Why do you insist on being an asshole by continuing the argument of
this thread on rec.norm.
honestly, Abe

plaid wooddoctor and bon vivant

On 18 Feb 2005 20:01:16 GMT, Dave Hinz wrote:

Trying to understand you and BTW, Are you a Christians and which
Church do you go to?

Not relevant. The points I make aren't related to membership or
attendance at a church. That's my point - you're assuming something
that (a) doesn't relate, and (b) doesn't matter, based on a disagreement
that we apparently have.

So you dun belong to any church nor do you go to one, right?
Do you believe in God and do you talk to him or he talk to him?

On Fri, 18 Feb 2005 20:59:31 GMT, Rick Cook
wrote:

Bye..

Abe Normranson wrote:
Why do you insist on being an asshole by continuing the argument of
this thread on rec.norm.
honestly, Abe

plaid wooddoctor and bon vivant

Lame as it is, here's my excuse, up near the top:

http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...e?dmode=source

--

FF

In article ,
says...
As for the employer "contribution", if you've ever become self-employed,
that deception will soon be revealed...

I was self-employed for many years - that's why I'm so aware of that
other half :-).

--
Homo sapiens is a goal, not a description

"Nate Perkins" wrote in message
25.201...

Bush is the only guy I've ever seen that can do endlessly stupid things
and still be considered a heroic man of virtue to his followers.


Maybe you should consider taking the blinders off and try to change your
paradigm for just a minute. Did you consider that maybe the majority of the
population that reelected him knows something that you clueless to?

dwhite

Dave Hinz wrote in
:

On Fri, 18 Feb 2005 06:59:21 GMT, Nate Perkins
wrote:
Dave Hinz wrote in news:37k1niF5e7r24U3
@individual.net:

_IF_ he got rid of them. A dozen years is a long time, and Iraq is
a very large place.

Yeah, and Elvis is still alive, too.

Riiiight, because that's exactly the same thing as a deranged dictator
with a stash of weapons he's happy to use, being given a dozen years
to hide something he's not supposed to have.

The weapons aren't there. Bush's own chief inspectors concluded they were
all destroyed shortly after Gulf War I.

There's nothing to find. Get over it.

(Doug Miller) wrote in
:

In article 1, Nate
Perkins wrote:
"Fletis Humplebacker" ! wrote in
:
Maybe someone over there can explain in terms you
can understand that the UN had mandated that
Saddam was to destroy his WMDs under UN
supervision. Ya see, no one trusted him at that point.

Subsequent investigations have all concluded that he did exactly that,
shortly after the first Gulf War.

Ummm, no, they didn't, and, no, he didn't. What part of "under UN
supervision" do you not understand? Saddam may have destroyed those
weapons, but the UN mandated that they be destroyed under UN
supervision so that it could be *verified* that they were destroyed.
That did *not* happen.

So now you admit that all the weapons were destroyed years earlier. But
you want to claim that the invasion was still justified because the i's
weren't dotted correctly and the t's weren't crossed right?

From the letter of submission from Charles Duelfer's final report: "It
now appears clear that Saddam, despite internal reluctance, particularly
on the part of the head of Iraq’s military industries, Husayn Kamil,
resolved to eliminate the existing stocks of WMD weapons during the
course of the summer of 1991 in support of the prime objective of
getting rid of sanctions. The goal was to do enough to be able to argue
that they had complied with UN requirements."

Si I have to wonder if it really worth thousands of American lives and
hundreds of billions of dollars just because you don't like the way the
paperwork was done??? It seems to me that this is an ideal
justification for pushing continuing inspections, but not for launching
a war.

Much is made of Iraq's use of chemical weapons during the 1980-1988
Iran-Iraq war. The current administration used Iraq's previous use of
chemical weapons as a primary justification for going to war based on
the "intent" of a brutal dictator. Of course the problem with this is
that at the time Saddam was using those weapons, Reagan's administration
had quite a different take on the subject:
http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/

Rick Cook wrote in
k.net:

Doug Miller wrote:
In article 1, Nate
Perkins wrote:

"Fletis Humplebacker" ! wrote in
:

Maybe someone over there can explain in terms you
can understand that the UN had mandated that
Saddam was to destroy his WMDs under UN
supervision. Ya see, no one trusted him at that point.

Subsequent investigations have all concluded that he did exactly
that, shortly after the first Gulf War.


Ummm, no, they didn't, and, no, he didn't. What part of "under UN
supervision" do you not understand? Saddam may have destroyed those
weapons, but the UN mandated that they be destroyed under UN
supervision so that it could be *verified* that they were destroyed.
That did *not* happen.

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

Nobody ever left footprints in the sands of time by sitting on his
butt. And who wants to leave buttprints in the sands of time?

Actually Doug, it's worse than that.

Whether this is lack of knowledge or historical revisionism toward a
domestic political goal, I can't say.

What some folks are ignoring is that Saddam did _not_ dismantle his
WMD program after the Gulf War. He continued his biological weapons
programs under the noses of the UN inspectors, all the while swearing
up and down he had dismantled them.

Not true. See the timeline in the Duelfer report. Line 94,
"Unexpectedly robust UN inspections lead Iraq to start unilateral
destruction, as later claimed by regime." (July 1991). Line 96, "CW
and all BW munitions unilaterally destroyed, according to subsequent
Iraqi claims." (Mid July 1991). Line 103, "Destruction of Bulk Agents
at Al Hakam" (Sept 91).

http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/

This came to light when Saddam's son-in-law, Hussein Kamel al-Majid,
defected in 1995 and blew the whistle on him.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...erts/defectors
..
html

Too bad we don't have a dollar for every Iraqi defector who told us what
we wanted to hear. Take for example the case of Ahmed Chalabi
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...004%2F02%2F19%
2
Fwirq19.xml http://www.newyorker.com/printable/?fact/040607fa_fact1


The UN inspectors were completely hoodwinked. That included the
inspector in charge of the program -- a guy by the name of Hans Blix.
You may have heard of him.

Evidence, please.

In fact most of the BW inspectors were concluding something was there
when the Duelfer report concludes it had already been destroyed (e.g.,
see the timeline in the report).


This also ignores the 9/11 Commission's conclusion that Saddam
intended to re-start his WMD programs as soon as sanctions were
lifted.

Is there any evidence to this effect ... directives, etc? Or is it just
a lot of maybes?

Besides, nobody ever advocated giving Saddam a free rein. Those of us
who weren't in favor of rushing to war were in favor of continuing
inspections.


Oh yeah, about that Sarin gas shell used as a roadside bomb. Two
significant facts that seem to have eluded the critics are 1) all
those shells were reported to the UN inspectors as destroyed. 2) the
shell was
not marked as a chemical weapon at all. In fact it was unmarked.

One twenty year old unmarked shell, that's all you've got? That's the
reason to go to war?

In his UN speech, Colin Powell claimed that there were 65 active
chemical munitions bunkers, and showed a photo of what he said was one
such bunker. In the same speech, Powell says there are missile brigades
outside Baghdad disbursing rocket launchers and warheads containing
biological warfare agents to various locations. Heck, if you listen to
the administration the whole country of Iraq is overflowing with WMDs.
You'd think they ought to be easy to find, eh?


Fundamentally as far as I can see, almost none of the criticism is
about our real failings in Iraq. It is instead about domestic politics
and the fact that these are the policies of a president who is
roundly, thoroughly hated. As a result most of the criticism is either
profoundly
ignorant or very much beside the point.

Our mistakes in Iraq have been many and severe, notably not using
enough troops, but you'd be hard put to learn about them by reading
most of the critics.

You admit that "many and severe" mistakes have been made, but at the
same time you claim that anyone (but you) who criticizes policy and
performance is driven by a "domestic" political agenda and "hatred" of
the president. Seems like a fairly inconsistent position to me.

wrote:
Tim Daneliuk wrote:

Nate Perkins wrote:
SNIP

...

I agree with respect to Afghanistan. I don't agree with respect to


Palestine; I think you want to take credit where none is due.

Really? Do you seriously think the post-Yassar regime' would be
negotiating were it not for US pressure.


I think the death of Yassar Arafat was probably more beneficial than
any US 'pressure'. More than putting pressure on anyone in particular

If it were that simple the Israelis could have killed him at any time
and things would have improved.

I think the Bush administration enabled everyone to rachet up the
violence.

Yeah - it was *really* peaceful before Bush came into office. As I said,
I am no fan of Bush, but this is the kind of Lib frothing that cost you
guys the election. Bush is not the center of evil. He did not cause all
the problems in the world - or any of them actually. He is merely
responding to the world as he found it and as he believes will work. He
may be right, he may be wrong, but blaming him for the various
stupidities around the world that precede him by many years is simply
assinine.

The Dems/Left/Libs got shellacked over the last several election cycles
at most levels of government for two reasons: This kind of "blame our
opponent" mentality, and their general sense of elitism coupled with a
palpable contempt for Everyman. And they richly deserved to lose.


Note that there isn't much pressure on Russia or Turkmenistan
to move toward, nor on Pakistan to move back to Democracy these days.

Presumably because they do not, at the moment, represent any large
or meaningful threat to the US.

SNIP

So, just who was iraq going to invade next? Syria? Turkey?
They might have been able to take on Jordan. But I think
Saddam Hussein knew the US wouldn't let them get away with
that either. He wasn't terribly bright, but he wasn't
suicidely stupid either.

No - he was arrogantly stupid. His failure to open his kimono to a
superpower making threats on his front porch was pure ego and hubris.
The invasion was entirely avoidable up until the last moment. Setting
aside the prudence of the war generally, I think Bush was sincere in his
willingness to stand down our military had SH cooperated as we wished.

One of the fascinating psychological profiles of Bush-bashers is that
they inevitably use a double standard when assessing his actions in
contrast with, say, mass-murdering psychopaths. Where was the Left hue
and cry *before* Bush came into office as regards to SH's human rights
atrocities, for example. Bill Maher said it very well tonite on his
inaugural show of the season: Disagree with Bush all you like, but go
after the *facts* not the *man*.



...


Middle East peace and Jesus" it makes me even more nervous.

This is the disease of the neo-cons. They have some weird religious
version of Manifest Destiny running around in their heads.


I think Manifest destiny is merely a secular presentation of the
Protestant Doctrine of Predestination, similar to how 'Intelligent

Very few Protestant denominations hold a doctrine of Predestination as
firmly as you suggest. Only those in the strict Calvinist tradition -
orthodox Presbyterians, the various Reformed movements, and a very few
of the Reformed-influenced fundamentalist groups. The neo-cons large do
not spring from these intellectual roots. To the extent that you can
detect it, they seem most aligned in their theology with the various
Baptist and IFCA groups.


Design' is simply a secular presentation of the Protestant Doctrine
of Creationism. Consider the contrast between the Protestant

Baloney. My undergrad was in technology at a *very* Fundamentalist
school. My graduate degree is in the math/sciences from a nominally
Catholic school. Without resurrecting the entire ID v. Evolution
debate (a truly stupid debate with neither side properly
equipped to understand the other's point of view - both have
some merits and both have some serious flaws), the idea that
Intelligent Design equals Creationism is at least overstated,
and more usually pure paranoia from the scientific establishment
(that always needs a swift kick in the butt to ever make any progress).


Colonization of Eastern North America and the Catholic colonization
of Western North America. The Protestants simply supplanted
the Native Americans, driving them out. The Catholics herded
them into missions to convert them into Catholics and assimilate
them into the Colonial society. Around the world you'll find
various Protestant sects established in part on the doctrine
that the local natives had no souls.

Another vast overstatement, absent any historical context, and
utterly flawed logically. To whit:

1) The actions of these various religious groups was, on average,
no worse, and often much better, than their secular counterparts
of the same era. How many secular institutions of those times
ever brought large scale food, medicine, and humanitarian
aid the way the missionaries did, for instance?

2) The statement, as written, utterly ignores the human rights
atrocities and abuses practiced by the indigenous peoples
like the Amerinds. These abuses, in part, are likely why some
groups were led to conclude that the "natives had no souls."

3) Bad practice does not invalidate a given worldview. The fact
that some missionaries abused the natives does not inherently
disprove their religious position. Similarly, the lously philosophy
of science that surrounds much of the theory of Evolution
does not, in and of itself, discredit the theory.



The good thing
is that their deep religiosity makes it natural for them to be able

to

spot and name Evil - something the Libs largely don't even believe

exists.

Open your eyes man!

I challenge you to find a Liberal that doesn't quickly agree that
Saddam Hussein is evil or a neo-con who will admit to any evilness

Ward Churchill leaps to mind. Teddy Kennedy is implictly in the same
group, though he may be so consistently drunk these days that nothing
he says can be held seriously.

in Falwell, Robinson, Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld, Limbaugh,
Limbacher or Gonzales.

I agree or disagree in varying degrees with each of the people you have
named. But you use the term "evil' in context with them in the same
breath that you named Sadaam as "evil". The implication, of course, is
that their "evilness" is of a similar degree to Sadaam's. These people
may be wrong, misguided, overly enthusiastic, mindless ideologues, and
so forth, but their wrongness (when they are wrong) does not begin to
remotely approach that of Sadaam's. And you wonder why fewer and fewer
of us take the Left seriously?


Lots of liberals will freely admit that perjury about a blow-job
is perjury, even if it's not 'bad enough' to justify throwing the
President out of office. But try to find a neo-con that thinks
torturing prisoners is worth even appointing a special prosecutor.


They weren't "tortured" except in the lexicon of the Left. They were
*humiliated* and placed under *duress*. No permanent physical harm came
to any of them as best as I have read. And "they" in this case, were
almost entirely non-uniformed combatants operating during a time of war
*which means the Geneva conventions do NOT apply to them*. At the same
time we made these people get naked and blush, their counterparts were
*beheading* uniformed soldiers and civilians. Once again, your inability
to practice that great Lefty skill of "nuance" in assessing degrees of
severity is breathtaking.


Far from being able to spot evil the neo-cons by and large are either
bland to or (given that they aren't ALL stupid) happy to deny the
most dangerous of evil men in their midst, those that attack the
moral priciples themselves


I don't agree that the Left, however defined (personally I find
such characterisations as Left, Right, Liberal, and neo-con to
be not particularly useful)

Another fascinating thing I have noted in many such debates, both
here on the Net in F2F, is that the Left has suddenly decided
it doesn't like "labels". It used to be that the Left was
proudly so, had a point of view that was clear and identifiable,
and clung to some bedrock of asserted principles. Now you
don't even like the name...


Which is why I fight them. I oppose them as a matter of moral
principle. Deceit and dishonesty are wrong. Torture and murder

I have no idea why you fight them, but "moral principle" cannot be it -
at least no consistent moral principle. If it were, the Left would have
been screaming for years about resolving the human rights abuses in
Iraq, the Palestinian suicide bombings, and so forth. One of
the reasons I have finally had it with the Left (which used to be
semi-useful in matters of civil liberties and free speech)
is that its "morality" is quite variable, and the Free Democratic
West is held to some impossibly high standard, but actual despots
and tin pot dictators mostly get a pass. Jimmy Carter - who I
think then and now is a well-intentioned, decent person - condems
US actions on a regular basis, but goes to Cuba and makes common
cause with a murderous despot who has caused the misery of
countless people in his own country. He is a poster child for what
I'm describing...

Lefties that lie, cheat, and steal are wrong too. They typically
do not engage in torture or murder though. That they leave to

No - they usually make nice with the people who *are* torturers and
murderers. As long ago as the FDR administration the US political Left
was openly in bed with avowed Communists. The KGB had people operating
in government with the tacit knowledge of the FDR folks (this is
documented in excruciating detail in "The Mitrokhin Archive"). Communism
in its various 20th Century incarnations was responsible for literally
millions of deaths and many more cases of vast human rights abuses ...
but the Left was always in love with it in varying degrees. The Left
also has - at various times - been in love with the human rights
paradises in Cuba, North Viet Nam, Maoist China, ad infinitum, ad
nauseum. No, they don't actually *do* the torture and murder - they (in
some degree) enable the hitmen who do it ...


the craven cowards and pucilinious wimps among the neo-cons.

The "neo-cons" are neither conservatives nor are they new in any
real sense. They are also not craven - the are ideologues, they
operate from a consistent set of declared principles. At least
you can have a fair debate with a neo-con - you know their point
of view without a lot of guessing. But Lefthink is the "morality
of the moment, the "principle" of the day, the "whatever gets us
into power" movement of the era. Bush bet his Presidency on
this war and on the bet that a free society of some kind could
emerge - he may be right or wrong, but at least we all know
where he stands. The Left stands wherever the footing is best
at the moment - in the case of Teddy Kennedy, he staggers on
whatever footing is available...

Tonight on Bill Maher's show, no less a leading light of the Left than
Sen. Joe Biden from DE admitted that while there are Rightwingers who
oppose anyone on the Left, there are just as many Lefties in government
who hate Bush so much they oppose him, even when what he suggests is
good for the country. To Biden's great credit, he stipulated that the
elections in Iraq were a clear win for Bush policy. We need more people
in government willing to step outside their narrowly defined ideologies
and speak in the interest of Freedom like this - and I do *not* in
general care much for anything Biden has to say.




Iran and North Korea are exhibiting their fear by making nukes as
quickly as possible.

And that, of course, was not happening under previous administrations
right?


Under the previous administration the North Korean program was
stopped dead in its tracks. Dunno about Iran. But, no evidence
of NPT violations by Iran has emrged. Thus far if Iran has any
violations, they have kept them well-hidden while being quite
bold about their actions within the NPT limitations.

Another logical fallacy. The absence of proof is not the same
thing as the absence of the action in question. It is impossible
to believe that the Koreans were "stopped dead in their tracks"
under the previous administration - this would mean that they
spooled up an entire nuclear weapons program from whole cloth
in only the last 4 years - this is very unlikely.

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

"Dan White" wrote in
:

"Nate Perkins" wrote in message
25.201...

Bush is the only guy I've ever seen that can do endlessly stupid
things and still be considered a heroic man of virtue to his
followers.


Maybe you should consider taking the blinders off and try to change
your paradigm for just a minute. Did you consider that maybe the
majority of the population that reelected him knows something that you
clueless to?

You mean the same majority that has insights like this?
http://www.harrisinteractive.com/har...ex.asp?PID=508

Tim Daneliuk wrote in
:

Nate Perkins wrote:
SNIP

Nonsense. You guys go off and engineer an ill-advised war with a

There's no "you guys" about it - I am not a Republican. I just
don't want to get vaporized by flaming JP-6 because *you guys*
want to wait until the flames are rising to declare that
perhaps, just maybe, we ought to do something. I favor
prevention, not after-the-fact responses. Even hardcore ideological
Libs like Christopher Hitchins agree with this - that's why
he very huffily departed the Left after the 9/11 murders.

Right, who wants to get vaporized by flaming JP-6? I'm all for
dispensing swift military justice to the people who committed and
sponsored the 9/11 attacks. But I am not in favor of trotting off and
attacking countries that had nothing to do with 9/11.

There's a knee-jerk reaction after 9/11 to kick some ass, any ass. But
recklessness leads to failure. Judgement, deliberation, and
intelligence lead to success.


country that had no WMDs and no links to 9/11, and then when somebody

We had NO way to know they did not have WMDs ... unless you are
joining the Leftie keening that Bush knew there were none, lied about
it, and invaded anyway. You cannot have it both ways: Either we did
not know and had to act like there were WMDs, or we did know and Bush
lied. In the former case, we did the right thing. The latter, I'd
just like to see proof - if you provide proof, I'll be first in line
to demand impeachment.

I'm not prepared to say that he out and out lied. I think he thought he
knew better than the rest of us, and that he felt like he had to
exaggerate the truth to make his case. Let's call it "elasticity of the
truth."

But to me it doesn't matter if he knew or not. The Presidency is a big
job and it should have high standards. I expect that the leader of the
Free World should have excellent judgement. He should make competent
policy and he shouldn't need to use a bagful of excuses to cover his
failures.


points out that maybe that was a stupid thing to do you all cry "Oh,
the Liberals don't want to let the US defend itself!"

What was stupid about it was believing there would ever be peace
in the region in some simple/short period of time. We never
actually needed boots on the ground there to neutralize the threat.
We could just have bombed, day in and day out, and kept the country
in a permanent state of rubble until Sadaam turned himself in. Our
boots on the ground are because of this incomprehnsible need we
Americans (of all stripes) have to try and do the right thing and
bring some measure if liberty to the people of the region while we're
at it. Stupid us.

Right. But a lot of us did not see the advantage of putting our troops
in to spread liberty to the region. The idea that the Middle East would
fall like dominoes in a wave of spreading democracy is a particularly
stupid neocon idea. Few people would have supported the invasion if the
stated reason was to "spread freedom." Most people supported it because
they were told things about WMD and 9/11 that we now know not to be
true.


I, for one, would prefer to see a policy of strategic bombing
(military and government targets) if we need to do more of this. A
couple of targets per day for a year or so would keep people out of
their government jobs in, say, Syria and Iran, and let them know we
tired of their nonsense without ever putting an American shoe in that
sand... But I'm pretty non-PC myself. Keep em scrambling for cover
and see how much time or energy they have for exporting terror. Plus,
its good practice for our pilots...

I'd like to see a good reason to go to war in Syria and Iran. Backed by
good evidence. Especially since we seem to have had a problem in this
area before.


I agree with respect to Afghanistan. I don't agree with respect to
Palestine; I think you want to take credit where none is due.

Really? Do you seriously think the post-Yassar regime' would be
negotiating were it not for US pressure. What the Arab world seems
not to get is that we have our hand on Israel's collar a good deal of
the time. If we had exited the arena years ago (which all the
Darlings of the Left keep advocating in subtle ways) they'd be
speaking Hebrew from Teheran to Tripoli. Come to think of it, that's
not such a bad plan. We get out and let the Israelis clean up the
mess their way ... which is rather effective.

Israeli-Palestinian prospects have little or nothing to do with Iraq.
They have a lot more to do with the death of Arafat and the remarkable
ability (however temporary) of Abbas to restrain the more radical
Palestinian terrorist elements.

In recent years it's been Sharon's government that has taken the hard
line toward negotiations with the Palestinians. Sharon has been quite
aggressive in his expansion of settlements and in military incursions
and occupations of the Gaza and West Bank. Sharon has no incentive to
look for a peaceful solution, and he has every incentive to continue his
existing stance with the Palestinians. The problem is that neither
Arafat nor Abbas really controls Hamas and the other terrorist groups,
and Israel will always use the terrorism of a few to keep all the
Palestinians under their thumb. It's a nasty cycle.

If Bush really wanted to do something for peace in Israel he'd withhold
foreign aid from Israel until the settlements stop, and maintain aid
only as long as Israel is actively negotiating for peace with the
Palestinians.


With respect to Iraq, I hope you are right that it ends up being a
free democracy. And I hope I am wrong when I fear that it ends up
either in civil war or under a Shiite fundamentalist government (a la
Iran).



The world's 5th largest standing army (iirc), lead by a murderous
dictator, was neutralized, and further (potential) deployment of WMDs
was halted.


There was no active WMD program. And you exaggerate the strength of
his army -- all of which had weapons that were 15 years out of date,
had no spares, and was 1/3 the size it had been during Gulf War I.

OK - so it was the 8th or 9th or Whatever-Makes-You-Happy largest
army in the world. Nitpicking at minor details doesn't change the
larger point - we neutralized one of the top N military threats in the
world.

Iraq's army was fairly weak and certainly no threat to us. Witness how
quickly it caved when we invaded.


Said brutal dictator is now in irons.

Other villians in the neighborhood are getting nervous. This was the
*real* reason to go to Iraq. Bush wants to bring the Middle East
peace and Jesus. But what is mostly needed there, is a deep-seated
fear of ****ing off the US. It worked in Libya - go research the
conversation between Kaddaffi and Burlusconi in the early days of
this war - it is instructive reading. Syria, Iran, North Korea, and
all the rest of the tin pot dictator states need to develop a healthy
fear of what happens when you threaten Uncle Sam. This is the one
and only thing Bush has managed to get right, despite himself...


Yeah, everyone is getting nervous. A bunch of us here in the US are
getting nervous, too. And when you claim that Bush wants to "bring
the

And most of you have never lived anywhere else and seen
real oppression. I have - well, I've seen the results of the
oppression after the fact. Americans - I am proudly one of you now -
especially those born and raised here, are immensely naive' about how
most of the rest of the world actually works. The political Right in
this country is silly, and sometimes stupid, but the Left is flatly
dangerous. It embraces the secular version of "Jesus and peace" and
hopes if you sing enough choruses of Kumbaya, everyone will just get
along. Peace comes (eventually) from winning armed conflict, not from
negotiation or listening to Babs Streisand (or Alec Baldwin, or ....)
englightening the world with the oh-so-learned observations on
geopolitics.

There is something between Left and Right. They are the moderates, and
usually they favor the policy that is the most pragmatic and effective.


Middle East peace and Jesus" it makes me even more nervous.

This is the disease of the neo-cons. They have some weird religious
version of Manifest Destiny running around in their heads. The good
thing is that their deep religiosity makes it natural for them to be
able to spot and name Evil - something the Libs largely don't even
believe exists. At the heart of the Leftie soul is this deeply held
belief that people are good and that circumstances make them bad. It
is the inverse of the religious doctrine of Original Sin. This
cripples the Left when it comes time to try and name something as Bad,
Evil, or Wrong. Look at the walking rectal passage at CU and his
utterances about 9/11 for a pungent example. Yes, he's an extreme
example, but his views differ (mostly) only in degree not kind from
the "mainstream" Left.

In a country of 300 million, you will always find one of those. That
one will be found and broadcast every night on Fox and Clear Channel --
good for ratings of course.

You'll even find one person in a hundred that agrees Churchill. But
you'll find five in a hundred who want to ship him off to Gitmo. Those
five scare me more than the one.


I used to despise the Left and Right equally - they both want to
screw people out of their lives, money, and freedom to apply
it to their pet causes. But the events of the past 4 years have
demonstrated that the Left is considerably worse and more dangerous.
In addition to wanting to "screw people out of ..." they also wish to
impose their secular version of Right and Wrong which is essentially
a denial that the latter innately exists.


Iran and North Korea are exhibiting their fear by making nukes as
quickly as possible.

And that, of course, was not happening under previous administrations
right? You need to go rent a clue on the difference between
correlation and causality. Korea, Iran, and the rest are doing what
they do *because they are totalitarian states* - they have always done
some version of this stuff and they can only be permitted to go so far
before they get swatted. As I said, my preference is continuous
bombing of key targets until they implode ... but, That's Not Very
Nice (tm) ...

Yes, Iran and North Korea have accelerated their pursuit of nuclear
programs under Bush compared to the previous administration.

Lots of countries have nuclear weapons that are not totalitarian states.

Dave Hinz wrote in
:


"Can't find 'em" doesn't mean "aren't here" or even "weren't here",
Nate.


Dave, you are starting to look desperate in your denial. The primary
pretext for going to war with Iraq was WMDs, but they had none prior to
the invasion.

Of course he had them 20 years earlier. At the time Saddam was using
chemical weapons, we were rooting for him in his war with Iran.

What about the Sarin shell that injured our guys, Nate? Don't they
count? Did it not exist? Couple liters of Sarin, what, that's not
enough M to be a W of MD?

No, one twenty year old leftover sarin shell from the Iran-Iraq war is
not enough for me to want to go into a war that costs thousands of lives
and hundreds of billions of dollars.

"Nominally", yes. In actual fact, not really. A US invasion could
have been averted at any time up to the moment of the actual
commencement of hostilities had Sadaam made real inspections
(unfettered, unmonitored, without threat to the Iraqi participants)
happen. He did not, he got tossed out of power.

At the end, under pressure of force, the inspectors were going
anywhere they wanted within 10 minutes notice. Palaces, military
installations, government offices.

Yeah. "Um, no, you can't come in yet...wait, couple more years...
(scramble scramble) - OK, (everything hidden? Yup, I think so...),
all right, come on in."

You're a fool if you don't think that's what was going on when the UN
was pussyfooting around saying "Oh, pleeeeease let us come in? Come
on, Pleeeeease?".

At the end the UNMOVIC guys were going anywhere they wanted with no
notice. You know that. So I think you are intentionally exaggerating.
And still nothing was found.

It's not that easy to move large quantities of WMDs, as Iraq was
supposed to have. We had surveillance overflights, satellites, etc etc
looking for just that.


Yeah, he wasn't eager about having that done. Who would be?

Someone who was still hiding or moving things he wanted to not be
found.

It's always problematic to prove a negative but the simplest explanation
that fits all available facts is that they simply didn't exist at the
time of the invasion.


Sure you are. You're only willing to have the US defend itself
*sometimes* and then only *after* its been attacked. By analogy,
if we were in a bar fight, and the guy at the end of the bar paid me
to poke you in the nose, your argument, roughly would be: 1) You
can't hit the guy at the end of the bar because he did nothing
directly to you and 2) You can't hit me until I actually poke you
in the nose. i.e., You cannot interdict while my arm is in motion
swinging at you.

Nonsense. You guys go off and engineer an ill-advised war with a
country that had no WMDs and no links to 9/11,

We know they _HAD_ WMDs. We know we haven't found much of them
yet. "no links to 9/11" is arguable at best. Why did he have those
bio-lab trailers buried, I wonder? What _is_ with those uranium
enhancing centrifuge parts? How many more sarin shells are still
"wups, forgot that one too" buried?

Bio lab trailers? That was really laughable. Do you know anything
about science ... chemical, biological, or nuclear materials? Ever seen
a chemical plant or a pharmaceutical plant? Do you suppose that
companies like Dow and Amgen spend hundreds of millions of dollars
building manufacturing plants when they could just as easily do it in a
"mobile tractor trailer?"

What centrifuge parts do you mean? The incomplete parts buried in some
guy's backyard in 1991?

You're really reaching. Relying on "evidence" that's already been
thoroughly discredited. What's next? Yellow cake? Aluminum tubes?
Drones?

and then when somebody
points out that maybe that was a stupid thing to do you all cry "Oh,
the Liberals don't want to let the US defend itself!"

I personally think we should have kicked ass, set up the new guy
(or not), and got the hell out. But, going in needed to be done.

Yeah, a bunch of you guys on the right want to get out now that the
going is messy. Unfortunately leaving now creates a much bigger mess
than if we had done nothing. So we have to stay and clean up the
problem that was created.


There have been free elections in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Palestine
for the first time ever (or at least in many years). It is rather
doubtful this would have happened without the US projecting force in
these regions, directly or otherwise.

I agree with respect to Afghanistan. I don't agree with respect to
Palestine; I think you want to take credit where none is due.

You probably won't acknowledge Libya's disarming is a result of
Bush's decisions either, I suppose.

No, I don't. Libya had been trying to rejoin the international
community since 1998, when it turned over the two terror suspects for
the Lockerbie bombing. In early 2001, Libya was lobbying through
Britain for lifting of UN sanctions.


With respect to Iraq, I hope you are right that it ends up being a
free democracy. And I hope I am wrong when I fear that it ends up
either in civil war or under a Shiite fundamentalist government (a la
Iran).

Long as they're no longer a threat to us, sorry, but they can
(and will) go on killing each other without hurting my feelings.
We're not going to change their little thousand-year grudge, but
we can limit the scope of how it threatens us or our allies.

Do you really think there will be less threat to us if one of the
largest countries in the Middle East is either in civil war or under a
Shiite fundamentalist government?


The world's 5th largest standing army (iirc), lead by a murderous
dictator, was neutralized, and further (potential) deployment of
WMDs was halted.

There was no active WMD program.
^^^^^^
Active being the operative word. Now, it'll hopefully be harder for
them to restart their WMD programs as well.

Do they need WMDs? Where are those, what, 330 tons of high grade
plastic explosives that went missing? Do you suppose any of that ended
up with Al Zaqari, and through him over to Osama?

Yeah, we are definitely safer now.


Said brutal dictator is now in irons.

Funny how your type seems to think that's not important.

Brutal dictators are a dime a dozen in the world. And he's not much
different from some of the brutal dictators that we are calling allies
today.


Other villians in the neighborhood are getting nervous. This was
the *real* reason to go to Iraq. Bush wants to bring the Middle
East peace and Jesus. But what is mostly needed there, is a
deep-seated fear of ****ing off the US. It worked in Libya

Damn right it did. But, he won't give Bush any credit for that,
watch.

I'll give Bush plenty of credit for ****ing off the Middle East.


- go research the
conversation between Kaddaffi and Burlusconi in the early days of
this war - it is instructive reading. Syria, Iran, North Korea, and
all the rest of the tin pot dictator states need to develop a
healthy fear of what happens when you threaten Uncle Sam. This is
the one and only thing Bush has managed to get right, despite
himself...

Yeah, everyone is getting nervous. A bunch of us here in the US are
getting nervous, too. And when you claim that Bush wants to "bring
the Middle East peace and Jesus" it makes me even more nervous.

I don't give a damn about what religion someone practices. I get
a tad twitchy when they have shown ability and willingness to use
WMD on people, and make aggressive noises towards my country.

SH bluffed. We called his bluff. He lost.

Iran and North Korea are exhibiting their fear by making nukes as
quickly as possible.

So, do you think that's wise of them, all things considered?

Seems to be effective so far. You think we can take them all on at
once? You suppose we'll invade them once they have nukes?

Dave Hinz wrote in
:

....
But, that's word games. The sooner something gets done to get it
steered in the right direction (or at least, less in the _wrong_
direction), the less that steering will hurt. Deciding if the word
"problem" or "crisis" is more accurate, is just a pointless waste of
effort. I think everyone agrees that it's headed in the wrong
direction.
....

The difference is that many of us believe that Bush's plan for
privatization will steer things more in the _wrong_ direction. That his
plan will cause more harm than good.

Dave Hinz wrote in
:

On Fri, 18 Feb 2005 06:56:12 GMT, Nate Perkins
wrote:

For 14 months the US told Saddam to come clean and disclose his WMDs.
He said he didn't have them. We didn't believe him. We invaded.
Turns out he didn't have any.

Turns out we didn't find any.


Someplace, somewhere, you can probably find someone who still believes that
the earth is flat, too. Doesn't mean it is.

(Ned) wrote in news:4217582d.1069035
@news.individual.net:

On 17 Feb 2005 22:02:46 GMT, Dave Hinz wrote:

snip for brevity

Trying to understand you and BTW, Are you a Christians and which
Church do you go to?


ROFL.

Fletis Humplebacker wrote:


At least you aren't one of those who thinks he knew before the
attacks happened or was in on it. I'm still not sure what you think
he should have done at the moment.

Clearly he did nothing for the rest of the day except make a
brief speech. It was one thing to leave Cheney in charge while
en route to AF1 from the school. But Cheney stayed in charge
of the nation's defense that day even after Bush was aboard AF1.


Clearly? According to who? Michael Moore?



AF1 is designed specifically to permit the US president to
manage the national defense while airborne. That Bush left the
defense of the nation to Cheney is a clear indication that



What's your source? Or do you need one?


Bush knew he was the less competent of the two.
I'm glad that when the chips were down he stepped aside and
let the more competent person take over. I'm not happy to
have a President who is not competent to be Comander-in-Chief.


I see things differently. The fact that there's not been a repeat
occurance is evidence of competency.

"Nate Perkins"
Rick Cook

Doug Miller wrote:
, Nate Perkins
"Fletis Humplebacker"


Maybe someone over there can explain in terms you
can understand that the UN had mandated that
Saddam was to destroy his WMDs under UN
supervision. Ya see, no one trusted him at that point.

Subsequent investigations have all concluded that he did exactly
that, shortly after the first Gulf War.


Ummm, no, they didn't, and, no, he didn't. What part of "under UN
supervision" do you not understand? Saddam may have destroyed those
weapons, but the UN mandated that they be destroyed under UN
supervision so that it could be *verified* that they were destroyed.
That did *not* happen.

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


Nobody ever left footprints in the sands of time by sitting on his
butt. And who wants to leave buttprints in the sands of time?


Actually Doug, it's worse than that.


Whether this is lack of knowledge or historical revisionism toward a
domestic political goal, I can't say.


What some folks are ignoring is that Saddam did _not_ dismantle his
WMD program after the Gulf War. He continued his biological weapons
programs under the noses of the UN inspectors, all the while swearing
up and down he had dismantled them.


Not true. See the timeline in the Duelfer report. Line 94,
"Unexpectedly robust UN inspections lead Iraq to start unilateral
destruction, as later claimed by regime." (July 1991). Line 96, "CW
and all BW munitions unilaterally destroyed, according to subsequent
Iraqi claims." (Mid July 1991). Line 103, "Destruction of Bulk Agents
at Al Hakam" (Sept 91).
http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/



Odd. I searched the page with the quoted words and didn't
find those comments. However, you are still missing the point. The
Iraqi were to destroy their WMDs under UN inspector supervision.
Had they done that there have been no need to make any claims
at all. It would have been documented. Why you and some others
can't grasp that particular point is peculiar.

Nate Perkins wrote:

The difference is that many of us believe that Bush's plan for
privatization will steer things more in the _wrong_ direction. That his
plan will cause more harm than good.

In what way(s)?

In article . 201, Nate Perkins wrote:
(Doug Miller) wrote in
m:

In article 1, Nate
Perkins wrote:
"Fletis Humplebacker" ! wrote in
:
Maybe someone over there can explain in terms you
can understand that the UN had mandated that
Saddam was to destroy his WMDs under UN
supervision. Ya see, no one trusted him at that point.

Subsequent investigations have all concluded that he did exactly that,
shortly after the first Gulf War.

Ummm, no, they didn't, and, no, he didn't. What part of "under UN
supervision" do you not understand? Saddam may have destroyed those
weapons, but the UN mandated that they be destroyed under UN
supervision so that it could be *verified* that they were destroyed.
That did *not* happen.

So now you admit that all the weapons were destroyed years earlier. But
you want to claim that the invasion was still justified because the i's
weren't dotted correctly and the t's weren't crossed right?

Geez, Nate, your reading comprehension just gets worse and worse. I did *not*
"admit that all the weapons were destroyed years earlier". I acknowledged the
possibility that they might have been, while emphasizing that there was *no*
UN verification of that fact.

And you completely missed the larger point of my comment, which is that your
claim that Saddam destroyed those weapons under UN supervision is a great,
fat, thumping LIE.


From the letter of submission from Charles Duelfer's final report: "It
now appears clear that Saddam, despite internal reluctance, particularly
on the part of the head of Iraq’s military industries, Husayn Kamil,
resolved to eliminate the existing stocks of WMD weapons during the
course of the summer of 1991 in support of the prime objective of
getting rid of sanctions. The goal was to do enough to be able to argue
that they had complied with UN requirements."

So on your planet, "resolved to eliminate" is the same as "actually did
eliminate".

Readthat Duelfer quote again. As often as necessary to understand it.
Especially the last sentence. That makes it very clear that the former Iraqi
government was not to actually comply with the UN requirements, but simply to
*appear* to do so.

Si I have to wonder if it really worth thousands of American lives and
hundreds of billions of dollars just because you don't like the way the
paperwork was done??? It seems to me that this is an ideal
justification for pushing continuing inspections, but not for launching
a war.

You persistently miss the point. The problem is not with "the way the
paperwork was done". The problem is that, although the former Iraqi government
*claimed* to have destroyed the WMDs, there was, and is, *no* independent
verification that they actually did so, and hence no way of knowing that those
weapons were actually destroyed, other than taking Saddam's word for it.

Bottom line: We know he had WMDs at one point, because he actually used them.
He claimed to have gotten rid of them. Nobody can verify that claim. It's
illogical to assume that the claim is true.

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

Nobody ever left footprints in the sands of time by sitting on his butt.
And who wants to leave buttprints in the sands of time?

In article . 201, Nate Perkins wrote:


Not true. See the timeline in the Duelfer report. Line 94,
"Unexpectedly robust UN inspections lead Iraq to start unilateral
destruction, as later claimed by regime." (July 1991). Line 96, "CW
and all BW munitions unilaterally destroyed, according to subsequent
Iraqi claims." (Mid July 1991). Line 103, "Destruction of Bulk Agents
at Al Hakam" (Sept 91).

"as later claimed by the regime."
"according to ... Iraqi claims."

And of course we *all* know that Saddam Hussein *always* told the truth.

What planet have you been living on for the last fifteen years, Nate?

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

Nobody ever left footprints in the sands of time by sitting on his butt.
And who wants to leave buttprints in the sands of time?

In article . 201,
says...


Someplace, somewhere, you can probably find someone who still believes that
the earth is flat, too. Doesn't mean it is.

Oh, I don't know. I'd guess the probabilities of either being true are
roughly equal :-).

--
Homo sapiens is a goal, not a description

Fletis Humplebacker wrote:


Fletis Humplebacker wrote:


At least you aren't one of those who thinks he knew before the
attacks happened or was in on it. I'm still not sure what you
think
he should have done at the moment.

Clearly he did nothing for the rest of the day except make a
brief speech. It was one thing to leave Cheney in charge while
en route to AF1 from the school. But Cheney stayed in charge
of the nation's defense that day even after Bush was aboard AF1.


Clearly? According to who? Michael Moore?

According to all the documentaries about the attacks. For
example, it was Cheney who gave the order to shoot down
Flight 93, after receiving authorization from Bush to make
the decision.



AF1 is designed specifically to permit the US president to
manage the national defense while airborne. That Bush left the
defense of the nation to Cheney is a clear indication that



What's your source? Or do you need one?

Documentaries on AF1.



Bush knew he was the less competent of the two.
I'm glad that when the chips were down he stepped aside and
let the more competent person take over. I'm not happy to
have a President who is not competent to be Comander-in-Chief.


I see things differently. The fact that there's not been a repeat
occurance is evidence of competency.

Check your calendar. In March 1993, two months after Clinton
took office AL Queda attacked the WTC. There were no significant
domestic attacks by foreign paramilitary groups during the remainder
of Clinton's two terms of office. The perpetrator's of the 1993
attack were tried, convicted, sentenced and in prison befor Clinton
was re-elected in 1996.

Al Queda turned to attacking AMerican interests on foreign soil,
most particularly in Saudi Arabia and the embassy bombings in East
Africa. The perpetartors of the East African bombings were
aprehended, tried, convicted, sentenced and imprisoned.

It was eight (8) years after the 1993 attack before Al Queda struck
again in the US, this time eight months after Bush took office.

IOW, Al Queda struck very early during the Clinton Administration,
befor Clinton had time ot get his national security policies in
place, and struck again during the bush administration just after
Bush had HIS national security policies in place. That may
just be coincidence but it sure as hell isn't evidence of
competency.

If Al Queda sticks to their history, the next domestic attack
will be in 2009. Meanwhile, they'll attack us aborad.

Bush has yet to bring any perpetrator of the 2001 attacks
to trial. Although he was able to take effective military
action in Afghanistan as the Republicans have dropped their
previous objections to the use of military force against Al
Queda assets abroad. As you will recal the Republicans
called his use of force in the Sudan and Afghanistan
'wag the dog' and George Will called Clinton a murderer.

--

FF

Dan White wrote:
"Nate Perkins" wrote in message
25.201...

Bush is the only guy I've ever seen that can do endlessly stupid
things
and still be considered a heroic man of virtue to his followers.


Maybe you should consider taking the blinders off and try to change
your
paradigm for just a minute. Did you consider that maybe the majority
of the
population that reelected him knows something that you clueless to?


I think the accuracy of polling is overstated.

That said, polls have indicated that a majority of people who
cliam to support Bush also take positions on major issues
that the opposite of the position Bush espouses, AND also
thought that Bush's position was the same as theirs.

IOW, they didn't vote for Bush because of what they knew about
him, they voted for Bush because of what they didn't know
about him.

E.g. the triumph of image over substance is the key to
winning an election. Other recent examples include Ronald
Reagan and Bill Clinton.

No surprise, that certainly does not distinguish Bush from
any other successful politician.

--

FF

Doug Miller wrote:
In article . 201, Nate Perkins wrote:


Not true. See the timeline in the Duelfer report. Line 94,
"Unexpectedly robust UN inspections lead Iraq to start unilateral
destruction, as later claimed by regime." (July 1991). Line 96, "CW
and all BW munitions unilaterally destroyed, according to subsequent
Iraqi claims." (Mid July 1991). Line 103, "Destruction of Bulk Agents
at Al Hakam" (Sept 91).


"as later claimed by the regime."
"according to ... Iraqi claims."

And of course we *all* know that Saddam Hussein *always* told the truth.

What planet have you been living on for the last fifteen years, Nate?

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

Nobody ever left footprints in the sands of time by sitting on his butt.
And who wants to leave buttprints in the sands of time?

Perhaps more to the point -- it ignores the testimony of Saddam's
son-in-law, as backed up by the mass of stuff the Iraqis claimed to have
found on his chicken farm.

The fact is Saddam continued to hide stuff long after he claimed to have
destroyed it or turned it over the the UN.

--RC

Fletis Humplebacker wrote:


Fletis Humplebacker wrote:



At least you aren't one of those who thinks he knew before the
attacks happened or was in on it. I'm still not sure what you think
he should have done at the moment.

Clearly he did nothing for the rest of the day except make a
brief speech. It was one thing to leave Cheney in charge while
en route to AF1 from the school. But Cheney stayed in charge
of the nation's defense that day even after Bush was aboard AF1.

Clearly? According to who? Michael Moore?


That's certainly what Michael Moore would like us to believe. The
evidence is otherwise, of course, but since Bush didn't do it in public,
that can be safely ignored.

AF1 is designed specifically to permit the US president to
manage the national defense while airborne. That Bush left the
defense of the nation to Cheney is a clear indication that

What's your source? Or do you need one?

His source is one part ignorance and one part malice. While it's true
that AF1 has some capability to manage national defense, it doesn't have
_nearly_ the capability that Cheney's 'secure location' does.

So rather than acting like an arrogant, power-hungry jerk in a national
emergency, Bush did the smart thing and delegated command to someone
better positioned to exercise it.

That's pretty obviously good sense -- unless of course you hate George
Bush so much you can't possibly give him credit for any positive action.


--RC

On Sat, 19 Feb 2005 01:09:08 -0600, Tim Daneliuk
wrote:

wrote:
Tim Daneliuk wrote:

Nate Perkins wrote:
SNIP

...

.... snip

Tim,

Very well reasoned and well-written response.


Under the previous administration the North Korean program was
stopped dead in its tracks. Dunno about Iran. But, no evidence
of NPT violations by Iran has emrged. Thus far if Iran has any
violations, they have kept them well-hidden while being quite
bold about their actions within the NPT limitations.

Another logical fallacy. The absence of proof is not the same
thing as the absence of the action in question. It is impossible
to believe that the Koreans were "stopped dead in their tracks"
under the previous administration - this would mean that they
spooled up an entire nuclear weapons program from whole cloth
in only the last 4 years - this is very unlikely.

Actually, it would have had to have happened even faster, they were
already making rumblings about having nukes 2 years ago. Fact is, while
the West was shipping food and aid and supporting the building of
"non-weapon" capable nuclear facilities, the NK's were continuing their
pursuit of nuclear weapons and improving their ballistic missile
technology. They couldn't have spooled up their missile program in a short
two years either (NoDong shot over Japan).




+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
The absence of accidents does not mean the presence of safety
Army General Richard Cody
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

wrote:
Fletis Humplebacker wrote:



Fletis Humplebacker wrote:


At least you aren't one of those who thinks he knew before the
attacks happened or was in on it. I'm still not sure what you

think

he should have done at the moment.

Clearly he did nothing for the rest of the day except make a
brief speech. It was one thing to leave Cheney in charge while
en route to AF1 from the school. But Cheney stayed in charge
of the nation's defense that day even after Bush was aboard AF1.


Clearly? According to who? Michael Moore?


According to all the documentaries about the attacks.

Wrong.

For
example, it was Cheney who gave the order to shoot down
Flight 93, after receiving authorization from Bush to make
the decision.

So in other words, Bush was in overall command, but he was delegating to
Cheney because Cheney was better positioned to exercise immediate
command. Sounds like smart management to me.



AF1 is designed specifically to permit the US president to
manage the national defense while airborne. That Bush left the
defense of the nation to Cheney is a clear indication that



What's your source? Or do you need one?


Documentaries on AF1.

Why am I not surprised? Now, do you want to go beyond those
documentaries and take the time to find out more what AF1's defense
management capabilities are? I thought not.

But here's a hint for you. Air Force One doesn't even have the best
airborne suite for managing national defense. Ever hear of an aircraft
called "Looking Glass?". It's not a VIP transport and it's a hell of a
lot less comfortable than Air Force One, but it has a hell of a lot more
ability to manage a crisis.

Oh, and guess what? Looking Glass is considered a fallback because it
doesn't have nearly the capability of the 'secure location' where Cheney
was holed up.

In other words, Bush's action in delegating authority for running
operations before he got back to Washington is strong evidence of his
management ability. He had the wisdom and the courage to delegate in a
crisis. That takes leadership ability of a high order, believe it or not.

I've got no great love for George Bush, but some of you people are
simply absurd.

--RC

On Sat, 19 Feb 2005 07:38:46 GMT, Nate Perkins
wrote:

"Dan White" wrote in
:

"Nate Perkins" wrote in message
25.201...

Bush is the only guy I've ever seen that can do endlessly stupid
things and still be considered a heroic man of virtue to his
followers.


Maybe you should consider taking the blinders off and try to change
your paradigm for just a minute. Did you consider that maybe the
majority of the population that reelected him knows something that you
clueless to?

You mean the same majority that has insights like this?
http://www.harrisinteractive.com/har...ex.asp?PID=508

Having just looked at that poll, the "majority" agreed with the
following:
" * 90 percent of U.S. adults believe that Saddam Hussein would have
made weapons of mass destruction if he could have.
* 76 percent believe that the Iraqis are better off now than they were
under Saddam Hussein.
* 63 percent believe that history will give the U.S. credit for
bringing freedom and democracy to Iraq.
* 63 percent believe that Iraq, under Saddam Hussein, was a serious
threat to U.S. security.
* 62 percent believe that Saddam Hussein had strong links to Al Qaeda
(a claim which Vice President Cheney has made more than President Bush)."

Those are not unsupportable claims.

Now, what you are continually railing about were *NOT* supported by the
*majority* of those polled, i.e.:
" * 41 percent believe that Saddam Hussein helped plan and support the
hijackers who attacked the U.S. on September 11, 2001.
* 38 percent believe that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction when the
U.S. invaded.
* 37 percent actually believe that several of the hijackers who
attacked the U.S. on September 11 were Iraqis."

Note to Nate: 41 percent is only a majority if you are President Clinton
running for office.

Now, more importantly, you continue to use this as an example of how the
Republicans who voted for Bush are a bunch of morons and believed the above
claims. Take a look further down in the poll where the population sample
is identified:
"a nationwide cross section of 1,016 adults (ages 18 and over) of whom 405
prefer George W. Bush and 362 prefer John Kerry in the 2004 Presidential
Election."

i.e., only 40% of the poll sample preferred Bush, and 36%
preferred Kerry.

So, if you are [mis]using this poll to bash Bush supporters, you
better take another look.




+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
The absence of accidents does not mean the presence of safety
Army General Richard Cody
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 04:33:02 GMT, Nate Perkins
wrote:


I suppose you are right, Doug ... er, Fletis ... um, I mean Mark.


... Oral Roberston...er Rush ... er ....Muslim fundamentalist
with a blond-haired, blue-eyed savior....

GregP wrote:
On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 04:33:02 GMT, Nate Perkins
wrote:


I suppose you are right, Doug ... er, Fletis ... um, I mean Mark.



... Oral Roberston...er Rush ... er ....Muslim fundamentalist
with a blond-haired, blue-eyed savior....

The guy's name was Oral *Roberts*. Jeez, the least you can do is get
the objects of your hate right.

--RC

(Doug Miller) wrote in
:

In article . 201,
Nate Perkins wrote:
(Doug Miller) wrote in
:

In article 1,
Nate Perkins wrote:
"Fletis Humplebacker" ! wrote in
:
Maybe someone over there can explain in terms you
can understand that the UN had mandated that
Saddam was to destroy his WMDs under UN
supervision. Ya see, no one trusted him at that point.

Subsequent investigations have all concluded that he did exactly
that, shortly after the first Gulf War.

Ummm, no, they didn't, and, no, he didn't. What part of "under UN
supervision" do you not understand? Saddam may have destroyed those
weapons, but the UN mandated that they be destroyed under UN
supervision so that it could be *verified* that they were destroyed.
That did *not* happen.

So now you admit that all the weapons were destroyed years earlier.
But you want to claim that the invasion was still justified because
the i's weren't dotted correctly and the t's weren't crossed right?

Geez, Nate, your reading comprehension just gets worse and worse. I
did *not* "admit that all the weapons were destroyed years earlier". I
acknowledged the possibility that they might have been, while
emphasizing that there was *no* UN verification of that fact.

And you completely missed the larger point of my comment, which is
that your claim that Saddam destroyed those weapons under UN
supervision is a great, fat, thumping LIE.


From the letter of submission from Charles Duelfer's final report:
"It now appears clear that Saddam, despite internal reluctance,
particularly on the part of the head of Iraq’s military industries,
Husayn Kamil, resolved to eliminate the existing stocks of WMD weapons
during the course of the summer of 1991 in support of the prime
objective of getting rid of sanctions. The goal was to do enough to be
able to argue that they had complied with UN requirements."

So on your planet, "resolved to eliminate" is the same as "actually
did eliminate".

Readthat Duelfer quote again. As often as necessary to understand it.
Especially the last sentence. That makes it very clear that the former
Iraqi government was not to actually comply with the UN requirements,
but simply to *appear* to do so.

Si I have to wonder if it really worth thousands of American lives and
hundreds of billions of dollars just because you don't like the way
the paperwork was done??? It seems to me that this is an ideal
justification for pushing continuing inspections, but not for
launching a war.

You persistently miss the point. The problem is not with "the way the
paperwork was done". The problem is that, although the former Iraqi
government *claimed* to have destroyed the WMDs, there was, and is,
*no* independent verification that they actually did so, and hence no
way of knowing that those weapons were actually destroyed, other than
taking Saddam's word for it.

Bottom line: We know he had WMDs at one point, because he actually
used them. He claimed to have gotten rid of them. Nobody can verify
that claim. It's illogical to assume that the claim is true.


Your posts are nothing but a lot of silly hairsplitting. The fact is
that WMDs were the primary reason to go to war, and it's clear that
Saddam had no active WMD programs.

You want to quibble about paperwork and wording, when the intent of all
the administration's statements is quite clear. They weren't talking
about going to war because they didn't like the way the paperwork was
done. They weren't talking about chemical weapons from 20 years ago.
They weren't talking about a single old malfunctioning sarin shell.

They were talking about mushroom clouds.

Of course you will never admit that there are no WMDs. Doing so might
cause you to question whether we've wasted thousands of priceless
American lives and ****ed away hundreds of billions of dollars. So it's
easier for you to quibble endlessly.

"Fletis Humplebacker" ! wrote in :


Odd. I searched the page with the quoted words and didn't
find those comments. However, you are still missing the point. The
Iraqi were to destroy their WMDs under UN inspector supervision.
Had they done that there have been no need to make any claims
at all. It would have been documented. Why you and some others
can't grasp that particular point is peculiar.


The quotes are there on the lines mentioned.

I think it is you that is missing the point. Not so long ago, it wasn't
standard American foreign policy to launch preemptive wars, and certainly
not without a clear and present danger.

Now, we launch them at will, and rely on a postjustification of shifting
rationales and technicalities.

(Doug Miller) wrote in
:

In article . 201,
Nate Perkins wrote:


Not true. See the timeline in the Duelfer report. Line 94,
"Unexpectedly robust UN inspections lead Iraq to start unilateral
destruction, as later claimed by regime." (July 1991). Line 96, "CW
and all BW munitions unilaterally destroyed, according to subsequent
Iraqi claims." (Mid July 1991). Line 103, "Destruction of Bulk Agents
at Al Hakam" (Sept 91).

"as later claimed by the regime."
"according to ... Iraqi claims."

And of course we *all* know that Saddam Hussein *always* told the
truth.

The point of the Duelfer report is that the evidence supports the
conclusion that in this particular case the Iraqis were telling the truth.


What planet have you been living on for the last fifteen years, Nate?

Why do I get the impression that if you can't win by reason or facts that
you will try to win by insults?

Rick Cook wrote in
nk.net:

Perhaps more to the point -- it ignores the testimony of Saddam's
son-in-law, as backed up by the mass of stuff the Iraqis claimed to
have found on his chicken farm.

All the defectors were eager to tell us what they wanted us to hear, as
were most of the Iraqi expats. Look at the rise and fall of Ahmed Chalabi
as a prime example.

On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 00:19:18 -0500, "Dan White"
wrote:


"All these conservatives"? Politics 101 says that Repubs are strong on
defense, and Dems are weak on it.


Propaganda 101, you mean. The heavy lifting has always been
done by the Democrats, WWI, WWII, Korea. The Vietnam mess
is everyone's mess. The Republicans, on the other hand, have
been the Brave Conquerors of Grenada, Panama, and Iraq (they
were chased out of Lebanon).

On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 05:27:34 GMT, Rick Cook
wrote:


The guy's name was Oral *Roberts*. Jeez, the least you can do is get
the objects of your hate righ


The guy's name is sleazebag, a True Christian Patriot, but
let's not split hairs.....

Tim Daneliuk wrote in
:

wrote:
I think the Bush administration enabled everyone to rachet up the
violence.

Yeah - it was *really* peaceful before Bush came into office. As I
said, I am no fan of Bush, but this is the kind of Lib frothing that
cost you guys the election. Bush is not the center of evil.

Bush effectively disengaged from the peace process and only made a token
effort at a "roadmap to peace." And when the Israelis sent tanks into
the West Bank and Gaza, Bush did nothing diplomatically or financially
to restrain them.

By exerting no pressure or meaningful initiative for peace, Bush
certainly did enable everyone in the conflict to ratchet up the
violence.


He did not cause all
the problems in the world - or any of them actually.

On the contrary, he directly caused our occupation of Iraq.


He is merely
responding to the world as he found it and as he believes will work.
He may be right, he may be wrong, but blaming him for the various
stupidities around the world that precede him by many years is simply
assinine.

Yes, he is seeing the world as he believes it will work. We don't blame
him for the stupidities that precede him -- just the ones that he was
involved in.


The Dems/Left/Libs got shellacked over the last several election
cycles at most levels of government for two reasons: This kind of
"blame our opponent" mentality, and their general sense of elitism
coupled with a palpable contempt for Everyman. And they richly
deserved to lose.

Bull****. The Dems got beat because the Bushies demonized anyone who
was to the left of Jesse Helms. The Bushies made it seem like the
progressives weren't for strong national defense, that we don't have
family values, that we don't go to church, that we don't support the
second amendment, etc etc. Well that's a lot of crap. We are all for
strong defense, too -- we just don't like the reckless way it has been
pursued by the neo-con nuts. You think progressives don't have wives
and children, too? Yeah we do. And a lot of us even go to church.
Shoot, I own several guns and am a lifelong hunter. And yet I am a
Dem/Left/Lib.

You guys think you represent the Everyman. Nonsense. The Everyman
cares about leaving a decent legacy for their children. The Everyman
realizes that hard work deserves fair compensation, and that everyone
ought to have a fair opportunity to prove their skills. The Everyman
will give his neighbor a hand if he's in a tight spot.

On the other hand, you Bushies believe in a dog-eat-dog world where a
helping hand is a waste of "your" tax money on the welfare "bums." You
believe in a world where it doesn't matter if you saddle the next
generation with a staggering debt, as long as your buddies get some tax
cuts today. Where you don't need a real reason to preemptively invade
other countries -- because everyone knows that might makes right and
besides, they've got it coming to 'em anyway.

Pretty soon the country is going to wake up and realize that the
neo-cons aren't really representing the Everyman at all. And then
we'll see who gets the shellacking.


No - he was arrogantly stupid. His failure to open his kimono to a
superpower making threats on his front porch was pure ego and hubris.
The invasion was entirely avoidable up until the last moment. Setting
aside the prudence of the war generally, I think Bush was sincere in
his willingness to stand down our military had SH cooperated as we
wished.

The "everyone knows that he had it coming to him anyway" reasoning.


(silly discussion of "intelligent design" snipped)

....
I challenge you to find a Liberal that doesn't quickly agree that
Saddam Hussein is evil or a neo-con who will admit to any evilness

Ward Churchill leaps to mind. Teddy Kennedy is implictly in the same

Ward Churchill leaps to mind because he's all over Fox News and Clear
Channel. Without Fox and Clear Channel pushing the story, nobody would
even know who Ward Churchill is. But by airing Churchill every night,
they can pump up their ratings and stoke conservative indignation as
well.

With 300 million people in the country you are bound to find an oddity
like Churchill. If you ask 100 people, you may even find one that
agrees with Churchill. But you will probably find ten other people who
are eager to send those people off to Gitmo. I worry more about the ten
than I do about the one.


Lots of liberals will freely admit that perjury about a blow-job
is perjury, even if it's not 'bad enough' to justify throwing the
President out of office. But try to find a neo-con that thinks
torturing prisoners is worth even appointing a special prosecutor.


They weren't "tortured" except in the lexicon of the Left. They were
*humiliated* and placed under *duress*. No permanent physical harm
came to any of them as best as I have read. And "they" in this case,
were

Are you serious? "Lexicon of the Left"? Here's just one example:
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6988054/
In May of 2004 the Army had 33 active probes going on for the deaths of
a total of 32 detainees in Afghanistan and Iraq:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2004May21.html

....
Lefties that lie, cheat, and steal are wrong too. They typically
do not engage in torture or murder though. That they leave to

No - they usually make nice with the people who *are* torturers and
murderers. As long ago as the FDR administration the US political Left
was openly in bed with avowed Communists. The KGB had people operating
in government with the tacit knowledge of the FDR folks (this is
documented in excruciating detail in "The Mitrokhin Archive").
Communism in its various 20th Century incarnations was responsible for
literally millions of deaths and many more cases of vast human rights
abuses ... but the Left was always in love with it in varying degrees.
The Left also has - at various times - been in love with the human
rights paradises in Cuba, North Viet Nam, Maoist China, ad infinitum,
ad nauseum. No, they don't actually *do* the torture and murder - they
(in some degree) enable the hitmen who do it ...

Similar arguments were used by the supporters of McCarthy to blacklist a
lot of good Americans. I think that as a country, we have a short
recollection of history.

....

Mark & Juanita wrote in
:

....
Now, what you are continually railing about were *NOT* supported by
the *majority* of those polled, i.e.:
" * 41 percent believe that Saddam Hussein helped plan and support
the hijackers who attacked the U.S. on September 11, 2001.
* 38 percent believe that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction
when the
U.S. invaded.
* 37 percent actually believe that several of the hijackers who
attacked the U.S. on September 11 were Iraqis."


Look at the table.

For the claim: "Saddam Hussein helped plan and support the hijackers who
attacked the U.S. on September 11, 2001"
% of Bush supporters who believed it to be true: 52 percent
% of Kerry supporters who believed it to be true: 23 percent

For the claim: "Iraq had weapons of mass destruction when the U.S.
invaded"
% of Bush supporters who believed it to be true: 58 percent
% of Kerry supporters who believed it to be true: 16 percent

The vote on election day was Bush by a 3% margin.

Duane Bozarth wrote in
:

Nate Perkins wrote:

The difference is that many of us believe that Bush's plan for
privatization will steer things more in the _wrong_ direction. That his
plan will cause more harm than good.

In what way(s)?


It's the wrong direction because it increases the deficit, and in the short
term the deficit is a far more pressing problem than is social security.
Borrowing more money (a couple trillion) to finance the parallel
privatization plan is risky because it increases the risk that foreign
debtors will decrease confidence in our committment to fiscal discipline.
There are a host of other problems as well: inconsistent projection basis
for SS solvency vs privatization returns, unlikely projection of future
stock values based on recent historical values, and erosion of return
differences due to administrative fees.

Privatizers like to accurately point out that SS revenues/expenditures are
not practically separate from the general federal revenues/expenditures.
With that being true, then the best thing to do to ease multiple problems
is to restore fiscal discipline.