Re: GWB has been a good Commander-in-Chief

[Horvath]

On Wed, 11 Aug 2004 20:46:51 GMT, "jim" > wrote
this crap:


>Your not allowed to point out the obivious duplicity of the liberial
>mindset.


You should learn some grammar.




My T-shirt says, "This shirt is the
ultimate power in the universe."

[Howard Berkowitz]

In article >, Usenet Spam
Patrol > wrote:

> In <nIxTc.20143$Yf6.6611@lakeread03>, sanjian wrote:
>
> >Usenet Spam Patrol wrote:
> >> PSALM 255 - SPAMMERs will burn in hell.
> >
> >> Search results for: ! NET-67-119-178-0-1
> >>
> >> CustName: nas12.pltn13
> >> Address: 2623 Camino Ramon
> >> City: San Ramon
> >> StateProv: CA
> >> PostalCode: 94583
> >> Country: US
> >> RegDate: 2002-06-22
> >> Updated: 2002-06-22
> >
> >Ok, how did you get this info? I'm half afraid that some poor SoB in
> >San
> >Ramon, who knows nothing of what's happening here, will get harassed
> >because
> >of this.
> >
> >OTOH, if this is legit... very useful...
>
> The original ip address of the Psalm 110 > spammer
> was taken from its NNTP-Posting-Host: 67.119.178.120 header.
>
> Addresses used in America are assigned by ARIN (American Registry for
> Internet Numbers)
>
> http://www.arin.net/
>
> Using ARIN's WHOIS facility shows the address was assigned to
>
> Search results for: 67.119.178.120
>
> Pac Bell Internet Services PBI-NET-10 (NET-67-112-0-0-1)
> 67.112.0.0 - 67.127.255.255
>
> Which further assigned a smaller portion of NET-67-112-0-0-1 to"
>
> nas12.pltn13 SBC067119178000020621 (NET-67-119-178-0-1)
> 67.119.178.0 - 67.119.179.255

Right. This is the actual address space, which had to be justified by
demonstrating actual use of at least 254 host computers. A bit much for
an individual, although it could be a small enterprise.


>
> A lookup on NET-67-119-178-0-1 gives the following information, which
> constitutes the entity which facilitated internet access to the
> 67.119.178.120 spammer:
>
> Search results for: ! NET-67-119-178-0-1
>
>
> CustName: nas12.pltn13
> Address: 2623 Camino Ramon
> City: San Ramon
> StateProv: CA
> PostalCode: 94583
> Country: US
> RegDate: 2002-06-22
> Updated: 2002-06-22
>
It might or might not be the actual spammer, or, more likely, an unknown
dupe of the spammer. It is entirely possible that a spammer hacked a
machine in this address space and is using it unlawfully. We simply
don't have enough data to tell.

Just for the record, I've been a voting member of ARIN for a number of
years, have given tutorials at their national meeting, published
Internet Engineering Task Force documents of addressing, and am the
authod of _Designing Addressing Architectures for Enterprise Networks
(Macmillan)_ and _Building Service Provider Networks_ (Wiley).

[Horvath]

On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 14:04:14 +0100, Andy Dingley
> wrote this crap:

>But Shrub can't even string a sentence together. I don't know what
>this guy did to his head, whether it was too much coke or too many
>heroic Gs in his F-102, but these days he's just a few bananas away
>from the monkey house. I don't believe this guy can tie up the War
>Against Shoelaces, let alone run America.


I'd like to see your Harvard or Yale degree.





My T-shirt says, "This shirt is the
ultimate power in the universe."

[sanjian]

Horvath wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 14:04:14 +0100, Andy Dingley
> > wrote this crap:
>
>> But Shrub can't even string a sentence together. I don't know what
>> this guy did to his head, whether it was too much coke or too many
>> heroic Gs in his F-102, but these days he's just a few bananas away
>> from the monkey house. I don't believe this guy can tie up the War
>> Against Shoelaces, let alone run America.
>
>
> I'd like to see your Harvard or Yale degree.

I'd like to see him survive flying one of the most dangerous aircraft in US
military history.

[LawsonE]

"sanjian" > wrote in message
news:5TFUc.25508$Yf6.18570@lakeread03...
[...]
> I'd like to see him survive flying one of the most dangerous aircraft in
US
> military history.
>
>

Not hardly: according to the site referred to, the F-102 was bad compared to
MODERN fighters, but compared to other models from that time period? It was
one of the safest US fighter jet to fly for many years, at least on average.
Given that bit of spin on this site, I'd take the rest of what it says with
a grain or two of salt also.

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/history/q0185.shtml

"According to the Air Force Safety Center, the lifetime Class A accident
rate for the F-102 was 13.69 mishaps per 100,000 flight hours, much higher
than the average for today's combat aircraft."

Air Force Safety Center

http://afsafety.af.mil/AFSC/RDBMS/Flight/stats/aircraft_stats.html

# rate/100K F-hrs years
operational
F-80 LIFETIME 870 93.27 1950-1953
F-84 LIFETIME 1955 52.86 1950-1972
F-86 LIFETIME 2449 44.18 1950-1971
F-89 LIFETIME 300 24.54 1951-1969
F-100 LIFETIME 1161 21.22 1953-1990
F-101 LIFETIME 292 14.65 1955-1982
F-102 LIFETIME 357 13.69 1953-1981 <= F-102
F-104 LIFETIME 197 30.63 1956-1983
F-105 LIFETIME 297 17.83 1958-1984
F-106 LIFETIME 153 9.47 1958-1997 <=== !!!
misleading as several years had zero accidents
F-111 LIFETIME 115 6.13 1965-1998

[sanjian]

LawsonE wrote:
> "sanjian" > wrote in message
> news:5TFUc.25508$Yf6.18570@lakeread03...
> [...]
>> I'd like to see him survive flying one of the most dangerous
>> aircraft in US military history.
>>
>>
>
> Not hardly: according to the site referred to, the F-102 was bad
> compared to MODERN fighters, but compared to other models from that
> time period? It was one of the safest US fighter jet to fly for many
> years, at least on average. Given that bit of spin on this site, I'd
> take the rest of what it says with a grain or two of salt also.

I'll take the word of the Air Force Colonel who explained the century series
aircraft to me back in the early '90s. He had few kind things to say about
the F-102 other than it separates the wheat from the chaffe.

[Peter Stickney]

In article <ZKTUc.25886$Yf6.21127@lakeread03>,
"sanjian" > writes:
> LawsonE wrote:
>> "sanjian" > wrote in message
>> news:5TFUc.25508$Yf6.18570@lakeread03...
>> [...]
>>> I'd like to see him survive flying one of the most dangerous
>>> aircraft in US military history.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Not hardly: according to the site referred to, the F-102 was bad
>> compared to MODERN fighters, but compared to other models from that
>> time period? It was one of the safest US fighter jet to fly for many
>> years, at least on average. Given that bit of spin on this site, I'd
>> take the rest of what it says with a grain or two of salt also.
>
> I'll take the word of the Air Force Colonel who explained the century series
> aircraft to me back in the early '90s. He had few kind things to say about
> the F-102 other than it separates the wheat from the chaffe.

Killfiled LawsonE ages ago, but this made we look up the thread. He's
comparing the F-102 aggregate numbers from the Air Force Safety Center
to, for the most part, the F-80, F-84 and F-86. It should be noted
that indeed, while loss rates for the early jet fighters was rather
high, (but no higher than the recip fighters of WW 2), the numbers for
these aircraft apparently include combat losses in Korea. Numbers for
the later aircraft do not include combat losses. It's comparing
apples to bananas.

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

[LawsonE]

"Peter Stickney" > wrote in message
...
> In article <ZKTUc.25886$Yf6.21127@lakeread03>,
> "sanjian" > writes:
> > LawsonE wrote:
> >> "sanjian" > wrote in message
> >> news:5TFUc.25508$Yf6.18570@lakeread03...
> >> [...]
> >>> I'd like to see him survive flying one of the most dangerous
> >>> aircraft in US military history.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >> Not hardly: according to the site referred to, the F-102 was bad
> >> compared to MODERN fighters, but compared to other models from that
> >> time period? It was one of the safest US fighter jet to fly for many
> >> years, at least on average. Given that bit of spin on this site, I'd
> >> take the rest of what it says with a grain or two of salt also.
> >
> > I'll take the word of the Air Force Colonel who explained the century
series
> > aircraft to me back in the early '90s. He had few kind things to say
about
> > the F-102 other than it separates the wheat from the chaffe.
>
> Killfiled LawsonE ages ago, but this made we look up the thread. He's
> comparing the F-102 aggregate numbers from the Air Force Safety Center
> to, for the most part, the F-80, F-84 and F-86. It should be noted
> that indeed, while loss rates for the early jet fighters was rather
> high, (but no higher than the recip fighters of WW 2), the numbers for
> these aircraft apparently include combat losses in Korea. Numbers for
> the later aircraft do not include combat losses. It's comparing
> apples to bananas.

That might be, but that was the specific figure that was used by the website
people have been referring to. In the same way, THAT website likely isn't
referring to combat losses of modern US aircraft either since there have
been virtually none in the past 30 years or so (the stats for the F-102
refer to losses between 1953 and 1981 IIRC), so comparisons to modern
fighters' accident rates aren't directly comparable either (and yet the
website referred to made that comparison to make a point about Bush, so
there: nyah, etc).

Mind you, I don't think its relevant either way, but it was an example, to
me, of how everyone is indulging in spin (not just Michael Moore) in this
election. The F-102, at least in the website stats I found, had no worse,
and mainly better, an accident record, than other fighter jets of that same
generation, so pointing to its stats as something to crow about regarding
Bush's bravery or lack thereof is kinda silly. He obviously didn't chose to
learn to fly the plane because he thought it was the MOST dangerous, or does
anyone really think that he did?

[[email protected]]

In <Zktuc.25886$Yf6.21127@lakeread03>, on 08/18/2004
at 09:53 PM, "sanjian" > said:

>LawsonE wrote:
>> "sanjian" > wrote in message
>> news:5TFUc.25508$Yf6.18570@lakeread03...
>> [...]
>>> I'd like to see him survive flying one of the most dangerous
>>> aircraft in US military history.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Not hardly: according to the site referred to, the F-102 was bad
>> compared to MODERN fighters, but compared to other models from that
>> time period? It was one of the safest US fighter jet to fly for many
>> years, at least on average. Given that bit of spin on this site, I'd
>> take the rest of what it says with a grain or two of salt also.

>I'll take the word of the Air Force Colonel who explained the century
>series aircraft to me back in the early '90s. He had few kind things to
>say about the F-102 other than it separates the wheat from the chaffe.

Nonsense. -- If the F-102 was so dangerous to fly -- then how come it
was so easy to rig with automatic controls that could take it off and fly
it as drone? -- That's where most of them went -- target practice in
combat with our best -- all under remote control. E.g., that means it was
*easy to fly and *stable. (Or course you should have known that before
now, since duba did it).

-- Why do you rightwingers post nonsense when so many know better?

[Keith Willshaw]

"Emmanuel Gustin" > wrote in message
...
> "sanjian" > wrote in message
> news:5TFUc.25508$Yf6.18570@lakeread03...
>
> > I'd like to see him survive flying one of the most dangerous aircraft in
> US
> > military history.
>
> Sounds like a ridiculous claim to me. The F-102 did have
> its share of problems, and all of the "century series" of
> fighters were rather unsafe by today's standards. But overall
> it appears seems to have been a well-liked aircraft without
> major aerodynamic problems (which is much more than one
> can say about the F-101 or the early F-100s), restricted to
> a short first-line career mainly by a performance level and
> electronic systems that fell short of the desired standards.

This seems to be an erroneous conclusion on your part

The accident statistics are available at

http://afsafety.af.mil/AFSC/RDBMS/Flight/stats/f102mds.html

Of the 1000 or so aircraft produced 259 were lost
killing 70 pilots

In 1969 there were 13 losses for 162,000 hours flown
and 2 pilot fatalities

Keith




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[Tom Cervo]

>The F-102, at least in the website stats I found, had no worse,
>and mainly better, an accident record, than other fighter jets of that same
>generation, so pointing to its stats as something to crow about regarding
>Bush's bravery or lack thereof is kinda silly. He obviously didn't chose to
>learn to fly the plane because he thought it was the MOST dangerous, or does
>anyone really think that he did?

He chose the unit because it was close to home.

[LawsonE]

"Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Emmanuel Gustin" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "sanjian" > wrote in message
> > news:5TFUc.25508$Yf6.18570@lakeread03...
> >
> > > I'd like to see him survive flying one of the most dangerous aircraft
in
> > US
> > > military history.
> >
> > Sounds like a ridiculous claim to me. The F-102 did have
> > its share of problems, and all of the "century series" of
> > fighters were rather unsafe by today's standards. But overall
> > it appears seems to have been a well-liked aircraft without
> > major aerodynamic problems (which is much more than one
> > can say about the F-101 or the early F-100s), restricted to
> > a short first-line career mainly by a performance level and
> > electronic systems that fell short of the desired standards.
>
> This seems to be an erroneous conclusion on your part
>
> The accident statistics are available at
>
> http://afsafety.af.mil/AFSC/RDBMS/Flight/stats/f102mds.html
>
> Of the 1000 or so aircraft produced 259 were lost
> killing 70 pilots
>
> In 1969 there were 13 losses for 162,000 hours flown
> and 2 pilot fatalities
>

As I pointed out, that's low compared to other planes of that same time.
True, the F-102 was being used differently than some of the others, but the
F-102 doesn't look THAT bad compared to the others. In fact, for hours flown
in 1969, its pretty decent, safety-wise. Why are you so selective with your
stats?

http://afsafety.af.mil/AFSC/RDBMS/Flight/stats/aircraft_stats.html

The F-100 had 31 losses and 10 pilot fatalities for 279,280 hours flown in
1969.

The F-101 had 10 losses and 3 pilot fatalities for 70,548 hours flown in
1969.

***The F-102 had 13 losses and 2 pilot fatalities for 162,000 hours flown
in 1969. ***

The F-104 had 10 losses and 3 pilot fatalities for 32,322 hours flown in
1969.

The F-105 had 14 losses and 9 pilot fatalities for 104,921 hours flown in
1969.

The F-106 had 6 losses and 1 pilot fatalities for 64,204 hours flown in
1969.

The F-111 had 8 losses and 4 pilot fatalities for 30,806 hours flown in
1969.

[Peter Stickney]

In article <7QYUc.6516$_w.5361@trndny04>,
writes:
> In <Zktuc.25886$Yf6.21127@lakeread03>, on 08/18/2004
> at 09:53 PM, "sanjian" > said:
>
>>LawsonE wrote:
>>> "sanjian" > wrote in message
>>> news:5TFUc.25508$Yf6.18570@lakeread03...
>>> [...]
>>>> I'd like to see him survive flying one of the most dangerous
>>>> aircraft in US military history.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Not hardly: according to the site referred to, the F-102 was bad
>>> compared to MODERN fighters, but compared to other models from that
>>> time period? It was one of the safest US fighter jet to fly for many
>>> years, at least on average. Given that bit of spin on this site, I'd
>>> take the rest of what it says with a grain or two of salt also.
>
>>I'll take the word of the Air Force Colonel who explained the century
>>series aircraft to me back in the early '90s. He had few kind things to
>>say about the F-102 other than it separates the wheat from the chaffe.
>
> Nonsense. -- If the F-102 was so dangerous to fly -- then how come it
> was so easy to rig with automatic controls that could take it off and fly
> it as drone? -- That's where most of them went -- target practice in
> combat with our best -- all under remote control. E.g., that means it was
> *easy to fly and *stable. (Or course you should have known that before
> now, since duba did it).

Politically, I don't have a dog in this fight. (But you're doing a
damned good job of convincing me) So let's put it on an objective,
factual basis. If the F-102 was so much easier than its Century Series
brethren, adn the jet fighters that preceded it, and thus more
suitable for drone work, how does that explain the QF-80s, QF-86s and
QF-104s that preceded it into service? Or the QF-100s that were its
contemporaries?

If you were to go and research the numbers for accidents, and
fatalities, you'd see that there were much safer options than flying
any sort of fighter available in that same timeframe. There were
National Guard units in the South who were flying C-97 and C-124
transports, which were at least an order of magnitude (As in to the
10th power) safer than any fighter. Or he could have been flying the
Squadron administrative aircraft - usually a T-29 or C-47 at that
time, with comfy seats, a coffee pot, and no chance of hurting itself.
And, to head off the next question, no, you don't have to be a
Resident of a State to be in a particular National Guard unit. Much
of, if not most of, the Vermont National Guard is made up of people
from New Hampshire, Massachusetts, and New York. (VT is the only state
with Armored units in the Northeast. If you want to be a tanker,
that's where you go.) There was nothing stopping him, or anybody
else, from getting a nice, safe, comfy slot with the Tennesee,
Georgia, Mississippi or South Carolina Guard units flying the big
lifters. Hell - if he did, then he could, if he so desired, make all
sorts of true claims about flying into Viet Nam during the war - The
Guard and Reserve Airlift units were a regular part of the MAC
schedule, and made regular trips to Viet Nam and Thailand.

If you want to make a point, make a point. but don't be more stupid
than you have to be.

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

[[email protected]]

Stop your nonsene -- and non sequiturs. bush went to the texas ANG
because that's where he had the political connections to get in the day he
needed to.










In >, on 08/19/2004
at 10:12 AM, (Peter Stickney) said:

>In article <7QYUc.6516$_w.5361@trndny04>,
> writes:
>> In <Zktuc.25886$Yf6.21127@lakeread03>, on 08/18/2004
>> at 09:53 PM, "sanjian" > said:
>>
>>>LawsonE wrote:
>>>> "sanjian" > wrote in message
>>>> news:5TFUc.25508$Yf6.18570@lakeread03...
>>>> [...]
>>>>> I'd like to see him survive flying one of the most dangerous
>>>>> aircraft in US military history.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Not hardly: according to the site referred to, the F-102 was bad
>>>> compared to MODERN fighters, but compared to other models from that
>>>> time period? It was one of the safest US fighter jet to fly for many
>>>> years, at least on average. Given that bit of spin on this site, I'd
>>>> take the rest of what it says with a grain or two of salt also.
>>
>>>I'll take the word of the Air Force Colonel who explained the century
>>>series aircraft to me back in the early '90s. He had few kind things to
>>>say about the F-102 other than it separates the wheat from the chaffe.
>>
>> Nonsense. -- If the F-102 was so dangerous to fly -- then how come it
>> was so easy to rig with automatic controls that could take it off and fly
>> it as drone? -- That's where most of them went -- target practice in
>> combat with our best -- all under remote control. E.g., that means it was
>> *easy to fly and *stable. (Or course you should have known that before
>> now, since duba did it).

>Politically, I don't have a dog in this fight. (But you're doing a
>damned good job of convincing me) So let's put it on an objective,
>factual basis. If the F-102 was so much easier than its Century Series
>brethren, adn the jet fighters that preceded it, and thus more suitable
>for drone work, how does that explain the QF-80s, QF-86s and QF-104s that
>preceded it into service? Or the QF-100s that were its contemporaries?

>If you were to go and research the numbers for accidents, and fatalities,
>you'd see that there were much safer options than flying any sort of
>fighter available in that same timeframe. There were National Guard
>units in the South who were flying C-97 and C-124 transports, which were
>at least an order of magnitude (As in to the 10th power) safer than any
>fighter. Or he could have been flying the Squadron administrative
>aircraft - usually a T-29 or C-47 at that time, with comfy seats, a
>coffee pot, and no chance of hurting itself. And, to head off the next
>question, no, you don't have to be a Resident of a State to be in a
>particular National Guard unit. Much of, if not most of, the Vermont
>National Guard is made up of people from New Hampshire, Massachusetts,
>and New York. (VT is the only state with Armored units in the Northeast.
>If you want to be a tanker, that's where you go.) There was nothing
>stopping him, or anybody else, from getting a nice, safe, comfy slot with
>the Tennesee, Georgia, Mississippi or South Carolina Guard units flying
>the big lifters. Hell - if he did, then he could, if he so desired, make
>all sorts of true claims about flying into Viet Nam during the war - The
>Guard and Reserve Airlift units were a regular part of the MAC schedule,
>and made regular trips to Viet Nam and Thailand.

>If you want to make a point, make a point. but don't be more stupid than
>you have to be.

[Kevin Brooks]

"Emmanuel Gustin" > wrote in message
...
> "sanjian" > wrote in message
> news:5TFUc.25508$Yf6.18570@lakeread03...
>
> > I'd like to see him survive flying one of the most dangerous aircraft in
> US
> > military history.
>
> Sounds like a ridiculous claim to me. The F-102 did have
> its share of problems, and all of the "century series" of
> fighters were rather unsafe by today's standards. But overall
> it appears seems to have been a well-liked aircraft without
> major aerodynamic problems (which is much more than one
> can say about the F-101 or the early F-100s), restricted to
> a short first-line career mainly by a performance level and
> electronic systems that fell short of the desired standards.
>
> By the early 1960s the F-102As had a new wing with a
> cambered leading edge, a larger fin, and larger airbrakes,
> improving their handling and stability. The troublesome
> MG-3 avionics system was replaced by the MG-10, and
> in Vietnam the F-102s were considered reliable aircraft
> that required considerably less maintenance than F-4s.
> Their loss rate in Vietnam was relatively low, despite the
> abuse of F-102s for "campfire hunting" and other forms
> of ground support, for which they emphatically had not
> been designed.
>
> George W's absence from Vietnam was probably a good
> thing. He has demonstrated a lack of talent for evaluating
> intelligence seriously, an inability to plan ahead even for
> the most obviously predictable events, and a strong propensity
> for ignoring glaring but inconvenient facts. Add to that an
> admitted record of abuse of alcohol and drugs during his
> youth, and one can hardly escape the conclusion that he
> would have been a very dangerous comrade-in-arms.

Oddly enough, there wwere quite a few other western leaders who had reached
the same conclusion he had in terms of "evaluating intelligence seriously",
not to mention those surrounding Saddam's stomping grounds (both Jordanian
and Egyptian heads of state, among others, backed up the WMD analysis in
discussions with General Franks prior to hostilities--see his recent book).
As to planning ahead, again you should read Franks' book before you spout
off such nonsense. Finally, speaking as a guy who once had the temerity
(gasp!) to "abuse alcohol" at the weekly O-Club parleys in his youth, I find
it a bit hard to toss too many stones, especially as he has admitted his
past failures and demonstrated his own self-control since then (the latter
fact which is the most important). But hey, you don't have a vote in the
outcome anyway, right?

Brooks

>
> --
> Emmanuel Gustin

[Steve Hix]

In article <7QYUc.6516$_w.5361@trndny04>, wrote:

> In <Zktuc.25886$Yf6.21127@lakeread03>, on 08/18/2004
> at 09:53 PM, "sanjian" > said:
>
> >LawsonE wrote:
> >> "sanjian" > wrote in message
> >> news:5TFUc.25508$Yf6.18570@lakeread03...
> >> [...]
> >>> I'd like to see him survive flying one of the most dangerous
> >>> aircraft in US military history.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >> Not hardly: according to the site referred to, the F-102 was bad
> >> compared to MODERN fighters, but compared to other models from that
> >> time period? It was one of the safest US fighter jet to fly for many
> >> years, at least on average. Given that bit of spin on this site, I'd
> >> take the rest of what it says with a grain or two of salt also.
>
> >I'll take the word of the Air Force Colonel who explained the century
> >series aircraft to me back in the early '90s. He had few kind things to
> >say about the F-102 other than it separates the wheat from the chaffe.
>
> Nonsense. -- If the F-102 was so dangerous to fly -- then how come it
> was so easy to rig with automatic controls that could take it off and fly
> it as drone? -- That's where most of them went -- target practice in
> combat with our best -- all under remote control. E.g., that means it was
> *easy to fly and *stable. (Or course you should have known that before
> now, since duba did it).

The same was done with earlier jet (and some piston) fighters with even
worse safety records.

Did you have some point to make?

[[email protected]]

In >, on 08/19/2004
at 11:54 AM, Steve Hix > said:

>In article <7QYUc.6516$_w.5361@trndny04>, wrote:

>> In <Zktuc.25886$Yf6.21127@lakeread03>, on 08/18/2004
>> at 09:53 PM, "sanjian" > said:
>>
>> >LawsonE wrote:
>> >> "sanjian" > wrote in message
>> >> news:5TFUc.25508$Yf6.18570@lakeread03...
>> >> [...]
>> >>> I'd like to see him survive flying one of the most dangerous
>> >>> aircraft in US military history.
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >> Not hardly: according to the site referred to, the F-102 was bad
>> >> compared to MODERN fighters, but compared to other models from that
>> >> time period? It was one of the safest US fighter jet to fly for many
>> >> years, at least on average. Given that bit of spin on this site, I'd
>> >> take the rest of what it says with a grain or two of salt also.
>>
>> >I'll take the word of the Air Force Colonel who explained the century
>> >series aircraft to me back in the early '90s. He had few kind things to
>> >say about the F-102 other than it separates the wheat from the chaffe.
>>
>> Nonsense. -- If the F-102 was so dangerous to fly -- then how come it
>> was so easy to rig with automatic controls that could take it off and fly
>> it as drone? -- That's where most of them went -- target practice in
>> combat with our best -- all under remote control. E.g., that means it was
>> *easy to fly and *stable. (Or course you should have known that before
>> now, since duba did it).

>The same was done with earlier jet (and some piston) fighters with even
>worse safety records.

>Did you have some point to make?

For **obtuse people like you how are here to love bush -- yeah. bush
didn't do something dangerous and daring.

[Kevin Brooks]

"Emmanuel Gustin" > wrote in message
...
> "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > Oddly enough, there wwere quite a few other western leaders who had
> reached
> > the same conclusion he had in terms of "evaluating intelligence
> seriously",
>
> And some who didn't -- Putin told Blair in public, on a press
> conference, that his intelligence didn't support the conclusions
> the British were publishing. The German foreign secretary,
> Joschka Fischer, did the same to Powell on a visit of the latter
> to Germany, something which apparently made Powell rather
> angry. We don't know what Bush' visitors told him in private,
> but the story now promulgated by the Neocons in the White
> House, that all Western intelligence services agreed on Iraqi
> WMDs, is seriously lacking in credibility.

"Prior to the war, 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 Chirac, referred to Iraq's possession of WMD. The German
intelligence certainly believed that there was WMD." David Kay, testifying
before Congress last January.

"German intelligence reported that WMD laboratories are hidden in trucks
that appear completely normal on the outside."
www.ccc.nps.navy.mil/rsepResources/ si/may03/middleEast3.asp

Another source indicates German views may have changed at the last
minute...: "One focus of the ongoing investigations is whether the CIA
should have known Curveball was not credible. A former U.S. official who has
reviewed the classified file said the BND warned the CIA last spring that
they had ``various problems with the source.'' Die Zeit, a German news
weekly, first reported the warning last August. The official said the BND
sent the warning after Powell first described the bio-warfare trucks in deta
il to the U.N. Security Council on Feb. 5, 2003. It's unclear whether the
German warning about Curveball arrived before the war began on March 19."
http://www.registerguard.com/news/2004/03/28/a2.nat.WMD.0328.html

Don't act as if the german's did not also get their intel read wrong. Nor
the French, etc.
As to the Russians and causus belli...: "Last week, Russian President
Vladimir Putin said that Russia had given the Bush administration
intelligence that suggested Saddam Hussein's regime was preparing attacks
against the United States and its interests abroad before the Iraq war."
www.mosnews.com/news/2004/06/24/wmd.shtml

So far your arguments are not adding up with the above...

>
> Not that a president of the USA is supposed to rely on what
> other leaders tell him. George W. Bush was sending soldiers
> to fight in Iraq; arguably it was his duty to seriously review
> the intelligence on the threats that they might encounter there.
> One did not need to be a genius or a prophet to spot the serious
> weaknesses in the US and UK intelligence assesments. A little
> bit of insight in the way in which such intelligence is compiled,
> and a dose of common sense, would do.

You said last year (17 Feb 03): "I think that Iraq probably has a small
stockpile
left from before 1991, which escaped the attention of inspectors.
It is also likely to have a biological / chemical weapons research
program, possibly less important than those of some of its neighbours,
and probably short of materials to work with. There appears to be
no evidence for more, or for the industrial production of WMD."

Which makes it appear that you were right only in regards to the last two
sentences, but the last is a bit muddled due to Kay's noting that the Iraqis
made a destinct effort to continue developing "dual use" facilities with the
express purpose of allowing future WMD production. So you were really doing
no better than Bush, right?


>
> But now Bush and Blair are telling us that they took everything
> they were told at face value -- asked no questions -- never had
> any doubts. Never mind that the UN inspectors, who actually
> were in a position to verify information on the ground, reported
> that US intelligence had been found to be wrong on every occasion
> when they tried to verify it. Blair even claimed that, while he
> believed the claim that Saddam could deploy WMD within 45
> minutes, he never asked which ones!

While I have seen some references to Blair claiming immense stockpiles of
ready-to-use weapons, I don't recall Bush ever making such boldfaced claims;
he and Powell concentrated more on noting the Iraqi accounting
discrepancies, and the continuing development efforts.

>
> It is an old rule that when politicians are given the choice between
> appearing to be dishonest and appearing to be incompetent, they
> will plunge for incompetence. That is unlikely to be the full thruth.
> However, incompetence is bad enough.

And you therefore rank yourself as being at least as incompetent, if not
moreso, than Bush, right? Based upon the above and items like last year when
*you* were telling us that Zarqawi was not operating from Iraq (16 FEB 03);
care to change your stance on that one?


>
> > As to planning ahead, again you should read Franks' book before you
spout
> > off such nonsense.
>
> Regardless of what Franks wrote -- and I don't expect his book
> to appear this side of the Atlantic -- it has been acknowledged
> even by the US government that planning for the post-war occupation
> of Iraq was, to put it mildly, sketchy and unrealistic. But worse
> than failing to predict an insurgency was not having a policy at all
> for the future of Iraq; except perhaps the part that pinned its hopes
> on (of all people) Chalabi. For many months after the occupation,
> US policy zigzagged aimlessly, before hitting on the idea of dumping
> the problems on the UN and an Iraqi transition government.

While I would admit the phase IV planning was not all that it could have
been, it was far from being the total lack of planning that you were
inferring. make the effort to get Franks book--you might learn a bit about
what phase IV planning was done, and how the situation changed as time
progressed. We surpassed pre-war Iraqi power production and distribution
levels before the end of 2003. Water production and distribution was a
similar story, IIRC. And a nation that has not known democracy is now making
its first tentative steps down that path. Not bad, IMO; and of course, there
is no longer any need to be worried about what Saddam is or is not up to.

>
> > it a bit hard to toss too many stones, especially as he has admitted his
> > past failures and demonstrated his own self-control since then (the
latter
> > fact which is the most important).
>
> Well, I was referring to a hypothetical service of George W. Bush
> in Vietnam; his conduct afterwards is immaterial to that.

Really? You have been indicting him as President for his capabilities and
decisions in the present tense, have you not?

Except
> of course that, given his behaviour at the time, there was a good
> chance that there would have been no later opportunity for him
> to establish self-control.
>
> > But hey, you don't have a vote in the outcome anyway, right?
>
> Right. Which is why I am strongly in favour of an EU with a
> common foreign policy and defence -- it is about time we are
> able to fend for ourselves.

Oh, boy! Are you gonna hold your breath until that comes about? How is the
old vaunted EU rapid reaction force doing these days, eh? heck, you can't
even get everyone onboard the same *currency*, but you think you are gonna
develop a truly unified defense and foreign policy stance? Get real.

It is not that I dislike Americans,
> but it is just absolute folly to resignedly entrust our fate to
> whomever they elect as president. Best case, as it looks now,
> is that the worst president in US history will be replaced by
> a fairly mediocre one -- welcome progress, but hardly of a
> kind to inspire confidence.

Hold that thought; I am guessing your analysis here is going to be as flawed
as your thinking Zarqawi was not playing footsie in Iraq last year...

Brooks

>
> --
> Emmanuel Gustin
>
>

[Paul J. Adam]

In message >, Kevin Brooks
> writes
>Oddly enough, there wwere quite a few other western leaders who had reached
>the same conclusion he had in terms of "evaluating intelligence seriously",

Given the way 'evaluating intelligence' appears to have consisted of
frontline analysts reporting 'there is no current evidence of a
significant Iraqi WME threat' and politicians saying "that 'no' really
spoils the sentence, why don't we delete it?" then that statement needs
a little care.

The leaders were given intelligence, and reached conclusions that said
evidence did not readily support. See the Butler Report here in the UK
for how evidence was gently modified with caveats removed and the
possible turned into the certain, between gathering and action.

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

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

[sanjian]

LawsonE wrote:

> Mind you, I don't think its relevant either way, but it was an
> example, to me, of how everyone is indulging in spin (not just
> Michael Moore) in this election. The F-102, at least in the website
> stats I found, had no worse, and mainly better, an accident record,

Unfortuantely, people fly and die in real aircraft, not websites.

> than other fighter jets of that same generation, so pointing to its
> stats as something to crow about regarding Bush's bravery or lack
> thereof is kinda silly. He obviously didn't chose to learn to fly the
> plane because he thought it was the MOST dangerous, or does anyone
> really think that he did?

People don't choose to go into combat because it's dangerous, either. They
choose to accept the inherent danger. I didn't choose to work in a steam
plant because I thought dying in a steam rupture or uncontrollable Class
Bravo fire sounded like fun.

However, the point isn't Bush's courage, but rather the inability for him to
be both stupid, and a living F-102 pilot... at least not for very long.

[sanjian]

wrote:
> Stop your nonsene -- and non sequiturs. bush went to the texas ANG
> because that's where he had the political connections to get in the
> day he needed to.

And we see reason come to a screeching halt. Pete explains something to
you, and all you can do is dismiss it as nonsense and repeat your same old
diatribe. I wonder your inability to accept facts that don't fit your
assumptions has anything to do with your never progressing in political
understanding.

[sanjian]

wrote:
> In >, on 08/19/2004
> at 11:54 AM, Steve Hix > said:

>> Did you have some point to make?
>
> For **obtuse people like you how are here to love bush -- yeah. bush
> didn't do something dangerous and daring.

You every fly an F-102? Hell, you ever fly at all?

[sanjian]

wrote:
> In <Zktuc.25886$Yf6.21127@lakeread03>, on 08/18/2004
> at 09:53 PM, "sanjian" > said:

>> I'll take the word of the Air Force Colonel who explained the century
>> series aircraft to me back in the early '90s. He had few kind
>> things to say about the F-102 other than it separates the wheat from
>> the chaffe.
>
> Nonsense. -- If the F-102 was so dangerous to fly -- then how come
> it was so easy to rig with automatic controls that could take it off

Well, first of all, dangerous to fly doesn't mean it can't be rigged with
controls, even automatic ones.

> and fly it as drone? -- That's where most of them went -- target
> practice in combat with our best -- all under remote control. E.g.,
> that means it was *easy to fly and *stable. (Or course you should
> have known that before now, since duba did it).

That's hardly a valid conclusion. That something can be piloted by remote
doesn't mean it's easy to fly or particularly stable. So I've got an Air
Force Colonel telling me that they were a nightmare, and I've got you saying
they were "easy to fly." So, what are your qualifications to say that?

> -- Why do you rightwingers post nonsense when so many know better?

Why do you leftwingers post half(at best)-truths and sheer bull****?

[BigRedWingsFan]

"sanjian" > wrote in message
news:amcVc.7980$ni.5686@okepread01...
: wrote:
: > In >, on 08/19/2004
: > at 11:54 AM, Steve Hix > said:
:
: >> Did you have some point to make?
: >
: > For **obtuse people like you how are here to love bush -- yeah. bush
: > didn't do something dangerous and daring.
:
: You every fly an F-102? Hell, you ever fly at all?

Le'Turd is always "flying" on something over in a.m.r. He's one of our few
resident Bush-haters over there. I'd bet even money that Le'Turd's mouth
and an organ of Kerry's are a perfect match.

:
:

[Horvath]

On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 21:21:09 -0400, "sanjian" >
wrote this crap:

wrote:
>> In >, on 08/19/2004
>> at 11:54 AM, Steve Hix > said:
>
>>> Did you have some point to make?
>>
>> For **obtuse people like you how are here to love bush -- yeah. bush
>> didn't do something dangerous and daring.
>
>You every fly an F-102? Hell, you ever fly at all?


I flew to Florida last year.




My T-shirt says, "This shirt is the
ultimate power in the universe."

[Steve Hix]

In article <qn7Vc.9852$zO3.3508@trndny05>, wrote:

> In >, on 08/19/2004
> at 11:54 AM, Steve Hix > said:
>
> >In article <7QYUc.6516$_w.5361@trndny04>, wrote:
>
> >> Nonsense. -- If the F-102 was so dangerous to fly -- then how come it
> >> was so easy to rig with automatic controls that could take it off and fly
> >> it as drone? -- That's where most of them went -- target practice in
> >> combat with our best -- all under remote control. E.g., that means it was
> >> *easy to fly and *stable. (Or course you should have known that before
> >> now, since duba did it).
>
> >The same was done with earlier jet (and some piston) fighters with even
> >worse safety records.
>
> >Did you have some point to make?
>
> For **obtuse people like you how are here to love bush -- yeah.

I thought not.

> bush didn't do something dangerous and daring.

You were wrong about the F-102 being trivially-simple to fly, too.

[Chas Hurst]

"Steve Hix" > wrote in message
...
>
> > bush didn't do something dangerous and daring.
>
> You were wrong about the F-102 being trivially-simple to fly, too.

Is it more difficult than eating pretzels and watching TV at the same time?

[[email protected]]

In <4qcVc.7983$ni.1490@okepread01>, on 08/19/2004
at 09:25 PM, "sanjian" > said:

wrote:
>> In <Zktuc.25886$Yf6.21127@lakeread03>, on 08/18/2004
>> at 09:53 PM, "sanjian" > said:

>>> I'll take the word of the Air Force Colonel who explained the century
>>> series aircraft to me back in the early '90s. He had few kind
>>> things to say about the F-102 other than it separates the wheat from
>>> the chaffe.
>>
>> Nonsense. -- If the F-102 was so dangerous to fly -- then how come
>> it was so easy to rig with automatic controls that could take it off

>Well, first of all, dangerous to fly doesn't mean it can't be rigged with
>controls, even automatic ones.

>> and fly it as drone? -- That's where most of them went -- target
>> practice in combat with our best -- all under remote control. E.g.,
>> that means it was *easy to fly and *stable. (Or course you should
>> have known that before now, since duba did it).

>That's hardly a valid conclusion. That something can be piloted by
>remote doesn't mean it's easy to fly or particularly stable. So I've got
>an Air Force Colonel telling me that they were a nightmare, and I've got
>you saying they were "easy to fly." So, what are your qualifications to
>say that?

>> -- Why do you rightwingers post nonsense when so many know better?

>Why do you leftwingers post half(at best)-truths and sheer bull****?

To counter the utter nonsense and lies of you rightwingers. -- bush was a
flop who went AWOL when he was asked to pee in the cup.

[[email protected]]

In >, on 08/19/2004
at 08:26 PM, "Bigredwingsfan" > said:


>"sanjian" > wrote in message
>news:amcVc.7980$ni.5686@okepread01...
>: wrote:
>: > In >, on 08/19/2004
>: > at 11:54 AM, Steve Hix > said:
>:
>: >> Did you have some point to make?
>: >
>: > For **obtuse people like you how are here to love bush -- yeah. bush
>: > didn't do something dangerous and daring.
>:
>: You every fly an F-102? Hell, you ever fly at all?

>Le'Turd is always "flying" on something over in a.m.r. He's one of our
>few resident Bush-haters over there. I'd bet even money that Le'Turd's
>mouth and an organ of Kerry's are a perfect match.


What you mean is I'm always saying things that make you rightwing assholes
confront your own lies --and you don't like it.

You could fix that by not being ever constant assholes, but since you
don't -- its probably a genetic defect controlling your guys.


>:
>:

[[email protected]]

In >, on 08/19/2004
at 09:00 PM, Steve Hix > said:

>In article <qn7Vc.9852$zO3.3508@trndny05>, wrote:

>> In >, on 08/19/2004
>> at 11:54 AM, Steve Hix > said:
>>
>> >In article <7QYUc.6516$_w.5361@trndny04>, wrote:
>>
>> >> Nonsense. -- If the F-102 was so dangerous to fly -- then how come it
>> >> was so easy to rig with automatic controls that could take it off and fly
>> >> it as drone? -- That's where most of them went -- target practice in
>> >> combat with our best -- all under remote control. E.g., that means it was
>> >> *easy to fly and *stable. (Or course you should have known that before
>> >> now, since duba did it).
>>
>> >The same was done with earlier jet (and some piston) fighters with even
>> >worse safety records.
>>
>> >Did you have some point to make?
>>
>> For **obtuse people like you how are here to love bush -- yeah.

>I thought not.

>> bush didn't do something dangerous and daring.

>You were wrong about the F-102 being trivially-simple to fly, too.

bush didn't do something dangerous and daring. However, he did escape
going to war in Vietnam -- and topped it by going AWOL.

[IBM]

"Chas Hurst" > wrote in
:

>
> "Steve Hix" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> > bush didn't do something dangerous and daring.
>>
>> You were wrong about the F-102 being trivially-simple to fly, too.
>
> Is it more difficult than eating pretzels and watching TV at the same
> time?

When everything is going well in straight and level or even
low G manoeuvering its probably easy enough to fly. However
the assumption is that sooner or later things will go south
really quickly and its those situations that set the standard.

IBM


__________________________________________________ _____________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
<><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>

[IBM]

Steve Hix > wrote in
:

> In article <qn7Vc.9852$zO3.3508@trndny05>, wrote:
>
>> In >, on 08/19/2004
>> at 11:54 AM, Steve Hix > said:
>>
>> >In article <7QYUc.6516$_w.5361@trndny04>, wrote:
>>
>> >> Nonsense. -- If the F-102 was so dangerous to fly -- then how
>> >> come it was so easy to rig with automatic controls that could take
>> >> it off and fly it as drone? -- That's where most of them went --
>> >> target practice in combat with our best -- all under remote
>> >> control. E.g., that means it was *easy to fly and *stable. (Or
>> >> course you should have known that before now, since duba did it).

Drone target aircraft are not flown all that aggressively most
of the time. Certainly not as manoeuvering missile bait a la
Top Gun if only because situational awareness as regards your
opponent would be difficult to maintain.
Are you truly as clueless as you seem to be, LeTurd?

[snip]

>> bush didn't do something dangerous and daring.

Dangerous yes but thats inherent in the job.

> You were wrong about the F-102 being trivially-simple to fly, too.

That and much else.

IBM

__________________________________________________ _____________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
<><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>

[[email protected]]

In >, on 08/20/2004
at 12:35 PM, IBM > said:

>Steve Hix > wrote in
:

>> In article <qn7Vc.9852$zO3.3508@trndny05>, wrote:
>>
>>> In >, on 08/19/2004
>>> at 11:54 AM, Steve Hix > said:
>>>
>>> >In article <7QYUc.6516$_w.5361@trndny04>, wrote:
>>>
>>> >> Nonsense. -- If the F-102 was so dangerous to fly -- then how
>>> >> come it was so easy to rig with automatic controls that could take
>>> >> it off and fly it as drone? -- That's where most of them went --
>>> >> target practice in combat with our best -- all under remote
>>> >> control. E.g., that means it was *easy to fly and *stable. (Or
>>> >> course you should have known that before now, since duba did it).

> Drone target aircraft are not flown all that aggressively most
> of the time. Certainly not as manoeuvering missile bait a la
> Top Gun if only because situational awareness as regards your
> opponent would be difficult to maintain.
> Are you truly as clueless as you seem to be, LeTurd?


--Your generalizations give away your trolling.

PS: NORAD missions during the time bush was in -- never included Top Gun
flying. It was all radar guided intercepts. E.g., if you can steer the
thing, you can do it.

-- Don't come back until your the brains to play with the big boys. --
That won't happen soon.



> [snip]

>>> bush didn't do something dangerous and daring.

> Dangerous yes but thats inherent in the job.

>> You were wrong about the F-102 being trivially-simple to fly, too.

> That and much else.


What you mean is I tell truths is simple words -- that make you upset. Its
because you're lying to yourself -- in fact you can't stand yourself --
but you don't have the discipline to just just up when you know you
should.







> IBM

>__________________________________________________ _____________________________
>Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 -
>http://www.uncensored-news.com
> <><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source
><><><><><><><><>
>

[[email protected]]

In <llcvc.7979$ni.2899@okepread01>, on 08/19/2004
at 09:20 PM, "sanjian" > said:

wrote:
>> Stop your nonsene -- and non sequiturs. bush went to the texas ANG
>> because that's where he had the political connections to get in the
>> day he needed to.

>And we see reason come to a screeching halt. Pete explains something to
>you, and all you can do is dismiss it as nonsense and repeat your same
>old diatribe.

He posted nonsense. bush got into the texas guard -- because daddy had
connections in texas.


I wonder your inability to accept facts that don't fit
>your assumptions has anything to do with your never progressing in
>political understanding.

Its you who cannot accept facts.

[IBM]

wrote in news:BsmVc.38587$iE3.28509@trndny09:

[snip]

> --Your generalizations give away your trolling.

No. Its an explanation dumbed down ( I thought ) to your level.
It seems I gave you too much credit.

> PS: NORAD missions during the time bush was in -- never included Top

Didn't say they did.

> Gun flying. It was all radar guided intercepts. E.g., if you can
> steer the thing, you can do it.

And steering the thing while simple enough when everything goes
as it should becomes a bear when they don't. Thats why pilots
get paid big bucks. They handle the xceptions

[snip]

> -- Don't come back until your the brains to play with the big boys. --
> That won't happen soon.

Nope. Here I am. Here I stay.

[snip]

> What you mean is I tell truths is simple words -- that make you upset.

No, I mean you are a simpleton trying to explain things its clear
you don't understand.

> Its because you're lying to yourself -- in fact you can't stand

Sorry Squire, I am to mine own self true as the bard would
have it.

> yourself -- but you don't have the discipline to just just up when you
> know you should.

Whom?
I?
I am very disciplined, also persistent but you'll find that out
for yourself. By now I'm used to idjits not getting that point for
some time, LeTurd.

IBM

__________________________________________________ _____________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
<><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>

[LawsonE]

"sanjian" > wrote in message
news:MicVc.7978$ni.1048@okepread01...
> LawsonE wrote:
>
> > Mind you, I don't think its relevant either way, but it was an
> > example, to me, of how everyone is indulging in spin (not just
> > Michael Moore) in this election. The F-102, at least in the website
> > stats I found, had no worse, and mainly better, an accident record,
>
> Unfortuantely, people fly and die in real aircraft, not websites.
>
> > than other fighter jets of that same generation, so pointing to its
> > stats as something to crow about regarding Bush's bravery or lack
> > thereof is kinda silly. He obviously didn't chose to learn to fly the
> > plane because he thought it was the MOST dangerous, or does anyone
> > really think that he did?
>
> People don't choose to go into combat because it's dangerous, either.
They
> choose to accept the inherent danger. I didn't choose to work in a steam
> plant because I thought dying in a steam rupture or uncontrollable Class
> Bravo fire sounded like fun.
>
> However, the point isn't Bush's courage, but rather the inability for him
to
> be both stupid, and a living F-102 pilot... at least not for very long.
>
>

*I* never made the claim that Bush is stupid. Dyslexic perhaps, and
excruciatingly ill-informed about the world (or so some of his public
comments in other countries suggest), but never stupid. He survived living
in his father's household --that's at least as demanding as being an F-102
pilot, I'll wager.

[LawsonE]

> wrote in message news:qn7Vc.9852$zO3.3508@trndny05...
> In >, on 08/19/2004
> at 11:54 AM, Steve Hix > said:
>
> >In article <7QYUc.6516$_w.5361@trndny04>, wrote:
>
> >> In <Zktuc.25886$Yf6.21127@lakeread03>, on 08/18/2004
> >> at 09:53 PM, "sanjian" > said:
> >>
> >> >LawsonE wrote:
> >> >> "sanjian" > wrote in message
> >> >> news:5TFUc.25508$Yf6.18570@lakeread03...
> >> >> [...]
> >> >>> I'd like to see him survive flying one of the most dangerous
> >> >>> aircraft in US military history.
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>
> >> >> Not hardly: according to the site referred to, the F-102 was bad
> >> >> compared to MODERN fighters, but compared to other models from that
> >> >> time period? It was one of the safest US fighter jet to fly for
many
> >> >> years, at least on average. Given that bit of spin on this site, I'd
> >> >> take the rest of what it says with a grain or two of salt also.
> >>
> >> >I'll take the word of the Air Force Colonel who explained the century
> >> >series aircraft to me back in the early '90s. He had few kind things
to
> >> >say about the F-102 other than it separates the wheat from the chaffe.
> >>
> >> Nonsense. -- If the F-102 was so dangerous to fly -- then how come it
> >> was so easy to rig with automatic controls that could take it off and
fly
> >> it as drone? -- That's where most of them went -- target practice in
> >> combat with our best -- all under remote control. E.g., that means it
was
> >> *easy to fly and *stable. (Or course you should have known that before
> >> now, since duba did it).
>
> >The same was done with earlier jet (and some piston) fighters with even
> >worse safety records.
>
> >Did you have some point to make?
>
> For **obtuse people like you how are here to love bush -- yeah. bush
> didn't do something dangerous and daring.
>
>

Hey, being a figher jet pilot isn't like learning to drive an automatic or
something. If he was a REAL thrill seeker, he might have gone to Vietnam or
applied for test pilot status, but just because a driver doesn't become a
professional race car driver doesn't mean they lack physical courage any
more than refraining from volunteering for active Vietnam duty does. And
Kerry's duty was mostly in places where he wasn't in much danger, and his
swift boat command was requested before swift boats became super dangerous,
so you can't claim proof that Kerry was super brave merely for volunteering
for what was a relatively safe position when he asked for it.

[Kevin Brooks]

"Emmanuel Gustin" > wrote in message
...
> "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
> ...
>

<snip>

>
> The Iraqi WMD possesion case is a prime example. It is true
> that almost everybody, including myself, considered it likely
> that Saddam still possessed the unaccounted for stocks of
> WMD, not destroyed after the first war with Iraq. In absence
> of evidence to the contrary, that was a rational conclusion.

And that was basically the conclusion forwarded by the US.

> But that was /not/ what the US government claimed. Bush
> managed to climb the ladder of faulty intelligence and
> rethorical distortion from "Iraq probably still has WMD stocks"
> up to "Iraq has active WMD programs", which is something
> quite different.

You must have missed out reading kay's comments in January before Congress?
Where he indicated that Iraq had indeed continued to work towards creating
and protecting dual-use facilities for the express purpose of being able to
switch them to WMD production? Their continued work on ricin right up until
the last conflict kicked off? Keep in mind this is the same Kay who
ackowedged that yes, he (and most of the intel analysts from around the
world) had indeed gotten the scope of weapons stockpiles completely wrong,
so don't be accusing him of shading the testimony.

Now, can you show us where Bush stated categorically that the Iraqis
definitely had large stockpiles?

To blur the distinction between those two
> statements is dishonest.

I'd posit that your refusal to acknowledge that Saddam was indeed guilty of
continuing WMD research, hiding WMD-related assets, stockpiling a missile
that he knew exceeded the maximum range allowed him, and even possessing a
type of round he never had acknowledged actually building point to
confirmation of the fact that he was indeed in violation of the UN dictates,
and the ceasefire conditions from ODS, in regards to WMD, is also a bit
dishonest.

And after the war, of course, Bush
> just as easily slid down from "Iraq has active WMD programs"
> to "Iraq had the intent to retain the capability to restart its WMD
> programs" or something like that.

They DID have active WMD programs; what they did NOT apparently have was
active production or a large stockpile. Stop trying to act as if these are
the same thing. Now, next time you want to tell us what Bush has *allegedly*
said, why don't you instead use his actual words, in context if you don't
mind?

>
> The second fault was to pretend that bits of raw intelligence
> amount to reliable information. Confronted with a meagre store
> of intelligence on events in Iraq, much of it very unreliable, a
> "pick and choose" attitude was adopted. The intelligence was
> not analysed, but cherrypicked, and doubts and contradictions
> were filtered out. (John Scarlett, now head of MI6, even stated
> in public that some intelligence had been considered reliable
> /because/ it conformed with pre-existing notions!)

Since when do you think the President is involved with intel analysis in
terms of determining reliability? He is the President, for gosh sakes, not a
bean-counting intel analyst sitting in a cubicle at Langley. Did out intel
suffer some breakdowns? Yep. But apparently a few other nations, including
European ones, suffered some of the same myopia when it came to trying to
winnow the wheat from the chaff in regards to Iraq. So the President got a
bad read [provided to him in terms of the question of active production and
stockpiling--big deal. The fact remains that Saddam was in violation of 687
and 1441 on numerous counts, as verified by the ISG last year.

>
> As for the passing on by Putin of 'intelligence' relating to
> possible Iraqi attacks on the USA -- Was this an intelligence
> analysis or raw intelligence material? More likely the latter.
> In that case passing on the material did not even imply that
> Putin believed it, only that he acted as a good ally and passed
> on potentially important information -- to withhold such information
> would, with hindsight, have been very damaging to the relations
> between the USA and Russia.

I see you remain an astute hairsplitter--first you tell us that Russia was
telling us that we were all wrong about Iraq, and when you are presented
evidence that Russia was at the same time providing us intel related to a
purported direct Iraqi threat, you want to start speculating that it may not
have been anything but some kind of raw intel that should have apparently
been disregarded out of hand? What *I* get out of this is that Russia was
not giving us a purely anti-OIF feed of information, but also hedged its
bets with intel allegedly related to causus belli.

>
> The final and perhaps biggest error was excessive credulity.
> The story about the WMD trucks, for example, was not just
> passed to Western intelligence services, but also to BBC
> journalists. Who concluded that the story was not credible and
> decided not to use it, well before the intelligence services
> reached that conclusion. Now when you drop below the level
> of journalistic fact-checking, you are low indeed.

Did you miss the bit about the Germans, who provided a great deal of that
intel, not concluding that it was incorrect until *after* the US made the
announcement? And possibly not even before the war was underway?

>
> > You said last year (17 Feb 03): "I think that Iraq probably has a small
> > stockpile
> > left from before 1991, which escaped the attention of inspectors.
> > It is also likely to have a biological / chemical weapons research
> > program, possibly less important than those of some of its neighbours,
> > and probably short of materials to work with. There appears to be
> > no evidence for more, or for the industrial production of WMD."
> >
> > Which makes it appear that you were right only in regards to the last
two
> > sentences, but the last is a bit muddled due to Kay's noting that the
> Iraqis
> > made a destinct effort to continue developing "dual use" facilities with
> the
> > express purpose of allowing future WMD production. So you were really
> doing
> > no better than Bush, right?
>
> No -- I used the important words "probably" and "likely", terms
> he seems to be allergic to. The presence of a small before 1991
> stockpile still cannot be ruled out, incidentally; it would be relatively
> easy to hide and decayed chemical ammunition reportedly used in
> some recent bomb attacks may have come from such a stock, although
> it can also have come from ammunition recovered from a battlefield
> in the Iran-Iraq war.

Give us Bush's words, not your suspect interpretation of them. FYI, we have
gone arounf this before in this NG, and wonder of wonder, when Bush's actual
words are used, this "allergy" you refer to becomes downright invisible.

>
> > And you therefore rank yourself as being at least as incompetent, if not
> > moreso, than Bush, right? Based upon the above and items like last year
> when
> > *you* were telling us that Zarqawi was not operating from Iraq (16 FEB
> 03);
> > care to change your stance on that one?
>
> There is still no solid evidence that Zarqawi had links with
> Saddam before the war, AFAIK.

See Franks' book:

"One known terrorist, a Jordanian-born Palestinian named Abu Musab Zarqawi
who had joined Al QQaeda in Afghanistan--where he specialized in developing
chemical and biological weapons--was now confirmed to operate from one of
the camps in Iraq. Badly wounded fighting Coalition forces in Afghanistan,
Zarqawi had received medical treatment in Baghdad before setting up with
Ansar al Islam. And evidence suggested that he had been joined there by
other Al Qaedad leaders, who had been ushered through Baghdad and given safe
passage into northern Iraq by Iraqi security forces. What was especially
troubling about this intelligence were reports that Zarqawi and his Al Qaeda
colleagues were using the camps to train other terrorists for WMD attacks in
France, Britain, Chechnya, and the former Soviet Republic of Georgia. (In
january 2003, when British police broke up a terrorist cell in Manchester
that Zarqawi had helped train, they discovered traces of ricin, the deadly
biological toxin, in the terrorists' flat; reports indicated they were
plotting to use it to poison the food supply on military bases across
Britain.)"

From American Soldier", p. 332.

The best evidence points
> to the presence of groups of followers in areas of Iraq NOT
> controlled by Saddam. It is claimed by the USA that Zarqawi
> is running part of the insurgency in Iraq now, but this does not
> imply any cooperation with the regime before the war (look at
> Al-Sadr) and anyway appears to be supported more by the US
> need for a bogeyman to fight than by solid intelligence.
> Very little is known about the man, his whereabouts, and his
> motives; it is not even clear whether Zarqawi is an ally to Bin
> Laden or a competitor. But the "they see him here, they see him
> there" attitude towards Zarqawi expressed by US officials must
> be worth a lot to him.

See what Franks has to say--I put a lot more stock in his writing than
yours.

>
> > We surpassed pre-war Iraqi power production and distribution
> > levels before the end of 2003. Water production and distribution was a
> > similar story, IIRC.
>
> I am not sure that all this attention given to restarting Iraq's
> oil production was wise. Of course it is the coutry's main
> source of revenue. But telling the people of Iraq that oil output
> is back above pre-war levels, at a time when the rest of the
> infrastructure of the country was still in ruins, was likely to
> encourage a cynical attitude towards the priorities of the
> occupiers.

Errr...I listed power and water, didn't I? Where did your attention on oil
come from?

>
> > And a nation that has not known democracy is now making
> > its first tentative steps down that path. Not bad, IMO; and of course,
> there
> > is no longer any need to be worried about what Saddam is or is not up
to.
>
> The test is not whether you can remove Saddam, but whether
> you can replace him by something better. Iraq's democracy
> still has to be born, and it is already very ill.

It is a lot more robust than it was a year and a half ago.

>
> > Really? You have been indicting him as President for his capabilities
and
> > decisions in the present tense, have you not?
>
> No. I was just making a remark relevant to those who choose to
> present his service in the Texas ANG as death-defying heroism.

No, you went on to use his alleged inability to properly analyze intel as an
example of his alleged ineptitude.

>
> > Oh, boy! Are you gonna hold your breath until that comes about? How is
the
> > old vaunted EU rapid reaction force doing these days, eh? heck, you
can't
> > even get everyone onboard the same *currency*, but you think you are
gonna
> > develop a truly unified defense and foreign policy stance? Get real.
>
> Won't be easy, I agree. However, if the new constitution is approved
> there will be at least some hope that members states that have been
> sabotaging all progress, will finally opt out.

Keep that happy thought--I suspect it is all you will have of any real value
when it comes to Euro-unification, 'cause there is danged little chance that
it will result in any single voice for foreign policy, or an effective
unified military force.

Brooks

>
>
> --
> Emmanuel Gustin
>
>
>

[sanjian]

wrote:
> In <llcvc.7979$ni.2899@okepread01>, on 08/19/2004
> at 09:20 PM, "sanjian" > said:
>
>> wrote:
>>> Stop your nonsene -- and non sequiturs. bush went to the texas ANG
>>> because that's where he had the political connections to get in the
>>> day he needed to.
>
>> And we see reason come to a screeching halt. Pete explains
>> something to you, and all you can do is dismiss it as nonsense and
>> repeat your same old diatribe.
>
> He posted nonsense. bush got into the texas guard -- because daddy
> had connections in texas.

I hate to tell you this, but "proof by assertion" has no legitimacy in
logical debates. Even repeated insistance that Bush got in by his
connections does not make it so. It seems that you define "nonsense" as
"That which disagrees with me."

> I wonder your inability to accept facts that don't fit
>> your assumptions has anything to do with your never progressing in
>> political understanding.
>
> Its you who cannot accept facts.

I tend to prefer to have my facts supported by reason and evidence. I guess
I'm old-fashoned that way. For some reason, your method of establishing
"fact" (repeating a lie often and ridiculing those who don't buy off on it)
doesn't convince me.

[sanjian]

wrote:
> In <4qcVc.7983$ni.1490@okepread01>, on 08/19/2004
> at 09:25 PM, "sanjian" > said:
>
>> wrote:
>>> In <Zktuc.25886$Yf6.21127@lakeread03>, on 08/18/2004
>>> at 09:53 PM, "sanjian" > said:
>
>>>> I'll take the word of the Air Force Colonel who explained the
>>>> century series aircraft to me back in the early '90s. He had few
>>>> kind things to say about the F-102 other than it separates the
>>>> wheat from the chaffe.
>>>
>>> Nonsense. -- If the F-102 was so dangerous to fly -- then how come
>>> it was so easy to rig with automatic controls that could take it off
>
>> Well, first of all, dangerous to fly doesn't mean it can't be rigged
>> with controls, even automatic ones.
>
>>> and fly it as drone? -- That's where most of them went -- target
>>> practice in combat with our best -- all under remote control. E.g.,
>>> that means it was *easy to fly and *stable. (Or course you should
>>> have known that before now, since duba did it).
>
>> That's hardly a valid conclusion. That something can be piloted by
>> remote doesn't mean it's easy to fly or particularly stable. So
>> I've got an Air Force Colonel telling me that they were a nightmare,
>> and I've got you saying they were "easy to fly." So, what are your
>> qualifications to say that?
>
>>> -- Why do you rightwingers post nonsense when so many know better?
>
>> Why do you leftwingers post half(at best)-truths and sheer bull****?
>
> To counter the utter nonsense and lies of you rightwingers. -- bush
> was a flop who went AWOL when he was asked to pee in the cup.

I see. When confronted by your lies, you just use another one. Do you
honestly think you're fooling anyone? Or could it be that you're actually
fooling yourself?

[[email protected]]

In <Xcxvc.9346$ni.6368@okepread01>, on 08/20/2004
at 09:04 PM, "sanjian" > said:

wrote:
>> In <llcvc.7979$ni.2899@okepread01>, on 08/19/2004
>> at 09:20 PM, "sanjian" > said:
>>
>>> wrote:
>>>> Stop your nonsene -- and non sequiturs. bush went to the texas ANG
>>>> because that's where he had the political connections to get in the
>>>> day he needed to.
>>
>>> And we see reason come to a screeching halt. Pete explains
>>> something to you, and all you can do is dismiss it as nonsense and
>>> repeat your same old diatribe.
>>
>> He posted nonsense. bush got into the texas guard -- because daddy
>> had connections in texas.

>I hate to tell you this, but "proof by assertion" has no legitimacy in
>logical debates. Even repeated insistance that Bush got in by his
>connections does not make it so. It seems that you define "nonsense" as
>"That which disagrees with me."

Listen up asshole -- no one got in the ANG during the Vietnam war -- on
the day they applied -- without political power opening the door and
building the road for them.

Deal with it!




>> I wonder your inability to accept facts that don't fit
>>> your assumptions has anything to do with your never progressing in
>>> political understanding.
>>
>> Its you who cannot accept facts.

>I tend to prefer to have my facts supported by reason and evidence. I
>guess I'm old-fashoned that way. For some reason, your method of
>establishing "fact" (repeating a lie often and ridiculing those who don't
>buy off on it) doesn't convince me.

Bull****. You are here to lie for bush and you ignore facts that don't
agree with the rightwing bull**** you believe.

[[email protected]]

In <zexvc.9347$ni.1594@okepread01>, on 08/20/2004
at 09:06 PM, "sanjian" > said:

wrote:
>> In <4qcVc.7983$ni.1490@okepread01>, on 08/19/2004
>> at 09:25 PM, "sanjian" > said:
>>
>>> wrote:
>>>> In <Zktuc.25886$Yf6.21127@lakeread03>, on 08/18/2004
>>>> at 09:53 PM, "sanjian" > said:
>>
>>>>> I'll take the word of the Air Force Colonel who explained the
>>>>> century series aircraft to me back in the early '90s. He had few
>>>>> kind things to say about the F-102 other than it separates the
>>>>> wheat from the chaffe.
>>>>
>>>> Nonsense. -- If the F-102 was so dangerous to fly -- then how come
>>>> it was so easy to rig with automatic controls that could take it off
>>
>>> Well, first of all, dangerous to fly doesn't mean it can't be rigged
>>> with controls, even automatic ones.
>>
>>>> and fly it as drone? -- That's where most of them went -- target
>>>> practice in combat with our best -- all under remote control. E.g.,
>>>> that means it was *easy to fly and *stable. (Or course you should
>>>> have known that before now, since duba did it).
>>
>>> That's hardly a valid conclusion. That something can be piloted by
>>> remote doesn't mean it's easy to fly or particularly stable. So
>>> I've got an Air Force Colonel telling me that they were a nightmare,
>>> and I've got you saying they were "easy to fly." So, what are your
>>> qualifications to say that?
>>
>>>> -- Why do you rightwingers post nonsense when so many know better?
>>
>>> Why do you leftwingers post half(at best)-truths and sheer bull****?
>>
>> To counter the utter nonsense and lies of you rightwingers. -- bush
>> was a flop who went AWOL when he was asked to pee in the cup.

>I see. When confronted by your lies, you just use another one. Do you
>honestly think you're fooling anyone? Or could it be that you're
>actually fooling yourself?

Bush went AWOL when he had to pee in the cup. -- What part of that
statement don't you get?

[[email protected]]

In <Xcxvc.9346$ni.6368@okepread01>, on 08/20/2004
at 09:04 PM, "sanjian" > said:

wrote:
>> In <llcvc.7979$ni.2899@okepread01>, on 08/19/2004
>> at 09:20 PM, "sanjian" > said:
>>
>>> wrote:
>>>> Stop your nonsene -- and non sequiturs. bush went to the texas ANG
>>>> because that's where he had the political connections to get in the
>>>> day he needed to.
>>
>>> And we see reason come to a screeching halt. Pete explains
>>> something to you, and all you can do is dismiss it as nonsense and
>>> repeat your same old diatribe.
>>
>> He posted nonsense. bush got into the texas guard -- because daddy
>> had connections in texas.

>I hate to tell you this, but "proof by assertion" has no legitimacy in
>logical debates. Even repeated insistance that Bush got in by his
>connections does not make it so. It seems that you define "nonsense" as
>"That which disagrees with me."

Listen up asshole -- no one got in the ANG during the Vietnam war -- on
the day they applied -- without political power opening the door and
building the road for them.

Deal with it!




>> I wonder your inability to accept facts that don't fit
>>> your assumptions has anything to do with your never progressing in
>>> political understanding.
>>
>> Its you who cannot accept facts.

>I tend to prefer to have my facts supported by reason and evidence. I
>guess I'm old-fashoned that way. For some reason, your method of
>establishing "fact" (repeating a lie often and ridiculing those who don't
>buy off on it) doesn't convince me.

Bull****. You are here to lie for bush and you ignore facts that don't
agree with the rightwing bull**** you believe.

[[email protected]]

In <zexvc.9347$ni.1594@okepread01>, on 08/20/2004
at 09:06 PM, "sanjian" > said:

wrote:
>> In <4qcVc.7983$ni.1490@okepread01>, on 08/19/2004
>> at 09:25 PM, "sanjian" > said:
>>
>>> wrote:
>>>> In <Zktuc.25886$Yf6.21127@lakeread03>, on 08/18/2004
>>>> at 09:53 PM, "sanjian" > said:
>>
>>>>> I'll take the word of the Air Force Colonel who explained the
>>>>> century series aircraft to me back in the early '90s. He had few
>>>>> kind things to say about the F-102 other than it separates the
>>>>> wheat from the chaffe.
>>>>
>>>> Nonsense. -- If the F-102 was so dangerous to fly -- then how come
>>>> it was so easy to rig with automatic controls that could take it off
>>
>>> Well, first of all, dangerous to fly doesn't mean it can't be rigged
>>> with controls, even automatic ones.
>>
>>>> and fly it as drone? -- That's where most of them went -- target
>>>> practice in combat with our best -- all under remote control. E.g.,
>>>> that means it was *easy to fly and *stable. (Or course you should
>>>> have known that before now, since duba did it).
>>
>>> That's hardly a valid conclusion. That something can be piloted by
>>> remote doesn't mean it's easy to fly or particularly stable. So
>>> I've got an Air Force Colonel telling me that they were a nightmare,
>>> and I've got you saying they were "easy to fly." So, what are your
>>> qualifications to say that?
>>
>>>> -- Why do you rightwingers post nonsense when so many know better?
>>
>>> Why do you leftwingers post half(at best)-truths and sheer bull****?
>>
>> To counter the utter nonsense and lies of you rightwingers. -- bush
>> was a flop who went AWOL when he was asked to pee in the cup.

>I see. When confronted by your lies, you just use another one. Do you
>honestly think you're fooling anyone? Or could it be that you're
>actually fooling yourself?

Bush went AWOL when he had to pee in the cup. -- What part of that
statement don't you get?

[BigRedWingsFan]

> wrote in message news:rFJVc.10146$3O2.3077@trndny07...
: In <zexvc.9347$ni.1594@okepread01>, on 08/20/2004
: at 09:06 PM, "sanjian" > said:
:
: wrote:
: >> In <4qcVc.7983$ni.1490@okepread01>, on 08/19/2004
: >> at 09:25 PM, "sanjian" > said:
: >>
: >>> wrote:
: >>>> In <Zktuc.25886$Yf6.21127@lakeread03>, on 08/18/2004
: >>>> at 09:53 PM, "sanjian" > said:
: >>
: >>>>> I'll take the word of the Air Force Colonel who explained the
: >>>>> century series aircraft to me back in the early '90s. He had few
: >>>>> kind things to say about the F-102 other than it separates the
: >>>>> wheat from the chaffe.
: >>>>
: >>>> Nonsense. -- If the F-102 was so dangerous to fly -- then how come
: >>>> it was so easy to rig with automatic controls that could take it off
: >>
: >>> Well, first of all, dangerous to fly doesn't mean it can't be rigged
: >>> with controls, even automatic ones.
: >>
: >>>> and fly it as drone? -- That's where most of them went -- target
: >>>> practice in combat with our best -- all under remote control. E.g.,
: >>>> that means it was *easy to fly and *stable. (Or course you should
: >>>> have known that before now, since duba did it).
: >>
: >>> That's hardly a valid conclusion. That something can be piloted by
: >>> remote doesn't mean it's easy to fly or particularly stable. So
: >>> I've got an Air Force Colonel telling me that they were a nightmare,
: >>> and I've got you saying they were "easy to fly." So, what are your
: >>> qualifications to say that?
: >>
: >>>> -- Why do you rightwingers post nonsense when so many know better?
: >>
: >>> Why do you leftwingers post half(at best)-truths and sheer bull****?
: >>
: >> To counter the utter nonsense and lies of you rightwingers. -- bush
: >> was a flop who went AWOL when he was asked to pee in the cup.
:
: >I see. When confronted by your lies, you just use another one. Do you
: >honestly think you're fooling anyone? Or could it be that you're
: >actually fooling yourself?
:
: Bush went AWOL when he had to pee in the cup. -- What part of that
: statement don't you get?

What part of "you can never prove that" don't you understand, Le'Turd? It's
just not true, period.


:
:
:
:

[BigRedWingsFan]

> wrote in message news:7XIVc.2206$IO1.635@trndny03...
: In <zexvc.9347$ni.1594@okepread01>, on 08/20/2004
: at 09:06 PM, "sanjian" > said:
:
: wrote:
: >> In <4qcVc.7983$ni.1490@okepread01>, on 08/19/2004
: >> at 09:25 PM, "sanjian" > said:
: >>
: >>> wrote:
: >>>> In <Zktuc.25886$Yf6.21127@lakeread03>, on 08/18/2004
: >>>> at 09:53 PM, "sanjian" > said:
: >>
: >>>>> I'll take the word of the Air Force Colonel who explained the
: >>>>> century series aircraft to me back in the early '90s. He had few
: >>>>> kind things to say about the F-102 other than it separates the
: >>>>> wheat from the chaffe.
: >>>>
: >>>> Nonsense. -- If the F-102 was so dangerous to fly -- then how come
: >>>> it was so easy to rig with automatic controls that could take it off
: >>
: >>> Well, first of all, dangerous to fly doesn't mean it can't be rigged
: >>> with controls, even automatic ones.
: >>
: >>>> and fly it as drone? -- That's where most of them went -- target
: >>>> practice in combat with our best -- all under remote control. E.g.,
: >>>> that means it was *easy to fly and *stable. (Or course you should
: >>>> have known that before now, since duba did it).
: >>
: >>> That's hardly a valid conclusion. That something can be piloted by
: >>> remote doesn't mean it's easy to fly or particularly stable. So
: >>> I've got an Air Force Colonel telling me that they were a nightmare,
: >>> and I've got you saying they were "easy to fly." So, what are your
: >>> qualifications to say that?
: >>
: >>>> -- Why do you rightwingers post nonsense when so many know better?
: >>
: >>> Why do you leftwingers post half(at best)-truths and sheer bull****?
: >>
: >> To counter the utter nonsense and lies of you rightwingers. -- bush
: >> was a flop who went AWOL when he was asked to pee in the cup.
:
: >I see. When confronted by your lies, you just use another one. Do you
: >honestly think you're fooling anyone? Or could it be that you're
: >actually fooling yourself?
:
: Bush went AWOL when he had to pee in the cup. -- What part of that
: statement don't you get?

What part of "you can never prove that" don't you understand, Le'Turd? It's
just not true, period.
:
:
:
:

[BigRedWingsFan]

> wrote in message news:o1mVc.9452$_w.5622@trndny04...
: In <4qcVc.7983$ni.1490@okepread01>, on 08/19/2004
: at 09:25 PM, "sanjian" > said:
:
: wrote:
: >> In <Zktuc.25886$Yf6.21127@lakeread03>, on 08/18/2004
: >> at 09:53 PM, "sanjian" > said:
:
: >>> I'll take the word of the Air Force Colonel who explained the century
: >>> series aircraft to me back in the early '90s. He had few kind
: >>> things to say about the F-102 other than it separates the wheat from
: >>> the chaffe.
: >>
: >> Nonsense. -- If the F-102 was so dangerous to fly -- then how come
: >> it was so easy to rig with automatic controls that could take it off
:
: >Well, first of all, dangerous to fly doesn't mean it can't be rigged with
: >controls, even automatic ones.
:
: >> and fly it as drone? -- That's where most of them went -- target
: >> practice in combat with our best -- all under remote control. E.g.,
: >> that means it was *easy to fly and *stable. (Or course you should
: >> have known that before now, since duba did it).
:
: >That's hardly a valid conclusion. That something can be piloted by
: >remote doesn't mean it's easy to fly or particularly stable. So I've got
: >an Air Force Colonel telling me that they were a nightmare, and I've got
: >you saying they were "easy to fly." So, what are your qualifications to
: >say that?
:
: >> -- Why do you rightwingers post nonsense when so many know better?
:
: >Why do you leftwingers post half(at best)-truths and sheer bull****?
:
: To counter the utter nonsense and lies of you rightwingers. -- bush was a
: flop who went AWOL when he was asked to pee in the cup.

What part of "you can never prove that" don't you understand, Le'Turd? It's
just not true, period.

[sanjian]

wrote:
> In <zexvc.9347$ni.1594@okepread01>, on 08/20/2004
> at 09:06 PM, "sanjian" > said:

>> I see. When confronted by your lies, you just use another one. Do
>> you honestly think you're fooling anyone? Or could it be that you're
>> actually fooling yourself?
>
> Bush went AWOL when he had to pee in the cup. -- What part of that
> statement don't you get?

The part where you mistake it for fact.

[sanjian]

wrote:
> In <Xcxvc.9346$ni.6368@okepread01>, on 08/20/2004
> at 09:04 PM, "sanjian" > said:
>
>> wrote:
>>> In <llcvc.7979$ni.2899@okepread01>, on 08/19/2004
>>> at 09:20 PM, "sanjian" > said:
>>>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> Stop your nonsene -- and non sequiturs. bush went to the texas
>>>>> ANG because that's where he had the political connections to get
>>>>> in the day he needed to.
>>>
>>>> And we see reason come to a screeching halt. Pete explains
>>>> something to you, and all you can do is dismiss it as nonsense and
>>>> repeat your same old diatribe.
>>>
>>> He posted nonsense. bush got into the texas guard -- because daddy
>>> had connections in texas.
>
>> I hate to tell you this, but "proof by assertion" has no legitimacy
>> in logical debates. Even repeated insistance that Bush got in by his
>> connections does not make it so. It seems that you define
>> "nonsense" as "That which disagrees with me."
>
> Listen up asshole -- no one got in the ANG during the Vietnam war --
> on the day they applied -- without political power opening the door
> and building the road for them.
>
> Deal with it!

And here we have a prime example of "intellectual McCartheysim." In lieu of
fact, all you have is shouting at the top of your lungs and attacking those
who disagree with you. There was a time, long ago, when the "intellectual
elite" could actually argue their points in a convincing manner, even if
they were dead wrong. I guess those times are in the past. Whether you
make up your arugments, whole cloth, or pull them off some anti-bush site,
you still are not posting fact.

Saddly, even the Holocaust deniers do a better job of convincingly
presenting their argument than you do. Maybe you should study rhetoric, as
opposed to propaganda.

Bush served honorably. Deal with it!

>>> I wonder your inability to accept facts that don't fit
>>>> your assumptions has anything to do with your never progressing in
>>>> political understanding.
>>>
>>> Its you who cannot accept facts.
>
>> I tend to prefer to have my facts supported by reason and evidence.
>> I guess I'm old-fashoned that way. For some reason, your method of
>> establishing "fact" (repeating a lie often and ridiculing those who
>> don't buy off on it) doesn't convince me.
>
> Bull****. You are here to lie for bush and you ignore facts that
> don't agree with the rightwing bull**** you believe.

Obviously, it is far easier for you to dismiss your opponent than accept
that we may be right and you may be wrong. Go ahead, put your head back in
the sand and hope we all go away, so you can continue to live in your own
world. Don't let us nasty right-wingers challenge what you believe or force
you to face the world. If, however, you should ever wish to discuss things
like adults, come on back.

[sanjian]

wrote:
> In <Xcxvc.9346$ni.6368@okepread01>, on 08/20/2004
> at 09:04 PM, "sanjian" > said:
>
>> wrote:
>>> In <llcvc.7979$ni.2899@okepread01>, on 08/19/2004
>>> at 09:20 PM, "sanjian" > said:
>>>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> Stop your nonsene -- and non sequiturs. bush went to the texas
>>>>> ANG because that's where he had the political connections to get
>>>>> in the day he needed to.
>>>
>>>> And we see reason come to a screeching halt. Pete explains
>>>> something to you, and all you can do is dismiss it as nonsense and
>>>> repeat your same old diatribe.
>>>
>>> He posted nonsense. bush got into the texas guard -- because daddy
>>> had connections in texas.
>
>> I hate to tell you this, but "proof by assertion" has no legitimacy
>> in logical debates. Even repeated insistance that Bush got in by his
>> connections does not make it so. It seems that you define
>> "nonsense" as "That which disagrees with me."
>
> Listen up asshole -- no one got in the ANG during the Vietnam war --
> on the day they applied -- without political power opening the door
> and building the road for them.
>
> Deal with it!

You already posted that. Resorting to spamming now?

[[email protected]]

In <KcKVc.9881$ni.472@okepread01>, on 08/21/2004
at 11:52 AM, "sanjian" > said:

wrote:
>> In <Xcxvc.9346$ni.6368@okepread01>, on 08/20/2004
>> at 09:04 PM, "sanjian" > said:
>>
>>> wrote:
>>>> In <llcvc.7979$ni.2899@okepread01>, on 08/19/2004
>>>> at 09:20 PM, "sanjian" > said:
>>>>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> Stop your nonsene -- and non sequiturs. bush went to the texas
>>>>>> ANG because that's where he had the political connections to get
>>>>>> in the day he needed to.
>>>>
>>>>> And we see reason come to a screeching halt. Pete explains
>>>>> something to you, and all you can do is dismiss it as nonsense and
>>>>> repeat your same old diatribe.
>>>>
>>>> He posted nonsense. bush got into the texas guard -- because daddy
>>>> had connections in texas.
>>
>>> I hate to tell you this, but "proof by assertion" has no legitimacy
>>> in logical debates. Even repeated insistance that Bush got in by his
>>> connections does not make it so. It seems that you define
>>> "nonsense" as "That which disagrees with me."
>>
>> Listen up asshole -- no one got in the ANG during the Vietnam war --
>> on the day they applied -- without political power opening the door
>> and building the road for them.
>>
>> Deal with it!

>You already posted that. Resorting to spamming now?


See a shrink about your inability to accept truth you don't like.

[[email protected]]

In <kckvc.9880$ni.9509@okepread01>, on 08/21/2004
at 11:51 AM, "sanjian" > said:

wrote:
>> In <Xcxvc.9346$ni.6368@okepread01>, on 08/20/2004
>> at 09:04 PM, "sanjian" > said:
>>
>>> wrote:
>>>> In <llcvc.7979$ni.2899@okepread01>, on 08/19/2004
>>>> at 09:20 PM, "sanjian" > said:
>>>>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> Stop your nonsene -- and non sequiturs. bush went to the texas
>>>>>> ANG because that's where he had the political connections to get
>>>>>> in the day he needed to.
>>>>
>>>>> And we see reason come to a screeching halt. Pete explains
>>>>> something to you, and all you can do is dismiss it as nonsense and
>>>>> repeat your same old diatribe.
>>>>
>>>> He posted nonsense. bush got into the texas guard -- because daddy
>>>> had connections in texas.
>>
>>> I hate to tell you this, but "proof by assertion" has no legitimacy
>>> in logical debates. Even repeated insistance that Bush got in by his
>>> connections does not make it so. It seems that you define
>>> "nonsense" as "That which disagrees with me."
>>
>> Listen up asshole -- no one got in the ANG during the Vietnam war --
>> on the day they applied -- without political power opening the door
>> and building the road for them.
>>
>> Deal with it!

>And here we have a prime example of "intellectual McCartheysim." In lieu
>of fact, all you have is shouting at the top of your lungs and attacking
>those who disagree with you. There was a time, long ago, when the
>"intellectual elite" could actually argue their points in a convincing
>manner, even if they were dead wrong. I guess those times are in the
>past. Whether you make up your arugments, whole cloth, or pull them off
>some anti-bush site, you still are not posting fact.

>Saddly, even the Holocaust deniers do a better job of convincingly
>presenting their argument than you do. Maybe you should study rhetoric,
>as opposed to propaganda.

>Bush served honorably. Deal with it!

>>>> I wonder your inability to accept facts that don't fit
>>>>> your assumptions has anything to do with your never progressing in
>>>>> political understanding.
>>>>
>>>> Its you who cannot accept facts.
>>
>>> I tend to prefer to have my facts supported by reason and evidence.
>>> I guess I'm old-fashoned that way. For some reason, your method of
>>> establishing "fact" (repeating a lie often and ridiculing those who
>>> don't buy off on it) doesn't convince me.
>>
>> Bull****. You are here to lie for bush and you ignore facts that
>> don't agree with the rightwing bull**** you believe.

>Obviously, it is far easier for you to dismiss your opponent than accept
>that we may be right and you may be wrong. Go ahead, put your head back
>in the sand and hope we all go away, so you can continue to live in your
>own world. Don't let us nasty right-wingers challenge what you believe
>or force you to face the world. If, however, you should ever wish to
>discuss things like adults, come on back.

Stop lying and playing asshole. -- No one got in ANG on the day they
applied without political influence making the way clear.

When you are ready to deal with reality -- you might be able to discuss
things like the adult you claim to be.

[[email protected]]

In >, on 08/21/2004
at 10:35 AM, "BigRedWingsFan" > said:


> wrote in message
>news:o1mVc.9452$_w.5622@trndny04... : In <4qcVc.7983$ni.1490@okepread01>,
>on 08/19/2004
>: at 09:25 PM, "sanjian" > said:
>:
>: wrote:
>: >> In <Zktuc.25886$Yf6.21127@lakeread03>, on 08/18/2004
>: >> at 09:53 PM, "sanjian" > said:
>:
>: >>> I'll take the word of the Air Force Colonel who explained the century
>: >>> series aircraft to me back in the early '90s. He had few kind
>: >>> things to say about the F-102 other than it separates the wheat from
>: >>> the chaffe.
>: >>
>: >> Nonsense. -- If the F-102 was so dangerous to fly -- then how come
>: >> it was so easy to rig with automatic controls that could take it off
>:
>: >Well, first of all, dangerous to fly doesn't mean it can't be rigged with
>: >controls, even automatic ones.
>:
>: >> and fly it as drone? -- That's where most of them went -- target
>: >> practice in combat with our best -- all under remote control. E.g.,
>: >> that means it was *easy to fly and *stable. (Or course you should
>: >> have known that before now, since duba did it).
>:
>: >That's hardly a valid conclusion. That something can be piloted by
>: >remote doesn't mean it's easy to fly or particularly stable. So I've got
>: >an Air Force Colonel telling me that they were a nightmare, and I've got
>: >you saying they were "easy to fly." So, what are your qualifications to
>: >say that?
>:
>: >> -- Why do you rightwingers post nonsense when so many know better?
>:
>: >Why do you leftwingers post half(at best)-truths and sheer bull****?
>:
>: To counter the utter nonsense and lies of you rightwingers. -- bush was a
>: flop who went AWOL when he was asked to pee in the cup.

>What part of "you can never prove that" don't you understand, Le'Turd?
>It's just not true, period.

See a shrink about your inability to deal with truth you don't like.

[[email protected]]

In >, on 08/21/2004
at 10:35 AM, "BigRedWingsFan" > said:


> wrote in message
>news:7XIVc.2206$IO1.635@trndny03... : In <zexvc.9347$ni.1594@okepread01>,
>on 08/20/2004
>: at 09:06 PM, "sanjian" > said:
>:
>: wrote:
>: >> In <4qcVc.7983$ni.1490@okepread01>, on 08/19/2004
>: >> at 09:25 PM, "sanjian" > said:
>: >>
>: >>> wrote:
>: >>>> In <Zktuc.25886$Yf6.21127@lakeread03>, on 08/18/2004
>: >>>> at 09:53 PM, "sanjian" > said:
>: >>
>: >>>>> I'll take the word of the Air Force Colonel who explained the
>: >>>>> century series aircraft to me back in the early '90s. He had few
>: >>>>> kind things to say about the F-102 other than it separates the
>: >>>>> wheat from the chaffe.
>: >>>>
>: >>>> Nonsense. -- If the F-102 was so dangerous to fly -- then how come
>: >>>> it was so easy to rig with automatic controls that could take it off
>: >>
>: >>> Well, first of all, dangerous to fly doesn't mean it can't be rigged
>: >>> with controls, even automatic ones.
>: >>
>: >>>> and fly it as drone? -- That's where most of them went -- target
>: >>>> practice in combat with our best -- all under remote control. E.g.,
>: >>>> that means it was *easy to fly and *stable. (Or course you should
>: >>>> have known that before now, since duba did it).
>: >>
>: >>> That's hardly a valid conclusion. That something can be piloted by
>: >>> remote doesn't mean it's easy to fly or particularly stable. So
>: >>> I've got an Air Force Colonel telling me that they were a nightmare,
>: >>> and I've got you saying they were "easy to fly." So, what are your
>: >>> qualifications to say that?
>: >>
>: >>>> -- Why do you rightwingers post nonsense when so many know better?
>: >>
>: >>> Why do you leftwingers post half(at best)-truths and sheer bull****?
>: >>
>: >> To counter the utter nonsense and lies of you rightwingers. -- bush
>: >> was a flop who went AWOL when he was asked to pee in the cup.
>:
>: >I see. When confronted by your lies, you just use another one. Do you
>: >honestly think you're fooling anyone? Or could it be that you're
>: >actually fooling yourself?
>:
>: Bush went AWOL when he had to pee in the cup. -- What part of that
>: statement don't you get?

>What part of "you can never prove that" don't you understand, Le'Turd?
>It's just not true, period.

bushs pay records prove he didn't show up. -- Right after he was ordered
to pee in the cup and didn't.

See a shrink about who you refuse to live in the real world.



>:
>:
>:
>:

[[email protected]]

In <D5KVc.9879$ni.2444@okepread01>, on 08/21/2004
at 11:44 AM, "sanjian" > said:

wrote:
>> In <zexvc.9347$ni.1594@okepread01>, on 08/20/2004
>> at 09:06 PM, "sanjian" > said:

>>> I see. When confronted by your lies, you just use another one. Do
>>> you honestly think you're fooling anyone? Or could it be that you're
>>> actually fooling yourself?
>>
>> Bush went AWOL when he had to pee in the cup. -- What part of that
>> statement don't you get?

>The part where you mistake it for fact.

1. He was a drunk and drug user -- by his own admission.
2. He refused to show up when it came time for the annual medical. --
Including peeing in the cup.

Connect the dots.

[sanjian]

wrote:
> In <KcKVc.9881$ni.472@okepread01>, on 08/21/2004
> at 11:52 AM, "sanjian" > said:

>> You already posted that. Resorting to spamming now?
>
>
> See a shrink about your inability to accept truth you don't like.

Come on, I think I at least deserve tailor-made insults instead of the grab
bag. Really, you are showing a bit of stress about getting caught in your
own lies. You're like a caged animal trying to claw your way to safety.
Admit that you have no case and move on. There's no good that can come from
your tenacious hold on your own lies.

[sanjian]

wrote:
> In <kckvc.9880$ni.9509@okepread01>, on 08/21/2004
> at 11:51 AM, "sanjian" > said:

>> Obviously, it is far easier for you to dismiss your opponent than
>> accept that we may be right and you may be wrong. Go ahead, put
>> your head back in the sand and hope we all go away, so you can
>> continue to live in your own world. Don't let us nasty
>> right-wingers challenge what you believe or force you to face the
>> world. If, however, you should ever wish to discuss things like
>> adults, come on back.
>
> Stop lying and playing asshole. -- No one got in ANG on the day they
> applied without political influence making the way clear.
>
> When you are ready to deal with reality -- you might be able to
> discuss things like the adult you claim to be.

It would seem that your idea of how adults discuss things is that they call
eachother names and thow out unsupported lies and spin. That works well
enough for politicians, but not for civilized, rational people.

[sanjian]

wrote:
> In >, on 08/21/2004
> at 10:35 AM, "BigRedWingsFan" > said:

>> What part of "you can never prove that" don't you understand,
>> Le'Turd? It's just not true, period.
>
> bushs pay records prove he didn't show up. -- Right after he was
> ordered to pee in the cup and didn't.

You're mistaking "have not disproven" for "have proven." By that measure, I
must assume you believe in the Tooth Fairy and the Easter Bunny. Have you
ever dealt with military pay records?

[sanjian]

wrote:
> In <D5KVc.9879$ni.2444@okepread01>, on 08/21/2004
> at 11:44 AM, "sanjian" > said:
>
>> wrote:
>>> In <zexvc.9347$ni.1594@okepread01>, on 08/20/2004
>>> at 09:06 PM, "sanjian" > said:
>
>>>> I see. When confronted by your lies, you just use another one. Do
>>>> you honestly think you're fooling anyone? Or could it be that
>>>> you're actually fooling yourself?
>>>
>>> Bush went AWOL when he had to pee in the cup. -- What part of that
>>> statement don't you get?
>
>> The part where you mistake it for fact.
>
> 1. He was a drunk and drug user -- by his own admission.
> 2. He refused to show up when it came time for the annual medical. --
> Including peeing in the cup.
>
> Connect the dots.

I can't speak for how they did things back then, but I know that I don't
have to pee in a cup for my annual medical screening. I do have to once
every five years for a radiation health physical, but that's not for drug
testing (I have to sign a form saying that it is used only for the purposes
of testing for evidence of blood in my urine, a early warning sign of many
types of tumors associated with radiation exposure. To use the sample for
drug testing would invalidate it as evidence since it was used without my
consent).

Just out of curiosity, which branch of the military were you in, and when
did you serve?

[[email protected]]

In <NELVc.86669$Lj.43904@fed1read03>, on 08/21/2004
at 01:30 PM, "sanjian" > said:

wrote:
>> In <KcKVc.9881$ni.472@okepread01>, on 08/21/2004
>> at 11:52 AM, "sanjian" > said:

>>> You already posted that. Resorting to spamming now?
>>
>>
>> See a shrink about your inability to accept truth you don't like.

>Come on, I think I at least deserve tailor-made insults instead of the
>grab bag. Really, you are showing a bit of stress about getting caught
>in your own lies.

YUour the one doing the lying and the trolling. -- You're a rightwing
asshole.



You're like a caged animal trying to claw your way to
>safety. Admit that you have no case and move on. There's no good that
>can come from your tenacious hold on your own lies.

See a shrink. Your meds aren't working.

[[email protected]]

In <UHLVc.86672$Lj.73228@fed1read03>, on 08/21/2004
at 01:33 PM, "sanjian" > said:

wrote:
>> In >, on 08/21/2004
>> at 10:35 AM, "BigRedWingsFan" > said:

>>> What part of "you can never prove that" don't you understand,
>>> Le'Turd? It's just not true, period.
>>
>> bushs pay records prove he didn't show up. -- Right after he was
>> ordered to pee in the cup and didn't.

>You're mistaking "have not disproven" for "have proven." By that
>measure, I must assume you believe in the Tooth Fairy and the Easter
>Bunny. Have you ever dealt with military pay records?

Stop your lying.

[[email protected]]

In <cMLVc.86673$Lj.28158@fed1read03>, on 08/21/2004
at 01:38 PM, "sanjian" > said:

wrote:
>> In <D5KVc.9879$ni.2444@okepread01>, on 08/21/2004
>> at 11:44 AM, "sanjian" > said:
>>
>>> wrote:
>>>> In <zexvc.9347$ni.1594@okepread01>, on 08/20/2004
>>>> at 09:06 PM, "sanjian" > said:
>>
>>>>> I see. When confronted by your lies, you just use another one. Do
>>>>> you honestly think you're fooling anyone? Or could it be that
>>>>> you're actually fooling yourself?
>>>>
>>>> Bush went AWOL when he had to pee in the cup. -- What part of that
>>>> statement don't you get?
>>
>>> The part where you mistake it for fact.
>>
>> 1. He was a drunk and drug user -- by his own admission.
>> 2. He refused to show up when it came time for the annual medical. --
>> Including peeing in the cup.
>>
>> Connect the dots.

>I can't speak for how they did things back then,


They had to pee in the cup and bush didn't.




but I know that I don't
>have to pee in a cup for my annual medical screening. I do have to once
>every five years for a radiation health physical, but that's not for drug
>testing (I have to sign a form saying that it is used only for the
>purposes of testing for evidence of blood in my urine, a early warning
>sign of many types of tumors associated with radiation exposure. To use
>the sample for drug testing would invalidate it as evidence since it was
>used without my consent).

>Just out of curiosity, which branch of the military were you in, and when
>did you serve?

[[email protected]]

In <mglvc.86671$Lj.467@fed1read03>, on 08/21/2004
at 01:31 PM, "sanjian" > said:

wrote:
>> In <kckvc.9880$ni.9509@okepread01>, on 08/21/2004
>> at 11:51 AM, "sanjian" > said:

>>> Obviously, it is far easier for you to dismiss your opponent than
>>> accept that we may be right and you may be wrong. Go ahead, put
>>> your head back in the sand and hope we all go away, so you can
>>> continue to live in your own world. Don't let us nasty
>>> right-wingers challenge what you believe or force you to face the
>>> world. If, however, you should ever wish to discuss things like
>>> adults, come on back.
>>
>> Stop lying and playing asshole. -- No one got in ANG on the day they
>> applied without political influence making the way clear.
>>
>> When you are ready to deal with reality -- you might be able to
>> discuss things like the adult you claim to be.

>It would seem that your idea of how adults discuss things is that they
>call eachother names and thow out unsupported lies and spin. That works
>well enough for politicians, but not for civilized, rational people.

What you mean is I'm not letting you get away with lies -- and the only
thing you can do is attack me -- for stating they are in fact either lying
or stupid.

-- Now the fact you are trying to avoid with your nonsense is; No one got
in ANG on the day they applied without political influence making the way
clear.

[IBM]

wrote in news:HtMVc.861$1M3.586@trndny01:

[snip]

> They had to pee in the cup and bush didn't.

Quote the applicable regulations.
It is averred that this was not required until
some time later and you do have a credibility
issue.

IBM

__________________________________________________ _____________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
<><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>

[[email protected]]

In >, on 08/21/2004
at 06:49 PM, IBM > said:

wrote in news:HtMVc.861$1M3.586@trndny01:

> [snip]
>
>> They had to pee in the cup and bush didn't.

> Quote the applicable regulations.
> It is averred that this was not required until
> some time later and you do have a credibility
> issue.



The world has been over this many times -- Go play rightwing troll and
asshole somewhere else.

[BigRedWingsFan]

> wrote in message news:HtMVc.862$1M3.275@trndny01...
: In <UHLVc.86672$Lj.73228@fed1read03>, on 08/21/2004
: at 01:33 PM, "sanjian" > said:
:
: wrote:
: >> In >, on 08/21/2004
: >> at 10:35 AM, "BigRedWingsFan" > said:
:
: >>> What part of "you can never prove that" don't you understand,
: >>> Le'Turd? It's just not true, period.
: >>
: >> bushs pay records prove he didn't show up. -- Right after he was
: >> ordered to pee in the cup and didn't.
:
: >You're mistaking "have not disproven" for "have proven." By that
: >measure, I must assume you believe in the Tooth Fairy and the Easter
: >Bunny. Have you ever dealt with military pay records?
:
: Stop your lying.

Since you failed to address the question, we'll just assume the answer is
"No" as evidenced by your nonsensical and totally inappropriate response.
Head for the Free Clinic, Le'Turd, I think your meds have expired.

:

[Don T]

Yo. Marty. No amount of logic will budge le Turd. Waste of time even reading
any of his bull**** postings.

--

Don Thompson

~~~~~~~~

"BigRedWingsFan" > wrote in message
...
>
> > wrote in message news:HtMVc.862$1M3.275@trndny01...
> : In <UHLVc.86672$Lj.73228@fed1read03>, on 08/21/2004
> : at 01:33 PM, "sanjian" > said:
> :
> : wrote:
> : >> In >, on 08/21/2004
> : >> at 10:35 AM, "BigRedWingsFan" > said:
> :
> : >>> What part of "you can never prove that" don't you understand,
> : >>> Le'Turd? It's just not true, period.
> : >>
> : >> bushs pay records prove he didn't show up. -- Right after he was
> : >> ordered to pee in the cup and didn't.
> :
> : >You're mistaking "have not disproven" for "have proven." By that
> : >measure, I must assume you believe in the Tooth Fairy and the Easter
> : >Bunny. Have you ever dealt with military pay records?
> :
> : Stop your lying.
>
> Since you failed to address the question, we'll just assume the answer is
> "No" as evidenced by your nonsensical and totally inappropriate response.
> Head for the Free Clinic, Le'Turd, I think your meds have expired.
>
> :
>
>
>
>

[[email protected]]

In >, on 08/21/2004
at 02:14 PM, "Bigredwingsfan" > said:


> wrote in message news:HtMVc.862$1M3.275@trndny01...
>: In <UHLVc.86672$Lj.73228@fed1read03>, on 08/21/2004
>: at 01:33 PM, "sanjian" > said:
>:
>: wrote:
>: >> In >, on 08/21/2004
>: >> at 10:35 AM, "BigRedWingsFan" > said:
>:
>: >>> What part of "you can never prove that" don't you understand,
>: >>> Le'Turd? It's just not true, period.
>: >>
>: >> bushs pay records prove he didn't show up. -- Right after he was
>: >> ordered to pee in the cup and didn't.
>:
>: >You're mistaking "have not disproven" for "have proven." By that
>: >measure, I must assume you believe in the Tooth Fairy and the Easter
>: >Bunny. Have you ever dealt with military pay records?
>:
>: Stop your lying.

>Since you failed to address the question, we'll just assume the answer is
>"No" as evidenced by your nonsensical and totally inappropriate response.


My response was entirely correct. bush refused to take his annual medical.
-- It was because he into drinking and drugs and the USAF started making
them pee in the cup.

Now stop your lying and rightwing troll games.






>Head for the Free Clinic, Le'Turd, I think your meds have expired.

>:

[BigRedWingsFan]

> wrote in message news:4ANVc.2776$VY.1809@trndny09...
: In >, on 08/21/2004
: at 02:14 PM, "Bigredwingsfan" > said:
:
:
: > wrote in message news:HtMVc.862$1M3.275@trndny01...
: >: In <UHLVc.86672$Lj.73228@fed1read03>, on 08/21/2004
: >: at 01:33 PM, "sanjian" > said:
: >:
: >: wrote:
: >: >> In >, on 08/21/2004
: >: >> at 10:35 AM, "BigRedWingsFan" > said:
: >:
: >: >>> What part of "you can never prove that" don't you understand,
: >: >>> Le'Turd? It's just not true, period.
: >: >>
: >: >> bushs pay records prove he didn't show up. -- Right after he was
: >: >> ordered to pee in the cup and didn't.
: >:
: >: >You're mistaking "have not disproven" for "have proven." By that
: >: >measure, I must assume you believe in the Tooth Fairy and the Easter
: >: >Bunny. Have you ever dealt with military pay records?
: >:
: >: Stop your lying.
:
: >Since you failed to address the question, we'll just assume the answer is
: >"No" as evidenced by your nonsensical and totally inappropriate response.
:
:
: My response was entirely correct. bush refused to take his annual medical.
: -- It was because he into drinking and drugs and the USAF started making
: them pee in the cup.

Since you failed to address the question (again), we'll just assume the
answer is "No" as evidenced by your nonsensical and totally inappropriate
response.

:
: Now stop your lying and rightwing troll games.

Le'Turd, You're the queen of the left-wing trolls, you and your bunk-buddy
Thumpty-DumbAss. Why don't you go see what he has in his Depends for you.


:
:
:
:
:
:
: >Head for the Free Clinic, Le'Turd, I think your meds have expired.
:
: >:
:
:
:
:
:

[BigRedWingsFan]

"Don T" > wrote in message
ink.net...
: Yo. Marty. No amount of logic will budge le Turd. Waste of time even
reading
: any of his bull**** postings.

I know, Don. Le'Turd, Thumpty-DumbAss, and JB0000 are all DNC shills, and
not very good ones at that. Slow day on Usenet so not many posts worth
responding to I guess.

Marty

:
: --
:
: Don Thompson
:
: ~~~~~~~~
:
: "BigRedWingsFan" > wrote in message
: ...
: >
: > > wrote in message
news:HtMVc.862$1M3.275@trndny01...
: > : In <UHLVc.86672$Lj.73228@fed1read03>, on 08/21/2004
: > : at 01:33 PM, "sanjian" > said:
: > :
: > : wrote:
: > : >> In >, on 08/21/2004
: > : >> at 10:35 AM, "BigRedWingsFan" > said:
: > :
: > : >>> What part of "you can never prove that" don't you understand,
: > : >>> Le'Turd? It's just not true, period.
: > : >>
: > : >> bushs pay records prove he didn't show up. -- Right after he was
: > : >> ordered to pee in the cup and didn't.
: > :
: > : >You're mistaking "have not disproven" for "have proven." By that
: > : >measure, I must assume you believe in the Tooth Fairy and the Easter
: > : >Bunny. Have you ever dealt with military pay records?
: > :
: > : Stop your lying.
: >
: > Since you failed to address the question, we'll just assume the answer
is
: > "No" as evidenced by your nonsensical and totally inappropriate
response.
: > Head for the Free Clinic, Le'Turd, I think your meds have expired.
: >
: > :
: >
: >
: >
: >
:
:

[[email protected]]

In >, on 08/21/2004
at 02:50 PM, "BigRedWingsFan" > said:


>"Don T" > wrote in message
ink.net... : Yo. Marty.
>No amount of logic will budge le Turd. Waste of time even reading
>: any of his bull**** postings.

>I know, Don. Le'Turd, Thumpty-DumbAss, and JB0000 are all DNC shills,
>and not very good ones at that. Slow day on Usenet so not many posts
>worth responding to I guess.

So asshole -- are you trying to tell us that bush wasn't removed from
flying status for not taking his annual physical?

Funny how you assholes run from the truths you don't like. -- Its a
genetic defect you have.




>Marty

>:
>: --
>:
>: Don Thompson
>:
>: ~~~~~~~~
>:
>: "BigRedWingsFan" > wrote in message
>: ...
>: >
>: > > wrote in message
>news:HtMVc.862$1M3.275@trndny01...
>: > : In <UHLVc.86672$Lj.73228@fed1read03>, on 08/21/2004
>: > : at 01:33 PM, "sanjian" > said:
>: > :
>: > : wrote:
>: > : >> In >, on 08/21/2004
>: > : >> at 10:35 AM, "BigRedWingsFan" > said:
>: > :
>: > : >>> What part of "you can never prove that" don't you understand,
>: > : >>> Le'Turd? It's just not true, period.
>: > : >>
>: > : >> bushs pay records prove he didn't show up. -- Right after he was
>: > : >> ordered to pee in the cup and didn't.
>: > :
>: > : >You're mistaking "have not disproven" for "have proven." By that
>: > : >measure, I must assume you believe in the Tooth Fairy and the Easter
>: > : >Bunny. Have you ever dealt with military pay records?
>: > :
>: > : Stop your lying.
>: >
>: > Since you failed to address the question, we'll just assume the answer
>is
>: > "No" as evidenced by your nonsensical and totally inappropriate
>response.
>: > Head for the Free Clinic, Le'Turd, I think your meds have expired.
>: >
>: > :
>: >
>: >
>: >
>: >
>:
>:

[[email protected]]

In et>, on 08/21/2004
at 07:41 PM, "Don T" > said:

>Yo. Marty. No amount of logic will budge le Turd. Waste of time even
>reading any of his bull**** postings.


So are you trying to tell us that bush took his annual medical? And
wasn't removed from flying status for not taking it?

-- You rightwingers are the dumbest ****s that have ever lived. Its a
genetic defect.

[[email protected]]

In >, on 08/21/2004
at 02:46 PM, "BigRedWingsFan" > said:


> wrote in message
>news:4ANVc.2776$VY.1809@trndny09... : In
>, on 08/21/2004 : at 02:14 PM,
>"Bigredwingsfan" > said: :
>:
>: > wrote in message news:HtMVc.862$1M3.275@trndny01...
>: >: In <UHLVc.86672$Lj.73228@fed1read03>, on 08/21/2004
>: >: at 01:33 PM, "sanjian" > said:
>: >:
>: >: wrote:
>: >: >> In >, on 08/21/2004
>: >: >> at 10:35 AM, "BigRedWingsFan" > said:
>: >:
>: >: >>> What part of "you can never prove that" don't you understand,
>: >: >>> Le'Turd? It's just not true, period.
>: >: >>
>: >: >> bushs pay records prove he didn't show up. -- Right after he was
>: >: >> ordered to pee in the cup and didn't.
>: >:
>: >: >You're mistaking "have not disproven" for "have proven." By that
>: >: >measure, I must assume you believe in the Tooth Fairy and the Easter
>: >: >Bunny. Have you ever dealt with military pay records?
>: >:
>: >: Stop your lying.
>:
>: >Since you failed to address the question, we'll just assume the answer is
>: >"No" as evidenced by your nonsensical and totally inappropriate response.
>:
>:
>: My response was entirely correct. bush refused to take his annual medical.
>: -- It was because he into drinking and drugs and the USAF started making
>: them pee in the cup.

>Since you failed to address the question (again), we'll just assume the
>answer is "No" as evidenced by your nonsensical and totally inappropriate
>response.

>:
>: Now stop your lying and rightwing troll games.

>Le'Turd, You're the queen of the left-wing trolls, you and your
>bunk-buddy Thumpty-DumbAss. Why don't you go see what he has in his
>Depends for you.


Sorry asshole, but you lose -- You have been told the facts and you don't
want to hear them. See the shrink about it.







>:
>:
>:
>:
>:
>:
>: >Head for the Free Clinic, Le'Turd, I think your meds have expired.
>:
>: >:
>:
>:
>:
>:
>:

[BigRedWingsFan]

> wrote in message news:pUNVc.11201$3O2.7293@trndny07...
: In >, on 08/21/2004
: at 02:46 PM, "BigRedWingsFan" > said:
:
:
: > wrote in message
: >news:4ANVc.2776$VY.1809@trndny09... : In
: >, on 08/21/2004 : at 02:14 PM,
: >"Bigredwingsfan" > said: :
: >:
: >: > wrote in message
news:HtMVc.862$1M3.275@trndny01...
: >: >: In <UHLVc.86672$Lj.73228@fed1read03>, on 08/21/2004
: >: >: at 01:33 PM, "sanjian" > said:
: >: >:
: >: >: wrote:
: >: >: >> In >, on 08/21/2004
: >: >: >> at 10:35 AM, "BigRedWingsFan" > said:
: >: >:
: >: >: >>> What part of "you can never prove that" don't you understand,
: >: >: >>> Le'Turd? It's just not true, period.
: >: >: >>
: >: >: >> bushs pay records prove he didn't show up. -- Right after he was
: >: >: >> ordered to pee in the cup and didn't.
: >: >:
: >: >: >You're mistaking "have not disproven" for "have proven." By that
: >: >: >measure, I must assume you believe in the Tooth Fairy and the
Easter
: >: >: >Bunny. Have you ever dealt with military pay records?
: >: >:
: >: >: Stop your lying.
: >:
: >: >Since you failed to address the question, we'll just assume the answer
is
: >: >"No" as evidenced by your nonsensical and totally inappropriate
response.
: >:
: >:
: >: My response was entirely correct. bush refused to take his annual
medical.
: >: -- It was because he into drinking and drugs and the USAF started
making
: >: them pee in the cup.
:
: >Since you failed to address the question (again), we'll just assume the
: >answer is "No" as evidenced by your nonsensical and totally inappropriate
: >response.
:
: >:
: >: Now stop your lying and rightwing troll games.
:
: >Le'Turd, You're the queen of the left-wing trolls, you and your
: >bunk-buddy Thumpty-DumbAss. Why don't you go see what he has in his
: >Depends for you.
:
:
: Sorry asshole, but you lose -- You have been told the facts and you don't
: want to hear them. See the shrink about it.

Since you failed to address the question (yet again), we'll just assume the
answer is "No" as evidenced by your usual nonsensical and totally
inappropriate response. Head for the Free Clinic, Le'Turd, I know your meds
have expired.


:
:
:
:
:
: >:
: >:
: >:
: >:
: >:
: >:
: >: >Head for the Free Clinic, Le'Turd, I think your meds have expired.
: >:
: >: >:
: >:
: >:
: >:
: >:
: >:
:
:
:

[[email protected]]

Whatever you say asshole -- bush released his ANG records -- they show he
refused to take the annual physical. -- Now bush in his own words is a
guy who loved to fly. -- so what would he not take the physical? Because
they were going to make him pee in the cup.

If you can't understand what that means -- its because your a complete
****ing idiot.

PS: the question has been answered many times -- you however are too dumb
to understand the answer.




In >, on 08/21/2004
at 03:06 PM, "BigRedWingsFan" > said:


> wrote in message
>news:pUNVc.11201$3O2.7293@trndny07... : In
>, on 08/21/2004 : at 02:46 PM,
>"BigRedWingsFan" > said: :
>:
>: > wrote in message
>: >news:4ANVc.2776$VY.1809@trndny09... : In
>: >, on 08/21/2004 : at 02:14 PM,
>: >"Bigredwingsfan" > said: :
>: >:
>: >: > wrote in message
>news:HtMVc.862$1M3.275@trndny01...
>: >: >: In <UHLVc.86672$Lj.73228@fed1read03>, on 08/21/2004
>: >: >: at 01:33 PM, "sanjian" > said:
>: >: >:
>: >: >: wrote:
>: >: >: >> In >, on 08/21/2004
>: >: >: >> at 10:35 AM, "BigRedWingsFan" > said:
>: >: >:
>: >: >: >>> What part of "you can never prove that" don't you understand,
>: >: >: >>> Le'Turd? It's just not true, period.
>: >: >: >>
>: >: >: >> bushs pay records prove he didn't show up. -- Right after he was
>: >: >: >> ordered to pee in the cup and didn't.
>: >: >:
>: >: >: >You're mistaking "have not disproven" for "have proven." By that
>: >: >: >measure, I must assume you believe in the Tooth Fairy and the
>Easter
>: >: >: >Bunny. Have you ever dealt with military pay records?
>: >: >:
>: >: >: Stop your lying.
>: >:
>: >: >Since you failed to address the question, we'll just assume the answer
>is
>: >: >"No" as evidenced by your nonsensical and totally inappropriate
>response.
>: >:
>: >:
>: >: My response was entirely correct. bush refused to take his annual
>medical.
>: >: -- It was because he into drinking and drugs and the USAF started
>making
>: >: them pee in the cup.
>:
>: >Since you failed to address the question (again), we'll just assume the
>: >answer is "No" as evidenced by your nonsensical and totally inappropriate
>: >response.
>:
>: >:
>: >: Now stop your lying and rightwing troll games.
>:
>: >Le'Turd, You're the queen of the left-wing trolls, you and your
>: >bunk-buddy Thumpty-DumbAss. Why don't you go see what he has in his
>: >Depends for you.
>:
>:
>: Sorry asshole, but you lose -- You have been told the facts and you don't
>: want to hear them. See the shrink about it.

>Since you failed to address the question (yet again), we'll just assume
>the answer is "No" as evidenced by your usual nonsensical and totally
>inappropriate response. Head for the Free Clinic, Le'Turd, I know your
>meds have expired.


>:
>:
>:
>:
>:
>: >:
>: >:
>: >:
>: >:
>: >:
>: >:
>: >: >Head for the Free Clinic, Le'Turd, I think your meds have expired.
>: >:
>: >: >:
>: >:
>: >:
>: >:
>: >:
>: >:
>:
>:
>:

[BigRedWingsFan]

> wrote in message news:6EOVc.2794$VY.2607@trndny09...
:
: Whatever you say asshole -- bush released his ANG records -- they show he
: refused to take the annual physical. -- Now bush in his own words is a
: guy who loved to fly. -- so what would he not take the physical? Because
: they were going to make him pee in the cup.
:
: If you can't understand what that means -- its because your a complete
: ****ing idiot.
:
: PS: the question has been answered many times -- you however are too dumb
: to understand the answer.

You're the ignoram-ass, ****tard, you still haven't answered the question.
Now, go play on the freeway with your bunk-buddy Thumpty-DumbAss.

:
:
:
:
: In >, on 08/21/2004
: at 03:06 PM, "BigRedWingsFan" > said:
:
:
: > wrote in message
: >news:pUNVc.11201$3O2.7293@trndny07... : In
: >, on 08/21/2004 : at 02:46 PM,
: >"BigRedWingsFan" > said: :
: >:
: >: > wrote in message
: >: >news:4ANVc.2776$VY.1809@trndny09... : In
: >: >, on 08/21/2004 : at 02:14
PM,
: >: >"Bigredwingsfan" > said: :
: >: >:
: >: >: > wrote in message
: >news:HtMVc.862$1M3.275@trndny01...
: >: >: >: In <UHLVc.86672$Lj.73228@fed1read03>, on 08/21/2004
: >: >: >: at 01:33 PM, "sanjian" > said:
: >: >: >:
: >: >: >: wrote:
: >: >: >: >> In >, on 08/21/2004
: >: >: >: >> at 10:35 AM, "BigRedWingsFan" > said:
: >: >: >:
: >: >: >: >>> What part of "you can never prove that" don't you understand,
: >: >: >: >>> Le'Turd? It's just not true, period.
: >: >: >: >>
: >: >: >: >> bushs pay records prove he didn't show up. -- Right after he
was
: >: >: >: >> ordered to pee in the cup and didn't.
: >: >: >:
: >: >: >: >You're mistaking "have not disproven" for "have proven." By
that
: >: >: >: >measure, I must assume you believe in the Tooth Fairy and the
: >Easter
: >: >: >: >Bunny. Have you ever dealt with military pay records?
: >: >: >:
: >: >: >: Stop your lying.
: >: >:
: >: >: >Since you failed to address the question, we'll just assume the
answer
: >is
: >: >: >"No" as evidenced by your nonsensical and totally inappropriate
: >response.
: >: >:
: >: >:
: >: >: My response was entirely correct. bush refused to take his annual
: >medical.
: >: >: -- It was because he into drinking and drugs and the USAF started
: >making
: >: >: them pee in the cup.
: >:
: >: >Since you failed to address the question (again), we'll just assume
the
: >: >answer is "No" as evidenced by your nonsensical and totally
inappropriate
: >: >response.
: >:
: >: >:
: >: >: Now stop your lying and rightwing troll games.
: >:
: >: >Le'Turd, You're the queen of the left-wing trolls, you and your
: >: >bunk-buddy Thumpty-DumbAss. Why don't you go see what he has in his
: >: >Depends for you.
: >:
: >:
: >: Sorry asshole, but you lose -- You have been told the facts and you
don't
: >: want to hear them. See the shrink about it.
:
: >Since you failed to address the question (yet again), we'll just assume
: >the answer is "No" as evidenced by your usual nonsensical and totally
: >inappropriate response. Head for the Free Clinic, Le'Turd, I know your
: >meds have expired.
:
:
: >:
: >:
: >:
: >:
: >:
: >: >:
: >: >:
: >: >:
: >: >:
: >: >:
: >: >:
: >: >: >Head for the Free Clinic, Le'Turd, I think your meds have expired.
: >: >:
: >: >: >:
: >: >:
: >: >:
: >: >:
: >: >:
: >: >:
: >:
: >:
: >:
:
:
:

[[email protected]]

In >, on 08/21/2004
at 03:56 PM, "BigRedWingsFan" > said:


> wrote in message
>news:6EOVc.2794$VY.2607@trndny09... :
>: Whatever you say asshole -- bush released his ANG records -- they show he
>: refused to take the annual physical. -- Now bush in his own words is a
>: guy who loved to fly. -- so what would he not take the physical? Because
>: they were going to make him pee in the cup.
>:
>: If you can't understand what that means -- its because your a complete
>: ****ing idiot.
>:
>: PS: the question has been answered many times -- you however are too dumb
>: to understand the answer.

>You're the ignoram-ass, ****tard, you still haven't answered the
>question. Now, go play on the freeway with your bunk-buddy
>Thumpty-DumbAss.

And the question you don';t think is answered is?





>:
>:
>:
>:
>: In >, on 08/21/2004
>: at 03:06 PM, "BigRedWingsFan" > said:
>:
>:
>: > wrote in message
>: >news:pUNVc.11201$3O2.7293@trndny07... : In
>: >, on 08/21/2004 : at 02:46 PM,
>: >"BigRedWingsFan" > said: :
>: >:
>: >: > wrote in message
>: >: >news:4ANVc.2776$VY.1809@trndny09... : In
>: >: >, on 08/21/2004 : at 02:14
>PM,
>: >: >"Bigredwingsfan" > said: :
>: >: >:
>: >: >: > wrote in message
>: >news:HtMVc.862$1M3.275@trndny01...
>: >: >: >: In <UHLVc.86672$Lj.73228@fed1read03>, on 08/21/2004
>: >: >: >: at 01:33 PM, "sanjian" > said:
>: >: >: >:
>: >: >: >: wrote:
>: >: >: >: >> In >, on 08/21/2004
>: >: >: >: >> at 10:35 AM, "BigRedWingsFan" > said:
>: >: >: >:
>: >: >: >: >>> What part of "you can never prove that" don't you understand,
>: >: >: >: >>> Le'Turd? It's just not true, period.
>: >: >: >: >>
>: >: >: >: >> bushs pay records prove he didn't show up. -- Right after he
>was
>: >: >: >: >> ordered to pee in the cup and didn't.
>: >: >: >:
>: >: >: >: >You're mistaking "have not disproven" for "have proven." By
>that
>: >: >: >: >measure, I must assume you believe in the Tooth Fairy and the
>: >Easter
>: >: >: >: >Bunny. Have you ever dealt with military pay records?
>: >: >: >:
>: >: >: >: Stop your lying.
>: >: >:
>: >: >: >Since you failed to address the question, we'll just assume the
>answer
>: >is
>: >: >: >"No" as evidenced by your nonsensical and totally inappropriate
>: >response.
>: >: >:
>: >: >:
>: >: >: My response was entirely correct. bush refused to take his annual
>: >medical.
>: >: >: -- It was because he into drinking and drugs and the USAF started
>: >making
>: >: >: them pee in the cup.
>: >:
>: >: >Since you failed to address the question (again), we'll just assume
>the
>: >: >answer is "No" as evidenced by your nonsensical and totally
>inappropriate
>: >: >response.
>: >:
>: >: >:
>: >: >: Now stop your lying and rightwing troll games.
>: >:
>: >: >Le'Turd, You're the queen of the left-wing trolls, you and your
>: >: >bunk-buddy Thumpty-DumbAss. Why don't you go see what he has in his
>: >: >Depends for you.
>: >:
>: >:
>: >: Sorry asshole, but you lose -- You have been told the facts and you
>don't
>: >: want to hear them. See the shrink about it.
>:
>: >Since you failed to address the question (yet again), we'll just assume
>: >the answer is "No" as evidenced by your usual nonsensical and totally
>: >inappropriate response. Head for the Free Clinic, Le'Turd, I know your
>: >meds have expired.
>:
>:
>: >:
>: >:
>: >:
>: >:
>: >:
>: >: >:
>: >: >:
>: >: >:
>: >: >:
>: >: >:
>: >: >:
>: >: >: >Head for the Free Clinic, Le'Turd, I think your meds have expired.
>: >: >:
>: >: >: >:
>: >: >:
>: >: >:
>: >: >:
>: >: >:
>: >: >:
>: >:
>: >:
>: >:
>:
>:
>:

[BigRedWingsFan]

> wrote in message news:BIOVc.546$oA.525@trndny04...
: In >, on 08/21/2004
: at 03:56 PM, "BigRedWingsFan" > said:
:
:
: > wrote in message
: >news:6EOVc.2794$VY.2607@trndny09... :
: >: Whatever you say asshole -- bush released his ANG records -- they show
he
: >: refused to take the annual physical. -- Now bush in his own words is a
: >: guy who loved to fly. -- so what would he not take the physical?
Because
: >: they were going to make him pee in the cup.
: >:
: >: If you can't understand what that means -- its because your a complete
: >: ****ing idiot.
: >:
: >: PS: the question has been answered many times -- you however are too
dumb
: >: to understand the answer.
:
: >You're the ignoram-ass, ****tard, you still haven't answered the
: >question. Now, go play on the freeway with your bunk-buddy
: >Thumpty-DumbAss.
:
: And the question you don';t think is answered is?

The question I know wasn't answered is: "Have you ever dealt with military
pay records?". No smart-ass answer either, cum-breath, because I know you
haven't and I also know you don't have a ****ing ounce of truth and honesty
in your slimy body. I hope your hatred of President Bush consumes you
totally, you're already raving like a lunatic.


:
:
:
:
:
: >:
: >:
: >:
: >:
: >: In >, on 08/21/2004
: >: at 03:06 PM, "BigRedWingsFan" > said:
: >:
: >:
: >: > wrote in message
: >: >news:pUNVc.11201$3O2.7293@trndny07... : In
: >: >, on 08/21/2004 : at 02:46 PM,
: >: >"BigRedWingsFan" > said: :
: >: >:
: >: >: > wrote in message
: >: >: >news:4ANVc.2776$VY.1809@trndny09... : In
: >: >: >, on 08/21/2004 : at
02:14
: >PM,
: >: >: >"Bigredwingsfan" > said: :
: >: >: >:
: >: >: >: > wrote in message
: >: >news:HtMVc.862$1M3.275@trndny01...
: >: >: >: >: In <UHLVc.86672$Lj.73228@fed1read03>, on 08/21/2004
: >: >: >: >: at 01:33 PM, "sanjian" > said:
: >: >: >: >:
: >: >: >: >: wrote:
: >: >: >: >: >> In >, on 08/21/2004
: >: >: >: >: >> at 10:35 AM, "BigRedWingsFan" > said:
: >: >: >: >:
: >: >: >: >: >>> What part of "you can never prove that" don't you
understand,
: >: >: >: >: >>> Le'Turd? It's just not true, period.
: >: >: >: >: >>
: >: >: >: >: >> bushs pay records prove he didn't show up. -- Right after
he
: >was
: >: >: >: >: >> ordered to pee in the cup and didn't.
: >: >: >: >:
: >: >: >: >: >You're mistaking "have not disproven" for "have proven." By
: >that
: >: >: >: >: >measure, I must assume you believe in the Tooth Fairy and the
: >: >Easter
: >: >: >: >: >Bunny. Have you ever dealt with military pay records?
: >: >: >: >:
: >: >: >: >: Stop your lying.
: >: >: >:
: >: >: >: >Since you failed to address the question, we'll just assume the
: >answer
: >: >is
: >: >: >: >"No" as evidenced by your nonsensical and totally inappropriate
: >: >response.
: >: >: >:
: >: >: >:
: >: >: >: My response was entirely correct. bush refused to take his annual
: >: >medical.
: >: >: >: -- It was because he into drinking and drugs and the USAF started
: >: >making
: >: >: >: them pee in the cup.
: >: >:
: >: >: >Since you failed to address the question (again), we'll just assume
: >the
: >: >: >answer is "No" as evidenced by your nonsensical and totally
: >inappropriate
: >: >: >response.
: >: >:
: >: >: >:
: >: >: >: Now stop your lying and rightwing troll games.
: >: >:
: >: >: >Le'Turd, You're the queen of the left-wing trolls, you and your
: >: >: >bunk-buddy Thumpty-DumbAss. Why don't you go see what he has in
his
: >: >: >Depends for you.
: >: >:
: >: >:
: >: >: Sorry asshole, but you lose -- You have been told the facts and you
: >don't
: >: >: want to hear them. See the shrink about it.
: >:
: >: >Since you failed to address the question (yet again), we'll just
assume
: >: >the answer is "No" as evidenced by your usual nonsensical and totally
: >: >inappropriate response. Head for the Free Clinic, Le'Turd, I know
your
: >: >meds have expired.
: >:
: >:
: >: >:
: >: >:
: >: >:
: >: >:
: >: >:
: >: >: >:
: >: >: >:
: >: >: >:
: >: >: >:
: >: >: >:
: >: >: >:
: >: >: >: >Head for the Free Clinic, Le'Turd, I think your meds have
expired.
: >: >: >:
: >: >: >: >:
: >: >: >:
: >: >: >:
: >: >: >:
: >: >: >:
: >: >: >:
: >: >:
: >: >:
: >: >:
: >:
: >:
: >:
:
:
:

[[email protected]]

In >, on 08/21/2004
at 04:02 PM, "BigRedWingsFan" > said:


> wrote in message news:BIOVc.546$oA.525@trndny04...
>: In >, on 08/21/2004
>: at 03:56 PM, "BigRedWingsFan" > said:
>:
>:
>: > wrote in message
>: >news:6EOVc.2794$VY.2607@trndny09... :
>: >: Whatever you say asshole -- bush released his ANG records -- they show
>he
>: >: refused to take the annual physical. -- Now bush in his own words is a
>: >: guy who loved to fly. -- so what would he not take the physical?
>Because
>: >: they were going to make him pee in the cup.
>: >:
>: >: If you can't understand what that means -- its because your a complete
>: >: ****ing idiot.
>: >:
>: >: PS: the question has been answered many times -- you however are too
>dumb
>: >: to understand the answer.
>:
>: >You're the ignoram-ass, ****tard, you still haven't answered the
>: >question. Now, go play on the freeway with your bunk-buddy
>: >Thumpty-DumbAss.
>:
>: And the question you don';t think is answered is?

>The question I know wasn't answered is: "Have you ever dealt with
>military pay records?".

Yes asshole I have. Mine in the USAF and ANG. -- bush's records have
holes in them. It means he didn't show up for moths at a time. Now you go
prove he did.



No smart-ass answer either, cum-breath, because
>I know you haven't and I also know you don't have a ****ing ounce of
>truth and honesty in your slimy body. I hope your hatred of President
>Bush consumes you totally, you're already raving like a lunatic.

The lunatic is you. Even bush doesn't try to make the claims you do.



>:
>:
>:
>:
>:
>: >:
>: >:
>: >:
>: >:
>: >: In >, on 08/21/2004
>: >: at 03:06 PM, "BigRedWingsFan" > said:
>: >:
>: >:
>: >: > wrote in message
>: >: >news:pUNVc.11201$3O2.7293@trndny07... : In
>: >: >, on 08/21/2004 : at 02:46 PM,
>: >: >"BigRedWingsFan" > said: :
>: >: >:
>: >: >: > wrote in message
>: >: >: >news:4ANVc.2776$VY.1809@trndny09... : In
>: >: >: >, on 08/21/2004 : at
>02:14
>: >PM,
>: >: >: >"Bigredwingsfan" > said: :
>: >: >: >:
>: >: >: >: > wrote in message
>: >: >news:HtMVc.862$1M3.275@trndny01...
>: >: >: >: >: In <UHLVc.86672$Lj.73228@fed1read03>, on 08/21/2004
>: >: >: >: >: at 01:33 PM, "sanjian" > said:
>: >: >: >: >:
>: >: >: >: >: wrote:
>: >: >: >: >: >> In >, on 08/21/2004
>: >: >: >: >: >> at 10:35 AM, "BigRedWingsFan" > said:
>: >: >: >: >:
>: >: >: >: >: >>> What part of "you can never prove that" don't you
>understand,
>: >: >: >: >: >>> Le'Turd? It's just not true, period.
>: >: >: >: >: >>
>: >: >: >: >: >> bushs pay records prove he didn't show up. -- Right after
>he
>: >was
>: >: >: >: >: >> ordered to pee in the cup and didn't.
>: >: >: >: >:
>: >: >: >: >: >You're mistaking "have not disproven" for "have proven." By
>: >that
>: >: >: >: >: >measure, I must assume you believe in the Tooth Fairy and the
>: >: >Easter
>: >: >: >: >: >Bunny. Have you ever dealt with military pay records?
>: >: >: >: >:
>: >: >: >: >: Stop your lying.
>: >: >: >:
>: >: >: >: >Since you failed to address the question, we'll just assume the
>: >answer
>: >: >is
>: >: >: >: >"No" as evidenced by your nonsensical and totally inappropriate
>: >: >response.
>: >: >: >:
>: >: >: >:
>: >: >: >: My response was entirely correct. bush refused to take his annual
>: >: >medical.
>: >: >: >: -- It was because he into drinking and drugs and the USAF started
>: >: >making
>: >: >: >: them pee in the cup.
>: >: >:
>: >: >: >Since you failed to address the question (again), we'll just assume
>: >the
>: >: >: >answer is "No" as evidenced by your nonsensical and totally
>: >inappropriate
>: >: >: >response.
>: >: >:
>: >: >: >:
>: >: >: >: Now stop your lying and rightwing troll games.
>: >: >:
>: >: >: >Le'Turd, You're the queen of the left-wing trolls, you and your
>: >: >: >bunk-buddy Thumpty-DumbAss. Why don't you go see what he has in
>his
>: >: >: >Depends for you.
>: >: >:
>: >: >:
>: >: >: Sorry asshole, but you lose -- You have been told the facts and you
>: >don't
>: >: >: want to hear them. See the shrink about it.
>: >:
>: >: >Since you failed to address the question (yet again), we'll just
>assume
>: >: >the answer is "No" as evidenced by your usual nonsensical and totally
>: >: >inappropriate response. Head for the Free Clinic, Le'Turd, I know
>your
>: >: >meds have expired.
>: >:
>: >:
>: >: >:
>: >: >:
>: >: >:
>: >: >:
>: >: >:
>: >: >: >:
>: >: >: >:
>: >: >: >:
>: >: >: >:
>: >: >: >:
>: >: >: >:
>: >: >: >: >Head for the Free Clinic, Le'Turd, I think your meds have
>expired.
>: >: >: >:
>: >: >: >: >:
>: >: >: >:
>: >: >: >:
>: >: >: >:
>: >: >: >:
>: >: >: >:
>: >: >:
>: >: >:
>: >: >:
>: >:
>: >:
>: >:
>:
>:
>:

[BigRedWingsFan]

> wrote in message news:jPOVc.5252$Nn2.882@trndny05...
: In >, on 08/21/2004
: at 04:02 PM, "BigRedWingsFan" > said:
:
:
: > wrote in message news:BIOVc.546$oA.525@trndny04...
: >: In >, on 08/21/2004
: >: at 03:56 PM, "BigRedWingsFan" > said:
: >:
: >:
: >: > wrote in message
: >: >news:6EOVc.2794$VY.2607@trndny09... :
: >: >: Whatever you say asshole -- bush released his ANG records -- they
show
: >he
: >: >: refused to take the annual physical. -- Now bush in his own words
is a
: >: >: guy who loved to fly. -- so what would he not take the physical?
: >Because
: >: >: they were going to make him pee in the cup.
: >: >:
: >: >: If you can't understand what that means -- its because your a
complete
: >: >: ****ing idiot.
: >: >:
: >: >: PS: the question has been answered many times -- you however are
too
: >dumb
: >: >: to understand the answer.
: >:
: >: >You're the ignoram-ass, ****tard, you still haven't answered the
: >: >question. Now, go play on the freeway with your bunk-buddy
: >: >Thumpty-DumbAss.
: >:
: >: And the question you don';t think is answered is?
:
: >The question I know wasn't answered is: "Have you ever dealt with
: >military pay records?".
:
: Yes asshole I have. Mine in the USAF and ANG. -- bush's records have
: holes in them. It means he didn't show up for moths at a time. Now you go
: prove he did.

I don't need to prove a ****ing thing, Re'Tard, *if* you had served in the
ANG as you claim, you'd've heard of points-only training periods for which
no pay is earned. All I need to know is that PRESIDENT BUSH HONORABLY
COMPLETED HIS SERVICE OBLIGATION <emphasis added for Le'Turd's benefit>.
That means, asshat, that he completed all of his required training and
achieved a satisfactory number of points during his tenure in the TXANG,
PERIOD.

:
:
:
: No smart-ass answer either, cum-breath, because
: >I know you haven't and I also know you don't have a ****ing ounce of
: >truth and honesty in your slimy body. I hope your hatred of President
: >Bush consumes you totally, you're already raving like a lunatic.
:
: The lunatic is you. Even bush doesn't try to make the claims you do.

Oh boy, here we go, "I know you are but what am I?". Next it'll be "Mine is
bigger than yours." Get a life.

:
:
:
: >:
: >:
: >:
: >:
: >:
: >: >:
: >: >:
: >: >:
: >: >:
: >: >: In >, on 08/21/2004
: >: >: at 03:06 PM, "BigRedWingsFan" > said:
: >: >:
: >: >:
: >: >: > wrote in message
: >: >: >news:pUNVc.11201$3O2.7293@trndny07... : In
: >: >: >, on 08/21/2004 : at 02:46 PM,
: >: >: >"BigRedWingsFan" > said: :
: >: >: >:
: >: >: >: > wrote in message
: >: >: >: >news:4ANVc.2776$VY.1809@trndny09... : In
: >: >: >: >, on 08/21/2004 : at
: >02:14
: >: >PM,
: >: >: >: >"Bigredwingsfan" > said: :
: >: >: >: >:
: >: >: >: >: > wrote in message
: >: >: >news:HtMVc.862$1M3.275@trndny01...
: >: >: >: >: >: In <UHLVc.86672$Lj.73228@fed1read03>, on 08/21/2004
: >: >: >: >: >: at 01:33 PM, "sanjian" > said:
: >: >: >: >: >:
: >: >: >: >: >: wrote:
: >: >: >: >: >: >> In >, on 08/21/2004
: >: >: >: >: >: >> at 10:35 AM, "BigRedWingsFan" > said:
: >: >: >: >: >:
: >: >: >: >: >: >>> What part of "you can never prove that" don't you
: >understand,
: >: >: >: >: >: >>> Le'Turd? It's just not true, period.
: >: >: >: >: >: >>
: >: >: >: >: >: >> bushs pay records prove he didn't show up. -- Right
after
: >he
: >: >was
: >: >: >: >: >: >> ordered to pee in the cup and didn't.
: >: >: >: >: >:
: >: >: >: >: >: >You're mistaking "have not disproven" for "have proven."
By
: >: >that
: >: >: >: >: >: >measure, I must assume you believe in the Tooth Fairy and
the
: >: >: >Easter
: >: >: >: >: >: >Bunny. Have you ever dealt with military pay records?
: >: >: >: >: >:
: >: >: >: >: >: Stop your lying.
: >: >: >: >:
: >: >: >: >: >Since you failed to address the question, we'll just assume
the
: >: >answer
: >: >: >is
: >: >: >: >: >"No" as evidenced by your nonsensical and totally
inappropriate
: >: >: >response.
: >: >: >: >:
: >: >: >: >:
: >: >: >: >: My response was entirely correct. bush refused to take his
annual
: >: >: >medical.
: >: >: >: >: -- It was because he into drinking and drugs and the USAF
started
: >: >: >making
: >: >: >: >: them pee in the cup.
: >: >: >:
: >: >: >: >Since you failed to address the question (again), we'll just
assume
: >: >the
: >: >: >: >answer is "No" as evidenced by your nonsensical and totally
: >: >inappropriate
: >: >: >: >response.
: >: >: >:
: >: >: >: >:
: >: >: >: >: Now stop your lying and rightwing troll games.
: >: >: >:
: >: >: >: >Le'Turd, You're the queen of the left-wing trolls, you and your
: >: >: >: >bunk-buddy Thumpty-DumbAss. Why don't you go see what he has in
: >his
: >: >: >: >Depends for you.
: >: >: >:
: >: >: >:
: >: >: >: Sorry asshole, but you lose -- You have been told the facts and
you
: >: >don't
: >: >: >: want to hear them. See the shrink about it.
: >: >:
: >: >: >Since you failed to address the question (yet again), we'll just
: >assume
: >: >: >the answer is "No" as evidenced by your usual nonsensical and
totally
: >: >: >inappropriate response. Head for the Free Clinic, Le'Turd, I know
: >your
: >: >: >meds have expired.
: >: >:
: >: >:
: >: >: >:
: >: >: >:
: >: >: >:
: >: >: >:
: >: >: >:
: >: >: >: >:
: >: >: >: >:
: >: >: >: >:
: >: >: >: >:
: >: >: >: >:
: >: >: >: >:
: >: >: >: >: >Head for the Free Clinic, Le'Turd, I think your meds have
: >expired.
: >: >: >: >:
: >: >: >: >: >:
: >: >: >: >:
: >: >: >: >:
: >: >: >: >:
: >: >: >: >:
: >: >: >: >:
: >: >: >:
: >: >: >:
: >: >: >:
: >: >:
: >: >:
: >: >:
: >:
: >:
: >:
:
:
:

[B2431]

>From:


>
>My response was entirely correct. bush refused to take his annual medical.
>-- It was because he into drinking and drugs and the USAF started making
>them pee in the cup.
>
>Now stop your lying and rightwing troll games.

I hate to tell you this but no physical, flight or otherwise, screened for
drugs unless specifically told to do so by competent authority.

Drug screening was a command function, not medical.

Even if Bush was doing illegal drugs as you neolefties claim his medical would
not have caught it.

If you had been in the military you would have known this.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[[email protected]]

In >, on 08/21/2004
at 04:15 PM, "BigRedWingsFan" > said:


> wrote in message
>news:jPOVc.5252$Nn2.882@trndny05... : In >,
>on 08/21/2004
>: at 04:02 PM, "BigRedWingsFan" > said:
>:
>:
>: > wrote in message news:BIOVc.546$oA.525@trndny04...
>: >: In >, on 08/21/2004
>: >: at 03:56 PM, "BigRedWingsFan" > said:
>: >:
>: >:
>: >: > wrote in message
>: >: >news:6EOVc.2794$VY.2607@trndny09... :
>: >: >: Whatever you say asshole -- bush released his ANG records -- they
>show
>: >he
>: >: >: refused to take the annual physical. -- Now bush in his own words
>is a
>: >: >: guy who loved to fly. -- so what would he not take the physical?
>: >Because
>: >: >: they were going to make him pee in the cup.
>: >: >:
>: >: >: If you can't understand what that means -- its because your a
>complete
>: >: >: ****ing idiot.
>: >: >:
>: >: >: PS: the question has been answered many times -- you however are
>too
>: >dumb
>: >: >: to understand the answer.
>: >:
>: >: >You're the ignoram-ass, ****tard, you still haven't answered the
>: >: >question. Now, go play on the freeway with your bunk-buddy
>: >: >Thumpty-DumbAss.
>: >:
>: >: And the question you don';t think is answered is?
>:
>: >The question I know wasn't answered is: "Have you ever dealt with
>: >military pay records?".
>:
>: Yes asshole I have. Mine in the USAF and ANG. -- bush's records have
>: holes in them. It means he didn't show up for moths at a time. Now you go
>: prove he did.

>I don't need to prove a ****ing thing, Re'Tard, *if* you had served in
>the ANG as you claim, you'd've heard of points-only training periods for
>which no pay is earned. All I need to know is that PRESIDENT BUSH
>HONORABLY COMPLETED HIS SERVICE OBLIGATION <emphasis added for Le'Turd's
>benefit>. That means, asshat, that he completed all of his required
>training and achieved a satisfactory number of points during his tenure
>in the TXANG, PERIOD.


Listen up asshole -- the pay records show he was not in AL when he claimed
to be, there is no document excusing him, or for make up drills. -- that
means he was AWOL -- and your whining, means you are a rightwing asshole.

Now grow up, or see the shrink. They have drugs now for delusional
assholes like you.







>:
>:
>:
>: No smart-ass answer either, cum-breath, because
>: >I know you haven't and I also know you don't have a ****ing ounce of
>: >truth and honesty in your slimy body. I hope your hatred of President
>: >Bush consumes you totally, you're already raving like a lunatic.
>:
>: The lunatic is you. Even bush doesn't try to make the claims you do.

>Oh boy, here we go, "I know you are but what am I?". Next it'll be "Mine
>is bigger than yours." Get a life.

>:
>:
>:
>: >:
>: >:
>: >:
>: >:
>: >:
>: >: >:
>: >: >:
>: >: >:
>: >: >:
>: >: >: In >, on 08/21/2004
>: >: >: at 03:06 PM, "BigRedWingsFan" > said:
>: >: >:
>: >: >:
>: >: >: > wrote in message
>: >: >: >news:pUNVc.11201$3O2.7293@trndny07... : In
>: >: >: >, on 08/21/2004 : at 02:46 PM,
>: >: >: >"BigRedWingsFan" > said: :
>: >: >: >:
>: >: >: >: > wrote in message
>: >: >: >: >news:4ANVc.2776$VY.1809@trndny09... : In
>: >: >: >: >, on 08/21/2004 : at
>: >02:14
>: >: >PM,
>: >: >: >: >"Bigredwingsfan" > said: :
>: >: >: >: >:
>: >: >: >: >: > wrote in message
>: >: >: >news:HtMVc.862$1M3.275@trndny01...
>: >: >: >: >: >: In <UHLVc.86672$Lj.73228@fed1read03>, on 08/21/2004
>: >: >: >: >: >: at 01:33 PM, "sanjian" > said:
>: >: >: >: >: >:
>: >: >: >: >: >: wrote:
>: >: >: >: >: >: >> In >, on 08/21/2004
>: >: >: >: >: >: >> at 10:35 AM, "BigRedWingsFan" > said:
>: >: >: >: >: >:
>: >: >: >: >: >: >>> What part of "you can never prove that" don't you
>: >understand,
>: >: >: >: >: >: >>> Le'Turd? It's just not true, period.
>: >: >: >: >: >: >>
>: >: >: >: >: >: >> bushs pay records prove he didn't show up. -- Right
>after
>: >he
>: >: >was
>: >: >: >: >: >: >> ordered to pee in the cup and didn't.
>: >: >: >: >: >:
>: >: >: >: >: >: >You're mistaking "have not disproven" for "have proven."
>By
>: >: >that
>: >: >: >: >: >: >measure, I must assume you believe in the Tooth Fairy and
>the
>: >: >: >Easter
>: >: >: >: >: >: >Bunny. Have you ever dealt with military pay records?
>: >: >: >: >: >:
>: >: >: >: >: >: Stop your lying.
>: >: >: >: >:
>: >: >: >: >: >Since you failed to address the question, we'll just assume
>the
>: >: >answer
>: >: >: >is
>: >: >: >: >: >"No" as evidenced by your nonsensical and totally
>inappropriate
>: >: >: >response.
>: >: >: >: >:
>: >: >: >: >:
>: >: >: >: >: My response was entirely correct. bush refused to take his
>annual
>: >: >: >medical.
>: >: >: >: >: -- It was because he into drinking and drugs and the USAF
>started
>: >: >: >making
>: >: >: >: >: them pee in the cup.
>: >: >: >:
>: >: >: >: >Since you failed to address the question (again), we'll just
>assume
>: >: >the
>: >: >: >: >answer is "No" as evidenced by your nonsensical and totally
>: >: >inappropriate
>: >: >: >: >response.
>: >: >: >:
>: >: >: >: >:
>: >: >: >: >: Now stop your lying and rightwing troll games.
>: >: >: >:
>: >: >: >: >Le'Turd, You're the queen of the left-wing trolls, you and your
>: >: >: >: >bunk-buddy Thumpty-DumbAss. Why don't you go see what he has in
>: >his
>: >: >: >: >Depends for you.
>: >: >: >:
>: >: >: >:
>: >: >: >: Sorry asshole, but you lose -- You have been told the facts and
>you
>: >: >don't
>: >: >: >: want to hear them. See the shrink about it.
>: >: >:
>: >: >: >Since you failed to address the question (yet again), we'll just
>: >assume
>: >: >: >the answer is "No" as evidenced by your usual nonsensical and
>totally
>: >: >: >inappropriate response. Head for the Free Clinic, Le'Turd, I know
>: >your
>: >: >: >meds have expired.
>: >: >:
>: >: >:
>: >: >: >:
>: >: >: >:
>: >: >: >:
>: >: >: >:
>: >: >: >:
>: >: >: >: >:
>: >: >: >: >:
>: >: >: >: >:
>: >: >: >: >:
>: >: >: >: >:
>: >: >: >: >:
>: >: >: >: >: >Head for the Free Clinic, Le'Turd, I think your meds have
>: >expired.
>: >: >: >: >:
>: >: >: >: >: >:
>: >: >: >: >:
>: >: >: >: >:
>: >: >: >: >:
>: >: >: >: >:
>: >: >: >: >:
>: >: >: >:
>: >: >: >:
>: >: >: >:
>: >: >:
>: >: >:
>: >: >:
>: >:
>: >:
>: >:
>:
>:
>:

[BigRedWingsFan]

> wrote in message news:J4PVc.11303$3O2.1092@trndny07...
: In >, on 08/21/2004
: at 04:15 PM, "BigRedWingsFan" > said:
:
:
: > wrote in message
: >news:jPOVc.5252$Nn2.882@trndny05... : In >,
: >on 08/21/2004
: >: at 04:02 PM, "BigRedWingsFan" > said:
: >:
: >:
: >: > wrote in message
news:BIOVc.546$oA.525@trndny04...
: >: >: In >, on 08/21/2004
: >: >: at 03:56 PM, "BigRedWingsFan" > said:
: >: >:
: >: >:
: >: >: > wrote in message
: >: >: >news:6EOVc.2794$VY.2607@trndny09... :
: >: >: >: Whatever you say asshole -- bush released his ANG records -- they
: >show
: >: >he
: >: >: >: refused to take the annual physical. -- Now bush in his own
words
: >is a
: >: >: >: guy who loved to fly. -- so what would he not take the physical?
: >: >Because
: >: >: >: they were going to make him pee in the cup.
: >: >: >:
: >: >: >: If you can't understand what that means -- its because your a
: >complete
: >: >: >: ****ing idiot.
: >: >: >:
: >: >: >: PS: the question has been answered many times -- you however are
: >too
: >: >dumb
: >: >: >: to understand the answer.
: >: >:
: >: >: >You're the ignoram-ass, ****tard, you still haven't answered the
: >: >: >question. Now, go play on the freeway with your bunk-buddy
: >: >: >Thumpty-DumbAss.
: >: >:
: >: >: And the question you don';t think is answered is?
: >:
: >: >The question I know wasn't answered is: "Have you ever dealt with
: >: >military pay records?".
: >:
: >: Yes asshole I have. Mine in the USAF and ANG. -- bush's records have
: >: holes in them. It means he didn't show up for moths at a time. Now you
go
: >: prove he did.
:
: >I don't need to prove a ****ing thing, Re'Tard, *if* you had served in
: >the ANG as you claim, you'd've heard of points-only training periods for
: >which no pay is earned. All I need to know is that PRESIDENT BUSH
: >HONORABLY COMPLETED HIS SERVICE OBLIGATION <emphasis added for Le'Turd's
: >benefit>. That means, asshat, that he completed all of his required
: >training and achieved a satisfactory number of points during his tenure
: >in the TXANG, PERIOD.
:
:
: Listen up asshole -- the pay records show he was not in AL when he claimed
: to be, there is no document excusing him, or for make up drills. -- that
: means he was AWOL -- and your whining, means you are a rightwing asshole.

The ONLY thing it proves is that PRESIDENT BUSH did not perform any duty for
pay.



:
: Now grow up, or see the shrink. They have drugs now for delusional
: assholes like you.

Too bad you're not eligible for VA care, they have nice padded rooms for
fruitcakes like you.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
: >:
: >:
: >:
: >: No smart-ass answer either, cum-breath, because
: >: >I know you haven't and I also know you don't have a ****ing ounce of
: >: >truth and honesty in your slimy body. I hope your hatred of President
: >: >Bush consumes you totally, you're already raving like a lunatic.
: >:
: >: The lunatic is you. Even bush doesn't try to make the claims you do.
:
: >Oh boy, here we go, "I know you are but what am I?". Next it'll be "Mine
: >is bigger than yours." Get a life.
:
: >:
: >:
: >:
: >: >:
: >: >:
: >: >:
: >: >:
: >: >:
: >: >: >:
: >: >: >:
: >: >: >:
: >: >: >:
: >: >: >: In >, on 08/21/2004
: >: >: >: at 03:06 PM, "BigRedWingsFan" > said:
: >: >: >:
: >: >: >:
: >: >: >: > wrote in message
: >: >: >: >news:pUNVc.11201$3O2.7293@trndny07... : In
: >: >: >: >, on 08/21/2004 : at 02:46 PM,
: >: >: >: >"BigRedWingsFan" > said: :
: >: >: >: >:
: >: >: >: >: > wrote in message
: >: >: >: >: >news:4ANVc.2776$VY.1809@trndny09... : In
: >: >: >: >: >, on 08/21/2004 :
at
: >: >02:14
: >: >: >PM,
: >: >: >: >: >"Bigredwingsfan" > said: :
: >: >: >: >: >:
: >: >: >: >: >: > wrote in message
: >: >: >: >news:HtMVc.862$1M3.275@trndny01...
: >: >: >: >: >: >: In <UHLVc.86672$Lj.73228@fed1read03>, on 08/21/2004
: >: >: >: >: >: >: at 01:33 PM, "sanjian" > said:
: >: >: >: >: >: >:
: >: >: >: >: >: >: wrote:
: >: >: >: >: >: >: >> In >, on 08/21/2004
: >: >: >: >: >: >: >> at 10:35 AM, "BigRedWingsFan" >
said:
: >: >: >: >: >: >:
: >: >: >: >: >: >: >>> What part of "you can never prove that" don't you
: >: >understand,
: >: >: >: >: >: >: >>> Le'Turd? It's just not true, period.
: >: >: >: >: >: >: >>
: >: >: >: >: >: >: >> bushs pay records prove he didn't show up. -- Right
: >after
: >: >he
: >: >: >was
: >: >: >: >: >: >: >> ordered to pee in the cup and didn't.
: >: >: >: >: >: >:
: >: >: >: >: >: >: >You're mistaking "have not disproven" for "have
proven."
: >By
: >: >: >that
: >: >: >: >: >: >: >measure, I must assume you believe in the Tooth Fairy
and
: >the
: >: >: >: >Easter
: >: >: >: >: >: >: >Bunny. Have you ever dealt with military pay records?
: >: >: >: >: >: >:
: >: >: >: >: >: >: Stop your lying.
: >: >: >: >: >:
: >: >: >: >: >: >Since you failed to address the question, we'll just
assume
: >the
: >: >: >answer
: >: >: >: >is
: >: >: >: >: >: >"No" as evidenced by your nonsensical and totally
: >inappropriate
: >: >: >: >response.
: >: >: >: >: >:
: >: >: >: >: >:
: >: >: >: >: >: My response was entirely correct. bush refused to take his
: >annual
: >: >: >: >medical.
: >: >: >: >: >: -- It was because he into drinking and drugs and the USAF
: >started
: >: >: >: >making
: >: >: >: >: >: them pee in the cup.
: >: >: >: >:
: >: >: >: >: >Since you failed to address the question (again), we'll just
: >assume
: >: >: >the
: >: >: >: >: >answer is "No" as evidenced by your nonsensical and totally
: >: >: >inappropriate
: >: >: >: >: >response.
: >: >: >: >:
: >: >: >: >: >:
: >: >: >: >: >: Now stop your lying and rightwing troll games.
: >: >: >: >:
: >: >: >: >: >Le'Turd, You're the queen of the left-wing trolls, you and
your
: >: >: >: >: >bunk-buddy Thumpty-DumbAss. Why don't you go see what he has
in
: >: >his
: >: >: >: >: >Depends for you.
: >: >: >: >:
: >: >: >: >:
: >: >: >: >: Sorry asshole, but you lose -- You have been told the facts
and
: >you
: >: >: >don't
: >: >: >: >: want to hear them. See the shrink about it.
: >: >: >:
: >: >: >: >Since you failed to address the question (yet again), we'll just
: >: >assume
: >: >: >: >the answer is "No" as evidenced by your usual nonsensical and
: >totally
: >: >: >: >inappropriate response. Head for the Free Clinic, Le'Turd, I
know
: >: >your
: >: >: >: >meds have expired.
: >: >: >:
: >: >: >:
: >: >: >: >:
: >: >: >: >:
: >: >: >: >:
: >: >: >: >:
: >: >: >: >:
: >: >: >: >: >:
: >: >: >: >: >:
: >: >: >: >: >:
: >: >: >: >: >:
: >: >: >: >: >:
: >: >: >: >: >:
: >: >: >: >: >: >Head for the Free Clinic, Le'Turd, I think your meds have
: >: >expired.
: >: >: >: >: >:
: >: >: >: >: >: >:
: >: >: >: >: >:
: >: >: >: >: >:
: >: >: >: >: >:
: >: >: >: >: >:
: >: >: >: >: >:
: >: >: >: >:
: >: >: >: >:
: >: >: >: >:
: >: >: >:
: >: >: >:
: >: >: >:
: >: >:
: >: >:
: >: >:
: >:
: >:
: >:
:
:
:

[[email protected]]

In >, on 08/21/2004
at 04:28 PM, "BigRedWingsFan" > said:


> wrote in message
>news:J4PVc.11303$3O2.1092@trndny07... : In
>, on 08/21/2004 : at 04:15 PM,
>"BigRedWingsFan" > said: :
>:
>: > wrote in message
>: >news:jPOVc.5252$Nn2.882@trndny05... : In >,
>: >on 08/21/2004
>: >: at 04:02 PM, "BigRedWingsFan" > said:
>: >:
>: >:
>: >: > wrote in message
>news:BIOVc.546$oA.525@trndny04...
>: >: >: In >, on 08/21/2004
>: >: >: at 03:56 PM, "BigRedWingsFan" > said:
>: >: >:
>: >: >:
>: >: >: > wrote in message
>: >: >: >news:6EOVc.2794$VY.2607@trndny09... :
>: >: >: >: Whatever you say asshole -- bush released his ANG records -- they
>: >show
>: >: >he
>: >: >: >: refused to take the annual physical. -- Now bush in his own
>words
>: >is a
>: >: >: >: guy who loved to fly. -- so what would he not take the physical?
>: >: >Because
>: >: >: >: they were going to make him pee in the cup.
>: >: >: >:
>: >: >: >: If you can't understand what that means -- its because your a
>: >complete
>: >: >: >: ****ing idiot.
>: >: >: >:
>: >: >: >: PS: the question has been answered many times -- you however are
>: >too
>: >: >dumb
>: >: >: >: to understand the answer.
>: >: >:
>: >: >: >You're the ignoram-ass, ****tard, you still haven't answered the
>: >: >: >question. Now, go play on the freeway with your bunk-buddy
>: >: >: >Thumpty-DumbAss.
>: >: >:
>: >: >: And the question you don';t think is answered is?
>: >:
>: >: >The question I know wasn't answered is: "Have you ever dealt with
>: >: >military pay records?".
>: >:
>: >: Yes asshole I have. Mine in the USAF and ANG. -- bush's records have
>: >: holes in them. It means he didn't show up for moths at a time. Now you
>go
>: >: prove he did.
>:
>: >I don't need to prove a ****ing thing, Re'Tard, *if* you had served in
>: >the ANG as you claim, you'd've heard of points-only training periods for
>: >which no pay is earned. All I need to know is that PRESIDENT BUSH
>: >HONORABLY COMPLETED HIS SERVICE OBLIGATION <emphasis added for Le'Turd's
>: >benefit>. That means, asshat, that he completed all of his required
>: >training and achieved a satisfactory number of points during his tenure
>: >in the TXANG, PERIOD.
>:
>:
>: Listen up asshole -- the pay records show he was not in AL when he claimed
>: to be, there is no document excusing him, or for make up drills. -- that
>: means he was AWOL -- and your whining, means you are a rightwing asshole.

>The ONLY thing it proves is that PRESIDENT BUSH did not perform any duty
>for pay.

I'm sorry asshole -- what part of "there is no document excusing him, or
for make up drills," if too complex for you to understand?




>:
>: Now grow up, or see the shrink. They have drugs now for delusional
>: assholes like you.

>Too bad you're not eligible for VA care, they have nice padded rooms for
>fruitcakes like you.

The asshole is you! -- What part of "there is no document excusing him,
or for make up drills," if too complex for you to understand?




>:
>:
>:
>:
>:
>:
>:
>: >:
>: >:
>: >:
>: >: No smart-ass answer either, cum-breath, because
>: >: >I know you haven't and I also know you don't have a ****ing ounce of
>: >: >truth and honesty in your slimy body. I hope your hatred of President
>: >: >Bush consumes you totally, you're already raving like a lunatic.
>: >:
>: >: The lunatic is you. Even bush doesn't try to make the claims you do.
>:
>: >Oh boy, here we go, "I know you are but what am I?". Next it'll be "Mine
>: >is bigger than yours." Get a life.
>:
>: >:
>: >:
>: >:
>: >: >:
>: >: >:
>: >: >:
>: >: >:
>: >: >:
>: >: >: >:
>: >: >: >:
>: >: >: >:
>: >: >: >:
>: >: >: >: In >, on 08/21/2004
>: >: >: >: at 03:06 PM, "BigRedWingsFan" > said:
>: >: >: >:
>: >: >: >:
>: >: >: >: > wrote in message
>: >: >: >: >news:pUNVc.11201$3O2.7293@trndny07... : In
>: >: >: >: >, on 08/21/2004 : at 02:46 PM,
>: >: >: >: >"BigRedWingsFan" > said: :
>: >: >: >: >:
>: >: >: >: >: > wrote in message
>: >: >: >: >: >news:4ANVc.2776$VY.1809@trndny09... : In
>: >: >: >: >: >, on 08/21/2004 :
>at
>: >: >02:14
>: >: >: >PM,
>: >: >: >: >: >"Bigredwingsfan" > said: :
>: >: >: >: >: >:
>: >: >: >: >: >: > wrote in message
>: >: >: >: >news:HtMVc.862$1M3.275@trndny01...
>: >: >: >: >: >: >: In <UHLVc.86672$Lj.73228@fed1read03>, on 08/21/2004
>: >: >: >: >: >: >: at 01:33 PM, "sanjian" > said:
>: >: >: >: >: >: >:
>: >: >: >: >: >: >: wrote:
>: >: >: >: >: >: >: >> In >, on 08/21/2004
>: >: >: >: >: >: >: >> at 10:35 AM, "BigRedWingsFan" >
>said:
>: >: >: >: >: >: >:
>: >: >: >: >: >: >: >>> What part of "you can never prove that" don't you
>: >: >understand,
>: >: >: >: >: >: >: >>> Le'Turd? It's just not true, period.
>: >: >: >: >: >: >: >>
>: >: >: >: >: >: >: >> bushs pay records prove he didn't show up. -- Right
>: >after
>: >: >he
>: >: >: >was
>: >: >: >: >: >: >: >> ordered to pee in the cup and didn't.
>: >: >: >: >: >: >:
>: >: >: >: >: >: >: >You're mistaking "have not disproven" for "have
>proven."
>: >By
>: >: >: >that
>: >: >: >: >: >: >: >measure, I must assume you believe in the Tooth Fairy
>and
>: >the
>: >: >: >: >Easter
>: >: >: >: >: >: >: >Bunny. Have you ever dealt with military pay records?
>: >: >: >: >: >: >:
>: >: >: >: >: >: >: Stop your lying.
>: >: >: >: >: >:
>: >: >: >: >: >: >Since you failed to address the question, we'll just
>assume
>: >the
>: >: >: >answer
>: >: >: >: >is
>: >: >: >: >: >: >"No" as evidenced by your nonsensical and totally
>: >inappropriate
>: >: >: >: >response.
>: >: >: >: >: >:
>: >: >: >: >: >:
>: >: >: >: >: >: My response was entirely correct. bush refused to take his
>: >annual
>: >: >: >: >medical.
>: >: >: >: >: >: -- It was because he into drinking and drugs and the USAF
>: >started
>: >: >: >: >making
>: >: >: >: >: >: them pee in the cup.
>: >: >: >: >:
>: >: >: >: >: >Since you failed to address the question (again), we'll just
>: >assume
>: >: >: >the
>: >: >: >: >: >answer is "No" as evidenced by your nonsensical and totally
>: >: >: >inappropriate
>: >: >: >: >: >response.
>: >: >: >: >:
>: >: >: >: >: >:
>: >: >: >: >: >: Now stop your lying and rightwing troll games.
>: >: >: >: >:
>: >: >: >: >: >Le'Turd, You're the queen of the left-wing trolls, you and
>your
>: >: >: >: >: >bunk-buddy Thumpty-DumbAss. Why don't you go see what he has
>in
>: >: >his
>: >: >: >: >: >Depends for you.
>: >: >: >: >:
>: >: >: >: >:
>: >: >: >: >: Sorry asshole, but you lose -- You have been told the facts
>and
>: >you
>: >: >: >don't
>: >: >: >: >: want to hear them. See the shrink about it.
>: >: >: >:
>: >: >: >: >Since you failed to address the question (yet again), we'll just
>: >: >assume
>: >: >: >: >the answer is "No" as evidenced by your usual nonsensical and
>: >totally
>: >: >: >: >inappropriate response. Head for the Free Clinic, Le'Turd, I
>know
>: >: >your
>: >: >: >: >meds have expired.
>: >: >: >:
>: >: >: >:
>: >: >: >: >:
>: >: >: >: >:
>: >: >: >: >:
>: >: >: >: >:
>: >: >: >: >:
>: >: >: >: >: >:
>: >: >: >: >: >:
>: >: >: >: >: >:
>: >: >: >: >: >:
>: >: >: >: >: >:
>: >: >: >: >: >:
>: >: >: >: >: >: >Head for the Free Clinic, Le'Turd, I think your meds have
>: >: >expired.
>: >: >: >: >: >:
>: >: >: >: >: >: >:
>: >: >: >: >: >:
>: >: >: >: >: >:
>: >: >: >: >: >:
>: >: >: >: >: >:
>: >: >: >: >: >:
>: >: >: >: >:
>: >: >: >: >:
>: >: >: >: >:
>: >: >: >:
>: >: >: >:
>: >: >: >:
>: >: >:
>: >: >:
>: >: >:
>: >:
>: >:
>: >:
>:
>:
>:

[BigRedWingsFan]

> wrote in message news:ycPVc.2798$VY.1104@trndny09...
: In >, on 08/21/2004
: at 04:28 PM, "BigRedWingsFan" > said:
:
:
: > wrote in message
: >news:J4PVc.11303$3O2.1092@trndny07... : In
: >, on 08/21/2004 : at 04:15 PM,
: >"BigRedWingsFan" > said: :
: >:
: >: > wrote in message
: >: >news:jPOVc.5252$Nn2.882@trndny05... : In
>,
: >: >on 08/21/2004
: >: >: at 04:02 PM, "BigRedWingsFan" > said:
: >: >:
: >: >:
: >: >: > wrote in message
: >news:BIOVc.546$oA.525@trndny04...
: >: >: >: In >, on 08/21/2004
: >: >: >: at 03:56 PM, "BigRedWingsFan" > said:
: >: >: >:
: >: >: >:
: >: >: >: > wrote in message
: >: >: >: >news:6EOVc.2794$VY.2607@trndny09... :
: >: >: >: >: Whatever you say asshole -- bush released his ANG records --
they
: >: >show
: >: >: >he
: >: >: >: >: refused to take the annual physical. -- Now bush in his own
: >words
: >: >is a
: >: >: >: >: guy who loved to fly. -- so what would he not take the
physical?
: >: >: >Because
: >: >: >: >: they were going to make him pee in the cup.
: >: >: >: >:
: >: >: >: >: If you can't understand what that means -- its because your a
: >: >complete
: >: >: >: >: ****ing idiot.
: >: >: >: >:
: >: >: >: >: PS: the question has been answered many times -- you however
are
: >: >too
: >: >: >dumb
: >: >: >: >: to understand the answer.
: >: >: >:
: >: >: >: >You're the ignoram-ass, ****tard, you still haven't answered the
: >: >: >: >question. Now, go play on the freeway with your bunk-buddy
: >: >: >: >Thumpty-DumbAss.
: >: >: >:
: >: >: >: And the question you don';t think is answered is?
: >: >:
: >: >: >The question I know wasn't answered is: "Have you ever dealt with
: >: >: >military pay records?".
: >: >:
: >: >: Yes asshole I have. Mine in the USAF and ANG. -- bush's records
have
: >: >: holes in them. It means he didn't show up for moths at a time. Now
you
: >go
: >: >: prove he did.
: >:
: >: >I don't need to prove a ****ing thing, Re'Tard, *if* you had served in
: >: >the ANG as you claim, you'd've heard of points-only training periods
for
: >: >which no pay is earned. All I need to know is that PRESIDENT BUSH
: >: >HONORABLY COMPLETED HIS SERVICE OBLIGATION <emphasis added for
Le'Turd's
: >: >benefit>. That means, asshat, that he completed all of his required
: >: >training and achieved a satisfactory number of points during his
tenure
: >: >in the TXANG, PERIOD.
: >:
: >:
: >: Listen up asshole -- the pay records show he was not in AL when he
claimed
: >: to be, there is no document excusing him, or for make up drills. --
that
: >: means he was AWOL -- and your whining, means you are a rightwing
asshole.
:
: >The ONLY thing it proves is that PRESIDENT BUSH did not perform any duty
: >for pay.
:
: I'm sorry asshole -- what part of "there is no document excusing him, or
: for make up drills," if too complex for you to understand?

What part of PRESIDENT BUSH HONORABLY COMPLETED HIS SERVICE OBLIGATION
<emphasis added for Le'Turd'sbenefit> can't you get thru that pea-sized mass
of gray-matter you call a brain? That means, asshat, that he completed all
of his required training and achieved a satisfactory number of points during
his tenure in the TXANG, PERIOD.



:
:
:
:
: >:
: >: Now grow up, or see the shrink. They have drugs now for delusional
: >: assholes like you.
:
: >Too bad you're not eligible for VA care, they have nice padded rooms for
: >fruitcakes like you.
:
: The asshole is you! -- What part of "there is no document excusing him,
: or for make up drills," if too complex for you to understand?

Prove there isn't one, ****-for-brains, since, if one didn't exist he should
have been reprimanded by his commander at a minimum. Don't pull the
standard "son of a congressman" bull**** from your DNC handbook that you're
so fond of using either. You remind me of a Christmas goose, full of ****
and greasy.

:
:
:
:
: >:
: >:
: >:
: >:
: >:
: >:
: >:
: >: >:
: >: >:
: >: >:
: >: >: No smart-ass answer either, cum-breath, because
: >: >: >I know you haven't and I also know you don't have a ****ing ounce
of
: >: >: >truth and honesty in your slimy body. I hope your hatred of
President
: >: >: >Bush consumes you totally, you're already raving like a lunatic.
: >: >:
: >: >: The lunatic is you. Even bush doesn't try to make the claims you
do.
: >:
: >: >Oh boy, here we go, "I know you are but what am I?". Next it'll be
"Mine
: >: >is bigger than yours." Get a life.
: >:
: >: >:
: >: >:
: >: >:
: >: >: >:
: >: >: >:
: >: >: >:
: >: >: >:
: >: >: >:
: >: >: >: >:
: >: >: >: >:
: >: >: >: >:
: >: >: >: >:
: >: >: >: >: In >, on 08/21/2004
: >: >: >: >: at 03:06 PM, "BigRedWingsFan" > said:
: >: >: >: >:
: >: >: >: >:
: >: >: >: >: > wrote in message
: >: >: >: >: >news:pUNVc.11201$3O2.7293@trndny07... : In
: >: >: >: >: >, on 08/21/2004 : at 02:46
PM,
: >: >: >: >: >"BigRedWingsFan" > said: :
: >: >: >: >: >:
: >: >: >: >: >: > wrote in message
: >: >: >: >: >: >news:4ANVc.2776$VY.1809@trndny09... : In
: >: >: >: >: >: >, on 08/21/2004 :
: >at
: >: >: >02:14
: >: >: >: >PM,
: >: >: >: >: >: >"Bigredwingsfan" > said: :
: >: >: >: >: >: >:
: >: >: >: >: >: >: > wrote in message
: >: >: >: >: >news:HtMVc.862$1M3.275@trndny01...
: >: >: >: >: >: >: >: In <UHLVc.86672$Lj.73228@fed1read03>, on 08/21/2004
: >: >: >: >: >: >: >: at 01:33 PM, "sanjian" >
said:
: >: >: >: >: >: >: >:
: >: >: >: >: >: >: >: wrote:
: >: >: >: >: >: >: >: >> In >, on 08/21/2004
: >: >: >: >: >: >: >: >> at 10:35 AM, "BigRedWingsFan" >
: >said:
: >: >: >: >: >: >: >:
: >: >: >: >: >: >: >: >>> What part of "you can never prove that" don't you
: >: >: >understand,
: >: >: >: >: >: >: >: >>> Le'Turd? It's just not true, period.
: >: >: >: >: >: >: >: >>
: >: >: >: >: >: >: >: >> bushs pay records prove he didn't show up. --
Right
: >: >after
: >: >: >he
: >: >: >: >was
: >: >: >: >: >: >: >: >> ordered to pee in the cup and didn't.
: >: >: >: >: >: >: >:
: >: >: >: >: >: >: >: >You're mistaking "have not disproven" for "have
: >proven."
: >: >By
: >: >: >: >that
: >: >: >: >: >: >: >: >measure, I must assume you believe in the Tooth
Fairy
: >and
: >: >the
: >: >: >: >: >Easter
: >: >: >: >: >: >: >: >Bunny. Have you ever dealt with military pay
records?
: >: >: >: >: >: >: >:
: >: >: >: >: >: >: >: Stop your lying.
: >: >: >: >: >: >:
: >: >: >: >: >: >: >Since you failed to address the question, we'll just
: >assume
: >: >the
: >: >: >: >answer
: >: >: >: >: >is
: >: >: >: >: >: >: >"No" as evidenced by your nonsensical and totally
: >: >inappropriate
: >: >: >: >: >response.
: >: >: >: >: >: >:
: >: >: >: >: >: >:
: >: >: >: >: >: >: My response was entirely correct. bush refused to take
his
: >: >annual
: >: >: >: >: >medical.
: >: >: >: >: >: >: -- It was because he into drinking and drugs and the
USAF
: >: >started
: >: >: >: >: >making
: >: >: >: >: >: >: them pee in the cup.
: >: >: >: >: >:
: >: >: >: >: >: >Since you failed to address the question (again), we'll
just
: >: >assume
: >: >: >: >the
: >: >: >: >: >: >answer is "No" as evidenced by your nonsensical and
totally
: >: >: >: >inappropriate
: >: >: >: >: >: >response.
: >: >: >: >: >:
: >: >: >: >: >: >:
: >: >: >: >: >: >: Now stop your lying and rightwing troll games.
: >: >: >: >: >:
: >: >: >: >: >: >Le'Turd, You're the queen of the left-wing trolls, you and
: >your
: >: >: >: >: >: >bunk-buddy Thumpty-DumbAss. Why don't you go see what he
has
: >in
: >: >: >his
: >: >: >: >: >: >Depends for you.
: >: >: >: >: >:
: >: >: >: >: >:
: >: >: >: >: >: Sorry asshole, but you lose -- You have been told the
facts
: >and
: >: >you
: >: >: >: >don't
: >: >: >: >: >: want to hear them. See the shrink about it.
: >: >: >: >:
: >: >: >: >: >Since you failed to address the question (yet again), we'll
just
: >: >: >assume
: >: >: >: >: >the answer is "No" as evidenced by your usual nonsensical and
: >: >totally
: >: >: >: >: >inappropriate response. Head for the Free Clinic, Le'Turd, I
: >know
: >: >: >your
: >: >: >: >: >meds have expired.
: >: >: >: >:
: >: >: >: >:
: >: >: >: >: >:
: >: >: >: >: >:
: >: >: >: >: >:
: >: >: >: >: >:
: >: >: >: >: >:
: >: >: >: >: >: >:
: >: >: >: >: >: >:
: >: >: >: >: >: >:
: >: >: >: >: >: >:
: >: >: >: >: >: >:
: >: >: >: >: >: >:
: >: >: >: >: >: >: >Head for the Free Clinic, Le'Turd, I think your meds
have
: >: >: >expired.
: >: >: >: >: >: >:
: >: >: >: >: >: >: >:
: >: >: >: >: >: >:
: >: >: >: >: >: >:
: >: >: >: >: >: >:
: >: >: >: >: >: >:
: >: >: >: >: >: >:
: >: >: >: >: >:
: >: >: >: >: >:
: >: >: >: >: >:
: >: >: >: >:
: >: >: >: >:
: >: >: >: >:
: >: >: >:
: >: >: >:
: >: >: >:
: >: >:
: >: >:
: >: >:
: >:
: >:
: >:
:
:
:

[[email protected]]

Your point is nonsense. bushs' daddy, the RNC chairman at the time with
very close ties to nixon -- was not going to let his AWOL son get nailed
like real soldiers for his crimes.

bush didn't show up and got away with it. -- Now go see that shrink and
have him help you figure out why you are afraid of that fact.






In >, on 08/21/2004
at 04:40 PM, "BigRedWingsFan" > said:


> wrote in message
>news:ycPVc.2798$VY.1104@trndny09... : In >,
>on 08/21/2004
>: at 04:28 PM, "BigRedWingsFan" > said:
>:
>:
>: > wrote in message
>: >news:J4PVc.11303$3O2.1092@trndny07... : In
>: >, on 08/21/2004 : at 04:15 PM,
>: >"BigRedWingsFan" > said: :
>: >:
>: >: > wrote in message
>: >: >news:jPOVc.5252$Nn2.882@trndny05... : In
>,
>: >: >on 08/21/2004
>: >: >: at 04:02 PM, "BigRedWingsFan" > said:
>: >: >:
>: >: >:
>: >: >: > wrote in message
>: >news:BIOVc.546$oA.525@trndny04...
>: >: >: >: In >, on 08/21/2004
>: >: >: >: at 03:56 PM, "BigRedWingsFan" > said:
>: >: >: >:
>: >: >: >:
>: >: >: >: > wrote in message
>: >: >: >: >news:6EOVc.2794$VY.2607@trndny09... :
>: >: >: >: >: Whatever you say asshole -- bush released his ANG records --
>they
>: >: >show
>: >: >: >he
>: >: >: >: >: refused to take the annual physical. -- Now bush in his own
>: >words
>: >: >is a
>: >: >: >: >: guy who loved to fly. -- so what would he not take the
>physical?
>: >: >: >Because
>: >: >: >: >: they were going to make him pee in the cup.
>: >: >: >: >:
>: >: >: >: >: If you can't understand what that means -- its because your a
>: >: >complete
>: >: >: >: >: ****ing idiot.
>: >: >: >: >:
>: >: >: >: >: PS: the question has been answered many times -- you however
>are
>: >: >too
>: >: >: >dumb
>: >: >: >: >: to understand the answer.
>: >: >: >:
>: >: >: >: >You're the ignoram-ass, ****tard, you still haven't answered the
>: >: >: >: >question. Now, go play on the freeway with your bunk-buddy
>: >: >: >: >Thumpty-DumbAss.
>: >: >: >:
>: >: >: >: And the question you don';t think is answered is?
>: >: >:
>: >: >: >The question I know wasn't answered is: "Have you ever dealt with
>: >: >: >military pay records?".
>: >: >:
>: >: >: Yes asshole I have. Mine in the USAF and ANG. -- bush's records
>have
>: >: >: holes in them. It means he didn't show up for moths at a time. Now
>you
>: >go
>: >: >: prove he did.
>: >:
>: >: >I don't need to prove a ****ing thing, Re'Tard, *if* you had served in
>: >: >the ANG as you claim, you'd've heard of points-only training periods
>for
>: >: >which no pay is earned. All I need to know is that PRESIDENT BUSH
>: >: >HONORABLY COMPLETED HIS SERVICE OBLIGATION <emphasis added for
>Le'Turd's
>: >: >benefit>. That means, asshat, that he completed all of his required
>: >: >training and achieved a satisfactory number of points during his
>tenure
>: >: >in the TXANG, PERIOD.
>: >:
>: >:
>: >: Listen up asshole -- the pay records show he was not in AL when he
>claimed
>: >: to be, there is no document excusing him, or for make up drills. --
>that
>: >: means he was AWOL -- and your whining, means you are a rightwing
>asshole.
>:
>: >The ONLY thing it proves is that PRESIDENT BUSH did not perform any duty
>: >for pay.
>:
>: I'm sorry asshole -- what part of "there is no document excusing him, or
>: for make up drills," if too complex for you to understand?

>What part of PRESIDENT BUSH HONORABLY COMPLETED HIS SERVICE OBLIGATION
><emphasis added for Le'Turd'sbenefit> can't you get thru that pea-sized mass
>of gray-matter you call a brain? That means, asshat, that he completed all
>of his required training and achieved a satisfactory number of points during
>his tenure in the TXANG, PERIOD.



>:
>:
>:
>:
>: >:
>: >: Now grow up, or see the shrink. They have drugs now for delusional
>: >: assholes like you.
>:
>: >Too bad you're not eligible for VA care, they have nice padded rooms for
>: >fruitcakes like you.
>:
>: The asshole is you! -- What part of "there is no document excusing him,
>: or for make up drills," if too complex for you to understand?

>Prove there isn't one, ****-for-brains, since, if one didn't exist he should
>have been reprimanded by his commander at a minimum. Don't pull the
>standard "son of a congressman" bull**** from your DNC handbook that you're
>so fond of using either. You remind me of a Christmas goose, full of ****
>and greasy.

>:
>:
>:
>:
>: >:
>: >:
>: >:
>: >:
>: >:
>: >:
>: >:
>: >: >:
>: >: >:
>: >: >:
>: >: >: No smart-ass answer either, cum-breath, because
>: >: >: >I know you haven't and I also know you don't have a ****ing ounce
>of
>: >: >: >truth and honesty in your slimy body. I hope your hatred of
>President
>: >: >: >Bush consumes you totally, you're already raving like a lunatic.
>: >: >:
>: >: >: The lunatic is you. Even bush doesn't try to make the claims you
>do.
>: >:
>: >: >Oh boy, here we go, "I know you are but what am I?". Next it'll be
>"Mine
>: >: >is bigger than yours." Get a life.
>: >:
>: >: >:
>: >: >:
>: >: >:
>: >: >: >:
>: >: >: >:
>: >: >: >:
>: >: >: >:
>: >: >: >:
>: >: >: >: >:
>: >: >: >: >:
>: >: >: >: >:
>: >: >: >: >:
>: >: >: >: >: In >, on 08/21/2004
>: >: >: >: >: at 03:06 PM, "BigRedWingsFan" > said:
>: >: >: >: >:
>: >: >: >: >:
>: >: >: >: >: > wrote in message
>: >: >: >: >: >news:pUNVc.11201$3O2.7293@trndny07... : In
>: >: >: >: >: >, on 08/21/2004 : at 02:46
>PM,
>: >: >: >: >: >"BigRedWingsFan" > said: :
>: >: >: >: >: >:
>: >: >: >: >: >: > wrote in message
>: >: >: >: >: >: >news:4ANVc.2776$VY.1809@trndny09... : In
>: >: >: >: >: >: >, on 08/21/2004 :
>: >at
>: >: >: >02:14
>: >: >: >: >PM,
>: >: >: >: >: >: >"Bigredwingsfan" > said: :
>: >: >: >: >: >: >:
>: >: >: >: >: >: >: > wrote in message
>: >: >: >: >: >news:HtMVc.862$1M3.275@trndny01...
>: >: >: >: >: >: >: >: In <UHLVc.86672$Lj.73228@fed1read03>, on 08/21/2004
>: >: >: >: >: >: >: >: at 01:33 PM, "sanjian" >
>said:
>: >: >: >: >: >: >: >:
>: >: >: >: >: >: >: >: wrote:
>: >: >: >: >: >: >: >: >> In >, on 08/21/2004
>: >: >: >: >: >: >: >: >> at 10:35 AM, "BigRedWingsFan" >
>: >said:
>: >: >: >: >: >: >: >:
>: >: >: >: >: >: >: >: >>> What part of "you can never prove that" don't you
>: >: >: >understand,
>: >: >: >: >: >: >: >: >>> Le'Turd? It's just not true, period.
>: >: >: >: >: >: >: >: >>
>: >: >: >: >: >: >: >: >> bushs pay records prove he didn't show up. --
>Right
>: >: >after
>: >: >: >he
>: >: >: >: >was
>: >: >: >: >: >: >: >: >> ordered to pee in the cup and didn't.
>: >: >: >: >: >: >: >:
>: >: >: >: >: >: >: >: >You're mistaking "have not disproven" for "have
>: >proven."
>: >: >By
>: >: >: >: >that
>: >: >: >: >: >: >: >: >measure, I must assume you believe in the Tooth
>Fairy
>: >and
>: >: >the
>: >: >: >: >: >Easter
>: >: >: >: >: >: >: >: >Bunny. Have you ever dealt with military pay
>records?
>: >: >: >: >: >: >: >:
>: >: >: >: >: >: >: >: Stop your lying.
>: >: >: >: >: >: >:
>: >: >: >: >: >: >: >Since you failed to address the question, we'll just
>: >assume
>: >: >the
>: >: >: >: >answer
>: >: >: >: >: >is
>: >: >: >: >: >: >: >"No" as evidenced by your nonsensical and totally
>: >: >inappropriate
>: >: >: >: >: >response.
>: >: >: >: >: >: >:
>: >: >: >: >: >: >:
>: >: >: >: >: >: >: My response was entirely correct. bush refused to take
>his
>: >: >annual
>: >: >: >: >: >medical.
>: >: >: >: >: >: >: -- It was because he into drinking and drugs and the
>USAF
>: >: >started
>: >: >: >: >: >making
>: >: >: >: >: >: >: them pee in the cup.
>: >: >: >: >: >:
>: >: >: >: >: >: >Since you failed to address the question (again), we'll
>just
>: >: >assume
>: >: >: >: >the
>: >: >: >: >: >: >answer is "No" as evidenced by your nonsensical and
>totally
>: >: >: >: >inappropriate
>: >: >: >: >: >: >response.
>: >: >: >: >: >:
>: >: >: >: >: >: >:
>: >: >: >: >: >: >: Now stop your lying and rightwing troll games.
>: >: >: >: >: >:
>: >: >: >: >: >: >Le'Turd, You're the queen of the left-wing trolls, you and
>: >your
>: >: >: >: >: >: >bunk-buddy Thumpty-DumbAss. Why don't you go see what he
>has
>: >in
>: >: >: >his
>: >: >: >: >: >: >Depends for you.
>: >: >: >: >: >:
>: >: >: >: >: >:
>: >: >: >: >: >: Sorry asshole, but you lose -- You have been told the
>facts
>: >and
>: >: >you
>: >: >: >: >don't
>: >: >: >: >: >: want to hear them. See the shrink about it.
>: >: >: >: >:
>: >: >: >: >: >Since you failed to address the question (yet again), we'll
>just
>: >: >: >assume
>: >: >: >: >: >the answer is "No" as evidenced by your usual nonsensical and
>: >: >totally
>: >: >: >: >: >inappropriate response. Head for the Free Clinic, Le'Turd, I
>: >know
>: >: >: >your
>: >: >: >: >: >meds have expired.
>: >: >: >: >:
>: >: >: >: >:
>: >: >: >: >: >:
>: >: >: >: >: >:
>: >: >: >: >: >:
>: >: >: >: >: >:
>: >: >: >: >: >:
>: >: >: >: >: >: >:
>: >: >: >: >: >: >:
>: >: >: >: >: >: >:
>: >: >: >: >: >: >:
>: >: >: >: >: >: >:
>: >: >: >: >: >: >:
>: >: >: >: >: >: >: >Head for the Free Clinic, Le'Turd, I think your meds
>have
>: >: >: >expired.
>: >: >: >: >: >: >:
>: >: >: >: >: >: >: >:
>: >: >: >: >: >: >:
>: >: >: >: >: >: >:
>: >: >: >: >: >: >:
>: >: >: >: >: >: >:
>: >: >: >: >: >: >:
>: >: >: >: >: >:
>: >: >: >: >: >:
>: >: >: >: >: >:
>: >: >: >: >:
>: >: >: >: >:
>: >: >: >: >:
>: >: >: >:
>: >: >: >:
>: >: >: >:
>: >: >:
>: >: >:
>: >: >:
>: >:
>: >:
>: >:
>:
>:
>:

[redc1c4]

wrote:

(snipage occurs)

at least he's only "playing", as opposed to being one.....

redc1c4,
of the off topic, cross posting moron kind that you are.
--
"Enlisted men are stupid, but extremely cunning and sly, and bear
considerable watching."

Army Officer's Guide

[Kevin Brooks]

"Emmanuel Gustin" > wrote in message
...
> "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > And that was basically the conclusion forwarded by the US.
>
> The conclusions forwarded by the US went way beyond that.
> The US position was not only that Saddam was actively
> pursuing the acquisition of other WMD, including nuclear
> weapons, and also that he was, if not actually producing
> them, then at least close to getting them -- for example nuclear
> weapons within a year. And it even implied that he was
> willing to hand them over to terrorists.

Again, please provide Bush's words; you have proven thus far that you are
only capable of telling us what YOU say he said, not what he said--and your
view is a bit at odds with the pre-March 03 speeches of his that I have
read. Yes, we did say he was pursuing them--and Kay pretty much corroborated
that in his report to Congress regarding the ISG's work. Have you even
bothered reading that?

http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/KAY401A.html

>
> > You must have missed out reading kay's comments in January before
> Congress?
> > Where he indicated that Iraq had indeed continued to work towards
creating
> > and protecting dual-use facilities for the express purpose of being able
> to
> > switch them to WMD production? Their continued work on ricin right up
> until
> > the last conflict kicked off?
>
> The claim on ricin and other biological toxins seems to refer
> to laboratory research on weaponizing them, the tail end of
> an unsuccessful Iraqi attempt to produce such weapons. (At
> one time they had tests ricin in artillery shells, but with poor
> results.) Hardly an active WMD program; more likely a
> benchtop research effort of the kind that could be run in every
> university with a chemistry department. I'm not impressed. Nor
> I am I much impressed by the claim about "dual-use" facilities;
> in reality almost every chemical plant could be described as
> "dual-use" and Iraq is a country with a petrochemical industry.

Who really cares if YOU are impressed or not? There was a continuing effort
to work with ricin as a weapon. That work was in violation of the
restrictions placed upon them. There were other violations noted as well.
All of those are FACTS. As to *your* assessment of dual-use facilities,
ricin, etc....gee, I am gonna kind of believe that Kay, with his background,
knows more about them than YOU do--or are you going to give us a CV that
proves otherwise?

>
> What Kay's research discovered looks more like a defunct WMD
> research program, destroyed by years of sanctions, inspections,
> and bombing, with some tail ends still dragging on out of bureaucratic
> inertia (and the desire of the scientists in it to continue to survive
> and be paid.) The evidence indicates that Iraq had destroyed most
> of its WMD stocks and was unable to restart WMD programs even
> if it wanted to, but had not divested itself of the equipment (but
> hardware and biological) that would be needed to restart them.
> In violation of resolutions, but hardly an imminent threat.

And actively hid components, records, and reportedly agents. And produced
the AS II missiles which exceeded the range allowance. All were in
violation.

>
> > Now, can you show us where Bush stated categorically that the Iraqis
> > definitely had large stockpiles?
>
> Dubyah never makes statements of fact, only of opinion, and his
> speeches tend to be very low-content anyway. But Powell's statement
> to the UN, which I presume to be the official US government position
> at the time, was that Iraq had a stock of between 100 and 500 tons.

Ah-hah! So now you are backing off from your earlier claim that he DID
himself make such claims? Powell's estimate you noted is not really that
large, in terms of chemical weapons stockpiles, and was in line with earlier
UNMOVIC estimates of what was unaccounted for, IIRC. You continue, however,
to assign words to Bush without specificity, such as: "Bush managed to climb
the ladder of faulty intelligence and rethorical distortion from "Iraq
probably still has WMD stocks" up to "Iraq has active WMD programs."" Now,
can you show us where Bush said that they they definitely had WMD stocks?
Yes or no. Your second claim (about them having programs) has laready been
proven to be true.

And BTW, I missed where you earlier stated that maybe the rounds thus far
uncovered or detonated were from the Iran/Iraq era--can you point to where
the Iraqis ever fielded a true binary cyclosarin round during that conflict,
like the one that was set off near our convoy a few months back?

>
> > confirmation of the fact that he was indeed in violation of the UN
> dictates,
> > and the ceasefire conditions from ODS, in regards to WMD, is also a bit
> > dishonest.
>
> I have no problem admitting that Saddam was in violation of UN
> resolutions.

Good. Case closed, then.

I would add, however, that the USA was also in violation,
> if not of the letter, then at least the spirit of UN resolutions. The deal
> was that Iraq would disarm, under control of inspections, and then
> sanctions would be lifted. The USA made the removal of Saddam a
> policy goal and made it clear that it did not intend to ever lift
sanctions
> against him; this removed any incentive that Saddam might have had
> to cooperate with disarmament. On the contrary, it made it essential
> for him, right up to the very end, to retain the bluff that he had them.

You know, over here a bunch of folks, democrats and republicans both,
decided back in 1998 that Saddam had to go; you are indeed right about that.
And that decision was based upon a heck of a lot more than just the WMD
issue. It was subsequently made a part of US law (the Iraq Liberation Act),
with overwhelming support from both parties in congress, and was signed by
the last democrat we had in office as President. Now you may think that was
wrong--maybe we should have just turned our head to the question of mass
graves, continued threats to other neighboring states, one assasination
attempt against a former US President engineered by Iraqi intelligence
agents, along with continued and numerous violations of 687 and later 1441,
the fact that Saddam was the only still-serving national leader who had
proven willing to actually *use* WMD's, both in combat operations and asa
tool of genocide. But a lot of us over here don't agree with that
philosophy, and to tell you the truth, anyone who would be willing to accept
all of that and say, "Hey, let bygones be bygones, and lift the sanctions"
is probably not sombody we'd much care to hear opine about our subsequent
actions. It is odd, isn't it, how Eurolefties so willingly embraced the idea
of resorting to arms in stopping Milosevic and his Serbs on the basis of
claimed genocide, etc., but wanted no part of doing the same kind of thing
in Iraq?

>
> > Now, next time you want to tell us what Bush has *allegedly*
> > said, why don't you instead use his actual words, in context if you
don't
> > mind?
>
> Mainly because that isn't the style this White House communicates.
> Bush is very much a snake-oil salesman, always making statements
> that are artfully vague on facts but high on emotional value.
> Meanwhile, various underlings throw out statements in the press,
> or leak them if they prefer that, maintaining maximal deniability.

Translation: "I can't, so instead I'll continue to ionaccurately paraphrase
his comments to best suit my position"?

>
> But his latest gem was "We removed a declared enemy of America,

Yeah, that is an accurate picture so far--did you miss the prewar comments
from Saddam and his thug-sons, including the one where we were warned of
unleashing a disaster upon ourselves that would make 9-11 pale by
comparison?

> who had the capability of producing weapons of mass destruction

Yeah, they did, and what's more they were continuing proscribed WMD programs
up until the outbreak of armed hostilities.

> and could have passed that capability to terrorists bent on acquiring
> them."

Zarqawi; 'nuff said.

This no longer even is a claim that Saddam had the intent
> of producing WMD, only the capability;

Do you seriously doubt that Saddam would not have reopened production ASAP
if he had been allowed to? I gave you credit for possessing a bit more
common sense than that.

on these grounds the invasion
> of every country could be justified except the most impoverished and
> backward ones -- and perhaps not even those, considering the relative
> ease with which low-tech chemical weapons can be produced.

Nope. You are stretching WAY too far with that kind of crap, and you know
it.

>
> > Since when do you think the President is involved with intel analysis in
> > terms of determining reliability? He is the President, for gosh sakes,
not
> a
> > bean-counting intel analyst sitting in a cubicle at Langley.
>
> This was not about counting beans. This was about intelligence
> that was at the center of US foreign policy and at the center of
> military planning, and intelligence that was being contested from
> both outside and inside the intelligence services. His duty both
> as president and as commander-in-chief required that he should
> get acquainted with it as well as he could, studying arguments
> pro and contra, and make his own judgement as to its reliability.
>
> Believe me, there are good precedents for wartime leaders getting
> involved in the study of intelligence. Churchill certainly too such
> matters seriously, and FDR even became notorious for his penchant
> for getting first-hand information from semi-official envoys. He also
> created a 'map room' in the White House as a collection point for
> information.
>
> > I see you remain an astute hairsplitter--first you tell us that Russia
was
> > telling us that we were all wrong about Iraq, and when you are presented
> > evidence that Russia was at the same time providing us intel related to
a
> > purported direct Iraqi threat, you want to start speculating that it may
> not
> > have been anything but some kind of raw intel that should have
apparently
> > been disregarded out of hand?
>
> You still don't make a difference between raw intelligence material
> and an intelligence analysis. Putin's actions indicate that Russia was
> basing its policy on the assumption that Iraq did not have active
> WMD programmes, and they must have been fairly confident of
> this, as they could always be proven wrong. But that need not to
> stop him from passing on information to the USA that indicates
> a possible threat to that country, exactly because such information
> could NOT be dismissed out of hand. Whether he believed it or
> not is and was irrelevant to that action. It was morally and politically
> justified to pass on such information in any case, and allow the US to
> make its own judgement of it. There is no contradiction involved and
> it does not involve splitting hairs, only assuming that Putin was acting
> rationally.
>
> > See Franks' book:
>
> It may surprise you, but autobiographies are usually considered
> somewhat biased and not entirely reliable. And the particular
> sub-genre of autobiographies of retired generals has come in
> for much criticism...

Gee, especially when such first-person accounts tend to toss monkey wrenches
into your pet beliefs?

>
> Anyway, Franks' version corresponds to the official US version,
> but I doubt that this is more than the best guess of US intelligence
> services (for whatever that is worth.) And even he hedges a little
> bit here and there.
>
> > Errr...I listed power and water, didn't I? Where did your attention on
oil
> > come from?
>
> You started with 'energy', did you not?

Nope, I started with power, as in electrical power production and
distribution, and added water in as the other category; you chose to ignore
those and then instead twist it into some weird claim that getting Iraqi oil
production back online was somehow really a *bad* thing for the Iraqis
themselves? Do you also think they should have not bothered with the power
and water?

Iraqi oil production got
> close to pre-war levels in the spring, well ahead of other elements
> of the reconstruction of the country.

No, power production and distribution got there first. You like USAid as a
source--here is what they have to say on the subject: "By October 2003,
facilitated the rehabilitation of the national electric grid to produce a
peak capacity greater than the pre-war level of 4,400 MW. In June, after
months of power reduction for generation unit maintenance, generation began
steadily increasing and reached 5,000 MW in July 2004. Daily production is
now regularly exceeding 110,000 MW hours." Or do you consider October 2003
to be *after* this past spring?

As for water, at the time of the
> handover to the Iraqi government the water purification capacity
> was at 65% of its pre-war level (USAid figure!), and 4 out of 10
> Iraqis in urban areas had no access to safe drinking water.
> Electricity provision was also below pre-war levels.

Not sure about the water situation, to be honest (and looking only at the
purification issue may not provide the whole picture, either--but i am sure
it provides the one you want).

Then there is telecommunications; subscriptions are up over 60% above the
pre-war level.

The 'all is doom and gloom' view in terms of Phase IV operations and
planning that you appear to cling to is just not a very accurate assessment.

>
> > > The test is not whether you can remove Saddam, but whether
> > > you can replace him by something better. Iraq's democracy
> > > still has to be born, and it is already very ill.
> >
> > It is a lot more robust than it was a year and a half ago.
>
> The chance that Iraq will descend in complete chaos is also
> higher than a year and a half ago. At this time I would say it
> could still go either way, but the odds are against Iraq becoming
> a peaceful and democratic country. The people who have most
> influence on events there now appear to intend to turn the country
> into an islamitic theocracy, hostile to the USA and sponsoring
> terrorist groups.

Unfortunately, I suspect you may be pulling for it to go the chaos route?

Brooks

>
> --
> Emmanuel Gustin
>
>

[BigRedWingsFan]

> wrote in message news:R5QVc.1583$oA.864@trndny04...
:
:
: Your point is nonsense. bushs' daddy, the RNC chairman at the time with
: very close ties to nixon -- was not going to let his AWOL son get nailed
: like real soldiers for his crimes.
:
: bush didn't show up and got away with it. -- Now go see that shrink and
: have him help you figure out why you are afraid of that fact.

Your entire existence is nonsense and you perpetuate it with every word you
type. You're beginning to bore me and it appears you are too ignorant to
admit to the facts. Keep living in your socialist dream-world, Le'Turd.
You are a waste of perfectly good human flesh. Good day.

:
:
:
:
:
:
: In >, on 08/21/2004
: at 04:40 PM, "BigRedWingsFan" > said:
:
:
: > wrote in message
: >news:ycPVc.2798$VY.1104@trndny09... : In >,
: >on 08/21/2004
: >: at 04:28 PM, "BigRedWingsFan" > said:
: >:
: >:
: >: > wrote in message
: >: >news:J4PVc.11303$3O2.1092@trndny07... : In
: >: >, on 08/21/2004 : at 04:15 PM,
: >: >"BigRedWingsFan" > said: :
: >: >:
: >: >: > wrote in message
: >: >: >news:jPOVc.5252$Nn2.882@trndny05... : In
: >,
: >: >: >on 08/21/2004
: >: >: >: at 04:02 PM, "BigRedWingsFan" > said:
: >: >: >:
: >: >: >:
: >: >: >: > wrote in message
: >: >news:BIOVc.546$oA.525@trndny04...
: >: >: >: >: In >, on 08/21/2004
: >: >: >: >: at 03:56 PM, "BigRedWingsFan" > said:
: >: >: >: >:
: >: >: >: >:
: >: >: >: >: > wrote in message
: >: >: >: >: >news:6EOVc.2794$VY.2607@trndny09... :
: >: >: >: >: >: Whatever you say asshole -- bush released his ANG
records --
: >they
: >: >: >show
: >: >: >: >he
: >: >: >: >: >: refused to take the annual physical. -- Now bush in his
own
: >: >words
: >: >: >is a
: >: >: >: >: >: guy who loved to fly. -- so what would he not take the
: >physical?
: >: >: >: >Because
: >: >: >: >: >: they were going to make him pee in the cup.
: >: >: >: >: >:
: >: >: >: >: >: If you can't understand what that means -- its because your
a
: >: >: >complete
: >: >: >: >: >: ****ing idiot.
: >: >: >: >: >:
: >: >: >: >: >: PS: the question has been answered many times -- you
however
: >are
: >: >: >too
: >: >: >: >dumb
: >: >: >: >: >: to understand the answer.
: >: >: >: >:
: >: >: >: >: >You're the ignoram-ass, ****tard, you still haven't answered
the
: >: >: >: >: >question. Now, go play on the freeway with your bunk-buddy
: >: >: >: >: >Thumpty-DumbAss.
: >: >: >: >:
: >: >: >: >: And the question you don';t think is answered is?
: >: >: >:
: >: >: >: >The question I know wasn't answered is: "Have you ever dealt
with
: >: >: >: >military pay records?".
: >: >: >:
: >: >: >: Yes asshole I have. Mine in the USAF and ANG. -- bush's records
: >have
: >: >: >: holes in them. It means he didn't show up for moths at a time.
Now
: >you
: >: >go
: >: >: >: prove he did.
: >: >:
: >: >: >I don't need to prove a ****ing thing, Re'Tard, *if* you had served
in
: >: >: >the ANG as you claim, you'd've heard of points-only training
periods
: >for
: >: >: >which no pay is earned. All I need to know is that PRESIDENT BUSH
: >: >: >HONORABLY COMPLETED HIS SERVICE OBLIGATION <emphasis added for
: >Le'Turd's
: >: >: >benefit>. That means, asshat, that he completed all of his required
: >: >: >training and achieved a satisfactory number of points during his
: >tenure
: >: >: >in the TXANG, PERIOD.
: >: >:
: >: >:
: >: >: Listen up asshole -- the pay records show he was not in AL when he
: >claimed
: >: >: to be, there is no document excusing him, or for make up drills. --
: >that
: >: >: means he was AWOL -- and your whining, means you are a rightwing
: >asshole.
: >:
: >: >The ONLY thing it proves is that PRESIDENT BUSH did not perform any
duty
: >: >for pay.
: >:
: >: I'm sorry asshole -- what part of "there is no document excusing him,
or
: >: for make up drills," if too complex for you to understand?
:
: >What part of PRESIDENT BUSH HONORABLY COMPLETED HIS SERVICE OBLIGATION
: ><emphasis added for Le'Turd'sbenefit> can't you get thru that pea-sized
mass
: >of gray-matter you call a brain? That means, asshat, that he completed
all
: >of his required training and achieved a satisfactory number of points
during
: >his tenure in the TXANG, PERIOD.
:
:
:
: >:
: >:
: >:
: >:
: >: >:
: >: >: Now grow up, or see the shrink. They have drugs now for delusional
: >: >: assholes like you.
: >:
: >: >Too bad you're not eligible for VA care, they have nice padded rooms
for
: >: >fruitcakes like you.
: >:
: >: The asshole is you! -- What part of "there is no document excusing
him,
: >: or for make up drills," if too complex for you to understand?
:
: >Prove there isn't one, ****-for-brains, since, if one didn't exist he
should
: >have been reprimanded by his commander at a minimum. Don't pull the
: >standard "son of a congressman" bull**** from your DNC handbook that
you're
: >so fond of using either. You remind me of a Christmas goose, full of
****
: >and greasy.
:
: >:
: >:
: >:
: >:
: >: >:
: >: >:
: >: >:
: >: >:
: >: >:
: >: >:
: >: >:
: >: >: >:
: >: >: >:
: >: >: >:
: >: >: >: No smart-ass answer either, cum-breath, because
: >: >: >: >I know you haven't and I also know you don't have a ****ing
ounce
: >of
: >: >: >: >truth and honesty in your slimy body. I hope your hatred of
: >President
: >: >: >: >Bush consumes you totally, you're already raving like a lunatic.
: >: >: >:
: >: >: >: The lunatic is you. Even bush doesn't try to make the claims
you
: >do.
: >: >:
: >: >: >Oh boy, here we go, "I know you are but what am I?". Next it'll be
: >"Mine
: >: >: >is bigger than yours." Get a life.
: >: >:
: >: >: >:
: >: >: >:
: >: >: >:
: >: >: >: >:
: >: >: >: >:
: >: >: >: >:
: >: >: >: >:
: >: >: >: >:
: >: >: >: >: >:
: >: >: >: >: >:
: >: >: >: >: >:
: >: >: >: >: >:
: >: >: >: >: >: In >, on 08/21/2004
: >: >: >: >: >: at 03:06 PM, "BigRedWingsFan" > said:
: >: >: >: >: >:
: >: >: >: >: >:
: >: >: >: >: >: > wrote in message
: >: >: >: >: >: >news:pUNVc.11201$3O2.7293@trndny07... : In
: >: >: >: >: >: >, on 08/21/2004 : at
02:46
: >PM,
: >: >: >: >: >: >"BigRedWingsFan" > said: :
: >: >: >: >: >: >:
: >: >: >: >: >: >: > wrote in message
: >: >: >: >: >: >: >news:4ANVc.2776$VY.1809@trndny09... : In
: >: >: >: >: >: >: >, on 08/21/2004
:
: >: >at
: >: >: >: >02:14
: >: >: >: >: >PM,
: >: >: >: >: >: >: >"Bigredwingsfan" > said:
:
: >: >: >: >: >: >: >:
: >: >: >: >: >: >: >: > wrote in message
: >: >: >: >: >: >news:HtMVc.862$1M3.275@trndny01...
: >: >: >: >: >: >: >: >: In <UHLVc.86672$Lj.73228@fed1read03>, on
08/21/2004
: >: >: >: >: >: >: >: >: at 01:33 PM, "sanjian" >
: >said:
: >: >: >: >: >: >: >: >:
: >: >: >: >: >: >: >: >: wrote:
: >: >: >: >: >: >: >: >: >> In >, on
08/21/2004
: >: >: >: >: >: >: >: >: >> at 10:35 AM, "BigRedWingsFan"
>
: >: >said:
: >: >: >: >: >: >: >: >:
: >: >: >: >: >: >: >: >: >>> What part of "you can never prove that" don't
you
: >: >: >: >understand,
: >: >: >: >: >: >: >: >: >>> Le'Turd? It's just not true, period.
: >: >: >: >: >: >: >: >: >>
: >: >: >: >: >: >: >: >: >> bushs pay records prove he didn't show up. --
: >Right
: >: >: >after
: >: >: >: >he
: >: >: >: >: >was
: >: >: >: >: >: >: >: >: >> ordered to pee in the cup and didn't.
: >: >: >: >: >: >: >: >:
: >: >: >: >: >: >: >: >: >You're mistaking "have not disproven" for "have
: >: >proven."
: >: >: >By
: >: >: >: >: >that
: >: >: >: >: >: >: >: >: >measure, I must assume you believe in the Tooth
: >Fairy
: >: >and
: >: >: >the
: >: >: >: >: >: >Easter
: >: >: >: >: >: >: >: >: >Bunny. Have you ever dealt with military pay
: >records?
: >: >: >: >: >: >: >: >:
: >: >: >: >: >: >: >: >: Stop your lying.
: >: >: >: >: >: >: >:
: >: >: >: >: >: >: >: >Since you failed to address the question, we'll just
: >: >assume
: >: >: >the
: >: >: >: >: >answer
: >: >: >: >: >: >is
: >: >: >: >: >: >: >: >"No" as evidenced by your nonsensical and totally
: >: >: >inappropriate
: >: >: >: >: >: >response.
: >: >: >: >: >: >: >:
: >: >: >: >: >: >: >:
: >: >: >: >: >: >: >: My response was entirely correct. bush refused to
take
: >his
: >: >: >annual
: >: >: >: >: >: >medical.
: >: >: >: >: >: >: >: -- It was because he into drinking and drugs and the
: >USAF
: >: >: >started
: >: >: >: >: >: >making
: >: >: >: >: >: >: >: them pee in the cup.
: >: >: >: >: >: >:
: >: >: >: >: >: >: >Since you failed to address the question (again), we'll
: >just
: >: >: >assume
: >: >: >: >: >the
: >: >: >: >: >: >: >answer is "No" as evidenced by your nonsensical and
: >totally
: >: >: >: >: >inappropriate
: >: >: >: >: >: >: >response.
: >: >: >: >: >: >:
: >: >: >: >: >: >: >:
: >: >: >: >: >: >: >: Now stop your lying and rightwing troll games.
: >: >: >: >: >: >:
: >: >: >: >: >: >: >Le'Turd, You're the queen of the left-wing trolls, you
and
: >: >your
: >: >: >: >: >: >: >bunk-buddy Thumpty-DumbAss. Why don't you go see what
he
: >has
: >: >in
: >: >: >: >his
: >: >: >: >: >: >: >Depends for you.
: >: >: >: >: >: >:
: >: >: >: >: >: >:
: >: >: >: >: >: >: Sorry asshole, but you lose -- You have been told the
: >facts
: >: >and
: >: >: >you
: >: >: >: >: >don't
: >: >: >: >: >: >: want to hear them. See the shrink about it.
: >: >: >: >: >:
: >: >: >: >: >: >Since you failed to address the question (yet again),
we'll
: >just
: >: >: >: >assume
: >: >: >: >: >: >the answer is "No" as evidenced by your usual nonsensical
and
: >: >: >totally
: >: >: >: >: >: >inappropriate response. Head for the Free Clinic,
Le'Turd, I
: >: >know
: >: >: >: >your
: >: >: >: >: >: >meds have expired.
: >: >: >: >: >:
: >: >: >: >: >:
: >: >: >: >: >: >:
: >: >: >: >: >: >:
: >: >: >: >: >: >:
: >: >: >: >: >: >:
: >: >: >: >: >: >:
: >: >: >: >: >: >: >:
: >: >: >: >: >: >: >:
: >: >: >: >: >: >: >:
: >: >: >: >: >: >: >:
: >: >: >: >: >: >: >:
: >: >: >: >: >: >: >:
: >: >: >: >: >: >: >: >Head for the Free Clinic, Le'Turd, I think your meds
: >have
: >: >: >: >expired.
: >: >: >: >: >: >: >:
: >: >: >: >: >: >: >: >:
: >: >: >: >: >: >: >:
: >: >: >: >: >: >: >:
: >: >: >: >: >: >: >:
: >: >: >: >: >: >: >:
: >: >: >: >: >: >: >:
: >: >: >: >: >: >:
: >: >: >: >: >: >:
: >: >: >: >: >: >:
: >: >: >: >: >:
: >: >: >: >: >:
: >: >: >: >: >:
: >: >: >: >:
: >: >: >: >:
: >: >: >: >:
: >: >: >:
: >: >: >:
: >: >: >:
: >: >:
: >: >:
: >: >:
: >:
: >:
: >:
:
:
:

[B2431]

>From:
>Date: 8/21/2004 5:34 PM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: <R5QVc.1583$oA.864@trndny04>
>
>
>
>Your point is nonsense. bushs' daddy, the RNC chairman at the time with
>very close ties to nixon -- was not going to let his AWOL son get nailed
>like real soldiers for his crimes.
>
>bush didn't show up and got away with it.

Prove it with verifiable sources. You can't, can you? I'm not saying it didn't
happen, but there is no credible evidence you can cite that it did.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[sanjian]

wrote:
> In <NELVc.86669$Lj.43904@fed1read03>, on 08/21/2004
> at 01:30 PM, "sanjian" > said:
>
>> wrote:
>>> In <KcKVc.9881$ni.472@okepread01>, on 08/21/2004
>>> at 11:52 AM, "sanjian" > said:
>
>>>> You already posted that. Resorting to spamming now?
>>>
>>>
>>> See a shrink about your inability to accept truth you don't like.
>
>> Come on, I think I at least deserve tailor-made insults instead of
>> the grab bag. Really, you are showing a bit of stress about getting
>> caught in your own lies.
>
> YUour the one doing the lying and the trolling. -- You're a rightwing
> asshole.

And there you go with the "I know you are, but what am I" defense. Is that
you, PeeWee Herman? Honestly, I would expect even a Jr. High student to do
better than you're doing.

> You're like a caged animal trying to claw your way to
>> safety. Admit that you have no case and move on. There's no good
>> that can come from your tenacious hold on your own lies.
>
> See a shrink. Your meds aren't working.

Dance, little moneky, dance. So far we know that you believe anyone who
disagrees with you is a liar or mentally ill. Now we know how it is that
you became so ignorant. The gene pool of your knowledge is rather shallow.

[sanjian]

wrote:
> In <mglvc.86671$Lj.467@fed1read03>, on 08/21/2004
> at 01:31 PM, "sanjian" > said:

>> It would seem that your idea of how adults discuss things is that
>> they call eachother names and thow out unsupported lies and spin.
>> That works well enough for politicians, but not for civilized,
>> rational people.
>
> What you mean is I'm not letting you get away with lies -- and the
> only thing you can do is attack me -- for stating they are in fact
> either lying or stupid.
>
> -- Now the fact you are trying to avoid with your nonsense is; No one
> got in ANG on the day they applied without political influence making
> the way clear.

Prove it. Prove to me that nobody has ever gotten in the ANG the day they
applied. Can you do it, little monkey?

[sanjian]

wrote:
> In <UHLVc.86672$Lj.73228@fed1read03>, on 08/21/2004
> at 01:33 PM, "sanjian" > said:
>
>> wrote:
>>> In >, on 08/21/2004
>>> at 10:35 AM, "BigRedWingsFan" > said:
>
>>>> What part of "you can never prove that" don't you understand,
>>>> Le'Turd? It's just not true, period.
>>>
>>> bushs pay records prove he didn't show up. -- Right after he was
>>> ordered to pee in the cup and didn't.
>
>> You're mistaking "have not disproven" for "have proven." By that
>> measure, I must assume you believe in the Tooth Fairy and the Easter
>> Bunny. Have you ever dealt with military pay records?
>
> Stop your lying.

Prove I'm lying, little monkey.

[sanjian]

wrote:
> In >, on 08/21/2004
> at 02:14 PM, "Bigredwingsfan" >
> said:

>> Since you failed to address the question, we'll just assume the
>> answer is "No" as evidenced by your nonsensical and totally
>> inappropriate response.
>
>
> My response was entirely correct. bush refused to take his annual
> medical. -- It was because he into drinking and drugs and the USAF
> started making them pee in the cup.
>
> Now stop your lying and rightwing troll games.

Wow, according to Little Monkey, Bush got the **** test instituted for the
whole DoD. That's pretty impressive.

[sanjian]

wrote:
> Your point is nonsense. bushs' daddy, the RNC chairman at the time
> with very close ties to nixon -- was not going to let his AWOL son
> get nailed like real soldiers for his crimes.
>
> bush didn't show up and got away with it. -- Now go see that shrink
> and have him help you figure out why you are afraid of that fact.

I love how you insist that Daddy Bush was powerful enough to fix Bush's
FITREPs, and give him an honorable discharge (both of which are solid
evidence that Bush did his time), and yet he wasn't powerful enough to fix
the pay records, gundeck the physical, or keep his son out of the military
all together (maybe by giving him a cushy job within the DoD as a civilian).

[IBM]

wrote in news:g5NVc.178$rT1.91@trndny02:

> In >, on 08/21/2004
> at 06:49 PM, IBM > said:
>
wrote in news:HtMVc.861$1M3.586@trndny01:
>
>> [snip]
>>
>>> They had to pee in the cup and bush didn't.
>
>> Quote the applicable regulations.
>> It is averred that this was not required until
>> some time later and you do have a credibility
>> issue.
>
> The world has been over this many times -- Go play rightwing troll and
> asshole somewhere else.

Over and over and over and still you keep spewing the same
tired old crap. Maybe you think it'll take one of these
times.

IBM

__________________________________________________ _____________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
<><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>

[Tom Cervo]

>> Ah-hah! So now you are backing off from your earlier claim that he DID
>> himself make such claims?
>
>He did. See above. He just never mentioned any verifiable details.
>Dubyah likes to keep his hands clean --- he follows a maximum
>deniability, avoidance-of-knowledge strategy.

The press always omits what he says at the end of every speech:
"We're just spitballin' here."

[Kevin Brooks]

"Emmanuel Gustin" > wrote in message
...
> "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > Again, please provide Bush's words; you have proven thus far that you
are
> > only capable of telling us what YOU say he said, not what he said--
>
> The position of the US government, I hope, generally encompasses
> more than the president's own content-free speeches; and I suppose
> the president can held be accountable for statements made by
> members of the cabinet, who he appointed (or chose to be elected
> with).
>
> However, some of Bush' vague statements are clear enough. In his
> March 1, 2003, speech, he referred to "the grave and growing danger"
> of Saddam's WMD, a statement that implies a significant stock and
> ongoing production, or at least an advanced development program.

Thta would be your interpretation. It can also just mean exactly what it
says; that Saddam was still pursuing development of WMD, and when taken in
combination with the *fact* that he was indeed harboring (or had harbored of
late) the likes of Zarqawi, Abbas, and Nidal, the possible linkage between
the two (WMD and terrorists) was indeed a "grave and growing danger". You
snipped the bit Franks mentioned about Zarqawi, ricin, etc.; why? Don't like
evidence that is contrary to your predetermined position on the issue?

> On 6 February, he talked about a "a vast arsenal of deadly biological
> and chemical weapons" in Iraqi hands, and added that Iraq was
> "actively and secretly" trying "to obtain equipment needed to produce
> chemical, biological and nuclear weapons."

LOL! Your typical willingness to paraphrase or parse his words to suit your
ever-weakening position is again evident, I see. Let's see what he actually
said, in his own more complete wording: "The Iraqi regime's violations of
Security Council resolutions are evident, and they continue to this hour.
The regime has never accounted for a vast arsenal of deadly biological and
chemical weapons. To the contrary; the regime is pursuing an elaborate
campaign to conceal its weapons materiels, and to hide or intimidate key
experts and scientists, all in direct defiance of Security Council 1441." It
kind of changes things when you add that bit about "...has never accounted
for..." before your "a vast arsenal", does it not? Are you saying that
saddam DID satisfactorily account for all of the agents that UNMOVIC etc.
had said he had *not* actually accounted for? Are you saying that Saddam did
NOT hide evidence, personnel, and equipment related to WMD development? When
you look at Bush's actual words that you so loosely referred to, it is
evident that everything he said in that regard was *accurate*. For the last
time, stop parsing his words in a failed attempt to make them say something
he did not in fact say--it is rather dishonest. About the only claim that
Bush made in regards to WMD in that speech that has not panned out was the
existence of the alleged mobile bio labs ("Firsthand witnesses have informed
us that Iraq has at least seven mobile factories for the production of
biological agents, equipment mounted on trucks and rails to evade discovery.
Using these factories, Iraq could produce within just months hundreds of
pounds of biological poisons"), which has as we already discussed proven to
apparently be untrue, but as I pointed out to you earlier the Germans did
not inform of us that they had discredited that information until *after*
Powell spoke on 5 February (and presumably Bush on 6 Feb) ("The official
said the BND sent the warning after Powell first described the bio-warfare
trucks in detail to the U.N. Security Council on Feb. 5, 2003.").

In the same speech he
> also referred to Iraq's mobile production facilities, a claim that later
> turned out to be incorrect, and to Iraq's links with Al-Quaeda, a claim
> he later himself admitted to be incorrect.

See above; the BND did not inform the US of their discounting of that
information they had provided in regards to those alleged mobile facilities
until *after* these speeches, which would point to your indicting Bush for
buying into intel that the BND had itself credited prior to that time--not
very good ammunition for your 'Bush is witless' claim.

>
> > And actively hid components, records, and reportedly agents. And
produced
> > the AS II missiles which exceeded the range allowance. All were in
> > violation.
>
> Funny how people like you hammer on Iraq being "in violation" of
> UN resolutions. There is no credible indication that the Bush
> administration cares zilch for UN resolutions or other international
> committments, or would ever go to war to enfore them.

Bullcrap. From that same speech you cited: "The dictator of Iraq is making
his choice. Now the nations of the Security Council must make their own. On
November 8th, by demanding the immediate disarmament of Iraq, the United
Nations Security Council spoke with clarity and authority. Now the Security
Council will show whether its words have any meaning. Having made its
demands, the Security Council must not back down, when those demands are
defied and mocked by a dictator. The United States would welcome and support
a new resolution which makes clear that the Security Council stands behind
its previous demands. Yet resolutions mean little without resolve. And the
United States, along with a growing coalition of nations, is resolved to
take whatever action is necessary to defend ourselves and disarm the Iraqi
regime."

Bush wanted the UN to back up its words, but made it plain that if they were
not willing to do so, we'd do it on our own along with whatever nations were
willing to join us. Let's see, Bush followed through and did what he said
he'd do...and the UN? That august group is still whining over taking
casualties last year in a bombing of their building (after they had
complained about too much US security around that building being unsightly)
and appears to be afraid to accept a full share of the load in making a
democratic Iraq a reality.

The case for
> war was not that Iraq was in violation of UN resolutions, it was that
> Iraq represented a "grave and growing" threat to the USA. Which,
> plainly, it didn't. The resolutions were just mentioned as an excuse.

Zarqawi...you really don't like discussing him, and things like ricin, and
his presense in Iraq before we went in there, do you? Fact--Saddam was
continuing to pursue WMD. Fact--he was violating the proscriptions that had
emanated from the ODS ceasefire in regards to WMD. Fact--he was harboring
terrorists. Fact--he had already proven willing to use terrorists to attack
US (and other) targets (that whole assassination attmpt in Kuwait).

And you have left off (typical of you by this point) the FACT that other
concerns besides WMD were indeed raised by the US in making its case for war
against Iraq. From the speech you cited: "...we can give the Iraqi people
their chance to live in freedom and choose their own government. Saddam
Hussein has made Iraq into a prison, a poison factory, and a torture chamber
for patriots and dissidents. Saddam Hussein has the motive and the means and
the recklessness and the hatred to threaten the American people. Saddam
Hussein will be stopped."

Or you can go back to his September 02 speech before the UN:

"To suspend hostilities, to spare himself, Iraq's dictator accepted a series
of commitments. The terms were clear, to him and to all. And he agreed to
prove he is complying with every one of those obligations. He has proven
instead only his contempt for the United Nations, and for all his pledges.
By breaking every pledge -- by his deceptions, and by his cruelties --
Saddam Hussein has made the case against himself. In 1991, Security Council
Resolution 688 demanded that the Iraqi regime cease at once the repression
of its own people, including the systematic repression of minorities --
which the Council said, threatened international peace and security in the
region. This demand goes ignored. Last year, the U.N. Commission on Human
Rights found that Iraq continues to commit extremely grave violations of
human rights, and that the regime's repression is all pervasive. Tens of
thousands of political opponents and ordinary citizens have been subjected
to arbitrary arrest and imprisonment, summary execution, and torture by
beating and burning, electric shock, starvation, mutilation, and rape. Wives
are tortured in front of their husbands, children in the presence of their
parents -- and all of these horrors concealed from the world by the
apparatus of a totalitarian state. In 1991, the U.N. Security Council,
through Resolutions 686 and 687, demanded that Iraq return all prisoners
from Kuwait and other lands. Iraq's regime agreed. It broke its promise.
Last year the Secretary General's high-level coordinator for this issue
reported that Kuwait, Saudi, Indian, Syrian, Lebanese, Iranian, Egyptian,
Bahraini, and Omani nationals remain unaccounted for -- more than 600
people. One American pilot is among them. In 1991, the U.N. Security
Council, through Resolution 687, demanded that Iraq renounce all involvement
with terrorism, and permit no terrorist organizations to operate in Iraq.
Iraq's regime agreed. It broke this promise. In violation of Security
Council Resolution 1373, Iraq continues to shelter and support terrorist
organizations that direct violence against Iran, Israel, and Western
governments. Iraqi dissidents abroad are targeted for murder. In 1993, Iraq
attempted to assassinate the Emir of Kuwait and a former American President.
Iraq's government openly praised the attacks of September the 11th. And al
Qaeda terrorists escaped from Afghanistan and are known to be in Iraq."

The reasons seem to include a lot of items that you seem to have
conveniently left out of your
quick-self-serving-synopsis-of-US-justifications-for-war. I am sure you
merely overlooked them, and would *never* have intended to mislead us as to
why we went to war?

>
> > Ah-hah! So now you are backing off from your earlier claim that he DID
> > himself make such claims?
>
> He did. See above. He just never mentioned any verifiable details.

No, you have proven quite apt at telling us what he *supposedly* said, but
when his actual words are examined, your claims fall to pieces.

> Dubyah likes to keep his hands clean --- he follows a maximum
> deniability, avoidance-of-knowledge strategy. For actual information,
> you always have to check the comments of members of his cabinet.

So far you have proven to be rather intellectually dishonest in
characterizing the meaning of Bush's actual words on the subject. You have
inaccurately described the US position in regards to WMD, you have
inaccurately described the reasons we gave for removing Saddam from power,
you have disregarded evidence showing Zarqawi was in Iraq before we ever
went in there, and was working with terrorists and WMD himself. And you were
the guy who wanted to pillory Bush for buying into inflated intel
estimates?! Good Lord, man, look into a mirror!

>
> > maybe we should have just turned our head to the question of mass
> > graves, continued threats to other neighboring states, one assasination
> > attempt against a former US President engineered by Iraqi intelligence
> > agents, along with continued and numerous violations of 687 and later
> 1441,
> > the fact that Saddam was the only still-serving national leader who had
> > proven willing to actually *use* WMD's, both in combat operations and
asa
> > tool of genocide. But a lot of us over here don't agree with that
> > philosophy,
>
> Neither do I agree with that philosophy. However, there are good
> and bad ways to deal with people like that, and the USA arguably
> chose the worst possible option. It would have been much wiser to
> complete the disarmament of Iraq first, before closing down the
> channels for negotiation. And the way the sanctions were continued
> was plainly stupid.

Forgive me if I do not buy into your schtick; "plainly stupid" is a
descriptor that could be applied back at you, couldn't it?

>
> The USA has somehow become addicted to the Marxist concept of
> a "revolution of the proletariat": When people are impoverished
> enough (by an external force), they will blame their own government
> (major non sequitur) and rise against it (faint hopes). But it just
doesn't
> work that way, certainly not in dictatorship where people are offered
> no alternative to look to except the Great Leader or whatever he calls
> himself. Over the years, the sanctions strengthened instead of
> weakened the position of Saddam; he had someone else to blame
> for Iraq's problems, while his clan enriched itself by smuggling.
> And it helped to create a hostility towards the USA of which the
> rotten fruits are surfacing now.

Does any of the above have any bearing whatsoever on the discussion at hand,
or do you just like looking at what you have typed in terms of raw volume of
characters?

>
> > It is odd, isn't it, how Eurolefties so willingly embraced the idea
> > of resorting to arms in stopping Milosevic and his Serbs on the basis of
> > claimed genocide, etc., but wanted no part of doing the same kind of
thing
> > in Iraq?
>
> Check my comments in the past, as you have the habit of doing so.
> I have never objected against the use of force to remove Saddam;
> I just was of the opinion that the current US government is too
> incompetent and too lacking in insight in the situation in the middle
> east, to be safely entrusted with the job. It is liking asking whether
> a patient should have life-saving surgery -- yes, but not by a drunk
> surgeon who was thrown out of medical school.

Given that the "current administration" "views" that you have so far put
forth don't seem to accurately portray what that adminsitration actually has
been *saying*, your assessment of its competence has to to taken with a
large dose of salt.

>
> > Zarqawi; 'nuff said.
>
> There is as little evidence for a link between Zarqawi and Saddam
> as there is for a link between Bin Laden and Saddam. The problem
> the neocons appear to have overlooked is that Saddam was a secular
> dictator with a semi-socilialist dictatorship, while Al-Quaeda and
> likes are islamitic militants who want to establish a theocracy.
> The evidence is that they talked, but hated each other too much to
> cooperate. For Saddam to hand over WMD to people who opposed
> him as much as the USA did, and would not hesitate to use them
> against him, would have been absurd.

What utter crap. You think Zarqawi traveled to Iraq to receive medical care,
then traveled to link up with Anser Al Islam (a group that has been linked
(according to numerous sources) to Saddam for a longer period of time than
Bush has even been in office), without Saddam's knowledge and approval? I
don't think so.

>
> > Do you seriously doubt that Saddam would not have reopened
> > production ASAP if he had been allowed to?
>
> I don't know. It's worth pointing out that Hitler never ordered
> the use of WMD, for fear of retaliation (and perhaps personal
> experience). Iraq's lack of WMD drive after 1991 is in fact
> curious, and suggests that Saddam was disillusioned about the
> usefulness of his arsenal and did not care very much, or perhaps
> regarded them more as a political liability than as a tool for
> survival. Which, in fact, would have been a quite accurate
> assesment.

Gee, one wonders why UNMOVIC and others noted the resistance measures he
used to prevent them from doing their jobs, why dual use facilities were
indeed focused upon by his government, why ricin development continued, why
they developed a true binary sarin round, why they developed ASII missiles,
etc.? Not to mention the post-91 find of that spraytank-equipped aircraft?
And there is a difference between Saddam and Hitler; the latter had proven
actually willing to use WMD's on the battlefield.

>
> > Nope, I started with power, as in electrical power production and
> > distribution, and added water in as the other category; you chose to
> ignore
> > those and then instead twist it into some weird claim that getting Iraqi
> oil
> > production back online was somehow really a *bad* thing for the Iraqis
> > themselves?
>
> No. But it was a bad thing for the USA, as giving production to oil
> before other elements of the reconstruction enormously undermined
> its credibility. The way the contracts for the revival of the oil industry
> were handled didn't contribute much, either.

Have you figured out at what point we first surpassed pre-war electrical
production? Or how the telecom system hass expanded since the pre-war
figures? How about healthcare? The difference in the provision of pre-war
and present innoculations, etc? Gee, it appears that the Phase IV operations
have not been the completely unplanned and poorly executed balls-up that you
said it was, doesn't it?

>
> > Unfortunately, I suspect you may be pulling for it to go the chaos
route?
>
> No. A democratic and peaceful Iraq would be in the interest of
> us all. Which is why I hope that the USA soon gets a competent
> and realistic government with some degree of morality, so that
> a threathening disaster may be avoided.

The above is about as accurate as any assessment you have provided thus
far--not very.

Brooks

>
> --
> Emmanuel Gustin
>
>

[sanjian]

Sharky wrote:
> In >, BigRedWingsFan wrote:
>> > wrote in message
>> news:J4PVc.11303$3O2.1092@trndny07...
>>>
>>> Now grow up, or see the shrink. They have drugs now for delusional
>>> assholes like you.
>>
>> Too bad you're not eligible for VA care, they have nice padded rooms
>> for fruitcakes like you.
>
> Le'turd spent several years in the federal pen for his obsession over
> young children. He's still considered a danger to society, but now
> only the male children need close supervision when he's around.

Unless you have proof, that really doesn't help any.

[[email protected]]

In <Fp5wc.93380$Lj.67534@fed1read03>, on 08/22/2004
at 02:16 PM, "sanjian" > said:

>Sharky wrote:
>> In >, BigRedWingsFan wrote:
>>> > wrote in message
>>> news:J4PVc.11303$3O2.1092@trndny07...
>>>>
>>>> Now grow up, or see the shrink. They have drugs now for delusional
>>>> assholes like you.
>>>
>>> Too bad you're not eligible for VA care, they have nice padded rooms
>>> for fruitcakes like you.
>>
>> Le'turd spent several years in the federal pen for his obsession over
>> young children. He's still considered a danger to society, but now
>> only the male children need close supervision when he's around.

>Unless you have proof, that really doesn't help any.


sharky is a rightwing asshole -- who not only lies here -- he does it
because he doesn't have the brains to say anything else. -- his actions
are cut and dried libel. I can have everything he owns for what he has
done. In fact, I might retire on his pay check.

Well, I guess this it for Leturd.
By now.


"Sharky" > wrote in message
...
> In <Fp5Wc.93380$Lj.67534@fed1read03>, sanjian wrote:
>> >> Le'turd spent several years in the federal pen for his obsession over
> >> young children. He's still considered a danger to society, but now
> >> only the male children need close supervision when he's around.
> >
> >Unless you have proof, that really doesn't help any.
>
> http://www.enquirer.com/editions/1999/08/06/loc_kiddie_porn_case.html
> http://www.enquirer.com/editions/2000/02/16/loc_man_pleads_guilty_to.html
>
http://www.hcso.org/records/qryByZipCode3form.ASP?SearchValue=n&%5BEnter+Zip+Code%5D=herzog

[[email protected]]

In >, on 08/22/2004
at 11:51 PM, > said:

>Well, I guess this it for Leturd.
>By now.

Sorry asshole -- I would have hoped the texas school system was capable of
teaching you how to research something, but it obviously can't. There is
no connection to anything you and sharky and the other rightwing assholes
here whined about -- except in your ****ed up brains.

Now what is the worth of that ranch you have -- that I will win in court?











>"Sharky" > wrote in message
...
>> In <Fp5Wc.93380$Lj.67534@fed1read03>, sanjian wrote:
>>> >> Le'turd spent several years in the federal pen for his obsession over
>> >> young children. He's still considered a danger to society, but now
>> >> only the male children need close supervision when he's around.
>> >
>> >Unless you have proof, that really doesn't help any.
>>
>> http://www.enquirer.com/editions/1999/08/06/loc_kiddie_porn_case.html
>> http://www.enquirer.com/editions/2000/02/16/loc_man_pleads_guilty_to.html
>>
>http://www.hcso.org/records/qryByZipCode3form.ASP?SearchValue=n&%5BEnter+Zip+Code%5D=herzog

I think there is a resemblance. Yep, it looks like him, look at
that guilty looking face.

"Sharky" > wrote in message
...
> >> http://www.enquirer.com/editions/1999/08/06/loc_kiddie_porn_case.html
> >>
http://www.enquirer.com/editions/2000/02/16/loc_man_pleads_guilty_to.html

> You can check for yourself by searching google groups. The similarity in
> posting style is uncanny, and leturd still refuses to deny he's not. If
> it's not him, he's gotta be related in some way.
>

[sanjian]

Sharky wrote:
> In <Fp5Wc.93380$Lj.67534@fed1read03>, sanjian wrote:
>
>> Sharky wrote:
>>> In >, BigRedWingsFan wrote:
>>>> > wrote in message
>>>> news:J4PVc.11303$3O2.1092@trndny07...
>>>>>
>>>>> Now grow up, or see the shrink. They have drugs now for delusional
>>>>> assholes like you.
>>>>
>>>> Too bad you're not eligible for VA care, they have nice padded
>>>> rooms for fruitcakes like you.
>>>
>>> Le'turd spent several years in the federal pen for his obsession
>>> over young children. He's still considered a danger to society, but
>>> now only the male children need close supervision when he's around.
>>
>> Unless you have proof, that really doesn't help any.
>
> http://www.enquirer.com/editions/1999/08/06/loc_kiddie_porn_case.html
> http://www.enquirer.com/editions/2000/02/16/loc_man_pleads_guilty_to.html
>
http://www.hcso.org/records/qryByZipCode3form.ASP?SearchValue=n&%5BEnter+Zip+Code%5D=herzog

I guess the missing piece of evidence would be something saying that this
Herzog guy is letoured...

[sanjian]

Sharky wrote:
> In <YSwWc.12833$ni.7672@okepread01>, sanjian wrote:

>>>> Unless you have proof, that really doesn't help any.
>>>
>>> http://www.enquirer.com/editions/1999/08/06/loc_kiddie_porn_case.html
>>>
http://www.enquirer.com/editions/2000/02/16/loc_man_pleads_guilty_to.html
>>>
>>
http://www.hcso.org/records/qryByZipCode3form.ASP?SearchValue=n&%5BEnter+Zip+Code%5D=herzog
>>
>> I guess the missing piece of evidence would be something saying that
>> this Herzog guy is letoured...
>
> You can check for yourself by searching google groups. The
> similarity in posting style is uncanny, and leturd still refuses to
> deny he's not. If it's not him, he's gotta be related in some way.

Seems a bit shakey. I'm sure, if I looked hard enough, I could find a child
molester to match the writing style of anyone, from Shakespeare to Ted
Kazinski.

[[email protected]]

Sorry asshole -- but you couldn't possible know what I look like -- yet
you think you do -- that meets the definition of insanity used by shrinks.
See one tomorrow.






In >, on 08/23/2004
at 10:24 PM, > said:

>I think there is a resemblance. Yep, it looks like him, look at that
>guilty looking face.

>"Sharky" > wrote in message
...
>> >> http://www.enquirer.com/editions/1999/08/06/loc_kiddie_porn_case.html
>> >>
>http://www.enquirer.com/editions/2000/02/16/loc_man_pleads_guilty_to.html

>> You can check for yourself by searching google groups. The similarity in
>> posting style is uncanny, and leturd still refuses to deny he's not. If
>> it's not him, he's gotta be related in some way.
>>

[[email protected]]

Sorry assholes but you lose. -- You rightwing dumb****s libel when you
have nothing else to say, and you know you're wrong.







In <YSwWc.12833$ni.7672@okepread01>, on 08/23/2004
at 09:30 PM, "sanjian" > said:

>Sharky wrote:
>> In <Fp5Wc.93380$Lj.67534@fed1read03>, sanjian wrote:
>>
>>> Sharky wrote:
>>>> In >, BigRedWingsFan wrote:
>>>>> > wrote in message
>>>>> news:J4PVc.11303$3O2.1092@trndny07...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Now grow up, or see the shrink. They have drugs now for delusional
>>>>>> assholes like you.
>>>>>
>>>>> Too bad you're not eligible for VA care, they have nice padded
>>>>> rooms for fruitcakes like you.
>>>>
>>>> Le'turd spent several years in the federal pen for his obsession
>>>> over young children. He's still considered a danger to society, but
>>>> now only the male children need close supervision when he's around.
>>>
>>> Unless you have proof, that really doesn't help any.
>>
>> http://www.enquirer.com/editions/1999/08/06/loc_kiddie_porn_case.html
>> http://www.enquirer.com/editions/2000/02/16/loc_man_pleads_guilty_to.html
>>
>http://www.hcso.org/records/qryByZipCode3form.ASP?SearchValue=n&%5BEnter+Zip+Code%5D=herzog

>I guess the missing piece of evidence would be something saying that this
>Herzog guy is letoured...

[David Casey]

On Tue, 24 Aug 2004 04:54:10 GMT, wrote:

[followups set]

> Sorry asshole -- but you couldn't possible know what I look like -- yet
> you think you do -- that meets the definition of insanity used by shrinks.
> See one tomorrow.

What exactly did they lose?

Dave
--
You can talk about us, but you can't talk without us!
US Army Signal Corps!!

http://www.geocities.com/davidcasey98

Remove IH8SPAM to reply by email.

[[email protected]]

Asshole, you see nothing -- Since I'm the person you are libeling. But
hey it interesting to see you rightwing nuts try and figure out who I am.
It tell me that I'm hitting you little morons dead on with truth -- that
has you squirming.

PS: Do you know the statute of limitations for libel? -- I'd find out if
I were you. But then I have a working brain. You rightwingers don't.







In >, on 08/24/2004
at 01:01 AM, Sharky > said:


>I can just see the schizophrenic mind of turdy claiming it's his long
>lost twin. But then we all know the real truth...

>In >, > wrote:

>>I think there is a resemblance. Yep, it looks like him, look at
>>that guilty looking face.
>>
>>"Sharky" > wrote in message
...
>>> >> http://www.enquirer.com/editions/1999/08/06/loc_kiddie_porn_case.html
>>> >>
>>http://www.enquirer.com/editions/2000/02/16/loc_man_pleads_guilty_to.html
>>
>>> You can check for yourself by searching google groups. The similarity in
>>> posting style is uncanny, and leturd still refuses to deny he's not. If
>>> it's not him, he's gotta be related in some way.
>>>
>>

[Fred the Red Shirt]

"Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message >...
> "Emmanuel Gustin" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> ...
>
> Who really cares if YOU are impressed or not? There was a continuing effort
> to work with ricin as a weapon. That work was in violation of the
> restrictions placed upon them. There were other violations noted as well.
> All of those are FACTS. As to *your* assessment of dual-use facilities,
> ricin, etc....gee, I am gonna kind of believe that Kay, with his background,
> knows more about them than YOU do--or are you going to give us a CV that
> proves otherwise?
>

Iraq was not enriching Uranium and was nowhere near having an
operable reactor and we knew that for certain. Uranium
enrichment programs and reactors release noble gases that can
be detected over long distances--that is how we know North
Korea has reprocessed fuel rods. Besides, the IAEA did certify
that Iraq was in compliance with the nuclear requirements.
Iraq's complaince with the UN mandatres on chemical and
biological weapons was still an open issue when the invasion
began. However UNMOVIC and IAEA both reported that they
had been receiving full cooperation form Iraq.

One very important reason why UNMOVIC had not certified Iraqi
compliance at the time of the invasion was becuase they were
misinformed, by the US. We kept telling them to inspect
sites, they kept inspecting them and kept finding nothing.
One UNMOVIC inspector summarized the US intelligence as '****'.

It is clear that the Bush administrations sabotaged the UNMOVIC
inspections by providing UNMOVIC with false information. THe
motive is clear, to prevent UNMOVIC from certifying that Iraq
was in compliance.

But let us agree that there we some violations of the letter
of the prohibitions iethout regard to whether or not UNMOVIC
would have discovered them The real question is if those violations
justify the invasion. Tha answer is clearly no because dormant
and bench scale research programs did not present an imminent
danger. There was time to deal with those by other means,
discovery by UNMOVIC, revolution, coup, assasination by the
Israelis, death by accidental or natural causes, surgical strikes,
any number of things might have kept Iraq from aquiring stockpiles
of chemical or biological weapons. The rapid success of the in-
vasion and the post-invastion evidence shows that the sanctions
were efffective in keeping Iraq militarily weak altogether, both
conventionally and nonconventionally. There is no doubt of the
potential for danger, but also no doubt that actual danger was at
least years away.

IMHO, even stockpiles of useable biological and chemical weapons
did not present a threat to the US or to Iraq's neighbors because
Saddam Hussein dared not use them for fear of US retaliation.
That was my position befor the invasion and it remains the same
today.

They would be useless against the US becuase
Biological and Chemical weapons are useless without aircraft
or arrillery to deliver them and neither would survive long enough
to fire for effect in an engagement against US forces.

The purpose of the invasion was to be preemptive, not punitive.

We didn't preempt anything was less than several years in the future.
We did succeed in punishing Saddam Hussein, but at what cost?
The price is yet to be determined in full.

>
> > who had the capability of producing weapons of mass destruction
>
> Yeah, they did, and what's more they were continuing proscribed WMD programs
> up until the outbreak of armed hostilities.
>

The only program shown to be active was the Al Hussein missle program.
Those only exceeded the allowed range in a zero payoad no guidance
test, and only barely so. Much as I hate to agree with the former
Iraqi regime on anything honesty requires that I agree that AH missles
were arguably within the proscribed limits. Notwithstanding, Iraq
agreed to allow them to be detroyed.

Iraq complied (albeit grudingly) with our demands, and we invaded
them anyways.

>
> This no longer even is a claim that Saddam had the intent
> > of producing WMD, only the capability;
>
> Do you seriously doubt that Saddam would not have reopened production ASAP
> if he had been allowed to? I gave you credit for possessing a bit more
> common sense than that.
>

I don't think anyone seriously doubted that Saddam Hussein would
have resumed WMD production if he could have. The argument against
the invasion was that he had not and could not in the immediate future.

When Bush made the claim that those of us who opposed the invasion
thought that Hussein could be trusted he lied to you. We never thought
that at all.

--

FF

[[email protected]]

In >, on 08/24/2004
at 01:50 AM, Sharky > said:


>I suppose that type of language strikes fear in the heart of your
>catamite, turdy. All I have to say is <yawn>

Well it strikes fear into you -- or you would not have snipped my words!
-- Here they are again. Get someone to read them for you this time;

>Asshole, you see nothing -- Since I'm the person you are libeling. But
>hey it interesting to see you rightwing nuts try and figure out who I
>am. It tell me that I'm hitting you little morons dead on with truth --
>that has you squirming.

>PS: Do you know the statute of limitations for libel? -- I'd find out
>if I were you. But then I have a working brain. You rightwingers
>don't.

--Pay attention to the last paragraph sharky boy -- least you end up
working to pay me for your stupidity here.





>In <CuAWc.7784$Nn2.2032@trndny05>, wrote:

>>Asshole, you see nothing

[B2431]

>From:
>Date: 8/23/2004 11:54 PM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: <TRzWc.3446$rT1.284@trndny02>
>
>
>
>Sorry assholes but you lose. -- You rightwing dumb****s libel when you
>have nothing else to say, and you know you're wrong.

I have no dog in this fight, but if you think he's libelling you take him to
court. Don't waste our time, just do it. If he's telling the truth he will win,
if he's not you will.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Fred the Red Shirt]

"Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message >...
> "Emmanuel Gustin" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
>
> <snip>
>
> >
> > The Iraqi WMD possesion case is a prime example. It is true
> > that almost everybody, including myself, considered it likely
> > that Saddam still possessed the unaccounted for stocks of
> > WMD, not destroyed after the first war with Iraq. In absence
> > of evidence to the contrary, that was a rational conclusion.
>
> And that was basically the conclusion forwarded by the US.

Actually quite a few poeple thought that the pre 1991 stocks
exepting perhaps for some mustard shells/bombs had been
destroyed or had become impotent due to age.

The binary sarin shell was quite a surprise. Previously there
had been no (at least not sidely published) claim by anyone
that Iraq had produced chemical weapons other than ustard with
a long shelf life.

>
> > But that was /not/ what the US government claimed. Bush
> > managed to climb the ladder of faulty intelligence and
> > rethorical distortion from "Iraq probably still has WMD stocks"
> > up to "Iraq has active WMD programs", which is something
> > quite different.
>
> You must have missed out reading kay's comments in January before Congress?
> Where he indicated that Iraq had indeed continued to work towards creating
> and protecting dual-use facilities for the express purpose of being able to
> switch them to WMD production? Their continued work on ricin right up until
> the last conflict kicked off? Keep in mind this is the same Kay who
> ackowedged that yes, he (and most of the intel analysts from around the
> world) had indeed gotten the scope of weapons stockpiles completely wrong,
> so don't be accusing him of shading the testimony.
>

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

As you will recall, UNMOVIC and the IAEA reached a similar
conclusions a year earlier.

--

FF