"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.

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

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


"JohnH" wrote in message
news:rooju05qaeduf9vraqf8uig9gd46njf4nf@4ax. com...
On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 22:01:57 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"JohnH" wrote in message
news:n54ju0dcug90nu0lrkg7eu2es1lh2c9pr2@4a x.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?

Remember his original list of reasons for the war? The list that has
dwindled to either one or zero, depending on your outlook?

On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 19:22:50 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


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


"JohnH" wrote in message
news:rooju05qaeduf9vraqf8uig9gd46njf4nf@4ax .com...
On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 22:01:57 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

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

Remember his original list of reasons for the war? The list that has
dwindled to either one or zero, depending on your outlook?


Did he use a fictitious coalition as one of them? Building that
coalition, which included a *lot* of countries (but not, of course,
Germany and France) did take a lot of time. He should have used that
time to drop some Tomahawks.

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
...

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?

Remember his original list of reasons for the war? The list that has
dwindled to either one or zero, depending on your outlook?


Did he use a fictitious coalition as one of them? Building that
coalition, which included a *lot* of countries (but not, of course,
Germany and France) did take a lot of time. He should have used that
time to drop some Tomahawks.

John H

John, I think you and I are using a different definition of "coalition". For
me, the definition consists of countries which have made large
contributions. That means us and England. Please don't point out that a few
Japanese, Spanish or Italian people have been killed. I'm talking about
numbers larger than you can count on your fingers and toes.

Based on that definition, there is no coalition. Sorry. Just two countries.
Your leader said there were dozens.

As far as the Rove/Cheney decision to wait and wag their dicks, that was
done for some other reason I'm not sure of yet. Your leader had nothing to
do with it, other than reading the script.