|
OT--Democrats On Record Concerning WMD
Just so these statements won't go away, Republicans will keep posting these
over and over and over again. "Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction.....So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real" - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003 "We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." - Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002 "Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement." -- Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002 "The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability." -- Robert Byrd, October 2002 "Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, 2002 "In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002 "Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002 "There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years. And that may happen sooner if he can obtain access to enriched uranium from foreign sources -- something that is not that difficult in the current world. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002 "I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- John F. Kerry, Oct 2002 "There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat to the United States and to our allies." Former Vermont Governor Howard Dean September 2002 "We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002 "I share the administration's goals in dealing with Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction." -- Dick Gephardt in September of 2002 "We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandates of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." -- Carl Levin, Sept 19, 2002 "This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to refine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer- range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." -- From a December 6, 2001 letter signed by Bob Graham, Joe Lieberman, Harold Ford, & Tom Lantos among others.. "Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." - Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998 "He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." S - Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998 "Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." - Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998 "The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998 "Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people." -- Tom Daschle in 1998 "As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -- Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998 "Even today, Iraq is not nearly disarmed. Based on highly credible intelligence, UNSCOM [the U.N. weapons inspectors] suspects that Iraq still has biological agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin, and clostridium perfringens in sufficient quantity to fill several dozen bombs and ballistic missile warheads, as well as the means to continue manufacturing these deadly agents. Iraq probably retains several tons of the highly toxic VX substance, as well as sarin nerve gas and mustard gas. This agent is stored in artillery shells, bombs, and ballistic missile warheads. And Iraq retains significant dual-use industrial infrastructure that can be used to rapidly reconstitute large-scale chemical weapons production." -- Ex-Un Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter in 1998 |
OT--Democrats On Record Concerning WMD
cowards hide behind fake email names.. if the shoe fits........
|
OT--Democrats On Record Concerning WMD
"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. |
OT--Democrats On Record Concerning WMD
"Florida Keyz" wrote in message ... cowards hide behind fake email names.. if the shoe fits........ Not sure how that applies here...but thanks for contributing! |
OT--Democrats On Record Concerning WMD
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. |
OT--Democrats On Record Concerning WMD
Time Magazine recently ran a story which indicated that according to polls,
Bush was second only to Nixon in his biggest accomplishment: Dividing the country almost evenly on major issues, like the war. Keep this in mind. Because of the way he has conducted himself, no patriot alive will consider your boy trustworthy. |
OT--Democrats On Record Concerning WMD
NOYB wrote:
Just so these statements won't go away, Republicans will keep posting these over and over and over again. "Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction.....So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real" - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003 You can post them a zillion times; it doesn't matter. What matters is that it was *your boy Bush* who was so naive and so taken and so prone to invade Iraq that he did. -- Email sent to is never read. |
OT--Democrats On Record Concerning WMD
"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". |
OT--Democrats On Record Concerning WMD
"Harry Krause" wrote in message ... NOYB wrote: Just so these statements won't go away, Republicans will keep posting these over and over and over again. "Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction.....So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real" - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003 You can post them a zillion times; it doesn't matter. What matters is that it was *your boy Bush* who was so naive and so taken and so prone to invade Iraq that he did. Clinton signed the Iraqi Regime Change Act. I guess you're saying that those were just words that had no meaning? Was he not a man of his word? Was he not a man of conviction? Afterall, he fell into the trap several times (after the attempted assassination on an ex-President, and after the UNSCOM inspectors were kicked out)...and launched a bunch of million dollar missiles. Bush is a man of conviction. He's a man of action, not words. And when he says something, he means what he says. If you want examples of spineless guys (and a couple of gals), who *DON'T* mean what they say, then read below: "Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction.....So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real" - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003 "We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." - Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002 "Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement." -- Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002 "The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability." -- Robert Byrd, October 2002 "Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, 2002 "In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002 "Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002 "There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years. And that may happen sooner if he can obtain access to enriched uranium from foreign sources -- something that is not that difficult in the current world. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002 "I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- John F. Kerry, Oct 2002 "There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat to the United States and to our allies." Former Vermont Governor Howard Dean September 2002 "We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002 "I share the administration's goals in dealing with Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction." -- Dick Gephardt in September of 2002 "We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandates of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." -- Carl Levin, Sept 19, 2002 "This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to refine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer- range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." -- From a December 6, 2001 letter signed by Bob Graham, Joe Lieberman, Harold Ford, & Tom Lantos among others.. "Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." - Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998 "He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." S - Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998 "Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." - Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998 "The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998 "Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people." -- Tom Daschle in 1998 "As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -- Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998 "Even today, Iraq is not nearly disarmed. Based on highly credible intelligence, UNSCOM [the U.N. weapons inspectors] suspects that Iraq still has biological agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin, and clostridium perfringens in sufficient quantity to fill several dozen bombs and ballistic missile warheads, as well as the means to continue manufacturing these deadly agents. Iraq probably retains several tons of the highly toxic VX substance, as well as sarin nerve gas and mustard gas. This agent is stored in artillery shells, bombs, and ballistic missile warheads. And Iraq retains significant dual-use industrial infrastructure that can be used to rapidly reconstitute large-scale chemical weapons production." -- Ex-Un Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter in 1998 |
OT--Democrats On Record Concerning WMD
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. -- Email sent to is never read. |
OT--Democrats On Record Concerning WMD
"Harry Krause" wrote in message ... 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. Thanks. I enjoyed your witty post. It put a smile on my face. Now back to reality... |
OT--Democrats On Record Concerning WMD
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 |
OT--Democrats On Record Concerning WMD
"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. |
OT--Democrats On Record Concerning WMD
only cowards hide behind fake email names!
|
OT--Democrats On Record Concerning WMD
"Florida Keyz" wrote in message ... only cowards hide behind fake email names! And your name is...? |
OT--Democrats On Record Concerning WMD
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. |
OT--Democrats On Record Concerning WMD
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! |
OT--Democrats On Record Concerning WMD
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! |
OT--Democrats On Record Concerning WMD
"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? |
OT--Democrats On Record Concerning WMD
|
OT--Democrats On Record Concerning WMD
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. |
OT--Democrats On Record Concerning WMD
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. |
OT--Democrats On Record Concerning WMD
"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. |
OT--Democrats On Record Concerning WMD
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. |
OT--Democrats On Record Concerning WMD
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! |
OT--Democrats On Record Concerning WMD
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. |
OT--Democrats On Record Concerning WMD
"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. |
OT--Democrats On Record Concerning WMD
"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? |
OT--Democrats On Record Concerning WMD
"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 |
OT--Democrats On Record Concerning WMD
On Sat, 31 Jan 2004 03:08:01 +0000, NOYB wrote:
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. The more I read about this administration, the more I believe Bush didn't lie. I think he gave far too much weight to Rumsfeld's rantings. While lying may not be the issue, competence sure is. We preemptively invaded a country on faulty intelligence. What do you tell the families of the 500 dead soldiers? Ooops, sorry. |
OT--Democrats On Record Concerning WMD
"thunder" wrote in message ... On Sat, 31 Jan 2004 03:08:01 +0000, NOYB wrote: 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. The more I read about this administration, the more I believe Bush didn't lie. I think he gave far too much weight to Rumsfeld's rantings. While lying may not be the issue, competence sure is. We preemptively invaded a country on faulty intelligence. What do you tell the families of the 500 dead soldiers? Ooops, sorry. Actually, the WMD's were one of *many* reasons we went into Iraq to remove Saddam. However, as Wolfowitz said, they "chose the one area issue everyone could agree on". What do you tell the families? You tell 'em the several other reasons Saddam needed to be removed...including his assassination attempt on an ex-President, his financial (and possibly logistical )support of terrorists, his violation of UN resolution 1441, his historical aggression towards other oil producing countries in the Middle East, and his active pursuit of biological and nuclear weapons. To most rationale people, those are sufficient reasons to use our military. |
OT--Democrats On Record Concerning WMD
"NOYB" wrote in message
ink.net... ...including his assassination attempt on an ex-President Oops. Can't use that one. We tried that on Castro many years back. If we tried it, then we lent legitimacy to the practice. |
OT--Democrats On Record Concerning WMD
"Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in message ink.net... ...including his assassination attempt on an ex-President Oops. Can't use that one. We tried that on Castro many years back. If we tried it, then we lent legitimacy to the practice. It's not a matter of whether or not the practice of assassination is legitimate...I think it is. However, it's also legitimate for the intended leader (or his country...or his son) to strike back. If you're the weaker force, then it's stupidity to wake a sleeping giant. If Castro has a beef with Kennedy's attempt on his life, then he can seek revenge...and perhaps he already has. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:43 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com