On 30 Jan 2004 10:47:00 -0800, (basskisser) wrote:

"NOYB" wrote in message news:tGgSb.1758
My, my, my...you're a little testy tonight...and a class act to boot!

Nevertheless, contrary to what your simple mind may think, Saddam was
anything but "innocent".

Do you honestly, and I mean honestly think that Bush and his henchmen
didn't lie to the american public? Put away your petty politics for a
second and THINK. A little kid would come to the conclusion that we
were lied to, and you can't?

I'll post this editorial from the Washington Post for you too:

************************************************** ************8
Mr. Kay's Truth-Telling

Thursday, January 29, 2004; Page A28


GIVE DAVID KAY credit for courage. The recently departed chief of the
Iraq Survey Group was one of those who confidently predicted that
stockpiles of biological and chemical weapons would be found in Iraq
after the U.S.-led invasion. Yesterday he straightforwardly told a
Senate committee hearing that "we were almost all wrong." There were,
he said, almost certainly no large stocks of illegal weapons in Iraq
and no evidence that any had been produced in recent years. Mr. Kay
has chosen to go public with this disturbing news not because he
wishes to embarrass the Bush administration or cast doubt on the
mission in Iraq but because he believes it vital that the faults in
intelligence gathering that led to the mistaken weapons estimates be
identified and corrected. There is indeed a critical need for such a
review: U.S. security in an age of proliferation and terrorism depends
on it. What a shame that, rather than accept Mr. Kay's conclusions,
both the president and his Democratic opponents prefer to play them
for political advantage.



President Bush and most of his aides have quietly backed away from
their once-unambiguous assertions that Iraq possessed weapons of mass
destruction. Mr. Bush now speaks of
"weapons-of-mass-destruction-related program activities" or, as he did
Tuesday, doggedly insists that Saddam Hussein was a "danger." Mr.
Kay's team has documented those activities, and the former inspector
agrees with the president's characterization of Saddam Hussein -- as
do we. The problem is that Mr. Bush has not taken the next step, which
is to admit that the intelligence that he was provided by U.S.
agencies and that he and his administration then relayed to the
country -- sometimes in exaggerated terms -- was substantially
mistaken. To do so might be politically perilous in an election year;
it's far easier to argue, as the administration has, that we must wait
many more months before drawing any conclusions. But the truth cannot
be put off forever, and it should not have to wait until after
November. The longer Mr. Bush delays, the longer it will be before
intelligence agencies can be held accountable and reforms undertaken.

Democratic members of Congress and presidential candidates are not
making a responsible reckoning any easier. Instead they have attempted
to twist Mr. Kay's conclusions to serve their arguments that Mr. Bush
fabricated a case for war against a country that posed no serious
threat. Mr. Kay punctured those theories yesterday. He bluntly told
Democratic senators that he had found no evidence that intelligence
analysts had come under administration pressure to alter their
findings; pointed out that the Clinton administration and several
European governments had drawn the same conclusions about Iraq's
weapons; and stated that his investigation showed that Saddam
Hussein's regime was in some ways more dangerous than was believed
before the war -- because its corruption and disintegration had made
it more likely that weapons or weapons technology would be sold to
"others [who] are seeking WMD." That didn't stop Howard Dean from
charging on the campaign trail that "the administration did cook the
books" -- an allegation that, so far as Mr. Kay's testimony is
concerned, is false.

The partisanship and demagoguery that have overtaken the discussion of
Iraq's missing weapons mean that investigations of the intelligence
failure by the Bush administration or Congress are unlikely to be
thorough or credible. The only proper approach to the problem,
suggested yesterday by Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and quickly seconded
by Mr. Kay, is an independent inquiry. The president and Congress
should agree on the appointment of an expert, nonpartisan commission
with full secrecy clearance and subpoena power to examine why the
intelligence on Iraq proved wrong and to report on how such failures
can be prevented in the future. "It's not a political issue," Mr. Kay
told National Public Radio. "It's an issue of the capabilities of
one's intelligence service to collect valid, truthful information."
************************************************** *****

In case you missed it, I'll repeat it:

"Democratic members of Congress and presidential candidates are not
making a responsible reckoning any easier. Instead they have attempted
to twist Mr. Kay's conclusions to serve their arguments that Mr. Bush
fabricated a case for war against a country that posed no serious
threat. Mr. Kay punctured those theories yesterday. "

I don't know if the Post meets your respectability criteria.

John H

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

John H wrote:

On Thu, 29 Jan 2004 18:43:51 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:

NOYB wrote:



Bush is a man of conviction. He's a man of action, not words. And when he
says something, he means what he says.

Bush is a dumbfoch who to this day probably still can't point out Iraq
or Afghanistan on a globe unless they have big letters in their spaces
spelling out their names.

He's indeed a man of convictions: two for drunk driving and one for
breaking and entering or vandalism, I forgot which, of a store in New
Haven, Connecticut. And of many quashed court cases.

If Bush is a man of action, it is because he is too stupid to think
things through. And when he says something, he's either lying or doesn't
know what he is talking about.

But, hey, he's your hero. This time next year, you can arrange to visit
him in his retirement community in DriedSpunk, Texas, or wherever the
hell his fake ranch is. Wait a few days, though...it's not easy removing
that tar and those feathers.

Harry, don't you just get damn sick and tired of being continuously
wrong?


John H

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


Really?

Bush has at least three convictions, two for drunk driving and one a
nolo plea to the New Haven case.

There's no evidence Bush knows a thing about geography.

I agree that he is a man of action, not thought. He has no thoughts.

I'm wrong, eh?

Perhaps in your black or white world.


--
Email sent to is never read.

In article , jherring$$@
$$cox**.net says...
On Thu, 29 Jan 2004 16:40:55 -0800, jps wrote:

Snipped

Go ahead and cut the only intellgence you've witnessed all day.

Snipped
jps

jps, if you were referring to your posts, I missed it (the
intelligence) too.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not calling *you* anything. I just missed the
intelligent thing you imply you said.

Was it the "**** you" line?

John H

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

NOBBY is still trying to link the two and thereby justify pre-emption as
a policy. It's stupid policy that should only be used in movie scripts
that star Arnold.

Here's what he failed to include in his response because it made his
previous statement look foolish. It drew the necessary distinction
between Al Queda and the person oft called a "terrorist," Saddam.


NOW ENTERING CUT MATERIAL:

We had the right to hunt down the assholes that perpetrated 9/11. They
were living in Afghanistan under Taliban protection.

Pre-emption *wasn't* an issue.

Saddam didn't have **** all to do with 9/11, wasn't a threat and hadn't
attacked our country.

Pre-emption *was* an issue.

You and Dick "Mobile Weapons Lab" Cheney need to get that straight.

Pre-emption was and is a frightening concept, bad policy and calloused
path to resolving "suspected" threats. I couldn't think of a better
example of it's pitfalls than what we've witnessed in Iraq. We invaded
their country and killed tens of thousands based on bad information.

Try to defend pre-emption as a state policy. ****ing idiot Bush.

NOW LEAVING CUT MATERIAL.

"basskisser" wrote in message
om...
"NOYB" wrote in message news:tGgSb.1758
My, my, my...you're a little testy tonight...and a class act to boot!

Nevertheless, contrary to what your simple mind may think, Saddam was
anything but "innocent".

Do you honestly, and I mean honestly think that Bush and his henchmen
didn't lie to the american public?

I don't think Bush lied...just as I don't believe Hillary Clinton, Bill
Clinton, Sandy Berger, Al Gore, Nancy Pelosi, Scott Ritter, John Kerry, Bob
Graham, Barbara Boxer, Robert Byrd, John Edwards, John Rockefeller, Howard
Dean, Dick Gephardt, Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, or Madeline Albright lied when
they said Saddam had WMD's and was a threat to the U.S. Read the quotes
from each of them. How do you explain those quotes?

Do you honestly believe all of those Democratic leaders were lying when they
read the same intel reports as Bush and came to the same conclusions as
Bush?

If you want to argue about the correct way we should have dealt with the
threat (rather than war), then I'm open to discussion. However, if you want
to claim Bush lied about WMD's, but the Democrats didn't lie when all of
them made the same exact statements since 1998, then you're a putz.

NOYB wrote:

"basskisser" wrote in message
om...
"NOYB" wrote in message news:tGgSb.1758
My, my, my...you're a little testy tonight...and a class act to boot!

Nevertheless, contrary to what your simple mind may think, Saddam was
anything but "innocent".

Do you honestly, and I mean honestly think that Bush and his henchmen
didn't lie to the american public?

I don't think Bush lied...just as I don't believe Hillary Clinton, Bill
Clinton, Sandy Berger, Al Gore, Nancy Pelosi, Scott Ritter, John Kerry, Bob
Graham, Barbara Boxer, Robert Byrd, John Edwards, John Rockefeller, Howard
Dean, Dick Gephardt, Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, or Madeline Albright lied when
they said Saddam had WMD's and was a threat to the U.S. Read the quotes
from each of them. How do you explain those quotes?

Do you honestly believe all of those Democratic leaders were lying when they
read the same intel reports as Bush and came to the same conclusions as
Bush?


None of the others you mentioned had a political agenda for invading Iraq.

Further, none, if POTUS, would have decide on the 2nd day in office, o
invade Iraq and Afghanistan.

Further, all would have paid more attention to what obviously was the
correct assessment on the part of the UN.

Bush was and is a war-mongering asshole. You can rationalize all you
want, but the fact remains that Bush lied, bull****ted and hoodwinked us
into Afghanistan and Iraq.

The problem is, after he lied, bull****ted and hoodwinked himself, he
pulled the same crap on us.

There's a reasonably good chance now that Bush has delivered himself a
fatal blow. If he is defeated in November, the next President can devote
himself to repairing our reputation around the world from the
devastation heaped upon it by the incompetent ass now in the White House.
--
Email sent to is never read.

John,
Why are you playing this man's silly games? You seem smarter than that.


"John H" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 29 Jan 2004 18:43:51 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:

NOYB wrote:



Bush is a man of conviction. He's a man of action, not words. And
when he
says something, he means what he says.

Bush is a dumbfoch who to this day probably still can't point out Iraq
or Afghanistan on a globe unless they have big letters in their spaces
spelling out their names.

He's indeed a man of convictions: two for drunk driving and one for
breaking and entering or vandalism, I forgot which, of a store in New
Haven, Connecticut. And of many quashed court cases.

If Bush is a man of action, it is because he is too stupid to think
things through. And when he says something, he's either lying or doesn't
know what he is talking about.

But, hey, he's your hero. This time next year, you can arrange to visit
him in his retirement community in DriedSpunk, Texas, or wherever the
hell his fake ranch is. Wait a few days, though...it's not easy removing
that tar and those feathers.

Harry, don't you just get damn sick and tired of being continuously
wrong?


John H

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

fred wrote:
John,
Why are you playing this man's silly games? You seem smarter than that.


"John H" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 29 Jan 2004 18:43:51 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:

NOYB wrote:



Bush is a man of conviction. He's a man of action, not words. And
when he
says something, he means what he says.

Bush is a dumbfoch who to this day probably still can't point out Iraq
or Afghanistan on a globe unless they have big letters in their spaces
spelling out their names.



There's no end to the amount of rationalization you righties will spew
in order to defend George W. Bush, the most indefensible president in
memory.

--
Email sent to is never read.

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

"basskisser" wrote in message
om...
"NOYB" wrote in message news:tGgSb.1758
My, my, my...you're a little testy tonight...and a class act to boot!

Nevertheless, contrary to what your simple mind may think, Saddam was
anything but "innocent".

Do you honestly, and I mean honestly think that Bush and his henchmen
didn't lie to the american public?

I don't think Bush lied...just as I don't believe Hillary Clinton, Bill
Clinton, Sandy Berger, Al Gore, Nancy Pelosi, Scott Ritter, John Kerry,
Bob
Graham, Barbara Boxer, Robert Byrd, John Edwards, John Rockefeller,
Howard
Dean, Dick Gephardt, Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, or Madeline Albright lied
when
they said Saddam had WMD's and was a threat to the U.S. Read the quotes
from each of them. How do you explain those quotes?

Do you honestly believe all of those Democratic leaders were lying when
they
read the same intel reports as Bush and came to the same conclusions as
Bush?


None of the others you mentioned had a political agenda for invading Iraq.


Now wait just a minute. If two people are saying the same exact thing, how
can one be lying and one be telling the truth?



Further, none, if POTUS, would have decide on the 2nd day in office, o
invade Iraq and Afghanistan.

So what. That has nothing to do with whether he lied or not.


Further, all would have paid more attention to what obviously was the
correct assessment on the part of the UN.



Bush was and is a war-mongering asshole. You can rationalize all you
want, but the fact remains that Bush lied, bull****ted and hoodwinked us
into Afghanistan and Iraq.

You still haven't explained how the same words coming from Democrat's mouths
weren't lies.


The problem is, after he lied, bull****ted and hoodwinked himself, he
pulled the same crap on us.

There's a reasonably good chance now that Bush has delivered himself a
fatal blow. If he is defeated in November, the next President can devote
himself to repairing our reputation around the world from the
devastation heaped upon it by the incompetent ass now in the White House.

The lying issue is, well...no issue at all. He didn't lie about Saddam's
WMD's anymore than any of the Dems lied about them for the 5-year period
leading up to the war.

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
fred wrote:
John,
Why are you playing this man's silly games? You seem smarter than that.


"John H" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 29 Jan 2004 18:43:51 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:

NOYB wrote:



Bush is a man of conviction. He's a man of action, not words. And
when he
says something, he means what he says.

Bush is a dumbfoch who to this day probably still can't point out Iraq
or Afghanistan on a globe unless they have big letters in their spaces
spelling out their names.



There's no end to the amount of rationalization you righties will spew
in order to defend George W. Bush, the most indefensible president in
memory.


Harry,
You guys just can't seem to come up with a decent explanation about how the
Democrats came to the same conclusions as Bush about Saddam and his WMD's.
Yes, there was disagreement about how to deal with Saddam. However, there
was ZERO disagreement about the evidence. Thus, there was no "lie". Get
it?

"NOYB" wrote in message
. ..

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
fred wrote:
John,
Why are you playing this man's silly games? You seem smarter than
that.


"John H" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 29 Jan 2004 18:43:51 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:

NOYB wrote:



Bush is a man of conviction. He's a man of action, not words.
And
when he
says something, he means what he says.

Bush is a dumbfoch who to this day probably still can't point out
Iraq
or Afghanistan on a globe unless they have big letters in their
spaces
spelling out their names.



There's no end to the amount of rationalization you righties will spew
in order to defend George W. Bush, the most indefensible president in
memory.


Harry,
You guys just can't seem to come up with a decent explanation about how
the
Democrats came to the same conclusions as Bush about Saddam and his WMD's.
Yes, there was disagreement about how to deal with Saddam. However, there
was ZERO disagreement about the evidence. Thus, there was no "lie". Get
it?



One certainly has to have some doubt after reading the Thielmann interview,
the Kay report and then the Powell interview in October of last year with
Tony Snow. All of Powells comments were proved wrong by Kay.

I have not made up my mind on this but I certainly support a full
investigation into the matter so the American public knows the true story
before the elections. I cannot understand why Bush is not supporting such
an investigation.

http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0401/30/asb.00.html

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/...in596595.shtml

http://www.usa.or.th/apec2003/interv...lfox101903.htm