Didn't expect to be published but glad to know
you at least read the message.
Would like my response published though I am
not in a position to make demands.
Figure its only fair you give me a chance to justify
my initial email to the
masses who read you site. After all, you
did ask me to provide you some names.
Would also appreciate you pasting the entire email
as opposed to cutting out
portions that you might not be able to refute.
That is a ridiculous and unfounded charge.
There is nothing
I can't refute.
If you say, "Clinton
had a girlfriend," I'll just admit that
and we'll move on,
but there is no subject, no topic I have to run
from except long-ass e-mails
that either get into extreme minutia or ...sometimes
people just blather on.
Email part I would like published starts below the NOTE staring with "> Hmmm,".
NOTE: CC'ing Sam on this as it might rate
'important' since you did publish my initial email.
>> Hmmm, it sounds like you're getting ready to attack on a specific point - I like that.
Below.
>> I believe your facts are in error.
>> Bush 41 had an approval rating of 91 percent after Gulf War 1.
>> Bush lost 1992 because of domestic problems, mostly the economy.
>> And you say Bush wasn't thinking of this election when he started
a senseless war?
I will concede this point.
>> Words mean things, so thank you for quoting me accurately.
Thank you for returning the favor. I try
not to misquote nor take them out of context.
>> Clinton never sent a man "into battle" who didn't come home.
>> If you send 100,000 men to a week at Disney World, odds are some
will die
>> in car wrecks, suicides, heart attacks, heat stroke or whatever,
but not battle.
>> The distinction is there for a reason.
I have to disagree on this and you are playing
the semantics game. If you look at the
US body count for Iraq, folk (including you)
are counting US soldiers who have died in
vehicular accidents. To use your own body
count reference site, CLICK
HERE, Specifically 14JUL04.
You can find numerous other 'car wrecks' which
are you yourself stated "but not battle.
The distinction is there for a reason." that
you are listing as 'Bush's American soldier
body count in Iraq'. We can both play this
game.
You have conceded (I believe) that this is a senseless war.
In that context, isn't Bush to blame for every death?
If Bush was stopping a genocidal maniac from cleansing Europe, we wouldn't
be down on him for
losing 10-15 men to car wrecks, suicide or accidents, but how can you
let Bush off the hook?
Also, to be honest, I haven't delved into the specifics on that page.
>> Reagan's troop casualties were maybe 400, with 241 Marines in one,
big Reagan-screw-up day.
>> Bush 41 had about the same over a war he personally green lighted.
>> Bush 43 has over 900 and the figure climbs higher every day.
Not arguing over Bush or Reagan here. We
are talking about Clinton. History
is history and both sides have had horrible leaders.
How many died in a single
day (Pearl Harbor) over a massive (and records
to show preventable)
intelligence failure by F. Roosevelt (Democrat
- War President). Those
Japanese interment camps were a great step forward
for social liberties. The
amusing thing about this is that Harry Truman
(Democrat - Useless President)
trial of a German in China is being using by
Bush to defend Guantanamo. Or
then there is everybody's favorite president
and the only president in US
history that can top Bush in causality numbers
for a personal war and stomping
on US civil liberties. Good old Woodrow
Wilson (Democrat – Nazi President).
Not going to speak of his actions after World
War I (League of Nations was a
good idea and he did do some good), but WWI was
by no means a popular war.
America was not looking to fight a war in Europe
and a large percentage of
population of the time was strongly against it
(namely the large population
Irish and German immigrants). Wilson took
us to war because he was pro British
and felt it was necessary for the good of the
US. Don't forget the good old
'fair and balanced' liberal media of the time
(namely print newspaper) toting
the Democratic war line and over blowing the
sinking of one ocean liner and
some communications between the German and Mexican
Ambassadors. And the
Patriot Act, as bad as it is, what do you call
Mr. Wilson's Espionage Act of
1917 or the Sedition Act of 1918 which destroyed
the budding populist movement.
So lets think about this, Bush passes bill
that stomps all over civil rights
and takes us to war for no reason other than
he thinks its necessary even
though it is unpopular and uses the media to
bring the sheeple to his side.
Sounds like good old Democratic President Wilson.
See what I mean by long-ass e-mails?
Odd, you start with "we're not talking about
Bush or Reagan,"
then you go back 62 years to bring up FDR and Pearl Harbor.
Oh, and lets not forget everybody's favorite President Kennedy and the Bay of Pigs fiasco.
It's possible you know more about the Bay of Pigs than I do, but it's
my understanding that
invasion was a holdover from Eisenhower, and had Kennedy not had the
wisdom to call it off
we might have lost Miami, but why are we talking about 40 and 60 years
ago?
As I was stating earlier, not talking about Bush
or Reagan here. Both parties
have had bad applies through history. Now
back to the point of this email,
your claim Clinton never sent troops to battle
that didn't return.
>> Not counting Bush's Somalia fiasco - can you name a single Clinton casualty?
Yep and I won't even pick a 'car accident' as
you do in Iraq. One Sgt. 1st Class Donald
A. Dugan,
Feb 1996 in Bosnia. Unless getting killed
by a land mine is something that happens when you send
100,000 troops to Disneyland, I believe Clinton
killed a troop. A couple were also killed in Kosovo
but not sure if you will count them as their
Apache's slammed into tree's during combat operations.
That happens all the time during those routine
training missions in the US. Now this is where you rant
how Clinton's death of a couple troops does not
compare to Bush; not going to argue this point.
I am just trying to clear the record as the American
left keeps repeating over and over Clinton didn't
kill any of our boys in combat operations.
He did. You can repeat it a million times and the masses
of sheeple will believe you, but doesn't make
it true.
You make it sound as tho I knew of Dugan and chose to lie about it.
I'm hearing his name
and that story for the first time. I wonder why the right-wingers haven't
branded that name
into every conversation on every talk radio and cable show in America.
>> Even if you write a hundred e-mails, the facts still say you're wrong.
Not at all. See above.
I admit, I didn't know about Dugan, so I will amend my statement to
say
"One man didn't come home after being sent into battle by Clinton."
>> Name one.
>>Give me some names, some dates, some countries.
>>When you charge a man with killing another man, it's not good enough
to say,
>> "I don't know who, when or where, but some men must have died under
Clinton."
See above. Bosnia Feb 1996. Kosovo
May 1996. Wish I could get names for
Kosovo but can't seem to google them.
>> Monkey,
Nothing like resorting to name calling huh Rush.
Many people say Monkey Mail is their favorite part of the page.
I could've called you a sniveling, ass-licking cock-sucker, but that
would be rude.
I choose to take the hide road while debating.
>> you're saying there was no genocide in Europe?
There was no genocide in Europe during Kosovo.
I was actually there as a
combat troop before and after the conflict.
I was there with burning villages
and slaughtered livestock. I was also there
to see the Albania's ethnically
cleanse as many Serbian as the Serbians did them.
Nothing like calling in air
strikes on Serbian villages 'harboring tanks
according to our UGK sources' only
to go in two days later and see you killed about
50 innocent Serbian civilians
(men, women, children) and no tanks. Wash,
rinse, repeat throughout all of
Kosovo. Sure the Serb's killed plenty of
Albanian's but you would be amazed
how many Serbian villages were ethnically cleansed
by US bombs using UGK
intelligence with no US intelligence to back
it up. The funny thing about this
is I was there two years ago as a contractor
and the UGK->KLA->{whatever they
like to currently call themselves) open admits
the ethnic cleansing was blown
out of proportion solely to get the US involved.
Sure glad the US media
covered all of this. One of the few times
I have wished Fox was as big as it
was now. They would have been all over
it just to show how evil Clinton was.
As it was though, this never happened.
I don't know enough about it to argue the point, but you seem to be
saying Clinton
put troops in Europe "because he was evil." That's kinda insane,
don't you think?
If Clinton put troops in Europe over the objections of every other
country on Earth,
then gave Tyson Chicken hundreds of billions of dollars worth
of no-bid contracts,
I could understand why you used the "evil" charge, but that's not the
case.
>> You want to sing the old "wag the dog" tune while Milovich "cleansed" Albania?
No singing here. Serbia never attacked Albania.
Kosovo was a province of Serbia,
it was a civil war. Somebody needs to get
their facts straight here and it isn't me.
Kosovo was a province of Serbia? Like Kuwait is a province of Iraq?
I'll have to give you some of these points because
I just don't know enough about it.
(And please, readers, don't help me out with
a thousand page explanation.) A person in
my posotion argues hundreds of topics a week
and I can't immerse myself in a
decade-old war and be sure of the fine print.
>> Assuming my figures are close to correct, the GOP's 1800 dead for
sure IS worse
>> than your claim that "somebody must have died" under Clinton.
Not at all. That sounds similar to Stalin's
great line "The death of one man is a tragedy,
the death of a million is a statistic." or as
you might put it: 'The deaths of one man under
Clinton is insignificant, the deaths of 1800
men under Bush is evil evil evil'.
A death of a single US soldier for no reason
other than political whim is a needless death.
A single death is just as bad
as '1800 dead'.
That's probably the stupidest thing anyone ever wrote on bartcop.com
That's so stupid, I had to read it several times to believe that's what you said.
That's so stupid, you probably need to see a mental health doctor.
If you think one death and 1800 death are equal, you may be beyond
help.
You hate Clinton so much, you have lost your hold on reality.
You can't be trusted. You're not sane.
You're lying to yourself and that's a crime I can't forgive.
Curious where you got the 1800 number btw.
It's a guess, but then again, one is as bad as 1800, so why would it
matter?
>> The nutty GOP claimed the same thing about "Clinton bombing the innocent
aspirin factory."
>> Then, after Osama hit New York, they switched tunes and cried, "Clinton
did nothing about
>> Osama, so 9-11 is all his fault."
Not saying 9-11 was his fault nor was it Bush's. 9-11 wasn't preventable because it was innovative.
I'm having trouble taking anything you say now seriously.
I'll bet you'd like to take back that extra-stupid sentence, wouldn't
you?
We'll never know if 9-11 was preventable, but it's a fact that
Bush went on another monthlong
vacation after getting the PDB that Osama (who was so dangerous
- according to you - that Clinton
should have "done more" prior to 9-11) was coming. The lazy bastard
didn't even notify the FAA or
send out an alert or anything - he just went on vacation and left America
unguarded. At the very least,
he could've hightened the alert for the Air Force to be ready for an
attack by plane - but no, he
surrendered New York City and went on vacation.
The true test is this:
What actions did Bush take prior to 9-11?
After the attack, they want to blame Clinton for sleeping.
But Bush slept after knowing Clinton "slept" on Osama.
The timeline says Bush has
to be more guilty than Clinton,
because he had hindsight on his side and did fucking nothing.
They basically rewrote the book on aircraft hijackings.
The GOP is correct though in saying Clinton did
nothing about Osama.
What actions did Bush take prior
to 9-11?
You can't get away from that. You
can't bend time the way you're trying.
You're trying so hard to make Clinton guilty,
but Bush did nothing after Clinton.
It doesn't work that way and if you were sane,
you'd know that.
On the other hand, he sure did like bombing Iraq
on a weekly basis.
Check around and you would be amazed at the number
of US air strikes on Iraq during Clinton's
years based on supposed violations of the no
fly zone.
Now I'm sorry I wasted the time with you.
The "supposed" violations of the no-fly zone?
Did the Air Force fake the violations?
Or did Clinton order the Air Force to fake them?
And I'm sure Clinton "liked" bombing Iraq as much as Bush likes
having our bombers blow up brides during their weddings.
After scoring with Donald Dugan, you've done nothing but embarrass yourself.
You hate Clinton so much you can't think.
>> I look at it the other way.
>> The GOP took FBI agents off the hunt for bin Laden to comb Arkansas
for Clinton
>> girlfriends. Had the GOP not been so obsessed with capturing Clinton's
cock, they would've
>> seen that Kosovo and bin Laden were worthy targets, but all they
could think of was
>> grabbing Clinton's cock.
I agree with that assessment of bin Laden.
Kosovo was not a worthy target nor was Bosnia for that
matter but at least we did that one with the
U.N. Kosovo was pure US unilateralism under the guise of NATO.
>> Is that all you think of?
No. Believe it or not, I am a social and
political lefty (not economically though).
Just hate to see the supposed American left (know
in the rest of the world as the center)
bash Bush while glorifying Clinton. I agree
Clinton was a better president than Bush,
but not because of their foreign policy.
Its Bush's draconian social measures here in
the US that makes him a worse president.
-Peter
A lefty that hates Clinton?
That makes you a Naderite or it makes you Andrew Sullivan.
And this remark: the supposed American left (know
in the rest of the world as the center)
When you move that far to the left, you're moving away from the voters.
You might evenb be right on some issues, but what does that matter
when
the country rejects your left-wing extremism?
I wish you were more sane because I would've enjoyed sparring more,
but saying one death and 1800 are the same just makes you crazy.
And please don't send another rebuttal.