George W. Bush

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

Ian St. John wrote:
> B i l l S o r n s o n wrote:
>> Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>> In article <[email protected]>,
>>> "B i l l S o r n s o n" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> 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?
>>>>>
>>>>> Even after the 9/11 commission's report, Cheney was saying "Was
>>>>> there a link? We don't know." Those who read the commission's
>>>>> report did know, however.
>>>>
>>>> You're an idiot, Lloyd -- as is anyone with two 'Ls' in their name.
>>>> (Wait a minute...DOH!)
>>>>
>>>> The commission concluded that a definitive link could not be
>>>> proven; that's NOT the same as saying one didn't exist.
>>>>
>>>> I know your head hurts now, so I'll stop...
>>
>>> You can't prove a negative (can you prove you've never talked with
>>> al Qaida?).
>>
>> That's right, you can't prove a negative. So why do you say "Those
>> who read the commission's report /did know/ (that there was no
>> link)"??? (Italics added; original quote intact above.)
>>
>> You've been hosed by your own...um, hose.
>
> So, because I cannot prove that Martians were behind the Bush
> election win, you KNOW that martians were behind the election win??

Sigh. You can't really be this stupid.

> Try going back to school. Your deficiencies CAN be corrected. Given
> the random chance factor that tends to make secrets leak, the lack of
> evidence IS evidence of lack, by common sense. Something you lack, of
> course, in your desperate attempt to convert an unproven fantasy into
> some sort of unfounded assertion.

Go with these nice men, Ian. They're going to take you to a Happy Place.

--
BS (no, really)

 

[V.Simkins]

i'm not Ian, but something about this statement i had to disagree with

> So if your mother robs another 7-11, Ian, then the police can arrest you
as
> an accomplice because you had dinner with her last week?
>

the police wouldn't be able to arrest you as an accomplice, but they COULD
hold you under suspicion, considering your record ( mother = Al Queda +
9/11, You= Iraq ?)



"B i l l S o r n s o n" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Ian St. John wrote:
> > Ken [NY] wrote:
> >> On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 10:27:11 -0500, "Ian St. John"
> >> <[email protected]> claims:
> >>
> >>>> 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. "
> >>
> >> Are you really having problems with reading comprehension? As
> >> I said, no US official ever linked 9/11 with Iraq.
> >
> > If you can link Iraq and Al-Quaeda, then you have a link to 9/11 as
> > Al-Quaeda links to 9/11. You really have problems with logic don't
> > you?
>
> So if your mother robs another 7-11, Ian, then the police can arrest you
as
> an accomplice because you had dinner with her last week?
>
> Sea Kelp.
>
> Soon.
> --
> BS (no, really)
>
>

 

[V.Simkins]

> > So, because I cannot prove that Martians were behind the Bush
> > election win, you KNOW that martians were behind the election win??
>
> Sigh. You can't really be this stupid.
>

Err, Bill.... he was making an anology.



"B i l l S o r n s o n" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Ian St. John wrote:
> > B i l l S o r n s o n wrote:
> >> Lloyd Parker wrote:
> >>> In article <[email protected]>,
> >>> "B i l l S o r n s o n" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>> Lloyd Parker wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>> 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?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Even after the 9/11 commission's report, Cheney was saying "Was
> >>>>> there a link? We don't know." Those who read the commission's
> >>>>> report did know, however.
> >>>>
> >>>> You're an idiot, Lloyd -- as is anyone with two 'Ls' in their name.
> >>>> (Wait a minute...DOH!)
> >>>>
> >>>> The commission concluded that a definitive link could not be
> >>>> proven; that's NOT the same as saying one didn't exist.
> >>>>
> >>>> I know your head hurts now, so I'll stop...
> >>
> >>> You can't prove a negative (can you prove you've never talked with
> >>> al Qaida?).
> >>
> >> That's right, you can't prove a negative. So why do you say "Those
> >> who read the commission's report /did know/ (that there was no
> >> link)"??? (Italics added; original quote intact above.)
> >>
> >> You've been hosed by your own...um, hose.
> >
> > So, because I cannot prove that Martians were behind the Bush
> > election win, you KNOW that martians were behind the election win??
>
> Sigh. You can't really be this stupid.
>
> > Try going back to school. Your deficiencies CAN be corrected. Given
> > the random chance factor that tends to make secrets leak, the lack of
> > evidence IS evidence of lack, by common sense. Something you lack, of
> > course, in your desperate attempt to convert an unproven fantasy into
> > some sort of unfounded assertion.
>
> Go with these nice men, Ian. They're going to take you to a Happy Place.
>
> --
> BS (no, really)
>
>

 

[V.Simkins]

> Before 9/11, I never thought that there could possibly be a
> successful aircraft attack on America, given our "superior aircraft
> and somewhat superior firepower". But somehow, it did happen,
> including an attack on our miltary headquarters and the destruction of
> a complex of buildings harboring a population larger than many cities.
>

i'm sorry, i wasn't clear in my earlier statement. you DO have all the
Superior firepower to hide behind, and use, if neccesary..... the problem
was, as i recall, that you were caught off your guard BECAUSE you didn't
believe that anyone could do it.Apparently, everyone else in your country
shared the same belief, otherwise, a thing like this would never have
happened your security would have been much tighter.




"Ken [NY]" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 10:54:18 -0500, "V.Simkins"
> <[email protected]> claims:
>
> >> > 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.
>
> Before 9/11, I never thought that there could possibly be a
> successful aircraft attack on America, given our "superior aircraft
> and somewhat superior firepower". But somehow, it did happen,
> including an attack on our miltary headquarters and the destruction of
> a complex of buildings harboring a population larger than many cities.
>
>
> 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

 

[V.Simkins]

> Like it or not, you will just have to face the situation - the
> US no longer will wait for our enemies to take the first shot at us
> before doing something to defend ourselves.

like it or not, people make mistakes all the time.... you americans are no
different in this rule. Are you willing to go to war with a country just
because you so paranoidly "suspect" that it's going to attack you? maybe it
will, maybe it won't. but what happens to the other country if you attack
it, and you're wrong? you think that they would just forgive you, and be all
smiles, and say, "oh that's okay, we only lost a couple thousand soldiers,
and a few thousand of our own civilians, but we forgive you because it was
an honest mistake"?

do you really think that countries allied to the one you attacked, and
others watching, would act the same way?



"Ken [NY]" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 10:54:18 -0500, "V.Simkins"
> <[email protected]> claims:
>
> >> > 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.
>
> Like it or not, you will just have to face the situation - the
> US no longer will wait for our enemies to take the first shot at us
> before doing something to defend ourselves.
>
> >> > 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?
>
> We are not potentially violent, we are violent when needed to
> defend our homeland. Our coalition included 32 countries and now there
> are over 60 nations willing to assist us in rebuilding Iraq. Sorry
> about that. If there are a few old European countries and third world
> nations like Canada who feel insulted, too bad.
>
>
> 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

 

[V.Simkins]

ok, thanks, ken, but i would have preferred it to be from a more *reliable*
site than this, like say, an NBC or CNN report.... oh well...


"Ken [NY]" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 10:20:46 -0500, "V.Simkins"
> <[email protected]> claims:
>
> >first of all, ken, would you mind supplying a link proving what you just
> >wrote, to humour me?
>
> Sorry, but it was broadcasted all over the world, so I assumed
> everybody knew about it.
> Here's one of the transcripts, curiously from an anti-Bush web
> site: http://nuclearfree.lynx.co.nz/bushspeech18-3-03.htm
>
>
> 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

 

[V.Simkins]

> >> You're more than welcome to your stupidity. The re-writing is by you
> > fools
> >> and loons. Try to keep up. WMD was not "the" reason given. ou can
> >> pretend otherwise, but it won't change that fact.
> >>
> >
> > Rick, you keep repeating that "WMDs were not the reason that America
went
> > to war" over and over, and yet i haven't seen you give a single credible
> > reference to support your statement, all i see is you saying "i'm right,
> > your wrong" to just about everyone.If you have a point to make, PROVE
it.
> > the rest of us, at least, seem to be trying to. Otherwise, kindly be
> > considerate, and don't reply, because it's just making people download
> > useless junk to read on thier computers.
> ====================
> ROTFLMAO You make the ignorant statement first fool.
>

must i repeat myself over and over, to get a point across?





"rick etter" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:%[email protected]...
>
> "V.Simkins" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >> You're more than welcome to your stupidity. The re-writing is by you
> > fools
> >> and loons. Try to keep up. WMD was not "the" reason given. ou can
> >> pretend otherwise, but it won't change that fact.
> >>
> >
> > Rick, you keep repeating that "WMDs were not the reason that America
went
> > to war" over and over, and yet i haven't seen you give a single credible
> > reference to support your statement, all i see is you saying "i'm right,
> > your wrong" to just about everyone.If you have a point to make, PROVE
it.
> > the rest of us, at least, seem to be trying to. Otherwise, kindly be
> > considerate, and don't reply, because it's just making people download
> > useless junk to read on thier computers.
> ====================
> ROTFLMAO You make the ignorant statement first fool.
>
>
> >
> > i trust you will make the "right" decision.
> =================
> Always do, unlike you...
>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > "rick etter" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> >>
> >> "Lloyd Parker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >> news:[email protected]...
> >> > In article <[email protected]>,
> >> > "rick etter" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>"V.Simkins" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >> >>news:[email protected]...
> >> >>>> >
> >> >>>> >>You really are that stupid too,
> >> >>>> >>aren't you? Besides, WMD wasn't given as THE reason to go to
war.
> >> >>>> >
> >> >>>> > Then you just fell off the turnip truck. That's all we were
told.
> >> >>>> ==================
> >> >>>> No, your hate has blinded you, but that's typical. that wasn't
THE
> >> >>>> reason
> >> >>>> given.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> do you know how to read, Rick?
> >> >>=========
> >> >>Yes, I do. Apparently better than you. WMD was not THE reason for
the
> >> > war.
> >> >
> >> > Welcome to 1984, where neocons think they can rewrite history.
> >> ==================
> >> You're more than welcome to your stupidity. The re-writing is by you
> > fools
> >> and loons. Try to keep up. WMD was not "the" reason given. ou can
> >> pretend otherwise, but it won't change that fact.
> >>
> >>
> >> >
> >> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
>

 

[Mark Hickey]

"Ken [NY]" <[email protected]> wrote:

>On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 15:56:29 GMT, "B i l l S o r n s o n"
><[email protected]> claims:
>
>>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?!?
>
> That's a good question. I think it's because Ian is so easy to
>debate, it is like poking away at a retarded person. I feel kind of
>guilty, now that you mention it.

Exactly. I've known salads that had better debating skills and/or
reading comprehension. There's simply no way that anyone can really
believe what "Ian St. John" blathers on about, or so get so hopelessly
tangled in his own "logic". He's a troll, plain and simple - and not
even entertaining any more (as you point out).

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

 

[Mark Hickey]

"B i l l S o r n s o n" <[email protected]> wrote:

>Ian St. John wrote:

>> So, because I cannot prove that Martians were behind the Bush
>> election win, you KNOW that martians were behind the election win??
>
>Sigh. You can't really be this stupid.

I agree - he's simply a troll who's outlived his 15 minutes of
amusement quotient. Next!

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

 

[Mark Hickey]

[email protected] (Lloyd Parker) wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>,
> "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.
>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.
>>
>>Or exit, stage right, whining and whimpering as usual.
>
>Cheney on the Iraq war: "We will have struck a major blow right at the
>heart of the base, if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists
>who've had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on
>9/11."

This is the keystone of the left's "proof" that the administration was
linking the two. Google on "geographic base of the terrorists who've
had us under assault" and you get 4,510 hits. Google on that AND
"careful not to say that" (Cheney's response) and you get only 58
(yes, FIFTY EIGHT) hits. So it's not at all surprising that you don't
know that the "quote" directly proves I'm right - here's the actual
transcript from that 'Meet the Press' Segment (directly follows the
quote above)...

VICE PRES. CHENEY: <snip>...They understand what’s at stake here.
That’s one of the reasons they’re putting up as much of a struggle
as they have, is because they know if we succeed here, that that’s
going to strike a major blow at their capabilities.

MR. RUSSERT: So the resistance in Iraq is coming from those who
were responsible for 9/11?

VICE PRES. CHENEY: No, I was careful not to say that. With respect
to 9/11, 9/11, as I said at the beginning of the show, changed
everything. And one of the things it changed is we recognized that
time was not on our side, that in this part of the world, in
particular, given the problems we’ve encountered in Afghanistan,
which forced us to go in and take action there, as well as in
Iraq, that we, in fact, had to move on it. The relevance for 9/11
is that what 9/11 marked was the beginning of a struggle in which
the terrorists come at us and strike us here on our home
territory.

.... and on and on. So rather than linking the two, he goes to great
lengths to NOT link them, but to explain (to anyone who's actually
willing to listen to more than a 10 second sound bite to get their
"news") why 9/11 is significant above and beyond just apprehending or
killing those directly responsible for the attack itself.

>And Bush: In his May 1 speech announcing the end of major combat in Iraq,
>Bush said, "The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began
>on September the 11th, 2001." He added: "With those attacks, the terrorists
>and their supporters declared war on the United States. And war is what
>they got."

And that's absolutely true.

>Now if you continue to link those 2 in the same breath...
>
>And this from Wesley Clark: "It came from the White House, it came from
>other people around the White House. It came from all over. I got a call on
>9/11. I was on CNN, and I got a call at my home saying, 'you got to say
>this is connected. This is state-sponsored terrorism. This has to be
>connected to Saddam Hussein.'"

So you take the word of a Democratic candidate for President... yeah,
no bias at all there. Even then, I'm not quite sure WHAT he's saying
anyway ("it came from all over"???).

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

 

[Mark Hickey]

[email protected] (Lloyd Parker) wrote:

>>"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
>
>But since then we've had many more inspections, and they've concluded there
>were no WMD. What does it take to convince you neocons?

What we know NOW isn't what we're talking about... it's what we knew
BEFORE the war. Imagine how easy government would be if we knew the
outcome of every issue months or years in advance!

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

 

[Mark Hickey]

"B i l l S o r n s o n" <[email protected]> wrote:

>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>> In article <[email protected]>,
>> Mark Hickey <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>>> 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. And I guess the UNMOVIC weapons
>>> inspection report saying the same thing doesn't help his credibility
>>> either.
>>
>> The Clinton WH said 50% of the people who voted in Afghanistan in 2004
>> were women? Did that come from the Dept. of Clairvoyance?
>
>Well if THAT doesn't blow up this thread {Nazi! ******!}, then nothing
>will.
>
>Learn to read, Lloyd...

I'm starting to think Lloyd is Ian's sock puppet... same kind of
reading problems (classic troll stuff - pitching softballs and then
claiming that it really didn't travel over the fence behind them, but
is safely in the catcher's mitt, even though he can't find it).

Nazi, SS, helmet, greased tapers, greasy tapirs, steel frame going
soft, soldering and tying spokes. That might help...

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

 

[Mark Hickey]

[email protected] (Lloyd Parker) wrote:

> Mark Hickey <[email protected]> wrote:

>>>> 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.
>
>OK, there were quarterly reports. I looked at Nov. 02 and Feb. 03 (the
>most recent before the invasion); none mention any evidence of WMD. Have
>you looked at them?

The report I posted a link to:

http://www.nti.org/db/profiles/iraq/fulltext/unmovic_jan6.pdf

Contrary to the "Jan6" suffix was from MARCH 2003. You really haven't
read a word of it, so there's nothing to talk about.

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

 

[Mark Hickey]

[email protected] (Lloyd Parker) wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>,
> Mark Hickey <[email protected]> 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. Were they lying? Why else
>>would the UN keep the sanctions in place?
>
>The inspectors never said Saddam had WMD in 2003.

Yawn... http://www.nti.org/db/profiles/iraq/fulltext/unmovic_jan6.pdf

Contrary to the "Jan6" suffix was from MARCH 2003. You really haven't
read a word of it, so there's nothing to talk about.

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

 

[Pete]

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

>
> If you can link Iraq and Al-Quaeda, then you have a link to 9/11 as
> Al-Quaeda links to 9/11. You really have problems with logic don't you?

Now THAT is funny.

By the same logic:
France supported the US in Operation Provide Comfort and Operation Enduring
Freedom, thereby France supports Operation Iraqi Freedom.

Riiiight.

Pete

 

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

V.Simkins wrote:
>>> So, because I cannot prove that Martians were behind the Bush
>>> election win, you KNOW that martians were behind the election win??
>>
>> Sigh. You can't really be this stupid.
>>
>
> Err, Bill.... he was making an anology.

Err, V.... His stupidity has nothing to do with Martians. He's arguing
against his OWN (lack of) logic.

Read through the thread yourself; he's got more fallacies than a Michael
Moore film archive.

--
BS (no, really)

 

[Lloyd Parker]

In article <[email protected]>,
"B i l l S o r n s o n" <[email protected]> wrote:
>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
>>> "I will be voting to give the President of the United States the
>>> authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein
>>> because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass
>>> destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
>>> - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002
>>
>> See those words "if necessary" there? Turns out it wasn't.
>
>And how was that fact discovered?

If we'd let the inspectors finish their work, we'd have discovered it
before invading.

>
>Can you imagine the hew and cry if nothing had been done, and then it was
>shown that Iraq passed along /even one vial/ of some vile substance that
was
>subsequently used against innocents* (US or otherwise)? The same Monday
>Morning QBs would be screaming for impeachment.
>
>*could still happen, btw.

And Mars could attack too. But no fear, Bush can fly a fighter plane!

 

[Lloyd Parker]

In article <[email protected]>,
"B i l l S o r n s o n" <[email protected]> wrote:
>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>> In article <[email protected]>,
>> "B i l l S o r n s o n" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>>
>>>>> 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?
>>>>
>>>> Even after the 9/11 commission's report, Cheney was saying "Was
>>>> there a link? We don't know." Those who read the commission's
>>>> report did know, however.
>>>
>>> You're an idiot, Lloyd -- as is anyone with two 'Ls' in their name.
>>> (Wait a minute...DOH!)
>>>
>>> The commission concluded that a definitive link could not be proven;
>>> that's NOT the same as saying one didn't exist.
>>>
>>> I know your head hurts now, so I'll stop...
>
>> You can't prove a negative (can you prove you've never talked with al
>> Qaida?).
>
>That's right, you can't prove a negative. So why do you say "Those who
read
>the commission's report /did know/ (that there was no link)"??? (Italics
>added; original quote intact above.)
>
>You've been hosed by your own...um, hose.

The commission said there was no evidence of a link. That's factual. For
Cheney to keep saying "we don't know" after this was not. We knew there
was no evidence of a link.

 

[Lloyd Parker]

In article <[email protected]>,
"Ken [NY]" <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Mon, 22 Nov 04 11:57:21 GMT, [email protected] (Lloyd Parker)
>claims:
>
>>>Yossef Bodansky, author of "Bin Laden: The Man Who Declared War on
>>>America," written and published well before the Sept. 11 attacks,
>>>documents numerous contacts and meetings between bin Laden's agents
>>>and agents of Hussein. In addition, Bodansky, the U.S. Congress' top
>>>terrorism adviser, said the relationship between Iraq and al-Qaida
>>>predated the Sept. 11 attacks by a decade, and continued thereafter.
>>
>>I'll take the 9/11 commission over this yahoo.
>>
> I can live with that, since the 9/11 Commission reported that
>there were extensive links between Iraq and al-Qaeda.
>
>
>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
No they didn't. Some minor contacts between low-ranking people that didn't
lead anywhere. If you call that extensive, then Rumsfield meeting with
Saddam in the 80s to assure him we were still friends is even more
extensive.

 

[Lloyd Parker]

In article <[email protected]>,
"Ken [NY]" <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 10:54:18 -0500, "V.Simkins"
><[email protected]> claims:
>
>>> > 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.
>
> Like it or not, you will just have to face the situation - the
>US no longer will wait for our enemies to take the first shot at us
>before doing something to defend ourselves.

Yes, invading a country that had nothing to do with it and was no threat.
Like FDR deciding Japan was a threat before Pearl Harbor and invading
India.

>
>>> > 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?
>
> We are not potentially violent, we are violent when needed to
>defend our homeland. Our coalition included 32 countries and now there
>are over 60 nations willing to assist us in rebuilding Iraq. Sorry
>about that. If there are a few old European countries and third world
>nations like Canada who feel insulted, too bad.
>
>
>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