PDA

View Full Version : Mr. President, You're No Moses



MrClean
02-07-2004, 04:42 PM
Excellent article by Robert Scheer

http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20031124&s=scheer1111

Dolfan02
02-07-2004, 09:28 PM
:lol: What a tease.

Mr"Clean" you have a lot of years of ahead of you I can tell.

Is it fair to bring an article into here, and claim its excellency if in bold letters on the top of the webpage it say "THE DONKEY IS KICKING, THE EMERGING DEMOCRATIC PARTY!"...?

Is the word bias in your vocabulary?

Hold on, lets post some "excellent" articles about Communism from CommunismIsGreat.com and ILoveCommies.com.

Give me a break.

MrClean
02-07-2004, 11:32 PM
I certainly hope you are correct and that I do have a lot of years left ahead of me. Are you psychic? Can I count on it to a great degree?
Thanks for your vote of confidence in this regard, anyway.

Well, certainly my proclaiming the article as "excellent" was expressing MY opinion of said article. I would imagine that if you found an article saying what a great president your precious little Dubya was, wouldn't you say in YOUR it opinion it could be an excellent article?

Yes the word bias is one I am familiar with, I can pronounce it and I understand it's meaning, so I suppose you could say it is in my vocabulary. Is it in yours as well? I would imagine you found bias in Scheer's article, from your perspective. I found it to be dead on accurate, just as I have 99% of his articles, at least the ones I have read.

Maybe you see bias only in articles or in the words of commentators that say something positive about Democrats.
I'd guess perhaps you think guys like Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly are totally objective and James Carville and Alan Colmes are raving idiots?

If you do find some excellent (in your opinion) articles about Communism please feel free to share them here. I've never heard of those two web sites you mentioned, but thank you for mentioning them.

Peace
Out

Dolfan02
02-08-2004, 12:52 AM
Are you really that mad in your head?

That you find the need to start another 3 malicious threads and resurface another 2 anti-Bush posts to the top just to hide my post of President W. Bush's State of the Union Address? Thats really childish. You look like a stupid ignorant kid. Oh I forgot, you're a Democrat. Why don't you actually read what Bush has to say for himself, instead of reading another bufoon's articles. :hitself:

MrClean
02-08-2004, 12:55 AM
I honestly was not trying to hide your state of the union thread

DolphinDevil28
02-08-2004, 11:46 PM
Don't talk about Sean Hannity, he is the man.

DolphinDevil28
02-08-2004, 11:57 PM
Robert Sheer Stupidity. That must be the guy's whole name.

Liberals are just so full of blind hatred.

"Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah WMD's blah blah blah blah blah Lies blah blah blah."

PhinPhan1227
02-09-2004, 10:25 AM
Serious question...are you guys just the same person looking to get conversations started here? MrClean(Murder/Sniper) on one side quoting left wing whacko's, and DD28 championing everything that comes out of GW or the GOP's mouth. Both viewpoints are horribly myiopic, which is why I'm wondering if you two are the same person.

DeDolfan
02-09-2004, 04:14 PM
Originally posted by PhinPhan1227
Serious question...are you guys just the same person looking to get conversations started here? MrClean(Murder/Sniper) on one side quoting left wing whacko's, and DD28 championing everything that comes out of GW or the GOP's mouth. Both viewpoints are horribly myiopic, which is why I'm wondering if you two are the same person.

Daaaaaaaaaamn, go on wid it, Bro !! :D

MrClean
02-10-2004, 12:48 AM
Originally posted by PhinPhan1227
Serious question...are you guys just the same person looking to get conversations started here? MrClean(Murder/Sniper) on one side quoting left wing whacko's, and DD28 championing everything that comes out of GW or the GOP's mouth. Both viewpoints are horribly myiopic, which is why I'm wondering if you two are the same person.

Serious answer. I am not Sniper or Mr Murder. I've read Murder's posts, but do not even recall reading anything from Sniper. I'm not sure if you wonder if I am also DD28 or maybe your thinking he could also be 02. I'm not going to say the things he says even in jest, so in case you were wondering, I'm not him either.

But anyway, I am only MrClean and have never posted here or on any other sports MB by any other user name. This forum IMO tends to lean toward the side of Chicken George fans generally speaking, so thought I'd just try to balance things a little. Perhaps you may feel I went a little overboard? But I know I'll never change the mind of a guy like DD28, nor will he ever change mine. Probably the same goes for you and I as well. :)

BTW, I enjoyed the web site on matching us to the candidates, but after both my friend and I doing it, seeing some other results in that thread, I think you must be the only guy in the country who could get 100% on both Kerry and Bush :)

DolphinDevil28
02-10-2004, 01:19 AM
Yeah, it's good to have balance Mr. Clean. It would be boring otherwise.

I love GW, you hate him. Life goes on.

PhinPhan1227
02-10-2004, 10:56 AM
Originally posted by MrClean


Serious answer. I am not Sniper or Mr Murder. I've read Murder's posts, but do not even recall reading anything from Sniper. I'm not sure if you wonder if I am also DD28 or maybe your thinking he could also be 02. I'm not going to say the things he says even in jest, so in case you were wondering, I'm not him either.

But anyway, I am only MrClean and have never posted here or on any other sports MB by any other user name. This forum IMO tends to lean toward the side of Chicken George fans generally speaking, so thought I'd just try to balance things a little. Perhaps you may feel I went a little overboard? But I know I'll never change the mind of a guy like DD28, nor will he ever change mine. Probably the same goes for you and I as well. :)

BTW, I enjoyed the web site on matching us to the candidates, but after both my friend and I doing it, seeing some other results in that thread, I think you must be the only guy in the country who could get 100% on both Kerry and Bush :)

What can I say, I'm a walking talking contradiction. When it comes to Economic/Foreign Policy/Military issues I'm pretty strongly Republican. When it comes to a lot of "Civil" issues, I'm solidly in the camp of the Dems.

MrClean
02-10-2004, 11:14 PM
Originally posted by DolphinDevil28
Robert Sheer Stupidity. That must be the guy's whole name.

Liberals are just so full of blind hatred.

"Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah WMD's blah blah blah blah blah Lies blah blah blah."

Typical Republican tactic, attacking the messenger when you can't refute the message, by insulting Mr Scheer.
Should I do the same with your boy Hannity? How about Sean Handjob Hannity, since he is always trying to jerk off the listeners with his biased one sided viewpoints. With Handjob Hannity it is all very simple: Everything GOP = Great, everything Democrat = Bad. He has never waivered from that mindset. And with him one would use the word "mind" very loosely. :lol:

Liberals are full of blind hatred? Now that's the pot calling the kettle black. :lol:

Sure, just laugh off the WMD snafu by the Bush gang. You make it sound like it is not important, but maybe to you it isn't.
After all that was the main argument for going to war, or it was at first, until Chicken George changed his tune a couple of times.
Now he says even if they were all wrong about the WMD, he still thinks it was the right thing to do, but we all know that without the WMD threat that he threw out as the main reason last year, the congress would not have voted to give George the authorization.

DolphinDevil28
02-10-2004, 11:49 PM
I could refuet scheer's article, but it's so out in left field I just don't feel like it.

No one is laughing off the intel. mistake about the wmds. This is serious business. Like I said before, there was a resolution way back that Clinton agreed to that Saddam had to be taken out of power.

Read my post about dem's memory loss. Look at all those quotes. That illustrates the hypocrisy of the left.

Clumpy
02-11-2004, 12:52 AM
Bush sucks!


Kerry in '04!

DolphinDevil28
02-11-2004, 01:24 AM
God help us if Kerry is elected.

But we won't have to worry about that.

GW IS GOING TO BE BACK.

DeDolfan
02-11-2004, 12:06 PM
Originally posted by DolphinDevil28
God help us if Kerry is elected.

But we won't have to worry about that.

GW IS GOING TO BE BACK.

Wanna BET?? If for no other reason, I would back any war vet over "Chicken George" [LMAO, Murder] any day. At least that man would actually have an idea about what it is like to oreder people into harm's way.

PhinPhan1227
02-11-2004, 12:58 PM
Originally posted by DeDolfan


Wanna BET?? If for no other reason, I would back any war vet over "Chicken George" [LMAO, Murder] any day. At least that man would actually have an idea about what it is like to oreder people into harm's way.

Take a look at the link I posted on that other site. George may have been drunk and stupid during Vietnam, but at least he wasn't calling his fellow soldiers baby killers and swinging deals with Hanoi which left POW's stranded there. Kerry is hardly beloved by his fellow Vietnam Vets.

ohall
02-11-2004, 01:02 PM
Originally posted by DeDolfan


Wanna BET?? If for no other reason, I would back any war vet over "Chicken George" [LMAO, Murder] any day. At least that man would actually have an idea about what it is like to oreder people into harm's way.

How come when Clinton was running for President Kerry protected him, but now he's going after Bush?

How come Dole and Bush #41 didn't burry Clinton with his Vietnam war record?

Class, it's all about class. Some have it, some only act like they do.

Oliver...

DeDolfan
02-11-2004, 01:13 PM
Originally posted by PhinPhan1227


Take a look at the link I posted on that other site. George may have been drunk and stupid during Vietnam, but at least he wasn't calling his fellow soldiers baby killers and swinging deals with Hanoi which left POW's stranded there. Kerry is hardly beloved by his fellow Vietnam Vets.

He may not be "loved" that much by fellow vets but i'll bet he's repescted more for it than Bush is.
That's where I stand on it. Either way you want to look at it, Bush for all practical purposes dodged the draft by signing up [while not totally serving his commitment] into a branch that actually was not available to all, except mostly returning vets finishing out their enlistments. You can't blame anyone for trying to get into the guards. Most of the ones I knew of [back then] in the Guards had already put in their 4 years of active duty and served their remaining 2 years in the Nat'l Guard units locally. Otherwise, people of "influence" were usually given out those "cushy" billets.

DeDolfan
02-11-2004, 01:17 PM
Originally posted by ohall


How come when Clinton was running for President Kerry protected him, but now he's going after Bush?

How come Dole and Bush #41 didn't burry Clinton with his Vietnam war record?

Class, it's all about class. Some have it, some only act like they do.

Oliver...

Respectfully, Oliver, this isn't about Clinton nor his or anybody else's war records. It is about whether or not I prefer a leader that fulfilled his obligations over one who [obviously] did not.

ohall
02-11-2004, 01:19 PM
Originally posted by DeDolfan


He may not be "loved" that much by fellow vets but i'll bet he's repescted more for it than Bush is.
That's where I stand on it. Either way you want to look at it, Bush for all practical purposes dodged the draft by signing up [while not totally serving his commitment] into a branch that actually was not available to all, except mostly returning vets finishing out their enlistments. You can't blame anyone for trying to get into the guards. Most of the ones I knew of [back then] in the Guards had already put in their 4 years of active duty and served their remaining 2 years in the Nat'l Guard units locally. Otherwise, people of "influence" were usually given out those "cushy" billets.

That's far from AWOL.

This tone will come back to bite Kerry and the DEMS. There is a reason the DEMS have been losing ground in Congress, Senate, and with Govenorships since 1998. Most American's are tired of this crap.

Does anyone really think he went AWOL? If they do they are not living in this world. The military doesn't lie for anyone. The man got a honorable discharge, and if he was AWOL that never would have happened. Common sense has to kick in at some point.

Oliver...

ohall
02-11-2004, 01:26 PM
Originally posted by DeDolfan


Respectfully, Oliver, this isn't about Clinton nor his or anybody else's war records. It is about whether or not I prefer a leader that fulfilled his obligations over one who [obviously] did not.

I assume you supported Clinton, I assume you support Kerry now or will once he is named the DEM candidate?

If any of that is true, you need to drop this, right now. Kerry came to Clinton's aid when he was being attacked by the press in 1992 when it came out Clinton ran away to Europe during the Vietnam War.

It seems to me, the past actions by these TWO ppl should explain the hypocrisy that is going on right now from the DEM side of things.

Further more both Dole and Bush #41 never went after Clinton. There's a reason for that. It is not important if either Clinton or Bush ran away from a WAR that was wrong. A WAR started by the DEMS by the way. What’s important is to see where these TWO guys stand on the issues. This constant personal attacks from the DEM side has to stop. If it doesn’t they will continue to lose ground.

Oliver...

DeDolfan
02-11-2004, 01:42 PM
Originally posted by ohall


That's far from AWOL.

This tone will come back to bite Kerry and the DEMS. There is a reason the DEMS have been losing ground in Congress, Senate, and with Govenorships since 1998. Most American's are tired of this crap.

Does anyone really think he went AWOL? If they do they are not living in this world. The military doesn't lie for anyone. The man got a honorable discharge, and if he was AWOL that never would have happened. Common sense has to kick in at some point.

Oliver...

The first thig actually is being UA, unauthorized absence, which is when you miss your first muster. AWOL is the next step which I forget the actual time frame and then desertion comes after 30 days. But keep in mind that it is not Kerry pursuing this issue anyway.
Yes, i think there are alot of ppl that think Bush was AWOL. The White House tried to address this yesterday and quite unsucessfully, IMO. Pay stubs prove nothing actually. The only it proves is that he drew a check. I realize the military won't lie for anyone and have not even suggested it but one thing I do know is that certain things can be and are covered up every day. Was bush's record covered up? I'm not saying that it was. It only depends on one's viewpoint and whether it makes any difference or not, but one thing the white house hasn't fully explained satisfactorly yet is where was Bush during those 4 or 5 months in question in Alabama? That's what I question. How come nobody has yet to come forth and actually said that they remember serving with bush during that time? Perhaps nobody can corroborate it?
Bottom line is that the right wingers just loved grilling Clinton over this and that but when the liberals return the favor, they cry foul.
But I do think that alot of Americans are indeed tired of this crap and that is why I think Bush will be no more this time next year.

DeDolfan
02-11-2004, 01:56 PM
Originally posted by ohall


I assume you supported Clinton, I assume you support Kerry now or will once he is named the DEM candidate?

If any of that is true, you need to drop this, right now. Kerry came to Clinton's aid when he was being attacked by the press in 1992 when it came out Clinton ran away to Europe during the Vietnam War.

It seems to me, the past actions by these TWO ppl should explain the hypocrisy that is going on right now from the DEM side of things.

Further more both Dole and Bush #41 never went after Clinton. There's a reason for that. It is not important if either Clinton or Bush ran away from a WAR that was wrong. A WAR started by the DEMS by the way. What’s important is to see where these TWO guys stand on the issues. This constant personal attacks from the DEM side has to stop. If it doesn’t they will continue to lose ground.

Oliver...

Again, we're getting off topic. Clinton, Bush or Dole has nothing to do with it and is an entirely different topic.
this is what I said earlier that you replied to when I said I would support any war vet over Bush. I voted for Bush in '00, but I'll not again for alot of reasons that I'll not go into here, but they are my reasons and mine only. My personal favorites before the primary season began in no particular order, war vets or not, was Clark, Kerry and Edwards. I was never really impressed with Dean at all. I felt any combination of those 3 would stand the best chance of defeating bush. However, if any of the other candidates win, then I would have to change course and vote for Bush. But when I use the word "any" i don't mean it in the literal sense tho. Those 3 mentioned are the only Dems, IMO, worthy of the office other than bush. So you see, i don't want Bush replaced by just anybody because they're a liberal, It was like in )), Bush got my support mainly because he was pretty much the lesser of the 2 evils, if you will.

PhinPhan1227
02-11-2004, 02:36 PM
Originally posted by DeDolfan


The first thig actually is being UA, unauthorized absence, which is when you miss your first muster. AWOL is the next step which I forget the actual time frame and then desertion comes after 30 days. But keep in mind that it is not Kerry pursuing this issue anyway.
Yes, i think there are alot of ppl that think Bush was AWOL. The White House tried to address this yesterday and quite unsucessfully, IMO. Pay stubs prove nothing actually. The only it proves is that he drew a check. I realize the military won't lie for anyone and have not even suggested it but one thing I do know is that certain things can be and are covered up every day. Was bush's record covered up? I'm not saying that it was. It only depends on one's viewpoint and whether it makes any difference or not, but one thing the white house hasn't fully explained satisfactorly yet is where was Bush during those 4 or 5 months in question in Alabama? That's what I question. How come nobody has yet to come forth and actually said that they remember serving with bush during that time? Perhaps nobody can corroborate it?
Bottom line is that the right wingers just loved grilling Clinton over this and that but when the liberals return the favor, they cry foul.
But I do think that alot of Americans are indeed tired of this crap and that is why I think Bush will be no more this time next year.

Actually, as someone who served in the Guard, I can tell you that if he was paid, he showed up. The Guard doesn't actually care that much if you show up(actually, they'll ONLY label you AWOL if you don't show up for activation). But they DO care about paying you. If you don't show, you don't get paid...flat out, no argument. They'll do politico's favors like getting sons in the door, but nobody messes with a CO's budget. They may have doctored the pay records, but if they are legit, than Bush WAS there. As for Kerry/Bush right now, do a survey of the current soldiery and you'll se where the support stands. Kerry is no more popular among current Vets than he was among his contemporaries.

DeDolfan
02-11-2004, 03:19 PM
http://www.kaicurry.com/gwbush/dishonestdubya.html

:D :D :D :D

MrClean
02-11-2004, 09:59 PM
Originally posted by ohall


How come when Clinton was running for President Kerry protected him, but now he's going after Bush?

How come Dole and Bush #41 didn't burry Clinton with his Vietnam war record?

Class, it's all about class. Some have it, some only act like they do.

Oliver...

How could they? He was never in the service. He had a college deferment, just like hundreds of other college students had, including many of the current Republican chickenhawks. Chicken George has basically surrounded himself with fellow chickenhawks, except for Powell, and he has been as weak a Secratary of State as we've had in recent memory. For all intents and purposes an emasculated figurehead.

MrClean
02-11-2004, 10:12 PM
Originally posted by DeDolfan


Wanna BET?? If for no other reason, I would back any war vet over "Chicken George" [LMAO, Murder] any day. At least that man would actually have an idea about what it is like to oreder people into harm's way.

Exactly!! A man such as Kerry, who knows first hand what it is like to be in combat, will use American military only if there is no other possible alternative. Chicken George and his gang of Thieves were looking for any justification that they could pull off on Congress and the American people as an excuse as to why we just had to go to war in Iraq. ANY objective observer should have know it was a mistake a year ago, and it certainly can be seen as one now. As far as I am concerned the blood of every American who has died in Iraq is on the hands of Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld etc for sending them off to fight a totally unjustified unnecessary war and one day when they stand before their lord and maker they will be held accountable for it.
:fire:
I'll bet Chicken George and Dickless Cheney's Halliburton stock is really going up in value through all this too, since they seem to get all the contracts over there without any bidding from other possible sources. Nothing like a level playing field is there? Not!!

MrClean
02-11-2004, 10:26 PM
Originally posted by PhinPhan1227


Take a look at the link I posted on that other site. George may have been drunk and stupid during Vietnam, but at least he wasn't calling his fellow soldiers baby killers and swinging deals with Hanoi which left POW's stranded there. Kerry is hardly beloved by his fellow Vietnam Vets.

The ones who served with him overall think quite highly of him.
There was an article here in the local paper about a fellow veteran who lives on the Oregon coast, who's life was saved by Kerry when he was pulled out of the Mekong River by Kerry.
This guy was a Republican, but thinks so much of Kerry that he has changed to Democrat and joined Kerry's election campaign team to help out in any way he can.
I've also heard that several veterans who served with Kerry are part of his election campaign team.
When Kerry returned to the world from SEA and protested the war, I do not believe he referred to any of his fellow vets as baby killers. He was more focused on the cluster f#ck that was taking place in the Johnson and Nixon administrations regarding their handling of the war effort in SEA. He was upset after finding out first hand that our govt was sending Americans over there to fight and possibly die in a war that the govt had no idea how to win.

As for Georgie Boy being drunk and stupid while Kerry was doing his duty (and quite well I might add), which kind of man do YOU want as the Commander in Chief of the military, now that there is a choice???

MrClean
02-11-2004, 10:39 PM
Originally posted by DeDolfan
http://www.kaicurry.com/gwbush/dishonestdubya.html

:D :D :D :D

Excellent link DeDolfan, thanks for sharing it. :D

Also after reading that you are a Vietnam vet, I'd just like to say that I have the utmost respect for the fact that you served your nation in this way. I was a couple of years too young, and did not have to go, but I have several friends that did and to know what you guys went through, well I just have to take my hat off to you.

Marino1983
02-11-2004, 10:59 PM
Originally posted by ohall


How come when Clinton was running for President Kerry protected him, but now he's going after Bush?

How come Dole and Bush #41 didn't burry Clinton with his Vietnam war record?

Class, it's all about class. Some have it, some only act like they do.

Oliver...



:goof: B Clinton wasn't enlisted and W was ... A very big difference to be IN the military and receive preferential treatment by a congressman!!!!

Marino1983

Marino1983
02-11-2004, 11:13 PM
Originally posted by ohall


A WAR started by the DEMS by the way. What’s important is to see where these TWO guys stand on the issues. This constant personal attacks from the DEM side has to stop. If it doesn’t they will continue to lose ground.

Oliver...


I ll take issue with that statement Oliver .... There has endless documentation that JFK wanted to pull out of Vietnam because of his fears of war !!

LBJ on the other hand was in the pocket of the war mongers and big buisness along with YOUR president nixon !!!!!!!!!!!!

Yeah funny how when T Delay runs his right wing mouth with personal attacks along with J Helms, Gingrich, D Army etc. etc. when they were in office, was perfectly fine with the extremists in the republican party ..


Marino1983

PhinPhan1227
02-12-2004, 09:35 AM
Originally posted by Marino1983



I ll take issue with that statement Oliver .... There has endless documentation that JFK wanted to pull out of Vietnam because of his fears of war !!

LBJ on the other hand was in the pocket of the war mongers and big buisness along with YOUR president nixon !!!!!!!!!!!!

Yeah funny how when T Delay runs his right wing mouth with personal attacks along with J Helms, Gingrich, D Army etc. etc. when they were in office, was perfectly fine with the extremists in the republican party ..


Marino1983

Actually, there's documentation that JFK was INCREASING the troop presence in Vietnam, not reducing it, when he died. None of which changes the fact that the only reason that Nixon had to deal with the issue was because JFK put us there in the first place. Nixon was only carrying on the policies that JFK initiated(including support for the dictator in power in South Vietnam).

PhinPhan1227
02-12-2004, 09:44 AM
Originally posted by MrClean


The ones who served with him overall think quite highly of him.
There was an article here in the local paper about a fellow veteran who lives on the Oregon coast, who's life was saved by Kerry when he was pulled out of the Mekong River by Kerry.
This guy was a Republican, but thinks so much of Kerry that he has changed to Democrat and joined Kerry's election campaign team to help out in any way he can.
I've also heard that several veterans who served with Kerry are part of his election campaign team.
When Kerry returned to the world from SEA and protested the war, I do not believe he referred to any of his fellow vets as baby killers. He was more focused on the cluster f#ck that was taking place in the Johnson and Nixon administrations regarding their handling of the war effort in SEA. He was upset after finding out first hand that our govt was sending Americans over there to fight and possibly die in a war that the govt had no idea how to win.

As for Georgie Boy being drunk and stupid while Kerry was doing his duty (and quite well I might add), which kind of man do YOU want as the Commander in Chief of the military, now that there is a choice???


Direct quote from his Congressional testimony...

"several months ago in Detroit, we had an investigation at which over 150 honorably discharged and many very highly decorated veterans testified to war crimes committed in Southeast Asia, not isolated incidents but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command....

They told the stories at times they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam in addition to the normal ravage of war, and the normal and very particular ravaging which is done by the applied bombing power of this country."

ohall
02-12-2004, 10:19 AM
Originally posted by MrClean


How could they? He was never in the service. He had a college deferment, just like hundreds of other college students had, including many of the current Republican chickenhawks. Chicken George has basically surrounded himself with fellow chickenhawks, except for Powell, and he has been as weak a Secratary of State as we've had in recent memory. For all intents and purposes an emasculated figurehead.

I understand. Some how I think if Bush was a DEM you'd be supporting him, and if Clinton was a REP you would be bashing him.

Oliver...

ohall
02-12-2004, 10:25 AM
Originally posted by DeDolfan


Again, we're getting off topic. Clinton, Bush or Dole has nothing to do with it and is an entirely different topic.
this is what I said earlier that you replied to when I said I would support any war vet over Bush. I voted for Bush in '00, but I'll not again for alot of reasons that I'll not go into here, but they are my reasons and mine only. My personal favorites before the primary season began in no particular order, war vets or not, was Clark, Kerry and Edwards. I was never really impressed with Dean at all. I felt any combination of those 3 would stand the best chance of defeating bush. However, if any of the other candidates win, then I would have to change course and vote for Bush. But when I use the word "any" i don't mean it in the literal sense tho. Those 3 mentioned are the only Dems, IMO, worthy of the office other than bush. So you see, i don't want Bush replaced by just anybody because they're a liberal, It was like in )), Bush got my support mainly because he was pretty much the lesser of the 2 evils, if you will.

No it's not, it's the same.

Clinton ran away from war, the Vietnam War and not one DEM or REP gave a damn. Bush went into the national guard and now according to the DEM's he's AWOL.

It couldn't be more on topic.

DEM's do and say whatever they can at the moment to get thru that moment. The REP party has been very consistent on this. What someone did during the Vietnam War is of no consequence. The DEMS only follow that when it applies to their canidate. Hypocracy at it's finest, and when it's all said and done the American public will realize this. This is the main reason the DEM party has been in a serious slide since 1998. American's are tired of angry Politicians only looking to knock ppl down. Like it or not, most American's find morals and standards to be very important.

Again, it couldn't be more on topic.

Oliver...

MrClean
02-12-2004, 10:46 AM
Originally posted by ohall


I understand. Some how I think if Bush was a DEM you'd be supporting him, and if Clinton was a REP you would be bashing him.

Oliver...

Well...with Bush's policies, he'd never get far enough as a Dem in any attempt for public office for me to have the chance to vote for him.
For example, his environmental policies are a travesty and that won't fly with most Dems. Heck, he must think global warming is a good thing, figures it will be cheaper to heat our houses in the winter I guess. :cry:
There are some Republicans over the years that I've thought were ok, the names just do not include Bush 1 or 2.
So, sorry to disappoint you but I do not look at just political affiliation.

ohall
02-12-2004, 11:04 AM
Originally posted by MrClean


Well...with Bush's policies, he'd never get far enough as a Dem in any attempt for public office for me to have the chance to vote for him.
For example, his environmental policies are a travesty and that won't fly with most Dems. Heck, he must think global warming is a good thing, figures it will be cheaper to heat our houses in the winter I guess. :cry:
There are some Republicans over the years that I've thought were ok, the names just do not include Bush 1 or 2.
So, sorry to disappoint you but I do not look at just political affiliation.

You missed my point. Politicians are so close today it's a joke. They all run towards the middle.

To me it's very important to have a President that will make decisions because they are correct, not because they are popular. IMO that is not where Kerry is. The man voted for War in 2002, because it was popular in his party and if he didn't more DEM's would have lost seats in Congress at that time. Now he is against War, because it's popular in his party. The man needs to make up his mind.

Oliver...

PhinPhan1227
02-12-2004, 11:25 AM
Originally posted by MrClean


Well...with Bush's policies, he'd never get far enough as a Dem in any attempt for public office for me to have the chance to vote for him.
For example, his environmental policies are a travesty and that won't fly with most Dems. Heck, he must think global warming is a good thing, figures it will be cheaper to heat our houses in the winter I guess. :cry:
There are some Republicans over the years that I've thought were ok, the names just do not include Bush 1 or 2.
So, sorry to disappoint you but I do not look at just political affiliation.

Last time I checked, countries are bailing out of Kyoto left and right. It's looking more and more like Bush made the right call there.

DeDolfan
02-12-2004, 04:13 PM
Originally posted by MrClean


Excellent link DeDolfan, thanks for sharing it. :D

Also after reading that you are a Vietnam vet, I'd just like to say that I have the utmost respect for the fact that you served your nation in this way. I was a couple of years too young, and did not have to go, but I have several friends that did and to know what you guys went through, well I just have to take my hat off to you.

Thanks Mr. Clean! Unfortunately, our "service" back then was no where thought of as it is today. We did the exact same thing then that they guys [and ladies also now, hard to get used to that] are doing now. We both followed the orders given to us and carried/carrying them out to the best of our abilities. The big difference then was we were just called baby killers and the like whereas today they're called heroes. Go figure! We didn't have all the high tech weaponry they have today. About as high tech we had was napalm runs from the phantoms!!

MrClean
02-12-2004, 04:14 PM
Originally posted by ohall


No it's not, it's the same.

Clinton ran away from war, the Vietnam War and not one DEM or REP gave a damn. Bush went into the national guard and now according to the DEM's he's AWOL.

It couldn't be more on topic.

DEM's do and say whatever they can at the moment to get thru that moment. The REP party has been very consistent on this. What someone did during the Vietnam War is of no consequence. The DEMS only follow that when it applies to their canidate. Hypocracy at it's finest, and when it's all said and done the American public will realize this. This is the main reason the DEM party has been in a serious slide since 1998. American's are tired of angry Politicians only looking to knock ppl down. Like it or not, most American's find morals and standards to be very important.

Again, it couldn't be more on topic.

Oliver...

So, you are trying to say that the Mepublicans have a corner on the morals and standards market?
Don't make me laugh. How do you define "morals" anyway?

Yes, Americans may be tired of angry politicians looking to knock other people down, but don't think for a minute that this only happens in one party.
A guy that you may have fond regard for, good ol' Slippery Dick Nixon perfected the art of character assasination way back when he first ran for congress from Cali by falsely labeling his incumbent opponent as a communist sympathizer, which was in the McCarthy era when just the mere word would invoke horror and revulsion in knee-jerk reactionaries, and it help ol' Slippery get his first federal office, and attacking one's opponent has gone on at times in both parties, in primaries and general elections ever since.
Old man Bush told flat out lies about Bob Dole (who is a good man) to beat him in the primaries and the Mepublican voters fell for it. Dubya falsely attacked McCain in the primaries too.

PhinPhan1227
02-12-2004, 05:10 PM
Originally posted by MrClean


So, you are trying to say that the Mepublicans have a corner on the morals and standards market?
Don't make me laugh. How do you define "morals" anyway?

Yes, Americans may be tired of angry politicians looking to knock other people down, but don't think for a minute that this only happens in one party.
A guy that you may have fond regard for, good ol' Slippery Dick Nixon perfected the art of character assasination way back when he first ran for congress from Cali by falsely labeling his incumbent opponent as a communist sympathizer, which was in the McCarthy era when just the mere word would invoke horror and revulsion in knee-jerk reactionaries, and it help ol' Slippery get his first federal office, and attacking one's opponent has gone on at times in both parties, in primaries and general elections ever since.
Old man Bush told flat out lies about Bob Dole (who is a good man) to beat him in the primaries and the Mepublican voters fell for it. Dubya falsely attacked McCain in the primaries too.

I remember a small amount of discussion comparing Bush's war record to Clintons lack of same...but nothing to the extent that the Dems are doing with GW. Honestly, I think the whole thing is silly, but I don't particualrly like the hypocracy of pursuing this issue THIS time when they basically ignored it last time.

Marino1983
02-12-2004, 06:22 PM
Originally posted by PhinPhan1227


Actually, there's documentation that JFK was INCREASING the troop presence in Vietnam, not reducing it, when he died. None of which changes the fact that the only reason that Nixon had to deal with the issue was because JFK put us there in the first place. Nixon was only carrying on the policies that JFK initiated(including support for the dictator in power in South Vietnam).



:lol: PhinPhan .... I completely disagree,, facts are still surfacing on how JFK wanted to pull out American troops fearing another Korea...

But political pressure and JFK's assassination derailed his wishes !

LBJ had McDonnel Douglas, Boeing, and host's of other war industrialist's clamoring for the US to keep a presence in Vietnam ..

:spit: Nixon just followed LBJ's plan until it became politically beneficial for him to pull out American troops !!!

Marino1983

MrClean
02-12-2004, 09:30 PM
Originally posted by PhinPhan1227


Actually, there's documentation that JFK was INCREASING the troop presence in Vietnam, not reducing it, when he died. None of which changes the fact that the only reason that Nixon had to deal with the issue was because JFK put us there in the first place. Nixon was only carrying on the policies that JFK initiated(including support for the dictator in power in South Vietnam).

Not true. There may have been slight increases in the number of American servicemen during JFKs administration, but there are plenty of reports saying that he planned to pull the plug on the whole thing. There is even one conspirasy theory that this was why he was assasinated. Not sure if this is true, but anyone with a lick of sense knows Oswald did not act alone...but I digress, anyway things in Nam did not really escalate until after the Tonkin Gulf resolution was passed 98-2 by the US Senate. One of the two no votes and the most outspoken against the resolution was the late great Sen Wayne Morse D-Ore, who said that if it passed and we went to war in Viet Nam that this nation would look back in 20 years and know beyond a doubt that it was a terrible mistake. Or words to that effect, and how correct Mr Morse was. F#cking LBJ hated Morse for speaking out so vehemently against his Tonkin Gulf resolution and there was animosity between the two from then on. But Morse was a great man who cared about this nation and LBJ was pond scum
The first battle between NVA and the US Army did not take place until 1965, long after the best president of the 20th century was laid to rest.
Also, we had troops in Viet Nam in 1959, BEFORE Kennedy, so you Republicans can stop claiming the Dems are who got that whole thing started. I have a friend who told me personally that he was there, as a member of the US Army in 1959, but nobody really knew it and it was not official. We were sending advisors in before Kennedy took office anyway.

MrClean
02-12-2004, 09:41 PM
Originally posted by Marino1983




:lol: PhinPhan .... I completely disagree,, facts are still surfacing on how JFK wanted to pull out American troops fearing another Korea...

But political pressure and JFK's assassination derailed his wishes !

LBJ had McDonnel Douglas, Boeing, and host's of other war industrialist's clamoring for the US to keep a presence in Vietnam ..

:spit: Nixon just followed LBJ's plan until it became politically beneficial for him to pull out American troops !!!

Marino1983


I've heard plenty of times how Lady Bird owned many shares of stock in companies such as the ones you mentioned and the Johnson's net worth went from a couple hundred thousand to 12 mil from the time he took office until after Nixon took over, due to the value of all these stocks skyrocketing b/c of the war.

ohall
02-12-2004, 09:42 PM
Originally posted by MrClean


So, you are trying to say that the Mepublicans have a corner on the morals and standards market?


I said no such thing.

Oliver...

MrClean
02-12-2004, 10:27 PM
Originally posted by ohall


You missed my point. Politicians are so close today it's a joke. They all run towards the middle.

To me it's very important to have a President that will make decisions because they are correct, not because they are popular. IMO that is not where Kerry is. The man voted for War in 2002, because it was popular in his party and if he didn't more DEM's would have lost seats in Congress at that time. Now he is against War, because it's popular in his party. The man needs to make up his mind.

Oliver...

I didn't miss your point, I just do not agree with it. I see plenty of MAJOR differences between Chicken George and guys like Kerry and Edwards, on things that are VERY important to me like the environment, social issues, judicial nominees/appointments, etc.

It doesn't matter what party they belong to, it matters what they stand for and if you want to believe that Bush/Kerry/Edwards are so close it is a joke, why even bother talking about them or voting? Heck they're all about the same in your mind anyway, from what you said.

MrClean
02-12-2004, 10:46 PM
Originally posted by ohall


I said no such thing.

Oliver...

You said:
"DEM's do and say whatever they can at the moment to get thru that moment. The REP party has been very consistent on this. What someone did during the Vietnam War is of no consequence. The DEMS only follow that when it applies to their canidate. Hypocracy at it's finest, and when it's all said and done the American public will realize this. This is the main reason the DEM party has been in a serious slide since 1998. American's are tired of angry Politicians only looking to knock ppl down. Like it or not, most American's find morals and standards to be very important."

What this says to me is that, Dems are in a slide, b/c they knock down people (figuratively speaking I assume). The final sentence, saying Americans finding moral and standards very important following the generalization toward Dems, says to me that other than Dems have the moral and standards (Republicans?)

Perhaps I read too much into what you were saying?

ohall
02-13-2004, 05:59 AM
Originally posted by MrClean


You said:
"DEM's do and say whatever they can at the moment to get thru that moment. The REP party has been very consistent on this. What someone did during the Vietnam War is of no consequence. The DEMS only follow that when it applies to their canidate. Hypocracy at it's finest, and when it's all said and done the American public will realize this. This is the main reason the DEM party has been in a serious slide since 1998. American's are tired of angry Politicians only looking to knock ppl down. Like it or not, most American's find morals and standards to be very important."

What this says to me is that, Dems are in a slide, b/c they knock down people (figuratively speaking I assume). The final sentence, saying Americans finding moral and standards very important following the generalization toward Dems, says to me that other than Dems have the moral and standards (Republicans?)

Perhaps I read too much into what you were saying?

I said and meant no such thing. DEMS however are on a serious slide since 1998. To that end, DEMS as a whole are very upset and angry right now. They have been since Clinton was impeached. I think most Americans understand they are out to get even for that. And to that end most DEMS will do and say anything to achieve that goal. This in no way implies they are dealing with reality.

Look at you; look at how you constantly call our President names. It's something I would expect from a child. I know you are no child; you are a very mature individual 99.9% of the time. But look at some of the irrational and immature comments you've been making about our President. Most DEMS that I know are acting just like you. The problem for ppl like you is there aren't many of you. You just think everyone is as upset as you are. You want so badly for everyone to feel your pain. It's time you understand most Americans are doing pretty darn well, and are happy with our President.

Oliver...

PhinPhan1227
02-13-2004, 09:58 AM
Originally posted by MrClean



Also, we had troops in Viet Nam in 1959, BEFORE Kennedy, so you Republicans can stop claiming the Dems are who got that whole thing started. I have a friend who told me personally that he was there, as a member of the US Army in 1959, but nobody really knew it and it was not official. We were sending advisors in before Kennedy took office anyway.

Here's the timeline....


Liberation 1942-45
OSS helped Ho Chi Minh and his Vietnam independence League fight the Japanese and the Vichy Franch
OSS gave assistance, rescued pilots, provided intelligence.
Vietminh encouraged by the Atlantic Charter's promise of self-determination.
Japan on 3/9/45 imprisoned all french, took complete control of Vietnam, on 3/11/45 declared Vietnam independent under emperor Bao Dai(who had been emperor under the french since 1935.
Ho Chi Minh declared the independence of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam 9/2/45
Potsdam agreement allowed British to occupy the south and Chiang to occupy the north.(this is where the 3 great powers divided up the world)
In the south Brit Gen. Douglas Gracey rearmed the French troops,. who reclaimed Saigon from the Vietminh.
In the north, Chinese troops looted the country, they withdrew and left Ho Chi Minh to rule Hanoi
Advisory 1946:
US supported French in 1st Indochinese War 1946-54. the start of the "10,000 Day War."
US aid to the french reached 1$ billion by 1954, 80% of the cost of the war.
Ike refused military intervention, no Op. Vulture to relieve seige of Dienbienphu in 1954 Dienbienphu was captured by the Vietminth MaY 8, 1954
Ike and Dulles not satisfied with the 1954 Geneva Conference that divided the country at the 17th parallel with elections planned for 1956
Ike included South Vietnam in SEATO Sept. 8 1954.
Ike pledged US support to Ngo Dinh Diem Oct 1 1954 and his Catholic Saigon government imposed on 6 million Buddhists
Ho Chi Minh began the 2nd Indochinese War 1956-75 against Diem and the Americans.
Ike supported Diem's opposition to elections, reunification, infiltration of Communists from North Vietnam to assist the National Liberation front

Partnership 1961-63

Kennedy in 1961 sought partnership with Diem, increaed US advisiors to 16,000. Developed methods of a flexible response using counterinsurgency and defoliation and statgic hamlets.

Escalation 1964-68;(This is where all Hell breaks loose)
Johnson began an escalation of direct US involment in the war, introducing Plan 34A covert operations near North Vietnam's coast, air strikes by US fighter planes and bombers. Increasing US ground forces to 500,000.( my apologies to Bearman, when I disagreed about Johnson)

Detente 1969-75

Nixon in 1969 began to withdraw US ground forces and followed with new policies of detente and Vietnamization.

...and here's the terms of Democrat Presidents through that era.

FDR/Truman-1933-1953
JFK/Johnson-1961-1969

So feel free to go back as far as you like, Democrats got us into Vietnam, and Democrats escalated the conflict. Nixon made plenty of mistakes, but Vietnam was a problem he inherited, not one he created.

MrClean
02-13-2004, 02:23 PM
Looking at your timeline, which was very thoughtful of you to post thank you, it looks like the only thing that started under a Dem president was monetary aid to the French.
Since what we refer to as the Vietnam War was technically the 2nd Inodchinese War, and according to your timeline that started in 1956:

"Ike pledged US support to Ngo Dinh Diem Oct 1 1954 and his Catholic Saigon government imposed on 6 million Buddhists
Ho Chi Minh began the 2nd Indochinese War 1956-75 against Diem and the Americans"

So, by Ike pledging support to Diem in '54, is that not what got us started in the 2nd Indochinese War?

MrClean
02-13-2004, 02:59 PM
Originally posted by ohall


I said and meant no such thing. DEMS however are on a serious slide since 1998. To that end, DEMS as a whole are very upset and angry right now. They have been since Clinton was impeached. I think most Americans understand they are out to get even for that. And to that end most DEMS will do and say anything to achieve that goal. This in no way implies they are dealing with reality.

Look at you; look at how you constantly call our President names. It's something I would expect from a child. I know you are no child; you are a very mature individual 99.9% of the time. But look at some of the irrational and immature comments you've been making about our President. Most DEMS that I know are acting just like you. The problem for ppl like you is there aren't many of you. You just think everyone is as upset as you are. You want so badly for everyone to feel your pain. It's time you understand most Americans are doing pretty darn well, and are happy with our President.

Oliver...

If you think that makes me childish to call Bush names that is your right. The reason I call him names is because I have NO respect for him AT ALL. He is the worst president ever (s)elected in MY opinion. The same negatvity goes for LBJ by the way, and you may have noticed I have a few choice names for him as well.
I have NO respect for LBJ either. If any of that bothers you so be it. If the shoe fits, wear it I say.
There are some Republicans that I do respect, he is not among them however.
Is it just the names like "Chicken George" that you find irrational and immature or are there any other specific things that I said about him that you feel fits those descriptions?

I find it interesting that you seem to think that ONLY Dems will do and say anything about their political opponents. This happens at least as much or more among Republicans, so I hope you are not so one sided not to realize that.

Also, why was Clnton impeached for a BJ and Bush has not been for lying about the reasons that got us into the Iraq war? Because the Reps controlled congress at both times. If the Dems had controlled congress at the time of the Evil BJ ( I enjoy a good BJ myself), then there would have been no attempt at impeachment. The Republicans were constantly nit picking at Clinton for any and everything they could come up with. It goes both ways you know. If the Dems controlled congress now, there would darned sure be talk of impeachment at the very least.

BOTH parties are constantly looking for any way to lift themselves and tear down the other and it is the American people who pay in the end. You just have to pick your sides and decide what is the least of the two evils and go with it.
Also, as you may or may not know, the Bushes are business partners with members of the Bin Laden family. After 9/11, the ones that were in the USA at the time were ushered out quickly by the Bush administration for their safety. Even while the airways were temporarily closed, they were flown to the East Coast and then out of country, with the FBI not even allowed to question any of them. Now...if it were Clinton that had been president and doing business with the Bin Ladens at the time of 9/11, and he helped them get out of the country with no FBI questioning, how do you suppose the Repubilcans would have reacted? They would have tore him a new azzhole. The Dems pretty well seemed to let the Bushes off easy on this.

Also..if what you say that "most Americans are doing pretty darned well and are happy with our President" is true then he should get reelected in a landslide. Trouble is, most Americans that voted did NOT want him last time. Gore had a half a million popular vote majority, Nader took a lot of votes from Gore too, enough to make a difference perhaps in a couple of close states. There will be no Nader this time. Most (that voted) did not want him last time and unless his popularity has increased since then, which IMO it has not, what makes you think most Americans are happy with him? So George can thank the antiquated electoral college and brother Jeb for getting the job.

Dolfan02
02-13-2004, 03:42 PM
Originally posted by MrClean

Also, as you may or may not know, the Bushes are business partners with members of the Bin Laden family. After 9/11, the ones that were in the USA at the time were ushered out quickly by the Bush administration for their safety. Even while the airways were temporarily closed, they were flown to the East Coast and then out of country, with the FBI not even allowed to question any of them.

Hmmm... interesting. Do you have any proof that you would like to share with us? Quite frankly, I find it odd that Bush or any of our nation's leader would be doing business with the Bin Laden family since Osama Bin Laden was a top 5 FBI fugitive since 1992. Remember the first World Trade Center bombing in 1993? Who was the main suspect behind the plans? Oh, and who was the President?

ohall
02-13-2004, 06:15 PM
Originally posted by MrClean


If you think that makes me childish to call Bush names that is your right. The reason I call him names is because I have NO respect for him AT ALL. He is the worst president ever (s)elected in MY opinion. The same negatvity goes for LBJ by the way, and you may have noticed I have a few choice names for him as well.
I have NO respect for LBJ either. If any of that bothers you so be it. If the shoe fits, wear it I say.
There are some Republicans that I do respect, he is not among them however.
Is it just the names like "Chicken George" that you find irrational and immature or are there any other specific things that I said about him that you feel fits those descriptions?

I find it interesting that you seem to think that ONLY Dems will do and say anything about their political opponents. This happens at least as much or more among Republicans, so I hope you are not so one sided not to realize that.

Also, why was Clnton impeached for a BJ and Bush has not been for lying about the reasons that got us into the Iraq war? Because the Reps controlled congress at both times. If the Dems had controlled congress at the time of the Evil BJ ( I enjoy a good BJ myself), then there would have been no attempt at impeachment. The Republicans were constantly nit picking at Clinton for any and everything they could come up with. It goes both ways you know. If the Dems controlled congress now, there would darned sure be talk of impeachment at the very least.

BOTH parties are constantly looking for any way to lift themselves and tear down the other and it is the American people who pay in the end. You just have to pick your sides and decide what is the least of the two evils and go with it.
Also, as you may or may not know, the Bushes are business partners with members of the Bin Laden family. After 9/11, the ones that were in the USA at the time were ushered out quickly by the Bush administration for their safety. Even while the airways were temporarily closed, they were flown to the East Coast and then out of country, with the FBI not even allowed to question any of them. Now...if it were Clinton that had been president and doing business with the Bin Ladens at the time of 9/11, and he helped them get out of the country with no FBI questioning, how do you suppose the Repubilcans would have reacted? They would have tore him a new azzhole. The Dems pretty well seemed to let the Bushes off easy on this.

Also..if what you say that "most Americans are doing pretty darned well and are happy with our President" is true then he should get reelected in a landslide. Trouble is, most Americans that voted did NOT want him last time. Gore had a half a million popular vote majority, Nader took a lot of votes from Gore too, enough to make a difference perhaps in a couple of close states. There will be no Nader this time. Most (that voted) did not want him last time and unless his popularity has increased since then, which IMO it has not, what makes you think most Americans are happy with him? So George can thank the antiquated electoral college and brother Jeb for getting the job.

I never said DEMS are the only ones to have negative things to say about their opponent. I did however make it clear I feel they are the ones who jump all over what REP politicians did during the Vietnam War when Republicans for the most part do not do that to DEM's or REP's. Further DEMS never jump on their own for the same behavior as far as the Vietnam War goes. Most REP's keep that where it belongs, out of the picture.

Tell me how could Bush as President keep any of Laden's family from leaving the US before the Patriot act was passed? Further when the Patriot act is used most DEM's now say our government is over reaching with the use of the Patriot act. IMO just more proof of more double standards that DEM's have at this moment. Further IMO more proof as to why the DEM party is sliding. American's can see what they are trying to do.

About Bush being re-elected in a landslide. That is very possible. The election is 8 or 9 months from now. Believe me how things are viewed right now is not how it will viewed when it's time to vote. The GOP has not even begun to fight, and return fire so to speak. There's a 200 million dollar attack coming. :D

By the way, there is a reason Gore's own party has abandoned him. He went too far with his recount actions in 2000. It's something he never should have done. If he hadn't he would be running for President again, and he'd prob be the DEM canidate by now. He should have learned from Nixon when he didn't ask for a recount against JFK. Nixon knew if the recount failed his career would be over. He lived another day and became President. Very much unlike Gore.

I appreciate your opinion, but you have to excuse me, it's a bit over the top IMO.

MrClean
02-13-2004, 06:43 PM
Originally posted by Dolfan02


Hmmm... interesting. Do you have any proof that you would like to share with us? Quite frankly, I find it odd that Bush or any of our nation's leader would be doing business with the Bin Laden family since Osama Bin Laden was a top 5 FBI fugitive since 1992. Remember the first World Trade Center bombing in 1993? Who was the main suspect behind the plans? Oh, and who was the President?


Probably not a source or writer that you find credible, but in answer to your first question, here it is:
George of Arabia (http://www.rollingstone.com/features/featuregen.asp?pid=1992)

Before you totally discount the article, if you read down a ways, you will find reference to another article out The New Yorker, I haven't tracked that one down, but could try if you like

Yes I recall the first trade center bombing. I do not recall the name of the man behind the bombing, but he has since been captured and convicted. I could track down some info on it if you really want me to. I did find some pertinent info on this when reading an article about two great Americans as well as Brits, Rick Rescorla and Dan Hill. If you do not know the story of Rick Rescorla, shame on you. After going back and finding the articles for you, the name of the man behind the bombing is Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman. That the trade center was suseptible to that attack was due to the ineptitude of the Port Authority. Just in case, you are not familiar with the name Rick Rescorla:


Rick Rescorla was a soldier (http://www.mudvillegazette.com/archives/000307.html)

THE REAL HEROES ARE DEAD (http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?020211fa_FACT1)

Clinton was president, didn't you know that and were you testing me to see if I was losing my memory? :)

PhinPhan1227
02-15-2004, 09:14 AM
Originally posted by MrClean
Looking at your timeline, which was very thoughtful of you to post thank you, it looks like the only thing that started under a Dem president was monetary aid to the French.
Since what we refer to as the Vietnam War was technically the 2nd Inodchinese War, and according to your timeline that started in 1956:

"Ike pledged US support to Ngo Dinh Diem Oct 1 1954 and his Catholic Saigon government imposed on 6 million Buddhists
Ho Chi Minh began the 2nd Indochinese War 1956-75 against Diem and the Americans"

So, by Ike pledging support to Diem in '54, is that not what got us started in the 2nd Indochinese War?


Perhaps you're unaware of who the OSS was? COmbination of CIA and Special Forces. As such, it was in the 40's that we first put troops into Vietnam. And that was under FDR. It was also under Dem PResidents that we had the largest increases in those troop numbers. Now, I don't give Nixon any great credit for getting us out of Vietnam...any more than I'd give Kerry any great credit for getting us out of Iraq if that's the case.

MrClean
02-15-2004, 06:02 PM
Yes I know about the OSS, but it appears to me that their being in Nam in the early 40s was a different ball game so to speak.
The Viet Nam war as we know it is aka the 2nd Indochinese War, we got going in that one when Ike pledged support to Diem.
That was what I was getting at in my earlier post that you replied to above.

Actually the OSS was the predesessor to the CIA, it was not a combination of the CIA and Special Forces. The Special Forces as we know them today did not exist then.
Merrill's Marauders of WW2 are considered to be the unit that today's Army Special Forces descended from.

Dolfan02
02-15-2004, 11:21 PM
Originally posted by MrClean



Probably not a source or writer that you find credible, but in answer to your first question, here it is:
George of Arabia (http://www.rollingstone.com/features/featuregen.asp?pid=1992)

Yes I recall the first trade center bombing. I do not recall the name of the man behind the bombing, but he has since been captured and convicted. I could track down some info on it if you really want me to. I did find some pertinent info on this when reading an article about two great Americans as well as Brits, Rick Rescorla and Dan Hill. If you do not know the story of Rick Rescorla, shame on you. After going back and finding the articles for you, the name of the man behind the bombing is Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman. That the trade center was suseptible to that attack was due to the ineptitude of the Port Authority. Just in case, you are not familiar with the name Rick Rescorla:


Rick Rescorla was a soldier (http://www.mudvillegazette.com/archives/000307.html)

THE REAL HEROES ARE DEAD (http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?020211fa_FACT1)

Clinton was president, didn't you know that and were you testing me to see if I was losing my memory? :)

First of all, DO NOT refer me to anything of Michael Moore. I know enough about him to know what a complete anti-life and anti-American he is. Anyone who finds appeal to his fanbase by suggesting that communism is a "healthy and efficient" means of leading a country is an evil person. My parents were witnesses first-hand to the death and destruction that a communist regime will hide in its blackbook.

Secondly, I asked you who was BEHIND the plans of the first Wolrd Trade Center? Meaning, who financed the plan? I know who drove the truck with a bomb to the site, but who put his money down for all of it to be carried out? It was the multi-millionaire Osama Bin Laden. Now that you understand the difference, who financed and organized the 1996 bombing of the U.S. embassies in Tanzania and Kenya, killing over 250 people? Who was behind the suicide bombing in 2000 on an American battleship, the USS Cole, that killed and injured Americans?? Answer: Bin Laden. Who was the President that CONFIRMED Bin Laden was the main suspect? Anwer: Bill Clinton. What was Bill Clinton's blueprint to eliminate Osama after his last terrorist attack, as he addressed the nation? Answer: toss a few missles into the middle of the desert where they thought the Taliban was holding camp and "hoping" Bin Laden goes away.Osama Bin Laden's very short biography, please read (http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_701505592/Osama_bin_Laden.html)

What does all of this mean?? George W. Bush cleaned up all of the dirty work that has been mounting up for years!

http://www.nationalreview.com/lowry/lowry200310170939.asp
http://www.peterbergen.com/ (http://www.peterbergen.com/clients/PeterBergen/pbergen.nsf/Web00002Show?OpenForm&ParentUNID=0CCE059824644F4385256DDA0050087C)
http://thbookservice.com/BookPage.asp?prod_cd=c6346
http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20030901-102358-9367r.htm

How many more links should I post?

FFiB
02-15-2004, 11:59 PM
Originally posted by PhinPhan1227


Last time I checked, countries are bailing out of Kyoto left and right. It's looking more and more like Bush made the right call there.

Maybe Bush triggered the pullout of other nations because Kyoto became obsolete after Bush decided within 2 months of his presidency to neglect any kind of carbon emissions controls.

After all..the US is responsible for 80% of the carbon emissions worldwide. I doubt it makes much sense for other countries to find any kind of resolution if Bush is rather entertaining his energy interests than world interests...oops....I forgot...we had that with Iraq as well.....but I guess he made the right call there as well.

PhinPhan1227
02-16-2004, 10:04 AM
Originally posted by MrClean
Yes I know about the OSS, but it appears to me that their being in Nam in the early 40s was a different ball game so to speak.
The Viet Nam war as we know it is aka the 2nd Indochinese War, we got going in that one when Ike pledged support to Diem.
That was what I was getting at in my earlier post that you replied to above.

Actually the OSS was the predesessor to the CIA, it was not a combination of the CIA and Special Forces. The Special Forces as we know them today did not exist then.
Merrill's Marauders of WW2 are considered to be the unit that today's Army Special Forces descended from.

If you're going to pick an arbitrary date rather than the date we actually got involved,,,wouldn't it make more sense to pick the date we put 18,000 troops on the ground there? Or is that not doable since it once again throws the ball into JFK's court. As for the OSS/CIA/Spec For, they are all something of an amalgam. The true Army Spec For doesn't perform the job that Merrills Marauders did. They were more akin to todays Rangers. The Spec For operates in small units, or even pairs, and is primarily responsible for training guerilla teams, and other covert ops. They operate in conjunction with CIA all the time in these efforts.