On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 18:33:47 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 13:59:02 -0700, wrote:

On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 15:31:48 -0500, Boating All Out
wrote:

In article ,
says...


They are now saying the main source, a British asset who never talked
to the US, was a fraud. It is interesting that Blair is not getting
more of the blame.
All of the things Powell was saying at the UN (mobile weapons labs and
WMD accidents that killed a number of workers) came from the Brits.


The main "source" for mobile weapons labs "intelligence" was Curveball.
Curveball was a German "asset."
An embezzler, possibly alcoholic, looking for a green card.
He was discredited totally by UN weapons inspectors before the war was
launched.

We can't let facts get in the way of blaming Bush for everything tho.

This is some of the most hilarious bull**** I've see in a long time.
Bush/Cheney/Tenet/Powell had nothing to do with it.
It's all Tony Blairs's fault!


Blair certainly has blood on his hands, but for this country,
Bush/Cheney/Tenet/Powell (in a lesser role) promoted this "intel" as
the excuse to go to war, with no actual corroborating evidence.

They have equal if not a greater amount of blood on their hands.

That is getting closer to the truth. You also had people in congress,
including plenty of Democrats beating the war drum

After having been fed lies from Bush/Cheney... sure.

In article ,
says...

On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 17:06:25 -0700, wrote:

On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 18:33:47 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 13:59:02 -0700, wrote:

On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 15:31:48 -0500, Boating All Out
wrote:

In article ,
says...


They are now saying the main source, a British asset who never talked
to the US, was a fraud. It is interesting that Blair is not getting
more of the blame.
All of the things Powell was saying at the UN (mobile weapons labs and
WMD accidents that killed a number of workers) came from the Brits.


The main "source" for mobile weapons labs "intelligence" was Curveball.
Curveball was a German "asset."
An embezzler, possibly alcoholic, looking for a green card.
He was discredited totally by UN weapons inspectors before the war was
launched.

We can't let facts get in the way of blaming Bush for everything tho.

This is some of the most hilarious bull**** I've see in a long time.
Bush/Cheney/Tenet/Powell had nothing to do with it.
It's all Tony Blairs's fault!


Blair certainly has blood on his hands, but for this country,
Bush/Cheney/Tenet/Powell (in a lesser role) promoted this "intel" as
the excuse to go to war, with no actual corroborating evidence.

They have equal if not a greater amount of blood on their hands.

That is getting closer to the truth. You also had people in congress,
including plenty of Democrats beating the war drum

After having been fed lies from Bush/Cheney... sure.

That begs the question, how stupid were the Democrats?
Why would they listen to a guy they were calling an idiot?


They all heard the same intelligence briefings and they all had the
chance to challenge the information. You can't ignore the input of
Schumer and Lieberman. I have already told you many times why they
wanted Saddam gone, pretty much at any cost.
You act like this was Bush's decision, alone and congress did not go
along.


I could go get the vote if you like. I could also get the sponsors of
the resolution and what they wrote.

It would be a waste of time for you to do that. These ideologues will
never admit any of it anyway.

On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 21:48:21 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 17:06:25 -0700, wrote:

On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 18:33:47 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 13:59:02 -0700, wrote:

On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 15:31:48 -0500, Boating All Out
wrote:

In article ,
says...


They are now saying the main source, a British asset who never talked
to the US, was a fraud. It is interesting that Blair is not getting
more of the blame.
All of the things Powell was saying at the UN (mobile weapons labs and
WMD accidents that killed a number of workers) came from the Brits.


The main "source" for mobile weapons labs "intelligence" was Curveball.
Curveball was a German "asset."
An embezzler, possibly alcoholic, looking for a green card.
He was discredited totally by UN weapons inspectors before the war was
launched.

We can't let facts get in the way of blaming Bush for everything tho.

This is some of the most hilarious bull**** I've see in a long time.
Bush/Cheney/Tenet/Powell had nothing to do with it.
It's all Tony Blairs's fault!


Blair certainly has blood on his hands, but for this country,
Bush/Cheney/Tenet/Powell (in a lesser role) promoted this "intel" as
the excuse to go to war, with no actual corroborating evidence.

They have equal if not a greater amount of blood on their hands.

That is getting closer to the truth. You also had people in congress,
including plenty of Democrats beating the war drum

After having been fed lies from Bush/Cheney... sure.

That begs the question, how stupid were the Democrats?
Why would they listen to a guy they were calling an idiot?

Well, I guess when the President/VP and CIA gin up a bunch of
nonsense, even those dumb Democrats get fooled.


They all heard the same intelligence briefings and they all had the
chance to challenge the information. You can't ignore the input of
Schumer and Lieberman. I have already told you many times why they
wanted Saddam gone, pretty much at any cost.
You act like this was Bush's decision, alone and congress did not go
along.

Nonsense. The don't get to "challenge" the evidence. They were
consulted and presented with evidence.


I could go get the vote if you like. I could also get the sponsors of
the resolution and what they wrote.


I think you need to get a reality dose. Bush and Cheney lied and
murdered a bunch of people. They should go to jail.

In article ,
says...


That begs the question, how stupid were the Democrats?
Why would they listen to a guy they were calling an idiot?

Well, I guess when the President/VP and CIA gin up a bunch of
nonsense, even those dumb Democrats get fooled.


http://usliberals.about.com/od/liber...raqNayVote.htm

Far more non-sucker Dems than Reps.
Iraq War Resolution Act.
House against - 126 Dems, 6 Reps.
Senate against - 21 Dems, 1 Rep.

But enough total suckers to carry the bill in a Rep Congress.
Too many suckers.
Here's one guy who wasn't buying it.
http://www.antiwar.com/orig/feingold1.html

Hey, why is Greg talking about Iraq?
I thought this was about Afghanistan.

On Tue, 22 Mar 2011 12:54:53 -0500, Boating All Out
wrote:

In article ,
says...


That begs the question, how stupid were the Democrats?
Why would they listen to a guy they were calling an idiot?

Well, I guess when the President/VP and CIA gin up a bunch of
nonsense, even those dumb Democrats get fooled.


http://usliberals.about.com/od/liber...raqNayVote.htm

Far more non-sucker Dems than Reps.
Iraq War Resolution Act.
House against - 126 Dems, 6 Reps.
Senate against - 21 Dems, 1 Rep.

But enough total suckers to carry the bill in a Rep Congress.
Too many suckers.
Here's one guy who wasn't buying it.
http://www.antiwar.com/orig/feingold1.html

Hey, why is Greg talking about Iraq?
I thought this was about Afghanistan.

It's a lack of facts?

wrote:
On Tue, 22 Mar 2011 12:54:53 -0500, Boating All Out
wrote:

In ,
says...
That begs the question, how stupid were the Democrats?
Why would they listen to a guy they were calling an idiot?
Well, I guess when the President/VP and CIA gin up a bunch of
nonsense, even those dumb Democrats get fooled.

http://usliberals.about.com/od/liber...raqNayVote.htm

Far more non-sucker Dems than Reps.
Iraq War Resolution Act.
House against - 126 Dems, 6 Reps.
Senate against - 21 Dems, 1 Rep.

That is about the same as the vote on Afghanistan and a Libya vote
would not come out that well.

BTW you didn't say how many voted FOR.

But enough total suckers to carry the bill in a Rep Congress.
Too many suckers.
Here's one guy who wasn't buying it.
http://www.antiwar.com/orig/feingold1.html

Hey, why is Greg talking about Iraq?
I thought this was about Afghanistan.

I am trying to talk about Libya but Plume can let Iraq go.
Every time I say anything she responds with Iraq.


What point are you trying to make about Libya? Are you contemplating
that Obama is going to try to order in significant numbers of ground
troups? I don't see that happening.

Some wag suggested we arm both sides in these fundamentalist, backwards
countries to the teeth, let them fight it out, and then shoot all the
members of whichever side emerges, and then shoot whoever wants to take
over until there is no one left who wants to rule. At that point,
sometime in the future, it is possible a reasonable form of democracy
might arise.

That's a *bit* too cynical for me.

On Tue, 22 Mar 2011 16:30:52 -0400, Harryk
wrote:

wrote:
On Tue, 22 Mar 2011 12:54:53 -0500, Boating All Out
wrote:

In ,
says...
That begs the question, how stupid were the Democrats?
Why would they listen to a guy they were calling an idiot?
Well, I guess when the President/VP and CIA gin up a bunch of
nonsense, even those dumb Democrats get fooled.

http://usliberals.about.com/od/liber...raqNayVote.htm

Far more non-sucker Dems than Reps.
Iraq War Resolution Act.
House against - 126 Dems, 6 Reps.
Senate against - 21 Dems, 1 Rep.

That is about the same as the vote on Afghanistan and a Libya vote
would not come out that well.

BTW you didn't say how many voted FOR.

But enough total suckers to carry the bill in a Rep Congress.
Too many suckers.
Here's one guy who wasn't buying it.
http://www.antiwar.com/orig/feingold1.html

Hey, why is Greg talking about Iraq?
I thought this was about Afghanistan.

I am trying to talk about Libya but Plume can let Iraq go.
Every time I say anything she responds with Iraq.


What point are you trying to make about Libya? Are you contemplating
that Obama is going to try to order in significant numbers of ground
troups? I don't see that happening.

Some wag suggested we arm both sides in these fundamentalist, backwards
countries to the teeth, let them fight it out, and then shoot all the
members of whichever side emerges, and then shoot whoever wants to take
over until there is no one left who wants to rule. At that point,
sometime in the future, it is possible a reasonable form of democracy
might arise.

That's a *bit* too cynical for me.

Well, according to the right Obama dithered and did nothing, and now
he's a war-monger. Did they flip before they flopped?

On Tue, 22 Mar 2011 22:26:13 -0400, wrote:

On Tue, 22 Mar 2011 16:30:52 -0400, Harryk
wrote:

wrote:
On Tue, 22 Mar 2011 12:54:53 -0500, Boating All Out
wrote:

In ,
says...
That begs the question, how stupid were the Democrats?
Why would they listen to a guy they were calling an idiot?
Well, I guess when the President/VP and CIA gin up a bunch of
nonsense, even those dumb Democrats get fooled.

http://usliberals.about.com/od/liber...raqNayVote.htm

Far more non-sucker Dems than Reps.
Iraq War Resolution Act.
House against - 126 Dems, 6 Reps.
Senate against - 21 Dems, 1 Rep.

That is about the same as the vote on Afghanistan and a Libya vote
would not come out that well.

BTW you didn't say how many voted FOR.

But enough total suckers to carry the bill in a Rep Congress.
Too many suckers.
Here's one guy who wasn't buying it.
http://www.antiwar.com/orig/feingold1.html

Hey, why is Greg talking about Iraq?
I thought this was about Afghanistan.

I am trying to talk about Libya but Plume can let Iraq go.
Every time I say anything she responds with Iraq.


What point are you trying to make about Libya? Are you contemplating
that Obama is going to try to order in significant numbers of ground
troups? I don't see that happening.

Some wag suggested we arm both sides in these fundamentalist, backwards
countries to the teeth, let them fight it out, and then shoot all the
members of whichever side emerges, and then shoot whoever wants to take
over until there is no one left who wants to rule. At that point,
sometime in the future, it is possible a reasonable form of democracy
might arise.

That's a *bit* too cynical for me.

I just want to hear our exit strategy. It really does not look like
air power is going to displace Qdaffy and we will soon find ourselves
in a similar position to what we were in with Iraq.

If you listened to any news outlet (no Fox doesn't count), you'd know
that we'll be handing off more of the air bombing to others.

I still remember the early talk about the NFZ there when it was
"humanitarian" to save the Kurds with the bonus that they would topple
Saddam if we could just give them a chance.

I don't think Obama would go in but who knows what the next yahoo
might do if he has it all teed up.

I agree. Let's try and keep Jeb out of the White House.

wrote:
On Tue, 22 Mar 2011 22:26:13 -0400, wrote:

On Tue, 22 Mar 2011 16:30:52 -0400,
wrote:

wrote:
On Tue, 22 Mar 2011 12:54:53 -0500, Boating All Out
wrote:

In ,
says...
That begs the question, how stupid were the Democrats?
Why would they listen to a guy they were calling an idiot?
Well, I guess when the President/VP and CIA gin up a bunch of
nonsense, even those dumb Democrats get fooled.

http://usliberals.about.com/od/liber...raqNayVote.htm

Far more non-sucker Dems than Reps.
Iraq War Resolution Act.
House against - 126 Dems, 6 Reps.
Senate against - 21 Dems, 1 Rep.
That is about the same as the vote on Afghanistan and a Libya vote
would not come out that well.

BTW you didn't say how many voted FOR.

But enough total suckers to carry the bill in a Rep Congress.
Too many suckers.
Here's one guy who wasn't buying it.
http://www.antiwar.com/orig/feingold1.html

Hey, why is Greg talking about Iraq?
I thought this was about Afghanistan.
I am trying to talk about Libya but Plume can let Iraq go.
Every time I say anything she responds with Iraq.

What point are you trying to make about Libya? Are you contemplating
that Obama is going to try to order in significant numbers of ground
troups? I don't see that happening.

Some wag suggested we arm both sides in these fundamentalist, backwards
countries to the teeth, let them fight it out, and then shoot all the
members of whichever side emerges, and then shoot whoever wants to take
over until there is no one left who wants to rule. At that point,
sometime in the future, it is possible a reasonable form of democracy
might arise.

That's a *bit* too cynical for me.
I just want to hear our exit strategy. It really does not look like
air power is going to displace Qdaffy and we will soon find ourselves
in a similar position to what we were in with Iraq.

If you listened to any news outlet (no Fox doesn't count), you'd know
that we'll be handing off more of the air bombing to others.

I still remember the early talk about the NFZ there when it was
"humanitarian" to save the Kurds with the bonus that they would topple
Saddam if we could just give them a chance.

I don't think Obama would go in but who knows what the next yahoo
might do if he has it all teed up.

I agree. Let's try and keep Jeb out of the White House.

And every other Republican.

On Wed, 23 Mar 2011 06:18:02 -0400, Harryk
wrote:

wrote:
On Tue, 22 Mar 2011 22:26:13 -0400, wrote:

On Tue, 22 Mar 2011 16:30:52 -0400,
wrote:

wrote:
On Tue, 22 Mar 2011 12:54:53 -0500, Boating All Out
wrote:

In ,
says...
That begs the question, how stupid were the Democrats?
Why would they listen to a guy they were calling an idiot?
Well, I guess when the President/VP and CIA gin up a bunch of
nonsense, even those dumb Democrats get fooled.

http://usliberals.about.com/od/liber...raqNayVote.htm

Far more non-sucker Dems than Reps.
Iraq War Resolution Act.
House against - 126 Dems, 6 Reps.
Senate against - 21 Dems, 1 Rep.
That is about the same as the vote on Afghanistan and a Libya vote
would not come out that well.

BTW you didn't say how many voted FOR.

But enough total suckers to carry the bill in a Rep Congress.
Too many suckers.
Here's one guy who wasn't buying it.
http://www.antiwar.com/orig/feingold1.html

Hey, why is Greg talking about Iraq?
I thought this was about Afghanistan.
I am trying to talk about Libya but Plume can let Iraq go.
Every time I say anything she responds with Iraq.

What point are you trying to make about Libya? Are you contemplating
that Obama is going to try to order in significant numbers of ground
troups? I don't see that happening.

Some wag suggested we arm both sides in these fundamentalist, backwards
countries to the teeth, let them fight it out, and then shoot all the
members of whichever side emerges, and then shoot whoever wants to take
over until there is no one left who wants to rule. At that point,
sometime in the future, it is possible a reasonable form of democracy
might arise.

That's a *bit* too cynical for me.
I just want to hear our exit strategy. It really does not look like
air power is going to displace Qdaffy and we will soon find ourselves
in a similar position to what we were in with Iraq.

If you listened to any news outlet (no Fox doesn't count), you'd know
that we'll be handing off more of the air bombing to others.

I still remember the early talk about the NFZ there when it was
"humanitarian" to save the Kurds with the bonus that they would topple
Saddam if we could just give them a chance.

I don't think Obama would go in but who knows what the next yahoo
might do if he has it all teed up.

I agree. Let's try and keep Jeb out of the White House.

And every other Republican.

For now, I agree with you. None of them are worth much. Perhaps
someday regain their moral footing, but until then...