GWB has been a good Commander-in-Chief

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.

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?

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.

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.

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).

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

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."

"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

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.

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.