General Zinni on Sixty Minutes

"WalterM140" wrote in message
...

Clinton's not running.


No, but Clinton's record with regard to military service does illustrate how
the Democrats can be, shall we say "creative, with an issue. No doubt the
Kerry campaign now regrets raising it.



Follow this link to see a document that shows conclusively that Bush
did not get the requisite 50 points for a satisfctory year of service:

http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/g...-73arfspe1.pdf


That link does not lead to anything conclusive.



So the record shows that Bush was dodging his commitment in Texas,
Kerry was in contact with the NVA in the Mekong Delta.


Actually, the record shows that Bush fulfilled his commitment and Kerry
served part of his Vietnam tour.

So, Walter, are you attempting to spread the "big lie" or have you fallen
for it?

After an exhausting session with Victoria's Secret Police, "Steven
P. McNicoll" confessed the following:

Simple. Liberalism is about controlling people and people that are
controlled by others are not free.

Examples of liberalism...(historical) giving women the right to vote,
Lincoln's emancipation of slaves, desegregation of schools, the end of
"separate but equal", (current) pro-choice (versus pro-life), gay
rights, greater environmental protection (against industrial
polluters), maintaining a separation of church and state (see
Alabama's judge Moore)...and not believing everything the government
says is true simply because gwb or Rumsfeld says it's so.

These are all good things in my book.

Feel free to give me as many examples (as you can) think of that
demonstrate liberalism "is about controlling people." This should be
fun.

I anticipate an illuminating discourse...or not.


Oh, somehow I doubt you're open to illumination.

sincerely...give it your best shot...feel free to use multi-syllabic
words and compound complex sentences.

Let the games begin!

Robey

"Paul J. Adam" wrote in message
...
In message , Kevin Brooks
writes
"Paul J. Adam" wrote in message
...
Fine, let me know so I can laugh when a relative of yours becomes a
casualty. Wouldn't *that* be funny? Or would you need your "humor
switch" recalibrating?

Odd how you turned your humor switch back on when it came to postulating
about "parking tickets" below--I guess you and only you set the rules for
when it is appropriate?

Hey, you turn rules on and off as you see fit, why can't I?

Or is it OK for you to make light of the situation,
but noone else can?

You need to recalibrare your humour switch.

(Now, where did I recently hear something on those lines? )

Your dishonesty is growing-- you are the fellow who has taken the "this is
no laughing matter" approach, yet when *you* see fit, you toss in the witty
remarks. Double standard much?


In other words, war with Iraq was inevitable and unstoppable because of
one shell?

Impressive.

He was in violation. On more than one count. Deal with it.

And the resolution authorised immediate invasion in the event of alleged
violation?

Trouble with resolutions is looking at what they actually say.

The resolution passed by our congress did.


Read the reports yourself, I've already cited them and given you URLs.

I did read the reports--and oddly, I don't recall any discussion of true
binary rounds being fabricated or unaccounted for. Can you point to the
*specific* paragraph(s)? No?

Yes (Again). Did you not read the last two times I showed you this, or
did you just not bother to reply?


First source found at
http://cns.miis.edu/research/iraq/ucreport/dis_chem.htm

+++++
36. However, it was not possible to verify the full extent of several R&
D projects carried out by Iraq from 1989 to 1990, due to the absence of
sufficient data from documents and other verifiable evidence. Those
include the research on new chemical warfare agents, BZ and Soman. These
also include Iraq's efforts to develop new delivery means for CW-agents,
such as special warheads other than for Al-Hussein missiles, i.e. FROG
missile, and real binary artillery munitions and aerial bombs. Evidence
of such studies was found in the documents from the Haider farm. On the
other hand, the Commission did not find evidence that Iraq had reached
the stage of industrial production of these materials and items.
+++++

No production, that's agreed by the UN inspectors. (Mind you, apparently
they're all useless incompetents, so who knows what pre-1991 projects
they overlooked). Development alleged but not found, though pointers
were certainly seen. Not proven, but strongly alleged, that research was
underway: just stated confidence that "industrial production was not
found".

So what you are saying is that there is no mention of any
production/fabrication--as I said. So your, "And the discrepancy was noted
years ago" is a bit off, as the UN never noted any evidence of binary rounds
*existing*, and the Iraqis never acknowledged their existance--again, as I
have been saying.


Of course, US search teams - much more honest and reliable than the UN,
and free to move as they willed led by their excellent intelligence -
would *surely* not miss such a significant project?

I guess the shell found just materialized from thin air, then?


How does Hussein pose a threat with weapons he does not know about?

That would actually be your strawman--you have a totalitarian leader who
played games with the inspection process through the years, and now that
things like a sarin round, a ricin development program, hidden
equipment/cultures/documents, and maybe a mustard round to boot turn up,
you
postulate that, "Well, Saddam may not have known about them..."
Weak--very
weak.

No, simple fact. The ricin program? Let's assume it basked in the
Glorious Leader's favour. So what is it going to _do_? If you can get an
enemy soldier or civilian subdued enough to inject them with ricin, you
could just have cut their throat much more cheaply and effectively. (And
unless you're building James Bond-style autoloading umbrellas or Van
Helsing-style dartguns, an AK-47 is just as effective for spray-and-pray
on a crowd and suicide bombers' vests even more so). But it's a "deadly
toxin" and you can boast - with complete truth - that you hold "the
deaths of ten thousand Americans" in one test-tube and have succeeded
where so many others have failed. (Administering it is the problem, but
that's the difference between salesmanship and engineering)

A violation, it is. A threat, it isn't.

Finally, you admit it is a violation. Case closed.

snip meaningless material, since you now admit he was in violation

Absolutely not. Some were complete fantasy: "production programs" were
cited at places that were just empty desert, because the officer in
charge had grabbed the money and absconded.

I guess you missed the examples of his having overlooked weapons and
programs thet *were* in place and not disclosed, eh?

Go and find a dictionary. Look up the definitions of "some" and "all".
Notice that they are not identical.

Then carry out a careful count of the WME production programs found to
date in Iraq since the occupation. Having found that it tends towards a
round number, count again to confirm.

He was in violation, you mean. Glad you now understand that.


Both - he was both dishonest and inept. And yet he didn't pose a WME
threat.

Was he in violation--yes or no? Simple question--even you should be able
to
answer it without too much quibbling.

Of course he was in violation.

Good.

snip more materiel made meaningless by admission he was in violation


That's the trouble with looking at real life rather than political
slogans.

LOL! The guy who has advocated that we HAVE to handle ALL international
problems in the EXACT same manner, regardless of individual
circumstances,
now wants to lecture about "real life"?! Now that's a good one!

No, just the guy who wonders why "if violations of A, B, C and D are all
'urgent grounds for action' in Iraq, then why are more serious
violations of all four not important elsewhere?"

Obviously you are completely hung up on this "Standard Playbook for
International Affairs", so pointing out to you that such an approach is
completely and utterly unrealistic is a wasted effort.


Don't worry about it, Kevin. Just call me "a liberal" and forget about
it.

I don't believe I have thus labled you (at least not in recent memory)--but
don't let that stop you from claiming I have, or would, given your
demonstrated ability to make false attributions.


That's a very generous understatement.

Was he in violation? You really don't want to answer that question, do
you?

Answered, repeatedly.

Finally, you mean.

snip more materiel made meaningless by belated admission that Saddam was
indeed in violation


There was supposed to be a imminent and serious threat.

Those seem to be your words.

Actually, our Prime Minister signed off on them, which may prove to have
been unwise.

I have not seen them attibuted to our own leader. So what you are saying is
that your guy was wrong, and outrs was right?


Not "cultures hidden in refrigerators", not "centrifuges buried for a
decade", not single decade-old munitions.

Actually, we said hidden biological warfare programs. That has proved to
be
true in the case of the ricin, not to mention those hidden cultures. But
hey, don't let facts get in the way of a good rant...

Indeed. Why, the US Army is regularly called upon to fend off hordes of
umbrella-wielding assailants, is it not?

You have already admitted he was in violation in this regard, as we claimed.
Don't try backtracking now.


Now, you seem to believe that if Saddam Hussein owned a pair of used
nail scissors then those could qualify as a weapon of mass effect (just
imagine what you could catch if someone jabbed you with them! Plus you
could have someone's *eye* out with those!). I'm more minded to stick
to
realistic definitions of the threat.

OH, GOD! You are using HUMOR! How DARE you--don't you know some of your
family members could be dying over there right NOW? Again, I
sarcastically
note your use of humor is A-OK...but the rest of us can't use that
approach,
eh?

Chose to mount *your* high horse? After you called me a cynical liar for
such a thing?

(I believe the phrase is 'Ker-CHING!')

I can see that sarcasm is beyond your comprehension; you seem to keep
forgetting it was you who lambasted me for bringing humor into the equation,
but then you repeatedly do so yourself. Again, double standard much?

snip a sidestep of the fact that he was in violation, which you have
already admitted to


I don't have access to the man to question him. Did he *know* he had
binary sarin research underway? Or, just for giggles, what if it's a
Syrian or Iranian import and not Iraqi at all?

Yeah, he is obviously innocent of all charges because he had NO IDEA that
his nation had been working on WMD efforts over the years,

I'm impressed that you can say this with such certainty.

I don't.


I'd be more impressed if you could show me how what he *believed* he
owned or might soon own, related to what he actually *did* possess.

Meaningless--you have already admitted he was indeed in violation.

snip more tapdancing around the fact that he was in violation

Lots of possibilities: you're drawing extremely firm conclusions from
very limited data.

He had a ricin program--firm data (unless you want to call Kay and his
inspectors liars).

Your countrymen have called them much worse than liars - should I
disbelieve them?

Are you saying they are liars, or not? Given your own record of recent
dishonesty, I'd say you might want to be a bit careful throwing stones from
your glass house...

snip more tapdancing around the fact that you have admitted he was indeed
in violation


That is a violation. He had a sarin round of a type that
was never acknowledged as having been fabricated-

Not in production quantities, on that we agree, but then we've only
found one.

he had
cultures and equipment hidden away--another violation.


snip more tapdancing around the fact that you have admitted he was indeed
in violation

Conclusion: He was in
violation. You claim he did/may not know about any of this--too bad, they
are still violations. End of story.


snip more tapdancing around the fact that you have admitted he was indeed
in violation


Oh, but Saddam was in violation by their mere existence regardless of
their date, remember?

That is true. Sorry, but that is the case.


snip more tapdancing around the fact that you have admitted he was indeed
in violation


Stop bull****ting, Kevin. You repeatedly claimed that it wasn't just
about WMEs - but yet you won't say what it *was* about. (When asked,
you
go very, very shy)

Bull****. You have REPEATEDLY been given the other reasons--I gave them
to
you again and again.

Well, twice and eventually. (Overlapping requests, but mea culpa)

I never did get the prioritisation or the sort of detail that turned
them from "political manifesto" to "actually useful", but then I didn't
expect to.

You got them, repeatedly. ISTR giving them to you a few weeks ago after you
pulled your "you said it had nothing to do with WMD's" bull****? Try my 18
May post in reponse to you--the subject was "Sarin in a 155mm Artillery
Round". Now you claim I just gave them to you in "overlapping requests"?
Nope. The wording I used then was: "Here are a few, though--desire to bring
the whole Iraqi situation to a finite end, as opposed to continuing with the
interminable
inspection/NFZ/reinforce-Kuwait-every-time-Saddam-sends-IRGC-troops-in-stren
gth-southwards, etc.; the terrorist connections (Abu Nidal, Abu Abbas, Al
Zarqawi, etc.); oil supplies and removing a regional threat to same; other
(non"WMD" proscribed weapons violations (i.e., that AS II missile), etc. And
yes, WMD violations, both perceived (at the time) and actual (like that
illegal ricin weaponization program). Etc." I gave you some more in this
thread. But you *kept* claiming I never answered your
question...tsk-tsk-tsk, that would be another false accusation on your part
(unfortunately, that is getting to be about par for the course with you).



Inventing false accusations is a poor distraction. This is the third
time I've explained that if there isn't a name and attribution to let
it
be traced, it's not a quote: it's the third time I've apologised for
the
misunderstanding: and I'm beginning to believe that you're more
interested in histrionics than facts.

You have yet to acknowledge that you got it wrong when you claimed I have
been saying that WMD's were not a factor.

No, Kevin, I've said so three times at least. That you choose not to
read, does not mean words are not posted.

Now, the first time you called me a liar, I replied to you
paragraph-by-paragraph, explained and apologised for the
misunderstanding... only to find that at the end of the article, you
claimed you would read no more on the matter. (In which case why bother
making a significant accusation of untruth?)

I've repeated the explanation and the apology twice already, and still
you claim to have missed it.

For a fourth time, I was about to repeat... but on a hunch, I checked
the end of your message and realised you had fled the field *yet again*.

I'd ask "Why are you so willing to fling accusations, yet so reluctant
to even discuss apologies?" but apparently you won't read this either.

Bull****. Is this your idea of an "apology"? ""It's not about the WMD". I
can only go by what you say, Kevin...Your claiming they were irrelevant was
something of a hint." (Both are direct quotes from your comments last month)
Gee, that does not sound like much of an apology to me--more like a
continued effort to falsely claim that I had made that very statement.



Kevin, you're not a sockpuppet for Fred McCall, are you?

Why, does Fred have you properly pegged as well? You are making me suspect
Fred has more going for him than I gave him credit for...


Too bad, how sad, because you're failing to distinguish yourself by the
integrity of your conduct here.

Unlike you, I have not played footloose and fancy free with your
statements
and twisted them to say something completely different from what you
actually said--you did.

Actually, you have, but I've accepted it as the rough-and-tumble of
debate rather than using them as an excuse to avoid awkward issues.

Please show me where I have done so in this (or last month's) debate. Show
me where I have claimed, "You said..." something that you have not.


Unlike you, I have not completely ignored your
answer to a question and then repeatedly claimed you never answered it in
the first place.

Kevin, you're the one who has FOUR times made an accusation and then
refused to respond to the reply.

Which accusation? The one about you lying about what I actually said, or the
one about my actually repeatedly answering what you claimed I had never
answered?


Those would be YOUR faults in this argument, not mine.

The religious among us would say there's a higher power who will judge.

In the here and now I have to go off of the record--and the record does not
look very good for you right now.


Remember, we've gone from "significant and imminent" Iraqi WMEs, the
evidence of which was reliable and solid (but of course too secret to
share)... to odds and ends buried in gardens, hidden in fridges and
used
by insurgents in roadside IEDs. Yet you're insisting that nothing has
changed?

That "significant and immenent" would apparently be your words? I did not
see either of them in that report about our case for Iraq?

If you were still reading this, I'd give you the URLs.

Did you see those words in the White House's case for Iraq put out in late
2002? No? Then obviously you are not talking about attibuting those words to
us in this case?


Since you're apparently not, why bother?

Of course - now, where are the threats?

You are really going to avoid admitting he was in violation on numerous
counts, aren't you?

Yes. When "one shell" is a violation, then "violation" becomes
meaningless. By that argument, most of Europe plus the USA would be "in
violation" if you dug long enough in the right places.

Nope. Only Iraq was subject to the proscriptions of 687. Nice try, though.

.
And as i said elsewhere, I see Saddam with any form of
WMD program, or products thereof, as a serious threat. You don't.
Luckily,
you'll now never have to go through the agony of being proved wrong on
that
since Saddam has been removed from the equation.

You complain about "high horses" and write this rubbish? Hypocrisy,
'Kevin Brooks' is thy name.

What hypocrisy? Saddam has been removed, so he no longer poses any threat,
present or future. A lot of folks think that is a "good thing".


The only WME attack on the US to date has been home-grown: I earnestly
hope there are no more (disbelieve that as much as it pleases you to do
so) but I have neither belief nor evidence to show that the occupation
of Iraq has reduced the risk in any detectable fashion.

It has removed the possibility of Saddam supporting one. Case closed.


In other words, pretty much business as ususal for the Middle East.

Those are many of the reasons given in that White House report--you have
repeatedly been given them , and you repeatedly claim I have not given
any
of them to you.

And when you provided them, I explained how all were business as usual
throughout the Middle East. Refute my points, or run away.

Your points are meaningless; NFZ violations are not "business as usual in
the Middle East"--they applied only to Iraq, as did the limitation on
missile range. And as much as I dislike and distrust the Iranians and
Syrians, I have yet to read any realistic accounts of mass graves attributed
to their current leaders, nor to the leaders of any other nations in the
Middle East. Neither have any of those governement's leaders been tied to an
attempted assasination of a former US President. Again, your sophomoric
observation about "business as usual" was therefore meaningless--it did not
accurately address the points made by the White House in its case, or the
ones I mentioned earlier to you.


Oh, I forgot - I read ahead and you ran away.

There is nothing to run away *from*. You are blowing hot air--as usual.


Perhaps I should draw a conclusion from that?

Sure.

Is "a violation" a good enough reason to tie us down in Iraq for the
next few years?

See my comment above regarding Saddam and threat.

snip more tapdancing around the fact that you have admitted he was indeed
in violation

Less than a 155mm HE in that particular case.

Not sure about that.

You're standing by it when it goes off? That seems to be the most usual
description to date. It didn't detonate on command, it was found and
defused or - this is my guess and only that - disabled by controlled
detonation.

I am assuming the IED was detonated as a convoy went by, as is the usual
case.


155 HE round goes off and, if they were following a
normal convoy interval, based upon lethal burst radius of a 155mm HE, one
vehicle with occupants gets whacked. A 155mm sarin round with a few
liters
of fully-cooked sarin goes off, and you have to consider downwind effects

Not from a proper binary round with no setback and centrifugal effects,
actuated on the ground by a fuzewell full of plastic explosive. Poor
mixing, poor performance.

I said, "with fully cooked sarin"; i.e., the guys who did the deed would
have been smart enough to remove the burster, remove the two chemical
components and mix them seperately, and then reassemble the round with
properly mixed sarin. The outcome could have been MUCH worse.


Plus, how many US troops are in the "downwind effects" of a roadside IED
whose owners didn't know what they had?

The typical IED is targeted against a moving convoy. With no previous
indication that chemical rounds might be used, it is easy to assume that the
remaining vehicles would either herrringbone and dismount, or drive through
the KZ.


and you also have those folks who subsequently drove into the immediate
area. These troops were not MOPPED up, and seeing what would appear
(compared to the usual IED) to be a misfired IED going off (that burster
charge is not that big) on the roadside would likely lead to them either
immediately herringboning and dismounting, or even worse driving through
the
ambush point (which was our first choice when I was a CO--avoid stopping
in
the KZ at all costs). Which would have meant a fair number of exposed
troops
likely getting exposed to the agent.

Now consider quantity of agent - produced by the munition, and exposure
for the troops.

You are basing this on what actually happened vis a vis the failure of the
bad guys to account for this being a true binary weapon; I am looking at it
in a worst case, but still realistic, scenario.


I think your analysis of how bad this
could have been is about as accurate as the rest of your analysis in this
discussion--not very.

I'm lowering my opinion of your competence, sadly, if this is *really*
your opinion and not just bad temper.

This shell didn't even kill the EOD team (not in NBC as far as I can
tell) and yet it's meant to massacre a convoy? How much gas from a
roadside source do you think passengers actually in moving vehicles
absorb? You're absolutely right that the best protection for the
intended victims would be to drive through at best speed, but the notion
that this shell posed a serious threat to troops in fast-moving motor
vehicles is just *ludicrous*.

Again, we are looking at this from two different viewpoints. If you would
care to go back and review my posts in the other threads on this subject,
you will n ote that I said early on that the way this one was set off,
versus the normal cannon launch, was to be thanked for the relatively low
yield.


If nothing else, there's a 50-50 chance that the shell (rigged as a HE
IED, remember?) was planted *downwind* of the road. And then there's the
problem that you may drive past someone's roadside rose... but how often
do you smell them?

Read the UK government dossiers. Compare them to the reality on the
ground. Wonder at the discrepancies between the case made for the
operation, and the facts made on the ground.

Maybe your government based its whole claim solely on "massive
stockpiles"--our's did not, as that report I cited to you indicates.

Well, gee golly whillikers, Kevin, it might amaze you that we're run by
the UK government not the US.

Well, in that case stop acting as if we over here had to be claiming massive
stockpiles of the stuff were required in order to justify our action--that
is not what we claimed, as that White House report made clear.


Seems just a little inattentive of you to overlook that detail, but
never mind - you've gone off in a huff anyway.

Uncle Tom Cobbley and all knew that Iraq was in violation of 687, would
continue to try to violate 687, and even if by some miracle they
renounced WME and tried to clean up their act, some stray munitions
would still be adrift - therefore they could *never* fully, completely
satisfy 687.

The question is, were they so thoroughly in violation that they had
produced workable weapons in effective quantities?

No, that is YOUR question.


snip more tapdancing around the fact that you have admitted he was indeed
in violation


I answer yours, however insultingly put.

Oh, I forgot - if I hadn't read ahead I would still think this was a
debate.

No, I don't, and I'm tiring of explaining this to you.

You paraphrased me inaccurately, and when called upon it you trotted out
my
correct quote and then argued that the inclusion of *all* in it really
did
not change what you had claimed I had been saying.

No. I quoted you precisely complete with cite. I paraphrased you and
when challenged that the paraphrase was distorting your actual position,
I publicly withdrew the paraphrase and apologised for the error.

To repeat what I wrote above: Bull****. Is this your idea of an "apology"?
""It's not about the WMD". I can only go by what you say, Kevin...Your
claiming they were irrelevant was something of a hint." (Both are direct
quotes from your comments last month) Both came after I told you that was
not an accurate statement.


I'd call that
doctoring--it sure as hell was not honest.

I'd call it considerably more honest than your tactics here, Mr Brooks.
Be very wary of claiming "you never did X" when in fact you just chose
to never find out.

Odd way you have of "apologizing" after an inaccuracy is pointed out (see
above quote of your response to my telling you that was an incorrect
paraphrase).


I'm noting your continued evasion on the "other factors".

You are blind then. They have been given to you again..and again..and
again.
See the above: "...add to that the "other" reasons (missiles that
exceeded
the allowed range,

Hey, you have been claiming I never gave any of these to you...but as we
have seen, I did last month, and again in this thread... Where is your big
"apology"? Oh, yeah--you offered a half-assed mea-culpa that neglected the
fact that I gave you most of these a few weeks ago...


With or without payload? That technicality aside, plot the 'allowed
range' on a map and see where it gets Iraq.

It is a violation. Even UNMOVIC reluctantly admitted as much.


continual NFZ violations,

Yep, that's a clear reason to invade. I mean, *look* how many aircraft
and aircrew we've lost policing those No Fly Zones!

They were violations.


one assasination attempt on a
former US President,

Alleged or proven? Who was convicted for it, out of interest?

Proven to the satisfaction of most, except for diehard Saddam apologists.


(These issues are very mutable: the fact of the attempt is indisputable,
the reality of the who and why much more difficult)

harboring a couple of known terrorists,

I offer you Brennan, Artt and Kirby.

Then declare war on us.


supporting
suicide bombers, etc.)--you know, the ones I have given you before, but
you
claimed I never provided to you?"

And have since accepted - in the very post to which you reply, if memory
serves - that you have finally provided. (Since you've claimed you won't
read this, it might be churlish to add 'after much prodding' and for a
debator still on the floor, it would be downright rude to comment how
you flung them behind you as you fled)

They were "flung" last month, to you. Short memory, eh?


The fact that you claim they have still
not been given to you at this point is just an example now of you now
lying,

No, you have finally given them. I accepted them and thanked you for
them, at least.

Another lie. Not "finally"--they were given to you last month. You just
conveniently forgot about that, huh? Odd, after you making such a big-to-do
about supposedly asking the question *eighteen months* ago and (supposedly)
"never getting an answer".


'cause sure as God made little green apples they have been given to you
again, and again, and again...

No, they have not: but they have at least been given.

Ys, they have. Do a Google on the date and subject I gave to you earlier and
you will find them just as I quoted. Shucks, I guess that makes you a
liar--again?

you, or insist it was your exact wording,
because *even you* immediately recognised it as a paraphrase rather
than
a quotation.

Bull****. You sure as heel did attribute that to me. Do I have to go
Google
and restate your exact words to you?

Yes, you do. Which post of yours did I attribute it to? Where did I say
that the words in those inverted commas were yours and yours alone?

"It's not about the WMD". I can only go by what you say, Kevin...Your
claiming they were irrelevant was something of a hint." Your words. That
seems like a pretty direct attribution to me. Which would make you a
liar...again. The date was 18 May, the subject: "Sarin in a 155mm round".
same thread that I *also* provided you some of those "other reasons" that
you have coninued to claim up unitl today I never gave you.


Please show any evidence at all that would suggest that those words were
yours. When I quoted you, I left an audit trail: when I paraphrased the
'there wuz WMD!' crowd, I did not.

Oh, I forgot - your case is so strong and your confidence so high, you
already ran away. (See end of post)

You claimed I said that WMD's were not a
factor--that was wrong.

You claimed they were not a major factor. I asked you to name and rank
the major factors and got a laundry list, which I imagine will have to
do. "I don't know" would, by the way, have been an honourable and
acceptable response.

Interestingly, you chose then - and continued to choose - to shriek
about your wounded pride, rather than address the issue of "then what
*were* the other factors"?

You are lying again, I see--some of those other factors have repeatedly
been
given to you (see above).

No, they have been finally extracted after much pressure and still in an
unranked straggle. However, even that seems to be too much pressure for
you to bear.

See above. They were given to you on 18 May. Which puts you in the position
of lying...again.


I did. I apologised. Several times. Either you didn't read, or didn't
reply.

Bull****--you are still denying in this very message that you ever even
attributed the incorrect statement to me!

Indeed, because at no point did I claim to anyone that Kevin Brooks said
at TIME on DATE that "QUOTE".

See above. ""It's not about the WMD". I can only go by what you say,
Kevin...Your claiming they were irrelevant was something of a hint." Liar.


You then compound that by lying
again and again that I have never provided you any of the "other reasons"
for going to war--when lists of those reasons have been provided to you
repeatedly! In this very same thread, no less!

Well, eventually, though twice (overlapping) and without the
prioritisation asked for.

Again ignoring their provision last month...liar.


But we must be grateful for what we get, and be grateful when we finally
get it.

Again ignoring their provision last month...liar.


I'm beginning to consider that you're using this as an invented
diversion.

Why is that not surprising, given that you are repeatedly lying?

There was an age when that allegation would have required you to bring a
friend (if you could rent one - from your conduct here it seems you must
have few) and a pair of good swords (assuming you owned them) to a
discreet dawn rendezvous where the matter could be settled in a
traditional style.

You have by this point been proven to be a liar, to wit: in claiming that
you never attributed those statements to me, which you did, by your own
words, and in claiming that I have not given you those examples of "other
reasons", which I did last month. Both have been presented to you. It is a
bit late to close the barn door--the cows are out.


Usenet would perhaps be a better place if it were less easy to fling
accusations and run away.

I am not running. I have given you your own words proving you are a liar
regarding your inaccurate paraphrase attributed to me, along with my own
words proving you also lied about supposedly not having given you those
"other reasons".


Your internal fantasy life must be very interesting to behold.
Apparently I have a shrine to Saddam Hussein and worship the name of
Brannigan?

You have been acting a lot like him over this issue--if the shoe fits,
wear
it.

I'm not even offering you a foot, Kevin.

It is acvtually harder to catch Brannigan in a lie--he does a better job of
obfuscating than you do, as we have seen above.



Well, Kevin, let me tell you just how hurt, wounded and mortified I
feel
that in between accusing me of being a Hussein appeaser you've decided
you don't like me as much as you once did.

You just don't get it, do you? It is your lying that I find
offensive--the
fact that you can't seem to get beyond defending Saddam is trivial in
comparison.

Whereas I find your cowardice disappointing. Go cosy up to Fred McCall,
he's more your type.

What cowardice? Not that such an accusation from a proven liar is much to
really worry about--your integrity is shot, Paul, and getting it back is
going to be hard enough without your resorting to baseless accusations.


Absolutely. I can decide when to ride it and when not to, not you.

So you really DO think you have the right decide when humor is allowed
and
when it is not?

Don't we all?

Could you maybe post the rules the rest of us have to
follow, since they don't apply to you?

Sure. "Use humour when you want to. If people don't get it, be ready to
explain."

You did not ask for an explanation--you just declared it unacceptable in
this thread...that is, until it suited you to try and use it.


Simple easy rule.

Which you apparently don't follow.


And on that note I'll close this out; I can take only so much of your
repetitive lies, your belief that it is OK for you to use tongue-in-cheek
humor "but by-golly if the other guy does I'll set him straight!"
bull****,

You mean, "I can paraphrase but you are a liar"?

That paraphrase is accurate; you yourself said, "I can decide when to ride
it and when not to, not you." Which is a bit different from your paraphrase
that has been in question, and was proven to be most inaccurate (not to
mention that you did quite clearly attribute it directly to me, something
you now deny, but which the record shows you did do).


You mean "I can use humour for fun but you are evading"?

your inane "I apoligized...but in actuality, I never said that, so no
apology is due!" rants,

You mean you *did* see the apologies? I thought you claimed I never
mentioned it!

I was referring to your inane claim that you apologized, while at the same
time, as we can clearly see in this post, you continue to lie about ever
attributing the paraphrase to me. Apparently, you can't hardly say much of
anything lately without lying.


etc. I could easily deal with you disagreeing with
me as to the justifications for military action in this case--but I just
can't stomach your lack of integrity,

Brave words from someone who proclaims he's not even reading the reply.
(And who trumpeted that he wouldn't read the replies to his previous
allegations)

Uhmmm... I did not say that. I was indeed fed up with you by that point when
I posted my last response, but I did not say that I was not going to read
your response or post in reply; I have slept and gotten my "second wind"
now, though. Your claiming otherwise is apparently another lie on your
part--you do have a proven track record of falsely, or at least
incompletely, paraphrasing what others have said.


"Integrity" my arse. Any cowardly chicken**** can fling false
accusations and run for cover.

Every accusation I have made has been covered with direct quotes of your own
words, cited by day and subject, or by my offering proof that I did indeed
give you an answer that you claimed I had not given you, again by day and
subject. That means they are TRUE...but you would probably have a bit of a
problem understanding that, given your now proven propensity to resort to
lying. As to cowardly, the next time you are in the area drop me a
line--I'll be more than happy to let you address that issue in person, in
any form you may so choose, if that is what you really want. In my
experience, a fellow like you who has to resort to repeatedly lying in order
to try and cover his own missteps, usually is the sort who lacks the courage
for such encounters--but you are welcome to prove otherwise.

I'm here to talk about it and defend
myself, I'm replying to your claims, you're running away as fast as you
can. Shall we ask the audience to decide?

If the audience has read your claims in this posts, and then compared them
to the quotes I took from those 18 May exchanges, then I am pretty sure they
can reach the same conclusion I have reached--you were lying on both counts.


and I am really sorry I had misjudged
you in that regard prior to the last couple of discussions revealing what
you are truly like.

Well, Kevin, I'm *really* worried about your bad opinion of me, because
you've clearly shown how open to debate you are and how carefully you
consider your positions, and your hostility could do *terrible* things
to my career prospects - because you're *so* right on all these issues.

Hey, it has thus been proven that you are a liar. First, you claimed I said
something that I did not say. That was the first lie, which you say was just
a misunderstanding and that you apologized about. Then you now claim that
you never made such an attibution directly to me in the first place--but
your quoted words show otherwise. Finally, you repeatedly claimed that I
never gave you those "other reasons"; but the record shows you were given a
list of them last month, and again during this exchange. Three lies right
there.


I get *paid* to do this ****, and Usenet is light relief from it. I'm
actually genuinely sorry that someone I thought was an irascible but
intelligent poster turned out to be a mindless political knee-jerker,
but that's life.

Does any of that change the fact that you are a proven liar?



You say that does not bother you-- to have such a
"disposable" view in regards to one's reputation with others is kind of a
sad situation.

Oh, **** off and die, Kevin. I can take a lot but this sort of
sanctimonious rant should be posted at the top, not the bottom.

Ah. So proving you are a liar is "sanctimonious"? Shouldn't be surprised, I
guess--anyone who can claim they do indeed have the right to declare when
humor is allowed in a thread and when it is not, and their opponent does not
have the same right, would indeed likely be apt to be of that belief as
well...especially if he was a proven liar, as you have been shown to be.


Besides, isn't your entire paragraph redundant if you're just going to
run away?

Uhmmm...who's running?

Brooks

After an exhausting session with Victoria's Secret Police, Ron
confessed the following:

I think I will have to chime in on Stevens side here.

Okey dokey...

Sure liberals like freedom at home, but to some of us, freedom is not just
something for domestic consumption, but something that everyone deserves, no
matter what their country. Its not just something you are glad you have, but
lament the fact that others in the world do not have it, while having your wine
and cheese.

Ture...in the ideal world every citizen is free. The problem is the
world is not simply black & white, yes or no. Today we're tied down in
Iraq trying provide those blessings of freedom. And hopefully in the
long run things will work out for those folks.

Sincerely how do you reconcile your desire for freedom for Iraqi
citizens now and 20 years ago when Rumsfeld went to Iraq and met with
Saddam Hussein and gave him the blessing and backing of the US gov't
(but not getting too pushy about chem warfare vs the Kurds or
Iranians)? http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/special/iraq/index.htm
The Iranians had released the American hostages when Reagan took
office...why not be consistant? My answer? **** happens.

And where do you draw the line at which countries will benefit from
our liberating their people? Do we go into Iran next? Syria? Saudi
Arabia (and kill all those wahabi islamist ****s)?

Then on to North Korea...and the PRC. Do you think Vietnam needs to be
liberated now? We spent a whole lot of money and got a whole lot of
guys killed, and by all appearances Vietnam is a pretty peaceful place
these days (and the citizens are happy and like Americans).

The American and Euro leftists were content, even at times even happy with
conditions in countries such as the USSR and its enslaved Baltic and Eastern
European countries, Cuba, Nicaragua. People like Marx, Lenin, Ortega and Castro
were and have been darlings of the USA leftists for that matter. Look at the
ongoing love affair between Hollywood leftists (redunant) and Castro.

I have no answer for that...I can't think of any US liberal leaders
(politicians) that were ever happy about the conditions on the
otherside of the Iron Curtain. Try to use Tom Hayden

The left and liberals were thought it was foolish to confront the USSR, and
just plain stupid to have such folly ideas as rolling back Communist/Marxist
totalitarian states in the world.

As a blanket statement that is incorrect. I strapped my ass to a jet
ready to "kill a commie for christ" (so to speak) and never once
thought it was foolish to defend western europe against the WP, or
defend the RoK against Kim Il-Sung (that ****).

Sincerely, without meaning to sound insulting...looking at the war in
SEA with all the secrecy (the war in Laos, the bombing of Cambodia)
and tell me what it accomplished in terms of spreading freedom?
Personally I think liberals object to the secrecy aspect..and de facto
lying about motives...and many are simply morally opposed to war.

Sen Kerry opposed every, or nearly every
Reagan initative that helped roll defeat the USSR.

Not a Kerry scholar...help me out here. How many, or simply what were
the specifics. Surely you recognize that blanket statements don't make
it so.

No political party or person has a perfect record in these matters.

No argument from me. I don't think Iran-Contra was Reagan's finest
moment in office, but he was successful (unless you think more in
terms of the huge federal deficit at the end of his 2d term). And
before anybody howls in protest...Reagan was the MAN, he was at the
helm when the wall came down. May he rest in peace.

But when
it comes to trying to help countries that were under totalitarian or marxist
rule, the American and Euro left has a pretty abyssmal record.

Hmmm, Truman defending the RoK (along with our UN friends) against
those godless ****s north of the 38th parallel, JFK facing down the
soviets over Berlin, JFK facing down the soviets over IRBMs in Cuba,
LBJ sending more troops to SEA because of the (bogus 2d attack) Gulf
of Tonkin...OK you got me there.

I notice you write "totalitarian or marxist rule," are other form of
non-democratic government acceptable? King Hussein of Jordan, the
House of Saud? Where do you personally draw the line? Over the years
the US has supported folks with names like Batista, Boun Oum, Chiang
Kai Shek, Franco, Salazar, Ngo Diem, Trujillo, the Somozas,
Verwoerd, Ydigoras. Paticipatory democracy (which I think you're
addressing) was not a hallmark of these clients.

I appreciate the debate.

Robey

From: Robey Price

Today we're tied down in
Iraq trying provide those blessings of freedom. And hopefully in the
long run things will work out for those folks.

Same here...

Sincerely how do you reconcile your desire for freedom for Iraqi
citizens now and 20 years ago when Rumsfeld went to Iraq and met with
Saddam Hussein and gave him the blessing and backing of the US gov't
(but not getting too pushy about chem warfare vs the Kurds or
Iranians)? http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/special/iraq/index.htm
The Iranians had released the American hostages when Reagan took
office...why not be consistant? My answer? **** happens.

Well Iran was still on our **** list, and they were the biggest threat at that
time in the Middle East. Iraq had not taken out hostages, and was not trying
to spread Islamic Revolution around, and in fact they were opposed to it also.

If they had been anywhere else in the world besides next to Iran, circumstances
would have been different. Hussien has had collossially bad strategic
judgement, and if he had not gassed the Kurds, or invaded Iraq, or pursued
nuclear programs, he would still be in power, and Iraq would not have been the
pariah it was most likely.

But I think everyone realizes we and the rest of the west should have taken a
harder line that we did against him and his chemical weapons actions. And I do
think around early 1990, DIA predicted that Iraq had the biggest probability of
being our next military opponent if there was military conflict.

And where do you draw the line at which countries will benefit from
our liberating their people? Do we go into Iran next? Syria? Saudi
Arabia (and kill all those wahabi islamist ****s)?

Yes I think we can all agree those countries should be free. Iraq is enough of
a problem right now without having to worry about others. Going into others
too would guarantree failure for all of them. We can still promote freedom in
those countries however without military action. As for Saudi, unfortunately
as long as we use this much oil and gas, rather hard to do much there, and god
help us if radicals take power there.

Then on to North Korea...and the PRC. Do you think Vietnam needs to be
liberated now? We spent a whole lot of money and got a whole lot of
guys killed, and by all appearances Vietnam is a pretty peaceful place
these days (and the citizens are happy and like Americans).

Yes we should promote efforts to change, and I think Vietnam is probably along
that path as it is, although has a ways to go. DPRK, well that is another
darling of the really far left groups. Another sticky situation, but yes,
should do what we can to bring them down with destab efforts. They should
implode at some point, and if we can help it along, we should.

The American and Euro leftists were content, even at times even happy with
conditions in countries such as the USSR and its enslaved Baltic and Eastern
European countries, Cuba, Nicaragua. People like Marx, Lenin, Ortega and
Castro
were and have been darlings of the USA leftists for that matter. Look at
the
ongoing love affair between Hollywood leftists (redunant) and Castro.

I have no answer for that...I can't think of any US liberal leaders
(politicians) that were ever happy about the conditions on the
otherside of the Iron Curtain. Try to use Tom Hayden

Well the ones who may have not been happy, sure were content, based on their
displeasure for anyone who actually dared to want to roll back the Iron
Curtain. Look at how much leftists despised Reagan and the free markets
economists for daring to think the USSR could be defeated economically. They
all just wanted the USSR tolerated, and maybe contained.


As a blanket statement that is incorrect. I strapped my ass to a jet
ready to "kill a commie for christ" (so to speak) and never once
thought it was foolish to defend western europe against the WP, or
defend the RoK against Kim Il-Sung (that ****).

And I am glad you did strap yourself into a jet, I am jealous, and glad for
your service. But that does not change the fact that the leftist movements
still thought it stupid and foolish to want to oppose the USSR, and if we only
just talk to them...
Sincerely, without meaning to sound insulting...looking at the war in
SEA with all the secrecy (the war in Laos, the bombing of Cambodia)
and tell me what it accomplished in terms of spreading freedom?
Personally I think liberals object to the secrecy aspect..and de facto
lying about motives...and many are simply morally opposed to war.

Well it sure wasnt a real effort unfortunately, and some here know all too
well. While I would not call Johnson a leftist, Vietnam certainly was not an
effort to win.

Sen Kerry opposed every, or nearly every
Reagan initative that helped roll defeat the USSR.

Not a Kerry scholar...help me out here. How many, or simply what were
the specifics. Surely you recognize that blanket statements don't make
it so.

Yes he wanted to cancel the Peacekeeper ICBM, SDI (which many Soviets think was
the last straw in their economic defeat), B-1B, AH-64, Aegis cruisers, Patriot
SAM, AV-8B, F-14, AIM-54 and AIM-7...

All of those were vital in winning the cold war, in negotiation of weapons
treaties or being used in later conflicts.

“I see an enormous haughtiness in the United States trying to tell them what
to do,�

Kerry, in regards to the Sandinista Government.

No political party or person has a perfect record in these matters.

No argument from me. I don't think Iran-Contra was Reagan's finest
moment in office, but he was successful (unless you think more in
terms of the huge federal deficit at the end of his 2d term). And
before anybody howls in protest...Reagan was the MAN, he was at the
helm when the wall came down. May he rest in peace.

Complete agreement.

But when
it comes to trying to help countries that were under totalitarian or marxist
rule, the American and Euro left has a pretty abyssmal record.

Hmmm, Truman defending the RoK (along with our UN friends) against
those godless ****s north of the 38th parallel, JFK facing down the
soviets over Berlin, JFK facing down the soviets over IRBMs in Cuba,
LBJ sending more troops to SEA because of the (bogus 2d attack) Gulf
of Tonkin...OK you got me there.


I dont think the US really had a real leftist movement equivalent to modern
liberals, outside of Hollywood and Academia, until the mid-late 60s.

You cant call Truman, JFK, LBJ lefties or even liberal. They would have
nothing in common with the left wing of today.
They certainly did not believe in collectivist economics, and were very much
believed in, promoted freedom, both of personal liberties and economic freedom.
JFK was very much even a free market tax cutter.All three of those would
probably be anathmas in the current democratic party, based on their positions
then.



I notice you write "totalitarian or marxist rule," are other form of
non-democratic government acceptable? King Hussein of Jordan, the
House of Saud? Where do you personally draw the line? Over the years
the US has supported folks with names like Batista, Boun Oum, Chiang
Kai Shek, Franco, Salazar, Ngo Diem, Trujillo, the Somozas,
Verwoerd, Ydigoras. Paticipatory democracy (which I think you're
addressing) was not a hallmark of these clients.

Yes, and in hindsight we can see more now, and sometimes in our zeal to face
down communism, we allied ourselves with someone who wasnt really any better.

But I still believe that leftist movements were against promoting freedom in
the communist countries during the 80, based on their word of ridicule, their
actions to promote some of those same countries, and their demonstrations that
only served to help the USSR, Cuba, Nicaragua, etc.

Ron
Tanker 65, C-54E (DC-4)
Silver City Tanker Base

"Mike Dargan" wrote in message
news:6fwwc.8380$HG.475@attbi_s53...

Clinton's real daddy was dead and his step-daddy a dud. Without a
sponsor, what chance did he have of getting a cushy billet in TANG or
any other country club?


Clinton's sponsor was Senator J. William Fulbright.



Clinton used his brains and work ethic to get
ahead. Clinton's grades got him into graduate school and earned a
Rhodes scholarship.


No doubt young Clinton was counting on a graduate school deferment to keep
him out of the draft. Unfortunately, the Johnson administration
unexpectedly abolished graduate on February 16, 1968. Clinton became
eligible for the draft when he graduated from Georgetown the following June.

"George Z. Bush" wrote in message
...

Really?


Really.



In that case, would you mind producing some proof that there was
a court proceeding that found Clinton guilty of violating some portion
of the Selective Service Act?

You know, my dictionary defines "allege" as "to declare or assert without
proof". If you have no proof, there's no other word you could use about
the object of your affections than allege. You can't turn him into a
criminal
just because you don't like his politics or sex life.


My dictionary defines "draft dodger" as " someone who is drafted and
illegally refuses to serve". Doesn't say anything about court proceedings
or convictions.



By way of example, many of Bush's critics think he was an unprosecuted
AWOL or maybe even a deserter but, lacking proof and/or evidence of
a successful prosecution, many amongst them refrain from making
unsubstantiated charges like that. Don't you think it's time both Bush
and Clinton got a vacation from having mud thrown at them for stuff
nobody has yet proved that they did?


Well, I'm certainly not one who makes unsubstantiated charges.


Bill Clinton's Draft Record: A Chronology

Aug 19 1964: Clinton registers for the draft
[Washington _Post_ Sep 13 92]

Sep 1964: Clinton, age 18, enters Georgetown University
[The Comeback Kid, CF Allen and J Portis, p. 20]

Nov 17 64: Clinton is classified 2-S (student deferment) "which would shield
him from the draft throughout his undergraduate years."
[Wash Post Sep 13 92]

Feb 16 68: "The Johnson administration unexpectedly abolished graduate
deferments."
[Wash Post Sep 13 92]

Mar 20 68: Clinton, age 21, is classified 1-A, eligible for induction, as he
nears graduation from Georgetown.
[Wash Post Sep 13 92]
Comment: "The [Los Angeles] _Times_ found that the future Arkansas governor
was the only man of his prime draft age classified 1-A by that board in 1968
whose pre-induction physical examination was put off for 10.5 months -- more
than twice as long as anyone else and more than five times longer than most
area men of comparable eligibility."
[Los Angeles _Times_ Sep 02 92]

Summer 68: Political and family influence keeps Clinton out of the draft.
"Robert Corrado -- the only surviving Hot Springs draft board member from
that period -- concluded that Clinton's [draft] statement" (the long delays)
was the result of "some form of preferential treatment." According to the
_Times_, "Corrado recalled that the chairman of the three-man draft panel
.... once held back Clinton's file with the explanation that 'we've got to
give him time to [go] to Oxford,' where the term began in the fall of 1968.

"Corrado also complained that he was called by an aide to then-Sen. J.
William Fulbright urging him and his fellow board members to 'give every
consideration' to keep Clinton out of the draft so he could attend Oxford.

"Throughout the remainder of 1968, Corrado said, Clinton's draft file was
routinely held back from consideration by the full board.
Consequently, although he was classified 1-A on Mar 20 68, he was not called

for his physical exam until Feb 3, 1969, when he was at Oxford."

Clinton's Uncle Raymond Clinton personally lobbied Sen Fulbright, William S.
Armstrong, the chairman of the three-man Hot Springs draft board, and Lt.
Cmdr. Trice Ellis, Jr., commanding officer of the local Navy reserve unit,
to obtain a slot for Clinton in the Naval Reserve.
Clinton secured a "standard enlisted man's billet, not an officer's slot
[which] would have required Clinton to serve two years on active duty
beginning within 12 months of his acceptance." This Navy Reserve assignment
was "created especially for the young Clinton at a time in 1968 when no
existing reserve slots were open in his hometown unit."

According to the LA Times, "after about two weeks waiting for Bill Clinton
to arrive for his preliminary interview and physical exam, Ellis said he
called [Clinton's uncle] Raymond to inqui 'What happened to that boy?'
According to Ellis, Clinton's uncle replied: 'Don't worry about it. He won't
be coming down. It's all been taken care of.' "
[LA Times Sep 02 92]

Fall 68: Because of the local draft board's continuing postponement of his
pre-induction physical, Clinton is able to enroll at Oxford Univ.
[Wash Post Sep 13 92]

Feb 02 69: While at Oxford, Clinton finally takes and passes a military
physical examination.
[Washington _Times_ Sep 18 92]
Comment: Clinton avoided being called for his pre-induction physical for
more than 10 months after becoming eligible for the draft. According to some
accounts, the delay was "five times longer than most area men of comparable
eligibility."
[LA Times Sep 02 92]

Apr 1969: Clinton receives induction notice from the Hot Springs AR draft
board. Clinton, however claims that the draft board told him to ignore the
notice because it arrived after the deadline for induction.
[Wash Post Sep 13 92]
Comment: This notice set off the chain of events which led to Clinton's
efforts to avoid the draft.

Jun-Jul 69: Clinton receives a second induction notice with a Jul 28
induction date and returns home.
[Wash Times Sep 18 92]

Jul 11 69: Clinton's friend at Oxford, Cliff Jackson, writes that "[Clinton]
is feverishly trying to find a way to avoid entering the Army as a drafted
private. I have had several of my friends in influential positions trying to
pull strings on Bill's behalf."
[LA Times Sep 26 92]

Clinton benefited from yet another lobbying campaign in order to evade this
induction notice. "Democratic presidential candidate Bill Clinton, who has
said he did not pull strings to avoid the Vietnam-era draft, was able to get
his Army induction notice canceled in the summer of 1969 after a lobbying
effort directed at the Republican head of the state draft agency."
Arrangements were made for Clinton to meet with Col.
Willard A. Hawkins who "was the only person in Arkansas with authority to
rescind a draft notice. ... The apparently successful appeal to Hawkins was
planned while Clinton was finishing his first year as a Rhodes scholar in
England. Clinton's former friend and Oxford classmate, Cliff Jackson -- now
an avowed political critic of the candidate -- said it was pursued
immediately upon Clinton's return to AR in early July [1969] to beat a Jul
28 deadline for induction."
[LA Times Sep 26 92]
Comment: Jackson's statement is contrary to Clinton's repeated assertions
that he received no special treatment in avoiding military service. "(I)
never received any unusual or favorable treatment."
[LA Times Sep 02 92]

Aug 07 69: Clinton is reclassified 1-D after he arranges to enter the ROTC
program at the University of Arkansas.
[Wash Post Sep 13 92]
According to Cliff Jackson, Clinton's Oxford classmate, Clinton used the
ROTC program to "kill the draft notice, to avoid reporting on the Jul 28
induction date, which had already been postponed. And he did that by
promising to serve his country in the ROTC, number one, to enroll in the law
school that fall ... and he never enrolled."
[Wash Times Sep 17 92]
Comment: Clinton's admission into the ROTC program again runs contrary to
his repeated statements that he received no special treatment in order to
evade military service. Col Eugene Holmes, commander of the UArk ROTC
program, said Clinton was admitted after pressure from the Hot Springs draft
board and the office of Sen J. William Fulbright (D-AR).
Again, Clinton was receiving preferential treatment. In addition, records
from the Army reveal that Clinton was not legally eligible for the ROTC
program at that time. Army regulations required recruits to be enrolled at
the university and attending classes full-time before being admitted to an
ROTC program.
[Wash Times Sep 17 92]

Fall 1969: Clinton returns to Oxford for a second year.
[Wash Post Sep 13 92]
Clinton was supposed to be at the Arkansas Law School. However, according to
Cliff Jackson, "Sen. Fulbright's office and Bill himself continued to exert
tremendous pressure on poor Col. Holmes to get him [Clinton] to go back to
Oxford."
[Wash Times Sep 17 92]

Sep 14 69: The _Arkansas Gazette_, published in Little Rock, headlined a
draft suspension was reportedly planned by the President.

Comment: The article, citing a source, said Selective Service reforms when
implemented, would only permit the conscription of 19-year-old men.
In addition, the source said "the Army would send to Vietnam only enlistees,
professional soldiers, and those draftees who volunteered to go." The source
contended that these reforms, combined with troop withdrawals, "would put
pressure on the Congress to enact draft legislation already proposed by the
President ... and set up a lottery to conscript only 19-year-old men," the
_Gazette_ reported.

From his letter to Col. Holmes, it is very likely that Clinton was in the
US on Sep 14 69. He was 23 years old.

Sep 19 69: "President Nixon, facing turmoil on college campuses, suspended
draft calls for November and December of [1969] and said the October call
would be spread out over three months."
[Wash Post Sep 13 92]
The President also indicated that if the Congress did not act to establish a
lottery system, he would remove by executive order the vulnerability to the
draft of all men age 20 to 26.
[Ark Gaz Sep 19 69]
Comment: Again, Clinton was 23 years old.

Sep-Oct 69: "At some point, Clinton decided to make himself eligible for the
draft and said in February [1992] his stepfather had acted in his behalf to
accomplish this. _Newsweek_, attributing the information to campaign
officials, said this all happened in Oct 1969. [Clinton spokesperson Betsey]
Wright ... said she believed it took place in September. The difference is
potentially significant. ... If Clinton did not act to give up his deferment
until October, he could have known he faced no liability from the draft
until the following summer, that he could take his chances with the lottery
and find alternative service if he got a low number."
[Wash Post Sep 13 92]

Oct 01 69: "[Nixon] announced that anyone in graduate school could complete
the full year."
[Wash Post Sep 13 92]
Comment: Clinton is now safe from the draft through June 1970.

Oct 1969: President Nixon suspends call-up of additional draftees until a
draft lottery is held in December.
[Wash Times Sep 18 92]

Oct 15 69: Clinton organized and let anti-war demonstrations in London.
[Clinton's letter to Col. Holmes, and _Peace Eyes_ by Father Richard
McSorley]
Comment: According to McSorley, Clinton's demonstrations "had the support of
British peace organizations" such as the British Peace Council, an arm of
the KGB-backed World Peace Council.
[_The Revolution Lobby_ by JM Waller and AC Brownfield, for more
information on the World Peace Council, p.28]

Oct 30 69: Clinton is reclassified 1-A, eligible for induction.
[Wash Times Sep 28 92]
Comment: "Clinton said he put himself into the draft by contacting his draft
board in September or October and asking to be reclassified 1-A.
.... It is not clear, however, whether that occurred at Clinton's urging or
whether his failure to enroll at UArk automatically cancelled his 1-D
deferment."
[LA Times Sep 02 92]
Clinton has never produced any evidence to substantiate his claim that he
initiated his reclassification.

Nov 16 69: Clinton organized and led anti-war demonstrations in London.
[Clinton's letter to Col. Holmes] "I was glad to see a Georgetown
student [Clinton] leading in the religious service for peace. After the
service, Bill introduced me to some of his friends. With them, we paraded
over to the American Embassy carrying white crosses made of wood about one
foot high. There we left the crosses as an indication of our desire to end
the agony of Vietnam."
[Peace Eyes by Fath. Richard McSorley] Comment: Again, Clinton acted
with the support of the British Peace Council.

Dec 01 69: Clinton draws #311 in the first draft lottery.
[Wash Times Sep 18 92]
Comment: Clinton was virtually assured that he would not be drafted because
of the high lottery number.

Dec 02 69: Clinton writes to Col. Eugene Holmes, commander of the UArk ROTC
program and states, "From my work I came to believe that the draft system is
illegitimate ... I decided to accept the draft in spite of my beliefs for
one reason: to maintain my political viability."
[Clinton letter to Col. Holmes]

Dec 12 69 (approximately): Clinton visits Norway where he meets with various
"peace" organizations.
[Peace Eyes]

Dec 12 69 (approx.) - Dec 31 69: ???
Comment: After visiting Norway with Father McSorley, Clinton's movements and
activities are unknown until he arrives in Moscow on Dec 31 69.
Where did he go, what did he do, and who did he meet with?

Dec 31 69 - Jan 06 70: Clinton travels to Moscow. He later said "relations
between our two countries were pretty good then." He then described his
visit as "a very friendly time, a good atmosphere."
[Ark Gaz Jun 12 89, Knight-Ridder Newspapers Sep 25 92] Comment:
Despite Clinton's claim that Jan 1970 was "a time of détente," relations
between the United States and the Soviet Union were anything but warm. The
Soviets were supplying the North Vietnamese with advisors and anti-aircraft
weapons, and the KGB was secretly running the war from Moscow.

Sep 07 92: Col. Eugene Holmes, USA Ret., signs a notarized statement in
which he asserts that "there is the imminent danger to our country of a
draft dodger becoming Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of the United
States." He later writes that "I believe that he (Clinton) purposefully
deceived me, using the possibility of joining the ROTC as a ploy to work
with the draft board to delay his induction and get a new draft
reclassification."
[Letter reprinted in Wash Times Sep 17 92]

"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message
...

Many classifications list libertarianism as an "anti-government"
ideology. While less government is almost everyone's goal, few can
support the basic assumptions of libertarianism--that man is
inherently good and doesn't need government.


You don't find many on the left who's goal is less government.



Certainly privatization is gaining favor...


Is it? Not so long ago private sector airline passenger and baggage
screeners were federalized.



And, which constitution would that be? Most who pattern themselves as
"American Constitutionalists" seem to ignore the 216 years of
Constitutional case-law that has adjusted the document to the current
world.


The Constitution can be adjusted only by the amendment process provided for.

"ArtKramr" wrote in message
...

As is made painfully clear in Amar's brilliant tour de force on
constitutional interpretation in his "THE BILL OF RIGHTS" Yale
University press or Rakov's superb Pulitzer Prize winning " ORIGINAL
MEANINGS" published by Random House. The discussioins and
arguments of what the founders had in mind on any given
issue is never ending.


They're never-ending only because there are those that insist the founders
meant something other than what they wrote.

"Robey Price" wrote in message
...

Examples of liberalism...(historical) giving women the right to vote,
Lincoln's emancipation of slaves, desegregation of schools, the end of
"separate but equal", (current) pro-choice (versus pro-life), gay
rights, greater environmental protection (against industrial
polluters), maintaining a separation of church and state (see
Alabama's judge Moore)...and not believing everything the government
says is true simply because gwb or Rumsfeld says it's so.

These are all good things in my book.


You're confusing classic liberalism with modern liberalism. When people
speak of liberals or liberalism today they're referring to modern
liberalism.



Feel free to give me as many examples (as you can) think of that
demonstrate liberalism "is about controlling people." This should be
fun.


Medicare, Social Security, minimum wage laws, national health care, welfare,
race-based quotas, income redistribution, etc., etc., etc.