and is anybody taking notice of north korea's actions weighted against what
is being said about iraq?


North Korea will get its turn, at least according to the New American Century
game plan.

Bush needed to do Iraq first. There's an election coming up, and all his Texas
big oil funders had to have some reason to open their checkbooks. Remember what
happened to the price of gas the last time GWB ran for office?

NOYB equivocated:

Remember, the key statement in Bush's speech was "the British Government has
learned...". Since MI6 *still* stands by their original intelligence, then
Bush's statement is 100% accurate.

Depends on your definition of "is". Really.

Do you see some sort of major moral difference between simply making a false
statement and repeating a statement (known to you and your advisors to be
false) made by somebody else to achieve the same effect?

You can weasel around and say, "But Bush himself was not informed! He's too
stupid to follow intelligence briefings from the CIA! His staff and cabinet
were able to hide the facts from him!" Fine. If so, should such a man be
POTUS? And even so, the SOTU speech is a speech outlining the positions of the
Bush Administration, was written by the Administration, and Bush is ultimately
responsible for the actions and activities of his underlings.

Where the moral high ground now? You Bush fans ought to be ashamed to defend
this bald faced manipulation.

It means he is sticking by his original statement that Iraq was trying to
buy uranium from Niger "according to British Government intelligence data".

"Trying to buy" (and being told "no') doesn't make a country an imminent
nuclear threat.

(sound of phone ringing)

1: "Hello, President of Nigeria? This is Saddam Hussein. Long time no see. Did
you get that container full of hand woven rugs I sent you for your palace?"

2: "Saddam! How have you been? That golf swing of yours still as bad as ever?
Yeah, I got the carpets, but you need to knock that sort of stuff off. People
might talk."

1:"Well, the main reason I called was to see if you've got any excess uranium
lying around that I could buy sort of under the table."

2: "Oh, hell, Saddam. You know we can't sell you uranium. It's been illegal
since 1991. Let's talk about something else.
Isn't it your birthday soon? I'll have my presidential bakery put together
something nice for you, to show you how much I appreciate the bribe, er I mean
"gift" of carpeting. Do you like chocolate?"

1: "Well, if it's all the same to you, I'd prefer a yellow cake."

.........................

(Next day we'd have the WH announcing absolute proof that yellow cake had been
shipped from Niger to Iraq.) :-)

"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
NOYB equivocated:

Remember, the key statement in Bush's speech was "the British Government
has
learned...". Since MI6 *still* stands by their original intelligence,
then
Bush's statement is 100% accurate.

Depends on your definition of "is". Really.

Do you see some sort of major moral difference between simply making a
false
statement and repeating a statement (known to you and your advisors to be
false) made by somebody else to achieve the same effect?

You can weasel around and say, "But Bush himself was not informed! He's
too
stupid to follow intelligence briefings from the CIA!

Bush *was* informed. Tenet already said it was his fault the line wasn't
pulled from the speech. The CIA reviewed the speech beforehand and didn't
have him pull it.


His staff and cabinet
were able to hide the facts from him!" Fine. If so, should such a man be
POTUS? And even so, the SOTU speech is a speech outlining the positions
of the
Bush Administration, was written by the Administration, and Bush is
ultimately
responsible for the actions and activities of his underlings.

Where the moral high ground now? You Bush fans ought to be ashamed to
defend
this bald faced manipulation.

Hogwash.

FACT: MI6 said Iraq was trying to buy uranium from Niger.

FACT: Tenet and the CIA couldn't confirm nor deny that report.

FACT: Bush stated "the British government has learned that Saddam Hussein
recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

FACT: Even today, MI6 says their original assessment was accurate.

So where's the lie? Where's the "manipulation"? Hmmmmm?

So where's the lie? Where's the "manipulation"? Hmmmmm?

You'll never know. You'd have to open your mind as well as your eyes to see it.
:-)

"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...

And even so, the SOTU speech is a speech outlining the positions of the
Bush Administration, was written by the Administration, and Bush is
ultimately
responsible for the actions and activities of his underlings.

Delegation of responsibility, according to Nookular Boy: The buck stops
here, except when I want it to stop somewhere else.

HOT AIR SHMAIR!

There's plenty of hot air, and little else, in come of the commitments being
made to our men and women in the armed forces.

Guess its time for the left to break out the "Support Our Troops" signs.
Probably get a good deal on them, second hand, from some WH staffers who
certainly don't need them anymore.

According to the following item, there are a handful of specific GI's who will
be spending the rest of their (probably short) military careers on latrine
duty. They must really be upset to throw their careers away by talking so
frankly with a reporter.

That liberal news source, ABC, reports:

FALLUJAH, Iraq (July 16) -- The sergeant at the 2nd Battle Combat Team
Headquarters pulled me aside in the corridor. "I've got my own 'Most Wanted'
list," he told me.

He was referring to the deck of cards the U.S. government published, featuring
Saddam Hussein, his sons and other wanted members of the former Iraqi regime.

"The aces in my deck are Paul Bremer, Donald Rumsfeld, George Bush and Paul
Wolfowitz," he said.

He was referring to the four men who are running U.S. policy here in Iraq --
the four men who are ultimately responsible for the fate of U.S. troops here.

Those four are not popular at 2nd BCT these days. It is home to 4,000 troops
from the 2nd Brigade of the Army's 3rd Infantry Division.

The soldiers were deployed to Kuwait last September. They were among the first
troops in Baghdad during the war. And now they've been in the region longer
than other troops: 10 months and counting.

They were told they'd be going home in May. Then in early July. Then late July.
Then last week they heard that Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld had
mentioned them on Capitol Hill.

"The 2nd Brigade is — the plan is that they would return in August, having
been there something like 10 months," said Rumsfeld.

He added: "The services and the Joint Staff have been working with Central
Command to develop a rotation plan so that we can, in fact, see that we treat
these terrific young men and young women in a way that's respectful of their
lives and their circumstances."

Solid words from a solid source. Soldiers called their families. Commanding
officers began preparations.

‘I Don’t Care Anymore’

Now comes word from the Pentagon: Not so fast.

The U.S. military command in Iraq said Tuesday it plans to complete the
withdrawal of the Army's 3rd Infantry Division by September, but officials said
they could make no hard promises because of the unsettled state of security in
Baghdad and elsewhere in Iraq.

"If Donald Rumsfeld were sitting here in front of us, what would you say to
him?" I asked a group of soldiers who gathered around a table, eager to talk to
a visiting reporter.

"If he was here," said Pfc. Jason Punyahotra, "I would ask him why we're still
here, why we've been told so many times and it's changed."

In the back of the group, Spc. Clinton Deitz put up his hand. "If Donald
Rumsfeld was here," he said, "I'd ask him for his resignation."

Those are strong words from troops used to following orders. They say they will
continue to do their job, but they no longer seem to have their hearts in the
mission.

"I used to want to help these people," said Pfc. Eric Rattler, "but now I don't
really care about them anymore. I've seen so much, you know, little kids
throwing rocks at you. Once you pacify an area, it seems like the area you just
came from turns bad again. I'd like this country to be all right, but I don't
care anymore."

Wondering Why

What they care about is their families. Sgt. Terry Gilmore had to call his
wife, Stacey, this week to her that he wouldn't be home in a few weeks to see
her and their two little children.

"When I told her, she started crying," Gilmore said, his eyes moistening. "I
mean, I almost started crying. I felt like my heart was broken. We couldn't
figure out why they do it. Why they can keep us over here right after they told
us we were coming home."

Sgt. Felipe Vega, who oversees the platoon, sat alone in the platoon quarters,
writing a letter. A photo of his wife, Rhonda, was taped to the wall above him.

It is Vega's job to maintain morale. That's not easy, he told me, when the Army
keeps changing the orders.

"They turn around and slap you in the face," he said.

When asked if that's the way it feels, he said, "Yeah, kicked in the guts,
slapped in the face."

Losing Faith

The 2nd Brigade originally came to Kuwait for six months of exercises. Then
they stayed to fight the war. Like the others, Vega thought that would be the
end of it.

"What was told to us in Kuwait," he said, "was the fastest way to go home was
through Baghdad. And that's what we did."

But more than three months later they are still here.

"Well it pretty much makes me lose faith in the Army," said Pfc. Jayson
Punyhotra, one of the soldiers grouped around the table. "I mean, I don't
really believe anything they tell me. If they told me we were leaving next
week, I wouldn't believe them."

Fighting words from men who are eager to put down their weapons. Â*

Copyright 2003 ABC News.Â* All rights reserved. This material may not be
published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Gould 0738 wrote:

So where's the lie? Where's the "manipulation"? Hmmmmm?

You'll never know. You'd have to open your mind as well as your eyes to see it.
:-)


Make that your immagination. Because that's all you have to speculate
with right now.

Dave

On Thu, 17 Jul 2003 04:51:01 GMT, "Kathryn Simpson"
wrote:


"ralph" wrote in message
...
but don't forget, clinton lied about a blowjob. therefore it
was all his
fault. that's why bush got elected by such a landslide over
gore.

I'm sorry, I thought we were discussing the Bush Administration
and it's policies. Why bring Clinton into it? Or Gore?

Can't you deal with current events?

You go girl!!

John
On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD

On Thu, 17 Jul 2003 04:29:52 GMT, "Kathryn Simpson"
wrote:


"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Uh...how about Afghanistan and Iraq, for starters, eh?

So you think the Iraqi people are better off with Hussein? Come
on, even the liberals aren't spouting that nonsense!

Texas is a pretty big place, bigger than the area devastated by
a dirty
bomb. Under Bush, Texas devolved into an environmental disaster
zone.

I asked you for an example of where in Texas Bush has created
more humanitarian and environmental damage than a dirty bomb
would create. Do you have an answer for that or just more
rhetoric?
You will find that many of the folks here do nothing more than blow rhetoric.
When logic and reason get them backed into a corner, they start a new thread
with...more rhetoric. Keep up the good words.

John
On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD