"ed" wrote in message
...
This is just my opinion, but I disgree with the war in Iraq, think we were
lied to by our leaders and should have waited for the United Nations
backing.


Ed,
Not to sound confrontational...but do you have a working brain? The UN?
Sheesh.

Have you even followed along with all of the news regarding the UN
oil-for-food profiteering that took place in order to skirt UN sanctions?
Did you follow the news when it was talking about the banned weapons and
weapons materials that were being sold to Iraq by Russia, China, and France
in violation of the UN embargo?

Exactly how do you propose we could have gotten the support of Russia,
China, and France?

On Sun, 19 Jun 2005 20:46:56 -0400, "NOYB" wrote:


"HarryKrause" wrote in message
...
John H wrote:
On Sat, 18 Jun 2005 08:31:03 -0400, HarryKrause
wrote:


John H wrote:

On 17 Jun 2005 21:32:26 -0700, wrote:



Despite your feelings about the war please keep all our men and women
serving in our Armed Forces in your prayers

*********

The war, along with the people who deliberately lied us into it and are
now profiting from it is crap.

The young men and women who do their duty there
are heroic. Each one killed, wounded, or separated
on multiple extended tours from home and family is a national tragedy.

Screw the war, but honor the troops. It is possible to do both at once.
People who feel that we must despise the troops because they are forced
to serve in a bogus war as well as people who feel that we cannot
respect and value the troops without cheering for the
war itself are all wrong.


Deliberately lied? You're turning into a regular krausite!

You seem to forget:



"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a
threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the
mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass
destruction
and the means of delivering them."
- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002


D'oh. The evidence is mounting that Bush had the "intel" evidence
"cooked" to support his positions before he had it passed along to
members of Congress.

In other words, he had the "intel" changed to support his predisposition
to invade Iraq.

There is good coming out of Bush's dirty war. He's a half year into his
term and he's becoming a lame duck. Taht's good for America and good for
the world.


Duh...bull****.


You don't believe Bush is becoming a lame duck?

I don't. According to the most accurate pollster in the last 2 Presidential
elections (Rasmussen), Bush's approval rating is still at 49%. Given the
margin of error of the poll, that means that he continues to have the
support of almost the exact same number of people who voted for him last
November. Nothing has changed. He was a strong political ally to
politicians in elections all over the country in November...and will
continue to be an important ally for those who are up for reelection in
2006.

His rating now is what it was right before the election, which he won, right?


--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

On Sun, 19 Jun 2005 21:01:05 -0400, HarryKrause wrote:

NOYB wrote:
"HarryKrause" wrote in message
...

John H wrote:

On Sat, 18 Jun 2005 08:31:03 -0400, HarryKrause
wrote:



John H wrote:


On 17 Jun 2005 21:32:26 -0700, wrote:




Despite your feelings about the war please keep all our men and women
serving in our Armed Forces in your prayers

*********

The war, along with the people who deliberately lied us into it and are
now profiting from it is crap.

The young men and women who do their duty there
are heroic. Each one killed, wounded, or separated
on multiple extended tours from home and family is a national tragedy.

Screw the war, but honor the troops. It is possible to do both at once.
People who feel that we must despise the troops because they are forced
to serve in a bogus war as well as people who feel that we cannot
respect and value the troops without cheering for the
war itself are all wrong.


Deliberately lied? You're turning into a regular krausite!

You seem to forget:



"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a
threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the
mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass
destruction
and the means of delivering them."
- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002


D'oh. The evidence is mounting that Bush had the "intel" evidence
"cooked" to support his positions before he had it passed along to
members of Congress.

In other words, he had the "intel" changed to support his predisposition
to invade Iraq.

There is good coming out of Bush's dirty war. He's a half year into his
term and he's becoming a lame duck. Taht's good for America and good for
the world.


Duh...bull****.


You don't believe Bush is becoming a lame duck?


I don't. According to the most accurate pollster in the last 2 Presidential
elections (Rasmussen), Bush's approval rating is still at 49%. Given the
margin of error of the poll, that means that he continues to have the
support of almost the exact same number of people who voted for him last
November. Nothing has changed. He was a strong political ally to
politicians in elections all over the country in November...and will
continue to be an important ally for those who are up for reelection in
2006.

Most of the legit polls have Bush far lower. I'll be delighted when the
level of support for the job he is doing drops into the high 30's. We're
not talking about his personal popularity here. Lots of people who think
Bush is a screw-up also believe he is an affable guy.

I believe I read last week that Bush is going to go around the country
to try to build up support for his Iraqi disaster. I'm sure he'll get
cheers from his base, but he won't be speaking much before those who are
not his ardent supporters. As long as the Iraqi deaths continue, Bush
will build up no more support for Iraq than he did for his plan to make
corporate America richer on the back of social security.

You'll see the impact of Bush's decline on his broader legislative
proposals and on his ability to expand his idiotic war to other
countries. *This* is where his lameduckdom will come into play; not on
every issue, of course, but on some of those issues where he might have
had a chance of further pooching the country.

Speaking of affable idiots, is Jeb on drugs? Where is he going with that
new Terri Schiavo nonsense? I used to think he was brighter than
Dubya, but no more.

I guess, in your mind, low means legit. Right?

Who were you calling 'stupid' earlier?

Better stick with dick comparisons and high speed boat trips on 'your' boat,
Harry.
--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

"HarryKrause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:
"HarryKrause" wrote in message
...

John H wrote:

On Sat, 18 Jun 2005 08:31:03 -0400, HarryKrause
wrote:



John H wrote:


On 17 Jun 2005 21:32:26 -0700, wrote:




Despite your feelings about the war please keep all our men and women
serving in our Armed Forces in your prayers

*********

The war, along with the people who deliberately lied us into it and
are
now profiting from it is crap.

The young men and women who do their duty there
are heroic. Each one killed, wounded, or separated
on multiple extended tours from home and family is a national
tragedy.

Screw the war, but honor the troops. It is possible to do both at
once.
People who feel that we must despise the troops because they are
forced
to serve in a bogus war as well as people who feel that we cannot
respect and value the troops without cheering for the
war itself are all wrong.


Deliberately lied? You're turning into a regular krausite!

You seem to forget:



"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a
threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the
mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass
destruction
and the means of delivering them."
- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002


D'oh. The evidence is mounting that Bush had the "intel" evidence
"cooked" to support his positions before he had it passed along to
members of Congress.

In other words, he had the "intel" changed to support his
predisposition to invade Iraq.

There is good coming out of Bush's dirty war. He's a half year into his
term and he's becoming a lame duck. Taht's good for America and good
for the world.


Duh...bull****.


You don't believe Bush is becoming a lame duck?


I don't. According to the most accurate pollster in the last 2
Presidential elections (Rasmussen), Bush's approval rating is still at
49%. Given the margin of error of the poll, that means that he continues
to have the support of almost the exact same number of people who voted
for him last November. Nothing has changed. He was a strong political
ally to politicians in elections all over the country in November...and
will continue to be an important ally for those who are up for reelection
in 2006.

Most of the legit polls have Bush far lower.

There are very few "legit" pollsters left...with most of them having been
bent over and fully exposed as partisan hacks in the 2004 erroneous "early
call" of the election.

Rasmussen's numbers, however, were within a tenth of a percent of the final
outcome.

"HarryKrause" wrote in message
...
John H wrote:
On Sun, 19 Jun 2005 20:46:56 -0400, "NOYB" wrote:


"HarryKrause" wrote in message
...

John H wrote:

On Sat, 18 Jun 2005 08:31:03 -0400, HarryKrause
wrote:



John H wrote:


On 17 Jun 2005 21:32:26 -0700, wrote:




Despite your feelings about the war please keep all our men and
women
serving in our Armed Forces in your prayers

*********

The war, along with the people who deliberately lied us into it and
are
now profiting from it is crap.

The young men and women who do their duty there
are heroic. Each one killed, wounded, or separated
on multiple extended tours from home and family is a national
tragedy.

Screw the war, but honor the troops. It is possible to do both at
once.
People who feel that we must despise the troops because they are
forced
to serve in a bogus war as well as people who feel that we cannot
respect and value the troops without cheering for the
war itself are all wrong.


Deliberately lied? You're turning into a regular krausite!

You seem to forget:



"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and
a
threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the
mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass
destruction
and the means of delivering them."
- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002


D'oh. The evidence is mounting that Bush had the "intel" evidence
"cooked" to support his positions before he had it passed along to
members of Congress.

In other words, he had the "intel" changed to support his
predisposition to invade Iraq.

There is good coming out of Bush's dirty war. He's a half year into
his term and he's becoming a lame duck. Taht's good for America and
good for the world.


Duh...bull****.


You don't believe Bush is becoming a lame duck?

I don't. According to the most accurate pollster in the last 2
Presidential elections (Rasmussen), Bush's approval rating is still at
49%. Given the margin of error of the poll, that means that he continues
to have the support of almost the exact same number of people who voted
for him last November. Nothing has changed. He was a strong political
ally to politicians in elections all over the country in November...and
will continue to be an important ally for those who are up for reelection
in 2006.


His rating now is what it was right before the election, which he won,
right?



Most legit polls show a five to seven point drop in Bush's job
favorability rating since just before the election. Then, he was about
49%. Now, he is around 42%.

According to Rasmussen:
Bush's approval rating was 52% on election day. It's at 49% now...and has
bounced around between 48 and 51% in the last week. Given the margin of
error, he's statistically where he was at when he won the general election
with 62 million votes last November.

I don't know where you're getting 42% from? Zogby? Gallup has it at 47%
and Washington Post/ABC has it at 48%.

As the midterm election nears, and that approval rating hovers near the same
number it was at in 11/04, the Republican candidates will fall into line
when they begin to remember that those numbers were good enough for Bush to
beat his opponent by 3 million votes...*and* coat-tail other Republicans
into a larger majority in the House and Senate.

"HarryKrause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:
JimH wrote:
Despite your feelings about the war please keep all our men and women
serving in our Armed Forces in your prayers


Chuck Gould responded:
The war, along with the people who deliberately lied us into it and are
now profiting from it is crap



Ergo, Chuck Gould is a piece of ****.




Your logic is not compelling. Chuck made no comment here about the troops.
He commented on the political leadership of this country - the Bush
misadministration - and those corporations making money off the war.

Of the people, by the people and for the people. We are the government in
any and all of its forms. The government is selected from the people by the
people. A majority of the people have a different opinion than you.

The war is crap, and so are Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld, Halliburton, and
all the other warmongering corporations who see Iraq as a "moneymaker"
during its time of dissolution. These, of course, are many of the same
individuals and corporations who made money off Iraq before Saddam was
deposed.

You really don't have any idea about what the war on terrorism is and why we
moved from Saudi Arabia to Iraq.

Stick to something you are good at: Spewing garbage for your union
overlords.

"HarryKrause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:
"HarryKrause" wrote in message
...

John H wrote:

On Sat, 18 Jun 2005 08:31:03 -0400, HarryKrause
wrote:



John H wrote:


On 17 Jun 2005 21:32:26 -0700, wrote:




Despite your feelings about the war please keep all our men and women
serving in our Armed Forces in your prayers

*********

The war, along with the people who deliberately lied us into it and
are
now profiting from it is crap.

The young men and women who do their duty there
are heroic. Each one killed, wounded, or separated
on multiple extended tours from home and family is a national
tragedy.

Screw the war, but honor the troops. It is possible to do both at
once.
People who feel that we must despise the troops because they are
forced
to serve in a bogus war as well as people who feel that we cannot
respect and value the troops without cheering for the
war itself are all wrong.


Deliberately lied? You're turning into a regular krausite!

You seem to forget:



"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a
threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the
mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass
destruction
and the means of delivering them."
- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002


D'oh. The evidence is mounting that Bush had the "intel" evidence
"cooked" to support his positions before he had it passed along to
members of Congress.

In other words, he had the "intel" changed to support his
predisposition to invade Iraq.

There is good coming out of Bush's dirty war. He's a half year into his
term and he's becoming a lame duck. Taht's good for America and good
for the world.


Duh...bull****.


You don't believe Bush is becoming a lame duck?


I don't. According to the most accurate pollster in the last 2
Presidential elections (Rasmussen), Bush's approval rating is still at
49%. Given the margin of error of the poll, that means that he continues
to have the support of almost the exact same number of people who voted
for him last November. Nothing has changed. He was a strong political
ally to politicians in elections all over the country in November...and
will continue to be an important ally for those who are up for reelection
in 2006.

Most of the legit polls have Bush far lower. I'll be delighted when the
level of support for the job he is doing drops into the high 30's. We're
not talking about his personal popularity here. Lots of people who think
Bush is a screw-up also believe he is an affable guy.

Legitimate vs. Accurate? I'll take accurate everytime!

I believe I read last week that Bush is going to go around the country to
try to build up support for his Iraqi disaster. I'm sure he'll get cheers
from his base, but he won't be speaking much before those who are not his
ardent supporters. As long as the Iraqi deaths continue, Bush will build
up no more support for Iraq than he did for his plan to make corporate
America richer on the back of social security.

There were 23,000 men that died an Antitem in one day 143 years ago.

You'll see the impact of Bush's decline on his broader legislative
proposals and on his ability to expand his idiotic war to other countries.
*This* is where his lameduckdom will come into play; not on every issue,
of course, but on some of those issues where he might have had a chance of
further pooching the country.

Speaking of affable idiots, is Jeb on drugs? Where is he going with that
new Terri Schiavo nonsense? I used to think he was brighter than Dubya,
but no more.










--
If it is Bad for Bush,
It is Good for the United States.

"HarryKrause" wrote in message
...
Bert Robbins wrote:
"HarryKrause" wrote in message
...

NOYB wrote:

JimH wrote:
Despite your feelings about the war please keep all our men and women
serving in our Armed Forces in your prayers


Chuck Gould responded:
The war, along with the people who deliberately lied us into it and are
now profiting from it is crap



Ergo, Chuck Gould is a piece of ****.




Your logic is not compelling. Chuck made no comment here about the
troops. He commented on the political leadership of this country - the
Bush misadministration - and those corporations making money off the war.


Of the people, by the people and for the people. We are the government in
any and all of its forms. The government is selected from the people by
the people. A majority of the people have a different opinion than you.

A majority of the people believe Bush's war in Iraq is a horrendous
disaster.

Do you have a verifiable source or are you re-typing the survey results.

"HarryKrause" wrote in message
...
Bert Robbins wrote:

Legitimate vs. Accurate? I'll take accurate everytime!


I believe I read last week that Bush is going to go around the country to
try to build up support for his Iraqi disaster. I'm sure he'll get cheers
from his base, but he won't be speaking much before those who are not his
ardent supporters. As long as the Iraqi deaths continue, Bush will build
up no more support for Iraq than he did for his plan to make corporate
America richer on the back of social security.


There were 23,000 men that died an Antitem in one day 143 years ago.


What do you care? Your military service was stateside. Did you even get a
blister on your thumb?

Please remind me of the uniformed military service your served in?

NOYB wrote:

He burned the originals to protect the source? LOL! You would think a
"reporter" in the UK would follow the news from around the globe and see
what happened to a very famous (now notoriuous) news anchor from CBS who
tried to run the same scam.

I wonder why the British government has not disputed their authenticity.

On Sun, 19 Jun 2005 22:21:15 -0700, -rick- wrote:

NOYB wrote:

He burned the originals to protect the source? LOL! You would think a
"reporter" in the UK would follow the news from around the globe and see
what happened to a very famous (now notoriuous) news anchor from CBS who
tried to run the same scam.

I wonder why the British government has not disputed their authenticity.

Not really. Apparently the British Government agency involved has not
said anything, yay or nay. One anonymous "official" has stated that
they "appear to be authentic", but it's like the Killian memos - looks
good at first glance. My money is on "fake, but authentic" all over
again.

Later,

Tom

"HarryKrause" wrote in message
...

What do you care? Your military service was stateside. Did you even get a
blister on your thumb?


Please remind me of the uniformed military service your served in?


Why? It's not as if you saw any action, other than at the titty clubs,
when you were in the service.

You are a talker instead of a doer.

You can talk about doing things buy you haven't done any of them.

"-rick-" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:

He burned the originals to protect the source? LOL! You would think a
"reporter" in the UK would follow the news from around the globe and see
what happened to a very famous (now notoriuous) news anchor from CBS who
tried to run the same scam.

I wonder why the British government has not disputed their authenticity.

Show us the originals or divulge the source, otherwise, let the reporter
twist in the wind.

The seriousness of the charge assertion and use of unnamed or anonymous
sources is switfly going by the wayside due to people wanting verifiable
sources used when "journalists" "report" the news.

John H wrote:
On 17 Jun 2005 21:32:26 -0700, wrote:

Despite your feelings about the war please keep all our men and women
serving in our Armed Forces in your prayers

*********

The war, along with the people who deliberately lied us into it and are
now profiting from it is crap.

The young men and women who do their duty there
are heroic. Each one killed, wounded, or separated
on multiple extended tours from home and family is a national tragedy.

Screw the war, but honor the troops. It is possible to do both at once.
People who feel that we must despise the troops because they are forced
to serve in a bogus war as well as people who feel that we cannot
respect and value the troops without cheering for the
war itself are all wrong.

Deliberately lied? You're turning into a regular krausite!

You seem to forget:


"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to
develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That
is our bottom line."
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We
want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass
destruction program."
- President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998


"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal
here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear,
chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest
security threat we face."
- Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998


"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times
since 1983."
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998


"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S.
Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate,
air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to
the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction
programs."

- Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John
Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998


"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass
destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he
has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998


"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass
destruction and palaces for his cronies."
- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999


"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons
programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs
continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam
continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a
licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten
the United States and our allies."

- Letter to President Bush, Signed by (FORMER) Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and
others,
December 5, 2001


"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a
threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the
mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction
and the means of delivering them."
- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002


"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical
weapons throughout his country."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002


"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to
deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in
power."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002


"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing
weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002


"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are
confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and
biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to
build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence
reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002


"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority
to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe
that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real
and grave threat to our security."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002


"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively
to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the
next five years . We also should remember we have always underestimated
the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002


"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every
significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his
chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has
refused to do" Rep.
- Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002


"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that
Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weap ons
stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has
also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda
members
.. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will
continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare,
and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002


"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam
Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for
the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002


"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal,
murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a
particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to
miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his
continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction
.. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real
..."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

Now, go have a great day!
--
John H

John, how does ANYTHING above prove that Bush didn't deliberately lie?

Shortwave Sportfishing wrote:
On 17 Jun 2005 21:32:26 -0700, wrote:

Screw the war, but honor the troops.

With all due respect Chuck, the troops are the war. You can't hate
one and love the other - they are one and the same.

Sure one can! While I have respect for the soldiers that were put in
harm's way by Bush, I think that the war they are fighting is riddled
with lies, mistakes, and deceit.

"HarryKrause" wrote in message
...


I'm talking about job approval ratings

Me too:
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/Bush_Job_Approval.htm



which are in the very low 40s.

Nope. Rasmussen has it back at 50% again today...just 1 percentage point
off of his Election Day 2004 number.



I
believe you are discussing Bush's affability ratings, which are still
around 50%.

It doesn't matter what you "believe". The facts speak for themselves.
Bush's "Job Approval" rating stands at 50% today.

Very well said, my feelings exactly....
==================================
Despite your feelings about the war please keep all our men and women
serving in our Armed Forces in your prayers
*********
The war, along with the people who deliberately lied us into it and are
now profiting from it is crap.
The young men and women who do their duty there are heroic. Each one
killed, wounded, or separated on multiple extended tours from home and
family is a national tragedy.
Screw the war, but honor the troops. It is possible to do both at once.
People who feel that we must despise the troops because they are forced
to serve in a bogus war as well as people who feel that we cannot
respect and value the troops without cheering for the war itself are all
wrong.

NOYB wrote:

Ed,
Not to sound confrontational...but do you have a working brain?

Hehe!! You failed NOYB!

John H wrote:

Better stick with dick comparisons and high speed boat trips on 'your' boat,
Harry.
--
John H


John, is this dick stuff going to be like the last time you went off of
the deep end and called Harry a "****ing liar" several hundred times?

"HarryKrause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:
"HarryKrause" wrote in message
...

John H wrote:

On Sun, 19 Jun 2005 20:46:56 -0400, "NOYB" wrote:



"HarryKrause" wrote in message
...


John H wrote:


On Sat, 18 Jun 2005 08:31:03 -0400, HarryKrause
wrote:




John H wrote:



On 17 Jun 2005 21:32:26 -0700, wrote:





Despite your feelings about the war please keep all our men and
women
serving in our Armed Forces in your prayers

*********

The war, along with the people who deliberately lied us into it
and are
now profiting from it is crap.

The young men and women who do their duty there
are heroic. Each one killed, wounded, or separated
on multiple extended tours from home and family is a national
tragedy.

Screw the war, but honor the troops. It is possible to do both at
once.
People who feel that we must despise the troops because they are
forced
to serve in a bogus war as well as people who feel that we cannot
respect and value the troops without cheering for the
war itself are all wrong.


Deliberately lied? You're turning into a regular krausite!

You seem to forget:



"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant
and a
threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the
mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass
destruction
and the means of delivering them."
- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002


D'oh. The evidence is mounting that Bush had the "intel" evidence
"cooked" to support his positions before he had it passed along to
members of Congress.

In other words, he had the "intel" changed to support his
predisposition to invade Iraq.

There is good coming out of Bush's dirty war. He's a half year into
his term and he's becoming a lame duck. Taht's good for America and
good for the world.


Duh...bull****.


You don't believe Bush is becoming a lame duck?

I don't. According to the most accurate pollster in the last 2
Presidential elections (Rasmussen), Bush's approval rating is still at
49%. Given the margin of error of the poll, that means that he
continues to have the support of almost the exact same number of people
who voted for him last November. Nothing has changed. He was a strong
political ally to politicians in elections all over the country in
November...and will continue to be an important ally for those who are
up for reelection in 2006.


His rating now is what it was right before the election, which he won,
right?



Most legit polls show a five to seven point drop in Bush's job
favorability rating since just before the election. Then, he was about
49%. Now, he is around 42%.


According to Rasmussen:
Bush's approval rating was 52% on election day. It's at 49% now...and
has bounced around between 48 and 51% in the last week. Given the margin
of error, he's statistically where he was at when he won the general
election with 62 million votes last November.

I don't know where you're getting 42% from? Zogby? Gallup has it at 47%
and Washington Post/ABC has it at 48%.

As the midterm election nears, and that approval rating hovers near the
same number it was at in 11/04, the Republican candidates will fall into
line when they begin to remember that those numbers were good enough for
Bush to beat his opponent by 3 million votes...*and* coat-tail other
Republicans into a larger majority in the House and Senate.


Here...the Christian Science Monitor disagrees with you.


rom the June 20, 2005 edition -
http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0620/p01s01-uspo.html

Bush faces a stalled agenda, as 2006 races rev up
He focuses on Social Security and Iraq as public support fades and
bipartisan talk ebbs.

By Linda Feldmann | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor

WASHINGTON - As President Bush's ambitious agenda sags under the weight of
public skepticism - and a growing willingness among some Republicans to
break ranks - political observers would love nothing more than to be the
proverbial fly on the wall in the Oval Office.

Of course, those who know what Bush and his advisers are saying to each
other aren't talking. But in public, at least, the White House betrays no
hint that it will change course on its two biggest agenda items, Social
Security and Iraq. A third priority, tax reform, has been put off until
the fall.

Only five months into his second term, Bush has already begun to abandon
talk of bipartisanship and blame the Democrats for what he calls their
"agenda of the roadblock" - a tactic that points more toward scoring
points in the 2006 congressional elections than winning converts to his
side in the current, closely divided Congress. The 2006 campaign has
already begun, creating an incentive for Republicans to put protecting
themselves ahead of loyalty to the term- limited Bush.

The White House, for its part, seems to be following a familiar pattern of
sticking to its guns until the last possible moment.

"They don't yield until it appears that all will be lost unless they
compromise," says Ross Baker, a political scientist at Rutgers University.
"They definitely play a game of brinkmanship, and that is to convey an
impression that's not just determined but pugnacious. Then, when it
appears that that kind of bluff doesn't work, then and only then do they
quietly consider compromises."


- - -


The Bush administration employs a tactic known to all great negotiators. He
hits 'em high, knowing he can always come down. He pushes the extreme,
knowing that the middle ground will prevail in the end.

Ironically, what appears as a compromise to the adversary ends up being
exactly what the President had hoped for in the first place.

The confirmation hearings on the Federal judges are a great example.
Hardcore conservatives screamed bloody murder that a "compromise" was
employed despite Republicans holding all the cards. But guess what? Bush
got his nominations confirmed...which is what he was after in the first
place.

Social Security and Iraq are issues that are being handled the same exact
way. Name one thing in Iraq that Bush wanted and hasn't gotten from
Congress.

In the end, some form of Social Security reform will also be implemented.
Perhaps it will be an older age to collect benefits. Perhaps it will be
lower benefits for the affluent. Perhaps it will be partial privatization
for people under age 35. In any case, Bush's strategy will have been
responsible for the change.

"-rick-" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:

He burned the originals to protect the source? LOL! You would think a
"reporter" in the UK would follow the news from around the globe and see
what happened to a very famous (now notoriuous) news anchor from CBS who
tried to run the same scam.

I wonder why the British government has not disputed their authenticity.

It's a better strategy to you let the other news media outlets do it for
you...the same way that the Bush White House let the National Guard forged
memo scandal unfold all on its own.

"HarryKrause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:
"HarryKrause" wrote in message
...



I'm talking about job approval ratings


Me too:
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/Bush_Job_Approval.htm




which are in the very low 40s.


Nope. Rasmussen has it back at 50% again today...just 1 percentage point
off of his Election Day 2004 number.



I

believe you are discussing Bush's affability ratings, which are still
around 50%.


It doesn't matter what you "believe". The facts speak for themselves.
Bush's "Job Approval" rating stands at 50% today.


On the poll you like.

Perhaps because I like *accurate* polls. And Rasmussen has proven himself
to be the most reliable pollster over the last half decade.

Regardless, Bush's job approval rating is almost exactly where it was when
he received 62 million votes (and 3 million more than the Democratic
candidate) last November.

wrote in message
oups.com...


NOYB wrote:

Ed,
Not to sound confrontational...but do you have a working brain?

Hehe!! You failed NOYB!

Since my intention was to fail, then I'd say that I succeeded.

"HarryKrause" wrote in message
...
N.L. Eckert wrote:
Very well said, my feelings exactly....
==================================
Despite your feelings about the war please keep all our men and women
serving in our Armed Forces in your prayers ********* The war, along with
the people who deliberately lied us into it and are
now profiting from it is crap. The young men and women who do their duty
there are heroic. Each one
killed, wounded, or separated on multiple extended tours from home and
family is a national tragedy. Screw the war, but honor the troops. It is
possible to do both at once.
People who feel that we must despise the troops because they are forced
to serve in a bogus war as well as people who feel that we cannot
respect and value the troops without cheering for the war itself are all
wrong.



And a pox on all of those who are making a monetary profit off this war.


Does that include the businesses which are able to turn profits only because
oil hasn't hit $100/barrel?

"HarryKrause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:

In the end, some form of Social Security reform will also be implemented.
Perhaps it will be an older age to collect benefits. Perhaps it will be
lower benefits for the affluent. Perhaps it will be partial
privatization for people under age 35. In any case, Bush's strategy will
have been responsible for the change.

Wonderful rationalization for upcoming backpedaling, but b.s

You obviously don't know much about negotiations...particularly negotiations
in which you hold all the cards.

On 20 Jun 2005 05:12:27 -0700, wrote:



Shortwave Sportfishing wrote:
On 17 Jun 2005 21:32:26 -0700, wrote:

Screw the war, but honor the troops.

With all due respect Chuck, the troops are the war. You can't hate
one and love the other - they are one and the same.

Sure one can! While I have respect for the soldiers that were put in
harm's way by Bush, I think that the war they are fighting is riddled
with lies, mistakes, and deceit.

Well, I've stated my case. You cannot separate the two - it's
impossible in the legal, logical, moral and ethical frames of
reference. War is the soldier, the soldier is war - ain't no other
way around it.

If you despise war, then you, by extension, cannot anoint the warrior
as somehow being honorable and above the fray - the guns don't fire by
themselves. It is a willful act to aim, squeeze, shoot and kill the
human you are aiming for. Note the kill - as in dead - murder most
foul if you will.

War is war - you can have an honorable war, you can have a
dishonorable war - the difference between the two is ephemeral because
you still have to aim, shoot and kill the enemy - you are still
killing another human being(s).

Took me a long time and some really intense peer therapy to understand
that concept.

And just because I'm in the mood, there is nothing, absolutely
nothing, like the adrenalin rush you get in close quarters combat.
Nothing in the world can match it.

And that's the last I'll say about it.

Later,

Tom

*JimH* wrote:

I find the fact the you ruined a nice thread pathetic.

You're just mad because Chuck saw right through you. Being proud of
someone is one thing, but I'll bet you wouldn't have posted those same
exact words if he was in the service under a democratic president. So,
YOU made it a political thread.

John H wrote:

Duh...bull****.
--

Does this contribute to the "tone of the group"?

On Mon, 20 Jun 2005 12:19:46 -0400, HarryKrause
wrote:

Shortwave Sportfishing wrote:
On 20 Jun 2005 05:12:27 -0700, wrote:



Shortwave Sportfishing wrote:

On 17 Jun 2005 21:32:26 -0700, wrote:


Screw the war, but honor the troops.

With all due respect Chuck, the troops are the war. You can't hate
one and love the other - they are one and the same.

Sure one can! While I have respect for the soldiers that were put in
harm's way by Bush, I think that the war they are fighting is riddled
with lies, mistakes, and deceit.


Well, I've stated my case. You cannot separate the two - it's
impossible in the legal, logical, moral and ethical frames of
reference. War is the soldier, the soldier is war - ain't no other
way around it.

If you despise war, then you, by extension, cannot anoint the warrior
as somehow being honorable and above the fray - the guns don't fire by
themselves. It is a willful act to aim, squeeze, shoot and kill the
human you are aiming for. Note the kill - as in dead - murder most
foul if you will.

Tom, there have been any number of great leaders throughout history who
have stated they "despise" war (or negatives just as strong) and who
have held their soldiers in high esteem. The father of our country,
George Washington, hated war.

I understand that. And I agree. The soldier does a dirty job - the
job that nobody else wants to do.

However, you cannot make the leap from hating a war and loving the
very people who make that war possible. You are either for it or
against it - you can't be both.

I fully appreciate the reasons for stating that the war is illegal and
that it is not worth the effort and that we entered into it on dubious
evidence. I understand that.

However, you cannot separate the act of war and the very people who
make it possible.

If you can, then you need to revisit the Nuremberg Trials transcripts
in which the act of following legal orders does not, in and of itself,
indemnify the soldier from all guilt resulting from performing acts of
war.

As to George Washington, I'm fairly familiar with that War and I can't
think of a specific quote or phrasing that indicated that he hated war
and the acts of war. After all, the only reason he was placed in
command of the Continental Army was because he had a uniform and
Benedict Arnold didn't. :)

However, I'm always willing and able to admit that I'm wrong.

Later,

Tom

"HarryKrause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:
"HarryKrause" wrote in message
...

N.L. Eckert wrote:

Very well said, my feelings exactly....
==================================
Despite your feelings about the war please keep all our men and women
serving in our Armed Forces in your prayers ********* The war, along
with the people who deliberately lied us into it and are
now profiting from it is crap. The young men and women who do their duty
there are heroic. Each one
killed, wounded, or separated on multiple extended tours from home and
family is a national tragedy. Screw the war, but honor the troops. It is
possible to do both at once.
People who feel that we must despise the troops because they are forced
to serve in a bogus war as well as people who feel that we cannot
respect and value the troops without cheering for the war itself are all
wrong.



And a pox on all of those who are making a monetary profit off this war.



Does that include the businesses which are able to turn profits only
because oil hasn't hit $100/barrel?


Are you referring to the price Bush and the neocons hope their actions
will lead to?


I'm referring to the price that oil would climb to if we never went into
Iraq, withdrew from Saudi Arabia, and let bin Laden overthrow the Saudi
royals and control all of the oil in the Middle East.

wrote in message
oups.com...


*JimH* wrote:

I find the fact the you ruined a nice thread pathetic.

You're just mad because Chuck saw right through you. Being proud of
someone is one thing, but I'll bet you wouldn't have posted those same
exact words if he was in the service under a democratic president. So,
YOU made it a political thread.


You are an idiot Kevin, pure and simple.

On Mon, 20 Jun 2005 13:07:23 -0400, HarryKrause
wrote:

Shortwave Sportfishing wrote:


Tom, there have been any number of great leaders throughout history who
have stated they "despise" war (or negatives just as strong) and who
have held their soldiers in high esteem. The father of our country,
George Washington, hated war.


I understand that. And I agree. The soldier does a dirty job - the
job that nobody else wants to do.

However, you cannot make the leap from hating a war and loving the
very people who make that war possible. You are either for it or
against it - you can't be both.


Why not? I think the war in which we are now engaged is the height of
stupidity, but I have no negative feelings about the troops who were
ordered over there.



I fully appreciate the reasons for stating that the war is illegal and
that it is not worth the effort and that we entered into it on dubious
evidence. I understand that.

However, you cannot separate the act of war and the very people who
make it possible.

I differentiate between the people who made it possible (the political
leaders) and those who put their bodies in the way of bullets.

You can't - it's not a logical position - without soldiers, you can't
have a war. It's as simple as that.

If I see a really ugly office building going up, I don't blame the
workmen (assuming the quality of work is decent). I blame the architect.

It's not analogous by any stretch of imagination.

Besides, if you have an ugly building, the architect was only doing
what the owner wanted done. Shoot the owner. :)

If you can, then you need to revisit the Nuremberg Trials transcripts
in which the act of following legal orders does not, in and of itself,
indemnify the soldier from all guilt resulting from performing acts of
war.

That's really not relevant to my position.

Of course it is. If you regard the leaders who made the war as
responsible for creating an fraudulent environment leading and
creating the war, then the war is not honorable or legal. The
political leaders gave the orders for the soldiers to do what they do
- you cannot indemnify the soldier from the very acts that make the
war the war. Even since Nuremberg, the excuse of "only following
orders", stated by Marshall Alfred Jodl (who lead a very interesting
military career being basically opposed to Hitler the entire war, but
managing to survive anyway but hanged not because he did anything
dastardly, but because of his position) is considered, in an of itself
as inexcusable.

As to George Washington, I'm fairly familiar with that War and I can't
think of a specific quote or phrasing that indicated that he hated war
and the acts of war. After all, the only reason he was placed in
command of the Continental Army was because he had a uniform and
Benedict Arnold didn't. :)

However, I'm always willing and able to admit that I'm wrong.

I'll look around for something from Washington relating to his disdain
for war.

Good enough.

Later,

Tom

You might think JimH is stupid, but you do have to agree Kevin is dumb as
dirt.


"HarryKrause" wrote in message
...
*JimH* wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...


*JimH* wrote:

I find the fact the you ruined a nice thread pathetic.

You're just mad because Chuck saw right through you. Being proud of
someone is one thing, but I'll bet you wouldn't have posted those same
exact words if he was in the service under a democratic president. So,
YOU made it a political thread.



You are an idiot Kevin, pure and simple.


Broken record Hertvik, back again to demonstrate his stupidity.

--
If it is Bad for Bush,
It is Good for the United States.

On 20 Jun 2005 07:05:00 -0700, wrote:



John H wrote:

Better stick with dick comparisons and high speed boat trips on 'your' boat,
Harry.
--
John H


John, is this dick stuff going to be like the last time you went off of
the deep end and called Harry a "****ing liar" several hundred times?

Don't know. Ask the guy who started it. Are you able to do so?
--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

John H wrote:
On 20 Jun 2005 07:05:00 -0700, wrote:



John H wrote:

Better stick with dick comparisons and high speed boat trips on 'your' boat,
Harry.
--
John H


John, is this dick stuff going to be like the last time you went off of
the deep end and called Harry a "****ing liar" several hundred times?

Don't know. Ask the guy who started it. Are you able to do so?
--
John H

Yes, that's why I'm asking you. But, as usual, you just don't get
it.....
Now, there are several threads just this morning where you've stated to
Harry something about dick comparisons. YOU, John. YOU..... So, I take
it that you've gone over the edge again and will do the same as you did
when you called Harry a "****ing liar" over and over again. Now, just
out of curiousity who DID start calling Harry a "****ing liar" a few
hundred times?

NOYB wrote:

I'm referring to the price that oil would climb to if we never went into
Iraq, withdrew from Saudi Arabia, and let bin Laden overthrow the Saudi
royals and control all of the oil in the Middle East.

Which would be pure speculation. You don't have any idea whether or not
oil prices would have climbed or not if we didn't go to Iraq. You are
also doing nothing but speculating whether bin Laden would have
overthrown the Saudis and whether he'd have been successful. What did
going to Iraq have to do with bin Laden? Where IS he?

*JimH* wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...


*JimH* wrote:

I find the fact the you ruined a nice thread pathetic.

You're just mad because Chuck saw right through you. Being proud of
someone is one thing, but I'll bet you wouldn't have posted those same
exact words if he was in the service under a democratic president. So,
YOU made it a political thread.


You are an idiot Kevin, pure and simple.

No, YOU are an idiot, for thinking I'm Kevin. I'm actually quite
surprised that you can't figure that out! And I'll still bet you
wouldn't have posted your post had a democratic president been in
office right now. And I also see that you don't keep your word. What
happened to your vow not to insult and call people names? What happened
to your vow to not post off topic? Quite childish, you are!

" wrote in message
...
You might think JimH is stupid, but you do have to agree Kevin is dumb as
dirt.


"HarryKrause" wrote in message
...
*JimH* wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...


*JimH* wrote:

I find the fact the you ruined a nice thread pathetic.

You're just mad because Chuck saw right through you. Being proud of
someone is one thing, but I'll bet you wouldn't have posted those same
exact words if he was in the service under a democratic president. So,
YOU made it a political thread.



You are an idiot Kevin, pure and simple.


Broken record Hert, back again to demonstrate his stupidity.

--
If it is Bad for Bush,
It is Good for the United States.



Krause is upset because I have shown his lies to this NG and have outed him
as being an internet stalker.

"HarryKrause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:
"HarryKrause" wrote in message
...

NOYB wrote:

"HarryKrause" wrote in message
...


N.L. Eckert wrote:


Very well said, my feelings exactly....
==================================
Despite your feelings about the war please keep all our men and women
serving in our Armed Forces in your prayers ********* The war, along
with the people who deliberately lied us into it and are
now profiting from it is crap. The young men and women who do their
duty there are heroic. Each one
killed, wounded, or separated on multiple extended tours from home and
family is a national tragedy. Screw the war, but honor the troops. It
is possible to do both at once.
People who feel that we must despise the troops because they are
forced
to serve in a bogus war as well as people who feel that we cannot
respect and value the troops without cheering for the war itself are
all
wrong.



And a pox on all of those who are making a monetary profit off this
war.



Does that include the businesses which are able to turn profits only
because oil hasn't hit $100/barrel?


Are you referring to the price Bush and the neocons hope their actions
will lead to?



I'm referring to the price that oil would climb to if we never went into
Iraq, withdrew from Saudi Arabia, and let bin Laden overthrow the Saudi
royals and control all of the oil in the Middle East.


Climb? It would be lower.

Really? If bin Laden controlled the Middle East oil, it would lower oil
prices?

I'm fascinated to hear your reasoning.

On Mon, 20 Jun 2005 17:12:05 -0400, HarryKrause wrote:

*JimH* wrote:
" wrote in message
...

You might think JimH is stupid, but you do have to agree Kevin is dumb as
dirt.


"HarryKrause" wrote in message
...

*JimH* wrote:

wrote in message
glegroups.com...


*JimH* wrote:


I find the fact the you ruined a nice thread pathetic.

You're just mad because Chuck saw right through you. Being proud of
someone is one thing, but I'll bet you wouldn't have posted those same
exact words if he was in the service under a democratic president. So,
YOU made it a political thread.



You are an idiot Kevin, pure and simple.


Broken record Hert, back again to demonstrate his stupidity.

--
If it is Bad for Bush,
It is Good for the United States.



Krause is upset because I have shown his lies to this NG and have outed him
as being an internet stalker.




A. I'm not upset.
B. You're an ass.
C. More Hertvik paranoid bullship.

Sure am glad you had nothing to say about the rest of his comment, Harry!
--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."