That assumes most of us even care about the political flappings. hehe

We *all* agree he *had* chem / bio weapons. He never provided proof of
destruction. If they were destroyed, I want him to prove it. If he sent
them away, I wanna know *where*.

It's still real simple.

Interesing story how the Mossad had planned to ice him in '92 for his stunts
shooting scuds at Israel during GW-1.
Too bad they didn't follow that through.

-W


"Gould 0738" wrote in message
news:20031217121901.11114.00001152@mb-

The rotten *******
deserves everything he's going to have coming to him, but he may as well
realize that he only answer the administration is prepared to accept on
the WMD
issue is "yes." Whether true or not, it will be politically useful.

In article leLDb.130513$_M.671166@attbi_s54,
says...

If the *best* the Democrats have to attack Bush with is the WMD issue, then
the election is already over.

There's plenty more Clams, it's just one nail in the coffin that'll get
delivered to Crawford.

On 17 Dec 2003 07:52:12 -0800, (basskisser) wrote:

Joe Parsons wrote in message . ..
On Mon, 15 Dec 2003 14:35:11 -0500, JohnH wrote:

[snip]

Absolutely, congratulations on spending billions upon billions, upon
billions of taxpayer's money to find a man that posed no harm to us,
except for those pesky cardboard drones he had aimed at us!!! By the
way, news this morning says that Saddam has stated he had NO weapons
of mass destruction before the war.

If you are referring to the money of more than one taxpayer, then the correct
word is *taxpayers'*.

John, spelling/grammar flames are, I believe, *far* beneath you.

Joe Parsons


What did Saddam use on the Kurds?

Nah, he's been throwing those in lately, when he knows he's wrong.
Only for one poster, whose grammar was atrocious and who persists in
name-calling. If one is going to call others 'stupid', then he should at least
do so correctly.

John
On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD

On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 00:13:07 GMT, Joe Parsons wrote:

On Mon, 15 Dec 2003 14:35:11 -0500, JohnH wrote:

[snip]

Absolutely, congratulations on spending billions upon billions, upon
billions of taxpayer's money to find a man that posed no harm to us,
except for those pesky cardboard drones he had aimed at us!!! By the
way, news this morning says that Saddam has stated he had NO weapons
of mass destruction before the war.

If you are referring to the money of more than one taxpayer, then the correct
word is *taxpayers'*.

John, spelling/grammar flames are, I believe, *far* beneath you.

Joe Parsons

Except in certain circumstances. When one calls another 'stupid', he should at
least do so correctly.

John
On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD

wrote in message
...
On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 17:33:06 GMT, "Clams Canino"
wrote:

That assumes most of us even care about the political flappings. hehe

We *all* agree he *had* chem / bio weapons. He never provided proof of
destruction. If they were destroyed, I want him to prove it. If he sent
them away, I wanna know *where*.

It's still real simple.


Then you and Bush blundered badly by not letting the inspectors
complete their mission before rushing to war. Now that Iraq has been
bombed and burned, you have little chance of making YOUR case.

BB

The burden of proof was/is on Saddam. Not the inspectors.


db

On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 23:57:01 GMT, Joe Parsons wrote:

On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 11:46:10 -0500, JohnH wrote:

On 14 Dec 2003 16:30:58 GMT, (Gould 0738) wrote:

John H wrote:

all the congratulatory messages from Harry, jps, basskisser, gould, et al.

our capture of Saddam.

You're not very patient. It's just after 8 AM on the W coast, on a Sunday
morning.

Go and fornicate yourself, John.

Don't you ever dare to post an implication that I don't wish the best for this
country and our 300 million fellow citizens. Your screwed up perspective is
that you, only you, and those who think exactly like you have the only valid
opinions about how our society should run and what direction national policies
should take.

You shouldn't believe everything you hear on Rush Limbaugh. The high percentage
of Americans who disagree with your views are not traitors or national enemies.


Yes, I'm damn glad he's caught.
With the billions of dollars spent on an ill-advised war and the toll the
entire adventure has taken on US credibility throughout the world, it's
gratifiying to see that we have *something* tangible to show for it.

But let me ask you this- does capturing a tyrant suddenly mean that all the
statements Bush made to get us into Iraq
in the firtst place are suddenly any more true than they were this time
yesterday?

Let's hope the insurgency tapers off in Iraq.
If it does not, people will begin questioning the war more than ever - once the
capture of SH is old news.

Jeees. Where did I make this implication to which you refer? How much do I
listen to Rush? I disagree with about 75% of Rush's statements. Catching Saddam
has nothing to do with the truth of the statements Bush made. I believe Bush
made his statements in good faith. You, et al, don't. Or at least you say you
don't to maintain the party line.

John, you can't reasonably know anyone's motivation behind making any statement.

But I *can* make an assumption.

While I agree with your comment with respect to the capture of Saddam, I believe
it is still possible for reasonable people to conclude that our incursion into
Iraq was sold to the Congress and to the country with faulty information.

Did I deny that possibility? I think I simply stated *my* belief.

Did GWB knowingly misrepresent the intelligence available at the time of the
decision to commit our country to war? There's no way to know for certain--but
for anyone who might have some level of distrust about Mr. Bush's motivations
(as a significant segment of our population does have), it is not unreasonable
to infer his motives.

Point granted, to a point. I have no problem with someone inferring any
motivation they like. I do have a problem with claiming as fact that which they
cannot prove. Their inferences are based on assumptions.

The fact that the inferences of some in that regard might be different from
those of others does not mean that those people who oppose our involvement in
the Middle East (or the way in which our involvement unfolds) are unpatriotic,
unreasonable or unintelligent. It means they have evaluated the available data
and arrived at their own conclusions.

Have you seen me call someone 'unpatriotic'?

Your bud, Harry, has made several posts without comment on the capture of
Saddam. As yet, jps has had no comment. Wonder why? Could it be because they
can't come up wit a way to put a negative spin on it?

Could it be because they're not particularly interested in the topic? Last time
I looked, no one was obligated to weigh in on *very* topic here.

Keep reading. I'm sure you'll find negativity abounding.

And while I'm at it, what leads you to believe that Chuck Gould is "buds" with
the bilious Mr. Kraus?

That is an example of an inference based on assumptions. It was not denied.

Joe Parsons



John
On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD

On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 15:17:35 -0500, JohnH wrote:

On 17 Dec 2003 07:52:12 -0800, (basskisser) wrote:

Joe Parsons wrote in message . ..
On Mon, 15 Dec 2003 14:35:11 -0500, JohnH wrote:

[snip]

Absolutely, congratulations on spending billions upon billions, upon
billions of taxpayer's money to find a man that posed no harm to us,
except for those pesky cardboard drones he had aimed at us!!! By the
way, news this morning says that Saddam has stated he had NO weapons
of mass destruction before the war.

If you are referring to the money of more than one taxpayer, then the correct
word is *taxpayers'*.

John, spelling/grammar flames are, I believe, *far* beneath you.

Joe Parsons


What did Saddam use on the Kurds?

Nah, he's been throwing those in lately, when he knows he's wrong.
Only for one poster, whose grammar was atrocious and who persists in
name-calling. If one is going to call others 'stupid', then he should at least
do so correctly.

There's a fundamental problem with that kind of approach, John.

Anyone who knows me at all knows I consider proper usage to be very
important--in both written and spoken communication. I'm constantly trying to
get the words right and generally self-edit pretty carefully.

But the kind of informal communication that we use in daily speech and on Usenet
is typically evaluated by different criteria--and rightly so, I think. If every
person contemplating a contribution to a newsgroup thought s/he might be subject
to someone's criticism based on *form*, few would venture to post.

But there's a tactical reason for not sinking to spelling and grammar flames.

Yesterday, you wrote, in response to a post made by "basskisser:"

Again, please check your punctuation, grammar, and spelling. I cannot understand
what it is you are trying to say.

Had he written something that was pure gibberish, rather than something that
might best (and charitably) described as "sloppy," your complaint might be
reasonable. But as it was, it puts you in a doubly unfavorable light: first, as
a person who'll resort to flames of grammer, punctuation, spelling and syntax,
rather than addressing some argument; or secondly, that you are unable to
parse/decode some moderately convoluted text.

Neither one advances your argument--just as the ongoing mean-spirited tirades
from *both* poles here serve only to further poison the atmosphere in a
once-useful and enjoyable newsgroup.

Joe Parsons

The possible spelling error(s) in this article are intentional. They serve as an
innoculation against speling flaims.


John
On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD

On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 15:41:53 -0500, JohnH wrote:

On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 23:57:01 GMT, Joe Parsons wrote:

On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 11:46:10 -0500, JohnH wrote:

On 14 Dec 2003 16:30:58 GMT, (Gould 0738) wrote:

John H wrote:

all the congratulatory messages from Harry, jps, basskisser, gould, et al.

our capture of Saddam.

You're not very patient. It's just after 8 AM on the W coast, on a Sunday
morning.

Go and fornicate yourself, John.

Don't you ever dare to post an implication that I don't wish the best for this
country and our 300 million fellow citizens. Your screwed up perspective is
that you, only you, and those who think exactly like you have the only valid
opinions about how our society should run and what direction national policies
should take.

You shouldn't believe everything you hear on Rush Limbaugh. The high percentage
of Americans who disagree with your views are not traitors or national enemies.


Yes, I'm damn glad he's caught.
With the billions of dollars spent on an ill-advised war and the toll the
entire adventure has taken on US credibility throughout the world, it's
gratifiying to see that we have *something* tangible to show for it.

But let me ask you this- does capturing a tyrant suddenly mean that all the
statements Bush made to get us into Iraq
in the firtst place are suddenly any more true than they were this time
yesterday?

Let's hope the insurgency tapers off in Iraq.
If it does not, people will begin questioning the war more than ever - once the
capture of SH is old news.

Jeees. Where did I make this implication to which you refer? How much do I
listen to Rush? I disagree with about 75% of Rush's statements. Catching Saddam
has nothing to do with the truth of the statements Bush made. I believe Bush
made his statements in good faith. You, et al, don't. Or at least you say you
don't to maintain the party line.

John, you can't reasonably know anyone's motivation behind making any statement.

But I *can* make an assumption.

Of course you can--but assumptions are always best tested before being stated as
fact, or qualified in some way. Your statement showed evidence of neither.

While I agree with your comment with respect to the capture of Saddam, I believe
it is still possible for reasonable people to conclude that our incursion into
Iraq was sold to the Congress and to the country with faulty information.

Did I deny that possibility? I think I simply stated *my* belief.

My sense has been that you accept as fact that the war with Iraq has been based
on valid intelligence. That's fine--it's not an unreasonable assumption. But
absent facts--facts that are so far not forthcoming--it's still an untested and
unproven assumption and is best treated as such.

Did GWB knowingly misrepresent the intelligence available at the time of the
decision to commit our country to war? There's no way to know for certain--but
for anyone who might have some level of distrust about Mr. Bush's motivations
(as a significant segment of our population does have), it is not unreasonable
to infer his motives.

Point granted, to a point. I have no problem with someone inferring any
motivation they like. I do have a problem with claiming as fact that which they
cannot prove. Their inferences are based on assumptions.

On this we agree! But (and I mean this with the greatest respect) be sure that
you check carefully around your own eye for any cellulose debris.

The fact that the inferences of some in that regard might be different from
those of others does not mean that those people who oppose our involvement in
the Middle East (or the way in which our involvement unfolds) are unpatriotic,
unreasonable or unintelligent. It means they have evaluated the available data
and arrived at their own conclusions.

Have you seen me call someone 'unpatriotic'?

No--but the tenor of this kind of argument tends to be that anyone expressing
disapproval of our country's current policies and/or administration invariably
drifts into that realm. And it's not all that surprising to see that kind of
argument, given the consistently nasty tone of these "discussions."

Your bud, Harry, has made several posts without comment on the capture of
Saddam. As yet, jps has had no comment. Wonder why? Could it be because they
can't come up wit a way to put a negative spin on it?

Could it be because they're not particularly interested in the topic? Last time
I looked, no one was obligated to weigh in on *very* topic here.

Keep reading. I'm sure you'll find negativity abounding.

And while I'm at it, what leads you to believe that Chuck Gould is "buds" with
the bilious Mr. Kraus?

That is an example of an inference based on assumptions. It was not denied.

John, I *know* you can find more effective ammunition than that.

Joe Parsons


Joe Parsons



John
On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD

The mishandling / management of post-war Iraq is a much better issue to
pound. IMHO

I thought using WMD as "the reason" to oust Saddam was silly, and risky PR -
and said so then.
That said, I'd have supported ousting Saddam for *any* reason - real or
imagined. I just thought we could do better than "the threat of WMD's"
Hell - an assasination attempt on a POTUS was good enought for me, and good
enough for a lot of people that were horrified we didn't oust him in GW-1.

-W

"jps" wrote in message
...
In article leLDb.130513$_M.671166@attbi_s54,
says...

If the *best* the Democrats have to attack Bush with is the WMD issue,
then
the election is already over.

There's plenty more Clams, it's just one nail in the coffin that'll get
delivered to Crawford.

Which "world opinion" was that?

Follow the money..........

-W


wrote in message
...

newsflash: Saddam is in custody, and really doesn't have to prove
anything about WMD's. Bush certainly does in the court of world
opinion.

BB