The Saudi's bought the right family

[Warm Lemonade]

Just as Michael Corleone made a good move when he bought Senator Leary, the Saudi ruling family make a good move when they bought the Bush family.

Dubya has been lying about this one for years, but it looks like the paper trail finally caught up with him: saintpetersburgtimes.com/2004/06/09/Tampabay/TIA_now_verifies_flig.shtml

"TAMPA - Two days after the Sept. 11 attacks, with most of the nation's air traffic still grounded, a small jet landed at Tampa International Airport, picked up three young Saudi men and left...

For nearly three years, White House, aviation and law enforcement officials have insisted the flight never took place and have denied published reports and widespread Internet speculation about its purpose.

But now, at the request of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks, TIA officials have confirmed that the flight did take place and have supplied details..."

A must read - Particularly for those of you voting for Bush.

[Crazyhorse]

I'm not surprised that these things go on. Oil is the one commodity that most countries cannot do without.

I do think that there is a stench of hypocrisy and double standards about the whole thing. Bin Laden seems to consider that disrupting the wests oil supplies is the number one priority, but he has only got to the powerful position he is in because of money from oil sales by his Saudi relatives in the past.

If the money spent on arms by warmongering nations had been invested in providing cheap ways of converting sunlight into electricity, then we would not need much oil at all.

[WD12]

Hold their feet to the fire WL. Especially in Florida. The fate of our nation is in the hands of the voters.

[Justme]

As much as I've stood behind Bush since his election, and especially since 9/11, I've got to admit, things aren't all as they seem. However, I've got a real problem with someone who's proud to be connected to Hanoi Jane, and be declared a war hero by the North Vietnamese (well, now the Vietnamese) government at a war museum in Ho Chi Mein City (Saigon). (speaking of John Kerry) I guess I'll vote as was done in the movie Brewster's Millions-- none of the above. Who do you vote for-- the crook or the traitor?

[DavidEngland99]

Justme,

I am not a US citizen, but as I understand it, the US deliberately violated North Vietnamese waters to start that war - so why hold it against Kerry if he was against the war. From what you say, you are begining to realise what the Bush administration is really about (over here most people can't stand him, and despise Blair for supporting him) and it is vital that Bush and his cronies get voted out in November.

David

[bloom061604]

As an aging lefty, almost nobody is interested in my opinions any more, but you're going to hear them anyway. :)

President Lyndon Johnson used the phony Gulf of Tonkin incident, when North Vietnamese gunboats allegedly fired on an American destroyer in the Gulf, as a pretext to launch the Vietnam war. From that point on, the war was justified by lies and more lies through two US administrations, just as Bush is doing in Iraq. In Vietnam, more than 50,000 American lives were sacrificed in that misguided adventure.

As in the UK and other democracies, Americans have every right to, and indeed should, criticize their government when they believe it's on the wrong course. Of course, we have to expect to be called traitors by some when we do so. Vietnam was a "conflict", not a declared war, so there was technically no enemy. John Kerry and Jane Fonda were exercising their rights as citizens of a free society to challenge their government. I applaud them for that.

So there.

—Bloom

[Justme]

I should applaud a woman (and by association, her croney) who went to the Hanoi Hilton, and SLAPPED POW's for being criminals in the eyes of the NVA???? These men were guilty of nothing other than doing what was ordered of them by their government. I agree that those responsible for that "conflict" should have been held accountable, but just as I respect and support the soldiers we have in the Gulf right now (although I don't agree with our being there) I also respect the soldiers who risked, and in alot of cases, gave up life, limb, and sanity in Nam. I'll NEVER respect that bitch, Kerry or their actions.

[Warm Lemonade]

Who do you vote for-- the crook or the traitor?

By "the traitor" I'm asssuming you mean the one that helped hide Saudis on 9/11, and who himself hid from service in the national gaurd while his opponent volunteered twice to serve and actually saw combat and saved the life of at least one American soldier.

I got that right, didnt I ? :lol:

Have you looked at the blue and red maps of who votes for democrates and who votes for republicans ? Does it concern you that the republican supporters tend to come from parts of the country where people are related to each other before they get married, and indoor plumbing is considered a luxury item when buy a new double wide ?

[Justme]

I don't care HOW many times Kerry re upped. That just makes him that much worse for crossing the line to LITERALLY SHAKE HANDS with an NVA general!! As for the comments about geo and demographics. I'm not even going to comment on that-- it's not worth it. But you're right-- we should have voted for Gore-- the guy who thought terrorism was nothing to be concerned about. Friggin MORON!!

[Warm Lemonade]

As for the comments about geo and demographics. I'm not even going to comment on that--

Of course you're not going to comment on it. Bush's main support comes from the part of the country with the highest illiteracy rates. Do you really think this is a coincidence ?

[Justme]

Sorry, Buckwheat, I'm here in New England, and have a college education.

One other thing. My work has taken me all over this country. You have just as many educated (as well as non educated) people down south and out west, as you do in the northeast. Your stereotyping just shows your ignorance, and which half of that demographics you belong to.

[Ape]

These men were guilty of nothing other than doing what was ordered of them by their government.

It was deemed at the Nuremberg War Crimes trials that 'following orders' is not a reasonable defence against committing a war crime. However much responsibility has to rest mostly with those who order soldiers into illegal wars and unprovoked invasions of sovereign states, the soldiers themselves have to take individual responsibility for their actions. If a war crime is being committed, it is not considered acceptable just to claim to be following orders. As someone who supports Bush and indeed the concept of individual freedom (presumably), you should understand this.

[WD12]

Bloom, I spent a year with a small boat unit in Vietnam, the unit that was involved with the Gulf of Tonkin Incident. I wasn't there at the time, but if you'd like to know my views and see some resources I have you can email me at:

wd12@excite.com

I won't say more about the issue in a public forum.

[RDJay]

I think Warm Lemonade may be partly onto something here. As far as I know, no one has had the guts to actually conduct a nationwide (US) examination testing voters' knowledge of current events and issues, and then comparing the results of the Bush supporters with those of the anti-Bush camp. I think it might be interesting. My own observation has always been that, while lefties may not actually have more brains than righties, they do seem to spend more time using them.

Conservatives never miss a chance to "admit" that college campuses are rife with liberal students and professors; that those exceptionally multi-faceted entertainers who possess the right mix of drive, focus and talent leading them to rise to the top of their fields (i.e. become famous) tend to be liberal; that the mainstream media professionals tend to be liberal; and so on. Is it my imagination, or are these all people who spend a lot of their time thinking? Do they not seem to be somewhat smarter and more well-informed on the whole than those in less cerebral professions--say, bus drivers, construction workers, or cops--the ones we usually associate with a conservative lifestyle and a right-wing political ideology?

I know these are stereotypes...and there are plenty of exceptions. But stereotypes--lets admit it--do tend to "lean" in the general direction of accuracy, whether the political correctness mongers want to admit it or not.

I would be willing to bet money that the survey I mentioned above, if conducted fairly and comprehensively, would reveal that:

(1) Of those who actually know the historical and political facts leading up to the Iraq invasion (and can discuss, by name, the key players and their arguments and philosophies), the majority would say they opposed the invasion;

(2) The ones who say they believe that Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld intentionally "stretched" the truth in trying to justify their invasion would do better on the exam than those who believe taking out Saddam was a wise and justified decision.

(3) Of those who flunked our hypothetical exam, most would say they trust Bush to keep them safe in the war on terrorism (while, conversely, of those who did well on it, most would say that Bush is making the world less safe);

(4) Of those who say they trust Bush implicitly to lead them and to tell them the truth (without demanding any factual basis, evidence, or reason to believe that), most would also say they trust their religion and clergyman to lead them and to tell them the truth (without demanding any factual basis, evidence, or reason for that either);

(5) Those who voted for Bush, if asked which news sources most influenced their decision, would most often name "opinion" commentators or columnists, like Hannity, Coulter or Limbaugh, while Kerry supporters would be more likely to name info-oriented and obstensibly unbiased networks, analysts or journalists.

(6) If asked to list, on paper, the reasons why they either support Bush or do not, the pro-Bushies would come up with only a few paragraphs at most (most likely a retread of the campaign's talking points), while the anti-Bushies would likely submit several pages of reasoned analysis;

This is nothing but my own conjecture, of course, and I have little with which to back up my suspicions (other than observation). But one thing seems clear to me:

If Bush's opponents are not literally smarter than his supporters, they certainly seem to have spent more time thinking. I have yet to hear anyone make a really good argument for why Bush is a good president--one that passes any test of rationality or common sense. But there seem to be plenty of well-thought out opinions out there espousing the opposite view.

Whether that is a matter of IQ or not is anyone's guess. But it does look suspicious.