A big day for Bush and Blair and Sen. Kennedy (little off topic)
 

During several hours of testimony before the Senate Armed Services
Committee, David Kay did not make Ted Kennedy happy. Kennedy tried
valiantly to get Kay to indict Bush, to say that Bush, et al, had to
have known that WMD weren't a threat to the USA prior to the war. But,
it didn't work. Several other Dems also tried, but it didn't work.
Let's see how many retractions there are to the "Bush lied"
statements. Of course, now many will say that Kay lied. These will
probably be the same people that praised Kay's honesty a few months
ago.

The chairman of the BBC resigned today. Seems it's allegations that
Blair had lied were also false.

From MSNBC News:

WASHINGTON - The former top U.S. weapons inspector in Iraq on
Wednesday encouraged Congress to examine the “fundamental false
analysis” that led to the conclusion that Saddam Hussein possessed
weapons of mass destruction, a primary justification by President Bush
for the war in Iraq. But he reiterated that he did not believe that
intelligence analysts were pressured to draw that conclusion.

“We were almost all wrong,” said David Kay, noting that intelligence
services in France and Germany, both of which opposed war with Iraq,
also were convinced that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction before
the U.S. invasion.

But he told members of the Senate Armed Services Committee that he
found no evidence to suggest that the Bush administration influenced
the intelligence community to inflate the assessment of Saddam’s
arsenal as a pretext to go to war.

Rest snipped. Go to http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4049012/

Also from MSNBC:

LONDON - A judge cleared Prime Minister Tony Blair’s administration
Wednesday of any direct involvement in the suicide of a government
expert on Iraqi weapons, but the BBC came under fire for its reporting
of the scandal, prompting its chairman to resign. The British
Broadcasting Corp.’s board of governors said it accepted Gavyn Davies
resignation “with great reluctance and regret."

Blair’s administration was cleared in a report issued by appeals judge
Lord Hutton, who was appointed by Blair to investigate the death of
weapons expert David Kelly.

Snipped. Go to http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4080709/

Also in article:

Hutton said the BBC report that Blair’s government had manipulated its
intelligence in an official dossier about Iraq’s weapons was
unfounded. He specifically rebutted the BBC report that the government
had “sexed up” the dossier to bolster its argument for the war in
Iraq.

John H

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

A big day for Bush and Blair and Sen. Kennedy (little off topic)
 

"John H" wrote in message
...
During several hours of testimony before the Senate Armed Services
Committee, David Kay did not make Ted Kennedy happy. Kennedy tried
valiantly to get Kay to indict Bush, to say that Bush, et al, had to
have known that WMD weren't a threat to the USA prior to the war. But,
it didn't work. Several other Dems also tried, but it didn't work.
Let's see how many retractions there are to the "Bush lied"
statements. Of course, now many will say that Kay lied. These will
probably be the same people that praised Kay's honesty a few months
ago.

Extreme conclusions on your part, John. Perhaps Kay is being incredibly
diplomatic, particularly in light of the fact that nobody has any idea yet
where our intelligence fell to pieces. My prediction: Kay will end up with a
lofty position in the next administration because he's demonstrating a
unique ability to not offend people while presenting the facts.

A big day for Bush and Blair and Sen. Kennedy (little off topic)
 

On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 21:16:46 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"John H" wrote in message
.. .
During several hours of testimony before the Senate Armed Services
Committee, David Kay did not make Ted Kennedy happy. Kennedy tried
valiantly to get Kay to indict Bush, to say that Bush, et al, had to
have known that WMD weren't a threat to the USA prior to the war. But,
it didn't work. Several other Dems also tried, but it didn't work.
Let's see how many retractions there are to the "Bush lied"
statements. Of course, now many will say that Kay lied. These will
probably be the same people that praised Kay's honesty a few months
ago.

Extreme conclusions on your part, John. Perhaps Kay is being incredibly
diplomatic, particularly in light of the fact that nobody has any idea yet
where our intelligence fell to pieces. My prediction: Kay will end up with a
lofty position in the next administration because he's demonstrating a
unique ability to not offend people while presenting the facts.

Nope. I watched Kay for several hours today. He was not being
'incredibly diplomatic' but was rebuffing the attempts to buffalo him
by the senators, any of them.

The bottom line, as you stated, was that he was 'presenting the
facts', which refuted the position that Bush lied.

You need to quit trying to earn money by pouncing on customers and
instead waste your time watching C-Span!

John H

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

A big day for Bush and Blair and Sen. Kennedy (little off topic)
 

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
My prediction: Kay will end up with a
lofty position in the next administration because he's demonstrating a
unique ability to not offend people while presenting the facts.

My prediction: the truth will emerge that Saddam hid his WMD's in Syria.
Even Kay alluded to this possibility.

A big day for Bush and Blair and Sen. Kennedy (little off topic)
 

Ted Kennedy is an idiot. Absolute idiot. The entire Kennedy family should
not be members of public office, there is simply too much corruption on
their part.




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

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
My prediction: Kay will end up with a
lofty position in the next administration because he's demonstrating a
unique ability to not offend people while presenting the facts.

My prediction: the truth will emerge that Saddam hid his WMD's in Syria.
Even Kay alluded to this possibility.

A big day for Bush and Blair and Sen. Kennedy (little off topic)
 

"NOYB" wrote in message news:HUWRb.597

My prediction: the truth will emerge that Saddam hid his WMD's in Syria.
Even Kay alluded to this possibility.

There is a Syrian journalist who escaped Syria and published a lengthy
article in a Danish (I believe) newspaper just before Christmas (IIRC) --
sorry, details in my computer at work -- wherein he detailed three specific
areas within Syria where multiple huge convoys of equipment had been
transported from Iraq and stored during the winter 02-03. Each area roughly
equivalent in size to a medium to large military base, and still, to this
day, heavily guarded with 24-hour troops, barbed wire, razor wire, etc.
Western press doesn't seem to care, but you can bet your ass the long lense
sats are watching. Facts will out.

A big day for Bush and Blair and Sen. Kennedy (little off topic)
 

Here's the twist (that the conspiracy buffs will hate). Kay testified
before the US Congress yesterday. He (as we have seen) blamed the
Intelligence services. But he also pointed out that both France and
Germany had come to the same conclusion: Saddam had WMDs. The only
difference was how they felt it should be handled. He also pointed out
the Ted Kennedy had agreed that Saddam had the WMDs.

So now we have to add that French Intelligence and German Intelligence
also got it wrong and the conspiracy freaks have to believe that
Kennedy, Chirac and Schroeder were in on the conspiracy with Bush and
Blair.






"John Gaquin" wrote in message
...

"NOYB" wrote in message news:HUWRb.597

My prediction: the truth will emerge that Saddam hid his WMD's in Syria.
Even Kay alluded to this possibility.

There is a Syrian journalist who escaped Syria and published a lengthy
article in a Danish (I believe) newspaper just before Christmas (IIRC) --
sorry, details in my computer at work -- wherein he detailed three
specific
areas within Syria where multiple huge convoys of equipment had been
transported from Iraq and stored during the winter 02-03. Each area
roughly
equivalent in size to a medium to large military base, and still, to this
day, heavily guarded with 24-hour troops, barbed wire, razor wire, etc.
Western press doesn't seem to care, but you can bet your ass the long
lense
sats are watching. Facts will out.

A big day for Bush and Blair and Sen. Kennedy (little off topic)
 

Tuuk wrote:

Ted Kennedy is an idiot. Absolute idiot. The entire Kennedy family should
not be members of public office, there is simply too much corruption on
their part.

We should maybe let an amoeba-brain like you run things, eh, Tuuk?
Oh...wait...we have an amoeba-brain in the White House right now.


--
Email sent to is never read.

A big day for Bush and Blair and Sen. Kennedy (little off topic)
 

On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 18:11:23 -0500, " Tuuk"
wrote:

Ted Kennedy is an idiot. Absolute idiot. The entire Kennedy family should
not be members of public office, there is simply too much corruption on
their part.




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

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
My prediction: Kay will end up with a
lofty position in the next administration because he's demonstrating a
unique ability to not offend people while presenting the facts.

My prediction: the truth will emerge that Saddam hid his WMD's in Syria.
Even Kay alluded to this possibility.



Probably a little in-breeding too.

John H

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

A big day for Bush and Blair and Sen. Kennedy (little off topic)
 

"John H" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 18:11:23 -0500, " Tuuk"
wrote:

Ted Kennedy is an idiot. Absolute idiot. The entire Kennedy family should
not be members of public office, there is simply too much corruption on
their part.




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

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
My prediction: Kay will end up with a
lofty position in the next administration because he's demonstrating
a
unique ability to not offend people while presenting the facts.

My prediction: the truth will emerge that Saddam hid his WMD's in
Syria.
Even Kay alluded to this possibility.



Probably a little in-breeding too.

They wouldn't want Grandpa Joe's rum running money to get out of the family!

Bert

A big day for Bush and Blair and Sen. Kennedy (little off topic)
 

" Tuuk" wrote in message ...
Ted Kennedy is an idiot. Absolute idiot. The entire Kennedy family should
not be members of public office, there is simply too much corruption on
their part.




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

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
My prediction: Kay will end up with a
lofty position in the next administration because he's demonstrating a
unique ability to not offend people while presenting the facts.

My prediction: the truth will emerge that Saddam hid his WMD's in Syria.
Even Kay alluded to this possibility.



A Bush lover calling another political family corrupt???????????

A big day for Bush and Blair and Sen. Kennedy (little off topic)
 

"John H" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 21:16:46 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"John H" wrote in message
.. .
During several hours of testimony before the Senate Armed Services
Committee, David Kay did not make Ted Kennedy happy. Kennedy tried
valiantly to get Kay to indict Bush, to say that Bush, et al, had to
have known that WMD weren't a threat to the USA prior to the war. But,
it didn't work. Several other Dems also tried, but it didn't work.
Let's see how many retractions there are to the "Bush lied"
statements. Of course, now many will say that Kay lied. These will
probably be the same people that praised Kay's honesty a few months
ago.

Extreme conclusions on your part, John. Perhaps Kay is being incredibly
diplomatic, particularly in light of the fact that nobody has any idea
yet
where our intelligence fell to pieces. My prediction: Kay will end up
with a
lofty position in the next administration because he's demonstrating a
unique ability to not offend people while presenting the facts.

Nope. I watched Kay for several hours today. He was not being
'incredibly diplomatic' but was rebuffing the attempts to buffalo him
by the senators, any of them.

So, he resisted efforts to get him to condemn someone, anyone, and you don't
consider that diplomatic? :-) In interviews, he's repeatedly stated that
he's not sure where our intelligence failed (at what step in the chain, in
other words), and he's pretty much refused to point at anyone and say
"fool!" It's not his job to point out who the liars and fools are. The
public will decide that next November.


The bottom line, as you stated, was that he was 'presenting the
facts', which refuted the position that Bush lied.

That conclusion only works if you've chosen to ignore one of several
possible scenarios: Bush may have been told that our evidence was flimsy, at
best, and either he or his staff decided that the imperfect evidence was
enough for them to run with.

Do you recall that we have yet to hear anything specific about the nature of
the "intelligence" that led Bush to believe this WMD nonsense? The excuse is
that we need to protect our sources. Since those sources have been 100%
wrong, why protect them? Wouldn't it be better to let "nature" takes its
toll on bad sources, whether that means someone getting capped in a dark
alley, or just losing their job so they're not hobbling our policy decisions
in the future?


You need to quit trying to earn money by pouncing on customers and
instead waste your time watching C-Span!

Nice idea, but I have to devote my full attention to truckers who call and
say they missed a delivery because of icy roads in Los Angeles. In reality,
they got hijacked by a casino or a whorehouse as they passed through Nevada.

A big day for Bush and Blair and Sen. Kennedy (little off topic)
 

"John Gaquin" wrote in message
...

"NOYB" wrote in message news:HUWRb.597

My prediction: the truth will emerge that Saddam hid his WMD's in Syria.
Even Kay alluded to this possibility.

There is a Syrian journalist who escaped Syria and published a lengthy
article in a Danish (I believe) newspaper just before Christmas (IIRC) --
sorry, details in my computer at work -- wherein he detailed three
specific
areas within Syria where multiple huge convoys of equipment had been
transported from Iraq and stored during the winter 02-03. Each area
roughly
equivalent in size to a medium to large military base, and still, to this
day, heavily guarded with 24-hour troops, barbed wire, razor wire, etc.
Western press doesn't seem to care, but you can bet your ass the long
lense
sats are watching. Facts will out.



Interesting idea, but there are problems with it.

1) There is little or no reason for us not to go after it, whether Syria
likes it or not. First of all, they're an inconsequential force, and second,
we've already demonstrated that we have little or no regard for the
sovereignty of other countries. Why not just tell the Bashar al-Asad that
we're stopping by for a little visit?

2) It's still a condemnation of the cowboy who waved his dick at Saddam for
close to a year before actually doing anything. You want a great conspiracy
theory? Bush *wanted* to give Saddam plenty of time to move the stuff over
the border.

Think about that last sentence.

A big day for Bush and Blair and Sen. Kennedy (little off topic)
 

"WaIIy" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 21:16:46 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"John H" wrote in message
.. .
During several hours of testimony before the Senate Armed Services
Committee, David Kay did not make Ted Kennedy happy. Kennedy tried
valiantly to get Kay to indict Bush, to say that Bush, et al, had to
have known that WMD weren't a threat to the USA prior to the war. But,
it didn't work. Several other Dems also tried, but it didn't work.
Let's see how many retractions there are to the "Bush lied"
statements. Of course, now many will say that Kay lied. These will
probably be the same people that praised Kay's honesty a few months
ago.

Extreme conclusions on your part, John. Perhaps Kay is being incredibly
diplomatic, particularly in light of the fact that nobody has any idea
yet
where our intelligence fell to pieces. My prediction: Kay will end up
with a
lofty position in the next administration because he's demonstrating a
unique ability to not offend people while presenting the facts.


Kay is respected by liberals and conservatives.

Do you EVER research anything before giving some ludicrous opinion?

Your response makes no sense in light of what I wrote. Please rephrase what
you THINK I wrote in the paragraph beginning with "Extreme conclusions".

A big day for Bush and Blair and Sen. Kennedy (little off topic)
 

"John Gaquin" wrote in message
...

"NOYB" wrote in message news:HUWRb.597

My prediction: the truth will emerge that Saddam hid his WMD's in Syria.
Even Kay alluded to this possibility.

There is a Syrian journalist who escaped Syria and published a lengthy
article in a Danish (I believe) newspaper just before Christmas (IIRC) --
sorry, details in my computer at work -- wherein he detailed three
specific
areas within Syria where multiple huge convoys of equipment had been
transported from Iraq and stored during the winter 02-03. Each area
roughly
equivalent in size to a medium to large military base, and still, to this
day, heavily guarded with 24-hour troops, barbed wire, razor wire, etc.
Western press doesn't seem to care, but you can bet your ass the long
lense
sats are watching. Facts will out.

I remember that article. In fact, I posted it here in Danish and asked
someone to translate it.

A big day for Bush and Blair and Sen. Kennedy (little off topic)
 

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message

Interesting idea, but there are problems with it.

1) There is little or no reason for us not to go after it, whether Syria
likes it or not.

Well, whether you want to believe it or not, there is a limit to the number
of things we can do simultaneously on the ground. And, as they have done in
past circumstances, they will try the diplomatic route first. When and if
that fails, look for boots on the ground.

we've already demonstrated that we have little or no regard for the
sovereignty of other countries. Why not just tell the Bashar al-Asad that
we're stopping by for a little visit?

disregard puerile rant

2) It's still a condemnation of the cowboy who waved his dick at Saddam
for
close to a year before actually doing anything. You want a great
conspiracy
theory? Bush *wanted* to give Saddam plenty of time to move the stuff over
the border.

Let's assume for the moment that you're on the right track. How does that
jibe with your oft-repeated premise that GW is an incompetent moron who
couldn't find his ass with two hands and a flashlight? Morons are not
usually adept at strategic chess.

A big day for Bush and Blair and Sen. Kennedy (little off topic)
 

cowards hide behind fake email names.. if the shoe fits........

A big day for Bush and Blair and Sen. Kennedy (little off topic)
 

"John Gaquin" wrote in message
...
"Doug Kanter" wrote in message

Interesting idea, but there are problems with it.

1) There is little or no reason for us not to go after it, whether Syria
likes it or not.

Well, whether you want to believe it or not, there is a limit to the
number
of things we can do simultaneously on the ground. And, as they have done
in
past circumstances, they will try the diplomatic route first. When and if
that fails, look for boots on the ground.

we've already demonstrated that we have little or no regard for the
sovereignty of other countries. Why not just tell the Bashar al-Asad
that
we're stopping by for a little visit?

disregard puerile rant

2) It's still a condemnation of the cowboy who waved his dick at Saddam
for
close to a year before actually doing anything. You want a great
conspiracy
theory? Bush *wanted* to give Saddam plenty of time to move the stuff
over
the border.

Let's assume for the moment that you're on the right track. How does that
jibe with your oft-repeated premise that GW is an incompetent moron who
couldn't find his ass with two hands and a flashlight? Morons are not
usually adept at strategic chess.

He's not adept, but his sitters are. So is his father, who started all this.
Who knows what he'd do to insure that his boy had an income stream after the
next election?

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?

A big day for Bush and Blair and Sen. Kennedy (little off topic)
 

On Thu, 29 Jan 2004 17:14:06 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"John H" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 21:16:46 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"John H" wrote in message
.. .
During several hours of testimony before the Senate Armed Services
Committee, David Kay did not make Ted Kennedy happy. Kennedy tried
valiantly to get Kay to indict Bush, to say that Bush, et al, had to
have known that WMD weren't a threat to the USA prior to the war. But,
it didn't work. Several other Dems also tried, but it didn't work.
Let's see how many retractions there are to the "Bush lied"
statements. Of course, now many will say that Kay lied. These will
probably be the same people that praised Kay's honesty a few months
ago.

Extreme conclusions on your part, John. Perhaps Kay is being incredibly
diplomatic, particularly in light of the fact that nobody has any idea
yet
where our intelligence fell to pieces. My prediction: Kay will end up
with a
lofty position in the next administration because he's demonstrating a
unique ability to not offend people while presenting the facts.

Nope. I watched Kay for several hours today. He was not being
'incredibly diplomatic' but was rebuffing the attempts to buffalo him
by the senators, any of them.

So, he resisted efforts to get him to condemn someone, anyone, and you don't
consider that diplomatic? :-) In interviews, he's repeatedly stated that
he's not sure where our intelligence failed (at what step in the chain, in
other words), and he's pretty much refused to point at anyone and say
"fool!" It's not his job to point out who the liars and fools are. The
public will decide that next November.


The bottom line, as you stated, was that he was 'presenting the
facts', which refuted the position that Bush lied.

That conclusion only works if you've chosen to ignore one of several
possible scenarios: Bush may have been told that our evidence was flimsy, at
best, and either he or his staff decided that the imperfect evidence was
enough for them to run with.

Do you recall that we have yet to hear anything specific about the nature of
the "intelligence" that led Bush to believe this WMD nonsense? The excuse is
that we need to protect our sources. Since those sources have been 100%
wrong, why protect them? Wouldn't it be better to let "nature" takes its
toll on bad sources, whether that means someone getting capped in a dark
alley, or just losing their job so they're not hobbling our policy decisions
in the future?


You need to quit trying to earn money by pouncing on customers and
instead waste your time watching C-Span!

Nice idea, but I have to devote my full attention to truckers who call and
say they missed a delivery because of icy roads in Los Angeles. In reality,
they got hijacked by a casino or a whorehouse as they passed through Nevada.

Kay ****ed off Democrats and the entire Bush administration, and
you're calling him diplomatic? He ****ed everyone off because he stuck
to what he thought was the truth.

He admitted that he was also wrong and that he had access to all the
intelligence available (as far as he knew). He stated he was convinced
he would find something. He stated that we (the USA), the British, the
French, and the Germans, not to mention the previous administration,
all thought there were WMD to be found. "We were all wrong," was his
main theme.

He also suggested that an "outside" investigation be conducted to
determine and fix the intelligence problems. McCain (sp?) loved that,
but the administration doesn't much like the idea. I think the
administration still thinks that something may be found. Kay also
admitted that he wasn't "sure" that there was nothing to be found.

Personally, I can't understand why they don't just call Mr. Krause,
who knows everything, and get this mess cleared up.

I think an investigation would be worthwhile. But if the results
didn't show that Bush and Powell absolutely lied, then the Dems would
say the committee was unduly influenced anyway.

I hope those damn truckers weren't union folks. Why do they have to
stop at a whorehouse? Isn't that why they have queen beds and jacuzzis
in that 'motel' behind the seats?

John H

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

A big day for Bush and Blair and Sen. Kennedy (little off topic)
 

....


John H

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

A big day for Bush and Blair and Sen. Kennedy (little off topic)
 

On Thu, 29 Jan 2004 17:23:26 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"John Gaquin" wrote in message
...

"NOYB" wrote in message news:HUWRb.597

My prediction: the truth will emerge that Saddam hid his WMD's in Syria.
Even Kay alluded to this possibility.

There is a Syrian journalist who escaped Syria and published a lengthy
article in a Danish (I believe) newspaper just before Christmas (IIRC) --
sorry, details in my computer at work -- wherein he detailed three
specific
areas within Syria where multiple huge convoys of equipment had been
transported from Iraq and stored during the winter 02-03. Each area
roughly
equivalent in size to a medium to large military base, and still, to this
day, heavily guarded with 24-hour troops, barbed wire, razor wire, etc.
Western press doesn't seem to care, but you can bet your ass the long
lense
sats are watching. Facts will out.



Interesting idea, but there are problems with it.

1) There is little or no reason for us not to go after it, whether Syria
likes it or not. First of all, they're an inconsequential force, and second,
we've already demonstrated that we have little or no regard for the
sovereignty of other countries. Why not just tell the Bashar al-Asad that
we're stopping by for a little visit?

2) It's still a condemnation of the cowboy who waved his dick at Saddam for
close to a year before actually doing anything. You want a great conspiracy
theory? Bush *wanted* to give Saddam plenty of time to move the stuff over
the border.

Think about that last sentence.

Wait a minute -- we went to Iraq, according to the best you guys had
to offer, to steal the Iraq oil. Does Syria have a lot of oil? No?
Then why would we go there?

Bush did not want to give Saddam a lot of time. Bush wanted to
convince the UN and all the Dems that it was necessary to change the
regime, like Mr. Clinton wanted to do. He gave Saddam time to get
honest.

Let's don't get too ridiculous here.

John H

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

A big day for Bush and Blair and Sen. Kennedy (little off topic)
 

"John H" wrote in message
...


Kay ****ed off Democrats and the entire Bush administration, and
you're calling him diplomatic? He ****ed everyone off because he stuck
to what he thought was the truth.


If he condemned your leader in a one-sided way, and let the Dems off the
hook, you'd say he was biased. If he's ****ing off everyone equally, he's
behaving like a scientist who understands that there are not sound
conclusions to be drawn yet. If you like, purge the word "diplomatic" from
your mind. It's getting you all hung up. Normally, that only happens to
little Dave Hall.


He admitted that he was also wrong and that he had access to all the
intelligence available (as far as he knew). He stated he was convinced
he would find something. He stated that we (the USA), the British, the
French, and the Germans, not to mention the previous administration,
all thought there were WMD to be found. "We were all wrong," was his
main theme.

He also suggested that an "outside" investigation be conducted to
determine and fix the intelligence problems. McCain (sp?) loved that,
but the administration doesn't much like the idea. I think the
administration still thinks that something may be found. Kay also
admitted that he wasn't "sure" that there was nothing to be found.

Do you suppose the investigation might last until December of 2004? Not
October of 2004?


I think an investigation would be worthwhile. But if the results
didn't show that Bush and Powell absolutely lied, then the Dems would
say the committee was unduly influenced anyway.

Some of us will say that any committee will be influenced by an unfortunate
tendency in politics to protect those who are still in power or still
living, or those who may have sad illnesses. It took a long time to find out
that Nixon was being dosed with Dilantin for quite some time. It may take a
long time to find out that some of our intelligence people are not as slick
as they're portrayed in the movies.


I hope those damn truckers weren't union folks. Why do they have to
stop at a whorehouse? Isn't that why they have queen beds and jacuzzis
in that 'motel' behind the seats?

I guess some of the truckers figure that anything is better than working, or
dealing with traffic. Some of them can't stand lumpers - crack heads who
hang around loading docks and get paid cash for helping to unload trucks.
Very common thing in the grocery biz. Not union, either. We have to make
sure truckers have green cash money ready for these guys, or they can't
unload.

A big day for Bush and Blair and Sen. Kennedy (little off topic)
 

"John H" wrote in message
...

Interesting idea, but there are problems with it.

1) There is little or no reason for us not to go after it, whether Syria
likes it or not. First of all, they're an inconsequential force, and
second,
we've already demonstrated that we have little or no regard for the
sovereignty of other countries. Why not just tell the Bashar al-Asad that
we're stopping by for a little visit?

2) It's still a condemnation of the cowboy who waved his dick at Saddam
for
close to a year before actually doing anything. You want a great
conspiracy
theory? Bush *wanted* to give Saddam plenty of time to move the stuff
over
the border.

Think about that last sentence.

Wait a minute -- we went to Iraq, according to the best you guys had
to offer, to steal the Iraq oil. Does Syria have a lot of oil? No?
Then why would we go there?

John, I'm finally going along with the nouveau-Kremlin's thinking! You
should love this. I'm saying that since we no longer believe in borders,
Bush should put his money where his mouth is. If he thinks the WMDs were
shuffled into Syria, he should go after them. That was his main reason for
spanking Iraq. Why not stick to his guns and chase the same weapons into
Syria? Or, is he going to give the Syrians time to shuffle them to Sudan or
Saudi Arabia?


Bush did not want to give Saddam a lot of time. Bush wanted to
convince the UN and all the Dems that it was necessary to change the
regime, like Mr. Clinton wanted to do. He gave Saddam time to get
honest.

Convince the UN? He ridiculed them the entire time he was trying to convince
them. When Powell allowed that the UN might have a purpose, he was silenced
and never said it again, until recently when we needed their help in
cleaning up our mess.

A big day for Bush and Blair and Sen. Kennedy (little off topic)
 

John Gaquin wrote:
Let's assume for the moment that you're on the right track. How does that
jibe with your oft-repeated premise that GW is an incompetent moron who
couldn't find his ass with two hands and a flashlight? Morons are not
usually adept at strategic chess.

I like the flashlight quote, that's really great.

As for "adept at strategic chess" you have number of tremendous flaws to
overcome if you are applying this to President Bush. Come to think of
it, I'd be astonished if he had ever played tabletop chess.

If you assume that the Iraq war represents some strategic masterstroke,
then you have to assume one or more of the following

1- the main purpose of the Iraq war was to pump obscenely huge amounts
of money into defense contractors (especially Halliburtons) pockets

2- Increasing the number of Arab and Muslim who despise the US will be a
good thing

3- Increasing the number of foreign countries who trust US intentions &
coopoerate with US foreign policy is of no value.

4- strategic intelligence reports and sources are pawns in a cool
political game rather than serious & useful info

Which is it? John H I'd be interested in your answers too.

DSK

A big day for Bush and Blair and Sen. Kennedy (little off topic)
 

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"John Gaquin" wrote in message
...

"NOYB" wrote in message news:HUWRb.597

My prediction: the truth will emerge that Saddam hid his WMD's in
Syria.
Even Kay alluded to this possibility.

There is a Syrian journalist who escaped Syria and published a lengthy
article in a Danish (I believe) newspaper just before Christmas
(IIRC) --
sorry, details in my computer at work -- wherein he detailed three
specific
areas within Syria where multiple huge convoys of equipment had been
transported from Iraq and stored during the winter 02-03. Each area
roughly
equivalent in size to a medium to large military base, and still, to
this
day, heavily guarded with 24-hour troops, barbed wire, razor wire, etc.
Western press doesn't seem to care, but you can bet your ass the long
lense
sats are watching. Facts will out.



Interesting idea, but there are problems with it.

1) There is little or no reason for us not to go after it, whether Syria
likes it or not. First of all, they're an inconsequential force, and
second,
we've already demonstrated that we have little or no regard for the
sovereignty of other countries. Why not just tell the Bashar al-Asad that
we're stopping by for a little visit?

2) It's still a condemnation of the cowboy who waved his dick at Saddam
for
close to a year before actually doing anything. You want a great
conspiracy
theory? Bush *wanted* to give Saddam plenty of time to move the stuff over
the border.

Think about that last sentence.

Hmmmmmmm. I *like* it. Bush *wanted* Saddam to send the weapons to
Syria...so that we'd have an excuse to blast the hell out of them next. You
mean, just like a sting operation run by the DEA? They don't just want the
kingpin...but all of his known and unknown affiliates.

A big day for Bush and Blair and Sen. Kennedy (little off topic)
 

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"John Gaquin" wrote in message
...
"Doug Kanter" wrote in message

Interesting idea, but there are problems with it.

1) There is little or no reason for us not to go after it, whether
Syria
likes it or not.

Well, whether you want to believe it or not, there is a limit to the
number
of things we can do simultaneously on the ground. And, as they have
done
in
past circumstances, they will try the diplomatic route first. When and
if
that fails, look for boots on the ground.

we've already demonstrated that we have little or no regard for the
sovereignty of other countries. Why not just tell the Bashar al-Asad
that
we're stopping by for a little visit?

disregard puerile rant

2) It's still a condemnation of the cowboy who waved his dick at
Saddam
for
close to a year before actually doing anything. You want a great
conspiracy
theory? Bush *wanted* to give Saddam plenty of time to move the stuff
over
the border.

Let's assume for the moment that you're on the right track. How does
that
jibe with your oft-repeated premise that GW is an incompetent moron who
couldn't find his ass with two hands and a flashlight? Morons are not
usually adept at strategic chess.

He's not adept, but his sitters are. So is his father, who started all
this.
Who knows what he'd do to insure that his boy had an income stream after
the
next election?

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.

A big day for Bush and Blair and Sen. Kennedy (little off topic)
 

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"John H" wrote in message
...

Interesting idea, but there are problems with it.

1) There is little or no reason for us not to go after it, whether
Syria
likes it or not. First of all, they're an inconsequential force, and
second,
we've already demonstrated that we have little or no regard for the
sovereignty of other countries. Why not just tell the Bashar al-Asad
that
we're stopping by for a little visit?

2) It's still a condemnation of the cowboy who waved his dick at Saddam
for
close to a year before actually doing anything. You want a great
conspiracy
theory? Bush *wanted* to give Saddam plenty of time to move the stuff
over
the border.

Think about that last sentence.

Wait a minute -- we went to Iraq, according to the best you guys had
to offer, to steal the Iraq oil. Does Syria have a lot of oil? No?
Then why would we go there?

John, I'm finally going along with the nouveau-Kremlin's thinking! You
should love this. I'm saying that since we no longer believe in borders,
Bush should put his money where his mouth is. If he thinks the WMDs were
shuffled into Syria, he should go after them. That was his main reason for
spanking Iraq. Why not stick to his guns and chase the same weapons into
Syria?

What's to say that isn't on the agenda? In fact, the Syrian Accountability
Act isn't much different from the Iraqi Regime Change Act. It's a prelude
to an armed conflict if Syria doesn't do an about-face.

If you don't think so, read some excerpts and Findings:

(5) the Government of Syria should halt the development and deployment of
medium- and long-range surface-to-surface missiles and cease the development
and production of biological and chemical weapons;

(20) The Government of Syria is pursuing the development and production of
biological and chemical weapons and has a nuclear research and development
program that is cause for concern.

(30) On March 28, 2003, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld warned: '[W]e
have information that shipments of military supplies have been crossing the
border from Syria into Iraq, including night-vision goggles ... These
deliveries pose a direct threat to the lives of coalition forces. We
consider such trafficking as hostile acts, and will hold the Syrian
government accountable for such shipments.'

(34) On April 13, 2003, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld charged that
'busloads' of Syrian fighters entered Iraq with 'hundreds of thousands of
dollars' and leaflets offering rewards for dead American soldiers.



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").

A big day for Bush and Blair and Sen. Kennedy (little off topic)
 

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
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?

Only "both"? I can think of several scenarios. Iraq is just one piece of
the puzzle. Right now, the entire Arab/Islamic axis, from Algeria to the
Hindu Kush, is in flux. If all you watch is Iraq, you're liable to miss the
show.

A big day for Bush and Blair and Sen. Kennedy (little off topic)
 

"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.

A big day for Bush and Blair and Sen. Kennedy (little off topic)
 

"John Gaquin" wrote in message
...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
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?

Only "both"? I can think of several scenarios. Iraq is just one piece of
the puzzle. Right now, the entire Arab/Islamic axis, from Algeria to the
Hindu Kush, is in flux. If all you watch is Iraq, you're liable to miss
the
show.



I suspect that EVERY country in that arc is full of people who just want to
send their kids to school and put dinner on the table every night. Just like
here. In your mind, though, it probably makes perfect sense to bomb the
bejeezus out of all of them in order to nail the 1% of the population
comprised of lunatics. Lunatics like George.

A big day for Bush and Blair and Sen. Kennedy (little off topic)
 

"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.

A big day for Bush and Blair and Sen. Kennedy (little off topic)
 

"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.

A big day for Bush and Blair and Sen. Kennedy (little off topic)
 

"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.

A big day for Bush and Blair and Sen. Kennedy (little off topic)
 

"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.

The 4 nays were Democrats. The House used punch ballots and they were
trying to vote for Gore.

A big day for Bush and Blair and Sen. Kennedy (little off topic)
 

NOYB wrote:

"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.



Certainly more than a 30-year-old dentist who knows nothing of the world
or those struggling in it and whose mommy and daddy paid his way through
life, and who lives in a soft little community in Florida.

--
Email sent to is never read.

A big day for Bush and Blair and Sen. Kennedy (little off topic)
 

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

"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.



Certainly more than a 30-year-old dentist

OK, I've had enough out of you old man. ;-)

You've been saying that I'm 30 years old for the last 3 years. You were
correct 3 years ago, but apparently don't know how to add.

who knows nothing of the world

What a giggle.

or those struggling in it

I'm just glad our President and our troops are bringing the struggle to the
bad guys...instead of the other way around.

and whose mommy and daddy paid his way through
life,

Every penny that I've had as income the last 11 years came from school
loans, smart investments, or work.


and who lives in a soft little community in Florida.

I'm not sure what "soft little community" is supposed to mean, so I'll give
you that one.

A big day for Bush and Blair and Sen. Kennedy (little off topic)
 

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

"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.



Certainly more than a 30-year-old dentist

OK, I've had enough out of you old man. ;-)

You've been saying that I'm 30 years old for the last 3 years. You were
correct 3 years ago, but apparently don't know how to add.

You seem to be living the same year over and over and over...your body
may be aging, but your mind isn't growing. Thus, you're still the same
as you were three years ago, in what truly matters.






--
Email sent to is never read.

A big day for Bush and Blair and Sen. Kennedy (little off topic)
 

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

"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.



Certainly more than a 30-year-old dentist

OK, I've had enough out of you old man. ;-)

You've been saying that I'm 30 years old for the last 3 years. You
were
correct 3 years ago, but apparently don't know how to add.

You seem to be living the same year over and over and over...your body
may be aging, but your mind isn't growing. Thus, you're still the same
as you were three years ago, in what truly matters.

Pretty timely analogy with Groundhog Day right around the corner. You can
bet Phil will see his shadow this year...if the snow cover doesn't suffocate
him.

A big day for Bush and Blair and Sen. Kennedy (little off topic)
 

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message

I suspect that EVERY country in that arc is full of people who just want
to
send their kids to school and put dinner on the table every night. Just
like
here.

Precisely

In your mind, though, it probably makes perfect sense to bomb the
bejeezus out of all of them in order to nail the 1% of the population
comprised of lunatics.

Not at all. Not necessary. The simple fact is that we have amply
demonstrated that we are *willing* to do this, and stick with it, so having
done it twice, the message has been transmitted to the dozen or so other
countries in the arc -- none of which have elected governments, and all of
which are now making overtures to one degree or other to moderate their
stance vis a vis the US. For an unelected ruler it is crucial to avoid a
recall, because recall comprises popular uprising, rebellion in the streets,
and often a very, very short retirement for the ex-ruler. Hence, the
operative imperative is to make sure you're on the right side of the power
balance. Bingo.

A big day for Bush and Blair and Sen. Kennedy (little off topic)
 

"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?