.

Great Photo Op

umm this is the wrong forum for that. it should be in the lounge.

It's possible that they both have RX8s? Whow knows, you know.

THE CAPTION say "former viet nam vet" how can yo be a former vet? yo either are or aren't.

Hmm, could be grammatical error, or maybe, when you oppose the war, chuck the combat medals over the fence and call your fellow soldiers baby killers, you can decide to be a "former" vet.

Then when you decide to run for president, you can be a veteran again. In grammatical terms, it's known as "past perfect".

I dont understand all this politisian stuff. (Spelling error on purpose)

Let's keep the topic on the RX8s. Hmmmmmmmmmmmm?????

Wonder if he got any of that?

Clinton II here we come.....(sorry Teh-ray'-sah!)

Must be a commy plot.....doctored photo!!!!

Fonda looks like she's doing a Lewinsky imitation with that mic!

And Kerry's thinking, "I DID NOT HAVE SEX WITH THAT WOMAN!"

LOL! He does sort of look like, "Eeeewww..." :)

I often wonder why the Democrats don’t just play up George Bush’s poor qualifications and his inability to make much sense in public. What’s worse than his folksy Texan “charm” is around 50% of Americans continue to buy it. Perhaps some of my American readers can submit an answer to this question: do 50% of Americans buy into the Bush shitstorm because they believe in his policies or is it because he’s just so darn folksy?

Whatever the case, I find that number terrifying. He’s kind of like Gerald Ford, with the bumbling public humiliations, but Bush really is trying hard not to be seen as a not too bright rich kid while Ford just seemed to have lucked into the gig and dug doofusdom until they dragged him out. Bush is the kind of guy I’d talk baseball stats with, but I’d ask for my check and split if the subject turned to politics. Since it’s unfashionable to have a world leader with no ideas his opinions have been woven together for him by a very scary group of people. Their powers increase while the President remains convinced British Columbia is either a small lake fish or a U.K. Naval station somewhere in the South Pacific. He’s had a foreign policy education of sorts in the last four years, and has, perhaps as usual, let the nerds around him do his homework. That’s pretty smart, I grant you, though the ability to win at the card game “Asshole” shouldn’t entitle him to 4 more years in the Oval Office. These are dangerous times, and I’d sooner have someone else tuck me in at night and tell me everything is going to be OK.

Or else he's thinking, "Hmm, thirty years and change till I can buy an RX-8... not good, not good."

Everythings going to be OK Baller, really it will....nighty night :D

q

!

Originally posted by Baller
I often wonder why the Democrats don’t just play up George Bush’s poor qualifications and his inability to make much sense in public. What’s worse than his folksy Texan “charm” is around 50% of Americans continue to buy it. Perhaps some of my American readers can submit an answer to this question: do 50% of Americans buy into the Bush shitstorm because they believe in his policies or is it because he’s just so darn folksy?

Baller, dear... check out the top-rated TV programs in our great country and then put two and two together (and no fair asking Cheney for the answer). 50% of Americans will vote for Dubya again because he speaks (and I use that term loosely) to them at their own level. Americans are getting stupider by the minute ... being dumb is cool. Possessing a superior intellect is political poison nowadays, as Wes Clark just found out.

Oh, thanks, that simplifies things for me... Democrats are smart, Republicans are stupid. Oh well, at least I'm cool! I liked Clark more than Kerry, btw.

Doc, who said I was including you in that 50%? I'm still confident that you'll see the light and vote the right way when the time comes. ;) And yeah, I was very sad to see Clark bow out. He'd have made a fine President.

My vote doesn't matter. In Texas, Bush will dominate the competition. That's why you don't see I, Claudius around here anymore, he realizes the futility of discourse. The electoral college takes some of the fun out of the election. But I'm glad it's there!

:D :D :D

How the heck did Gore not even carry his home state? No wonder he isn't running again! Good job Tennesseeans!

(I love pulling y'all's strings!)

Originally posted by Aratinga
Americans are getting stupider by the minute ...

Ah how sweet it is. You insult Americans and dubya yet use the word "stupider". BTW "stupider" ain't a word. The sad part is you probably are still less "stupider" than dubya. Or did you simply mean we are getting "dumberer" by the minute.:D

Ya know what makes ME feel stupider? The first few months of the Bush presidency, I didn't know why they called him 'Dubya." I wrote it off to some BS liberal namecalling. I didn't realize for a while that it was making fun of the Texan "W."

Call me an idiot and put me to bed!!!!

Originally posted by Speed-ER doc
Ya know what makes ME feel stupider? The first few months of the Bush presidency, I didn't know why they called him 'Dubya." I wrote it off to some BS liberal namecalling. I didn't realize for a while that it was making fun of the Texan "W."

Call me an idiot and put me to bed!!!!

hahaha, ok seriously, i actually literally laughed at this... terribly funny. :)

i'm a centrist, and a Canadian, so it's important to me to see who's going to rule the wor... i mean, have a go at being the next person in the Executive position of your government. :o

Dean had the anti-Iraq message, which i thought was good as it's been obvious since the beginning that Iraq wasn't a good idea (which sadly becomes increasingly evident), so he seemed (being overly-emotional isn't always a good thing) like a bright guy to me. Kerry has his politik down though, and at least that Leiberman guy doesn't have a chance.

it's not that i'm a lefty-over-righty, i just really think Bush has been a poorer than average president for all of u... er, i mean, The American People. ;)

Originally posted by babylou
Ah how sweet it is. You insult Americans and dubya yet use the word "stupider". BTW "stupider" ain't a word.

*cough* time for a refresher (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=stupider) courtesy:
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

...edit: it occurs to me, thinking about your rather biting use of the word "ain't" that in grade 3 i remember my teacher throwing a little tiff over the addition of the word "ain't" to the dictionary... and may have been this very same publishing house, as well.

How the heck did Gore not even carry his home state? No wonder he isn't running again! Good job Tennesseeans!



Gore isn't a big enough hick, he abandoned his roots therefore the good ole boy from Texas that likes to electrocute (or is it gas?) negros gets the nod from the Tennesseans :p

Originally posted by Speed-ER doc
My vote doesn't matter. In Texas, Bush will dominate the competition. That's why you don't see I, Claudius around here anymore, he realizes the futility of discourse. The electoral college takes some of the fun out of the election. But I'm glad it's there!


It's not so much futile as unnecessary. Like I said, Bush is unelectable. I had my little epiphany the other day watching Tim Russert interview Shrub: Every time the guy opens his mouth without a heavily rehearsed, canned speech he's gonna lose votes (a fact of which his handlers are uncomfortably aware - that's why he's given fewer press conferences than any president in years.) When Russert tossed him one of those softball questions you could practically see the rusty gears turning in his head until some stale, non-sequitur fragment of one of his stump speeches came tumbling out. People aren't stupid, by and large - even Republicans - and they're not going to give Flightsuit Boy another chance to screw things up even further. He's gonna be a one-termer, just like dad.

I'm touched that you thought of me, doc.

Originally posted by Aratinga
Baller, dear... check out the top-rated TV programs in our great country and then put two and two together (and no fair asking Cheney for the answer). 50% of Americans will vote for Dubya again because he speaks (and I use that term loosely) to them at their own level. Americans are getting stupider by the minute ... being dumb is cool. Possessing a superior intellect is political poison nowadays, as Wes Clark just found out.

We all know that democrats are better educated than republicans. Have you ever been to a Nascar race? Beer drinking, smoking and pot guts with a pick-up truck.......spell Redneck or republican's the same way.

Doc you will be converted ......you are too smart to be from the right!

By the way, the Kerry-Fonda photo is fake, fake, fake, folks, as fake as Dubya's military career:

http://www.snopes.com/photos/politics/kerry2.asp

Originally posted by Baller
We all know that democrats are better educated than republicans. Have you ever been to a Nascar race? Beer drinking, smoking and pot guts with a pick-up truck.......spell Redneck or republican's the same way.
Those are some low blows, Baller, bringing up the beer gut......
I wonder which party has more cigarette smokers, if you are going to use that as a marker for intelligence. I would bet Dems smoke more, but that is a good question.

Nascar is the number one watched and attended sport in America, lots of folks you are talking about there. I have been to a monster truck show, and it was very exciting!

Democrats seem to be one of two things...either poor or Californian. A melting pot of special interest groups......

Originally posted by wakeech
at least that Leiberman guy doesn't have a chance.


when wakeech starts talking politics i usually stay out because he and i disagree on many points. i dont really want it to turn into some kind of argument. and besides he's CANADIAN!;)

but at least we both agree on Lieberman!


As far as President Bush being unelectable i would have to respectfully disagree with I, Claudius. i truly feel that this current crop of people seeking the Democratic nomination are every single one of them, completly unelectable. It may be close once we get to the actual vote for President, but at this point i still don't see any of them having a chance in hell of beating President Bush.

Baller your last statement is completly uncalled for. you could take a snapshot at any sporting event, from little league slow pitch soft ball and baseball, after school soccer all the way up to the Big League Football Baseball Hockey Basketball and other motorsports and find whole swaths of the people you describe. or you can point the camera in a different direction and find completly the opposite. if you want to win the white house you might not want to insult any particular "group" of people. why would they listen to you and vote democrat then?

So let's see what we have so far in this thread:

Tennesseeans = racist hicks (thanks Ike)

Nascar fans = beer drinking, cigarette smoking, uneducated, obese rednecks (numbering 75 million btw)

Pickup truck owners = also uneducated?

Y'all are sure alienating a lot of voters. Are there enough teachers, gays, ACLU members, PETA members, and such to make up the difference? Keep it up!

Howard Dean at least reached out to the South, in his own inimitable way.....(moron).

Interesting article By Wm. F. Buckley, Jr. right after the 2000 election detailing statistical breakdown of the voters in that election, not really ammunition for either side, just interesting.


http://www.google.com/url?sa=U&start=3&q=http://www.nationalreview.com/buckley/buckley111400.shtml&e=912

Originally posted by Speed-ER doc
Interesting article By Wm. F. Buckley, Jr. right after the 2000 election detailing statistical breakdown of the voters in that election, not really ammunition for either side, just interesting.


http://www.google.com/url?sa=U&start=3&q=http://www.nationalreview.com/buckley/buckley111400.shtml&e=912

Well I don't think I need to point out that this is from the National Review (ultra-conservative). But it does shoot down your hypothesis that Democrats are mostly poor.

Yeah, I liked his closing statement:

"Forty-three percent of the very affluent voted Democratic, which raises the question: If you're so rich, why aren't you smart?"

Originally posted by zoom44
i truly feel that this current crop of people seeking the Democratic nomination are every single one of them, completly unelectable. It may be close once we get to the actual vote for President, but at this point i still don't see any of them having a chance in hell of beating President Bush.

I don't really see where in the world this feeling could come from. Bush can't articulate a single idea - Kerry and Edwards are both extremely articulate and excellent debaters. When it comes time for the general election Bush is going to look like the moron he is.

Noah,
I like your style!!!!

The Baller

When it comes time for the general election Bush is going to look like the moron he is.
We'll vote on the issues, thanks. That parrot squawking is going to get old after a while. Awwwwk! Bush is stupid! Awwwwk! Halliburton! Brakawwwkl!

Originally posted by Speed-ER doc
We'll vote on the issues, thanks. That parrot squawking is going to get old after a while. Awwwwk! Bush is stupid! Awwwwk! Halliburton! Brakawwwkl!

Doc, you're stealing my lines. I know what you mean, though. You'd think people would give all that stuff a rest. A Bush loyalist like yourself must be sick of hearing all us ungrateful liberal parrots squawking about Halliburton overcharges, Valerie Plame, WMDs, 500+ dead American soldiers, growing questions about Shrub's National Guard service, ballooning deficits and bogus budgets, the Patriot Act, unfunded mandates like the "Leave No Child Behind" Act, stolen elections, cozy duck hunts with Scalia and the VP, etc.

Oh yeah. He really is kinda stupid, too (not to mention unelectable). I'm looking forward to the debates.

Originally posted by I, Claudius
Oh yeah. He really is kinda stupid, too (not to mention unelectable).
Keep saying that over and over, and maybe at least YOU will start to believe it.....

Originally posted by Speed-ER doc
Keep saying that over and over, and maybe at least YOU will start to believe it.....

I love that knack you have for pulling one small thing out of a post and ignoring the important parts. So you're not bothered by any of the stuff i mentioned? It's all bullshit and partisan politics? That seems pretty unlikely. You wrote in an earlier post that integrity was important to you in a public official, yet you don't seem to care much about all the incipient scandals and investigations swirling around the Bush administration. Are you totally cynical? Or are you just integrity-challenged?

We all know that democrats are better educated than republicans. Have you ever been to a Nascar race? Beer drinking, smoking and pot guts with a pick-up truck.......spell Redneck or republican's the same way.

Not that I really want to have a political debate on an automotive forum but I do have a couple of questions.

Don't the Nascar demographics show most of the fans are in the south & midwest? Historically most of these are states that are largely democrat aren't they?

Originally posted by I, Claudius
So you're not bothered by any of the stuff i mentioned? It's all bullshit and partisan politics? That seems pretty unlikely.
No that seems to be exactly right. Well said. :D

I just got me a pick-up truck with a pushrod motor....Im am going to get me some beer and a carton of smokes so I can go bowling tonight with Sally (I calls her back ally Sally). We vote for Bush because he like guns and hates those dune coons.
I got a ez-rider riflle rack from sally for Valentines day...she is the best wife i ever had and beins that shes my sister she dint have to change her name. that sure makes thins nice.
I saw one of those Mazzdes today...I think they are made in Japan...dint Bush's dad drop a nukelear bomb on that factury...hiroshima.....damn some nerv folks buying a radiuoactive car.
buy for now...I got to drink some more beer....god bless and vote for bush.

Originally posted by Baller
I got to drink some more beer....god bless and vote for bush.

I think you've had enough....:)

btw, "Baller, I like your style!" :D

DEMOCRATS VERSUS REPUBLICANS

1. Democrats buy most of the books that have been banned somewhere. Republicans form censorship committees and read them as a group.

2. Republicans consume three-fourths of all the rutabaga produced in this country. The remainder is thrown out.

3. Republicans usually wear hats and always clean their paint brushes.

4. Democrats give their worn-out clothes to those less fortunate. Republicans wear theirs.

5. Republicans employ exterminators. Democrats step on the bugs.

6. Democrats name their children after currently-popular sports figures, politicians, and entertainers. Republican children are named after their parents or grandparents, according to where the money is.

7. Democrats keep trying to cut down on smoking but are not successful. Neither are Republicans.

8. Republicans tend to keep their shades drawn, although there is seldom any reason why they should. Democrats ought to, but don't.

9. Republicans study the financial pages of the newspaper. Democrats put them in the bottom of the bird cage.

10. Most of the stuff alongside the road has been thrown out of car windows by Democrats.

11. Republicans raise dahlias, Dalmatians, and eyebrows. Democrats raise Airedales, kids, and taxes.

12. Democrats eat the fish they catch. Republicans hang them on the wall.

13. Republican boys date Democratic girls. They plan to marry Republican girls, but feel that they're entitled to a little fun first.

14. Democrats make plans and then do something else. Republicans follow the plans their grandfathers made.

15. Republicans sleep in twin beds--some even in separate rooms. That is why there are more Democrats.

.

The photograph that started this thread is a fake. From newsday.com (http://www.newsday.com/ny-kerry0215,0,4733861.story?coll=ny-top-headlines):1971 Photo of Kerry Doctored

By Michael Rothfeld
Staff Writer

As a 20-year-old photographer documenting the country's struggle over the Vietnam War, Ken Light snapped the picture of John Kerry at a peace rally in Mineola. It captured the future senator alone at a podium, squinting into the sun.

Light did not photograph Jane Fonda on that warm June Sunday in 1971. The actress, who is reviled by many Vietnam veterans for her vocal stance against the war, did not even attend.

But when opponents of the Democratic presidential hopeful began e-mailing Light's picture to one another four days ago, it depicted Fonda standing by Kerry's side. The photo had been doctored.

"I'm horrified," said Light, 52, who grew up in East Meadow and now heads the graduate photojournalism program at the University of California at Berkeley. "I think this kind of alteration is probably one of the scariest forms of trickery, particularly when it's done against a political candidate."

Dag Vega, a spokesman for Kerry's campaign, said, "The smear tactics have started already."

<snip. see link for full article>

Siemek, 34, reached by phone, said she found the picture on a conservative Internet message board and had no idea it was phony.

"This thing has spiraled out of control," Siemek said. "If I had any thought that photo was not real, I would never have forwarded it to the veterans' group."

Copyright (c) 2004, Newsday, Inc.

Good stuff. That is why so many politicians and their staffs are lawyers, their tactics are the same. It doesn't matter at this point if the picture is fake (and I will concede that it probably is). Someone got it into the public consciousness (and more importantly, into the public subconsciousness), where it will remain. That is a powerful thing, whether or not it is justified.

In court, the same tactics apply. Take the Kobe Bryant case. The defense knows they cannot likely introduce evidence about the accuser's medical/psychiatric background, or her previous sexual history, or anything else to discredit her. So they "leak" these things out to the media, and thus to the nation where they are absorbed into the subconsciousness of the public. It may not "officially" make a difference in the outcome, but the damage is done.

Everyone knows Kerry spoke out against the Vietnam war, and threw war ribbons on the ground to make a point. But a picture such as this, even if fake, is more powerful.

Sort of like throwing out the idea that "Bush is trying to steal all the oil in Iraq for his oil company." Not true, but the idea remains.

Much more goodies like this to come in the next few months, I can't wait!

Maybe the next fake picture they'll release is a shot of Shrub in Alabama.

Hey, check out this fully validated, undoctored photo

Here's another fake photo.

Oh. Wait. That one's not fake.

Rummy gettin' chummy with Saddam. I wonder what all the conservative talk show hosts have to say about that. Doc, wanna provide a synopsis? ;)

Speaking of conservative talk show host, did anyone find it amusing that Bill O'Reilly, the leader of the conservative attack dogs, apologized for his analysis on Iraqi WMDs before the war and said he is now much more skeptical of the Bush Administration. I still think he's a little crazy, but now I have a lot more respect for him.

Originally posted by Aratinga
Rummy gettin' chummy with Saddam. I wonder what all the conservative talk show hosts have to say about that. Doc, wanna provide a synopsis? ;)
That's been discussed here before. Do a search, noob. :) jk
Obviously Rummy and crew have changed their opinion about Saddam, and actually even DID something about it. I think that takes a LITTLE bit of power away from your pic there, fella.
Handshakes and photo-ops don't really matter. Actions do. Keep scrounging. :)

It's true. Actions really do speak louder than words.

5 December 2003

Rumsfeld Says Saddam Hussein's "Terrorist Regime Is Finished"
Iraqi people have been liberated "in spirit ... in fact"

U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld says Saddam Hussein's "terrorist regime is finished."

In a December 14 statement following the announcement in Baghdad that the former Iraqi leader was in coalition custody, Rumsfeld said now the Iraqi people "can dare to believe what we have said from the beginning: that the era of the brutal dictatorship of Saddam Hussein is over."

The Iraqi people, he said, have been "liberated in spirit, as well as in fact."

http://usinfo.state.gov/topical/pol/conflict/04151204.htm
__________________________

Rumsfeld 'offered help to Saddam'

Declassified papers leave the White House hawk exposed over his role during the Iran-Iraq war

Julian Borger in Washington
Tuesday December 31, 2002
The Guardian

The Reagan administration and its special Middle East envoy, Donald Rumsfeld, did little to stop Iraq developing weapons of mass destruction in the 1980s, even though they knew Saddam Hussein was using chemical weapons "almost daily" against Iran, it was reported yesterday.

US support for Baghdad during the Iran-Iraq war as a bulwark against Shi'ite militancy has been well known for some time, but using declassified government documents, the Washington Post provided new details yesterday about Mr Rumsfeld's role, and about the extent of the Reagan administration's knowledge of the use of chemical weapons.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,866942,00.html

Originally posted by Speed-ER doc
Obviously Rummy and crew have changed their opinion about Saddam, and actually even DID something about it. I think that takes a LITTLE bit of power away from your pic there, fella.
Handshakes and photo-ops don't really matter. Actions do. Keep scrounging. :)

Why would "Rummy and crew" have changed their opinion about Saddam Hussein? Saddam Hussein and his actions have been consistent from the day he took power. His first day in power he walked into the Iraqi version of parliament and announced the names of "traitors" within the audience. Of course these "traitors" were killed.

Originally posted by bernieunger
Hey, check out this fully validated, undoctored photoI see he bought the Large Print edition. :)

Did you notice the detail in that photo?

As usual, your arguments are losing their cohesiveness and consistency. You have argued vehemently that "Bush lied to America," that there were no WMDs, and even that he should be impeached for this. Now you say that Rumsfeld and the Reagan administration knew about the use of chemical weapons in the late '80's. I guess you think they were all destroyed, or that Saddam must have reformed. Perhaps you believe we should have left him alone, and not removed him at all. Sure seems that way from your posts.

That philospohy will carry Kerry a long way, I'm sure.

I think Colonal Francona seems to have a good grasp of the situation. His credentials seem impeccable. Here is another report of his from 2002...

http://www.google.com/url?sa=U&start=8&q=http://www.hdforum.org/past/francona.htm&e=7415

Exerpt:

Originally Posted September 26, 2002 at 1:00 pm

“I’m not backing the Bush plan necessarily, but I think there needs to be regime change in Iraq … I don’t think war is the goal – regime change is the goal,” Rick Francona told a standing-room-only audience of about 200.

Even after the Iraqis showed a willingness in early 1988 to use nerve gas – “pretty nasty stuff” – the Reagan, then Bush administration decided it still didn’t want an Iranian victory, so we stayed on the Iraqis’ side. “We didn’t know they’d do that,” Francona said of the use of what is now termed a “weapon of mass destruction.”

“We knew before Desert Shield that he had developed chemical weapons,” and believed he might have warheads to deliver them, Francona said. “We thought nukes were about five years away.” And when Hussein’s son-in-law defected, the U.S. learned the Iraqis had developed aflatoxin, which attacks the liver, in quantities to kill the world’s population seven times over.

The last U.N. weapons inspectors left Iraq in 1998. “Who knows where they are today,” in terms of development, Francona said. “I believe he’s got chemical and biological warheads. He can pretty much reach all of this area,” he said. “Does he have a nuclear weapon? I doubt it. But he’s probably close.”

“Is he capable of hiding and pocketing this stuff? Absolutely! There’s caves all over the (country).”

Thanks for the links Claudius.

edit* Nevermind. I'm not getting into this after all. Half of the arguments are dumb enough without any more stupidity coming back at me for my views.

I can't believe some folks are still beating that sad, worn-out drum. Even Bill O'Reilly has given up. The doc's found his expert in Colonel Francona, who seemed convinced - in September of 2002, at any rate - that Iraq was crawling with WMDs. My expert is David Kay, who's been to Iraq much more recently, was hired by the Bush administration to find these elusive items, and despite the full support and efforts of the U.S. military was forced to conclude that there were none to be found. I'd be curious to know the Colonel's current opinion on the subject - his website seems mostly given over to shilling for his book on Iraq and offers no clues.

A related point - I understand that governments shift allegiances, and sometimes the U.S. turns on former allies for pragmatic reasons, and it's always good theatre to flash a little bogus moral outrage at the atrocities your erstwhile buddy has committed, even if you handed him the means to commit them in chummier times and looked the other way. I'm just wondering when the Bushies are planning to liberate the oppressed Saudi people. (You remember them, Doc - the non-democratic country with demonstrated links to Al Queda, the country that most of the 9/11 hijackers hailed from - that country.) Of course, I'm sure Shrub would rather not attack an old friend and family business partner if he can avoid it.

The point I have made, very clearly I might add, using your own source against your relatively baseless argument, is there was clear evidence of the presence of WMD in Iraq. The inspectors, led by Mr. Kay, were figuratively handcuffed and blindfolded in their attempt to find these items. The fact that they have not been located yet in no way proves their absence at the start of the war. If we don't find them, we don't find them. Do you REALLY believe there weren't any? You weren't surprised at all as the days passed early on in the war when they weren't used?

Yes, I am impressed with your source. Aren't you?

Lt Col Francona enlisted in the Air Force in 1970, and served as a Vietnamese linguist until 1973, conducting aerial reconnaissance missions over Vietnam and Laos. After Arabic language training, he served at a variety of locations in the Middle East from 1975 to 1977, and supported the evacuation of the U.S. Embassy in Beirut, Lebanon in 1976. In 1978, he became an Arabic language instructor at the Defense Language Institute in Monterey, California.
Following his commissioning in 1979, Lt Col Francona was an instructor at the Air Force intelligence school in Denver, Colorado. From 1982 to 1984, he was a Middle East operations officer with the National Security Agency. In 1984, he was assigned as an advisor to the Royal Jordanian Air Force in Amman, Jordan.

In 1987, Lt Col Francona was assigned to the Defense Intelligence Agency as the assistant Defense Intelligence Officer for the Middle East. During this assignment, he spent much of 1987 and 1988 at the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad, Iraq, as a liaison officer to the Iraqi armed forces directorate of military intelligence. Lt Col Francona traveled extensively as an observer of Iraqi combat operations against Iranian forces, and flew sorties with the Iraqi air force.

Immediately following the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in August, 1990 and through the Gulf War, Lt Col Francona was deployed to the Gulf as the advisor on Iraqi armed forces and personal interpreter to commander in chief of the U.S. Central Command, General Norman Schwarzkopf. As such, he was the lead interpreter for ceasefire talks with the Iraqi military at Safwan, Iraq, in March, 1991.

After the end of the Gulf War, the colonel served in the Office of the Secretary of Defense, and was a principal author of the Department of Defense report to Congress on the conduct of the Gulf war. In 1992, he was selected to be the first air attaché to the U.S. Embassy in Damascus, Syria, returning to the United States in early 1995. From 1995 to 1996, Lt Col Francona served with the Central Intelligence Agency, and participated in a variety of sensitive operations in the Middle East, including the escape of an Iraqi scientist's family. During one of these operations, he survived an attempt on his life by Iraqi intelligence service agents.

In 1996, the colonel was selected to develop the Department of Defense counterterrorism intelligence branch. In late 1997, the colonel led a special operations team supporting NATO forces in Bosnia. He returned to the United States and retired from active duty in 1998.

Since retiring from the Air Force, Lt Col Francona has written Ally to Adversary: An Eyewitness Account of Iraq's Fall from Grace, consulted with government and private firms, and become a media analyst on Middle East political-military events, currently under contract to NBC (seen on CNBC and MSNBC).

The colonel has a bachelors degree in government and the Arabic language, and a masters degree in international relations with a concentration in Middle East studies. His decorations include the Defense Distinguished Service Medal, the Bronze Star, and nine Air Medals, as well as campaign awards for service in Vietnam, the Persian Gulf, and the Balkans. The colonel was awarded the Central Intelligence Agency Seal Medallion for his service with that agency.

Oh, please explain how my argument is "relatively baseless." I can't wait to hear that. And please also document your curious belief that Kay was "shackled." By whom? The Bush administration?

I'm sure there were weapons at one time (hey, we oughta know since a lot of them, including anthrax, came from us). Kay concedes that. He also was forced to conclude that they were destroyed before the Bushies started their chest-thumping and spear-rattling.

Thank you for the resume on Francona, though I don't see your point, as I didn't dispute his wonderful achievements. All I did was point out that you're putting a lot of store in a a fifteen-month-old opinion. What does he think now?

I suggest you stop whomping that poor horse. It's dead, bud. I'm more interested in your views on the Bush administration's puzzling lack of interest in striking a blow against terror by invading Saudi Arabia (you being so big on logic and consistency and all).

Here is what David Kay said:

The White House might also take comfort in Kay's admission that, "If I had been there, presented what I have seen as the record of the intelligence estimates, I probably would have come to -- not probably -- I would have come to the same conclusion that the political leaders." He would have concluded that Iraq had WMD.

Kay also concluded that the intelligence agencies simply did not succeed, though not because of any corruption. The Republican chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Pat Roberts, seemed to agree when he said there was a "world intelligence failure."
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/01/30/opinion/meyer/main596855.shtml

The war began 3/19/03, 6 months after Colonel Francona's speech. There was no evidence in those six months that would have changed his opinion, I'm sure.

The question is not what we know now, it is what we KNEW THEN.

In medicine, we hate it when lawyers look back at a case and assume we should have deduced something from the endpoint, when all is known (from an autopsy for example). It is always easy when you use your "retrospectoscope" to look back. You have to use the data you have, and make the best decisions you can. I think that was done, and furthermore, we DO NOT HAVE all of the data yet. The horse is not dead. I don't give up until flatline, and not always then. ;)

I disagree with the Saudi's (and Taliban's) treatment of women, but I don't know if that warrants invasion. If ties can be shown to their harboring or training terrorists, rather than being the country of origin of most of them, then I'm all for it.

Here's a version of my earlier post for visually-oriented learners:

C'mon, WIldfire, get up. Yah!!!! Whats the matter with you?
Nurse, bring me the defibrillator!

Here's David Kay's report to Congress Oct 2003:

http://www.google.com/url?sa=U&start=1&q=http://www.cia.gov/cia/public_affairs/speeches/2003/david_kay_10022003.html&e=7415

Excerpt:

We have discovered dozens of WMD-related program activities and significant amounts of equipment that Iraq concealed from the United Nations during the inspections that began in late 2002.

A clandestine network of laboratories and safehouses within the Iraqi Intelligence Service that contained equipment subject to UN monitoring and suitable for continuing CBW research.

A prison laboratory complex, possibly used in human testing of BW agents, that Iraqi officials working to prepare for UN inspections were explicitly ordered not to declare to the UN.

Reference strains of biological organisms concealed in a scientist's home, one of which can be used to produce biological weapons.

New research on BW-applicable agents, Brucella and Congo Crimean Hemorrhagic Fever (CCHF), and continuing work on ricin and aflatoxin were not declared to the UN.

I see Iraq as we saw the former USSR. We were afraid of them to a degree, and overestimated their capabilities. Better safe than sorry. It ain't like they were going out of their way to show compliance with UN resolutions. That is the real reason for the war, their lack of cooperation, and their concealment of dangerous weapons and materials. That is what I meant by Kay being handcuffed. We didn't have access to all of the information. Now we do.

Baller
Well Mr. Know it all - just what would you do about all this?
Where are you....are you american? Quit plastering your Anti-war, peace and love, crap on this thread. So you can get back to the thing most liberals love - themselves!

I, Claudius,
You can tell alot about people by how they address themselves. And I can tell you take your Freedom for granted, as if you deserve it (for whatever you've done to earn it - I don't know) - my point however, is that you just don't know a dammed thing about your argument. Have you ever left the US and traveled in some of these "problem" countries? Have you ever talked to their people - asked them what they want? I can not stand people who sit by the sideline and ridicule every action of a president. As if their comments are helping in some why? Not really! In fact, as we argue this point, the US military is fighting those terrorists, who want to hurt you! The Liberal! Just as they would for any american. Why would they want to do this? Because they care about accomplishing what they set out to do. They don't bad-mouth the president, they know what they are doing is right! How do I know this? Because I am one of those soldiers! I spent 8 months in Iraq. People like you make me ill, you've got no back-bone at all!

Thought I'd help out some Doc, keep up the fight!

Mr. Viper, thank you for your service to our country.

Viper501-
I am equally humbled by your presence in this discussion. We noncombatants can sit here and philosophise for the sake of argument, but it kind of makes me step back and think about my place in things when someone like you, who has put your life on the line to protect our rights, enters the fray. While I appreciate your support in this discussion, your support in the fight against terror and to protect our country is much more gratifying. You are a true hero in my eyes, God bless you.

WOW, especially after seeing what you fly!!! The AH-64D Longbow is one wicked machine. You sir, are a stud. The 8 must be kind of boring after that.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/ah-64d.htm

Pic here: (Now that's what I call an argument-settler!)

Originally posted by Viper501
Baller
Well Mr. Know it all - just what would you do about all this?
Where are you....are you american? Quit plastering your Anti-war, peace and love, crap on this thread. So you can get back to the thing most liberals love - themselves!

I fought and had friends next to me bleed to death in Vietnam...do not lecture me on this topic until you have had your best friends guts all over your hands.

I voted for Bush....I have been republican all of my life, however Bush is a idiot and you know it....he and his boys will ruin this great country of ours.

What this world needs is more love and understanding perhaps starting right now with you

The Baller

PS Viper is a snake, my middle name is Mongoose

Baller,
I'm not one to speak badly of veterans - had no idea you served - I am truly sorry. I was assigned to 6-6 CAV back in '99, a little thing call "Operation Hawk" came up early that year, I'm sure you've heard of it. I was on both of those missions that went bad. I lost two of my buddies in the later crash. I am hearing you, brother! But I have one question for you - Did you volunteer or get drafted! I'm saying this because there is a big difference in the mind-set of the army of the '60s and '70s verses the all volunteer army of today. Times have changed. I know you realize that the individual most-wanting peace, is the soldier, but if you keep insisting on putting all this propaganda on a public domain - I'll have the right to respond. Plus it's kind of fun....

Doc, thanks - If you'd like, I'll post some pics of the aircraft (once I figure out how...) and maybe throw in some of my 8!

I, Claudius, in this sort of communication, I can't tell if you're being sincere or not.....I will, however take you're response as a sincere one. Thankyou. I'm sorry about the comment - I get so steamed sometimes when I read some of this stuff - I knew I should have listened to my wife when she said - "Don't get involved in a forum!".......Ooops!

just some tidbits

FDR led us into World War II. Germany never attacked us: Japan did. From 1941-1945, 450,000 lives were lost, an average of 112,500 per year.

Truman finished that war and started one in Korea, North Korea never attacked us. From 1950-1953, 55,000 lives were lost, an average of 18,333 per year.

John F. Kennedy started the Vietnam conflict in 1962. Vietnam never attacked us. Johnson turned Vietnam into a quagmire. From 1965-1975, 58,000 lives were lost, an average of 5,800 per year.

Clinton went to war in Bosnia without UN or French consent, Bosnia never attacked us. He was offered Osama bin Laden's head on a platter three times by Sudan and did nothing. Osama has attacked us on multiple occasions.

In the two years since terrorists attacked us, President Bush has liberated two countries, crushed the Taliban, crippled al-Qaida, put nuclear inspectors in Lybia, Iran and North Korea without firing a shot, and captured a terrorist who slaughtered 300,000 of his own people. We lost 600 soldiers, an average of 300 a year. Bush did all this abroad while not allowing another terrorist attack at home.

That was a GR8 post, sort of the anti-bernieunger post from the "No more Bush" thread. Just shows that there are two sides to every story (Republicans "bailed on Vietnam" or got us out of something the Dems got us into....).

Puts Bush's wartime accomplishments in perspective.

Originally posted by Viper501
I, Claudius, in this sort of communication, I can't tell if you're being sincere or not.....I will, however take you're response as a sincere one. Thankyou. I'm sorry about the comment - I get so steamed sometimes when I read some of this stuff - I knew I should have listened to my wife when she said - "Don't get involved in a forum!".......Ooops!

Of course I'm being sincere. My father was wounded in WWII, my uncle didn't come back from the Pacific, and I lost two close friends from our neighborhood in Vietnam. I don't mess with veterans. With respect, though, I do disagree with you about the Bush administration and the present course of our country. I respect the office of the president, but the current occupant is doing grave damage to the system hundreds of thousands of Americans have given their lives to protect.

Believe me, I know exactly what your wife means about that "don't get involved with a forum" stuff.

Originally posted by RX-GR8
just some tidbits

FDR led us into World War II. Germany never attacked us: Japan did. From 1941-1945, 450,000 lives were lost, an average of 112,500 per year.


You do seem to remember that Japan attacked, so I don't get your complaint that FDR led us into World War II. Seems we were pulled in kicking and screaming to stay out.

Also, we didn't declare war on Germany. We didn't attack Germany to start that war. Germany declared war on us, my historically challenged friend.

Originally posted by RX-GR8
Truman finished that war and started one in Korea, North Korea never attacked us.

Hmm, so it was us that invaded South Korea taking over nearly the whole penninsula?

Originally posted by RX-GR8
John F. Kennedy started the Vietnam conflict in 1962.


Naw, that war had been going on for years before we ever stepped foot in Vietnam. Look at your map. If we hadn't stepped in do you think Bangkok and Singapore would be capitalist today? I don't doubt for a moment that Johnson screwed us. Oliver Stone's premise that this was all a industrial-military plot conspiracy, and that's why JFK was assassinated kind of makes sense to me. But the Johnson administration never left us with some of the more ludicrous moments of the war - Kissinger coming back from negotiations announcing "Peace in our time", or dirty tricks operatives invading the offices of your local friendly dentist looking for anti war scoop.

Originally posted by RX-GR8


Clinton went to war in Bosnia without UN or French consent, Bosnia never attacked us. He was offered Osama bin Laden's head on a platter three times by Sudan and did nothing. Osama has attacked us on multiple occasions.

You are conveniently forgetting the facts on the ground. We didn't fight Bosnia. I can easily make the claim that we assisted Bosnians against the Serbs. Seeing the pictures of concentration camps and mass graves doesn't make me feel bad about that decision. And, the heck with the French.


Originally posted by RX-GR8

He was offered Osama bin Laden's head on a platter three times by Sudan and did nothing.

You know there's a lot of Right Wing Neo-fascist talk show drivel out there. Repeated often enough it's taken as gospel truth. That Hannity guy sure makes you mad, doesn't he?

People will say anything they want to in the Mideast with no connection to truth. If Sudan needs a makeover... Well, you go ahead, disengage brain and believe what you want to believe.


Originally posted by RX-GR8

In the two years since terrorists attacked us, President Bush has liberated two countries, crushed the Taliban, crippled al-Qaida, put nuclear inspectors in Lybia, Iran and North Korea without firing a shot, and captured a terrorist who slaughtered 300,000 of his own people. We lost 600 soldiers, an average of 300 a year. Bush did all this abroad while not allowing another terrorist attack at home.

Nice spin job. There is no real progress in Iran or (especially)North Korea, and Libya was turned when Reagan bombed the snot out Kaddafi's tent in the desert and killed his baby girl, missing him. Bush I should have done away with Saddam 12 years ago. Do you think we would have suicide bombers in Baghdad if Bush I had finished the job? We've just about lost 600 soldiers in the one year we've been in Iraq, so you need to rework your math a bit. One-eyed Omar was dead in the sights of a preditor missile and we let him get away because somebody was asleep.

My original post came about because of the oft-repeated mantra that it was a good thing Bush, and not Gore, was at the healm when 911 came down. Personally I believe that both political parties are problematic. But, on the whole, the Democrats have acquitted themselves in times of crisis reasonable well. I can't imagine we'd be any worse off now with Gore in charge.

Now, for the first Tuesday in November. Got a little message for y'all. It's not the war on terrorism, guys. It's the economy, stupid. It's jobs (or lack thereof). It's the way we mortgaged ourselves to the hilt with spending (imagine that, the Republicans can't control spending either), coupled with reduced taxes. It's the way we can only keep the economy going by reducing interests rates to a level that makes it impossible for old folk to live on savings. It's the way high tech and manufacturing jobs have been exported to India and China without Bush saying so much as boo. It's the way people without jobs can't get decent medical insurance. It's the way the pharmaceuticals are protected so we have to pay twice for brand-names meds what the rest of the civilized world pays. It's the way the HMO's have taken control of our lives. I don't see any way Bush II is going to last another term. Even with that knucklehead Nader back in the race. Yup, same lesson Bush I had to learn the hard way.

I think you must be a doctor, too....a SPIN doctor that is.

What I don't like is how Bush did not listen to the Israli and Russian intelligence that said there were no WMDs. Isreal has the best intelligence in the middle east, and since Saddam hates them they would be concerned about WMDs. Russia has the best intelligence in the world. We based the war off our own intelligence, or lack there of. All of the offered evidence came from an unreliable source (which wasn't revealed until after war had started). All this happened in a situation where neither we nor our allies were under attack, unlike oh say all the previous wars we fought.

There are over 50 countries with nuclear weapons related programs, which of those will we attack?

I live in South Carolina, where Republicans in charge of the state (whoever said that dems carry the south must have been joking, this is the bible belt) have basically bankrupted it by fighting the federal gov. about keeping the confederate flag over the statehouse.

War may have ended slavery, fascism, communism, and nazism, but we also used it to put the Taliban and Saddam in power.

Kerry running for office using Vietnam as a platform is like Moore running for president using Fahrenheit 9/11 as proof of his patriotism.

I don't approve of Moore, I do approve of some of his ends, but not his means. I am not a democrat, I am independant. By the way the south called the north unpatriotic because they were against slavery during the civil war. I think there is nothing more patriotic than to try to do what you think is in the best interest of your country, which may or may not be go to war.