Here are a bunch of clear thinkers, that kinow what they're saying
 

"rb608" wrote in message
oups.com...
wrote:
You mean other than in the heading, the name and when I quit counting,
12 times in the first 4 paragraphs?

I mean the Authorization to Use Military Force, passed September 18,
2001. That bill does not reference Iraq. If you meant H.J. Res 114,
where that window dressing repeated from AUMF is buried as Whereas #23
out of 25, then yeah, I'll give that to you; but to imply that the
invasion of Iraq was in any substantial way connected to 9/11 is no
less dishonest.

why is the Pentagon (including Rumsfeld, et al), the
news media, and the supposedly-caring general populace ignoring those
battlefield officers

I am admittedly unqualified to put myself in the place of battlefield
strategist. Nor am I privy to whatever delusions or machinations go on
in the heads of our so-called leaders. I'm more accusatory as to why
Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, et al ignored the UN weapons inspectors
and their own intelligence agencies when the information didn't fit
their agendas.

Secondly, does the Tet Offensive figure into all of this, and if so, how?

Oh my; a Viet Nam analogy? Whodathunk it. Yeah sure, I could drone on
stupidly about the effect various chronological religious observations
may have on the level of violence; but I try to stay on topic (even
when off topic), I eschew long posts, and I'd be wrong.

Joe F.


The problem in Iraq, is we are not fighting a war! If we are going to send
the military, let them do military things, not a police action! If the
military was unleased, the Al Sadr militia would be no more, as well as any
other militia. Al Sadr would like wise not be a problem If we are not
going to let the military do the military thing, get out.

Here are a bunch of clear thinkers, that kinow what they're saying
 

Having a mistaken belief that Saddam had WMDs is one thing. Going to war
over that mistaken belief is quite another. Waging the war with stunning
incompetence is yet another.

In any case, the fictitious WMDs were just a pretext for war. If WMDs
were the real reason we should have invaded Pakistan and North Korea.
The real reasons were a political calculation that an endless "war on
terrorism" would keep the neocons in power, a lust for oil, and an
Oedipal challenge to GWB's father, who didn't "finish the job."

Bush owns this war. Trying to pin the blame on Clinton is so ridiculous
that only the nuttiest of wing nuts would buy it.

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

Here are a bunch of clear thinkers, that kinow what they're saying
 

rw wrote:
Bush owns this war. Trying to pin the blame on Clinton is so ridiculous
that only the nuttiest of wing nuts would buy it.

I haven't seen anyone say that, who are you replying to?
- Ken

Here are a bunch of clear thinkers, that kinow what they're saying
 

Here are a bunch of clear thinkers, that kinow what they're saying
 

rw wrote:
wrote:
rw wrote:

Bush owns this war. Trying to pin the blame on Clinton is so ridiculous
that only the nuttiest of wing nuts would buy it.


I haven't seen anyone say that, who are you replying to?

I'm replying to the YouTube url that Cottrell posted -- the subject of
this thread. Didn't you watch it?

I watched it, I think you took it wrong.
- Ken

Here are a bunch of clear thinkers, that kinow what they're saying
 

Here are a bunch of clear thinkers, that kinow what they're saying
 

rw wrote:
wrote:
rw wrote:

I'm replying to the YouTube url that Cottrell posted -- the subject of
this thread. Didn't you watch it?


I watched it, I think you took it wrong.

You didn't think it was an attempt to shift blame to the Democrats?
Seriously?

Seriously! I think it was an attempt to expose their hypocrisy
on what they said then vs what they are saying now.
- Ken

Here are a bunch of clear thinkers, that kinow what they're saying
 

"rw" wrote in message
m...
wrote:
rw wrote:

I'm replying to the YouTube url that Cottrell posted -- the subject of
this thread. Didn't you watch it?


I watched it, I think you took it wrong.

You didn't think it was an attempt to shift blame to the Democrats?
Seriously?

--

I saw a great Mike MacGavik** just this morning.

If you appreciate fine Irony, I'm sure you'll like it too.... if only it
gets on youtube.

Synopsis:
MM that republican paragon of corporateness, first starts by aligning
himself with the Green Party and Libertarian Party candidates in their
opposition to the war in Iraq.

He then launches into a scathing denunciation of Maria Cantwell for her
support of the sitting Republican President's pursuit and execution of a war
in Iraq.

It was high theatre....don't miss it if you can.

**
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_McGavick
http://www.mikemcgavick.com/

MM's press release on the ad:
http://www.mikemcgavick.com/pressrelease.asp?prid=126

Skwala
sitting this one out....

Here are a bunch of clear thinkers, that kinow what they're saying
 

Ken Fortenberry wrote:
wrote:
Have you considered the possibility that what may have
been true in 2000 was no longer true in 2003 ? And that
US intelligence knew it was no longer true but spread
misinformation anyway ?

Do you have any reason to believe so?

Like I told you, read the Downing Street memo. Not
only do I have reason to believe so, it's as close
to fact as we're likely to encounter until history
is once more revised.

So I re-read the memo. Even in the memo they are worrying
about SH using his WMD.

"For instance, what were the consequences, if Saddam used WMD
on day one, or if Baghdad did not collapse and urban warfighting
began? You said that Saddam could also use his WMD on Kuwait.
Or on Israel, added the Defence Secretary.
"

Odd thing for you to cite if you claim that they didn't
think Iraq had WMD.
- Ken

Here are a bunch of clear thinkers, that kinow what they're saying