Re: WHO AM I !

D'ohBoy said:

Thanks, Biffie!

One of your better posts recently, Doughie! Excellent communication skills
LOL

Hey, Biffie:

Two years in the making, a Senate report on pre-Iraq war intelligence
finds no evidence that Saddam Hussein had any relations with al-Qaida
leaders in his country.

Bushco, what a buncha lying scumbags. Who have started a war and
caused the deaths of thousands of America's best and brightest for no
reason other than their own political benefit.

D'ohBoy

D'ohBoy said:

Hey, Biffie:

Two years in the making, a Senate report on pre-Iraq war intelligence
finds no evidence that Saddam Hussein had any relations with al-Qaida
leaders in his country.

Hillary on Senate floor, 2003 (date per Flogman):

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that
Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons
stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also
given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaida
members." -- Hillary Clinton

And, from her own hubby's "indictment" of OBL:

"Al Qaida reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaida
would not work against that government and that on particular projects,
specifically including weapons development, al Qaida would work
cooperatively with the Government of Iraq."

Interesting how the Clintonians are desperately trying to stop an ABC
docu-drama because they don't like its CONTENT -- to the point of making
veiled threats about the network's license. But fake memos a few weeks
before an election? Lies and distortions in "Fahrenheit 9-11"? Joe
Wilson's flat out lies and then libel and slander re. his wife's "outing"
(just more lies it turns out)?

You're right: LYING SCUMBAGS pretty much sums it up.

Buh-bye, Doughie.

Bill Sornson said:

D'ohBoy said:

Hey, Biffie:

Two years in the making, a Senate report on pre-Iraq war intelligence
finds no evidence that Saddam Hussein had any relations with al-Qaida
leaders in his country.

Hillary on Senate floor, 2003 (date per Flogman):

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that
Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons
stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also
given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaida
members." -- Hillary Clinton

And, from her own hubby's "indictment" of OBL:

"Al Qaida reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaida
would not work against that government and that on particular projects,
specifically including weapons development, al Qaida would work
cooperatively with the Government of Iraq."

Interesting how the Clintonians are desperately trying to stop an ABC
docu-drama because they don't like its CONTENT -- to the point of making
veiled threats about the network's license. But fake memos a few weeks
before an election? Lies and distortions in "Fahrenheit 9-11"? Joe
Wilson's flat out lies and then libel and slander re. his wife's "outing"
(just more lies it turns out)?

You're right: LYING SCUMBAGS pretty much sums it up.

Ever notice that Bill Clinton's new best friend is George Bush I?

Other than not pandering [1] to the "Christian Coalition's" desire to
impose their sexual mores on the rest of society, what difference was
there between Bill Clinton and George I? Not much.

Hillary (Rodham) Clinton volunteered for the Goldwater campaign in 1964
and was president of the Wellesley College Chapter of the College
Republicans.

Trying to slander the political left by attacking the Clinton's? As
George II might say, "That dog won't hunt".

[1] "We need to make population and family planning household words. We
need to take sensationalism out of this topic so that it can no longer
be used by militants who have no real knowledge of the voluntary nature
of the program but, rather are using it as a political steppingstone.
If family planning is anything, it is a public health matter."
- Future President George H. W. Bush, 1969

--
Tom Sherman - Behind the Cheddar Curtain

Bill Sornson said:

Hillary on Senate floor, 2003 (date per Flogman):

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that
Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons
stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also
given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaida
members." -- Hillary Clinton

And, from her own hubby's "indictment" of OBL:

"Al Qaida reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaida
would not work against that government and that on particular projects,
specifically including weapons development, al Qaida would work
cooperatively with the Government of Iraq."

Interesting how the Clintonians are desperately trying to stop an ABC
docu-drama because they don't like its CONTENT -- to the point of making
veiled threats about the network's license. But fake memos a few weeks
before an election? Lies and distortions in "Fahrenheit 9-11"? Joe
Wilson's flat out lies and then libel and slander re. his wife's "outing"
(just more lies it turns out)?

You're right: LYING SCUMBAGS pretty much sums it up.

Please write more and more like this -- I love it.

And most of all, please be upfront with your pledge that the Iraq war
was a good thing and that America is safer for it. And that Bush was
truthful in why we went to war.

Please -- I really want to read those things from you -- that the Iraq
war has made us safer and that President Bush and the leadership of
the administration were truthful in why we went to war. Go on record
writing that.

JT
--
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

John Forrest Tomlinson said:

Bill Sornson said:

Hillary on Senate floor, 2003 (date per Flogman):

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that
Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons
stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also
given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaida
members." -- Hillary Clinton

And, from her own hubby's "indictment" of OBL:

"Al Qaida reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaida
would not work against that government and that on particular projects,
specifically including weapons development, al Qaida would work
cooperatively with the Government of Iraq."

Interesting how the Clintonians are desperately trying to stop an ABC
docu-drama because they don't like its CONTENT -- to the point of making
veiled threats about the network's license. But fake memos a few weeks
before an election? Lies and distortions in "Fahrenheit 9-11"? Joe
Wilson's flat out lies and then libel and slander re. his wife's "outing"
(just more lies it turns out)?

You're right: LYING SCUMBAGS pretty much sums it up.

Please write more and more like this -- I love it.

And most of all, please be upfront with your pledge that the Iraq war
was a good thing and that America is safer for it. And that Bush was
truthful in why we went to war.

Please -- I really want to read those things from you -- that the Iraq
war has made us safer and that President Bush and the leadership of
the administration were truthful in why we went to war. Go on record
writing that.

Bill, you're wasting your time. Between the two of us, we've shown
him dozens of examples that the previous administration(s), the
UNMOVIC Weapons Inspection Reports on the matter, results of
bipartisan committees showing no tampering with the intelligence. But
apparently that's nothing compared to a slogan. Then again, I guess
"Cliinton and Albright and UNMOVIC and European Intel agencies and
Bush Lied" just doesn't have the same kind of ring to it, huh?

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame

On Fri, 08 Sep 2006 18:33:31 -0700, Mark Hickey <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

results of bipartisan committees showing no tampering
with the intelligence.

Sweet. Say it. Say it.

Can you also say the Iraq war has made the US safer? Say that too. I
just want you fully on record for that.

JT

--
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

Mark Hickey said:

John Forrest Tomlinson said:

On Fri, 08 Sep 2006 18:16:06 GMT, "Bill Sornson" <[email hidden]>
wrote:

{NOTICE THAT THE CONTEXT WAS REMOVED BY FLOGGER?}

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Hillary on Senate floor, 2003 (date per Flogman):

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports
show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and
biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his
nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to
terrorists, including Al Qaida members." -- Hillary Clinton

And, from her own hubby's "indictment" of OBL:

"Al Qaida reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that
al Qaida would not work against that government and that on
particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al
Qaida would work cooperatively with the Government of Iraq."

Interesting how the Clintonians are desperately trying to stop an
ABC docu-drama because they don't like its CONTENT -- to the point
of making veiled threats about the network's license. But fake
memos a few weeks before an election? Lies and distortions in
"Fahrenheit 9-11"? Joe Wilson's flat out lies and then libel and
slander re. his wife's "outing" (just more lies it turns out)?

You're right: LYING SCUMBAGS pretty much sums it up.

Please write more and more like this -- I love it.

And most of all, please be upfront with your pledge that the Iraq war
was a good thing and that America is safer for it. And that Bush was
truthful in why we went to war.

Please -- I really want to read those things from you -- that the
Iraq war has made us safer and that President Bush and the
leadership of the administration were truthful in why we went to
war. Go on record writing that.

Bill, you're wasting your time. Between the two of us, we've shown
him dozens of examples that the previous administration(s), the
UNMOVIC Weapons Inspection Reports on the matter, results of
bipartisan committees showing no tampering with the intelligence. But
apparently that's nothing compared to a slogan. Then again, I guess
"Cliinton and Albright and UNMOVIC and European Intel agencies and
Bush Lied" just doesn't have the same kind of ring to it, huh?\

Besides all that, Mark, just look at this sub-thread. Dough-for-brains
posts two-year-old "new" information. I reply with quotes from both
Clintons that echoed Bush Admin (and others'😉 claims on the matter, and then
ask about what's going on CURRENTLY with the Clintonistas and DNC and
far-left blogoshere all trying to STOP OR ALTER A TV SHOW before it airs.
(Remember the outcry when Bush asked the NYT to hold a top-secret story?
Freedom of the press...UNLESS it makes us look bad, that is. Astounding.)

So what does Flogittodeathlinson do? Completely change the subject. It's a
tired-but-time-tested tactic that works all too often.

Free Scooter Libby (that's for Doughie)...and let the ABC show run as
written! LOL

Bill Sornson said:

So what does Flogittodeathlinson do? Completely change the subject.

OK -- let's take that as a working proposition that I have changed the
subject. I think they're related, you don't, but for now let's say
they are.

I'm still curious. Can you say that Bush was and is truthful about
the reasons the US went to war in Iraq? And that the US is safer due
to our going to war in Iraq? Or are you afraid to say it explicitly
like that?

JT

--
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

John Forrest Tomlinson said:

Bill Sornson said:

So what does Flogittodeathlinson do? Completely change the subject.

OK -- let's take that as a working proposition that I have changed the
subject. I think they're related, you don't, but for now let's say
they are.

I'm still curious. Can you say that Bush was and is truthful about
the reasons the US went to war in Iraq?

First: most of the really good reasons for removing Saddam were things that Bush
as head of state cannot say. And yes, every reason given was valid.

Quoted message said:

And that the US is safer due
to our going to war in Iraq?

Is it sufficient to say that the alternatives were worse? Long term, yes, we're
safer. Safer or not is a variable that fluctuates from week to week and has
since time immemorial.

Quoted message said:

Or are you afraid to say it explicitly
like that?

You'll sputter and pretend it should be obvious that this is all wrong - but I
won't care.

Ron

John Forrest Tomlinson said:

Bill Sornson said:

So what does Flogittodeathlinson do? Completely change the subject.

OK -- let's take that as a working proposition that I have changed the
subject. I think they're related, you don't, but for now let's say
they are.

I'm still curious. Can you say that Bush was and is truthful about
the reasons the US went to war in Iraq? And that the US is safer due
to our going to war in Iraq? Or are you afraid to say it explicitly
like that?

What does that have to do with my response to Doughie Boy, OR my question
about the concerted effort by Clinton, Dems and far left groups to get ABC
to change or cancel its docudrama "The Path to 9-11"? Are you upset by
that? Why? (Or why not?)

BTW, read the authorization to use force some time -- drafted by the
Congress, not Bush.

Only time will tell what the outcome of all this will be -- and I for one
can't help wondering how different if might be if not for the /overt
undermining/ of U.S. interests and efforts. If a Democrat was in the oval
office and the right was doing its damnedest to bring him or her down like
what's going on nowadays, I'll bet you'd be shouting treason from the
rooftops (with the media right behind you). So, yes, it's a lot more
difficult than it should be.

By your questions here and elsewhere, I can't help thinking that you
/really/ hope we fail in the Middle East. Is that true? Is your hated of
GWB such that you're rooting against your own country?

If so, don't feel /too/ bad; you're certainly not alone. Pity.

Sorno

RonSonic said:

John Forrest Tomlinson said:

On Sat, 09 Sep 2006 02:57:54 GMT, "Bill Sornson" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

So what does Flogittodeathlinson do? Completely change the subject.

OK -- let's take that as a working proposition that I have changed
the subject. I think they're related, you don't, but for now let's
say they are.

I'm still curious. Can you say that Bush was and is truthful about
the reasons the US went to war in Iraq?

First: most of the really good reasons for removing Saddam were
things that Bush as head of state cannot say. And yes, every reason
given was valid.

Absolutely right.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

And that the US is safer due
to our going to war in Iraq?

Is it sufficient to say that the alternatives were worse? Long term,
yes, we're safer. Safer or not is a variable that fluctuates from
week to week and has since time immemorial.

Quoted message said:

Or are you afraid to say it explicitly
like that?

You'll sputter and pretend it should be obvious that this is all
wrong - but I won't care.

I don't think he'll engage you in argument, but since *I* replied he'll
attack your points through me.

Probably.

Quoted message said:

Ron

Bill

Bill Sornson said:

John Forrest Tomlinson said:

Bill Sornson said:

So what does Flogittodeathlinson do? Completely change the subject.

OK -- let's take that as a working proposition that I have changed the
subject. I think they're related, you don't, but for now let's say
they are.

I'm still curious. Can you say that Bush was and is truthful about
the reasons the US went to war in Iraq? And that the US is safer due
to our going to war in Iraq? Or are you afraid to say it explicitly
like that?

What does that have to do with my response to Doughie Boy, OR my question
about the concerted effort by Clinton, Dems and far left groups to get ABC
to change or cancel its docudrama "The Path to 9-11"? Are you upset by
that? Why? (Or why not?)

I'm upset by your questions because you neglect (willfully or not) to
mention some right wing people like Bill Bennett who also think the
"Path to 9-11" should be changed.

I'm upset because, insofar as their are other people who think like
you (fewer and fewer, but still a lot) in terms of their simplistic
and often flawed view of US security, it means more deaths for
soldiers, more deaths for Iraquis and less security for the US. Oh,
and $250 million a day spent on something that is hurting our country,
not helping it.

So I've answered your questions.

Now can you answer mine -- Can you say that Bush was and is truthful
about the reasons the US went to war in Iraq and that the US is safer
due to our going to war in Iraq?

JT

--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

RonSonic said:

John Forrest Tomlinson said:

Bill Sornson said:

So what does Flogittodeathlinson do? Completely change the subject.

OK -- let's take that as a working proposition that I have changed the
subject. I think they're related, you don't, but for now let's say
they are.

I'm still curious. Can you say that Bush was and is truthful about
the reasons the US went to war in Iraq?

First: most of the really good reasons for removing Saddam were things that Bush
as head of state cannot say....

US military control over Middle East oil production as a future
economic weapon to be used against Europe and/or China - Do what we
say, or your oil supply gets cut off?

"Full Spectrum Dominance", indeed.

To bad the Iraqi people have decided after centuries of Ottoman rule
followed by British rule, they no longer wish to be a colony of an
empire.

--
Tom Sherman - Behind the Cheddar Curtain

Bill Sornson said:

RonSonic wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

First: most of the really good reasons for removing Saddam were
things that Bush as head of state cannot say.

I'm curious what those things are.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

And yes, every reason
given was valid.

Absolutely right.

OK Sorni has answered that as (close paraphrase here): every reason
Bush gave to go to war was valid.

Great. I'm not saying more -- just want that in the open for the
record.

JT
--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

RonSonic said:

First: most of the really good reasons for removing Saddam were things that Bush
as head of state cannot say.

What a load of [censored]. That's such a classic example of
fascistic/authoritarian tendencies of the neocon Bush supporters, and
something traditonal conservatives, who distrust excess government
power, wouldnt' stand for.

Sure, the President need not be open about particular secrets as soon
as they are available. But in a public policy decision of the
magnitude of the Iraq war he must be open with them with the
legislative leadership and at some point with the public. It's been
long enough that if any such good reasons exist they must be made
public by him and his staff. If it's true that he's not saying them,
then our democracy is in big big trouble.

JT
--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

John Forrest Tomlinson said:

On Fri, 08 Sep 2006 18:33:31 -0700, Mark Hickey <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

results of bipartisan committees showing no tampering
with the intelligence.

Sweet. Say it. Say it.

Can you also say the Iraq war has made the US safer? Say that too. I
just want you fully on record for that.

I'll answer your question if you answer these.

1) Name one war that the US or any other country ever got into that
was based on intelligence that was later proven to be 100% accurate.

2) Where DID the WMD that Saddam admitted having go? There's no
record, so I thought maybe you'd know.

3) Are you saying (for the record - heh - what a concept) that state
sponsorship of brutal anti-US dictatorships is not something we do NOT
have to end (ask Israel about the results of radical regimes financing
terrorist groups if you need some background info).

4) If a democratic Iraq isn't going to be an effective deterrent to
the terrorists, why are they expending so much energy and money and
lives to fight it?

But it's OK JT - I'm sure there were people who thought like you in
the early years of WWII as well - that our involvement was making our
country less safe. And of course, they were right if you shorten the
event horizon sufficiently.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame

On Sat, 09 Sep 2006 06:58:42 -0700, Mark Hickey <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

John Forrest Tomlinson said:

On Fri, 08 Sep 2006 18:33:31 -0700, Mark Hickey <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

results of bipartisan committees showing no tampering
with the intelligence.

Sweet. Say it. Say it.

Can you also say the Iraq war has made the US safer? Say that too. I
just want you fully on record for that.

I'll answer your question if you answer these.

1) Name one war that the US or any other country ever got into that
was based on intelligence that was later proven to be 100% accurate.

100% is an absurdly high standard so the real answer is "I don't
know." But the pacific war with Japan comes close insofar as the
declaration of war with Japan was in response to the bombing of Pearl
Harbor.

Quoted message said:

2) Where DID the WMD that Saddam admitted having go? There's no
record, so I thought maybe you'd know.

I don't know -- I just know they don't exist now. If they existed
they'd have been used by now. If you do you're in a fairy tale land.

Quoted message said:

3) Are you saying (for the record - heh - what a concept) that state
sponsorship of brutal anti-US dictatorships is not something we do NOT
have to end

If the threat to use is remote, or far in the future, or unformed, of
course we don't have to end it. By the standard of belief that we
have to attack any country that is a dictatorships and says it is
against the US, we'd be in war constantly. And that would provoke
more anti-US sentiment and more war. The concept is idiotic and
undermines US security.

Quoted message said:

(ask Israel about the results of radical regimes financing
terrorist groups if you need some background info).

Here's a bonus answer for you: to equate the security situation of
Israel -- a tiny country with many countries in tacit or open hostily
to it on it's border -- with the US, one of the largest countries in
the world with close allies on both border -- is simplistic at best.

Quoted message said:

4) If a democratic Iraq isn't going to be an effective deterrent to
the terrorists, why are they expending so much energy and money and
lives to fight it?

Your question is a tautology.

JT

Quoted message said:

But it's OK JT - I'm sure there were people who thought like you in
the early years of WWII as well - that our involvement was making our
country less safe. And of course, they were right if you shorten the
event horizon sufficiently.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame

--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

What does this have to do with cycling???

Seems like D'oh Boy gets the last laugh by starting this thread that is
inappropriate for this news group. If you guys want to discuss this stuff,
find some political news group.

Bob P.

"John Forrest Tomlinson" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Bill Sornson said:

RonSonic wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

First: most of the really good reasons for removing Saddam were
things that Bush as head of state cannot say.

I'm curious what those things are.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

And yes, every reason
given was valid.

Absolutely right.

OK Sorni has answered that as (close paraphrase here): every reason
Bush gave to go to war was valid.

Great. I'm not saying more -- just want that in the open for the
record.

JT
--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************