NationStates Jolt Archive

This is fascinating. Senator Kerry's own hometown paper in Massachusetts, a traditional Democratic town, has not only endorsed President Bush, but given him a ringing endorsement, and was quite harsh against Kerry.

This paper can be found at http://www.lowellsun.com/Stories/0,1413,105%7E4746%7E2442984,00.html#


Lowell Sun


Endorsement: George W. Bush for president


Sunday, October 03, 2004 - It's about national security.

That's the key issue on the minds of Americans planning to vote in the Nov. 2 presidential election.

They must decide whether Republican President George W. Bush or Sen. John F. Kerry, a Democrat, can provide the leadership to safeguard America from foreign terrorism.

Americans aren't fools. They know that without safe cities and towns, America will lose its greatness. Our cherished freedoms and sacred liberties will be diminished, along with our opportunities for economic prosperity and our basic pursuit of happiness.

Our children and their children will live vastly different lives if we fail to guarantee a future free of turmoil.

Islamic extremists, both here and abroad, have one purpose: To destroy America and halt the spread of democracy and religious tolerance around the globe.

They'd like to be plotting in our streets right now. They'd like to be sowing murder and mayhem with suicide bombers and hostage-takings, and spreading fear in the heartland and everywhere else. They'd like to be wearing us down and bringing our nation to its knees.

Since the devastating terror attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, one American leader has maintained an unbending resolve to protect our homeland and interest against Islamic savages and those foreign governments appeasing them.

That leader is President Bush.

While out-of-touch U.S. politicians and world leaders have attacked President Bush's tactics, they can't question his steely commitment to keep America safe.

In the ashes of ground zero, where nearly 3,000 innocent Americans perished, President Bush vowed to find the perpetrators, in domestic cells and distant lands, and bring them to justice. He said he will do all that is humanly possible and necessary to make certain that terrorists never strike again on U.S. soil.

Can anyone deny that President Bush has not delivered? America the terrorists' No. 1 target has recovered from its tragic wounds and rebounded. It remains safe to this day.

What might a lesser leader have done, faced with the daunting task of deciding America's course against withering, partisan attacks from Democrats, media propagandists, disingenuous U.N. officials and disloyal White House operatives selling their souls for profit during a time of war?

A lesser leader might have caved in. President Bush has stood his ground.

In this year's election, the question isn't whether we are safer now than we were four years ago. We already know the answer. Sure we are and that's because of President Bush. The critical question is: Four years from now, will America be safer than it is today?

In our book, Americans have to place their trust in President Bush. He's proven to be as sturdy as a mighty oak when it comes to saying what he means, meaning what he says and acting decisively.

When it comes to the war on terror, President Bush means to keep our military strong and our country secure.

John Kerry, on the other hand, has all the attributes of the shape of water when it comes to telling us what he believes and what he'd do for America. Like incoming and outgoing tides, Kerry is content to go with the flow. In a dangerous world infested with sharks, Kerry would be chum at America's expense.

We in Massachusetts know John Kerry. He got his first taste of politics 32 years ago in the cities and towns of Greater Lowell.

In his 20 years in the U.S. Senate, Kerry, a Navy war hero, hasn't risen above the rank of seaman for his uninspiring legislative record. He's been inconsistent on major issues. First he's for the 1991 Persian Gulf War, then he opposes it. First he's for the war in Iraq, then he's against it. First he's for a strong U.S. defense, then he votes against military weapons programs. First he's for the U.S. Patriot Act, then he opposes it.

Kerry's solution to stop terrorism? He'd go to the U.N. and build a consensus. How naive. France's Jacques Chirac, Germany's Gerhard Schroeder, U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan and other Iraq oil-for-food scam artists don't want America to succeed. They want us brought down to their level. And more and more, Kerry sounds just like them. In a recent campaign speech, Kerry said America was in the wrong war, in the wrong place, at the wrong time.

No doubt John Kerry sincerely wants to serve his country, but we believe he's the wrong man, in the wrong place, at the wrong time.

Americans should think back three years ago to the smoldering ruins of the World Trade Center. There among the mist lay the images and memories of fallen firefighters, police, a Catholic chaplain and ordinary working citizens moms, dads, sons, daughters.

President Bush, through heartfelt tears, told us never to forget the twisted carnage and the massacre of the innocents. Yet some of us are forgetting.

President Bush told us the attacks must never happen again. Yet some of us are wavering because of the brave sacrifice of soldiers that our nation's security demands.

Well, President Bush hasn't forgotten. Nor has he lost the courage and conviction to do what is right for America.

We know if there is one thing the enemy fears above all else, it is that George Bush's iron will is stronger than his iron won't.

The Sun proudly endorses the

re-election of President George W. Bush.

I believe Bush's hometown paper endorsed Kerry. *shrug*

That's unbiased news for ya.

They're probably pissed about his inactivity in the Senate.

Please excuse while I puke.

** yawn **

Our cherished freedoms and sacred liberties will be diminished, along with our opportunities for economic prosperity and our basic pursuit of happiness.
Are our liberties and freedoms not already being diminished in exchange for our safe cities and towns? Seems like a lose lose situation.

Ah, the Lowell Sun. Ha.

I highly doubt the Lowell Sun counts as 'Kerry's Hometown Paper,'

Conservative papers are conservative papers.

You can bet the Herald endorses Bush and that's basically a rag. A stack of ads with manic 80 point headlines and some conservative ed-op columnists, basically.

Well, and a sports section, of course.

I believe Bush's hometown paper endorsed Kerry. *shrug*

What he said!

It should surprise noone that the Lowell Sun endorsed Bush over Kerry; it is a satellite paper of a large, Republican-led media consortium operating out of the Western and Northeastern sections of the United States. Consider the following:

Edward W. Scudder.

http://www.pressrepublican.com/News/obits/2003/12012003ob.htm
Longtime resident of Delray Beach, FL and president of Newwark Evening News in Newark, NJ. Son is Robert B. Scudder, chairman of the board of directors for Media News Group, INC. http://www.medianewsgroup.com/FinancialInformation/2004/Form_10K_63004.pdf

This is the parent corporation of the Lowell Sun, which endorsed Bush. http://www.lowellsun.com/Stories/0,1413,105%257E4795%257E,00.html

We will, of course, read a post in a few moments naively suggesting that the editorial boards of most newspapers are organized separately from the new desks. The Bush endorsement came from the editorial board, however, and DOES reflect the political orientation of the owner/publisher.

Coincidence?

This is fascinating. Senator Kerry's own hometown paper in Massachusetts, a traditional Democratic town, has not only endorsed President Bush, but given him a ringing endorsement, and was quite harsh against Kerry.

Ah, Eutrusca. You're a shameless conservative. Your man Bush is making the situation worse by playing fast and loose with Iraq. American credibility is at the lowest ebb in recent U.S. history thanks to him. Even our European allies are distancing themselves from us. If Bush is reelected, I suspect that America will be the isolated nation. The Europeans have already begun to form their own joint military, economic, and political matrices. NO nation can survive in diplomatic isolation. Cowboy Dubya is leading us down a dark path of economic stagnation, socio-political repression, and corporate favoritism.

I am a liberal Democrat, and Ohioan, and absolutely committed to crushing terrorism abroad. Do not mistake my intentions. I tell you now that George W. Bush is wrong for America. He has taken an extreme agenda and tried to make it mainstream. As a result, we have record job losses, a drop in purchasing power in the middle class (at the same time the rich grow exponentially richer), and crackdowns on the very basic freedoms that we take for granted. Bush has broken the rule of law, internationally and nationally. I can think of nothing more un-conservative. He is not leading us. He is MISleading us deliberately. America's future hinges on whether John Kerry can beat him on Nov. 2. I pray to God that this comes to pass, and that Kerry restores what was lost.

Ah, Eutrusca. You're a shameless conservative. Your man Bush is making the situation worse by playing fast and loose with Iraq. American credibility is at the lowest ebb in recent U.S. history thanks to him. Even our European allies are distancing themselves from us. If Bush is reelected, I suspect that America will be the isolated nation. The Europeans have already begun to form their own joint military, economic, and political matrices. NO nation can survive in diplomatic isolation. Cowboy Dubya is leading us down a dark path of economic stagnation, socio-political repression, and corporate favoritism.

I am a liberal Democrat, and Ohioan, and absolutely committed to crushing terrorism abroad. Do not mistake my intentions. I tell you now that George W. Bush is wrong for America. He has taken an extreme agenda and tried to make it mainstream. As a result, we have record job losses, a drop in purchasing power in the middle class (at the same time the rich grow exponentially richer), and crackdowns on the very basic freedoms that we take for granted. Bush has broken the rule of law, internationally and nationally. I can think of nothing more un-conservative. He is not leading us. He is MISleading us deliberately. America's future hinges on whether John Kerry can beat him on Nov. 2. I pray to God that this comes to pass, and that Kerry restores what was lost.

Then we obviously must agree to disagree. I deeply believe that electing an amoral opportunist like Kerry President of the United States would be a total, unmitigated disaster from which we might never recover. I realize this statement will generate a veritable flood of more insipid flames from all the leftist extremists on this forum, but so be it.

I agree. I have NEVER said that Bush is a perfect President, or even a particularly good one, but Kerry would be so much worse for the US. Maybe he would be good for the Europeans and Canadians, but for the people he is to "lead" he would be a catastrophy.

Then we obviously must agree to disagree. I deeply believe that electing an amoral opportunist like Kerry President of the United States would be a total, unmitigated disaster from which we might never recover. I realize this statement will generate a veritable flood of more insipid flames from all the leftist extremists on this forum, but so be it.

You don't believe that America would survive four years of Kerry as president? You obviously don't have any faith in Americans at all.

You don't believe that America would survive four years of Kerry as president? You obviously don't have any faith in Americans at all.

As I have stated elsewhere on this board, the Republic will survive, but at this critical juncture in history, with the barbarians at the gates, so to speak, electing an amoral opportunist who changes his stands on issues depending upon who he thinks is listening at the time could have such dire consequences that we might be unable to ever fully recover.

As I have stated elsewhere on this board, the Republic will survive, but at this critical juncture in history, with the barbarians at the gates, so to speak, electing an amoral opportunist who changes his stands on issues depending upon who he thinks is listening at the time could have such dire consequences that we might be unable to ever fully recover.

I just find it excellent that you have such little respect for the fortitude of the American people that you think we are unable to recover from 4 years leadership of a man you don't like. You must think we are so weak and feeble if you don't think we will survive Kerry. How unpatriotic.

And I like the barbarians comment. Very tolerant of you.

I believe Bush's hometown paper endorsed Kerry. *shrug*
ROFLMAO, your such an incomprehensible lefty.
After 22 years of traveling through Texas, I have yet to meet a supporter of the non Republican party.

do we absolutely HAVE to have a president? can't we just hang out until someone good comes along? kinda like tivo?

ROFLMAO, your such an incomprehensible lefty.
After 22 years of traveling through Texas, I have yet to meet a supporter of the non Republican party.

I'll excuse your ignorance, but Incertonia had a post here a few weeks ago about how the local newspaper for Crawford, Texas, ran an editorial openly supporting Kerry.

[QUOTE=Asssassins]ROFLMAO, your such an incomprehensible lefty.
QUOTE]

that couldn't be further from the truth, just so you know...

I just find it excellent that you have such little respect for the fortitude of the American people that you think we are unable to recover from 4 years leadership of a man you don't like. You must think we are so weak and feeble if you don't think we will survive Kerry. How unpatriotic.

And I like the barbarians comment. Very tolerant of you.

Kerry, like Clinton is very weak on the military. Clinton all but declared war on the military. Kerry, if elected, will further erode it and make the US even weaker. Even now, you have bogus emails running around stating that Bush is going to reintroduce a draft. Such is the anti-military rhetoric coming from the Kerry campaign that they are using scare tactics of this magnitude. Further astonishing is the downright hostility shown to some recruiters when trying to visit some schools. The US is vulnerable today, and that vulnerability comes from inside.

ROFLMAO, your such an incomprehensible lefty.
After 22 years of traveling through Texas, I have yet to meet a supporter of the non Republican party.

Me a lefty? Wow, some would faint if they actually believed that....

Kerry, like Clinton is very weak on the military. Clinton all but declared war on the military. Kerry, if elected, will further erode it and make the US even weaker. Even now, you have bogus emails running around stating that Bush is going to reintroduce a draft. Such is the anti-military rhetoric coming from the Kerry campaign that they are using scare tactics of this magnitude. Further astonishing is the downright hostility shown to some recruiters when trying to visit some schools. The US is vulnerable today, and that vulnerability comes from inside.

But to say that America is so weak that you don't think we will ever be able to recover is an amazing testament to how Eutrusca actually views America. I mean, isn't our perserverance as a people one of our trademarks?

But to say that America is so weak that you don't think we will ever be able to recover is an amazing testament to how Eutrusca actually views America. I mean, isn't our perserverance as a people one of our trademarks?

Yes it is, but what makes the US strong externally is our military. We have lost our military heritage. Immigrants now make up a large sector of our military. Americans have a disdain for the military today that is fed by candidates like Kerry and Clinton. Rome went through a period like this too....their military soon was made up of mercinaries and foreigners. How did that turn out?

But to say that America is so weak that you don't think we will ever be able to recover is an amazing testament to how Eutrusca actually views America. I mean, isn't our perserverance as a people one of our trademarks?
No perserverace is a democrat value not a republican one.

Yes it is, but what makes the US strong externally is our military. We have lost our military heritage. Immigrants now make up a large sector of our military. Americans have a disdain for the military today that is fed by candidates like Kerry and Clinton. Rome went through a period like this too....their military soon was made up of mercinaries and foreigners. How did that turn out?
No moral decline destroyed Rome not the millitary. Also lead poisoning from pipes poisoned most of people. Bad health care and sewage maintainace.

No moral decline destroyed Rome not the millitary. Also lead poisoning from pipes poisoned most of people. Bad health care and sewage maintainace.

Really? The invading Vandals did not destroy it? Lead poisoning is just a theory, it is unproven.

Yes it is, but what makes the US strong externally is our military. We have lost our military heritage. Immigrants now make up a large sector of our military. Americans have a disdain for the military today that is fed by candidates like Kerry and Clinton. Rome went through a period like this too....their military soon was made up of mercinaries and foreigners. How did that turn out?

No, it's not the military that I'm talking about. It's the American spirit as a whole. You know, the Pilgrims and Lewis and Clark and the Oregon Trail and the Alamo and the 49ers and all the other examples of Americans surviving against terrible odds. Intrepid Americans surviving no matter what. To say that we've fallen so far since then that we can't survive 4 years of a Democratic president is one of the most unpatriotic things I've ever heard.

And how arrogant is it to compare the U.S. to Rome? If you want to compare the two empires, then our triumph over the USSR was akin to Rome's victory against Carthage. Back then, the bulk of the Roman military was made from their conquered Italian neighbors. This war on terrorism is the same as the constant warfare between Rome and the Celts and Gauls. We've still got a long way to go before we can make comparrisons between us and the fall of Rome.

Really? The invading Vandals did not destroy it? Lead poisoning is just a theory, it is unproven.

Rome was dead long before the Germanic tribes began invading. It had over-extended itself and had gotten itself involved in too many different conflicts across its borders.

I'll excuse your ignorance, but Incertonia had a post here a few weeks ago about how the local newspaper for Crawford, Texas, ran an editorial openly supporting Kerry.Well by all means, don't withold your ingnorance, show me this blasphemy of an article. Produce it, shed some light on it, and whatever else you want to twist it into!

Well by all means, don't withold your ingnorance, show me this blasphemy of an article. Produce it, shed some light on it, and whatever else you want to twist it into!

Sigh....

Can anyone else pull the thread back up? I know it's probably 9 pages down, and I'm lazy. I'll look for it, but if anyone else has the link handy, I'd appreciate it.


edit: Nevermind, found it.

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=361037

Enjoy.

Then we obviously must agree to disagree. I deeply believe that electing an amoral opportunist like Kerry President of the United States would be a total, unmitigated disaster from which we might never recover. I realize this statement will generate a veritable flood of more insipid flames from all the leftist extremists on this forum, but so be it.

Hmpf? The Chicken-Little analogy?

If this country can survive Grant, Harding, Hoover, Carter, Regan, and the shrub; we will survive Kerry just fine.....

Kerry, like Clinton is very weak on the military. Clinton all but declared war on the military. Kerry, if elected, will further erode it and make the US even weaker. Even now, you have bogus emails running around stating that Bush is going to reintroduce a draft. Such is the anti-military rhetoric coming from the Kerry campaign that they are using scare tactics of this magnitude. Further astonishing is the downright hostility shown to some recruiters when trying to visit some schools. The US is vulnerable today, and that vulnerability comes from inside.


Actually, He digitised it. How is that a war on the military?

As to the recruiters? Well what do you expect? Many paint a whole different picture then what military life is really like.

Finally, maybe there is something wrong with the shrub if the people aren't gungho to go fight his crusade.

As to scare tactics? Hmmmm I guess Cheney saying there will be a large scale attack if Kerry is elected doesn't qualify?

The draft is going to happen. Iraq and Afghanistan will 3+ years to sort out. Where you going to get the soldiers?

Especially when they are making noise that all the fighters are coming in from Syria and Iran and that Iran is making nukes.....

No, it's not the military that I'm talking about. It's the American spirit as a whole. You know, the Pilgrims and Lewis and Clark and the Oregon Trail and the Alamo and the 49ers and all the other examples of Americans surviving against terrible odds. Intrepid Americans surviving no matter what. To say that we've fallen so far since then that we can't survive 4 years of a Democratic president is one of the most unpatriotic things I've ever heard.

And how arrogant is it to compare the U.S. to Rome? If you want to compare the two empires, then our triumph over the USSR was akin to Rome's victory against Carthage. Back then, the bulk of the Roman military was made from their conquered Italian neighbors. This war on terrorism is the same as the constant warfare between Rome and the Celts and Gauls. We've still got a long way to go before we can make comparrisons between us and the fall of Rome.

Yes, that spirit is still there. But I feel it has been greatly eroded over the past 12 years. Clinton was a moral disaster as everyone knows. Yet, even his lying under oath did not get anyones ire up. When a sitting President lies under oath in court and is not punished, then noone else should be. After the Lewinsky nonsense, military commanders could no longer charge military personnel for adultery because the commander-in-chief was not so charged. Much like Rome, the US is in decline because we accept things now that we once frowned upon. Our military is weakened by Presidents who harbor a disdain for the institution. I see the US in serious trouble in the next 50 years.

The draft is going to happen. Iraq and Afghanistan will 3+ years to sort out. Where you going to get the soldiers?

There will NOT be a draft. Todays weapons systems require years of experience to master. Draftees who do not want to be there and who are only available for 2 years just will not do.

Yes, that spirit is still there. But I feel it has been greatly eroded over the past 12 years. Clinton was a moral disaster as everyone knows. Yet, even his lying under oath did not get anyones ire up. When a sitting President lies under oath in court and is not punished, then noone else should be. After the Lewinsky nonsense, military commanders could no longer charge military personnel for adultery because the commander-in-chief was not so charged. Much like Rome, the US is in decline because we accept things now that we once frowned upon. Our military is weakened by Presidents who harbor a disdain for the institution. I see the US in serious trouble in the next 50 years.

Since when do they charge for adultry? If they were going on morality stances then there would be many soldiers missing. A friend of my wife is a cop for a town with a base. He says every night he has to respond to several calls of spousal abuse, drunkness, etc. etc.

Lying under oath does not offend many people since is was politics rather then seeking justice. It was a question that should never been asked. They make it sound like Clinton was the first to have an affair; to have sex in the whitehouse, to sleep with their staff.

Americans belive in a myth of the moral President. Far more Presidents have been scaliwags then moral pillars of example.

There will NOT be a draft. Todays weapons systems require years of experience to master. Draftees who do not want to be there and who are only available for 2 years just will not do.

Ohhhh so we don't have basic infantrymen anymore?

Why don't you define the weapsons systems that the guys walking the streets need.....

Since when do they charge for adultry? Lying under oath does not offend many people since is was politics rather then seeking justice. It was a question that should never been asked. They make it sound like Clinton was the first to have an affair; to have sex in the whitehouse, to sleep with their staff.

Americans belive in a myth of the moral President. Far more Presidents have been scaliwags then moral pillars of example.

You know nothing about the UCMJ do you? Look up Article 134. Yes, Clinton's lying denied justice to Paula Jones. Remember her? THAT was not about politics.....it was about a criminal investigation.

Ohhhh so we don't have basic infantrymen anymore?

Why don't you define the weapsons systems that the guys walking the streets need.....

You really know NOTHING about the military do you? There is nothing BASIC about the infantry anymore.

You know nothing about the UCMJ do you? Yes, Clinton's lying denied justice to Paula Jones. Remember her? THAT was not about politics.....it was about a criminal investigation.

You mentioned Monica and now you mention Jones. They Lying under oath charge is usually refering to Monica and that was political motivated.

I wasn't in the military in an offical capacity so how would I know the UCMJ? Just pointing out the fact one base seems to have forgotten it.

I really don't buy your argument that the philanderings on the commander exuse the rank and file from punishiment.

Unless of course you have proof that charges were dismissed because of the Presidents actions.

Do post I link I would be curious to read it.....

You really know NOTHING about the military do you? There is nothing BASIC about the infantry anymore.

Are you going to answer the question?

What systems are we talking about?

Or are you going to play the Libertarian "You are ignorant" game?

Since when do they charge for adultry? If they were going on morality stances then there would be many soldiers missing. A friend of my wife is a cop for a town with a base. He says every night he has to respond to several calls of spousal abuse, drunkness, etc. etc.

Lying under oath does not offend many people since is was politics rather then seeking justice. It was a question that should never been asked. They make it sound like Clinton was the first to have an affair; to have sex in the whitehouse, to sleep with their staff.

Americans belive in a myth of the moral President. Far more Presidents have been scaliwags then moral pillars of example.

Not only is adultry a court martial offense, but now so is consorting with prostitutes.

Ohhhh so we don't have basic infantrymen anymore?

Why don't you define the weapsons systems that the guys walking the streets need.....

It's been awhile since I was in, but from what I know about it now the Infantryman needs to be conversant with far more than just weapons systems. NVG systems, GPS systems, CBR systems, crypto systems, etc.

You mentioned Monica and now you mention Jones. They Lying under oath charge is usually refering to Monica and that was political motivated.

I wasn't in the military in an offical capacity so how would I know the UCMJ? Just pointing out the fact one base seems to have forgotten it.

I really don't buy your argument that the philanderings on the commander exuse the rank and file from punishiment.

Unless of course you have proof that charges were dismissed because of the Presidents actions.

Do post I link I would be curious to read it.....

UCMJ convictions are not available to the public so there are no links. However, I know of two F-16 pilots who were charged with adultery. One pre-Clinton lying and one after. The one prior had an affair with one of my co-workers wife. He was charged and discharged for his actions. My co-worker divorced the wife who then married the ex-pilot. The second one had his charges dismissed because his attorney argued successfully that since the commander-in-chief was not being held to the same standards as the troops under him, then said troops cannot be charged for offenses that their commander is not charged with. So the guy walked.

Oh, and Clinton's lying was while being questioned by Paula Jones's lawyers.

Not only is adultry a court martial offense, but now so is consorting with prostitutes.

It's on the books but how often is it used? I really don't know as it's not an area I follow.

For example, the Grunt that raped the 13 year old on Okinowa. Last I heard, they ran his butt off the island but I never heard what happened to him.

But again, I don't buy Biff's claims that commanders would not punish because of Clinton's actions.

The so called "local" paper is wned by Media News Group Inc. which in turn is owned by The E. W. Scripps Company.

Scripps at the time it acquired Media News Group was the eighth largest newspaper publisher in the USA.


Check this out:
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Media_control_propaganda/MediaStupid_McChesney.html

MediaNews was formed in 1983 by William Dean Singleton and Richard B. Scudder to purchase and manage newspapers

Singleton testified before Congress in favor of removing all restrictions against local market multimedia monopolies (tv, radio, papers).

Scripps and Singleton gave substantial financial support to Bush-Cheney's re-election campaign., according to Editor & Publisher.com, the oldest journal about newspapers.

Figure it out. The local paper is totally run by fat cat republicans who hope to gain from local media monopoly! In other words, there is no "local" paper.

Here is a final blurb from the valley advocate .com, illustrating the character of Mr. Singleton:

"Reforming the Reformer


by Tom Vannah - May 29, 2003

Between the Lines
William Dean Singleton is a 52-year-old billionaire.
Eesha Williams is a 28-year-old news reporter who, until last week, was employed at the Brattleboro Reformer, where he scraped by on about $20,000.

Dean Singleton is a controversial figure in American publishing. He is the CEO of MediaNews Group, the seventh-largest newspaper company in the U.S., with 48 dailies and 121 weeklies in 11 states. Known for acquiring (and often gutting) existing newspapers rather than starting new ones, Singleton is also one of his industry's leading voices against federal restrictions on media cross-ownership. If the Bush administration is successful in further removing anti-monopoly controls on the media -- Singleton recently told Columbia Journalism Review that he is confident the FCC will overturn its cross-ownership restrictions this year -- Singleton says he'll rush headlong to buy up television stations in the markets where he owns papers.

Eesha Williams isn't a particularly controversial figure, but he's certainly made himself known in Singleton's Denver headquarters. Considered a hardworking and ethical reporter by his colleagues, Williams became one of the leading voices in favor of an effort to unionize the staff at the Reformer. Williams helped organize a union drive at the paper and, on his own time, reached out to a few of Vermont's leading politicians for words of support.

Dean Singleton is a ruthless bottom-feeder whose contempt for good journalism is matched only by his utter disregard for the human beings who are unlucky enough to work at the newspapers he owns. He is, as James Squires, a former Chicago Tribune editor, put it, a "bone-picker publisher ... who can wring blood from a turnip." In its recent profile of Singleton, CJR described him as "a latter-day Frank Munsey, [the man] who buried four New York dailies in the early part of the last century and whom A.J. Liebling called 'a mass murderer of newspapers.'" Nevertheless, for all of the criticism he receives from writers and editors, Singleton is something of a hero to other newspaper chief executives. In fact, he was recently elected chairman of the Newspaper Association of America, which represents the interests of newspaper owners -- a group that shares his desire to see the media biz completely deregulated.

Eesha Williams is an idealist who put the interests of the Brattleboro Reformer and its staff above his own immediate need to, among other things, pay rent and buy food. Though he's now at the forefront of a nasty union fight, Williams is the real deal as a reporter. Over the last year, he has contributed more hard news stories to the Reformer's front page than anyone else. But that didn't stop Dean Singleton from sending out his corporate hitman to fire him.

Dean Singleton has a media empire and all the booty that comes with it, thanks to people like Eesha Williams.

Eesha Williams is a reporter without a job, thanks to people like Dean Singleton.

According to Williams, his own troubles began shortly after told his bosses about the union drive. But there'd been trouble at the Reformer for a lot longer than that.

Singleton acquired the 10,700-circulation paper in 1995 when he bought the Berkshire Eagle, a once well-respected regional newspaper that also owned the Reformer. As Valley-based media critic Stephen Simurda described in CJR at the time, the former Eagle and Reformer employees were presented with a single piece of paper shortly after the MediaNews deal went through: "People were expected to read the paper and put their initials next to the words 'accept' or 'reject' on the spot. There were virtually no negotiations. This was day one of the Singleton era."

To Williams, those hardline tactics translate into very unfortunate circumstances for employees of the company's many non-union shops; the average salary at Singleton's five unionized newspapers, including the Denver Post, is about $41,000, more than double the $20,000 yearly wage in Brattleboro.

Not surprisingly, union organizers from the Paper, Allied-Industrial, Chemical and Energy Workers International (PACE), an affiliate of the Vermont AFL-CIO, had little trouble signing up staffers at the Reformer. To keep the ball rolling, Williams decided to call up members of Vermont's congressional delegation to see if they'd publicly endorse the union effort. Two of them -- Patrick Leahy and Bernie Sanders -- did just that. But getting help from Vermont's other congressman, Jim Jeffords, wasn't so easy. One of Jeffords' staff, who claimed she was unsure whether Williams was acting as union organizer or reporter, called an editor at the Reformer. Williams was asked to clean out his desk and turn in his key shortly after the call from Jeffords' office -- a move Williams believes was intended to frighten his colleagues away from joining the union. (Jeffords has since issued a letter endorsing the right of Reformer staffers to unionize.)

Charles Kaman, a vice president for human resources at MediaNews, has publicly claimed that Williams was fired for a breach of journalistic ethics. "It was an internal employee matter not related to the union," Kaman said.

Whatever Singleton, let alone one of his human resource hacks, knows about journalistic ethics, it's clear that, in this case, the company is not being entirely honest about its reasons for terminating Williams, whose ethical lapse, if that's what it was, was most certainly "related to the union."

The newly-unionized staff at the Reformer has filed a complaint against MediaNews. "

UCMJ convictions are not available to the public so there are no links. However, I know of two F-16 pilots who were charged with adultery. One pre-Clinton lying and one after. The one prior had an affair with one of my co-workers wife. He was charged and discharged for his actions. My co-worker divorced the wife who then married the ex-pilot. The second one had his charges dismissed because his attorney argued successfully that since the commander-in-chief was not being held to the same standards as the troops under him, then said troops cannot be charged for offenses that their commander is not charged with. So the guy walked.

Oh, and Clinton's lying was while being questioned by Paula Jones's lawyers.
That is just Trial lawyer...I thought republicans were against them?

That is just Trial lawyer...I thought republicans were against them?

Good try....but Clinton lied under oath and got away with it. That he did so is a sad testament to the degree that the US sank under his "leadership."

You really know NOTHING about the military do you? There is nothing BASIC about the infantry anymore.

This is a fairly absurd claim, which makes me wonder about how much knowledge you have regarding the way the military operates. Yes, today's military is very advanced (the same military you earlier indicate Clinton decimated. Ironic, no?) . However, basic training for Army infantry is 9 weeks, AIT (advanced individual training) is 5 weeks. Hence, it's not like it takes a lifetime to become a soldier. The draft is a very real probability, given that it's been sitting quietly in committee in Congress - it's obviously a hugely unpopular policy, so Bush wouldn't do it before the election. But if he gets reelected, he won't be worried about popularity anymore, and hence it's very likely he'll push it.

This is a fairly absurd claim, which makes me wonder about how much knowledge you have regarding the way the military operates. Yes, today's military is very advanced (the same military you earlier indicate Clinton decimated. Ironic, no?) . However, basic training for Army infantry is 9 weeks, AIT (advanced individual training) is 5 weeks. Hence, it's not like it takes a lifetime to become a soldier. The draft is a very real probability, given that it's been sitting quietly in committee in Congress - it's obviously a hugely unpopular policy, so Bush wouldn't do it before the election. But if he gets reelected, he won't be worried about popularity anymore, and hence it's very likely he'll push it.

The only two bills proposed for a draft were submitted by DEMOCRATS. Rangel and Hollings....Bush does not want a draft...the military does not want or need a draft. It is NOT going to happen. Oh, and how many infantrymen are experts in their field in under 2 years? Since draftees could only be held that long. I know in my previous fields (Aircraft Armaments Systems and Survival Instructor) 2 years experience would give you enough time to do the basics, but not enough knowledge to function without supervision.

Good try....but Clinton lied under oath and got away with it. That he did so is a sad testament to the degree that the US sank under his "leadership."

You are very conversant in irony. Yes, Clinton lied under oath. But if we're going to hold our presidents to a high moral standard, lying under oath shouldn't be any different from lying while not under oath. A lie is a lie. And you can hardly say that our current president has been truthful about everything. From the energy committee's meetings with Enron, to the Halliburton contracts, to the claims about WMD, this administration has been haunted by as many lies/half-truths as any administration. The only difference is that your political bent makes you willing to ignore the faults of this one and just point the finger at past administrations (oh, and Kerry).

UCMJ convictions are not available to the public so there are no links. However, I know of two F-16 pilots who were charged with adultery. One pre-Clinton lying and one after. The one prior had an affair with one of my co-workers wife. He was charged and discharged for his actions. My co-worker divorced the wife who then married the ex-pilot. The second one had his charges dismissed because his attorney argued successfully that since the commander-in-chief was not being held to the same standards as the troops under him, then said troops cannot be charged for offenses that their commander is not charged with. So the guy walked.

Oh, and Clinton's lying was while being questioned by Paula Jones's lawyers.

Intersting.

It really don't make sense to me. A crime is still a crime. Just because one instance was not punished does not mean you can't punish the other.

Sounds like a wierd grey area since the CinC is not really bound by the UCMJ.....

As to the Jones lawyers thing. I will grant you that one and withdraw the comments. I have forgetten much of the specifics......

The only two bills proposed for a draft were submitted by DEMOCRATS. Rangel and Hollings....Bush does not want a draft...the military does not want or need a draft. It is NOT going to happen. Oh, and how many infantrymen are experts in their field in under 2 years? Since draftees could only be held that long. I know in my previous fields (Aircraft Armaments Systems and Survival Instructor) 2 years experience would give you enough time to do the basics, but not enough knowledge to function without supervision.

Your claim was that the draft couldn't solve troop shortages. Yes, supervision in the military is almost always necessary (there are very few individuals/teams that go out without any supervision, even if the supervision is their own CO). My argument is while the troops from a draft might not be the most proficient at your task of any of them, you could certainly be an infantry in Iraq in 3-6 months. Aircraft Armaments Systems and Survival Instructors are not the kind of soldier that would be drafted, that is fairly obvious.

You are very conversant in irony. Yes, Clinton lied under oath. But if we're going to hold our presidents to a high moral standard, lying under oath shouldn't be any different from lying while not under oath. A lie is a lie. And you can hardly say that our current president has been truthful about everything. From the energy committee's meetings with Enron, to the Halliburton contracts, to the claims about WMD, this administration has been haunted by as many lies/half-truths as any administration. The only difference is that your political bent makes you willing to ignore the faults of this one and just point the finger at past administrations (oh, and Kerry).

However, lying under oath is called perjury and is a crime. Lying under any other circumstances is just a lie. If you or I had been caught lying under oath, we would be charged and in all likelyhood convicted. THATS the difference. Politicians lie....thats a given, but to do so under oath makes a mockery of our judicial system.

Good try....but Clinton lied under oath and got away with it. That he did so is a sad testament to the degree that the US sank under his "leadership."

Oh come on now. You make Clinton sound the like the devil himself.

Someday we may find out that the great God Regan actually lied about Iran/Contra.

Is there a politican that does not lie?

Your claim was that the draft couldn't solve troop shortages. Yes, supervision in the military is almost always necessary (there are very few individuals/teams that go out without any supervision, even if the supervision is their own CO). My argument is while the troops from a draft might not be the most proficient at your task of any of them, you could certainly be an infantry in Iraq in 3-6 months. Aircraft Armaments Systems and Survival Instructors are not the kind of soldier that would be drafted, that is fairly obvious.

Draftees are placed in ANY area where a shortage lies. However, noone wants a draft because of another reason. When you FORCE people (draftees) to be somewhere they don't want to be, you will not get much out of them. Volunteers WANT to be doing what they are doing and will be much more productive and eager to get the job done. Like children being forced to clean their rooms when they don't want to, draftees take FOREVER to do anything.

However, lying under oath is called perjury and is a crime. Lying under any other circumstances is just a lie. If you or I had been caught lying under oath, we would be charged and in all likelyhood convicted. THATS the difference. Politicians lie....thats a given, but to do so under oath makes a mockery of our judicial system.

Ah, so it's fine if we violate your standards of morality that you claim is the precursor to our downfall...now it's that if the laws of this country are ever contravened, it's the beginning of the end? Note the sarcasm...the laws in our country are contravened all the time. That's hardly something unique to Clinton or any president, for that matter. You're switching your story now because Bush's "morality" isn't defensible either, and by your earlier statements, he would just be leading us further down the path to oblivion. :rolleyes:

Oh come on now. You make Clinton sound the like the devil himself.

Someday we may find out that the great God Regan actually lied about Iran/Contra.

Is there a politican that does not lie?

No, he is just a man....but he really did bring ill repute to the office he occupied at the time. I always have and always will think of him as a sleezy used car salesman type. I was really glad when he left office. All politicians lie...but under oath in court?

Ah, so it's fine if we violate your standards of morality that you claim is the precursor to our downfall...now it's that if the laws of this country are ever contravened, it's the beginning of the end? Note the sarcasm...the laws in our country are contravened all the time. That's hardly something unique to Clinton or any president, for that matter. You're switching your story now because Bush's "morality" isn't defensible either, and by your earlier statements, he would just be leading us further down the path to oblivion. :rolleyes:

Morals and laws are two different entities. What someone does regarding their own morals is one thing, we each have our individual morals, but we also have the rule of law that binds us all. When one is allowed to flaunt that, then a chink has been taken out of the foundation of the society at large.

Draftees are placed in ANY area where a shortage lies. However, noone wants a draft because of another reason. When you FORCE people (draftees) to be somewhere they don't want to be, you will not get much out of them. Volunteers WANT to be doing what they are doing and will be much more productive and eager to get the job done. Like children being forced to clean their rooms when they don't want to, draftees take FOREVER to do anything.

I'm well aware of the differences between a drafted military force and a volunteer military force. What you seem to be missing is the fact that we have almost all our combat ready divisions already deployed. And unless we're just going to keep them indefinitely in combat duty, new troops will have to come from somewhere. Hence, unless "volunteer rates" drastically go up, to maintain our troop levels world wide, they will almost HAVE to institute a draft. As for another difference you're wilfully ignoring, career military personnel and the people serving 2 years are vastly different as well. The vast majority of personnel that we will be running short on are the lower ranked enlisted, and those are very much replaceable. The career military people aren't nearly as likely to leave the military, since it's their career and not just service time they were doing to pay for college.

I'm well aware of the differences between a drafted military force and a volunteer military force. What you seem to be missing is the fact that we have almost all our combat ready divisions already deployed. And unless we're just going to keep them indefinitely in combat duty, new troops will have to come from somewhere. Hence, unless "volunteer rates" drastically go up, to maintain our troop levels world wide, they will almost HAVE to institute a draft. As for another difference you're wilfully ignoring, career military personnel and the people serving 2 years are vastly different as well. The vast majority of personnel that we will be running short on are the lower ranked enlisted, and those are very much replaceable. The career military people aren't nearly as likely to leave the military, since it's their career and not just service time they were doing to pay for college.

Regardless....there is not going to be a draft. The Pentagon does not even want one and has said so many times. Unless some Democrats force the issue, it is not going to happen.

Morals and laws are two different entities. What someone does regarding their own morals is one thing, we each have our individual morals, but we also have the rule of law that binds us all. When one is allowed to flaunt that, then a chink has been taken out of the foundation of the society at large.

This is an amazing statement of the obvious. Your made plenty of references earlier to the realm of morality as the cause of our downfall...for instance:

Clinton was a moral disaster as everyone knows

You make appeals to morality, then completely ignore and concede the fact that Bush has no greater moral fiber than Clinton, LBJ, Grant, Ren and Stimpy, or any other random person you want to talk about. As for the rule of law, I already preempted that argument when I talked about how the leadership in this country contravenes the rule of law all the time (both Democrats AND Republicans). Like wars of preemption, Iran-Contra, dear god, have you had your head in the sand for every Republican president?

Regardless....there is not going to be a draft. The Pentagon does not even want one and has said so many times. Unless some Democrats force the issue, it is not going to happen.

You can believe that if you wish. You certainly don't have much evidence (other than your obvious claims about the differencesin the two types of forces) to support that. I obviously don't have the "smoking gun" either. But given your utter inability to produce concrete evidence showing otherwise, I'll continue to believe that Bush is waiting until after the election to push the draft issue.

Is there a politican that does not lie?Yes, he's known as the last good deomocrat, Zell Miller!

Regardless....there is not going to be a draft. The Pentagon does not even want one and has said so many times. Unless some Democrats force the issue, it is not going to happen.

Since when does the Bush administration listen to the Pentagon. The Pentagon wanted more troops. Bush said no. The Pentagon warned that the post-war period would be a mess. Bush ignored them.

Democrats can't force ANY issue, they are currently the minority in Congress. According to recent reports, the Republican majority has done more to suppress the minority party's voice than any majority party from the beginning of the 20th Century on.

Oh, more and more reports are coming out that the Bush administration knew it's intelligence on such matters as the amuminum tubes and the Niger uranium was false, but they went ahead with it anyway.

Clinton lied about a blowjob

Bush lied to get us in to war

If Bush were a Democrat, he'd have been impreached already. The Republicans are dirty hypocrits

If Clinton was such a disgrace, then why did he have the respect of the International community, whereas Bush is considered a greater threat to world peace than any other figure, according to recent international polls?

I love how the right wing predicts a recession if Kerry is elected. They said the same thing about Clinton. Republican prognostication leaves a lot to be desired, as history shows.

When Clinton lied, no one died

You can believe that if you wish. You certainly don't have much evidence (other than your obvious claims about the differencesin the two types of forces) to support that. I obviously don't have the "smoking gun" either. But given your utter inability to produce concrete evidence showing otherwise, I'll continue to believe that Bush is waiting until after the election to push the draft issue.

Then what evidence do you have to support that there WILL be a draft? All I have is Bush, Cheney AND Rumsfeldt saying OVER and OVER again that they do not want a return to the draft for the very reasons I have outlined. Who has actually called FOR a return to the draft?

Then what evidence do you have to support that there WILL be a draft? All I have is Bush, Cheney AND Rumsfeldt saying OVER and OVER again that they do not want a return to the draft for the very reasons I have outlined. Who has actually called FOR a return to the draft?

Look at the facts: US Armed Forces stretched thin. Recruitment down. Some NG units on the verge of revolt. Other places in the world in need of peacekeeping efforts. Nuclear proliferation threatened. A draft may be necessary, whether anyone wants it or not...and it's all thanks to Dubya's hard-on for Iraq.

Look at the facts: US Armed Forces stretched thin. Recruitment down. Some NG units on the verge of revolt. Other places in the world in need of peacekeeping efforts. Nuclear proliferation threatened. A draft may be necessary, whether anyone wants it or not...and it's all thanks to Dubya's hard-on for Iraq.

Really? What evidense do you have that ANY NG units are on the verge of revolt? Not ONE member of the Bush administration wants a draft...they have ALL said so many times. It will not be necessary. Other places in the world can fend for themselves. Peacekeeping is NOT what the US military was designed for and we need to stop that crap forthwith.

Really? What evidense do you have that ANY NG units are on the verge of revolt? Not ONE member of the Bush administration wants a draft...they have ALL said so many times. It will not be necessary. Other places in the world can fend for themselves. Peacekeeping is NOT what the US military was designed for and we need to stop that crap forthwith.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A31689-2004Sep18?language=printer

No perserverace is a democrat value not a republican one.

Umm...Cuban Missle Crisis. JFK.

Really? What evidense do you have that ANY NG units are on the verge of revolt? Not ONE member of the Bush administration wants a draft...they have ALL said so many times. It will not be necessary. Other places in the world can fend for themselves. Peacekeeping is NOT what the US military was designed for and we need to stop that crap forthwith.

Yes, we've heard this lie from the Bush administration before as well. Remember the 2000 campaign? US forces won't be used for nation building? I guess he could still be considered technically correct since his "plan" was doomed to be unable to build a nation in Iraq or Afghanistan. If your argument against the draft being reinstated is predicated on the fact that "we need to stop that crap", you're living in a pipe dream, cause Dubya doesn't think he's made a mistake.

And the fact that he publically says he won't institute the draft doesn't make sense. Unless he magically decides to forego other ill-advised military operations, he HAS to find a source of more troops. Since reenlistment is down, what is Bush going to do to be able to invade the next country? Use his amazing mental power to create them from nothing? That's all the evidence I need to be suspicious of the current power-hungry administration's intentions regarding the draft. I'm glad you think that Bush's word alone is enough to prove me wrong, but I'll just keep my skepticism of the man who's already lied about nation building, thanks.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A31689-2004Sep18?language=printer

13 members of one unit go AWOL and you call that a revolt?

Yes, we've heard this lie from the Bush administration before as well. Remember the 2000 campaign? US forces won't be used for nation building? I guess he could still be considered technically correct since his "plan" was doomed to be unable to build a nation in Iraq or Afghanistan. If your argument against the draft being reinstated is predicated on the fact that "we need to stop that crap", you're living in a pipe dream, cause Dubya doesn't think he's made a mistake.

And the fact that he publically says he won't institute the draft doesn't make sense. Unless he magically decides to forego other ill-advised military operations, he HAS to find a source of more troops. Since reenlistment is down, what is Bush going to do to be able to invade the next country? Use his amazing mental power to create them from nothing? That's all the evidence I need to be suspicious of the current power-hungry administration's intentions regarding the draft. I'm glad you think that Bush's word alone is enough to prove me wrong, but I'll just keep my skepticism of the man who's already lied about nation building, thanks.


Time will tell I guess. But there will NOT be a draft. There is no need for one. Units can be moved around. That is going to happen very soon. We will pull troops out of Bosnia and Kosovo. They never should have been there to begin with, but that was Clinton's "nation building" effort. Let the Europeans take care of things in their back yard for a change.

Talk about unbiadsed media?!

They ended the article with an endorsment!

Time will tell I guess. But there will NOT be a draft. There is no need for one. Units can be moved around. That is going to happen very soon. We will pull troops out of Bosnia and Kosovo. They never should have been there to begin with, but that was Clinton's "nation building" effort. Let the Europeans take care of things in their back yard for a change.

Don't shift the debate. I don't give a damn what Clinton did. You justify Bush's change from "no nation building" to what's going on in Iraq and explain, given that we have over half of our active combat brigades in Iraq (and 130,000 troops, when Rummy said that within months of "winning" in Iraq, we'd only need 50,000), how exactly Bush is going to maintain our current military commitments but still get his next new war (be it Iran, Syria or North Korea). If he doesn't implement a draft, he won't be able to advance his political agenda by trying to militarily force the Middle East into submission. I'd say the evidence is on my side, since I don't have to rely on a proven liar for my suppositions.

And troop rotation doesn't solve the problem of how we're going to invade a place like Iran given that current military troop levels aren't even able to win in Iraq. In terms of difficulty of success, going into Iran after Iraq would be like playing major league baseball after having one season of little league.

Don't shift the debate. I don't give a damn what Clinton did. You justify Bush's change from "no nation building" to what's going on in Iraq and explain, given that we have over half of our active combat brigades in Iraq (and 130,000 troops, when Rummy said that within months of "winning" in Iraq, we'd only need 50,000), how exactly Bush is going to maintain our current military commitments but still get his next new war (be it Iran, Syria or North Korea). If he doesn't implement a draft, he won't be able to advance his political agenda by trying to militarily force the Middle East into submission. I'd say the evidence is on my side, since I don't have to rely on a proven liar for my suppositions.

WASHINGTON -- For the fifth year in a row, the U.S. Army Recruiting Command hit its fiscal year active-duty and Reserve recruiting goals.

As of Sept. 27, the command brought in 77,587 active Army recruits against a Department of the Army mission of 77,000, and 21,278 Reserve recruits against a 21,000 requirement.

"Recruiting Command has served the nation well for the past 40 years and I am positive it will continue to serve well for the next 40 years at least," said Maj. Gen. Michael E. Rochelle, Recruiting Command commanding general, during a media briefing at the command's Fort Knox, Ky. headquarters

Rochelle acknowledged that current operations in Iraq and Afghanistan may be seen as a drawback by some young people who would otherwise serve. However, he said, those operations are seen by others as a call to serve a nation in need.

"There are hundreds in the training base that will tell you they want to make a difference," Rochelle said.

The current generation of young Soldiers is about as close to the "Greatest Generation" of the World War II era as you can get, Rochelle said. They are not asking, "What's in it for me?" like some recent generations and the nation is lucky to have them, he said.

Looks like they are getting more volunteers than they need. So why would they need a draft?

Looks like they are getting more volunteers than they need. So why would they need a draft?

Apparently you don't know a preempted argument when you see one. Since further military action will INCREASE our need for soldiers and not just require the maintainence of CURRENT levels, meeting the current recruitment goals won't be enough. Additionally, according to your arguments, those people won't be trained sufficiently in time. Remember that? If you concede that these troops will be adequate to fight a war, then you have to concede that draftees would be just as trained to fight a war.

Finally, you don't address the fact that reenlistment rates are down, which means that while the army may be meeting new recruitment goals, they're not maintaining the army they still have which will cause greater pressure to find new sources of troops.

Looks like they are getting more volunteers than they need. So why would they need a draft?

Mmmhmm, funny how that contradicts every other article I've read on recruitment. What's your source?

Apparently you don't know a preempted argument when you see one. Since further military action will INCREASE our need for soldiers and not just require the maintainence of CURRENT levels, meeting the current recruitment goals won't be enough. Additionally, according to your arguments, those people won't be trained sufficiently in time. Remember that? If you concede that these troops will be adequate to fight a war, then you have to concede that draftees would be just as trained to fight a war.

Finally, you don't address the fact that reenlistment rates are down, which means that while the army may be meeting new recruitment goals, they're not maintaining the army they still have which will cause greater pressure to find new sources of troops.

Are we going to be fighting somewhere else? Do you know something that noone else does?

Mmmhmm, funny how that contradicts every other article I've read on recruitment. What's your source?

USA Today. Why you guys keep insisting that there will be a draft is beyond me. But you go right ahead and believe it if you like. When EVERY member of the cabinet AND Bush says it would be a terrible idea and something they will not do and you do not believe them, then you won't believe ANY source that says otherwise either. Therefore this discussion is at an end.

Are we going to be fighting somewhere else? Do you know something that noone else does?

They say history is the best predictor of the future. Given the fact that the current administration has been reckless in going to war, I don't foresee that stopping, particularly if Dubya wins again. He'll see that as a mandate to keep doing what he's doing. You got some special evidence that makes you think he'll stop (maybe he said so...that'd certainly be convincing)?

USA Today. Why you guys keep insisting that there will be a draft is beyond me. But you go right ahead and believe it if you like. When EVERY member of the cabinet AND Bush says it would be a terrible idea and something they will not do and you do not believe them, then you won't believe ANY source that says otherwise either. Therefore this discussion is at an end.

Right, cause we should blindly believe someone about military operations who you concede lied about nation building and our military? Hmmm...that makes lots of sense.

USA Today. Why you guys keep insisting that there will be a draft is beyond me. But you go right ahead and believe it if you like. When EVERY member of the cabinet AND Bush says it would be a terrible idea and something they will not do and you do not believe them, then you won't believe ANY source that says otherwise either. Therefore this discussion is at an end.

I don't believe Bush because he's a proven liar on the most grave of subjects. If he were a Democrat, he would already have been impeached. Unfortunately, he's protected by the magical force-field of Neo-Con BS. I am truly embarrassed that he is our President. Much of the world is either afraid of us or laughing at us. I can't tell you how many people from across the world assume all Americans are beyond stupid because we have that atrocity sitting in the oval office. The fact that you defend his obvious incompetence and malfeasance makes me sick.

I don't believe Bush because he's a proven liar on the most grave of subjects. If he were a Democrat, he would already have been impeached. Unfortunately, he's protected by the magical force-field of Neo-Con BS. I am truly embarrassed that he is our President. Much of the world is either afraid of us or laughing at us. I can't tell you how many people from across the world assume all Americans are beyond stupid because we have that atrocity sitting in the oval office. The fact that you defend his obvious incompetence and malfeasance makes me sick.

I've got news for you. People all around the world have been laughing at us for decades. So you are embarassed, don't vote for him. I will, not because I am a Republican cause I am not, but because he is better than Kerry. Kerry will so weaken the US militarily that it will take far more money to fix the damage than to maintain what we have now. Clinton did the same thing. Of course you won't believe that either, but it is true nonetheless. During the debate he said he would cancel ANOTHER weapon system if elected. He just does not understand the world at large and THAT is even more scary than ANYTHING that Bush could possibly do.

I've got news for you. People all around the world have been laughing at us for decades. So you are embarassed, don't vote for him. I will, not because I am a Republican cause I am not, but because he is better than Kerry. Kerry will so weaken the US militarily that it will take far more money to fix the damage than to maintain what we have now. Clinton did the same thing. Of course you won't believe that either, but it is true nonetheless. During the debate he said he would cancel ANOTHER weapon system if elected. He just does not understand the world at large and THAT is even more scary than ANYTHING that Bush could possibly do.

Clinton downsized the Military, but also upped the technology, incidentally, making it more applicable to a post-Cold War, global terrorism era.

Bush talks a lot about 9/11 changing things, and yet he's trying to fight the war on terror as if it were a conventional war.

Clinton downsized the Military, but also upped the technology, incidentally, making it more applicable to a post-Cold War, global terrorism era.

Bush talks a lot about 9/11 changing things, and yet he's trying to fight the war on terror as if it were a conventional war.

Clinton cut the buget so much that all combat ready air force squadrons went from one "can" bird to three.

To explain this to you....

A "can" bird is one aircraft set aside for a period of time to strip parts from that are not in supply. Once the part arrives, it is then put on the "can" bird. When Clinton took office, each squadron had one such aircraft. When he left, we were up to three as the money to purchase the parts was not available. When bush took office that changed again.

Combat readiness and effectiveness were affected by Clinton in many ways that those outside the military would never see or know. Those of us who were in a position to see it saw the disaster he created, but thats ok, the band played well on the Titanic too.

Clinton cut the buget so much that all combat ready air force squadrons went from one "can" bird to three.

To explain this to you....

A "can" bird is one aircraft set aside for a period of time to strip parts from that are not in supply. Once the part arrives, it is then put on the "can" bird. When Clinton took office, each squadron had one such aircraft. When he left, we were up to three as the money to purchase the parts was not available. When bush took office that changed again.

Combat readiness and effectiveness were affected by Clinton in many ways that those outside the military would never see or know. Those of us who were in a position to see it saw the disaster he created, but thats ok, the band played well on the Titanic too.

*sigh* Dick Cheney has been quoted as saying that no president is able to affect this military during his administration. The military that Clinton "decimated" is the same military that won the "war" in Iraq too quickly (according to Bush). Yes, there may be some cuts in units, but our military strategic and tactical needs have changed since 1991. We don't need to prepare for a massive war in Europe or anywhere else (which again is why we shouldn't be nation building). If you accept Dubya's descriptions of the world in which we live today, the Clinton concept for the military is much better suited to the type of force we need. Smaller, more automated, high tech military and not the "we need tons of tanks and planes to fight the Commies!" military of the cold war.

Can birds aren't gonna win this argument for you.

*sigh* Dick Cheney has been quoted as saying that no president is able to affect this military during his administration. The military that Clinton "decimated" is the same military that won the "war" in Iraq too quickly (according to Bush). Yes, there may be some cuts in units, but our military strategic and tactical needs have changed since 1991. We don't need to prepare for a massive war in Europe or anywhere else (which again is why we shouldn't be nation building). If you accept Dubya's descriptions of the world in which we live today, the Clinton concept for the military is much better suited to the type of force we need. Smaller, more automated, high tech military and not the "we need tons of tanks and planes to fight the Commies!" military of the cold war.

Can birds aren't gonna win this argument for you.

Sigh and believe what you will. Clinton was not a good president for the military. The small high tech aircraft are the ones with the parts shortages. The problem was funding....not the system being used. NOW Kerry says we need a larger force, but Bush says we don't. You seem to agree with Kerry, yet profess that Clinton was right. Which is it?

Sigh and believe what you will. Clinton was not a good president for the military. The small high tech aircraft are the ones with the parts shortages. The problem was funding....not the system being used. NOW Kerry says we need a larger force, but Bush says we don't. You seem to agree with Kerry, yet profess that Clinton was right. Which is it?

I believe that now that we can't back out of Iraq, we need more combat ready divisions. Getting us into the nation building in Iraq was a military blunder of gigantic proportions. Bush effectively forced our military to go back to a Cold War mentality, all the while professing that we needed a different focus. And the problem isn't funding...it's effective use of the funding. The vast majority of the defense budget goes to super-wealthy military contractors who inflate their budgets and get more and more pork out of Congress and the president. Don't spend more, spend smarter - Clinton was trying to do that.

Oh, and you completely ignored my argument about Bush doing nation building when he promised he wouldn't in 2000. I'll just keep pointing it out every so often, since you think nation building is such a bad idea, and yet it's a centerpoint of the Bush administration decision making over the past 4 years.

Sigh and believe what you will. Clinton was not a good president for the military. The small high tech aircraft are the ones with the parts shortages. The problem was funding....not the system being used. NOW Kerry says we need a larger force, but Bush says we don't. You seem to agree with Kerry, yet profess that Clinton was right. Which is it?

And all of the sponsors and co-sponsors of the two draft bills were Democrats when the Army is reporting it's exceeding its recruitment goals.

Oh, and you completely ignored my argument about Bush doing nation building when he promised he wouldn't in 2000. I'll just keep pointing it out every so often, since you think nation building is such a bad idea, and yet it's a centerpoint of the Bush administration decision making over the past 4 years.

Thats the problem with making promises. Times and events change. kerry is saying he will not take any military action unless it passes some "Global Test." IF he is elected and we are attacked from some rogue nation like Iran and the UN says no, you cannot attack Iran. Will he? You know he would, yet he promised not to.....so welcome to the real world where things happen to make past promises sometimes impossible to keep.

Thats the problem with making promises. Times and events change. kerry is saying he will not take any military action unless it passes some "Global Test." IF he is elected and we are attacked from some rogue nation like Iran and the UN says no, you cannot attack Iran. Will he? You know he would, yet he promised not to.....so welcome to the real world where things happen to make past promises sometimes impossible to keep.

Wow, so Kerry is held to everything he's ever said and not able to say that things change, but Bush gets the ever-present "Get out of jail free" card because "times change". This is the same preposterous logic that both sides use to justify lies. Stop being an apologist for the current adminsitration. If you wanna get down on Kerry for flip flopping, buck up and admit your guy flip flopped too.

Hmpf? The Chicken-Little analogy?

If this country can survive Grant, Harding, Hoover, Carter, Regan, and the shrub; we will survive Kerry just fine.....

You forgot Nixon... foreign policy, pretty decent. Domestic policy, paranoid schitzophrenic.

Wow, so Kerry is held to everything he's ever said and not able to say that things change, but Bush gets the ever-present "Get out of jail free" card because "times change". This is the same preposterous logic that both sides use to justify lies. Stop being an apologist for the current adminsitration. If you wanna get down on Kerry for flip flopping, buck up and admit your guy flip flopped too.

Times change....I don't believe that Bush had any intention of going into the "Nation Building" business when he took office, but events changed.

In the scenario that I put forth, Kerry would attack Iran and noone would blame him. Yet Bush gets blamed because events changed for him. Double standard? I think so.

Times change....I don't believe that Bush had any intention of going into the "Nation Building" business when he took office, but events changed.

In the scenario that I put forth, Kerry would attack Iran and noone would blame him. Yet Bush gets blamed because events changed for him. Double standard? I think so.

So you don't admit your guy flip flopped,but you're willing to throw all those accusations at Kerry. Classic stubbornness.

Kerry's "global test" was massively misrepresented as well. He has repeatedly said that we need to be able to justify to the international community that such a thing is necessary. It was easy to do after 9/11 regarding Afghanistan, but instead of building on that, Bush gave the rest of the world the finger. Kerry wouldn't do that according to his standard, and he sure as hell would've been correct not to invade Iraq. You haven't made a compelling reason for Kerry to "invade Iran" that the rest of the world wouldn't agree with. Until you do so, you're just flapping your lips.

you're just flapping your lips.

No more than you are. Neither of us is going to change the others mind.

Yes, that spirit is still there. But I feel it has been greatly eroded over the past 12 years. Clinton was a moral disaster as everyone knows. Yet, even his lying under oath did not get anyones ire up. When a sitting President lies under oath in court and is not punished, then noone else should be. After the Lewinsky nonsense, military commanders could no longer charge military personnel for adultery because the commander-in-chief was not so charged. Much like Rome, the US is in decline because we accept things now that we once frowned upon. Our military is weakened by Presidents who harbor a disdain for the institution. I see the US in serious trouble in the next 50 years.

*yawn* Yeah... adultery is the fall of modern civilization. Right. So, why is it that Jimmy Carter was the only president who didn't have an affair at some point or another? Check some sources, every president (with the exception of Carter) has had ~some~ kind of adulterous affair during, before, or after taking office. So, Clinton was the only one hung out to dry about it.

Let's not account for the fact that military spending went UP during Clinton's administration... that we adapted existing missiles and bombs with "smart" technology than in any previous administration... that the national deficit was completely diminished... that new jobs were created (as well as service to help people FIND jobs and learn basic job skills like interviewing and resume writing). Let's just skip that and move right on to Bill's Blowjob. As far as lying under oath, I believe that the lie was regarding an aspect of his personal life that shouldn't have been a matter of trial. Second, "technically" he didn't lie (he speaks English... he knows the difference between past and present tense and used that to his advantage).

Bush got his mistress pregnant AND suggested she have an abortion... 'cept he's PRO LIFE. Private citizens who reside in residences comprised of transparent, fragile substances should not launch hard, igneous projectiles.

No more than you are. Neither of us is going to change the others mind.

If I can't change your mind, it's because you're intentionally refusing to see both sides of the issue. I can freely admit that Kerry has made some political choices that put him at odds with what he stated previously. But the spurious claims about Iraq are not true. However, you can't admit that your candidate has flip flopped at least in comparable ways to Kerry. There are a lot of things that I don't agree with Kerry on, and I'm happy to yell at him about those. But the claims you've made are ridiculous. You, however, can't even yell about anything Bush has done wrong, because you're afraid once foreign policy, the supposed strength of his presidency goes away, he's got nothing.

If I can't change your mind, it's because you're intentionally refusing to see both sides of the issue. I can freely admit that Kerry has made some political choices that put him at odds with what he stated previously. But the spurious claims about Iraq are not true. However, you can't admit that your candidate has flip flopped at least in comparable ways to Kerry. There are a lot of things that I don't agree with Kerry on, and I'm happy to yell at him about those. But the claims you've made are ridiculous. You, however, can't even yell about anything Bush has done wrong, because you're afraid once foreign policy, the supposed strength of his presidency goes away, he's got nothing.

Oh you are so wrong on this one. I disagree with Bush one a lot of things, but those are domestic policies. I think he is doing a good job internationally. Those who decry him for angering our "allies" should acknowledge that they were actively working against us. Allies do not do that, they can disagree, but working against us was clearly wrong. These are the same entities that Kerry would supposedly turn to.

However, lying under oath is called perjury and is a crime. Lying under any other circumstances is just a lie. If you or I had been caught lying under oath, we would be charged and in all likelyhood convicted. THATS the difference. Politicians lie....thats a given, but to do so under oath makes a mockery of our judicial system.

And refusing to testify on the stand? What is that? I remember Bushie absolutely refusing to testify at the 9/11 commission. If he was so damned righteous and bent on justice, he shouldn't have anything to hide on that subject. He put up a stink for months about Condolezza Rice testifying. I think I'd prefer to concentrate on the refusal to testify about matters of past national security failures... this administration was largely uncooperative during the 9/11 commission investigation.

Oh you are so wrong on this one. I disagree with Bush one a lot of things, but those are domestic policies. I think he is doing a good job internationally. Those who decry him for angering our "allies" should acknowledge that they were actively working against us. Allies do not do that, they can disagree, but working against us was clearly wrong. These are the same entities that Kerry would supposedly turn to.

Um, our operations in Iraq show pretty bloody clearly why the US doesn't have the military might to be a unilateralist power. Which is also why, instead of "us against the world", it needs to be the world against <insert "bad guy here">. Allies aren't supposed to stupidly and blindly follow other allies when they do something insane...they're supposed to work together for common good. The US has proven itself to be the terrible ally, not vice versa. Just because Bush utterly failed in the diplomatic arena and pretty clearly always planned to invade Iraq despite what happened isn't a reason why we should continue to engage in the same terrible policies.

Kerry, like Clinton is very weak on the military. Clinton all but declared war on the military. Kerry, if elected, will further erode it and make the US even weaker. Even now, you have bogus emails running around stating that Bush is going to reintroduce a draft. Such is the anti-military rhetoric coming from the Kerry campaign that they are using scare tactics of this magnitude. Further astonishing is the downright hostility shown to some recruiters when trying to visit some schools. The US is vulnerable today, and that vulnerability comes from inside.

Funny, since it was Clinton's military that won the invasion stage of the war in Iraq. Also, i find it crazy that people are still using that old chestnut about Kerry being a flip-flopper.

Bush opposed the creation of the Department of Homeland Security, at one point even threatening to veto the legislation. Now he touts it as his 'hard work' that is paying off.

Bush opposed the appointment of an intelligence czar and re-organizing the intelligence services of the United States. In the foreign policy debate he crows about how this is part of 'his' plan to protect America.

Bush pushes legislation for his 'No Child Left Behind' educational programs and pledges $15 billion in AIDS funding for Africa over 3 years, then refused to even propose fully funding either of these programs.

Bush promises increased funding for first responders and specifically increased funds for equipment and training of police and fire professionals in the wake of 9/11. This funding has never been a part of a Bush proposed budget (in the United States, the president proposes a budget then Congress modifies it and/or allocates funding for it, which legislation goes back to the president for final approval or veto). In fact fire fighters in New York City have protested at Bush events because of his failure to follow through on his promise of $1.9 billion in aid and funding for the New York City Fire Department in the wake of the 9/11 attacks.

Bush promised to support our military then he cuts Veterans' Benefits and proposed stopping hazardous duty pay for troops in Iraq after his 'Mission Accomplished' speech.

Bush sent troops to Iraq without adequate body armor or armored humvees to protect them from attacks.

Bush said we would never particpate in direct talks with North Korea, now he is doing so.

Bush said we adequately planned the invasion and reconstruction of Iraq, but yesterday, Paul Bremer, his hand picked civilian administrator in Iraq from May 2003 to June 2004 stated that there had been inadequate planning and that he had been denied requested troops to assist in quelling the insurgency in 2003 in direct contradiction of Bush's claims during the foreign policy debate in Florida.

Bush refused to support the first bill proposing $87 billion in funding for reconstruction in Iraq and continuing military operations there. In fact, he threatened to veto such legislation (Kerry voted for this bill). He later signed a different bill for substantially the same programs (Kerry voted against this bill). This while Kerry first voted for the $87 billion then voted against it; Bush first opposed the $87 billion the supported it. Seems like they both 'flip-flopped on this one.

Bush has claimed links between Iraq and al Qaeda. Yesterday in New York City, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld said there was no link between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein.

In 2000 Bush claimed that he did not want defective ballots counted in Florida; even while he fought for the counting of 5000 absentee ballots in Pasco, Hernandez, Hillsborough, and Pinellas counties that had been 'corrected' by members of those counties Republican committees. Ballots that had been disqualified for having various defects. Since Bush won the election by fewer than 600 votes in Florida, the proper exclusion (according to a consistent application of Bush's views) of these absentee ballots would have resulted in a Gore victory in Florida and for the presidency.

The only thing I can see that Bush got right has been when he said if Al Gore won the election the economy would tank, the United States would be attacked by terrorists, our military would be weaker, our standing in the world would be lower, and we suffer under unprecedented budget deficits. Well, Gore did win in Florida and all of this has come true.

And refusing to testify on the stand? What is that? I remember Bushie absolutely refusing to testify at the 9/11 commission. If he was so damned righteous and bent on justice, he shouldn't have anything to hide on that subject. He put up a stink for months about Condolezza Rice testifying. I think I'd prefer to concentrate on the refusal to testify about matters of past national security failures... this administration was largely uncooperative during the 9/11 commission investigation.

NO President has ever testified under oath. That would be a very bad precedent to set. Executive privilege would then be gone.

Me a lefty? Wow, some would faint if they actually believed that....

BAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! Biff has joined us!

~edit~Not ONE member of the Bush administration wants a draft...they have ALL said so many times. It will not be necessary.~edit~

And I don't suppose that has anything at all to do with the re-election campaign... A draft will cause increased dissent. Next term, he's not accountable. He's just got four years to do what he wants and then he's out. Woodward and Burnstein don't work at the Post anymore. The media is exceedingly right-wing. Bush won't be accountable to anyone if he's re-elected.

NO President has ever testified under oath. That would be a very bad precedent to set. Executive privilege would then be gone.

I believe Richard Nixon testified under oath before the Watergate committee, prior to his resignation. Also Bill Clinton testified under oath during the investigation by Kenneth Starr.

And I don't suppose that has anything at all to do with the re-election campaign... A draft will cause increased dissent. Next term, he's not accountable. He's just got four years to do what he wants and then he's out. Woodward and Burnstein don't work at the Post anymore. The media is exceedingly right-wing. Bush won't be accountable to anyone if he's re-elected.

The media is "right wing?" Does that include the New York Times?

I believe Richard Nixon testified under oath before the Watergate committee, prior to his resignation. Also Bill Clinton testified under oath during the investigation by Kenneth Starr.

Not before the Senate. THAT was the reason he did not want to. Hauling the President in front of the Senate would diminish the office. Courts of law are a different thing and Nixon resigned rather than face up to it.

BAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! Biff has joined us!

Nah...I just could not believe that anyone would actually accuse ME of being a lefty. That guy must be to the right of Stalin if I am a lefty. ;)

Thats the problem with making promises. Times and events change. kerry is saying he will not take any military action unless it passes some "Global Test." IF he is elected and we are attacked from some rogue nation like Iran and the UN says no, you cannot attack Iran. Will he? You know he would, yet he promised not to.....so welcome to the real world where things happen to make past promises sometimes impossible to keep.

Know what? The UN didn't have any problem with us attacking in Afghanistan. Know why? 'Cause they had the guy who attacked us. If Iran attacked us, the world wouldn't have a problem with us attacking them back. When we attack on unfounded evidence, they get a little snarky. When we've got a good reason, the world tends not to get snarky. You do the math.

First, let me say that at my age (51) I'm probably the age of the parents of most NationStates players, so I have a different 'mind-set' than other players.
I am a traditional, old-fashioned bleeding-heart liberal.
While I am not a veteran, I am active in the auxiliary of the American Legion, in which my dad has been a local, district, & state officer. (For those of you who aren't familiar with the Legion, it is a veterans' organisation. You do not have to have served overseas or have seen 'active combat' to belong, but you do have to have served during 'times of war', which are determined by Congress).
I tend to be the 'support the warrior, not the war' type. I do NOT believe that the U.S., or it's non-military/veteran citizens laud the people in the military nearly enough. Whether they serve overseas in active combat, or spend their entire miltary career (however short) 'stateside', most go into the service knowing that they may be called to, quite literally, 'lay their lives on the line' for the rest of U.S. citizens.
I am appaled by the way this administration treats our veterans. Health beneifits are being cut, as are other beneifits. Now, as in other times when the economy is bad, more veterans are needing to collect the military benefits they were promised. More of them are being turned away each day. I, along with many women in the units I belong to, do volunteer at the local Veterans' Administration Center (which includes a clinic, hospital, & long-term care facility). While we do not do medical care, we do help with special events such as holiday parties, visiting patients, & the usual volunteer stuff. We also do clerical work, help deliver records, supplies, & patients, sometimes 'direct traffic' in the clinic, & other duties that V.A. employees should do but simply don't have time to because of drastic budget cuts & employee shortages.
The current military isn't treated much better. During the most recent state convention, I heard that many non-officer families are eligible for some help with food bills (food stamps & W.I.C. checks) because the pay of the person serving is so low. I also heard that the Pentagon's proposed method of dealing with this is to make those people declare their on-base housing as income. They won't be paid any more, but they will be in a tax bracket too high to qualify for 'welfare', which does nothing but let the current administration 'save face' when questioned about military pay. Anyone who heard the Democratic candidates' debates heard former general Wesley Clark mention that during much of his long military career, he & his family subsisited near poverty level.
Having said that, I do not believe this administration is pro-military. Cheney got FIVE draft deferments, and Bush...well, even the people who served with him don't remember having seen him much.
Right now, we have a volunteer military. Like the early 1970s, when I graduated from high school, the economy is bad; most of the jobs being offered (at least where I live) are low-wage, no benefit positions. Now, as in the early 70s, many kids are going into the military because they have no other choice. At least in the military, they believe will have a decent paycheck, medical care, & be taken care of when they're old & sick.
Do I think this administration wants a draft? In spite of their vehement denials, I believe they do. This administration, IMO, is the most deceitful & dangerous we've ever had. Any one who doesn't believe that needs to sit down and read "Worse than Watergate-the Secret Presidency of George W. Bush" by John Dean, one of the Watergate conspirators.

Know what? The UN didn't have any problem with us attacking in Afghanistan. Know why? 'Cause they had the guy who attacked us. If Iran attacked us, the world wouldn't have a problem with us attacking them back. When we attack on unfounded evidence, they get a little snarky. When we've got a good reason, the world tends not to get snarky. You do the math.

Now, now...don't you know that Bush never misrepresents anything? If he said there was a clear and present danger to the US, there MUST have been, right? The problem with Iraq for Bush and his supporters is that if they admit that it was a mistake, the entire basis of credibility for this administration goes straight down the toilet, and they know it. They've hitched their political wagon completely to Iraq and they're doing everything in their power to shift the debate whenever their position becomes indefensible. They just won't admit mistakes. Remind you of anyone?

Um, our operations in Iraq show pretty bloody clearly why the US doesn't have the military might to be a unilateralist power. Which is also why, instead of "us against the world", it needs to be the world against <insert "bad guy here">. Allies aren't supposed to stupidly and blindly follow other allies when they do something insane...they're supposed to work together for common good. The US has proven itself to be the terrible ally, not vice versa. Just because Bush utterly failed in the diplomatic arena and pretty clearly always planned to invade Iraq despite what happened isn't a reason why we should continue to engage in the same terrible policies.

Bush went to the UN, they refused to help out. We NOW know why. Everyone was getting rich off Saddam and the oil for food program. Everyone from Koffi Annan to the leaders of France and Germany. How many weapons systems were found in Iraq with German instruction manuals? Our "allies" were making backdoor deals with Saddam and were hardly objective in the situation. Hell, the UN itself was getting 3% from the deal. Chiraq told Saddam that France would block any action of the US in the security council. So our "allies" were anything but in this case. These are the same "world leaders" that Kerry has said he will get on board even though they have since said they will not help no matter who is elected. I am glad Bush went against the UN. The UN has become a relic that has outlived it's usefullness.

NO President has ever testified under oath. That would be a very bad precedent to set. Executive privilege would then be gone.

In that case, I don't think we need to get all snarky about Bill's Blowjob do we?

The media is "right wing?" Does that include the New York Times?

When one looks at the blind support given to the presidency on his policies and his rush to war - yes.

When one looks at how the New York Times parrots the echo chamber and spin - yes.

When one looks at the overwhelming pre-occupation with Kerry's so called flip-flopping and other Fox/Faux news 'issue of the day' - yes.

When the New York Times is more interested in excoriating CBS for rushing to 'press' with what they thought was a scoop, rather than seriously addressing the underlying issue, that Bush has lied about fulfilling his duty to the National Guard and received preferential treatment during Vietnam - yes.

In short because even though the New York Times is generally (but not always) socially progressive - the fact that the New York Times reports from both sides of an issue without a specific bias to the left (they endorsed No Child Left Behind - even while leftists were attacking it; they endorsed the war in Iraq - even while leftists were denouncing it; they supported Giuliani's anti-homeless initiatives - even while leftists were crying foul); unlike other media outlets does not make them leftist. At best (or worst, depending on one's political leanings) the New York Times can be described as centrist. Which in this day and age is trotted out as 'proof' of a liberal biased media, even though the overwhelming amount of media from talk radio to Fox News (which published a completely false article portraying Kerry as a 'metrosexual' about which one doesn't hear a hue and cry about trying to manipulate the election) is dunning us with conservative polemic.

I am not inclined to cry 'vast right wing conspiracy'. But to claim that the media is liberal or not right wing in political focus is just as absurd. Right wing polemic is profitable, left wing reason is not. It is easy to come up with conservative sound bites that refuse to consider any position but one's own. It is much more difficult to do so while being inclusive of others, including right wing religious wackos.

I am appaled by the way this administration treats our veterans. Health beneifits are being cut, as are other beneifits.

As a retired veteran...and a disabled veteran at that, I constantly hear about my benefits being eroded and cut. Yet for the life of me i cannot find it anywhere. I get my healthcare like I always have. my prescriptions are filled promptly. My retirement and disability pay go up each year with the COLA raises. So I just cannot find where my benefits have been cut.

Was military retirement meant to be something one could live exclusively on? I seriously doubt it. I know I cannot live on it alone.

Is the military paid enough? Hell no!! Men like Kerry who vote against EVERY payraise except those during election years so they can proclaim how they are "taking care" of the military are the reason for that. Anyone remember what Carter did to the military and what Reagan had to do to reverse it?

So in short....until someone can actually show me conclusive proof that my retirement and disability pay has been cut or that my Dr. appointment is no longer valid or my medication is now unavailable, then I will just have to have my doubts that my benefits have been cut.

In that case, I don't think we need to get all snarky about Bill's Blowjob do we?

Thats not why he was called to tesify. It was the Paula Jones case...remember her? Clinton lied under oath and was caught. If it was you or me, we would be charged with a crime and punished...he walked.

When one looks at the blind support given to the presidency on his policies and his rush to war - yes.

When one looks at how the New York Times parrots the echo chamber and spin - yes.

When one looks at the overwhelming pre-occupation with Kerry's so called flip-flopping and other Fox/Faux news 'issue of the day' - yes.

When the New York Times is more interested in excoriating CBS for rushing to 'press' with what they thought was a scoop, rather than seriously addressing the underlying issue, that Bush has lied about fulfilling his duty to the National Guard and received preferential treatment during Vietnam - yes.

In short because even though the New York Times is generally (but not always) socially progressive - the fact that the New York Times reports from both sides of an issue without a specific bias to the left (they endorsed No Child Left Behind - even while leftists were attacking it; they endorsed the war in Iraq - even while leftists were denouncing it; they supported Giuliani's anti-homeless initiatives - even while leftists were crying foul); unlike other media outlets does not make them leftist. At best (or worst, depending on one's political leanings) the New York Times can be described as centrist. Which in this day and age is trotted out as 'proof' of a liberal biased media, even though the overwhelming amount of media from talk radio to Fox News (which published a completely false article portraying Kerry as a 'metrosexual' about which one doesn't hear a hue and cry about trying to manipulate the election) is dunning us with conservative polemic.

I am not inclined to cry 'vast right wing conspiracy'. But to claim that the media is liberal or not right wing in political focus is just as absurd. Right wing polemic is profitable, left wing reason is not. It is easy to come up with conservative sound bites that refuse to consider any position but one's own. It is much more difficult to do so while being inclusive of others, including right wing religious wackos.


"Progressive." I like that term, but it hardly applies to the left as they seem to want to go back to the policies of the 1960's. Those failed programs and the "war on poverty" they were used for failed miserably.

But back to the press....you think the press has a right bias, yet for years and years it has been looked at as having a left bias. Dan Rather certainly is no "right winger." He is an admitted Democrat and active in the Texas Democrat party. So much so he actually made campaign ads for Kerry there. Objectivity be damned I guess huh?

As a retired veteran...and a disabled veteran at that, I constantly hear about my benefits being eroded and cut. Yet for the life of me i cannot find it anywhere. I get my healthcare like I always have. my prescriptions are filled promptly. My retirement and disability pay go up each year with the COLA raises. So I just cannot find where my benefits have been cut.

Was military retirement meant to be something one could live exclusively on? I seriously doubt it. I know I cannot live on it alone.

Is the military paid enough? Hell no!! Men like Kerry who vote against EVERY payraise except those during election years so they can proclaim how they are "taking care" of the military are the reason for that. Anyone remember what Carter did to the military and what Reagan had to do to reverse it?

So in short....until someone can actually show me conclusive proof that my retirement and disability pay has been cut or that my Dr. appointment is no longer valid or my medication is now unavailable, then I will just have to have my doubts that my benefits have been cut.

Bill, I suggest you read the last three budgets proposed by the administration of George W. Bush. In each of these budgets the amount of spending for the Department of Veteran's Affairs has been cut. The amount of time a returning veteran who has been fully or partially disabled must wait before being qualified for Veteran's Affairs hospital treatment for any condition other than the disabling injury has increased. The wait for qualified veteran's to be placed on the roles of those eligible for full free treatment at VA hospitals has increased. A close personal friend of mine, Staff Sgt. D.D.Pritchard, retired, who was 100% disabled during Vietnam was forced to seek heart bypass surgery at the local county funded hospital because of a lack of resources including bedspace at either of the VA hospitals within 30 miles of his home. Knight-Ridder newspapers had a serious of reports ealier this year on the lack of staff and its ensuing lack of hygiene or quality treatment in VA hospitals from Virginia to Missouri.

I have another friend who recently returned from Bosnia and Afganistan. His request for access to funding for his education has been put on 'hold' because he is subject to recall status.

I have a friend who is a phamacist with the VA hospital here, they have been denied the requested upgrades to computers that would allow them to adequately track patients prescriptions and ensure that there are not potential adverse drug interactions, something every corner pharmacy has.

By the way, I live in Kansas City, the home of the headquarters of the VFW. Friends of mine who work there are very angry about what is seen as a betrayal by Bush of his promises to veteran's and members of the military.

Bush is engaging in a back door draft now, by calling up national guard troops in numbers not seen since Vietnam. Bush sent troops into Iraq on false pretenses. How can you continue to call him a friend of the military. While it is a good thing Saddam is gone, all of the reasons given by Bush for this war have proven to be false - no WMD, no link to al Qaeda, no links to terrorist organizations that have attacked the United States - and the people of Iraq do not want us there (a poll by al-Arabiya, the U.S. government created Arab language news channel shows that 56% of Iraqis want the United States to leave.

Bush went to the UN, they refused to help out. We NOW know why. Everyone was getting rich off Saddam and the oil for food program. Everyone from Koffi Annan to the leaders of France and Germany. How many weapons systems were found in Iraq with German instruction manuals? Our "allies" were making backdoor deals with Saddam and were hardly objective in the situation. Hell, the UN itself was getting 3% from the deal. Chiraq told Saddam that France would block any action of the US in the security council. So our "allies" were anything but in this case. These are the same "world leaders" that Kerry has said he will get on board even though they have since said they will not help no matter who is elected. I am glad Bush went against the UN. The UN has become a relic that has outlived it's usefullness.

Yes, yes...we've all heard the oil for food scandal and the fact that other countries were giving him stuff. This is nothing new. Remember Iran-Contra? Remember the weapons we gave Saddam? Trying to characterize our allies as supporters of Saddam while we were against him is hopelessly simplistic. Bush going against the UN isn't the same as Bush giving the finger to the world. I'm talking about the unwillingness for Bush to exhaust diplomatic options first (and thereby send our troops into Iraq without the body armor that he likes to criticize Kerry for). Some key facts that get overlooked when you try to shift blame for this to the UN.

1. We ain't found any WMD. If UN inspectors were so corrupt, why haven't we found 'em?

2. Oil for food is hardly a reason why Blix and his team of inspectors weren't trustworthy, and they had reported that Saddam was complying. Whether or not it was sincere compliance hadn't been determined, which means that Bush went to war too early, something that was a bad idea, even if our allies were resisting because they had ulterior motives.

3. Iraq wasn't a clear and present threat, which was the justification used by the Bush administration for invading. Given that we were misled about that, the war in the face of international opposition was a bad idea (regardless of why the rest of the world was opposing us).

4. Us blaming people for supporting Saddam when we've given him the most support over the years is absurd and hypocritical. He hasn't changed anything about his policies since we installed him...it has just become politically expedient to change our stance towards him now.

No matter how you slice it, you can't exempt the Bush administration for its part in this farce. You can try and deflect that blame by saying other people were motivated by selfish reason, but the corporate contracts that went to our big companies gives us plenty of selfish reason for invading Iraq, too. Like I've said in other posts, if you're willing to point the finger at other people, you better be willing to point that same finger at your own guy (something you seem incapable of doing).

"Progressive." I like that term, but it hardly applies to the left as they seem to want to go back to the policies of the 1960's. Those failed programs and the "war on poverty" they were used for failed miserably.

But back to the press....you think the press has a right bias, yet for years and years it has been looked at as having a left bias. Dan Rather certainly is no "right winger." He is an admitted Democrat and active in the Texas Democrat party. So much so he actually made campaign ads for Kerry there. Objectivity be damned I guess huh?

Bill O'Reilly is a register Republican, as is Rush Limbaugh, as is Sean Hannity, as is Ann Coulter, as is Brit Hume, as is G.Gordon Liddy, as is . . . ad nauseum. To cite one journalist or even a list of journalists or propagandists is not indicative in and of itself. Rather look at the editorial boards and ownership of the media - such as Rupert Murdoch, and the trend in media to try to out-Fox Fox, meaning to be even more conservative and outrageous than they are.

Do you always take the most simplistic view of an issue or are you just playing devils advocate

Do you always take the most simplistic view of an issue or are you just playing devils advocate

I know this one! I know this one!

Bill, I suggest you read the last three budgets proposed by the administration of George W. Bush. In each of these budgets the amount of spending for the Department of Veteran's Affairs has been cut. The amount of time a returning veteran who has been fully or partially disabled must wait before being qualified for Veteran's Affairs hospital treatment for any condition other than the disabling injury has increased. The wait for qualified veteran's to be placed on the roles of those eligible for full free treatment at VA hospitals has increased. A close personal friend of mine, Staff Sgt. D.D.Pritchard, retired, who was 100% disabled during Vietnam was forced to seek heart bypass surgery at the local county funded hospital because of a lack of resources including bedspace at either of the VA hospitals within 30 miles of his home. Knight-Ridder newspapers had a serious of reports ealier this year on the lack of staff and its ensuing lack of hygiene or quality treatment in VA hospitals from Virginia to Missouri.

Yet they are building new hospitals. One being built right here in my home town. Are there problems with the VA? Yes there are. Should every veteran take advantage of the health insurance available to them upon discharge or retirement? Yes they should. Do they? No. Tri-Care is an EXCELLENT and extremely CHEAP health insurance program available. As anyone can tell you, do NOT rely on one source for anything as it degrades your options.

I have another friend who recently returned from Bosnia and Afganistan. His request for access to funding for his education has been put on 'hold' because he is subject to recall status.

Completely understandable. Why allow him to take a class if there is a chance he might be deployed again and have to drop out. Happened to me MANY times because of deployments to the middle east.

I have a friend who is a phamacist with the VA hospital here, they have been denied the requested upgrades to computers that would allow them to adequately track patients prescriptions and ensure that there are not potential adverse drug interactions, something every corner pharmacy has.

"NEW" computers are not always needed. So you are saying they have been inadequately tracking medications previously. If you have evidence of this you should report it to the accredidation board responsible for that hospital.

By the way, I live in Kansas City, the home of the headquarters of the VFW. Friends of mine who work there are very angry about what is seen as a betrayal by Bush of his promises to veteran's and members of the military.

There will always be those who complain. Soldiers, airmen and marines are happiest when complaining. When they stop...thats when you watch out.

Bush is engaging in a back door draft now, by calling up national guard troops in numbers not seen since Vietnam. Bush sent troops into Iraq on false pretenses. How can you continue to call him a friend of the military. While it is a good thing Saddam is gone, all of the reasons given by Bush for this war have proven to be false - no WMD, no link to al Qaeda, no links to terrorist organizations that have attacked the United States - and the people of Iraq do not want us there (a poll by al-Arabiya, the U.S. government created Arab language news channel shows that 56% of Iraqis want the United States to leave.

Back door draft again....the President can call up reserves and NG units as he sees fit. Those who balk or complain too much should be discharged. They swore an oath did they not? I know I did and if I was still in I would go where and when I was told. The US certainly has changed in the past 20 years. it is much weaker than it was. Are there problems with what Bush did? Yes there are...but we are there so we better got on with it or it will get on us.

Thats not why he was called to tesify. It was the Paula Jones case...remember her? Clinton lied under oath and was caught. If it was you or me, we would be charged with a crime and punished...he walked.


Actually, to be considered perjury under federal statutes, one must lie under oath about a material fact in a case that germaine to the root matter of the case. Whether or not Bill Clinton got a blow job from Monica Lewinsky does not address, support, or is any way otherwise germaine to whether he sexually harrassed Paula Jones. In fact, it was just this fact that lead Kenneth Starr to state that there was no actionable criminal activity on the part of Bill Clinton.

Please know your facts before you assert something. You or I would not face criminal prosecution for making the statements Clinton made under oath if we found ourselves in a similar suit.

Yes, yes...we've all heard the oil for food scandal and the fact that other countries were giving him stuff. This is nothing new. Remember Iran-Contra? Remember the weapons we gave Saddam? Trying to characterize our allies as supporters of Saddam while we were against him is hopelessly simplistic. Bush going against the UN isn't the same as Bush giving the finger to the world. I'm talking about the unwillingness for Bush to exhaust diplomatic options first (and thereby send our troops into Iraq without the body armor that he likes to criticize Kerry for). Some key facts that get overlooked when you try to shift blame for this to the UN.

1. We ain't found any WMD. If UN inspectors were so corrupt, why haven't we found 'em?

2. Oil for food is hardly a reason why Blix and his team of inspectors weren't trustworthy, and they had reported that Saddam was complying. Whether or not it was sincere compliance hadn't been determined, which means that Bush went to war too early, something that was a bad idea, even if our allies were resisting because they had ulterior motives.

3. Iraq wasn't a clear and present threat, which was the justification used by the Bush administration for invading. Given that we were misled about that, the war in the face of international opposition was a bad idea (regardless of why the rest of the world was opposing us).

4. Us blaming people for supporting Saddam when we've given him the most support over the years is absurd and hypocritical. He hasn't changed anything about his policies since we installed him...it has just become politically expedient to change our stance towards him now.

No matter how you slice it, you can't exempt the Bush administration for its part in this farce. You can try and deflect that blame by saying other people were motivated by selfish reason, but the corporate contracts that went to our big companies gives us plenty of selfish reason for invading Iraq, too. Like I've said in other posts, if you're willing to point the finger at other people, you better be willing to point that same finger at your own guy (something you seem incapable of doing).


Saddam is gone...we are there. We will be fixing Iraq alone. Our "allies" are not going to help us. Iran and Syria will be next, as they should be. 12 years and what...18 resolutions from the UN were not going to change things in Iraq. The ONLY option was the one taken. That we did not get the support we wanted is not a big deal. We will prevail, unless kerry is elected and we leave Iraq to the terrorists.

Actually, to be considered perjury under federal statutes, one must lie under oath about a material fact in a case that germaine to the root matter of the case. Whether or not Bill Clinton got a blow job from Monica Lewinsky does not address, support, or is any way otherwise germaine to whether he sexually harrassed Paula Jones. In fact, it was just this fact that lead Kenneth Starr to state that there was no actionable criminal activity on the part of Bill Clinton.

Please know your facts before you assert something. You or I would not face criminal prosecution for making the statements Clinton made under oath if we found ourselves in a similar suit.

Thanks for pointing that out.

:) at Biff...... ;)

*throws arms around Celtenacht in a great, big hug*

Finally, someone around here who understands! Someone from my age group (probably... I could've parented most of my students).

Actually, to be considered perjury under federal statutes, one must lie under oath about a material fact in a case that germaine to the root matter of the case. Whether or not Bill Clinton got a blow job from Monica Lewinsky does not address, support, or is any way otherwise germaine to whether he sexually harrassed Paula Jones. In fact, it was just this fact that lead Kenneth Starr to state that there was no actionable criminal activity on the part of Bill Clinton.

Please know your facts before you assert something. You or I would not face criminal prosecution for making the statements Clinton made under oath if we found ourselves in a similar suit.

Clinton committed perjury...was he not impeached because of that?

Saddam is gone...we are there. We will be fixing Iraq alone. Our "allies" are not going to help us. Iran and Syria will be next, as they should be. 12 years and what...18 resolutions from the UN were not going to change things in Iraq. The ONLY option was the one taken. That we did not get the support we wanted is not a big deal. We will prevail, unless kerry is elected and we leave Iraq to the terrorists.

Right... you don't listen do you? He's carefully outlined a plan to take Iraq back and THEN return it to the Iraqi people.

Right... you don't listen do you? He's carefully outlined a plan to take Iraq back and THEN return it to the Iraqi people.

Take Iraq back? From who? He will just follow the Bush plan. Then hail himself as some great unifier. Yet at least 50% of the people do not agree with him. However, I don't think Kerry will win the election anyway.

Clinton committed perjury...was he not impeached because of that?

And found not guilty by a majority of the Senate. An impeachment is an accusation similar to an indictment. If one is found not guilty by a jury (in this case the Republican controlled Senate - as is laid out in the Constitution) then one is not guilty of the alleged offense.

So to recap - some Repbulican members of the Republican controlled House of Representatives accused Clinton of perjury. The House of Representatives, voting along party lines returned a Bill of Impeachment (an indictment). Clinton stood trial in the United States Senate -controlled by Republicans. Following the trial a vote of guilt or innocence as to the charges laid out in the Bill of Impeachment was taken. 46 Democratic Senators and 9 Republican Senators voted for acquittal. Since the rules under the United States Constitution for a trial of Impeachment require a two-thirds majority vote for a conviction, if there had truly been substance to these charges or if 9 republicans had failed to vote for the facts instead of along partisan lines, Clinton would have been convicted or at least the appearance of guilt would have been there.

Again, please check facts before engaging in slander.

And found not guilty by a majority of the Senate. An impeachment is an accusation similar to an indictment. If one is found not guilty by a jury (in this case the Republican controlled Senate - as is laid out in the Constitution) then one is not guilty of the alleged offense.

So to recap - some Repbulican members of the Republican controlled House of Representatives accused Clinton of perjury. The House of Representatives, voting along party lines returned a Bill of Impeachment (an indictment). Clinton stood trial in the United States Senate -controlled by Republicans. Following the trial a vote of guilt or innocence as to the charges laid out in the Bill of Impeachment was taken. 46 Democratic Senators and 5 Republican Senators voted for acquittal. Since the rules under the United States Constitution for a trial of Impeachment require only a majority vote for a conviction, if there had truly been substance to these charges or if 5 republicans had failed to vote for the facts instead of along partisan lines, Clinton would have been convicted.

Again, please check facts before engaging in slander.

Just because they felt that lying under oath was not grounds to throw the bum out of office does not mean he was not guilty. He most certainly was. The legacy he so wanted to leave is just that...the man has become a game show question.

Just because they felt that lying under oath was not grounds to throw the bum out of office does not mean he was not guilty. He most certainly was. The legacy he so wanted to leave is just that...the man has become a game show question.

I love how people will twist facts to suit their own agenda. Kenneth Starr specifically said after the Senate vote that the failure of the Senate to remove Clinton from office did not preclude the possibility of a criminal prosecution and should charges be filed, Clinton would face a criminal trial (being president does not preclude the filing of either criminal or civil charges against one).

In their final report to Congress both Kenneth Starr and his successor as special prosecutor clearly stated that there was no basis for further criminal charges against Clinton.

Read the report before you continue with this line of tripe. Otherwise I will just consign you to my list of right wing nuts who are still mad because Clinton presided over the longest and largest expansion in the history of the United States Economy, while simultaneously increasing spending for defense, upgrading our weapons systems and military organization, increasing social spending, cutting taxes, and eliminating the federal budget deficit and reducing the amount of publically held debt for the United States.

Bill Clinton might be a lousy person. He may have poor judgement and be sexually infidelitous to his wife. But he co-opted the Republican agenda and was successful. Two facts right wing wackos will never forgive him for.

I love how people will twist facts to suit their own agenda. Kenneth Starr specifically said after the Senate vote that the failure of the Senate to remove Clinton from office did not preclude the possibility of a criminal prosecution and should charges be filed, Clinton would face a criminal trial (being president does not preclude the filing of either criminal or civil charges against one).

In their final report to Congress both Kenneth Starr and his successor as special prosecutor clearly stated that there was no basis for further criminal charges against Clinton.

Read the report before you continue with this line of tripe. Otherwise I will just consign you to my list of right wing nuts who are still mad because Clinton presided over the longest and largest expansion in the history of the United States Economy, while simultaneously increasing spending for defense, upgrading our weapons systems and military organization, increasing social spending, cutting taxes, and eliminating the federal budget deficit and reducing the amount of publically held debt for the United States.

Bill Clinton might be a lousy person. He may have poor judgement and be sexually infidelitous to his wife. But he co-opted the Republican agenda and was successful. Two facts right wing wackos will never forgive him for.


Think what you will of the man....he was roundly despised by the military that you claim he helped so much. In 1995 my military pay actually dropped because of his budget games with the housing allowance. He vetoed pay raises except those required by law. In 2000 he approved a 4.8% raise and declared that he and Gore were "taking care of the military." It was an obvious attempt to try and win votes for Gore. When I voted in 2000 (for Nader) I voted absentee as I was in Saudi Arabia at the time. Gore actually tried to have my vote thrown out because it would not have had a proper post mark. Proper postmarks were not allowed by the Saudi's because they were "sensitive" about our being there. So you can think me some "right-wing" wacko if you like. I am not a kool-aid drinker either. Clinton was a disaster for the military and anyone who was deployed as often as I was, and there are many of us, will tell you the same. Of course you will have your opinion, but you don't have the same point of reference that I do.

Think what you will of the man....he was roundly despised by the military that you claim he helped so much. In 1995 my military pay actually dropped because of his budget games with the housing allowance. He vetoed pay raises except those required by law. In 2000 he approved a 4.8% raise and declared that he and Gore were "taking care of the military." It was an obvious attempt to try and win votes for Gore. When I voted in 2000 (for Nader) I voted absentee as I was in Saudi Arabia at the time. Gore actually tried to have my vote thrown out because it would not have had a proper post mark. Proper postmarks were not allowed by the Saudi's because they were "sensitive" about our being there. So you can think me some "right-wing" wacko if you like. I am not a kool-aid drinker either. Clinton was a disaster for the military and anyone who was deployed as often as I was, and there are many of us, will tell you the same. Of course you will have your opinion, but you don't have the same point of reference that I do.

I am the son of a career military officer. I have grown up on or around military bases and personnel my entire life. While I know that many people were very opposed to Clinton's policies, I know just as many are upset with Bush's policies.

They feel betrayed and that their friends have died for Bush's lies. They are angry that he portrays himself as a friend of the military while engaging in self-aggrandizing military adventurism. They feel that they are more at risk than before and that Bush doesn't value their lives or their contributions except as he can exploit them for political and financial gain. Many of them, my father included, now regret their vote for Bush in 2000 and do not intend to vote for him this year.

So I have to ask you, which is worse, lying about a blow job to protect your marriage and reputation or lying about threats to this country leading to 1,058 men and women dying in the U.S. military and over 15,000 Iraqi civilians dying, and over 4,000 Iraqi police and military personnel dying all so you can continue your political power and enrich your family and friends.

So I have to ask you, which is worse, lying about a blow job to protect your marriage and reputation or lying about threats to this country leading to 1,058 men and women dying in the U.S. military and over 15,000 Iraqi civilians dying, and over 4,000 Iraqi police and military personnel dying all so you can continue your political power and enrich your family and friends.

I don't think Bush lied about that. There is ample evidence that Saddam wanted to resume his chemical weapons programs. Maybe he was not an "immediate" threat, but he certainly was a threat. How long were we to "contain" him and then his sons? The UN would have us there for decades more with no end in sight. It HAD to be done. Could it have been done better...you betcha. Hindsight being 20/20 it is easy to nitpick now. Things will work themselves out and we will then have an active base in Iraq....lookout Iran and Syria.

So I have to ask you, which is worse, lying about a blow job to protect your marriage and reputation or lying about threats to this country leading to 1,058 men and women dying in the U.S. military and over 15,000 Iraqi civilians dying, and over 4,000 Iraqi police and military personnel dying all so you can continue your political power and enrich your family and friends.
I thought that was your handle. I didn't realize it suited you.
It is apparent you also have forgotten about our military in Afghanistan. Allow me to enlighten you, so that you may not make this grave mistake again. The number of Operations Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom casualties as of today is 1189. The other numbers you have are probably invalid as well, but I'd like to see your reference.

I thought that was your handle. I didn't realize it suited you.
It is apparent you also have forgotten about our military in Afghanistan. Allow me to enlighten you, so that you may not make this grave mistake again. The number of Operations Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom casualties as of today is 1189. The other numbers you have are probably invalid as well, but I'd like to see your reference.

The number I quoted was just as applied to Iraq. I did not forget Afganistan. I do not believe Bush lied to take us to war in Afganistan, no have I said he did. The figures on American casualties comes from MSNBC.com. The numbers on Iraqi civilian casualties comes from the Interior Ministry of the Interim Iraqi Governing Council, it was reported on Newsweek.com, BBC.co.uk, and in Knight-Ridder newspapers in pieces contrasting how the situation as described by Bush and Allawi stacks up with the facts on the ground. One of these pieces, I don't remember which also went on to quote the spokesman for the Interior Ministry as saying that more Iraqi civilians are dying as a result of U.S. counter-insurgency measures than by the insurgents themselves. The numbers on Iraqi Military casualities were widely cited in May/June of 2003 after the invasion state of Operation Iraqi Freedom was complete.

My angle, as you put it, is merely that before championing one man who has lied - about uranium from Niger; mobile weapons labs, links to al Qaeda, and stock piles of WMD (which was the claim for imminent threat, not weapons of mass destruction program related activies, but actual stockpiles which Bush claimed in February 2003 that 'we know what he has and where it is located' prompting a challenge by Hans Blix for disclosure of this intelligence so the UN inspectors could search those locations); and criticizing a man for lying about sex (and what man among us has not?); one should consider the seriousness of the relative offenses.

I voted for Bush in 2000, not so much because I liked the guy, but because I thought with a Republican Congress and Republican President we could actually get something done in Washington. If I could have voted in 96, I would have voted for Clinton. If John McCain were running this time, I would have vote for him. But this time I will vote for Kerry.

My angle is one of intellectual integrity and coherence of argument. Bush can't validly call Kerry a flip-flopper because the same label applies. People who can not support an allegation of poor leadership by Clinton attack his character. If character matters, then one must examine the character of the person one is championing. In this case Bill is lauding Bush as a great leader, spuriously attacked Clinton's leadership, when called on it, he retreated to moral arguments, now he is revealed as a moral relativist and polemicist of the worst stripe.

Rather than argue the merits of the case for war in Iraq, he refuses to accept reams of supporting information while touting conspiracies and rumors about Clinton on the flimsiest of pretexts.

There is no good case for the invasion of Iraq. The only thing Bush and his supporters are left with are he was a horrible dictator (one who was set up by the United States, and propped up throughout the 80s by President Reagan and Vice-President (later President) Bush until more than halfway through the first Bush's presidency. This country has and continues to support dictatorial, repressive regimes that are as bad or worse than Hussein including in Equatorial Guinea, which is where huge new oil reserves have been found. - lead by a dictator since granted independence by Britain who we are now providing large amounts of military aid who has made threats to its neighbors and fought border skirmishes with them - essentially Hussein in miniature.

So until we stop supporting or commit to removing all of these people from power (including the al Saud family in Saudi Arabia) that argument doesn't hold up.

In 1971, when challenged about how one brings home our troops if Vietnam was a mistake, an anti-war activist said "In ships". Hmmm, is that a simple enough allegory for you or do I need to be obvious in my treatment in the other argument made for Iraq - that we can't leave now.

This war, like Vietnam, was based upon lies, was a mistake, and we need to end it before more Americans, Iraqis, Poles, Bulgarians, Italians, Britons, Australians, Lithuanians, or people of any othe nationality lose their lives for these lies.

Will Kerry do that immediately? No, but he is more likely than Bush is to do so.

There is no good case for the invasion of Iraq. The only thing Bush and his supporters are left with are he was a horrible dictator (one who was set up by the United States, and propped up throughout the 80s by President Reagan and Vice-President (later President) Bush until more than halfway through the first Bush's presidency.

This is inaccurate. Saddam came to power when he stripped his cousin of all offices and placed him under house arrest. Saddam had been his security chief. The US did not help him militarily until 1988.

1956: Joined the Iraqi branch of the Arab Ba'th Socialist Party.
1958: Sentenced to prison for political activities against the regime, and spends 6 months in prison.
1959: Participates in the coup attempt against prime minister Abdul Karim Qassim, where he receives a shot in his leg from the minister's bodyguards.
— Escapes to Syria, and then to Egypt.
1960 February 25: Is sentenced to death in absentia.
1962: Finishes his secondary studies in Egypt.
1963 February 8: Returns to Iraq following the Ramadan revolution.
— Joins the leadership of the Ba'th Party.
1964 October 14: Is arrested in a campaign against Ba'th Party members.
1966: While still in prison, Saddam is elected Deputy Secretary General of the Ba'th Party.
1967: Escapes from prison.
1968: Active in the two Ba'thist coups in July (17. and 30.) Saddam takes the position of being responsible for internal security.
— Graduates from the College of Law.
1969 November 9: Is formally elected Chairman of the Revolution Command Council, where he forms an alliance with his second cousin, Ahmad Hassan Bakr, the council's chairman.
1972 June 1: Leads the process of nationalizing the oil resources in Iraq, which had been in control by Western companies.
1975: Saddam signs the Algiers Accord with Iran (which among other issues, regulated the border question), an act that indicated that he had gained a stronger position than his ally Bakr.
1979 June: Saddam takes the position of president, after he had discovered that Bakr had started negotiations on unity between Syria and Iraq. Bakr is stripped of all positions, and put under house arrest.
1980 September 17: Saddam terminates the border agreement of 1975 with Iran, hence provoking a war.
— September 22: War starts against Iran, due to disputes over territories occupied by Iran in 1973.
1988: With the help of US navy in the Persian Gulf, Iraq is able regain territory lost to Iran between 1984 and 86.
— July: War against Iran ends, without changes of the borders.

http://i-cias.com/e.o/sad_huss.htm

This is inaccurate. Saddam came to power when he stripped his cousin of all offices and placed him under house arrest. Saddam had been his security chief. The US did not help him militarily until 1988.http://i-cias.com/e.o/sad_huss.htm

Apparently you are incorrect as well. Recently declassified documents indicate that the US was supporting Iraq with military intelligence in the early 80's (http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/), which according to your timeline, would've been only a couple years after Hussein gained the presidency in Iraq. Hence, setting up (as in solidifying the power of) Hussein is completely in line with US policy in the early 80's.

I've also noticed that you have a penchant for not only making fallacious or outright false arguments, but then ignoring a vast majority of the rebuttals presented and responding to only one small portion of the argument as if it answers the entirety (for the love of pete, why don't you respond to the fact that your claim of perjury is baseless? That was the lynchpin to your moral decay argument, and you haven't made a single response to the fact that Clinton's action wasn't perjurous...wanna take that on?). Care to enlighten us on whether or not that is an intentional tactic or just representative of your inability to process the complexity of the arguments facing you?

Apparently you are incorrect as well. Recently declassified documents indicate that the US was supporting Iraq with military intelligence in the early 80's (http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/), which according to your timeline, would've been only a couple years after Hussein gained the presidency in Iraq. Hence, setting up (as in solidifying the power of) Hussein is completely in line with US policy in the early 80's.

I've also noticed that you have a penchant for not only making fallacious or outright false arguments, but then ignoring a vast majority of the rebuttals presented and responding to only one small portion of the argument as if it answers the entirety. Care to enlighten us on whether or not that is an intentional tactic or just representative of your inability to process the complexity of the arguments facing you?

Yes, we gave him satellite images when he was fighting Iran, but not "real" assistance until 1988.

Yes, we gave him satellite images when he was fighting Iran, but not "real" assistance until 1988.

Ah, so military intelligence isn't military aid now? You just keep sticking your foot farther and farther in, don't you? And address the rest of my arguments.

Ah, so military intelligence isn't military aid now? You just keep sticking your foot farther and farther in, don't you? And address the rest of my arguments.
Yay, Biff finally ate crow. I just though that was cool. Maybe he will act more moderately now that he has been humbled by bwing wrong. Then again Pride comes from low self esteem strangely...

Ah, so military intelligence isn't military aid now? You just keep sticking your foot farther and farther in, don't you? And address the rest of my arguments.

That you would equate some pictures taken from space as military aid is not surprising. Thats ok, you will be ok. Saddam was NOT put into power by the US and we ONLY helped him because he was fighting against Iran.

That you would equate some pictures taken from space as military aid is not surprising. Thats ok, you will be ok. Saddam was NOT put into power by the US and we ONLY helped him because he was fighting against Iran.
I don't think it matters why we helped Saddam. Only that we did. Which I believe is the blunt of the issue.
Its kind of like saying its okay to help a evil man as long as it suits our purposes.

I don't think it matters why we helped Saddam. Only that we did. Which I believe is the blunt of the issue. Its kind of like saying its okay to help a evil man as long as it suits our purposes.

I never said that we did NOT help Saddam in his fight with Iran. I stated that we did NOT help him into power as was asserted by someone else. Of course there are others who will jump to inaccurate conclusions, but thats ok. We helped Saddam because he was fighting Iran and the spread of radical Islam from Khomeni (sp).

That you would equate some pictures taken from space as military aid is not surprising. Thats ok, you will be ok. Saddam was NOT put into power by the US and we ONLY helped him because he was fighting against Iran.

Of course it's not military aid...everyone in the country has that satellite data, right? It's not like our military used it or anything...

No one said Saddam was PUT INTO power by the US. Only that the US set him up, and they certainly did so by consolidating his hold and helping him against Iran. The culpability we have regardless of motives has already been addressed.

Of course it's not military aid...everyone in the country has that satellite data, right? It's not like our military used it or anything...

No one said Saddam was PUT INTO power by the US. Only that the US set him up, and they certainly did so by consolidating his hold and helping him against Iran. The culpability we have regardless of motives has already been addressed.

Originally Posted by Dubyadum
There is no good case for the invasion of Iraq. The only thing Bush and his supporters are left with are he was a horrible dictator (one who was set up by the United States, and propped up throughout the 80s by President Reagan and Vice-President (later President) Bush until more than halfway through the first Bush's presidency.

We did NOT set Saddam up....or help him consolodate power. He did that on his own.

We did NOT set Saddam up....or help him consolodate power. He did that on his own.

*sigh* I already answered the "set up" argument in an earlier post. Why is it that you can't read posts sufficiently to respond intelligently to my arguments? You don't even apparently read your own posts that well, since I had to quote you to yourself to get you to admit your errors.

Biff buddy.

I think you lost this round.

But carry on if you like it! ;)

-Makes a mental note not to debate Infinite- ;)

I don't think it matters why we helped Saddam. Only that we did. Which I believe is the blunt of the issue.
Its kind of like saying its okay to help a evil man as long as it suits our purposes.Interesting, what is your take on US helping OBL?

As a retired veteran...and a disabled veteran at that, I constantly hear about my benefits being eroded and cut. Yet for the life of me i cannot find it anywhere. I get my healthcare like I always have. my prescriptions are filled promptly. My retirement and disability pay go up each year with the COLA raises. So I just cannot find where my benefits have been cut.

Was military retirement meant to be something one could live exclusively on? I seriously doubt it. I know I cannot live on it alone.

Is the military paid enough? Hell no!! Men like Kerry who vote against EVERY payraise except those during election years so they can proclaim how they are "taking care" of the military are the reason for that. Anyone remember what Carter did to the military and what Reagan had to do to reverse it?

So in short....until someone can actually show me conclusive proof that my retirement and disability pay has been cut or that my Dr. appointment is no longer valid or my medication is now unavailable, then I will just have to have my doubts that my benefits have been cut.

All I can go on is the vets I know in the Legion, & those I work with. This administration has raised the amount a vet can earn (on a job, in pension, etc) & still collect medical benefits. If that limit is raised again, Dad won't be eligible.
I agree that military bennies are not all vets should count on...for those who did one or two tours of duty. But what about people who made military service their life-long career? Veterans benefits & retirement may be ALL they have to retire on. Considering the wages most military (I mean those who weren't military-academy or college-educated 'top brass') may not have made enough during their service to have outside investments.
Are you aware that of all the homeless people in the U.S., nearly one-third are veterans? And of those homeless veterans, about two-thirds are Vietnam vets? V.A. health care is ALL they have.

For those that wish to read the Lone Star Iconoclast's editorial endorsing Kerry, just cut and paste this into your browser:

http://news.iconoclast-texas.com/web/Columns/Editorial/editorial39.htm

All I can go on is the vets I know in the Legion, & those I work with. This administration has raised the amount a vet can earn (on a job, in pension, etc) & still collect medical benefits. If that limit is raised again, Dad won't be eligible.
I agree that military bennies are not all vets should count on...for those who did one or two tours of duty. But what about people who made military service their life-long career? Veterans benefits & retirement may be ALL they have to retire on. Considering the wages most military (I mean those who weren't military-academy or college-educated 'top brass') may not have made enough during their service to have outside investments.
Are you aware that of all the homeless people in the U.S., nearly one-third are veterans? And of those homeless veterans, about two-thirds are Vietnam vets? V.A. health care is ALL they have.

Here is the basic problem with your assertion. In the Vietnam era, the draftees served 2 years. 2 years. So if later in life these veterans come on hard times, they are listed as an unfortunate veteran. Nevermind that they may have made other choices that lead them to the predicament they are in. The VA has changed since Vietnam. There are millions of veterans out there. Yet, as a percentage of this group, how many are homeless and why are they so? Have you ever heard of Tri-Care? It is the HMO set up by the gov't for veterans and their families. It provides EXCELLENT care cheaply. I am talking less than $500 a YEAR for family health insurance. Noone I know has cheaper insurance than that. That some veterans do not take advantage of it is beyond me. As for VA care, that system is not capable of taking care of the number of veterans that are out there. Another reason that TRI-Care was created. As for benefits being eroded....I think you really need to look at that more closely.

Biff buddy.

I think you lost this round.

But carry on if you like it! ;)

-Makes a mental note not to debate Infinite- ;)

Nah....my points are accurate. We did NOT help Saddam get into power, nor did we help him consolidate his power.

Nah....my points are accurate. We did NOT help Saddam get into power, nor did we help him consolidate his power.

You made points that weren't responsive to what other people were saying, then ignored a bunch of my arguments. If you call that "being accurate", spin on.

*sigh* I already answered the "set up" argument in an earlier post. Why is it that you can't read posts sufficiently to respond intelligently to my arguments? You don't even apparently read your own posts that well, since I had to quote you to yourself to get you to admit your errors.

Why should he allow you to set the pace and direction? You obviously don't respond to every point Biff makes, why does he have to respond to every point YOU make? You are simply trying to set the discussion up in such a way as to force an outcome in your favor. Not a bad tactic, but one I think should be explicit.

Why should he allow you to set the pace and direction? You obviously don't respond to every point Biff makes, why does he have to respond to every point YOU make? You are simply trying to set the discussion up in such a way as to force an outcome in your favor. Not a bad tactic, but one I think should be explicit.

Please tell me which salient point of Biff's I don't answer.

Here is the basic problem with your assertion. In the Vietnam era, the draftees served 2 years. 2 years. So if later in life these veterans come on hard times, they are listed as an unfortunate veteran. Nevermind that they may have made other choices that lead them to the predicament they are in. The VA has changed since Vietnam. There are millions of veterans out there. Yet, as a percentage of this group, how many are homeless and why are they so? Have you ever heard of Tri-Care? It is the HMO set up by the gov't for veterans and their families. It provides EXCELLENT care cheaply. I am talking less than $500 a YEAR for family health insurance. Noone I know has cheaper insurance than that. That some veterans do not take advantage of it is beyond me. As for VA care, that system is not capable of taking care of the number of veterans that are out there. Another reason that TRI-Care was created. As for benefits being eroded....I think you really need to look at that more closely.

I have talked to my Dad & several other vets (nine total, so my information is NOT any where close to a representational poll).
None of them have ever heard of TriCare. They had no idea it existed. My dad had a search done on back issues of the state Legion newspaper; TriCare hasn't been mentioned once in four years. The VFW members I talked to say they haven't heard of it at any of their meetings. If it is so great, why aren't two of the leading veterans groups edorsing it?
If you go to the TriCare website, the first line says "For health-related issues, go to a Military Treatment Office." (Take it to the V.A., vets!)
A lot of our vets are elderly, & some of them are on limited incomes. They can't afford computers, may live in areas where they have no access to computers at places like public libraries, & some (like my dad) feel they are too old to learn how to operate a computer, so they have no access to the website. Nobody I talked to remembered having seen it explained, or even mentioned, in any V.A./government information on benefits.
Since it isn't being endorsed by mahor veterans groups, & apparently the government isn't doing much to endorse it, how are vets supposed to know about it? How are those vets supposed to be aware of TriCare? For many vets, $500 means they pay for TriCare or they eat.
Yes, V.A, is supposed to be a safety net, & not a complete care system for each & every one out there. But for the elderly, & homeless, & disadvantaged vets, the V.A. is all they have. I don't resent one cent of my tax money that goes for the care of the people that defended my freedoms. I would not mind at all paying more to make sure no veteran does without health care or ends up sleeping on the streets.
Honestly, I find your apparent belief that since Viet vets only got put their lives on the line for the rest of us for two years, they should be tossed out into the cold without the health care they were promised, incredibly insulting.

I have talked to my Dad & several other vets (nine total, so my information is NOT any where close to a representational poll).
None of them have ever heard of TriCare. They had no idea it existed. My dad had a search done on back issues of the state Legion newspaper; TriCare hasn't been mentioned once in four years. The VFW members I talked to say they haven't heard of it at any of their meetings. If it is so great, why aren't two of the leading veterans groups edorsing it?
If you go to the TriCare website, the first line says "For health-related issues, go to a Military Treatment Office." (Take it to the V.A., vets!)
A lot of our vets are elderly, & some of them are on limited incomes. They can't afford computers, may live in areas where they have no access to computers at places like public libraries, & some (like my dad) feel they are too old to learn how to operate a computer, so they have no access to the website. Nobody I talked to remembered having seen it explained, or even mentioned, in any V.A./government information on benefits.
Since it isn't being endorsed by mahor veterans groups, & apparently the government isn't doing much to endorse it, how are vets supposed to know about it? How are those vets supposed to be aware of TriCare? For many vets, $500 means they pay for TriCare or they eat.
Yes, V.A, is supposed to be a safety net, & not a complete care system for each & every one out there. But for the elderly, & homeless, & disadvantaged vets, the V.A. is all they have. I don't resent one cent of my tax money that goes for the care of the people that defended my freedoms. I would not mind at all paying more to make sure no veteran does without health care or ends up sleeping on the streets.
Honestly, I find your apparent belief that since Viet vets only got put their lives on the line for the rest of us for two years, they should be tossed out into the cold without the health care they were promised, incredibly insulting.

You mistook my meaning.....anyone who serves for 90 days is a veteran. Does a 90 day veteran carry as much weight when it comes to allocation of healthcare as a retiree or a veteran who served for 4 years? The problem is mainly with the Vietnam veterans. A group that was treated quite badly as we all know. However, not ONE veteran was ever promised healthcare for life, free or otherwise. The VA does what it can, but we have to be responsible for ourselves too.

Yes, there is a limited amount of healthcare available to the veterans. I choose to use my Tri-Care benefits so I am not putting an otherwise drain on that system. I never even got myself into the VA system. I may have been wrong on the eligibility criteria for getting into the Tri-Care system, but if any of your veteran friends are retirees, I would urge them to get into Tri-care and out of the VA system. I see a civilian doctor and do not have to fill out any forms. Yes, $460 a year might be a lot for some, but it is billed quarterly and that fee covers me, my wife, and my 2 daughters until they turn 21 or graduate from college. Very cheap when compared to other plans.

Have any of your retiree friends look at this site for eligibility criteria....

http://tricare.osd.mil/factsheets/viewfactsheet.cfm?id=174

I find that funny because not to long ago Bushs ranch in Texas the tiwn there did the same kind a thing.

This is inaccurate. Saddam came to power when he stripped his cousin of all offices and placed him under house arrest. Saddam had been his security chief. The US did not help him militarily until 1988.

Well, apart from the CIA helping him with the first failed coups in the 1960s, obviously.

As for US not openly helping him 'til 1988:
The Reagan administration gave Saddam roughly $40 billion worth of arms in the 1980s to fight Iran, nearly all of it on credit. The U.S. also sent billions of dollars of food and arms to Saddam to keep him from forming a strong alliance with the Soviets.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_Hussein

Also check this out about US help of Saddam 1980-1984:
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/
Among one of the 63 declassified documents referenced, one of them says the following:
Former Reagan administration National Security Council staff member Howard Teicher says that after Ronald Reagan signed a national security decision directive calling for the U.S. to do whatever was necessary to prevent Iraq's defeat in the Iran-Iraq war, Director of Central Intelligence William Casey personally led efforts to ensure that Iraq had sufficient weapons, including cluster bombs, and that the U.S. provided Iraq with financial credits, intelligence, and strategic military advice. The CIA also provided Iraq, through third parties that included Israel and Egypt, with military hardware compatible with its Soviet-origin weaponry.

This is inaccurate. Saddam came to power when he stripped his cousin of all offices and placed him under house arrest. Saddam had been his security chief. The US did not help him militarily until 1988.

1956: Joined the Iraqi branch of the Arab Ba'th Socialist Party.
1958: Sentenced to prison for political activities against the regime, and spends 6 months in prison.
1959: Participates in the coup attempt against prime minister Abdul Karim Qassim, where he receives a shot in his leg from the minister's bodyguards.
— Escapes to Syria, and then to Egypt.
1960 February 25: Is sentenced to death in absentia.
1962: Finishes his secondary studies in Egypt.
1963 February 8: Returns to Iraq following the Ramadan revolution.
— Joins the leadership of the Ba'th Party.
1964 October 14: Is arrested in a campaign against Ba'th Party members.
1966: While still in prison, Saddam is elected Deputy Secretary General of the Ba'th Party.
1967: Escapes from prison.
1968: Active in the two Ba'thist coups in July (17. and 30.) Saddam takes the position of being responsible for internal security.
— Graduates from the College of Law.
1969 November 9: Is formally elected Chairman of the Revolution Command Council, where he forms an alliance with his second cousin, Ahmad Hassan Bakr, the council's chairman.
1972 June 1: Leads the process of nationalizing the oil resources in Iraq, which had been in control by Western companies.
1975: Saddam signs the Algiers Accord with Iran (which among other issues, regulated the border question), an act that indicated that he had gained a stronger position than his ally Bakr.
1979 June: Saddam takes the position of president, after he had discovered that Bakr had started negotiations on unity between Syria and Iraq. Bakr is stripped of all positions, and put under house arrest.
1980 September 17: Saddam terminates the border agreement of 1975 with Iran, hence provoking a war.
— September 22: War starts against Iran, due to disputes over territories occupied by Iran in 1973.
1988: With the help of US navy in the Persian Gulf, Iraq is able regain territory lost to Iran between 1984 and 86.
— July: War against Iran ends, without changes of the borders.

http://i-cias.com/e.o/sad_huss.htm


Bill, once again you have demonstrated a lack of perspective and a willingness to cherry pick facts to suit yourself. In fact we help Saddam Hussein in a number of ways before and during his consolidation of power, most especially by recognizing his government over the objection of other countries and internal Iraqi factions when he seized power. We also provided intelligence to him during the first Kurdish rebellion in 1978, shortly after he seized power.

By the way, the Iraqi oil industry was not nationalized until 1979, as noted in world bank and IMF records. A variety of sources note that prior to nationalization of Iraqi oil resources, the Iraqi government received an average of $60,000 per year in taxes and leases that had originally been negotiated by King Fahd I of Iraq (installed by the British) who was subsequently deposed in the 1950s.

We also provided substantial technical and financial assistance as well as diplomatic cover for his operations throughout the 80s. You say you were in the military for 20 years, but you seem to have a surprisingly shallow grasp of issues that were the talk of all the bases I grew up on as military personnel debated in the late 80s whether we would enter the war between Iran and Iraq, or continue our assistance.

It was American companys with U.S. granted export licenses that provided Saddam with the bulk of his technology and pre-cursor chemicals for chemical weapons. The United States provided anthrax, small pox, botulism, and bubonic stocks for 'research' purposes beginning in 1982.

In August 1983, Iraq utilized chemical weapons against Iranian forces after the Iranian isolation of the city of Basra and the ensuing access to the main highway between Basra and Bagdad. Iran had been laying seige to Basra for some time when pursuant to an agreement between Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Iraq, Hussein moved forces south to re-take the al-Fahw penisula which Iran had taken in late 1982 and was using as a base to lob Chinese manufactured Silkworm missiles at Saudi Arabian oil fields and Kuwait to attempt to deter their continued financial backing for Iraq's war against Iran (this agreement would provide an additional $10 billion in funding for Iraq from those countries in return for this action). Hussein complied which left Basra under-defended and it was cut off and the Iranian forces began to advance up the highway towards Baghdad itself. Hussein deployed these chemical weapons to slow their advance until sufficient troops could be moved south to counter this move and lift the siege of Basra.

After this use of Tablun and other chemical weapons Iran protested in the United Nations and called for a vote of condemnation for Iraq in the U.N. Security Council, a move blocked by the United States which claimed there was no evidence to support Iran's claim of illegal chemical weapons use by Iraq. Three weeks later, then Special Presidential Envoy to the Middle East Donald Rumsfeld appeared in Baghdad and provided a committment of support for Iraq, Hussein, and his regime. This visit also was to deliver $3 Billion to Iraq for its war with Iran, the first such aid that was not funneled through Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, or the U.A.E.

Further, during the first uprising of the Marsh Arabs in the south of Iraq (at about this time, contemporaneous with the second Kurdish rebellion in the north) the United States provided military intelligence (even to the point of diverting surveillance aircraft for this purpose) on movements in these areas as well as satellite photos along with analysis on movements which allowed Hussein to put down these rebellions harshly (using chemical weapons in both theaters) and preventing major disruption in his ability to continue to prosecute his war with Iran.

It was not until Iran threatened to sink vessels and otherwise close the Straits of Hormuz at the mouth of the Persian Gulf to deprive oil producing countries of revenues that were being used to support Hussein's war effort, that the United States entered the fray and 'negotiated' an end to the 1980-1988 War.

Furthermore it was United States suggestions that lead to the targeting of Iran's oil production facilities by Iraq in 1983, which sparked the attacks on oil rigs, ports, pipelines and refineries during this war, there having previously been a tacit agreement that the combatants would not target these resources.

I relate all of this to note how little of the facts you are relating Bill. Hussein was our monster. Given the report published today which notes that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq prior to the United States' invasion in 2003 (subsequent to Iraq's dis-armament in 1992-1993); it also goes back to my original assertion that there is no rational basis that is consistent with United States stated or historical policy for that invasion.

Furthermore, the so-called lesson of Iraq (as Bush administration officials has called it) is not that countries who are seeking WMD should abandon such attempts or disarm as Libya has done; but that one should do like Pakistan, India, North Korea, and soon Iran and Brazil and obtain such weapons before confronted by potential attack by the United States, because such weapons are the only deterant to United States action. Because is is only because of North Korea's possession of nuclear weapons that we are willing to negotiate with them (prior the the announcement by Pyongyang Bush's policy was adamantly against negotiating in any capacity with North Korea, thus sabotaging the Sunshine Accords between North and South Koreas). [by the way, negotiating with the North Koreans is just one of many flip-flops by the Bush administration which opposed the formation of Department of Homeland Security - now supports; opposed a national intelligence czar - now supports; pushed No Child Left Behind - refuses to fund it; claimed they would exhaust diplomatic efforts before invading Iraq and then only to prevent imminent attack on the United States - invaded prematurely and with (as we all now know as fact; what many of us knew beforehand that there was no threat); claiming to support the United States armed forces - then sponsoring legislation in Congress to cut the combat duty pay of troops in Afganistan and Iraq while cutting funding for the VA and slashing veteran's benefits by $25 billion]

In short, I think I have made a clear case that you are unwilling (perhaps incapable) of accepting or presenting anything like a balanced view of the world; indeed of any view other than your skewed and deluded notion that Bush is the best president in history when he has presided over a collapse in U.S. jobs (he will be the only president since Herbert Hoover to have a net loss of jobs during his term after he promised to create 2 million jobs while running in 2000); a nearly 10% decline in the Dow Jones since he took office; a soaring deficit (after pledging that he would not run a deficit - his recent claims that such pledge was predicated upon there not being a time of war or economic down-turn was actually Al Gore's; at no time did Bush offer such qualifiers during his campaign - broken promises to veterans, schools, AIDS suffers world-wide, the damaging of United States' alliances of long-standing, the plummeting of world opinion of the United States since 9/11, the first decline in real household income since the 1980s, and corporate scandals, while our enemies arm themselves with nuclear weapons as he pursues his boondoggle in Iraq.

In short, sir, you are a right-wing wacko.

In short, sir, you are a right-wing wacko.

Nope, a Libertarian with an intense hatred of John Kerry.

Nope, a Libertarian with an intense hatred of John Kerry.

...that can't answer the arguments that were posted above (which, incidentally, crush your original position).

...that can't answer the arguments that were posted above (which, incidentally, crush your original position).

Not really....we had no troops on the ground, so anything else is superflouous. We "helped" Iran as well by that definition.

Nope, a Libertarian with an intense hatred of John Kerry.
Nope you had it right first time Dubya. However, he isn't a wacko. Just a Right wing follower.

Nope you had it right first time Dubya. However, he isn't a wacko. Just a Right wing follower.

Nope...I have NEVER voted for a Republican OR a Democrat before. However, Kerry is such a wienie, I could not forgive myself if he actually won, so to try and keep that from happening, I will vote for Bush.

Nope...I have NEVER voted for a Republican OR a Democrat before. However, Kerry is such a wienie, I could not forgive myself if he actually won, so to try and keep that from happening, I will vote for Bush.
Are you saying you never voted before? Who did you last vote for in last 2 elections?

I would hardly call that right wing tabloid Kerry's hometown paper.

Are you saying you never voted before? Who did you last vote for in last 2 elections?

I have voted straight Libertarian since 1980.

Not really....we had no troops on the ground, so anything else is superflouous. We "helped" Iran as well by that definition.

*sigh* Here we go again. I have to quote you BACK to yourself in order to hold you accountable for your claims. At least I forums allow this.

The US did not help him militarily until 1988.

Military aid is not even remotely confined to "troops on the ground", nor is the amount of aid superfluous. Dubyadum outlined MANY ways (that you completely failed to respond to) in which we helped Iraq "militarily" that are significant, unless you don't think giving him biological agents, surveillance and military intelligence, weapons, etc, etc. are significant.

You've got a serious problem defending your positions, and a rational person left with as indefensible a position as you have would start to reconsider their stance. But your "intense hatred" of Kerry has blinded you to everything but the Republican party line. Way to be a libertarian...

You've got a serious problem defending your positions, and a rational person left with as indefensible a position as you have would start to reconsider their stance.

Has it not yet dawned on you that I like to make you *sigh*. It is quite easy to get you to jump through hoops. I bet you are foaming at the mouth over there.

Has it not yet dawned on you that I like to make you *sigh*. It is quite easy to get you to jump through hoops. I bet you are foaming at the mouth over there.

It's dawned on me that you don't know how to make arguments, and that you rely on rhetorical garbage rather than argumentative substance. As for foaming, I'm actually rather enjoying discrediting you on these threads. More and more people are seeing the absolute nonsense you post for what it is. Keep 'em coming...this entertains me.

It's dawned on me that you don't know how to make arguments, and that you rely on rhetorical garbage rather than argumentative substance. As for foaming, I'm actually rather enjoying discrediting you on these threads. More and more people are seeing the absolute nonsense you post for what it is. Keep 'em coming...this entertains me.

Whatever you say chief. I have had fun making a lot of that stuff up too...the wilder the better.

Whatever you say chief. I have had fun making a lot of that stuff up too...the wilder the better.

A classic response when someone attempting to engage in demagoguery is busted. Game on.

A classic response when someone attempting to engage in demagoguery is busted. Game on.

Yes, and a classic response from someone who has been led around for awhile...game on indeed.

Yes, and a classic response from someone who has been led around for awhile...game on indeed.

Biff, you're hardly trying to lead people around in the sense you imply here, unless you're attempting to lead us into believing any of the arguments you make have any validity whatsoever. Further, the fact that you've been shown to have violated the rules and posted under different names has eroded your credibility. You obviously mistakenly believe what you do based on insufficient evidence...which is why so many of your posts reflected research (poor research, but research all the same) and at least an attempt to make a coherent argument. Now that you're stubbornly refusing to admit your mistakes, you realize that your last chance to save some semblence of credibility is to claim that you were just trying to "lead us around". Seriously, come up with something better.