"DSK" wrote ...
...the one exception is a CPA who says he likes GWB but thinks Cheney is a
rotten crook...

NOYB wrote:
Hehehe. A CPA calling somebody a crook? Don't you find that a tad bit
ironic in the wake of Enron, Global Crossing, and WorldCom?

Who do you think enabled and encouraged the ENRON mess? If the CEOs weren't busy
looking for ways to steal all the assets of the corporation, confidant that
their political connections & campaign contributions make them immune to
prosecution, then CPAs wouldn't be looking for ways to make it possible.

Usually a comptroller is a CPA, but all the top execs at big companies are MBAs
and lawyers. Who's the real crook?

I find it ironic (but not surprising) that you think Cheney is marvelous but
accuse a CPA you never met of being a crook.

DSK

thunder wrote:

On Tue, 09 Dec 2003 14:58:40 +0000, NOYB wrote:

The reason given for the invasion of Iraq was WMDs and the
threat Iraq posed to us.

That was only *ONE* reason. Not the only one.

Dave

The reason given for the invasion of Iraq was WMDs and the
threat Iraq posed to us.

That was only *ONE* reason. Not the only one.

Dave

Out of every hundred times the Bush gang
listed a reason, WMD had to lead the pack at 90-something percent.

Remember the "Support Our Troops" rallies? Most of the folks with the brand
new, fresh out of the plastic shrink wrap American flags made in China and the
yellow ribbons (made in China) sincerely believed that our invasion of Iraq was
to
defend the United States from imminent attack by Saddam Hussein. 90-some
percent would have given you the WMD line last March. Easily. Now, of course,
the line is "we all knew better, all along. Don't you think the world is better
of without Saddam Hussein running Iraq?"
Good technique: cover a whalloping error with an indisputable, even if only
marginally related, collateral benefit.

Don't forget, in the days leading up to the invasion Bush was walking a very
skinny dimplomatic tight rope. He had to have an issue that showed Iraq in
violation of the
UN accords that ended GWI. They knew damn well there were no WMD- their
military people knew damn well that the
"shelf-life" had expired on the weapons SH once had.

The adminsitration even had a detailed accounting, demanded from and provided
by Iraq, that listed the WMD Iraq once had and what had become of them. It was
turned in about this time last year, it was something like sixteen thousand
pages in length ((there is a rumor it was submitted to a NG by somebody in
AUS)) and hours after receiving it Bush dismissed the entire document as "all
lies". After the fact, since there are no WMD to be found, any accounting that
says there are none is certainly every bit as credible as a claim that WMD
exist, and exist in quantities sufficient to threaten the security of the
United States.

However, WMD was an issue that could be used as a justification for the US
disregarding the terms of the UN accord and invading Iraq. Installing a
"democracy," generating a windfall for VP Cheney's business cronies, and
securing a base for future US military activities in the middle east wouldn't
have generated a lot of support from the rest of the world. Come to think of
it, WMD didn't pass the sniff test anywhere but the UK, Australia, and a few
tiny eastern Euro countries where until relatively recently the armies still
used muskets and deployed on horesback.

On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 14:25:59 +0000, Dave Hall wrote:

thunder wrote:

On Tue, 09 Dec 2003 14:58:40 +0000, NOYB wrote:

The reason given for the invasion of Iraq was WMDs and the
threat Iraq posed to us.

That was only *ONE* reason. Not the only one.

Almost every public word the President has uttered has been archived
somewhere. It is quite easy to go back and read his words. A personal
favorite of mine is this speech where GWB outlines the Iraqi threat,
posted incredibly under the title "Denial and Deception". I find it quite
difficult to believe a President could be so wrong by accident. I'm sure
there were other reasons for this invasion, but the threat Iraq posed was
the one given to us, the voting public.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0021007-8.html

"DSK" wrote in message
...
"DSK" wrote ...
...the one exception is a CPA who says he likes GWB but thinks Cheney
is a
rotten crook...

NOYB wrote:
Hehehe. A CPA calling somebody a crook? Don't you find that a tad bit
ironic in the wake of Enron, Global Crossing, and WorldCom?

Who do you think enabled and encouraged the ENRON mess? If the CEOs
weren't busy
looking for ways to steal all the assets of the corporation, confidant
that
their political connections & campaign contributions make them immune to
prosecution, then CPAs wouldn't be looking for ways to make it possible.

Usually a comptroller is a CPA, but all the top execs at big companies are
MBAs
and lawyers. Who's the real crook?

Both of 'em. The person that planned the crime...and the one the knowingly
carried it out.





I find it ironic (but not surprising) that you think Cheney is marvelous
but
accuse a CPA you never met of being a crook.

I didn't say Cheney was marvelous...and I didn't call your CPA friend a
crook. I just think it's ironic that a CPA...whose profession has been very
recently and severely marred by dishonesty and scandle...calls someone a
crook. I guess it takes one to know one.

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Curtis CCR wrote:
"NOYB" wrote in message
m...


[snip]


72% of this country has a *favorable* opinion of the man "as a person".
Since the left's hate for the man
dominates about half of the news (and *all* of NPR's news), you would
think
it was higher than 19% of this
country that so despises him.

I tend to think the Bush is liked a lot more than most liberal
screamers would want the public to believe.

A lot of people like Bush as a person. Why not? He seems affable enough,
just the kind of guy you'd want on a fishing trip or to meet at a bar to
toss back a few.

There's a lot of guys who I argue with on this newsgroup that might fit that
description. It's only when they start talking about politics that I want
to get out my dictionary of expletives.

"John Gaquin" wrote in message ...
"Harry Krause" wrote in message news:br6ro9

Oh, puh-lease. Your dumb boy came in second in the popular vote last
time around.

Ah, Harry, the same old song. Read your Constitution! There is no such
thing as a "popular vote" on a national basis. In fact, there is no such
thing as a national election in this country...

They keep forgetting that. The people do not elect the president - it
is not a direct election.

The states elect the president through the electoral college process.
So for all of you americans that slept through civics in high school,
and for all of you in other countries that think the U.S. has a
"one-person-one-vote" process for electing our president, listen up---
That is not how it works. It works that way for most other offices,
but not president. We don't just count all the individual votes
across the country and say the guy with most votes wins. Each state
has its own process to detetmine how its electoral college votes will
be cast. Then the states vote.

Even Hillary!® forgot that. She went on a rant after the Florida
insanity and said she was going to introduce legislation to abolish
the electoral college. Yeah! That'll fix it.

Can you imagine being "the messenger" that had to tell her she
couldn't legislate it away because it is set out specifically in the
Constitution?