In article , says...

"jps" wrote in message
...
In article ,
says...
NOYB wrote:
THE PRESIDENT CONVINCED the country with a mixture of documents that
turned
out to be forged and blatantly false

A long meandering tale, hinging on *one* individual, full of "might be"
and "maybe", is sufficient reason to wage a war, occupy a country, kill
10,000 Iraqi civilians and 1,000 U.S. soldiers?

Don't think so.

DSK

Grasping at straws. Balsa wood drones, Winnebago weapons labs, a single
sarin gas shell, a single scum bag who maybe played both sides.

Any one of the above justifies our imperial ambitions for the fans of
George.

jps


How do you account for the 1999 NPR, ABC News, Washington Post, and Newsweek
stories that concluded:
"The Iraqi President Saddam Hussein has offered asylum to bin Laden, who
openly supports Iraq against Western powers"?


Even if true, it doesn't mean you have two consenting parties. bin
Laden hates Saddam.

But that little fact probably doesn't preclude folks like you making
erroneous connections in your teeny little brains.

jps

NOYB wrote:
You conveniently dismissed the NPR, ABC News, and Newsweek reports from 1998
and 1999 that stated Saddam was working with bin Laden and actually
discussed offering him sanctuary.

I didn't "conveniently dismiss them" because I never saw them. Sounds
like more BS to me. Isn't that when OBL was supposedly in Sudan being
offered to Clinton on a platter? You're getting your propaganda mixed up.

Saddam Hussein's gov't was strictly secular and persecuted Moslem
fundamentalists like Al Queda. To your simple-minded bigoted point of
view they look the same.

The bottom line- there is no provable Iraq/Al Queda connection, and even
if there were, it would still be shaky grounds to wage a war in which
10,000 civilians were killed. Add to that the meaningless US casualties,
the decreased effectiveness of the U.S. military, the increased risk of
terrorism, and you get.... ???

DSK

DSK wrote:

NOYB wrote:

You conveniently dismissed the NPR, ABC News, and Newsweek reports
from 1998
and 1999 that stated Saddam was working with bin Laden and actually
discussed offering him sanctuary.


I didn't "conveniently dismiss them" because I never saw them. Sounds
like more BS to me. Isn't that when OBL was supposedly in Sudan being
offered to Clinton on a platter? You're getting your propaganda mixed up.

Saddam Hussein's gov't was strictly secular and persecuted Moslem
fundamentalists like Al Queda. To your simple-minded bigoted point of
view they look the same.

The bottom line- there is no provable Iraq/Al Queda connection, and even
if there were, it would still be shaky grounds to wage a war in which
10,000 civilians were killed. Add to that the meaningless US casualties,
the decreased effectiveness of the U.S. military, the increased risk of
terrorism, and you get.... ???

DSK


Speaking of casualties, you don't suppose the idiot in the White House
watched 60 Minutes last night, when it ran through the names and faces
of the 800+ Americans Bush has gotten killed in his misbegotten war in
Iraq and Afghanistan?

So many young faces, so much potential snuffed out for neo Conservatism.

Bush and his gang of lying thugs deserve to be tarred and feathered when
his term ends this January.

By your reasoning, every President that served during any conflict involving
the U.S, should be done so. So, Washington, Lincoln, Wilson, FDR, JFK,
Johnson, Nixon, Clinton, and G. B. Sr. should be tarred and feathered, to
name a few.

Considering the hot tarring often resulted in a painful death, you're not as
anti-death as you want to appear.

Personally, I think you're going too deep into the propaganda traps. We
should never be willing to sacrifice our freedoms to any political party.

Budd

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

NOYB wrote:

You conveniently dismissed the NPR, ABC News, and Newsweek reports
from 1998
and 1999 that stated Saddam was working with bin Laden and actually
discussed offering him sanctuary.


I didn't "conveniently dismiss them" because I never saw them. Sounds
like more BS to me. Isn't that when OBL was supposedly in Sudan being
offered to Clinton on a platter? You're getting your propaganda mixed
up.

Saddam Hussein's gov't was strictly secular and persecuted Moslem
fundamentalists like Al Queda. To your simple-minded bigoted point of
view they look the same.

The bottom line- there is no provable Iraq/Al Queda connection, and even
if there were, it would still be shaky grounds to wage a war in which
10,000 civilians were killed. Add to that the meaningless US casualties,
the decreased effectiveness of the U.S. military, the increased risk of
terrorism, and you get.... ???

DSK


Speaking of casualties, you don't suppose the idiot in the White House
watched 60 Minutes last night, when it ran through the names and faces
of the 800+ Americans Bush has gotten killed in his misbegotten war in
Iraq and Afghanistan?

So many young faces, so much potential snuffed out for neo Conservatism.

Bush and his gang of lying thugs deserve to be tarred and feathered when
his term ends this January.

Any news agency can and generally will report as fact if that is all they
have to go by

"NOYB" wrote in message
...

"jps" wrote in message
...
In article ,
says...
NOYB wrote:
THE PRESIDENT CONVINCED the country with a mixture of documents that
turned
out to be forged and blatantly false

A long meandering tale, hinging on *one* individual, full of "might
be"
and "maybe", is sufficient reason to wage a war, occupy a country,
kill
10,000 Iraqi civilians and 1,000 U.S. soldiers?

Don't think so.

DSK

Grasping at straws. Balsa wood drones, Winnebago weapons labs, a single
sarin gas shell, a single scum bag who maybe played both sides.

Any one of the above justifies our imperial ambitions for the fans of
George.

jps


How do you account for the 1999 NPR, ABC News, Washington Post, and
Newsweek
stories that concluded:
"The Iraqi President Saddam Hussein has offered asylum to bin Laden, who
openly supports Iraq against Western powers"?

"DSK" wrote in message
. ..
NOYB wrote:
You conveniently dismissed the NPR, ABC News, and Newsweek reports from
1998
and 1999 that stated Saddam was working with bin Laden and actually
discussed offering him sanctuary.

I didn't "conveniently dismiss them" because I never saw them. Sounds
like more BS to me.

You slammed the Weekly Standard story obviously without reading it. The
excerpts from NPR, ABC news, Newsweek and the Washington Post were *in* the
Weekly Standard article.

"DSK" wrote in message
. ..


The bottom line- there is no provable Iraq/Al Queda connection

Wrong.

and even
if there were, it would still be shaky grounds to wage a war

Horse****. After 9/11, it's casus belli.

NOYB wrote:

"DSK" wrote in message
. ..

NOYB wrote:

You conveniently dismissed the NPR, ABC News, and Newsweek reports from

1998

and 1999 that stated Saddam was working with bin Laden and actually
discussed offering him sanctuary.

I didn't "conveniently dismiss them" because I never saw them. Sounds
like more BS to me.


You slammed the Weekly Standard story obviously without reading it. The
excerpts from NPR, ABC news, Newsweek and the Washington Post were *in* the
Weekly Standard article.




The Weekly Standard is a right-wing political rag. Period.

"Budd Cochran" wrote in message
...


Harry wrote:
Bush and his gang of lying thugs deserve to be tarred and feathered when
his term ends this January


Considering the hot tarring often resulted in a painful death,

You mean Harry is advocating murdering the President? I'm sure the Secret
Service would love to talk to him about that.

NOYB wrote:

"Budd Cochran" wrote in message
...


Harry wrote:

Bush and his gang of lying thugs deserve to be tarred and feathered when

his term ends this January



Considering the hot tarring often resulted in a painful death,


You mean Harry is advocating murdering the President? I'm sure the Secret
Service would love to talk to him about that.




Naw...just tar and feathers on the chimp's ears...as I have oft stated.

So, nobby, are you beginning to accept the fact that the odds are even
that your dumb boy bush is going to lose the election again this fall?