traitorous SOB

"Divine Shadow" wrote:

[snipped for brevity]

The fact that he came home from what he felt to be an immoral and evil war
and tried to stop it using his Constitutional rights makes him a man of
character, not a traitor.

Most excellent point. However, while we cannot attack Kerry on his
military record or his anti-war protests that followed, we can attack
his politcal record such as his waffling around with regards to the
current unpleasantries in Southwest Asia.

"Mike Marron" wrote in message
...
"Divine Shadow" wrote:

[snipped for brevity]

The fact that he came home from what he felt to be an immoral and evil war
and tried to stop it using his Constitutional rights makes him a man of
character, not a traitor.

Most excellent point. However, while we cannot attack Kerry on his
military record or his anti-war protests that followed, we can attack
his politcal record such as his waffling around with regards to the
current unpleasantries in Southwest Asia.

Current unpleasantries in Southwest Asia? What specifically are we talking
about?

George Z.

"George Z. Bush" wrote:
"Mike Marron" wrote:
"Divine Shadow" wrote:

The fact that he came home from what he felt to be an immoral and evil war
and tried to stop it using his Constitutional rights makes him a man of
character, not a traitor.

Most excellent point. However, while we cannot attack Kerry on his
military record or his anti-war protests that followed, we can attack
his politcal record such as his waffling around with regards to the
current unpleasantries in Southwest Asia.

Current unpleasantries in Southwest Asia? What specifically are we talking
about?

Excuse me. I was referring to the war on terrorism which is actually
global but it's primarily being waged in both Southwest and Southeast
Asia and of course, the Middle East.

"Mike Marron" wrote in message
...
"George Z. Bush" wrote:
"Mike Marron" wrote:
"Divine Shadow" wrote:

The fact that he came home from what he felt to be an immoral and evil war
and tried to stop it using his Constitutional rights makes him a man of
character, not a traitor.

Most excellent point. However, while we cannot attack Kerry on his
military record or his anti-war protests that followed, we can attack
his politcal record such as his waffling around with regards to the
current unpleasantries in Southwest Asia.

Current unpleasantries in Southwest Asia? What specifically are we talking
about?

Excuse me. I was referring to the war on terrorism which is actually
global but it's primarily being waged in both Southwest and Southeast
Asia and of course, the Middle East.

OK, but he voted against the war on terrorism, so where's the waffling? And
before you say it, the war on terrorism is the war against OBL and the Taliban;
in many people's eyes, it does NOT include the war on Iraq. That's a military
adventure waged for still unexplained reasons, the war on terrorism not being
one of them.

George Z.

"George Z. Bush" wrote:
"Mike Marron" wrote:

Excuse me. I was referring to the war on terrorism which is actually
global but it's primarily being waged in both Southwest and Southeast
Asia and of course, the Middle East.

OK, but he voted against the war on terrorism, so where's the waffling? And
before you say it, the war on terrorism is the war against OBL and the Taliban;
in many people's eyes, it does NOT include the war on Iraq. That's a military
adventure waged for still unexplained reasons, the war on terrorism not being
one of them.

This has all been explained/debated/argued countless times before.

Sorry amigo, but you're just gonna have to get used to the GOP
controlling the White House for (at least!) another four years!

"Mike Marron" wrote in message
...
"George Z. Bush" wrote:
"Mike Marron" wrote:

Excuse me. I was referring to the war on terrorism which is actually
global but it's primarily being waged in both Southwest and Southeast
Asia and of course, the Middle East.

OK, but he voted against the war on terrorism, so where's the waffling? And
before you say it, the war on terrorism is the war against OBL and the
Taliban;
in many people's eyes, it does NOT include the war on Iraq. That's a
military
adventure waged for still unexplained reasons, the war on terrorism not being
one of them.

This has all been explained/debated/argued countless times before.

Sorry amigo, but you're just gonna have to get used to the GOP
controlling the White House for (at least!) another four years!

You're entitled to your opinion and that's what makes for horse races! (^-^)))

On Wed, 4 Feb 2004 18:47:00 -0500, "George Z. Bush"
wrote:


OK, but he voted against the war on terrorism, so where's the waffling? And
before you say it, the war on terrorism is the war against OBL and the Taliban;
in many people's eyes, it does NOT include the war on Iraq. That's a military
adventure waged for still unexplained reasons, the war on terrorism not being
one of them.

George Z.

Might want to update your terrorism charts there. We've got troops
deployed around the world and the fight isn't just against OBL and the
the Taliban. There's terrorist activity in the Philippines, in
Somalia, in several countries in Africa, in S. America and many more
places. Almost all of the hot spots have small detached units of US
military deployed.

And, I'd say characterizing Operation Iraqi Freedom as "waged for
still unexplained reasons" is a gross over-simplification. There have
been lots of reasons explained and they extend well beyond this canard
of "no WMD".



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

"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 4 Feb 2004 18:47:00 -0500, "George Z. Bush"
wrote:


OK, but he voted against the war on terrorism, so where's the waffling? And
before you say it, the war on terrorism is the war against OBL and the
Taliban;
in many people's eyes, it does NOT include the war on Iraq. That's a
military
adventure waged for still unexplained reasons, the war on terrorism not being
one of them.

George Z.

Might want to update your terrorism charts there. We've got troops
deployed around the world and the fight isn't just against OBL and the
the Taliban. There's terrorist activity in the Philippines, in
Somalia, in several countries in Africa, in S. America and many more
places. Almost all of the hot spots have small detached units of US
military deployed.

I am perfectly aware that anti-western terrorist activity has existed in
numerous places throughout the world. What I said was that many people did not
feel that Iraq was one of those places where that kind of activity took place,
or even, I might add, where training for it took place.

And, I'd say characterizing Operation Iraqi Freedom as "waged for
still unexplained reasons" is a gross over-simplification. There have
been lots of reasons explained and they extend well beyond this canard
of "no WMD".

You're entitled to your opinion. There certainly have been lots of reasons
advanced for launching this war and, as quickly as one proves to be untrue,
another one is presented until it, too, proves to be untrue, followed by another
one.....etc. You may be gullible enough to believe what you are told by the
government, but after the second unsubstantiated reason, I no longer believe
anything they have to say on the subject. Just between the two of us, I've
already concluded to my own satisfaction that the real reasons we entered this
war were (1) to complete the Gulf War, left undone by the President's father,
(2) to topple Sadaam Hussein for his attempted assassination of the President's
father, and (3) to secure de facto control over the sea of oil on which Iraq
sits. Since none of these reasons would have sat well with the public if
presented, alternative reasons had to be contrived. Unfortunately, each of
those alternative reasons upon examination was shown to be quite obviously
contrived .

But, that's my take, and you're entitled to your own. However, I'd be willing
to bet that with the perfect vision provided by hindsight, history will
eventually accept one or all of my reasons as the true reason(s) for launching
this war rather than those offered by our government.

George Z.

On Thu, 5 Feb 2004 09:23:26 -0500, "George Z. Bush"
wrote:


You're entitled to your opinion. There certainly have been lots of reasons
advanced for launching this war and, as quickly as one proves to be untrue,
another one is presented until it, too, proves to be untrue, followed by another
one.....etc. You may be gullible enough to believe what you are told by the
government, but after the second unsubstantiated reason, I no longer believe
anything they have to say on the subject. Just between the two of us, I've
already concluded to my own satisfaction that the real reasons we entered this
war were (1) to complete the Gulf War, left undone by the President's father,
(2) to topple Sadaam Hussein for his attempted assassination of the President's
father, and (3) to secure de facto control over the sea of oil on which Iraq
sits. Since none of these reasons would have sat well with the public if
presented, alternative reasons had to be contrived. Unfortunately, each of
those alternative reasons upon examination was shown to be quite obviously
contrived .

But, that's my take, and you're entitled to your own. However, I'd be willing
to bet that with the perfect vision provided by hindsight, history will
eventually accept one or all of my reasons as the true reason(s) for launching
this war rather than those offered by our government.

Since you acknowledge the perfection of hindsight, you might review
what we did after we took control of the sea of oil on which Iraq sits
in 1991. We turned control back over to Sadaam. We turned Kuwait back
over to the Kuwaitis (after we put out the fires for them.)

You might want to check who buys and uses Iraqi oil--the French and
the Russians mostly. Less than 5% of American oil purchases come from
Iraq. It mostly goes to Europe and N. Asia.



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

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

"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 4 Feb 2004 18:47:00 -0500, "George Z. Bush"
wrote:


OK, but he voted against the war on terrorism, so where's the waffling?
And
before you say it, the war on terrorism is the war against OBL and the
Taliban;
in many people's eyes, it does NOT include the war on Iraq. That's a
military
adventure waged for still unexplained reasons, the war on terrorism not
being
one of them.

George Z.

Might want to update your terrorism charts there. We've got troops
deployed around the world and the fight isn't just against OBL and the
the Taliban. There's terrorist activity in the Philippines, in
Somalia, in several countries in Africa, in S. America and many more
places. Almost all of the hot spots have small detached units of US
military deployed.

I am perfectly aware that anti-western terrorist activity has existed in
numerous places throughout the world. What I said was that many people
did not
feel that Iraq was one of those places where that kind of activity took
place,
or even, I might add, where training for it took place.

Never heard of Salman Pak, huh? Large terrorist training facility in Iraq
overrun by the USMC during the advance northward?

www.cnn.com/2002/US/09/12/iraq.report/

www.militarycity.com/iraq/1746678.html

Gee, another case of facts inconveniently interfering with a George Z
rant...who'd have thunk it?

Brooks

snip