For two State of the Union Addresses in a row, Bush has made false and
misleading statements about the supposed threat Iraq posed to America with
its supposed WMDs and supposed links to Al Queda. Absolutely shameful.
David Kay resigns and rebuffs Bush's recent State of the Union Address:

http://www.boston.com/news/world/art...s_hunter_quits
_says_he_doubts_they_exist/

Sandman dorked:

http://www.boston.com/news/world/art...s_hunter_quits
_says_he_doubts_they_exist/

I know for a fact that you've been using a computer for several years.
You are also well educated. Can you explain this persistent
incompetence in posting Web links?

BTW, I hope your "law practice" is going better than it seems to be.

"George M. Middius" wrote in message


Sandman dorked:


http://www.boston.com/news/world/art...s_hunter_quits
_says_he_doubts_they_exist/

The link works for me!

I know for a fact that you've been using a computer for several years.
You are also well educated. Can you explain this persistent
incompetence in posting Web links?

Middius, I know for a fact that you've been using a computer for several
years.
Can you explain this persistent incompetence in following Web links?

"Sandman" wrote in message
...
For two State of the Union Addresses in a row, Bush has made false and
misleading statements about the supposed threat Iraq posed to America with
its supposed WMDs and supposed links to Al Queda. Absolutely shameful.
David Kay resigns and rebuffs Bush's recent State of the Union Address:


http://www.boston.com/news/world/art...s_hunter_quits
_says_he_doubts_they_exist/



well, where are they?
what happened to them?
They existed in Iraq in1998.




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

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


Sandman dorked:



http://www.boston.com/news/world/art...s_hunter_quits
_says_he_doubts_they_exist/

The link works for me!



"Page not found"
In your world, I suppose that constitutes "works".




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

"Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote in message

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


Sandman dorked:




http://www.boston.com/news/world/art...s_hunter_quits
_says_he_doubts_they_exist/

The link works for me!



"Page not found"

Strange, somehow I pull up a page with the headline:

"US weapons hunter quits, says he doubts they exist"

In your world, I suppose that constitutes "works".

The text "page not found" appears no where in the page that the URL leads me
to.

On Sat, 24 Jan 2004 15:39:53 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote in message

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


Sandman dorked:




http://www.boston.com/news/world/art...s_hunter_quits

Strange, somehow I pull up a page with the headline:

"US weapons hunter quits, says he doubts they exist"

In your world, I suppose that constitutes "works".

The text "page not found" appears no where in the page that the URL leads me
to.

Oh really? When you type the above link, you don't get "Page not
found"? That's some browser you have.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote in message

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


Sandman dorked:





http://www.boston.com/news/world/art...s_hunter_quits
_says_he_doubts_they_exist/

The link works for me!



"Page not found"

Strange, somehow I pull up a page with the headline:

"US weapons hunter quits, says he doubts they exist"

In your world, I suppose that constitutes "works".

The text "page not found" appears no where in the page that the URL leads
me
to.

Not on the link, "as given"
you probably reconstituted it to get to the page.
That't the point here, Sanders pulled a "Krueger"
and mangled the link.




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

On Sat, 24 Jan 2004 18:08:43 -0500, "Sockpuppet Yustabe"
wrote:

Not on the link, "as given"
you probably reconstituted it to get to the page.
That't the point here, Sanders pulled a "Krueger"
and mangled the link.

****in' hell!!! :-(

Do you grow carrots, by any chance?

--
td

"dave weil" wrote in message
news
On Sat, 24 Jan 2004 15:39:53 -0500, "Arny Krueger"

wrote:

"Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote in message

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


Sandman dorked:





http://www.boston.com/news/world/art...s_hunter_quits

Strange, somehow I pull up a page with the headline:

"US weapons hunter quits, says he doubts they exist"

In your world, I suppose that constitutes "works".

The text "page not found" appears no where in the page that the URL
leads me to.

Oh really? When you type the above link, you don't get "Page not
found"? That's some browser you have.

Link works fine here as-is (using OE-Quotefix)

Here's another interesting story:

http://www.reuters.co.uk/newsPackageArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=4447 37&section=news

I really wish the press would make more of his phony switch not just
from "weapons of mass destruction" to "weapons of mass destruction
programs," but to "weapons of mass destruction-related program
activities." This is such a total fudge.

Also the "best intelligence available" line from Powell is really sad.
How about asking, "did you _see_ any weapons of mass destruction in
Iraq"? Adlai Stevenson had _photographs_ of missiles in Cuba. If you
said "they have weapons," and you didn't _know_ they had weapons, the
problem wasn't intelligence, the problem was stating an inference as
an observation.

Markeau said:

Link works fine here as-is (using OE-Quotefix)

duhhhh........

Jacob Kramer said:

I really wish the press would make more of his phony switch not just
from "weapons of mass destruction" to "weapons of mass destruction
programs," but to "weapons of mass destruction-related program
activities." This is such a total fudge.

You expect a Republican to give an honest acceptance of responsibility
for misdeeds?

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


Markeau said:

Link works fine here as-is (using OE-Quotefix)

duhhhh........




Is Markeau French for Mikey?




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Apparently some people are having trouble accessing the link I posted:

http://www.boston.com/news/world/art...s_hunter_quits
_says_he_doubts_they_exist/

It is from Boston.com, the Boston Globe online. Here is the text:


US weapons hunter quits, says he doubts they exist
By Tabassum Zakaria, Reuters, 1/24/2004

WASHINGTON -- David Kay, who stepped down as leader of the US hunt for
banned weapons in Iraq yesterday, said he did not believe the country had
any large stockpiles of chemical or biological weapons.

In a direct challenge to the Bush administration, which says its invasion of
Iraq was justified by the presence of illicit arms, Kay said in a telephone
interview he had concluded there were no Iraqi stockpiles to be found.

"I don't think they existed," Kay said. "What everyone was talking about is
stockpiles produced after the end of the last [1991] Gulf War, and I don't
think there was a large-scale production program in the '90s," he said.

The CIA announced earlier that former UN weapons inspector Charles Duelfer,
who has expressed his own doubts that unconventional weapons would be found,
would succeed Kay as Washington's chief arms hunter.

Kay said he believes most of what was going to be uncovered in Iraq had been
found and that the weapons hunt would become more difficult once America
returned control of the country to the Iraqis.

The United States went to war against Baghdad last year citing a threat from
Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. So far, no banned arms have been found.

In his annual State of the Union address Tuesday, President Bush insisted
that former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein had actively pursued dangerous
weapons programs right up to the start of the US attack in March.

"Had we failed to act," Bush said, "the dictator's weapons of mass
destruction programs would continue to this day."

On Wednesday, Vice President Dick Cheney said the United States had not
given up on finding unconventional weapons in Iraq. "The jury is still out,"
he said in an interview with National Public Radio.

White House spokesman Scott McClellan, responding to Kay's remarks, said:
"We remain confident that the Iraq Survey Group will uncover the truth about
Saddam Hussein's regime, the regime's weapons of destruction programs."

Kay said he left his post because of a "complex set of issues," including a
reduction in resources and a change in focus of the Defense Department's
Iraq Survey Group, which is conducting the weapons hunt.

ISG analysts were diverted from hunting for weapons of mass destruction to
helping in the fight against the insurgency, he said. "When I had started
out I had made it a condition that ISG be exclusively focused on WMD. That's
no longer so."

"We're not going to find much after June. Once the Iraqis take complete
control of the government, it is just almost impossible to operate in the
way that we operate," Kay said.

"I think we have found probably 85 percent of what we're going to find," he
said. "I think the best evidence is that they did not resume large-scale
production, and that's what we're really talking about."

Kay said he was going back to the private sector.

In a statement announcing Kay's departure, CIA Director George Tenet praised
Kay for his "extraordinary service under dangerous and difficult
circumstances."

Duelfer, 51, a former deputy executive chairman of the UN Special Commission
that was responsible for dismantling Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, had
previously expressed doubts that unconventional weapons would be found.

"I think that Mr. Kay and his team have looked very hard. I think the reason
that they haven't found them is they're probably not there," Duelfer told
NBC television earlier this month.

But after his new job was announced, Duelfer, who will be based in Iraq as
CIA special adviser to direct the WMD search, said he was keeping an open
mind and his past comments had been made without the benefit of seeing the
most current US intelligence reports.

"This was a spectator sport for me," he told reporters in a conference call
yesterday.

"We'll see, I mean we don't know what the answers are. Maybe there still
will be weapons. It's a big country. There's a lot of chaos there. It may
well be that something turns up. I don't want to prejudge that, that still
may happen," he said.

On Sat, 24 Jan 2004 18:25:57 -0600, "Markeau"
wrote:

"dave weil" wrote in message
news
On Sat, 24 Jan 2004 15:39:53 -0500, "Arny Krueger"

wrote:

"Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote in message

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


Sandman dorked:





http://www.boston.com/news/world/art...s_hunter_quits

Strange, somehow I pull up a page with the headline:

"US weapons hunter quits, says he doubts they exist"

In your world, I suppose that constitutes "works".

The text "page not found" appears no where in the page that the URL
leads me to.

Oh really? When you type the above link, you don't get "Page not
found"? That's some browser you have.

Link works fine here as-is (using OE-Quotefix)

Are you sayign that the above link works for you as well?

Why don't I believe you?

Sandman said:

Apparently some people are having trouble accessing the link I posted:

Are you getting senile?

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 24 Jan 2004 18:25:57 -0600, "Markeau"
wrote:

"dave weil" wrote in message
news
On Sat, 24 Jan 2004 15:39:53 -0500, "Arny Krueger"

wrote:

"Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote in message

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


Sandman dorked:






http://www.boston.com/news/world/art...ns_hunter_quit
s

Strange, somehow I pull up a page with the headline:

"US weapons hunter quits, says he doubts they exist"

In your world, I suppose that constitutes "works".

The text "page not found" appears no where in the page that the URL
leads me to.

Oh really? When you type the above link, you don't get "Page not
found"? That's some browser you have.

Link works fine here as-is (using OE-Quotefix)

Are you sayign that the above link works for you as well?

Why don't I believe you?

he says it works fine just as it is after he fixed it!!!!




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

"Jacob Kramer" wrote in message
om...
Here's another interesting story:


http://www.reuters.co.uk/newsPackage...s&storyID=4447
37&section=news

I really wish the press would make more of his phony switch not just
from "weapons of mass destruction" to "weapons of mass destruction
programs," but to "weapons of mass destruction-related program
activities." This is such a total fudge.

Ah, yes.... and as the debate on the economy heats up next summer, Dubya
will switch from creating jobs to "creating job related program activities".
:-)

"Sandman" wrote in message ...
"Jacob Kramer" wrote in message
om...
Here's another interesting story:


http://www.reuters.co.uk/newsPackage...s&storyID=4447
37&section=news

I really wish the press would make more of his phony switch not just
from "weapons of mass destruction" to "weapons of mass destruction
programs," but to "weapons of mass destruction-related program
activities." This is such a total fudge.

Ah, yes.... and as the debate on the economy heats up next summer, Dubya
will switch from creating jobs to "creating job related program activities".
:-)

Hahaha good one.

It's interesting to think about what this standard would really
encompass. For instance, would conducting research into nuclear
weapons by a physicist count? If you pick up the wrong book at the
library your country can be bombed and invaded, for instance? Kind of
a broad standard.

Then there's this story on the budget:

http://money.cnn.com/2004/01/26/news/economy/election_budget/ (if
you put brackets around it it will display on one line in html)

Even the Cato institute is expressing concern about the Bush budgets,
and not just blaming democrats--who have had no influence over the
budget basically because of the dual Republican majorities. I think
it's time to recognize that Bush basically is an incompetent.

"Sandman" wrote in message ...
"Jacob Kramer" wrote in message
om...
Here's another interesting story:


http://www.reuters.co.uk/newsPackage...s&storyID=4447
37&section=news

I really wish the press would make more of his phony switch not just
from "weapons of mass destruction" to "weapons of mass destruction
programs," but to "weapons of mass destruction-related program
activities." This is such a total fudge.

Ah, yes.... and as the debate on the economy heats up next summer, Dubya
will switch from creating jobs to "creating job related program activities".
:-)

And then there's this report from Human Rights Watch saying the
invasion was not justified on human rights grounds because the
atrocities happened long ago:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=540&e=6&u=/ap/rights_report_iraq

I think another problem with the human rights justification is that
more than 3000 Iraqis have been killed during the war. I wonder what
the true number is? Some of the Moveon.org commercials put it at 8000
total on both sides. I hope that's not true.

"Jacob Kramer" wrote in message
om...
"Sandman" wrote in message
...
"Jacob Kramer" wrote in message
om...
Here's another interesting story:



http://www.reuters.co.uk/newsPackage...s&storyID=4447
37&section=news

I really wish the press would make more of his phony switch not just
from "weapons of mass destruction" to "weapons of mass destruction
programs," but to "weapons of mass destruction-related program
activities." This is such a total fudge.

Ah, yes.... and as the debate on the economy heats up next summer, Dubya
will switch from creating jobs to "creating job related program
activities".
:-)

And then there's this report from Human Rights Watch saying the
invasion was not justified on human rights grounds because the
atrocities happened long ago:


So, exactly what is the statute of limitations
on atrocities? How does that relate to
the viability of reparations for slavery, which, in
America began 370 years ago and ended 140
years ago (approx).?




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

"Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote in message ...
"Jacob Kramer" wrote in message
om...
"Sandman" wrote in message
...
"Jacob Kramer" wrote in message
om...
Here's another interesting story:



http://www.reuters.co.uk/newsPackage...s&storyID=4447
37&section=news

I really wish the press would make more of his phony switch not just
from "weapons of mass destruction" to "weapons of mass destruction
programs," but to "weapons of mass destruction-related program
activities." This is such a total fudge.

Ah, yes.... and as the debate on the economy heats up next summer, Dubya
will switch from creating jobs to "creating job related program
activities".
:-)

And then there's this report from Human Rights Watch saying the
invasion was not justified on human rights grounds because the
atrocities happened long ago:


So, exactly what is the statute of limitations
on atrocities? How does that relate to
the viability of reparations for slavery, which, in
America began 370 years ago and ended 140
years ago (approx).?

Is there a point you are trying to make?

"Jacob Kramer" wrote in message
om...
"Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote in message
...
"Jacob Kramer" wrote in message
om...
"Sandman" wrote in message
...
"Jacob Kramer" wrote in message
om...
Here's another interesting story:




http://www.reuters.co.uk/newsPackage...s&storyID=4447
37&section=news

I really wish the press would make more of his phony switch not
just
from "weapons of mass destruction" to "weapons of mass destruction
programs," but to "weapons of mass destruction-related program
activities." This is such a total fudge.

Ah, yes.... and as the debate on the economy heats up next summer,
Dubya
will switch from creating jobs to "creating job related program
activities".
:-)

And then there's this report from Human Rights Watch saying the
invasion was not justified on human rights grounds because the
atrocities happened long ago:


So, exactly what is the statute of limitations
on atrocities? How does that relate to
the viability of reparations for slavery, which, in
America began 370 years ago and ended 140
years ago (approx).?

Is there a point you are trying to make?

Yes, to those not too thickheaded to understand it.




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

"Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote in message ...
"Jacob Kramer" wrote in message
om...
"Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote in message
...
"Jacob Kramer" wrote in message
om...
"Sandman" wrote in message
...
"Jacob Kramer" wrote in message
om...
Here's another interesting story:




http://www.reuters.co.uk/newsPackage...s&storyID=4447
37&section=news

I really wish the press would make more of his phony switch not
just
from "weapons of mass destruction" to "weapons of mass destruction
programs," but to "weapons of mass destruction-related program
activities." This is such a total fudge.

Ah, yes.... and as the debate on the economy heats up next summer,
Dubya
will switch from creating jobs to "creating job related program
activities".
:-)

And then there's this report from Human Rights Watch saying the
invasion was not justified on human rights grounds because the
atrocities happened long ago:


So, exactly what is the statute of limitations
on atrocities? How does that relate to
the viability of reparations for slavery, which, in
America began 370 years ago and ended 140
years ago (approx).?

Is there a point you are trying to make?

Yes, to those not too thickheaded to understand it.

Or to those lacking the forthrightness to be clear.

"Jacob Kramer" wrote in message
om...
Here's another interesting story:


http://www.reuters.co.uk/newsPackage...s&storyID=4447
37&section=news

I really wish the press would make more of his phony switch not just
from "weapons of mass destruction" to "weapons of mass destruction
programs," but to "weapons of mass destruction-related program
activities." This is such a total fudge.

Also the "best intelligence available" line from Powell is really sad.

It was the same evidence Clinton, Kerry, and lots of other Democrats had
available under the last administration. They all said Saddam had WMD's, as
did France, Israel, Germany, Russia, Germany and all the other chicken****s
you seem to admire.

How about asking, "did you _see_ any weapons of mass destruction in
Iraq"? Adlai Stevenson had _photographs_ of missiles in Cuba. If you
said "they have weapons," and you didn't _know_ they had weapons, the
problem wasn't intelligence, the problem was stating an inference as
an observation.

That's what intelligence gather is. Looking at evidence and making a
conclusion.

If the morons on the left hadn't been voting to dismantle our capabilities
for decades, maybe we would have had better info. Kerry wanted to get rid
of the CIA at one time. And he thinks he's qaulified to be President?

"Jacob Kramer" wrote in message
om...
"Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote in message
...
"Jacob Kramer" wrote in message
om...
"Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote in message
...
"Jacob Kramer" wrote in message
om...
"Sandman" wrote in message
...
"Jacob Kramer" wrote in message
om...
Here's another interesting story:





http://www.reuters.co.uk/newsPackage...s&storyID=4447
37&section=news

I really wish the press would make more of his phony switch
not
just
from "weapons of mass destruction" to "weapons of mass
destruction
programs," but to "weapons of mass destruction-related program
activities." This is such a total fudge.

Ah, yes.... and as the debate on the economy heats up next
summer,
Dubya
will switch from creating jobs to "creating job related program
activities".
:-)

And then there's this report from Human Rights Watch saying the
invasion was not justified on human rights grounds because the
atrocities happened long ago:


So, exactly what is the statute of limitations
on atrocities? How does that relate to
the viability of reparations for slavery, which, in
America began 370 years ago and ended 140
years ago (approx).?

Is there a point you are trying to make?

Yes, to those not too thickheaded to understand it.

Or to those lacking the forthrightness to be clear.

I see that you fail to grasp illustratative points.
For you, everything has to be cut and dry like
a textbook.

Here it is , BOZO, whilst the left is claiming
that the invasion was unjustified because the atrocities
happened too long ago (12 years), the libs are also
suing corporations for slavery reparations occuring
150 to 350 years ago. Got it yet????
so, the libs advocate selective enforcement and redress of
of human rights violations, depening upon whose ox is
being gored.




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

"Jacob Kramer" wrote in message
om...
"Sandman" wrote in message
...
"Jacob Kramer" wrote in message
om...
Here's another interesting story:



http://www.reuters.co.uk/newsPackage...s&storyID=4447
37&section=news

I really wish the press would make more of his phony switch not just
from "weapons of mass destruction" to "weapons of mass destruction
programs," but to "weapons of mass destruction-related program
activities." This is such a total fudge.

Ah, yes.... and as the debate on the economy heats up next summer, Dubya
will switch from creating jobs to "creating job related program
activities".
:-)

And then there's this report from Human Rights Watch saying the
invasion was not justified on human rights grounds because the
atrocities happened long ago:

They have dates for the last time one of Saddam's sons decided to rape a
woman he fancied and kill her husband?

Only someone as full of hate as you are for Bush could even hint that there
wasn't plenty of human rights grounds to overthrow Saddam.


http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp.../rights_report
_iraq

I think another problem with the human rights justification is that
more than 3000 Iraqis have been killed during the war. I wonder what
the true number is? Some of the Moveon.org commercials put it at 8000
total on both sides. I hope that's not true.

Moveon.org is about as trustworthy as Pravda when there was a USSR.

"Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote in message ...

Here it is , BOZO,

And you have lost your idealism.

whilst the left is claiming
that the invasion was unjustified because the atrocities
happened too long ago (12 years), the libs are also
suing corporations for slavery reparations occuring
150 to 350 years ago. Got it yet????
so, the libs advocate selective enforcement and redress of
of human rights violations, depening upon whose ox is
being gored.

Well that isn't what I thought you meant, so I'm glad I asked you to
clarify it. In fact, I don't know anything about the suits you're
talking about. But it is also unclear to me how they bolster your
case. If 150 years is too long, that wouldn't mean that 12 years
(actually 15) is _not_ too long. It would have no bearing, as far as
I can see, because it establishes a point that is beyond what is
reasonable, not the point before which action is reasonable.

Also, a civil suit and a justification for war are not the same thing.
A civil suit can be to recover damages, which don't go away with
time. The human rights argument for intervention is to stop an
atrocity. The point Human Rights Watch was making was that there was
no atocity occurring that had to be halted. Also the costs of a war
are much more dispersed on people who didn't cause the damages, and
are much more severe. For instance at the the time that the count was
halted, civilian deaths in Iraq were put at about 3000. These were
people who had done nothing to the Kurds or anyone else to deserve
being killed.

Is this really persuasive to you?

"Jacob Kramer" wrote in message
om...
"Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote in message
...

Here it is , BOZO,

And you have lost your idealism.

whilst the left is claiming
that the invasion was unjustified because the atrocities
happened too long ago (12 years), the libs are also
suing corporations for slavery reparations occuring
150 to 350 years ago. Got it yet????
so, the libs advocate selective enforcement and redress of
of human rights violations, depening upon whose ox is
being gored.

Well that isn't what I thought you meant, so I'm glad I asked you to
clarify it. In fact, I don't know anything about the suits you're
talking about. But it is also unclear to me how they bolster your
case. If 150 years is too long, that wouldn't mean that 12 years
(actually 15) is _not_ too long. It would have no bearing, as far as
I can see, because it establishes a point that is beyond what is
reasonable, not the point before which action is reasonable.

Also, a civil suit and a justification for war are not the same thing.
A civil suit can be to recover damages, which don't go away with
time. The human rights argument for intervention is to stop an
atrocity. The point Human Rights Watch was making was that there was
no atocity occurring that had to be halted. Also the costs of a war
are much more dispersed on people who didn't cause the damages, and
are much more severe. For instance at the the time that the count was
halted, civilian deaths in Iraq were put at about 3000. These were
people who had done nothing to the Kurds or anyone else to deserve
being killed.

Is this really persuasive to you?

Sure, it suggests to me that it would be better not to
invade Iraq over crimes against humanity that took place
ten years ago, and, instead, wait a hundred and fifty years
for the offspring of the survivors to sue his offspring!

And, suddenly Saddam had transformed into
Mr. Nice Guy and was not involved in any
human rights violations? Get Real!




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

"Sandman" wrote in message
...
For two State of the Union Addresses in a row, Bush has made false and
misleading statements about the supposed threat Iraq posed to America with
its supposed WMDs and supposed links to Al Queda. Absolutely shameful.
David Kay resigns and rebuffs Bush's recent State of the Union Address:


http://www.boston.com/news/world/art...s_hunter_quits
_says_he_doubts_they_exist/


And yet the Iraqi Foreign Minister says they did.

I notice the BBC got chastised for their claims that there was any "sexing
up" of Tony Blair's claims of WMD's in Iraq and the House of Commons is
considering privatising the Beeb.

Not one single government outside of Iraq ever said anything other than Iraq
HAD WMD's.

"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message ...
"Sandman" wrote in message
...
For two State of the Union Addresses in a row, Bush has made false and
misleading statements about the supposed threat Iraq posed to America with
its supposed WMDs and supposed links to Al Queda. Absolutely shameful.
David Kay resigns and rebuffs Bush's recent State of the Union Address:


http://www.boston.com/news/world/art...s_hunter_quits
_says_he_doubts_they_exist/


And yet the Iraqi Foreign Minister says they did.

I notice the BBC got chastised for their claims that there was any "sexing
up" of Tony Blair's claims of WMD's in Iraq and the House of Commons is
considering privatising the Beeb.

Not one single government outside of Iraq ever said anything other than Iraq
HAD WMD's.

I'm amazed that you are still taking this line. What is it that
convinces you they had them?

"Jacob Kramer" wrote in message
om...
"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message
...
"Sandman" wrote in message
...
For two State of the Union Addresses in a row, Bush has made false and
misleading statements about the supposed threat Iraq posed to America
with
its supposed WMDs and supposed links to Al Queda. Absolutely
shameful.
David Kay resigns and rebuffs Bush's recent State of the Union
Address:



http://www.boston.com/news/world/art...s_hunter_quits
_says_he_doubts_they_exist/


And yet the Iraqi Foreign Minister says they did.

I notice the BBC got chastised for their claims that there was any
"sexing
up" of Tony Blair's claims of WMD's in Iraq and the House of Commons is
considering privatising the Beeb.

Not one single government outside of Iraq ever said anything other than
Iraq
HAD WMD's.

I'm amazed that you are still taking this line. What is it that
convinces you they had them?

President Clinton




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

"Jacob Kramer" wrote in message
om...
"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message
...
"Sandman" wrote in message
...
For two State of the Union Addresses in a row, Bush has made false and
misleading statements about the supposed threat Iraq posed to America
with
its supposed WMDs and supposed links to Al Queda. Absolutely
shameful.
David Kay resigns and rebuffs Bush's recent State of the Union
Address:



http://www.boston.com/news/world/art...s_hunter_quits
_says_he_doubts_they_exist/


And yet the Iraqi Foreign Minister says they did.

I notice the BBC got chastised for their claims that there was any
"sexing
up" of Tony Blair's claims of WMD's in Iraq and the House of Commons is
considering privatising the Beeb.

Not one single government outside of Iraq ever said anything other than
Iraq
HAD WMD's.

I'm amazed that you are still taking this line. What is it that
convinces you they had them?

They were never fully accounted for after the first Gulf War.

I don't know if they had any left or not. I do know that the Intel from
every country in the world indicated that they did. In the UK they have
taken judical notice that the reports were not "sexed up," and heads are
rolling at the BBC.

There are a few choices one can RATIONALLY believe on this issue.

1. Saddam had them and hid them.

2. They used to have them and were trying to get them again.

3. Saddam wanted them again but was being fleeced by his own people.

It is not rational to believe that Bush made up the reports about Iraq's
weapons.

It doesn't matter since President Bush was given the authority by Congress
to do anything he felt necessary to fight the war on terror. No matter how
mcuh spin the idiots on the left try to apply, that fact is not going away.

It was politics that got that vote, since nobody wanted to appear soft on
defense. The Democrats have a long history of being on the wrong side of
every Defense issue brought before them and it is going to kill their
efforts to beat Bush.

"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message ...

They were never fully accounted for after the first Gulf War.

I don't know if they had any left or not. I do know that the Intel from
every country in the world indicated that they did. In the UK they have
taken judical notice that the reports were not "sexed up," and heads are
rolling at the BBC.

There are a few choices one can RATIONALLY believe on this issue.

1. Saddam had them and hid them.

2. They used to have them and were trying to get them again.

3. Saddam wanted them again but was being fleeced by his own people.

It is not rational to believe that Bush made up the reports about Iraq's
weapons.

It doesn't matter since President Bush was given the authority by Congress
to do anything he felt necessary to fight the war on terror. No matter how
mcuh spin the idiots on the left try to apply, that fact is not going away.

It was politics that got that vote, since nobody wanted to appear soft on
defense. The Democrats have a long history of being on the wrong side of
every Defense issue brought before them and it is going to kill their
efforts to beat Bush.

Well here's my opinion. No one was certain they had them. There was
evidence pointing to the them having them, but no one saw any pictures
or outright proof of it. The summaries given by the CIA made this
clear, which is why the administration including Bush almost always
couched the accusations in vague and circumspect language: he has
"dangerous weapons," he _had_ "chemical and biological weapons," he is
seeking nuclear weapons, the weapons remain unaccounted for, etc.

On occasion, someone slipped up and said they _knew_ he had WMD.
Rumsfeld in particular said this. What he was thinking was that he
was expressing that as an opinion based on evidence. However, to say
you know something is a statement of certainty, not a statement of
inference. In other words, what he was leaving unsaid was contrary to
what he was saying. In other words, when he said we "know" Saddam has
WMD, he was lying.

So far as I have seen, the closest Bush came to outright lying was
when he said we know Saddam has "dangerous" weapons. Now that can of
course be construed to refer to conventional weapons, but he was
implying WMD. It's not lying outright, but it's deliberately giving a
false impression.

However, his overall effort I think was to mislead the public into
thinking there was an imminent threat of attack from Iraq, and I think
it's accurate to say that that claim was a lie. I think he also tried
to foster the impression that Iraq was behind 9/11, also a lie. These
are lies, but Bush never said them explicitly. He instead tried to
get the public to think them by innuendo and implication. "We don't
want the proof to come in the form of a mushroom cloud," etc.

Cheney I haven't gone over his statements very carefully, but I think
he made some plain statements of knowledge beforehand as well.

I'm not trying to persuade you--I'm sure many people agree with you.
I just wanted to hear what you had to say because it's interesting.

Bush has acceded to an investigation, by the way:
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/01/international/middleeast/01CND-INTE.html?hp

"Jacob Kramer" wrote in message
om...
"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message
...

They were never fully accounted for after the first Gulf War.

I don't know if they had any left or not. I do know that the Intel from
every country in the world indicated that they did. In the UK they have
taken judical notice that the reports were not "sexed up," and heads are
rolling at the BBC.

There are a few choices one can RATIONALLY believe on this issue.

1. Saddam had them and hid them.

2. They used to have them and were trying to get them again.

3. Saddam wanted them again but was being fleeced by his own people.

It is not rational to believe that Bush made up the reports about Iraq's
weapons.

It doesn't matter since President Bush was given the authority by
Congress
to do anything he felt necessary to fight the war on terror. No matter
how
mcuh spin the idiots on the left try to apply, that fact is not going
away.

It was politics that got that vote, since nobody wanted to appear soft
on
defense. The Democrats have a long history of being on the wrong side
of
every Defense issue brought before them and it is going to kill their
efforts to beat Bush.

Well here's my opinion. No one was certain they had them.

Such is the nature of Intelligence gathering.

There was
evidence pointing to the them having them, but no one saw any pictures
or outright proof of it. The summaries given by the CIA made this
clear, which is why the administration including Bush almost always
couched the accusations in vague and circumspect language: he has
"dangerous weapons," he _had_ "chemical and biological weapons," he is
seeking nuclear weapons, the weapons remain unaccounted for, etc.

On occasion, someone slipped up and said they _knew_ he had WMD.
Rumsfeld in particular said this. What he was thinking was that he
was expressing that as an opinion based on evidence. However, to say
you know something is a statement of certainty, not a statement of
inference. In other words, what he was leaving unsaid was contrary to
what he was saying. In other words, when he said we "know" Saddam has
WMD, he was lying.

Or maybe, just maybe he agreed with Clinton who said the same thing. Was he
lying?

So far as I have seen, the closest Bush came to outright lying was
when he said we know Saddam has "dangerous" weapons.

It was the information he was presented with from the CIA. Clinton was also
convinced of the same thing.

Now that can of
course be construed to refer to conventional weapons, but he was
implying WMD. It's not lying outright, but it's deliberately giving a
false impression.


Then let's get everybody who made that claim. Of course the Federal
government would come to a screeching halt because during the Clinton
Adminstration many Democrats said the same thing.

However, his overall effort I think was to mislead the public into
thinking there was an imminent threat of attack from Iraq, and I think
it's accurate to say that that claim was a lie.

That's your opinion. When presented with the very same information Tony
Blair made the very same statements. Later when a case was made that Blair
had the information "sexed up" a UK judge found that it had not been and the
BBC is still reeling because of it.

Was Chirac lying when he said they believed Saddam had such weapons? What
about the other world leaders and the UN?

You can't have this all on Bush's shoulders.

I think he also tried
to foster the impression that Iraq was behind 9/11, also a lie.

Of course it would be a lie if he ever said it. The fact is he only said
that terrorism is a bad thing and that Saddam was helping terrorists and
therefore should be taken out.

These
are lies, but Bush never said them explicitly. He instead tried to
get the public to think them by innuendo and implication.

I don't think so.

"We don't
want the proof to come in the form of a mushroom cloud," etc.

Prudent. I like it.

Cheney I haven't gone over his statements very carefully, but I think
he made some plain statements of knowledge beforehand as well.

I'm not trying to persuade you--I'm sure many people agree with you.
I just wanted to hear what you had to say because it's interesting.

You can't convince me of anything either way. My determination is based on
the reality of what EVERYBODY in the intel community around the world was
saying.

Bush has acceded to an investigation, by the way:

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/01/in...CND-INTE.html?
hp