OT: Rummy admits that U.S. troops could be in Iraq more than a decade...

Religions > Atheism > OT: Rummy admits that U.S. troops could be in Iraq more than a decade...

LINK TO THIS PAGE

rating : 0 | 0

Page 1 of 8

Topic:	Religions > Atheism
User:	"Andres64"
Date:	26 Jun 2005 08:31:20 PM
Object:	OT: Rummy admits that U.S. troops could be in Iraq more than a decade...

Rumsfeld: Insurgency Could Last for Years By NEDRA PICKLER, Associated
Press Writer
19 minutes ago
Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said Sunday he is bracing for even
more violence in Iraq and acknowledged that the insurgency "could go on
for any number of years."
Defeating the insurgency may take as long as 12 years, he said, with
Iraqi security forces, not U.S. and foreign troops, taking the lead and
finishing the job.
The assessment comes on the heels of the latest Associated Press-Ipsos
poll showing public doubts about the war reaching a high point - with
more than half saying that invading Iraq was a mistake.
The top U.S. commander in the Middle East appealed for public support
of the soldiers and their mission. "We don't need to fight this war
looking over our shoulder worrying about the support back home," Gen.
John Abizaid told CNN's "Late Edition."
In a deadly week for U.S. forces, an ambush on a convoy carrying female
troops killed four Marines, including at least one woman. At least
1,735 members of the U.S. military have died since the war started in
March 2003, according to an AP count.
On Sunday, bombings in Mosul and elsewhere in Iraq killed at least 38
people.
Rumsfeld, making the rounds of the Sunday talk shows, said insurgents
want to disrupt the democratic transformation as Iraqi leaders draft a
constitution and plan for elections in December to choose a full-term
government.
"I would anticipate you're going to see an escalation of violence
between now and the December elections," the Pentagon chief told NBC's
"Meet the Press." And after then, it will take a long time to drive out
insurgents.
"Insurgencies tend to go on five, six, eight, 10, 12 years," Rumsfeld
said on "Fox News Sunday."
"Coalition forces, foreign forces are not going to repress that
insurgency. We're going to create an environment that the Iraqi people
and the Iraqi security forces can win against that insurgency," he
said.
A British newspaper reported Sunday that American officials recently
met secretly with Iraqi insurgent commanders north of Baghdad to try to
negotiate an end to the bloodshed.
Speaking generally, Rumsfeld said those kind of meetings "go on all the
time" and that Iraqis "will decide what their relationships with
various elements of insurgents will be. We facilitate those from time
to time."
Abizaid said U.S. and Iraqi officials "are looking for the right people
in the Sunni community to talk to ... and clearly we know that the vast
majority of the insurgents are from the Sunni Arab community. It makes
sense to talk to them."
Echoing Rumsfeld, Abizaid made clear that "we're not going to
compromise" with Iraq's most-wanted terrorist, Jordanian-born Abu Musab
al-Zarqawi.
The contacts, the Pentagon leaders said, were intended to make it
easier for the Shiite-led government to reach out to minority Sunnis.
The strength of the violent opposition to the U.S.-led coalition since
the invasion in March 2003 has raised questions about whether the Bush
administration understood that such a sustained reaction was possible.
Sen. Carl Levin (news, bio, voting record), D-Mich., stressed that he
and other critics of Bush's Iraq policy are determined to show their
support for American soldiers in Iraq. At the same time, "we're also
determined to be constructive critics of the policies which not only
sent them there, as unequipped, and without international support, and
without plans for the aftermath," he said.
Before the war, Vice President ***** Cheney predicted that Iraqis freed
from Saddam Hussein's rule would greet American troops as liberators.
Rumsfeld said Sunday he gave President Bush a list of about 15 things
"that could go terribly, terribly wrong before the war started."
He said they included Iraq's oil wells being set on fire; mass refugees
and relocations; blown-up bridges; and a moat of oil around Baghdad,
the capital.
"So a great many of the bad things that could have happened did not
happen," Rumsfeld said.
Asked if his list included the possibility of such a strong insurgency,
Rumsfeld said: "I don't remember whether that was on there, but
certainly it was discussed."
Rumsfeld said Iraq's security forces have gained respect among Iraqis.
He suggested insurgents' ability to kill in large numbers did not
indicate a decline in public support for efforts by the U.S. and Iraqi
governments, or that political, economic and security progress has been
lacking.
"It doesn't take a genius to go blow up a restaurant or attack a police
station, a suicide bomber. You can kill - a kid with a suicide vest
can kill a lot of people," Rumsfeld said.
"Does that mean that the population is 'going south' and there's no
plan and no progress? No, it doesn't mean that at all," he said.
Rumsfeld defended Cheney's recent statement that the insurgents are in
their "last throes," saying there are many ways to measure their
strength.
"If you look up 'last throes,' it can mean a violent last throe,"
Rumsfeld said on ABC's "This Week." Violence may escalate, he said,
because insurgents "have so much to lose between now and December." he
said.
With some lawmakers urging the president to set a timetable for
bringing U.S. troops home, Abizaid said Americans "need to be patient."
In both Afghanistan and Iraq, Abizaid said, each country's security
forces will take on more of the burden as they become more capable. He
predicted that Iraqi security forces would take the lead in fighting
insurgents by next spring or summer.
"That doesn't mean that I'm saying we'll come home by then," Abizaid
told CBS' "Face the Nation."
"We'll have to judge how they're doing, how the political process is,
how the situation is abroad," he added.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050626/ap_on_re_mi_ea/us_iraq&printer=1;_ylt=AqTPSlCsaRzPhf60FLPi6zYUewgF;_ylu=X3oDMTA3MXN1bHE0BHNlYwN0bWE-
.

User: "Bill Bonde by a commodius vicus of"
Title: Re: OT: Rummy admits that U.S. troops could be in Iraq more than adecade...	27 Jun 2005 05:09:49 AM

Andres64 wrote:

So that sounds like the honest assessment vs the Clinton claim that the
US would be on the ground in the Balkans for one year, it's still there.
--
"What do you value in your bulldogs? Gripping, is it not? It's their
nature? It's why you breed them? It's so with men. I will not give in
because I oppose it. Not my pride, not my spleen, nor any other of my
appetites, but *I* do. Is there in the midst of all this muscle no
single sinew that serves no appetite of Norfolk's but is just Norfolk?
Give that some exercise. Because, as you stand, you'll go before your
Maker ill-conditioned. He'll think that somewhere along your pedigree, a
***** got over the wall."
-+Paul Scofield, "A Man For All Seasons"
.

User: "Clave"
Title: Re: OT: Rummy admits that U.S. troops could be in Iraq more than a decade...	27 Jun 2005 05:26:15 AM

"Bill Bonde ('by a commodius vicus of recirculation')"
<antonchekhov@unclevanya.com.ru> wrote in message
news:1119849165.75c7ce5cce0272f07658bf97a001a191@teranews...

Andres64 wrote:

So that sounds like the honest assessment vs the Clinton claim that the
US would be on the ground in the Balkans for one year, it's still there.

That's mendacious on so many levels.
Jim
.

User: "Bill Bonde by a commodius vicus of"
Title: Re: OT: Rummy admits that U.S. troops could be in Iraq more than adecade...	27 Jun 2005 05:36:24 AM

Clave wrote:

"Bill Bonde ('by a commodius vicus of recirculation')"
<antonchekhov@unclevanya.com.ru> wrote in message
news:1119849165.75c7ce5cce0272f07658bf97a001a191@teranews...

Andres64 wrote:

So that sounds like the honest assessment vs the Clinton claim that the
US would be on the ground in the Balkans for one year, it's still there.

That's mendacious on so many levels.

Name one level.
--
"He's asking if you killed Freddie Miles and then killed Dickie
Greenleaf."
"No, I did not kill Freddie Miles and then kill Dickie Greenleaf."
-+Thomas Ripley using Bill Clinton logic, "The Talented Mr Ripley"
.

User: "Clave"
Title: Re: OT: Rummy admits that U.S. troops could be in Iraq more than a decade...	27 Jun 2005 06:14:46 AM

"Bill Bonde ('by a commodius vicus of recirculation')" <prepend@postpend.net.ru>
wrote in message news:1119850331.f740f02ea89d8acd77fed82ec56c9344@teranews...

Clave wrote:

"Bill Bonde ('by a commodius vicus of recirculation')"
<antonchekhov@unclevanya.com.ru> wrote in message
news:1119849165.75c7ce5cce0272f07658bf97a001a191@teranews...

Andres64 wrote:

So that sounds like the honest assessment vs the Clinton claim that the
US would be on the ground in the Balkans for one year, it's still there.

That's mendacious on so many levels.

Name one level.

Let's start with your retarded syntax. Or perhaps it's your retarded
punctuation. Either way, you insinuate stuff in a sentence that really doesn't
wind up meaning anything other than "I'm a GOP meme-conveyor."
Thanks for asking.
Jim
.

User: "Rick"
Title: Re: OT: Rummy admits that U.S. troops could be in Iraq more than a decade...	27 Jun 2005 09:28:40 AM

Clave wrote in message ...

"Bill Bonde ('by a commodius vicus of recirculation')"

<prepend@postpend.net.ru>

wrote in message

news:1119850331.f740f02ea89d8acd77fed82ec56c9344@teranews...

Clave wrote:

"Bill Bonde ('by a commodius vicus of recirculation')"
<antonchekhov@unclevanya.com.ru> wrote in message
news:1119849165.75c7ce5cce0272f07658bf97a001a191@teranews...

Andres64 wrote:

Rumsfeld: Insurgency Could Last for Years By NEDRA PICKLER,

Associated

Press Writer

19 minutes ago

Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said Sunday he is bracing for

even

more violence in Iraq and acknowledged that the insurgency "could go

for any number of years."

So that sounds like the honest assessment vs the Clinton claim that

the

US would be on the ground in the Balkans for one year, it's still

there.

That's mendacious on so many levels.

Name one level.

Let's start with your retarded syntax. Or perhaps it's your retarded
punctuation. Either way, you insinuate stuff in a sentence that really

doesn't

wind up meaning anything other than "I'm a GOP meme-conveyor."

Thanks for asking.

Good job so far, Clave. Three responses in one thread and no urination
references. Unfortunately it looks like Retardation is the new Urination. It
will be interesting to see how this develops. You could always go all Fred
Rice on Bonde and call him a Rightard.
- Rick
.

User: "Rick"
Title: Re: OT: Rummy admits that U.S. troops could be in Iraq more than a decade...	27 Jun 2005 09:08:23 AM

Bill Bonde ('by a commodius vicus of recirculation') wrote in message
<1119850331.f740f02ea89d8acd77fed82ec56c9344@teranews>...

Clave wrote:

"Bill Bonde ('by a commodius vicus of recirculation')"
<antonchekhov@unclevanya.com.ru> wrote in message
news:1119849165.75c7ce5cce0272f07658bf97a001a191@teranews...

Andres64 wrote:

Rumsfeld: Insurgency Could Last for Years By NEDRA PICKLER, Associated
Press Writer

19 minutes ago

Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said Sunday he is bracing for

even

more violence in Iraq and acknowledged that the insurgency "could go

for any number of years."

So that sounds like the honest assessment vs the Clinton claim that the
US would be on the ground in the Balkans for one year, it's still

there.

That's mendacious on so many levels.

Name one level.

Jenkins. Fred was my first thought for naming a level, but that's a little
too common and ordinary. So Jenkins came to mind. But I'm not experinced at
naming levels, so maybe someone else could come up with a better name. And I
haven't seen the level you're talking about, so I don't know if it actually
looks like a Jenkins.
- Rick
.

User: "Andres64"
Title: Re: OT: Rummy admits that U.S. troops could be in Iraq more than a decade...	28 Jun 2005 06:47:21 PM

Bill Bonde ('by a commodius vicus of recirculation') wrote:

Andres64 wrote:

So that sounds like the honest assessment

As opposed to: Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld,
to U.S. troops in Aviano, Italy: "It is
unknowable how long that conflict will last.
It could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six
months." ?
.

User: "Fred Stone"
Title: Re: OT: Rummy admits that U.S. troops could be in Iraq more than a decade...	28 Jun 2005 07:18:46 PM

"Andres64" <andresc64@excite.com> wrote in
news:1119984441.677606.49210@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

Bill Bonde ('by a commodius vicus of recirculation') wrote:

Andres64 wrote:

So that sounds like the honest assessment

As opposed to: Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld,
to U.S. troops in Aviano, Italy: "It is
unknowable how long that conflict will last.
It could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six
months." ?

So it didn't turn out that way. So what?
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"Metaphysics is almost always an attempt to prove
the incredible by an appeal to the unintelligible."
[H.L. Mencken, "Prejudices"]
.

User: "Andres64"
Title: Re: OT: Rummy admits that U.S. troops could be in Iraq more than a decade...	28 Jun 2005 07:29:29 PM

Fred Stone wrote:

"Andres64" <andresc64@excite.com> wrote in
news:1119984441.677606.49210@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

Bill Bonde ('by a commodius vicus of recirculation') wrote:

Andres64 wrote:

So that sounds like the honest assessment

As opposed to: Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld,
to U.S. troops in Aviano, Italy: "It is
unknowable how long that conflict will last.
It could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six
months." ?

So it didn't turn out that way. So what?

So, the Balkans didn't turn out as Clinton thought. Now let's see you
try to squirm your waay out of this. Who's a hypocrite now?
.

User: "Fred Stone"
Title: Re: OT: Rummy admits that U.S. troops could be in Iraq more than a decade...	28 Jun 2005 09:34:20 PM

"Andres64" <andresc64@excite.com> wrote in news:1119986969.054476.215700
@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com:

Fred Stone wrote:

"Andres64" <andresc64@excite.com> wrote in
news:1119984441.677606.49210@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

Bill Bonde ('by a commodius vicus of recirculation') wrote:

Andres64 wrote:

Rumsfeld: Insurgency Could Last for Years By NEDRA PICKLER,
Associated Press Writer

19 minutes ago

Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said Sunday he is bracing

for

even more violence in Iraq and acknowledged that the insurgency
"could go on for any number of years."

So that sounds like the honest assessment

As opposed to: Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld,
to U.S. troops in Aviano, Italy: "It is
unknowable how long that conflict will last.
It could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six
months." ?

So it didn't turn out that way. So what?

So, the Balkans didn't turn out as Clinton thought. Now let's see you
try to squirm your waay out of this. Who's a hypocrite now?

You are. You're still giving Clinton a pass but not Rummy. And besides,
Rummy said that we were making a long-term commitment in Iraq.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"Metaphysics is almost always an attempt to prove
the incredible by an appeal to the unintelligible."
[H.L. Mencken, "Prejudices"]
.

User: "Andres64"
Title: Re: OT: Rummy admits that U.S. troops could be in Iraq more than a decade...	28 Jun 2005 10:09:29 PM

Fred Stone wrote:

"Andres64" <andresc64@excite.com> wrote in news:1119986969.054476.215700
@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com:

Fred Stone wrote:

"Andres64" <andresc64@excite.com> wrote in
news:1119984441.677606.49210@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

Bill Bonde ('by a commodius vicus of recirculation') wrote:

Andres64 wrote:

Rumsfeld: Insurgency Could Last for Years By NEDRA PICKLER,
Associated Press Writer

19 minutes ago

Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said Sunday he is bracing

for

even more violence in Iraq and acknowledged that the insurgency
"could go on for any number of years."

So that sounds like the honest assessment

As opposed to: Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld,
to U.S. troops in Aviano, Italy: "It is
unknowable how long that conflict will last.
It could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six
months." ?

So it didn't turn out that way. So what?

So, the Balkans didn't turn out as Clinton thought. Now let's see you
try to squirm your waay out of this. Who's a hypocrite now?

You are.

Try again. You're bashing Clinton for the Balkans but say "So what?"
regarding Shrub and Iraq. That makes *YOU* a hypocrite.

You're still giving Clinton a pass but not Rummy.

Cite please.
....snip...
.

User: "Bill Bonde by a commodius vicus of"
Title: Re: OT: Rummy admits that U.S. troops could be in Iraq more than adecade...	28 Jun 2005 10:30:10 PM

Andres64 wrote:

Fred Stone wrote:

"Andres64" <andresc64@excite.com> wrote in news:1119986969.054476.215700
@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com:

Fred Stone wrote:

"Andres64" <andresc64@excite.com> wrote in
news:1119984441.677606.49210@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

Bill Bonde ('by a commodius vicus of recirculation') wrote:

Andres64 wrote:

Rumsfeld: Insurgency Could Last for Years By NEDRA PICKLER,
Associated Press Writer

19 minutes ago

Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said Sunday he is bracing

for

even more violence in Iraq and acknowledged that the insurgency
"could go on for any number of years."

So that sounds like the honest assessment

As opposed to: Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld,
to U.S. troops in Aviano, Italy: "It is
unknowable how long that conflict will last.
It could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six
months." ?

So it didn't turn out that way. So what?

So, the Balkans didn't turn out as Clinton thought. Now let's see you
try to squirm your waay out of this. Who's a hypocrite now?

You are.

Try again. You're bashing Clinton for the Balkans but say "So what?"
regarding Shrub and Iraq. That makes *YOU* a hypocrite.

Clinton actually lied regarding the Balkans but Bush didn't lie about
Iraq.
--
"What do you value in your bulldogs? Gripping, is it not? It's their
nature? It's why you breed them? It's so with men. I will not give in
because I oppose it. Not my pride, not my spleen, nor any other of my
appetites, but *I* do. Is there in the midst of all this muscle no
single sinew that serves no appetite of Norfolk's but is just Norfolk?
Give that some exercise. Because, as you stand, you'll go before your
Maker ill-conditioned. He'll think that somewhere along your pedigree, a
***** got over the wall."
-+Paul Scofield, "A Man For All Seasons"
.

User: "Andres64"
Title: Re: OT: Rummy admits that U.S. troops could be in Iraq more than a decade...	28 Jun 2005 10:44:06 PM

Bill Bonde ('by a commodius vicus of recirculation') wrote:

Andres64 wrote:

Fred Stone wrote:

"Andres64" <andresc64@excite.com> wrote in news:1119986969.054476.215700
@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com:

Fred Stone wrote:

"Andres64" <andresc64@excite.com> wrote in
news:1119984441.677606.49210@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

Bill Bonde ('by a commodius vicus of recirculation') wrote:

Andres64 wrote:

Rumsfeld: Insurgency Could Last for Years By NEDRA PICKLER,
Associated Press Writer

19 minutes ago

Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said Sunday he is bracing

for

even more violence in Iraq and acknowledged that the insurgency
"could go on for any number of years."

So that sounds like the honest assessment

As opposed to: Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld,
to U.S. troops in Aviano, Italy: "It is
unknowable how long that conflict will last.
It could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six
months." ?

So it didn't turn out that way. So what?

So, the Balkans didn't turn out as Clinton thought. Now let's see you
try to squirm your waay out of this. Who's a hypocrite now?

You are.

Try again. You're bashing Clinton for the Balkans but say "So what?"
regarding Shrub and Iraq. That makes *YOU* a hypocrite.

Clinton actually lied regarding the Balkans

How so?

but Bush didn't lie about Iraq.

That's debatable. He *IS* trying to re-write history at any rate.
.

User: "Bill Bonde by a commodius vicus of"
Title: Re: OT: Rummy admits that U.S. troops could be in Iraq more than adecade...	29 Jun 2005 12:57:37 AM

Andres64 wrote:

Bill Bonde ('by a commodius vicus of recirculation') wrote:

Andres64 wrote:

Fred Stone wrote:

"Andres64" <andresc64@excite.com> wrote in news:1119986969.054476.215700
@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com:

Fred Stone wrote:

"Andres64" <andresc64@excite.com> wrote in
news:1119984441.677606.49210@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

Bill Bonde ('by a commodius vicus of recirculation') wrote:

Andres64 wrote:

Rumsfeld: Insurgency Could Last for Years By NEDRA PICKLER,
Associated Press Writer

19 minutes ago

Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said Sunday he is bracing

for

even more violence in Iraq and acknowledged that the insurgency
"could go on for any number of years."

So that sounds like the honest assessment

As opposed to: Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld,
to U.S. troops in Aviano, Italy: "It is
unknowable how long that conflict will last.
It could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six
months." ?

So it didn't turn out that way. So what?

So, the Balkans didn't turn out as Clinton thought. Now let's see you
try to squirm your waay out of this. Who's a hypocrite now?

You are.

Try again. You're bashing Clinton for the Balkans but say "So what?"
regarding Shrub and Iraq. That makes *YOU* a hypocrite.

Clinton actually lied regarding the Balkans

How so?

Are you serious? The claim that the mission would last one year was a
flat out lie.

but Bush didn't lie about Iraq.

That's debatable. He *IS* trying to re-write history at any rate.

What are you talking about?
--
"What do you value in your bulldogs? Gripping, is it not? It's their
nature? It's why you breed them? It's so with men. I will not give in
because I oppose it. Not my pride, not my spleen, nor any other of my
appetites, but *I* do. Is there in the midst of all this muscle no
single sinew that serves no appetite of Norfolk's but is just Norfolk?
Give that some exercise. Because, as you stand, you'll go before your
Maker ill-conditioned. He'll think that somewhere along your pedigree, a
***** got over the wall."
-+Paul Scofield, "A Man For All Seasons"
.

User: "Andres64"
Title: Re: OT: Rummy admits that U.S. troops could be in Iraq more than a decade...	29 Jun 2005 02:12:42 AM

Bill Bonde ('by a commodius vicus of recirculation') wrote:

Andres64 wrote:

Bill Bonde ('by a commodius vicus of recirculation') wrote:

Andres64 wrote:

Fred Stone wrote:

"Andres64" <andresc64@excite.com> wrote in news:1119986969.054476.215700
@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com:

Fred Stone wrote:

"Andres64" <andresc64@excite.com> wrote in
news:1119984441.677606.49210@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

Bill Bonde ('by a commodius vicus of recirculation') wrote:

Andres64 wrote:

Rumsfeld: Insurgency Could Last for Years By NEDRA PICKLER,
Associated Press Writer

19 minutes ago

Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said Sunday he is bracing

for

even more violence in Iraq and acknowledged that the insurgency
"could go on for any number of years."

So that sounds like the honest assessment

As opposed to: Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld,
to U.S. troops in Aviano, Italy: "It is
unknowable how long that conflict will last.
It could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six
months." ?

So it didn't turn out that way. So what?

So, the Balkans didn't turn out as Clinton thought. Now let's see you
try to squirm your waay out of this. Who's a hypocrite now?

You are.

Try again. You're bashing Clinton for the Balkans but say "So what?"
regarding Shrub and Iraq. That makes *YOU* a hypocrite.

Clinton actually lied regarding the Balkans

How so?

Are you serious? The claim that the mission would last one year was a
flat out lie.

And Rummy's "I doubt six months."?

but Bush didn't lie about Iraq.

That's debatable. He *IS* trying to re-write history at any rate.

What are you talking about?

Oh, gee, I don't know. Maybe little things like trying repeatedly
(even tonight) to tie Saddam to 911? Maybe little things like now
saying that we went to war to liberate Iraq, when WMD was the pre-war
reason?
.

User: "Fred Stone"
Title: Re: OT: Rummy admits that U.S. troops could be in Iraq more than a decade...	29 Jun 2005 12:53:02 PM

"Andres64" <andresc64@excite.com> wrote in
news:1120011162.939184.246660@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

Bill Bonde ('by a commodius vicus of recirculation') wrote:

Andres64 wrote:

Bill Bonde ('by a commodius vicus of recirculation') wrote:

Andres64 wrote:

Fred Stone wrote:

"Andres64" <andresc64@excite.com> wrote in
news:1119986969.054476.215700 @z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com:

Fred Stone wrote:

"Andres64" <andresc64@excite.com> wrote in
news:1119984441.677606.49210@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

Bill Bonde ('by a commodius vicus of recirculation')
wrote:

Andres64 wrote:

Rumsfeld: Insurgency Could Last for Years By NEDRA
PICKLER, Associated Press Writer

19 minutes ago

Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said Sunday he
is bracing

for

even more violence in Iraq and acknowledged that the
insurgency "could go on for any number of years."

So that sounds like the honest assessment

As opposed to: Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld,
to U.S. troops in Aviano, Italy: "It is
unknowable how long that conflict will last.
It could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six
months." ?

So it didn't turn out that way. So what?

So, the Balkans didn't turn out as Clinton thought. Now
let's see you try to squirm your waay out of this. Who's a
hypocrite now?

You are.

Try again. You're bashing Clinton for the Balkans but say "So
what?" regarding Shrub and Iraq. That makes *YOU* a hypocrite.

Clinton actually lied regarding the Balkans

How so?

Are you serious? The claim that the mission would last one year was a
flat out lie.

And Rummy's "I doubt six months."?

Is not an expression of certainty.

but Bush didn't lie about Iraq.

That's debatable. He *IS* trying to re-write history at any rate.

What are you talking about?

Oh, gee, I don't know. Maybe little things like trying repeatedly
(even tonight) to tie Saddam to 911?

When?

Maybe little things like now
saying that we went to war to liberate Iraq, when WMD was the pre-war
reason?

WMD was *not* the only reason given pre-war. Come on, we've been over
this before. Is your memory that bad? Or do you just wash your miserable
defeats on that subject out of your brain?
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"Metaphysics is almost always an attempt to prove
the incredible by an appeal to the unintelligible."
[H.L. Mencken, "Prejudices"]
.

User: "Andres64"
Title: Re: OT: Rummy admits that U.S. troops could be in Iraq more than a decade...	29 Jun 2005 05:11:35 PM

Fred Stone wrote:

"Andres64" <andresc64@excite.com> wrote in
news:1120011162.939184.246660@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

Bill Bonde ('by a commodius vicus of recirculation') wrote:

Andres64 wrote:

Bill Bonde ('by a commodius vicus of recirculation') wrote:

Andres64 wrote:

Fred Stone wrote:

"Andres64" <andresc64@excite.com> wrote in
news:1119986969.054476.215700 @z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com:

Fred Stone wrote:

"Andres64" <andresc64@excite.com> wrote in
news:1119984441.677606.49210@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

Bill Bonde ('by a commodius vicus of recirculation')
wrote:

Andres64 wrote:

Rumsfeld: Insurgency Could Last for Years By NEDRA
PICKLER, Associated Press Writer

19 minutes ago

Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said Sunday he
is bracing

for

even more violence in Iraq and acknowledged that the
insurgency "could go on for any number of years."

So that sounds like the honest assessment

As opposed to: Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld,
to U.S. troops in Aviano, Italy: "It is
unknowable how long that conflict will last.
It could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six
months." ?

So it didn't turn out that way. So what?

So, the Balkans didn't turn out as Clinton thought. Now
let's see you try to squirm your waay out of this. Who's a
hypocrite now?

You are.

Try again. You're bashing Clinton for the Balkans but say "So
what?" regarding Shrub and Iraq. That makes *YOU* a hypocrite.

Clinton actually lied regarding the Balkans

How so?

Are you serious? The claim that the mission would last one year was a
flat out lie.

And Rummy's "I doubt six months."?

Is not an expression of certainty.

but Bush didn't lie about Iraq.

That's debatable. He *IS* trying to re-write history at any rate.

What are you talking about?

Oh, gee, I don't know. Maybe little things like trying repeatedly
(even tonight) to tie Saddam to 911?

When?

When? How about every time he mentions it while talking about Iraq;
like the five (5) times he did in his speech last night?

Maybe little things like now
saying that we went to war to liberate Iraq, when WMD was the pre-war
reason?

WMD was *not* the only reason given pre-war.

I didn't say it was the only reason. It *was* however the overriding
reason.
.

User: "Fred Stone"
Title: Re: OT: Rummy admits that U.S. troops could be in Iraq more than a decade...	29 Jun 2005 05:51:29 PM

"Andres64" <andresc64@excite.com> wrote in
news:1120065095.845443.75950@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

Fred Stone wrote:

"Andres64" <andresc64@excite.com> wrote in
news:1120011162.939184.246660@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

Bill Bonde ('by a commodius vicus of recirculation') wrote:

Andres64 wrote:

<...snip for size...>

but Bush didn't lie about Iraq.

That's debatable. He *IS* trying to re-write history at any
rate.

What are you talking about?

Oh, gee, I don't know. Maybe little things like trying repeatedly
(even tonight) to tie Saddam to 911?

When?

When? How about every time he mentions it while talking about Iraq;
like the five (5) times he did in his speech last night?

I watched the whole speech so I couldn't have missed it, he did use them
in the same sentence but not once did he say that Saddam was responsible
for 9/11.
The fact is that Iraq was a terrorist haven before we attacked them in
2003.

Maybe little things like now
saying that we went to war to liberate Iraq, when WMD was the
pre-war reason?

WMD was *not* the only reason given pre-war.

I didn't say it was the only reason. It *was* however the overriding
reason.

That still does not invalidate the other reasons.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"Metaphysics is almost always an attempt to prove
the incredible by an appeal to the unintelligible."
[H.L. Mencken, "Prejudices"]
.

User: "Andres64"
Title: Re: OT: Rummy admits that U.S. troops could be in Iraq more than a decade...	30 Jun 2005 02:01:14 AM

Fred Stone wrote:

"Andres64" <andresc64@excite.com> wrote in
news:1120065095.845443.75950@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

Fred Stone wrote:

"Andres64" <andresc64@excite.com> wrote in
news:1120011162.939184.246660@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

Bill Bonde ('by a commodius vicus of recirculation') wrote:

Andres64 wrote:

<...snip for size...>

but Bush didn't lie about Iraq.

That's debatable. He *IS* trying to re-write history at any
rate.

What are you talking about?

Oh, gee, I don't know. Maybe little things like trying repeatedly
(even tonight) to tie Saddam to 911?

When?

When? How about every time he mentions it while talking about Iraq;
like the five (5) times he did in his speech last night?

I watched the whole speech so I couldn't have missed it, he did use them
in the same sentence but not once did he say that Saddam was responsible
for 9/11.

And you don't think that saying: "They are trying to shake our will in
Iraq, just as they tried to shake our will on September 11, 2001. They
will fail." is deceptive?

The fact is that Iraq was a terrorist haven before we attacked them in
2003.

Maybe little things like now
saying that we went to war to liberate Iraq, when WMD was the
pre-war reason?

WMD was *not* the only reason given pre-war.

I didn't say it was the only reason. It *was* however the overriding
reason.

That still does not invalidate the other reasons.

Too bad those other reasons weren't enumerated until after the war.
.

User: "Fred Stone"
Title: Re: OT: Rummy admits that U.S. troops could be in Iraq more than a decade...	30 Jun 2005 03:35:52 AM

"Andres64" <andresc64@excite.com> wrote in
news:1120096874.301104.75490@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

Fred Stone wrote:

"Andres64" <andresc64@excite.com> wrote in
news:1120065095.845443.75950@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

Fred Stone wrote:

"Andres64" <andresc64@excite.com> wrote in
news:1120011162.939184.246660@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

Bill Bonde ('by a commodius vicus of recirculation') wrote:

Andres64 wrote:

<...snip for size...>

but Bush didn't lie about Iraq.

That's debatable. He *IS* trying to re-write history at any
rate.

What are you talking about?

Oh, gee, I don't know. Maybe little things like trying
repeatedly (even tonight) to tie Saddam to 911?

When?

When? How about every time he mentions it while talking about
Iraq; like the five (5) times he did in his speech last night?

I watched the whole speech so I couldn't have missed it, he did use
them in the same sentence but not once did he say that Saddam was
responsible for 9/11.

And you don't think that saying: "They are trying to shake our will in
Iraq, just as they tried to shake our will on September 11, 2001. They
will fail." is deceptive?

No, not at all. Bush is talking about Islamic fascist terrorists in
general.

The fact is that Iraq was a terrorist haven before we attacked them
in 2003.

Maybe little things like now
saying that we went to war to liberate Iraq, when WMD was the
pre-war reason?

WMD was *not* the only reason given pre-war.

I didn't say it was the only reason. It *was* however the
overriding reason.

That still does not invalidate the other reasons.

Too bad those other reasons weren't enumerated until after the war.

They were all enumerated in the Congressional resolution passed *before*
the war.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"Metaphysics is almost always an attempt to prove
the incredible by an appeal to the unintelligible."
[H.L. Mencken, "Prejudices"]
.

User: "Rick"
Title: Re: OT: Rummy admits that U.S. troops could be in Iraq more than a decade...	30 Jun 2005 08:06:51 PM

Fred Stone wrote in message
<1120102552.36d0528256996b66afbda876ad87622c@teranews>...

"Andres64" <andresc64@excite.com> wrote in
news:1120096874.301104.75490@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

Fred Stone wrote:

"Andres64" <andresc64@excite.com> wrote in
news:1120065095.845443.75950@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

Fred Stone wrote:

"Andres64" <andresc64@excite.com> wrote in
news:1120011162.939184.246660@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

Bill Bonde ('by a commodius vicus of recirculation') wrote:

Andres64 wrote:

<...snip for size...>

but Bush didn't lie about Iraq.

That's debatable. He *IS* trying to re-write history at any
rate.

What are you talking about?

Oh, gee, I don't know. Maybe little things like trying
repeatedly (even tonight) to tie Saddam to 911?

When?

When? How about every time he mentions it while talking about
Iraq; like the five (5) times he did in his speech last night?

I watched the whole speech so I couldn't have missed it, he did use
them in the same sentence but not once did he say that Saddam was
responsible for 9/11.

And you don't think that saying: "They are trying to shake our will in
Iraq, just as they tried to shake our will on September 11, 2001. They
will fail." is deceptive?

No, not at all. Bush is talking about Islamic fascist terrorists in
general.

The fact is that Iraq was a terrorist haven before we attacked them
in 2003.

Maybe little things like now
saying that we went to war to liberate Iraq, when WMD was the
pre-war reason?

WMD was *not* the only reason given pre-war.

I didn't say it was the only reason. It *was* however the
overriding reason.

That still does not invalidate the other reasons.

Too bad those other reasons weren't enumerated until after the war.

A gorgeous theory shot down by an ugly fact.

They were all enumerated in the Congressional resolution passed *before*
the war.

http://hnn.us/articles/1282.html
- Rick
.

User: "Bill Bonde by a commodius vicus of"
Title: Re: OT: Rummy admits that U.S. troops could be in Iraq more than adecade...	30 Jun 2005 08:20:04 PM

Rick wrote:

Fred Stone wrote in message
<1120102552.36d0528256996b66afbda876ad87622c@teranews>...

"Andres64" <andresc64@excite.com> wrote in
news:1120096874.301104.75490@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

Fred Stone wrote:

"Andres64" <andresc64@excite.com> wrote in
news:1120065095.845443.75950@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

Fred Stone wrote:

"Andres64" <andresc64@excite.com> wrote in
news:1120011162.939184.246660@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

Bill Bonde ('by a commodius vicus of recirculation') wrote:

Andres64 wrote:

<...snip for size...>

but Bush didn't lie about Iraq.

That's debatable. He *IS* trying to re-write history at any
rate.

What are you talking about?

Oh, gee, I don't know. Maybe little things like trying
repeatedly (even tonight) to tie Saddam to 911?

When?

When? How about every time he mentions it while talking about
Iraq; like the five (5) times he did in his speech last night?

I watched the whole speech so I couldn't have missed it, he did use
them in the same sentence but not once did he say that Saddam was
responsible for 9/11.

And you don't think that saying: "They are trying to shake our will in
Iraq, just as they tried to shake our will on September 11, 2001. They
will fail." is deceptive?

No, not at all. Bush is talking about Islamic fascist terrorists in
general.

The fact is that Iraq was a terrorist haven before we attacked them
in 2003.

Maybe little things like now
saying that we went to war to liberate Iraq, when WMD was the
pre-war reason?

WMD was *not* the only reason given pre-war.

I didn't say it was the only reason. It *was* however the
overriding reason.

That still does not invalidate the other reasons.

Too bad those other reasons weren't enumerated until after the war.

A gorgeous theory shot down by an ugly fact.

They were all enumerated in the Congressional resolution passed *before*
the war.

Ironically, the more reasons we had to deal with Saddam, the more
openings there were for people who opposed the effort to claim that some
specific reason wasn't good enough.
--
"What do you value in your bulldogs? Gripping, is it not? It's their
nature? It's why you breed them? It's so with men. I will not give in
because I oppose it. Not my pride, not my spleen, nor any other of my
appetites, but *I* do. Is there in the midst of all this muscle no
single sinew that serves no appetite of Norfolk's but is just Norfolk?
Give that some exercise. Because, as you stand, you'll go before your
Maker ill-conditioned. He'll think that somewhere along your pedigree, a
***** got over the wall."
-+Paul Scofield, "A Man For All Seasons"
.

User: "Gary DeWaay"
Title: Re: OT: Rummy admits that U.S. troops could be in Iraq more than a decade...	03 Jul 2005 08:29:48 PM

Fred Stone's at

wisdom:

And you don't think that saying: "They are trying to shake our will in
Iraq, just as they tried to shake our will on September 11, 2001. They
will fail." is deceptive?

No, not at all. Bush is talking about Islamic fascist terrorists in
general.

Why are you not in the armed or civilian forces over there fighting them?
--
Gary
"Raising fuel efficiency standards by 7.6 mpg would save enough to
eliminate 100% of our gulf oil imports into this country."
.

User: "Bill Bonde by a commodius vicus of"
Title: Re: OT: Rummy admits that U.S. troops could be in Iraq more than adecade...	30 Jun 2005 02:59:56 AM

Andres64 wrote:

Fred Stone wrote:

"Andres64" <andresc64@excite.com> wrote in
news:1120065095.845443.75950@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

Fred Stone wrote:

"Andres64" <andresc64@excite.com> wrote in
news:1120011162.939184.246660@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

Bill Bonde ('by a commodius vicus of recirculation') wrote:

Andres64 wrote:

<...snip for size...>

but Bush didn't lie about Iraq.

That's debatable. He *IS* trying to re-write history at any
rate.

What are you talking about?

Oh, gee, I don't know. Maybe little things like trying repeatedly
(even tonight) to tie Saddam to 911?

When?

When? How about every time he mentions it while talking about Iraq;
like the five (5) times he did in his speech last night?

I watched the whole speech so I couldn't have missed it, he did use them
in the same sentence but not once did he say that Saddam was responsible
for 9/11.

And you don't think that saying: "They are trying to shake our will in
Iraq, just as they tried to shake our will on September 11, 2001. They
will fail." is deceptive?

Whether or not you can understand that Middle East is the source of the
9/11 terrorists and not Afghanistan, it is clear that bin Laden's boys
are in Iraq now and are fighting Americans.

The fact is that Iraq was a terrorist haven before we attacked them in
2003.

Maybe little things like now
saying that we went to war to liberate Iraq, when WMD was the
pre-war reason?

WMD was *not* the only reason given pre-war.

I didn't say it was the only reason. It *was* however the overriding
reason.

That still does not invalidate the other reasons.

Too bad those other reasons weren't enumerated until after the war.

All these reasons were out there before the war.
--
"What do you value in your bulldogs? Gripping, is it not? It's their
nature? It's why you breed them? It's so with men. I will not give in
because I oppose it. Not my pride, not my spleen, nor any other of my
appetites, but *I* do. Is there in the midst of all this muscle no
single sinew that serves no appetite of Norfolk's but is just Norfolk?
Give that some exercise. Because, as you stand, you'll go before your
Maker ill-conditioned. He'll think that somewhere along your pedigree, a
***** got over the wall."
-+Paul Scofield, "A Man For All Seasons"
.

User: "Bill Bonde by a commodius vicus of"
Title: Re: OT: Rummy admits that U.S. troops could be in Iraq more than adecade...	29 Jun 2005 06:30:54 PM

Andres64 wrote:

Fred Stone wrote:

Oh, gee, I don't know. Maybe little things like trying repeatedly
(even tonight) to tie Saddam to 911?

When?

When? How about every time he mentions it while talking about Iraq;
like the five (5) times he did in his speech last night?

9/11 was the impetus for finally dealing with Iraq.

Maybe little things like now
saying that we went to war to liberate Iraq, when WMD was the pre-war
reason?

WMD was *not* the only reason given pre-war.

I didn't say it was the only reason. It *was* however the overriding
reason.

Only in your mind. I gave a dozen reasons for dealing with the Saddam
problem. Whether he had stockpiles of WMDs is but a part of one of those
reasons.
--
"He's asking if you killed Freddie Miles and then killed Dickie
Greenleaf."
"No, I did not kill Freddie Miles and then kill Dickie Greenleaf."
-+Thomas Ripley using Bill Clinton logic, "The Talented Mr Ripley"
.

User: "Andres64"
Title: Re: OT: Rummy admits that U.S. troops could be in Iraq more than a decade...	30 Jun 2005 02:03:17 AM

Bill Bonde ('by a commodius vicus of recirculation') wrote:

Andres64 wrote:

Fred Stone wrote:

Oh, gee, I don't know. Maybe little things like trying repeatedly
(even tonight) to tie Saddam to 911?

When?

When? How about every time he mentions it while talking about Iraq;
like the five (5) times he did in his speech last night?

9/11 was the impetus for finally dealing with Iraq.

Invading Iraq for 9/11 made (makes) as much sense as if we had invaded
Mexico.

Maybe little things like now
saying that we went to war to liberate Iraq, when WMD was the pre-war
reason?

WMD was *not* the only reason given pre-war.

I didn't say it was the only reason. It *was* however the overriding
reason.

Only in your mind. I gave a dozen reasons for dealing with the Saddam
problem.

Too bad you're not the president. (Thank Gawd)
.

User: "Bill Bonde by a commodius vicus of"
Title: Re: OT: Rummy admits that U.S. troops could be in Iraq more than adecade...	30 Jun 2005 03:01:33 AM

Andres64 wrote:

Bill Bonde ('by a commodius vicus of recirculation') wrote:

Andres64 wrote:

Fred Stone wrote:

Oh, gee, I don't know. Maybe little things like trying repeatedly
(even tonight) to tie Saddam to 911?

When?

When? How about every time he mentions it while talking about Iraq;
like the five (5) times he did in his speech last night?

9/11 was the impetus for finally dealing with Iraq.

Invading Iraq for 9/11 made (makes) as much sense as if we had invaded
Mexico.

You can claim that all you want but Mexico and Afghanistan are not the
source of the 9/11 terrorists, the Middle East is.

Maybe little things like now
saying that we went to war to liberate Iraq, when WMD was the pre-war
reason?

WMD was *not* the only reason given pre-war.

I didn't say it was the only reason. It *was* however the overriding
reason.

Only in your mind. I gave a dozen reasons for dealing with the Saddam
problem.

Too bad you're not the president. (Thank Gawd)

Thankfully of the options, we have Bush as president.
--
"What do you value in your bulldogs? Gripping, is it not? It's their
nature? It's why you breed them? It's so with men. I will not give in
because I oppose it. Not my pride, not my spleen, nor any other of my
appetites, but *I* do. Is there in the midst of all this muscle no
single sinew that serves no appetite of Norfolk's but is just Norfolk?
Give that some exercise. Because, as you stand, you'll go before your
Maker ill-conditioned. He'll think that somewhere along your pedigree, a
***** got over the wall."
-+Paul Scofield, "A Man For All Seasons"
.

User: "DanielSan"
Title: Re: OT: Rummy admits that U.S. troops could be in Iraq more thana decade...	30 Jun 2005 03:06:54 AM

Bill Bonde ('by a commodius vicus of recirculation') wrote:

Andres64 wrote:

Bill Bonde ('by a commodius vicus of recirculation') wrote:

Andres64 wrote:

Fred Stone wrote:

Oh, gee, I don't know. Maybe little things like trying repeatedly
(even tonight) to tie Saddam to 911?

When?

When? How about every time he mentions it while talking about Iraq;
like the five (5) times he did in his speech last night?

9/11 was the impetus for finally dealing with Iraq.

Invading Iraq for 9/11 made (makes) as much sense as if we had invaded
Mexico.

You can claim that all you want but Mexico and Afghanistan are not the
source of the 9/11 terrorists, the Middle East is.

You mispelled "Saudi Arabia."

Maybe little things like now
saying that we went to war to liberate Iraq, when WMD was the pre-war
reason?

WMD was *not* the only reason given pre-war.

I didn't say it was the only reason. It *was* however the overriding
reason.

Only in your mind. I gave a dozen reasons for dealing with the Saddam
problem.

Too bad you're not the president. (Thank Gawd)

Thankfully of the options, we have Bush as president.

I really dislike how Bush sullied our name and our respect that we had
around the world with its illegal war. This, I fear, will be the
downfall of the Bush Administration.

User: "Fred Stone"
Title: Re: OT: Rummy admits that U.S. troops could be in Iraq more than a decade...	30 Jun 2005 01:15:05 PM

DanielSan <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote in
news:ilJwe.6995$Iv6.6418@trnddc03:

Bill Bonde ('by a commodius vicus of recirculation') wrote:

Andres64 wrote:

Bill Bonde ('by a commodius vicus of recirculation') wrote:

Andres64 wrote:

Fred Stone wrote:

Oh, gee, I don't know. Maybe little things like trying
repeatedly (even tonight) to tie Saddam to 911?

When?

When? How about every time he mentions it while talking about
Iraq; like the five (5) times he did in his speech last night?

9/11 was the impetus for finally dealing with Iraq.

Invading Iraq for 9/11 made (makes) as much sense as if we had
invaded Mexico.

You can claim that all you want but Mexico and Afghanistan are not
the source of the 9/11 terrorists, the Middle East is.

You mispelled "Saudi Arabia."

You forgot to include Iran, Syria, Palestine...

Maybe little things like now
saying that we went to war to liberate Iraq, when WMD was the
pre-war reason?

WMD was *not* the only reason given pre-war.

I didn't say it was the only reason. It *was* however the
overriding reason.

Only in your mind. I gave a dozen reasons for dealing with the
Saddam problem.

Too bad you're not the president. (Thank Gawd)

Thankfully of the options, we have Bush as president.

I really dislike how Bush sullied our name and our respect that we had
around the world with its illegal war. This, I fear, will be the
downfall of the Bush Administration.

Yeah, Bush will be out of a job in the next election, you just watch!
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"Metaphysics is almost always an attempt to prove
the incredible by an appeal to the unintelligible."
[H.L. Mencken, "Prejudices"]
.

User: "DanielSan"
Title: Re: OT: Rummy admits that U.S. troops could be in Iraq more thana decade...	30 Jun 2005 01:17:17 PM

Fred Stone wrote:

DanielSan <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote in
news:ilJwe.6995$Iv6.6418@trnddc03:

Bill Bonde ('by a commodius vicus of recirculation') wrote:

Andres64 wrote:

Bill Bonde ('by a commodius vicus of recirculation') wrote:

Andres64 wrote:

Fred Stone wrote:

Oh, gee, I don't know. Maybe little things like trying
repeatedly (even tonight) to tie Saddam to 911?

When?

When? How about every time he mentions it while talking about
Iraq; like the five (5) times he did in his speech last night?

9/11 was the impetus for finally dealing with Iraq.

Invading Iraq for 9/11 made (makes) as much sense as if we had
invaded Mexico.

You can claim that all you want but Mexico and Afghanistan are not
the source of the 9/11 terrorists, the Middle East is.

You mispelled "Saudi Arabia."

You forgot to include Iran, Syria, Palestine...

I didn't say Uzbekistan either.

Maybe little things like now
saying that we went to war to liberate Iraq, when WMD was the
pre-war reason?

WMD was *not* the only reason given pre-war.

I didn't say it was the only reason. It *was* however the
overriding reason.

Only in your mind. I gave a dozen reasons for dealing with the
Saddam problem.

Too bad you're not the president. (Thank Gawd)

Thankfully of the options, we have Bush as president.

I really dislike how Bush sullied our name and our respect that we had
around the world with its illegal war. This, I fear, will be the
downfall of the Bush Administration.

Yeah, Bush will be out of a job in the next election, you just watch!

I didn't say "Bush" now did I?
.

Page 1 of 8

Post reply

Re: OT: Rummy admits that U.S. troops could be in Iraq more thana decade...
OT: For Japan's Insider-Turned-Rebel, Decade-Old Revolution Is Still a Work in Progress
WORST QUOTE OF THE DECADE
Harvard Report Bashing Abstinence Education Relies on Decade-Old Data
Podcast for US Atheists: Derek Araujo - A Decade of Campus Freethought Activism
50m environmental refugees by end of decade, UN warns
It is not possible to 'call' which model, China or India, will prove more successful in the next decade
OT: A long decade

SRF Nun admits had sex with Yogananda
Chicago cardinal admits 'failure,' accepts responsibility
Re: Bush ADMITS immigration bill is AMNESTY!
Youth Pastor Polygamist Admits Killing, Mutilating Wife
** Pastor admits to molesting girl, deaf, 12 yrs old **
OT: US admits it will still control Iraq after transfer
Bush admits failure, decides to be a man

Topics

Bible

Abortion