"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?

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!

"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.