for Truth Be Told2/10/2004 c20 Le Creature
I liked this chapter a lot more than your last few; not to say I agree with your analysis, but I like to read your interpretation of the news more than your responses to reviews.
*
In all honesty, of course, I couldn't care less about whether Bush served in the military or not. I made my final decision of voting with Bush's State of the Union address. However, I'm not exactly applauding the Democrats here either. Really, I would rather have a libertarian president then anything else, but unfortunately, they'll never win. So, I'm forced to go with the "anything but Bush" party, which ends up meaning, it seems, Kerry.
*
The political attacks, however, I wouldn't ascribe too much to Kerry. It seems Michael Moore was one of the main proponents of that rumor. Kerry's campaign focusing on his military is what I see as just using their strengths and going after Bush's perceived weaknesses. No conspiracy, no desperation, just politics as usual (which means a whole lot of bull-crap being flung in every which direction, of course).
Just thought i'd mention my thoughts. Keep writing,
Le Creature
I liked this chapter a lot more than your last few; not to say I agree with your analysis, but I like to read your interpretation of the news more than your responses to reviews.
*
In all honesty, of course, I couldn't care less about whether Bush served in the military or not. I made my final decision of voting with Bush's State of the Union address. However, I'm not exactly applauding the Democrats here either. Really, I would rather have a libertarian president then anything else, but unfortunately, they'll never win. So, I'm forced to go with the "anything but Bush" party, which ends up meaning, it seems, Kerry.
*
The political attacks, however, I wouldn't ascribe too much to Kerry. It seems Michael Moore was one of the main proponents of that rumor. Kerry's campaign focusing on his military is what I see as just using their strengths and going after Bush's perceived weaknesses. No conspiracy, no desperation, just politics as usual (which means a whole lot of bull-crap being flung in every which direction, of course).
Just thought i'd mention my thoughts. Keep writing,
Le Creature
2/10/2004 c20 Phoenix
Kudos to you Steve. I fully agree. Bush's record is undisputable. On the point of the Guard, reserves, and heroism, a personal note:
The National Guard provides the vast majority of air transport and air refuling to the military. A major refueling wing (responsible for refuling, among others, every B-2 flight sent overseas on their one-leg missions to Afganistan), the 117th Air Refueling Wing, based out of Sumpter-Smith Air Force Base (co-located with the Birmingham International Airport) is an Alabama Air National Guard unit. There is reall no difference in Active and reserve (Guard) duty is that the reserves are huge, therefore it is not nessaccary to maintain a constant presence on base. The Main differnce: Active duty military falls under immediate control of the Federal Government, Guard falls under the immediate control of the state in which it resides.
As for Kerry, A real hero will rarely, if ever, admit to it, and least of all flaunt it. A true war hero has been throught some rough shit, and he is not going to be keen on telling the world about his experiances, every three days. Kerry may have won the Purple Heart, but personally, I think it was because he is a total moron and got himself shot, or stubbed his toe really bad. The Purple Heart is awarded to servicemen and women who are injured in the line of duty. That encompasses all combat injuries. It could have been a Cleymore to the face, or a broken arm cause you fell down and got a boo boo, it doesn't matter. So he is inflating himself, and his ego, on the basis that he has some medals...wow, big deal. Most soldiers do have medals. On top of all of that, he found a loophole in the system to leave Vietnam before the end of his Tour of Duty. Real heroic, hypocrite.
"I have medals! I am a HERO! Oh, by the way, I chickened out and ran away from my responsibilities before my job was done. But who cares! I'm a friggin' HERO!"
Kudos to you Steve. I fully agree. Bush's record is undisputable. On the point of the Guard, reserves, and heroism, a personal note:
The National Guard provides the vast majority of air transport and air refuling to the military. A major refueling wing (responsible for refuling, among others, every B-2 flight sent overseas on their one-leg missions to Afganistan), the 117th Air Refueling Wing, based out of Sumpter-Smith Air Force Base (co-located with the Birmingham International Airport) is an Alabama Air National Guard unit. There is reall no difference in Active and reserve (Guard) duty is that the reserves are huge, therefore it is not nessaccary to maintain a constant presence on base. The Main differnce: Active duty military falls under immediate control of the Federal Government, Guard falls under the immediate control of the state in which it resides.
As for Kerry, A real hero will rarely, if ever, admit to it, and least of all flaunt it. A true war hero has been throught some rough shit, and he is not going to be keen on telling the world about his experiances, every three days. Kerry may have won the Purple Heart, but personally, I think it was because he is a total moron and got himself shot, or stubbed his toe really bad. The Purple Heart is awarded to servicemen and women who are injured in the line of duty. That encompasses all combat injuries. It could have been a Cleymore to the face, or a broken arm cause you fell down and got a boo boo, it doesn't matter. So he is inflating himself, and his ego, on the basis that he has some medals...wow, big deal. Most soldiers do have medals. On top of all of that, he found a loophole in the system to leave Vietnam before the end of his Tour of Duty. Real heroic, hypocrite.
"I have medals! I am a HERO! Oh, by the way, I chickened out and ran away from my responsibilities before my job was done. But who cares! I'm a friggin' HERO!"
2/10/2004 c20 
4Nobody At All
I would actually have listened to your argument for Bush if you, in your desperation to make the Democrats look bad, resort to calling them "the Ass Party." If you want to play name-calling games, we could say Mr."Execution" Bush, Mr. "First President with a Criminal Record" Bush, Mr. "I'm a man of God and yet I disobey his 'thou shalt not kill' commandment" Bush, or Mr. "Not one of my many relatives are over in Iraq" Bush.
4Nobody At AllI would actually have listened to your argument for Bush if you, in your desperation to make the Democrats look bad, resort to calling them "the Ass Party." If you want to play name-calling games, we could say Mr."Execution" Bush, Mr. "First President with a Criminal Record" Bush, Mr. "I'm a man of God and yet I disobey his 'thou shalt not kill' commandment" Bush, or Mr. "Not one of my many relatives are over in Iraq" Bush.
2/8/2004 c19 rastavirgil
I'm still here. Its almost time to ride, steve. I hope you're ready. I'm pouring over your writing and im looking at a lot of hypocrisy and lies. Its going to take time, steve but ill do it. i don't know how long it will take but i will get this. Ill get some help. Libs mob hella mo deep than Wu Tang. Rasta will ride on his enemies.
I'm still here. Its almost time to ride, steve. I hope you're ready. I'm pouring over your writing and im looking at a lot of hypocrisy and lies. Its going to take time, steve but ill do it. i don't know how long it will take but i will get this. Ill get some help. Libs mob hella mo deep than Wu Tang. Rasta will ride on his enemies.
2/6/2004 c16 2Another Rogue
Although I am one of those people who is still not convinced the Iraq war was really necessary, I must say you wrote a great essay. You gathered some really interesting facts and turned them into good arguments, at least they support your opinion really well.
2Another RogueAlthough I am one of those people who is still not convinced the Iraq war was really necessary, I must say you wrote a great essay. You gathered some really interesting facts and turned them into good arguments, at least they support your opinion really well.
2/5/2004 c19 2RCS
"No, the mess is of the media and bleeding hearts that believe it's better to negotiate and be really nice to the bad people in hopes that they wont wanna hurt the wittle ol' US. Ya know, cuz it worked for ol' Billy Clinton in 1994 when he threw a ton of money to the North Koreans and say 'Now y'all dont make anymore...whoa, hold on Monica...y'all Chinese fellers...I mean Ko-reans...don't make anymore nukes ok?'"
Hahahahahahahahahahaha! Good one, Steve.
"Let's remember that for the first 4 months of his term he had to put up with whining, crying, sore-loser liberals/democrats about who really won."
He still has to put up with this crap, as seen by the essays of some of the sore losers on this site. How often do you see posts on this site describing Bush as the "selected" president. Those numbnut morons can't get it through their ridiculously thick skulls that he legitimately won.
"Also, whilst you could accuse Moore of exaggerating and putting his own spin on things to get his point across, is that really so unusual? If I had the time or inclination I could probably find a few rightist who do exactly the same."
Moore isn't merely putting his spin on things. He's outright lying. "Bowling for Columbine" was an utter fabrication that should have been listed under "Fiction," not "Documentary." Period.
2RCS"No, the mess is of the media and bleeding hearts that believe it's better to negotiate and be really nice to the bad people in hopes that they wont wanna hurt the wittle ol' US. Ya know, cuz it worked for ol' Billy Clinton in 1994 when he threw a ton of money to the North Koreans and say 'Now y'all dont make anymore...whoa, hold on Monica...y'all Chinese fellers...I mean Ko-reans...don't make anymore nukes ok?'"
Hahahahahahahahahahaha! Good one, Steve.
"Let's remember that for the first 4 months of his term he had to put up with whining, crying, sore-loser liberals/democrats about who really won."
He still has to put up with this crap, as seen by the essays of some of the sore losers on this site. How often do you see posts on this site describing Bush as the "selected" president. Those numbnut morons can't get it through their ridiculously thick skulls that he legitimately won.
"Also, whilst you could accuse Moore of exaggerating and putting his own spin on things to get his point across, is that really so unusual? If I had the time or inclination I could probably find a few rightist who do exactly the same."
Moore isn't merely putting his spin on things. He's outright lying. "Bowling for Columbine" was an utter fabrication that should have been listed under "Fiction," not "Documentary." Period.
2/5/2004 c17 RCS
"In a way, he raised his middle finger to the entire UNSC."-Mt-Two-Centaveros
Yes, he did. And I stood up and applauded when he did. It's about time a U.S. President gives the UN the proverbial finger.
"In a way, he raised his middle finger to the entire UNSC."-Mt-Two-Centaveros
Yes, he did. And I stood up and applauded when he did. It's about time a U.S. President gives the UN the proverbial finger.
2/5/2004 c1 Steven Lawrence
Centavos:
"That is almost the same thing thats happening now."
Exactly-so how do you think he would have been criticized had 9/11 not even happened? War would have been less popular then than now!
"I'm more surprised that Bush had to wait for 9/11 to happen after he became president."
Why? Why not Clinton? Why are you surprised that a man didn't come to office and immediately launch a war 9 months into his presidency, or even less? Let's remember that for the first 4 months of his term he had to put up with whining, crying, sore-loser liberals/democrats about who really won. But Bush was preparing to take on Iraq, he talked about it in January of 2001. It just so happens, unfortunately, that 9/11 occured.
-Steve
Centavos:
"That is almost the same thing thats happening now."
Exactly-so how do you think he would have been criticized had 9/11 not even happened? War would have been less popular then than now!
"I'm more surprised that Bush had to wait for 9/11 to happen after he became president."
Why? Why not Clinton? Why are you surprised that a man didn't come to office and immediately launch a war 9 months into his presidency, or even less? Let's remember that for the first 4 months of his term he had to put up with whining, crying, sore-loser liberals/democrats about who really won. But Bush was preparing to take on Iraq, he talked about it in January of 2001. It just so happens, unfortunately, that 9/11 occured.
-Steve
2/5/2004 c19 4my two centavos
"If Bush had even attempted to attack Iraq under the auspices of terrorism before 9/11 he would have been crucified by the media and other liberals who would have said "Terrorism is a big joke and being over exaggerated by the Republicans/conservatives". For them, it took 9/11 to see Middle Eastern terrorism, that ugly term that was restricted to the other side of the Prime Meridian, to be a true threat to the US."
That is almost the same thing thats happening now.
"Centavos, I believe you're genuinely surprised as the amount of evidence against Hussein that supports the US' stance."
I'm more surprised that Bush had to wait for 9/11 to happen after he became president.
4my two centavos"If Bush had even attempted to attack Iraq under the auspices of terrorism before 9/11 he would have been crucified by the media and other liberals who would have said "Terrorism is a big joke and being over exaggerated by the Republicans/conservatives". For them, it took 9/11 to see Middle Eastern terrorism, that ugly term that was restricted to the other side of the Prime Meridian, to be a true threat to the US."
That is almost the same thing thats happening now.
"Centavos, I believe you're genuinely surprised as the amount of evidence against Hussein that supports the US' stance."
I'm more surprised that Bush had to wait for 9/11 to happen after he became president.
2/4/2004 c19 Steven Lawrence
And I wonder, James, what would happen on that off-chance that whatever Special Forces or super secret agent you have in mind gets caught? Then what? Knowing you, you'd cry foul and criticize the USA for sending troops into a foriegn country. You'd ask who the US think she is and then tell me and other Americans how worried you are, along with the paranoid European community that the US feels they can just drop whoever they want into whatever country they want. So no, its not a disservice whatsoever. The fact remains that I live in the happy world of "reality" while you've got your head stuck in the clouds of writers like Fredrick Forsyth and Tom Clancy. Its not that easy, ESPECIALLY in a country like Iraq. Furthermore, whether or not the WMD comes to light or not, that man had connections to and supported terrorism. This is a war on terror in which he was apart of. Too bad for Saddam.
And I wonder, James, what would happen on that off-chance that whatever Special Forces or super secret agent you have in mind gets caught? Then what? Knowing you, you'd cry foul and criticize the USA for sending troops into a foriegn country. You'd ask who the US think she is and then tell me and other Americans how worried you are, along with the paranoid European community that the US feels they can just drop whoever they want into whatever country they want. So no, its not a disservice whatsoever. The fact remains that I live in the happy world of "reality" while you've got your head stuck in the clouds of writers like Fredrick Forsyth and Tom Clancy. Its not that easy, ESPECIALLY in a country like Iraq. Furthermore, whether or not the WMD comes to light or not, that man had connections to and supported terrorism. This is a war on terror in which he was apart of. Too bad for Saddam.
2/4/2004 c19 James Jago
I never said it would be easy, but it's possible. Special Forces break into places and remove documents quite often in Britain, mostly when investigating terrorist or organised criminal goings-on but occasionally to cover the government's own rear; they don't talk about it much but documentary evidence from several years ago is available from the Central Records Office under the thirty-year rule, and I doubt they've stopped since.
You're actually doing your military a disservice here, and wouldn't it have made more sense to be totally sure before going in?
I never said it would be easy, but it's possible. Special Forces break into places and remove documents quite often in Britain, mostly when investigating terrorist or organised criminal goings-on but occasionally to cover the government's own rear; they don't talk about it much but documentary evidence from several years ago is available from the Central Records Office under the thirty-year rule, and I doubt they've stopped since.
You're actually doing your military a disservice here, and wouldn't it have made more sense to be totally sure before going in?
2/3/2004 c19 36Kittle
This is awesome. Thank you for having the courage to post something like this, a lot of people wouldn't. This is a wonderful collection of essays and responces. I wish a lot of people would just wake up and believe the truth.
36KittleThis is awesome. Thank you for having the courage to post something like this, a lot of people wouldn't. This is a wonderful collection of essays and responces. I wish a lot of people would just wake up and believe the truth.
2/3/2004 c19 Steven Lawrence
What I find pretty funny is that Rastavirgil reviewed someone else's essay, but fails to respond to a debate he asked for. Do I not see a return of Left Handed in the form of a less informed individual? I do believe so. I wonder if Virgil chooses not to respond because he cannot backup his claims? Or maybe it's because, when smacked in the face with facts-not opinions, not rumors, but cold, hard facts-he turns and runs like the rest of them. I guess two things can be said to Rastavirgil: "If you can't run with the big dogs, stay on the porch." Or even better "If you cant take the heat, get out of the kitchen." God I love a good cliche.
-Steve
What I find pretty funny is that Rastavirgil reviewed someone else's essay, but fails to respond to a debate he asked for. Do I not see a return of Left Handed in the form of a less informed individual? I do believe so. I wonder if Virgil chooses not to respond because he cannot backup his claims? Or maybe it's because, when smacked in the face with facts-not opinions, not rumors, but cold, hard facts-he turns and runs like the rest of them. I guess two things can be said to Rastavirgil: "If you can't run with the big dogs, stay on the porch." Or even better "If you cant take the heat, get out of the kitchen." God I love a good cliche.
-Steve
2/3/2004 c18 4my two centavos
"We knew Salman Pak existed—its existed for a long time. As much as it sounds like I’m pointing fingers, the best explanation I can give you is to ask Clinton."
Then why did Bush do nothing about it right after he won the elections? If he did bring up Iraq before 9/11 then why didn't he push the issue to the point that it would have reached us on this side of the world?
4my two centavos"We knew Salman Pak existed—its existed for a long time. As much as it sounds like I’m pointing fingers, the best explanation I can give you is to ask Clinton."
Then why did Bush do nothing about it right after he won the elections? If he did bring up Iraq before 9/11 then why didn't he push the issue to the point that it would have reached us on this side of the world?
2/3/2004 c18 James Jago
Didn't we already have this argument by email? Well, for the benefit of everybody else my view is that the evidence held by the various intelligence agencies is enough to justify a much closer investigation by either inserting an agent -not some guy who's defected and says he'll tell them everything he knows if they give him money, because it's a safe bet that he'll embellish it somewhat- or a Special Forces reconissance team. When it comes to an aggressive war that quite large percentages of domestic and foreign opinion doesn't want, then it's a different story. Even if the additional intel only confirmed what the West already suspected, the various governments would have covered themselves and wouldn't look as bad in the eyes of the rest of the world. Was it Reagan who said 'Trust, but verify'?
Currently, the leaders of both our countries are having to retroactively prove that they made the right decision, when it would have been infinitely easier to make certain beforehand- the mess is of their own making.
I really can't be bothered to argue the Michael Moore thing right now.
Didn't we already have this argument by email? Well, for the benefit of everybody else my view is that the evidence held by the various intelligence agencies is enough to justify a much closer investigation by either inserting an agent -not some guy who's defected and says he'll tell them everything he knows if they give him money, because it's a safe bet that he'll embellish it somewhat- or a Special Forces reconissance team. When it comes to an aggressive war that quite large percentages of domestic and foreign opinion doesn't want, then it's a different story. Even if the additional intel only confirmed what the West already suspected, the various governments would have covered themselves and wouldn't look as bad in the eyes of the rest of the world. Was it Reagan who said 'Trust, but verify'?
Currently, the leaders of both our countries are having to retroactively prove that they made the right decision, when it would have been infinitely easier to make certain beforehand- the mess is of their own making.
I really can't be bothered to argue the Michael Moore thing right now.