George Bush is Right

Tom Keunich

to have known that Saddam Hussein was an imminent threat.

If not for President Bush's brave actions, we would all have been
subjected to one of the greatest perils known to the history of
mankind.

This war isn't cheap, but Armageddon would have been infinitely more
expensive.


Tnank God for G.W. Bush and his neocons.

Christie B.

This is a cycling group... keep your political antics to yourself.

--
Christie J. Beegle
"Tom Keunich" <tom_k_eunich@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:6722e108.0405022114.1985655a@posting.google.com...
> to have known that Saddam Hussein was an imminent threat.
>
> If not for President Bush's brave actions, we would all have been
> subjected to one of the greatest perils known to the history of
> mankind.
>
> This war isn't cheap, but Armageddon would have been infinitely more
> expensive.
>
>
> Tnank God for G.W. Bush and his neocons.

curt

THIS IS A CYCLING GROUP. GO TROLL SOMEWHERE ELSE.

PLONK

"Tom Keunich" <tom_k_eunich@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:6722e108.0405022114.1985655a@posting.google.com...
> to have known that Saddam Hussein was an imminent threat.
>
> If not for President Bush's brave actions, we would all have been
> subjected to one of the greatest perils known to the history of
> mankind.
>
> This war isn't cheap, but Armageddon would have been infinitely more
> expensive.
>
>
> Tnank God for G.W. Bush and his neocons.

Jay Hill

Tom Keunich wrote:
>
go troll somewhere else

John Everett

On 2 May 2004 22:14:46 -0700, tom_k_eunich@hotmail.com (Tom Keunich)
wrote:

>to have known that Saddam Hussein was an imminent threat.
>
>If not for President Bush's brave actions, we would all have been
>subjected to one of the greatest perils known to the history of
>mankind.
>
>This war isn't cheap, but Armageddon would have been infinitely more
>expensive.
>
>
>Tnank God for G.W. Bush and his neocons.

Good one. ;-)

My news server has already received three responses from people who
just haven't gotten it. There will probably be more.


jeverett3<AT>earthlink<DOT>net http://home.earthlink.net/~jeverett3

Kyle Legate

Christie B. wrote:
> This is a cycling group... keep your political antics to yourself.
>
You're just a little too late.

Randy Walton

For crying out loud. There is a thread with 100 messages in it about
political stuff that's been going on for days. This guy trolls and everyone
wants to get righteous about it?

Don't get me wrong, I'd much rather read about cycling, the politics just
gives me a headache.

"John Everett" <jeverett3@earthlink.DEFEAT.UCE.BOTS.net> wrote in message
news:2ssc90tfrbg6edf3ekqasrp586rqqsrqn9@4ax.com...
> On 2 May 2004 22:14:46 -0700, tom_k_eunich@hotmail.com (Tom Keunich)
> wrote:
>
> >to have known that Saddam Hussein was an imminent threat.
> >
> >If not for President Bush's brave actions, we would all have been
> >subjected to one of the greatest perils known to the history of
> >mankind.
> >
> >This war isn't cheap, but Armageddon would have been infinitely more
> >expensive.
> >
> >
> >Tnank God for G.W. Bush and his neocons.
>
> Good one. ;-)
>
> My news server has already received three responses from people who
> just haven't gotten it. There will probably be more.
>
>
> jeverett3<AT>earthlink<DOT>net http://home.earthlink.net/~jeverett3

TritonRider

>From: "Randy Walton" randywalton@hotmail.com

>For crying out loud. There is a thread with 100 messages in it about
>political stuff that's been going on for days. This guy trolls and everyone
>wants to get righteous about it?

I'm one of the major contributing criminals to the political threads. If you
haven't noticed there is almost always one going here. It seems to keep all the
crap from infecting all the other threads. Wheteher anyone wants to admit it
there's more educated intelligence here than in half of the newsgroups combined
so it makes for some good discussion.
Besides Lance is a buddy of GW, and as we see Kerry rides a bike so bring it
on.
Bill C

Sam

Bush never said Hussein was an "imminent threat". He stated that something
has to be done before the threat is imminent.
If you wait until an attack is launched, you are going to lose people before
you can respond.


"Tom Keunich" <tom_k_eunich@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:6722e108.0405022114.1985655a@posting.google.com...
> to have known that Saddam Hussein was an imminent threat.
>
> If not for President Bush's brave actions, we would all have been
> subjected to one of the greatest perils known to the history of
> mankind.
>
> This war isn't cheap, but Armageddon would have been infinitely more
> expensive.
>
>
> Tnank God for G.W. Bush and his neocons.

Howard Kveck

In article <T9Flc.6531$V97.1468@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
"Sam" <marathonman@mindspring.com> wrote:

> Bush never said Hussein was an "imminent threat". He stated that something
> has to be done before the threat is imminent.
> If you wait until an attack is launched, you are going to lose people before
> you can respond.

http://www.americanprogress.org/sit...JRJ8OVF&b=24970

http://www.americanprogress.org/sit...iJRJ8OVF&b=6228

--
tanx,
Howard

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


remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

JP

"Sam" <marathonman@mindspring.com> wrote in message news:<T9Flc.6531$V97.1468@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>...
> Bush never said Hussein was an "imminent threat". He stated that something
> has to be done before the threat is imminent.
> If you wait until an attack is launched, you are going to lose people before
> you can respond.

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

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

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

JP

Curtis L. Russell

On 4 May 2004 11:05:43 -0700, SocSecTrainWreck@earthlink.net (JP)
wrote:

>So, if Bush didn't use the word "imminent" (or equivalent)
>in justifying the war on Iraq, he attacked Iraq illegally and is
>therefore guilty of crimes against humanity and should be impeached
>and sent to the Hague to stand trial.

International law is not that simple, nor does it have just one set of
reasons for starting a war. First of all, it would fail for the simple
reason that the declaration of war was a decade ago and for relatively
straight forward reasons. What has existed since is a cease fire that
was violated by Iraq on an ongoing basis. The Bush administration was
inept for not simply saying that Hussein had violated the cease fire
too many times and a state of hostilities has resumed.

That's largely the same reason the North Koreans didn't have to
explain hacking some U.S. servicemen to death in the demilitarized
zone some years ago.

Second of all, there is a basis for invading when a state refuses to
abide by the standards of international law and poses a continuing
threat to other nations. That is a rather badly abused basis that has
been used by the honest and the sanctimonius and those just looking
for a reason, but it remains a valid basis. Imminent has nothing to do
with it.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

Richard Adams

SocSecTrainWreck@earthlink.net (JP) wrote in message news:<1f323b67.0405041005.292d3a23@posting.google.com>...
> "Sam" <marathonman@mindspring.com> wrote in message news:<T9Flc.6531$V97.1468@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>...
> > Bush never said Hussein was an "imminent threat". He stated that something
> > has to be done before the threat is imminent.
> > If you wait until an attack is launched, you are going to lose people before
> > you can respond.
>
> There's actually quite a paradox in here that you've glossed over with
> your misunderstanding of the English language.
>
> "Imminent" means about to happen, not that an attack has already been
> launched.
>
> Now, here's the paradox: Under international law it is clearly
> permissible to defend yourself if you are attacked by a foreign power
> (obviously not applicable to this Iraq War). It is permissible to
> launch a pre-emptive attack if the threat from the foreign power is
> imminent. So, if Bush didn't use the word "imminent" (or equivalent)
> in justifying the war on Iraq, he attacked Iraq illegally and is
> therefore guilty of crimes against humanity and should be impeached
> and sent to the Hague to stand trial. OTOH, if he did use the word
> "imminent" (or equivalent) he is either a liar (about its imminence)
> or just plain full of crap.
>
> JP



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

1) It was a hard sell, Saddam Hussein posed an immenent danger with
WMD
2) Weapons inspectors could find nothing, UN urged patience to let
them do their job.
3) The lack of WMD finds was characterized as evidence of how crafty
Saddam's people were.
4) Invasion
5) No weapons found, only old junk left to rust out in the desert.
6) Bush asked for more time, urging patience in finding WMD
7) Still no WMD, so other excuses are paraded for public approval:
Saddam evil, etc.
8) What pretty much everyone who had any sense could see happened, is
happening, the country is descending into chaos.
9) It's now a meatgrinder, slowly working its way through coalition
troups, exposing scandals, creating friction with the locals.


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

Tom Kunich

"Richard Adams" <ackthpt@concentric.net> wrote in message
news:c2352af0.0405041336.3ca7c432@posting.google.com...
> SocSecTrainWreck@earthlink.net (JP) wrote in message
news:<1f323b67.0405041005.292d3a23@posting.google.com>...
> > "Sam" <marathonman@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:<T9Flc.6531$V97.1468@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>...
> > > Bush never said Hussein was an "imminent threat". He stated that
something
> > > has to be done before the threat is imminent.
> > > If you wait until an attack is launched, you are going to lose people
before
> > > you can respond.
> >
> > There's actually quite a paradox in here that you've glossed over with
> > your misunderstanding of the English language.
> >
> > "Imminent" means about to happen, not that an attack has already been
> > launched.
> >
> > Now, here's the paradox: Under international law it is clearly
> > permissible to defend yourself if you are attacked by a foreign power
> > (obviously not applicable to this Iraq War). It is permissible to
> > launch a pre-emptive attack if the threat from the foreign power is
> > imminent. So, if Bush didn't use the word "imminent" (or equivalent)
> > in justifying the war on Iraq, he attacked Iraq illegally and is
> > therefore guilty of crimes against humanity and should be impeached
> > and sent to the Hague to stand trial. OTOH, if he did use the word
> > "imminent" (or equivalent) he is either a liar (about its imminence)
> > or just plain full of crap.
> >
> > JP
>
>
>
> However you feel about it, it's best to look at the facts.
>
> 1) It was a hard sell, Saddam Hussein posed an immenent danger with
> WMD
> 2) Weapons inspectors could find nothing, UN urged patience to let
> them do their job.
> 3) The lack of WMD finds was characterized as evidence of how crafty
> Saddam's people were.

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

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

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

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

3d) There was a threat of invasion that lasted many months. During this time
it was made plain to the staff of Saddam Hussein's military that should they
be found in possession of WMD they were all be liable for the death penalty
under UN regulations. More months passed. CIA and other intelligence
services noted a very large number of heavy trucks moving from the areas in
which it was believed that WMD were being produced or stored and the Syrian
border. Also Syria appeared to be getting altogether too much oil from Iraq
to pay for the "food for oil" programs that we now know included payoffs to
the controlling UN officials to the tune of some $6 billion!

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

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

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


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

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

8a) Since Liberals refuse to actually talk to the people on the ground in
Iraq they want to believe the news outlets as if they were trying to provide
a balanced outlook. It sort of reminds one of the Loma Prieta Earthquake in
California some 15 years ago. Almost the entire world believed that the bay
area was in ruins and that San Francisco was in flames. That the Bay Bridge
was destroyed and that thousands of people were killed.

In truth, one section of the upper level of the Bay Bridge was pulled off of
it's support beams because of faulty bolts that hadn't been upgraded as had
been recommended in an engineering report. This caused the death of one
idiot driver who paniced and drove over the break at a high rate of speed.
There were some fires and seriously damaged houses in the Marina district of
San Francisco due to people knocking out the support columns under their
houses in order to install garages in houses that were never designed to
have them. These structures collapsing broke gas pipes and led to some fires
that were controlled by the SFFD. One section of skyway freeway in Oakland
collapsed. What was ABSOLYUTELY hidden was the fact that these sections had
been put up by "construction" firms connected to organized crime and were
NOT designed to specification. Less than half of the steel specified was
present in the construction. The same union connected firms built similar
sections in San Francisco which were quietly torn down and no one ever
mentioned the corruption and the colussion of the media ever again.

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

> 9) It's now a meatgrinder, slowly working its way through coalition
> troups, exposing scandals, creating friction with the locals.
>
> Consider this: If Bush really was a competent leader, would he want
> to remain in charge of this mess or pass it off to some other schmuck?