GWB has been a good Commander-in-Chief

"Chas Hurst" wrote in
:


"Steve Hix" wrote in message
...

bush didn't do something dangerous and daring.

You were wrong about the F-102 being trivially-simple to fly, too.

Is it more difficult than eating pretzels and watching TV at the same
time?

When everything is going well in straight and level or even
low G manoeuvering its probably easy enough to fly. However
the assumption is that sooner or later things will go south
really quickly and its those situations that set the standard.

IBM


__________________________________________________ _____________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
The Worlds Uncensored News Source

Steve Hix wrote in
:

In article qn7Vc.9852$zO3.3508@trndny05, wrote:

In , on 08/19/2004
at 11:54 AM, Steve Hix said:

In article 7QYUc.6516$_w.5361@trndny04, wrote:

Nonsense. -- If the F-102 was so dangerous to fly -- then how
come it was so easy to rig with automatic controls that could take
it off and fly it as drone? -- That's where most of them went --
target practice in combat with our best -- all under remote
control. E.g., that means it was *easy to fly and *stable. (Or
course you should have known that before now, since duba did it).

Drone target aircraft are not flown all that aggressively most
of the time. Certainly not as manoeuvering missile bait a la
Top Gun if only because situational awareness as regards your
opponent would be difficult to maintain.
Are you truly as clueless as you seem to be, LeTurd?

[snip]

bush didn't do something dangerous and daring.

Dangerous yes but thats inherent in the job.

You were wrong about the F-102 being trivially-simple to fly, too.

That and much else.

IBM

__________________________________________________ _____________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
The Worlds Uncensored News Source

In , on 08/20/2004
at 12:35 PM, IBM said:

Steve Hix wrote in
:

In article qn7Vc.9852$zO3.3508@trndny05, wrote:

In , on 08/19/2004
at 11:54 AM, Steve Hix said:

In article 7QYUc.6516$_w.5361@trndny04, wrote:

Nonsense. -- If the F-102 was so dangerous to fly -- then how
come it was so easy to rig with automatic controls that could take
it off and fly it as drone? -- That's where most of them went --
target practice in combat with our best -- all under remote
control. E.g., that means it was *easy to fly and *stable. (Or
course you should have known that before now, since duba did it).

Drone target aircraft are not flown all that aggressively most
of the time. Certainly not as manoeuvering missile bait a la
Top Gun if only because situational awareness as regards your
opponent would be difficult to maintain.
Are you truly as clueless as you seem to be, LeTurd?


--Your generalizations give away your trolling.

PS: NORAD missions during the time bush was in -- never included Top Gun
flying. It was all radar guided intercepts. E.g., if you can steer the
thing, you can do it.

-- Don't come back until your the brains to play with the big boys. --
That won't happen soon.



[snip]

bush didn't do something dangerous and daring.

Dangerous yes but thats inherent in the job.

You were wrong about the F-102 being trivially-simple to fly, too.

That and much else.


What you mean is I tell truths is simple words -- that make you upset. Its
because you're lying to yourself -- in fact you can't stand yourself --
but you don't have the discipline to just just up when you know you
should.







IBM

_________________________________________________ ______________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 -
http://www.uncensored-news.com
The Worlds Uncensored News Source

In llcvc.7979$ni.2899@okepread01, on 08/19/2004
at 09:20 PM, "sanjian" said:

wrote:
Stop your nonsene -- and non sequiturs. bush went to the texas ANG
because that's where he had the political connections to get in the
day he needed to.

And we see reason come to a screeching halt. Pete explains something to
you, and all you can do is dismiss it as nonsense and repeat your same
old diatribe.

He posted nonsense. bush got into the texas guard -- because daddy had
connections in texas.


I wonder your inability to accept facts that don't fit
your assumptions has anything to do with your never progressing in
political understanding.

Its you who cannot accept facts.

wrote in news:BsmVc.38587$iE3.28509@trndny09:

[snip]

--Your generalizations give away your trolling.

No. Its an explanation dumbed down ( I thought ) to your level.
It seems I gave you too much credit.

PS: NORAD missions during the time bush was in -- never included Top

Didn't say they did.

Gun flying. It was all radar guided intercepts. E.g., if you can
steer the thing, you can do it.

And steering the thing while simple enough when everything goes
as it should becomes a bear when they don't. Thats why pilots
get paid big bucks. They handle the xceptions

[snip]

-- Don't come back until your the brains to play with the big boys. --
That won't happen soon.

Nope. Here I am. Here I stay.

[snip]

What you mean is I tell truths is simple words -- that make you upset.

No, I mean you are a simpleton trying to explain things its clear
you don't understand.

Its because you're lying to yourself -- in fact you can't stand

Sorry Squire, I am to mine own self true as the bard would
have it.

yourself -- but you don't have the discipline to just just up when you
know you should.

Whom?
I?
I am very disciplined, also persistent but you'll find that out
for yourself. By now I'm used to idjits not getting that point for
some time, LeTurd.

IBM

__________________________________________________ _____________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
The Worlds Uncensored News Source

"sanjian" wrote in message
news:MicVc.7978$ni.1048@okepread01...
LawsonE wrote:

Mind you, I don't think its relevant either way, but it was an
example, to me, of how everyone is indulging in spin (not just
Michael Moore) in this election. The F-102, at least in the website
stats I found, had no worse, and mainly better, an accident record,

Unfortuantely, people fly and die in real aircraft, not websites.

than other fighter jets of that same generation, so pointing to its
stats as something to crow about regarding Bush's bravery or lack
thereof is kinda silly. He obviously didn't chose to learn to fly the
plane because he thought it was the MOST dangerous, or does anyone
really think that he did?

People don't choose to go into combat because it's dangerous, either.
They
choose to accept the inherent danger. I didn't choose to work in a steam
plant because I thought dying in a steam rupture or uncontrollable Class
Bravo fire sounded like fun.

However, the point isn't Bush's courage, but rather the inability for him
to
be both stupid, and a living F-102 pilot... at least not for very long.



*I* never made the claim that Bush is stupid. Dyslexic perhaps, and
excruciatingly ill-informed about the world (or so some of his public
comments in other countries suggest), but never stupid. He survived living
in his father's household --that's at least as demanding as being an F-102
pilot, I'll wager.

wrote in message news:qn7Vc.9852$zO3.3508@trndny05...
In , on 08/19/2004
at 11:54 AM, Steve Hix said:

In article 7QYUc.6516$_w.5361@trndny04, wrote:

In Zktuc.25886$Yf6.21127@lakeread03, on 08/18/2004
at 09:53 PM, "sanjian" said:

LawsonE wrote:
"sanjian" wrote in message
news:5TFUc.25508$Yf6.18570@lakeread03...
[...]
I'd like to see him survive flying one of the most dangerous
aircraft in US military history.



Not hardly: according to the site referred to, the F-102 was bad
compared to MODERN fighters, but compared to other models from that
time period? It was one of the safest US fighter jet to fly for
many
years, at least on average. Given that bit of spin on this site, I'd
take the rest of what it says with a grain or two of salt also.

I'll take the word of the Air Force Colonel who explained the century
series aircraft to me back in the early '90s. He had few kind things
to
say about the F-102 other than it separates the wheat from the chaffe.

Nonsense. -- If the F-102 was so dangerous to fly -- then how come it
was so easy to rig with automatic controls that could take it off and
fly
it as drone? -- That's where most of them went -- target practice in
combat with our best -- all under remote control. E.g., that means it
was
*easy to fly and *stable. (Or course you should have known that before
now, since duba did it).

The same was done with earlier jet (and some piston) fighters with even
worse safety records.

Did you have some point to make?

For **obtuse people like you how are here to love bush -- yeah. bush
didn't do something dangerous and daring.



Hey, being a figher jet pilot isn't like learning to drive an automatic or
something. If he was a REAL thrill seeker, he might have gone to Vietnam or
applied for test pilot status, but just because a driver doesn't become a
professional race car driver doesn't mean they lack physical courage any
more than refraining from volunteering for active Vietnam duty does. And
Kerry's duty was mostly in places where he wasn't in much danger, and his
swift boat command was requested before swift boats became super dangerous,
so you can't claim proof that Kerry was super brave merely for volunteering
for what was a relatively safe position when he asked for it.

"Emmanuel Gustin" wrote in message
...
"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message
...


snip


The Iraqi WMD possesion case is a prime example. It is true
that almost everybody, including myself, considered it likely
that Saddam still possessed the unaccounted for stocks of
WMD, not destroyed after the first war with Iraq. In absence
of evidence to the contrary, that was a rational conclusion.

And that was basically the conclusion forwarded by the US.

But that was /not/ what the US government claimed. Bush
managed to climb the ladder of faulty intelligence and
rethorical distortion from "Iraq probably still has WMD stocks"
up to "Iraq has active WMD programs", which is something
quite different.

You must have missed out reading kay's comments in January before Congress?
Where he indicated that Iraq had indeed continued to work towards creating
and protecting dual-use facilities for the express purpose of being able to
switch them to WMD production? Their continued work on ricin right up until
the last conflict kicked off? Keep in mind this is the same Kay who
ackowedged that yes, he (and most of the intel analysts from around the
world) had indeed gotten the scope of weapons stockpiles completely wrong,
so don't be accusing him of shading the testimony.

Now, can you show us where Bush stated categorically that the Iraqis
definitely had large stockpiles?

To blur the distinction between those two
statements is dishonest.

I'd posit that your refusal to acknowledge that Saddam was indeed guilty of
continuing WMD research, hiding WMD-related assets, stockpiling a missile
that he knew exceeded the maximum range allowed him, and even possessing a
type of round he never had acknowledged actually building point to
confirmation of the fact that he was indeed in violation of the UN dictates,
and the ceasefire conditions from ODS, in regards to WMD, is also a bit
dishonest.

And after the war, of course, Bush
just as easily slid down from "Iraq has active WMD programs"
to "Iraq had the intent to retain the capability to restart its WMD
programs" or something like that.

They DID have active WMD programs; what they did NOT apparently have was
active production or a large stockpile. Stop trying to act as if these are
the same thing. Now, next time you want to tell us what Bush has *allegedly*
said, why don't you instead use his actual words, in context if you don't
mind?


The second fault was to pretend that bits of raw intelligence
amount to reliable information. Confronted with a meagre store
of intelligence on events in Iraq, much of it very unreliable, a
"pick and choose" attitude was adopted. The intelligence was
not analysed, but cherrypicked, and doubts and contradictions
were filtered out. (John Scarlett, now head of MI6, even stated
in public that some intelligence had been considered reliable
/because/ it conformed with pre-existing notions!)

Since when do you think the President is involved with intel analysis in
terms of determining reliability? He is the President, for gosh sakes, not a
bean-counting intel analyst sitting in a cubicle at Langley. Did out intel
suffer some breakdowns? Yep. But apparently a few other nations, including
European ones, suffered some of the same myopia when it came to trying to
winnow the wheat from the chaff in regards to Iraq. So the President got a
bad read [provided to him in terms of the question of active production and
stockpiling--big deal. The fact remains that Saddam was in violation of 687
and 1441 on numerous counts, as verified by the ISG last year.


As for the passing on by Putin of 'intelligence' relating to
possible Iraqi attacks on the USA -- Was this an intelligence
analysis or raw intelligence material? More likely the latter.
In that case passing on the material did not even imply that
Putin believed it, only that he acted as a good ally and passed
on potentially important information -- to withhold such information
would, with hindsight, have been very damaging to the relations
between the USA and Russia.

I see you remain an astute hairsplitter--first you tell us that Russia was
telling us that we were all wrong about Iraq, and when you are presented
evidence that Russia was at the same time providing us intel related to a
purported direct Iraqi threat, you want to start speculating that it may not
have been anything but some kind of raw intel that should have apparently
been disregarded out of hand? What *I* get out of this is that Russia was
not giving us a purely anti-OIF feed of information, but also hedged its
bets with intel allegedly related to causus belli.


The final and perhaps biggest error was excessive credulity.
The story about the WMD trucks, for example, was not just
passed to Western intelligence services, but also to BBC
journalists. Who concluded that the story was not credible and
decided not to use it, well before the intelligence services
reached that conclusion. Now when you drop below the level
of journalistic fact-checking, you are low indeed.

Did you miss the bit about the Germans, who provided a great deal of that
intel, not concluding that it was incorrect until *after* the US made the
announcement? And possibly not even before the war was underway?


You said last year (17 Feb 03): "I think that Iraq probably has a small
stockpile
left from before 1991, which escaped the attention of inspectors.
It is also likely to have a biological / chemical weapons research
program, possibly less important than those of some of its neighbours,
and probably short of materials to work with. There appears to be
no evidence for more, or for the industrial production of WMD."

Which makes it appear that you were right only in regards to the last
two
sentences, but the last is a bit muddled due to Kay's noting that the
Iraqis
made a destinct effort to continue developing "dual use" facilities with
the
express purpose of allowing future WMD production. So you were really
doing
no better than Bush, right?

No -- I used the important words "probably" and "likely", terms
he seems to be allergic to. The presence of a small before 1991
stockpile still cannot be ruled out, incidentally; it would be relatively
easy to hide and decayed chemical ammunition reportedly used in
some recent bomb attacks may have come from such a stock, although
it can also have come from ammunition recovered from a battlefield
in the Iran-Iraq war.

Give us Bush's words, not your suspect interpretation of them. FYI, we have
gone arounf this before in this NG, and wonder of wonder, when Bush's actual
words are used, this "allergy" you refer to becomes downright invisible.


And you therefore rank yourself as being at least as incompetent, if not
moreso, than Bush, right? Based upon the above and items like last year
when
*you* were telling us that Zarqawi was not operating from Iraq (16 FEB
03);
care to change your stance on that one?

There is still no solid evidence that Zarqawi had links with
Saddam before the war, AFAIK.

See Franks' book:

"One known terrorist, a Jordanian-born Palestinian named Abu Musab Zarqawi
who had joined Al QQaeda in Afghanistan--where he specialized in developing
chemical and biological weapons--was now confirmed to operate from one of
the camps in Iraq. Badly wounded fighting Coalition forces in Afghanistan,
Zarqawi had received medical treatment in Baghdad before setting up with
Ansar al Islam. And evidence suggested that he had been joined there by
other Al Qaedad leaders, who had been ushered through Baghdad and given safe
passage into northern Iraq by Iraqi security forces. What was especially
troubling about this intelligence were reports that Zarqawi and his Al Qaeda
colleagues were using the camps to train other terrorists for WMD attacks in
France, Britain, Chechnya, and the former Soviet Republic of Georgia. (In
january 2003, when British police broke up a terrorist cell in Manchester
that Zarqawi had helped train, they discovered traces of ricin, the deadly
biological toxin, in the terrorists' flat; reports indicated they were
plotting to use it to poison the food supply on military bases across
Britain.)"

From American Soldier", p. 332.

The best evidence points
to the presence of groups of followers in areas of Iraq NOT
controlled by Saddam. It is claimed by the USA that Zarqawi
is running part of the insurgency in Iraq now, but this does not
imply any cooperation with the regime before the war (look at
Al-Sadr) and anyway appears to be supported more by the US
need for a bogeyman to fight than by solid intelligence.
Very little is known about the man, his whereabouts, and his
motives; it is not even clear whether Zarqawi is an ally to Bin
Laden or a competitor. But the "they see him here, they see him
there" attitude towards Zarqawi expressed by US officials must
be worth a lot to him.

See what Franks has to say--I put a lot more stock in his writing than
yours.


We surpassed pre-war Iraqi power production and distribution
levels before the end of 2003. Water production and distribution was a
similar story, IIRC.

I am not sure that all this attention given to restarting Iraq's
oil production was wise. Of course it is the coutry's main
source of revenue. But telling the people of Iraq that oil output
is back above pre-war levels, at a time when the rest of the
infrastructure of the country was still in ruins, was likely to
encourage a cynical attitude towards the priorities of the
occupiers.

Errr...I listed power and water, didn't I? Where did your attention on oil
come from?


And a nation that has not known democracy is now making
its first tentative steps down that path. Not bad, IMO; and of course,
there
is no longer any need to be worried about what Saddam is or is not up
to.

The test is not whether you can remove Saddam, but whether
you can replace him by something better. Iraq's democracy
still has to be born, and it is already very ill.

It is a lot more robust than it was a year and a half ago.


Really? You have been indicting him as President for his capabilities
and
decisions in the present tense, have you not?

No. I was just making a remark relevant to those who choose to
present his service in the Texas ANG as death-defying heroism.

No, you went on to use his alleged inability to properly analyze intel as an
example of his alleged ineptitude.


Oh, boy! Are you gonna hold your breath until that comes about? How is
the
old vaunted EU rapid reaction force doing these days, eh? heck, you
can't
even get everyone onboard the same *currency*, but you think you are
gonna
develop a truly unified defense and foreign policy stance? Get real.

Won't be easy, I agree. However, if the new constitution is approved
there will be at least some hope that members states that have been
sabotaging all progress, will finally opt out.

Keep that happy thought--I suspect it is all you will have of any real value
when it comes to Euro-unification, 'cause there is danged little chance that
it will result in any single voice for foreign policy, or an effective
unified military force.

Brooks



--
Emmanuel Gustin

wrote:
In llcvc.7979$ni.2899@okepread01, on 08/19/2004
at 09:20 PM, "sanjian" said:

wrote:
Stop your nonsene -- and non sequiturs. bush went to the texas ANG
because that's where he had the political connections to get in the
day he needed to.

And we see reason come to a screeching halt. Pete explains
something to you, and all you can do is dismiss it as nonsense and
repeat your same old diatribe.

He posted nonsense. bush got into the texas guard -- because daddy
had connections in texas.

I hate to tell you this, but "proof by assertion" has no legitimacy in
logical debates. Even repeated insistance that Bush got in by his
connections does not make it so. It seems that you define "nonsense" as
"That which disagrees with me."

I wonder your inability to accept facts that don't fit
your assumptions has anything to do with your never progressing in
political understanding.

Its you who cannot accept facts.

I tend to prefer to have my facts supported by reason and evidence. I guess
I'm old-fashoned that way. For some reason, your method of establishing
"fact" (repeating a lie often and ridiculing those who don't buy off on it)
doesn't convince me.

wrote:
In 4qcVc.7983$ni.1490@okepread01, on 08/19/2004
at 09:25 PM, "sanjian" said:

wrote:
In Zktuc.25886$Yf6.21127@lakeread03, on 08/18/2004
at 09:53 PM, "sanjian" said:

I'll take the word of the Air Force Colonel who explained the
century series aircraft to me back in the early '90s. He had few
kind things to say about the F-102 other than it separates the
wheat from the chaffe.

Nonsense. -- If the F-102 was so dangerous to fly -- then how come
it was so easy to rig with automatic controls that could take it off

Well, first of all, dangerous to fly doesn't mean it can't be rigged
with controls, even automatic ones.

and fly it as drone? -- That's where most of them went -- target
practice in combat with our best -- all under remote control. E.g.,
that means it was *easy to fly and *stable. (Or course you should
have known that before now, since duba did it).

That's hardly a valid conclusion. That something can be piloted by
remote doesn't mean it's easy to fly or particularly stable. So
I've got an Air Force Colonel telling me that they were a nightmare,
and I've got you saying they were "easy to fly." So, what are your
qualifications to say that?

-- Why do you rightwingers post nonsense when so many know better?

Why do you leftwingers post half(at best)-truths and sheer bull****?

To counter the utter nonsense and lies of you rightwingers. -- bush
was a flop who went AWOL when he was asked to pee in the cup.

I see. When confronted by your lies, you just use another one. Do you
honestly think you're fooling anyone? Or could it be that you're actually
fooling yourself?