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!