FishingBanter - View Single Post - Here are a bunch of clear thinkers, that kinow what they're saying

**Wolfgang** · October 30th, 2006, 08:37 PM posted to rec.outdoors.fishing.fly

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