Kevin,
I am way ahead of you, I corrected my typo 30 secs. after posting the
original. Many times I type a response on here when I am in a conference
call, and I do make typos and syntax errors, but I always know what I am
reading. I don't cut and paste articles that disprove my subject heading.

Now go back to high 5'ing the other Hanson Bros.


wrote in message
oups.com...

ME ME ME wrote:
Wow, leave it up to mouth drowlers to do a silly cut and paste and
then jump
around high 5'ing each other. Now we can wait and watch Jimcomma
chime in
with his "yeah whatever they said".

Hehe! If you are going to try and act like you know something, at least
learn to spell "droolers"!!!!

"NOYB" wrote in message
link.net...

"unable to complete its investigation"?!?!?!?

"possibility that WMD was evacuated to Syria before the war"?!?!?



That's hardly "conclusive evidence" that WMD didn't exist!!!

I know you're busy, so I can understand that you've forgotten how I
explained this to you at least twice in the past. Print it out this time so
you can refer to it when necessary.

Shortly after 9/11, your president, Karl Rove, began announcing (via his
boy, GWB) that he knew there were WMDs, and that he knew exactly where they
were. But, for reasons you and I can only guess, Rove decided to rattle his
sword for almost 7 months before actually doing anything about these
weapons. By doing so, he gave one party or another plenty of time to move
the materials elsewhere.

Various reasons have been given for this delay, by people in this newsgroup.

1) "It takes a long time to prepare ground forces for an invasion." This is
true, but irrelevant. If Rove knew exactly where they were, air strikes
could have dealt with at least some of the locations.

Excuse warning: "Saddam hides things near civilians, so we couldn't have
used air strikes". Bull****. We dropped plenty of bombs near civilian
populations.

2) "We couldn't have used air strikes because such-and-such country didn't
want us using their air strips." Bull****. Ship-launched cruise missiles
have enough range to get around distance limitations. Rove did not want to
use this option because, in fact, he did NOT know where the WMDs were.

3) "Rove wanted to give the U.N. time to do blah blah blah so he could
appear to have made a fair decision". Bull****. His mind was made up well
before U.N. options had run out. If the military had been ready to go in
October of that year instead of March of the next, Rove would've sent them
in.

So, please, cut the crap. If there were WMDs, your president wanted them
gone. Use your imagination and you can figure out the reasons. I'll admit
there may have been just ONE good reason to allow them to be smuggled out:
To make the country a bit safer for our troops. But, since your president
can't arrange for vehicle armor, I doubt he really cared much whether
soldiers were exposed to chemical or biological weapons.

"ME ME ME" wrote in message
...
Kevin,
I am way ahead of you, I corrected my typo 30 secs. after posting the
original. Many times I type a response on here when I am in a conference
call, and I do make typos and syntax errors, but I always know what I am
reading. I don't cut and paste articles that disprove my subject heading.

Now go back to high 5'ing the other Hanson Bros.

Kevin has always been a little (okay......a LOT) slow on the uptake.

Probably due to his head constantly being in harry' brown fog.




wrote in message
oups.com...

ME ME ME wrote:
Wow, leave it up to mouth drowlers to do a silly cut and paste and
then jump
around high 5'ing each other. Now we can wait and watch Jimcomma
chime in
with his "yeah whatever they said".

Hehe! If you are going to try and act like you know something, at least
learn to spell "droolers"!!!!

NOYB wrote:

The Duelfer report left open the possibility that an "unofficial"
transfer
of weapons took place from Iraq to Syria.

Man, you sure try hard to defend the current doofus in chief!!! So, let
me get this straight. Because someone didn't explicitly say something
in a report, then what he DIDN'T say is, in your eyes, what happened?
Well, then, he also didn't say that Bush is stupid, so does that mean
that Bush IS stupid???

wrote in message
oups.com...

NOYB wrote:

The Duelfer report left open the possibility that an "unofficial"
transfer
of weapons took place from Iraq to Syria.

Man, you sure try hard to defend the current doofus in chief!!! So, let
me get this straight. Because someone didn't explicitly say something
in a report, then what he DIDN'T say is, in your eyes, what happened?
Well, then, he also didn't say that Bush is stupid, so does that mean
that Bush IS stupid???


Uh oh. Ticking logic bomb. I like it. :-) Have a beer.

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"NOYB" wrote in message
link.net...

"unable to complete its investigation"?!?!?!?

"possibility that WMD was evacuated to Syria before the war"?!?!?



That's hardly "conclusive evidence" that WMD didn't exist!!!

I know you're busy, so I can understand that you've forgotten how I
explained this to you at least twice in the past. Print it out this time
so you can refer to it when necessary.

Shortly after 9/11, your president, Karl Rove, began announcing (via his
boy, GWB) that he knew there were WMDs, and that he knew exactly where
they were. But, for reasons you and I can only guess, Rove decided to
rattle his sword for almost 7 months before actually doing anything about
these weapons. By doing so, he gave one party or another plenty of time to
move the materials elsewhere.




Various reasons have been given for this delay, by people in this
newsgroup.

1) "It takes a long time to prepare ground forces for an invasion." This
is true, but irrelevant. If Rove knew exactly where they were, air strikes
could have dealt with at least some of the locations.


Rove never said such a thing...particularly 7 months before the invasion.
If you're convinced that he did, then a simple google search should provide
you with the
necessary references to support your claim, right?

Excuse warning: "Saddam hides things near civilians, so we couldn't have
used air strikes". Bull****. We dropped plenty of bombs near civilian
populations.

2) "We couldn't have used air strikes because such-and-such country didn't
want us using their air strips." Bull****. Ship-launched cruise missiles
have enough range to get around distance limitations. Rove did not want to
use this option because, in fact, he did NOT know where the WMDs were.

Ipso facto, if Saddam had WMD, he was in violation of sanctions.
Why launch cruise missiles?
So you can emulate your predecessor and create a facade to make people
*think* that you're actually doing something?



3) "Rove wanted to give the U.N. time to do blah blah blah so he could
appear to have made a fair decision". Bull****. His mind was made up well
before U.N. options had run out. If the military had been ready to go in
October of that year instead of March of the next, Rove would've sent them
in.

Probably. But they had to at least create the appearance that they gave the
UN a chance to
establish its relevancy in the World. The UN blew that chance.



So, please, cut the crap. If there were WMDs, your president wanted them
gone. Use your imagination and you can figure out the reasons. I'll admit
there may have been just ONE good reason to allow them to be smuggled out:
To make the country a bit safer for our troops. But, since your president
can't arrange for vehicle armor, I doubt he really cared much whether
soldiers were exposed to chemical or biological weapons.

I can think of another good reason to allow them to be smuggled out:
We weren't ready to militarily engage the Russians who were helping Saddam
sneak the WMD from his country to Syria.

wrote in message
oups.com...

NOYB wrote:

The Duelfer report left open the possibility that an "unofficial"
transfer
of weapons took place from Iraq to Syria.

Man, you sure try hard to defend the current doofus in chief!!! So, let
me get this straight. Because someone didn't explicitly say something
in a report, then what he DIDN'T say is, in your eyes, what happened?
Well, then, he also didn't say that Bush is stupid, so does that mean
that Bush IS stupid???

Read the report.

Doug,

If there were not WMD in Iraq, why did every single political since 1990
(liberal, conservative, moderate, Republican or Democrat) publicly state
they had proof that Iraq had WMD. Did all of them, including your boy
Clinton, lie to you?

All western intelligence agencies believed Iraq had WMD. Right or wrong,
GWB was the only president who acted on a universally agreed upon danger to
the region and western economy. GWB used 9/11 as a catalyst to overthrow a
dictator who had used WMD many times in the past.

Just as FDR used the Japanese as the catalyst to enter an unpopular war, GWB
used 9/11 to enter an unpopular war, to correct a dangerous situation in a
very unstable region.

Most historians agree FDR implemented a economic boycott on Japan, to
encourage Japan to commit an act of war against the US. The act of war
would force the Axis Powers to declare war against the US, allowing the US
to come to the aid of Britain.

When you say Rowe and GWB lied to the world concerning WMD, remember if that
is true, every politician in the US lied to world since 1990.


"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"NOYB" wrote in message
link.net...

"unable to complete its investigation"?!?!?!?

"possibility that WMD was evacuated to Syria before the war"?!?!?



That's hardly "conclusive evidence" that WMD didn't exist!!!

I know you're busy, so I can understand that you've forgotten how I
explained this to you at least twice in the past. Print it out this time
so you can refer to it when necessary.

Shortly after 9/11, your president, Karl Rove, began announcing (via his
boy, GWB) that he knew there were WMDs, and that he knew exactly where
they were. But, for reasons you and I can only guess, Rove decided to
rattle his sword for almost 7 months before actually doing anything about
these weapons. By doing so, he gave one party or another plenty of time to
move the materials elsewhere.

Various reasons have been given for this delay, by people in this
newsgroup.

1) "It takes a long time to prepare ground forces for an invasion." This
is true, but irrelevant. If Rove knew exactly where they were, air strikes
could have dealt with at least some of the locations.

Excuse warning: "Saddam hides things near civilians, so we couldn't have
used air strikes". Bull****. We dropped plenty of bombs near civilian
populations.

2) "We couldn't have used air strikes because such-and-such country didn't
want us using their air strips." Bull****. Ship-launched cruise missiles
have enough range to get around distance limitations. Rove did not want to
use this option because, in fact, he did NOT know where the WMDs were.

3) "Rove wanted to give the U.N. time to do blah blah blah so he could
appear to have made a fair decision". Bull****. His mind was made up well
before U.N. options had run out. If the military had been ready to go in
October of that year instead of March of the next, Rove would've sent them
in.

So, please, cut the crap. If there were WMDs, your president wanted them
gone. Use your imagination and you can figure out the reasons. I'll admit
there may have been just ONE good reason to allow them to be smuggled out:
To make the country a bit safer for our troops. But, since your president
can't arrange for vehicle armor, I doubt he really cared much whether
soldiers were exposed to chemical or biological weapons.

"NOYB" wrote in message
link.net...



Rove never said such a thing...particularly 7 months before the invasion.
If you're convinced that he did, then a simple google search should
provide
you with the
necessary references to support your claim, right?



Here's a comprehensive listing of what the administration DID say........

http://www.rotten.com/library/history/war/wmd/saddam

I like this one, my how the story changed.........

24 Feb 2001 In Cairo, Secretary of State Colin Powell declares: "He
has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass
destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his
neighbors."

"NOYB" wrote in message
link.net...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"NOYB" wrote in message
link.net...

"unable to complete its investigation"?!?!?!?

"possibility that WMD was evacuated to Syria before the war"?!?!?



That's hardly "conclusive evidence" that WMD didn't exist!!!

I know you're busy, so I can understand that you've forgotten how I
explained this to you at least twice in the past. Print it out this time
so you can refer to it when necessary.

Shortly after 9/11, your president, Karl Rove, began announcing (via his
boy, GWB) that he knew there were WMDs, and that he knew exactly where
they were. But, for reasons you and I can only guess, Rove decided to
rattle his sword for almost 7 months before actually doing anything about
these weapons. By doing so, he gave one party or another plenty of time
to move the materials elsewhere.




Various reasons have been given for this delay, by people in this
newsgroup.

1) "It takes a long time to prepare ground forces for an invasion." This
is true, but irrelevant. If Rove knew exactly where they were, air
strikes could have dealt with at least some of the locations.


Rove never said such a thing...particularly 7 months before the invasion.
If you're convinced that he did, then a simple google search should
provide you with the
necessary references to support your claim, right?

OK. I generalized. Try this: At the moment president Rove said he knew where
they were, he did not move. Doesn't matter when he said it, really.



Excuse warning: "Saddam hides things near civilians, so we couldn't have
used air strikes". Bull****. We dropped plenty of bombs near civilian
populations.

2) "We couldn't have used air strikes because such-and-such country
didn't want us using their air strips." Bull****. Ship-launched cruise
missiles have enough range to get around distance limitations. Rove did
not want to use this option because, in fact, he did NOT know where the
WMDs were.

Ipso facto, if Saddam had WMD, he was in violation of sanctions.
Why launch cruise missiles?
So you can emulate your predecessor and create a facade to make people
*think* that you're actually doing something?

Why launch? Because according to comments from Colin Powell, who ought to
know what he's talking about, ****SOME**** of the weapons could have been
safely destroyed via air strikes, while others were better dealt with more
carefully, "by hand", if you will. But, president Rove chose to do nothing.



3) "Rove wanted to give the U.N. time to do blah blah blah so he could
appear to have made a fair decision". Bull****. His mind was made up well
before U.N. options had run out. If the military had been ready to go in
October of that year instead of March of the next, Rove would've sent
them in.

Probably. But they had to at least create the appearance that they gave
the UN a chance to
establish its relevancy in the World. The UN blew that chance.

Why bother with appearances, when the entire plan was designed with
absolutely no consideration for our image in the world?



So, please, cut the crap. If there were WMDs, your president wanted them
gone. Use your imagination and you can figure out the reasons. I'll admit
there may have been just ONE good reason to allow them to be smuggled
out: To make the country a bit safer for our troops. But, since your
president can't arrange for vehicle armor, I doubt he really cared much
whether soldiers were exposed to chemical or biological weapons.

I can think of another good reason to allow them to be smuggled out:
We weren't ready to militarily engage the Russians who were helping Saddam
sneak the WMD from his country to Syria.

Oh boy. You think there were frightening numbers of Russian soldiers waiting
for us?