"Bob G" wrote in message
...
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

As a trained lawyer you should know that there is a principle that the
law should be equally applied. (I am not a lawyer.) In other words
you cannot bring the full weight of the law against a person when the law
is not generally enforced just because you don't like him.

You gave a long list of things that you know and some of those things are
indeed crimes. Many are of your accusations are quite correct. Others
are
not crimes at all. Giving money to the families of people who died in
their
struggle against Israeli oppression is not a crime, it is admirable We
give
money to US soldier's families that have died. It is normal to help the
family of fallen soldiers.

All of the crimes and non-crimes that you list are commonly committed by
many
others around the world. There is little clamor from the accused (Bush) to
go
in and "fix" those problems. Indeed the noise about these crimes from the
accused
seems correlate with the friendliness of the criminal. This leads
to my suspicion of the unjust application of the law.

So you see my problem, fellow juror. You feel that it is justified to
punish in the most extreme manor someone that is no worse than a
lot of other guys out there. Your long list of the crimes includes
things that are not crimes at all but rather things that you don't like.
They
have violated laws that are rarely enforced. Is your disdain for this guy
coloring
your judgement?

Pete.