On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 01:23:58 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"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?


Did Harry say something worth sucking up to?

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

"JohnH" wrote in message
...
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.

That's correct, John. Only an intensely stupid man would do such a thing.
Only. Exclusively. No exceptions. Period. You're beginning to understand.

On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 04:39:14 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


"JohnH" wrote in message
.. .
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.

That's correct, John. Only an intensely stupid man would do such a thing.
Only. Exclusively. No exceptions. Period. You're beginning to understand.


One needn't be intensely stupid to make a stupid mistake. Waiting for
Democrat, Republican, and UN approval was intensely stupid. Perhaps he
received some intensely stupid advice from members of *both* parties
who were strong believers.

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

"JohnH" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 04:39:14 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


"JohnH" wrote in message
. ..
On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 22:01:57 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"JohnH" wrote in message
m...

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.

That's correct, John. Only an intensely stupid man would do such a thing.
Only. Exclusively. No exceptions. Period. You're beginning to understand.


One needn't be intensely stupid to make a stupid mistake. Waiting for
Democrat, Republican, and UN approval was intensely stupid. Perhaps he
received some intensely stupid advice from members of *both* parties
who were strong believers.

John H

For a war, the only advice to act on is advice from intelligence sources,
not legislators, unless they have something concrete to offer. Opinions are
not appropriate.

On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 14:40:00 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


"JohnH" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 04:39:14 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


"JohnH" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 22:01:57 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"JohnH" wrote in message
om...

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.

That's correct, John. Only an intensely stupid man would do such a thing.
Only. Exclusively. No exceptions. Period. You're beginning to understand.


One needn't be intensely stupid to make a stupid mistake. Waiting for
Democrat, Republican, and UN approval was intensely stupid. Perhaps he
received some intensely stupid advice from members of *both* parties
who were strong believers.

John H

For a war, the only advice to act on is advice from intelligence sources,
not legislators, unless they have something concrete to offer. Opinions are
not appropriate.


I agree. He had no business reacting to world opinion (e.g., the
French and Germans) or the UN. Given your position, I'm surprised at
all the negative comments about the 'lack' of a coalition.

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

"JohnH" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 14:40:00 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


"JohnH" wrote in message
. ..
On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 04:39:14 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


"JohnH" wrote in message
m...
On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 22:01:57 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"JohnH" wrote in message
news:n54ju0dcug90nu0lrkg7eu2es1lh2c9pr2@4ax. com...

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.

That's correct, John. Only an intensely stupid man would do such a
thing.
Only. Exclusively. No exceptions. Period. You're beginning to
understand.


One needn't be intensely stupid to make a stupid mistake. Waiting for
Democrat, Republican, and UN approval was intensely stupid. Perhaps he
received some intensely stupid advice from members of *both* parties
who were strong believers.

John H

For a war, the only advice to act on is advice from intelligence sources,
not legislators, unless they have something concrete to offer. Opinions
are
not appropriate.


I agree. He had no business reacting to world opinion (e.g., the
French and Germans) or the UN. Given your position, I'm surprised at
all the negative comments about the 'lack' of a coalition.

John H

I object to his use of the fictitious coalition as one of his many bogus
reasons.

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...

I've figured out Tuuuuu,,,,kkk.

Karen Smith is his mother and the one night in her life she was "in
season," Hertvik, Herring, Fritz, Robbins, Wally, et al, got together
and worked up enough potency, so to speak, to impregnate her. The commas
resulted from all the necessary pauses.

A visual image of that activity pretty well kills my appetite for the week.

On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 16:36:15 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


"JohnH" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 14:40:00 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


"JohnH" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 04:39:14 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


"JohnH" wrote in message
om...
On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 22:01:57 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"JohnH" wrote in message
news:n54ju0dcug90nu0lrkg7eu2es1lh2c9pr2@4ax .com...

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.

That's correct, John. Only an intensely stupid man would do such a
thing.
Only. Exclusively. No exceptions. Period. You're beginning to
understand.


One needn't be intensely stupid to make a stupid mistake. Waiting for
Democrat, Republican, and UN approval was intensely stupid. Perhaps he
received some intensely stupid advice from members of *both* parties
who were strong believers.

John H

For a war, the only advice to act on is advice from intelligence sources,
not legislators, unless they have something concrete to offer. Opinions
are
not appropriate.


I agree. He had no business reacting to world opinion (e.g., the
French and Germans) or the UN. Given your position, I'm surprised at
all the negative comments about the 'lack' of a coalition.

John H

I object to his use of the fictitious coalition as one of his many bogus
reasons.


Bogus reasons for what, the delay?

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 Sun, 16 Jan 2005 17:32:18 GMT, "Don White"
wrote:


"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...

I've figured out Tuuuuu,,,,kkk.

Karen Smith is his mother and the one night in her life she was "in
season," Hertvik, Herring, Fritz, Robbins, Wally, et al, got together
and worked up enough potency, so to speak, to impregnate her. The commas
resulted from all the necessary pauses.

A visual image of that activity pretty well kills my appetite for the week.



Gettin' in some heavy smoochin', Don?

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

"JohnH" wrote in message
...


Gettin' in some heavy smoochin', Don?




mmmmm...JohnH...JimH...
Did you two get married during that brief window of opportunity last fall?