Iraq. Worldwide, terrorist attacks have increased since the war. Thanks 
a lot. 


> > This coming election is probably the most important ever? in terms of  US
> > national security.
> 
> Well if you want to trash national security you vote for Kerry.
> If you want to keep national security as a top priority you vote for Bush.

If you want to keep national INsecurity a top priority; if you want to 
keep everyone nervously on the edge of their seat, tuning in daily to 
see what the current terrorist threat level is -- despite the fact that 
in 2001 more Americans died in car accidents than dies in terrorist 
attacks; if you want Bush to go on using the threat of terrorism to 
clamp down on civil rights, then by all means vote for Bush. 


> > > As for "actionable intelligence," we saw a considerable failure of that
> > > in the recent war. The US lobbed about fifty attacks on specific houses
> > > in Baghdad, based on neighbors saying they though they had seen Saddam
> > > Hussein there. The problem was that he never was where they thought he
> > > was, and these raids killed roughly three hundred to five hundred
> > > innocent people -- wives and kids living in those houses.
> >
> > Yeah, no human intelligence sources. Increddible with all the hundreds of
> > billions the US has spent over the years.


The US fucked up with those bombings. Pissed off a lot of people. 
Encouraged a lot of angry young men to become nice and want to protect 
the US. (Or so some people opine.)

-- 
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com>
http://www.timberwoof.com
Baloney Detection Kit: http://www.xenu.net/archive/baloney_detection.html
0
timberwoof (3216)
7/16/2004 3:03:49 AM
In article <k-GdnYVIibV3SmvdRVn-gQ@comcast.com>,
 "Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:

> > He did nothing. He didn't try to go through Pakistan. Ashcroft took
> > money out of the anti-terrorism budget. Clinton told him that al Qaeda
> > would be his biggest foreign policy challenge, and he said, no, it
> > would be Iraq.
> 
> Let me try this again.
> 
> What was he supposed to be doing?

For one thing, taking the case file on the attack on the USS Cole that 
Clinton gave him and maybe go after the people who did it. Clinton was 
decent in that one and didn't start a war at the end of this term. 

For another thing, taking the case file on the whole Al Qaeda 
organization and doing something about it. 

Instead, Bush put fighting international terrorism at about the same 
level of national importance as the search for extraterrestrial 
intelligence. 


> > > Since then, he's mishandled the efforts and most analysts say he's
> > > > created a bigger pool of Islamic recruits for terror operations.
> > >
> > > Yes, some will say that and others will disagree.
> >
> > Not if they are rational.
> 
> Oh, so now you decide who is rational.

Let's talk about rational thought for a moment. Explain to me by what 
process young Arab men, many of whom are already pissed off at the 
United States, become nice and peaceful after we bomb the shit out of 
Baghdad. 



> > > > The way Bush has handled Iraq, he's wasted billions that should have
> > > > gone
> > > > into port security etc., to preclude a nuke being brought into a
> > > > harbor /
> > > > airport etc and detonated.
> > >
> > > How many terrorist have successfully attacked the U.S. since 9/11?
> >
> > Yet, terrorism in the world is up (despite the fact that the State
> > Department tried to release a report saying the opposite). Also, how
> > many al Qaeda attacks were there in the US during the Clinton
> > Administration. One, WTCI. And that one was only about 6 weeks after
> > Clinton took office.
> 
> Let me try this again.
> 
> How many terrorist have successfully attacked the U.S. since 9/11?

(That's terroristS.) 

None. 

Now you prove to me in a rational manner (that is, without using post 
hoc ergo proper hoc arguments) how the invasion of Iraq did that. 


> > BTW, if we are so safe, why do we get constant terror alerts from the
> > DHS?
> 
> Because of 9/11.

The people who did that are dead. So how come the terror alerts? 


> > > > This coming election is probably the most important ever? in terms of
> > > > US
> > > > national security.
> > >
> > > Well if you want to trash national security you vote for Kerry.
> > > If you want to keep national security as a top priority you vote for
> > > Bush.
> >
> > If you want to alienate our allies further, vote for Bush.
> 
> Right now I could care less what the rest of the world thinks.

The biggest contribution that Americans can make towards encouraging 
international terrorism is not to care about the rest of the world.

-- 
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com>
http://www.timberwoof.com
Baloney Detection Kit: http://www.xenu.net/archive/baloney_detection.html
0
timberwoof (3216)
7/16/2004 3:11:42 AM
Timberwoof <timberwoof@stimpberawoofm.com> wrote in
news:timberwoof-1AB42D.20114215072004@typhoon.sonic.net: 

> In article <k-GdnYVIibV3SmvdRVn-gQ@comcast.com>,
> "Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
> 
>> > He did nothing. He didn't try to go through Pakistan. Ashcroft took
>> > money out of the anti-terrorism budget. Clinton told him that al
>> > Qaeda would be his biggest foreign policy challenge, and he said, no,
>> > it would be Iraq.
>> 
>> Let me try this again.
>> 
>> What was he supposed to be doing?
> 
> For one thing, taking the case file on the attack on the USS Cole that 
> Clinton gave him and maybe go after the people who did it. Clinton was 
> decent in that one and didn't start a war at the end of this term. 
> 
> For another thing, taking the case file on the whole Al Qaeda 
> organization and doing something about it. 
> 
> Instead, Bush put fighting international terrorism at about the same 
> level of national importance as the search for extraterrestrial 
> intelligence. 

Cite. Sheesh you libs are all alike...

>> > > Since then, he's mishandled the efforts and most analysts say he's
>> > > > created a bigger pool of Islamic recruits for terror operations.
>> > >
>> > > Yes, some will say that and others will disagree.
>> >
>> > Not if they are rational.
>> 
>> Oh, so now you decide who is rational.
> 
> Let's talk about rational thought for a moment. Explain to me by what 
> process young Arab men, many of whom are already pissed off at the 
> United States, become nice and peaceful after we bomb the shit out of 
> Baghdad. 

The same way the Japanese are peaceful today after we bombed the shit out
of Japan. 
0
xomicron (578)
7/16/2004 3:13:34 AM
rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in
news:cd7nq0$ksu$1@bolt.sonic.net: 

> Xomicron  <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote:
>
>> From the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, Clinton had 8 years to do 
>> something about terrorism. He failed to do anything of significance.
> 
> You're confused.  Clinton did quite a bit about terrorism.

Launching a few cruise missles doesn't count.

> When a truck bomb killed 200+ Marines in Beirut in 1983, it was
> REAGAN who did nothing and meekly ran away.

Like Clinton did in Sudan?
 
> And terrorists learned that the Reagan had no balls.

Like when he bombed the crap out of Libya?
0
xomicron (578)
7/16/2004 5:06:46 AM
Xomicron  <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote:
>From the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, Clinton had 8 years to do 
>something about terrorism. He failed to do anything of significance.

You're confused.  Clinton did quite a bit about terrorism.

When a truck bomb killed 200+ Marines in Beirut in 1983, it was
REAGAN who did nothing and meekly ran away.

And terrorists learned that the Reagan had no balls.

-- 
Ray Fischer         
rfischer@sonic.net  

0
rfischer (1714)
7/16/2004 5:07:13 AM
In article <k-GdnYVIibV3SmvdRVn-gQ@comcast.com>,
 "Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:

> "David Fritzinger" <dfritzin@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:b82925bb.0407151012.32bd681e@posting.google.com...
> > "Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote in message
> news:<vrydnUvF05IfBWvdRVn-jw@comcast.com>...
> > > "Bill Case" <Bill549@Hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > news:9awJc.3727$Qu5.1141@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> > > >
> > > > "Timberwoof" <timberwoof@stimpberawoofm.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:timberwoof-E290CE.20205114072004@typhoon.sonic.net...
> > > > > In article <Sd3Jc.2000$mL5.944@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
> > > > >  "Bill Case" <Bill549@Hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Clinton killed around 200 of them in a crusie missle strike. I
> would
> > >  have
> > > > > > liked to have seen raids on all their Afghan camps - how hard is
> that
> > >  to
> > >  fig
> > > > > > ure out?
> > > > >
> > > > > So would Clinton have. The problem was that the army kept telling
> his
> > > > > secretary of defense that there wasn't enough "actionable
> intelligence,"
> > > > > and there was no way the country would have let him start a war,
> what
> > > > > with all the muckraking the Republicans were doing. They would have
> just
> > > > > added that to the list of things he was doing wrong, saying he was
> > > > > trying to distract the country from the important stuff -- ancient
> > > > > financial dealings his buddies back home did and the affair with
> that
> > > > > Lewinsky chick.
> > > >
> > > > Even Clinton attacked the terrorists while Bush pre 9/11 was passive.
> When
> > > > Clinton did launch some strikes, a lot of these Bush phony patriots
> > >  accused
> > > > him of "wag the dog" actions to divert from Lewinski and all that.
> > >
> > > Because it was a diversion.  Every single time Clinton was caught up in
> > > another one of his scandals, he used the military.
> > >
> >
> > Wrong! It is true, however, that his scandals prevented him from doing
> > as much as he wanted. Read Richard Clarke's book.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Bush was passive toward terrorism in the 8 months he was in office
> before
> > > > 9/11.
> > >
> > > What was he supposed to be doing?
> > > We had to get through Pakistan.
> >
> > He did nothing. He didn't try to go through Pakistan. Ashcroft took
> > money out of the anti-terrorism budget. Clinton told him that al Qaeda
> > would be his biggest foreign policy challenge, and he said, no, it
> > would be Iraq.
> 
> Let me try this again.
> 
> What was he supposed to be doing?

Listening to the people who knew about terrorism? Like Richard Clarke, 
etc. Instead, he did nothing.
> 
> 
> 
> > >
> > >
> > > Since then, he's mishandled the efforts and most analysts say he's
> > > > created a bigger pool of Islamic recruits for terror operations.
> > >
> > > Yes, some will say that and others will disagree.
> >
> > Not if they are rational.
> 
> Oh, so now you decide who is rational.

Since we have become far more unpopular in the Muslim world since we 
invaded Iraq, and since worldwide terrorism is up since we invaded Iraq, 
I would say the facts support my contentions. 
> 
> 
> > >
> > >
> > > > The way Bush has handled Iraq, he's wasted billions that should have
> gone
> > > > into port security etc., to preclude a nuke being brought into a
> harbor /
> > > > airport etc and detonated.
> > >
> > > How many terrorist have successfully attacked the U.S. since 9/11?
> >
> > Yet, terrorism in the world is up (despite the fact that the State
> > Department tried to release a report saying the opposite). Also, how
> > many al Qaeda attacks were there in the US during the Clinton
> > Administration. One, WTCI. And that one was only about 6 weeks after
> > Clinton took office.
> 
> Let me try this again.
> 
> How many terrorist have successfully attacked the U.S. since 9/11?

Do you have a reading comprehension problem? Read what I said above. It 
answered your question. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> >
> > BTW, if we are so safe, why do we get constant terror alerts from the
> > DHS?
> 
> Because of 9/11.

What makes you think that? The alerts keep coming, but nothing comes of 
them. That makes me think we are less safe than you want to believe. 
> 
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > This coming election is probably the most important ever? in terms of
> US
> > > > national security.
> > >
> > > Well if you want to trash national security you vote for Kerry.
> > > If you want to keep national security as a top priority you vote for
> Bush.
> >
> > If you want to alienate our allies further, vote for Bush.
> 
> Right now I could care less what the rest of the world thinks.

You should. Who do you think buys our exports, and sells us imports? Who 
is supporting our economy by letting us borrow money from them? We are 
far more dependent on the rest of the world than you seem to think.
> 
> 
>  If you want
> > to increase the pool of potential terrorists, vote for Bush. Sorry,
> > but your simplistic analysis just doesn't work.
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > As for "actionable intelligence," we saw a considerable failure of
> that
> > > > > in the recent war. The US lobbed about fifty attacks on specific
> houses
> > > > > in Baghdad, based on neighbors saying they though they had seen
> Saddam
> > > > > Hussein there. The problem was that he never was where they thought
> he
> > > > > was, and these raids killed roughly three hundred to five hundred
> > > > > innocent people -- wives and kids living in those houses.
> > > >
> > > > Yeah, no human intelligence sources. Increddible with all the hundreds
> of
> > > > billions the US has spent over the years.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > -- 
> > > > > Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com>
> > > > > http://www.timberwoof.com
> > > > > Baloney Detection Kit:
> > >  http://www.xenu.net/archive/baloney_detection.html
> > > >
> > > >

-- 
Dave Fritzinger
0
7/16/2004 5:07:48 AM
In article <4f6b48ccf341e16e91f2413fa1b0b1e1@news.bubbanews.com>,
 Xomicron <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote:

> Timberwoof <timberwoof@stimpberawoofm.com> wrote in
> news:timberwoof-1AB42D.20114215072004@typhoon.sonic.net: 
> 
> > In article <k-GdnYVIibV3SmvdRVn-gQ@comcast.com>,
> > "Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
> > 
> >> > He did nothing. He didn't try to go through Pakistan. Ashcroft took
> >> > money out of the anti-terrorism budget. Clinton told him that al
> >> > Qaeda would be his biggest foreign policy challenge, and he said, no,
> >> > it would be Iraq.
> >> 
> >> Let me try this again.
> >> 
> >> What was he supposed to be doing?
> > 
> > For one thing, taking the case file on the attack on the USS Cole that 
> > Clinton gave him and maybe go after the people who did it. Clinton was 
> > decent in that one and didn't start a war at the end of this term. 
> > 
> > For another thing, taking the case file on the whole Al Qaeda 
> > organization and doing something about it. 
> > 
> > Instead, Bush put fighting international terrorism at about the same 
> > level of national importance as the search for extraterrestrial 
> > intelligence. 
> 
> Cite. Sheesh you libs are all alike...

Richard Clarke's book, for one. Not to mention the fact that Ashcroft 
took money out of the Justice Dept's antiterrorism budget. It sort of 
all adds up. 

BTW, better to be a liberal who can see reality than a right wing 
wingnut such as yourself who manages to go through life in a perpetually 
deluded state. If you are having trouble with the words, I'll try to 
explain.
> 
> >> > > Since then, he's mishandled the efforts and most analysts say he's
> >> > > > created a bigger pool of Islamic recruits for terror operations.
> >> > >
> >> > > Yes, some will say that and others will disagree.
> >> >
> >> > Not if they are rational.
> >> 
> >> Oh, so now you decide who is rational.
> > 
> > Let's talk about rational thought for a moment. Explain to me by what 
> > process young Arab men, many of whom are already pissed off at the 
> > United States, become nice and peaceful after we bomb the shit out of 
> > Baghdad. 
> 
> The same way the Japanese are peaceful today after we bombed the shit out
> of Japan. 

Japan was one country, not a diverse population of about a billion 
people. Your analogy fails, like most of what you do here.

-- 
Dave Fritzinger
0
7/16/2004 5:14:40 AM
In article <K-6dnVk6963ASmvd4p2dnA@comcast.com>,
 "Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:

> "David Fritzinger" <dfritzin@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:b82925bb.0407151016.5c650691@posting.google.com...
> > "Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote in message
> news:<KLydnRuVr4qiBGvdRVn-uw@comcast.com>...
> > > "Bill Case" <Bill549@Hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > news:yewJc.3735$Qu5.2039@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> > > >
> > > > "Xomicron" <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in message
> > > > news:8f1f4570acc7e1a92dac87c3aa59b262@news.bubbanews.com...
> > > > > "Bill Case" <Bill549@Hotmail.com> wrote in
> > > > > news:a1wJc.3716$Qu5.2951@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net:
> > > > >
> > > > > > "Xomicron" <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in message
> > > > > > news:Xns9526F32D4B0F0DW@dragon.pl...
> > > > > >
> > > > > >> dfritzin@hotmail.com (David Fritzinger) wrote in
> > > > > >> news:b82925bb.0407141427.4c800869@posting.google.com:
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> > Xomicron <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in message
> > > > > >> > news:<Xns95268216158ABrt@fla.dragon.pl>...
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> >> dfritzin@hotmail.com (David Fritzinger) wrote in
> > > > > >> >> news:b82925bb.0407131807.153aa84a@posting.google.com:
> > > > > >> >>
> > > > > >> >> > Xomicron <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in message
> > > > > >> >> >
> news:<36d51cf3183ad221268accf5f2eb6df4@news.bubbanews.com>...
> > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > >> >> >> "Bill Case" <Bill549@Hotmail.com> wrote in
> > > > > >> >> >> news:vtZIc.1482$mL5.626@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net:
> > > > > >> >> >>
> > > > > >> >> >>> "Xomicron" <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in message
> > > > > >> >> >>> news:a2ec$40f44320$ca6c230c$23707@nf1.news-service-com...
> > > > > >> >> >>>
> > > > > >> >> >>>> Don't worry, if Kerry and Ambulance Chasing Edwards get
> > > > > >> >> >>>> elected, we can expect a whole army of lawyers to be sent
> out
> > > > > >> >> >>>> after the terrorists with threats of lawsuits all sorts
> of
> > > > > >> >> >>>> awful legal trouble if they don't stop killing us and
> behave
> > > > > >> >> >>>> themselves, Boy that will show 'em! And just think of the
> > >  very
> > > > > >> >> >>>> lucrative jobs it would create for Edwards' trial lawyers
> > > > > >> >> >>>> buddies in the event of a catastrophic terrorist hit,
> suing
> > > > > >> >> >>>> everybody still breathing on behalf of the victims, and
> it's
> > > > > >> >> >>>> only fair that they be rewarded, after all, they gave so
> > > > > >> >> >>>> unselfishly to his campaign!
> > > > > >> >> >>>
> > > > > >> >> >>> Sure, sure.
> > > > > >> >> >>>
> > > > > >> >> >>> You do know Bush let did nothing about the Cole attack
> that
> > > > > >> >> >>> killed 17 US sailors, don't you? He let 8 months go by
> after
> > >  the
> > > > > >> >> >>> CIA id'd al Qaeda as the source organization. Al Qaeda
> > >  captives
> > > > > >> >> >>> have been reported as saying that took encouragement from
> > >  that.
> > > > > >> >> >>
> > > > > >> >> >> The Cole bombing occurred under Clinton.
> > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > >> >> > Just before the election. Bush then let 9 months go by
> without
> > > > > >> >> > doing anything. Again you show your ignorance.
> > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > >> >> >>> You do know that he did nothing to increase airliner
> security
> > > > > >> >> >>> pre 9/11, which could have precluded the terrorists (armed
> > > > > >> >> >>> pilots, air marshals etc).
> > > > > >> >> >>
> > > > > >> >> >> Thanks for proving that hindsight it 20/20.
> > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > >> >> > And, Ashcroft actually took forces away from anti-terrorism
> > > > > >> >> > efforts. This after the Clinton administration warned the
> > >  Bushies
> > > > > >> >> > that al Qaeda was the main threat they would face.
> > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > >> >> >>> You do know Bush ignored pre 9/11 warnings about al qaeda,
> > >  don't
> > > > > >> >> >>> you?
> > > > > >> >> >>
> > > > > >> >> >> Bullshit.
> > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > >> >> > THere is a cogent reply, not.
> > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > >> >> >>> You do know Bush resisted the 9/11 investigation that is
> > > > > >> >> >>> analyzing what went wrong, don't you? Why would he do
> that?
> > > > > >> >> >>
> > > > > >> >> >> Because it's a sham.
> > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > >> >> > Or, more likely, because he knew he didn't do enough. Now,
> I'm
> > >  not
> > > > > >> >> > really blaming him, but the investigation certainly was not
> a
> > > > > >> >> > sham.
> > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > >> >> >>> You do know that intelligence is the main factor in
> combating
> > > > > >> >> >>> terrorism don't you? Human intelligence largely depends on
> > >  good
> > > > > >> >> >>> will. Do you think Bush has helped that by his "axis of
> Evil"
> > > > > >> >> >>> talk and snubbing Europe and the Iraq occupation and Abu
> > > > > >> >> >>> Ghraib's affect on the Arab / Moslem world?
> > > > > >> >> >>
> > > > > >> >> >> Oh shut the fuck up. If the world is offended when we go
> after
> > > > > >> >> >> our enemies then the world can go to hell. The Abu Ghraib
> > > > > >> >> >> incident was a bunch of dumbasses living out their idiotic
> frat
> > > > > >> >> >> house fantasies. What that has to do with Bush I'm not
> sure.
> > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > >> >> > His administration set the precedents by announcing that
> Afghans
> > > > > >> >> > captured didn't have any rights under the Geneva
> Conventions.
> > >  See
> > > > > >> >> > the memos flying around the Pentagon and White House after
> 9/11.
> > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > >> >> >>> Kerry had the guts to volunteer his way into river boats
> in
> > > > > >> >> >>> Vietnam while Bush and Cheney were evading duty.
> > > > > >> >> >>
> > > > > >> >> >> Bush served and was honorably discharged.
> > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > >> >> > In a "Champaigne" unit that had no chance of going to
> actually
> > > > > >> >> > fight. And, there is still the question of the last year of
> > >  Bush's
> > > > > >> >> > "service".
> > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > >> >> >>> Bush talked big but backed down over taking Faluja and
> taking
> > > > > >> >> >>> down Sadr when he saw it would be a fight.
> > > > > >> >> >>> Kerry is the far better choice.
> > > > > >> >> >>
> > > > > >> >> >> Oh please. If Bush had given the OK for taking down Falluja
> you
> > > > > >> >> >> left wingnut pussies would be calling him a baby killer.
> > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > >> >> > You are changing the subject, Snubis. The fact is that, in
> is
> > > > > >> >> > usual, flip-flopping way, Bush said he would do something,
> and
> > > > > >> >> > didn't follow through.
> > > > > >> >>
> > > > > >> >> Sorry. This is not an example of John Kerry's fort�. In war,
> > >  things
> > > > > >> >> change. It no longer became necessary to take Falluja by
> force.
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > First, it is noted that you did not answer any of my other
> points.
> > > > > >> > Second, you are wrong, both about Kerry's flip-flops (Bush has
> > > > > >> > flip-flopped at least as much as Kerry-See:
> > > > > >> >
> http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=42263),
> > >  and
> > > > > >> > about the reason for Bush's flip-flop on Falluja (and, on
> Sadr).
> > >  Fact
> > > > > >> > was, he had no way to go into Falluja, but he made a dumbass
> > >  promise
> > > > > >> > to do so. This is so typical of Bush.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Sorry. This isn't an example of a flip flop. You obviously are
> > >  ignorant
> > > > > >> of descision making in times of war.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> A flip flop would be changing your stance on an issue, like
> saying
> > >  life
> > > > > >> begins at conception while at the same time saying you are
> > >  pro-choice.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > What an incredible thing to say.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Talking big then backing down on a war objective is a lot worse
> and
> > >  has
> > > > > > far worse implications for US security, than do arguments about
> > >  domestic
> > > > > > social policy issues.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You do know North Korea shows little fear of us now and is openly
> > > > > > talking of producing nukes. Do you think they don't notice what a
> > >  phony
> > > > > > Bush is?
> > > > >
> > > > > They know Bush will kick their ass.
> > > >
> > > > Hahahaha.
> > > > The problem is that they think just the opposite, they're talking and
> > >  acting
> > > > without fear of  him, and the US is doing nothing about it.
> > >
> > > Actually the way Bush has handled North Korea has been excellent.
> > > I don't approve of how Bush has handled everything, but he has handled
> North
> > > Korea
> > > very well.
> >
> > The vast majority of people who actually know something about NK
> > disagree with  you. I mean, it was a brilliant thing Bush did,
> > insulting the NK leader, and ignoring the NK issue during most of the
> > beginning of his administration.
> 
> Sorry but every paper I read, even congressional members agree, Bush did the
> right thing
> by not giving into N.K.'s demands.
> Now, maybe you and other liberals would give in..but Bush didn't.

Of course, the fact that the only papers you seem to read are the 
Washington Times and the NY Post may explain the fact that your view of 
reality is at odds with the real world. 
> 
> 
> > >
> > > North Korea knows better, and they are just trying to push a few buttons
> > > because they are having
> > > a little temper tantrum. Bush has shown the world that the U.S. doesn't
> cave
> > > into idol threats.
> > > And you better think about something else.  North Korea has a very large
> > > country right above them that they don't want to make too mad.
> > >
> > > If North Korea ever attempted a nuclear strike, it would be the end of
> their
> > > existence as we know it today.
> >
> > That is obvious. However, NK could give weapons to al Qaeda. After
> > all, when the Pakistani nuclear scientist Khan was discovered to have
> > given weapons technology to NK, Iran, and Libya,  Bush did nothing.
> > Bush, in my estimation, is the worst president we have had, probably
> > since Warren Harding.
> 
> Well if you want to vote for a worse one, then vote for Kerry.
> I am not voting for Kerry.  I don't like everything about Bush, but I
> certainly
> feel safer with him as president than I would with someone like Kerry.

Yeah, you'll feel safer as our debt grows and grow. What will we do if 
the Chinese and Japanese decide they will no longer buy our gov't bonds? 
I'm not voting for Bush because of the fact that he has managed to screw 
up everything he has touched as president, and in the business world 
before he became president.

-- 
Dave Fritzinger
0
7/16/2004 5:19:42 AM
In article <459b795826d3e4f5080c0d04d46f8c37@news.bubbanews.com>,
 Xomicron <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote:

> dfritzin@hotmail.com (David Fritzinger) wrote in
> news:b82925bb.0407151459.d99b0a8@posting.google.com: 
> 
> > Xomicron <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in message
> > news:<e32e988d881362ab07dbb2a1cdbe791f@news.bubbanews.com>... 
> >> David Fritzinger <dfritzinnospam@mac.com> wrote in
> >> news:dfritzinnospam-8B2FA5.19424814072004@orngca-news03.socal.rr.com: 
> >> 
> >> >> The evidence doesn't support your bullshit.
> >> > 
> >> > Was or was not the nexus of terrorism in Afghanistan. The answer is
> >> > yes. Did SH have WMD or connections to al Qaeda? 
> >> 
> >> The link from Iraq to terrorist organizations has long been
> >> established. 
> > 
> > Then, why didn't the senate or the 9/11 commission find it. Me thinks
> > you are wrong. Or is it just delusional?
> >> 
> >> > So, why did Bush attack a country that had nothing to do with the
> >> > attack on us, and virtually ignore the people who did?
> >> 
> >> And we all know that 9-11 was the only terrorist attack ever.
> > 
> > So, what terrorist attacks eminating from Iraq have been done against
> > the US?
> >> 
> >> >>> Sort of like if we had attacked Mexico after Pearl Harbor.
> >> >> 
> >> >> The Democrats of today would be whining about FDR going to war with
> >> >> Germany when the real threat was Japan. 
> >> > 
> >> > More lies from Snubie. Sorry, but it was the Republicans who were 
> >> > against us going to war in '41. 
> >> 
> >> So were the Democrats but that isn't the point.
> > 
> > Do you actually have one? I doubt it. 
> >> 
> >> > Besides, Hitler declared war on us after Pearl Harbor. Please, for
> >> > once in your poor, pitiful existence, try to get at least one thing
> >> > right. 
> >> 
> >> As I said, Japan did attack us and Germany did not.  You agree?
> > 
> > Germany declared war on us. If they hadn't, it is an open question
> > whether Roosevelt (a Democrat) could have convinced Congress to go to
> > war against Germany.
> >> 
> >> Anyway, the left wingers in this thread (like most here) deal only with
> >> over-simplifications. 
> > 
> > Says the king of oversimplification.
> >> 
> >> When one delves into the complications of war, rash statements like 
> >> "Iraq never attacked the US" become a bit blurry.
> >> 
> >> On 12/5/1941 Zhukov began his counteroffensive. On 12/7/1941, Japan
> >> attacked a US possession. On 12/8/1941, the US and Britain declared war
> >> on Japan, forming an alliance with the Chinese and the Russians
> >> including material support of Zhukov. Only then did the Japanese
> >> declare war on the US. As the US was now allied with the Russians who
> >> were counterattacking the Germans, Germany and Italy went through the
> >> formality of declaring war on the US on 12/11/1941.
> > 
> > You forget the minor fact that Japan attacked us at Pearl Harbor. 
> >> 
> >> Iraq has been a strong and long time supporter of Wahabism, which aims 
> >> to overthrow all Middle Eastern states, many of which are allies of the
> >> US. 
> > 
> > The above statement is a complete lie. Saudi Arabia is a supporter of
> > Whahabism, not Iraq. 
> 
> Iraq was indeed a supporter of Wahabism and was a know financeer of 
> terrorism.

Quite simply, you are lying. As I said, Iraq was a secular state, and 
had no connection with Wahabism. The chief supporter of Wahabism is and 
was Saudi Arabia. Why do you think that two of the three countries that 
recognized the Taliban in Afghanistan were Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, 
our supposed allies. Sorry, Snubie, but your lies are all too 
transparent. 
>  
> >> The Wahabis have attacked the US directly on at least fifteen 
> >> occasions, and have attacked our allies a hundred times. When we look 
> >> back at this nascent Middle East war, 50 years from now, the alliances 
> >> made will be as strange as the alliances we made in 41 and 42. Remember
> >> our good friend Stalin and our enemy, the Italians? In war, our enemy's
> >> friends are our enemies. That's why we are in Iraq and why we are 
> >> forcing states like Iran and Jordan to choose sides before the real 
> >> fighting starts. The game has not yet begun, we are now just choosing
> >> up sides.
> > 
> > As I said, since you apparently know nothing about ME history, or who
> > the players are, your conclusions are obviously wrong. I don't know
> > what your sources are, but you really should get new ones. The ones
> > you have suck.
> 
> It's obvious your ignorance will always get in the way of the truth.

It is obvious that you have been caught in a lie, and are trying to 
bluster your way out of it. Sorry, Snubie, but you've been caught.

-- 
Dave Fritzinger
0
7/16/2004 5:24:41 AM
Xomicron  <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote:
>rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in
>> Xomicron  <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote:

>>> From the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, Clinton had 8 years to do 
>>> something about terrorism. He failed to do anything of significance.
>> 
>> You're confused.  Clinton did quite a bit about terrorism.
>
>Launching a few cruise missles doesn't count.

He did a lot more than that.

>> When a truck bomb killed 200+ Marines in Beirut in 1983, it was
>> REAGAN who did nothing and meekly ran away.
>
>Like Clinton did in Sudan?

No, nothing like Sudan.

>> And terrorists learned that the Reagan had no balls.
>
>Like when he bombed the crap out of Libya?

"Launching a few cruise missles doesn't count."

-- 
Ray Fischer         
rfischer@sonic.net  

0
rfischer (1714)
7/16/2004 6:23:09 AM
oh, I thought they might be dropping out
0
7/16/2004 9:51:36 AM
"David Fritzinger" <dfritzinnospam@mac.com> wrote in message
news:dfritzinnospam-8B2FA5.19424814072004@orngca-news03.socal.rr.com...
> In article <Xns9526F3279F301DW@dragon.pl>, Xomicron <xomicron@wp.pl>
> wrote:
>
> > dfritzin@hotmail.com (David Fritzinger) wrote in
> > news:b82925bb.0407141421.3881105a@posting.google.com:
> >
> > > Xomicron <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in message
> > > news:<ae117$40f55426$45f0b78b$14525@nf1.news-service-com>...
> > >> "Bill Case" <Bill549@Hotmail.com> wrote in
> > >> news:zB%Ic.1642$mL5.223@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net:
> > >>
> > >> > "Frank Dwyer" <fdwyer@citlink.net> wrote in message
> > >> > news:40F4749B.A37548D7@citlink.net...
> > >> >
> > >> >> He did more about it than the administration under whom it
happened
> > >> >> did.
> > >> >
> > >> > It's widely known the CIA didn't attribute it to Al Qaeda until
> > >> > around the time of administration change.
> > >> > I don't like Clinton, but he did launch attacks, one killed around
> > >> > 200 al qaeda in Afghanistan. (Cruises missiles)
> > >>
> > >> More like blew up some empty tents
> > >
> > > At least he did something, unlike Bush (until 9/11).
> >
> > From the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, Clinton had 8 years to do
> > something about terrorism. He failed to do anything of significance.
>
> That is, to put it simply, pure and unadulterated bullshit. The Clinton
> Administration caught the people involved and they are currently in
> jail. His administration also stopped the Millenium terrorist plot. When
> he handed the keys to the White House to Bush, he warned him that the
> biggest threat he would face was al Qaeda. Bush promptly ignored him.
>
> You really should get your facts straight before you tell your lies,
> Snubis.
> >
> > > Of course, after
> > > 9/11 Bush certainly did something. He attacked Iraq, which had no WMD
> > > and no connection with al Qaeda or OBL.
> >
> > The evidence doesn't support your bullshit.
>
> Was or was not the nexus of terrorism in Afghanistan. The answer is yes.
> Did SH have WMD or connections to al Qaeda? The answer is no. So, why
> did Bush attack a country that had nothing to do with the attack on us,
> and virtually ignore the people who did? It appears that the south end
> of a bull facing north (ie, the one spouting the bs) is you, snubie.
> >
> > > Sort of like if we had attacked Mexico after Pearl Harbor.
> >
> > The Democrats of today would be whining about FDR going to war with
> > Germany when the real threat was Japan.
>
> More lies from Snubie. Sorry, but it was the Republicans who were
> against us going to war in '41. Besides, Hitler declared war on us after
> Pearl Harbor. Please, for once in your poor, pitiful existence, try to
> get at least one thing right.
>
> -- 
> Dave Fritzinger

Thank you for telling him what time it is.


0
righter (5)
7/16/2004 1:01:24 PM
"David Fritzinger" <dfritzinnospam@mac.com> wrote in message > > It's
obvious your ignorance will always get in the way of the truth.
>
> It is obvious that you have been caught in a lie, and are trying to
> bluster your way out of it. Sorry, Snubie, but you've been caught.
>
> -- 
> Dave Fritzinger

You do realize that this is the guy who's been spamming the shit out of
alt.tv.sopranos, don't you.  He's a computer geek who's never had a date
with a woman.


0
righter (5)
7/16/2004 1:08:34 PM
dfritzin@hotmail.com (David Fritzinger) wrote in
news:b82925bb.0407151016.5c650691@posting.google.com: 

> "Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote in message
> news:<KLydnRuVr4qiBGvdRVn-uw@comcast.com>... 
>
> The vast majority of people who actually know something about NK
> disagree with  you. I mean, it was a brilliant thing Bush did,
> insulting the NK leader, and ignoring the NK issue during most of the
> beginning of his administration.

At the beginning of Bush's administration there wasn't a North Korea
problem. 

>> North Korea knows better, and they are just trying to push a few
>> buttons because they are having a little temper tantrum. Bush has shown
>> the world that the U.S. doesn't cave into idol threats. And you better
>> think about something else.  North Korea has a very large country right
>> above them that they don't want to make too mad. 
>> 
>> If North Korea ever attempted a nuclear strike, it would be the end of
>> their existence as we know it today.
> 
> That is obvious. However, NK could give weapons to al Qaeda. After
> all, when the Pakistani nuclear scientist Khan was discovered to have
> given weapons technology to NK, Iran, and Libya,  Bush did nothing.

What should he have done?
0
xomicron (578)
7/16/2004 2:47:21 PM
David Fritzinger wrote:
> 
> "Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote in message news:<vrydnUvF05IfBWvdRVn-jw@comcast.com>...
> > "Bill Case" <Bill549@Hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:9awJc.3727$Qu5.1141@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> > >
> > > "Timberwoof" <timberwoof@stimpberawoofm.com> wrote in message
> > > news:timberwoof-E290CE.20205114072004@typhoon.sonic.net...
> > > > In article <Sd3Jc.2000$mL5.944@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
> > > >  "Bill Case" <Bill549@Hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Clinton killed around 200 of them in a crusie missle strike. I would
> >  have
> > > > > liked to have seen raids on all their Afghan camps - how hard is that
> >  to
> >  fig
> > > > > ure out?
> > > >
> > > > So would Clinton have. The problem was that the army kept telling his
> > > > secretary of defense that there wasn't enough "actionable intelligence,"
> > > > and there was no way the country would have let him start a war, what
> > > > with all the muckraking the Republicans were doing. They would have just
> > > > added that to the list of things he was doing wrong, saying he was
> > > > trying to distract the country from the important stuff -- ancient
> > > > financial dealings his buddies back home did and the affair with that
> > > > Lewinsky chick.
> > >
> > > Even Clinton attacked the terrorists while Bush pre 9/11 was passive. When
> > > Clinton did launch some strikes, a lot of these Bush phony patriots
> >  accused
> > > him of "wag the dog" actions to divert from Lewinski and all that.
> >
> > Because it was a diversion.  Every single time Clinton was caught up in
> > another one of his scandals, he used the military.
> >
> 
> Wrong! It is true, however, that his scandals prevented him from doing
> as much as he wanted. Read Richard Clarke's book.
> >
> > >
> > > Bush was passive toward terrorism in the 8 months he was in office before
> > > 9/11.
> >
> > What was he supposed to be doing?
> > We had to get through Pakistan.
> 
> He did nothing. He didn't try to go through Pakistan. Ashcroft took
> money out of the anti-terrorism budget. Clinton told him that al Qaeda
> would be his biggest foreign policy challenge, and he said, no, it
> would be Iraq.
> >
> >
> > Since then, he's mishandled the efforts and most analysts say he's
> > > created a bigger pool of Islamic recruits for terror operations.
> >
> > Yes, some will say that and others will disagree.
> 
> Not if they are rational.
> >
> >
> > > The way Bush has handled Iraq, he's wasted billions that should have gone
> > > into port security etc., to preclude a nuke being brought into a harbor /
> > > airport etc and detonated.
> >
> > How many terrorist have successfully attacked the U.S. since 9/11?
> 
> Yet, terrorism in the world is up (despite the fact that the State
> Department tried to release a report saying the opposite). Also, how
> many al Qaeda attacks were there in the US during the Clinton
> Administration. One, WTCI. And that one was only about 6 weeks after
> Clinton took office.

Strange, that's the exact same number of attacks in the US as there have
been during the current administration.
0
fdwyer (46)
7/16/2004 3:12:11 PM
Bill Case wrote:
> 
> "Frank Dwyer" <fdwyer@citlink.net> wrote in message
> news:40F6D3B8.1E4F884D@citlink.net...
> > Bill Case wrote:
> > >
> > > "Timberwoof" <timberwoof@stimpberawoofm.com> wrote in message
> > > news:timberwoof-E290CE.20205114072004@typhoon.sonic.net...
> > > > In article <Sd3Jc.2000$mL5.944@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
> > > >  "Bill Case" <Bill549@Hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Clinton killed around 200 of them in a crusie missle strike. I would
> > > have
> > > > > liked to have seen raids on all their Afghan camps - how hard is
> that to
> > > fig
> > > > > ure out?
> > > >
> > > > So would Clinton have. The problem was that the army kept telling his
> > > > secretary of defense that there wasn't enough "actionable
> intelligence,"
> > > > and there was no way the country would have let him start a war, what
> > > > with all the muckraking the Republicans were doing. They would have
> just
> > > > added that to the list of things he was doing wrong, saying he was
> > > > trying to distract the country from the important stuff -- ancient
> > > > financial dealings his buddies back home did and the affair with that
> > > > Lewinsky chick.
> > >
> > > Even Clinton attacked the terrorists while Bush pre 9/11 was passive.
> When
> > > Clinton did launch some strikes, a lot of these Bush phony patriots
> accused
> > > him of "wag the dog" actions to divert from Lewinski and all that.
> > >
> > > Bush was passive toward terrorism in the 8 months he was in office
> before
> > > 9/11.
> >
> > As was the rest of the country.
> 
> Hahaha.  God, are you for real?

No, god is not.

> He's the Presdient. HE directs national securuty efforts.
> He had advisers, and even Clinton, telling him to put al qaeda at the top
> priority.

"Even Clinton". You make it sound like if Clinton said it, then it had
to be important. However, it wasn't that important for Clinton.

> > > Since then, he's mishandled the efforts and most analysts say he's
> > > created a bigger pool of Islamic recruits for terror operations.
> >
> > Analysts? Is that what they're called now?
> 
> What??? are you on something?

Who are these "analysts"?
0
fdwyer (46)
7/16/2004 3:16:13 PM
"Frank Dwyer" <fdwyer@citlink.net> wrote in 40F7F077.68966F5C@citlink.net on
7/16/04 8:12 AM:

>> Yet, terrorism in the world is up (despite the fact that the State
>> Department tried to release a report saying the opposite). Also, how
>> many al Qaeda attacks were there in the US during the Clinton
>> Administration. One, WTCI. And that one was only about 6 weeks after
>> Clinton took office.
> 
> Strange, that's the exact same number of attacks in the US as there have
> been during the current administration.

Was 9/11 a single attack or a coordinated set of attacks?  Probably just
semantics, but it seems it would be fair to consider each plane that was
hijacked as an "attack".

-- 
"If A = B and B = C, then A = C, except where void or prohibited by law."
Roy Santoro, Psycho Proverb Zone (http://smallurl.com/?i=15235)

0
snit-nospam (5415)
7/16/2004 3:19:26 PM
Bill Case wrote:
> 
> "Frank Dwyer" <fdwyer@citlink.net> wrote in message
> news:40F5CD75.E7E11B27@citlink.net...
> > Bill Case wrote:
> > >
> > > "Xomicron" <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in message
> > > news:99014b3a4d0deeefed2074466df35e25@news.bubbanews.com...
> > > > "Bill Case" <Bill549@Hotmail.com> wrote in
> > > > news:%BfJc.2508$mL5.1847@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net:
> > > >
> > > > > "Xomicron" <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in message
> > > > > news:48f5a03756b590d6dd4fdf877d722592@news.bubbanews.com...
> > > > >
> > > > >> "Bill Case" <Bill549@Hotmail.com> wrote in
> > > > >> news:t7fJc.2473$mL5.1628@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net:
> > > > >>
> > > > >> > "Xomicron" <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in message
> > > > >> > news:Xns9526917E1A2E7x@dragon.pl...
> > > > >> >> "Bill Case" <Bill549@Hotmail.com> wrote in
> > > > >> >> news:NoeJc.2427$mL5.2395@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net:
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >> > "Xomicron" <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in message
> > > > >> >> > news:ac322$40f5613f$45f0b78b$30321@nf1.news-service-com...
> > > > >> >> >> "Bill Case" <Bill549@Hotmail.com> wrote in
> > > > >> >> >> news:IWcJc.2968$Qu5.1720@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net:
> > > > >> >> >>
> > > > >> >> >> > "Xomicron" <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in message
> > > > >> >> >> > news:ae117$40f55426$45f0b78b$14525@nf1.news-service-com...
> > > > >> >> >> >
> > > > >> >> >> >> "Bill Case" <Bill549@Hotmail.com> wrote in
> > > > >> >> >> >> news:zB%Ic.1642$mL5.223@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net:
> > > > >> >> >> >>
> > > > >> >> >> >>> "Frank Dwyer" <fdwyer@citlink.net> wrote in message
> > > > >> >> >> >>> news:40F4749B.A37548D7@citlink.net...
> > > > >> >> >> >>>
> > > > >> >> >> >>>> He did more about it than the administration under whom
> it
> > > > >> >> >> >>>> happened did.
> > > > >> >> >> >>>
> > > > >> >> >> >>> It's widely known the CIA didn't attribute it to Al Qaeda
> > > > >> >> >> >>> until around the time of administration change.
> > > > >> >> >> >>> I don't like Clinton, but he did launch attacks, one
> killed
> > > > >> >> >> >>> around 200 al qaeda in Afghanistan. (Cruises missiles)
> > > > >> >> >> >>
> > > > >> >> >> >> More like blew up some empty tents.
> > > > >> >> >> >
> > > > >> >> >> > If you actually knew anything about this war on terror, you
> > > > >> >> >> > would know that intelligence is that they killed a lot of
> them,
> > > > >> >> >> > and OBL had left that camp not long before.
> > > > >> >> >> >
> > > > >> >> >> >>
> > > > >> >> >> >> > Irregardless,  why didn't Bush act?
> > > > >> >> >> >> > On 9/11 he sat like a rabbit after being told of the 2
> WTC
> > > > >> >> >> >> > hits.
> > > > >> >> >> >>
> > > > >> >> >> >> What should he have done? Keeping in mind that no one
> really
> > > > >> >> >> >> knew what was going on.
> > > > >> >> >> >
> > > > >> >> >> > A commander, or just any guy with balls and brains, is
> going to
> > > > >> >> >> > want to know all the info available, ask questions to get
> his
> > > > >> >> >> > staff going and thinking, get his mind working on the
> problem
> > > > >> >> >> > he's facing, make sure his people are all "up" and active.
> > > > >> >> >> >
> > > > >> >> >> > In a situation like that, you might be asked to make a
> > > > >> >> >> > decision, maybe a big one, quickly. To do that you need to
> have
> > > > >> >> >> > your mind active and focused. A leader wants to be certain
> > > > >> >> >> > everybody is doing all they can and all the available info
> on
> > > > >> >> >> > what's happening is getting to him.
> > > > >> >> >> >
> > > > >> >> >> > Instead, he sat there like a passive receiver.
> > > > >> >> >>
> > > > >> >> >> So what should he have done? There were massively conflicting
> > > > >> >> >> reports that said anywhere from JUST ONE plane, to SIX
> different
> > > > >> >> >> aircraft had been either hijacked, or had some sort of
> > > > >> >> >> malfunction. Which one of these presumptions do you make?
> Keep in
> > > > >> >> >> mind that if you're wrong, people die, if you're right,
> people
> > > > >> >> >> die. And also keep in mind that shooting them down and being
> > > > >> >> >> right in doing so, may destroy any proof that you were right.
> No
> > > > >> >> >> proof to your own conscience, no proof to your friends, no
> proof
> > > > >> >> >> to your staff, and just to also throw in the lowest common
> > > > >> >> >> denominator, no proof to the voters.
> > > > >> >> >>
> > > > >> >> >> And we all know how much proof it requires to convince people
> who
> > > > >> >> >> hate Bush of anything. Today we'd be hearing about how Bush
> is a
> > > > >> >> >> murderer who shoots down civilian airlines.
> > > > >> >> >>
> > > > >> >> >> > But first of all, get yourself away from children in case
> an
> > > > >> >> >> > attempt is about to be made on you.
> > > > >> >> >>
> > > > >> >> >> What would events 1500 miles away have to do with Bush being
> > > > >> >> >> assassinated?
> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> >> > As I've described in a prior post, his actions were not those
> of
> > > > >> >> > tough smart leader whose country is under attack.
> > > > >> >> > What should he have done? Taken charge. Instead he sat there
> in a
> > > > >> >> > state of confusion, with children around him.
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >> It seems that nothing Bush does or could have done would ever be
> > > > >> >> good enough for the loony left.
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > That won't work sport.
> > > > >> > Bush quote regarding evading Vietnam war service:
> > > > >> > "I was not prepared to shoot my eardrum out with a shotgun in
> > > > >> > order to get a deferment. Nor was I willing to go to Canada. So I
> > > > >> > chose to better myself by learning how to fly airplanes," Bush
> told
> > > > >> > an interviewer in Houston. "
> > > > >>
> > > > >> A lot better than our previous president ever did, yet the left
> fawns
> > > > >> over him.
> > > > >
> > > > > I didn't vote for Clinton.
> > > > >
> > > > > This election isn't about Clinton, he's not a candidate.
> > > > >
> > > > > But since you bring it up, it's historical fact, that pre 9/11,
> Clinton
> > > > > DID do more against terrorists than Bush did. He attacked them with
> > > > > cruise missiles, killed hundreds of them. Pre 9/11, Bush never even
> > > > > tried to retaliate for the USS Cole attack which killed 17
> Americans.
> > > >
> > > > Lobbing a few cruise missiles at tents is not cracking down on
> terrorism.
> > > > Clinton had 8 years to deal with terrorism starting from when the WTC
> was
> > > > bombed in 1993.
> > >
> > > He killed around 200 of them and apparnelty came close to catching OBL
> in
> > > the attack, he had left the area shortly before the raid.
> >
> > Let me guess, this came from the same intelligence sources that said
> > Iraq had WMDs, right?
> 
> Do you think the sources of intel for casualties from an attack in
> Afghanistan are the same as those for WMD in Iraq?

It goes through the same channels prior to reaching the White House.
 
> > > That's WAY more than Bush did in answer to the Cole. Bush was passive
> and
> > > Afghan al qaeda prisoner interviews indicate that were encouraged by the
> > > lack of retaliation. He had 8 months. He stated in intereviews that pre
> > > 9/11, terrorism was low on his priorities - he's stupid.
> >
> > Terrorism was low on every American's priority list.
> 
> It was not. Richard Clarke wrote a whole book dealing with that. Clinton
> told Bush on inaugaration day that his #1 problem was al qaeda and OBL.

Cite?
Who's #1 problem, Clinton's?
 
> You don't know enough about this subject to even post intelligently.

I know more about it than what you've heard from Richard Clarke.

> > > You keep trying to explain away Bush inaction by talking about Clinton.
> > > That's Fox News and oxycontin Rush propaganda. It's not reality.
> > >
> > > > When 9-11 hit, Bush reacted and cracked down on terrorism.
> > >
> > > For gods sake, any US president or any other national leader who didn't
> > > respond to an attack like 9/11 would have been thrown out of office.
> > > Clinton, Mother theresa, little Bo Peep, anyone would have responded by
> > > attacking them. Do you think Clinton would not have attacked??
> >
> > Of course he would have, because it was then obvious that his game of
> > Gorillas that you keep touting as "doing something" didn't accomplish
> > much at all.
> >
> > > > > Also, Bush didn't want to attack Al Qaeda in Afghanistan after
> 9/11 - he
> > > > > wanted to attack Iraq first - he was dissuaded by PM Blair and
> others.
> > > >
> > > > The facts don't support this.
> > >
> > > Wrong, your just wrong.
> > > From Cole's website http://www.juancole.com/
> > >
> > > Cole is a credible middle east expert who regularly appears on network
> news
> > > programs. He's left of center but he also has a professional reputation
> to
> > > protect and he can't just make crap up like oxy Rush and the Fox
> propaganda
> > > machine can.
> > >
> > > Quote from 7/14 website:
> > >
> > > The Afghanistan war was the right war at the right time, and it did
> break up
> > > the network of al-Qaeda training camps from which terrorists would have
> gone
> > > on hitting the United States. But the fact is that Bush, Cheney and
> Rumsfeld
> > > did not want to fight that war after September 11. Rumsfeld sniffed that
> > > "there were no good targets" in Afghanistan.
> >
> > Was that not true?
> 
> For Christ sake. That's where al qaeda's infrstructure was and where they
> ran their training from which they sent future terrorists out into the
> world. Don't you know anything?

For Christ sake, we lobbed a few missles in that direction and it didn't
help one bit. 9/11 still happened. Since we've been there, we've still
been unable to locate the "good" targets.
Don't YOU know anything?

> > > Bush, Rumsfeld and Cheney all
> > > wanted to leave al-Qaeda in Afghanistan and attack Iraq first. At first
> > > Wolfowitz was leaked as the proponent of this crazy idea, and although
> he
> > > did back it, it is now clear from insider accounts like that of Richard
> > > Clark that the three top leaders just mentioned wanted Iraq first. The
> UK
> > > ambassador to the US maintains that it was Tony Blair who talked Bush
> into
> > > going after al-Qaeda in Afghanistan first, with a promise that he would
> > > later support an Iraq war.
> >
> > Like we'd expect the UK Ambassador to say anything else?
> 
> You're saying he's lying? where';s your proof?

oh great.. someone else who'll twist the meaning of what is written in
en effort to create a debate...
You're saying I said he was lying? Where's your proof?

> > > MI6 would have been briefing Tony about the dire
> > > threat coming from Afghanistan, and he, unlike the Bush team, could see
> the
> > > dangers of getting bogged down in an Iraq quagmire while al-Qaeda and
> the
> > > Taliban were still in control of Afghanistan. (Can you imagine the full
> > > scope of that disaster that Bush had planned for us?)    end quote
> >
> > Well, imagining it is all we can do, as it didn't happen that way.
> >
> > > Bush is NOT a competent war leader.
> >
> > Why?
> 
> Probably his llack of intellkigence (IQ),

What's his IQ? For that matter, what's yours?

> lack of an active mind,

Proof?

> lack of experience from having evaded the VN war when he was young,

Proof?

> alcohol abuse,

Proof?

> he practically admitted cocaine use - that doens't do the brain any good, a
> lot of thing s enter into his incompetence and the mess we are in, in Iraq.
> 
> You do know authorities on terrorism say the Iraq things has created a new
> pool of terrorists for us to deal with in the future, right?

Authorities on terrorism? Is that what they're called today? Yesterday
they were "analysts".

> > >  Look at the bogged down mess we have in Iraq because of the stupid
> asses
> > > dissolving the Iraqi army and police with nothing to replace it.
> > >
> > > And don't tell me the Iraqi army posed a threat - their general were
> > > constantly in communication with the CIA on cell phones, that's why we
> > > blazed in there and didn't have costly urban combat.
> >
> > Yeah, it's all a secret conspiracy.
> 
> Duhhhhhhhh ?

LMAO! Here's some foil, make a hat.
0
fdwyer (46)
7/16/2004 3:27:50 PM
Bill Case wrote:
> 
> "Frank Dwyer" <fdwyer@citlink.net> wrote in message
> news:40F5CB46.53F1ADD8@citlink.net...
> > Bill Case wrote:
> > >
> > > "Xomicron" <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in message
> > > news:ac322$40f5613f$45f0b78b$30321@nf1.news-service-com...
> > > > "Bill Case" <Bill549@Hotmail.com> wrote in
> > > > news:IWcJc.2968$Qu5.1720@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net:
> > > >
> > > > > "Xomicron" <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in message
> > > > > news:ae117$40f55426$45f0b78b$14525@nf1.news-service-com...
> > > > >
> > > > >> "Bill Case" <Bill549@Hotmail.com> wrote in
> > > > >> news:zB%Ic.1642$mL5.223@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net:
> > > > >>
> > > > >>> "Frank Dwyer" <fdwyer@citlink.net> wrote in message
> > > > >>> news:40F4749B.A37548D7@citlink.net...
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>> He did more about it than the administration under whom it
> happened
> > > > >>>> did.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> It's widely known the CIA didn't attribute it to Al Qaeda until
> > > > >>> around the time of administration change.
> > > > >>> I don't like Clinton, but he did launch attacks, one killed around
> > > > >>> 200 al qaeda in Afghanistan. (Cruises missiles)
> > > > >>
> > > > >> More like blew up some empty tents.
> > > > >
> > > > > If you actually knew anything about this war on terror, you would
> know
> > > > > that intelligence is that they killed a lot of them, and OBL had
> left
> > > > > that camp not long before.
> > > > >
> > > > >>
> > > > >> > Irregardless,  why didn't Bush act?
> > > > >> > On 9/11 he sat like a rabbit after being told of the 2 WTC hits.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> What should he have done? Keeping in mind that no one really knew
> what
> > > > >> was going on.
> > > > >
> > > > > A commander, or just any guy with balls and brains, is going to want
> to
> > > > > know all the info available, ask questions to get his staff going
> and
> > > > > thinking, get his mind working on the problem he's facing, make sure
> his
> > > > > people are all "up" and active.
> > > > >
> > > > > In a situation like that, you might be asked to make a decision,
> maybe a
> > > > > big one, quickly. To do that you need to have your mind active and
> > > > > focused. A leader wants to be certain everybody is doing all they
> can
> > > > > and all the available info on what's happening is getting to him.
> > > > >
> > > > > Instead, he sat there like a passive receiver.
> > > >
> > > > So what should he have done? There were massively conflicting reports
> that
> > > > said anywhere from JUST ONE plane, to SIX different aircraft had been
> > > > either hijacked, or had some sort of malfunction. Which one of these
> > > > presumptions do you make? Keep in mind that if you're wrong, people
> die,
> > > > if you're right, people die. And also keep in mind that shooting them
> down
> > > > and being right in doing so, may destroy any proof that you were
> right. No
> > > > proof to your own conscience, no proof to your friends, no proof to
> your
> > > > staff, and just to also throw in the lowest common denominator, no
> proof
> > > > to the voters.
> > > >
> > > > And we all know how much proof it requires to convince people who hate
> > > > Bush of anything. Today we'd be hearing about how Bush is a murderer
> who
> > > > shoots down civilian airlines.
> > > >
> > > > > But first of all, get yourself away from children in case an attempt
> is
> > > > > about to be made on you.
> > > >
> > > > What would events 1500 miles away have to do with Bush being
> > > > assassinated?
> > >
> > > As I've described in a prior post, his actions were not those of tough
> smart
> > > leader whose country is under attack.
> > > What should he have done? Taken charge. Instead he sat there in a state
> of
> > > confusion, with children around him.
> >
> > He was in charge. He's the President, remember?
> > Now, that aside, what precisely should he have done? "Taken charge" is
> > not a good answer.
> 
> Are you for real? Does everything have to be spelled out for you?

Are YO for real? Are you so completely befuddled by the whole situation
that you're completely unable to answer that question with specifics? Is
"he should've done something" the best you can offer? If so, everyone
"should've done something".

It's becoming quite apparent that you really have nothing of substance
to offer on this issue. You just repeat "he should've done something"
without offering any examples of exactly what he should've done.
Those who can't play, coach. Those who can't coach sit in the stands
with their shirt off, drinking a beer and yelling at the coach.
Welcome to the grandstand.
0
fdwyer (46)
7/16/2004 3:32:10 PM
Bill Case wrote:
> 
> "Timberwoof" <timberwoof@stimpberawoofm.com> wrote in message
> news:timberwoof-3C833A.20292014072004@typhoon.sonic.net...
> > In article <40F5CB46.53F1ADD8@citlink.net>,
> >  Frank Dwyer <fdwyer@citlink.net> wrote:
> >
> > > > As I've described in a prior post, his actions were not those of tough
> smart
> > > > leader whose country is under attack.
> > > > What should he have done? Taken charge. Instead he sat there in a
> state of
> > > > confusion, with children around him.
> > >
> > > He was in charge. He's the President, remember?
> > > Now, that aside, what precisely should he have done? "Taken charge" is
> > > not a good answer.
> >
> > This particular question has been asked and answered many times over the
> > past few weeks.
> >
> > Bush-loyalists seem to think that his only choices were to sit around
> > looking like a dumbass and running around in a panic. But there is a
> > sane alternative: Say, "Excue me, Miss ____. Excuse me, children.
> > Something very important has come up that needs my attention right now.
> > I have to leave, but I hope I an continue this visit some other time.
> > Goodbye." Then get his ass into his limo and get in contact with the
> > White House so he can get the facts and *act* like he's in charge.
> 
> And try to find out how many kamikaze planes there might be; whether we can
> id and locate them in the air; whether we have fighters in the air WITH
> WEAPONS on them; how many and where;; take his role as commander in chief in
> authorizing shoot downs etc.

That's exactly what I think he should've done. Too bad you couldn't
think of that all by yourself.
0
fdwyer (46)
7/16/2004 3:33:51 PM
Xomicron <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in message news:<559a6b7913215e3642e25077ec68872a@news.bubbanews.com>...
> rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in
> news:cd7nq0$ksu$1@bolt.sonic.net: 
> 
> > Xomicron  <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote:
> >
> >> From the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, Clinton had 8 years to do 
> >> something about terrorism. He failed to do anything of significance.
> > 
> > You're confused.  Clinton did quite a bit about terrorism.
> 
> Launching a few cruise missles doesn't count.
> 
> > When a truck bomb killed 200+ Marines in Beirut in 1983, it was
> > REAGAN who did nothing and meekly ran away.
> 
> Like Clinton did in Sudan?
>  
> > And terrorists learned that the Reagan had no balls.
> 
> Like when he bombed the crap out of Libya?

Wait a minute, here. You are seriously lacking in logic, here. It is
just as easy to say that Clinton bombed the hell out of al Qaeda camps
in Afghanistan and Reagan just dropped a few bombs in Libya. Sorry,
Snubie, you lose, yet again.

--
Dave Fritzinger
0
dfritzin (3022)
7/16/2004 5:34:58 PM
Xomicron <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in message news:<9229125e8154461c323a8c3ea9c6a57c@news.bubbanews.com>...
> dfritzin@hotmail.com (David Fritzinger) wrote in
> news:b82925bb.0407151016.5c650691@posting.google.com: 
> 
> > "Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote in message
> > news:<KLydnRuVr4qiBGvdRVn-uw@comcast.com>... 
> >
> > The vast majority of people who actually know something about NK
> > disagree with  you. I mean, it was a brilliant thing Bush did,
> > insulting the NK leader, and ignoring the NK issue during most of the
> > beginning of his administration.
> 
> At the beginning of Bush's administration there wasn't a North Korea
> problem. 
> 
> >> North Korea knows better, and they are just trying to push a few
> >> buttons because they are having a little temper tantrum. Bush has shown
> >> the world that the U.S. doesn't cave into idol threats. And you better
> >> think about something else.  North Korea has a very large country right
> >> above them that they don't want to make too mad. 
> >> 
> >> If North Korea ever attempted a nuclear strike, it would be the end of
> >> their existence as we know it today.
> > 
> > That is obvious. However, NK could give weapons to al Qaeda. After
> > all, when the Pakistani nuclear scientist Khan was discovered to have
> > given weapons technology to NK, Iran, and Libya,  Bush did nothing.
> 
> What should he have done?

Not insulted the leader of NK, for one. Started working with the other
countries that are near NK immediately, instead of waiting for a
couple of years, for another. Indeed, it is the same story in the
MidEast, where Bush just ignored the whole Israel/Palestinian mess for
a couple of years after he took office.

--
Dave Fritzinger
0
dfritzin (3022)
7/16/2004 7:08:38 PM
In article <cd7s8d$s4g$1@bolt.sonic.net>,
 rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:

> Xomicron  <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote:
> >rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in
> >> Xomicron  <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote:
> 
> >>> From the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, Clinton had 8 years to do 
> >>> something about terrorism. He failed to do anything of significance.
> >> 
> >> You're confused.  Clinton did quite a bit about terrorism.
> >
> >Launching a few cruise missles doesn't count.
> 
> He did a lot more than that.
> 
> >> When a truck bomb killed 200+ Marines in Beirut in 1983, it was
> >> REAGAN who did nothing and meekly ran away.
> >
> >Like Clinton did in Sudan?
> 
> No, nothing like Sudan.
> 
> >> And terrorists learned that the Reagan had no balls.
> >
> >Like when he bombed the crap out of Libya?
> 
> "Launching a few cruise missles doesn't count."

I remember when Israel sent some airplanes over to a nuclear reactor in 
Iraq in about 1980. They had intelligence that the reactor was being 
used to enrich fissionable materials for weapons productions, so they 
bombed the crap out of it. The whole rest of the world, the US included, 
got fairly pissed off at them for doing it. (And did not apologize when 
during the '90s UN inspectors found other stuff that corroborated the 
Israeli story.) 

Of course, the rest of the world wasn't too pleased with the US when it 
bombed Tripoli. And finally, a decade or two later, Khaddafi plays nice. 
(Don't mention that Europe and everybody else in the area had put an 
embargo on the country. Many people claim that that had very little 
effect. It was all because Bush yelled at Khaddafi.)

-- 
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com>
http://www.timberwoof.com
Baloney Detection Kit: http://www.xenu.net/archive/baloney_detection.html
0
timberwoof (3216)
7/16/2004 8:03:14 PM
In article <BD1D400E.589A0%snit-nospam@cableone.net>,
 Snit <snit-nospam@cableone.net> wrote:

> "Frank Dwyer" <fdwyer@citlink.net> wrote in 40F7F077.68966F5C@citlink.net on
> 7/16/04 8:12 AM:
> 
> >> Yet, terrorism in the world is up (despite the fact that the State
> >> Department tried to release a report saying the opposite). Also, how
> >> many al Qaeda attacks were there in the US during the Clinton
> >> Administration. One, WTCI. And that one was only about 6 weeks after
> >> Clinton took office.
> > 
> > Strange, that's the exact same number of attacks in the US as there have
> > been during the current administration.
> 
> Was 9/11 a single attack or a coordinated set of attacks?  Probably just
> semantics, but it seems it would be fair to consider each plane that was
> hijacked as an "attack".

Here, let me lend you my hone for your microtome. It's clearly not sharp 
enough for the hairs you want to split.

-- 
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com>
http://www.timberwoof.com
Baloney Detection Kit: http://www.xenu.net/archive/baloney_detection.html
0
timberwoof (3216)
7/16/2004 8:07:30 PM
In article <40F7F421.EA37E3DC@citlink.net>,
 Frank Dwyer <fdwyer@citlink.net> wrote:

> Bill Case wrote:
> > 
> > "Frank Dwyer" <fdwyer@citlink.net> wrote in message
> > news:40F5CD75.E7E11B27@citlink.net...
> > > Bill Case wrote:
> > > >
> > > > "Xomicron" <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in message
> > > > news:99014b3a4d0deeefed2074466df35e25@news.bubbanews.com...
> > > > > "Bill Case" <Bill549@Hotmail.com> wrote in
> > > > > news:%BfJc.2508$mL5.1847@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net:
> > > > >
> > > > > > "Xomicron" <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in message
> > > > > > news:48f5a03756b590d6dd4fdf877d722592@news.bubbanews.com...
> > > > > >
> > > > > >> "Bill Case" <Bill549@Hotmail.com> wrote in
> > > > > >> news:t7fJc.2473$mL5.1628@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net:
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> > "Xomicron" <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in message
> > > > > >> > news:Xns9526917E1A2E7x@dragon.pl...
> > > > > >> >> "Bill Case" <Bill549@Hotmail.com> wrote in
> > > > > >> >> news:NoeJc.2427$mL5.2395@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net:
> > > > > >> >>
> > > > > >> >> > "Xomicron" <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in message
> > > > > >> >> > news:ac322$40f5613f$45f0b78b$30321@nf1.news-service-com...
> > > > > >> >> >> "Bill Case" <Bill549@Hotmail.com> wrote in
> > > > > >> >> >> news:IWcJc.2968$Qu5.1720@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net:
> > > > > >> >> >>
> > > > > >> >> >> > "Xomicron" <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in message
> > > > > >> >> >> > news:ae117$40f55426$45f0b78b$14525@nf1.news-service-com...
> > > > > >> >> >> >
> > > > > >> >> >> >> "Bill Case" <Bill549@Hotmail.com> wrote in
> > > > > >> >> >> >> news:zB%Ic.1642$mL5.223@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net:
> > > > > >> >> >> >>
> > > > > >> >> >> >>> "Frank Dwyer" <fdwyer@citlink.net> wrote in message
> > > > > >> >> >> >>> news:40F4749B.A37548D7@citlink.net...
> > > > > >> >> >> >>>
> > > > > >> >> >> >>>> He did more about it than the administration under whom
> > it
> > > > > >> >> >> >>>> happened did.
> > > > > >> >> >> >>>
> > > > > >> >> >> >>> It's widely known the CIA didn't attribute it to Al Qaeda
> > > > > >> >> >> >>> until around the time of administration change.
> > > > > >> >> >> >>> I don't like Clinton, but he did launch attacks, one
> > killed
> > > > > >> >> >> >>> around 200 al qaeda in Afghanistan. (Cruises missiles)
> > > > > >> >> >> >>
> > > > > >> >> >> >> More like blew up some empty tents.
> > > > > >> >> >> >
> > > > > >> >> >> > If you actually knew anything about this war on terror, you
> > > > > >> >> >> > would know that intelligence is that they killed a lot of
> > them,
> > > > > >> >> >> > and OBL had left that camp not long before.
> > > > > >> >> >> >
> > > > > >> >> >> >>
> > > > > >> >> >> >> > Irregardless,  why didn't Bush act?
> > > > > >> >> >> >> > On 9/11 he sat like a rabbit after being told of the 2
> > WTC
> > > > > >> >> >> >> > hits.
> > > > > >> >> >> >>
> > > > > >> >> >> >> What should he have done? Keeping in mind that no one
> > really
> > > > > >> >> >> >> knew what was going on.
> > > > > >> >> >> >
> > > > > >> >> >> > A commander, or just any guy with balls and brains, is
> > going to
> > > > > >> >> >> > want to know all the info available, ask questions to get
> > his
> > > > > >> >> >> > staff going and thinking, get his mind working on the
> > problem
> > > > > >> >> >> > he's facing, make sure his people are all "up" and active.
> > > > > >> >> >> >
> > > > > >> >> >> > In a situation like that, you might be asked to make a
> > > > > >> >> >> > decision, maybe a big one, quickly. To do that you need to
> > have
> > > > > >> >> >> > your mind active and focused. A leader wants to be certain
> > > > > >> >> >> > everybody is doing all they can and all the available info
> > on
> > > > > >> >> >> > what's happening is getting to him.
> > > > > >> >> >> >
> > > > > >> >> >> > Instead, he sat there like a passive receiver.
> > > > > >> >> >>
> > > > > >> >> >> So what should he have done? There were massively conflicting
> > > > > >> >> >> reports that said anywhere from JUST ONE plane, to SIX
> > different
> > > > > >> >> >> aircraft had been either hijacked, or had some sort of
> > > > > >> >> >> malfunction. Which one of these presumptions do you make?
> > Keep in
> > > > > >> >> >> mind that if you're wrong, people die, if you're right,
> > people
> > > > > >> >> >> die. And also keep in mind that shooting them down and being
> > > > > >> >> >> right in doing so, may destroy any proof that you were right.
> > No
> > > > > >> >> >> proof to your own conscience, no proof to your friends, no
> > proof
> > > > > >> >> >> to your staff, and just to also throw in the lowest common
> > > > > >> >> >> denominator, no proof to the voters.
> > > > > >> >> >>
> > > > > >> >> >> And we all know how much proof it requires to convince people
> > who
> > > > > >> >> >> hate Bush of anything. Today we'd be hearing about how Bush
> > is a
> > > > > >> >> >> murderer who shoots down civilian airlines.
> > > > > >> >> >>
> > > > > >> >> >> > But first of all, get yourself away from children in case
> > an
> > > > > >> >> >> > attempt is about to be made on you.
> > > > > >> >> >>
> > > > > >> >> >> What would events 1500 miles away have to do with Bush being
> > > > > >> >> >> assassinated?
> > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > >> >> > As I've described in a prior post, his actions were not those
> > of
> > > > > >> >> > tough smart leader whose country is under attack.
> > > > > >> >> > What should he have done? Taken charge. Instead he sat there
> > in a
> > > > > >> >> > state of confusion, with children around him.
> > > > > >> >>
> > > > > >> >> It seems that nothing Bush does or could have done would ever be
> > > > > >> >> good enough for the loony left.
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > That won't work sport.
> > > > > >> > Bush quote regarding evading Vietnam war service:
> > > > > >> > "I was not prepared to shoot my eardrum out with a shotgun in
> > > > > >> > order to get a deferment. Nor was I willing to go to Canada. So I
> > > > > >> > chose to better myself by learning how to fly airplanes," Bush
> > told
> > > > > >> > an interviewer in Houston. "
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> A lot better than our previous president ever did, yet the left
> > fawns
> > > > > >> over him.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I didn't vote for Clinton.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > This election isn't about Clinton, he's not a candidate.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > But since you bring it up, it's historical fact, that pre 9/11,
> > Clinton
> > > > > > DID do more against terrorists than Bush did. He attacked them with
> > > > > > cruise missiles, killed hundreds of them. Pre 9/11, Bush never even
> > > > > > tried to retaliate for the USS Cole attack which killed 17
> > Americans.
> > > > >
> > > > > Lobbing a few cruise missiles at tents is not cracking down on
> > terrorism.
> > > > > Clinton had 8 years to deal with terrorism starting from when the WTC
> > was
> > > > > bombed in 1993.
> > > >
> > > > He killed around 200 of them and apparnelty came close to catching OBL
> > in
> > > > the attack, he had left the area shortly before the raid.
> > >
> > > Let me guess, this came from the same intelligence sources that said
> > > Iraq had WMDs, right?
> > 
> > Do you think the sources of intel for casualties from an attack in
> > Afghanistan are the same as those for WMD in Iraq?
> 
> It goes through the same channels prior to reaching the White House.
>  
> > > > That's WAY more than Bush did in answer to the Cole. Bush was passive
> > and
> > > > Afghan al qaeda prisoner interviews indicate that were encouraged by the
> > > > lack of retaliation. He had 8 months. He stated in intereviews that pre
> > > > 9/11, terrorism was low on his priorities - he's stupid.
> > >
> > > Terrorism was low on every American's priority list.
> > 
> > It was not. Richard Clarke wrote a whole book dealing with that. Clinton
> > told Bush on inaugaration day that his #1 problem was al qaeda and OBL.
> 
> Cite?

Uh. I'll take a stab at answering this question. Let me guess. Could it 
be Richard Clarke's book? (It's called "Against All Enemies" and you can 
get it ant any book store.)  

Also Al Franken's book, "Lies." 


> Who's #1 problem, Clinton's?

Clinton tried to tell Bush that Bush's biggest problem would be 
international terrorism. If you want citations, go to your local book 
store and pick up a copy of Al Franken's book "Lies." Skip all the 
political rhetoric and head straight for the bibliography in the back. 
(The bibliography is in the back of the book, not the back of the 
store.) 

 
<snip>

> > Probably his llack of intellkigence (IQ),
> 
> What's his IQ? For that matter, what's yours?
> 
> > lack of an active mind,
> 
> Proof?
> 
> > lack of experience from having evaded the VN war when he was young,
> 
> Proof?

http://www.awolbush.com/
http://www.buzzflash.com/contributors/03/06/05_moore.html
http://216.239.57.104/search?q=cache:Z1-B2mykAeIJ:www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42
30576/+george+bush+vietnam+draft&hl=en&lr=lang_en%7Clang_de
http://www.schlatter.org/Dad/Bush%20lies/draftdodge-long.htm

> > alcohol abuse,
>
> Proof?

I would guess about 25 proof. 

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/bushdui1.html
http://alcoholism.about.com/cs/issues/l/aa001106a.htm
http://www.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/11/02/bush.dui/

> > he practically admitted cocaine use - that doens't do the brain any good, a
> > lot of thing s enter into his incompetence and the mess we are in, in Iraq.
> > 
> > You do know authorities on terrorism say the Iraq things has created a new
> > pool of terrorists for us to deal with in the future, right?
> 
> Authorities on terrorism? Is that what they're called today? Yesterday
> they were "analysts".

Probably by someone else. Instead of trying to derail the argument over 
whether people who talk about terrorists are authorities or analysts, 
why don't you talk about the substance here, which is whether the 
invasion of Iraq created more terrorists. 

Of course, the assertion that invading Iraq created more terrorists is 
ludicrous on the face of it. I mean, if you were a young man and your 
biggest enemy invaded your country, you wouldn't lift a finger to stop 
them. Why, you'd wave the flag and throw flowers on the invading army, 
tend for their wounded, and hunt down insurgents just like the boys did 
in Red Dawn (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0087985/). And that's what's 
happening in Iraq: they've all forgiven the US over the thousands of 
civilians who got killed (most of them painlessly, by the way) and are 
all ready to just buckle down and build a secular democratic state based 
on good Christian values. The thought of taking revenge against the US 
by fighting a guerilla war or by terrorism hadn't even entered their 
minds. (In case you're sarcasm impaired, that's all a lie. 

What logic suggests that there would be fewer terrorists now than 
before?

-- 
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com>
http://www.timberwoof.com
Baloney Detection Kit: http://www.xenu.net/archive/baloney_detection.html
0
timberwoof (3216)
7/16/2004 8:29:42 PM
Frank Dwyer <fdwyer@citlink.net> wrote in message news:<40F7F077.68966F5C@citlink.net>...
> David Fritzinger wrote:
> > 
> > "Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote in message news:<vrydnUvF05IfBWvdRVn-jw@comcast.com>...
> > > "Bill Case" <Bill549@Hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > news:9awJc.3727$Qu5.1141@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> > > >
> > > > "Timberwoof" <timberwoof@stimpberawoofm.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:timberwoof-E290CE.20205114072004@typhoon.sonic.net...
> > > > > In article <Sd3Jc.2000$mL5.944@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
> > > > >  "Bill Case" <Bill549@Hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Clinton killed around 200 of them in a crusie missle strike. I would
>  have
> > > > > > liked to have seen raids on all their Afghan camps - how hard is that
> > >  to
> > >  fig
> > > > > > ure out?
> > > > >
> > > > > So would Clinton have. The problem was that the army kept telling his
> > > > > secretary of defense that there wasn't enough "actionable intelligence,"
> > > > > and there was no way the country would have let him start a war, what
> > > > > with all the muckraking the Republicans were doing. They would have just
> > > > > added that to the list of things he was doing wrong, saying he was
> > > > > trying to distract the country from the important stuff -- ancient
> > > > > financial dealings his buddies back home did and the affair with that
> > > > > Lewinsky chick.
> > > >
> > > > Even Clinton attacked the terrorists while Bush pre 9/11 was passive. When
> > > > Clinton did launch some strikes, a lot of these Bush phony patriots
>  accused
> > > > him of "wag the dog" actions to divert from Lewinski and all that.
> > >
> > > Because it was a diversion.  Every single time Clinton was caught up in
> > > another one of his scandals, he used the military.
> > >
> > 
> > Wrong! It is true, however, that his scandals prevented him from doing
> > as much as he wanted. Read Richard Clarke's book.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Bush was passive toward terrorism in the 8 months he was in office before
> > > > 9/11.
> > >
> > > What was he supposed to be doing?
> > > We had to get through Pakistan.
> > 
> > He did nothing. He didn't try to go through Pakistan. Ashcroft took
> > money out of the anti-terrorism budget. Clinton told him that al Qaeda
> > would be his biggest foreign policy challenge, and he said, no, it
> > would be Iraq.
> > >
> > >
> > > Since then, he's mishandled the efforts and most analysts say he's
> > > > created a bigger pool of Islamic recruits for terror operations.
> > >
> > > Yes, some will say that and others will disagree.
> > 
> > Not if they are rational.
> > >
> > >
> > > > The way Bush has handled Iraq, he's wasted billions that should have gone
> > > > into port security etc., to preclude a nuke being brought into a harbor /
> > > > airport etc and detonated.
> > >
> > > How many terrorist have successfully attacked the U.S. since 9/11?
> > 
> > Yet, terrorism in the world is up (despite the fact that the State
> > Department tried to release a report saying the opposite). Also, how
> > many al Qaeda attacks were there in the US during the Clinton
> > Administration. One, WTCI. And that one was only about 6 weeks after
> > Clinton took office.
> 
> Strange, that's the exact same number of attacks in the US as there have
> been during the current administration.

But terrorism worldwide is up.

--
Dave Fritzinger
0
dfritzin (3022)
7/16/2004 10:39:41 PM
Frank Dwyer <fdwyer@citlink.net> wrote in message news:<40F7F421.EA37E3DC@citlink.net>...
> Bill Case wrote:
> > 
[snip]
> 
> For Christ sake, we lobbed a few missles in that direction and it didn't
> help one bit. 9/11 still happened. Since we've been there, we've still
> been unable to locate the "good" targets.
> Don't YOU know anything?
> 

You attack where the terrorists are. After all, if all you want is
good targets, why not just bomb the US. Plenty of good targets here.
Hell, there are even terrorist cells...

> > > > Bush, Rumsfeld and Cheney all
> > > > wanted to leave al-Qaeda in Afghanistan and attack Iraq first. At first
> > > > Wolfowitz was leaked as the proponent of this crazy idea, and although
>  he
> > > > did back it, it is now clear from insider accounts like that of Richard
> > > > Clark that the three top leaders just mentioned wanted Iraq first. The
>  UK
> > > > ambassador to the US maintains that it was Tony Blair who talked Bush
>  into
> > > > going after al-Qaeda in Afghanistan first, with a promise that he would
> > > > later support an Iraq war.
> > >
> > > Like we'd expect the UK Ambassador to say anything else?
> > 
> > You're saying he's lying? where';s your proof?
> 
> oh great.. someone else who'll twist the meaning of what is written in
> en effort to create a debate...
> You're saying I said he was lying? Where's your proof?
> 
> > > > MI6 would have been briefing Tony about the dire
> > > > threat coming from Afghanistan, and he, unlike the Bush team, could see
>  the
> > > > dangers of getting bogged down in an Iraq quagmire while al-Qaeda and
>  the
> > > > Taliban were still in control of Afghanistan. (Can you imagine the full
> > > > scope of that disaster that Bush had planned for us?)    end quote
> > >
> > > Well, imagining it is all we can do, as it didn't happen that way.
> > >
> > > > Bush is NOT a competent war leader.
> > >
> > > Why?
> > 
> > Probably his llack of intellkigence (IQ),
> 
> What's his IQ? For that matter, what's yours?

I would guess that Bush is actually pretty bright, but he is
intellectually lazy. For evidence, see below.
> 
> > lack of an active mind,
> 
> Proof?

He doesn't even read the papers, and has everything spoonfed to him by
his advisors. He was only able to get a C+ average at Yale, and he has
proven to be one of the most incurious presidents in history. Is that
evidence enough?
> 
> > lack of experience from having evaded the VN war when he was young,
> 
> Proof?

He was put into a "champaigne" Air National Guard outfit in Texas,
over 500 other applicants. That counts as evidence to me.
> 
> > alcohol abuse,
> 
> Proof?

Even Bush admits to being an alcoholic. Plus, he has 4 DUIs on his
record.
[snip]

--
Dave Fritzinger
0
dfritzin (3022)
7/16/2004 10:47:24 PM
Timberwoof wrote:
> 
> In article <40F7F421.EA37E3DC@citlink.net>,
>  Frank Dwyer <fdwyer@citlink.net> wrote:
> 
> > Bill Case wrote:
> > >
> > > "Frank Dwyer" <fdwyer@citlink.net> wrote in message
> > > news:40F5CD75.E7E11B27@citlink.net...
> > > > Bill Case wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > "Xomicron" <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in message
> > > > > news:99014b3a4d0deeefed2074466df35e25@news.bubbanews.com...
> > > > > > "Bill Case" <Bill549@Hotmail.com> wrote in
> > > > > > news:%BfJc.2508$mL5.1847@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > "Xomicron" <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in message
> > > > > > > news:48f5a03756b590d6dd4fdf877d722592@news.bubbanews.com...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> "Bill Case" <Bill549@Hotmail.com> wrote in
> > > > > > >> news:t7fJc.2473$mL5.1628@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net:
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> > "Xomicron" <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in message
> > > > > > >> > news:Xns9526917E1A2E7x@dragon.pl...
> > > > > > >> >> "Bill Case" <Bill549@Hotmail.com> wrote in
> > > > > > >> >> news:NoeJc.2427$mL5.2395@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net:
> > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > >> >> > "Xomicron" <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in message
> > > > > > >> >> > news:ac322$40f5613f$45f0b78b$30321@nf1.news-service-com...
> > > > > > >> >> >> "Bill Case" <Bill549@Hotmail.com> wrote in
> > > > > > >> >> >> news:IWcJc.2968$Qu5.1720@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net:
> > > > > > >> >> >>
> > > > > > >> >> >> > "Xomicron" <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in message
> > > > > > >> >> >> > news:ae117$40f55426$45f0b78b$14525@nf1.news-service-com...
> > > > > > >> >> >> >
> > > > > > >> >> >> >> "Bill Case" <Bill549@Hotmail.com> wrote in
> > > > > > >> >> >> >> news:zB%Ic.1642$mL5.223@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net:
> > > > > > >> >> >> >>
> > > > > > >> >> >> >>> "Frank Dwyer" <fdwyer@citlink.net> wrote in message
> > > > > > >> >> >> >>> news:40F4749B.A37548D7@citlink.net...
> > > > > > >> >> >> >>>
> > > > > > >> >> >> >>>> He did more about it than the administration under whom
> > > it
> > > > > > >> >> >> >>>> happened did.
> > > > > > >> >> >> >>>
> > > > > > >> >> >> >>> It's widely known the CIA didn't attribute it to Al Qaeda
> > > > > > >> >> >> >>> until around the time of administration change.
> > > > > > >> >> >> >>> I don't like Clinton, but he did launch attacks, one
> > > killed
> > > > > > >> >> >> >>> around 200 al qaeda in Afghanistan. (Cruises missiles)
> > > > > > >> >> >> >>
> > > > > > >> >> >> >> More like blew up some empty tents.
> > > > > > >> >> >> >
> > > > > > >> >> >> > If you actually knew anything about this war on terror, you
> > > > > > >> >> >> > would know that intelligence is that they killed a lot of
> > > them,
> > > > > > >> >> >> > and OBL had left that camp not long before.
> > > > > > >> >> >> >
> > > > > > >> >> >> >>
> > > > > > >> >> >> >> > Irregardless,  why didn't Bush act?
> > > > > > >> >> >> >> > On 9/11 he sat like a rabbit after being told of the 2
> > > WTC
> > > > > > >> >> >> >> > hits.
> > > > > > >> >> >> >>
> > > > > > >> >> >> >> What should he have done? Keeping in mind that no one
> > > really
> > > > > > >> >> >> >> knew what was going on.
> > > > > > >> >> >> >
> > > > > > >> >> >> > A commander, or just any guy with balls and brains, is
> > > going to
> > > > > > >> >> >> > want to know all the info available, ask questions to get
> > > his
> > > > > > >> >> >> > staff going and thinking, get his mind working on the
> > > problem
> > > > > > >> >> >> > he's facing, make sure his people are all "up" and active.
> > > > > > >> >> >> >
> > > > > > >> >> >> > In a situation like that, you might be asked to make a
> > > > > > >> >> >> > decision, maybe a big one, quickly. To do that you need to
> > > have
> > > > > > >> >> >> > your mind active and focused. A leader wants to be certain
> > > > > > >> >> >> > everybody is doing all they can and all the available info
> > > on
> > > > > > >> >> >> > what's happening is getting to him.
> > > > > > >> >> >> >
> > > > > > >> >> >> > Instead, he sat there like a passive receiver.
> > > > > > >> >> >>
> > > > > > >> >> >> So what should he have done? There were massively conflicting
> > > > > > >> >> >> reports that said anywhere from JUST ONE plane, to SIX
> > > different
> > > > > > >> >> >> aircraft had been either hijacked, or had some sort of
> > > > > > >> >> >> malfunction. Which one of these presumptions do you make?
> > > Keep in
> > > > > > >> >> >> mind that if you're wrong, people die, if you're right,
> > > people
> > > > > > >> >> >> die. And also keep in mind that shooting them down and being
> > > > > > >> >> >> right in doing so, may destroy any proof that you were right.
> > > No
> > > > > > >> >> >> proof to your own conscience, no proof to your friends, no
> > > proof
> > > > > > >> >> >> to your staff, and just to also throw in the lowest common
> > > > > > >> >> >> denominator, no proof to the voters.
> > > > > > >> >> >>
> > > > > > >> >> >> And we all know how much proof it requires to convince people
> > > who
> > > > > > >> >> >> hate Bush of anything. Today we'd be hearing about how Bush
> > > is a
> > > > > > >> >> >> murderer who shoots down civilian airlines.
> > > > > > >> >> >>
> > > > > > >> >> >> > But first of all, get yourself away from children in case
> > > an
> > > > > > >> >> >> > attempt is about to be made on you.
> > > > > > >> >> >>
> > > > > > >> >> >> What would events 1500 miles away have to do with Bush being
> > > > > > >> >> >> assassinated?
> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > >> >> > As I've described in a prior post, his actions were not those
> > > of
> > > > > > >> >> > tough smart leader whose country is under attack.
> > > > > > >> >> > What should he have done? Taken charge. Instead he sat there
> > > in a
> > > > > > >> >> > state of confusion, with children around him.
> > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > >> >> It seems that nothing Bush does or could have done would ever be
> > > > > > >> >> good enough for the loony left.
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> > That won't work sport.
> > > > > > >> > Bush quote regarding evading Vietnam war service:
> > > > > > >> > "I was not prepared to shoot my eardrum out with a shotgun in
> > > > > > >> > order to get a deferment. Nor was I willing to go to Canada. So I
> > > > > > >> > chose to better myself by learning how to fly airplanes," Bush
> > > told
> > > > > > >> > an interviewer in Houston. "
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> A lot better than our previous president ever did, yet the left
> > > fawns
> > > > > > >> over him.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I didn't vote for Clinton.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > This election isn't about Clinton, he's not a candidate.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > But since you bring it up, it's historical fact, that pre 9/11,
> > > Clinton
> > > > > > > DID do more against terrorists than Bush did. He attacked them with
> > > > > > > cruise missiles, killed hundreds of them. Pre 9/11, Bush never even
> > > > > > > tried to retaliate for the USS Cole attack which killed 17
> > > Americans.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Lobbing a few cruise missiles at tents is not cracking down on
> > > terrorism.
> > > > > > Clinton had 8 years to deal with terrorism starting from when the WTC
> > > was
> > > > > > bombed in 1993.
> > > > >
> > > > > He killed around 200 of them and apparnelty came close to catching OBL
> > > in
> > > > > the attack, he had left the area shortly before the raid.
> > > >
> > > > Let me guess, this came from the same intelligence sources that said
> > > > Iraq had WMDs, right?
> > >
> > > Do you think the sources of intel for casualties from an attack in
> > > Afghanistan are the same as those for WMD in Iraq?
> >
> > It goes through the same channels prior to reaching the White House.
> >
> > > > > That's WAY more than Bush did in answer to the Cole. Bush was passive
> > > and
> > > > > Afghan al qaeda prisoner interviews indicate that were encouraged by the
> > > > > lack of retaliation. He had 8 months. He stated in intereviews that pre
> > > > > 9/11, terrorism was low on his priorities - he's stupid.
> > > >
> > > > Terrorism was low on every American's priority list.
> > >
> > > It was not. Richard Clarke wrote a whole book dealing with that. Clinton
> > > told Bush on inaugaration day that his #1 problem was al qaeda and OBL.
> >
> > Cite?
> 
> Uh. I'll take a stab at answering this question. Let me guess. Could it
> be Richard Clarke's book? (It's called "Against All Enemies" and you can
> get it ant any book store.)
> 
> Also Al Franken's book, "Lies."

I canunderstand it was a priority of Richard Clarke, who's JOB was
counter-terrorism. But Al Franken!? Gimme a break!
 
> > Who's #1 problem, Clinton's?
> 
> Clinton tried to tell Bush that Bush's biggest problem would be
> international terrorism. If you want citations, go to your local book
> store and pick up a copy of Al Franken's book "Lies." Skip all the
> political rhetoric and head straight for the bibliography in the back.
> (The bibliography is in the back of the book, not the back of the
> store.)

Al Franken again!? Good lord, man, you honestly use Al Franken, a
comedian from Saturday Night Live "fame", as a reliable source for
political news!?
 
> <snip>
> 
> > > Probably his llack of intellkigence (IQ),
> >
> > What's his IQ? For that matter, what's yours?
> >
> > > lack of an active mind,
> >
> > Proof?
> >
> > > lack of experience from having evaded the VN war when he was young,
> >
> > Proof?
> 
> http://www.awolbush.com/
> http://www.buzzflash.com/contributors/03/06/05_moore.html
> http://216.239.57.104/search?q=cache:Z1-B2mykAeIJ:www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42
> 30576/+george+bush+vietnam+draft&hl=en&lr=lang_en%7Clang_de
> http://www.schlatter.org/Dad/Bush%20lies/draftdodge-long.htm
> 
> > > alcohol abuse,
> >
> > Proof?
> 
> I would guess about 25 proof.

I was thinking more around 80. I know he drank and I know he did what he
could to not get shot at by Charlie. I just don't fault him for it.
 
> http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/bushdui1.html
> http://alcoholism.about.com/cs/issues/l/aa001106a.htm
> http://www.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/11/02/bush.dui/
> 
> > > he practically admitted cocaine use - that doens't do the brain any good, a
> > > lot of thing s enter into his incompetence and the mess we are in, in Iraq.
> > >
> > > You do know authorities on terrorism say the Iraq things has created a new
> > > pool of terrorists for us to deal with in the future, right?
> >
> > Authorities on terrorism? Is that what they're called today? Yesterday
> > they were "analysts".
> 
> Probably by someone else.

No, by the OP.

> Instead of trying to derail the argument over
> whether people who talk about terrorists are authorities or analysts,
> why don't you talk about the substance here, which is whether the
> invasion of Iraq created more terrorists.

Sure... unknown. Now that discussion is dead.
 
> Of course, the assertion that invading Iraq created more terrorists is
> ludicrous on the face of it. I mean, if you were a young man and your
> biggest enemy invaded your country, you wouldn't lift a finger to stop
> them. Why, you'd wave the flag and throw flowers on the invading army,
> tend for their wounded, and hunt down insurgents just like the boys did
> in Red Dawn (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0087985/). And that's what's
> happening in Iraq: they've all forgiven the US over the thousands of
> civilians who got killed (most of them painlessly, by the way) and are
> all ready to just buckle down and build a secular democratic state based
> on good Christian values. The thought of taking revenge against the US
> by fighting a guerilla war or by terrorism hadn't even entered their
> minds. (In case you're sarcasm impaired, that's all a lie.
> 
> What logic suggests that there would be fewer terrorists now than
> before?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/graphics/2001/11/07/wmil07.gif
0
fdwyer (46)
7/16/2004 10:47:45 PM
"David Fritzinger" <dfritzin@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:b82925bb.0407161447.df3905f@posting.google.com...
> Frank Dwyer <fdwyer@citlink.net> wrote in message
news:<40F7F421.EA37E3DC@citlink.net>...
> > Bill Case wrote:
> > >
> [snip]
> >
> > For Christ sake, we lobbed a few missles in that direction and it didn't
> > help one bit. 9/11 still happened. Since we've been there, we've still
> > been unable to locate the "good" targets.
> > Don't YOU know anything?
> >
>
> You attack where the terrorists are.

Well in that case we could just about be in every country.


After all, if all you want is
> good targets, why not just bomb the US. Plenty of good targets here.
> Hell, there are even terrorist cells...
>
> > > > > Bush, Rumsfeld and Cheney all
> > > > > wanted to leave al-Qaeda in Afghanistan and attack Iraq first. At
first
> > > > > Wolfowitz was leaked as the proponent of this crazy idea, and
although
> >  he
> > > > > did back it, it is now clear from insider accounts like that of
Richard
> > > > > Clark that the three top leaders just mentioned wanted Iraq first.
The
> >  UK
> > > > > ambassador to the US maintains that it was Tony Blair who talked
Bush
> >  into
> > > > > going after al-Qaeda in Afghanistan first, with a promise that he
would
> > > > > later support an Iraq war.
> > > >
> > > > Like we'd expect the UK Ambassador to say anything else?
> > >
> > > You're saying he's lying? where';s your proof?
> >
> > oh great.. someone else who'll twist the meaning of what is written in
> > en effort to create a debate...
> > You're saying I said he was lying? Where's your proof?
> >
> > > > > MI6 would have been briefing Tony about the dire
> > > > > threat coming from Afghanistan, and he, unlike the Bush team,
could see
> >  the
> > > > > dangers of getting bogged down in an Iraq quagmire while al-Qaeda
and
> >  the
> > > > > Taliban were still in control of Afghanistan. (Can you imagine the
full
> > > > > scope of that disaster that Bush had planned for us?)    end quote
> > > >
> > > > Well, imagining it is all we can do, as it didn't happen that way.
> > > >
> > > > > Bush is NOT a competent war leader.
> > > >
> > > > Why?
> > >
> > > Probably his llack of intellkigence (IQ),
> >
> > What's his IQ? For that matter, what's yours?
>
> I would guess that Bush is actually pretty bright, but he is
> intellectually lazy. For evidence, see below.
> >
> > > lack of an active mind,
> >
> > Proof?
>
> He doesn't even read the papers, and has everything spoonfed to him by
> his advisors. He was only able to get a C+ average at Yale, and he has
> proven to be one of the most incurious presidents in history. Is that
> evidence enough?

Might I remind you that Al Gore wasn't exactly an honor roll student either.




> >
> > > lack of experience from having evaded the VN war when he was young,
> >
> > Proof?
>
> He was put into a "champaigne" Air National Guard outfit in Texas,
> over 500 other applicants. That counts as evidence to me.

Or just what you want to read into it.


> >
> > > alcohol abuse,
> >
> > Proof?
>
> Even Bush admits to being an alcoholic.


Clinton/Gore smoked dope

Plus, he has 4 DUIs on his
> record.

While he was in political office?

We all make mistakes, do you go around kicking ex inmates in the teeth when
they paid for theirs?


> [snip]
>
> --
> Dave Fritzinger


0
noneedtoknow (858)
7/16/2004 10:52:07 PM
"Frank Dwyer" <fdwyer@citlink.net> wrote in message
news:40F85B40.2E63ADE3@citlink.net...
> Timberwoof wrote:
> >
> > In article <40F7F421.EA37E3DC@citlink.net>,
> >  Frank Dwyer <fdwyer@citlink.net> wrote:
> >
> > > Bill Case wrote:
> > > >
> > > > "Frank Dwyer" <fdwyer@citlink.net> wrote in message
> > > > news:40F5CD75.E7E11B27@citlink.net...
> > > > > Bill Case wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "Xomicron" <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in message
> > > > > > news:99014b3a4d0deeefed2074466df35e25@news.bubbanews.com...
> > > > > > > "Bill Case" <Bill549@Hotmail.com> wrote in
> > > > > > > news:%BfJc.2508$mL5.1847@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > "Xomicron" <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in message
> > > > > > > > news:48f5a03756b590d6dd4fdf877d722592@news.bubbanews.com...
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> "Bill Case" <Bill549@Hotmail.com> wrote in
> > > > > > > >> news:t7fJc.2473$mL5.1628@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net:
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> > "Xomicron" <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in message
> > > > > > > >> > news:Xns9526917E1A2E7x@dragon.pl...
> > > > > > > >> >> "Bill Case" <Bill549@Hotmail.com> wrote in
> > > > > > > >> >>
news:NoeJc.2427$mL5.2395@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net:
> > > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > >> >> > "Xomicron" <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in message
> > > > > > > >> >> >
news:ac322$40f5613f$45f0b78b$30321@nf1.news-service-com...
> > > > > > > >> >> >> "Bill Case" <Bill549@Hotmail.com> wrote in
> > > > > > > >> >> >>
news:IWcJc.2968$Qu5.1720@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net:
> > > > > > > >> >> >>
> > > > > > > >> >> >> > "Xomicron" <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in message
> > > > > > > >> >> >> >
news:ae117$40f55426$45f0b78b$14525@nf1.news-service-com...
> > > > > > > >> >> >> >
> > > > > > > >> >> >> >> "Bill Case" <Bill549@Hotmail.com> wrote in
> > > > > > > >> >> >> >>
news:zB%Ic.1642$mL5.223@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net:
> > > > > > > >> >> >> >>
> > > > > > > >> >> >> >>> "Frank Dwyer" <fdwyer@citlink.net> wrote in
message
> > > > > > > >> >> >> >>> news:40F4749B.A37548D7@citlink.net...
> > > > > > > >> >> >> >>>
> > > > > > > >> >> >> >>>> He did more about it than the administration
under whom
> > > > it
> > > > > > > >> >> >> >>>> happened did.
> > > > > > > >> >> >> >>>
> > > > > > > >> >> >> >>> It's widely known the CIA didn't attribute it to
Al Qaeda
> > > > > > > >> >> >> >>> until around the time of administration change.
> > > > > > > >> >> >> >>> I don't like Clinton, but he did launch attacks,
one
> > > > killed
> > > > > > > >> >> >> >>> around 200 al qaeda in Afghanistan. (Cruises
missiles)
> > > > > > > >> >> >> >>
> > > > > > > >> >> >> >> More like blew up some empty tents.
> > > > > > > >> >> >> >
> > > > > > > >> >> >> > If you actually knew anything about this war on
terror, you
> > > > > > > >> >> >> > would know that intelligence is that they killed a
lot of
> > > > them,
> > > > > > > >> >> >> > and OBL had left that camp not long before.
> > > > > > > >> >> >> >
> > > > > > > >> >> >> >>
> > > > > > > >> >> >> >> > Irregardless,  why didn't Bush act?
> > > > > > > >> >> >> >> > On 9/11 he sat like a rabbit after being told of
the 2
> > > > WTC
> > > > > > > >> >> >> >> > hits.
> > > > > > > >> >> >> >>
> > > > > > > >> >> >> >> What should he have done? Keeping in mind that no
one
> > > > really
> > > > > > > >> >> >> >> knew what was going on.
> > > > > > > >> >> >> >
> > > > > > > >> >> >> > A commander, or just any guy with balls and brains,
is
> > > > going to
> > > > > > > >> >> >> > want to know all the info available, ask questions
to get
> > > > his
> > > > > > > >> >> >> > staff going and thinking, get his mind working on
the
> > > > problem
> > > > > > > >> >> >> > he's facing, make sure his people are all "up" and
active.
> > > > > > > >> >> >> >
> > > > > > > >> >> >> > In a situation like that, you might be asked to
make a
> > > > > > > >> >> >> > decision, maybe a big one, quickly. To do that you
need to
> > > > have
> > > > > > > >> >> >> > your mind active and focused. A leader wants to be
certain
> > > > > > > >> >> >> > everybody is doing all they can and all the
available info
> > > > on
> > > > > > > >> >> >> > what's happening is getting to him.
> > > > > > > >> >> >> >
> > > > > > > >> >> >> > Instead, he sat there like a passive receiver.
> > > > > > > >> >> >>
> > > > > > > >> >> >> So what should he have done? There were massively
conflicting
> > > > > > > >> >> >> reports that said anywhere from JUST ONE plane, to
SIX
> > > > different
> > > > > > > >> >> >> aircraft had been either hijacked, or had some sort
of
> > > > > > > >> >> >> malfunction. Which one of these presumptions do you
make?
> > > > Keep in
> > > > > > > >> >> >> mind that if you're wrong, people die, if you're
right,
> > > > people
> > > > > > > >> >> >> die. And also keep in mind that shooting them down
and being
> > > > > > > >> >> >> right in doing so, may destroy any proof that you
were right.
> > > > No
> > > > > > > >> >> >> proof to your own conscience, no proof to your
friends, no
> > > > proof
> > > > > > > >> >> >> to your staff, and just to also throw in the lowest
common
> > > > > > > >> >> >> denominator, no proof to the voters.
> > > > > > > >> >> >>
> > > > > > > >> >> >> And we all know how much proof it requires to
convince people
> > > > who
> > > > > > > >> >> >> hate Bush of anything. Today we'd be hearing about
how Bush
> > > > is a
> > > > > > > >> >> >> murderer who shoots down civilian airlines.
> > > > > > > >> >> >>
> > > > > > > >> >> >> > But first of all, get yourself away from children
in case
> > > > an
> > > > > > > >> >> >> > attempt is about to be made on you.
> > > > > > > >> >> >>
> > > > > > > >> >> >> What would events 1500 miles away have to do with
Bush being
> > > > > > > >> >> >> assassinated?
> > > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > >> >> > As I've described in a prior post, his actions were
not those
> > > > of
> > > > > > > >> >> > tough smart leader whose country is under attack.
> > > > > > > >> >> > What should he have done? Taken charge. Instead he sat
there
> > > > in a
> > > > > > > >> >> > state of confusion, with children around him.
> > > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > >> >> It seems that nothing Bush does or could have done would
ever be
> > > > > > > >> >> good enough for the loony left.
> > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > >> > That won't work sport.
> > > > > > > >> > Bush quote regarding evading Vietnam war service:
> > > > > > > >> > "I was not prepared to shoot my eardrum out with a
shotgun in
> > > > > > > >> > order to get a deferment. Nor was I willing to go to
Canada. So I
> > > > > > > >> > chose to better myself by learning how to fly airplanes,"
Bush
> > > > told
> > > > > > > >> > an interviewer in Houston. "
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> A lot better than our previous president ever did, yet the
left
> > > > fawns
> > > > > > > >> over him.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I didn't vote for Clinton.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > This election isn't about Clinton, he's not a candidate.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > But since you bring it up, it's historical fact, that pre
9/11,
> > > > Clinton
> > > > > > > > DID do more against terrorists than Bush did. He attacked
them with
> > > > > > > > cruise missiles, killed hundreds of them. Pre 9/11, Bush
never even
> > > > > > > > tried to retaliate for the USS Cole attack which killed 17
> > > > Americans.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Lobbing a few cruise missiles at tents is not cracking down on
> > > > terrorism.
> > > > > > > Clinton had 8 years to deal with terrorism starting from when
the WTC
> > > > was
> > > > > > > bombed in 1993.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > He killed around 200 of them and apparnelty came close to
catching OBL
> > > > in
> > > > > > the attack, he had left the area shortly before the raid.
> > > > >
> > > > > Let me guess, this came from the same intelligence sources that
said
> > > > > Iraq had WMDs, right?
> > > >
> > > > Do you think the sources of intel for casualties from an attack in
> > > > Afghanistan are the same as those for WMD in Iraq?
> > >
> > > It goes through the same channels prior to reaching the White House.
> > >
> > > > > > That's WAY more than Bush did in answer to the Cole. Bush was
passive
> > > > and
> > > > > > Afghan al qaeda prisoner interviews indicate that were
encouraged by the
> > > > > > lack of retaliation. He had 8 months. He stated in intereviews
that pre
> > > > > > 9/11, terrorism was low on his priorities - he's stupid.
> > > > >
> > > > > Terrorism was low on every American's priority list.
> > > >
> > > > It was not. Richard Clarke wrote a whole book dealing with that.
Clinton
> > > > told Bush on inaugaration day that his #1 problem was al qaeda and
OBL.
> > >
> > > Cite?
> >
> > Uh. I'll take a stab at answering this question. Let me guess. Could it
> > be Richard Clarke's book? (It's called "Against All Enemies" and you can
> > get it ant any book store.)
> >
> > Also Al Franken's book, "Lies."
>
> I canunderstand it was a priority of Richard Clarke, who's JOB was
> counter-terrorism. But Al Franken!? Gimme a break!

Haha, that says it all - muddled cross pathing brain operations from
secondary oxycontin poisoning.


0
Bill549 (46)
7/16/2004 11:29:22 PM
David Fritzinger wrote:
> 
> But terrorism worldwide is up.

What criteria are you using?
0
fdwyer (46)
7/16/2004 11:56:48 PM
"Timberwoof" <timberwoof@stimpberawoofm.com> wrote in
timberwoof-23D6CB.13073016072004@typhoon.sonic.net on 7/16/04 1:07 PM:

> In article <BD1D400E.589A0%snit-nospam@cableone.net>,
> Snit <snit-nospam@cableone.net> wrote:
> 
>> "Frank Dwyer" <fdwyer@citlink.net> wrote in 40F7F077.68966F5C@citlink.net on
>> 7/16/04 8:12 AM:
>> 
>>>> Yet, terrorism in the world is up (despite the fact that the State
>>>> Department tried to release a report saying the opposite). Also, how
>>>> many al Qaeda attacks were there in the US during the Clinton
>>>> Administration. One, WTCI. And that one was only about 6 weeks after
>>>> Clinton took office.
>>> 
>>> Strange, that's the exact same number of attacks in the US as there have
>>> been during the current administration.
>> 
>> Was 9/11 a single attack or a coordinated set of attacks?  Probably just
>> semantics, but it seems it would be fair to consider each plane that was
>> hijacked as an "attack".
> 
> Here, let me lend you my hone for your microtome. It's clearly not sharp
> enough for the hairs you want to split.

The attack(s) of 9/11 were bigger than the prev. attacks on US soil by al
Qaeda no matter how you look at it.


-- 
"If A = B and B = C, then A = C, except where void or prohibited by law."
Roy Santoro, Psycho Proverb Zone (http://smallurl.com/?i=15235)

0
snit-nospam (5415)
7/17/2004 12:09:48 AM
Bill Case wrote:
> 
> "Frank Dwyer" <fdwyer@citlink.net> wrote in message
> news:40F85B40.2E63ADE3@citlink.net...
> > Timberwoof wrote:
> > >
> > > In article <40F7F421.EA37E3DC@citlink.net>,
> > >  Frank Dwyer <fdwyer@citlink.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Bill Case wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > "Frank Dwyer" <fdwyer@citlink.net> wrote in message
> > > > > news:40F5CD75.E7E11B27@citlink.net...
> > > > > > Bill Case wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > "Xomicron" <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in message
> > > > > > > news:99014b3a4d0deeefed2074466df35e25@news.bubbanews.com...
> > > > > > > > "Bill Case" <Bill549@Hotmail.com> wrote in
> > > > > > > > news:%BfJc.2508$mL5.1847@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > "Xomicron" <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in message
> > > > > > > > > news:48f5a03756b590d6dd4fdf877d722592@news.bubbanews.com...
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> "Bill Case" <Bill549@Hotmail.com> wrote in
> > > > > > > > >> news:t7fJc.2473$mL5.1628@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net:
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> > "Xomicron" <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in message
> > > > > > > > >> > news:Xns9526917E1A2E7x@dragon.pl...
> > > > > > > > >> >> "Bill Case" <Bill549@Hotmail.com> wrote in
> > > > > > > > >> >>
> news:NoeJc.2427$mL5.2395@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net:
> > > > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > >> >> > "Xomicron" <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in message
> > > > > > > > >> >> >
> news:ac322$40f5613f$45f0b78b$30321@nf1.news-service-com...
> > > > > > > > >> >> >> "Bill Case" <Bill549@Hotmail.com> wrote in
> > > > > > > > >> >> >>
> news:IWcJc.2968$Qu5.1720@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net:
> > > > > > > > >> >> >>
> > > > > > > > >> >> >> > "Xomicron" <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in message
> > > > > > > > >> >> >> >
> news:ae117$40f55426$45f0b78b$14525@nf1.news-service-com...
> > > > > > > > >> >> >> >
> > > > > > > > >> >> >> >> "Bill Case" <Bill549@Hotmail.com> wrote in
> > > > > > > > >> >> >> >>
> news:zB%Ic.1642$mL5.223@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net:
> > > > > > > > >> >> >> >>
> > > > > > > > >> >> >> >>> "Frank Dwyer" <fdwyer@citlink.net> wrote in
> message
> > > > > > > > >> >> >> >>> news:40F4749B.A37548D7@citlink.net...
> > > > > > > > >> >> >> >>>
> > > > > > > > >> >> >> >>>> He did more about it than the administration
> under whom
> > > > > it
> > > > > > > > >> >> >> >>>> happened did.
> > > > > > > > >> >> >> >>>
> > > > > > > > >> >> >> >>> It's widely known the CIA didn't attribute it to
> Al Qaeda
> > > > > > > > >> >> >> >>> until around the time of administration change.
> > > > > > > > >> >> >> >>> I don't like Clinton, but he did launch attacks,
> one
> > > > > killed
> > > > > > > > >> >> >> >>> around 200 al qaeda in Afghanistan. (Cruises
> missiles)
> > > > > > > > >> >> >> >>
> > > > > > > > >> >> >> >> More like blew up some empty tents.
> > > > > > > > >> >> >> >
> > > > > > > > >> >> >> > If you actually knew anything about this war on
> terror, you
> > > > > > > > >> >> >> > would know that intelligence is that they killed a
> lot of
> > > > > them,
> > > > > > > > >> >> >> > and OBL had left that camp not long before.
> > > > > > > > >> >> >> >
> > > > > > > > >> >> >> >>
> > > > > > > > >> >> >> >> > Irregardless,  why didn't Bush act?
> > > > > > > > >> >> >> >> > On 9/11 he sat like a rabbit after being told of
> the 2
> > > > > WTC
> > > > > > > > >> >> >> >> > hits.
> > > > > > > > >> >> >> >>
> > > > > > > > >> >> >> >> What should he have done? Keeping in mind that no
> one
> > > > > really
> > > > > > > > >> >> >> >> knew what was going on.
> > > > > > > > >> >> >> >
> > > > > > > > >> >> >> > A commander, or just any guy with balls and brains,
> is
> > > > > going to
> > > > > > > > >> >> >> > want to know all the info available, ask questions
> to get
> > > > > his
> > > > > > > > >> >> >> > staff going and thinking, get his mind working on
> the
> > > > > problem
> > > > > > > > >> >> >> > he's facing, make sure his people are all "up" and
> active.
> > > > > > > > >> >> >> >
> > > > > > > > >> >> >> > In a situation like that, you might be asked to
> make a
> > > > > > > > >> >> >> > decision, maybe a big one, quickly. To do that you
> need to
> > > > > have
> > > > > > > > >> >> >> > your mind active and focused. A leader wants to be
> certain
> > > > > > > > >> >> >> > everybody is doing all they can and all the
> available info
> > > > > on
> > > > > > > > >> >> >> > what's happening is getting to him.
> > > > > > > > >> >> >> >
> > > > > > > > >> >> >> > Instead, he sat there like a passive receiver.
> > > > > > > > >> >> >>
> > > > > > > > >> >> >> So what should he have done? There were massively
> conflicting
> > > > > > > > >> >> >> reports that said anywhere from JUST ONE plane, to
> SIX
> > > > > different
> > > > > > > > >> >> >> aircraft had been either hijacked, or had some sort
> of
> > > > > > > > >> >> >> malfunction. Which one of these presumptions do you
> make?
> > > > > Keep in
> > > > > > > > >> >> >> mind that if you're wrong, people die, if you're
> right,
> > > > > people
> > > > > > > > >> >> >> die. And also keep in mind that shooting them down
> and being
> > > > > > > > >> >> >> right in doing so, may destroy any proof that you
> were right.
> > > > > No
> > > > > > > > >> >> >> proof to your own conscience, no proof to your
> friends, no
> > > > > proof
> > > > > > > > >> >> >> to your staff, and just to also throw in the lowest
> common
> > > > > > > > >> >> >> denominator, no proof to the voters.
> > > > > > > > >> >> >>
> > > > > > > > >> >> >> And we all know how much proof it requires to
> convince people
> > > > > who
> > > > > > > > >> >> >> hate Bush of anything. Today we'd be hearing about
> how Bush
> > > > > is a
> > > > > > > > >> >> >> murderer who shoots down civilian airlines.
> > > > > > > > >> >> >>
> > > > > > > > >> >> >> > But first of all, get yourself away from children
> in case
> > > > > an
> > > > > > > > >> >> >> > attempt is about to be made on you.
> > > > > > > > >> >> >>
> > > > > > > > >> >> >> What would events 1500 miles away have to do with
> Bush being
> > > > > > > > >> >> >> assassinated?
> > > > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > >> >> > As I've described in a prior post, his actions were
> not those
> > > > > of
> > > > > > > > >> >> > tough smart leader whose country is under attack.
> > > > > > > > >> >> > What should he have done? Taken charge. Instead he sat
> there
> > > > > in a
> > > > > > > > >> >> > state of confusion, with children around him.
> > > > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > >> >> It seems that nothing Bush does or could have done would
> ever be
> > > > > > > > >> >> good enough for the loony left.
> > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > >> > That won't work sport.
> > > > > > > > >> > Bush quote regarding evading Vietnam war service:
> > > > > > > > >> > "I was not prepared to shoot my eardrum out with a
> shotgun in
> > > > > > > > >> > order to get a deferment. Nor was I willing to go to
> Canada. So I
> > > > > > > > >> > chose to better myself by learning how to fly airplanes,"
> Bush
> > > > > told
> > > > > > > > >> > an interviewer in Houston. "
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> A lot better than our previous president ever did, yet the
> left
> > > > > fawns
> > > > > > > > >> over him.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I didn't vote for Clinton.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > This election isn't about Clinton, he's not a candidate.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > But since you bring it up, it's historical fact, that pre
> 9/11,
> > > > > Clinton
> > > > > > > > > DID do more against terrorists than Bush did. He attacked
> them with
> > > > > > > > > cruise missiles, killed hundreds of them. Pre 9/11, Bush
> never even
> > > > > > > > > tried to retaliate for the USS Cole attack which killed 17
> > > > > Americans.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Lobbing a few cruise missiles at tents is not cracking down on
> > > > > terrorism.
> > > > > > > > Clinton had 8 years to deal with terrorism starting from when
> the WTC
> > > > > was
> > > > > > > > bombed in 1993.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > He killed around 200 of them and apparnelty came close to
> catching OBL
> > > > > in
> > > > > > > the attack, he had left the area shortly before the raid.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Let me guess, this came from the same intelligence sources that
> said
> > > > > > Iraq had WMDs, right?
> > > > >
> > > > > Do you think the sources of intel for casualties from an attack in
> > > > > Afghanistan are the same as those for WMD in Iraq?
> > > >
> > > > It goes through the same channels prior to reaching the White House.
> > > >
> > > > > > > That's WAY more than Bush did in answer to the Cole. Bush was
> passive
> > > > > and
> > > > > > > Afghan al qaeda prisoner interviews indicate that were
> encouraged by the
> > > > > > > lack of retaliation. He had 8 months. He stated in intereviews
> that pre
> > > > > > > 9/11, terrorism was low on his priorities - he's stupid.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Terrorism was low on every American's priority list.
> > > > >
> > > > > It was not. Richard Clarke wrote a whole book dealing with that.
> Clinton
> > > > > told Bush on inaugaration day that his #1 problem was al qaeda and
> OBL.
> > > >
> > > > Cite?
> > >
> > > Uh. I'll take a stab at answering this question. Let me guess. Could it
> > > be Richard Clarke's book? (It's called "Against All Enemies" and you can
> > > get it ant any book store.)
> > >
> > > Also Al Franken's book, "Lies."
> >
> > I canunderstand it was a priority of Richard Clarke, who's JOB was
> > counter-terrorism. But Al Franken!? Gimme a break!
> 
> Haha, that says it all - muddled cross pathing brain operations from
> secondary oxycontin poisoning.

And partisanship once again rears it's ugly ass. Great.
Look, Al Franken was a comedian on Saturday Night Live, ok? He's a
politcal satirist. Nearly everything he says is meant to make someone
chuckle. If you want to speak of muddled thinking, then consider the one
who will take the word of a second-rate comedian over the word of the
people in the Washington when it comes to what has happened in
Washington.
Clarke has credibility. Franken has a comedic agenda.
0
fdwyer (46)
7/17/2004 1:24:11 AM
David Fritzinger wrote:
> 
> Frank Dwyer <fdwyer@citlink.net> wrote in message news:<40F7F421.EA37E3DC@citlink.net>...
> > Bill Case wrote:
> > >
> [snip]
> >
> > For Christ sake, we lobbed a few missles in that direction and it didn't
> > help one bit. 9/11 still happened. Since we've been there, we've still
> > been unable to locate the "good" targets.
> > Don't YOU know anything?
> >
> 
> You attack where the terrorists are. After all, if all you want is
> good targets, why not just bomb the US. Plenty of good targets here.
> Hell, there are even terrorist cells...
> 
> > > > > Bush, Rumsfeld and Cheney all
> > > > > wanted to leave al-Qaeda in Afghanistan and attack Iraq first. At first
> > > > > Wolfowitz was leaked as the proponent of this crazy idea, and although
> >  he
> > > > > did back it, it is now clear from insider accounts like that of Richard
> > > > > Clark that the three top leaders just mentioned wanted Iraq first. The
> >  UK
> > > > > ambassador to the US maintains that it was Tony Blair who talked Bush
> >  into
> > > > > going after al-Qaeda in Afghanistan first, with a promise that he would
> > > > > later support an Iraq war.
> > > >
> > > > Like we'd expect the UK Ambassador to say anything else?
> > >
> > > You're saying he's lying? where';s your proof?
> >
> > oh great.. someone else who'll twist the meaning of what is written in
> > en effort to create a debate...
> > You're saying I said he was lying? Where's your proof?
> >
> > > > > MI6 would have been briefing Tony about the dire
> > > > > threat coming from Afghanistan, and he, unlike the Bush team, could see
> >  the
> > > > > dangers of getting bogged down in an Iraq quagmire while al-Qaeda and
> >  the
> > > > > Taliban were still in control of Afghanistan. (Can you imagine the full
> > > > > scope of that disaster that Bush had planned for us?)    end quote
> > > >
> > > > Well, imagining it is all we can do, as it didn't happen that way.
> > > >
> > > > > Bush is NOT a competent war leader.
> > > >
> > > > Why?
> > >
> > > Probably his llack of intellkigence (IQ),
> >
> > What's his IQ? For that matter, what's yours?
> 
> I would guess that Bush is actually pretty bright, but he is
> intellectually lazy.

That I would definitely agree with. He seems as if he'd "rather not
think about it", whatever "it" may be.
0
fdwyer (46)
7/17/2004 1:26:02 AM
In article <BD1DBC5C.58AA1%snit-nospam@cableone.net>,
 Snit <snit-nospam@cableone.net> wrote:

> "Timberwoof" <timberwoof@stimpberawoofm.com> wrote in
> timberwoof-23D6CB.13073016072004@typhoon.sonic.net on 7/16/04 1:07 PM:
> 
> > In article <BD1D400E.589A0%snit-nospam@cableone.net>,
> > Snit <snit-nospam@cableone.net> wrote:
> > 
> >> "Frank Dwyer" <fdwyer@citlink.net> wrote in 40F7F077.68966F5C@citlink.net 
> >> on
> >> 7/16/04 8:12 AM:
> >> 
> >>>> Yet, terrorism in the world is up (despite the fact that the State
> >>>> Department tried to release a report saying the opposite). Also, how
> >>>> many al Qaeda attacks were there in the US during the Clinton
> >>>> Administration. One, WTCI. And that one was only about 6 weeks after
> >>>> Clinton took office.
> >>> 
> >>> Strange, that's the exact same number of attacks in the US as there have
> >>> been during the current administration.
> >> 
> >> Was 9/11 a single attack or a coordinated set of attacks?  Probably just
> >> semantics, but it seems it would be fair to consider each plane that was
> >> hijacked as an "attack".
> > 
> > Here, let me lend you my hone for your microtome. It's clearly not sharp
> > enough for the hairs you want to split.
> 
> The attack(s) of 9/11 were bigger than the prev. attacks on US soil by al
> Qaeda no matter how you look at it.

So was the attack on Pearl Harbor one attack or many? Does it make a 
difference?

-- 
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com>
http://www.timberwoof.com
Baloney Detection Kit: http://www.xenu.net/archive/baloney_detection.html
0
timberwoof (3216)
7/17/2004 3:19:24 AM
In article <40F85B40.2E63ADE3@citlink.net>,
 Frank Dwyer <fdwyer@citlink.net> wrote:

> Timberwoof wrote:
> > 
> > In article <40F7F421.EA37E3DC@citlink.net>,
> >  Frank Dwyer <fdwyer@citlink.net> wrote:
> > 
> > > Bill Case wrote:
> > > >
> > > > "Frank Dwyer" <fdwyer@citlink.net> wrote in message
> > > > news:40F5CD75.E7E11B27@citlink.net...

> > > > > Terrorism was low on every American's priority list.
> > > >
> > > > It was not. Richard Clarke wrote a whole book dealing with that. 
> > > > Clinton
> > > > told Bush on inaugaration day that his #1 problem was al qaeda and OBL.
> > >
> > > Cite?
> > 
> > Uh. I'll take a stab at answering this question. Let me guess. Could it
> > be Richard Clarke's book? (It's called "Against All Enemies" and you can
> > get it ant any book store.)
> > 
> > Also Al Franken's book, "Lies."
> 
> I canunderstand it was a priority of Richard Clarke, who's JOB was
> counter-terrorism. But Al Franken!? Gimme a break!
>  
> > > Who's #1 problem, Clinton's?
> > 
> > Clinton tried to tell Bush that Bush's biggest problem would be
> > international terrorism. If you want citations, go to your local book
> > store and pick up a copy of Al Franken's book "Lies." Skip all the
> > political rhetoric and head straight for the bibliography in the back.
> > (The bibliography is in the back of the book, not the back of the
> > store.)
> 
> Al Franken again!? Good lord, man, you honestly use Al Franken, a
> comedian from Saturday Night Live "fame", as a reliable source for
> political news!?

What part of what he wrote in "Lies" was in factual error? Do you know 
anything about how that book came to be written? Do you have any basis, 
other than an easy ad-hominem attack, to dismiss the book? 

And what kind of a joker are you to follow up a statement that quite 
clearly referred to a book someone had written by saying "Cite"?  


> > <snip>
> > 
> > > > Probably his llack of intellkigence (IQ),
> > >
> > > What's his IQ? For that matter, what's yours?
> > >
> > > > lack of an active mind,
> > >
> > > Proof?
> > >
> > > > lack of experience from having evaded the VN war when he was young,
> > >
> > > Proof?
> > 
> > http://www.awolbush.com/
> > http://www.buzzflash.com/contributors/03/06/05_moore.html
> > http://216.239.57.104/search?q=cache:Z1-B2mykAeIJ:www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42
> > 30576/+george+bush+vietnam+draft&hl=en&lr=lang_en%7Clang_de
> > http://www.schlatter.org/Dad/Bush%20lies/draftdodge-long.htm
> > 
> > > > alcohol abuse,
> > >
> > > Proof?
> > 
> > I would guess about 25 proof.
> 
> I was thinking more around 80. I know he drank and I know he did what he
> could to not get shot at by Charlie. I just don't fault him for it.
>  
> > http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/bushdui1.html
> > http://alcoholism.about.com/cs/issues/l/aa001106a.htm
> > http://www.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/11/02/bush.dui/
> > 
> > > > he practically admitted cocaine use - that doens't do the brain any 
> > > > good, a
> > > > lot of thing s enter into his incompetence and the mess we are in, in 
> > > > Iraq.
> > > >
> > > > You do know authorities on terrorism say the Iraq things has created a 
> > > > new
> > > > pool of terrorists for us to deal with in the future, right?
> > >
> > > Authorities on terrorism? Is that what they're called today? Yesterday
> > > they were "analysts".
> > 
> > Probably by someone else.
> 
> No, by the OP.
> 
> > Instead of trying to derail the argument over
> > whether people who talk about terrorists are authorities or analysts,
> > why don't you talk about the substance here, which is whether the
> > invasion of Iraq created more terrorists.
> 
> Sure... unknown. Now that discussion is dead.

You say the discussion is dead because you don't know the facts and you 
don't 'care to follow the simple logic that people have presented ... 
yep. It's dead all right. 


> > Of course, the assertion that invading Iraq created more terrorists is
> > ludicrous on the face of it. I mean, if you were a young man and your
> > biggest enemy invaded your country, you wouldn't lift a finger to stop
> > them. Why, you'd wave the flag and throw flowers on the invading army,
> > tend for their wounded, and hunt down insurgents just like the boys did
> > in Red Dawn (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0087985/). And that's what's
> > happening in Iraq: they've all forgiven the US over the thousands of
> > civilians who got killed (most of them painlessly, by the way) and are
> > all ready to just buckle down and build a secular democratic state based
> > on good Christian values. The thought of taking revenge against the US
> > by fighting a guerilla war or by terrorism hadn't even entered their
> > minds. (In case you're sarcasm impaired, that's all a lie.
> > 
> > What logic suggests that there would be fewer terrorists now than
> > before?
> 
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/graphics/2001/11/07/wmil07.gif

Remarkable. A weapon that kills only terrorists. Why not blow up one of 
those at every US airport? Wait, I get it. It's not really a weapon that 
kills only terrorists, it's a weapon that kills whatever poor sod who 
happens to be around when it blows up, whether he's a terrorist or 
somebody's dear old dad. Maybe we better not blow those up where 
innocent people might get killed. I can think of a lot of places not to 
use that weapon.

-- 
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com>
http://www.timberwoof.com
Baloney Detection Kit: http://www.xenu.net/archive/baloney_detection.html
0
timberwoof (3216)
7/17/2004 3:27:20 AM
In article <40F87FEA.7C1DE8FA@citlink.net>,
 Frank Dwyer <fdwyer@citlink.net> wrote:

> > Haha, that says it all - muddled cross pathing brain operations from
> > secondary oxycontin poisoning.
> 
> And partisanship once again rears it's ugly ass. Great.
> Look, Al Franken was a comedian on Saturday Night Live, ok? He's a
> politcal satirist. Nearly everything he says is meant to make someone
> chuckle. If you want to speak of muddled thinking, then consider the one
> who will take the word of a second-rate comedian over the word of the
> people in the Washington when it comes to what has happened in
> Washington.
> Clarke has credibility. Franken has a comedic agenda.

Franken has a political agenda, and he uses satire to get his message 
across. Much like, say, Rush Limbaugh.

-- 
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com>
http://www.timberwoof.com
Baloney Detection Kit: http://www.xenu.net/archive/baloney_detection.html
0
timberwoof (3216)
7/17/2004 3:29:10 AM
Diogenes wrote:

> Bill Case wrote:
> 
>>This is from a university prof's website. 
> 
> 
> BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!
> 
Not only bullshit- talk about slant\
The arabs are just pissed that Israel kicked their asses 4 times 
'48,'56,'67,'73 and now all that is left for them is to whine and blow 
themselves up.
-max

-- 
To help you stay safe see: http://www.geocities.com/maxpro4u/madmax.html
This message is virus free as far as I can tell.
Change nomail.afraid.org to neo.rr.com so you can reply
(nomail.afraid.org has been set up specifically for
  use in Usenet. Feel free to use it yourself.)
0
maxpro4u (27)
7/17/2004 3:29:20 AM
In article <40F85B40.2E63ADE3@citlink.net>,
 Frank Dwyer <fdwyer@citlink.net> wrote:

> Timberwoof wrote:

[snip]

> > Clinton tried to tell Bush that Bush's biggest problem would be
> > international terrorism. If you want citations, go to your local book
> > store and pick up a copy of Al Franken's book "Lies." Skip all the
> > political rhetoric and head straight for the bibliography in the back.
> > (The bibliography is in the back of the book, not the back of the
> > store.)
> 
> Al Franken again!? Good lord, man, you honestly use Al Franken, a
> comedian from Saturday Night Live "fame", as a reliable source for
> political news!?

Conservatives are great. Their favorite president was an actor, but they 
think it's illegitimate if someone who used to by on a comedy show 
decides to write about politics.

[snip]

-- 
"In my judgment, when the United States says there will be serious consequences,
and if there isn't serious consequences, it creates adverse consequences."
                    -- George W. Bush on Meet the Press, Feb. 8, 2004
0
znu2 (2031)
7/17/2004 3:30:15 AM
"Timberwoof" <timberwoof@stimpberawoofm.com> wrote in
timberwoof-82EEF7.20192416072004@typhoon.sonic.net on 7/16/04 8:19 PM:

> In article <BD1DBC5C.58AA1%snit-nospam@cableone.net>,
> Snit <snit-nospam@cableone.net> wrote:
> 
>> "Timberwoof" <timberwoof@stimpberawoofm.com> wrote in
>> timberwoof-23D6CB.13073016072004@typhoon.sonic.net on 7/16/04 1:07 PM:
>> 
>>> In article <BD1D400E.589A0%snit-nospam@cableone.net>,
>>> Snit <snit-nospam@cableone.net> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> "Frank Dwyer" <fdwyer@citlink.net> wrote in 40F7F077.68966F5C@citlink.net
>>>> on
>>>> 7/16/04 8:12 AM:
>>>> 
>>>>>> Yet, terrorism in the world is up (despite the fact that the State
>>>>>> Department tried to release a report saying the opposite). Also, how
>>>>>> many al Qaeda attacks were there in the US during the Clinton
>>>>>> Administration. One, WTCI. And that one was only about 6 weeks after
>>>>>> Clinton took office.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Strange, that's the exact same number of attacks in the US as there have
>>>>> been during the current administration.
>>>> 
>>>> Was 9/11 a single attack or a coordinated set of attacks?  Probably just
>>>> semantics, but it seems it would be fair to consider each plane that was
>>>> hijacked as an "attack".
>>> 
>>> Here, let me lend you my hone for your microtome. It's clearly not sharp
>>> enough for the hairs you want to split.
>> 
>> The attack(s) of 9/11 were bigger than the prev. attacks on US soil by al
>> Qaeda no matter how you look at it.
> 
> So was the attack on Pearl Harbor one attack or many? Does it make a
> difference?

Not really - but 9/11 was undoubtedly bigger than anything in the Clinton
years.

-- 
"If A = B and B = C, then A = C, except where void or prohibited by law."
Roy Santoro, Psycho Proverb Zone (http://smallurl.com/?i=15235)

0
snit-nospam (5415)
7/17/2004 3:57:57 AM
In article <afmdnd0-4dyLwWXdRVn-vA@comcast.com>,
 "Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:

> "David Fritzinger" <dfritzin@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:b82925bb.0407161447.df3905f@posting.google.com...
> > Frank Dwyer <fdwyer@citlink.net> wrote in message
> news:<40F7F421.EA37E3DC@citlink.net>...
> > > Bill Case wrote:
> > > >
> > [snip]
> > >
> > > For Christ sake, we lobbed a few missles in that direction and it didn't
> > > help one bit. 9/11 still happened. Since we've been there, we've still
> > > been unable to locate the "good" targets.
> > > Don't YOU know anything?
> > >
> >
> > You attack where the terrorists are.
> 
> Well in that case we could just about be in every country.

My point exactly...
> 
> 
> After all, if all you want is
> > good targets, why not just bomb the US. Plenty of good targets here.
> > Hell, there are even terrorist cells...
> >
> > > > > > Bush, Rumsfeld and Cheney all
> > > > > > wanted to leave al-Qaeda in Afghanistan and attack Iraq first. At
> first
> > > > > > Wolfowitz was leaked as the proponent of this crazy idea, and
> although
> > >  he
> > > > > > did back it, it is now clear from insider accounts like that of
> Richard
> > > > > > Clark that the three top leaders just mentioned wanted Iraq first.
> The
> > >  UK
> > > > > > ambassador to the US maintains that it was Tony Blair who talked
> Bush
> > >  into
> > > > > > going after al-Qaeda in Afghanistan first, with a promise that he
> would
> > > > > > later support an Iraq war.
> > > > >
> > > > > Like we'd expect the UK Ambassador to say anything else?
> > > >
> > > > You're saying he's lying? where';s your proof?
> > >
> > > oh great.. someone else who'll twist the meaning of what is written in
> > > en effort to create a debate...
> > > You're saying I said he was lying? Where's your proof?
> > >
> > > > > > MI6 would have been briefing Tony about the dire
> > > > > > threat coming from Afghanistan, and he, unlike the Bush team,
> could see
> > >  the
> > > > > > dangers of getting bogged down in an Iraq quagmire while al-Qaeda
> and
> > >  the
> > > > > > Taliban were still in control of Afghanistan. (Can you imagine the
> full
> > > > > > scope of that disaster that Bush had planned for us?)    end quote
> > > > >
> > > > > Well, imagining it is all we can do, as it didn't happen that way.
> > > > >
> > > > > > Bush is NOT a competent war leader.
> > > > >
> > > > > Why?
> > > >
> > > > Probably his llack of intellkigence (IQ),
> > >
> > > What's his IQ? For that matter, what's yours?
> >
> > I would guess that Bush is actually pretty bright, but he is
> > intellectually lazy. For evidence, see below.
> > >
> > > > lack of an active mind,
> > >
> > > Proof?
> >
> > He doesn't even read the papers, and has everything spoonfed to him by
> > his advisors. He was only able to get a C+ average at Yale, and he has
> > proven to be one of the most incurious presidents in history. Is that
> > evidence enough?
> 
> Might I remind you that Al Gore wasn't exactly an honor roll student either.

Is Al Gore running for President? If so, I wasn't aware of it.
> 
> > >
> > > > lack of experience from having evaded the VN war when he was young,
> > >
> > > Proof?
> >
> > He was put into a "champaigne" Air National Guard outfit in Texas,
> > over 500 other applicants. That counts as evidence to me.
> 
> Or just what you want to read into it.

No, he supposedly supported the war, but did his damndest to get out of 
actually fighting in it. Sounds like a hypocrite to me.
> 
> > >
> > > > alcohol abuse,
> > >
> > > Proof?
> >
> > Even Bush admits to being an alcoholic.
> 
> 
> Clinton/Gore smoked dope

Why are you bringing up Clinton/Gore? Are they running for office? I 
thought we were talking about Bush. 
> 
> Plus, he has 4 DUIs on his
> > record.
> 
> While he was in political office?

Effects of alcohol abuse are cumlitive. 
> 
> We all make mistakes, do you go around kicking ex inmates in the teeth when
> they paid for theirs?

Someone mentioned alcohol abuse, and you asked for proof. I gave proof. 
Isn't that what you wanted? If not, why did you ask for it?
> 
> 
> > [snip]
> >
> > --
> > Dave Fritzinger

-- 
Dave Fritzinger
0
7/17/2004 5:08:20 AM
In article <40F85B40.2E63ADE3@citlink.net>,
 Frank Dwyer <fdwyer@citlink.net> wrote:

> Timberwoof wrote:
> > 
> > In article <40F7F421.EA37E3DC@citlink.net>,
> >  Frank Dwyer <fdwyer@citlink.net> wrote:
> > 
> > > Bill Case wrote:
>
[snip]
> > > > lack of experience from having evaded the VN war when he was young,
> > >
> > > Proof?
> > 
> > http://www.awolbush.com/
> > http://www.buzzflash.com/contributors/03/06/05_moore.html
> > http://216.239.57.104/search?q=cache:Z1-B2mykAeIJ:www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42
> > 30576/+george+bush+vietnam+draft&hl=en&lr=lang_en%7Clang_de
> > http://www.schlatter.org/Dad/Bush%20lies/draftdodge-long.htm
> > 
> > > > alcohol abuse,
> > >
> > > Proof?
> > 
> > I would guess about 25 proof.
> 
> I was thinking more around 80. I know he drank and I know he did what he
> could to not get shot at by Charlie. I just don't fault him for it.

I really didn't either, until he started questioning the patriotism of 
genuine heros, such as John McCain (2000 election) and Max Cleland (2002 
Georgia senate election). Not to mention the fact that, post 9/11, the 
Republicans tried to say you weren't patriotic if you opposed Bush and 
the Republicans on any issue. Then, it became important.

[snip]

-- 
Dave Fritzinger
0
7/17/2004 5:14:15 AM
In article <40F86B6F.70F5036F@citlink.net>,
 Frank Dwyer <fdwyer@citlink.net> wrote:

> David Fritzinger wrote:
> > 
> > But terrorism worldwide is up.
> 
> What criteria are you using?

The report issued by the US State Department.

-- 
Dave Fritzinger
0
7/17/2004 5:16:20 AM
In article 
<dfritzinnospam-6479C3.19152516072004@orngca-news03.socal.rr.com>,
 David Fritzinger <dfritzinnospam@mac.com> wrote:

> In article <40F85B40.2E63ADE3@citlink.net>,
>  Frank Dwyer <fdwyer@citlink.net> wrote:
> 
> > Timberwoof wrote:
> > > 
> > > In article <40F7F421.EA37E3DC@citlink.net>,
> > >  Frank Dwyer <fdwyer@citlink.net> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > Bill Case wrote:
> >
> [snip]
> > > > > lack of experience from having evaded the VN war when he was young,
> > > >
> > > > Proof?
> > > 
> > > http://www.awolbush.com/
> > > http://www.buzzflash.com/contributors/03/06/05_moore.html
> > > http://216.239.57.104/search?q=cache:Z1-B2mykAeIJ:www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42
> > > 30576/+george+bush+vietnam+draft&hl=en&lr=lang_en%7Clang_de
> > > http://www.schlatter.org/Dad/Bush%20lies/draftdodge-long.htm
> > > 
> > > > > alcohol abuse,
> > > >
> > > > Proof?
> > > 
> > > I would guess about 25 proof.
> > 
> > I was thinking more around 80. I know he drank and I know he did what he
> > could to not get shot at by Charlie. I just don't fault him for it.
> 
> I really didn't either, until he started questioning the patriotism of 
> genuine heros, such as John McCain (2000 election) and Max Cleland (2002 
> Georgia senate election). Not to mention the fact that, post 9/11, the 
> Republicans tried to say you weren't patriotic if you opposed Bush and 
> the Republicans on any issue. Then, it became important.

And the other thing is, Bush's politics would have made him a war 
supporter. There's a big difference, I think, between avoiding service 
because you oppose a war, and avoiding service because you'd rather they 
sent some other poor slob in your place.

-- 
"In my judgment, when the United States says there will be serious consequences,
and if there isn't serious consequences, it creates adverse consequences."
                    -- George W. Bush on Meet the Press, Feb. 8, 2004
0
znu2 (2031)
7/17/2004 6:25:06 AM
Bill Case <Bill549@Hotmail.com> wrote:

> "Xomicron" <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in message
> news:Xns9526F32D4B0F0DW@dragon.pl...

<...>

> > A flip flop would be changing your stance on an issue, like saying life
> > begins at conception while at the same time saying you are pro-choice.
> 
> What an incredible thing to say.
> 
> Talking big then backing down on a war objective is a lot worse and has far
> worse implications for US security, than do arguments about domestic social
> policy issues.
> 
> You do know North Korea shows little fear of us now and is openly talking of
> producing nukes. Do you think they don't notice what a phony Bush is?

http://www.propagandamatrix.com/articles/july2004/070704nukeattack.htm

-- 

Peter
0
peter9808 (1493)
7/17/2004 11:38:34 AM
Bill Case <Bill549@Hotmail.com> wrote:

> "Timberwoof" <timberwoof@stimpberawoofm.com> wrote in message
> news:timberwoof-E290CE.20205114072004@typhoon.sonic.net...

<...>

> > As for "actionable intelligence," we saw a considerable failure of that
> > in the recent war. The US lobbed about fifty attacks on specific houses
> > in Baghdad, based on neighbors saying they though they had seen Saddam
> > Hussein there. The problem was that he never was where they thought he
> > was, and these raids killed roughly three hundred to five hundred
> > innocent people -- wives and kids living in those houses.
> 
> Yeah, no human intelligence sources. Increddible with all the hundreds of
> billions the US has spent over the years.

But a fine way of getting rid of annoying neighbours.

How many old scores were settled by a US missile?

-- 

Peter
0
peter9808 (1493)
7/17/2004 11:57:16 AM
David Fritzinger <dfritzinnospam@mac.com> wrote:

> In article <k-GdnYVIibV3SmvdRVn-gQ@comcast.com>,
>  "Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
> 
> > "David Fritzinger" <dfritzin@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:b82925bb.0407151012.32bd681e@posting.google.com...

<...>

> > > BTW, if we are so safe, why do we get constant terror alerts from the
> > > DHS?
> > 
> > Because of 9/11.
> 
> What makes you think that? The alerts keep coming, but nothing comes of
> them. That makes me think we are less safe than you want to believe. 

Perhaps they want you to believe that they're working hard at your
security?

After a while these alerts will fade into the background, leaving
everyone vulnerable to the big one.

-- 

Peter
0
peter9808 (1493)
7/17/2004 12:08:12 PM
David Fritzinger wrote:
> 
> In article <40F86B6F.70F5036F@citlink.net>,
>  Frank Dwyer <fdwyer@citlink.net> wrote:
> 
> > David Fritzinger wrote:
> > >
> > > But terrorism worldwide is up.
> >
> > What criteria are you using?
> 
> The report issued by the US State Department.

This one? http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/pgtrpt/2003/33771.htm
"There were 208 acts of international terrorism in 2003, a slight
increase from the most recently published figure of 198 attacks in 2002,
and a 42 percent drop from the level in 2001 of 355 attacks."

A whopping 10 more attacks worldwide than '02, but overall, a 42 percent
decrease since 2001. Is that the report you're referencing when you say
terrorism worldwide is up?
0
fdwyer (46)
7/17/2004 12:43:06 PM
Timberwoof wrote:
> 
> In article <40F87FEA.7C1DE8FA@citlink.net>,
>  Frank Dwyer <fdwyer@citlink.net> wrote:
> 
> > > Haha, that says it all - muddled cross pathing brain operations from
> > > secondary oxycontin poisoning.
> >
> > And partisanship once again rears it's ugly ass. Great.
> > Look, Al Franken was a comedian on Saturday Night Live, ok? He's a
> > politcal satirist. Nearly everything he says is meant to make someone
> > chuckle. If you want to speak of muddled thinking, then consider the one
> > who will take the word of a second-rate comedian over the word of the
> > people in the Washington when it comes to what has happened in
> > Washington.
> > Clarke has credibility. Franken has a comedic agenda.
> 
> Franken has a political agenda, and he uses satire to get his message
> across. Much like, say, Rush Limbaugh.

Limbaugh has no credibility either, so to equate Franken with him only
serves to reinforce my belief that Franken shouldn't be considered a
reliable source of anything. He's a perfect candidate for The Daily
Show.
0
fdwyer (46)
7/17/2004 12:47:20 PM
Timberwoof wrote:
> 
> In article <40F85B40.2E63ADE3@citlink.net>,
>  Frank Dwyer <fdwyer@citlink.net> wrote:
> 
> > Timberwoof wrote:
> > >
> > > In article <40F7F421.EA37E3DC@citlink.net>,
> > >  Frank Dwyer <fdwyer@citlink.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Bill Case wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > "Frank Dwyer" <fdwyer@citlink.net> wrote in message
> > > > > news:40F5CD75.E7E11B27@citlink.net...
> 
> > > > > > Terrorism was low on every American's priority list.
> > > > >
> > > > > It was not. Richard Clarke wrote a whole book dealing with that.
> > > > > Clinton
> > > > > told Bush on inaugaration day that his #1 problem was al qaeda and OBL.
> > > >
> > > > Cite?
> > >
> > > Uh. I'll take a stab at answering this question. Let me guess. Could it
> > > be Richard Clarke's book? (It's called "Against All Enemies" and you can
> > > get it ant any book store.)
> > >
> > > Also Al Franken's book, "Lies."
> >
> > I canunderstand it was a priority of Richard Clarke, who's JOB was
> > counter-terrorism. But Al Franken!? Gimme a break!
> >
> > > > Who's #1 problem, Clinton's?
> > >
> > > Clinton tried to tell Bush that Bush's biggest problem would be
> > > international terrorism. If you want citations, go to your local book
> > > store and pick up a copy of Al Franken's book "Lies." Skip all the
> > > political rhetoric and head straight for the bibliography in the back.
> > > (The bibliography is in the back of the book, not the back of the
> > > store.)
> >
> > Al Franken again!? Good lord, man, you honestly use Al Franken, a
> > comedian from Saturday Night Live "fame", as a reliable source for
> > political news!?
> 
> What part of what he wrote in "Lies" was in factual error? Do you know
> anything about how that book came to be written? Do you have any basis,
> other than an easy ad-hominem attack, to dismiss the book?
> 
> And what kind of a joker are you to follow up a statement that quite
> clearly referred to a book someone had written by saying "Cite"?

Two texts were cited, one I'll accept as a credible source, the other is
of no more importance than if they cited "One Fish, Two Fish, Red Fish,
Blue Fish"

> > > <snip>
> > >
> > > > > Probably his llack of intellkigence (IQ),
> > > >
> > > > What's his IQ? For that matter, what's yours?
> > > >
> > > > > lack of an active mind,
> > > >
> > > > Proof?
> > > >
> > > > > lack of experience from having evaded the VN war when he was young,
> > > >
> > > > Proof?
> > >
> > > http://www.awolbush.com/
> > > http://www.buzzflash.com/contributors/03/06/05_moore.html
> > > http://216.239.57.104/search?q=cache:Z1-B2mykAeIJ:www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42
> > > 30576/+george+bush+vietnam+draft&hl=en&lr=lang_en%7Clang_de
> > > http://www.schlatter.org/Dad/Bush%20lies/draftdodge-long.htm
> > >
> > > > > alcohol abuse,
> > > >
> > > > Proof?
> > >
> > > I would guess about 25 proof.
> >
> > I was thinking more around 80. I know he drank and I know he did what he
> > could to not get shot at by Charlie. I just don't fault him for it.
> >
> > > http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/bushdui1.html
> > > http://alcoholism.about.com/cs/issues/l/aa001106a.htm
> > > http://www.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/11/02/bush.dui/
> > >
> > > > > he practically admitted cocaine use - that doens't do the brain any
> > > > > good, a
> > > > > lot of thing s enter into his incompetence and the mess we are in, in
> > > > > Iraq.
> > > > >
> > > > > You do know authorities on terrorism say the Iraq things has created a
> > > > > new
> > > > > pool of terrorists for us to deal with in the future, right?
> > > >
> > > > Authorities on terrorism? Is that what they're called today? Yesterday
> > > > they were "analysts".
> > >
> > > Probably by someone else.
> >
> > No, by the OP.
> >
> > > Instead of trying to derail the argument over
> > > whether people who talk about terrorists are authorities or analysts,
> > > why don't you talk about the substance here, which is whether the
> > > invasion of Iraq created more terrorists.
> >
> > Sure... unknown. Now that discussion is dead.
> 
> You say the discussion is dead because you don't know the facts and you
> don't 'care to follow the simple logic that people have presented ...
> yep. It's dead all right.

Ok, genius, tell us exactly how you KNOW that more terrorists were
created by the invasion of Iraq? How could you possibly KNOW it? Answer:
you can't. There is no way to know now, or ever know, if the invasion
has increased or decreased the actual number of terrorists on the
planet.
Do all the useless research you want. Every single credible source you
find will NOT say that there are more terrorists worldwide since the
invasion, only that there MIGHT be.

Follow your own "simple" logic. I'll worry about facts, thanks.
 
> > > Of course, the assertion that invading Iraq created more terrorists is
> > > ludicrous on the face of it. I mean, if you were a young man and your
> > > biggest enemy invaded your country, you wouldn't lift a finger to stop
> > > them. Why, you'd wave the flag and throw flowers on the invading army,
> > > tend for their wounded, and hunt down insurgents just like the boys did
> > > in Red Dawn (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0087985/). And that's what's
> > > happening in Iraq: they've all forgiven the US over the thousands of
> > > civilians who got killed (most of them painlessly, by the way) and are
> > > all ready to just buckle down and build a secular democratic state based
> > > on good Christian values. The thought of taking revenge against the US
> > > by fighting a guerilla war or by terrorism hadn't even entered their
> > > minds. (In case you're sarcasm impaired, that's all a lie.
> > >
> > > What logic suggests that there would be fewer terrorists now than
> > > before?
> >
> > http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/graphics/2001/11/07/wmil07.gif
> 
> Remarkable. A weapon that kills only terrorists.

Not-so remarkable, you getting that out of what I posted.

> Why not blow up one of
> those at every US airport? Wait, I get it. It's not really a weapon that
> kills only terrorists, it's a weapon that kills whatever poor sod who
> happens to be around when it blows up, whether he's a terrorist or
> somebody's dear old dad.

Or both

> Maybe we better not blow those up where
> innocent people might get killed. I can think of a lot of places not to
> use that weapon.

So can I. Afghanistan isn't one of them though.
0
fdwyer (46)
7/17/2004 12:53:53 PM
ZnU wrote:
> 
> In article <40F85B40.2E63ADE3@citlink.net>,
>  Frank Dwyer <fdwyer@citlink.net> wrote:
> 
> > Timberwoof wrote:
> 
> [snip]
> 
> > > Clinton tried to tell Bush that Bush's biggest problem would be
> > > international terrorism. If you want citations, go to your local book
> > > store and pick up a copy of Al Franken's book "Lies." Skip all the
> > > political rhetoric and head straight for the bibliography in the back.
> > > (The bibliography is in the back of the book, not the back of the
> > > store.)
> >
> > Al Franken again!? Good lord, man, you honestly use Al Franken, a
> > comedian from Saturday Night Live "fame", as a reliable source for
> > political news!?
> 
> Conservatives are great. Their favorite president was an actor, but they
> think it's illegitimate if someone who used to by on a comedy show
> decides to write about politics.

Partisans are stupid. They think that if someone says an extremely
liberal source of... eh hem... "news" isn't reliable, they automatically
label the one stating such as conservative.
Here's a clue just for you: My favorite president was a democratic farm
boy from Missouri.
0
fdwyer (46)
7/17/2004 12:57:05 PM
In article <BD1DF1D5.58AD4%snit-nospam@cableone.net>,
 Snit <snit-nospam@cableone.net> wrote:

> "Timberwoof" <timberwoof@stimpberawoofm.com> wrote in
> timberwoof-82EEF7.20192416072004@typhoon.sonic.net on 7/16/04 8:19 PM:
> 
> > In article <BD1DBC5C.58AA1%snit-nospam@cableone.net>,
> > Snit <snit-nospam@cableone.net> wrote:
> > 
> >> "Timberwoof" <timberwoof@stimpberawoofm.com> wrote in
> >> timberwoof-23D6CB.13073016072004@typhoon.sonic.net on 7/16/04 1:07 PM:
> >> 
> >>> In article <BD1D400E.589A0%snit-nospam@cableone.net>,
> >>> Snit <snit-nospam@cableone.net> wrote:
> >>> 
> >>>> "Frank Dwyer" <fdwyer@citlink.net> wrote in 40F7F077.68966F5C@citlink.net
> >>>> on
> >>>> 7/16/04 8:12 AM:
> >>>> 
> >>>>>> Yet, terrorism in the world is up (despite the fact that the State
> >>>>>> Department tried to release a report saying the opposite). Also, how
> >>>>>> many al Qaeda attacks were there in the US during the Clinton
> >>>>>> Administration. One, WTCI. And that one was only about 6 weeks after
> >>>>>> Clinton took office.
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> Strange, that's the exact same number of attacks in the US as there have
> >>>>> been during the current administration.
> >>>> 
> >>>> Was 9/11 a single attack or a coordinated set of attacks?  Probably just
> >>>> semantics, but it seems it would be fair to consider each plane that was
> >>>> hijacked as an "attack".
> >>> 
> >>> Here, let me lend you my hone for your microtome. It's clearly not sharp
> >>> enough for the hairs you want to split.
> >> 
> >> The attack(s) of 9/11 were bigger than the prev. attacks on US soil by al
> >> Qaeda no matter how you look at it.
> > 
> > So was the attack on Pearl Harbor one attack or many? Does it make a
> > difference?
> 
> Not really - but 9/11 was undoubtedly bigger than anything in the Clinton
> years.

Do you think the planning for this took place during the Clinton years? 
Or do you think the entire thing was conceived and carried out on Bush's 
watch? In your opinion, what difference does it make?

-- 
"I may just be the primary topic of this group"
"I am happy to say the overwhelming vast majority
 of your posts clearly referenced me"
 - Michael Glasser (AKA Snit)

--

Steve C
0
fretwizz4 (3349)
7/17/2004 1:00:22 PM
"Frank Dwyer" <fdwyer@citlink.net> wrote in 40F91F06.98504372@citlink.net on
7/17/04 5:43 AM:

> David Fritzinger wrote:
>> 
>> In article <40F86B6F.70F5036F@citlink.net>,
>>  Frank Dwyer <fdwyer@citlink.net> wrote:
>> 
>>> David Fritzinger wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> But terrorism worldwide is up.
>>> 
>>> What criteria are you using?
>> 
>> The report issued by the US State Department.
> 
> This one? http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/pgtrpt/2003/33771.htm
> "There were 208 acts of international terrorism in 2003, a slight
> increase from the most recently published figure of 198 attacks in 2002,
> and a 42 percent drop from the level in 2001 of 355 attacks."
> 
> A whopping 10 more attacks worldwide than '02, but overall, a 42 percent
> decrease since 2001. Is that the report you're referencing when you say
> terrorism worldwide is up?

When the report claimed their was a decrease in terrorism, the spin that
came from the Whitehouse was it was evidence their policies were working.

When the corrected report showed that there was an *increase* in terrorism,
it only makes sense to use the same logic against the Whitehouse.  Based on
*their* claims, their policies are failing.

If the Whitehouse does not want people to use that form of reasoning, they
should not be pushing it.

-- 
"If A = B and B = C, then A = C, except where void or prohibited by law."
Roy Santoro, Psycho Proverb Zone (http://smallurl.com/?i=15235)

0
snit-nospam (5415)
7/17/2004 1:09:28 PM
In article <1gh2j1a.1cbdx6c1ky28zcN%peter@seahaze.demon.co.uk>,
 peter@seahaze.demon.co.uk (Peter Hayes) wrote:

> http://www.propagandamatrix.com/articles/july2004/070704nukeattack.htm

Yeah that'd swing the election all right. Motherf*cker blows up a bunch 
of people in Iran that just want to be rid of their theocratic 
government, or a bunch of people in Korea that just want to be rid of 
Kim Jung Il, he's totally got MY vote. Um, utterly NOT.
0
forge10 (1697)
7/17/2004 2:01:14 PM
In article <40F87FEA.7C1DE8FA@citlink.net>,
 Frank Dwyer <fdwyer@citlink.net> wrote:

> If you want to speak of muddled thinking, then consider the one
> who will take the word of a second-rate comedian over the word of the
> people in the Washington when it comes to what has happened in
> Washington.

A lot of "people in Washington" were other things before they got into 
politics. Quite a few were actors; does that discredit their work as 
legislators? A couple were entertainers of other sorts - musicians, 
comedians... and then there's this one guy who, without ever actually 
holding a rank-and-file "job," has managed to be the CEO of a couple 
different oil companies (that failed) and even owned a sports team for 
awhile (and word is he fucked that up too). I presume you will discredit 
him also because of his former jobs.
0
forge10 (1697)
7/17/2004 2:13:05 PM
In article <timberwoof-6FA8B9.20291016072004@typhoon.sonic.net>,
 Timberwoof <timberwoof@stimpberawoofm.com> wrote:

> Franken has a political agenda, and he uses satire to get his message 
> across. Much like, say, Rush Limbaugh.

Word.
0
forge10 (1697)
7/17/2004 2:13:27 PM
In article <40F92004.C705CE5@citlink.net>,
 Frank Dwyer <fdwyer@citlink.net> wrote:

> Limbaugh has no credibility either, so to equate Franken with him only
> serves to reinforce my belief that Franken shouldn't be considered a
> reliable source of anything. He's a perfect candidate for The Daily
> Show.

What's wrong with The Daily Show as a source of political commentary? 
It's still a valid resource; if someone on The Daily Show goes "does 
anybody actually believe what this idiot is saying" do some of us not 
wonder if perhaps the person they're speaking about lacks credibility?
0
forge10 (1697)
7/17/2004 2:15:17 PM
"Frank Dwyer" <fdwyer@citlink.net> wrote in message
news:40F87FEA.7C1DE8FA@citlink.net...
> Bill Case wrote:
> >
> > "Frank Dwyer" <fdwyer@citlink.net> wrote in message
> > news:40F85B40.2E63ADE3@citlink.net...
> > > Timberwoof wrote:
> > > >
> > > > In article <40F7F421.EA37E3DC@citlink.net>,
> > > >  Frank Dwyer <fdwyer@citlink.net> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Bill Case wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "Frank Dwyer" <fdwyer@citlink.net> wrote in message
> > > > > > news:40F5CD75.E7E11B27@citlink.net...
> > > > > > > Bill Case wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > "Xomicron" <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in message
> > > > > > > > news:99014b3a4d0deeefed2074466df35e25@news.bubbanews.com...
> > > > > > > > > "Bill Case" <Bill549@Hotmail.com> wrote in
> > > > > > > > > news:%BfJc.2508$mL5.1847@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > "Xomicron" <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in message
> > > > > > > > > >
news:48f5a03756b590d6dd4fdf877d722592@news.bubbanews.com...
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> "Bill Case" <Bill549@Hotmail.com> wrote in
> > > > > > > > > >>
news:t7fJc.2473$mL5.1628@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net:
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >> > "Xomicron" <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in message
> > > > > > > > > >> > news:Xns9526917E1A2E7x@dragon.pl...
> > > > > > > > > >> >> "Bill Case" <Bill549@Hotmail.com> wrote in
> > > > > > > > > >> >>
> > news:NoeJc.2427$mL5.2395@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net:
> > > > > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > "Xomicron" <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in message
> > > > > > > > > >> >> >
> > news:ac322$40f5613f$45f0b78b$30321@nf1.news-service-com...
> > > > > > > > > >> >> >> "Bill Case" <Bill549@Hotmail.com> wrote in
> > > > > > > > > >> >> >>
> > news:IWcJc.2968$Qu5.1720@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net:
> > > > > > > > > >> >> >>
> > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > "Xomicron" <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in message
> > > > > > > > > >> >> >> >
> > news:ae117$40f55426$45f0b78b$14525@nf1.news-service-com...
> > > > > > > > > >> >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > >> >> >> >> "Bill Case" <Bill549@Hotmail.com> wrote in
> > > > > > > > > >> >> >> >>
> > news:zB%Ic.1642$mL5.223@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net:
> > > > > > > > > >> >> >> >>
> > > > > > > > > >> >> >> >>> "Frank Dwyer" <fdwyer@citlink.net> wrote in
> > message
> > > > > > > > > >> >> >> >>> news:40F4749B.A37548D7@citlink.net...
> > > > > > > > > >> >> >> >>>
> > > > > > > > > >> >> >> >>>> He did more about it than the administration
> > under whom
> > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > >> >> >> >>>> happened did.
> > > > > > > > > >> >> >> >>>
> > > > > > > > > >> >> >> >>> It's widely known the CIA didn't attribute it
to
> > Al Qaeda
> > > > > > > > > >> >> >> >>> until around the time of administration
change.
> > > > > > > > > >> >> >> >>> I don't like Clinton, but he did launch
attacks,
> > one
> > > > > > killed
> > > > > > > > > >> >> >> >>> around 200 al qaeda in Afghanistan. (Cruises
> > missiles)
> > > > > > > > > >> >> >> >>
> > > > > > > > > >> >> >> >> More like blew up some empty tents.
> > > > > > > > > >> >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > If you actually knew anything about this war on
> > terror, you
> > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > would know that intelligence is that they
killed a
> > lot of
> > > > > > them,
> > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > and OBL had left that camp not long before.
> > > > > > > > > >> >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > >> >> >> >>
> > > > > > > > > >> >> >> >> > Irregardless,  why didn't Bush act?
> > > > > > > > > >> >> >> >> > On 9/11 he sat like a rabbit after being
told of
> > the 2
> > > > > > WTC
> > > > > > > > > >> >> >> >> > hits.
> > > > > > > > > >> >> >> >>
> > > > > > > > > >> >> >> >> What should he have done? Keeping in mind that
no
> > one
> > > > > > really
> > > > > > > > > >> >> >> >> knew what was going on.
> > > > > > > > > >> >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > A commander, or just any guy with balls and
brains,
> > is
> > > > > > going to
> > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > want to know all the info available, ask
questions
> > to get
> > > > > > his
> > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > staff going and thinking, get his mind working
on
> > the
> > > > > > problem
> > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > he's facing, make sure his people are all "up"
and
> > active.
> > > > > > > > > >> >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > In a situation like that, you might be asked to
> > make a
> > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > decision, maybe a big one, quickly. To do that
you
> > need to
> > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > your mind active and focused. A leader wants to
be
> > certain
> > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > everybody is doing all they can and all the
> > available info
> > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > what's happening is getting to him.
> > > > > > > > > >> >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > Instead, he sat there like a passive receiver.
> > > > > > > > > >> >> >>
> > > > > > > > > >> >> >> So what should he have done? There were massively
> > conflicting
> > > > > > > > > >> >> >> reports that said anywhere from JUST ONE plane,
to
> > SIX
> > > > > > different
> > > > > > > > > >> >> >> aircraft had been either hijacked, or had some
sort
> > of
> > > > > > > > > >> >> >> malfunction. Which one of these presumptions do
you
> > make?
> > > > > > Keep in
> > > > > > > > > >> >> >> mind that if you're wrong, people die, if you're
> > right,
> > > > > > people
> > > > > > > > > >> >> >> die. And also keep in mind that shooting them
down
> > and being
> > > > > > > > > >> >> >> right in doing so, may destroy any proof that you
> > were right.
> > > > > > No
> > > > > > > > > >> >> >> proof to your own conscience, no proof to your
> > friends, no
> > > > > > proof
> > > > > > > > > >> >> >> to your staff, and just to also throw in the
lowest
> > common
> > > > > > > > > >> >> >> denominator, no proof to the voters.
> > > > > > > > > >> >> >>
> > > > > > > > > >> >> >> And we all know how much proof it requires to
> > convince people
> > > > > > who
> > > > > > > > > >> >> >> hate Bush of anything. Today we'd be hearing
about
> > how Bush
> > > > > > is a
> > > > > > > > > >> >> >> murderer who shoots down civilian airlines.
> > > > > > > > > >> >> >>
> > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > But first of all, get yourself away from
children
> > in case
> > > > > > an
> > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > attempt is about to be made on you.
> > > > > > > > > >> >> >>
> > > > > > > > > >> >> >> What would events 1500 miles away have to do with
> > Bush being
> > > > > > > > > >> >> >> assassinated?
> > > > > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > As I've described in a prior post, his actions
were
> > not those
> > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > tough smart leader whose country is under attack.
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > What should he have done? Taken charge. Instead he
sat
> > there
> > > > > > in a
> > > > > > > > > >> >> > state of confusion, with children around him.
> > > > > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > > >> >> It seems that nothing Bush does or could have done
would
> > ever be
> > > > > > > > > >> >> good enough for the loony left.
> > > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > >> > That won't work sport.
> > > > > > > > > >> > Bush quote regarding evading Vietnam war service:
> > > > > > > > > >> > "I was not prepared to shoot my eardrum out with a
> > shotgun in
> > > > > > > > > >> > order to get a deferment. Nor was I willing to go to
> > Canada. So I
> > > > > > > > > >> > chose to better myself by learning how to fly
airplanes,"
> > Bush
> > > > > > told
> > > > > > > > > >> > an interviewer in Houston. "
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >> A lot better than our previous president ever did, yet
the
> > left
> > > > > > fawns
> > > > > > > > > >> over him.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I didn't vote for Clinton.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > This election isn't about Clinton, he's not a candidate.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > But since you bring it up, it's historical fact, that
pre
> > 9/11,
> > > > > > Clinton
> > > > > > > > > > DID do more against terrorists than Bush did. He
attacked
> > them with
> > > > > > > > > > cruise missiles, killed hundreds of them. Pre 9/11, Bush
> > never even
> > > > > > > > > > tried to retaliate for the USS Cole attack which killed
17
> > > > > > Americans.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Lobbing a few cruise missiles at tents is not cracking
down on
> > > > > > terrorism.
> > > > > > > > > Clinton had 8 years to deal with terrorism starting from
when
> > the WTC
> > > > > > was
> > > > > > > > > bombed in 1993.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > He killed around 200 of them and apparnelty came close to
> > catching OBL
> > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > the attack, he had left the area shortly before the raid.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Let me guess, this came from the same intelligence sources
that
> > said
> > > > > > > Iraq had WMDs, right?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Do you think the sources of intel for casualties from an attack
in
> > > > > > Afghanistan are the same as those for WMD in Iraq?
> > > > >
> > > > > It goes through the same channels prior to reaching the White
House.
> > > > >
> > > > > > > > That's WAY more than Bush did in answer to the Cole. Bush
was
> > passive
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > Afghan al qaeda prisoner interviews indicate that were
> > encouraged by the
> > > > > > > > lack of retaliation. He had 8 months. He stated in
intereviews
> > that pre
> > > > > > > > 9/11, terrorism was low on his priorities - he's stupid.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Terrorism was low on every American's priority list.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It was not. Richard Clarke wrote a whole book dealing with that.
> > Clinton
> > > > > > told Bush on inaugaration day that his #1 problem was al qaeda
and
> > OBL.
> > > > >
> > > > > Cite?
> > > >
> > > > Uh. I'll take a stab at answering this question. Let me guess. Could
it
> > > > be Richard Clarke's book? (It's called "Against All Enemies" and you
can
> > > > get it ant any book store.)
> > > >
> > > > Also Al Franken's book, "Lies."
> > >
> > > I canunderstand it was a priority of Richard Clarke, who's JOB was
> > > counter-terrorism. But Al Franken!? Gimme a break!
> >
> > Haha, that says it all - muddled cross pathing brain operations from
> > secondary oxycontin poisoning.
>
> And partisanship once again rears it's ugly ass.

Well there's a dumb ass around here, that's for sure. If you can't think
straight
or write something that makes sense, don't blame Al Franken.




0
Bill549 (46)
7/17/2004 3:25:48 PM
"Timberwoof" <timberwoof@stimpberawoofm.com> wrote in message
news:timberwoof-EBAFB8.20272016072004@typhoon.sonic.net...
> In article <40F85B40.2E63ADE3@citlink.net>,
>  Frank Dwyer <fdwyer@citlink.net> wrote:
>
> > Timberwoof wrote:
> > >
> > > In article <40F7F421.EA37E3DC@citlink.net>,
> > >  Frank Dwyer <fdwyer@citlink.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Bill Case wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > "Frank Dwyer" <fdwyer@citlink.net> wrote in message
> > > > > news:40F5CD75.E7E11B27@citlink.net...
>
> > > > > > Terrorism was low on every American's priority list.
> > > > >
> > > > > It was not. Richard Clarke wrote a whole book dealing with that.
> > > > > Clinton
> > > > > told Bush on inaugaration day that his #1 problem was al qaeda and
OBL.
> > > >
> > > > Cite?
> > >
> > > Uh. I'll take a stab at answering this question. Let me guess. Could
it
> > > be Richard Clarke's book? (It's called "Against All Enemies" and you
can
> > > get it ant any book store.)
> > >
> > > Also Al Franken's book, "Lies."
> >
> > I canunderstand it was a priority of Richard Clarke, who's JOB was
> > counter-terrorism. But Al Franken!? Gimme a break!
> >
> > > > Who's #1 problem, Clinton's?
> > >
> > > Clinton tried to tell Bush that Bush's biggest problem would be
> > > international terrorism. If you want citations, go to your local book
> > > store and pick up a copy of Al Franken's book "Lies." Skip all the
> > > political rhetoric and head straight for the bibliography in the back.
> > > (The bibliography is in the back of the book, not the back of the
> > > store.)
> >
> > Al Franken again!? Good lord, man, you honestly use Al Franken, a
> > comedian from Saturday Night Live "fame", as a reliable source for
> > political news!?
>
> What part of what he wrote in "Lies" was in factual error? Do you know
> anything about how that book came to be written? Do you have any basis,
> other than an easy ad-hominem attack, to dismiss the book?
>
> And what kind of a joker are you to follow up a statement that quite
> clearly referred to a book someone had written by saying "Cite"?

He's a braindead. Probe around and my guess is that you'll find he's a
Protestant fundmentalist.



0
Bill549 (46)
7/17/2004 3:26:02 PM
In article <0ybKc.6192$Qu5.605@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>, Bill
Case <Bill549@Hotmail.com> wrote:

> "Frank Dwyer" <fdwyer@citlink.net> wrote in message
> news:40F87FEA.7C1DE8FA@citlink.net...
> > Bill Case wrote:
> > >
> > > "Frank Dwyer" <fdwyer@citlink.net> wrote in message
> > > news:40F85B40.2E63ADE3@citlink.net...
> > > > Timberwoof wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > In article <40F7F421.EA37E3DC@citlink.net>,
> > > > >  Frank Dwyer <fdwyer@citlink.net> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Bill Case wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > "Frank Dwyer" <fdwyer@citlink.net> wrote in message
> > > > > > > news:40F5CD75.E7E11B27@citlink.net...
> > > > > > > > Bill Case wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > "Xomicron" <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in message
> > > > > > > > > news:99014b3a4d0deeefed2074466df35e25@news.bubbanews.com...
> > > > > > > > > > "Bill Case" <Bill549@Hotmail.com> wrote in
> > > > > > > > > > news:%BfJc.2508$mL5.1847@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > "Xomicron" <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in message
> > > > > > > > > > >
> news:48f5a03756b590d6dd4fdf877d722592@news.bubbanews.com...
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> "Bill Case" <Bill549@Hotmail.com> wrote in
> > > > > > > > > > >>
> news:t7fJc.2473$mL5.1628@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net:
> > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >> > "Xomicron" <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in message
> > > > > > > > > > >> > news:Xns9526917E1A2E7x@dragon.pl...
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> "Bill Case" <Bill549@Hotmail.com> wrote in
> > > > > > > > > > >> >>
> > > news:NoeJc.2427$mL5.2395@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net:
> > > > > > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > "Xomicron" <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in message
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> >
> > > news:ac322$40f5613f$45f0b78b$30321@nf1.news-service-com...
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> "Bill Case" <Bill549@Hotmail.com> wrote in
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> >>
> > > news:IWcJc.2968$Qu5.1720@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net:
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> >>
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > "Xomicron" <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in message
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> >
> > > news:ae117$40f55426$45f0b78b$14525@nf1.news-service-com...
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> >> "Bill Case" <Bill549@Hotmail.com> wrote in
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> >>
> > > news:zB%Ic.1642$mL5.223@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net:
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> >>
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> >>> "Frank Dwyer" <fdwyer@citlink.net> wrote in
> > > message
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> >>> news:40F4749B.A37548D7@citlink.net...
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> >>>
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> >>>> He did more about it than the administration
> > > under whom
> > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> >>>> happened did.
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> >>>
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> >>> It's widely known the CIA didn't attribute it
> to
> > > Al Qaeda
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> >>> until around the time of administration
> change.
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> >>> I don't like Clinton, but he did launch
> attacks,
> > > one
> > > > > > > killed
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> >>> around 200 al qaeda in Afghanistan. (Cruises
> > > missiles)
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> >>
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> >> More like blew up some empty tents.
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > If you actually knew anything about this war on
> > > terror, you
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > would know that intelligence is that they
> killed a
> > > lot of
> > > > > > > them,
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > and OBL had left that camp not long before.
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> >>
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> >> > Irregardless,  why didn't Bush act?
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> >> > On 9/11 he sat like a rabbit after being
> told of
> > > the 2
> > > > > > > WTC
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> >> > hits.
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> >>
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> >> What should he have done? Keeping in mind that
> no
> > > one
> > > > > > > really
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> >> knew what was going on.
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > A commander, or just any guy with balls and
> brains,
> > > is
> > > > > > > going to
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > want to know all the info available, ask
> questions
> > > to get
> > > > > > > his
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > staff going and thinking, get his mind working
> on
> > > the
> > > > > > > problem
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > he's facing, make sure his people are all "up"
> and
> > > active.
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > In a situation like that, you might be asked to
> > > make a
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > decision, maybe a big one, quickly. To do that
> you
> > > need to
> > > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > your mind active and focused. A leader wants to
> be
> > > certain
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > everybody is doing all they can and all the
> > > available info
> > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > what's happening is getting to him.
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > Instead, he sat there like a passive receiver.
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> >>
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> So what should he have done? There were massively
> > > conflicting
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> reports that said anywhere from JUST ONE plane,
> to
> > > SIX
> > > > > > > different
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> aircraft had been either hijacked, or had some
> sort
> > > of
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> malfunction. Which one of these presumptions do
> you
> > > make?
> > > > > > > Keep in
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> mind that if you're wrong, people die, if you're
> > > right,
> > > > > > > people
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> die. And also keep in mind that shooting them
> down
> > > and being
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> right in doing so, may destroy any proof that you
> > > were right.
> > > > > > > No
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> proof to your own conscience, no proof to your
> > > friends, no
> > > > > > > proof
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> to your staff, and just to also throw in the
> lowest
> > > common
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> denominator, no proof to the voters.
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> >>
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> And we all know how much proof it requires to
> > > convince people
> > > > > > > who
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> hate Bush of anything. Today we'd be hearing
> about
> > > how Bush
> > > > > > > is a
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> murderer who shoots down civilian airlines.
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> >>
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > But first of all, get yourself away from
> children
> > > in case
> > > > > > > an
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > attempt is about to be made on you.
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> >>
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> What would events 1500 miles away have to do with
> > > Bush being
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> assassinated?
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > As I've described in a prior post, his actions
> were
> > > not those
> > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > tough smart leader whose country is under attack.
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > What should he have done? Taken charge. Instead he
> sat
> > > there
> > > > > > > in a
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > state of confusion, with children around him.
> > > > > > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> It seems that nothing Bush does or could have done
> would
> > > ever be
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> good enough for the loony left.
> > > > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > That won't work sport.
> > > > > > > > > > >> > Bush quote regarding evading Vietnam war service:
> > > > > > > > > > >> > "I was not prepared to shoot my eardrum out with a
> > > shotgun in
> > > > > > > > > > >> > order to get a deferment. Nor was I willing to go to
> > > Canada. So I
> > > > > > > > > > >> > chose to better myself by learning how to fly
> airplanes,"
> > > Bush
> > > > > > > told
> > > > > > > > > > >> > an interviewer in Houston. "
> > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >> A lot better than our previous president ever did, yet
> the
> > > left
> > > > > > > fawns
> > > > > > > > > > >> over him.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > I didn't vote for Clinton.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > This election isn't about Clinton, he's not a candidate.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > But since you bring it up, it's historical fact, that
> pre
> > > 9/11,
> > > > > > > Clinton
> > > > > > > > > > > DID do more against terrorists than Bush did. He
> attacked
> > > them with
> > > > > > > > > > > cruise missiles, killed hundreds of them. Pre 9/11, Bush
> > > never even
> > > > > > > > > > > tried to retaliate for the USS Cole attack which killed
> 17
> > > > > > > Americans.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Lobbing a few cruise missiles at tents is not cracking
> down on
> > > > > > > terrorism.
> > > > > > > > > > Clinton had 8 years to deal with terrorism starting from
> when
> > > the WTC
> > > > > > > was
> > > > > > > > > > bombed in 1993.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > He killed around 200 of them and apparnelty came close to
> > > catching OBL
> > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > the attack, he had left the area shortly before the raid.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Let me guess, this came from the same intelligence sources
> that
> > > said
> > > > > > > > Iraq had WMDs, right?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Do you think the sources of intel for casualties from an attack
> in
> > > > > > > Afghanistan are the same as those for WMD in Iraq?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It goes through the same channels prior to reaching the White
> House.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > That's WAY more than Bush did in answer to the Cole. Bush
> was
> > > passive
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > Afghan al qaeda prisoner interviews indicate that were
> > > encouraged by the
> > > > > > > > > lack of retaliation. He had 8 months. He stated in
> intereviews
> > > that pre
> > > > > > > > > 9/11, terrorism was low on his priorities - he's stupid.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Terrorism was low on every American's priority list.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > It was not. Richard Clarke wrote a whole book dealing with that.
> > > Clinton
> > > > > > > told Bush on inaugaration day that his #1 problem was al qaeda
> and
> > > OBL.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Cite?
> > > > >
> > > > > Uh. I'll take a stab at answering this question. Let me guess. Could
> it
> > > > > be Richard Clarke's book? (It's called "Against All Enemies" and you
> can
> > > > > get it ant any book store.)
> > > > >
> > > > > Also Al Franken's book, "Lies."
> > > >
> > > > I canunderstand it was a priority of Richard Clarke, who's JOB was
> > > > counter-terrorism. But Al Franken!? Gimme a break!
> > >
> > > Haha, that says it all - muddled cross pathing brain operations from
> > > secondary oxycontin poisoning.
> >
> > And partisanship once again rears it's ugly ass.
> 
> Well there's a dumb ass around here, that's for sure. If you can't think
> straight
> or write something that makes sense, don't blame Al Franken.

And, of course, they never mention that Franken actually cites his
info, unlike the Right Wing hacks.
0
7/17/2004 3:37:01 PM
"Frank Dwyer" <fdwyer@citlink.net> wrote in message
news:40F91F06.98504372@citlink.net...
> David Fritzinger wrote:
> >
> > In article <40F86B6F.70F5036F@citlink.net>,
> >  Frank Dwyer <fdwyer@citlink.net> wrote:
> >
> > > David Fritzinger wrote:
> > > >
> > > > But terrorism worldwide is up.
> > >
> > > What criteria are you using?
> >
> > The report issued by the US State Department.
>
> This one? http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/pgtrpt/2003/33771.htm
> "There were 208 acts of international terrorism in 2003, a slight
> increase from the most recently published figure of 198 attacks in 2002,
> and a 42 percent drop from the level in 2001 of 355 attacks."
>
> A whopping 10 more attacks worldwide than '02, but overall, a 42 percent
> decrease since 2001. Is that the report you're referencing when you say
> terrorism worldwide is up?

Just another indication people.



0
Bill549 (46)
7/17/2004 3:37:15 PM
In article <LIbKc.6199$Qu5.5106@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>, Bill
Case <Bill549@Hotmail.com> wrote:

> "Frank Dwyer" <fdwyer@citlink.net> wrote in message
> news:40F91F06.98504372@citlink.net...
> > David Fritzinger wrote:
> > >
> > > In article <40F86B6F.70F5036F@citlink.net>,
> > >  Frank Dwyer <fdwyer@citlink.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > > David Fritzinger wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > But terrorism worldwide is up.
> > > >
> > > > What criteria are you using?
> > >
> > > The report issued by the US State Department.
> >
> > This one? http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/pgtrpt/2003/33771.htm
> > "There were 208 acts of international terrorism in 2003, a slight
> > increase from the most recently published figure of 198 attacks in 2002,
> > and a 42 percent drop from the level in 2001 of 355 attacks."
> >
> > A whopping 10 more attacks worldwide than '02, but overall, a 42 percent
> > decrease since 2001. Is that the report you're referencing when you say
> > terrorism worldwide is up?
> 
> Just another indication people.

Terrorism is up under Bush.  So much for the "War on Terrorism."

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/06/10/powell.terror.report.ap/
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3830909.stm
0
7/17/2004 3:41:21 PM
"forge" <forge@diespammers.youneedageek.com> wrote in message
news:forge-BA5671.10130517072004@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
> In article <40F87FEA.7C1DE8FA@citlink.net>,
>  Frank Dwyer <fdwyer@citlink.net> wrote:
>
> > If you want to speak of muddled thinking, then consider the one
> > who will take the word of a second-rate comedian over the word of the
> > people in the Washington when it comes to what has happened in
> > Washington.
>
> A lot of "people in Washington" were other things before they got into
> politics. Quite a few were actors; does that discredit their work as
> legislators? A couple were entertainers of other sorts - musicians,
> comedians... and then there's this one guy who, without ever actually
> holding a rank-and-file "job," has managed to be the CEO of a couple
> different oil companies (that failed) and even owned a sports team for
> awhile (and word is he fucked that up too). I presume you will discredit
> him also because of his former jobs.

He's qualified because he's such a master politician. Like, in the Repub
primaries 4 years ago, these ugly stories about his opponents would
mysterioulsy appear before an election
 Like John McCane having an illegitmate black daughter, or betraying the US
when he was a POW in VN for 7 yrs.
That's how Bush won the Repub primaries. He a dodged service during the VN
war, shows no balls on 9/11, but he's great at spreading false rumors on
people - a real Christian with real values.
Bush is garbage and he's a dangerous incompetent at everything except
cowardly rumor mongering.


0
Bill549 (46)
7/17/2004 3:45:11 PM
"forge" <forge@diespammers.youneedageek.com> wrote in
forge-0EC5EA.10132717072004@comcast.dca.giganews.com on 7/17/04 7:13 AM:

> In article <timberwoof-6FA8B9.20291016072004@typhoon.sonic.net>,
> Timberwoof <timberwoof@stimpberawoofm.com> wrote:
> 
>> Franken has a political agenda, and he uses satire to get his message
>> across. Much like, say, Rush Limbaugh.
> 
> Word.

Phrase.

-- 
"If A = B and B = C, then A = C, except where void or prohibited by law."
Roy Santoro, Psycho Proverb Zone (http://smallurl.com/?i=15235)

0
snit-nospam (5415)
7/17/2004 3:55:51 PM
"David W. Barnes" <DumpBushInNovember@usa.com> wrote in message
news:170720040837011712%DumpBushInNovember@usa.com...
> In article <0ybKc.6192$Qu5.605@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>, Bill
> Case <Bill549@Hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > "Frank Dwyer" <fdwyer@citlink.net> wrote in message
> > news:40F87FEA.7C1DE8FA@citlink.net...
> > > Bill Case wrote:
> > > >
> > > > "Frank Dwyer" <fdwyer@citlink.net> wrote in message
> > > > news:40F85B40.2E63ADE3@citlink.net...
> > > > > Timberwoof wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > In article <40F7F421.EA37E3DC@citlink.net>,
> > > > > >  Frank Dwyer <fdwyer@citlink.net> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Bill Case wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > "Frank Dwyer" <fdwyer@citlink.net> wrote in message
> > > > > > > > news:40F5CD75.E7E11B27@citlink.net...
> > > > > > > > > Bill Case wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > "Xomicron" <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in message
> > > > > > > > > >
news:99014b3a4d0deeefed2074466df35e25@news.bubbanews.com...
> > > > > > > > > > > "Bill Case" <Bill549@Hotmail.com> wrote in
> > > > > > > > > > >
news:%BfJc.2508$mL5.1847@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > "Xomicron" <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in message
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > news:48f5a03756b590d6dd4fdf877d722592@news.bubbanews.com...
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >> "Bill Case" <Bill549@Hotmail.com> wrote in
> > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > news:t7fJc.2473$mL5.1628@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net:
> > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > "Xomicron" <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in message
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > news:Xns9526917E1A2E7x@dragon.pl...
> > > > > > > > > > > >> >> "Bill Case" <Bill549@Hotmail.com> wrote in
> > > > > > > > > > > >> >>
> > > > news:NoeJc.2427$mL5.2395@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net:
> > > > > > > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > > > > >> >> > "Xomicron" <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in message
> > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > news:ac322$40f5613f$45f0b78b$30321@nf1.news-service-com...
> > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> "Bill Case" <Bill549@Hotmail.com> wrote in
> > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >>
> > > > news:IWcJc.2968$Qu5.1720@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net:
> > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >>
> > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > "Xomicron" <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in
message
> > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> >
> > > > news:ae117$40f55426$45f0b78b$14525@nf1.news-service-com...
> > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> >> "Bill Case" <Bill549@Hotmail.com> wrote in
> > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> >>
> > > > news:zB%Ic.1642$mL5.223@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net:
> > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> >>
> > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> >>> "Frank Dwyer" <fdwyer@citlink.net> wrote
in
> > > > message
> > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> >>> news:40F4749B.A37548D7@citlink.net...
> > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> >>>> He did more about it than the
administration
> > > > under whom
> > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> >>>> happened did.
> > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> >>> It's widely known the CIA didn't
attribute it
> > to
> > > > Al Qaeda
> > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> >>> until around the time of administration
> > change.
> > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> >>> I don't like Clinton, but he did launch
> > attacks,
> > > > one
> > > > > > > > killed
> > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> >>> around 200 al qaeda in Afghanistan.
(Cruises
> > > > missiles)
> > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> >>
> > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> >> More like blew up some empty tents.
> > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > If you actually knew anything about this
war on
> > > > terror, you
> > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > would know that intelligence is that they
> > killed a
> > > > lot of
> > > > > > > > them,
> > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > and OBL had left that camp not long before.
> > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> >>
> > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> >> > Irregardless,  why didn't Bush act?
> > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> >> > On 9/11 he sat like a rabbit after being
> > told of
> > > > the 2
> > > > > > > > WTC
> > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> >> > hits.
> > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> >>
> > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> >> What should he have done? Keeping in mind
that
> > no
> > > > one
> > > > > > > > really
> > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> >> knew what was going on.
> > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > A commander, or just any guy with balls and
> > brains,
> > > > is
> > > > > > > > going to
> > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > want to know all the info available, ask
> > questions
> > > > to get
> > > > > > > > his
> > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > staff going and thinking, get his mind
working
> > on
> > > > the
> > > > > > > > problem
> > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > he's facing, make sure his people are all
"up"
> > and
> > > > active.
> > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > In a situation like that, you might be
asked to
> > > > make a
> > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > decision, maybe a big one, quickly. To do
that
> > you
> > > > need to
> > > > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > your mind active and focused. A leader
wants to
> > be
> > > > certain
> > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > everybody is doing all they can and all the
> > > > available info
> > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > what's happening is getting to him.
> > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > Instead, he sat there like a passive
receiver.
> > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >>
> > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> So what should he have done? There were
massively
> > > > conflicting
> > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> reports that said anywhere from JUST ONE
plane,
> > to
> > > > SIX
> > > > > > > > different
> > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> aircraft had been either hijacked, or had
some
> > sort
> > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> malfunction. Which one of these presumptions
do
> > you
> > > > make?
> > > > > > > > Keep in
> > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> mind that if you're wrong, people die, if
you're
> > > > right,
> > > > > > > > people
> > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> die. And also keep in mind that shooting them
> > down
> > > > and being
> > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> right in doing so, may destroy any proof that
you
> > > > were right.
> > > > > > > > No
> > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> proof to your own conscience, no proof to
your
> > > > friends, no
> > > > > > > > proof
> > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> to your staff, and just to also throw in the
> > lowest
> > > > common
> > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> denominator, no proof to the voters.
> > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >>
> > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> And we all know how much proof it requires to
> > > > convince people
> > > > > > > > who
> > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> hate Bush of anything. Today we'd be hearing
> > about
> > > > how Bush
> > > > > > > > is a
> > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> murderer who shoots down civilian airlines.
> > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >>
> > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > But first of all, get yourself away from
> > children
> > > > in case
> > > > > > > > an
> > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > attempt is about to be made on you.
> > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >>
> > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> What would events 1500 miles away have to do
with
> > > > Bush being
> > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> assassinated?
> > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > >> >> > As I've described in a prior post, his actions
> > were
> > > > not those
> > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > >> >> > tough smart leader whose country is under
attack.
> > > > > > > > > > > >> >> > What should he have done? Taken charge.
Instead he
> > sat
> > > > there
> > > > > > > > in a
> > > > > > > > > > > >> >> > state of confusion, with children around him.
> > > > > > > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > > > > >> >> It seems that nothing Bush does or could have
done
> > would
> > > > ever be
> > > > > > > > > > > >> >> good enough for the loony left.
> > > > > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > That won't work sport.
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > Bush quote regarding evading Vietnam war service:
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > "I was not prepared to shoot my eardrum out with
a
> > > > shotgun in
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > order to get a deferment. Nor was I willing to go
to
> > > > Canada. So I
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > chose to better myself by learning how to fly
> > airplanes,"
> > > > Bush
> > > > > > > > told
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > an interviewer in Houston. "
> > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > >> A lot better than our previous president ever did,
yet
> > the
> > > > left
> > > > > > > > fawns
> > > > > > > > > > > >> over him.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > I didn't vote for Clinton.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > This election isn't about Clinton, he's not a
candidate.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > But since you bring it up, it's historical fact,
that
> > pre
> > > > 9/11,
> > > > > > > > Clinton
> > > > > > > > > > > > DID do more against terrorists than Bush did. He
> > attacked
> > > > them with
> > > > > > > > > > > > cruise missiles, killed hundreds of them. Pre 9/11,
Bush
> > > > never even
> > > > > > > > > > > > tried to retaliate for the USS Cole attack which
killed
> > 17
> > > > > > > > Americans.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Lobbing a few cruise missiles at tents is not cracking
> > down on
> > > > > > > > terrorism.
> > > > > > > > > > > Clinton had 8 years to deal with terrorism starting
from
> > when
> > > > the WTC
> > > > > > > > was
> > > > > > > > > > > bombed in 1993.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > He killed around 200 of them and apparnelty came close
to
> > > > catching OBL
> > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > the attack, he had left the area shortly before the
raid.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Let me guess, this came from the same intelligence sources
> > that
> > > > said
> > > > > > > > > Iraq had WMDs, right?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Do you think the sources of intel for casualties from an
attack
> > in
> > > > > > > > Afghanistan are the same as those for WMD in Iraq?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > It goes through the same channels prior to reaching the White
> > House.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > That's WAY more than Bush did in answer to the Cole.
Bush
> > was
> > > > passive
> > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > Afghan al qaeda prisoner interviews indicate that were
> > > > encouraged by the
> > > > > > > > > > lack of retaliation. He had 8 months. He stated in
> > intereviews
> > > > that pre
> > > > > > > > > > 9/11, terrorism was low on his priorities - he's stupid.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Terrorism was low on every American's priority list.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > It was not. Richard Clarke wrote a whole book dealing with
that.
> > > > Clinton
> > > > > > > > told Bush on inaugaration day that his #1 problem was al
qaeda
> > and
> > > > OBL.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Cite?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Uh. I'll take a stab at answering this question. Let me guess.
Could
> > it
> > > > > > be Richard Clarke's book? (It's called "Against All Enemies" and
you
> > can
> > > > > > get it ant any book store.)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Also Al Franken's book, "Lies."
> > > > >
> > > > > I canunderstand it was a priority of Richard Clarke, who's JOB was
> > > > > counter-terrorism. But Al Franken!? Gimme a break!
> > > >
> > > > Haha, that says it all - muddled cross pathing brain operations from
> > > > secondary oxycontin poisoning.
> > >
> > > And partisanship once again rears it's ugly ass.
> >
> > Well there's a dumb ass around here, that's for sure. If you can't think
> > straight
> > or write something that makes sense, don't blame Al Franken.
>
> And, of course, they never mention that Franken actually cites his
> info, unlike the Right Wing hacks.

If Franken lies like oxy Rush and Fox droppings do,, then his "Lies" book
should have been easy to take apart and discredit - he was very specific in
it and went into some detail and gave sources for the things he was saying.

Nobody has discredited that book.


0
Bill549 (46)
7/17/2004 4:03:53 PM
Go ahead and vote for a Liberal pansy.
(Or do America a favor and move to France where they are used to dropping
their defenses and running away!)


0
7/17/2004 4:30:21 PM
Take a look at the editorial below.

Born again braindead Bush is known to pander to the extreme Chrsitian right
and they have a voice in his policy formations..

In the mid '80's, the moron raised what for him was a philisophical question
with his mother that apparently she was appalled by and Billy Graham was
called in to answer - "can non-Christians go to heaven?" Our president
didn't think they could - his mother and Billy thought it was a question
best left alone.

When a US general, in uniform, gave speaches before church groups that the
Christian god is superior to the Islamic god it raised a lot of controversy,
but apparently it diodn't bother our president a bit.

Read on...

NY TIMES  OP-ED COLUMNIST
Jesus and Jihad
By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF

Published: July 17, 2004

If the latest in the "Left Behind" series of evangelical thrillers is to be
believed, Jesus will return to Earth, gather non-Christians to his left and
toss them into everlasting fire:

"Jesus merely raised one hand a few inches and a yawning chasm opened in the
earth, stretching far and wide enough to swallow all of them. They tumbled
in, howling and screeching, but their wailing was soon quashed and all was
silent when the earth closed itself again."

These are the best-selling novels for adults in the United States, and they
have sold more than 60 million copies worldwide. The latest is "Glorious
Appearing," which has Jesus returning to Earth to wipe all non-Christians
from the planet. It's disconcerting to find ethnic cleansing celebrated as
the height of piety.

If a Muslim were to write an Islamic version of "Glorious Appearing" and
publish it in Saudi Arabia, jubilantly describing a massacre of millions of
non-Muslims by God, we would have a fit. We have quite properly linked the
fundamentalist religious tracts of Islam with the intolerance they nurture,
and it's time to remove the motes from our own eyes.

In "Glorious Appearing," Jesus merely speaks and the bodies of the enemy are
ripped open. Christians have to drive carefully to avoid "hitting splayed
and filleted bodies of men and women and horses."

"The riders not thrown," the novel continues, "leaped from their horses and
tried to control them with the reins, but even as they struggled, their own
flesh dissolved, their eyes melted and their tongues disintegrated. . . .
Seconds later the same plague afflicted the horses, their flesh and eyes and
tongues melting away, leaving grotesque skeletons standing, before they,
too, rattled to the pavement."

One might have thought that Jesus would be more of an animal lover.

These scenes also raise an eschatological problem: Could devout
fundamentalists really enjoy paradise as their friends, relatives and
neighbors were heaved into hell?

As my Times colleague David Kirkpatrick noted in an article, this portrayal
of a bloody Second Coming reflects a shift in American portrayals of Jesus,
from a gentle Mister Rogers figure to a martial messiah presiding over a sea
of blood. Militant Christianity rises to confront Militant Islam.

This matters in the real world, in the same way that fundamentalist Islamic
tracts in Saudi Arabia do. Each form of fundamentalism creates a stark moral
division between decent, pious types like oneself - and infidels headed for
hell.

No, I don't think the readers of "Glorious Appearing" will ram planes into
buildings. But we did imprison thousands of Muslims here and abroad after
9/11, and ordinary Americans joined in the torture of prisoners at Abu
Ghraib in part because of a lack of empathy for the prisoners. It's harder
to feel empathy for such people if we regard them as infidels and expect
Jesus to dissolve their tongues and eyes any day now.

I had reservations about writing this column because I don't want to mock
anyone's religious beliefs, and millions of Americans think "Glorious
Appearing" describes God's will. Yet ultimately I think it's a mistake to
treat religion as a taboo, either in this country or in Saudi Arabia.

I often write about religion precisely because faith has a vast impact on
society. Since I've praised the work that evangelicals do in the third world
(Christian aid groups are being particularly helpful in Sudan, at a time
when most of the world has done nothing about the genocide there), I also
feel a responsibility to protest intolerance at home.

Should we really give intolerance a pass if it is rooted in religious faith?

Many American Christians once read the Bible to mean that African-Americans
were cursed as descendants of Noah's son Ham, and were intended by God to be
enslaved. In the 19th century, millions of Americans sincerely accepted this
Biblical justification for slavery as God's word - but surely it would have
been wrong to defer to such racist nonsense simply because speaking out
could have been perceived as denigrating some people's religious faith.

People have the right to believe in a racist God, or a God who throws
millions of nonevangelicals into hell. I don't think we should ban books
that say that. But we should be embarrassed when our best-selling books
gleefully celebrate religious intolerance and violence against infidels.

That's not what America stands for, and I doubt that it's what God stands
for.



0
Bill549 (46)
7/17/2004 4:31:33 PM
Frank Dwyer  <fdwyer@citlink.net> wrote:
>David Fritzinger wrote:
>>  Frank Dwyer <fdwyer@citlink.net> wrote:

>> > David Fritzinger wrote:
>> > >
>> > > But terrorism worldwide is up.
>> >
>> > What criteria are you using?
>> 
>> The report issued by the US State Department.
>
>This one? http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/pgtrpt/2003/33771.htm

No, not that one.  The corrected one.

    Washington -- Significant acts of terrorism reached a worldwide
    21-year high in 2003, the U.S. State Department announced
    yesterday as it corrected a mistaken report that had been cited to
    boost President George W. Bush's counterterrorism efforts.

    In all, 3,646 people were wounded worldwide in terrorist attacks
    last year, the report said. This represented a sharp increase from
    the 2,013 wounded in 2002. In April, the department had said that
    1,593 people were wounded in 2003, a decline from the previous
    year.

    http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20040623/WORLD23-4/TPInternational/Americas
-- 
Ray Fischer         
rfischer@sonic.net  

0
rfischer (1714)
7/17/2004 4:40:55 PM
"H��k H��h�m�t� !" <huckleberryhoshimoto@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:xucKc.5429$mL5.5181@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> Go ahead and vote for a Liberal pansy.
> (Or do America a favor and move to France where they are used to dropping
> their defenses and running away!)

Hey shit-for-brains, the pansy is the one who evaded VN war service. Kerry
volunteered his way into combat.
After the election, we'll be glad to ship the born-again-brain-dead to
France.



>
>


0
Bill549 (46)
7/17/2004 4:45:54 PM
Ray Fischer wrote:

> 
>     Washington -- Significant acts of terrorism reached a worldwide
>     21-year high in 2003, the U.S. State Department announced
>     yesterday as it corrected a mistaken report that had been cited to
>     boost President George W. Bush's counterterrorism efforts.
> 
>     In all, 3,646 people were wounded worldwide in terrorist attacks
>     last year, the report said. This represented a sharp increase from
>     the 2,013 wounded in 2002. In April, the department had said that
>     1,593 people were wounded in 2003, a decline from the previous
>     year.
> 
>     http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20040623/WORLD23-4/TPInternational/Americas

All lies
W said we're safer now

0
7/17/2004 4:51:12 PM
In article <FvcKc.6228$Qu5.3301@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
 "Bill Case" <Bill549@Hotmail.com> quoted:

> "Jesus merely raised one hand a few inches and a yawning chasm opened in the
> earth, stretching far and wide enough to swallow all of them. They tumbled
> in, howling and screeching, but their wailing was soon quashed and all was
> silent when the earth closed itself again."

> These are the best-selling novels for adults in the United States, and they
> have sold more than 60 million copies worldwide. The latest is "Glorious
> Appearing," which has Jesus returning to Earth to wipe all non-Christians
> from the planet. It's disconcerting to find ethnic cleansing celebrated as
> the height of piety.

Well, we've all seen how fondly faux speaks of ethnic cleansing. This 
is his gawd all right.

> In "Glorious Appearing," Jesus merely speaks and the bodies of the enemy are
> ripped open. Christians have to drive carefully to avoid "hitting splayed
> and filleted bodies of men and women and horses."
> 
> "The riders not thrown," the novel continues, "leaped from their horses and
> tried to control them with the reins, but even as they struggled, their own
> flesh dissolved, their eyes melted and their tongues disintegrated. . . .
> Seconds later the same plague afflicted the horses, their flesh and eyes and
> tongues melting away, leaving grotesque skeletons standing, before they,
> too, rattled to the pavement."

Seems to me this Christian Jesus is no better than the Christian 
Devil. At least according to the people who believe this rot.

> These scenes also raise an eschatological problem: Could devout
> fundamentalists really enjoy paradise as their friends, relatives and
> neighbors were heaved into hell?

I suspect those kind of Christians don't have friends who don't share 
their conviction.

> People have the right to believe in a racist God, or a God who throws
> millions of nonevangelicals into hell. I don't think we should ban books
> that say that. But we should be embarrassed when our best-selling books
> gleefully celebrate religious intolerance and violence against infidels.

> That's not what America stands for, and I doubt that it's what God stands
> for.

<firebrand>

What *does* America stand for anyway?

</firebrand>

-- 
C Lund, www.notam02.no/~clund
0
clund (6340)
7/17/2004 5:48:41 PM
[newsgroup list trimmed to only this group]

"H��k H��h�m�t� !" <huckleberryhoshimoto@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:xucKc.5429$mL5.5181@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> Go ahead and vote for a Liberal pansy.
> (Or do America a favor and move to France where they are used to dropping
> their defenses and running away!)

The ignorance and bias in the above is staggering.

The French didn't give up in WWII, they were ruthlessly beaten by an enemy
with superior weapons and tactics.  Just like the U.S. Army at the Battle of
the Bulge.

Even after the fall of France, the French Foreign Legion kicked the
Italian's and German's asses royally.  That's besides the invaluable aid
given to the Allies by the French Resistance, part of which made D-Day
possible.

-- 
Edwin




0
thorne25 (21019)
7/17/2004 6:07:45 PM
In article <fretwizz-B8012C.07002117072004@netnews.comcast.net>,
 Steve Carroll <fretwizz@NOSPAMattbi.com> wrote:

> In article <BD1DF1D5.58AD4%snit-nospam@cableone.net>,
>  Snit <snit-nospam@cableone.net> wrote:
> 
> > "Timberwoof" <timberwoof@stimpberawoofm.com> wrote in 
> > timberwoof-82EEF7.20192416072004@typhoon.sonic.net on 7/16/04 8:19 
> > PM:
> > 
> > > In article <BD1DBC5C.58AA1%snit-nospam@cableone.net>, Snit 
> > > <snit-nospam@cableone.net> wrote:
> > > 
> > >> "Timberwoof" <timberwoof@stimpberawoofm.com> wrote in 
> > >> timberwoof-23D6CB.13073016072004@typhoon.sonic.net on 7/16/04 
> > >> 1:07 PM:
> > >> 
> > >>> In article <BD1D400E.589A0%snit-nospam@cableone.net>, Snit 
> > >>> <snit-nospam@cableone.net> wrote:
> > >>> 
> > >>>> "Frank Dwyer" <fdwyer@citlink.net> wrote in 
> > >>>> 40F7F077.68966F5C@citlink.net on 7/16/04 8:12 AM:
> > >>>> 
> > >>>>>> Yet, terrorism in the world is up (despite the fact that the 
> > >>>>>> State Department tried to release a report saying the 
> > >>>>>> opposite). Also, how many al Qaeda attacks were there in the 
> > >>>>>> US during the Clinton Administration. One, WTCI. And that 
> > >>>>>> one was only about 6 weeks after Clinton took office.
> > >>>>> 
> > >>>>> Strange, that's the exact same number of attacks in the US as 
> > >>>>> there have been during the current administration.
> > >>>> 
> > >>>> Was 9/11 a single attack or a coordinated set of attacks?  
> > >>>> Probably just semantics, but it seems it would be fair to 
> > >>>> consider each plane that was hijacked as an "attack".
> > >>> 
> > >>> Here, let me lend you my hone for your microtome. It's clearly 
> > >>> not sharp enough for the hairs you want to split.
> > >> 
> > >> The attack(s) of 9/11 were bigger than the prev. attacks on US 
> > >> soil by al Qaeda no matter how you look at it.
> > > 
> > > So was the attack on Pearl Harbor one attack or many? Does it 
> > > make a difference?
> > 
> > Not really - but 9/11 was undoubtedly bigger than anything in the 
> > Clinton years.
> 
> Do you think the planning for this took place during the Clinton 
> years? Or do you think the entire thing was conceived and carried out 
> on Bush's watch? In your opinion, what difference does it make?

What people "think" makes no difference. The fact is that it was years 
in advance. Several FBI agents were aware of suspicious students at 
flight schools, but none of them had read anyone's speculations about 
what such folk might do with airplanes. And the people who wrote those 
memos didn't hear about the flight school students. 

This is all, of course, Clinton's fault for failing to micromanage the 
FBI.

-- 
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com>
http://www.timberwoof.com
Baloney Detection Kit: http://www.xenu.net/archive/baloney_detection.html
0
timberwoof (3216)
7/17/2004 6:35:35 PM
In article <40F9218D.4BA2B639@citlink.net>,
 Frank Dwyer <fdwyer@citlink.net> wrote:

> Timberwoof wrote:
> > 
> > In article <40F85B40.2E63ADE3@citlink.net>,
> >  Frank Dwyer <fdwyer@citlink.net> wrote:
> > 
> > > Timberwoof wrote:
> > > >
> > > > In article <40F7F421.EA37E3DC@citlink.net>,
> > > >  Frank Dwyer <fdwyer@citlink.net> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Bill Case wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "Frank Dwyer" <fdwyer@citlink.net> wrote in message 
> > > > > > news:40F5CD75.E7E11B27@citlink.net...
> > 
> > > > > > > Terrorism was low on every American's priority list.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It was not. Richard Clarke wrote a whole book dealing with 
> > > > > > that. Clinton told Bush on inaugaration day that his #1 
> > > > > > problem was al qaeda and OBL.
> > > > >
> > > > > Cite?
> > > >
> > > > Uh. I'll take a stab at answering this question. Let me guess. 
> > > > Could it be Richard Clarke's book? (It's called "Against All 
> > > > Enemies" and you can get it ant any book store.)
> > > >
> > > > Also Al Franken's book, "Lies."
> > >
> > > I canunderstand it was a priority of Richard Clarke, who's JOB 
> > > was counter-terrorism. But Al Franken!? Gimme a break!
> > >
> > > > > Who's #1 problem, Clinton's?
> > > >
> > > > Clinton tried to tell Bush that Bush's biggest problem would be 
> > > > international terrorism. If you want citations, go to your 
> > > > local book store and pick up a copy of Al Franken's book 
> > > > "Lies." Skip all the political rhetoric and head straight for 
> > > > the bibliography in the back. (The bibliography is in the back 
> > > > of the book, not the back of the store.)
> > >
> > > Al Franken again!? Good lord, man, you honestly use Al Franken, a 
> > > comedian from Saturday Night Live "fame", as a reliable source 
> > > for political news!?
> > 
> > What part of what he wrote in "Lies" was in factual error? Do you 
> > know anything about how that book came to be written? Do you have 
> > any basis, other than an easy ad-hominem attack, to dismiss the 
> > book?
> > 
> > And what kind of a joker are you to follow up a statement that 
> > quite clearly referred to a book someone had written by saying 
> > "Cite"?
> 
> Two texts were cited, 

Richard Clarke's book was mentioned specifically enough, and you 
demanded a citation: 

> > > > In article <40F7F421.EA37E3DC@citlink.net>,
> > > >  Frank Dwyer <fdwyer@citlink.net> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Bill Case wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "Frank Dwyer" <fdwyer@citlink.net> wrote in message 
> > > > > > news:40F5CD75.E7E11B27@citlink.net...
> > 
> > > > > > > Terrorism was low on every American's priority list.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It was not. Richard Clarke wrote a whole book dealing with 
> > > > > > that. Clinton told Bush on inaugaration day that his #1 
> > > > > > problem was al qaeda and OBL.
> > > > >
> > > > > Cite?


> one I'll accept as a credible source, the other 
> is of no more importance than if they cited "One Fish, Two Fish, Red 
> Fish, Blue Fish"

It's quite clear that you dismiss Al Franken's book. It should also be 
quite clear that your basis for doing so is flawed. How many times do 
you want to  g o round and round on this point? 


> > > > <snip>
> > > >
> > > > > > Probably his llack of intellkigence (IQ),
> > > > >
> > > > > What's his IQ? For that matter, what's yours?
> > > > >
> > > > > > lack of an active mind,
> > > > >
> > > > > Proof?
> > > > >
> > > > > > lack of experience from having evaded the VN war when he 
> > > > > > was young,
> > > > >
> > > > > Proof?
> > > >
> > > > http://www.awolbush.com/ 
> > > > http://www.buzzflash.com/contributors/03/06/05_moore.html 
> > > > http://216.239.57.104/search?q=cache:Z1-B2mykAeIJ:www.msnbc.msn.
> > > > com/id/4 2 
> > > > 30576/+george+bush+vietnam+draft&hl=en&lr=lang_en%7Clang_de 
> > > > http://www.schlatter.org/Dad/Bush%20lies/draftdodge-long.htm
> > > >
> > > > > > alcohol abuse,
> > > > >
> > > > > Proof?
> > > >
> > > > I would guess about 25 proof.
> > >
> > > I was thinking more around 80. I know he drank and I know he did 
> > > what he could to not get shot at by Charlie. I just don't fault 
> > > him for it.
> > >
> > > > http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/bushdui1.html 
> > > > http://alcoholism.about.com/cs/issues/l/aa001106a.htm 
> > > > http://www.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/11/02/bush.dui/
> > > >
> > > > > > he practically admitted cocaine use - that doens't do the 
> > > > > > brain any good, a lot of thing s enter into his 
> > > > > > incompetence and the mess we are in, in Iraq.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You do know authorities on terrorism say the Iraq things 
> > > > > > has created a new pool of terrorists for us to deal with in 
> > > > > > the future, right?
> > > > >
> > > > > Authorities on terrorism? Is that what they're called today? 
> > > > > Yesterday they were "analysts".
> > > >
> > > > Probably by someone else.
> > >
> > > No, by the OP.
> > >
> > > > Instead of trying to derail the argument over whether people 
> > > > who talk about terrorists are authorities or analysts, why 
> > > > don't you talk about the substance here, which is whether the 
> > > > invasion of Iraq created more terrorists.
> > >
> > > Sure... unknown. Now that discussion is dead.
> > 
> > You say the discussion is dead because you don't know the facts and 
> > you don't 'care to follow the simple logic that people have 
> > presented ... yep. It's dead all right.
> 
> Ok, genius, tell us exactly how you KNOW that more terrorists were 
> created by the invasion of Iraq? How could you possibly KNOW it? 
> Answer: you can't. There is no way to know now, or ever know, if the 
> invasion has increased or decreased the actual number of terrorists 
> on the planet. Do all the useless research you want. Every single 
> credible source you find will NOT say that there are more terrorists 
> worldwide since the invasion, only that there MIGHT be.
> 
> Follow your own "simple" logic. I'll worry about facts, thanks.

Okay, fine. What you just wrote supports my whole point, which is that 
the claim that Bush's invasion of Iraq decreased the number of 
terrorists is stupid. It is far more likely that there are more than 
that there are fewer. As far as the number of terrorists goes, Bush has 
NOT increased the US's security. 


> > > > Of course, the assertion that invading Iraq created more 
> > > > terrorists is ludicrous on the face of it. I mean, if you were 
> > > > a young man and your biggest enemy invaded your country, you 
> > > > wouldn't lift a finger to stop them. Why, you'd wave the flag 
> > > > and throw flowers on the invading army, tend for their wounded, 
> > > > and hunt down insurgents just like the boys did in Red Dawn 
> > > > (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0087985/). And that's what's 
> > > > happening in Iraq: they've all forgiven the US over the 
> > > > thousands of civilians who got killed (most of them painlessly, 
> > > > by the way) and are all ready to just buckle down and build a 
> > > > secular democratic state based on good Christian values. The 
> > > > thought of taking revenge against the US by fighting a guerilla 
> > > > war or by terrorism hadn't even entered their minds. (In case 
> > > > you're sarcasm impaired, that's all a lie.
> > > >
> > > > What logic suggests that there would be fewer terrorists now 
> > > > than before?
> > >
> > > http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/graphics/2001/11/07/wmil07.gif
> > 
> > Remarkable. A weapon that kills only terrorists.
> 
> Not-so remarkable, you getting that out of what I posted.

The only thing you posted was a picture of a cluster bomb. 


> > Why not blow up one of those at every US airport? Wait, I get it. 
> > It's not really a weapon that kills only terrorists, it's a weapon 
> > that kills whatever poor sod who happens to be around when it blows 
> > up, whether he's a terrorist or somebody's dear old dad.
> 
> Or both
> 
> > Maybe we better not blow those up where innocent people might get 
> > killed. I can think of a lot of places not to use that weapon.
> 
> So can I. Afghanistan isn't one of them though.

You're one sick fuck.

-- 
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com>
http://www.timberwoof.com
Baloney Detection Kit: http://www.xenu.net/archive/baloney_detection.html
0
timberwoof (3216)
7/17/2004 6:43:34 PM
In article <40F92004.C705CE5@citlink.net>,
 Frank Dwyer <fdwyer@citlink.net> wrote:

> Timberwoof wrote:
> > 
> > In article <40F87FEA.7C1DE8FA@citlink.net>,
> >  Frank Dwyer <fdwyer@citlink.net> wrote:
> > 
> > > > Haha, that says it all - muddled cross pathing brain operations from
> > > > secondary oxycontin poisoning.
> > >
> > > And partisanship once again rears it's ugly ass. Great.
> > > Look, Al Franken was a comedian on Saturday Night Live, ok? He's a
> > > politcal satirist. Nearly everything he says is meant to make someone
> > > chuckle. If you want to speak of muddled thinking, then consider the one
> > > who will take the word of a second-rate comedian over the word of the
> > > people in the Washington when it comes to what has happened in
> > > Washington.
> > > Clarke has credibility. Franken has a comedic agenda.
> > 
> > Franken has a political agenda, and he uses satire to get his message
> > across. Much like, say, Rush Limbaugh.
> 
> Limbaugh has no credibility either, so to equate Franken with him only
> serves to reinforce my belief that Franken shouldn't be considered a
> reliable source of anything. He's a perfect candidate for The Daily
> Show.

On what facts is your belief based? 

Oh, yeah, that he's a comedian. 

Al Franken was asked by Harvard's Kennedy School of Government to serve 
as a fellow at its Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics, and Public 
Policy. He agreed and seven hundred students applied for his study 
group. He accepted fourteen of them and got them to write his book for 
him. 

Maybe if you pointed out factual inaccuracies that the book contains, 
your argument might make sense.

-- 
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com>
http://www.timberwoof.com
Baloney Detection Kit: http://www.xenu.net/archive/baloney_detection.html
0
timberwoof (3216)
7/17/2004 6:51:29 PM
In article <znu-A73F12.02250617072004@individual.net>,
 ZnU <znu@acedsl.com> wrote:

> In article 
> <dfritzinnospam-6479C3.19152516072004@orngca-news03.socal.rr.com>,
>  David Fritzinger <dfritzinnospam@mac.com> wrote:
> 
> > In article <40F85B40.2E63ADE3@citlink.net>,
> >  Frank Dwyer <fdwyer@citlink.net> wrote:
> > 
> > > Timberwoof wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > In article <40F7F421.EA37E3DC@citlink.net>,
> > > >  Frank Dwyer <fdwyer@citlink.net> wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > Bill Case wrote:
> > >
> > [snip]
> > > > > > lack of experience from having evaded the VN war when he was young,
> > > > >
> > > > > Proof?
> > > > 
> > > > http://www.awolbush.com/
> > > > http://www.buzzflash.com/contributors/03/06/05_moore.html
> > > > http://216.239.57.104/search?q=cache:Z1-B2mykAeIJ:www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4
> > > > 2
> > > > 30576/+george+bush+vietnam+draft&hl=en&lr=lang_en%7Clang_de
> > > > http://www.schlatter.org/Dad/Bush%20lies/draftdodge-long.htm
> > > > 
> > > > > > alcohol abuse,
> > > > >
> > > > > Proof?
> > > > 
> > > > I would guess about 25 proof.
> > > 
> > > I was thinking more around 80. I know he drank and I know he did what he
> > > could to not get shot at by Charlie. I just don't fault him for it.
> > 
> > I really didn't either, until he started questioning the patriotism of 
> > genuine heros, such as John McCain (2000 election) and Max Cleland (2002 
> > Georgia senate election). Not to mention the fact that, post 9/11, the 
> > Republicans tried to say you weren't patriotic if you opposed Bush and 
> > the Republicans on any issue. Then, it became important.
> 
> And the other thing is, Bush's politics would have made him a war 
> supporter. There's a big difference, I think, between avoiding service 
> because you oppose a war, and avoiding service because you'd rather they 
> sent some other poor slob in your place.

It reminds me of Michael Moore's point that congresscritters don't mind 
supporting the war as long as someone else's kids fight it.

-- 
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com>
http://www.timberwoof.com
Baloney Detection Kit: http://www.xenu.net/archive/baloney_detection.html
0
timberwoof (3216)
7/17/2004 6:54:26 PM
In article <6JcKc.6268$Qu5.1097@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>, Bill
Case <Bill549@Hotmail.com> wrote:

> "H��k H��h�m�t� !" <huckleberryhoshimoto@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:xucKc.5429$mL5.5181@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> > Go ahead and vote for a Liberal pansy.
> > (Or do America a favor and move to France where they are used to dropping
> > their defenses and running away!)
> 
> Hey shit-for-brains, the pansy is the one who evaded VN war service. Kerry
> volunteered his way into combat.
> After the election, we'll be glad to ship the born-again-brain-dead to
> France.

The very point I have made here.  Kerry said he did not support the
war, but volunteered and fought for his country because his country
needed him.

Bush said he did support the war but when he was needed, he had his dad
pull strings so that others would fight in his place.  Then he went
even further and went AWOL from the National Guard.

That is the difference between Kerry and Bush.
0
7/17/2004 7:04:33 PM
In article <J5cKc.6209$Qu5.989@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>, Bill
Case <Bill549@Hotmail.com> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > In a situation like that, you might be
> asked to
> > > > > make a
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > decision, maybe a big one, quickly. To do
> that
> > > you
> > > > > need to
> > > > > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > your mind active and focused. A leader
> wants to
> > > be
> > > > > certain
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > everybody is doing all they can and all the
> > > > > available info
> > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > what's happening is getting to him.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > Instead, he sat there like a passive
> receiver.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> So what should he have done? There were
> massively
> > > > > conflicting
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> reports that said anywhere from JUST ONE
> plane,
> > > to
> > > > > SIX
> > > > > > > > > different
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> aircraft had been either hijacked, or had
> some
> > > sort
> > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> malfunction. Which one of these presumptions
> do
> > > you
> > > > > make?
> > > > > > > > > Keep in
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> mind that if you're wrong, people die, if
> you're
> > > > > right,
> > > > > > > > > people
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> die. And also keep in mind that shooting them
> > > down
> > > > > and being
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> right in doing so, may destroy any proof that
> you
> > > > > were right.
> > > > > > > > > No
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> proof to your own conscience, no proof to
> your
> > > > > friends, no
> > > > > > > > > proof
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> to your staff, and just to also throw in the
> > > lowest
> > > > > common
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> denominator, no proof to the voters.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> And we all know how much proof it requires to
> > > > > convince people
> > > > > > > > > who
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> hate Bush of anything. Today we'd be hearing
> > > about
> > > > > how Bush
> > > > > > > > > is a
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> murderer who shoots down civilian airlines.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > But first of all, get yourself away from
> > > children
> > > > > in case
> > > > > > > > > an
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > attempt is about to be made on you.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> What would events 1500 miles away have to do
> with
> > > > > Bush being
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> assassinated?
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> > As I've described in a prior post, his actions
> > > were
> > > > > not those
> > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> > tough smart leader whose country is under
> attack.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> > What should he have done? Taken charge.
> Instead he
> > > sat
> > > > > there
> > > > > > > > > in a
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> > state of confusion, with children around him.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> It seems that nothing Bush does or could have
> done
> > > would
> > > > > ever be
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> good enough for the loony left.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > That won't work sport.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > Bush quote regarding evading Vietnam war service:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > "I was not prepared to shoot my eardrum out with
> a
> > > > > shotgun in
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > order to get a deferment. Nor was I willing to go
> to
> > > > > Canada. So I
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > chose to better myself by learning how to fly
> > > airplanes,"
> > > > > Bush
> > > > > > > > > told
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > an interviewer in Houston. "
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> A lot better than our previous president ever did,
> yet
> > > the
> > > > > left
> > > > > > > > > fawns
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> over him.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > I didn't vote for Clinton.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > This election isn't about Clinton, he's not a
> candidate.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > But since you bring it up, it's historical fact,
> that
> > > pre
> > > > > 9/11,
> > > > > > > > > Clinton
> > > > > > > > > > > > > DID do more against terrorists than Bush did. He
> > > attacked
> > > > > them with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > cruise missiles, killed hundreds of them. Pre 9/11,
> Bush
> > > > > never even
> > > > > > > > > > > > > tried to retaliate for the USS Cole attack which
> killed
> > > 17
> > > > > > > > > Americans.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Lobbing a few cruise missiles at tents is not cracking
> > > down on
> > > > > > > > > terrorism.
> > > > > > > > > > > > Clinton had 8 years to deal with terrorism starting
> from
> > > when
> > > > > the WTC
> > > > > > > > > was
> > > > > > > > > > > > bombed in 1993.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > He killed around 200 of them and apparnelty came close
> to
> > > > > catching OBL
> > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > the attack, he had left the area shortly before the
> raid.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Let me guess, this came from the same intelligence sources
> > > that
> > > > > said
> > > > > > > > > > Iraq had WMDs, right?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Do you think the sources of intel for casualties from an
> attack
> > > in
> > > > > > > > > Afghanistan are the same as those for WMD in Iraq?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > It goes through the same channels prior to reaching the White
> > > House.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > That's WAY more than Bush did in answer to the Cole.
> Bush
> > > was
> > > > > passive
> > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > Afghan al qaeda prisoner interviews indicate that were
> > > > > encouraged by the
> > > > > > > > > > > lack of retaliation. He had 8 months. He stated in
> > > intereviews
> > > > > that pre
> > > > > > > > > > > 9/11, terrorism was low on his priorities - he's stupid.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Terrorism was low on every American's priority list.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > It was not. Richard Clarke wrote a whole book dealing with
> that.
> > > > > Clinton
> > > > > > > > > told Bush on inaugaration day that his #1 problem was al
> qaeda
> > > and
> > > > > OBL.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Cite?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Uh. I'll take a stab at answering this question. Let me guess.
> Could
> > > it
> > > > > > > be Richard Clarke's book? (It's called "Against All Enemies" and
> you
> > > can
> > > > > > > get it ant any book store.)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Also Al Franken's book, "Lies."
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I canunderstand it was a priority of Richard Clarke, who's JOB was
> > > > > > counter-terrorism. But Al Franken!? Gimme a break!
> > > > >
> > > > > Haha, that says it all - muddled cross pathing brain operations from
> > > > > secondary oxycontin poisoning.
> > > >
> > > > And partisanship once again rears it's ugly ass.
> > >
> > > Well there's a dumb ass around here, that's for sure. If you can't think
> > > straight
> > > or write something that makes sense, don't blame Al Franken.
> >
> > And, of course, they never mention that Franken actually cites his
> > info, unlike the Right Wing hacks.
> 
> If Franken lies like oxy Rush and Fox droppings do,, then his "Lies" book
> should have been easy to take apart and discredit - he was very specific in
> it and went into some detail and gave sources for the things he was saying.
> 
> Nobody has discredited that book.

I agree.  That book is GREAT!  I hope he comes out with another one,
soon.  I also find it funny that the Right bitches about Moore when
they have Fox "NEWS", Limbaugh, Hannity, and other propagandists lying
daily, but Moore's movie is simple facts that the Right doesn't like to
hear.
0
7/17/2004 7:07:30 PM
In article <170720040841217345%DumpBushInNovember@usa.com>,
 "David W. Barnes" <DumpBushInNovember@usa.com> wrote:

> In article <LIbKc.6199$Qu5.5106@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>, Bill
> Case <Bill549@Hotmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > "Frank Dwyer" <fdwyer@citlink.net> wrote in message
> > news:40F91F06.98504372@citlink.net...
> > > David Fritzinger wrote:
> > > >
> > > > In article <40F86B6F.70F5036F@citlink.net>,
> > > >  Frank Dwyer <fdwyer@citlink.net> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > David Fritzinger wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > But terrorism worldwide is up.
> > > > >
> > > > > What criteria are you using?
> > > >
> > > > The report issued by the US State Department.
> > >
> > > This one? http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/pgtrpt/2003/33771.htm
> > > "There were 208 acts of international terrorism in 2003, a slight
> > > increase from the most recently published figure of 198 attacks in 2002,
> > > and a 42 percent drop from the level in 2001 of 355 attacks."
> > >
> > > A whopping 10 more attacks worldwide than '02, but overall, a 42 percent
> > > decrease since 2001. Is that the report you're referencing when you say
> > > terrorism worldwide is up?
> > 
> > Just another indication people.
> 
> Terrorism is up under Bush.  So much for the "War on Terrorism."
> 
> http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/06/10/powell.terror.report.ap/
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3830909.stm

The Bush administration is calling the attacks on US forces in Iraq 
"terrorism." If the word had been in use in the late 1700s, that's what 
the British would have called what the colonist militias were doing. 
They are guerillas defending their country from an invading army. Such 
attacks on US military forces in Iraq aren't terrorism. They wouldn't be 
happening if Bush hadn't invaded Iraq. 

There are real terrorist attacks going on in Iraq as well: people are 
blowing up houses and public places in an effort to destabilize the US 
administration and what they probably see as a US puppet government. 
Those attacks are terrorism, but I suspect they would not be happening 
if Saddam were still in power. So within Iraq there is an increase in 
terrorism as a result of the war. 

There's the US, in which there has been an average of approximately zero 
terrorist attacks by foreigners for ... ever. There have been domestic 
terrorist attacks such as the Weather Underground's bombings in the 
'70s, bombings of abortion clinics, arsons of southern black churches, 
and the bombing of the Oklahoma City federal building. In any case, the 
frequency of such attacks is fairly low to begin with, so it's difficult 
to come to any real conclusion. 

Which leaves the rest of the world. 

2002: 198 attacks, 725 dead, 2,013 wounded 
2003: 208 attacks, 625 dead, 3,646 wounded 
(http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3830909.stm) 

More attacks, fewer dead, more wounded. 

Something's not working.

-- 
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com>
http://www.timberwoof.com
Baloney Detection Kit: http://www.xenu.net/archive/baloney_detection.html
0
timberwoof (3216)
7/17/2004 7:08:51 PM
In article <forge-551A83.10011417072004@comcast.dca.giganews.com>,
 forge <forge@diespammers.youneedageek.com> wrote:

> In article <1gh2j1a.1cbdx6c1ky28zcN%peter@seahaze.demon.co.uk>,
>  peter@seahaze.demon.co.uk (Peter Hayes) wrote:
> 
> > http://www.propagandamatrix.com/articles/july2004/070704nukeattack.htm

"Rumor at high levels" 

Hmmm. 

> Yeah that'd swing the election all right. Motherf*cker blows up a bunch 
> of people in Iran that just want to be rid of their theocratic 
> government, or a bunch of people in Korea that just want to be rid of 
> Kim Jung Il, he's totally got MY vote. Um, utterly NOT.

Bush ordering such an attack would be a good reason to leave the 
country. That would destroy the global economy as well as any hope the 
US has of controlling "rogue nations." It would be a very bad thing to 
do. It could even lead to events which if anyone were to mention them 
directly, would attract unpleasant attention from government agencies. 

But there is hope. Already Bush's other attempts to distract people from 
his failures in Iraq are also failing. For instance, his attempt to 
constitutionally  legalize discrimination against a specific group of 
people didn't even make it to formal consideration by the Senate. 

http://www.dallasvoice.com/articles/dispArticle.cfm?Article_ID=4842

�This was an attempt to divide Americans that backfired and divided 
Republicans,� Cheryl Jacques, president of the Human Rights Campaign, 
said.

-- 
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com>
http://www.timberwoof.com
Baloney Detection Kit: http://www.xenu.net/archive/baloney_detection.html
0
timberwoof (3216)
7/17/2004 7:20:32 PM
In article <forge-BA5671.10130517072004@comcast.dca.giganews.com>,
 forge <forge@diespammers.youneedageek.com> wrote:

> In article <40F87FEA.7C1DE8FA@citlink.net>,
>  Frank Dwyer <fdwyer@citlink.net> wrote:
> 
> > If you want to speak of muddled thinking, then consider the one
> > who will take the word of a second-rate comedian over the word of the
> > people in the Washington when it comes to what has happened in
> > Washington.
> 
> A lot of "people in Washington" were other things before they got into 
> politics. Quite a few were actors; does that discredit their work as 
> legislators? A couple were entertainers of other sorts - musicians, 
> comedians... and then there's this one guy who, without ever actually 
> holding a rank-and-file "job," has managed to be the CEO of a couple 
> different oil companies (that failed) and even owned a sports team for 
> awhile (and word is he fucked that up too). I presume you will discredit 
> him also because of his former jobs.

I don't think so. I suspect that even if you tried to discredit Bush on 
the basis of his being a draft dodger or an alcoholic, the Bush 
apologists would find a way to spin that.

-- 
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com>
http://www.timberwoof.com
Baloney Detection Kit: http://www.xenu.net/archive/baloney_detection.html
0
timberwoof (3216)
7/17/2004 7:23:05 PM
In article <timberwoof-252509.12085017072004@typhoon.sonic.net>,
Timberwoof <timberwoof@stimpberawoofm.com> wrote:

> In article <170720040841217345%DumpBushInNovember@usa.com>,
>  "David W. Barnes" <DumpBushInNovember@usa.com> wrote:
> 
> > In article <LIbKc.6199$Qu5.5106@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>, Bill
> > Case <Bill549@Hotmail.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > "Frank Dwyer" <fdwyer@citlink.net> wrote in message
> > > news:40F91F06.98504372@citlink.net...
> > > > David Fritzinger wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > In article <40F86B6F.70F5036F@citlink.net>,
> > > > >  Frank Dwyer <fdwyer@citlink.net> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > David Fritzinger wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > But terrorism worldwide is up.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > What criteria are you using?
> > > > >
> > > > > The report issued by the US State Department.
> > > >
> > > > This one? http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/pgtrpt/2003/33771.htm
> > > > "There were 208 acts of international terrorism in 2003, a slight
> > > > increase from the most recently published figure of 198 attacks in 2002,
> > > > and a 42 percent drop from the level in 2001 of 355 attacks."
> > > >
> > > > A whopping 10 more attacks worldwide than '02, but overall, a 42 percent
> > > > decrease since 2001. Is that the report you're referencing when you say
> > > > terrorism worldwide is up?
> > > 
> > > Just another indication people.
> > 
> > Terrorism is up under Bush.  So much for the "War on Terrorism."
> > 
> > http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/06/10/powell.terror.report.ap/
> > http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3830909.stm
> 
> The Bush administration is calling the attacks on US forces in Iraq 
> "terrorism." If the word had been in use in the late 1700s, that's what 
> the British would have called what the colonist militias were doing. 
> They are guerillas defending their country from an invading army. Such 
> attacks on US military forces in Iraq aren't terrorism. They wouldn't be 
> happening if Bush hadn't invaded Iraq. 
> 
> There are real terrorist attacks going on in Iraq as well: people are 
> blowing up houses and public places in an effort to destabilize the US 
> administration and what they probably see as a US puppet government. 
> Those attacks are terrorism, but I suspect they would not be happening 
> if Saddam were still in power. So within Iraq there is an increase in 
> terrorism as a result of the war. 
> 
> There's the US, in which there has been an average of approximately zero 
> terrorist attacks by foreigners for ... ever. There have been domestic 
> terrorist attacks such as the Weather Underground's bombings in the 
> '70s, bombings of abortion clinics, arsons of southern black churches, 
> and the bombing of the Oklahoma City federal building. In any case, the 
> frequency of such attacks is fairly low to begin with, so it's difficult 
> to come to any real conclusion. 
> 
> Which leaves the rest of the world. 
> 
> 2002: 198 attacks, 725 dead, 2,013 wounded 
> 2003: 208 attacks, 625 dead, 3,646 wounded 
> (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3830909.stm) 
> 
> More attacks, fewer dead, more wounded. 
> 
> Something's not working.

We Ned to look at what the causes are instead of simply reacting.  IMO,
Republicans are incapable of doing that.  They can't in their other
failed "wars" either.  (Drugs, etc.)
0
7/17/2004 7:30:09 PM
In article <timberwoof-FC6E17.12203217072004@typhoon.sonic.net>,
Timberwoof <timberwoof@stimpberawoofm.com> wrote:

> In article <forge-551A83.10011417072004@comcast.dca.giganews.com>,
>  forge <forge@diespammers.youneedageek.com> wrote:
> 
> > In article <1gh2j1a.1cbdx6c1ky28zcN%peter@seahaze.demon.co.uk>,
> >  peter@seahaze.demon.co.uk (Peter Hayes) wrote:
> > 
> > > http://www.propagandamatrix.com/articles/july2004/070704nukeattack.htm
> 
> "Rumor at high levels" 
> 
> Hmmm. 
> 
> > Yeah that'd swing the election all right. Motherf*cker blows up a bunch 
> > of people in Iran that just want to be rid of their theocratic 
> > government, or a bunch of people in Korea that just want to be rid of 
> > Kim Jung Il, he's totally got MY vote. Um, utterly NOT.
> 
> Bush ordering such an attack would be a good reason to leave the 
> country. That would destroy the global economy as well as any hope the 
> US has of controlling "rogue nations." It would be a very bad thing to 
> do. It could even lead to events which if anyone were to mention them 
> directly, would attract unpleasant attention from government agencies. 
> 
> But there is hope. Already Bush's other attempts to distract people from 
> his failures in Iraq are also failing. For instance, his attempt to 
> constitutionally  legalize discrimination against a specific group of 
> people didn't even make it to formal consideration by the Senate. 
> 
> http://www.dallasvoice.com/articles/dispArticle.cfm?Article_ID=4842
> 
> �This was an attempt to divide Americans that backfired and divided 
> Republicans,� Cheryl Jacques, president of the Human Rights Campaign, 
> said.

Sadly, however, there are a lot of people in this country with a lot of
hate in them.  Bush could still win in November.
0
7/17/2004 7:30:10 PM
"Timberwoof" <timberwoof@stimpberawoofm.com> wrote in
timberwoof-17C78B.12230517072004@typhoon.sonic.net on 7/17/04 12:23 PM:

> In article <forge-BA5671.10130517072004@comcast.dca.giganews.com>,
> forge <forge@diespammers.youneedageek.com> wrote:
> 
>> In article <40F87FEA.7C1DE8FA@citlink.net>,
>>  Frank Dwyer <fdwyer@citlink.net> wrote:
>> 
>>> If you want to speak of muddled thinking, then consider the one
>>> who will take the word of a second-rate comedian over the word of the
>>> people in the Washington when it comes to what has happened in
>>> Washington.
>> 
>> A lot of "people in Washington" were other things before they got into
>> politics. Quite a few were actors; does that discredit their work as
>> legislators? A couple were entertainers of other sorts - music