Here are a bunch of clear thinkers, that kinow what they're saying

On 30 Oct 2006 10:33:57 -0800, "rb608" wrote:

wrote:
You mean other than in the heading, the name and when I quit counting,
12 times in the first 4 paragraphs?

I mean the Authorization to Use Military Force, passed September 18,
2001. That bill does not reference Iraq.

So what? That isn't relevant. IAC, most Dems signed off on that, too.

If you meant H.J. Res 114,

Page 1497

AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE AGAINST IRAQ RESOLUTION OF 2002

Page 116 STAT. 1498

Public Law 107-243
107th Congress

where that window dressing repeated from AUMF is buried as Whereas #23
out of 25,

It's in general chronological order. Saddam could have nuked 50
orphanages and gassed 25 million people on October 1, 2001, and it would
have been "buried" after #23.

then yeah, I'll give that to you; but to imply that the
invasion of Iraq was in any substantial way connected to 9/11 is no
less dishonest.

With hindsight that _appears_ to be the case, at least to any direct,
sustained involvement (although it's unlikely the full story with all
the details will ever be known). Pre-March, 2003, there was
conflicting credible information about it (and there still is). Again,
IAC, Saddam and his gang's possible connection to 9/11 was only one a
laundry list of reasons he needed to go.

I'm more accusatory as to why
Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, et al ignored the UN weapons inspectors
and their own intelligence agencies when the information didn't fit
their agendas.

Uh-huh. Let's assume that's true - why aren't you asking the same of
Dems - they had the same information. IAC, the UN weapons inspectors
simply could not be relied upon credible, informed sources - regardless
of any other potential reasons, they simply didn't have the access such
as that would indicate their reports could have been fully-informed.
IOW, them saying the evidence indicated they had observed in their
inspections indicated he had ICBMs and real nukes, absent eyes-on direct
observation, would have been just as suspect. And the simple fact is
that he had weapons and programs that readily produce weapons capable of
"mass destruction," AND most importantly, he had previously used them
multiple times AND used them when they weren't a "last defense," but
rather, a simple offensive expediency.

Secondly, does the Tet Offensive figure into all of this, and if so, how?

Oh my; a Viet Nam analogy? Whodathunk it. Yeah sure, I could drone on
stupidly

I'll take your word for it.

about the effect various chronological religious observations
may have on the level of violence;

But the religious aspects aren't material. Look at the actual conflict
and damage inflicted by the US forces vs. casualties suffered, and then
look into what CBS/Cronkite (and others) reported, followed by the
reaction of the general public.

but I try to stay on topic (even
when off topic), I eschew long posts, and I'd be wrong.

Again, I'll take your word for that.

HTH,
R

Joe F.

On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 18:24:54 GMT, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:

wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
wrote:
... Comparatively, no
one really gives a **** about Iraq.

The friends and relatives of the 3,000 dead American servicemen
care, and the 21,000 horribly mangled and their friends and
relatives care.

I've no doubt they care a great deal, but that number of people, when
compared to the number of people who could potentially care, will appear
very small indeed. I didn't address the comparative few who did care,
only the comparatively very large number who didn't, don't, and never
will. For example: on many, if not most or all, of the
Spanish-language news broadcasts (even those that originate in the US),
Iraq continues to be way down the list of "major news."

Hard to believe you'd try to say that the #1 issue, by far,
in the upcoming election is something no one really gives
a **** about. Seems to me if Iraq is the #1 issue, by far,
most of the American electorate does indeed give a ****
about it.

If you really think Iraq will the number #1 issue to the majority of
folks when they're actually dimpling chads, you need about 5 more years
study toward that 4-year PoliSci degree. And if you think people are
completely honest and forthright with pollsters, you need 6 more
years...

And the red states have given much more than their fair share of
American cannon fodder to the rat-******* neocons who lied us
into this quagmire.

And yet another illustration of the several reasons that there is a good
chance the Dems are yet again going to snatch defeat from the jaws of
victory...wild accusations that reek of hypocrisy. The general
population may not _really_ care about Iraq as a major issue to them,
but they can sense when they are being so blatantly and hypocritically
BS'ed.

LOL !! STOP !! You're killin' me here ! The general population
of red state morons wouldn't know BS if they were hauling it
around in the back of their pick-em-up trucks with the gun
rack, and the confederate flag and the "My kid beat the ****
out of your honor student" bumper sticker.

Oh, well-said, Mr. Carville...might I suggest that you manage to get a
few select Dems to use that as the opening to their speeches...oh, sure,
I know they paraphrase it now, but if they'd just come right on out and
say it plain...you know, so all the morons can understand it...

Good lord, 13.5
million people listen to Rush Limbaugh fer cryin' out loud

And 75% of them are probably liberals looking for something to bitch
about...or "report" on...

and you're telling me they can sense BS ? Get real.

Hey, you take your left-wing loonies just as seriously, and you're
telling me that you know who can sense BS and who can't. Get informed.

No one really "lied 'us' into this quagmire," giving the word
"lied" the everyday meaning.

Yeah, they did, using any reasonable meaning of the word "lied"
you can come up with. Denial is not a river in Egypt, Richard.

No, they (meaning current GOP or Dem) didn't, because this "quagmire"
has taken hundreds of years to get this quag really good and mired.

The problem isn't that there has been a war, the problem is largely that
there hasn't been one.

We can agree on that point. Our energies and resources should
have been focused in Afghanistan.

Er, no.

HTH,
R

wrote:
On 30 Oct 2006 10:33:57 -0800, "rb608" wrote:

wrote:
You mean other than in the heading, the name and when I quit counting,
12 times in the first 4 paragraphs?

I mean the Authorization to Use Military Force, passed September 18,
2001. That bill does not reference Iraq.

So what? That isn't relevant. IAC, most Dems signed off on that, too.

If you meant H.J. Res 114,

Page 1497

AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE AGAINST IRAQ RESOLUTION OF 2002

Page 116 STAT. 1498

Public Law 107-243
107th Congress

where that window dressing repeated from AUMF is buried as Whereas #23
out of 25,

It's in general chronological order. Saddam could have nuked 50
orphanages and gassed 25 million people on October 1, 2001, and it would
have been "buried" after #23.

then yeah, I'll give that to you; but to imply that the
invasion of Iraq was in any substantial way connected to 9/11 is no
less dishonest.

With hindsight that _appears_ to be the case, at least to any direct,
sustained involvement (although it's unlikely the full story with all
the details will ever be known). Pre-March, 2003, there was
conflicting credible information about it (and there still is). Again,
IAC, Saddam and his gang's possible connection to 9/11 was only one a
laundry list of reasons he needed to go.

I'm more accusatory as to why
Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, et al ignored the UN weapons inspectors
and their own intelligence agencies when the information didn't fit
their agendas.

Uh-huh. Let's assume that's true - why aren't you asking the same of
Dems - they had the same information. IAC, the UN weapons inspectors
simply could not be relied upon credible, informed sources - regardless
of any other potential reasons, they simply didn't have the access such
as that would indicate their reports could have been fully-informed.
IOW, them saying the evidence indicated they had observed in their
inspections indicated he had ICBMs and real nukes, absent eyes-on direct
observation, would have been just as suspect. And the simple fact is
that he had weapons and programs that readily produce weapons capable of
"mass destruction," AND most importantly, he had previously used them
multiple times AND used them when they weren't a "last defense," but
rather, a simple offensive expediency.

Secondly, does the Tet Offensive figure into all of this, and if so, how?

Oh my; a Viet Nam analogy? Whodathunk it. Yeah sure, I could drone on
stupidly

I'll take your word for it.

about the effect various chronological religious observations
may have on the level of violence;

But the religious aspects aren't material. Look at the actual conflict
and damage inflicted by the US forces vs. casualties suffered, and then
look into what CBS/Cronkite (and others) reported, followed by the
reaction of the general public.

but I try to stay on topic (even
when off topic), I eschew long posts, and I'd be wrong.

Again, I'll take your word for that.

In all seriousness (what the hell, it costs me nothing), who do you
think you're fooling? I mean, do you honestly suppose that anyone here
believes you are making a good faith effort at discussion? For that
matter......and perhaps more importantly.....do YOU believe it?

Wolfgang

Tim J. wrote:

...but the sad truth is that many (whether or not that constitutes a
majority, I can't say) *are* as indifferent as rdean describes. If some of
these polls are any indictator, most can't find Iraq, Iran, or probably
Wisconsin on a map. Once they were shown where these countries (yes, that
includes The Peoples Republic of Wisconsin) are located, my quess is that
they'd think that was far enough from them as to be safe, but only if they
were able to locate their own state on a map.

If the Republicans are counting on the pig ignorance of the American
voters they may or may not be on firm ground. For example, here's an
article from April 2004:

US Majority Still Believe in Iraq's WMD, al-Qaeda Ties
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0422-09.htm

But this is October 2006.

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 14:57:01 -0500, "Tim J."
wrote:

Wolfgang typed:
Tim J. wrote:
rb608 typed:
snip
The body count won't reset on November 8. You're wrong if you think
we won't care.

Is that "we" as in you and your blue state friends, or "we" as in
you and those dumb bastids from red states?

I'm going to guess it includes anyone to whom a few hundred thousand
needless deaths and maimings is not a matter of complete indifference.
I suppose that anyone who wants to take the time to subdivide them in
one way or another is perfectly free to do so.

That's actually the answer I was seeking. Both you and Joe are now cleared
of charges. ;-)

...but the sad truth is that many (whether or not that constitutes a
majority, I can't say) *are* as indifferent as rdean describes. If some of
these polls

Screw the polls - the last two news cycles have been the flap between
Alex P. Keaton and Rush Limpdick, the fire in California, and Madonna
being a nouveau riche dip****. Before that, it was all Obama, all the
time. Oh, sure, Iraq gets the obligatory daily mention, but if a video
surfaced of Paris Hilton getting thrown a bone from some (or several)
St. Louis player(s) or Britney and Pseudo-Fed or whatever the hell his
name is decided to adopt a North Korean baby, politics and forest fires
would be forgotten faster than, well, history...

HTH,
R

wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
Hard to believe you'd try to say that the #1 issue, by far,
in the upcoming election is something no one really gives
a **** about. Seems to me if Iraq is the #1 issue, by far,
most of the American electorate does indeed give a ****
about it.

If you really think Iraq will the number #1 issue to the majority of
folks when they're actually dimpling chads, you need about 5 more years
study toward that 4-year PoliSci degree. And if you think people are
completely honest and forthright with pollsters, you need 6 more
years...

The war may not be issue #1 with the "trust fund baby" crowd
you hang with but out in the heartland where the military is
seen as a bootstrap many, if not most, people know a relative
or a friend or a friend of a friend who never came back from
Iraq or came back in pieces. And I don't need a pollster to
tell me that.

Good lord, 13.5
million people listen to Rush Limbaugh fer cryin' out loud

And 75% of them are probably liberals looking for something to bitch
about...or "report" on...

Riiiiiiiiight.

Yeah, they did, using any reasonable meaning of the word "lied"
you can come up with. Denial is not a river in Egypt, Richard.

No, they (meaning current GOP or Dem) didn't, because this "quagmire"
has taken hundreds of years to get this quag really good and mired.

How many Americans were killed in Iraq prior to 2003 ? How many
since ? And how many more to come ? You just don't make sense,
Richard.

Our energies and resources should
have been focused in Afghanistan.

Er, no.

Duh, yes.

--
Ken Fortenberry

On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 13:46:07 -0700, rw
wrote:

Tim J. wrote:

...but the sad truth is that many (whether or not that constitutes a
majority, I can't say) *are* as indifferent as rdean describes. If some of
these polls are any indictator, most can't find Iraq, Iran, or probably
Wisconsin on a map. Once they were shown where these countries (yes, that
includes The Peoples Republic of Wisconsin) are located, my quess is that
they'd think that was far enough from them as to be safe, but only if they
were able to locate their own state on a map.

If the Republicans are counting on the pig ignorance of the American
voters they may or may not be on firm ground.

Ah, yes, another Carville wannabe shows up...it's not "ignorance," it's
apathy, and you and Ken are as apathetic as anyone. You're so convinced
of your correctness that you don't see any need to expend any effort to
at least check to see if your kool-aid is spiked, too. Heck, no need to
question anything - NPR, Pelosi, Howard the Duck, and Billary have saved
yer soul! They have HEALED ya, brothers and sisters! YOU HAVE SEEN THE
LIGHT AND JESUS IS THAT LIG...oh, wait...sorry...wrong bunch...YOU HAVE
SEEN THE LIGHT AND BECAUSE OF THE SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE, JESUS
WON'T BE MENTIONED!! Gimme that ol' time relig...oops, sorry again...ya
just can't keep up with which nuts are which...gimme that Clinton-era
bull****, gimme that Clinton-era bull****...

And both parties not only count on it, they encourage it.

For example, here's an article from April 2004:

US Majority Still Believe in Iraq's WMD, al-Qaeda Ties
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0422-09.htm

But this is October 2006.

And your point is...?

HTH,
R

On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 21:00:50 GMT, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:

wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
Hard to believe you'd try to say that the #1 issue, by far,
in the upcoming election is something no one really gives
a **** about. Seems to me if Iraq is the #1 issue, by far,
most of the American electorate does indeed give a ****
about it.

If you really think Iraq will the number #1 issue to the majority of
folks when they're actually dimpling chads, you need about 5 more years
study toward that 4-year PoliSci degree. And if you think people are
completely honest and forthright with pollsters, you need 6 more
years...

The war may not be issue #1 with the "trust fund baby" crowd
you hang with but out in the heartland where the military is
seen as a bootstrap

You mean in the land of red-state morons?

many, if not most, people know a relative
or a friend or a friend of a friend who never came back from
Iraq or came back in pieces.

Or know someone who heard of someone who knew someone who saw a name of
someone killed on TV...no, "most" don't have much direct contact with
such. And I suspect that I knew more people killed, or know more people
who had friends and family killed or injured, than "most" friends of
your friends...and that goes back to Gulf War 1.

And I don't need a pollster to tell me that.

Right...just NPR, Hillary, and Ol' Screamin' Howie...


Good lord, 13.5
million people listen to Rush Limbaugh fer cryin' out loud

And 75% of them are probably liberals looking for something to bitch
about...or "report" on...

Riiiiiiiiight.

Oh, Lord, the 75% wasn't meant as a serious number...but now that I
think about it....OK, so it's probably closer to 71%...seriously, I have
no idea how many listen to him or why, but it's apparently more than
listen to all of Air America...but that'd be, what, 19 people, so ???

Yeah, they did, using any reasonable meaning of the word "lied"
you can come up with. Denial is not a river in Egypt, Richard.

No, they (meaning current GOP or Dem) didn't, because this "quagmire"
has taken hundreds of years to get this quag really good and mired.

How many Americans were killed in Iraq prior to 2003 ? How many
since ? And how many more to come ? You just don't make sense,
Richard.

Our energies and resources should
have been focused in Afghanistan.

Er, no.

Duh, yes.

Er, no.

HTH,
R

wrote:
IAC, Saddam and his gang's possible connection to 9/11 was only one a
laundry list of reasons he needed to go.

That Saddam Hussein (not to mention his sociopathic offspring) was an
undesirable sort with a lengthy rap sheet seems to be a point of
general agreement amongst everyone from Coulter to Carville . The
point of disagreement, and the nit I pick with your sentence above was
whether or not his removal was *needed* at all, much less his
*immediate* removal by military means. Would the US and world
interests and stability have been better served by his departure
through diplomatic means? We'll never know; but things look pretty
lousy down the road we chose. Heck, even Bush 41 saw this coming.

Uh-huh. Let's assume that's true - why aren't you asking the same of
Dems - they had the same information.

The *same information* talking point is a myth. While Dems had a some
of the same information, they did not have all of the same information.
Just as BushCo stovepiped the stuff favorable to their aims, they
obfuscated the dissenting opinions. While BushCo saw it all, the Dems
did not. The "Downing Street Memo", while not proof in itself, is
certainly damning corroboration of the testimony of others. The
intelligence was being fixed around the policy, and the Dems got the
fixed stuff, not the same stuff.

I'm disillusioned with many Dems for their spineless rollover for
political expediency; but how can you vote against action when the Sec.
of State is threatening mushroom clouds over US cities? They were
powerless in either case. No honest evaluation or debate was possible.
I am well aware that many made a political vs. principled choice, and
I will remember those names as 2008 approaches. I think Dems, far more
than Repubs, are willing to honestly and openly criticize their own.
Lieberman's primary defeat in CT is a good example.

IAC, the UN weapons inspectors
simply could not be relied upon credible, informed sources - regardless
of any other potential reasons, they simply didn't have the access such
as that would indicate their reports could have been fully-informed.

I disagree that the UN inspections were not yielding substantially
reliable information. True, just because you don't see it doesn't mean
it isn't there; but enough other measures were in place to mitigate the
need for immediate military action. I believed then, and I am more
confident now, that this was not a war of necessity.

Joe F.

wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
Hard to believe you'd try to say that the #1 issue, by far,
in the upcoming election is something no one really gives
a **** about. Seems to me if Iraq is the #1 issue, by far,
most of the American electorate does indeed give a ****
about it.
If you really think Iraq will the number #1 issue to the majority of
folks when they're actually dimpling chads, you need about 5 more years
study toward that 4-year PoliSci degree. And if you think people are
completely honest and forthright with pollsters, you need 6 more
years...
The war may not be issue #1 with the "trust fund baby" crowd
you hang with but out in the heartland where the military is
seen as a bootstrap

You mean in the land of red-state morons?

Yep, exactly. Poignant picture on the front page of today's
Times and an article on the non-stop, booming military funeral
business at Arlington National. People care, they may be morons
but they care about their dead soldiers. And even red-state
morons can figure out that $4 billion a week is a lot of money
to pay for our soldiers to have a dangerous ringside seat to
an Islamic civil war.

And I suspect that I knew more people killed, or know more people
who had friends and family killed or injured, than "most" friends of
your friends...and that goes back to Gulf War 1.

Hang out with the National Guard down to the local watering
hole quite often do you ? LOL !! You're so full of **** you're
almost endearing.

--
Ken Fortenberry