Bob Casanova

On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 21:38:48 -0800, the following appeared
in rec.autos.makers.jeep+******, posted by "K5"
<K58814@yahoo.com>:

>"Brian Talley" <btalley@rochester.rr.com> wrote in message
>news:azvkd.119$Mg.91@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
>> At least Arafat's condition is still stable. Let me know if it changes.
>It changed: he's dead.

....and it's expected to remain stable.

> This month is shaping up pretty good.

Yep.

--

Bob C.

Reply to Bob-Casanova @ worldnet.att.net
(without the spaces, of course)

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov

Willy Schneider

Wasn't that much of a majority that you can claim all USAmericans are
OK with his style (or lack thereof)...


On Mon, 08 Nov 2004 21:54:37 GMT, Brian Talley
<btalley@rochester.rr.com> wrote:

>It amazes me how obtuse some can be about this, when facts are
>so easily found which pop the bubble of inuendo, accusation and
>vehement assertion that "Bush is a moron".
>
>David Gravereaux wrote:
>> "Karl" <aufever@prodigy.net> wrote:
>>
>>>If you guys think Saddam is innocent, you may want to read this:
>>
>> I don't consider him innocent of "crimes"; don't change the topic.
>
>But Hussein's crimes are not enough to warrant an invasion of
>his country, eh? How delightfully tolerant you are of other
>cultures....
>
>> But I do consider Saddam innocent of the criteria for war as outlined by
>> president Bush himself on Jan. 29, 2003
>> (http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/...ranscript.8/):
>
>Nothing in this article is damning of President Bush.
>
>When Blix addressed the U.N. he said: "...Hussein had failed to
>account for 25,000 liters of anthrax, 38,000 liters of botulinum
>toxin and material for 500 tons of sarin, mustard agent and VX
>nerve agent." (See
>http://www.findarticles.com/p/articl...19/ai_97874290)
>
>Iraq had used WMDs on at least three occasions: against the people
>living in the marsh regions to the south, against the Kurds to the
>north, and against Iran.
>
>> 1. 500 ton of yellow cake uranium.
>> - never found. The ties to Nigeria were proven false.
>> http://newyorker.com/fact/content/?030331fa_fact1
>
>United Nations weapons inspectors visually accounted for several
>tons of WMDs as of 1998 when they were kicked out by Hussein.
>
>We did find 500 tons of uranium:
>http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniont...22uranium.html
>
>...and at least 1.8 tons of enriched uranium (yellow cake):
>http://www.myrtlebeachonline.com/mld...aq/9101541.htm
>
>And coalition forces have encountered sarin and mustard gas:
>http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,120137,00.html
>
>If President Bush is at fault, it is for wasting 14 months with
>the United Nations trying to get them to put teeth into their
>resolutions against Iraq.
>
>Now, of course, we know why: U.N. officials were deeply entrenched
>in the Oil-for-Food scandal which involved many governments, among
>them those vehemently opposed to the U.S. See:
>http://www.heritage.org/Research/Int...ons/bg1748.cfm
>http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1156004/posts
>
>I confess to being at a loss how you can ignore what Bush said vis
>a vis what Hussein had done and what U.N. inspectors found, yet you
>regurgitate unfounded vitriol against Bush and declare yourself an
>intellectual. What are your thoughts on the U.N. and their now-open
>corruption? Does it surprise you that France opposed the U.S. when
>they were secretly dealing with Hussein? Does it bother you?
>
>If you hate America and Americans, that's fine. Say so, and then
>we all know who we're dealing with. If you're interested in justice
>and a peaceful world then you will have to improve your arguments
>if you wish to cast Bush and the U.S. in a bad light.
>
>> 2. All the WMDs claimed they had "absolute and clear proof on" were never
>> found.
>
>1) We know Hussein had them, as they were visually accounted for in
>the late 1990's.
>
>2) We know Hussein had no qualms about using them.
>
>3) We know Hussein hated the U.S., that he had ties with terrorists
>in general and al Qaeda in particular.
>
>Do the math.
>
>> So all that's left, like you said, was "Saddam is a bad man"... Given
>> just that, is that a reason to invade the sovereignty of another nation?
>
>Did you whinge similarly when Bosnia was invaded and Milosovec was
>deposed?
>
>> While we're at it, let's invade Cuba, too. Why stop with the mid-east?
>> Screw sovereignty and the UN and even the Geneva Convention. That's the
>> Bush way.. Bush to an oath to uphold the constitution, yet the "patriot
>> act" denies article four in favor of illegal search and seizure.
>
>I'm detecting a very low wattage....
>
>The U.N. breaks its own laws. France, Germany, Russia and China all
>trade with Iraq against U.N. resolutions, but that's okay. We get hit
>in the world's worst --------- attack, and somehow we're the bad guys
>for fighting back against regimes known to sponsor terrorism. Riiiight!
>
>You must be in profound dismay to learn there are so many stupid
>Americans that Bush got elected with such a majority.
>
>Regards,
>
>Brian

Willy Schneider

Wasn't that much of a majority that you can claim all USAmericans are
OK with his style (or lack thereof)...


On Mon, 08 Nov 2004 21:54:37 GMT, Brian Talley
<btalley@rochester.rr.com> wrote:

>It amazes me how obtuse some can be about this, when facts are
>so easily found which pop the bubble of inuendo, accusation and
>vehement assertion that "Bush is a moron".
>
>David Gravereaux wrote:
>> "Karl" <aufever@prodigy.net> wrote:
>>
>>>If you guys think Saddam is innocent, you may want to read this:
>>
>> I don't consider him innocent of "crimes"; don't change the topic.
>
>But Hussein's crimes are not enough to warrant an invasion of
>his country, eh? How delightfully tolerant you are of other
>cultures....
>
>> But I do consider Saddam innocent of the criteria for war as outlined by
>> president Bush himself on Jan. 29, 2003
>> (http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/...ranscript.8/):
>
>Nothing in this article is damning of President Bush.
>
>When Blix addressed the U.N. he said: "...Hussein had failed to
>account for 25,000 liters of anthrax, 38,000 liters of botulinum
>toxin and material for 500 tons of sarin, mustard agent and VX
>nerve agent." (See
>http://www.findarticles.com/p/articl...19/ai_97874290)
>
>Iraq had used WMDs on at least three occasions: against the people
>living in the marsh regions to the south, against the Kurds to the
>north, and against Iran.
>
>> 1. 500 ton of yellow cake uranium.
>> - never found. The ties to Nigeria were proven false.
>> http://newyorker.com/fact/content/?030331fa_fact1
>
>United Nations weapons inspectors visually accounted for several
>tons of WMDs as of 1998 when they were kicked out by Hussein.
>
>We did find 500 tons of uranium:
>http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniont...22uranium.html
>
>...and at least 1.8 tons of enriched uranium (yellow cake):
>http://www.myrtlebeachonline.com/mld...aq/9101541.htm
>
>And coalition forces have encountered sarin and mustard gas:
>http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,120137,00.html
>
>If President Bush is at fault, it is for wasting 14 months with
>the United Nations trying to get them to put teeth into their
>resolutions against Iraq.
>
>Now, of course, we know why: U.N. officials were deeply entrenched
>in the Oil-for-Food scandal which involved many governments, among
>them those vehemently opposed to the U.S. See:
>http://www.heritage.org/Research/Int...ons/bg1748.cfm
>http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1156004/posts
>
>I confess to being at a loss how you can ignore what Bush said vis
>a vis what Hussein had done and what U.N. inspectors found, yet you
>regurgitate unfounded vitriol against Bush and declare yourself an
>intellectual. What are your thoughts on the U.N. and their now-open
>corruption? Does it surprise you that France opposed the U.S. when
>they were secretly dealing with Hussein? Does it bother you?
>
>If you hate America and Americans, that's fine. Say so, and then
>we all know who we're dealing with. If you're interested in justice
>and a peaceful world then you will have to improve your arguments
>if you wish to cast Bush and the U.S. in a bad light.
>
>> 2. All the WMDs claimed they had "absolute and clear proof on" were never
>> found.
>
>1) We know Hussein had them, as they were visually accounted for in
>the late 1990's.
>
>2) We know Hussein had no qualms about using them.
>
>3) We know Hussein hated the U.S., that he had ties with terrorists
>in general and al Qaeda in particular.
>
>Do the math.
>
>> So all that's left, like you said, was "Saddam is a bad man"... Given
>> just that, is that a reason to invade the sovereignty of another nation?
>
>Did you whinge similarly when Bosnia was invaded and Milosovec was
>deposed?
>
>> While we're at it, let's invade Cuba, too. Why stop with the mid-east?
>> Screw sovereignty and the UN and even the Geneva Convention. That's the
>> Bush way.. Bush to an oath to uphold the constitution, yet the "patriot
>> act" denies article four in favor of illegal search and seizure.
>
>I'm detecting a very low wattage....
>
>The U.N. breaks its own laws. France, Germany, Russia and China all
>trade with Iraq against U.N. resolutions, but that's okay. We get hit
>in the world's worst --------- attack, and somehow we're the bad guys
>for fighting back against regimes known to sponsor terrorism. Riiiight!
>
>You must be in profound dismay to learn there are so many stupid
>Americans that Bush got elected with such a majority.
>
>Regards,
>
>Brian

Willy Schneider

Wasn't that much of a majority that you can claim all USAmericans are
OK with his style (or lack thereof)...


On Mon, 08 Nov 2004 21:54:37 GMT, Brian Talley
<btalley@rochester.rr.com> wrote:

>It amazes me how obtuse some can be about this, when facts are
>so easily found which pop the bubble of inuendo, accusation and
>vehement assertion that "Bush is a moron".
>
>David Gravereaux wrote:
>> "Karl" <aufever@prodigy.net> wrote:
>>
>>>If you guys think Saddam is innocent, you may want to read this:
>>
>> I don't consider him innocent of "crimes"; don't change the topic.
>
>But Hussein's crimes are not enough to warrant an invasion of
>his country, eh? How delightfully tolerant you are of other
>cultures....
>
>> But I do consider Saddam innocent of the criteria for war as outlined by
>> president Bush himself on Jan. 29, 2003
>> (http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/...ranscript.8/):
>
>Nothing in this article is damning of President Bush.
>
>When Blix addressed the U.N. he said: "...Hussein had failed to
>account for 25,000 liters of anthrax, 38,000 liters of botulinum
>toxin and material for 500 tons of sarin, mustard agent and VX
>nerve agent." (See
>http://www.findarticles.com/p/articl...19/ai_97874290)
>
>Iraq had used WMDs on at least three occasions: against the people
>living in the marsh regions to the south, against the Kurds to the
>north, and against Iran.
>
>> 1. 500 ton of yellow cake uranium.
>> - never found. The ties to Nigeria were proven false.
>> http://newyorker.com/fact/content/?030331fa_fact1
>
>United Nations weapons inspectors visually accounted for several
>tons of WMDs as of 1998 when they were kicked out by Hussein.
>
>We did find 500 tons of uranium:
>http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniont...22uranium.html
>
>...and at least 1.8 tons of enriched uranium (yellow cake):
>http://www.myrtlebeachonline.com/mld...aq/9101541.htm
>
>And coalition forces have encountered sarin and mustard gas:
>http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,120137,00.html
>
>If President Bush is at fault, it is for wasting 14 months with
>the United Nations trying to get them to put teeth into their
>resolutions against Iraq.
>
>Now, of course, we know why: U.N. officials were deeply entrenched
>in the Oil-for-Food scandal which involved many governments, among
>them those vehemently opposed to the U.S. See:
>http://www.heritage.org/Research/Int...ons/bg1748.cfm
>http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1156004/posts
>
>I confess to being at a loss how you can ignore what Bush said vis
>a vis what Hussein had done and what U.N. inspectors found, yet you
>regurgitate unfounded vitriol against Bush and declare yourself an
>intellectual. What are your thoughts on the U.N. and their now-open
>corruption? Does it surprise you that France opposed the U.S. when
>they were secretly dealing with Hussein? Does it bother you?
>
>If you hate America and Americans, that's fine. Say so, and then
>we all know who we're dealing with. If you're interested in justice
>and a peaceful world then you will have to improve your arguments
>if you wish to cast Bush and the U.S. in a bad light.
>
>> 2. All the WMDs claimed they had "absolute and clear proof on" were never
>> found.
>
>1) We know Hussein had them, as they were visually accounted for in
>the late 1990's.
>
>2) We know Hussein had no qualms about using them.
>
>3) We know Hussein hated the U.S., that he had ties with terrorists
>in general and al Qaeda in particular.
>
>Do the math.
>
>> So all that's left, like you said, was "Saddam is a bad man"... Given
>> just that, is that a reason to invade the sovereignty of another nation?
>
>Did you whinge similarly when Bosnia was invaded and Milosovec was
>deposed?
>
>> While we're at it, let's invade Cuba, too. Why stop with the mid-east?
>> Screw sovereignty and the UN and even the Geneva Convention. That's the
>> Bush way.. Bush to an oath to uphold the constitution, yet the "patriot
>> act" denies article four in favor of illegal search and seizure.
>
>I'm detecting a very low wattage....
>
>The U.N. breaks its own laws. France, Germany, Russia and China all
>trade with Iraq against U.N. resolutions, but that's okay. We get hit
>in the world's worst --------- attack, and somehow we're the bad guys
>for fighting back against regimes known to sponsor terrorism. Riiiight!
>
>You must be in profound dismay to learn there are so many stupid
>Americans that Bush got elected with such a majority.
>
>Regards,
>
>Brian

Brian Talley

***** Schneider wrote:
> Wasn't that much of a majority that you can claim all USAmericans are
> OK with his style (or lack thereof)...

At no time did I say all Americans agree with Bush's style.

I said a majority of Americans prefer to have Bush in office
as President. That President Bush received the largest number
of votes in US history is telling. This in spite of the Dems'
best efforts to encourage people to vote against Bush.

So what, precisely, is your issue with President Bush?


> On Mon, 08 Nov 2004 21:54:37 GMT, Brian Talley
> <btalley@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
>
>
>>It amazes me how obtuse some can be about this, when facts are
>>so easily found which pop the bubble of inuendo, accusation and
>>vehement assertion that "Bush is a moron".
>>
>>David Gravereaux wrote:
>>
>>>"Karl" <aufever@prodigy.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>If you guys think Saddam is innocent, you may want to read this:
>>>
>>>I don't consider him innocent of "crimes"; don't change the topic.
>>
>>But Hussein's crimes are not enough to warrant an invasion of
>>his country, eh? How delightfully tolerant you are of other
>>cultures....
>>
>>
>>>But I do consider Saddam innocent of the criteria for war as outlined by
>>>president Bush himself on Jan. 29, 2003
>>>(http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/...ranscript.8/):
>>
>>Nothing in this article is damning of President Bush.
>>
>>When Blix addressed the U.N. he said: "...Hussein had failed to
>>account for 25,000 liters of anthrax, 38,000 liters of botulinum
>>toxin and material for 500 tons of sarin, mustard agent and VX
>>nerve agent." (See
>>http://www.findarticles.com/p/articl...19/ai_97874290)
>>
>>Iraq had used WMDs on at least three occasions: against the people
>>living in the marsh regions to the south, against the Kurds to the
>>north, and against Iran.
>>
>>
>>>1. 500 ton of yellow cake uranium.
>>> - never found. The ties to Nigeria were proven false.
>>> http://newyorker.com/fact/content/?030331fa_fact1
>>
>>United Nations weapons inspectors visually accounted for several
>>tons of WMDs as of 1998 when they were kicked out by Hussein.
>>
>>We did find 500 tons of uranium:
>>http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniont...22uranium.html
>>
>>...and at least 1.8 tons of enriched uranium (yellow cake):
>>http://www.myrtlebeachonline.com/mld...aq/9101541.htm
>>
>>And coalition forces have encountered sarin and mustard gas:
>>http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,120137,00.html
>>
>>If President Bush is at fault, it is for wasting 14 months with
>>the United Nations trying to get them to put teeth into their
>>resolutions against Iraq.
>>
>>Now, of course, we know why: U.N. officials were deeply entrenched
>>in the Oil-for-Food scandal which involved many governments, among
>>them those vehemently opposed to the U.S. See:
>>http://www.heritage.org/Research/Int...ons/bg1748.cfm
>>http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1156004/posts
>>
>>I confess to being at a loss how you can ignore what Bush said vis
>>a vis what Hussein had done and what U.N. inspectors found, yet you
>>regurgitate unfounded vitriol against Bush and declare yourself an
>>intellectual. What are your thoughts on the U.N. and their now-open
>>corruption? Does it surprise you that France opposed the U.S. when
>>they were secretly dealing with Hussein? Does it bother you?
>>
>>If you hate America and Americans, that's fine. Say so, and then
>>we all know who we're dealing with. If you're interested in justice
>>and a peaceful world then you will have to improve your arguments
>>if you wish to cast Bush and the U.S. in a bad light.
>>
>>
>>>2. All the WMDs claimed they had "absolute and clear proof on" were never
>>>found.
>>
>>1) We know Hussein had them, as they were visually accounted for in
>>the late 1990's.
>>
>>2) We know Hussein had no qualms about using them.
>>
>>3) We know Hussein hated the U.S., that he had ties with terrorists
>>in general and al Qaeda in particular.
>>
>>Do the math.
>>
>>
>>>So all that's left, like you said, was "Saddam is a bad man"... Given
>>>just that, is that a reason to invade the sovereignty of another nation?
>>
>>Did you whinge similarly when Bosnia was invaded and Milosovec was
>>deposed?
>>
>>
>>>While we're at it, let's invade Cuba, too. Why stop with the mid-east?
>>>Screw sovereignty and the UN and even the Geneva Convention. That's the
>>>Bush way.. Bush to an oath to uphold the constitution, yet the "patriot
>>>act" denies article four in favor of illegal search and seizure.
>>
>>I'm detecting a very low wattage....
>>
>>The U.N. breaks its own laws. France, Germany, Russia and China all
>>trade with Iraq against U.N. resolutions, but that's okay. We get hit
>>in the world's worst --------- attack, and somehow we're the bad guys
>>for fighting back against regimes known to sponsor terrorism. Riiiight!
>>
>>You must be in profound dismay to learn there are so many stupid
>>Americans that Bush got elected with such a majority.
>>
>>Regards,
>>
>>Brian
>
>

Brian Talley

***** Schneider wrote:
> Wasn't that much of a majority that you can claim all USAmericans are
> OK with his style (or lack thereof)...

At no time did I say all Americans agree with Bush's style.

I said a majority of Americans prefer to have Bush in office
as President. That President Bush received the largest number
of votes in US history is telling. This in spite of the Dems'
best efforts to encourage people to vote against Bush.

So what, precisely, is your issue with President Bush?


> On Mon, 08 Nov 2004 21:54:37 GMT, Brian Talley
> <btalley@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
>
>
>>It amazes me how obtuse some can be about this, when facts are
>>so easily found which pop the bubble of inuendo, accusation and
>>vehement assertion that "Bush is a moron".
>>
>>David Gravereaux wrote:
>>
>>>"Karl" <aufever@prodigy.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>If you guys think Saddam is innocent, you may want to read this:
>>>
>>>I don't consider him innocent of "crimes"; don't change the topic.
>>
>>But Hussein's crimes are not enough to warrant an invasion of
>>his country, eh? How delightfully tolerant you are of other
>>cultures....
>>
>>
>>>But I do consider Saddam innocent of the criteria for war as outlined by
>>>president Bush himself on Jan. 29, 2003
>>>(http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/...ranscript.8/):
>>
>>Nothing in this article is damning of President Bush.
>>
>>When Blix addressed the U.N. he said: "...Hussein had failed to
>>account for 25,000 liters of anthrax, 38,000 liters of botulinum
>>toxin and material for 500 tons of sarin, mustard agent and VX
>>nerve agent." (See
>>http://www.findarticles.com/p/articl...19/ai_97874290)
>>
>>Iraq had used WMDs on at least three occasions: against the people
>>living in the marsh regions to the south, against the Kurds to the
>>north, and against Iran.
>>
>>
>>>1. 500 ton of yellow cake uranium.
>>> - never found. The ties to Nigeria were proven false.
>>> http://newyorker.com/fact/content/?030331fa_fact1
>>
>>United Nations weapons inspectors visually accounted for several
>>tons of WMDs as of 1998 when they were kicked out by Hussein.
>>
>>We did find 500 tons of uranium:
>>http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniont...22uranium.html
>>
>>...and at least 1.8 tons of enriched uranium (yellow cake):
>>http://www.myrtlebeachonline.com/mld...aq/9101541.htm
>>
>>And coalition forces have encountered sarin and mustard gas:
>>http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,120137,00.html
>>
>>If President Bush is at fault, it is for wasting 14 months with
>>the United Nations trying to get them to put teeth into their
>>resolutions against Iraq.
>>
>>Now, of course, we know why: U.N. officials were deeply entrenched
>>in the Oil-for-Food scandal which involved many governments, among
>>them those vehemently opposed to the U.S. See:
>>http://www.heritage.org/Research/Int...ons/bg1748.cfm
>>http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1156004/posts
>>
>>I confess to being at a loss how you can ignore what Bush said vis
>>a vis what Hussein had done and what U.N. inspectors found, yet you
>>regurgitate unfounded vitriol against Bush and declare yourself an
>>intellectual. What are your thoughts on the U.N. and their now-open
>>corruption? Does it surprise you that France opposed the U.S. when
>>they were secretly dealing with Hussein? Does it bother you?
>>
>>If you hate America and Americans, that's fine. Say so, and then
>>we all know who we're dealing with. If you're interested in justice
>>and a peaceful world then you will have to improve your arguments
>>if you wish to cast Bush and the U.S. in a bad light.
>>
>>
>>>2. All the WMDs claimed they had "absolute and clear proof on" were never
>>>found.
>>
>>1) We know Hussein had them, as they were visually accounted for in
>>the late 1990's.
>>
>>2) We know Hussein had no qualms about using them.
>>
>>3) We know Hussein hated the U.S., that he had ties with terrorists
>>in general and al Qaeda in particular.
>>
>>Do the math.
>>
>>
>>>So all that's left, like you said, was "Saddam is a bad man"... Given
>>>just that, is that a reason to invade the sovereignty of another nation?
>>
>>Did you whinge similarly when Bosnia was invaded and Milosovec was
>>deposed?
>>
>>
>>>While we're at it, let's invade Cuba, too. Why stop with the mid-east?
>>>Screw sovereignty and the UN and even the Geneva Convention. That's the
>>>Bush way.. Bush to an oath to uphold the constitution, yet the "patriot
>>>act" denies article four in favor of illegal search and seizure.
>>
>>I'm detecting a very low wattage....
>>
>>The U.N. breaks its own laws. France, Germany, Russia and China all
>>trade with Iraq against U.N. resolutions, but that's okay. We get hit
>>in the world's worst --------- attack, and somehow we're the bad guys
>>for fighting back against regimes known to sponsor terrorism. Riiiight!
>>
>>You must be in profound dismay to learn there are so many stupid
>>Americans that Bush got elected with such a majority.
>>
>>Regards,
>>
>>Brian
>
>

Brian Talley

***** Schneider wrote:
> Wasn't that much of a majority that you can claim all USAmericans are
> OK with his style (or lack thereof)...

At no time did I say all Americans agree with Bush's style.

I said a majority of Americans prefer to have Bush in office
as President. That President Bush received the largest number
of votes in US history is telling. This in spite of the Dems'
best efforts to encourage people to vote against Bush.

So what, precisely, is your issue with President Bush?


> On Mon, 08 Nov 2004 21:54:37 GMT, Brian Talley
> <btalley@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
>
>
>>It amazes me how obtuse some can be about this, when facts are
>>so easily found which pop the bubble of inuendo, accusation and
>>vehement assertion that "Bush is a moron".
>>
>>David Gravereaux wrote:
>>
>>>"Karl" <aufever@prodigy.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>If you guys think Saddam is innocent, you may want to read this:
>>>
>>>I don't consider him innocent of "crimes"; don't change the topic.
>>
>>But Hussein's crimes are not enough to warrant an invasion of
>>his country, eh? How delightfully tolerant you are of other
>>cultures....
>>
>>
>>>But I do consider Saddam innocent of the criteria for war as outlined by
>>>president Bush himself on Jan. 29, 2003
>>>(http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/...ranscript.8/):
>>
>>Nothing in this article is damning of President Bush.
>>
>>When Blix addressed the U.N. he said: "...Hussein had failed to
>>account for 25,000 liters of anthrax, 38,000 liters of botulinum
>>toxin and material for 500 tons of sarin, mustard agent and VX
>>nerve agent." (See
>>http://www.findarticles.com/p/articl...19/ai_97874290)
>>
>>Iraq had used WMDs on at least three occasions: against the people
>>living in the marsh regions to the south, against the Kurds to the
>>north, and against Iran.
>>
>>
>>>1. 500 ton of yellow cake uranium.
>>> - never found. The ties to Nigeria were proven false.
>>> http://newyorker.com/fact/content/?030331fa_fact1
>>
>>United Nations weapons inspectors visually accounted for several
>>tons of WMDs as of 1998 when they were kicked out by Hussein.
>>
>>We did find 500 tons of uranium:
>>http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniont...22uranium.html
>>
>>...and at least 1.8 tons of enriched uranium (yellow cake):
>>http://www.myrtlebeachonline.com/mld...aq/9101541.htm
>>
>>And coalition forces have encountered sarin and mustard gas:
>>http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,120137,00.html
>>
>>If President Bush is at fault, it is for wasting 14 months with
>>the United Nations trying to get them to put teeth into their
>>resolutions against Iraq.
>>
>>Now, of course, we know why: U.N. officials were deeply entrenched
>>in the Oil-for-Food scandal which involved many governments, among
>>them those vehemently opposed to the U.S. See:
>>http://www.heritage.org/Research/Int...ons/bg1748.cfm
>>http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1156004/posts
>>
>>I confess to being at a loss how you can ignore what Bush said vis
>>a vis what Hussein had done and what U.N. inspectors found, yet you
>>regurgitate unfounded vitriol against Bush and declare yourself an
>>intellectual. What are your thoughts on the U.N. and their now-open
>>corruption? Does it surprise you that France opposed the U.S. when
>>they were secretly dealing with Hussein? Does it bother you?
>>
>>If you hate America and Americans, that's fine. Say so, and then
>>we all know who we're dealing with. If you're interested in justice
>>and a peaceful world then you will have to improve your arguments
>>if you wish to cast Bush and the U.S. in a bad light.
>>
>>
>>>2. All the WMDs claimed they had "absolute and clear proof on" were never
>>>found.
>>
>>1) We know Hussein had them, as they were visually accounted for in
>>the late 1990's.
>>
>>2) We know Hussein had no qualms about using them.
>>
>>3) We know Hussein hated the U.S., that he had ties with terrorists
>>in general and al Qaeda in particular.
>>
>>Do the math.
>>
>>
>>>So all that's left, like you said, was "Saddam is a bad man"... Given
>>>just that, is that a reason to invade the sovereignty of another nation?
>>
>>Did you whinge similarly when Bosnia was invaded and Milosovec was
>>deposed?
>>
>>
>>>While we're at it, let's invade Cuba, too. Why stop with the mid-east?
>>>Screw sovereignty and the UN and even the Geneva Convention. That's the
>>>Bush way.. Bush to an oath to uphold the constitution, yet the "patriot
>>>act" denies article four in favor of illegal search and seizure.
>>
>>I'm detecting a very low wattage....
>>
>>The U.N. breaks its own laws. France, Germany, Russia and China all
>>trade with Iraq against U.N. resolutions, but that's okay. We get hit
>>in the world's worst --------- attack, and somehow we're the bad guys
>>for fighting back against regimes known to sponsor terrorism. Riiiight!
>>
>>You must be in profound dismay to learn there are so many stupid
>>Americans that Bush got elected with such a majority.
>>
>>Regards,
>>
>>Brian
>
>

ccr

"Brian Talley" <btalley@rochester.rr.com> wrote in message
news:cJsnd.3992$1u.1563@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
> ***** Schneider wrote:
>> Wasn't that much of a majority that you can claim all USAmericans are
>> OK with his style (or lack thereof)...
>
> At no time did I say all Americans agree with Bush's style.
>
> I said a majority of Americans prefer to have Bush in office
> as President. That President Bush received the largest number
> of votes in US history is telling.

That Bush had the largest number of votes AGAINST him in US history also is
telling. His percentage margin of votes was lowest in history for an
incumbent.

--
Prophetic Words: "On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land
will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be adorned
by a downright moron." - H.L. Mencken. How true.

ccr

"Brian Talley" <btalley@rochester.rr.com> wrote in message
news:cJsnd.3992$1u.1563@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
> ***** Schneider wrote:
>> Wasn't that much of a majority that you can claim all USAmericans are
>> OK with his style (or lack thereof)...
>
> At no time did I say all Americans agree with Bush's style.
>
> I said a majority of Americans prefer to have Bush in office
> as President. That President Bush received the largest number
> of votes in US history is telling.

That Bush had the largest number of votes AGAINST him in US history also is
telling. His percentage margin of votes was lowest in history for an
incumbent.

--
Prophetic Words: "On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land
will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be adorned
by a downright moron." - H.L. Mencken. How true.

ccr

"Brian Talley" <btalley@rochester.rr.com> wrote in message
news:cJsnd.3992$1u.1563@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
> ***** Schneider wrote:
>> Wasn't that much of a majority that you can claim all USAmericans are
>> OK with his style (or lack thereof)...
>
> At no time did I say all Americans agree with Bush's style.
>
> I said a majority of Americans prefer to have Bush in office
> as President. That President Bush received the largest number
> of votes in US history is telling.

That Bush had the largest number of votes AGAINST him in US history also is
telling. His percentage margin of votes was lowest in history for an
incumbent.

--
Prophetic Words: "On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land
will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be adorned
by a downright moron." - H.L. Mencken. How true.