"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:1127841540.341fc4d6f53ccab81d7f828c4c20ab70@teranews...

"DH" <dh@stargate.com> wrote in
news:1127838889.3d4dc3e49ff3636253039bc39f1eeca7@teranews:

"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:1127829247.a214d242a39ca9b75ae2b09eb9dab311@teranews...

"DH" <dh@stargate.com> wrote in
news:1127827590.f65616ac5e0ff19bcceb4ea65e27f682@teranews:

"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:1127820115.84194a909887c1317051d65069918a4f@teranews...

"the Professor" <university@volcanomail.com> wrote in
news:m7WdnZN1o7OfUaXeRVn-tQ@giganews.com:

The GOP may not be very brave, they may be completely full of
crap. But they ain't stupid.

Nothing more than data selection bias.

--

Even if selection bias can be proven,

It's obvious.

It's not obvious, you'll have to prove it, or at least demonstrate
a little reasonable doubt, before you dismiss it.

It's still obvious.

Sez you.

All the Democrats served, and all the Republicans didn't.
But we all know of republicans with service records, like John
McCain or Ollie North...

You didn't bother to read the list before you criticized it? I'm
not surprised. News Item: McCain is already on the list.

So? Where are all the other republicans who have service records?

Find some.

Of course,
McCain's somebody the NeoCons would prefer to eliminate. Ummm,
politically, I mean.

Well, I guess that means I'll have to turn in my NeoCon badge.

You can add Ollie North to the list as long as you add, "Convicted
of lying to Congress but his conviction was later overturned by one
of those technicalities that conservatives always rail against
until the technicality profits one of their own."

You sure you want to go there? Hmm, Democrats who've been let go on
technicalities...

Sure. Democrats get convicted of crimes. However, you won't find the
Democrast - well the Liberal ones - attacking the technicalities.

They understand that rights are for everyone.

By the way, I googled a bit and could only find one source of
information on Olllie's actual military record that wasn't on one
of his employers' web sites. Feel free to include this on future
versions of the list:

http://madison.indymedia.org/feature/display/15626/index.php
"Ollie North - the Decorated Desk Marine:"

Indymedia? Why don't you cite DailyKos or Pravda too?

Couldn't find a link there.

"The hype over Ollie North's military record is extreme. He did
graduate from the U.S. Naval Academy in Annapolis, MD and served 22
years in the Marine Corps - most of it in an office. He spent a
year in Vietnam from 1968-1969 receiving several medals which he
wore to wow the media at the Iran Contra Hearings. As most veterans
know, though, the military hands out such medals like candy. During
a command assignment in Okinawa in 1974, North had a mental
breakdown (supposedly running around waving a gun) which earning
him some R&R at the Bethesda Naval Hospital. This part of his life
is absent from most of his bios and puff pieces. After pushing
papers for years, North finally caught his escalator to the White
House when he became Reagan's Assistant Deputy Director for
Political Military Affairs under the National Security Council."

I did not find a reference to any actual battles or combat
assignments, even on the "pro-Olllie" sites.

He rather sounds like what Rush would call a "staff puke." By the
way, Rush, that's a term of derision that should only be used by
actual combat veterans, don't you think? Or is it still going to
be OK for Rush to say it whenever the "staff puke" runs for
Congress as a Democrat? Hey, Rush! Support the Troops! Until they
disagree with you! But, I digress...

Frankly, it's enough for me that North LIED TO A REPRESENTATIVE OF
THE PEOPLE. The Constitution didn't expect the Executive Branch to
deal dishonestly with the Legislature.

How many of your Most Excellent Democrats have ever lied? Are you
game?

Plenty. The most famous of recent memory was Clinton himself.
However, he lied about something that I still consider a private
matter between consenting (and infuriated - Hillary) adults, not of
interest for public policy purposes.

North lied about actions the
Administration was taking that were a tad bit more serious than a game
of hide-the-cigar.

While I was running down links looking for info on Ollie's record,
I found that my irony meter overloaded and blew out when I noticed
how many of North's writings deal with people he thinks are
"liars."

It takes one to know one?

Or he's still lying...

the "knee problems" on that list
will remain both pathetic and laughable.

I wonder how many of the Democrats on that list voted for the Iraq
war resolution.

Which, of course, is the result of the Executive Branch dealing
dishonestly with the Legislature.

In 1998, when Guess Who was president.

Are you referring to Monicagate? What's the lasting foreign or
domestic policy damage from that?

I'm referring to the Bush Administration cooking the books on WMD.
This has led to the deaths of 1900 US Military personnel and tens of
thousands of Iraqis. Well, do they matter?

--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369

Now, Fred, I don't think you're either a stupid guy or a liar.
However, it concerns me and I think it should concern you that, in
order to push a conservative agenda, you are embracing an awful lot
of liars. I'm sure you know the old saying, "lie down with dogs,
get up with fleas."


"Great is the guilt of an unnecessary war." - John Adams, 1797


Flip (Remarks at the Pentagon, Sept 16th, 2001):
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010916-2.html
Q Do you want bin Laden dead?
THE PRESIDENT: I want justice. There's an old poster out west, as
I recall, that said, "Wanted: Dead or Alive."

Flop (Press Conference, March 13th, 2002):
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/03/20020313-8.html
Q But don't you believe that the threat that bin Laden posed
won't truly be eliminated until he is found either dead or alive?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, as I say, we haven't heard much from him.
And I wouldn't necessarily say he's at the center of any command
structure. And, again, I don't know where he is. I -- I'll
repeat what I said.
I truly am not that concerned about him.

Nice edit job.

Those represent precisely the sense of what the President said.

In
fact, the September quote really lacks something in plain text without
the "Mr. Tough Guy" smirk that accompanied it. As regards March,
well, I did edit out the fact that he clearly TWICE said that he
wasn't worried about bin Laden. I suppose I could have included this:

Q Mr. President, in your speeches now you rarely talk or mention
Osama bin Laden. Why is that?

which was a paragraph or two up, for a little extra spice, the
implication that the President has entirely forgotten about bin Laden,
the murderer who remains on the loose.

Are there any other improvements you'd like? I'm sure I can find more
places where the President has dug the hole a bit deeper.

Lie about it (Third Presidential Debate):
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/debatereferee/debate_

1013

.html SCHIEFFER: Anything to add, Senator Kerry?
KERRY: Yes. When the president had an opportunity to capture or
kill Osama bin Laden, he took his focus off of them, outsourced the
job to Afghan warlords, and Osama bin Laden escaped.
Six months after he said Osama bin Laden must be caught dead or
alive, this president was asked, "Where is Osama bin Laden?" He
said, "I don't know. I don't really think about him very much. I'm
not that concerned." We need a president who stays deadly focused
on the real war on terror. SCHIEFFER: Mr. President?
BUSH: Gosh, I just don't think I ever said I'm not worried about
Osama bin Laden. It's kind of one of those exaggerations.

Another nice edit job. And you call Bush a liar. Shame on you.

Edit of what? That was the end of the exchange. Kerry accurately
summarized Bush's efforts and subsequent remarks of March and the
President denied it.

And, further, Kerry was exactly right. Bush has checked out of the
war on terror; he wanted to fight Saddam and he got all the cover he
felt he needed for the war from bin Laden. In fact, all Bush has done
is breed more terrorists.

Bush tells us he wants to export freedom. He had the opportunity to
do this in Afghanistan and he checked out of that, too. Wouldn't
things look a bit rosier all around if the President had remained,
full-force, in Afghanistan, captured bin Laden, really pacified the
country, brought safe and open elections home there and could point to
Afghanistan as a model for Democracy in the Muslim world? Right now,
all he has to show for his efforts in the Mideast are two damaged
Muslim countries and the real criminal is still on the loose.

Further, after he'd shown the resolve necessary to clean up
Afghanistan, don't you think Saddam, or Saddam's people, would realize
they were next and maybe clean up accordingly? Don't you think the
people of Iraq who actually want a democracy would be heartened by a
win in Afghanistan and more inclined to believe we'd follow through on
what we started if we later invaded Iraq? Don't you think this would
have given them more faith in us and more patience with the situation?
You might look at:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-

92601696.html?referrer=email&referrer=email "Baghdad Neighborhood's
Hopes Dimmed by Trials of Occupation Some Who Welcomed Americans Now
Scorn Them "

Maybe if they'd waited until they got Afghanistan cleaned up, the
Administration would have also learned how difficult it is to pacify a
country and wouldn't have screwed up the operation in Iraq quite so
badly. Maybe they could have listened to Shinseki and done a better
job, instead of just firing him for telling the truth.

fester wrote:

chibiabos wrote:

In article <yPE_e.11361$ua.490362@twister.southeast.rr.com>,
fester <not@home.com> wrote:

chibiabos wrote:

In article
<1127820115.84194a909887c1317051d65069918a4f@teranews>, Fred
Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:

"the Professor" <university@volcanomail.com> wrote in
news:m7WdnZN1o7OfUaXeRVn-tQ@giganews.com:

The GOP may not be very brave, they may be completely full
of crap. But they ain't stupid.

Nothing more than data selection bias.

Tell us about your service, Fred.

-chib (USN 1970-74; Vietnam 1971-72)

Here's mine:

USAF 1979-83

Now, WTF does that have to do with Fred's correct observation
of data selection,
i.e. cherry-picking?

Cherry pick your own damned data. I'm sitting here trying to
think of civilian members of bush's administration or his
vocal supporters who served in the armed forces, and can only
think of a handful: Colin Powell, Rumsfeld, Oliver North, G.
Gordon Liddy. If there are more, list them. Frankly, I don't
have time, and don't really give a *****.

I don't seem to remember you Libs giving Bush 41 any respect
despite his having
been a legit war hero. Nor Bob Dole for that matter. It only
seems relevant when you think that some advantage can be
gained by it.

"You Libs?"

I had nothing but respect for Bush 41's and Dole's service
record. Different generation. Different war. Both heroes. And,
since we're dredging up that past, I don't seem to recall any
"liberal" disparagement of their service, before, during or
after their terms in office.

There wasn't Lib disparagement of their records. Instead,
there was
disparagement of them, and their records were unimportant. It
was only when Flipper the ersatz war hero

"Flipper the erstaz hero"? ***** you up the ***** with something
red hot heated up in the deepest pits of hell, right winger.