"Jim Yanik" . wrote in message
.. .
"Doug Kanter" wrote in
:

"Jim Yanik" . wrote in message
.. .

Yes,Saddam was running trucks of petro products to Syria so that they
could
sell the oil and the money would go back to Saddam,avolding the UN
sanctions.
Heck,the US does not even "own" it's own borders.

If I'm hearing you correctly, you're saying it's OK that although
there HAD to be people from state, military & intelligence departments
telling Rove that weapons would be moved to Syria, you're fine with
him doing nothing about it.

And, you're also saying that even if he had ordered such operations,
it would have been hopeless, so it's better that we did not try.

Correct?



There was so much traffic moving between Baghdad and Syria,much of it
civilians fleeing the war.
Not to mention that they were worried that Saddam would USE his WMD
instead
of trying to relocate it to another country.

Bull****. We stop hundreds of vehicles a day right now in Iraq. "So much
traffic" is a crock.

As far as Saddam using his WMDs, here's a reason I hear from the right wing
every day, in response to "whining" about the number of American casualties:
"When people join the military, they know what they're getting into. It's a
war. Get over it".

wrote in message
oups.com...
"When lies are told in court, it's perjury. When lies are told on
television
over and over again, it's not perjury. Lies are lies and the label you
apply
does not matter. I don't think Clinton's lies were OK. I think Bush's
are
worse for two reasons. "

A lie doesn;t have to be told in court for it to be perjury. Simply
being under oath, as Clinton was at the time he lied during his
deposition is sufficient for perjury.

As to Iraq, was it a lie when Clinton, Madeleine Albright, Joe Biden,
Sandy Berger, John Kerry and a long list of other Democrats said the
exact same things about Iraq? Was it a lie when Israeli, British,
French and Russian intelligence all came to similar conclusions, that
Iraq had WMDs and WMD programs? Or is it only a lie when President
Bush said it and you seek to divide a country, diminish a president,
and help encourage our enemies in a time of war?

Only the simplest of minds think that expressing opinions aids the enemy.
Hitler got his power from such fools.


"Bosnia, Kosovo, Somalia: Only a lunatic likes to see soldiers die.
But, the
intent of these campaigns was purportedly to save people from bad
things, to
use a simplified reason. Your president said the same thing about Iraq
-
save Iraqis from a leader who killed his own people. Remember? So,
let's not
assign relative value to wars, OK? "

What the hell does that mean? That is was OK when troops died under
Clinton, but not Bush? Or that when a war isn't going as well as one
would like, being a monday morning quarterback, that you just now want
to switch sides?

Did you notice much public outcry against our involvement in those three
places? No, you did not, except perhaps for the way Somalia turned out. Why
do you suppose the country was not so divided then as it is now?

wrote in message
oups.com...

And the fact remains, it was not up to the US or anyone else to play
guessing games and come to a 100% certain conclusion what Iraq was
doing.

What guessing game are you referring to?

"We know exactly where the WMDs are - they are in Tikrit, and to the north
and south and east and west."
-Donald Rumsfeld

Are you questioning one of your mentors? If so, you are giving aid and
comfort to the enemy, rather than supporting our troops.

"Jim Yanik" . wrote in message
.. .
"Doug Kanter" wrote in
:


As far as the Cole, do you think I should write to my legislators and
your president and complain about the bombings in London?



Uh,the USS Cole IS US territory.

You're claiming Clinton was somehow responsible for the fate of that boat. I
like your thinking. I blame Bush for last week's bombing in London.


When are you going to grow up and say "the President" instead of "your
President",because despite your beliefs and "disowning him",he IS your
Prez
as well as the country's.

We've been through this explanation. I did not vote for the REAL Bush, i.e.:
the current slob's father, but I respected him. Some people are so far from
worthy that I disown them. The current slob is in that category.

"Jim Yanik" . wrote in message
.. .
"Doug Kanter" wrote in
:


wrote in message
oups.com...
Yes, indeed - the results were that a lying, pot-smoking, womanizing
draft
dodger got elected in 1992, and reelected in 1996.

Well, I guess we value different things. My personal icons are great
managers from the corporate world, like Lee Iacocca or Jack Welch, so
I

focus on intelligence.


Another classic. Doug focuses on intelligence. Morality and
legality doesn't matter? By that standard some of the best
criminals would be heros. And it's funny he brings up Jack Welch and
Lee Iacocca. What do you think would have happened to either of them
or any other fortune 500 CEO if it were found out that while they
were CEO, they were getting oral sex from a 20 year old intern in
their office at corporate headquarters?


Legal: No mature, intelligent person is unaware of why liquor is legal
but marijuana is not. Even many cops think it's absurd.

Then the law should be revised,not disobeyed.

Blowjob: Either of those two guys may have been fired or reprimanded.
Or not. But, I'm sure you feel that Clinton's sex life was a bigger
problem than sending our soldiers to their deaths for reasons whose
validity keeps evaporating.

Blowjob.....dead soldiers.....hmmmm.




Soliciting BJs from an EMPLOYEE in your chain of command (WH intern)is
*wrong*,illegal,and sexual harassment,even if it's voluntary on the
woman's
part.
Then LYING about it to the American people and Congress was the act that
got him disbarred.

Keep it simple, eh? What Clinton lied about is somehow on the same scale as
what your president lied about?

Focus on SAME SCALE, and answer the question.

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
m...
In article , "FDR"
wrote:

As opposed to the cocaine head, drunk, lying AWOL we have in office now?

Not one of those charges has ever been substantiated.

And you know it.

I don't know about the AWOL, but the other two....how do YOU suppose he got
the way he is now? Seriously.

wrote in message oups.com...
"He's not my president. Therefore I call him Mr. Bush. I don't
endorse the results of either the 2000 or 2004 election. Both
were rigged. "

See, that's the really sad part. There are jerks like you with this
attitude, that want to divide the country for political purposes,

A truly astonishing claim, considering Bush's record since he
took office. He's been one of the most intentionally polarizing
presidents in U.S. history. Not since the Civil War has this
country been so divided on so many issues, and he does
nothing except throw gasoline on the fire whenever and
wherever possible.

In article et, "Andy Sullivan" wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...
"He's not my president. Therefore I call him Mr. Bush. I don't
endorse the results of either the 2000 or 2004 election. Both
were rigged. "

See, that's the really sad part. There are jerks like you with this
attitude, that want to divide the country for political purposes,

A truly astonishing claim, considering Bush's record since he
took office. He's been one of the most intentionally polarizing
presidents in U.S. history. Not since the Civil War has this
country been so divided on so many issues, and he does
nothing except throw gasoline on the fire whenever and
wherever possible.

Examples, please, of *Bush* behaving that way... There certainly are plenty of
examples of *Democrats* doing that (e.g. every time Ted "Chappaquiddick"
Kennedy opens his mouth), but let's see you cite a few examples of things that
Bush has said that are "intentionally polarizing".

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
m...

Examples, please, of *Bush* behaving that way...

Well....he ran for office a 2nd time, didn't he? It's funny: When the news
covers foreign elections, they often refer to a 4-5% margin as a "narrow
mandate" that forbodes trouble.

wrote in message oups.com...
"None of those other people committed our troops to go fight
and die for "bad intelligence". None of those other people
are mass murderers. "

Look in the dictionary and see if under the defintion of a lie it says
anything about it involving the commitment of troops. The fact that
you would refer to President Bush as a mass murder, tells us what you
really are about. By your perverted logic, Roosevelt, Churchill and
Truman were mass murders too because a lot of innocent people died in
WWII.

Apples and oranges. CONGRESS had declared a war.
It wasn't invasion by an executive branch dictatorship.

"It is up to the President of the United States to not commit
treason by committing our armed forces under false pretense
and "bad intelligence". "

Yeah, right and intelligence is always perfect in your little world.
And everyone of the liberal dreamers you just love, did everything they
could to gut the US intelligence community for decades. The
intelligence community couldn't even see the collapse of the Soviet
Union coming, yet you expect them to have 100% knowledge of exactly
what Iraq is up to? LOL

Congrats, every bit of that is wrong. No one expected Bush
to know 100% of anything. But according to the latest polls,
60 percent of the American people expected him to at least
TELL THE TRUTH about the situation before committing
our armed forced to fight and die.

"To the contrary, there's not been a single shred of evidence Iraq
lied about their WMD capability, or rather their lack of it. The
simple fact is, Bush couldn't allow UN inspections to be
completed, because they would have shown no evidence of
WMD, which then would have destroyed any justification for
an invasion"

Yeah right. Couldn't let them be completed? How long were we supposed
to wait?

Blix wanted another six months. That's all. If you're claiming
Hussein represented such an "urgent threat" (Bush's term) to
U.S. national security that another six months would have made
a goddamned bit of difference to anything, you'll have to pardon
the rest of us while we tell you you're bald-faced liars.

Iraq through the inspectors out in the Clinton
administration. Forget about that? Then, even with 100,000 US troops
on Iraqs borders, they still were not fully cooperating with the UN
inspectors. Had we listened to you and France, the troops would have
come home, only to have Sadam start his games all over again. But he
can;t do that now, can he?

No, what we'll eventually get in Iraq will be exactly what we
eventually got in Iran, when their own brutal dictaor (the Shah)
was overthrown: a corrupt oligarchic theocracy twice as bad
as the government it replaced. And at least 1800 Americans,
probably many more will be rotting in the ground for absolutely
nothing. Remember Vietnam? 58,000+ American kids,
average age NINE-****ING-TEEN, dead. For nothing.

"Doug Miller" wrote in message m...
In article et, "Andy Sullivan" wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...
"He's not my president. Therefore I call him Mr. Bush. I don't
endorse the results of either the 2000 or 2004 election. Both
were rigged. "

See, that's the really sad part. There are jerks like you with this
attitude, that want to divide the country for political purposes,

A truly astonishing claim, considering Bush's record since he
took office. He's been one of the most intentionally polarizing
presidents in U.S. history. Not since the Civil War has this
country been so divided on so many issues, and he does
nothing except throw gasoline on the fire whenever and
wherever possible.

Examples, please, of *Bush* behaving that way...

You're kidding, right? On virtually every issue, from Social
Security to stem cell research to civil union rights to Terri
Schiavo to a hundred others, Bush has gone out of his way
to scream a big GO **** YOURSELVES to Democrats
and to the American people. His amoral, corrupt miscreant
VP even used that exact expression at one point. In his last
press conference Bush actually said, "A president shouldn't
pay attention to the polls, or public opinion."

Well, news flash, Mr. Bush: entire regions of the country
want you impeached, and soon:
http://www.zogby.com/Soundbites/ReadClips.dbm?ID=11559

"None of those other people committed our troops to go fight
and die for "bad intelligence". None of those other people
are mass murderers. "

Speaking of "bad intelligence"... What does ANY of this crap have to do with
alt.home.repair?

wrote in message
oups.com...
Yes, indeed - the results were that a lying, pot-smoking, womanizing
draft
dodger got elected in 1992, and reelected in 1996.

Well, I guess we value different things. My personal icons are great
managers from the corporate world, like Lee Iacocca or Jack Welch, so I

focus on intelligence.


Another classic. Doug focuses on intelligence. Morality and legality
doesn't matter? By that standard some of the best criminals would be
heros. And it's funny he brings up Jack Welch and Lee Iacocca. What
do you think would have happened to either of them or any other fortune
500 CEO if it were found out that while they were CEO, they were
getting oral sex from a 20 year old intern in their office at corporate
headquarters?

I'm sure they get it all the time.

wrote in message
oups.com...
"He lied. There never was "no doubt" about his claim. And he
knew it perfectly well. He (or rather, his speech writer -- guess
who that was) chose these words carefully. He could have
said "little doubt" or "virtually no doubt" or a thousand other
phrases. But he (and they) chose to lie to support his inane
policy of "preventive" invasion. "

And so you conveniently avoided the direct question. Was it a lie when
Clinton, Kerry, Albright, Biden, Liberman and a whole long list of
Democrats said exactly the same thing? Was it a lie when British,
Russian, and Israeli intelligence came to the same conclusion? Or is
it just a lie when you want to divide a country, undermine our troups,
and encourage our enemies that seek to destroy us in a time of war?

And the fact remains, it was not up to the US or anyone else to play
guessing games and come to a 100% certain conclusion what Iraq was
doing. We know for a fact that they had WMDs.

Well, where are they? Simple question that no one, but no one has answered.
Bush doesn't even talk about it. If there were WMD there and they were
moved, then they are still a threat, the same threat as they were before.
Do we not care about this threat if they still exists? Should we not be
trying to find these dangerous weapons? Or were they destroyed by Saddam?
And if they were, and as the UN inspectors actually stated they saw none,
then the invasion was a total blunder. Now if Bush was a CEO and blundered
this badly he would have been thrown out long ago.

They used them on their
own people. They launched them at Israel and they used them against
Iran. The UN spent over a decade playing games and trying to destroy
or account for them all. It was up to Iraq to fully comply with
inspections, which they never did, right up till the end.

And of course, had President Bush done nothing, if a WMD was someday
used against the US, killing 1,000 people, jerks like you would be the
first to call for Bush's impeachment because it was all President
Bush's fault, because everyone (read that endless list of names) all
believed he had WMD's, yet Bush did nothing. Nice monday morning
quarterbacking job!

And if we now get hit by WMD that supposedly came from Iraq but were
supposedly moved and sold, and Bush did nothing about it, what would your
response be?

"Jim Yanik" . wrote in message
.. .
"Doug Kanter" wrote in
:


wrote in message
oups.com...
Yes, indeed - the results were that a lying, pot-smoking, womanizing
draft
dodger got elected in 1992, and reelected in 1996.

Well, I guess we value different things. My personal icons are great
managers from the corporate world, like Lee Iacocca or Jack Welch, so
I

focus on intelligence.


Another classic. Doug focuses on intelligence. Morality and
legality doesn't matter? By that standard some of the best
criminals would be heros. And it's funny he brings up Jack Welch and
Lee Iacocca. What do you think would have happened to either of them
or any other fortune 500 CEO if it were found out that while they
were CEO, they were getting oral sex from a 20 year old intern in
their office at corporate headquarters?


Legal: No mature, intelligent person is unaware of why liquor is legal
but marijuana is not. Even many cops think it's absurd.

Then the law should be revised,not disobeyed.

Blowjob: Either of those two guys may have been fired or reprimanded.
Or not. But, I'm sure you feel that Clinton's sex life was a bigger
problem than sending our soldiers to their deaths for reasons whose
validity keeps evaporating.

Blowjob.....dead soldiers.....hmmmm.




Soliciting BJs from an EMPLOYEE in your chain of command (WH intern)is
*wrong*,illegal,and sexual harassment,even if it's voluntary on the
woman's
part.

And yet he wasn't charged with sexual harrasment. Why is that?

Then LYING about it to the American people and Congress was the act that
got him disbarred.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
m...
In article , "FDR"
wrote:

As opposed to the cocaine head, drunk, lying AWOL we have in office now?

Not one of those charges has ever been substantiated.

And neither was the charges that Iraq had WMD prior to invasion.


And you know it.

Yep, and you know it too. Sorry to see so many die because Bush knew more
about Iraq from 10,000 miles away than Hans Blix did whow was actually in
Iraq.


--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

"None of those other people committed our troops to go fight
and die for "bad intelligence". None of those other people
are mass murderers. "

Speaking of "bad intelligence"... What does ANY of this crap have to
do with alt.home.repair?

Nothing at all. Everyone taking part in this Bush crap should be
immiediately put in your *killfile*. If you don't know how to do this,
learn.

"Noozer" wrote in message
news:d9kCe.1968803$6l.1213921@pd7tw2no...
"None of those other people committed our troops to go fight
and die for "bad intelligence". None of those other people
are mass murderers. "

Speaking of "bad intelligence"... What does ANY of this crap have to do
with alt.home.repair?


Not much, but you're reading it, so you must find it somewhat interesting.

"Did you notice much public outcry against our involvement in those
three
places? No, you did not, except perhaps for the way Somalia turned out.
Why
do you suppose the country was not so divided then as it is now? "

Simple. Because the president who undertook those actions was a
Democrat and Republicans were not going to divide the country and
encourage our enemies for political purposes. Only the liberal
extremist Democrats are willing to do that. Prime recent example, Dick
Durbin who compared the actions of our troops to Nazis and Pol Pot.

Another fine example, Clinton was attending a conference on aid to
Africa in Switzerland recently. A bombastic French bitch got up and
denounced the US for not doing enough to aid Africa. Any other
American president, with the possible exception of Carter, would have
diplomaticaly told her to go **** herself, that the US has supplied
more aid than any country on the face of the earth, including freeing
the French and rebuilding their country. Instead, Clinton agrees with
her and says "What do you expect when President Bush is spending all
the money on a war in Iraq." There you have a former president,
speaking out against the US on foreigh soil. And despite the fact that
Bush has given more aid to Africa than Clinton ever did. Dispicable!

"Apples and oranges. CONGRESS had declared a war.
It wasn't invasion by an executive branch dictatorship. "

LOL. Yes and CONGRESS gave the approval for the war in Iraq too, based
on exactly the same information that President Bush had. And what
about Clinton's actions in Bosnia, Somalia, Kosovo, Sudan, etc?
Congress never gave approval in any way for them. So, by your logic
he's a mass murderer too.

"But according to the latest polls,
60 percent of the American people expected him to at least
TELL THE TRUTH about the situation before committing
our armed forced to fight and die. "

Which he did. Look up the definition of a lie.

"Blix wanted another six months. That's all. "

Yeah, just another six months after more than a decade. LOL. Keep
playing Sadam's game. Delay, stall, cooperate just a little, see how
much more he could get away with. Meanwhile, according to Iraq,
100,000 children had died in that decade of economic sanctions, while
Sadam built more palaces and continued murdering his people.

"No, what we'll eventually get in Iraq will be exactly what we
eventually got in Iran, when their own brutal dictaor (the Shah)
was overthrown: a corrupt oligarchic theocracy twice as bad
as the government it replaced. "

Only if we let whining losers like you who want us to leave in defeat
prevail. Imagine a world where most countries were willing to do the
right thing. All of this would have been unneccesary. Had our so
called allies, France, Germany and other countries like Russia and
China all taken a stand against the evil in Iraq, an invansion could
have been avoided. All they had to say was, this is it, either you
straighten up, stop killing your own people, fully cooperate with the
UN weapons inspectors or we will all come get you and try you as a war
criminal, and it would have been very likely that Sadam would have
complied. Instead, clowns like the French and you want to just keep
saying, ohh, just another six months, all the while continuing to trade
and support the SOB. But that won't happen again, will it?

Doug Kanter wrote:
"Gort" wrote in message
...

Doug Kanter wrote:

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
.com...


In article , "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


wrote in message
glegroups.com...


"I'm 52. You've shocked me. I'm surprised you were an adult in the
period
between the REAL Bush's presidency and now, and somehow managed not to
notice some contradictions to what YOU have said in the past day or
two. For
instance, we OWNED the borders of Iraq in almost total safety during
those
years. "


LOL And once again it's Doug Kanter doesn't have a clue as to what
he's talking about. He seems to equate age with knowledge, yet at 52 he
doesn't even know geography. The two borders that are the biggest
problem in Iraq are the borders with Syria and Iran. The US never had
any control over those.


Age is relevant. If he'd said he was 22, then it would be possible he
was
still in the teenage stage of being oblivious during the first half of
the
1990s.

So what's *your* excuse for being so ignorant?


I take it you do not work in a profession which involves trying new
things, or you wouldn't have such doubts about what's possible and what's
not. You simply choose not to entertain the ideas to start with. Stop
some weapons from moving to the exact place we knew they'd go? Not
possible.


I'm curious as to what your Politically Correct justification for
interfering with trade between two sovereign nations would be.
The job of enforcing U.N. sanctions is the responsibility of the U.N. ,
not the U.S. They had, at least fleetingly, access.
That they failed to do anything at all is obvious.


You must've been busy or sleeping when we were flying missions into Iraqi
territory to enforce the no-fly zone. That was YEARS before the invasion.
Once we went that far, do you think the idea of "sovereign nation" meant
jack **** to anyone in Washington?

And, if we'd occupied a chunk of desert, stopped vehicles, and actually
found some with weapons which violated U.N. sanctions, we probably would've
looked golden to the rest of the world.



And you'd have been among the very first to bitch about "Empire Building".
At that time it was a U.N. problem. Remember the Sanctions?
Now you bitch that the U.S. didn't move, but just recently you bitched
that it DID.



--
If you find a posting or message from myself offensive,
inappropriate, or disruptive, please ignore it. If you don't know
how to ignore a posting,complain to me and I will demonstrate.

Doug Kanter wrote:
"Jim Yanik" . wrote in message
.. .

"Doug Kanter" wrote in
:


"Jim Yanik" . wrote in message
5...


Yes,Saddam was running trucks of petro products to Syria so that they
could
sell the oil and the money would go back to Saddam,avolding the UN
sanctions.
Heck,the US does not even "own" it's own borders.

If I'm hearing you correctly, you're saying it's OK that although
there HAD to be people from state, military & intelligence departments
telling Rove that weapons would be moved to Syria, you're fine with
him doing nothing about it.

And, you're also saying that even if he had ordered such operations,
it would have been hopeless, so it's better that we did not try.

Correct?



There was so much traffic moving between Baghdad and Syria,much of it
civilians fleeing the war.
Not to mention that they were worried that Saddam would USE his WMD
instead
of trying to relocate it to another country.


Bull****. We stop hundreds of vehicles a day right now in Iraq. "So much
traffic" is a crock.

As far as Saddam using his WMDs, here's a reason I hear from the right wing
every day, in response to "whining" about the number of American casualties:
"When people join the military, they know what they're getting into. It's a
war. Get over it".


And which word(s) in your quotation do you not understand?



--
If you find a posting or message from myself offensive,
inappropriate, or disruptive, please ignore it. If you don't know
how to ignore a posting,complain to me and I will demonstrate.

Doug Kanter wrote:
"Doug Miller" wrote in message
m...


Examples, please, of *Bush* behaving that way...


Well....he ran for office a 2nd time, didn't he? It's funny: When the news
covers foreign elections, they often refer to a 4-5% margin as a "narrow
mandate" that forbodes trouble.



Yes, he did run for office... and won.
We'll take him to task for this after the execution of Slick Willie, who
also did the same thing.



--
If you find a posting or message from myself offensive,
inappropriate, or disruptive, please ignore it. If you don't know
how to ignore a posting,complain to me and I will demonstrate.

Andy Sullivan wrote:
"Doug Miller" wrote in message m...

In article et, "Andy Sullivan" wrote:

wrote in message
egroups.com...

"He's not my president. Therefore I call him Mr. Bush. I don't
endorse the results of either the 2000 or 2004 election. Both
were rigged. "

See, that's the really sad part. There are jerks like you with this
attitude, that want to divide the country for political purposes,

A truly astonishing claim, considering Bush's record since he
took office. He's been one of the most intentionally polarizing
presidents in U.S. history. Not since the Civil War has this
country been so divided on so many issues, and he does
nothing except throw gasoline on the fire whenever and
wherever possible.

Examples, please, of *Bush* behaving that way...


You're kidding, right? On virtually every issue, from Social
Security to stem cell research to civil union rights to Terri
Schiavo to a hundred others, Bush has gone out of his way
to scream a big GO **** YOURSELVES to Democrats
and to the American people. His amoral, corrupt miscreant
VP even used that exact expression at one point. In his last
press conference Bush actually said, "A president shouldn't
pay attention to the polls, or public opinion."

Well, news flash, Mr. Bush: entire regions of the country
want you impeached, and soon:
http://www.zogby.com/Soundbites/ReadClips.dbm?ID=11559


IF you do get him impeached all he has to say is something like "it
depends on what the definition of "is" is."
Clinton, a lawyer, set a legal precedent.



--
If you find a posting or message from myself offensive,
inappropriate, or disruptive, please ignore it. If you don't know
how to ignore a posting,complain to me and I will demonstrate.

"Doug Kanter" wrote in
:


"Jim Yanik" . wrote in message
.. .
"Doug Kanter" wrote in
:


wrote in message
oups.com...
Yes, indeed - the results were that a lying, pot-smoking,
womanizing draft
dodger got elected in 1992, and reelected in 1996.

Well, I guess we value different things. My personal icons are
great managers from the corporate world, like Lee Iacocca or Jack
Welch, so I

focus on intelligence.


Another classic. Doug focuses on intelligence. Morality and
legality doesn't matter? By that standard some of the best
criminals would be heros. And it's funny he brings up Jack Welch
and Lee Iacocca. What do you think would have happened to either
of them or any other fortune 500 CEO if it were found out that
while they were CEO, they were getting oral sex from a 20 year old
intern in their office at corporate headquarters?


Legal: No mature, intelligent person is unaware of why liquor is
legal but marijuana is not. Even many cops think it's absurd.

Then the law should be revised,not disobeyed.

Blowjob: Either of those two guys may have been fired or
reprimanded. Or not. But, I'm sure you feel that Clinton's sex life
was a bigger problem than sending our soldiers to their deaths for
reasons whose validity keeps evaporating.

Blowjob.....dead soldiers.....hmmmm.




Soliciting BJs from an EMPLOYEE in your chain of command (WH
intern)is *wrong*,illegal,and sexual harassment,even if it's
voluntary on the woman's
part.
Then LYING about it to the American people and Congress was the act
that got him disbarred.

Keep it simple, eh? What Clinton lied about is somehow on the same
scale as what your president lied about?

How could it be a LIE if others like Clinton,foreign leaders and their
intel agencies all believed the same thing?
You keep repeating that falsehood.

Also real evidence that Iraq USED WMD on their own people.


Focus on SAME SCALE, and answer the question.




Focus on REALITY.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

"Doug Kanter" wrote in
:

"Jim Yanik" . wrote in message
.. .
"Doug Kanter" wrote in
:


As far as the Cole, do you think I should write to my legislators
and your president and complain about the bombings in London?



Uh,the USS Cole IS US territory.

You're claiming Clinton was somehow responsible for the fate of that
boat.



Where did you read that into what I wrote?
No wonder you're so messed up.

I like your thinking. I blame Bush for last week's bombing in
London.


When are you going to grow up and say "the President" instead of
"your President",because despite your beliefs and "disowning him",he
IS your Prez
as well as the country's.

We've been through this explanation. I did not vote for the REAL Bush,
i.e.: the current slob's father, but I respected him. Some people are
so far from worthy that I disown them. The current slob is in that
category.




Doesn't matter,he's still your President,until you disown the USofA,become
some other country's citizen.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

Gort wrote in :

Andy Sullivan wrote:
"Doug Miller" wrote in message
m...

Well, news flash, Mr. Bush: entire regions of the country
want you impeached, and soon:
http://www.zogby.com/Soundbites/ReadClips.dbm?ID=11559

All that means is that entire regions of the US fell for the old media's
disinformation campaign.

Hope I got the attribs right.



IF you do get him impeached all he has to say is something like "it
depends on what the definition of "is" is."
Clinton, a lawyer, set a legal precedent.






--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

"Jim Yanik" . wrote in message .. .
"Doug Kanter" wrote in
:
Keep it simple, eh? What Clinton lied about is somehow on the same
scale as what your president lied about?

How could it be a LIE if others like Clinton,foreign leaders and their
intel agencies all believed the same thing?
You keep repeating that falsehood.

It's not "lie". It's a pattern of lies. As in hundreds of them.
Statements, claims etc. that were either half true or outright
falsehoods:
http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2004_cr/h031604.html

No one except Bush claimed there was "no doubt" Iraq
still possessed WMD. Bush knew this claim was a lie
when he said it, and has never produced a shred of
evidence to support it, either before, during or after the
invasion.

No one except Bush fabricated an "urgent threat" from
Hussein, and committed our troops to Iraq using his lies
as primary justification.

"Gort" wrote in message
...
Doug Kanter wrote:
"Gort" wrote in message
...

Doug Kanter wrote:

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
y.com...


In article , "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


wrote in message
oglegroups.com...


"I'm 52. You've shocked me. I'm surprised you were an adult in the
period
between the REAL Bush's presidency and now, and somehow managed not
to
notice some contradictions to what YOU have said in the past day or
two. For
instance, we OWNED the borders of Iraq in almost total safety during
those
years. "


LOL And once again it's Doug Kanter doesn't have a clue as to what
he's talking about. He seems to equate age with knowledge, yet at 52
he
doesn't even know geography. The two borders that are the biggest
problem in Iraq are the borders with Syria and Iran. The US never
had
any control over those.


Age is relevant. If he'd said he was 22, then it would be possible he
was
still in the teenage stage of being oblivious during the first half of
the
1990s.

So what's *your* excuse for being so ignorant?


I take it you do not work in a profession which involves trying new
things, or you wouldn't have such doubts about what's possible and
what's not. You simply choose not to entertain the ideas to start with.
Stop some weapons from moving to the exact place we knew they'd go? Not
possible.


I'm curious as to what your Politically Correct justification for
interfering with trade between two sovereign nations would be.
The job of enforcing U.N. sanctions is the responsibility of the U.N. ,
not the U.S. They had, at least fleetingly, access.
That they failed to do anything at all is obvious.


You must've been busy or sleeping when we were flying missions into Iraqi
territory to enforce the no-fly zone. That was YEARS before the invasion.
Once we went that far, do you think the idea of "sovereign nation" meant
jack **** to anyone in Washington?

And, if we'd occupied a chunk of desert, stopped vehicles, and actually
found some with weapons which violated U.N. sanctions, we probably
would've looked golden to the rest of the world.

And you'd have been among the very first to bitch about "Empire Building".
At that time it was a U.N. problem. Remember the Sanctions?
Now you bitch that the U.S. didn't move, but just recently you bitched
that it DID.

Apparently, the subtleties of timing are something you don't understand.
Tell me: Did you hear much public complaining about the way we handled the
no-fly zones around Iraq for several years? No. You didn't. Why do you
suppose that is?

"Gort" wrote in message
...
Doug Kanter wrote:
"Jim Yanik" . wrote in message
.. .

"Doug Kanter" wrote in
:


"Jim Yanik" . wrote in message
. 85...


Yes,Saddam was running trucks of petro products to Syria so that they
could
sell the oil and the money would go back to Saddam,avolding the UN
sanctions.
Heck,the US does not even "own" it's own borders.

If I'm hearing you correctly, you're saying it's OK that although
there HAD to be people from state, military & intelligence departments
telling Rove that weapons would be moved to Syria, you're fine with
him doing nothing about it.

And, you're also saying that even if he had ordered such operations,
it would have been hopeless, so it's better that we did not try.

Correct?



There was so much traffic moving between Baghdad and Syria,much of it
civilians fleeing the war.
Not to mention that they were worried that Saddam would USE his WMD
instead
of trying to relocate it to another country.


Bull****. We stop hundreds of vehicles a day right now in Iraq. "So much
traffic" is a crock.

As far as Saddam using his WMDs, here's a reason I hear from the right
wing every day, in response to "whining" about the number of American
casualties: "When people join the military, they know what they're
getting into. It's a war. Get over it".
And which word(s) in your quotation do you not understand?

I'm not the one saying that stopping the weapons would have been
impractical. I'm pointing out that it would've been the EXACT same task as
we're doing every day in Iraqi cities, but in a different location (and, I
suspect, a safer one for our soldiers).

"Jim Yanik" . wrote in message
.. .


We've been through this explanation. I did not vote for the REAL Bush,
i.e.: the current slob's father, but I respected him. Some people are
so far from worthy that I disown them. The current slob is in that
category.




Doesn't matter,he's still your President,until you disown the USofA,become
some other country's citizen.

If you're convinced that a coworker is incompetent, do you quit your job?

"Jim Yanik" . wrote in message
.. .
Gort wrote in :

Andy Sullivan wrote:
"Doug Miller" wrote in message
m...

Well, news flash, Mr. Bush: entire regions of the country
want you impeached, and soon:
http://www.zogby.com/Soundbites/ReadClips.dbm?ID=11559

All that means is that entire regions of the US fell for the old media's
disinformation campaign.

And others fell for the disinformation of the Bush team...things like we're
winning in Iraq. Well, I guess if winning means a civil war, then he's
right.


Hope I got the attribs right.



IF you do get him impeached all he has to say is something like "it
depends on what the definition of "is" is."
Clinton, a lawyer, set a legal precedent.






--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

"Doug Kanter" wrote in
:


I'm not the one saying that stopping the weapons would have been
impractical. I'm pointing out that it would've been the EXACT same
task as we're doing every day in Iraqi cities, but in a different
location (and, I suspect, a safer one for our soldiers).




It definitely is NOT the "EXACT same task" as you believe.
One is in a city,and one is way out in the boonies,far from any ground
support,and a WIDE border to police.

I'm no military expert,but even I can see the difference and difficulties.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

"Doug Kanter" wrote in
:


"Jim Yanik" . wrote in message
.. .


We've been through this explanation. I did not vote for the REAL
Bush, i.e.: the current slob's father, but I respected him. Some
people are so far from worthy that I disown them. The current slob
is in that category.




Doesn't matter,he's still your President,until you disown the
USofA,become some other country's citizen.

If you're convinced that a coworker is incompetent, do you quit your
job?



I certainly do not claim he's not a coworker anymore.
If that coworker is your supervisor,do you claim he's not your
supervisor,especially to higher-ups in the company?

What if he's the CEO or President of the company???

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

In article , "Doug Kanter" wrote:

"Jim Yanik" . wrote in message
. ..

We've been through this explanation. I did not vote for the REAL Bush,
i.e.: the current slob's father, but I respected him. Some people are
so far from worthy that I disown them. The current slob is in that
category.

Doesn't matter,he's still your President,until you disown the USofA,become
some other country's citizen.

If you're convinced that a coworker is incompetent, do you quit your job?

Clumsy, inept analogy. Here's a better one: if you're convinced that your
*boss* is incompetent, do you quit your job? Often, the answer is "yes".

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

"Jim Yanik" . wrote in message
.. .
"Doug Kanter" wrote in
:


I'm not the one saying that stopping the weapons would have been
impractical. I'm pointing out that it would've been the EXACT same
task as we're doing every day in Iraqi cities, but in a different
location (and, I suspect, a safer one for our soldiers).




It definitely is NOT the "EXACT same task" as you believe.
One is in a city,and one is way out in the boonies,far from any ground
support,and a WIDE border to police.

I'm no military expert,but even I can see the difference and difficulties.

Safer out in the open, actually. If you've ever been through close-quarters
weapons training and still think you'd rather be in an urban environment
than a rural one, you're nuts.

And, we can place ground support anywhere we want. Ever gone camping?

"Jim Yanik" . wrote in message
.. .
"Doug Kanter" wrote in
:


"Jim Yanik" . wrote in message
.. .


We've been through this explanation. I did not vote for the REAL
Bush, i.e.: the current slob's father, but I respected him. Some
people are so far from worthy that I disown them. The current slob
is in that category.




Doesn't matter,he's still your President,until you disown the
USofA,become some other country's citizen.

If you're convinced that a coworker is incompetent, do you quit your
job?



I certainly do not claim he's not a coworker anymore.
If that coworker is your supervisor,do you claim he's not your
supervisor,especially to higher-ups in the company?

What if he's the CEO or President of the company???

A close friend recently saw a demo of exactly this. Three co-workers were
asked to review a contract that their CEO was about to enter into with a
supplier. The price to be paid was 2-1/2 times higher than what they'd been
paying for identical services in previous years, with no explanation (in the
contract) as to why the services were worth so much more. The CEO refused to
explain the discrepancies and told the team to ignore them, and just make
sure the rest of the contract meets the usual legal requirements. The team
went to the chairman of the board and explained that the CEO, for all
intents and purposes, does not exist. Their reasoning is that he's either
incompetent or crooked. The board apparently agrees. The company's in
turmoil, and there may be a criminal investigation.

So, once again, you've pointed out that something's impossible. But, when
people have smarts or guts, nothing is impossible.

"Doug Miller" wrote in message . ..
In article , "Doug Kanter" wrote:

"Jim Yanik" . wrote in message
. ..

We've been through this explanation. I did not vote for the REAL Bush,
i.e.: the current slob's father, but I respected him. Some people are
so far from worthy that I disown them. The current slob is in that
category.

Doesn't matter,he's still your President,until you disown the USofA,become
some other country's citizen.

If you're convinced that a coworker is incompetent, do you quit your job?

Clumsy, inept analogy. Here's a better one: if you're convinced that your
*boss* is incompetent, do you quit your job? Often, the answer is "yes".

Boss? Mr. Bush works for me. And you.

"Doug Kanter" wrote in
:


"Jim Yanik" . wrote in message
.. .
"Doug Kanter" wrote in
:


I'm not the one saying that stopping the weapons would have been
impractical. I'm pointing out that it would've been the EXACT same
task as we're doing every day in Iraqi cities, but in a different
location (and, I suspect, a safer one for our soldiers).




It definitely is NOT the "EXACT same task" as you believe.
One is in a city,and one is way out in the boonies,far from any
ground support,and a WIDE border to police.

I'm no military expert,but even I can see the difference and
difficulties.

Safer out in the open, actually. If you've ever been through
close-quarters weapons training and still think you'd rather be in an
urban environment than a rural one, you're nuts.

And, we can place ground support anywhere we want. Ever gone camping?




You do NOT put troops where they cannot be supported.
You evidently do not know what "ground support" is.
It certainly is not camping.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

"Doug Kanter" wrote in
:


"Jim Yanik" . wrote in message
.. .
"Doug Kanter" wrote in
:


"Jim Yanik" . wrote in message
.. .


We've been through this explanation. I did not vote for the REAL
Bush, i.e.: the current slob's father, but I respected him. Some
people are so far from worthy that I disown them. The current slob
is in that category.




Doesn't matter,he's still your President,until you disown the
USofA,become some other country's citizen.

If you're convinced that a coworker is incompetent, do you quit your
job?



I certainly do not claim he's not a coworker anymore.
If that coworker is your supervisor,do you claim he's not your
supervisor,especially to higher-ups in the company?

What if he's the CEO or President of the company???

A close friend recently saw a demo of exactly this. Three co-workers
were asked to review a contract that their CEO was about to enter into
with a supplier. The price to be paid was 2-1/2 times higher than what
they'd been paying for identical services in previous years, with no
explanation (in the contract) as to why the services were worth so
much more. The CEO refused to explain the discrepancies and told the
team to ignore them, and just make sure the rest of the contract meets
the usual legal requirements. The team went to the chairman of the
board and explained that the CEO, for all intents and purposes, does
not exist.

Do you have any proof of this(that they used the words "the CEO does not
exist"),or is it just anecdotal?
I suspect they showed evidence of wrongdoing to the BOD,but did not use
those words.

Their reasoning is that he's either incompetent or crooked.
The board apparently agrees. The company's in turmoil, and there may
be a criminal investigation.

So, once again, you've pointed out that something's impossible. But,
when people have smarts or guts, nothing is impossible.




Exposing legal wrongdoing to a BOD or higher-up is not the same as telling
people that the supervisor or CEO "does not exist".
Maybe in your mind,but not in reality.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net