🚀 go-pugleaf

By THOMAS M. DeFRANK and RICHARD SISK DAILY NEWS WASHINGTON BUREAU
Thursday, 
October 23rd, 2003

WASHINGTON - Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld angered the White House 
yesterday with a leaked memo questioning whether the U.S. was winning
the 
war on terror.

"This has put Rummy in a bad spot," one Bush administration source said.

"Before this he had personality and policy problems," the source said.
"Now 
he has a credibility problem because he's acknowledged that they've all
been 
putting on a happy face about Iraq."

It was the latest blow for the beleaguered defense secretary. Earlier
this 
month, the White House switched responsibility for rebuilding Iraq from 
Rumsfeld to national security adviser Condoleezza Rice.

"The President isn't happy," but he won't fire Rumsfeld, a Bush official 
said.

Officials said sacking Rumsfeld would give the appearance of admitting
that 
Iraq is as big a mess as his critics contend.

White House press secretary Scott McClellan, traveling with Bush in 
Australia, quickly gave a vote of confidence to Rumsfeld. "That's
exactly 
what a strong and capable secretary of defense like Secretary Rumsfeld 
should be doing," said McClellan.

The Oct. 16 Rumsfeld memo to top Pentagon aides, first disclosed by USA 
Today, warned of a "long, hard slog" in Iraq and Afghanistan, and openly 
questioned whether the military can win the global terror war.

He complained about "mixed results" on Al Qaeda and fretted that
terrorism 
was winning recruits faster than the U.S. could kill or capture them.

Rumsfeld also wondered if the Pentagon was capable of beating the
terrorists 
and pressed aides to consider whether "to fashion a new institution" to
take 
over the terror war from the military.

Bush officials told the Daily News the memo has further diminished 
Rumsfeld's standing at the White House by embarrassing Bush when his
Iraq 
policy is under constant attack by Democrats and even some Republicans.

The News reported on Oct. 10 that Bush is unhappy with Rumsfeld's
handling 
of postwar operations in Iraq and that he will be out of a job if Bush
is 
reelected next November.

While the source of the leak was a prime topic in Washington political 
corridors yesterday, there was a broad consensus that the leaker was no 
friend of the embattled defense secretary.

"Rumsfeld has stepped on many toes at the Pentagon," a senior
congressional 
source said, "and this was the revenge of the toes."

Rumsfeld and his top aides defended the memo as the typical internal
work 
product of a hard-charging executive posing tough questions and pressing
his 
staff to think aggressively and make tough choices.

Rumsfeld said he used the memo to urge his aides to "lift our eyes up
and 
look out over the horizon. I do it periodically."

But the pessimistic tone of the memo contrasted with the drumbeat of 
positive statements from the White House and Pentagon on steady progress
in 
Iraq that allegedly has been overlooked by the body-count reporting of
the 
major media.

Sen. Joseph Biden (D-Del.), the top Democrat on the Foreign Relations 
Committee, said the memo "is a little different than the sort of 
self-assurance that was communicated to us in Congress."


-- 


"We should not march into Baghdad. To occupy Iraq would 
instantly shatter our coalition, turning the whole Arab 
world against us and make a broken tyrant into a latter-
day Arab hero. Assigning young soldiers to a fruitless 
hunt for a securely entrenched dictator and condemning 
them to fight in what would be an unwinable urban guerilla 
war, it could only plunge that part of the world into ever 
greater instability."
-George H. W. Bush in his 1998 book  "A World Transformed"

"There should be limits to freedom."--George W. Bush

"I don't think our troops ought to be used for what's called nation
building."--George W. Bush, 10/11/2000


http://minime.de/bush/
http://www.911pi.com/
http://www.warprofiteers.com/
http://www.bringthemhomenow.org/
http://www.mindprod.com/bush911.html

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"




__________________________________________________________________

tell the pollsters who you voted for
_________________________________________________________________________________
Presidential Election 2004.




With electronic voting machines being used,  it is very important that before the election,
you tell the pollsters who you intend to vote for,  and after the election,  who you did vote for.

Only these opinion polls will be able to focus the spotlight on those machines which were rigged.

The FBI will then be able to arrest the election riggers.



_________________________________________________________________________________

On Fri, 24 Oct 2003 07:38:53 +0100, grub@internet.charitydays.co.uk
wrote:

>tell the pollsters who you voted for
>_________________________________________________________________________________
>Presidential Election 2004.
>
>
>
>
>With electronic voting machines being used,  it is very important that before the election,
>you tell the pollsters who you intend to vote for,  and after the election,  who you did vote for.
>
>Only these opinion polls will be able to focus the spotlight on those machines which were rigged.
>
>The FBI will then be able to arrest the election riggers.

The FBI? They work for Asscroft. They're part of the team that needs
to be sure the election IS rigged.





"Too many whites are getting away with drug use.
The answer is to ... find the ones who are getting
 away with it, convict them, and send them up the river."

Hypocrite Criminal Drug Addict Rush Limbaugh 

In article <47yJHF8uh27yh27h@rebye.org>,
 bbriggs@rebye.org (Bobby Briggs) wrote:

> No Rescuing the Democrats
> 
> EWTON, Iowa - In the current issue of The Weekly Standard,

The Weakly Substandard. Now THERE'S a real "Fair and balanced" news 
source.

NOT!

 
> Fred Barnes argues that we have seen the birth of a 
> Republican majority. In 1992, Barnes points out, Republicans held 176 House 
> seats. Today, they hold 229. 
> In 1992, the G.O.P. controlled 8 state legislatures; now
> it controls 21. In 1992, there were 18 Republican 
> governors; now there are 27. 
> 
> But the really eye-popping change is in party identification. In Franklin 
> Roosevelt's administration, 49 
> percent of voters said they were Democrats. But that number 
> has been dropping ever since, and now roughly 32 percent of 
> voters say they are. As Mark Penn, a former Clinton 
> pollster, has observed, "In terms of the percentage of 
> voters who identify themselves as Democrats, the Democratic 
> Party is currently in its weakest position since the dawn 
> of the New Deal." 
> 
> from:
> http://forum.chronwatch.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=598
>

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.  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.  

  Bush seemed to say we could go it alone, without allies!
Obviously he was dead wrong!  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.  

  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.  His "strength" has
turned out to be merely "pigheadedness", as such he's being
seen as a danger to the world.  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.  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, nor were there any connections with terrorist, as
BushCo tried to make it appear.

  Oh well!  What's done is done, isn't it?
  As Ming the Great and Terrible says: 
 "Puny Earthling...  Who can save you now?"

  Obwon

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.  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.
> 
>   Bush seemed to say we could go it alone, without allies!
> Obviously he was dead wrong!  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.
> 
>   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.  His "strength" has
> turned out to be merely "pigheadedness", as such he's being
> seen as a danger to the world.  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.  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, nor were there any connections with terrorist, as
> BushCo tried to make it appear.
> 
>   Oh well!  What's done is done, isn't it?
>   As Ming the Great and Terrible says:
>  "Puny Earthling...  Who can save you now?"

And the Neo-Cons try to wave all the bungling, mismanagement,
irresponsibility, and DEATH by saying "Aren't we better off without
Saddam in power?"


-- 


"We should not march into Baghdad. To occupy Iraq would 
instantly shatter our coalition, turning the whole Arab 
world against us and make a broken tyrant into a latter-
day Arab hero. Assigning young soldiers to a fruitless 
hunt for a securely entrenched dictator and condemning 
them to fight in what would be an unwinable urban guerilla 
war, it could only plunge that part of the world into ever 
greater instability."
-George H. W. Bush in his 1998 book  "A World Transformed"

"There should be limits to freedom."--George W. Bush

"I don't think our troops ought to be used for what's called nation
building."--George W. Bush, 10/11/2000


http://minime.de/bush/
http://www.911pi.com/
http://www.warprofiteers.com/
http://www.bringthemhomenow.org/
http://www.mindprod.com/bush911.html

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.

>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.

>  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.

>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!

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." 

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. 

>  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!

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.

>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.

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!

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iraq/salman_pak.htm
Former Iraqi military officers have described a highly secret
terrorist training facility at Salman Pak, where both Iraqis and
non-Iraqi Arabs receive training on hijacking planes and trains,
planting explosives in cities, sabotage, and assassinations. 

The Salman Pak biological warfare facility was located on a peninsula
caused by a bend in the Tigris river, approximately five kilometers
(km) from the arch located in the town of Salman Pak. The facility
area comprised more than 20 square km, and might have been known as a
farmers (or agricultural) experimentation center. The peninsula was
fenced off and patrolled by a large guard force. Immediately inside
and to the east of the fence line were two opulent villas: the larger
built for Iraqi president Saddam Hussein and the other for his
half-brother, Barazan al-Tikriti. A main paved road ran through the
center of the Salman Pak facility/peninsula. [GulfLINK] 


>  Oh well!  What's done is done, isn't it?
>  As Ming the Great and Terrible says: 
> "Puny Earthling...  Who can save you now?"
>
>  Obwon
 
You been watching to much sci-fi, moron.

On Fri, 24 Oct 2003 20:18:51 GMT, MiKe <gamma@nyc.rr.com> wrote:

>And the Neo-Cons try to wave all the bungling, mismanagement,
>irresponsibility, and DEATH by saying "Aren't we better off without
>Saddam in power?"


Ask the people he butchered.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/from_our_own_correspondent/2058253.stm
The star witness against the government of Iraq hobbled into the room,
her legs braced with clumsy metal callipers. "Anna" had been tortured
two years ago. She is now four years old. 

Her father, Ali, is a thick-set Iraqi who used to work for Saddam's
psychopathic son, Uday. Some time after the bungled assassination of
Uday, Ali fell under suspicion.  
Saddam's secret police have been accused of torturing children
 
He fled north, to the Kurdish safe haven policed by Western fighter
planes, but leaving his wife and daughter behind in Baghdad. 

So the secret police came for his wife. Where is he? They tortured
her. And when she didn't break, they tortured his daughter. 

"When did you last see your father? Has he phoned? Has he been in
contact?" They half-crushed the toddler's feet. 

Now, she doesn't walk, she hobbles, and Ali fears that Saddam's men
have crippled his daughter for life. 

Uncle Samuel wrote:
> 
> On Fri, 24 Oct 2003 20:18:51 GMT, MiKe <gamma@nyc.rr.com> wrote:
> 
> >And the Neo-Cons try to wave all the bungling, mismanagement,
> >irresponsibility, and DEATH by saying "Aren't we better off without
> >Saddam in power?"
> 
> Ask the people he butchered.

Ask the guy who armed him....

RUMMSEY & SADDAM!!! BEST BUDDIES!!!!

http://i.cnn.net/cnn/2002/US/09/30/sproject.irq.regime.change/rumsfeld.80s.jpg

http://www.kargar.org/images/saddam_rumsfeld.jpg

http://content.miw.com.sg/LifeStyle/Military/Images/fall_of_saddam.jpg

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

New York Post,
Sunday, February 16, 2003
nypost.com

Why don't my fellow hawks ever discuss
America's history with Saddam Hussein?

I don't mean the 1990's, when Bill Clinton
tried to ignore the Iraqi dictator hawks
(especially Republican ones) discuss that
all the time.

I mean the 1980's when Ronald Reagan
and George H.W. Bush armed him.

The history is appalling, and it
involves key officials shaping
Iraq policy today.

Saddam first used chemical weapons,
in particular mustard gas, in 1983,
in his war against Iran.

By October of that year, according
to recently declassified documents,
the United States knew he was using
them "almost daily."

But the Reagan administration wasn't bothered.

To the contrary, that December it sent
Middle East envoy Donald Rumsfeld to
Baghdad.

According to the book
"Spider's Web: The Secret History of
How the White House Illegally Armed Iraq,:
by Financial Times reporter Alan Friedman,
Rumsfeld presented a letter from Reagan
that propsed restoring diplomatic relations
and offered U.S. military and economic assistance.

When Iran launched a new offensive in February 1984,
Saddam added tabun, a lethal nerve gas, to his chemical
repertoire.

In the spring of 1984, Rumsfeld returned for another visit.

By November, the United States and Iraq had
restored diplomatic relations.

It gets worse.

Records from the Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention and a 1994 Senate Banking
Committe investigation show that during Reagan's
presidency, America sold Iraq anthrax, bubonic plague
and botulinum toxin, all supposedly for medical research.

Over congressional opposition, the Reagan adminstration
sold Iraq twin engine Bell "Huey" helicopters, which
appear to have been used in Saddam's chemical attacks
on the Kurds.

All this was jusitified at the time, of course,
by the need to stop fundamentalist Iran.

But, by August 1988, the war between
Baghdad and Tehran was over.

Yet Saddam continued his genocidal
"Anfal" campaign against the Kurds,
which by late 1988 had resulted in close
to 100,000 deaths, most of them civilian.

So, in September 1988, then
Sen. Claiborne Pell (D-R.I.)
introduced the Prevention of Genocide Act,
which would have ended all U.S. aid to
Baghdad.

The bill passed the Senate, but
the Reagan Adminstration helped
scuttle it in the House.

When George H.W. Bush became president
the following year, he doubled U.S. agricultural
loans to Iraq, money that, it would later
be revealed, Saddam was partly diverting
to the military.

As Samantha Power pints out in
"A Problem from Hell:
America and the Age of Genocide,"
the Bush adminstration in 1989 refused
to join 12 other democracies calling for a
special U.N. Investigation of human rights in
Iraq.

Only left wingers discuss this history.

And for them the lesson is obvious:

The Bush adminstration's current outrage
at Saddam crimes is bogus.

If people like Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney and
Colin Powell, who held top government positions
in the 1980's, really cared about the Iraqi people,
they wouldn't have helped Saddam brutalize
them in the 1980's.

And since the United States doesn't care about the
Iraqi people, our real motivation for a war must
lay elsewhere, in a thirst for world domination, or
oil or both.

I think the left is wrong.

First, France and the Soviet Union sold Saddam
even more military equipment in the '80s than
Washington did.

So, they should be just as cynical about
France's and Russia's motives for opposing
war (i.e. they'd be perfectly happy to go back
to doing business with Saddam).

Second, it is precisely because the United
States abetted Saddam's repression in the
'80s that we should atone for our sins and
depose him today.

Certainly the left never argued that because
for decades Americsa coddled apartheid
South Africa, it should not have switched course
and imposed sanctions.

But, if the antiwar movement misuses America's
shameful history with Saddam, hawks ignore
it altogether.

Hawsk seem to assume that because they support
war now, people like Rumsfeld have learned from
their past.

But it's not that simple.

Just because the United States is going to war with
Saddam doesn't mean we're liberating the Iraqi people.

It's far from clear whether the Bush administration will
help build a democracy in post Saddam Baghdad rather
than simply install another strongman.

Afghanistan doesn't offer much reason for optimism:

The Bush adminstration's reluctance to expand the
peacekeeping force beyond Kabul has condemned
much of the country to instability and violence.

It would be nice, then, if prommient Bush officials
acknowledged their past moral culpability and vowed
not to betray the Iraqi people againl.

Rumsfeld should have trouble sleeping at
night given his role in abetting Saddam's crimes.

Instead, he told the Senate Armed Service
Committe last September,

"It would be a shame to leave this committee
and the people listening with the impression that
the United States assisted Iraq with chemical or
biological weapons in the 1980's.

I just do not believe that is the case."

But, according to recently declassifed
State Department documents reviewed
by Newsweek, The Washington Post,
and the Associated Press, it is the case.

It is a testament to Rumsfeld's immense arrogance
and lack of moral reflection that neither on CNN nor
before the Armed Services Committee did he betray
the slightest hint that he or the adminstration he served
did anything wrong in the '80s regarding Saddam Hussein.

That's not a reason to oppose this war.

But it sure makes me wish a better man were running it.

Peter Beinart is the editor of
The New Republic.
>From The Feb 24 issue.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Worthless killed 7,000 civilians. I won't laugh. Its not funny.

http://www.iraqbodycount.net/bodycount.htm

http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0522/p01s02-woiq.html

http://www.positiveuniverse.org/BackgroundBriefs/CiviliancasualtiesinIraq.html

http://www.comw.org/pda/0305iraqcasualtydata.html

http://electroniciraq.net/news/590.shtml

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

And the American Body Count Rises!

http://www.antiwar.com/ewens/casualties.html

GAWD BLEST 'MERICKA!!!!


-- 


"We should not march into Baghdad. To occupy Iraq would 
instantly shatter our coalition, turning the whole Arab 
world against us and make a broken tyrant into a latter-
day Arab hero. Assigning young soldiers to a fruitless 
hunt for a securely entrenched dictator and condemning 
them to fight in what would be an unwinable urban guerilla 
war, it could only plunge that part of the world into ever 
greater instability."
-George H. W. Bush in his 1998 book  "A World Transformed"

"There should be limits to freedom."--George W. Bush

"I don't think our troops ought to be used for what's called nation
building."--George W. Bush, 10/11/2000


http://minime.de/bush/
http://www.911pi.com/
http://www.warprofiteers.com/
http://www.bringthemhomenow.org/
http://www.mindprod.com/bush911.html

Holy Shit!  The sky is falling.

Rumsfeld sent to Baghdad to meet with Saddam by his boss. And to think, he
smiled when the pictures were taken. Oh my! They even sent Saddam some
stuff.

Gee! I remember photos of Roosevelt and Joe Stalin sitting right next to
each other.  Roosevelt even sent Stalin some stuff.

How come you liberal Democrats never got excited about them?

Docky Wocky wrote:
> 
> Holy Shit!  The sky is falling.
> 
> Rumsfeld sent to Baghdad to meet with Saddam by his boss. And to think, he
> smiled when the pictures were taken. Oh my! They even sent Saddam some
> stuff.
> 
> Gee! I remember photos of Roosevelt and Joe Stalin sitting right next to
> each other.  Roosevelt even sent Stalin some stuff.
> 
> How come you liberal Democrats never got excited about them?

Half a century ago you were a drop of fluid in your granddaddy's nuts.

-- 


"We should not march into Baghdad. To occupy Iraq would 
instantly shatter our coalition, turning the whole Arab 
world against us and make a broken tyrant into a latter-
day Arab hero. Assigning young soldiers to a fruitless 
hunt for a securely entrenched dictator and condemning 
them to fight in what would be an unwinable urban guerilla 
war, it could only plunge that part of the world into ever 
greater instability."
-George H. W. Bush in his 1998 book  "A World Transformed"

"There should be limits to freedom."--George W. Bush

"I don't think our troops ought to be used for what's called nation
building."--George W. Bush, 10/11/2000


http://minime.de/bush/
http://www.911pi.com/
http://www.warprofiteers.com/
http://www.bringthemhomenow.org/
http://www.mindprod.com/bush911.html

On Sat, 25 Oct 2003 02:05:30 GMT, MiKe <gamma@nyc.rr.com> wrote:

>
>
>Uncle Samuel wrote:
>> 
>> On Fri, 24 Oct 2003 20:18:51 GMT, MiKe <gamma@nyc.rr.com> wrote:
>> 
>> >And the Neo-Cons try to wave all the bungling, mismanagement,
>> >irresponsibility, and DEATH by saying "Aren't we better off without
>> >Saddam in power?"
>> 
>> Ask the people he butchered.
>
>Ask the guy who armed him....
 
You leftist goon - that was to fight Iran, not slaughter his own
people and torture little girls!

Btw - you as peeved at the Russians, Germans and French for being his
MAIN suppliers for the past decade?

Idiot.

On Sat, 25 Oct 2003 03:17:32 GMT, MiKe <gamma@nyc.rr.com> wrote:

>
>
>Docky Wocky wrote:
>> 
>> Holy Shit!  The sky is falling.
>> 
>> Rumsfeld sent to Baghdad to meet with Saddam by his boss. And to think, he
>> smiled when the pictures were taken. Oh my! They even sent Saddam some
>> stuff.
>> 
>> Gee! I remember photos of Roosevelt and Joe Stalin sitting right next to
>> each other.  Roosevelt even sent Stalin some stuff.
>> 
>> How come you liberal Democrats never got excited about them?
>
>Half a century ago you were a drop of fluid in your granddaddy's nuts.

Very eloquent, and it beats your bestial origins any day jackass!

"Bobby Briggs" <bbriggs@rebye.org> wrote in message
news:47yJHF8uh27yh27h@rebye.org...
> No Rescuing the Democrats
>
> EWTON, Iowa - In the current issue of The Weekly Standard,
> Fred Barnes argues that we have seen the birth of a
> Republican majority. In 1992, Barnes points out, Republicans held 176 House
seats. Today, they hold 229.
> In 1992, the G.O.P. controlled 8 state legislatures; now
> it controls 21. In 1992, there were 18 Republican
> governors; now there are 27.
>
> But the really eye-popping change is in party identification. In Franklin
Roosevelt's administration, 49
> percent of voters said they were Democrats. But that number
> has been dropping ever since, and now roughly 32 percent of
> voters say they are. As Mark Penn, a former Clinton
> pollster, has observed, "In terms of the percentage of
> voters who identify themselves as Democrats, the Democratic
> Party is currently in its weakest position since the dawn
> of the New Deal."
>
> from:
> http://forum.chronwatch.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=598
>
Going to the website and reading the entire article also reveals the marked
lack of cohesiveness among the presidential candidates the Democrats are
running for nomination. That internecine warfare cannot bode well for the
party come election time. Perhaps one of the weakest areas of the Democrats
is their inability to effectively evaluate their own shortcomings. And, of
course, many voters still see one of the cardinal sins of the Democrats is
allowing their party to be hijacked and held hostage by the Leftwing,
particularly the radical Left. Until they find and implement an effective
solution, they can expect to see their support continue to erode. KM
-- 
(-:alohacyberian:-)  At my website there are 3000 live cameras or
visit NASA, play games, read jokes, send greeting cards & connect
to CNN news, NBA, the White House, Academy Awards or learn all
about Hawaii, Israel and more: http://keith.martin.home.att.net/

<grub@internet.charitydays.co.uk> wrote in message
news:n9ghpvcogi5giure8fae13ad01icnrrmj2@4ax.com...
>         "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"
>

And in what way is that non sequitur going to help the Democrats forestall
the erosion of their support? Or do you feel sticking your head in the sand
and tossing verbal grenades at the Republicans is somehow going to
miraculously assist the Democrats with their internal problems. KM
-- 
(-:alohacyberian:-)  At my website there are 3000 live cameras or
visit NASA, play games, read jokes, send greeting cards & connect
to CNN news, NBA, the White House, Academy Awards or learn all
about Hawaii, Israel and more: http://keith.martin.home.att.net/

"Uncle Samuel" <stars@bars> wrote in message
news:hegjpv8j0bs222eiuap8po8vf1gnb884pt@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 24 Oct 2003 20:18:51 GMT, MiKe <gamma@nyc.rr.com> wrote:
>
> >And the Neo-Cons try to wave all the bungling, mismanagement,
> >irresponsibility, and DEATH by saying "Aren't we better off without
> >Saddam in power?"
>
> Ask the people he butchered.
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/from_our_own_correspondent/2058253.stm
> The star witness against the government of Iraq hobbled into the room,
> her legs braced with clumsy metal callipers. "Anna" had been tortured
> two years ago. She is now four years old.
>
> Her father, Ali, is a thick-set Iraqi who used to work for Saddam's
> psychopathic son, Uday. Some time after the bungled assassination of
> Uday, Ali fell under suspicion.
> Saddam's secret police have been accused of torturing children
>
> He fled north, to the Kurdish safe haven policed by Western fighter
> planes, but leaving his wife and daughter behind in Baghdad.
>
> So the secret police came for his wife. Where is he? They tortured
> her. And when she didn't break, they tortured his daughter.
>
> "When did you last see your father? Has he phoned? Has he been in
> contact?" They half-crushed the toddler's feet.
>
> Now, she doesn't walk, she hobbles, and Ali fears that Saddam's men
> have crippled his daughter for life.
>

Notice how quickly the Leftwing Liberals derailed the remarks that originated
this thread, about the Democrats being in quicksand so they don't have to
address the dilemma? Naturally they did it by attacking the Republicans as if
that will somehow magically rescue the Democrats from the trend to abandon
them. KM
-- 
(-:alohacyberian:-)  At my website there are 3000 live cameras or
visit NASA, play games, read jokes, send greeting cards & connect
to CNN news, NBA, the White House, Academy Awards or learn all
about Hawaii, Israel and more: http://keith.martin.home.att.net/

"MiKe" <gamma@nyc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:3F989F0F.21C40534@nyc.rr.com...
>
> By THOMAS M. DeFRANK and RICHARD SISK DAILY NEWS WASHINGTON BUREAU
> Thursday,
> October 23rd, 2003
>

Hilarious! Someone starts a new thread with a post with incontrovertable
facts showing the slide the Democrats have been experiencing since 1992 and
the corresponding rise of power of the Republicans since that time - so you
immediately jump on your horse, bump into a few walls and then ride off in
all directions to derail a conversation that gives soberingly stark details
about the erosion of support for the Democrats in the last decade by
attacking a Republican cabinet member! That is precisely one of the tactics
that the electorate is getting sick and tired of and if the Democrats
continue to pursue such pusillanimous ploys they can expect their numbers to
continue to plunge. Keep doing what you're doing and you'll keep getting what
you're getting. KM
-- 
(-:alohacyberian:-)  At my website there are 3000 live cameras or
visit NASA, play games, read jokes, send greeting cards & connect
to CNN news, NBA, the White House, Academy Awards or learn all
about Hawaii, Israel and more: http://keith.martin.home.att.net/

"Docky Wocky" <mrchuck@lst.net> wrote in message
news:4nlmb.1364$%e3.617@nwrddc03.gnilink.net...
> Holy Shit!  The sky is falling.
>
> Rumsfeld sent to Baghdad to meet with Saddam by his boss. And to think, he
> smiled when the pictures were taken. Oh my! They even sent Saddam some
> stuff.
>
> Gee! I remember photos of Roosevelt and Joe Stalin sitting right next to
> each other.  Roosevelt even sent Stalin some stuff.
>
> How come you liberal Democrats never got excited about them?
>

Are you kidding?  Roosevelt and the Dems called Josef Stalin, one of the most
vicious butchers in history, "Uncle Joe"!  KM

Fifty years ago, Senator Joe McCarthy said, "The loyal Democrats of this
nation no longer have a Party."  Since then, the evidence has continued to
pour in.  Liberals mock Americans who love their country, calling them
cowboyos, warmongers, religious zealots and jingoists.  By contrast,
America's enemies are called "Uncle Joe" [Stalin], "Fidel" [Castro],
"agrarian reformers" [wholesale slaughter their own people] and practitioners
of a "religion of peace".  Indeed, Communists and terrorists alike are said
to be advocates of "peace".
 ~ Ann Coulter
-- 
(-:alohacyberian:-)  At my website there are 3000 live cameras or
visit NASA, play games, read jokes, send greeting cards & connect
to CNN news, NBA, the White House, Academy Awards or learn all
about Hawaii, Israel and more: http://keith.martin.home.att.net/

"MiKe" <gamma@nyc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:3F99EB4C.7E19F165@nyc.rr.com...
> Docky Wocky wrote:
> > Holy Shit!  The sky is falling.
> >
> > Rumsfeld sent to Baghdad to meet with Saddam by his boss. And to think,
he
> > smiled when the pictures were taken. Oh my! They even sent Saddam some
> > stuff.
> >
> > Gee! I remember photos of Roosevelt and Joe Stalin sitting right next to
> > each other.  Roosevelt even sent Stalin some stuff.
> >
> > How come you liberal Democrats never got excited about them?
>
> Half a century ago you were a drop of fluid in your granddaddy's nuts.
>

And that is exactly the level of repartee one can always count on from
Leftwing Liberals. First derail the conversation and sidetrack it from the
original post that started the thread and then when confronted with a comment
you can't rationally discuss, stoop to the level of exchange indicating an IQ
slightly below a houseplant. No amount of money, influence, persuasion or
words can possibly paint Leftwing Liberals in a worse light than they gladly
portray themselves. And they wonder why the statistics presented in the post
that originated this thread show the dismall downward spiral the Democrats
have experienced since 1992. And to think, intellectuals like you pitched in
and helped make it all possible with the kind of rhetoric you've posted
above. Your adversaries could use a lot more spokespersons like you. Keep up
the good work. KM
-- 
(-:alohacyberian:-)  At my website there are 3000 live cameras or
visit NASA, play games, read jokes, send greeting cards & connect
to CNN news, NBA, the White House, Academy Awards or learn all
about Hawaii, Israel and more: http://keith.martin.home.att.net/

<grub@internet.charitydays.co.uk> wrote in message
news:lrhhpv44osqhnjiviasq8a63790apc1ii2@4ax.com...
> tell the pollsters who you voted for
> Presidential Election 2004.
>
> With electronic voting machines being used,  it is very important that
before the election,
> you tell the pollsters who you intend to vote for,  and after the election,
who you did vote for.
>
> Only these opinion polls will be able to focus the spotlight on those
machines which were rigged.
>
> The FBI will then be able to arrest the election riggers.
>

And will you be in the black helicopters with them? KM
-- 
(-:alohacyberian:-)  At my website there are 3000 live cameras or
visit NASA, play games, read jokes, send greeting cards & connect
to CNN news, NBA, the White House, Academy Awards or learn all
about Hawaii, Israel and more: http://keith.martin.home.att.net/

"MHirtes" <hts@justabunchofwords.com> wrote in message
news:hts-E75EC4.04221524102003@news.central.cox.net...
> In article <47yJHF8uh27yh27h@rebye.org>,
>  bbriggs@rebye.org (Bobby Briggs) wrote:
> > No Rescuing the Democrats
> >
> > EWTON, Iowa - In the current issue of The Weekly Standard,
>
> The Weakly Substandard. Now THERE'S a real "Fair and balanced" news
> source.
>
> NOT!
>

The raw data, in this case are incontroverable facts. If you don't believe
the numbers, look them up for yourself, they're readily available on in the
Internet. And guess what? They're right on the money. *Doh!* Your response is
right out of Article #23 of the Leftwing Liberal Handbook:

23. No matter how credible a source may be - always do your Leftwing Liberal
duty and rabidly claim it's been debunked and discredited and call anyone who
believes it "mean spirited", crazy or any other of the monikers from the
Leftwing Liberal grab bag of infantile epithets and sarcastic sobriquets.
-- 
(-:alohacyberian:-)  At my website there are 3000 live cameras or
visit NASA, play games, read jokes, send greeting cards & connect
to CNN news, NBA, the White House, Academy Awards or learn all
about Hawaii, Israel and more: http://keith.martin.home.att.net/

Uncle Samuel wrote:
> 
> On Sat, 25 Oct 2003 02:05:30 GMT, MiKe <gamma@nyc.rr.com> wrote:
> 
> >
> >
> >Uncle Samuel wrote:
> >>
> >> On Fri, 24 Oct 2003 20:18:51 GMT, MiKe <gamma@nyc.rr.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >And the Neo-Cons try to wave all the bungling, mismanagement,
> >> >irresponsibility, and DEATH by saying "Aren't we better off without
> >> >Saddam in power?"
> >>
> >> Ask the people he butchered.
> >
> >Ask the guy who armed him....
> 
> You leftist goon - that was to fight Iran, not slaughter his own
> people and torture little girls!

Iran. Formerly run by a DESPOT called the Shah.

A man who killed more of his own people than Saddam ever did.

Yet he was our BUDDY, even while opressing his own people!

IRAN & IRAQ...TWO CLASSIC ALL-AMERICAN CLUSTERFUCKS.


-- 


"We should not march into Baghdad. To occupy Iraq would 
instantly shatter our coalition, turning the whole Arab 
world against us and make a broken tyrant into a latter-
day Arab hero. Assigning young soldiers to a fruitless 
hunt for a securely entrenched dictator and condemning 
them to fight in what would be an unwinable urban guerilla 
war, it could only plunge that part of the world into ever 
greater instability."
-George H. W. Bush in his 1998 book  "A World Transformed"

"There should be limits to freedom."--George W. Bush

"I don't think our troops ought to be used for what's called nation
building."--George W. Bush, 10/11/2000


http://minime.de/bush/
http://www.911pi.com/
http://www.warprofiteers.com/
http://www.bringthemhomenow.org/
http://www.mindprod.com/bush911.html

On Sat, 25 Oct 2003 20:39:50 GMT, MiKe <gamma@nyc.rr.com> wrote:

>
>
>Uncle Samuel wrote:
>> 
>> On Sat, 25 Oct 2003 02:05:30 GMT, MiKe <gamma@nyc.rr.com> wrote:
>> 
>> >
>> >
>> >Uncle Samuel wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Fri, 24 Oct 2003 20:18:51 GMT, MiKe <gamma@nyc.rr.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >And the Neo-Cons try to wave all the bungling, mismanagement,
>> >> >irresponsibility, and DEATH by saying "Aren't we better off without
>> >> >Saddam in power?"
>> >>
>> >> Ask the people he butchered.
>> >
>> >Ask the guy who armed him....
>> 
>> You leftist goon - that was to fight Iran, not slaughter his own
>> people and torture little girls!
>
>Iran. Formerly run by a DESPOT called the Shah.

Run into the ground by the despot Ayatolla Khomeni...

>A man who killed more of his own people than Saddam ever did.

Pshaw!

>Yet he was our BUDDY, even while opressing his own people!

That was then and this is now.

>IRAN & IRAQ...TWO CLASSIC ALL-AMERICAN CLUSTERFUCKS.
 
I think they're actually one of many classic Islamic clusterfucks -
recall we're by no means the first nation to try and sort that mess
out.

"MiKe" <gamma@nyc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:3F998978.118FFD00@nyc.rr.com...
> Obwon wrote:
>
> And the Neo-Cons try to wave all the bungling, mismanagement,
> irresponsibility, and DEATH by saying "Aren't we better off without
> Saddam in power?"
>

Well, aren't we?  KM
-- 
(-:alohacyberian:-)  At my website there are 3000 live cameras or
visit NASA, play games, read jokes, send greeting cards & connect
to CNN news, NBA, the White House, Academy Awards or learn all
about Hawaii, Israel and more: http://keith.martin.home.att.net/

"MiKe" <gamma@nyc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:3F9ADF95.2069F5B2@nyc.rr.com...
>
> Iran. Formerly run by a DESPOT called the Shah.
>
> A man who killed more of his own people than Saddam ever did.
>

You can point out the transgressions of the various Iranian regimes till the
cows come home and not one word of it in any way will excuse the sins of
Saddam. They're not relevant to one another. Only a dunderhead would fall for
the evasive tactic. KM
-- 
(-:alohacyberian:-)  At my website there are 3000 live cameras or
visit NASA, play games, read jokes, send greeting cards & connect
to CNN news, NBA, the White House, Academy Awards or learn all
about Hawaii, Israel and more: http://keith.martin.home.att.net/

alohacyberian wrote:
> 
> "MiKe" <gamma@nyc.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:3F998978.118FFD00@nyc.rr.com...
> > Obwon wrote:
> >
> > And the Neo-Cons try to wave all the bungling, mismanagement,
> > irresponsibility, and DEATH by saying "Aren't we better off without
> > Saddam in power?"
> >
> 
> Well, aren't we?  KM

Ahhhhh, that would be a "NO", since we have spent BILLIONS on
the war, THOUSANDS of innocent Iraquis and HUNDREDS of
Americans have died.

-- 


"We should not march into Baghdad. To occupy Iraq would 
instantly shatter our coalition, turning the whole Arab 
world against us and make a broken tyrant into a latter-
day Arab hero. Assigning young soldiers to a fruitless 
hunt for a securely entrenched dictator and condemning 
them to fight in what would be an unwinable urban guerilla 
war, it could only plunge that part of the world into ever 
greater instability."
-George H. W. Bush in his 1998 book  "A World Transformed"

"There should be limits to freedom."--George W. Bush

"I don't think our troops ought to be used for what's called nation
building."--George W. Bush, 10/11/2000


http://minime.de/bush/
http://www.911pi.com/
http://www.warprofiteers.com/
http://www.bringthemhomenow.org/
http://www.mindprod.com/bush911.html

alohacyberian wrote:
> 
> "MiKe" <gamma@nyc.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:3F9ADF95.2069F5B2@nyc.rr.com...
> >
> > Iran. Formerly run by a DESPOT called the Shah.
> >
> > A man who killed more of his own people than Saddam ever did.
> >
> 
> You can point out the transgressions of the various Iranian regimes till the
> cows come home and not one word of it in any way will excuse the sins of
> Saddam. They're not relevant to one another. Only a dunderhead would fall for
> the evasive tactic. KM

A dunderhead like RUMMSEY?

http://i.cnn.net/cnn/2002/US/09/30/sproject.irq.regime.change/rumsfeld.80s.jpg

http://www.kargar.org/images/saddam_rumsfeld.jpg

http://content.miw.com.sg/LifeStyle/Military/Images/fall_of_saddam.jpg


-- 


"We should not march into Baghdad. To occupy Iraq would 
instantly shatter our coalition, turning the whole Arab 
world against us and make a broken tyrant into a latter-
day Arab hero. Assigning young soldiers to a fruitless 
hunt for a securely entrenched dictator and condemning 
them to fight in what would be an unwinable urban guerilla 
war, it could only plunge that part of the world into ever 
greater instability."
-George H. W. Bush in his 1998 book  "A World Transformed"

"There should be limits to freedom."--George W. Bush

"I don't think our troops ought to be used for what's called nation
building."--George W. Bush, 10/11/2000


http://minime.de/bush/
http://www.911pi.com/
http://www.warprofiteers.com/
http://www.bringthemhomenow.org/
http://www.mindprod.com/bush911.html

On Mon, 27 Oct 2003 03:12:05 GMT, MiKe <gamma@nyc.rr.com> wrote:

>
>
>alohacyberian wrote:
>> 
>> "MiKe" <gamma@nyc.rr.com> wrote in message
>> news:3F998978.118FFD00@nyc.rr.com...
>> > Obwon wrote:
>> >
>> > And the Neo-Cons try to wave all the bungling, mismanagement,
>> > irresponsibility, and DEATH by saying "Aren't we better off without
>> > Saddam in power?"
>> >
>> 
>> Well, aren't we?  KM
>
>Ahhhhh, that would be a "NO", since we have spent BILLIONS on
>the war, THOUSANDS of innocent Iraquis and HUNDREDS of
>Americans have died.


How many did Soddem butcher?

How quickly did Iran open up to nuke inspectors?

Think.

On Mon, 27 Oct 2003 03:13:03 GMT, MiKe <gamma@nyc.rr.com> wrote:

>
>
>alohacyberian wrote:
>> 
>> "MiKe" <gamma@nyc.rr.com> wrote in message
>> news:3F9ADF95.2069F5B2@nyc.rr.com...
>> >
>> > Iran. Formerly run by a DESPOT called the Shah.
>> >
>> > A man who killed more of his own people than Saddam ever did.
>> >
>> 
>> You can point out the transgressions of the various Iranian regimes till the
>> cows come home and not one word of it in any way will excuse the sins of
>> Saddam. They're not relevant to one another. Only a dunderhead would fall for
>> the evasive tactic. KM
>
>A dunderhead like RUMMSEY?
 
No, one like you who can't do more than rely on leftist hindsight.

Try and look at the future you dolt, or at least get a friend to help
you...

"MiKe" <gamma@nyc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:3F9C8E66.8FB0234F@nyc.rr.com...
> alohacyberian wrote:
> > "MiKe" <gamma@nyc.rr.com> wrote in message
> > news:3F998978.118FFD00@nyc.rr.com...
> > > Obwon wrote:
> > >
> > > And the Neo-Cons try to wave all the bungling, mismanagement,
> > > irresponsibility, and DEATH by saying "Aren't we better off without
> > > Saddam in power?"
> >
> > Well, aren't we?  KM
>
> Ahhhhh, that would be a "NO", since we have spent BILLIONS on
> the war, THOUSANDS of innocent Iraquis and HUNDREDS of
> Americans have died.
>

The number of casualties in Iraq is miniscule compared to the number who were
being raped, tortured, maimed and slaughtered prior to the allied invasion. I
know, I know, you much preferred the daily bloodbath Saddam directed and are
maddern hell so few have died since the allied invasion. But, let's face it,
not all the world is as sadistic as you are. KM
-- 
(-:alohacyberian:-)  At my website there are 3000 live cameras or
visit NASA, play games, read jokes, send greeting cards & connect
to CNN news, NBA, the White House, Academy Awards or learn all
about Hawaii, Israel and more: http://keith.martin.home.att.net/

"Uncle Samuel" <stars@bars> wrote in message
news:65bppvoimj3a28en8s9sprvuhkal5kk3nr@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 27 Oct 2003 03:12:05 GMT, MiKe <gamma@nyc.rr.com> wrote:
> >alohacyberian wrote:
> >> "MiKe" <gamma@nyc.rr.com> wrote in message
> >> news:3F998978.118FFD00@nyc.rr.com...
> >> > Obwon wrote:
> >> > And the Neo-Cons try to wave all the bungling, mismanagement,
> >> > irresponsibility, and DEATH by saying "Aren't we better off without
> >> > Saddam in power?"
> >>
> >> Well, aren't we?  KM
> >
> >Ahhhhh, that would be a "NO", since we have spent BILLIONS on
> >the war, THOUSANDS of innocent Iraquis and HUNDREDS of
> >Americans have died.
>
> How many did Soddem butcher?
>
> How quickly did Iran open up to nuke inspectors?
>
> Think.
>
Isn't it interesting that this thread began with a post from Bobby Briggs
that noted, among other things, as the Subject line indicates, that the
Democrats have seen a steady decline in occupation of public offices while
the Republicans have seen a gradual increase in winning elections. Not one
Leftwing Liberal or Democrat responded to those hard, cold facts. The first
knee-jerk retort was from MiKe and quickly evaded the issue by attacking
Rumsfeld rather than addressing the topic or discussing the issue.  The crux
of the original post was:

In 1992 Republicans held 176 House seats. Today, they hold 229.

In 1992, the G.O.P. controlled 8 state legislatures; now it controls 21. In
1992, there were 18 Republican governors; now there are 27.

Their silence on these facts is deafening and if they keep doing what they're
doing, they'll keep getting what they're getting. Evading the issue isn't a
tactic that works any more. KM
-- 
(-:alohacyberian:-)  At my website there are 3000 live cameras or
visit NASA, play games, read jokes, send greeting cards & connect
to CNN news, NBA, the White House, Academy Awards or learn all
about Hawaii, Israel and more: http://keith.martin.home.att.net/

"MiKe" <gamma@nyc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:3F9C8EA0.63CA24FE@nyc.rr.com...
> alohacyberian wrote:
> > "MiKe" <gamma@nyc.rr.com> wrote in message
> > news:3F9ADF95.2069F5B2@nyc.rr.com...
> > > Iran. Formerly run by a DESPOT called the Shah.
> > >
> > > A man who killed more of his own people than Saddam ever did.
> >
> > You can point out the transgressions of the various Iranian regimes till
the
> > cows come home and not one word of it in any way will excuse the sins of
> > Saddam. They're not relevant to one another. Only a dunderhead would fall
for
> > the evasive tactic. KM
>
> A dunderhead like RUMMSEY?
>

You're still evading the issue. Whatever happened in Iraq and whatever the
sins of their governments were, they are in no way related to, nor is there a
corrrelation with the barbarous butchery of the Saddam Hussein regime and his
phalanx of Ba'athist despots. Nothing the Iranians did in any way excuses the
horrors of Hussein and the Ba'athists. Am I asking too much in requesting you
comprehend that simplicity? Is that too difficult for you to grasp? KM
-- 
(-:alohacyberian:-)  At my website there are 3000 live cameras or
visit NASA, play games, read jokes, send greeting cards & connect
to CNN news, NBA, the White House, Academy Awards or learn all
about Hawaii, Israel and more: http://keith.martin.home.att.net/

On Fri, 24 Oct 2003 20:18:51 GMT, MiKe <gamma@nyc.rr.com>
wrote:

>
>
>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.  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.
>> 
>>   Bush seemed to say we could go it alone, without allies!
>> Obviously he was dead wrong!  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.
>> 
>>   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.  His "strength" has
>> turned out to be merely "pigheadedness", as such he's being
>> seen as a danger to the world.  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.  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, nor were there any connections with terrorist, as
>> BushCo tried to make it appear.
>> 
>>   Oh well!  What's done is done, isn't it?
>>   As Ming the Great and Terrible says:
>>  "Puny Earthling...  Who can save you now?"
>
>And the Neo-Cons try to wave all the bungling, mismanagement,
>irresponsibility, and DEATH by saying "Aren't we better off without
>Saddam in power?"
>
>
  And the answer is No!  We are not any better off without
Saddam in power!  Otherwise it would not be us doing more
killing than Saddam, let alone subjecting our troops to open
ended dangers while they attempt to restore peace, order and
infrastructure and are required to persue a social/cultural
change mission, all while dodging bullets and bombs.

  The missions our troops are faced with are at extreme odds
with their need to guard their own safety first.  This is
because errors must be made since there is little time to
assess any suspected enemy attacker and discern between same
and ordinary, peaceful citizens, engaged in lawful (if
"bizarre" to us) conduct dictated by a culture and/or social
system they don't clearly understand.

  The problem is that each accidental killing, each mistaken
decision, each unfortunate peice of rhetoric, accrues to
increase the level of danger present by driving those harmed
into the arms of our troops detractors.  Almost guaranteeing
a prolongation of a spiral of violence that cannot help the
restoration of order, no less the "sale" of democracy among
other things.

  The fact of the matter is that these people are only at
the very dawn of gaining the kind of enlightenment needed to
discriminate between the emotional, the patriotic, the
religiously dogmatic, the traditional, the socially or
culturally acceptable and the rational, proveable, logical,
scientific etc.  So it takes very little to make them put
critical thinking aside and fall victim to the enemies of
order and/or outsiders, most especially those outsiders who
practice a different religion and hold to different customes
than they do.

  Maybe the culture and all can be changed, but it won't
happen overnight if at all.  Probably 10 to 20 years are
needed under the best of circumstances and these are clearly
not the best!

  So, had Saddam remained in power many of our own soldiers
would be alive now!  Many more Iraqi's would be alive now
and there'd be less animousity around to drive our enemies!
We'd also have our allies working with us and that clear
unity, as well as the strong appearance of adhereance to
U.N./International Law, would go along way towards heading
off any reach towards nuclear proliferation.  Since N.P.
hold the promise of levels of distruction against which the
improprieties of Saddams terrible rule would pale.

  Obwon

On Fri, 24 Oct 2003 18:23:35 -0600, Uncle Samuel
<stars@bars> wrote:

>On Fri, 24 Oct 2003 20:18:51 GMT, MiKe <gamma@nyc.rr.com> wrote:
>
>>And the Neo-Cons try to wave all the bungling, mismanagement,
>>irresponsibility, and DEATH by saying "Aren't we better off without
>>Saddam in power?"
>
>
>Ask the people he butchered.
>
  The people he butchered cannot answer!  Nor can the people
who have died at our hands answer either!  But it is
interesting that you should believe that the people Saddam
killed unfairly, would be a better predictor of the future
than the feelings of the families left behind in the wake of
our invasion/occupation.  What's going on here?  Can you
guess?

  Obwon

On Sat, 25 Oct 2003 02:38:56 GMT, "Docky Wocky"
<mrchuck@lst.net> wrote:

>Holy Shit!  The sky is falling.
>
>Rumsfeld sent to Baghdad to meet with Saddam by his boss. And to think, he
>smiled when the pictures were taken. Oh my! They even sent Saddam some
>stuff.
>
>Gee! I remember photos of Roosevelt and Joe Stalin sitting right next to
>each other.  Roosevelt even sent Stalin some stuff.
>
>How come you liberal Democrats never got excited about them?
>
  Because Roosevelt never invaded Russia!  How's that for an
answer?

Obwon

On Fri, 24 Oct 2003 23:33:28 -0600, Uncle Samuel
<stars@bars> wrote:

>On Sat, 25 Oct 2003 02:05:30 GMT, MiKe <gamma@nyc.rr.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>Uncle Samuel wrote:
>>> 
>>> On Fri, 24 Oct 2003 20:18:51 GMT, MiKe <gamma@nyc.rr.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> >And the Neo-Cons try to wave all the bungling, mismanagement,
>>> >irresponsibility, and DEATH by saying "Aren't we better off without
>>> >Saddam in power?"
>>> 
>>> Ask the people he butchered.
>>
>>Ask the guy who armed him....
> 
>You leftist goon - that was to fight Iran, not slaughter his own
>people and torture little girls!

 Ooooooo, "leftist goon"!  But please, just explain what
evidence you have that proves that Saddam's use of the
weapons we gave him, was disapproved of!  Did it even cause
us to break relations with Saddam?  Or was this known
activity ignored and therefore tacitly approved of?

>Btw - you as peeved at the Russians, Germans and French for being his
>MAIN suppliers for the past decade?
>
>Idiot.

  Well, obviously you've never been the leader of any
soverign nation!  You are obviously unaware of international
law!  As a Soverign leader Saddam had both the right and a
need to buy arms from someone, if only to defend his regime,
not to mention his nations soverignity.  Clue, that's one of
the exact reasons we gave him arms, so that he could defend
against Iran and not be taken over by them.

  Obviously, since we embargoed Iraq, they couldn't buy arms
from us, so they turned to the international market and
brought legal arms, not arms proscribed by international
treaties or laws!  And certainly not wmd's!  

  Obwon

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

Obwon wrote:
> 
> On Fri, 24 Oct 2003 18:23:35 -0600, Uncle Samuel
> <stars@bars> wrote:
> 
> >On Fri, 24 Oct 2003 20:18:51 GMT, MiKe <gamma@nyc.rr.com> wrote:
> >
> >>And the Neo-Cons try to wave all the bungling, mismanagement,
> >>irresponsibility, and DEATH by saying "Aren't we better off without
> >>Saddam in power?"
> >
> >
> >Ask the people he butchered.
> >
>   The people he butchered cannot answer!  Nor can the people
> who have died at our hands answer either!  But it is
> interesting that you should believe that the people Saddam
> killed unfairly, would be a better predictor of the future
> than the feelings of the families left behind in the wake of
> our invasion/occupation.  What's going on here?  Can you
> guess?


What about the Iraqi's he butchered with the weapons REGAN AND
RUMMSEY SOLD HIM when he was out friend?

OH SHIT! THEY don't coun't because Saddam was our BUDDY then!

http://i.cnn.net/cnn/2002/US/09/30/sproject.irq.regime.change/rumsfeld.80s.jpg

http://www.kargar.org/images/saddam_rumsfeld.jpg

http://content.miw.com.sg/LifeStyle/Military/Images/fall_of_saddam.jpg

The Iraquis he butchered THEN must have been COMMUNISTS, and
that makes it OK...especially when he signed the contracts with RUMMSEY
for WOMD!!!!

HYPOCRITES!


-- 


"We should not march into Baghdad. To occupy Iraq would 
instantly shatter our coalition, turning the whole Arab 
world against us and make a broken tyrant into a latter-
day Arab hero. Assigning young soldiers to a fruitless 
hunt for a securely entrenched dictator and condemning 
them to fight in what would be an unwinable urban guerilla 
war, it could only plunge that part of the world into ever 
greater instability."
-George H. W. Bush in his 1998 book  "A World Transformed"

"There should be limits to freedom."--George W. Bush

"I don't think our troops ought to be used for what's called nation
building."--George W. Bush, 10/11/2000


http://minime.de/bush/
http://www.911pi.com/
http://www.warprofiteers.com/
http://www.bringthemhomenow.org/
http://www.mindprod.com/bush911.html

On Mon, 27 Oct 2003 16:17:31 GMT, ob110ob@att.net (Obwon) wrote:

>On Fri, 24 Oct 2003 23:33:28 -0600, Uncle Samuel
><stars@bars> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 25 Oct 2003 02:05:30 GMT, MiKe <gamma@nyc.rr.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Uncle Samuel wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> On Fri, 24 Oct 2003 20:18:51 GMT, MiKe <gamma@nyc.rr.com> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> >And the Neo-Cons try to wave all the bungling, mismanagement,
>>>> >irresponsibility, and DEATH by saying "Aren't we better off without
>>>> >Saddam in power?"
>>>> 
>>>> Ask the people he butchered.
>>>
>>>Ask the guy who armed him....
>> 
>>You leftist goon - that was to fight Iran, not slaughter his own
>>people and torture little girls!
>
> Ooooooo, "leftist goon"! 

Live with it you worthless POS!

> But please, just explain what
>evidence you have that proves that Saddam's use of the
>weapons we gave him, was disapproved of!  Did it even cause
>us to break relations with Saddam?  Or was this known
>activity ignored and therefore tacitly approved of?

Cite a year.

>>Btw - you as peeved at the Russians, Germans and French for being his
>>MAIN suppliers for the past decade?
>>
>>Idiot.
>
>  Well, obviously you've never been the leader of any
>soverign nation!  You are obviously unaware of international
>law!  As a Soverign leader Saddam had both the right and a
>need to buy arms from someone, if only to defend his regime,
>not to mention his nations soverignity.  Clue, that's one of
>the exact reasons we gave him arms, so that he could defend
>against Iran and not be taken over by them.

Clue the UNSC votes were bought off - moron.

>  Obviously, since we embargoed Iraq, they couldn't buy arms
>from us, so they turned to the international market and
>brought legal arms, not arms proscribed by international
>treaties or laws!  And certainly not wmd's!  

Wrong.

Read it and weep youleftist LIAR!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,886774,00.html
Two German businessman were yesterday convicted of supplying Iraq with
equipment for the manufacture of a gun capable of delivering weapons
of mass destruction. 
Bernd Schompeter, 59, was sentenced to five years and three months.
Willi Heinz Ribbeck, 53, received two years' probation for his part in
abetting a violation of Germany's arms export laws. 

The two men were links in a chain that delivered to Iraq drills that
can be used to bore the barrels for a long-range cannon capable of
firing nuclear, biological or chemical shells. 

Schompeter bought the drills from Ribbeck's then-employer, the
northern German machine tool company Burgsm�ller whose role in the
affair drew harsh words yesterday from the presiding judge. 

Reading out his verdict, Judge Michael Seidling said at least some
executives of the company were likely to have been aware of the deal.
"We believe that Ribbeck is not the only person at Burgsm�ller who
should have been in the dock," he said. 

The drills were shipped from Germany to Jordan. The importer was an
Iraqi-born US businessman, Sahib Abd al-Amir al-Haddad, whom German
prosecutors have identified as the deal's mastermind. 

On Mon, 27 Oct 2003 16:07:55 GMT, ob110ob@att.net (Obwon) wrote:

>On Fri, 24 Oct 2003 18:23:35 -0600, Uncle Samuel
><stars@bars> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 24 Oct 2003 20:18:51 GMT, MiKe <gamma@nyc.rr.com> wrote:
>>
>>>And the Neo-Cons try to wave all the bungling, mismanagement,
>>>irresponsibility, and DEATH by saying "Aren't we better off without
>>>Saddam in power?"
>>
>>
>>Ask the people he butchered.
>>
>  The people he butchered cannot answer!  

BINGO ASSHOLE!

Now shaddup and KMA!

On Mon, 27 Oct 2003 21:21:31 GMT, MiKe <gamma@nyc.rr.com> wrote:

>What about the Iraqi's he butchered with the weapons REGAN AND
>RUMMSEY SOLD HIM when he was out friend?

What about the 25 million we just LIBERATED you leftist WHORE?

On Mon, 27 Oct 2003 16:04:52 GMT, ob110ob@att.net (Obwon) wrote:


>>
>  And the answer is No!  We are not any better off without
>Saddam in power!  Otherwise it would not be us doing more
>killing than Saddam, 

Er...huh?

Are you on drugs ALL the time?

We're dealing with the 150,000 thugs he released from his prisons and
the Islamic terrorists the region harbors.

Whose side are you on bud?

FWD: FBI

On Mon, 27 Oct 2003 16:50:00 GMT, ob110ob@att.net (Obwon) wrote:

>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!

You decade-lacking young punk - how long do you think WW2 took?

Ever hear of the Marshall Plan?

Idiot - crack a book kiddo.

>>>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, 

Perfectly.

>the terrorists don't wear uniforms emblazoned with
>identifying insignia!  

Er..so???

>Why did you bother to suggest that is
>the case?  Nothing better to say?  Careful, that would make
>you a troll!

Are you as young and dumb as you sound?

Ever hear of intel?

Moron.

>>
>>>  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!

Moron, you just got caught with yer pants down and this is yer best
rejoinder, go put yer head in the fridge junior, idjit!


>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.

The leftist idiots you venerate have been noisy - la de da.

>>>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,

No ASSHOLE - YOU LIED!

FUCK YOU!

>thereby, the fact that Bush's supporters in the
>case for war, did?

That was not what you said - red herring escape hatch - LIAR!

>You say "LIAR", can you show us exactly
>where this lie you claim is made?

You POS, you have decimated yourself!

>>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 


BREAK!

And now that your lies have been revealed you turn the worm like any
good leftist TOOL does.

You are SHIT BUD, got it?

SHIT!

>no evidence can be shown of the "imminent
>attack", or the connection between Saddam/Iraq with 9-11,

WRONG!

Read it and weep future fuselage boy...

http://www.intelmessages.org/Messages/National_Security/wwwboard/messages/811.html
His friends call him Abu Amin, �the father of honesty�. At 43, he is
one of Iraq�s most highly decorated intelligence officers: a special
forces veteran who organised killings behind Iranian lines during the
first Gulf war, who then went on to a senior post in the unit known as
�M8� - the department for �special operations�, such as sabotage,
terrorism and murder. This is the man, Colonel Muhammed Khalil Ibrahim
al-Ani, whom Mohamed Atta flew halfway across the world to meet in
Prague last April, five months before piloting his hijacked aircraft
into the World Trade Centre. 

Evidence is mounting that this meeting was not an isolated event. The
Observer has learnt that Atta�s talks with al-Ani were only one of
several apparent links between Iraq, the 11 September hijackers and
Osama bin Laden�s al-Qaeda network. Senior US intelligence sources say
the CIA has �credible information� that in the spring of this year, at
least two other members of the hijacking team also met known Iraqi
intelligence agents outside the United States. They are believed to be
Atta�s closest associates and co-leaders, Marwan al-Shehri and Ziad
Jarrah, the other two members of the �German cell � who lived with
Atta in Hamburg in the late 1990s. 

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iraq/salman_pak.htm
Former Iraqi military officers have described a highly secret
terrorist training facility at Salman Pak, where both Iraqis and
non-Iraqi Arabs receive training on hijacking planes and trains,
planting explosives in cities, sabotage, and assassinations. 

The Salman Pak biological warfare facility was located on a peninsula
caused by a bend in the Tigris river, approximately five kilometers
(km) from the arch located in the town of Salman Pak. The facility
area comprised more than 20 square km, and might have been known as a
farmers (or agricultural) experimentation center. The peninsula was
fenced off and patrolled by a large guard force. Immediately inside
and to the east of the fence line were two opulent villas: the larger
built for Iraqi president Saddam Hussein and the other for his
half-brother, Barazan al-Tikriti. A main paved road ran through the
center of the Salman Pak facility/peninsula. [GulfLINK] 

Plans were made in the mid-1980's to develop the Salman Pak site into
a secure biological warfare research facility. Dr Rihab Taha, head of
a small biological weapons research team, continued to work with her
team at al-Muthanna until 1987 when it moved to Salman Pak, which was
under the control of the Directorate of General Intelligence. 

Located at the facility are several buildings. The probable main
research building at the site is a modern building, composed of twenty
four rooms, housing a major BW research facility. Using current
technology the research area alone had sufficient floor space to
accommodate several continuous-flow or batch fermenters that could
produce daily sufficient anthrax bacteria to lethally assault hundreds
of square kilometers. Adjacent to the research building is a storage
area which contains four munitions type storage bunkers with lightning
arrestors. Two of these bunkers have facilities for storage of
temperature sensitive biological material. Approximately a mile down
the road from the research area is a complex US intelligence believed
to be an engineering area. One building in this complex was thought to
contain a fermentation pilot plant capable of scale up production of
BW agents. A construction project comprising several buildings was
begun in early 1989 adjacent to the engineering area, and was near
completion in 1990. This new complex was assessed as a pharmaceutical
production plant. As such, this facility would have an extensive
capability for biological agent production. [GulfLINK] ...

Iraq told UN inspectors that Salman Pak was an anti-terror training
camp for Iraqi special forces. However, two defectors from Iraqi
intelligence stated that they had worked for several years at the
secret Iraqi government camp, which had trained Islamic terrorists in
rotations of five or six months since 1995. Training activities
including simulated hijackings carried out in an airplane fuselage
[said to be a Boeing 707] at the camp. The camp is divided into
distinct sections. On one side of the camp young, Iraqis who were
members of Fedayeen Saddam are trained in espionage, assassination
techniques and sabotage. The Islamic militants trained on the other
side of the camp, in an area separated by a small lake, trees and
barbed wire. The militants reportedly spent time training, usually in
groups of five or six, around the fuselage of the airplane. There were
rarely more than 40 or 50 Islamic radicals in the camp at one time. 


>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!  

You are an IDIOT.

>  So, it turns out that France happens to have been right!

The 40 billion $ WHORE led Chirac Total/ Elf /Fina buyoff???

Are you SICK???


>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!

Our what?

The ones who were bought off, you mean...

40 bil$ - France

12 bil $- Russia 

8 bil $ - China

6 bil $- Germany

Got it punk?


>>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! 

damn kid, you couldn't stay on topic if yer worthless life depended on
it, you are a SQUIRMER!

>Something Bush
>always to great pains to associate together in his speeches,

PROOF PLEASE!!!!


>but which he later denied he meant doing to mislead the
>people into thinking he knew of any connection.  Go figure!

GO PROVE BOY!!!


>  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!

PROOF PLEASE  - IN HIS WORDS!!!


>  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?  

Yer some LIAR, that is clear.

>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.

Are you that stupid - Congress AUTHORIZED this action.

God kid - grow a brain!

>  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.

Wake up boy, read up.

>>>  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?

So you are misrepresenting my statements yet again...big FUCKING
SURPRISE!

>  Where, then, are the wmd's
>and/or the connections between Iraq and 9-11?

See above you worthless punk!

>  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.

Lies and bullshit in layers, you are a leftist TOOL.

>  Those are facts the President has admitted or is about to
>be forced to admit soon.
>
>>http://www.papillonsartpalace.com/itsall.htm

TUESDAY, March 11, 2003, 6:34 a.m.
It's All About Oil. For the French
Some interesting facts on who benefits from keeping Saddam Hussein in
power compiled by the Heritage Foundation
Check out the link:
http://www.heritage.org/Research/MiddleEast/wm217.cfm

France
� According to the CIA World Factbook, France controls over 22.5
percent of Iraq�s imports.[1] French total trade with Iraq under the
oil-for-food program is the third largest, totaling $3.1 billion since
1996, according to the United Nations.[2] In 2001 France became Iraq�s
largest European trading partner. 
� Roughly 60 French companies do an estimated $1.5 billion in trade
with Baghdad annually under the U.N. oil-for-food program.[3] 
� France�s largest oil company, Total Fina Elf, has negotiated a deal
to develop the Majnoon field in western Iraq. The Majnoon field
purportedly contains up to 30 billion barrels of oil.[4] 
� Total Fina Elf also negotiated a deal for future oil exploration in
Iraq�s Nahr Umar field. Both the Majnoon and Nahr Umar fields are
estimated to contain as much as 25 percent of the country�s
reserves.[5] 
� France�s Alcatel company, a major telecom firm, is negotiating a $76
million contract to rehabilitate Iraq�s telephone system.[6] 
� From 1981 to 2001, according to the Stockholm International Peace
Research Institute (SIPRI), France was responsible for over 13 percent
of Iraq�s arms imports.[7] 

Germany
� Direct trade between Germany and Iraq amounts to about $350 million
annually, and another $1 billion is reportedly sold through third
parties.[8] 
� It has recently been reported that Saddam Hussein has ordered Iraqi
domestic businesses to show preference to German companies as a reward
for Germany�s �firm positive stand in rejecting the launching of a
military attack against Iraq.� It was also reported that over 101
German companies were present at the Baghdad Annual exposition.[9] 
� During the 35th Annual Baghdad International Fair in November 2002,
a German company signed a contract for $80 million for 5,000 cars and
spare parts.[10] 
� In 2002, DaimlerChrysler was awarded over $13 million in contracts
for German trucks and spare parts.[11] 
� German officials are investigating a German corporation accused of
illegally channeling weapons to Iraq via Jordan. The equipment in
question is used for boring the barrels of large cannons and is
allegedly intended for Saddam Hussein�s Al Fao Supercannon
project.[12] 

Russia
� According to the CIA World Factbook, Russia controls roughly 5.8
percent of Iraq�s annual imports.[13] Under the U.N. oil-for-food
program, Russia�s total trade with Iraq was somewhere between $530
million and $1 billion for the six months ending in December of
2001.[14] 
� According to the Russian Ambassador to Iraq, Vladimir Titorenko, new
contracts worth another $200 million under the U.N. oil-for-food
program are to be signed over the next three months.[15] 
� Soviet-era debt of $7 billion through $8 billion was generated by
arms sales to Iraq during the 1980�1988 Iran�Iraq war. 
� Russia�s LUKoil negotiated a $4 billion, 23-year contract in 1997 to
rehabilitate the 15 billion-barrel West Qurna field in southern Iraq.
Work on the oil field was expected to commence upon cancellation of
U.N. sanctions on Iraq. The deal is currently on hold.[16] 
� In October 2001, Salvneft, a Russian�Belarus company, negotiated a
$52 million service contract to drill at the Tuba field in Southern
Iraq.[17] 
� In April 2001, Russia�s Zaruezhneft company received a service
contract to drill in the Saddam, Kirkuk, and Bai Hassan fields to
rehabilitate the fields and reduce water incursion. 
� A future $40 billion Iraqi�Russian economic agreement, reportedly
signed in 2002, would allow for extensive oil exploration
opportunities throughout western Iraq.[18] The proposal calls for 67
new projects, over a 10-year time frame, to explore and further
develop fields in southern Iraq and the Western Desert, including the
Suba, Luhais, West Qurna, and Rumaila projects. Additional projects
added to the deal include second-phase construction of a pipeline
running from southern to northern Iraq, and extensive drilling and gas
projects. Work on these projects would commence upon cancellation of
sanctions.[19] 
� Russia�s Gazprom company over the past few years has signed
contracts worth $18 million to repair gas stations in Iraq.[20] 
The former Soviet Union was the premier supplier of Iraqi arms. From
1981 to 2001, Russia supplied Iraq with 50 percent of its arms.[21]


>>
>>>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!  

YES!!!

>Level heads did that, 

In IRAN?

Are you cooked kid?

>not Bush, he didn't even bother
>to enter into negotiations!  Boy, you really need to learn
>to think better.

Boy you really need to learn what an object lesson is boy.

Some day you WILL get one, trust me junior.

>>>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...  

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.

Is he?

>>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, 

You aree a leftist POS and the bestr reason for birth control I've
seen in months!

>nothing you've posted actually addresses
>any real facts!  

LIAR.

Damned lying piece of leftist SCUM!

>Or did you somehow miss the Presidents own
>admissions to the contrary of what you've posted?

Did you have some trouble with the facts?

Read 'em and weep boy - FUCK YOU TO HELL!

>  Oh well, I guess that makes you a troll!
 
And you a leftist TRAITOR - ROT IN HELL KID.

Explain the relation of your posting to Colorado Politics Uncle Sam

Uncle Samuel wrote:
> 
> On Sat, 25 Oct 2003 20:39:50 GMT, MiKe <gamma@nyc.rr.com> wrote:
> 
> >
> >
> >Uncle Samuel wrote:
> >>
> >> On Sat, 25 Oct 2003 02:05:30 GMT, MiKe <gamma@nyc.rr.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >Uncle Samuel wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> On Fri, 24 Oct 2003 20:18:51 GMT, MiKe <gamma@nyc.rr.com> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >And the Neo-Cons try to wave all the bungling, mismanagement,
> >> >> >irresponsibility, and DEATH by saying "Aren't we better off without
> >> >> >Saddam in power?"
> >> >>
> >> >> Ask the people he butchered.
> >> >
> >> >Ask the guy who armed him....
> >>
> >> You leftist goon - that was to fight Iran, not slaughter his own
> >> people and torture little girls!
> >
> >Iran. Formerly run by a DESPOT called the Shah.
> 
> Run into the ground by the despot Ayatolla Khomeni...
> 
> >A man who killed more of his own people than Saddam ever did.
> 
> Pshaw!
> 
> >Yet he was our BUDDY, even while opressing his own people!
> 
> That was then and this is now.
> 
> >IRAN & IRAQ...TWO CLASSIC ALL-AMERICAN CLUSTERFUCKS.
> 
> I think they're actually one of many classic Islamic clusterfucks -
> recall we're by no means the first nation to try and sort that mess
> out.