George W. Bush

[Ian St. John]

Mark Hickey wrote:
> "Ian St. John" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Ken [NY] wrote:
>>> On Fri, 19 Nov 04 17:00:28 GMT, [email protected] (Lloyd
>>> Parker) claims:
>> <snip>
>>>
>>> Mr. Cheney never said anything like that.
>>
>> Probably he is referring to Donald Rumsfelds statements.
>>
>> ""Why the intelligence proved wrong (on WMDs), I'm not in a position
>> to say," Rumsfeld said in remarks to the Council on Foreign
>> Relations in New York. "I simply don't know."
>> "When asked about any connection between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda,
>> Rumsfeld said, "To my knowledge, I have not seen any strong, hard
>> evidence that links the two."
>
> No wonder you guys get so confused about who said what.

Generally, the confusion is mainly due to the 'excuse of the day' crapfest
from the Bush administration, amplified by dimfucks like you that keep
posting failed claims.

> Ken's comment
> was CLEARLY about the relationship between Iraq and the 9/11 attacks.

The 9/11 attacks are pretty much assumed or believed to be Al-Quaeda, so a
link between Iraq and 9/11 is about a link between Iraq and Al-Quaeda.

Fortunately, there has been no link to Iraq found on either 9/11 or
Al-Quaeda. The ******** keeps failing in the light of reason.

> You're sure there's a link, even if you're not sure what you're
> linking.

So, you are saying that Al-Quaeda was not behind 9/11? You claim it was the
Republican Guard? What a loony you are...

Even your red herrings about false claims are stupid.

 

[Ian St. John]

Mark Hickey wrote:
> "Ian St. John" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Mark Hickey wrote:
>>> [email protected] (Lloyd Parker) wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Ken [NY]" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> no assertions are
>>>>> being made that Saddam Hussein was directly involved in September
>>>>> 11th.
>>>>
>>>> Except by Cheney.
>>>
>>> I'll bet you can't back that up.
>>
>> So? Proving a negative is hard. That does not mean it is true or
>> false.
>
> LOL. You're claiming that just because there's no record of Cheney
> actually saying something, that doesn't mean that he didn't actually
> say it in a manner that convinced many millions of Americans to
> believe what it is he didn't say? Heh heh heh...

I'm sure you believe that made sense. Pitiful really.

The fact is that you can proved the Cheney did make such assertions with
little effort if you are correct. But you are not about being correct or
presenting arguments. You are all about spreading **** and making rhetorical
claims of no particular merit.

>
>> The
>> only proof would be if YOU could come up with a quote by Cheney
>> directly claiming that Saddam was involved in 9/11. Be my guest.
>
> LOL even harder. Now to prove my assertion that Cheney never linked
> 9/11 and Iraq, I have to prove that he DID link 9/11 and Iraq?

So, you are now claiming that there are no assertions of involvement between
Iraq and 9/11? Nice of you to prove that the administration has been lying
all this time. Or are you lying about their lack of claims. Hard to know
when you dimshits start talking. You have to read the fine print on
everything, undertstand that the staff are 'speaking for the president' but
with deniabilty and furthermore keep pace with the ever changing story both
from them and from dittoheads like you that put a spin on it all. What a
bunch of ****wits.

>
> You've gotta quit watching those Michael Moore "documentaries"...
> they're affecting any logic abilities you may have had at one time.

Michael Moore, while focussing on the lack of real leadership by the
president that led up to the 9/11 situation is certainly easier to follow
than the various claims of the Bush Babies and Bushites.

>
>> Or exit, stage right, whining and whimpering as usual.
>
> Swish - strike three. To the bench with you.

What? The supreme court? You can't do that. Bush has to pack it with his
loyal cronies first.

 

[Ian St. John]

Mark Hickey wrote:
> "Ian St. John" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Mark Hickey wrote:
>
>>> but we were also told many times about the repression,
>>> murder and torture of the Iraqi people by Saddam,
>>
>> Nope. That propaganda really was created after the fact as part of
>> the hunt for a replacement pretext.
>
> LOL. You'd better not read my next post in this thread then. It just
> makes those cognitive dissonance headaches worse. Or do you have a
> new consiracy theory that Bush went back after the fact and altered
> all the speeches, and our memories of those events? LOL.

Try not take so many stupid pills, ok? The fact is that there has been no
evidence put forward to back the propaganda so you should invent something
new. People are bored with the old lies.

 

[Ian St. John]

Mark Hickey wrote:
> "Ian St. John" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Mark Hickey wrote:
>>> [email protected] (Lloyd Parker) wrote:
>>>
>>>> "rick etter" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Do you really belive that the people he had already used them on
>>>>> died from the "lie" that he had them?
>>>>
>>>> Bush didn't claim Saddam had had WMD in the past; he claimed Saddam
>>>> had them in 2003.
>>>
>>> So did the UNMOVIC weapons inspectors.
>>
>> No. They did not. http://www.unmovic.org/ was in the job of
>> CONFIRMING the destruction of WMDs and they had a list of POSSIBLE
>> discrepancies, NOT a list of WMDs. If any such stockpiles were known
>> to exist, then U.S. troops could have just marched into the secured
>> sites and there would have been no question about where are they?
>
> Have you ever actually READ any of that report,

Yes, but unlike you I don't distort what I read to fit some sort of agenda.

> or is your reading
> comprehension just that bad? It's gotta be one or the other. Or, you
> could be living in a dream world (that's my bet).

What? That there were ten thousand liters of Anthax that U.S. troops
misplaced? Please get at least ONE clue.

>
>>> Why else would the UN keep the sanctions in place?
>>
>> Because they were not through the inspection process. They were
>> working to 'prove a negative' which takes a lot of work and brains.
>> IF there were any unreported or unsecured WMDs to their knowledge
>> then they would have immediately destroyed them or, if the
>> destruction was blocked, reported the violation and the U.N. would
>> have a justification for war.
>
> **IF** there were ANY UREPORTED OR UNSECURED WMD???? LOL. I don't
> think you've read the bloody cover page of the UNMOVIC report.

If they had the address of any REAL instead of hypothesised weapons, yes,
they would have gone in and secured them or destroyed them. That was their
job. And yes I did read the report. It based *estimates* of *possible*
manufacture and then had to determine the actual disposition of the
materials to prove that the WMDs that they hypothesised never existed. Of
coures, it took a lot of skillful sleuthing to do so. Forensic detection
that would blow your brain to smithereens to even try to comprehend. That is
why you are still so confused and lacking reading skills you cannot tell
reality from hypothesis.


>
>>>> We were told he had them in 2003.
>>>
>>> By the UN weapons inspection organization (UNMOVIC)
>>
>> Lie. http://www.unmovic.org/
>
> LOL. You post a link to UNMOVIC's home page, yet don't bother reading
> the actual report you're saying is a lie. LOL.

I read the report. It does not list any WMDs with known phsyical existence
that the U.S. troops did not find. Game over.

>
>>> and by every
>>> credible intelligence source available (and by previous
>>> administrations, etc.).
>>
>> Lie.
>
> Does the word "history" mean anything to you?

You mean in terms that the victors write the history? Yes. I can see that
you want to rewrite history to justify an illegal war. Too bad that the
modern age makes it so hard to track down every copy of the truth.

> Or do you assume that
> since much of the world's media is in electronic format history can be
> changed retroactively to suit your particular fantasy?

ha ha. The problem is not history but your delusions about it. If UNMOVIC
had lists of actual WMDs then it would have been no problem to secure them
in the invasion. The facts recorded by history is that they didn't even try
to secure such sites because they knew that no such sites existed and
primariliy concentrated on the oil resources they coveted. Later ,they were
sure they would find *something* overlooked but truth to tell, Saddam had
complied with the U.N. so thoroughly that they could not even find one
obsolete or overlooked munitions. Rather an embarassment to Bush as it
illustrated that he was a blatant liar about the reasons for war.

>
>>> But none of that seems to have remained on
>>> the collective memory of those that didn't vote for Bush.
>>
>> What seems to be missing is some sort of reality check, even after
>> the fact that no WMDs were found and the sources for the propaganda
>> were exposed as not credible or with motives to lie.
>
> Much of the intelligence WAS faulty... but that came to light AFTER
> Saddam was deposed.

No. If intelligence, as a whole, was that faulty, nobody would have
intelligence organisations. THe fact is that most of the intelligence was
quite accurate and painted a picture that Bush did not want to listen to, so
he picked up a few odd reports that supported his claims. He even ordered
people to specifically skim any evidence that supported an invasion of Iraq
from the mass of data. You cannot expect anything but that they will find
SOME odd reports, from the British expose that was pilfered from a students
exercise on the 1991 gulf war, to obvious forged documents about nuclear
material, to ... claims from Saddams enemies that were not credible. They
built up this web of deceit into a solid wall of ********. Too basd such
things tend to fall apart after one use.

Stop banging those rocks with your head. You are starting to sound a bit
brain damaged.

 

[Ian St. John]

BB wrote:
> On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 13:19:08 -0500, Ian St. John wrote:
>
>> Well, took you long enough. The fact is that your statements show
>> that you are delusional and unaware of the facts. I expected you to
>> fall back on such arguments long ago. It shows that you are finally
>> losing faith in your delusions and starting to merely resent the
>> fact that I am exposing them.
>
> Unaware of WHAT facts?

The ones that run counter to your claims in the originating post. Why did
you clip it all? To avoid having to deal with it?

Fact is that your claims of support for the wars legality from the U.N. are
nothing of the sort. That will do for one fact that you still seem unaware
of, though you are ducking it here.


> I know that the war was illegal,

Well good.

> and is going badly,

Now you are going against the Bush propaganda which claimed that everything
is on track and that the major warfare was over half a year ago.

> and that the U.S. is still lacking a valid reason for it.

That would certainly go with it being an illegal war, even though they have
come up with the 'reason of the day' over and over.

> Thats
> last year's news. The main reason I voted against Bush was because I
> felt that starting a war that had nothing to do with our country
> should be reason enough for the President to lose his job. You seem
> to have this bizarre notion that I support the war...

I take each argument as I find them. I do not separate out 'sides' and will
argue with skeptics as well as proponents on parts of their post that I find
wrong. Your assumption of partisanship is rather demeaning and says more
about you than me.

> when reality is,
> my vote against Bush is far more than anything the U.N. has done to
> reprimand him.

So are you sure that about that?

The people who cast the votes decide nothing. The people who count the
votes decide everything.
--Josef Stalin

Voted at a DRE did you? Now that the republicans get to count a lot of the
vote without oversight, are you sure that they are going to count yours?

>
> The facts are that the U.N. issued no resolutions against the
> "coalition",

And that is purely because the U.S. has a veto that it can apply to any such
resolutions. The criminal is still a criminal even if they are the only ones
with guns.

> supports the government installed by the invading
> countries,

FALSE. They support the people of Iraq. Nobody has claimed any legitimacy
for the puppet regime.

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/special/iraq/2115728
"UNITED NATIONS -- The U.S.-appointed Governing Council took Iraq's U.N.
seat for the first time at the opening of the General Assembly's ministerial
session today, but a U.N. spokeswoman said that did not mean it had been
recognized as the country's official representative."

> and condemns the enemies that are fighting back with
> terrorist tactics.

The tactics are as much lifted from the French Resistance of WW2. The
tactics are not the issue. The difference between terrorist and freedom
fighters is the scope and goals of the fighters. The Iraqi resistance has
the elimination of an occupying power as it's goals so they are NOT
terrorists. They ARE caapable of war crimes, such as the execution of an
Iraqi citizen who was not a collaborator just because here death might have
some influence, but that is a war crime of a specific person or group and
only the immediate parties to that act are criminals. The 'schock and awe'
tactics of the U.S. are easily classified as terrorism because they did not
have a legitimate purpose but were desinged to terrorise people into
accepting the demands of the terrorists.

> If they HAD supported the war, how would this be
> different?

IT would be different because the U.N. is the victorious party that was at
war with Iraq and thus it can determine when the ceasefire agreement is
violated and resume the war. And they have the authority over their members
in keeping order BETWEEN nations so the jusitfication would be tied to the
Iraq invasion of Kuwait, not an invented pretext.

> Only one technicality, which is an official statement of
> support. At this points that's moot.

There is no technicality here. The intenrational laws are clear. Only two
mechanisms for legal war exists. One is attack on your own soil or
pessessions. The other is a resolutions of the Security Council. Neither
apply.

>
> I once argued that the legality of the war was the only thing that
> matters, until reading the findings of international law experts and
> seeing the reaction (or lack thereof) from the U.N.

If the law is powerless, does this mean that no crimes are committed? Keep
to your principles. The constituions is based on noble principles and it is
the whittling away of these principles for expediency that has brought the
U.S. into rogue status.


> I consider their
> opinions & actions more meaningful than a Usenet troll who thinks
> everyone is "delusional" and that everyone who doesn't completely
> agree with him is a "****wit".

Who would that be? rick etter? Ken(NY)?

 

[Pete]

"Ian St. John" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Mark Hickey wrote:
>>
>> Learn to read. The UNMOVIC report says that (among MANY other things)
>> Iraq almost certainly possessed 10,000 or more liters of anthrax, and
>> maintained the capability of producing more WMD on short notice.
>
> No. And if you are so sure it is there, then please show it on TV. You
> will
> be believed if you can provide evidence, rather than endless ****.Ten
> thousand liters is enough for a tanker truck at least so it should be
> pretty
> visible. So far, not even the U.S. has been able to show any stockpiles
> of
> WMDs and believe me they TRIED.

If the Iraqi AF can bury several MiG's in the desert (only found because the
sand shifted and exposed the tips of the tails), a few hundred 55 gal drums
should be no problem.

Do you admit that, at one point, Iraq had documented stocks of various
WMD's?
Do you admit that the UN inspectors, in their various configurations, did
not find (and destroy) all of it?

If the answer to these is yes...then why do you so adamantly maintain that
there are none? Why would you take Saddam at his word?
When did 'there are no WMD's' become a true statement? It certainly wasn't
true in 1988. Nor in 1995. Nor in 1999.

Point to the date.
1988---------------------------------2004

And why didn't whoever was in power at the time tell us? Seems to me that
would have been a *major* political coup for someone.

Pete

 

[Ian St. John]

Pete wrote:
> "Ian St. John" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Mark Hickey wrote:
>>>
>>> Learn to read. The UNMOVIC report says that (among MANY other
>>> things) Iraq almost certainly possessed 10,000 or more liters of
>>> anthrax, and maintained the capability of producing more WMD on
>>> short notice.
>>
>> No. And if you are so sure it is there, then please show it on TV.
>> You will
>> be believed if you can provide evidence, rather than endless ****.Ten
>> thousand liters is enough for a tanker truck at least so it should be
>> pretty
>> visible. So far, not even the U.S. has been able to show any
>> stockpiles of
>> WMDs and believe me they TRIED.
>
> If the Iraqi AF can bury several MiG's in the desert (only found
> because the sand shifted and exposed the tips of the tails), a few
> hundred 55 gal drums should be no problem.

Really? And what? The U.S. has no metal detectors? What do you bet that
some of the planes flying overhead have EM
geophysics/magnetometer/gravimetric/spectrometer instruments? You have no
clue as to what technology can do to find such materials. They detected
reprocessing of North Korean plutonium by sampling air is South Korea! I
will not call you dim as this is probably just not something you
understand.Having worked in geophsyics I can tell you that detecting drums
of such material buriied less than thirty meters deep is not a problem. Nor
are the planes so it may have been sand blowing or it just may be that this
was used to cover the use of more sophisticated detection technologies.

>
> Do you admit that, at one point, Iraq had documented stocks of various
> WMD's?

Obviously. I also submit that the U.S. has stockpiles of various WMDs, all
in weaponised forms and with the capability of hitting just about anywhere
on earth. What is your point?

> Do you admit that the UN inspectors, in their various configurations,
> did not find (and destroy) all of it?

No. I can find no evidence that there are missing stockpiles. The majority
of quetions for the inspectors was to confirm destruction of both weapons
and precursor materials. There were a few chemical munitons left perhaps,
awaiting disposal, and there were nuclear materials ( not anywhere near
ready to make nuclear weapons ) sitting in secured sites, but other than the
RDX/MDX explosives that the U.S. carelessly handed over to terrorists, there
is no evidence that any unaccounted for materials now exist.

>
> If the answer to these is yes...then why do you so adamantly maintain
> that there are none?

I don't . The evidence does, despite your desperate fantasies.

> Why would you take Saddam at his word?

I don't. I take the evidence for what it is. If Saddam had failed to find
WMDs then I would feel a lot more skeptical than after the U.S. fails to
find ANY WMDs or evidence of their removal.

> When did 'there are no WMD's' become a true statement? It certainly
> wasn't true in 1988. Nor in 1995. Nor in 1999.

Nobody is completely sure when the last of the unsecured WMDs was destroyed.
Their are secured materials still, of course. The question was not of such
secured materials such as nuclear waste drums, and high tech explosives.

>
> Point to the date.
> 1988---------------------------------2004
>
> And why didn't whoever was in power at the time tell us? Seems to me
> that would have been a *major* political coup for someone.

No. It was the job of the U.N. inspection team and they were nearly ready to
deliver a final reports. It did not depend on a specific date for the
disposal of the mateiral, only that it was disposed of. That is an clueless
red herring issue.
>
> Pete

 

[BB]

On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 23:52:46 -0500, Ian St. John wrote:

>> I once argued that the legality of the war was the only thing that
>> matters, until reading the findings of international law experts and
>> seeing the reaction (or lack thereof) from the U.N.
>
> If the law is powerless, does this mean that no crimes are committed? Keep
> to your principles. The constituions is based on noble principles and it is
> the whittling away of these principles for expediency that has brought the
> U.S. into rogue status.

It wasn't me who didn't keep to my principles, it was the U.N. And that
has been my point all along.

You seem to be so busy arguing that no point can sink in, so I see no
reason to try to open your eyes. You are so completely convinced that the
U.N. is fully against this war that you ignore everything after September
2003, e.g. resolution 1546, "security council endorses formation of
sovereign interim government in iraq".

I know, I know, its a U.S. conspiracy...everything is to you, isn't it?

>> I consider their
>> opinions & actions more meaningful than a Usenet troll who thinks
>> everyone is "delusional" and that everyone who doesn't completely
>> agree with him is a "****wit".
>
> Who would that be? rick etter? Ken(NY)?

Are you really stupid enough to think that's who I was talking about? I
thought you were smarter than that. My mistake.

--
-BB-
To reply to me, drop the attitude (from my e-mail address, at least)

 

[V.Simkins]

first of all, ken, would you mind supplying a link proving what you just
wrote, to humour me?

> dissidents, no more torture chambers and rape rooms. The tyrant will
> soon be gone. The day of your liberation is near.

it has never been proven with hard evidence that saddam had such things, at
least not to my knowledge. besides, even if he did torture and rape men and
woman, american soldiers have been, and are probably at this moment, doing
the same.

It is not too
> late for the Iraqi military to act with honor and protect your country
> by permitting the peaceful entry of coalition forces to eliminate
> weapons of mass destruction

there are those WMDs, again.....

>I urge every member of the Iraqi military and
> intelligence services, if war comes, do not fight for a dying regime
> that is not worth your own life.
>

from what i hear people who AREN'T fighting, are getting killed,
anyways.....how does one make a successful bodycount of civilians, if, to a
soldiers eyes, they all look the same?

> Should Saddam Hussein choose confrontation, the American people can
> know that every measure has been taken to avoid war, and every measure
> will be taken to win it.

did i just hear George hear contradict himself? it really sounded like it,
besides, do you think any governmental leader in their right mind would give
thier power over to another country on a silver platter WITHOUT a struggle?
i know Bush certainly wouldn't. i know my Prime Minister wouldn't
either.......


> And all Iraqi military and civilian personnel should listen carefully
> to this warning. In any conflict, your fate will depend on your
> action. Do not destroy oil wells, a source of wealth that belongs to
> the Iraqi people. Do not obey any command to use weapons of mass
> destruction against anyone, including the Iraqi people. War crimes
> will be prosecuted. War criminals will be punished. And it will be no
> defense to say, "I was just following orders."
>

"do not destroy oil wells, a source of wealth that belongs to the iraqi
people". that should have set people's suspicions off from the start.... why
would Bush be so concerned over oil, to include it in his speech? unless, of
course, he was worried that he couldn't get a steady supply back home.......
at any rate, there is that mention of those WMDs again..... IF i am wrong,
well... you have to admit he brings the subject up alot...... "and it will
be no defense to say 'i was just following orders' " if this is true, i pray
for all those poor souls who actually surrendered, regardless of what they
did in the past.




> Yet, the only way to reduce the harm and duration of war is to apply
> the full force and might of our military, and we are prepared to do
> so. If Saddam Hussein attempts to cling to power, he will remain a
> deadly foe until the end..


applying the "full force and might" of your military, eh? too bad you didn't
think of doing this when you moved in there........ this illegal war would
have been over by now, and your troops wouldn't be slaughtered like sheep
from the anti-american rebellion over there right now....

"If Saddam Hussein attempts to cling to power, he will remain a deadly foe
until the end." good for you, Bush, for demonstrating the limits of your
intelligence by stating the obvious. if a government leader is in power, he
will struggle to keep that status, no matter what. That goes for nearly
every leader out there.



>In desperation, he and terrorists groups
> might try to conduct terrorist operations against the American people
> and our friends. These attacks are not inevitable. They are, however,
> possible. And this very fact underscores the reason we cannot live
> under the threat of blackmail. The terrorist threat to America and the
> world will be diminished the moment that Saddam Hussein is disarmed

Can somone in here PLEASE show me hard evidence that saddam has been linked
to terrorist groups, WITHOUT insulting my intelligence, or using the insult
that i'm a "fool" as evidence? (seriously rick, if your going to insult
someone, at least try to be creative with your insults. the "fool" technique
is getting a bit old)... hmm.. it says here that "The terrorist threat to
America and the world will be diminished the moment that Saddam Hussein is
disarmed" . you have Saddam in your custody, and his next-of-kin are
dead...... why are the American people still hiding in thier homes, in fear?
i mean, the Saddam "threat" has been eliminated, right?





"Ken [NY]" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news[email protected]...
> On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 09:21:00 -0500, "V.Simkins"
> <[email protected]> claims:
>
> >> Yes, I do. Apparently better than you. WMD was not THE reason for the
> >war.
> >> Maybe if you tried you could find out there were more than several
reason
> >> given.
> >
> >i won't deny that Bush had more "reasons" up his sleeve.... but the
> >possibility of the usage of WMDs was the ONLY reason given to go to war
to
> >the public, AT THE TIME IT WAS FIRST STARTED.
>
> Well, why not see what President Bush said on the eve of the
> invasion of Iraq - to the people of Iraq? Let's see if his speech
> overwhelmingly was about WMD:
>
>
> Many Iraqis can hear me tonight in a translated radio broadcast, and
> I have a message for them. If we must begin a military campaign, it
> will be directed against the lawless men who rule your country and not
> against you. As our coalition takes away their power, we will deliver
> the food and medicine you need. We will tear down the apparatus of
> terror and we will help you to build a new Iraq that is prosperous and
> free. In a free Iraq, there will be no more wars of aggression against
> your neighbors, no more poison factories, no more executions of
> dissidents, no more torture chambers and rape rooms. The tyrant will
> soon be gone. The day of your liberation is near.
>
> It is too late for Saddam Hussein to remain in power. It is not too
> late for the Iraqi military to act with honor and protect your country
> by permitting the peaceful entry of coalition forces to eliminate
> weapons of mass destruction. Our forces will give Iraqi military units
> clear instructions on actions they can take to avoid being attacked
> and destroyed. I urge every member of the Iraqi military and
> intelligence services, if war comes, do not fight for a dying regime
> that is not worth your own life.
>
> And all Iraqi military and civilian personnel should listen carefully
> to this warning. In any conflict, your fate will depend on your
> action. Do not destroy oil wells, a source of wealth that belongs to
> the Iraqi people. Do not obey any command to use weapons of mass
> destruction against anyone, including the Iraqi people. War crimes
> will be prosecuted. War criminals will be punished. And it will be no
> defense to say, "I was just following orders."
>
> Should Saddam Hussein choose confrontation, the American people can
> know that every measure has been taken to avoid war, and every measure
> will be taken to win it. Americans understand the costs of conflict
> because we have paid them in the past. War has no certainty, except
> the certainty of sacrifice.
>
> Yet, the only way to reduce the harm and duration of war is to apply
> the full force and might of our military, and we are prepared to do
> so. If Saddam Hussein attempts to cling to power, he will remain a
> deadly foe until the end. In desperation, he and terrorists groups
> might try to conduct terrorist operations against the American people
> and our friends. These attacks are not inevitable. They are, however,
> possible. And this very fact underscores the reason we cannot live
> under the threat of blackmail. The terrorist threat to America and the
> world will be diminished the moment that Saddam Hussein is disarmed.
>
> Our government is on heightened watch against these dangers. Just as
> we are preparing to ensure victory in Iraq, we are taking further
> actions to protect our homeland. In recent days, American authorities
> have expelled from the country certain individuals with ties to Iraqi
> intelligence services. Among other measures, I have directed
> additional security of our airports, and increased Coast Guard patrols
> of major seaports. The Department of Homeland Security is working
> closely with the nation's governors to increase armed security at
> critical facilities across America.
>
> Should enemies strike our country, they would be attempting to shift
> our attention with panic and weaken our morale with fear. In this,
> they would fail. No act of theirs can alter the course or shake the
> resolve of this country. We are a peaceful people -- yet we're not a
> fragile people, and we will not be intimidated by thugs and killers.
> If our enemies dare to strike us, they and all who have aided them,
> will face fearful consequences.
>
> We are now acting because the risks of inaction would be far greater.
> In one year, or five years, the power of Iraq to inflict harm on all
> free nations would be multiplied many times over. With these
> capabilities, Saddam Hussein and his terrorist allies could choose the
> moment of deadly conflict when they are strongest. We choose to meet
> that threat now, where it arises, before it can appear suddenly in our
> skies and cities.
>
> The cause of peace requires all free nations to recognize new and
> undeniable realities. In the 20th century, some chose to appease
> murderous dictators, whose threats were allowed to grow into genocide
> and global war. In this century, when evil men plot chemical,
> biological and nuclear terror, a policy of appeasement could bring
> destruction of a kind never before seen on this earth.
>
> Terrorists and terror states do not reveal these threats with fair
> notice, in formal declarations -- and responding to such enemies only
> after they have struck first is not self-defense, it is suicide. The
> security of the world requires disarming Saddam Hussein now.
>
> As we enforce the just demands of the world, we will also honor the
> deepest commitments of our country. Unlike Saddam Hussein, we believe
> the Iraqi people are deserving and capable of human liberty. And when
> the dictator has departed, they can set an example to all the Middle
> East of a vital and peaceful and self-governing nation.
>
> The United States, with other countries, will work to advance liberty
> and peace in that region. Our goal will not be achieved overnight, but
> it can come over time. The power and appeal of human liberty is felt
> in every life and every land. And the greatest power of freedom is to
> overcome hatred and violence, and turn the creative gifts of men and
> women to the pursuits of peace.
>
> That is the future we choose. Free nations have a duty to defend our
> people by uniting against the violent. And tonight, as we have done
> before, America and our allies accept that responsibility.
>
> Good night, and may God continue to bless America.
>
> END 8:15 P.M. EST
>
>
> Cordially,
> Ken (NY)
>
> email: http://www.geocities.com/bluesguy68/email.htm
> spammers can send mail to [email protected]
>
> http://www.flowgo.com/funpages/view.cfm/6402

 

[Ian St. John]

Ken [NY] wrote:
> On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 22:55:58 -0500, "Ian St. John"
> <[email protected]> claims:
>
>>> LOL even harder. Now to prove my assertion that Cheney never linked
>>> 9/11 and Iraq, I have to prove that he DID link 9/11 and Iraq?
>>
>> So, you are now claiming that there are no assertions of involvement
>> between Iraq and 9/11? Nice of you to prove that the administration
>> has been lying all this time.
>
> NO US OFFICIAL EVER LINKED 9/11 AND IRAQ, EVER!

Lie.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3715396.stm
"US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has cast doubt on whether there was
ever a relationship between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda.
The alleged link was used as a reason by President Bush for invading Iraq. "

Simple logic. If you connect 9/11 to Al-Quaeda and Al-Quaeda to Iraq then
you are implying a link between Iraq and 9/11. Even the newspapers are clear
on what was said.

> Stare at that sentence for a while and maybe, just maybe it
> will sink in. (It's no wonder that your view of America is so skewed.)

You seem determined to prove that you are both ignorant, incapable of
reason, and stupid to boot.

http://www.9-11commission.gov/
10.3 "Phase Two" and the Question of Iraq

There has been a lot of statements that Saddam has been linked to Al-Quaeda
( ergo 9/11) and that was ONE of the 'excuse of the month' club reasons for
the invasion of Iraq. The WMDs themselves were not a threat to the U.S.
since Saddam had no method for 'delivering them' against the U.S.. Only the
hypothesis of links to 9/11 and terroirsm let him argue that the WMDs might
be used against the U.S by terrorists either in an alliance or controlled by
Iraq. If you are finally admitting that there was no link to terrorism in
Iraq and that the war was not in defense of the U.S., then please be more
forthright.

 

[Ian St. John]

Ken [NY] wrote:
> On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 12:49:16 -0500, "Ian St. John"
> <[email protected]> claims:
>
>> Mark Hickey wrote:
>>> [email protected] (Lloyd Parker) wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Ken [NY]" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> no assertions are
>>>>> being made that Saddam Hussein was directly involved in September
>>>>> 11th.
>>>>
>>>> Except by Cheney.
>>>
>>> I'll bet you can't back that up.
>>
>> So? Proving a negative is hard. That does not mean it is true or
>> false. The only proof would be if YOU could come up with a quote by
>> Cheney directly claiming that Saddam was involved in 9/11. Be my
>> guest.
>
> No it's not, at least in this case. Use Google and use the
> phrases you say Cheney uttered within quotes. If he said anything
> about Saddam Hussein being directly involved in September 11,
> certainly someone would have published it and it would come up. If it
> doesn't come up with that quote, you can bet that he didn't make it.

Really?? The net has somehow become omnisicent?

>
>> Or exit, stage right, whining and whimpering as usual.
>
> Glad you can find your way out.

Just sitting in the audience watching you embarass yourself. I'll exit when
you antics become less comical.

 

[Ian St. John]

Ken [NY] wrote:
> On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 12:49:16 -0500, "Ian St. John"
> <[email protected]> claims:
>
>> Mark Hickey wrote:
>>> [email protected] (Lloyd Parker) wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Ken [NY]" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> no assertions are
>>>>> being made that Saddam Hussein was directly involved in September
>>>>> 11th.
>>>>
>>>> Except by Cheney.
>>>
>>> I'll bet you can't back that up.
>>
>> So? Proving a negative is hard. That does not mean it is true or
>> false. The only proof would be if YOU could come up with a quote by
>> Cheney directly claiming that Saddam was involved in 9/11. Be my
>> guest.
>
> No it's not, at least in this case. Use Google and use the
> phrases you say Cheney uttered within quotes. If he said anything
> about Saddam Hussein being directly involved in September 11,
> certainly someone would have published it and it would come up. If it
> doesn't come up with that quote, you can bet that he didn't make it.

Really?? The net has somehow become omnisicent?

>
>> Or exit, stage right, whining and whimpering as usual.
>
> Glad you can find your way out.

Just sitting in the audience watching you embarass yourself. I'll exit when
you antics become less comical.

 

[Mark Hickey]

"Ian St. John" <[email protected]> wrote:

>Mark Hickey wrote:
>> "Ian St. John" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> Ken [NY] wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 19 Nov 04 17:00:28 GMT, [email protected] (Lloyd
>>>> Parker) claims:
>>> <snip>
>>>>
>>>> Mr. Cheney never said anything like that.
>>>
>>> Probably he is referring to Donald Rumsfelds statements.
>>>
>>> ""Why the intelligence proved wrong (on WMDs), I'm not in a position
>>> to say," Rumsfeld said in remarks to the Council on Foreign
>>> Relations in New York. "I simply don't know."
>>> "When asked about any connection between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda,
>>> Rumsfeld said, "To my knowledge, I have not seen any strong, hard
>>> evidence that links the two."
>>
>> No wonder you guys get so confused about who said what.
>
>Generally, the confusion is mainly due to the 'excuse of the day' crapfest
>from the Bush administration, amplified by dimfucks like you that keep
>posting failed claims.
>
>> Ken's comment
>> was CLEARLY about the relationship between Iraq and the 9/11 attacks.
>
>The 9/11 attacks are pretty much assumed or believed to be Al-Quaeda, so a
>link between Iraq and 9/11 is about a link between Iraq and Al-Quaeda.

So YOU can use the two (Al Qaeda and the 9/11 attacks) interchangably
without any problem - and then you assume that Cheney did the same
thing, so you can blame him for laying 9/11 at the feet of Saddam.

That's just too funny, but it is a step forward in your quest to
become a world class troll. It's a little more subtle and
entertaining than most of your tirades, but still needs serious work.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame

 

[Mark Hickey]

"Ian St. John" <[email protected]> wrote:

>Mark Hickey wrote:
>> "Ian St. John" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> Mark Hickey wrote:
>>>> [email protected] (Lloyd Parker) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "Ken [NY]" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> no assertions are
>>>>>> being made that Saddam Hussein was directly involved in September
>>>>>> 11th.
>>>>>
>>>>> Except by Cheney.
>>>>
>>>> I'll bet you can't back that up.
>>>
>>> So? Proving a negative is hard. That does not mean it is true or
>>> false.
>>
>> LOL. You're claiming that just because there's no record of Cheney
>> actually saying something, that doesn't mean that he didn't actually
>> say it in a manner that convinced many millions of Americans to
>> believe what it is he didn't say? Heh heh heh...
>
>I'm sure you believe that made sense. Pitiful really.
>
>The fact is that you can proved the Cheney did make such assertions with
>little effort if you are correct. But you are not about being correct or
>presenting arguments. You are all about spreading **** and making rhetorical
>claims of no particular merit.

You're wrong, wrong, wrong - and you can't do a thing to back up your
assertion. Heh heh heh... wiggle all you want, but you're wrong.
Heh.

>>> The
>>> only proof would be if YOU could come up with a quote by Cheney
>>> directly claiming that Saddam was involved in 9/11. Be my guest.
>>
>> LOL even harder. Now to prove my assertion that Cheney never linked
>> 9/11 and Iraq, I have to prove that he DID link 9/11 and Iraq?
>
>So, you are now claiming that there are no assertions of involvement between
>Iraq and 9/11? Nice of you to prove that the administration has been lying
>all this time. Or are you lying about their lack of claims. Hard to know
>when you dimshits start talking. You have to read the fine print on
>everything, undertstand that the staff are 'speaking for the president' but
>with deniabilty and furthermore keep pace with the ever changing story both
>from them and from dittoheads like you that put a spin on it all. What a
>bunch of ****wits.

Heh heh heh... it's funny how you get more profane the more hopeless
your reasoning becomes. All you have to do is to post a link to a
citation showing Cheney said what you SAY he said (but you can't so
I'll expect more profanity soon).

>> You've gotta quit watching those Michael Moore "documentaries"...
>> they're affecting any logic abilities you may have had at one time.
>
>Michael Moore, while focussing on the lack of real leadership by the
>president that led up to the 9/11 situation is certainly easier to follow
>than the various claims of the Bush Babies and Bushites.

He made it "easy to follow" - after all, Michael is the guy that
claimed "Americans are the dumbest people on earth".

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame

 

[Ian St. John]

Ken [NY] wrote:
> On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 00:29:52 -0500, "Ian St. John"
> <[email protected]> claims:
>
>> I also submit that the U.S. has stockpiles of various WMDs, all
>> in weaponised forms and with the capability of hitting just about
>> anywhere on earth. What is your point?
>
> Have you seen those US stockpiles of WMD? No? Then they don't
> exist, right?

Bad logic. The U.S does not deny that it is the worlds largest stockpiler of
WMDs. If they denied that they were there and a rigorous search over a year
in length could find no documentation, traces or stockpiles, it would be
evidence THEN that they had none but how likely is that? It just couldn't
happen.

>
> "It's correct to say that the IAEA was fooled by the Iraqis. But the
> lesson was learned. ... Not seeing an indication of something does not
> lead automatically to the conclusion there is nothing."
> --Hans Blix, UN Chief Weapons Inspector Sept. 2002

Thus pointing out that they were proving a negeative and had to be highly
thorough in their technological detective work. Unlike the example of IAEA
reporting, the U.N. inspectors were ON THE GROUND and actively engaged in
detective work with the 'crime scene' laid out before them.

>
>>> Do you admit that the UN inspectors, in their various
>>> configurations, did not find (and destroy) all of it?
>>
>> No. I can find no evidence that there are missing stockpiles.
>
> Some people did believe there were missing stockpiles,
> including these:

Some people believe the earth is flat. That is not evidence that the world
is flat.

When you come up with some facts, let me know. The political arena is full
of those who were fooled by the Bush strategy and made statements based on
that deception. They are not evidence of anything but that politicians are
not omniscient. Maybe they should start googling? After all, you consider
Google to be omnisicent so they just have to do a web search and they will
find out the truth, right? P.S. do you recognise sarcasm or should I spell
it out?

 

[Ian St. John]

Ken [NY] wrote:
> On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 12:52:16 -0500, "Ian St. John"
> <[email protected]> claims:
>
>>>> Uh, the white house said Saddam had WMD. You're not helping your
>>>> credibility.
>>>
>>> Uh, I guess the previous White House saying the same thing doesn't
>>> help his credibility either.
>>
>> No. Because the previous white house would not have been concerned
>> with the WMDs that they helped to provide. Iraq was not then under
>> U.N. cease fire conditions.
>
> Iraq was under UN cease fire conditions since 1991, well
> before the Clinton administration was in power.

Good point.

However, concern would be an exaggeration since the U.N. was in charge of
the inspections and in reality, the U.S. was pretty complacent about
terrorist threats. My objection is to the phrase 'concern' as they showed
no real concern over the *safety of the U.S.* (which is what is at issue,)
at that time.

Only after 9/11 was the level of concern raised to something meaningful. We
may never know if Usama was behind 9/11 or if it was a plot by the
government with Bush carefully sidelined to keep from doing anything to stop
it. Nobody ever got to the bottom of the Reichstagg fire in Hitlers germany
even after ****** used it to corrall freedom by the Malicious Practices Act,
and the similarities to the 9/11 attacks being followed by a similar 'law'
to allow for arbitrary arrest ( Patriot and Homeland Security acts ) is
rather scary. Unfortunately, the fact seems to be that nobody wants to look
all that closely at the man behind the curtain. They prefer the illusions
and propaganda.

 

[V.Simkins]

sorry guys, accidentally hit "send" before i finished writing the previous
post. here's the rest of it:

> > Should enemies strike our country, they would be attempting to shift
> > our attention with panic and weaken our morale with fear. In this,
> > they would fail. No act of theirs can alter the course or shake the
> > resolve of this country. We are a peaceful people -- yet we're not a
> > fragile people, and we will not be intimidated by thugs and killers.
> > If our enemies dare to strike us, they and all who have aided them,
> > will face fearful consequences.
> >

how could they possibly strike your country? YOU have all the superior
aircraft, and somewhat Superior firepower. all you were worried about, as
far as defense goes, is those WMDs. your a "peaceful" people? you have a
worldwide reputation for sticking your nose into every war you can find,
wether it's your own, or not, you call that "peaceful'?" again, in this
section Bush seems to be focusing on the paranoid thought that America was
actually "under attack".......

>
> > The cause of peace requires all free nations to recognize new and
> > undeniable realities. In the 20th century, some chose to appease
> > murderous dictators, whose threats were allowed to grow into genocide
> > and global war. In this century, when evil men plot chemical,
> > biological and nuclear terror, a policy of appeasement could bring
> > destruction of a kind never before seen on this earth.
> >

hmm.... "undeniable realities".... sounds like your forcing other countries
to think what you think, or suffer thw consequences, Bush........... but,
you do have a point about Muderous dictators.... after all, you pose a prime
example...........

> >
> > Terrorists and terror states do not reveal these threats with fair
> > notice, in formal declarations -- and responding to such enemies only
> > after they have struck first is not self-defense, it is suicide. The
> > security of the world requires disarming Saddam Hussein now.
> >

striking first before you are struck, huh? why don't you take over the
world? that may solve your paranoid dilemma, Mr. President.

> > That is the future we choose. Free nations have a duty to defend our
> > people by uniting against the violent. And tonight, as we have done
> > before, America and our allies accept that responsibility.

hmm.... you guys have demonstrated to be potentially violent.... i wonder
how many countries you ticked off are willing to unite against you?








"V.Simkins" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> first of all, ken, would you mind supplying a link proving what you just
> wrote, to humour me?
>
> > dissidents, no more torture chambers and rape rooms. The tyrant will
> > soon be gone. The day of your liberation is near.
>
> it has never been proven with hard evidence that saddam had such things,
at
> least not to my knowledge. besides, even if he did torture and rape men
and
> woman, american soldiers have been, and are probably at this moment, doing
> the same.
>
> It is not too
> > late for the Iraqi military to act with honor and protect your country
> > by permitting the peaceful entry of coalition forces to eliminate
> > weapons of mass destruction
>
> there are those WMDs, again.....
>
> >I urge every member of the Iraqi military and
> > intelligence services, if war comes, do not fight for a dying regime
> > that is not worth your own life.
> >
>
> from what i hear people who AREN'T fighting, are getting killed,
> anyways.....how does one make a successful bodycount of civilians, if, to
a
> soldiers eyes, they all look the same?
>
> > Should Saddam Hussein choose confrontation, the American people can
> > know that every measure has been taken to avoid war, and every measure
> > will be taken to win it.
>
> did i just hear George hear contradict himself? it really sounded like it,
> besides, do you think any governmental leader in their right mind would
give
> thier power over to another country on a silver platter WITHOUT a
struggle?
> i know Bush certainly wouldn't. i know my Prime Minister wouldn't
> either.......
>
>
> > And all Iraqi military and civilian personnel should listen carefully
> > to this warning. In any conflict, your fate will depend on your
> > action. Do not destroy oil wells, a source of wealth that belongs to
> > the Iraqi people. Do not obey any command to use weapons of mass
> > destruction against anyone, including the Iraqi people. War crimes
> > will be prosecuted. War criminals will be punished. And it will be no
> > defense to say, "I was just following orders."
> >
>
> "do not destroy oil wells, a source of wealth that belongs to the iraqi
> people". that should have set people's suspicions off from the start....
why
> would Bush be so concerned over oil, to include it in his speech? unless,
of
> course, he was worried that he couldn't get a steady supply back
home.......
> at any rate, there is that mention of those WMDs again..... IF i am wrong,
> well... you have to admit he brings the subject up alot...... "and it
will
> be no defense to say 'i was just following orders' " if this is true, i
pray
> for all those poor souls who actually surrendered, regardless of what they
> did in the past.
>
>
>
>
> > Yet, the only way to reduce the harm and duration of war is to apply
> > the full force and might of our military, and we are prepared to do
> > so. If Saddam Hussein attempts to cling to power, he will remain a
> > deadly foe until the end..
>
>
> applying the "full force and might" of your military, eh? too bad you
didn't
> think of doing this when you moved in there........ this illegal war would
> have been over by now, and your troops wouldn't be slaughtered like sheep
> from the anti-american rebellion over there right now....
>
> "If Saddam Hussein attempts to cling to power, he will remain a deadly foe
> until the end." good for you, Bush, for demonstrating the limits of your
> intelligence by stating the obvious. if a government leader is in power,
he
> will struggle to keep that status, no matter what. That goes for nearly
> every leader out there.
>
>
>
> >In desperation, he and terrorists groups
> > might try to conduct terrorist operations against the American people
> > and our friends. These attacks are not inevitable. They are, however,
> > possible. And this very fact underscores the reason we cannot live
> > under the threat of blackmail. The terrorist threat to America and the
> > world will be diminished the moment that Saddam Hussein is disarmed
>
> Can somone in here PLEASE show me hard evidence that saddam has been
linked
> to terrorist groups, WITHOUT insulting my intelligence, or using the
insult
> that i'm a "fool" as evidence? (seriously rick, if your going to insult
> someone, at least try to be creative with your insults. the "fool"
technique
> is getting a bit old)... hmm.. it says here that "The terrorist threat to
> America and the world will be diminished the moment that Saddam Hussein
is
> disarmed" . you have Saddam in your custody, and his next-of-kin are
> dead...... why are the American people still hiding in thier homes, in
fear?
> i mean, the Saddam "threat" has been eliminated, right?
>
>
>
>
>
> "Ken [NY]" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news[email protected]...
> > On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 09:21:00 -0500, "V.Simkins"
> > <[email protected]> claims:
> >
> > >> Yes, I do. Apparently better than you. WMD was not THE reason for
the
> > >war.
> > >> Maybe if you tried you could find out there were more than several
> reason
> > >> given.
> > >
> > >i won't deny that Bush had more "reasons" up his sleeve.... but the
> > >possibility of the usage of WMDs was the ONLY reason given to go to war
> to
> > >the public, AT THE TIME IT WAS FIRST STARTED.
> >
> > Well, why not see what President Bush said on the eve of the
> > invasion of Iraq - to the people of Iraq? Let's see if his speech
> > overwhelmingly was about WMD:
> >
> >
> > Many Iraqis can hear me tonight in a translated radio broadcast, and
> > I have a message for them. If we must begin a military campaign, it
> > will be directed against the lawless men who rule your country and not
> > against you. As our coalition takes away their power, we will deliver
> > the food and medicine you need. We will tear down the apparatus of
> > terror and we will help you to build a new Iraq that is prosperous and
> > free. In a free Iraq, there will be no more wars of aggression against
> > your neighbors, no more poison factories, no more executions of
> > dissidents, no more torture chambers and rape rooms. The tyrant will
> > soon be gone. The day of your liberation is near.
> >
> > It is too late for Saddam Hussein to remain in power. It is not too
> > late for the Iraqi military to act with honor and protect your country
> > by permitting the peaceful entry of coalition forces to eliminate
> > weapons of mass destruction. Our forces will give Iraqi military units
> > clear instructions on actions they can take to avoid being attacked
> > and destroyed. I urge every member of the Iraqi military and
> > intelligence services, if war comes, do not fight for a dying regime
> > that is not worth your own life.
> >
> > And all Iraqi military and civilian personnel should listen carefully
> > to this warning. In any conflict, your fate will depend on your
> > action. Do not destroy oil wells, a source of wealth that belongs to
> > the Iraqi people. Do not obey any command to use weapons of mass
> > destruction against anyone, including the Iraqi people. War crimes
> > will be prosecuted. War criminals will be punished. And it will be no
> > defense to say, "I was just following orders."
> >
> > Should Saddam Hussein choose confrontation, the American people can
> > know that every measure has been taken to avoid war, and every measure
> > will be taken to win it. Americans understand the costs of conflict
> > because we have paid them in the past. War has no certainty, except
> > the certainty of sacrifice.
> >
> > Yet, the only way to reduce the harm and duration of war is to apply
> > the full force and might of our military, and we are prepared to do
> > so. If Saddam Hussein attempts to cling to power, he will remain a
> > deadly foe until the end. In desperation, he and terrorists groups
> > might try to conduct terrorist operations against the American people
> > and our friends. These attacks are not inevitable. They are, however,
> > possible. And this very fact underscores the reason we cannot live
> > under the threat of blackmail. The terrorist threat to America and the
> > world will be diminished the moment that Saddam Hussein is disarmed.
> >
> > Our government is on heightened watch against these dangers. Just as
> > we are preparing to ensure victory in Iraq, we are taking further
> > actions to protect our homeland. In recent days, American authorities
> > have expelled from the country certain individuals with ties to Iraqi
> > intelligence services. Among other measures, I have directed
> > additional security of our airports, and increased Coast Guard patrols
> > of major seaports. The Department of Homeland Security is working
> > closely with the nation's governors to increase armed security at
> > critical facilities across America.
> >
> > Should enemies strike our country, they would be attempting to shift
> > our attention with panic and weaken our morale with fear. In this,
> > they would fail. No act of theirs can alter the course or shake the
> > resolve of this country. We are a peaceful people -- yet we're not a
> > fragile people, and we will not be intimidated by thugs and killers.
> > If our enemies dare to strike us, they and all who have aided them,
> > will face fearful consequences.
> >
> > We are now acting because the risks of inaction would be far greater.
> > In one year, or five years, the power of Iraq to inflict harm on all
> > free nations would be multiplied many times over. With these
> > capabilities, Saddam Hussein and his terrorist allies could choose the
> > moment of deadly conflict when they are strongest. We choose to meet
> > that threat now, where it arises, before it can appear suddenly in our
> > skies and cities.
> >
> > The cause of peace requires all free nations to recognize new and
> > undeniable realities. In the 20th century, some chose to appease
> > murderous dictators, whose threats were allowed to grow into genocide
> > and global war. In this century, when evil men plot chemical,
> > biological and nuclear terror, a policy of appeasement could bring
> > destruction of a kind never before seen on this earth.
> >
> > Terrorists and terror states do not reveal these threats with fair
> > notice, in formal declarations -- and responding to such enemies only
> > after they have struck first is not self-defense, it is suicide. The
> > security of the world requires disarming Saddam Hussein now.

 

[B i l l S o r n s o n]

Ian St. John wrote:
> The 9/11 attacks are pretty much assumed or believed to be Al-Quaeda,
> so a link between Iraq and 9/11 is about a link between Iraq and
> Al-Quaeda.

If that's an example of his critical thinking skills, then why are we
wasting our ions on Ian?!?

Freshman Logic...
--
BS (no, really)

 

[Ian St. John]

Ken [NY] wrote:
> On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 09:21:00 -0500, "V.Simkins"
> <[email protected]> claims:
>
>>> Yes, I do. Apparently better than you. WMD was not THE reason for
>>> the war. Maybe if you tried you could find out there were more than
>>> several reason given.
>>
>> i won't deny that Bush had more "reasons" up his sleeve.... but the
>> possibility of the usage of WMDs was the ONLY reason given to go to
>> war to the public, AT THE TIME IT WAS FIRST STARTED.
>
> Well, why not see what President Bush said on the eve of the
> invasion of Iraq - to the people of Iraq? Let's see if his speech
> overwhelmingly was about WMD:

Then you admit that Bush invaded Iraq illegally with no justification from a
threat to the U.S. as required by the authority granted to him by Congress
to defend the nation? And in direct violation of international law? Thank
you. At long last you have come to your senses and finally admitted that,
while pretending to be concerned by WMDs to gain the power to invade, Bush
was at least subconciously aware that his real reasons were that he wanted
to invade and was not above making pretty speeches to try to get favorable
publicity.

P.S. Now that the public has been too stupid to stop his first foray into
miltary adventurism, he is now rattling sabres at both North Korea and Iran.
Which do you think will be the "Poland" for WW3 or do you think it will
occur after those two? And are you ready to be drafted or is your
demagoguery based on your immunity to the draft?

 

[B i l l S o r n s o n]

Ian St. John wrote:
> Simple logic. If you connect 9/11 to Al-Quaeda and Al-Quaeda to Iraq
> then you are implying a link between Iraq and 9/11.

FAULTY logic.

I'll write slow so you can move your lips, Ian (and on and on and...):

Clouds are necessary to produce rain. Therefore, if it's cloudy then it
MUST be raining.

You probably AGREE with that...

Sad, almost.
--
BS (no, really)