Calling all Belgians

In article ,
Jack Hollis wrote:

On Thu, 05 Apr 2007 23:02:45 -0400, John Forrest Tomlinson
wrote:

Who says they were lies? Perhaps it's Kerry who lied. Then again,
sometimes there are different versions of the truth.

Baloney in this case. Just plain baloney.

This sort of relativism "he said, she said" is so lame -- it;s the
retreat of the weak minded.

It's the weak minded who blindly believe one side over the other just
because they agree with them politically.

Um, Jack?

--
tanx,
Howard

Never take a tenant with a monkey.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

In article . com,
"Bill C" wrote:

On Apr 6, 7:22 pm, Fred Fredburger
wrote:
Tom Kunich wrote:
Clinton blah, blah, blah...

Do you know how childish you are when you justify GW's gaffs by
comparing him to Clinton? It's as if you think Clinton was the greatest
President ever and the comparison does Bush credit.

Actually, you're right. It does.

Living in the middle of the military community under Clinton I thought
he was the anti-christ, and Gore actually is. In comparison Clinton
looks innocuous by comparison.

In retrospect, many people who despised Clinton see him in a very different
light after the last six years. Richard Mellon Scaife, who spent a fortune trying
to bring Clinton down recently said that he sees him as having been a pretty good
president.

--
tanx,
Howard

Never take a tenant with a monkey.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

In article .com,
"Bill C" wrote:

I've got a little different spin on the US attorneys mess too. While
it's obvious that just about everyone from the administration that was
involved is pretty sleazy at best, and Gonzales is a criminal scumbag
the issue itself is BS.
Traditionally when a new President takes over, and most have done it,
they fire the previous ones and replace them with their politcal
supporters who meet their particular political litmus test, wholesale.
Based purely on ideology and cronyism, just what they are accusing
Bush of, except that Bush kept far more of Clinton's democratic
appointees on and waited, evaluated, and replaced a handful based on
the same criteria that usually caused the wholesale dismissals without
any evaluation at all.

The USAs that Bush didn't replace immediately were in the middle of big cases
and it was deemed to be a bad idea to change the lead on those cases midstream
(standard procedure). 88 of 93 were replaced in the first two years because of this
(only one more than Clinton replaced in the same time frame, actually). One of the
things about this group of firings that's problematic is that they used a provision
that was snuck into the renewal of the Patriot Act by a member of Sen. Spector's
staff (at the request of the White House / DOJ) that allows the White House to
appoint replacement USAs without having them go through confirmation hearings in
the Senate, as is the norm.

Here's why I think it's a bigger deal than you might think it is: All of the
states that got replacement USAs are considered swing states in the '08 election,
with the exception of Carol Lam in San Diego. Memos and email from the DOJ and
other admin. sources indicate that the big focus they had was pushing voter fraud
cases in those areas. All of those USAs looked into the charges that were being
hyped but couldn't find enough evidence to make any kind of case, so they moved on.
In the case of David Iglesias, Rep. Wilson and Sen. Domenici had been calling him
and trying to pressure him into getting indictments on a prominent New Mexico
Democrat suspected of corruption in time to use the indictment for the '06
election. He wasn't ready with the case, so they complained to Rove. (By the way,
the DOJ gave as one reason for axing Iglesias as "he delegated the operation of
his office to his number 2" - only that was when he was off for a month each year
doing his duty as a member of the Naval Reserve.) As for Lam, well, her conviction
of Duke Cunningham didn't sit well with the GOP and admin. And she had a good case
prepared on Dusty Foggo (CIA's number three guy, now indicted on corruption) and
was well on her way to indicting several contractors (Wilkes and Wade) who had
close associations with Cunningham and many other Republicans on up the line. That
one seems pretty obvious to me: canned as punishment.

This is, to me, a much bigger thing than just cronyism.

--
tanx,
Howard

Never take a tenant with a monkey.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

In article ,
Jack Hollis wrote:

Kerry was being vindictive and Bush made him look like a powerless
fool. It's called twisting the knife.

You thnk that Kerry was being vindictive, and say that in a way that makes it
seem obvious that you believe that was a bad thing, Jack. But then you celebrate
Bush for "twisting the knife", which I'd define as "being vindictive" - wouldn't
you think so too? Rubbing someone's nose in it is a good sign of immaturity. But it
does seem to be a big part of GWB's personality.

--
tanx,
Howard

Never take a tenant with a monkey.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

Jack Hollis wrote:
It's the weak minded who blindly believe one side over the other just
because they agree with them politically.

Fred Fredburger wrote:
+5 irony points.

You get points for unconscious irony ? That's not fair on competitors who
grok irony, I think I'm going to give Pound a call so he can sort out the
sporting ethics.

Bill C wrote:
Today's a perfect example. We've got Cheney still linking Saddam and
Al-Qaeda:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6533367.stm

Despite this taken from todays Military.com news report:

Hussein's Prewar Ties to Al-Qaeda Discounted
Washington Post - Free Registration Required | April 06, 2007

But it's all true in the Kunich-Cheney Universe where there are no
relativistic reality bending effects due to liberal bias.

On Apr 7, 12:20 am, Howard Kveck wrote:
In article .com,
"Bill C" wrote:

I've got a little different spin on the US attorneys mess too. While
it's obvious that just about everyone from the administration that was
involved is pretty sleazy at best, and Gonzales is a criminal scumbag
the issue itself is BS.
Traditionally when a new President takes over, and most have done it,
they fire the previous ones and replace them with their politcal
supporters who meet their particular political litmus test, wholesale.
Based purely on ideology and cronyism, just what they are accusing
Bush of, except that Bush kept far more of Clinton's democratic
appointees on and waited, evaluated, and replaced a handful based on
the same criteria that usually caused the wholesale dismissals without
any evaluation at all.

The USAs that Bush didn't replace immediately were in the middle of big cases
and it was deemed to be a bad idea to change the lead on those cases midstream
(standard procedure). 88 of 93 were replaced in the first two years because of this
(only one more than Clinton replaced in the same time frame, actually). One of the
things about this group of firings that's problematic is that they used a provision
that was snuck into the renewal of the Patriot Act by a member of Sen. Spector's
staff (at the request of the White House / DOJ) that allows the White House to
appoint replacement USAs without having them go through confirmation hearings in
the Senate, as is the norm.

Here's why I think it's a bigger deal than you might think it is: All of the
states that got replacement USAs are considered swing states in the '08 election,
with the exception of Carol Lam in San Diego. Memos and email from the DOJ and
other admin. sources indicate that the big focus they had was pushing voter fraud
cases in those areas. All of those USAs looked into the charges that were being
hyped but couldn't find enough evidence to make any kind of case, so they moved on.
In the case of David Iglesias, Rep. Wilson and Sen. Domenici had been calling him
and trying to pressure him into getting indictments on a prominent New Mexico
Democrat suspected of corruption in time to use the indictment for the '06
election. He wasn't ready with the case, so they complained to Rove. (By the way,
the DOJ gave as one reason for axing Iglesias as "he delegated the operation of
his office to his number 2" - only that was when he was off for a month each year
doing his duty as a member of the Naval Reserve.) As for Lam, well, her conviction
of Duke Cunningham didn't sit well with the GOP and admin. And she had a good case
prepared on Dusty Foggo (CIA's number three guy, now indicted on corruption) and
was well on her way to indicting several contractors (Wilkes and Wade) who had
close associations with Cunningham and many other Republicans on up the line. That
one seems pretty obvious to me: canned as punishment.

This is, to me, a much bigger thing than just cronyism.

--
tanx,
Howard

Never take a tenant with a monkey.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

Howard he could've just replaced all of them with people who think
like Rove, Gonzales, or Bork in the first place and noone would've
blinked if he'd done it immediately and Congress would've approved it.
I'm sure that Hillary has a "long" list of massively activist, anti
2nd amendment, PC, friends and supporters ready to plug into all those
jobs as soon as she takes over based on ideology and loyalty to her
and the party.
Just like everyone else has had who was prepared.
Personally I think it's ridiculous that justice is changed wholesale,
with little to no review based on politics and cronyism ever couple of
years. That's absolutely no way to build a working organization or get
objectivity. It's justice for sale to the sleaziest ass kisser IMO.
Bill C

On Apr 7, 12:20 am, Howard Kveck wrote:
In article . com,
"Bill C" wrote:

On Apr 6, 7:22 pm, Fred Fredburger
wrote:
Tom Kunich wrote:
Clinton blah, blah, blah...

Do you know how childish you are when you justify GW's gaffs by
comparing him to Clinton? It's as if you think Clinton was the greatest
President ever and the comparison does Bush credit.

Actually, you're right. It does.

Living in the middle of the military community under Clinton I thought
he was the anti-christ, and Gore actually is. In comparison Clinton
looks innocuous by comparison.

In retrospect, many people who despised Clinton see him in a very different
light after the last six years. Richard Mellon Scaife, who spent a fortune trying
to bring Clinton down recently said that he sees him as having been a pretty good
president.

--
tanx,
Howard

Never take a tenant with a monkey.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

I've said it before. I agree with Scaife. After this disaster Clinton
looks pretty damned good.
Bill C

On Apr 6, 11:06 pm, Fred Fredburger wrote:
Bill C wrote:
On Apr 6, 9:19 pm, Fred Fredburger
wrote:
Bill C wrote:
On Apr 6, 7:22 pm, Fred Fredburger
wrote:
Tom Kunich wrote:
Clinton blah, blah, blah...
Do you know how childish you are when you justify GW's gaffs by
comparing him to Clinton? It's as if you think Clinton was the greatest
President ever and the comparison does Bush credit.
Actually, you're right. It does.
Living in the middle of the military community under Clinton I thought
he was the anti-christ, and Gore actually is. In comparison Clinton
looks innocuous by comparison.
Bill C
Gore is the anti-Christ? I'd always imagined the anti-Christ to be in
some way effectual.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Well he talks the talk, but when it's time to walk, he's Richard
Simmons. Gore's hatred, and total disdain for the military is
legendary on the inside. He considers 99% of the military to be the
lowest scum in the country. The 1% he likes are kissing his ass to get
ahead.
It amazes me that he can still poll high with the democrats, even
when he's "not" running. After all the **** Bush has done. I'm still
not sure that Gore wouldn't have been worse.

Hmmm ... if what you say about Gore's view of the military is true, it
would have been weird. Regardless of who was president in 2001, we HAD
to invade somebody. That's the clear and unmistakable lesson of the
Carter administration. I can't imagined Gore passing on that lesson. And
if a Gore administration that disdained the military invaded somewhere,
what would that look like? The wouldn't listen to intelligence
assessments, choosing instead to pick and choose the information that
fit their preconceived notions. Military commanders opinions on what
they needed to do the job would be disregarded. Etc.

How do you suppose that would have turned out?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Bush and Cheney are total hypocrites on this ****. They are destroying
the military. No doubt about it.
Gore would've listened to a handful of military people starting with
Wes Clark and a few other ass kissing assholes and just let them run
things most likely. Which is what Clinton did. He would've continued
to cut funding and programs like Clinton did, and appointed another
sleazeball like Bill Cohen who got his wife a peachy job traveling
around the world doing "special reports" for the Armed Forces
Network".
There are a couple of books out there written by people in and around
the Whitehouse detailing Gores hatred for the military. One of his
orders was to have the military emergency communications people taken
out of uniform because the uniforms made him sick. Plenty of other
reports about him considering the military to be losers, "too stupid
to get a real job" and "Baby Killers" and sadists. The man has zero
respect for them.
Gore would've gone for more sanctions against the Taleban, and a few
targeted strikes IMO. He'd be calling for the terrorist leaders to be
arrested and brought before the World Court and they'd still be in
business in a big way and we'd have been hit several more times around
the world. He would've allowed the French to get the sanctions
against Saddam dropped and it'd be back to business as usual with a
massively re-armed Iraqi military, supplied with the latest gear by
the Russians and Chinese, and they'd probably have nukes by now. Iran
too in self defense against Iraq.
All this set agaiunst a background of the UN being as effective there
as they have been in Darfur. Unless the US is threatening to go it
alone the UN seems to do nothing.
Domestically we'd be in a massive recession due to massive cost
increases of everything based on Gores mandating huge amounts of new
"green" equipment and polution reductions. Companies would be fighting
each other to relocate offshore as fast as possible to save
themselves. We'd have a massive new tax, to support a massive new
governement bureaucracy, for universal healthcare. Transport fees
would've skyrocketed as trucking companies found that the cost of
their vehicles had gone up by 50% and they had to replace their whole
fleets due to Gores mandates, so that cost got passed along. Eggs are
now 5$ a dozen.
Gore has stated that he planned to do this stuff immediately if not
sooner and hasn't wavered and would never have. He's a True Believer
too!! He KNOWS that he was put here to accomplish a mission whether
anyone wanted it or not.
Same as Bush and his lunatics. The lesson is never elect a true
believing fanatic IMO.
Hillary scares me because of her real agenda which we have only
seen glimpses of, but won't see until she gets elected. It's out there
to see if you look at her past history before she started on the
active drive for the Presidency and the fact that she is incredibly
smart, competent, willing to do anything for power, and was easily the
most divisive person in politics before Bush and his flunkies.
Gore's "vision" is scarier because it's not tempered in any way by
reality, thankfully he's incompetent to make it come true, and I still
see that there's huge friction between Gore and the Clintons so she's
not appointing him to anything anytime soon.
I guess I'd say that it's pretty much a wash, but at least Bush's
disaster is happening to other people for the most part, not here at
home so much. Both would've gone down in history as being horrible
presidents.
I think Hillary is going to be even more divisive and vicious than
Bush, but she'll get things done and avoid all the snafus the Bush
morons have walked into. You'd have to be an idiot not to respect her
intelligence, abilities, and drive to get what she wants. She's
Machievelli for the 21st century. The only thing I can see stopping
her is the moderate Republicans and swing voters deciding that they
have no chance of getting a candidate elected and going to Obama to
keep Hillary from getting elected, and given the clowns running that's
a good possibility.
Bill C

Bill C wrote:
On Apr 6, 11:06 pm, Fred Fredburger wrote:
Bill C wrote:
On Apr 6, 9:19 pm, Fred Fredburger
wrote:
Bill C wrote:
On Apr 6, 7:22 pm, Fred Fredburger
wrote:
Tom Kunich wrote:
Clinton blah, blah, blah...
Do you know how childish you are when you justify GW's gaffs by
comparing him to Clinton? It's as if you think Clinton was the greatest
President ever and the comparison does Bush credit.
Actually, you're right. It does.
Living in the middle of the military community under Clinton I thought
he was the anti-christ, and Gore actually is. In comparison Clinton
looks innocuous by comparison.
Bill C
Gore is the anti-Christ? I'd always imagined the anti-Christ to be in
some way effectual.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Well he talks the talk, but when it's time to walk, he's Richard
Simmons. Gore's hatred, and total disdain for the military is
legendary on the inside. He considers 99% of the military to be the
lowest scum in the country. The 1% he likes are kissing his ass to get
ahead.
It amazes me that he can still poll high with the democrats, even
when he's "not" running. After all the **** Bush has done. I'm still
not sure that Gore wouldn't have been worse.
Hmmm ... if what you say about Gore's view of the military is true, it
would have been weird. Regardless of who was president in 2001, we HAD
to invade somebody. That's the clear and unmistakable lesson of the
Carter administration. I can't imagined Gore passing on that lesson. And
if a Gore administration that disdained the military invaded somewhere,
what would that look like? The wouldn't listen to intelligence
assessments, choosing instead to pick and choose the information that
fit their preconceived notions. Military commanders opinions on what
they needed to do the job would be disregarded. Etc.

How do you suppose that would have turned out?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Bush and Cheney are total hypocrites on this ****. They are destroying
the military. No doubt about it.
Gore would've listened to a handful of military people starting with
Wes Clark and a few other ass kissing assholes and just let them run
things most likely. Which is what Clinton did. He would've continued
to cut funding and programs like Clinton did,

I got out in December of '91 and the funding cuts were already in full
swing. This was under GW's Daddy. A big part of those funding cuts were
dictated by the end of the cold war. They weren't all bad either.
Manpower reductions were being met by releasing NCO's who hadn't
maintained standards that simply hadn't been enforced before. I thought
that was a good thing but there was a LOT of whining about it.

But I'm sure you're aware of lots of funding cuts that made sense along
with others that didn't.

and appointed another
sleazeball like Bill Cohen who got his wife a peachy job traveling
around the world doing "special reports" for the Armed Forces
Network".
There are a couple of books out there written by people in and around
the Whitehouse detailing Gores hatred for the military. One of his
orders was to have the military emergency communications people taken
out of uniform because the uniforms made him sick. Plenty of other
reports about him considering the military to be losers, "too stupid
to get a real job" and "Baby Killers" and sadists. The man has zero
respect for them.
Gore would've gone for more sanctions against the Taleban, and a few
targeted strikes IMO. He'd be calling for the terrorist leaders to be
arrested and brought before the World Court and they'd still be in
business in a big way and we'd have been hit several more times around
the world.

We can only speculate. I believe that whoever was President had to
deliver a victory after 9/11 to repair our injured national pride. That
victory had to involve some blood shed in the Middle East. Afghanistan
was a logical choice because OBL was there. I can play with the details
beyond that, but that much I feel sure of. Failure to invade the Middle
East in some way would have led any president to a 2004 defeat that
would have dwarfed Carter's 1980 loss and left a lasting legacy that
would make Carter look good.

He would've allowed the French to get the sanctions
against Saddam dropped and it'd be back to business as usual with a
massively re-armed Iraqi military, supplied with the latest gear by
the Russians and Chinese, and they'd probably have nukes by now. Iran
too in self defense against Iraq.
All this set agaiunst a background of the UN being as effective there
as they have been in Darfur. Unless the US is threatening to go it
alone the UN seems to do nothing.
Domestically we'd be in a massive recession due to massive cost
increases of everything based on Gores mandating huge amounts of new
"green" equipment and polution reductions. Companies would be fighting
each other to relocate offshore as fast as possible to save
themselves. We'd have a massive new tax, to support a massive new
governement bureaucracy, for universal healthcare. Transport fees
would've skyrocketed as trucking companies found that the cost of
their vehicles had gone up by 50% and they had to replace their whole
fleets due to Gores mandates, so that cost got passed along. Eggs are
now 5$ a dozen.
Gore has stated that he planned to do this stuff immediately if not
sooner and hasn't wavered and would never have. He's a True Believer
too!! He KNOWS that he was put here to accomplish a mission whether
anyone wanted it or not.
Same as Bush and his lunatics. The lesson is never elect a true
believing fanatic IMO.
Hillary scares me because of her real agenda which we have only
seen glimpses of, but won't see until she gets elected. It's out there
to see if you look at her past history before she started on the
active drive for the Presidency and the fact that she is incredibly
smart, competent, willing to do anything for power, and was easily the
most divisive person in politics before Bush and his flunkies.
Gore's "vision" is scarier because it's not tempered in any way by
reality, thankfully he's incompetent to make it come true, and I still
see that there's huge friction between Gore and the Clintons so she's
not appointing him to anything anytime soon.
I guess I'd say that it's pretty much a wash, but at least Bush's
disaster is happening to other people for the most part, not here at
home so much. Both would've gone down in history as being horrible
presidents.
I think Hillary is going to be even more divisive and vicious than
Bush, but she'll get things done and avoid all the snafus the Bush
morons have walked into. You'd have to be an idiot not to respect her
intelligence, abilities, and drive to get what she wants. She's
Machievelli for the 21st century. The only thing I can see stopping
her is the moderate Republicans and swing voters deciding that they
have no chance of getting a candidate elected and going to Obama to
keep Hillary from getting elected, and given the clowns running that's
a good possibility.
Bill C