Don't bring God into it. You're not qualified. I think
Bush would be well qualified to attack Mexico. In
fact, that's just about all he's qualified to do.

So, what you're saying is that the British and Kurds
are now responsible for our foreign policy decisions.
Thanks for clearing that up.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Horvath" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 26 Jul 2004 16:45:04 -0700, "Jonathan Ganz"
wrote this crap:

Bush lied about Iraq. He had it on his agenda from the very
beginning.

For God's sake, we have plans on the table to attack, or defend every
country on the planet. If we were going to attack Mexico, there would
already be plans somewhere.


He lied about his reasons for going to war and
didn't bother to follow up with the intelligence services.


That's bull****. He put everything on the table. And nobody really
knows where the intelligence problems were.


For
all of Clinton's faults, he did do that. A couple of shells don't
match the tons of wmds that Powel and others claimed were
there.

And the British said they were there. And the Kurds said they were
there. And the UN said they were there. And so on.





Pathetic Earthlings! No one can save you now!

I think it is just a manipulation game of the sheep like masses to regain
power in Washington, nothing more!


Family Sailor,
actually i think it is the liberals that are unwittingly the terrorists

there is plenty that points to the *possibility* that WMD's found their
way
to Syria

--actually it is not liberalism ........it is infantile narcissism,
sometimes affected by ritilan deprevation.
don't confuse the two---they are very different.
gf.

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message
...
Come on... get real. Bu**** made all sorts of claims as to why
we should attack Iraq. So far, none of them have any credibility.
You can dance all you want, but the fact remains that the American
people were mislead by the current administration in the White House.

Actually the miss leading is taking place now with the distortion of facts
and ignoring anything that will make the current administration look good.
It is just an attempt to manipulate the sheep like masses to help the
Democratic party regain power in Washington.

OzOne wrote in message

Pete, I think the point is that the US was convinced that there were
huge stockpiles of WMD when the UN inspection guys were saying that
they had no evidence to support that and were not given access to the
US intelligence to confirm or refute the US conviction.

The US used the excuse that to allow the inspectors access to their
information would alert the Iraqis who would move the stuff.
Many saw then that this was a ploy by the US to keep their very
sketchy information to themselves so it couldn't be questioned or
dismissed.
Why?
To achieve the aim that Bush had even before he was confirmed as
president...to finish daddys business.
There is plenty of hearsay about these intentions, and to use the US
basis for invasion, "where there's smoke, there's fire"

This is probably the most accurate and BS-free assessment of what really
happened. It's nice to see someone present the facts dispassionately.
Thanks, Oz.

Max

"FamilySailor" wrote in message
...
Good point, but Clinton didn't lie about why we were going to Bosnia.
Bush lied. That's the criminal aspect.

I really don't think he lied....

I agree. Saying things that are not true is not necessarily lying unless
one KNOWS that what (s)he is about to say is false. Bush's statements about
WMDs fall into that catagory. He either knew Saddam had no meaningful
amount of WMDs or he didn't. If he knew, then he is a liar, and should be
replaced. If he didn't, as I suspect, then he is far to ignorant and stupid
to remain President. Which is it?

But that's water over the dam. Question is what to do now we know better.
Do we stay in and bleed our own country and our military white like LBJ did
in 'nam or do we cut our losses and leave Iraq to become like Iran.

"FamilySailor" wrote
OK, what is a weapon of mass destruction. Is saran (sp?) gas a weapon of
mass destruction?

Depends on the quantity - did Saddam have enough to cause "mass
destruction"? No.

Is putting out a hit on the George Bush a threat to America? Is firing
missiles at American fighter pilots a threat?

No! Neither are threats TO AMERICA nor is there any credible evidence that
Saddam's government sanctioned either one. If OzOne or Mooron threaten to
whup me does that make Australia and Canada threats to the US? I don't think
so. If some fustrated Iraqii officer gets fustrated at being bitch-slapped
around by Americans and fires a missile he knows has a near-zero chance of
hitting anything (part of his fustration) does that mean Saddam ordered it?
Not likely! After 'Desert Storm' Saddam knew damn well what would happen to
him if he had and prolly had the perps shot!

Face it, the Village Idiot has nearly bankrupt us to destroy the only
secular government in the region and it did not support Al Quida. The BEST
that can happen now is for it to be replaced by one just like it because
that Saddam's kind of repression is the only way to keep these people from
slaughtering each other but that's not likely. The most likely outcome is a
Shiite theoracy like Iran's that craps on Sunnis and Kurds even worse than
Saddam did and DOES support Al Quida's goals. Worst case is something like
the Taliban had. Gee thanks Georgie Boy!

"felton" wrote

Oh, well if it was "possible", then by all means start a war. I guess
there isn't much difference than saying that someone "might" have the
intent to develop WMDs so ....

Your honor, I had to shoot the bitch or she might have gotten mad,
bought a gun and shot me someday.

It's a Texas tradition:

BATF: We had to attack that religeous retreat. They might have been planning
to make illegal weapons. An insane man in an institution said so. So did my
invisible friend.

FBI: Yes, then we had to murder the witnesses, including 40 women &
children, to protect BATFs reputation.

"SAIL LOCO" wrote
The main reason we went to Iraq is Iraq refused for 12 years to meet UN
resolutions.

Oh? I thot Bush had promised his Religo-nazi friends from the xian right
that he would distance us from the UN. Does this mean he's really a closet
pinko, taking orders from the UN? Does he ever wear a tu tu?

Invading Iraq threatened more US lives than firing missiles at US fighter
pilots. How many US servicemen died as a result of Saddam's missiles?
How many died as a result of the invasion?


Let me see.... How many were in the Twin towers???
Didn't Russia tell us they had intelligence that Iraq was planning a
terrorist attack in the US also? I guess we should just ignore it, huh? I
guess Bush made up and manipulated the intelligence the previous
administration got too, huh? Of course if Bush acts on intelligent he is
manipulating it and a warmonger, if he doesn't he is not protecting the
American people and he is to blame for people dieing. It looks like he is
doing the responsible thing and acting on the intelligence to protect the
country (Much more than anyone else has done, by far), despite the ones who
want to just act like the world is a beautiful place and ignore the dangers
and smell the flowers in their make-believe little world. Maybe if we get on
our knees and cry, "Please don't hurt us Mr. Terrorist!" I think the current
administration does what needs to be done, despite the slanting and
attacking by the liberal press. And the reason Bush 41 called off the attack
was because the liberals were crying that is was horrible to pursue them!
Bush 43 did not letting that same bunch sidetrack him from what had to be
done.

I guess he's flip flopped on that one... looks like now he really, really
wants the UN involved in Iraq. I call that a flip flop.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Vito" wrote in message
...
"SAIL LOCO" wrote
The main reason we went to Iraq is Iraq refused for 12 years to meet UN
resolutions.

Oh? I thot Bush had promised his Religo-nazi friends from the xian right
that he would distance us from the UN. Does this mean he's really a closet
pinko, taking orders from the UN? Does he ever wear a tu tu?