Could the Press Grow a Spine?

[WalterM140]

Well I watched "Hardball" last night with Campbell Brown.

She had Bartlett, one of the Bushies on. She asked him a question. He talked
for a while and she said something like, "you are very articulate, but that
avoids the question completely." I wish more of the Press would point out that
the vast majority of the questions asked are just totally avoided on both
sides.

She also showed two clips back to back of VP Cheney caught in a big lie about
Atta's supposed meeting with Iraqi intelligence in Prague. In the one clip,
Cheney said it was "confirmed" that Atta met with Iraqi intelligence. About a
year later he said he never said that.

Running the clips back to back showed that he just lied. Bartlett hemmed and
hawed about that and said the question was still open, but Cheney's words
definitively said it was NOT open -- it was CONFIRMED (in case anyone missed it
the first time) that Atta met with Iraqi intelligence.

These ******* Republicans have got to go.

Walt

[George Z. Bush]

WalterM140 wrote:
> Well I watched "Hardball" last night with Campbell Brown.
>
> She had Bartlett, one of the Bushies on. She asked him a question. He talked
> for a while and she said something like, "you are very articulate, but that
> avoids the question completely." I wish more of the Press would point out that
> the vast majority of the questions asked are just totally avoided on both
> sides.
>
> She also showed two clips back to back of VP Cheney caught in a big lie about
> Atta's supposed meeting with Iraqi intelligence in Prague. In the one clip,
> Cheney said it was "confirmed" that Atta met with Iraqi intelligence. About a
> year later he said he never said that.
>
> Running the clips back to back showed that he just lied. Bartlett hemmed and
> hawed about that and said the question was still open, but Cheney's words
> definitively said it was NOT open -- it was CONFIRMED (in case anyone missed
> it the first time) that Atta met with Iraqi intelligence.
>
> These ******* Republicans have got to go.

Let's face it, Walt, lying is what they do best....and accusing their opponents
of lying is what they do second best. It seems to be the nature of the beastie.

George Z.
>
> Walt

[Jim Knoyle]

"George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
...
> WalterM140 wrote:
> > Well I watched "Hardball" last night with Campbell Brown.
> >
> > She had Bartlett, one of the Bushies on. She asked him a question. He
talked
> > for a while and she said something like, "you are very articulate, but
that
> > avoids the question completely." I wish more of the Press would point
out that
> > the vast majority of the questions asked are just totally avoided on
both
> > sides.
> >
> > She also showed two clips back to back of VP Cheney caught in a big lie
about
> > Atta's supposed meeting with Iraqi intelligence in Prague. In the one
clip,
> > Cheney said it was "confirmed" that Atta met with Iraqi intelligence.
About a
> > year later he said he never said that.
> >
> > Running the clips back to back showed that he just lied. Bartlett hemmed
and
> > hawed about that and said the question was still open, but Cheney's
words
> > definitively said it was NOT open -- it was CONFIRMED (in case anyone
missed
> > it the first time) that Atta met with Iraqi intelligence.
> >
> > These ******* Republicans have got to go.
>
> Let's face it, Walt, lying is what they do best....and accusing their
opponents
> of lying is what they do second best. It seems to be the nature of the
beastie.
>
>
They can't count very well, either! :-)

[Jarg]

"WalterM140" > wrote in message
...
>

http://www.worldpress.org/Europe/1684.cfm

[Scott Ferrin]

On 23 Jun 2004 08:27:29 GMT, (WalterM140) wrote:

>Well I watched "Hardball" last night with Campbell Brown.
>
>She had Bartlett, one of the Bushies on. She asked him a question. He talked
>for a while and she said something like, "you are very articulate, but that
>avoids the question completely." I wish more of the Press would point out that
>the vast majority of the questions asked are just totally avoided on both
>sides.
>
>She also showed two clips back to back of VP Cheney caught in a big lie about
>Atta's supposed meeting with Iraqi intelligence in Prague. In the one clip,
>Cheney said it was "confirmed" that Atta met with Iraqi intelligence. About a
>year later he said he never said that.
>
>Running the clips back to back showed that he just lied. Bartlett hemmed and
>hawed about that and said the question was still open, but Cheney's words
>definitively said it was NOT open -- it was CONFIRMED (in case anyone missed it
>the first time) that Atta met with Iraqi intelligence.
>
>These ******* Republicans have got to go.

Yeah. The only thing that could be worse is if we had a bunch of
limp-wristed, pacifist, liberal democrates instead.

[Jim Baker]

"Scott Ferrin" > wrote in message
...
> On 23 Jun 2004 08:27:29 GMT, (WalterM140) wrote:
>
> >Well I watched "Hardball" last night with Campbell Brown.
> >
> >She had Bartlett, one of the Bushies on. She asked him a question. He
talked
> >for a while and she said something like, "you are very articulate, but
that
> >avoids the question completely." I wish more of the Press would point out
that
> >the vast majority of the questions asked are just totally avoided on both
> >sides.
> >
> >She also showed two clips back to back of VP Cheney caught in a big lie
about
> >Atta's supposed meeting with Iraqi intelligence in Prague. In the one
clip,
> >Cheney said it was "confirmed" that Atta met with Iraqi intelligence.
About a
> >year later he said he never said that.
> >
> >Running the clips back to back showed that he just lied. Bartlett hemmed
and
> >hawed about that and said the question was still open, but Cheney's words
> >definitively said it was NOT open -- it was CONFIRMED (in case anyone
missed it
> >the first time) that Atta met with Iraqi intelligence.
> >
> >These ******* Republicans have got to go.
>
> Yeah. The only thing that could be worse is if we had a bunch of
> limp-wristed, pacifist, liberal democrates instead.

OUCH! Nice comeback Scott!! ;-)

JB

[Leslie Swartz]

Walt:

Be proud of yourself when the second american reolution (back to the
constitution) happens. You played your part in getting Atlas to Shrug.

Steve Swartz



"WalterM140" > wrote in message
...
> Well I watched "Hardball" last night with Campbell Brown.
>
> She had Bartlett, one of the Bushies on. She asked him a question. He
talked
> for a while and she said something like, "you are very articulate, but
that
> avoids the question completely." I wish more of the Press would point out
that
> the vast majority of the questions asked are just totally avoided on both
> sides.
>
> She also showed two clips back to back of VP Cheney caught in a big lie
about
> Atta's supposed meeting with Iraqi intelligence in Prague. In the one
clip,
> Cheney said it was "confirmed" that Atta met with Iraqi intelligence.
About a
> year later he said he never said that.
>
> Running the clips back to back showed that he just lied. Bartlett hemmed
and
> hawed about that and said the question was still open, but Cheney's words
> definitively said it was NOT open -- it was CONFIRMED (in case anyone
missed it
> the first time) that Atta met with Iraqi intelligence.
>
> These ******* Republicans have got to go.
>
> Walt
>
>

[Leslie Swartz]

The good news is most of you radical assholes, being anti-RKBA, will roll up
pretty quickly.

Steve Swartz


"George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
...
> WalterM140 wrote:
> > Well I watched "Hardball" last night with Campbell Brown.
> >
> > She had Bartlett, one of the Bushies on. She asked him a question. He
talked
> > for a while and she said something like, "you are very articulate, but
that
> > avoids the question completely." I wish more of the Press would point
out that
> > the vast majority of the questions asked are just totally avoided on
both
> > sides.
> >
> > She also showed two clips back to back of VP Cheney caught in a big lie
about
> > Atta's supposed meeting with Iraqi intelligence in Prague. In the one
clip,
> > Cheney said it was "confirmed" that Atta met with Iraqi intelligence.
About a
> > year later he said he never said that.
> >
> > Running the clips back to back showed that he just lied. Bartlett hemmed
and
> > hawed about that and said the question was still open, but Cheney's
words
> > definitively said it was NOT open -- it was CONFIRMED (in case anyone
missed
> > it the first time) that Atta met with Iraqi intelligence.
> >
> > These ******* Republicans have got to go.
>
> Let's face it, Walt, lying is what they do best....and accusing their
opponents
> of lying is what they do second best. It seems to be the nature of the
beastie.
>
> George Z.
> >
> > Walt
>
>

[Mike Dargan]

WalterM140 wrote:
> Well I watched "Hardball" last night with Campbell Brown.
>
> She had Bartlett, one of the Bushies on. She asked him a question. He talked
> for a while and she said something like, "you are very articulate, but that
> avoids the question completely." I wish more of the Press would point out that
> the vast majority of the questions asked are just totally avoided on both
> sides.
>
> She also showed two clips back to back of VP Cheney caught in a big lie about
> Atta's supposed meeting with Iraqi intelligence in Prague. In the one clip,
> Cheney said it was "confirmed" that Atta met with Iraqi intelligence. About a
> year later he said he never said that.
>
> Running the clips back to back showed that he just lied. Bartlett hemmed and
> hawed about that and said the question was still open, but Cheney's words
> definitively said it was NOT open -- it was CONFIRMED (in case anyone missed it
> the first time) that Atta met with Iraqi intelligence.
>
> These ******* Republicans have got to go.

They're not all *******s; some are merely embarrassed.

Cheers

--mike

>
> Walt
>
>

[Mike Dargan]

George Z. Bush wrote:

> WalterM140 wrote:
>
>>Well I watched "Hardball" last night with Campbell Brown.
>>
>>She had Bartlett, one of the Bushies on. She asked him a question. He talked
>>for a while and she said something like, "you are very articulate, but that
>>avoids the question completely." I wish more of the Press would point out that
>>the vast majority of the questions asked are just totally avoided on both
>>sides.
>>
>>She also showed two clips back to back of VP Cheney caught in a big lie about
>>Atta's supposed meeting with Iraqi intelligence in Prague. In the one clip,
>>Cheney said it was "confirmed" that Atta met with Iraqi intelligence. About a
>>year later he said he never said that.
>>
>>Running the clips back to back showed that he just lied. Bartlett hemmed and
>>hawed about that and said the question was still open, but Cheney's words
>>definitively said it was NOT open -- it was CONFIRMED (in case anyone missed
>>it the first time) that Atta met with Iraqi intelligence.
>>
>>These ******* Republicans have got to go.
>
>
> Let's face it, Walt, lying is what they do best....and accusing their opponents
> of lying is what they do second best. It seems to be the nature of the beastie.

That they're lying is not slam dunk certain. Many of them, including
the shrub, lack the cognitive capacity necessary to conceive of and
transmit a lie. This might be fodder for a new thread. What factors
have caused the shrub to be so intellectually limited, especially since
his daddy is quite bright--Phi Beta Kappa?

Did Barbara hop the fence one night some five decades ago?
Too much brain numbing TV as a toddler?
Too much booze and/or cocaine two or three decades back?
Indoctrination by the neocon branch of the Moonies?

Cheers

--mike

>
> George Z.
>
>>Walt
>
>
>

[B2431]

>From: "George Z. Bush"
>Date: 6/23/2004 7:09 AM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>WalterM140 wrote:
>> Well I watched "Hardball" last night with Campbell Brown.
>>
>> She had Bartlett, one of the Bushies on. She asked him a question. He
>talked
>> for a while and she said something like, "you are very articulate, but that
>> avoids the question completely." I wish more of the Press would point out
>that
>> the vast majority of the questions asked are just totally avoided on both
>> sides.
>>
>> She also showed two clips back to back of VP Cheney caught in a big lie
>about
>> Atta's supposed meeting with Iraqi intelligence in Prague. In the one clip,
>> Cheney said it was "confirmed" that Atta met with Iraqi intelligence. About
>a
>> year later he said he never said that.
>>
>> Running the clips back to back showed that he just lied. Bartlett hemmed
>and
>> hawed about that and said the question was still open, but Cheney's words
>> definitively said it was NOT open -- it was CONFIRMED (in case anyone
>missed
>> it the first time) that Atta met with Iraqi intelligence.
>>
>> These ******* Republicans have got to go.
>
>Let's face it, Walt, lying is what they do best....and accusing their
>opponents
>of lying is what they do second best. It seems to be the nature of the
>beastie.
>
>George Z.
>>
>> Walt

If either one of you were unbiased or even had an open mind you would see ALL
sides, including Democrats, doing exactly the same sort of things you blame the
Republicans for.

Both of you should take your Republican and Bush bashing elsewhere. This is a
military aviation newsgroup.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[WalterM140]

>Yeah. The only thing that could be worse is if we had a bunch of
>limp-wristed, pacifist, liberal democrates instead.
>

Funny how people can back someone who checked "do not volunteer" on his
paperwork, and denigrate a decorated veteran who volunteered for Viet Nam and
was wounded 3 times.

But you mean like this limp-wristed, pacifist, liberal democrates [sic]?

"In a combat environment often requiring independent, decisive action LTJG
(Lieutenant Junior Grade) Kerry was unsurpassed. He constantly reviewed tactics
and lessons learned in river operations and applied his experience at every
opportunity. On one occasion while in tactical command of a three boat
operation his units were taken under fire from ambush. LTJG Kerry rapidly
assessed the situation and ordered his units to turn directly into the ambush.
This decision resulted in routing the attackers with several enemy KIAs.

LTJG Kerry emerges as the acknowledged leader in his peer group. His bearing
and appearance are above reproach. He has of his own volition learned the
Vietnamese language and is instrumental in the successful Vietnamese training
programs.

During this period of this report LTJG Kerry has been awarded the Silver Star
medal, the Bronze Star medal, the Purple Heart medal (2nd and 3rd awards).

18 Dec 1969"

http://www.awolbush.com/kerry-vs-bush.asp



Walt

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: Could the Press Grow a Spine?
>From: (WalterM140)

>During this period of this report LTJG Kerry has been awarded the Silver Star
>medal, the Bronze Star medal, the Purple Heart medal (2nd and 3rd awards).
>

Let everyone who has more than three purple Hearts and a Silver Star step
forward.

Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: Could the Press Grow a Spine?
>From: "Leslie Swartz"
>Date: 6/23/2004 11:59 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>Walt:
>
> Be proud of yourself when the second american reolution (back to the
>constitution) happens. You played your part in getting Atlas to Shrug.
>
>Steve Swartz
>
>
>
>"WalterM140" > wrote in message
...
>> Well I watched "Hardball" last night with Campbell Brown.
>>
>> She had Bartlett, one of the Bushies on. She asked him a question. He
>talked
>> for a while and she said something like, "you are very articulate, but
>that
>> avoids the question completely." I wish more of the Press would point out
>that
>> the vast majority of the questions asked are just totally avoided on both
>> sides.
>>
>> She also showed two clips back to back of VP Cheney caught in a big lie
>about
>> Atta's supposed meeting with Iraqi intelligence in Prague. In the one
>clip,
>> Cheney said it was "confirmed" that Atta met with Iraqi intelligence.
>About a
>> year later he said he never said that.
>>
>> Running the clips back to back showed that he just lied. Bartlett hemmed
>and
>> hawed about that and said the question was still open, but Cheney's words
>> definitively said it was NOT open -- it was CONFIRMED (in case anyone
>missed it
>> the first time) that Atta met with Iraqi intelligence.
>>
>> These ******* Republicans have got to go.
>>
>> Walt
>>


The constitution was intact until Bush was elected.



Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: Could the Press Grow a Spine?
>From: "Leslie Swartz"
>Date: 6/23/2004 12:00 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>The good news is most of you radical assholes, being anti-RKBA, will roll up
>pretty quickly.
>
>Steve Swartz
>

Do you have more than three Purple Hearts and a Silver Star?


Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[Ed Rasimus]

On 24 Jun 2004 14:17:03 GMT, (ArtKramr) wrote:

>>Subject: Re: Could the Press Grow a Spine?
>>From: "Leslie Swartz"
>>Date: 6/23/2004 12:00 PM Pacific Standard Time
>>Message-id: >
>>
>>The good news is most of you radical assholes, being anti-RKBA, will roll up
>>pretty quickly.
>>
>>Steve Swartz
>>
>
>Do you have more than three Purple Hearts and a Silver Star?
>
>
>Arthur Kramer

Actually, Art, you shouldn't be using Purple Hearts as a measure of
valor. They demonstrate either bad luck, or if garnered in groups, a
level of combat incompetence.

I've got an SSM and five DFC's, but no PH. I'd rather win than lose.
I'd rather America prevail than the Islamic fundamentalists. I'd
rather retain national sovereignty than subject us to the whims of the
UN. I'd rather carry my own weapon and defend myself. I'd rather
individual responsibility than a welfare state. I'd rather keep my
earnings and make my own spending choices. I'd like higher standards
rather than affirmative action.

Any questions?


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

[Ed Rasimus]

On 24 Jun 2004 14:13:20 GMT, (ArtKramr) wrote:

>The constitution was intact until Bush was elected.
>
>Arthur Kramer

OK, Art. Put up. What part of the Constitution is no longer intact?
What has been fractured and by what specific Bush action? Have your
rights been impaired? Are you going to bring up the PATRIOT act? How
has that impacted your freedom. Have you been incarcerated? Censored?
Abused? Religously restricted? Have your taxes been raised? Is your
economy improving after the damage of 9/11? Is unemployment down,
productivity up?

Oh, you'd rather redistribute the wealth of the wage-earners to the
welfare queens and coke dealers.

Stop sloganeering and support your contention.


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

[Scott Ferrin]

On 24 Jun 2004 11:27:18 GMT, (WalterM140) wrote:

>>Yeah. The only thing that could be worse is if we had a bunch of
>>limp-wristed, pacifist, liberal democrates instead.
>>
>
>Funny how people can back someone who checked "do not volunteer" on his
>paperwork, and denigrate a decorated veteran who volunteered for Viet Nam and
>was wounded 3 times.


Yeah Frank Burns got a Purple Heart too.




>
>But you mean like this limp-wristed, pacifist, liberal democrates [sic]?
>
>"In a combat environment often requiring independent, decisive action LTJG
>(Lieutenant Junior Grade) Kerry was unsurpassed. He constantly reviewed tactics
>and lessons learned in river operations and applied his experience at every
>opportunity. On one occasion while in tactical command of a three boat
>operation his units were taken under fire from ambush. LTJG Kerry rapidly
>assessed the situation and ordered his units to turn directly into the ambush.
>This decision resulted in routing the attackers with several enemy KIAs.
>
>LTJG Kerry emerges as the acknowledged leader in his peer group. His bearing
>and appearance are above reproach. He has of his own volition learned the
>Vietnamese language and is instrumental in the successful Vietnamese training
>programs.
>
>During this period of this report LTJG Kerry has been awarded the Silver Star
>medal, the Bronze Star medal, the Purple Heart medal (2nd and 3rd awards).
>
>18 Dec 1969"
>
>http://www.awolbush.com/kerry-vs-bush.asp
>
>
>
> Walt

[Scott Ferrin]

On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 08:58:01 -0600, Ed Rasimus
> wrote:

>On 24 Jun 2004 14:13:20 GMT, (ArtKramr) wrote:
>
>>The constitution was intact until Bush was elected.
>>
>>Arthur Kramer
>
>OK, Art. Put up. What part of the Constitution is no longer intact?
>What has been fractured and by what specific Bush action? Have your
>rights been impaired? Are you going to bring up the PATRIOT act? How
>has that impacted your freedom. Have you been incarcerated? Censored?
>Abused? Religously restricted? Have your taxes been raised? Is your
>economy improving after the damage of 9/11? Is unemployment down,
>productivity up?
>
>Oh, you'd rather redistribute the wealth of the wage-earners to the
>welfare queens and coke dealers.


Here's the difference between a Democrate and Republican. A Democrate
with a million dollars would give the bottom 100 million on the wage
chart each a penny (have to have the equality thing, no favortism
etc.) effectively helping nobody and accomplishing nothing but ****ing
away a million dollars, adding themselves to the welfare-cheese line,
and then bitching because the government isn't supporting him. A
Republican would give $10,000 to ten dirt-poor people and keep the
other $900,000 of his hard-earned cash for himself. How is this
better? Those ten people will be able to actually make their lives
better, the rich guy will stay off the welfare charts AND he's still a
happy camper.




>
>Stop sloganeering and support your contention.
>
>
>Ed Rasimus
>Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
>"When Thunder Rolled"
>Smithsonian Institution Press
>ISBN #1-58834-103-8

[George Z. Bush]

"Scott Ferrin" > wrote in message
...

> Here's the difference between a Democrate and Republican. A Democrate

Hey, you've got a misspelled word there......that'd be R E P U B L I C A N E.
Let's not be giving away that we snoozed in spelling class.

(^-^)))

George Z.

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: Could the Press Grow a Spine?
>From: Ed Rasimus
>Date: 6/24/2004 7:58 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>On 24 Jun 2004 14:13:20 GMT, (ArtKramr) wrote:
>
>>The constitution was intact until Bush was elected.
>>
>>Arthur Kramer
>
>OK, Art. Put up. What part of the Constitution is no longer intact?
>What has been fractured and by what specific Bush action? Have your
>rights been impaired? Are you going to bring up the PATRIOT act? How
>has that impacted your freedom. Have you been incarcerated? Censored?
>Abused? Religously restricted? Have your taxes been raised? Is your
>economy improving after the damage of 9/11? Is unemployment down,
>productivity up?
>
>Oh, you'd rather redistribute the wealth of the wage-earners to the
>welfare queens and coke dealers.
>
>Stop sloganeering and support your contention.
>
>
>Ed Rasimus
>Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
>"When Thunder Rolled"
>Smithsonian Institution Press
>ISBN #1-58834-103-8
>

The patriot act tears the constitution to shreds giving dictatorial power to
the neocons. Madison is spinning in his grave and Washington is in tears. The
bill of rights no longer exists. The 14th amendment will be the next to go.And
the Fereral governement was never bigger and more powerful than it is today
under the neocons.



Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: Could the Press Grow a Spine?
>From: Ed Rasimus
>Date: 6/24/2004 7:53 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>On 24 Jun 2004 14:17:03 GMT, (ArtKramr) wrote:
>
>>>Subject: Re: Could the Press Grow a Spine?
>>>From: "Leslie Swartz"
>>>Date: 6/23/2004 12:00 PM Pacific Standard Time
>>>Message-id: >
>>>
>>>The good news is most of you radical assholes, being anti-RKBA, will roll
>up
>>>pretty quickly.
>>>
>>>Steve Swartz
>>>
>>
>>Do you have more than three Purple Hearts and a Silver Star?
>>
>>
>>Arthur Kramer
>
>Actually, Art, you shouldn't be using Purple Hearts as a measure of
>valor. They demonstrate either bad luck, or if garnered in groups, a
>level of combat incompetence.
>
>I've got an SSM and five DFC's, but no PH. I'd rather win than lose.
>I'd rather America prevail than the Islamic fundamentalists. I'd
>rather retain national sovereignty than subject us to the whims of the
>UN. I'd rather carry my own weapon and defend myself. I'd rather
>individual responsibility than a welfare state. I'd rather keep my
>earnings and make my own spending choices. I'd like higher standards
>rather than affirmative action.
>
>Any questions?
>
>
>Ed Rasimus
>Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
>"When Thunder Rolled"
>Smithsonian Institution Press
>ISBN #1-58834-103-8
>


There are those who will do nothing for anyone under any circumstances
regardless of need. Then there are those who are more concerned and helpful to
those in need. Your mileage may vary. There is nothing heroic about greed.


Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[Jarg]

"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
> >Subject: Re: Could the Press Grow a Spine?
> >From: Ed Rasimus
> >Date: 6/24/2004 7:58 AM Pacific Standard Time
> >Message-id: >
> >
> >On 24 Jun 2004 14:13:20 GMT, (ArtKramr) wrote:
> >

> The patriot act tears the constitution to shreds giving dictatorial power
to
> the neocons. Madison is spinning in his grave and Washington is in tears.
The
> bill of rights no longer exists. The 14th amendment will be the next to
go.And
> the Fereral governement was never bigger and more powerful than it is
today
> under the neocons.
>
>
>
> Arthur Kramer
> 344th BG 494th BS

Oooh, the bogey man is coming to get you! Did you know they have medication
for paranoia these days?

And has anyone else noticed the increased use of the term "neocon" by the
desperate left to describe anyone they don't like, which in my opinion is an
example of the prejudicial language fallacy.

Jarg

[Leslie Swartz]

Bring it on, Comrade Art.

(News Flash: Yesterday ain't Today)

Steve Swartz


"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
> >Subject: Re: Could the Press Grow a Spine?
> >From: "Leslie Swartz"
> >Date: 6/23/2004 12:00 PM Pacific Standard Time
> >Message-id: >
> >
> >The good news is most of you radical assholes, being anti-RKBA, will roll
up
> >pretty quickly.
> >
> >Steve Swartz
> >
>
> Do you have more than three Purple Hearts and a Silver Star?
>
>
> Arthur Kramer
> 344th BG 494th BS
> England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
> Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
> http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer
>

[Leslie Swartz]

And there is nothing Benevolent about Stupidity, Comrade.

Steve Swartz




"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
> >Subject: Re: Could the Press Grow a Spine?
> >From: Ed Rasimus
> >Date: 6/24/2004 7:53 AM Pacific Standard Time
> >Message-id: >
> >
> >On 24 Jun 2004 14:17:03 GMT, (ArtKramr) wrote:
> >
> >>>Subject: Re: Could the Press Grow a Spine?
> >>>From: "Leslie Swartz"
> >>>Date: 6/23/2004 12:00 PM Pacific Standard Time
> >>>Message-id: >
> >>>
> >>>The good news is most of you radical assholes, being anti-RKBA, will
roll
> >up
> >>>pretty quickly.
> >>>
> >>>Steve Swartz
> >>>
> >>
> >>Do you have more than three Purple Hearts and a Silver Star?
> >>
> >>
> >>Arthur Kramer
> >
> >Actually, Art, you shouldn't be using Purple Hearts as a measure of
> >valor. They demonstrate either bad luck, or if garnered in groups, a
> >level of combat incompetence.
> >
> >I've got an SSM and five DFC's, but no PH. I'd rather win than lose.
> >I'd rather America prevail than the Islamic fundamentalists. I'd
> >rather retain national sovereignty than subject us to the whims of the
> >UN. I'd rather carry my own weapon and defend myself. I'd rather
> >individual responsibility than a welfare state. I'd rather keep my
> >earnings and make my own spending choices. I'd like higher standards
> >rather than affirmative action.
> >
> >Any questions?
> >
> >
> >Ed Rasimus
> >Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
> >"When Thunder Rolled"
> >Smithsonian Institution Press
> >ISBN #1-58834-103-8
> >
>
>
> There are those who will do nothing for anyone under any circumstances
> regardless of need. Then there are those who are more concerned and
helpful to
> those in need. Your mileage may vary. There is nothing heroic about greed.
>
>
> Arthur Kramer
> 344th BG 494th BS
> England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
> Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
> http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer
>

[Leslie Swartz]

O.K., the first time you were caught in this lie . . .

The second time you were caught in this lie . . .

The third time you were caught in this lie . . .

Number 4 by my count. I probably missed a few.

Repeating a lie over and over and over and then again over once more only
works on the weak-minded. It does say something about the messenger though.

Steve Swartz


"WalterM140" > wrote in message
...
> >Yeah. The only thing that could be worse is if we had a bunch of
> >limp-wristed, pacifist, liberal democrates instead.
> >
>
> Funny how people can back someone who checked "do not volunteer" on his
> paperwork, and denigrate a decorated veteran who volunteered for Viet Nam
and
> was wounded 3 times.
>
> But you mean like this limp-wristed, pacifist, liberal democrates [sic]?
>
> "In a combat environment often requiring independent, decisive action LTJG
> (Lieutenant Junior Grade) Kerry was unsurpassed. He constantly reviewed
tactics
> and lessons learned in river operations and applied his experience at
every
> opportunity. On one occasion while in tactical command of a three boat
> operation his units were taken under fire from ambush. LTJG Kerry rapidly
> assessed the situation and ordered his units to turn directly into the
ambush.
> This decision resulted in routing the attackers with several enemy KIAs.
>
> LTJG Kerry emerges as the acknowledged leader in his peer group. His
bearing
> and appearance are above reproach. He has of his own volition learned the
> Vietnamese language and is instrumental in the successful Vietnamese
training
> programs.
>
> During this period of this report LTJG Kerry has been awarded the Silver
Star
> medal, the Bronze Star medal, the Purple Heart medal (2nd and 3rd awards).
>
> 18 Dec 1969"
>
> http://www.awolbush.com/kerry-vs-bush.asp
>
>
>
> Walt

[Leslie Swartz]

As an authority on what, exactly, Comrade Art? Economic policy?

Steve Swartz

"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
> >Subject: Re: Could the Press Grow a Spine?
> >From: (WalterM140)
>
> >During this period of this report LTJG Kerry has been awarded the Silver
Star
> >medal, the Bronze Star medal, the Purple Heart medal (2nd and 3rd
awards).
> >
>
> Let everyone who has more than three purple Hearts and a Silver Star step
> forward.
>
> Arthur Kramer
> 344th BG 494th BS
> England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
> Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
> http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer
>

[Leslie Swartz]

So we had to wade through all of that for that little gem, Comrade Art? Do
a little reading, sport. Start with any report on Waco if you want to talk
about civil liberties under administration n vs. n-1.

Steve Swartz



"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
> >Subject: Re: Could the Press Grow a Spine?
> >From: "Leslie Swartz"
> >Date: 6/23/2004 11:59 AM Pacific Standard Time
> >Message-id: >
> >
> >Walt:
> >
> > Be proud of yourself when the second american reolution (back to the
> >constitution) happens. You played your part in getting Atlas to Shrug.
> >
> >Steve Swartz
> >
> >
> >
> >"WalterM140" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> Well I watched "Hardball" last night with Campbell Brown.
> >>
> >> She had Bartlett, one of the Bushies on. She asked him a question. He
> >talked
> >> for a while and she said something like, "you are very articulate, but
> >that
> >> avoids the question completely." I wish more of the Press would point
out
> >that
> >> the vast majority of the questions asked are just totally avoided on
both
> >> sides.
> >>
> >> She also showed two clips back to back of VP Cheney caught in a big lie
> >about
> >> Atta's supposed meeting with Iraqi intelligence in Prague. In the one
> >clip,
> >> Cheney said it was "confirmed" that Atta met with Iraqi intelligence.
> >About a
> >> year later he said he never said that.
> >>
> >> Running the clips back to back showed that he just lied. Bartlett
hemmed
> >and
> >> hawed about that and said the question was still open, but Cheney's
words
> >> definitively said it was NOT open -- it was CONFIRMED (in case anyone
> >missed it
> >> the first time) that Atta met with Iraqi intelligence.
> >>
> >> These ******* Republicans have got to go.
> >>
> >> Walt
> >>
>
>
> The constitution was intact until Bush was elected.
>
>
>
> Arthur Kramer
> 344th BG 494th BS
> England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
> Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
> http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer
>

[Leslie Swartz]

Ummm, Dude- tell me; how exactly does he "keep $900,000 for himself,"
exactly?

I hear this stuff from Comrade Art and the other Mikhail Moores of the
world.

I've heard of only a very small number of wealthy people who hid their money
in mattresses or buried them in the back yard; oddly enough, most of them
were either espoused socialists or some other brand of kook.

Steve Swartz



"Scott Ferrin" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 08:58:01 -0600, Ed Rasimus
> > wrote:
>
> >On 24 Jun 2004 14:13:20 GMT, (ArtKramr) wrote:
> >
> >>The constitution was intact until Bush was elected.
> >>
> >>Arthur Kramer
> >
> >OK, Art. Put up. What part of the Constitution is no longer intact?
> >What has been fractured and by what specific Bush action? Have your
> >rights been impaired? Are you going to bring up the PATRIOT act? How
> >has that impacted your freedom. Have you been incarcerated? Censored?
> >Abused? Religously restricted? Have your taxes been raised? Is your
> >economy improving after the damage of 9/11? Is unemployment down,
> >productivity up?
> >
> >Oh, you'd rather redistribute the wealth of the wage-earners to the
> >welfare queens and coke dealers.
>
>
> Here's the difference between a Democrate and Republican. A Democrate
> with a million dollars would give the bottom 100 million on the wage
> chart each a penny (have to have the equality thing, no favortism
> etc.) effectively helping nobody and accomplishing nothing but ****ing
> away a million dollars, adding themselves to the welfare-cheese line,
> and then bitching because the government isn't supporting him. A
> Republican would give $10,000 to ten dirt-poor people and keep the
> other $900,000 of his hard-earned cash for himself. How is this
> better? Those ten people will be able to actually make their lives
> better, the rich guy will stay off the welfare charts AND he's still a
> happy camper.
>
>
>
>
> >
> >Stop sloganeering and support your contention.
> >
> >
> >Ed Rasimus
> >Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
> >"When Thunder Rolled"
> >Smithsonian Institution Press
> >ISBN #1-58834-103-8
>

[Scott Ferrin]

On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 13:53:26 -0400, "Leslie Swartz"
> wrote:

>Ummm, Dude- tell me; how exactly does he "keep $900,000 for himself,"
>exactly?

Uhm easy "dude". If I'm a millionaire and decide to donate 10k to ten
people and keep the rest in my bank account. To your typical
democrat (for some reason it looked odd without an "e" on the end)
that's not fair.

[Peter Stickney]

In article >,
(ArtKramr) writes:
> The patriot act tears the constitution to shreds giving dictatorial power to
> the neocons. Madison is spinning in his grave and Washington is in tears. The
> bill of rights no longer exists. The 14th amendment will be the next to go.And
> the Fereral governement was never bigger and more powerful than it is today
> under the neocons.

And yet it was voted in unanimously in the Senate - (All the Senate
Democrats voted for it, including John Kerry), and overwhelmingly in
the House (Including 90% of the Democrats). Should power be trusted
to those so easily deluded, then? (If indeed you aren't being
hyperbolic)

The Congress, after all, is where Bills are submitted - by Congressmen
(Congresspeople? Electred Legislatural Representatives of the Populous
and the Various States, then) and voted upon. The President, or, ofr
that matter, the rest of the Executive Branch, don't draft or submit
bills, bills, (They do, of course, ask some sympathetic type in
Congress to do so), son't vote on them, and have no seats on the
COnference Comittees that sort out/rewrite the differences in the
versions passed by the House & Senate. Anything that occurred from
this proccess to your disfavor happened with the full complicity and
cooperation of the Democrats.

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

[Mike Dargan]

ArtKramr wrote:
>>Subject: Re: Could the Press Grow a Spine?
>>From: "Leslie Swartz"
>>Date: 6/23/2004 12:00 PM Pacific Standard Time
>>Message-id: >
>>
>>The good news is most of you radical assholes, being anti-RKBA, will roll up
>>pretty quickly.
>>
>>Steve Swartz
>>
>
>
> Do you have more than three Purple Hearts and a Silver Star?

Now, now, don't rub it in. Chickenhawks have feelings too!

Cheers

--mike

>
>
> Arthur Kramer
> 344th BG 494th BS
> England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
> Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
> http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer
>

[WalterM140]

Ed Rasimus > wrote in message >...
> On 24 Jun 2004 14:13:20 GMT, (ArtKramr) wrote:
>
> >The constitution was intact until Bush was elected.
> >
> >Arthur Kramer
>
> OK, Art. Put up. What part of the Constitution is no longer intact?

Article One.

Commentary on the News Hour last night indicated that since the
Congress is charged with regulation of the armed forces, Bush usurped
that power by trying to dictate how prisoners would be treated.
Ooops.

The legal experts they had said that most of the documents released by
the White House dealt with how to twist the law so as to avoid being
charged with felonies. Disgusting.

Bush is the worst president -ever- and he has to go.

Walt

[B2431]

>From: "Leslie Swartz"
>
>
>So we had to wade through all of that for that little gem, Comrade Art? Do
>a little reading, sport. Start with any report on Waco if you want to talk
>about civil liberties under administration n vs. n-1.
>
>Steve Swartz

OK, steve, I see you calling names and such. Do you have anything constructive
to offer?

What have YOU done for your country?

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Ed Rasimus]

On 24 Jun 2004 13:56:48 -0700, (WalterM140) wrote:

>Ed Rasimus > wrote in message >...
>> On 24 Jun 2004 14:13:20 GMT, (ArtKramr) wrote:
>>
>> >The constitution was intact until Bush was elected.
>> >
>> >Arthur Kramer
>>
>> OK, Art. Put up. What part of the Constitution is no longer intact?
>
>Article One.
>
>Commentary on the News Hour last night indicated that since the
>Congress is charged with regulation of the armed forces, Bush usurped
>that power by trying to dictate how prisoners would be treated.
>Ooops.

What part of Commander-in-Chief escapes you? Pick up a book on
Constitutional Law and you'll find that the "regulation of the armed
forces" applies to how the members of the force shall be governed and
treated. This is handled through the Uniform Code of Military Justice,
which is still in force. You may even note its application against the
criminals of Abu Ghraib.
>
>The legal experts they had said that most of the documents released by
>the White House dealt with how to twist the law so as to avoid being
>charged with felonies. Disgusting.

Not "legal experts" but democrats in the Congress in an election year.
As I recall, it was your favorite president and fellatee who debated
what the meaning of "is" is. What legal experts? What documents? What
law? Who charged? The current occupant of the White House has not been
charged with any felonies. Harder to say that about his predecessor.
>
>Bush is the worst president -ever- and he has to go.

"So let it be written, so let it be done..." Walt has spoken. QED.

Broaden your scope, Walt. Stop mouthing sound bites. Avoid repetition
of the last thing you've heard. Don't continually repost the same
single view that supports your contention. Get out of the house more.
And, stop posting news stories from 2000--a lot has happened since
then, and they weren't that important even when they were current.


>
>Walt

Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

[Paul J. Adam]

In message >, Ed Rasimus
> writes
>On 24 Jun 2004 14:17:03 GMT, (ArtKramr) wrote:
>>Do you have more than three Purple Hearts and a Silver Star?

>Actually, Art, you shouldn't be using Purple Hearts as a measure of
>valor. They demonstrate either bad luck, or if garnered in groups, a
>level of combat incompetence.

I'd call them good luck myself, but then my (limited) experience was
infantry where *we* were the targets. (This isn't meant to denigrate
groups like armour and aviation: just because the enemy is targeting
your platform rather than you personally; doesn't make you safer,
because the overmatch in weapons involved and for aircraft the problem
of a long fall to follow, tends to produce much more an "escaped unhurt
/ killed with no chute" dichotomy)

>I've got an SSM and five DFC's, but no PH. I'd rather win than lose.
>I'd rather America prevail than the Islamic fundamentalists. I'd
>rather retain national sovereignty than subject us to the whims of the
>UN. I'd rather carry my own weapon and defend myself. I'd rather
>individual responsibility than a welfare state. I'd rather keep my
>earnings and make my own spending choices. I'd like higher standards
>rather than affirmative action.
>
>Any questions?

Yes, but they're quibbles rather than arguments. I'd argue details of
many of those statements while agreeing with them overall.

--
He thinks too much: such men are dangerous.
Julius Caesar I:2

Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

[Paul J. Adam]

In message >, Leslie Swartz
> writes
>The good news is most of you radical assholes, being anti-RKBA, will roll up
>pretty quickly.

Am I a "radical asshole"? I'm a "gun nut" by UK standards.

Steve, just to clarify, are you advocating the deliberate murder of
anyone who disagrees with your opinion? I'd definitely think that the
Founding Fathers didn't envisage an Argentinean-style "dirty war"
against their own people when they drafted the Constitution.



--
He thinks too much: such men are dangerous.
Julius Caesar I:2

Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

[Leslie Swartz]

1) I am most certainly not calling names (Comrade Art is an appropriate
appellation for him; as a Leninite, he should not be ashamed to be what he
is)

2) As far as "and such" if you let me know exactly what "and such" is, I'll
respond

3) The value of my argument should stand alone; oh sorry, I forgot- the
value of a position in this forum is based entirely on pedigree. O.k., I
enlisted in 1978 and am just now cashing it in. I have been in the
newsgroup since 1990 and you could google me up quickly enough.

4) My constructive comment had to do with Art's content-free reply. Are
you attempting to now counter-argue that I was unfair- do you want to claim
that Comrade Art's one liner about "Bush destroyintg the Constitution"
actually had some value?

If so, have at it. If not, why waste the bandwidth.

Steve Swartz

"B2431" > wrote in message
...
> >From: "Leslie Swartz"
> >
> >
> >So we had to wade through all of that for that little gem, Comrade Art?
Do
> >a little reading, sport. Start with any report on Waco if you want to
talk
> >about civil liberties under administration n vs. n-1.
> >
> >Steve Swartz
>
> OK, steve, I see you calling names and such. Do you have anything
constructive
> to offer?
>
> What have YOU done for your country?
>
> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Leslie Swartz]

Scott:

Sorry for calling you "Dude" (if indeed you took offense). However, to
assume that wealth in the hands of the wealthy is static is ludicrous. The
assumption that anyone but a liberal would just sit on $900,000 is very
"Dude-Like." The $900,000 would be invested- creating additional value for
the economy.

The wealthy didn't get wealthy by ascribing to socialist nostrums. Unless
they inherited it; like most wealthy liberal socialists (but I repeat
myself- three times!).

Steve Swartz


"Scott Ferrin" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 13:53:26 -0400, "Leslie Swartz"
> > wrote:
>
> >Ummm, Dude- tell me; how exactly does he "keep $900,000 for himself,"
> >exactly?
>
> Uhm easy "dude". If I'm a millionaire and decide to donate 10k to ten
> people and keep the rest in my bank account. To your typical
> democrat (for some reason it looked odd without an "e" on the end)
> that's not fair.

[Leslie Swartz]

Another gratuitous ad hominem, clearly content free, "Nyaaa-Nyaaa" post
brought to you by the Left.

Thanks Mike- you make me proud to be a thinking person.

Steve Swartz


"Mike Dargan" > wrote in message
news:xlGCc.91444$Hg2.12057@attbi_s04...
> ArtKramr wrote:
> >>Subject: Re: Could the Press Grow a Spine?
> >>From: "Leslie Swartz"
> >>Date: 6/23/2004 12:00 PM Pacific Standard Time
> >>Message-id: >
> >>
> >>The good news is most of you radical assholes, being anti-RKBA, will
roll up
> >>pretty quickly.
> >>
> >>Steve Swartz
> >>
> >
> >
> > Do you have more than three Purple Hearts and a Silver Star?
>
> Now, now, don't rub it in. Chickenhawks have feelings too!
>
> Cheers
>
> --mike
>
> >
> >
> > Arthur Kramer
> > 344th BG 494th BS
> > England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
> > Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
> > http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer
> >

[Leslie Swartz]

The founders did indeed envision that tyranny, being a natural outgrowth of
consolidated power, would need to be checked by the right to keep and bear
arms.

The second amendment- second only to the first amendment- is indeed 1) the
only practical way to enforce the other nine; and 2) the "reboot button" for
the republic.

It is fascinating to go back and re-read the federalist/anti-federalist
arguments engaged in at the time of our founding. How far have we strayed;
and all of it so predictable. We are currently living the worst fears of
those who opposed a strong central government. Many of the checks and
balances have been tossed, one by one, over the gunwales in order to address
one "unfairness" or the other over the years.

Liberty for Security and all that.

Anyhow, this is not a political forum (gee- sure looks like one) so I'll let
everyone else have the last word.

As if that would stop 'em . . .

Steve Swartz


"Paul J. Adam" > wrote in message
...
> In message >, Leslie Swartz
> > writes
> >The good news is most of you radical assholes, being anti-RKBA, will roll
up
> >pretty quickly.
>
> Am I a "radical asshole"? I'm a "gun nut" by UK standards.
>
> Steve, just to clarify, are you advocating the deliberate murder of
> anyone who disagrees with your opinion? I'd definitely think that the
> Founding Fathers didn't envisage an Argentinean-style "dirty war"
> against their own people when they drafted the Constitution.
>
>
>
> --
> He thinks too much: such men are dangerous.
> Julius Caesar I:2
>
> Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

[Ed Rasimus]

On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 22:46:22 +0100, "Paul J. Adam"
> wrote:

>In message >, Ed Rasimus
> writes

>>Any questions?
>
>Yes, but they're quibbles rather than arguments. I'd argue details of
>many of those statements while agreeing with them overall.

But, then you've proven yourself to be a rational individual who
offers greater depth to the discussion than simple name calling or
sloganeering.

As I regularly tell students, political questions are complex and
nuanced. They usually exhibit two opposing positions with deeply held
convictions. The hard part is to rise above the pig-wrestling and
listen to the other side's argument, demand that both sides offer fact
and reason, then make objective rather than subjective choices.

Ain't easy.


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

[WalterM140]

>I've got an SSM and five DFC's, but no PH.

George Bush has neither SSM, DFC or PH.

In fact, his chronolgical record of service has a 16 month gap.

-He- has no right to denigrate the service of a highly decorated WIA veteran
like Senator Kerry, or to have his surrogates do it.

Walt

[B2431]

>From: "Leslie Swartz"

>
>1) I am most certainly not calling names (Comrade Art is an appropriate
>appellation for him; as a Leninite, he should not be ashamed to be what he
>is)

If you don't see that as name calling then I won't press the point.
>
>2) As far as "and such" if you let me know exactly what "and such" is, I'll
>respond

The "and such" consists of constantly knocking others like Art because you
disagree with them. It IS possible to hold a debate without being abrasive.

>3) The value of my argument should stand alone; oh sorry, I forgot- the
>value of a position in this forum is based entirely on pedigree. O.k., I
>enlisted in 1978 and am just now cashing it in. I have been in the
>newsgroup since 1990 and you could google me up quickly enough.

Your "argument" does stand alone in that it is non constructive and abusive.
The only reason I asked what you have done for your country is because you
offer no solutions. I never said you had to be in the military, there are other
ways to serve.

>
>4) My constructive comment had to do with Art's content-free reply. Are
>you attempting to now counter-argue that I was unfair- do you want to claim
>that Comrade Art's one liner about "Bush destroyintg the Constitution"
>actually had some value?

That wasn't constructive. If you think Art is wrong about that then try to
engage in dialogue. Telling someone they are wrong at the onset of a discussion
along with name calling closes the door. Art and I disagree politically on many
things, but I have never resorted to insults with him.

>If so, have at it. If not, why waste the bandwidth.

A little respect goes a long way.

Have a nice day.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired.
>
>Steve Swartz
>
>"B2431" > wrote in message
...
>> >From: "Leslie Swartz"
>> >
>> >
>> >So we had to wade through all of that for that little gem, Comrade Art?
>Do
>> >a little reading, sport. Start with any report on Waco if you want to
>talk
>> >about civil liberties under administration n vs. n-1.
>> >
>> >Steve Swartz
>>
>> OK, steve, I see you calling names and such. Do you have anything
>constructive
>> to offer?
>>
>> What have YOU done for your country?
>>
>> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

[B2431]

>From: (WalterM140)
>

>Ed Rasimus > wrote in message
>...
>> On 24 Jun 2004 14:13:20 GMT, (ArtKramr) wrote:
>>
>> >The constitution was intact until Bush was elected.
>> >
>> >Arthur Kramer
>>
>> OK, Art. Put up. What part of the Constitution is no longer intact?
>
>Article One.
>
>Commentary on the News Hour last night indicated that since the
>Congress is charged with regulation of the armed forces, Bush usurped
>that power by trying to dictate how prisoners would be treated.
>Ooops.
>
Really? Try Article 2, section 2:

Section 2. The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of
the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into
the actual service of the United States

Article 1 section 8 describes funding the military, declaration of war and
making regulations. Those regulations are now called UCMJ.

Tell me how Bush "usurped" that article.

>The legal experts they had said that most of the documents released by
>the White House dealt with how to twist the law so as to avoid being
>charged with felonies. Disgusting.

No, they said what was being suggested didn't violate any law. They twisted
nothing. Sitting on the hood of your car isn't a violation of law, it is also
not twisting the law.
>
>Bush is the worst president -ever- and he has to go.

Gee, that sounds like an absolute. I take it you have compared him to each and
every president in detail?
>
>Walt

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[B2431]

>From: (WalterM140)
>Date: 6/24/2004 5:28 PM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>>I've got an SSM and five DFC's, but no PH.
>
>George Bush has neither SSM, DFC or PH.
>
>In fact, his chronolgical record of service has a 16 month gap.
>
>-He- has no right to denigrate the service of a highly decorated WIA veteran
>like Senator Kerry, or to have his surrogates do it.
>
>Walt

Show me ONE case where Bush did that. The only people who consitantly bring up
military service are on the Kerry side. Please note how when the other side
brings up Kerry's congressional voting record your side brings up Kerry's
military service and accuse the Bush side of questioning Kerry's patriotism.

Please come up with logical arguments if you can. Examples would be nice.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Pete]

"WalterM140" > wrote in message
...
> >I've got an SSM and five DFC's, but no PH.
>
> George Bush has neither SSM, DFC or PH.
>
> In fact, his chronolgical record of service has a 16 month gap.
>
> -He- has no right to denigrate the service of a highly decorated WIA
veteran
> like Senator Kerry, or to have his surrogates do it.
>

Is he still "highly decorated" if he threw his awards away?

Pete

[WalterM140]

>>> OK, Art. Put up. What part of the Constitution is no longer intact?
>>
>>Article One.
>>
>>Commentary on the News Hour last night indicated that since the
>>Congress is charged with regulation of the armed forces, Bush usurped
>>that power by trying to dictate how prisoners would be treated.
>>Ooops.
>
>What part of Commander-in-Chief escapes you?

What part of separation of powers escapes you?

The founding fathers were very concerned about usurpation of power by the
executive branch.

Bush has usurped the Constitution and he has to go.

Walt

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"WalterM140" > wrote in message
...
>
> What part of separation of powers escapes you?
>
> The founding fathers were very concerned about usurpation of power by the
> executive branch.
>
> Bush has usurped the Constitution and he has to go.
>

Please. The last thing the left wants is Constitutional government.

[WalterM140]

>What part of Commander-in-Chief escapes you? Pick up a book on
>Constitutional Law and you'll find that the "regulation of the armed
>forces" applies to how the members of the force shall be governed and
>treated. This is handled through the Uniform Code of Military Justice,
>which is still in force.

This was also discussed by the panel last night on the News Hour.

What the Bush administration wanted was a direct violation of the UCMJ, under
the article covering assault. I don't have a copy of the UCMJ. I believe they
said it was Art. 77.

These legal experts all agreed that they had never seen anything like this
before. One of them said he "almost fell out of his chair" when reading these
documents recently released.

DO note that these actions of the lawyers in the executive branch so incensed
lawyers in the JAG office that they went outside the government and reported
these activities to outsiders, I believe in the New York Bar Association.

Ed, you need to wake up.

Walt

[WalterM140]

>>The constitution was intact until Bush was elected.
>>
>>Arthur Kramer
>
>OK, Art. Put up. What part of the Constitution is no longer intact?
>What has been fractured and by what specific Bush action?

Bush usurped the Constitution.

I was speaking from memory a bit earlier.

From the News Hour last night (6/23):

EUGENE FIDELL: I think there were some aspects to the original memoranda that
were extremely disturbing; specifically the notion that the president, as
commander in chief, was essentially above the law.

And I think that, if anything, that set off a firestorm of controversy here.
What I see is a lot of government time... lawyer time being expended on a
subject that most people I think would consider off limits in any event.

RAY SUAREZ: Were you comforted, reassured, by the tone of some of the
communications in response to those original memos -- not affirming their
findings?

EUGENE FIDELL: No, I was dismayed, as a matter of fact, because this sort of
dialogue that had been going on, conversation within the executive branch,
continued on and on within terms of reference that I thought were very, very
surprising. I was shocked by the whole conversation, actually.

RAY SUAREZ: Professor Wedgwood, I ask you the same question. What did you
conclude from watching this evolving communication between the White House and
its lawyers?

RUTH WEDGWOOD: There were a lot of memos that got released in the last couple
of days and I think we are all digesting them still.

I think what bothered a lot of people, including me, about the original way
that the memos were framed is it seemed to be worrying as much about potential
criminal liability as what should be the standards that we choose to govern
ourselves by or that we're committed to govern ourselves by, by international
law, i.e., the relevant question is not simply is there a felony that attaches
to conduct but rather what should we do, which is why I took some comfort today
from the president reiterating again in the most imperative terms that the
standard has to be humane conduct.

RAY SUAREZ: In the written communications, do you have that same reassurance?
Do you think the government came down in the right place?

RUTH WEDGWOOD: The office of legal counsel has always had a function that is
much like a court because there are questions that the executive branch has to
address that may never get to court.

So OLC, which is an entirely obscure agency in justice, has always been seen as
quite dispassionate or at one step removed from the fray, not operational.

So I suppose my first critique is that they should have apprised the president
more thoroughly of the differences, of the view that others were likely to
take.

One can propose an idiosyncratic view, a dumbed down view of torture that is
only organ failure, but if 97 percent of the world does not agree with you or
99, you should apprise the president of that so he can make an informed
judgment about how he will fulfill the American duty to be humane.


Conditions of prisoner abuse

RAY SUAREZ: There was still a lot of conditional declarations, weren't there,
that laid out a case and then said but, on the other hand, here's this case,
where conventions may not apply, where the detainees are not like ordinary
POW's, that still reserve the right to use the harshest physical treatment?

RUTH WEDGWOOD: There are a lot of different both treaties and standards of
customary law that can apply here. Most of the law of armed conflict is not
written down – it's customary law -- but it is still real law.

One of the arguments I did not like in the early January memo is the claim that
because customary law may not be part of domestic law, that therefore it is not
worth considering. It is still international law.

Other countries have the right of so-called diplomatic protection of their
nationals and how they're treated. So we have to be mindful surely of
international standards, whether or not Congress has translated them into
domestic law.

RAY SUAREZ: Eugene Fidell, though the administration has rejected many of the
early legal opinions, didn't they, at the same time reserve for themselves the
ability to in the final analysis to use harsh physical measures that Geneva
Conventions might consider torture if they feel it's necessary?

EUGENE FIDELL: That's exactly right. That's one of the things that's very
disturbing. What you get if you read all of the memos, you come away with a
sense that all options remain open; that one of the objectives being served is
to effectively immunize U.S. personnel against prosecution for misconduct. This
is one of the things that's most disturbing. Can I give you an illustration?

RAY SUAREZ: Sure.

EUGENE FIDELL: There is a legal memorandum that was prepared by the judge staff
advocate for the U.S. Southern command that says this: regarding the uniform
code of military justice, the proposal to grab, poke in the chest, push
lightly, and place a wet towel or hood over the detainee's head would
constitute a per se violation of the assault statute, military statue.

Threatening a detainee with death may also constitute a violation of that
statute or the statute on communicating a threat -- "it would be advisable to
have permission or immunity in advance from the convening authority," the
military commander, "for military members utilizing these methods."

What this is is a road map for permitting, condoning criminal conduct. And to
see this in a legal memorandum, I have to say, I almost fell out of my chair
when I read that.

RAY SUAREZ: Ruth Wedgwood?

RUTH WEDGWOOD: Well, I think some of these have a certain macabre quality. I do
think that the centerpiece of attention ultimately after they rescind the memos
because it is unprecedented act that the administration took yesterday of
rescinding an office of legal counsel memo – to my knowledge, it has never
happened before.

They have promised to review them all, vis-Ã*-vis interrogation standards. But
I think the important question going forward is to look at what is acceptable
and not acceptable given our values, given our law, given what we want to be
seen as in the world in interrogation methods.

There are people involved in this process who I think are moral human beings.
They intend to be. They face a difficult situation where it seems to have been
case in the fall of 2002.

They thought there was an intelligence spike and they worry that the two
alleged al-Qaida guys at Guantanamo might be the key to preventing those
attack. So one can't deny that there are exquisite moral dilemmas here but I
think the key is to resolve them in a way that we are proud of.


The legal issues associated with the memos

RAY SUAREZ: Well, I don't want to get into how many angels can dance on the
head of a pin kind of arguments but I do want to understand the mechanics. You
talk about rescinding the memos -- does that mean the administration says, by
doing so that it rejects all the reasonings, or is there kind of a laundry
list, things that they may think are still true in there like powers that in
here in the commander and chief -- the ability to decide whether prisoners are
covered by the Geneva Conventions or not -- that they still may find valid
although they reject the overall conclusion of the memo.

RUTH WEDGWOOD: Well, that they have been rescinded subject to rewriting and
reconsideration and promised that all issues be reconsidered.

If I had to be a book maker, I would guess that one that is likeliest to
disappear is the claim that the president has an absolute power that can never
be touched by Congress, that even if Congress passed the statute, that they use
the "P" word, the president nor his employees may do the following kinds of
acts.

The claim that he was immune from that statute, that Congress didn't have the
power to reach that act, even though Congress's power under Article 1 of the
Constitution gives them the right to prescribe rules for the governance of the
armed forces. That was an audacious claim. It's not part of this necessary
conversation. And I think some things like that will disappear.

RAY SUAREZ: Is it unusual for you as a lawyer to be able to see the evolution
of a policy debate in documents like this?

EUGENE FIDELL: It's very unusual. Internal government legal memoranda are
typically not made public.

On the other hand, in this case, we have a number of effectively opinions of
the attorney general and I remember when the whole question of prisoner of war
status for Taliban and al-Qaida came up, thinking, gee, I bet there is an
opinion of the attorney general floating out there. It never came out or never
came out until over two years later.

My personal view, Ray, is that on matters that so close to the nation's
interest, every possible document that can be made public ought to be made
public.

Some of this is not going to make much sense to laypersons but it's important
that lawyers in our society, the lawmakers in our society, the legal academy,
be able to bring their critical skills to bear. You can't do that if you don't
have the hard copy.

I think there is an issue, it's not just the question of moving forward in
terms of how particular policies of interrogation play out, as well by the way
as who should be punished for what here because there are cases, as we all
know, pending in the pipeline for Abu Ghraib.

But it also has to do with policy towards transparency and the government's
legal apparatus. We can't allow every bit of legal advice that every official
decision maker, including the chief executive receives to become, you know,
public the next day necessarily.

But I certainly think that policy on that question of transparency has to be
revisited. Incidentally, there is a similar question in the U.K., the United
Kingdom , where the British government has resisted making public some legal
advice received from Lord Goldsmith, the attorney general there.


Â* Should the government release more documents?

Â* RAY SUAREZ: Well, much of it is out but by common consent, not all of
it. Do you think all of it needs to be released, professor?

RUTH WEDGWOOD: Well, the argument you hear on the other side is if you tell
al-Qaida or whoever that exactly what they should expect, even within certainly
the boundaries of humaneness, it is easier for them to train against the
techniques.

So I think what happened in the last day or two is really quite an
extraordinary event in the sense that administration understands that after Abu
Ghraib, people are so troubled, they're troubled.

They want to know where it came from, that you have to have a transparency that
really is probably unprecedented.

I do think and here I surely agree with Gene, is that the on issues of this
gravity, you want this kind of discussion to be one that's taken with more
advice, perhaps, than one had in the very small inside loop.

There are checks and balances in the government. It's wonderful to see how
uniform guys, even with careers in front of them, are duty bound and not afraid
to speak their mind and Secretary Rumsfeld reconsidered things when the JAGS,
the Judge Advocates General complained. That's a healthy check and balances.

The Congress is going to want to be involved in this now. I think it is going
to be a much broader conversation and frankly after Abu Ghraib, which even DOD
I think wonders how it happened. It is probably inevitable.

RAY SUAREZ: Thank you both.

EUGENE FIDELL: Thank you, Ray.



http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/white_house/jan-june04/prisoners_6-23.html

Walt

[Brett]

"WalterM140" > wrote:

> These legal experts all agreed that they had never seen anything like this
> before. One of them said he "almost fell out of his chair" when reading
these
> documents recently released.

He almost fell out of his chair because someone suggested it was legal "poke
in the chest, push lightly...." a detainee?

[Brett]

"WalterM140" > wrote

[.]

> There are checks and balances in the government. It's wonderful to see how
> uniform guys, even with careers in front of them, are duty bound and not
afraid
> to speak their mind and Secretary Rumsfeld reconsidered things when the
JAGS,
> the Judge Advocates General complained. That's a healthy check and
balances.

Your reference says "healthy check and balances" - so what part of the
Constitution is no longer intact?

[Denyav]

>lease. The last thing the left wants is Constitutional government.

I could not find anything in US Constitution that allows Pentagon Generals to
plan and execute PSYOPs aganist their own civilian superiors in Washington or
aganist Sayered Duvdevan in Iraq.

If you could find something please let me know.

Cheers

[WalterM140]

>Is he still "highly decorated" if he threw his awards away?
>

Yes, and still wounded three times.

What it shows when people condemn Kerry and support Bush s that they:

Have an agenda

Or:

Don't understad what's going on.

Bush has a 16 month break reflected in his chronilogical record of service.

Kerry has a Silver Star, a Bronze Star, and three purple hearts.

When people attack Kerry on his integrity, backbone, spine, whatever you want
to call it -- think about Bush's record.

Walt

[Stephen Harding]

Ed Rasimus wrote:

> As I regularly tell students, political questions are complex and
> nuanced. They usually exhibit two opposing positions with deeply held
> convictions. The hard part is to rise above the pig-wrestling and
> listen to the other side's argument, demand that both sides offer fact
> and reason, then make objective rather than subjective choices.
>
> Ain't easy.

Has it *ever* actually been that way though?

I'm reading a bio of Ben Franklin (for months now) and am at
the point where he loses his seat in the PA Assembly due to
efforts of "The Proprietors" to oust him.

The Proprietors were basically the Penn family that owned
PA, ran estates there exempt from taxes, etc, etc, etc.

A pamphlet war against Franklin made outrageous claims
(some based on seeds of truth) that put modern political
debate and especially ads to shame.

This sort of character assassination in the guise of
political debate was common political currency from the
founding of the US right up to the late 1800s when electioneering
seemed to become more civil (though still filled with the
smoke filled, back room wheeling and dealing). Washington,
Adams, Jefferson and Jackson seemed especially victimized
by this sort of politically driven, savage personal attack.

Sitting back and coolly considering the evidence for a
decision seems more the realm of scientific method and
even that gets nasty at times.


SMH

[WalterM140]

>>>I've got an SSM and five DFC's, but no PH.
>>
>>George Bush has neither SSM, DFC or PH.
>>
>>In fact, his chronolgical record of service has a 16 month gap.
>>
>>-He- has no right to denigrate the service of a highly decorated WIA
>veteran
>>like Senator Kerry, or to have his surrogates do it.
>>
>>Walt
>
>Show me ONE case where Bush did that. The only people who consitantly bring
>up
>military service are on the Kerry side.

I don't have a source, but the Bushies got someone, I believe a Navy corpsman,
to come forward and say that Kerry's third wound was just a scratch.

And I know they've had people come forward and belittle the fact that he took
the third wound reassignment option.

But Bush -- Bush has a 16 month gap in his chronilogical record of service.
And the 10/01/73 entry is just adminstrative. Bush can't prove he was present
for duty for a two year period.

He and his surrogates have no right to belittle the service of a decorated WIA
veteran.

It's working though. There are decorated verterans on this NG that will
belittle the hero and support the shirker.

Maybe the reason Art's generation is called "the Greatest Generation" is
because he sees through Bush's bull**** screen.

Walt

[WalterM140]

>Please come up with logical arguments if you can.

It's all just personal attacks, isn't it?

The record sure won't support you.

There's a 16 month break in Bush's service from 5/26/72 to 10/01/73:

http://users.cis.net/coldfeet/doc10.gif

Kerry is a bona fide hero. Bush is and was a shirker. I cal him a shirker now
because he has refused (or perhaps he's incapable) to admit a single mistake.

Walt

[George Z. Bush]

"Pete" > wrote in message
...
>
> "WalterM140" > wrote in message
> ...

(Snip)

> Is he still "highly decorated" if he threw his awards away?

In a word, "yes". The only way anyone can say "no" is if they can produce a
bona fide special or general order that rescinds or revokes the original award.

George Z.

[George Z. Bush]

"WalterM140" > wrote in message
...

(Snip)

> What part of separation of powers escapes you?
>
> The founding fathers were very concerned about usurpation of power by the
> executive branch.
>
> Bush has usurped the Constitution and he has to go.

He doesn't need to have usurped Constitutional powers to justify turning him
out.....lying to the Congress and to the public to justify starting a war ought
to be enough by itself.

George Z.

[George Z. Bush]

"WalterM140" > wrote in message
...

(Snip)

> What the Bush administration wanted was a direct violation of the UCMJ, under
> the article covering assault. I don't have a copy of the UCMJ. I believe
they
> said it was Art. 77.

Every military man should have a copy of the UCMJ available readily for his
personal reference. Here's yours:

http://usmilitary.about.com/library/milinfo/mcm/blmcm.htm

No charge. (^-^)))

George Z.

[George Z. Bush]

"WalterM140" > wrote in message
...

(Snip)

> But Bush -- Bush has a 16 month gap in his chronilogical record of service.
> And the 10/01/73 entry is just adminstrative. Bush can't prove he was present
> for duty for a two year period.

There seems to still be some life left in the old girl. I heard a piece on the
tube the other day to the effect that the Associated Press had just filed suit
against the US Government under the FOI Act to require it to produce ALL of the
paperwork in its possession pertaining to the service of one 1st Lt. George
Walker Bush (Texas ANG).

Let's see how that plays out in the courts.

George Z.

[Scott Ferrin]

On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 18:05:51 -0400, "Leslie Swartz"
> wrote:

>Scott:
>
> Sorry for calling you "Dude" (if indeed you took offense). However, to
>assume that wealth in the hands of the wealthy is static is ludicrous. The
>assumption that anyone but a liberal would just sit on $900,000 is very
>"Dude-Like." The $900,000 would be invested- creating additional value for
>the economy.
>
> The wealthy didn't get wealthy by ascribing to socialist nostrums. Unless
>they inherited it; like most wealthy liberal socialists (but I repeat
>myself- three times!).
>
>Steve Swartz


That's my whole point. People complain that the wealthy have too much
money and think it ought to be more evenly distributed and that's
crazy. Sure it sounds good at first cut and who wouldn't want the
poor to have a better lot in life BUT as the saying goes "it takes
money to make money". Granted not every rich person decides to
donate money to the poor but TAKING it from them simply because they
have it. . .well that's not just wrong but it's not too smart either.
That $900k can be put back to work and WILL be (the rich person got
rich by being smart, not because they stole it). Ninty million more
pennies doled out would be wasting it.

[Jeff Crowell]

Denyav wrote:
> I could not find anything in US Constitution that allows Pentagon Generals
to
> plan and execute PSYOPs aganist their own civilian superiors in Washington
or
> aganist Sayered Duvdevan in Iraq.

Dood, I'd ask you for some of that **** you been smoking, except
that whatever it is, it clearly causes you to make a raving ass of
yourself every time you open your mouth (or touch fingers to
keyboard, anyway).


Jeff

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: Could the Press Grow a Spine?
>From: (WalterM140)
>Date: 6/25/2004 2:36 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>>Is he still "highly decorated" if he threw his awards away?
>>
>
>Yes, and still wounded three times.
>
>What it shows when people condemn Kerry and support Bush s that they:
>
>Have an agenda
>
>Or:
>
>Don't understad what's going on.
>
>Bush has a 16 month break reflected in his chronilogical record of service.
>
>Kerry has a Silver Star, a Bronze Star, and three purple hearts.
>
>When people attack Kerry on his integrity, backbone, spine, whatever you want
>to call it -- think about Bush's record.
>
>Walt
>

The neocons always attack war heroes. They trashed the hell out of McAine And
Cheney said when asked why he never went to vietnam, "I had better things to do
at the time". Could you vomit at that lack of patriotism and cowardice?

Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: Could the Press Grow a Spine?
>From: (WalterM140)
>Date: 6/25/2004 2:58 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>>Please come up with logical arguments if you can.
>
>It's all just personal attacks, isn't it?
>
>The record sure won't support you.
>
>There's a 16 month break in Bush's service from 5/26/72 to 10/01/73:
>
>http://users.cis.net/coldfeet/doc10.gif
>
>Kerry is a bona fide hero. Bush is and was a shirker. I cal him a shirker
>now
>because he has refused (or perhaps he's incapable) to admit a single mistake.
>
>Walt
>


Yeah Bush said that God told him to do it.The insane have taken over the
asylum,


Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[Ed Rasimus]

On 25 Jun 2004 09:50:23 GMT, (WalterM140) wrote:

>>>In fact, his chronolgical record of service has a 16 month gap.

>>>-He- has no right to denigrate the service of a highly decorated WIA
>>veteran like Senator Kerry, or to have his surrogates do it.
>>>
>>>Walt
>>
>>Show me ONE case where Bush did that. The only people who consitantly bring
>>up military service are on the Kerry side.
>
>I don't have a source, but the Bushies got someone, I believe a Navy corpsman,
>to come forward and say that Kerry's third wound was just a scratch.

I've twice posted a list of more than twenty Navy officers from the
Swift boat program who discredited Kerry's record. A meeting in April
in Washington at the National Press Club brought together more than
120 former Navy Swift personnel who pointed out the problems with
Kerry's service. You choose to ignore that evidence. You "don't have a
source..."
>
>And I know they've had people come forward and belittle the fact that he took
>the third wound reassignment option.
>
>But Bush -- Bush has a 16 month gap in his chronilogical record of service.
>And the 10/01/73 entry is just adminstrative. Bush can't prove he was present
>for duty for a two year period.

We have repeatedly demonstrated to you in this forum evidence that
Bush had five years and three months of six year commitment. The
records show his administrative posting to Montgomery was reasonable
and proper. There is no "two year" or "16 month gap".
>
>He and his surrogates have no right to belittle the service of a decorated WIA
>veteran.

Of which you "have no source" but "believe a Navy Corpsman" is the
source? That's your support of "He and his surrogates"? Your case
seems a bit unsupported.
>
>It's working though. There are decorated verterans on this NG that will
>belittle the hero and support the shirker.

I've repeatedly stated that while I think his service was minimal, the
issue I have is his conduct afterward. And, now his desire to profit
from the service and ignore the lies that he told in Senate testimony.
>
>Maybe the reason Art's generation is called "the Greatest Generation" is
>because he sees through Bush's bull**** screen.

They are called the Greatest Generation because they fought when it
was necessary to defeat an unspeakable evil. They subordinated their
fears and politics to support their elected leadership. They made
great sacrifices to defend this nation when it was attacked without
provocation and half the number of people killed on 9/11 died at Pearl
Harbor. FDR didn't have a military record in any form, but folks
didn't crawl out from under rocks to attack him for that. They fought
for their country.

Consider the difference today.

>
>Walt
>

Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

[Jarg]

"Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
...
> On 25 Jun 2004 09:50:23 GMT, (WalterM140) wrote:
>
> >>>In fact, his chronolgical record of service has a 16 month gap.
>
> >>>-He- has no right to denigrate the service of a highly decorated WIA
> >>veteran like Senator Kerry, or to have his surrogates do it.
> >>>
> >>>Walt
> >>
> >>Show me ONE case where Bush did that. The only people who consitantly
bring
> >>up military service are on the Kerry side.
> >
> >I don't have a source, but the Bushies got someone, I believe a Navy
corpsman,
> >to come forward and say that Kerry's third wound was just a scratch.
>
> I've twice posted a list of more than twenty Navy officers from the
> Swift boat program who discredited Kerry's record. A meeting in April
> in Washington at the National Press Club brought together more than
> 120 former Navy Swift personnel who pointed out the problems with
> Kerry's service. You choose to ignore that evidence. You "don't have a
> source..."
> >
> > >
>
> Ed Rasimus
> Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
> "When Thunder Rolled"
> Smithsonian Institution Press
> ISBN #1-58834-103-8

I think you are wasting your words. Walt's postings are about creating left
wing propaganda, not facts.

Jarg

[WalterM140]

>I've twice posted a list of more than twenty Navy officers from the
>Swift boat program who discredited Kerry's record.

And I've posted his fitrep. I'll do her again:

"In a combat environment often requiring independent, decisive action LTJG
(Lieutenant Junior Grade) Kerry was unsurpassed. He constantly reviewed tactics
and lessons learned in river operations and applied his experience at every
opportunity. On one occasion while in tactical command of a three boat
operation his units were taken under fire from ambush. LTJG Kerry rapidly
assessed the situation and ordered his units to turn directly into the ambush.
This decision resulted in routing the attackers with several enemy KIAs.

LTJG Kerry emerges as the acknowledged leader in his peer group. His bearing
and appearance are above reproach. He has of his own volition learned the
Vietnamese language and is instrumental in the successful Vietnamese training
programs.

During this period of this report LTJG Kerry has been awarded the Silver Star
medal, the Bronze Star medal, the Purple Heart medal (2nd and 3rd awards).

18 Dec 1969"

http://www.awolbush.com/kerry-vs-bush.asp

Maybe those guys were just jealous.


And besides, no matter what those swift boat officers say, Bush has NO right to
say squat because he didn't serve.

Walt

[WalterM140]

>We have repeatedly demonstrated to you in this forum evidence that
>Bush had five years and three months of six year commitment.

What I know is that there is a 16 month break in his service, and that's a
no-no.

Walt

[WalterM140]

>Of which you "have no source" but "believe a Navy Corpsman" is the
>source? That's your support of "He and his surrogates"? Your case
>seems a bit unsupported.

Discount it if you like. I remember that they had someone comd forward who
said Kerry's 3rd wound was just a scratch.
Seems like he was a corpsman. If you discount that, it doesn't bother me.

Walt

[WalterM140]

>I think you are wasting your words. Walt's postings are about creating left
>wing propaganda, not facts.

Well, one fact is that Bush's record of chronilogical service has a 16 month
break in it.

Walt

[Ed Rasimus]

On 25 Jun 2004 17:12:10 GMT, (WalterM140) wrote:

>>I think you are wasting your words. Walt's postings are about creating left
>>wing propaganda, not facts.
>
>Well, one fact is that Bush's record of chronilogical service has a 16 month
>break in it.
>
>Walt

You're apparently a graduate of the Joseph Goebbels School of Debate.

Repeat, repeat, repeat. Ignore refutation. State as fact without
support. Keep the sound bite short and eventually it will be accepted
as true.

"War is Peace" "Black is White" "Lie is Truth"

Orwell titled his work 20 years too soon for ol' Walt.


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: Could the Press Grow a Spine?
>From: "Jarg"
>Date: 6/25/2004 9:35 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>"Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
...
>> On 25 Jun 2004 09:50:23 GMT, (WalterM140) wrote:
>>
>> >>>In fact, his chronolgical record of service has a 16 month gap.
>>
>> >>>-He- has no right to denigrate the service of a highly decorated WIA
>> >>veteran like Senator Kerry, or to have his surrogates do it.
>> >>>
>> >>>Walt
>> >>
>> >>Show me ONE case where Bush did that. The only people who consitantly
>bring
>> >>up military service are on the Kerry side.
>> >
>> >I don't have a source, but the Bushies got someone, I believe a Navy
>corpsman,
>> >to come forward and say that Kerry's third wound was just a scratch.
>>
>> I've twice posted a list of more than twenty Navy officers from the
>> Swift boat program who discredited Kerry's record. A meeting in April
>> in Washington at the National Press Club brought together more than
>> 120 former Navy Swift personnel who pointed out the problems with
>> Kerry's service. You choose to ignore that evidence. You "don't have a
>> source..."
>> >
>> > >
>>
>> Ed Rasimus
>> Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
>> "When Thunder Rolled"
>> Smithsonian Institution Press
>> ISBN #1-58834-103-8
>
>I think you are wasting your words. Walt's postings are about creating left
>wing propaganda, not facts.
>
>Jarg
>
>

Fact: Kerry went to war. Bush didn't.


Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: Could the Press Grow a Spine?
>From: (WalterM140)
>Date: 6/25/2004 10:12 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>>I think you are wasting your words. Walt's postings are about creating left
>>wing propaganda, not facts.
>
>Well, one fact is that Bush's record of chronilogical service has a 16 month
>break in it.
>
>Walt
>


God told him not to show up.


Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: Could the Press Grow a Spine?
>From: Ed Rasimus
>Date: 6/25/2004 10:36 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>On 25 Jun 2004 17:12:10 GMT, (WalterM140) wrote:
>
>>>I think you are wasting your words. Walt's postings are about creating
>left
>>>wing propaganda, not facts.
>>
>>Well, one fact is that Bush's record of chronilogical service has a 16 month
>>break in it.
>>
>>Walt
>
>You're apparently a graduate of the Joseph Goebbels School of Debate.
>
>Repeat, repeat, repeat. Ignore refutation. State as fact without
>support. Keep the sound bite short and eventually it will be accepted
>as true.
>
>"War is Peace" "Black is White" "Lie is Truth"
>
>Orwell titled his work 20 years too soon for ol' Walt.
>
>
>Ed Rasimus
>Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
>"When Thunder Rolled"
>Smithsonian Institution Press
>ISBN #1-58834-103-8
>

Do you have any facts to back up your acccusation of Walt's lack of facts?


Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[WalterM140]

>>>I think you are wasting your words. Walt's postings are about creating
>left
>>>wing propaganda, not facts.
>>
>>Well, one fact is that Bush's record of chronilogical service has a 16 month
>>break in it.
>>
>>Walt
>
>You're apparently a graduate of the Joseph Goebbels School of Debate.
>
>Repeat, repeat, repeat. Ignore refutation. State as fact without
>support. Keep the sound bite short and eventually it will be accepted
>as true.
>
>"War is Peace" "Black is White" "Lie is Truth"
>
>Orwell titled his work 20 years too soon for ol' Walt.
>

What?

Bush's record of chronilogical service has a 16 month break in it.

Other facts:

Senator Kerry has a Silver Star, a Brnze Star and three purple hearts.

Walt

[WalterM140]

>
>Fact: Kerry went to war. Bush didn't.
>

Ed mentioned Orwell. It's orwellian to belittle the hero and laud the shirker.

Walt

[Grantland]

"Jarg" > wrote:

>I think you are wasting your words. Walt's postings are about creating left
>wing propaganda, not facts.
>
>Jarg
>
What a mental midget you are Jarg. There are alien traitors here,
like Minyard and Irby. There are passive, pliant betamales aplenty
too many to mention. There are servile knee-benders like Rasimus, and
hysterical shriekers like Ferrin &. You are are the thickest brick on
the block, though. No wonder they laughingly use you dumb ass as a
race-traitor. Moron.

Grantland

[Brett]

"WalterM140" > wrote:
> >Fact: Kerry went to war. Bush didn't.
> >
>
> Ed mentioned Orwell. It's orwellian to belittle the hero and laud the
shirker.
>
> Walt

Do you and Art see the same reflection when you shave in the morning?

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Denyav" > wrote in message
...
>
> I could not find anything in US Constitution that allows Pentagon Generals
to
> plan and execute PSYOPs aganist their own civilian superiors in Washington
or
> aganist Sayered Duvdevan in Iraq.
>
> If you could find something please let me know.
>

What has that to do with my message?

[B2431]

>From: (ArtKramr)

>
>Fact: Kerry went to war. Bush didn't.
>
>
>Arthur Kramer

I went to war too. Clinton lied to ROTC to get out of it. Dean lied to a draft
board to get out of it. Cheney was too busy. Bush was in the guard. Kerry was
in the Navy.

What, in the name of all that is holy does, this have to do with their plotical
histories?

The only ones that should be excluded from public office are Clinton and Dean
since he admitted to committing felonies: providing fraudulent medical
"evidence" to his draft board and smoking marijuana which was a felony at the
time.

Dan, U.S. Air Foce, retired

[B2431]

>From: (WalterM140)
>Date: 6/25/2004 1:26 PM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>>
>>Fact: Kerry went to war. Bush didn't.
>>
>
>Ed mentioned Orwell. It's orwellian to belittle the hero and laud the
>shirker.
>
>Walt
>

Walt, pay attention, Ed did NOT belittle Kerry. He simply pointed out that you
keep repeated things about Bush's service record that he has refuted.

Putting words in his mouth only makes your arguments more foolish than they
already are.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[B2431]

>From: (WalterM140)
>Date: 6/25/2004 12:08 PM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>>I've twice posted a list of more than twenty Navy officers from the
>>Swift boat program who discredited Kerry's record.
>
>And I've posted his fitrep. I'll do her again:
>

Walt, if you had ever served a day in the military you'd know fitreps, OERs,
citations etc are generally inflated. If you try to write a report over a
specified period, in the case of OERs usually a year that includes all the
notible actions of the reportee you'd be writing a book. Therefore you pick 2
or 3 actions or events and pad the hell out of them.

I don't know about the Navy, but I do know an APR 8 (out of 9) or the
equivillent rating in an OER is considered career stopper in the Air Force.


>And besides, no matter what those swift boat officers say, Bush has NO right
>to
>say squat because he didn't serve.
>
>Walt
>

He's a U.S. citizen and can say what he wants. Show me where he personally has
denigrated Kerry's military service.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"WalterM140" > wrote in message
...
>
> And besides, no matter what those swift boat officers say, Bush has
> NO right to say squat because he didn't serve.
>

You're confusing Bush with Clinton. Bush did serve in the military, it was
Clinton that did not.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"WalterM140" > wrote in message
...
>
> What I know is that there is a 16 month break in his service, and that's a
> no-no.
>

No, you don't know that, you believe that. There is a difference.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"WalterM140" > wrote in message
...
>
> Discount it if you like. I remember that they had someone comd forward
who
> said Kerry's 3rd wound was just a scratch.
> Seems like he was a corpsman. If you discount that, it doesn't bother me.
>

According to the doctor who saw him Kerry's wound required no medical
treatment. According to his commanding officer Kerry's "wound" was not
received in action with an enemy. Kerry nominated himself for a Purple
Heart for this "wound". He used this unearned Purple Heart to leave Vietnam
after serving just a third of his tour. Kerry is a man without honor.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
>
> Fact: Kerry went to war. Bush didn't.
>

Fact: Kerry used an unearned Purple Heart to get out of Vietnam after
serving just a third of his tour. Bush didn't.

[Mike Dargan]

WalterM140 wrote:
>>Fact: Kerry went to war. Bush didn't.
>>
>
>
> Ed mentioned Orwell. It's orwellian to belittle the hero and laud the shirker.
>
> Walt

The Republicans and their junior college instructor lackey's have a long
history of belittling those who served well while exaggerating the
military records of their, more prudent, candidates.

Can anyone remember the 1972 election? During WWII Richard Nixon ran a
Navy fruit drink stand at some South Pacific backwater supply base while
George McGovern was leading groups of B24s in daylight attacks on Nazi
Europe. AFter the war McGovern used the GI Bill to get a Ph.D., while
Nixon used slush funds to finance red baiting.

By election time in 1972 the Republican propaganda machine convinced the
weak minded and ignorant that Nixon was the warrior and McGovern the dodger.

They're trying to pull the same trick in 2004.

Cheers

--mike

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Mike Dargan" > wrote in message
news:qd0Dc.117009$0y.58857@attbi_s03...
>
> The Republicans and their junior college instructor lackey's have a long
> history of belittling those who served well while exaggerating the
> military records of their, more prudent, candidates.
>
> Can anyone remember the 1972 election? During WWII Richard Nixon ran a
> Navy fruit drink stand at some South Pacific backwater supply base while
> George McGovern was leading groups of B24s in daylight attacks on Nazi
> Europe. AFter the war McGovern used the GI Bill to get a Ph.D., while
> Nixon used slush funds to finance red baiting.
>
> By election time in 1972 the Republican propaganda machine convinced the
> weak minded and ignorant that Nixon was the warrior and McGovern the
dodger.
>
> They're trying to pull the same trick in 2004.
>

I can remember the 1972 election, but I sure don't remember what you
described. I think you fabricated it.

[BUFDRVR]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

>No, you don't know that, you believe that. There is a difference.

I'm not sure why you guys are wasting your time with this "Walt" guy. This is
the same brain washed lunatic that claims Bush, as CinC, was personally
responsible for Abu Garib, but Clinton was not responsible for Somalia, but
Bush 41 was. How can argue with "logic" like that?


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: Could the Press Grow a Spine?
>From: Mike Dargan
>Date: 6/25/2004 1:49 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <qd0Dc.117009$0y.58857@attbi_s03>
>
>WalterM140 wrote:
>>>Fact: Kerry went to war. Bush didn't.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Ed mentioned Orwell. It's orwellian to belittle the hero and laud the
>shirker.
>>
>> Walt
>
>The Republicans and their junior college instructor lackey's have a long
>history of belittling those who served well while exaggerating the
>military records of their, more prudent, candidates.
>
>Can anyone remember the 1972 election? During WWII Richard Nixon ran a
>Navy fruit drink stand at some South Pacific backwater supply base while
>George McGovern was leading groups of B24s in daylight attacks on Nazi
>Europe. AFter the war McGovern used the GI Bill to get a Ph.D., while
>Nixon used slush funds to finance red baiting.
>
>By election time in 1972 the Republican propaganda machine convinced the
>weak minded and ignorant that Nixon was the warrior and McGovern the dodger.
>
>They're trying to pull the same trick in 2004.
>
>Cheers
>
>--mike
>

Some things never change.



Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[George Z. Bush]

"Mike Dargan" > wrote in message
news:qd0Dc.117009$0y.58857@attbi_s03...
> WalterM140 wrote:
> >>Fact: Kerry went to war. Bush didn't.
> >>
> >
> >
> > Ed mentioned Orwell. It's orwellian to belittle the hero and laud the
shirker.
> >
> > Walt
>
> The Republicans and their junior college instructor lackey's have a long
> history of belittling those who served well while exaggerating the
> military records of their, more prudent, candidates.
>
> Can anyone remember the 1972 election? During WWII Richard Nixon ran a
> Navy fruit drink stand at some South Pacific backwater supply base while
> George McGovern was leading groups of B24s in daylight attacks on Nazi
> Europe. AFter the war McGovern used the GI Bill to get a Ph.D., while
> Nixon used slush funds to finance red baiting.
>
> By election time in 1972 the Republican propaganda machine convinced the
> weak minded and ignorant that Nixon was the warrior and McGovern the dodger.
>
> They're trying to pull the same trick in 2004.

Can't knock them for trying, Mike. It may be old stuff, but if it worked once,
who's to say that it won't work again with the new set of rubes?

George Z.

[Ed Rasimus]

On 25 Jun 2004 18:10:18 GMT, (ArtKramr) wrote:


>Do you have any facts to back up your acccusation of Walt's lack of facts?
>
>
>Arthur Kramer

Have you been nodding off again?


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

[Jarg]

"Grantland" > wrote in message
...
> "Jarg" > wrote:
>
> >I think you are wasting your words. Walt's postings are about creating
left
> >wing propaganda, not facts.
> >
> >Jarg
> >
> What a mental midget you are Jarg. There are alien traitors here,
> like Minyard and Irby. There are passive, pliant betamales aplenty
> too many to mention. There are servile knee-benders like Rasimus, and
> hysterical shriekers like Ferrin &. You are are the thickest brick on
> the block, though. No wonder they laughingly use you dumb ass as a
> race-traitor. Moron.
>
> Grantland

Par for the course for you. How sad your life must be.

Jarg

[Denyav]

>> I could not find anything in US Constitution that allows Pentagon Generals
>to
>> plan and execute PSYOPs aganist their own civilian superiors in Washington
>or
>> aganist Sayered Duvdevan in Iraq.
>>
>> If you could find something please let me know.
>>
>
>What has that to do with my message?

Who is the source of Seymour Hersh?
Why his source is releasing (leaking) only the evidence that incriminate
Wolfowitz-Rumsfeld-George.W trio as well as Sayered Duvdevan personel in Iraq?


Apparently Generals decided not to wait till elections and launched their own
PSYOP aganist their superiors.
Probably they concluded that George W.will be reelected and Rumsfeld and
Wolfowitz will keep their respective jobs.

Generals who disagree with their superiors are expected to step down,not to
launch sinister operations aganist superiors.

I dont think that the latter behaviour is protected by the Constutition.

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: Could the Press Grow a Spine?
>From: Ed Rasimus
>Date: 6/25/2004 2:32 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>On 25 Jun 2004 18:10:18 GMT, (ArtKramr) wrote:
>
>
>>Do you have any facts to back up your acccusation of Walt's lack of facts?
>>
>>
>>Arthur Kramer
>
>Have you been nodding off again?
>
>
>Ed Rasimus
>Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
>"When Thunder Rolled"
>Smithsonian Institution Press
>ISBN #1-58834-103-8
>

Cute, but it is still a non-answer answer.


Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[Ed Rasimus]

On 25 Jun 2004 21:48:12 GMT, (ArtKramr) wrote:

>>Subject: Re: Could the Press Grow a Spine?
>>From: Ed Rasimus
>>Date: 6/25/2004 2:32 PM Pacific Standard Time
>>Message-id: >
>>
>>On 25 Jun 2004 18:10:18 GMT, (ArtKramr) wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Do you have any facts to back up your acccusation of Walt's lack of facts?
>>>
>>>
>>>Arthur Kramer
>>
>>Have you been nodding off again?
>>
>>
>>Ed Rasimus
>>Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
>>"When Thunder Rolled"
>>Smithsonian Institution Press
>>ISBN #1-58834-103-8
>>
>
>Cute, but it is still a non-answer answer.
>
>
>Arthur Kramer

With all due, but flagging respect, I've posted repeatedly in great
detail rebutting Walt's continual repetitive (that's redundant, I
know) assertions.

Now, you, George Z and the ubiquitous and inane Walt, have entered a
circle jerk in which the three of you keep echoing the mindless drivel
of one-liners that have been rebutted in great detail by many of us
here.

I get the point. You don't agree with the President. You think that
Kerry is a hero because he got wounded three times. You ignore the
Winter Soldier testimony and you accept the fact that all of us who
fought in Vietnam were war criminals guilty of atrocity.

You agree that we should enthrone a Robin Hood government that takes
from the rich and bestows upon the poor. We should turn over American
foreign policy to 220 stumbling third-world corrupt governments in the
UN. And, we should provide universal health care to everyone in the
nation, regardless of cost.

Repetition might be satisfying and with the three of you echoing each
other, it may meet your needs for intellectual stimulation.

At this point I'll let you vote the way you wish, but fervently hope
that you'll wake up tomorrow morning, have a hot cup of coffee, and
begin to engage in meaningful, intelligent dialog. I also hope to win
the lottery this week.


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: Could the Press Grow a Spine?
>From: Ed Rasimus
>Date: 6/25/2004 3:00 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>On 25 Jun 2004 21:48:12 GMT, (ArtKramr) wrote:
>
>>>Subject: Re: Could the Press Grow a Spine?
>>>From: Ed Rasimus
>>>Date: 6/25/2004 2:32 PM Pacific Standard Time
>>>Message-id: >
>>>
>>>On 25 Jun 2004 18:10:18 GMT, (ArtKramr) wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Do you have any facts to back up your acccusation of Walt's lack of facts?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Arthur Kramer
>>>
>>>Have you been nodding off again?
>>>
>>>
>>>Ed Rasimus
>>>Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
>>>"When Thunder Rolled"
>>>Smithsonian Institution Press
>>>ISBN #1-58834-103-8
>>>
>>
>>Cute, but it is still a non-answer answer.
>>
>>
>>Arthur Kramer
>
>With all due, but flagging respect, I've posted repeatedly in great
>detail rebutting Walt's continual repetitive (that's redundant, I
>know) assertions.
>
>Now, you, George Z and the ubiquitous and inane Walt, have entered a
>circle jerk in which the three of you keep echoing the mindless drivel
>of one-liners that have been rebutted in great detail by many of us
>here.
>
>I get the point. You don't agree with the President. You think that
>Kerry is a hero because he got wounded three times. You ignore the
>Winter Soldier testimony and you accept the fact that all of us who
>fought in Vietnam were war criminals guilty of atrocity.
>
>You agree that we should enthrone a Robin Hood government that takes
>from the rich and bestows upon the poor. We should turn over American
>foreign policy to 220 stumbling third-world corrupt governments in the
>UN. And, we should provide universal health care to everyone in the
>nation, regardless of cost.
>
>Repetition might be satisfying and with the three of you echoing each
>other, it may meet your needs for intellectual stimulation.
>
>At this point I'll let you vote the way you wish, but fervently hope
>that you'll wake up tomorrow morning, have a hot cup of coffee, and
>begin to engage in meaningful, intelligent dialog. I also hope to win
>the lottery this week.
>
>
>Ed Rasimus
>Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
>"When Thunder Rolled"
>Smithsonian Institution Press
>ISBN #1-58834-103-8
>

Let's just agree to disagree and leave the schoolyard personal attacks and
insults out of it. OK?. We have very different views of how America should be
led. And I never seeing us agreeing on these points. Your flagging respect has
been noted. But remember that respect is a two way street.







Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[Pete]

"WalterM140" > wrote
>
> I don't have a source, but the Bushies got someone, I believe a Navy
corpsman,
> to come forward and say that Kerry's third wound was just a scratch.
>

You mean this guy?
"I was the Medical Officer at Naval Support Facility, Cam Ranh Bay. "
http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york200405041626.asp

Pete

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: Could the Press Grow a Spine?
>From: "Pete"
>Date: 6/25/2004 4:07 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>
>"WalterM140" > wrote
>>
>> I don't have a source, but the Bushies got someone, I believe a Navy
>corpsman,
>> to come forward and say that Kerry's third wound was just a scratch.
>>
>
>You mean this guy?
>"I was the Medical Officer at Naval Support Facility, Cam Ranh Bay. "
>http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york200405041626.asp
>
>Pete


That's from the National Review. The sleaziest of the neocon right wing rags.



Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[Pete]

"ArtKramr" > wrote

>
>
> That's from the National Review. The sleaziest of the neocon right wing
rags.

Would you prefer indymedia.org?
http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2004/05/287765.shtml

The source, Dr. Louis Letson, remains the same.

Pete

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
...
>
> You think that Kerry is a hero because he got wounded three times.
>

Perhaps twice by enemy action.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Denyav" > wrote in message
...
>
> Who is the source of Seymour Hersh?
>

Let me guess, Mother Hersh?

[Denyav]

>> Who is the source of Seymour Hersh?
>>
>
>Let me guess, Mother Hersh?
>

LOL

[OXMORON1]

Walt blurted:
>What?
>
> Bush's record of chronilogical service has a 16 month break in it.

Come up with something new and not previously refuted.
>
>Other facts:
>
>Senator Kerry has a Silver Star, a Brnze Star and three purple hearts.
>
Previously noted and as stated elsewherem purple hearts prove primarily that
you were unlucky, especially if your family is the recipient.

Fact, Walt, one of your favorite past times is wargaming. That does not make
you a bad guy, it is a fact, but proves nothing one way or the other.

oxmoron1
MFE

[Peter Stickney]

In article >,
"Jarg" > writes:
> "Grantland" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Jarg" > wrote:
>>
>> >I think you are wasting your words. Walt's postings are about creating
> left
>> >wing propaganda, not facts.
>> >
>> >Jarg
>> >
>> What a mental midget you are Jarg. There are alien traitors here,
>> like Minyard and Irby. There are passive, pliant betamales aplenty
>> too many to mention. There are servile knee-benders like Rasimus, and
>> hysterical shriekers like Ferrin &. You are are the thickest brick on
>> the block, though. No wonder they laughingly use you dumb ass as a
>> race-traitor. Moron.
>>
>> Grantland
>
> Par for the course for you. How sad your life must be.

It's even worse than you think - since he's in South Africa, he's
relying on others to save his sorry ass if his fondest fears (or are
they dreams) come true. If he's going to make that flight to
Madagascar (The only place he can run to) in somebody else's plane,
he's got to be light enough that he won't be displacing fuel. So he'd
better be continually on a super-strict diet. Afer all, even to the
most hardened White Supremacist, what would be worth more - 1
Grantland, or 25 gallons of AVGAS?

So far, 9 out of 10 probable escapees say its AVGAS, all the way.

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

[WalterM140]

>> Bush has usurped the Constitution and he has to go.
>
>He doesn't need to have usurped Constitutional powers to justify turning him
>out.....lying to the Congress and to the public to justify starting a war
>ought
>to be enough by itself.
>
>George Z.
>

Of course that is 100% correct.

Even if the Bush administration stumble bums along to Iraqi elections next
year, Bush should still be replaced for lying about the justifications for the
war and then screwing it up.

Saw this exchange on Hardball the other night:

[Campbell] BROWN:Â* I want to ask you, you talk about accountability.Â* Tell me
the story of what you told President Bush about firing Vice President Cheney
and Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld.Â*

BIDEN:Â* Well, the president kidded me about that this morning at the White
House.Â*

The president asked me in another meeting several weeks ago why am I calling
for Cheney‘s res—excuse me—Rumsfeld‘s resignation.Â* I said, Mr.
President, let‘s get straight what happened.Â* I was asked, if I were
president, what would I do with the secretary?Â* I said, if I were president, I
would fire Rumsfeld.Â* But that‘s not my decision.Â*

And I went on to say facetiously, I said, as a matter of fact—and I said this
to the president with Cheney there—I said, Mr. President, I also said, were
it not for the fact it was a constitutional office, I would fire the vice
president as well.Â* And I said, Mr. Vice President, you know what respect I
have for you.Â* But the advice you‘ve given the president on the major
decisions that had to be made since Saddam‘s statue fell off the pedestal
have been mistaken.Â*

And, Mr. President, it is time to change course.Â* It is not about
personalities.Â* It is about, they were given the wrong advice."Â*

[end]

The Bush administration has screwed up the conduct of the war. It ddn't have
to go the way it has. We didn't -have- to invade Iraq at all, per General
Zinni and General Hoar, and others. It played right into Al Qaeda's hands. I
bought some gas yesterday for $1.79/gal. Thank -goodness- it's come down from
$2.00/gal.

But our State Department has published at least 2 calls for Americans to leave
Saudi Arabia. If that happened, what would the cost of gasoline be then?

This is a fourth generation, asymmetrical war. We are flailing in the air
with Armor chasing millitants with AK's and RPG's through neighborhoods in Iraq
-- which is a useless, dstracting exercise in the war on terror, while Al Qaeda
strikes our center of gravity (or one of them) by de-stabilizing Saudi Arabia.

People should also note how the State Department's course is diverging away
from the rest of the Administration. Re-do the 2003 terror figures? Show it
as the worst year for terror in 20 years? What's up with that? How is that
going to help get Bush re-elected, something that surely Sec. Powell wants.
And what -about- this call for all Amercans to leave Saudia Arabia? I thought
we were going to stay the course?

We -have- to get Bush out of there. He and his ideologues are diminishing our
power and our ability to prevail. We could really -lose- this war. We really
could see Depression era unemployment rates, and a loss of economic power that
wouldn't support much of a defense establishment.

People need to wake up on all this. These are very dangerous times.

Walt

[George Z. Bush]

"Pete" > wrote in message
...
>
> "WalterM140" > wrote
> >
> > I don't have a source, but the Bushies got someone, I believe a Navy
> corpsman,
> > to come forward and say that Kerry's third wound was just a scratch.
> >
>
> You mean this guy?
> "I was the Medical Officer at Naval Support Facility, Cam Ranh Bay. "
> http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york200405041626.asp

When I read so much detail about so unimpressive a medical event that occurred
to a relatively unknown junior officer over 35 years ago, I can't help but
conclude that there's a lot of embellishing going on. Most of the human race
couldn't recall what they were doing on that particular day 35+ years ago, but
this bird can? Hell, did anybody think to ask him what procedure he performed
on a particular wounded veteran in his care ten or sixteen days later? Of
course not, because they know damned well that he'd draw a blank without someone
to fill in details that he'd forgotten years ago.

If it sounds like BS, looks like BS, and smells like BS, chances are pretty good
that it's not much more than a pile of BS.

George Z.


>
> Pete
>
>

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
...
>
> When I read so much detail about so unimpressive a medical event that
> occurred to a relatively unknown junior officer over 35 years ago, I can't
> help but conclude that there's a lot of embellishing going on. Most of
the
> human race couldn't recall what they were doing on that particular day
> 35+ years ago, but this bird can?
>

"Letson says he remembers his brief encounter with Kerry 35 years ago
because 'some of his crewmen related that Lt. Kerry had told them that he
would be the next JFK from Massachusetts'."

[George Z. Bush]

"Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
...
> On 25 Jun 2004 21:48:12 GMT, (ArtKramr) wrote:

(Snip)
>
> With all due, but flagging respect, I've posted repeatedly in great
> detail rebutting Walt's continual repetitive (that's redundant, I
> know) assertions.
>
> Now, you, George Z and the ubiquitous and inane Walt, have entered a
> circle jerk in which the three of you keep echoing the mindless drivel
> of one-liners that have been rebutted in great detail by many of us
> here.

Speaking for only myself, I wonder if it occurs to you that I don't really give
a **** either how you characterize what I say on any specific subject or that
you consider your detailed rebuttals at all convincing. Your calling it a
circle jerk seems to imply that we've gotten together to annoy you with our
mindless drivel of one-liners. You know that that is total nonsense....you're
dealing with three unrelated people who independently agree that, on this
subject, you don't know what you're talking about.
>
> I get the point. You don't agree with the President.....

Congratulations. You noticed.

> .....You think that Kerry is a hero because he got wounded three times.....

I challenge you to produce one thing I've said that relates Kerry's wounds
(however superficial they may have been) with any event in which he was involved
that resulted in the issuance of awards to him that involved heroism. Produce
one!!!

You neither know me nor do you know what I think about Kerry or much of anything
else.

> .....You ignore the Winter Soldier testimony and you accept the fact that all
of us who
> fought in Vietnam were war criminals guilty of atrocity.

Wrong again. Produce one thing I've ever posted where I said "all of us who
fought in Vietnam were war criminals guilty of atrocity" (sic).
>
(Further mind-reading by Rasimus deleted)
>
> At this point I'll let you vote the way you wish, but fervently hope
> that you'll wake up tomorrow morning, have a hot cup of coffee, and
> begin to engage in meaningful, intelligent dialog. I also hope to win
> the lottery this week.

It's very generous of you to allow me to vote however I wish, which fortunately
is somewhat akin to giving me something I already have. It's also nice of you
to wish that I wake up tomorrow morning, and have a hot cup of coffee, neither
of which should put much strain on your wishing capabilities. As for engaging
in meaningful, intelligent dialog, I always do that.....for those who fail to
perceive that, it's their loss. As for the lottery, I've been trying for twice
a week for years, and the best I've ever been able to do by way of winnings is
fifty bucks. I hope you meant a bit more than that.

George Z.

[Kevin Brooks]

"George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On 25 Jun 2004 21:48:12 GMT, (ArtKramr) wrote:
>
> (Snip)
> >
> > With all due, but flagging respect, I've posted repeatedly in great
> > detail rebutting Walt's continual repetitive (that's redundant, I
> > know) assertions.
> >
> > Now, you, George Z and the ubiquitous and inane Walt, have entered a
> > circle jerk in which the three of you keep echoing the mindless drivel
> > of one-liners that have been rebutted in great detail by many of us
> > here.
>
> Speaking for only myself, I wonder if it occurs to you that I don't really
give
> a **** either how you characterize what I say on any specific subject or
that
> you consider your detailed rebuttals at all convincing.

Numerous detailed rebuttals, by numerous posters, you mean? As opposed to
your (and your new li'l buddy Walt's) "drive by distortions"?

Your calling it a
> circle jerk seems to imply that we've gotten together to annoy you with
our
> mindless drivel of one-liners.

You have another purpose in getting together?

You know that that is total nonsense....you're
> dealing with three unrelated people who independently agree that, on this
> subject, you don't know what you're talking about.

Which would point to those three people having a tedious grasp of reality.

> >
> > I get the point. You don't agree with the President.....
>
> Congratulations. You noticed.
>
> > .....You think that Kerry is a hero because he got wounded three
times.....
>
> I challenge you to produce one thing I've said that relates Kerry's wounds
> (however superficial they may have been) with any event in which he was
involved
> that resulted in the issuance of awards to him that involved heroism.
Produce
> one!!!
>
> You neither know me nor do you know what I think about Kerry or much of
anything
> else.

Your continual defenses of Kerry vice your continual attacks against GWB
paint a clear enough picture for the observer who possesses even average
intelligence, even if you are not gutsy enough to come right out and declare
yourself--not surprising, given your predilection for using this inane
pseudonym you have concocted.

>
> > .....You ignore the Winter Soldier testimony and you accept the fact
that all
> of us who
> > fought in Vietnam were war criminals guilty of atrocity.
>
> Wrong again. Produce one thing I've ever posted where I said "all of us
who
> fought in Vietnam were war criminals guilty of atrocity" (sic).

"...what that war had done to the young American men sent to fight it. It
started out with our common view of the native people as "gooks", a form of
sub-human species who feel no pain and deserve no right to
life, much less their own country." 'George Z. Bush' (aka Hal Hanig) on 12
FEB 04.

"...the young American men..."? You did not say *some* of them...

In the same post, you said: "Much has been made of his part in the so called
"Winter Soldier Investigations",
where "fabricated testimony of U.S. war atrocities was presented." In point
of
fact, Kerry was not the one who actually made those charges; those charges
were
made as sworn testimony to a Congressional Committee by the individuals who
committed those atrocities. Kerry merely summed them up or referred to them
in
providing his own testimony to the Congress. If that testimony was
fabricated,
it was fabricated by the individuals who confessed to having committed them.
Indeed, why would anybody in his right mind confess to having done such
awful
things in sworn testimony if he had not done them?"

Ignoring the actual FACT that no, Kerry was not referring to sworn testimony
in his own sworn testimony--WSI was not an official investigation, and
ignoring the fact that in his own testimony Kerry did indeed apply a
broadbrush attack that impugned *all* of the officers of his rank and higher
with being implicated as war criminals. As to why they confessed--well, the
subsequent attempts by the military to corroborate that WSI testimony
revealed that either the individuals in fact had no first hand knowledge of
such atrocities, contrary to what they had said in their "sworn"
(giggle-snort) WSI testimony, or in some cases had never even been in combat
as they had "testified".

On 25 FEB you said, regarding Kerry's testimony: "He did not claim that he
had done those things or that he had personal knowledge of them having been
done....merely that he had heard other veterans testify that they had
actually
done those things."

Wrong again. He did indicate that he participated in "war crimes", or
observed them himself--go back and read his congressional testimony. He went
on, as I indicated above, to indict the *entire* chain of command for said
"crimes". His words were, "with the full awareness of officers at all levels
of command." The relevant quotes have been presented to you before--but you
just keep ignoring them....

You even went so far as to claim that Ed bore personal responsibility for
the subsequent actions of those fake Vietnam combat vets who make up the
majority of the more publisized cases of PTSD, when you said on March 7:
"You may wish to deny it, but you still have to accept responsibility for
turning
those young Americans into the liars and poseurs you obviously despise.
They
didn't arrive in Nam that way for the most part. All I do when I look at
them
and what happened to most of them is to count my blessings that something
like
that didn't happen to me. A little bit of that kind of humility might stand
you
is some good, if you'd allow it to."

22 FEB you came out and supported another posters extremely widespread
condemnation of alleged US "atrocities" in Vietnam: "Too many reports from
too many sources all to be wrong. Too many
news photos of dead VN civilian bodies piled up in ditches to have been
posed by
a press that had been religiously supporting the government's line up to
that
point. There's nothing that Jack said that sounded like the ravings of an
idiot. On
the contrary, they had a ring of truth to them."

Again, doesn't take a genius to devine your intent with all of the above.

> >
> (Further mind-reading by Rasimus deleted)
> >
> > At this point I'll let you vote the way you wish, but fervently hope
> > that you'll wake up tomorrow morning, have a hot cup of coffee, and
> > begin to engage in meaningful, intelligent dialog. I also hope to win
> > the lottery this week.
>
> It's very generous of you to allow me to vote however I wish, which
fortunately
> is somewhat akin to giving me something I already have. It's also nice of
you
> to wish that I wake up tomorrow morning, and have a hot cup of coffee,
neither
> of which should put much strain on your wishing capabilities. As for
engaging
> in meaningful, intelligent dialog, I always do that.....

LOL!

Brooks

for those who fail to
> perceive that, it's their loss. As for the lottery, I've been trying for
twice
> a week for years, and the best I've ever been able to do by way of
winnings is
> fifty bucks. I hope you meant a bit more than that.
>
> George Z.
>
>

[WalterM140]

>Walt, pay attention, Ed did NOT belittle Kerry. He simply pointed out that
>you
>keep repeated things about Bush's service record that he has refuted.

No one can refute the chronilogical record of service of Bush's that is now
part of the public record.

I was in the reserves myself. I know how this works. Every member has a
chronilogical record of service. It's a "standard" page in the SRB/OCR or
whatever the equivilent is in the Army/Air Force.

Donald Segretti, Nixon's agent of "Dirty Tricks" (for which he served time in
prison) cannot refute it. His assistant, Karl Rove (and current White House
communications director) cannot refute it. No one can come forward -now- and
say they saw Bush then-- when the record from -then- dictates that he DID NOT
accrue any points for service as required by law.

Strictly speaking, Bush is a deserter -- that case could be made legally. And
there is no statute of limitations on desertion.

Walt

[WalterM140]

>The Republicans and their junior college instructor lackey's have a long
>history of belittling those who served well while exaggerating the
>military records of their, more prudent, candidates.
>
>Can anyone remember the 1972 election? During WWII Richard Nixon ran a
>Navy fruit drink stand at some South Pacific backwater supply base while
>George McGovern was leading groups of B24s in daylight attacks on Nazi
>Europe. AFter the war McGovern used the GI Bill to get a Ph.D., while
>Nixon used slush funds to finance red baiting.
>
>By election time in 1972 the Republican propaganda machine convinced the
>weak minded and ignorant that Nixon was the warrior and McGovern the dodger.
>
>They're trying to pull the same trick in 2004.
>

Yes.

I have only briefly heard any of the Hoopla around Clinton's book.

I did hear him say one striking thing:

After Carter won in 1976 and was then defeated by Reagan in 1980, the
Republicans -seriously- thought that no Democratic candidate could -ever- be
elected again. Not given their dirty tricks organization they installed in
1972. Clinton's election they saw as a break in the "natural order of
things."That dirty tricks organization is going great guns even now, and has
convinced some otherwise wonderful Americans that Bush -- the clear shirker --
who declined to volunteer for overseas service, is more worthy than a man who
not only volunteered for combat duty, but even requested an even more dangerous
assignment.

This dirty tricks organization went full tilt in an effort to keep Clinton
from governing. They did this with the White Water scandal -- nothing there.
And Vince Foster -- nothing there. As President Clinton said, Ken Starr was
determined to drive him out of office regardless of the facts -- to -negate-
the decision of the voters.

The Republicans appear to have a full grasp of Orwell, even if some college
professors who often post here do not.

Walt

[WalterM140]

>I can remember the 1972 election, but I sure don't remember what you
>described. I think you fabricated it.
>
>

A Republican operative named Donald Segretti served jail time for his
activities in disrupting Democratic Party activities.

You can look it up.

Or perhaps you have heard of Nixon's "Plumbers", or maybe you are familiar with
a little contretemps known as Watergate.

Walt

[WaltBJ]

A LOT of wasted bandwidth.
1. Stop slanging each other. The 'Ad Hominem'"argument" just wstes
every one's time. (I say bring back the Code Duello and that would
help cut it down.)
2. Lying to the media is really really dumb and should give y'all a
very good idea of the person's character and social intelligence.
Cheney's been caught twice in the past week, so far. I wonder what
else lies in the hearts and minds of Cheney and his ilk? Sorry, I'm
not the Shadow.
3. I was taught very early on in the service that 'taking care of the
troops' was a priority. So why do we have hungry children and worthy
people who are homeless? I note that Reagan was the one who closed
many insane asylums and turned the patients loose to fend for
themselves as best they could.
From the Bible - "Am I my brother's keeper?"
4. Medals don't necessarily mean much - a lot depends on how good the
writer was and what kind of reception the recommendations got at HHQ.
I remember our Group Co saying once that the squadron I was in didn't
have any outstanding pilots - they were just doing their job, hence no
AF Commendation Medals. At the same time he wasn't qualified in the
aircraft - never did qualify in it - and had no idea what we did as
ADC F102 pilots. OTH I know a troop who as Awards and Decs Officer for
his outfit loaded himself and his squadrons up with gongs.
5. FWIW most aircrew nowadays get Purple Hearts posthumously. F4 was
totally lacking in armor, except for the center windshield, which was
thick glass - and failed to stop the 51 cal that nailed one of my
friends. The pitter brough the bird back to Cam Ranh Bay.
6. Now let's show a little more civility to each other. Or, agree to
meet in the morning and settle it personally, to keep the heat down.
7. Get your ass out and vote!
Walt BJ

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"WalterM140" > wrote in message
...
>
> A Republican operative named Donald Segretti served jail time for his
> activities in disrupting Democratic Party activities.
>
> You can look it up.
>
> Or perhaps you have heard of Nixon's "Plumbers", or maybe you are
> familiar with a little contretemps known as Watergate.
>

I'm familiar with those things, but I'm not familiar with any attempt by
Republicans to portray Nixon as a warrior and McGovern as a draft dodger. I
don't believe it happened. I believe Mike Dargan fabricated it just like
you fabricated your assertions about Bush.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"WaltBJ" > wrote in message
m...
>
> 3. I was taught very early on in the service that 'taking care of the
> troops' was a priority. So why do we have hungry children and worthy
> people who are homeless?
>

Military dependents are hungry and homeless?

[WalterM140]

> I believe Mike Dargan fabricated it just like
>you fabricated your assertions about Bush.

The record shows a 16 month break -at least- in Bush's service. He just blew
off his commitment.

Walt

[WalterM140]

>What, in the name of all that is holy does, this have to do with their
>plotical [sic]
>histories?

Well, strictly speaking, Bush is a deserter.

Walt

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"WalterM140" > wrote in message
...
>
> The record shows a 16 month break -at least- in Bush's service.
> He just blew off his commitment.
>

The record shows that Bush completed his service and that you're a partisan
loon.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"WalterM140" > wrote in message
...
>
> Well, strictly speaking, Bush is a deserter.
>

You've been asked repeatedly for hard evidence of your assertions. You have
yet to provide any. Strictly speaking, all you've done here is prove you're
just another ignorant partisan.

[B2431]

>From: (WaltBJ)
>Date: 6/26/2004 1:37 PM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>A LOT of wasted bandwidth.
>

Agreed, it seems george z, walterm and Art are feeding off each other. In this
and other threads of this type they say absolutely nothing new. What's worse is
they don't seem to see it.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[B2431]

>From: (WalterM140)
>

>I was in the reserves myself. I know how this works. Every member has a
>chronilogical record of service.

Aha! You dodged the draft by going into the reserves just as many have accused
Bush of doing by going into the guard.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[WalterM140]

>> The record shows a 16 month break -at least- in Bush's service.
>> He just blew off his commitment.
>>
>
>The record shows that Bush completed his service and that you're a partisan
>loon.
>

The records do show that. But the Bushies forgot to scrub/cover up/alter the
one document that conclusively shows that Bush was AWOL for 16 months.

Walt

[Krztalizer]

>2. Lying to the media is really really dumb and should give y'all a
>very good idea of the person's character and social intelligence.
>Cheney's been caught twice in the past week, so far. I wonder what
>else lies in the hearts and minds of Cheney and his ilk?

Walt, the man scares me. Like that curse in the Senate - a glimpse under the
hooded cape at the real Mr. Cheney.

He lied - no question at all: the interviewers asked the same question and he
flat out lied. Its frightening to see it happen in real time, knowing there
are other things that are being distorted that we don't yet know about.

v/r
Gordon

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"WalterM140" > wrote in message
...
>
> The records do show that. But the Bushies forgot to scrub/cover up/alter
the
> one document that conclusively shows that Bush was AWOL for 16 months.
>

Would that be the document you previously posted a link to? As that
document was incomplete it does not conclusively show anything.

[Brett]

"Krztalizer" > wrote:
> >2. Lying to the media is really really dumb and should give y'all a
> >very good idea of the person's character and social intelligence.
> >Cheney's been caught twice in the past week, so far. I wonder what
> >else lies in the hearts and minds of Cheney and his ilk?
>
> Walt, the man scares me. Like that curse in the Senate - a glimpse under
the
> hooded cape at the real Mr. Cheney.
>
> He lied - no question at all: the interviewers asked the same question

Actually they didn't, Russert quoted comments by the Czech interior minister
and James Woolsey about observed Iraqi actions prior to asking Cheney "Do
you still believe there is no evidence that Iraq was involved in September
11?"

[tscottme]

"Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
...

>
> Actually, Art, you shouldn't be using Purple Hearts as a measure of
> valor. They demonstrate either bad luck, or if garnered in groups, a
> level of combat incompetence.
>
> I've got an SSM and five DFC's, but no PH. I'd rather win than lose.
> I'd rather America prevail than the Islamic fundamentalists. I'd
> rather retain national sovereignty than subject us to the whims of the
> UN. I'd rather carry my own weapon and defend myself. I'd rather
> individual responsibility than a welfare state. I'd rather keep my
> earnings and make my own spending choices. I'd like higher standards
> rather than affirmative action.
>
> Any questions?
>
>
> Ed Rasimus

Yeah will you buy Art's Viagra, it's just not fair that he has to pay for it
himself.

--
Scott

Imagine how the war would be different if the liberals were giving aid and
comfort to America.

[WalterM140]

>> Well, strictly speaking, Bush is a deserter.
>>
>
>You've been asked repeatedly for hard evidence of your assertions. You have
>yet to provide any. Strictly speaking, all you've done here is prove you're
>just another ignorant partisan.
>

This link shows Bush's chronilogical record of service. There's a 16 month gap:

http://users.cis.net/coldfeet/doc10.gif

There's an entry on 26 May 72. The next entry is 10/01/73.

Walt

[WalterM140]

>Aha! You dodged the draft by going into the reserves just as many have
>accused
>Bush of doing by going into the guard.
>

Actually, I joined the Marine Corps the day I turned 18.

This is a link to a picture of me taken in 1983:

http://members.aol.com/walterm140/oki83.jpg

I was on Desert Storm also.

Walt

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"WalterM140" > wrote in message
...
>
> This link shows Bush's chronilogical record of service. There's a 16 month
gap:
>
> http://users.cis.net/coldfeet/doc10.gif
>
> There's an entry on 26 May 72. The next entry is 10/01/73.
>

That link shows a portion of a faded document. Thank you for proving my
point.

[B2431]

>From: (WalterM140)
>Date: 6/27/2004 5:00 AM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>>Aha! You dodged the draft by going into the reserves just as many have
>>accused
>>Bush of doing by going into the guard.
>>
>
>Actually, I joined the Marine Corps the day I turned 18.
>
>This is a link to a picture of me taken in 1983:
>
>http://members.aol.com/walterm140/oki83.jpg
>
>I was on Desert Storm also.
>
>Walt

Oh lookie, a gen-you-wine GI. Ooooh, I'm SOOO impressed.

Look, whether Bush served as much or as little as he said is of no import. At
least he never stabbed us in the back as did Kerry. And he did serve in the
TANG.

I get rather tired of people saying their service was more important than
someone else's. For every me, Ed or Art there were a bunch of nameless,
faceless slobs that supported us.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Mike Dargan]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> "Mike Dargan" > wrote in message
> news:qd0Dc.117009$0y.58857@attbi_s03...
>
>>The Republicans and their junior college instructor lackey's have a long
>>history of belittling those who served well while exaggerating the
>>military records of their, more prudent, candidates.
>>
>>Can anyone remember the 1972 election? During WWII Richard Nixon ran a
>>Navy fruit drink stand at some South Pacific backwater supply base while
>>George McGovern was leading groups of B24s in daylight attacks on Nazi
>>Europe. AFter the war McGovern used the GI Bill to get a Ph.D., while
>>Nixon used slush funds to finance red baiting.
>>
>>By election time in 1972 the Republican propaganda machine convinced the
>>weak minded and ignorant that Nixon was the warrior and McGovern the
>
> dodger.
>
>>They're trying to pull the same trick in 2004.
>>
>
>
> I can remember the 1972 election, but I sure don't remember what you
> described. I think you fabricated it.

Well Steve, if you don't think very well, try to not think very much:

http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml%3Fi=20021111&s=scheer20021029

Cheers,

--mike

[Michael Wise]

In article . net>,
"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:

> > The Republicans and their junior college instructor lackey's have a long
> > history of belittling those who served well while exaggerating the
> > military records of their, more prudent, candidates.
> >
> > Can anyone remember the 1972 election? During WWII Richard Nixon ran a
> > Navy fruit drink stand at some South Pacific backwater supply base while
> > George McGovern was leading groups of B24s in daylight attacks on Nazi
> > Europe. AFter the war McGovern used the GI Bill to get a Ph.D., while
> > Nixon used slush funds to finance red baiting.
> >
> > By election time in 1972 the Republican propaganda machine convinced the
> > weak minded and ignorant that Nixon was the warrior and McGovern the
> dodger.
> >
> > They're trying to pull the same trick in 2004.
> >
>
> I can remember the 1972 election, but I sure don't remember what you
> described. I think you fabricated it.


Given that you were only 14 or 15 years old in 1972, it's amazing you're
able to recall the campaign tactics for that election (not that I do).


--Mike

[Brett]

"Mike Dargan" > wrote:
> Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> > "Mike Dargan" > wrote in message
> > news:qd0Dc.117009$0y.58857@attbi_s03...
> >
> >>The Republicans and their junior college instructor lackey's have a long
> >>history of belittling those who served well while exaggerating the
> >>military records of their, more prudent, candidates.
> >>
> >>Can anyone remember the 1972 election? During WWII Richard Nixon ran a
> >>Navy fruit drink stand at some South Pacific backwater supply base while
> >>George McGovern was leading groups of B24s in daylight attacks on Nazi
> >>Europe. AFter the war McGovern used the GI Bill to get a Ph.D., while
> >>Nixon used slush funds to finance red baiting.
> >>
> >>By election time in 1972 the Republican propaganda machine convinced the
> >>weak minded and ignorant that Nixon was the warrior and McGovern the
> >
> > dodger.
> >
> >>They're trying to pull the same trick in 2004.
> >>
> >
> >
> > I can remember the 1972 election, but I sure don't remember what you
> > described. I think you fabricated it.
>
> Well Steve, if you don't think very well, try to not think very much:
>
> http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml%3Fi=20021111&s=scheer20021029

That modern review you selected appears to have missed who actually
supported McGovern's in the primaries (it also doesn't provide any evidence
that the Nixon campaign portrayed McGovern as a draft dodger).
It wasn't the Nixon campaign that painted McGovern the "subversive peacenik"
it was the news shots of his anti-war, anti-capitalist supporters and his
own campaign rhetoric at the Democratic convention and the many campaign
rallies leading up to the election that November.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Mike Dargan" > wrote in message
news:cpFDc.124898$Sw.61008@attbi_s51...
>
> Well Steve, if you don't think very well, try to not think very much:
>
> http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml%3Fi=20021111&s=scheer20021029
>
> Cheers,
>

The article is dated 2002, not 1972, and says nothing about portraying Nixon
as a warrior and McGovern a draft dodger. I can only conclude that you have
nothing to support your assertion, and that you don't think very well or
very much.

Have a nice day.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Michael Wise" > wrote in message
...
>
> Given that you were only 14 or 15 years old in 1972, it's amazing you're
> able to recall the campaign tactics for that election (not that I do).
>

Thanks.

[Ed Rasimus]

On Sun, 27 Jun 2004 20:29:00 GMT, Michael Wise > wrote:

>In article . net>,
> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:
>
>> > The Republicans and their junior college instructor lackey's have a long
>> > history of belittling those who served well while exaggerating the
>> > military records of their, more prudent, candidates.

I've got to say I "resemble that remark", but don't think I'm much in
to belittling those who served well. I've got no problem maintaining
the respect of the warriors that I fought alongside of and who kept
the faith over all these years with their comrades. I tend to despise
those who exaggerate their military record. I support the many groups
who work hard to unmask the poseurs and wannabes.
>> >
>> > Can anyone remember the 1972 election? During WWII Richard Nixon ran a
>> > Navy fruit drink stand at some South Pacific backwater supply base while
>> > George McGovern was leading groups of B24s in daylight attacks on Nazi
>> > Europe. AFter the war McGovern used the GI Bill to get a Ph.D., while
>> > Nixon used slush funds to finance red baiting.

As we've often addressed here, a war of the magnitude of WW II
required an incredible amount of manpower. A lot of that was in a
supporting role. My father, for a poor example, served for four years,
drafted as I was being born to function only in a stateside support
role as he was both too old and medically unfit for forward duty. But,
he served and rose to tech sergeant in the Army Air Corps at Keesler
AFB and then Santa Rosa Air Base.

McGovern did not go to any great lengths to highlight his WW II
service during the 1972 campaign. He ran as a staunchly pacifist,
anti-war candidate. He ran on his liberal background as Senator from
SD. He misread the mood of the electorate and while he appealed to the
core of his party, he didn't transfer is appeal to the moderate,
unaffiliated voters and certainly didn't draw from the right.

McGovern used his GI Bill well. Nixon "used slush funds" in his
political role, appropriately if not in consonance with what you might
have chosen him to do. He made his reputation in early political
development as an anti-communist. There's no relationship between
McGovern's education and Nixon's job funding. It's a red herring.
>> >
>> > By election time in 1972 the Republican propaganda machine convinced the
>> > weak minded and ignorant that Nixon was the warrior and McGovern the
>> dodger.

By 1972 we were four years into the Nixon policy of "Vietnamization".
We were down to less than one quarter of the troops in-country in SEA.
We were sitting at the peace table in Paris with SVN, NVN and the VC.
We were actively engaged in diplomatic negotiations with China and
"peace was at hand". Hardly a "warrior" positioning.

There was never a mention of McGovern as a "dodger." There was plenty
of McGovern posturing as a pacifist and unilateral disarmer.
>> >
>> I can remember the 1972 election, but I sure don't remember what you
>> described. I think you fabricated it.

I can remember the '72 election.
>
>
>Given that you were only 14 or 15 years old in 1972, it's amazing you're
>able to recall the campaign tactics for that election (not that I do).

I was thirty and flying my second tour at Korat in the F-4E, going to
NVN most every day. I had a vested interest in the campaign.


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

[Jarg]

"WaltBJ" > wrote in message
m...
> A LOT of wasted bandwidth.
> 1. Stop slanging each other. The 'Ad Hominem'"argument" just wstes
> every one's time. (I say bring back the Code Duello and that would
> help cut it down.)
> 2. Lying to the media is really really dumb and should give y'all a
> very good idea of the person's character and social intelligence.
> Cheney's been caught twice in the past week, so far. I wonder what
> else lies in the hearts and minds of Cheney and his ilk? Sorry, I'm
> not the Shadow.

Cheney probably did believe there was a "confirmed" connection, and
therefore wasn't lying: Here is a fair analysis of the Atta-Iraq question:

http://slate.msn.com/id/2091354/

Of course I am using the word lie to mean purposeful deceipt as opposed to
how it is increasing being used by Bush haters as a synonym for "incorrect"
or misinformed.

Jarg

[Paul J. Adam]

In message <qd0Dc.117009$0y.58857@attbi_s03>, Mike Dargan
> writes
>Can anyone remember the 1972 election? During WWII Richard Nixon ran a
>Navy fruit drink stand at some South Pacific backwater supply base
>while George McGovern was leading groups of B24s in daylight attacks on
>Nazi Europe.

I'm hardly a Nixon fan - but bug juice doesn't make and serve itself,
and recruits don't get a lot of say where they serve. I'll offer myself
as an example: fit and fairly smart, I'm also badly short-sighted, a
fact that modern contact lenses let me mostly ignore. Would I be a
coward if, sent to the USAAF, I ended up ground crew rather than a
fighter pilot? You go where the needs of the Service dictate - that's
still true now - and you do the job you're given as best you can.


If there's evidence that Nixon used undue influence to get himself a
cushty job, then by all means show it. If all you can say is that he
went where he was sent and might have sighed with relief... too bad.

>They're trying to pull the same trick in 2004.

The US electorate will decide, and only the results are my problem. You
picked the candidates, you choose the winner, you live with the
results..

--
He thinks too much: such men are dangerous.
Julius Caesar I:2

Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

[BUFDRVR]

>We were sitting at the peace table in Paris with SVN, NVN and the VC.

Minor correction Ed, but I'm 99.9% sure there were no SVN or VC representatives
in Paris. But your point was well made.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

[Ed Rasimus]

On 28 Jun 2004 22:08:28 GMT, (BUFDRVR) wrote:

>>We were sitting at the peace table in Paris with SVN, NVN and the VC.
>
>Minor correction Ed, but I'm 99.9% sure there were no SVN or VC representatives
>in Paris. But your point was well made.

The "shape of the table" was a huge issue in '70, '71--the idea being
that a four-sided table would give equal voice to the SVN and VC in
the negotiations. By 1972, the table was most assuredly round and all
four parties were involved in the negotiation.

As has been earlier mentioned here, one of the stumbling blocks was
the unwillingness of Diem regime to concede some of the points agreed
to beween the US and NVN. This led to the suspension of talks in
April, then Linebacker, then more talks, then agreement in principle
(light at the end of the tunnel), suspension of ops in October of '72,
then Linebacker II, conclusion, POWs home by mid-March '73.

Ohh, that's right. Linebacker II was a failure. Forgot for a moment.
Sorry, bout that.


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

[BUFDRVR]

>By 1972, the table was most assuredly round and all
>four parties were involved in the negotiation.

According to several books I've read, only the NVN and US were in Paris...at
least at the peace accords.

>As has been earlier mentioned here, one of the stumbling blocks was
>the unwillingness of Diem regime to concede some of the points agreed
>to beween the US and NVN.

Ed, Ngo Dihn Diem was killed in 1963, the SVN President in 1972 was Nguyen Van
Thieu whom the North refused to negotiate with since they claimed his regime
was illegitimate. Thieu was notified of agreements in Paris by Henry Kissinger
who travelled from Paris to Saigon. He did have issues with many of the
agreements, but was not in Paris. As far as I can tell from the dozen or so
books I've read on the SE Asia conflict, the SVN and the VC were not in Paris,
in fact the NVN argued until the very end that the VC were not North supported
or affiliated. NVN claimed the battles in SVN were part of a civil war that
both the U.S. and the North should stay out of.

>Ohh, that's right. Linebacker II was a failure.

Ahh...now you're putting words in my mouth. I never said it was a failure.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

[Ed Rasimus]

On 28 Jun 2004 22:56:48 GMT, (BUFDRVR) wrote:

>>By 1972, the table was most assuredly round and all
>>four parties were involved in the negotiation.
>
>According to several books I've read, only the NVN and US were in Paris...at
>least at the peace accords.
>
>>As has been earlier mentioned here, one of the stumbling blocks was
>>the unwillingness of Diem regime to concede some of the points agreed
>>to beween the US and NVN.
>
>Ed, Ngo Dihn Diem was killed in 1963, the SVN President in 1972 was Nguyen Van
>Thieu whom the North refused to negotiate with since they claimed his regime
>was illegitimate.

Encroaching senility. Meant Thieu. His representative was Le Duc Tho.

Yeah, it was Diem who was brother-in-law to Madame Nhu, the "Dragon
Lady". By late '72, of course we were getting ready to see a
merry-go-round of regime changes in SVN, including "Big Minh" who
engineered a coup in '63 to oust Diem, then somehow managed to keep a
position in the Army until eventually rising to the presidency just in
time to oversee the collapse and turn-over in '75.


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

[Ed Rasimus]

On Mon, 28 Jun 2004 17:23:24 -0600, Ed Rasimus
> wrote:

>Encroaching senility. Meant Thieu. His representative was Le Duc Tho.

Omigod....stop me before I kill again. Tho was the NVN delegate. I'm
becoming a blithering idiot. (Stop right now, all of you with the
confirmation postings....I don't need the reinforcement.)

But, here's a googled up quote on the participants:

>Peace talks between representatives from United States, South Vietnam, North Vietnam and the NLF began in Paris in January, 1969. Le Duc Tho served as special adviser to the North Vietnamese delegation. He eventually became North Vietnamese leader in these talks.
>

The real stumbling block at the outset was the legitimacy of the NLF
to participate in the talks. With the initial meetings coming shortly
after Tet '68, it seems in retrospect that the NLF was a reasonable
player for the discussions.

The errors of diplomacy, understanding of the Vietnamese culture, the
relationship with the PRC and USSR, the low probability of the nuclear
escalation, etc. etc. all seem so clear in the light of forty years of
settling since the end of hostilities.

But, while our mistakes can be analyzed, it still remains difficult to
envision what the world would look like with regard to communism had
we not "contained" and demonstrated a resolve to resist
expansionism--as flawed as we now seem to view the policy.


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

[Brett]

"BUFDRVR" > wrote:
> >By 1972, the table was most assuredly round and all
> >four parties were involved in the negotiation.
>
> According to several books I've read, only the NVN and US were in
Paris...at
> least at the peace accords.

The peace accords were signed by:

FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
William P. Rogers
Secretary of State

FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF VIET-NAM:
Tran Van Lam
Minister for Foreign Affairs

FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF THE DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF VIET-NAM:
Nguyen Duy Trinh
Minister for Foreign Affairs

FOR THE PROVISIONAL REVOLUTIONARY GOVERNMENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH
VIET-NAM:
Nguyen Thi Binh
Minister for Foreign Affairs

[BUFDRVR]

Ed Rasimus wrote:

>Peace talks between representatives from United States, South Vietnam, North
>Vietnam and the NLF began in Paris in January, 1969.

Wow. I had no idea SVN and NVN ever had a dialogue. Do you know if this
arragement continued in 1972 because *every* book on the conflict I have says
NVN (and Le Duc Tho in particular) refused to even talk with SVN reps because
they claimed their government was illegal? According to the readings, Thieu was
informed about negotiations directly from Kissenger. If there were SVN reps in
Paris, why would Thieu not get the info from them?

>But, while our mistakes can be analyzed, it still remains difficult to
>envision what the world would look like with regard to communism had
>we not "contained" and demonstrated a resolve to resist
>expansionism--as flawed as we now seem to view the policy.
>

Very interesting "what if?". With 20/20 hindsight it appears the communist
spread in SE Asia was never going to be greater than Laos, Cambodia and
Vietnam, but what about communist expansion elsewhere like South or Central
America? Would Che and his Cuban buddies have had more success in spreading
revolution if it appeared to the world that the U.S. was not committed to
fighting it?

Really no answer to those questions, but interesting historic speculation.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

[Denyav]

>The US electorate will decide, and only the results are my problem. You
>picked the candidates, you choose the winner, you live with the
>results..

As a British thinker said long time ago "Democracy is the art of keeping masses
outside of decision making process"
If its an art then surely US is the Beethoven of this art.

Just remember what happened to Perot,Buchanan and Dean.

US electorate is only allowed to rubber stamp some body elses decision.

[BUFDRVR]

Brett wrote:

>The peace accords were signed by:
>
>FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
>William P. Rogers
>Secretary of State
>
>FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF VIET-NAM:
>Tran Van Lam
>Minister for Foreign Affairs
>
>FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF THE DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF VIET-NAM:
>Nguyen Duy Trinh
>Minister for Foreign Affairs
>
>FOR THE PROVISIONAL REVOLUTIONARY GOVERNMENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH
>VIET-NAM:
>Nguyen Thi Binh
>Minister for Foreign Affairs

Excellent, but now I'm confused, particularly by the book "Crosswinds" by Earl
H. Tippford which states; "That Washington and Hanoi had reached this stage was
significant. Saigon had been left out and President Thieu had substantial
objections to to what Washington had negotiated in his interest, and in his
stead". So what gives? Were the SNV signatures on the Peace Accord just window
dressing?


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

[Kevin Brooks]

"BUFDRVR" > wrote in message
...
> Ed Rasimus wrote:
>
> >Peace talks between representatives from United States, South Vietnam,
North
> >Vietnam and the NLF began in Paris in January, 1969.
>
> Wow. I had no idea SVN and NVN ever had a dialogue. Do you know if this
> arragement continued in 1972 because *every* book on the conflict I have
says
> NVN (and Le Duc Tho in particular) refused to even talk with SVN reps
because
> they claimed their government was illegal? According to the readings,
Thieu was
> informed about negotiations directly from Kissenger. If there were SVN
reps in
> Paris, why would Thieu not get the info from them?
>
> >But, while our mistakes can be analyzed, it still remains difficult to
> >envision what the world would look like with regard to communism had
> >we not "contained" and demonstrated a resolve to resist
> >expansionism--as flawed as we now seem to view the policy.
> >
>
> Very interesting "what if?". With 20/20 hindsight it appears the communist
> spread in SE Asia was never going to be greater than Laos, Cambodia and
> Vietnam, but what about communist expansion elsewhere like South or
Central
> America? Would Che and his Cuban buddies have had more success in
spreading
> revolution if it appeared to the world that the U.S. was not committed to
> fighting it?

I am not sure your 20/20 hindsight is all that accurate in this case in
terms of the observation that the spread was "never going to be greater than
Laos, Cambodia, and Vietnam". Had there been zero opposition offered in
Laos, Cambodia, and Vietnam, can you be assured that other surrounding
nations would not have subsequently and quickly come under the gun?
Thailand, Burma (I think that is what it was called then, in the pre-Myanmar
days...), the PI, Malaysia, etc.? This was an era when Mao was even flirting
around with some involvement in the Congo, IIRC; I doubt he would have
ignored his own backyard if he detected a complete and utter vacuum in terms
of US willingness to offer opposition. Maybe the reason those nations did
not face more substantial (or in the Malay case, significantly strengthened)
communist threats than they in the end had to actually contend with was
because we made the effort to stabilize the Vietnamese situation as we
did--who knows?

The sixties saw us (read large--the Brits did their share of countering
communist moves during this period, IIRC, especially in Malaya) face
insurgencies around the world; US "advisors" were apparently involved in
helping combat this threat in a fair number of spots outside
Vietnam/Cambodia/Laos. ISTR US special forces (and CIA) assets (to include
B-26K COIN aircraft) were active in Africa, as well as being involved in
supporting the Bolivians' ultimatelly successful hunt for Che Guevera; I
believe there was also US covert support being provided to the PI government
in their fight against their own communist insurgency.

Brooks

>
> Really no answer to those questions, but interesting historic speculation.
>
>
> BUFDRVR
>
> "Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it
harelips
> everyone on Bear Creek"

[w.a. manning]

regrettably, political discussions are difficult with a president
that, by his own admission "doesnt do nuance". [sigh] GWB is a good
candidate to be a student of yours.

Ed Rasimus > wrote in message >...
> As I regularly tell students, political questions are complex and
> nuanced.

[w.a. manning]

sounds alot like the current administration:

there are WMDs. repeat, ad inifinitum.
iraq has links to al qaeda. repeat, ad inifinitum.
the list goes on, ad infinitum.



Ed Rasimus > wrote in message >...
> You're apparently a graduate of the Joseph Goebbels School of Debate.
>
> Repeat, repeat, repeat. Ignore refutation. State as fact without
> support. Keep the sound bite short and eventually it will be accepted
> as true.

[w.a. manning]

> I tend to despise
> those who exaggerate their military record. I support the many groups
> who work hard to unmask the poseurs and wannabes.

then you should also consider despising GWB to the same degree. i
should hope that being elected to the white house doesnt give him a
free pass in this regard. some things should be absolute, no?


















> As we've often addressed here, a war of the magnitude of WW II
> required an incredible amount of manpower. A lot of that was in a
> supporting role. My father, for a poor example, served for four years,
> drafted as I was being born to function only in a stateside support
> role as he was both too old and medically unfit for forward duty. But,
> he served and rose to tech sergeant in the Army Air Corps at Keesler
> AFB and then Santa Rosa Air Base.
>
> McGovern did not go to any great lengths to highlight his WW II
> service during the 1972 campaign. He ran as a staunchly pacifist,
> anti-war candidate. He ran on his liberal background as Senator from
> SD. He misread the mood of the electorate and while he appealed to the
> core of his party, he didn't transfer is appeal to the moderate,
> unaffiliated voters and certainly didn't draw from the right.
>
> McGovern used his GI Bill well. Nixon "used slush funds" in his
> political role, appropriately if not in consonance with what you might
> have chosen him to do. He made his reputation in early political
> development as an anti-communist. There's no relationship between
> McGovern's education and Nixon's job funding. It's a red herring.
> >> >
> >> > By election time in 1972 the Republican propaganda machine convinced the
> >> > weak minded and ignorant that Nixon was the warrior and McGovern the
> >> dodger.
>
> By 1972 we were four years into the Nixon policy of "Vietnamization".
> We were down to less than one quarter of the troops in-country in SEA.
> We were sitting at the peace table in Paris with SVN, NVN and the VC.
> We were actively engaged in diplomatic negotiations with China and
> "peace was at hand". Hardly a "warrior" positioning.
>
> There was never a mention of McGovern as a "dodger." There was plenty
> of McGovern posturing as a pacifist and unilateral disarmer.
> >> >
> >> I can remember the 1972 election, but I sure don't remember what you
> >> described. I think you fabricated it.
>
> I can remember the '72 election.
> >
> >
> >Given that you were only 14 or 15 years old in 1972, it's amazing you're
> >able to recall the campaign tactics for that election (not that I do).
>
> I was thirty and flying my second tour at Korat in the F-4E, going to
> NVN most every day. I had a vested interest in the campaign.
>
>
> Ed Rasimus
> Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
> "When Thunder Rolled"
> Smithsonian Institution Press
> ISBN #1-58834-103-8

[w.a. manning]

> I tend to despise
> those who exaggerate their military record. I support the many groups
> who work hard to unmask the poseurs and wannabes.

then you should also consider despising GWB to the same degree. i
should hope that being elected to the white house doesnt give him a
free pass in this regard. some things should be absolute, no?


















> As we've often addressed here, a war of the magnitude of WW II
> required an incredible amount of manpower. A lot of that was in a
> supporting role. My father, for a poor example, served for four years,
> drafted as I was being born to function only in a stateside support
> role as he was both too old and medically unfit for forward duty. But,
> he served and rose to tech sergeant in the Army Air Corps at Keesler
> AFB and then Santa Rosa Air Base.
>
> McGovern did not go to any great lengths to highlight his WW II
> service during the 1972 campaign. He ran as a staunchly pacifist,
> anti-war candidate. He ran on his liberal background as Senator from
> SD. He misread the mood of the electorate and while he appealed to the
> core of his party, he didn't transfer is appeal to the moderate,
> unaffiliated voters and certainly didn't draw from the right.
>
> McGovern used his GI Bill well. Nixon "used slush funds" in his
> political role, appropriately if not in consonance with what you might
> have chosen him to do. He made his reputation in early political
> development as an anti-communist. There's no relationship between
> McGovern's education and Nixon's job funding. It's a red herring.
> >> >
> >> > By election time in 1972 the Republican propaganda machine convinced the
> >> > weak minded and ignorant that Nixon was the warrior and McGovern the
> >> dodger.
>
> By 1972 we were four years into the Nixon policy of "Vietnamization".
> We were down to less than one quarter of the troops in-country in SEA.
> We were sitting at the peace table in Paris with SVN, NVN and the VC.
> We were actively engaged in diplomatic negotiations with China and
> "peace was at hand". Hardly a "warrior" positioning.
>
> There was never a mention of McGovern as a "dodger." There was plenty
> of McGovern posturing as a pacifist and unilateral disarmer.
> >> >
> >> I can remember the 1972 election, but I sure don't remember what you
> >> described. I think you fabricated it.
>
> I can remember the '72 election.
> >
> >
> >Given that you were only 14 or 15 years old in 1972, it's amazing you're
> >able to recall the campaign tactics for that election (not that I do).
>
> I was thirty and flying my second tour at Korat in the F-4E, going to
> NVN most every day. I had a vested interest in the campaign.
>
>
> Ed Rasimus
> Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
> "When Thunder Rolled"
> Smithsonian Institution Press
> ISBN #1-58834-103-8

[w.a. manning]

"Jarg" > wrote in message >...
> And has anyone else noticed the increased use of the term "neocon" by the
> desperate left to describe anyone they don't like, which in my opinion is an
> example of the prejudicial language fallacy.
>
> Jarg

perhaps the liberals have come up w/ an opposite equivalent to, well,
"liberals". "neocons" works.

[Brett]

"BUFDRVR" > wrote:
> Brett wrote:
>
> >The peace accords were signed by:
> >
> >FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
> >William P. Rogers
> >Secretary of State
> >
> >FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF VIET-NAM:
> >Tran Van Lam
> >Minister for Foreign Affairs
> >
> >FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF THE DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF VIET-NAM:
> >Nguyen Duy Trinh
> >Minister for Foreign Affairs
> >
> >FOR THE PROVISIONAL REVOLUTIONARY GOVERNMENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH
> >VIET-NAM:
> >Nguyen Thi Binh
> >Minister for Foreign Affairs
>
> Excellent, but now I'm confused, particularly by the book "Crosswinds" by
Earl
> H. Tippford which states; "That Washington and Hanoi had reached this
stage was
> significant. Saigon had been left out and President Thieu had substantial
> objections to to what Washington had negotiated in his interest, and in
his
> stead". So what gives? Were the SNV signatures on the Peace Accord just
window
> dressing?

The Opinion Journals comments a short time after Thieu death of natural
causes:
http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/slipsky/?id=95001257

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: Could the Press Grow a Spine?
>From: (w.a. manning)
>Date: 6/28/2004 10:07 PM Pacific Standard Time

>hen you should also consider despising GWB to the same degree. i
>should hope that being elected to the white house doesnt give him a
>free pass in this regard. some things should be absolute, no

The SCOTUS just kicked him in the ass 8 to 1.


Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[George Z. Bush]

"Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
...
> On 28 Jun 2004 22:56:48 GMT, (BUFDRVR) wrote:
>
> >>By 1972, the table was most assuredly round and all
> >>four parties were involved in the negotiation.
> >
> >According to several books I've read, only the NVN and US were in Paris...at
> >least at the peace accords.
> >
> >>As has been earlier mentioned here, one of the stumbling blocks was
> >>the unwillingness of Diem regime to concede some of the points agreed
> >>to beween the US and NVN.
> >
> >Ed, Ngo Dihn Diem was killed in 1963, the SVN President in 1972 was Nguyen
Van
> >Thieu whom the North refused to negotiate with since they claimed his regime
> >was illegitimate.
>
> Encroaching senility. Meant Thieu. His representative was Le Duc Tho.

You should have quit when you were ahead, Ed. Look below, or read it and weep:

"Le Duc Tho was born in Nam Ha province, Vietnam on 14th October, 1911. As a
young man he became involved in radical politics and in 1930 helped establish
the Indochinese Communist Party. He campaigned against French rule in Vietnam
and was twice imprisoned for his political activities (1930-36 and 1939-44).

In 1945 Le Duc Tho returned to Hanoi and joined with Ho Chi Minh and Vo Nguyen
Giap in establishing the Vietnam Revolutionary League (Vietminh). Until 1954 he
was Vietminh's leader in South Vietnam. A member of the Politburo of the Vietnam
Workers' Party, he had responsibility for organizing the rebellion against the
government of South Vietnam.

Peace talks between representatives from United States, South Vietnam, North
Vietnam and the NLF began in Paris in January, 1969. Le Duc Tho served as
special adviser to the North Vietnamese delegation. He eventually became North
Vietnamese leader in these talks."


George Z.

[BUFDRVR]

Kevin Brooks wrote:

>I am not sure your 20/20 hindsight is all that accurate in this case in
>terms of the observation that the spread was "never going to be greater than
>Laos, Cambodia, and Vietnam".

I base this on the fact that, at least in SE Asia, it appears these different
communist elements not only were not capable of cooperating, but in fact
conducted operations against one and other. Vietnam invaded Cambodia in '79, in
response China invade Vietnam. Although the Chinese military action was short
lived (1 month?), Vietnam and China continued to have border skirmishes as late
as the late 80s. China's relatonship with Cambodia has been hot & cold as well.
Really, the only two communist nations in the region to get along were Vietnam
and Laos. Seems to me you need strong alliances to spread any ideology and I'm
not sure these SE Asian nations had that ability.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

[BUFDRVR]

Brett wrote:

>The Opinion Journals comments a short time after Thieu death of natural
>causes:
>http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/slipsky/?id=95001257
>

Good article and when you read it, you're left with the impression that NVN and
the U.S. were alone in Paris. Thieu has to get the details of the U.S.-NVN
agreement from captured VC documents? If the SVN were in Paris, they obviously
weren't doing much. Sightseeing?


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

[Ed Rasimus]

On 28 Jun 2004 21:52:18 -0700, (w.a. manning)
wrote:

>regrettably, political discussions are difficult with a president
>that, by his own admission "doesnt do nuance". [sigh] GWB is a good
>candidate to be a student of yours.
>
>Ed Rasimus > wrote in message >...
>> As I regularly tell students, political questions are complex and
>> nuanced.

You seem quite eager to jump in here, without apparently having much
preceding in the discussion.

Your quote regarding the President, while accurate, is taken out of
context. The reference is to dealing quite clearly with enemies such
as Islamic fundamentalist terrorists. He makes things quite clear to
them and wants them to understand that his message requires no great
degree of reading between lines and searching for limits. This is
quite appropriate.

When it comes to foreign policy, he seems to be quite nicely equipped
to deal with the complexities of international relations. And, most
importantly, he has surrounded himself with quite competent advisors,
most notably Colin Powell and Condeleeza Rice. His direction of the
orderly transition of sovereignty back to the interim Iraqi government
might be a case in point.

(You'll probably next want to bring up the "I don't read the papers"
comment. I'd suggest then that with the drivel recently coming out of
the NYT and WP that the policy choice might be a good one. With the
assets of the NSA at his disposal, he might not need to get the
interpretation of some ax-grinding left-wing editorialist to have
sufficient information to make good decisions.)

Elsewhere you've commented on my statement that I don't tolerate
poseurs and wannabes. You suggest I apply that to the President's
National Guard service where over a period of five years and several
months he attended USAF pilot training (I'm familiar with the rigors,
having graduated myself and then having spent four years as a flight
and academic instructor), having completed the necessary survival
schools (also familiar), and having qualified in a single-seat,
single-engine Century series jet to perform operational missions
(again, intimately familiar). I've discussed the President's flight
performance on several occasions with a close friend and F-105
100-mission pilot who served as the President's instructor pilot when
he attended UPT. I've got no problem with the President showing up in
Nomex and a G-suit--he's earned the right.


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

[Jarg]

"w.a. manning" > wrote in message
om...
> "Jarg" > wrote in message
>...
> > And has anyone else noticed the increased use of the term "neocon" by
the
> > desperate left to describe anyone they don't like, which in my opinion
is an
> > example of the prejudicial language fallacy.
> >
> > Jarg
>
> perhaps the liberals have come up w/ an opposite equivalent to, well,
> "liberals". "neocons" works.

I was under the impression that "conservative" was the equivalent.

Jarg

[John Mullen]

"Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
...

> The sixties saw us (read large--the Brits did their share of countering
> communist moves during this period, IIRC, especially in Malaya) face
> insurgencies around the world; US "advisors" were apparently involved in
> helping combat this threat in a fair number of spots outside
> Vietnam/Cambodia/Laos. ISTR US special forces (and CIA) assets (to include
> B-26K COIN aircraft) were active in Africa,

Yuo mean the CIA's support for the unsuccessful insurgency in Angola? Surely
that went on into the 80's?

John

[Jarg]

"w.a. manning" > wrote in message
om...
> sounds alot like the current administration:
>
> there are WMDs. repeat, ad inifinitum.
> iraq has links to al qaeda. repeat, ad inifinitum.
> the list goes on, ad infinitum.
>
>

Of course they have found WMD (or did you not catch that?), they have found
links to Al Quada (guess you missed that one too)

Oh well, it was a nice try at an analogy, better luck next time.

Jarg

[Brett]

"BUFDRVR" > wrote in message
...
> Brett wrote:
>
> >The Opinion Journals comments a short time after Thieu death of natural
> >causes:
> >http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/slipsky/?id=95001257
> >
>
> Good article and when you read it, you're left with the impression that
NVN and
> the U.S. were alone in Paris. Thieu has to get the details of the U.S.-NVN
> agreement from captured VC documents? If the SVN were in Paris, they
obviously
> weren't doing much. Sightseeing?

A better description I believe is that they were dragged kicking and
screaming to the table. From the same article: __In "The White House Years,"
Mr. Kissinger quotes a crucial passage of a letter to Thieu from Nixon: "I
have therefore irrevocably decided to proceed to initial the Agreement on
January 23, 1973 and to sign it on January 27, 1973 in Paris. I will do so,
if necessary, alone. In that case I shall have to explain publicly that your
Government obstructs peace. The result will be an inevitable and immediate
termination of U.S. economic and military assistance which cannot be
forestalled by a change of personnel in your government. I hope, however,
that after all our two countries have shared and suffered together in
conflict, we will stay together to preserve peace and reap its benefits."__

[Brett]

"John Mullen" > wrote:
> "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > The sixties saw us (read large--the Brits did their share of countering
> > communist moves during this period, IIRC, especially in Malaya) face
> > insurgencies around the world; US "advisors" were apparently involved in
> > helping combat this threat in a fair number of spots outside
> > Vietnam/Cambodia/Laos. ISTR US special forces (and CIA) assets (to
include
> > B-26K COIN aircraft) were active in Africa,
>
> Yuo mean the CIA's support for the unsuccessful insurgency in Angola?
Surely
> that went on into the 80's?

B-26's were supposedly flown in operations in the Congo, in the 1960's.
B-26's were used in Angola but I believe the missions where all flown by
members of the FAP.

[Kevin Brooks]

"BUFDRVR" > wrote in message
...
> Kevin Brooks wrote:
>
> >I am not sure your 20/20 hindsight is all that accurate in this case in
> >terms of the observation that the spread was "never going to be greater
than
> >Laos, Cambodia, and Vietnam".
>
> I base this on the fact that, at least in SE Asia, it appears these
different
> communist elements not only were not capable of cooperating, but in fact
> conducted operations against one and other. Vietnam invaded Cambodia in
'79, in
> response China invade Vietnam. Although the Chinese military action was
short
> lived (1 month?), Vietnam and China continued to have border skirmishes as
late
> as the late 80s. China's relatonship with Cambodia has been hot & cold as
well.
> Really, the only two communist nations in the region to get along were
Vietnam
> and Laos. Seems to me you need strong alliances to spread any ideology and
I'm
> not sure these SE Asian nations had that ability.

All very true, except for maybe that "strong alliances" part. Recall that
Vietnam was being supported by both the USSR and the PRC, even *after* they
had that not-so-little/minor border skirmish between those two nations on
the Amur (1969, IIRC). I guess my point was that had the US not done
anything in Vietnam, it would have left the door open for more adventurous
action (than what was actually experienced) on the part of the USSR and PRC
supporting communist factions in other nearby nations. Hence my reluctance
to accept that the dominos would have stopped falling after Laos, Cambodia,
and the RVN irrespective of whether or not the US demonstrated its
willingness to offer opposition in the region.

Brooks

>
>
> BUFDRVR
>
> "Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it
harelips
> everyone on Bear Creek"

[Kevin Brooks]

"Brett" > wrote in message
...
> "John Mullen" > wrote:
> > "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> > > The sixties saw us (read large--the Brits did their share of
countering
> > > communist moves during this period, IIRC, especially in Malaya) face
> > > insurgencies around the world; US "advisors" were apparently involved
in
> > > helping combat this threat in a fair number of spots outside
> > > Vietnam/Cambodia/Laos. ISTR US special forces (and CIA) assets (to
> include
> > > B-26K COIN aircraft) were active in Africa,
> >
> > Yuo mean the CIA's support for the unsuccessful insurgency in Angola?
> Surely
> > that went on into the 80's?
>
> B-26's were supposedly flown in operations in the Congo, in the 1960's.
> B-26's were used in Angola but I believe the missions where all flown by
> members of the FAP.

Offering facts like that will only confuse him further.

Brooks

>
>

[Peter Stickney]

In article >,
"John Mullen" > writes:
> "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>> The sixties saw us (read large--the Brits did their share of countering
>> communist moves during this period, IIRC, especially in Malaya) face
>> insurgencies around the world; US "advisors" were apparently involved in
>> helping combat this threat in a fair number of spots outside
>> Vietnam/Cambodia/Laos. ISTR US special forces (and CIA) assets (to include
>> B-26K COIN aircraft) were active in Africa,
>
> Yuo mean the CIA's support for the unsuccessful insurgency in Angola? Surely
> that went on into the 80's?

He means the involvement of teh CIA, the USAF (AIr Commandos, and
later on, USAFE and MATS aircraft), and U.S. Army Special Forces in the
Congo. (Later Zaire, then the Congo again) in the period between the
two uprisings in the early and mid-'60s. It was the sort of thing
that occurred in Africa at teh time (And later, as well), with Tribal
animosities, strange mixtures of Marxism/Leninism/Maoism/Animism
thrown in, and an overtone of severe atrocities against any
"Europeans" or "European-ized" Africans. The first revolt/uprising
resulted in the U.N. getting involved, with Swedish and Indian
Peacekeepers strafing the natives with SAAB-29s and Canberras.
The second uprisising was put down by a comnination of Congolese,
Mercenaries ("Mad Mike" Hoare) funded by the CIA, with assistance from
the USAF Air Commandos (AT-28s and the B-26Ks), and the Belgian
Para-Commando Regiment, which was dropped from USAFE C-130s backed up
by MATS C-124s to rescue hostages (Mostly Europeans) held in
Stanleyville.

It's a big, nasty, complicated story that I couldn't possible do
justice to.

In addition, a goodly chunk of the Humanitarian Aid flown into Biafra
and oterh such places was in Air National Guard C-97s, "leased" at
some nominal fee to Balair in Switzerland (International Red Cross),
and World Church Aid. These aircraft were flown by ANG personnel.

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

[Kevin Brooks]

"George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On 28 Jun 2004 22:56:48 GMT, (BUFDRVR) wrote:
> >
> > >>By 1972, the table was most assuredly round and all
> > >>four parties were involved in the negotiation.
> > >
> > >According to several books I've read, only the NVN and US were in
Paris...at
> > >least at the peace accords.
> > >
> > >>As has been earlier mentioned here, one of the stumbling blocks was
> > >>the unwillingness of Diem regime to concede some of the points agreed
> > >>to beween the US and NVN.
> > >
> > >Ed, Ngo Dihn Diem was killed in 1963, the SVN President in 1972 was
Nguyen
> Van
> > >Thieu whom the North refused to negotiate with since they claimed his
regime
> > >was illegitimate.
> >
> > Encroaching senility. Meant Thieu. His representative was Le Duc Tho.
>
> You should have quit when you were ahead, Ed. Look below, or read it and
weep:

Wow. You must have missed Ed's immediate correction that he hisself posted
regarding this little history lesson you are offering?

Brooks

>
> "Le Duc Tho was born in Nam Ha province, Vietnam on 14th October, 1911. As
a
> young man he became involved in radical politics and in 1930 helped
establish
> the Indochinese Communist Party. He campaigned against French rule in
Vietnam
> and was twice imprisoned for his political activities (1930-36 and
1939-44).
>
> In 1945 Le Duc Tho returned to Hanoi and joined with Ho Chi Minh and Vo
Nguyen
> Giap in establishing the Vietnam Revolutionary League (Vietminh). Until
1954 he
> was Vietminh's leader in South Vietnam. A member of the Politburo of the
Vietnam
> Workers' Party, he had responsibility for organizing the rebellion against
the
> government of South Vietnam.
>
> Peace talks between representatives from United States, South Vietnam,
North
> Vietnam and the NLF began in Paris in January, 1969. Le Duc Tho served as
> special adviser to the North Vietnamese delegation. He eventually became
North
> Vietnamese leader in these talks."
>
>
> George Z.
>
>

[BUFDRVR]

Kevin Brooks wrote:

<snip>

>I guess my point was that had the US not done
>anything in Vietnam, it would have left the door open for more adventurous
>action (than what was actually experienced) on the part of the USSR and PRC
>supporting communist factions in other nearby nations.

Perhaps, but any direct support to communist insurgents in say Thailand would
have required the cooperation (at least in over-flight rights) of both Vietnam
and either Cambodia or Laos and the staging of operations in either Cambodia or
Laos. With Vietnam and Cambodia at "odds", would it have been likely that they
would have had the inclination to support such operations? It may have been
possible, but not certainly as "neat" as the support to NVN and the Pathet Lao
was.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

[John Mullen]

"Peter Stickney" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "John Mullen" > writes:
> > "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> >> The sixties saw us (read large--the Brits did their share of countering
> >> communist moves during this period, IIRC, especially in Malaya) face
> >> insurgencies around the world; US "advisors" were apparently involved
in
> >> helping combat this threat in a fair number of spots outside
> >> Vietnam/Cambodia/Laos. ISTR US special forces (and CIA) assets (to
include
> >> B-26K COIN aircraft) were active in Africa,
> >
> > Yuo mean the CIA's support for the unsuccessful insurgency in Angola?
Surely
> > that went on into the 80's?
>
> He means the involvement of teh CIA, the USAF (AIr Commandos, and
> later on, USAFE and MATS aircraft), and U.S. Army Special Forces in the
> Congo. (Later Zaire, then the Congo again) in the period between the
> two uprisings in the early and mid-'60s. It was the sort of thing
> that occurred in Africa at teh time (And later, as well), with Tribal
> animosities, strange mixtures of Marxism/Leninism/Maoism/Animism
> thrown in, and an overtone of severe atrocities against any
> "Europeans" or "European-ized" Africans. The first revolt/uprising
> resulted in the U.N. getting involved, with Swedish and Indian
> Peacekeepers strafing the natives with SAAB-29s and Canberras.
> The second uprisising was put down by a comnination of Congolese,
> Mercenaries ("Mad Mike" Hoare) funded by the CIA, with assistance from
> the USAF Air Commandos (AT-28s and the B-26Ks), and the Belgian
> Para-Commando Regiment, which was dropped from USAFE C-130s backed up
> by MATS C-124s to rescue hostages (Mostly Europeans) held in
> Stanleyville.
>
> It's a big, nasty, complicated story that I couldn't possible do
> justice to.
>
> In addition, a goodly chunk of the Humanitarian Aid flown into Biafra
> and oterh such places was in Air National Guard C-97s, "leased" at
> some nominal fee to Balair in Switzerland (International Red Cross),
> and World Church Aid. These aircraft were flown by ANG personnel.

Excellent post! It was Brooks writing 'Africa' that left the question he was
talking about ambiguous. It is a big continent, and has more than its fair
share of wars over the years. Would that be the CIA's first use of
mercenaries (sorry, ahem, 'contractors') to do their dirty work for them?

Vic Flintham's excellent book 'Air Wars and Aircraft: A Detailed Record of
Air Combat, 1945 to the Present' gives a very good account of both the Congo
and the Biafra affairs. Sadly, it now seems to be out of print. Vic, do you
still read this NG? Any plans to produce an updated version?

John

[John Mullen]

"Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Brett" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "John Mullen" > wrote:
> > > "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > >
> > > > The sixties saw us (read large--the Brits did their share of
> countering
> > > > communist moves during this period, IIRC, especially in Malaya) face
> > > > insurgencies around the world; US "advisors" were apparently
involved
> in
> > > > helping combat this threat in a fair number of spots outside
> > > > Vietnam/Cambodia/Laos. ISTR US special forces (and CIA) assets (to
> > include
> > > > B-26K COIN aircraft) were active in Africa,
> > >
> > > Yuo mean the CIA's support for the unsuccessful insurgency in Angola?
> > Surely
> > > that went on into the 80's?
> >
> > B-26's were supposedly flown in operations in the Congo, in the 1960's.
> > B-26's were used in Angola but I believe the missions where all flown by
> > members of the FAP.
>
> Offering facts like that will only confuse him further.

Hey Brooksy, I always wondered, why do you always sign with your last name?
Are you of noble birth or something?

;)

John

[Howard Berkowitz]

In article >, Ed Rasimus
> wrote:

> On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 22:46:22 +0100, "Paul J. Adam"
> > wrote:
>
> >In message >, Ed Rasimus
> > writes
>
> >>Any questions?
> >
> >Yes, but they're quibbles rather than arguments. I'd argue details of
> >many of those statements while agreeing with them overall.
>
> But, then you've proven yourself to be a rational individual who
> offers greater depth to the discussion than simple name calling or
> sloganeering.
>
> As I regularly tell students, political questions are complex and
> nuanced. They usually exhibit two opposing positions with deeply held
> convictions. The hard part is to rise above the pig-wrestling and
> listen to the other side's argument, demand that both sides offer fact
> and reason, then make objective rather than subjective choices.
>
> Ain't easy.
>

But thank you, very sincerely, for telling that to your students. If
only that reasoning could extend to USENET posters...

[Howard Berkowitz]

In article >, Stephen Harding
> wrote:


>
> This sort of character assassination in the guise of
> political debate was common political currency from the
> founding of the US right up to the late 1800s when electioneering
> seemed to become more civil (though still filled with the
> smoke filled, back room wheeling and dealing). Washington,
> Adams, Jefferson and Jackson seemed especially victimized
> by this sort of politically driven, savage personal attack.

Ah, but the rhetoric of the day, if carried into modern times, might be
a bit redeeming. Compare Cheney's recent anatomical comment to that
from John Randolph of Roanoke about Henry Clay: "Like a rotten mackerel
by moonlight, he shines and stinks."

Even turn-of-the-twentieth-century would do:

Speechifying Repreentative: "I'd rather be right than President!"

Speaker of the House Vinegar Joe Cannon: "You, sir, are in no danger of
ever being either."

[Fred the Red Shirt]

Ed Rasimus > wrote in message >...
>
> I'd rather win than lose.

Me too.

> I'd rather America prevail than the Islamic fundamentalists.

I'd rather have truth and justice prevail than religious
fundamentalism regardless of the variety of religion or the
nationality of the fanatic.

> I'd
> rather retain national sovereignty than subject us to the whims of the
> UN.

I'd rather our elected officials and their apointees respect the
Constitution, their obligations under the treaties ratified by
our Senate, and obey the law. Happily, six of our Supreme Court
Justices agree with me.

> I'd rather carry my own weapon and defend myself.

Me too.

> I'd rather
> individual responsibility than a welfare state.

Me too, Ditto for welfare for the rich.

> I'd rather keep my
> earnings and make my own spending choices.

Me too.

> I'd like higher standards
> rather than affirmative action.

I'd like them both. They are not incompatible.

--

FF

[Fred the Red Shirt]

Ed Rasimus > wrote in message >...
> ...
> As I regularly tell students, political questions are complex and
> nuanced. They usually exhibit two opposing positions with deeply held
> convictions. ...

It is unfortunate that you perpetuate the myth that political
questions may be sensibly reduced to a mere dichotomy.

--

FF

[Steve Hix]

In article >,
(Fred the Red Shirt) wrote:

> Ed Rasimus > wrote in message
> >...
> > ...
> > As I regularly tell students, political questions are complex and
> > nuanced. They usually exhibit two opposing positions with deeply held
> > convictions. ...
>
> It is unfortunate that you perpetuate the myth that political
> questions may be sensibly reduced to a mere dichotomy.

He didn't say that, now, did he?

[Fred the Red Shirt]

Ed Rasimus > wrote in message >...
>

How about if you lay out a chronology of GWB's ANG service for
us, or refer us to an accurate one posted elsewhere.

Beats the hell outta "Your making that up." "No, you'r making
that up."

--

FF

[Fred the Red Shirt]

Ed Rasimus > wrote in message >...
>
> you accept the fact that all of us who
> fought in Vietnam were war criminals guilty of atrocity.

I dunno about anybody else but when someone tells me that he
witnessed or participated in atrocities I tend to belief them.
When someone also tells me that he did not, I tend to believe
him too. Unlike yourself, I don't have a problem with the
notion that different persons had different experiences.

What I find bizarre, is when someone argues that the atrocities
to which people admit, never occurred.

>
> You agree that we should enthrone a Robin Hood government that takes
> from the rich and bestows upon the poor.

I dunno if he agrees with you on that or not. But _I_ definately
am opposed to a government that takes from the poor and gives to the
rich, like the S&L deregulation, or allowing corporations to declare
a surplus in their pension plans based on projected cash flow from
their present workforce, then take back the 'surplus' then declare
bankruptcy and lay off the workers they said would be financing the
pension. Then claim they can't lay the pensions that could have been
payed if they had left the funds on deposit.

Or the corporate income tax, effectively a tax on all consumers, but
it has it's greatest impact on the poor.

> We should turn over American
> foreign policy to 220 stumbling third-world corrupt governments in the
> UN.

I dunno about that. But when we feed them a pack of lies and
sabotage the UN weapons inspection program by feeding them false
information they should call us for being the liars we are.

> And, we should provide universal health care to everyone in the
> nation,

Yes.

> regardless of cost.

It will cost us regardless. The question is mostly how will
those costs be paid.

>
> Repetition might be satisfying and with the three of you echoing each
> other, it may meet your needs for intellectual stimulation.
>
> At this point I'll let you vote the way you wish,

No one needs you to 'let' them vote they way they wish. If that
makes you unhappy, maybe you're living in the wrong country.
Perhaps Myamar would be more to your liking.

--

FF

[Fred the Red Shirt]

"Jarg" > wrote in message >...
> "w.a. manning" > wrote in message
> om...
> > sounds alot like the current administration:
> >
> > there are WMDs. repeat, ad inifinitum.
> > iraq has links to al qaeda. repeat, ad inifinitum.
> > the list goes on, ad infinitum.
> >
> >
>
> Of course they have found WMD (or did you not catch that?),

Tell us what was found, and where it was found.

As I recall, some ineffective 15-year-old Sarin shells that appear to
have been lost in inventory and mistaken for HE were found

As you will recall, GWB claimed that WMDs were currently in
production in Iraq in 2002. We found no evidence that WMDs
were currently in production in Iraq in 2002. We found no
production facilites. We found no residues indicating
recent production.

GWB claimed that Iraw was developing nucular weapons. We found
no evidence of a nucular weapons program in Iraq. Clearly the
administration was not mistaken on this point because during the
invasion and for a few weeks after Bagdad was secured the Bush
adminstration made no effort to secure the Iraqi nuclear facilities.
Obviously if the Bush administration had thought it even slightly
probably that there were fissile materials or nuclear weapons
components in Iraq those would have been high priority targets
for search and seizure. IN fact, despite being fed with false
information in an obvious attempt to derail the UN inspection
program, the IAEA had declared Iraq to be in compliance in
regards to nuclear weapons. The Bush administration still will
not allow IAEA inspectors to revisit the Iraqi facilities to
deterine if any of the materials they inventoried had been
removed. Why not?

How about VX? Was Iraq was manufacturing and stockpiling VX in
the Fall of 2002? We found no VX. We found no facilites
for making VX. We found no residues indicationg VX had been
made in recent years.

How about anthrax? Was Iraq producing and weaponizing anthrax
spores in the Fall of 2002? We found none. We found no facilites
for producing or weaponizing anthrax spores. In 2001 we were attacked
here in the US with a strain of anthrax developed at Ft Dietrich in
Maryland there has never been any evidence of a foreign source
for any chemical or biological weapon attack in the US.

How about botulinum toxin? We found no facilites for producing
botulinum toxin. One doctor came forward with a specimin of the
botulinum baccilus that he had been keeping at home. There are
about a half dozen varieties of this bacilus. All produce highly
toxic material. The toxins they produce vary in toxicity by a
factor of about 100. The least toxic of these is used theraputically,
one supposes that he best choice for WMDs would be the most toxic
variety. The specimen the doctor had was of the least toxic
variety.

How about mustard gas? Iraq declared some mustard gas shelles that
had survived the 1991 war. The Un had cataloged them but inspectors
found a discrepency on the books amounting to about 500 shells.
While not enough to be militarily significant, it remained an ongoing
concern up until the invasion.

I do not recall anything related to WMDS being found in Iraq that
was worth killing a single person over.

> they have found
> links to Al Quada (guess you missed that one too)

Define link. Tells us about those links (plural).

There is a relationship between me and Al Queda. That relationship is
as follows: I want everyone in Al Quaeda to die as quickly as possible.

Saddam Hussein certainly had a relationship with Osama Bin Laden.
Bin Laden asked him for help, and Hussein turned him down. That
was the nature of their relationship, was it not?

--

FF

[Fred the Red Shirt]

(WalterM140) wrote in message >...
> >Aha! You dodged the draft by going into the reserves just as many have
> >accused
> >Bush of doing by going into the guard.
> >
>
> Actually, I joined the Marine Corps the day I turned 18.

What year was that?

--

FF

[Fred the Red Shirt]

(B2431) wrote in message >...
>
>
> Look, whether Bush served as much or as little as he said is of no import. At
> least he never stabbed us in the back as did Kerry. And he did serve in the
> TANG.
>

Whom did Kerry ever stab in the back?

--

FF

[Fred the Red Shirt]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message . net>...
> "Mike Dargan" > wrote in message
> news:qd0Dc.117009$0y.58857@attbi_s03...
> >
> > The Republicans and their junior college instructor lackey's have a long
> > history of belittling those who served well while exaggerating the
> > military records of their, more prudent, candidates.

Dunno about a long history, but that was evident in 2000.

Consider also how the current administration ignores the only combat
veteran serving in the cabinet.

Powell should have made it clear to Bush that he was no longer
serving under Rumsfeld--or at least made that clear to Rumsfeld
and Cheney.

> >
> > Can anyone remember the 1972 election? During WWII Richard Nixon ran a
> > Navy fruit drink stand at some South Pacific backwater supply base while
> > George McGovern was leading groups of B24s in daylight attacks on Nazi
> > Europe. AFter the war McGovern used the GI Bill to get a Ph.D., while
> > Nixon used slush funds to finance red baiting.
> >
> > By election time in 1972 the Republican propaganda machine convinced the
> > weak minded and ignorant that Nixon was the warrior and McGovern the
> dodger.
> >
> > They're trying to pull the same trick in 2004.
> >
>
> I can remember the 1972 election, but I sure don't remember what you
> described. I think you fabricated it.

As I recall it was the Democrats who portrayed Nixon as a warrior and
both portrayed McGovern as a 'peacenik'.

I don't recall anyone portraying McGovern as a dodger.

I also thought that McGovern flew B-25s.

But just look back at the Republican primaries campaign from 2000.
The Bush camp tried to make McCain out to be mentally unstable. Now
we know that Bush thinks he's on a mission from God. Who was the
real nutcase?

--

FF

[Fred the Red Shirt]

Mike Dargan > wrote in message news:<cpFDc.124898$Sw.61008@attbi_s51>...
> Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> ...
> >>By election time in 1972 the Republican propaganda machine convinced the
> >>weak minded and ignorant that Nixon was the warrior and McGovern the
> >
> > dodger.
> >
> >>They're trying to pull the same trick in 2004.
> >>
> >
> >
> > I can remember the 1972 election, but I sure don't remember what you
> > described. I think you fabricated it.
>
> Well Steve, if you don't think very well, try to not think very much:
>
> http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml%3Fi=20021111&s=scheer20021029
>

There is no claim, let alone evidecne, presente din that article to
the effect that anyone attempted to protray McGovern as a dodger.

I also think McGovern is not being honest if he says (note, 'IF'
I don't claim that he is being accurately paraphrased in the
article.) he didn;t use his war record in his campaign for
reasons of 'unseenliness'. The fact is that in 1972 pointing
with justifiable pride to an honorable service record might have
cost him votes. That is how screwed up things were back then.

The article also says he flew B-24s agains Nazi Germany. I
recall, from 1972, that the most famous mission he flew was
an attack on a Rumanian petroleum refinery complex. I had
thought that he flew B-25s out of Italy to targets in
Eastern Europe. Maybe my memory is wrong here.

--

FF

[Fred the Red Shirt]

"Brett" > wrote in message >...
>
>
> ... McGovern the "subversive peacenik"
> it was the news shots of his anti-war, anti-capitalist supporters and his
> own campaign rhetoric at the Democratic convention and the many campaign
> rallies leading up to the election that November.

You say that like it was a bad thing.

I don't trust anyone who is not 'anti-war' though I trust some
who feel that sometimes the alternative to war is worse than war.

--

FF

[Fred the Red Shirt]

Ed Rasimus > wrote in message >...
> [recall of 1972 deleted for brevity]
> >
> I was thirty and flying my second tour at Korat in the F-4E, going to
> NVN most every day. I had a vested interest in the campaign.
>

I turned 18 a year after the election of 1972. My number was 187,
but thanks to Nixon 'winding down' the war in Vietnam no one in
my year was drafted so I sat on my ass stateside. Notwithstanding,
what I recall is much the same as what you recall.

--

FF

[Fred the Red Shirt]

(WalterM140) wrote in message >...
>
> This dirty tricks organization went full tilt in an effort to keep Clinton
> from governing. They did this with the White Water scandal -- nothing there.

Ahem. Last I heard somewhere around 20 folks went to prison in the
Whitewater cases. Jim Tucker, the sitting Governor of Arkansas
went straight from the governor's house to the big house.

"Nothing there" is an incredibly arrogant lie. I'm disappointed
that you believed it.

> And Vince Foster -- nothing there. As President Clinton said, Ken Starr was
> determined to drive him out of office regardless of the facts -- to -negate-
> the decision of the voters.

Another lie. Ken Starr exhonerated Clinton IRT Vince Foster and also
IRT whitewater and a few other allegations that I'm too tired to
recall for now. He did prepare the best case he could for impeachment
because that is part of the job of the OIC and one factor that
distinguished it from a Special Prosecutor. IMHO, and that of a
majority of Senators that best case did not justify removing Clinton
form office but Starr would have been remiss in his duties, to
put it mildly, had he refused to make that case.

As you may recall, the OIC was tasked with the dual duties of
criminal investigatrion and investigating any basis for impeachment
to avoid the conflicts that arose in the separate Justice Department
and House of Representatives investigation of the Iran Contra
Scandal. That criminal investigation was brought to a standstill
when the House granted immunity to key witnesses who then happily
claimed to be the ringleaders and skated.

As you know (and certainly as Clinton knows) each investigation done
by every independent counsel was approved, in advance, by the Attorney
General and a panel of three Federal Judges. Wheras in the past,
the Attorney General had assigned different independent counsels to
investigated independant allegations, Reno chose to keep assigning
investigation to Starr, rather than creating new independent councils.
I'm not clear on why she did that, maybe for economy, it was probably
cheaper to have one OIC pursuing a half dozen different investigations
than to have a half dozen OICs all operating independently and often
redundantly with each other.

OTOH, it worked out well for CLinton as every time Reno assigned a
new investigation to Starr a whole bunch of lying sycophants would
start proclaiming that Starr was out of control and operating without
restraint.

Of course there were other OICs during the Clinton years, but they were
investigating persons other than the Clintons themselves.

I don't know how successful they were, but I bet that if you use some
sort of statistic like how much the government spent on prosecution
for every day someone convicted by a Special Prosecutor/Independent
Counsel spent in prison Starr would rank second only to Leon Jaworski.

--

FF

[Fred the Red Shirt]

(B2431) wrote in message >...
>
> The only ones that should be excluded from public office are Clinton and Dean
> since he admitted to committing felonies: providing fraudulent medical
> "evidence" to his draft board and smoking marijuana which was a felony at the
> time.
>

I think that the right of th epeople to elect an admitted felon to
public office is far more important than your sense of propriety
calling for their disenfranchisement.

Would you argue that no one who admits to having comitted a felony
should be allowed to hold public office?

How about my friend's grandmother who was CONVICTED of a felony for
providing birth control literature to minor?

--

FF

[Fred the Red Shirt]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message .net>...
> "ArtKramr" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Fact: Kerry went to war. Bush didn't.
> >
>
> Fact: Kerry used an unearned Purple Heart to get out of Vietnam after
> serving just a third of his tour. Bush didn't.

Show your evidence that Kerry didnt earn his third purple
heart, received in his second tour of duty.

ALso,

Show your evidence that Bush didn't get out of Vietnam.

Show why any of that is more important than what both men have
done since.

--

FF

[Fred the Red Shirt]

(BUFDRVR) wrote in message >...
> Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
>
> >No, you don't know that, you believe that. There is a difference.
>
> I'm not sure why you guys are wasting your time with this "Walt" guy. This is
> the same brain washed lunatic that claims Bush, as CinC, was personally
> responsible for Abu Garib, but Clinton was not responsible for Somalia, but
> Bush 41 was. How can argue with "logic" like that?
>

If Americans in Somalia were inspired by Clinton to committ crimes
then Clinton would be just as responsible for those crimes as Bush
would be for crimes he inspired at Abu Graib.

To my knowledge. Clinton never declared that the US would not
honor the Geneva conventions. Clinton never tried to create
ad hoc courts to conduct secret trials, in violation of both
the US Constitution and the Geneva Conventions. Clinton's
secretary of defense never ordered Americans to violate the
UCMJ or the Geneva Conventions. Clinton's Secretary of
Defense never ordered that prisoners be hidden from the ICRC.
Clinton's Justice Department never prepared a memo to tell him
that torture is OK, or at least you can get away with it.

If the press grows a spine, they'll interview the UN High
Comissioner for Human Rights. And someone will ask Rumsfeld
if he ever actually read the Geneva Conventions.

--

FF

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Fred the Red Shirt" > wrote in message
om...
> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
. net>...
> > "Mike Dargan" > wrote in message
> > news:qd0Dc.117009$0y.58857@attbi_s03...
> > >
> > > The Republicans and their junior college instructor lackey's have a
long
> > > history of belittling those who served well while exaggerating the
> > > military records of their, more prudent, candidates.
>
> Dunno about a long history, but that was evident in 2000.
>

I did not write anything that appears above. If you're going to snip my
words then also snip my name.

[Brett]

"Fred the Red Shirt" > wrote:
> "Brett" > wrote in message
>...
> >
> >
> > ... McGovern the "subversive peacenik"
> > it was the news shots of his anti-war, anti-capitalist supporters and
his
> > own campaign rhetoric at the Democratic convention and the many campaign
> > rallies leading up to the election that November.
>
> You say that like it was a bad thing.

Try again peabrain - you're editing achieved that goal, my original comment
was that Nixon didn't paint him up as the "subversive peacenik" he and his
supporters did that and they didn't need any help in achieving that goal.

[Brett]

"Fred the Red Shirt" > wrote:
> "Brett" > wrote in message
>...
> >
> >
> > ... McGovern the "subversive peacenik"
> > it was the news shots of his anti-war, anti-capitalist supporters and
his
> > own campaign rhetoric at the Democratic convention and the many campaign
> > rallies leading up to the election that November.
>
> You say that like it was a bad thing.

Try again peabrain - your own editing achieved that goal, my original
comment was that Nixon didn't paint him up as the "subversive peacenik" he
and his supporters did that and they didn't need any help in achieving that
goal.

[George Z. Bush]

"Fred the Red Shirt" > wrote in message
om...

> I also thought that McGovern flew B-25s.

No....B-24s for the Eighth Air Force.
>
> But just look back at the Republican primaries campaign from 2000.
> The Bush camp tried to make McCain out to be mentally unstable. Now
> we know that Bush thinks he's on a mission from God. Who was the
> real nutcase?

IAC, if McCain was nutty, it was probably due to the time he spent in the Hanoi
Hilton. How is Bush's nuttiness explained? Surely things couldn't have been
that tough in those south Texas cantinas he hung around in during the Battle of
the Gulf of Mexico.

George Z.

[George Z. Bush]

"Steve Hix" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> (Fred the Red Shirt) wrote:
>
> > Ed Rasimus > wrote in message
> > >...
> > > ...
> > > As I regularly tell students, political questions are complex and
> > > nuanced. They usually exhibit two opposing positions with deeply held
> > > convictions. ...
> >
> > It is unfortunate that you perpetuate the myth that political
> > questions may be sensibly reduced to a mere dichotomy.
>
> He didn't say that, now, did he?

Well, yes, he did. I think his words were "two opposing positions" which is how
my dictionary defines "dichotomy".

George Z.

[George Z. Bush]

"Fred the Red Shirt" > wrote in message
om...
> (WalterM140) wrote in message
>...
> >
> > This dirty tricks organization went full tilt in an effort to keep Clinton
> > from governing. They did this with the White Water scandal -- nothing there.
>
> Ahem. Last I heard somewhere around 20 folks went to prison in the
> Whitewater cases. Jim Tucker, the sitting Governor of Arkansas
> went straight from the governor's house to the big house.
>
> "Nothing there" is an incredibly arrogant lie. I'm disappointed
> that you believed it.

In the context that the initial purpose of the probe was to get the goods on
Clinton, it was not a lie. They never uncovered sufficient involvement to
warrant an indictment against him. So, as far as Clinton was concerned, there
was nothing there.

George Z.

[Fred the Red Shirt]

"George Z. Bush" > wrote in message >...
>
> In the context that the initial purpose of the probe was to get the goods on
> Clinton, it was not a lie. ...
>

That misstatement of the charter of the OIC is also a lie.

Somehow, Clinton was better at using one lie to convince people
that another lie was true, than is Bush. Maybe it was those
bedroom eyes vs the dear inthe headlights look.

--

FF

[Madelin McKinnon]

are you kidding?


Like pornographer Ken Starr and CNN, who thrived on the opportunity to
introduce the words "oral sex" into everyday usage the way the
initials, H.B. (Horny *******) are currently being magnified, the
media is having another salacious field day. I think the real initials
that merit widespread circulation are S.M. (Stupid Morons) because
they apply to the media and to all the authorities who still think
that this is all about sex. This is about the murder of Laci Peterson
and about all the unindicted whores (feel free to be vulgar now that
the media has lowered expectations) who blame an innocent man to cover
up their own incompetence or involvement. At the very least, these
S.M.'s are obstructing justice by distorting the truth about the
murder of Laci Peterson. If it wasn't for the investigative reports of
David Sween, who has been one step ahead of the effort to frame an
innocent man, Scott Peterson would have been dead and buried by now,
just like Richard Albert Ricci was. The fact that David Sween is
responsible for saving Scott Peterson became graphically plain
recently, when the disgraced prosecution tried to save the reputation
of the incompetent, Detective Allen Brocchini. The detective had
gotten a call about how Scott dumped Laci in the ocean on April 19,
2003, a day after Scott Peterson was arrested, but Detective Allen
Brocchini did not follow up because, in his words,

"I just couldn't corroborate it, and I just didn't put a lot of stock
in it."

In retrospect, such a call is consistent with the persistent effort to
frame Scott Peterson, and investigator, David Sween, had virually made
that crystal clear when he wrote the following report:

http://www.geocities.com/botenth/scott.htm

So you see, if David Sween did not methodically and systematically
expose every absurd plot to frame Scott Peterson, the prosecution
might have fraudulently "cemented" the case against Scott early on,
and he may have died in prison, just like Richard Albert Ricci did.
The April 19 telephone call tip that Brochini dismissed is the very
same one that the prosecution has currently embraced, and that is a
clear indication of the fact that earlier efforts to frame Scott
Peterson were discarded because David Sween exposed every fraudulent
effort to "cement" the case against Scott Peterson.

If Scott has a guardian angel looking over his shoulder, his name is
David Sween, and I seriously believe that in the absence of his
brilliant reporting, Scott Peterson would be dead.

How long is the prison torture of innocent people going to be
tolerated? Why are we not charging Ken Starr for torture? With Susan
McDougal and her husband, did Starr not use cruel and unusual
punishment, did Starr not obstruct justice, did Starr not tamper with
witnesses, did Starr not violate the racketeering statutes with the
far right wing, did Star not...??? If Starr's look-a-like, Distaso,
manages to turn Scott Peterson into another Jim McDougall, are we
going to applaud this license to murder an innocent man? Jim McDougal
was convicted on May 28, 1996 of 18 charges against him. Facing up to
84 years in prison and $4.5 million in fines, McDougal agreed to
cooperate with Starr's office. His cooperation netted a reduced
sentence, and in April 1997 he was sentenced to three years in prison
and a year of house arrest, three years of probation and a $10,000
fine. Jim McDougal conveniently died in jail in March 1998. His
cooperation produced the allegation that Susan McDougal and Bill
Clinton had been lovers. Was that statement, (true or not), worth 81
years in jail and almost 4.5 million dollars? Pornographer, Ken Starr
evidently thought so. McDougall's death denied the opportunity to
prove that his original indictment was a consequence of his refusal to
lie. Perhaps, if somebody paid a hefty price for the torture of Jim
McDougal, the murders of Chandra Levy and Laci Peterson would have at
least been investigated in a competent manner, because as long as
justice is about harrassing innocent people, it doesn't exist.

http://www.geocities.com/botenth/scott.htm

[Fred the Red Shirt]

"Brett" > wrote in message >...
> "Fred the Red Shirt" > wrote:
> > "Brett" > wrote in message
> >...
> > >
> > >
> > > ... McGovern the "subversive peacenik"
> > > it was the news shots of his anti-war, anti-capitalist supporters and
> his
> > > own campaign rhetoric at the Democratic convention and the many campaign
> > > rallies leading up to the election that November.
> >
> > You say that like it was a bad thing.
>
> Try again peabrain - your own editing achieved that goal, my original

What goal?

> comment was that Nixon didn't paint him up as the "subversive peacenik" he
> and his supporters did that and they didn't need any help in achieving that
> goal.

Do you say that like it was bad thing, or not?

--

FF

[Fred the Red Shirt]

"Brett" > wrote in message >...
> "Fred the Red Shirt" > wrote:
> > "Brett" > wrote in message
> >...
> > >
> > >
> > > ... McGovern the "subversive peacenik"
> > > it was the news shots of his anti-war, anti-capitalist supporters and
> his
> > > own campaign rhetoric at the Democratic convention and the many campaign
> > > rallies leading up to the election that November.
> >
> > You say that like it was a bad thing.
>
> Try again peabrain - you're editing achieved that goal

What goal?

> comment was that Nixon didn't paint him up as the "subversive peacenik" he
> and his supporters did that and they didn't need any help in achieving that
> goal.

Do you say that like it was bad thing, or not?

--

FF

[Brett]

"Fred the peabrain" > wrote:
> "Brett" > wrote in message
>...
> > "Fred the Red Shirt" > wrote:
> > > "Brett" > wrote in message
> > >...
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ... McGovern the "subversive peacenik"
> > > > it was the news shots of his anti-war, anti-capitalist supporters
and
> > his
> > > > own campaign rhetoric at the Democratic convention and the many
campaign
> > > > rallies leading up to the election that November.
> > >
> > > You say that like it was a bad thing.
> >
> > Try again peabrain - your own editing achieved that goal, my original
>
> What goal?

The editing addition of an opinion to an opinion free original comment.

> > comment was that Nixon didn't paint him up as the "subversive peacenik"
he
> > and his supporters did that and they didn't need any help in achieving
that
> > goal.
>
> Do you say that like it was bad thing, or not?

It was how the McGovern campaign wanted to be viewed and it lost him the
election.

If you were a Nixon supporter it was a "good thing".
If you were a McGovern supporter it was a "good thing".
If you were a Democrat without a Presidential candidate to vote for, it was
a "bad thing" (he wasn't the best choice the Democrats had available in
1972).

[Howard Berkowitz]

In article >,
(Fred the Red Shirt) wrote:


>
> How about botulinum toxin? We found no facilites for producing
> botulinum toxin. One doctor came forward with a specimin of the
> botulinum baccilus that he had been keeping at home. There are
> about a half dozen varieties of this bacilus.

It would be more correct to say there are six forms of the toxin, A-G.
There could well be more than one substrain that produces the same
toxin.

>All produce highly toxic material.

Not all botulinus toxins affect humans, or have a very low incidence of
affecting humans -- especially C&D.

>The toxins they produce vary in toxicity by a
> factor of about 100. The least toxic of these is used theraputically,

No, the most toxic is Type A, which is also the active ingredient in the
therapeutic drug Botox.

> one supposes that he best choice for WMDs would be the most toxic
> variety. The specimen the doctor had was of the least toxic
> variety.

That being said, I have seen no reports indicating weaponization after
1991.

[Steve Hix]

In article >,
(Fred the Red Shirt) wrote:

> Ed Rasimus > wrote in message
> >...
> >
>
> How about if you lay out a chronology of GWB's ANG service for
> us, or refer us to an accurate one posted elsewhere.
>
> Beats the hell outta "Your making that up." "No, you'r making
> that up."

Google News is your friend.

Or, anyway, would be if you bothered to check the multiple complete
expositions answering your question that have appeared in this newsgroup
during the past year.

Once you've done that, you will likely have a chance to apologize to Ed.

[Steve Hix]

In article >,
(Fred the Red Shirt) wrote:

> (B2431) wrote in message
> >...
> >
> >
> > Look, whether Bush served as much or as little as he said is of no import.
> > At least he never stabbed us in the back as did Kerry. And he did serve in the
> > TANG.
>
> Whom did Kerry ever stab in the back?

How about pretty much every single person serving in the military during
the late '60s and early '70s.

[OXMORON1]

HB wrote among other things:

>No, the most toxic is Type A, which is also the active ingredient in the
>therapeutic drug Botox.


Jeeze guys! Can we leave Kerry out of this one?

Oxmoron1

[Paul J. Adam]

In message >,
Steve Hix > writes
>In article >,
> (Fred the Red Shirt) wrote:
>> Whom did Kerry ever stab in the back?
>
>How about pretty much every single person serving in the military during
>the late '60s and early '70s.

That's got to be one sore knife arm he's got there. Even if it seems
most of his victims survived.

Did he personally stab _everyone_ in _every_ military? I know a fair few
UK folk who were serving at the time, who never mentioned having some
Yank with political ambitions jab them in the back with anything sharp.

Indeed, if he was going around stabbing North Vietnamese, Red Russian
and Yellow Chinese military in the back, doesn't that make him a hero?


Okay, maybe you assumed that only the United States has a military, fair
enough. Is the new test for "were you really in the US military" showing
the scar where Kerry personally stabbed you? No scar, no service?

(Can't abide the guy, personally, but I don't think he's actually knifed
many people - there's more than enough to knock him for without
inventing stuff.)

--
He thinks too much: such men are dangerous.
Julius Caesar I:2

Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

[BUFDRVR]

Fred the Red Shirt wrote:

>If Americans in Somalia were inspired by Clinton to committ crimes
>then Clinton would be just as responsible for those crimes as Bush
>would be for crimes he inspired at Abu Graib.

Blah,blah, blah. You politically motivated zelots won't ever stop. The issue
wasn't the ridiculous notion you've put fourth above, it was one of "ultimate
responsibility" versus "personal responsibility". Your fellow left wing lunatic
said Bush was "personally responsible" for Abu Garib because he was CinC. When
I applied that litmus test to the fiasco of Somalia circa 1993, he claimed
Clinton was not responsible *at all* (ultimately or personally), instead he
placed blame on Bush 41. If this is sound reasoning to you (and I'm quite sure
it will be) you are short on the ability to think rationally.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

[Fred the Red Shirt]

Steve Hix > wrote in message >...
> In article >,
> (Fred the Red Shirt) wrote:
>
> > (B2431) wrote in message
> > >...
> > >
> > >
> > > Look, whether Bush served as much or as little as he said is of no import.
> > > At least he never stabbed us in the back as did Kerry. And he did serve in the
> > > TANG.
> >
> > Whom did Kerry ever stab in the back?
>
> How about pretty much every single person serving in the military during
> the late '60s and early '70s.

No.

How about if you try again, or offer an explanation?

I am confident that you can write more than one sentence and
combine those sentences into coherent paragraphs which may serve
as the start of an intelligent discussion.

Please don't prove me wrong.

--

FF

[Steve Hix]

In article >,
"Paul J. Adam" > wrote:

> In message >,
> Steve Hix > writes
> >In article >,
> > (Fred the Red Shirt) wrote:
> >> Whom did Kerry ever stab in the back?
> >
> >How about pretty much every single person serving in the military during
> >the late '60s and early '70s.
>
> That's got to be one sore knife arm he's got there. Even if it seems
> most of his victims survived.
>
> Did he personally stab _everyone_ in _every_ military? [snip]

I didn't think that a clearly non-literal statement needed to be
qualified to make sure nobody assumed that non-American servicepeople
were included.

Just in case it still isn't clear, he knifed them figuratively by
claiming that war crimes against civilians were the normal course of
business, and that officers knew about it and approved of it.

[Fred the Red Shirt]

Ed Rasimus > wrote in message >...
> On 24 Jun 2004 14:13:20 GMT, (ArtKramr) wrote:
>
> >The constitution was intact until Bush was elected.
> >
> >Arthur Kramer
>
> OK, Art. Put up. What part of the Constitution is no longer intact?

The Constitution remains intact.

I have a friend who has told me that GWB is not 'her' president.
As I explained, the Constitution provides that every four years
he newly elected Congress meets in joint session and votes to
accept or reject the electoral votes sent to that Congress from
the each state from the preceding Presidential Election. If one
Candidate eligible to thePresidency recieve more than half of
the total of the electoral votes accepted by the Congress then
that candidate is the President Elect and on inaguration day he
becomes my President. In Early January of 2001 the newly elected
Congress met in joint session and accepted enough electoral votes
to make George W Bush the president elect. Thus, on inaguration
day, he became my President.

Neither the (7 - 2) decision by the USSC, that Florida was in
violation of the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment,
nor the concurrent decision (5 - 4) enjoining Florida from
remedying that violation had any affect at all on the competency
of the Congress to accept or reject Florida's electoral votes.

The Consitution remained intact.

Since that time Geroge W Bush and his administartion have seized
thousands of persons within the borders of the United States
and, in violation of the Constitution, held them incomunicado
from their families and legal counsel. Here in the United
States of America, the next to final arbiter of what is or is
not permitted or authorized by the Constitution is the United
States Supreme Court, which recently held in a 6 - 3 decision,
that the above mentioned action is forbidden by the Constitution
and ordered the administration to obey the Constitution and
give all persons held in the custody of the United States,
both within the borders of the United States and abroad, access
to counsel and to the courts.

It remains to be seen if George W Bush and his administration
will obey the orders of the United States Supreme Court. Other
presidents in the past have defied the Court, relying on the
final arbiter in all political actions, power. But if George
W Bush and his administration defy the COurt it will be the most
flagrant such violation of the rule of law in the United States
in over 150 years.

Even if George W Bush or his administration does defy the court,
the Constitution itself will have remained intact. As Andrew
Jackson observed, teh USSC has no mechanism for directly enforcing
its orders. If the Court is defied by this administation it will
be incumbant on Americans to enforce the order of the Court.

George W Bush and his administration have proposed, in flagrant
violation of the Constitution, to create ad hoc courts for the
purpose of trying non-citizens outside of the borders of the
United States. It seems unlikely that the administartion has
sufficient time remaining to it to carry out that plan so the
issue most likely will never come befor the USSC.

And the Constitution will remain intact.

--

FF

[Fred the Red Shirt]

Steve Hix > wrote in message >...
> In article >,
> (Fred the Red Shirt) wrote:
>
> > Ed Rasimus > wrote in message
> > >...
> > >
> >
> > How about if you lay out a chronology of GWB's ANG service for
> > us, or refer us to an accurate one posted elsewhere.
> >
> > Beats the hell outta "Your making that up." "No, you'r making
> > that up."
>
> Google News is your friend.

Indeed. Then again, if you have already done the research why not
share? Could you post some URL's? or perhaps UseNet message IDs
with the information laid out succintly? Or perhaps Ed will.

>
> Or, anyway, would be if you bothered to check the multiple complete
> expositions answering your question that have appeared in this newsgroup
> during the past year.
>

or perhaps UseNet message IDs?

Here's one you can check out:

>

Just in case you're not familiar with the concept of 'equivalent duty'
as the term is used in the National Guard.

> Once you've done that, you will likely have a chance to apologize to Ed.

Like, for what? It's not like someone asked Ed a question and I butted in
and pretended to answer for him.

--

FF

[Fred the Red Shirt]

(BUFDRVR) wrote in message >...
> Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
>
> >No, you don't know that, you believe that. There is a difference.
>
> I'm not sure why you guys are wasting your time with this "Walt" guy. This is
> the same brain washed lunatic that claims Bush, as CinC, was personally
> responsible for Abu Garib, but Clinton was not responsible for Somalia, but
> Bush 41 was. How can argue with "logic" like that?
>

Got a mesage ID you can share with us?

I don't remember exatly what Walt said but *I* blame GHB
for sending American Troops into Somalia without any
exit strategy. Clearly GHB was not concerned with how
to get our people out of that situation and the fact that
Clinton fell into the trap and made the situation worse
does nothing to exhonorate GHB of using our troops as
pawns to spite Clinton for wining the election.

At least some good did come of it. For a time, the
humanitarian relief effort was a success.

--

FF

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Fred the Red Shirt" > wrote in message
om...
>
> The Constitution remains intact.
>
> I have a friend who has told me that GWB is not 'her' president.
> As I explained, the Constitution provides that every four years
> he newly elected Congress meets in joint session and votes to
> accept or reject the electoral votes sent to that Congress from
> the each state from the preceding Presidential Election. If one
> Candidate eligible to thePresidency recieve more than half of
> the total of the electoral votes accepted by the Congress then
> that candidate is the President Elect and on inaguration day he
> becomes my President. In Early January of 2001 the newly elected
> Congress met in joint session and accepted enough electoral votes
> to make George W Bush the president elect. Thus, on inaguration
> day, he became my President.
>
> Neither the (7 - 2) decision by the USSC, that Florida was in
> violation of the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment,
> nor the concurrent decision (5 - 4) enjoining Florida from
> remedying that violation had any affect at all on the competency
> of the Congress to accept or reject Florida's electoral votes.
>
> The Consitution remained intact.
>
> Since that time Geroge W Bush and his administartion have seized
> thousands of persons within the borders of the United States
> and, in violation of the Constitution, held them incomunicado
> from their families and legal counsel. Here in the United
> States of America, the next to final arbiter of what is or is
> not permitted or authorized by the Constitution is the United
> States Supreme Court, which recently held in a 6 - 3 decision,
> that the above mentioned action is forbidden by the Constitution
> and ordered the administration to obey the Constitution and
> give all persons held in the custody of the United States,
> both within the borders of the United States and abroad, access
> to counsel and to the courts.
>
> It remains to be seen if George W Bush and his administration
> will obey the orders of the United States Supreme Court. Other
> presidents in the past have defied the Court, relying on the
> final arbiter in all political actions, power. But if George
> W Bush and his administration defy the COurt it will be the most
> flagrant such violation of the rule of law in the United States
> in over 150 years.
>
> Even if George W Bush or his administration does defy the court,
> the Constitution itself will have remained intact. As Andrew
> Jackson observed, teh USSC has no mechanism for directly enforcing
> its orders. If the Court is defied by this administation it will
> be incumbant on Americans to enforce the order of the Court.
>
> George W Bush and his administration have proposed, in flagrant
> violation of the Constitution, to create ad hoc courts for the
> purpose of trying non-citizens outside of the borders of the
> United States. It seems unlikely that the administartion has
> sufficient time remaining to it to carry out that plan so the
> issue most likely will never come befor the USSC.
>
> And the Constitution will remain intact.
>

How can the Constitution remain intact if it is regularly violated?

[BUFDRVR]

Fred the Red Shirt wrote:

>I don't remember exatly what Walt said but *I* blame GHB
>for sending American Troops into Somalia without any
>exit strategy.

Bush 41 *did* have an exit strategy. Bush 41 was interested in providing U.S.
forces for the protection of food supplies. Once the threat of famine had
passed, U.N. forces would slowly begin replacing U.S. forces. It was at this
transfer stage that Clinton changed the mission from humanitarian relief to
"nation building". Neither the U.N. forces nor the U.S. forces were prepared
for that new mission.

>Clearly GHB was not concerned with how
>to get our people out of that situation

Not surprisingly, your partisan view of the world makes things less clear.
"Clearly" Bush 41 did have an exit strategy and it was in the process of of
being executed when the new President changed the mission.

>and the fact that
>Clinton fell into the trap and made the situation worse
>does nothing to exhonorate GHB of using our troops as
>pawns to spite Clinton for wining the election.

What a joke. The minute after Clinton was innaugurated he had the power to
withdraw every U.S. solider from Mogadishu. Trying to claim Bush somehow put
Clinton in a position to screw up in Somalia is, once again, ridiculous
partisan crap. All Clinton had to do was stick with the Bush draw down plan in
Somalia and everything would have been fine. Yes, Adid was getting more
agressive, but the worst of the famine was behind them and there was nothing
anyone could do to build any kind of government in Somalia.

>At least some good did come of it. For a time, the
>humanitarian relief effort was a success.

Which was all Bush 41 was planning to do.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

[WalterM140]

>> I'm not sure why you guys are wasting your time with this "Walt" guy. This
>is
>> the same brain washed lunatic that claims Bush, as CinC, was personally
>> responsible for Abu Garib, but Clinton was not responsible for Somalia, but
>> Bush 41 was. How can argue with "logic" like that?
>>
>
>Got a mesage ID you can share with us?
>
>I don't remember exatly what Walt said but *I* blame GHB
>for sending American Troops into Somalia without any
>exit strategy. Clearly GHB was not concerned with how
>to get our people out of that situation and the fact that
>Clinton fell into the trap and made the situation worse
>does nothing to exhonorate GHB of using our troops as
>pawns to spite Clinton for wining the election.
>

Since Bush 41 was asked for at least a year to send troops to Somalia, you
-have to wonder why he did it as a lame duck president.

I think it very a very fair question to ask: Did he do it to set the Clinton
admministration up for failure?



Walt

[George Z. Bush]

"Fred the Red Shirt" > wrote in message
om...
> (BUFDRVR) wrote in message
>...

(Snip)

> I don't remember exatly what Walt said but *I* blame GHB
> for sending American Troops into Somalia without any
> exit strategy. Clearly GHB was not concerned with how
> to get our people out of that situation and the fact that
> Clinton fell into the trap and made the situation worse
> does nothing to exhonorate GHB of using our troops as
> pawns to spite Clinton for wining the election.
>
> At least some good did come of it. For a time, the
> humanitarian relief effort was a success.

Unless my foggy memory is again playing tricks on me, I seem to recall that the
people who profited most from the relief supplies that we sent to that
unfortunate country were the very war lords who kicked us out of it. I seem to
recall that they sold the relief supplies we sent over there to whichever
starving Somalis had something of value to trade for those supplies.

Please feel free to correct me if I've got it wrong.

George Z.

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: Could the Press Grow a Spine?
>From: (Fred the Red Shirt)
>Date: 7/5/2004 10:57 PM Pacifi

>George W Bush and his administration have proposed, in flagrant
>violation of the Constitution, to create ad hoc courts for the
>purpose of trying non-citizens outside of the borders of the
>United States. It seems unlikely that the administartion has
>sufficient time remaining to it to carry out that plan so the
>issue most likely will never come befor the USSC.
>
>And the Constitution will remain intact.
>

That was settled in 1865 in Milligan v, U.S. Chief Justice Taney writing for
the majority Guantanamo was used to go around this decision and avoid the law.
Bush thinks he is the law because god told him so. A very dangerous man.


Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Fred the Red Shirt" > wrote in message
om...
>
> I don't remember exatly what Walt said but *I* blame GHB
> for sending American Troops into Somalia without any
> exit strategy. Clearly GHB was not concerned with how
> to get our people out of that situation and the fact that
> Clinton fell into the trap and made the situation worse
> does nothing to exhonorate GHB of using our troops as
> pawns to spite Clinton for wining the election.
>

Exit strategy? Wasn't the exit strategy "do the job, then leave"? Clinton
changed the job and didn't give the troops the tools for the new one. GHWB
has no responsibility for the Somalia fiasco.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Fred the Red Shirt" > wrote in message
om...
>
> Show your evidence that Kerry didnt earn his third purple
> heart, received in his second tour of duty.
>

I didn't say it was his third purple heart, I said he used an unearned
purple heart to get out of Vietnam after serving just a third of his tour.
I believe the award in question was the first one.

The following letter appeared in the USA Today "Letters" section on June
25th last, page 8A:



Criticism of Kerry's Purple Heart is just

Retired U.S. army colonel David Hackworth defends presidential
candidate John Kerry's Purple Hearts. He correctly notes that they are
awarded for a wound that necessitates treatment by a medical officer and
that is received in action with an enemy ('The meaning of a Purple Heart,"
The Forum, June 16).

I was the commanding officer to whom Kerry reported his injury on Dec.
3, 1968. I had confirmed that there was no hostile fire that night and that
Kerry had simply wounded himself with an M-79 grenade round he fired too
close. He wanted a Purple Heart, and I refused. Louis Letson, the base
physician, saw Kerry and used tweezers to remove the tiny piece of
shrapnel - about 1 centi*meter in length and 2 millimeters in di*ameter.
Letson also confirmed that the scratch was inflicted with our M-79.

We admire Col. Hackworth, but he, above all people, knows why it is
unac*ceptable to nominate yourself for an award. It compromises the basic
military principle that we survive together. To promote yourself is to
denigrate your team. I hope Col. Hackworth will rethink his characterization
of Kerry's swift-boat comrades as "grousers" passing on "secondhand bilge."
In our case, this is firsthand knowledge, and our integrity is unquestioned.

Kerry orchestrated his way out of Viet*nam and then testified, under
oath, be*fore Congress that we, his comrades, had committed horrible war
crimes. This tes*timony was a lie and slandered honor*able men. We, who were
actually there, believe he is unfit to command our sons and daughters.

Grant Hibbard, retired commander US. Navy, Gulf Breeze, Fla.

Louis Letson, M.D. Retired lieutenant commander Medical Corps, US. Navy
Reserve Scottsboro, Ala.


>
> ALso,
>
> Show your evidence that Bush didn't get out of Vietnam.
>

Evidence that Bush didn't get out of Vietnam? What the hell are you talking
about? Bush did not serve in Vietnam.


>
> Show why any of that is more important than what both men have
> done since.
>

I can't. I don't believe it is more important than what both men have done
since. But Kerry and the Democratic Party apparently do believe it is more
important than what they have done since. Since Kerry became the
frontrunner for their nomination Vietnam has been the key issue in their
campaign to defeat Bush. Note that Vietnam was not an issue when Howard
Dean, who spent much of the Vietnam war with a medical deferment for a bad
back but still managed to become a rather accomplished skier, was their
frontrunner.

Kerry's position on Vietnam has changed dramatically since early 1992, when
Bill Clinton, who avoided not just Vietnam but the military entirely, was
campaigning for the Democratic nomination for president:

" I am saddened by the fact that Vietnam has yet again been inserted into
the campaign, and that it has been inserted in what I feel to be the worst
possible way. By that I mean that yesterday, during this Presidential
campaign, and even throughout recent times, Vietnam has been discussed and
written about without an adequate statement of its full meaning."

"We do not need to divide America over who served and how. I have
personally always believed that many served in many different ways. Someone
who was deeply against the war in 1969 or 1970 may well have served their
country with equal passion and patriotism by opposing the war as by fighting
in it. Are we now, 20 years or 30 years later, to forget the difficulties of
that time, of families that were literally torn apart, of brothers who
ceased to talk to brothers, of fathers who disowned their sons, of people
who felt compelled to leave the country and forget their own future and turn
against the will of their own aspirations?"

Senator John Kerry, Jan 30, 1992

[Michael Wise]

In article et>,
"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:

> > I don't remember exatly what Walt said but *I* blame GHB
> > for sending American Troops into Somalia without any
> > exit strategy. Clearly GHB was not concerned with how
> > to get our people out of that situation and the fact that
> > Clinton fell into the trap and made the situation worse
> > does nothing to exhonorate GHB of using our troops as
> > pawns to spite Clinton for wining the election.
> >
>
> Exit strategy? Wasn't the exit strategy "do the job, then leave"? Clinton
> changed the job and didn't give the troops the tools for the new one. GHWB
> has no responsibility for the Somalia fiasco.



Wasn't is George Herbert Hoover Bush who began the mission with an
amphibious landing of Marines and SEALs in full cammy face paint and
weapons at the ready with CNN TV crews on the beach filming the start of
the "humanitarian" mission?

It sure didn't help matters to start off on the wrong foot.



--Mike

[Fred the Red Shirt]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message et>...
>
> How can the Constitution remain intact if it is regularly violated?

The same way that lesser laws remain intact though they are routinely
violated.

--

FF

[Fred the Red Shirt]

"George Z. Bush" > wrote in message >...
> "WalterM140" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> (Snip)
>
> > What the Bush administration wanted was a direct violation of the UCMJ, under
> > the article covering assault. I don't have a copy of the UCMJ. I believe
> they
> > said it was Art. 77.
>
> Every military man should have a copy of the UCMJ available readily for his
> personal reference. Here's yours:
>
> http://usmilitary.about.com/library/milinfo/mcm/blmcm.htm
>

WHen I was in High School one of my teachers told us that
the UCMJ was required reading once a year when he was in
the Army, circa 1950. The men sat in the mess hall while
someone read the entire UCMj to them out loud. He said most
of the guys slept. He took notes.

--

FF

[Fred the Red Shirt]

Ed Rasimus > wrote in message >...
> On 24 Jun 2004 13:56:48 -0700, (WalterM140) wrote:
>
> >
> What part of Commander-in-Chief escapes you? Pick up a book on
> Constitutional Law and you'll find that the "regulation of the armed
> forces" applies to how the members of the force shall be governed and
> treated. This is handled through the Uniform Code of Military Justice,
> which is still in force. You may even note its application against the
> criminals of Abu Ghraib.

The UCMJ is Federal law created by Act of Congress. Neither the
President nor his Secretary of Defense may authorize violations
of the UCMJ.

I am only infinitesmally less than certain that the list
of interrogation techniques Rumsfeld authorized includes acts
prohibited by the UCMJ.

Are you familiar with the doctrine of command responsibility?
If not applicable to the crimes a Abu Ghraib, it was never
applicable anywhere.

> The current occupant of the White House has not been
> charged with any felonies. Harder to say that about his predecessor.

No it is not. To my knowledge, none of his predecessors have ever
been charged with any felonies, certainly not while they held office
or afterwards.

--

FF

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Fred the Red Shirt" > wrote in message
om...
>
> The same way that lesser laws remain intact though they are routinely
> violated.
>

What lesser laws?

[Fred the Red Shirt]

(BUFDRVR) wrote in message >...
>

Got a message ID we can use to compare what you say he said
with what he said?

--

FF

[Fred the Red Shirt]

"George Z. Bush" > wrote in message >...
> "Fred the Red Shirt" > wrote in message
> om...
> > (BUFDRVR) wrote in message
> >...
>
> (Snip)
>
> > I don't remember exatly what Walt said but *I* blame GHB
> > for sending American Troops into Somalia without any
> > exit strategy. Clearly GHB was not concerned with how
> > to get our people out of that situation and the fact that
> > Clinton fell into the trap and made the situation worse
> > does nothing to exhonorate GHB of using our troops as
> > pawns to spite Clinton for wining the election.
> >
> > At least some good did come of it. For a time, the
> > humanitarian relief effort was a success.
>
> Unless my foggy memory is again playing tricks on me, I seem to recall that the
> people who profited most from the relief supplies that we sent to that
> unfortunate country were the very war lords who kicked us out of it. I seem to
> recall that they sold the relief supplies we sent over there to whichever
> starving Somalis had something of value to trade for those supplies.
>
> Please feel free to correct me if I've got it wrong.
>

Note the caveat above 'for a time'. Even after, though the food
shipments were stolen, someone got to eat who previously
would have starved. I don't think they resold the food abroad.

--

FF

[Fred the Red Shirt]

"Brett" > wrote in message >...
> "Fred the peabrain" > wrote:
> > "Brett" > wrote in message
> >...
> > > "Fred the Red Shirt" > wrote:
> > > > "Brett" > wrote in message
> >...
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ... McGovern the "subversive peacenik"
> > > > > it was the news shots of his anti-war, anti-capitalist supporters
> and
> his
> > > > > own campaign rhetoric at the Democratic convention and the many
> campaign
> > > > > rallies leading up to the election that November.
> > > >
> > > > You say that like it was a bad thing.
> > >
> > > Try again peabrain - your own editing achieved that goal, my original
> >
> > What goal?
>
> The editing addition of an opinion to an opinion free original comment.

You lost me here. But that's Ok, I was trying to be hip and the fact
is, I don't do hip very well.

>
> > > comment was that Nixon didn't paint him up as the "subversive peacenik"
> he
> > > and his supporters did that and they didn't need any help in achieving
> that
> > > goal.
> >
> > Do you say that like it was bad thing, or not?
>
> It was how the McGovern campaign wanted to be viewed and it lost him the
> election.

I'm not clear that it lost him the election. It is doubtful that
McGovern could do to win the election. Nixon was vunerable, but
he vulnerability was the myriad of criminal activities he had
engaged in while President, as are slowly being revealed as
previously suppressed tapes from the Nixon White House are
released but McGovern had no access to that knowledge.

I think that in truth, McGovern was a peacnik. I think that in
truth, being a peacnik is a good thing. And I think that it is
a good thing to present oneself truthfully to be damned for it
or not.

--

FF

[Brett]

"Fred the peabrain" > wrote
> "Brett" > wrote in message
>...
> > "Fred the peabrain" > wrote:
> > > "Brett" > wrote in message

<..>

> > > > Try again peabrain - your own editing achieved that goal, my
original
> > >
> > > What goal?
> >
> > The editing addition of an opinion to an opinion free original comment.
>
> You lost me here. But that's Ok, I was trying to be hip and the fact
> is, I don't do hip very well.
>
> >
> > > > comment was that Nixon didn't paint him up as the "subversive
peacenik"
> > he
> > > > and his supporters did that and they didn't need any help in
achieving
> > that
> > > > goal.
> > >
> > > Do you say that like it was bad thing, or not?
> >
> > It was how the McGovern campaign wanted to be viewed and it lost him the
> > election.
>
> I'm not clear that it lost him the election.

He was Nixon's dream opposition candidate because of them.

> It is doubtful that
> McGovern could do to win the election.

As I said in the previous post "he wasn't the best choice the Democrats had
available in 1972".

[Fred the Red Shirt]

(Madelin McKinnon) wrote in message >...
> are you kidding?
>

WTF did you come from?

>
> ... This is about the murder of Laci Peterson


No, this thread is about the American Press going soft on Bush
for fear that they won't be invited to any more of the press
conferences he doesn't give anyhow...

We go sidetracked into a discussion of Bill Clinton and Ken Starr,
evidently because some folks have yet to notice that the president of
the United States is George W Bush, Not Bill Clinton.

In that context you wrote:

>

> ... Why are we not charging Ken Starr for torture?

Perhaps because there is on reason we should? If there is
a reason we should, perhaps you can point it out to us.

> With Susan
> McDougal and her husband, did Starr not use cruel and unusual
> punishment, did Starr not obstruct justice, did Starr not tamper with
> witnesses, did Starr not violate the racketeering statutes with the
> far right wing, did Star not...??? ...

Indeed, to my knowledge he did not. Have you evidence that he did?

> Jim McDougal
> was convicted on May 28, 1996 of 18 charges against him.

Yes, McDougal, his wife and a few other associtates of the
Clintons were disgusting frauds who stole the life savings
from innocvent people who had trusted them.


> Facing up to
> 84 years in prison and $4.5 million in fines, McDougal agreed to
> cooperate with Starr's office. His cooperation netted a reduced
> sentence, and in April 1997 he was sentenced to three years in prison
> and a year of house arrest, three years of probation and a $10,000
> fine. Jim McDougal conveniently died in jail in March 1998. His
> cooperation produced the allegation that Susan McDougal and Bill
> Clinton had been lovers. ...

How so? I do not recall him ever having been quoted as saying that.

> McDougall's death denied the opportunity to
> prove that his original indictment was a consequence of his refusal to
> lie. ...

That assumes that said proof was not alredy barred by reality.

But if you'd like to discuss this somewhere approriate, like
misc.legal or alt.politics.clinton, please go ahead.

--

FF

[Fred the Red Shirt]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message et>...
> "Fred the Red Shirt" > wrote in message
> om...
> > "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
> . net>...
> > > "Mike Dargan" > wrote in message
> > > news:qd0Dc.117009$0y.58857@attbi_s03...
> > > >
> > > > The Republicans and their junior college instructor lackey's have a
> long
> > > > history of belittling those who served well while exaggerating the
> > > > military records of their, more prudent, candidates.
> >
> > Dunno about a long history, but that was evident in 2000.
> >
>
> I did not write anything that appears above. If you're going to snip my
> words then also snip my name.


Sorry about that. I'll try to be more careful.

--

FF

[Fred the Red Shirt]

(BUFDRVR) wrote in message >...
>
> Blah,blah, blah.
>...
> BUFDRVR
>

That about covers it.

--

FF

[Fred the Red Shirt]

Howard Berkowitz > wrote in message >...
> In article >,
> (Fred the Red Shirt) wrote:
>
>
>
> The least toxic of these is used theraputically,
>
> No, the most toxic is Type A, which is also the active ingredient in the
> therapeutic drug Botox.

Thanks.

But: http://www.cignamedicare.com/partb/lmrp/id/cms_fu/96-003-1.htm

tells us that A and B are both approved by the FDA for theraputic
use.

Here is a more comprehensive overview:

http://www.emedicine.com/pmr/topic216.htm

--

FF

[George Z. Bush]

"Fred the Red Shirt" > wrote in message
om...
> "George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
>...
> > "Fred the Red Shirt" > wrote in message
> > om...
> > > (BUFDRVR) wrote in message
> > >...
> >
> > (Snip)
> >
> > > I don't remember exatly what Walt said but *I* blame GHB
> > > for sending American Troops into Somalia without any
> > > exit strategy. Clearly GHB was not concerned with how
> > > to get our people out of that situation and the fact that
> > > Clinton fell into the trap and made the situation worse
> > > does nothing to exhonorate GHB of using our troops as
> > > pawns to spite Clinton for wining the election.
> > >
> > > At least some good did come of it. For a time, the
> > > humanitarian relief effort was a success.
> >
> > Unless my foggy memory is again playing tricks on me, I seem to recall that
the
> > people who profited most from the relief supplies that we sent to that
> > unfortunate country were the very war lords who kicked us out of it. I seem
to
> > recall that they sold the relief supplies we sent over there to whichever
> > starving Somalis had something of value to trade for those supplies.
> >
> > Please feel free to correct me if I've got it wrong.
> >
>
> Note the caveat above 'for a time'. Even after, though the food
> shipments were stolen, someone got to eat who previously
> would have starved. I don't think they resold the food abroad.

I never said that they resold the food abroad....they merely sold it to Somalis
who had something of value they would give up for the food. While some Somalis
undoubtedly got the food and survived, we gave it with no strings attached and
nobody should have felt obliged to give up his earthly possessions in order to
get the food, and we intended that destitute Somalis have the same chances of
survival as those with means.

So, when all was said and done, we sent food over there and only affluent or
relatively affluent Somalis got to eat any of it. The starving poor continued
to starve in spite of our best efforts. I don't think I would call that a
successful effort.

George Z.
>
> --
>
> FF

[BUFDRVR]

George Z. Bush wrote:

>Unless my foggy memory is again playing tricks on me, I seem to recall that
>the
>people who profited most from the relief supplies that we sent to that
>unfortunate country were the very war lords who kicked us out of it.

The militias ate along with your average Somali, but how were you going to
differentiate? Until The US forces began to withdraw, and the war lords resumed
their feuding (not coincidental events) the food distribution was orderly
(well, as orderly as you can expect when feeding masses of starving people) and
did save the lives of millions. Once the warlords began battling, both the U.N.
forces and U.S. forces struggled to maintain control of the food once relief
workers began handing it out. If all you know about Somalia is what you've seen
in "Black Hawk Down", you're missing nearly the first two years of the
operation.

>seem to
>recall that they sold the relief supplies we sent over there to whichever
>starving Somalis had something of value to trade for those supplies.

No, usually the war lords attempted to either a.)seize the food once it reached
the distribution point so they could hand it out to loyal militia followers and
recruit more or b.) set up a series of militia controlled check points and only
allow those loyal to get to the food. It was the increasing insecurity of the
food that convinced Clinton administration officials that in order to prevent
another famine, a stable government needed to be established.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

[BUFDRVR]

Fred the Red Shirt wrote:

>Got a message ID we can use to compare what you say he said
>with what he said?

No, it was a series of exchanges under a thread topic I've long
forgotten...along with "Walt".


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

[BUFDRVR]

George Z. Bush wrote:

<snip rewritten history>

>So, when all was said and done, we sent food over there and only affluent or
>relatively affluent Somalis got to eat any of it.

First let me say thanks for the laugh "affluent or relatively affulent
Somalis". What constitutes affulent in Mogadishu? Two windows in your building
with screens on them? The real, historically accurate, bottom line is that the
first 8 months of operations in Somalia saved hundreds of thousands (if not
more) innocent Somalis. Food distribution was not as you claim until the danger
had passed and the feuding resumed.

Here's a link where you can read about all 3 Operations.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/recent-ops.htm


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

[Fred the Red Shirt]

"George Z. Bush" > wrote in message >...
> "Fred the Red Shirt" > wrote in message
> om...
> > "George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
> >...
> > > "Fred the Red Shirt" > wrote in message
> > > om...
> > > > (BUFDRVR) wrote in message
> > > >...
> > >
> > > (Snip)
> > >
> > > > I don't remember exatly what Walt said but *I* blame GHB
> > > > for sending American Troops into Somalia without any
> > > > exit strategy. Clearly GHB was not concerned with how
> > > > to get our people out of that situation and the fact that
> > > > Clinton fell into the trap and made the situation worse
> > > > does nothing to exhonorate GHB of using our troops as
> > > > pawns to spite Clinton for wining the election.
> > > >
> > > > At least some good did come of it. For a time, the
> > > > humanitarian relief effort was a success.
> > >
> > > Unless my foggy memory is again playing tricks on me, I seem to recall that
> the
> > > people who profited most from the relief supplies that we sent to that
> > > unfortunate country were the very war lords who kicked us out of it. I seem
> to
> > > recall that they sold the relief supplies we sent over there to whichever
> > > starving Somalis had something of value to trade for those supplies.
> > >
> > > Please feel free to correct me if I've got it wrong.
> > >
> >
> > Note the caveat above 'for a time'. Even after, though the food
> > shipments were stolen, someone got to eat who previously
> > would have starved. I don't think they resold the food abroad.
>
> I never said that they resold the food abroad....

It appear we are agreed on that point. Do you understand that
if none of the food was sold abroad then, due ot the humanitarian
effort, there was more food and therefor less starvation in
Somalia than without, even though the warlords eventually
gained control over the distribution of the food? Even when
the warlords had that control there were people in Somalia
not starving who would otherwise have starved.

>they merely sold it to Somalis
> who had something of value they would give up for the food. While some Somalis
> undoubtedly got the food and survived,

Hence my statement 'At least some good did come of it.' I hope you
agree that some Somalis geting the food and sruviving was the object
of the exercise.

> we gave it with no strings attached and
> nobody should have felt obliged to give up his earthly possessions in order to
> get the food, and we intended that destitute Somalis have the same chances of
> survival as those with means.

Yes, it is terrible that the distribution effort fell under the control
of the warlords. The only way to stop that would have been to get involved
in a Somalian Civil War and to attempt to build a new Somali nation.

>
> So, when all was said and done, we sent food over there and only affluent or
> relatively affluent Somalis got to eat any of it. The starving poor continued
> to starve in spite of our best efforts. I don't think I would call that a
> successful effort.
>

Note the caveat above 'for a time'.

Really, I meant that. It took a while for the warlords to gain
control. Even after they did, I am sure that the Somalis who
had the means to procure the food from the warlords distributed it
further in exchange for various forms of renumeration to themselves,
such as labor. That's called 'trickle down'. Perhaps you can
find some Ronald Reagan fans who can explain to you how that works.

If you can explain how sending food to a starving country fails to
help to relieve that famine regardless of who distributes
the food, please do so.

--

FF

[Fred the Red Shirt]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message et>...
> "Fred the Red Shirt" > wrote in message
> om...
> >
> > The same way that lesser laws remain intact though they are routinely
> > violated.
> >
>
> What lesser laws?

State and Federal criminal laws, among others.

It wasn't a trick question, I'm not clear on what you didn't
understand.

--

FF

[George Z. Bush]

"Fred the Red Shirt" > wrote in message
om...
> "George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
>...

> Note the caveat above 'for a time'.
>
> Really, I meant that. It took a while for the warlords to gain
> control. Even after they did, I am sure that the Somalis who
> had the means to procure the food from the warlords distributed it
> further in exchange for various forms of renumeration to themselves,
> such as labor. That's called 'trickle down'. Perhaps you can
> find some Ronald Reagan fans who can explain to you how that works.
>
> If you can explain how sending food to a starving country fails to
> help to relieve that famine regardless of who distributes
> the food, please do so.

You keep arguing the same point, i.e.-that regardless of who got the food, those
Somalis didn't starve. I haven't disagreed with you....I merely took a partial
exception and, at risk of being repetitious, this is what I said:

> > "So, when all was said and done, we sent food over there and only affluent
or
> > relatively affluent Somalis got to eat any of it. The starving poor
continued
> > to starve in spite of our best efforts. I don't think I would call that a
> > successful effort."

The point I've been trying to make is that we never intended our relief supplies
to go to only those who could afford to buy it. We expected that it would be
distributed on some sort of equitable basis, the only prerequisite being that
they didn't have enough food to sustain themselves and their families.
Unfortunately, that didn't happen. That's what made our effort somewhat short
of successful.

If that doesn't explain my position to you, then it'd probably be just as well
to drop the semantic ****ing match and move on to something else. I'll just
conclude that my explanatory skills are not hitting on all cylinders.

George Z.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Fred the Red Shirt" > wrote in message
om...
>
> State and Federal criminal laws, among others.
>
> It wasn't a trick question, I'm not clear on what you didn't
> understand.
>

I was giving the benefit of the doubt. There's no similarity between
someone stealing a car and Congress or the President or the USSC acting
contrary to the Constitution.

[Fred the Red Shirt]

"George Z. Bush" > wrote in message >...
> "Fred the Red Shirt" > wrote in message
> om...
> > "George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
> >...
>
> > Note the caveat above 'for a time'.
> >
> > Really, I meant that. It took a while for the warlords to gain
> > control. Even after they did, I am sure that the Somalis who
> > had the means to procure the food from the warlords distributed it
> > further in exchange for various forms of renumeration to themselves,
> > such as labor. That's called 'trickle down'. Perhaps you can
> > find some Ronald Reagan fans who can explain to you how that works.
> >
> > If you can explain how sending food to a starving country fails to
> > help to relieve that famine regardless of who distributes
> > the food, please do so.
>
> You keep arguing the same point, i.e.-that regardless of
> who got the food, those
> Somalis didn't starve.

No. That argument came later. The first argument I advanced was:

> > At least some good did come of it. For a time, the
> > humanitarian relief effort was a success.

You replied:

> Unless my foggy memory is again playing tricks on me,
> I seem to recall that the people who profited most from
> the relief supplies that we sent to that unfortunate country
> were the very war lords who kicked us out of it. I seem to
> recall that they sold the relief supplies we sent over there
> to whichever starving Somalis had something of value to
> trade for those supplies.
>
> Please feel free to correct me if I've got it wrong.

Your statement was not wrong in the sense of being contrary
to fact and I never said that it was wrong. To be clear, I
agreed that it was a true statement while also pointing out
that the effort continued to save lives despite the unfortunate
developements you noted.

However, the context in which it was introduced gave me the
impression that it was an objection to my statement, and a
falacious one, specifically an argument from irrelevency.
That appears to have been a false impression on my part,
though had you preceded your remarks with "Yes, but" I
might have done better.

In a similar vein, I observed that despite the
corruption of the relief by the warlords starvation was
still reduced in Somalia. That statement was made neither
in support of my earlier statement as it referred to later
developments, nor was it made to contradict yours, which
in fact it does not. It was made to keep it clear that
the humanitarian relief effort, even after being corrupted,
continued to accomplish some good.

I will agree that the effort was corrupted by the warlords.
Yet despite that, there were fewer people starving in Somalia
even with the warlords in control of the food supply. The
demagraphic distribution of the famine victims is less important
than their sheer numbes which continued to be reduced even with
the warlords in control of the food supply. I suspect that many
who received food through the warlords were as poor as those
who did not. The warlords needed soldiers, starving men and men
with starving families could be bought for food. In every modern
nation the soldiers are recruited from the poorest of the social
classes. This had seriously bad implications as it helped to
perpetuate the civil war by keeping the militias populated with
soldiers But starvation was reduced notwithstanding.

I hope we can agree that for a time the humanitarian effort was
a success and starvaton was reduced, that the warlords took
control of the food supply which both reduced that success and
reinforced some of the problems that had created the famine in
the first place, and that despite the corruption of the relief
effort by the warlords famine continued to be reduced because in
order for the warlords to use the food to their advantage they
had to distribute it to someone who otherwise faced starvation.

Perhaps we can also agree that the only way to keep the relief
effort from being corrupted by the warlords was the creation of
a strong central unified Somali government superior both in moral
authority and in brute force to the warlords. In short, nation
building.

I'm pretty sure we can agree that the nation building effort in
Somalia failed, in no small measure due to incompetant leadership
from the Clinton White house.

Have I got that right?

--

FF

[Fred the Red Shirt]

Michael Wise > wrote in message >...
> In article et>,
> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:
>
> > > I don't remember exatly what Walt said but *I* blame GHB
> > > for sending American Troops into Somalia without any
> > > exit strategy. Clearly GHB was not concerned with how
> > > to get our people out of that situation and the fact that
> > > Clinton fell into the trap and made the situation worse
> > > does nothing to exhonorate GHB of using our troops as
> > > pawns to spite Clinton for wining the election.
> > >
> >
> > Exit strategy? Wasn't the exit strategy "do the job, then leave"?

Is there any reason to suppose that a withdrawal or the forces from
Somalia would not have resulted in a restoration of the power of
the warlords and a return of the famine?

>
> Wasn't is George Herbert Hoover Bush who began the mission with an
> amphibious landing of Marines and SEALs in full cammy face paint and
> weapons at the ready with CNN TV crews on the beach filming the start of
> the "humanitarian" mission?
>

That was a very embarassing moment. As was 'securing' the Mogadishu
airport which was already under UN control. Organising the early
stages of the operation as a training exercise seemed to sort of
miss the point of the effort.

--

FF

[George Z. Bush]

"Fred the Red Shirt" > wrote in message
m...
> "George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
>...

(Snipped for brevity)

> I'm pretty sure we can agree that the nation building effort in
> Somalia failed, in no small measure due to incompetant leadership
> from the Clinton White house.
>
> Have I got that right?

Yes, although perhaps some of Clinton's leadership failures could have been
attributed in part to his selection of Les Aspin as his first Secy. of Defense.
Aspin, in spite of a prior extensive Congressional exposure to military matters,
turned out to be an ineffectual civilian leader of the DOD who made mistake
after mistake. Those occurred at a time when Clinton needed strong civilian
leadership in the DOD to compensate for his prior lack of exposure to military
affairs. He obviously didn't get much.

George Z.
>
> --
>
> FF

[Fred the Red Shirt]

"George Z. Bush" > wrote in message >...
> "Fred the Red Shirt" > wrote in message
> m...
>
>
> > I'm pretty sure we can agree that the nation building effort in
> > Somalia failed, in no small measure due to incompetant leadership
> > from the Clinton White house.
> >
> > Have I got that right?
>
> Yes, although perhaps some of Clinton's leadership failures could have been
> attributed in part to his selection of Les Aspin as his first Secy. of Defense.
> Aspin, in spite of a prior extensive Congressional exposure to military matters,
> turned out to be an ineffectual civilian leader of the DOD who made mistake
> after mistake. Those occurred at a time when Clinton needed strong civilian
> leadership in the DOD to compensate for his prior lack of exposure to military
> affairs. He obviously didn't get much.
>

Thanks.

Advancing the clock a bit, could you suppliment my foggy memory further?
After the Mogadishu disaster, wasn't Aspin replaced? As I recall,
subsequent military action by the Cinton administration, in the
Balkans, and against Al Queda assets in the Sudan and Afghanistan
were much better managed, though the Republicans complained fiercly,
especially about the counterstrikes against Bin Laden and AL Queda.

Imagine the uproar during the impeachment trial if the Republicans
had learned that Clinton had rescinded Carter's ban on assasination
and personally marked bin Laden for death!

Just thought I'd slip that in.

--

FF

[George Z. Bush]

"Fred the Red Shirt" > wrote in message
om...
> "George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
>...
> > "Fred the Red Shirt" > wrote in message
> > m...
> >
> >
> > > I'm pretty sure we can agree that the nation building effort in
> > > Somalia failed, in no small measure due to incompetant leadership
> > > from the Clinton White house.
> > >
> > > Have I got that right?
> >
> > Yes, although perhaps some of Clinton's leadership failures could have been
> > attributed in part to his selection of Les Aspin as his first Secy. of
Defense.
> > Aspin, in spite of a prior extensive Congressional exposure to military
matters,
> > turned out to be an ineffectual civilian leader of the DOD who made mistake
> > after mistake. Those occurred at a time when Clinton needed strong civilian
> > leadership in the DOD to compensate for his prior lack of exposure to
military
> > affairs. He obviously didn't get much.
> >
>
> Thanks.
>
> Advancing the clock a bit, could you suppliment my foggy memory further?
> After the Mogadishu disaster, wasn't Aspin replaced?

Yes. He had been having some heart problems at about that time, one of which
resulted in him having a pacemaker implanted. After Somalia, he submitted his
resignation "for personal reasons", although most observors thought that
political reasons provided far more impetus than personal ones.

> As I recall, subsequent military action by the Cinton administration, in the
> Balkans, and against Al Queda assets in the Sudan and Afghanistan
> were much better managed, though the Republicans complained fiercly,
> especially about the counterstrikes against Bin Laden and AL Queda.
>
> Imagine the uproar during the impeachment trial if the Republicans
> had learned that Clinton had rescinded Carter's ban on assasination
> and personally marked bin Laden for death!
>
> Just thought I'd slip that in.
>
> --
>
> FF

[Fred the Red Shirt]

Steve Hix > wrote in message >...
> In article >,
> "Paul J. Adam" > wrote:
>
> > [Attributions deleted for brevity]
[i]
> > >> Whom did Kerry ever stab in the back?
> > >
> > >How about pretty much every single person serving in the military during
> > >the late '60s and early '70s.
> >
>>
> ... he knifed them figuratively by
> claiming that war crimes against civilians were the normal course of
> business , and that officers knew about it and approved
> of it.

Thank you for your prompt and courteous reply. That is pretty much
what I thought you meant but it would not have been polite of me act
on that presumption without first verifying it with you.

Shall we extend a similar courtesy to Kerry and try to find a
direct quote, rather then relying on your memory and your
paraphrasal? I want to discuss EXACTLY that statement or those
statements by Kerry to which you object.

I found this page and have extracted some material which might
be what you're talking about. I encourage the reader to
go to that page themself, so as to understand the proper context
of the remarks:

http://www.c-span.org/vote2004/jkerrytestimony.asp

Legislative Proposals Relating to the War in Southeast
Asia Thursday, April 22, 1971 United States Senate,
Committee on Foreign Relations, Washington, D.C.


The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 11:05 a.m.,
in Room 4221, New Senate Office Building, Senator J. W.
Fulbright (Chairman) presiding. Present: Senators Fulbright,
Symington, Pell, Aiken, Case and Javits

....

Statement of John Kerry, Vietnam Veterans Against the War

Mr. Kerry: Thank you very much, Senator Fulbright, Senator
Javits, Senator Symington, Senator Pell. I would like to
say for the record, and also for the men behind me who are
also wearing the uniforms and their medals, that my sitting
here is really symbolic. I am not here as John Kerry. I
am here as one member of the group of veterans in this
country, and were it possible for all of them to sit at
this table they would be here and have the same kind of
testimony.

I would simply like to speak in very general terms. I
apologize if my statement is general because I received
notification yesterday you would hear me and I am afraid
because of the injunction I was up most of the night and
haven't had a great deal of chance to prepare.


Winter soldier Investigation

I would like to talk, representing all those veterans,
and say that several months ago in Detroit, we had an
investigation at which over 150 honorably discharged
and many very highly decorated veterans testified to
war crimes committed in Southeast Asia, not isolated
incidents but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis
with the full awareness of officers at all levels of
command.

It is impossible to describe to you exactly what did
happen in Detroit, the emotions in the room, the feelings
of the men who were reliving their experiences in Vietnam,
but they did. They relived the absolute horror of what
this country, in a sense, made them do.

They told the stories at times they had personally raped,
cut off ears, cut off heads, tape wires from portable
telephones to human genitals and turned up the power,
cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians,
razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan,
shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and
generally ravaged the country side of South Vietnam in
addition to the normal ravage of war, and the normal and
very particular ravaging which is done by the applied
bombing power of this country.

We call this investigation the "Winter Soldier Investigation."
The term "Winter Soldier" is a play on words of Thomas Paine
in 1776 when he spoke of the Sunshine Patriot and summertime
soldiers who deserted at Valley Forge because the going was
rough.

We who have come here to Washington have come here because
we feel we have to be winter soldiers now. We could come
back to this country; we could be quiet; we could hold
our silence; we could not tell what went on in Vietnam,
but we feel because of what threatens this country, the
fact that the crimes threaten it, no reds, and not redcoats
but the crimes which we are committing that threaten it,
that we have to speak out.

....

Extent of Problem of Vietnam War

We are here in Washington also to say that the problem
of this war is not just a question of war and diplomacy.
It is part and parcel of everything that we are trying
as human beings to communicate to people in this country,
the question of racism, which is rampant in the military,
and so many other questions also, the use of weapons, the
hypocrisy in our taking umbrage in the Geneva Conventions
and using that as justification for a continuation of this
war, when we are more guilty than any other body of violations
of those Geneva Conventions, in the use of free fire zones,
harassment interdiction fire, search and destroy missions,
the bombings, the torture of prisoners, the killing of
prisoners, accepted policy by many units in South Vietnam.
That is what we are trying to say. It is party and parcel
of everything.

....

<end quoted material>

Now, I cannot vouch for the accuracy of this transcript,
but am willing, for the sake of this discussion, to accept it
as accurate for the moment. Have I found the words spoken by
Kerry, that led you to say:
[i]
> he knifed them figuratively by
> claiming that war crimes against civilians were the normal course of
> business , and that officers knew about it and approved
> of it.

If not, could you find them for us?

--

FF

[Fred the Red Shirt]

Ed Rasimus > wrote in message >...
> On 25 Jun 2004 17:12:10 GMT, (WalterM140) wrote:
>
>

In the interest of thoroughness, here is some more non-news on
the subject:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040710/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_military_service&cid=544&ncid=716

I'm not surprised that records from back then have been lost, damaged
or
destroyed making it hard to prove how much time GWB spent on duty.
Not being able to prove how much tiem he put in is a far cry from
evidence, let alone proof, that he was AWOL, let alone a deserter.

Do you guys have a memo from back then saying something like
"Bush missed roll call this morning." or "What happened to Bush,
he never showed up today" or anything like that?

Because like, I have a very hard time believing that he just stopped
showing up and nobody noticed.

--

FF

[Fred the Red Shirt]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message et>...
> "Fred the Red Shirt" > wrote in message
> om...
> >
> > Show your evidence that Kerry didnt earn his third purple
> > heart, received in his second tour of duty.
> >
>
> I didn't say it was his third purple heart, I said he used an unearned
> purple heart to get out of Vietnam after serving just a third of his tour.
> I believe the award in question was the first one.

Ok, thanks.

>
> The following letter appeared in the USA Today "Letters" section on June
> 25th last, page 8A:
>

I have questions about some parts of the story below. They may have
reasonable answers, but we won't find out unless the questions are
asked.

>
>
> Criticism of Kerry's Purple Heart is just
>
> Retired U.S. army colonel David Hackworth defends presidential
> candidate John Kerry's Purple Hearts. He correctly notes that they are
> awarded for a wound that necessitates treatment by a medical officer and
> that is received in action with an enemy ('The meaning of a Purple Heart,"
> The Forum, June 16).
>
> I was the commanding officer to whom Kerry reported his injury on Dec.
> 3, 1968. I had confirmed that there was no hostile fire that night and that
> Kerry had simply wounded himself with an M-79 grenade round he fired too
> close. He wanted a Purple Heart, and I refused. Louis Letson, the base
> physician, saw Kerry and used tweezers to remove the tiny piece of
> shrapnel - about 1 centi*meter in length and 2 millimeters in di*ameter.
> Letson also confirmed that the scratch was inflicted with our M-79.

If there was no enemy fire, or at least enemies present, why was the
M-79 grenade fired?

>
> We admire Col. Hackworth, but he, above all people, knows why it is
> unac*ceptable to nominate yourself for an award.

If so, why was the nomination accepted?

> It compromises the basic
> military principle that we survive together. To promote yourself is to
> denigrate your team. I hope Col. Hackworth will rethink his characterization
> of Kerry's swift-boat comrades as "grousers" passing on "secondhand bilge."
> In our case, this is firsthand knowledge, and our integrity is unquestioned.
>

For Mr Hibbard to have first hand knowedge of the incident he would have
had to witness it himself. He doesn't ocme out and say one way or the
other but it seems that his account is based on what he heard from others,
including Kerry, making it second hand, not firsthand.

> Kerry orchestrated his way out of Viet*nam and then testified, under
> oath, be*fore Congress that we, his comrades, had committed horrible war
> crimes. This tes*timony was a lie and slandered honor*able men. We, who were
> actually there, believe he is unfit to command our sons and daughters.
>

Mr Hibbard does not quote from Kerry's testimony. Therefor I cannot
be sure as to exactly what testimony he refers. But if he referes to
the testimony at the link I posted eslwhere in this thread then clearly
Mr Hibbard misconstrues Kerry's testimony to the extent that Hubbard's
statement is a lie and slanders an honorable man.


> Grant Hibbard, retired commander US. Navy, Gulf Breeze, Fla.
> Louis Letson, M.D. Retired lieutenant commander Medical Corps, US. Navy
> Reserve Scottsboro, Ala.
>
> Louis Letson, M.D. Retired lieutenant commander Medical Corps, US. Navy
> Reserve Scottsboro, Ala.
>

Did you see this in USA TOday, or did you get it from somewhere else?

>
> >
> > ALso,
> >
> > Show your evidence that Bush didn't get out of Vietnam.
> >
>
> Evidence that Bush didn't get out of Vietnam? What the hell are you talking
> about? Bush did not serve in Vietnam.

Oh, so Bush did get out of serving in Vietnam. Smart move, IMHO.

>
>
> >
> > Show why any of that is more important than what both men have
> > done since.
> >
>
> I can't. I don't believe it is more important than what both men have done
> since.

Me neither.

> But Kerry and the Democratic Party apparently do believe it is more
> important than what they have done since. Since Kerry became the
> frontrunner for their nomination Vietnam has been the key issue in their
> campaign to defeat Bush.

I have seen only a handful of ads for Kerry and do not recall them
even mentioning his service in Vietnam.

You can check out his website here:
http://www.johnkerry.com/index.html

I see no mention of his military service at all on the frontpage and
only two sentences devoted to it in his biography.

Ofhand, I'd have to say that your statement "Vietnam has been the
key issue in their campaign to defeat Bush." is completely unfounded.
AFACT, Iraq has been the key issue in their campagn to defeat Bush.

--

FF