George Bush is Right

Tom Kunich wrote:

"Richard Adams" wrote in message
om...

(JP) wrote in message

. com...

"Sam" wrote in message

link.net...

Bush never said Hussein was an "imminent threat". He stated that

something

has to be done before the threat is imminent.
If you wait until an attack is launched, you are going to lose people

before

you can respond.

There's actually quite a paradox in here that you've glossed over with
your misunderstanding of the English language.

"Imminent" means about to happen, not that an attack has already been
launched.

Now, here's the paradox: Under international law it is clearly
permissible to defend yourself if you are attacked by a foreign power
(obviously not applicable to this Iraq War). It is permissible to
launch a pre-emptive attack if the threat from the foreign power is
imminent. So, if Bush didn't use the word "imminent" (or equivalent)
in justifying the war on Iraq, he attacked Iraq illegally and is
therefore guilty of crimes against humanity and should be impeached
and sent to the Hague to stand trial. OTOH, if he did use the word
"imminent" (or equivalent) he is either a liar (about its imminence)
or just plain full of crap.

JP



However you feel about it, it's best to look at the facts.

1) It was a hard sell, Saddam Hussein posed an immenent danger with
WMD
2) Weapons inspectors could find nothing, UN urged patience to let
them do their job.
3) The lack of WMD finds was characterized as evidence of how crafty
Saddam's people were.


Notice how cleverly you left out the steps between 3 and 5.

Nope, left step 4 right where it ought to be.

3a) UN Weapons inspectors in fact found plenty of evidence that there HAD
been WMD at inspection sights in including such ruses as being held at the
front gate while large trucks were hurriedly leaving the rear gate. Many,
many incidents of this type were recorded.

And when they did go around some of these very sites checking the soil
for traces of chemical weapons or those compounds which would be used in
the production of such weapons little was found and much of it was from
some time in the past.

3b) UN Weapons inspectors were thrown out of Iraq when it looked like they
were closing in on something.

Was this the famous "being thrown out of Iraq because US members of the
team were caught spying" close to something? I remember that bit pretty
well and was pretty sore about it. Nothing like planting a few spooks
in the inspection team as a measure of good faith. It was like asking
for them to get the boot.

There was the matter of finding the boxes of nuclear research documents
hidden in one of the palaces, but still so much paper isn't quite the
same as a fully functional nuclear warhead on an Al-Hussein missile
aimed at Tel Aviv.

3c) Machinery and chemicals necessary for the production of WMD were in fact
sold illegally by companies in Germany to Iraq and delivered there. Strange
that these items were never found either.

Yes, the US gave Saddam lots of fun bugs to play with, too. All this
was a long time ago. When it was readily apparent that Saddam did use
chemicals on Iran the US heroically stood by and did nothing, then while
Saddam's army dumped chemical weapons on the Kurds, the US also
heroically stood by and did nothing. There were solid grounds for
pummeling Baghdad, and the world would have to have agreed it was
justified. Yet, all this stuff for making weapons was sold long ago and
what was left that could be found was junked, long before the invasion.

3d) There was a threat of invasion that lasted many months. During this time
it was made plain to the staff of Saddam Hussein's military that should they
be found in possession of WMD they were all be liable for the death penalty
under UN regulations.

Yet they posessed none and said so, so they should have had nothing to fear.

More months passed. CIA and other intelligence
services noted a very large number of heavy trucks moving from the areas in
which it was believed that WMD were being produced or stored and the Syrian
border.

Large trucks could be transporting WMD, or Saddam's treasures or pretty
much anything. What could have been, what might have been, and the CIA
even admitted their intelligence from that area was spotty and they had
to rely on exiles with their own agendas. (So bad it was that the CIA
vented more than once that these people could even corroborate each
other's stories.)

Also Syria appeared to be getting altogether too much oil from Iraq
to pay for the "food for oil" programs that we now know included payoffs to
the controlling UN officials to the tune of some $6 billion!

Well, that's good enough reason right there, a few bad apples condemn
the whole barrel. Kill em all and let God sort 'em out.

4) Invasion
5) No weapons found, only old junk left to rust out in the desert.


5a) In fact, weapons inspectors have claimed that there was significant
evidence that there had been WMD experimentation and possibly large scale
production.

Years ago. Best estimates to date are that all the stuff they had were
disposed of by the late 90's.

6) Bush asked for more time, urging patience in finding WMD
7) Still no WMD, so other excuses are paraded for public approval:
Saddam evil, etc.

7a) US Liberals tell us that they only way they will believe that is if a
large scale biological attack is made on a major American city and hopefully
millions die since anything less couldn't possibly be considered "mass
destruction".

Blah blah rant liberals rave blah blah rant blah fume, etc. You should
read Clarke's book. Oh, wait, he's someone with more experience and
background on the subject than anyone else in the world, he must be
wrong too.

8) What pretty much everyone who had any sense could see happened, is
happening, the country is descending into chaos.


8a) Since Liberals refuse to actually

You don't appear to have a firm grasp of what a "liberal" is. With that
in mind, I doubt you even have a firm grasp of conservatism, or the
roots of either the Democratic or the Republican party. You just like
to throw the word out like some automatic qualifier of someone who
disagrees with your point as wrong, and not just wrong, but bad bad
naughty wrong. Cripes. Get a grip.

[large pointless harangue snipped]

But we're supposed to believe that Iraq is in total turmoil regardless of
what the majority of Iraqis are saying.

Yeah. It's unstable and getting more so. There are quiet spots, but
the problem is Saddam did leave one little gift, a large number of
stockpiles of small arms, RPGs, etc. hidden around the Sunni Triangle.
Today's mess is nothing compared to the civil war which will eventually
erupt. Some strong man or strong willed party (lead by someone like
Saddam or that Sadr cleric) will seize control and it'll be headaches
for decades to follow. And of course they'll hate us.

9) It's now a meatgrinder, slowly working its way through coalition
troups, exposing scandals, creating friction with the locals.

Consider this: If Bush really was a competent leader, would he want
to remain in charge of this mess or pass it off to some other schmuck?

Tom Kunich wrote:

"Richard Adams" wrote in message
om...

(JP) wrote in message

. com...

"Sam" wrote in message

link.net...

Bush never said Hussein was an "imminent threat". He stated that

something

has to be done before the threat is imminent.
If you wait until an attack is launched, you are going to lose people

before

you can respond.

There's actually quite a paradox in here that you've glossed over with
your misunderstanding of the English language.

"Imminent" means about to happen, not that an attack has already been
launched.

Now, here's the paradox: Under international law it is clearly
permissible to defend yourself if you are attacked by a foreign power
(obviously not applicable to this Iraq War). It is permissible to
launch a pre-emptive attack if the threat from the foreign power is
imminent. So, if Bush didn't use the word "imminent" (or equivalent)
in justifying the war on Iraq, he attacked Iraq illegally and is
therefore guilty of crimes against humanity and should be impeached
and sent to the Hague to stand trial. OTOH, if he did use the word
"imminent" (or equivalent) he is either a liar (about its imminence)
or just plain full of crap.

JP



However you feel about it, it's best to look at the facts.

1) It was a hard sell, Saddam Hussein posed an immenent danger with
WMD
2) Weapons inspectors could find nothing, UN urged patience to let
them do their job.
3) The lack of WMD finds was characterized as evidence of how crafty
Saddam's people were.


Notice how cleverly you left out the steps between 3 and 5.

Nope, left step 4 right where it ought to be.

3a) UN Weapons inspectors in fact found plenty of evidence that there HAD
been WMD at inspection sights in including such ruses as being held at the
front gate while large trucks were hurriedly leaving the rear gate. Many,
many incidents of this type were recorded.

And when they did go around some of these very sites checking the soil
for traces of chemical weapons or those compounds which would be used in
the production of such weapons little was found and much of it was from
some time in the past.

3b) UN Weapons inspectors were thrown out of Iraq when it looked like they
were closing in on something.

Was this the famous "being thrown out of Iraq because US members of the
team were caught spying" close to something? I remember that bit pretty
well and was pretty sore about it. Nothing like planting a few spooks
in the inspection team as a measure of good faith. It was like asking
for them to get the boot.

There was the matter of finding the boxes of nuclear research documents
hidden in one of the palaces, but still so much paper isn't quite the
same as a fully functional nuclear warhead on an Al-Hussein missile
aimed at Tel Aviv.

3c) Machinery and chemicals necessary for the production of WMD were in fact
sold illegally by companies in Germany to Iraq and delivered there. Strange
that these items were never found either.

Yes, the US gave Saddam lots of fun bugs to play with, too. All this
was a long time ago. When it was readily apparent that Saddam did use
chemicals on Iran the US heroically stood by and did nothing, then while
Saddam's army dumped chemical weapons on the Kurds, the US also
heroically stood by and did nothing. There were solid grounds for
pummeling Baghdad, and the world would have to have agreed it was
justified. Yet, all this stuff for making weapons was sold long ago and
what was left that could be found was junked, long before the invasion.

3d) There was a threat of invasion that lasted many months. During this time
it was made plain to the staff of Saddam Hussein's military that should they
be found in possession of WMD they were all be liable for the death penalty
under UN regulations.

Yet they posessed none and said so, so they should have had nothing to fear.

More months passed. CIA and other intelligence
services noted a very large number of heavy trucks moving from the areas in
which it was believed that WMD were being produced or stored and the Syrian
border.

Large trucks could be transporting WMD, or Saddam's treasures or pretty
much anything. What could have been, what might have been, and the CIA
even admitted their intelligence from that area was spotty and they had
to rely on exiles with their own agendas. (So bad it was that the CIA
vented more than once that these people could even corroborate each
other's stories.)

Also Syria appeared to be getting altogether too much oil from Iraq
to pay for the "food for oil" programs that we now know included payoffs to
the controlling UN officials to the tune of some $6 billion!

Well, that's good enough reason right there, a few bad apples condemn
the whole barrel. Kill em all and let God sort 'em out.

4) Invasion
5) No weapons found, only old junk left to rust out in the desert.


5a) In fact, weapons inspectors have claimed that there was significant
evidence that there had been WMD experimentation and possibly large scale
production.

Years ago. Best estimates to date are that all the stuff they had were
disposed of by the late 90's.

6) Bush asked for more time, urging patience in finding WMD
7) Still no WMD, so other excuses are paraded for public approval:
Saddam evil, etc.

7a) US Liberals tell us that they only way they will believe that is if a
large scale biological attack is made on a major American city and hopefully
millions die since anything less couldn't possibly be considered "mass
destruction".

Blah blah rant liberals rave blah blah rant blah fume, etc. You should
read Clarke's book. Oh, wait, he's someone with more experience and
background on the subject than anyone else in the world, he must be
wrong too.

8) What pretty much everyone who had any sense could see happened, is
happening, the country is descending into chaos.


8a) Since Liberals refuse to actually

You don't appear to have a firm grasp of what a "liberal" is. With that
in mind, I doubt you even have a firm grasp of conservatism, or the
roots of either the Democratic or the Republican party. You just like
to throw the word out like some automatic qualifier of someone who
disagrees with your point as wrong, and not just wrong, but bad bad
naughty wrong. Cripes. Get a grip.

[large pointless harangue snipped]

But we're supposed to believe that Iraq is in total turmoil regardless of
what the majority of Iraqis are saying.

Yeah. It's unstable and getting more so. There are quiet spots, but
the problem is Saddam did leave one little gift, a large number of
stockpiles of small arms, RPGs, etc. hidden around the Sunni Triangle.
Today's mess is nothing compared to the civil war which will eventually
erupt. Some strong man or strong willed party (lead by someone like
Saddam or that Sadr cleric) will seize control and it'll be headaches
for decades to follow. And of course they'll hate us.

9) It's now a meatgrinder, slowly working its way through coalition
troups, exposing scandals, creating friction with the locals.

Consider this: If Bush really was a competent leader, would he want
to remain in charge of this mess or pass it off to some other schmuck?

Richard Adams wrote:

Consider this: If Bush really was a competent leader, would he want
to remain in charge of this mess or pass it off to some other schmuck?

Powell seems to have decided...
http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=109&STORY=/www/story/05-04-2004/0002166707&EDATE=

Tom, this is what I was getting at in an earlier thread about how an
otherwise honorable man can lie for his country. There is a limit.

How much would it take for Ari Fleischer to write his memoirs, I wonder...?

Richard Adams wrote:

Consider this: If Bush really was a competent leader, would he want
to remain in charge of this mess or pass it off to some other schmuck?

Powell seems to have decided...
http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=109&STORY=/www/story/05-04-2004/0002166707&EDATE=

Tom, this is what I was getting at in an earlier thread about how an
otherwise honorable man can lie for his country. There is a limit.

How much would it take for Ari Fleischer to write his memoirs, I wonder...?

In article . net,
"Tom Kunich" wrote:

"Richard Adams" wrote in message
om...

However you feel about it, it's best to look at the facts.

1) It was a hard sell, Saddam Hussein posed an immenent danger with
WMD
2) Weapons inspectors could find nothing, UN urged patience to let
them do their job.
3) The lack of WMD finds was characterized as evidence of how crafty
Saddam's people were.

Notice how cleverly you left out the steps between 3 and 5.

3a) UN Weapons inspectors in fact found plenty of evidence that there HAD
been WMD at inspection sights in including such ruses as being held at the
front gate while large trucks were hurriedly leaving the rear gate. Many,
many incidents of this type were recorded.

So they were able to pack all their stuff up and move it "out the back
gate" - how long would this take, Tom? The inspections going on before the
invasion were surprise - they'd pick out a site and charge over to it, no
warning. The inspectors reported in the media that they felt they had full
cooperation. They had a mandate to go after any suspicious thing - they
would have gone after any vehicle going out back gates.

3b) UN Weapons inspectors were thrown out of Iraq when it looked like they
were closing in on something.

Are you talking about in the late '90s? Or more recently, like right
before the invasion? If the latter, then please do recall that the
inspectors were, in fact, still in Iraq the day before the bombs started to
drop. As for the earlier one, they actually left on their own after having
been caught spying, not inspecting. Yes, Tom, the team over there back then
was not entirely on the up-and-up.

3c) Machinery and chemicals necessary for the production of WMD were in fact
sold illegally by companies in Germany to Iraq and delivered there. Strange
that these items were never found either.

Much of that equipment had more uses than just weapons. By the way, US
companies also were involved in the sale of equipment, moving stuff through
foreign subsidiaries (which were no more than freight forwarders at that
point).

3d) There was a threat of invasion that lasted many months. During this time
it was made plain to the staff of Saddam Hussein's military that should they
be found in possession of WMD they were all be liable for the death penalty
under UN regulations. More months passed. CIA and other intelligence
services noted a very large number of heavy trucks moving from the areas in
which it was believed that WMD were being produced or stored and the Syrian
border.

There's no proof of what was in any trucks, is there?

Also Syria appeared to be getting altogether too much oil from Iraq
to pay for the "food for oil" programs that we now know included payoffs to
the controlling UN officials to the tune of some $6 billion!

"We now know..." Tom, those are what are called "allegations". Who is
making these allegations? Hmmm, could it be... Ahmed Chalabi? Why, YES!!!!
No credible neutral agency has seen the documents he purports to have on
this. But let's look at the history of Mr. Chalabi. He was convicted in
absentia in Jordan years ago for bank fraud (on the order of about $200m).
(Of course, he got himself the position of "Finance Minister" in the IGC.
Fox in the henhouse?) He ran the Iraqi Nat'l Congress out of London, and
was the golden boy of the Pentagon to take over Iraq after the war was
over. He and the INC are the prime movers of intel and reports that the
Pentagon used to argue its case for the war. But the intel community always
had very serious doubts about their stuff - they repeatedly said the
sources were unreliable, at best. INC supplied most of the info about
chem, biological and nuclear weapons before the war - none have been found
as they described it. In fact, none have been found at all.

But wait, it gets better! The CIA had a coup set up in '96 that was
blown - they believe it was blown by Chalabi because it didn't involve him.
The Jordanians have supplied the US with phone intercepts that show that
Chalabi had prior knowledge of the bombing of the Jordanian embassy on
August 7, 2003. He chose not to pass that info along. At the moment, there
are grave suspicions that Chalabi and his aides have been passing highly
sensitive info about US security ops to the Iranians.

So why should anyone believe a damn thing Ahmed Chalabi says about
"payoffs to UN officials"? He had an agenda all along - that was to see
himself in power. His quote? "As far as we¹re concerned we¹ve been entirely
successful. That tyrant Saddam is gone and the Americans are in Baghdad.
What was said before is not important." In other words, he got the US to do
his dirty work, and it didn't matter what bull**** story he told to get
them to do it. The INC, by the way, gets paid $340K per month to tell lies.
Our tax payer dollars at work...

4) Invasion
5) No weapons found, only old junk left to rust out in the desert.

5a) In fact, weapons inspectors have claimed that there was significant
evidence that there had been WMD experimentation and possibly large scale
production.

In fact, not. Ask David Kay. "Among the closely held internal judgments
of the Iraq Survey Group, overseen by David Kay as special representative
of CIA Director George J. Tenet, are that Iraq's nuclear weapons scientists
did no significant arms-related work after 1991, that facilities with
suspicious new construction proved benign, and that equipment of potential
use to a nuclear program remained under seal or in civilian industrial use."

Further:
"I'm personally convinced that there were not large stockpiles of newly
produced weapons of mass destruction," Kay told the New York Times. "We
don't find the people, the documents or the physical plants that you would
expect to find if the production was going on. I think they gradually
reduced stockpiles throughout the 1990's. Somewhere in the mid-1990's the
large chemical overhang of existing stockpiles was eliminated. The Iraqis
say the they believed that [the UN inspection system] was more effective
[than U.S. analysts believed it was], and they didn't want to get caught."

6) Bush asked for more time, urging patience in finding WMD
7) Still no WMD, so other excuses are paraded for public approval:
Saddam evil, etc.


7a) US Liberals tell us that they only way they will believe that is if a
large scale biological attack is made on a major American city and hopefully
millions die since anything less couldn't possibly be considered "mass
destruction".

Tom, this is your presentation of what you believe the evil "Liberals"
you so despise might say. Your statement, of course, has no basis in fact,
or, indeed, reality.

8) What pretty much everyone who had any sense could see happened, is
happening, the country is descending into chaos.

8a) Since Liberals refuse to actually talk to the people on the ground in
Iraq they want to believe the news outlets as if they were trying to provide
a balanced outlook.

You rely on Fox as a media source. Say no more.

It sort of reminds one of the Loma Prieta Earthquake in California some

(snipper of biblical proportions)

What the hell are you talking about?

But we're supposed to believe that Iraq is in total turmoil regardless of
what the majority of Iraqis are saying.

No one has said it's in "total turmoil", but it is heading that way. And
the reports I read have comments from ranking civilian and military people
who say the majority of Iraqis are NOT happy with things as of right now.
Which is one reason why the non-Iraqis are moving into smaller, more
heavily armed compounds. The pictures of the Abu Ghraib abuse is a huge
thing over there - do you think that is winning any "hearts and minds"? I'm
still waiting for the showers of flowers to happen, Tom.

http://www.irak.be/ned/nieuws/fallujah7.jpg

--
tanx,
Howard

"Moby Dick was a work of art, What the hell happened?"


remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

In article . net,
"Tom Kunich" wrote:

"Richard Adams" wrote in message
om...

However you feel about it, it's best to look at the facts.

1) It was a hard sell, Saddam Hussein posed an immenent danger with
WMD
2) Weapons inspectors could find nothing, UN urged patience to let
them do their job.
3) The lack of WMD finds was characterized as evidence of how crafty
Saddam's people were.

Notice how cleverly you left out the steps between 3 and 5.

3a) UN Weapons inspectors in fact found plenty of evidence that there HAD
been WMD at inspection sights in including such ruses as being held at the
front gate while large trucks were hurriedly leaving the rear gate. Many,
many incidents of this type were recorded.

So they were able to pack all their stuff up and move it "out the back
gate" - how long would this take, Tom? The inspections going on before the
invasion were surprise - they'd pick out a site and charge over to it, no
warning. The inspectors reported in the media that they felt they had full
cooperation. They had a mandate to go after any suspicious thing - they
would have gone after any vehicle going out back gates.

3b) UN Weapons inspectors were thrown out of Iraq when it looked like they
were closing in on something.

Are you talking about in the late '90s? Or more recently, like right
before the invasion? If the latter, then please do recall that the
inspectors were, in fact, still in Iraq the day before the bombs started to
drop. As for the earlier one, they actually left on their own after having
been caught spying, not inspecting. Yes, Tom, the team over there back then
was not entirely on the up-and-up.

3c) Machinery and chemicals necessary for the production of WMD were in fact
sold illegally by companies in Germany to Iraq and delivered there. Strange
that these items were never found either.

Much of that equipment had more uses than just weapons. By the way, US
companies also were involved in the sale of equipment, moving stuff through
foreign subsidiaries (which were no more than freight forwarders at that
point).

3d) There was a threat of invasion that lasted many months. During this time
it was made plain to the staff of Saddam Hussein's military that should they
be found in possession of WMD they were all be liable for the death penalty
under UN regulations. More months passed. CIA and other intelligence
services noted a very large number of heavy trucks moving from the areas in
which it was believed that WMD were being produced or stored and the Syrian
border.

There's no proof of what was in any trucks, is there?

Also Syria appeared to be getting altogether too much oil from Iraq
to pay for the "food for oil" programs that we now know included payoffs to
the controlling UN officials to the tune of some $6 billion!

"We now know..." Tom, those are what are called "allegations". Who is
making these allegations? Hmmm, could it be... Ahmed Chalabi? Why, YES!!!!
No credible neutral agency has seen the documents he purports to have on
this. But let's look at the history of Mr. Chalabi. He was convicted in
absentia in Jordan years ago for bank fraud (on the order of about $200m).
(Of course, he got himself the position of "Finance Minister" in the IGC.
Fox in the henhouse?) He ran the Iraqi Nat'l Congress out of London, and
was the golden boy of the Pentagon to take over Iraq after the war was
over. He and the INC are the prime movers of intel and reports that the
Pentagon used to argue its case for the war. But the intel community always
had very serious doubts about their stuff - they repeatedly said the
sources were unreliable, at best. INC supplied most of the info about
chem, biological and nuclear weapons before the war - none have been found
as they described it. In fact, none have been found at all.

But wait, it gets better! The CIA had a coup set up in '96 that was
blown - they believe it was blown by Chalabi because it didn't involve him.
The Jordanians have supplied the US with phone intercepts that show that
Chalabi had prior knowledge of the bombing of the Jordanian embassy on
August 7, 2003. He chose not to pass that info along. At the moment, there
are grave suspicions that Chalabi and his aides have been passing highly
sensitive info about US security ops to the Iranians.

So why should anyone believe a damn thing Ahmed Chalabi says about
"payoffs to UN officials"? He had an agenda all along - that was to see
himself in power. His quote? "As far as we¹re concerned we¹ve been entirely
successful. That tyrant Saddam is gone and the Americans are in Baghdad.
What was said before is not important." In other words, he got the US to do
his dirty work, and it didn't matter what bull**** story he told to get
them to do it. The INC, by the way, gets paid $340K per month to tell lies.
Our tax payer dollars at work...

4) Invasion
5) No weapons found, only old junk left to rust out in the desert.

5a) In fact, weapons inspectors have claimed that there was significant
evidence that there had been WMD experimentation and possibly large scale
production.

In fact, not. Ask David Kay. "Among the closely held internal judgments
of the Iraq Survey Group, overseen by David Kay as special representative
of CIA Director George J. Tenet, are that Iraq's nuclear weapons scientists
did no significant arms-related work after 1991, that facilities with
suspicious new construction proved benign, and that equipment of potential
use to a nuclear program remained under seal or in civilian industrial use."

Further:
"I'm personally convinced that there were not large stockpiles of newly
produced weapons of mass destruction," Kay told the New York Times. "We
don't find the people, the documents or the physical plants that you would
expect to find if the production was going on. I think they gradually
reduced stockpiles throughout the 1990's. Somewhere in the mid-1990's the
large chemical overhang of existing stockpiles was eliminated. The Iraqis
say the they believed that [the UN inspection system] was more effective
[than U.S. analysts believed it was], and they didn't want to get caught."

6) Bush asked for more time, urging patience in finding WMD
7) Still no WMD, so other excuses are paraded for public approval:
Saddam evil, etc.


7a) US Liberals tell us that they only way they will believe that is if a
large scale biological attack is made on a major American city and hopefully
millions die since anything less couldn't possibly be considered "mass
destruction".

Tom, this is your presentation of what you believe the evil "Liberals"
you so despise might say. Your statement, of course, has no basis in fact,
or, indeed, reality.

8) What pretty much everyone who had any sense could see happened, is
happening, the country is descending into chaos.

8a) Since Liberals refuse to actually talk to the people on the ground in
Iraq they want to believe the news outlets as if they were trying to provide
a balanced outlook.

You rely on Fox as a media source. Say no more.

It sort of reminds one of the Loma Prieta Earthquake in California some

(snipper of biblical proportions)

What the hell are you talking about?

But we're supposed to believe that Iraq is in total turmoil regardless of
what the majority of Iraqis are saying.

No one has said it's in "total turmoil", but it is heading that way. And
the reports I read have comments from ranking civilian and military people
who say the majority of Iraqis are NOT happy with things as of right now.
Which is one reason why the non-Iraqis are moving into smaller, more
heavily armed compounds. The pictures of the Abu Ghraib abuse is a huge
thing over there - do you think that is winning any "hearts and minds"? I'm
still waiting for the showers of flowers to happen, Tom.

http://www.irak.be/ned/nieuws/fallujah7.jpg

--
tanx,
Howard

"Moby Dick was a work of art, What the hell happened?"


remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

From: Stewart Fleming

http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/st.../www/story/05-
04-2004/0002166707&EDATE=

Stewart that was a really good piece, right until we got to the last line
there for no apparent reason other than promoting a politival agenda is a
comment on Cyba.
Don't know if you've noticed all the coverage in the BBC but the rest of the
planet seems to be finally admitting that Castro isn't a great hero. It's
ranked as one of the three least free nations for the press. Mexico has just
pulled their ambassador.
I really have to question why he would screw up a really powerfull on target
piece like this by tossing a flag that say I am biased.
Bill C

From: Stewart Fleming

http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/st.../www/story/05-
04-2004/0002166707&EDATE=

Stewart that was a really good piece, right until we got to the last line
there for no apparent reason other than promoting a politival agenda is a
comment on Cyba.
Don't know if you've noticed all the coverage in the BBC but the rest of the
planet seems to be finally admitting that Castro isn't a great hero. It's
ranked as one of the three least free nations for the press. Mexico has just
pulled their ambassador.
I really have to question why he would screw up a really powerfull on target
piece like this by tossing a flag that say I am biased.
Bill C

On 05/04/2004 10:53 PM, in article ,
"Stewart Fleming" wrote:



Richard Adams wrote:

Consider this: If Bush really was a competent leader, would he want
to remain in charge of this mess or pass it off to some other schmuck?

Powell seems to have decided...
http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/st...w/story/05-04-
2004/0002166707&EDATE=


http://us.gq.com/plus/content/?040429plco_01

The actual article mentioned in the press release.


Tom, this is what I was getting at in an earlier thread about how an
otherwise honorable man can lie for his country. There is a limit.

How much would it take for Ari Fleischer to write his memoirs, I wonder...?


--
Steven L. Sheffield
stevens at veloworks dot com
veloworks at worldnet dot ay tea tee dot net
bellum pax est libertas servitus est ignoratio vis est
ess ay ell tea ell ay kay ee sea aye tee why you ti ay aitch
aitch tee tea pea colon [for word] slash [four ward] slash double-you
double-yew double-ewe dot veloworks dot com [four word] slash

On 05/04/2004 10:53 PM, in article ,
"Stewart Fleming" wrote:



Richard Adams wrote:

Consider this: If Bush really was a competent leader, would he want
to remain in charge of this mess or pass it off to some other schmuck?

Powell seems to have decided...
http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/st...w/story/05-04-
2004/0002166707&EDATE=


http://us.gq.com/plus/content/?040429plco_01

The actual article mentioned in the press release.


Tom, this is what I was getting at in an earlier thread about how an
otherwise honorable man can lie for his country. There is a limit.

How much would it take for Ari Fleischer to write his memoirs, I wonder...?


--
Steven L. Sheffield
stevens at veloworks dot com
veloworks at worldnet dot ay tea tee dot net
bellum pax est libertas servitus est ignoratio vis est
ess ay ell tea ell ay kay ee sea aye tee why you ti ay aitch
aitch tee tea pea colon [for word] slash [four ward] slash double-you
double-yew double-ewe dot veloworks dot com [four word] slash