Maybe GWB isn't lying.......

[JD]

The media and most democrats charge President Bush lied to the American
people and led us into a war over oil. Even if you disregard GWB 1 and the
war re Kuwait, in any attempt to be fair, you have to take these quotes into
consideration:

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to
develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them.
That is our bottom line."
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear.
We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass
destruction program."
- President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [the USA], but what happens there matters a
great deal
here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear,
chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest
security threat we face."
- Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times
since 1983."
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the
U.S.
Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if
appropriate,
air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to
the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction
programs."
- Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin,
Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass
destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and
he
has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998


"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass
destruction and palaces for his cronies."
- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons
programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear
programs
continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition,
Saddam
continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover
of a
licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten
the United States and our allies."
- Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,)
and others, December 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a
threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the
mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass
destruction
and the means of delivering them."
- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical
weapons throughout his country."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to
deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is
in
power."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and
developing
weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are
confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and
biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to
build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence
reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the
authority
to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe
that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a
real
and grave threat to our security."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working
aggressively
to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within
the
next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated
the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass
destruction."
- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years,
every
significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy
his
chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has
refused to do" Rep.
- Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show
that
Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weap ons
stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has
also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda
members
.. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will
continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical
warfare,
and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that
Saddam
Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for
the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal,
murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a
particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to
miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his
continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction
... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is
real
..."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003



Now who's lying?

[RobbelothE]

Then there's this from President 'wanna be' Wes Clark. He was certain Saddam
had weapons of mass destruction and that Saddam wanted more.

"[Saddam Hussein]…is not only malevolent and violent, but also unpredictable.
He retains his chemical and biological warfare capabilities and is actively
pursuing nuclear capabilities…. Saddam Hussein's current retention of
chemical and biological weapons and their respective delivery systems violates
the UN resolutions themselves, which carry the weight of international law…..
Our President has emphasized the urgency of eliminating these weapons and
weapons programs. I strongly support his efforts to encourage the United
Nations to act on this problem. And in taking this to the United Nations, the
President's clear determination to act if the United Nations can't provides
strong leverage undergirding further diplomatic efforts…. I would offer the
following considerations:
- The United States diplomacy in the United Nations will be further
strengthened if the Congress can adopt a resolution expressing US determination
to act if the United Nations will not. The use of force must remain a US
option under active consideration. The resolution need not at this point
authorize the use of force, but simply agree on the intent to authorize the use
of force, if other measures fail….

If efforts to resolve the problem by using the United Nations fail, either
initially or ultimately, the US should form the broadest possible coalition,
including its NATO allies and the North Atlantic Council if possible, to bring
force to bear."

Statement Of General (Retired) Wesley K. Clark
U.S. Army Before The House Armed Services Committee
United States House Of Representatives
September 26, 2002
Ed
"The French couldn't hate us any
more unless we helped 'em out in another war."
--Will Rogers



(Delete text after dot com for e-mail reply.)

[Rick Folkers]

Funny thing about quoting everybody in the world who ever thought Iraq might
have WMD's, they were all too smart to use it as an excuse for going to war.
Only George made that mistake.

War is too important, too big a step, to enter into without being sure and
honest with the people of the country. Bush either lied or did not insure
his information was correct. Either fault in a president cannot be excused
and he must go.

I supported the war and still think it was the right thing to do. And I
voted for Bush in 2000. But the contempt with which he held the people and
the brave men and women of the military in taking them to war over a false
reason makes him just another low life politician. And that is saying
nothing about his disasterous domestic policy.

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
"Rick Folkers" > wrote:

> Funny thing about quoting everybody in the world who ever thought Iraq might
> have WMD's, they were all too smart to use it as an excuse for going to war.
> Only George made that mistake.

If that had been the only (or even the main) reason for going to war,
you might have a point. It's a shame the US government presented
*several* reasons for going in, especially since the anti-war folks have
latched onto that one reason while forgetting all of the others...

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

[RobbelothE]

>Subject: Re: Maybe GWB isn't lying.......
>From: "Rick Folkers"
>Date: 2/1/2004 4:23 PM Central Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>...[T]he contempt with which he held the people and
>the brave men and women of the military in taking them to war over a false
>reason makes him just another low life politician.
>
>
>
An odd thing about politicians. When Clinton was in office and he came to the
Pentagon to make a speech, the brass had to force people to attend. That was
NOT the case with either Bush (41) or Bush (43). The troop like President Bush.
Period.


Ed
"The French couldn't hate us any
more unless we helped 'em out in another war."
--Will Rogers



(Delete text after dot com for e-mail reply.)

[Rick Folkers]

Note that I did not say it was the only reason. But, my forgetful friend,
it was
the reason Bush used to sell it to the people and Congress to get his
supporing
legislation. Can you really deny that?


"Chad Irby" > wrote in message
. ..
> In article >,
> "Rick Folkers" > wrote:
>
> > Funny thing about quoting everybody in the world who ever thought Iraq
might
> > have WMD's, they were all too smart to use it as an excuse for going to
war.
> > Only George made that mistake.
>
> If that had been the only (or even the main) reason for going to war,
> you might have a point. It's a shame the US government presented
> *several* reasons for going in, especially since the anti-war folks have
> latched onto that one reason while forgetting all of the others...
>
> --
> cirby at cfl.rr.com
>
> Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
> Slam on brakes accordingly.

[Rick Folkers]

Too bad he does not support them better.


"RobbelothE" > wrote in message
...
> >Subject: Re: Maybe GWB isn't lying.......
> >From: "Rick Folkers"
> >Date: 2/1/2004 4:23 PM Central Standard Time
> >Message-id: >
> >
> >...[T]he contempt with which he held the people and
> >the brave men and women of the military in taking them to war over a
false
> >reason makes him just another low life politician.
> >
> >
> >
> An odd thing about politicians. When Clinton was in office and he came to
the
> Pentagon to make a speech, the brass had to force people to attend. That
was
> NOT the case with either Bush (41) or Bush (43). The troop like President
Bush.
> Period.
>
>
> Ed
> "The French couldn't hate us any
> more unless we helped 'em out in another war."
> --Will Rogers
>
>
>
> (Delete text after dot com for e-mail reply.)

[Tom Cervo]

>An odd thing about politicians. When Clinton was in office and he came to the
>Pentagon to make a speech, the brass had to force people to attend. That was
>NOT the case with either Bush (41) or Bush (43). The troop like President
>Bush.
>Period.

How many Guardsmen do you know?

[fudog50]

You are seriously Wrong, he does a great job supporting us!
You couldn't be further from the Truth. But everytime he shows
support, people like you spin it up into a "political statement for
his re-election" what a bucket of **** you lay. Speaking of Clinton,
every Navy unit I was in despised him and we hoped to God he never
payed us a visit.
Just like the whole WMD arguement you are trying to debate
now! The original Poster of this thread hit the nail on the head.
Nobody has that kind of power, including the President. What,
you can't make up your own mind? Did he hypnotize you into believing
what he (and everyone else) was saying about Saddams possesion of
WMD's? I guess he just hypnotized every Democrat and media agent into
beleiving it too! LOL, get a clue, this thing ain't over yet.
Your kind also bashed Pres. Bush daily about "his" inability
to find Saddam, like it was him personally out there searching for
him! hahaha! Then, when we did find him, you spun it all up into a
bucket of **** about how "inhumane" he was treated, and how much
better the Iraqi people would be with him still in power. And nobody
gloated, just were very satisfied and showed pleasure at him being
caught, and brought to justice.
So what will your kind say when we catch Bin Laden?
What will you say when we find the evidence Saddam had WMD's
and destroyed and moved them because he was scared about getting
attacked and overthrown? Don't you think that military force worked?
What the hell are you thinking? That we will threaten him with
scorched earth if he doesn't comply with the worlds laws, and then not
act?

people like you On Sun, 1 Feb 2004 20:58:38 -0600, "Rick Folkers"
> wrote:

>Too bad he does not support them better.
>
>
>"RobbelothE" > wrote in message
...
>> >Subject: Re: Maybe GWB isn't lying.......
>> >From: "Rick Folkers"
>> >Date: 2/1/2004 4:23 PM Central Standard Time
>> >Message-id: >
>> >
>> >...[T]he contempt with which he held the people and
>> >the brave men and women of the military in taking them to war over a
>false
>> >reason makes him just another low life politician.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> An odd thing about politicians. When Clinton was in office and he came to
>the
>> Pentagon to make a speech, the brass had to force people to attend. That
>was
>> NOT the case with either Bush (41) or Bush (43). The troop like President
>Bush.
>> Period.
>>
>>
>> Ed
>> "The French couldn't hate us any
>> more unless we helped 'em out in another war."
>> --Will Rogers
>>
>>
>>
>> (Delete text after dot com for e-mail reply.)
>

[fudog50]

I don't know any, but recently all the media has been printing
about Guardsmen is they are squealing about having to get called up
for duty. The articles are from SOLDIERS (guardsmen) bawling about,
"this isn't what we signed up for".
LOL, if this is true, I refuse to believe that a grown man
that has reaped all the benefits (pay, education, etc.) would howl
about fulfilling his end of an oath to his country and contract that
he signed and swore to.

On 02 Feb 2004 03:35:02 GMT, (Tom Cervo) wrote:

>>An odd thing about politicians. When Clinton was in office and he came to the
>>Pentagon to make a speech, the brass had to force people to attend. That was
>>NOT the case with either Bush (41) or Bush (43). The troop like President
>>Bush.
>>Period.
>
>How many Guardsmen do you know?

[Steve R.]

"Tom Cervo" > wrote in message
...
> >An odd thing about politicians. When Clinton was in office and he came to
the
> >Pentagon to make a speech, the brass had to force people to attend. That
was
> >NOT the case with either Bush (41) or Bush (43). The troop like President
> >Bush.
> >Period.
>
> How many Guardsmen do you know?

Well, the ones on the base I've been active at for the last two years surely
seem to like that we're under his command instead of Algore. (roughly 1,000
personnel)
Steve R.

[Steve R.]

And another thing.... ;o)
When Clinton landed at our base during the elections nobody in our shop
would even walk across the base to see him. When we heard Pres. Bush landed
on the carrier, and when he went to Iraq during Thanksgiving it made us very
proud that he would remember us like that. He was thousands of miles from us
geographically, but he was with us in spirit.
Steve R.


> On 02 Feb 2004 03:35:02 GMT, (Tom Cervo) wrote:
>
> >>An odd thing about politicians. When Clinton was in office and he came
to the
> >>Pentagon to make a speech, the brass had to force people to attend. That
was
> >>NOT the case with either Bush (41) or Bush (43). The troop like
President
> >>Bush.
> >>Period.
> >
> >How many Guardsmen do you know?
>

[B2431]

>From: "Steve R."

>
>And another thing.... ;o)
>When Clinton landed at our base during the elections nobody in our shop
>would even walk across the base to see him. When we heard Pres. Bush landed
>on the carrier, and when he went to Iraq during Thanksgiving it made us very
>proud that he would remember us like that. He was thousands of miles from us
>geographically, but he was with us in spirit.
>Steve R.
>
>
>> On 02 Feb 2004 03:35:02 GMT, (Tom Cervo) wrote:
>>
>> >>An odd thing about politicians. When Clinton was in office and he came
>to the
>> >>Pentagon to make a speech, the brass had to force people to attend. That
>was
>> >>NOT the case with either Bush (41) or Bush (43). The troop like
>President
>> >>Bush.
>> >>Period.
>> >
>> >How many Guardsmen do you know?
>>

When Nixon was having problems we were never told we could not make fun of him.
This held true for Ford, Carter, Reagan and Bush 1.

When Clinton was making a fool of himself the various commanders at Eglin AFB
and Hurlburt Fld. made it perfectly clear anything anti Clinton was prohibited.
This actually makes sense from the point of view of loyalty, but being ordered
not to tell Clinton jokes was a bit much. Fortunately I had retired by then.

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

[George Z. Bush]

JD wrote:
> The media and most democrats charge President Bush lied to the American
> people and led us into a war over oil. Even if you disregard GWB 1 and the
> war re Kuwait, in any attempt to be fair, you have to take these quotes into
> consideration:

(Irrelevant quotes deleted)
>
> Now who's lying?

If we are to believe our President, clearly the intelligence community that
provided our legislators with misleading and inaccurate data either were lying
or were grossly imcompetent, and he should have fired them as soon as he made
that determination.

To my knowledge, he has not yet addressed that problem.

George Z.

[Kevin Brooks]

"George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
...
> JD wrote:
> > The media and most democrats charge President Bush lied to the American
> > people and led us into a war over oil. Even if you disregard GWB 1 and
the
> > war re Kuwait, in any attempt to be fair, you have to take these quotes
into
> > consideration:
>
> (Irrelevant quotes deleted)

Among those "irrelevant" quotesd were a number of statements predating the
GWB Presidency asserting that Iraq was continuing to develop, and/or had
stockpiled, WMD's, from prominent Democrats like Clinton, Kerry, Levin, etc.
Odd how some folks want to hang Bush for making similar statements, but are
all too willing to completely ignore the earlier comments from the other
side of the aisle, isn't it?

> >
> > Now who's lying?
>
> If we are to believe our President, clearly the intelligence community
that
> provided our legislators with misleading and inaccurate data either were
lying
> or were grossly imcompetent, and he should have fired them as soon as he
made
> that determination.

But then you'd have to toss in the majority of the intel services around the
globe, as it appears most thought the Iraqis did indeed have hidden stocks
of WMD, and/or violations of UN Res 687 (which indeed was the case). Were
they all "grossly incompetent"?

>
> To my knowledge, he has not yet addressed that problem.

Gee, you never held that same failure to address any intel failure against
Mr. Clinton, who bought into the same story. Why the double standard?

Brooks

>
> George Z.
>
>

[Kevin Brooks]

"Tom Cervo" > wrote in message
...
> >An odd thing about politicians. When Clinton was in office and he came to
the
> >Pentagon to make a speech, the brass had to force people to attend. That
was
> >NOT the case with either Bush (41) or Bush (43). The troop like President
> >Bush.
> >Period.
>
> How many Guardsmen do you know?

A fairly good number, including quite a few from Tennessee who are now in
Iraq. And yes, most of them (from Al's home state no less) seemed to prefer
Bush to Gore by far, so your point would be...?

Brooks

[Kevin Brooks]

"fudog50" > wrote in message
...
> I don't know any, but recently all the media has been printing
> about Guardsmen is they are squealing about having to get called up
> for duty. The articles are from SOLDIERS (guardsmen) bawling about,
> "this isn't what we signed up for".
> LOL, if this is true, I refuse to believe that a grown man
> that has reaped all the benefits (pay, education, etc.) would howl
> about fulfilling his end of an oath to his country and contract that
> he signed and swore to.

Beware believeing the media's attempts to find the minority whiners and
portray them as representing the majority. If you go through the numbers for
ARNG units activated for ODS you will find an extremely high rate of
participation in the units that were called up. We have seen a significant
number of units activated for the current ongoing operations, and AFAIK the
result is the same. I recently ran into a guy who just finished an active
duty stint with his unit--his only gripe was that his unit was not allowed
to do their real combat mission and instead had been siphoned off to perform
security support here in CONUS. I know of two units from this state that are
in Iraq for the second time (having also done the ODS tour years ago), and a
lot of their members have made both trips, with no reported whining in the
press (I have little doubt some of them would rather be back home by now,
having deployed at about the same time the war kicked off, but wouldn't YOU
feel the same?).

Brooks

>
> On 02 Feb 2004 03:35:02 GMT, (Tom Cervo) wrote:
>
> >>An odd thing about politicians. When Clinton was in office and he came
to the
> >>Pentagon to make a speech, the brass had to force people to attend. That
was
> >>NOT the case with either Bush (41) or Bush (43). The troop like
President
> >>Bush.
> >>Period.
> >
> >How many Guardsmen do you know?
>

[Rick Folkers]

Your ignorant acceptance of his BS really lets the country and the
military down.

His greatest insult to the country and military was starting a war over
a lie or, at best, something he was dead wrong on. We deserve to die
for the truth, at least. Keep living in your dream world.


"fudog50" > wrote in message
...
> You are seriously Wrong, he does a great job supporting us!
> You couldn't be further from the Truth. But everytime he shows
> support, people like you spin it up into a "political statement for
> his re-election" what a bucket of **** you lay. Speaking of Clinton,
> every Navy unit I was in despised him and we hoped to God he never
> payed us a visit.
> Just like the whole WMD arguement you are trying to debate
> now! The original Poster of this thread hit the nail on the head.
> Nobody has that kind of power, including the President. What,
> you can't make up your own mind? Did he hypnotize you into believing
> what he (and everyone else) was saying about Saddams possesion of
> WMD's? I guess he just hypnotized every Democrat and media agent into
> beleiving it too! LOL, get a clue, this thing ain't over yet.
> Your kind also bashed Pres. Bush daily about "his" inability
> to find Saddam, like it was him personally out there searching for
> him! hahaha! Then, when we did find him, you spun it all up into a
> bucket of **** about how "inhumane" he was treated, and how much
> better the Iraqi people would be with him still in power. And nobody
> gloated, just were very satisfied and showed pleasure at him being
> caught, and brought to justice.
> So what will your kind say when we catch Bin Laden?
> What will you say when we find the evidence Saddam had WMD's
> and destroyed and moved them because he was scared about getting
> attacked and overthrown? Don't you think that military force worked?
> What the hell are you thinking? That we will threaten him with
> scorched earth if he doesn't comply with the worlds laws, and then not
> act?
>
> people like you On Sun, 1 Feb 2004 20:58:38 -0600, "Rick Folkers"
> > wrote:
>
> >Too bad he does not support them better.
> >
> >
> >"RobbelothE" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> >Subject: Re: Maybe GWB isn't lying.......
> >> >From: "Rick Folkers"
> >> >Date: 2/1/2004 4:23 PM Central Standard Time
> >> >Message-id: >
> >> >
> >> >...[T]he contempt with which he held the people and
> >> >the brave men and women of the military in taking them to war over a
> >false
> >> >reason makes him just another low life politician.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> An odd thing about politicians. When Clinton was in office and he came
to
> >the
> >> Pentagon to make a speech, the brass had to force people to attend.
That
> >was
> >> NOT the case with either Bush (41) or Bush (43). The troop like
President
> >Bush.
> >> Period.
> >>
> >>
> >> Ed
> >> "The French couldn't hate us any
> >> more unless we helped 'em out in another war."
> >> --Will Rogers
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> (Delete text after dot com for e-mail reply.)
> >
>

[fudog50]

so do you too, but more of it!

On Mon, 2 Feb 2004 11:14:34 -0600, "Rick Folkers"
> wrote:

>Your ignorant acceptance of his BS really lets the country and the
>military down.
>
>His greatest insult to the country and military was starting a war over
>a lie or, at best, something he was dead wrong on. We deserve to die
>for the truth, at least. Keep living in your dream world.
>
>
>"fudog50" > wrote in message
...
>> You are seriously Wrong, he does a great job supporting us!
>> You couldn't be further from the Truth. But everytime he shows
>> support, people like you spin it up into a "political statement for
>> his re-election" what a bucket of **** you lay. Speaking of Clinton,
>> every Navy unit I was in despised him and we hoped to God he never
>> payed us a visit.
>> Just like the whole WMD arguement you are trying to debate
>> now! The original Poster of this thread hit the nail on the head.
>> Nobody has that kind of power, including the President. What,
>> you can't make up your own mind? Did he hypnotize you into believing
>> what he (and everyone else) was saying about Saddams possesion of
>> WMD's? I guess he just hypnotized every Democrat and media agent into
>> beleiving it too! LOL, get a clue, this thing ain't over yet.
>> Your kind also bashed Pres. Bush daily about "his" inability
>> to find Saddam, like it was him personally out there searching for
>> him! hahaha! Then, when we did find him, you spun it all up into a
>> bucket of **** about how "inhumane" he was treated, and how much
>> better the Iraqi people would be with him still in power. And nobody
>> gloated, just were very satisfied and showed pleasure at him being
>> caught, and brought to justice.
>> So what will your kind say when we catch Bin Laden?
>> What will you say when we find the evidence Saddam had WMD's
>> and destroyed and moved them because he was scared about getting
>> attacked and overthrown? Don't you think that military force worked?
>> What the hell are you thinking? That we will threaten him with
>> scorched earth if he doesn't comply with the worlds laws, and then not
>> act?
>>
>> people like you On Sun, 1 Feb 2004 20:58:38 -0600, "Rick Folkers"
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >Too bad he does not support them better.
>> >
>> >
>> >"RobbelothE" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >> >Subject: Re: Maybe GWB isn't lying.......
>> >> >From: "Rick Folkers"
>> >> >Date: 2/1/2004 4:23 PM Central Standard Time
>> >> >Message-id: >
>> >> >
>> >> >...[T]he contempt with which he held the people and
>> >> >the brave men and women of the military in taking them to war over a
>> >false
>> >> >reason makes him just another low life politician.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> An odd thing about politicians. When Clinton was in office and he came
>to
>> >the
>> >> Pentagon to make a speech, the brass had to force people to attend.
>That
>> >was
>> >> NOT the case with either Bush (41) or Bush (43). The troop like
>President
>> >Bush.
>> >> Period.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Ed
>> >> "The French couldn't hate us any
>> >> more unless we helped 'em out in another war."
>> >> --Will Rogers
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> (Delete text after dot com for e-mail reply.)
>> >
>>
>

[fudog50]

I know it's the media, that was my point, thanks Kevin.

On Mon, 2 Feb 2004 11:32:00 -0500, "Kevin Brooks"
> wrote:

>
>"fudog50" > wrote in message
...
>> I don't know any, but recently all the media has been printing
>> about Guardsmen is they are squealing about having to get called up
>> for duty. The articles are from SOLDIERS (guardsmen) bawling about,
>> "this isn't what we signed up for".
>> LOL, if this is true, I refuse to believe that a grown man
>> that has reaped all the benefits (pay, education, etc.) would howl
>> about fulfilling his end of an oath to his country and contract that
>> he signed and swore to.
>
>Beware believeing the media's attempts to find the minority whiners and
>portray them as representing the majority. If you go through the numbers for
>ARNG units activated for ODS you will find an extremely high rate of
>participation in the units that were called up. We have seen a significant
>number of units activated for the current ongoing operations, and AFAIK the
>result is the same. I recently ran into a guy who just finished an active
>duty stint with his unit--his only gripe was that his unit was not allowed
>to do their real combat mission and instead had been siphoned off to perform
>security support here in CONUS. I know of two units from this state that are
>in Iraq for the second time (having also done the ODS tour years ago), and a
>lot of their members have made both trips, with no reported whining in the
>press (I have little doubt some of them would rather be back home by now,
>having deployed at about the same time the war kicked off, but wouldn't YOU
>feel the same?).
>
>Brooks
>
>>
>> On 02 Feb 2004 03:35:02 GMT, (Tom Cervo) wrote:
>>
>> >>An odd thing about politicians. When Clinton was in office and he came
>to the
>> >>Pentagon to make a speech, the brass had to force people to attend. That
>was
>> >>NOT the case with either Bush (41) or Bush (43). The troop like
>President
>> >>Bush.
>> >>Period.
>> >
>> >How many Guardsmen do you know?
>>
>

[fudog50]

I'm thinkin this is one of those threads that belong in
"alt.conspiracies", I guess all the worlds leaders and intel
communities all got together (including the UN) and adopted resolution
1441, along with countless other resolutions. (I know you have slept a
few times since then, but it wasn't that long ago, and you have to at
least try to remember) and conspired that Saddam had WMD's. Then when
our pres. finally does something about it, instead of just idle
threats, all he gets is backlash.

LOL, I really enjoyed the one reponse from George Z. Bush where he
snipped the comments from prominent Democrats like Clinton, Kerry,
Levin, etc., and calls them "irrelevant", hahaha. Typical.

It's simply called "Monday Morning Quarterbacking".

On Mon, 2 Feb 2004 11:18:22 -0500, "Kevin Brooks"
> wrote:

>
>"George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
...
>> JD wrote:
>> > The media and most democrats charge President Bush lied to the American
>> > people and led us into a war over oil. Even if you disregard GWB 1 and
>the
>> > war re Kuwait, in any attempt to be fair, you have to take these quotes
>into
>> > consideration:
>>
>> (Irrelevant quotes deleted)
>
>Among those "irrelevant" quotesd were a number of statements predating the
>GWB Presidency asserting that Iraq was continuing to develop, and/or had
>stockpiled, WMD's, from prominent Democrats like Clinton, Kerry, Levin, etc.
>Odd how some folks want to hang Bush for making similar statements, but are
>all too willing to completely ignore the earlier comments from the other
>side of the aisle, isn't it?
>
>> >
>> > Now who's lying?
>>
>> If we are to believe our President, clearly the intelligence community
>that
>> provided our legislators with misleading and inaccurate data either were
>lying
>> or were grossly imcompetent, and he should have fired them as soon as he
>made
>> that determination.
>
>But then you'd have to toss in the majority of the intel services around the
>globe, as it appears most thought the Iraqis did indeed have hidden stocks
>of WMD, and/or violations of UN Res 687 (which indeed was the case). Were
>they all "grossly incompetent"?
>
>>
>> To my knowledge, he has not yet addressed that problem.
>
>Gee, you never held that same failure to address any intel failure against
>Mr. Clinton, who bought into the same story. Why the double standard?
>
>Brooks
>
>>
>> George Z.
>>
>>
>

[RobbelothE]

>ubject: Re: Maybe GWB isn't lying.......
>From: "Rick Folkers"
>Date: 2/1/2004 8:58 PM Central Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>Too bad he does not support them better.
>
>
>"RobbelothE" > wrote in message
...
>> >Subject: Re: Maybe GWB isn't lying.......
>> >From: "Rick Folkers"
>> >Date: 2/1/2004 4:23 PM Central Standard Time
>> >Message-id: >
>> >
>> >...[T]he contempt with which he held the people and
>> >the brave men and women of the military in taking them to war over a
>false
>> >reason makes him just another low life politician.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> An odd thing about politicians. When Clinton was in office and he came to
>the
>> Pentagon to make a speech, the brass had to force people to attend. That
>was
>> NOT the case with either Bush (41) or Bush (43). The troop like President
>Bush.
>> Period.
>>
>>
>> Ed
>> "The French couldn't hate us any
>> more unless we helped 'em out in another war."
>> --Will Rogers
>>
>>
>>

And your basis for stating this questionable fact is based on how much military
service in the US armed forces?


Ed
"The French couldn't hate us any
more unless we helped 'em out in another war."
--Will Rogers



(Delete text after dot com for e-mail reply.)

[RobbelothE]

When Nixon was having problems we were never told we could not make fun of him.
This held true for Ford, Carter, Reagan and Bush 1.

>When Clinton was making a fool of himself the various commanders at Eglin AFB
>and Hurlburt Fld. made it perfectly clear anything anti Clinton was
prohibited.
>This actually makes sense from the point of view of loyalty, but being ordered
not to tell Clinton jokes was a bit much. >Fortunately I had retired by then.

>Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

Dan,

How true. During my military career it was pointed out -- curiously during the
Clinton years -- that it was a UCMJ violation to make disparaging remarks about
the President. We may have held poor opinions of him but we still followed the
orders publicly.
Ed
"The French couldn't hate us any
more unless we helped 'em out in another war."
--Will Rogers



(Delete text after dot com for e-mail reply.)

[RobbelothE]

>ubject: Re: Maybe GWB isn't lying.......
>From: "George Z. Bush"
>Date: 2/2/2004 7:54 AM Central Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>JD wrote:
>> The media and most democrats charge President Bush lied to the American
>> people and led us into a war over oil. Even if you disregard GWB 1 and
>the
>> war re Kuwait, in any attempt to be fair, you have to take these quotes
>into
>> consideration:
>
>(Irrelevant quotes deleted)
>>
>> Now who's lying?
>
>If we are to believe our President, clearly the intelligence community that
>provided our legislators with misleading and inaccurate data either were
>lying
>or were grossly imcompetent, and he should have fired them as soon as he made
>that determination.
>
>To my knowledge, he has not yet addressed that problem.
>
>George Z.
>
>
>

I was part of that "community" and I need to educate some people on the
business. Intelligence is more art than science. If any intelligence analyst
knows more than 10-15 percent of a situation, they have an unusually good
source(s) of information. Not once in almost 33 years was I ever in a position
to say anything with 100 percent confidence that I was right. I was ecstatic
when I felt "pretty sure" about something.

Ed
"The French couldn't hate us any
more unless we helped 'em out in another war."
--Will Rogers



(Delete text after dot com for e-mail reply.)

[fudog50]

Is this the 33rd year??? :)

On 03 Feb 2004 01:22:13 GMT, (RobbelothE)
wrote:

>>ubject: Re: Maybe GWB isn't lying.......
>>From: "George Z. Bush"
>>Date: 2/2/2004 7:54 AM Central Standard Time
>>Message-id: >
>>
>>JD wrote:
>>> The media and most democrats charge President Bush lied to the American
>>> people and led us into a war over oil. Even if you disregard GWB 1 and
>>the
>>> war re Kuwait, in any attempt to be fair, you have to take these quotes
>>into
>>> consideration:
>>
>>(Irrelevant quotes deleted)
>>>
>>> Now who's lying?
>>
>>If we are to believe our President, clearly the intelligence community that
>>provided our legislators with misleading and inaccurate data either were
>>lying
>>or were grossly imcompetent, and he should have fired them as soon as he made
>>that determination.
>>
>>To my knowledge, he has not yet addressed that problem.
>>
>>George Z.
>>
>>
>>
>
>I was part of that "community" and I need to educate some people on the
>business. Intelligence is more art than science. If any intelligence analyst
>knows more than 10-15 percent of a situation, they have an unusually good
>source(s) of information. Not once in almost 33 years was I ever in a position
>to say anything with 100 percent confidence that I was right. I was ecstatic
>when I felt "pretty sure" about something.
>
>Ed
>"The French couldn't hate us any
>more unless we helped 'em out in another war."
> --Will Rogers
>
>
>
>(Delete text after dot com for e-mail reply.)

[JD]

In response to the endless questions re: "Where's the WMD, George?", "Did
you fib to us, George?" and so on in this election year, I offer the
following:

Who gives a rat's ass? To America, this is about terrorism. I
hope and pray the President of the United States is relentless in the
pursuit of terrorists, those who support terrorism, and those who provide
weaponry to terrorists. Saddam is just legitimate road kill and, in the
big picture, not terribly important. He's just another thug whose source
of power was based upon murder, rape, torture, theft, and subordination of
those too weak to resist. If the left wants this mutt as their champion,
be my guest. The son-of-a-bitch sponsored and supported terrorists. Abu
Nidal was his house guest. The U.N., President Clinton, and the world has
seen WMD used on the Kurds by Saddam. The U.N. found biologic weapons in
his possession after Gulf War I. Only the truly dim need the facts twice.
If he's not dead, then may he develop cancer of the asshole and die a slow,
painful, lonely death.

America is a country that wishes only to live in peace. Our problem is
not keeping our citizens within our borders, it's keeping outsiders out.
What other nation has this problem.......? What other nation has
repeatedly paid in lives for other nation's freedom? Those that cannot
acknowledge this are made irrelevant by history.

September 11 changed things with most Americans. America supports the
President and understands the rationale of his pursuits. Check the
polls...... even the polls of the left wing media (which, as ever, is
united in its opposition). It must hurt the left to see the President's
support is steadily higher than any other President in recent history.
Before the war, during the war, and now after the war, President Bush is
highly regarded as the right man for the job..... and his #1 job is to
protect his nation. He's doing that well. The media and its willing
accomplices on the left try daily to change the argument to oil, then WMD,
etc, etc, etc....., but folks know better. It's about terrorism. The
media / left try so hard to argue otherwise. Sept 11 video is literally
verboten by the broadcast media. We're cautioned repeatedly not to (insert
"gasp" here) descriminate against those of Arab descent. Everyday
Americans submit to searches, questions, and abuse so as to show
Arab-Americans they aren't being treated unfairly. Even 5 year old
children are examined at the airports to avoid any semblance of profiling.
In truth, 100% of the terrorist attacks against America have been by Arabs.
Ann Coulter once said this constitutes a description of the suspect, not
profiling. Most Americans agree with her.

Veterans are used to the left wing media. During Vietnam, those who served
listened to Walter Chronkite, that infamous soothsayer of the media, giving
voice to his buddy, Dan Rather. We listened to prevarication, prejudice,
and vituperance from the media and the left wing. These are the same folks
making all the racket today, but fortunately, they have little credibility.
(The current scandals of the New York Times, L.A. Times, and Washington
Post, speaking of mendacity and falling credibility, is evidence thereof.)

I pray to God George Bush is re-elected by a landslide and it may just turn
out that way. I further pray terrorism is eradicated, but failing that, I
hope GWB makes the message LOUD & CLEAR...... you who engage in the
murder of the innocent will pay with your lives.


Best

JD

[The CO]

"JD" > wrote in message
news:gP_Tb.211794$I06.2357483@attbi_s01...

> Saddam is just legitimate road kill and, in the
> big picture, not terribly important. He's just another thug whose
source
> of power was based upon murder, rape, torture, theft, and
subordination of
> those too weak to resist. If the left wants this mutt as their
champion,
> be my guest. The son-of-a-bitch sponsored and supported terrorists.
Abu
> Nidal was his house guest. The U.N., President Clinton, and the
world has
> seen WMD used on the Kurds by Saddam. The U.N. found biologic
weapons in
> his possession after Gulf War I. Only the truly dim need the facts
twice.
> If he's not dead, then may he develop cancer of the asshole and die a
slow,
> painful, lonely death.

Seconded.

> America is a country that wishes only to live in peace. Our problem
is
> not keeping our citizens within our borders, it's keeping outsiders
out.
> What other nation has this problem.......?

Actually, we do. Australia.

> What other nation has repeatedly paid in lives for other nation's
freedom?

We did. WW1, WW2, Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, East Timor, Iraq......

> Those that cannot acknowledge this are made irrelevant by history.

I'll just consider them wrong....:^)

> I pray to God George Bush is re-elected by a landslide and it may just
turn
> out that way. I further pray terrorism is eradicated, but failing
that, I
> hope GWB makes the message LOUD & CLEAR...... you who engage in the
> murder of the innocent will pay with your lives.

Actually, I can agree with that too.

The CO