"mikemckelvy" wrote in message ...

Heard it on the news. I'll wait awhile before making a decision on how to
interpret this news. Presently it really makes no difference to me since
there were and are likely to be other WMD's to be found and more than enough
reason to kick Saddam's ass.

Again this is a non-sequiter. The issue is whether Bush deliberately
misrepresented the classified data. He has now admitted that what he
said was false, and that he shouldn't have said it. He has yet to
acknowledge that he knew it was false.

This story today suggests that the IAEA asked the administration to
provide evidence of its accusations regarding Niger in December, but
it wasn't until February, a week after the State of the Union Address,
that Bush complied. When the State Department handed over the
documents the department said that they had doubts about them, and the
IAEA quickly concluded that they were forgeries.

http://nytimes.com/2003/07/09/intern...al/09INTE.html

Also in Saturday's times the diplomat Joseph Wilson explains that in
February of last year he was asked by Cheney's office via the CIA to
travel to Niger and confirm these reports. He concluded they were
false and reported his findings in March.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/06/op...l?pagewanted=1

According to this AP story issued today, Cheney denies having sent
Wilson.

http://nytimes.com/aponline/national...h-Iraq.html?hp

Also I wanted to ask why you have not admitted that your statements
that the Intelligence Committees aren't asking these questions are no
longer true, if they were at the time you made them, and why you are
not taking the questions seriously now that they are being asked, as
you said you would. It seems to me you are changing your position and
contradicting yourself.

"Bush Claim on Iraq Had Flawed Origin, White House Says
By DAVID E. SANGER

WASHINGTON, July 7 - The White House acknowledged for the first
time
today that President Bush was relying on incomplete and perhaps
inaccurate information from American intelligence agencies when he
declared, in his State of the Union speech, that Saddam Hussein
had
tried to purchase uranium from Africa."



http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/08/in...08PREX.html?hp

Heard it on the news. I'll wait awhile before making a decision on
how to
interpret this news. Presently it really makes no difference to me
since
there were and are likely to be other WMD's to be found and more
than enough
reason to kick Saddam's ass.

That is a "justification" not a reason for the war. Justifications
can come either before or after the event; reasons have to come
before, and I've never heard one that makes any sense.

We have not found the WMD, nor have we found Saddam. That doesn't
mean that neither exist. In fact, it may be the case that Saddam AND
the WMD are in the same place. That would be the worst possible
outcome of our little war: a person with nothing left to lose, no
doubt desperately in need of money and in possession of something
that's worth a lot of it to a bunch of people who also feel they have
little to lose by using it against the US. Think about it.

The US has made some serious enemies since 9/11. If--or probably
when--we are next attacked, I'm guessing that a lot of countries that
were with us immediately after 9/11 will have an attitude best
described as schadenfreude. What a shame!

Norm Strong

"Jacob Kramer" wrote in message
om...
"mikemckelvy" wrote in message
...

Heard it on the news. I'll wait awhile before making a decision on how
to
interpret this news. Presently it really makes no difference to me
since
there were and are likely to be other WMD's to be found and more than
enough
reason to kick Saddam's ass.

Again this is a non-sequiter. The issue is whether Bush deliberately
misrepresented the classified data. He has now admitted that what he
said was false, and that he shouldn't have said it. He has yet to
acknowledge that he knew it was false.

Is it possible he said it not knowing it was false?

This story today suggests that the IAEA asked the administration to
provide evidence of its accusations regarding Niger in December, but
it wasn't until February, a week after the State of the Union Address,
that Bush complied. When the State Department handed over the
documents the department said that they had doubts about them, and the
IAEA quickly concluded that they were forgeries.

Being President is a busy job.

http://nytimes.com/2003/07/09/intern...al/09INTE.html

Also in Saturday's times the diplomat Joseph Wilson explains that in
February of last year he was asked by Cheney's office via the CIA to
travel to Niger and confirm these reports. He concluded they were
false and reported his findings in March.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/06/op...l?pagewanted=1

According to this AP story issued today, Cheney denies having sent
Wilson.

I would tend to believe Cheney.

http://nytimes.com/aponline/national...h-Iraq.html?hp

Also I wanted to ask why you have not admitted that your statements
that the Intelligence Committees aren't asking these questions are no
longer true, if they were at the time you made them, and why you are
not taking the questions seriously now that they are being asked, as
you said you would. It seems to me you are changing your position and
contradicting yourself.

I haven't heard anyone asking them. The bit you posted the other day was
not such a question.
Asking a question means you don't have an answer, IOW you don't know.

Why are you so determined to have Bush being guilty of misrepresenting
something?

It's prety simple, actually.

(rant mode on - flak vest donned)

Bush wanted revenge for Sadam's attempt to kill his daddy, pure
and simple. He wanted a reason manufactured that he could use
against Iraq.

Oh - if you listen to the last couple of days' news, there
is disturbing news about 9/11. The lists of terrorists supposedly
on those flights? More than 3/4 were not on them. Several have
been found alive. Something is fishy. The lists our government
spat out over the TV and newspapers appear to be manufactured.

The real identies and countr(ies) of origin are likely our
allies and/or not our list of nations we'd like to occupy and
take over.

The biggest thing was the intelligence community's(CIA/FBI/etc)
knowledge of a credible threat of some sort of attack. Not
"I think there might be some atempt", but " They are moving on
something big NOW".

Two weeks later, when something is up, despite over 90 previous
scramblings of fighter jets in the U.S. for aircraft out of their
flight path, not ONE fighter was launched - despite there being
orders to do so in just such a case. Nada. For 90 minutes.

I fly 3 miles into the local military testing zone and I'd get
two escorts and a room with interigators for my mistake. If
I'm lucky and they don't decide to turn it into a video game
with live ammunition.

Also, there are now reports of several large transactions on
the NY stock market right before the attacks. Several orginizations
knew something was up the days right before - and are currently being
investigated.

And it goes on and on...

The current view that this evidence supports is that we did what we
did in Pearl Harbor - we didn't make it/let it happen so much as we
purposely left ourselves completely open to any attack - knowing
that if something did happen, we would have all the reason we
needed to engage on this militaristic course of action in the
Middle East.

It worked really well in in WWII as well - leave everything
open and exposed and a prime target and wait. Claim we were
ambushed when we had the ability to counter/stop it if we
had really applied ourselves. Technically, we were ambushed
and attacked, but we were also aware of the threat and didn't
warn anyone, which makes our government partially at fault.

Bush needed a reason. Leave ourselves exposed and wait for
one to invent itself. Note that this all happened a few weeks
after he started naming Sadam as our biggest threat.

I personally think they knew and figured the targets were
the White House(convinently both the President and Vice President
were oddly missing from that location that day) and the Pentagon.
Both are very visible and low-casualty targets, relatively speaking.
Perfect for getting the nation's ire up. No civilian targets,
either. All government and military. A few hundred killed, max.

I think they were caught by surprize at the towers and would have
not let it happen if they'd realized that the terroriest were going
for non-government targets.

Oops. It looks like they left themselves a bit too open.

Sadam suddenly a huge threat. Terrorists start organizing.
(possibly at our prompting - I'd not be surprized)
9/11 comes along - and they decide to go after other targets
than we expected(or told them to). Oops.

All in the course of two months. I don't think this is a
coincidence. I can fully imagine a few cells of CIA trained people
who we thought would attack "approved" targets planning this - and
then, surprize! - deciding to not do what their masters expected
and go after REAL terrorist targets.


....

OTOH, reguardless of what led up to it or the cost in humand lives,
Bush got his excuse, money, go-ahead to invade two countries(so far
- Iran looks to be next), AND the two "Patriot" Acts, the real prize.
The Patriot Act II is a facist control freak's wet-dream. It might
as well turn us into the U.K. if it and that survielance proposal passes.

Oh - one last tidbit -
We were duped. There are no weapons. I heard a talk by the
head inspector we had over there at the time - and he said that
VX has a shelf-life of maybe a week or two. Anthrax? Three years.
Anything they had hidden when we stopped "looking" - mostly because
they were ****ed that we were using the inspections to paint bombing
targets - it has long since been rendered inactive or worthless as
a weapon. I suppose if you dug up the remnants and ATE them, you'd
get sick and die, but as a weapon? No threat at all. Viabliity
as a weapon and viability at point-blank range(digging around in it)
are two very different things.

No threat. No weapons. No reason other than Bush wanting revenge.

Meanwhile - they are doctoring the figures of casualties to only
count deaths. They are not telling us of the thousands of injured
U.S. soldiers. On average, there are over a dozen attacks in
Bhagdad alone every day on U.S. forces. The media doesn't want
this to be big news, so it gets buried back in the papers.

They hate us because we are occupying their country and not
allowing them to choose what to do - plus telling them that
our version of "democracy"(coming from your recent invaders,
no less!) is their only option. At the point of a gun.

Currently the Iraqi people want a return to the old religous
laws and government for before Sadam. Simmilar to Jordan
and many other peaceful middle-eastern countries. Of course,
BUSH/etc see this as the same as rabid fundamentalists storming
the U.S. positions wielding AK-47s and RPGs. The concept of
a peaceful Islamic state is foriegn to them.
(the reality is that a truly religous and peaceful Islamic
state is very close to their views of a "Christian" nation)

Sigh.

We want one thing, and they all want another. Personally, I thought
the *stated* goal was to free them. Freedom implies choice and
free-will, which we are not letting them have.

It's going to get bad. Very bad. Very soon.

On Fri, 4 Jul 2003, George M. Middius wrote:

[...]

Vocab words for your next lesson in simulating a regular person:

-- anonymous
-- remailer

The blind leading the blind. Public remailers are probably the most tightly run servers
on Earth. No, I doubt very much you can forge using a public remailer these days. OTOH,
remailers are routinely forged for reasons all too well known. (Which of my 2 previous
posts was forged? Hard to tell, eh? Yet, it is a botched loading by forgery standards.)
I know for sure you cannot detect a forgery, Votre Middiotie. In the strictest sense of
the word. Oui, je sais, l'auto-flatterie ne me va pas bien mais la dérision vous va
encore moins bien.

[...]

--
Anon E. Mouse

[Playing] "Subterraneans" - David Bowie

"Jacob Kramer" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 9 Jul 2003 17:37:46 -0700, "mikemckelvy"
wrote:

Also I wanted to ask why you have not admitted that your statements
that the Intelligence Committees aren't asking these questions are no
longer true, if they were at the time you made them, and why you are
not taking the questions seriously now that they are being asked, as
you said you would. It seems to me you are changing your position and
contradicting yourself.

I haven't heard anyone asking them. The bit you posted the other day was
not such a question.
Asking a question means you don't have an answer, IOW you don't know.

You are splitting hairs. At times you said "making these claims."

As far as I can remember I only said "making these claims."

Why are you so determined to have Bush being guilty of misrepresenting
something?

This is a loaded question. Why are you so determined to defend the
what the administration has said, even when there isn't a shred of
tangible evidence to date of its veracity?

Because there isn't a shred of evidence to the contrary. When there is I'll
say something.

Why are you so determined
to view things as a partisan scoresheet?

I'm not, the dems are. I don't really care who does a good or bad thing,
but I won't misrepresent one or the other simply because it comes from a
source I may not always agree with. Keep in mind I'm not a Republican so I
don't side with them ever on the basis of partisanship.

I do have a special loathing for most Democrat pols, since they have only
one abiding policy, take money form people who earned it and give it to
people who didn't. No matter what a GOP member does it's always wrong as
far as they are concerned. Then there's the outright lies. Even a cursory
examination of the truth vs what the left says would convince a reasonable
person the dems are full of ****.

Why are you so reluctant to
admit it when you are wrong?

Because it happens so infrequently, especially when regarding Democrat
politicians. If we discuss things here and I'm cleraly wrong, (as in the
case of the filibuster) it's obvious and no real point other than stroking
your ego is served by it.

I still maintain that not finding any WMD's after such a short time is proof
of nothing other than they haven't foun them. The entire world knew he had
them at one time, since he used them. It's incomprehensible that Saddam
would allow himself to be toppled when all he had to do was prove they were
gone.

We already have part of a weapons program buried in a garden which we might
not have found for who knows how long if someone hadn't led us to them.

WMD's were only mentioned ONCE by Bush as a reason for going after Saddam,
so it's hardly the be all end all of reasons.

After Gulf war one nothing was found found until a defector listed there
sites.

Having had total control and lots of time to hide this stuff, it's likely to
be a long time before their found, unless someone esle helps locate them.

If I know these things, kit's certain the leftist pols know them too. The
only conclusion can be they are trying yet another tactic to try and
discredit GW. It's not working and seems to be only embarrassing them.


Jacob Kramer

"Joseph Oberlander" wrote in message
...
It's prety simple, actually.

(rant mode on - flak vest donned)

Bush wanted revenge for Sadam's attempt to kill his daddy, pure
and simple. He wanted a reason manufactured that he could use
against Iraq.

A blank assertion.

Oh - if you listen to the last couple of days' news, there
is disturbing news about 9/11. The lists of terrorists supposedly
on those flights? More than 3/4 were not on them. Several have
been found alive. Something is fishy. The lists our government
spat out over the TV and newspapers appear to be manufactured.

The real identies and countr(ies) of origin are likely our
allies and/or not our list of nations we'd like to occupy and
take over.

The biggest thing was the intelligence community's(CIA/FBI/etc)
knowledge of a credible threat of some sort of attack. Not
"I think there might be some atempt", but " They are moving on
something big NOW".

Two weeks later, when something is up, despite over 90 previous
scramblings of fighter jets in the U.S. for aircraft out of their
flight path, not ONE fighter was launched - despite there being
orders to do so in just such a case. Nada. For 90 minutes.

I fly 3 miles into the local military testing zone and I'd get
two escorts and a room with interigators for my mistake. If
I'm lucky and they don't decide to turn it into a video game
with live ammunition.

Also, there are now reports of several large transactions on
the NY stock market right before the attacks. Several orginizations
knew something was up the days right before - and are currently being
investigated.

And it goes on and on...

The current view that this evidence supports is that we did what we
did in Pearl Harbor - we didn't make it/let it happen so much as we
purposely left ourselves completely open to any attack - knowing
that if something did happen, we would have all the reason we
needed to engage on this militaristic course of action in the
Middle East.

It worked really well in in WWII as well - leave everything
open and exposed and a prime target and wait. Claim we were
ambushed when we had the ability to counter/stop it if we
had really applied ourselves. Technically, we were ambushed
and attacked, but we were also aware of the threat and didn't
warn anyone, which makes our government partially at fault.

Bush needed a reason. Leave ourselves exposed and wait for
one to invent itself. Note that this all happened a few weeks
after he started naming Sadam as our biggest threat.

I personally think they knew and figured the targets were
the White House(convinently both the President and Vice President
were oddly missing from that location that day) and the Pentagon.
Both are very visible and low-casualty targets, relatively speaking.
Perfect for getting the nation's ire up. No civilian targets,
either. All government and military. A few hundred killed, max.

I think they were caught by surprize at the towers and would have
not let it happen if they'd realized that the terroriest were going
for non-government targets.

Oops. It looks like they left themselves a bit too open.

Sadam suddenly a huge threat. Terrorists start organizing.
(possibly at our prompting - I'd not be surprized)
9/11 comes along - and they decide to go after other targets
than we expected(or told them to). Oops.

All in the course of two months. I don't think this is a
coincidence. I can fully imagine a few cells of CIA trained people
who we thought would attack "approved" targets planning this - and
then, surprize! - deciding to not do what their masters expected
and go after REAL terrorist targets.


...

OTOH, reguardless of what led up to it or the cost in humand lives,
Bush got his excuse, money, go-ahead to invade two countries(so far
- Iran looks to be next), AND the two "Patriot" Acts, the real prize.
The Patriot Act II is a facist control freak's wet-dream. It might
as well turn us into the U.K. if it and that survielance proposal passes.

Oh - one last tidbit -
We were duped. There are no weapons. I heard a talk by the
head inspector we had over there at the time - and he said that
VX has a shelf-life of maybe a week or two. Anthrax? Three years.
Anything they had hidden when we stopped "looking" - mostly because
they were ****ed that we were using the inspections to paint bombing
targets - it has long since been rendered inactive or worthless as
a weapon. I suppose if you dug up the remnants and ATE them, you'd
get sick and die, but as a weapon? No threat at all. Viabliity
as a weapon and viability at point-blank range(digging around in it)
are two very different things.

No threat. No weapons. No reason other than Bush wanting revenge.

Meanwhile - they are doctoring the figures of casualties to only
count deaths. They are not telling us of the thousands of injured
U.S. soldiers. On average, there are over a dozen attacks in
Bhagdad alone every day on U.S. forces. The media doesn't want
this to be big news, so it gets buried back in the papers.

They hate us because we are occupying their country and not
allowing them to choose what to do - plus telling them that
our version of "democracy"(coming from your recent invaders,
no less!) is their only option. At the point of a gun.

Currently the Iraqi people want a return to the old religous
laws and government for before Sadam. Simmilar to Jordan
and many other peaceful middle-eastern countries. Of course,
BUSH/etc see this as the same as rabid fundamentalists storming
the U.S. positions wielding AK-47s and RPGs. The concept of
a peaceful Islamic state is foriegn to them.
(the reality is that a truly religous and peaceful Islamic
state is very close to their views of a "Christian" nation)

Sigh.

We want one thing, and they all want another. Personally, I thought
the *stated* goal was to free them. Freedom implies choice and
free-will, which we are not letting them have.

It's going to get bad. Very bad. Very soon.

I listen to a lot of news and have heard nothing of this.

please supply a web site I can use to verify this.

Checked Reuters, Drudge, Fox News, and the NY Times nothing on any of the
crap below.


"Joseph Oberlander" wrote in message
...
It's prety simple, actually.

(rant mode on - flak vest donned)

Bush wanted revenge for Sadam's attempt to kill his daddy, pure
and simple. He wanted a reason manufactured that he could use
against Iraq.

Oh - if you listen to the last couple of days' news, there
is disturbing news about 9/11. The lists of terrorists supposedly
on those flights? More than 3/4 were not on them. Several have
been found alive. Something is fishy. The lists our government
spat out over the TV and newspapers appear to be manufactured.

The real identies and countr(ies) of origin are likely our
allies and/or not our list of nations we'd like to occupy and
take over.

The biggest thing was the intelligence community's(CIA/FBI/etc)
knowledge of a credible threat of some sort of attack. Not
"I think there might be some atempt", but " They are moving on
something big NOW".

Two weeks later, when something is up, despite over 90 previous
scramblings of fighter jets in the U.S. for aircraft out of their
flight path, not ONE fighter was launched - despite there being
orders to do so in just such a case. Nada. For 90 minutes.

I fly 3 miles into the local military testing zone and I'd get
two escorts and a room with interigators for my mistake. If
I'm lucky and they don't decide to turn it into a video game
with live ammunition.

Also, there are now reports of several large transactions on
the NY stock market right before the attacks. Several orginizations
knew something was up the days right before - and are currently being
investigated.

And it goes on and on...

The current view that this evidence supports is that we did what we
did in Pearl Harbor - we didn't make it/let it happen so much as we
purposely left ourselves completely open to any attack - knowing
that if something did happen, we would have all the reason we
needed to engage on this militaristic course of action in the
Middle East.

It worked really well in in WWII as well - leave everything
open and exposed and a prime target and wait. Claim we were
ambushed when we had the ability to counter/stop it if we
had really applied ourselves. Technically, we were ambushed
and attacked, but we were also aware of the threat and didn't
warn anyone, which makes our government partially at fault.

Bush needed a reason. Leave ourselves exposed and wait for
one to invent itself. Note that this all happened a few weeks
after he started naming Sadam as our biggest threat.

I personally think they knew and figured the targets were
the White House(convinently both the President and Vice President
were oddly missing from that location that day) and the Pentagon.
Both are very visible and low-casualty targets, relatively speaking.
Perfect for getting the nation's ire up. No civilian targets,
either. All government and military. A few hundred killed, max.

I think they were caught by surprize at the towers and would have
not let it happen if they'd realized that the terroriest were going
for non-government targets.

Oops. It looks like they left themselves a bit too open.

Sadam suddenly a huge threat. Terrorists start organizing.
(possibly at our prompting - I'd not be surprized)
9/11 comes along - and they decide to go after other targets
than we expected(or told them to). Oops.

All in the course of two months. I don't think this is a
coincidence. I can fully imagine a few cells of CIA trained people
who we thought would attack "approved" targets planning this - and
then, surprize! - deciding to not do what their masters expected
and go after REAL terrorist targets.


...

OTOH, reguardless of what led up to it or the cost in humand lives,
Bush got his excuse, money, go-ahead to invade two countries(so far
- Iran looks to be next), AND the two "Patriot" Acts, the real prize.
The Patriot Act II is a facist control freak's wet-dream. It might
as well turn us into the U.K. if it and that survielance proposal passes.

Oh - one last tidbit -
We were duped. There are no weapons. I heard a talk by the
head inspector we had over there at the time - and he said that
VX has a shelf-life of maybe a week or two. Anthrax? Three years.
Anything they had hidden when we stopped "looking" - mostly because
they were ****ed that we were using the inspections to paint bombing
targets - it has long since been rendered inactive or worthless as
a weapon. I suppose if you dug up the remnants and ATE them, you'd
get sick and die, but as a weapon? No threat at all. Viabliity
as a weapon and viability at point-blank range(digging around in it)
are two very different things.

No threat. No weapons. No reason other than Bush wanting revenge.

Meanwhile - they are doctoring the figures of casualties to only
count deaths. They are not telling us of the thousands of injured
U.S. soldiers. On average, there are over a dozen attacks in
Bhagdad alone every day on U.S. forces. The media doesn't want
this to be big news, so it gets buried back in the papers.

They hate us because we are occupying their country and not
allowing them to choose what to do - plus telling them that
our version of "democracy"(coming from your recent invaders,
no less!) is their only option. At the point of a gun.

Currently the Iraqi people want a return to the old religous
laws and government for before Sadam. Simmilar to Jordan
and many other peaceful middle-eastern countries. Of course,
BUSH/etc see this as the same as rabid fundamentalists storming
the U.S. positions wielding AK-47s and RPGs. The concept of
a peaceful Islamic state is foriegn to them.
(the reality is that a truly religous and peaceful Islamic
state is very close to their views of a "Christian" nation)

Sigh.

We want one thing, and they all want another. Personally, I thought
the *stated* goal was to free them. Freedom implies choice and
free-will, which we are not letting them have.

It's going to get bad. Very bad. Very soon.

On Thu, 10 Jul 2003 20:04:39 -0700, "mikemckelvy"
wrote:

WMD's were only mentioned ONCE by Bush as a reason for going after Saddam,
so it's hardly the be all end all of reasons.

Even *you* can't believe this logic. It was mentioned countless times
by The Department of Defense, The State Departement and the White
House. The State Department did a dog-and-pony show in front of the
UN, which indicated examples that were quite a stretch from the dire
label of Weapons of Mass Destruction. One of their items was totally
ridiculous and that was the fact that the Iraqi Army had chemical
suits, gas masks and atropine injectors, items that are pretty much
standard TO&E in any modern army expecting to to battle with countries
that have chemical capabilities (like the US). I know that the US
issues such gear to combat arms units and trains them in their use,
even though they might not be in imminent danger of war. Why is this
suddenly proof that the Iraqis are willing to use such weapons? Using
that logic, the US would ALSO be willing to use chemical weapons.

It was very shaky justification and it appears that the intelligence
was tailored to fit expectations.

BTW, I think that you're wrong about President Bush only mentioning
WMD only once. I seem to remember him mentioning it countless times.
He mentioned Iraq and WMD in the State of the Union Address. He
mentioned them over 10 times in that speech. I'm absolutely sure that
he's mentioned WMD in general in press conferences *and* speeches like
the one he gave in the aircraft hangar of some Air Force unit back at
the beginning of the war.

Here's an example of a speech where he used the example of WMD as
justification for action:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...010501-10.html

Therefore, your original premise was wrong, and I don't have to seek
out any more examples.

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 10 Jul 2003 20:04:39 -0700, "mikemckelvy"
wrote:

WMD's were only mentioned ONCE by Bush as a reason for going after
Saddam,
so it's hardly the be all end all of reasons.

Even *you* can't believe this logic. It was mentioned countless times
by The Department of Defense, The State Departement and the White
House. The State Department did a dog-and-pony show in front of the
UN, which indicated examples that were quite a stretch from the dire
label of Weapons of Mass Destruction. One of their items was totally
ridiculous and that was the fact that the Iraqi Army had chemical
suits, gas masks and atropine injectors, items that are pretty much
standard TO&E in any modern army expecting to to battle with countries
that have chemical capabilities (like the US). I know that the US
issues such gear to combat arms units and trains them in their use,
even though they might not be in imminent danger of war. Why is this
suddenly proof that the Iraqis are willing to use such weapons? Using
that logic, the US would ALSO be willing to use chemical weapons.

It was very shaky justification and it appears that the intelligence
was tailored to fit expectations.

BTW, I think that you're wrong about President Bush only mentioning
WMD only once. I seem to remember him mentioning it countless times.
He mentioned Iraq and WMD in the State of the Union Address. He
mentioned them over 10 times in that speech. I'm absolutely sure that
he's mentioned WMD in general in press conferences *and* speeches like
the one he gave in the aircraft hangar of some Air Force unit back at
the beginning of the war.

Here's an example of a speech where he used the example of WMD as
justification for action:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...010501-10.html

Therefore, your original premise was wrong, and I don't have to seek
out any more examples.


What I cannot fathom is that Brit dossier. They insisted, and were later
exonerated f any wrongdoing, in their document that Saddam can deploy his
WMDs (assuming they exist, of course) in 45 minutes. Then if we know that
they are in the Tikrit and Baghdad area (as Don Rumsfeld has explicitly
stated a number of times), shouldn't it be an equally easy task to find
them?

I am a foreigner and consequently I make it a point to read and see more
than just Fox News, et al. One argument that conservatives always resort is
that because Iraq is the size of California, a WMD hunt is not as easy as it
sounds. But one fact that is rarely reported in the American media is that
that is simply not true. Slightly less than two-thirds of the country was
under a UN-mandated no-fly zone that was patrolled by American and British
squadrons. Therefore, the treasure hunt area is actually about a third of
California's size.

Schizoid Man said:

Slightly less than two-thirds of the country was
under a UN-mandated no-fly zone that was patrolled by American and British
squadrons. Therefore, the treasure hunt area is actually about a third of
California's size.

Although it's difficult not to laugh at your every word after your
earlier bout of Kroopologism, I really would like to see you explain
this nonsense. What you've said is that since Iraq was not permitted
to fly aircraft in the two zones since the first Gulf War, you
therefore conclude it's impossible they put any WMD there.

Is it just a coincidence that individuals who make such brainless
claims -- similar to Robot's earlier claim that a wisp of a hint of an
email header established the identities of two posters -- also have
ongoing and intractable flirtations with Kroopologism?

"George M. Middius" wrote in message
...


Schizoid Man said:

Slightly less than two-thirds of the country was
under a UN-mandated no-fly zone that was patrolled by American and
British
squadrons. Therefore, the treasure hunt area is actually about a third
of
California's size.

Although it's difficult not to laugh at your every word after your
earlier bout of Kroopologism, I really would like to see you explain
this nonsense. What you've said is that since Iraq was not permitted
to fly aircraft in the two zones since the first Gulf War, you
therefore conclude it's impossible they put any WMD there.

Is it just a coincidence that individuals who make such brainless
claims -- similar to Robot's earlier claim that a wisp of a hint of an
email header established the identities of two posters -- also have
ongoing and intractable flirtations with Kroopologism?


Actually I was quoting a BBC report. That being said, I have no doubt that
the United States did the right thing.

What is 'Kroopologism' and what does it have to do with this thread?

Schizo said:

Is it just a coincidence that individuals who make such brainless
claims -- similar to Robot's earlier claim that a wisp of a hint of an
email header established the identities of two posters -- also have
ongoing and intractable flirtations with Kroopologism?

What is 'Kroopologism' and what does it have to do with this thread?

I should think the meaning is patently obvious. And I stated its
relevance *explicitly* at the beginning of my previous post.

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 10 Jul 2003 20:04:39 -0700, "mikemckelvy"
wrote:

WMD's were only mentioned ONCE by Bush as a reason for going after
Saddam,
so it's hardly the be all end all of reasons.

Even *you* can't believe this logic.

It is as I stated.

It was mentioned countless times
by The Department of Defense, The State Departement and the White
House. The State Department did a dog-and-pony show in front of the
UN, which indicated examples that were quite a stretch from the dire
label of Weapons of Mass Destruction.

Then why the questions about their existence?

One of their items was totally
ridiculous and that was the fact that the Iraqi Army had chemical
suits, gas masks and atropine injectors, items that are pretty much
standard TO&E in any modern army expecting to to battle with countries
that have chemical capabilities (like the US).

Now who's stretching logic? IIRC these were found after the war started.

I know that the US
issues such gear to combat arms units and trains them in their use,
even though they might not be in imminent danger of war.

They take up about one days worth of basic training, or did when I went
through.

Why is this
suddenly proof that the Iraqis are willing to use such weapons?

The proof was that they used them on their own people.

Using
that logic, the US would ALSO be willing to use chemical weapons.

It was very shaky justification and it appears that the intelligence
was tailored to fit expectations.

The reasons were 9/11 and the fact that he had not complied with UN
resolutions and that he was a butcher.

BTW, I think that you're wrong about President Bush only mentioning
WMD only once. I seem to remember him mentioning it countless times.
He mentioned Iraq and WMD in the State of the Union Address. He
mentioned them over 10 times in that speech. I'm absolutely sure that
he's mentioned WMD in general in press conferences *and* speeches like
the one he gave in the aircraft hangar of some Air Force unit back at
the beginning of the war.

Here's an example of a speech where he used the example of WMD as
justification for action:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...010501-10.html

Therefore, your original premise was wrong, and I don't have to seek
out any more examples.

Just skimmed through the above and found no reference to WMD's as a
justification for war with IRAQ.

I'll search for the SOU address and find out if you are correct.

"Jacob Kramer" wrote in message
om...
"mikemckelvy" wrote in message
...

WMD's were only mentioned ONCE by Bush as a reason for going after
Saddam,
so it's hardly the be all end all of reasons.

That's not true at all:

"Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof --
the smoking gun -- that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud,"
Bush said in an October speech in Cincinnati, Ohio."

This is one example of a speech he gave other than the State of the
Union Address. It's not the only one.

I see no mention of Iraq. He was speaking of the war on terrorism here.

"mikemckelvy" wrote in message ...
"Jacob Kramer" wrote in message
om...
"mikemckelvy" wrote in message
...

WMD's were only mentioned ONCE by Bush as a reason for going after
Saddam,
so it's hardly the be all end all of reasons.

That's not true at all:

"Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof --
the smoking gun -- that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud,"
Bush said in an October speech in Cincinnati, Ohio."

This is one example of a speech he gave other than the State of the
Union Address. It's not the only one.

I see no mention of Iraq. He was speaking of the war on terrorism here.

No he wasn't. It was a speech on Iraq. The full text is he
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/...in524627.shtml

How about admitting you're wrong for once? This is a real whopper.

On Fri, 11 Jul 2003 14:20:36 -0700, "mikemckelvy"
wrote:


"dave weil" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 10 Jul 2003 20:04:39 -0700, "mikemckelvy"
wrote:

WMD's were only mentioned ONCE by Bush as a reason for going after
Saddam,
so it's hardly the be all end all of reasons.

Even *you* can't believe this logic.

It is as I stated.

It was mentioned countless times
by The Department of Defense, The State Departement and the White
House. The State Department did a dog-and-pony show in front of the
UN, which indicated examples that were quite a stretch from the dire
label of Weapons of Mass Destruction.

Then why the questions about their existence?

Because it appears that we either a. were wrong with our intelligence,
or b. we deliberately misused our intelligence by exaggerating the
threat.

One of their items was totally
ridiculous and that was the fact that the Iraqi Army had chemical
suits, gas masks and atropine injectors, items that are pretty much
standard TO&E in any modern army expecting to to battle with countries
that have chemical capabilities (like the US).

Now who's stretching logic? IIRC these were found after the war started.

Of course they were. They were part of the units TO&E, just like in
the US.

I know that the US
issues such gear to combat arms units and trains them in their use,
even though they might not be in imminent danger of war.

They take up about one days worth of basic training, or did when I went
through.

It was a continual training program for those of us who were in combat
arms. We did constant "recertification" in the proper use of this
gear. We had to requalify at least once a year. Additionally, this
gear was part of our standard issue, with injectors issued as needed
in the field (i.e., we only were given dummy injectors while training,
but had we been in imminent combat situations, we would have been
issued personal supplies of atropine, etc. The units certainly had it
stockpiled. We had our own personal chemical suits and booties and we
issued masks from our armory (as it was a controlled item, just like a
rifle).

Still, as i said, the mere presence of this gear simply indicates that
this was a force just like any other. All of the modern armies have
such gear.

Why is this
suddenly proof that the Iraqis are willing to use such weapons?

The proof was that they used them on their own people.

That is a separate issue than using the mere presence of chemical gear
as justification of a chemical program.

Using
that logic, the US would ALSO be willing to use chemical weapons.

It was very shaky justification and it appears that the intelligence
was tailored to fit expectations.

The reasons were 9/11 and the fact that he had not complied with UN
resolutions and that he was a butcher.

I'm talking about specific justifications, not general ones. Actually,
the main reason was simply a mopup from the elder Bush's war and 9-11
gave us the opening.

BTW, I think that you're wrong about President Bush only mentioning
WMD only once. I seem to remember him mentioning it countless times.
He mentioned Iraq and WMD in the State of the Union Address. He
mentioned them over 10 times in that speech. I'm absolutely sure that
he's mentioned WMD in general in press conferences *and* speeches like
the one he gave in the aircraft hangar of some Air Force unit back at
the beginning of the war.

Here's an example of a speech where he used the example of WMD as
justification for action:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...010501-10.html

Therefore, your original premise was wrong, and I don't have to seek
out any more examples.

Just skimmed through the above and found no reference to WMD's as a
justification for war with IRAQ.

Sure there was:

Yet, this is still a dangerous world, a less certain, a less
predictable one. More nations have nuclear weapons and still more
have nuclear aspirations. Many have chemical and biological weapons.
Some already have developed the ballistic missile technology that
would allow them to deliver weapons of mass destruction at long
distances and at incredible speeds. And a number of these countries
are spreading these technologies around the world.

Most troubling of all, the list of these countries includes some
of the world's least-responsible states. Unlike the Cold War, today's
most urgent threat stems not from thousands of ballistic missiles in
the Soviet hands, but from a small number of missiles in the hands of
these states, states for whom terror and blackmail are a way of life.
They seek weapons of mass destruction to intimidate their neighbors,
and to keep the United States and other responsible nations from
helping allies and friends in strategic parts of the world.

When Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait in 1990, the world joined
forces to turn him back. But the international community would have
faced a very different situation had Hussein been able to blackmail
with nuclear weapons. Like Saddam Hussein, some of today's tyrants
are gripped by an implacable hatred of the United States of America.
They hate our friends, they hate our values, they hate democracy and
freedom and individual liberty. Many care little for the lives of
their own people. In such a world, Cold War deterrence is no longer
enough.

No, he didn't say the words, "We are using WMD as justification for
invading Iraq". The above language says the same thing though. The
linkage is clear.

I'll search for the SOU address and find out if you are correct.

I'm sure that he's mentioned WMD and Iraq on many occasions.

On Fri, 11 Jul 2003 14:22:16 -0700, "mikemckelvy"
wrote:


"Jacob Kramer" wrote in message
. com...
"mikemckelvy" wrote in message
...

WMD's were only mentioned ONCE by Bush as a reason for going after
Saddam,
so it's hardly the be all end all of reasons.

That's not true at all:

"Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof --
the smoking gun -- that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud,"
Bush said in an October speech in Cincinnati, Ohio."

This is one example of a speech he gave other than the State of the
Union Address. It's not the only one.

I see no mention of Iraq. He was speaking of the war on terrorism here.

You need to read a little closer. Is this enough reference for you?

(from the State of the Union Address in 2003):

Twelve years ago, Saddam Hussein faced the prospect of being the last
casualty in a war he had started and lost. To spare himself, he agreed
to disarm of all weapons of mass destruction. For the next 12 years,
he systematically violated that agreement. He pursued chemical,
biological, and nuclear weapons, even while inspectors were in his
country. Nothing to date has restrained him from his pursuit of these
weapons -- not economic sanctions, not isolation from the civilized
world, not even cruise missile strikes on his military facilities.

Almost three months ago, the United Nations Security Council gave
Saddam Hussein his final chance to disarm. He has shown instead utter
contempt for the United Nations, and for the opinion of the world. The
108 U.N. inspectors were sent to conduct -- were not sent to conduct a
scavenger hunt for hidden materials across a country the size of
California. The job of the inspectors is to verify that Iraq's regime
is disarming. It is up to Iraq to show exactly where it is hiding its
banned weapons, lay those weapons out for the world to see, and
destroy them as directed. Nothing like this has happened.

The United Nations concluded in 1999 that Saddam Hussein had
biological weapons sufficient to produce over 25,000 liters of anthrax
-- enough doses to kill several million people. He hasn't accounted
for that material. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed it.

The United Nations concluded that Saddam Hussein had materials
sufficient to produce more than 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin --
enough to subject millions of people to death by respiratory failure.
He hadn't accounted for that material. He's given no evidence that he
has destroyed it.

Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the
materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX
nerve agent. In such quantities, these chemical agents could also kill
untold thousands. He's not accounted for these materials. He has given
no evidence that he has destroyed them.

U.S. intelligence indicates that Saddam Hussein had upwards of 30,000
munitions capable of delivering chemical agents. Inspectors recently
turned up 16 of them -- despite Iraq's recent declaration denying
their existence. Saddam Hussein has not accounted for the remaining
29,984 of these prohibited munitions. He's given no evidence that he
has destroyed them.

From three Iraqi defectors we know that Iraq, in the late 1990s, had
several mobile biological weapons labs. These are designed to produce
germ warfare agents, and can be moved from place to a place to evade
inspectors. Saddam Hussein has not disclosed these facilities. He's
given no evidence that he has destroyed them.

The International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed in the 1990s that
Saddam Hussein had an advanced nuclear weapons development program,
had a design for a nuclear weapon and was working on five different
methods of enriching uranium for a bomb. The British government has
learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of
uranium from Africa. Our intelligence sources tell us that he has
attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for
nuclear weapons production. Saddam Hussein has not credibly explained
these activities. He clearly has much to hide.

The dictator of Iraq is not disarming. To the contrary; he is
deceiving. From intelligence sources we know, for instance, that
thousands of Iraqi security personnel are at work hiding documents and
materials from the U.N. inspectors, sanitizing inspection sites and
monitoring the inspectors themselves. Iraqi officials accompany the
inspectors in order to intimidate witnesses.

Iraq is blocking U-2 surveillance flights requested by the United
Nations. Iraqi intelligence officers are posing as the scientists
inspectors are supposed to interview. Real scientists have been
coached by Iraqi officials on what to say. Intelligence sources
indicate that Saddam Hussein has ordered that scientists who cooperate
with U.N. inspectors in disarming Iraq will be killed, along with
their families.

Year after year, Saddam Hussein has gone to elaborate lengths, spent
enormous sums, taken great risks to build and keep weapons of mass
destruction. But why? The only possible explanation, the only possible
use he could have for those weapons, is to dominate, intimidate, or
attack.

With nuclear arms or a full arsenal of chemical and biological
weapons, Saddam Hussein could resume his ambitions of conquest in the
Middle East and create deadly havoc in that region. And this Congress
and the America people must recognize another threat. Evidence from
intelligence sources, secret communications, and statements by people
now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects
terrorists, including members of al Qaeda. Secretly, and without
fingerprints, he could provide one of his hidden weapons to
terrorists, or help them develop their own.

Before September the 11th, many in the world believed that Saddam
Hussein could be contained. But chemical agents, lethal viruses and
shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained. Imagine those 19
hijackers with other weapons and other plans -- this time armed by
Saddam Hussein. It would take one vial, one canister, one crate
slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have
ever known. We will do everything in our power to make sure that that
day never comes. (Applause.)

Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since
when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely
putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted
to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all
recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and
restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an
option. (Applause.)

The dictator who is assembling the world's most dangerous weapons has
already used them on whole villages -- leaving thousands of his own
citizens dead, blind, or disfigured. Iraqi refugees tell us how forced
confessions are obtained -- by torturing children while their parents
are made to watch. International human rights groups have catalogued
other methods used in the torture chambers of Iraq: electric shock,
burning with hot irons, dripping acid on the skin, mutilation with
electric drills, cutting out tongues, and rape. If this is not evil,
then evil has no meaning. (Applause.)

And tonight I have a message for the brave and oppressed people of
Iraq: Your enemy is not surrounding your country -- your enemy is
ruling your country. (Applause.) And the day he and his regime are
removed from power will be the day of your liberation. (Applause.)

The world has waited 12 years for Iraq to disarm. America will not
accept a serious and mounting threat to our country, and our friends
and our allies. The United States will ask the U.N. Security Council
to convene on February the 5th to consider the facts of Iraq's ongoing
defiance of the world. Secretary of State Powell will present
information and intelligence about Iraqi's legal -- Iraq's illegal
weapons programs, its attempt to hide those weapons from inspectors,
and its links to terrorist groups.

We will consult. But let there be no misunderstanding: If Saddam
Hussein does not fully disarm, for the safety of our people and for
the peace of the world, we will lead a coalition to disarm him.
(Applause.)

Tonight I have a message for the men and women who will keep the
peace, members of the American Armed Forces: Many of you are
assembling in or near the Middle East, and some crucial hours may lay
ahead. In those hours, the success of our cause will depend on you.
Your training has prepared you. Your honor will guide you. You believe
in America, and America believes in you. (Applause.)

Sending Americans into battle is the most profound decision a
President can make. The technologies of war have changed; the risks
and suffering of war have not. For the brave Americans who bear the
risk, no victory is free from sorrow. This nation fights reluctantly,
because we know the cost and we dread the days of mourning that always
come.

We seek peace. We strive for peace. And sometimes peace must be
defended. A future lived at the mercy of terrible threats is no peace
at all. If war is forced upon us, we will fight in a just cause and by
just means -- sparing, in every way we can, the innocent. And if war
is forced upon us, we will fight with the full force and might of the
United States military -- and we will prevail. (Applause.)

And as we and our coalition partners are doing in Afghanistan, we will
bring to the Iraqi people food and medicines and supplies -- and
freedom. (Applause.)



Many challenges, abroad and at home, have arrived in a single season.
In two years, America has gone from a sense of invulnerability to an
awareness of peril; from bitter division in small matters to calm
unity in great causes. And we go forward with confidence, because this
call of history has come to the right country.

Americans are a resolute people who have risen to every test of our
time. Adversity has revealed the character of our country, to the
world and to ourselves. America is a strong nation, and honorable in
the use of our strength. We exercise power without conquest, and we
sacrifice for the liberty of strangers.

Americans are a free people, who know that freedom is the right of
every person and the future of every nation. The liberty we prize is
not America's gift to the world, it is God's gift to humanity.

mikemckelvy wrote:
"Joseph Oberlander" wrote in message
...

It's prety simple, actually.

(rant mode on - flak vest donned)

Bush wanted revenge for Sadam's attempt to kill his daddy, pure
and simple. He wanted a reason manufactured that he could use
against Iraq.


A blank assertion.

No, actually, a pretty well known one. He is not a complex thinker
and works off of simple emotions like this.

Cheney, otoh, was the mastermind behind this whole affair - the
oil and the destabilization of the middle east.

Oh - if you listen to the last couple of days' news, there
is disturbing news about 9/11. The lists of terrorists supposedly
on those flights? More than 3/4 were not on them. Several have
been found alive. Something is fishy. The lists our government
spat out over the TV and newspapers appear to be manufactured.

NPR and several other news sources. Recently came out this week
that the lists are not what we have actual records for. The mess
in Iraq is finally making reporters start to analyze the data
for other lies and they are coming in fast.

The biggest thing was the intelligence community's(CIA/FBI/etc)
knowledge of a credible threat of some sort of attack. Not
"I think there might be some atempt", but " They are moving on
something big NOW".

Two weeks later, when something is up, despite over 90 previous
scramblings of fighter jets in the U.S. for aircraft out of their
flight path, not ONE fighter was launched - despite there being
orders to do so in just such a case. Nada. For 90 minutes.

Proven by several sources and a general following of the timeline
of what actually happened.

The CIA saying "They are planning a major attack in the immediate
future" being all but ignored.

Also, there are now reports of several large transactions on
the NY stock market right before the attacks. Several orginizations
knew something was up the days right before - and are currently being
investigated.

Verified. The SECC is investigating right now. Probably they were
foriegn companies or ones that had insider access to the CIA reports
about a possible imminent attack, so no real foul, since the data
was there - just we purposely left our selves open and vulnerable.

The current view that this evidence supports is that we did what we
did in Pearl Harbor - we didn't make it/let it happen so much as we
purposely left ourselves completely open to any attack - knowing
that if something did happen, we would have all the reason we
needed to engage on this militaristic course of action in the
Middle East.

It worked really well in in WWII as well - leave everything
open and exposed and a prime target and wait. Claim we were
ambushed when we had the ability to counter/stop it if we
had really applied ourselves. Technically, we were ambushed
and attacked, but we were also aware of the threat and didn't
warn anyone, which makes our government partially at fault.

This actually did happen. We didn't MAKE it or LET it happen
so much as knew it was likely and laid down on the job to be
able to play the role of the victim. Before Pearl Harbor,
anti-war movements were huge - almost half of the population
was solidly against entering any war or conflict. Our allies
were being bombed into the stone age and our leaders needed
an excuse to get involved, so they started shipping munitions
on passenger ships and baiting the Japanese and so forth.

They knew if they sat and made themselves a big enough target,
someone would take advantage of it.

Now, today, they did the same thing - the CIA *KNEW* that
Bin Laden was moving against us and someone decided to
not pass on that information AND not scramble jets, despite
standing orders to all but shoot down anything that flew
near the Pentagon or White House without permission.
The military didn't follow its own orders and rules for
90 minutes. Nothing. That never happened once in the
entire year leading up to this incident, but this time -
nothing.

I think they were caught by surprize at the towers and would have
not let it happen if they'd realized that the terroriest were going
for non-government targets.

I think they knew.
I can see the following happeningno proof, but it seems very
CIA-ish) Bear with me.

- the CIA tells people in Afganistan that they can win freedom
from the Taliban by doing a job for them. Hijack a plane or
two and threaten a few places a bit and get forced down.
Thrown in jail - yada yada - small price to pay for freedom.

Possibly they are told to target two places - the Pentagon -
(reinforced in the new sections) a military target, and one
thing near Manhattan. One target comes to mind - few people,
high U.S. symbolism. Most likely the Statue of Liberty.

Two planes and two U.S. symbolic targets destroyed and we
get all the angst we need to give the government and military
the go-ahead to steamroll over the entire Middle East. Oil,
Democracy, instability in enemy governments - all great stuff
and exactly what Cheney and the rest wanted back then.

I thought about it and wondered:
1: Why was nothing done? No planes? no anything?
2: Why was the plane way up north delayed so long?

The only thing I could come up with at all was:
There were two groups of planes. A main and a backup for each.
The original plan looks like it was one crashes and the other
is a backup and/or is forced down and the hijackers are taken
prisoner.

Apparently the upper two were to hit the Pentagon and
the lower two - something near Manhattan. The plane that
was forced down by the passengers - my guess is it would have
landed safely/typical hostage situation - but the passengers
forced the situation. We may never know. So far, it's pretty
logical.

Getting back to the scenario:
- The terrorists do exactly that and go on their mission, but
what our goverment doesn't know is that they don't plan to hit the
two "suggested"(or suspected) targets, but others.

Think about it - no response. The first two hit the Pentagon
like planned(and the backup we don't know about) Our government
deos NOTHING about the other three planes. It is as if they
knew what was going to happen - up to a point.

....

The other two were flying over Manhattan at low altitudes and
the Statue of Liberty was right in a line with their flight
path. My guess is that one said - screw this - if I'm going
to die, I'm going to kill some American slime/infadels and hit
the building instead. The second said - look! Cool idea! and
followed the first. Note how the first plane hit up high
and dropped at the last minute - as if they pilot was looking
for a juicy target beforehand. The second, OTOH, barreled right
in for the other tower and hit much lower down. He was clearly
impressed with the other terrorist's choice - how could he not be?

No time to react - everything went FUBAR. Our government
is ****ed and shocked as the damage goes from a few hundred
and collateral damage to a few thousand and half of Manhattan
in shambles.

In any case, even if they were not planning it, they knew the
potential targets and decided that we could accept such
casualties. We did in in WWII and Vietnam - made ourselves
vulnerable and in the right place to get attacked.

The terrorists saw a better target and made the decision
to up the damage. That's not surprizing.

Anyways - that's my theory. I don't trust our government
very much and this is exactly like the kind of stuff that
they have done in the past to start wars.

The other stuff - it is all verifiable. Given the mass of lies
and backpeddling and covering up that we are becoming aware of
in the last few weeks, I wouldn;t put anything past these cretins.

Now the CIA is stating that THEY made the mistake - covering for
Bush. As if. He knew the data was flawed and didn't change
his State of the Union Address.

The Government's story convinently changes every few weeks to
cover up the truth that they lied to everyone.

....

OTOH, reguardless of what led up to it or the cost in humand lives,
Bush got his excuse, money, go-ahead to invade two countries(so far
- Iran looks to be next), AND the two "Patriot" Acts, the real prize.
The Patriot Act II is a facist control freak's wet-dream. It might
as well turn us into the U.K. if it and that survielance proposal passes.

Our government was famous for doing this sort of thing during the
last 200 years, so why think they would not let us get a bloody nose
on purpose to make the rabid conservatives and warmongers and "new world
order" freaks' wet dreams come true?

Oh - one last tidbit -
We were duped. There are no weapons. I heard a talk by the
head inspector we had over there at the time - and he said that
VX has a shelf-life of maybe a week or two. Anthrax? Three years.
Anything they had hidden when we stopped "looking" - mostly because
they were ****ed that we were using the inspections to paint bombing
targets - it has long since been rendered inactive or worthless as
a weapon. I suppose if you dug up the remnants and ATE them, you'd
get sick and die, but as a weapon? No threat at all. Viabliity
as a weapon and viability at point-blank range(digging around in it)
are two very different things.

This comes from the U.N. inspectors themselves. I heard the interviews
on the radio myself, unedited. Now that Bush is suddenly no longer
untouchable, the media is all but falling over themselves digging up
reports and interviews and such that they were squashing in the last
few months while they were trying to wave a bigger flag than the next
station.

Meanwhile - they are doctoring the figures of casualties to only
count deaths. They are not telling us of the thousands of injured
U.S. soldiers. On average, there are over a dozen attacks in
Bhagdad alone every day on U.S. forces. The media doesn't want
this to be big news, so it gets buried back in the papers.

Absolutely true. Wounded are not told on the news. Only dead.

Our generals are stating that we are coming under attack at least a
dozen times a day in Bhagdad alone. This is easy to verify. They
gripe incessantly about the number of attack on our troops. They
only mention dead, though. It isn't hard to figure based upon
past urban conflicts, than the number of wounded is 2-4 ties that.

They hate us because we are occupying their country and not
allowing them to choose what to do - plus telling them that
our version of "democracy"(coming from your recent invaders,
no less!) is their only option. At the point of a gun.

There is a fundamental flaw in our view of the situation.

********
The Iraqis have NO CONCEPT of seperation of Mosque and State. Their
religion will never make it a reality. As long as they believe in
their religion, they will NEVER adopt a western style of democracy.

Period.
********

Currently the Iraqi people want a return to the old religous
laws and government for before Sadam. Simmilar to Jordan
and many other peaceful middle-eastern countries.

Their laws are reverting to the 1969 pre-Sadam ones as that's
all they have as a framework. They want a return to the old
religous courts.

You really need to listen to the reports and media coming
out of Iraq from independant journalists. They really just want
to find out what's happening and how the people are doing and
the results are amazing.

Huge frustration. Very prideful people with a history where
they remember their occupation 2000 *YEARS* ago as vividly as
we do our Civil War. We act like they are simpletons and they
have three thousand years of history to teach them that they
are getting the shaft again.

We want one thing, and they all want another. Personally, I thought
the *stated* goal was to free them. Freedom implies choice and
free-will, which we are not letting them have.

It's all over the non-U.S. media, NPR and other independant
sources.

This I heard on KPFK on Monday, July 1 at 4PM, PST. Scanning
stations, bored - ran across a segment from a reporter in Iraq.
He was trying to see how we were doing at bridging the gap and
trying to make the Iraqii people trust us. HE was honestly
trying to be pro-U.S. and point out how we were making progress.

He came out at the end shaking his head and wondering what
we were doing wrong. Just amazed at how we were dropping the
ball.

The interview with the U.S. soldiers in Iraq and the tribal
leaders was completely real - when you hear(live recording) the
leaders of 80% of the Iraqi population all screaming at the U.S.
representatives in an official U.S. government sponsored meeting
and being told to "trust us - two MORE months", then the leader
of the largest faction(5 million people!) saying afterwards to
the reporter that he LOVES Bush and democracy, but he's angry
and will only give it another month before siding with those who
want war to take their nation back and into their own hands -
that means something.

When you hear their leaders and citizens voicing such frustration
in official meetings and going on record saying such things, it
can't be ignored or discounted as a bunch of "rebels" or "terrorists".

The interview with the soldier - a 20-something woman guarding the
palace gate where people go to voice concerns and ask for help and
information - it was more enlightneing than anything else.

She was trying to do her best, but was being besieged by Iraqis
wanting aid, information, to file claims for lost property, and
on and on - in 120 degree heat. 300 people a day. She really
was trying her best, but was under strict orders to not let
ANYONE talk to the officials inside and tell them to either go
to other agencies for aid or if it was a case where the U.S.
forces caused damage and there was a legitimate claim - to
come back in two months. She wasn't lying or putting on a show
or anyting - it was just a reality of how bad things are over there
and how we are not getting involved with solving problems.

This was two weeks ago. Not much has changed since then. It
still is chaos for most of the country.

I have been trying to get a recording of it to post to my
website or something - it was the most enlightening thing I've
heard in a year. It was in your face undeniable proof that the
story we are being told and the choas on the ground are two
different realities. No bias. Real soldiers and U.S. government
leaders over there and their Iraqi counterparts going at it.

Things are BAD over there and we aren't getting the real story in
our mainstream media about how awful it really is.

I give it 6-8 weeks until civil war breaks out. Our media will
of course scream that we are being attacked by "Sadam Loyalists"
and "Terrorists" when the reality is that the people just want
us the hell out so that they can make their own democracy
of their own choosing.

Last I checked, that's what WE did 227 years ago. Our
Declaration of Independance states that WE decided to make
our own government and way of life outside of foriegn
influences - and that we are guaranteed the right to do
so as human beings.

And we find it surprizing that THEY want the same thing?
Watch in the next few months - our media will scream about
ambushes and rebels and terrorists and the rest.

We will have become the Red Coats. Funny how history repeats
itself.

Jacob Kramer wrote:
"mikemckelvy" wrote in message ...

"Jacob Kramer" wrote in message
.com...

"mikemckelvy" wrote in message

...

WMD's were only mentioned ONCE by Bush as a reason for going after

Saddam,

so it's hardly the be all end all of reasons.

That's not true at all:

"Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof --
the smoking gun -- that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud,"
Bush said in an October speech in Cincinnati, Ohio."

This is one example of a speech he gave other than the State of the
Union Address. It's not the only one.

I see no mention of Iraq. He was speaking of the war on terrorism here.


No he wasn't. It was a speech on Iraq. The full text is he
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/...in524627.shtml

How about admitting you're wrong for once? This is a real whopper.

Oh - no. WE can't actually believe that our beloved *President* and
Republican poster-child would possibly *LIE* to us...

Mike and his type(my parents are the same type - ack!) - would only
stop their hero worship if they saw him kill a baby on live T.V.

Q: At what point would you stop trusting our government and Bush?

If you can't come up with a definite answer - why are you unwilling
to set limits and question those in power? Blind faith in politicians
is silly in the extreme.

On Sat, 12 Jul 2003 01:27:14 -0500, dave weil
wrote:

You need to read a little closer. Is this enough reference for you?

(from the State of the Union Address in 2003):

Twelve years ago, Saddam Hussein faced the prospect of being the last
casualty in a war he had started and lost. To spare himself, he agreed
to disarm of all weapons of mass destruction. For the next 12 years,
he systematically violated that agreement. He pursued chemical,
biological, and nuclear weapons, even while inspectors were in his
country. Nothing to date has restrained him from his pursuit of these
weapons -- not economic sanctions, not isolation from the civilized
world, not even cruise missile strikes on his military facilities.

You know it's striking rereading this that the only positive evidence
he cites is the uranium from Africa and the aluminum tubes, both of
which have been discredited. The rest is negative
evidence--unaccounted for weapons.

It still gives me the chills when I see what he was calling for in the
other speech you cited, this global policy of preventive war and such
a radical break from the past. It's all based on this supposed
distinction between the Soviets and the new enemies. I'm sure Bush
has no idea what he's talking about in either case, which makes it all
the more disturbing. His talent lies in communicating it in a way
that is appealing to people.

It's funny now they're trying to pin the blame on the CIA for not
taking out the sentence. How about blaming the person who put it in?
What is the CIA his mommy?

--

Jacob Kramer

On Sat, 12 Jul 2003 01:27:14 -0500, dave weil
wrote:

On Fri, 11 Jul 2003 14:22:16 -0700, "mikemckelvy"
wrote:


"Jacob Kramer" wrote in message
.com...
"mikemckelvy" wrote in message
...

WMD's were only mentioned ONCE by Bush as a reason for going after
Saddam,
so it's hardly the be all end all of reasons.

That's not true at all:

"Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof --
the smoking gun -- that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud,"
Bush said in an October speech in Cincinnati, Ohio."

This is one example of a speech he gave other than the State of the
Union Address. It's not the only one.

I see no mention of Iraq. He was speaking of the war on terrorism here.

You need to read a little closer. Is this enough reference for you?

Ooops, sorry. Thought you were referring to the State of the Union
address.

My bad.

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 11 Jul 2003 14:20:36 -0700, "mikemckelvy"
wrote:


"dave weil" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 10 Jul 2003 20:04:39 -0700, "mikemckelvy"
wrote:

WMD's were only mentioned ONCE by Bush as a reason for going after
Saddam,
so it's hardly the be all end all of reasons.

Even *you* can't believe this logic.

It is as I stated.

It was mentioned countless times
by The Department of Defense, The State Departement and the White
House. The State Department did a dog-and-pony show in front of the
UN, which indicated examples that were quite a stretch from the dire
label of Weapons of Mass Destruction.

Then why the questions about their existence?

Because it appears that we either a. were wrong with our intelligence,

A possibility, but not likely.

or b. we deliberately misused our intelligence by exaggerating the
threat.

Extremely unlikely.

One of their items was totally
ridiculous and that was the fact that the Iraqi Army had chemical
suits, gas masks and atropine injectors, items that are pretty much
standard TO&E in any modern army expecting to to battle with countries
that have chemical capabilities (like the US).

Now who's stretching logic? IIRC these were found after the war started.

Of course they were. They were part of the units TO&E, just like in
the US.

I know that the US
issues such gear to combat arms units and trains them in their use,
even though they might not be in imminent danger of war.

They take up about one days worth of basic training, or did when I went
through.

It was a continual training program for those of us who were in combat
arms. We did constant "recertification" in the proper use of this
gear. We had to requalify at least once a year. Additionally, this
gear was part of our standard issue, with injectors issued as needed
in the field (i.e., we only were given dummy injectors while training,
but had we been in imminent combat situations, we would have been
issued personal supplies of atropine, etc. The units certainly had it
stockpiled. We had our own personal chemical suits and booties and we
issued masks from our armory (as it was a controlled item, just like a
rifle).

Still, as i said, the mere presence of this gear simply indicates that
this was a force just like any other. All of the modern armies have
such gear.

Why is this
suddenly proof that the Iraqis are willing to use such weapons?

The proof was that they used them on their own people.

That is a separate issue than using the mere presence of chemical gear
as justification of a chemical program.

We already knew he had such a program or he couldn't have gassed his own
people.

Using
that logic, the US would ALSO be willing to use chemical weapons.

It was very shaky justification and it appears that the intelligence
was tailored to fit expectations.

The reasons were 9/11 and the fact that he had not complied with UN
resolutions and that he was a butcher.

I'm talking about specific justifications, not general ones. Actually,
the main reason was simply a mopup from the elder Bush's war and 9-11
gave us the opening.

An opinion you get to have.

BTW, I think that you're wrong about President Bush only mentioning
WMD only once. I seem to remember him mentioning it countless times.
He mentioned Iraq and WMD in the State of the Union Address. He
mentioned them over 10 times in that speech. I'm absolutely sure that
he's mentioned WMD in general in press conferences *and* speeches like
the one he gave in the aircraft hangar of some Air Force unit back at
the beginning of the war.

Here's an example of a speech where he used the example of WMD as
justification for action:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...010501-10.html

Therefore, your original premise was wrong, and I don't have to seek
out any more examples.

Just skimmed through the above and found no reference to WMD's as a
justification for war with IRAQ.

Sure there was:

Yet, this is still a dangerous world, a less certain, a less
predictable one. More nations have nuclear weapons and still more
have nuclear aspirations. Many have chemical and biological weapons.
Some already have developed the ballistic missile technology that
would allow them to deliver weapons of mass destruction at long
distances and at incredible speeds. And a number of these countries
are spreading these technologies around the world.

No mention of Iraq. No mention of Saddam. No mention of war against Iraq.

Most troubling of all, the list of these countries includes some
of the world's least-responsible states. Unlike the Cold War, today's
most urgent threat stems not from thousands of ballistic missiles in
the Soviet hands, but from a small number of missiles in the hands of
these states, states for whom terror and blackmail are a way of life.
They seek weapons of mass destruction to intimidate their neighbors,
and to keep the United States and other responsible nations from
helping allies and friends in strategic parts of the world.

When Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait in 1990, the world joined
forces to turn him back. But the international community would have
faced a very different situation had Hussein been able to blackmail
with nuclear weapons. Like Saddam Hussein, some of today's tyrants
are gripped by an implacable hatred of the United States of America.
They hate our friends, they hate our values, they hate democracy and
freedom and individual liberty. Many care little for the lives of
their own people. In such a world, Cold War deterrence is no longer
enough.

No, he didn't say the words, "We are using WMD as justification for
invading Iraq". The above language says the same thing though. The
linkage is clear.

For you.

I'll search for the SOU address and find out if you are correct.

I'm sure that he's mentioned WMD and Iraq on many occasions.

Nope.

"Jacob Kramer" wrote in message
om...
"mikemckelvy" wrote in message
...
"Jacob Kramer" wrote in message
om...
"mikemckelvy" wrote in message
...

WMD's were only mentioned ONCE by Bush as a reason for going after
Saddam,
so it's hardly the be all end all of reasons.

That's not true at all:

"Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof --
the smoking gun -- that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud,"
Bush said in an October speech in Cincinnati, Ohio."

This is one example of a speech he gave other than the State of the
Union Address. It's not the only one.

I see no mention of Iraq. He was speaking of the war on terrorism here.

No he wasn't. It was a speech on Iraq. The full text is he
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/...in524627.shtml

How about admitting you're wrong for once? This is a real whopper.

It's one speech. It's the only time I'm aware of he directly mentions Iraq
and WMD's aznd taking action against them.

When are you going to admit that the democrats are simply making **** up for
political advantage and that no evidence exists to even suggest that Bush
deliberately exaggerated anything, in fact what he did was exhaust every
diplomatic means possible?

"Joseph Oberlander" wrote in message
...
Jacob Kramer wrote:
"mikemckelvy" wrote in message
...

"Jacob Kramer" wrote in message
.com...

"mikemckelvy" wrote in message

...

WMD's were only mentioned ONCE by Bush as a reason for going after

Saddam,

so it's hardly the be all end all of reasons.

That's not true at all:

"Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof --
the smoking gun -- that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud,"
Bush said in an October speech in Cincinnati, Ohio."

This is one example of a speech he gave other than the State of the
Union Address. It's not the only one.

I see no mention of Iraq. He was speaking of the war on terrorism here.


No he wasn't. It was a speech on Iraq. The full text is he
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/...in524627.shtml

How about admitting you're wrong for once? This is a real whopper.

Oh - no. WE can't actually believe that our beloved *President* and
Republican poster-child would possibly *LIE* to us...

When we have evidence of such I will say so.

Mike and his type(my parents are the same type - ack!) - would only
stop their hero worship if they saw him kill a baby on live T.V.

Horseshi. You're used to being lied to by the guys you vote for so you
can't deal with someone honest.

I have lots of disagreements with GW but so far i don't question his
honesty. The decison on fetal tissue is wrong.
The decision to give up on vouchers was wrong.
Signing the campaign reform act was wrong.
Signing the pork laden farm bill, prescription drugs, none of these are
things I agree with.



Q: At what point would you stop trusting our government and Bush?

When there's a reason too.

If you can't come up with a definite answer - why are you unwilling
to set limits and question those in power? Blind faith in politicians
is silly in the extreme.

Like you have in the democrats?
Does the GOP have any good ideas?

I have no faith at all. I've listed things I disagree with.

Can't believe people are still posting to this silly thread. Oh, well,
since you're all so interested, check this out:

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/pol...p?story=424008

"Paul Dormer" wrote in message
...
"Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote:

Don't think for a moment that I have forgotten about you, I'm watching
you and I see you're still the Ba-foon you've always been.

Chimp Boy!!!

Want another banana?


I'm feeling pretty peckish.

mikemckelvy wrote:

Mike and his type(my parents are the same type - ack!) - would only
stop their hero worship if they saw him kill a baby on live T.V.


Horseshi. You're used to being lied to by the guys you vote for so you
can't deal with someone honest.

LMAO. Honestly, answer me - what would Bush have to do to actually
be seen as a bad person by you?

Come up with something. Please.

Q: At what point would you stop trusting our government and Bush?

When there's a reason too.

Tell me. I can think of a dozen things my government officials
can do that would make me become disaffected. You can't seem
to do anything but gloss over his faults.

Q:
What about the loss of overtime pay for anyone making more than
22K a year? Tell me what is wrong with it and who came up with it?
I can. Bush and his cronies.

What about the government deciding that all they have to do is
label you a "terrorist" whenever they want and they can lock
you up forever without access to a lawyer?

What about their then being able to force you to confess or be
executed?

All three were real headlines in the last two weeks. Taken together,
even this has to turn your stomach. All run by Bush and the
criminals in power. Remember - he IS the Commander in Chief
and appoints all of the people in charge of the various government
agencies. His administration allows all of this to happen while
they blow patriotic smoke and manuever arrays of mirrors to blind us.

Yes, I said criminals. Anyone who rapes the Constitution so
blatantly is no longer someone that any of us can trust.

At some time even you must admit that they are robbing us blind
and taking away our civil rights.

Honestly can you say what getting rid of overtime pay for millions
of hard-working people is a good thing? Crashing the economy with
2-3 billion a week in military upkeep in Iraq? As if we weren't
funneling money into black ops projects with most of that. Nobody
is showing anyone any receipts or keeping records - billions just
dissapearing left and right. Regan and Bush Sr. would have had
wet dreams at the prospect of such free access to money for their
pet projects. Don't tell me it takes $100,000 a month per person
over in Iraq to keep them fed and supported. Even you must admit that
the figures are skewed.

Bush Jr. has it. Nobody seems to care. Here - spend all of our money
and do whatever you want with it - no rules, no accountability, just
keep us safe(quiver). Gheeez - we might as well be the U.K. - sheep
who blindly trust our nanny state to make all of our decisions for
us.

If you can't come up with a definite answer - why are you unwilling
to set limits and question those in power? Blind faith in politicians
is silly in the extreme.

Like you have in the democrats?

GOTCHA!!!

I have no current party affiliation. Never have.

Imagine that. I'm actually pretty conservative.

Crimes against our civil liberties and rights cross all party
lines. Read the Patriot Act II. Seriously.

Stuff in there makes your skin crawl if you have any sense of
real patriotism.

Does the GOP have any good ideas?

Do ANY of the parties?

On Sat, 12 Jul 2003 16:27:40 -0700, "mikemckelvy"
wrote:


"dave weil" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 11 Jul 2003 14:20:36 -0700, "mikemckelvy"
wrote:


"dave weil" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 10 Jul 2003 20:04:39 -0700, "mikemckelvy"
wrote:

WMD's were only mentioned ONCE by Bush as a reason for going after
Saddam,
so it's hardly the be all end all of reasons.

Even *you* can't believe this logic.

It is as I stated.

It was mentioned countless times
by The Department of Defense, The State Departement and the White
House. The State Department did a dog-and-pony show in front of the
UN, which indicated examples that were quite a stretch from the dire
label of Weapons of Mass Destruction.

Then why the questions about their existence?

Because it appears that we either a. were wrong with our intelligence,

A possibility, but not likely.

or b. we deliberately misused our intelligence by exaggerating the
threat.

Extremely unlikely.

One of their items was totally
ridiculous and that was the fact that the Iraqi Army had chemical
suits, gas masks and atropine injectors, items that are pretty much
standard TO&E in any modern army expecting to to battle with countries
that have chemical capabilities (like the US).

Now who's stretching logic? IIRC these were found after the war started.

Of course they were. They were part of the units TO&E, just like in
the US.

I know that the US
issues such gear to combat arms units and trains them in their use,
even though they might not be in imminent danger of war.

They take up about one days worth of basic training, or did when I went
through.

It was a continual training program for those of us who were in combat
arms. We did constant "recertification" in the proper use of this
gear. We had to requalify at least once a year. Additionally, this
gear was part of our standard issue, with injectors issued as needed
in the field (i.e., we only were given dummy injectors while training,
but had we been in imminent combat situations, we would have been
issued personal supplies of atropine, etc. The units certainly had it
stockpiled. We had our own personal chemical suits and booties and we
issued masks from our armory (as it was a controlled item, just like a
rifle).

Still, as i said, the mere presence of this gear simply indicates that
this was a force just like any other. All of the modern armies have
such gear.

Why is this
suddenly proof that the Iraqis are willing to use such weapons?

The proof was that they used them on their own people.

That is a separate issue than using the mere presence of chemical gear
as justification of a chemical program.

We already knew he had such a program or he couldn't have gassed his own
people.

Using
that logic, the US would ALSO be willing to use chemical weapons.

It was very shaky justification and it appears that the intelligence
was tailored to fit expectations.

The reasons were 9/11 and the fact that he had not complied with UN
resolutions and that he was a butcher.

I'm talking about specific justifications, not general ones. Actually,
the main reason was simply a mopup from the elder Bush's war and 9-11
gave us the opening.

An opinion you get to have.

BTW, I think that you're wrong about President Bush only mentioning
WMD only once. I seem to remember him mentioning it countless times.
He mentioned Iraq and WMD in the State of the Union Address. He
mentioned them over 10 times in that speech. I'm absolutely sure that
he's mentioned WMD in general in press conferences *and* speeches like
the one he gave in the aircraft hangar of some Air Force unit back at
the beginning of the war.

Here's an example of a speech where he used the example of WMD as
justification for action:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...010501-10.html

Therefore, your original premise was wrong, and I don't have to seek
out any more examples.

Just skimmed through the above and found no reference to WMD's as a
justification for war with IRAQ.

Sure there was:

Yet, this is still a dangerous world, a less certain, a less
predictable one. More nations have nuclear weapons and still more
have nuclear aspirations. Many have chemical and biological weapons.
Some already have developed the ballistic missile technology that
would allow them to deliver weapons of mass destruction at long
distances and at incredible speeds. And a number of these countries
are spreading these technologies around the world.

No mention of Iraq. No mention of Saddam. No mention of war against Iraq.

Most troubling of all, the list of these countries includes some
of the world's least-responsible states. Unlike the Cold War, today's
most urgent threat stems not from thousands of ballistic missiles in
the Soviet hands, but from a small number of missiles in the hands of
these states, states for whom terror and blackmail are a way of life.
They seek weapons of mass destruction to intimidate their neighbors,
and to keep the United States and other responsible nations from
helping allies and friends in strategic parts of the world.

When Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait in 1990, the world joined
forces to turn him back. But the international community would have
faced a very different situation had Hussein been able to blackmail
with nuclear weapons. Like Saddam Hussein, some of today's tyrants
are gripped by an implacable hatred of the United States of America.
They hate our friends, they hate our values, they hate democracy and
freedom and individual liberty. Many care little for the lives of
their own people. In such a world, Cold War deterrence is no longer
enough.

No, he didn't say the words, "We are using WMD as justification for
invading Iraq". The above language says the same thing though. The
linkage is clear.

For you.

I'll search for the SOU address and find out if you are correct.

I'm sure that he's mentioned WMD and Iraq on many occasions.

Nope.

Yep.

Sorry.

On Sat, 12 Jul 2003 16:27:40 -0700, "mikemckelvy"
wrote:

Most troubling of all, the list of these countries includes some
of the world's least-responsible states. Unlike the Cold War, today's
most urgent threat stems not from thousands of ballistic missiles in
the Soviet hands, but from a small number of missiles in the hands of
these states, states for whom terror and blackmail are a way of life.
They seek weapons of mass destruction to intimidate their neighbors,
and to keep the United States and other responsible nations from
helping allies and friends in strategic parts of the world.

When Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait in 1990, the world joined
forces to turn him back. But the international community would have
faced a very different situation had Hussein been able to blackmail
with nuclear weapons. Like Saddam Hussein, some of today's tyrants
are gripped by an implacable hatred of the United States of America.
They hate our friends, they hate our values, they hate democracy and
freedom and individual liberty. Many care little for the lives of
their own people. In such a world, Cold War deterrence is no longer
enough.

No, he didn't say the words, "We are using WMD as justification for
invading Iraq". The above language says the same thing though. The
linkage is clear.

For you.

I'll search for the SOU address and find out if you are correct.

I'm sure that he's mentioned WMD and Iraq on many occasions.

Nope.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea.../20030208.html

This DEFINITELY makes two references, including the State of the Union
Address. In fact, it's this radio broadcast that has President Bush
laying the groundwork to the American people for justifying going to
war.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0030317-7.html

And here's a third - the ultimatum issued to Saddam Hussein.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/944000/posts

And, I'm telling you that in press conferences and other public
speaking engagements, he has linked Iraq and WMD countless times. And
on those occasions that he hasn't used that exact phrase, he's
actually been specific about the types of weapons that we were
concerned about.

BTW, I'm not claiming that they used it as the sole justifcation, but
even Wolfowitz admits that they used that issue as a focal point for
the court of public opinion *and* the one justification that the
diverse elements of the administration could agree on.

"mikemckelvy" wrote in message ...
"Jacob Kramer" wrote in message
om...
"mikemckelvy" wrote in message
...
"Jacob Kramer" wrote in message
om...
"mikemckelvy" wrote in message
...

WMD's were only mentioned ONCE by Bush as a reason for going after
Saddam,
so it's hardly the be all end all of reasons.

That's not true at all:

"Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof --
the smoking gun -- that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud,"
Bush said in an October speech in Cincinnati, Ohio."

This is one example of a speech he gave other than the State of the
Union Address. It's not the only one.

I see no mention of Iraq. He was speaking of the war on terrorism here.

No he wasn't. It was a speech on Iraq. The full text is he
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/...in524627.shtml

How about admitting you're wrong for once? This is a real whopper.

It's one speech. It's the only time I'm aware of he directly mentions Iraq
and WMD's aznd taking action against them.

I posted this link because you said the same thing about the State of
the Union Address.

When are you going to admit that the democrats are simply making **** up for
political advantage and that no evidence exists to even suggest that Bush
deliberately exaggerated anything, in fact what he did was exhaust every
diplomatic means possible?

I can't see anything to support such a conclusion, other than the
faith-based statements coming from the administration.

"mikemckelvy" wrote in message ...
"Jacob Kramer" wrote in message
om...
"mikemckelvy" wrote in message
...
"Jacob Kramer" wrote in message
om...
"mikemckelvy" wrote in message
...

WMD's were only mentioned ONCE by Bush as a reason for going after
Saddam,
so it's hardly the be all end all of reasons.

That's not true at all:

"Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof --
the smoking gun -- that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud,"
Bush said in an October speech in Cincinnati, Ohio."

This is one example of a speech he gave other than the State of the
Union Address. It's not the only one.

I see no mention of Iraq. He was speaking of the war on terrorism here.

No he wasn't. It was a speech on Iraq. The full text is he
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/...in524627.shtml

How about admitting you're wrong for once? This is a real whopper.

It's one speech. It's the only time I'm aware of he directly mentions Iraq
and WMD's aznd taking action against them.

I posted this link because you said the same thing about the State of
the Union Address.

When are you going to admit that the democrats are simply making **** up for
political advantage and that no evidence exists to even suggest that Bush
deliberately exaggerated anything, in fact what he did was exhaust every
diplomatic means possible?

I can't see anything to support such a conclusion, other than the
faith-based statements coming from the administration.

"Joseph Oberlander" wrote in message
...
mikemckelvy wrote:

Mike and his type(my parents are the same type - ack!) - would only
stop their hero worship if they saw him kill a baby on live T.V.


Horse****. You're used to being lied to by the guys you vote for so you
can't deal with someone honest.

LMAO. Honestly, answer me - what would Bush have to do to actually
be seen as a bad person by you?

Come up with something. Please.

Q: At what point would you stop trusting our government and Bush?

When there's a reason too.

Tell me. I can think of a dozen things my government officials
can do that would make me become disaffected. You can't seem
to do anything but gloss over his faults.

Q:
What about the loss of overtime pay for anyone making more than
22K a year?

The government has no business telling any employer how much they are
required to pay.

Tell me what is wrong with it and who came up with it?
I can. Bush and his cronies.

What about the government deciding that all they have to do is
label you a "terrorist" whenever they want and they can lock
you up forever without access to a lawyer?

Show me the specific text of the law that says that can happen.

What about their then being able to force you to confess or be
executed?

See above.

All three were real headlines in the last two weeks. Taken together,
even this has to turn your stomach. All run by Bush and the
criminals in power. Remember - he IS the Commander in Chief
and appoints all of the people in charge of the various government
agencies. His administration allows all of this to happen while
they blow patriotic smoke and manuever arrays of mirrors to blind us.

The specific text please. There is still the Constitution and it does still
apply. No matter what laws are written they have to stand up to
Constitutional scrutiny.



Yes, I said criminals. Anyone who rapes the Constitution so
blatantly is no longer someone that any of us can trust.

Then which party do you vote for? The Dems have been doing this for
decades.

At some time even you must admit that they are robbing us blind
and taking away our civil rights.

I have seen nobody losing any legitimate civil rights. As for robbing us
the left is famous for that.

Honestly can you say what getting rid of overtime pay for millions
of hard-working people is a good thing?

The law changed, it is not hawever required for employers to stop paying
overtime to those mentioned.

Crashing the economy with
2-3 billion a week in military upkeep in Iraq?

Hyperbole.

As if we weren't
funneling money into black ops projects with most of that. Nobody
is showing anyone any receipts or keeping records - billions just
dissapearing left and right. Regan and Bush Sr. would have had
wet dreams at the prospect of such free access to money for their
pet projects. Don't tell me it takes $100,000 a month per person
over in Iraq to keep them fed and supported. Even you must admit that
the figures are skewed.

Bush Jr. has it. Nobody seems to care. Here - spend all of our money
and do whatever you want with it - no rules, no accountability, just
keep us safe(quiver). Gheeez - we might as well be the U.K. - sheep
who blindly trust our nanny state to make all of our decisions for
us.

If you can't come up with a definite answer - why are you unwilling
to set limits and question those in power? Blind faith in politicians
is silly in the extreme.

Like you have in the democrats?

GOTCHA!!!

I have no current party affiliation. Never have.

Imagine that. I'm actually pretty conservative.

Crimes against our civil liberties and rights cross all party
lines. Read the Patriot Act II. Seriously.

Stuff in there makes your skin crawl if you have any sense of
real patriotism.

Does the GOP have any good ideas?

Do ANY of the parties?

Tax cuts.

mikemckelvy wrote:
"Joseph Oberlander" wrote in message
...

mikemckelvy wrote:

Mike and his type(my parents are the same type - ack!) - would only
stop their hero worship if they saw him kill a baby on live T.V.


Horse****. You're used to being lied to by the guys you vote for so you
can't deal with someone honest.

LMAO. Honestly, answer me - what would Bush have to do to actually
be seen as a bad person by you?

Come up with something. Please.

Still waiting.


Q: At what point would you stop trusting our government and Bush?


When there's a reason too.

Tell me. I can think of a dozen things my government officials
can do that would make me become disaffected. You can't seem
to do anything but gloss over his faults.

Still waiting.

Q:
What about the loss of overtime pay for anyone making more than
22K a year?

The government has no business telling any employer how much they are
required to pay.

Tell me what is wrong with it and who came up with it?

Considering that this negates a law going back to before WWII,
it is a big deal. No votes, no oversight - just get rid of
8 hour workdays, overtime, and force millions into unions for
protection.

What about the government deciding that all they have to do is
label you a "terrorist" whenever they want and they can lock
you up forever without access to a lawyer?

Show me the specific text of the law that says that can happen.

I posted the news article. If the papers say the Federal Court
of Appeals handed down such a verdict, I'd tend to believe them.

Your bubble is about to burst. McCarthy would be proud - he
could only dream about power like this.

What about their then being able to force you to confess or be
executed?

See above.

See the news sources I explicitly cited. Read them.
It's simple - confess to being terrorists and get 20 years OR
be found guilty and be executed. This is really happening to
six people in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and it is setting a
horrific precident. Once they get away with it, we are screwed.

1: They haul away you if you are a dissident or make waves or
speak out - if they so wish, you are labelled a "terrorist".
No lawyers, no notification of where you went - just "poof"
you are gone.

2: They then can do anything they want with their
military tribunal system of "justice" - including executing you
without representation or a fair trial.

Read what happened the last two weeks. Our bill of rights just
got reamed. Look up reamed in a dictionary, btw.

All three were real headlines in the last two weeks. Taken together,
even this has to turn your stomach. All run by Bush and the
criminals in power. Remember - he IS the Commander in Chief
and appoints all of the people in charge of the various government
agencies. His administration allows all of this to happen while
they blow patriotic smoke and manuever arrays of mirrors to blind us.

The specific text please. There is still the Constitution and it does still
apply. No matter what laws are written they have to stand up to
Constitutional scrutiny.

Bull. That's the POINT. They haul you away as a "terrorist" and
they can lock you up. The court ruling was that they don't have
to give you access to a lawyer. That's HUGE. Maranda and all the
associated rights in the Constitution - poof - GONE if they label
you a "terrorist" - and the government decides by fiat if that applies
to you.

It happened last week. No joke. You have to be daft to not think
that our government won't use both precidents together to make
undesireables dissapear.

Yes, I said criminals. Anyone who rapes the Constitution so
blatantly is no longer someone that any of us can trust.

Then which party do you vote for? The Dems have been doing this for
decades.

I did not vote for President this last time - equally bad.
Everything else, but not that. It's on a case-by-case basis for
local elections. BTW - my vote would have made NO difference
here in California - it is 70% Democrat here anyways.

Voting shold be by district - each state gives as many districts
to each side as they earn. ie - 57 D and 43 R and those votes go
right towards the totals. That way the smaller team is properly
represented. Here in California? Moot point - always will go to
the Democrat, no matter what you vote.

At some time even you must admit that they are robbing us blind
and taking away our civil rights.

I have seen nobody losing any legitimate civil rights. As for robbing us
the left is famous for that.

Last I heard, Facism is a conservative agenda, politically.

Too much from either side is a recipe for disaster.

Honestly can you say what getting rid of overtime pay for millions
of hard-working people is a good thing?

The law changed, it is not hawever required for employers to stop paying
overtime to those mentioned.

Wrong. Name me ONE that will fail to do so. Gee - the government
says we can now classifty anyone making over 22K a year and working
full time as management and skil overtime pay - but NOT give them
a single management perk.

Crashing the economy with

2-3 billion a week in military upkeep in Iraq?

Hyperbole.

Actually, it's 3.2 billion a month. I checked. YOu should too.
That's bleeding as we are planning on a 3-5 year presence there.
That's 115-192 billion. And your local city is griping about
2 million for sewer repairs.

That's a boatload of money we could be at least not having to
pay in taxes. Trust me - it comes from taxes or cuts eventually.

Does the GOP have any good ideas?

Do ANY of the parties?

Tax cuts.

Explain over 100 billion in projected spending in Iraq. Where it
comes from. And tax cuts. 100 billion has to come from somewhere
unless we print it and dilute the value of our money.

"Jacob Kramer" wrote in message
om...
"mikemckelvy" wrote in message
...
"Jacob Kramer" wrote in message
om...
"mikemckelvy" wrote in message
...
"Jacob Kramer" wrote in message
om...
"mikemckelvy" wrote in message
...

WMD's were only mentioned ONCE by Bush as a reason for going
after
Saddam,
so it's hardly the be all end all of reasons.

That's not true at all:

"Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final
proof --
the smoking gun -- that could come in the form of a mushroom
cloud,"
Bush said in an October speech in Cincinnati, Ohio."

This is one example of a speech he gave other than the State of
the
Union Address. It's not the only one.

I see no mention of Iraq. He was speaking of the war on terrorism
here.

No he wasn't. It was a speech on Iraq. The full text is he
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/...in524627.shtml

How about admitting you're wrong for once? This is a real whopper.

It's one speech. It's the only time I'm aware of he directly mentions
Iraq
and WMD's aznd taking action against them.

I posted this link because you said the same thing about the State of
the Union Address.

My mistake, I see he may have referred more than once to Iraq and WMD's. It
was not however the drone that most people seem to think it was.

When are you going to admit that the democrats are simply making **** up
for
political advantage and that no evidence exists to even suggest that
Bush
deliberately exaggerated anything, in fact what he did was exhaust every
diplomatic means possible?

I can't see anything to support such a conclusion, other than the
faith-based statements coming from the administration.

That is an opinion you get to have. Until and unless you become privy to
the intelligence they have, you can only guess.

On Mon, 14 Jul 2003 18:35:11 -0700, "mikemckelvy"
wrote:


"dave weil" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 12 Jul 2003 16:35:58 -0700, "mikemckelvy"
wrote:


"Jacob Kramer" wrote in message
. com...
"mikemckelvy" wrote in message
...
"Jacob Kramer" wrote in message
om...
"mikemckelvy" wrote in message
...

WMD's were only mentioned ONCE by Bush as a reason for going
after
Saddam,
so it's hardly the be all end all of reasons.

That's not true at all:

"Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final
proof --
the smoking gun -- that could come in the form of a mushroom
cloud,"
Bush said in an October speech in Cincinnati, Ohio."

This is one example of a speech he gave other than the State of the
Union Address. It's not the only one.

I see no mention of Iraq. He was speaking of the war on terrorism
here.

No he wasn't. It was a speech on Iraq. The full text is he
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/...in524627.shtml

How about admitting you're wrong for once? This is a real whopper.

It's one speech. It's the only time I'm aware of he directly mentions
Iraq
and WMD's aznd taking action against them.

What about The State of the Union Address?

Forgotten already?

When are you going to admit that the democrats are simply making **** up
for
political advantage

You mean like the Republicans did during the Clinton Administration?
Is *that* what you mean?

That couldn't be what i mean because i don't know of anything they made up.

No more than the Democrats are doing. Except that it's comparing a
little hanky panky with an intern and a flaky land deal with blowing
up the world, or, going back in time, almost destroying the saving and
loan system, subverting the constitution, breaking and entering
opposition headquarters, etc. etc. etc.

The Democrats have the Bay of Pigs to remember though. That, and
Marilyn Monroe...

snip

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 14 Jul 2003 18:35:11 -0700, "mikemckelvy"
wrote:


"dave weil" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 12 Jul 2003 16:35:58 -0700, "mikemckelvy"
wrote:


"Jacob Kramer" wrote in message
. com...
"mikemckelvy" wrote in message
...
"Jacob Kramer" wrote in message
om...
"mikemckelvy" wrote in message
...

WMD's were only mentioned ONCE by Bush as a reason for going
after
Saddam,
so it's hardly the be all end all of reasons.

That's not true at all:

"Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final
proof --
the smoking gun -- that could come in the form of a mushroom
cloud,"
Bush said in an October speech in Cincinnati, Ohio."

This is one example of a speech he gave other than the State of
the
Union Address. It's not the only one.

I see no mention of Iraq. He was speaking of the war on terrorism
here.

No he wasn't. It was a speech on Iraq. The full text is he
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/...in524627.shtml

How about admitting you're wrong for once? This is a real whopper.

It's one speech. It's the only time I'm aware of he directly mentions
Iraq
and WMD's aznd taking action against them.

What about The State of the Union Address?

Forgotten already?

When are you going to admit that the democrats are simply making ****
up
for
political advantage

You mean like the Republicans did during the Clinton Administration?
Is *that* what you mean?

That couldn't be what i mean because i don't know of anything they made
up.

No more than the Democrats are doing. Except that it's comparing a
little hanky panky with an intern and a flaky land deal with blowing
up the world,

It wasn't about hanky-panky, it was about not telling the truth under oath.
I've said before that they impeached Clinton for the wrong reason. It
should have been over making it easier for the Chinese to nuke us.

or, going back in time, almost destroying the saving and
loan system,

Demonstrating once again the government has no business messing with
business.

subverting the constitution, breaking and entering
opposition headquarters, etc. etc. etc.

That was not the GOP, that was one tragic man. Note that there were penty
of GOP members voting to impeach, he had the decency to resign. Clinton of
course has no decency.


The Democrats have the Bay of Pigs to remember though. That, and
Marilyn Monroe...

They also have Bobby Kennedy approving the wiretaps on MLK jr., and having
Joe McCarthy as one of Bobby's heroes.

They have FDR trying to stack the Supreme Court by adding more judges.

They have the ****ing income tax.

Forced busing.

They invented deficit spending, they abolished the gold standard.

Most of the economic nightmares we've had they caused.

On Tue, 15 Jul 2003 00:33:10 -0700, "mikemckelvy"
wrote:


"dave weil" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 14 Jul 2003 18:35:11 -0700, "mikemckelvy"
wrote:


"dave weil" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 12 Jul 2003 16:35:58 -0700, "mikemckelvy"
wrote:


"Jacob Kramer" wrote in message
. com...
"mikemckelvy" wrote in message
...
"Jacob Kramer" wrote in message
om...
"mikemckelvy" wrote in message
...

WMD's were only mentioned ONCE by Bush as a reason for going
after
Saddam,
so it's hardly the be all end all of reasons.

That's not true at all:

"Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final
proof --
the smoking gun -- that could come in the form of a mushroom
cloud,"
Bush said in an October speech in Cincinnati, Ohio."

This is one example of a speech he gave other than the State of
the
Union Address. It's not the only one.

I see no mention of Iraq. He was speaking of the war on terrorism
here.

No he wasn't. It was a speech on Iraq. The full text is he
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/...in524627.shtml

How about admitting you're wrong for once? This is a real whopper.

It's one speech. It's the only time I'm aware of he directly mentions
Iraq
and WMD's aznd taking action against them.

What about The State of the Union Address?

Forgotten already?

When are you going to admit that the democrats are simply making ****
up
for
political advantage

You mean like the Republicans did during the Clinton Administration?
Is *that* what you mean?

That couldn't be what i mean because i don't know of anything they made
up.

No more than the Democrats are doing. Except that it's comparing a
little hanky panky with an intern and a flaky land deal with blowing
up the world,

It wasn't about hanky-panky, it was about not telling the truth under oath.

And who forced him to do this for what reason?

I've said before that they impeached Clinton for the wrong reason. It
should have been over making it easier for the Chinese to nuke us.

or, going back in time, almost destroying the saving and
loan system,

Demonstrating once again the government has no business messing with
business.

Those rascally Republicans!

subverting the constitution, breaking and entering
opposition headquarters, etc. etc. etc.

That was not the GOP, that was one tragic man.

Oh, don't give me that ****. Clinton was just one "tragic man" as well
- a man who couldn't keep his sausage covered.

Note that there were penty
of GOP members voting to impeach, he had the decency to resign. Clinton of
course has no decency.

Nixon didn't resign out of "decency".

The Democrats have the Bay of Pigs to remember though. That, and
Marilyn Monroe...

They also have Bobby Kennedy approving the wiretaps on MLK jr., and having
Joe McCarthy as one of Bobby's heroes.

That latter didn't last long, now did it? The former *was* despicable.
I would think that *you* would consider this a good thing though,
since the main reason that Hoover started the wiretaps was because of
Dr. King's association with a suspected Communist, Stanley Levison.
Thankfully, King didn't bow to pressure from the Kennedys to
disassociate himself from said association. This *is* America after
all.

They have FDR trying to stack the Supreme Court by adding more judges.

Heck, he was an envelope pusher, wasn't he?

They have the ****ing income tax.

Awwww, such anger. Gotta pay for those guns and butter somehow.

Forced busing.

Something I agree with. It had its time and purpose. It's time has
long passed though.

They invented deficit spending, they abolished the gold standard.

Ummmmmm, who's taken that to new levels? Created the Platinum
Standard? (here's a hint, who actually balanced the budget and who has
put us far deeper than we've ever been? Actually the last part can be
answered by naming 2 Republican presidents of recent memory).

Most of the economic nightmares we've had they caused.

Yeah, like those nightmare 90s chuckle. Like the years AFTER the
Great Depression. Here's a hint for the last one - which party was in
power leading up to and at the start of the Great Depression?

"mikemckelvy" wrote in message ...

Most of the economic nightmares we've had they caused.

How about the Great Depression?

"mikemckelvy" wrote in message ...

When are you going to admit that the democrats are simply making ****
up
for
political advantage

This really isn't a partisan issue:

'On Capitol Hill, Senator Charles Hagel, Republican of Nebraska, a
leading foreign policy player, demanded a thorough investigation and
declared: ''There's a cloud hanging over this administration.''
''Listen, it wasn't just the CIA involved here. We had the vice
president and his office involved,'' Defense Secretary Donald H.
Rumsfeld, national security adviser Condoleezza Rice, and Secretary of
State Colin L. Powell, Hagel said. ''This wasn't just a one-man show.
And this is too serious here for this country to not know what
happened."'

http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/19...m_claim+.shtml

Also this is fairly astonishing. The administration considers it
classified who wrote that line in the speech. Normally you would
think the person speaking is the author of a speech, but of course
everyone knows that's not the case when it comes to Bush. In fact
with this president, it's come so far that the president not only
can't even be held responsible for his own words, can not only blame
them on somebody else, but can even keep the author secret:

"White House officials have refused to specify which official or
agency insisted on inserting the claim into the text, even after it
had reportedly been removed from a speech several months earlier
following a warning from the CIA that it was based on dubious
intelligence. ''We're not going to get into that level of detail,''
National Security Council spokesman Sean McCormack said."

mikemckelvy wrote:

Bull. That's the POINT. They haul you away as a "terrorist" and
they can lock you up. The court ruling was that they don't have
to give you access to a lawyer.

IIRC theis doen't apply to American citizens.

Actually, guess what - they DO. The case in point where the person
was denied a right to see a lawyer and the courts upheld it was
a man who was a U.S. citizen from Florida.

Yes. It really happened. They just enabled the government to
haul away any U.S. citizen and all but make them dissapear in
a series of room and boxes and military tribunals.

Voting shold be by district - each state gives as many districts
to each side as they earn. ie - 57 D and 43 R and those votes go
right towards the totals. That way the smaller team is properly
represented. Here in California? Moot point - always will go to
the Democrat, no matter what you vote.

I live in California and know better. How many states did reagan win?

Notable exception. When you see post-poll results showing a 70%
Democratic bias in this last election, it becomes moot. OTOH, I *do*
vote for everything else, since the local and state levels are important.

the left is famous for that.

Last I heard, Facism is a conservative agenda, politically.

It's a form of collectivism. There are right wing collectivists and left
wing ones.

Well, I see the government lately filled with would-be facists from
all sides and parties.

It's the cycle, afterall - those in power want absolute power and more
and more of it. They want to subvert all freedoms - it's in their
nature.

Eventually they take over, the place erupts into chaos or a war,
and the people take back their rights.

I give our nation maybe 300 years lifespan before it crumbles
and we have to rebuild it again.

Too much from either side is a recipe for disaster.

Which is why I vote Libertarian, usually.

Gasp. We agree on something???



Honestly can you say what getting rid of overtime pay for millions
of hard-working people is a good thing?

The law changed, it is not hawever required for employers to stop paying
overtime to those mentioned.

Wrong. Name me ONE that will fail to do so.

The ones that want to keep from losing employees who will walk.
In the movie studios they have insurance coverage for gay domestic partners,
Disney was the last one to go along but they had to in order to keep
employees.

Of course with millions out of work and this being the worst summer job
market for students in *55* years... They'll get a lot of people who
want some money rather than none.

says we can now classifty anyone making over 22K a year and working
full time as management and skil overtime pay - but NOT give them
a single management perk.

How is it any business of the government what people get paid?

It isn't, but the laws were enacted back in the 30s to keep people
from abusing the workers and especially children. That the bums had
to have to government come down on them to enact an 8 hour workday
is telling.

Explain over 100 billion in projected spending in Iraq. Where it
comes from. And tax cuts. 100 billion has to come from somewhere
unless we print it and dilute the value of our money.


When taxes are cut investment happens creating more taxpayers and more tax
revenue, happens every time.

Bull. This time people are holding onto their money and not investing.
Everyone rightfully is scared of a real depression happening. At this
rate, it will happen in the next coupe of years.