"NOYB" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"NOYB" wrote in message
nk.net...


Keep in mind that this resolution was passed *after* the armed
conflict
with
Iraq...and had a near-unanimous vote from Congress (only 4 "nays").

Pussies, except for the 4 nays.

I'm sure a Grocer from upstate NY has a better grasp on the dangers that
Syria poses to order in the Middle East.



Surely you don't believe that most of the legislation passed is done for
idealistic reasons, do you? Are you that naiive?

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"NOYB" wrote in message
k.net...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"NOYB" wrote in message
ink.net...

Have you thought about both reasons why Nookular Boy (meaning "his
sitters")
might've wanted to give Saddam time to clean up his back yard?


I can think of a reason:
When Saddam sends the weapons to Syria, we can then blast the hell
out
of
Syria.


Yes. Syria. Another major threat to the U.S. Idiot.

Doug,
I'm not sure what has happened to you, but you're beginning to descend
to
name-calling, foul-mouthed depths of the basskisser.

OK. I'm sorry. I'll switch to a method gleaned from all the parenting
books:
Sometimes smart people say stupid things. To consider Syria a threat is to
say a stupid thing. Better?

Not really. Syria has WMD's and financially supports Hezbollah. You don't
think that makes them a threat?

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"NOYB" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"NOYB" wrote in message
nk.net...


Keep in mind that this resolution was passed *after* the armed
conflict
with
Iraq...and had a near-unanimous vote from Congress (only 4 "nays").

Pussies, except for the 4 nays.

I'm sure a Grocer from upstate NY has a better grasp on the dangers that
Syria poses to order in the Middle East.



Surely you don't believe that most of the legislation passed is done for
idealistic reasons, do you? Are you that naiive?

Actually, I didn't mean to insult you. I meant to imply that Congressmen
are a little better informed than you.

"NOYB" wrote in message
. com...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"NOYB" wrote in message
k.net...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"NOYB" wrote in message
ink.net...

Have you thought about both reasons why Nookular Boy (meaning
"his
sitters")
might've wanted to give Saddam time to clean up his back yard?


I can think of a reason:
When Saddam sends the weapons to Syria, we can then blast the hell
out
of
Syria.


Yes. Syria. Another major threat to the U.S. Idiot.

Doug,
I'm not sure what has happened to you, but you're beginning to descend
to
name-calling, foul-mouthed depths of the basskisser.

OK. I'm sorry. I'll switch to a method gleaned from all the parenting
books:
Sometimes smart people say stupid things. To consider Syria a threat is
to
say a stupid thing. Better?

Not really. Syria has WMD's and financially supports Hezbollah. You
don't
think that makes them a threat?

Nope. Not to this country. Maybe to American tourists travelling in Israel,
but not to this country. Perhaps it depends on your definition of "threat".
If you define it as a force which can whack us on the knee every so often,
then there are threats. Always have been, always will be. Remember when
someone released nerve gas in the Japanese subway some years back? That
could happen here, but we won't attack Japan.

If you're referring to a force on the same scale as the 5 most formidable
armies of WWII (Germany, Japan, Russia, England and ours), our only current
concern might be Russia, assuming we loaned them enough money to stock up on
ammo. China has the army, but no need to use it. They're taking over the
world in the same way we did around 1900 - with trade.

"NOYB" wrote in message
. com...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"NOYB" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"NOYB" wrote in message
nk.net...


Keep in mind that this resolution was passed *after* the armed
conflict
with
Iraq...and had a near-unanimous vote from Congress (only 4
"nays").

Pussies, except for the 4 nays.

I'm sure a Grocer from upstate NY has a better grasp on the dangers
that
Syria poses to order in the Middle East.



Surely you don't believe that most of the legislation passed is done for
idealistic reasons, do you? Are you that naiive?

Actually, I didn't mean to insult you. I meant to imply that Congressmen
are a little better informed than you.

Better informed. That probably explains why they quickly adopt legislation
which is virtually guaranteed to divide the country and keep the Supreme
Court busy for decades. They must think about these things long and hard in
between cocktails.

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"NOYB" wrote in message
. com...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"NOYB" wrote in message
k.net...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"NOYB" wrote in message
ink.net...

Have you thought about both reasons why Nookular Boy (meaning
"his
sitters")
might've wanted to give Saddam time to clean up his back yard?


I can think of a reason:
When Saddam sends the weapons to Syria, we can then blast the
hell
out
of
Syria.


Yes. Syria. Another major threat to the U.S. Idiot.

Doug,
I'm not sure what has happened to you, but you're beginning to
descend
to
name-calling, foul-mouthed depths of the basskisser.

OK. I'm sorry. I'll switch to a method gleaned from all the parenting
books:
Sometimes smart people say stupid things. To consider Syria a threat
is
to
say a stupid thing. Better?

Not really. Syria has WMD's and financially supports Hezbollah. You
don't
think that makes them a threat?

Nope. Not to this country. Maybe to American tourists travelling in
Israel,
but not to this country.

A threat to Israel is a threat to the United States...by way of our economic
interests in the Middle East (yes, Doug...that would be oil).

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"NOYB" wrote in message
. com...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"NOYB" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"NOYB" wrote in message
nk.net...


Keep in mind that this resolution was passed *after* the armed
conflict
with
Iraq...and had a near-unanimous vote from Congress (only 4
"nays").

Pussies, except for the 4 nays.

I'm sure a Grocer from upstate NY has a better grasp on the dangers
that
Syria poses to order in the Middle East.



Surely you don't believe that most of the legislation passed is done
for
idealistic reasons, do you? Are you that naiive?

Actually, I didn't mean to insult you. I meant to imply that
Congressmen
are a little better informed than you.

Better informed. That probably explains why they quickly adopt legislation
which is virtually guaranteed to divide the country and keep the Supreme
Court busy for decades. They must think about these things long and hard
in
between cocktails.

They have better access to Top Secret documents than you or I...unless, of
course, you're a writer for the Washington Post or NY Times.

NOYB wrote:

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"NOYB" wrote in message
. com...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"NOYB" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"NOYB" wrote in message
nk.net...


Keep in mind that this resolution was passed *after* the armed
conflict
with
Iraq...and had a near-unanimous vote from Congress (only 4
"nays").

Pussies, except for the 4 nays.

I'm sure a Grocer from upstate NY has a better grasp on the dangers
that
Syria poses to order in the Middle East.



Surely you don't believe that most of the legislation passed is done
for
idealistic reasons, do you? Are you that naiive?

Actually, I didn't mean to insult you. I meant to imply that
Congressmen
are a little better informed than you.

Better informed. That probably explains why they quickly adopt legislation
which is virtually guaranteed to divide the country and keep the Supreme
Court busy for decades. They must think about these things long and hard
in
between cocktails.

They have better access to Top Secret documents than you or I...unless, of
course, you're a writer for the Washington Post or NY Times.



Too bad no one in the Bush Administration knows how to interpret intel,
or decide whether it is for real or for ****...


"There's no question that Iraq was a threat to the people of the United
States."
- White House spokeswoman Claire Buchan, 8/26/03

"We ended the threat from Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction."
President Bush, 7/17/03

Iraq was "the most dangerous threat of our time."
- White House spokesman Scott McClellan, 7/17/03

"Saddam Hussein is no longer a threat to the United States because we
removed him, but he was a threat...He was a threat. He's not a threat now."
- President Bush, 7/2/03

"Absolutely."
- White House spokesman Ari Fleischer answering whether Iraq was an
"imminent threat," 5/7/03

"We gave our word that the threat from Iraq would be ended."
- President Bush 4/24/03

"The threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction will be removed."
- Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 3/25/03

"It is only a matter of time before the Iraqi regime is destroyed and
its threat to the region and the world is ended."
- Pentagon spokeswoman Victoria Clarke, 3/22/03

"The people of the United States and our friends and allies will not
live at the mercy of an outlaw regime that threatens the peace with
weapons of mass murder."
- President Bush, 3/19/03

"The dictator of Iraq and his weapons of mass destruction are a threat
to the security of free nations."
- President Bush, 3/16/03

"This is about imminent threat."
- White House spokesman Scott McClellan, 2/10/03

Iraq is "a serious threat to our country, to our friends and to our allies."
- Vice President Dick Cheney, 1/31/03

Iraq poses "terrible threats to the civilized world."
- Vice President Dick Cheney, 1/30/03

Iraq "threatens the United States of America."
- Vice President Cheney, 1/30/03

"Iraq poses a serious and mounting threat to our country. His regime has
the design for a nuclear weapon, was working on several different
methods of enriching uranium, and recently was discovered seeking
significant quantities of uranium from Africa."
- Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 1/29/03

"Well, of course he is."
- White House Communications Director Dan Bartlett responding to the
question “is Saddam an imminent threat to U.S. interests, either in that
part of the world or to Americans right here at home?”, 1/26/03

"Saddam Hussein possesses chemical and biological weapons. Iraq poses a
threat to the security of our people and to the stability of the world
that is distinct from any other. It's a danger to its neighbors, to the
United States, to the Middle East and to the international peace and
stability. It's a danger we cannot ignore. Iraq and North Korea are both
repressive dictatorships to be sure and both pose threats. But Iraq is
unique. In both word and deed, Iraq has demonstrated that it is seeking
the means to strike the United States and our friends and allies with
weapons of mass destruction."
- Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 1/20/03

"The Iraqi regime is a threat to any American. …Iraq is a threat, a real
threat."
- President Bush, 1/3/03

"The world is also uniting to answer the unique and urgent threat posed
by Iraq whose dictator has already used weapons of mass destruction to
kill thousands."
- President Bush, 11/23/02

"I would look you in the eye and I would say, go back before September
11 and ask yourself this question: Was the attack that took place on
September 11 an imminent threat the month before or two months before or
three months before or six months before? When did the attack on
September 11 become an imminent threat? Now, transport yourself forward
a year, two years or a week or a month...So the question is, when is it
such an immediate threat that you must do something?"
- Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 11/14/02

"Saddam Hussein is a threat to America."
- President Bush, 11/3/02

"I see a significant threat to the security of the United States in Iraq."
- President Bush, 11/1/02

"There is real threat, in my judgment, a real and dangerous threat to
American in Iraq in the form of Saddam Hussein."
- President Bush, 10/28/02

"The Iraqi regime is a serious and growing threat to peace."
- President Bush, 10/16/02

"There are many dangers in the world, the threat from Iraq stands alone
because it gathers the most serious dangers of our age in one place.
Iraq could decide on any given day to provide a biological or chemical
weapon to a terrorist group or individual terrorists."
- President Bush, 10/7/02

"The Iraqi regime is a threat of unique urgency."
- President Bush, 10/2/02

"There's a grave threat in Iraq. There just is."
- President Bush, 10/2/02

"This man poses a much graver threat than anybody could have possibly
imagined."
- President Bush, 9/26/02

"No terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the
security of our people and the stability of the world than the regime of
Saddam Hussein in Iraq."
- Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 9/19/02
"Some have argued that the nuclear threat from Iraq is not imminent -
that Saddam is at least 5-7 years away from having nuclear weapons. I
would not be so certain. And we should be just as concerned about the
immediate threat from biological weapons. Iraq has these weapons. "
- Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 9/18/02


"Iraq is busy enhancing its capabilities in the field of chemical and
biological agents, and they continue to pursue an aggressive nuclear
weapons program. These are offensive weapons for the purpose of
inflicting death on a massive scale, developed so that Saddam Hussein
can hold the threat over the head of any one he chooses. What we must
not do in the face of this mortal threat is to give in to wishful
thinking or to willful blindness."
- Vice President Dick Cheney, 8


--
Email sent to is never read.

"NOYB" wrote in message
. com...

A threat to Israel is a threat to the United States...by way of our
economic
interests in the Middle East (yes, Doug...that would be oil).



Nah....Israel is nothing in the grand scheme of things. But, the myth fooled
you and a lot of other people. If it were otherwise, we would've let THEM
handle things in the region. In fact, Bush-I requested that they stay OUT of
the Gulf war, remember?

"NOYB" wrote in message
news

Actually, I didn't mean to insult you. I meant to imply that
Congressmen
are a little better informed than you.

Better informed. That probably explains why they quickly adopt
legislation
which is virtually guaranteed to divide the country and keep the Supreme
Court busy for decades. They must think about these things long and hard
in
between cocktails.

They have better access to Top Secret documents than you or I...unless, of
course, you're a writer for the Washington Post or NY Times.



Let's try this, to clarify things. Tell me if this statement is largely
true, or largely false:

Legislators often enact laws to cater to the current fears of their
constituents, even if those laws are poorly thought out and are almost
guaranteed to be eliminated or modified soon thereafter.