| Topic: |
Science > Abortion |
| User: |
"Marie A." |
| Date: |
24 Jun 2003 11:29:26 AM |
| Object: |
General Clark drops a bomb on Bush |
(Spartakus) wrote in message news:<6ed74dfa.0306240627.1adffd07@posting.google.com>...
http://www.fair.org/press-releases/clark-iraq.html
Heads up! General Wesley Clark said the following on the June 15th
edition of Meet The Press:
GEN CLARK: ...there was a concerted effort during
the fall of 2001 starting immediately
after 9/11 to pin 9/11 and the terrorism
problem on Saddam Hussein.
MR. RUSSERT: By who? Who did that?
GEN. CLARK: Well, it came from the White House, it
came from people around the White House.
It came from all over. I got a call on
9/11. I was on CNN, and I got a call at
my home saying, "You got to say this is
connected. This is state-sponsored
terrorism. This has to be connected to
Saddam Hussein." I said, "But -- I'm
willing to say it but what's your
evidence?" And I never got any evidence...
This is corroborated by reports that Defense Secretary Rumsfeld was
directing his people to create plans for attacking Iraq within hours
of the 9/11 attacks, despite the complete absence of evidence that
Iraq had anything to do with 9/11.
Bush lied and thousands of innocent people died. He (and his entire
administration) have to go.
Your hero, Bubba, also lied bigtime about genocide in Yugoslavia and
more than 10,000 Kosovars died as a direct result of that NAto action,
with the U.S. furnishing 90% of the military muscle. Anyway, we don't
recall any of you democrats getting hysterical over that one. So,
excuse us if we don't get too worked up over your suspicious concerns
about presidents lying.
.
|
|
| User: "james g. keegan jr." |
|
| Title: Re: General Clark drops a bomb on Bush |
24 Jun 2003 04:32:55 PM |
|
|
(Marie A.) wrote in
news:1dc521ed.0306240829.2604d25a@posting.google.com:
spartakus@my-deja.com (Spartakus) wrote in message
news:<6ed74dfa.0306240627.1adffd07@posting.google.com>...
http://www.fair.org/press-releases/clark-iraq.html
Heads up! General Wesley Clark said the following on the
June 15th edition of Meet The Press:
GEN CLARK: ...there was a concerted effort during
the fall of 2001 starting immediately
after 9/11 to pin 9/11 and the terrorism
problem on Saddam Hussein.
MR. RUSSERT: By who? Who did that?
GEN. CLARK: Well, it came from the White House, it
came from people around the White House.
It came from all over. I got a call on
9/11. I was on CNN, and I got a call at
my home saying, "You got to say this is
connected. This is state-sponsored
terrorism. This has to be connected to
Saddam Hussein." I said, "But -- I'm
willing to say it but what's your
evidence?" And I never got any evidence...
This is corroborated by reports that Defense Secretary
Rumsfeld was directing his people to create plans for
attacking Iraq within hours of the 9/11 attacks, despite the
complete absence of evidence that Iraq had anything to do
with 9/11.
Bush lied and thousands of innocent people died. He (and his
entire administration) have to go.
Your hero, Bubba, also lied bigtime about genocide in
Yugoslavia
really? i predict that this is like all of yoru other claims,
something you can't support with evidence. let's see if you're
making this up too.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Spartakus" |
|
| Title: Re: General Clark drops a bomb on Bush |
24 Jun 2003 04:51:00 PM |
|
|
(Marie A.) wrote...
spartakus@my-deja.com (Spartakus) wrote...
http://www.fair.org/press-releases/clark-iraq.html
Heads up! General Wesley Clark said the following on the June 15th
edition of Meet The Press:
GEN CLARK: ...there was a concerted effort during
the fall of 2001 starting immediately
after 9/11 to pin 9/11 and the terrorism
problem on Saddam Hussein.
MR. RUSSERT: By who? Who did that?
GEN. CLARK: Well, it came from the White House, it
came from people around the White House.
It came from all over. I got a call on
9/11. I was on CNN, and I got a call at
my home saying, "You got to say this is
connected. This is state-sponsored
terrorism. This has to be connected to
Saddam Hussein." I said, "But -- I'm
willing to say it but what's your
evidence?" And I never got any evidence...
This is corroborated by reports that Defense Secretary Rumsfeld was
directing his people to create plans for attacking Iraq within hours
of the 9/11 attacks, despite the complete absence of evidence that
Iraq had anything to do with 9/11.
Bush lied and thousands of innocent people died. He (and his entire
administration) have to go.
Your hero, Bubba, also lied bigtime about genocide in Yugoslavia and
more than 10,000 Kosovars died as a direct result of that NAto action,
with the U.S. furnishing 90% of the military muscle. Anyway, we don't
recall any of you democrats getting hysterical over that one. So,
excuse us if we don't get too worked up over your suspicious concerns
about presidents lying.
First of all, Marie/cleopatra/WhateverNewIdentityYouMorphInto, you've
gotta do some better fact-checking. 'Cause unless Serbia was part of
NATO in the late 1990s, there's no way you can hang the thousands of
civilian deaths on NATO. Clinton didn't lie about genocide in
Yugoslavia - his claims were corrobborated by Amnesty International
and the Red Cross.
Secondly, the NATO action had broad international support, something
that Bush will wish he had as the occupation of Iraq continues and
more American soldiers die. (The American death toll is ~60 since
Bush declared combat to be over on May 1.)
Thirdly, several Democratic congressmen, including the late Paul
Wellstone, did not support military intervention in Kosovo, although
it also must be said that they didn't get hysterical.
Fourthly, several *Republican* congressmen DID get hysterical, asking
over and over and over, "What's our EXIT STRATEGY???"
Remember THAT???
"What's our EXIT STRATEGY???"
"EXIT STRATEGY!!!"
Don't invade countries without it!!!!!!
Do the current squatters at the White House have an EXIT STRATEGY for
Iraq? Hell no, and now the Pentagon estimates that American troops
will be there for as long as 10 years.
10 YEARS, Marie/cleopatra/WhateverNewIdentityYouMorphInto. 10
spring/summer/falls of 120 degree heat. 10 years of being in the
crosshairs of every Iraqi who has a gun - and there's a lot of Iraqis
out there with guns. And the ones who make it home will find that
their benefits were CUT to pay for tax cuts for the wealthy.
Why do you hate our sons and daughters in the American military so
much?
Bush and Company lied to Congress, the American people and the world
so they could get their war on. Thousands of innocent people died
because of their lies, and there you are, still wet between the legs
over Clinton.
Dear, dear Marie/cleopatra/WhateverNewIdentityYouMorphInto, you've
done stepped in your own ***** with more elan and panache (them's
FRENCH words!!!) than I ever thought possible. Indeed, how can it be
that someone as limited as you are in the breadth and depth of your
weltangshauung (that's GERMAN!!!) could fail so spectacularly?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gogarty" |
|
| Title: Re: General Clark drops a bomb on Bush |
24 Jun 2003 11:50:33 AM |
|
|
In article <1dc521ed.0306240829.2604d25a@posting.google.com>,
LetEmEatWMDs@yahoo.com says...
Your hero, Bubba, also lied bigtime about genocide in Yugoslavia
Let's see, more than 7,000 men and boys massacred in Srebrenica. How would you
classify that? And that was only one atrocity carried out by the Serbs.
and
more than 10,000 Kosovars died as a direct result
At whose hands? Where did you get that number? The Serbs went on a muredrous
rampage in Kosovo and forced more than a million people from stheir homes and
across the borders into Macedopnia and Albania. They wantonly murdered and
destroyed and torched the city pf Pec as they retreated, even though Pec is the
seat of the Serbian Orthjodox Church. which is now under the protection of the
Italians.
of that NAto action,
with the U.S. furnishing 90% of the military muscle. Anyway, we don't
recall any of you democrats getting hysterical over that one.
Of course not. It was an utterly different situation.
So,
excuse us
Who is "us?"
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Robert J. Kolker" |
|
| Title: Re: General Clark drops a bomb on Bush |
24 Jun 2003 02:01:12 PM |
|
|
Marie A. wrote:
Your hero, Bubba, also lied bigtime about genocide in Yugoslavia and
more than 10,000 Kosovars died as a direct result of that NAto action,
with the U.S. furnishing 90% of the military muscle. Anyway, we don't
recall any of you democrats getting hysterical over that one. So,
excuse us if we don't get too worked up over your suspicious concerns
about presidents lying.
Strictly speaking, Clinton is as much a War Criminal as is Slobo Baby.
We bombed Serajavo with no declaration of war. They did not do anything
to us either. As for killing Kosovari, remember that the time spent
killing Kosovari is not subtracted from anyone's life.
Bob Kolker
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Cisco Kid" |
|
| Title: Re: General Clark drops a bomb on Bush |
24 Jun 2003 11:55:42 AM |
|
|
On 24 Jun 2003 09:29:26 -0700, (Marie A.)
wrote:
Your hero, Bubba, also lied bigtime about genocide in Yugoslavia and
more than 10,000 Kosovars died as a direct result of that NAto action,
with the U.S. furnishing 90% of the military muscle. Anyway, we don't
recall any of you democrats getting hysterical over that one. So,
excuse us if we don't get too worked up over your suspicious concerns
about presidents lying.
Big difference between Kosovo and Iraq. Clinton had complete
international backing to take action in Kosovo. In fact, the US was
being criticized for NOT acting forcefully enough. The UN issued a
resolution for Milosivic to withdraw his military forces from Kosovo
and for the genocide to stop.
Shrub did NOT have backing from the international community for
invading Iraq.
Kosovo was an air campaign with no allied casualties. Iraq was an
invasion by ground forces and US KIA are still mounting.
Clinton's Kosovo campaign was a success. It has brought stability to
the region. Bush's Iraq so far has not been a rousing success.
See the difference?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Marie A." |
|
| Title: Re: General Clark drops a bomb on Bush |
24 Jun 2003 07:28:40 PM |
|
|
Cisco Kid <ckid@attnet.net> wrote in message news:<7d30ivo839f31gfu0fi8j1rqq8fj9skc64@4ax.com>...
On 24 Jun 2003 09:29:26 -0700, (Marie A.)
wrote:
Your hero, Bubba, also lied bigtime about genocide in Yugoslavia and
more than 10,000 Kosovars died as a direct result of that NAto action,
with the U.S. furnishing 90% of the military muscle. Anyway, we don't
recall any of you democrats getting hysterical over that one. So,
excuse us if we don't get too worked up over your suspicious concerns
about presidents lying.
Big difference between Kosovo and Iraq. Clinton had complete
international backing to take action in Kosovo. In fact, the US was
being criticized for NOT acting forcefully enough. The UN issued a
resolution for Milosivic to withdraw his military forces from Kosovo
and for the genocide to stop.
Shrub did NOT have backing from the international community for
invading Iraq.
Kosovo was an air campaign with no allied casualties. Iraq was an
invasion by ground forces and US KIA are still mounting.
Clinton's Kosovo campaign was a success. It has brought stability to
the region. Bush's Iraq so far has not been a rousing success.
See the difference?
No, we don't see the difference, sir! Is it supposed to cut any ice
with us that your crowd views the approval of the "international
community" as a neessary pereqequisite for U.S. military action? Since
when does any military action become any more justified by virtue of
being blessed by the likes of the French and German governments? Screw
the UN. With the exception of England, their opinions on anything
aren't worth a cup of warm spit. It's worth noting here that the
French more than anyone led the charge against Milosovic. Different
story, though, when it came to Saddam, eh?
As for your splitting hairs on the nature of those civilian casualties
that were sustained as a result of Nato bombing, websites abound
documenting the direct fallout from these bombings. Try this from the
Guardian
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Stender" |
|
| Title: Re: General Clark drops a bomb on Bush |
26 Jun 2003 03:46:50 AM |
|
|
(Marie A.) wrote in message news:<1dc521ed.0306241628.25e3d0d6@posting.google.com>...
Is it supposed to cut any ice
with us that your crowd views the approval of the "international
community" as a neessary pereqequisite for U.S. military action?
by "us" i suppose you mean the minority group of right-wing americans
who approved of this preventive war. They should be very concerned
with the opinion of the most unified amalgam of citizens the world
has ever seen--those who opposed this war, (over 90%). This
unprecedented coalition knew in their minds and hearts that this war
was not just, was not legitimate, was not honest, was not necessary.
War is an extremely awful thing to undertake. This fact seems
insignificant within the US pop-news bubble, but the ramifications of
this very grave error are yet to be seen--virtually noone will be
surprised, but many will be taken along for the ride your gang
initiated.
There will be hell to pay. what goes around _does_ come around--it is
a natural fact of this world. the US govt. has committed a grave crime
against humanity. it was done to secure leverage in the pursuit of a
stabilized economy, which despite its understandable motivation, is
untenable in this modern world. the US govt represents a dinosaur
class in its death throes. their extinction is imminent (and will be
celebrated by a similar majority)
yet, many westerners will benefit from their visionary imperialism
through the pushing down of oil prices over the next 5-10 years. but
their/(our) enjoyment will be devalued by the terrible news that will
accompany it--the quagmire, the innocents lost in terrorist attacks,
the spiralling hatred, the breakdown of international trust, the
setbacks to the respect of law and due process... it may take a while
until this war is accepted as the atrocity it is. but it will rival
all others in its audacity and cynicism, it will reveal the paucity of
and the prevarications underlying the vaunted virtues of US culture.
Since
when does any military action become any more justified by virtue of
being blessed by the likes of the French and German governments? Screw
the UN. With the exception of England, their opinions on anything
aren't worth a cup of warm spit.
i am shocked that you would dismiss the value of allies in war. (even
more shocked in the devaluing of public support) your disrespectful
tone is also characteristic of the gang you are representing and it
does my heart good to see the intrinsic imprudence so thoroughly
obscured from your view. this is a undeniable pattern that i think
stems from provincialism.
It's worth noting here that the
French more than anyone led the charge against Milosovic. Different
story, though, when it came to Saddam, eh?
yes, very different story
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Spartakus" |
|
| Title: Re: General Clark drops a bomb on Bush |
25 Jun 2003 11:32:35 AM |
|
|
(Marie A.) wrote...
Cisco Kid <ckid@attnet.net> wrote:
Big difference between Kosovo and Iraq. Clinton had complete
international backing to take action in Kosovo. In fact, the US was
being criticized for NOT acting forcefully enough. The UN issued a
resolution for Milosivic to withdraw his military forces from Kosovo
and for the genocide to stop.
Shrub did NOT have backing from the international community for
invading Iraq.
Kosovo was an air campaign with no allied casualties. Iraq was an
invasion by ground forces and US KIA are still mounting.
Clinton's Kosovo campaign was a success. It has brought stability to
the region. Bush's Iraq so far has not been a rousing success.
See the difference?
No, we don't see the difference, sir!
Of course you don't. What with your clue-buckets filled to the brim
with Ann Coulter's bodily effluvia, there's no room for you to see
anything except shades of brown, yellow and green.
And you are *still* using the royal "we", despite the fact that there
are uncounted billions of people who don't share your bloated
opinions. Please exercise some truth-in-labeling, and refer to your
condescending attitudes as the products of your coprophagic Coulter
worship that they are.
What a shame you lack an attentive audience for your sordid mewlings
in Real Life [tm]!
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bushsucks" |
|
| Title: Re: General Clark drops a bomb on Bush |
25 Jun 2003 09:29:36 PM |
|
|
Maybe Bill should dress up in a Snoopy outfit, like AWOL Puke
Bush did, and make a "landing" to impress the dimwitted troops.
Docky Wocky wrote:
marie a sez:
" Clinton's Kosovo campaign was a success. It has brought stability to the
region..."
______________________________
Gee!
How come Bubba won't accept the standing invitation from the Serbs to come
to Belgrade to give one of his famous speeches? And Boobah hasn't even made
a congressional junket anywhere near the area.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: General Clark drops a bomb on Bush |
25 Jun 2003 09:51:14 PM |
|
|
"Bushsucks" <Impeachthedrunkard@moron.com> wrote in message
news:3EFA5BA3.7EF3@moron.com...
Maybe Bill should dress up in a Snoopy outfit, like AWOL Puke
Bush did, and make a "landing" to impress the dimwitted troops.
And there you have it folks. The reason why so many military members do not
vote democrat.
Because they hate military. Notice in his absurd remarks he attacks
military personnel
Docky Wocky wrote:
marie a sez:
" Clinton's Kosovo campaign was a success. It has brought stability to
the
region..."
______________________________
Gee!
How come Bubba won't accept the standing invitation from the Serbs to
come
to Belgrade to give one of his famous speeches? And Boobah hasn't even
made
a congressional junket anywhere near the area.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Adam H." |
|
| Title: Re: General Clark drops a bomb on Bush |
25 Jun 2003 11:14:00 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 25 Jun 2003 22:51:14 -0400, "Osprey" <noneedstoknow@mail.com>
wrote:
"Bushsucks" <Impeachthedrunkard@moron.com> wrote in message
news:3EFA5BA3.7EF3@moron.com...
Maybe Bill should dress up in a Snoopy outfit, like AWOL Puke
Bush did, and make a "landing" to impress the dimwitted troops.
And there you have it folks. The reason why so many military members do not
vote democrat.
Because they hate military. Notice in his absurd remarks he attacks
military personnel
Notice that when Bush wanted a photo op he delayed an entire aircraft
carrier's arrival back in port to do so. Do you call that 'supporting
the troops'?
Docky Wocky wrote:
marie a sez:
" Clinton's Kosovo campaign was a success. It has brought stability to
the
region..."
______________________________
Gee!
How come Bubba won't accept the standing invitation from the Serbs to
come
to Belgrade to give one of his famous speeches? And Boobah hasn't even
made
a congressional junket anywhere near the area.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robert J. Kolker" |
|
| Title: Re: General Clark drops a bomb on Bush |
26 Jun 2003 06:50:19 AM |
|
|
Adam H. wrote:
Notice that when Bush wanted a photo op he delayed an entire aircraft
carrier's arrival back in port to do so. Do you call that 'supporting
the troops'?
The CV was not delayed a minute. It was moving all the time. And you can
tell by the reaction of the crew how much they hated it.
Bob Kolker
.
|
|
|
| User: "james g. keegan jr." |
|
| Title: Re: General Clark drops a bomb on Bush |
26 Jun 2003 09:07:23 AM |
|
|
"Osprey" <noneedstoknow@mail.com> wrote in
news:ecmcnavUmaLGZGejU-KYvA@comcast.com:
[...nothing much...]
coward osprey (Robert Heishman), you falsely
claimed that six people were pro-abortion in
news:3E8EE004.3060101@mail.com
by your failure to repost the full article
to support you claim while concurrently
responding to calls for you to post such
evidence, you have conclusively proven
that you lied about six people who post
here.
adding cowardice to your blatant dishonesty,
you have called on those you lied about to
post proof of their innocence of the lies
you posted about them.
this notice will be appended to each of your
posts to talk abortion and alt.abortion until
you have apologized for this specific lie.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bushsucks" |
|
| Title: Re: General Clark drops a bomb on Bush |
26 Jun 2003 06:09:36 PM |
|
|
It was delayed ONE FULL FUCKIN' DAY, you moronic Dipshitz.
Read a foreign newspaper once in a while.
Robert J. Kolker wrote:
Adam H. wrote:
Notice that when Bush wanted a photo op he delayed an entire aircraft
carrier's arrival back in port to do so. Do you call that 'supporting
the troops'?
The CV was not delayed a minute. It was moving all the time. And you can
tell by the reaction of the crew how much they hated it.
Bob Kolker
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Adam H." |
|
| Title: Re: General Clark drops a bomb on Bush |
26 Jun 2003 10:28:07 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 26 Jun 2003 07:50:19 -0400, "Robert J. Kolker"
<bobkolker@attbi.com> wrote:
Adam H. wrote:
Notice that when Bush wanted a photo op he delayed an entire aircraft
carrier's arrival back in port to do so. Do you call that 'supporting
the troops'?
The CV was not delayed a minute. It was moving all the time. And you can
tell by the reaction of the crew how much they hated it.
Bob Kolker
Wrong. Arrival of the Lincoln was pushed back by a day just for that
photo op.
---
"The Church says the Earth is Flat,
But I know that it is Round,
For I have seen the Shadow on the Moon,
And I have more Faith in a Shadow
Than in the Church."
Ferdinand Magellan
.
|
|
|
| User: "PLMerite" |
|
| Title: Re: General Clark drops a bomb on Bush |
28 Jun 2003 07:51:31 AM |
|
|
"Adam H." <thisisnot@realaddress.com> wrote in message
news:f74mfvo62sb3jccpub51rg471e6g6jg86o@4ax.com...
Wrong. Arrival of the Lincoln was pushed back by a day just for that
photo op.
"A Navy official, speaking on condition of anonymity, disputed that the
visit added significant costs, and said it did not delay the carrier's
return to its home port in Washington state.
'The operating cost of an aircraft carrier is about a million dollars a day.
But it got to where it was supposed to be on time,' he said.
The White House had originally estimated the Lincoln would be hundreds of
miles offshore and that a jet landing was therefore the only option. But the
vessel had made faster progress than expected and when Bush landed it was
only 30 miles offshore, within easy helicopter range."
Regards, PLMerite
--
"Confronting Liberals with the facts of reality is very much akin to
clubbing baby seals. It gets boring after a while, but because Liberals are
so stupid it is easy work." Steven M. Barry
"When contemplating college liberals, you really regret once again that John
Walker is not getting the death penalty. We need to execute people like John
Walker in order to physically intimidate liberals, by making them realize
that they can be killed too. Otherwise they will turn out to be outright
traitors." Ann Coulter
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: General Clark drops a bomb on Bush |
28 Jun 2003 11:39:54 AM |
|
|
PLMerite <stockade@smokebombhill.com> wrote:
"Adam H." <thisisnot@realaddress.com> wrote in message
Wrong. Arrival of the Lincoln was pushed back by a day just for that
photo op.
"A Navy official, speaking on condition of anonymity, disputed that the
visit added significant costs, and said it did not delay the carrier's
return to its home port in Washington state.
'The operating cost of an aircraft carrier is about a million dollars a day.
But it got to where it was supposed to be on time,' he said.
"On time". In other words they had to delay the arrival of the
carrier so that it would arrive "on time" and not early.
The White House had originally estimated the Lincoln would be hundreds of
miles offshore and that a jet landing was therefore the only option. But the
vessel had made faster progress than expected and when Bush landed it was
only 30 miles offshore, within easy helicopter range."
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "PLMerite" |
|
| Title: Re: General Clark drops a bomb on Bush |
28 Jun 2003 03:45:45 PM |
|
|
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
news:bdkoh0$j28$1@bolt.sonic.net...
PLMerite <stockade@smokebombhill.com> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
PLMerite <stockade@smokebombhill.com> wrote:
"Adam H." <thisisnot@realaddress.com> wrote in message
Wrong. Arrival of the Lincoln was pushed back by a day just for that
photo op.
"A Navy official, speaking on condition of anonymity, disputed that
the
visit added significant costs, and said it did not delay the carrier's
return to its home port in Washington state.
'The operating cost of an aircraft carrier is about a million dollars
a
day.
But it got to where it was supposed to be on time,' he said.
"On time". In other words they had to delay the arrival of the
carrier so that it would arrive "on time" and not early.
No, ship arrivals are scheduled.
Non sequitur.
Ooh, Latin! I'm compressed!
The schedule allows them time for
unexpected delays. If, like the Lincoln, they make better time at sea,
they
still have to wait to dock.
Indeed? Says who? And why would they have to wait?
Because the ships scheduled ahead of it there.
And did you read this next paragraph?
The White House had originally estimated the Lincoln would be hundreds
of
miles offshore and that a jet landing was therefore the only option.
But the
vessel had made faster progress than expected and when Bush landed it
was
only 30 miles offshore, within easy helicopter range."
Right. Which where it would sit waiting for its turn to dock.
How hard is this to understand?
Keep grasping.
Regards, PLMerite
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: General Clark drops a bomb on Bush |
28 Jun 2003 11:55:26 PM |
|
|
"PLMerite" <stockade@smokebombhill.com> wrote in message
news:Z7nLa.14438$Ei4.12209@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
news:bdkoh0$j28$1@bolt.sonic.net...
PLMerite <stockade@smokebombhill.com> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
PLMerite <stockade@smokebombhill.com> wrote:
"Adam H." <thisisnot@realaddress.com> wrote in message
Wrong. Arrival of the Lincoln was pushed back by a day just for
that
photo op.
"A Navy official, speaking on condition of anonymity, disputed that
the
visit added significant costs, and said it did not delay the
carrier's
return to its home port in Washington state.
'The operating cost of an aircraft carrier is about a million
dollars
a
day.
But it got to where it was supposed to be on time,' he said.
"On time". In other words they had to delay the arrival of the
carrier so that it would arrive "on time" and not early.
No, ship arrivals are scheduled.
Non sequitur.
Ooh, Latin! I'm compressed!
The schedule allows them time for
unexpected delays. If, like the Lincoln, they make better time at sea,
they
still have to wait to dock.
Indeed? Says who? And why would they have to wait?
Because the ships scheduled ahead of it there.
And did you read this next paragraph?
The White House had originally estimated the Lincoln would be
hundreds
of
miles offshore and that a jet landing was therefore the only option.
But the
vessel had made faster progress than expected and when Bush landed
it
was
only 30 miles offshore, within easy helicopter range."
Right. Which where it would sit waiting for its turn to dock.
How hard is this to understand?
Keep grasping.
Regards, PLMerite
It is obvious Ray has absolutely no knowledge what so ever on operating
procedures of the Navy.
I can understand what you are saying.
When I was a C-5 crew chief, our C-5's had schedules too. We had certain
schedules on take off times, when we were to land. All these of course were
scheduled and the flight crew would have to coordinate what time we were to
take off in order to arrive on time.
We also had other schedules like
Cann Bird
Wash Rack
Static Display
Bravo
and many other things that our planes would be scheduled for.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: General Clark drops a bomb on Bush |
28 Jun 2003 05:20:50 PM |
|
|
PLMerite <stockade@smokebombhill.com> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
PLMerite <stockade@smokebombhill.com> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
PLMerite <stockade@smokebombhill.com> wrote:
"Adam H." <thisisnot@realaddress.com> wrote in message
Wrong. Arrival of the Lincoln was pushed back by a day just for that
photo op.
"A Navy official, speaking on condition of anonymity, disputed that
the
visit added significant costs, and said it did not delay the carrier's
return to its home port in Washington state.
'The operating cost of an aircraft carrier is about a million dollars
a
day.
But it got to where it was supposed to be on time,' he said.
"On time". In other words they had to delay the arrival of the
carrier so that it would arrive "on time" and not early.
No, ship arrivals are scheduled.
Non sequitur.
Ooh, Latin! I'm compressed!
Shouldn't use big words with you, I guess.
The schedule allows them time for
unexpected delays. If, like the Lincoln, they make better time at sea,
they
still have to wait to dock.
Indeed? Says who? And why would they have to wait?
Because the ships scheduled ahead of it there.
What ships scheduled ahead of it? And why do you think that the Navy
doesn't have enough room for all of its ships?
And did you read this next paragraph?
The White House had originally estimated the Lincoln would be hundreds
of
miles offshore and that a jet landing was therefore the only option.
But the
vessel had made faster progress than expected and when Bush landed it
was
only 30 miles offshore, within easy helicopter range."
Right. Which where it would sit waiting for its turn to dock.
Or not.
How hard is this to understand?
The part where you seem to think that the navy doesn't have room for
one of its aircraft carriers.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Larry McKnight" |
|
| Title: Re: General Clark drops a bomb on Bush |
26 Jun 2003 01:54:55 PM |
|
|
"Robert J. Kolker" <bobkolker@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:3EFB2D74.4090608@attbi.com...
Adam H. wrote:
Wrong. Arrival of the Lincoln was pushed back by a day just for that
photo op.
So be it. The crew loved it.
Bob Kolker
Is that an admission which your original claim (i.e., no delay) was a crock?
Is that why you deleted it from your reply?
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Adam H." |
|
| Title: Re: General Clark drops a bomb on Bush |
26 Jun 2003 10:31:50 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 26 Jun 2003 09:47:13 -0400, "Osprey" <noneedstoknow@mail.com>
wrote:
"Robert J. Kolker" <bobkolker@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:3EFADDFB.1030905@attbi.com...
Adam H. wrote:
Notice that when Bush wanted a photo op he delayed an entire aircraft
carrier's arrival back in port to do so. Do you call that 'supporting
the troops'?
The CV was not delayed a minute. It was moving all the time. And you can
tell by the reaction of the crew how much they hated it.
Bob Kolker
Oh no Bob!!!
I know that these idiotic liberals are ignorant, but to complain about
Bush's appearance on a aircraft carrier is just beyond words. It is funny
in one sense, but also it is sad.
Bush's appearance on that aircraft carrier sent moral through the roof for
those guys. And I bet you everyone of them will remember it for the rest of
their lives.
Liberals like (s)Adam will never learn
Except for all the crew that resented not being able to get back to
their families - but then, you've already demonstrated that you don't
give a ***** about them, just as you don't give a ***** about vets
having their benefits slashed - also by Bush.
So, answer the question - are those two things what you mean by Bush
supporting the troops?
Now, all of your unsupported claims up there will no doubt continue to
be so, but it's amusing to see you totally dodge the delay by ignoring
it. Still, that's what you do best, isn't it? Ignore the facts?
Oh, and lest we forget, we're still waiting for you to back up your
claims made as much as a year ago - after all, you *always* back up
what you say, don't you? *snicker*
---
"The Church says the Earth is Flat,
But I know that it is Round,
For I have seen the Shadow on the Moon,
And I have more Faith in a Shadow
Than in the Church."
Ferdinand Magellan
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robert J. Kolker" |
|
| Title: Re: General Clark drops a bomb on Bush |
26 Jun 2003 12:30:17 PM |
|
|
Adam H. wrote:
Except for all the crew that resented not being able to get back to
their families
*****. Do you see the reception Dubya got? The crew loved it.
Bob Kolker
.
|
|
|
| User: "Adam H." |
|
| Title: Re: General Clark drops a bomb on Bush |
26 Jun 2003 12:44:32 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 26 Jun 2003 13:30:17 -0400, "Robert J. Kolker"
<bobkolker@attbi.com> wrote:
Adam H. wrote:
Except for all the crew that resented not being able to get back to
their families
*****. Do you see the reception Dubya got? The crew loved it.
Bob Kolker
Yes, because a photo-op on a military vessel wouldn't ever be staged,
would it? And the military would never make sure that the crew
reaction was anything but what they wanted, would they?
Your naivete is touching, but sad.
---
"The Church says the Earth is Flat,
But I know that it is Round,
For I have seen the Shadow on the Moon,
And I have more Faith in a Shadow
Than in the Church."
Ferdinand Magellan
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bushsucks" |
|
| Title: Re: General Clark drops a bomb on Bush |
26 Jun 2003 06:20:42 PM |
|
|
EVERY appearance of Appointee Bush is in front of a hand-picked,
PROMPTED crowd of fakes. Like those DIMWITTED troops who actually
APPLAUD Traitorous AWOL Puke Piece of ***** Bush, who is KILLING THEM
to boost his polls. and LYING to them about the reason for war.
AFTER Bush arranged and pulled off 9/11.
Docky Wocky wrote:
adam h sez:
"Yes, because a photo-op on a military vessel wouldn't ever be staged,
would it? And the military would never make sure that the crew
reaction was anything but what they wanted, would they?..."
__________________________________
Don't have much experience with members of the American military, do you?
There isn't a force on Earth that could get them to act enthusiastic if they
were not enthusiastic.
That might have worked in one of your commie countries in the old days.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "chíllicothe" |
|
| Title: Re: General Clark drops a bomb on Bush |
26 Jun 2003 05:56:50 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 26 Jun 2003 20:17:23 GMT, "Docky Wocky" <mrchuck@verizin.net>
wrote:
adam h sez:
"Yes, because a photo-op on a military vessel wouldn't ever be staged,
would it? And the military would never make sure that the crew
reaction was anything but what they wanted, would they?..."
__________________________________
Don't have much experience with members of the American military, do you?
There isn't a force on Earth that could get them to act enthusiastic if they
were not enthusiastic.
That might have worked in one of your commie countries in the old days.
You obviously have never been in the military. For the most part the
enlistees are not at all happy about their lot in the military.
That's why so many of them bolt after 4 years and they come of age a
bit. They gripe and groan all the time...but when an officer shows up
they are all smiles and "Yes sir, boss sir...".
______________________________________________________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Still Only $9.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
<><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Galen Hekhuis" |
|
| Title: Re: General Clark drops a bomb on Bush |
26 Jun 2003 03:34:43 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 26 Jun 2003 20:17:23 GMT, "Docky Wocky" <mrchuck@verizin.net>
wrote:
adam h sez:
"Yes, because a photo-op on a military vessel wouldn't ever be staged,
would it? And the military would never make sure that the crew
reaction was anything but what they wanted, would they?..."
__________________________________
Don't have much experience with members of the American military, do you?
There isn't a force on Earth that could get them to act enthusiastic if they
were not enthusiastic.
Nah, a dirty look from the commander would suffice. I take it you never
heard the words: "...and you *will* act enthusiastic." I think I must
have heard it several times a day during basic.
That might have worked in one of your commie countries in the old days.
Or the US military of today.
Galen Hekhuis NpD, JFR, GWA
A penny saved gathers no moss
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bushsucks" |
|
| Title: Re: General Clark drops a bomb on Bush |
26 Jun 2003 06:12:41 PM |
|
|
Our "Appointed Snoopy" forgot to wear his YELLOW SCARF, emblematic
of his AWOL PUKE COWARDICE AND DESERTION DURING VN.
What a Piece of PIGSHIT Fraudulent Appointee Bush is.
Osprey wrote:
"Robert J. Kolker" <bobkolker@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:3EFADDFB.1030905@attbi.com...
Adam H. wrote:
Notice that when Bush wanted a photo op he delayed an entire aircraft
carrier's arrival back in port to do so. Do you call that 'supporting
the troops'?
The CV was not delayed a minute. It was moving all the time. And you can
tell by the reaction of the crew how much they hated it.
Bob Kolker
Oh no Bob!!!
I know that these idiotic liberals are ignorant, but to complain about
Bush's appearance on a aircraft carrier is just beyond words. It is funny
in one sense, but also it is sad.
Bush's appearance on that aircraft carrier sent moral through the roof for
those guys. And I bet you everyone of them will remember it for the rest of
their lives.
Liberals like (s)Adam will never learn
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Docky Wocky" |
|
| Title: Re: General Clark drops a bomb on Bush |
25 Jun 2003 10:19:18 PM |
|
|
comrade bushsucks sez:
"Maybe Bill should dress up in a Snoopy outfit, like AWOL Puke
Bush did, and make a "landing" to impress the dimwitted troops..."
_______________________________________
Mainly because there would have been an arresting wire failure had he tried,
and as the dimwitted pilot ejected, Bubba would have found he had a
defective booster chair.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Larry McKnight" |
|
| Title: Re: General Clark drops a bomb on Bush |
26 Jun 2003 12:00:44 PM |
|
|
"Docky Wocky" <mrchuck@verizin.net> wrote in message
news:WCtKa.1185$v71.441@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
comrade bushsucks sez:
"Maybe Bill should dress up in a Snoopy outfit, like AWOL Puke
Bush did, and make a "landing" to impress the dimwitted troops..."
_______________________________________
Mainly because there would have been an arresting wire failure had he
tried,
and as the dimwitted pilot ejected, Bubba would have found he had a
defective booster chair.
Are you saying that there would have been a conspiracy among members of
the military to assasinate the President?
--
Larry
(This space unintentially left blank...
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
