|
Tired of relentless political rat**** when you want to
talk boats? Simply add everyone in this string (except me) to your killfile and you will have more "boat" and less "bloat" and "blown goat". Mudfish "JimH" wrote in message ... "Jack Goff" wrote in message m... "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... It's kind of humorous in a perverted way that Hertvik and Herring keep making snotty or snide comments while they protest what they think are snotty and snide comments of others. From the king of snotty and snide comments... and perversions. Harry said I was killfiled yet he continues to respond directly to posts I make. Funny. |
"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
... "DSK" wrote in message ... Bert Robbins wrote: ... Hillary is also a crook! You are totally convinced of that, despite an $80 million prosecution effort could find *nothing* serious enough to prefer charges. In other words, you're full of nonsense. The timing couldn't have been any better: http://www.wnbc.com/politics/4063107/detail.html http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive...2clinton1.html Why does illegal activity and scandal follow Bill and Hillary so much? This is a yawn when compared with the obscene conflict of interests between Cheney and Halliburton. If, in a random way, a judge found he had to oversee a case involving, say, bankruptcy proceedings for a company in which he was heavily invested, he'd decline the case. In the same sense, Cheney should've resigned the moment this war began. And just what does success mean? I wan't my president to fight for our nation's survival. Nobody disagrees with keeping the country safe. Just one problem: We attacked the wrong people. You know that at this point. |
"WaIIy" wrote in message ... On Sat, 08 Jan 2005 13:24:20 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: Why does illegal activity and scandal follow Bill and Hillary so much? This is a yawn when compared with the obscene conflict of interests between Cheney and Halliburton. If, in a random way, a judge found he had to oversee a case involving, say, bankruptcy proceedings for a company in which he was heavily invested, he'd decline the case. In the same sense, Cheney should've resigned the moment this war began. That's nice Douglas, but maybe you can try and stick to the subject rather than make excuses. Thanks When your future wealth is dependent on a continuing loss of human life, THAT becomes the subject. |
Sex belongs in the privacy of consenting adult's bedrooms. Not on the
pages of the news, the prime time TV channels, or in "flash and glitter" magazines. LOL! tell that to Paris Hilton and Anna Nichole Smith. sex sells. and true...... Clintons sex-scam wasn't the issue. Lieing before a federal grand jury was. |
Considering that you, personally, seem to have no need for evidence, you will agree at this point that your president was a deserter. And Clinton wasn't? |
"BSCHNAUTZ" wrote in message ... Considering that you, personally, seem to have no need for evidence, you will agree at this point that your president was a deserter. And Clinton wasn't? There's a difference between signing up and not showing up whenever you felt like it (Bush, i.e.: violating a contract or a promise), and Clinton, who apparently was one of the millions who realized the war du jour was a farce. Remember: It's your duty as a citizen to question EVERYTHING your government does. Otherwise, you are guilty of treason. |
And Clinton wasn't?
No, he wasn't. Oh yeah... Bill was the one who wrote letters thanking senators for geting him out of any kind of service , then during the time he would have been inthe military, he toured around Russia as a "rhodes Scholar" how quaint of him. |
|
"Tim" wrote in message oups.com... And Clinton wasn't? No, he wasn't. Oh yeah... Bill was the one who wrote letters thanking senators for geting him out of any kind of service , then during the time he would have been inthe military, he toured around Russia as a "rhodes Scholar" how quaint of him. Clinton had no written contract with the military. He owed them nothing. And, at that point in time, touring Russia was no big deal. You know that. |
On Fri, 07 Jan 2005 15:38:16 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote: "Dave Hall" wrote in message .. . On Thu, 06 Jan 2005 18:23:10 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: "Dave Hall" wrote in message ... On Thu, 06 Jan 2005 08:21:29 -0500, Harry Krause wrote: Sex belongs in the privacy of consenting adult's bedrooms. Not on the pages of the news, the prime time TV channels, or in "flash and glitter" magazines. You should have explained that to the GOP during the Clinton years. Sigh. The clueless liberal who still thinks the whole Clinton scandal was about sex. It was about PERJURY. Dave Ask 100 people what one word they remember foremost from that period of time. You know the word. It's a dirty one. Your elected officials turned it into front page news. What those 100 people say is irrelevant. The facts are that he was impeached for the crime of perjury. Dave Oh no. It's totally relevant, since it's a response to your comment about how sex does not belong in the news or on prime time TV. Your boys PUT it there, and they did so with full intent. But at least they didn't "treat" us to all the gory details...... Dave |
On Fri, 07 Jan 2005 11:05:00 -0500, DSK wrote:
Dave Hall wrote: You are convinced that Bush is guilty guilty guilty, but you have no proof as to what he is guilty of. Quote *one* post of mine where I said President Bush is guilty of anything... You just did below. Other than lying (which is proven by his own public statements), such as starting a war under false pretenses. Where has he lied about that? What proof do you have that he intentionally made a false statement? Of course, he's unquestionably guilty of dodging service in Viet Nam At least he served in SOME capacity as compared to some other public figures who completely dodged the draft. , of DWI, and of various kinds of fiscal malfeasance, all of which he's been found guilty of by our legal system, and let slide because of his family connections & wealth. DWI is a minor offense. The stuff stupid teenagers do. He had a wild side in his youth. So sue him. You've often claimed to be a conservative, yet you are constantly defending liberals Not at all. I am pointing out the stupidity of many people who claim to be "conservative" but are nothing other than hate-spewing morons. A differing opinion is automatically considered "hate" to you? That's the sort of demonization games that liberals play when they try to silence the opposition. Besides, President Clinton was a centrist, a moderate. That is one of the keys to his success. He was more or less forced to be that way once the republicans took over the congress in '95. Since Clinton was more concerned with his legacy, he learned how to dance. If you recall in the beginning of his first term, he tried to sell us the bill of goods for a universal health care system. That's hardly "moderate". You'll also note that this type of behavior disappeared after '95, when it became evident after the shift in power in congress, that the American people just didn't want a liberal president. He "adjusted". No more, no less. Dave |
On Fri, 07 Jan 2005 16:08:45 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote: "Dave Hall" wrote in message .. . On Fri, 07 Jan 2005 08:44:27 -0500, DSK wrote: Bert Robbins wrote: Why was there a "cleanup" team put in place during Clinton's first run for President? Why are you so concerned about it, 12 years later? Because it establishes precedent and provides perspective. Isn't it more important that President Bush *still* hasn't gotten Osama Bin Laden? That could change at any time. But then again, Clinton had his chance to nab OBL, but chose not to...... Dave Well....actually, Clinton chose not to invade two countries, and then enlist the occasional help of the Pakistanis (as Bush did) when they wanted nothing more than to buy weapons from us. You can see the result of the current policy. Is that what you think Clinton should've done? The Sudanese government had OBL in custody in 96 and offered him to us. We declined to pursue it. We see the result of that inaction. Dave |
On Fri, 07 Jan 2005 10:59:48 -0500, DSK wrote:
Bert Robbins wrote: ... Hillary is also a crook! You are totally convinced of that, despite an $80 million prosecution effort could find *nothing* serious enough to prefer charges. In other words, you're full of nonsense. Isn't it more important that President Bush *still* hasn't gotten Osama Bin Laden? I don't care if Pres. Bush ever gets Osama Bin Laden. I want our military forces to chase down any and all terrorists around the world and kill them. Terrorism is a fight that we will be involved in forever. More nonsense. Osama Bin Laden perpetrated the most horrific & deadly terrorist attack on the U.S. in all history. President Bush was warned about him and his cabinet given thick folders of intel on OBL's operation. But they had other priorities. According to what credible source? Please don't say Richard Clarke. His obvious agenda makes anything he says unreliable. Dave |
"Dave Hall" wrote in message ... On Fri, 07 Jan 2005 11:05:00 -0500, DSK wrote: Dave Hall wrote: You are convinced that Bush is guilty guilty guilty, but you have no proof as to what he is guilty of. Quote *one* post of mine where I said President Bush is guilty of anything... You just did below. Other than lying (which is proven by his own public statements), such as starting a war under false pretenses. Where has he lied about that? What proof do you have that he intentionally made a false statement? Of course, he's unquestionably guilty of dodging service in Viet Nam At least he served in SOME capacity as compared to some other public figures who completely dodged the draft. He conviently ignores the dangers of any fighter pilot training. , of DWI, and of various kinds of fiscal malfeasance, all of which he's been found guilty of by our legal system, and let slide because of his family connections & wealth. DWI is a minor offense. The stuff stupid teenagers do. He had a wild side in his youth. So sue him. In reality, back several years ago.....DWI was NOT that big of an offense, and what happend to Bush happened to countless people in countless small towns.....until the neo prohibitionists under the guise of MADD changed the landscape. Now it only happens onthe rare occassion that a county exec gets cuaght. You've often claimed to be a conservative, yet you are constantly defending liberals Not at all. I am pointing out the stupidity of many people who claim to be "conservative" but are nothing other than hate-spewing morons. A differing opinion is automatically considered "hate" to you? That's the sort of demonization games that liberals play when they try to silence the opposition. Besides, President Clinton was a centrist, a moderate. That is one of the keys to his success. He was more or less forced to be that way once the republicans took over the congress in '95. Since Clinton was more concerned with his legacy, he learned how to dance. Don't you love the liebrals revisionist history...........centrist / moderate.....only AFTER he attempted the large guvmint take over of any private sector business.....and got slammed doing it, only AFTER his party lost majority rule for the first time in 40 something years. If you recall in the beginning of his first term, he tried to sell us the bill of goods for a universal health care system. That's hardly "moderate". You'll also note that this type of behavior disappeared after '95, when it became evident after the shift in power in congress, that the American people just didn't want a liberal president. He "adjusted". No more, no less. Dave |
"Dave Hall" wrote in message
... OBL was already implicated in the '93 WTC bombing as well as the bombing of several embassies. He could have been brought up on terrorism charges then, and should have been. Then maybe 9/11 would not have happened. That's why you need to stomp out terrorism when it's small enough to control. You don't wait until it's grown so large that you have a hard time tracking them. If you run across anyone capable of actually doing that, y'all stop by and let us know, ya hear? |
"Dave Hall" wrote in message ... On Fri, 07 Jan 2005 16:08:45 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: "Dave Hall" wrote in message . .. On Fri, 07 Jan 2005 08:44:27 -0500, DSK wrote: Bert Robbins wrote: Why was there a "cleanup" team put in place during Clinton's first run for President? Why are you so concerned about it, 12 years later? Because it establishes precedent and provides perspective. Isn't it more important that President Bush *still* hasn't gotten Osama Bin Laden? That could change at any time. But then again, Clinton had his chance to nab OBL, but chose not to...... Dave Well....actually, Clinton chose not to invade two countries, and then enlist the occasional help of the Pakistanis (as Bush did) when they wanted nothing more than to buy weapons from us. You can see the result of the current policy. Is that what you think Clinton should've done? The Sudanese government had OBL in custody in 96 and offered him to us. We declined to pursue it. We see the result of that inaction. Actually, what you see if your government at work. There could be only ONE reason we didn't extradite him. Do I need to explain it to you? |
... Osama Bin Laden perpetrated the most horrific & deadly
terrorist attack on the U.S. in all history. President Bush was warned about him and his cabinet given thick folders of intel on OBL's operation. But they had other priorities. Dave Hall wrote: According to what credible source? A little-known group called the Sept 11th Investigating Commission. Please don't say Richard Clarke. His obvious agenda makes anything he says unreliable. I guess his agenda was so obvious that President Bush kept him in office. Unfortunately (from your point of view), Clarke considered the best interests of the American people as a higher duty than personal loyalty to President Bush, right or wrong. DSK |
"DSK" wrote in message ... ... Osama Bin Laden perpetrated the most horrific & deadly terrorist attack on the U.S. in all history. President Bush was warned about him and his cabinet given thick folders of intel on OBL's operation. But they had other priorities. Dave Hall wrote: According to what credible source? A little-known group called the Sept 11th Investigating Commission. Please don't say Richard Clarke. His obvious agenda makes anything he says unreliable. I guess his agenda was so obvious that President Bush kept him in office. Unfortunately (from your point of view), Clarke considered the best interests of the American people as a higher duty than personal loyalty to President Bush, right or wrong. DSK But Doug....isn't the CIC sorta like a king or sumthin? Or a deity? :-) |
Doug Kanter wrote:
But Doug....isn't the CIC sorta like a king or sumthin? Or a deity? :-) To some people, yes. And the President should be an all-powerful, all-knowing, benevolent father figure. But it doesn't seem to work out that way.... DSK |
On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 12:50:27 -0500, "P.Fritz"
wrote: "Dave Hall" wrote in message .. . On Fri, 07 Jan 2005 11:05:00 -0500, DSK wrote: Dave Hall wrote: You are convinced that Bush is guilty guilty guilty, but you have no proof as to what he is guilty of. Quote *one* post of mine where I said President Bush is guilty of anything... You just did below. Other than lying (which is proven by his own public statements), such as starting a war under false pretenses. Where has he lied about that? What proof do you have that he intentionally made a false statement? Of course, he's unquestionably guilty of dodging service in Viet Nam At least he served in SOME capacity as compared to some other public figures who completely dodged the draft. He conviently ignores the dangers of any fighter pilot training. , of DWI, and of various kinds of fiscal malfeasance, all of which he's been found guilty of by our legal system, and let slide because of his family connections & wealth. DWI is a minor offense. The stuff stupid teenagers do. He had a wild side in his youth. So sue him. In reality, back several years ago.....DWI was NOT that big of an offense, and what happend to Bush happened to countless people in countless small towns.....until the neo prohibitionists under the guise of MADD changed the landscape. Now it only happens onthe rare occassion that a county exec gets cuaght. Exactly. The picture is different when historical context and perspective is taken into consideration. You've often claimed to be a conservative, yet you are constantly defending liberals Not at all. I am pointing out the stupidity of many people who claim to be "conservative" but are nothing other than hate-spewing morons. A differing opinion is automatically considered "hate" to you? That's the sort of demonization games that liberals play when they try to silence the opposition. Besides, President Clinton was a centrist, a moderate. That is one of the keys to his success. He was more or less forced to be that way once the republicans took over the congress in '95. Since Clinton was more concerned with his legacy, he learned how to dance. Don't you love the liebrals revisionist history...........centrist / moderate.....only AFTER he attempted the large guvmint take over of any private sector business.....and got slammed doing it, only AFTER his party lost majority rule for the first time in 40 something years. That minor detail is conveniently overlooked when liberals heap their praise on Clinton. Dave |
On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 18:23:16 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote: "Dave Hall" wrote in message .. . On Fri, 07 Jan 2005 16:08:45 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: "Dave Hall" wrote in message ... On Fri, 07 Jan 2005 08:44:27 -0500, DSK wrote: Bert Robbins wrote: Why was there a "cleanup" team put in place during Clinton's first run for President? Why are you so concerned about it, 12 years later? Because it establishes precedent and provides perspective. Isn't it more important that President Bush *still* hasn't gotten Osama Bin Laden? That could change at any time. But then again, Clinton had his chance to nab OBL, but chose not to...... Dave Well....actually, Clinton chose not to invade two countries, and then enlist the occasional help of the Pakistanis (as Bush did) when they wanted nothing more than to buy weapons from us. You can see the result of the current policy. Is that what you think Clinton should've done? The Sudanese government had OBL in custody in 96 and offered him to us. We declined to pursue it. We see the result of that inaction. Actually, what you see if your government at work. There could be only ONE reason we didn't extradite him. Do I need to explain it to you? Surely you're not about to provide that lame excuse that we didn't have a stature by which to prosecute him on are you? I'm sure we could find something if we look hard enough. An act of terrorism is akin to an act of war. It's a whole different set of rules than our domestic criminal justice system. Dave |
On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 13:45:48 -0500, DSK wrote:
... Osama Bin Laden perpetrated the most horrific & deadly terrorist attack on the U.S. in all history. President Bush was warned about him and his cabinet given thick folders of intel on OBL's operation. But they had other priorities. Dave Hall wrote: According to what credible source? A little-known group called the Sept 11th Investigating Commission. There was nothing so blatant in the 9/11 report. There was plenty of blame to go around INCLUDING the previous administration. Please don't say Richard Clarke. His obvious agenda makes anything he says unreliable. I guess his agenda was so obvious that President Bush kept him in office. Unfortunately (from your point of view), Clarke considered the best interests of the American people as a higher duty than personal loyalty to President Bush, right or wrong. No, he didn't take to kindly to the marginalization of his role in the department, and was somewhat bitter about it. That is certainly motive to write a scathing critique of his former boss. He wouldn't be the first disgruntled employee to do that...... Based on this motivation, what he says is suspect for those reasons alone. Dave |
"Dave Hall" wrote in message
... Please don't say Richard Clarke. His obvious agenda makes anything he says unreliable. I guess his agenda was so obvious that President Bush kept him in office. Unfortunately (from your point of view), Clarke considered the best interests of the American people as a higher duty than personal loyalty to President Bush, right or wrong. No, he didn't take to kindly to the marginalization of his role in the department, and was somewhat bitter about it. That is certainly motive to write a scathing critique of his former boss. He wouldn't be the first disgruntled employee to do that...... Based on this motivation, what he says is suspect for those reasons alone. You're not aware of it, but you find his claims to be suspect because you value blind loyalty before truth. If he was lying, I'm sure the White House would've begun legal proceedings by now. |
"Dave Hall" wrote in message ... On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 18:23:16 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: "Dave Hall" wrote in message . .. On Fri, 07 Jan 2005 16:08:45 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: "Dave Hall" wrote in message m... On Fri, 07 Jan 2005 08:44:27 -0500, DSK wrote: Bert Robbins wrote: Why was there a "cleanup" team put in place during Clinton's first run for President? Why are you so concerned about it, 12 years later? Because it establishes precedent and provides perspective. Isn't it more important that President Bush *still* hasn't gotten Osama Bin Laden? That could change at any time. But then again, Clinton had his chance to nab OBL, but chose not to...... Dave Well....actually, Clinton chose not to invade two countries, and then enlist the occasional help of the Pakistanis (as Bush did) when they wanted nothing more than to buy weapons from us. You can see the result of the current policy. Is that what you think Clinton should've done? The Sudanese government had OBL in custody in 96 and offered him to us. We declined to pursue it. We see the result of that inaction. Actually, what you see if your government at work. There could be only ONE reason we didn't extradite him. Do I need to explain it to you? Surely you're not about to provide that lame excuse that we didn't have a stature by which to prosecute him on are you? I'm sure we could find something if we look hard enough. An act of terrorism is akin to an act of war. It's a whole different set of rules than our domestic criminal justice system. Dave When our politicians and the Saud family are taking warm showers together (as you know they are), all rules are off the table. THAT is why we did not go after bin Laden. |
Doug Kanter wrote:
Correction, Doug. Although you may see Bush use those words, you must remember that people in the media are notoriously liberal. That includes the people who doctor the tapes of the president before they're shown on TV. Well, sure. Everybody knows that, Doug. But where's the PROOF?!!? Remember, 51% of the voters decided that Jesus-mumbling hypocrisy & hatred of libby-rulls are "family values," so without George W. Bush and Dick Cheney coming to Dave's house and telling him in person, he will cling to his fantasy. Regards Doug King |
On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 13:04:28 -0500, Dave Hall wrote:
The Sudanese government had OBL in custody in 96 and offered him to us. We declined to pursue it. We see the result of that inaction. In point of fact, the Sudanese did *not* have bin Laden in custody in '96. The offer was to place him in custody, and either deport him to Saudi, hand him over to the US, or "babysit" him in Sudan. The Saudis refused deportation and Clinton didn't believe he had a case to try him here. You seem to be quite critical of Clinton's failures before 9/11, but seem quite accepting of Bush's failures after 9/11. Why is that? The Taliban offered bin Laden to Bush under similar conditions, *after* 9/11. Yet, bin Laden is still free. Clinton's crystal ball may have failed, but Bush had hindsight to guide him, and still failed. |
On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 14:44:08 -0500, DSK wrote:
Doug Kanter wrote: Correction, Doug. Although you may see Bush use those words, you must remember that people in the media are notoriously liberal. That includes the people who doctor the tapes of the president before they're shown on TV. Well, sure. Everybody knows that, Doug. But where's the PROOF?!!? Remember, 51% of the voters decided that Jesus-mumbling hypocrisy & hatred of libby-rulls are "family values," so without George W. Bush and Dick Cheney coming to Dave's house and telling him in person, he will cling to his fantasy. Well, my wife did receive a hand written note from the president thanking her for her support in the campaign. That's the closest that I've ever gotten to any correspondence from any other leader..... Dave |
On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 18:14:51 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote: "Dave Hall" wrote in message .. . On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 18:23:16 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: "Dave Hall" wrote in message ... On Fri, 07 Jan 2005 16:08:45 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: "Dave Hall" wrote in message om... On Fri, 07 Jan 2005 08:44:27 -0500, DSK wrote: Bert Robbins wrote: Why was there a "cleanup" team put in place during Clinton's first run for President? Why are you so concerned about it, 12 years later? Because it establishes precedent and provides perspective. Isn't it more important that President Bush *still* hasn't gotten Osama Bin Laden? That could change at any time. But then again, Clinton had his chance to nab OBL, but chose not to...... Dave Well....actually, Clinton chose not to invade two countries, and then enlist the occasional help of the Pakistanis (as Bush did) when they wanted nothing more than to buy weapons from us. You can see the result of the current policy. Is that what you think Clinton should've done? The Sudanese government had OBL in custody in 96 and offered him to us. We declined to pursue it. We see the result of that inaction. Actually, what you see if your government at work. There could be only ONE reason we didn't extradite him. Do I need to explain it to you? Surely you're not about to provide that lame excuse that we didn't have a stature by which to prosecute him on are you? I'm sure we could find something if we look hard enough. An act of terrorism is akin to an act of war. It's a whole different set of rules than our domestic criminal justice system. Dave When our politicians and the Saud family are taking warm showers together (as you know they are), all rules are off the table. THAT is why we did not go after bin Laden. OBL has been renounced by his family. THEY are not him, any more than you can be held responsible for the acts of one of your cousins. Dave |
On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 14:56:00 -0500, thunder
wrote: On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 13:04:28 -0500, Dave Hall wrote: The Sudanese government had OBL in custody in 96 and offered him to us. We declined to pursue it. We see the result of that inaction. In point of fact, the Sudanese did *not* have bin Laden in custody in '96. The offer was to place him in custody, and either deport him to Saudi, hand him over to the US, or "babysit" him in Sudan. The Saudis refused deportation and Clinton didn't believe he had a case to try him here. A more detailed account of what I basically stated. You seem to be quite critical of Clinton's failures before 9/11, but seem quite accepting of Bush's failures after 9/11. Why is that? The Taliban offered bin Laden to Bush under similar conditions, *after* 9/11. When? Where? How? From what I remember, the Taliban refused to cough up Bin Laden. That's the final straw which lead to the Afghan war. Had they turned OBL over, in all likelihood, we would have had no need to use the military. Yet, bin Laden is still free. Clinton's crystal ball may have failed, but Bush had hindsight to guide him, and still failed. The rules change on a daily basis. I'm not blaming Clinton for not having the foresight to predict 9/11, I'm blaming him for not taking the chance to take OBL out of the picture for acts of terrorism that he had been tied to while Clinton was in office. There's no guarantee, but there's a good chance that 9/11 wouldn't have happened had we gotten OBL in 96. Anyone with insight should know that terrorism will only grow until their warped demands are met. How long are we supposed to ignore the problem before we finally respond to it? The answer to that question occurred on 9/11/2001. But we should have seen it coming long before that. Dave |
On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 18:12:41 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote: "Dave Hall" wrote in message .. . Please don't say Richard Clarke. His obvious agenda makes anything he says unreliable. I guess his agenda was so obvious that President Bush kept him in office. Unfortunately (from your point of view), Clarke considered the best interests of the American people as a higher duty than personal loyalty to President Bush, right or wrong. No, he didn't take to kindly to the marginalization of his role in the department, and was somewhat bitter about it. That is certainly motive to write a scathing critique of his former boss. He wouldn't be the first disgruntled employee to do that...... Based on this motivation, what he says is suspect for those reasons alone. You're not aware of it, but you find his claims to be suspect because you value blind loyalty before truth. He was not in the position to know the whole truth. Absent of the truth, I do value loyalty. That's what created this country in the first place, and has driven our military ever since. If he was lying, I'm sure the White House would've begun legal proceedings by now. On what grounds? Everyone is entitled to an opinion (You know, the first amendment). In most cases, it's not what facts he may have presented, but the spin that he placed on them, and the context that they were presented in, that tells his story. If people could be jailed for printing false or misleading information, a whole slew of "journalists" would be sitting on a slab right now. Dave |
"Dave Hall" wrote in message ... On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 18:12:41 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: "Dave Hall" wrote in message . .. Please don't say Richard Clarke. His obvious agenda makes anything he says unreliable. I guess his agenda was so obvious that President Bush kept him in office. Unfortunately (from your point of view), Clarke considered the best interests of the American people as a higher duty than personal loyalty to President Bush, right or wrong. No, he didn't take to kindly to the marginalization of his role in the department, and was somewhat bitter about it. That is certainly motive to write a scathing critique of his former boss. He wouldn't be the first disgruntled employee to do that...... Based on this motivation, what he says is suspect for those reasons alone. You're not aware of it, but you find his claims to be suspect because you value blind loyalty before truth. He was not in the position to know the whole truth. Absent of the truth, I do value loyalty. That's what created this country in the first place, and has driven our military ever since. If he was lying, I'm sure the White House would've begun legal proceedings by now. On what grounds? Everyone is entitled to an opinion (You know, the first amendment). In most cases, it's not what facts he may have presented, but the spin that he placed on them, and the context that they were presented in, that tells his story. If people could be jailed for printing false or misleading information, a whole slew of "journalists" would be sitting on a slab right now. Dave The facts he presented? Now you're saying there were some facts? |
"Dave Hall" wrote in message ... On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 18:14:51 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: "Dave Hall" wrote in message . .. On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 18:23:16 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: "Dave Hall" wrote in message m... On Fri, 07 Jan 2005 16:08:45 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: "Dave Hall" wrote in message news:blbtt097v1si6r1u3bimfv7rekfsh59nuc@4ax. com... On Fri, 07 Jan 2005 08:44:27 -0500, DSK wrote: Bert Robbins wrote: Why was there a "cleanup" team put in place during Clinton's first run for President? Why are you so concerned about it, 12 years later? Because it establishes precedent and provides perspective. Isn't it more important that President Bush *still* hasn't gotten Osama Bin Laden? That could change at any time. But then again, Clinton had his chance to nab OBL, but chose not to...... Dave Well....actually, Clinton chose not to invade two countries, and then enlist the occasional help of the Pakistanis (as Bush did) when they wanted nothing more than to buy weapons from us. You can see the result of the current policy. Is that what you think Clinton should've done? The Sudanese government had OBL in custody in 96 and offered him to us. We declined to pursue it. We see the result of that inaction. Actually, what you see if your government at work. There could be only ONE reason we didn't extradite him. Do I need to explain it to you? Surely you're not about to provide that lame excuse that we didn't have a stature by which to prosecute him on are you? I'm sure we could find something if we look hard enough. An act of terrorism is akin to an act of war. It's a whole different set of rules than our domestic criminal justice system. Dave When our politicians and the Saud family are taking warm showers together (as you know they are), all rules are off the table. THAT is why we did not go after bin Laden. OBL has been renounced by his family. THEY are not him, any more than you can be held responsible for the acts of one of your cousins. Dave And there's a tooth fairy, too. |
"Dave Hall" wrote in message ... On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 14:56:00 -0500, thunder wrote: On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 13:04:28 -0500, Dave Hall wrote: The Sudanese government had OBL in custody in 96 and offered him to us. We declined to pursue it. We see the result of that inaction. In point of fact, the Sudanese did *not* have bin Laden in custody in '96. The offer was to place him in custody, and either deport him to Saudi, hand him over to the US, or "babysit" him in Sudan. The Saudis refused deportation and Clinton didn't believe he had a case to try him here. A more detailed account of what I basically stated. You seem to be quite critical of Clinton's failures before 9/11, but seem quite accepting of Bush's failures after 9/11. Why is that? The Taliban offered bin Laden to Bush under similar conditions, *after* 9/11. When? Where? How? From what I remember, the Taliban refused to cough up Bin Laden. That's the final straw which lead to the Afghan war. Had they turned OBL over, in all likelihood, we would have had no need to use the military. Yet, bin Laden is still free. Clinton's crystal ball may have failed, but Bush had hindsight to guide him, and still failed. The rules change on a daily basis. I'm not blaming Clinton for not having the foresight to predict 9/11, I'm blaming him for not taking the chance to take OBL out of the picture for acts of terrorism that he had been tied to while Clinton was in office. There's no guarantee, but there's a good chance that 9/11 wouldn't have happened had we gotten OBL in 96. Anyone with insight should know that terrorism will only grow until their warped demands are met. How long are we supposed to ignore the problem before we finally respond to it? The answer to that question occurred on 9/11/2001. But we should have seen it coming long before that. Dave We are not following the advice we've been giving the Israelis for 40 years: Respect the differences with your neighbors and learn to live with them. Until we do that, nothing will change. |
"Dave Hall" wrote in message
... Thank's to the efforts of underground communist backed demonstrators who were able to pollute enough young impressionable minds into thinking we couldn't win, and more to the point that we shouldn't. Communist backed? Who told you to say that? The domino theory - do you know what that is and who dreamed it up? I am aware of the basic theory as it applies to a series of events which are perpetuated by the events which precipitated them. How does that apply here? Dave, it was the only reason ever given for the war. You really need to get with some history books. Not web sites. Books. A bunch of suits from a think tank. Nobody...and I mean NOBODY believed in it by 1970. Nobody believed what? The domino theory? Correct. The domino theory. It was a fairy tale by the late 1960s. Nada. NOBODY. When the entire theory behind a war has evaporated, why continue the war? I can think of a bunch of reasons. To finish the job we started. To save face. To guarantee work for defense contractors......... In that case, it should be fought only by soldiers who believe the reasons. Not by draftees. Crank up the pay scale and call it what it is: A mercenary army. Oh....wait....Nixon still believed it, but he was out of his mind. Nixon was the one who ended our involvement in the war. He was more concerned with the Soviets. No. Kissinger ended the war. At that point in time, Nixon was spending most of his time raving in the White House and making his staff miserable. While Kissinger was reporting diplomatic progress, Nixon was privately urging him to escalate the war. You need to read, Dave. Pick any 5 books about the era and average the results of your reading. You'll see. |
"Dave Hall" wrote in message ... On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 14:44:08 -0500, DSK wrote: Doug Kanter wrote: Correction, Doug. Although you may see Bush use those words, you must remember that people in the media are notoriously liberal. That includes the people who doctor the tapes of the president before they're shown on TV. Well, sure. Everybody knows that, Doug. But where's the PROOF?!!? Remember, 51% of the voters decided that Jesus-mumbling hypocrisy & hatred of libby-rulls are "family values," so without George W. Bush and Dick Cheney coming to Dave's house and telling him in person, he will cling to his fantasy. Well, my wife did receive a hand written note from the president thanking her for her support in the campaign. That's the closest that I've ever gotten to any correspondence from any other leader..... Dave Great. My father bought a photo of Bush, in the same way you bought that note. You both received thanks from laser printers. |
On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 13:20:48 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote: "Dave Hall" wrote in message .. . On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 14:56:00 -0500, thunder wrote: On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 13:04:28 -0500, Dave Hall wrote: The Sudanese government had OBL in custody in 96 and offered him to us. We declined to pursue it. We see the result of that inaction. In point of fact, the Sudanese did *not* have bin Laden in custody in '96. The offer was to place him in custody, and either deport him to Saudi, hand him over to the US, or "babysit" him in Sudan. The Saudis refused deportation and Clinton didn't believe he had a case to try him here. A more detailed account of what I basically stated. You seem to be quite critical of Clinton's failures before 9/11, but seem quite accepting of Bush's failures after 9/11. Why is that? The Taliban offered bin Laden to Bush under similar conditions, *after* 9/11. When? Where? How? From what I remember, the Taliban refused to cough up Bin Laden. That's the final straw which lead to the Afghan war. Had they turned OBL over, in all likelihood, we would have had no need to use the military. Yet, bin Laden is still free. Clinton's crystal ball may have failed, but Bush had hindsight to guide him, and still failed. The rules change on a daily basis. I'm not blaming Clinton for not having the foresight to predict 9/11, I'm blaming him for not taking the chance to take OBL out of the picture for acts of terrorism that he had been tied to while Clinton was in office. There's no guarantee, but there's a good chance that 9/11 wouldn't have happened had we gotten OBL in 96. Anyone with insight should know that terrorism will only grow until their warped demands are met. How long are we supposed to ignore the problem before we finally respond to it? The answer to that question occurred on 9/11/2001. But we should have seen it coming long before that. Dave We are not following the advice we've been giving the Israelis for 40 years: Respect the differences with your neighbors and learn to live with them. Until we do that, nothing will change. You know, that not such bad advice. You should apply it to your neighbors who own dogs....... Snide observation aside, you are correct, but what you have to remember is that when someone has a problem with your whole existence, and then attacks that existence, you are forced to defend against it. Knowing that those who follow this warped mindset will continue until either: A. We defeat them. B. They defeat us. C. We arrive at a mutual understanding. we have to be prepared to do what is necessary. Choice "C" is certainly the most progressive and civilized path to take. But trying to find common ground with people who are convinced that we are "the devil", will require diffusing their religious interpretations. It's not an easy task. Dave |
On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 13:19:03 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote: "Dave Hall" wrote in message .. . On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 18:12:41 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: "Dave Hall" wrote in message ... Please don't say Richard Clarke. His obvious agenda makes anything he says unreliable. I guess his agenda was so obvious that President Bush kept him in office. Unfortunately (from your point of view), Clarke considered the best interests of the American people as a higher duty than personal loyalty to President Bush, right or wrong. No, he didn't take to kindly to the marginalization of his role in the department, and was somewhat bitter about it. That is certainly motive to write a scathing critique of his former boss. He wouldn't be the first disgruntled employee to do that...... Based on this motivation, what he says is suspect for those reasons alone. You're not aware of it, but you find his claims to be suspect because you value blind loyalty before truth. He was not in the position to know the whole truth. Absent of the truth, I do value loyalty. That's what created this country in the first place, and has driven our military ever since. If he was lying, I'm sure the White House would've begun legal proceedings by now. On what grounds? Everyone is entitled to an opinion (You know, the first amendment). In most cases, it's not what facts he may have presented, but the spin that he placed on them, and the context that they were presented in, that tells his story. If people could be jailed for printing false or misleading information, a whole slew of "journalists" would be sitting on a slab right now. Dave The facts he presented? Now you're saying there were some facts? Sure, there were facts. Facts alone do not tell the story without putting them in proper context. It is that manipulation of context, that creates spin and false perception which drives people to drawing a false conclusion. I could give a factual account of a situation, but by omitting key details or presenting some facts out of context or injected with editorial opinion, you can change the message. Let's say that I saw you holding a gun on your front porch, then later I saw a dog lying dead in the road in front of your house. If I then report those two facts as "news", one might conclude that you shot the dog. But by omitting the fact that you were simply cleaning a hunting rifle, and that a car had actually hit the dog, the whole message changes. That is propaganda 101. Dave |
On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 13:26:46 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote: "Dave Hall" wrote in message .. . Thank's to the efforts of underground communist backed demonstrators who were able to pollute enough young impressionable minds into thinking we couldn't win, and more to the point that we shouldn't. Communist backed? Who told you to say that? Don't tell me you aren't aware of those anti-war groups and who backed many of them. Look into the FBI files of the time period, and who many of these radical groups were and what their political beliefs were. The domino theory - do you know what that is and who dreamed it up? I am aware of the basic theory as it applies to a series of events which are perpetuated by the events which precipitated them. How does that apply here? Dave, it was the only reason ever given for the war. You really need to get with some history books. Not web sites. Books. The war was to prevent the spread of communism into South Vietnam. A bunch of suits from a think tank. Nobody...and I mean NOBODY believed in it by 1970. Nobody believed what? The domino theory? Correct. The domino theory. It was a fairy tale by the late 1960s. Nada. NOBODY. When the entire theory behind a war has evaporated, why continue the war? I can think of a bunch of reasons. To finish the job we started. To save face. To guarantee work for defense contractors......... In that case, it should be fought only by soldiers who believe the reasons. Not by draftees. Crank up the pay scale and call it what it is: A mercenary army. Oh....wait....Nixon still believed it, but he was out of his mind. Nixon was the one who ended our involvement in the war. He was more concerned with the Soviets. No. Kissinger ended the war. Kissinger did what he was told to do. Kissinger was not the president. The final decision was Nixon's At that point in time, Nixon was spending most of his time raving in the White House and making his staff miserable. And what wonderful tome told you that? While Kissinger was reporting diplomatic progress, Nixon was privately urging him to escalate the war. According to whom? Facts of course. You need to read, Dave. Pick any 5 books about the era and average the results of your reading. You'll see. I did and I have. The difference is that I don't read books by people with leftist agendas. Revisionist history doesn't sit well with me. Dave |
On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 13:27:53 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote: "Dave Hall" wrote in message .. . On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 14:44:08 -0500, DSK wrote: Doug Kanter wrote: Correction, Doug. Although you may see Bush use those words, you must remember that people in the media are notoriously liberal. That includes the people who doctor the tapes of the president before they're shown on TV. Well, sure. Everybody knows that, Doug. But where's the PROOF?!!? Remember, 51% of the voters decided that Jesus-mumbling hypocrisy & hatred of libby-rulls are "family values," so without George W. Bush and Dick Cheney coming to Dave's house and telling him in person, he will cling to his fantasy. Well, my wife did receive a hand written note from the president thanking her for her support in the campaign. That's the closest that I've ever gotten to any correspondence from any other leader..... Dave Great. My father bought a photo of Bush, in the same way you bought that note. You both received thanks from laser printers. A hand written (not printed) and signed note? Yea, I guess it would be possible to hand write the basic note and white-out the name part and copy it 1000 times. But it would be hard to duplicate the flow of the cursive hand script such that it looked like it was made at the same time as the original note each and every time. That's an awful lot of work to do for something so simple. But you guys who hate Bush so much don't realize is that he is a personable guy. He tries to connect with the people. Dave |
On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 13:19:02 -0500, Dave Hall wrote:
Communist backed? Who told you to say that? Don't tell me you aren't aware of those anti-war groups and who backed many of them. Look into the FBI files of the time period, and who many of these radical groups were and what their political beliefs were. I'm sure there was some communist involvement, but your mistake is in assuming anti-war sentiment was "radical". It was not. It was middle America slowly coming to the realization that the war was not worth the cost. Johnson realized this when he refused to run again. Remember the quote, "If I've lost Cronkite, I've lost *middle* America." |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:18 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com