| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
Those pesky WMDs...
"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? I've read that our best satellites can resolve enough detail to identify a pack of cigarettes in someone's hand. Hmmm....maybe nobody was told to look for trucks leaving the country. I wonder why that would be? |
"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? I've read that our best satellites can resolve enough detail to identify a pack of cigarettes in someone's hand. Hmmm....maybe nobody was told to look for trucks leaving the country. I wonder why that would be? Or.....maybe people *did* notice trucks, and were told to stop noticing. |
|
|
|
|
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. 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 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 |
"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. |
|
|
"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 |
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? |
"Don White" wrote in message ... "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? I could of sworn you recently wrote this: " I think you enjoy jabbing at people. So be it." It seems like that is all *you* have been doing lately Don. |
"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 |
"JimH" wrote in message ... It seems like that is all *you* have been doing lately Don. Thinking you were on the brink of making a breakthrough...I let you throw half a dozen unanswered blows...... now it's time to atone for your sins. |
"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. |
On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 21:12:00 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote: "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. Political support was a large part of the coalition. Very few countries gave 'thousands' of troops during the first Gulf War. You speak from a chasm of hate, and that clouds what you say. Whether the forces provided were large or small is not as important as the politcal fact of rendering support. But, it's mute. We're there now. Calling the President names doesn't get us out of the mess. I don't think it does much for your ego either. 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 12:54:07 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote: Interesting, isn't it? Not only is he responsible for nothing, but the entire course of history was determined in Chappaquiddick, at least according to JimH. These are amazing things to ponder. No, the point, which you all either missed or conveniently ignored, was that the idea that Saddam had WMD predated GWB. We all believed it, including most of the prominent democratic leaders. You cannot fault Bush for acting on the same information that the previous administration also believed to be true. Dave |
" Tuuuk" wrote in message
... kanter if you only had a clue Cattaraugus LAST UPDATED: Sunday Jan 16, 2005 If you fish the Indian reservation you must have a special indian permit. Further information call region DEC 9 Buffalo NY license,etc. 716-851-7000 week days. To get a license for the reservation call the Seneca Nation of Indians-Clerk's Office (agent #15) week days 716-532-4900 ext, 3032 On an up trend water is very muddy rain will put it our of reach for fishing for a few days. |
" Tuuuk" wrote in message
... Ok,,, kanter lets look at something you said,,,, I think you are nuts,, I think you are a perfect puppet for your buddy krause,, but lets look anyway at something you said and figure it out,,, ''""''''If you hack up your own hand with a kitchen knife and go to the hospital for stitches, why aren't you charged with assault? Idiot. If you were the only dentist in town, I'd learn to live on apple sauce. '''''"" lol,,, now kanter,,, if that aint the most ridiculous statement I have heard all day. Kanter, you make a great puppet for your buddy krause, now he has to be scratching his bald and toothless head after reading your statement here. You better be careful there kanter, if you continue to make such ridiculous statements, he will cut your strings and you will walk alone. Charged with assault,,,, lol,,,,lol,,,ouch,,, what a marooooon,,,,!!!!! Slater Creek at Russell station LAST UPDATED: Sunday Jan 16, 2005 Steelheads, brown trout are present they are in and out on any given day so give them a try! Streamers, egg patterns, nymphs etc. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:04 AM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com