John H wrote in message . ..
On Tue, 23 Mar 2004 17:49:59 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"Jim" wrote in message
...
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/...ion/index.html

Extract

"You know, the White House is papering over facts, such as in the weeks
immediately after 9/11, the president signed a national security
directive instructing the Pentagon to prepare for the invasion of Iraq,"
Clarke said. "Even though they knew at the time from me, from the FBI,
from the CIA that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11."

Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright


That there invasion sure has helped oil prices, eh? I thought a safer supply
was supposed to make energy more affordable for this country. I want 10
minutes in a locked room with that president of ours. No violence. Just give
me a good-size towel I can roll up and moisten at the end, locker-room
style, and that walking rectum won't sit down for 6 months. :-)


Hell Doug, according to a bunch of folks on your side of the fence we
were going to get it all for nothing! Isn't that what "steal" means?

John H

Absolutely. That was the intent right? Just that if you are found out
ahead of time, you don't go ahead with the crime. That would be like a
bank robber, who got ratted out, so that the cops were waiting at the
bank, and the guy attempts to rob it anyway. What else would we have
went to Iraq for? To seek revenge for BushCo's daddy? It wasn't for
WMD's, was it? If so, where ARE they? Or was it to hunt AlQuida? Hmm,
they weren't there, neither. So, was it an attempt for oil, or was it
a complete failure?