Slashdot Mirror

Ben Barnes, then Lt. Governor of Texas, admitted he got Bush into the National Guard

Ummm, except Bush joined the National Guard in May 1968, and Barnes wasn't Lt. Governor until 1969. Perhaps the fact that Barnes is a disgraced Democratic politician and major Kerry fundraiser has something to do with his confusion about dates?

So when the typewriter with a proportional font and a th key is found you have to admit that Bush lied about his guard service. A lie, a dirty little lie from a dishonest and dishonorable liar who cannot be trusted to tell the truth on any subject.

Now... on to business...

The IBM Executive had proportional fonts in 1942, it was the workhorse typewriter for much of business for that exact reason. A Lt Colonel is exactly the type of person who would want correspondence to be written in an impressive typeface. The clerk would use the same machine to write all memos regardless of importance.

First off, military correspondence is prepared in accordance with regulations, not artistic fancy. The notion that a mid-level officer, like a Lieutenant Colonel, would be concerned with pretty typefaces in 1973 is silly. That didn't become a craze until the Macintosh in the mid '80s.

It is very unlikely that a relatively low level tactical headquarters would have the sort of fancy, expensive typewriters like that in the early '70s. This is especially true for a National Guard unit, which tends to get hand-me-downs. Even if they were buying new equipment, it isn't likely at the time that they would have bought this sort of expensive typewriter.

Having typed more military correspondence, memos, and reports than I care to remember, working with proportional fonts is a pain when you are formatting manually. When I eventually was able to use a computer for that sort of thing I always tried to use one font, courier, since it was fixed width and made complying with regulations so much easier. I can't believe that they wouldn't have done the same, i.e. used a fixed width font / typeface.

If you visit this site where you can find a copy of the manual for the IBM Selectric Composer. Or, visit IBM's site and check into the research papers on some of these typewriters. Then start looking for all of the features necessary to reproduce those documents. They aren't there in any single combination of elements.

You might get sort of close, but the only way that you could do it by would be by doing things which would greatly slow down the production of documents. That is, type a bit, stop, swap type elements, type, stop, swap type elements, type, etc., repeat. Based on that, I think it is very likely that they would handle things like superscript elements (th) like almost everybody did with typewriters: use the same typeface and off-set it. That would have been both efficient and acceptable under regulations. To even suggest that they would have done it by swapping type elements is ridiculous, especially since the supposed author of these secret memos could barely type.

At least that is more credible than your idea of field modification to typewriters. The selectric you mention used type-balls. I don't think that there are going to be very many field modifications to those.

Routine administrative functions in low-level military headquarters rely upon standard, mass produced office equipment, generally from the lowest bidder. They don't rely on fanciful machines combining features from multiple known machines that existed somewhere in the world, or ones with special modifications to type runes.

And you should be clear that there are more than just self-proclaimed experts saying these document

The swift vets are also behind the anti-Kerry best seller, "Unfit for Command," which has already forced Team Kerry to retract his decades-old claim that he was sent on an illegal covert mission to Cambodia on Christmas 1968.

Kerry's own handpicked historian, Douglas Brinkley, told the Washington Post over the weekend that Kerry's Christmas in Cambodia claim is "obviously wrong," backing up a key claim by the swift vets who say it never happened.

Kerry at times has claimed that he only threw away his military ribbons and not his medals at anti-war protests, but the swift vets use video uncovered by ABC News that shows him saying he did in fact toss his own medals.

Here is another Kerry claim that is withering:

A primary claim against Mr. Kerry by the Swift Boat Veterans is that Mr. Kerry's first Purple Heart -- awarded for action on Dec. 2, 1968 -- did not involve the enemy and that Mr. Kerry's wounds that day were unintentionally self-inflicted.

They charge that in the confusion involving unarmed, fleeing Viet Cong, Mr. Kerry fired a grenade, which detonated nearby and splattered his arm with hot metal.
Mr. Kerry has claimed that he faced his "first intense combat" that day, returned fire, and received his "first combat related injury."
A journal entry Mr. Kerry wrote Dec. 11, however, raises questions about what really happened nine days earlier.
"A cocky feeling of invincibility accompanied us up the Long Tau shipping channel because we hadn't been shot at yet, and Americans at war who haven't been shot at are allowed to be cocky," wrote Mr. Kerry, according the book "Tour of Duty" by friendly biographer Douglas Brinkley.
If enemy fire was not involved in that or any other incident, according to the Military Order of the Purple Heart, no medal should be awarded.

And more:

None of Kerry's three Purple Hearts was for serious injuries. They were minor scratches, resulting in no lost duty time.

Each of these decorations is controversial, with considerable evidence (and in two cases, incontrovertible and conclusive evidence) that the injuries were caused by his own hand and not the result of hostile fire.

You should also be clear that not all of the veterans who have spoken out and revealed information contrary to John Kerry's claims are members of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.

And then there is John Kerry's testimony before Congress in 1971, which was a masterpiece of political theater in the service of lies.

It is also interesting to note that while you will hear endlessly repeated that the Swiftboat Veterans for Truth are funded by rich Republicans which means this:

But public records show that two of its three main backers are longtime GOP contributors: Bob Perry, a Texas home builder who gave $100,000, and Harlan Crow, a Dallas real estate executive, who gave $25,000.... The third major backer is John O'Neill, who put up $25,000 and is co-author of the group's book.

.. what you won't hear is that the seed money was followed up by a lot of people making small individual contributions:

But the swift-boat veterans have vowed to continue their ad campaign and have raised more than $2 million in contributions, a

and the journalist ripped the other guy to shreds

Ah, yes, this answers the question by providing an example of how the Swifties are lying. If the "journalist" ripped the guy to shreds then the Swift Boat Veterans must be lying.

he also exposed that the swift boat guy has had an agenda against Kerry for over 20 years (It's actually over 30 years)

So I suppose that George Bush has been secretly behind John O'Neill for over 30 years just so O'Neill could come out against Kerry now, right? Personally I might be upset at Kerry too if he had lied about me and then used his lies for his own personal gain over the last 30 years. Oh, and if you want to see someone "ripping the other guy to shreds," you might want to watch the John O'Neill vs. John Kerry debate of June 30, 1971.

Oh, and just so I can prove my point about providing specific examples, here are a couple from the Swift Boat Veterans:

1) John Kerry lied about Christmas in Cambodia - This is something that even John Kerry's campaign has been forced to acknowledge.

2) John Kerry lied about soldiers committing war crimes, himself included. Though it is true some small number of soldiers committed war crimes, it was not at all common to engage in these acts as Kerry describes it, nor was it fair to condemn the entire military based on the acts of a few. Also, this is an interesting point, either Kerry was truthful about committing war crimes and he, himself is a war criminal (far worse a criminal than those involved in the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse scandal I might add), or John Kerry is again lying. Which would you rather have, a pathological liar or a war criminal?

Lastly, for those who will whine and moan about why are we still talking about Vietnam, I'll tell you why. Because John Kerry can't stop talking about it! Kerry can't seem to complete a sentance without mentioning that he served in Vietnam. If Kerry wants us to look at his Vietnam record above his Senate record for the past 20 years then we're going to do it. And we won't back down.

The point of the electronic demonstrations isn't to take down a site, according to Ricardo Dominguez, co-founder of the Electronic Disturbance Theater, or EDT, which is releasing a FloodNet program of its own. Unlike hackers' denial-of-service attacks, which often hijack computers against their users' will, EDT's JavaScript-based software depends on how many people use the program. "It's a way to let people around the world gather and let their presence be felt," Dominguez said.

Not that he would mind if a Republican server just happened to crash along the way. In 2002, at the EDT's direction, 43,000 people flooded the site of the World Economic Forum during its meeting in New York. The organization's website went offline for several hours following the demonstration.

Saddam in no way posed a threat to you. He did not support terrorists. It a lie, he was a threat only to his people.

You are smoking crack. Iraq has been on the Council on Foreign Relations State Sponsors of terrorism for 2 decades. The US state department Indicted Iraq with these words "Al Qaeda reached an understanding with the Government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the Government of Iraq". Iraq openly sponsored Ansar al-Islam (led by Bin Laden trained Abu Musab al-Zarqawi), Hamas, PKK, Mujahedeen-e-Khalq, and the Abu Nidal Organization. Hussein even offered Bin Laden asylum when he was kicked out of Afghanistan by the Taliban in 1999. There are many more examples (1, 2) if you ever bothered to do some research.

Bin Laden is on record calling Saddam a "Socialist Infidel".

He is also on record encouraging the entire muslim world to unit with Iraq to fight against western powers.

I don't know what this deal is with France being the only country asking for evidence instead of biasd inteligence and political cliche.

France doesn't exactly have a great track record when it comes to defending their own national security.

If the threat of Saddam were real wouldn't they want to jump in the ring with us?

Not when the gravy train called the UN "Oil for Food" program was funneling billions in cash and oil their way. Would you want to attack when your hand was still in the cookie jar?

Took a week, but here we go:

You want someone else other than Novak? Fine:

Ok, there were two other "breeches" of Plame.

I think this is a dead issue, because the CIA already new the cover was blown before the Novak column ever came out.

As for the conspiracy theory about Tenet and the White house, well... it's just a conspiracy theory.

Wes Boyd, president of the group's Voter Fund, said in a statement the ad was one of more than 1,500 submissions that were posted on the Web site www.bushin30seconds.org for the public to view and comment on.

"None of these was our ad, nor did their appearance constitute endorsement or sponsorship by MoveOn.org Voter Fund," he said. "They will not appear on TV. We do not support the sentiment expressed in the two Hitler submissions."

But he also said the ads should be contrasted with the 2002 Senate elections and the Republican use of images of Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden to attack incumbent Democratic senators.

For example, Republican Saxby Chambliss ran an ad against Sen. Max Cleland, a Georgia Democrat who lost three limbs serving in Vietnam, that used bin Laden's and Saddam's faces to criticize a Cleland vote on homeland security. The ad was later edited to remove their visages.

If that isn't a hate-motivated attack (intended, of course, to generate more hatred towards Bush), then I don't know what hate is.

And yes this is WAY offtopic.

The difference is, Christians do not take Bible as the literal words of God.

Go tell that to the Young Earth Creationists. Most Christians in the USA believe (or at least claim to believe) in the Bible as the literal Word of God. 61% believe in creation from Genesis. 60% believe in Noah's Flood.

Go look at the nutters at the Creation Science Fair, for example. (I was originally sure this site was a parody, but am becoming less and less convinced of that as time goes on.) Middle School level, 2nd place, "Women were designed for homemaking."

It came from Joe McCarthy. Given how the administration has professional scriptwriters, I think would be smarter than to use that exact expression. Or they're not getting value for their money.

The republican Scott Reed, a 'consultant' who once ran the Dole campaign, called Hillary Clinton (A United States Senator, nonetheless) "un-american".

However, Rumsfeld undoubtedly used the exact term "un-american" when describing the Iraqi prison abuse.

Does the exact word matter? When Ashcroft says things like:
To those who scare peace-loving people with phantoms of lost liberty, my message is this: Your tactics only aid terrorists, for they erode our national unity and diminish our resolve.

And claims that his critics aid terrorists, and given the 'war on terrorism' and the fact that aiding the enemy amounts to treason, does it really matter what the exact words were?

The insinuation is there.

Let me turn now to chemical weapons (CW). In searching for retained stocks of chemical munitions, ISG has had to contend with the almost unbelievable scale of Iraq's conventional weapons armory, which dwarfs by orders of magnitude the physical size of any conceivable stock of chemical weapons.

For example, there are approximately 130 known Iraqi Ammunition Storage Points (ASP), many of which exceed 50 square miles in size and hold an estimated 600,000 tons of artillery shells, rockets, aviation bombs and other ordinance. Of these 130 ASPs, approximately 120 still remain unexamined.

As Iraqi practice was not to mark much of their chemical ordinance and to store it at the same ASPs that held conventional rounds, the size of the required search effort is enormous.

Insugents seek Saddam's chemical weapons. -- CIA has found chemical weapons in Iraq.

Story 1 about bin Laden and a possible Saddam connection, Story 2

Al-Qaeda and Iraq, Atta and Iraq, Sarin and Mustard gas in Iraq.

As well as the fact that Saddam killed a million of his own people, plus the number of UN resolutions he was in violation of.

Please consider the moral issues that derive from making money off a war and its reconstruction. Do you want to be part of the military-industrial complex, to join the likes of Haliburton or Kellog, Brown & Root? Do you want to be a war profiteer?

The proof that Saddam worked with bin Laden

Iraq-al Qaeda link comes in focus

Terrorist behind September 11 strike was trained by Saddam

The Clinton View of Iraq-al Qaeda Ties

Has Iraq sponsored terrorism?

Ansar al-Islam: Back in Iraq

If Saddam had complied with the UN resolutions, we would know where the WMDs are. He didn't comply. That alone is a violation of the cease-fire from the first Gulf War and justification for military action. I know I am in a minority, but I still firmly believe that the WMDs will be found.

President Bush never said that Iraq posed an imminent threat to the US- on the contrary he was very clear that we must act before Iraq becomes an imminent threat.

The executive branch has claimed that Saddam had ties with terrorism, not just al Qaeda. This is not a new claim- Iraq has been on the State Department's list of terrorism supporting states for 15 years.

That said, there is some strong evidence that Saddam did work with al Qaeda

Let's be honest though, this action in Iraq has weakened the US's ability to deal with terrorists

How? Allow me to quote from the President's (excellent) speech last night:

The rise of a free and self-governing Iraq will deny terrorists a base of operation, discredit their narrow ideology and give momentum to reformers across the region.

This will be a decisive blow to terrorism at the heart of its power and a victory for the security of America and the civilized world.

I don't know how you managed to do it, but you have a virtual catalog of the lies, distortions and strawmen being used by the left to try and discredit the administration.

Didn't Saddam turn over something like 13,000 pages of documents?

Yes, and they were filled with incomplete, misleading, or already known information. Look for yourself. Apparently your position is "Bush lied", but Saddam tells all, and only the truth? If that is your position you are either incredibly na?ve or stupid.

Didn't he cave in and allow UN inspectors anywhere in Iraq?

Not without interference, delay, and attempts to keep them out of various places.

It boils down to this, Bush and Rumsfeld and Cheney declared that Iraq was an "imminent threat"

A tedious, often repeated lie. The administration described Iraq as a gathering threat which we could ill-afford to allow to become an imminent threat.

and tried to link it to Al Qaeda.

Iraq did have links to Al Qaeda. There is no evidence Iraq was behind 9/11 though.

Both turned out to be false.

Your strawman is false, the other is true.

Or when he disregarded the findings of weapons inspectors made since the 1990's?

The problem is Saddam admitted to having WMDs that were unaccounted for, and the inspectors kept finding problems with Iraq's disclosures. You might also find the Kay report interesting since it chronicles a number of findings even if they hadn??t found much in the way of actual WMD at that point. Of course, you would have to have an open mind.

Or when he refused to listen to the "yellowcake uranium" claim being disproven?

The UK government says that its source is the the forged documents, and stands by the claim.

Heck, I knew about that disproof in late 2002, it made some headlines in anti-war sites.

The anti-war sties have "proven" many things "false" that are still true today.

In addition, they had claims that they knew were the WMDs were. "We know where they are" one said, indicating that they knew exactly where they were stored. Even Colin Powell's UN speech seemed to sure, but it all turned out to be completely false, and none of it has been substantiated since.

We've found two so far, uncovered research for biological weapons, work on missiles that constitute serious breaches of the UN resolutions, and many other activities Regarding WMDs, even if we did know exactly where they were, are you saying Saddam's government couldn't have moved them? That is silly. It would only take a couple of tractor trailers to move them and they had a country the size of California to hide them.

Then you haven't been paying attention. The US promotes General Jerry Boykin, the general who goes to a church and tells the people that Muslims worship an idol and not a real god?

The General's personal beliefs have nothing to do with suppressing religion practiced by others. He is free to believe what he wants, or don't you believe in the 1st amendment for all US citizens?

Mr Grainer, the guy who tortured Iraqis in Abu Ghraib, beats the people until they curse Allah and Islam?

So, you are saying random criminals now determine US policy? That is a foolish notion.

The US is doing military incursions into Karbala and Najaf, some of the holiest cities to the Shiites? They knocked down a minaret, flattened half of a sacred mosque, and put bullet holes into the dome of the Imam Ali mosque (which is really frightening to all Shiites worldwide).

Once again you a

Oh, you may need to pardon them for their mushroom usage, but it's for a good cause

You cant have a pair of drug abusing plumbers lead the war on terror and drugs

I am sure that is the case. That the abuse is not representative of the US Army as a whole.

But. It does seem to be widespead across all the US Army run prisons. The stories coming out of Iraq and Cuba are something that nobody should feel comfortable about. The number of civilians murdered during combat is also insanely high. It should no longer be acceptable to go to a foreign country and kill thousands of people living in their own homes. Killing people who are defending their homes (ala Fallujah) is also morally bankrupt as far as I'm concerned.

New Zealand lost its first person in the Iraq mess yesterday. We didn't agree to send any fighting troops but we did send part of our engineer corps and a couple of them got involved in an ambush. It's a real shame.

You may believe that the Patriot Act is G.W's tyrrany and that Conservatives are "evil", but I assure you, there are very few people in Congress right now who are opposed to it, regardless of party affiliation.

Sure?

The PATRIOT Act got a lot of people pissed off -- ordinary folks, even. It contains a lot of rather Orwellian bits. A bunch of organizations were very vocal about it, and there was a TV campaign run against it.

Because John Kerry firghtens the hell out of me on so many different levels, and I am convinced that if Congress re-ratified the Patriot Act, Kerry would _NOT_ veto it.

First, we already know what Bush did -- he *didn't* veto it. Kerry is an unknown.

I would be interested in hearing your support of your claim that Kerry would be more in favor of expanding ease of government surveillance than Bush. The only Kerry input I've heard on the issue has been regarding revalations that the FBI was building a file on Kerry for his antiwar work during Vietnam. Kerry stated that he was disturbed about the extent to which the FBI was able to monitor and build up such a complete file.

I feel lucky today that 9/11 was an attack by planes and not a nuclear weapon. Until Islamic Societies mellow out, we _WILL_ have that risk. I personally am convinced that its not a matter of "if", but rather "when".

This is one thing I have a problem with. You have people in a large number of places that are frightened of US oppression, have little means of fighting back conventionally, and have reached the point of desperation that they are willing to give up their own lives to try to advance anti-US efforts. I cannot understand how invading a country, occupying it, establishing martial law, suppressing the press, and placing in power a puppet government is going to solve this problem. Iraq never attacked us. Individuals living in the Middle East did because of fear and dislike. Bush has, instead of solving the problem, made things worse with Iraq.

Taking on Saddam Hussein is not an easy thing to do. In fact, attacking Saddam has already knocked one President out of office and it may very well knock another out. The Bush Administration was fully aware of this when they made the decision to invade.

That's not the point. I have issues with:

* A president misleading the American people, the people who hired *him* to do his job. Iraq had nothing to do with terrorism, and in taking the move to attack Iraq, Bush severely damaged America's reputation abroad -- the US has not caused negative waves like this for a long time. Clinton was impeached for lying about a blowjob. I think that Bush could at least be held to the standard of being honest when it comes to issues relating to leading the country (and issues germane to us forcing young men and women of our country to die -- if we do so, it should damned well be with honest information).

* True value of his decisions -- whether they really damaged the United States. Bush has tried (and failed) to support invading Iraq with each of the following claims or implications: "Saddamn backed terrorists", "Saddam is building weapons of mass destruction", and "Saddam is a clear and present danger to the United States". Every single one of these was shot down. The latest that I've heard from the pro-war movement is "the world is better off without Saddam". I'm not entirely sure that this is true. The man was definitely a hard man, and had at one point in history flaunted the United States. He invaded another country for their resources. However, he had been slapped back, and showed no signs of trying to do the same thing again. Iraq is not a gentle place, and there is no guarantee that whatever structure eventually takes place will be better, for either the people of Iraq or of the people of the United States. We had spent a good deal of effort and money understanding Saddam. Saddam

Actually a lot of spammers are middlemen, they make money wether a product sells or not, they work as advertisers and get paid by the people selling the product. What they rely on is the percecption that "spam works", so people will hire them to do spam campaigns.

Spammers make profits without making a sale

great ! where shall we meet ? Madrid ?

Every day we see the constant stream of Microsoft security failures.

And those aren't minor, obscure failures. They affect millions of Windows users. They fill up our our reject logs. And they don't require special conditions -- Windows exploits can hit you simply because you browsed a webpage, played an MP3, received an e-mail, or just by having your PC connected to the Internet.

In fact, not only was there a story about three new Windows vulnerabilities, just two stories before this one, but Windows vulnerabilities set an all time record in February for the number of new exploits in a month. According to The Washington Times, "Internet attacks in February caused an estimated $68 billion to $83 billion in damages worldwide."

And to counter the impression that Windows has bad security, we are presented with... wait for it... a single Linux site, whose faulty administration procedures have left their machines vulnerable to local exploits, requiring the cracker(s) to first sniff a password.

And then the parent poster suggests that the two are somehow equivalent???

How lame!!!

#1: This link quotes two men as stating they saw Bush when he was based in Alabama, the time that the Demo'rats (and you) claim he was AWOL. One mentions that he was his drill partner, and that Bush was present at all drills.

#2: While I cannot find proof that Bush has not attended any funerals of fallen soldiers (although there is plenty of rhetoric about him not attending), I did find this link which mentions several war time presidents, some of which and some of which did not attend troops funerals. Some who did, only attended those of children of family members or of men they personally met. Criticizing Bush for not going to these funerals is silly as he is not the only president to not do this.

#3: However, people are more likely to commit suicide today than ever before, too. Suicide, as any psychologist will tell you, is about depression, not about disagreement with a war. While, yes, there have been soldiers who filed "consciensious objector" status so they do not have to fight (but only 3 that I know of so far). It's possible that troops are depressed in Iraq due to a number of factors (heck, they are being shot at), but this does not mean they do not agree with the efforts.

#4: You're taking what I said out of context, which is what you Demo'rats like to do. The full statement was, "... the troops love hearing how Bill Clinton and Dick Clarke failed to deal with Iraq in 1997 as Clinton had planned." That statement is factually accurate. Clinton HAD planned to deal with Iraq in 1997 and FAILED to do so. This means, he did NOT do it, therefore he failed. I did not say that the situation in Iraq was Clinton's fault, it was Saddam's fault and the inability of the U.N. to uphold their own laws.

#5: However, in previous testimony, recordinds, and emails Clarke says the COMPLETE OPPOSITE. The GOP believes he lied under oath", and Clark praises Bush at a seperate point, and in his resignation letter, also praises Bush on how he handled 9/11. So what is it? Is he lying now... or was he lying then? Either way, he cannot be trusted... yet you believe him. Curious...

#6: Which you conveniently left out, this page says that Clarke is not a registered Democrat, but wants to be. And you can be registered "independant" as I am, so just because you're not registered demo'rat doesn't mean you need to be registered republican. So, of course, if he wants to be a registered Demo'rat, that re-enforces my assertion that he is doing this for political purposes.

#7: I don't have to respond to this one since You have stopped arguing this point.

There's your proof... have a good day!

That agreement was with the U.N. Are we the U.N.?

Attempt to assassinate Bush Sr.

Was that a response to us attempting to assassinate Saddam? Or, Kaddafi, or Castro, or [insert long list of U.S. successful and unsuccessful attempts to assassinate foreign leaders from South America to Asia]?

Giving aid and comfort to terrorists

Who? The U.S.? If it were that, then why not invade North Korea, or Iran, or Pakistan, or Saudi Arabia...etc? The answer is below.

Refusing to cooperate with the UN.

Again, are we the U.N.?

Being a rat-bastard tyrant

Finally, the honest answer. But, only partially honest. His daddy was made a fool by Saddam, and everyone knew that if Shrub got into office, the Iraqis would pay. Shrub's Secretary of the Treasury reports that plans for invading Iraq were in the making only within a few days of Shrub's theft of the election. If it were simply a matter of being a rat-bastard, there are plenty of others further along the road to bastard-hood: North Korea's loony leader for one. The problem is, no oil there, so no business drive to get there. Afghanistan proved a perfect, inarguable cause. Not for the one you think. True, Bin-Loonie was there, but that was simply the inescapable argument for invasion. If we could tame that country (only an asteroid dropped from space could achieve that), we could finally lay that oil pipeline we've been planning on for the past 30 years. Unfortunately, CNN and FauxNews channels don't cover this little bit of history, but we've been in a chess game with the Russians and Chinese for this bit of inhospitable land for quite a while. By the way, this is also why we're "friends" with Pakistan.

Simple failture of Washington/Baghdad diplomacy

No. Simple failure of Shrub Administration/U.N. diplomacy. His daddy was better at it, but this numbskull couldn't control his trigger finger. His only half-way feasable argument (even Powell had to excise some of the outright lies from the deceptive rhetoric he was forced to spew to the U.N.'s collective face) of Weapons of Mass Destruction have vanished into thin air, leaving a unpleasant odor that the rest of the world blames us for.

'they're trying to get nukes'

Again, why not invade Saudi Arabia, Iran, North Korea, or Pakistan? They're the biggest terrorist threats outside of Afghanistan. They've been attempting to get nuclear long before Iraq, and have actual terrorist ties. The reason is this was a personal vendetta and business agenda, and he used to this country to fulfill it. If he should force Iraq's oil wells within U.S. corporate controls in the process of taking revenge, all the better. This monkey has to go come November.

You're right in that Shrub didn't attack Iraq simply for Weapons of Mass Destruction. That's just what he used to sell it.

The truth is, the rest of the world was behind us going into Afghanistan because that's where t

American companies are active in the wind energy arena. Consider General Electric's Windpower business. General Electric has started to take both wind and Solar Power seriously lately, which is typical of the large American companies once these technologies get to a certain stage. The US has a mixed research environment, with much of the basic research happening in Universities under Government funding and guidelines.
This research model may prove to be flawed in the long run, simply because foreign corporations and students have perhaps just as easy access to research produced in US Universities as do US corporations, given that over half the PhD candidate positions in engineering in the US are given to foreign students.
Still, it would be kind of silly to claim that the US doesn't make significant contributions to global research, simply because the model in the US has most of the basic research occurring in University rather than corporate labs. The problem for the US is that America has to sell nearly half a trillion dollars of corporate assets per year to foreign nations to pay for its trade deficit, resulting in the loss of fundamental research capacities like IBM's former world class storage systems research labs in Silicon Valley, which sold for a mere $2 billion. Sell, oh, two hundred of those each year and it really puts a crimp in your long term plans.
Still, there's no chance the US will address this problem because to speak of it is politically incorrect, so in the future countries which care about their trade balance will be the wealthy ones who can support research.

Wrong Link: stem cells out of those

GOP pushes malpractice caps, election agenda

The GOP bill is supported by a host of physicians groups, including the American Medical Association, which has long been a proponent of limiting malpractice damages across all medical specialties.

According to the Congressional Budget Office, malpractice insurance premiums for obstetricians and gynecologists increased 22 percent nationally between 2000 and 2002. While there has been an increase in lawsuit filings, this has not necessarily translated in findings against physicians.

Healthcare policy experts say that doctors are more likely to settle cases these days because the risks are smaller than when going into open court. For malpractice insurers, settlement provides a way to more readily predict final costs.

S Corea's (that's how they want it spelled) largest credit company barely just avoided bankruptcy. Their entire society is just barely learning about personal finance and it has caused a lot of problems since their credit corporations have been giving everyone and their pet a credit card.

George Bush and I were lieutenants and pilots in the 111th Fighter Interceptor Squadron (FIS), Texas Air National Guard (ANG) from 1970 to 1971....

The mission of the 147th Fighter Group and its subordinate 111th FIS, Texas ANG, and the airplane it possessed, the F-102, was air defense. It was focused on defending the continental United States from Soviet nuclear bombers....

In the Cold War, the air defense of the United States was borne primarily by the Air National Guard, by such people as Lt. Bush and me and a lot of others. Six of those with whom I served in those years never made their 30th birthdays because they died in crashes flying air-defense missions....

While most of America was sleeping and Mr. Kerry was playing antiwar games with Hanoi Jane Fonda, we were answering 3 a.m. scrambles for who knows what inbound threat over the Canadian subarctic, the cold North Atlantic and the shark-filled Gulf of Mexico. We were the pathfinders in showing that the Guard and Reserves could become reliable members of the first team in the total force, so proudly evidenced today in Afghanistan and Iraq.

His only talent is being a gold-digger marrying rich women

Yes, if only the Bush family had that kind of talent... Bush would never would have lied about Saudi Arabia's direct involvement in September the 11th.

Hell, Prescott Bush would never had to sell Nazi war bonds "just to feed his family".

Funny how patriotic right-wingers pretend to be. Send Joe Sixpack off to die in Iraq for a lie, to keep the campaign contributions flowing from Riyhad.
{*spit*}

The simplest solution in this case isn't that the weapons were moved (after all, that would have taken some serious logistics, which would likely have been noticed), but rather that no such weapons existed in the first place.

It was noticed.

However, OK, you want to play Occam's Razor:

The UN found lots of chemical weapons. Iraq documented in detail the elimination of part of them. What's the simplest explanation as to why they refused to document elimination of the rest, even after threat of invasion?

US Attorney General John Ashcroft has aggressively pushed to ignore the legislative intent behind the Patriot Act, and use its provisions for to investigate non-terrorist related activity.

Long-sought details have begun to emerge from the Justice Department on how anti-terrorist provisions of the USA Patriot Act were applied in nonterror investigations, just as battle lines are being drawn on proposed new powers in a Patriot Act II.
Overall, the policy now allows evidence to be used for prosecuting common criminals even when obtained under extraordinary anti-terrorism powers and information-sharing between intelligence agencies and the FBI.

[...B]etween February and Oct. 20, the [Patriot Act] was used more by federal law enforcement agencies to uncover money laundering than terrorists.

Of the 167 Patriot Act requests [the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN)] received, the officials said, 107 were related to money laundering and only 60 involved terrorism.

NASA's budget really is insignifcant in that kind of context.

You sound more than just a bit paranoid, and more than a little looney too.

And I think you're a bit over the top with your "looney" tunes remark.

I think a little paranoia healthy. For example, check out this SlashDot article entiteld "Slashdot | Rental Car + GPS = Speeding Ticket." Okay, it wasn't RF technology but this next one is ... ... a Buffalo charter school, students wear a plastic ID card with their name, photo and a Radio Frequency Identification tag. For now, they track school attendance, but the principal "plans to use RFID to track library loans, disciplinary records, cafeteria purchases and visits to the nurse's office." So much for HIPPA regulations.

Or this one, The Postal Service is looking into tracking every piece of mail, not just by location of the letter a la FedEx, but by the identity of the sender. They're starting with bulk mailings, but want to expand it to all mail.

Yeah, that gives me warm fuzzies.

In other words, for you to attach the "black hole" label to the original reply is a WAY over the top when you consider the potential for Wal*Mart to sell access to their tracking technology.

Think about it, all this guy was saying is what protection does from queries like "how many size 4 coats in pink purchased within the past 6 months are buying big Macs" turning into "where is so-n-so's little girl now."

As a parent myself, such a little paranioa like that goes a long way.

Then again, some said I was nuts when I looked supspiciously at all those cookies those banner ads were tossing onto my computer back in 1998 ...

>The place to cut is in military spending. The war in Iraq would have paid for a lot of space travel, unfortunately it paid for blowing up buildings instead. We have lots of highly specialized weapons that are very expensive - millions of dollars per explosion.

Hey, I know the Iraq war was a distraction for the patriotic, well-meaning but uninformed populace... but think of the alternative:

If we DIDN'T *blame* Iraq for 9-11, invent a story about Saddam buying uranium in Africa (then "out" the CIA agents who could correct that story)... where would we be today?

Answer?

In Saudi Arabia. For a few days after September 11, the news actually stood up to Bush by trumpeting:
WHERE THE HIJACKERS CAME FROM
-and-
WHO TRANSFERRED MONEY TO THEM.

As they said in "All The President's Men", Follow The Money. How close is the Bush family to King Fahd? Isn't MOST of the Bush family wealth tied up in investments in Saudi Arabia? Hmm.

When it comes to screwing over America, the Bush family wins 3-0 (oh yeah, the 3rd Bush act against us: paying
Iran to hold the hostages until AFTER Reagan was sworn in... as if Iran/Contra deals REALLY happened after the hostages were safely home... puhleeze!)

Invading Iraq was stupid but necessary. Besides his personal wealth at stake, Bush knew if we invaded Saudi Arabia, we'd be at war with EVERY NATION between Indonesia and Morocco! We're talking major war that the US could not possibly win without using WMD's.

Iraq was a Faustian Bargain, and one that ALL SIDES are prepared to live with.

Yes, go back. The mainstream media has been doing pieces on this for months now.

We became his sworn enemy only when he invaded Kuwait and we realized that oil would be far cheaper in the hands of people we saved from invasion.

Ok- he tried to illegally expand his borders, and we kicked is ass back out. Even if we did just do it for oil, it was the right thing to do. And do you realize that we only get about 2% of our oil imports from Kuwait, right? If the was was just about oil, we would have probably gone after Canada or Mexico or Saudi Arabia instead.

Before or after we invaded Iraq? Nobody had any proof to this speculation before we invaded

President Clinton knew about Iraq's terrorist links. According to this recently leaked memo, the CIA has been tracking an al qaeda/Iraq link for over 10 years.

Where exactly are these again?

If Saddam had complied with the UN, we would know now, wouldn't we...

A capitalistic Iraq will allow those who participated in the invasion to profit immensely from transforming the middle east into a "western" country.

The Iraqis themselves are very optimistic about their future after Saddam. Why aren't you?

African nations in which we can lord impossible debts over their heads and force them into low wage labor.

Yeah- lets blame the US for everything. Many African nations are struggling with poverty- must be our fault. Theres no other explanation.

North Korea did react by announcing their intentions to blow up South Korea and Japan

North Korea's actions have just confirmed why we have regarded them as a terrorist supporting rouge nation for years now.

BUT, you had the possibility of owning one. So, I had to shoot you.

If you had seen me shoot people in the past with a gun, and you had no evidence that I had got rid of my gun, then yes, you should shoot me if I threaten to kill you. That is the smart thing to do. We are not suicidal, after all.

There are no Saddam loyalists.

Bullcrap.
http://www.arabnews.com/?page=7&section=0&article= 36512&d=16&m=12&y=2003
http://www.bayarea.com/mld/mercurynews/news/specia l_packages/iraq/7511113.htm
http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2003580992,00 .html

The freedom fighters are just that - fighting for control of their own country.

They don't have to fight- Iraqis get control of the country at the end of June.

You can't dismiss as everyone who is anti-US as an Islamic terrorist

I didn't, and on the same note, you can't dismiss the entire nation of Iraq as anti-US. We are doing a lot of good in Iraq, and they are appreciative (unlike some countries)

This may seem obvious to us today...

Apparently not:

• http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_619929.html?m enu=
• http://www.washtimes.com/business/20030618-102505- 9841r.htm
• http://newpaper.asia1.com.sg/top/story/0,4136,3720 2-1065196740,00.html

Feel free to mod this +1 Scary.

No, it wasn't about WMD, nor can you back up your claim that it ever was supposed to be all about WMD.

It's about this.

There are posters in this thread who are obviously disappointed that W and the boys captured Saddham. That's sad.

No, it wasn't about oil, nor can you back up your silly claim.

It's about this.

There are posters in this thread who are obviously disappointed that W and the boys captured Saddham. That's sad.

Read news much?

No, it wasn't about WMD, nor can you back up your claim that it ever was supposed to be all about WMD.

It's about this.

There are posters in this thread who are obviously disappointed that W and the boys captured Saddham. That's sad.

No, it wasn't about WMD, nor can you back up your claim that it ever was supposed to be all about WMD.

It's about this.

No, it wasn't ever just about WMD, nor can you back up your claim that it ever was supposed to be all about WMD.

It's about this.

There are posters in this thread who are obviously disappointed that W and the boys captured Saddham. That's sad.

Read news much?

I'm sorry to hear about #5 perhaps the fact that the training for the 9-11 attacks was in Iraq.
"We were training these people to attack installations important to the United States," he added chillingly. "The Gulf War never ended for Saddam Hussein. He is at war with the United States. We were repeatedly told this."
Or the Number of Ties cited by the washingtontimes
The most conclusive evidence comes in a highly detailed list of intelligence reports revealed last month in the Weekly Standard. Senior Iraqis were said to have traveled to Sudan in the mid-1990s to teach bin Laden's operatives how to make sophisticated truck bombs.
Terrorists subsequently used such bombs to hit targets in Saudi Arabia and at two U.S. embassies in Africa.

I hope you feel alittle better now. I do.

No, it wasn't about WMD, nor can you back up your claim that it anyone in W's administration said they know exactly where they are.

It's about this.

There are posters in this thread who are obviously disappointed that W and the boys captured Saddham. That's sad.

No, it wasn't about WMD, nor can you back up your claim that it ever was supposed to be all about WMD. Cite something for that false claim. Go on, try.

It's about this.

There are posters in this thread who are obviously disappointed that W and the boys captured Saddham. That's sad.