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.

Tom Keunich said:

go troll somewhere else

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.

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
home.earthlink.net~jeverett3Open ↗

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) 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
home.earthlink.net~jeverett3Open ↗

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.

americanprogress.orgpp.aspOpen ↗
VF&b=24970

americanprogress.orgpp.aspOpen ↗
228

--
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]-
.net>...

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... <prnewswire.comcgiOpen ↗
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?

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... <prnewswire.comcgiOpen ↗
bin/stories.pl?ACCT=109&STORY=/www/story/05-04-
2004/0002166707&EDATE=>

us.gq.comcontentOpen ↗

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

Stewart, why would you take a piece of biased reporting from
a "reporter" from GQ for crying out loud. Do you propose
that some guy who writes for a magazine that rivals Queer
Eye for the Straight Guy is demonstrating political
astuteness?

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

Quoted message 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...

<prnewswire.comcgiOpen ↗
bin/stories.pl?ACCT=109&STORY=/www/story/05-0 4-
2004/0002166707&EDATE=>

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...?

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!

"Tom Kunich" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:SF-
[email hidden]... (snip)

Quoted message said:

3d) There was a threat of invasion that lasted many
months. During this

time

Quoted message said:

it was made plain to the staff of Saddam Hussein's
military that should

they

Quoted message said:

be found in possession of WMD they were all be liable for
the death

penalty

Quoted message said:

under UN regulations. More months passed. CIA and other
intelligence services noted a very large number of heavy
trucks moving from the areas

in

Quoted message said:

which it was believed that WMD were being produced or
stored and the

Syrian

Quoted message said:

border.

Do you really think that a nation threatened by a immenent
invasion will bury it most deadly weapons in the sand or
export them to another country? Sadam was undoubtedly a
lousy strategist, but even he couldn't have been that
stupid. He had used chemical and biological weapons against
the Kurds and the Iranians, he would have used them against
the Americans and British as well. Or do you think he
suddenly had got religion? He or his military staff
certainly couldn't have been afraid of a "death penalty
under UN regulations", because there isn't such a thing. And
besides, in the meantime most Iraqi leaders have been
caught. So do you really think the USA still wouldn't know
where to look for those famous "hidden WMD's"? Or do you
think the Americans are too soft on interrogation
techniques?

Benjo Maso