More on Bush in the Air Guard

Or, better yet, if you believe all this crap, why don't
you file charges on him and have him removed from office? I think they know
his location.

Because the phrase "equal justice under law" has been a joke in Texas for a
long time --at least as far as the Bushes go -- and increasingly, for all of
us.

If there were no other reason to get rid of Bush there is one overwhelmingly
compelling reason.

He has detained an American citizen, arrested in the United States, for over
two years in direct defiance of the civil liberty provisions of the Bill of
Rights.

If this person were most the vile terrorist ever (and the government seems to
have no case -- that's why they don't bring charges), give the guy a trial and
sentence him to death. The Bush administration hasn't done that.

I saw suggested on another forum that this recent proposal to postpone or
cancel the 11/2/04 election was a trial balloon to see how people and the media
handled it. Now the Bushies are backing off this proposal because the
response was pretty strong.

I think the arrest and detention of Jose Padilla was a trial balloon too. It
really (the lengthy detention) serves no other purpose. But most people are
going, at least by their actions, "la-dee-da, who cares about the Bill of
Rights." In this they are complacently ignorant. A real disgrace in this
country is that Bush could even have competetive poll numbers. It's like the
blood and suffering of the Revolution means nothing, that the struggle to move
human rights forward -- it's like none of that happened.

Read your Declaration of Independence:

"He has combined....for depriving us in many cases of the benefits of trial by
Jury:"

If there is only ONE case of deprivation of a jury trial where the courts can
operate, that is way too many.

Bush has done that.

His aiders and abettors, the United States Supreme Court, disallowed the Habeas
Corpus petetiton Padilla's lawyer filled because he filed it in New York, not
where Padilla is now being held, in South Carolina.

You Republican party kool-aid drinkers need to wake up and realize that Bush is
the worst president ever. The United States of America is under attack -- by
the Bush Administration.

This thing about Bush's guard service, the economy, even the general conduct of
the war, overrun as it is by dereliction of duty (both General Anthony Zinni
and David Hackworth have used that word) by the Bush people really are not as
important as the trial balloon of suspension of the Bill of Rights that people
don't give a flip about.

As an aside, even as the occupaton of Iraq has been a disastrous failure,
causing the death of many more US service people than it should have, note that
after almost 3 years, the Bush Justice Department has secured not ONE
conviction in the War on Terror -- even against Mousaoui (sp) who was caught
taking simulator lessons for jumbo jets.

Bush is a miserable failure no matter how deeply you plough your head into the
sand.


Walt

Bush is a miserable failure no matter how deeply you plough your head into
the
sand.


Walt

Walt, I have to have to be the one to tell you but your rants here are doing
nothing to convince anyone to change their politcal affiliations. All they are
doing is to convince Bush supporters and the undecided that many of Kerry's
supporters are Bush hating drones and that there is no real political agenda
for them other than to get revenge for the perception that Bush stole the
election. why don't you let it go or take it elsewhere to a more receptive
audience. Emaimls here are running 10:1 against you and that ratio is not
increasing mainly because everyone is putting you in their kill file, including
me after I hit send..

"Steve Mellenthin" wrote in message
...
Bush is a miserable failure no matter how deeply you plough your head
into
the
sand.


Walt

Walt, I have to have to be the one to tell you but your rants here are
doing
nothing to convince anyone to change their politcal affiliations. All
they are
doing is to convince Bush supporters and the undecided that many of
Kerry's
supporters are Bush hating drones and that there is no real political
agenda
for them other than to get revenge for the perception that Bush stole the
election. why don't you let it go or take it elsewhere to a more
receptive
audience. Emaimls here are running 10:1 against you and that ratio is not
increasing mainly because everyone is putting you in their kill file,
including
me after I hit send..

BINGO!


--
If you really want to save the
environment, support a family farmer.

Brooks Gregory

"Steve Mellenthin" wrote in message
...
Bush is a miserable failure no matter how deeply you plough your head
into
the
sand.


Walt

Walt, I have to have to be the one to tell you but your rants here are
doing
nothing to convince anyone to change their politcal affiliations. All
they are
doing is to convince Bush supporters and the undecided that many of
Kerry's
supporters are Bush hating drones and that there is no real political
agenda
for them other than to get revenge for the perception that Bush stole the
election. why don't you let it go or take it elsewhere to a more
receptive
audience. Emaimls here are running 10:1 against you and that ratio is not
increasing mainly because everyone is putting you in their kill file,
including
me after I hit send..

Actually I think the wacky postings are great because they demonstrate the
poor reasoning and disregard for the facts so common among the followers of
the left. Keep them coming I say so more the swing voters out there can see
just what these people are all about!

Jarg

Actually I think the wacky postings are great because they demonstrate the
poor reasoning and disregard for the facts so common among the followers of
the left.

General Zinni is not on the left:

"In the book, Zinni writes: "In the lead up to the Iraq war and its later
conduct, I saw at a minimum, true dereliction, negligence and irresponsibility,
at worse, lying, incompetence and corruption."

“I think there was dereliction in insufficient forces being put on the ground
and fully understanding the military dimensions of the plan. I think there was
dereliction in lack of planning,� says Zinni. “The president is owed the
finest strategic thinking. He is owed the finest operational planning. He is
owed the finest tactical execution on the ground. … He got the latter. He
didn’t get the first two.�

Zinni says Iraq was the wrong war at the wrong time - with the wrong strategy.
And he was saying it before the U.S. invasion. In the months leading up to the
war, while still Middle East envoy, Zinni carried the message to Congress:
“This is, in my view, the worst time to take this on. And I don’t feel it
needs to be done now.�

But he wasn’t the only former military leader with doubts about the invasion
of Iraq. Former General and National Security Advisor Brent Scowcroft, former
Centcom Commander Norman Schwarzkopf, former NATO Commander Wesley Clark, and
former Army Chief of Staff Eric Shinseki all voiced their reservations.

Zinni believes this was a war the generals didn’t want – but it was a war
the civilians wanted.

“I can't speak for all generals, certainly. But I know we felt that this
situation was contained. Saddam was effectively contained. The no-fly, no-drive
zones. The sanctions that were imposed on him,� says Zinni."

General Hoar is not on the left:

Gen. Joseph P. Hoar (USMC-ret.), a four-star general, was Commander in
Chief, U.S. Central Command (1991-94), commanding the U.S. forces in the
Persian Gulf after the 1991 war. He also served in the Vietnam War, as a
battalion and brigade advisor with the Vietnamese Marines. He was
interviewed by Jeffrey Steinberg on May 6, 2004.

EIR: You were one of the people who had been critical before the
outbreak of fighting, over whether or not the situation warranted going
to war. I believe you also had some rather accurate warnings about what
might happen, as the war unfolded, especially after the hot phase.
What's your thinking on these issues now, in hindsight, as we're over a
year past the formal fighting phase?

Hoar: There's small comfort in realizing that perhaps you were closer to
reality than the elected and appointed figures in the civilian
government. Those of us that have had some experience in the region over
the years, and don't necessarily have ulterior motivations, particularly
people that know very much about Iraq?and I don't necessarily put myself
in that category; specifically, I know a fair amount about the
political-military situation in the region, but know enough about Iraq
to know that any military operation and any subsequent reconstruction
efforts, to include the interjection of democracy, were going to be
extremely difficult, and perhaps impossible.

But, my major concern, Jeff, really was, that while I was in favor of
regime change, I was not in favor of it a year and a half or two years
ago, and certainly not these means. And the reason, of course, was the
much higher priorities: the protection of the United States through the
development of the Homeland Securities activities; the completion,
successfully, of the Afghanistan campaign; and the destruction of
al-Qaeda; all seem to me to be much higher priorities than going after
Iraq. And you know the arguments as well as I do: the weapons of mass
destruction, the threat to the United States, the connection between
al-Qaeda, and then finally, the reason was indicated that this was a
rogue regime, that punished its citizens, and its human rights record
was abysmal and so forth. We all know that story. The fact remains, that
this would have been a very difficult undertaking under the best of
circumstances, and unfortunately, with the exception of the Phase I
military operation, which terminated essentially with the end of
organized resistance over a year ago, the rest of it has been a
disaster.

EIR: I was at an event, where both Gen. [Anthony] Zinni [USMC-ret.] and
Chas Freeman, former U.S. Ambassador to Saudi Arabia, spoke, and this
was about eight months before the outbreak of fighting, in March 2003,
and they both basically thought that the real troubles would begin after
the "hot phase" of combat, when American forces would be there as an
occupying force. And they rejected the neo-con and Cheney thesis, that
this would be a cakewalk and we'd be greeted as liberators."

Bush is a miserable failure.

Walt

"WalterM140" wrote in message
...
Actually I think the wacky postings are great because they demonstrate
the
poor reasoning and disregard for the facts so common among the followers
of
the left.



EIR: I was at an event, where both Gen. [Anthony] Zinni [USMC-ret.] and
Chas Freeman, former U.S. Ambassador to Saudi Arabia, spoke, and this
was about eight months before the outbreak of fighting, in March 2003,
and they both basically thought that the real troubles would begin after
the "hot phase" of combat, when American forces would be there as an
occupying force. And they rejected the neo-con and Cheney thesis, that
this would be a cakewalk and we'd be greeted as liberators."


So you find a couple of guys (former this and former that) who don't agree
with aspects of the Iraq strategy and you think this is particularly
meaningful? I doubt anyone thought the al Qaida operatives in Iraq would
greet anyone as liberators. Clearly most Iraqis are glad to have a chance
at a real government. Relative to many past military actions this was a
cakewalk, and if you don't know that you need to start reading your history.
Saddam needed to go, and thanks in large part to President Bush's leadership
he is gone.


Bush is a miserable failure.


You don't seem to be in any postition to be calling names given your angry
crazed repetitive ramblings.



Walt




Typical desperate left wing stuff - criticism without offering alternatives
other than to elect Kerry, a person with the most liberal (read out of
touch) voting record in the Senate, a person who also hasn't presented any
reasonable alternatives to any of these issues, a person who has repeatedly
demonstrated tendancy to flip flop on any given subject, who thinks the
solution for improving the economy is raising taxes., etc. How very sad
that this is all you can come up with.

Jarg

So you find a couple of guys (former this and former that) who don't agree
with aspects of the Iraq strategy

Not "guys".

Two former commanders of Central Command.

Certainly not on the 'left' despite your propagandist rant.

Bush is a miserable failure. We are less safe now than we were on 9/11.

But now we have almost 900 KIA and nothing to show for it.

No one -- certainly no one who served in the military -- could think that the
reasons Bush 43 has given -- shutting down the torture chambers, bringing
'freedom' to Iraq, and the rest, could possibly be worth 900 KIA

Walt

"WalterM140" wrote

No one -- certainly no one who served in the military -- could think that the
reasons Bush 43 has given -- shutting down the torture chambers, bringing
'freedom' to Iraq, and the rest, could possibly be worth 900 KIA

I served in the military, and I was in both the Infantry, and a crewmember in
the USAF. I retired in 1993 after 25 years. I spent 8 years in the Iran-Iraq
war, and witnessed the attack on the U.S.S. Stark. I spent my last years on
active duty in the air war that ejected Iraq from Kuwait, and two years of
wasting our treasury on containing Iraq. For 24 years we fought that country,
and millions of Iraqis, and Iranians died.

It is worth it. War isn't pretty, and we wish everyone had perfect tactical vision,
but Iraq had no chance of continuing as a country, and I'm glad we invaded.
Iraq is in the hands of real Iraqis now, and we should do everything in our power
to support them in ridding the last elements of the dictators regime.

"WalterM140" wrote in message
...

Bush is a miserable failure. We are less safe now than we were on 9/11.

But now we have almost 900 KIA and nothing to show for it.

No one -- certainly no one who served in the military -- could think that
the
reasons Bush 43 has given -- shutting down the torture chambers, bringing
'freedom' to Iraq, and the rest, could possibly be worth 900 KIA


Informed, intelligent people understand the reasons for the war on terror.
It is unlikely you ever served in the military.

"WalterM140" wrote in message
...
So you find a couple of guys (former this and former that) who don't
agree
with aspects of the Iraq strategy

Not "guys".



Oh sorry, are they female?


Two former commanders of Central Command.



And your point is? They were trained to carry out military strategy based
on United State government policy. They had no particular compelling
insight into Iraq as far as I can see, and were not involved in the decision
making process. Zinnini was an envoy dealing with the Israeli-Palestinian
conflict at the time (a failed assignement I might add so apparently his
profound knowlege of the region were not very useful there!) Hoar, who was
a Dean advisor by the way, made some pretty dire predictions about the
initial military campaign saying "The result would be high casualties on
both sides, as well as in the civilian community." Of course that was
quickly demonstrated to be incorrect, with Hoars credibility in such matters
diminishing in the process. In any case, Zinnini and Hoar are entitled to
their opinions but there are plenty of ex-officials, inluding numerous high
level military commanders who agree with the decision to dipose Saddam. In
fact Zinnini's and Hoars opinions were most noteworthy in that they were
among the exceptions.


Certainly not on the 'left' despite your propagandist rant.



There you go again with the sloppiness. Nowhere did I say your sources were
"left", although they may well be. Perhaps you should try diagramming the
threads so you can keep up.

Also, I wonder if you have any idea how ironic your "propagandist rant"
accusation is given your angry crazed repetitive ramblings.?!


Bush is a miserable failure.


I bet his list of accomplishments surpasses yours many times over, so you
must be a complete miserable failure, and therefore poorly qualified to pass
judgement on anything of significance!


We are less safe now than we were on 9/11.


Probably just your paranoia showing. On 9/11 large numbers of American
civilians were murdered. How many have been murdered by the terrorists
since? As for me, I feel better knowing the enemy has largely been denied
his refuges and sponsorers in Afghanistan and Iraq, and that many of the
worst of them have died at the hands of our military with even more destined
for the same fate.


But now we have almost 900 KIA and nothing to show for it.

No one -- certainly no one who served in the military -- could think that
the
reasons Bush 43 has given -- shutting down the torture chambers, bringing
'freedom' to Iraq, and the rest, could possibly be worth 900 KIA



All this statement tells me is that you fail to understand of how
significantly the United States, Iraq and the world has benefited from
Saddams removal, not to mention how you lack the imagination to glimpse the
potential long term benefits of the creation of an Arab democracy. I
believe the loss of American lives was a large but worthwhile price to pay,
and my impression is that for the most part the US soldiers who are putting
their lives on the line would agree.

Jarg