First let me apologize (for the second time in this thread) for being too harsh or condescending or for hurting your feelings in any way. I was not trying to discredit you. I was stating what I see to be the main issue with you and I discussing this political stuff. It's simple, you believe the media is left wing and works only to discredit Bush. You believe they go easier on Kerry. You believe that fair and balanced reporting means that for every story they do about Fallujah, or abusing prisoners, or soldiers getting killed, or Iraqis wanting us to let them choose their own form of government...there should be a story that mentions the new school books the kids have with no photos of Saddam, or that they cleaned all the sewerage up in the hospitals.

You know I'd like to see some good news from Iraq too. Something that really meant something. My friend Chris is there and so is my cousin Ryan. I don't like seeing and hearing all the bad news. I don't like hearing about this prison story. It is all very painful to listen to. What I keep trying to get through to you Kevin is I don't give a shit about scoring POLITICAL POINTS for the left. This to me isn't about left and right. It's about right and wrong. That's it. That's where I'm coming from. I believe Bush was wrong to take us to war with Iraq. I believe this administration has done a horrible job handling the war and I think it is an issue that Bush is a "pass the buck guy" that doesn't lead the country...he listens to a small group of people that I find to be completely out of touch with reality and follows what they say. Ok. It's not a personal attack against you or Pat when I talk about this stuff...I really am amazed when you say the things you do and seem to be unaware of or ignore certain items.

Maybe I have lost my cool with some of the things I typed and if you see that as a personal attack I am sorry. In my last post I rambled quite a bit, but I started it with why I thought we can't come to terms on things, I apologized for being too "wordy", I thanked Roger and David for making me see something I had not...then I answered your questions...granted in the first answer I tried to figure out what the point of the question was and maybe you didn't like it but it was not bullshit...that question was without value and could only be answered one way...nobody would choose to see their home burned down and family shot over getting naked for a lewd photo shoot. A judge would tell you, you were "insane" if you asked that in court. Just so you know. Unless you were asking a person who was thought to be insane.

Then I wrapped things up with some facts on terror issues to back up why I think what I think about Bushco. I laid out my argument to allow you to pick it apart...with evidence for you to challenge. You ignored all that and focused on I guess what you see as my bad attitude...one line I wrote that mentioned Karl Rove...then questioned my sanity and feelings for Rove. I guess questioning my sanity is fine because I question my sanity all the time. I'll explain Rove below. Sorry for the long intro...I type as fast as I can and this stuff sort of flows for me so I don't always realize these things are a bit long until I'm done.

______________________________________

Gosh, thanks for the condescending response.  It’s funny how you find it necessary to preface your answers with pages of text trying to discredit me before you, ‘like a fool’ respond. 

I said "like a fool" because it seems that's how we both feel. You feel that I won't "hear" you and I feel that you won't "hear" me. I really can't discredit you...it's something you have to do on your own...I also don't want to discredit you. I guess, like you, I'm just frustrated with trying to get you to hear me or respond to some of the items I add to back up what I'm rambling about...like the whole section I wrote about Iran and Al Qaeda and Iraq...do you think I made that up?

I’m sure it’s easier to just dismiss the points I bring up and try and couch them in the context of words spoken by a deranged lunatic

I'm not doing that. I am not calling you a lunatic but I am saying that what you are saying sometimes seems so removed from the actual set of circumstances it seems like madness. Or just plain partisanship. Personal beliefs are not facts...I'm not sure if that's where we may be running into an issue. Again I ask you why are you turning these things into left vs right all the time? That's not my take.

 but anyone with a reasonable amount of common sense can see you for what you are…a person who quite likely enjoys listening to himself as he rambles on and on and also a person who likely doesn’t really listen to what is being said in opposition.  We’ve all known people like you.

I'm sorry you feel that way about me. It's not what I'm like and I think I am hearing you...I just don't understand what you are saying. You have judged me once again though.

Yes, David was right in that Bob Kerrey also committed war crimes.  I also remember when news of that came to light.  But we’re talking about John Kerry here and I watched a few Sunday mornings ago as Tim Russert asked him about a video in which he talked about he himself committing war crimes. 

I posted what was said in my post "Let's take all the words" and I told you what I thought about that too. Kevin, let's be clear here...Nixon hated Kerry and tried to discredit him...his people researched Kerry in depth and if there was anything...anything at all they could have used against him back then...any info about him killing women and children...they would have put it on the table...Kerry has never been accused of that (except in error and I don't count stupidity) and never was charged with war crimes. This is like someone going on and on about Bush being AWOL from the National Guard...the Guard did not and has never charged him with that so to beat that drum is dishonest...do you get it now? Trust me, Kerry spoke out and Nixon wanted to discredit him...Republicans have crawled up Kerry's ass and they have everything on him at this point...there is nothing there...it would have been used years ago...it's nonsense Kevin...bottom line...

Hey, they all did it he said so I suppose that made it right.  Had this been Bush who had acted this way you can bet the press would’ve sustained a steady drumbeat of requests for more information. 

If you accuse Kerry of war crimes Kevin you'll have to charge the entire American military. That's not very patriotic now is it? Again, if you have something put it on the table and then mail it to Rove I'm sure he could use it. Kevin, the press ignores stories if there is nothing there or it can't be proven. An example would be the story about Bush paying for his girlfriend to have an abortion in 1970. The mainstream press has avoided it like the plague. Why? If they are so left wing why not just print it? The doctor who did the abortion has signed a sworn affidavit, so have 4 other people who know about it...why doesn't the press go after this story? I'll tell you why because the woman who had the abortion won't come forward...she's the key...no woman=no abortion=no story...if they wanted to be "bias" they could just stick it out there and see what happens. They don't though. If there is such a left wing slant why did Sinclair Broadcasting take Koppel off the air? I mean your story doesn't add up...do you see where I'm coming from?

 The fact that Russert actually brought it up was surprising to me but the fact that it died there was no surprise at all.  You guys hadn’t even heard about it until I brought it up.  I suppose it was old news though so it really didn’t matter.  Right? 

No, I had heard about it but it fell under garbage in, garbage out...the war crimes story was/is old news...it has been shown to be nonsense. I had also read something about Republicans spreading this rumor on the internet...and the misspelling of the name in the rumor...Kerrey rather than Kerry...that's why I thanked David. I had forgot that and when he said it, it brought it back. I forgot it because I knew it was garbage. Like the other favorites the Republicans use...voted for before I voted against...that one's funny because the Republicans that keep saying it are so obviously bullshitting...see when they are going to vote on something like that they do several counts or votes before the real vote to see where people stand...they discuss the issue and try to raise support...so Kerry could have voted several times for it during the discussion phase...but when the Republicans wouldn't supply the funding through rolling back the Bush tax cuts well when the real vote came Kerry said no way. What's also funny is I remember everyone talking about the 87 billion here on this board and I believe you and Pat were both also against it...it was a lot of money...now it's just used in a devious way to throw mud at Kerry...garbage in...garbage out... 

 Go ahead and sugar coat it any which way you like but the man admitted to being involved in war crimes and I don’t think we’re talking about stealing from the local exchange. 

Do you have, as you've been asked several times, this amazing evidence that shows Kerry killing women and children? I'm not sugar coating anything. You are trying to twist something up to suit your agenda and people keep asking you what you've got that shows this. The Russert interview does not show Kerry committed war crimes and if he had and admitted it way back then why didn't they charge him? Is it for the same reasons they didn't charge Bush for being AWOL from the Guard? Because neither man committed that crime in the eyes of their government? Kevin, Kerry points out in his testimony these men were ordered by the top level brass to do this stuff. If anyone should be charged it's the guys at the top...they carry the responsibility for sanctioning this behavior. I do not want to call all of our soldiers who fought in Vietnam traitors and war criminals...you do I guess. That's nice. See, soldiers follow orders...that's their job...if they were ordered to burn a village...they burned it...if not they could be court marshaled for disobeying a direct order. Same goes for the buffoons in the Iraqi prison. Those guys were following orders of CIA officials and Military Intelligence. It's the guys that gave the orders that carry the most guilt. Now, when Rummy and the Chiefs of Staff sat and testified they lied through their teeth about not knowing and not sanctioning this behavior. They even tried to scapegoat the soldiers by saying they were a small group acting on their own. It has already come out that CIA and Military Intel were involved and another General had visited the prison during the period when the abuse was taking place and advised that they needed to use measures to soften up the prisoners for interrogation. Now, for them to claim they didn't want to use whatever methods at their disposal to get information out of the prisoners is a lie...that sort of regular military lie that goes "I have no knowledge of such an operation nor would I be at liberty to discuss such an operation if it did in fact exist."

I have no problem with our guys being the "good guys" but there is certainly some responsibility to be shared here and these dipshit reservists they are going to scapegoat do not carry the weight for this. It goes all the way up.   

But getting back to my question which you found ‘kind of ridiculous’.  Your response reminds me of a movie where the defense team needs a bit of exculpatory evidence from the prosecution.  Rather than just give them the information, the prosecution loads them down with a truckload of bs in hopes that the real evidence will never be found. 

I only ask you point out what I said that was bullshit.

Maybe you’re missing my point so I’ll write it again…slower this time just for you.  If the photos taken of the Iraqis are so disgusting (and I’m not saying they’re not) then, when you compare that crime to the crime of a person who actually killed people because they got in the way, why aren’t you upset more by the latter? 

First, Kerry killed people because he was fighting in a war. We've killed lots of people in wars. George Bush ordered the bombing of innocent civilians in Iraq just to rid of Saddam Hussein. Who's the bigger war criminal the guy that gives the order to do it or the soldier that does his duty and follows orders? Do you see my point? I think the crime in the prison is the greater crime to answer your question...slower. It wasn't done in the heat of battle...it was sadistic torture...and they did kill some of the prisoners in the process. Beat at least one to death in fact. You seem just to be pushing to try and get some response from me that damns Kerry, I guess...what is the point of asking me this question?

This has nothing to do with having given the Iraqis a choice of one over the other.  This is about you being outraged at photos of humiliation but giving a pass to real cold blooded killing.  Simple, is it not? 

I am not outraged because they humiliated Iraqis. Humiliation is the least of our concern here. I am disgusted that they let such a giant fuck up take place and were dumb enough to video tape and photograph what they were doing. That they preach how sadistic Saddam was and then use the same prison and his tactics to "free Iraq." That Republicans want to forget the WMD's and all the reasons they said we were going there and say now it's all a humanitarian mission while our CIA guys and Military Intel guys with the full knowledge and consent of Rummy and pals go to work torturing random Iraqis and photographing it to give to our enemies to use as fuel for the fire. I'm disgusted that anyone could compare this to frat boy hazing and downplay the huge mistake that's been made that will cost the lives of many more soldiers and likely cause the terrorists to plan more attacks on US soil as a response. You think when they capture a US soldier or civilian they may now torture the fuck out of them and photo and video tape it and send the stuff to Al Jeezera to broadcast to show they got back at us? I think they will. The guys that gave the orders carry the weight here and must bear the burden of their crimes. That means Rummy...and even Bush as the ultimate head of the US military bears the responsibility...and I would find it amazing if they could prove they didn't know and didn't sign off on "any methods necessary to make them talk." 

 Maybe I’m wrong in assuming that you’re outraged.  Are you outraged, Reg?

It's the fact that you miss the big picture Kevin that surpirses me and that you think "humiliation" is the issue. It's the lack of leadership from the top down that bothers me most...the fact that this is all such a train wreck that keeps making the US look worse and putting all of us deeper in danger. 

What am I supposed to think about a man who indiscriminately shot his 50 caliber machine gun in the vicinity of women and children and then torched their village(s) but who wants me to believe he served his country honorably?

Right...here we go again with the charges against Kerry. Just point us to where you discovered this and show us your evidence Kevin...please, how many times do we need to ask.  

  Bush didn’t do this.   What am I supposed to think about a man who thinks it’s okay to kill a baby days/moments before it would be delivered because the mother wants it that way? 

No, Bush avoided Vietnam...you think more of him for that fact? That he sent another man in his place? Clear that up for me will you. Where are you getting this baby killing thing? Show me where Kerry said that. At least Kerry, as far as I know never asked a woman in his life to get an abortion, but there is a story out there that says Bush did. Plus, I mean Laura Bush and Barbara Bush are both pro-abortion as far as I know. They think we should try to limit the number through education but they support a woman's right to choose. On top of which there is no way to end abortion in this country...so I mean...stick to your guns on it I think that's great but stop trying to make all of us that don't rant and rave about it the way you do look like insane babykillers. 

Bush doesn’t embrace this.  I’m just curious…that last sentence…was that one of those lunatic remarks I’m being accused of making because if it is, I beg to differ with you about who the real lunatic is.

I don't know what Bush thinks about abortion. If they get that woman to come forward and we find out he paid to get her an abortion...and this was pre Roe vs Wade by the way...then I'd have to say Bush is for abortion...at least when he thinks it works in his favor. No, I don't think you're insane for feeling the way you do about abortion. I think you're insane when you try to paint me or anyone else as a babykiller. I've never taken part in or told anyone to get an abortion...I've never killed a baby and I wouldn't...at no point in my life if faced with that choice would I have told a woman to go ahead and have an abortion...so despite the fact you keep calling me one...and John Kerry one...and anyone else that doesn't jump on your wagon one...you can't turn us into to babykillers with your words. Stop judging everybody based on your own personal beliefs and try arguing the facts. That's what I'm saying not that you're insane because you want to stop abortions. It seems more important to me that we create a world that children would be better off being born into. If you don't like the fact that I care about the kids that are here now more than ones that have yet to be born then that's your issue not mine. As, far as I'm concerned we have a "Triage" kind of world...save the ones we can because we can't save everybody.

You go on to say that “it’s important that the media inform us of these issues because the idea is to educate the public about the situation there.”  I couldn’t agree with you more.  So, where is the balance in the coverage? 

I've talked about your obsession with media bias above already. I think you've got a weird idea of what balance would be but please share the good stuff you've heard because I'd love to hear it. No joke, I really would. 

 If we took a vote of the Iraqi people and asked them if they wanted us there or not what do you think they would say?  Based upon the news coverage I’d say they’d overwhelmingly vote to have us out.  But I have a suspicion that that may not be the case. 

Well, they did show poll numbers on CNN that were taken from a survey done by Iraqis asking other Iraqis what they thought and according to that poll (if you trust polls) 80% said thanks for getting rid of Saddam but please get out now. They overwhelmingly thought we were not protecting them and that we were making matters worse. This was all done before this prison thing happened too. So, if you trust those numbers and take polls seriously that's really the only one I know of where they asked a bunch of Iraqis what they thought. 

 The people who have bought into the lies ‘hook , line and sinker’ are those on the left who can’t or don’t want to get beyond the negative reporting.  Garbage in, garbage out.

I've already said I'd love to get beyond it. Show me something...anything good...that will show that Iraqis might forget this prison scandal and say "These Americans sure are swell!" 

Sorry, but the war on terror is more than just a catchy slogan.  Bush is actually doing something that Clinton never had the will to do.  While Clinton schemed about how he was going to get his next blow job the terrorists of the world were scheming to attack us.  Could he have been more ineffective as C.I.C.?  I don’t think so. 

I don't like Clinton either. The fact is though it was the Clinton administration that began the first real look into terror as a threat. I explained that in my last big response to you. I don't want to make Clinton look good...I'd like to forget about him...but if you look at the facts the Clinton administration began the work...sorry but that's the truth. Bush is doing things alright but they are the wrong things. You can disagree with me that's fine. As I see it, his "War on Terror" has been one long commercial for the terrorists. Now, when anyone says Bushco is wrong on this the right comes back with the left just wants to do nothing. That's bullshit. The left wants to go after the terrorists too but going after them needs to be a more covert operation not this giant and hideous joke Bushco has created. He's done nothing but promote terrorism worldwide with this stunt. You don't believe that...we see it different...what can I say...I guess you thought I made up all that stuff in my last post.

I’m sure Roger Moore will tell you about all the blue ribbon committees Clinton created to discuss the problem but anyone who works in government also knows that blue ribbon committees aren’t worth a hill of beans.  Leadership and action are what’s needed to cause change. 

I don't care what Roger, Michael, or Dudley Moore have to say. They can say what they want...I'll say what I want. You're right I think we need good leadership and the right action. Bush provides no leadership and all of this year has been the "International Man Of Inaction"...he's asleep at the wheel and playing politics and people are getting killed because of it. Even Republicans have turned against him and Rummy and all this nonsense.  

This isn’t a case of if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.  It was a mess when Bush took office and it’s most likely going to get worse before it gets better. 

I see no chance for better with these Bushco clowns running the show. They are just making matters worse. They took a bad situation and made it the worst possible situation.

  Sitting back, pretending you’re somehow winning their hearts and minds is also a recipe for disaster. 

I agree with you 100% here and guess what...that's what you and Bushco have been doing...sitting back saying "Oh, we're doing so much good. The Iraqis love us. They are so happy now because we liberated them."

"Why don't those nasty lefties talk about the good?"

What a load of what makes the grass grow that is!

 You see, I don’t buy the argument that there are no terrorist ties to Iraq. 

If you read my post I mentioned we knew about terrorist ties there and how Saddam worked with them. They ignore that. Bushco doesn't bring it up. They have the info. Saddam did sponser terrorism against Israel. Maybe they say nothing about it because we had an interest in it for some reason. I don't know. Maybe there was a reason we wanted Israel attacked. It's not a secret Saddam was involved that way.   

Reg, you really should do something about your preoccupation with Karl Rove.  Your rantings sound a lot like the red neck guy who hates queers but actually has some homosexual tendencies he’s trying to suppress with his mock disdain.  I’m beginning to think that there’s actually a conservative within you who you’re trying with all your might to suppress and so you lash out at Karl.  It’s mostly a subconscious thing at this point but you’ll notice it move into your conscious psyche as the months/years progress and the thoughts begin to overwhelm you.  Don’t fight it Reg.  Wasn’t it Churchill who said something to the effect that if you aren’t a liberal when you’re young you don’t have a heart but if you’re not a conservative when you’re older, you don’t have a brain?  Mid 30s?  I’d say it’s beginning to happen.

That was one of the best things you ever wrote here. I loved that! Really, it was very funny. I laughed anyway. I'll tell you why I don't like Rove. He represents everything that's wrong with politics to me. It's guys like him that make it all about muck raking and mud slinging. It's guys like him that spend all the time putting out false info and fucking with our media. It's guys like him we really need to be rid of. I think it's disgusting that Bush hired this guy. Do you know who he is and what he does? Do you pay attention to the smear campaign he laid down on McCain when he ran against Bush. The man is filth and it's because of guys like him there is so much confusion about who's who and what's what. Look into him Kevin, read about him...it ain't a pretty picture.