On Fri, 30 Jan 2004 09:15:20 -0500, "Peter Reilley"
wrote:


"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.)

Well, to start with, I am not a lawyer. The fellow to whom I was
replying is.

I do have more than the average person's understanding of the law, tho
I am far from a lawyer. Simply because events in life lead me to
studying _some_ law. At one time, I thought I might want to be a
cop. I'm Navy, but the Navy had sent me thru the Air Force's law
enforcement academy. As part of my duties in the Navy involved law
enforcement and security. So I got out of the service at one point
and went through a police academy in a major city. And was a cop for
just short of 3 years. I wasn't cut out to be a cop. Acknowledged
that fact to myself, and went back into the Navy.

Later, starting while still in the Navy, and continuing for a while
after I got out, I took other college level law courses. In
international law, business law, and property law. Had a realtors
license, and at one time even considered going back to school and
becoming a business/property lawyer. As an engineer, working for a
major corp with part of my duties involving negotiating and making
contracts for services we hired, property we owned and others we
leased or rented (I did get legal assistance from one of our corporate
lawyers when I needed it) I got interested in contract law and the
like. But in the end decided to not attempt the switch. While I
found it interresting, and handy to know, it was not something I
wished to do full time. Basically, at heart, I'm a tools and gadgets
and technology guy who is happiest when designing something, making
something, or fixing something. Such, I can get passionate about, and
really enjoy.

Anyway, I've also had the opportunity to sit in court more than a few
times. As a witness, an accuser, a defendent, and 3 times so far, as
a juror. I say so far as I just got notice a couple weeks ago I'm
being put on the "prospective juror" list, again. This time should be
different tho, if I'm actually called. I'm going into the pool for a
federal court.

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.

Incorrect, happens all the time. Incorrect only in the first part.
Not in the last part. You are correct about the "just because you
don't like him". Generally speaking, and there are exceptions,
neither judges nor juries are gonna look at your case favorably if
they believe you've prosecuting someone simply due to personal
dislike. You can lose a case fast that way. Sometimes, even if the
guy is guilty. Juries just DON'T LIKE it when a case appears to be
one focused on personal dislike, hatred, etc.

In any event, we have all sorts of laws, and all sorts of situations
where those laws are not enforced in one case, but enforced in
another. Many reasons for this. Not all of them "conspiracies of the
priviledged." More often, it's simply because when the perp is
finally called upon his acts and confronted, he stops doing whatever.
Many a cop on the street has settled a problem simply by confronting
an offender, giving him or her a verbal dressing down and a warning,
then let the person go. And the person corrected his or her behavior.
End of problem. No formal charges, no court, no judge required.
Works more often than you might think.

In other cases, sometimes folks simply don't report the offender, for
any one of a number of reasons. They tolerate the offense.

Could be that the ones who know, are reliant on the offender for
income and support. In other cases it's fear of the offender. In
still other cases, the ones who know about the offense, don't agree
with the law. So never report the offense. It goes on and on as
concerns reasons.

Other laws are ones where violations tend to be generally ignored
UNLESS the violation is of such magnitude, or so outlandish in nature,
that it stands out as a situation where reasonable people would not
ignore it.

i.e. Speeding in a motor vehicle. Ignored all the time everywhere.
Cops see it all the time and let it go. BUT ... have the violator not
only speeding, but compounding the fact by driving in a careless and
dangerous fashion, and you may well have a cop ... quite rightly ...
ignoring a dozen other speeders doing the same speed, and singling out
the moron who's engaging in excessive lane changing, tail gating, and
cutting too close in front of others.

There are many other examples.

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.

Bull****. Good thing you're not a lawyer. You'd be real embarassed
standing in front of a jury who recognizes common sense as versus BS.

We, in the US, provide life insurance for our servicemen and women,
just as my employer has a life insurance policy on me. In case I
should die in the line of my work. My wife gets the money. FWIW, I'm
retired active duty military. And I've got news for you. That life
insurance policy for servicemembers who die in the line of duty is a
PALTRY, small amount. Most of the civilians I know have larger
policies than that, by far.

Second. We do not pay off just because one of our soldiers killed
someone, performed a suicide attack, etc. If he or she dies on active
duty, even if he or she is a clerk typist, the life insurance policy
is paid. Same as with any life insurance policy held by any civilian.

Third. If we find that a member of our military has DELIBERATELY
targeted innocent civilians when it could be avoided ... we don't pay
on his life insurance. Trust me. We'll put him on trial and try our
best to put him in prison.

Whether you agree or not is irrelevant. But long history, and
international legal agreements, every since we've had such things,
acknowledges that there is a difference between a soldier accidentally
killing a civilian in battle ... or having no choice but to take the
chances of killing some innocent civilians if the enemy is hiding
behind such and NOT killing the enemy despite the chances of civilian
casualties means the likelihood of even higher casualties later ... as
versus deliberately targeting innocent civilians with the express
purpose of targeting civilians.

That last part can be done, the deliberate targeting of civilians,
only in specific circumstances. i.e. It is commonly recognized that
the governing group of an enemy, who do the organizing, give direction
to the soldiers, etc ... aren't, really, "innocent" civilians. Thus a
military force is not tried for attacking, for instance, the
equivalent of our Congress, or a governor, etc. Also, exception is
normally made in the case of a necessity to attack factories making
bombs or other war machinery.

The above, are FAR different than such things as targeting random
buses of ordinary innocent civilians going about their daily business,
setting off bombs in a school, blowing up a cafe, so on and so forth.


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.

You've already indicated both a misunderstanding of the law, and a
definite bias to your thinking.

First off, while we may well dislike and disagree with what many
people in the world do. Fact is, we don't have the resources, the
will, nor an interest in attacking everyone with whom we disagree.

If YOU don't like what country X is doing to their people, And ... if
.... you want something done to stop it. YOU get off your ass, go
there, and volunteer to fight against the oppressors. Or shut the
hell up, because you're just all mouth and don't even believe what
you're saying or you are a coward. Take your pick.

We, as a country, can not reform the world, alone. And have no
intentions of doing so. We try to offer encouragement, a nudge in
what we think is the right direction. Etc. But we don't plan now or
ever to try to control the whole planet. Whatever for? The vast
majority of US citizens know next to nothing about what things are
really like in other countries. And frankly don't care. Not because
they're evil. Simply because they have their own lives, interests,
persuits, families, and so forth. And if there is something somewhere
else they really want, they go check out the stores to find one where
they can buy whatever it is. They don't plan invasions to get it.
Why the HELL do yah want to go invade a place, when in almost every
case if you offer them a reasonable amount for whatever, they'll sell
it to you? Remember? We ARE supposedly rich as a nation.
Relatively, I suppose that's true enough. It's true enough so that
you'd have to hunt really hard, except in some newsgroup where the
whackos hang out, to find an American who has ever had any thought in
his or her life about wanting the US to control the world. They don't
want it. They want left alone, that's what they want.

I'm 55 years old, and have literally been around the world. And have
been all over the US. Wanna know something? Before we invaded
Afghanistan, most Americans if asked couldn't have found Afghanistan
on a map. Knew nothing about it. Didn't particularly wish to know
anything about it either. Average Minnesotan I know has plenty to do
to keep himself or herself busy. Got a job, or is going to school.
Or both. Got a family. Got a home to take care of. Friends to
visit, TV to watch. A wife or hubby to try to seduce into bed.
Wanna egt em excited about something? It isn't politics or what's
occuring over in some place they've never been and will likely never
see, that hasn't got anything that they know about they might want.
Wanna get em riled up? Have the tree huggers and PITA talk about
restricting or stopping their fishing and hunting rights. That's when
Minnesotans went to the polls and passed a State constitutional
amendment to guarantee and protect such rights. That's something they
listened up to and paid attention to. Prior to the invasion of
Afghanistan, the average Minnesotan would not only have not been able
to say where the place was, he or she would've not known anything
about the place, much less that there were atrocious human rights
violations being committed there. Or in Cambodia. Or in Africa.
Etc.

Of the few who did know, every one I heard speak of it was saddened
and wished it'd stop. But wasn't inclined to want to send OUR people
to go die for strangers.

Now, whether you realize it or not, there was a fundamental change
when those folks saw the Twin Towers come falling down.

Whereas before only a VERY few meddling busy bodies, and some VERY few
well intended but possibly misguided people ever wanted us to get
involved and interfere in what is really other people's business. And
that's the way most Americans I know thought of these things. MOST
sortta figured it was the UN's problem. And if the UN wasn't doing
anything, must mean they thought no one else ought to interfere.

However, with the fall of those Twin Towers, things changed. One of
the things that changed was folks started wondering ... just what the
HELL is the UN doing? The answer was fairly obvious.

Talking, lining their pockets, talking, lining their pockets, talking
lining their pockets, and talking and lining their pockets.

If you don't know, most US people aren't exactly what you'd call real
patient.

Before, if they even thought about it, just assumed the UN was
actually some sort of effective organization, with real rules that
were enforced. Probably a bunch of lying politicians like all other
lying politicians, almost certainly skimming more money off the top
than they were passing on the countries they bragged they helped. But
what else do yah expect of professional politicians, diplomats,
statesmen, and lawyers? That's normal.

But when Americans saw Americans dying like that, and not even
soldiers ... who voluntarily accept their risks and duties ... they
weren't in a patient mood any more.

Bush, whether or not he may or may not have been inclined to dislike
Saddam personally, does have a duty to the country.

Fact was, if he'd not taken some sort of definite, REAL action ... the
vast majority of the American public would have been inclined to fry
him. And if anyone else other than Bush had been in office, the
public would have felt just the same. Any President would have felt
very real pressure to take action.

Not UN action. REAL action. Make something happen to change things.

Congress felt the same pressure. Or are you one of those suckers who
believe the political rhetoric and outright lies told by several of
them now, that elections are coming up? Originally, Congress passed
the resolutions to allow Bush to take the upper hand and do what he
felt he must. And they KNEW ... every last one of them that he might
well invade. He never, not once, was reticent about that fact. He
proclaimed from the first moment, that if that's what he felt he
needed to do, he'd do it. End of subject.

And when Congress passed that resolution, those that voted 'for'
clamored to immediately get in front of cameras and mikes and let the
public know that, "Yeah, damn right ! I voted for it. We'll do what
we need to do to clamp down on terrorists ... and those who aid them."
Even some of those who now claim ... being the outright, bold liars
they are ... that ... ummm ... well, I didn't really mean what I said
before. I thought we were just talking. I didn't think we'd really do
something like we did.

Those guys are either utter LIARS, or utter IDIOTS ... and in either
case will never get a vote from me.

So Bush did the UN thing trying to gain their cooperation. They did
nothing. As usual. It's what they do best. That, and running if
anything gets too tough or dangerous. We as a country only have a few
friends and allies with the fortitude, conviction, and courage to
stand fast with us when things get tough ... and it isn't the UN.
Hell, the UN won't even go in to deliver medical supplies and food if
they think it's too dangerous. Wanna know who does do such things in
such circumstances? Tends to be the very same folk who stand by us in
war.

If you haven't figured it out yet, I've no use for the UN. Not only
are they useless, thieves, and liars. You'd have to hunt far and wide
to find so many personal cowards in one place. I'm talking about the
heads of the UN. Not the earnest field worker trying to help people.

Anyway Bush tried, the UN lied and said they'd try to do something
that'd work. Even while key members had no such intention since they
were on Saddam's paroll. People like good old Jacques, Shroeder, and
the Ruskie. Who claimed "good intentions" when in reality they were
accepting the pay-off to turn a blind eye to what Saddam was doing and
to interfere with us getting what we wanted, which was UN _action_,
not more talk.

So for how long did Bush try to do the UN thing? A year? And got
nothing.

Okay, there is NOT any real legal restriction against our taking
action ourselves if we feel it's a case of self protection. That's
already established. I'd said that on this newsgroup months ago.
Folks told me I was full of it. Just a few days ago Koki, the head of
the UN if you don't know, was on TV and he admitted the same thing I'd
said. UN rules allow any member nation to do what they feel they must
in self defense. UN rules are also "voluntary compliance" agreements.
Not LAW as we know that term in the U.S.

Now I'm no lover of Koki. I've criticized him before. He's
ineffective as a leader who can get things done. But, he's not stupid
or anything. Probably a very bright, well educated fellow. He damn
well knows that there is NO SUCH THING AS LAW UNLESS YOU HAVE THE
FORCE WITH WHICH TO ENFORCE IT.

It's impossible. A law is not a law unless someone has the force to
exert, and the will to use it, to enforce the law. This was true 5000
years ago. It's still true. And will never change. It can't. Not
possible. Just because yah write something on a piece of paper, that
does not in and of itself make sure one and all actually follows
whatever rule you just wrote down. Some will. The folks who agree
with you. The rest are gonna tell yah to stick it up your ass and go
and do what they wanna do regardless of what you think of it. And you
can yell "But you're violating the law !" until you're blue in the
face, or until one of those you're yelling at turns around and smacks
you upside the head to shut you up ... but just saying the words, just
writing down on paper ... doesn't make it law. ONLY ... the ability
and willingness to enforce the law, by physical force if necessary,
makes something law.

Without the willingness and ability to use force to enforce the rule,
it not law.

In any event, I'm not sure I'd have done things the same way Bush did.
Take out Saddam or try to? Yep, you betcha. But I think I'd have
first done some air strikes that'd have been the mother of all air
strikes. I'd have been inclined to do something besides direct
invasion first. Such as target and blow the holy crap out of
everything that even looked like an Iraqi soldier, tank, missle
launcher, barracks, base, the friggin officers' clubs, sank every
military ship or canoe. Then I'd have concentrated EVERY palace he
owned and would have reduced it to dust.

THEN, I'd have placed a phone call to the fellow or one of his
representatives and I'd have asked, "Want to talk with us real
reasonable now? Do we get to send in people and see if you're lying
to us or not about the WMDs and the terrorist training camps, etc? Or
do we have to get serious here and really start trying to hurt you?"

Chuckle, probably good reason I'll never be a commander in chief or a
general or admiral. The above was my first inclination. But even as
I typed it I realized it would not have worked. Saddam and many of
those who supported him the most, probable aren't even sane. They
were living in a friggin La-La land of fantasy, Witness the fact his
own folks didn't think he was sane any more and hid things from him,
routinely told him what he wanted to hear rather than reality, and so
forth. Undoubtedly Saddam would have challenged us to come on in,
just like he did to the very end, thinking his Army was gonna stand up
and die for a friggin crazy man. Most of em had sense enough to know
he was perfectly willing for THEM to die, so he could be a more
glorious figure in history. Most of them had it figured out that he
didn't give a rip about them or their familes. The only thing Saddam
really cared about was ... Saddam. Hell, he once expressed the
opinion that he thought it was perfectly acceptable for 20 million of
his folks to die, if needed, to bolster his power, image, and
prominence in the world.

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.

Wrong.

By your reasoning, if the cops come across 5 guys who just murdered a
bunch of folks, but only have the manpower and resources at hand to
catch one, for now. That since the others are gonna get away with it,
they should let the one they got go, so he can go kill some more.

Am I safe to assume that under your reasoning, that since somebody in
the Congo is now killing someone else. And we're not tracking him
down. Then if someone else comes to your home and kills your loved
ones ... we should let him go?

We have not the power, nor the resources, nor the inclination to
police the world, sir. For that matter, it's not even our
responsibility. And if we tried, same folks would curse as for doing
so as those who curse us for not doing so,

So our only alternative. Is to ignore those who hate us, as they'll
hate us no matter what we do. Hate is hate. It is not logical nor
reasonable.

In the case of Saddam, for a whole host of reasons, we as a country,
and it's WE ... not Bush ... remember that all those Congressmen gave
him their support, at first until they figured out the could make
political gain by reversing themselves and trying to backstab him ...
we as a country decided he did pose a danger to US. We decided that
as he was so willing to kill off his own folks in horrid fashion. And
since it was known that he'd take war to other countries any time he
felt he could get away with it. (remember Kuwaitt?) Since he was
KNOWN to have possessed .... and MORE importantly .... he was known to
USE WMDs. And since we had some evidence, evidence so good that even
the UN and Clinton believed it, that he might have more but was hiding
it. And since he'd not allow unrestricted searches to take place to
verify whether he did or did not have em. Since we knew he publically
called, many times, for folks to kill the evil US people. Since we
knew he supported some terrorists, thus it was not unlikely he might
support others, and we had intelligence info saying that in fact he
did, or at least key officials in his government did. And since we
knew from past experience, it's all history if you read it, that
Saddam would attack others quickly, violently, and without mercy any
time he felt like he might get away with it. We warned, "Do this, to
show us your good intentions and that you mean us no harm.", and when
he refused, we ACTED.

Now, you might disagree with this. That's your right ... to disagree.
Simply disagreement doesn't mean you are in fact correct. Many of us
think you are not.

As it turns out, some of our intelligence was faulty. Some of it was
accurate.

It would seem that he either did not have the large stock piles of
WMDs, or managed to get them shipped off elsewhere. Shrug So what?
We NOW know he's not got them. And know that he was trying to keep an
active WMD development program in action. Hiding a lab here, a lab
there, small samples of this and that here and there. His own
scientists say that he was still trying to develop the knowledge to
make the stuff ... for later. Why did we worry about Saddam's WMDs
more than someone else's? Who else has a recent history of being so
friggin willing to use em that he tested a batch out on a whole town
of folks in his own country? Who else has them that seemed like such
a crazy, wild assed, loved to do it mass murderer? Hell, even his own
neighbors and fellow Muslims were scared of him.

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.

Nope.

I don't worry about the person who have a history of being a decent,
law abiding citizen who has a gun, either. Or a whole basement full
of guns.

I do worry about the known murders who have guns, however.

Bob