Aljazeera sounds an awful lot like Al Jazirah...a town in Syria that I
suspect you'll be hearing a lot more about in the near future. Can you say
"WMD's"? ;-)


After enough interrogation, Saddam Hussein will eventually be brought around to
say anything and everything the administration hopes to hear.

We'll all switch from a position that the lying ******* couldn't tell the truth
if his life depended on it to believing every syllable he utters that
exonerates our motives for invading Iraq.

They say truth is the first casualty of war.
First causualty of politics too, unfortunately.

Sounds like you have already made up your mind what the truth is, and don't
want anything to change your mind.


"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
Aljazeera sounds an awful lot like Al Jazirah...a town in Syria that I
suspect you'll be hearing a lot more about in the near future. Can you
say
"WMD's"? ;-)


After enough interrogation, Saddam Hussein will eventually be brought
around to
say anything and everything the administration hopes to hear.

We'll all switch from a position that the lying ******* couldn't tell the
truth
if his life depended on it to believing every syllable he utters that
exonerates our motives for invading Iraq.

They say truth is the first casualty of war.
First causualty of politics too, unfortunately.

"Jack Meholf" wrote in message news:bpJDb.370587$Dw6.1208902@attbi_s02...
Sounds like you have already made up your mind what the truth is, and don't
want anything to change your mind.

At least he made up his own mind, as opposed to goose-stepping to the Bush Reich.


"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
Aljazeera sounds an awful lot like Al Jazirah...a town in Syria that I
suspect you'll be hearing a lot more about in the near future. Can you
say
"WMD's"? ;-)


After enough interrogation, Saddam Hussein will eventually be brought
around to
say anything and everything the administration hopes to hear.

We'll all switch from a position that the lying ******* couldn't tell the
truth
if his life depended on it to believing every syllable he utters that
exonerates our motives for invading Iraq.

They say truth is the first casualty of war.
First causualty of politics too, unfortunately.

In article , gould0738
@aol.com says...
Aljazeera sounds an awful lot like Al Jazirah...a town in Syria that I
suspect you'll be hearing a lot more about in the near future. Can you say
"WMD's"? ;-)


After enough interrogation, Saddam Hussein will eventually be brought around to
say anything and everything the administration hopes to hear.

We'll all switch from a position that the lying ******* couldn't tell the truth
if his life depended on it to believing every syllable he utters that
exonerates our motives for invading Iraq.

They say truth is the first casualty of war.
First causualty of politics too, unfortunately.

Don't agree Chuck. I think he's decided it's better to stick around and
vindicate himself (at least as far as WMDs are concerned).

He may prove to be Bush's unwinding if he's free to speak.

If the *best* the Democrats have to attack Bush with is the WMD issue, then
the election is already over.

Remeber 1/3 of America was never so sure about the WMD, but bought in to
"get Saddam". Not to mention that there is no proof one way OR the other.
The cup is 1/2 ___________ .

I'm more intersted in how much *money* Saddam pumped into France, Germany,
and Russia to buy their votes.

And iF there are WMD's - I wanna know where they went. Remember Saddam was
sure ACTING guilty of something, the way he treated the UN inspectors.

-W

"jps" wrote in message
...


Don't agree Chuck. I think he's decided it's better to stick around and
vindicate himself (at least as far as WMDs are concerned).

He may prove to be Bush's unwinding if he's free to speak.

"Clams Canino" wrote in message
news:leLDb.130513$_M.671166@attbi_s54...
If the *best* the Democrats have to attack Bush with is the WMD issue,
then
the election is already over.

Remeber 1/3 of America was never so sure about the WMD, but bought in to
"get Saddam". Not to mention that there is no proof one way OR the
other.
The cup is 1/2 ___________ .

I'm more intersted in how much *money* Saddam pumped into France, Germany,
and Russia to buy their votes.

And iF there are WMD's - I wanna know where they went.

Dayr Az-Zawr in Syria's Al Jazirah province...but that only narrows it down
to 600 square miles...and we don't have troops in Syria to look for 'em...at
least not yet.

In article leLDb.130513$_M.671166@attbi_s54,
says...

If the *best* the Democrats have to attack Bush with is the WMD issue, then
the election is already over.

There's plenty more Clams, it's just one nail in the coffin that'll get
delivered to Crawford.

The mishandling / management of post-war Iraq is a much better issue to
pound. IMHO

I thought using WMD as "the reason" to oust Saddam was silly, and risky PR -
and said so then.
That said, I'd have supported ousting Saddam for *any* reason - real or
imagined. I just thought we could do better than "the threat of WMD's"
Hell - an assasination attempt on a POTUS was good enought for me, and good
enough for a lot of people that were horrified we didn't oust him in GW-1.

-W

"jps" wrote in message
...
In article leLDb.130513$_M.671166@attbi_s54,
says...

If the *best* the Democrats have to attack Bush with is the WMD issue,
then
the election is already over.

There's plenty more Clams, it's just one nail in the coffin that'll get
delivered to Crawford.

(Gould 0738) wrote in message ...
Aljazeera sounds an awful lot like Al Jazirah...a town in Syria that I
suspect you'll be hearing a lot more about in the near future. Can you say
"WMD's"? ;-)


After enough interrogation, Saddam Hussein will eventually be brought around to
say anything and everything the administration hopes to hear.

We'll all switch from a position that the lying ******* couldn't tell the truth
if his life depended on it to believing every syllable he utters that
exonerates our motives for invading Iraq.

They say truth is the first casualty of war.
First causualty of politics too, unfortunately.

Yes, Chuck, the current administration will, like always, pick and
choose what the public hears. They are already doing that, and Saddam
hasn't even said much yet. They certainly don't want the public to
hear when Saddam starts saying things like, well, when Rummy came over
and GAVE me those weapons to use, and stood by, with good graces and
watched me.......etc., etc. OR, when your government gave, with good
graces, governmental approval for U.S. countries to do business with
me, and gave me biological weapons, etc. etc......

Act 1: "We can't believe that Iraq no longer has WMD. All we have is Saddam's
word that he got rid of them, and he's a lying
snake in the grass all day, every day!"

(Protagonist catches Saddam, subjects him to CIA "interrogation" for a week or
so)

Act 2: "We now know for a fact that we were right all along, and Saddam Hussein
had WMD. We have his *personal word* of assurance on the matter, and that's
good enough for us!"

Standards of evidence often change, depending upon what one is hoping to prove.

Had to laugh at the early news reports about Saddam's interrogation. He was
described as "not cooperative" because he
continued to deny having weapons of mass destruction. The rotten *******
deserves everything he's going to have coming to him, but he may as well
realize that he only answer the administration is prepared to accept on the WMD
issue is "yes." Whether true or not, it will be politically useful.