Phil:
9-11, the innocent that died, the terrorists who stalk us. Thursday
9/11 put a sign in your window, yard, your car. It only needs to be two
words - NEVER Forget

*****

I'm unlikely to forget this dastardly crime, but I'm not going to dwell
on it and get maudlin over it. Instead of making a sign, I think I'll
spend some time reading Al-ahram and As-sharq Al-awsat and An-nahar to
try to better understand the world I live in. I especially need to
understand why so many good folks around the world sympathized with us
but, at the same time, thought that we had it coming.

Davoud

A President lied to us with the terrible consequence that a woman had
to send her dress to the cleaners. Another President came along and
lied to us and the only thing that happened was that thousands of
innocent people died. Jeez! Go figure!

--
usenet *at* davidillig dawt com

In article , says...
Phil:
9-11, the innocent that died, the terrorists who stalk us. Thursday
9/11 put a sign in your window, yard, your car. It only needs to be two
words - NEVER Forget

*****

I'm unlikely to forget this dastardly crime, but I'm not going to dwell
on it and get maudlin over it. Instead of making a sign, I think I'll
spend some time reading Al-ahram and As-sharq Al-awsat and An-nahar to
try to better understand the world I live in. I especially need to
understand why so many good folks around the world sympathized with us
but, at the same time, thought that we had it coming.

Davoud


Davoud,

Let me put this to you real succinctly and save you some reading time.
Those people died because the Islamic fundamentalists who indoctrinated
them hate the freedom those in the west have and view it as a threat to
their way of life -- i.e. their radical brand of Islam. The way we
could have prevented the attack -- had the US converted to their brand
of Islam and worshipped at the feet of their Ayatollahs while killing
all Christians and others who defied their will -- that would have
satsified them. Oh, in case killing Christians doesn't sound so bad to
you, all homosexuals, adulterers, and those who question the absolute
authority of those Ayatollahs also would fall into the category of "must
be killed to appease" category.

I find it absolutely absurd that somehow people think that the way to
solve these kinds of problems is to read their literature and
"understand" the terrorists. Perhaps that was our mistake in WWII, we
should have attempted to "understand" Hitler and Tojo. Believe it or
not, there are people in this world who have as their sole motivation
the subjugation and enslavement of others -- and not in the ivory-
towered ephemeral made-up world of "enslaved to wages" or "subjugated to
the rich people supported by a Republican administration" but in the
real, guns, bullets, real physical torture sense of the phrase.

A President lied to us with the terrible consequence that a woman had
to send her dress to the cleaners. Another President came along and
lied to us and the only thing that happened was that thousands of
innocent people died. Jeez! Go figure!



Ah, now I see -- this puts your prior statement into perspective. The
fact that millions of innocent lives have been freed and many thousands
saved from a brutal dictator's torture and killing, the fact that our
troops weren't gassed indicates our president lied, despite the
overwhelming intelligence at the time that indicated a chemical threat.

Mark & Juanita wrote:

the fact that our
troops weren't gassed indicates our president lied, despite the
overwhelming intelligence at the time that indicated a chemical threat.

The fact that our troops weren't gassed proves nothing. Conversely
"absence of proof is not proof of absence." A couple tactical fighter
jets buried in the sand is not proof of WMD, but Iraq has a lot of sand.
However, all the intel revealed now indicates that there may never
have been WMD and absolutely no connection whatsoever to 9/11.

None of this is meant to defend Saddam as a good guy, but face it; if
Shrub's daddy had not, at least in his mind, lost in Iraq (and as a
result, his re-election) a decade ago, several hundred of our already
dead military brethren, and more to follow with no end in sight, would
not be there again.

Questioning our government's motives and justification for sending our
military to die in a foreign land is not unpatriotic; attacking those
who do question, while wrapped in the banner of patriotism, does smack
of fascism.

STS1(SS) aboard USS Barb, SSN-596, 1983-1987;
City of Milwaukee Firefighter, 1993 to-date;
Voted in every election since majority (age 18 for you rednecks);
My friend on the FDNY is alive because he was off that day;
Don't you f*&%$#g dare question my patriotism.

"Kevin S." wrote in message
ink.net...
Mark & Juanita wrote:

the fact that our
troops weren't gassed indicates our president lied, despite the
overwhelming intelligence at the time that indicated a chemnothing.
Conversely
"absence of proof is not proof of absence." A couple tactical fighter
jets buried in the sand is not proof of WMD, but Iraq has a lot of sand.
However, all the intel revealed now indicates that there may never
have been WMD and absolutely no connection whatsoever to 9/11.

None of this is meant to defend Saddam as a good guy, but face it; if
Shrub's daddy had not, at least in his mind, lost in Iraq (and as a ical
threat.

The fact that our troops weren't gassed proves
result, his re-election) a decade ago, several hundred of our already
dead military brethren, and more to follow with no end in sight, would
not be there again.

Questioning our government's motives and justification for sending our
military to die in a foreign land is not unpatriotic; attacking those
who do question, while wrapped in the banner of patriotism, does smack
of fascism.

STS1(SS) aboard USS Barb, SSN-596, 1983-1987;
City of Milwaukee Firefighter, 1993 to-date;
Voted in every election since majority (age 18 for you rednecks);
My friend on the FDNY is alive because he was off that day;
Don't you f*&%$#g dare question my patriotism.

I guess I missed the part where M&J questioned your patriotism. Any you
totally misrepresented their statements by quoting only part of their post.

And in case you weren't paying attention back in 92, GHWB (you'll be happy
to know his name now graces an aircraft carrier) didn't lose the election
based on what happened in Iraq. He lost it based on the public perception
of the state of the economy. The next election will probably also turn on
the public's perception of the economy. Of course, the Dems want the
economy to turn around between now and next November about as much as I want
a root canal.

todd

Mark and Juanita wrote:

Davoud,
Let me put this to you real succinctly and save you some reading time.

Mark and Juanita read a great deal into what I wrote.

For example, "Oh, in case killing Christians doesn't sound so bad to
you..."

Mark and Juanita also wrote:

The fact that millions of innocent lives have been freed and many
thousands saved from a brutal dictator's torture and killing, the
fact that our troops weren't gassed indicates our president lied,
despite the overwhelming intelligence at the time that indicated
a chemical threat.

Ah. That explains it. They live in a dream world.

Davoud

--
usenet *at* davidillig dawt com

On Mon, 08 Sep 2003 05:00:01 GMT, "Kevin S."
pixelated:

Mark & Juanita wrote:

the fact that our
troops weren't gassed indicates our president lied, despite the
overwhelming intelligence at the time that indicated a chemical threat.

The fact that our troops weren't gassed proves nothing. Conversely
"absence of proof is not proof of absence." A couple tactical fighter
jets buried in the sand is not proof of WMD, but Iraq has a lot of sand.
However, all the intel revealed now indicates that there may never
have been WMD and absolutely no connection whatsoever to 9/11.

The foremost question in our minds should be:

What is our country's "leadership" _really_ up to?


---
Where ARE those Weapons of Mass Destruction, Mr. President?
----
http://diversify.com - Guaranteed Weaponless Website Design

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 08 Sep 2003 05:00:01 GMT, "Kevin S."
pixelated:

Mark & Juanita wrote:

the fact that our
troops weren't gassed indicates our president lied, despite the
overwhelming intelligence at the time that indicated a chemical
threat.

The fact that our troops weren't gassed proves nothing. Conversely
"absence of proof is not proof of absence." A couple tactical
fighter
jets buried in the sand is not proof of WMD, but Iraq has a lot of
sand.
However, all the intel revealed now indicates that there may never
have been WMD and absolutely no connection whatsoever to 9/11.

The foremost question in our minds should be:

What is our country's "leadership" _really_ up to?


Follow the money A.K.A. Halliburton A.K.A. the company that can't even
supply weapons to our soldiers.

In article ,
otforme says...
Bush lied. Period. Presumably we did NOT go into Iraq to knock over a brutal
dictator, but to knock over an actual physical threat to the world. In fact,
the adminstration is now looking for rationales to replace that one which was
non-existent.

And I noticed that last night Bush still misses no chance to put "9/11"
and "Iraq" into the same sentence. The lies continue!

--
Where ARE those Iraqi WMDs?

In article , Larry Blanchard wrote:
In article ,
says...
Bush lied. Period. Presumably we did NOT go into Iraq to knock over a brutal
dictator, but to knock over an actual physical threat to the world. In fact,
the adminstration is now looking for rationales to replace that one which was
non-existent.

And I noticed that last night Bush still misses no chance to put "9/11"
and "Iraq" into the same sentence. The lies continue!

Did it ever occur to you that perhaps the President has access to information
that you don't? That he might know something that you don't?

I'm mystified by the thought process (if you can dignify it far enough to
call it thought) that concludes that George Bush, Colin Powell, and Tony Blair
are liars, but Saddam Hussein, Tariq Aziz, and Osama bin Laden tell the truth.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)

Doug Miller:
Did it ever occur to you that perhaps the President has access to information
that you don't? That he might know something that you don't?

Yep, that occurred to me. I even hoped it would turn out to be true,
though I knew in my heart of hearts that it wasn't. Alas, we now know
from public pronouncements from both U.S. and British intelligence
sources and other government insiders that it's not true. He's a liar
after all.

I'm mystified by the thought process (if you can dignify it far enough to
call it thought) that concludes that George Bush, Colin Powell, and Tony
Blair are liars, but Saddam Hussein, Tariq Aziz, and Osama bin Laden tell the truth.

George Bush, Colin Powell, and Tony Blair are liars. They can stand as
liars on their own and the fact has nothing to do with Saddam Hussein,
Tariq Aziz, and Osama bin Laden. The latter can also stand as liars on
their own.

Davoud

A President lied to us with the terrible consequence that a woman had
to send her dress to the cleaners. Another President came along and
lied to us and the only thing that happened was that thousands of
innocent people died. Jeez! Go figure!

--
usenet *at* davidillig dawt com

On 08 Sep 2003 07:19:02 GMT, otforme (Charlie Self)
wrote:

Bush lied. Period. Presumably we did NOT go into Iraq to knock over a brutal
dictator, but to knock over an actual physical threat to the world. In fact,
the adminstration is now looking for rationales to replace that one which was
non-existent.


There hasn't been this much raping and pillaging going on since Atilla
last rode into town.

Once he and Dick Cheney get done dealing out the cards to their
buddies there surely won't be any aces left in the deck for the likes
of you and me.

It'll take years to undo the damage done by this squinty eyed little
twerp and some of the damage may simply be beyond repair. The cost to
our environment and our social structure will be paid out over
generations.

This whole thing with Iraq, the undemonstrated connection to Al Queda
and the vaporware WMD's is a three card monte scam and all the cards
say OIL on them. I'll bet ole Dick Cheney can't wait to strap on a
burnoose and belly up to table at OPEC. More likely he'll hide under
the table with his hand stuck up the ass of some puppet oil minister
who will be our man at The Big Show.

Those boys must feel the heat, too, because they sure are moving fast
and doing as much damage as possible in as short an amount of time as
possible. Guess they're cashing in up front and not figuring on that
second four years at the trough.

Of course, this is all opinion but I wish that the time to express my
opinion at the polls was not so far away.


Regards, Tom
Tom Watson - Woodworker
Gulph Mills, Pennsylvania
http://users.snip.net/~tjwatson

Davoud wrote in message ...
Doug Miller:
Did it ever occur to you that perhaps the President has access to information
that you don't? That he might know something that you don't?

Yep, that occurred to me. I even hoped it would turn out to be true,
though I knew in my heart of hearts that it wasn't. Alas, we now know
from public pronouncements from both U.S. and British intelligence
sources and other government insiders that it's not true. He's a liar
after all.

I'm mystified by the thought process (if you can dignify it far enough to
call it thought) that concludes that George Bush, Colin Powell, and Tony
Blair are liars, but Saddam Hussein, Tariq Aziz, and Osama bin Laden tell the truth.

George Bush, Colin Powell, and Tony Blair are liars. They can stand as
liars on their own and the fact has nothing to do with Saddam Hussein,
Tariq Aziz, and Osama bin Laden. The latter can also stand as liars on
their own.

Davoud

A President lied to us with the terrible consequence that a woman had
to send her dress to the cleaners. Another President came along and
lied to us and the only thing that happened was that thousands of
innocent people died. Jeez! Go figure!

So were all the WMD destroyed when our last president ordered the
bombing of Baghdad during the impeachment hearings? After all, the
reason given by Clinton for that bombing was to rid Sadam of his WMD.
Apparently the left must believe this bombing was so successful that
no WMD existed anymore. So I guess you would beleive that Clinton's
bombing were all 100% successfull with absolutely no innocent
causalties, cause the only thing Clinton did was lie about was a stain
on a dress, right?

On Mon 08 Sep 2003 01:34:41p, "Jim Mc Namara" wrote
in :

"Doug Miller" wrote in message:
I'm mystified by the thought process (if you can dignify it far
enough to call it thought) that concludes that George Bush, Colin
Powell, and Tony Blair are liars, but Saddam Hussein, Tariq Aziz,
and Osama bin Laden tell the truth.

Thank you, Doug.

Jim, Doug,

Could you help me out? I've gone back through the whole thread and can't
seem to find the post that said Saddam, Tariq, and Osama were telling the
truth. I must be missing it. I'd appreciate it very much if you could
direct me to it.

Thanks,
Dan

In article m,
says...
And I noticed that last night Bush still misses no chance to put "9/11"
and "Iraq" into the same sentence. The lies continue!

Did it ever occur to you that perhaps the President has access to information
that you don't? That he might know something that you don't?

You mean all those Saudis were Iragis in disguise? You mean that OBL
being a religious fanatic and Saddam killing all the Shiites he could
actually made them bosom buddies?

I'm mystified by the thought process (if you can dignify it far enough to
call it thought) that concludes that George Bush, Colin Powell, and Tony Blair
are liars, but Saddam Hussein, Tariq Aziz, and Osama bin Laden tell the truth.

I said that? I suppose if you can't refute what I did say, put words in
my mouth and then refute what I didn't say :-).

--
Where ARE those Iraqi WMDs?

In article ,
says...
Jim, Doug,

Could you help me out? I've gone back through the whole thread and can't
seem to find the post that said Saddam, Tariq, and Osama were telling the
truth. I must be missing it. I'd appreciate it very much if you could
direct me to it.

Thanks,
Dan

Now, now, Dan, don't be picky about the straw men they put up. It's the
best they can do :-).


--
Where ARE those Iraqi WMDs?

In article m,
says...
In article , Larry Blanchard wrote:
In article ,
says...
Bush lied. Period. Presumably we did NOT go into Iraq to knock over a brutal
dictator, but to knock over an actual physical threat to the world. In fact,
the adminstration is now looking for rationales to replace that one which was
non-existent.

And I noticed that last night Bush still misses no chance to put "9/11"
and "Iraq" into the same sentence. The lies continue!

Did it ever occur to you that perhaps the President has access to information
that you don't? That he might know something that you don't?

I'm mystified by the thought process (if you can dignify it far enough to
call it thought) that concludes that George Bush, Colin Powell, and Tony Blair
are liars, but Saddam Hussein, Tariq Aziz, and Osama bin Laden tell the truth.


So he has info that us mere mortals are not privy to, and the best he
can come up with is a bunch of lame-ass lies, forged documents that make
the Nigerian mail scam look legit, and a plagiarized collage report. If
you actually believe the load you are shoveling, I would have to say,
that you are not entitled to make any mention to the words "thought
process".

"Doug Miller" wrote
Did it ever occur to you that perhaps the President has access to
information
that you don't? That he might know something that you don't?

I'm mystified by the thought process (if you can dignify it far enough to
call it thought) that concludes that George Bush, Colin Powell, and Tony
Blair
are liars, but Saddam Hussein, Tariq Aziz, and Osama bin Laden tell the
truth.

As well, I don't understand the implication that so many are making now,
that there are no/never were any WMD's. According to UNSCOM findings, Iraq
has produced 19,000 litres of botulinum, 8,400 litres of anthrax (Hussein
*admitted* to 650 litres of it), and 2,000 litres of aflatoxin and
clostridium. Iraq has admitted to arming ballistic missiles with botulinum,
anthrax, and aflatoxin. Saddam has admitted producing four tons of VX nerve
agent. Over 600 tons of VX precursors are not accounted for. These could
make 200 tons of VX. Since our reasons for going to Iraq had nothing to do
with human rights, I won't even start on that. I will say, though, I
thought it was nice that an Iraqi couple living in Baghdad recently named
their newborn son George Bush. Odd, but nice.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...on_fe_st/iraq_
baby_bush_2

I criticized Clinton for 8 years not because of sex (although I do believe
character still means something in an American president - 'nuff said), but
because of specific actions - or lack thereof. Let's not forget who was
offered Bin Laden on a silver platter and turned him down. I've yet to hear
a Bush criticizm that was anything other than vitriolic wishful thinking,
wild speculation, and hatred for someone who happens to belong to a
different political party.

If you want to criticize W on the incremental encroachment on individual
liberties since 9/11, I think you all could get some real traction. But
don't tell me there are no/never were WMD's. For the record, I voted for
Perot (BIG mistake - not gonna make that one again), and character aside, I
think JFK was a pretty damned good president.

Now, since this has not a single thing to do with the subject of this group,
I don't intend to say another word about it. Good job outta you, Doug.

Can anyone tell me what's the best table saw?

Mike Fairleigh

"Mark & Juanita" wrote in message
s.com...

Follows the same line of logic that getting *more* oil onto the world
market by freeing Iraq helps the oil companies (and by inference Bush
and Cheney). Seem more logical that by keeping that supplier of oil out
of the markets as sanctions were supposedly doing (and the sanctions
were working according to the people who follow the aforementioned line
of tortured logic), the oil companies (and by inference Bush and Cheney)
would be benefited more because they control a smaller supply of
something in high demand.


Well, you have to be able to think on your own to understand the concept of
supply demand. This may be way too much to hope for since you will never
hear the media bring up this fact. Nor will the media bring up the axis of
evil speech identifing Iraq, Iran and N. Korea as the focus of evil in the
modern world. This speech came immediately after 9-11. Now people say we
are just picking on Iraq? No connection to terrorism? We called them out
from the beginning. What seems to bother many people is that we have a
president who actually does what he says he is going to do.

Frank

Ok, Tom enlighten me, specifics on:

1. Raping and Pilaging
2. Damage to the enviornment
3. Impact on social structure


Tom Watson wrote:

On 08 Sep 2003 07:19:02 GMT, otforme (Charlie Self)
wrote:

Bush lied. Period. Presumably we did NOT go into Iraq to knock over a brutal
dictator, but to knock over an actual physical threat to the world. In fact,
the adminstration is now looking for rationales to replace that one which was
non-existent.

There hasn't been this much raping and pillaging going on since Atilla
last rode into town.

Once he and Dick Cheney get done dealing out the cards to their
buddies there surely won't be any aces left in the deck for the likes
of you and me.

It'll take years to undo the damage done by this squinty eyed little
twerp and some of the damage may simply be beyond repair. The cost to
our environment and our social structure will be paid out over
generations.

This whole thing with Iraq, the undemonstrated connection to Al Queda
and the vaporware WMD's is a three card monte scam and all the cards
say OIL on them. I'll bet ole Dick Cheney can't wait to strap on a
burnoose and belly up to table at OPEC. More likely he'll hide under
the table with his hand stuck up the ass of some puppet oil minister
who will be our man at The Big Show.

Those boys must feel the heat, too, because they sure are moving fast
and doing as much damage as possible in as short an amount of time as
possible. Guess they're cashing in up front and not figuring on that
second four years at the trough.

Of course, this is all opinion but I wish that the time to express my
opinion at the polls was not so far away.

Regards, Tom
Tom Watson - Woodworker
Gulph Mills, Pennsylvania
http://users.snip.net/~tjwatson

I respectfully disagree. I originated the thread and identified it as off
topic for those who didn't want to read anything that had nothing to do with
woodworking. I did not state anything political in the thread, just asked
people (my fellow woodworkers, and also RC'rs rec.models.rc.aircraft) to
remember what happened two years ago this Thursday, just as I have my friends,
family and coworkers, no different, just a different venue. Too many families
lost innocent loved ones, and they and the event should be remembered.

Morgans wrote:

--
Is there no way that you can keep yourself from using this newsgroup as a
place to vent on politics? Wrong place, wrong time.

Jim in NC

In article ,
says...
.... snip
Can anyone tell me what's the best table saw?

Mike Fairleigh


What are you trying to do here Mike, ignite a religious war? :-)

"Phil" wrote in message
...
I respectfully disagree. I originated the thread and identified it as off
topic for those who didn't want to read anything that had nothing to do
with
woodworking. I did not state anything political in the thread, just asked
people (my fellow woodworkers, and also RC'rs rec.models.rc.aircraft) to
remember what happened two years ago this Thursday, just as I have my
friends,
family and coworkers, no different, just a different venue. Too many
families
lost innocent loved ones, and they and the event should be remembered.


I respectfully say that this is a woodworking site, not a remembrance site.

Ever think about the possibility that some of those who lost loved ones come
to a place like this to escape, and not be reminded.

Thanks, though for being civil.
--
Jim in NC

On Mon 08 Sep 2003 10:23:07p, Larry Blanchard
wrote in :

Could you help me out? I've gone back through the whole thread and
can't seem to find the post that said Saddam, Tariq, and Osama were
telling the truth. I must be missing it. I'd appreciate it very much
if you could direct me to it.

Thanks,
Dan

Now, now, Dan, don't be picky about the straw men they put up. It's
the best they can do :-).


Well, it's frustrating how these guys seem to think that their arguments
aren't going to hold up unless they throw a lie or two in there to punch it
up a little. Kinda makes the case for the other side, seems to me.

Dan

On Tue 09 Sep 2003 12:26:06a, "Mike Fairleigh"
wrote in
:

Let's not forget who was
offered Bin Laden on a silver platter and turned him down.

Oh, yeah. That story of Hannity's where he says the Sudanese offered Bin
Laden to Clinton and he turned them down. That claim was made by one man:
Mansoon Ijaz, a Pakistani/American investment banker with a big stake in
Sudanese oil, who at the time was trying to get the Americans to lift
sanctions against Sudan which were put in place because of slavery and
genocide. When the US asked the Sudanese government about it, and checked
out every lead, it turned out there was no such offer and never had been.
Ijaz is now a foreign affairs analyst for Fox.
Sources: Sandy Berger, former National Security Advisor, and Daniel
Benjamin, former counterterrorism director on the National Security
Council, now senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and International
Studies (according to GroupWatch, "a right-wing, neoconservative think
tank"). Bergman's feelings about Ijaz? "Either he allowed himself to be
manipulated or he's in bed with a bunch of genocidal terrrorists".

Dan

In article ,
says...
On Tue 09 Sep 2003 12:26:06a, "Mike Fairleigh"
wrote in
:

Let's not forget who was
offered Bin Laden on a silver platter and turned him down.

Oh, yeah. That story of Hannity's where he says the Sudanese offered Bin
Laden to Clinton and he turned them down. That claim was made by one man:
Mansoon Ijaz, a Pakistani/American investment banker with a big stake in
Sudanese oil, who at the time was trying to get the Americans to lift
sanctions against Sudan which were put in place because of slavery and
genocide. When the US asked the Sudanese government about it, and checked
out every lead, it turned out there was no such offer and never had been.
Ijaz is now a foreign affairs analyst for Fox.

Hmm, not according to
http://propagandamatrix.com/sudan_offered_to_arrest_bin_laden.html in
which Berger is quoted as saying, "In the United States, we have this
thing called the Constitution, so to bring him here is to bring him into
the justice system," said Samuel Berger, who was deputy national
security adviser then. "I don't think that was our first choice. Our
first choice was to send him some place where justice is more" - he
paused a moment, then continued - "streamlined."

Note, there is no denial here that Bin Laden was not offered, just that
the Clinton administration could find no way to accept his extradition.

Not just Hannity has promoted this story, most recently Richard
Miniter has documented several instances where Bin Laden was offered up:
http://www.frontpagemag.com/articles/Printable.asp?ID=9721

Failures go beyond missing opportunities to arrest Bin Laden and
include the gutting of the intelligence agencies during the previous
administration that limited the amount of data on Bin Laden that was
obtained during that period of time.
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/michael/ledeen092302.asp


Sources: Sandy Berger, former National Security Advisor,
Under Clinton -- he would hardly be an unbiased source in regards to
this matter.

and Daniel
Benjamin, former counterterrorism director on the National Security
Council, now senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and International
Studies (according to GroupWatch, "a right-wing, neoconservative think
tank").

A group that has as it's CEO Jon Hamre (a Clinton appointee to the
DoD) and Jon Alterman (a former legislative aide to Daniel P Moynahin)
can hardly be consiered "right wing" or "neoconservative" unless your
definition of right wing comes so far from the left you can't even see
into the beginning of the right wing.

Bergman's feelings about Ijaz? "Either he allowed himself to be
manipulated or he's in bed with a bunch of genocidal terrrorists".

Dan

--
Is there no way that you can keep yourself from using this newsgroup as a
place to vent on politics? Wrong place, wrong time.

Jim in NC
"

Actually, this is more like a gathering of folks who have at least one
common interest (ww'g) but also do chat about other matters on
occassion (kinda like normal very day life). If your sole interest is
in the ww'g matters please simply IGNORE the rest w/out trying to
police the group into your idea of what it is.

Thanx
Renata

On Tue, 9 Sep 2003 22:20:21 -0400, "Morgans"
wrote:

I respectfully say that this is a woodworking site, not a remembrance site.

Ever think about the possibility that some of those who lost loved ones come
to a place like this to escape, and not be reminded.

Thanks, though for being civil.
--
Jim in NC

In article , (Nate Perkins) wrote:
"Mike Fairleigh" wrote in message
...

... I've yet to hear
a Bush criticizm that was anything other than vitriolic wishful thinking,
wild speculation, and hatred for someone who happens to belong to a
different political party.

Well, I belong to a different political party, but only since GWB
started leading the Republicans. :-)

To answer your question about a Bush criticism that was anything other
than (...), how about this:

1) He misled the country, either willfully or through incompetence,
in multiple claims that Iraq had WMD.

Evidently you haven't been paying much attention to the news the last
twelve years. Iraq *did* have WMD; Saddam even admitted to some of it.

2) He got us into Iraq with no apparent plan to get us out. I think
the people deserve a more specific answer than "As long as it takes."

Wouldn't it be nice if we could all predict the future?

4)

Was there a 3) ?

He severely damaged our longstanding relationships with our allies

News flash: the French are not our allies, and they never were.

with his insistence to pursue a bull-headed unilateral approach in
Iraq.

You mean with his insistence that *somebody* needed to enforce the multiple
United Nations resolutions concerning Iraq.

Here's the main reason that the French, Germans, and Russians are ****ed off:
they were doing a *lot* of business with Saddam's regime, in violation of the
UN sanctions, and all that came to an abrupt halt.

5) His tax policies have produced no appreciable stimulus (corporate
capital investment is still at historically low levels despite a 1%
prime), but have produced record deficits that will stick with us
until at least 2008.

It's a bit early to evaluate that, you know, since the vast bulk of the tax
cuts have not yet taken effect.

6) He's created a staggering long term debt for the nation.

News flash: Bush didn't cause the September 11 attacks, which came just as we
were beginning to emerge from the recession that Clinton started.

7) He has significantly increased the size of government (both in the
number of departments and the number of employees).

Even if true, that hardly distinguishes him from most of his predecessors.

8) We've lost a couple of million jobs (especially in the
manufacturing sector) to overseas, and most economists think that
because the productivity level remains high, the jobs will not come
back. Laissez faire economics in action.

Why do you blame Bush for a recession that started under Clinton?

9) He repeatedly exaggerates links between 9/11 and Iraq, or uses
9/11 as an excuse to rally his latest cause regardless of whether
there is any truthful link to 9/11.

Do you suppose there's any possibility that the President knows something you
don't?

10) He's taken record amounts of corporate and special interest
money.

So what? His predecessor, and his opponent in the 2000 election, accepted
record amounts of illegal contributions from foreign governments, specifically
the Communist Chinese. Do you find that preferable?

At the same time, he's been an opponent of campaign finance

A demonstrable falsehood: he signed the McCain-Feingold reform bill.
reform.

11) He acted hypocritically with regard to positions on farm
subsidies and steel tariffs.

OK, you finally got one right.

12) He uses a double standard with regard to North Korea, which is a
greater threat than Iraq ever was.

Double standard how? The point of the action in Iraq was to *prevent* that
state from becoming a greater threat such as NK already is.

13) His initial post-election decision to withdraw Dennis Ross from
the Middle East and his lack of ability to restrain Sharon's
government have led to collapse of any prospect for peace in Israel.

Explain to me exactly how the hell it ever became *our* responsibility to
ensure peace in the Middle East.

14) He sponsored the Patriot Act.

And your point would be... ?

15) He publicized, promised, and then reneged on funding for
education.

What the hell are you talking about? He let Teddy Kennedy write the damn bill,
and because you don't like the results, you're complaining about *Bush* ?

In short, Bush has a long record of poor judgement, incorrect
decisions, and a history of stubbornly sticking to bad positions. At
the rate he is going, George Bush is going to be the best thing that
has happened to the Democrats in a long time.

Best thing that happened to all Americans in a long time.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)

In article , "Morgans" wrote:

Is there no way that you can keep yourself from using this newsgroup as a
place to vent on politics? Wrong place, wrong time.

See where it says "OT" in the title of the thread?
Stands for "Off Topic". Used as a flag to warn people that the thread does not
pertain to woodworking, enabling those who are not interested to bypass it
easily.

If you don't like it, don't read it, or learn to use the filtering capability
of your newsreader.




--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)

This thread is clearly labeled as Off Topic (OT) in the header, and so
you shouldn't be surprised when you open it and it really is off
topic.


"Morgans" wrote in message ...
--
Is there no way that you can keep yourself from using this newsgroup as a
place to vent on politics? Wrong place, wrong time.

Jim in NC
"

todd wrote:

I guess I missed the part where M&J questioned your patriotism. Any you
totally misrepresented their statements by quoting only part of their post.

That was preemptive, since the automatic response encouraged by the Bush
administration and its supporters whenever questioned about motives or
attempts to circumvent our constitutional rights, is to attack the
patriotism of the questioner.

"Kevin S." wrote in message
.net...
todd wrote:

I guess I missed the part where M&J questioned your patriotism. Any you
totally misrepresented their statements by quoting only part of their
post.

That was preemptive, since the automatic response encouraged by the Bush
administration and its supporters whenever questioned about motives or
attempts to circumvent our constitutional rights, is to attack the
patriotism of the questioner.

I see. So preemptive attacks are OK? I'll pass that on to all of the
hand-wringers complaining that we weren't under a direct threat from Iraq.
And I guess the automatic response from the left is quote someone's comments
in a misleading way such as to completely misrepresent their views, as you
did with Mark and Juanita.

todd

--
Is there no way that you can keep yourself from using this newsgroup as a
place to vent on politics? Wrong place, wrong time.

Jim in NC

(Doug Miller) wrote in message . com...
In article , (Nate Perkins) wrote:
"Mike Fairleigh" wrote in message
...

... I've yet to hear
a Bush criticizm that was anything other than vitriolic wishful thinking,
wild speculation, and hatred for someone who happens to belong to a
different political party.

Well, I belong to a different political party, but only since GWB
started leading the Republicans. :-)

To answer your question about a Bush criticism that was anything other
than (...), how about this:

1) He misled the country, either willfully or through incompetence,
in multiple claims that Iraq had WMD.

Evidently you haven't been paying much attention to the news the last
twelve years. Iraq *did* have WMD; Saddam even admitted to some of it.

If you mean that Saddam had active WMD programs prior to the *first*
Gulf War, I agree. I think you will agree that the inspections
following the first Gulf War were effective in uncovering and
destroying much of this capability.

I think you will admit that our forces in Iraq have not found any
evidence of an active chemical, biological, or nuclear program from
any recent period. Nor did the UN inspectors prior to the second Gulf
War. Remember, this was the main justification for the second Gulf
War. We were told that we had to invade Iraq because it was on the
brink of developing chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons. This
has been proven false. Maybe you believe Bush received bad
intelligence and bad advice, or maybe you believe he intentionally
misled the American people. At the least, its illustrative of his
poor judgement and the incompetence of his administration.

2) He got us into Iraq with no apparent plan to get us out. I think
the people deserve a more specific answer than "As long as it takes."

Wouldn't it be nice if we could all predict the future?

Yes. But it would be more immediately nice if the Bush administration
would provide Congress and the American people with realistic
estimates of the cost and timeline for engagement. Success without a
plan is mostly luck, and hardly great leadership.

4)

Was there a 3) ?

No, I forgot to renumber. :-)

He severely damaged our longstanding relationships with our allies

News flash: the French are not our allies, and they never were.

Eh? Our NATO allies invoked Article V of the charter after 9/11
(that's the mutual defense clause). First time in the history of
NATO. To believe that our NATO allies are not historical allies is
ridiculous.

with his insistence to pursue a bull-headed unilateral approach in
Iraq.

You mean with his insistence that *somebody* needed to enforce the multiple
United Nations resolutions concerning Iraq.

Here's the main reason that the French, Germans, and Russians are ****ed off:
they were doing a *lot* of business with Saddam's regime, in violation of the
UN sanctions, and all that came to an abrupt halt.

No, it is true that French, Russian, and German companies had
contracts with Iraqi companies that would take effect when sanctions
were lifted. It is not true that those countries were violating
sanctions -- can you demonstrate otherwise?

Had France, Russia, and Germany participated in our invasion of Iraq,
they would probably still have some of those contracts. They had the
choice of winning economically by partnering with us on the invasion,
or of losing out on existing legal contracts. They chose to lose out
on legal contracts that were otherwise theirs.

All three of those countries expressed skepticism at the "evidence"
being presented that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. Those
countries were right, and Bush was wrong.

5) His tax policies have produced no appreciable stimulus (corporate
capital investment is still at historically low levels despite a 1%
prime), but have produced record deficits that will stick with us
until at least 2008.

It's a bit early to evaluate that, you know, since the vast bulk of the tax
cuts have not yet taken effect.

Perhaps I missed something, but I don't think that Bush sold us on the
idea of tax cuts based on the proposition that they would take years
and years to be stimulative.

6) He's created a staggering long term debt for the nation.

News flash: Bush didn't cause the September 11 attacks, which came just as we
were beginning to emerge from the recession that Clinton started.

Sept 11 is a minor contributor to the current spending debacle. Bush
likes to claim 9/11 as an excuse for everything. But he increases
spending across the board, everything from military spending to new
government departments to crop subsidies. Bush spends worse than any
Democrat in recent history.

7) He has significantly increased the size of government (both in the
number of departments and the number of employees).

Even if true, that hardly distinguishes him from most of his predecessors.

No, the number of employees decreased under Clinton. It has increased
faster under Bush than under any modern president. Again, he spends
worse than a Democrat.

8) We've lost a couple of million jobs (especially in the
manufacturing sector) to overseas, and most economists think that
because the productivity level remains high, the jobs will not come
back. Laissez faire economics in action.

Why do you blame Bush for a recession that started under Clinton?

Why do you blame Clinton for all of Bush's problems, and credit Reagan
for all the good work that Clinton did? The best thing about Bush is
that the buck never stops with him.

9) He repeatedly exaggerates links between 9/11 and Iraq, or uses
9/11 as an excuse to rally his latest cause regardless of whether
there is any truthful link to 9/11.

Do you suppose there's any possibility that the President knows something you
don't?

Perhaps, but so far most of what he has presented on this score has
proven to be incompetently prepared or misleading evidence (al Quaeda
in Iraq, aluminum tubes, drones, mobile labs, uranium from Niger).
Bush's poor track record in producing accurate evidence has earned
some skepticism for many of us.

10) He's taken record amounts of corporate and special interest
money.

So what? His predecessor, and his opponent in the 2000 election, accepted
record amounts of illegal contributions from foreign governments, specifically
the Communist Chinese. Do you find that preferable?

No, no president in modern history has gained more campaign
contributions from special interest or has spent more on elections
than Bush has. Bush is in a league of his own here.

At the same time, he's been an opponent of campaign finance

A demonstrable falsehood: he signed the McCain-Feingold reform bill.
reform.

Are you seriously going to claim that Bush is an advocate of campaign
finance reform??? He found it politically expedient to sign that,
because the political backlash against not signing it would be too
great.

11) He acted hypocritically with regard to positions on farm
subsidies and steel tariffs.

OK, you finally got one right.

12) He uses a double standard with regard to North Korea, which is a
greater threat than Iraq ever was.

Double standard how? The point of the action in Iraq was to *prevent* that
state from becoming a greater threat such as NK already is.

If NK is such a danger (and I agree it is), then why does Bush
consistently downplay the situation in NK, while he exaggerated the
situation in Iraq?

13) His initial post-election decision to withdraw Dennis Ross from
the Middle East and his lack of ability to restrain Sharon's
government have led to collapse of any prospect for peace in Israel.

Explain to me exactly how the hell it ever became *our* responsibility to
ensure peace in the Middle East.

It was Bush's responsibility because Bush *volunteered* his unwavering
committment to insure peace in the Middle East. Remember the Rose
Garden photo ops with Abbas? Bush set his own goal here, nobody
forced him to do it. But having set his own goal, I think you will
agree that he failed miserably at it.

14) He sponsored the Patriot Act.

And your point would be... ?

The Patriot Act is undemocratic and an infringement on our rights.
Not something that many of us are in favor of. Only the second time
in the history of this country that habeas corpus has been suspended.

15) He publicized, promised, and then reneged on funding for
education.

What the hell are you talking about? He let Teddy Kennedy write the damn bill,
and because you don't like the results, you're complaining about *Bush* ?

Heh, if I had claimed that Bush was not pro-education, you would have
pointed to his support of this bill as evidence that I was wrong. Now
I point that he withheld the funding for it, and you claim it wasn't
his bill. My point is that he worked in collaboration with Teddy and
others to draft the bill, and then he reneged on the funding. Teddy
found it duplicitous, and it seemed that way to me, too.

In short, Bush has a long record of poor judgement, incorrect
decisions, and a history of stubbornly sticking to bad positions. At
the rate he is going, George Bush is going to be the best thing that
has happened to the Democrats in a long time.

Best thing that happened to all Americans in a long time.

Opinions will differ :-)

LOL ... Joe hasn't realized yet that he has to be here longer than three
weeks before he can qualify for moderator pay.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 9/08/03

"Doug Miller"wrote in message
In article Morgans" wrote:

Is there no way that you can keep yourself from using this newsgroup as
a
place to vent on politics? Wrong place, wrong time.

Is there no way that you can keep yourself from continuing to read posts
in a
thread that you ALREADY KNOW you are not interested in?

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)

On 10 Sep 2003, Morgans spake unto rec.woodworking:


Is there no way that you can keep yourself from using this newsgroup
as a place to vent on politics? Wrong place, wrong time.

You've posted 63 times since you first appeared here, and 9 of those
posts -- one out of 7 -- has been this exact same message. That's
annoying. You can either run for (and get yourself elected) group
moderator, or give it up. There are idiots enough who contribute to the
on-topic threads (are you reading, BADave?), the last thing we need is
fresh new asshole in the off-topic ones.

In article ,
says...
Actually, this is more like a gathering of folks who have at least one
common interest (ww'g) but also do chat about other matters on
occassion (kinda like normal very day life). If your sole interest is
in the ww'g matters please simply IGNORE the rest w/out trying to
police the group into your idea of what it is.

Now that's a response most of us can agree with.

As long as stuff is labelled OT, I'd rather hear what a bunch of
woodworkers have to say than to join the professional soapboxers on the
newsgroups dedicated to politics/religion/global warming/whatever.

Even when said woodworkers disagree with me :-).

--
Where ARE those Iraqi WMDs?

In article ,
says...

To answer your question about a Bush criticism that was anything other
than (...), how about this:


A good summary. You forgot:

He won the election through questionable results in a state controlled by
his brother.

Didn't he used to be known as "the president from Enron"?

And don't forget his questionable activities during the S&L crisis.

But I wonder if we can blame the Republicans for George? After all, the
last president from Texas was LBJ. Maybe it's the water (or the oil) .

--
Where ARE those Iraqi WMDs?

In article ,
says...
9) He repeatedly exaggerates links between 9/11 and Iraq, or uses
9/11 as an excuse to rally his latest cause regardless of whether
there is any truthful link to 9/11.

Do you suppose there's any possibility that the President knows something you
don't?

Yep - he knows how gullible the American public is. But come to think of
it, we DO all know that :-).

--
Where ARE those Iraqi WMDs?

On Wed, 10 Sep 2003 19:03:56 GMT, Scott Cramer
wrote:


There are idiots enough who contribute to the
on-topic threads (are you reading, BADave?), the last thing we need is
fresh new asshole in the off-topic ones.


Ayup.



Regards, Tom
Tom Watson - Woodworker
Gulph Mills, Pennsylvania
http://users.snip.net/~tjwatson