"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...

John Gaquin wrote:
"thunder" wrote in message

....There is
a major difference in having a belief, and acting on that belief.


Yes -- that difference is called "courage".

Not in Bush's case. In his case, it was pigheadedness, stupidity, and
politics.

Harry, I think you are going to find that your type of anti-Bush rhetoric
will be the downfall of your and your party's attempts to oust him in the
coming election. Personal attacks on people usually result in a backlash of
support for them, particularly when they are perceived by many as an average
guy trying to do his best in a very difficult situation. Harry Truman
comes to mind.

A better argument would include the identification of specific differences
in policies and ideas for dealing with our global problems. Unfortunately,
John Kerry has yet to identify any, other than to hand the problems back to
the UN. If you recall, Bush tried this to no significant avail.

Eisboch

"Joe" wrote in message ...
Poor (FAS)kisser, never had a chance.
Fried before birth.

Have any evidence? Unlike you, I'm a man of conviction. You, on the
other hand, talk the talk ONLY when hiding behind a newsgroup, AND an
anonymous address. What a ****ing low life loser you are. Oh, and,
hey, I thought you had added me to your blocked list.

"NOYB" wrote in message news:zEifc.7017
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.

Oh, I think I get it! Bush invaded Iraq, because Libya has WMDs????

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.

OH, so Bush didn't invade Iraq because Libya had WMD's, he invaded
Iraq because Syria had them???

"Bill" wrote in message ...
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
news:c3dhc2g=.844e1d7c1ae2e7e90bbc8c284ef604be@108 1964749.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.


Yea why don't you and Asskisser go to Iraq and live since you don't like
this country so much. If Clinton had done his job we would not be in the
mess we are now. You can say what you want about Bush But you can not deny
the truth that this is all Clinton's fault. He should be the one saying he
was sorry to the American people. You can not say Clinton didn't lied
either, their are court recorders stating the facts. Or are you going to say
the Judge Lied to. Everyone lies except for Democrats. Yea that funny that
demo don't lie....ha ha ha

Because it's our patriotic duty to get that lying piece of **** out of
office, and back to not being able to find oil in Texas.

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

Why?

"jim--" wrote in message ...
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.

Yeah, what to hell is up with those people? Don't they know that your
not supposed to ENJOY anything, even sex?? We probably should spend,
oh, say, $57 million to find out WHY! Oh, wait, never mind, all ready
has been done.

On Wed, 14 Apr 2004 22:02:07 +0000, NOYB wrote:


"thunder" wrote in message
news
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.

Second, no country would risk our wrath by accepting Iraq's WMD, *if* they
existed. A terrorist network, perhaps, but no country. All of the WMD
Iraq was accused of having, has a shelf life of 3-5 years. Why would
Syria want WMD that is rapidly turning to goo. For a country, it is the
capability to make WMD that is important, not the WMD itself. 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.

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.

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
news:c3dhc2g=.0973c1468580f0f8aff7c61aa587d290@108 2031194.nulluser.com...
And despite the fact that his formal education did not offer
him the advantages Bush had, he could plainly and well, without
butchering standard English.

Thank you for providing your own example of "butchering standard English".

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

"thunder" wrote in message
news

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.




They are on a truck right now, being driven by a Halliburton employee,
eh?

Oh, so that's it. The Mehdi Army is attacking our convoys and killing
civilians in a search for WMD's that we're trying to "plant".

Do you guys actually believe your own bull****?

"Gary Warner" wrote in message
...

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

You sure about that? There's no way every intelligence agency in the
Western World was wrong about their existance.


Galileo and I had a good laugh over this...

So you're into necromancy, eh?

Since you mentioned Galileo, then perhaps his theory on abstract dynamics
applies he the weapons are there, but they can't be observed under
anything less than ideal circumstances (ie--Saddam didn't have 1 year to
hide them; Syria would let our guys in to take a look; scientists watching
the current insurgency are no longer fearful to reveal their existence,
etc).

In fact, I'd say invoking Galileo's name is a pretty dumb way to prove that
something *doen't* exist.