In article et,
says...

Yawn...

Let's talk about the policy of pre-emptive strikes in the light of bad
intelligence...

Stupid, stupid, stupid policy that David Kay himself said you had to
have "pristine intelligence" in order to assume.

We have blood on our hands and have lowered ourselves to the level of
Saddam. Killing innocent people for dubious reasons.

Go here http://www.bushflash.com/thanks.html

"jps" wrote in message
...
In article et,
says...

Yawn...

Let's talk about the policy of pre-emptive strikes in the light of bad
intelligence...

Stupid, stupid, stupid policy that David Kay himself said you had to
have "pristine intelligence" in order to assume.

We have blood on our hands and have lowered ourselves to the level of
Saddam. Killing innocent people for dubious reasons.

So you think that Saddam's regime, the Taliban, and al Qaeda members are
"innocent people"? How interesting.

In article et,
says...

"jps" wrote in message
...
In article et,
says...

Yawn...

Let's talk about the policy of pre-emptive strikes in the light of bad
intelligence...

Stupid, stupid, stupid policy that David Kay himself said you had to
have "pristine intelligence" in order to assume.

We have blood on our hands and have lowered ourselves to the level of
Saddam. Killing innocent people for dubious reasons.

So you think that Saddam's regime, the Taliban, and al Qaeda members are
"innocent people"? How interesting.

You ****ing dweeb.

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.

"jps" wrote in message
...
In article et,
says...

"jps" wrote in message
...
In article et,
says...

Yawn...

Let's talk about the policy of pre-emptive strikes in the light of bad
intelligence...

Stupid, stupid, stupid policy that David Kay himself said you had to
have "pristine intelligence" in order to assume.

We have blood on our hands and have lowered ourselves to the level of
Saddam. Killing innocent people for dubious reasons.

So you think that Saddam's regime, the Taliban, and al Qaeda members are
"innocent people"? How interesting.

You ****ing dweeb.

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".

In article . net,
says...

"jps" wrote in message
...
In article et,
says...

"jps" wrote in message
...
In article et,
says...

Yawn...

Let's talk about the policy of pre-emptive strikes in the light of bad
intelligence...

Stupid, stupid, stupid policy that David Kay himself said you had to
have "pristine intelligence" in order to assume.

We have blood on our hands and have lowered ourselves to the level of
Saddam. Killing innocent people for dubious reasons.

So you think that Saddam's regime, the Taliban, and al Qaeda members are
"innocent people"? How interesting.

You ****ing dweeb.

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".'

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

We killed thousands of Iraqis to get to one goofball who'd obviously
already entered an advanced stage of dementia. Oh, and his eeeevil
sons.

Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Perle, Wolfowitz and the rest of the
chickenhawks made the most of dubious intelligence in order to sell the
war to the American public. A collective Jim Jones sort of experience
for all us suckers who get a stiffy when the pres waves the American
flag.

You go ahead and drink that coolaid since it's so refreshing to you. I
happen to know its brewed from pure poop.

jps

"jps" wrote in message
...
In article . net,
says...

"jps" wrote in message
...
In article et,
says...

"jps" wrote in message
...
In article et,
says...

Yawn...

Let's talk about the policy of pre-emptive strikes in the light of
bad
intelligence...

Stupid, stupid, stupid policy that David Kay himself said you had
to
have "pristine intelligence" in order to assume.

We have blood on our hands and have lowered ourselves to the level
of
Saddam. Killing innocent people for dubious reasons.

So you think that Saddam's regime, the Taliban, and al Qaeda members
are
"innocent people"? How interesting.

You ****ing dweeb.

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".'

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

We killed thousands of Iraqis to get to one goofball who'd obviously
already entered an advanced stage of dementia.

So dementia is a reason to excuse the guy's murderous ways, eh? Sorry, but
that ploy didn't work for Vincent "The Chin" Gigante either. Saddam was
openly paying bounties to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers. He
was pursuing long range missile technology from N. Korea. He maintained all
of his scientists, technology, and documents to continue with his pursuit of
WMD's. And, finally, there's enough circumstantial evidence for a
reasonable person to conclude that he was involved (via monetary and
intelligence aid), with several terrorist attacks against our country since
1993.

He was evil...so you're damn right he suffered from dementia. Sane people
don't order the murders of over a million people.

In article et,
says...

"jps" wrote in message
...
In article . net,
says...

"jps" wrote in message
...
In article et,
says...

"jps" wrote in message
...
In article et,
says...

Yawn...

Let's talk about the policy of pre-emptive strikes in the light of
bad
intelligence...

Stupid, stupid, stupid policy that David Kay himself said you had
to
have "pristine intelligence" in order to assume.

We have blood on our hands and have lowered ourselves to the level
of
Saddam. Killing innocent people for dubious reasons.

So you think that Saddam's regime, the Taliban, and al Qaeda members
are
"innocent people"? How interesting.

You ****ing dweeb.

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".'

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

We killed thousands of Iraqis to get to one goofball who'd obviously
already entered an advanced stage of dementia.

So dementia is a reason to excuse the guy's murderous ways, eh? Sorry, but
that ploy didn't work for Vincent "The Chin" Gigante either. Saddam was
openly paying bounties to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers. He
was pursuing long range missile technology from N. Korea. He maintained all
of his scientists, technology, and documents to continue with his pursuit of
WMD's. And, finally, there's enough circumstantial evidence for a
reasonable person to conclude that he was involved (via monetary and
intelligence aid), with several terrorist attacks against our country since
1993.

He was evil...so you're damn right he suffered from dementia. Sane people
don't order the murders of over a million people.

Yeah, many of which died using the weapons and materials we supplied!!!
Most of those murdered were dead years before our little dubious
chickenhawk escapade.

GHW Bush was instrumental in tens of thousands himself at the end of the
Gulf War.

There's blood all over our hands. Your revisionist history doesn't do
anything to cover that up.

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!

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.

"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?