"JohnH" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 16:36:15 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


"JohnH" wrote in message
. ..
On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 14:40:00 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


"JohnH" wrote in message
m...
On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 04:39:14 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


"JohnH" wrote in message
news:rooju05qaeduf9vraqf8uig9gd46njf4nf@4ax. com...
On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 22:01:57 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"JohnH" wrote in message
news:n54ju0dcug90nu0lrkg7eu2es1lh2c9pr2@4a x.com...

Clinton obviously scared the crap out of Saddam! Knowing that
Clinton
would come down hard, because he'd done so frequently, Saddam
canceled
all his WMD programs, destroyed everything associated therewith,
and
became a good boy.

As I've mentioned in the past, your leader rattled his saber for
way
too
long. If anything was there, he clearly wanted to give Saddam
enough
time
to
get rid of them. According to real people who know what they're
talking
about, we already have weapons which would vaporize WMDs. Combine
that
fact
with the nonsense about how "we know exactly where they are", and
one
must
wonder why none of them were bombed way before we started throwing
away
young lives.


I agree with that entire paragraph wholeheartedly, except for the
'your leader' and the 'wanted to give' parts. He's *our*
president.
He
*gave* Saddam too much time.

John, if John McCain had run, and won, but I voted for Kerry, I'd
still
respect him and consider him MY leader. But not Bush. He was propped
up
(nominated) by a circle of insiders who wanted a cardboard replica
of
a
competent human, one who would not his head and agree to whatever
was
suggested to him by his sitters. I will not call him MY leader. You
seem
OK
with him, so he's YOUR leader.

And, he most certainly did intend to give Saddam plenty of time. If
that's
not true, then he must be as stupid as I've been telling you for
such
a
long
time.

Your lack of respect for the man does not change the fact of his
presidency. I believe the time was 'given' to Saddam so Bush could
do
the 'politically correct' thing - trying to appease the Dems and the
UN. You're right, that was a waste of good time.

If he believed Saddam had the weapons he should not have wasted time
seeking approval.

That's correct, John. Only an intensely stupid man would do such a
thing.
Only. Exclusively. No exceptions. Period. You're beginning to
understand.


One needn't be intensely stupid to make a stupid mistake. Waiting for
Democrat, Republican, and UN approval was intensely stupid. Perhaps he
received some intensely stupid advice from members of *both* parties
who were strong believers.

John H

For a war, the only advice to act on is advice from intelligence
sources,
not legislators, unless they have something concrete to offer. Opinions
are
not appropriate.


I agree. He had no business reacting to world opinion (e.g., the
French and Germans) or the UN. Given your position, I'm surprised at
all the negative comments about the 'lack' of a coalition.

John H

I object to his use of the fictitious coalition as one of his many bogus
reasons.


Bogus reasons for what, the delay?

Remember his original list of reasons for the war? The list that has
dwindled to either one or zero, depending on your outlook?