🚀 go-pugleaf

On Fri, 24 Oct 2003 18:23:31 -0600, Uncle Samuel
<stars@bars> wrote:

>On Fri, 24 Oct 2003 19:41:29 GMT, ob110ob@att.net (Obwon) wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 24 Oct 2003 07:06:17 +0100,
>>grub@internet.charitydays.co.uk wrote:
>>
>>>Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's Five Months
>>>__________________________________________________________________
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>        "I can't tell you if the use of force in Iraq today will last five days, 
>>>          five weeks or five months,  but it won't last any longer than that"
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>__________________________________________________________________
>>>
>>
>>  He was warned about the possibility of having a quagmire
>>on his hands and he pooh poohed it.  
>
>It ain't over yet.
  That's what I said and that is exactly the problem!

>
>>He was warned that the
>>attack would be a recruiting bonanza for the terrorists, now
>>he has that on his hands as well, only now he sees it
>>clearly.  
>
>Certainly makes it easier to ID and cap 'em.
 
  Hardly, the terrorists don't wear uniforms emblazoned with
identifying insignia!  Why did you bother to suggest that is
the case?  Nothing better to say?  Careful, that would make
you a troll!

>
>>  Bush seemed to say we could go it alone, without allies!
>>Obviously he was dead wrong!  
>
>No - obviously YOU are dead stupid.
>
>We went in with allies - duh!
>
>http://www.adn.com/24hour/front/story/813799p-5772206c.html
>The 30 countries listed by the State Department as members with the
>United States of a "Coalition for the Immediate Disarmament of Iraq":
>- Afghanistan, Albania, Australia, Azerbaijan, Colombia, Czech
>Republic, Denmark, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Georgia,
>Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Japan (March 18, 1:25 p.m. AST), South Korea,
>Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Netherlands, Nicaragua, Philippines,
>Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Spain, Turkey, United Kingdom, Uzbekistan.


  Yeah, some list of "Allies", and we're paying their way!
Please, even the U.K. is seriously questioning their Prime
Ministers reasonings for joining the war!  Of course, it's
very easy to fool someone who wishes to be fooled.

>>But now that the deed has been
>>done, the allies he could have counted on, the ones who
>>tried to prevent this mess and reaped only his "freedom
>>fries" scorn, are the very ones he's courting to have them
>>help him carry the load.  
>
>Bush never coined the term "freedom fries" not had anything to do with
>them, you LIAR!

  You deny, thereby, the fact that Bush's supporters in the
case for war, did?  You say "LIAR", can you show us exactly
where this lie you claim is made?


>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_fries
>On March 11, 2003, Representatives Robert W. Ney and Walter Jones
>declared that all references to "french fries" and "French toast" on
>the menus of the restaurants and snack bars run by the House of
>Representatives would be removed. House cafeterias were ordered to
>re-name french fries as "freedom fries". This action was carried out
>without a congressional vote, under the authority of Congressman Ney's
>position as Chairman of the Committee on House Administration, which
>oversees restaurant operations in the house. 
>
>According to a statement released by Ney, this move was a symbolic
>effort to express displeasure with France's "continued refusal to
>stand with their U.S. allies" (see Iraq disarmament crisis). The
>statement further read: "This action today is a small, but symbolic,
>effort to show the strong displeasure many on Capitol Hill have with
>our so-called ally, France." 

  And now that no evidence can be shown of the "imminent
attack", or the connection between Saddam/Iraq with 9-11,
there is no Constitutionally justifiable reason for the war
to have gone ahead!  Those are the only two reasons, legally
available, to justify this war and square it with the War
Powers Act!  

  So, it turns out that France happens to have been right!
There was no legal justification for this war, not by
International law and not by our own Constitution!

  So, as it turns out, someone jumped the gun on vilifying
our allies for their lack of support for a war that did not
need to be fought!

>Congressmen Ney and Jones, however, were not the first to re-name
>french fries as freedom fries. A number of private restaurants across
>the country started the renaming movement. Neal Rowland, owner of a
>privately owned fast-food restaurant Cubbie's in Beaufort, North
>Carolina, decided to sell his fried potato strips under the name
>"freedom fries." Rowland claimed that his intent was not to slight the
>French people, but to be patriotic and support President George W.
>Bush. Many of Rowland's customers were among the local military
>troops. 

  Yes, and many of those people mistakenly believed that
Saddam/Iraq had something to do with 9-11!  Something Bush
always to great pains to associate together in his speeches,
but which he later denied he meant doing to mislead the
people into thinking he knew of any connection.  Go figure!

  In effect he's taken to attempting to say that he only
kept saying things like "to prevent another 9-11" as a cause
for war with Iraq, but then saying that he didn't know that
such statements would likely lead people to believe that he
meant that Iraq had something to do with 9-11, but was only
saying things like that to "emphasize" his case for war!

  Okay, for that to be true, Bush cannot read any news
papers, listen to no radio or t.v. news and certainly not
listen to anyone who stood in opposition to the case for
war!  Some President huh?  Obviously you don't seem to
realize that The War Powers Act requires the President to
take consultations with congress!  Not merely advise them of
his actions, but actually hear what they have to say about
what he intends.  So, in the strictest sense of
Constitutional law (and congress is debating the issues) he
violated the war powers act and the Constitution besides.

  Of course, I can easily imagine that you, taking the
position you have, aren't in the least concerned that
Constitutional Laws may have been violated.  If so, then
according to your posture, there need be no Constitution at
all.


>>  He has to be extremely careful now about whom he accepts
>>help from, unless I miss my guess, much of the world would
>>not mind him leaving office, and soon.  Some, I expect, are
>>already greasing the rails for his exit.  
>
>Typical, we already know the French, Germans, Russians and Chinese
>were bought off by Soddem, and now they don'ttlike the facts being out
>- screw 'em all!

  So, you are saying there was no question with the evidence
presented to justify the war?  Where, then, are the wmd's
and/or the connections between Iraq and 9-11?  Even the
President knew that the terrorist connections with 9-11 did
not exist!  His staff had to "goose" what intelligence they
found, remove all caveats from that intelligence, and even
then they had to twist it and puff it up to make it even
seem like there was a case for the war.

  Those are facts the President has admitted or is about to
be forced to admit soon.

>http://www.papillonsartpalace.com/itsall.htm
>
>>His "strength" has
>>turned out to be merely "pigheadedness", as such he's being
>>seen as a danger to the world. 
>
>That "danger" seems to have convinced Iran to open itself to nuke
>inspections now.

  No!  Level heads did that, not Bush, he didn't even bother
to enter into negotiations!  Boy, you really need to learn
to think better.


>>Just ask our own Congress,
>>which seems to be awakening, the truth of the matter, once
>>concealed by the "infotainment news industry", is begining
>>to leak out.  
>
>The leftist mass media has been spinning this from the get go - grow a
>brain.
>
>http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2003/10/15/104210.shtml
>Now that President Bush has finally called the big media's bluff on
>its bad-news-only Iraq war coverage, mainstream reporters are
>squealing like stuck pigs.

  Right...  And now, you might explain, why Rumsfeld himself
is squealing like a stuck pig for saying the same things the
media has been saying.

>CBS's John Roberts sounded particularly overwrought the other night,
>complaining that Bush's decision to circumvent the networks and tell
>the Iraq story to local TV affiliates amounted to a declaration of
>"war."
>
>>Spin is begining to fail, people are peircing
>>the "veil" with their minds and slowly but surely learning
>>the truth.  We didn't need to do this war, there was no
>>threat of imminent attack, as BushCo has admitted, there
>>were no wmd's, as BushCo is slowly being dragged to
>>admitting, 
>
>Bullshit, they're in the Bekaa Valley now.
>
>>nor were there any connections with terrorist, as
>>BushCo tried to make it appear.
>
>You are an IDIOT!
>
  You are a troll, nothing you've posted actually addresses
any real facts!  Or did you somehow miss the Presidents own
admissions to the contrary of what you've posted?

  Oh well, I guess that makes you a troll!

  Obwon