On Sun, 08 Feb 2004 21:33:38 -0500, DSK wrote:

NOYB wrote:
As a Lieutenant, Kerry had the authority to use info supplied to him by
military intel in order to make on the spot decisions that may have risked
the life of the men under his control. Not much different from Bush, eh?

No, not much different, except that Bush ordered men under his control
into combat so that his father's and his Vice President's companies
could roll up tremendous profits. And he deliberately mis stated his
reasons and the backing intel for it.

Did Lt Kerry make a dime off his Viet Nam service?

Yeah, they're pretty much the same all right.

DSK

I don't believe you really believe what you just said.

John H

On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!

"John H" wrote in message
news
On Sun, 08 Feb 2004 21:33:38 -0500, DSK wrote:

NOYB wrote:
As a Lieutenant, Kerry had the authority to use info supplied to him by
military intel in order to make on the spot decisions that may have
risked
the life of the men under his control. Not much different from Bush,
eh?

No, not much different, except that Bush ordered men under his control
into combat so that his father's and his Vice President's companies
could roll up tremendous profits. And he deliberately mis stated his
reasons and the backing intel for it.

Did Lt Kerry make a dime off his Viet Nam service?

Yeah, they're pretty much the same all right.

DSK

I don't believe you really believe what you just said.

John H

If you're referring to his "pretty much the same" comment, he was being
sarcastic, John. I think you've missed obvious sarcasm before. We're gonna
have to agree on some sort of little symbol, just for you. :-)

On Mon, 09 Feb 2004 21:43:13 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"John H" wrote in message
news
On Sun, 08 Feb 2004 21:33:38 -0500, DSK wrote:

NOYB wrote:
As a Lieutenant, Kerry had the authority to use info supplied to him by
military intel in order to make on the spot decisions that may have
risked
the life of the men under his control. Not much different from Bush,
eh?

No, not much different, except that Bush ordered men under his control
into combat so that his father's and his Vice President's companies
could roll up tremendous profits. And he deliberately mis stated his
reasons and the backing intel for it.

Did Lt Kerry make a dime off his Viet Nam service?

Yeah, they're pretty much the same all right.

DSK

I don't believe you really believe what you just said.

John H

If you're referring to his "pretty much the same" comment, he was being
sarcastic, John. I think you've missed obvious sarcasm before. We're gonna
have to agree on some sort of little symbol, just for you. :-)


No, I was referring specifically to, "...Bush ordered men under his
control into combat so that his father's and his Vice President's
companies could roll up tremendous profits."

Sounds like 'hate talk' to me. If their were an iota of truth in the
accusation, Clark, Dean, Kerry, et al (especially Sharpton) would have
already used it.

John H

On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!

John H wrote:

No, I was referring specifically to, "...Bush ordered men under his
control into combat so that his father's and his Vice President's
companies could roll up tremendous profits."

Yep, it is pretty terrible for a President to do that. I don't understand why so
many people are willing to make excuses for him.

Oh wait, you mean you don't think it's true?

Let's see... Did G.W. Bush take a lot of advice & instruction from a group of
military-industrialist chickenhawks, appoint a bunch of same to his cabinet, and
didn't many of the people in this group urge war on Iraq clear back in the mid
1990s? Yes.

Does the Bush family hold a very large stake in said military industrial complex?
Yes.

Have the other reasons for going to war in Iraq (weapons of mass destruction,
Iraqi support for Al-Queda, etc etc) proven to have any truth or merit? No.

Did the Bush Administration listen to any advice and/or intel about *not* going
to war in Iraq? Did they seriously consider any option other than war? No.

Is the United States any better off now that we have removed Saddam Hussein?
Arguable point, but the reasons for saying 'yes' (other than blind loyalty to
BushCo) are rather unclear.

Has the military-industrial complex, specifically including Carlyle and
Halliburton, profited from Gulf War 2? Yes indeed, big time.

Conclusion?


If their were an iota of truth in the
accusation, Clark, Dean, Kerry, et al (especially Sharpton) would have
already used it.

In rather non specific terms, it's already being said. As further specific info
comes to light, you'll see it in glorious Technicolor. Remember that a few short
weeks ago, all the Bush cheerleaders were saying "Oh no, Halliburton didn't
overcharge the Army for any fuel, what rubbish, they would never do such a thing"
etc etc.

But there is no fact so glaringly obvious that the head-in-the-sand crowd won't
ignore it. There is no misdeed so foul that the
responsibility-morality-and-accountability crowd won't instantly forgive and
forget... as long as BushCo is the offender.

Iraq is arguably better off without Saddam Hussein and his psychopath sons in
charge, but the US is only facing an increasingly hostile world, very definitely
including the Arab world, and racked up a huge debt.

John H wrote:


Sounds like 'hate talk' to me.

Why, because it makes your fair-haired boy look bad? Observing facts and drawing
logical conclusions is not "hate." I would say that President Bush must really
hate the United States since he is making such a determined effort to ruin it.

DSK

"John H" wrote in message
...

If you're referring to his "pretty much the same" comment, he was being
sarcastic, John. I think you've missed obvious sarcasm before. We're
gonna
have to agree on some sort of little symbol, just for you. :-)


No, I was referring specifically to, "...Bush ordered men under his
control into combat so that his father's and his Vice President's
companies could roll up tremendous profits."

Well....all his other reasons have pretty much evaporated. He says our main
goal was to eliminate Saddam because he was a bad boy, but we've done
nothing about other bad boys, so that reason is silly. Why not stomp on
Sudan? We know that's a zoo full of terrorists, too. How about Indonesia and
the Phillippines?


Sounds like 'hate talk' to me. If their were an iota of truth in the
accusation, Clark, Dean, Kerry, et al (especially Sharpton) would have
already used it.

They don't need to.

Doug Kanter wrote:

"John H" wrote in message
news
On Sun, 08 Feb 2004 21:33:38 -0500, DSK wrote:

NOYB wrote:
As a Lieutenant, Kerry had the authority to use info supplied to him by
military intel in order to make on the spot decisions that may have
risked
the life of the men under his control. Not much different from Bush,
eh?

No, not much different, except that Bush ordered men under his control
into combat so that his father's and his Vice President's companies
could roll up tremendous profits. And he deliberately mis stated his
reasons and the backing intel for it.

Did Lt Kerry make a dime off his Viet Nam service?

Yeah, they're pretty much the same all right.

DSK

I don't believe you really believe what you just said.

John H

If you're referring to his "pretty much the same" comment, he was being
sarcastic, John. I think you've missed obvious sarcasm before. We're gonna
have to agree on some sort of little symbol, just for you. :-)


John needs a tad of reprogramming.

--
Email sent to is never read.