| Topic: |
Politics > Politics-USA |
| User: |
"Arther Miller" |
| Date: |
19 Oct 2003 08:41:17 PM |
| Object: |
Senator Ted Kennedy attacks Bush on Iraq |
Senate Floor Remarks
t r u t h o u t | Statement
By U.S. Senator Ted Kennedy
Thursday 16 October 2003
Before the war, week after week after week after week, we were told
lie after lie after lie after lie.
Nearly six months have elapsed since President Bush flew out to the
aircraft carrier and declared "Mission Accomplished" in Iraq. Today,
we all know all too well that the war is not over; the war goes on;
the mission is not accomplished. An unnecessary war, based on
unreliable and inaccurate intelligence, has not brought an end to
danger. Instead, it has brought new dangers, imposed new costs, and
taken more and more American lives each week.
We all agree that Saddam Hussein was a murderous tyrant, and his
brutal regime was an affront to basic human decency. But Iraq was not
a breeding ground for terrorism. Our invasion has made it one.
The trumped up reasons for going to war have collapsed. All the
Administration's rationalizations as we prepared to go to war now
stand revealed as "double-talk." The American people were told Saddam
Hussein was building nuclear weapons. He was not. We were told he had
stockpiles of other weapons of mass destruction. He did not. We were
told he was involved in 9/11. He was not. We were told Iraq was
attracting terrorists from Al Qaeda. It was not. We were told our
soldiers would be viewed as liberators. They are not. We were told
Iraq could pay for its own reconstruction. It cannot. We were told the
war would make America safer. It has not.
Before the war, week after week after week after week, we were told
lie after lie after lie after lie.
And now, despite the increasingly restless Iraqi population, despite
the continuing talk of sabotage, despite the foreign terrorists
crossing thousands of miles of border to attack U.S. servicemen and
women in Iraq, the Administration still refuses to face the truth or
tell the truth. Instead the White House responds by covering up its
failures and trying to sell its rosy version of events by repeating it
with maximum frequency and volume, and minimum regard for realities on
the ground.
No P.R. campaign by the increasingly desperate White House can redress
the painful of loss of a young American soldier almost every day.
Instead of greater stability and order, the forces arrayed against us
are steadily increasing the intensity and sophistication of their
assaults on our troops. Bombs that were once set off by trip wires are
now being set off by remote control. The threat of shoulder fired
missiles makes it unsafe for civilian planes to land at Baghdad
Airport.
No foreign policy in our free society can succeed for long unless it
is supported by our people. Our men and women in uniform fought
bravely and brilliantly, but the President's war has been revealed as
mindless, needless, senseless, and reckless. The American people know
all this. Our allies know it. Our soldiers know it.
We should never have gone to war in Iraq when we did, in the way we
did, for the false reasons we were given. But now that we are there,
two imperatives are absolutely clear: America cannot withdraw now,
leaving Iraq to chaos or civil war, becoming a danger to us far
greater than it did before. The misguided policy of the past is no
excuse for a misguided policy for the future.
We need a realistic and specific plan to bring stability to Iraq, to
bring genuine self-government to Iraq, to bring our soldiers home with
dignity and honor.
Until the Administration genuinely changes course, I cannot in good
conscience vote to fund a failed policy that endangers our troops in
the field and our strategic objectives in the world instead of
protecting them. The greatest mistake we can make in Congress as the
people's elected representatives is to support and finance a
go-it-alone, do-it-because-I-say-so policy that leaves young Americans
increasingly at risk in Iraq.
So when the roll is called on this $87 billion legislation, which
provides no effective conditions for genuine international
participation and a clear change in policy in Iraq, I intend to vote
no. A no vote is not a vote against supporting our troops. It is a
vote to send the Administration back to the drawing board. It is a
vote for a new policy – a policy worthy of the sacrifice our soldiers
are making, a policy that restores America as a respected member of
the family of nations, a policy that will make it easier, not far more
difficult, to win the war against terrorism.
The amount of money is huge.
* It is 87 times what the federal government spends annually on
after-school programs.
* It is 7 times what President Bush proposed to spend on education
for low-income schools in 2004.
* It is 9 times what the federal government spends on special
education each year.
* It is 8 times what the government spends to help middle and
low-income students go to college.
* It is 15 times what the government spends on cancer research.
* It is 27 times what the government spends on substance abuse and
mental health treatment.
* It is 58 times what the government spends on community health
centers.
If our Iraq policy is to be successful, it must take into account
what history teaches us about the use of military power to solve
politically-inspired violence. A new policy must provide the security
that is essential for any nation-building effort. A new policy must
genuinely internationalize the reconstruction of Iraq and end our
occupation. And a successful new policy must give ownership to Iraqis
for their political future.
Surely, in this day and age, at the beginning of the 21st century,
we do not have to re-learn the lesson that every colonial power in
history has learned. We do not want to be – we cannot afford to be –
either in terms of character or in terms of cost – an occupier of
other lands. We must not become the next failed empire in the world.
The Administration seeks to write a new history that defies the
lessons of history. The most basic of those lessons is that we cannot
rely primarily on military means as a solution to politically-inspired
violence. In those circumstances, the tide of history rises squarely
against military occupation.
The British learned that lesson in Northern Ireland. The French
learned it in Algeria. The Russians learned it in Afghanistan and are
re-learning it every day in Chechnya. America learned it in Vietnam,
and we must not re-learn it in Iraq.
Our men and women in uniform are the finest in world, and all
Americans admire and honor their ability and their courage. In Iraq,
they are now being forced to do an extraordinary job they were never
trained for, and they are doing it under extreme and unpredictable
circumstances.
Even with the best forces in the history of the world, our military
cannot succeed if the mission is not achievable, if they are viewed as
occupiers, and if we do not have a clearly defined and realistic
strategy.
In recent weeks, in Massachusetts, at Fort Stewart in Georgia, and
at Walter Reed Hospital, I have met with American troops who fought in
Iraq. I am profoundly moved by the price they pay to serve our
country, and profoundly impressed by their professionalism and
commitment. They are willing to endure great hardship and great danger
in Iraq to complete their mission. But they want to know when their
mission will be complete, and when they will be able to come home.
They are resourceful and strong. But more and more they are
frustrated -- especially by the faceless nature of the threat.
Individuals intent on killing Americans are firing from behind the
cover of crowds, to provoke our soldiers into firing back on
civilians. Many of our troops say they were never trained to be police
officers or to fight a guerilla war.
They want to help the Iraqi people. But the increasing casualties
make them feel unsafe. They want to respond militarily to attacks. But
they often don't know who the attacker is.
They tell me that at first, their convoys were welcomed. But after
time, children began to throw rocks at them, and then came the
bullets. They tell me that far too many in Iraq believe we are there
to take their oil, and that we will stay forever.
They have no clear sense about their post-war mission. Some see it
as winning the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people. Some believe it
is security. Some feel it is to obtain intelligence about opposition
forces and weapons caches. Others think it is to prevent sabotage of
the oil pipelines and other vital infrastructure. Still others say it
is to build sidewalks and soccer fields and schools and hospitals, and
other local facilities. Not one of the soldiers told me their mission
was to achieve Iraq's transition to democracy.
We read today in the Washington Post about a survey of our troops.
Their morale is low. They believe their mission lacks clear
definition. They are getting worn down.
The ongoing occupation of Iraq has imposed a heavy burden on our
forces and created a crisis for the military. It is now stretched
precariously thin. We do not have enough active duty soldiers to
sustain their presence in Iraq and also meet security needs in
Afghanistan and other parts of the world.
The crisis is coming to a head now. Two of our divisions are
scheduled to return from Iraq in the spring. If the Administration is
unsuccessful in recruiting forces from other nations, it will have to
send in at least another division of American troops -- and we don't
have enough active duty forces to do the job. That means even more
call-ups from the National Guard and Reserves. In fact, if
international troops aren't coming, the Administration must notify
reservists by the end of this very month to guarantee that they'll be
available by spring.
Already, close to half our troops in Iraq are members of the Guard
or Reserves. 13,000 have been on active duty for at least a year.
Others have recently returned home from deployments, only to turn
around and head overseas for another tour.
One reservist I recently spoke to had only 17 days off between tours
in Iraq and Afghanistan. The average reservist now spends thirteen
times longer on active duty today than during the 1990s. Many cannot
go home when their scheduled time is finished, and are repeatedly sent
instead on new deployments overseas.
In Iraq, our reservists are being pressed into duty as the first
line of defense. They need 120 to 150 days to train before being sent
to Iraq. The Army needs to let them know now to begin this crucial
training.
It typically takes eight years under the current peacetime system
for a reserve combat unit to reach the level of readiness of an active
unit. But we don't have eight years. They're needed in Iraq this
spring.
Even worse, reservists are being sent into combat with inferior
equipment. They have told me they had to rely on Vietnam-era night
vision goggles that obscure more than they reveal, even though the
latest technology is used by the regular military. They told me they
had to use outdated and less-effective flak jackets, not the latest
models with bulletproof ceramic inserts. They told me they had to wait
three months for other current gear. Many units did not have armored
Humvees. Instead, they had to hang flak jackets in the windows to
protect themselves from attack.
I visited some of our wounded soldiers last week at Walter Reed Army
Medical Center. More than 1800 American servicemen and women have been
wounded in this war, and an average of seven new patients arrive at
Walter Reed from Iraq each day. Many were ambushed driving along a
road. Many lost limbs because their Humvees did not have the armor to
protect them from the blast of a rocket-propelled grenade or a booby
trap in the road.
Their families feel the strain of their deployment both emotionally
and financially. Many members of the Guard or Reserve give up higher
civilian salaries when they go on active duty. Even though the law
prohibits discrimination against reservists, increasingly, they are
unwilling to tell possible employers about their military obligation,
for fear they will not be hired or kept on the job. It's a sad day for
patriotism when service to our nation is a negative factor in civilian
employment.
Far more American soldiers and Marines have been killed since the
end of major combat operations in May than during the three-week war
itself. These are not just statistics. Each name on the list has many
who mourn, whether parents, spouses, children, brothers or sisters.
We cannot go on this way. We should have known that military victory
would be quick, and that winning the peace would be the challenge.
I support our troops. It is the Administration's policy that has
failed them. Their perceptions demonstrate the wider failure of our
policy and the need for the Administration to move in a decisively
different direction.
The Administration ignores the lesson of history that nation
building cannot succeed in a cauldron of insecurity. Iraq is America's
sixth major nation-building challenge in the past ten years – Somalia,
Haiti, Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan, and now Iraq.
Security was indispensable to nation-building in each case. But in
Iraq, we seem incapable of meeting the basic security needs of our own
armed forces, let alone the Iraqi people.
When America intervened in Haiti in 1994, large numbers of
international armed police were brought in to support our military and
achieve a greater measure of safety for the Haitian people. The first
task was to establish security in a country that did not even have a
civilian police force. We responded by recruiting a large
multinational police force from 20 different countries.
When America intervened in Bosnia in 1995 and Kosovo in 1998 we
understood that security for local citizens was essential for resuming
economic growth and reaching our nation-building goals. In Kosovo, our
allies offered highly trained police, including some heavily armed,
which were critical to minimizing violence after the conflict ended
and enabling reconstruction and political progress to be made.
In Kosovo, our soldiers were given training in controlling crowds,
establishing security cordons, and searching vehicles. But when I
visited the soldiers of the Third Infantry Division last week, they
told me they did not receive such training, even though it would have
served them well in the cities of Iraq.
The Pentagon assumed we would be able to draw on thousands of
Saddam's police officers to provide security -- but in the critical
early weeks that followed the war, they were nowhere to be found, and
too many of them were thugs and torturers.
Six months later, there is still confusion. At the end of August,
the former New York City Police Commissioner in charge of police
training program in Iraq announced that he had reached an agreement to
train 28,000 Iraqi police in a camp in Hungary. Within a week, the
Prime Minister of Hungary announced that he knew of no such agreement.
He said that Hungary had no appropriate training facility, and that
someone should inform his government of what was going on. Now, we
hear that the Administration has organized a training camp in Jordan.
The Pentagon also assumed that the bulk of the Iraqi armed forces
could be used to supplement our forces. But soon after the war began,
the Iraqi Army melted away. Its members went home, and the Army was
formally disbanded by our government before they were screened and
before they were disarmed. We lost the decent ones who could have
helped provide security, and we let Hussein's true believers get away
with their weapons.
Countries such as France, Germany, Sweden, Argentina, the European
Union, or Spain could provide well-trained police to prevent saboteurs
from undermining the extensive reconstruction effort and to advance
our broader nation-building objectives. But so far, we have been
unable to persuade additional nations to share the burden and the
cost.
The Bush Administration's continuing arrogance in Iraq has forced
the best-trained military in the world to act as police officers in a
shooting gallery, to carry out police functions for which they are
ill-prepared and ill-equipped. For Iraq now and for future crises
elsewhere, we need to build support in the international community for
a reserve police identified and trained for post-conflict deployments.
It is shocking that the White House is only now beginning to
coordinate which agency should be responsible for various tasks. This
should not have waited six months. It should have been standard
operating procedure from the outset to outline an integrated strategy
that meets our military needs, the needs for local policing and
reconstruction, and the need for progress in achieving a free and
legitimate Iraqi government. They go hand-in-hand. But none can
succeed unless basic security is guaranteed.
The Administration's policy of rushing to put large
multibillion-dollar contracts in the hands of American firms ignores
not only the lesson of history but also the lesson of human nature --
the Iraqi people need to be the real partners in the reconstruction
effort.
The Administration is wrongly working from the top down, rather than
the bottom up, to rebuild Iraq. A new Iraq will emerge neighborhood by
neighborhood, town by town, province by province. How can any
Republican President of the United States disagree that government
must be of the people, by the people, and for the people?
We need closer alignment between military units working on
reconstruction and the civilians working at the Coalition Provisional
Authority. Our soldiers in the field are surveying the damage and
identifying priorities for repair. They need local counterparts. We
cannot solve every problem from Saddam's palace in Baghdad.
Why not scale back the lavish resources being provided to U.S.
contractors and consultants and provide larger sums directly to the
Iraqi people? We could do so in many cases by developing ties between
local councils and the Iraqi Governing Council. We could work more
with local non-governmental organizations and local businesses. In all
cases, we need to insist on transparency in the process, so we know
where the funding is going.
It's the Iraqi people's country. They have the greatest stake in the
success of the reconstruction, and involving them now will enhance the
prospects for success.
In some areas of Iraq, we already have been able to achieve
impressive results with small amounts of money. In one case, we funded
the building of a cement factory for less than $100,000, when the bid
by an American contractor for the same project was in the millions.
Why not do more of this with schools, medical clinics, roads and
countless other projects?
Iraq has many of the best-trained petroleum engineers in the world.
Why not give them -- rather than American companies -- a larger role
in rebuilding the industry? Why not create jobs for Iraqis and give
them ownership of their reconstruction?
If we insist on saying Halliburton rules, because to the victor
belong the spoils, we won't be the victor for very long.
The Administration's policy in Iraq ignores the indisputable lesson
of history that building democracy is complex and difficult.
When the British accepted responsibility for the new nation of Iraq
after the fall of the Ottoman Empire after World War I, they
encountered enormous difficulties in creating a stable government
across Sunni, Shia, Kurd and other ethnic and religious groups. Many
Kurds wanted their own state – and still do. Tensions have existed
between Sunni and Shia for 13 centuries. Iraq had no history of unity.
In the words of one tribal chieftain, "History did not die; the
tribes and notables who emerged in 1920 and created our modern state
in 1921 are here to stay with all the others who came into being
thereafter."
Instead of learning from this painful history, we condemned
ourselves to repeat it. Instead of anticipating the obviously similar
and predictable divisions and demands when Saddam's regime fell, the
Bush Administration believed that a few favored Iraqi exile leaders,
many of them in exile for years, could return to Iraq, rally the
population and lead the new government. That was another failure. The
Iraqi people rejected them from the start and resisted their
domination.
The Administration believed that once a few hundred top advisers to
Saddam were removed from power, large numbers of local officials would
remain to run the government. Instead the collapse of government in
Baghdad rippled across the country.
If history is any guide, America will not be able to impose our
vision of democracy on the Iraqi people on our current terms and our
timetable. Our overarching interest is the development of a government
that has legitimacy in the eyes of its citizens, so that the longer
process of building durable democratic institutions can proceed
effectively in the years to come. This process will not be finished
swiftly, or easily, and it will not take place according to our will.
Iraq is a society where, for the full 30 years of Saddam's rule,
politics ruled from the top. It will take time for the Iraqi people to
adjust to the new decentralization of power and to understand how the
multiple levels of a working democratic government can function
effectively.
The Administration clings to the hope that the Iraqi Governing
Council -- 25 people, many of whom have never worked together before
-- can adopt a constitution in time to hold successful elections next
year.
On July 23, Ambassador Bremer said that it "should be possible" to
have elections next year.
On September 26, Secretary of State Powell gave the Iraqis six
months to write a constitution.
In Bosnia, the United States pressed for national elections the
first year, before viable local democratic political institutions were
developed, and it made the development of democracy more difficult.
Based on the historical precedents, a recent RAND publication suggests
holding national elections roughly two years after reconstruction
begins. The International Crisis Group also reached the conclusion
that it could take two years before national elections should be held.
The lesson is clear. We cannot rush. It is not surprising that our
insistence on such speed is alienating the many Iraqis who know the
process needs more time. The date of their national election should
not be determined by the date of ours.
Imposing our will and our timetable on the Iraqi people will
undermine our all-important long-term goal of achieving a legitimate
Iraqi government committed to remaining on the path to democracy.
Already, the Interim Governing Council lacks credibility in the eyes
of many Iraqis. On paper, it has broad power, but that fools no one.
It is controlled by the United States, and it lacks sufficient power
to meet the Iraqi people's needs.
The Administration needs to give greater priority to restoring
sovereignty and help lay the groundwork for approving a constitution
and holding national elections. In Afghanistan, we obtained the
support of the international community for an interim government that
was not under American occupation. That process can still work in
Iraq, although it would have clearly worked better from the start. As
we did in Afghanistan, we need a process to transfer sovereignty to
the Iraqis, who in turn, can ask the US and UN for assistance.
If the United States is seen as controlling the new government in
Baghdad, it will fail -- if not now, then later; if not while our
forces are still there, then as soon as they are gone. Those who work
with such a government are easily dismissed by the Iraqi people as
American puppets. We must take the time necessary to give Iraqis the
ownership of their government, if we expect it to have any credibility
and staying power.
Whether the Bush Administration likes it or not, they need a central
role for the United Nations to help accomplish this goal. Before
becoming National Security Adviser, Condoleezza Rice seemed to
understand this.
In a January 2000 article in Foreign Affairs, she wrote: "U.S.
interests are served by having strong alliances and can be promoted
within the U.N. and other multilateral organizations...".
She wrote: "The president must remember that the military is a
special instrument. It is lethal, and it is meant to be. It is not a
civilian police force. It is not a political referee, and it is most
certainly not designed to build a civilian society."
Condi Rice's words indict the Administration's own policy now. It is
essential to involve the international community as an active and
equal partner in the political transition of Iraq.
We need to give the UN a central role. The Administration's decision
to go back to the United Nations is a first step, but it's meaningful
only if the Administration is genuinely changing its policy. The real
test will be whether the Administration is now willing to make the
compromises necessary to persuade other countries to contribute troops
to relieve our soldiers and to bring stability to Iraq. The jury is
still out on whether the UN resolution will mark a real shift by the
Administration.
We know from experience of the past decade in this post-Cold War
world, in Bosnia, in Kosovo, and in other devastated lands, that we
can enlist the international community in a major way. We can share
responsibility and authority, draw on the strengths and the diversity
of the United Nations, achieve security and reconstruction, and an end
to the occupation. For many months, the Administration has been wrong
to try to bypass the United Nations by enticing a few receptive
nations to join us if the price is right.
No one doubts that the United States should remain in charge of the
military operation. But internationalizing the reconstruction is not a
luxury; it is an imperative. Sharing authority with the United Nations
to manage the transition to democracy will give the process legitimacy
and gradually dispel the current stigma of occupation -- especially if
it is accompanied by the creation of a more fully representative
interim governing council to deal with day-to-day administrative
responsibilities.
As soon as possible, we need to redouble the effort to bring in
forces with regional faces-- especially Muslim faces. Nations such as
Jordan, Pakistan, and Egypt could immediately transform this mission
with both their diversity and their expertise. The United Arab
Emirates contributed effectively to the effort in Kosovo. Morocco and
Albania have worked with us in Bosnia. That strategy can work for us
in Iraq now as well.
In their joint memoir, "A World Transformed," President George H.W.
Bush and his National Security Adviser, Brent Scowcroft, reflected on
their own experiences with Iraq and the Gulf War in 1991. They had
been criticized in some quarters for halting that war after their
dramatic victory in Kuwait, instead of going on to Baghdad to depose
Saddam Hussein.
Here is what they wrote: "Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the
ground war into an occupation of Iraq, would have violated our
guideline about not changing objectives in midstream, engaging in
'mission creep,' and would have incurred incalculable human and
political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible...We would
have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The
coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting it in
anger and other allies pulling out as well. Under those circumstances,
there was no viable 'exit strategy' we could see...Had we gone the
invasion route, the United States could conceivably still be an
occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a
dramatically different--and perhaps barren--outcome."
They were right.
It is time for this Administration to admit that it was wrong, and
turn in a new direction. We need a genuine plan that acknowledges the
realities on the ground. We need a plan that gives real authority to
the United Nations, so that other nations truly will share the burden.
We need to actively engage the Iraqi people in governing and
rebuilding their country. Our soldiers now risking their lives in Iraq
deserve no less.
Here at home, all Americans are being asked to bear the burden too –
and they deserve more than a phony summons to support our troops by
pursuing policies that will only condemn them to greater and greater
danger. Yes, we must stay the course -- but not the wrong course.
-------
http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/101803A.shtml
.
|
|
| User: "Mark K" |
|
| Title: Re: Senator Ted Kennedy attacks Bush on Iraq |
19 Oct 2003 08:46:33 PM |
|
|
"Arther Miller" <freethemedia2002@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1451cd92.0310191741.62b38dcf@posting.google.com...
Bush's intentions were good.
From his perspective (the perspective
of the Jewish neoconservative
brains in his administration),
he did it for the good of Israel
(and the US).
Senate Floor Remarks
t r u t h o u t | Statement
By U.S. Senator Ted Kennedy
Thursday 16 October 2003
Before the war, week after week after week after week, we were told
lie after lie after lie after lie.
Nearly six months have elapsed since President Bush flew out to the
aircraft carrier and declared "Mission Accomplished" in Iraq. Today,
we all know all too well that the war is not over; the war goes on;
the mission is not accomplished. An unnecessary war, based on
unreliable and inaccurate intelligence, has not brought an end to
danger. Instead, it has brought new dangers, imposed new costs, and
taken more and more American lives each week.
We all agree that Saddam Hussein was a murderous tyrant, and his
brutal regime was an affront to basic human decency. But Iraq was not
a breeding ground for terrorism. Our invasion has made it one. <snip>
http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/101803A.shtml
.
|
|
|
| User: "nobody" |
|
| Title: Re: Senator Ted Kennedy attacks Bush on Iraq |
19 Oct 2003 09:27:41 PM |
|
|
In article <Z7Hkb.594242$Oz4.584324@rwcrnsc54>,
"Mark K" <self@server.net> wrote:
"Arther Miller" <freethemedia2002@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1451cd92.0310191741.62b38dcf@posting.google.com...
Bush's intentions were good.
From his perspective (the perspective
of the Jewish neoconservative
brains in his administration),
he did it for the good of Israel
(and the US).
Good for him.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K" |
|
| Title: Re: Senator Ted Kennedy attacks Bush on Iraq |
19 Oct 2003 09:42:10 PM |
|
|
"nobody" <nobody@nospam.nohow.noway.com> wrote in message
news:nobody-86CF54.22274519102003@netnews.attbi.com...
Bush's intentions were good.
From his perspective (the perspective
of the Jewish neoconservative
brains in his administration),
he did it for the good of Israel
(and the US).
Good for him.
An honest Jewish guy.
.
|
|
|
| User: "nobody" |
|
| Title: Re: Senator Ted Kennedy attacks Bush on Iraq |
20 Oct 2003 08:54:53 AM |
|
|
In article <6YHkb.598383$cF.262960@rwcrnsc53>,
"Mark K" <self@server.net> wrote:
"nobody" <nobody@nospam.nohow.noway.com> wrote in message
news:nobody-86CF54.22274519102003@netnews.attbi.com...
Bush's intentions were good.
From his perspective (the perspective
of the Jewish neoconservative
brains in his administration),
he did it for the good of Israel
(and the US).
Good for him.
An honest Jewish guy.
The only kind there is.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K" |
|
| Title: Re: Senator Ted Kennedy attacks Bush on Iraq |
19 Oct 2003 09:51:39 PM |
|
|
"nobody" <nobody@nospam.nohow.noway.com> wrote in message
news:nobody-86CF54.22274519102003@netnews.attbi.com...
Bush's intentions were good.
From his perspective (the perspective
of the Jewish neoconservative
brains in his administration),
he did it for the good of Israel
(and the US).
Good for him.
An honest Jewish guy.
.
|
|
|
| User: "nobody" |
|
| Title: Re: Senator Ted Kennedy attacks Bush on Iraq |
20 Oct 2003 08:54:39 AM |
|
|
In article <_4Ikb.318313$mp.257316@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net>,
"Mark K" <self@server.net> wrote:
"nobody" <nobody@nospam.nohow.noway.com> wrote in message
news:nobody-86CF54.22274519102003@netnews.attbi.com...
Bush's intentions were good.
From his perspective (the perspective
of the Jewish neoconservative
brains in his administration),
he did it for the good of Israel
(and the US).
Good for him.
An honest Jewish guy.
The only kind there is.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "InsuranceBroker" |
|
| Title: Re: Senator Ted Kennedy attacks Bush on Iraq |
20 Oct 2003 07:50:47 AM |
|
|
Subject: Re: Senator Ted Kennedy attacks Bush on Iraq
From: nobody
Date: 10/19/2003 10:27 PM Eastern Daylight Time
Message-id: <nobody-86CF54.22274519102003@netnews.attbi.com>
From his perspective (the perspective
of the Jewish neoconservative
brains in his administration),
he did it for the good of Israel
(and the US).
Good for him.
What you are really saying is good for Isreal. If not for Bush, your ***** might
be harms way. With bush you get the goods of war without any of the pain.
Doing Insurance business in the Garden State
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
