"DSK" wrote in message
.. .
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.

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.

Where are the reporters who wrote those stories back then? What are they
saying now that it's not Clinton who's sitting in the Oval Office?

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.

"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?

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
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?

I think Bush will win by 5 or 6 percentage points.

"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.

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.

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
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.

Even when it quotes left-wing political rags? Question Mark.