"Scott Lurndal" wrote in message
. com...

The real shame is that Bush supporters take every word he speaks as
gospel and don't actually think for themselves.

Kerry just wants to be president and he is riding this pony for all it is
worth. He will be gone soon enough and then Bush can get back to business.

Leon wrote:

: "Scott Lurndal" wrote in message
: . com...
:
: The real shame is that Bush supporters take every word he speaks as
: gospel and don't actually think for themselves.

: Kerry just wants to be president and he is riding this pony for all it is
: worth. He will be gone soon enough and then Bush can get back to business.


That would be, what? The business of ruining the American economy?
Of undermining the military? Of continuing to increase the US isolation
in international democracy? Or decreasing your rights as a private
citizen?

Yeah, that will be really great.


-- Andy Barss

Andrew Barss wrote:

Leon wrote:

: "Scott Lurndal" wrote in message
: . com...
:
: The real shame is that Bush supporters take every word he speaks as
: gospel and don't actually think for themselves.

: Kerry just wants to be president and he is riding this pony for all it
: is
: worth. He will be gone soon enough and then Bush can get back to
: business.


That would be, what? The business of ruining the American economy?
Of undermining the military? Of continuing to increase the US isolation
in international democracy? Or decreasing your rights as a private
citizen?

Yeah, that will be really great.

They're both idiots. Kerry may not ruin the economy, undermine the
military, increase the US isolation in "international democracy" (whatever
the Hell _that_ means) and decrease your rights as a private citizen in the
same manner as Bush, but I can't see how things are improved just because
he finds a different manner to go about it. Better the idiot we know than
the idiot we don't if the choice is between two idiots.


-- Andy Barss

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

"Leon" wrote in message
m...

"Scott Lurndal" wrote in message
. com...

The real shame is that Bush supporters take every word he speaks as
gospel and don't actually think for themselves.

Kerry just wants to be president and he is riding this pony for all it is
worth. He will be gone soon enough and then Bush can get back to
business.


Democrats who take Kerrys' words as gospel are really DIMocrats
who never think for themselves. This makes up about half of the party.
The other half is aware of all the lies, deciet, and outright unlawful
crap and even assist with it with great joy. This half is more accurately
known as DemoCROOKS. Both of them continuously accuse the
Republicans of the very things that they do constantly.

Courtney Mainord blathers:

Democrats who take Kerrys' words as gospel are really DIMocrats
who never think for themselves. This makes up about half of the party.
The other half is aware of all the lies, deciet, and outright unlawful
crap and even assist with it with great joy. This half is more accurately
known as DemoCROOKS. Both of them continuously accuse the
Republicans of the very things that they do constantly

You need another hobby. Your name invention talents are minimal.

Charlie Self
"Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind
simultaneously, and accepting both of them." George Orwell

"Dan White" wrote in message . net...
Sorry Fred, I lost your post from about 2 days ago re. where Bush lied and
it's just not worth it to google it back up anyway.

Well that is pretty much SOP for you isn't it? You just cannot be
bothered to look for factual information.

So, I'm responding
here, and then I'm pretty much done with the subject.

I'll respond you your personal attack in alt.flame, where it is
not Off-Topic and to what you have to say about Bush in
alt.politics.bush, where it is not Off-Topic.

--

FF

"Dan White" wrote in message ...
"Fred the Red Shirt" wrote in message


... I'll concede for argument's sake your point that Bush may have
said some things that are contrary to the UNMOVIC report.
...

That was not my point.



You know, let's just kill this thread. Let's just agree that politicians in
general tend to take advantage of the electorate when it suits their needs.
Make you final comments if you want. I'll just point out quickly where you
are wrong and then I'm really done with it. (That was a joke, OK?)


Why not just remove rec.woodworking from the distribution list?

--

FF

"Fred the Red Shirt" wrote in message
m...
"Dan White" wrote in message
...


You know, let's just kill this thread. Let's just agree that
politicians in
general tend to take advantage of the electorate when it suits their
needs.
Make you final comments if you want. I'll just point out quickly where
you
are wrong and then I'm really done with it. (That was a joke, OK?)


Why not just remove rec.woodworking from the distribution list?


From the what?

dwhite

"Dan White" wrote in message et...
"Fred the Red Shirt" wrote in message
m...
"Dan White" wrote in message
...


You know, let's just kill this thread. Let's just agree that
politicians in
general tend to take advantage of the electorate when it suits their
needs.
Make you final comments if you want. I'll just point out quickly where
you
are wrong and then I'm really done with it. (That was a joke, OK?)


Why not just remove rec.woodworking from the distribution list?


From the what?


Sorry, the "Newsgroups:" list.

--

FF

"Dan White" wrote in message . net...


http://www.cia.gov/nic/articles_iraq_wmd.htm

It is an interesting read. One of the important points is:
"Let me be clear: The NIE judged with high confidence that Iraq had chemical
and biological weapons as well as missiles with ranges in excess of the 150
km limit imposed by the UN Security Council, and with moderate confidence
that Iraq did not have nuclear weapons. These judgments were essentially the
same conclusions reached by the United Nations and by a wide array of
intelligence services-friendly and unfriendly alike. The only government in
the world that claimed that Iraq was not working on, and did not have,
biological and chemical weapons or prohibited missile systems was in
Baghdad. Moreover, in those cases where US intelligence agencies disagreed,
particularly regarding whether Iraq was reconstituting a uranium enrichment
effort for its nuclear weapons program, the alternative views were spelled
out in detail. Despite all of this, ten myths have been confused with facts
in the current media frenzy. A hard look at the facts of the NIE should
dispel some popular myths making the media circuit. [end]

A more important point is that the author of that editorial is
referring
to _The October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iraq's
Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD)_

http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_...q_Oct_2002.htm

Please note the date OCTOBER 2002. That is FIVE months before the
invasion.

Based in part on the information in that report Bush went to the UN
and
together the US and the UN demanded a return of the inspectors to
Iraq.

Here are the results of that inspection process as of the eve of the
invasion:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4122113/

http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/News/...q20040202.html

Iraq did not have a nuclear weapons program, no evidence of stockpiles
of chemical or biological weapons were found. No manufacturing
facilities
were found. Up to that point and Iraq was cooperating with the
weapons inspectors. The missles that were found by UNMOVIC to exceed
the permitted
range did so only marginally in a zero-payload test. Whether that was
a substative violation or not may be debated, but what is not
debatable
is that the missle were declared and made available to UNMOVIC for
inspection.

It was perfectly reasonable to accept the October 2002 report as
the best assessment of the situation in October 2002. But, and
cannot be emphasized enough, when better data became available from
people on the ground in Iraq what excuse did Bush have for ignoring
it? What excuse did you have? As far as I can tell, NONE.

I do not understand why it is so hard for you to grasp the concept
that the October 2002 report was not the final word on the issue.

Besides, here is what teh uS Senate concluded about it:

http://msnbc.msn.com/ID/5403731

Conclusion 1. Most of the major key judgments in the Intelligence
Community's October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE),
Iraq's Continuing Programs for Weapons of Mass Destruction,
either overstated, or were not supported by, the underlying
intelligence reporting.


Did you compare the editorial you reference with the October 2002
document about which Mr Cohen was writing? This caught my eye:

we included the Niger issue with appropriate caveats,
for the sake of completeness.

This refers to the forged Iraq-Niger correspondence obtained by the
Italians, turned over to the UK who in turn turned it over to us
who in turn turned it over to the IAEA. These were clumsy and
obvious forgeries including correspondence from the 1980s, when
Iraq DID buy yellowcake from Niger but with the dates changed to
make them appear mor recent. Notably, in regard to those date
changes the day of the month no longer matched the day of the week
in several places (as reported in 2003 by the Washington Post).

Here is what it says in the October 2002 report:

http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2003_cr/h072103.html

A foreign government service reported that as of early
2001, Niger planned to send several tons of ``pure uranium''
(probably yellowcake) to Iraq. As of early 2001, Niger and
Iraq reportedly were still working out arrangements for this
deal, which could be for up to 500 tons of yellowcake. We do
not know the status of this arrangement.
Reports indicate Iraq also has sought uranium ore from
Somalia and possibly the Democratic Republic of the Congo.
We cannot confirm whether Iraq succeeded in acquiring
uranium ore and/or yellowcake from these sources.

Evidently Mr Cohen feels that "We cannot confirm..." is an appropriate
caveat. IMHO that is hardly sufficient when the evidence supplied by
the "foreign government service " was an obvious, clumsy forgery.

Now, some British and American sources claim that there was other
evidence independent of the forged documents. I have thwo things to
day about that. One, the forged documents are STILL forged and US
and UK submitted them to the IAEA as if they were genuine. Two, to
accept that other independent evidence we have to accept the word
of the same people who foisted the forged documents on us.

Fool us once, shame on him, and we won't be fooled again.

Just today (now yesterday) I caught bush in yet another bald-faced
lie.

Kerry has been repeating his criticism that when bin Laden was
cornered in Tora Bora he got away because Bush 'outsourced' the
job to warlords who only a week before had been fighting for the other
side instead of using the best trained, best equipped and dedicated
troops in the world, American troops eager to avenge the attacks of
Sept 11.

Bush's response was to acccuse Kerry of criticising the US military
for failing to capture Bin Laden in Tora Bora.

That's Bush showing his ass, er character for you.

But don't trust me to paraphrase them correctly, look up what
they each said for yourself.

As to the argument that the fact that there has not been a foreign
based attack on American soil since September 11, 2001 I point out
that the previous bin Laden attacks on US soil were 8 years apart
with major attacks overseas at 2 - 4 year intervals.

That first attack on the WTC was in February, 1993 less than
a month after Clinton took office. It was plotted and carried out
by men who enterred the country when GH Bush was president. Clinton
kept us safe from foreign attack at home for the rest of his two
terms, remember the millenium bombing?

At least half the men involved in the September 11, 2001 attacks
entered the US after GW Bush took office. One was picked up on
an immigration violation although most did enter illegally. Two
were issued automatic visa renewals by the INS in the late Fall
2001, months after they had died in the attacks.

Remember the 1200 Middle Easterners Ashcroft disappeared into our
Gulag? Some idiots probably think that made us safer. I think
now Arab-Americans are rightfully afraid to come forward and
volunteer any information they might have. Other Arabs or Arab
Americans have been convicted of serious crimes for shooting vedoes
whil on vacation and playing paintball. I don't think that
makes us safe.

Sweden, France, and the UK have protested our mistreatment of
their nationals at Guantanamo Bay, including our rejection of
the Geneva Conventions. While a competent court or tribunal
might find that the Geneva conventions were not applicable to
some individuals incarcerated there, no such court or tribunal
has ever considered the issue. And the Geneva conventions
require that they be extended to prisoner during the time
that their eligibility is in dispute. Additionally the Geneva
conventions prohibit blanket judgement or mass punishments. It
is strictly forbidden ot simple declare that all captives of
some ilk do not qualify for the protections. That judgement
has to be made on a case by case basis for each individual
in question.

And so it goes. Is it any wonder that Vladimir Putin, the current
dictator of Russia, has endorsed the reelection of George W Bush?
Clinton, Carter, even Reagan took an active interest in protecting
the civil rights of the Russian people. Putin doesn't have
that problem with Bush.

Character my ass.

--

FF