Re: OT NEVER Forget!!!

Page 1 of 2  
Phil:

*****
I'm unlikely to forget this dastardly crime, but I'm not going to dwell on it and get maudlin over it. Instead of making a sign, I think I'll spend some time reading Al-ahram and As-sharq Al-awsat and An-nahar to try to better understand the world I live in. I especially need to understand why so many good folks around the world sympathized with us but, at the same time, thought that we had it coming.
Davoud
A President lied to us with the terrible consequence that a woman had to send her dress to the cleaners. Another President came along and lied to us and the only thing that happened was that thousands of innocent people died. Jeez! Go figure!
--
usenet *at* davidillig dawt com

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Mark and Juanita wrote:

Mark and Juanita read a great deal into what I wrote.
For example, "Oh, in case killing Christians doesn't sound so bad to you..."
Mark and Juanita also wrote:

Ah. That explains it. They live in a dream world.
Davoud
--
usenet *at* davidillig dawt com

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@aol.comnotforme says...

and "Iraq" into the same sentence. The lies continue!
--
Where ARE those Iraqi WMDs?

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

that you don't? That he might know something that you don't?
I'm mystified by the thought process (if you can dignify it far enough to call it thought) that concludes that George Bush, Colin Powell, and Tony Blair are liars, but Saddam Hussein, Tariq Aziz, and Osama bin Laden tell the truth.
-- Regards, Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Doug Miller:

Yep, that occurred to me. I even hoped it would turn out to be true, though I knew in my heart of hearts that it wasn't. Alas, we now know from public pronouncements from both U.S. and British intelligence sources and other government insiders that it's not true. He's a liar after all.

George Bush, Colin Powell, and Tony Blair are liars. They can stand as liars on their own and the fact has nothing to do with Saddam Hussein, Tariq Aziz, and Osama bin Laden. The latter can also stand as liars on their own.
Davoud
A President lied to us with the terrible consequence that a woman had to send her dress to the cleaners. Another President came along and lied to us and the only thing that happened was that thousands of innocent people died. Jeez! Go figure!
--
usenet *at* davidillig dawt com

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

So were all the WMD destroyed when our last president ordered the bombing of Baghdad during the impeachment hearings? After all, the reason given by Clinton for that bombing was to rid Sadam of his WMD. Apparently the left must believe this bombing was so successful that no WMD existed anymore. So I guess you would beleive that Clinton's bombing were all 100% successfull with absolutely no innocent causalties, cause the only thing Clinton did was lie about was a stain on a dress, right?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
in wrote in message:

Jim, Doug,
Could you help me out? I've gone back through the whole thread and can't seem to find the post that said Saddam, Tariq, and Osama were telling the truth. I must be missing it. I'd appreciate it very much if you could direct me to it.
Thanks, Dan
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
says...

best they can do :-).
--
Where ARE those Iraqi WMDs?

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote in

Well, it's frustrating how these guys seem to think that their arguments aren't going to hold up unless they throw a lie or two in there to punch it up a little. Kinda makes the case for the other side, seems to me.
Dan
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@milmac.com says...

being a religious fanatic and Saddam killing all the Shiites he could actually made them bosom buddies?

my mouth and then refute what I didn't say :-).
--
Where ARE those Iraqi WMDs?

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@milmac.com says...

So he has info that us mere mortals are not privy to, and the best he can come up with is a bunch of lame-ass lies, forged documents that make the Nigerian mail scam look legit, and a plagiarized collage report. If you actually believe the load you are shoveling, I would have to say, that you are not entitled to make any mention to the words "thought process".
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

As well, I don't understand the implication that so many are making now, that there are no/never were any WMD's. According to UNSCOM findings, Iraq has produced 19,000 litres of botulinum, 8,400 litres of anthrax (Hussein *admitted* to 650 litres of it), and 2,000 litres of aflatoxin and clostridium. Iraq has admitted to arming ballistic missiles with botulinum, anthrax, and aflatoxin. Saddam has admitted producing four tons of VX nerve agent. Over 600 tons of VX precursors are not accounted for. These could make 200 tons of VX. Since our reasons for going to Iraq had nothing to do with human rights, I won't even start on that. I will say, though, I thought it was nice that an Iraqi couple living in Baghdad recently named their newborn son George Bush. Odd, but nice. http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20030828/ap_on_fe_st/iraq_ baby_bush_2
I criticized Clinton for 8 years not because of sex (although I do believe character still means something in an American president - 'nuff said), but because of specific actions - or lack thereof. Let's not forget who was offered Bin Laden on a silver platter and turned him down. I've yet to hear a Bush criticizm that was anything other than vitriolic wishful thinking, wild speculation, and hatred for someone who happens to belong to a different political party.
If you want to criticize W on the incremental encroachment on individual liberties since 9/11, I think you all could get some real traction. But don't tell me there are no/never were WMD's. For the record, I voted for Perot (BIG mistake - not gonna make that one again), and character aside, I think JFK was a pretty damned good president.
Now, since this has not a single thing to do with the subject of this group, I don't intend to say another word about it. Good job outta you, Doug.
Can anyone tell me what's the best table saw?
Mike Fairleigh
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@deletethis.sbcglobal.net says... ... snip

What are you trying to do here Mike, ignite a religious war? :-)

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue 09 Sep 2003 12:26:06a, "Mike Fairleigh"

Oh, yeah. That story of Hannity's where he says the Sudanese offered Bin Laden to Clinton and he turned them down. That claim was made by one man: Mansoon Ijaz, a Pakistani/American investment banker with a big stake in Sudanese oil, who at the time was trying to get the Americans to lift sanctions against Sudan which were put in place because of slavery and genocide. When the US asked the Sudanese government about it, and checked out every lead, it turned out there was no such offer and never had been. Ijaz is now a foreign affairs analyst for Fox. Sources: Sandy Berger, former National Security Advisor, and Daniel Benjamin, former counterterrorism director on the National Security Council, now senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (according to GroupWatch, "a right-wing, neoconservative think tank"). Bergman's feelings about Ijaz? "Either he allowed himself to be manipulated or he's in bed with a bunch of genocidal terrrorists".
Dan
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
says...

Hmm, not according to <http://propagandamatrix.com/sudan_offered_to_arrest_bin_laden.html in which Berger is quoted as saying, "In the United States, we have this thing called the Constitution, so to bring him here is to bring him into the justice system," said Samuel Berger, who was deputy national security adviser then. "I don't think that was our first choice. Our first choice was to send him some place where justice is more" - he paused a moment, then continued - "streamlined."
Note, there is no denial here that Bin Laden was not offered, just that the Clinton administration could find no way to accept his extradition.
Not just Hannity has promoted this story, most recently Richard Miniter has documented several instances where Bin Laden was offered up: <http://www.frontpagemag.com/articles/Printable.asp?ID 21>
Failures go beyond missing opportunities to arrest Bin Laden and include the gutting of the intelligence agencies during the previous administration that limited the amount of data on Bin Laden that was obtained during that period of time. <http://www.jewishworldreview.com/michael/ledeen092302.asp

this matter.

A group that has as it's CEO Jon Hamre (a Clinton appointee to the DoD) and Jon Alterman (a former legislative aide to Daniel P Moynahin) can hardly be consiered "right wing" or "neoconservative" unless your definition of right wing comes so far from the left you can't even see into the beginning of the right wing.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
-- Is there no way that you can keep yourself from using this newsgroup as a place to vent on politics? Wrong place, wrong time.
Jim in NC "
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

See where it says "OT" in the title of the thread? Stands for "Off Topic". Used as a flag to warn people that the thread does not pertain to woodworking, enabling those who are not interested to bypass it easily.
If you don't like it, don't read it, or learn to use the filtering capability of your newsreader.
-- Regards, Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
This thread is clearly labeled as Off Topic (OT) in the header, and so you shouldn't be surprised when you open it and it really is off topic.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
n snipped-for-privacy@yahoo.com (Nate Perkins) wrote:

Evidently you haven't been paying much attention to the news the last twelve years. Iraq *did* have WMD; Saddam even admitted to some of it.

Wouldn't it be nice if we could all predict the future?

Was there a 3) ?

News flash: the French are not our allies, and they never were.

You mean with his insistence that *somebody* needed to enforce the multiple United Nations resolutions concerning Iraq.
Here's the main reason that the French, Germans, and Russians are pissed off: they were doing a *lot* of business with Saddam's regime, in violation of the UN sanctions, and all that came to an abrupt halt.

It's a bit early to evaluate that, you know, since the vast bulk of the tax cuts have not yet taken effect.

News flash: Bush didn't cause the September 11 attacks, which came just as we were beginning to emerge from the recession that Clinton started.

Even if true, that hardly distinguishes him from most of his predecessors.

Why do you blame Bush for a recession that started under Clinton?

Do you suppose there's any possibility that the President knows something you don't?

So what? His predecessor, and his opponent in the 2000 election, accepted record amounts of illegal contributions from foreign governments, specifically the Communist Chinese. Do you find that preferable?

A demonstrable falsehood: he signed the McCain-Feingold reform bill.

OK, you finally got one right.

Double standard how? The point of the action in Iraq was to *prevent* that state from becoming a greater threat such as NK already is.

Explain to me exactly how the hell it ever became *our* responsibility to ensure peace in the Middle East.

And your point would be... ?

What the hell are you talking about? He let Teddy Kennedy write the damn bill, and because you don't like the results, you're complaining about *Bush* ?

Best thing that happened to all Americans in a long time.
-- Regards, Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@milmac.com (Doug Miller) wrote in message

If you mean that Saddam had active WMD programs prior to the *first* Gulf War, I agree. I think you will agree that the inspections following the first Gulf War were effective in uncovering and destroying much of this capability.
I think you will admit that our forces in Iraq have not found any evidence of an active chemical, biological, or nuclear program from any recent period. Nor did the UN inspectors prior to the second Gulf War. Remember, this was the main justification for the second Gulf War. We were told that we had to invade Iraq because it was on the brink of developing chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons. This has been proven false. Maybe you believe Bush received bad intelligence and bad advice, or maybe you believe he intentionally misled the American people. At the least, its illustrative of his poor judgement and the incompetence of his administration.

Yes. But it would be more immediately nice if the Bush administration would provide Congress and the American people with realistic estimates of the cost and timeline for engagement. Success without a plan is mostly luck, and hardly great leadership.

No, I forgot to renumber. :-)

Eh? Our NATO allies invoked Article V of the charter after 9/11 (that's the mutual defense clause). First time in the history of NATO. To believe that our NATO allies are not historical allies is ridiculous.

No, it is true that French, Russian, and German companies had contracts with Iraqi companies that would take effect when sanctions were lifted. It is not true that those countries were violating sanctions -- can you demonstrate otherwise?
Had France, Russia, and Germany participated in our invasion of Iraq, they would probably still have some of those contracts. They had the choice of winning economically by partnering with us on the invasion, or of losing out on existing legal contracts. They chose to lose out on legal contracts that were otherwise theirs.
All three of those countries expressed skepticism at the "evidence" being presented that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. Those countries were right, and Bush was wrong.

Perhaps I missed something, but I don't think that Bush sold us on the idea of tax cuts based on the proposition that they would take years and years to be stimulative.

Sept 11 is a minor contributor to the current spending debacle. Bush likes to claim 9/11 as an excuse for everything. But he increases spending across the board, everything from military spending to new government departments to crop subsidies. Bush spends worse than any Democrat in recent history.

No, the number of employees decreased under Clinton. It has increased faster under Bush than under any modern president. Again, he spends worse than a Democrat.

Why do you blame Clinton for all of Bush's problems, and credit Reagan for all the good work that Clinton did? The best thing about Bush is that the buck never stops with him.

Perhaps, but so far most of what he has presented on this score has proven to be incompetently prepared or misleading evidence (al Quaeda in Iraq, aluminum tubes, drones, mobile labs, uranium from Niger). Bush's poor track record in producing accurate evidence has earned some skepticism for many of us.

No, no president in modern history has gained more campaign contributions from special interest or has spent more on elections than Bush has. Bush is in a league of his own here.

Are you seriously going to claim that Bush is an advocate of campaign finance reform??? He found it politically expedient to sign that, because the political backlash against not signing it would be too great.

If NK is such a danger (and I agree it is), then why does Bush consistently downplay the situation in NK, while he exaggerated the situation in Iraq?

It was Bush's responsibility because Bush *volunteered* his unwavering committment to insure peace in the Middle East. Remember the Rose Garden photo ops with Abbas? Bush set his own goal here, nobody forced him to do it. But having set his own goal, I think you will agree that he failed miserably at it.

The Patriot Act is undemocratic and an infringement on our rights. Not something that many of us are in favor of. Only the second time in the history of this country that habeas corpus has been suspended.

Heh, if I had claimed that Bush was not pro-education, you would have pointed to his support of this bill as evidence that I was wrong. Now I point that he withheld the funding for it, and you claim it wasn't his bill. My point is that he worked in collaboration with Teddy and others to draft the bill, and then he reneged on the funding. Teddy found it duplicitous, and it seemed that way to me, too.

Opinions will differ :-)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.