In article , jherring$$@
$$cox**.net says...
On Thu, 29 Jan 2004 16:40:55 -0800, jps wrote:

Snipped

Go ahead and cut the only intellgence you've witnessed all day.

Snipped
jps

jps, if you were referring to your posts, I missed it (the
intelligence) too.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not calling *you* anything. I just missed the
intelligent thing you imply you said.

Was it the "**** you" line?

John H

On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!

NOBBY is still trying to link the two and thereby justify pre-emption as
a policy. It's stupid policy that should only be used in movie scripts
that star Arnold.

Here's what he failed to include in his response because it made his
previous statement look foolish. It drew the necessary distinction
between Al Queda and the person oft called a "terrorist," Saddam.


NOW ENTERING CUT MATERIAL:

We had the right to hunt down the assholes that perpetrated 9/11. They
were living in Afghanistan under Taliban protection.

Pre-emption *wasn't* an issue.

Saddam didn't have **** all to do with 9/11, wasn't a threat and hadn't
attacked our country.

Pre-emption *was* an issue.

You and Dick "Mobile Weapons Lab" Cheney need to get that straight.

Pre-emption was and is a frightening concept, bad policy and calloused
path to resolving "suspected" threats. I couldn't think of a better
example of it's pitfalls than what we've witnessed in Iraq. We invaded
their country and killed tens of thousands based on bad information.

Try to defend pre-emption as a state policy. ****ing idiot Bush.

NOW LEAVING CUT MATERIAL.