Pres Bush Left His Unit to Avoid a Drug Test! A Repub 'Whitewater' is Brewing!
|
|
Thread rating:  |
Jonathan - 16 Sep 2004 02:02 GMT Or so it seems, this is becoming fun!
From The Nation, September 27, 2004 issue: http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml%3Fi=20040927&s=baker
Why Bush Left Texas by Russ Baker
Growing evidence suggests that George W. Bush abruptly left his Texas Air National Guard unit in 1972 for substantive reasons pertaining to his inability to continue piloting a fighter jet.
A months-long investigation, which includes examination of hundreds of government-released documents, interviews with former Guard members and officials, military experts and Bush associates, points toward the conclusion that Bush's personal behavior was causing alarm among his superior officers and would ultimately lead to his fleeing the state to avoid a physical exam he might have had difficulty passing.
His failure to complete a physical exam became the official reason for his subsequent suspension from flying status.
This central issue, whether Bush did or did not complete his duty--and if not, why--has in recent days been obscured by a raging sideshow: a debate over the accuracy of documents aired on CBS's 60 Minutes.
Last week CBS News reported on newly unearthed memos purportedly prepared by Bush's now-deceased commanding officer.
In those documents, the officer, Lieut. Col. Jerry Killian, appeared to be establishing for the record events occurring at the time Bush abruptly left his Texas Air National Guard unit in May 1972.
Among these: that Bush had failed to meet unspecified Guard standards and refused a direct order to take a physical exam, and that pressure was being applied on Killian and his superiors to whitewash whatever troubling circumstances Bush was in.
Questions have been raised about the authenticity of those memos, but the criticism of them appears at this time speculative and inconclusive, while their substance is consistent with a growing body of documentation and analysis.
If it is demonstrated that profound behavioral problems marred Bush's wartime performance and even cut short his service, it could seriously challenge Bush's essential appeal as a military steward and guardian of societal values.
It could also explain the incomplete, contradictory and shifting explanations provided by the Bush camp for the President's striking invisibility from the military during the final two years of his six-year military obligation.
And it would explain the savagery and rapidity of the attack on the CBS documents.
In 1972 Bush's unit activities underwent a change that could point to a degradation of his ability to fly a fighter jet.
Last week, in response to a lawsuit, the White House released to the Associated Press Bush's flight logs, which show that he abruptly shifted his emphasis in February and March 1972 from his assigned F-102A fighter jet to a two-seat T-33 training jet, from which he had graduated several years earlier, and was put back onto a flight simulator.
The logs also show that on two occasions he required multiple attempts to land a one-seat fighter and a fighter simulator.
This after Bush had already logged more than 200 hours in the one-seat F-102A.
Military experts say that his new, apparently downgraded and accompanied training mode, which included Bush's sometimes moving into the co-pilot's seat, can, in theory, be explained a variety of ways.
He could, for example, have been training for a new position that might involve carrying student pilots.
But the reality is that Bush himself has never mentioned this chapter in his life, nor has he provided a credible explanation.
In addition, Bush's highly detailed Officer Effectiveness Reports make no mention of this rather dramatic change.
A White House spokesman explained to AP that the heavy training in this more elementary capacity came at a time when Bush was trying to generate more hours in anticipation of a six-month leave to work on a political campaign.
But, in fact, this scenario is implausible.
For one thing, Guard regulations did not permit him to log additional hours in that manner as a substitute for missing six months of duty later on.
As significantly, there is no sign that Bush even considered going to work on that campaign until shortly before he departed--nor that campaign officials had any inkling at all that Bush might join them in several months' time.
Bush told his commanding officers that he was going to Alabama for an opportunity with a political campaign.
(His Texas Air National Guard supervisors--presumably relying on what Bush told them--would write in a report the following year, "A civilian occupation made it necessary for him to move to Montgomery, Alabama.")
But the timing of Bush's decision to leave and his departure--about the same time that he failed to take a mandatory annual physical exam--indicate that the two may have been related.
Campaign staff members say they knew nothing of Bush's interest in participating until days before he arrived in Montgomery.
Indeed, not one of numerous Bush friends from those days even recalls Bush talking about going to Alabama at any point before he took off.
Bush's behavior in Alabama suggests that he viewed Alabama not as an important career opportunity but as a kind of necessary evil.
Although his role in the campaign has been represented as substantial (in some newspaper accounts, he has been described as the assistant campaign manager), numerous campaign staffers say Bush's role was negligible, low level and that he routinely arrived at the campaign offices in the afternoon hours, bragging of drinking feats from the night before.
According to friends of his, he kept his Houston apartment during this period and, based on their recollections, may have been coming back into town repeatedly during the time he was supposedly working full-time on the Alabama campaign.
Absences from the campaign have been explained as due to his responsibilities to travel to the further reaches of Alabama, but several staffers told me that organizing those counties was not Bush's de facto responsibility.
Even more significantly, in a July interview, Linda Allison, the widow of Jimmy Allison, the Alabama campaign manager and a close friend of Bush's father, revealed to me for the first time that Bush had come to Alabama not because the job had appeal or because his presence was required but because he needed to get out of Texas.
"Well, you have to know Georgie," Allison said.
"He really was a totally irresponsible person. Big George [George H.W. Bush] called Jimmy, and said, he's killing us in Houston, take him down there and let him work on that campaign.... The tenor of that was, Georgie is in and out of trouble seven days a week down here, and would you take him up there with you."
Allison said that the younger Bush's drinking problem was apparent.
She also said that her husband, a circumspect man who did not gossip and held his cards closely, indicated to her that some use of drugs was involved.
"I had the impression that he knew that Georgie was using pot, certainly, and perhaps cocaine," she said.
Now-prominent, established Texas figures in the military, arts, business and political worlds, some of them Republicans and Bush supporters, talk about Bush's alleged use of marijuana and cocaine based on what they say they have heard from trusted friends.
One middle-aged woman whose general veracity could be confirmed told me that she met Bush in 1968 at Hemisphere 68, a fair in San Antonio, at which he tried to pick her up and offered her a white powder he was inhaling.
She was then a teenager; Bush would have just graduated from Yale and have been starting the National Guard then.
"He was getting really aggressive with me," she said.
"I told him I'd call a policeman, and he laughed, and asked who would believe me."
(Although cocaine was not a widespread phenomenon until the 1970s, US authorities were struggling more than a decade earlier to stanch the flow from Latin America; in 1967 border seizures amounted to twenty-six pounds.)
Bush himself has publicly admitted to being somewhat wild in his younger years, without offering any details.
He has not explicitly denied charges of drug use; generally he has hedged.
He has said that he could have passed the same security screening his father underwent upon his inauguration in 1989, which certifies no illegal drug use during the fifteen preceding years.
In other words, George W. Bush seemed to be saying that if he had used drugs, that was before 1974 or during the period in which he left his Guard unit.
The family that rented Bush a house in Montgomery, Alabama, during that period told me that Bush did extensive, inexplicable damage to their property, including smashing a chandelier, and that they unsuccessfully billed him twice for the damage--which amounted to approximately $900, a considerable sum in 1972.
Two unconnected close friends and acquaintances of a well-known Montgomery socialite, now deceased, told me that the socialite in question told them that he and Bush had been partying that evening at the Montgomery Country Club, combining drinking with use of illicit drugs, and that Bush, complaining about the brightness, had climbed on a table and smashed the chandelier when the duo stopped at his home briefly so Bush could change clothes before they headed out again.
It is notable that in 1972, the military was in the process of introducing widespread drug testing as part of the annual physical exams that pilots would undergo.
For years, military buffs and retired officers have speculated about the real reasons that Bush left his unit two years before his flying obligation was up.
Bush and his staff have muddied the issue by not providing a clear, comprehensive and consistent explanation of his departure from the unit.
And, peculiarly, the President has not made himself available to describe in detail what did take place at that time.
Instead, the White House has adopted a policy of offering obscure explanations by officials who clearly do not know the specifics of what went on, and the periodic release of large numbers of confusing or inconclusive documents--particularly at the start of weekends and holiday periods, when attention is elsewhere.
In addition, the Bush camp has offered over the past few years a shifting panoply of explanations that subsequently failed to pass muster.
One was that Bush had stopped flying his F-102A jet because it was being phased out (the plane continued to be used for at least another year).
Another explanation was that he failed to take his physical exam in 1972 because his family doctor was unavailable.
(Guard regulations require that physicals be conducted by doctors on the base, and would have been easily arranged either on a base in Texas or, after he left the state, in Alabama.)
One of the difficulties in getting to the truth about what really took place during this period is the frequently expressed fear of retribution from the Bush organization.
Many sources refuse to speak on the record, or even to have their knowledge communicated publicly in any way.
One source who did publicly evince doubts about Bush's activities in 1972 was Dean Roome, who flew formations often with Bush and was his roommate for a time.
"You wonder if you know who George Bush is," Roome told USA Today in a little-appreciated interview back in 2002.
"I think he digressed after awhile," he said.
"In the first half, he was gung-ho. Where George failed was to fulfill his obligation as a pilot. It was an irrational time in his life."
Yet in subsequent years, Roome has revised his comments to a firm insistence that nothing out of the ordinary took place at that time, and after one interview he e-mailed me material raising questions about John Kerry's military career.
Roome, who operates a curio shop in a Texas hamlet, told me that Bush aides, including communications adviser Karen Hughes, and even the President himself stay in touch with him.
Several Bush associates from that period say that the Bush camp has argued strenuously about the importance of sources backing the President up on his military service, citing patriotism, personal loyalty and even the claim that he lacks friends in Washington and must count on those from early in his life.
In 1971 Bush took his annual physical exam in May.
It's reasonable to conclude that he would also take his 1972 physical in the same month.
Yet according to official Guard documents, Bush "cleared the base" on May 15 without doing so.
Fellow Guard members uniformly agree that Bush should and could have easily taken the exam with unit doctors at Ellington Air Force Base before leaving town.
(It is interesting to note that if the Killian memos released by CBS do hold up, one of them, dated May 4, 1972, orders Bush to report for his physical by May 14--one day before he took off.)
Bush has indicated that he departed from Ellington Air Force Base and his Guard unit because he had been offered an important employment opportunity with a political campaign in Alabama.
The overwhelming evidence suggests, however, that the Alabama campaign was a convenient excuse for Bush to rapidly exit stage left from a Guard unit that found him and his behavior a growing problem.
If that's not the case, now would be an excellent time for a President famed for his superlative memory to sit down and explain what really happened in that period.
___________________________________________________
The question remains; Where was Georgie and why was he where he was?
Harry
Rand Simberg - 16 Sep 2004 02:09 GMT On Wed, 15 Sep 2004 21:02:02 -0400, in a place far, far away, "Jonathan" <jon@write.com> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:
>Or so it seems, this is becoming fun! I suppose, if one likes to rely on forged documents as evidence.
Is there some slight hook on which one could hang relevance to space policy?
Jonathan - 16 Sep 2004 02:12 GMT > On Wed, 15 Sep 2004 21:02:02 -0400, in a place far, far away, > "Jonathan" <jon@write.com> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > I suppose, if one likes to rely on forged documents as evidence. Even if the documents are forged, the ...next...question becomes "what really happened"! No one cared about a real estate deal from decades ago either, but whether it was /lied/ about.
Pres Bush has dodged these questions about his service from day one. This whole thing is beginning to have a certain smell about it. Smells like....SCANDAL!
> Is there some slight hook on which one could hang relevance to space > policy? Politics are on-topic everywhere.
Jonathan
s
Scott Lowther - 16 Sep 2004 02:37 GMT > Pres Bush has dodged these questions about his service from > day one. This whole thing is beginning to have a certain smell > about it. Smells like....SCANDAL! Only to morons. Had Bush gone AWOL, he would have been arrested.
Besides, even if Bush *DID* skip a physical... contrast that to Kerry's admitted war atrocities. Shooting unarmed wounded teenagers in the back, burning down villages, etc. I'll take a President who didn't want to have a doctor poke him in the a.s, over Kerry *anyday*.
Jonathan - 16 Sep 2004 03:48 GMT > > Pres Bush has dodged these questions about his service from > > day one. This whole thing is beginning to have a certain smell [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Besides, even if Bush *DID* skip a physical... contrast that to Kerry's > admitted war atrocities. You're talking about the Silver Star, two Bronze Stars and I think three purple hearts....right?
> Shooting unarmed wounded teenagers in the back, > burning down villages, etc. I'll take a President who didn't want to have > a doctor poke him in the a.s, over Kerry *anyday*. Be a shame if your job were outsourced!
Jonathan
s
Rand Simberg - 16 Sep 2004 04:06 GMT On Wed, 15 Sep 2004 22:48:06 -0400, in a place far, far away, "Jonathan" <jon@write.com> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:
>> Besides, even if Bush *DID* skip a physical... contrast that to Kerry's >> admitted war atrocities. > >You're talking about the Silver Star, two Bronze Stars and I think >three purple hearts....right? No, he's talking about admitted war atrocities.
[From "Band of Brothers"]
"I wasn't a hero, but I served with heroes."
[From John F. Kerry]
"I was a hero, but I served with war criminals, except when I was a war criminal."
Actually, that would be one Silver Star (now in question, due to new-found documents) one Bronze Star (in dispute, as a result of conflictin eyewitness reports) and three Purple Hearts (one of which the Kerry campaign has already admitted may have been a result of a self-inflicted injury).
Not that it's relevant to his admission, under oath, of war crimes, of course. Do you always have this problem with logic and non-sequiturs?
ohbrother - 17 Sep 2004 11:43 GMT > > > Pres Bush has dodged these questions about his service from > > > day one. This whole thing is beginning to have a certain smell [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > You're talking about the Silver Star, two Bronze Stars and I think > three purple hearts....right? Two unearned purple hearts (self inflicted), a silver star with three citations and which was awarded for shooting a fleeing teenage VC in the back.
www.swiftvets.com, two hundred of his fellow swift boaters give the skinny on him.
> > Shooting unarmed wounded teenagers in the back, > > burning down villages, etc. I'll take a President who didn't want to have > > a doctor poke him in the a.s, over Kerry *anyday*. > > Be a shame if your job were outsourced! He probably doesn't work for Heinz so the chances are better it won't
O'
> Jonathan > > s Eric Chomko - 16 Sep 2004 18:08 GMT : > Pres Bush has dodged these questions about his service from : > day one. This whole thing is beginning to have a certain smell : > about it. Smells like....SCANDAL!
: Only to morons. Had Bush gone AWOL, he would have been arrested. And then let off due to his dad's connections.
: Besides, even if Bush *DID* skip a physical... contrast that to Kerry's : admitted war atrocities. Shooting unarmed wounded teenagers in the back, : burning down villages, etc. I'll take a President who didn't want to have : a doctor poke him in the a.s, over Kerry *anyday*. Kerry told the truth. If he is a war criminal, then why didn't HE get arrested?
Eric
Rand Simberg - 16 Sep 2004 18:17 GMT On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 17:08:16 +0000 (UTC), in a place far, far away, echomko_at_@polaris.umuc.edu (Eric Chomko) made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:
>: Besides, even if Bush *DID* skip a physical... contrast that to Kerry's >: admitted war atrocities. Shooting unarmed wounded teenagers in the back, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >Kerry told the truth. If he is a war criminal, then why didn't HE get >arrested? Because no one believed him?
Eric Chomko - 17 Sep 2004 15:11 GMT : On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 17:08:16 +0000 (UTC), in a place far, far away, : echomko_at_@polaris.umuc.edu (Eric Chomko) made the phosphor on my : monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:
: >: Besides, even if Bush *DID* skip a physical... contrast that to Kerry's : >: admitted war atrocities. Shooting unarmed wounded teenagers in the back, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] : >Kerry told the truth. If he is a war criminal, then why didn't HE get : >arrested?
: Because no one believed him? Then why all the traitor stuff and emotion?
Rand Simberg - 17 Sep 2004 15:15 GMT On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 14:11:56 +0000 (UTC), in a place far, far away, echomko_at_@polaris.umuc.edu (Eric Chomko) made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:
>: >Kerry told the truth. If he is a war criminal, then why didn't HE get >: >arrested? > >: Because no one believed him? > >Then why all the traitor stuff and emotion? Because the vets didn't (and still don't) like being lied about before Congress. Particularly the ones who were being tortured at the time to get them to admit to being what Kerry was calling them willingly.
Eric Chomko - 17 Sep 2004 21:01 GMT : On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 14:11:56 +0000 (UTC), in a place far, far away, : echomko_at_@polaris.umuc.edu (Eric Chomko) made the phosphor on my : monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:
: >: >Kerry told the truth. If he is a war criminal, then why didn't HE get : >: >arrested? : > : >: Because no one believed him? : > : >Then why all the traitor stuff and emotion?
: Because the vets didn't (and still don't) like being lied about before : Congress. Particularly the ones who were being tortured at the time : to get them to admit to being what Kerry was calling them willingly. Ironic that McCain was at the Hanoi Hilton yet he doesn't claim that Kerry is a traitor. That only comes from the right-wing knuckleheads that actually believe that the US can do no wrong and get a pass on everything because God is on our side. And it is THOSE people you choose to believe. You might stop trying to make Kerry out to be Jane Fonda as it makes your partisanship show.
Eric
Rand Simberg - 17 Sep 2004 21:08 GMT On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 20:01:35 +0000 (UTC), in a place far, far away, echomko_at_@polaris.umuc.edu (Eric Chomko) made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:
>: >Then why all the traitor stuff and emotion? > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >Ironic that McCain was at the Hanoi Hilton yet he doesn't claim that Kerry >is a traitor. So? He's entitled to his opinion, too.
>That only comes from the right-wing knuckleheads that >actually believe that the US can do no wrong and get a pass on everything >because God is on our side. And it is THOSE people you choose to believe. This isn't about who I believe. I was simply trying to answer your question. That's what I get for being polite with you, I guess.
>You might stop trying to make Kerry out to be Jane Fonda as it makes your >partisanship show. I'm not making him out to be anything. You asked why the Vets are angry. I explained.
Eric Chomko - 18 Sep 2004 16:52 GMT : On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 20:01:35 +0000 (UTC), in a place far, far away, : echomko_at_@polaris.umuc.edu (Eric Chomko) made the phosphor on my : monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:
: >: >Then why all the traitor stuff and emotion? : > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] : >Ironic that McCain was at the Hanoi Hilton yet he doesn't claim that Kerry : >is a traitor.
: So? He's entitled to his opinion, too. Right, even though it differs stronly from the Swiftboat people.
: >That only comes from the right-wing knuckleheads that : >actually believe that the US can do no wrong and get a pass on everything : >because God is on our side. And it is THOSE people you choose to believe.
: This isn't about who I believe. I was simply trying to answer your : question. That's what I get for being polite with you, I guess. Polite? You wouldn't know polite if it bit you on the a.s!
: >You might stop trying to make Kerry out to be Jane Fonda as it makes your : >partisanship show.
: I'm not making him out to be anything. You asked why the Vets are : angry. I explained. So they simply told the truth and have no agenda? You like being paid by pro-Bush people to state the "opinion" of Kerry?
I told you about Regnery Publishing (O'Neill's anti-Kerry book). Have you looked into other political books that they have published? They are more right-wing than the right's claim that that media is leftist. Much!
Eric
Rand Simberg - 18 Sep 2004 17:00 GMT On Sat, 18 Sep 2004 15:52:45 +0000 (UTC), in a place far, far away, echomko_at_@polaris.umuc.edu (Eric Chomko) made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:
>: >You might stop trying to make Kerry out to be Jane Fonda as it makes your >: >partisanship show. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >So they simply told the truth and have no agenda? Of course they have an agenda. They don't want to see John Kerry, a man who they think betrayed them and their country, as Commander-in-Chief. That doesn't mean that they're not telling the truth. How many times do I have to remind you about the logic thing?
>You like being paid by pro-Bush people to state the "opinion" of Kerry? I wish. Have you been stealing my checks?
Eric Chomko - 18 Sep 2004 17:39 GMT : On Sat, 18 Sep 2004 15:52:45 +0000 (UTC), in a place far, far away, : echomko_at_@polaris.umuc.edu (Eric Chomko) made the phosphor on my : monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:
: >: >You might stop trying to make Kerry out to be Jane Fonda as it makes your : >: >partisanship show. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] : > : >So they simply told the truth and have no agenda?
: Of course they have an agenda. They don't want to see John Kerry, a : man who they think betrayed them and their country, as : Commander-in-Chief. That doesn't mean that they're not telling the : truth. How many times do I have to remind you about the logic thing? Wait, answer this. WOuld there feeling of beytrayal be strong enough that they would go so far as to lie in order to keep Kerry out of the WHite House? This is a question to you about how far you think that the Swiftboat people would go. Do not avoid answering with some rhetoric about logic.
: >You like being paid by pro-Bush people to state the "opinion" of Kerry?
: I wish. Have you been stealing my checks? You obviously have inherited enough money to survive to act as a mouthpiece and cheerleader for a non-existent space tourism industry. Must be nice.
Eric
Rand Simberg - 18 Sep 2004 18:16 GMT On Sat, 18 Sep 2004 16:39:41 +0000 (UTC), in a place far, far away, echomko_at_@polaris.umuc.edu (Eric Chomko) made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:
>: >So they simply told the truth and have no agenda? > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >they would go so far as to lie in order to keep Kerry out of the WHite >House? In some rare cases, perhaps. I've seen no evidence of it so far.
Eric Chomko - 20 Sep 2004 17:45 GMT : On Sat, 18 Sep 2004 16:39:41 +0000 (UTC), in a place far, far away, : echomko_at_@polaris.umuc.edu (Eric Chomko) made the phosphor on my : monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:
: >: >So they simply told the truth and have no agenda? : > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] : >they would go so far as to lie in order to keep Kerry out of the WHite : >House?
: In some rare cases, perhaps. I've seen no evidence of it so far. The actual claims from vets that differ on the same incident from the official record isn't evidence?! You have read the actual records haven't you?
Eric
Rand Simberg - 22 Sep 2004 22:35 GMT On Mon, 20 Sep 2004 16:45:57 +0000 (UTC), in a place far, far away, echomko_at_@polaris.umuc.edu (Eric Chomko) made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:
>: >: >So they simply told the truth and have no agenda? >: > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >official record isn't evidence?! You have read the actual records haven't >you? Yes, some of which are based on Kerry's own after reports.
In any event, just because claims differ doesn't mean that people are lying. They may simply have different recollections, or different experiences or views of the same situation. For instance, Rassman spent much of his time underwater, so he wasn't necessarily the best witness to the Bronze Star event.
Eric Chomko - 23 Sep 2004 18:39 GMT : On Mon, 20 Sep 2004 16:45:57 +0000 (UTC), in a place far, far away, : echomko_at_@polaris.umuc.edu (Eric Chomko) made the phosphor on my : monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:
: >: >: >So they simply told the truth and have no agenda? : >: > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] : >official record isn't evidence?! You have read the actual records haven't : >you?
: Yes, some of which are based on Kerry's own after reports.
: In any event, just because claims differ doesn't mean that people are : lying. They may simply have different recollections, or different : experiences or views of the same situation. For instance, Rassman : spent much of his time underwater, so he wasn't necessarily the best : witness to the Bronze Star event. Yeah, Rassman was busy getting his life saved by Kerry, while Bush was killing Budweisers at the local bar in Texas.
Eric
Jonathan - 18 Sep 2004 02:27 GMT > On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 14:11:56 +0000 (UTC), in a place far, far away, > echomko_at_@polaris.umuc.edu (Eric Chomko) made the phosphor on my [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Because the vets didn't (and still don't) like being lied about before > Congress. Are you saying we didn't commit countless atrocities in Vietnam? You must be joking.
Just one example to enlighten your incredible ignorance of history. We carpet bombed Hanoi with B-52's. The anti-aircraft defenses were so good they had to bomb a ...major city...from 35,000 feet. Giving an accuracy of the bombs of approximately ONE MILE.
In the middle of a city...completely indiscriminate heavy bombing. That is the textbook definition of a war crime.
Jonathan
s
> Particularly the ones who were being tortured at the time > to get them to admit to being what Kerry was calling them willingly. ohbrother - 16 Sep 2004 20:26 GMT > : > Pres Bush has dodged these questions about his service from > : > day one. This whole thing is beginning to have a certain smell [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Kerry told the truth. If he is a war criminal, then why didn't HE get > arrested? Two words... Ted Kennedy.
Any more questions?
O'
> Eric Eric Chomko - 17 Sep 2004 15:16 GMT : > : > Pres Bush has dodged these questions about his service from : > : > day one. This whole thing is beginning to have a certain smell [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] : > : Two words... Ted Kennedy.
: Any more questions? How did Ted Kennedy get Kerry off? Ted had his Chappaquiddick adventure to deal with at around that same time. TK lost his bid for presidency at that time and was more a liability to Kerry than a savior.
You've answered nothing, so save your pedantic persona for another time.
Eric
: O' : > Eric Terrell Miller - 17 Sep 2004 00:22 GMT > > Pres Bush has dodged these questions about his service from > > day one. This whole thing is beginning to have a certain smell > > about it. Smells like....SCANDAL! > > Only to morons. Had Bush gone AWOL, he would have been arrested. y'know, I think the fact that a young fighter pilot (with excellent political connections, who was a member of a secret society at Yale that's notorious for recruiting for a clandestine agency later headed up by Dubya's old man) suddenly goes missing after years of seeming to enjoy flying...might be a sign of something other than a "scandal".
Air America, anyone?
 Signature Terrell Miller millerto@bellsouth.net
" A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many bad measures." -- Daniel Webster
Slide - 17 Sep 2004 17:11 GMT "Terrell Miller" <millerto@bellsouth.net> scribbled:
>> > Pres Bush has dodged these questions about his service from >> > day one. This whole thing is beginning to have a certain [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Air America, anyone? Does Dan Rather know about this?!!
Rand Simberg - 16 Sep 2004 02:43 GMT On Wed, 15 Sep 2004 21:12:08 -0400, in a place far, far away, "Jonathan" <jon@write.com> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:
>> On Wed, 15 Sep 2004 21:02:02 -0400, in a place far, far away, >> "Jonathan" <jon@write.com> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >Even if the documents are forged, the ...next...question becomes >"what really happened"! No, the next question is "Who forged the documents?"
I could create documents with Microsoft Word that proved that "Jonathan" is a child molester. Should the next question be "What really happened?!"
>No one cared about a real estate deal >from decades ago either, but whether it was /lied/ about. Well, since the only liars at this point seem to be at CBS News, until they provide some hint as to the provenance of the documents, I'm not sure what your point is.
Jonathan - 16 Sep 2004 03:44 GMT > On Wed, 15 Sep 2004 21:12:08 -0400, in a place far, far away, > "Jonathan" <jon@write.com> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > "Jonathan" is a child molester. Should the next question be "What > really happened?!" No, it shouldn't be. But it ....would be... the next question!
> >No one cared about a real estate deal > >from decades ago either, but whether it was /lied/ about. > > Well, since the only liars at this point seem to be at CBS News, until > they provide some hint as to the provenance of the documents, I'm not > sure what your point is. The point should be obvious. If the Nation story is an accurate reflection of the truth, Pres Bush cannot answer questions that need to be answered. A catch-22 that is the time-tested way to start a scandal. Bush cannot come out and say he left his unit because the military began drug testing for the first time.
Hmmm.....
CNN: "Mr President, if the new drug testing program drove you from your unit, does that mean you were flying jets while. stoned on ....cocaine, pot or alcohol???
And a dozen other questions like that.
Either he lies, covers-up or admits to a character flaw that goes to the heart of his campaign. Remember, his campaign is ALL about character, morality and strength.
His only choice is to hope it goes away by dodging. But the press feeds off such situations. Having such a scandal begin at this point in the campaign is a worst-case scenario.
The debates should be a blast.
Jonathan
s
Rand Simberg - 16 Sep 2004 03:58 GMT On Wed, 15 Sep 2004 22:44:53 -0400, in a place far, far away, "Jonathan" <jon@write.com> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:
>> >Even if the documents are forged, the ...next...question becomes >> >"what really happened"! [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >No, it shouldn't be. But it ....would be... the next question! Why? For me, the next question would be, is the evidence valid, or fabricated? Even in the case in which you were shown to be a diddler of little boys. That's just the kind of guy I am.
>> >No one cared about a real estate deal >> >from decades ago either, but whether it was /lied/ about. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >of the truth, Pres Bush cannot answer questions that need to be >answered. Why do they need to be answered? President Bush, unlike Senator Kerry, is not running on what happened over three decades ago. No one who's even slightly inclined to vote for him cares about this stuff, and those who aren't don't matter.
Only irrelevant loons think that this is a serious issue.
Jonathan - 16 Sep 2004 04:12 GMT > On Wed, 15 Sep 2004 22:44:53 -0400, in a place far, far away, > "Jonathan" <jon@write.com> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > > Only irrelevant loons think that this is a serious issue. Interesting, I think I said the same thing about Whitewater. But these scandals have a certain timeless quality.
"DOWN Time's quaint stream Without an oar, We are enforced to sail, Our Port-a secret Our Perchance-a gale. What Skipper would Incur the risk, What Buccaneer would ride, Without a surety from the wind Or schedule of the tide? "
By E Dickinson
s
Rand Simberg - 16 Sep 2004 04:26 GMT On Wed, 15 Sep 2004 23:12:57 -0400, in a place far, far away, "Jonathan" <jon@write.com> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:
>> Why do they need to be answered? President Bush, unlike Senator >> Kerry, is not running on what happened over three decades ago. No one [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >Interesting, I think I said the same thing about Whitewater. Whitewater involved criminal activity and fraud, and didn't occur during the President's youth, but when he was the governor of Arkansas.
Eric Chomko - 16 Sep 2004 18:05 GMT : On Wed, 15 Sep 2004 23:12:57 -0400, in a place far, far away, : "Jonathan" <jon@write.com> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in : such a way as to indicate that:
: >> Why do they need to be answered? President Bush, unlike Senator : >> Kerry, is not running on what happened over three decades ago. No one [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] : > : >Interesting, I think I said the same thing about Whitewater.
: Whitewater involved criminal activity and fraud, and didn't occur : during the President's youth, but when he was the governor of : Arkansas. Right and what did Starr and the GOP get? Lying about a BJ to a Grand Jury. Absolutely nothing related to Whitewater. Do you think that Bush should never have go through what Clinton did?
Eric
Rand Simberg - 16 Sep 2004 18:14 GMT On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 17:05:27 +0000 (UTC), in a place far, far away, echomko_at_@polaris.umuc.edu (Eric Chomko) made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:
>: >> Only irrelevant loons think that this is a serious issue. >: > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >Right and what did Starr and the GOP get? Lying about a BJ to a Grand >Jury. Absolutely nothing related to Whitewater. No, there was an extensive report by Mr. Ray, with a great deal of information about Whitewater, and evidence of wrongdoing. There just wasn't quite enough, in his judgement, to get a conviction.
>Do you think that Bush >should never have go through what Clinton did? I'll repeat it again, since you're apparently slow. Mr. Clinton was accused of felonies as the sitting governor, not a junior officer fighter pilot being accused of missing a physical. Sorry, Eric, but no one but loons like you care.
Eric Chomko - 17 Sep 2004 14:28 GMT : On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 17:05:27 +0000 (UTC), in a place far, far away, : echomko_at_@polaris.umuc.edu (Eric Chomko) made the phosphor on my : monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:
: >: >> Only irrelevant loons think that this is a serious issue. : >: > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] : >Right and what did Starr and the GOP get? Lying about a BJ to a Grand : >Jury. Absolutely nothing related to Whitewater.
: No, there was an extensive report by Mr. Ray, with a great deal of : information about Whitewater, and evidence of wrongdoing. There just : wasn't quite enough, in his judgement, to get a conviction. There was nothing WRT Whitewater. Pure attack politics that the GOP is famous for.
: >Do you think that Bush : >should never have go through what Clinton did?
: I'll repeat it again, since you're apparently slow. Mr. Clinton was : accused of felonies as the sitting governor, not a junior officer : fighter pilot being accused of missing a physical. Sorry, Eric, but : no one but loons like you care. I wasn't speaking about Bush's NG service per se. Your tunnel vision and ability to focus only on one thing is hindering you from seeing things objectively, again. I was speaking about right now while Bush is president!
Eric
Rand Simberg - 17 Sep 2004 14:52 GMT On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 13:28:01 +0000 (UTC), in a place far, far away, echomko_at_@polaris.umuc.edu (Eric Chomko) made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:
>: >: Whitewater involved criminal activity and fraud, and didn't occur >: >: during the President's youth, but when he was the governor of [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > >There was nothing WRT Whitewater. Much of the report was about Whitewater. You obviously didn't read it.
Brian Thorn - 16 Sep 2004 22:59 GMT >: Whitewater involved criminal activity and fraud, and didn't occur >: during the President's youth, but when he was the governor of >: Arkansas. > >Right and what did Starr and the GOP get? Lying about a BJ to a Grand >Jury. Absolutely nothing related to Whitewater. Well, at least the GOP didn't manufacture evidence once it was clear they were coming up empty-handed. Pity the DNC can't say the same thing now.
Brian
Eric Chomko - 17 Sep 2004 14:35 GMT : >: Whitewater involved criminal activity and fraud, and didn't occur : >: during the President's youth, but when he was the governor of : >: Arkansas. : > : >Right and what did Starr and the GOP get? Lying about a BJ to a Grand : >Jury. Absolutely nothing related to Whitewater.
: Well, at least the GOP didn't manufacture evidence once it was clear : they were coming up empty-handed. Pity the DNC can't say the same : thing now. So you're convinced the Bush records came from the DNC? Typical...
Eric
: Brian Brian Thorn - 18 Sep 2004 18:07 GMT >: Well, at least the GOP didn't manufacture evidence once it was clear >: they were coming up empty-handed. Pity the DNC can't say the same >: thing now. > >So you're convinced the Bush records came from the DNC? Typical... The simplest explanation is usually the correct one.
Brian
Tom McDonald - 19 Sep 2004 03:29 GMT >>: Well, at least the GOP didn't manufacture evidence once it was clear >>: they were coming up empty-handed. Pity the DNC can't say the same [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Brian The simplest is that someone with a grudge against Bush made stuff up (or relied on faulty memory).
Less simple is that the Repubs put it together as damage control to use to confuse the issue wrt the valid evidence about Bush's service (which evidence is more than memories; there are documents, some provided by the White House), and did so in such a way that the hoax would be discovered quickly.
Least simple is that Democrats fabricated it, somehow failing to think it through. If the Dems did it, it would be an extravagantly high-risk operation, and it beggers credulity to think they'd blow it so badly. They didn't need this story; the valid story is adequate to show Bush for what he was.
 Signature Tom McDonald
Rand Simberg - 19 Sep 2004 03:36 GMT On Sat, 18 Sep 2004 21:29:01 -0500, in a place far, far away, Tom McDonald <tmcdonald2672@nohormelcharter.net> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:
>> The simplest explanation is usually the correct one. >> >> Brian > > The simplest is that someone with a grudge against Bush made >stuff up (or relied on faulty memory). Yes, and found a willing accomplice at CBS.
> Less simple is that the Repubs put it together as damage >control to use to confuse the issue wrt the valid evidence about >Bush's service (which evidence is more than memories; there are >documents, some provided by the White House), and did so in such >a way that the hoax would be discovered quickly. And counted on the Dems and Dan Rather being so stupid as to not recognize them as obvious forgeries before running with them. Apparently this is more plausible now than it was ten days ago...
Eric Chomko - 20 Sep 2004 16:25 GMT : >: Well, at least the GOP didn't manufacture evidence once it was clear : >: they were coming up empty-handed. Pity the DNC can't say the same : >: thing now. : > : >So you're convinced the Bush records came from the DNC? Typical...
: The simplest explanation is usually the correct one. Occam's Razor. That is what the people state that believe that Lee Harvey Oswald, alone, killed President Kennedy. Do YOU believe the "magic bullet theory"? Sort of makes a mockery out of Occam's Razor doesn't it?
The point is at what level of detail do you want to go before you bail with "Occam's Razor"?
Eric
: Brian George William Herbert - 17 Sep 2004 06:52 GMT Note limimted followups.
>: Whitewater involved criminal activity and fraud, and didn't occur >: during the President's youth, but when he was the governor of >: Arkansas. > >Right and what did Starr and the GOP get? Lying about a BJ to a Grand >Jury. Absolutely nothing related to Whitewater. No, Eric. You're displaying selective memory.
15 people, many of whom were close friends of the Clintons as well as business partners, were convicted of felonies related to Whitewater.
Several people around the periphery of the scandal, though involved to some degree, were not charged as they were not provably close enough to be directly criminally responsible. This included both Bill and Hillary.
There was clearly a set of illegal conspiracies in the Whitewater affair, and the Clintons were clearly involved. Whether they were illegally involved or not remains a subject of much heated contention in some circles where the Clintons are either hated or loved. The only factual conclusion is that they were not charged. Fifteen other people were and were convicted.
-george william herbert gherbert@retro.com
Jonathan - 16 Sep 2004 23:58 GMT > On Wed, 15 Sep 2004 23:12:57 -0400, in a place far, far away, > "Jonathan" <jon@write.com> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > during the President's youth, but when he was the governor of > Arkansas. Whitewater was ...Hillary's mess. But I'm not making a judgment of character or the relevance of such secrets. Just the political repercussions I believe are coming.
This memo is beginning to look like a trap. If the repubs let it slide they lose, if they challenge it then.....every single detail surrounding Bush's service, his coworkers etc etc would be analyzed to the n'th detail to discredit the memo. The last thing Bush would want
It's a trap!
That's why I think this has legs.
Jonathan
s
Rand Simberg - 17 Sep 2004 00:27 GMT On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 18:58:27 -0400, in a place far, far away, "Jonathan" <jon@write.com> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:
>> >Interesting, I think I said the same thing about Whitewater. >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >Whitewater was ...Hillary's mess. Not completely. Even if it was, did we want a president whose wife was a criminal?
>This memo is beginning to look like a trap. If the repubs let it >slide they lose, if they challenge it then.....every single detail >surrounding Bush's service, his coworkers etc etc would >be analyzed to the n'th detail to discredit the memo. >The last thing Bush would want <laughing>
>It's a trap! > >That's why I think this has legs. It does indeed. Like a millipede. And it's destroying CBS and the Kerry campaign.
Eric Chomko - 17 Sep 2004 14:46 GMT : On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 18:58:27 -0400, in a place far, far away, : "Jonathan" <jon@write.com> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in : such a way as to indicate that:
: >> >Interesting, I think I said the same thing about Whitewater. : >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] : > : >Whitewater was ...Hillary's mess.
: Not completely. Even if it was, did we want a president whose wife : was a criminal? You mean like Laura Bush killing a former boyfriend in an auto accident?
: >This memo is beginning to look like a trap. If the repubs let it : >slide they lose, if they challenge it then.....every single detail : >surrounding Bush's service, his coworkers etc etc would : >be analyzed to the n'th detail to discredit the memo. : >The last thing Bush would want
: <laughing>
: >It's a trap! : > : >That's why I think this has legs.
: It does indeed. Like a millipede. And it's destroying CBS and the : Kerry campaign. Yeah, the campaign is over before the debates. My turn: LOL!
Eric
Rand Simberg - 17 Sep 2004 14:54 GMT On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 13:46:34 +0000 (UTC), in a place far, far away, echomko_at_@polaris.umuc.edu (Eric Chomko) made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:
>: >Whitewater was ...Hillary's mess. > >: Not completely. Even if it was, did we want a president whose wife >: was a criminal? > >You mean like Laura Bush killing a former boyfriend in an auto accident? Eric, ignoring just how classless this comment is, even for you, do you know the meaning of the word "accident"?
Eric Chomko - 17 Sep 2004 20:37 GMT : On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 13:46:34 +0000 (UTC), in a place far, far away, : echomko_at_@polaris.umuc.edu (Eric Chomko) made the phosphor on my : monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:
: >: >Whitewater was ...Hillary's mess. : > : >: Not completely. Even if it was, did we want a president whose wife : >: was a criminal? : > : >You mean like Laura Bush killing a former boyfriend in an auto accident?
: Eric, ignoring just how classless this comment is, even for you, do : you know the meaning of the word "accident"? Why was it never investigated? It was you that called Hillary Clinton a criminal.
Eric
Rand Simberg - 17 Sep 2004 20:56 GMT On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 19:37:39 +0000 (UTC), in a place far, far away, echomko_at_@polaris.umuc.edu (Eric Chomko) made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:
>: >: >Whitewater was ...Hillary's mess. >: > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >Why was it never investigated? Who says it wasn't?
<what a loon>
That's why they know it was an accident. Is there something that you know about it that no one else does?
>It was you that called Hillary Clinton a criminal. I didn't call her a criminal. I said that *if* she was, it would be bad thing to have her as First Lady.
I wish that some day you'd go out and learn to read. I've heard Fun With Phonics is very effective.
Eric Chomko - 18 Sep 2004 16:06 GMT : On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 19:37:39 +0000 (UTC), in a place far, far away, : echomko_at_@polaris.umuc.edu (Eric Chomko) made the phosphor on my : monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:
: >: >: >Whitewater was ...Hillary's mess. : >: > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] : > : >Why was it never investigated?
: Who says it wasn't?
: <what a loon> Do you have reference to even a traffic ticket in the case?
: That's why they know it was an accident. Is there something that you : know about it that no one else does? I know that it never went to court and as far as I know no traffic ticket was issued. I've never even seen the traffic report about it. In short, like maybe of W's issues, there is not a single piece of documentation about the incident.
: >It was you that called Hillary Clinton a criminal.
: I didn't call her a criminal. I said that *if* she was, it would be : bad thing to have her as First Lady. Yeah, no sh.t...
: I wish that some day you'd go out and learn to read. I've heard Fun : With Phonics is very effective. Well given that you possess both a BS and MS but have the intellect of a high school student, I think it is YOU that should go back an EARN your degrees rather than attempt to lecture others.
Eric
Rand Simberg - 18 Sep 2004 16:22 GMT On Sat, 18 Sep 2004 15:06:17 +0000 (UTC), in a place far, far away, echomko_at_@polaris.umuc.edu (Eric Chomko) made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:
>: >Why was it never investigated? > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >Do you have reference to even a traffic ticket in the case? No. I have little interest in the case.
>: That's why they know it was an accident. Is there something that you >: know about it that no one else does? > >I know that it never went to court and as far as I know no traffic ticket >was issued. I hate to break this to you, Eric, but sometimes accidents happen without traffic tickets, or even an *infringement of the law*.
Eric Chomko - 20 Sep 2004 17:40 GMT : On Sat, 18 Sep 2004 15:06:17 +0000 (UTC), in a place far, far away, : echomko_at_@polaris.umuc.edu (Eric Chomko) made the phosphor on my : monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:
: >: >Why was it never investigated? : > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] : > : >Do you have reference to even a traffic ticket in the case?
: No. I have little interest in the case.
: >: That's why they know it was an accident. Is there something that you : >: know about it that no one else does? : > : >I know that it never went to court and as far as I know no traffic ticket : >was issued.
: I hate to break this to you, Eric, but sometimes accidents happen : without traffic tickets, or even an *infringement of the law*. Even when a death has occurred?
Eric
Rand Simberg - 22 Sep 2004 22:22 GMT On Mon, 20 Sep 2004 16:40:35 +0000 (UTC), in a place far, far away, echomko_at_@polaris.umuc.edu (Eric Chomko) made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:
>: On Sat, 18 Sep 2004 15:06:17 +0000 (UTC), in a place far, far away, >: echomko_at_@polaris.umuc.edu (Eric Chomko) made the phosphor on my [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > >Even when a death has occurred? Yes, even when a death has occurred.
Eric Chomko - 16 Sep 2004 18:03 GMT : On Wed, 15 Sep 2004 22:44:53 -0400, in a place far, far away, : "Jonathan" <jon@write.com> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in : such a way as to indicate that:
: >> >Even if the documents are forged, the ...next...question becomes : >> >"what really happened"! [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] : > : >No, it shouldn't be. But it ....would be... the next question!
: Why? For me, the next question would be, is the evidence valid, or : fabricated? Even in the case in which you were shown to be a diddler : of little boys. That's just the kind of guy I am. Diddler of little boys? Geez, your last two sentences run too close toegther for you to actually brag in the last sentence. But I guess that is the kind of guy you are.
: >> >No one cared about a real estate deal : >> >from decades ago either, but whether it was /lied/ about. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] : >of the truth, Pres Bush cannot answer questions that need to be : >answered.
: Why do they need to be answered? President Bush, unlike Senator : Kerry, is not running on what happened over three decades ago. Bullshit! Are you claiming Kerry has only Vietnam to run on? Do you realize that he has been in the Senate Intelligence Committee for years and wrote the Kerry Report? Bush, both of them and the GOP WRT to Reagan, have MUCH to fear with a Kerry presidency. But exposing "cowboy" corruption doesn't rate on your scale does it, Rand? Better leave those rocks unturned.
: No one : who's even slightly inclined to vote for him cares about this stuff, : and those who aren't don't matter.
: Only irrelevant loons think that this is a serious issue. Well explain the Swiftboat people against Kerry then? Are they the loons you're talking about?
Eric
Rand Simberg - 16 Sep 2004 18:16 GMT On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 17:03:28 +0000 (UTC), in a place far, far away, echomko_at_@polaris.umuc.edu (Eric Chomko) made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:
>: >The point should be obvious. If the Nation story is an accurate reflection >: >of the truth, Pres Bush cannot answer questions that need to be [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >Bullshit! Are you claiming Kerry has only Vietnam to run on? No. I'm claiming that he has made it the centerpiece of his campaign, particularly in the convention.
>: Only irrelevant loons think that this is a serious issue. > >Well explain the Swiftboat people against Kerry then? I already did.
>Are they the loons you're talking about? No.
•R.L.Measures - 17 Sep 2004 13:54 GMT >On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 17:03:28 +0000 (UTC), in a place far, far away, >echomko_at_@polaris.umuc.edu (Eric Chomko) made the phosphor on my [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >No. I'm claiming that he has made it the centerpiece of his campaign, >particularly in the convention. • Was it John Kerry's idea to make the "Lt. John Kerry reporting for duty" faux pas at the DNC convention? McCain is right about letting go of the unpleasant past. However, if the "reporting for duty" faux pas was an esoteric plan to open the door to a public scruitinization of the military records of both candidates, it was no less than a brilliant move.
 Signature € R.L.Measures, 805-386-3734, www.somis.org
Rand Simberg - 17 Sep 2004 14:06 GMT On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 12:54:13 GMT, in a place far, far away, r@somis.org (R.L.Measures) made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:
>>>Bullshit! Are you claiming Kerry has only Vietnam to run on? >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Was it John Kerry's idea to make the "Lt. John Kerry reporting for >duty" faux pas at the DNC convention? Probably.
>McCain is right about letting go of >the unpleasant past. However, if the "reporting for duty" faux pas was >an esoteric plan to open the door to a public scruitinization of the >military records of both candidates, it was no less than a brilliant move. I assume that you're being sarcastic, considering how it's backfired on him. The latest Gallup poll has him down fourteen points.
•R.L.Measures - 17 Sep 2004 16:36 GMT >On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 12:54:13 GMT, in a place far, far away, >r@somis.org (•R.L.Measures) made the phosphor on my monitor glow in [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >I assume that you're being sarcastic, considering how it's backfired >on him. The latest Gallup poll has him down fourteen points. • Sure, JK's down in the polls, but examining the military records of the incumbent could prove to be very interesting to all but the most rabid anti-choice people before November 2.
 Signature € R.L.Measures, 805-386-3734, www.somis.org
Rand Simberg - 17 Sep 2004 16:52 GMT On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 15:36:07 GMT, in a place far, far away, r@somis.org (R.L.Measures) made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:
>>I assume that you're being sarcastic, considering how it's backfired >>on him. The latest Gallup poll has him down fourteen points. > >Sure, JK's down in the polls, but examining the military records of the >incumbent could prove to be very interesting to all but the most rabid >anti-choice people before November 2. Very few people find it interesting, except for those who wouldn't vote for him regardless. These issues were trotted out four years ago, and no one cared much then. Most people accept Bush's statement that he when he was young and irresponsible, he was young and irresponsible, and will be judging, him, for better or worse, on his performance in office.
In fact, you can correlate Kerry's recent poll plunge quite strongly to Rathergate.
•R.L.Measures - 18 Sep 2004 01:47 GMT >On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 15:36:07 GMT, in a place far, far away, >r@somis.org (•R.L.Measures) made the phosphor on my monitor glow in [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >irresponsible, and will be judging, him, for better or worse, on his >performance in office. • This is the problem.
>In fact, you can correlate Kerry's recent poll plunge quite strongly >to Rathergate.
 Signature € R.L.Measures, 805-386-3734, www.somis.org
Rand Simberg - 18 Sep 2004 01:59 GMT On Sat, 18 Sep 2004 00:47:01 GMT, in a place far, far away, r@somis.org (R.L.Measures) made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:
>>Most people accept Bush's statement >>that he when he was young and irresponsible, he was young and >>irresponsible, and will be judging, him, for better or worse, on his >>performance in office. >> > This is the problem. Not enough of one to propel John Kerry into the White House, if polls are any judge. I'd love to replace Bush myself, but not with someone worse.
•R.L.Measures - 18 Sep 2004 13:37 GMT >On Sat, 18 Sep 2004 00:47:01 GMT, in a place far, far away, >r@somis.org (•R.L.Measures) made the phosphor on my monitor glow in [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >Not enough of one to propel John Kerry into the White House, if polls >are any judge. • An accurate poll is one that puts our candidate in front. Dewey was ahead in the polls in 1948.
>I'd love to replace Bush myself, but not with someone >worse. • G. W. should probably be allowed to stew another 4-years in the Iraqui mess he and Rumsfeld created. The clever guys in Iran who set up G. W. to topple Saddam for them are probably having a good laugh.
cheers, S.
 Signature € R.L.Measures, 805-386-3734, www.somis.org
Rand Simberg - 18 Sep 2004 14:24 GMT On Sat, 18 Sep 2004 12:37:30 GMT, in a place far, far away, r@somis.org (R.L.Measures) made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:
>>Not enough of one to propel John Kerry into the White House, if polls >>are any judge. > > An accurate poll is one that puts our candidate in front. Dewey was >ahead in the polls in 1948. Yes, when most Democrats didn't have telephones. But you keep on clinging to that.
>>I'd love to replace Bush myself, but not with someone >>worse. > > G. W. should probably be allowed to stew another 4-years in the Iraqui >mess he and Rumsfeld created. The clever guys in Iran who set up G. W. to >topple Saddam for them are probably having a good laugh. They won't be laughing soon.
•R.L.Measures - 18 Sep 2004 19:53 GMT >On Sat, 18 Sep 2004 12:37:30 GMT, in a place far, far away, >r@somis.org (•R.L.Measures) made the phosphor on my monitor glow in [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > >They won't be laughing soon. • They are laughing because G. W. took the bait and took out their enemy - Saddam. My guess is that they could not care less who wins in November.
 Signature € R.L.Measures, 805-386-3734, www.somis.org
Rand Simberg - 18 Sep 2004 20:19 GMT On Sat, 18 Sep 2004 18:53:46 GMT, in a place far, far away, r@somis.org (R.L.Measures) made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:
>>They won't be laughing soon. > > They are laughing because G. W. took the bait and took out their enemy >- Saddam. He wasn't just their enemy.
>My guess is that they could not care less who wins in November. You'd guess wrong. I'm sure they'd love to take John Edwards deal of free nuclear fuel.
•R.L.Measures - 18 Sep 2004 23:18 GMT >On Sat, 18 Sep 2004 18:53:46 GMT, in a place far, far away, >r@somis.org (•R.L.Measures) made the phosphor on my monitor glow in [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >He wasn't just their enemy. • Saddam was widely recognized as a megalomaniac in his neighborhood.
>>My guess is that they could not care less who wins in November. > >You'd guess wrong. I'm sure they'd love to take John Edwards deal of >free nuclear fuel. • Rumour has it that Edwards and Kerry want to sell 'em obsolete atomic bombs and hydrogen bombs.
 Signature € R.L.Measures, 805-386-3734, www.somis.org
Rand Simberg - 19 Sep 2004 00:11 GMT On Sat, 18 Sep 2004 22:18:18 GMT, in a place far, far away, r@somis.org (R.L.Measures) made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:
>>You'd guess wrong. I'm sure they'd love to take John Edwards deal of >>free nuclear fuel. > > Rumour has it that Edwards and Kerry want to sell 'em obsolete atomic >bombs and hydrogen bombs. Rumour has it that you're a moron. What's your point?
•R.L.Measures - 19 Sep 2004 03:51 GMT >On Sat, 18 Sep 2004 22:18:18 GMT, in a place far, far away, >r@somis.org (•R.L.Measures) made the phosphor on my monitor glow in [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >Rumour has it that you're a moron. What's your point? • That people who oppose all forms of abortion can be depended on to say anything to help an anti-abortion politician get elected.
 Signature € R.L.Measures, 805-386-3734, www.somis.org
Rand Simberg - 19 Sep 2004 14:18 GMT On Sun, 19 Sep 2004 02:51:38 GMT, in a place far, far away, r@somis.org (R.L.Measures) made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:
>>> Rumour has it that Edwards and Kerry want to sell 'em obsolete atomic >>>bombs and hydrogen bombs. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > That people who oppose all forms of abortion can be depended on to say >anything to help an anti-abortion politician get elected. Which has what to do with the subject at hand?
•R.L.Measures - 19 Sep 2004 21:10 GMT >On Sun, 19 Sep 2004 02:51:38 GMT, in a place far, far away, >r@somis.org (•R.L.Measures) made the phosphor on my monitor glow in [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > >Which has what to do with the subject at hand? • The same candidate that is presently anti-abortion chose not to be present for a physical which included a drug test.
 Signature € R.L.Measures, 805-386-3734, www.somis.org remove _ from e-mail adr
Rand Simberg - 19 Sep 2004 22:11 GMT On Sun, 19 Sep 2004 20:10:26 GMT, in a place far, far away, r_@somis.org (R.L.Measures) made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:
>>>>> Rumour has it that Edwards and Kerry want to sell 'em obsolete atomic >>>>>bombs and hydrogen bombs. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > The same candidate that is presently anti-abortion chose not to be >present for a physical which included a drug test. Your non-sequitur grows even more non-sequitur. Are you saying that he was afraid of failing a pregnancy test?
Not that that would make any more sense than anything else you've said, of course. But it wouldn't make any less, either.
I'm almost afraid to, but I'll try again. What does the legality, or not, of abortion have to do with *any* of this?
•R.L.Measures - 20 Sep 2004 02:28 GMT >On Sun, 19 Sep 2004 20:10:26 GMT, in a place far, far away, >r_@somis.org (•R.L.Measures) made the phosphor on my monitor glow in [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >Your non-sequitur grows even more non-sequitur. Are you saying that >he was afraid of failing a pregnancy test? • no
>Not that that would make any more sense than anything else you've >said, of course. But it wouldn't make any less, either. > >I'm almost afraid to, but I'll try again. What does the legality, or >not, of abortion have to do with *any* of this? • The largest block of undecided voters in this election are Roman Catholics. They will decide the outcome. The candidate (G. W.) who opposes all forms of abortion - even without regard for the mother's life - will get the lion's share of their vote. In order to help this candidate before the election, the same block of voters can be depended on to do whatever it takes to support G. W. If IBM confirms that No model of their Selectric® typewriter could do typographer's quote marks (³___²) there will be no doubt that the documents were forged. However, who would be stupid enough to try such a forgery without an IBM Selectric® typewriter? One possibility is that the forgeries were a smoke screen to divert newspaper coverage from the real issues -- such as c. 27,000 American soldiers being maimed and 20,600 Iraqui civilians being killed. At least the 2004 election won't be boring.
cheers, R. S.
 Signature € R.L.Measures, 805-386-3734, www.somis.org remove _ from e-mail adr
Rand Simberg - 20 Sep 2004 03:03 GMT On Mon, 20 Sep 2004 01:28:37 GMT, in a place far, far away, r_@somis.org (R.L.Measures) made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:
>>I'm almost afraid to, but I'll try again. What does the legality, or >>not, of abortion have to do with *any* of this? [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >candidate before the election, the same block of voters can be depended on >to do whatever it takes to support G. W. Ummm...OK.
>If IBM confirms that No model >of their Selectric® typewriter could do typographer's quote marks [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >American soldiers being maimed and 20,600 Iraqui civilians being killed. >At least the 2004 election won't be boring. Do you understand that there is zero logical connection between the first paragraph, and the second?
Do you, in fact, understand logic at all?
•R.L.Measures - 21 Sep 2004 12:15 GMT >On Mon, 20 Sep 2004 01:28:37 GMT, in a place far, far away, >r_@somis.org (•R.L.Measures) made the phosphor on my monitor glow in [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > >Do you, in fact, understand logic at all? • ___
 Signature € R.L.Measures, 805-386-3734, www.somis.org remove _ from e-mail adr
Christopher M. Jones - 19 Sep 2004 05:49 GMT >>>• G. W. should probably be allowed to stew another 4-years in the Iraqui >>>mess he and Rumsfeld created. The clever guys in Iran who set up G. W. to [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > • They are laughing because G. W. took the bait and took out their enemy > - Saddam. My guess is that they could not care less who wins in November. Riiiight. They're laughing that there are hundreds of thousands of US troops on the other side of their border. Oops, forgot about the US troops in Afghanistan, another country that borders Iran.
Yup, just laughing, laughing, laughing.
•R.L.Measures - 19 Sep 2004 10:33 GMT >>>>• G. W. should probably be allowed to stew another 4-years in the Iraqui >>>>mess he and Rumsfeld created. The clever guys in Iran who set up G. W. to [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > >Yup, just laughing, laughing, laughing. • ____
 Signature € R.L.Measures, 805-386-3734, www.somis.org
George William Herbert - 19 Sep 2004 11:08 GMT >Riiiight. They're laughing that there are hundreds of >thousands of US troops on the other side of their >border. Oops, forgot about the US troops in Afghanistan, >another country that borders Iran. > >Yup, just laughing, laughing, laughing. There is such a thing as catastrophic success.
It's not an incredible proposition that Iran, or groups inside Iran's government, might have wanted to negatively entangle the US in the region as a whole.
The case is not proven or argued well so far, but the logic makes some sense.
The way events have evolved is certainly not to Iran's liking right now, but they could well not have predicted that.
-george william herbert gherbert@retro.com
Sander Vesik - 20 Sep 2004 03:14 GMT In sci.space.policy Christopher M. Jones <christopher.m.jones@gmail.com> wrote:
> ?R.L.Measures wrote: > >>>? G. W. should probably be allowed to stew another 4-years in the Iraqui [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Yup, just laughing, laughing, laughing. And what else than laugh should they do? US can barely manage to keep the forces there - there is nothing more useless and pathetic than trying to use forces from a position that completely lacks any logistics cover.
 Signature Sander
+++ Out of cheese error +++
•R.L.Measures - 21 Sep 2004 12:18 GMT >In sci.space.policy Christopher M. Jones <christopher.m.jones@gmail.com> wrote: >> ?R.L.Measures wrote: [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] >trying to use forces from a position that completely lacks any logistics >cover. ** good points
 Signature € R
|
|