great reply. Keep up the good work

"____m___~¿Ô___m____" wrote in message
. ..
John Smith wrote:

As he slowly trolls, all the fish come into view, fighting each other to
grab his lure.


"NOYB" wrote in message
nk.net...
To quote a high-ranking government official quoted on 4/27/04:

"It appears, as they peel away the weapons of mass destruction issue -
and we may yet find them...Look, I want to make it clear. Who knows if
a
month from now, three months from now, you find some weapons? You may."





If everthing that of any value, that a "top poster" wrote was put to
paper.
It could be folded up,,,, stuck up a fleas ass,,,, and it would roll
around
like a BB in a boxcar.
--
__________m___~¿Ô___m____________________________

Might help if you quoted everything Senator Kerry said, rather than just
what you wanted to hear..

MATTHEWS: You‘ve spoken at length and very completely about the how
question. But why do you think we went to war? If there was exaggeration
of WMD, exaggeration of the danger, exaggeration implicitly with the
connection of al Qaeda and 9/11, what‘s the motive for this? What‘s the
why?

Why did Bush and Cheney and the ideologues around take us to war? Why do
you think they did it?

KERRY: It appears, as they peel away the weapons of mass destruction
issue—and we may yet find them, Chris. Look, I want to make it clear. Who
knows if a month from now, three months from now, you find some weapons?
You may.

But you certainly didn‘t find them where they said they were. And you
certainly didn‘t find them in the quantities that they said they were.

And they weren‘t found—I‘ve talked to some soldiers who‘ve come back, who
trained against the potential of artillery delivery, because artillery was
the way that they had previously delivered and it was the only way they knew
they could deliver.

Now we found nothing that is evidence of that kind of delivery.

So the fact is that, as you peeled away, I think it comes down to this
larger ideological, neo-con concept of fundamental change in the region and
who knows whether there are other motives with respect to Saddam Hussein.

But they did it because they thought they could. Because they misjudged
exactly what the reaction would be and what they could get away with.

And they did it, that misjudgment, against the warnings of countless numbers
of people, including General Shinseki, who they then isolated and tarnished.
They did it against the warnings of Brent Scowcroft, Jim Baker, others.

They did it against the warnings of his father in his book about why they
didn‘t go in. And they did it against the warnings of many of us who said
winning the war is not the complicated part. It‘s winning the peace that‘s
complicated.

And I think presidents need to be held accountable for those kinds of
decisions.



"NOYB" wrote in message
nk.net...
To quote a high-ranking government official quoted on 4/27/04:

"It appears, as they peel away the weapons of mass destruction issue - and
we may yet find them...Look, I want to make it clear. Who knows if a month
from now, three months from now, you find some weapons? You may."

wrote:

Might help if you quoted everything Senator Kerry said, rather than just
what you wanted to hear..

MATTHEWS: You‘ve spoken at length and very completely about the how
question. But why do you think we went to war? If there was exaggeration
of WMD, exaggeration of the danger, exaggeration implicitly with the
connection of al Qaeda and 9/11, what‘s the motive for this? What‘s the
why?

Why did Bush and Cheney and the ideologues around take us to war? Why do
you think they did it?

KERRY: It appears, as they peel away the weapons of mass destruction
issue—and we may yet find them, Chris. Look, I want to make it clear. Who
knows if a month from now, three months from now, you find some weapons?
You may.

But you certainly didn‘t find them where they said they were. And you
certainly didn‘t find them in the quantities that they said they were.

And they weren‘t found—I‘ve talked to some soldiers who‘ve come back, who
trained against the potential of artillery delivery, because artillery was
the way that they had previously delivered and it was the only way they knew
they could deliver.

Now we found nothing that is evidence of that kind of delivery.

So the fact is that, as you peeled away, I think it comes down to this
larger ideological, neo-con concept of fundamental change in the region and
who knows whether there are other motives with respect to Saddam Hussein.

But they did it because they thought they could. Because they misjudged
exactly what the reaction would be and what they could get away with.

And they did it, that misjudgment, against the warnings of countless numbers
of people, including General Shinseki, who they then isolated and tarnished.
They did it against the warnings of Brent Scowcroft, Jim Baker, others.

They did it against the warnings of his father in his book about why they
didn‘t go in. And they did it against the warnings of many of us who said
winning the war is not the complicated part. It‘s winning the peace that‘s
complicated.

And I think presidents need to be held accountable for those kinds of
decisions.



"NOYB" wrote in message
nk.net...

To quote a high-ranking government official quoted on 4/27/04:

"It appears, as they peel away the weapons of mass destruction issue - and
we may yet find them...Look, I want to make it clear. Who knows if a month
from now, three months from now, you find some weapons? You may."








RepubliBORG don't like complicated answers to complicated questions. If
all the world's problems can't fit into the standard, eight-crayon
Crayola box, they're lost.

wrote in message
.net...

KERRY: It appears, as they peel away the weapons of mass destruction
issue-and we may yet find them, Chris. Look, I want to make it clear.
Who
knows if a month from now, three months from now, you find some weapons?
You may.

The rest is just political campaigning. The segment that I posted is just
another example of Kerry trying to "cover all of his bases" and be on both
sides of every issue.

If weapons are found in September, then Kerry can say "see Chris! I told
you there was a chance we might still find them."

"NOYB" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
.net...

KERRY: It appears, as they peel away the weapons of mass destruction
issue-and we may yet find them, Chris. Look, I want to make it clear.
Who
knows if a month from now, three months from now, you find some
weapons?
You may.

The rest is just political campaigning. The segment that I posted is
just
another example of Kerry trying to "cover all of his bases" and be on
both
sides of every issue.

If weapons are found in September, then Kerry can say "see Chris! I
told
you there was a chance we might still find them."


More than likely, he knows they will be found

"Paul Fritz" wrote in message
...

"NOYB" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
.net...

KERRY: It appears, as they peel away the weapons of mass
destruction
issue-and we may yet find them, Chris. Look, I want to make it
clear.
Who
knows if a month from now, three months from now, you find some
weapons?
You may.

The rest is just political campaigning. The segment that I posted is
just
another example of Kerry trying to "cover all of his bases" and be on
both
sides of every issue.

If weapons are found in September, then Kerry can say "see Chris! I
told
you there was a chance we might still find them."


More than likely, he knows they will be found


Of course he knows.

"NOYB" wrote
If weapons are found in September,

Step back, away from the krakpipe, and put your hands in the air.....