In article ,
says...
On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 13:10:34 -0800, jps wrote:

In article ,
says...

And NONE of the people who you cite would have put our citizens at risk
without solid evidence.

How many have we lost?

How much has it cost?

Is there nothing better we could have done with those lives and money?

Some folks don't like waiting for the cloud, jps.

Those folks should be damned certain of what they're risking.

Bush wasn't other than rhetorically.

jps

"JohnH" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 13:07:24 -0800, jps wrote:

In article ,
says...

Clinton obviously scared the crap out of Saddam! Knowing that Clinton
would come down hard, because he'd done so frequently, Saddam canceled
all his WMD programs, destroyed everything associated therewith, and
became a good boy.

Clearly, that's exactly what happened. It was the sanctions that
worked.

So what stupid Konservative deduction is rolling around in that mostly
empty head of yours?

Evidently, Bush has no capacity to understand that sometimes things
change even though you suspect otherwise. Clinton would have been smart
enough to use contemporaneous information before he decided to invade.

jps

As I wrote something you find agreeable, I'm wondering why the
name-calling? Did I call you anything disagreeable? Do you find the
Harry Krause technique to be an effective tool?

John H

On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD,
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!

"Divide each difficulty into as many parts as is feasible and necessary to
resolve it."
Rene Descartes

That is exactly why I killfiled the guy.

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...



• Sen. Joseph Biden, D-Del., Sept. 4, 2002: If we wait for the danger to
become clear, it could be too late.


Oops. You didn't edit properly. Seems that you left a Democrat in there.

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...

..... and the dope's insistence that Cheney hold his hand during those 9-11
proceedings.


Yeah...that was sort of heartwarming, wasn't it?

"NOYB" wrote in message
...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...

. President Bush, Jan. 28, 2003: Our intelligence officials estimate
that
Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of
sarin,
mustard and VX nerve agent.

tap tap tap on the calculator....a 40 foot trailer carries around 48,000
lbs....so this would be 20 tractor-trailers, unless they used 53 ft
trailers, but those are usually just for lightweight stuff like paper
products.

All our surveillance technology couldn't spot tractor trailers headed
toward
Syria?

We spotted them alright.

We followed them to the Bekaa Valley in the buildup to the war. You were
too busy slamming Bush to take off the blinders and read the news stories
about convoys of hundreds of cars and large trucks heading to Syria right
before the war.

Excellent. You've made my point. "Heading to Syria..." means they were not
there yet. Now, you can explain why, if we saw all this, it was not stopped.
It would've been child's play to destroy the roads themselves.

I know the answer. Perhaps you would like to think about it and tell us why
YOU think it wasn't stopped.

president,,, lol,,,

krause, now that you are a retired old fool, on enough meds to knock out a
horse, what was your highest position? I mean you were a union slob your
entire working career, you didn't earn your income you had to fight for it
collectively by putting a gun to your employer's head. lol,, then you
criticize someone who is obviously smarter than you,, lol,,

krause, if you were not such a liar, you would have the most boring life (in
your own mind of course),,, lol,,,

krause when you become a leader of anything, president, boss, captain
anything,,, then you can criticize, until then, you remain a union slob with
a bad mouth,,, no wonder your own children left you for their mother
promising never to associate with you again,, just like you said
yourself,,,, lol,,,










"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
JohnH wrote:

I agree with that entire paragraph wholeheartedly, except for the
'your leader' and the 'wanted to give' parts. He's *our* president. He
*gave* Saddam too much time.


John H


He's your president, dicquehead. The best hope for us is that he bangs his
head on the coffeetable again, after drinking himself into
unconsciousness.

On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 16:11:42 -0800, jps wrote:

In article ,
says...
On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 13:07:24 -0800, jps wrote:

In article ,
says...

Clinton obviously scared the crap out of Saddam! Knowing that Clinton
would come down hard, because he'd done so frequently, Saddam canceled
all his WMD programs, destroyed everything associated therewith, and
became a good boy.

Clearly, that's exactly what happened. It was the sanctions that
worked.

So what stupid Konservative deduction is rolling around in that mostly
empty head of yours?

Evidently, Bush has no capacity to understand that sometimes things
change even though you suspect otherwise. Clinton would have been smart
enough to use contemporaneous information before he decided to invade.

jps

As I wrote something you find agreeable, I'm wondering why the
name-calling? Did I call you anything disagreeable? Do you find the
Harry Krause technique to be an effective tool?

Did I not recognize your tongue firmly implanted in your cheek?

jps

And that's cause for a Krause approach?

John H

On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD,
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!

"Divide each difficulty into as many parts as is feasible and necessary to resolve it."
Rene Descartes

On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 22:01:57 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"JohnH" wrote in message
.. .

Clinton obviously scared the crap out of Saddam! Knowing that Clinton
would come down hard, because he'd done so frequently, Saddam canceled
all his WMD programs, destroyed everything associated therewith, and
became a good boy.

As I've mentioned in the past, your leader rattled his saber for way too
long. If anything was there, he clearly wanted to give Saddam enough time
to
get rid of them. According to real people who know what they're talking
about, we already have weapons which would vaporize WMDs. Combine that
fact
with the nonsense about how "we know exactly where they are", and one must
wonder why none of them were bombed way before we started throwing away
young lives.


I agree with that entire paragraph wholeheartedly, except for the
'your leader' and the 'wanted to give' parts. He's *our* president. He
*gave* Saddam too much time.

John, if John McCain had run, and won, but I voted for Kerry, I'd still
respect him and consider him MY leader. But not Bush. He was propped up
(nominated) by a circle of insiders who wanted a cardboard replica of a
competent human, one who would not his head and agree to whatever was
suggested to him by his sitters. I will not call him MY leader. You seem OK
with him, so he's YOUR leader.

And, he most certainly did intend to give Saddam plenty of time. If that's
not true, then he must be as stupid as I've been telling you for such a long
time.

Your lack of respect for the man does not change the fact of his
presidency. I believe the time was 'given' to Saddam so Bush could do
the 'politically correct' thing - trying to appease the Dems and the
UN. You're right, that was a waste of good time.

If he believed Saddam had the weapons he should not have wasted time
seeking approval.

John H

On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD,
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!

"Divide each difficulty into as many parts as is feasible and necessary to resolve it."
Rene Descartes

On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 21:37:34 -0500, " Tuuuk"
wrote:

president,,, lol,,,

krause, now that you are a retired old fool, on enough meds to knock out a
horse, what was your highest position? I mean you were a union slob your
entire working career, you didn't earn your income you had to fight for it
collectively by putting a gun to your employer's head. lol,, then you
criticize someone who is obviously smarter than you,, lol,,

krause, if you were not such a liar, you would have the most boring life (in
your own mind of course),,, lol,,,

krause when you become a leader of anything, president, boss, captain
anything,,, then you can criticize, until then, you remain a union slob with
a bad mouth,,, no wonder your own children left you for their mother
promising never to associate with you again,, just like you said
yourself,,,, lol,,,










"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
JohnH wrote:

I agree with that entire paragraph wholeheartedly, except for the
'your leader' and the 'wanted to give' parts. He's *our* president. He
*gave* Saddam too much time.


John H


He's your president, dicquehead. The best hope for us is that he bangs his
head on the coffeetable again, after drinking himself into
unconsciousness.


Krause responding to my posts again? Filtering him isn't enough. What
a waste of time.

John H

On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD,
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!

"Divide each difficulty into as many parts as is feasible and necessary to resolve it."
Rene Descartes

On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 16:13:03 -0800, jps wrote:

In article ,
says...
On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 13:10:34 -0800, jps wrote:

In article ,
says...

And NONE of the people who you cite would have put our citizens at risk
without solid evidence.

How many have we lost?

How much has it cost?

Is there nothing better we could have done with those lives and money?

Some folks don't like waiting for the cloud, jps.

Those folks should be damned certain of what they're risking.

Bush wasn't other than rhetorically.

jps

It's either certainty or not, jps. By the time it's certain, it's too
late.

John H

On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD,
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!

"Divide each difficulty into as many parts as is feasible and necessary to resolve it."
Rene Descartes