*****Gunners Note..this is an email from someone Im well aquainted with
in the retired Special Forces community.

"Gunner
I am personally acquainted with the author of this article in the WSJ.
Steve Sherman is highly thought of in the Special Forces/Special
Operations world and has authored "Who's Who" type books that have
become the authoritative word by those who need to know who was, who
wasn't, who is and who isn't. The man tells the truth as he finds it
without embellishment."

(name with held by Gunner)



*****************

A turning point may have been reached in the Iowa caucuses when
Special Forces Lt. James Rassmann came forward to thank John Kerry for
saving his life in Vietnam. Although Mr. Rassmann, like most of my
veteran friends, is a Republican, he said that he'd vote for Mr. Kerry.
I don't know if the incident influenced the caucus results. But I took
special interest in the story because Jim served in my unit.

Service in Vietnam is an important credential to me. Many felt that
such service was beneath them, and removed themselves from the manpower
pool. That Mr. Kerry served at all is a reason for a bond with fellow
veterans; that his service earned him a Bronze Star for Valor ("for
personal bravery") and a Silver Star ("for gallantry") is even more
compelling. Unfortunately, Mr. Kerry came home to Massachusetts, the one
state George McGovern carried in 1972. He joined the Vietnam Veterans
Against the War and emceed the Winter Soldier Investigation (both
financed by Jane Fonda). Many veterans believe these protests led to
more American deaths, and to the enslavement of the people on whose
behalf the protests were ostensibly being undertaken. But being a
take-charge kind of guy, Mr. Kerry became a leader in the VVAW and even
testified before Congress on the findings of the Investigation, which he
accepted at face value.

In his book "Stolen Valor," B.G. Burkett points out that Mr. Kerry
liberally used phony veterans to testify to atrocities they could not
possibly have committed. Mr. Kerry later threw what he represented as
his awards at the Capitol in protest. But as the war diminished as a
political issue, he left the VVAW, which was a bit too radical for his
political future, and was ultimately elected to the Senate. After his
awards were seen framed on his office wall, he claimed to have thrown
away someone else's medals -- so now he can reclaim his gallantry in
Vietnam.

Mr. Kerry hasn't given me any reason to trust his judgment. As
co-chairman of the Senate investigating committee, he quashed a
revealing inquiry into the POW/MIA issue, and he supports trade
initiatives with the Socialist Republic of Vietnam while blocking any
legislation requiring Hanoi to adhere to basic human rights. I'm not
surprised that there are veterans who support a VVAW activist, if only
because there are so few fellow veterans in politics. Ideally, there'd
be many more. If you are going to vote on military appropriations, it
would be nice if you didn't disrespect the soldiers. Congress hasn't had
the courage to declare war in more than 60 years, despite numerous
instances in which we have sent our military in harm's way. Of all the
"lessons of Vietnam," surely one is that America needs a leader capable
of demonstrating in himself, and encouraging in others, the resolve to
finish what they have collectively started.

But the bond between veterans has to be tempered in light of the
individual's record. Just as Mr. Kerry threw away medals only to claim
them back again, Sen. Kerry voted to take action against Iraq, but
claims to take that vote back by voting against funding the result. So I
can understand my former comrade-in-arms hugging the man who saved his
life, but not the act of choosing him for president out of gratitude.
And I would hate to see anyone giving Mr. Kerry a sympathy vote for
president just because being a Vietnam veteran is "back in style."

Mr. Sherman was a first lieutenant with the U.S. Army Fifth Special
Forces Group (Airborne) in Vietnam, 1967-68.

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

Gunner wrote:

*****Gunners Note..this is an email from someone Im well aquainted with
in the retired Special Forces community.

"Gunner
I am personally acquainted with the author of this article in the WSJ.
Steve Sherman is highly thought of in the Special Forces/Special
Operations world and has authored "Who's Who" type books that have
become the authoritative word by those who need to know who was, who
wasn't, who is and who isn't. The man tells the truth as he finds it
without embellishment."

(name with held by Gunner)


So, what's your point Gunner?

Other than the fact, that you wholeheartedly agree with the opinion of some
right wing nut case, who doesn't like that Kerry went home to Massachusetts and
who doesn't like Jane Fonda. Which is really a point you don't need to belabor
in this newsgroup. We know that already. Tell us something we don't know.

Abrasha
http://www.abrasha.com

"Abrasha" wrote in message
...
Gunner wrote:

*****Gunners Note..this is an email from someone Im well aquainted
with
in the retired Special Forces community.

"Gunner
I am personally acquainted with the author of this article in the
WSJ.
Steve Sherman is highly thought of in the Special Forces/Special
Operations world and has authored "Who's Who" type books that have
become the authoritative word by those who need to know who was, who
wasn't, who is and who isn't. The man tells the truth as he finds
it
without embellishment."

(name with held by Gunner)


So, what's your point Gunner?

Other than the fact, that you wholeheartedly agree with the opinion of
some
right wing nut case, who doesn't like that Kerry went home to
Massachusetts and
who doesn't like Jane Fonda. Which is really a point you don't need
to belabor
in this newsgroup. We know that already. Tell us something we don't
know.

Abrasha
http://www.abrasha.com

The point is that now Kerry is a front runner. Therefore, Karl Rove,
Bush's brain, and his minions will have their long knives out. One of
their documented tactics is the whispering campaign. They used it
effectively against Sen. McCain, where they planted a rumor that
McCain's long captivity rendered him too unstable to be president.

All the article says to me is that Kerry was capable of political
thought and had the character to act upon his beliefs. I suppose it
would have been better if Kerry, after returning from combat in Vietnam,
had been more like Bush, who, after going AWOL from the ANG, spent those
"off the record" years apparently loafing around, snorting coke, getting
drunk and having a good ol' time for himself.

Furthermore, Kerry has actually consistently stoop up for vets, unlike
Bush, who has opposed combat pay for troops in Iraq, cut and de-funded
vets benefits and the VA medical system.

Jeff

On Thu, 29 Jan 2004 07:32:39 GMT, Abrasha wrote:

Gunner wrote:

*****Gunners Note..this is an email from someone Im well aquainted with
in the retired Special Forces community.

"Gunner
I am personally acquainted with the author of this article in the WSJ.
Steve Sherman is highly thought of in the Special Forces/Special
Operations world and has authored "Who's Who" type books that have
become the authoritative word by those who need to know who was, who
wasn't, who is and who isn't. The man tells the truth as he finds it
without embellishment."

(name with held by Gunner)


So, what's your point Gunner?

Other than the fact, that you wholeheartedly agree with the opinion of some
right wing nut case, who doesn't like that Kerry went home to Massachusetts and
who doesn't like Jane Fonda. Which is really a point you don't need to belabor
in this newsgroup. We know that already. Tell us something we don't know.

Abrasha
http://www.abrasha.com

What are you complaining about?

You weren't forced to read it.

I would like to hear your definition of "right wing nut case". The
author of that note seemed literate, and he presented his view in a
very professional manner. You, on the other hand immediately started
belaboring a post you didn't have to read and started calling people
you don't know a "right wing nut case". Frankly, you seem the one
with both an attitude problem and much less literate. I suspect that
speaking out of your ass can do this.

Strider

On Thu, 29 Jan 2004 07:49:43 GMT, "Jeff McCann"
wrote:

"Abrasha" wrote in message
...
Gunner wrote:

*****Gunners Note..this is an email from someone Im well aquainted
with
in the retired Special Forces community.

"Gunner
I am personally acquainted with the author of this article in the
WSJ.
Steve Sherman is highly thought of in the Special Forces/Special
Operations world and has authored "Who's Who" type books that have
become the authoritative word by those who need to know who was, who
wasn't, who is and who isn't. The man tells the truth as he finds
it
without embellishment."

(name with held by Gunner)


So, what's your point Gunner?

Other than the fact, that you wholeheartedly agree with the opinion of
some
right wing nut case, who doesn't like that Kerry went home to
Massachusetts and
who doesn't like Jane Fonda. Which is really a point you don't need
to belabor
in this newsgroup. We know that already. Tell us something we don't
know.

Abrasha
http://www.abrasha.com

The point is that now Kerry is a front runner. Therefore, Karl Rove,
Bush's brain, and his minions will have their long knives out. One of
their documented tactics is the whispering campaign. They used it
effectively against Sen. McCain, where they planted a rumor that
McCain's long captivity rendered him too unstable to be president.

All the article says to me is that Kerry was capable of political
thought and had the character to act upon his beliefs. I suppose it
would have been better if Kerry, after returning from combat in Vietnam,
had been more like Bush, who, after going AWOL from the ANG, spent those
"off the record" years apparently loafing around, snorting coke, getting
drunk and having a good ol' time for himself.

Furthermore, Kerry has actually consistently stoop up for vets, unlike
Bush, who has opposed combat pay for troops in Iraq, cut and de-funded
vets benefits and the VA medical system.

Jeff


All the above may or may not be true, Jeff. I haven't checked and
don't have the time at the moment.

The thing about Kerry to me is that every time I have done some
checking on him, it has turned out he's been two-faced.

The only folks on the Democratic side, so far, who I haven't decided
to be "probable" liars, are Edwards and Lieberman.

Sigh I was kinda hoping to have TWO valid candidates up for
election. And that is an honest statement of my view. Then I could
examine their platform, position on the issues, etc and make up my
mind.

But so far, Kerry, Dean, and Clark have given me no cause to trust
that they actually mean what they say. Thus, as of this moment (it
could change) I can't even trust the words out of their mouths. And
I've got to have that trust before I even care what their positions
are.

I can't figure out why the Dems aren't pushing Lieberman or even
Edwards more than they are.

Bob

In article , Gunner says...

financed by Jane Fonda). Many veterans believe these protests led to
more American deaths,

Blaming anti-war protesters for deaths of soldiers in that
war is nonsensical.

That's like blaming the ambulance driver for the car
crash he responds to.

Many americans at the time felt that war was both illegal
and immoral, and felt it their civic duty to protest US
presence. My personal feeling is that the politicians
of both flavor did not care about public opinion, and
the broad spectrum of anti-war feeling encouraged them
to end the war. Thereby preventing any more deaths from
it.

Jim

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

"jim rozen" wrote in message
...
In article , Gunner says...
Many americans at the time felt that war was both illegal
and immoral, and felt it their civic duty to protest US
presence. My personal feeling is that the politicians
of both flavor did not care about public opinion, and
the broad spectrum of anti-war feeling encouraged them
to end the war. Thereby preventing any more deaths from
it.

Jim

By then I had reached an age such that I had no personal stake , but, it
seemed to
me, at the time, that a large percentage of the protestors were more
concerned
about the possibility that their names were coming up on the draft lists.
Civic duty
of any kind was low on their priority lists and, if protest of the war had
just been a matter of civic duty, they'd have shirked that also. There is,
of course, that large
body of individuals for whom protest was just a participatory hobby, a
social event,
if you will.. I have no real idea how large that percentage was. I would
guess it to be
fairly large and consisting mostly of young females and older folks of both
sexes.
I had been a young liberal myself, but, by that time of the Viet Nam War I
had put
in 10 years or so as a Federal bureaucrat and was teaching in an inner city
Junior High school.(Both activities prone to opening ones eyes to the flaws
of liberal thought.)

Harold
(Collum puniceus)

"Bob G" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 29 Jan 2004 07:49:43 GMT, "Jeff McCann"
wrote:

"Abrasha" wrote in message
...
Gunner wrote:

*****Gunners Note..this is an email from someone Im well aquainted
with
in the retired Special Forces community.

"Gunner
I am personally acquainted with the author of this article in the
WSJ.
Steve Sherman is highly thought of in the Special Forces/Special
Operations world and has authored "Who's Who" type books that have
become the authoritative word by those who need to know who was, who
wasn't, who is and who isn't. The man tells the truth as he finds
it
without embellishment."

(name with held by Gunner)


So, what's your point Gunner?

Other than the fact, that you wholeheartedly agree with the opinion of
some
right wing nut case, who doesn't like that Kerry went home to
Massachusetts and
who doesn't like Jane Fonda. Which is really a point you don't need
to belabor
in this newsgroup. We know that already. Tell us something we don't
know.

Abrasha
http://www.abrasha.com

The point is that now Kerry is a front runner. Therefore, Karl Rove,
Bush's brain, and his minions will have their long knives out. One of
their documented tactics is the whispering campaign. They used it
effectively against Sen. McCain, where they planted a rumor that
McCain's long captivity rendered him too unstable to be president.

All the article says to me is that Kerry was capable of political
thought and had the character to act upon his beliefs. I suppose it
would have been better if Kerry, after returning from combat in Vietnam,
had been more like Bush, who, after going AWOL from the ANG, spent those
"off the record" years apparently loafing around, snorting coke, getting
drunk and having a good ol' time for himself.

Furthermore, Kerry has actually consistently stoop up for vets, unlike
Bush, who has opposed combat pay for troops in Iraq, cut and de-funded
vets benefits and the VA medical system.

Jeff


All the above may or may not be true, Jeff. I haven't checked and
don't have the time at the moment.

The thing about Kerry to me is that every time I have done some
checking on him, it has turned out he's been two-faced.

The only folks on the Democratic side, so far, who I haven't decided
to be "probable" liars, are Edwards and Lieberman.

Sigh I was kinda hoping to have TWO valid candidates up for
election. And that is an honest statement of my view. Then I could
examine their platform, position on the issues, etc and make up my
mind.

But so far, Kerry, Dean, and Clark have given me no cause to trust
that they actually mean what they say. Thus, as of this moment (it
could change) I can't even trust the words out of their mouths. And
I've got to have that trust before I even care what their positions
are.

I can't figure out why the Dems aren't pushing Lieberman or even
Edwards more than they are.

Bob

You have a real problem here, the likely Democratic candidate, Kerry,
Dean, or Clark, might be liars. The Republican candidate is a liar.
Lieberman is just the "Bush" on the Democratic ballot. Who are you
going to vote for?

Pete.

In article , Harold Burton says...

By then I had reached an age such that I had no personal stake , but, it
seemed to
me, at the time, that a large percentage of the protestors were more
concerned
about the possibility that their names were coming up on the draft lists.
Civic duty
of any kind was low on their priority lists and, if protest of the war had
just been a matter of civic duty, they'd have shirked that also.

My personal experience was different. I was at an age where I
never did have to register for selective service, but the protesters
I am talking about were in the forties as a rule, parents of
friends. Wife's mother was/is also pretty active in protesting
a number or recent wars, via church groups and so on. I suspect
she probably has an FBI file.

Jim

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

I think that you should go back and look at John Kerry

John Kerry lead the effort to defund the CIA, NSA to the
amount of 1.3 billion dollars from 1997 to 2000. Now ask
your self why we couldn't find out about 9/11.

John Kerry was part of the leader ship that stripped over
4 billion dollars out of the defense budget from 1996 to
2000 including defunding the Veterans administration to the
tune of 200 million.

John Kerry first wife (family wealth a mear 200 million)
and by which he had two children was driven into deep
depression when John Kerry started sharing the beds of
of Hollywood starlets. While still married to his first
wife he started seeing the Heinzs chick. In the marriage
prenuptial agreement it was stipulated that the first
marriage was to be annulled. (legalese that it never was
a real marriage in the first place in that no sex took
place). Strange when it produced two children and if
it was annuled which it was that makes Kerry's firts
two children illegitmate and not able to inherent any of
Kerry's estate in that no sex took place and theirfor
Kerry's first wife gave birth to children that were not
Kerry's

In other words John Kerry was balling Ms. Hinze while
still married to this first wife. Have we seen this
before???

Lastly since John Kerry has no outside income (and
legally he can't touch is wife's money for campaigning)
for making his run for the white house. He has had
to Mortgage his half of the 12 million dollar town house
in Boston and his private art collection (which includes
two Renoir's). Well the monthly repayment of his loan
and very favorable rates 3-4% will be 30,000 a month.
Not bad for a guy who only makes 130,000 year.

John Kerry smells like ten day old fish.

The Independent


Noah Simoneaux wrote:

On Thu, 29 Jan 2004 07:49:43 GMT, "Jeff McCann" wrote:

(snip)

Furthermore, Kerry has actually consistently stoop up for vets, unlike
Bush, who has opposed combat pay for troops in Iraq, cut and de-funded
vets benefits and the VA medical system.

One thing Kerry hasn't consistently stood up for is gun ownership. The last time
he was running he announced that he didn't think AK 47's should be legal for
civilians because they were used to hunt him in Vietnam.
Just what I like, a real logical thinker.

On Thu, 29 Jan 2004 06:07:37 -0600, Bob G wrote:

On Thu, 29 Jan 2004 07:49:43 GMT, "Jeff McCann"
wrote:

"Abrasha" wrote in message
...
Gunner wrote:

*****Gunners Note..this is an email from someone Im well aquainted
with
in the retired Special Forces community.

"Gunner
I am personally acquainted with the author of this article in the
WSJ.
Steve Sherman is highly thought of in the Special Forces/Special
Operations world and has authored "Who's Who" type books that have
become the authoritative word by those who need to know who was, who
wasn't, who is and who isn't. The man tells the truth as he finds
it
without embellishment."

(name with held by Gunner)


So, what's your point Gunner?

Other than the fact, that you wholeheartedly agree with the opinion of
some
right wing nut case, who doesn't like that Kerry went home to
Massachusetts and
who doesn't like Jane Fonda. Which is really a point you don't need
to belabor
in this newsgroup. We know that already. Tell us something we don't
know.

Abrasha
http://www.abrasha.com

The point is that now Kerry is a front runner. Therefore, Karl Rove,
Bush's brain, and his minions will have their long knives out. One of
their documented tactics is the whispering campaign. They used it
effectively against Sen. McCain, where they planted a rumor that
McCain's long captivity rendered him too unstable to be president.

All the article says to me is that Kerry was capable of political
thought and had the character to act upon his beliefs. I suppose it
would have been better if Kerry, after returning from combat in Vietnam,
had been more like Bush, who, after going AWOL from the ANG, spent those
"off the record" years apparently loafing around, snorting coke, getting
drunk and having a good ol' time for himself.

Furthermore, Kerry has actually consistently stoop up for vets, unlike
Bush, who has opposed combat pay for troops in Iraq, cut and de-funded
vets benefits and the VA medical system.

Jeff


All the above may or may not be true, Jeff. I haven't checked and
don't have the time at the moment.

The thing about Kerry to me is that every time I have done some
checking on him, it has turned out he's been two-faced.

The only folks on the Democratic side, so far, who I haven't decided
to be "probable" liars, are Edwards and Lieberman.

Sigh I was kinda hoping to have TWO valid candidates up for
election. And that is an honest statement of my view. Then I could
examine their platform, position on the issues, etc and make up my
mind.

But so far, Kerry, Dean, and Clark have given me no cause to trust
that they actually mean what they say. Thus, as of this moment (it
could change) I can't even trust the words out of their mouths. And
I've got to have that trust before I even care what their positions
are.

I can't figure out why the Dems aren't pushing Lieberman or even
Edwards more than they are.

Bob

I suspect its because Lieberman and Edwards are not leftist enough.
Particularly Lieberman who is a true Reagan Democrat.
Though I was not pleased with his 180 turnabout from his normal stands
and standards, when he started running with Algor.

Gunner


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

On 29 Jan 2004 05:29:45 -0800, jim rozen
wrote:

In article , Gunner says...

financed by Jane Fonda). Many veterans believe these protests led to
more American deaths,

Blaming anti-war protesters for deaths of soldiers in that
war is nonsensical.


Jim...you know little about the time, the protests or the encouragement
such gave North Vietnam. Do some research, before ****ting in your
messkit.

Gunner


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

On Thu, 29 Jan 2004 07:50:14 +0000, Strider wrote:

On Thu, 29 Jan 2004 07:32:39 GMT, Abrasha wrote:

Gunner wrote:

*****Gunners Note..this is an email from someone Im well aquainted with
in the retired Special Forces community.

So, what's your point Gunner?

What are you complaining about?

You weren't forced to read it.

*sigh*....

So by your logic, Abrasha shouldn't read things he doesn't like?
How does one go about doing that, exactly? In other words how is
he supposed to know whether he'll like something without reading it?

Personally I was SURPRISED to see Gunner attempting to smear someone
who isn't a conservative republican, like himself, the moment they seemed
to be gaining in popularity. This is EXTREMELY uncharacteristic of Gunner,
and I NEVER would have expected it of him.

--
"Please God, help me cleanse the computer of viruses and evil photographs
that disturb and ruin my work ..., so that I shall be able to cleanse
myself." -- Rabbi Shlomo Eliahu



----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

On Thu, 29 Jan 2004 07:49:43 GMT, "Jeff McCann" wrote:

(snip)

Furthermore, Kerry has actually consistently stoop up for vets, unlike
Bush, who has opposed combat pay for troops in Iraq, cut and de-funded
vets benefits and the VA medical system.

One thing Kerry hasn't consistently stood up for is gun ownership. The last time
he was running he announced that he didn't think AK 47's should be legal for
civilians because they were used to hunt him in Vietnam.
Just what I like, a real logical thinker.

On Thu, 29 Jan 2004 10:39:38 -0500, Peter Reilley wrote:



You have a real problem here, the likely Democratic candidate, Kerry,
Dean, or Clark, might be liars. The Republican candidate is a liar.
Lieberman is just the "Bush" on the Democratic ballot. Who are you
going to vote for?

Gary Nolan: http://www.lp.org

Oops! Thought you were talking to me!


--
"Please God, help me cleanse the computer of viruses and evil photographs
that disturb and ruin my work ..., so that I shall be able to cleanse
myself." -- Rabbi Shlomo Eliahu



----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

On 29 Jan 2004 05:29:45 -0800, jim rozen
wrote:

In article , Gunner says...

financed by Jane Fonda). Many veterans believe these protests led to
more American deaths,


I couldn't disagree more.

Blaming anti-war protesters for deaths of soldiers in that
war is nonsensical.
Giving aid and comfort to the enemy, whether moral or materiel
support, is still cheering the opposition.


That's like blaming the ambulance driver for the car
crash he responds to.
I don't see your connection. A better analogy would be protestors
blocking the road and claiming the crash victim didn't deserve
treatment because his car tags were expired.


Many americans at the time felt that war was both illegal
and immoral, and felt it their civic duty to protest US
presence. My personal feeling is that the politicians
of both flavor did not care about public opinion, and
the broad spectrum of anti-war feeling encouraged them
to end the war. Thereby preventing any more deaths from
it.
What? Did they care about public opinion or not?

The war was almost won in 1968/69. The NVA (the real enemy) would have
retreated if not for the vociferous protestors and waffling
politicians at home. That encouraged them to struggle on and outlast
our nation's resolve. Also to drag out the Paris Peace Negotiations.

If you look at battle and casualty maps, it is obvious this was a
border war. If the NVA had been pushed back into Laos and Cambodia,
the RVNs could have handled the Viet Cong.

I was one of those Americans who had to fight his way back into his
own country. My opinion of the protestors/hooligans is that they were
a bunch of worthless, whiny *******s. We can discuss that if you like.


Jim

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

Bob G wrote:


I can't figure out why the Dems aren't pushing Lieberman or even
Edwards more than they are.

Because they are sort of honest?

On Thu, 29 Jan 2004 13:00:12 -0500, Artemia Salina
wrote:

On Thu, 29 Jan 2004 07:50:14 +0000, Strider wrote:

On Thu, 29 Jan 2004 07:32:39 GMT, Abrasha wrote:

Gunner wrote:

*****Gunners Note..this is an email from someone Im well aquainted with
in the retired Special Forces community.

So, what's your point Gunner?

What are you complaining about?

You weren't forced to read it.

*sigh*....

So by your logic, Abrasha shouldn't read things he doesn't like?
How does one go about doing that, exactly? In other words how is
he supposed to know whether he'll like something without reading it?

Not if he's going to bitch about it being posted.


Personally I was SURPRISED to see Gunner attempting to smear someone
who isn't a conservative republican, like himself, the moment they seemed
to be gaining in popularity. This is EXTREMELY uncharacteristic of Gunner,
and I NEVER would have expected it of him.

Gunner can post any damn thing he want's to.

Strider

On Thu, 29 Jan 2004 19:03:34 +0000, Strider wrote:

On Thu, 29 Jan 2004 13:00:12 -0500, Artemia Salina
wrote:

On Thu, 29 Jan 2004 07:50:14 +0000, Strider wrote:

On Thu, 29 Jan 2004 07:32:39 GMT, Abrasha wrote:

Gunner wrote:

*****Gunners Note..this is an email from someone Im well aquainted with
in the retired Special Forces community.

So, what's your point Gunner?

What are you complaining about?

You weren't forced to read it.

*sigh*....

So by your logic, Abrasha shouldn't read things he doesn't like?
How does one go about doing that, exactly? In other words how is
he supposed to know whether he'll like something without reading it?

Not if he's going to bitch about it being posted.

You haven't answered my question.


Personally I was SURPRISED to see Gunner attempting to smear someone
who isn't a conservative republican, like himself, the moment they seemed
to be gaining in popularity. This is EXTREMELY uncharacteristic of Gunner,
and I NEVER would have expected it of him.

Gunner can post any damn thing he want's to.

How about Abrasha? Can HE post anything he want's to?


--
"Please God, help me cleanse the computer of viruses and evil photographs
that disturb and ruin my work ..., so that I shall be able to cleanse
myself." -- Rabbi Shlomo Eliahu



----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

On Thu, 29 Jan 2004 14:17:51 -0500, Artemia Salina
wrote:

On Thu, 29 Jan 2004 19:03:34 +0000, Strider wrote:

On Thu, 29 Jan 2004 13:00:12 -0500, Artemia Salina
wrote:

On Thu, 29 Jan 2004 07:50:14 +0000, Strider wrote:

On Thu, 29 Jan 2004 07:32:39 GMT, Abrasha wrote:

Gunner wrote:

*****Gunners Note..this is an email from someone Im well aquainted with
in the retired Special Forces community.

So, what's your point Gunner?

What are you complaining about?

You weren't forced to read it.

*sigh*....

So by your logic, Abrasha shouldn't read things he doesn't like?
How does one go about doing that, exactly? In other words how is
he supposed to know whether he'll like something without reading it?

Not if he's going to bitch about it being posted.

You haven't answered my question.

Which question?

"So by your logic, Abrasha shouldn't read things he doesn't like?"
"Not if he's going to bitch about it being posted."

"How does one go about doing that, exactly?"
Accept that if you read something, you might not like it, but you
shouldn't whine about it being posted in the first place

"In other words how is he supposed to know whether he'll like
something without reading it?"
That wasn't the issue


Personally I was SURPRISED to see Gunner attempting to smear someone
who isn't a conservative republican, like himself, the moment they seemed
to be gaining in popularity. This is EXTREMELY uncharacteristic of Gunner,
and I NEVER would have expected it of him.

Gunner can post any damn thing he want's to.

How about Abrasha? Can HE post anything he want's to?

Yes he can, but he need not whine about someone else posting as they
please.

I hope that this cleared up your confusion.

Strider

On Thu, 29 Jan 2004 10:02:45 -0900, Offbreed
wrote:

Bob G wrote:


I can't figure out why the Dems aren't pushing Lieberman or even
Edwards more than they are.

Because they are sort of honest?

Because the leftwing radicals have control of the party and Lieberman
and Edwards aren't quite as far left as they want.

Strider

In article , Gunner says...

Jim...you know little about the time,

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

Jim

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

In article , andy asberry says...

I was one of those Americans who had to fight his way back into his
own country.

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

Jim

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

"Bob G" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 29 Jan 2004 07:49:43 GMT, "Jeff McCann"
wrote:

"Abrasha" wrote in message
...
Gunner wrote:

*****Gunners Note..this is an email from someone Im well
aquainted
with
in the retired Special Forces community.

"Gunner
I am personally acquainted with the author of this article in the
WSJ.
Steve Sherman is highly thought of in the Special Forces/Special
Operations world and has authored "Who's Who" type books that
have
become the authoritative word by those who need to know who was,
who
wasn't, who is and who isn't. The man tells the truth as he
finds
it
without embellishment."

(name with held by Gunner)


So, what's your point Gunner?

Other than the fact, that you wholeheartedly agree with the opinion
of
some
right wing nut case, who doesn't like that Kerry went home to
Massachusetts and
who doesn't like Jane Fonda. Which is really a point you don't
need
to belabor
in this newsgroup. We know that already. Tell us something we
don't
know.

Abrasha
http://www.abrasha.com

The point is that now Kerry is a front runner. Therefore, Karl Rove,
Bush's brain, and his minions will have their long knives out. One
of
their documented tactics is the whispering campaign. They used it
effectively against Sen. McCain, where they planted a rumor that
McCain's long captivity rendered him too unstable to be president.

All the article says to me is that Kerry was capable of political
thought and had the character to act upon his beliefs. I suppose it
would have been better if Kerry, after returning from combat in
Vietnam,
had been more like Bush, who, after going AWOL from the ANG, spent
those
"off the record" years apparently loafing around, snorting coke,
getting
drunk and having a good ol' time for himself.

Furthermore, Kerry has actually consistently stoop up for vets,
unlike
Bush, who has opposed combat pay for troops in Iraq, cut and
de-funded
vets benefits and the VA medical system.

Jeff


All the above may or may not be true, Jeff. I haven't checked and
don't have the time at the moment.

The thing about Kerry to me is that every time I have done some
checking on him, it has turned out he's been two-faced.

The only folks on the Democratic side, so far, who I haven't decided
to be "probable" liars, are Edwards and Lieberman.

Sigh I was kinda hoping to have TWO valid candidates up for
election. And that is an honest statement of my view. Then I could
examine their platform, position on the issues, etc and make up my
mind.

But so far, Kerry, Dean, and Clark have given me no cause to trust
that they actually mean what they say. Thus, as of this moment (it
could change) I can't even trust the words out of their mouths. And
I've got to have that trust before I even care what their positions
are.

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

Jeff

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

Jimbo



"jim rozen" wrote in message
...
In article , andy asberry
says...

I was one of those Americans who had to fight his way back into his
own country.

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

Jim

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

In article , Jimbo says...

anyone not in lock step with his view of the world is in his mind just a
whining weak kneed Liberal/socialist sympathiser.

That would make me... guilty.

Jim

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

Jeff McCann wrote:


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



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

--
Glenn Ashmore

I'm building a 45' cutter in strip/composite. Watch my progress (or lack
there of) at: http://www.rutuonline.com
Shameless Commercial Division: http://www.spade-anchor-us.com

Nancy wrote:

In article ,
"Jeff McCann" wrote:


Furthermore, Kerry has actually consistently stoop up for vets, unlike
Bush, who has opposed combat pay for troops in Iraq, cut and de-funded
vets benefits and the VA medical system.

Jeff


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

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

Or this about Veterans benifits:
http://www.axisoflogic.com/artman/pu...ter_3581.shtml

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

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

--
Glenn Ashmore

I'm building a 45' cutter in strip/composite. Watch my progress (or lack
there of) at: http://www.rutuonline.com
Shameless Commercial Division: http://www.spade-anchor-us.com

On Thu, 29 Jan 2004 10:39:38 -0500, "Peter Reilley"
wrote:

You have a real problem here, the likely Democratic candidate, Kerry,
Dean, or Clark, might be liars. The Republican candidate is a liar.
Lieberman is just the "Bush" on the Democratic ballot. Who are you
going to vote for?

Pete.

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

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

I've heard folks assert as much.

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

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

Bob

"Bob G" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 29 Jan 2004 10:39:38 -0500, "Peter Reilley"
wrote:

You have a real problem here, the likely Democratic candidate, Kerry,
Dean, or Clark, might be liars. The Republican candidate is a liar.
Lieberman is just the "Bush" on the Democratic ballot. Who are you
going to vote for?

Pete.

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

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

I've heard folks assert as much.

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

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

Bob

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


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

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

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

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

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

Pete.

"Bob G" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 29 Jan 2004 10:39:38 -0500, "Peter Reilley"
wrote:

You have a real problem here, the likely Democratic candidate, Kerry,
Dean, or Clark, might be liars. The Republican candidate is a liar.
Lieberman is just the "Bush" on the Democratic ballot. Who are you
going to vote for?

Pete.

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

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

I've heard folks assert as much.

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

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

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

Jeff

"Bob G" wrote in message
...
[snip]
So, enlighten me. What lies did he tell? To the American public.
Any stories he told while relating how big a fish he caught last time
he went fishing doesn't count.

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

http://www.house.gov/appropriations_...ughtonfilm.htm

http://bush-lies.blogspot.com/

http://www.buzzflash.com/contributor...7/22_lies.html

http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0302/S00061.htm

Separating the wheat from the chaff is required, as usual.

Jeff

Jimbo wrote:

Is it just me or has anyone else noticed that debating anything with Gunner
not metalworking related is a mugs game? He is obviously an intelligent
person

Well, that's debatable.

but he only sees things in black and white.

Not a sign of great intelligence, in my opinion.

It seems to me that
anyone not in lock step with his view of the world is in his mind just a
whining weak kneed Liberal/socialist sympathiser.


And a traitor

Abrasha
http://www.abrasha.com

On Thu, 29 Jan 2004 22:42:35 -0500, "Peter Reilley"
wrote:


"Bob G" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 29 Jan 2004 10:39:38 -0500, "Peter Reilley"
wrote:

You have a real problem here, the likely Democratic candidate, Kerry,
Dean, or Clark, might be liars. The Republican candidate is a liar.
Lieberman is just the "Bush" on the Democratic ballot. Who are you
going to vote for?

Pete.

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

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

I've heard folks assert as much.

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

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

Bob

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


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

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

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

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

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

Pete.

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

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

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

Strider

On Thu, 29 Jan 2004 10:02:45 -0900, Offbreed wrote:

Bob G wrote:


I can't figure out why the Dems aren't pushing Lieberman or even
Edwards more than they are.

Because they are sort of honest?

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

On 29 Jan 2004 11:32:02 -0800, jim rozen
wrote:

In article , Gunner says...

Jim...you know little about the time,

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

Jim


Tell that to the folks in the WTC.

Gunner


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

On Thu, 29 Jan 2004 16:54:44 -0500, "Jimbo" . wrote:

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

Jimbo

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

So, analyses is not your forte I take it?

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

Gunner




"jim rozen" wrote in message
...
In article , andy asberry
says...

I was one of those Americans who had to fight his way back into his
own country.

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

Jim

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




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

On Fri, 30 Jan 2004 03:58:29 GMT, "Jeff McCann"
wrote:

"Bob G" wrote in message
.. .

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

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

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

Jeff

Hmmm, Jeff, I thought you were a lawyer?

You should know the answer to that question very well.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Now, I will say this, Jeff.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So, you see my problem?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Shall I go on, Mr Prosecutor?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Etc.

Get my point, Jeff?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bob

In article , Gunner says...

Tell that to the folks in the WTC.

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

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

Jim

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

"Strider" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 29 Jan 2004 22:42:35 -0500, "Peter Reilley"
wrote:


"Bob G" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 29 Jan 2004 10:39:38 -0500, "Peter Reilley"
wrote:

You have a real problem here, the likely Democratic candidate, Kerry,
Dean, or Clark, might be liars. The Republican candidate is a liar.
Lieberman is just the "Bush" on the Democratic ballot. Who are you
going to vote for?

Pete.

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

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

I've heard folks assert as much.

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

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

Bob

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


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

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

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

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

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

Pete.

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


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

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


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

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

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

Strider

Hope that makes my point more clear,
Pete.