RadioBanter - View Single Post - BPL - UPLC ->Repeat the lie three times and claim it for truth

June 22nd 04, 10:44 PM

(Steve Robeson K4CAP) wrote in message ...
Subject: BPL - UPLC -Repeat the lie three times and claim it for truth
From: PAMNO (N2EY)
Date: 6/21/2004 6:23 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

In article ,
(Steve
Robeson K4CAP) writes:

Do I have some sort of "evidence"...?!?! No. But he's already set the
pace and I see no likelyhood he'd get into office then suddenly get a spine.

So it's emotional, not based on objective facts with supporting evidence.

Part emotional, yes, but based on past experience with the Demoncratic
Party.

So it's really not about John Kerry as it is about Democrats vs.
Republicans.

That's not necessarily "wrong" or "right". In the end, what an
election comes down to is "who do you trust more?" Because regardless
of somebody's record, once they're in office it's a matter of trust
because you can't watch every issue and action. And you can't stop
them in time anyway.

That's why folks are/were so ticked off at Clinton and Nixon. They
betrayed the trust.

Do you see the problem?

I do.

I also know Kerry has made public remarks that supported Fonda.

Where? When? What exactly were the remarks?

Someone was a bit creative with a camera...OK...

No, they weren't.

The picture at the Valley Forge VVAW rally is real. (Another photo is
faked, but the one most often seen is real). Kerry is there, three
rows behind Hanoi Jane.

The point is that the surrounding information (date of the picture and
HJ's trip) are left out, and the picture presented as being *after*
that trip, rather than 2 years before.

You fell for it. Many others did, too. That's the problem.

Kerry's words were his own.

Which words?

Remember that when Fonda got back from Hanoi, nobody here really knew
the whole story. It was only when the POWs got back, years later, and
told of what she'd done and the consequences that the whole mess
became public.

Going to Hanoi wasn't the problem, it's what she did there.

He diluted the chain of command.

How, exactly?

By trying to have everyone be IN the pot, that's how.

There can only be so many people "in charge" at one time.

Just like what LBJ did.

Part of the errors that occured in the
Iranian desert were directly the result of White House meddling in what
should have been an military operation.

Agreed.

But there were also errors that were the result of simple human error.

Yes, there were. Letting Jimmy Carter be in charge was one of them.

There were others that had nothing to do with him.

Oh wll...That's democracy.

We live in a republic.

He further diluted the Nation's overt and cover security services with
"warm-fuzzy" Executive Orders that have, to this day, continued to leave
America blind and hog tied.

Carter left office almost a quarter century ago. How could his old orders
continue to cause such problems - particularly since 16 of the intervening
years were those of the Reagan and Bush administrations?

How could one president, in office for only four years, cause so much
trouble?

Indeed. Ask any Southerner the same question.

It wasn't Lincoln who fired on Fort Sumter.

You lived through the 70's...Jimmy Carter's economics and political
decisions almost bankrupted this nation, both financially and in fact.

Nope.

Carter was the inheritor of what his predecessors hadn't dealt with:

LBJ started the mess by getting the USA committed to the "space race",
Vietnam and his "Great Society" social programs all at once - without
raising taxes enough to pay for them.

Nixon continued the game, and tried to tame the problem with wage and
price controls. Worked for a while - until the wage and price controls
came off.

Ford - remember "WIN" buttons and catchy slogans like "Whip Inflation
Now" and "Let's all be a little less piggy"? Didn't work, because the
root causes weren't being addressed.

On top of this, OPEC caused the price of oil to jump twice - 1973 and
1979. The first time, gasoline went from around a quarter to around a
half-dollar, and the second time it went over a dollar. (At least in
the Northeast). Diesel and fuel oil had similar jumps. Worse, the
supply was limited.

Meanwhile, American products suddenly found themselves competing with
foreign imports in a number of areas - cars, electronics, clothing,
even steel.

All of that pushed inflation and interest rates through the roof.
Which made the deficit situation that much worse.

None of that was Carter's fault.

How would YOU have dealt with it?

Our Armed Forces were, if it's at all possible, in far worse condition
when he left office than when he entered.

We were humiliated in the Middle East, a reputation were have yet to
overcome.

You mean Iran? Think about why that happened. We supported a tyrant
because he was friendly to us and not the Soviets. Same story as in
the Phillipines and elsewhere. The Iranians finally got so ticked off
they toppled him.

We were saddled with double digit inflation.

See above for why that happened.

Our intelligence services were cut off at the knees by Executive
Order...You asked how he could create so much havoc in four years...?!?! He
did this one in only a few days!

Jim, did you study any of the after-action reports out of Mogandishu?

No. But you are avoiding the questions, Steve.

How did Clinton "let them"?

I am not avoiding the question, Jim.

I secifically stated that Clinton tried to manipulate field operations
from Washington.

OK.

Should the US have stayed out of that conflict? Or gotten more involved?

What threat were they to US security?

None.

Agreed.

As much compassion as I have for hungry, sick people, I have very LITTLE
compassion for people who are hungry BUT can afford AK47's, RPGs, etc etc etc.

Such actions are what the UN is for.

Will answer the rest later.

73 de Jim, N2EY