BUSH HIDES THE BODY BAGS...

"George Z. Bush" wrote:

BUFDRVR wrote:
I would have loved to hear your comments during Okinawa, or Gettysburg.
Some things are worth figthing and dying for, Peace in the Mid-East
(by way of Democracy) surely is worth it, isn't it?

Only if your political party is the one making the policy. This goes for
Republicans (guilty of such actions in '99) as well as Democrats. We've come
to a point in this nation when political parties take presedence over the
nation as a whole. There are Democrats that celebrate every time a US solider
is killed in Iraq.

Care to provide a name to go with your accusation? I don't know of any, and I'm
a Democrat. How come you know who they are and I don't?

I'm sure that there are as many Republicans who celebrate our casualties as
there are Democrats who do the same.

Don't know that any Dem is going to "celebrate" the death of another soldier,
but it surely plays into their political plans for capturing the White House.

They do seem to be hyping up every death and my belief is it is for political
purposes.

Surely you won't deny that being bogged down in Iraq is good for Democratic
Presidential hopes next year especially if the economy keeps moving towards
improvement (another "dang!" from the Dems although not explicitly stated).


SMH

Stephen Harding wrote:
"George Z. Bush" wrote:

BUFDRVR wrote:

......... There are Democrats that celebrate every time a US
solider is killed in Iraq.

Care to provide a name to go with your accusation? I don't know of any, and
I'm a Democrat. How come you know who they are and I don't?

I'm sure that there are as many Republicans who celebrate our casualties as
there are Democrats who do the same.

Don't know that any Dem is going to "celebrate" the death of another soldier,
but it surely plays into their political plans for capturing the White House.

They do seem to be hyping up every death and my belief is it is for political
purposes.

Surely you won't deny that being bogged down in Iraq is good for Democratic
Presidential hopes next year especially if the economy keeps moving towards
improvement (another "dang!" from the Dems although not explicitly stated).

Certainly I'll categorically deny that being bogged down in Iraq is good for any
American, candidate or not. Many Americans, lately including members of the
Republican Party as well as Democrats, are starting to regret that our nation
allowed itself to get involved in this military adventure for non-existent
reasons in the first place. In hindsight, we may someday conclude that we would
have been better off letting the UN handle the mess their way, instead of going
it alone.

George Z.

"George Z. Bush" wrote:

Stephen Harding wrote:
Surely you won't deny that being bogged down in Iraq is good for Democratic
Presidential hopes next year especially if the economy keeps moving towards
improvement (another "dang!" from the Dems although not explicitly stated).

Certainly I'll categorically deny that being bogged down in Iraq is good for any
American, candidate or not. Many Americans, lately including members of the

Then I don't think you're being politically realistic.

While I don't believe our Senators and Representatives *want* more US casualties
to help attain their political goals, the parties most certainly do make plans
based on how certain issues/problems play out. Dems will be favored if Iraq
is seen as a "quagmire", just as they'll be helped if the economy stays stale.

Republican Party as well as Democrats, are starting to regret that our nation
allowed itself to get involved in this military adventure for non-existent
reasons in the first place. In hindsight, we may someday conclude that we would
have been better off letting the UN handle the mess their way, instead of going
it alone.

In hindsight, when car bombs are exploding along NYC or DC streets on a fairly
regular basis, we'll see the Iraqi effort was cheap compared to having it all
happen at home.

We'll see very clearly the lesson of dropping the ball in Iraq because it "wasn't
worth it" was extremely short sighted.

The terrorists will learn that OBL was right! Americans are paper tigers without
the will to see difficult objectives through to their completion. Car bombs
worked in Lebanon. They worked in Mogadishu. They worked in Iraq. They'll
work anywhere against US interests, and they'll even work in NYC and LA.

This all won't come to pass the day after we depart Iraq in defeat, but I
believe it will come.


SMH

Stephen Harding wrote:
"George Z. Bush" wrote:

Stephen Harding wrote:
Surely you won't deny that being bogged down in Iraq is good for Democratic
Presidential hopes next year especially if the economy keeps moving towards
improvement (another "dang!" from the Dems although not explicitly stated).

Certainly I'll categorically deny that being bogged down in Iraq is good for
any American, candidate or not. Many Americans, lately including members of
the

Then I don't think you're being politically realistic.

While I don't believe our Senators and Representatives *want* more US
casualties to help attain their political goals, the parties most certainly
do make plans based on how certain issues/problems play out. Dems will be
favored if Iraq
is seen as a "quagmire", just as they'll be helped if the economy stays stale.

Republican Party as well as Democrats, are starting to regret that our nation
allowed itself to get involved in this military adventure for non-existent
reasons in the first place. In hindsight, we may someday conclude that we
would have been better off letting the UN handle the mess their way, instead
of going it alone.

In hindsight, when car bombs are exploding along NYC or DC streets on a fairly
regular basis, we'll see the Iraqi effort was cheap compared to having it all
happen at home.

We'll see very clearly the lesson of dropping the ball in Iraq because it
"wasn't worth it" was extremely short sighted.

The terrorists will learn that OBL was right! Americans are paper tigers
without the will to see difficult objectives through to their completion.
Car bombs worked in Lebanon. They worked in Mogadishu. They worked in Iraq.
They'll work anywhere against US interests, and they'll even work in NYC and
LA.

This all won't come to pass the day after we depart Iraq in defeat, but I
believe it will come.

Well, aren't you the latter day Nostradamus! My crystal ball is cloudy and my
cleaning cloth hasn't come back from the cleaners yet, so I think I'll pass on
the predicting-the-future business other than to comment in passing that your
guess is as good as mine, or vice versa.

George Z.


SMH

Subject: BUSH HIDES THE BODY BAGS...
From: "George Z. Bush" am
Date: 11/12/03 4:35 AM Pacific

ell, aren't you the latter day Nostradamus! My crystal ball is cloudy and my
cleaning cloth hasn't com

My eyes are dim I cannot see,
I have not got my E6-B with me,
Over the Valley of the Ruhr.

WW II AAC ditty with parts left out.



Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

"George Z. Bush" wrote:

Well, aren't you the latter day Nostradamus! My crystal ball is cloudy and my
cleaning cloth hasn't come back from the cleaners yet, so I think I'll pass on
the predicting-the-future business other than to comment in passing that your
guess is as good as mine, or vice versa.

Don't really need a crystal ball do you George?

We know what happens when one doesn't stand up to tyranny. We know what
happens when failure in will (usually always for very good reasons), allows
darkness to prevail. I think even you'll agree Saddam and Osama are on the
side of darkness. Removal from Lebanon and Somalia only encouraged the OBL
crowd. Don't think for a minute they can not win in Iraq. The odds are in
their favor.

Don't get me wrong. I'm neo-isolationist at heart. I don't think the US
should ever have been in Lebanon or Somalia, despite honest reasons.

I don't think the US should be in Kosovo or Bosnia, despite images of
massacred farmers or urbanites of the wrong ethnic persuasion.

But we were there! And once there, to be run out can only be bad. Now,
like it or not, we're in Iraq, for actually quite fair reasons IMHO.

So what's it going to be?

I don't think you need to be a modern day Nostradamus to see any trends
here do you?


SMH

Stephen Harding wrote:
"George Z. Bush" wrote:

Well, aren't you the latter day Nostradamus! My crystal ball is cloudy and
my cleaning cloth hasn't come back from the cleaners yet, so I think I'll
pass on the predicting-the-future business other than to comment in passing
that your guess is as good as mine, or vice versa.

Don't really need a crystal ball do you George?

You having a problem with my English? You don't understand what "I think I'll
pass..." means?

We know what happens when one doesn't stand up to tyranny. We know what
happens when failure in will (usually always for very good reasons), allows
darkness to prevail. I think even you'll agree Saddam and Osama are on the
side of darkness. Removal from Lebanon and Somalia only encouraged the OBL
crowd. Don't think for a minute they can not win in Iraq. The odds are in
their favor.

Spoken like a true simplistic idealogue. Everything's black and
white.....everything's so easy to figure out. Sure it is.....and that's why
they having parades for their conquering heroes in Baghdad every day. Sure it
is!

Don't get me wrong. I'm neo-isolationist at heart. I don't think the US
should ever have been in Lebanon or Somalia, despite honest reasons.

I don't think the US should be in Kosovo or Bosnia, despite images of
massacred farmers or urbanites of the wrong ethnic persuasion.

But we were there! And once there, to be run out can only be bad. Now,
like it or not, we're in Iraq, for actually quite fair reasons IMHO.

You were on a roll until you stated our reasons for being there were quite fair.
But, you're entitled to your opinion.

So what's it going to be?

I don't think you need to be a modern day Nostradamus to see any trends
here do you?

Surely you wouldn't believe what I might have to say, so why don't you enlighten
us with your perceived wisdom?


George Z.

"George Z. Bush" wrote:

Stephen Harding wrote:
"George Z. Bush" wrote:

Well, aren't you the latter day Nostradamus! My crystal ball is cloudy and
my cleaning cloth hasn't come back from the cleaners yet, so I think I'll
pass on the predicting-the-future business other than to comment in passing
that your guess is as good as mine, or vice versa.

Don't really need a crystal ball do you George?

You having a problem with my English? You don't understand what "I think I'll
pass..." means?

Working hard at being confrontational it seems.

Don't see anything wrong with my reading of what you wrote. Do you understand
what you wrote?

We know what happens when one doesn't stand up to tyranny. We know what
happens when failure in will (usually always for very good reasons), allows
darkness to prevail. I think even you'll agree Saddam and Osama are on the
side of darkness. Removal from Lebanon and Somalia only encouraged the OBL
crowd. Don't think for a minute they can not win in Iraq. The odds are in
their favor.

Spoken like a true simplistic idealogue. Everything's black and
white.....everything's so easy to figure out. Sure it is.....and that's why
they having parades for their conquering heroes in Baghdad every day. Sure it
is!

We can add complexity to the point we no longer can tell anything. Your choice.
You think there are shades of complexity coming from the Taliban? From the
Baathists? From the generic Arab world?

You'd better figure out what is black and white and toss the gray or you'll
be living by someone else's definition of it.

Don't get me wrong. I'm neo-isolationist at heart. I don't think the US
should ever have been in Lebanon or Somalia, despite honest reasons.

I don't think the US should be in Kosovo or Bosnia, despite images of
massacred farmers or urbanites of the wrong ethnic persuasion.

But we were there! And once there, to be run out can only be bad. Now,
like it or not, we're in Iraq, for actually quite fair reasons IMHO.

You were on a roll until you stated our reasons for being there were quite fair.
But, you're entitled to your opinion.

Well your open-mindedness spilleth over.

So what's it going to be?

I don't think you need to be a modern day Nostradamus to see any trends
here do you?

Surely you wouldn't believe what I might have to say, so why don't you enlighten
us with your perceived wisdom?

You've already stated your poor opinion of my wisdom. Saying anything more is a
waste of typing muscles.


SMH

"George Z. Bush" wrote in message ...
Stephen Harding wrote:
"George Z. Bush" wrote:

Stephen Harding wrote:
Surely you won't deny that being bogged down in Iraq is good for Democratic
Presidential hopes next year especially if the economy keeps moving towards
improvement (another "dang!" from the Dems although not explicitly stated).

Certainly I'll categorically deny that being bogged down in Iraq is good for
any American, candidate or not. Many Americans, lately including members of
the

Then I don't think you're being politically realistic.

While I don't believe our Senators and Representatives *want* more US
casualties to help attain their political goals, the parties most certainly
do make plans based on how certain issues/problems play out. Dems will be
favored if Iraq
is seen as a "quagmire", just as they'll be helped if the economy stays stale.

Republican Party as well as Democrats, are starting to regret that our nation
allowed itself to get involved in this military adventure for non-existent
reasons in the first place. In hindsight, we may someday conclude that we
would have been better off letting the UN handle the mess their way, instead
of going it alone.

In hindsight, when car bombs are exploding along NYC or DC streets on a fairly
regular basis, we'll see the Iraqi effort was cheap compared to having it all
happen at home.

We'll see very clearly the lesson of dropping the ball in Iraq because it
"wasn't worth it" was extremely short sighted.

The terrorists will learn that OBL was right! Americans are paper tigers
without the will to see difficult objectives through to their completion.
Car bombs worked in Lebanon. They worked in Mogadishu. They worked in Iraq.
They'll work anywhere against US interests, and they'll even work in NYC and
LA.

This all won't come to pass the day after we depart Iraq in defeat, but I
believe it will come.

Well, aren't you the latter day Nostradamus! My crystal ball is cloudy and my
cleaning cloth hasn't come back from the cleaners yet, so I think I'll pass on
the predicting-the-future business other than to comment in passing that your
guess is as good as mine, or vice versa.

And your guess would presumably therefore be that if we ticked tail
and skedaddled out of Iraq pronto things would be just peachy?
Otherwise, what are you arguing with here?

Brooks


George Z.


SMH

On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 01:16:20 -0500, "George Z. Bush"
wrote:


Certainly I'll categorically deny that being bogged down in Iraq is good for any
American, candidate or not. Many Americans, lately including members of the
Republican Party as well as Democrats, are starting to regret that our nation
allowed itself to get involved in this military adventure for non-existent
reasons in the first place. In hindsight, we may someday conclude that we would
have been better off letting the UN handle the mess their way, instead of going
it alone.

George Z.


Had a student in my American Gov't class last week, an Iraqi Freedom
vet, Marine. He indicated the intent not to vote for Bush' reelection,
although when pressed, he couldn't find any identification with the
opposition other than his disappointment in the "quagmire" of Iraq.

I asked him if he knew where the metaphor originated, and, being a
modern American product of our educational system, he did not. I
explained that David Halberstam had written "Making of a Quagmire"
more than five YEARS after the start of full-blown US/NVN hostilities.
I pointed out that Iraqi Freedom lasted five WEEKS, and the rebuilding
phase has been going on for less than five MONTHS. Hardly "bogged
down" at this point, although the potential exists.

Recent editorials have been comparing the Iraqi democratization to the
aftermath of WW II in Europe. Five months after V-E day, the region
was lawless, with looting, refugees, sniping and disorder. It was
eighteen months until George Marshall's genius of rebuilding rather
than punishing ala Versailles began to create the stable, economically
powerful Germany and post-war Europe.

We live in a "USA Today/MTV" sort of world in which resolution must
occur within seconds or we jump cut to the next suggestive video
segment.

"Non-existant reasons"? Gotta say at the most superficial that
bringing democracy to an oppressed dictatorial nation is a pretty good
one. Ditto for demonstrating US support for an Arab people. Ditto
again for stabilizing the region and building a staunch presence
beyond Israel.

"Letting the UN handle the mess their way..."? Gimme a break. Any
examples of UN successes in handling this sort of mess?