New Book: Kerry ‘Unfit for Command’

Of course bush isn't claiming vietnam service but he did claim service for which there is no record and a condition of release from service that is at odds with the evidence that is there -- he was either missing or missing.AWOL or deserter.And new records have surfaced that shows the planes he trained on were still flown by his unit in Texas (that he supposedly returned to?)Sorry -- refusing to even look at bush while you quibble over just how valiant Kerry was is hypocritical.Do you think Kerry would get off if his record was like Bushes?

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

You don't know that. We don't know how many terrorists are on our soil, nor their plans. Only history will tell which ones succeeded and which failed, and possibly which ones were planned but unable to be executed.We now know what terrorists are capable of damaging (i.e. key locations and consequently, the economy), and we know their will to continue. We may even know some specifics, but do not reveal them so as to keep the intelligence flowing. Which brings us to your next unsubstantiated claim... Who knows (yet)? They may have thwarted a plan. Duh! Our enemy is not stupid. In fact, they are smart enough to use our system against us. Open borders, privacy, etc. Evolution of warfare has finally found a weakness in our free society.A "law and order" approach is to wait and see the next crime, and then go after them. The trouble is, the crime could be on the order of millions, and the damage to millions of other folks as a result of a lengthy damaged economy.A preventative approach is to strike at their ability to pull-off such organization, funding, communication, and association.

Hey, that sounds like a really good idea. Why don't we elect a president who will actually do that instead of wasting our time, money, and lives in an irrelevant war?Here's a place we can start - remember the guy that masterminded the 9/11 attacks? I can't remember his name because Bush hasn't mentioned it in like 2 years. Maybe we should go after that guy? He sounds pretty dangerous.

quote:

---

A preventative approach is to strike at their ability to pull-off such organization, funding, communication, and association.

---

Yeah, like the Clinton administration was doing with Bin Laden up until he left office, and the Bush administration did nothing about after they got into office.BTW, can you explain what plans Iraq had to commit terror attacks upon the US? What is the evidence?

... and they would be trumpeting such a success so loudly from all the flagpoles in the country that you would not hear any of Kerry's positions if that were the case.Look back to the first attack on the towers, and ask yourself: what is different now from the time period between the attacks? Were there other attacks in between that were thwarted?No, Bush and his cohorts make out like OBL\Terrorism is the next world war. It just doesn't work that way.Look at Israel and the terrorist attacks there, in fact look around the world a see what is being done, and ask yourself: is that really a significant threat to justify the draconian measures that the neoCONs have instigated?What options do they have? Airplanes again? Hardly. Truck bombs? We had that with our own home-grown terror-boy and the first tower attack. Nuclear? Not likely.Of course there are the ramifications of the Iraq war that we will need to deal with, but golly, we should all feel safer because our ex-puppet sadistic saddam is behind bars, right?Bush has made the world a more dangerous place for Americans, but it still is not as great a threat that it requires junking the constitution over.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

He has lied consistently before, during and after his election as president. There is nothing to question in Kerry's military record, but creating a laundy list of places where you claim there should be a comma that's missing and spending a lot of time debating it will most certainly deflect the debate from the important issues like: No, Right-wingers would rather attempt to smear the reputation of a real American war hero than to discuss the failures of their current administration.This message has been edited by patriot0717, 09-08-2004 12:21 AMThis message has been edited by patriot0717, 09-08-2004 12:22 AM

Jar, I enjoyed your link, however, the terrorists conviently hit the floors above the 64th floor, and the towers did collapse, hear you that was a whole lot of fuel, but adding another log to the fire doesn't make the fire hotter, not sure if the temps were hot enough to overpower sprayed on asphestos insulation, meaning the people if they would of had another hour to escape, would of made a big difference, the environmentalists refusal to allow the spraying of asphestos was likely responsible for the people below the fire, not having enough time to escape, etc...P.S. Hopefully GWB will get his man, but he needs 4 more years, but the environmentalists are let off the hook, because of your belief the fire was much hotter, though leaning they put politics ahead of safety, knowing the engineer that built the towers said if a fire breaksout the towers would collapse, I personally think they would of collapsed but not before the people below the fire were all rescued, and I know you disagree, so I will agree to disagree, cause it was a whole lot of fuel, and I did enjoy your link, just don't feel more fuel means a hotter flame, perhaps though this is what they want us to believe, cause it fuels the fire to get terrorists, whereever they are hiding, etc...http://www.tms.org/...ournals/JOM/0112/Eagar/Eagar-0112.htmlTHE FIRE
The fire is the most misunderstood part of the WTC collapse. Even today, the media report (and many scientists believe) that the steel melted. It is argued that the jet fuel burns very hot, especially with so much fuel present. This is not true.Part of the problem is that people (including engineers) often confuse temperature and heat. While they are related, they are not the same. Thermodynamically, the heat contained in a material is related to the temperature through the heat capacity and the density (or mass). Temperature is defined as an intensive property, meaning that it does not vary with the quantity of material, while the heat is an extensive property, which does vary with the amount of material. One way to distinguish the two is to note that if a second log is added to the fireplace, the temperature does not double; it stays roughly the same, but the size of the fire or the length of time the fire burns, or a combination of the two, doubles. Thus, the fact that there were 90,000 L of jet fuel on a few floors of the WTC does not mean that this was an unusually hot fire. The temperature of the fire at the WTC was not unusual, and it was most definitely not capable of melting steel.Page not found - The Trial NetworkLevine’s company, Asbestospray, was familiar with the World Trade Center construction, but failed to get the contract for spraying insulation in the World Trade Center. Levine frequently would say that "if a fire breaks out above the 64th floor, that building will fall down." That appears to be what happened Tuesday, according to Richard Wilson, a risk expert and physics professor at Harvard University.The two hijacked airliners crashed into floors 96 to 103 of One World Trade Center and floors 87 to 93 of Two World Trade Center. Instead of the steel girders of the towers lasting up to four hours before melting, the steel frames of One World Trade Center lasted only one hour and forty minutes, while the steel frames of Two World Trade Center lasted just 56 minutes before collapsing.

Bush lied about WMDs.
Bush lied about not raiding the social security trust fund.
Bush lied about a connection between Sadaam and al Quaeda.
Bush lied about not leaving any child behind.
Bush lied about every American getting a tax break.
Bush lied about his service in the National Guard.In fact the list of Bush lies is so long that it stretches the imagination to have a Bush supporter question someone else's honesty. But it's ok being lied to if it's George W. Bush?This message has been edited by patriot0717, 09-08-2004 12:50 AMThis message has been edited by patriot0717, 09-08-2004 01:09 AM

Are you a proponent of eliminating privacy and open borders?Also, do you support the Constitution?

I am very much in favor of restricting immigration. Are you in favor of letting anyone in?Restricting borders is not unconstitutional. And, the meaning of privacy is an interpretation of the Constitution, as are other specific issues that the Supreme Court rules upon. If it were it so clear, the lower courts would have it easy.

A reply to message #515 if you please.

So you believe that our freedom comes from the Supreme Court - not from our Creator as our suggested by our Declaration of Independence?My guess is that you've been listening to too many sermons in church like the one I heard from a preacher who said, there are 2 kinds of freedoms, the freedom to do what one will and the freedom to do what one must (presumably according to his conscience). The preacher claimed that the first freedom was a false freedom and the second one, the true freedom. Unfortunately, the freedom that the founding fathers protected with their lives and the freedom that I was taught (sold) in elementary school is the first one. Are you one of the tyrants or are you one of us?This message has been edited by patriot0717, 09-08-2004 09:07 AMThis message has been edited by patriot0717, 09-08-2004 09:15 AMThis message has been edited by patriot0717, 09-08-2004 09:18 AM

ThingsChange, you iadvertently touched on one of the most dangerous aspects of this administration - government secrecy. Patriot Act (and it's follow-on Patriot Act II or Son of Patriot as many like to call it) is probably the biggest reason to trust Kerry over Bush. This administration wants to know EVERYTHING about you but is paranoid when it comes to sharing information that it is obliged to share. This situation is exactly the oposite of what our brave founding fathers, many of whom lost their fortunes defending the liberty that we so take for granted, had in mind. The fact that this legislation was even proposed should have disqualified Bush/Ashcroft from further government service. The incredible thing is that the Congress passed this proposal!!!This message has been edited by patriot0717, 09-08-2004 09:34 AMThis message has been edited by patriot0717, 09-08-2004 09:34 AM

Um, yeah it does. I discovered this this weekend during a camping trip.More wood makes a hotter fire.{Note from Adminnemooseus - The heat vs. temperature theme is a mater of science, and belongs elsewhere. BTW, this topic will be closing at about 600 messages - Make them good ones}This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 09-08-2004 10:04 AM

Whatever, this is the most incredible statement I've heard concerning 9/11. You believe ecologists were responsible for 9/11. When building new offices and homes, we should assume that they will be attacked by terrorists and should therefore spray asbestos, which we know contributes to cancer, all over these structures? What kind of wacky idea is that?If we listened to ecologists and refocused our energy thirst on renewable sources, we wouldn't need to send armies to Iraq to steal their oil.This message has been edited by patriot0717, 09-08-2004 10:04 AM