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

Here are a bunch of liars: http://www.6URL.com/0Z5A

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

Gene Cottrell wrote:
Here are a bunch of liars: http://www.6URL.com/0Z5A

What an interesting world you live in. Here, on our planet, we make a
serious effort (not always successful, it is true.....but we try) to
label those who formulate and disseminate lies as liars and
hypocrites......not those who believe them.

Wolfgang
who confesses that he has a really hard time understanding why those
who invariably demonstrate that they have absolutely no idea of what
they are saying don't simply stop.

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

Gene Cottrell wrote:
Here are a bunch of liars: http://www.6URL.com/0Z5A

The republicans are starting to wake up to to the nightmare of
their most recent legacy: Iraq was the biggest foreign policy blunder
in at least a century. They have done more to irretrievably damage
our national security than can easily be put into words.

Facing this agonizing reality, it's only natural they would
try to blame it on the democrats. That kind of trickery has
worked well for them in the past.

This time, however, their unbridled stupidity is beyond hiding.
Even red-state morons from the heartland now realize
we're in big trouble. And they know who caused it.

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

Wolfgang wrote:
who confesses that he has a really hard time understanding why those
who invariably demonstrate that they have absolutely no idea of what
they are saying don't simply stop.

I'll defer to Bertrand Russell on that: "The whole problem with the
world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves,
and wiser people so full of doubts."

Joe F.

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

On 30 Oct 2006 06:13:14 -0800, "salmobytes"
wrote:


Gene Cottrell wrote:
Here are a bunch of liars: http://www.6URL.com/0Z5A

The republicans are starting to wake up to to the nightmare of
their most recent legacy: Iraq was the biggest foreign policy blunder
in at least a century. They have done more to irretrievably damage
our national security than can easily be put into words.

Facing this agonizing reality, it's only natural they would
try to blame it on the democrats. That kind of trickery has
worked well for them in the past.

Right. Blame the Republicans. OTOH, it might serve you to research it
and learn that it took a lot more than just "the Republicans," and a
great number of years, to wind up with situation in which the US and
others find themselves with regard to Iraq. And no, "the Democrats"
(and/or Clinton) aren't totally responsible, either. I am curious as to
where you think all the Johnny-come-lately anti-Iraq-war Dems were
before this election cycle really heated up. It was all fine and dandy
with most of them until polls suggested it shouldn't be...and I'd offer
that come November 8, most in the US will go back to not really
caring...

This time, however, their unbridled stupidity is beyond hiding.

Which "their," _their_ their and the other "their?"

Even red-state morons

Golly! Even THOSE inbred cracker mouth-breathers? Sheesh, if THEY now
realize it, the geniuses in real, civilized states must have known it
from the get-go...I mean, they NEVER would have said that it was alright
to go into Ira...well, let's let them tell it in their own words:

Going into Iraq was "consistent with the United States and other
countries continuing to take necessary actions against international
terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those who planned,
authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks of September 11,
2001."

They also said...well, again, let's let them tell it..."Furthermore, the
resolution declares that this section is intended to constitute specific
statutory authorization for use of the armed forces..."

Gee, I didn't see a single thing that seems like it would be an attempt
at stopping the US military from going into Iraq, but maybe it's from
being around all these "red-state" morons...heck, they're so stupid,
they keep electing Democrats to all sorts of positions...

from the heartland now realize
we're in big trouble.

"We're" in big trouble? And just who the flock is "we," Kemosabe? If
you mean the US, it ain't even in "little trouble." Comparatively, no
one really gives a **** about Iraq. Oh, sure, some folks like to get
all worked up and protest, use it to weasel into office (or weasel
another out), or use it as a sad attempt to relive the "hippie" days
they missed out on or can't really remember, but at the end of the day,
most folks, from the US blue-collar factory worker to the wealthiest
Arab to the migrant worker from the south-of-the-US-Mexico border to the
Asian tycoon, and from Beirut to Beijing to Bogota to Boston, the vast
majority simply don't care, because it doesn't affect them, personally,
very much at all.

And they know who caused it.

No, "they" (just about whoever you mean by "they") don't have the
slightest clue as to who caused "it" or much else, and "they" don't know
for a variety of reasons, including apathy. The seminal cause is a
bunch of long-dead Brits and a smattering of Continentals, and since
none of the various babblers at the various world-wide "news networks"
babbles on about it, darned few know much about anything.

Of course, not knowing jack-**** never stopped most of the "they" from
demanding, while screaming out a litany of other "demands," that a whole
'nutha "they" DO SOMETHING RIGHT NOW about it "all"...

HTH,
R

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

On 30 Oct 2006 06:48:52 -0800, "rb608" wrote:

Wolfgang wrote:
who confesses that he has a really hard time understanding why those
who invariably demonstrate that they have absolutely no idea of what
they are saying don't simply stop.

OK, I'll bite...regardless of your difficulty in understanding, what's
your excuse?

I'll defer to Bertrand Russell on that: "The whole problem with the
world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves,
and wiser people so full of doubts."

Boy, it sounds like he was certain that he was, in fact, stating the
WHOLE problem...but feel free to defer away...

I can't say it's the WHOLE problem, but if a lot more people did a lot
less deferring, maybe it would at least seem there were a lot fewer
"fools" and fanatics and a lot more "wiser" people...

HTH,
R

Joe F.

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
 

wrote:
...I can't say it's the WHOLE problem....

A natural and inevitable consequence of the fact that you are, as you
have once again demonstrated here, incapable of saying ANYTHING.

Wolfgang
o.k.now, everybody who can hardly wait to find out what dicklet has to
say in response to this, raise your right hand. :)

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
 

"rb608" wrote in message
oups.com...

The body count won't reset on November 8. You're wrong if you think we
won't care.

Joe F.

Make that "You're wrong if you think we [don't] care!"

Op

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

rb608 typed:
snip
The body count won't reset on November 8. You're wrong if you think
we won't care.

Is that "we" as in you and your blue state friends, or "we" as in you and
those dumb bastids from red states?
--
TL,
Tim
-------------------------
http://css.sbcma.com/timj

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

On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 16:22:05 GMT, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:

wrote:

... Comparatively, no
one really gives a **** about Iraq. Oh, sure, some folks like to get
all worked up and protest, use it to weasel into office (or weasel
another out), or use it as a sad attempt to relive the "hippie" days
they missed out on or can't really remember, but at the end of the day,
most folks, from the US blue-collar factory worker to the wealthiest
Arab to the migrant worker from the south-of-the-US-Mexico border to the
Asian tycoon, and from Beirut to Beijing to Bogota to Boston, the vast
majority simply don't care, because it doesn't affect them, personally,
very much at all. ...

The friends and relatives of the 3,000 dead American servicemen
care, and the 21,000 horribly mangled and their friends and
relatives care.

I've no doubt they care a great deal, but that number of people, when
compared to the number of people who could potentially care, will appear
very small indeed. I didn't address the comparative few who did care,
only the comparatively very large number who didn't, don't, and never
will. For example: on many, if not most or all, of the
Spanish-language news broadcasts (even those that originate in the US),
Iraq continues to be way down the list of "major news."

Not to mention over half a million dead Iraqis who are beyond caring.

Um, and that has to do with the number of people who care or don't care
how? IAC, why are you so sure that it is "half a million dead Iraqis?"

And the red states have given much more than their fair share of
American cannon fodder to the rat-******* neocons who lied us
into this quagmire.

And yet another illustration of the several reasons that there is a good
chance the Dems are yet again going to snatch defeat from the jaws of
victory...wild accusations that reek of hypocrisy. The general
population may not _really_ care about Iraq as a major issue to them,
but they can sense when they are being so blatantly and hypocritically
BS'ed. No one really "lied 'us' into this quagmire," giving the word
"lied" the everyday meaning. About the only way anyone "lied" about
anything was to themselves, and Dems were and are just as guilty as
Republicans. If your reference is to the oft-bleated "There were no
WMDs!" buzzword BS, it's just that - BS. True enough, he didn't have
sophisticated ICBMs with nuclear warheads or even tacnukes, but he
absolutely did have weapons and capabilities that would produce _mass_
destruction, and a most of it was much more practically dangerous than
some ****ant third-world nukes.

The problem isn't that there has been a war, the problem is largely that
there hasn't been one.

HTH,
R

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

Tim J. wrote:
rb608 typed:
snip
The body count won't reset on November 8. You're wrong if you think
we won't care.

Is that "we" as in you and your blue state friends, or "we" as in you and
those dumb bastids from red states?

I'm going to guess it includes anyone to whom a few hundred thousand
needless deaths and maimings is not a matter of complete indifference.
I suppose that anyone who wants to take the time to subdivide them in
one way or another is perfectly free to do so.

Wolfgang

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

Tim J. wrote:
Is that "we" as in you and your blue state friends, or "we" as in you and
those dumb bastids from red states?

No, I meant the dumb bastids in blue states too. g

For the record, I meant those in rdean's "most in the US will go back
to not really
caring."

Joe F.

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

On 30 Oct 2006 09:04:48 -0800, "rb608" wrote:

wrote:
Going into Iraq was "consistent with the United States and other
countries continuing to take necessary actions against international
terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those who planned,
authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks of September 11,
2001."

Just a second there fella. Fact check: The word "Iraq" is not
contained anywhere in the AUMF.

You mean other than in the heading, the name and when I quit counting,
12 times in the first 4 paragraphs?

It has been conclusively and factually shown that Saddam Hussein and
the nation of Iraq had nothing whatsoever to do with those attacks and
no functional relationship with the organization behind them despite
Bush, Cheney, & Rice's continuous selling of that lie.

And "selling of that lie" or otherwise, Clinton, et al, were saying the
same things. IAC, I didn't comment on whether or not Iraq was involved
or not, only that many Dems agreed with the language. Also IAC, that
was only one of several reasons given.

Without that responsibility or relationship, the invasion of Iraq was
clearly NOT "consistent with the United States and other countries
continuing to take necessary actions against international terrorists
and terrorist organizations, including those who planned, authorized,
committed, or aided the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001." It
had nothing to do with it. It was a lie sold to the US people, the
price for which we will be paying for generations.

The body count won't reset on November 8. You're wrong if you think we
won't care.

Oh, I've no doubt that the rabid anti-this or thats/pro-notthis or
notthats in the US appear to be "caring" themselves into getting
hammered in the 2008 US elections, too. If you really do care, educate
yourself and try to be objective when you attempt to get others to care.
Here's ya a start: why is the Pentagon (including Rumsfeld, et al), the
news media, and the supposedly-caring general populace ignoring those
battlefield officers who are saying things like, "We needed and continue
to need to be here, but we also need the ability to start acting like a
wartime army and not meter maids and crossing guards..." and what would
your opinion be as to why each is ignoring them? Secondly, does the Tet
Offensive figure into all of this, and if so, how?

HTH,
R

Joe F.

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
 

wrote:
On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 16:22:05 GMT, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:

wrote:

... Comparatively, no
one really gives a **** about Iraq. Oh, sure, some folks like to get
all worked up and protest, use it to weasel into office (or weasel
another out), or use it as a sad attempt to relive the "hippie" days
they missed out on or can't really remember, but at the end of the day,
most folks, from the US blue-collar factory worker to the wealthiest
Arab to the migrant worker from the south-of-the-US-Mexico border to the
Asian tycoon, and from Beirut to Beijing to Bogota to Boston, the vast
majority simply don't care, because it doesn't affect them, personally,
very much at all. ...

The friends and relatives of the 3,000 dead American servicemen
care, and the 21,000 horribly mangled and their friends and
relatives care.

I've no doubt they care a great deal, but that number of people, when
compared to the number of people who could potentially care, will appear
very small indeed. I didn't address the comparative few who did care,
only the comparatively very large number who didn't, don't, and never
will. For example: on many, if not most or all, of the
Spanish-language news broadcasts (even those that originate in the US),
Iraq continues to be way down the list of "major news."

Experience and better judgment notwithstanding, one inexplicably feels
that somewhere in there might lurk a bit of meaning. One can only
lament the sad fact that the words provide no hints as to what that
meaning might be.

Not to mention over half a million dead Iraqis who are beyond caring.

Um, and that has to do with the number of people who care or don't care
how?

Well, some of them might have had relatives, friends, business
associates, acquaintances or what have you who are still alive. Hell,
it is at least theoretically possible that even some people who never
met any of them or even heard of any of them by name might take an
interest. It's a human thing.....you wouldn't understand.

IAC, why are you so sure that it is "half a million dead Iraqis?"

YAWN!

And the red states have given much more than their fair share of
American cannon fodder to the rat-******* neocons who lied us
into this quagmire.

And yet another illustration of the several reasons that there is a good
chance the Dems are yet again going to snatch defeat from the jaws of
victory...wild accusations that reek of hypocrisy.

Zzzzzzzzzzzz......

The general
population may not _really_ care about Iraq as a major issue to them,
but they can sense when they are being so blatantly and hypocritically
BS'ed.

Thus explaining why nobody bought that bull**** about weapons of mass
destruction and why the alleged war in Iraq never happened.

No one really "lied 'us' into this quagmire,"

Huh? Quagmire? What quagmire? Why wasn't I informed?

giving the word "lied" the everyday meaning.

You should never.....EVER.....under any circumstances use the word
"meaning".......or, for that matter, any other word whose meaning is a
mystery to you. To put it in more general terms, as long as you have
nothing to say, that is precisely what you should say.

About the only way anyone "lied" about
anything was to themselves, and Dems were and are just as guilty as
Republicans.

You know what the word "hilarious" means? It means envisioning you and
the chimps you hang out with telling each other stuff like that and
bobbing your heads more or less in unison and saying, "uh huh....uh
huh.....uh huh.....uh huh........" :)

If your reference is to the oft-bleated "There were no
WMDs!" buzzword BS, it's just that - BS. True enough, he didn't have
sophisticated ICBMs with nuclear warheads or even tacnukes, but he
absolutely did have weapons and capabilities that would produce _mass_
destruction, and a most of it was much more practically dangerous than
some ****ant third-world nukes.

Well, THAT part is certainly true.....but just TRY to convince your
average whacko Lib of how dangerous a baba ganoush bomb or laser guided
falafel is and see how far you get! :(

The problem isn't that there has been a war, the problem is largely that
there hasn't been one.

Hm......I suppose it's probably all the dead people that are confusing
everybody......one of those whatyacall "counterintuitive" thingies.

Wolfgang
STILL the best show in town.....and it's STILL FREE!! :)

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
 

wrote:

...Clinton, et al, were saying the same things.

I keep telling you guys, you should just go ahead and impeach the
******* again! Um......you might want to be prepared to do it on your
own nickel, though. I've got a sneaking suspicion that even the
"pedophile values" party isn't going to be overly eager to bankroll
another shot on the taxpayers' tab.

IAC, I didn't comment on whether or not Iraq was involved
or not, only that many Dems agreed with the language. Also IAC, that
was only one of several reasons given.

Hm.....

O.k., you didn't say anything. Noted.

...I've no doubt that the rabid anti-this or thats/pro-notthis or
notthats in the US appear to be "caring" themselves into getting
hammered in the 2008 US elections, too.

And you should never doubt that we are all touched by your touching
concern for the underserving rabble.

If you really do care, educate
yourself and try to be objective when you attempt to get others to care.

HA! HA! HA! HA! HA!........he said "objective"......HA! HA! HA! HA! HA!

Here's ya a start: why is the Pentagon (including Rumsfeld, et al), the
news media, and the supposedly-caring general populace ignoring those
battlefield officers who are saying things like, "We needed and continue
to need to be here, but we also need the ability to start acting like a
wartime army and not meter maids and crossing guards..."

Ooh! Ooh! I know! I know! It's because if you've got a whole bunch
of cretins and you add a couple of cretins you've got a whole bunch of
cretins and if you've got a whole bunch of cretins and you remove a
couple of cretins you've got a whole bunch of
cretins.....and......and.....um.....oh yeah, the vast majority don't
really care what a bunch of cretins thinks or has to say.

and what would
your opinion be as to why each is ignoring them?

Hm......for precisely the same reasons that your counsel is so highly
sought after?

Secondly, does the Tet
Offensive figure into all of this,

Well, of course it does.....duh!

and if so, how?

It's driving up the price of absinthe.

Wolfgang
oprah oprah

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

Wolfgang typed:
Tim J. wrote:
rb608 typed:
snip
The body count won't reset on November 8. You're wrong if you think
we won't care.

Is that "we" as in you and your blue state friends, or "we" as in
you and those dumb bastids from red states?

I'm going to guess it includes anyone to whom a few hundred thousand
needless deaths and maimings is not a matter of complete indifference.
I suppose that anyone who wants to take the time to subdivide them in
one way or another is perfectly free to do so.

That's actually the answer I was seeking. Both you and Joe are now cleared
of charges. ;-)

....but the sad truth is that many (whether or not that constitutes a
majority, I can't say) *are* as indifferent as rdean describes. If some of
these polls are any indictator, most can't find Iraq, Iran, or probably
Wisconsin on a map. Once they were shown where these countries (yes, that
includes The Peoples Republic of Wisconsin) are located, my quess is that
they'd think that was far enough from them as to be safe, but only if they
were able to locate their own state on a map.
--
TL,
Tim
-------------------------
http://css.sbcma.com/timj

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

On 30 Oct 2006 10:33:57 -0800, "rb608" wrote:

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.

So what? That isn't relevant. IAC, most Dems signed off on that, too.

If you meant H.J. Res 114,

Page 1497

AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE AGAINST IRAQ RESOLUTION OF 2002

Page 116 STAT. 1498

Public Law 107-243
107th Congress

where that window dressing repeated from AUMF is buried as Whereas #23
out of 25,

It's in general chronological order. Saddam could have nuked 50
orphanages and gassed 25 million people on October 1, 2001, and it would
have been "buried" after #23.

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.

With hindsight that _appears_ to be the case, at least to any direct,
sustained involvement (although it's unlikely the full story with all
the details will ever be known). Pre-March, 2003, there was
conflicting credible information about it (and there still is). Again,
IAC, Saddam and his gang's possible connection to 9/11 was only one a
laundry list of reasons he needed to go.

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.

Uh-huh. Let's assume that's true - why aren't you asking the same of
Dems - they had the same information. IAC, the UN weapons inspectors
simply could not be relied upon credible, informed sources - regardless
of any other potential reasons, they simply didn't have the access such
as that would indicate their reports could have been fully-informed.
IOW, them saying the evidence indicated they had observed in their
inspections indicated he had ICBMs and real nukes, absent eyes-on direct
observation, would have been just as suspect. And the simple fact is
that he had weapons and programs that readily produce weapons capable of
"mass destruction," AND most importantly, he had previously used them
multiple times AND used them when they weren't a "last defense," but
rather, a simple offensive expediency.

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

I'll take your word for it.

about the effect various chronological religious observations
may have on the level of violence;

But the religious aspects aren't material. Look at the actual conflict
and damage inflicted by the US forces vs. casualties suffered, and then
look into what CBS/Cronkite (and others) reported, followed by the
reaction of the general public.

but I try to stay on topic (even
when off topic), I eschew long posts, and I'd be wrong.

Again, I'll take your word for that.

HTH,
R

Joe F.

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

On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 18:24:54 GMT, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:

wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
wrote:
... Comparatively, no
one really gives a **** about Iraq.

The friends and relatives of the 3,000 dead American servicemen
care, and the 21,000 horribly mangled and their friends and
relatives care.

I've no doubt they care a great deal, but that number of people, when
compared to the number of people who could potentially care, will appear
very small indeed. I didn't address the comparative few who did care,
only the comparatively very large number who didn't, don't, and never
will. For example: on many, if not most or all, of the
Spanish-language news broadcasts (even those that originate in the US),
Iraq continues to be way down the list of "major news."

Hard to believe you'd try to say that the #1 issue, by far,
in the upcoming election is something no one really gives
a **** about. Seems to me if Iraq is the #1 issue, by far,
most of the American electorate does indeed give a ****
about it.

If you really think Iraq will the number #1 issue to the majority of
folks when they're actually dimpling chads, you need about 5 more years
study toward that 4-year PoliSci degree. And if you think people are
completely honest and forthright with pollsters, you need 6 more
years...

And the red states have given much more than their fair share of
American cannon fodder to the rat-******* neocons who lied us
into this quagmire.

And yet another illustration of the several reasons that there is a good
chance the Dems are yet again going to snatch defeat from the jaws of
victory...wild accusations that reek of hypocrisy. The general
population may not _really_ care about Iraq as a major issue to them,
but they can sense when they are being so blatantly and hypocritically
BS'ed.

LOL !! STOP !! You're killin' me here ! The general population
of red state morons wouldn't know BS if they were hauling it
around in the back of their pick-em-up trucks with the gun
rack, and the confederate flag and the "My kid beat the ****
out of your honor student" bumper sticker.

Oh, well-said, Mr. Carville...might I suggest that you manage to get a
few select Dems to use that as the opening to their speeches...oh, sure,
I know they paraphrase it now, but if they'd just come right on out and
say it plain...you know, so all the morons can understand it...

Good lord, 13.5
million people listen to Rush Limbaugh fer cryin' out loud

And 75% of them are probably liberals looking for something to bitch
about...or "report" on...

and you're telling me they can sense BS ? Get real.

Hey, you take your left-wing loonies just as seriously, and you're
telling me that you know who can sense BS and who can't. Get informed.

No one really "lied 'us' into this quagmire," giving the word
"lied" the everyday meaning.

Yeah, they did, using any reasonable meaning of the word "lied"
you can come up with. Denial is not a river in Egypt, Richard.

No, they (meaning current GOP or Dem) didn't, because this "quagmire"
has taken hundreds of years to get this quag really good and mired.

The problem isn't that there has been a war, the problem is largely that
there hasn't been one.

We can agree on that point. Our energies and resources should
have been focused in Afghanistan.

Er, no.

HTH,
R

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

wrote:
On 30 Oct 2006 10:33:57 -0800, "rb608" wrote:

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.

So what? That isn't relevant. IAC, most Dems signed off on that, too.

If you meant H.J. Res 114,

Page 1497

AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE AGAINST IRAQ RESOLUTION OF 2002

Page 116 STAT. 1498

Public Law 107-243
107th Congress

where that window dressing repeated from AUMF is buried as Whereas #23
out of 25,

It's in general chronological order. Saddam could have nuked 50
orphanages and gassed 25 million people on October 1, 2001, and it would
have been "buried" after #23.

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.

With hindsight that _appears_ to be the case, at least to any direct,
sustained involvement (although it's unlikely the full story with all
the details will ever be known). Pre-March, 2003, there was
conflicting credible information about it (and there still is). Again,
IAC, Saddam and his gang's possible connection to 9/11 was only one a
laundry list of reasons he needed to go.

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.

Uh-huh. Let's assume that's true - why aren't you asking the same of
Dems - they had the same information. IAC, the UN weapons inspectors
simply could not be relied upon credible, informed sources - regardless
of any other potential reasons, they simply didn't have the access such
as that would indicate their reports could have been fully-informed.
IOW, them saying the evidence indicated they had observed in their
inspections indicated he had ICBMs and real nukes, absent eyes-on direct
observation, would have been just as suspect. And the simple fact is
that he had weapons and programs that readily produce weapons capable of
"mass destruction," AND most importantly, he had previously used them
multiple times AND used them when they weren't a "last defense," but
rather, a simple offensive expediency.

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

I'll take your word for it.

about the effect various chronological religious observations
may have on the level of violence;

But the religious aspects aren't material. Look at the actual conflict
and damage inflicted by the US forces vs. casualties suffered, and then
look into what CBS/Cronkite (and others) reported, followed by the
reaction of the general public.

but I try to stay on topic (even
when off topic), I eschew long posts, and I'd be wrong.

Again, I'll take your word for that.

In all seriousness (what the hell, it costs me nothing), who do you
think you're fooling? I mean, do you honestly suppose that anyone here
believes you are making a good faith effort at discussion? For that
matter......and perhaps more importantly.....do YOU believe it?

Wolfgang

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

Tim J. wrote:

...but the sad truth is that many (whether or not that constitutes a
majority, I can't say) *are* as indifferent as rdean describes. If some of
these polls are any indictator, most can't find Iraq, Iran, or probably
Wisconsin on a map. Once they were shown where these countries (yes, that
includes The Peoples Republic of Wisconsin) are located, my quess is that
they'd think that was far enough from them as to be safe, but only if they
were able to locate their own state on a map.

If the Republicans are counting on the pig ignorance of the American
voters they may or may not be on firm ground. For example, here's an
article from April 2004:

US Majority Still Believe in Iraq's WMD, al-Qaeda Ties
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0422-09.htm

But this is October 2006.

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

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

On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 14:57:01 -0500, "Tim J."
wrote:

Wolfgang typed:
Tim J. wrote:
rb608 typed:
snip
The body count won't reset on November 8. You're wrong if you think
we won't care.

Is that "we" as in you and your blue state friends, or "we" as in
you and those dumb bastids from red states?

I'm going to guess it includes anyone to whom a few hundred thousand
needless deaths and maimings is not a matter of complete indifference.
I suppose that anyone who wants to take the time to subdivide them in
one way or another is perfectly free to do so.

That's actually the answer I was seeking. Both you and Joe are now cleared
of charges. ;-)

...but the sad truth is that many (whether or not that constitutes a
majority, I can't say) *are* as indifferent as rdean describes. If some of
these polls

Screw the polls - the last two news cycles have been the flap between
Alex P. Keaton and Rush Limpdick, the fire in California, and Madonna
being a nouveau riche dip****. Before that, it was all Obama, all the
time. Oh, sure, Iraq gets the obligatory daily mention, but if a video
surfaced of Paris Hilton getting thrown a bone from some (or several)
St. Louis player(s) or Britney and Pseudo-Fed or whatever the hell his
name is decided to adopt a North Korean baby, politics and forest fires
would be forgotten faster than, well, history...

HTH,
R

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
 

On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 13:46:07 -0700, rw
wrote:

Tim J. wrote:

...but the sad truth is that many (whether or not that constitutes a
majority, I can't say) *are* as indifferent as rdean describes. If some of
these polls are any indictator, most can't find Iraq, Iran, or probably
Wisconsin on a map. Once they were shown where these countries (yes, that
includes The Peoples Republic of Wisconsin) are located, my quess is that
they'd think that was far enough from them as to be safe, but only if they
were able to locate their own state on a map.

If the Republicans are counting on the pig ignorance of the American
voters they may or may not be on firm ground.

Ah, yes, another Carville wannabe shows up...it's not "ignorance," it's
apathy, and you and Ken are as apathetic as anyone. You're so convinced
of your correctness that you don't see any need to expend any effort to
at least check to see if your kool-aid is spiked, too. Heck, no need to
question anything - NPR, Pelosi, Howard the Duck, and Billary have saved
yer soul! They have HEALED ya, brothers and sisters! YOU HAVE SEEN THE
LIGHT AND JESUS IS THAT LIG...oh, wait...sorry...wrong bunch...YOU HAVE
SEEN THE LIGHT AND BECAUSE OF THE SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE, JESUS
WON'T BE MENTIONED!! Gimme that ol' time relig...oops, sorry again...ya
just can't keep up with which nuts are which...gimme that Clinton-era
bull****, gimme that Clinton-era bull****...

And both parties not only count on it, they encourage it.

For example, here's an article from April 2004:

US Majority Still Believe in Iraq's WMD, al-Qaeda Ties
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0422-09.htm

But this is October 2006.

And your point is...?

HTH,
R

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

On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 21:00:50 GMT, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:

wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
Hard to believe you'd try to say that the #1 issue, by far,
in the upcoming election is something no one really gives
a **** about. Seems to me if Iraq is the #1 issue, by far,
most of the American electorate does indeed give a ****
about it.

If you really think Iraq will the number #1 issue to the majority of
folks when they're actually dimpling chads, you need about 5 more years
study toward that 4-year PoliSci degree. And if you think people are
completely honest and forthright with pollsters, you need 6 more
years...

The war may not be issue #1 with the "trust fund baby" crowd
you hang with but out in the heartland where the military is
seen as a bootstrap

You mean in the land of red-state morons?

many, if not most, people know a relative
or a friend or a friend of a friend who never came back from
Iraq or came back in pieces.

Or know someone who heard of someone who knew someone who saw a name of
someone killed on TV...no, "most" don't have much direct contact with
such. And I suspect that I knew more people killed, or know more people
who had friends and family killed or injured, than "most" friends of
your friends...and that goes back to Gulf War 1.

And I don't need a pollster to tell me that.

Right...just NPR, Hillary, and Ol' Screamin' Howie...


Good lord, 13.5
million people listen to Rush Limbaugh fer cryin' out loud

And 75% of them are probably liberals looking for something to bitch
about...or "report" on...

Riiiiiiiiight.

Oh, Lord, the 75% wasn't meant as a serious number...but now that I
think about it....OK, so it's probably closer to 71%...seriously, I have
no idea how many listen to him or why, but it's apparently more than
listen to all of Air America...but that'd be, what, 19 people, so ???

Yeah, they did, using any reasonable meaning of the word "lied"
you can come up with. Denial is not a river in Egypt, Richard.

No, they (meaning current GOP or Dem) didn't, because this "quagmire"
has taken hundreds of years to get this quag really good and mired.

How many Americans were killed in Iraq prior to 2003 ? How many
since ? And how many more to come ? You just don't make sense,
Richard.

Our energies and resources should
have been focused in Afghanistan.

Er, no.

Duh, yes.

Er, no.

HTH,
R

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
 

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
 

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

"Wolfgang" wrote in message
oups.com...

Gene Cottrell wrote:
Here are a bunch of liars: http://www.6URL.com/0Z5A

What an interesting world you live in. Here, on our planet, we make a
serious effort (not always successful, it is true.....but we try) to
label those who formulate and disseminate lies as liars and
hypocrites......not those who believe them.

Wolfgang
who confesses that he has a really hard time understanding why those
who invariably demonstrate that they have absolutely no idea of what
they are saying don't simply stop.

Well, I'm just pointing out that all those idiots that had the same
information as GW came to the same conclusion. Then when things turn bad, as
they most certainly have, attack like a bunch of wolves and pretend that
they knew all along that we shouldn't have gone into Iraq and that there are
no WMDs in Iraq. And then a bunch of morons, who pretend to know more than
the Congress and the rest of the nations of the world, jump on the
bandwagon.

Gene

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

Gene Cottrell wrote:

Well, I'm just pointing out that all those idiots that had the same
information as GW came to the same conclusion. ...

That right there is precisely why you're wrong. Shrub and
his neocon rat-*******s manipulated, hid, obfuscated, and
flat out lied about the information and passed along only
what was twisted to support a regime change in Iraq. The
invasion of Iraq was pre-ordained just as soon as Shrub
took the oath but helped enormously by 9-11. They lied to
us Gene, they lied to the Congressional opposition and they
lied to the Brits. Thank god the Congressional opposition
and the Brits have sense enough to be ****ed off about it.
And I'm guessing come election day the American people will
demonstrate how ****ed off they are too, nitwits like you
notwithstanding.

--
Ken Fortenberry

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

Gene Cottrell wrote:
"Wolfgang" wrote in message
oups.com...

Gene Cottrell wrote:
Here are a bunch of liars: http://www.6URL.com/0Z5A

What an interesting world you live in. Here, on our planet, we make a
serious effort (not always successful, it is true.....but we try) to
label those who formulate and disseminate lies as liars and
hypocrites......not those who believe them.

Wolfgang
who confesses that he has a really hard time understanding why those
who invariably demonstrate that they have absolutely no idea of what
they are saying don't simply stop.

Well, I'm just pointing out that all those idiots that had the same
information as GW came to the same conclusion.

No, you weren't doing anything of the sort. As a matter of fact,
you're a liar.....you weren't even TRYING to do that. Moreover, the
people you are referring to as idiots (oh, irony, thy name is gene!)
DID NOT have the same information as the idiot in chief......they only
had the lies they were fed by the idiot in chief.

Then when things turn bad, as
they most certainly have,

Actually, things didn't turn bad......they STARTED that way. They
turned out to be just as many of us told you they would.

attack like a bunch of wolves and pretend that
they knew all along that we shouldn't have gone into Iraq

Many people knew all along that "we" shouldn't have gone into Iraq. We
said so.

and that there are no WMDs in Iraq.

Well, that pretense is holding up rather well thus far, wouldn't you
say?

And then a bunch of morons, who pretend to know more than
the Congress and the rest of the nations of the world, jump on the
bandwagon.

Hm.....

You just can't make up what we will generously refer to as your mind
about which idiots and/or morons did or did not know how much or how
little about what and when, can you? As to the Congress, let us
suppose that you are a congr......um......well, what Twain
said.....know what I mean? And the rest of the nations of the world (I
will take the liberty of assuming here that you are referring to the
world I live in)? If you had been here 3 or 4 years ago (and you
should have.....it was an interesting time) you would doubtless know
that unanimity wasn't exactly the hallmark of international diplomacy
long about then.

Dumbass.

Wolfgang
who, to continue a previous train of thought, hastens to add that he
doesn't actually mind that they don't stop.....free entertainment IS
worth at least much as one pays for it.....he just doesn't undertand
why.

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

"Gene Cottrell" wrote in news:IVu1h.55$0j7.10
@newsfe08.lga:

Well, I'm just pointing out that all those idiots that had the same
information as GW came to the same conclusion.

It remains to be seen whether all those idiots had the same information.
The Senate investigation that was promised has never gotten off the ground.
One might think that if everyone would come out of such an investigation
smelling of roses, that the investigation would be well on its way by now.

I just chalk it up to a do-nothing Congress that gave up on any oversight
duties.

--
Scott
Reverse name to reply

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

Ken Fortenberry wrote:
Gene Cottrell wrote:

Well, I'm just pointing out that all those idiots that had the same
information as GW came to the same conclusion. ...

That right there is precisely why you're wrong. Shrub and
his neocon rat-*******s manipulated, hid, obfuscated, and
flat out lied about the information and passed along only
what was twisted to support a regime change in Iraq.

You should know enough to recognize revisionist history
when you are spouting it. Everyone (including those
outside the US) thought he had WMD. The Russians,
British, even Clinton thought that he had them.
- Ken

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

" wrote in
oups.com:

You should know enough to recognize revisionist history
when you are spouting it. Everyone (including those
outside the US) thought he had WMD. The Russians,
British, even Clinton thought that he had them.
- Ken



Our own CIA, though, didn't, at least not before the State of the Union.
When they vetted the speech, they made Bush say something along the lines
of "the Brits think that Iraq was trying to buy uranium from...", because
the CIA didn't believe it. There's an investigation that needs to be done.


--
Scott
Reverse name to reply

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
 

Scott Seidman wrote:
" wrote in
oups.com:

You should know enough to recognize revisionist history
when you are spouting it. Everyone (including those
outside the US) thought he had WMD. The Russians,
British, even Clinton thought that he had them.
- Ken



Our own CIA, though, didn't, at least not before the State of the Union.
When they vetted the speech, they made Bush say something along the lines
of "the Brits think that Iraq was trying to buy uranium from...", because
the CIA didn't believe it.

The CIA didn't believe that piece of intelligence (and they were
right not to).
- Ken