The Democrats Said, and I quote!
 

"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

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is
clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's
weapons
of mass destruction program."
- President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a
great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will
use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies
is
the greatest security threat we face."
- Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten
times since 1983."
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent
with
the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including,
if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to
respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its
weapons of mass destruction programs."
- Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin,
Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of
mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the
region
and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of
mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has invigorated his
weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and
nuclear
programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In
addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is
doubtless
using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer- range
missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
- Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,)
and others, December 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant
and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored
the mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass
destruction and the means of delivering them."
- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and
chemical weapons throughout his country."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven
impossible
to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as
Saddam is in power."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and
developing weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We
are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical
and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash
course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities.
Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclearweapons..."
- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the
authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein
because
I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his
hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working
aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear
weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we
have
always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of
weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11
years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he
disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any
nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do"
-Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence
reports
show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and
biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his
nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to
terrorists, including al Qaeda members
.. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein
will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and
chemical
warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence
that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a
developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass
destruction."
- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a
brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He
presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently
prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's
response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons
of
mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of
mass destruction is real ..."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

SO NOW THE DEMOCRATS SAY PRESIDENT BUSH LIED, THAT THERE NEVER
WERE ANY WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION AND HE TOOK US TO WAR FOR HIS
OIL BUDDIES ???


Capt. American

The Democrats Said, and I quote!
 

On Fri, 06 Feb 2004 09:55:45 -0800, Capt.American wrote:

"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

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is
clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's
weapons
of mass destruction program."
- President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998


LOL, looks like Clinton was a better President than I thought. It's now
clear his Iraqi policies worked. If our present President had realized
this, 500 young men and women would still be alive and we could have saved
$100 billion dollars.

The Democrats Said, and I quote!
 

Despite your attempt to flame "liberals" with this, it seems to me
that you've supported the notion that they were not soft on Iraq
or Saddam. Diplomacy and relative military force were working.
There was no imminent threat, and while there might have been
a reason to invade, it wasn't because of an imminent threat of
WMDs.

"Capt.American" wrote in message
om...
"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

Yes. Among others of his friends.

SO NOW THE DEMOCRATS SAY PRESIDENT BUSH LIED, THAT THERE NEVER
WERE ANY WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION AND HE TOOK US TO WAR FOR HIS
OIL BUDDIES ???


Capt. American

The Democrats Said, and I quote!
 

Yeah, what he said....

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 06 Feb 2004 09:55:45 -0800, Capt.American wrote:

"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

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is
clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's
weapons
of mass destruction program."
- President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998


LOL, looks like Clinton was a better President than I thought. It's now
clear his Iraqi policies worked. If our present President had realized
this, 500 young men and women would still be alive and we could have saved
$100 billion dollars.

The Democrats Said, and I quote!
 

On Fri, 06 Feb 2004 13:10:31 -0500, thunder
wrote:

On Fri, 06 Feb 2004 09:55:45 -0800, Capt.American wrote:

"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

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is
clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's
weapons
of mass destruction program."
- President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998


LOL, looks like Clinton was a better President than I thought. It's now
clear his Iraqi policies worked. If our present President had realized
this, 500 young men and women would still be alive and we could have saved
$100 billion dollars.

I guess the inspections and sanctions must have been working.

I wonder how many years the Republicans will be blaming Clinton for
all these problems. Now they are claiming that the half trillion
dollar deficit in the proposed budget relates to the "jobs and
security deficits" they inherited from Clinton. Holy crap. I used to
think that Pat Robertson's political insights directly from God were
the nuttiest things the Republicans had to say. Now it is a real
horse race for stupid statements.

The Democrats Said, and I quote!
 

"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

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is
clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's
weapons
of mass destruction program."
- President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998


LOL, looks like Clinton was a better President than I thought. It's now
clear his Iraqi policies worked.

Careful, don't give him a stroke.

If our present President had realized
this, 500 young men and women would still be alive and we could have saved
$100 billion dollars.

Closer to $180 billion... and counting....





felton wrote:
I guess the inspections and sanctions must have been working.


Not really all that well. The sanctions were extremely painful for the people
of Iraq, who were suffering the worst deprivation. But it did keep Iraq from
being able to afford any real WMD programs.


I wonder how many years the Republicans will be blaming Clinton for
all these problems.

Decades, no doubt. Shucks many of them are still PO'd about FDR although they
are very quick to brag about WW2.


Now they are claiming that the half trillion
dollar deficit in the proposed budget relates to the "jobs and
security deficits" they inherited from Clinton. Holy crap. I used to
think that Pat Robertson's political insights directly from God were
the nuttiest things the Republicans had to say. Now it is a real
horse race for stupid statements.

It looks to me like they are taking pages directly from Nixon's play book....
lie.

The economy? They say "We created X jobs this past quarter, look unemployment
is going down" ....yet unemployment remains very high and jobs are being lost
faster than they are being created.... worse, most newly created jobs are lower
paying.

The war? "We had to invade Iraq because of the imminent threat of WMDs... no
wait, we knew all along there weren't any... it was to free the Iraqi people
and build a stable democracy in the Middle East... shucks no, Halliburton &
Carlyle are NOT making record profits from the war and it's aftermath!"

The national media? "The press & broadcast media are very liberal biased,
that's why they keep saying such bad things about the Bush Administration"
.....yet somehow the media are mostly owned by very conservative oriented big
conglomerates.

Now just apply this to the environment, campaign finance, secret Presidential
executive orders, erosion of Constitutional rights, national energy policy, etc
etc etc.

Entirely too many people will believe whatever is shouted at them loud enough,
often enough, despite contrary evidence right in front of them. People on the
Titanic were telling each other, "This ship unsinkable!" while standing
neck-deep in ice water.

Regards- Doug King

The Democrats Said, and I quote!
 

Me too
"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message
...
Yeah, what he said....

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 06 Feb 2004 09:55:45 -0800, Capt.American wrote:

"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

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is
clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's
weapons
of mass destruction program."
- President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998


LOL, looks like Clinton was a better President than I thought. It's now
clear his Iraqi policies worked. If our present President had realized
this, 500 young men and women would still be alive and we could have
saved
$100 billion dollars.

The Democrats Said, and I quote!
 

It would appear then that Bush is only following the Democrats direction.
Wouldn't it?





"Capt.American" wrote in message
om...
"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

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is
clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's
weapons
of mass destruction program."
- President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a
great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will
use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies
is
the greatest security threat we face."
- Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten
times since 1983."
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent
with
the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including,
if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to
respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its
weapons of mass destruction programs."
- Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin,
Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of
mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the
region
and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of
mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has invigorated his
weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and
nuclear
programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In
addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is
doubtless
using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer- range
missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
- Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,)
and others, December 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant
and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored
the mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass
destruction and the means of delivering them."
- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and
chemical weapons throughout his country."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven
impossible
to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as
Saddam is in power."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and
developing weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We
are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical
and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash
course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities.
Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclearweapons..."
- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the
authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein
because
I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his
hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working
aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear
weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we
have
always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of
weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11
years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he
disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any
nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do"
-Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence
reports
show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and
biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his
nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to
terrorists, including al Qaeda members
.. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein
will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and
chemical
warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence
that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a
developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass
destruction."
- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a
brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He
presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently
prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's
response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons
of
mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of
mass destruction is real ..."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

SO NOW THE DEMOCRATS SAY PRESIDENT BUSH LIED, THAT THERE NEVER
WERE ANY WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION AND HE TOOK US TO WAR FOR HIS
OIL BUDDIES ???


Capt. American

The Democrats Said, and I quote!
 

I would not call Safire's view balanced. He's pretty right wing.
The facts are that Bushy and co. lied about the threat of WMDs
in Iraq. Then, he proceeded to invade Iraq where 1000s have
died. The containment of Saddam was working, obviously, since
there were no WMDs found. Sure, he was a bad guy. I'm glad
he's gone. That's not the point. The point is that the PRESIDENT
OF THE UNITED STATES LIED to the American people and
to the rest of the world. Our national security interests have been
compromized. The international and fairly univeral good will has
been undermined and is at it's lowest historical level. Our national
debt is beyond belief, and it will take generations to deal with it.

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 6 Feb 2004 10:21:13 -0800, "Jonathan Ganz"
said:

There was no imminent threat, and while there might have been
a reason to invade, it wasn't because of an imminent threat of
WMDs.

Let me recommend Safire's column in today's NYT Magazine. He notes that
the
phrase "imminent threat" had, historically, great significance in
international law, since those were the magic words that triggered a
country's right to carry out a preemptive strike. The Pres. carefully
tiptoed around using that phrase, since using it would have been the
equivalent of saying "we're going to attack right now."

In fact, Bush's speeches leading up to the war enunciated a new legal
doctrine. In essence he said that in an age when aggression is carried out
by large-scale terrorist attacks rather than by frontal military assaults,
a
country cannot wait until an attack is "imminent," because the usual signs
that that is the case are absent. The Dems either accepted that doctrine
in
approving the war, or lacked the perception to realize Bush's position
represented a change in the rules. They now want to pretend they didn't do
either, by creating the fairy tale that even though Bush explicitly said
Iraq didn't represent an "imminent" threat, they were led to believe the
threat of an attack was "imminent" and so the historic rule was
misapplied.
Whether voters will accept this fairy tale or realize that it should start
with "once upon a time" we will see in the election.


Dave
S/V Good Fortune
CS27

The Democrats Said, and I quote!
 

So let me get that straight, are you saying that that whole thing you attributed
to Safire you just made up?



"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 8 Feb 2004 11:43:44 -0800, "Jonathan Ganz"
said:

I would not call Safire's view balanced. He's pretty right wing.

Ganzy, you just don't get it, do you? Only the first paragraph of my
message--the part about the historical use of the term "imminent" and its
historical legal significance--is Safire. Obviously you didn't read the
article. Rather than address whether his history is factually correct, you
simply start calling him names and then sing your same old hymn. Do you
disagree that historically the word "imminent" attack or threat has been
used to justify a preemptive strike?

The remainder of the message--the part about enunciating an new doctrine
that in today's world a strike may be justified even if attack is not
"imminent," and the Dems' related floundering--is purely my analysis. So
now, instead of calling him names, I suppose you'll start calling me names
and singing your refrain at me.


Dave
S/V Good Fortune
CS27

The Democrats Said, and I quote!
 

Basically, that's what he's saying. And, by me saying, quite rightly, that
he's does
not particularly espouse a balanced view and is pretty right wing (a comment
that
many have used when referring to him), I'm now calling him names... seems
to me that Dave is the one who is calling people names when he calls me
Ganzy, which he knows isn't my name and which is suppose to offend me. (It
would if I were still in grade school.)

And, to Dave... you're right, I really didn't read the article. Why would I
want
to read an article by the likes of Safire, someone who is not presenting a
balanced
view.

"Jeff Morris" wrote in message
...
So let me get that straight, are you saying that that whole thing you
attributed
to Safire you just made up?



"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 8 Feb 2004 11:43:44 -0800, "Jonathan Ganz"
said:

I would not call Safire's view balanced. He's pretty right wing.

Ganzy, you just don't get it, do you? Only the first paragraph of my
message--the part about the historical use of the term "imminent" and
its
historical legal significance--is Safire. Obviously you didn't read the
article. Rather than address whether his history is factually correct,
you
simply start calling him names and then sing your same old hymn. Do you
disagree that historically the word "imminent" attack or threat has been
used to justify a preemptive strike?

The remainder of the message--the part about enunciating an new doctrine
that in today's world a strike may be justified even if attack is not
"imminent," and the Dems' related floundering--is purely my analysis. So
now, instead of calling him names, I suppose you'll start calling me
names
and singing your refrain at me.


Dave
S/V Good Fortune
CS27

The Democrats Said, and I quote!
 

Actually, I did read it, because I couldn't believe Safire would have said all
the things you appeared to have claimed.

So, you did exactly what the Dems are saying Bush did - you made it sound like
you meant one thing while maintaining deniability.


"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 8 Feb 2004 18:02:43 -0500, "Jeff Morris"
said:

So let me get that straight, are you saying that that whole thing you
attributed
to Safire you just made up?

Jeff, I wouldn't be so foolish as to point to a specific source and then
make up content for the cited material. Somebody might actually go and read
it. (Well, maybe not much of a risk in this group.)

One of the reasons the language has paragraph separations is to minimize
confusion like what you apparently experienced. New paragraph = new line of
thought.

As I indicated before, what Safire said was summarized in the first
paragraph. That's why I introduced it with "He notes." Based on what Safire
had noted, I presented my analysis in the following paragraph. Capice?


Dave
S/V Good Fortune
CS27

The Democrats Said, and I quote!
 

As I said, I only read Safire after the fact - I really did think your entire
post was regarding his column, though it didn't make much sense.

I'm curious how this thread will play out (the real thread, not this NG
thread!) - If GWB was playing a game by avoiding the words "imminent threat,"
I'm not sure the public will buy it. If you took a poll today, you'd probably
find the 80% of the voters "think" he said it.

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 8 Feb 2004 19:58:16 -0500, "Jeff Morris"
said:

So, you did exactly what the Dems are saying Bush did - you made it sound
like
you meant one thing while maintaining deniability.

Come now, let's not play dog in the manger. If you actually read the Safire
article, your supposed misunderstanding of the original post was either
absurdly disingenuous or just plain dumb. In either event it's not worth my
playing silly games of sophistry with you.


Dave
S/V Good Fortune
CS27

The Democrats Said, and I quote!
 

It all depends on what "is" is. Deja vu, all over again. Johnson and
the Gulf of Tonkin, Nixon's "Secret Plan to End the War" and "I am not
a crook". Reagan and Iran Contra, Grenada, Bush and Oil Part One,
Clinton and his Johnson, Bush and Oil Part Two. Kerry and ?


On Sun, 8 Feb 2004 22:02:59 -0500, "Jeff Morris"
wrote:

As I said, I only read Safire after the fact - I really did think your entire
post was regarding his column, though it didn't make much sense.

I'm curious how this thread will play out (the real thread, not this NG
thread!) - If GWB was playing a game by avoiding the words "imminent threat,"
I'm not sure the public will buy it. If you took a poll today, you'd probably
find the 80% of the voters "think" he said it.

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 8 Feb 2004 19:58:16 -0500, "Jeff Morris"
said:

So, you did exactly what the Dems are saying Bush did - you made it sound
like
you meant one thing while maintaining deniability.

Come now, let's not play dog in the manger. If you actually read the Safire
article, your supposed misunderstanding of the original post was either
absurdly disingenuous or just plain dumb. In either event it's not worth my
playing silly games of sophistry with you.


Dave
S/V Good Fortune
CS27

The Democrats Said, and I quote!
 

Hold on hoss... you say that Safire is writing as a conservative?? That
sounds like name calling to me!

FYI, it's Franken not Frankel.

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 8 Feb 2004 16:30:11 -0800, "Jonathan Ganz"
said:

And, to Dave... you're right, I really didn't read the article. Why would
I
want
to read an article by the likes of Safire, someone who is not presenting
a
balanced
view.

Perhaps if you read a bit more broadly you would have noticed that Safire
writes two different kinds of articles for the Times. When he writes on
the
op ed page, it's with a definite political point of view, as is
appropriate
for that venue. He and Brooks are the Times's two house conservatives,
just
as Al Hunt is the Journal's house liberal. But his regular column in the
magazine section is "On Language." To the extent it expresses a point of
view at all it's generally not a political point of view at all. Rather
it's
a mildly prescriptivist point of view on matters of language and usage. As
to why you should read those columns? He writes with a marvelous sense of
tongue in cheek humor about language, its use and misuse. One really
should
occasionally read something other than political tracts and diatribes like
the world according to Frankel. Or if that's too much, at least recognize
that such things exist.


Dave
S/V Good Fortune
CS27

The Democrats Said, and I quote!
 

Sure it is... you've been doing that for a while now.

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 8 Feb 2004 19:58:16 -0500, "Jeff Morris"
said:

So, you did exactly what the Dems are saying Bush did - you made it sound
like
you meant one thing while maintaining deniability.

Come now, let's not play dog in the manger. If you actually read the
Safire
article, your supposed misunderstanding of the original post was either
absurdly disingenuous or just plain dumb. In either event it's not worth
my
playing silly games of sophistry with you.


Dave
S/V Good Fortune
CS27

The Democrats Said, and I quote!
 

Just like they think that Saddam has something to do with 9/11...

"Jeff Morris" wrote in message
...
As I said, I only read Safire after the fact - I really did think your
entire
post was regarding his column, though it didn't make much sense.

I'm curious how this thread will play out (the real thread, not this NG
thread!) - If GWB was playing a game by avoiding the words "imminent
threat,"
I'm not sure the public will buy it. If you took a poll today, you'd
probably
find the 80% of the voters "think" he said it.

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 8 Feb 2004 19:58:16 -0500, "Jeff Morris"
said:

So, you did exactly what the Dems are saying Bush did - you made it
sound
like
you meant one thing while maintaining deniability.

Come now, let's not play dog in the manger. If you actually read the
Safire
article, your supposed misunderstanding of the original post was either
absurdly disingenuous or just plain dumb. In either event it's not worth
my
playing silly games of sophistry with you.


Dave
S/V Good Fortune
CS27

The Democrats Said, and I quote!
 

And, the conservatives are well-versed in this sort of repetition.

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 8 Feb 2004 22:02:59 -0500, "Jeff Morris"
said:

If GWB was playing a game by avoiding the words "imminent threat,"
I'm not sure the public will buy it. If you took a poll today, you'd
probably
find the 80% of the voters "think" he said it.

I'm not sure I'd characterize it as a game. More a matter of prudence. If
Safire is right about the word's history and significance, using it would
have been regarded as tantamount to sending the troops across the border
the
moment the words left his lips.

As to what people _think_ was said, it's an illustration of the old maxim
that if you keep repeating a lie long enough and loud enough, some people
are going to believe it.


Dave
S/V Good Fortune
CS27

The Democrats Said, and I quote!
 

Jeff Morris wrote:
I'm curious how this thread will play out (the real thread, not this NG
thread!) - If GWB was playing a game by avoiding the words "imminent threat,"
I'm not sure the public will buy it. If you took a poll today, you'd probably
find the 80% of the voters "think" he said it.

Well, the Bush Administration and it's cheerleaders spent a lot of time
& effort (and a few million dollars, no doubt) convincing most of the
American public that Iraq definitely had 'weapons of mass destruction'
and was doing all it could to hit the US with them, and also that Saddam
Hussein was working closely with Al-Queda.

Both were patently false.

Now their own publicity is coming back to bite them. The question is,
what will the voting citizenry believe come November? Knowing what P.T.
Barnum said, and remembering that Nixon got reelected in 1972, I am
somewhat cynical about what is going to happen to this country. But I
still have some hopes....

Regards

The Democrats Said, and I quote!
 

Dave, it's not worth a response because you claimed that I was the
one calling names, yet that's exactly what you've been doing to me
and now to Mr. Safire. You have no defense against this argument,
so you resort to the 'I'm not going to play' argument.

The author of the book of Matthew's?? You mean Sod?

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 8 Feb 2004 20:05:50 -0800, "Jonathan Ganz"
said:


Hold on hoss... you say that Safire is writing as a conservative?? That
sounds like name calling to me!

Not worth a response

FYI, it's Franken not Frankel.

My apologies. I suppose that's an offense as heinous as misspelling the
name
of the book of Matthew's author.




Dave
S/V Good Fortune
CS27

The Democrats Said, and I quote!
 

Dave, it's not worth a response because you claimed that I was the
one calling names, yet that's exactly what you've been doing to me
and now to Mr. Safire.


Lordy, Gayanzy loves to cry and whine!

RB

The Democrats Said, and I quote!
 

And you love to respond to every one of my posts... keep at it! YOU'RE
WINNING!!

"Bobsprit" wrote in message
...
Dave, it's not worth a response because you claimed that I was the
one calling names, yet that's exactly what you've been doing to me
and now to Mr. Safire.


Lordy, Gayanzy loves to cry and whine!

RB

The Democrats Said, and I quote!
 

Some much for you and your "non-name calling" bull****.

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On 09 Feb 2004 18:33:38 GMT, (Bobsprit) said:

Lordy, Gayanzy loves to cry and whine!

Reminds me of the kid in the schoolyard who hasn't the brain to make a
cogent defense of his position, but thinks whoever has the last word wins.

Dave
S/V Good Fortune
CS27