George Bush is Right

This is a cycling group... keep your political antics to yourself.

--
Christie J. Beegle
"Tom Keunich" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

to have known that Saddam Hussein was an imminent threat.

If not for President Bush's brave actions, we would all have been
subjected to one of the greatest perils known to the history of
mankind.

This war isn't cheap, but Armageddon would have been infinitely more
expensive.

Tnank God for G.W. Bush and his neocons.

THIS IS A CYCLING GROUP. GO TROLL SOMEWHERE ELSE.

PLONK

"Tom Keunich" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

to have known that Saddam Hussein was an imminent threat.

If not for President Bush's brave actions, we would all have been
subjected to one of the greatest perils known to the history of
mankind.

This war isn't cheap, but Armageddon would have been infinitely more
expensive.

Tnank God for G.W. Bush and his neocons.

Tom Keunich said:

go troll somewhere else

On 2 May 2004 22:14:46 -0700, [email hidden] (Tom Keunich)

Quoted message said:

to have known that Saddam Hussein was an imminent threat.

If not for President Bush's brave actions, we would all have been
subjected to one of the greatest perils known to the history of
mankind.

This war isn't cheap, but Armageddon would have been infinitely more
expensive.

Tnank God for G.W. Bush and his neocons.

Good one. ;-)

My news server has already received three responses from people who
just haven't gotten it. There will probably be more.

jeverett3<AT>earthlink<DOT>net http://home.earthlink.net/~jeverett3

Christie B. said:

This is a cycling group... keep your political antics to yourself.

You're just a little too late.

For crying out loud. There is a thread with 100 messages in it about
political stuff that's been going on for days. This guy trolls and everyone
wants to get righteous about it?

Don't get me wrong, I'd much rather read about cycling, the politics just
gives me a headache.

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

Quoted message said:

On 2 May 2004 22:14:46 -0700, [email hidden] (Tom Keunich)

Quoted message said:

to have known that Saddam Hussein was an imminent threat.

If not for President Bush's brave actions, we would all have been
subjected to one of the greatest perils known to the history of
mankind.

This war isn't cheap, but Armageddon would have been infinitely more
expensive.

Tnank God for G.W. Bush and his neocons.

Good one. ;-)

My news server has already received three responses from people who
just haven't gotten it. There will probably be more.

jeverett3<AT>earthlink<DOT>net http://home.earthlink.net/~jeverett3

Quoted message said:

From: "Randy Walton" [email hidden]

Quoted message said:

For crying out loud. There is a thread with 100 messages in it about
political stuff that's been going on for days. This guy trolls and everyone
wants to get righteous about it?

I'm one of the major contributing criminals to the political threads. If you
haven't noticed there is almost always one going here. It seems to keep all the
[censored] from infecting all the other threads. Wheteher anyone wants to admit it
there's more educated intelligence here than in half of the newsgroups combined
so it makes for some good discussion.
Besides Lance is a buddy of GW, and as we see Kerry rides a bike so bring it
on.
Bill C

Bush never said Hussein was an "imminent threat". He stated that something
has to be done before the threat is imminent.
If you wait until an attack is launched, you are going to lose people before
you can respond.

"Tom Keunich" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

to have known that Saddam Hussein was an imminent threat.

If not for President Bush's brave actions, we would all have been
subjected to one of the greatest perils known to the history of
mankind.

This war isn't cheap, but Armageddon would have been infinitely more
expensive.

Tnank God for G.W. Bush and his neocons.

In article <[email hidden]>,

Sam said:

Bush never said Hussein was an "imminent threat". He stated that something
has to be done before the threat is imminent.
If you wait until an attack is launched, you are going to lose people before
you can respond.

http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=24970

http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=6228

--
tanx,
Howard

"Moby [censored] was a work of art, What the hell happened?"

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

"Sam" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Bush never said Hussein was an "imminent threat". He stated that something
has to be done before the threat is imminent.
If you wait until an attack is launched, you are going to lose people before
you can respond.

There's actually quite a paradox in here that you've glossed over with
your misunderstanding of the English language.

"Imminent" means about to happen, not that an attack has already been
launched.

Now, here's the paradox: Under international law it is clearly
permissible to defend yourself if you are attacked by a foreign power
(obviously not applicable to this Iraq War). It is permissible to
launch a pre-emptive attack if the threat from the foreign power is
imminent. So, if Bush didn't use the word "imminent" (or equivalent)
in justifying the war on Iraq, he attacked Iraq illegally and is
therefore guilty of crimes against humanity and should be impeached
and sent to the Hague to stand trial. OTOH, if he did use the word
"imminent" (or equivalent) he is either a liar (about its imminence)
or just plain full of [censored].

JP

On 4 May 2004 11:05:43 -0700, [email hidden] (JP)

Quoted message said:

So, if Bush didn't use the word "imminent" (or equivalent)
in justifying the war on Iraq, he attacked Iraq illegally and is
therefore guilty of crimes against humanity and should be impeached
and sent to the Hague to stand trial.

International law is not that simple, nor does it have just one set of
reasons for starting a war. First of all, it would fail for the simple
reason that the declaration of war was a decade ago and for relatively
straight forward reasons. What has existed since is a cease fire that
was violated by Iraq on an ongoing basis. The Bush administration was
inept for not simply saying that Hussein had violated the cease fire
too many times and a state of hostilities has resumed.

That's largely the same reason the North Koreans didn't have to
explain hacking some U.S. servicemen to death in the demilitarized
zone some years ago.

Second of all, there is a basis for invading when a state refuses to
abide by the standards of international law and poses a continuing
threat to other nations. That is a rather badly abused basis that has
been used by the honest and the sanctimonius and those just looking
for a reason, but it remains a valid basis. Imminent has nothing to do
with it.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

[email hidden] (JP) wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

"Sam" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Bush never said Hussein was an "imminent threat". He stated that something
has to be done before the threat is imminent.
If you wait until an attack is launched, you are going to lose people before
you can respond.

There's actually quite a paradox in here that you've glossed over with
your misunderstanding of the English language.

"Imminent" means about to happen, not that an attack has already been
launched.

Now, here's the paradox: Under international law it is clearly
permissible to defend yourself if you are attacked by a foreign power
(obviously not applicable to this Iraq War). It is permissible to
launch a pre-emptive attack if the threat from the foreign power is
imminent. So, if Bush didn't use the word "imminent" (or equivalent)
in justifying the war on Iraq, he attacked Iraq illegally and is
therefore guilty of crimes against humanity and should be impeached
and sent to the Hague to stand trial. OTOH, if he did use the word
"imminent" (or equivalent) he is either a liar (about its imminence)
or just plain full of [censored].

JP

However you feel about it, it's best to look at the facts.

1) It was a hard sell, Saddam Hussein posed an immenent danger with
WMD
2) Weapons inspectors could find nothing, UN urged patience to let
them do their job.
3) The lack of WMD finds was characterized as evidence of how crafty
Saddam's people were.
4) Invasion
5) No weapons found, only old junk left to rust out in the desert.
6) Bush asked for more time, urging patience in finding WMD
7) Still no WMD, so other excuses are paraded for public approval:
Saddam evil, etc.
8) What pretty much everyone who had any sense could see happened, is
happening, the country is descending into chaos.
9) It's now a meatgrinder, slowly working its way through coalition
troups, exposing scandals, creating friction with the locals.

Consider this: If Bush really was a competent leader, would he want
to remain in charge of this mess or pass it off to some other schmuck?

"Richard Adams" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

[email hidden] (JP) wrote in message

news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

"Sam" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Bush never said Hussein was an "imminent threat". He stated that

something

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

has to be done before the threat is imminent.
If you wait until an attack is launched, you are going to lose people

before

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

you can respond.

There's actually quite a paradox in here that you've glossed over with
your misunderstanding of the English language.

"Imminent" means about to happen, not that an attack has already been
launched.

Now, here's the paradox: Under international law it is clearly
permissible to defend yourself if you are attacked by a foreign power
(obviously not applicable to this Iraq War). It is permissible to
launch a pre-emptive attack if the threat from the foreign power is
imminent. So, if Bush didn't use the word "imminent" (or equivalent)
in justifying the war on Iraq, he attacked Iraq illegally and is
therefore guilty of crimes against humanity and should be impeached
and sent to the Hague to stand trial. OTOH, if he did use the word
"imminent" (or equivalent) he is either a liar (about its imminence)
or just plain full of [censored].

JP

However you feel about it, it's best to look at the facts.

1) It was a hard sell, Saddam Hussein posed an immenent danger with
WMD
2) Weapons inspectors could find nothing, UN urged patience to let
them do their job.
3) The lack of WMD finds was characterized as evidence of how crafty
Saddam's people were.

Notice how cleverly you left out the steps between 3 and 5.

3a) UN Weapons inspectors in fact found plenty of evidence that there HAD
been WMD at inspection sights in including such ruses as being held at the
front gate while large trucks were hurriedly leaving the rear gate. Many,
many incidents of this type were recorded.

3b) UN Weapons inspectors were thrown out of Iraq when it looked like they
were closing in on something.

3c) Machinery and chemicals necessary for the production of WMD were in fact
sold illegally by companies in Germany to Iraq and delivered there. Strange
that these items were never found either.

3d) There was a threat of invasion that lasted many months. During this time
it was made plain to the staff of Saddam Hussein's military that should they
be found in possession of WMD they were all be liable for the death penalty
under UN regulations. More months passed. CIA and other intelligence
services noted a very large number of heavy trucks moving from the areas in
which it was believed that WMD were being produced or stored and the Syrian
border. Also Syria appeared to be getting altogether too much oil from Iraq
to pay for the "food for oil" programs that we now know included payoffs to
the controlling UN officials to the tune of some $6 billion!

Quoted message said:

4) Invasion
5) No weapons found, only old junk left to rust out in the desert.

5a) In fact, weapons inspectors have claimed that there was significant
evidence that there had been WMD experimentation and possibly large scale
production.

Quoted message said:

6) Bush asked for more time, urging patience in finding WMD
7) Still no WMD, so other excuses are paraded for public approval:
Saddam evil, etc.

7a) US Liberals tell us that they only way they will believe that is if a
large scale biological attack is made on a major American city and hopefully
millions die since anything less couldn't possibly be considered "mass
destruction".

Quoted message said:

8) What pretty much everyone who had any sense could see happened, is
happening, the country is descending into chaos.

8a) Since Liberals refuse to actually talk to the people on the ground in
Iraq they want to believe the news outlets as if they were trying to provide
a balanced outlook. It sort of reminds one of the Loma Prieta Earthquake in
California some 15 years ago. Almost the entire world believed that the bay
area was in ruins and that San Francisco was in flames. That the Bay Bridge
was destroyed and that thousands of people were killed.

In truth, one section of the upper level of the Bay Bridge was pulled off of
it's support beams because of faulty bolts that hadn't been upgraded as had
been recommended in an engineering report. This caused the death of one
idiot driver who paniced and drove over the break at a high rate of speed.
There were some fires and seriously damaged houses in the Marina district of
San Francisco due to people knocking out the support columns under their
houses in order to install garages in houses that were never designed to
have them. These structures collapsing broke gas pipes and led to some fires
that were controlled by the SFFD. One section of skyway freeway in Oakland
collapsed. What was ABSOLYUTELY hidden was the fact that these sections had
been put up by "construction" firms connected to organized crime and were
NOT designed to specification. Less than half of the steel specified was
present in the construction. The same union connected firms built similar
sections in San Francisco which were quietly torn down and no one ever
mentioned the corruption and the colussion of the media ever again.

But we're supposed to believe that Iraq is in total turmoil regardless of
what the majority of Iraqis are saying.

Quoted message said:

9) It's now a meatgrinder, slowly working its way through coalition
troups, exposing scandals, creating friction with the locals.

Consider this: If Bush really was a competent leader, would he want
to remain in charge of this mess or pass it off to some other schmuck?

Tom Kunich said:

"Richard Adams" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

[email hidden] (JP) wrote in message

news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

"Sam" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>Bush never said Hussein was an "imminent threat". He stated that

something

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>has to be done before the threat is imminent.
>If you wait until an attack is launched, you are going to lose people

before

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>you can respond.

There's actually quite a paradox in here that you've glossed over with
your misunderstanding of the English language.

"Imminent" means about to happen, not that an attack has already been
launched.

Now, here's the paradox: Under international law it is clearly
permissible to defend yourself if you are attacked by a foreign power
(obviously not applicable to this Iraq War). It is permissible to
launch a pre-emptive attack if the threat from the foreign power is
imminent. So, if Bush didn't use the word "imminent" (or equivalent)
in justifying the war on Iraq, he attacked Iraq illegally and is
therefore guilty of crimes against humanity and should be impeached
and sent to the Hague to stand trial. OTOH, if he did use the word
"imminent" (or equivalent) he is either a liar (about its imminence)
or just plain full of [censored].

JP

However you feel about it, it's best to look at the facts.

1) It was a hard sell, Saddam Hussein posed an immenent danger with
WMD
2) Weapons inspectors could find nothing, UN urged patience to let
them do their job.
3) The lack of WMD finds was characterized as evidence of how crafty
Saddam's people were.

Notice how cleverly you left out the steps between 3 and 5.

Nope, left step 4 right where it ought to be.

Quoted message said:

3a) UN Weapons inspectors in fact found plenty of evidence that there HAD
been WMD at inspection sights in including such ruses as being held at the
front gate while large trucks were hurriedly leaving the rear gate. Many,
many incidents of this type were recorded.

And when they did go around some of these very sites checking the soil
for traces of chemical weapons or those compounds which would be used in
the production of such weapons little was found and much of it was from
some time in the past.

Quoted message said:

3b) UN Weapons inspectors were thrown out of Iraq when it looked like they
were closing in on something.

Was this the famous "being thrown out of Iraq because US members of the
team were caught spying" close to something? I remember that bit pretty
well and was pretty sore about it. Nothing like planting a few spooks
in the inspection team as a measure of good faith. It was like asking
for them to get the boot.

There was the matter of finding the boxes of nuclear research documents
hidden in one of the palaces, but still so much paper isn't quite the
same as a fully functional nuclear warhead on an Al-Hussein missile
aimed at Tel Aviv.

Quoted message said:

3c) Machinery and chemicals necessary for the production of WMD were in fact
sold illegally by companies in Germany to Iraq and delivered there. Strange
that these items were never found either.

Yes, the US gave Saddam lots of fun bugs to play with, too. All this
was a long time ago. When it was readily apparent that Saddam did use
chemicals on Iran the US heroically stood by and did nothing, then while
Saddam's army dumped chemical weapons on the Kurds, the US also
heroically stood by and did nothing. There were solid grounds for
pummeling Baghdad, and the world would have to have agreed it was
justified. Yet, all this stuff for making weapons was sold long ago and
what was left that could be found was junked, long before the invasion.

Quoted message said:

3d) There was a threat of invasion that lasted many months. During this time
it was made plain to the staff of Saddam Hussein's military that should they
be found in possession of WMD they were all be liable for the death penalty
under UN regulations.

Yet they posessed none and said so, so they should have had nothing to fear.

Quoted message said:

More months passed. CIA and other intelligence
services noted a very large number of heavy trucks moving from the areas in
which it was believed that WMD were being produced or stored and the Syrian
border.

Large trucks could be transporting WMD, or Saddam's treasures or pretty
much anything. What could have been, what might have been, and the CIA
even admitted their intelligence from that area was spotty and they had
to rely on exiles with their own agendas. (So bad it was that the CIA
vented more than once that these people could even corroborate each
other's stories.)

Quoted message said:

Also Syria appeared to be getting altogether too much oil from Iraq
to pay for the "food for oil" programs that we now know included payoffs to
the controlling UN officials to the tune of some $6 billion!

Well, that's good enough reason right there, a few bad apples condemn
the whole barrel. Kill em all and let God sort 'em out.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

4) Invasion
5) No weapons found, only old junk left to rust out in the desert.

5a) In fact, weapons inspectors have claimed that there was significant
evidence that there had been WMD experimentation and possibly large scale
production.

Years ago. Best estimates to date are that all the stuff they had were
disposed of by the late 90's.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

6) Bush asked for more time, urging patience in finding WMD
7) Still no WMD, so other excuses are paraded for public approval:
Saddam evil, etc.

7a) US Liberals tell us that they only way they will believe that is if a
large scale biological attack is made on a major American city and hopefully
millions die since anything less couldn't possibly be considered "mass
destruction".

Blah blah rant liberals rave blah blah rant blah fume, etc. You should
read Clarke's book. Oh, wait, he's someone with more experience and
background on the subject than anyone else in the world, he must be
wrong too.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

8) What pretty much everyone who had any sense could see happened, is
happening, the country is descending into chaos.

8a) Since Liberals refuse to actually

You don't appear to have a firm grasp of what a "liberal" is. With that
in mind, I doubt you even have a firm grasp of conservatism, or the
roots of either the Democratic or the Republican party. You just like
to throw the word out like some automatic qualifier of someone who
disagrees with your point as wrong, and not just wrong, but bad bad
naughty wrong. Cripes. Get a grip.

[large pointless harangue snipped]

Quoted message said:

But we're supposed to believe that Iraq is in total turmoil regardless of
what the majority of Iraqis are saying.

Yeah. It's unstable and getting more so. There are quiet spots, but
the problem is Saddam did leave one little gift, a large number of
stockpiles of small arms, RPGs, etc. hidden around the Sunni Triangle.
Today's mess is nothing compared to the civil war which will eventually
erupt. Some strong man or strong willed party (lead by someone like
Saddam or that Sadr cleric) will seize control and it'll be headaches
for decades to follow. And of course they'll hate us.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

9) It's now a meatgrinder, slowly working its way through coalition
troups, exposing scandals, creating friction with the locals.

Consider this: If Bush really was a competent leader, would he want
to remain in charge of this mess or pass it off to some other schmuck?

Richard Adams said:

Consider this: If Bush really was a competent leader, would he want
to remain in charge of this mess or pass it off to some other schmuck?

Powell seems to have decided...
<http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=109&STORY=/www/story/05-04-2004/0002166707&EDATE=>

Tom, this is what I was getting at in an earlier thread about how an
otherwise honorable man can lie for his country. There is a limit.

How much would it take for Ari Fleischer to write his memoirs, I wonder...?

In article <[email hidden]>,

Tom Kunich said:

"Richard Adams" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

However you feel about it, it's best to look at the facts.

1) It was a hard sell, Saddam Hussein posed an immenent danger with
WMD
2) Weapons inspectors could find nothing, UN urged patience to let
them do their job.
3) The lack of WMD finds was characterized as evidence of how crafty
Saddam's people were.

Notice how cleverly you left out the steps between 3 and 5.

3a) UN Weapons inspectors in fact found plenty of evidence that there HAD
been WMD at inspection sights in including such ruses as being held at the
front gate while large trucks were hurriedly leaving the rear gate. Many,
many incidents of this type were recorded.

So they were able to pack all their stuff up and move it "out the back
gate" - how long would this take, Tom? The inspections going on before the
invasion were surprise - they'd pick out a site and charge over to it, no
warning. The inspectors reported in the media that they felt they had full
cooperation. They had a mandate to go after any suspicious thing - they
would have gone after any vehicle going out back gates.

Quoted message said:

3b) UN Weapons inspectors were thrown out of Iraq when it looked like they
were closing in on something.

Are you talking about in the late '90s? Or more recently, like right
before the invasion? If the latter, then please do recall that the
inspectors were, in fact, still in Iraq the day before the bombs started to
drop. As for the earlier one, they actually left on their own after having
been caught spying, not inspecting. Yes, Tom, the team over there back then
was not entirely on the up-and-up.

Quoted message said:

3c) Machinery and chemicals necessary for the production of WMD were in fact
sold illegally by companies in Germany to Iraq and delivered there. Strange
that these items were never found either.

Much of that equipment had more uses than just weapons. By the way, US
companies also were involved in the sale of equipment, moving stuff through
foreign subsidiaries (which were no more than freight forwarders at that
point).

Quoted message said:

3d) There was a threat of invasion that lasted many months. During this time
it was made plain to the staff of Saddam Hussein's military that should they
be found in possession of WMD they were all be liable for the death penalty
under UN regulations. More months passed. CIA and other intelligence
services noted a very large number of heavy trucks moving from the areas in
which it was believed that WMD were being produced or stored and the Syrian
border.

There's no proof of what was in any trucks, is there?

Quoted message said:

Also Syria appeared to be getting altogether too much oil from Iraq
to pay for the "food for oil" programs that we now know included payoffs to
the controlling UN officials to the tune of some $6 billion!

"We now know..." Tom, those are what are called "allegations". Who is
making these allegations? Hmmm, could it be... Ahmed Chalabi? Why, YES!!!!
No credible neutral agency has seen the documents he purports to have on
this. But let's look at the history of Mr. Chalabi. He was convicted in
absentia in Jordan years ago for bank fraud (on the order of about $200m).
(Of course, he got himself the position of "Finance Minister" in the IGC.
Fox in the henhouse?) He ran the Iraqi Nat'l Congress out of London, and
was the golden boy of the Pentagon to take over Iraq after the war was
over. He and the INC are the prime movers of intel and reports that the
Pentagon used to argue its case for the war. But the intel community always
had very serious doubts about their stuff - they repeatedly said the
sources were unreliable, at best. INC supplied most of the info about
chem, biological and nuclear weapons before the war - none have been found
as they described it. In fact, none have been found at all.

But wait, it gets better! The CIA had a coup set up in '96 that was
blown - they believe it was blown by Chalabi because it didn't involve him.
The Jordanians have supplied the US with phone intercepts that show that
Chalabi had prior knowledge of the bombing of the Jordanian embassy on
August 7, 2003. He chose not to pass that info along. At the moment, there
are grave suspicions that Chalabi and his aides have been passing highly
sensitive info about US security ops to the Iranians.

So why should anyone believe a damn thing Ahmed Chalabi says about
"payoffs to UN officials"? He had an agenda all along - that was to see
himself in power. His quote? "As far as we¹re concerned we¹ve been entirely
successful. That tyrant Saddam is gone and the Americans are in Baghdad.
What was said before is not important." In other words, he got the US to do
his dirty work, and it didn't matter what [censored] story he told to get
them to do it. The INC, by the way, gets paid $340K per month to tell lies.
Our tax payer dollars at work...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

4) Invasion
5) No weapons found, only old junk left to rust out in the desert.

5a) In fact, weapons inspectors have claimed that there was significant
evidence that there had been WMD experimentation and possibly large scale
production.

In fact, not. Ask David Kay. "Among the closely held internal judgments
of the Iraq Survey Group, overseen by David Kay as special representative
of CIA Director George J. Tenet, are that Iraq's nuclear weapons scientists
did no significant arms-related work after 1991, that facilities with
suspicious new construction proved benign, and that equipment of potential
use to a nuclear program remained under seal or in civilian industrial use."

Further:
"I'm personally convinced that there were not large stockpiles of newly
produced weapons of mass destruction," Kay told the New York Times. "We
don't find the people, the documents or the physical plants that you would
expect to find if the production was going on. I think they gradually
reduced stockpiles throughout the 1990's. Somewhere in the mid-1990's the
large chemical overhang of existing stockpiles was eliminated. The Iraqis
say the they believed that [the UN inspection system] was more effective
[than U.S. analysts believed it was], and they didn't want to get caught."

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

6) Bush asked for more time, urging patience in finding WMD
7) Still no WMD, so other excuses are paraded for public approval:
Saddam evil, etc.

7a) US Liberals tell us that they only way they will believe that is if a
large scale biological attack is made on a major American city and hopefully
millions die since anything less couldn't possibly be considered "mass
destruction".

Tom, this is your presentation of what you believe the evil "Liberals"
you so despise might say. Your statement, of course, has no basis in fact,
or, indeed, reality.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

8) What pretty much everyone who had any sense could see happened, is
happening, the country is descending into chaos.

8a) Since Liberals refuse to actually talk to the people on the ground in
Iraq they want to believe the news outlets as if they were trying to provide
a balanced outlook.

You rely on Fox as a media source. Say no more.

Quoted message said:

It sort of reminds one of the Loma Prieta Earthquake in California some

(snipper of biblical proportions)

What the hell are you talking about?

Quoted message said:

But we're supposed to believe that Iraq is in total turmoil regardless of
what the majority of Iraqis are saying.

No one has said it's in "total turmoil", but it is heading that way. And
the reports I read have comments from ranking civilian and military people
who say the majority of Iraqis are NOT happy with things as of right now.
Which is one reason why the non-Iraqis are moving into smaller, more
heavily armed compounds. The pictures of the Abu Ghraib abuse is a huge
thing over there - do you think that is winning any "hearts and minds"? I'm
still waiting for the showers of flowers to happen, Tom.

<http://www.irak.be/ned/nieuws/fallujah7.jpg>

--
tanx,
Howard

"Moby [censored] was a work of art, What the hell happened?"

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

Quoted message said:

From: Stewart Fleming [email hidden]

http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=109&STORY=/www/story/05-
04-2004/0002166707&EDATE=

Stewart that was a really good piece, right until we got to the last line
there for no apparent reason other than promoting a politival agenda is a
comment on Cyba.
Don't know if you've noticed all the coverage in the BBC but the rest of the
planet seems to be finally admitting that Castro isn't a great hero. It's
ranked as one of the three least free nations for the press. Mexico has just
pulled their ambassador.
I really have to question why he would screw up a really powerfull on target
piece like this by tossing a flag that say I am biased.
Bill C

On 05/04/2004 10:53 PM, in article [email hidden],

Stewart Fleming said:

Richard Adams said:

Consider this: If Bush really was a competent leader, would he want
to remain in charge of this mess or pass it off to some other schmuck?

Powell seems to have decided...
<http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=109&STORY=/www/story/05-04-
2004/0002166707&EDATE=>

http://us.gq.com/plus/content/?040429plco_01

The actual article mentioned in the press release.

Quoted message said:

Tom, this is what I was getting at in an earlier thread about how an
otherwise honorable man can lie for his country. There is a limit.

How much would it take for Ari Fleischer to write his memoirs, I wonder...?

--
Steven L. Sheffield
stevens at veloworks dot com
veloworks at worldnet dot ay tea tee dot net
bellum pax est libertas servitus est ignoratio vis est
ess ay ell tea ell ay kay ee sea aye tee why you ti ay aitch
aitch tee tea pea colon [for word] slash [four ward] slash double-you
double-yew double-ewe dot veloworks dot com [four word] slash

You tell me Howard, how long would it take to load up a tanker truck full of
binary gas agent?

I do see your point, Saddam was buying up specialized equipment used in the
making of weapons so that he could use it to make fertilizer.

And you answer that what Chalabi says is allegations while planting another
entire set of allegations. Howard, Howard, Howard!