"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