| Topic: |
Politics > Politics-USA |
| User: |
"Deficit Spender Bush Red Ink" |
| Date: |
11 Sep 2004 01:48:04 AM |
| Object: |
I'd rather have 1000 dead soldiers back +$200 Billion than Saddam's head |
Bush screwed up badly in Iraq. His current
war strategy is to try and keep Iraq out of
the news until the election.
Saddam was contained. He had nothing to do
with 9/11 or Al Qaeda. We should have gone
after Al Qaeda & spent money protecting
our borders and ports.
Bush lacks wisdom. He is unfit to lead
American. We need a "more seasoned pilot".
.
|
|
| User: "Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: I'd rather have 1000 dead soldiers back +$200 Billion than Saddam's head |
11 Sep 2004 10:09:43 AM |
|
|
"Deficit Spender Bush" <Red Ink Bush@rnc.org> wrote in message
news:MPG.1bac3f89c6ea77a7989c57@netnews.comcast.net...
Bush screwed up badly in Iraq.
Incorrect. He has removed a tyrant
from power.
His current
war strategy is to try and keep Iraq out of
the news until the election.
Incorrect. He is an entire country a
chance to live in freedom.
Saddam was contained.
That containment was quickly falling
apart. Nations were calling for lifting
the sanctions.
He had nothing to do
with 9/11 or Al Qaeda. We should have gone
after Al Qaeda & spent money protecting
our borders and ports.
Agreed.
Bush lacks wisdom. He is unfit to lead
American. We need a "more seasoned pilot".
I don't think Bush has been a very good
president, mainly because of domestic
policies. But when compared to Kerry,
he is a shining light. Kerry is a political
opportunist and is dangerous to the
security of our great nation.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Deficit Spender Bush Red Ink" |
|
| Title: Re: I'd rather have 1000 dead soldiers back +$200 Billion than Saddam's head |
11 Sep 2004 10:46:03 AM |
|
|
In article <UxE0d.58$zT6.40@bignews5.bellsouth.net>, no@email.address says...
"Deficit Spender Bush" <Red Ink Bush@rnc.org> wrote in message
news:MPG.1bac3f89c6ea77a7989c57@netnews.comcast.net...
Bush screwed up badly in Iraq.
Incorrect. He has removed a tyrant
from power.
That's a matter of opinion & in my opinion,
Bush screwed up badly in Iraq
His current
war strategy is to try and keep Iraq out of
the news until the election.
Incorrect. He is an entire country a
chance to live in freedom.
Huh? Bush is an entire country now?
Incomprehensible.
Saddam was contained.
That containment was quickly falling
apart. Nations were calling for lifting
the sanctions.
He had nothing to do
with 9/11 or Al Qaeda. We should have gone
after Al Qaeda & spent money protecting
our borders and ports.
Agreed.
Bush lacks wisdom. He is unfit to lead
American. We need a "more seasoned pilot".
I don't think Bush has been a very good
president, mainly because of domestic
policies. But when compared to Kerry,
he is a shining light. Kerry is a political
opportunist and is dangerous to the
security of our great nation.
More garbage talk. Kerry is a good man.
Certainly more honest than The Bush Liar.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: I'd rather have 1000 dead soldiers back +$200 Billion than Saddam's head |
11 Sep 2004 12:56:41 PM |
|
|
"Deficit Spender Bush" <Red Ink Bush@rnc.org> wrote in message
news:MPG.1bacbda0695a1f6989c58@netnews.comcast.net...
In article <UxE0d.58$zT6.40@bignews5.bellsouth.net>, no@email.address says...
"Deficit Spender Bush" <Red Ink Bush@rnc.org> wrote in message
news:MPG.1bac3f89c6ea77a7989c57@netnews.comcast.net...
Bush screwed up badly in Iraq.
Incorrect. He has removed a tyrant
from power.
That's a matter of opinion & in my opinion,
Bush screwed up badly in Iraq
Agreed. That is a matter of opinion. We
will see which prevails in November.
His current
war strategy is to try and keep Iraq out of
the news until the election.
Incorrect. He is an entire country a
chance to live in freedom.
Huh? Bush is an entire country now?
Incomprehensible.
I guess you don't read typo very
well. Most people would have realized
that I meant that Bush gave an entire
country a chance to live in freedom.
It is up to the Iraqis to determine if
they have the courage for freedom.
Saddam was contained.
That containment was quickly falling
apart. Nations were calling for lifting
the sanctions.
He had nothing to do
with 9/11 or Al Qaeda. We should have gone
after Al Qaeda & spent money protecting
our borders and ports.
Agreed.
Bush lacks wisdom. He is unfit to lead
American. We need a "more seasoned pilot".
I don't think Bush has been a very good
president, mainly because of domestic
policies. But when compared to Kerry,
he is a shining light. Kerry is a political
opportunist and is dangerous to the
security of our great nation.
More garbage talk. Kerry is a good man.
Certainly more honest than The Bush Liar.
And once again we differ in opinion. What
don't you like about Kerry? Anything
substantial?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Deficit Spender Bush Red Ink" |
|
| Title: Re: I'd rather have 1000 dead soldiers back +$200 Billion than Saddam's head |
11 Sep 2004 03:30:21 PM |
|
|
In article <r_G0d.124$zT6.35@bignews5.bellsouth.net>, no@email.address says...
"Deficit Spender Bush" <Red Ink Bush@rnc.org> wrote in message
news:MPG.1bacbda0695a1f6989c58@netnews.comcast.net...
In article <UxE0d.58$zT6.40@bignews5.bellsouth.net>, no@email.address says...
"Deficit Spender Bush" <Red Ink Bush@rnc.org> wrote in message
news:MPG.1bac3f89c6ea77a7989c57@netnews.comcast.net...
Bush screwed up badly in Iraq.
Incorrect. He has removed a tyrant
from power.
That's a matter of opinion & in my opinion,
Bush screwed up badly in Iraq
Agreed. That is a matter of opinion. We
will see which prevails in November.
His current
war strategy is to try and keep Iraq out of
the news until the election.
Incorrect. He is an entire country a
chance to live in freedom.
Huh? Bush is an entire country now?
Incomprehensible.
I guess you don't read typo very
well. Most people would have realized
that I meant that Bush gave an entire
country a chance to live in freedom.
It is up to the Iraqis to determine if
they have the courage for freedom.
Saddam was contained.
That containment was quickly falling
apart. Nations were calling for lifting
the sanctions.
He had nothing to do
with 9/11 or Al Qaeda. We should have gone
after Al Qaeda & spent money protecting
our borders and ports.
Agreed.
Bush lacks wisdom. He is unfit to lead
American. We need a "more seasoned pilot".
I don't think Bush has been a very good
president, mainly because of domestic
policies. But when compared to Kerry,
he is a shining light. Kerry is a political
opportunist and is dangerous to the
security of our great nation.
More garbage talk. Kerry is a good man.
Certainly more honest than The Bush Liar.
And once again we differ in opinion. What
don't you like about Kerry? Anything
substantial?
I don't like that he doesn't call Bush a liar. It
give the Big Liar Bush an aura of credibility.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: I'd rather have 1000 dead soldiers back +$200 Billion than Saddam's head |
11 Sep 2004 04:43:27 PM |
|
|
"Deficit Spender Bush" <Red Ink Bush@rnc.org> wrote in message
news:MPG.1bad00411325cd9e989c5a@netnews.comcast.net...
In article <r_G0d.124$zT6.35@bignews5.bellsouth.net>, no@email.address says...
And once again we differ in opinion. What
don't you like about Kerry? Anything
substantial?
I don't like that he doesn't call Bush a liar. It
give the Big Liar Bush an aura of credibility.
That's what I thought. A partisan wearing
blinders.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Deficit Spender Bush Red Ink" |
|
| Title: Re: I'd rather have 1000 dead soldiers back +$200 Billion than Saddam's head |
12 Sep 2004 12:26:29 AM |
|
|
In article <2jK0d.177$zT6.47@bignews5.bellsouth.net>, no@email.address says...
"Deficit Spender Bush" <Red Ink Bush@rnc.org> wrote in message
news:MPG.1bad00411325cd9e989c5a@netnews.comcast.net...
In article <r_G0d.124$zT6.35@bignews5.bellsouth.net>, no@email.address says...
And once again we differ in opinion. What
don't you like about Kerry? Anything
substantial?
I don't like that he doesn't call Bush a liar. It
give the Big Liar Bush an aura of credibility.
That's what I thought. A partisan wearing
blinders.
Partisan, yes. Bush is a liar - not much doubt about that!
And we're not talking little white lies. These are all major
league lies. Admit it.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "BlackWater" |
|
| Title: Re: I'd rather have 1000 dead soldiers back +$200 Billion than Saddam's head |
11 Sep 2004 01:13:00 PM |
|
|
Apparently Qusay Hussein never raped, tortured and
murdered YOUR wife and daughter ... never had YOUR
family exterminated ... never diverted YOUR cut of
the GNP to Hamas, the PLO and maybe al-Qaida. Saddam
never invaded YOUR country, never gassed YOUR town.
So why should you care ... ?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Deficit Spender Bush Red Ink" |
|
| Title: Re: I'd rather have 1000 dead soldiers back +$200 Billion than Saddam's head |
11 Sep 2004 03:28:49 PM |
|
|
In article <4141edf5.706495@news.east.earthlink.net>, says...
Apparently Qusay Hussein never raped, tortured and
murdered YOUR wife and daughter ... never had YOUR
family exterminated ... never diverted YOUR cut of
the GNP to Hamas, the PLO and maybe al-Qaida. Saddam
never invaded YOUR country, never gassed YOUR town.
So why should you care ... ?
Exactly! Funny, I don't remember that being the reason
we went there. Bush claimed they were going to nuke the
U.S. I don't hear you neocons complaining about the same
thing happening in Sudan.
.
|
|
|
| User: "BlackWater" |
|
| Title: Re: I'd rather have 1000 dead soldiers back +$200 Billion than Saddam's head |
12 Sep 2004 02:11:56 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 11 Sep 2004 20:28:49 GMT, Deficit Spender Bush <Red Ink
Bush@rnc.org> wrote:
In article <4141edf5.706495@news.east.earthlink.net>, says...
Apparently Qusay Hussein never raped, tortured and
murdered YOUR wife and daughter ... never had YOUR
family exterminated ... never diverted YOUR cut of
the GNP to Hamas, the PLO and maybe al-Qaida. Saddam
never invaded YOUR country, never gassed YOUR town.
So why should you care ... ?
Exactly! Funny, I don't remember that being the reason
we went there. Bush claimed they were going to nuke the
U.S. I don't hear you neocons complaining about the same
thing happening in Sudan.
Sudan was just *embarassing* ...
Iraq ... everybody was pretty damned SURE they had
WMDs everywhere. Maybe they did - it's a big desert
to search. In any event Husseins attitude, history,
financial status and dealings, political relevance
and geographic location all factored-in to the
decision to invade.
But what do you care ?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeffrey Turner" |
|
| Title: Re: I'd rather have 1000 dead soldiers back +$200 Billion than Saddam'shead |
12 Sep 2004 04:14:39 PM |
|
|
BlackWater wrote:
On Sat, 11 Sep 2004 20:28:49 GMT, Deficit Spender Bush <Red Ink
Bush@rnc.org> wrote:
In article <4141edf5.706495@news.east.earthlink.net>, says...
Apparently Qusay Hussein never raped, tortured and
murdered YOUR wife and daughter ... never had YOUR
family exterminated ... never diverted YOUR cut of
the GNP to Hamas, the PLO and maybe al-Qaida. Saddam
never invaded YOUR country, never gassed YOUR town.
So why should you care ... ?
Exactly! Funny, I don't remember that being the reason
we went there. Bush claimed they were going to nuke the
U.S. I don't hear you neocons complaining about the same
thing happening in Sudan.
Sudan was just *embarassing* ...
Iraq ... everybody was pretty damned SURE they had
WMDs everywhere. Maybe they did - it's a big desert
to search. In any event Husseins attitude, history,
financial status and dealings, political relevance
and geographic location all factored-in to the
decision to invade.
You still trying that old lie?
The inspector's final report
When chief weapons inspector David Kay bluntly told the senate
there were, in fact, no WMDs, he forced a humiliating U-turn in
Washington and London. Now, in his first newspaper interview, he
tells Julian Borger that the president must admit he got it
wrong
Wednesday March 3, 2004
The Guardian
When David Kay walked into the US Senate in late January, the
question of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction had become
entangled in a thick forest of evasions, euphemisms and
elisions. George Bush's administration and Tony Blair's
government insisted that some evidence of weapons had been found
by the Iraq Survey Group (ISG), which Kay had led for seven
months, and that much more would be uncovered. At the same time,
some US officials were market testing a new line - that the
administration had never claimed there were Iraqi weapons
stockpiles in the first place, just weapons programmes.
Kay sat down in front of the Senate microphone on January 28,
and with a few blunt words, swept all that carefully calibrated
verbiage away. "Let me begin by saying, we were almost all
wrong, and I certainly include myself here," he told the
open-mouthed senators. It was a mea culpa - he had been
convinced since his days as a UN inspector that Saddam Hussein
was concealing a potentially devastating arsenal - but it was
much more than that.
In simply stating that there were no stockpiles, Kay declared
that the would-be emperors on both sides of the Atlantic had no
clothes. His call for a full inquiry ultimately tipped the
balance in Washington and led to the creation of a bipartisan
commission to investigate the intelligence fiasco. That, in
turn, stampeded Blair into the Butler inquiry.
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/story/0%2C12956%2C1160665%2C00.html
--Jeff
--
Often war is waged only in order to
show valor; thus an inner dignity is
ascribed to war itself, and even some
philosophers have praised it as an
ennoblement of humanity, forgetting the
pronouncement of the Greek who said,
"War is an evil in as much as it produces
more wicked men than it takes away."
--Immanuel Kant
Americans will always do the right thing
- after they have exhausted every other
possibility. --Winston Churchill
Loyalty to the country always, loyalty
to the government when it deserves it.
--Mark Twain
I was against gay marriage until I found
out I didn't have to have one.
--James Carville
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: I'd rather have 1000 dead soldiers back +$200 Billion than Saddam's head |
12 Sep 2004 05:19:02 PM |
|
|
"Jeffrey Turner" <jturner@localnet.com> wrote in message
news:10k9f23rclrl3b7@corp.supernews.com...
BlackWater wrote:
On Sat, 11 Sep 2004 20:28:49 GMT, Deficit Spender Bush <Red Ink
Bush@rnc.org> wrote:
In article <4141edf5.706495@news.east.earthlink.net>, says...
Apparently Qusay Hussein never raped, tortured and
murdered YOUR wife and daughter ... never had YOUR
family exterminated ... never diverted YOUR cut of
the GNP to Hamas, the PLO and maybe al-Qaida. Saddam
never invaded YOUR country, never gassed YOUR town.
So why should you care ... ?
Exactly! Funny, I don't remember that being the reason
we went there. Bush claimed they were going to nuke the U.S. I don't hear you
neocons complaining about the same
thing happening in Sudan.
Sudan was just *embarassing* ... Iraq ... everybody was pretty damned SURE
they had
WMDs everywhere. Maybe they did - it's a big desert
to search. In any event Husseins attitude, history,
financial status and dealings, political relevance
and geographic location all factored-in to the
decision to invade.
You still trying that old lie?
Name the governments whose official
position was that Iraq had no WMD.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeffrey Turner" |
|
| Title: Re: I'd rather have 1000 dead soldiers back +$200 Billion than Saddam'shead |
12 Sep 2004 05:53:20 PM |
|
|
Bob wrote:
"Jeffrey Turner" <jturner@localnet.com> wrote:
BlackWater wrote:
On Sat, 11 Sep 2004 20:28:49 GMT, Deficit Spender Bush <Red Ink
Bush@rnc.org> wrote:
In article <4141edf5.706495@news.east.earthlink.net>, says...
Apparently Qusay Hussein never raped, tortured and
murdered YOUR wife and daughter ... never had YOUR
family exterminated ... never diverted YOUR cut of
the GNP to Hamas, the PLO and maybe al-Qaida. Saddam
never invaded YOUR country, never gassed YOUR town.
So why should you care ... ?
Exactly! Funny, I don't remember that being the reason
we went there. Bush claimed they were going to nuke the U.S. I don't hear you
neocons complaining about the same
thing happening in Sudan.
Sudan was just *embarassing* ... Iraq ... everybody was pretty damned SURE
they had
WMDs everywhere. Maybe they did - it's a big desert
to search. In any event Husseins attitude, history,
financial status and dealings, political relevance
and geographic location all factored-in to the
decision to invade.
You still trying that old lie?
Name the governments whose official
position was that Iraq had no WMD.
The sane governments were operating on the principle that
inspections were a better way of finding out for sure.
Fools rush in where wise men fear to tread.
Bush is a Class A fool.
--Jeff
--
Often war is waged only in order to
show valor; thus an inner dignity is
ascribed to war itself, and even some
philosophers have praised it as an
ennoblement of humanity, forgetting the
pronouncement of the Greek who said,
"War is an evil in as much as it produces
more wicked men than it takes away."
--Immanuel Kant
Americans will always do the right thing
- after they have exhausted every other
possibility. --Winston Churchill
Loyalty to the country always, loyalty
to the government when it deserves it.
--Mark Twain
I was against gay marriage until I found
out I didn't have to have one.
--James Carville
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: I'd rather have 1000 dead soldiers back +$200 Billion than Saddam's head |
12 Sep 2004 06:37:25 PM |
|
|
"Jeffrey Turner" <jturner@localnet.com> wrote in message
news:10k9kr584imq307@corp.supernews.com...
Bob wrote:
"Jeffrey Turner" <jturner@localnet.com> wrote:
BlackWater wrote:
On Sat, 11 Sep 2004 20:28:49 GMT, Deficit Spender Bush <Red Ink
Bush@rnc.org> wrote:
In article <4141edf5.706495@news.east.earthlink.net>, says...
Apparently Qusay Hussein never raped, tortured and
murdered YOUR wife and daughter ... never had YOUR
family exterminated ... never diverted YOUR cut of
the GNP to Hamas, the PLO and maybe al-Qaida. Saddam
never invaded YOUR country, never gassed YOUR town.
So why should you care ... ?
Exactly! Funny, I don't remember that being the reason
we went there. Bush claimed they were going to nuke the U.S. I don't hear
you neocons complaining about the same
thing happening in Sudan.
Sudan was just *embarassing* ... Iraq ... everybody was pretty damned
SURE they had
WMDs everywhere. Maybe they did - it's a big desert
to search. In any event Husseins attitude, history,
financial status and dealings, political relevance
and geographic location all factored-in to the
decision to invade.
You still trying that old lie?
Name the governments whose official
position was that Iraq had no WMD.
The sane governments were operating on the principle that
inspections were a better way of finding out for sure.
Once again, you fail to respond.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Deficit Spender Bush Red Ink" |
|
| Title: Re: I'd rather have 1000 dead soldiers back +$200 Billion than Saddam's head |
12 Sep 2004 06:53:35 PM |
|
|
In article <O351d.4646$zT6.3499@bignews5.bellsouth.net>, no@email.address says...
"Jeffrey Turner" <jturner@localnet.com> wrote in message
news:10k9kr584imq307@corp.supernews.com...
Bob wrote:
"Jeffrey Turner" <jturner@localnet.com> wrote:
BlackWater wrote:
On Sat, 11 Sep 2004 20:28:49 GMT, Deficit Spender Bush <Red Ink
Bush@rnc.org> wrote:
In article <4141edf5.706495@news.east.earthlink.net>, says...
Apparently Qusay Hussein never raped, tortured and
murdered YOUR wife and daughter ... never had YOUR
family exterminated ... never diverted YOUR cut of
the GNP to Hamas, the PLO and maybe al-Qaida. Saddam
never invaded YOUR country, never gassed YOUR town.
So why should you care ... ?
Exactly! Funny, I don't remember that being the reason
we went there. Bush claimed they were going to nuke the U.S. I don't hear
you neocons complaining about the same
thing happening in Sudan.
Sudan was just *embarassing* ... Iraq ... everybody was pretty damned
SURE they had
WMDs everywhere. Maybe they did - it's a big desert
to search. In any event Husseins attitude, history,
financial status and dealings, political relevance
and geographic location all factored-in to the
decision to invade.
You still trying that old lie?
Name the governments whose official
position was that Iraq had no WMD.
The sane governments were operating on the principle that
inspections were a better way of finding out for sure.
Once again, you fail to respond.
Hans Blix, the UN Weapons Inspector, found no WMD's.
He was there in Iraq, in a position to know. Bush
and Cheney regarding his findings as naive. In fact,
as we all know, Blix was correct, Bush and Cheney
are now proven idiots.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: I'd rather have 1000 dead soldiers back +$200 Billion than Saddam's head |
12 Sep 2004 07:13:34 PM |
|
|
"Deficit Spender Bush" <Red Ink Bush@rnc.org> wrote in message
news:MPG.1bae815b7724f8b3989c63@netnews.comcast.net...
In article <O351d.4646$zT6.3499@bignews5.bellsouth.net>, no@email.address
says...
"Jeffrey Turner" <jturner@localnet.com> wrote in message
news:10k9kr584imq307@corp.supernews.com...
Bob wrote:
"Jeffrey Turner" <jturner@localnet.com> wrote:
BlackWater wrote:
On Sat, 11 Sep 2004 20:28:49 GMT, Deficit Spender Bush <Red Ink
Bush@rnc.org> wrote:
In article <4141edf5.706495@news.east.earthlink.net>,
says...
Apparently Qusay Hussein never raped, tortured and
murdered YOUR wife and daughter ... never had YOUR
family exterminated ... never diverted YOUR cut of
the GNP to Hamas, the PLO and maybe al-Qaida. Saddam
never invaded YOUR country, never gassed YOUR town.
So why should you care ... ?
Exactly! Funny, I don't remember that being the reason
we went there. Bush claimed they were going to nuke the U.S. I don't
hear
you neocons complaining about the same
thing happening in Sudan.
Sudan was just *embarassing* ... Iraq ... everybody was pretty damned
SURE they had
WMDs everywhere. Maybe they did - it's a big desert
to search. In any event Husseins attitude, history,
financial status and dealings, political relevance
and geographic location all factored-in to the
decision to invade.
You still trying that old lie?
Name the governments whose official
position was that Iraq had no WMD.
The sane governments were operating on the principle that
inspections were a better way of finding out for sure.
Once again, you fail to respond.
Hans Blix, the UN Weapons Inspector, found no WMD's.
He was there in Iraq, in a position to know. Bush
and Cheney regarding his findings as naive. In fact,
as we all know, Blix was correct, Bush and Cheney
are now proven idiots.
Name the governments whose official
position was that Iraq had no WMD.
Then name the date that Blix declared
that Saddam was in complete compliance
with UN resolutions, or that Saddam had
no WMD.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeffrey Turner" |
|
| Title: Re: I'd rather have 1000 dead soldiers back +$200 Billion than Saddam'shead |
12 Sep 2004 08:08:21 PM |
|
|
Bob wrote:
"Deficit Spender Bush" <Red Ink Bush@rnc.org> wrote:
In article <O351d.4646$zT6.3499@bignews5.bellsouth.net>, no@email.address
says...
"Jeffrey Turner" <jturner@localnet.com> wrote:
Bob wrote:
"Jeffrey Turner" <jturner@localnet.com> wrote:
BlackWater wrote:
On Sat, 11 Sep 2004 20:28:49 GMT, Deficit Spender Bush <Red Ink
Bush@rnc.org> wrote:
In article <4141edf5.706495@news.east.earthlink.net>,
says...
Apparently Qusay Hussein never raped, tortured and
murdered YOUR wife and daughter ... never had YOUR
family exterminated ... never diverted YOUR cut of
the GNP to Hamas, the PLO and maybe al-Qaida. Saddam
never invaded YOUR country, never gassed YOUR town.
So why should you care ... ?
Exactly! Funny, I don't remember that being the reason
we went there. Bush claimed they were going to nuke the U.S. I don't
hear
you neocons complaining about the same
thing happening in Sudan.
Sudan was just *embarassing* ... Iraq ... everybody was pretty damned
SURE they had
WMDs everywhere. Maybe they did - it's a big desert
to search. In any event Husseins attitude, history,
financial status and dealings, political relevance
and geographic location all factored-in to the
decision to invade.
You still trying that old lie?
Name the governments whose official
position was that Iraq had no WMD.
The sane governments were operating on the principle that
inspections were a better way of finding out for sure.
Once again, you fail to respond.
Hans Blix, the UN Weapons Inspector, found no WMD's.
He was there in Iraq, in a position to know. Bush
and Cheney regarding his findings as naive. In fact,
as we all know, Blix was correct, Bush and Cheney
are now proven idiots.
Name the governments whose official
position was that Iraq had no WMD.
Then name the date that Blix declared
that Saddam was in complete compliance
with UN resolutions, or that Saddam had
no WMD.
Blabber, blabber. Blix was still checking things out when
Bush the Impatient ordered the inspectors out of Iraq because
his X-ray vision permitted him to know that Saddam Hussein had
WMD.
Most of the world's governments didn't have intelligence
operations in Iraq. AFAIK, their official positions were not
yes and not no.
But it was pretty obvious that there weren't any WMD based on
the inability of all the "intelligence" the US was supplying to
actually find anything.
--Jeff
--
Often war is waged only in order to
show valor; thus an inner dignity is
ascribed to war itself, and even some
philosophers have praised it as an
ennoblement of humanity, forgetting the
pronouncement of the Greek who said,
"War is an evil in as much as it produces
more wicked men than it takes away."
--Immanuel Kant
Americans will always do the right thing
- after they have exhausted every other
possibility. --Winston Churchill
Loyalty to the country always, loyalty
to the government when it deserves it.
--Mark Twain
I was against gay marriage until I found
out I didn't have to have one.
--James Carville
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: I'd rather have 1000 dead soldiers back +$200 Billion than Saddam's head |
12 Sep 2004 08:16:53 PM |
|
|
"Jeffrey Turner" <jturner@localnet.com> wrote in message
news:10k9soackjhqu00@corp.supernews.com...
Bob wrote:
"Deficit Spender Bush" <Red Ink Bush@rnc.org> wrote:
In article <O351d.4646$zT6.3499@bignews5.bellsouth.net>, no@email.address
says...
"Jeffrey Turner" <jturner@localnet.com> wrote:
Bob wrote:
"Jeffrey Turner" <jturner@localnet.com> wrote:
BlackWater wrote:
On Sat, 11 Sep 2004 20:28:49 GMT, Deficit Spender Bush <Red Ink
Bush@rnc.org> wrote:
In article <4141edf5.706495@news.east.earthlink.net>,
says...
Apparently Qusay Hussein never raped, tortured and
murdered YOUR wife and daughter ... never had YOUR
family exterminated ... never diverted YOUR cut of
the GNP to Hamas, the PLO and maybe al-Qaida. Saddam
never invaded YOUR country, never gassed YOUR town.
So why should you care ... ?
Exactly! Funny, I don't remember that being the reason
we went there. Bush claimed they were going to nuke the U.S. I don't
hear
you neocons complaining about the same
thing happening in Sudan.
Sudan was just *embarassing* ... Iraq ... everybody was pretty damned
SURE they had
WMDs everywhere. Maybe they did - it's a big desert
to search. In any event Husseins attitude, history,
financial status and dealings, political relevance
and geographic location all factored-in to the
decision to invade.
You still trying that old lie?
Name the governments whose official
position was that Iraq had no WMD.
The sane governments were operating on the principle that
inspections were a better way of finding out for sure.
Once again, you fail to respond.
Hans Blix, the UN Weapons Inspector, found no WMD's.
He was there in Iraq, in a position to know. Bush
and Cheney regarding his findings as naive. In fact,
as we all know, Blix was correct, Bush and Cheney
are now proven idiots.
Name the governments whose official
position was that Iraq had no WMD.
Then name the date that Blix declared
that Saddam was in complete compliance
with UN resolutions, or that Saddam had
no WMD.
Blabber, blabber.
I see you can't, or choose not to respond
directly.
Blix was still checking things out when
Bush the Impatient ordered the inspectors out of Iraq because
his X-ray vision permitted him to know that Saddam Hussein had
WMD.
Bush waited to long to suit me, but at
least he had the courage to act.
Most of the world's governments didn't have intelligence
operations in Iraq. AFAIK, their official positions were not
yes and not no.
Most of the world's governments don't
have intelligence operations in any country,
so I don't see the relevance of that statement.
You are still evading, and we all know why.
But it was pretty obvious that there weren't any WMD based on
the inability of all the "intelligence" the US was supplying to
actually find anything.
Hindsight is always accurate. Intelligence
is almost never 100% accurate. At the time,
no government, other than Iraq, said that
Iraq had no WMD. A president that doesn't
act on that information would not be doing
his job.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Deficit Spender Bush Red Ink" |
|
| Title: Re: I'd rather have 1000 dead soldiers back +$200 Billion than Saddam's head |
12 Sep 2004 08:32:25 PM |
|
|
In article <3x61d.4745$zT6.1969@bignews5.bellsouth.net>, no@email.address says...
"Jeffrey Turner" <jturner@localnet.com> wrote in message
news:10k9soackjhqu00@corp.supernews.com...
Bob wrote:
"Deficit Spender Bush" <Red Ink Bush@rnc.org> wrote:
In article <O351d.4646$zT6.3499@bignews5.bellsouth.net>, no@email.address
says...
"Jeffrey Turner" <jturner@localnet.com> wrote:
Bob wrote:
"Jeffrey Turner" <jturner@localnet.com> wrote:
BlackWater wrote:
On Sat, 11 Sep 2004 20:28:49 GMT, Deficit Spender Bush <Red Ink
Bush@rnc.org> wrote:
In article <4141edf5.706495@news.east.earthlink.net>,
says...
Apparently Qusay Hussein never raped, tortured and
murdered YOUR wife and daughter ... never had YOUR
family exterminated ... never diverted YOUR cut of
the GNP to Hamas, the PLO and maybe al-Qaida. Saddam
never invaded YOUR country, never gassed YOUR town.
So why should you care ... ?
Exactly! Funny, I don't remember that being the reason
we went there. Bush claimed they were going to nuke the U.S. I don't
hear
you neocons complaining about the same
thing happening in Sudan.
Sudan was just *embarassing* ... Iraq ... everybody was pretty damned
SURE they had
WMDs everywhere. Maybe they did - it's a big desert
to search. In any event Husseins attitude, history,
financial status and dealings, political relevance
and geographic location all factored-in to the
decision to invade.
You still trying that old lie?
Name the governments whose official
position was that Iraq had no WMD.
The sane governments were operating on the principle that
inspections were a better way of finding out for sure.
Once again, you fail to respond.
Hans Blix, the UN Weapons Inspector, found no WMD's.
He was there in Iraq, in a position to know. Bush
and Cheney regarding his findings as naive. In fact,
as we all know, Blix was correct, Bush and Cheney
are now proven idiots.
Name the governments whose official
position was that Iraq had no WMD.
Then name the date that Blix declared
that Saddam was in complete compliance
with UN resolutions, or that Saddam had
no WMD.
Blabber, blabber.
I see you can't, or choose not to respond
directly.
Blix was still checking things out when
Bush the Impatient ordered the inspectors out of Iraq because
his X-ray vision permitted him to know that Saddam Hussein had
WMD.
Bush waited to long to suit me, but at
least he had the courage to act.
So much for choosing your battles wisely.
And there's that courage business again.
Bush has no personal courage. During
Vietnam Bush supported the war but used his
influence to get out of fighting. Now he's
anxious to send others sons and daughters to
die for a questionable venture. See a
pattern?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: I'd rather have 1000 dead soldiers back +$200 Billion than Saddam's head |
12 Sep 2004 09:16:37 PM |
|
|
"Deficit Spender Bush" <Red Ink Bush@rnc.org> wrote in message
news:MPG.1bae9887c618a74989c66@netnews.comcast.net...
In article <3x61d.4745$zT6.1969@bignews5.bellsouth.net>, no@email.address
says...
"Jeffrey Turner" <jturner@localnet.com> wrote in message
news:10k9soackjhqu00@corp.supernews.com...
Bob wrote:
"Deficit Spender Bush" <Red Ink Bush@rnc.org> wrote:
In article <O351d.4646$zT6.3499@bignews5.bellsouth.net>, no@email.address
says...
"Jeffrey Turner" <jturner@localnet.com> wrote:
Bob wrote:
"Jeffrey Turner" <jturner@localnet.com> wrote:
BlackWater wrote:
On Sat, 11 Sep 2004 20:28:49 GMT, Deficit Spender Bush <Red Ink
Bush@rnc.org> wrote:
In article <4141edf5.706495@news.east.earthlink.net>,
says...
Apparently Qusay Hussein never raped, tortured and
murdered YOUR wife and daughter ... never had YOUR
family exterminated ... never diverted YOUR cut of
the GNP to Hamas, the PLO and maybe al-Qaida. Saddam
never invaded YOUR country, never gassed YOUR town.
So why should you care ... ?
Exactly! Funny, I don't remember that being the reason
we went there. Bush claimed they were going to nuke the U.S. I don't
hear
you neocons complaining about the same
thing happening in Sudan.
Sudan was just *embarassing* ... Iraq ... everybody was pretty
damned
SURE they had
WMDs everywhere. Maybe they did - it's a big desert
to search. In any event Husseins attitude, history,
financial status and dealings, political relevance
and geographic location all factored-in to the
decision to invade.
You still trying that old lie?
Name the governments whose official
position was that Iraq had no WMD.
The sane governments were operating on the principle that
inspections were a better way of finding out for sure.
Once again, you fail to respond.
Hans Blix, the UN Weapons Inspector, found no WMD's.
He was there in Iraq, in a position to know. Bush
and Cheney regarding his findings as naive. In fact,
as we all know, Blix was correct, Bush and Cheney
are now proven idiots.
Name the governments whose official
position was that Iraq had no WMD.
Then name the date that Blix declared
that Saddam was in complete compliance
with UN resolutions, or that Saddam had
no WMD.
Blabber, blabber.
I see you can't, or choose not to respond
directly.
Blix was still checking things out when
Bush the Impatient ordered the inspectors out of Iraq because
his X-ray vision permitted him to know that Saddam Hussein had
WMD.
Bush waited to long to suit me, but at
least he had the courage to act.
So much for choosing your battles wisely.
And there's that courage business again.
Bush has no personal courage. During
Vietnam Bush supported the war but used his
influence to get out of fighting. Now he's
anxious to send others sons and daughters to
die for a questionable venture. See a
pattern?
I agree that Bush was a coward during
the Vietnam era, as was Kerry. However,
I am concerned about their actions in
the last 20 years. Bush has the courage
to oppose evil. Kerry is still the liberal
coward he was during the Vietnam era.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Deficit Spender Bush Red Ink" |
|
| Title: Re: I'd rather have 1000 dead soldiers back +$200 Billion than Saddam's head |
12 Sep 2004 11:08:24 PM |
|
|
In article <4r71d.4987$zT6.346@bignews5.bellsouth.net>, no@email.address says...
"Deficit Spender Bush" <Red Ink Bush@rnc.org> wrote in message
news:MPG.1bae9887c618a74989c66@netnews.comcast.net...
In article <3x61d.4745$zT6.1969@bignews5.bellsouth.net>, no@email.address
says...
"Jeffrey Turner" <jturner@localnet.com> wrote in message
news:10k9soackjhqu00@corp.supernews.com...
Bob wrote:
"Deficit Spender Bush" <Red Ink Bush@rnc.org> wrote:
In article <O351d.4646$zT6.3499@bignews5.bellsouth.net>, no@email.address
says...
"Jeffrey Turner" <jturner@localnet.com> wrote:
Bob wrote:
"Jeffrey Turner" <jturner@localnet.com> wrote:
BlackWater wrote:
On Sat, 11 Sep 2004 20:28:49 GMT, Deficit Spender Bush <Red Ink
Bush@rnc.org> wrote:
In article <4141edf5.706495@news.east.earthlink.net>,
says...
Apparently Qusay Hussein never raped, tortured and
murdered YOUR wife and daughter ... never had YOUR
family exterminated ... never diverted YOUR cut of
the GNP to Hamas, the PLO and maybe al-Qaida. Saddam
never invaded YOUR country, never gassed YOUR town.
So why should you care ... ?
Exactly! Funny, I don't remember that being the reason
we went there. Bush claimed they were going to nuke the U.S. I don't
hear
you neocons complaining about the same
thing happening in Sudan.
Sudan was just *embarassing* ... Iraq ... everybody was pretty
damned
SURE they had
WMDs everywhere. Maybe they did - it's a big desert
to search. In any event Husseins attitude, history,
financial status and dealings, political relevance
and geographic location all factored-in to the
decision to invade.
You still trying that old lie?
Name the governments whose official
position was that Iraq had no WMD.
The sane governments were operating on the principle that
inspections were a better way of finding out for sure.
Once again, you fail to respond.
Hans Blix, the UN Weapons Inspector, found no WMD's.
He was there in Iraq, in a position to know. Bush
and Cheney regarding his findings as naive. In fact,
as we all know, Blix was correct, Bush and Cheney
are now proven idiots.
Name the governments whose official
position was that Iraq had no WMD.
Then name the date that Blix declared
that Saddam was in complete compliance
with UN resolutions, or that Saddam had
no WMD.
Blabber, blabber.
I see you can't, or choose not to respond
directly.
Blix was still checking things out when
Bush the Impatient ordered the inspectors out of Iraq because
his X-ray vision permitted him to know that Saddam Hussein had
WMD.
Bush waited to long to suit me, but at
least he had the courage to act.
So much for choosing your battles wisely.
And there's that courage business again.
Bush has no personal courage. During
Vietnam Bush supported the war but used his
influence to get out of fighting. Now he's
anxious to send others sons and daughters to
die for a questionable venture. See a
pattern?
I agree that Bush was a coward during
the Vietnam era, as was Kerry. However,
I am concerned about their actions in
the last 20 years. Bush has the courage
to oppose evil. Kerry is still the liberal
coward he was during the Vietnam era.
Bob, you're a knucklehead if you are
calling Kerry a coward for opposing
the war in Vietnam. That has nothing
to do with cowardice. Did you fight
in Vietnam?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: I'd rather have 1000 dead soldiers back +$200 Billion than Saddam's head |
13 Sep 2004 05:44:25 PM |
|
|
"Deficit Spender Bush" <Red Ink Bush@rnc.org> wrote in message
news:MPG.1baebd16264f02be989c67@netnews.comcast.net...
In article <4r71d.4987$zT6.346@bignews5.bellsouth.net>, no@email.address
says...
"Deficit Spender Bush" <Red Ink Bush@rnc.org> wrote in message
news:MPG.1bae9887c618a74989c66@netnews.comcast.net...
In article <3x61d.4745$zT6.1969@bignews5.bellsouth.net>, no@email.address
says...
"Jeffrey Turner" <jturner@localnet.com> wrote in message
news:10k9soackjhqu00@corp.supernews.com...
Bob wrote:
"Deficit Spender Bush" <Red Ink Bush@rnc.org> wrote:
In article <O351d.4646$zT6.3499@bignews5.bellsouth.net>,
no@email.address
says...
"Jeffrey Turner" <jturner@localnet.com> wrote:
Bob wrote:
"Jeffrey Turner" <jturner@localnet.com> wrote:
BlackWater wrote:
On Sat, 11 Sep 2004 20:28:49 GMT, Deficit Spender Bush <Red Ink
Bush@rnc.org> wrote:
In article <4141edf5.706495@news.east.earthlink.net>,
bw@barrk.net
says...
Apparently Qusay Hussein never raped, tortured and
murdered YOUR wife and daughter ... never had YOUR
family exterminated ... never diverted YOUR cut of
the GNP to Hamas, the PLO and maybe al-Qaida. Saddam
never invaded YOUR country, never gassed YOUR town.
So why should you care ... ?
Exactly! Funny, I don't remember that being the reason
we went there. Bush claimed they were going to nuke the U.S. I
don't
hear
you neocons complaining about the same
thing happening in Sudan.
Sudan was just *embarassing* ... Iraq ... everybody was pretty
damned
SURE they had
WMDs everywhere. Maybe they did - it's a big desert
to search. In any event Husseins attitude, history,
financial status and dealings, political relevance
and geographic location all factored-in to the
decision to invade.
You still trying that old lie?
Name the governments whose official
position was that Iraq had no WMD.
The sane governments were operating on the principle that
inspections were a better way of finding out for sure.
Once again, you fail to respond.
Hans Blix, the UN Weapons Inspector, found no WMD's.
He was there in Iraq, in a position to know. Bush
and Cheney regarding his findings as naive. In fact,
as we all know, Blix was correct, Bush and Cheney
are now proven idiots.
Name the governments whose official
position was that Iraq had no WMD.
Then name the date that Blix declared
that Saddam was in complete compliance
with UN resolutions, or that Saddam had
no WMD.
Blabber, blabber.
I see you can't, or choose not to respond
directly.
Blix was still checking things out when
Bush the Impatient ordered the inspectors out of Iraq because
his X-ray vision permitted him to know that Saddam Hussein had
WMD.
Bush waited to long to suit me, but at
least he had the courage to act.
So much for choosing your battles wisely.
And there's that courage business again.
Bush has no personal courage. During
Vietnam Bush supported the war but used his
influence to get out of fighting. Now he's
anxious to send others sons and daughters to
die for a questionable venture. See a
pattern?
I agree that Bush was a coward during
the Vietnam era, as was Kerry. However,
I am concerned about their actions in
the last 20 years. Bush has the courage
to oppose evil. Kerry is still the liberal
coward he was during the Vietnam era.
Bob, you're a knucklehead if you are
calling Kerry a coward for opposing
the war in Vietnam. That has nothing
to do with cowardice. Did you fight
in Vietnam?
Yes.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Deficit Spender Bush Red Ink" |
|
| Title: Re: I'd rather have 1000 dead soldiers back +$200 Billion than Saddam's head |
12 Sep 2004 08:28:22 PM |
|
|
In article <IB51d.4687$zT6.3108@bignews5.bellsouth.net>, no@email.address says...
"Deficit Spender Bush" <Red Ink Bush@rnc.org> wrote in message
news:MPG.1bae815b7724f8b3989c63@netnews.comcast.net...
In article <O351d.4646$zT6.3499@bignews5.bellsouth.net>, no@email.address
says...
"Jeffrey Turner" <jturner@localnet.com> wrote in message
news:10k9kr584imq307@corp.supernews.com...
Bob wrote:
"Jeffrey Turner" <jturner@localnet.com> wrote:
BlackWater wrote:
On Sat, 11 Sep 2004 20:28:49 GMT, Deficit Spender Bush <Red Ink
Bush@rnc.org> wrote:
In article <4141edf5.706495@news.east.earthlink.net>,
says...
Apparently Qusay Hussein never raped, tortured and
murdered YOUR wife and daughter ... never had YOUR
family exterminated ... never diverted YOUR cut of
the GNP to Hamas, the PLO and maybe al-Qaida. Saddam
never invaded YOUR country, never gassed YOUR town.
So why should you care ... ?
Exactly! Funny, I don't remember that being the reason
we went there. Bush claimed they were going to nuke the U.S. I don't
hear
you neocons complaining about the same
thing happening in Sudan.
Sudan was just *embarassing* ... Iraq ... everybody was pretty damned
SURE they had
WMDs everywhere. Maybe they did - it's a big desert
to search. In any event Husseins attitude, history,
financial status and dealings, political relevance
and geographic location all factored-in to the
decision to invade.
You still trying that old lie?
Name the governments whose official
position was that Iraq had no WMD.
The sane governments were operating on the principle that
inspections were a better way of finding out for sure.
Once again, you fail to respond.
Hans Blix, the UN Weapons Inspector, found no WMD's.
He was there in Iraq, in a position to know. Bush
and Cheney regarding his findings as naive. In fact,
as we all know, Blix was correct, Bush and Cheney
are now proven idiots.
Name the governments whose official
position was that Iraq had no WMD.
Then name the date that Blix declared
that Saddam was in complete compliance
with UN resolutions, or that Saddam had
no WMD.
You answered your own question:
"Most of the world's governments don't
have intelligence operations in any country,
so I don't see the relevance of that statement.
You are still evading, and we all know why."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: I'd rather have 1000 dead soldiers back +$200 Billion than Saddam's head |
12 Sep 2004 09:18:46 PM |
|
|
"Deficit Spender Bush" <Red Ink Bush@rnc.org> wrote in message
news:MPG.1bae978e313fcbd3989c65@netnews.comcast.net...
In article <IB51d.4687$zT6.3108@bignews5.bellsouth.net>, no@email.address
says...
"Deficit Spender Bush" <Red Ink Bush@rnc.org> wrote in message
news:MPG.1bae815b7724f8b3989c63@netnews.comcast.net...
In article <O351d.4646$zT6.3499@bignews5.bellsouth.net>, no@email.address
says...
"Jeffrey Turner" <jturner@localnet.com> wrote in message
news:10k9kr584imq307@corp.supernews.com...
Bob wrote:
"Jeffrey Turner" <jturner@localnet.com> wrote:
BlackWater wrote:
On Sat, 11 Sep 2004 20:28:49 GMT, Deficit Spender Bush <Red Ink
Bush@rnc.org> wrote:
In article <4141edf5.706495@news.east.earthlink.net>,
says...
Apparently Qusay Hussein never raped, tortured and
murdered YOUR wife and daughter ... never had YOUR
family exterminated ... never diverted YOUR cut of
the GNP to Hamas, the PLO and maybe al-Qaida. Saddam
never invaded YOUR country, never gassed YOUR town.
So why should you care ... ?
Exactly! Funny, I don't remember that being the reason
we went there. Bush claimed they were going to nuke the U.S. I don't
hear
you neocons complaining about the same
thing happening in Sudan.
Sudan was just *embarassing* ... Iraq ... everybody was pretty
damned
SURE they had
WMDs everywhere. Maybe they did - it's a big desert
to search. In any event Husseins attitude, history,
financial status and dealings, political relevance
and geographic location all factored-in to the
decision to invade.
You still trying that old lie?
Name the governments whose official
position was that Iraq had no WMD.
The sane governments were operating on the principle that
inspections were a better way of finding out for sure.
Once again, you fail to respond.
Hans Blix, the UN Weapons Inspector, found no WMD's.
He was there in Iraq, in a position to know. Bush
and Cheney regarding his findings as naive. In fact,
as we all know, Blix was correct, Bush and Cheney
are now proven idiots.
Name the governments whose official
position was that Iraq had no WMD.
Then name the date that Blix declared
that Saddam was in complete compliance
with UN resolutions, or that Saddam had
no WMD.
You answered your own question:
"Most of the world's governments don't
have intelligence operations in any country,
so I don't see the relevance of that statement.
You are still evading, and we all know why."
That is not a direct response. I asked you
to name the governments whose official
position was that Iraq had no WMD. You
have yet to respond, and we all know why.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Chief" |
|
| Title: Re: I'd rather have 1000 dead soldiers back +$200 Billion than Saddam's head |
11 Sep 2004 06:35:36 AM |
|
|
Deficit Spender Bush <Red Ink Bush@rnc.org> wrote in
news:MPG.1bac3f89c6ea77a7989c57@netnews.comcast.net:
Bush screwed up badly in Iraq. His current
war strategy is to try and keep Iraq out of
the news until the election.
Saddam was contained. He had nothing to do
with 9/11 or Al Qaeda. We should have gone
after Al Qaeda & spent money protecting
our borders and ports.
Bush lacks wisdom. He is unfit to lead
American. We need a "more seasoned pilot".
I'll take a one legged drunk Greyhound bus driver.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ben" |
|
| Title: Re: I'd rather have 1000 dead soldiers back +$200 Billion than Saddam's head |
12 Sep 2004 10:16:39 PM |
|
|
Deficit Spender Bush <Red Ink Bush@rnc.org> wrote in message news:<MPG.1bac3f89c6ea77a7989c57@netnews.comcast.net>...
Bush screwed up badly in Iraq. His current
war strategy is to try and keep Iraq out of
the news until the election.
Saddam was contained. He had nothing to do
with 9/11 or Al Qaeda. We should have gone
after Al Qaeda & spent money protecting
our borders and ports.
Bush lacks wisdom. He is unfit to lead
American. We need a "more seasoned pilot".
In that case, there are many others who also lacked wisdom.
"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal,
murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a
particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to
miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to
his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass
destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass
destruction is real..."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003
http://www.kgoam810.com/viewentry.asp?ID=285848&PT=PERSONALITIES
Have they all lied? or were they all missinformed?
Can we blame Bush for having followed their advice and disarm Saddam?
Ben
.
|
|
|
| User: "Deficit Spender Bush Red Ink" |
|
| Title: Re: I'd rather have 1000 dead soldiers back +$200 Billion than Saddam's head |
12 Sep 2004 11:26:17 PM |
|
|
In article <d057433.0409121916.9e00794@posting.google.com>, says...
Deficit Spender Bush <Red Ink Bush@rnc.org> wrote in message news:<MPG.1bac3f89c6ea77a7989c57@netnews.comcast.net>...
Bush screwed up badly in Iraq. His current
war strategy is to try and keep Iraq out of
the news until the election.
Saddam was contained. He had nothing to do
with 9/11 or Al Qaeda. We should have gone
after Al Qaeda & spent money protecting
our borders and ports.
Bush lacks wisdom. He is unfit to lead
American. We need a "more seasoned pilot".
In that case, there are many others who also lacked wisdom.
"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal,
murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a
particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to
miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to
his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass
destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass
destruction is real..."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003
http://www.kgoam810.com/viewentry.asp?ID=285848&PT=PERSONALITIES
Have they all lied? or were they all missinformed?
Can we blame Bush for having followed their advice and disarm Saddam?
Ben
Why stop there? Here's what followed that his speech at Georgetown
University on 23 January 2003 (sound familiar?):
So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real,
but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War.
Regrettably the current Administration failed to take the opportunity to
bring this issue to the United Nations two years ago or immediately after
September 11th, when we had such unity of spirit with our allies. When it
finally did speak, it was with hasty war talk instead of a coherent call
for Iraqi disarmament. And that made it possible for other Arab regimes to
shift their focus to the perils of war for themselves rather than keeping
the focus on the perils posed by Saddam's deadly arsenal. Indeed, for a time,
the Administration's unilateralism, in effect, elevated Saddam in the eyes of
his neighbors to a level he never would have achieved on his own, undermining
America's standing with most of the coalition partners which had joined us in
repelling the invasion of Kuwait a decade ago.
In U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441, the United Nations has now affirmed
that Saddam Hussein must disarm or face the most serious consequences. Let me
make it clear that the burden is resoundingly on Saddam Hussein to live up to
the ceasefire agreement he signed and make clear to the world how he disposed
of weapons he previously admitted to possessing. But the burden is also clearly
on the Bush Administration to do the hard work of building a broad coalition
at the U.N. and the necessary work of educating America about the rationale for
war. As I have said frequently and repeat here today, the United States should
never go to war because it wants to, the United States should go to war because
we have to. And we don't have to until we have exhausted the remedies available,
built legitimacy and earned the consent of the American people, absent, of course,
an imminent threat requiring urgent action.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Cybernaut" |
|
| Title: Re: I'd rather have 1000 dead soldiers back +$200 Billion than Saddam's head |
11 Sep 2004 01:52:52 AM |
|
|
Hell, any pilot would do at the moment.
"Deficit Spender Bush" <Red Ink Bush@rnc.org> wrote in message
news:MPG.1bac3f89c6ea77a7989c57@netnews.comcast.net...
Bush screwed up badly in Iraq. His current
war strategy is to try and keep Iraq out of
the news until the election.
Saddam was contained. He had nothing to do
with 9/11 or Al Qaeda. We should have gone
after Al Qaeda & spent money protecting
our borders and ports.
Bush lacks wisdom. He is unfit to lead
American. We need a "more seasoned pilot".
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "David Roman" |
|
| Title: Re: I'd rather have 1000 dead soldiers back +$200 Billion than Saddam's head |
11 Sep 2004 06:07:08 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 11 Sep 2004 06:48:04 GMT, Deficit Spender Bush <Red Ink
Bush@rnc.org> wrote:
Bush screwed up badly in Iraq. His current
war strategy is to try and keep Iraq out of
the news until the election.
This has to be his current war strategy because he never had an exit
strategy when he invaded Iraq.
Saddam was contained. He had nothing to do
with 9/11 or Al Qaeda. We should have gone
after Al Qaeda & spent money protecting
our borders and ports.
I agree.
Bush lacks wisdom. He is unfit to lead
American. We need a "more seasoned pilot".
Unfortunately, John Kerry is not that guy. His Senate record proves
this.
.
|
|
|
| User: "william rothenberg" |
|
| Title: Re: I'd rather have 1000 dead soldiers back +$200 Billion than Saddam's head |
13 Sep 2004 10:41:35 PM |
|
|
Any person that allows his own people to be slaughtered with no emotion or
reservation
should himself be put in the frontlines of hell. I was there 32 yrs ago and
promised
that no son of mine should ever endure that experience. I was part of the
101 special
forces unit that trained the south vietnam recon divison. If you want blood
and guts
we made it happen. Do yourself a favor,learn what war it about first before
you feed young men to slaughter.
"David Roman" <droman01nospamme@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:ftm5k01tlel5m3kavhnctg0chb0f12tar5@4ax.com...
On Sat, 11 Sep 2004 06:48:04 GMT, Deficit Spender Bush <Red Ink
Bush@rnc.org> wrote:
Bush screwed up badly in Iraq. His current
war strategy is to try and keep Iraq out of
the news until the election.
This has to be his current war strategy because he never had an exit
strategy when he invaded Iraq.
Saddam was contained. He had nothing to do
with 9/11 or Al Qaeda. We should have gone
after Al Qaeda & spent money protecting
our borders and ports.
I agree.
Bush lacks wisdom. He is unfit to lead
American. We need a "more seasoned pilot".
Unfortunately, John Kerry is not that guy. His Senate record proves
this.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
