On Mon, 22 Mar 2004 16:27:52 GMT, "NOYB" wrote:


"thunder" wrote in message
news
Fact: The number of people who believe this war was about WMD or
terrorism, is rapidly dwindling, including many people *inside* this
administration.


That's a half-fact. WMD's was just an issue, as Wolfowitz put it, "that
everyone could agree upon". Everybody on both sides of the aisle in
Congress, who had access to the same pre-war intelligence as Bush, reached
the same conclusion about the existence of the WMD's. Personally, I'm
convinced that the bulk of them went to Syria or were destroyed in the 6-12
months leading up to the war.

However, any suggestion that those who believe in an Iraq/al Qaeda
connection are now losing faith in the substantivity of that relationship is
false. In fact, I think that the terrorist attacks in Iraq over the last
year demonstrate that the terrorists had a much stronger pre-war foothold in
the country than anyone could ever have imagined.


I agree, which means that NYOB's position is no longer unilateral.

John H

On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!

"basskisser" wrote in message
om...
"NOYB" wrote in message
. com...

* President Clinton: ...generally praises
Clinton as a charismatic, sharp thinker who couldn't get the CIA,
Pentagon and FBI to deal with terrorism issues.

Sure...no partisan bull**** there.

"It was Bush's fault that we had 9/11"
But...
"It wasn't Clinton's fault that we had the 1993 WTC attack, the deaths in
Somalia, the bombing of the Khobar towers, and the bombing of the USS Cole
BECAUSE THE CIA, PENTAGON, AND FBI WOULDN'T LISTEN TO CLINTON!?!?"

He conveniently blames the CIA, Pentagon, and FBI for inaction under
Clinton...but gives them a pass and instead faults Bush for 9/11. Clarke is
a scumbag, two-faced liar, who is in cahoots with Rand Beers in getting Bush
removed and Kerry elected.

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
news:c3dhc2g=.36b1d2c8f6e9b4843413104d54668499@107 9959556.nulluser.com...

Clarke was *the* senior anti-terrorism expert for Reagan, Bush I,
Clinton and Bush II.

Then he did a pretty ****ing miserable job! Would you want his resume?

BTW--He was the "czar" since 1993...so he wasn't the "czar" under Reagan and
Bush I. Just look at the attacks that happened while he was in charge:

1993 WTC bombing
Khobar Towers
USS Cole
9/11

On Mon, 22 Mar 2004 16:27:52 +0000, NOYB wrote:


"thunder" wrote in message
news
Fact: The number of people who believe this war was about WMD or
terrorism, is rapidly dwindling, including many people *inside* this
administration.


That's a half-fact. WMD's was just an issue, as Wolfowitz put it, "that
everyone could agree upon". Everybody on both sides of the aisle in
Congress, who had access to the same pre-war intelligence as Bush, reached
the same conclusion about the existence of the WMD's. Personally, I'm
convinced that the bulk of them went to Syria or were destroyed in the
6-12 months leading up to the war.

You are right, it is a half fact. It wasn't WMD or terrorism, it was the
threat that they posed to the US, as pointed out in GWB's Cincinnati
speech, no WMD, no terrorism, no threat.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0021007-8.html

However, any suggestion that those who believe in an Iraq/al Qaeda
connection are now losing faith in the substantivity of that
relationship is false. In fact, I think that the terrorist attacks in
Iraq over the last year demonstrate that the terrorists had a much
stronger pre-war foothold in the country than anyone could ever have
imagined.

Flawed logic. We opened that box. Pre-war there were no terrorist
attacks in Iraq. I would also suggest calling all the attacks in Iraq
"terrorist" isn't accurate. While some attacks are, perhaps even al
Qaeda, others are Bathist remnants, religious sects, and ethnic squabbles.

"John H" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 22 Mar 2004 16:27:52 GMT, "NOYB" wrote:


"thunder" wrote in message
news
Fact: The number of people who believe this war was about WMD or
terrorism, is rapidly dwindling, including many people *inside* this
administration.


That's a half-fact. WMD's was just an issue, as Wolfowitz put it, "that
everyone could agree upon". Everybody on both sides of the aisle in
Congress, who had access to the same pre-war intelligence as Bush,
reached
the same conclusion about the existence of the WMD's. Personally, I'm
convinced that the bulk of them went to Syria or were destroyed in the
6-12
months leading up to the war.

However, any suggestion that those who believe in an Iraq/al Qaeda
connection are now losing faith in the substantivity of that relationship
is
false. In fact, I think that the terrorist attacks in Iraq over the last
year demonstrate that the terrorists had a much stronger pre-war foothold
in
the country than anyone could ever have imagined.


I agree, which means that NYOB's position is no longer unilateral.


basskisser will say it's a schoolboy crush, and Harry will say you're just
goose-stepping...so what's the point?

On Mon, 22 Mar 2004 18:10:52 GMT, "NOYB" wrote:


"John H" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 22 Mar 2004 16:27:52 GMT, "NOYB" wrote:


"thunder" wrote in message
news
Fact: The number of people who believe this war was about WMD or
terrorism, is rapidly dwindling, including many people *inside* this
administration.


That's a half-fact. WMD's was just an issue, as Wolfowitz put it, "that
everyone could agree upon". Everybody on both sides of the aisle in
Congress, who had access to the same pre-war intelligence as Bush,
reached
the same conclusion about the existence of the WMD's. Personally, I'm
convinced that the bulk of them went to Syria or were destroyed in the
6-12
months leading up to the war.

However, any suggestion that those who believe in an Iraq/al Qaeda
connection are now losing faith in the substantivity of that relationship
is
false. In fact, I think that the terrorist attacks in Iraq over the last
year demonstrate that the terrorists had a much stronger pre-war foothold
in
the country than anyone could ever have imagined.


I agree, which means that NYOB's position is no longer unilateral.


basskisser will say it's a schoolboy crush, and Harry will say you're just
goose-stepping...so what's the point?


Only to demonstrate the difference between unilateral and multilateral
(even though the 'multi' is only 'bi' in this case).

Personally, I couldn't give a rat's ass what Harry, b'asskisser, or
DSK have to say about anything. I keep wondering why gas prices are
going up when the whole reason (according to the group) that we
invaded Iraq was to "get their oil."

If my using your post in this manner was offensive in any way, I
apologize.

John H

On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!

"John H" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 22 Mar 2004 18:10:52 GMT, "NOYB" wrote:


"John H" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 22 Mar 2004 16:27:52 GMT, "NOYB" wrote:


"thunder" wrote in message
news
Fact: The number of people who believe this war was about WMD or
terrorism, is rapidly dwindling, including many people *inside*
this
administration.


That's a half-fact. WMD's was just an issue, as Wolfowitz put it,
"that
everyone could agree upon". Everybody on both sides of the aisle in
Congress, who had access to the same pre-war intelligence as Bush,
reached
the same conclusion about the existence of the WMD's. Personally, I'm
convinced that the bulk of them went to Syria or were destroyed in the
6-12
months leading up to the war.

However, any suggestion that those who believe in an Iraq/al Qaeda
connection are now losing faith in the substantivity of that
relationship
is
false. In fact, I think that the terrorist attacks in Iraq over the
last
year demonstrate that the terrorists had a much stronger pre-war
foothold
in
the country than anyone could ever have imagined.


I agree, which means that NYOB's position is no longer unilateral.


basskisser will say it's a schoolboy crush, and Harry will say you're
just
goose-stepping...so what's the point?


Only to demonstrate the difference between unilateral and multilateral
(even though the 'multi' is only 'bi' in this case).

Personally, I couldn't give a rat's ass what Harry, b'asskisser, or
DSK have to say about anything. I keep wondering why gas prices are
going up when the whole reason (according to the group) that we
invaded Iraq was to "get their oil."

If my using your post in this manner was offensive in any way, I
apologize.

Of course not. But to agree with another conservative is akin to
homosexuality and naziism in the eyes of a few frustrated liberals here. Oh
well...in another 7 1/2 months, it'll be all over, their guy will have lost,
and we won't have to hear from them for another couple of years.

(Backyard Renegade) wrote in message

Fact: Clark testified in congress just about the opposite of what he
says now.

Please give some examples of the above.

Fact: Saddam was paying homicide pig dogs in Isreal and Palistine.

So? Is there a specific point to the above?

Fact: We went to Afganistan, Horn of Africa, the Phillipines, and a
couple of other spots chasing AlQueda long before we went to Iraq.

Yes, but did Bush tell us we needed to go to war with Iraq because of
AlQueda and WMDS?

Fact: The majority of those saying there are no wmd in Iraq, are also
fundamentally opposed to the war and the Bush administration.

That's odd. Show us those WMD's and we'll probably believe it! Funny,
but even Bush is saying there are none now. Is HE opposed to the war,
and himself?

Fact: The UN, especially France, Germany, and Russia were making
billions (with a B) as well as the possibility (at least as beleivable
as these new timely attacks on Bush) of Annon and his own family
members being involved in "possibly the biggest scam in world
history"...There was no way they were ever going to approve a move
into Iraq. This is coming from the USGAO, not some political shill,
biding for a job in a new administration and trying to sell a book.

Proof, please.

On Mon, 22 Mar 2004 19:11:32 GMT, "NOYB" wrote:


"John H" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 22 Mar 2004 18:10:52 GMT, "NOYB" wrote:


"John H" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 22 Mar 2004 16:27:52 GMT, "NOYB" wrote:


"thunder" wrote in message
news
Fact: The number of people who believe this war was about WMD or
terrorism, is rapidly dwindling, including many people *inside*
this
administration.


That's a half-fact. WMD's was just an issue, as Wolfowitz put it,
"that
everyone could agree upon". Everybody on both sides of the aisle in
Congress, who had access to the same pre-war intelligence as Bush,
reached
the same conclusion about the existence of the WMD's. Personally, I'm
convinced that the bulk of them went to Syria or were destroyed in the
6-12
months leading up to the war.

However, any suggestion that those who believe in an Iraq/al Qaeda
connection are now losing faith in the substantivity of that
relationship
is
false. In fact, I think that the terrorist attacks in Iraq over the
last
year demonstrate that the terrorists had a much stronger pre-war
foothold
in
the country than anyone could ever have imagined.


I agree, which means that NYOB's position is no longer unilateral.


basskisser will say it's a schoolboy crush, and Harry will say you're
just
goose-stepping...so what's the point?


Only to demonstrate the difference between unilateral and multilateral
(even though the 'multi' is only 'bi' in this case).

Personally, I couldn't give a rat's ass what Harry, b'asskisser, or
DSK have to say about anything. I keep wondering why gas prices are
going up when the whole reason (according to the group) that we
invaded Iraq was to "get their oil."

If my using your post in this manner was offensive in any way, I
apologize.

Of course not. But to agree with another conservative is akin to
homosexuality and naziism in the eyes of a few frustrated liberals here. Oh
well...in another 7 1/2 months, it'll be all over, their guy will have lost,
and we won't have to hear from them for another couple of years.

Well, I didn't really agree 'cause the first time I saw it I disagreed
(I think...).

John H

On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!

John H wrote in message . ..
On 22 Mar 2004 04:35:17 -0800, (basskisser) wrote:



Here are some things Clarke has said, regarding specific people.

Former terrorism adviser describes top U.S. officials

The Associated Press
Sunday, March 21, 2004
Snipped


Now, who is more credible, Krause or Clarke?

John H

John, quit being such a dolt, okay? What to hell does one have to do
with the other? Can Harry not be credible, if Clarke is, and can
Clarke not be credible if Harry is? Now, think, John, and if you DO
think, you'll agree that your question above was just plain idiotic.