"John H" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 22 Mar 2004 19:11:32 GMT, "NOYB" wrote:
"John H" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 22 Mar 2004 18:10:52 GMT, "NOYB" wrote:
"John H" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 22 Mar 2004 16:27:52 GMT, "NOYB" wrote:
"thunder" wrote in message
news
Fact: The number of people who believe this war was about WMD or
terrorism, is rapidly dwindling, including many people *inside*
this
administration.
That's a half-fact. WMD's was just an issue, as Wolfowitz put it,
"that
everyone could agree upon". Everybody on both sides of the aisle
in
Congress, who had access to the same pre-war intelligence as Bush,
reached
the same conclusion about the existence of the WMD's. Personally,
I'm
convinced that the bulk of them went to Syria or were destroyed in
the
6-12
months leading up to the war.
However, any suggestion that those who believe in an Iraq/al Qaeda
connection are now losing faith in the substantivity of that
relationship
is
false. In fact, I think that the terrorist attacks in Iraq over
the
last
year demonstrate that the terrorists had a much stronger pre-war
foothold
in
the country than anyone could ever have imagined.
I agree, which means that NYOB's position is no longer unilateral.
basskisser will say it's a schoolboy crush, and Harry will say you're
just
goose-stepping...so what's the point?
Only to demonstrate the difference between unilateral and multilateral
(even though the 'multi' is only 'bi' in this case).
Personally, I couldn't give a rat's ass what Harry, b'asskisser, or
DSK have to say about anything. I keep wondering why gas prices are
going up when the whole reason (according to the group) that we
invaded Iraq was to "get their oil."
If my using your post in this manner was offensive in any way, I
apologize.
Of course not. But to agree with another conservative is akin to
homosexuality and naziism in the eyes of a few frustrated liberals here.
Oh
well...in another 7 1/2 months, it'll be all over, their guy will have
lost,
and we won't have to hear from them for another couple of years.
Well, I didn't really agree 'cause the first time I saw it I disagreed
(I think...).
Oh, I get it. You're doing a parody of Kerry now, aren't you? ;-)
From the Miami Herald:
``And I voted for the Helms-Burton legislation to be tough on companies that
deal with him.''
It seemed the correct answer in a year in which Democratic strategists think
they can make a play for at least a portion of the important Cuban-American
vote -- as they did in 1996 when more than three in 10 backed President
Clinton's reelection after he signed the sanctions measure written by Sen.
Jesse Helms and Rep. Dan Burton.
There is only one problem: Kerry voted against it.
Asked Friday to explain the discrepancy, Kerry aides said the senator cast
one of the 22 nays that day in 1996 because he disagreed with some of the
final technical aspects. But, said spokesman David Wade, Kerry supported the
legislation in its purer form -- and voted for it months earlier.