bb wrote:

On Wed, 14 Apr 2004 22:09:35 GMT, "NOYB" wrote:



Don't worry Harry...we'll find the WMD's.


Looks like Iraq itself is the wmd and it's destroying Bush's plans on
a second term.

bb


The perfect squelch. I don't know whether Bush's news conference last
night will have any long-term or even short term impact on the voters,
but it was a scary show. Not only did Bush come across as a guy who
couldn't even read off a teleprompter, he looked and sounded like a fish
out of water, gasping, for much of the news conference. And his absolute
refusal to apologize for anything and refusal to admit he might have
made a mistake somewhere along the way makes him look like an ignorant,
arrogant ass.

The hit of the week, though, has to be John Ashcroft's testimony...he
has many screws loose in that head. No wonder he was beaten by a dead man.

jim-- wrote:

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...

John Smith wrote:


If Bush lied about WMD's, then so did all presidents going back to the

late

80's and the majority of congressman, senators and the United Nations

since

the First Gulf War.

You may not agree with Bush's decision to a preemptive strike, but no

one

can seriously believe he lied. It might make for a great campaign sound
bite, but any rational person would know that is nothing more than

politics

to say Bush lied, since he was using the exact same intelligence that
Clinton used when he stated Iraq had WMD.



Of course he lied. There were all sorts of reports available to Bush
that indicated there were no WMD in Iraq.



You obviously read them. Care to provide us a source for them? (Gawd, I am
sounding like asskisser)



They've been publicized over the known solar system, Dennis. What point
is there in pointing them out to you?

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
bb wrote:

On Wed, 14 Apr 2004 22:09:35 GMT, "NOYB" wrote:



Don't worry Harry...we'll find the WMD's.


Looks like Iraq itself is the wmd and it's destroying Bush's plans on
a second term.

bb


The perfect squelch. I don't know whether Bush's news conference last
night will have any long-term or even short term impact on the voters,
but it was a scary show. Not only did Bush come across as a guy who
couldn't even read off a teleprompter, he looked and sounded like a fish
out of water, gasping, for much of the news conference. And his absolute
refusal to apologize for anything and refusal to admit he might have
made a mistake somewhere along the way makes him look like an ignorant,
arrogant ass.

The hit of the week, though, has to be John Ashcroft's testimony...he
has many screws loose in that head. No wonder he was beaten by a dead man.

He had nothing to apologize for. And the liberal media was pretty tough on
the guy...he did stumble at times but ended up answering every question.
Clinton would have ducked out after 5 minutes of hard questions, most likely
with a quivering lip and telling everyone he could feel their pain.

His message was consistent....we will stay in this till it is won.

And here is a clue for you....a great orator does not make a good president.
Einstein and Edison both shunned the media and stumbled when speaking.
Using your logic these were a couple of losers.

I bet you believe that "clothes make the person" also.

Such a shallow person you are.

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
jim-- wrote:

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...

John Smith wrote:


If Bush lied about WMD's, then so did all presidents going back to the

late

80's and the majority of congressman, senators and the United Nations

since

the First Gulf War.

You may not agree with Bush's decision to a preemptive strike, but no

one

can seriously believe he lied. It might make for a great campaign
sound
bite, but any rational person would know that is nothing more than

politics

to say Bush lied, since he was using the exact same intelligence that
Clinton used when he stated Iraq had WMD.



Of course he lied. There were all sorts of reports available to Bush
that indicated there were no WMD in Iraq.



You obviously read them. Care to provide us a source for them? (Gawd,
I am
sounding like asskisser)



They've been publicized over the known solar system, Dennis. What point
is there in pointing them out to you?

Because you cannot. LOL!

jim-- wrote:

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...

bb wrote:


On Wed, 14 Apr 2004 22:09:35 GMT, "NOYB" wrote:




Don't worry Harry...we'll find the WMD's.


Looks like Iraq itself is the wmd and it's destroying Bush's plans on
a second term.

bb


The perfect squelch. I don't know whether Bush's news conference last
night will have any long-term or even short term impact on the voters,
but it was a scary show. Not only did Bush come across as a guy who
couldn't even read off a teleprompter, he looked and sounded like a fish
out of water, gasping, for much of the news conference. And his absolute
refusal to apologize for anything and refusal to admit he might have
made a mistake somewhere along the way makes him look like an ignorant,
arrogant ass.

The hit of the week, though, has to be John Ashcroft's testimony...he
has many screws loose in that head. No wonder he was beaten by a dead man.


He had nothing to apologize for. And the liberal media was pretty tough on
the guy...he did stumble at times but ended up answering every question.
Clinton would have ducked out after 5 minutes of hard questions, most likely
with a quivering lip and telling everyone he could feel their pain.

His message was consistent....we will stay in this till it is won.

And here is a clue for you....a great orator does not make a good president.
Einstein and Edison both shunned the media and stumbled when speaking.
Using your logic these were a couple of losers.


You really truly are dumb as dirt. Neither Edison nor Einstein went into
lines of work where oration was important. Stephen Hawking can't even
speak with the aid of a machine, yet no one thinks the less of him. It
isn't important that he speaks normally.

Bush is a politician, not a oood president. He is a terrible president.
And he can't speak very well, either.
=


I expect a president of the us to be able to speak competently in
public. Bush cannot.

jim-- wrote:

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...

jim-- wrote:


"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...


John Smith wrote:



If Bush lied about WMD's, then so did all presidents going back to the

late


80's and the majority of congressman, senators and the United Nations

since


the First Gulf War.

You may not agree with Bush's decision to a preemptive strike, but no

one


can seriously believe he lied. It might make for a great campaign

sound

bite, but any rational person would know that is nothing more than

politics


to say Bush lied, since he was using the exact same intelligence that
Clinton used when he stated Iraq had WMD.



Of course he lied. There were all sorts of reports available to Bush
that indicated there were no WMD in Iraq.



You obviously read them. Care to provide us a source for them? (Gawd,

I am

sounding like asskisser)



They've been publicized over the known solar system, Dennis. What point
is there in pointing them out to you?


Because you cannot. LOL!



Please, dennis, wave your little fish hook in front of someone down at
your level of intellectuality. Try Tuuk, Wally, or Henry Blackdoor.

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
jim-- wrote:

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...

jim-- wrote:


"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...


John Smith wrote:



If Bush lied about WMD's, then so did all presidents going back to
the

late


80's and the majority of congressman, senators and the United Nations

since


the First Gulf War.

You may not agree with Bush's decision to a preemptive strike, but no

one


can seriously believe he lied. It might make for a great campaign

sound

bite, but any rational person would know that is nothing more than

politics


to say Bush lied, since he was using the exact same intelligence that
Clinton used when he stated Iraq had WMD.



Of course he lied. There were all sorts of reports available to Bush
that indicated there were no WMD in Iraq.



You obviously read them. Care to provide us a source for them? (Gawd,

I am

sounding like asskisser)



They've been publicized over the known solar system, Dennis. What point
is there in pointing them out to you?


Because you cannot. LOL!



Please, dennis, wave your little fish hook in front of someone down at
your level of intellectuality. Try Tuuk, Wally, or Henry Blackdoor.

Thanks for proving my point.

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
jim-- wrote:

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...

bb wrote:


On Wed, 14 Apr 2004 22:09:35 GMT, "NOYB" wrote:




Don't worry Harry...we'll find the WMD's.


Looks like Iraq itself is the wmd and it's destroying Bush's plans on
a second term.

bb


The perfect squelch. I don't know whether Bush's news conference last
night will have any long-term or even short term impact on the voters,
but it was a scary show. Not only did Bush come across as a guy who
couldn't even read off a teleprompter, he looked and sounded like a fish
out of water, gasping, for much of the news conference. And his absolute
refusal to apologize for anything and refusal to admit he might have
made a mistake somewhere along the way makes him look like an ignorant,
arrogant ass.

The hit of the week, though, has to be John Ashcroft's testimony...he
has many screws loose in that head. No wonder he was beaten by a dead
man.


He had nothing to apologize for. And the liberal media was pretty tough
on
the guy...he did stumble at times but ended up answering every question.
Clinton would have ducked out after 5 minutes of hard questions, most
likely
with a quivering lip and telling everyone he could feel their pain.

His message was consistent....we will stay in this till it is won.

And here is a clue for you....a great orator does not make a good
president.
Einstein and Edison both shunned the media and stumbled when speaking.
Using your logic these were a couple of losers.


You really truly are dumb as dirt. Neither Edison nor Einstein went into
lines of work where oration was important. Stephen Hawking can't even
speak with the aid of a machine, yet no one thinks the less of him. It
isn't important that he speaks normally.

Bush is a politician, not a oood president. He is a terrible president.
And he can't speak very well, either.
=


I expect a president of the us to be able to speak competently in
public. Bush cannot.

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
jim-- wrote:

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...

bb wrote:


On Wed, 14 Apr 2004 22:09:35 GMT, "NOYB" wrote:




Don't worry Harry...we'll find the WMD's.


Looks like Iraq itself is the wmd and it's destroying Bush's plans on
a second term.

bb


The perfect squelch. I don't know whether Bush's news conference last
night will have any long-term or even short term impact on the voters,
but it was a scary show. Not only did Bush come across as a guy who
couldn't even read off a teleprompter, he looked and sounded like a fish
out of water, gasping, for much of the news conference. And his absolute
refusal to apologize for anything and refusal to admit he might have
made a mistake somewhere along the way makes him look like an ignorant,
arrogant ass.

The hit of the week, though, has to be John Ashcroft's testimony...he
has many screws loose in that head. No wonder he was beaten by a dead
man.


He had nothing to apologize for. And the liberal media was pretty tough
on
the guy...he did stumble at times but ended up answering every question.
Clinton would have ducked out after 5 minutes of hard questions, most
likely
with a quivering lip and telling everyone he could feel their pain.

His message was consistent....we will stay in this till it is won.

And here is a clue for you....a great orator does not make a good
president.
Einstein and Edison both shunned the media and stumbled when speaking.
Using your logic these were a couple of losers.


You really truly are dumb as dirt. Neither Edison nor Einstein went into
lines of work where oration was important. Stephen Hawking can't even
speak with the aid of a machine, yet no one thinks the less of him. It
isn't important that he speaks normally.

Bush is a politician, not a oood president. He is a terrible president.
And he can't speak very well, either.
=


I expect a president of the us to be able to speak competently in
public. Bush cannot.

The *point* escaped you, as expected.

NOYB wrote in message
ink.net...


Don't worry Harry...we'll find the WMD's. Bush's comment about mustard gas
recently found at a turkey farm in Libya should be proof that he hasn't
given up the search. Every intelligence agency in the Western world knew
Saddam had 'em. There were numerous reports before the war by Israeli
intelligence (and others) that large convoys were leaving Iraq and heading
to Syria. Although they haven't talked about it very much publicly, the
Administration believes that Syria is hiding the WMD's. Just watch.


Possible, but you would thing Israel would be very nervous of Syria having
all those WMD and strike first.