" Tuuk" wrote in message ...
Ted Kennedy is an idiot. Absolute idiot. The entire Kennedy family should
not be members of public office, there is simply too much corruption on
their part.




"NOYB" wrote in message
k.net...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
My prediction: Kay will end up with a
lofty position in the next administration because he's demonstrating a
unique ability to not offend people while presenting the facts.

My prediction: the truth will emerge that Saddam hid his WMD's in Syria.
Even Kay alluded to this possibility.



A Bush lover calling another political family corrupt???????????

"John H" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 21:16:46 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"John H" wrote in message
.. .
During several hours of testimony before the Senate Armed Services
Committee, David Kay did not make Ted Kennedy happy. Kennedy tried
valiantly to get Kay to indict Bush, to say that Bush, et al, had to
have known that WMD weren't a threat to the USA prior to the war. But,
it didn't work. Several other Dems also tried, but it didn't work.
Let's see how many retractions there are to the "Bush lied"
statements. Of course, now many will say that Kay lied. These will
probably be the same people that praised Kay's honesty a few months
ago.

Extreme conclusions on your part, John. Perhaps Kay is being incredibly
diplomatic, particularly in light of the fact that nobody has any idea
yet
where our intelligence fell to pieces. My prediction: Kay will end up
with a
lofty position in the next administration because he's demonstrating a
unique ability to not offend people while presenting the facts.

Nope. I watched Kay for several hours today. He was not being
'incredibly diplomatic' but was rebuffing the attempts to buffalo him
by the senators, any of them.

So, he resisted efforts to get him to condemn someone, anyone, and you don't
consider that diplomatic? :-) In interviews, he's repeatedly stated that
he's not sure where our intelligence failed (at what step in the chain, in
other words), and he's pretty much refused to point at anyone and say
"fool!" It's not his job to point out who the liars and fools are. The
public will decide that next November.


The bottom line, as you stated, was that he was 'presenting the
facts', which refuted the position that Bush lied.

That conclusion only works if you've chosen to ignore one of several
possible scenarios: Bush may have been told that our evidence was flimsy, at
best, and either he or his staff decided that the imperfect evidence was
enough for them to run with.

Do you recall that we have yet to hear anything specific about the nature of
the "intelligence" that led Bush to believe this WMD nonsense? The excuse is
that we need to protect our sources. Since those sources have been 100%
wrong, why protect them? Wouldn't it be better to let "nature" takes its
toll on bad sources, whether that means someone getting capped in a dark
alley, or just losing their job so they're not hobbling our policy decisions
in the future?


You need to quit trying to earn money by pouncing on customers and
instead waste your time watching C-Span!

Nice idea, but I have to devote my full attention to truckers who call and
say they missed a delivery because of icy roads in Los Angeles. In reality,
they got hijacked by a casino or a whorehouse as they passed through Nevada.

"John Gaquin" wrote in message
...

"NOYB" wrote in message news:HUWRb.597

My prediction: the truth will emerge that Saddam hid his WMD's in Syria.
Even Kay alluded to this possibility.

There is a Syrian journalist who escaped Syria and published a lengthy
article in a Danish (I believe) newspaper just before Christmas (IIRC) --
sorry, details in my computer at work -- wherein he detailed three
specific
areas within Syria where multiple huge convoys of equipment had been
transported from Iraq and stored during the winter 02-03. Each area
roughly
equivalent in size to a medium to large military base, and still, to this
day, heavily guarded with 24-hour troops, barbed wire, razor wire, etc.
Western press doesn't seem to care, but you can bet your ass the long
lense
sats are watching. Facts will out.



Interesting idea, but there are problems with it.

1) There is little or no reason for us not to go after it, whether Syria
likes it or not. First of all, they're an inconsequential force, and second,
we've already demonstrated that we have little or no regard for the
sovereignty of other countries. Why not just tell the Bashar al-Asad that
we're stopping by for a little visit?

2) It's still a condemnation of the cowboy who waved his dick at Saddam for
close to a year before actually doing anything. You want a great conspiracy
theory? Bush *wanted* to give Saddam plenty of time to move the stuff over
the border.

Think about that last sentence.

"WaIIy" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 21:16:46 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"John H" wrote in message
.. .
During several hours of testimony before the Senate Armed Services
Committee, David Kay did not make Ted Kennedy happy. Kennedy tried
valiantly to get Kay to indict Bush, to say that Bush, et al, had to
have known that WMD weren't a threat to the USA prior to the war. But,
it didn't work. Several other Dems also tried, but it didn't work.
Let's see how many retractions there are to the "Bush lied"
statements. Of course, now many will say that Kay lied. These will
probably be the same people that praised Kay's honesty a few months
ago.

Extreme conclusions on your part, John. Perhaps Kay is being incredibly
diplomatic, particularly in light of the fact that nobody has any idea
yet
where our intelligence fell to pieces. My prediction: Kay will end up
with a
lofty position in the next administration because he's demonstrating a
unique ability to not offend people while presenting the facts.


Kay is respected by liberals and conservatives.

Do you EVER research anything before giving some ludicrous opinion?

Your response makes no sense in light of what I wrote. Please rephrase what
you THINK I wrote in the paragraph beginning with "Extreme conclusions".

"John Gaquin" wrote in message
...

"NOYB" wrote in message news:HUWRb.597

My prediction: the truth will emerge that Saddam hid his WMD's in Syria.
Even Kay alluded to this possibility.

There is a Syrian journalist who escaped Syria and published a lengthy
article in a Danish (I believe) newspaper just before Christmas (IIRC) --
sorry, details in my computer at work -- wherein he detailed three
specific
areas within Syria where multiple huge convoys of equipment had been
transported from Iraq and stored during the winter 02-03. Each area
roughly
equivalent in size to a medium to large military base, and still, to this
day, heavily guarded with 24-hour troops, barbed wire, razor wire, etc.
Western press doesn't seem to care, but you can bet your ass the long
lense
sats are watching. Facts will out.

I remember that article. In fact, I posted it here in Danish and asked
someone to translate it.

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message

Interesting idea, but there are problems with it.

1) There is little or no reason for us not to go after it, whether Syria
likes it or not.

Well, whether you want to believe it or not, there is a limit to the number
of things we can do simultaneously on the ground. And, as they have done in
past circumstances, they will try the diplomatic route first. When and if
that fails, look for boots on the ground.

we've already demonstrated that we have little or no regard for the
sovereignty of other countries. Why not just tell the Bashar al-Asad that
we're stopping by for a little visit?

disregard puerile rant

2) It's still a condemnation of the cowboy who waved his dick at Saddam
for
close to a year before actually doing anything. You want a great
conspiracy
theory? Bush *wanted* to give Saddam plenty of time to move the stuff over
the border.

Let's assume for the moment that you're on the right track. How does that
jibe with your oft-repeated premise that GW is an incompetent moron who
couldn't find his ass with two hands and a flashlight? Morons are not
usually adept at strategic chess.

cowards hide behind fake email names.. if the shoe fits........

"John Gaquin" wrote in message
...
"Doug Kanter" wrote in message

Interesting idea, but there are problems with it.

1) There is little or no reason for us not to go after it, whether Syria
likes it or not.

Well, whether you want to believe it or not, there is a limit to the
number
of things we can do simultaneously on the ground. And, as they have done
in
past circumstances, they will try the diplomatic route first. When and if
that fails, look for boots on the ground.

we've already demonstrated that we have little or no regard for the
sovereignty of other countries. Why not just tell the Bashar al-Asad
that
we're stopping by for a little visit?

disregard puerile rant

2) It's still a condemnation of the cowboy who waved his dick at Saddam
for
close to a year before actually doing anything. You want a great
conspiracy
theory? Bush *wanted* to give Saddam plenty of time to move the stuff
over
the border.

Let's assume for the moment that you're on the right track. How does that
jibe with your oft-repeated premise that GW is an incompetent moron who
couldn't find his ass with two hands and a flashlight? Morons are not
usually adept at strategic chess.

He's not adept, but his sitters are. So is his father, who started all this.
Who knows what he'd do to insure that his boy had an income stream after the
next election?

Have you thought about both reasons why Nookular Boy (meaning "his sitters")
might've wanted to give Saddam time to clean up his back yard?

On Thu, 29 Jan 2004 17:14:06 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"John H" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 21:16:46 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"John H" wrote in message
.. .
During several hours of testimony before the Senate Armed Services
Committee, David Kay did not make Ted Kennedy happy. Kennedy tried
valiantly to get Kay to indict Bush, to say that Bush, et al, had to
have known that WMD weren't a threat to the USA prior to the war. But,
it didn't work. Several other Dems also tried, but it didn't work.
Let's see how many retractions there are to the "Bush lied"
statements. Of course, now many will say that Kay lied. These will
probably be the same people that praised Kay's honesty a few months
ago.

Extreme conclusions on your part, John. Perhaps Kay is being incredibly
diplomatic, particularly in light of the fact that nobody has any idea
yet
where our intelligence fell to pieces. My prediction: Kay will end up
with a
lofty position in the next administration because he's demonstrating a
unique ability to not offend people while presenting the facts.

Nope. I watched Kay for several hours today. He was not being
'incredibly diplomatic' but was rebuffing the attempts to buffalo him
by the senators, any of them.

So, he resisted efforts to get him to condemn someone, anyone, and you don't
consider that diplomatic? :-) In interviews, he's repeatedly stated that
he's not sure where our intelligence failed (at what step in the chain, in
other words), and he's pretty much refused to point at anyone and say
"fool!" It's not his job to point out who the liars and fools are. The
public will decide that next November.


The bottom line, as you stated, was that he was 'presenting the
facts', which refuted the position that Bush lied.

That conclusion only works if you've chosen to ignore one of several
possible scenarios: Bush may have been told that our evidence was flimsy, at
best, and either he or his staff decided that the imperfect evidence was
enough for them to run with.

Do you recall that we have yet to hear anything specific about the nature of
the "intelligence" that led Bush to believe this WMD nonsense? The excuse is
that we need to protect our sources. Since those sources have been 100%
wrong, why protect them? Wouldn't it be better to let "nature" takes its
toll on bad sources, whether that means someone getting capped in a dark
alley, or just losing their job so they're not hobbling our policy decisions
in the future?


You need to quit trying to earn money by pouncing on customers and
instead waste your time watching C-Span!

Nice idea, but I have to devote my full attention to truckers who call and
say they missed a delivery because of icy roads in Los Angeles. In reality,
they got hijacked by a casino or a whorehouse as they passed through Nevada.

Kay ****ed off Democrats and the entire Bush administration, and
you're calling him diplomatic? He ****ed everyone off because he stuck
to what he thought was the truth.

He admitted that he was also wrong and that he had access to all the
intelligence available (as far as he knew). He stated he was convinced
he would find something. He stated that we (the USA), the British, the
French, and the Germans, not to mention the previous administration,
all thought there were WMD to be found. "We were all wrong," was his
main theme.

He also suggested that an "outside" investigation be conducted to
determine and fix the intelligence problems. McCain (sp?) loved that,
but the administration doesn't much like the idea. I think the
administration still thinks that something may be found. Kay also
admitted that he wasn't "sure" that there was nothing to be found.

Personally, I can't understand why they don't just call Mr. Krause,
who knows everything, and get this mess cleared up.

I think an investigation would be worthwhile. But if the results
didn't show that Bush and Powell absolutely lied, then the Dems would
say the committee was unduly influenced anyway.

I hope those damn truckers weren't union folks. Why do they have to
stop at a whorehouse? Isn't that why they have queen beds and jacuzzis
in that 'motel' behind the seats?

John H

On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!

....


John H

On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!