"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
John H wrote:

Thanks Jim, Harry needed that!
John H


On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 08:15:10 -0500, "Jim--" wrote:


"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
You and the Energizer bunny! A lie is a lie if told knowingly. You,
et
al, have no proof that Bush, et al, KNEW that WMD did not exist in
Iraq. We still don't know that it did not exist there. You totally
disregard any evidence that it did exist, just so you can call
someone
a liar.

Scott Ritter.
The UN inspectors.

Neither could find any evidence of WMD.

The Bush Administration said "We know they're there. We know exactly
where, but
we're not going to tell the UN inspectors where they are at because we
want to
show that Saddam Hussein is not cooperating with the inspectors."

Turned out not to be so.

When Iraq submitted the accounting for its weapons in December 2002,
(multiple
volumes and 17,000 or so pages IIRC), it was dismissed in a matter of
hours as
"all lies" by Bush. (Not bad for a guy who admits he doesn't read) So
far,
it
looks like the Iraqi accounting that said "No WMD" is every bit as
credible as
a statement that we knew there were weapons and that we knew where
they
were.

According to Bush, any statement that Iraq did not have WMD or did not
pose a
strategic threat to the US was a "lie."
He set the bar on this matter.

Could his lie have been an ignorant mistake? Yes, it could have been
an
ignorant mistake. No less alarming if it was. Before we go sending our
armed
forces off to invade foreign countries we ought to have some *actual*
clue
why
we're going about it.


"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to
develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them.
That
is our bottom line."
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998



Yawn. Regurgitated too many times to bother reading again, and not
relevant.


Absolutely nothing that contradicts your lies is relevant to you. Sad, but
very telling.