Clusterheadaches.com Message Board
        (http://www.clusterheadaches.com/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.cgi)
      

        New Message Board Archives >> 2004 Posts >> Don't know where to go to vote?
        
(Message started by: Melissa on Oct 28th, 2004, 11:23am)
Title: Don't know where to go to vote?
Post by Melissa on Oct 28th, 2004, 11:23am
Check out  http://www.mypollingplace.com and enter in your street address and zip code.

Also on this website, it tells you the voting system that will be used, gives you a map to find the voting site and step-by-step instructions.

I had tried finding out before just how it was we were voting this year but couldn't find the info., and I found everything I wanted to know on this site instead.

Nov. 2nd is coming fast!  (Can't wait till it's OVER, but yes I know, they're probably be lawsuits up the yin-yang  ::))

:)mel
Title: Re: Don't know where to go to vote?
Post by BobG on Oct 28th, 2004, 12:14pm

Quote:
(Can't wait till it's OVER, but yes I know, they're probably be lawsuits up the yin-yang  )

The news yesterday said that both party's lawyers are circling the wagons all ready. They have every state in the nation targeted. If Bush wins there will be lawsuits. If Kerry wins there will be lawsuits.

We're supposed to have separation of church and state, right?
Strange thing about my voting place. It's at a local church. Looks to me like it is setting itself up for a lawsuit.
Title: Re: Don't know where to go to vote?
Post by Bob P on Oct 28th, 2004, 2:59pm

Quote:
We're supposed to have separation of church and state, right?
Nope.  The Constitution only says that the Government shall not make any laws regarding religion.

So government can't police religion but religion can play a part in government.

Just had to bring it up didn't ya bob!

PS:  Kerry is a freakin traitor.  Like dejavu all over again listening to him saying the military didn't do it's job and guard the explosives (that weren't there).
Title: Re: Don't know where to go to vote?
Post by floridian on Oct 28th, 2004, 3:44pm

on 10/28/04 at 14:59:23, Bob P wrote:
...

PS:  Kerry is a freakin traitor.  Like dejavu all over again listening to him saying the military didn't do it's job and guard the explosives (that weren't there).



If you actually look at what Kerry said, he is blaming the civilians who gave the orders, and limited the number of troops (below what many generals thought were needed).  The planners knew where those weapons were. The planners knew where the nuclear reactors were.  They didn't assign troops to cover them, and they were looted.  Republican heros Rudy Guilliani, Laura Ingraham, and Wm. Kristol, on the other hand, are blaming the troops on the ground.


Quote:
From the October 28 edition of NBC's Today:

   GIULIANI: The president was cautious. The president was prudent. The president did what a commander in chief should do. And no matter how much you try to blame it on the president, the actual responsibility for it really would be for the troops that were there. Did they search carefully enough? Didn't they search carefully enough?

From the October 28 edition of FOX News Channel's FOX News Live:

   KRISTOL: ...  [President] George [W.] Bush didn't decide, you know, "skip that dump" [the Al Qaqaa military installation, where the missing explosives were supposedly housed]. That was 101st [Airborne Division] or the 3rd ID [Infantry Division], "skip that arms dump." That's not a decision made by the president, that's made on the ground. Even if there were some weapons there, this is what happens in war. You know you have to make tough decisions, leave some stuff to take care of later.

From the October 27 edition of FOX News Channel's Hannity & Colmes:

   STEVE MURPHY (FORMER MANAGER OF REP. DICK GEPHARDT'S (D-MO) PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN): Laura, Laura, John Kerry did not question the troops. John Kerry questioned the leadership of --

   INGRAHAM: Oh, really? Who was looking for those weapons, Steve?

   MURPHY: He questioned the leadership of George [W.] Bush. George Bush did not send enough soldiers.

   [CROSSTALK]

   INGRAHAM: Was George Bush on the ground there? The military commanders were on the ground there, Steve.


Here's where the blame rests:


Quote:
In a contentious exchange over the costs of war with Iraq, the Pentagon's second-ranking official today disparaged a top Army general's assessment of the number of troops needed to secure postwar Iraq. House Democrats then accused the Pentagon official, Paul D. Wolfowitz, of concealing internal administration estimates on the cost of fighting and rebuilding the country.

Mr. Wolfowitz, the deputy defense secretary, opened a two-front war of words on Capitol Hill, calling the recent estimate by Gen. Eric K. Shinseki of the Army that several hundred thousand troops would be needed in postwar Iraq, "wildly off the mark."

http://tinyurl.com/n6pe


Oops.  Looks like Shinseki was right. But instead of listening to the brass and doing it right, Bush & Company marginalized and ignored Shinseki.  
Title: Re: Don't know where to go to vote?
Post by Bob P on Oct 28th, 2004, 3:56pm
Heck, everybody knows the Ruskies moved the stuff long before the war started.  Wouldn't be good for us to find all their weapons there.

And I do agree with you, Kerry is a freakin' traitor!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
What’s Black and White and Ignored All Over?

October 28, 2004



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
by John Phillips

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Building on the momentum of his high profile endorsements from Kim Jong Il, Yasser Arafat and Michael Moore, United States Senator John Kerry is pilling up newspaper endorsements from across the country.  Unbeknownst to the newspapers, these endorsements mean nothing outside of the editorial boardrooms where they are made.   Liberals endorsing another liberal for president should catch the American people by surprise about as much as Rodney Dangerfield’s death – Only entertainment reporters and people with tin foil on their heads ‘didn’t see it coming.’  The only aspect in the whole matter that is somewhat shocking was the San Francisco Chronicle citing the little known fact that John Kerry served in Vietnam as proof that he is presidential stock.   This marks the first time in San Francisco’s rich history that service in Vietnam has ever been mentioned outside the context of a slur, with the notable exception of Jane Fonda’s much awaited return.

Unfortunately for Senator Lurch these endorsements haven’t been able to materialize into a lead at the polls.  As of this writing Kerry is trailing in the Zogby tracking poll by 3 points, the USA Today/CNN/Gallup poll by 5 points and by 7 points in the Fox News/Opinion Dynamics poll.   These poll numbers prove that when the country is at war the American people see liberals as being about as useful as thigh cream.

In an attempt to form a last minute surge, Kerry is enlisting the support of impeached former President Bill Clinton.  Clinton is spitting mad at President Bush for his handling of the economy, prosecution of the war on terror and presumably shutting down Saddam’s rape rooms before he had a chance to give them a test drive.   In addition to hitting the campaign trail with Kerry, Clinton is loaning the Massachusetts Democrat several alumni of his White House, 1992 and 1996 presidential campaigns.  Political operatives James Carville, Paul Begala, Mike McCurry and Joe Lockhart have jumped on board to clarify Kerry’s message and sell his plan of early withdrawal from Iraq.   These activities are right in this group’s wheelhouse:  After defending Bill Clinton through the whole Monica Lewinsky scandal they became well versed on how to explain the benefits of pulling out early.

Because most voters interpret Kerry’s position of being ‘weak on defense’ as being ‘weak on defense,’ Kerry has tried to make up for it by going on and on about how much he wants to find and kill Osama bin Laden.  However, the only time he has ever been able to successfully capture a millionaire is when he’s put them in a white dress, not an orange jump suit.

The Massachusetts lib also believes he is the best candidate to win the war on terror because he can ‘rebuild our alliances with former allies.’  But do we really need the support of the French and the Germans anymore?   There is no purpose for the French at this point – the Iraqi Republican Guard was able to quickly surrender without any European coaching.   And the Germans have already made their major contribution to the crusade – they elected Adolph Hitler to office in the 1940s so that liberals have someone to compare President Bush to at their nutty ‘peace’ rallies.  Just for the record I want to point out that there is little ideological connection between the European right and the American right.   In Europe, right-wingers are socialists who want to kill the Jews, and left-wingers are socialists who want to let the Arabs kill the Jews.  If they’re not careful John Kerry might accuse them of ‘outsourcing jobs.’

In the end, it doesn’t matter how many newspaper endorsements John Kerry gets or how many third world dictators he swoons with his guitar playing prowess.  The only thing that counts is who can keep the United States safe from the attacks of angry, insane savages.   John Kerry does not measure up to that ‘global test.’ George Bush does.  I say Bush wins by five.          

John Phillips


Title: Re: Don't know where to go to vote?
Post by floridian on Oct 28th, 2004, 4:15pm

on 10/28/04 at 12:14:37, BobG wrote:
We're supposed to have separation of church and state, right?
Strange thing about my voting place. It's at a local church. Looks to me like it is setting itself up for a lawsuit.


My precinct has voted in a church as long as I can remember.  Not a problem if a church wants to make their space available for civic activities in a non-partisan way.  
Title: Re: Don't know where to go to vote?
Post by floridian on Oct 28th, 2004, 4:32pm

on 10/28/04 at 15:56:22, Bob P wrote:
... United States Senator John Kerry is pilling up newspaper endorsements from across the country.  Unbeknownst to the newspapers, these endorsements mean nothing outside of the editorial boardrooms where they are made.   Liberals endorsing another liberal for president should catch the American people by surprise about as much as Rodney Dangerfield’s death –


Liberals endorsing liberals comes as no surprise. But when conservative and moderate papers that endorsed Bush in 2000 decide to endorse Kerry, that is a bit surprising.

A partial list:


Quote:
Among Kerry's new supporters were five papers that had backed Bush in 2000: the Bradenton Herald in Florida, the Daily Camera in Boulder, Colo., the Columbia Daily Tribune in Missouri, the Daily Herald in Arlington Heights, Ill., and The Muskegon (Mich.) Chronicle.

Three other papers that backed Bush in 2000 announced they would not support either candidate this year: The Tampa Tribune, the Wichita Falls Times Record News in Texas, and the Winston-Salem (N.C.) Journal.


Did I mention that the publishers of the Crawford, Texas newspaper that endorsed Bush in 2000 now back Kerry??  (http://www.iconoclast-texas.com/Columns/Editorial/editorial39.htm)

Must be that damned liberal bias of the media - unless you actually look at the facts:


Quote:
Since 1940 when industry trade magazine Editor & Publisher began tracking newspapers during presidential elections, only two Democratic candidates -- Lyndon Johnson in 1964 and Bill Clinton in 1992 -- have ever won more endorsements than their Republican opponent. That's because newspaper publishers, who usually sign off on endorsements, tend to vote Republican (like lots of senior corporate executives), which means GOP candidates pick up more endorsements. A lot more. In 1984, President Reagan landed roughly twice as many endorsements as Democrat Walter Mondale in the president's easy reelection win. And in 1996, despite his weak showing at the polls, 179 daily newspapers endorsed Republican Bob Dole, which easily outpaced the Democrats' tally by nearly a 2-to-1 margin.


Few people base their vote on the endorsements of their paper. But when the endorsements swing towards the Democrat, it indicates that the Republican has big problems.

Election prediction: Kerry, 274 electoral votes.  
Title: Re: Don't know where to go to vote?
Post by floridian on Oct 28th, 2004, 7:13pm

on 10/28/04 at 15:56:22, Bob P wrote:
Heck, everybody knows the Ruskies moved the stuff long before the war started.  Wouldn't be good for us to find all their weapons there.


Nice theory, but the embeded journalists took photos that prove that your imagination is wrong.  The high explosives were there after the invasion.     http://kstp.com/article/stories/S3723.html?cat=1

http://kstp.com/kstpimages/Al-Qaqaa-pix_05a.jpg
http://kstp.com/kstpimages/IAEA-seal_011.jpg
http://kstp.com/kstpimages/Al-Qaqaa-pix_07a.jpg
http://kstp.com/kstpimages/Al-Qaqaa-pix_08a.jpg
http://kstp.com/kstpimages/Al-Qaqaa-pix_09a.jpg
Title: Re: Don't know where to go to vote?
Post by BobG on Oct 28th, 2004, 7:25pm

on 10/28/04 at 14:59:23, Bob P wrote:
Just had to bring it up didn't ya bob!


Yep. Saw you were signed in and much to quiet. I knew only you could turn a string on voting into a political rant. I just had to go for it.

Thanks for the chuckles Boob  [smiley=hug.gif]
Title: Re: Don't know where to go to vote?
Post by alleyoop on Oct 28th, 2004, 10:10pm

on 10/28/04 at 19:13:13, floridian wrote:
 The high explosives were there after the invasion.

http://kstp.com/kstpimages/Al-Qaqaa-pix_05a.jpg
http://kstp.com/kstpimages/IAEA-seal_011.jpg
http://kstp.com/kstpimages/Al-Qaqaa-pix_07a.jpg
http://kstp.com/kstpimages/Al-Qaqaa-pix_08a.jpg
http://kstp.com/kstpimages/Al-Qaqaa-pix_09a.jpg


Whether the explosives were there before or after the invasion one thing's for sure, Sadam doesn't have them!
http://boortz.com/images/baghdad_bob.jpg

...............alley
Title: Re: Don't know where to go to vote?
Post by alleyoop on Oct 28th, 2004, 10:36pm
While we're at it Floridian, I wonder if you'd care to debunk this story. I already know what your opinion of Neal Boortz is, and although I disagree with much of what he has to say, the guy does his homework.

From Neal's Nuze:
AID AND COMFORT TO THE ENEMY?

We have to go back to the Vietnam for a bit here.  We have to go back because it looks like John Kerry has been caught in yet another lie .. and this one may be quite serious.

Here's the story:

In 1970 John Kerry went to visit the communist delegation to the Vietnamese peace talks.  Then he went to visit them again.  The congress of the United States was not informed of these visits until almost a year later.  By the way, Kerry was a Navy Reserve Officer at the time.  Finally ... then the leftist media found out the truth about Kerry's trips, they failed to correct their own stories on the subject.

You've probably heard some of this before, but it was presented to you in such a way as to make Kerry's visit and the motivations behind the visit seem entirely benign.

The charges that Kerry traveled to Paris to commiserate with the Communists first surfaced in the Swift Boat Veteran's television ad campaign.   The Swiftees said that Kerry traveled to Paris to "secretly" meet with the enemy.  The New York Times and the Washington Post quickly jumped to Kerry's defense ... saying that he informed the congress immediately of his visit.  Later these newspapers found out that Kerry's visit was in 1970, not '71, and that he didn't tell the congress until almost a year later.  That makes the meeting a secret indeed.

The media also reported that Kerry was actually on his vacation in Paris at the time, so the trip was not made for the explicit purpose of meeting with the communists.  That turns out to be false also.  His honeymoon was in the Caribbean.  It seems that he did, indeed, travel to Paris just to meet with communists ... to meet with the communists negotiating with the United States for a settlement to the Vietnam war.

Wait!  There's more!  There was another Kerry trip to meet with the communists, this one in 1971!  And according to Joshua Muravchik in The Weekly Standard, a third trip was planned.

Perhaps you've heard somewhere along the way that when Kerry went to Parris he actually met with both sides, not just the communists.  That would certainly put him in better light, wouldn't it?  You probably got that from The New York Times.

The Times was quite upset that the Swiftees said that Kerry had gone to Paris to meet with the enemy.  Not so, said the Times.  Kerry actually testified that he met with "both sides."  Well .. the Times then found out that by "both sides" Kerry meant that he had visited with both communist delegations to the peace talks.   In fact, "both delegations" was the phrase Kerry used in describing his visit.   The next week the Times ran a small correction saying that it had "misidentified" the parties Kerry went to visit.

America was at war.  We were at war against the communist enemy in Vietnam.  Tens of thousands of Americans soldiers were dying.  John Kerry, while still a reserve officer in the U.S. Navy,  makes several trips abroad to visit with the enemy.  That's right, the enemy.  He waits almost a year before he bothers to inform the congress of his visit.  He then makes a second trip, and is planning a third that was cancelled.  The media is giving him a pass.  They're giving him a pass because they know that if Kerry's actions are highlighted for the voters it would cost him votes.
http://boortz.com/nuze/index.html

..................alley
Title: Re: Don't know where to go to vote?
Post by Mr. Happy on Oct 28th, 2004, 10:48pm

Quote:
The media is giving him a pass.


If any of this is true, and the Repulican machine hasn't picked up on it and Shoved It In Kerry's/the Country's face over and over again........they're too stupid to be in politics.
I'm voting for Charlie.

He makes sense,
RJ

Sorry Mel.....should have kept to topic. The link doesn't tell me where to vote, here in the boondocks of suburban Phialdelphia. It DOES tell me about my voting machine and how to use it, once found.

Edited out of respect for Mel.....and her really neat tits.
Title: Re: Don't know where to go to vote?
Post by Melissa on Oct 28th, 2004, 11:01pm
[smiley=ohjez.gif]

ANYWAY, that website addy I gave is  to help anyone out who needs it!

Let's get this over with! LOL

;)
Title: Re: Don't know where to go to vote?
Post by alleyoop on Oct 28th, 2004, 11:08pm

on 10/28/04 at 23:01:10, Melissa wrote:
[smiley=ohjez.gif]

ANYWAY, that website addy I gave is  to help anyone out who needs it!

Let's get this over with! LOL

;)

Thanks Mel and sorry about hi-jacking your thread. BTW, you ride that broom stick well!

.....................alley ;;D
Title: Re: Don't know where to go to vote?
Post by BobG on Oct 28th, 2004, 11:27pm

Quote:
The Swiftees said


If the Swiftees said anything it was a lie. They were hired by the Republican Party to spread lies and misrepresent facts during the Nixon administration. The Swiftees (what a sissy fucking name) are nothing more than thieves, liars and crackpot hired guns for Nixon, Daddy Bush and now Baby Bush.

No sane, rational, intelligent person is ever going to believe a word those freaks say.

And a question that I've asked many times but never get an answer back on..............
Where the hell was AWOL George and his back-up Dick during the Vietnam War? Hiding under Momma skirt? Other priorities?
Title: Re: Don't know where to go to vote?
Post by Mr. Happy on Oct 28th, 2004, 11:41pm
Leave Mel's thread alone, you old man from Nevada with nothing better to do.
I know who I'm voting for, and I know how I'm voting for them, I'm just not sure where the hell I'm supposed to do it.


Quote:
You vote at:
Sorry, we have not received any information from your precinct.


It's a Republican area,
RJ
Title: Re: Don't know where to go to vote?
Post by BobG on Oct 28th, 2004, 11:57pm

on 10/28/04 at 23:41:36, Mr. Happy wrote:
you old man from Nevada with nothing better to do.
IRJ

Hey! Old? Who you callin' old? Hell, I'm not even 65 yet.  ::)

I checked with the Republican Party Where-Do-I-Vote Committee and they said you are to cast your ballot in Chicago in precinct 4

And in Pittsburg boroughs 7 and 9

And in Miami Dade County Block 14

And in Boston Sector A, C, and J.

You’re welcome.
;;D
Title: Re: Don't know where to go to vote?
Post by Charlie on Oct 29th, 2004, 6:08am
Separation of church and state is such fun. Actually, it isn't codified that way but it is more than implied. However, it was added and worked on by a lot of the founders....who were anything but bible thumpers....especially James Madison as a protection of the Federal Government from religion, not necessarily us.  It's unique this way and really gets under the skins of the Jerry Falwells and Pat Roberstons.

These guys actually were the "sharpest knives in the drawer."

Charlie
Title: Re: Don't know where to go to vote?
Post by Bob P on Oct 29th, 2004, 8:37am

on 10/28/04 at 23:27:35, BobG wrote:
If the Swiftees said anything it was a lie.  The Swiftees (what a sissy fucking name) are nothing more than thieves, liars and crackpot
No sane, rational, intelligent person is ever going to believe a word those freaks say.

And a question that I've asked many times but never get an answer back on..............
Where the hell was AWOL George and his back-up Dick during the Vietnam War? Hiding under Momma skirt? Other priorities?

Let us not forget that Kerry is a Swiftie.  So we agree Bob.  In his biography Kerry says that he wasn't interested in the war.  He put in for swift boats because they weren't in the action and it was a chance for a junior officer to command his own boat (visions of PT-109).  When Adm. Zumwalt changed thier mission and sent them into harms way, Kerry bailed on his band of brothers.

Everyone knows the PBR sailors and SEAL Teams were the real blood and guts of the Navy effort in Nam.

Bush was in the National Guard, not in Nam.

The major thing about Kerry in Paris, which is not mentioned above, is that after he met with the commies, he returned and advocated Mrs. Binh's peace points (the commie requirements for a US surrender).

Kerry was a freakin traitor, Bush was a war dodger.  Take your pick.
Title: Re: Don't know where to go to vote?
Post by don on Oct 29th, 2004, 8:52am

Quote:
Bush was in the National Guard, not in Nam.


Heroically dodging anti aircraft fire over the great State of Texas. In a simulator.

The Bush campaign slogan should be

"Thanks For Not Paying Attention"
Title: Re: Don't know where to go to vote?
Post by Tom K on Oct 29th, 2004, 9:16am

on 10/28/04 at 19:13:13, floridian wrote:
Nice theory, but the embeded journalists took photos that prove that your imagination is wrong.  The high explosives were there after the invasion.


So...the WMDs, that were never there, were there, but now their gone? [smiley=huh.gif]  So...I guess that per usual, the Dems want it both ways....


T
Title: Re: Don't know where to go to vote?
Post by Bob P on Oct 29th, 2004, 10:01am
And this just in:

Kerry blames Bush for disappearance of moon!


Quote:
Nice theory, but the embeded journalists took photos that prove that your imagination is wrong.
Good try Floridian but that IAEA seal you show doesn't show up anywhere in that news video.  Good of you to stick it in for effect.  The reporters from that station say that they don't know what they were looking at and it "may or may not be" the explosives in question.  Gee, we may have been at the ammo dump and saw stuff marked explosive, it must be the missing stuff.  What a bunch of dorks!  They rank right up there with those who think a free fire zone was a war attrocity!
Title: Re: Don't know where to go to vote?
Post by floridian on Oct 29th, 2004, 10:48am

on 10/28/04 at 22:36:31, alleyoop wrote:
While we're at it Floridian, I wonder if you'd care to debunk this story. [/url]

..................alley


A few thoughts - I can remember former presidents, ministers, and private citizens that have travelled overseas and met with foreign officials on behalf of a hostage or person arrested - sometimes dealing with unsavory governments or thugs.  Others have met with foreign government officials to talk trade, or to interview them for a story in a paper,  radio, or TV.  Not illegal.

The Boortz op-ed implies that the law was broken, though he doesn't cite any law.  They imply that the substance of the talks was illegal, although they don't really know what was discussed.  While Boortz said that Kerry was there to 'commiserate' with the enemy, I find that unlikely.  There have also been charges that he was there to 'negotiate' although it was clear to all involved that he did not have the authority to negotiate on anyone's behalf.  

An alternative view of the meetings is that Kerry saw himself as a catlyst to help resolve a bloody conflict that was bad for the US and bad for Vietnam. Lyndon Johnson started peace talks in Paris in 1968, and these continued on and off through the early 1970's under the Nixon administration.  I think that Kerry met with and listened to people on any side of the negotiations, he discussed his views privately and spoke in public to try to bring a resolution to the conflict.  

Politically, Kerry made himself unpopular with the people that were true believers in the war.  There is no way that those people will ever like Kerry, just like there is no way that Nixon and Kissinger will win a popularity prize from me.  But the allegations that Boortz makes against Kerry are political rhetoric.  Nixon had a long enemies list, he used the government to spy on his enemies, and he would have prosecuted Kerry if there was evidence that Kerry had broken the law.  Instead, Nixon, Colson and Haldeman set up John O'Neil as a counter-Kerry, encouraging O'Neil to debate Kerry, discredit Kerry, and promote the Vietnam conflict, etc.  That same John O'Neil helped organize the Swiftboat Vets and is still willing to do whatever it takes to discredit Kerry for daring to oppose Nixon and the Vietnam War.

The Nixon tapes on Kerry and O'Neil: http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4534274/
Title: Re: Don't know where to go to vote?
Post by floridian on Oct 29th, 2004, 11:09am

on 10/29/04 at 09:16:22, Tom K wrote:
So...the WMDs, that were never there, were there, but now their gone? [smiley=huh.gif]  So...I guess that per usual, the Dems want it both ways....


T



Explosives like RDX and PETN are not weapons of mass destruction (ie, nuclear, chemical and biological) - they are conventional munitions.  But they are on the high end of the conventional explosives.  

Never there, were there, then weren't there??? No, they were there all along -  they were reported to the IAEA and were under seal. The US knew they were there.  But the war planners didn't think 400 tons of high explosives were worth securing.  The Al Qaaqaa base was just the site for making a pit stop on the way to Baghdad - no need to assign anyone to guard it.  No mistakes were made.  
Title: Re: Don't know where to go to vote?
Post by floridian on Oct 29th, 2004, 11:28am

on 10/29/04 at 10:01:59, Bob P wrote:
And this just in:


Good try Floridian but that IAEA seal you show doesn't show up anywhere in that news video.  Good of you to stick it in for effect.  The reporters from that station say that they don't know what they were looking at and it "may or may not be" the explosives in question.  Gee, we may have been at the ammo dump and saw stuff marked explosive, it must be the missing stuff.  ...


Yes - there is evidence of the seals in the video footage.  The videos also      include shots of the high explosives.


Quote:
Based on a review of the KSTP videotape, former weapons inspector David Kay said late Thursday that the seal is consistent with those used by the International Atomic Energy Agency and that the explosives in the barrel were the type of high-grade explosives missing from the complex.

"That's either HMX or RDX," Kay said, referring to the types of explosives. "I don't know of anything else in Al-Qaqaa that was in that form."


Somebody in the administration should put a better muzzle on our allies in the current Iraqi government and tell them to stop saying things that make Bush look bad (even if they are true):


Quote:
...  the Iraqi government reported the missing weaponry to the IAEA in a letter dated October 10, and the IAEA informed the U.S. mission in Vienna on October 15. National security adviser Condoleezza Rice was told a few days later, then informed the president.

The Iraqi letter said the material disappeared "due to lack of security" of government installations during the looting that followed the fall of dictator Saddam Hussein's regime in April 2003.

http://tinyurl.com/5qo3o
Title: Re: Don't know where to go to vote?
Post by Bob P on Oct 29th, 2004, 11:31am

Quote:
The Boortz op-ed implies that the law was broken, though he doesn't cite any law.
The first is 10 USC 904, part of the UCMJ, which states:

Any person who . . . without proper authority, knowingly . . . communicates or corresponds with or holds any intercourse with the enemy, either directly or indirectly, shall suffer death or such other punishment as a court-martial or military commission may direct.

The other is 18 USC 953, also known as the Logan Act:

Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.


I believe there is something which says that anyone quilty of these cannot hold public office.

One also has to remember that Kerry was still in the Naval Reserves while doing all of this.  It is believed that he received a less than honorable discharge from the service due to his actions.  This was later upgraded when Ford pardoned the draft dodgers and those who got less than honorable discharges because of anitwar activities.  This goes along with why the honorable discharge on his web site is dated 6 years later than it should be.  Of course we won't know for sure since he won't release his service records.

Kerry is a freakin traitor!

Oops.  I was wrong about the Ruskies and the explosives.  Looks like we took the explosives.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,137017,00.html
Title: Re: Don't know where to go to vote?
Post by Tom K on Oct 29th, 2004, 3:22pm

on 10/29/04 at 11:09:05, floridian wrote:
Never there, were there, then weren't there??? No, they were there all along -  they were reported to the IAEA and were under seal. The US knew they were there.  But the war planners didn't think 400 tons of high explosives were worth securing.  The Al Qaaqaa base was just the site for making a pit stop on the way to Baghdad - no need to assign anyone to guard it.  No mistakes were made.  


Yeah, cuz hind sight is 20 freaking 20.   No one on these boards ever made a mistake.  Kerry never made one, either.  It's nice to see the REMFs can sit back and call all the fouls when they were never in country.  Oh wait, that's the Democratic way.

T
Title: Re: Don't know where to go to vote?
Post by BobG on Oct 29th, 2004, 9:17pm
Nice spin Bob P. You should should write for television.

;;D


Clusterheadaches.com Message Board » Powered by YaBB 1 Gold - SP 1.3.1!
YaBB © 2000-2003. All Rights Reserved.