Even the SCOTUS is fed up with Bush's nonsense.

[ArtKramr]

In an 8 to 1 decision the scotus kicked Bush on the ass for his trashing of the
Bill of Rights. It is about time Bush was placed on the slippery slope he so
well desreves. Thank you SCOTUS. Even the neocons have had enough of him


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
...
> In an 8 to 1 decision the scotus kicked Bush on the ass for his trashing
of the
> Bill of Rights. It is about time Bush was placed on the slippery slope he
so
> well desreves. Thank you SCOTUS. Even the neocons have had enough of him
>


What a strange conclusion! I'm not sure who these neocons are you keep
mentioning (and I bet you don't know either, it's probably just a new catch
phrase you learned and like to use to avoid having to try to express complex
ideas) but the Supreme Court has ruled against the government many times
over the last few years. What makes this ruling so significant?

The ruling is pretty complicated. You can read some of the details here:
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1802&e=3&u=/washpost/20040629/ts_washpost/a13350_2004jun28

Jarg

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: Even the SCOTUS is fed up with Bush's nonsense.
>From: "Jarg"
>Date: 6/29/2004 9:28 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
>> In an 8 to 1 decision the scotus kicked Bush on the ass for his trashing
>of the
>> Bill of Rights. It is about time Bush was placed on the slippery slope he
>so
>> well desreves. Thank you SCOTUS. Even the neocons have had enough of him
>>
>
>
>What a strange conclusion! I'm not sure who these neocons are you keep
>mentioning (and I bet you don't know either, it's probably just a new catch
>phrase you learned and like to use to avoid having to try to express complex
>ideas) but the Supreme Court has ruled against the government many times
>over the last few years. What makes this ruling so significant?
>
>The ruling is pretty complicated. You can read some of the details here:
>
>http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1802&e=3&u=/washpost/2004
0629/ts_washpost/a13350_2004jun28
>
>Jarg

Bush's defense was that in time of war balance of powers no longer exist and
the president as commander in chief has final word on all issues. SCOTUS said
"war does not give the president a blank check to go outside the constitution
and the bill of rights.". That slaps down Bush's delusions of grandeur.



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: Even the SCOTUS is fed up with Bush's nonsense.
> >From: "Jarg"
> >Date: 6/29/2004 9:28 AM Pacific Standard Time
> >Message-id: >
> >
> >"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> In an 8 to 1 decision the scotus kicked Bush on the ass for his
trashing
> >of the
> >> Bill of Rights. It is about time Bush was placed on the slippery slope
he
> >so
> >> well desreves. Thank you SCOTUS. Even the neocons have had enough of
him
> >>
> >
> >
> >What a strange conclusion! I'm not sure who these neocons are you keep
> >mentioning (and I bet you don't know either, it's probably just a new
catch
> >phrase you learned and like to use to avoid having to try to express
complex
> >ideas) but the Supreme Court has ruled against the government many times
> >over the last few years. What makes this ruling so significant?
> >
> >The ruling is pretty complicated. You can read some of the details here:
> >
> >http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1802&e=3&u=/washpost/2004
> 0629/ts_washpost/a13350_2004jun28
> >
> >Jarg
>
> Bush's defense was that in time of war balance of powers no longer exist
and
> the president as commander in chief has final word on all issues.


Could you provide a reference for this contention? I have never heard
anything like this from President Bush myself. The description of the court
decision doens't mention it either. The ruling was regarding the legal
rights of enemy combatants.


SCOTUS said
> "war does not give the president a blank check to go outside the
constitution
> and the bill of rights.". That slaps down Bush's delusions of grandeur.
>
>
>
> Arthur Kramer
> 344th BG 494th BS
> England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
> Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
> http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer
>

[Skipper]

> That slaps down Bush's delusions of grandeur.

The only one here with delusions of grandeur is you, Art.

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: Even the SCOTUS is fed up with Bush's nonsense.
>From: "Jarg"
>Date: 6/29/2004 10:37 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
>> >Subject: Re: Even the SCOTUS is fed up with Bush's nonsense.
>> >From: "Jarg"
>> >Date: 6/29/2004 9:28 AM Pacific Standard Time
>> >Message-id: >
>> >
>> >"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >> In an 8 to 1 decision the scotus kicked Bush on the ass for his
>trashing
>> >of the
>> >> Bill of Rights. It is about time Bush was placed on the slippery slope
>he
>> >so
>> >> well desreves. Thank you SCOTUS. Even the neocons have had enough of
>him
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >What a strange conclusion! I'm not sure who these neocons are you keep
>> >mentioning (and I bet you don't know either, it's probably just a new
>catch
>> >phrase you learned and like to use to avoid having to try to express
>complex
>> >ideas) but the Supreme Court has ruled against the government many times
>> >over the last few years. What makes this ruling so significant?
>> >
>> >The ruling is pretty complicated. You can read some of the details here:
>> >
>> >http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1802&e=3&u=/washpost/2004
>> 0629/ts_washpost/a13350_2004jun28
>> >
>> >Jarg
>>
>> Bush's defense was that in time of war balance of powers no longer exist
>and
>> the president as commander in chief has final word on all issues.
>
>
>Could you provide a reference for this contention? I have never heard
>anything like this from President Bush myself. The description of the court
>decision doens't mention it either. The ruling was regarding the legal
>rights of enemy combatants.
>
>
> SCOTUS said
>> "war does not give the president a blank check to go outside the
>constitution
>> and the bill of rights.". That slaps down Bush's delusions of grandeur.
>>
>>
>>
>> Arthur Kramer
>> 344th BG 494th BS
>> England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
>> Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
>> http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer


Read the caselaw


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: Even the SCOTUS is fed up with Bush's nonsense.
> >From: "Jarg"
> >Date: 6/29/2004 10:37 AM Pacific Standard Time
> >Message-id: >

>
> >> http://www.coastcomp.com
>
> Read the caselaw
>

That's it? You make these claims and then you can't provide any supporting
citations? Your already limited credibility continues to drop.

Jarg

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: Even the SCOTUS is fed up with Bush's nonsense.
>From: "Jarg"
>Date: 6/29/2004 12:18 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
>> >Subject: Re: Even the SCOTUS is fed up with Bush's nonsense.
>> >From: "Jarg"
>> >Date: 6/29/2004 10:37 AM Pacific Standard Time
>> >Message-id: >
>
>>
>> >> http://www.coastcomp.com
>>
>> Read the caselaw
>>
>
>That's it? You make these claims and then you can't provide any supporting
>citations? Your already limited credibility continues to drop.
>
>Jarg
>
>
You obviously don't know what caselaw is. Caselaw is the ultimate credibility
in a supreme court decision. And since you have descended to personal
insults...PLONK !


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

[Greasy Rider @ Invalid.com]

On 29 Jun 2004 22:42:46 GMT, (ArtKramr) proclaimed:

> And since you have descended to personal
>insults...PLONK !

Oh my God!

Not the dreaded PLONK!

What a cruel fate.

[Jarg]

<Greasy Rider @ Invalid.com> wrote in message
...
> On 29 Jun 2004 22:42:46 GMT, (ArtKramr) proclaimed:
>
> > And since you have descended to personal
> >insults...PLONK !
>
> Oh my God!
>
> Not the dreaded PLONK!
>
> What a cruel fate.

But an great tactic to avoid having your nose rubbed in a losing an
argument! ;) And did you notice that the "personal insults" didn't
actually occur? I'm afraid the poor guy is deteriorating quickly.

Jarg

[Greasy Rider @ Invalid.com]

On Tue, 29 Jun 2004 23:19:05 GMT, "Jarg" >
proclaimed:

>But an great tactic to avoid having your nose rubbed in a losing an
>argument! ;) And did you notice that the "personal insults" didn't
>actually occur? I'm afraid the poor guy is deteriorating quickly.

I don't follow the adventures of Mr. Kramer but occasionally discover
him embroiled in some misadventure. I think his ego is his greatest
problem along with some sensitivity to probing. I have a great deal of
respect for accomplished aviators but some may need to stick to their
laurels. It's easier to admire the silent type than one who opens his
mouth and promptly sticks his foot in it.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
>
> You obviously don't know what caselaw is. Caselaw is the ultimate
credibility
> in a supreme court decision. And since you have descended to personal
> insults...PLONK !
>

What personal insult?

[tscottme]

"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...

> You obviously don't know what caselaw is. Caselaw is the ultimate
credibility
> in a supreme court decision. And since you have descended to personal
> insults...PLONK !
>
>

That's the weakest surrender in an argument I've ever seen in a news group.
What exactly was the personal insult? When you wrongly throw around an
epithet and then can't support your claim, what do you want? Essentially
hiding from him only places neon lights around what should be your
embarrasment.

Neocons are former liberals, usually Jewish, that found that the Democrats
had turned to chic radicalism simply for the sake of trying to impress their
cohorts rather than actually supporting ghastly ideas like tolerance,
respect for the individual, end to predjudice, and rational defense of
freedom. Neo, in that they are newly-minted conservatives in comparison to
us that have always been conservative, sometime called paleocon. The
Neocons are the last ones in the RNC to buy the religious arguments some
would prefer. They are among the most secular in the party. But don't let
any facts get between your high blood pressure and your keyboard.


--
Scott

"I don't need to know very much about you or your ideas to know that if you
think Michael Moore is just great, a truth-teller and a much-needed tonic
for everything that is wrong in American life, you are not someone to take
seriously about anything of political consequence, or you are French. But I
repeat myself." - Jonah Goldberg

[Ron]

>
>Neocons are former liberals, usually Jewish, that found that the Democrats
>had turned to chic radicalism simply for the sake of trying to impress their
>cohorts rather than actually supporting ghastly ideas like tolerance,
>respect for the individual, end to predjudice, and rational defense of
>freedom. Neo, in that they are newly-minted conservatives in comparison to
>us that have always been conservative, sometime called paleocon. The
>Neocons are the last ones in the RNC to buy the religious arguments some
>would prefer. They are among the most secular in the party. But don't let
>any facts get between your high blood pressure and your keyboard.
>
>

I found the comment about William F Buckley and National Review being so bad
and "Neocon" amusing. WFB has been a conservative all his life, has had
National Review for 50 years, and is for drug legalization. The magazine is a
journal of intelligent conservative/libertarian political discourse.

If one wants emotional sloganeering and someone who plays fast and loose with
the facts, just go to the movie theatre


Ron
PA-31T Cheyenne II
Maharashtra Weather Modification Program
Pune, India

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: Even the SCOTUS is fed up with Bush's nonsense.
>From: "tscottme"
>Date: 6/30/2004 4:38 AM

>Neocons are former liberals, usually Jewish, that found that the Democrats
>had turned to chic radicalism simply for the sake of trying to impress their

That is what they were, not what they are now. You are living in the past as
are most neocons and helping the present administration to wreck our
country,.Rumsfeld is a disaster going to a phony war without enough troops
and now they are recalling troops that have already served more than they
should. And there is draft talk. Is there no end as to how destructive the
neocons can be?. Well, it will all come to an end in November. Cry the beloved
coubtry.


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

[BUFDRVR]

ArtKramr wrote:

>And there is draft talk.

From Democrats in Congress and a few Republicans, the administration has said
repeatedly stated there is no need for a draft and they will not ask for one.
According to a political analyst in Newsweek magazine (or was it Time?), this
whole "draft scare" is the democrats trying to scare the younger males into
voting for Kerry. But you know what Art, don't let facts get in the way of your
"thinking".


BUFDRVR

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

[Kevin Brooks]

"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
> >Subject: Re: Even the SCOTUS is fed up with Bush's nonsense.
> >From: "tscottme"
> >Date: 6/30/2004 4:38 AM
>
> >Neocons are former liberals, usually Jewish, that found that the
Democrats
> >had turned to chic radicalism simply for the sake of trying to impress
their
>
> That is what they were, not what they are now. You are living in the past
as
> are most neocons and helping the present administration to wreck our
> country,.Rumsfeld is a disaster going to a phony war without enough
troops
> and now they are recalling troops that have already served more than they
> should. And there is draft talk. Is there no end as to how destructive the
> neocons can be?. Well, it will all come to an end in November. Cry the
beloved
> coubtry.

You have repeatedly been asked to define "neocon". Now you tell us what it
supposedly is not, not what it is. Can't bring yourself to answer the
(repeated) question?

Brooks

>
>
> Arthur Kramer

[Regnirps]

(Ron) wrote:


>I found the comment about William F Buckley and National Review being so bad
>and "Neocon" amusing. WFB has been a conservative all his life, has had
>National Review for 50 years, and is for drug legalization. The magazine is
a
>journal of intelligent conservative/libertarian political discourse.

No wish to offend, but National Review has been the home of the neocon
philospshy for the last 50 years, your new definition notwithstanding. How old
do you think Buckley was in 1950? Have you never seen him taking the religion
side in evolution debates and such?

Neocons are not newly converted conservatives, they are adherents to a a
philosophy, the neocon philosophy. It is an internally conflicted combination
of religion and conservative rationalism that tries to claim the Enlightenment
as dominated by religion, not reason.

Podhoretz, another National Review writer, and part of the New York
Intellectuals in the 50's, is the source of "Religion is the third leg of
conservatism". Apparently there were two other legs and in his philosphy,
religion stabilized the whole.

I don't know where you get your idea about disaffected Jews, unless it is more
recent revolts by red diaper babies like Horowitz or religious Jews like
Medved.

-- Charlie Springer

[Regnirps]

(ArtKramr) wrote:

>That is what they were, not what they are now. You are living in the past as
>are most neocons and helping the present administration to wreck our
>country,.Rumsfeld is a disaster going to a phony war without enough troops
>and now they are recalling troops that have already served more than they
>should. And there is draft talk. Is there no end as to how destructive the
>neocons can be?. Well, it will all come to an end in November. Cry the beloved
>coubtry.

It is tough to do it right when you get hit and then find that Clinton cut:

709,000 REGULAR (ACTIVE DUTY) PERSONNEL.

293,000 RESERVE TROOPS.

EIGHT STANDING ARMY DIVISIONS.

20 AIR FORCE AND NAVY AIR WINGS WITH 2,000 COMBAT AIRCRAFT.

232 STRATEGIC BOMBERS.

19 STRATEGIC BALLISTIC MISSILE SUBMARINES WITH 3,114 NUCLEAR WARHEADS ON*232
MISSILES.
500 ICBMs WITH 1,950 WARHEADS.

FOUR AIRCRAFT CARRIERS AND 121 SURFACE COMBAT SHIPS AND SUBMARINES PLUS*ALL THE
SUPPORT BASES, SHIPYARDS, AND LOGISTICAL ASSETS NEEDED TO SUSTAIN*SUCH A NAVAL
FORCE.

Remember when he "cut the size of government"?

-- Charlie Springer

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: Even the SCOTUS is fed up with Bush's nonsense.
>From: (Regnirps)
>Date: 6/30/2004 2:12 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
(ArtKramr) wrote:
>
>>That is what they were, not what they are now. You are living in the past as
>>are most neocons and helping the present administration to wreck our
>>country,.Rumsfeld is a disaster going to a phony war without enough troops
>>and now they are recalling troops that have already served more than they
>>should. And there is draft talk. Is there no end as to how destructive the
>>neocons can be?. Well, it will all come to an end in November. Cry the
>beloved
>>coubtry.
>
>It is tough to do it right when you get hit and then find that Clinton cut:
>
>709,000 REGULAR (ACTIVE DUTY) PERSONNEL.
>
>293,000 RESERVE TROOPS.
>
>EIGHT STANDING ARMY DIVISIONS.
>
>20 AIR FORCE AND NAVY AIR WINGS WITH 2,000 COMBAT AIRCRAFT.
>
>232 STRATEGIC BOMBERS.
>
>19 STRATEGIC BALLISTIC MISSILE SUBMARINES WITH 3,114 NUCLEAR WARHEADS ON*232
>MISSILES.
>500 ICBMs WITH 1,950 WARHEADS.
>
>FOUR AIRCRAFT CARRIERS AND 121 SURFACE COMBAT SHIPS AND SUBMARINES PLUS*ALL
>THE
>SUPPORT BASES, SHIPYARDS, AND LOGISTICAL ASSETS NEEDED TO SUSTAIN*SUCH A
>NAVAL
>FORCE.
>
>Remember when he "cut the size of government"?
>
>-- Charlie Springer


I guess Clinton never planned on attacking a nation that never threatened the
U.S. based on WMD that they never had.

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

[Brett]

"ArtKramr" > wrote:
> >Subject: Re: Even the SCOTUS is fed up with Bush's nonsense.
> >From: (Regnirps)

<.>

> >Remember when he "cut the size of government"?
> >
> >-- Charlie Springer
>
>
> I guess Clinton never planned on attacking a nation that never threatened
the
> U.S.

Actually he did, regime change in Iraq was a policy Clinton agreed and guess
what he even ordered attacks on that country.

What did you do during the mid to late 1990's? Did you spend most of it
asleep?

[Kevin Brooks]

"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
> >Subject: Re: Even the SCOTUS is fed up with Bush's nonsense.
> >From: (Regnirps)
> >Date: 6/30/2004 2:12 PM Pacific Standard Time
> >Message-id: >
> >
> (ArtKramr) wrote:
> >
> >>That is what they were, not what they are now. You are living in the
past as
> >>are most neocons and helping the present administration to wreck our
> >>country,.Rumsfeld is a disaster going to a phony war without enough
troops
> >>and now they are recalling troops that have already served more than
they
> >>should. And there is draft talk. Is there no end as to how destructive
the
> >>neocons can be?. Well, it will all come to an end in November. Cry the
> >beloved
> >>coubtry.
> >
> >It is tough to do it right when you get hit and then find that Clinton
cut:
> >
> >709,000 REGULAR (ACTIVE DUTY) PERSONNEL.
> >
> >293,000 RESERVE TROOPS.
> >
> >EIGHT STANDING ARMY DIVISIONS.
> >
> >20 AIR FORCE AND NAVY AIR WINGS WITH 2,000 COMBAT AIRCRAFT.
> >
> >232 STRATEGIC BOMBERS.
> >
> >19 STRATEGIC BALLISTIC MISSILE SUBMARINES WITH 3,114 NUCLEAR WARHEADS ON
232
> >MISSILES.
> >500 ICBMs WITH 1,950 WARHEADS.
> >
> >FOUR AIRCRAFT CARRIERS AND 121 SURFACE COMBAT SHIPS AND SUBMARINES PLUS
ALL
> >THE
> >SUPPORT BASES, SHIPYARDS, AND LOGISTICAL ASSETS NEEDED TO SUSTAIN SUCH A
> >NAVAL
> >FORCE.
> >
> >Remember when he "cut the size of government"?
> >
> >-- Charlie Springer
>
>
> I guess Clinton never planned on attacking a nation that never threatened
the
> U.S. based on WMD that they never had.

No, he just attacked a nation that never threatened the US (that whole
series of former-Yugoslavia operations), based largely upon assurances from
Euro leaders it was *really* necessary, and thereby committed us to
open-ended engagements that are *still* sucking the life from the various
military branches, especially the Army (which is still playing the whole
SFOR and KFOR game, with SFOR now extending some seven YEARS past the date
that Clinton originally promised us would mark the end of that game). I
guess this is another example of your forgetting or not recognizing any
events that occured post VE day?

BTW, CBS News (not usually counted among the big Bush supporting
institutions) had a rather interesting little blurb the other evening,
regarding what Saddam is allegedly telling tales about while in captivity,
amongst which was mentioned his "WMD plans". Odd, huh? And as to threatening
the US, what do you call an assasination attempt on a former US President?
WMD they never had? You also must have missed the bit about a sarin binary
round going off a month or two back...

Brooks

>
> Arthur Kramer

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Brett" > wrote in message
...
>
> What did you do during the mid to late 1990's? Did you spend most of it
> asleep?
>

Art's been asleep since 1945.

[CallsignZippo]

And there is draft talk.

"From Democrats in Congress and a few Republicans, the administration
has said
repeatedly stated there is no need for a draft and they will not ask
for one.
According to a political analyst in Newsweek magazine (or was it
Time?), this
whole "draft scare" is the democrats trying to scare the younger males
into
voting for Kerry. But you know what Art, don't let facts get in the
way of your
"thinking"."

Preach on brother!!! I reading ya 5/5 flyboy.

No reason to mention the "D" word as long as "W" dips into the the IRR
pool via his PRCA and continues to extend sandbox deployments. His
some news from my neck of the woods:

Sunday, June 20, 2004
Barrel, scraping bottom of.
Fort Irwin 'not closing,' Lewis told, Claire Vitucci and Tammy Mccoy,
The Press-Enterprise, Friday, May 21, 2004


"About 150 soldiers of the 58th Engineer Company, which supports the
2,500-member 11th Armored Cavalry Regiment, are scheduled to deploy
sometime in the next 70 days, said Maj. Chris Belcher, Fort Irwin's
public affairs officer.
....
But the Army is considering sending some or all of the regiment to
Iraq, Lewis said.

It's unclear when that decision would be made, Lewis said. But if it
does happen, reservists will first come and train with the unit, also
called the Army's Opposition Force, and then fill in when the regiment
is deployed.

That way, specialized training for armored units could continue at
Fort Irwin, Lewis said.

If the Army is cutting into their training facilities in order to
deploy troops then nobody can complain about their own tour of duty
being extended for a few years.

But it does bring up the question of whether the United States was
prepared to open this second front as Bush proposed and Kerry voted
for."

[Ragnar]

"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...

> I guess Clinton never planned on attacking a nation that never threatened
the
> U.S. based on WMD that they never had.

Now Art shows his lack of credibility. Even the UN admits that Iraq had
loads of WMD.

[Ron]

>"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
>
>> I guess Clinton never planned on attacking a nation that never threatened
>the
>> U.S. based on WMD that they never had.

Then what was it they dropped on Iran and Halabja?


Ron
PA-31T Cheyenne II
Maharashtra Weather Modification Program
Pune, India

[George Z. Bush]

"CallsignZippo" > wrote in message
om...

(Snip for brevity)

> But it does bring up the question of whether the United States was
> prepared to open this second front as Bush proposed and Kerry voted
> for."

What is there to question since the whole world now knows that Bush and his
surrogates flat out lied and that the Congress and public were totally misled
because they believed the lies.

With perfect 20/20 hindsight, of course we shouldn't have, but it's a little
late for that kind of breastbeating, isn't it? The only real unanswered
question (right now at least) is whether or not we want another four years of
evasions, half-truths and outright lies or should we take a chance on the other
option in the hopes that we will mostly be dealt cards from the top of the deck.
The answer to that one will come in November, unless that exercise also ends up
being rigged.

George Z.

[George Z. Bush]

"Ragnar" > wrote in message
...
>
> "ArtKramr" > wrote in message
> ...
>
(Snip)

> Now Art shows his lack of credibility. Even the UN admits that Iraq had
> loads of WMD.

......in the '80s. The UN never found much of anything after the Gulf War in
spite of their best "on again, off again" search efforts. Even the Bush
administration's own team of expert searchers led by David Kay concluded after
their best unrestricted post-hostilities efforts that there not only wasn't
anything to find but that there hadn't been anything there from the beginning.

Anyone who finds fault with those conclusions is suffering from a huge attack of
gullibility. To this day, almost a year and a half after our "mission
completed" occurred, and with well over 100,000 American troops in the country
going back and forth over that miserable dusty country, none of the weapons we
were supposed to be afraid of has ever been found.

To accuse Art of suffering from lack of credibility is a perfect example of the
pot and the kettle.

George Z.

[Greasy Rider @ Invalid.com]

On Thu, 01 Jul 2004 02:21:41 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> proclaimed:

>Art's been asleep since 1945.

No, I believe he took off and never came back.

[tscottme]

Rumsfeld is the very definition of paleocon, a newly-minted term to
distinguish him and others from the "I used to be a liberal or Democrat"
conservatives. You are simply misusing neocon. Tell me what does the "neo"
prefix mean when attached to the word? It's there for a reason. Simply
because you are worked up and the liberal media is most susceptible to
buzzwords, even when wrongly using them, is no reason to call everyone in
the administration a neocon. The word has a definition, maybe you are just
lazy and can't quite peck out "conservative" or "Republican". You could
call them Nazi like the raving lunatics, it has even fewer letters and using
it couldn't do any more damage to your credibility. Next you'll be
complaining about the chemtrails the Jews are spraying over our cities to
make us infertile.

There is zero chance of a draft, unless you think Charlie Rangal and Chuck
Hagel constitute a veto proof majority in the Congress. *They* are
advocating a draft, nobody else. They are advocating it for the same reason
to spread fear and panic among the fearful and panicking classes. Everyone
else in the process is opposed to a draft. Exactly how will a draft be
implemented if the majority of Congress are opposed, the Pentagon doesn't
want it and can't afford it, and the President is opposed to it. Will
George Soros decree a draft after he finishes trying to buy an election?

If this is a wrecked economy we should wreck it every year. Economic growth
faster than during the last 20 years, an unemployment rate half of Europe,
1.5 million new jobs in the last few months. Notice the commie-libs aren't
using the "3 million jobs lost" any more because that number is shrinking
fast. Maybe the AARP Fear Alert isn't interested in having you know any of
this.


--
Scott

"I don't need to know very much about you or your ideas to know that if you
think Michael Moore is just great, a truth-teller and a much-needed tonic
for everything that is wrong in American life, you are not someone to take
seriously about anything of political consequence, or you are French. But I
repeat myself." - Jonah Goldberg
"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
> >Subject: Re: Even the SCOTUS is fed up with Bush's nonsense.
> >From: "tscottme"
> >Date: 6/30/2004 4:38 AM
>
> >Neocons are former liberals, usually Jewish, that found that the
Democrats
> >had turned to chic radicalism simply for the sake of trying to impress
their
>
> That is what they were, not what they are now. You are living in the past
as
> are most neocons and helping the present administration to wreck our
> country,.Rumsfeld is a disaster going to a phony war without enough
troops
> and now they are recalling troops that have already served more than they
> should. And there is draft talk. Is there no end as to how destructive the
> neocons can be?. Well, it will all come to an end in November. Cry the
beloved
> coubtry.
>
>
> Arthur Kramer
> 344th BG 494th BS
> England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
> Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
> http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer
>

[tscottme]

"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...

>
>
> I guess Clinton never planned on attacking a nation that never threatened
the
> U.S. based on WMD that they never had.
>

And by cutting CIA by 1/3 Clinton didn't allow us to detect AQ preparing to
attack the US.

--
Scott

"I don't need to know very much about you or your ideas to know that if you
think Michael Moore is just great, a truth-teller and a much-needed tonic
for everything that is wrong in American life, you are not someone to take
seriously about anything of political consequence, or you are French. But I
repeat myself." - Jonah Goldberg

[Ragnar]

"George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Ragnar" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "ArtKramr" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> (Snip)
>
> > Now Art shows his lack of credibility. Even the UN admits that Iraq had
> > loads of WMD.
>
> .....in the '80s.

Nope. 1998. And the chief UN inspector said after the war started that
there was still evidence of ongoing programs prior to the war.

> To this day, almost a year and a half after our "mission
> completed" occurred, and with well over 100,000 American troops in the
country
> going back and forth over that miserable dusty country, none of the
weapons we
> were supposed to be afraid of has ever been found.

As far as you know.

> To accuse Art of suffering from lack of credibility is a perfect example
of the
> pot and the kettle.

Really? How is that? Art said they NEVER had any WMD. I replied
(correctly) that they did. Seems to me that you are wrong.

[George Z. Bush]

"Ragnar" > wrote in message
...
>
> "George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Ragnar" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "ArtKramr" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > >
> > (Snip)
> >
> > > Now Art shows his lack of credibility. Even the UN admits that Iraq had
> > > loads of WMD.
> >
> > .....in the '80s.
>
> Nope. 1998. And the chief UN inspector said after the war started that
> there was still evidence of ongoing programs prior to the war.

And you still don't know the difference between a program and a weapon. Even
old Muammar Khadafi of Libya, who had pursued an active nuclear weapons program
for many years which he recently gave up in exchange for international
respectability never had anything he could have made go bang. If he had, he'd
have dropped it on Tel Aviv years ago. Lots of countries have programs.....so
what?
>
> > To this day, almost a year and a half after our "mission
> > completed" occurred, and with well over 100,000 American troops in the
> country
> > going back and forth over that miserable dusty country, none of the
> weapons we
> > were supposed to be afraid of has ever been found.
>
> As far as you know.

And as far as the President's personally appointed chief looker, David Kay, and
his entire team of searchers were able to find. If you can't believe the
President's own man, who do you believe?
>
> > To accuse Art of suffering from lack of credibility is a perfect example
> of the
> > pot and the kettle.
>
> Really? How is that? Art said they NEVER had any WMD. I replied
> (correctly) that they did. Seems to me that you are wrong.
>
I have no idea what Art said at the beginning of your nit picking snit with him
since I don't normally read his stuff. My statement stands, based upon what I
saw posted....from what I could tell, you were doing exactly what you were
criticizing him for doing and I'm not about to get into defining what time
context "never" is supposed to apply to any more than you'd want to get into a
****ing match over defining what "is" is.

George Z.
>

[Brett]

"George Z. Bush" > wrote:
> "Ragnar" > wrote in message

<..>

> > Nope. 1998. And the chief UN inspector said after the war started that
> > there was still evidence of ongoing programs prior to the war.
>
> And you still don't know the difference between a program and a weapon.

Which of them was defined as being allowed behaviour under the ceasefire
agreement signed by Iraq?

[Kevin Brooks]

"George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Ragnar" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
> > ...

<snip>

> > > To this day, almost a year and a half after our "mission
> > > completed" occurred, and with well over 100,000 American troops in the
> > country
> > > going back and forth over that miserable dusty country, none of the
> > weapons we
> > > were supposed to be afraid of has ever been found.
> >
> > As far as you know.
>
> And as far as the President's personally appointed chief looker, David
Kay, and
> his entire team of searchers were able to find. If you can't believe the
> President's own man, who do you believe?

LOL! Did you bother to actually read what Kay has said, or just the
approved-pablum-version as reported by CNN and the NYT? Go back and read his
actual words; he claimed the Iraqis were in violation of the UNSC
resolutions in numerous areas, and noted their continuing one specific bio
warfare program until the very outbreak of hostilities, along with their
hiding of equipment and records. Geeze, at least go back and read the man's
actual testimony before you go off and start placing your feet in your
mouth.


> >
> > > To accuse Art of suffering from lack of credibility is a perfect
example
> > of the
> > > pot and the kettle.
> >
> > Really? How is that? Art said they NEVER had any WMD. I replied
> > (correctly) that they did. Seems to me that you are wrong.
> >
> I have no idea what Art said at the beginning of your nit picking snit
with him
> since I don't normally read his stuff. My statement stands, based upon
what I
> saw posted....from what I could tell, you were doing exactly what you were
> criticizing him for doing and I'm not about to get into defining what time
> context "never" is supposed to apply to any more than you'd want to get
into a
> ****ing match over defining what "is" is.

Hell, you obviously can't be bothered to even READ the actual testimony you
cite!

Brooks

>
> George Z.
> >
>
>

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
...
>
> And as far as the President's personally appointed chief looker,
> David Kay, and his entire team of searchers were able to find. If you
> can't believe the President's own man, who do you believe?
>

As you say...

"In my judgment, based on the work that has been done to this point of the
Iraq Survey Group, and in fact, that I reported to you in October, Iraq was
in clear violation of the terms of [U.N.] Resolution 1441."

"Resolution 1441 required that Iraq report all of its activities -- one last
chance to come clean about what it had."

"We have discovered hundreds of cases, based on both documents, physical
evidence and the testimony of Iraqis, of activities that were prohibited
under the initial U.N. Resolution 687 and that should have been reported
under 1441, with Iraqi testimony that not only did they not tell the U.N.
about this, they were instructed not to do it and they hid material."

--David Kay at Senate hearing, Wednesday, January 28, 2004.

[Ragnar]

"George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Ragnar" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "Ragnar" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > >
> > > > "ArtKramr" > wrote in message
> > > > ...
> > > >
> > > (Snip)
> > >
> > > > Now Art shows his lack of credibility. Even the UN admits that Iraq
had
> > > > loads of WMD.
> > >
> > > .....in the '80s.
> >
> > Nope. 1998. And the chief UN inspector said after the war started that
> > there was still evidence of ongoing programs prior to the war.
>
> And you still don't know the difference between a program and a weapon.

Riiiight. And I suppose Saddam dropped a "program" on the Kurds and
Iranians. Funny, those pictures and medical reports sure looked like nerve
and mustard gas. Guess them "programs" are dangerous after all.


> > > To this day, almost a year and a half after our "mission
> > > completed" occurred, and with well over 100,000 American troops in the
> > country
> > > going back and forth over that miserable dusty country, none of the
> > weapons we
> > > were supposed to be afraid of has ever been found.
> >
> > As far as you know.
>
> And as far as the President's personally appointed chief looker, David
Kay, and
> his entire team of searchers were able to find. If you can't believe the
> President's own man, who do you believe?

Like I said, "as far as you know".

> > > To accuse Art of suffering from lack of credibility is a perfect
example
> > of the
> > > pot and the kettle.
> >
> > Really? How is that? Art said they NEVER had any WMD. I replied
> > (correctly) that they did. Seems to me that you are wrong.
> >
> I have no idea what Art said at the beginning of your nit picking snit
with him
> since I don't normally read his stuff.

Oh, so you only look at one side of the conversation. Thats very convenient
for you.

> My statement stands, based upon what I
> saw posted..

Yes, don't read the whole thing. That way when you're proven wrong you can
deny everything with a BS cover story.

>..from what I could tell, you were doing exactly what you were
> criticizing him for doing and I'm not about to get into defining what time
> context "never" is supposed to apply to any more than you'd want to get
into a
> ****ing match over defining what "is" is.

Umm, "never" means exactly that - NEVER. Get a decent dictionary.

[George Z. Bush]

"Ragnar" > wrote in message
...
>
> "George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Ragnar" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > >
> > > > "Ragnar" > wrote in message
> > > > ...
> > > > >
> > > > > "ArtKramr" > wrote in message
> > > > > ...
> > > > >
> > > > (Snip)
> > > >
> > > > > Now Art shows his lack of credibility. Even the UN admits that Iraq
> had
> > > > > loads of WMD.
> > > >
> > > > .....in the '80s.
> > >
> > > Nope. 1998. And the chief UN inspector said after the war started that
> > > there was still evidence of ongoing programs prior to the war.
> >
> > And you still don't know the difference between a program and a weapon.
>
> Riiiight. And I suppose Saddam dropped a "program" on the Kurds and
> Iranians. Funny, those pictures and medical reports sure looked like nerve
> and mustard gas. Guess them "programs" are dangerous after all.

And when did that happen? March, 1988 during the war against Iran. So, let's
see, is 1988 in the 80s or the 90s? Oh......
>
>
> > > > To this day, almost a year and a half after our "mission
> > > > completed" occurred, and with well over 100,000 American troops in the
> > > country
> > > > going back and forth over that miserable dusty country, none of the
> > > weapons we
> > > > were supposed to be afraid of has ever been found.
> > >
> > > As far as you know.
> >
> > And as far as the President's personally appointed chief looker, David
> Kay, and
> > his entire team of searchers were able to find. If you can't believe the
> > President's own man, who do you believe?
>
> Like I said, "as far as you know".

Did you think I didn't hear you the first time? So let me try again......if you
can't believe the President's own man, who do you believe? How about answering
THAT question, if you don't mind.
>
> > > > To accuse Art of suffering from lack of credibility is a perfect
> example
> > > of the
> > > > pot and the kettle.
> > >
> > > Really? How is that? Art said they NEVER had any WMD. I replied
> > > (correctly) that they did. Seems to me that you are wrong.
> > >
> > I have no idea what Art said at the beginning of your nit picking snit
> with him
> > since I don't normally read his stuff.
>
> Oh, so you only look at one side of the conversation. Thats very convenient
> for you.
>
> > My statement stands, based upon what I
> > saw posted..
>
> Yes, don't read the whole thing. That way when you're proven wrong you can
> deny everything with a BS cover story.

I no longer read what people who I've consigned to my kill file have to say
except possibly when someone responds to their comments. Like I said, I have no
idea what he said initially in this thread.....it doesn't show up on my monitor.
If you think that's some sort of BS story, then you haven't discovered the
beauties of the kill file, and that'd be your loss.
>
> >..from what I could tell, you were doing exactly what you were
> > criticizing him for doing and I'm not about to get into defining what time
> > context "never" is supposed to apply to any more than you'd want to get
> into a
> > ****ing match over defining what "is" is.
>
> Umm, "never" means exactly that - NEVER. Get a decent dictionary.

Well, if I said that you never said that to me last year, does that mean "never
from the beginning of time" or does it mean "never during the last year"?
Surely you can see the difference. If it doesn't register on you, then I might
as well drop it and move on.

George Z.

[Ragnar]

"George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Ragnar" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "Ragnar" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > >
> > > > "George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
> > > > ...
> > > > >
> > > > > "Ragnar" > wrote in message
> > > > > ...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "ArtKramr" > wrote in message
> > > > > > ...
> > > > > >
> > > > > (Snip)
> > > > >
> > > > > > Now Art shows his lack of credibility. Even the UN admits that
Iraq
> > had
> > > > > > loads of WMD.
> > > > >
> > > > > .....in the '80s.
> > > >
> > > > Nope. 1998. And the chief UN inspector said after the war started
that
> > > > there was still evidence of ongoing programs prior to the war.
> > >
> > > And you still don't know the difference between a program and a
weapon.
> >
> > Riiiight. And I suppose Saddam dropped a "program" on the Kurds and
> > Iranians. Funny, those pictures and medical reports sure looked like
nerve
> > and mustard gas. Guess them "programs" are dangerous after all.
>
> And when did that happen? March, 1988 during the war against Iran. So,
let's
> see, is 1988 in the 80s or the 90s? Oh......

Yes, oh. Lots of the chems were never accounted for after the Gulf War.
And some keeps coming back even today, like in artillery shells used as
IEDs.

> >
> >
> > > > > To this day, almost a year and a half after our "mission
> > > > > completed" occurred, and with well over 100,000 American troops in
the
> > > > country
> > > > > going back and forth over that miserable dusty country, none of
the
> > > > weapons we
> > > > > were supposed to be afraid of has ever been found.
> > > >
> > > > As far as you know.
> > >
> > > And as far as the President's personally appointed chief looker, David
> > Kay, and
> > > his entire team of searchers were able to find. If you can't believe
the
> > > President's own man, who do you believe?
> >
> > Like I said, "as far as you know".
>
> Did you think I didn't hear you the first time?

"hear" me? Umm, this is the internet, not a telephone.

In any event, I repeated it because you already admitted to not reading
everything in the thread. Just thought I'd make sure.

Based on previous posts, its obvious to me that you never read the offical
report from Kay. Perhaps you could look up the part where he said the
Iraqis weren't in compliance with UN resolutions and had programs still
running even after the inspections.


> So let me try again......if you
> can't believe the President's own man, who do you believe? How about
answering
> THAT question, if you don't mind.

I DO believe Mr Kay. Iraq DID have illegal programs in place despite UN
resolutions. Now, why do YOU not believe Mr Kay? It seems your position is
at odds with his now.

> >
> > > > > To accuse Art of suffering from lack of credibility is a perfect
> > example
> > > > of the
> > > > > pot and the kettle.
> > > >
> > > > Really? How is that? Art said they NEVER had any WMD. I replied
> > > > (correctly) that they did. Seems to me that you are wrong.
> > > >
> > > I have no idea what Art said at the beginning of your nit picking snit
> > with him
> > > since I don't normally read his stuff.
> >
> > Oh, so you only look at one side of the conversation. Thats very
convenient
> > for you.
> >
> > > My statement stands, based upon what I
> > > saw posted..
> >
> > Yes, don't read the whole thing. That way when you're proven wrong you
can
> > deny everything with a BS cover story.
>
> I no longer read what people who I've consigned to my kill file have to
say
> except possibly when someone responds to their comments.

Yes, excellent cover when you're caught out.

> Like I said, I have no
> idea what he said initially in this thread...

Yet you reply anyway and get caught with your head up your ass. Nice.

> If you think that's some sort of BS story, then you haven't discovered the
> beauties of the kill file, and that'd be your loss.

The BS story is where you try to use the killfile excuse to plead ignorance
when you could easily read the non-killfiled responses or simply remove the
killfile if you really cared about the subject. Like I said, a nice BS
cover story for when you're caught.

> >
> > >..from what I could tell, you were doing exactly what you were
> > > criticizing him for doing and I'm not about to get into defining what
time
> > > context "never" is supposed to apply to any more than you'd want to
get
> > into a
> > > ****ing match over defining what "is" is.
> >
> > Umm, "never" means exactly that - NEVER. Get a decent dictionary.
>
> Well, if I said that you never said that to me last year, does that mean
"never
> from the beginning of time" or does it mean "never during the last year"?
> Surely you can see the difference. If it doesn't register on you, then I
might
> as well drop it and move on.

Oh, puhlease.

[Thomas J. Paladino Jr.]

"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
> >Subject: Re: Even the SCOTUS is fed up with Bush's nonsense.
> >From: "Jarg"
> >Date: 6/29/2004 9:28 AM Pacific Standard Time
> >Message-id: >
> >
> >"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> In an 8 to 1 decision the scotus kicked Bush on the ass for his
trashing
> >of the
> >> Bill of Rights. It is about time Bush was placed on the slippery slope
he
> >so
> >> well desreves. Thank you SCOTUS. Even the neocons have had enough of
him
> >>
> >
> >
> >What a strange conclusion! I'm not sure who these neocons are you keep
> >mentioning (and I bet you don't know either, it's probably just a new
catch
> >phrase you learned and like to use to avoid having to try to express
complex
> >ideas) but the Supreme Court has ruled against the government many times
> >over the last few years. What makes this ruling so significant?
> >
> >The ruling is pretty complicated. You can read some of the details here:
> >
> >http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1802&e=3&u=/washpost/2004
> 0629/ts_washpost/a13350_2004jun28
> >
> >Jarg
>
> Bush's defense was that in time of war balance of powers no longer exist
and
> the president as commander in chief has final word on all issues. SCOTUS
said
> "war does not give the president a blank check to go outside the
constitution
> and the bill of rights.". That slaps down Bush's delusions of grandeur.
>

You mean like FDR?

Pardon me if I don't quite understand, but wasn't throwing innocent Japanese
citizens into internment camps en masse, simply because of their race, a far
larger example of 'trashing the bill of rights' than anything Bush has
allegedly done? Why did you not protest this? What about FDR's attempts to
bypass and overthrow the judicial branch altogether?

I would be interested in knowing what you think Bush did that is so
unprescidented. Fact is, Franklin Delano Rosevelt was the closest thing to a
dictator we've ever had in this country. Don't misunderstand me; he was a
great man, and he was what the nation needed at the time. However, all of
this baseless and manufactured outrage directed at president Bush is
disgraceful, considering the relativly subtle and nuanced actions he has
taken---especially in comparison to the beloved FDR.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Thomas J. Paladino Jr." > wrote in message
...
>
> You mean like FDR?
>
> Pardon me if I don't quite understand, but wasn't throwing innocent
Japanese
> citizens into internment camps en masse, simply because of their race, a
far
> larger example of 'trashing the bill of rights' than anything Bush has
> allegedly done? Why did you not protest this? What about FDR's attempts to
> bypass and overthrow the judicial branch altogether?
>

No, throwing innocent Japanese citizens into internment camps was not
trashing the Bill of Rights, and it wasn't done because of their race it was
done because they were enemy nationals. It was also done with German and
Italian nationals. All countries do this in time of war, what else can they
do? You can't have enemy nationals freely roaming about the nation.

What FDR did that was completely wrong was the internment of US citizens of
Japanese, German, and Italian descent.


>
> I would be interested in knowing what you think Bush did that is so
> unprescidented. Fact is, Franklin Delano Rosevelt was the closest thing to
a
> dictator we've ever had in this country. Don't misunderstand me; he was a
> great man, and he was what the nation needed at the time. However, all of
> this baseless and manufactured outrage directed at president Bush is
> disgraceful, considering the relativly subtle and nuanced actions he has
> taken---especially in comparison to the beloved FDR.
>

He was what the nation needed at what time?

[George Z. Bush]

Ragnar wrote:
> "George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
> ...

>>> Riiiight. And I suppose Saddam dropped a "program" on the Kurds and
>>> Iranians. Funny, those pictures and medical reports sure looked like nerve
>>> and mustard gas. Guess them "programs" are dangerous after all.
>>
>> And when did that happen? March, 1988 during the war against Iran. So,
>> let's see, is 1988 in the 80s or the 90s? Oh......
>
> Yes, oh. Lots of the chems were never accounted for after the Gulf War.

Assuming that you're right, so what happened to them? Where are they? Why
weren't they used against us when we invaded their country if they had them?
And since they obviously didn't have them, what in hell were we supposed to be
afraid of?

> And some keeps coming back even today, like in artillery shells used as
> IEDs.

And do you know why those artillery shells were and are still available to the
insurgents in Iraq? I know you won't want to believe it or accept it as truth,
but the reason is that we didn't have enough troops committed to the operation
to be able to secure the ammo dumps and prevent them from being looted.
Remember what Army C/S Gen. Eric Shinseki said before the shooting started? He
told Rummy that he thought we needed something over 300,000 troops to be able to
win the war, secure the country, and seal its borders against infiltration. He
got fired for daring to speak his mind, and Rummy set forth to do it on the
cheap. We are now (and will continue indefinitely) to pay the price for that
horrible error in judgement by the administration.

>>>>>> To this day, almost a year and a half after our "mission
>>>>>> completed" occurred, and with well over 100,000 American troops in
>>>>>> the country going back and forth over that miserable dusty country, none
of
>>>>>> the weapons we were supposed to be afraid of has ever been found.
>>>>>
>>>>> As far as you know.
>>>>
>>>> And as far as the President's personally appointed chief looker, David Kay,
and
>>>> his entire team of searchers were able to find. If you can't believe the
President's own man,
>>>> who do you believe?
>>>
>>> Like I said, "as far as you know".
>>
>> Did you think I didn't hear you the first time?
>
> "hear" me? Umm, this is the internet, not a telephone.

Do I have to explain to you what a figure of speech is?
>
> In any event, I repeated it because you already admitted to not reading
> everything in the thread. Just thought I'd make sure.
>
> Based on previous posts, its obvious to me that you never read the offical
> report from Kay. Perhaps you could look up the part where he said the
> Iraqis weren't in compliance with UN resolutions and had programs still
> running even after the inspections.

Well, what was obvious to you was, in fact, erroneous. I did in fact read the
Kay report right after it was published. Why are you ignoring the part of it
where it said that while they may have had weapons research programs operating,
his team was unable to locate any weapons produced by those programs? If our
nation's going to spend all of its days shaking in our boots because other
countries (including unfriendly ones) are doing weapons research, we're going to
need a rubber padded room in which to feel safe because, like it or not,
everybody does it and they're not going to quit just to please us and allow us
to not feel threatened.

(Snip)

George Z.

[Ragnar]

"George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
...

> Remember what Army C/S Gen. Eric Shinseki said before the shooting
started? He
> told Rummy that he thought we needed something over 300,000 troops to be
able to
> win the war, secure the country, and seal its borders against
infiltration. He
> got fired for daring to speak his mind,

Gen Shinseki didn't get "fired":

Under Public Law 90-22 approved 5 June 1967 which amended Section 3034(a) of
Title 10, US Code) the Chief of Staff, US Army, is appointed by the
President with the advice and consent of the Senate for a four-year term
and, in time of war, is eligible for reappointment for a term of not more
than four years.


Gen Shinseki's term as Chief of Staff USA started on 22 Jun 1999 and ended
on 11 Jun 2003. Thats the statutory 4-year term, which NO Chief of Staff
since 1964 has exceeded. Gen Shinseki served his normal term of office and
retired, which is exactly what every other Chief of Staff has done in the
past.


> > "hear" me? Umm, this is the internet, not a telephone.
>
> Do I have to explain to you what a figure of speech is?

Do I have to explain to you the definition of "never"? Its in the
dictionary.

[George Z. Bush]

"Ragnar" > wrote in message
...
>
> "George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > Remember what Army C/S Gen. Eric Shinseki said before the shooting
> started? He
> > told Rummy that he thought we needed something over 300,000 troops to be
> able to
> > win the war, secure the country, and seal its borders against
> infiltration. He
> > got fired for daring to speak his mind,
>
> Gen Shinseki didn't get "fired":
>
> Under Public Law 90-22 approved 5 June 1967 which amended Section 3034(a) of
> Title 10, US Code) the Chief of Staff, US Army, is appointed by the
> President with the advice and consent of the Senate for a four-year term
> and, in time of war, is eligible for reappointment for a term of not more
> than four years.
>
>
> Gen Shinseki's term as Chief of Staff USA started on 22 Jun 1999 and ended
> on 11 Jun 2003. Thats the statutory 4-year term, which NO Chief of Staff
> since 1964 has exceeded. Gen Shinseki served his normal term of office and
> retired, which is exactly what every other Chief of Staff has done in the
> past.

We were clearly at war in June 2003 and extension of Gen. Shinseki's term of
office as Army C/S was available to the government and provided for under PL
90-22. Our government chose to ignore our tradition of not changing horses in
midstream and replaced him with someone who wouldn't buck their preconceived
notions of how to run a war. The way I see it, he most certainly did get fired,
and he got his retirement papers processed instead of having them placed in the
pending file simply because he differed with his civilian bosses about what
winning the war was going to take. It turns out with perfect 20-20 hindsight
that he knew what he was talking about and they (the civilians involved) did
not.

George Z.

[Ragnar]

"George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Ragnar" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> > > Remember what Army C/S Gen. Eric Shinseki said before the shooting
> > started? He
> > > told Rummy that he thought we needed something over 300,000 troops to
be
> > able to
> > > win the war, secure the country, and seal its borders against
> > infiltration. He
> > > got fired for daring to speak his mind,
> >
> > Gen Shinseki didn't get "fired":
> >
> > Under Public Law 90-22 approved 5 June 1967 which amended Section
3034(a) of
> > Title 10, US Code) the Chief of Staff, US Army, is appointed by the
> > President with the advice and consent of the Senate for a four-year term
> > and, in time of war, is eligible for reappointment for a term of not
more
> > than four years.
> >
> >
> > Gen Shinseki's term as Chief of Staff USA started on 22 Jun 1999 and
ended
> > on 11 Jun 2003. Thats the statutory 4-year term, which NO Chief of
Staff
> > since 1964 has exceeded. Gen Shinseki served his normal term of office
and
> > retired, which is exactly what every other Chief of Staff has done in
the
> > past.
>
> We were clearly at war in June 2003

Congress didn't declare "war", so we were not "clearly" at war.

> and extension of Gen. Shinseki's term of
> office as Army C/S was available to the government and provided for under
PL
> 90-22.

Available, yes. However, extension wasn't used during Vietnam either,
making your point less valid.

> Our government chose to ignore our tradition of not changing horses in
> midstream

Umm, the "tradition" seems to have been ignored for the most part when it
comes to JCS members.

> and replaced him with someone who wouldn't buck their preconceived
> notions of how to run a war.

>The way I see it, he most certainly did get fired,

Nope, fired people have to clean out their desks and get the hell out of the
building. Shinseki served his entire appointment as Chief of Staff.

> and he got his retirement papers processed instead of having them placed
in the
> pending file simply because he differed with his civilian bosses about
what
> winning the war was going to take. It turns out with perfect 20-20
hindsight
> that he knew what he was talking about and they (the civilians involved)
did
> not.
>
> George Z.
>
>

[George Z. Bush]

"Ragnar" > wrote in message
...
>
> "George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
> ...

> > We were clearly at war in June 2003
>
> Congress didn't declare "war", so we were not "clearly" at war.

Does PL 90-22 say that extensions are available whenever Congress has declared
war? I believe it just says "in time of war", which means that it does not
require a Congressional declaration. I don't know about you, but if somebody
tells me that we're at war at times while enemies are shooting our troops, I'm
not inclined to nitpick the definition of what constitutes being at war.

(Snip)

> >The way I see it, he most certainly did get fired,
>
> Nope, fired people have to clean out their desks and get the hell out of the
> building. Shinseki served his entire appointment as Chief of Staff.

You obviously don't have a clue how things work at the flag level. Try asking
any flag officer you know if I'm wrong.....I've already done that and am
satisfied that I didn't get a bum steer. I wouldn't be trying to BS the public
if I didn't know that I had it right.

Insist if you want to.....I still say he got canned for disagreeing with his
civilian bosses.
And I still say that he was right and that they were wrong. Professionals often
have a far more sanguine and realistic view of things in their areas of
expertise than do ideologues. How to secure Iraq was a perfect example of that,
and we continue to pay the price in blood and heartache every day for having
picked the wrong options.

George Z.

[Ragnar]

"George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Ragnar" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
> > ...
>
> > > We were clearly at war in June 2003
> >
> > Congress didn't declare "war", so we were not "clearly" at war.
>
> Does PL 90-22 say that extensions are available whenever Congress has
declared
> war? I believe it just says "in time of war", which means that it does
not
> require a Congressional declaration. I don't know about you, but if
somebody
> tells me that we're at war at times while enemies are shooting our troops,
I'm
> not inclined to nitpick the definition of what constitutes being at war.

The Constitution says that Congress is the body that declares "war". It
follows that public law says "in time of war". Clearly, the intent is a
Congressionally declared state of war.

>
> (Snip)
>
> > >The way I see it, he most certainly did get fired,
> >
> > Nope, fired people have to clean out their desks and get the hell out of
the
> > building. Shinseki served his entire appointment as Chief of Staff.
>
> You obviously don't have a clue how things work at the flag level.

You obviously don't have a clue about what I know. Try again.

[George Z. Bush]

"Ragnar" > wrote in message
...
>
> "George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Ragnar" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> >
> > > > We were clearly at war in June 2003
> > >
> > > Congress didn't declare "war", so we were not "clearly" at war.
> >
> > Does PL 90-22 say that extensions are available whenever Congress has
> declared
> > war? I believe it just says "in time of war", which means that it does
> not
> > require a Congressional declaration. I don't know about you, but if
> somebody
> > tells me that we're at war at times while enemies are shooting our troops,
> I'm
> > not inclined to nitpick the definition of what constitutes being at war.
>
> The Constitution says that Congress is the body that declares "war". It
> follows that public law says "in time of war". Clearly, the intent is a
> Congressionally declared state of war.

Then, clearly, Congress has studiously ignored your version of what the
Constitution requires for the past half century. We fought the entire Korean
War without Congress declaring that a state of war existed.....not to this day a
half century or so later has such a declaration been made. But it was a war
nevertheless. Oh, and be sure to tell our VN vets that the little brouhaha they
were involved in didn't count as a war because Congress forgot to declare it.

Come to think of it, those little dust ups that passed for wars in Panama,
Granada, and Kuwait (the Gulf War) were similarly undeclared. I guess they
didn't count either.

Those Congressmen sure must be stupid to fail to recognize what they're supposed
to do before young Americans in uniform are placed in harm's way.

(Snip)

> > You obviously don't have a clue how things work at the flag level.
>
> You obviously don't have a clue about what I know. Try again.

I guess everybody's out of step but you. You're the one who doesn't seem to
know squat about the subject.

George Z.

[Thomas Schoene]

Ragnar wrote:
> Congress didn't declare "war", so we were not "clearly" at war.

They came close enough for most purposes. The 18 September 2001 Joint
Resolution is effectively a declaration of war. It certainly activates the
various "in time of war" clauses in other legislation, such as the recall of
troops and so forth (though a good lawyer might argue out of a treason
charge on the technicality).

Note that Admiral Clark, the current Chief of Naval Operations, has had his
appointment extended by an additional two years (for a total of six).

Regarding Shinseki, I agree he was not fired. But he was clearly
marginalized by OSD. Rumsfeld named his preferred successor (the serving
Vice COS) over a year in advance, an unprecendented announcement. (General
Keane then declined the post, also unprecedented, IME. Then General Franks
also turned it down when offered.) Notably, no senior OSD officials
attended Shinsiki's retirement ceremony, which is rather unusual for an
outgoing service chief.

--
Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
"Our country, right or wrong. When right, to be kept right, when
wrong to be put right." - Senator Carl Schurz, 1872

[Ragnar]

"George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Ragnar" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "Ragnar" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > >
> > > > "George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
> > > > ...
> > >
> > > > > We were clearly at war in June 2003
> > > >
> > > > Congress didn't declare "war", so we were not "clearly" at war.
> > >
> > > Does PL 90-22 say that extensions are available whenever Congress has
> > declared
> > > war? I believe it just says "in time of war", which means that it
does
> > not
> > > require a Congressional declaration. I don't know about you, but if
> > somebody
> > > tells me that we're at war at times while enemies are shooting our
troops,
> > I'm
> > > not inclined to nitpick the definition of what constitutes being at
war.
> >
> > The Constitution says that Congress is the body that declares "war". It
> > follows that public law says "in time of war". Clearly, the intent is a
> > Congressionally declared state of war.
>
> Then, clearly, Congress has studiously ignored your version of what the
> Constitution requires for the past half century. We fought the entire
Korean
> War without Congress declaring that a state of war existed.....not to this
day a
> half century or so later has such a declaration been made. But it was a
war
> nevertheless. Oh, and be sure to tell our VN vets that the little
brouhaha they
> were involved in didn't count as a war because Congress forgot to declare
it.

Not my fault they don't have the balls to actually call it a war.

> Come to think of it, those little dust ups that passed for wars in Panama,
> Granada, and Kuwait (the Gulf War) were similarly undeclared. I guess
they
> didn't count either.

Finally, a right answer from you. They weren't "wars" since Congress didn't
declare them that.

> Those Congressmen sure must be stupid to fail to recognize what they're
supposed
> to do before young Americans in uniform are placed in harm's way.
>
> (Snip)
>
> > > You obviously don't have a clue how things work at the flag level.
> >
> > You obviously don't have a clue about what I know. Try again.
>
> I guess everybody's out of step but you. You're the one who doesn't seem
to
> know squat about the subject.

Well, lets see what I know:

1. Shinseki didn't clean out his desk.
2. Didn't leave the building.
3. Didn't lose one iota of his command authority.
4. Didn't stop attending JCS meetings.
5. Didn't stop travelling around giving speeches as the CSA.
6. Served his ENTIRE assignment period as specified under Public Law.

Yep, not "fired".

[George Z. Bush]

"Ragnar" > wrote in message
...
>
> "George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Then, clearly, Congress has studiously ignored your version of what the
> > Constitution requires for the past half century. We fought the entire
> Korean
> > War without Congress declaring that a state of war existed.....not to this
> day a
> > half century or so later has such a declaration been made. But it was a
> war
> > nevertheless. Oh, and be sure to tell our VN vets that the little
> brouhaha they
> > were involved in didn't count as a war because Congress forgot to declare
> it.
>
> Not my fault they don't have the balls to actually call it a war.

Sure it is.....it's all our faults because we elect the people who sit in the
Congress. I'm not sure I fully understand the rationale for them failing to
declare war in every instance but, unlike you, I prefer to withhold that kind of
criticism until I know why they did or didn't do whatever it was that I might
have expected of them.
>
> > Come to think of it, those little dust ups that passed for wars in Panama,
> > Granada, and Kuwait (the Gulf War) were similarly undeclared. I guess
> they
> > didn't count either.
>
> Finally, a right answer from you. They weren't "wars" since Congress didn't
> declare them that.

You must be the only person in the country who's never heard of "undeclared
wars", like the one we're engaged in right now with the sovereign nation of
Iraq. The Congress may have said numerous things on the subject in many
different formats, but one thing they didn't say was that a state of war existed
between the Government of Iraq and the Government of the United States.
>
> > Those Congressmen sure must be stupid to fail to recognize what they're
> supposed
> > to do before young Americans in uniform are placed in harm's way.
> >
> > (Snip)
> >
> > > > You obviously don't have a clue how things work at the flag level.
> > >
> > > You obviously don't have a clue about what I know. Try again.
> >
> > I guess everybody's out of step but you. You're the one who doesn't seem
> to
> > know squat about the subject.
>
> Well, lets see what I know:
>
> 1. Shinseki didn't clean out his desk.
> 2. Didn't leave the building.
> 3. Didn't lose one iota of his command authority.
> 4. Didn't stop attending JCS meetings.
> 5. Didn't stop travelling around giving speeches as the CSA.
> 6. Served his ENTIRE assignment period as specified under Public Law.
>
> Yep, not "fired".
>
>
>

[George Z. Bush]

"Thomas Schoene" > wrote in message
k.net...
> Ragnar wrote:
> > Congress didn't declare "war", so we were not "clearly" at war.
>
> They came close enough for most purposes. The 18 September 2001 Joint
> Resolution is effectively a declaration of war. It certainly activates the
> various "in time of war" clauses in other legislation, such as the recall of
> troops and so forth (though a good lawyer might argue out of a treason
> charge on the technicality).
>
> Note that Admiral Clark, the current Chief of Naval Operations, has had his
> appointment extended by an additional two years (for a total of six).
>
> Regarding Shinseki, I agree he was not fired. But he was clearly
> marginalized by OSD. Rumsfeld named his preferred successor (the serving
> Vice COS) over a year in advance, an unprecendented announcement. (General
> Keane then declined the post, also unprecedented, IME. Then General Franks
> also turned it down when offered.) Notably, no senior OSD officials
> attended Shinsiki's retirement ceremony, which is rather unusual for an
> outgoing service chief.

Any flag officer who was as "marginalized" as much as Shinseki was would have
been considered "fired" by his peers. What he was told was, in effect, that his
services would no longer be required once his lease had expired. Were I
Shinseki, when my colleague in the Navy Department got an extension in time of
war, I'd expect one as well. Failing that, I'd consider myself "fired".

George Z.

[George Z. Bush]

"Ragnar" > wrote in message
...
>
> "George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
> ...

(Snip)

> Well, lets see what I know:
>
> 1. Shinseki didn't clean out his desk.
> 2. Didn't leave the building.
> 3. Didn't lose one iota of his command authority.
> 4. Didn't stop attending JCS meetings.
> 5. Didn't stop travelling around giving speeches as the CSA.
> 6. Served his ENTIRE assignment period as specified under Public Law.
>
> Yep, not "fired".

Didn't get an extension similar to the one the CNO got. Under those
circumstances, you may not think he was fired, but I'd bet a bucket of warm spit
that Shinseki thinks he was. A flag officer I know thinks he was and, further,
says that most flag officers see it that way.

So you differ with them.....but they made flag rank and you and I made what???
Are you trying to tell us that you know how those things work better than the
ones who are directly involved? If so, then I give up because I can't argue
with such arrogance.

George Z.

George Z.
>
>
>

[Ragnar]

"George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Ragnar" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
> > ...
>
> (Snip)
>
> > Well, lets see what I know:
> >
> > 1. Shinseki didn't clean out his desk.
> > 2. Didn't leave the building.
> > 3. Didn't lose one iota of his command authority.
> > 4. Didn't stop attending JCS meetings.
> > 5. Didn't stop travelling around giving speeches as the CSA.
> > 6. Served his ENTIRE assignment period as specified under Public Law.
> >
> > Yep, not "fired".
>
> Didn't get an extension similar to the one the CNO got.

Extensions aren't mandatory, nor has one been used for any CSA since 1964,
including during Vietnam.

> Under those
> circumstances, you may not think he was fired, but I'd bet a bucket of
warm spit
> that Shinseki thinks he was.

Yes, please tell us what Shinseki thinks. Perhaps a link to his opinion
would help.

> A flag officer I know thinks he was and, further,
> says that most flag officers see it that way.
>
> So you differ with them.....but they made flag rank and you and I made
what???

I know the definition of "fired" and he doesn't fit it.

> Are you trying to tell us that you know how those things work better than
the
> ones who are directly involved? If so, then I give up because I can't
argue
> with such arrogance.

Speaking of arrogance . . .

>
> George Z.

[Ragnar]

"George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Thomas Schoene" > wrote in message
> k.net...
> > Ragnar wrote:
> > > Congress didn't declare "war", so we were not "clearly" at war.
> >
> > They came close enough for most purposes. The 18 September 2001 Joint
> > Resolution is effectively a declaration of war. It certainly activates
the
> > various "in time of war" clauses in other legislation, such as the
recall of
> > troops and so forth (though a good lawyer might argue out of a treason
> > charge on the technicality).
> >
> > Note that Admiral Clark, the current Chief of Naval Operations, has had
his
> > appointment extended by an additional two years (for a total of six).
> >
> > Regarding Shinseki, I agree he was not fired. But he was clearly
> > marginalized by OSD. Rumsfeld named his preferred successor (the
serving
> > Vice COS) over a year in advance, an unprecendented announcement.
(General
> > Keane then declined the post, also unprecedented, IME. Then General
Franks
> > also turned it down when offered.) Notably, no senior OSD officials
> > attended Shinsiki's retirement ceremony, which is rather unusual for an
> > outgoing service chief.
>
> Any flag officer who was as "marginalized" as much as Shinseki was would
have
> been considered "fired" by his peers. What he was told was, in effect,
that his
> services would no longer be required once his lease had expired. Were I
> Shinseki, when my colleague in the Navy Department got an extension in
time of
> war, I'd expect one as well. Failing that, I'd consider myself "fired".

Then by your standards, ALL of the following were "fired":

CNO
ADM David L. McDonald 01 Aug 63 01 Aug 67
ADM Thomas H. Moorer 01 Aug 67 01 Jul 70
ADM Elmo R. Zumwalt, Jr. 01 Jul 70 01 Jul 74
ADM James L. Holloway III 01 Jul 74 01 Jul 78
ADM Thomas B. Hayward 01 Jul 78 01 Jul 82
ADM James D. Watkins 01 Jul 82 01 Jul 86
ADM Carlisle A. H. Trost 01 Jul 86 30 Jun 90
ADM Frank B. Kelso II 01 Jul 90 23 Apr 94
*ADM Jeremy M. Boorda 23 Apr 94 16 May 96
ADM Jay L. Johnson 02 Aug 96 20 Jul 00


CSA
*GEN Harold K. Johnson 03 Jul 64 02 Jul 68
GEN William C. Westmoreland 03 Jul 68 30 Jun 72
GEN Bruce Palmer, Jr. (acting) 01 Jul 72 11 Oct 72
*GEN Creighton W. Abrams 12 Oct 72 04 Sep 74
GEN Fred C. Weyande 03 Oct 74 01 Oct 76
GEN Bernard W. Rogers 01 Oct 76 21 Jun 79
GEN Edward C. Meyer 22 Jun 79 22 Jun 83
GEN John A. Wickham, Jr. 23 Jun 83 22 Jun 87
GEN Carl E. Vuono 23 Jun 87 21 Jun 91
GEN Gordon R. Sullivan 21 Jun 91 19 Jun 95
GEN Dennis A. Reimer 20 Jun 95 21 Jun 99


USAF*GEN Curtis E. LeMay 30 Jun 61 31 Jan 65
*GEN John P. McConnell 01 Feb 65 01 Aug 69
*GEN John D. Ryan 01 Aug 69 31 Jul 73
*GEN George S. Brown 01 Aug 73 30 Jun 74
GEN David C. Jones 01 Jul 74 20 Jun 78
GEN Lew Allen, Jr. 01 Jul 78 30 Jun 82
GEN Charles A. Gabriel 01 Jul 82 30 Jun 86
GEN Larry D. Welch 01 Jul 86 30 Jun 90
GEN Michael J. Dugan 01 Jul 90 17 Sep 90
GEN John M. Loh (acting) 17 Sep 90 27 Oct 90
GEN Merrill A. McPeak 27 Oct 90 25 Oct 94
GEN Ronald R. Fogleman 26 Oct 94 1 Sep 97
GEN Michael E. Ryan 6 Oct 97 6 Sep 01
GEN John P. Jumper 6 Sep 01 present


USMC
GEN Wallace M. Greene, Jr. 01 Jan 64 31 Dec 67
GEN Leonard F. Chapman, Jr. 01 Jan 68 31 Dec 71
*GEN Robert E. Cushman, Jr. 01 Jan 72 30 Jun 75
GEN Louis H. Wilson 01 Jul 75 30 Jun 79
GEN Robert H. Barrow 01 Jul 79 30 Jun 83
GEN Paul X. Kelley 01 Jul 83 30 Jun 87
GEN Alfred M. Gray, Jr. 01 Jul 87 01 Jul 91
GEN Carl E. Mundy, Jr. 01 Jul 91 30 Jun 95
GEN Charles C. Krulak 01 Jul 95 30 Jun 99
GEN James L. Jones 1 Jul 99 14 Jan 03
GEN Michael W. Hagee 14 Jan 03 Present



Not one extension of duty in the entire list, even during the Vietnam war.
And the ones who were really fired, like General Dugan, really cleaned out
their desks and left the building.

[George Z. Bush]

"Ragnar" > wrote in message
...
>
> "George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
> ...

(Snip)

> Extensions aren't mandatory, nor has one been used for any CSA since 1964,
> including during Vietnam.

Picky...picky...picky! Admiral Vern Clark, our present Chief of Naval
Operations, is presently serving on a two year extension to his four year term
of office. It doesn't matter one bit, for the purposes of this discussion,
whether the flag officer concerned is a Naval officer or an Air Force officer or
an Army officer. If an extension is available to one of them during an
undeclared war, it's available to all of the others.
>
> > Under those
> > circumstances, you may not think he was fired, but I'd bet a bucket of
> warm spit
> > that Shinseki thinks he was.
>
> Yes, please tell us what Shinseki thinks. Perhaps a link to his opinion
> would help.
>
> > A flag officer I know thinks he was and, further,
> > says that most flag officers see it that way.
> >
> > So you differ with them.....but they made flag rank and you and I made
> what???
>
> I know the definition of "fired" and he doesn't fit it.
>
> > Are you trying to tell us that you know how those things work better than
> the
> > ones who are directly involved? If so, then I give up because I can't
> argue
> > with such arrogance.
>
> Speaking of arrogance . . .

I do give up. You surely are convinced that you know more about it than they
do. Oh, well.....

George Z.

[Chris Mark]

>From: "Ragnar"

>GEN Fred C. Weyande 03 Oct 74 01 Oct 76

Probably a slip of finger on keyboard, but it's (LG) Weyand without the "e."
Becoming Army CoS was not a bad career topper for an ROTC type. One of his
more famous and keen observations was:
"Vietnam was a reaffirmation of the peculiar relationship between the American
Army and the American people. The American Army really is a people's army in
the sense that it belongs to the American people who take a jealous and
proprietary interest in its involvement. When the Army is committed the
American people are committed, when the American people lose their commitment
it is futile to try to keep the Army committed."


Chris Mark

[Thomas Schoene]

George Z. Bush wrote:
> Any flag officer who was as "marginalized" as much as Shinseki was
> would have been considered "fired" by his peers. What he was told
> was, in effect, that his services would no longer be required once
> his lease had expired. Were I Shinseki, when my colleague in the
> Navy Department got an extension in time of war, I'd expect one as
> well. Failing that, I'd consider myself "fired".

Clark got his extension two months after Shinseki retired. AFAIK, he's the
only service chief to get this treatment.

--
Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
"Our country, right or wrong. When right, to be kept right, when
wrong to be put right." - Senator Carl Schurz, 1872

[George Z. Bush]

"Thomas Schoene" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> George Z. Bush wrote:
> > Any flag officer who was as "marginalized" as much as Shinseki was
> > would have been considered "fired" by his peers. What he was told
> > was, in effect, that his services would no longer be required once
> > his lease had expired. Were I Shinseki, when my colleague in the
> > Navy Department got an extension in time of war, I'd expect one as
> > well. Failing that, I'd consider myself "fired".
>
> Clark got his extension two months after Shinseki retired. AFAIK, he's the
> only service chief to get this treatment.

So, what was the significance of that? No other flag officer in the entire US
Navy competent to become CNO while the war is going on, and particularly since
the Navy is so heavily committed and engaged during those operations? What was
his peculiar contribution to a service barely visible in the ongoing operations
that required him to be held over if not to rub the noses of other possibly
disapproving flag officers in how the carrot and stick game is being played by
this administration?

George Z.

[Ragnar]

"Chris Mark" > wrote in message
...
> >From: "Ragnar"
>
> >GEN Fred C. Weyande 03 Oct 74 01 Oct 76
>
> Probably a slip of finger on keyboard, but it's (LG) Weyand without the
"e."
> Becoming Army CoS was not a bad career topper for an ROTC type.

Can't vouch for the spelling, but the list came straight from the JCS' own
web page.

[Ragnar]

"George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Ragnar" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
> > ...
>
> (Snip)
>
> > Extensions aren't mandatory, nor has one been used for any CSA since
1964,
> > including during Vietnam.
>
> Picky...picky...picky! Admiral Vern Clark, our present Chief of Naval
> Operations, is presently serving on a two year extension to his four year
term
> of office.

An extension which occurred AFTER the time frame of the argument in
question.

> It doesn't matter one bit, for the purposes of this discussion,
> whether the flag officer concerned is a Naval officer or an Air Force
officer or
> an Army officer. If an extension is available to one of them during an
> undeclared war, it's available to all of the others.

Apparently not. Get over it.

> >
> > > Under those
> > > circumstances, you may not think he was fired, but I'd bet a bucket of
> > warm spit
> > > that Shinseki thinks he was.
> >
> > Yes, please tell us what Shinseki thinks. Perhaps a link to his opinion
> > would help.
> >
> > > A flag officer I know thinks he was and, further,
> > > says that most flag officers see it that way.
> > >
> > > So you differ with them.....but they made flag rank and you and I made
> > what???
> >
> > I know the definition of "fired" and he doesn't fit it.
> >
> > > Are you trying to tell us that you know how those things work better
than
> > the
> > > ones who are directly involved? If so, then I give up because I can't
> > argue
> > > with such arrogance.
> >
> > Speaking of arrogance . . .
>
> I do give up. You surely are convinced that you know more about it than
they
> do. Oh, well.....

No, just more than YOU.


>
> George Z.
>
>

[George Z. Bush]

"Ragnar" > wrote in message
...
>
> "George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
> ...

(Snip)

> > > > Are you trying to tell us that you know how those things work better
than
> > > > the ones who are directly involved? If so, then I give up because I
can't
> > > > argue with such arrogance.
> > >
> > > Speaking of arrogance . . .
> >
> > I do give up. You surely are convinced that you know more about it than
> > they do. Oh, well.....
>
> No, just more than YOU.

A lot of people know more about a lot of things than I do, and I'd be the first
to admit it, so saying that you know more about anything than I do isn't saying
much. AAMOF, you need to get at the end of the line.

However, it was nice of you to admit by inference that you DON'T know more about
this situation than do our serving flag officers. Before you start arguing
about that, let me remind you that when I said "You surely are convinced that
you know more about it than they do", you denied it (your actual words were
"No, just more than YOU"). Thank you for making my point for me, which was that
they do indeed know more about it than you or I, and one of them assured me that
my version accurately reflected their understanding of how things work in this
administration. You don't have to like it, or to think it's fair....that's just
the way it is regardless of your opinion.

George Z.

[Ragnar]

"George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Ragnar" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
> > ...
>
> (Snip)
>
> > > > > Are you trying to tell us that you know how those things work
better
> than
> > > > > the ones who are directly involved? If so, then I give up because
I
> can't
> > > > > argue with such arrogance.
> > > >
> > > > Speaking of arrogance . . .
> > >
> > > I do give up. You surely are convinced that you know more about it
than
> > > they do. Oh, well.....
> >
> > No, just more than YOU.
>
> A lot of people know more about a lot of things than I do, and I'd be the
first
> to admit it, so saying that you know more about anything than I do isn't
saying
> much. AAMOF, you need to get at the end of the line.
>
> However, it was nice of you to admit by inference that you DON'T know more
about
> this situation than do our serving flag officers. Before you start
arguing
> about that, let me remind you that when I said "You surely are convinced
that
> you know more about it than they do", you denied it (your actual words
were
> "No, just more than YOU"). Thank you for making my point for me, which
was that
> they do indeed know more about it than you or I, and one of them assured
me that
> my version accurately reflected their understanding of how things work in
this
> administration. You don't have to like it, or to think it's
fair....that's just
> the way it is regardless of your opinion.
>

Thank you for admitting I was right and you were wrong. Nice to know that.

[George Z. Bush]

"Ragnar" > wrote in message
...
>
> "George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Ragnar" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> >
> > (Snip)
> >
> > > > > > Are you trying to tell us that you know how those things work
> better
> > than
> > > > > > the ones who are directly involved? If so, then I give up because
> I
> > can't
> > > > > > argue with such arrogance.
> > > > >
> > > > > Speaking of arrogance . . .
> > > >
> > > > I do give up. You surely are convinced that you know more about it
> than
> > > > they do. Oh, well.....
> > >
> > > No, just more than YOU.
> >
> > A lot of people know more about a lot of things than I do, and I'd be the
> first
> > to admit it, so saying that you know more about anything than I do isn't
> saying
> > much. AAMOF, you need to get at the end of the line.
> >
> > However, it was nice of you to admit by inference that you DON'T know more
> about
> > this situation than do our serving flag officers. Before you start
> arguing
> > about that, let me remind you that when I said "You surely are convinced
> that
> > you know more about it than they do", you denied it (your actual words
> were
> > "No, just more than YOU"). Thank you for making my point for me, which
> was that
> > they do indeed know more about it than you or I, and one of them assured
> me that
> > my version accurately reflected their understanding of how things work in
> this
> > administration. You don't have to like it, or to think it's
> fair....that's just
> > the way it is regardless of your opinion.
> >
>
> Thank you for admitting I was right and you were wrong. Nice to know that.

You still have it bass ackwards, but if that's what it takes to make you happy,
be my guest. You may know more than I do about a lot of things, but you don't
know squat about life among the flag ranks.

George Z.
>
>

[Ragnar]

"George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Ragnar" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "Ragnar" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > >
> > > > "George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
> > > > ...
> > >
> > > (Snip)
> > >
> > > > > > > Are you trying to tell us that you know how those things work
> > better
> > > than
> > > > > > > the ones who are directly involved? If so, then I give up
because
> > I
> > > can't
> > > > > > > argue with such arrogance.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Speaking of arrogance . . .
> > > > >
> > > > > I do give up. You surely are convinced that you know more about
it
> > than
> > > > > they do. Oh, well.....
> > > >
> > > > No, just more than YOU.
> > >
> > > A lot of people know more about a lot of things than I do, and I'd be
the
> > first
> > > to admit it, so saying that you know more about anything than I do
isn't
> > saying
> > > much. AAMOF, you need to get at the end of the line.
> > >
> > > However, it was nice of you to admit by inference that you DON'T know
more
> > about
> > > this situation than do our serving flag officers. Before you start
> > arguing
> > > about that, let me remind you that when I said "You surely are
convinced
> > that
> > > you know more about it than they do", you denied it (your actual
words
> > were
> > > "No, just more than YOU"). Thank you for making my point for me,
which
> > was that
> > > they do indeed know more about it than you or I, and one of them
assured
> > me that
> > > my version accurately reflected their understanding of how things work
in
> > this
> > > administration. You don't have to like it, or to think it's
> > fair....that's just
> > > the way it is regardless of your opinion.
> > >
> >
> > Thank you for admitting I was right and you were wrong. Nice to know
that.
>
> You still have it bass ackwards, but if that's what it takes to make you
happy,
> be my guest. You may know more than I do about a lot of things, but you
don't
> know squat about life among the flag ranks.

I DO know the definition of "fired", and you don't.

[George Z. Bush]

Ragnar wrote:
> "George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> You still have it bass ackwards, but if that's what it takes to make you
>> happy, be my guest. You may know more than I do about a lot of things, but
>> you don't know squat about life among the flag ranks.
>
> I DO know the definition of "fired", and you don't.

I think I've outgrown the "nyah, nyah....I know more than you do" childishness
so I'll let you have the last word. You're so much smarter than I am that I
don't know why you bothered talking to me in the first place. U smart....me
dum! Happy now, sonny?

George Z.

[Fred the Red Shirt]

Greasy Rider @ Invalid.com wrote in message >...
> ...
> It's easier to admire the silent type than one who opens his
> mouth and promptly sticks his foot in it.
>

I too hope that GWB holds another press conference this year,
preferably befor the election.

--

FF

[Fred the Red Shirt]

Greasy Rider @ Invalid.com wrote in message >...
> ... It's easier to admire the silent type than one who opens his
> mouth and promptly sticks his foot in it.

I too hope that GWB holds another press conference befor
the election...

--

FF

[Fred the Red Shirt]

"Ragnar" > wrote in message >...
> > > > >
> > > > > Now Art shows his lack of credibility. Even the UN admits that Iraq
> had
> > > > > loads of WMD.
> > > >
> > > > .....in the '80s.
> > >
> ...
> >
> > And you still don't know the difference between a program and a weapon.
>
> Riiiight. And I suppose Saddam dropped a "program" on the Kurds and
> Iranians.

In the 1980's he attacked Iran in an unprovoked war of aggression
and the Reagan administration provided him with satellite recon data.
In the 1980's he used Chemical Weapons made from precursor chmicals
imported from the US against Iran and Reagan sent the US Navy into
the Persian Gulf to protect his shipping. In the 1980s He used
chemical weapons against the Kurds and the reagan administration loaned
him nearly 2 billion dollars.

> Funny, those pictures and medical reports sure looked like nerve
> and mustard gas. Guess them "programs" are dangerous after all.
>

As noted above, in the 1980's.

As you evidently have forgotten we fought a war against our former
ally and Poppa Bush's, Ronald Reagan's and Rumsfeld's good buddy
Saddam Hussein and destroyed his remaining stockpiles of chemical
weapons and his production facilites.

You're as bad at history, as Baby Bush is with geography.

--

FF

[Fred the Red Shirt]

"Brett" > wrote in message >...
> >
> Actually he did, regime change in Iraq was a policy Clinton agreed and guess
> what he even ordered attacks on that country.
>
> What did you do during the mid to late 1990's? Did you spend most of it
> asleep?

I do recall Clinton attacking AL Queada assets in the Sudan and in
Afghanistan. I also recall the attacks beign widely condemned
by Repubicans. Good thing he kept it a secret that he had
rescinded Carter's ban on assasination and marked Bin Laden for
death. The Republicans might have added that to the articles of
impeachment...

--

FF

[Fred the Red Shirt]

"Ragnar" > wrote in message >...
>
> Yes, oh. Lots of the chems were never accounted for after the Gulf War.
> And some keeps coming back even today, like in artillery shells used as
> IEDs.
>

According to the UN, 500 mustard gas shells remained unaccounted for.
Not 'lots' in a military sense.

What is your justification in your use of the plural in 'artillery s
hells used as IEDs.'? Willful exaggeration or wistful thinking
since the one Arain trap used was ineffective.

>
> Based on previous posts, its obvious to me that you never read the offical
> report from Kay. Perhaps you could look up the part where he said the
> Iraqis weren't in compliance with UN resolutions and had programs still
> running even after the inspections.
>

Perhaps you should read again what he cited as 'evidence'.

>
> > So let me try again......if you
> > can't believe the President's own man, who do you believe? How about
> answering
> > THAT question, if you don't mind.
>
> I DO believe Mr Kay. Iraq DID have illegal programs in place despite UN
> resolutions. Now, why do YOU not believe Mr Kay? It seems your position is
> at odds with his now.
>

....

Let me begin by saying, we were almost all wrong,
and I certainly include myself here.

Sen. [Edward] Kennedy knows very directly. Senator
Kennedy and I talked on several occasions prior to
the war that my view was that the best evidence that
I had seen was that Iraq indeed had weapons of mass
destruction.

I would also point out that many governments that
chose not to support this war -- certainly, the
French president, [Jacques] Chirac, as I recall
in April of last year, referred to Iraq's possession
of WMD.

The Germans certainly -- the intelligence service
believed that there were WMD.

It turns out that we were all wrong, probably in
my judgment, and that is most disturbing.

....

Former top U.S. weapons inspector David Kay in testimony
Wednesday, January 28, 2004 before the Senate Armed
Services Committee

--

FF

[Fred the Red Shirt]

"George Z. Bush" > wrote in message >...
>
> Those Congressmen sure must be stupid to fail to recognize what they're supposed
> to do before young Americans in uniform are placed in harm's way.
>

Gutless, I daresay is more apt.

--

FF

[Fred the Red Shirt]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message et>...
> "Thomas J. Paladino Jr." > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > You mean like FDR?
> >
> > Pardon me if I don't quite understand, but wasn't throwing innocent
> Japanese
> > citizens into internment camps en masse, simply because of their race, a
> far
> > larger example of 'trashing the bill of rights' than anything Bush has
> > allegedly done? Why did you not protest this?

I didn't because I wasn't born yet. What's your excuse?

> > What about FDR's attempts to
> > bypass and overthrow the judicial branch altogether?

Didn't even come close. Lincoln and Jackson defied the USSC and got
away with it. If you want to know why I didn't object, see above.

> >
>
> No, throwing innocent Japanese citizens into internment camps was not
> trashing the Bill of Rights, and it wasn't done because of their race it was
> done because they were enemy nationals. It was also done with German and
> Italian nationals. All countries do this in time of war, what else can they
> do? You can't have enemy nationals freely roaming about the nation.

You can repatriate them to their nation of origin.

>
> What FDR did that was completely wrong was the internment of US citizens of
> Japanese, German, and Italian descent.
>

Unless I am very much mistaken, few if any US citizens of Itallian or
German descent were interned in the US just because of their ancestry.

--

FF

[Denyav]

>As you evidently have forgotten we fought a war against our former
>ally and Poppa Bush's, Ronald Reagan's and Rumsfeld's good buddy
>Saddam Hussein and destroyed his remaining stockpiles of chemical
>weapons and his production facilites.

Let me add only a couple of things:
1)SH is one of the most senior US operatives in this region,since 1959
precisely
2)Current US hand picked Iraqi leader is also an US operative,but he is a
freshman in comparison with SH.
3)Current US hand picked Iraqi leader is also the Chief of "Sammar" tribe.
4) "Sammar" tribe was responsible for the safety and protection of SH sons Uday
and Quasay after the fall of SH.
5) I guess everbody remembers what happened to Saddams sons.

[Ron]

>I do recall Clinton attacking AL Queada assets in the Sudan and in
>Afghanistan. I also recall the attacks beign widely condemned
>by Repubicans. Good thing he kept it a secret that he had
>rescinded Carter's ban on assasination and marked Bin Laden for
>death. The Republicans might have added that to the articles of
>impeachment...
>

I dont recall the attacks being condemned. There were those who had ideas it
was to distract from his current problems, but I dont think anyone found fault
with the attacks themselves.


Ron
PA-31T Cheyenne II
Maharashtra Weather Modification Program
Pune, India

[Fred the Red Shirt]

"tscottme" > wrote in message >...
> "ArtKramr" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> >
> >
> > I guess Clinton never planned on attacking a nation that never threatened
> the
> > U.S. based on WMD that they never had.
> >
>
> And by cutting CIA by 1/3 Clinton didn't allow us to detect AQ preparing to
> attack the US.

It was the Bush admininstration that removed bin Laden from a list
of threats to the US.

It was the Bush administration that shelved a Clinton Administration
reccomendation to impliment tighter airline security.

It is the Bush administartion that still has not identified the
persons who manipulated airline stock prior to the Sept 11, 2001
attack.

Asscraft's decision to divert the focus of the DOJ from National
Defense to an anti-porn campaign scheduled to kick off in Mid September
2001 didn't help either.

BTW, just in case you watch Fox news you need to be informed that
B. Clinton is not the president of the United States and no Clintons
are running in the 2004 Presidential election.

Aside from which, the plot WAS detected, along with a plethora of
other plots, real or not.

--

FF

[Ron]

>From: (Fred the Red Shirt)
>Date: 7/11/2004 2:41 AM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>

>It was the Bush admininstration that removed bin Laden from a list
>of threats to the US.
>
>It was the Bush administration that shelved a Clinton Administration
>reccomendation to impliment tighter airline security.
>

Sources??

Ron
PA-31T Cheyenne II
Maharashtra Weather Modification Program
Pune, India

[Denyav]

>by Repubicans. Good thing he kept it a secret that he had
>rescinded Carter's ban on assasination and marked Bin Laden for
>death. The Republicans might have added that to the articles of
>impeachment...

Mr.OBL marked for death by US president,was speaking to a station chief of an
US Gov't agency at the American Hospital of Dubai in July 2001.
This was reported in European press,in meantime confirmed by Israeli,French
and various Arab sources and never denied by any US gov't instutition or
agency.

Everbody remembers USS Maine or Pearl Harbor but who remembers (aborted)
"Operation Northwoods"?

[B2431]

>From: (Fred the Red Shirt)
>Date: 7/11/2004 12:59 AM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>"Ragnar" > wrote in message
>...
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Now Art shows his lack of credibility. Even the UN admits that
>Iraq
>> had
>> > > > > loads of WMD.
>> > > >
>> > > > .....in the '80s.
>> > >
>> ...
>> >
>> > And you still don't know the difference between a program and a weapon.
>>
>> Riiiight. And I suppose Saddam dropped a "program" on the Kurds and
>> Iranians.
>
>In the 1980's he attacked Iran in an unprovoked war of aggression
>and the Reagan administration provided him with satellite recon data.
>In the 1980's he used Chemical Weapons made from precursor chmicals
>imported from the US against Iran and Reagan sent the US Navy into
>the Persian Gulf to protect his shipping. In the 1980s He used
>chemical weapons against the Kurds and the reagan administration loaned
>him nearly 2 billion dollars.
>
>> Funny, those pictures and medical reports sure looked like nerve
>> and mustard gas. Guess them "programs" are dangerous after all.
>>
>
>As noted above, in the 1980's.
>
>As you evidently have forgotten we fought a war against our former
>ally and Poppa Bush's, Ronald Reagan's and Rumsfeld's good buddy
>Saddam Hussein and destroyed his remaining stockpiles of chemical
>weapons and his production facilites.
>
>You're as bad at history, as Baby Bush is with geography.
>
>--
>
>FF

So the sarin filled artillery shells found by the Poles don't exist? I'm not
saying Saddam had an active program, but please don't say it was all destroyed.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[WalterM140]

>Asscraft's decision to divert the focus of the DOJ from National
>Defense to an anti-porn campaign scheduled to kick off in Mid September
>2001 didn't help either.

Good post.

The headline on the day before 9/11 was that Rumsfeld was unhappy that enough
money was not being allocated for missile defense.


Bush is a miserable failure and he has to go.

Walt

[WalterM140]

>> Riiiight. And I suppose Saddam dropped a "program" on the Kurds and
>> Iranians.
>
>In the 1980's he attacked Iran in an unprovoked war of aggression
>and the Reagan administration provided him with satellite recon data.
>In the 1980's he used Chemical Weapons made from precursor chmicals
>imported from the US against Iran and Reagan sent the US Navy into
>the Persian Gulf to protect his shipping. In the 1980s He used
>chemical weapons against the Kurds and the reagan administration loaned
>him nearly 2 billion dollars.
>
>> Funny, those pictures and medical reports sure looked like nerve
>> and mustard gas. Guess them "programs" are dangerous after all.
>>
>
>As noted above, in the 1980's.
>
>As you evidently have forgotten we fought a war against our former
>ally and Poppa Bush's, Ronald Reagan's and Rumsfeld's good buddy
>Saddam Hussein and destroyed his remaining stockpiles of chemical
>weapons and his production facilites.
>
>You're as bad at history, as Baby Bush is with geography.
>

Despite what the Republican kool-aid drinkers allege, many senior officials
have indicated that no matter what Saddam was doing in the 1980's, by 2003 he
was contained. These include two former CentCom commanders, Generals Zinni and
Hoar. James Webb, Reagan's SecNav, has said the invasion of Iraq was the worst
strategic blunder in living memory.

Some people need to wake up and realize that George Bush is the worst president
-ever- and he is got to go.

What I can never figure out is how some of the combat verterans who post here
just blithely ignore the fact that we have 7,000 casualties -- and all for
-nothing-.


Walt

[WalterM140]

>So the sarin filled artillery shells found by the Poles don't exist?

Those shells had a status that basically said, "best used before 1986."

You have to buck the opinion of General Zinni and many others, and all you
offer is -your- opinion.

Sorry, gotta go with Gen, Zinni.

Walt

[Brett]

"Fred the peabrain" > wrote:
> "Brett" > wrote in message
>...
> > >
> > Actually he did, regime change in Iraq was a policy Clinton agreed and
guess
> > what he even ordered attacks on that country.
> >
> > What did you do during the mid to late 1990's? Did you spend most of it
> > asleep?
>
> I do recall Clinton attacking AL Queada assets in the Sudan and in
> Afghanistan. I also recall the attacks beign widely condemned
> by Repubicans.

Most of the condemnation for attacking Sudan came from the left leaning
members of his own party. As for it being an "attack" a round of cruise
missile strikes on an "aspirin factory" in the Sudan and "mud huts" in
Afghanistan with a prime time spot telling the nation was just the start
appears to have been the all the effort expended by the Clinton
administration. So was the condemnation from the Republicans for the effort
or lack of effort Clinton committed to eliminating the terrorists who
destroyed two US Embassies.

[Brett]

"WalterM140" > wrote:
>
> Bush is a miserable failure and he has to go.

You didn't spell Walter correctly. The previous should have been:

"Walter is a miserable failure and he has to go".

I doubt if anyone would raise any objections to never seeing another post
from you again.

[George Z. Bush]

"Ron" > wrote in message
...
> >I do recall Clinton attacking AL Queada assets in the Sudan and in
> >Afghanistan. I also recall the attacks beign widely condemned
> >by Repubicans. Good thing he kept it a secret that he had
> >rescinded Carter's ban on assasination and marked Bin Laden for
> >death. The Republicans might have added that to the articles of
> >impeachment...
> >
>
> I dont recall the attacks being condemned. There were those who had ideas it
> was to distract from his current problems, but I dont think anyone found fault
> with the attacks themselves.

There's a lot of stuff that turned up on Google when I punched in "Sudan
Tomahawk Attacks Criticism". Here's just one of many postings you might use to
refresh your apparently failing memory:

http://www.alamo-girl.com/0113.htm>

Let me know if that's not enough to make the point.....I'm sure I could provide
a few more for you if you need more.

George Z.

[George Z. Bush]

"Ron" > wrote in message
...
> >From: (Fred the Red Shirt)
> >Date: 7/11/2004 2:41 AM Eastern Daylight Time
> >Message-id: >
> >
>
> >It was the Bush admininstration that removed bin Laden from a list
> >of threats to the US.
> >
> >It was the Bush administration that shelved a Clinton Administration
> >reccomendation to impliment tighter airline security.
> >
>
> Sources??

The following was published on December 13, 1996:

"WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Under plans to overhaul the airline security system, making
a plane reservation would trigger an instant profile of a passenger's
background, including past travels and possible criminal history information.

The passenger profile system was one of a score of recommendations made Thursday
by a Federal Aviation Administration advisory panel."

You can read the entire article at the link below:

http://www.cnn.com/US/9612/13/airline/

George Z.

[George Z. Bush]

"WalterM140" > wrote in message
...
> >So the sarin filled artillery shells found by the Poles don't exist?
>
> Those shells had a status that basically said, "best used before 1986."
>
> You have to buck the opinion of General Zinni and many others, and all you
> offer is -your- opinion.
>
> Sorry, gotta go with Gen, Zinni.

You don't mean that! Go with one of those left wing pinko commie libruls? I
can't believe you could be so unpatriotic! (^-^)))

George Z.

PS - Like all good Marines, Zinni has the balls to call a spade a spade, even
when it involves the CIC during wartime. He's a real patriot and leader IMHO,
and Theodore Roosevelt would have been proud of him.
>
> Walt
>

[Ron]

>> >I do recall Clinton attacking AL Queada assets in the Sudan and in
>> >Afghanistan. I also recall the attacks beign widely condemned
>> >by Repubicans. Good thing he kept it a secret that he had
>> >rescinded Carter's ban on assasination and marked Bin Laden for
>> >death. The Republicans might have added that to the articles of
>> >impeachment...
>> >
>>
>> I dont recall the attacks being condemned. There were those who had ideas
>it
>> was to distract from his current problems, but I dont think anyone found
>fault
>> with the attacks themselves.
>
>There's a lot of stuff that turned up on Google when I punched in "Sudan
>Tomahawk Attacks Criticism". Here's just one of many postings you might use
>to
>refresh your apparently failing memory:
>
>http://www.alamo-girl.com/0113.htm>
>
>Let me know if that's not enough to make the point.....I'm sure I could
>provide
>a few more for you if you need more.
>
>George Z.

And it didnt show anything to demonstrate "widely condemned". Lots of
newspaper editorializing, and some individuals against it. But I did not find
anything that pointed to the alleged widespread criticism from the Repubilcan
side. Certainly no Republican leadership statements against it. Looks like
some on the left were against it, does that mean widespread Democratic
criticism?

some excerpts
* Reuters 9/21/98 "U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark said Tuesday the U.S.
government had wanted an excuse to strike at Sudan last month and the decision
to bomb a pharmaceutical plant there was strictly political.

Clark is a far left kook

*9/24/98 AP "Rep. Barney Frank, one of President Clinton's most outspoken
supporters on Capitol Hill, said Thursday he believes Clinton made a mistake
last month in ordering the bombing of a Sudanese factory suspected of
manufacturing chemical weapons agents. Frank, D-Mass., said in a letter to
Clinton he initially supported the bombing of sites in both Sudan and
Afghanistan but now believes the administration went too far in the Sudan
attack.."

Another lefty.

* "Ross Perot suggested Sunday that President Clinton might consider taking
the United States into "a little war'' strictly for a boost in poll ratings.
The billionaire businessman who ran for president in 1992 and 1996 said Clinton
would consider almost anything to satisfy a lust for power. "This man will let
this country rot, he will let the economy go into an international decline, he
will devastate millions of people, and, if necessary, he'll start a little war
just to get a bump in the polls, and that is a lust for power,''

Not a Republican

Independent (UK) 2/5/99 Andrew Marshall ". The United States may be forced to
acknowledge that it mistakenly attacked a factory in Sudan with cruise missiles
last year, after the threat of legal proceedings by the plant's Sudanese owner.


British

New York Times 8/28/98 Editorial "Americans of both parties rallied around
President Clinton's decision to launch military strikes against alleged
terrorist installations in Afghanistan and the Sudan. But the Administration's
refusal to share more information about its choice of targets and timing is
disturbing. By its excessive secrecy, Washington only increases skepticism
about its claim that the Shifa chemical factory in the Sudan was really
producing nerve gas ingredients and thus had to be destroyed to prevent new
terrorist attacks."

They seem to think BOTH parties supported.





Ron
PA-31T Cheyenne II
Maharashtra Weather Modification Program
Pune, India

[Ron]

>> >It was the Bush administration that shelved a Clinton Administration
>> >reccomendation to impliment tighter airline security.
>> >
>>
>> Sources??
>
>The following was published on December 13, 1996:
>
>"WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Under plans to overhaul the airline security system,
>making
>a plane reservation would trigger an instant profile of a passenger's
>background, including past travels and possible criminal history information.
>
>The passenger profile system was one of a score of recommendations made
>Thursday
>by a Federal Aviation Administration advisory panel."
>
>You can read the entire article at the link below:
>
>http://www.cnn.com/US/9612/13/airline/
>
>George Z.

I read it and it mentioned nothing about Bush adminstration withdrawing
Clintons recommendations.

It was an article from over 4 years before Bush became president.


Ron
PA-31T Cheyenne II
Maharashtra Weather Modification Program
Pune, India

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Ron" > wrote in message
> ...
> > >From: (Fred the Red Shirt)
> > >Date: 7/11/2004 2:41 AM Eastern Daylight Time
> > >Message-id: >
> > >
> >
> > >It was the Bush admininstration that removed bin Laden from a list
> > >of threats to the US.
> > >
> > >It was the Bush administration that shelved a Clinton Administration
> > >reccomendation to impliment tighter airline security.
> > >
> >
> > Sources??
>
> The following was published on December 13, 1996:
>
> "WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Under plans to overhaul the airline security system,
making
> a plane reservation would trigger an instant profile of a passenger's
> background, including past travels and possible criminal history
information.
>
> The passenger profile system was one of a score of recommendations made
Thursday
> by a Federal Aviation Administration advisory panel."
>
> You can read the entire article at the link below:
>
> http://www.cnn.com/US/9612/13/airline/
>

December 1996. Looks like this recommendation was shelved long before Bush
became president.

[BUFDRVR]

Fred the Red Shirt wrote:

>Unless I am very much mistaken, few if any US citizens of Itallian or
>German descent were interned in the US just because of their ancestry.

As usual, you are mistaken. While not as large, or widespread as Japanese
camps, there were both Italian and German internment camps.

Here's just one web site about German internment camps:

http://www.foitimes.com/internment/

And ABC I believe did a program last year called "Prisoners Among Us" which
detailed the stories of U.S. citizens of Italian descent who were interred.


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 >...
> "Ron" > wrote in message
> ...
> > >From: (Fred the Red Shirt)
> > >Date: 7/11/2004 2:41 AM Eastern Daylight Time
> > >Message-id: >
> > >
>
> > >It was the Bush admininstration that removed bin Laden from a list
> > >of threats to the US.
> > >
> > >It was the Bush administration that shelved a Clinton Administration
> > >reccomendation to impliment tighter airline security.
> > >
> >
> > Sources??
>
> The following was published on December 13, 1996:
>
> "WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Under plans to overhaul the airline security system, making
> a plane reservation would trigger an instant profile of a passenger's
> background, including past travels and possible criminal history information.
>
> The passenger profile system was one of a score of recommendations made Thursday
> by a Federal Aviation Administration advisory panel."
>
> You can read the entire article at the link below:
>
> http://www.cnn.com/US/9612/13/airline/
>

Thanks.

To be fair, the airlines weren't keen on the new regulations
and so it is no surprise that the Clinton Admininstratino left
it to the Republican adminstration to impliment.

--

FF

[B2431]

>From: (WalterM140)
>
>
>>So the sarin filled artillery shells found by the Poles don't exist?
>
>Those shells had a status that basically said, "best used before 1986."

Tell you what, open one up and take a whiff to see if it's safe.

>
>You have to buck the opinion of General Zinni and many others, and all you
>offer is -your- opinion.
>
>Sorry, gotta go with Gen, Zinni.
>
>Walt

Zinni said there was no active program in his opinion. I agree, but he never
said that ALL the WMDs were accounted for. Obviously they weren't. I bet there
is a bunch of chemical shells in Iraq that the old Iraqi system thought they
had destroyed.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[B2431]

>From: (WalterM140)

>Some people need to wake up and realize that George Bush is the worst
>president
>-ever- and he is got to go.

Another neo-left tactic: speak in absolutes. Have you actually done detailed
research into all the presidents? Perhaps you don't care, you just KNOW Bush is
the worst ever and you won't let any facts that contradict you get in the way.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[WalterM140]

>>Some people need to wake up and realize that George Bush is the worst
>>president
>>-ever- and he is got to go.
>
>Another neo-left tactic: speak in absolutes.

Bush clearly is the worst president ever.

He led the country in a war we didn't need to fight.

What other president has done that with so little justification?

From the 60 Minutes interview with General Zinni:

"Zinni says Iraq was the wrong war at the wrong time - with the wrong strategy.
And he was saying it before the U.S. invasion. In the months leading up to the
war, while still Middle East envoy, Zinni carried the message to Congress:
“This is, in my view, the worst time to take this on. And I don’t feel it
needs to be done now.”

But he wasn’t the only former military leader with doubts about the invasion
of Iraq. Former General and National Security Advisor Brent Scowcroft, former
Centcom Commander Norman Schwarzkopf, former NATO Commander Wesley Clark, and
former Army Chief of Staff Eric Shinseki all voiced their reservations.

Zinni believes this was a war the generals didn’t want – but it was a war
the civilians wanted.

“I can't speak for all generals, certainly. But I know we felt that this
situation was contained. Saddam was effectively contained. The no-fly, no-drive
zones. The sanctions that were imposed on him,” says Zinni."

Bush is absolutely the worst president ever.



Walt

[Brett]

"WalterM140" > wrote:
> >>Some people need to wake up and realize that George Bush is the worst
> >>president
> >>-ever- and he is got to go.
> >
> >Another neo-left tactic: speak in absolutes.
>
> Bush clearly is the worst president ever.
>
> He led the country in a war we didn't need to fight.
>
> What other president has done that with so little justification?

Clinton and Kosovo.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"WalterM140" > wrote in message
...
>
> Bush clearly is the worst president ever.
>

Your messages indicate that's not a determination you are in a position to
make.

[Fred the Red Shirt]

(B2431) wrote in message >...

>
> So the sarin filled artillery shells found by the Poles don't exist? I'm not
> saying Saddam had an active program, but please don't say it was all destroyed.
>


These?

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/0703iraq-weapons03.html

Or something else?

My understanding is the the field kits used to test for chemical
weapons are biased towards a low incidence of false negatives,
with the downside being a high incidence of false positives.

That is appropriate for the protection of troops in the field.
However thus far I have not read of any more than the one shell
used in the IED being confirmed in subsiquent testing.

--

FF

[Fred the Red Shirt]

(BUFDRVR) wrote in message >...
> Fred the Red Shirt wrote:
>
>
> Here's just one web site about German internment camps:
>
> http://www.foitimes.com/internment/
>

Thanks.

--

FF

[Fred the Red Shirt]

(B2431) wrote in message >...
>
>
>
> Zinni said there was no active program in his opinion. I agree, but he never
> said that ALL the WMDs were accounted for. Obviously they weren't. I bet there
> is a bunch of chemical shells in Iraq that the old Iraqi system thought they
> had destroyed.
>
>

Or otherwise lost track of through poor inventory control and the
disruption of the 1991 war.

UNMOVIC found that about 500 mustard gas munitions were 'unaccounted for'
not enough to be militarily significant, but one expects them may
turn up eventually.

Quite frankly, I hope the enemy has them and continues to use them
instead of HE. They'll kill fewer of our people that way.

--

FF

[Fred the Red Shirt]

"Brett" > wrote in message >...
> "WalterM140" > wrote:
> > >>Some people need to wake up and realize that George Bush is the worst
> > >>president
> > >>-ever- and he is got to go.
> > >
> > >Another neo-left tactic: speak in absolutes.
> >
> > Bush clearly is the worst president ever.
> >
> > He led the country in a war we didn't need to fight.
> >
> > What other president has done that with so little justification?
>
> Clinton and Kosovo.

Intervention in Kososvo may have prevented another Bosnia. Preventing
the spread of war in Europe is pretty important to American
Security.

The Spanish-American War comes to mind though.

--

FF

[Brett]

"Fred the Red Shirt" > wrote:
> "Brett" > wrote in message
>...
> > "WalterM140" > wrote:
> > > >>Some people need to wake up and realize that George Bush is the
worst
> > > >>president
> > > >>-ever- and he is got to go.
> > > >
> > > >Another neo-left tactic: speak in absolutes.
> > >
> > > Bush clearly is the worst president ever.
> > >
> > > He led the country in a war we didn't need to fight.
> > >
> > > What other president has done that with so little justification?
> >
> > Clinton and Kosovo.
>
> Intervention in Kososvo may have prevented another Bosnia.

UN peacekeeping operations and arms restrictions caused "Bosnia". Besides
the intervention in Kosovo didn't put any troops on the ground to actually
prevent genocide and some reports even suggest that the intervention
resulted in an expanded effort by the Serbs to eliminate the KLA and who
they considered "Albanian" immigrants from the area.

> Preventing
> the spread of war in Europe is pretty important to American
> Security.

"Spread of war", the "war" after the death of Tito was restricted to one
country and would have stayed that way without any intervention.

[Fred the Red Shirt]

"Brett" > wrote in message >...
> "Fred the Red Shirt" > wrote:
> > "Brett" > wrote in message
> >...
> > > "WalterM140" > wrote:
> > > > >>Some people need to wake up and realize that George Bush is the
> worst
> > > > >>president
> > > > >>-ever- and he is got to go.
> > > > >
> > > > >Another neo-left tactic: speak in absolutes.
> > > >
> > > > Bush clearly is the worst president ever.
> > > >
> > > > He led the country in a war we didn't need to fight.
> > > >
> > > > What other president has done that with so little justification?
> > >
> > > Clinton and Kosovo.
> >
> > Intervention in Kososvo may have prevented another Bosnia.
>
> UN peacekeeping operations and arms restrictions caused "Bosnia".

Arms restrictions yes. Peacekeeping, no. It took years to convince
our NATO allies ot intervene in Bosnia and then mere weeks to
end the war.

> Besides
> the intervention in Kosovo didn't put any troops on the ground to actually
> prevent genocide and some reports even suggest that the intervention
> resulted in an expanded effort by the Serbs to eliminate the KLA and who
> they considered "Albanian" immigrants from the area.

The biggest mistake was probably confining the airstrikes to Kosovo
per se for so long. Once we took the war to Serbia per se, it
ended quickly. But rectal vision is always 20/20.

>
> > Preventing
> > the spread of war in Europe is pretty important to American
> > Security.
>
> "Spread of war", the "war" after the death of Tito was restricted to one
> country and would have stayed that way without any intervention.

Hard to say one way or the other. However I tend to agree.

The American/NATO intervention in the Balkans whether successful
or not, was done to put an end to civil war there. The American/UK
invasion of Iraq was allegedly done to preempt the threat of Iraqi
aggression that had already been successfully averted and contained
by other means.

There is no denying that there was as valid a humanitarian motive in
the Iraqi invasions as in the interventions in the Balkans. The
long term outcome of each remains to be seen.

--

FF

[Brett]

"Fred the peabrained Red Shirt" > wrote:
> "Brett" > wrote in message
>...
> > "Fred the Red Shirt" > wrote:
> > > "Brett" > wrote in message
> > >...
> > > > "WalterM140" > wrote:
> > > > > >>Some people need to wake up and realize that George Bush is the
> > worst
> > > > > >>president
> > > > > >>-ever- and he is got to go.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >Another neo-left tactic: speak in absolutes.
> > > > >
> > > > > Bush clearly is the worst president ever.
> > > > >
> > > > > He led the country in a war we didn't need to fight.
> > > > >
> > > > > What other president has done that with so little justification?
> > > >
> > > > Clinton and Kosovo.
> > >
> > > Intervention in Kososvo may have prevented another Bosnia.
> >
> > UN peacekeeping operations and arms restrictions caused "Bosnia".
>
> Arms restrictions yes. Peacekeeping, no.

Bull****, UN peacekeeping operations had everything to do with the resulting
genocide in Bosnia.

> It took years to convince
> our NATO allies ot intervene in Bosnia and then mere weeks to
> end the war.

There is a good review about the affair called "Responsibility of Command:
How UN and NATO Commander Influenced Airpower over Bosnia", Mark Bucknam. A
pdf of the book is available at:

http://www.maxwell.af.mil/au/aul/aupress/Books/Bucknam/Bucknam.pdf

Try reading it.

> > Besides
> > the intervention in Kosovo didn't put any troops on the ground to
actually
> > prevent genocide and some reports even suggest that the intervention
> > resulted in an expanded effort by the Serbs to eliminate the KLA and who
> > they considered "Albanian" immigrants from the area.
>
> The biggest mistake was probably confining the airstrikes to Kosovo
> per se for so long. Once we took the war to Serbia per se, it
> ended quickly.

It went to Serbia very early and that didn't cause the Serbian withdrawal
from Kosovo. The guarantee from Clinton that he wouldn't allow the use of US
ground troops ensured that the Serbian's were not going to be forced to
leave Kosovo. The Russians had considerably more influence on Milosevic
actions than any NATO bombing.

> But rectal vision is always 20/20.

Especially when YOUR rectal vision is a rewrite of recent history.

> > > Preventing
> > > the spread of war in Europe is pretty important to American
> > > Security.
> >
> > "Spread of war", the "war" after the death of Tito was restricted to one
> > country and would have stayed that way without any intervention.
>
> Hard to say one way or the other. However I tend to agree.
>
> The American/NATO intervention in the Balkans whether successful
> or not, was done to put an end to civil war there.

An internal struggle with little likelihood of spreading beyond the borders
of the country concerned.

> The American/UK
> invasion of Iraq was allegedly done to preempt the threat of Iraqi
> aggression that had already been successfully averted and contained
> by other means.

That wasn't really the view of any world leader in January 2003.

> There is no denying that there was as valid a humanitarian motive in
> the Iraqi invasions as in the interventions in the Balkans. The
> long term outcome of each remains to be seen.

The Balkan's will still be a mess and the fault will lie squarely with the
UN.

[Fred the Red Shirt]

"Brett" > wrote in message >...
> "Fred the peabrained Red Shirt" > wrote:
> > "Brett" > wrote in message
> >...
....

> > >
> > > UN peacekeeping operations and arms restrictions caused "Bosnia".
> >
> > Arms restrictions yes. Peacekeeping, no.
>
> Bull****, UN peacekeeping operations had everything to do with the resulting
> genocide in Bosnia.

Clearly the arms restriction prevented the Bosnians from defending
themselves while doing little to impede the Serbs.

Maybe I don't remember this correctly but I thought that UN
peacekeepers had very little influence in Bosnia until after Dayton.
It was simply too dangerous for them to do anything befor then.

>
> There is a good review about the affair called "Responsibility of Command:
> How UN and NATO Commander Influenced Airpower over Bosnia", Mark Bucknam. A
> pdf of the book is available at:
>
> http://www.maxwell.af.mil/au/aul/aupress/Books/Bucknam/Bucknam.pdf
>

Thanks.

> >
> > The biggest mistake was probably confining the airstrikes to Kosovo
> > per se for so long. Once we took the war to Serbia per se, it
> > ended quickly.
>
> It went to Serbia very early and that didn't cause the Serbian withdrawal
> from Kosovo. The guarantee from Clinton that he wouldn't allow the use of US
> ground troops ensured that the Serbian's were not going to be forced to
> leave Kosovo. The Russians had considerably more influence on Milosevic
> actions than any NATO bombing.

Could you elaborate on how the Russians influenced the elections and
why that was more influential than being bombed?

> >
> > The American/NATO intervention in the Balkans whether successful
> > or not, was done to put an end to civil war there.
>
> An internal struggle with little likelihood of spreading beyond the borders
> of the country concerned.

As previously stated, I tend to agree. However at least there already
was war there. You made the argument that the NATO intervention
actually destabilized Kosovo. That is arguable but there is no
argument that the invasion of Iraq destabilized Iraq.

>
> > The American/UK
> > invasion of Iraq was allegedly done to preempt the threat of Iraqi
> > aggression that had already been successfully averted and contained
> > by other means.
>
> That wasn't really the view of any world leader in January 2003.

There are no world leaders.

As you know, that view was officially held by at least two nations
with permanent membership in the UN Security Council. It seems all
but inescapable that it was also the opinion of the US and UK, else
why sabotage the weapons inspection program by feeding the UN and
IAEA inspectors false information?

>
> > There is no denying that there was as valid a humanitarian motive in
> > the Iraqi invasions as in the interventions in the Balkans. The
> > long term outcome of each remains to be seen.
>
> The Balkan's will still be a mess and the fault will lie squarely with the
> UN.

Perhaps I am optimistic but I still hold hope for both the Balkans and
Iraq.

--

FF

[Denyav]

>Could you elaborate on how the Russians influenced the elections and
>why that was more influential than being bombed?

Russians did not influence the elections, but they did influence Mr.Milosevic
by making him believe that a NATO ground offensive was likely.(It was not)

>argument that the NATO intervention
>actually destabilized Kosovo. That is arguable but there is no
>argument that the invasion of Iraq

The controlled destablization of Iraq was a major war aim.
After collapse of Brzenzinski's ambitious "Eurasia plan" the fault line is now
between Cyprus and Afghanistan and all countries on this line will experience
similar things within this decade.

>UN Security Council. It seems all
>but inescapable that it was also the opinion of the US and UK, else
>why sabotage the weapons inspection program by feeding the UN and
>IAEA inspectors false informa

Some countries in western Hemisphere are actually fighting for their bare
survival but politicians have no guts to tell the truth to public.

>Perhaps I am optimistic but I still hold hope for both the Balkans and
>Iraq.

Balkan countries are no longer on fault line but for Iraq and the other
countries between Cyprus and Afghanistan the same cannot be said,for them even
worse yet to come.

[Brett]

"Fred the peabrain" > wrote:
> "Brett" > wrote in message
>...
> > "Fred the peabrained Red Shirt" > wrote:
> > > "Brett" > wrote in message
> > >...
> ...
>
> > > >
> > > > UN peacekeeping operations and arms restrictions caused "Bosnia".
> > >
> > > Arms restrictions yes. Peacekeeping, no.
> >
> > Bull****, UN peacekeeping operations had everything to do with the
resulting
> > genocide in Bosnia.
>
> Clearly the arms restriction prevented the Bosnians from defending
> themselves while doing little to impede the Serbs.
>
> Maybe I don't remember this correctly but I thought that UN
> peacekeepers had very little influence in Bosnia until after Dayton.
> It was simply too dangerous for them to do anything befor then.
>
> >
> > There is a good review about the affair called "Responsibility of
Command:
> > How UN and NATO Commander Influenced Airpower over Bosnia", Mark
Bucknam. A
> > pdf of the book is available at:
> >
> > http://www.maxwell.af.mil/au/aul/aupress/Books/Bucknam/Bucknam.pdf
> >
>
> Thanks.
>
> > >
> > > The biggest mistake was probably confining the airstrikes to Kosovo
> > > per se for so long. Once we took the war to Serbia per se, it
> > > ended quickly.
> >
> > It went to Serbia very early and that didn't cause the Serbian
withdrawal
> > from Kosovo. The guarantee from Clinton that he wouldn't allow the use
of US
> > ground troops ensured that the Serbian's were not going to be forced to
> > leave Kosovo. The Russians had considerably more influence on Milosevic
> > actions than any NATO bombing.
>
> Could you elaborate on how the Russians influenced the elections

The withdrawl started in June, the election had nothing to do with it.

> and
> why that was more influential than being bombed?

The election had nothing to do with the Serbian withdrawl from Kosovo.

> > > The American/NATO intervention in the Balkans whether successful
> > > or not, was done to put an end to civil war there.
> >
> > An internal struggle with little likelihood of spreading beyond the
borders
> > of the country concerned.
>
> As previously stated, I tend to agree. However at least there already
> was war there. You made the argument that the NATO intervention
> actually destabilized Kosovo.

That wasn't the claim I made. It might help if you actually tried to
remember what claims NATO made about what was occurring daily in Kosovo
before the bombing started and compare that with what occurred due to the
bombing.

[Fred the Red Shirt]

"Brett" > wrote in message >...
> "Fred the peabrain" > wrote:
> > "Brett" > wrote in message
> >...
> > > "Fred the peabrained Red Shirt" > wrote:
> > > > "Brett" > wrote in message
> > > >...
> > ...
> >
> > > > >
> > > > > UN peacekeeping operations and arms restrictions caused "Bosnia".
> > > >
> > > > Arms restrictions yes. Peacekeeping, no.
> > >
> > > Bull****, UN peacekeeping operations had everything to do with the
> resulting
> > > genocide in Bosnia.
> >
> > Clearly the arms restriction prevented the Bosnians from defending
> > themselves while doing little to impede the Serbs.
> >
> > Maybe I don't remember this correctly but I thought that UN
> > peacekeepers had very little influence in Bosnia until after Dayton.
> > It was simply too dangerous for them to do anything befor then.
> >
> > >
> > > There is a good review about the affair called "Responsibility of
> Command:
> > > How UN and NATO Commander Influenced Airpower over Bosnia", Mark
> Bucknam. A
> > > pdf of the book is available at:
> > >
> > > http://www.maxwell.af.mil/au/aul/aupress/Books/Bucknam/Bucknam.pdf
> > >
> >
> > Thanks.
> >
> > > >
> > > > The biggest mistake was probably confining the airstrikes to Kosovo
> > > > per se for so long. Once we took the war to Serbia per se, it
> > > > ended quickly.
> > >
> > > It went to Serbia very early and that didn't cause the Serbian
> withdrawal
> > > from Kosovo. The guarantee from Clinton that he wouldn't allow the use
> of US
> > > ground troops ensured that the Serbian's were not going to be forced to
> > > leave Kosovo. The Russians had considerably more influence on Milosevic
> > > actions than any NATO bombing.
> >
> > Could you elaborate on how the Russians influenced the elections
>
> The withdrawl started in June, the election had nothing to do with it.

Oh, sorry. I confused those points.

Could you elaborate on why the Russians had more to do with the Serbian
withdrawal from Kosovo, than did the bombing of Serbia proper and
Blegrade in particular?

>
> > and
> > why that was more influential than being bombed?
>
> The election had nothing to do with the Serbian withdrawl from Kosovo.

See above. But so long as we're on the subject (even if by mistake)
do you think the bombing of Serbia (Use of air power we're actually
on-topic here) influenced the elections and contributed to the demise
of the Milosvic regime?

> >... You made the argument that the NATO intervention
> > actually destabilized Kosovo.
>
> That wasn't the claim I made. It might help if you actually tried to
> remember what claims NATO made about what was occurring daily in Kosovo
> before the bombing started and compare that with what occurred due to the
> bombing.

While it is true you didn't use the word 'destabilize' I thought it
to be an apt characterization of what you did describe.

It is pretty clear that Iraq was destablized by the 2003 invasion
and has yet to re-stabilize.

--

FF

[Brett]

"Fred the peabrain" > wrote:
> "Brett" > wrote in message
>...
> > "Fred the peabrain" > wrote:
....

> > > Could you elaborate on how the Russians influenced the elections
> >
> > The withdrawl started in June, the election had nothing to do with it.
>
> Oh, sorry. I confused those points.

It appears to be your permanent state.