On Sat, 31 Jan 2004 03:08:01 +0000, NOYB wrote:


The lying issue is, well...no issue at all. He didn't lie about Saddam's
WMD's anymore than any of the Dems lied about them for the 5-year period
leading up to the war.

The more I read about this administration, the more I believe Bush didn't
lie. I think he gave far too much weight to Rumsfeld's rantings. While
lying may not be the issue, competence sure is. We preemptively invaded a
country on faulty intelligence. What do you tell the families of the 500
dead soldiers? Ooops, sorry.

"thunder" wrote in message
news
On Sat, 31 Jan 2004 03:08:01 +0000, NOYB wrote:


The lying issue is, well...no issue at all. He didn't lie about
Saddam's
WMD's anymore than any of the Dems lied about them for the 5-year period
leading up to the war.

The more I read about this administration, the more I believe Bush didn't
lie. I think he gave far too much weight to Rumsfeld's rantings. While
lying may not be the issue, competence sure is. We preemptively invaded a
country on faulty intelligence. What do you tell the families of the 500
dead soldiers? Ooops, sorry.

Actually, the WMD's were one of *many* reasons we went into Iraq to remove
Saddam. However, as Wolfowitz said, they "chose the one area issue everyone
could agree on".

What do you tell the families? You tell 'em the several other reasons
Saddam needed to be removed...including his assassination attempt on an
ex-President, his financial (and possibly logistical )support of terrorists,
his violation of UN resolution 1441, his historical aggression towards other
oil producing countries in the Middle East, and his active pursuit of
biological and nuclear weapons. To most rationale people, those are
sufficient reasons to use our military.

"NOYB" wrote in message
ink.net...

...including his assassination attempt on an
ex-President

Oops. Can't use that one. We tried that on Castro many years back. If we
tried it, then we lent legitimacy to the practice.

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"NOYB" wrote in message
ink.net...

...including his assassination attempt on an
ex-President

Oops. Can't use that one. We tried that on Castro many years back. If we
tried it, then we lent legitimacy to the practice.

It's not a matter of whether or not the practice of assassination is
legitimate...I think it is. However, it's also legitimate for the intended
leader (or his country...or his son) to strike back. If you're the weaker
force, then it's stupidity to wake a sleeping giant.

If Castro has a beef with Kennedy's attempt on his life, then he can seek
revenge...and perhaps he already has.