About Us

JoeSpareBedroom

"JG2U" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 04:58:15 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"JG2U" wrote in message
. ..
On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 01:10:43 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"JG2U" wrote in message
m...
On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 00:28:33 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"JG2U" wrote in message
news:1q42q3dpctkov86ntq2qrvji0podj2ubqo@4ax. com...
On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 23:49:29 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"JG2U" wrote in message
news:rt22q394km5fc4sed6cb19crvq1bkef4fg@4a x.com...
On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 23:32:09 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"JG2U" wrote in message
news:st12q3db6d8p8cv2evvivb4pj84cpuk4ip@ 4ax.com...
On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 13:36:46 -0500, HK
wrote:

wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 17:43:10 -0000,
wrote:

I wonder if we will ever learn the real reason
for this war. It sure as hell wasn't WMD.

We took down Saddam so Israel wouldn't. In that regard Hillary
was
behind it 100% along with Lieberman and McCain.
The only other option was to let Israel do it on their own ...
very
unlikely or to back them and that would be worse than the mess
we
have
now.
The US has gone far out of their way to avoid using the "I"
word.
That
is why they came up with the Kurds, WMD and the idea of
democracy
for
Iraq.

Cynic that I am, I think it was because Bush had a hard-on for
Iraq
before he took office, and directed his staff to cook the intel
so
he
could justify his attack to the American people. That and the
fact
that
he had dead-ended in the hunt for bin Laden in Afghanistan.

Only problem with that fantasy is the fact that the Dems were
beating
the Iraq war drums long before Bush took office. The "intel"
was
there before Bush was even a candidate. Try again.

True, but you would need to read more than just newspapers in
order
to
understand what changed from year to year. It requires books,
which
are
heavy.

True, but books, like movies, are sometimes fictional. Even the
ones
posing as "real". It can be difficult for someone like you to
tell
the difference.

Are you saying that you will *never* read books about recent
American
history?

Are you saying that you believe *everything* you choose to read?

Do you read books that contain contrary points of view to your own,
or
do you only read books that align with your pre-conceived views?

Do you buy your books, or do you have a library card?

Do you move your lips when you read? How would you know?

Can you be anymore argumentative and contrary?

Do you sometimes feel a need to wear a jockstrap over your head?

And back to the issue...

How do you reconcile your statement that "Bush cooked the intel"
with
the fact that Dems are captured *on video* beating the wars drums
for
Iraq starting back in *1998* well before Bush took office? Think
about it... how did Bush cook *that* intel?

You first.

Are you saying you will *never* read books about recent American
history?

Read carefully. I wrote: " True, but books, like movies, are
sometimes fictional. Even the ones posing as "real". It can be
difficult for someone like you to tell the difference." Not sure how
that statement morphed into you thinking I said something about
reading, or not reading, certain types of books. The two have nothing
to do with each other, except in your mind. Short answer: No, I am
not saying that.

Now you answer my questions.

No. Not yet.

You said it could be difficult for someone like me to tell the
difference.
How would YOU tell the difference without reading the book?

Or:

After you read a book, how would you decide it was not "real"?

Sorry. No more answers from me until you've answered my last
question.

Refresher:

How do you reconcile your statement that "Bush cooked the intel"
with
the fact that Dems are captured *on video* beating the wars drums
for
Iraq starting back in *1998* well before Bush took office? Think
about it... how did Bush cook *that* intel?

Answer it now. Or just accept the fact that you were incorrect.

The answer was contained earlier in the discussion: The available
information changed from year to year, which you would've known if you'd
read books, or even read past the front page of any newspaper which
targets
grownups. Much of this information is NOT CLASSIFIED, and was clearly
spelled out by grownup news sources.

Translation: Bush didn't cook the intel. While the intel changed
slightly from time to time, the intel sources all maintained that
there were WMDs and that Iraq was a threat. Bush believed the same
intel that the Dems beilived. You were just squawking.

Clinton and Bush both cooked intelligence. Example: Remember the famous
metal tubes we found in Iraq? The ones Powell used as an example of a
nuclear project underway? Our own scientists at Oak Ridge Laboratory
examined samples of the metal and the tubes were absolutely NOT suitable for
the use claimed by the administration. Samples were sent to IAEA scientists
in Vienna, who came to the exact same conclusion. Both groups said the tubes
matched the specs for a type of artillery whose plans Iraq had probably
gotten from the Chinese.

Guess what? Two years after the scientists made their determination, Bush &
Powell still claimed those tubes were going to be used as part of a nuclear
facility. Maybe the word "cooked" is wrong in this context. How about
"ignored"?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Switch to Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
McCain: Immigration Issue Led to Threats	greg3347	General	0	August 17th 07 12:21 PM

Menu

About Us