"No, it was the mismanagement of the incident. The government should have went immediately after attempting to serve the warrant. The 51 day interval just gave the people inside time to make plans."
So David Koresh and the Davidian killers aren't to blame for creating the incident?
jethro seems to have a reading comprehension problem, to wit:
you imply the seige [sic] started under Bush's administration which is untrue. Just another exammple [sic] oy [sic] your dishonesty.
Here's what I posted:
The warrant service five weeks into Clinton's first term was the culmination of a BATF investigation that had been going on since May of 1992
I said right there in that sentence that the warrant was served five weeks into Clinton's administration. How the hell does that imply that the siege started under Bush I? I said that the BATF investigation started under Bush I, and provided a link from a rather pro-Koresh site that states the operation was planned under Bush I. And I said Clinton was President when the warrant was served. Try to keep up, will you?
After the shootings the Clinton Administration dicked around for 50 some days before they took action. It was the same attitude they took the entire 8 years.
I see -- shoulda bombed 'em flat the next day with no consideration for the women and children inside. You're one tough mutha, jethro. Your mother must be so proud.
I was not dissing you for posting a few paragraphs, I was posting a few from the next day's article, which had a different focus.
As far as what Clinton should have done when OBL was spotted, it was very close to the end of his term; he'd been slammed once already for missing OBL with cruise missiles, if only by a couple of hours, and the alternative would have been to put boots on the ground, which is not something you want to leave your successor with. Remember that when he came into office, his first crisis was Waco, which was a bequest from Bush I. In hindsight, there's lots of coulda/woulda/shoulda to go around."
It is clear what you meant. The Bush administration didn't start the seige.
I said right there in that sentence that the warrant was served five weeks into Clinton's administration. How the hell does that imply that the siege started under Bush I? There you going be dishonest again. See my post above. That was the comment I was responding to. You can try to get out of it all you want but you were trying to blame Bush I.I said that the BATF investigation started under Bush I, and provided a link from a rather pro-Koresh site that states the operation was planned under Bush I. And I said Clinton was President when the warrant was served. Try to keep up, will you? Another example of you being dishonest. I was responding to a particular sentence that you har written prior. Damn you deceitful lying left wingers.
I see -- shoulda bombed 'em flat the next day with no consideration for the women and children inside. Did I say that? Maybe the ATF should have thought of that prior to attempting to issue the warrant at the compound.
You're one tough mutha, jethro. Your mother must be so proud.
Was that necessary? It is obvious your mother has nothing to be proud of. Furthermore, I see that you will defend anything that happened under your hero's watch. Why?
I was responding to a particular sentence that you har written prior. Damn you deceitful lying left wingers.
jethro bodine 4/30/04 11:01amNote what is copied and pasted by jethro right before his rant. Silly me, I thought that when you copied and pasted someone's words and wrote something right after the paste, that that's what you were referring to. Learn something every day, I do.
Now listen up, and listen good, jethro. I am not "blaming" George Herbert Walker Bush for the Waco disaster. I am simply pointing out that it was an operation that started out under the Bush administration, and that it was something already in motion that Clinton had to deal with very early on. I blame the BATF, the FBI and Koresh -- not Bush I. How much blame belongs on which side varies from time to time, but the bulk of the blame is on Koresh.
I find it interesting that you describe trying to achieve a solution where nobody more gets killed as "dicking around." Very interesting indeed.
Note what is copied and pasted by jethro right before his rant. Silly me, I thought that when you copied and pasted someone's words and wrote something right after the paste, that that's what you were referring to. Learn something every day, I do. It is obvious you don't learn anything because you think you already know it all. Now be honest for once and go back and look at my original post.
Now listen up, and listen good, jethro. I am not "blaming" George Herbert Walker Bush for the Waco disaster. That is what it appeared that you meant. And I have no doubt that you did.
The warrant service five weeks into Clinton's first term was the culmination of a BATF investigation that had been going on since May of 1992 . . .
And then he wrote, right after it:
When did they try to serve the warrant, smart guy? It was under Clinton's watch. The entire fiasco was under his watch. But instead you imply the seige started under Bush's administration which is untrue. Just another exammple oy your dishonesty.
you understand that simply covering your ears and yelling "liar liar pants on fire!" repeatedly doesn't actually qualify as a valid argument, right? He is a liar.
I think that Jethro is asking for a link to the report that you speak of.
I think he's just calling me a liar because I caught him posting without reading what he was responding to, Grandpa Dan. The "Treasury Report" is referred to by both pro- and anti-Koresh websites, but an official copy does not appear to be online, and the GPO says the print edition is sold out. Thispurports to be a copy of the text. Thisshows that the ATF director who approved the initial raid (if you believe the accuracy of the previous link) took office before Clinton did.
Clinton can't be blamed for Waco because it happened near the beginning of his administration. Clinton can't be blamed for Osama because it happened near the end of his administration.
Bush I can be blamed for Waco because it was still under his administration, even though it was near the end of it. Bush II can be blamed for Osama because it happened during his administration, even though it was near the beginning of it.
Clinton can't be blamed for Waco because it happened near the beginning of his administration. Clinton can't be blamed for Osama because it happened near the end of his administration.
Bush I can be blamed for Waco because it was still under his administration, even though it was near the end of it. Bush II can be blamed for Osama because it happened during his administration, even though it was near the beginning of it.
what was being said was that you shouldn't blame Clinton for 9/11 because he had a picture of Osama any more than you should blame Bush I for Waco because he began the investigation.
It was simply an answer to "why didn't Clinton get Osama?"
The answer is "the same reason Bush I didn't get Koresh".
what was being said was that you shouldn't blame Clinton for 9/11 because he had a picture of Osama...
It was live video of him pinpointing his exact location at an exact time. The claim was that Clinton was after him. If this is true, why did he not have anything or anyone within striking distance before going after the live video? Why waste the time and money on this endevour?
I think he's just calling me a liar because I caught him posting without reading what he was responding to, Grandpa Dan. You are a liar. Neither you ot crabs went back and looked at what started this. Probably because your minds are so gummed up from past drug use you can't keep things straight.
And you know that they answered every question truthfully and fully, because why... you were there?
Neither the White House nor panel members disclosed details of the testimony, which lasted more than three hours, but both the commission and the White House said Bush and Cheney answered all questions put to them.
So...my question is, which of the three(3) that Kerry received, was fraudulent, and WHY?
If Kerry would release his records as was what was demanded of President Bush, we could find out. For now, we have this to go on though:
I have a very clear memory of an incident which occurred while I was the Medical Officer at Naval Support Facility, Cam Ranh Bay. John Kerry was a (jg), the OinC or skipper of a Swift boat, newly arrived in Vietnam. On the night of December 2, he was on patrol north of Cam Ranh, up near Nha Trang area. The next day he came to sick bay, the medical facility, for treatment of a wound that had occurred that night. Â Â
The story he told was different from what his crewmen had to say about that night. According to Kerry, they had been engaged in a fire fight, receiving small arms fire from on shore. He said that his injury resulted from this enemy action.
Some of his crew confided that they did not receive any fire from shore, but that Kerry had fired a mortar round at close range to some rocks on shore.The crewman thought that the injury was caused by a fragment ricocheting from that mortar round when it struck the rocks. Â Â
That seemed to fit the injury which I treated.
What I saw was a small piece of metal sticking very superficially in the skin of Kerry's arm. The metal fragment measured about 1 cm. in length and was about 2 or 3 mm in diameter. It certainly did not look like a round from a rifle.
I simply removed the piece of metal by lifting it out of the skin with forceps. I doubt that it penetrated more than 3 or 4 mm. It did not require probing to find it, did not require any anesthesia to remove it, and did not require any sutures to close the wound.
The wound was covered with a bandaid.
Not [sic] other injuries were reported and I do not recall that there was any reported damage to the boat.
The doctor who treated Kerry, Louis Letson, is today a retired general practitioner in Alabama. link
"No, it was the mismanagement of the incident. The government should have went immediately after attempting to serve the warrant. The 51 day interval just gave the people inside time to make plans."
So David Koresh and the Davidian killers aren't to blame for creating the incident?
Do you think they're Good Guys?
Do you think they're Good Guys?
No. But that doesn't mean one can't criticize how the government handled the situation.
that's odd... because that was what you were responding to.
jethro seems to have a reading comprehension problem, to wit:
Here's what I posted:
I said right there in that sentence that the warrant was served five weeks into Clinton's administration. How the hell does that imply that the siege started under Bush I? I said that the BATF investigation started under Bush I, and provided a link from a rather pro-Koresh site that states the operation was planned under Bush I. And I said Clinton was President when the warrant was served. Try to keep up, will you?
I see -- shoulda bombed 'em flat the next day with no consideration for the women and children inside. You're one tough mutha, jethro. Your mother must be so proud.
that's odd... because that was what you were responding to.
I don't think so.
this is what you wrote, smart guy:
"Grandpa Dan:
I was not dissing you for posting a few paragraphs, I was posting a few from the next day's article, which had a different focus.
As far as what Clinton should have done when OBL was spotted, it was very close to the end of his term; he'd been slammed once already for missing OBL with cruise missiles, if only by a couple of hours, and the alternative would have been to put boots on the ground, which is not something you want to leave your successor with. Remember that when he came into office, his first crisis was Waco, which was a bequest from Bush I. In hindsight, there's lots of coulda/woulda/shoulda to go around."
It is clear what you meant. The Bush administration didn't start the seige.
Here's what I posted:
I said right there in that sentence that the warrant was served five weeks into Clinton's administration. How the hell does that imply that the siege started under Bush I? There you going be dishonest again. See my post above. That was the comment I was responding to. You can try to get out of it all you want but you were trying to blame Bush I.I said that the BATF investigation started under Bush I, and provided a link from a rather pro-Koresh site that states the operation was planned under Bush I. And I said Clinton was President when the warrant was served. Try to keep up, will you? Another example of you being dishonest. I was responding to a particular sentence that you har written prior. Damn you deceitful lying left wingers.
I see -- shoulda bombed 'em flat the next day with no consideration for the women and children inside. Did I say that? Maybe the ATF should have thought of that prior to attempting to issue the warrant at the compound.
You're one tough mutha, jethro. Your mother must be so proud.
Was that necessary? It is obvious your mother has nothing to be proud of. Furthermore, I see that you will defend anything that happened under your hero's watch. Why?
and yet in the very next post, you acknowledge it...
and yet in the very next post, you acknowledge it...
That wasn't what I was responding to, dumb guy.
that's EXACTLY what you responded to...
jethro bodine 4/30/04 9:09am
jethro bodine 4/30/04 11:01amNote what is copied and pasted by jethro right before his rant. Silly me, I thought that when you copied and pasted someone's words and wrote something right after the paste, that that's what you were referring to. Learn something every day, I do.
Now listen up, and listen good, jethro. I am not "blaming" George Herbert Walker Bush for the Waco disaster. I am simply pointing out that it was an operation that started out under the Bush administration, and that it was something already in motion that Clinton had to deal with very early on. I blame the BATF, the FBI and Koresh -- not Bush I. How much blame belongs on which side varies from time to time, but the bulk of the blame is on Koresh.
I find it interesting that you describe trying to achieve a solution where nobody more gets killed as "dicking around." Very interesting indeed.
that's EXACTLY what you responded to...
No it wasn't. Why must you be stupid?
of course it was...it's all there in black and white...can't you read?
Note what is copied and pasted by jethro right before his rant. Silly me, I thought that when you copied and pasted someone's words and wrote something right after the paste, that that's what you were referring to. Learn something every day, I do. It is obvious you don't learn anything because you think you already know it all. Now be honest for once and go back and look at my original post.
Now listen up, and listen good, jethro. I am not "blaming" George Herbert Walker Bush for the Waco disaster. That is what it appeared that you meant. And I have no doubt that you did.
of course it was...it's all there in black and white...can't you read?
It is obvious you can't.
from the looks of it, it appears that you never were.
throwing a temper tantrum isn't going to change what you were responing to.
crabs, it wasn't what I was responding to. But even if it were do I have to believe and accept what a liar posted?
jethro bodine 4/30/04 11:01am
jethro copied and pasted this from me:
And then he wrote, right after it:
I rest my case.
it was a Treasury report.
Go back to the orginal post, jackass. You just keep proving how dishonest you are.
it was a Treasury report.
That may well be but I can't take the word of someone that is a habitual liar.
I did once already...you told me I was lying.
the Treasury is a habitual liar?
you understand that simply covering your ears and yelling "liar liar pants on fire!" repeatedly doesn't actually qualify as a valid argument, right?
Go back to the orginal post, jackass.
I did once already...
No you did't.
you understand that simply covering your ears and yelling "liar liar pants on fire!" repeatedly doesn't actually qualify as a valid argument, right? He is a liar.
the original post...
pieter b 4/30/04 8:59am
your response...
jethro bodine 4/30/04 9:09am
and it's still not true and it's still not a valid argument.
I think that Jethro is asking for a link to the report that you speak of.
something wrong with the one pieter gave already?
pieter b 4/30/04 10:23am
I think he's just calling me a liar because I caught him posting without reading what he was responding to, Grandpa Dan. The "Treasury Report" is referred to by both pro- and anti-Koresh websites, but an official copy does not appear to be online, and the GPO says the print edition is sold out. Thispurports to be a copy of the text. Thisshows that the ATF director who approved the initial raid (if you believe the accuracy of the previous link) took office before Clinton did.
This may be simplistic, but what I'm hearing is:
Clinton can't be blamed for Waco because it happened near the beginning of his administration. Clinton can't be blamed for Osama because it happened near the end of his administration.
Bush I can be blamed for Waco because it was still under his administration, even though it was near the end of it. Bush II can be blamed for Osama because it happened during his administration, even though it was near the beginning of it.
what was being said was that you shouldn't blame Clinton for 9/11 because he had a picture of Osama any more than you should blame Bush I for Waco because he began the investigation.
It was simply an answer to "why didn't Clinton get Osama?"
The answer is "the same reason Bush I didn't get Koresh".
That is what is being said.
Muskwa scores big on 5822. That's the drift i'm getting.
"Quit talking to me crabgrass" - Torpedo-8
Can someone please point out where i said something here to our resident pothead?
"Quit talking to me crabgrass" - Torpedo-8
Come on, Crabby.
He wasn't talking to you.
I never said he was.
I didn't said a word to him either...which is what he wants.
It was funny at first, now it's just stupid.
That's more evidence they're turncoat varmints.
[Edited by on Nov 23, 2004 at 08:47am.]
he's always been stupid.
what do you want me to do? respond to him? what?
I don't know.
I don't want to tell anybody what to do.
I'll just shut up.
what was being said was that you shouldn't blame Clinton for 9/11 because he had a picture of Osama...
It was live video of him pinpointing his exact location at an exact time. The claim was that Clinton was after him. If this is true, why did he not have anything or anyone within striking distance before going after the live video? Why waste the time and money on this endevour?
it was made a joke when Bush first appoined Kissinger to head it.
I think he's just calling me a liar because I caught him posting without reading what he was responding to, Grandpa Dan. You are a liar. Neither you ot crabs went back and looked at what started this. Probably because your minds are so gummed up from past drug use you can't keep things straight.
And you know that they answered every question truthfully and fully, because why... you were there?
Neither the White House nor panel members disclosed details of the testimony, which lasted more than three hours, but both the commission and the White House said Bush and Cheney answered all questions put to them.
link
Thanks for nothing, John Kerrey.
What did he have to do with this? Did you mean Bob Kerrey?
Grandpa Dan Zachary 5/3/04 10:30pm
Did you mean Bob Kerrey?
Nice catch.
They judged on whether he was the best man for the job. I would like to bring that criteria back now that we‘re at war."
No you don't becuase you want Kerry to win and Bush to lose.
Damn, Bill -- jethro just demolished your entire argument with one sentence. We must bow down before his awesome intellect.
So...my question is, which of the three(3) that Kerry received, was fraudulent, and WHY?
If Kerry would release his records as was what was demanded of President Bush, we could find out. For now, we have this to go on though:
The doctor who treated Kerry, Louis Letson, is today a retired general practitioner in Alabama. link