Ford Forums banner

Again: Keep the #$%# politics off here!

7K views 72 replies 0 participants last post by  Hank 
G
#1 ·
Everytime we see a LIB come on here with the same old tired lies., then
sometime has to put up the record.

The 16 words in the State of the Union... since proven that British STILL
say that, Clarke twisted the thing because he was pi%%ed that he wasnt
offered the big job, and Wilson flat out lied... so he shifts the focus to
Rove.

No WMD's

Short reason: SH got rid of them because he realized his units could use
them against him, so he acted as though he STILL had them, so he could keep
Iran et al at bay... Miscalculation!

Evidence: Duelfer; more evidence, the new Chem suits found at >Every OTHER
< Republican Guard unit! Each thought the next unit had them.

And if Dubya and the CIA KNEW there weren't any, why didnt we find them?

See how dum conspiracy theories are?

There's NO winning this word-war.

So get back to Mustangs.
- - - - -- -
And if you think I'm on here just to zing Libs, I'd like to point out that
the charity funds being shifted to finance Air America had nothing to do
with AA, it was the guy that was on both boards who was at fault.

The big scandal there is that the NY Times wouldnt report it.
 
See less See more
G
#2 ·
Aren't conspiracy theories great? They just had one on how we couldn't
possible have sent men to the moon and had them return safely and
alive. The same people who say this are some of the same people who
say we have aliens at Area 51 who have been helping us with our space
program since 1947 when they crashed near Roswell. : )

Is it X-Files? Or is it Memorex?

I think it's a conspiracy by GM to undermine the work Ford has done in
developing systems which were used in the space program.

On Fri, 12 Aug 2005 15:24:50 GMT, Backyard Mechanic
<pettyfog@yaywho.com> wrote:

>Everytime we see a LIB come on here with the same old tired lies., then
>sometime has to put up the record.
>
>The 16 words in the State of the Union... since proven that British STILL
>say that, Clarke twisted the thing because he was pi%%ed that he wasnt
>offered the big job, and Wilson flat out lied... so he shifts the focus to
>Rove.
>
>No WMD's
>
>Short reason: SH got rid of them because he realized his units could use
>them against him, so he acted as though he STILL had them, so he could keep
>Iran et al at bay... Miscalculation!
>
>Evidence: Duelfer; more evidence, the new Chem suits found at >Every OTHER
>< Republican Guard unit! Each thought the next unit had them.
>
>And if Dubya and the CIA KNEW there weren't any, why didnt we find them?
>
>See how dum conspiracy theories are?
>
>There's NO winning this word-war.
>
>So get back to Mustangs.
>- - - - -- -
>And if you think I'm on here just to zing Libs, I'd like to point out that
>the charity funds being shifted to finance Air America had nothing to do
>with AA, it was the guy that was on both boards who was at fault.
>
>The big scandal there is that the NY Times wouldnt report it.


Spike
1965 Ford Mustang fastback 2+2 A Code 289 C4 Trac-Lok
Vintage Burgundy w/Black Standard Interior; Vintage 40
16" rims w/BF Goodrich Comp T/A gForce Radial
225/50ZR16 KDWS skins; surround sound audio-video.

"When the time comes to lay down my life for my country,
I do not cower from this responsibility. I welcome it."
-JFK Inaugural Address
 
G
#4 ·
Your brain is a weapon of mass desrtruction...



Backyard Mechanic wrote:
> Everytime we see a LIB come on here with the same old tired lies., then
> sometime has to put up the record.
>
> The 16 words in the State of the Union... since proven that British STILL
> say that, Clarke twisted the thing because he was pi%%ed that he wasnt
> offered the big job, and Wilson flat out lied... so he shifts the focus to
> Rove.
>
> No WMD's
>
> Short reason: SH got rid of them because he realized his units could use
> them against him, so he acted as though he STILL had them, so he could keep
> Iran et al at bay... Miscalculation!
>
> Evidence: Duelfer; more evidence, the new Chem suits found at >Every OTHER
> < Republican Guard unit! Each thought the next unit had them.
>
> And if Dubya and the CIA KNEW there weren't any, why didnt we find them?
>
> See how dum conspiracy theories are?
>
> There's NO winning this word-war.
>
> So get back to Mustangs.
> - - - - -- -
> And if you think I'm on here just to zing Libs, I'd like to point out that
> the charity funds being shifted to finance Air America had nothing to do
> with AA, it was the guy that was on both boards who was at fault.
>
> The big scandal there is that the NY Times wouldnt report it.
 
G
#5 ·
One last thought;

Guard/Army recruitment is down (unless thats another lie). Since you
believe in what your current administration is doing so strongly, why
dont you enlist and walk patrol with the rest of the people 'over there'.

P.S.: As contradictory as this sounds, I actually agree that SH had to
go. IMO it would have been alot better if Dubya would have simply said;
SH is bad, and he has to fucking go, so we're gonna go get him.


Backyard Mechanic wrote:

> Everytime we see a LIB come on here with the same old tired lies., then
> sometime has to put up the record.
>
> The 16 words in the State of the Union... since proven that British STILL
> say that, Clarke twisted the thing because he was pi%%ed that he wasnt
> offered the big job, and Wilson flat out lied... so he shifts the focus to
> Rove.
>
> No WMD's
>
> Short reason: SH got rid of them because he realized his units could use
> them against him, so he acted as though he STILL had them, so he could keep
> Iran et al at bay... Miscalculation!
>
> Evidence: Duelfer; more evidence, the new Chem suits found at >Every OTHER
> < Republican Guard unit! Each thought the next unit had them.
>
> And if Dubya and the CIA KNEW there weren't any, why didnt we find them?
>
> See how dum conspiracy theories are?
>
> There's NO winning this word-war.
>
> So get back to Mustangs.
> - - - - -- -
> And if you think I'm on here just to zing Libs, I'd like to point out that
> the charity funds being shifted to finance Air America had nothing to do
> with AA, it was the guy that was on both boards who was at fault.
>
> The big scandal there is that the NY Times wouldnt report it.
 
G
#6 ·
Re: Again: Keep the #$%# politics off here!

cprice@here.com wrote:

> P.S.: As contradictory as this sounds, I actually agree that SH had to
> go. IMO it would have been alot better if Dubya would have simply said;
> SH is bad, and he has to fucking go, so we're gonna go get him.


It wasn't presented that way because the American public wouldn't have
signed on. The public wanted revenge for 911. So to get the support,
a link to terrorism had to be established/created.

Patrick
'93 Cobra
 
G
#7 ·
Re: Again: Keep the #$%# politics off here!

NoOption5L@aol.com wrote in
news:1123905852.531661.289580@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:

> cprice@here.com wrote:
>
>> P.S.: As contradictory as this sounds, I actually agree that SH had
>> to go. IMO it would have been alot better if Dubya would have
>> simply said; SH is bad, and he has to fucking go, so we're gonna go
>> get him.

>
> It wasn't presented that way because the American public wouldn't
> have signed on. The public wanted revenge for 911. So to get the
> support, a link to terrorism had to be established/created.
>
> Patrick
> '93 Cobra


Patrick, are you saying the current administration pretty much
conjured up the justification to invade Iraq? Just checking..
 
G
#8 ·
National Guard and Army Reserve, actually military wide, recruitment is down
for many reasons, I believe one of the most significant reasons for this
military wide recruitment glut is their stop-loss "extending enlistment"
policy. Who the hell wants to enter into a contract with and put their
life on the line for a government who decides they DO NOT have to abide by
their own contract.


Santiago v. Rumsfeld

The 9th Circuit is the highest court yet to consider the legality of how the
administration is carrying out its "stop-loss" policy of involuntary
extension of soldiers' enlistment. Sgt. Emiliano Santiago of the Oregon
National Guard accused the Bush administration of subjecting him to an
illegal, "backdoor draft" by telling him he could not leave the Army when
his eight-year enlistment ran out.

A federal appeals court backed the military in keeping thousands of men and
women in uniform and often in combat even though their enlistments are
supposed to be over. Santiago's attorney, Steven Goldberg, failed to
convince the court that the law governing the president's stop-loss
authority allows him to involuntarily extend soldiers beyond their
enlistment time only if they are on active duty -- and not simply notified
of the possibility that they might be called up to active duty.

Since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, about 50,000 soldiers have been
subjected to stop loss, according to Lt. Col Bryan Hilferty, an Army
spokesman. Currently, 14,000 soldiers are affected by stop loss. And 412
members of the 4,200-member Washington National Guard's 81st Brigade Combat
Team, which recently returned from a year in Iraq, had their enlistments
involuntarily extended.
The courts have recognized that a federal statute authorizing mobilization
of reservists trumps a contrary interpretation of an enlistment document."

Seems the government has won the battle on this one, but in the process they
may well have lost the war. They may be able to forcibly keep the personal
they have, but in so doing, they are making it damn hard to get new
personnel.




<cprice@here.com> wrote in message news:42FD4FCC.3020705@here.com...
>
> One last thought;
>
> Guard/Army recruitment is down (unless thats another lie). Since you
> believe in what your current administration is doing so strongly, why dont
> you enlist and walk patrol with the rest of the people 'over there'.
>
> P.S.: As contradictory as this sounds, I actually agree that SH had to go.
> IMO it would have been alot better if Dubya would have simply said; SH is
> bad, and he has to fucking go, so we're gonna go get him.
>
>
> Backyard Mechanic wrote:
>
>> Everytime we see a LIB come on here with the same old tired lies., then
>> sometime has to put up the record.
>>
>> The 16 words in the State of the Union... since proven that British STILL
>> say that, Clarke twisted the thing because he was pi%%ed that he wasnt
>> offered the big job, and Wilson flat out lied... so he shifts the focus
>> to Rove.
>>
>> No WMD's
>>
>> Short reason: SH got rid of them because he realized his units could use
>> them against him, so he acted as though he STILL had them, so he could
>> keep Iran et al at bay... Miscalculation!
>>
>> Evidence: Duelfer; more evidence, the new Chem suits found at >Every
>> OTHER
>> < Republican Guard unit! Each thought the next unit had them.
>>
>> And if Dubya and the CIA KNEW there weren't any, why didnt we find them?
>>
>> See how dum conspiracy theories are?
>>
>> There's NO winning this word-war.
>>
>> So get back to Mustangs.
>> - - - - -- -
>> And if you think I'm on here just to zing Libs, I'd like to point out
>> that the charity funds being shifted to finance Air America had nothing
>> to do with AA, it was the guy that was on both boards who was at fault.
>>
>> The big scandal there is that the NY Times wouldnt report it.
 
G
#9 ·
Re: Again: Keep the #$%# politics off here!

"Joe" <avoidingspam@nospam.com> done said:

> NoOption5L@aol.com wrote:
>
>> cprice@here.com wrote:
>>
>>> P.S.: As contradictory as this sounds, I actually agree that SH had
>>> to go. IMO it would have been alot better if Dubya would have
>>> simply said; SH is bad, and he has to fucking go, so we're gonna go
>>> get him.

>>
>> It wasn't presented that way because the American public wouldn't
>> have signed on. The public wanted revenge for 911. So to get the
>> support, a link to terrorism had to be established/created.

>
> Patrick, are you saying the current administration pretty much
> conjured up the justification to invade Iraq?



The justification was "conjured up" by the prior administration with the "Iraq
Liberation Act of 1998" (Public Law 105-338).

A Course Set by Congress
By Colbert I. King
Saturday, March 8, 2003; Page A23
The Washington Post

Believe it or not, the American call for "regime change" in Iraq
didn't start with George W. Bush. For that, we must return to the days
of the 105th Congress, when Bill Clinton occupied the White House.
Recall a piece of legislation dubbed the "Iraq Liberation Act of
1998" (Public Law 105-338). Not only did it call for Saddam Hussein's
ouster, it also spelled out the goal of replacing his regime with a
democratic Iraq.

Here's what the law says: "It should be the policy of the United
States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam
Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a
democratic government to replace that regime."

You may think the Iraq Liberation Act was ramrodded down the throats
of reluctant Democrats by a House and Senate dominated by conservative
Republicans. Consider the final tally: The House passed the bill by a
vote of 360 to 38, with 157 Democrats joining 202 Republicans and the
House's one independent to back the removal of Saddam Hussein's
regime. The act, with bipartisan cosponsorship of two Democrats and
six Republicans, also passed the Senate by unanimous consent. And Bill
Clinton signed it into law on Oct. 31, 1998, declaring at the
time that the evidence was overwhelming that freedom and the rule of
law "will not happen under the current Iraq leadership."

Yes, regime change has been articulated by the administration, world
without end. Bush did it again during his televised news conference on
Thursday night. But that policy, along with support for a defeated
Iraq's transition to democracy, was embraced years earlier by
Bill Clinton and a bipartisan Congress.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A59558-2003Mar7.html


> Just checking..


With all the political obfuscation going on, it's good to check one's facts to
separate nonsense from reality. This is especially true for those amongst us
with very short memories or who willingly lap up whatever the bleating
partisans tell them.



- Max -
=======
Would you believe this man has gone as far
as tearing Dubya stickers off the bumpers of cars,
and he voted for John F. Kerry for President?
http://hometown.aol.com/maxx2112/

Just Say No to 6:5 Blackjack!
http://www.cafepress.com/justsaynoto6to5/
 
G
#10 ·
"351CJ" <351CJ@msn.com> done said:

> National Guard and Army Reserve, actually military wide, recruitment is down
> for many reasons, I believe one of the most significant reasons for this
> military wide recruitment glut is their stop-loss "extending enlistment"
> policy. Who the hell wants to enter into a contract with and put their life
> on the line for a government who decides they DO NOT have to abide by their
> own contract.
>
> Santiago v. Rumsfeld
>
> The 9th Circuit is the highest court yet to consider the legality of how the
> administration is carrying out its "stop-loss" policy of involuntary
> extension of soldiers' enlistment. Sgt. Emiliano Santiago of the Oregon
> National Guard accused the Bush administration of subjecting him to an
> illegal, "backdoor draft" by telling him he could not leave the Army when his
> eight-year enlistment ran out.



There is no "backdoor draft," and there are not contract-breaking "extended
enlistments." Every service members willingly and voluntarily signs a contract
that says the military can keep them as long as they are needed.

It's difficult for me, especially as a veteran, to have sympathy for people who
sign contracts without knowing exactly what that contract requires of them.



- Max -
=======
Would you believe this man has gone as far
as tearing Dubya stickers off the bumpers of cars,
and he voted for John F. Kerry for President?
http://hometown.aol.com/maxx2112/

Just Say No to 6:5 Blackjack!
http://www.cafepress.com/justsaynoto6to5/
 
G
#11 ·
Re: Again: Keep the #$%# politics off here!

Regime change and divisions of ground troops in Iraq are not one in the
same. The US has toppled (and supported I might add) many a foreign
dictatorship without the introduction of ground troops.



Max C. Webster III wrote:
> "Joe" <avoidingspam@nospam.com> done said:
>
>
>>NoOption5L@aol.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>>cprice@here.com wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>P.S.: As contradictory as this sounds, I actually agree that SH had
>>>>to go. IMO it would have been alot better if Dubya would have
>>>>simply said; SH is bad, and he has to fucking go, so we're gonna go
>>>>get him.
>>>
>>>It wasn't presented that way because the American public wouldn't
>>>have signed on. The public wanted revenge for 911. So to get the
>>>support, a link to terrorism had to be established/created.

>>
>>Patrick, are you saying the current administration pretty much
>>conjured up the justification to invade Iraq?

>
>
>
> The justification was "conjured up" by the prior administration with the "Iraq
> Liberation Act of 1998" (Public Law 105-338).
>
> A Course Set by Congress
> By Colbert I. King
> Saturday, March 8, 2003; Page A23
> The Washington Post
>
> Believe it or not, the American call for "regime change" in Iraq
> didn't start with George W. Bush. For that, we must return to the days
> of the 105th Congress, when Bill Clinton occupied the White House.
> Recall a piece of legislation dubbed the "Iraq Liberation Act of
> 1998" (Public Law 105-338). Not only did it call for Saddam Hussein's
> ouster, it also spelled out the goal of replacing his regime with a
> democratic Iraq.
>
> Here's what the law says: "It should be the policy of the United
> States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam
> Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a
> democratic government to replace that regime."
>
> You may think the Iraq Liberation Act was ramrodded down the throats
> of reluctant Democrats by a House and Senate dominated by conservative
> Republicans. Consider the final tally: The House passed the bill by a
> vote of 360 to 38, with 157 Democrats joining 202 Republicans and the
> House's one independent to back the removal of Saddam Hussein's
> regime. The act, with bipartisan cosponsorship of two Democrats and
> six Republicans, also passed the Senate by unanimous consent. And Bill
> Clinton signed it into law on Oct. 31, 1998, declaring at the
> time that the evidence was overwhelming that freedom and the rule of
> law "will not happen under the current Iraq leadership."
>
> Yes, regime change has been articulated by the administration, world
> without end. Bush did it again during his televised news conference on
> Thursday night. But that policy, along with support for a defeated
> Iraq's transition to democracy, was embraced years earlier by
> Bill Clinton and a bipartisan Congress.
>
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A59558-2003Mar7.html
>
>
>
>>Just checking..

>
>
> With all the political obfuscation going on, it's good to check one's facts to
> separate nonsense from reality. This is especially true for those amongst us
> with very short memories or who willingly lap up whatever the bleating
> partisans tell them.
>
>
>
> - Max -
> =======
> Would you believe this man has gone as far
> as tearing Dubya stickers off the bumpers of cars,
> and he voted for John F. Kerry for President?
> http://hometown.aol.com/maxx2112/
>
> Just Say No to 6:5 Blackjack!
> http://www.cafepress.com/justsaynoto6to5/
>
>
 
G
#12 ·
Well, people are obviously wising up to the 'fine print' as shown by
the low receruitment numbers. You'll either have to start reducing troop
levels or re-institute the draft...


Max C. Webster III wrote:

> "351CJ" <351CJ@msn.com> done said:
>
>
>>National Guard and Army Reserve, actually military wide, recruitment is down
>>for many reasons, I believe one of the most significant reasons for this
>>military wide recruitment glut is their stop-loss "extending enlistment"
>>policy. Who the hell wants to enter into a contract with and put their life
>>on the line for a government who decides they DO NOT have to abide by their
>>own contract.
>>
>>Santiago v. Rumsfeld
>>
>>The 9th Circuit is the highest court yet to consider the legality of how the
>>administration is carrying out its "stop-loss" policy of involuntary
>>extension of soldiers' enlistment. Sgt. Emiliano Santiago of the Oregon
>>National Guard accused the Bush administration of subjecting him to an
>>illegal, "backdoor draft" by telling him he could not leave the Army when his
>>eight-year enlistment ran out.

>
>
>
> There is no "backdoor draft," and there are not contract-breaking "extended
> enlistments." Every service members willingly and voluntarily signs a contract
> that says the military can keep them as long as they are needed.
>
> It's difficult for me, especially as a veteran, to have sympathy for people who
> sign contracts without knowing exactly what that contract requires of them.
>
>
>
> - Max -
> =======
> Would you believe this man has gone as far
> as tearing Dubya stickers off the bumpers of cars,
> and he voted for John F. Kerry for President?
> http://hometown.aol.com/maxx2112/
>
> Just Say No to 6:5 Blackjack!
> http://www.cafepress.com/justsaynoto6to5/
>
>
 
G
#13 ·
That policy goes back at least as far as the Korean War when my father
was extended by presidential order beyond his enlistment. Many of us
were dealt the same hand during the Vietnam era... often based on
personnel shortages in critical fields. Our automatic transmission
specialist was held over in Vietnam for that reason just to work on
APCs.

Could have been worse. My Vietnamese interpreter, a lieutenant, joined
and his contract said 20 years or the duration of the war, whichever
comes second. Pretty risky in a country which had been involved in
wars for hundreds of years.

On Sat, 13 Aug 2005 05:31:17 GMT, "351CJ" <351CJ@msn.com> wrote:

>National Guard and Army Reserve, actually military wide, recruitment is down
>for many reasons, I believe one of the most significant reasons for this
>military wide recruitment glut is their stop-loss "extending enlistment"
>policy. Who the hell wants to enter into a contract with and put their
>life on the line for a government who decides they DO NOT have to abide by
>their own contract.
>
>
>Santiago v. Rumsfeld
>
>The 9th Circuit is the highest court yet to consider the legality of how the
>administration is carrying out its "stop-loss" policy of involuntary
>extension of soldiers' enlistment. Sgt. Emiliano Santiago of the Oregon
>National Guard accused the Bush administration of subjecting him to an
>illegal, "backdoor draft" by telling him he could not leave the Army when
>his eight-year enlistment ran out.
>
>A federal appeals court backed the military in keeping thousands of men and
>women in uniform and often in combat even though their enlistments are
>supposed to be over. Santiago's attorney, Steven Goldberg, failed to
>convince the court that the law governing the president's stop-loss
>authority allows him to involuntarily extend soldiers beyond their
>enlistment time only if they are on active duty -- and not simply notified
>of the possibility that they might be called up to active duty.
>
>Since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, about 50,000 soldiers have been
>subjected to stop loss, according to Lt. Col Bryan Hilferty, an Army
>spokesman. Currently, 14,000 soldiers are affected by stop loss. And 412
>members of the 4,200-member Washington National Guard's 81st Brigade Combat
>Team, which recently returned from a year in Iraq, had their enlistments
>involuntarily extended.
>The courts have recognized that a federal statute authorizing mobilization
>of reservists trumps a contrary interpretation of an enlistment document."
>
>Seems the government has won the battle on this one, but in the process they
>may well have lost the war. They may be able to forcibly keep the personal
>they have, but in so doing, they are making it damn hard to get new
>personnel.
>
>
>
>
><cprice@here.com> wrote in message news:42FD4FCC.3020705@here.com...
>>
>> One last thought;
>>
>> Guard/Army recruitment is down (unless thats another lie). Since you
>> believe in what your current administration is doing so strongly, why dont
>> you enlist and walk patrol with the rest of the people 'over there'.
>>
>> P.S.: As contradictory as this sounds, I actually agree that SH had to go.
>> IMO it would have been alot better if Dubya would have simply said; SH is
>> bad, and he has to fucking go, so we're gonna go get him.
>>
>>
>> Backyard Mechanic wrote:
>>
>>> Everytime we see a LIB come on here with the same old tired lies., then
>>> sometime has to put up the record.
>>>
>>> The 16 words in the State of the Union... since proven that British STILL
>>> say that, Clarke twisted the thing because he was pi%%ed that he wasnt
>>> offered the big job, and Wilson flat out lied... so he shifts the focus
>>> to Rove.
>>>
>>> No WMD's
>>>
>>> Short reason: SH got rid of them because he realized his units could use
>>> them against him, so he acted as though he STILL had them, so he could
>>> keep Iran et al at bay... Miscalculation!
>>>
>>> Evidence: Duelfer; more evidence, the new Chem suits found at >Every
>>> OTHER
>>> < Republican Guard unit! Each thought the next unit had them.
>>>
>>> And if Dubya and the CIA KNEW there weren't any, why didnt we find them?
>>>
>>> See how dum conspiracy theories are?
>>>
>>> There's NO winning this word-war.
>>>
>>> So get back to Mustangs.
>>> - - - - -- -
>>> And if you think I'm on here just to zing Libs, I'd like to point out
>>> that the charity funds being shifted to finance Air America had nothing
>>> to do with AA, it was the guy that was on both boards who was at fault.
>>>
>>> The big scandal there is that the NY Times wouldnt report it.

>


Spike
1965 Ford Mustang fastback 2+2 A Code 289 C4 Trac-Lok
Vintage Burgundy w/Black Standard Interior; Vintage 40
16" rims w/BF Goodrich Comp T/A gForce Radial
225/50ZR16 KDWS skins; surround sound audio-video.

"When the time comes to lay down my life for my country,
I do not cower from this responsibility. I welcome it."
-JFK Inaugural Address
 
G
#14 ·
On Sat, 13 Aug 2005 09:02:14 -0500, "Max C. Webster III"
<maxx2112@aol.com.mil.gov> wrote:

>"351CJ" <351CJ@msn.com> done said:
>
>> National Guard and Army Reserve, actually military wide, recruitment is down
>> for many reasons, I believe one of the most significant reasons for this
>> military wide recruitment glut is their stop-loss "extending enlistment"
>> policy. Who the hell wants to enter into a contract with and put their life
>> on the line for a government who decides they DO NOT have to abide by their
>> own contract.
>>
>> Santiago v. Rumsfeld
>>
>> The 9th Circuit is the highest court yet to consider the legality of how the
>> administration is carrying out its "stop-loss" policy of involuntary
>> extension of soldiers' enlistment. Sgt. Emiliano Santiago of the Oregon
>> National Guard accused the Bush administration of subjecting him to an
>> illegal, "backdoor draft" by telling him he could not leave the Army when his
>> eight-year enlistment ran out.

>
>
>There is no "backdoor draft," and there are not contract-breaking "extended
>enlistments." Every service members willingly and voluntarily signs a contract
>that says the military can keep them as long as they are needed.


That's what it says. My nephew just got extended following basic
training because there was no opening yet in his technical school, so
he was given order to proceed home "without pay" until directed to
report. So his time at home apparently does not count toward his
enlistment, which means it must be tacked on at the other end.
Meanwhile, he gets to go back to his old job.
>
>It's difficult for me, especially as a veteran, to have sympathy for people who
>sign contracts without knowing exactly what that contract requires of them.


Many of the Reserves signed up for the extra income and the benefits,
like medical, education, points toward a federal retirement, etc, with
the apparently deluded belief that they would never be called to
active duty. Essentially, expecting something for nothing... or at
least placing their bets that way. Time for a reality check. The
possibility is why they teach how to shoot guns and give 'em those
neat hidey uniforms. What did they think. That was to impress people
while active duty military went off to fight wars?

There is a draft system, which is why my stepson, like it or not, had
to fill out and send in his postcard. It is not activated at present,
but it could be. Personally, I think every citizen should serve in
some form or other, whether in the military, or in some other format
which gives back to the nation. Freedom is not free. It never has
been.


>
>
>
>- Max -
>=======
>Would you believe this man has gone as far
>as tearing Dubya stickers off the bumpers of cars,
>and he voted for John F. Kerry for President?
>http://hometown.aol.com/maxx2112/
>
>Just Say No to 6:5 Blackjack!
>http://www.cafepress.com/justsaynoto6to5/
>


Spike
1965 Ford Mustang fastback 2+2 A Code 289 C4 Trac-Lok
Vintage Burgundy w/Black Standard Interior; Vintage 40
16" rims w/BF Goodrich Comp T/A gForce Radial
225/50ZR16 KDWS skins; surround sound audio-video.

"When the time comes to lay down my life for my country,
I do not cower from this responsibility. I welcome it."
-JFK Inaugural Address
 
G
#15 ·
I don't think it's wising up to the fine print so much as it is a
reality check. The reality that the benefits of being in the reserves
or active military; the educational benefits, extra income for doing
very little, the medical,points toward federal retirement, etc; has a
price, and that price can be high. In peacetime, and especially during
bad economic times, many join up for those benefits. In time of war,
and in good economic times the numbers of volunteers always fall off.

On Sat, 13 Aug 2005 16:19:54 GMT, "cprice@here.com" <cprice@here.com>
wrote:

>
> Well, people are obviously wising up to the 'fine print' as shown by
>the low receruitment numbers. You'll either have to start reducing troop
>levels or re-institute the draft...
>
>
>Max C. Webster III wrote:
>
>> "351CJ" <351CJ@msn.com> done said:
>>
>>
>>>National Guard and Army Reserve, actually military wide, recruitment is down
>>>for many reasons, I believe one of the most significant reasons for this
>>>military wide recruitment glut is their stop-loss "extending enlistment"
>>>policy. Who the hell wants to enter into a contract with and put their life
>>>on the line for a government who decides they DO NOT have to abide by their
>>>own contract.
>>>
>>>Santiago v. Rumsfeld
>>>
>>>The 9th Circuit is the highest court yet to consider the legality of how the
>>>administration is carrying out its "stop-loss" policy of involuntary
>>>extension of soldiers' enlistment. Sgt. Emiliano Santiago of the Oregon
>>>National Guard accused the Bush administration of subjecting him to an
>>>illegal, "backdoor draft" by telling him he could not leave the Army when his
>>>eight-year enlistment ran out.

>>
>>
>>
>> There is no "backdoor draft," and there are not contract-breaking "extended
>> enlistments." Every service members willingly and voluntarily signs a contract
>> that says the military can keep them as long as they are needed.
>>
>> It's difficult for me, especially as a veteran, to have sympathy for people who
>> sign contracts without knowing exactly what that contract requires of them.
>>
>>
>>
>> - Max -
>> =======
>> Would you believe this man has gone as far
>> as tearing Dubya stickers off the bumpers of cars,
>> and he voted for John F. Kerry for President?
>> http://hometown.aol.com/maxx2112/
>>
>> Just Say No to 6:5 Blackjack!
>> http://www.cafepress.com/justsaynoto6to5/
>>
>>


Spike
1965 Ford Mustang fastback 2+2 A Code 289 C4 Trac-Lok
Vintage Burgundy w/Black Standard Interior; Vintage 40
16" rims w/BF Goodrich Comp T/A gForce Radial
225/50ZR16 KDWS skins; surround sound audio-video.

"When the time comes to lay down my life for my country,
I do not cower from this responsibility. I welcome it."
-JFK Inaugural Address
 
G
#16 ·
Re: Again: Keep the #$%# politics off here!

Joe wrote:

> >> P.S.: As contradictory as this sounds, I actually agree that SH had
> >> to go. IMO it would have been alot better if Dubya would have
> >> simply said; SH is bad, and he has to fucking go, so we're gonna go
> >> get him.


> > It wasn't presented that way because the American public wouldn't
> > have signed on. The public wanted revenge for 911. So to get the
> > support, a link to terrorism had to be established/created.


> Patrick, are you saying the current administration pretty much
> conjured up the justification to invade Iraq? Just checking..


Iraq is only about the size of Texas and we had a constant stream of
spy planes and satellites fixed on that country for more than a decade
so we knew Iraq didn't have major weapons programs. Here are the
things that all came together at the right time:

- Saddam always thumbing his nose at the US with the on-again off-again
weapons inspections it weaked our image in the Middle East.

- 911

- Saddam's widely known support of Palestinian suicide bombers. As
tight as we are with Israel, we couldn't have that.

- Oil. The US needs a constant and steady access to huge oil reserves.
Especially now with China's economy and military might growing by the
day.

So while the vocals were screaming the rallying cry of WMD, terrorism
and 911, the drum beat was oil, oil, oil...

Did I answer your question?

Patrick
'93 Cobra
 
G
#17 ·
Re: Again: Keep the #$%# politics off here!

Max C. Webster III wrote:

> >>> P.S.: As contradictory as this sounds, I actually agree that SH had
> >>> to go. IMO it would have been alot better if Dubya would have
> >>> simply said; SH is bad, and he has to fucking go, so we're gonna go
> >>> get him.


> >> It wasn't presented that way because the American public wouldn't
> >> have signed on. The public wanted revenge for 911. So to get the
> >> support, a link to terrorism had to be established/created.


> > Patrick, are you saying the current administration pretty much
> > conjured up the justification to invade Iraq?


> The justification was "conjured up" by the prior administration with the "Iraq
> Liberation Act of 1998" (Public Law 105-338).
>
> A Course Set by Congress
> By Colbert I. King
> Saturday, March 8, 2003; Page A23
> The Washington Post
>
> Believe it or not, the American call for "regime change" in Iraq
> didn't start with George W. Bush. For that, we must return to the days
> of the 105th Congress, when Bill Clinton occupied the White House.
> Recall a piece of legislation dubbed the "Iraq Liberation Act of
> 1998" (Public Law 105-338). Not only did it call for Saddam Hussein's
> ouster, it also spelled out the goal of replacing his regime with a
> democratic Iraq.


> Here's what the law says: "It should be the policy of the United
> States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam
> Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a
> democratic government to replace that regime."
>
> You may think the Iraq Liberation Act was ramrodded down the throats
> of reluctant Democrats by a House and Senate dominated by conservative
> Republicans. Consider the final tally: The House passed the bill by a
> vote of 360 to 38, with 157 Democrats joining 202 Republicans and the
> House's one independent to back the removal of Saddam Hussein's
> regime. The act, with bipartisan cosponsorship of two Democrats and
> six Republicans, also passed the Senate by unanimous consent. And Bill
> Clinton signed it into law on Oct. 31, 1998, declaring at the
> time that the evidence was overwhelming that freedom and the rule of
> law "will not happen under the current Iraq leadership."
>
> Yes, regime change has been articulated by the administration, world
> without end. Bush did it again during his televised news conference on
> Thursday night. But that policy, along with support for a defeated
> Iraq's transition to democracy, was embraced years earlier by
> Bill Clinton and a bipartisan Congress.
>
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A59558-2003Mar7.html
>
>
> > Just checking..

>
> With all the political obfuscation going on, it's good to check one's facts
> to separate nonsense from reality. This is especially true for those amongst
> us with very short memories or who willingly lap up whatever the bleating
> partisans tell them.


Max,

The reality is "W" was the one sitting in the Oval with the gun when
the trigger was pulled.

Patrick
'93 Cobra
 
G
#19 ·
Re: Again: Keep the #$%# politics off here!

NoOption5L@aol.com wrote in news:1123984724.661108.34420
@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

> Joe wrote:
>
>> >> P.S.: As contradictory as this sounds, I actually agree that SH

had
>> >> to go. IMO it would have been alot better if Dubya would have
>> >> simply said; SH is bad, and he has to fucking go, so we're gonna

go
>> >> get him.

>
>> > It wasn't presented that way because the American public wouldn't
>> > have signed on. The public wanted revenge for 911. So to get

the
>> > support, a link to terrorism had to be established/created.

>
>> Patrick, are you saying the current administration pretty much
>> conjured up the justification to invade Iraq? Just checking..

>
> Iraq is only about the size of Texas and we had a constant stream of
> spy planes and satellites fixed on that country for more than a

decade
> so we knew Iraq didn't have major weapons programs. Here are the
> things that all came together at the right time:
>
> - Saddam always thumbing his nose at the US with the on-again off-

again
> weapons inspections it weaked our image in the Middle East.
>
> - 911
>
> - Saddam's widely known support of Palestinian suicide bombers. As
> tight as we are with Israel, we couldn't have that.
>
> - Oil. The US needs a constant and steady access to huge oil

reserves.
> Especially now with China's economy and military might growing by

the
> day.
>
> So while the vocals were screaming the rallying cry of WMD,

terrorism
> and 911, the drum beat was oil, oil, oil...
>
> Did I answer your question?
>
> Patrick
> '93 Cobra


Yup. And for the record I'm with you on this one.
 
G
#20 ·
Re: Again: Keep the #$%# politics off here!

On 13 Aug 2005 18:58:44 -0700, NoOption5L@aol.com wrote:

>Joe wrote:
>
>> >> P.S.: As contradictory as this sounds, I actually agree that SH had
>> >> to go. IMO it would have been alot better if Dubya would have
>> >> simply said; SH is bad, and he has to fucking go, so we're gonna go
>> >> get him.

>
>> > It wasn't presented that way because the American public wouldn't
>> > have signed on. The public wanted revenge for 911. So to get the
>> > support, a link to terrorism had to be established/created.

>
>> Patrick, are you saying the current administration pretty much
>> conjured up the justification to invade Iraq? Just checking..

>
>Iraq is only about the size of Texas and we had a constant stream of
>spy planes and satellites fixed on that country for more than a decade
>so we knew Iraq didn't have major weapons programs. Here are the
>things that all came together at the right time:


That "steady stream" comment imparts a false illusion of surveillance
coverage, and the abilities of both satellite and aircraft
surveillance. While the equipment is excellent in capability, it is
limited in scope and utilization.

Why then did the UN find and order destroyed WMDs of the same type
used against his own people and against Iran? I don't think he bought
them at WallyMart. It has also been evidenced that, among others,
French and German companies were supplying the same types of equipment
used to produce chemical and biological WMDs. True, such equipment may
have been used for other purposes. Further, the UN reported that a
significant portion of the systems which were ordered destroyed were
gone, and yet documentation of their disposition was lacking. They may
well have been destroyed, or, knowing the scheduled flyover times,
moved incrementally out of the country. It just may be that we will
never know for sure.

The rest of your points are acceptable, although a number of senators
and congressmen from both sides of the aisle might take issue with the
last one. As one stated, anything to do with the economy is an
important consideration, but his votes still come down to what is in
the best interests of the nation when the final choice is made. But
perhaps they are the exceptions?
>
>- Saddam always thumbing his nose at the US with the on-again off-again
>weapons inspections it weaked our image in the Middle East.
>
>- 911
>
>- Saddam's widely known support of Palestinian suicide bombers. As
>tight as we are with Israel, we couldn't have that.
>
>- Oil. The US needs a constant and steady access to huge oil reserves.
> Especially now with China's economy and military might growing by the
>day.
>
>So while the vocals were screaming the rallying cry of WMD, terrorism
>and 911, the drum beat was oil, oil, oil...



>
>Did I answer your question?
>
>Patrick
>'93 Cobra


Spike
1965 Ford Mustang fastback 2+2 A Code 289 C4 Trac-Lok
Vintage Burgundy w/Black Standard Interior; Vintage 40
16" rims w/BF Goodrich Comp T/A gForce Radial
225/50ZR16 KDWS skins; surround sound audio-video.

Gad shat fools these morons be....
 
G
#21 ·
Re: Again: Keep the #$%# politics off here!

<NoOption5L@aol.com> done said:

> Max C. Webster III wrote:
>
>>>>> P.S.: As contradictory as this sounds, I actually agree that SH had
>>>>> to go. IMO it would have been alot better if Dubya would have
>>>>> simply said; SH is bad, and he has to fucking go, so we're gonna go
>>>>> get him.
>>>>
>>>> It wasn't presented that way because the American public wouldn't
>>>> have signed on. The public wanted revenge for 911. So to get the
>>>> support, a link to terrorism had to be established/created.
>>>
>>> Patrick, are you saying the current administration pretty much
>>> conjured up the justification to invade Iraq?

>
>> The justification was "conjured up" by the prior administration with the
>> "Iraq Liberation Act of 1998" (Public Law 105-338).



<< source snipped >>


>>> Just checking..

>>
>> With all the political obfuscation going on, it's good to check one's facts
>> to separate nonsense from reality. This is especially true for those
>> amongst
>> us with very short memories or who willingly lap up whatever the bleating
>> partisans tell them.

>
> Max,
>
> The reality is "W" was the one sitting in the Oval with the gun when
> the trigger was pulled.



Granted. But if the American people had the political will to do it 1998, it
would have been Clinton . . . and he was ready to do it. It wasn't WMD that
gave the American people the will to go into Iraq. The "threat" and our
intelligence community's opinion of it in 2003 was the same as it was in 1998.
One thing gave the American people the will, and that was 9/11. Not that Iraq
had anything to do with 9/11, but the American people realized that big shit
could happen here, too, not just "over there."

To "blame" W for Iraq is either disingenuous or a deliberate misremembering of
history.



- Max -
=======
Would you believe this man has gone as far
as tearing Dubya stickers off the bumpers of cars,
and he voted for John F. Kerry for President?
http://hometown.aol.com/maxx2112/

Just Say No to 6:5 Blackjack!
http://www.cafepress.com/justsaynoto6to5/
 
G
#22 ·
Re: Again: Keep the #$%# politics off here!

Spike wrote:
> On 13 Aug 2005 18:58:44 -0700, NoOption5L@aol.com wrote:
>
>
>>Joe wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>>P.S.: As contradictory as this sounds, I actually agree that SH had
>>>>>to go. IMO it would have been alot better if Dubya would have
>>>>>simply said; SH is bad, and he has to fucking go, so we're gonna go
>>>>>get him.

>>
>>>>It wasn't presented that way because the American public wouldn't
>>>>have signed on. The public wanted revenge for 911. So to get the
>>>>support, a link to terrorism had to be established/created.

>>
>>>Patrick, are you saying the current administration pretty much
>>>conjured up the justification to invade Iraq? Just checking..

>>
>>Iraq is only about the size of Texas and we had a constant stream of
>>spy planes and satellites fixed on that country for more than a decade
>>so we knew Iraq didn't have major weapons programs. Here are the
>>things that all came together at the right time:

>
>
> That "steady stream" comment imparts a false illusion of surveillance
> coverage, and the abilities of both satellite and aircraft
> surveillance. While the equipment is excellent in capability, it is
> limited in scope and utilization.
>
> Why then did the UN find and order destroyed WMDs of the same type
> used against his own people and against Iran? I don't think he bought
> them at WallyMart. It has also been evidenced that, among others,
> French and German companies were supplying the same types of equipment


And prior to Gulf War I, US companies supplied equipment for making
WMD's to Iraq.
 
G
#23 ·
Re: Again: Keep the #$%# politics off here!

On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 21:31:21 GMT, "cprice@here.com" <cprice@here.com>
wrote:

>Spike wrote:
>> On 13 Aug 2005 18:58:44 -0700, NoOption5L@aol.com wrote:
>>
>>


> And prior to Gulf War I, US companies supplied equipment for making
>WMD's to Iraq.


Such has been the case a lot longer back than that. We supported any
country, in any way, if it fought against the Commies. Then were
surprised when they turned on us. Even Ho Chi Minh asked us to help
him fight the Commies. We turned him down, and later ended up fighting
him.

One thing the US "should" have learned long ago.... you can't buy
friends. On the other hand, the US can't sit idle and let the Commies,
or Muslims, or whoever gain such control around the globe that the can
shut off access to all resources all industrialized nations need for
continued existence. If we fall, many of our allies will fall. If too
many of them fall, we will fall. The question is, where is the balance
point between getting involved, and sitting back?

Spike
1965 Ford Mustang fastback 2+2 A Code 289 C4 Trac-Lok
Vintage Burgundy w/Black Standard Interior; Vintage 40
16" rims w/BF Goodrich Comp T/A gForce Radial
225/50ZR16 KDWS skins; surround sound audio-video.

Gad shat fools these morons be....
 
G
#24 ·
Backyard Mechanic wrote:

> No WMD's
> Short reason: SH got rid of them because he realized his units could use
> them against him, so he acted as though he STILL had them, so he could keep
> Iran et al at bay... Miscalculation!


> See how dum conspiracy theories are?


Well, that one certainly is.
Anyone who's bothered to do some basic research knows that
Scott Ritter and UNSCOM destroyed 90-95 percent of the WMDs
that Hussein acquired with the aid and blessing of his
good friends on the Reagan/Bush regime...




-


http://www.commondreams.org/
http://www.truthout.org/
http://www.prohibitioncosts.org/
http://thirdworldtraveler.com/
http://counterpunch.org/
http://responsiblewealth.org/
http://washingtondc.craigslist.org/pol/80315675.html

In September and October 2003, McClellan said he had spoken
directly with Rove about the matter and that "he was not
involved" in leaking Plame's identity to the news media.
McClellan said at the time: "The president knows that Karl
Rove wasn't involved," "It was a ridiculous suggestion"
and "It's not true."
Yet another in the endless stirng of bu$h's lies.

"We argued, as did the security services in this country,
that the attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq would increase the
threat of terrorist attack in Britain. Tragically Londoners
have now paid the price of the Government ignoring such
warnings." Respect MP George Galloway 7-7-05

"They are waging a campaign of murder and destruction. And
there is no limit to the innocent lives they are willing to
take... men with blind hatred and armed with lethal weapons
who are capable of any atrocity... they respect no laws of
warfare or morality."
-bu$h describing his own illegal invasion of Iraq.
http://www.robert-fisk.com/iraqwarvictims_mar2003.htm

"Brutal and sadistic? By what girly-man standards? Compared
to how Saddam treated his prisoners, a bit of humiliation was
a walk in the park. AFAIK, No one died or even lost any blood."
-Albert Nurick, a usenet kook and blatant liar, on the rape,
torture and murder at bu$h's Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq.
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0512-10.htm

"Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things
that matter." -- Martin Luther King Jr.

"God told me to strike at al Qaeda and I struck them. And then
he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did."
-- George W. Bush

"Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the
will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the
Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord."
-- Adolf Hitler

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is
not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."
-- Theodore Roosevelt (1918)

Don't let bu$h do to the United States what his very close
friend and top campaign contributor, Ken Lay, did to Enron...
 
G
#25 ·
Re: Again: Keep the #$%# politics off here!

Spike wrote:

> >> >> P.S.: As contradictory as this sounds, I actually agree that SH had
> >> >> to go. IMO it would have been alot better if Dubya would have
> >> >> simply said; SH is bad, and he has to fucking go, so we're gonna go
> >> >> get him.

> >
> >> > It wasn't presented that way because the American public wouldn't
> >> > have signed on. The public wanted revenge for 911. So to get the
> >> > support, a link to terrorism had to be established/created.

> >
> >> Patrick, are you saying the current administration pretty much
> >> conjured up the justification to invade Iraq? Just checking..

> >
> >Iraq is only about the size of Texas and we had a constant stream of
> >spy planes and satellites fixed on that country for more than a decade
> >so we knew Iraq didn't have major weapons programs. Here are the
> >things that all came together at the right time:

>
> That "steady stream" comment imparts a false illusion of surveillance
> coverage, and the abilities of both satellite and aircraft
> surveillance. While the equipment is excellent in capability, it is
> limited in scope and utilization.


Spike,

Look back at Powell's UN testimony. The only description I have for it
is lame. They knew Sadamn didn't have anything. And Sadamn wouldn't
have been stupid enough not to hand it over, or at least part of it,
when his bluff was called. But Sadamn didn't have anything to handover
to cancel the impending attack.

> The rest of your points are acceptable, although a number of senators
> and congressmen from both sides of the aisle might take issue with the
> last one. As one stated, anything to do with the economy is an
> important consideration, but his votes still come down to what is in
> the best interests of the nation when the final choice is made. But
> perhaps they are the exceptions?


Well, our actions do set a precedence. And it makes you wonder what
our response will be when China decides a dictator needs to go because
he's sitting on some oil, other needed commodity... or perhaps it'll be
Taiwan because they're not cooperating?

Patrick
'93 Cobra

----

> >- Saddam always thumbing his nose at the US with the on-again off-again
> >weapons inspections it weaked our image in the Middle East.
> >
> >- 911
> >
> >- Saddam's widely known support of Palestinian suicide bombers. As
> >tight as we are with Israel, we couldn't have that.
> >
> >- Oil. The US needs a constant and steady access to huge oil reserves.
> > Especially now with China's economy and military might growing by the
> >day.
> >
> >So while the vocals were screaming the rallying cry of WMD, terrorism
> >and 911, the drum beat was oil, oil, oil...

>
>
> >
> >Did I answer your question?
> >
> >Patrick
> >'93 Cobra

>
> Spike
> 1965 Ford Mustang fastback 2+2 A Code 289 C4 Trac-Lok
> Vintage Burgundy w/Black Standard Interior; Vintage 40
> 16" rims w/BF Goodrich Comp T/A gForce Radial
> 225/50ZR16 KDWS skins; surround sound audio-video.
>
> Gad shat fools these morons be....
 
G
#26 ·
Re: Again: Keep the #$%# politics off here!

Max C. Webster III wrote:
> <NoOption5L@aol.com> done said:
>
> > Max C. Webster III wrote:
> >
> >>>>> P.S.: As contradictory as this sounds, I actually agree that SH had
> >>>>> to go. IMO it would have been alot better if Dubya would have
> >>>>> simply said; SH is bad, and he has to fucking go, so we're gonna go
> >>>>> get him.
> >>>>
> >>>> It wasn't presented that way because the American public wouldn't
> >>>> have signed on. The public wanted revenge for 911. So to get the
> >>>> support, a link to terrorism had to be established/created.
> >>>
> >>> Patrick, are you saying the current administration pretty much
> >>> conjured up the justification to invade Iraq?

> >
> >> The justification was "conjured up" by the prior administration with the
> >> "Iraq Liberation Act of 1998" (Public Law 105-338).

>
>
> << source snipped >>
>
>
> >>> Just checking..
> >>
> >> With all the political obfuscation going on, it's good to check one's facts
> >> to separate nonsense from reality. This is especially true for those
> >> amongst
> >> us with very short memories or who willingly lap up whatever the bleating
> >> partisans tell them.


> > Max,


> > The reality is "W" was the one sitting in the Oval with the gun when
> > the trigger was pulled.


> Granted. But if the American people had the political will to do it 1998, it
> would have been Clinton . . . and he was ready to do it. It wasn't WMD that
> gave the American people the will to go into Iraq. The "threat" and our
> intelligence community's opinion of it in 2003 was the same as it was in 1998.
> One thing gave the American people the will, and that was 9/11. Not that Iraq
> had anything to do with 9/11, but the American people realized that big shit
> could happen here, too, not just "over there."


> To "blame" W for Iraq is either disingenuous or a deliberate misremembering
> of history.


No, it's not. The buck stops with him. He played a hunch... he made
the call to invade. Was his decision correct because of 911, WMD, or
terrorism? So far, the proof says no, no, and probably not. Maybe the
future will be kinder to W.

Patrick
'93 Cobra
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top