OT-John Kerry

I sure know that if you end the war, nobody dies in it. Seems straightforward to me.

Jim

================================================== please reply to: JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com ==================================================

Reply to
jim rozen
Loading thread data ...

You got screwed by your own country's politicians. That's a shame and I'm sorry it happened to you. But that war would have gone on till doomsday if the general public did not make it a point to say "enough."

Jim

================================================== please reply to: JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com ==================================================

Reply to
jim rozen

aquainted

de-funded

Politician = Liar. But I think Bush is the King of Liars, or maybe he actually believes his own lies? The latter is rather more dangerous in a politician, I think.

Jeff

Reply to
Jeff McCann

Is it just me or has anyone else noticed that debating anything with Gunner not metalworking related is a mugs game? He is obviously an intelligent person but he only sees things in black and white. It seems to me that anyone not in lock step with his view of the world is in his mind just a whining weak kneed Liberal/socialist sympathiser.

Jimbo

Reply to
Jimbo

That would make me... guilty.

Jim

================================================== please reply to: JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com ==================================================

Reply to
jim rozen

Unfortunately, I believe you have arived at the real situation.

Reply to
Glenn Ashmore

And the reference for your left-wing nonsense is what exactly?

Reply to
Nancy

The ignorant never could grasp the power of providing aid and comfort to the enemy.

Reply to
Jack

Take a look at this from a conservative forum about combat pay: http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/1001681/posts Or this about Veterans benifits:

formatting link
You might also consider the situation at Fort Gordon, Ga, which I am personally familliar with, where several hundred combat wounded soldiers were held after returning from Iraq waiting medical treatment all summer in un-aircinditioned W.W.II barracks with PortaPotties rather than running water. They would be there still if that "left wing rag", the Augusta Chronicle, had not spilled the beans. ("Left wing" is in quotes because only Atilla the Hun would consider the Chronicle even slightly liberal.)

Turns out that even though there were available beds in army hospitals, they were held there to avoid having to include them in any casualty counts the media might assemble and keep medical costs down.

Reply to
Glenn Ashmore

Okay, you could very well be right. Truthfully I don't follow politics that closely. Infrequently watch TV, maybe catch 3 hours total a week.

Soooo ... you could very well be correct that Bush is a liar.

I've heard folks assert as much.

So, enlighten me. What lies did he tell? To the American public. Any stories he told while relating how big a fish he caught last time he went fishing doesn't count.

Understand what I'm asking. I'm not asking for accusations. I'm asking for facts.

Bob

Reply to
Bob G

The big one that is killing people now is; Saddam had WMD's.

Are you following the process where blame for Bush's lies is being shifted to the CIA. The CIA expressed reservations before the war but Bush did not listen.

The Bush people "outed" a CIA agent to get back at her husband.

These two things have probably done more damage to the CIA than anything in a long time. Will the CIA risk giving the president any meaningful intelligence in the future? Not likely.

Will CIA agents risk their lives overseas when they may be exposed by their government for political gain? Not likely.

If anyone had any hope that the CIA would be of any use in this stupid "war against terrorism" those hopes are now dashed. The terrorists are going to win because we are stabbing ourselves in the back. They must be enjoying the show.

Pete.

Reply to
Peter Reilley

Who gets to decide whether its a "fact" instead of merely an "accusation"?

Jeff

Reply to
Jeff McCann

Well, that's debatable.

Not a sign of great intelligence, in my opinion.

And a traitor

Abrasha

formatting link

Reply to
Abrasha

How did Bush force the CIA to give Clinton the same info in 1998?

How did Bush force all the intelligence agencies in the world to believe the same things?

I give your Bash Bush conspiracy theory a 2 of 5. Original, but completely lacking in depth. Details, man, Details! If you are going to spin a whopper then it wont work without details.

Strider

Reply to
Strider

"Sort of" honest? Is that like a "little bit pregnant"?

>
Reply to
Noah Simoneaux

Tell that to the folks in the WTC.

Gunner

"This device is provided without warranty of any kind as to reliability, accuracy, existence or otherwise or fitness for any particular purpose and Bioalchemic Products specifically does not warrant, guarantee, imply or make any representations as to its merchantability for any particular purpose and furthermore shall have no liability for or responsibility to you or any other person, entity or deity with respect to any loss or damage whatsoever caused by this device or object or by any attempts to destroy it by hammering it against a wall or dropping it into a deep well or any other means whatsoever and moreover asserts that you indicate your acceptance of this agreement or any other agreement that may he substituted at any time by coming within five miles of the product or observing it through large telescopes or by any other means because you are such an easily cowed moron who will happily accept arrogant and unilateral conditions on a piece of highly priced garbage that you would not dream of accepting on a bag of dog biscuits and is used solely at your own risk.'

Reply to
Gunner

Sigh..is that all you get out of my posts? Interesting.

So, analyses is not your forte I take it?

Btw..which political party do you belong to? And how would you rate yourself on a scale of 1-10, with 1 being very liberal, and 10 being very conservative?

Gunner

"This device is provided without warranty of any kind as to reliability, accuracy, existence or otherwise or fitness for any particular purpose and Bioalchemic Products specifically does not warrant, guarantee, imply or make any representations as to its merchantability for any particular purpose and furthermore shall have no liability for or responsibility to you or any other person, entity or deity with respect to any loss or damage whatsoever caused by this device or object or by any attempts to destroy it by hammering it against a wall or dropping it into a deep well or any other means whatsoever and moreover asserts that you indicate your acceptance of this agreement or any other agreement that may he substituted at any time by coming within five miles of the product or observing it through large telescopes or by any other means because you are such an easily cowed moron who will happily accept arrogant and unilateral conditions on a piece of highly priced garbage that you would not dream of accepting on a bag of dog biscuits and is used solely at your own risk.'

Reply to
Gunner

Hmmm, Jeff, I thought you were a lawyer?

You should know the answer to that question very well.

The jury gets to decide who they wish to believe. And I do believe, unless I am mistaken, that the jury plans to render their verdict in November.

Now, as a sitting member of the jury, I am listening to the arguments of both sides. Doing my best to be fair. And as instructed, keeping it in my mind that I should do my best to set aside preconceptions, biases, and stereotypes; personal likes and dislikes. And form my opinion, as best I can, based on the evidence presented to me.

Not being God, nor possessed of psychic powers, and having not actually been a witness to the events being laid out to me by the defense and prosecution. I am well aware of the fact that I don't KNOW the absolute truth. That, in fact, the only thing I KNOW ... is what is being presented to me as evidence.

Further, I am well aware that both the defense and the prosecution are in fact ... HIGHLY BIASED ... and fully intend to do everything in their power to make me see things each of their ways. And that they will elaborate, exaggerate, spin, cajole, coax, etc. And in fact both will point to the very same facts ... and weave entirely different stories and conclusions from them.

So much so, that while both are talking about the very same person, facts, and incidences ... one could almost swear they were talking about two completely separate people and events.

Not being an utter fool and idiot, I am wearing my mud waders because I am well aware that for the next however long it takes for both sides to present their cases, I'm gonna have to be wading thru a LOT of utter BS, piled higher and deeper as things go along, and try to pluck out those bits and pieces ... out of the mountains of BS presented by the lawyers on each side ... which I find to be believeable ... TO ME.

Because this is what it boils down to. I already know the prosecution and defense are biased as hell, each giving me their best song and dance and one sided story.

So it's up to me to decide what _I_ believe. And I will attempt to be as fair and open minded as possible, unlike the prosecution and the defense.

Now, I will say this, Jeff.

That so far, as the prosecutor, you are somewhat failing to very credible to me.

First off, while I do no watch TV much, I did turn it on to watch the speech given by Bush where he outlined his reasons for going after the Al Qaeda, and specifically his reasons for going into Iraq.

I do remember, and I can look up the exact words of that speech for myself, that his point about the WMDs, was ONLY one of numerous reasons he gave. And I do remember he stated, "We have reason to believe ...".

I also listened as he gave examples of those reasons. CIA reports, testimony by exiled Iraqis, reports from the UN, evidence and reports from the previous administration, and the ABSOLUTE evidence and knowledge that Saddam had in fact used such weapons in the past against thousands of people.

(As a side note, Jeff, I can -personally- verify that he did in fact use then against utterly helpless folks, to include innocent old men, old women, children, etc. We had been watching this in the past I was was present when recon aircraft returned and photoes of scenes were developed. They were NOT scenes of chemicals weapons used against soldiers. The scenes I looked at showed a village, with dead victims of every age and gender, farmers, goat herders, etc.)

But I was paying attention, I did not miss the fact that his point was we had reasons to "believe". And I'm quite aware of what "reasonable belief" means. So that part, I do believe. That he was convinced he had "reasonable belief". You remember that from your law studies, correct? I hope so, as I do remember it from my law studies. My teacher talked long about the subject.

I also remember, and all the rhetoric and one sided finger pointing does not make me forget, that Bush gave a whole bunch of other reasons for going into Iraq. All of which you, Mr Prosecutor, seem to sweep aside and discount. But I have not forgotten them.

Next, a point that hurts your credibility with this juror. And I'm only one of many, and have no idea what the others are thinking.

To bolster your arguments, you keep pointing to other 'witnesses' who agree with the views you wish me to believe.

Trust me, I've been paying attention. And have been checking.

Strange, isn't it. Seemingly every time I check out one of your witnesses and what he or she says. I can find another witness, independent of yours, who relates a somewhat different story.

Hmmm. Who to believe, who to believe? This makes my head hurt. I was not actually there, so how can I know the absolute truth of the matter?

Well, fact is I can't. So I have to give some weight to the credibility of said witnesses.

Which brings up a problem. So far, Mr Prosecutor, when I check on your witnesses, I keep finding out that they're each and every one RABID anti-Bush folks. Filled with vitriol and hate. Running anti-Bush web sites, with ENDLESS postings and articles on the web flinging accusation, hate filled speech, resorting to name calling at every excuse, etc. Making it impossible to doubt one thing ... that they hate Bush and everything and anything associated with him. They find fault with him when he does those things with which they disagree, and even find fault with him when he does those things that the people concerns previously said they wanted a president to do. It makes no difference what he does. Seemingly his mere existance is an affront and offense to them. And no matter what he does, they name call and take offense to it.

In case you wonder, Jeff, I looked up the reporter who was in charge of that NYT article about the Miami-Dade incident. She has anti-Bush spew littered all over the net. Which is her right. But which does nothing to convince me that much of what she says can be taken at face value or without a large dose of salt. In short, to me, she lacks more than a little as a credible source of information. (The name is Dana Canedy if you did not note it.)

When, Mr Prosecutor, are you gonna present before me, a simple juror, witnesses with at least something that might pass for being at least moderately unbiased opinion and testimony?

So, you see my problem?

I want meat ... substance. Hate filled, one sided vindictive by those who obviously hate Bush as a person and every word he says and every single thing he does and make no secret of it, I've had more than enough of. Getting rather sick of it, as a matter of fact. It just clouds and obfuscates the issues and is not at all helpful to me in making up my mind.

If this were a real trial and court, and I were a juror, you'd be losing me Mr Prosecutor.

I already know you think him guilty and hate and despise . Knew that in the beginning. You need not keep beating me over the head with the fact by trotting out witness after witness who also seem to feel the same. I want MEAT, substance, fact ... preferrably from credible, at least somewhat unbiased witnesses.

On the other side, I have some meat and substance. Meat and substance not easily dismissed or disregarded.

1) I KNOW Saddam and his people have used WMD in the past.

2) I KNOW he showed a perfect willingness to invade other countries.

3) I KNOW the mass graves with 10s and hundreds of thousands of bodies his folks killed have been found and uncovered.

4) I KNOW he refused to be completely open about whether or not he had WMD.

5) I KNOW because he himself made no secret of it, that he gave money to the families of those who'd do suicide bomb attacks against innocent civilians in Israel. And possibly, tho I don't know this, to those who attacked other civilians elsewhere. I can only draw the conclusion that if he was willing, and even bragged about doing the one, it's not hard for me to believe he might well do the other.

6) I KNOW he tortured and killed people who opposed him, even if they were non-violent in their opposition. There is lots of testimony to that effect, and evidence. And beyond that, I know an Iraqi family who now live in Minnesota who fled Iraq for that very reason.

7) I KNOW that Saddam supporters seem to have no hesitation to DELIBERATELY target and attack innocent civilians to further their cause.

8) I KNOW that thousands of Kuwaiti people were killed by Saddams troops when he invaded that country ... when they'd not been at war with him or threatened to physically harm him.

9) I KNOW that Bush made the attempt, just like most folks asked him to do, for something like a year to get the UN to TAKE ACTION, action dictated by their own rules and resolutions, and they would not.

10) I KNOW that part of the argument against Bush and Blair were reports and articles written by the BBC ... and I KNOW that they've now confessed that they lied.

11) I KNOW that Bush's speech gave MANY more reasons for the invasion other than simply the WMDs. That was only one argument, and in my mind, not even a major one. I know the limitations of WMDs, being ex-military and being one who was a teacher who trainned others in those capabilities AND limitations and how to cope with them. And I know that there are MANY other ways to kill folks. If you're a hate filled dictator. Witness the fact of how many folks around the world there are who over the years have been killed or injured by quite ordinary bombs. Innocent civilians ... DELIBERATELY targeted by the likes of Saddam.

12) I KNOW what it feels like to be targeted by those who hate you and are willing to use whatever means, with utter disregard for the collateral killing, maiming or injuring of innocents. I know about people who are willing to use violence to further their ends and beliefs with no regard for any innocents being hurt. I have personally, Jeff, been involved in searching for bombs planted by such folks. Not that I'm a bomb expert. But I was trained to spot the possibles, and then call for those who did have the training. I'm well aware of how one sweats as one does the search. And wonders how it is, and what sort of mind it is that is willing to kill WHOMEVER, it does not matter, to make their political point. I can only imagine that hate must so fill a soul that the person responsible have convinced self that the end justifies the means.

As a note, I killed such a perp once. I'm sure he had his reasons, that in his mind he felt justified. Too bad. I won, he lost. And I feel no regrets. He was in the act of trying to kill innocent people who were sleeping to make his political point. I have no mercy to spare for him.

Shall I go on, Mr Prosecutor?

Do not give me more hate filled speech because yah don't like Bush. I already know that and have more than my fill of it. Give me meat, give me substance to go on.

Something besides the fact that he had "reasonable belief" which turned out to be wrong. That's not lying, Jeff. That's being mistaken.

And a LOT of people were mistaken. Clinton believed he had em, the UN believed. So on and so forth.

Last point. When THIS juror makes his decisions and casts his vote, the Iraqi war will be only one part of the overall picture upon which I make that decision. And not even that big of a part.

Personally, while mistakes were made, in the balance, I think the invasion had more merit than otherwise.

What world opinion is ... I could care less. The "world" needs to get their own house in order before finger pointing. In the meantime I'm concerned that we get our house squared away.

1) I'm concerned with the issue of the illegals. I want the borders SHUT DOWN. Except for LEGAL entry. I have no problem with Mexicans coming here for work, as long as we can identify em, check criminal history, etc. And there is the problem with the estimated 8,000,000 (or more) already here. What do we do about them. Realistically, I don't see that it's feasible to hunt em all down. So what do we do. I am looking at the proposals to see what proposal seems both workable and realistic.

2) I am concerned about the economy. Which is showing signs of picking up. And no, Jeff, I do not rely solely on the published speeches by the White House to judge that. Actually I DO investigate this sort of thing. Checking numerous sources. Including talking to my customers. End result, I do believe it's picking up. Yesterday I was talking to a customer of mine who happens to be an outfit who're headhunters for IT folk. Head of that company said things were picking up there. Etc. I will note, the recession was starting even before Bush. No, I do not blame it on Clinton. There are a bunch of factors involved.

3) I am concerned about taxes. Getting pretty damned tired of government at every level asking for more and more money. And friggin SQUANDERING it, wasting it. It makes no difference how much money yah give em. They can always think of good excuses to say they need more. Well, I operate on a budget, and I expect the governments to do the same. They'd better learn how. And they'd better learn how to tell special interest groups to go to hell. It's MY MONEY, and I'm getting damned tired of funding everybodies' special little project. In MInnesota, the latest, largest group of unemployed ... has been government workers. And that, IMHO, is a GOOD thing. We need government, but it's way too large, too intrusive, and too wasteful.

3) I am concerned about the costs of health care. And direct government controls are NOT the answer. Not the right one anyway. We already know by past experience that monopolies just cause prices to go higher. And that bureaucrats do one thing best of all. Create more bureaucrats. They also create more and more endless paperwork. Which lawyers love, but ordinary folks don't. Lawyers love it because the more rules, the more interpretations are needed. Thus, more lawyers are needed. Lawyers are much the same as bureaucrats. What lawyers do best ... is NOT the seeking of justice and fairness. At that, they're iffy at best. But they do truly excel at figuring out ways to generate and breed the need for more and more lawyers. If the Bar had it's way, one would need to seek a lawyer to dig a hole suitable to plant a tree in your own yard.

4) I am concerned about education. Because our schools ... suck. And are monopolized by the self seeking, self interested Teachers Associations and Unions. Which have NO interest, not really, in better education. Their primary interest is in lining their own pockets. I'm not talking about the regular teacher in the classroom. Most of those I've met are honest, earnest folks doing the best they can with a system gone haywire. And I personally, am against spending one more dime until we have an honest, REAL ... not pencil whipped, measure of teachers' individual performance, a school district's performance, etc. If I am to give more money, I want MEASUREABLE performance results. Til then, they can go to hell.

Etc.

Get my point, Jeff?

Give me meat, substance. Not rhetoric, not finger pointing, not blame laying. Wanna convince me of something, gotta give me more than just the stuff I've been getting.

It's like the fellow on the issure of Ft Gordon. What a bunch of BS. No one was hiding numbers of wounded. Did what he claimed happen as concerns military folks having to stay in substandard housing? Probably. I don't know about Ft Gordon, do know of other incidences. And the major problem was that the military system had been cut back so much that we are short on proper, adequate facilities for dealing with the number of folks we're dealing with now. I am a friggin member of several Vet organizations and personally know several of the folks in the VA system in the Twin Cities and in St Cloud. This has been a problem for some time. And DID NOT originate with Bush. In fact, his people as well as some of the highest staff officers in the DOD have been scrambling to fix the problem. As best they can, within budget restraints. A budget controlled by Congress, BTW, no the President. i.e. At another Fort where at first it wasn't noticed by those of high enough rank to actually do something about it, a bunch of reservists, were in an extended wait status. But once the issue was voiced and the right ear heard it, orders were passed down. And a new building intended for other purposes in a matter of a couple weeks was reoutfitted and redesignated into a clinic.

I will repeat ... the military cutbacks, and the demand to do them, originated well before Bush came into office.

Enough. I am done. And quite tired of all this. You need not respond, Jeff. Can if you wish. But I may not answer, may just let you have the last word. I have a lot of other, more productive tasks to take care of.

But know this, my decision in November is NOT gonna be single issue. It's not gonna be based solely on story about WMDs. That's BS. It's gonna be based on a whole number of issues.

And the folks I listen to better be listening up to me, and I think a lot of Americans. We want meat and substance. Not the BS of Bush haters. Give us something to work with here. Definite plans ... with the numbers to support the idea that they may be workable. Facts, not rhetoric and opinion. We're getting awful tired of the name calling and accusations which don't even stand up under scrutiny or in a court.

Gotta run, gotta teach a class in a couple hours, a sideline job.

Bob

Reply to
Bob G

Pardon me. End the invasion of another country, if you will.

Besides that war is still on. Not that they're finding many wmds and all.

Jim

================================================== please reply to: JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com ==================================================

Reply to
jim rozen

No, my point was that the CIA was not sure that Saddan had WMD's. It was the Bush people that took the CIA's suspicions and made them certainties. That is Bush's lie.

The British are undergoing the same thing. They had their doubts and Tony Blair made them into certainties. Thus his "WMD's can be used in 45 minutes" speech. The process of shifting the blame to the intelligence service is going on in Britain as well.

No country was certain about Saddam's WMD's but only the US and the UK lied about it.

Hope that makes my point more clear, Pete.

Reply to
Peter Reilley

PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.