OT Texas Republicans
 

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 14 Apr 2004 22:02:07 +0000, NOYB wrote:


"thunder" wrote in message
...

LOL, then he was clearly wrong, as there are no WMD.

You sure about that? There's no way every intelligence agency in the
Western World was wrong about their existance. I know that we'll find
'em
eventually. I just hope that it's before the election. Unfortunately,
I
believe that it will require troops in Syria...and that won't happen
until
Bush's 2nd term.

LOL, I don't think I could disagree with you more. First, *if* Bush is
reelected, both he and the Army will still have their hands full with
Iraq. I don't think even Bush is dumb enough to start yet another war.

Although some might perceive it as *another* war, it would *not* be another
war. Rather, it would be just a continuation of the current one.




Second, no country would risk our wrath by accepting Iraq's WMD, *if* they
existed. A terrorist network, perhaps, but no country.

I disagree. Syria was stupid enough to send military aid and terrorists to
Iraq. They were also dumb enough to skirt the oil embargo, hide Saddam's
money, and give sanctuary to many of the Baath Party officials from Saddam's
regime (possible even Saddam and his sons initially). Of course, seeing how
serious we were about making them the next target, they stopped supplying
the military hardware, and threw out the officials. Perhaps they accepted
the WMD, but later figured that either: a) turning them over would still not
prevent a U.S. attack, or b) they could hide them effectively enough, and we
couldn't find them unless we actually invaded Syria. I believe "b".


All of the WMD
Iraq was accused of having, has a shelf life of 3-5 years.

Not the bioweapon cultures...and certainly not the technology on how to make
them.

Why would
Syria want WMD that is rapidly turning to goo.

The bugs from the bioweapons could be replicated easily and kept alive
indefinitely...and the technology would never "turn to goo".


For a country, it is the
capability to make WMD that is important, not the WMD itself.

Even David Kay speculated that Iraq shipped to Syria small quantities of WMD
and the technology to produce them .

Let me once
again state, Syria and Iraq are not allied. Syria sided with Iran in the
Iran-Iraq War, and the US in the first Gulf War.

So? They also traded oil for cash with Saddam, and backed him with weapons
when we invaded.


Third, there were several intelligence sources that didn't believe Iraq
was in possession of WMD capabilities when we invaded, including many
agents in our own agencies.

Are you talking about that pedophile that was part of UNSCOM?

OT Texas Republicans
 

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB 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.


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.





I heard it was Guildens mustard sauce...

I'd believe mayo...but nobody puts mustard on turkey.

OT Texas Republicans
 

In article %sffc.144028$JO3.84998@attbi_s04, "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.

You are not talking with a "rational" or sane person here. You are talking to
a putrid old yellow dog democrat.

And when you get him on a good point he simply dodges the posting and
comes back later to hit and run again.




"Harry Krause" wrote in message
news:c3dhc2g=.844e1d7c1ae2e7e90bbc8c284ef604be@10 81964749.nulluser.com...
jim-- wrote:

I suppose it is a bad thing, but certainly not on the level of a current
Senator killing a young lady named Mary Jo Kopechne then running away
from
the accident. Or perhaps not on the same level as a POTUS having oral
sex
with an intern.



Sins, indeed, but they pale in comparision to Presidunce Bush lying to
get us into a war with Iraq, and causing the deaths of thousands of
people, including many non-combatant civilians.

OT Texas Republicans
 

In article , thunder wrote:

On Wed, 14 Apr 2004 20:09:35 +0000, John Smith wrote:

What about the past presidents, including Bill Clinton and the majority of
congressman, including democrats and republicans who strongly believe Iraq
had WMD? Where all of them incompetent?

If they had invaded Iraq, yes they would have been incompetent. There is
a major difference in having a belief, and acting on that belief. Before
one puts lives at risk, it is prudent to be sure. Going to war is not an
"Ooops, sorry!" proposition. To paraphrase, how would *you* ask a man to
be the last to die for a mistake?

Armchair quarterbacks are a dime a dozen.

OT Texas Republicans
 

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
No wonder he was beaten by a dead man.

The funny thing is...Carnahan's poll numbers didn't improve until after he
died. I guess voting for the guy was the political equivalent of a "pity
****".

OT Texas Republicans
 

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...

Neither Edison nor Einstein went into
lines of work where oration was important.

No, but James Madison and Thomas Jefferson...two people generally considered
as poor speakers...did.



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.

I expect people to tell the truth. Your side cannot.

OT Texas Republicans
 

"Don White" wrote in message
...

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.

Which is precisely why Israeli jets buzzed Assad's palace several months
ago. That was a warning.

OT Texas Republicans
 

"basskisser" wrote in message
om...
"NOYB" wrote in message
link.net...
What year did you live in Naples basskisser?

Why?

Because Naples has changed since you were here. What year was that?

OT Texas Republicans
 

Just last night Bush said something like, "We know Saddam had those weapons,
we know because he used them on his own people." True enough. But that was
HOW many years ago? 10? Does that mean he still has them? Does that
mean that the best way to get them (if they are there at all) is to send our
troops in to invade?

Looks like Bush wasn't the only one who was confused??

"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."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"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

How many years later?????

OT Texas Republicans
 

"NOYB" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...

Neither Edison nor Einstein went into
lines of work where oration was important.

No, but James Madison and Thomas Jefferson...two people generally
considered
as poor speakers...did.



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.

I expect people to tell the truth. Your side cannot.

Both sides have liars and thieves.