|
| Author | Thread |
|
|
08/08/2004 10:14:14 AM · #201 |
Originally posted by RonB:
So...on the coorelation between CO2 and Global Warming, I offer this reference from the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change which contains this quote, concerning analysis of CO2 levels and air temperatures over the last 250,000 years:
"Clearly, the concomitant increase in atmospheric CO2 and air temperature over the last century or so proves nothing of a cause-and-effect nature. When all available CO2 and temperature records are analyzed, one can find much longer periods of absolutely no correlation and even opposing trends"
Just another set of facts to consider in our quest for the truth ( though more credible, in my belief, than the unsupported statements offered in the links some others have offered in this forum - for example, the last link that Gingerbaker posted only uses other commentaries as references to support what it puts forth as "facts", but this link actually supports its statements with references to actual SCIENTIFIC studies. To some, that may be significant. )
Ron |
RonB! So, you acknowledge my existence once again. Scrappy.
1) The reference provided to Louddog was a primer on global warming, from a conservative republican, as I have said now for the third time.
It's site is one from a true conservative - as in conservation - viewpoint, yet is pro-business and Republican. It's bias, therefore, would be expected to strengthen the validity of its interpretation of the facts on the matter.
As such, it does an EXCELLENT job explaining the science ( and politics) of the situation, as well as exposing the many myths and deliberate obfuscations promulgated by the many sordid factions out there.
2) Speaking of sordid factions, I think the site you quoted above ( Center for the study of CO2 and global change) as being the repository of truths factual and universally-held, needs some serious reassessment.
I don't know who butters their bread yet - I suspect it is the petroleum industry - but these "scientists" are way out of the academic mainstream. Here is one of their conclusions from their master position paper:
"it is abundantly clear we have nothing to fear from increasing concentrations of atmospheric CO2 and global warming, i.e., the "twin evils" of the extreme environmental movement. Indeed, these phenomena would appear to be our friends â€Â¦ and friends of the entire biosphere."
Yes, folks, you heard it here. Higher temperatures are good for you! ( Notice that global warming is finally conceded)
These are the "warmth is good" people.
Yum.... no more shivering cold winters! Plants grow better in greenhouse conditions - really hot, moist, with extra CO2. A paradise.
The last time I saw a scumba..I mean an industry representative making these arguments on TV he was indentified as working for a oil firm.
Again, 5000 of the worlds most respected scientists, the laws of physics, and all their data agree - global warming will occur. Then you got a few contrary kooks, and some industry schills on the other side, who even tho they have 1/1000 the intellectual weight, are given equal billing.
So RonB... perhaps we should trust the scientific facts to the actual scientists. Who are in near lockstep agreement on this issue - that it is real, and only a matter of how fast and how bad.
Message edited by author 2004-08-08 10:20:32. |
|
|
|
08/08/2004 11:15:10 AM · #202 |
I am going to step in with my $.02 concerning "global warming". First off, I, along with a lot of other people (scientists included), am not convinced it is actually occuring or will occur if current trends continue. But I will not argue that here; I will confine this post to the worthless Kyoto treaty.
Assuming that increased carbon dioxide emissions are directly linked to global warming, you would wish to forstall or reverse the warming trend by reducing the volume of said emissions. This, in fact, is purportedly the sole purpose of the Kyoto treaty. However, what makes this treaty totally worthless is that 3 of the world's top 10 polluting nations (China, India, and Brazil) are totally exempt from any limits on their carbon dioxide emissions whatsoever. Any decrease in emissions by other nations back to 1990 levels will be more than made up for by the rapid increase of emissions by the 3 aforementioned polluters. This treaty would not accomplish any reduction of greenhouse gases at all; its only 'accomplishment' would be coercive wealth transfer.
Message edited by author 2004-08-08 17:53:40. |
|
|
|
08/08/2004 02:33:42 PM · #203 |
Originally posted by gingerbaker:
Originally posted by RonB:
So...on the coorelation between CO2 and Global Warming, I offer this reference from the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change which contains this quote, concerning analysis of CO2 levels and air temperatures over the last 250,000 years:
"Clearly, the concomitant increase in atmospheric CO2 and air temperature over the last century or so proves nothing of a cause-and-effect nature. When all available CO2 and temperature records are analyzed, one can find much longer periods of absolutely no correlation and even opposing trends"
Just another set of facts to consider in our quest for the truth ( though more credible, in my belief, than the unsupported statements offered in the links some others have offered in this forum - for example, the last link that Gingerbaker posted only uses other commentaries as references to support what it puts forth as "facts", but this link actually supports its statements with references to actual SCIENTIFIC studies. To some, that may be significant. )
Ron |
RonB! So, you acknowledge my existence once again. Scrappy.
1) The reference provided to Louddog was a primer on global warming, from a conservative republican, as I have said now for the third time.
It's site is one from a true conservative - as in conservation - viewpoint, yet is pro-business and Republican. It's bias, therefore, would be expected to strengthen the validity of its interpretation of the facts on the matter.
As such, it does an EXCELLENT job explaining the science ( and politics) of the situation, as well as exposing the many myths and deliberate obfuscations promulgated by the many sordid factions out there.
2) Speaking of sordid factions, I think the site you quoted above ( Center for the study of CO2 and global change) as being the repository of truths factual and universally-held, needs some serious reassessment.
I don't know who butters their bread yet - I suspect it is the petroleum industry - but these "scientists" are way out of the academic mainstream. Here is one of their conclusions from their master position paper:
"it is abundantly clear we have nothing to fear from increasing concentrations of atmospheric CO2 and global warming, i.e., the "twin evils" of the extreme environmental movement. Indeed, these phenomena would appear to be our friends â€Â¦ and friends of the entire biosphere."
Yes, folks, you heard it here. Higher temperatures are good for you! ( Notice that global warming is finally conceded)
These are the "warmth is good" people.
Yum.... no more shivering cold winters! Plants grow better in greenhouse conditions - really hot, moist, with extra CO2. A paradise.
The last time I saw a scumba..I mean an industry representative making these arguments on TV he was indentified as working for a oil firm.
Again, 5000 of the worlds most respected scientists, the laws of physics, and all their data agree - global warming will occur. Then you got a few contrary kooks, and some industry schills on the other side, who even tho they have 1/1000 the intellectual weight, are given equal billing.
So RonB... perhaps we should trust the scientific facts to the actual scientists. Who are in near lockstep agreement on this issue - that it is real, and only a matter of how fast and how bad. |
Sorry to disappoint you Gingerbaker, but just because you say a site is "conservative", or even if I know it to be "conservative" in nature, doesn't hold much weight with me. Then again, the editorial phraseology of any site, liberal or conservative, doesn't hold much sway with me either - I can, and do, for the most part, ignore editorializations. However, I do challenge statements that are presented as fact, that, in fact, are not, or, at least, are not substantiated.
So, in your "primer" on Global Warming we find, early on, this statement:
"The consensus of almost all climate scientists is that global warming is already happening, that human actions are causing it, and that it will cause major problems for our planet."
Note, first of all, that there is neither a footnote nor any other corroborative evidence provided that a "consensus of almost all climate scientists" support the supposition that "global warming is already happening" - no polling data, no survey, not even a reference to such.
Secondly, there is neither a footnote nor any other corroborative evidence provided that a "consensus of almost all climate scientists" support the claim that "human actions are causing it". Again, no polling data, no survey, nothing.
Thirdly, there is neither a footnote nor any other corroborative evidence provided that a "consensus of almost all climate scientists" support the claim that "it will cause major problems for our planet".
Is it any wonder that I choose to NOT believe anything else in that piece as "truth". If the authors would have supported their introductory statement with FACTS, I might have paid more attention to their rhetoric, but they lost credibility with me on the get go.
Whether the site is or is not conservative does not strenghten their credibility with me.
As far as I am concerned, the site does a very poor job of explaining the "science", since they do not quote a single piece of scientific evidence to support their claims.
It is obviouse that YOU consider the source moreso than the content or the facts. That is your choice.
You SAY that "5000 of the worlds most respected scientists, the laws of physics, and all their data agree - global warming will occur."
I say, so what? I agree that global warming will occur, too. But I argue that that is not as big a problem as you make it out to be. And the site I linked to supports that belief with scientific facts. Yours do not.
Then you say "Then you got a few contrary kooks, and some industry schills on the other side, who even tho they have 1/1000 the intellectual weight, are given equal billing"
What you are implying is that, any scientist that does not support the theories espoused by those you agree with, is a contrary kook, or an industry schill, with only 1/1000 the intellectual weight.
I did notice that the "handful" of climate scientists referred to in the link you posted are not identified. They should be, if, in fact, it is only a "handful". Then we could independently investigate whether they are, indeed, contrary kooks, industry schills, and only have 1/1000 the intellectual weight.
Ron |
|
|
|
08/10/2004 03:05:30 PM · #204 |
Originally posted by louddog:
Kerry has voted for military downsizing and against products that my comapany makes (that have proven very effective in recent military campaigns by the way) numerous times. |
I can't speak to the specific products your company makes. However, regarding Mr. Kerry's votes on military spending during the 1990s, let me just add the following: In the early- and mid-90s, after the Cold War ended, both parties sought to cash-in the so-called "Peace Dividend" by cutting back on military spending; and, instead, sought to use that money to pay down the national debt and reinvest at home. Both parties called for closing military bases and for cutting "wasteful weapons programs." For example, George H. Bush (George W. Bush's father, and the 41st President) called for shutting down production of the B-2 bomber, reducing missile programs and mentioned that:
The Secretary of Defense [Mr. Cheney] recommended these cuts after consultation with the Joint Chiefs of Staff. And I make them with confidence. But do not misunderstand me. The reductions I have approved will save us an additional $50 billion over the next 5 years. By 1997, we will have cut defense by 30 percent since I took office. (George H. Bush, State of the Union address, January 28, 1992.)
Of course, George H. Bush wasn't the only one trying to cash-in on the "Peace Dividend." Mr. Cheney, the Secretary of Defense at the time, and the current Vice President, during a hearing at the Senate three days after the 1992 State of the Union address, said:
Overall, since I've been Secretary, we will have taken the five-year defense program down by well over $300 billion. That's the peace dividend... And now we're adding to that another $50 billion... of so-called peace dividend.
In his attack ads Mr. Bush ignores the consensus that existed on the "Peace Dividend"; and, instead, questions Mr. Kerry's patriotic instincts when in 1995 the Senator sought to reduce the intelligence services' budget by $300 million, out of an estimated annual budget of $28 billion (or 1% of that year's estimated budget). As you allude, Mr. Bush has sought to throw into question Mr. Kerry's commitment to national security; because of votes the Senator made seeking to reducing military spending during that period. However, if calling for a 1% reduction in defense related spending leads Mr. Bush to question Mr. Kerry's commitment to our national security, what does Mr. Bush have to say about his father's call to reduce total military spending by 30%? For that matter, what does Mr. Bush have to say about Mr. Cheney, his own Vice President, who called for cutting military spending by $300 billion?
I think it's disingenuous of Mr. Bush & Co. to suggest that Mr. Kerry's votes, on the issue of military spending, somehow illustrate his lack of commitment to national security. Mr. Bush & Co. ignore context, and open themselves to the charge they so freely throw about: flip-flopping when convenient.
For more please see here.
Message edited by author 2004-08-10 17:09:23.
|
|
|
|
08/10/2004 03:49:48 PM · #205 |
That doesn't cover everything Kerry has done to try to make me unemployed and weaken our national defense and that doesn't affect the tax increase I'll see. You vote for who you want, I'll vote for who I want.
|
|
|
|
08/10/2004 05:14:48 PM · #206 |
| Tommy Franks says Kerry is fit to command. |
|
|
|
08/10/2004 05:26:25 PM · #207 |
Originally posted by emorgan49:
Tommy Franks says Kerry is fit to command. |
So does Kerry's wife - and she should know, she commands him all the time. :-)
FWIW, Tommy Franks also says he's inclined to vote for Bush.
Oh, and I almost forgot, Tommy Franks says that Bush hung the "Mission Accomplished" banner on the aircraft carrier and made remarks to that effect at HIS ( Franks' ) request. It was NOT Bush's idea - it was Franks' request. ref here
Gotta love that Gen. Franks
Ron
Message edited by author 2004-08-10 17:26:43. |
|
|
|
08/10/2004 06:03:59 PM · #208 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by emorgan49:
Tommy Franks says Kerry is fit to command. |
So does Kerry's wife - and she should know, she commands him all the time. :-)
FWIW, Tommy Franks also says he's inclined to vote for Bush.
Oh, and I almost forgot, Tommy Franks says that Bush hung the "Mission Accomplished" banner on the aircraft carrier and made remarks to that effect at HIS ( Franks' ) request. It was NOT Bush's idea - it was Franks' request. ref here
Gotta love that Gen. Franks
Ron |
Ya that Franks.. Its amazing what people will say if they are paid enough. Especially since Mr. Franks is retired from the military now. It is funny though the timing of this news.. Almost 1.5 years after the fact, but just before the Republican convention... Hmm.
Also, the article you linked says its not found. But here is the cnn.com article.
|
|
|
|
08/10/2004 06:17:46 PM · #209 |
"...when the noise and fog of their distortions and lies have cleared, a man who volunteered to serve his country, a man who showed up for duty when his country called, a man to whom the United States Navy awarded a Silver Star, a Bronze Star and three Purple Hearts, will stand tall and proud. Ultimately, the American people will judge these Swift Boat Veterans for Bush and their accusations. Americans are tired of smear campaigns against those who volunteered to wear the uniform. Swift Boat Veterans for Bush should hang their heads in shame."
Mr. Rassmann, a retired lieutenant with the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department, served with the U.S. Army 5th Special Forces Group in Vietnam 1968-69, and is the man whose life Mr. Kerry saved in Vietnam -- the action that earned the Senator a Bronze Star with Combat V for valor.
See the full article here.
Message edited by author 2004-08-10 18:22:01.
|
|
|
|
08/10/2004 07:45:52 PM · #210 |
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by emorgan49:
Tommy Franks says Kerry is fit to command. |
So does Kerry's wife - and she should know, she commands him all the time. :-)
FWIW, Tommy Franks also says he's inclined to vote for Bush.
Oh, and I almost forgot, Tommy Franks says that Bush hung the "Mission Accomplished" banner on the aircraft carrier and made remarks to that effect at HIS ( Franks' ) request. It was NOT Bush's idea - it was Franks' request. ref here
Gotta love that Gen. Franks
Ron |
Ya that Franks.. Its amazing what people will say if they are paid enough. Especially since Mr. Franks is retired from the military now. It is funny though the timing of this news.. Almost 1.5 years after the fact, but just before the Republican convention... Hmm.
Also, the article you linked says its not found. But here is the cnn.com article. |
To grant you the benefit of the doubt, let me ask you straight up - Are you implying that General Franks is being paid to say that Bush's remarks were at his request? If so, then you should be prepared to offer some evidence to support that accusation - it is rather outrageous. Besides, if he were being paid, why would he state that he thought that Kerry WAS fit to be president? It just doesn't compute.
And the timing of the statement is not funny at all. General Franks is on a "book tour" trying to sell his new book, and is being interviewed by many radio and media personalities. And, I know you won't believe this, but I'll bet that Bush requested that he NOT reveal that information while he was still in the military. Bush would rather take the heat himself than have media pressure impact the ability of his commanders to focus on their duties.
Ron |
|
|
|
08/10/2004 08:28:41 PM · #211 |
Originally posted by RonB:
And, I know you won't believe this, but I'll bet that Bush requested that he NOT reveal that information while he was still in the military. Bush would rather take the heat himself than have media pressure impact the ability of his commanders to focus on their duties.
Ron |
Your right, I don̢۪t believe that. Not after what just happened the other day because of political reasons: CNN article:
U.S. leak 'harms al Qaeda sting'
Another set of information I got in email:
BUSH LEAK ALLOWED TERRORISTS TO ESCAPE
President Bush has promised his administration is "doing everything we can"
to fight the War on Terror.[1] He has also said, "I've constantly expressed my displeasure with leaks"[2] and said, "whether they happened in the White House or happened in the administration or happened on Capitol Hill [leaks] can be very damaging."[3] But according to a new report, the White House's leak of secret information for its own political gain has undermined the War on Terror because it allowed key al Qaeda suspects to escape.
According to government and security officials, the disclosure by the White House "of the arrest of an al Qaeda computer expert allowed several wanted suspects from Osama bin Laden's terror network to escape." Specifically, the White House told the media it had apprehended Muhammad Naeem Noor Khan, a 25-year-old Pakistani computer engineer who the administration said was a terrorist.[4] But according to MSNBC, Khan was a key intelligence source for U.S. and Pakistani authorities and "had been actively cooperating with intelligence agents to help catch al-Qaida operatives."[5] In other words, the White House blew the cover of a U.S. intelligence mole in order to publicly justify raising the terror alert level one week after the Democratic National Convention. In the process, it allowed terrorists who threaten America to evade capture.
If there was any doubt about who leaked Khan's name and compromised U.S.
national security, those were put to rest this weekend. On CNN's "Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer" on Sunday, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice admitted it was the Bush administration that leaked Khan's name.[6]
Sources:
1. "President's Remarks at Marquette, Michigan Rally," The White House, 07/13/04, //daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=3053856&l=49795.
2. "President Discusses National, Economic Security in Cabinet Meeting," The White House, 10/7/03, //daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=3053856&l=49796.
3. "President Holds Press Conference," The White House, 10/28/03, //daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=3053856&l=49797.
4. "Leak allowed al-Qaeda suspects to escape," USA Today, 8/10/04, //daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=3053856&l=49798.
5. "Pakistan: U.S. Blew Undercover Operation," Truthout, 8/6/04, //daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=3053856&l=49799.
6. "Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer," CNN, 08/08/04, //daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=3053856&l=49800.
|
|
|
|
08/10/2004 09:39:34 PM · #212 |
After I read this article*, I hoped I would find the image on the web... I was not disappointed:
I am looking at a photo of the George W. Bush that you've probably never seen before. It's a sports-action close-up of him at Yale, over a caption written prophetically by a fellow undergraduate more than 30 years ago: "George Bush delivers illegal, but gratifying right hook to opposing ball carrier."
* Free subscription is required to read the article.
|
|
|
|
08/10/2004 09:52:37 PM · #213 |
First, I want to point out that it appears that you didn't have the guts to respond to my very pointed question, so let me repeat it so everyone will know that you've been given not one, but TWO chances to respond - "Are you implying that General Franks is being paid to say that Bush's remarks were at his request?" - Yes or No? Or are you going to avoid answering again?
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
Originally posted by RonB:
And, I know you won't believe this, but I'll bet that Bush requested that he NOT reveal that information while he was still in the military. Bush would rather take the heat himself than have media pressure impact the ability of his commanders to focus on their duties.
Ron |
Your right, I don̢۪t believe that. Not after what just happened the other day because of political reasons: CNN article:
U.S. leak 'harms al Qaeda sting' |
What's interesting is that the article YOU linked to says:
"In background briefings with journalists last week, unnamed U.S. government officials said it was the capture of Khan that provided the information that led Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge to announce a higher terror alert level"
This was a background briefing. According to the USA Today article you post as Reference Number 4:
"National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice acknowledged Sunday that Khan's name had been disclosed to reporters in Washington "on background," meaning that it could be published, but the information could not be attributed by name to the official who had revealed it." Hence, this was not a "leak" - it was information presented to the media, in a very NORMAL manner, FOR PUBLICATION at their discretion. The briefing was conducted in a manner that they were all familiar with - they get background briefings all the time.
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
Another set of information I got in email:
BUSH LEAK ALLOWED TERRORISTS TO ESCAPE |
Well, as I've already pointed out, this was not a Bush "LEAK" - it was a background briefing. The title is just anti-Bush propaganda and innuendo.
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
President Bush has promised his administration is "doing everything we can" to fight the War on Terror.[1] |
Not true. He did NOT say that in the reference you post. The link in Item [1] below says
"...we're doing everything we can to defend the homeland and we'll stay strong and relentless in defeating the terrorists abroad". Note that he says "to defend the homeland" NOT "to fight the War on Terror. I have requested before that if you are going to attribute a statement to anyone that you should have the decency to quote them correctly. Apparently you still choose to ignore that - or to at least correct your e-mail before you post it.
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
He has also said, "I've constantly expressed my displeasure with leaks"[2] |
Wow! This is a valid quote. I'm surprised.
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
...and said, "whether they happened in the White House or happened in the administration or happened on Capitol Hill [leaks] can be very damaging."[3] |
Hey. Two in a row. Valid quote, again.
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
But according to a new report, the White House's leak of secret information for its own political gain has undermined the War on Terror because it allowed key al Qaeda suspects to escape.
According to government and security officials, the disclosure by the White House "of the arrest of an al Qaeda computer expert allowed several wanted suspects from Osama bin Laden's terror network to escape." Specifically, the White House told the media it had apprehended Muhammad Naeem Noor Khan, a 25-year-old Pakistani computer engineer who the administration said was a terrorist.[4] |
This is a dirty pool ploy. You have combined two statements with a single attribution, but have not indicated in any way that the attribution does NOT encompass the first statement. The part about the "new report...leak of secret information..own political gain...undermined the War...key al Qaeda suspects" appears NOWHERE in the source that is given following the NEXT paragraph. ALL of that statement is speculative, accusatory, and laden with innuendo. NONE of it is supported by the following text. Secondly, while the article DOES say "disclosure..." it does NOT say "disclosure BY THE WHITE HOUSE". The "BY THE WHITE HOUSE" phrase was added by the propagandist. Furthermore, the article does not say anything to the effect that "the White House told the media" Again, this is pure propaganda, as is the phrase "administration said was a terrorist", which appears nowhere in the linked article. This is truly a pathetic attempt to smear the White House and G.W. Bush.
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
But according to MSNBC, Khan was a key intelligence source for U.S. and Pakistani authorities and "had been actively cooperating with intelligence agents to help catch al-Qaida operatives."[5] |
More propaganda. The linked article never says that Khan was a "key intelligence source", although it does say that he was actively cooperating.
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
In other words, the White House blew the cover of a U.S. intelligence mole in order to publicly justify raising the terror alert level one week after the Democratic National Convention. |
Pure propoganda - no proof.
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
In the process, it allowed terrorists who threaten America to evade capture. |
That is True. And the administration admits it.
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
If there was any doubt about who leaked Khan's name and compromised U.S.
national security, those were put to rest this weekend. |
Pupe propoganda - and NOT part of Blitzer's interview linked to in Item 6.
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
On CNN's "Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer" on Sunday, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice admitted it was the Bush administration that leaked Khan's name.[6] |
That's not true. Condoleezza Rice admitted that Khan's name had been released in a background briefing, but NEVER referred to Bush, NEVER referred to the administration and NEVER used the word "leak" - gee, maybe because it WASN'T A LEAK.
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
Sources:
1. "President's Remarks at Marquette, Michigan Rally," The White House, 07/13/04, //daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=3053856&l=49795.
2. "President Discusses National, Economic Security in Cabinet Meeting," The White House, 10/7/03, //daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=3053856&l=49796.
3. "President Holds Press Conference," The White House, 10/28/03, //daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=3053856&l=49797.
4. "Leak allowed al-Qaeda suspects to escape," USA Today, 8/10/04, //daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=3053856&l=49798.
5. "Pakistan: U.S. Blew Undercover Operation," Truthout, 8/6/04, //daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=3053856&l=49799.
6. "Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer," CNN, 08/08/04, //daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=3053856&l=49800. |
[/quote]
Take 'em for what they're worth. They certainly don't support MadMordegon's post.
Ron |
|
|
|
08/10/2004 10:08:22 PM · #214 |
| Is it just me or does Ron allways win? Hmm. |
|
|
|
08/10/2004 10:11:40 PM · #215 |
| And to answer your question, if I think he did or did not, im not sure. But if your asking if I think he or any other high ranking military or government officials would take a bribe or would take something for a "little white lie", then my answer is obviously yes. |
|
|
|
08/10/2004 10:21:26 PM · #216 |
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
And to answer your question, if I think he did or did not, im not sure. But if your asking if I think he or any other high ranking military or government officials would take a bribe or would take something for a "little white lie", then my answer is obviously yes. |
Good answers to non-questions. I didn't ask whether you thought he did or didn't or whether high ranking officials would or wouldn't take a bribe ( although I appreciate your honest answer to those questions that I didn't ask ).
My question, for the third time, is
"Are you implying that General Franks is being paid to say that Bush's remarks were at his request?"
The question is are you IMPLYING that he is being paid? Not IS he being paid? but are you IMPLYING that he is being paid?
Ron |
|
|
|
08/10/2004 10:39:58 PM · #217 |
| Maybe not paid, but possibly just an agreement as old friends, im not sure. But YES I believe he is "taking one for the team" so to speak on this one. |
|
|
|
08/10/2004 10:40:00 PM · #218 |
What was with the Bush administration and Homeland Security chief, Tom Ridge, going to an orange alert at the beginning of August stating that they had specific and new information that a terrorist attack was likely with the targets being NY, Newark and Washington business centers? Then it comes out that it was 4 year old news that was open source and that anyone could get on the internet.
Also, Pakistan and Great Britain are accusing the Bush administration of underminning the war on terror because associated with that orange alert of last week they revealed the name of a double agent Mohammed Naeem Noor Kahn, a computer expert who was giving them a lot of good information. Now the guy is useless to the war on terror and US is to blame. Could it be these events had something to do with politics?
If these two event aren't FURTHER proof that the Bush administration is bungling the war on terror, I don't know what is. |
|
|
|
08/11/2004 01:48:45 AM · #219 |
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
Is it just me or does Ron allways win? Hmm. |
Hey, don't despair... as far as I can tell, all Ron does is deploy a series of lawyerly tricks to entangle arguments and distract; all the while, not touching on the substance of what's presented. In stead, as he did with the 38 points cheat-sheet, he completely over kills and comes across like Les Miserables' Inspector Javert: ever ready to go no further than the "letter" of the text, rather than get entangled with the "spirit" of what's meant.
Of course, the leak/outing/disclosure/revelation (choose the word that best suits your political leaning) of Mr. Mohammad Naeem Noor Khan's name, a valuable mole within al Queda, wouldn't be the first time that this administration has undermined U.S. intelligence efforts by opportunistically revealing the identity of our human-resources.
And now a previously unscheduled rant:
It's trite to mention that we're a 50/50 nation; nonetheless, there you go, we're clearly divided... and I need someone to explain to me how the half that entertained the possibility that Mr. Clinton would fire-off missiles to distract us from the Lewinsky matter, would not be incensed at the very idea that: U.S. spies are being unmasked for political gains and that an elective war was pursued for the wrong reasons. And I know that even those that count themselves as supporters of Mr. Bush, question whether the administration manipulated pre-war intelligence -- Flash, for example, has said as much. (Flash, I don't mean to single you out; I'm just reminded of some of your comments acknowledging that you question the administration's forthrightness before the war.) I'm just having a hard time understanding how some would not dare cut a man any slack when it came to his personal failings; but yet, are perfectly willing to ignore unapologetic breaches to our national security, and tolerate the questionable expenditure of our fellow citizens' blood -- 932, and counting, as of August 10, 2004. The only explanation I can come up is that Mr. Bush's supporters are so brand loyal that it don't matter what the product is, as long as its got a big shinny "W" decal on it.
Message edited by author 2004-08-11 01:51:35.
|
|
|
|
08/11/2004 02:26:09 AM · #220 |
Sometimes you just have to wonder why didnt Dubya listen to his dad...
"To occupy Iraq would instantly shatter our coalition, turning the whole Arab world against us and make a broken tyrant into a latter-day hero ... assigning young soldiers to a fruitless hunt for a securely entrenched dictator and condemning them to fight in what would be an un-winnable urban guerilla war. It could only plunge that part of the world into even greater instability."
George Bush Sr., in A World Transformed, 1998 |
|
|
|
08/11/2004 07:47:07 AM · #221 |
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
Maybe not paid, but possibly just an agreement as old friends, im not sure. But YES I believe he is "taking one for the team" so to speak on this one. |
"taking one for the team" usually implies that the one doing the "taking" is actually on "the team". So, in the case of General Franks, I have to wonder - if he really is "taking one for the team", just what "team" is he on? As emorgan49 pointed out in the beginning of this sub-thread, General Franks said that Kerry was fit to command. If Franks was on Bush's team ( implied by your saying that he's "taking one for the team" ), then why would he sabotage the team's efforts by aiding the opponent?
Just wondering.
Ron |
|
|
|
08/11/2004 08:08:59 AM · #222 |
My certainly biased take on it is thus:
General Franks, by declaring Kerry as fit for command, demonstrates both judgement and honesty.
As such a person, especially one with hands-on experience dealing with Bush and his crowd, it is somewhat surprising to think that he would contemplate actually supporting Bush.
Quite a few high-ranking officers, now retired, have waxed eloquent on their resons why they now support Kerry.
Franks was put in a bad position by Rumsfeld, being repeatedly denied the numbers of men on the ground for the campaign in Iraq. Franks wound up taking a lot of heat for letting this happen from the Democrats, though, which is why I personally think he is fence straddling.
Of course, on the otherhand, Franks may just be a strong Republican.
But, for the life of me, considering the Bush record on how the military has been mistreated on the ground - not enough men, equipment, ammunition, supplies; dishonesty about tours of duty, reductions in combat pay,etc - and how they have been mistreated as Veterans - reductions in medical coverages,etc - I really do believe that many military people - at least those who have seen action - now feel Kerry to offer a better choice for the military man and their families.
So, is Franks "carrying water"? Beats me. Is he still in active duty? |
|
|
|
08/11/2004 09:01:51 AM · #223 |
Originally posted by bdobe:
Hey, don't despair... as far as I can tell, all Ron does is deploy a series of lawyerly tricks to entangle arguments and distract; all the while, not touching on the substance of what's presented. In stead, as he did with the 38 points cheat-sheet, he completely over kills and comes across like Les Miserables' Inspector Javert: ever ready to go no further than the "letter" of the text, rather than get entangled with the "spirit" of what's meant. |
Hmmm. Funny that you choose to qualify the word "tricks" with "lawyerly", since one of the greatest supporters of the Democratic Party is the American Trial Lawyers Association. You don't suppose that that has anything to do with the fact that the left-leaning, liberal media employs so many tricks to slant "news" articles toward the left, do you? Also, one would think that the professional journalists that work for the left-leaning media could find editors from amongst all those lawyers to help them compose "news" articles that could not be so easily dismantled by someone who didn't even attend college.
You accuse ME of distraction, when, in reality, the distraction, as I have demonstrated over and over again, is with the media slant. It is THEY, and a few other posters to this board, who choose verbiage that is not only distracting, but is INTENDED to distract. They use words that are INTENDED to be laden with negative connotations rather than report facts. They present headlines saying things like BUSH LEAK ALLOWED TERRORIST TO ESCAPE, when the fact of the matter is that 1) BUSH had nothing to do with it, 2) there was no LEAK - it was a press background briefing, and 3) the revelation of the informant's name in the briefing didn't allow any terrorist to escape - it was the PUBLICATION of the informant's name BY THE MEDIA that tipped off the terrorists who escaped. And the only reason that the background briefing was held in the first place is because the administration was pressured BY THE ( liberal ) MEDIA to support their reason for raising the terror alert in NY, NJ, and DC. If not for that pressure, the briefing would not have occurred. It is the MEDIA who, in their rush to sell newspapers, "blew the cover" not only of Khan, but also of Plame, and others. It is THEY who should be taken to task.
I'm well aware of the "spirit" of what's meant - it's meant to promote Kerry and undermine Bush ( Oh, and to sell newspapers to the liberals - 'cause they buy that horsesh** by the truckload ).
How to keep a liberal uninformed? Take away his N.Y. Times.
How to keep a liberal MISinformed? Give it back.
Ron |
|
|
|
08/11/2004 09:21:32 AM · #224 |
Originally posted by gingerbaker:
My certainly biased take on it is thus:
General Franks, by declaring Kerry as fit for command, demonstrates both judgement and honesty.
As such a person, especially one with hands-on experience dealing with Bush and his crowd, it is somewhat surprising to think that he would contemplate actually supporting Bush.
Quite a few high-ranking officers, now retired, have waxed eloquent on their resons why they now support Kerry.
Franks was put in a bad position by Rumsfeld, being repeatedly denied the numbers of men on the ground for the campaign in Iraq. Franks wound up taking a lot of heat for letting this happen from the Democrats, though, which is why I personally think he is fence straddling.
Of course, on the otherhand, Franks may just be a strong Republican.
But, for the life of me, considering the Bush record on how the military has been mistreated on the ground - not enough men, equipment, ammunition, supplies; dishonesty about tours of duty, reductions in combat pay,etc - and how they have been mistreated as Veterans - reductions in medical coverages,etc - I really do believe that many military people - at least those who have seen action - now feel Kerry to offer a better choice for the military man and their families.
So, is Franks "carrying water"? Beats me. Is he still in active duty? |
One of your more cogent posts, Gingerbaker. I respect your opinions and the ( mostly ) civil way in which you have expressed them.
I do, however, take exception to your use of the phrases "dishonesty about tours of duty" and "reductions of medical coverages, etc".
1) There was no dishonesty about tours of duty - when one "signs on the dotted line" to join our all-volunteer military, one acknowledges that he/she has read the contract and agrees to be bound by it.
2) While there have, in fact, been reductions in medical coverages, they were not enacted by the Bush administration - they are imposed by an Act of Congress. As I rebutted that same aclaim in another post:
For a more realistic view, you should read THIS articlefrom the Washington Post. An excerpt:
"The restrictions, which take effect today, apply to what the agency calls Category 8 veterans, the lowest priority in health care. These are veterans with relatively high incomes who do not suffer from military service-related disabilities or health problems. Category 8 income levels vary depending on geographic location, but Principi said generally the restrictions will apply to veterans with annual incomes of $30,000 to $35,000 or higher.
The restrictions will apply only to new enrollees and will not affect the 1.4 million Category 8 veterans who currently receive health care from the VA, he said.
Principi is required by law to set eligibility rules for the VA health care system every year...Principi informed leaders of veterans groups of his decision yesterday morning. Spokesmen for the groups said they understood why the restrictions were being imposed, but they lashed out at Congress for what they called inadequate funding of VA health care. "Without proper funding, the secretary is never going to get [the backlog] down, so what he has done is to make the tough business decision," said Bob Wallace, executive director of the Veterans of Foreign Wars. "If they can't take care of them, it's unconscionable to let them continue to enroll. The real bad guys in this is the Congress because they haven't fully funded the VA. I don't want to see anybody excluded from care, but we can't allow these false expectations and these lines to get longer and longer."
Note that even the executive director of the VFW blames the Congress, not the Administration. Note, too, that the VA is REQUIRED by LAW to set the eligibility rules each fiscal year so as to be within the Congressionally approved budget.
(emphasis mine)
On another note - Franks is retired.
Ron |
|
|
|
08/11/2004 09:49:55 AM · #225 |
This just in about the Swift Boat people - remember them? This thread started ( is supposed to be on the subject of? :D )
anyway, interesting reading indeed, from the Wall Street Journal, Online:
COMMENTARY
Shame on the Swift Boat
Veterans for Bush
By JIM RASSMANN
August 10, 2004; Page A10
(See Corrections & Amplifications item below.)
I came to know Lt. John Kerry during the spring of 1969. He and his swift boat crew assisted in inserting our Special Forces team and our Chinese Nung soldiers into operational sites in the Cau Mau Peninsula of South Vietnam. I worked with him on many operations and saw firsthand his leadership, courage and decision-making ability under fire.
On March 13, 1969, John Kerry's courage and leadership saved my life.
While returning from a SEA LORDS operation along the Bay Hap River, a mine detonated under another swift boat. Machine-gun fire erupted from both banks of the river, and a second explosion followed moments later. The second blast blew me off John's swift boat, PCF-94, throwing me into the river. Fearing that the other boats would run me over, I swam to the bottom of the river and stayed there as long as I could hold my breath.
When I surfaced, all the swift boats had left, and I was alone taking fire from both banks. To avoid the incoming fire, I repeatedly swam under water as long as I could hold my breath, attempting to make it to the north bank of the river. I thought I would die right there. The odds were against me avoiding the incoming fire and, even if I made it out of the river, I thought I'd be captured and executed. Kerry must have seen me in the water and directed his driver, Del Sandusky, to turn the boat around. Kerry's boat ran up to me in the water, bow on, and I was able to climb up a cargo net to the lip of the deck. But, because I was nearly upside down, I couldn't make it over the edge of the deck. This left me hanging out in the open, a perfect target. John, already wounded by the explosion that threw me off his boat, came out onto the bow, exposing himself to the fire directed at us from the jungle, and pulled me aboard.
For his actions that day, I recommended John for the Silver Star, our country's third highest award for bravery under fire. I learned only this past January that the Navy awarded John the Bronze Star with Combat V for his valor. The citation for this award, signed by the Commander of U.S. Naval Forces, Vietnam, Vice Admiral Elmo Zumwalt, read, "Lieutenant (junior grade) Kerry's calmness, professionalism and great personal courage under fire were in keeping with the highest traditions of the United States Naval Service." To this day I am grateful to John Kerry for saving my life. And to this day I still believe that he deserved the Silver Star for his courage.
It has been many years since I served in Vietnam. I returned home, got married, and spent many years as a deputy sheriff for Los Angeles County. I retired in 1989 as a lieutenant. It has been a long time since I left Vietnam, but I think often of the men who did not come home with us.
I am neither a politician nor an organizer. I am a retired police officer with a passion for orchids. Until January of this year, the only public presentations I made were about my orchid hobby. But in this presidential election, I had to speak out; I had to tell the American people about John Kerry, about his wisdom and courage, about his vision and leadership. I would trust John Kerry with my life, and I would entrust John Kerry with the well-being of our country.
Nobody asked me to join John's campaign. Why would they? I am a Republican, and for more than 30 years I have largely voted for Republicans. I volunteered for his campaign because I have seen John Kerry in the worst of conditions. I know his character. I've witnessed his bravery and leadership under fire. And I truly know he will be a great commander in chief.
Now, 35 years after the fact, some Republican-financed Swift Boat Veterans for Bush are suddenly lying about John Kerry's service in Vietnam; they are calling him a traitor because he spoke out against the Nixon administration's failed policies in Vietnam. Some of these Republican-sponsored veterans are the same ones who spoke out against John at the behest of the Nixon administration in 1971. But this time their attacks are more vicious, their lies cut deep and are directed not just at John Kerry, but at me and each of his crewmates as well. This hate-filled ad asserts that I was not under fire; it questions my words and Navy records. This smear campaign has been launched by people without decency, people who don't understand the bond of those who serve in combat.
As John McCain noted, the television ad aired by these veterans is "dishonest and dishonorable." Sen. McCain called on President Bush to condemn the Swift Boat Veterans for Bush ad. Regrettably, the president has ignored Sen. McCain's advice.
Does this strategy of attacking combat Vietnam veterans sound familiar? In 2000, a similar Republican smear campaign was launched against Sen. McCain. In fact, the very same communications group, Spaeth Communications, that placed ads against John McCain in 2000 is involved in these vicious attacks against John Kerry. Texas Republican donors with close ties to George W. Bush and Karl Rove crafted this "dishonest and dishonorable" ad. Their new charges are false; their stories are fabricated, made up by people who did not serve with Kerry in Vietnam. They insult and defame all of us who served in Vietnam.
But when the noise and fog of their distortions and lies have cleared, a man who volunteered to serve his country, a man who showed up for duty when his country called, a man to whom the United States Navy awarded a Silver Star, a Bronze Star and three Purple Hearts, will stand tall and proud. Ultimately, the American people will judge these Swift Boat Veterans for Bush and their accusations. Americans are tired of smear campaigns against those who volunteered to wear the uniform. Swift Boat Veterans for Bush should hang their heads in shame.
Mr. Rassmann, a retired lieutenant with the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department, served with the U.S. Army 5th Special Forces Group in Vietnam 1968-69.
Corrections & Amplifications:
This commentary misstated the name of a group of Vietnam veterans; the correct name is the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.
|
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 03/12/2025 06:15:47 PM  |
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 03/12/2025 06:15:47 PM EDT.
|
