ot BUSH IS A FUCKING IDIOT...
bozak
--
In August 2001, immediately after reading a memo entitled "Bin Laden determined to strike in US",
President George Bush went bass fishing - and never called a meeting to discuss the issue.
A month later, on September 11, when he was told that the terrorists had attacked, Bush spent the
next seven minutes reading a children's book, My Pet Goat, with a group of schoolchildren.
Terraholm
bozak wrote:
> that sums it up perfectly...
He looked like a deer caught in the headlights for the first hour...
Tonawanda Kardex
"Terraholm" <terraholm_...@hotmail.com> was found guilty of wanting
to fight a "sensitive war against terrorism" by puking up the following:
>
>
> bozak wrote:
>> that sums it up perfectly...
>
> He looked like a deer caught in the headlights for the first hour...
As opposed to looking like someone who got rejected at a casting call for
the Munsters?
--
What am I supposed to type here??
"I'm NOT an African-American woman!"
bozak
"Terraholm" <terraholm_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:10lpg0r...@corp.supernews.com...
>
>
> bozak wrote:
> > that sums it up perfectly...
>
> He looked like a deer caught in the headlights for the first hour...
and a stupified moron in the last thirty minutes...
Philip Sondericker
1921defu...@comcast.com wrote on 9/30/04 7:27 PM:
> On 9/30/04 7:25 PM, in article 10lpg0r...@corp.supernews.com,
> "Terraholm" <terraholm_...@hotmail.com> was found guilty of wanting
> to fight a "sensitive war against terrorism" by puking up the following:
>
>>
>>
>> bozak wrote:
>>> that sums it up perfectly...
>>
>> He looked like a deer caught in the headlights for the first hour...
>
>
> As opposed to looking like someone who got rejected at a casting call for
> the Munsters?
You spew idiocy like this, and then have the nerve to opine about how only
the "informed" should be allowed to have opinions?
Fred
" bozak" <bo...@mail.com> wrote in message
news:2s3sqeF...@uni-berlin.de...
> that sums it up perfectly...
Q: How will you defend America
W: Humina, Humina, Humina (long pause-blink blink) He sends mixed messages,
He saw the same intellegence I did. He sends mexed missages.
Blazer Fan Dan
> On 9/30/04 7:25 PM, in article 10lpg0r...@corp.supernews.com,
> "Terraholm" <terraholm_...@hotmail.com> was found guilty of
> wanting to fight a "sensitive war against terrorism" by puking up the
> following:
>
>>
>>
>> bozak wrote:
>>> that sums it up perfectly...
>>
>> He looked like a deer caught in the headlights for the first hour...
>
> As opposed to looking like someone who got rejected at a casting call
> for the Munsters?
wow, good response.
--
"if the women don't find you handsome, you haven't bought them enough
beer."
Terraholm
Tonawanda Kardex wrote:
> On 9/30/04 7:25 PM, in article 10lpg0r...@corp.supernews.com,
> "Terraholm" <terraholm_...@hotmail.com> was found guilty of
> wanting to fight a "sensitive war against terrorism" by puking up the
> following:
>
> >
> >
> > bozak wrote:
> > > that sums it up perfectly...
> >
> > He looked like a deer caught in the headlights for the first hour...
>
>
> As opposed to looking like someone who got rejected at a casting call
> for the Munsters?
Want to sleep with them or vote for them?
I kept waiting for bush to pull out "my Pet Goat"...
--
Laurel T
"How should we Democrats select the next presidential nominee?
Smoke filled rooms? Brokered convention? National primary?
Personally, I prefer jump shots from the top of the key."
--Bill Bradley
Tonawanda Kardex
"Terraholm" <terraholm_...@hotmail.com> was found guilty of wanting
to fight a "sensitive war against terrorism" by puking up the following:
>
>
> Tonawanda Kardex wrote:
>> On 9/30/04 7:25 PM, in article 10lpg0r...@corp.supernews.com,
>> "Terraholm" <terraholm_...@hotmail.com> was found guilty of
>> wanting to fight a "sensitive war against terrorism" by puking up the
>> following:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> bozak wrote:
>>>> that sums it up perfectly...
>>>
>>> He looked like a deer caught in the headlights for the first hour...
>>
>>
>> As opposed to looking like someone who got rejected at a casting call
>> for the Munsters?
>
> Want to sleep with them or vote for them?
> I kept waiting for bush to pull out "my Pet Goat"...
Substance: draw
Delivery: Kerry
Jeff Mayner
> On 9/30/04 8:03 PM, in article 10lpi8c...@corp.supernews.com,
> "Terraholm" <terraholm_...@hotmail.com> was found guilty of
> wanting to fight a "sensitive war against terrorism" by puking up the
> following:
>
>>
>>
>> Tonawanda Kardex wrote:
>>> On 9/30/04 7:25 PM, in article 10lpg0r...@corp.supernews.com,
>>> "Terraholm" <terraholm_...@hotmail.com> was found guilty of
>>> wanting to fight a "sensitive war against terrorism" by puking up
>>> the following:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> bozak wrote:
>>>>> that sums it up perfectly...
>>>>
>>>> He looked like a deer caught in the headlights for the first
>>>> hour...
>>>
>>>
>>> As opposed to looking like someone who got rejected at a casting
>>> call for the Munsters?
>>
>> Want to sleep with them or vote for them?
>> I kept waiting for bush to pull out "my Pet Goat"...
>
> Substance: draw
> Delivery: Kerry
Where do you get that? Kerry articulated his plans, something he has been
accused of not doing (wrongly IMO) and Bush talked his oft repeated sound
bites. The "Substance" goes to Kerry, along with delivery, again, IMO.
Jeff
Jeff Mayner
My wife and I were waiting for him to mess up the double m's. He did pretty
well, actually.
Good job George! ;-)
Jeff
Fred
"Jeff Mayner" <jeffm...@yahoonospam.com> wrote in message
news:Hs-dnRFHe8G...@giganews.com...
He did say "mexed miss... uh mixed messages."
John Walsh
That's really old news, Bozak. :)
bozak
"John Walsh" <j1w...@lava.net> wrote in message news:415CEA47...@lava.net...
> That's really old news, Bozak. :)
apparently not to everyone... ;-)
run1shaw
> that sums it up perfectly...
>
Then Kerry is just as big of a fucking idiot. They both said practically the
same exact shit.
THE SAME EXACT SHIT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I'll tell you who the fucking idiot is... YOU'RE THE FUCKING IDIOT!!!!!!!
I watched the debate with an open mind and feel they both did a good job. I
really wouldn't have a problem with either of these guys in the white house
for the next four years. Can you tell me you watched with an open mind? I
doubt it. It's obvious you don't like Bush and you'll vote for "anyone but
Bush."
Ricky
>
> apparently not to everyone... ;-)
>
To everyone istead... The media circus (Moore above the others) told us
everything about this, but they had not tell us (nor Kerry did) what to do
with Osama Bin Laden. Anyone here want to vote for a (fat) director?
Ricky
Tonawanda Kardex
"Enlightened", Philip, is the word I often use, and I borrow it from
Alexander Hamilton and James Madison. There's a difference, child.
"Informed" is a word people who read blogs and treat them as sacred
might use.
That being said, Kerry was all style, little substance. Very
reminiscient of Bill Clinton, but uglier. Bush was very awkward,
bumbling, etc., but his usual resolute self. It just depends on which
message you want to hear; after all, you're the one who made fun of a
juxtaposition the President made during his speech, as if Kerry didn't
make any himself or didn't contradict himself on body armor for the
troops he didn't vote for, a mistake war he did vote for, etc. They're
both idealists, and they're both full of it. I guess it just depends
on which shit you're buying, Philip. And you buy all of it, all the
time.
I'm still voting for Nader. :)
Vic Romano
news:BD820E83.9375%1921defu...@comcast.com:
> On 9/30/04 7:25 PM, in article 10lpg0r...@corp.supernews.com,
> "Terraholm" <terraholm_...@hotmail.com> was found guilty of
> wanting to fight a "sensitive war against terrorism" by puking up the
> following:
>
>>
>>
>> bozak wrote:
>>> that sums it up perfectly...
>>
>> He looked like a deer caught in the headlights for the first hour...
>
>
> As opposed to looking like someone who got rejected at a casting call
> for the Munsters?
>
Kerry looks more like Lurch. Maybe that's a little before your time?
Lurch or Bonzo the Chimp. What a choice.
--
Don't Get Eliminated!!
Vic Romano
news:fe153c9f.04100...@posting.google.com:
> Philip Sondericker <p.sond...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:<BD820FE7.F68A7%p.sond...@comcast.net>...
>> in article BD820E83.9375%1921defu...@comcast.com, Tonawanda
>> Kardex at 1921defu...@comcast.com wrote on 9/30/04 7:27 PM:
>>
>> > On 9/30/04 7:25 PM, in article 10lpg0r...@corp.supernews.com,
>> > "Terraholm" <terraholm_...@hotmail.com> was found guilty of
>> > wanting to fight a "sensitive war against terrorism" by puking up
>> > the following:
>> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> bozak wrote:
>> >>> that sums it up perfectly...
>> >>
>> >> He looked like a deer caught in the headlights for the first
>> >> hour...
>> >
>> >
>> > As opposed to looking like someone who got rejected at a casting
>> > call for the Munsters?
>>
>>
>> You spew idiocy like this, and then have the nerve to opine about how
>> only the "informed" should be allowed to have opinions?
>
> "Enlightened", Philip, is the word I often use, and I borrow it from
> Alexander Hamilton and James Madison. There's a difference, child.
> "Informed" is a word people who read blogs and treat them as sacred
> might use.
>
> That being said, Kerry was all style, little substance.
Not even the extremely right-wing San Diego Union-Tribune saw the same
debate you did.
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/politics/20041001-9999-1n1assess.html
Substance trumps style in debate
Kerry makes gains against Bush; Iraq dominates sessionBy George E. Condon
Jr.
COPLEY NEWS SERVICE
October 1, 2004
SHANNON STAPLETON / Reuters
President Bush and Sen. John Kerry clashed over the war in Iraq and
national security issues in last night's debate, watched across the
nation, including in Times Square.
CORAL GABLES, Fla. – For perhaps the first time in the four-decade
history of presidential debates, last night's clash between President
Bush and Sen. John Kerry soared far above politics and the campaign of
the moment.
The political stakes, of course, were huge. But with U.S. troops dying in
a far-off land that increasingly seems racked with chaos, the country
deserved a serious, somber debate on the policies that put those troops
in harm's way and the policies that can get them out.
The country got that debate.
It saw Kerry, the Democratic challenger, enjoy possibly the best night of
his campaign. For once, he did not talk like a filibustering senator. He
marshaled his arguments effectively, kept respectful but firm pressure on
the president, and counterpunched better than he had in any of the three
dozen debates of the primary campaign.
But the Republican incumbent stood his ground, hammering home his own
points, stoutly defending his stewardship of the war, owning up to no
mistakes of consequence, and insisting that his plan for victory trumps
what he repeatedly called Kerry's "mixed message."
Too often, presidential debates are dominated by trivia, gaffes and
points of style. This, though, was not a debate to be decided by
candidate sighs or glimpses at wristwatches. There also were no obvious
stumbles.
Instead, there were two polished politicians with very real differences
on the life-and-death issue of a war. Perhaps not surprisingly, though
the debate was to be broadly about foreign policy, it was dominated by
Iraq. The entire first hour, and then the last five minutes, of the 90-
minute session were devoted to Iraq and its role in the overall war
against terror.
Never has one topic so overwhelmed all others in any debate since John
Kennedy and Richard Nixon first dueled in 1960. And never have both
candidates so risen to the occasion, particularly on an issue that
bedevils both of them and is likely to be the key to the election in
November.
"People don't understand what Kerry's position on Iraq is, and they don't
understand why Bush sent us there in the first place," said Larry Sabato,
director of the University of Virginia Center for Politics. "Both have a
problem with Iraq, and the debate was an opportunity to solve the
problem."
They seized that opportunity.
Some political edge goes to Bush both because he withstood the
challenger's assault and because he relentlessly delivered a message,
while Kerry too often answered the questions instead of hammering home
his campaign points.
But Kerry also achieved much in the debate, appearing forceful and
possibly presidential, and that could help him in what is still a close
national race.
"He clearly was not the person that he's been portrayed as," said Lee
Miringoff, director of the Marist Institute for Public Opinion. "The
American people now will have to take a second look at him – and when
you're behind, that's what you need.
Pollster John Zogby called the debate the political equivalent of a
baseball "pitcher's duel," with little scoring. Both candidates heartened
their core constituencies, he said, and that gives a small edge to Kerry
"because he had lost some of his base, and I think he probably
strengthened that tonight."
Immediate debate-night reactions often have been misleading in previous
campaigns. Instant polls in 2000 had then-Vice President Al Gore the
winner in his debate over Bush. But after several days of focus on Gore
misstatements, it became clear that Bush's candidacy had benefited the
most.
Similarly, it took several days to assess the damage done to President
Ford's campaign by his 1976 debate performance in San Francisco. Voters
don't so much determine who "won" a debate as they become more
comfortable with the notion of one of the candidates being their
president for the next four years.
"It usually takes a few days for the public to chew over who they are
most comfortable with," Washington-based political analyst Stuart
Rothenberg said. "People might have thought you did better in the debate
technically, but that doesn't mean you've won their vote."
Bush had better hope that is true, because the immediate verdict was not
entirely kind to him.
A poll of 615 registered voters who watched the debate gave a big win to
Kerry. The poll, conducted by Gallup for CNN and USA Today, had a margin
of error of plus or minus 4 percent.
Asked who did better, the voters said Kerry by 53 percent to 37 percent
for Bush. Asked if the debate had given them a more favorable opinion of
Kerry, 46 percent said yes, versus 21 percent for Bush.
In a separate survey of 18 undecided Florida voters near the University
of Miami campus, more were won over by Kerry than by the president. In a
state that determined the winner in 2000 and is neck and neck today, Bush
can ill afford any slippage.
But this group gave the debate win to Kerry by a wide margin, with many
of the formerly undecideds saying the Massachusetts senator had laid to
rest claims by Republicans that he is a flip-flopper. Several expressed
pleasant surprise at the crispness of his performance.
At the end of the debate, half of the 18 said they would now vote for
Kerry, while just two were won over by Bush. The other seven were still
undecided.
Pollster Frank Luntz, who organized the group, said the reaction in Miami
suggests gains for the challenger. "Kerry's message came through better
than George Bush's message," he said.
-->noixe
"run1shaw" <bigcra...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>> that sums it up perfectly...
>>
>
> Then Kerry is just as big of a fucking idiot. They both said practically the
> same exact shit.
>
>
>
> THE SAME EXACT SHIT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
yeah but Kerry maintained composure.
shit, which one *looked* like a president?
> I watched the debate with an open mind and feel they both did a good job. I
> really wouldn't have a problem with either of these guys in the white house
> for the next four years. Can you tell me you watched with an open mind? I
> doubt it. It's obvious you don't like Bush and you'll vote for "anyone but
> Bush."
you gotta lay off the Fox news.
mochaspresso
wrote:
>>
>> A month later, on September 11, when he was told that the terrorists had attacked, Bush spent the
>> next seven minutes reading a children's book, My Pet Goat, with a group of schoolchildren.
>
Much as a dislike Bush.....I don't actually fault him for this. I
think finishing the story as quickly as possible and trying to retain
a sense of calm and normalcy amongst those kids was the right thing to
do. That day was probably traumatic enough as it is. The president
bolting out of the door in an emergency w/ no explanations would
probably have made it even worse for them.
-=-=->-=-=->-=-=->-=-=->-=-=->-=-=->-=-=->-=-=->-=-=->-=-=->-=-=->-=-=->-=-=->
Mochaspresso
bozak
"mochaspresso" <mochas...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:o0orl017go2d5kd2i...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 19:25:27 -1000, John Walsh <j1w...@lava.net>
> wrote:
>
>
> >>
> >> A month later, on September 11, when he was told that the terrorists had attacked, Bush spent
the
> >> next seven minutes reading a children's book, My Pet Goat, with a group of schoolchildren.
> >
>
> Much as a dislike Bush.....I don't actually fault him for this. I
> think finishing the story as quickly as possible and trying to retain
> a sense of calm and normalcy amongst those kids was the right thing to
> do. That day was probably traumatic enough as it is. The president
> bolting out of the door in an emergency w/ no explanations would
> probably have made it even worse for them.
YGBFKM...
A to the L
<mochas...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 19:25:27 -1000, John Walsh <j1w...@lava.net>
>wrote:
>
>
>>>
>>> A month later, on September 11, when he was told that the terrorists had attacked, Bush spent the
>>> next seven minutes reading a children's book, My Pet Goat, with a group of schoolchildren.
>>
>
>Much as a dislike Bush.....I don't actually fault him for this. I
>think finishing the story as quickly as possible and trying to retain
>a sense of calm and normalcy amongst those kids was the right thing to
>do. That day was probably traumatic enough as it is. The president
>bolting out of the door in an emergency w/ no explanations would
>probably have made it even worse for them.
oh I agree... but SEVEN MINUTES of sitting there?
PEACH
A to the L
"I'm the definition of nice - you're the definition of Cool C and Steady B pulling a heist."
http://www.altrap.com (Hiphop with a bitter, twisted, shitty attitude)
mochaspresso
<ma...@TAKETHISOUTaltrap.com> wrote:
>
>oh I agree... but SEVEN MINUTES of sitting there?
>
Leaving immediately wouldn't have made a difference. The first plane
had hit. From that point on, everything else after that was going to
happen regardless.
bozak
> On Fri, 01 Oct 2004 20:05:19 -0400, A to the L
> <ma...@TAKETHISOUTaltrap.com> wrote:
>
>
> >
> >oh I agree... but SEVEN MINUTES of sitting there?
> >
>
> Leaving immediately wouldn't have made a difference. The first plane
> had hit. From that point on, everything else after that was going to
> happen regardless.
you know that now, but he didnt know that then...
to sit in front of kids for seven minutes in the advent of a
national emergency is the stoooooooopidest thing ive ever
heard a person who holds a public office do...
the seven minutes COULD have made a difference in another
situation, not to mention the pentagon...
it was stooooooopid and not to recognize that fact bewilders the
fuck out of me...
Philip Sondericker
at tonawan...@gmail.com wrote on 10/1/04 3:07 AM:
> Philip Sondericker <p.sond...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:<BD820FE7.F68A7%p.sond...@comcast.net>...
>> in article BD820E83.9375%1921defu...@comcast.com, Tonawanda Kardex at
>> 1921defu...@comcast.com wrote on 9/30/04 7:27 PM:
>>> As opposed to looking like someone who got rejected at a casting call for
>>> the Munsters?
>>
>>
>> You spew idiocy like this, and then have the nerve to opine about how only
>> the "informed" should be allowed to have opinions?
>
> "Enlightened", Philip, is the word I often use, and I borrow it from
> Alexander Hamilton and James Madison. There's a difference, child.
What, are you channeling a black woman all of a sudden? "Child"? What's
next..."Girlfriend"? "Sugar"?
> I guess it just depends
> on which shit you're buying, Philip. And you buy all of it, all the
> time.
How the hell would you know what I buy?
> I'm still voting for Nader. :)
I voted for him four years ago, though I may not do it this time. I don't
relish the prospect of helping Bush get elected again.
Tonawanda Kardex
Uh, Kerry said "Check my website"; those aren't details. And besides,
his details change, remember? All depending on what the polls tell him
he has to say.
They're both full of shit; that much is obvious. Kerry surely shoveled
his shit more fluidly, however.
Tonawanda Kardex
> Tonawanda Kardex <1921defu...@comcast.com> wrote in
> news:BD820E83.9375%1921defu...@comcast.com:
>
> > On 9/30/04 7:25 PM, in article 10lpg0r...@corp.supernews.com,
> > "Terraholm" <terraholm_...@hotmail.com> was found guilty of
> > wanting to fight a "sensitive war against terrorism" by puking up the
> > following:
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> bozak wrote:
> >>> that sums it up perfectly...
> >>
> >> He looked like a deer caught in the headlights for the first hour...
> >
> >
> > As opposed to looking like someone who got rejected at a casting call
> > for the Munsters?
> >
> Kerry looks more like Lurch. Maybe that's a little before your time?
Addams Family, Munsters. WTF is the difference? :)
> Lurch or Bonzo the Chimp. What a choice.
Seriously. And since I don't subscribe to the Bush=Nazi venom, and my
life is better than it was four years ago ... Kerry needs to give me
real reasons to vote for him. And he's not doing it. His "plans" are
no better than the Bush "plans".
Change for change's sake alone is not an argument I'll buy right now.
A to the L
Kardex) wrote:
> And since I don't subscribe to the Bush=Nazi venom, and my
>life is better than it was four years ago ...
what are you? an oil baron?
-->noixe
>> accused of not doing (wrongly IMO) and Bush talked his oft repeated sound
>> bites. The "Substance" goes to Kerry, along with delivery, again, IMO.
>
> Uh, Kerry said "Check my website"; those aren't details. And besides,
> his details change, remember? All depending on what the polls tell him
> he has to say.
if you actually believe that "flip-flop" bs then you're not paying
attention.
bozak
"A to the L" <ma...@TAKETHISOUTaltrap.com> wrote in message
news:7abvl0tlf0ifca932...@4ax.com...
> On 2 Oct 2004 23:48:05 -0700, tonawan...@gmail.com (Tonawanda
> Kardex) wrote:
>
> > And since I don't subscribe to the Bush=Nazi venom, and my
> >life is better than it was four years ago ...
>
> what are you? an oil baron?
moron...
Vic Romano
> Vic Romano <VicRMX...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:<Xns9575654447...@130.133.1.4>...
>> Tonawanda Kardex <1921defu...@comcast.com> wrote in
>> news:BD820E83.9375%1921defu...@comcast.com:
>>
>> > On 9/30/04 7:25 PM, in article 10lpg0r...@corp.supernews.com,
>> > "Terraholm" <terraholm_...@hotmail.com> was found guilty of
>> > wanting to fight a "sensitive war against terrorism" by puking up
>> > the following:
>> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> bozak wrote:
>> >>> that sums it up perfectly...
>> >>
>> >> He looked like a deer caught in the headlights for the first
>> >> hour...
>> >
>> >
>> > As opposed to looking like someone who got rejected at a casting
>> > call for the Munsters?
>> >
>> Kerry looks more like Lurch. Maybe that's a little before your time?
>
> Addams Family, Munsters. WTF is the difference? :)
>
If you have to ask that then you clearly never saw at least one of them.
>> Lurch or Bonzo the Chimp. What a choice.
>
> Seriously. And since I don't subscribe to the Bush=Nazi venom, and my
> life is better than it was four years ago ... Kerry needs to give me
Life is better than it was 4 years ago? You like living in a constant
state of "alert"? You like a struggling economy? Don't pretend you are
one of the 1% of Americans who are actually coming out ahead in the Bush
economy - no one in that category posts in usenet and they certainly do
not use gmail.
> real reasons to vote for him. And he's not doing it. His "plans" are
> no better than the Bush "plans".
>
> Change for change's sake alone is not an argument I'll buy right now.
>
For your sake I hope you don't find out the hard way how wrong you are.
ken
"Spike" <sp...@spike.spike> wrote in message
news:h210m01uofvf1ov73...@4ax.com...
txhypocritetx.
TJ Xenos
>
>Much as a dislike Bush.....I don't actually fault him for this. I
>think finishing the story as quickly as possible and trying to retain
>a sense of calm and normalcy amongst those kids was the right thing to
>do. That day was probably traumatic enough as it is. The president
>bolting out of the door in an emergency w/ no explanations would
>probably have made it even worse for them.
>
in the siuattion withh potenntially innumeraable liives at stake he shhould
have excuused himself inn an understatd way
T.J. Xenos
"great music is better than average sex" - Merle Haggard
"When I got the music, I got a place to go" - Rancid
"Im in love with rock & roll" - Motorhead
bozak
"Yertle" <yer...@sala.ma.sond> wrote in message news:fb3bb0.16470024@localhost...
> >
> >Seriously. And since I don't subscribe to the Bush=Nazi venom, and my
> >life is better than it was four years ago ... Kerry needs to give me
> >real reasons to vote for him.
>
> than I was four years ago. Four years ago my stock options
> held the possibility of retirement before 40, the software
> industry was booming in the US, and for all the Republicans'
> self-proclaimed fiscal responsibility, Clinton had the
> deficit wiped out and even the national debt looked like it
> might get zeroed in a few decades. Bush has spent
> extravagantly, targetting one voting bloc after another.
>
> But _the_ biggest issue right now is the war on terrorism.
> The fact that people aren't being killed by al-Qaeda in the
> US every day might obscure it, but I don't forget it. Bush
> might be fighting this war in a way that I find fault with,
> but he's fighting it. I'm convinced that Kerry doesn't
> really believe that there is any such war. He all but
> promises to abandon Iraq to al-Zarqawi and the Baathists, he
> insults the allies the US needs today and seeks the approval
> of useless former Cold War allies who openly oppose US
> interests. His election is guaranteed to invite further
> terrorism by weakness.
>
> Bush gets my vote.
well this shows exactly how the republikkkon brainwashing does
work...
oooohhhh im scared... red alert, or is it orange???
Vic Romano
> On 2 Oct 2004 23:48:05 -0700, tonawan...@gmail.com
> (Tonawanda Kardex) wrote:
>
>>> Lurch or Bonzo the Chimp. What a choice.
>>
>>Seriously. And since I don't subscribe to the Bush=Nazi venom, and my
>>life is better than it was four years ago ... Kerry needs to give me
>>real reasons to vote for him.
>
> For me, this election is not about whether I'm better off
> than I was four years ago. Four years ago my stock options
> held the possibility of retirement before 40, the software
> industry was booming in the US, and for all the Republicans'
> self-proclaimed fiscal responsibility, Clinton had the
> deficit wiped out and even the national debt looked like it
> might get zeroed in a few decades. Bush has spent
> extravagantly, targetting one voting bloc after another.
>
> But _the_ biggest issue right now is the war on terrorism.
> The fact that people aren't being killed by al-Qaeda in the
> US every day might obscure it, but I don't forget it. Bush
> might be fighting this war in a way that I find fault with,
> but he's fighting it. I'm convinced that Kerry doesn't
> really believe that there is any such war. He all but
> promises to abandon Iraq to al-Zarqawi and the Baathists, he
> insults the allies the US needs today and seeks the approval
> of useless former Cold War allies who openly oppose US
> interests. His election is guaranteed to invite further
> terrorism by weakness.
>
> Bush gets my vote.
>
So instead of fighting the people who actually attacked us and who
threaten us daily, you prefer to fight a needless war in Iraq? You don't
want to "leave Iraq to al-Zarqawi and the Baathists"? Dude, they were
there before the war and they posed ZERO threat to us. And what allies do
we need today? Authoritarian dictatorships like Pakistan and Russia? What
a crock. Our "former cold war allies" *share* our interests. There is a
reason that the US and UK are the only two democracies in the "Coalition
of the Willing" - and when the UK pulls out in January, the US will be
the *only* one. That should tell you all you need to know.
Vic Romano
> I prefer to see the US both root out al-Qaeda in
> Afghanistan/Pakistan and destroy the Baathist regime and
> remnants in Iraq, along with al-Qaeda allies like
> al-Zarqawi.
>
And I'd love to see the Lakers go 82-0. Ain't gonna happen. There is a
little thing called "running out of troops". Maybe you've heard of it?
It forces you to prioritize things. Priority #1 was getting OBL and his
AQ cohorts in Afghanistan. Didn't happen. Won't happen. Why? Because
Bush was in too much of a rush to punch Saddam in the nose. Saddam was
harmless - at least to us. Worse yet, the admin keeps pushing the silly
notion that democracy will "blossom" in Iraq. But Iran was on the verge
of an actual democracy until the mullahs and ayatollahs clamped down.
Now they are drifting back into the "rogue nation" category. We could
have done Afghanistan the right way, and then helped the Iranians firmly
establish their democracy. That would have put pressure on Saddam and
other autocrats in that area. Instead we are stuck in a quagmire in Iraq
with no end in sight, no exit strategy and a "coalition" which is
continually losing members. When the UK pulls out in January, the US
will be the only democracy in the coalition. What kind of message does
that send?
>>You don't
>>want to "leave Iraq to al-Zarqawi and the Baathists"? Dude, they were
>>there before the war and they posed ZERO threat to us.
>
> The lack of WMD evidence does not equal zero threat by any
> means.
>
Did I mention WMDs? I didn't think so. Nice little strawman. The fact of
the matter is that zarqawi was probably in Iraq trying to kill Saddam -
if we had left alone, that might have happened. Either way, neither
Zarqawi nor the Baathists posed any threat to the United States. None
whatsoever.
>>And what allies do
>>we need today?
>
> Other nations involved in their own struggles against
> Islamic violence and terrorism - Israel, Russia, Australia,
> India, and the newly free nations of the former Soviet Bloc.
>
The newly "free" nations of the former soviet bloc? You mean like
Kyrgyzstan? Uzbekistan (oh wait, they are already in the coalition of
the willing to be bribed). You really think occupying an arab nation
with Israel as an ally is a good idea? What about all the arab states
that were part of the real coalition forged by a real president, George
HW Bush? Where are they today? BTW, are really so poorly informed that
you think Australia has a bigger problem with terrorism than France and
former coalition member Spain? Ever hear of ETA?
>>Authoritarian dictatorships like Pakistan and Russia? What
>>a crock.
>
> I have a lot of problems with the US relationship with both
> Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. Those two nations are probably
> the two biggest wellsprings of Islamic terrorism today, and
> Pakistan is the leading proliferator of nuclear weapons
> technology in the world. I don't like or really understand
> the US's attempts to co-opt these dictatorships and declare
> them our "staunch allies in the war on terror". An alliance
> with dictatorships is inherently unstable.
>
Not much to understand. Bush had to have something he could call a
"coalition" and all he could get were opportunistic dictatorships.
> Again, I don't agree with everything Bush is doing in the
> war on terror. However, Kerry and Richard Holbrooke have
> given me no reason to believe a Kerry administration would
> treat these nations differently.
>
Other than the fact that they say they will. BTW, last time I checked,
Holbrooke wasn't running for anything.
>>Our "former cold war allies" *share* our interests.>
> No, I don't believe they do. France and Germany both had a
> financial interest in seeing Saddam remain in power (just as
Just as Cheney did in 1998 when he violated US law and did business with
Saddam. Double standard.
> France has a financial interest in seeing the murderous
> regime in Khartoum stay in power). Both nations share a
> primary interest in forming a powerful EU as a
> counter-balance to the US, and can't be considered allies in
> any meaningful way.
>
Both nations are frequent targets of terrorism. There are indications
that Chechen rebels are looking to target Germany. And have you
forgotten the Berlin disco that was bombed by our newest friend, Muomar
Khaddaffi? Yet another well established sponsor of terrorism becomes
George W. Bush's friend. Moreover, both France and Germany are
democracies which in and of itself is a whole lot more in common with us
than anything Pakistan, Saudi Arabia or Libya have.
>>There is a
>>reason that the US and UK are the only two democracies in the
>>"Coalition of the Willing" - and when the UK pulls out in January, the
>>US will be the *only* one. That should tell you all you need to know.
>
> It doesn't, because it neglects democratic coalition members
> such as Australia, Italy, Poland, and Bulgaria, among
> others.
>
Dude, you are so badly informed it's scary. Australia pulled out almost
all their troops a year and a half ago. Where have you been? Italy is in
the process of pulling out. So is Poland. Bulgaria has less than 400
troops in Iraq and they refuse to engage in any combat action. As I
said, when UK pulls out in January, the US will the only democracy left.
bozak
> Yertle <yer...@sala.ma.sond> wrote in news:fbe920.22826264@localhost:
>
> > I prefer to see the US both root out al-Qaeda in
> > Afghanistan/Pakistan and destroy the Baathist regime and
> > remnants in Iraq, along with al-Qaeda allies like
> > al-Zarqawi.
> >
> And I'd love to see the Lakers go 82-0. Ain't gonna happen. There is a
> little thing called "running out of troops". Maybe you've heard of it?
> It forces you to prioritize things. Priority #1 was getting OBL and his
> AQ cohorts in Afghanistan. Didn't happen. Won't happen. Why? Because
> Bush was in too much of a rush to punch Saddam in the nose. Saddam was
> harmless - at least to us. Worse yet, the admin keeps pushing the silly
> notion that democracy will "blossom" in Iraq. But Iran was on the verge
> of an actual democracy until the mullahs and ayatollahs clamped down.
> Now they are drifting back into the "rogue nation" category. We could
> have done Afghanistan the right way, and then helped the Iranians firmly
> establish their democracy. That would have put pressure on Saddam and
> other autocrats in that area. Instead we are stuck in a quagmire in Iraq
> with no end in sight, no exit strategy and a "coalition" which is
> continually losing members. When the UK pulls out in January, the US
> will be the only democracy in the coalition. What kind of message does
> that send?
word "fucking" up!!!
Vic Romano
news:2sime7F...@uni-berlin.de:
Who are you? Dick "Fucking" Cheney?
VicXnews
>
Iraq "will leave a long and damaging legacy," said Fred Ikle, a senior
government arms control expert for decades who has argued that the United
States must be more willing to use military might to achieve its goals. "It
will inhibit us more than is good for our future. We fumbled."
Ikle was one of the founders of the Project for the New American
Century, a neoconservative group that has long pressed for a more muscular
American military posture, and includes Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld
and Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz - key architects of the Iraq
war - among its members.
Ikle's views are echoed by other prominent neoconservative thinkers.
http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/100404B.shtml
--
If there's a child on the south side of Chicago who can't read, that
matters to me, even if it's not my child. If there's a senior citizen
somewhere who can't pay for her prescription and has to choose between
medicine and the rent, that makes my life poorer, even if it's not my
grandmother. If there's an Arab American family being rounded up without
benefit of an attorney or due process, that threatens my civil liberties.
It's that fundamental belief-I am my brother's keeper, I am my sisters'
keeper-that makes this country work. It's what allows us to pursue our
individual dreams, yet still come together as a single American family.
"E pluribus unum." Out of many, one.
Barack Obama
---------
Welfare State is not a dirty word. It simply means that the government
has a concern and responsibility that the standard of living shall not
fall below a certain level. The Democratic Party has been meeting this
responsibility since FDR
Johnny Morgan
Vic Romano
> Yertle <yer...@sala.ma.sond> wrote in news:fbe920.22826264@localhost:
>>>And what allies do
>>>we need today?
>>
>> Other nations involved in their own struggles against
>> Islamic violence and terrorism - Israel, Russia, Australia,
>> India, and the newly free nations of the former Soviet Bloc.
>>
Just heard about Charles Duelfer's "final word on Iraqi weapons" (quote
from George W. Bush). After 7 (?) months as head of the Iraq Survey Group,
he has concluded that Iraq had no stockpiles of weapons or weapons programs
at the time of the invasion. He did find evidence that companies from
several nations were illegally doing business with Iraq. You mentioned
France and Germany. The ISG did not mention Germany but they did mention
Russia. Funny that.
Philip Sondericker
10/6/04 7:43 PM:
> On 6 Oct 2004 17:16:21 GMT, Vic Romano
> <VicRMX...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>>> And what allies do
>>>>> we need today?
>>>>
>>>> Other nations involved in their own struggles against
>>>> Islamic violence and terrorism - Israel, Russia, Australia,
>>>> India, and the newly free nations of the former Soviet Bloc.
>>>>
>>
>> Just heard about Charles Duelfer's "final word on Iraqi weapons" (quote
>> from George W. Bush). After 7 (?) months as head of the Iraq Survey Group,
>> he has concluded that Iraq had no stockpiles of weapons or weapons programs
>> at the time of the invasion. He did find evidence that companies from
>> several nations were illegally doing business with Iraq. You mentioned
>> France and Germany. The ISG did not mention Germany but they did mention
>> Russia. Funny that.
>
> Not really, since Russia also opposed the Iraqi invasion.
> They can, however, be useful elsewhere against Islamic
> terrorism.
>
> Some other fun readings from Mr. Duelfer's report:
>
> "Iraq was within striking distance of a de facto end to the
> sanctions regime, both in terms of oil exports and the trade
> embargo, by the end of 1999.
>
> Saddam wanted to recreate Iraq’s WMD capability—which was
> essentially destroyed in 1991—after sanctions were removed
> and Iraq’s economy stabilized, but probably with a different
> mix of capabilities to that which previously existed. Saddam
> aspired to develop a nuclear capability—in an incremental
> fashion, irrespective of international pressure and the
> resulting economic risks—but he intended to focus on
> ballistic missile and tactical chemical warfare (CW)
> capabilities."
>
> Consider this carefully before making statements about the
> harmlesness of Saddam's regime.
So what exactly are you trying to say here? That if someone is probably
trying to plan something, at some point in the future, and you're reasonably
sure, in an educated guess sort-of-way, that they're going to some day be
determined, you're pretty sure, to probably pursue something, that you are
therefore justified in invading them?
You do realize that you've justified anybody invading any country in the
world for any reason at any time, right?
Stuart Adamson
>> essentially destroyed in 1991-after sanctions were removed
>> and Iraq's economy stabilized, but probably with a different
>> mix of capabilities to that which previously existed. Saddam
>> fashion, irrespective of international pressure and the
>> ballistic missile and tactical chemical warfare (CW)
>> capabilities."
>>
>> Consider this carefully before making statements about the
>> harmlesness of Saddam's regime.
>
> So what exactly are you trying to say here? That if someone is probably
> trying to plan something, at some point in the future, and you're
> reasonably
> sure, in an educated guess sort-of-way, that they're going to some day be
> determined, you're pretty sure, to probably pursue something, that you are
> therefore justified in invading them?
>
> You do realize that you've justified anybody invading any country in the
> world for any reason at any time, right?
Ah yes, that ancient lost Welsh self-defence art, Llap Goch.
Jeff Mayner
> in article ba12f8.22849632@localhost, Yertle at yer...@sala.ma.sond
> wrote on 10/6/04 7:43 PM:
>
>> On 6 Oct 2004 17:16:21 GMT, Vic Romano
>> <VicRMX...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>> And what allies do
>>>>>> we need today?
>>>>>
>>>>> Other nations involved in their own struggles against
>>>>> Islamic violence and terrorism - Israel, Russia, Australia,
>>>>> India, and the newly free nations of the former Soviet Bloc.
>>>>>
>>>
>>> Just heard about Charles Duelfer's "final word on Iraqi weapons"
>>> (quote from George W. Bush). After 7 (?) months as head of the Iraq
>>> Survey Group, he has concluded that Iraq had no stockpiles of
>>> weapons or weapons programs at the time of the invasion. He did
>>> find evidence that companies from several nations were illegally
>>> doing business with Iraq. You mentioned France and Germany. The ISG
>>> did not mention Germany but they did mention Russia. Funny that.
>>
>> Not really, since Russia also opposed the Iraqi invasion.
>> They can, however, be useful elsewhere against Islamic
>> terrorism.
>>
>> Some other fun readings from Mr. Duelfer's report:
>>
>> "Iraq was within striking distance of a de facto end to the
>> sanctions regime, both in terms of oil exports and the trade
>> embargo, by the end of 1999.
>>
>> and Iraq's economy stabilized, but probably with a different
>> mix of capabilities to that which previously existed. Saddam
>> fashion, irrespective of international pressure and the
>> ballistic missile and tactical chemical warfare (CW)
>> capabilities."
>>
>> Consider this carefully before making statements about the
>> harmlesness of Saddam's regime.
>
> So what exactly are you trying to say here? That if someone is
> probably trying to plan something, at some point in the future, and
> you're reasonably sure, in an educated guess sort-of-way, that
> they're going to some day be determined, you're pretty sure, to
> probably pursue something, that you are therefore justified in
> invading them?
>
> You do realize that you've justified anybody invading any country in
> the world for any reason at any time, right?
It's that darn moving goal post thingy.
Jeff
Tonawanda Kardex
Mayner" <jeffm...@yahoonospam.com> was found guilty of wanting to fight a
"sensitive war against terrorism" by puking up the following:
> Philip Sondericker wrote:
No, it's an asinine slippery slope argument both of you "experts" are using.
--
"Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your
country."
Vic Romano
> On 6 Oct 2004 16:00:45 GMT, Vic Romano
> <VicRMX...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> I prefer to see the US both root out al-Qaeda in
>>> Afghanistan/Pakistan and destroy the Baathist regime and
>>> remnants in Iraq, along with al-Qaeda allies like
>>> al-Zarqawi.
>>>
>>And I'd love to see the Lakers go 82-0. Ain't gonna happen. There is a
>>little thing called "running out of troops". Maybe you've heard of it?
>>It forces you to prioritize things.
>
> No kidding. In this case, it's forced the US to realize that
> thousands of troops stationed in Germany and Western Europe
> waiting for the Soviets to breach the Fulda Gap are no
> longer necessary, and can be redeployed to where they're
> needed.
> \
Senseless. We have wasted 130,000 troops by miring them in the Iraq.
Meanwhile, it's becoming more and more clear that islamic terrorists are
targetting Germany so why would you remove troops from there? You have
no grasp of the fundamentals. It's like choosing to double team a 30% FG
shooter and leaving a bunch of high percentage shooters open (gratuitous
basketball content).
>>But Iran was on the verge
>>of an actual democracy until the mullahs and ayatollahs clamped down.
>>Now they are drifting back into the "rogue nation" category. We could
>>have done Afghanistan the right way, and then helped the Iranians
>>firmly establish their democracy.
>
> How could we have done this? Did you favor an invasion of
> Iran? Are you aware of how much harder this would be than
> the invasion of Iraq?
>
Could have been done in a number of ways. Covert support for
progressives for example. The selective use of sanctions for another.
Speaking of sanctions, I find it amusing that both Bush and Cheney are
advocating the use of sanctions against Iran - the same sanctions they
claimed were useless in Iraq. Is that hypocrisy, flip-flop, double
standard or simply stupidity?
Oh, BTW, as far as the progressive movement in Iran - the worst thing
you could do is allow Iraq to become a fundamentalist Shiite state
because that would only give the Iranian mullahs a new ally next door.
But then, if there is one thing Bush is consistent at, it's making the
wrong choice.
> BTW, Afghanistan holds elections on Saturday (and over 40%
> of the registered voters will be women). Despite the
> Democratic mantra of failure in Afghanistan, that nation is
> recovering.
>
Over 40% of the registered voters are women? Almost 40% of the
registered voters are not eligible to register. Duh? You think
registering 40% more people than are eligible is good? Well, I know that
dead republicans can vote in California for years and years so I guess
that's consistent.
>>That would have put pressure on Saddam and
>>other autocrats in that area. Instead we are stuck in a quagmire in
>>Iraq with no end in sight, no exit strategy and a "coalition" which is
>>continually losing members.
>
> Even if France and Germany were members of such a coalition,
> do you understand that the US would still do most of the
> work and suffer most of the casualties? This was the case
> during the fabulously coalitional Gulf War of '91 and is due
> to the simple fact that France and Germany don't have the
> ability, let alone the will, to field large expeditionary
> forces.
>
You are so uninformed it's frightening. The US is picking up almost the
entire cost of the current war. We paid less than 5% of the monetary
cost of Gulf War I. Saudi Arabia and Kuwait picked up over 80% of the
total tab between them the first time. Neither of them is even in this
coalition. In that coalition, US troops were about 75% of the total.
That still amounted to over 200,000 troops. In the current coalition, US
troops account for over 90% of the total and are still barely 130,000.
In the first gulf war the US suffered a total of 378 casualties. The
total number of wounded (not counting dead) coalition troops was less
than 1000.
>>>>You don't
>>>>want to "leave Iraq to al-Zarqawi and the Baathists"? Dude, they
>>>>were there before the war and they posed ZERO threat to us.
>>>
>>> The lack of WMD evidence does not equal zero threat by any
>>> means.
>>>
>>Did I mention WMDs? I didn't think so. Nice little strawman.
>
> Strawman? The lack of WMDs were the only real hope you had
> of backing up this nonsense about the Iraqi Baathists posing
> zero threat to the US.
>
Perhaps you could explain what threat they posed?
>>The fact of
>>the matter is that zarqawi was probably in Iraq trying to kill Saddam
>>- if we had left alone, that might have happened.
>
> There is no "fact of the matter" about this, just baseless
> supposition.
>
Not at all - it is another example of you being woefully uninformed. AQ
attempted several times to assassinate Hussein and his sons over the
years. Considering this and the fact that AQ and OBL are radical
fundamentalists while Hussein was a secular leader who banned religious
expression (something that OBL and AQ would find intolerable) it makes
complete sense. What would be baseless supposition would be to think
that Hussein and Zarqawi were somehow in league. That flies in the face
of all logic.
>>Either way, neither
>>Zarqawi nor the Baathists posed any threat to the United States. None
>>whatsoever.
>
> A dedicated Islamic terrorist and murderer along with a
> regime that hated the US and had the financial ability to
> finance terror on a scale that could dwarf 9/11 posed a
> significant threat to the US, one that could be ignored only
> by a criminally negligent US president.
>
Now this a baseless supposition if I ever saw one. First of all, Charles
Duelfer just reported that Hussein had no weapons stockpiles, no weapons
programs and was, in fact, years away from reconstituting weapons
programs if sanctions were lifted - and that's assuming sanctions would
be lifted at all (although we know Dick Cheney was a strong advocate for
lifting sanctions back in 1998). Moreover, several investigations have
previously shown that the payments to Palestinian suicide bombers came
entirely from Egypt and Saudi Arabia and not from Iraq so even that
"evidence" of financial support for terror is simply bullshit. The real
threats to the US are North Korea and Iran and they are currently being
ignored by a criminally negligent US president.
>>>>And what allies do
>>>>we need today?
>>>
>>> Other nations involved in their own struggles against
>>> Islamic violence and terrorism - Israel, Russia, Australia,
>>> India, and the newly free nations of the former Soviet Bloc.
>>>
>>The newly "free" nations of the former soviet bloc? You mean like
>>Kyrgyzstan? Uzbekistan
>
> Like Poland and Bulgaria.
>
Both of which are leaving the coalition, thank you.
>>You really think occupying an arab nation
>>with Israel as an ally is a good idea?
>
> You're not going to find a better source of information and
> tactics against Islamic terrorism than Israel.
>
No doubt. And I think you can pretty much guarantee that we would be
welcomed with hugs and flowers as we marched into Tehran with the
Israeli army at our side.
>> What about all the arab states
>>that were part of the real coalition forged by a real president,
>>George HW Bush? Where are they today?
>
> Since you're so concerned about democracies participating in
> the coalition, and since those don't exist in the Arab
> world, why is this a point of interest for you?
>
Egypt is a democracy to some extent. At least as much as Poland is.
Jordan has a democratically elected legislature. Kuwait also has a
democratically elected National Assembly. Even Oman has a semblence of
democracy. Beyond that, if you are going to occupy and force regime
change on Arab nations, having Arab support lends an air of legitimacy
in the eyes of the occupied. If we had gone into Iraq with the support
of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Jordan, we would have been much more well
received by the Iraqis.
>> BTW, are really so poorly informed that
>>you think Australia has a bigger problem with terrorism
>
> Read carefully before babbling about who's poorly informed -
> ISLAMIC terrorism.
>
You think Australia has a bigger problem with ISLAMIC terrorism than
France and Germany? I don't think Australian was even mentioned in this
year's Global Patterns of Terrorism report from the US State Department.
Perhaps this is another example of you being uninformed? Karim Mehdi was
arrested last year in France. He is suspected of heading an al Qaeda
terrorist cell based in Hamburg Germany. France also arrested Christian
Ganczarski, a german-born Islamic terrorist who is a known AQ operative.
Then there is Djamal Beghal, arrested last year in France, who is a
known AQ operative who was behind a plot to bomb the US embassy in
Paris. And Germany is rife with AQ cells. The Hamburg cell I mentioned
above is one of the largest AQ enclaves in the world. And there are many
other AQ cells in Germany.
>>than France and
>>former coalition member Spain? Ever hear of ETA?
>
> Ever hear of the Bali nightclub bombing and the Australian
> embassy bombing? Guess what? They were aimed at Australia.
Well the Bali nightclub bombing was not aimed at Australia. Last time I
checked, Bali is not part of Australia. Not coincidentally, the
Australian Embassy bombing also took place in Indonesia. Now Indonesia
certainly has a major problem with Islamic terrorists. BTW, you didn't
mention the Hotel bombing in Jakarta last year. But then, the Marriot is
US owned so I guess that would have undercut your attempted argument.
> And, unlike ETA, they involved Islamic terrorism.
>
See my many citations for islamic terrorism in Europe above.
>>> Again, I don't agree with everything Bush is doing in the
>>> war on terror. However, Kerry and Richard Holbrooke have
>>> given me no reason to believe a Kerry administration would
>>> treat these nations differently.
>>>
>>Other than the fact that they say they will.
>
> Really? Please provide the quote where Kerry says Bush's
> treatment of Pakistan is a mistake which he will speedily
> rectify.
>
In his letter to the 9/11 commission, Kerry has this recommendation:
"Recommendation: (p. 369) If Musharraf stands for enlightened moderation
in a fight for his life and for the life of his country, the United
States should be willing to make hard choices too, and make the
difficult long-term commitment to the future of Pakistan. Sustaining the
cur-rent scale of aid to Pakistan, the United States should support
Pakistan’s government in its struggle against extremists with a
comprehensive effort that extends from military aid to support for
better education, so long as Pakistan’s leaders remain willing to make
difficult choices of their own."
Bush seems to be willing to let Musharraf have free reign. Kerry clearly
has a litmus test.
>>BTW, last time I checked,
>>Holbrooke wasn't running for anything.
>
> Do you even know who Richard Holbrooke is? Last time I
> checked, he was one of Kerry's foreign policy advisors and
> has a good shot at Secretary of State if Kerry is elected.
>
"Has a good shot." Thank you.
> You're welcome.
>
>>> France has a financial interest in seeing the murderous
>>> regime in Khartoum stay in power). Both nations share a
>>> primary interest in forming a powerful EU as a
>>> counter-balance to the US, and can't be considered allies in
>>> any meaningful way.
>>>
>>Both nations are frequent targets of terrorism. There are indications
>>that Chechen rebels are looking to target Germany. And have you
>>forgotten the Berlin disco that was bombed by our newest friend,
>>Muomar Khaddaffi?
>
> LOL - you come up with "indications" and a 20 year old
> bombing incident (that was targetted at US soldiers, BTW) as
> your proof that "both nations are frequent targets of
> terrorism"?
>
See discussion above of Hamburg AQ cell and other citations.
BTW, it's hilarious that you wave your hand at a "20 year old bombing"
which actually happened in 1986 but you refer to the 1988 use of
chemical weapons by Hussein as evidence of an "imminent threat".
>>Yet another well established sponsor of terrorism becomes
>>George W. Bush's friend. Moreover, both France and Germany are
>>democracies which in and of itself is a whole lot more in common with
>>us than anything Pakistan, Saudi Arabia or Libya have.
>
> That's nice, but it says absolutely nothing about France and
> Germany sharing common geopolitical interests with the US
> under either a Republican or Democratic presidency. France
> and Germany are not US allies and will not be under a Kerry
> administration.
>
You are swallowing too much republican propaganda.
>>>>There is a
>>>>reason that the US and UK are the only two democracies in the
>>>>"Coalition of the Willing" - and when the UK pulls out in January,
>>>>the US will be the *only* one. That should tell you all you need to
>>>>know.
>>>
>>> It doesn't, because it neglects democratic coalition members
>>> such as Australia, Italy, Poland, and Bulgaria, among
>>> others.
>>>
>>Dude, you are so badly informed it's scary.
>
> Save it - you're wrong on the facts and accusing others of
> your shortcomings isn't a smart idea.
>
Well, except that I have consistently cited facts to demonstrate your
ignorance and all you can do is repeat catch-phrases and sound-bites.
>>Australia pulled out almost
>>all their troops a year and a half ago.
>
> No, they drew down their troops after major hostilities
> ceased and are now increasing their presence.
>
There are 300 australians in Iraq today. A year ago they had 2000. There
is no indication that they are going to send more troops anytime soon
and in fact John Howard is battling fiercely just to keep those 300
there. That's a battle he is losing as he keeps dropping in the polls
against Latham. Latham has vowed to remove those last 300 troops.
Of course, Australia is preparing to send more troops to Afghanistan,
where we should be concentrating our efforts alas. Maybe you were just
confusing the two?
>>So is Poland.
>
> Poland's defense minister said that it would be appropriate
> for the Poles to withdraw at the end of 2005 (not 2004). He
> was contradicted by his boss, Poland's president, who stated
> that Poland will impose no time-table.
>
Poland was mentioned in Charles Duelfer's report as one of the countries
illegally doing business with Iraq. You lambaste France and Germany for
this yet you are eager to embrace Russia and Poland. Seems to me that
all your arguments are simply arguments of convenience with no
consistency at all.
>>Bulgaria has less than 400
>>troops in Iraq and they refuse to engage in any combat action.
>
> Which puts them way ahead of France in the cause of
> reconstructing Iraq, a nation that France joined with Saddam
> in plundering.
>
And Russia and Poland, your friends. Double standard.
>>As I
>>said, when UK pulls out in January, the US will the only democracy
>>left.
>
> And, once again, you're wrong. Have fun waiting for Britain
> to pull out in January.
>
Might come sooner if Blair is impeached. Also, Parliament might still
vote to pullout soon. Blair has only managed to put that vote off for
now. But then, I wonder if you even knew about that vote.
--
x-no-archive is for pussies
Vic Romano
> On 6 Oct 2004 17:16:21 GMT, Vic Romano
> <VicRMX...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>>>And what allies do
>>>>>we need today?
>>>>
>>>> Other nations involved in their own struggles against
>>>> Islamic violence and terrorism - Israel, Russia, Australia,
>>>> India, and the newly free nations of the former Soviet Bloc.
>>>>
>>
>>Just heard about Charles Duelfer's "final word on Iraqi weapons"
>>(quote from George W. Bush). After 7 (?) months as head of the Iraq
>>Survey Group, he has concluded that Iraq had no stockpiles of weapons
>>or weapons programs at the time of the invasion. He did find evidence
>>that companies from several nations were illegally doing business with
>>Iraq. You mentioned France and Germany. The ISG did not mention
>>Germany but they did mention Russia. Funny that.
>
> Not really, since Russia also opposed the Iraqi invasion.
> They can, however, be useful elsewhere against Islamic
> terrorism.
>
Backpeddle.
Ford
Ford
No comment on this rest of this. I just wanted in on a thread that said
Shrub is an idiot and to say.. you da man, Vic!
> x-no-archive is for pussies
Great sig.
Philip Sondericker
1921defu...@comcast.com wrote on 10/7/04 6:38 AM:
There's no theoretical "slippery slope" here--it's already happened. Don't
you read the papers? Just today, the Prez and Vice Prez finally admitted
that there were no WMDs, but now they've simply retroactively shifted their
rationale to the fact that Saddam was supposedly abusing an oil-for-food
program. Talk about flip-floppers.
Vic Romano
> On 7 Oct 2004 17:04:34 GMT, Vic Romano
> <VicRMX...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Yertle <yer...@sala.ma.sond> wrote in news:ba12f8.22849632@localhost:
>>
>>> On 6 Oct 2004 17:16:21 GMT, Vic Romano
>>> <VicRMX...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>>And what allies do
>>>>>>>we need today?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Other nations involved in their own struggles against
>>>>>> Islamic violence and terrorism - Israel, Russia, Australia,
>>>>>> India, and the newly free nations of the former Soviet Bloc.
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Just heard about Charles Duelfer's "final word on Iraqi weapons"
>>>>(quote from George W. Bush). After 7 (?) months as head of the Iraq
>>>>Survey Group, he has concluded that Iraq had no stockpiles of
>>>>weapons or weapons programs at the time of the invasion. He did find
>>>>evidence that companies from several nations were illegally doing
>>>>business with Iraq. You mentioned France and Germany. The ISG did
>>>>not mention Germany but they did mention Russia. Funny that.
>>>
>>> Not really, since Russia also opposed the Iraqi invasion.
>>> They can, however, be useful elsewhere against Islamic
>>> terrorism.
>>>
>>Backpeddle.
>
> "Backpedal", you mean?
No, I meant it the way I wrote it. It's the written equivalent of a
double entendre. You are getting very boring.
Vic Romano
news:BD914D12.BDA1%1921defu...@comcast.com:
> On 10/12/04 7:16 AM, in article
> Xns95806870C8...@130.133.1.4, "Vic Romano"
> <VicRMX...@hotmail.com> was found guilty of wanting to fight a
> "sensitive war against terrorism" by puking up the following:
>
>> Yertle <yer...@sala.ma.sond> wrote in
>> news:15ca5d8.16484776@localhost:
>>
>>>> You really think occupying an arab nation
>>>> with Israel as an ally is a good idea?
>>>
>>> You're not going to find a better source of information and
>>> tactics against Islamic terrorism than Israel.
>>>
>>
>> Hey Yertle - did you see the report that the Jaffe Center said that
>> the war in Iraq has distracted from the real war on terror and has
>> aided and emboldened Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups?
>>
>> http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002060236_iraqdig12
>> .html
>
> You know, if the U.S. went to The Sudan, that would bring Al-Qaeda
> there, too. It doesn't really matter where the U.S. goes - AQ will be
> there trying to mess up the works.
>
> It's not rocket science, you know.
>
>
So doesn't it make sense to focus first on the places AQ already is? Like
Afghanistan and Pakistan?
Tonawanda Kardex
Conventional thinking error #53784: This isn't an enemy who stays put in one
place. This isn't a country. This isn't a principality. They are everywhere;
they are nowhere. They go where we go, period. They attack where we are,
period.
I know the Kerry arguments on this one; come up with an original idea,
please.
FWIW, remember how the colonies revolutionized warfare during the 1700s?
This is the modern day equivalent.
Tonawanda Kardex
"Spike" <sp...@spike.spike> was found guilty of wanting to fight a
"sensitive war against terrorism" by puking up the following:
> On 12 Oct 2004 14:16:00 GMT, Vic Romano <VicRMX...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Yertle <yer...@sala.ma.sond> wrote in news:15ca5d8.16484776@localhost:
>>
>>>> You really think occupying an arab nation
>>>> with Israel as an ally is a good idea?
>>>
>>> You're not going to find a better source of information and
>>> tactics against Islamic terrorism than Israel.
>>>
>>
>> Hey Yertle - did you see the report that the Jaffe Center said that the war
>> in Iraq has distracted from the real war on terror and has aided and
>> emboldened Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups?
>>
>> http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002060236_iraqdig12.html
>
> Now you guys are gonna listen to Israel, huh? That's a flip, I mean a
> switch. lol
I, for one, am all in favor of letting Izzy take care of itself; they don't
need any U.S. help.
Tonawanda Kardex
Romano" <VicRMX...@hotmail.com> was found guilty of wanting to fight a
"sensitive war against terrorism" by puking up the following:
>>>> Conventional thinking error #53784: This isn't an enemy who stays
>>>> put in one place. This isn't a country. This isn't a principality.
>>>> They are everywhere; they are nowhere. They go where we go, period.
>>>> They attack where we are, period.
>>>>
>>> So the logical conclusion is to attack nowhere. Then they will have
>>> nowhere to go.
>>
>> Sounds like Kerry's plan.
>
> Only to someone who listens to Rush Limbaugh's interpretation of the
> Kerry plan.
I've never listened to Rush Limbaugh in my life. He makes me sick, as does
his Democratic counterpart.
Ford
>
> > On 10/13/04 10:54 AM, in article
> > Xns95818D8667...@130.133.1.4, "Vic Romano"
> > <VicRMX...@hotmail.com> was found guilty of wanting to fight a
> > "sensitive war against terrorism" by puking up the following:
> >
> >> Tonawanda Kardex <1921defu...@comcast.com> wrote in
> >>
> >>> On 10/12/04 10:15 AM, in article
> >>> Xns958086CC43...@130.133.1.4, "Vic Romano"
> >>> <VicRMX...@hotmail.com> was found guilty of wanting to fight a
> >>> "sensitive war against terrorism" by puking up the following:
> >>>
> >>>> Tonawanda Kardex <1921defu...@comcast.com> wrote in
> >>>> news:BD914D12.BDA1%1921defu...@comcast.com:
> >>>>
> >>>>> On 10/12/04 7:16 AM, in article
> >>>>> Xns95806870C8...@130.133.1.4, "Vic Romano"
> >>>>> <VicRMX...@hotmail.com> was found guilty of wanting to fight a
> >>>>> "sensitive war against terrorism" by puking up the following:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Yertle <yer...@sala.ma.sond> wrote in
> >>>>>> news:15ca5d8.16484776@localhost:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> You really think occupying an arab nation
> >>>>>>>> with Israel as an ally is a good idea?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> You're not going to find a better source of information and
> >>>>>>> tactics against Islamic terrorism than Israel.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Hey Yertle - did you see the report that the Jaffe Center said
> >>>>>> that the war in Iraq has distracted from the real war on terror
> >>>>>> and has aided and emboldened Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002060236_iraqd
> >>>>>
> >>>>> You know, if the U.S. went to The Sudan, that would bring Al-Qaeda
> >>>>> there, too. It doesn't really matter where the U.S. goes - AQ will
> >>>>> be there trying to mess up the works.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> It's not rocket science, you know.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> So doesn't it make sense to focus first on the places AQ already
> >>>> is? Like Afghanistan and Pakistan?
> >>>
> >>> Conventional thinking error #53784: This isn't an enemy who stays
> >>> put in one place. This isn't a country. This isn't a principality.
> >>> They are everywhere; they are nowhere. They go where we go, period.
> >>> They attack where we are, period.
> >>>
> >> nowhere to go.
> >
> > Sounds like Kerry's plan.
> >
>
> Only to someone who listens to Rush Limbaugh's interpretation of the
> Kerry plan.
>
> Don't Get Eliminated!!
I have tried, repeatedly, to listen to Limbaugh. He's manic ( you know, I'm
the expert). The guy just babbles and spouts and twists whatever moronic
thing the repugs have done on that particular day back into a jab against
the Dems.
Having to perform his sick act everyday, it's no wonder he turned to hard
drugs to numb himself out.
Ford
"Tonawanda Kardex" <1921defu...@comcast.com> wrote in message
news:BD93EF22.C827%1921defu...@comcast.com...
THIS is the most intelligent thing I've read from you in some time. Bravo!
VicXnews
> Tonawanda Kardex <1921defu...@comcast.com> wrote in
> news:BD93EF22.C827%1921defu...@comcast.com:
>
>> On 10/14/04 6:47 AM, in article Xns9582638B3...@130.133.1.4,
>> "Vic Romano" <VicRMX...@hotmail.com> was found guilty of wanting
>> to fight a "sensitive war against terrorism" by puking up the
>> following:
>>
>>>>>> Conventional thinking error #53784: This isn't an enemy who stays
>>>>>> put in one place. This isn't a country. This isn't a principality.
>>>>>> They are everywhere; they are nowhere. They go where we go,
>>>>>> period. They attack where we are, period.
>>>>>>
>>>>> So the logical conclusion is to attack nowhere. Then they will have
>>>>> nowhere to go.
>>>>
>>>> Sounds like Kerry's plan.
>>>
>>> Only to someone who listens to Rush Limbaugh's interpretation of the
>>> Kerry plan.
>>
>> I've never listened to Rush Limbaugh in my life. He makes me sick, as
>> does his Democratic counterpart.
>>
> His democratic counterpart? Who's that? Bill O'Reilley?
>
I was wondering who he was talking about too...I want to tune in
--
"We shouldn't be here," said one Marine infantryman bluntly. "There was no
reason for invading this country in the first place. We just came here and
[angered people] and killed a lot of innocent people," said the marine, who
has seen regular combat in Ramadi. "I don't enjoy killing women and
children, it's not my thing."
http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0921/p02s02-usmi.html
-----
When the dogs of war are unleashed, their violence is
unrestrained. I think George W. Bush is too fond of their
howls of death and too insensitive to the havoc that follows
to lead a free people into wars or in the police actions
that inevitably follow incomplete victories.
Johnny Morgan
Tonawanda Kardex
<ne...@news.com> was found guilty of wanting to fight a "sensitive war
against terrorism" by puking up the following:
> Vic Romano <VicRMX...@hotmail.com> wrote in
> news:Xns958360C76C...@130.133.1.4:
>
>> Tonawanda Kardex <1921defu...@comcast.com> wrote in
>> news:BD93EF22.C827%1921defu...@comcast.com:
>>
>>> On 10/14/04 6:47 AM, in article Xns9582638B3...@130.133.1.4,
>>> "Vic Romano" <VicRMX...@hotmail.com> was found guilty of wanting
>>> to fight a "sensitive war against terrorism" by puking up the
>>> following:
>>>
>>>>>>> Conventional thinking error #53784: This isn't an enemy who stays
>>>>>>> put in one place. This isn't a country. This isn't a principality.
>>>>>>> They are everywhere; they are nowhere. They go where we go,
>>>>>>> period. They attack where we are, period.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> So the logical conclusion is to attack nowhere. Then they will have
>>>>>> nowhere to go.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sounds like Kerry's plan.
>>>>
>>>> Only to someone who listens to Rush Limbaugh's interpretation of the
>>>> Kerry plan.
>>>
>>> I've never listened to Rush Limbaugh in my life. He makes me sick, as
>>> does his Democratic counterpart.
>>>
>> His democratic counterpart? Who's that? Bill O'Reilley?
>>
>
> I was wondering who he was talking about too...I want to tune in
The other big fat idiot: Michael Moore.