"OlBlueEyes" wrote in message
...
" *JimH*" wrote in
:


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


So any President who "starts" a war is wrong?

If the war is based on falsehood or illegality.

So which wars were based on falsehood and illegality? And
*specifically* what were the falsehoods and illegalities?

Any that aren't declared by Congress are illegal. Read your
Constitution. As far as falsehoods, the Colin Powell report to the UN
is a good start...

Holy crap........and I thought this all ended after Bush
overwhelmingly won re-election.

It was also investigated by a bipartisan committee.

The left now wants to do it all over again.

Sort of like the movie Groundhog Day.........waking up every day to
the same old crap and BS coming from the left.

1. I'm not on the left. If you'd been paying attention, you'd realize
that I know Krause is just as stupid as you are.

2. Why do you think Powell left?

Because his beliefs lie more in line with the lying pacifists at the CIA and
State Dept. But as a loyal soldier, he was torn between his loyalty to the
CiC, and his own personal beliefs against war no matter the circumstances.

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:


2. Why do you think Powell left?

Because his beliefs lie more in line with the lying pacifists at the CIA
and State Dept. But as a loyal soldier, he was torn between his loyalty
to the CiC, and his own personal beliefs against war no matter the
circumstances.

Wrong. Powell quit because he was tired of lying for the Bush-shippers.

He was tired of the lying alright. Tired of getting caught between the lies
coming from State and CIA, and his allegiance to the President.

Not to worry though. With Rice cleaning up State, and Goss cleaning up the
CIA, things should be running a whole lot smoother in the future.

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:
2. Why do you think Powell left?
Because his beliefs lie more in line with the lying pacifists at the
CIA and State Dept. But as a loyal soldier, he was torn between his
loyalty to the CiC, and his own personal beliefs against war no matter
the circumstances.
Wrong. Powell quit because he was tired of lying for the Bush-shippers.

He was tired of the lying alright. Tired of getting caught between the
lies coming from State and CIA, and his allegiance to the President.

Not to worry though. With Rice cleaning up State, and Goss cleaning up
the CIA, things should be running a whole lot smoother in the future.




You really are delusional.

By the way, Powell's loyalty is to the Constitution of the United States
and therefore to the people of the United States. The oath of office
states:

"I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of
the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, that I will
bear true faith and allegiance to the same, that I take this obligation
freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion, and I will
well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about
to enter. So help me God."

There isn't one word in there about loyalty to the President or the
necessity of lying for a President.

You skipped civics, eh?

He's a soldier first and foremost. His loyalty is to the CiC...particularly
in time of war.

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:
2. Why do you think Powell left?
Because his beliefs lie more in line with the lying pacifists at the
CIA and State Dept. But as a loyal soldier, he was torn between his
loyalty to the CiC, and his own personal beliefs against war no
matter the circumstances.
Wrong. Powell quit because he was tired of lying for the
Bush-shippers.
He was tired of the lying alright. Tired of getting caught between the
lies coming from State and CIA, and his allegiance to the President.

Not to worry though. With Rice cleaning up State, and Goss cleaning up
the CIA, things should be running a whole lot smoother in the future.



You really are delusional.

By the way, Powell's loyalty is to the Constitution of the United States
and therefore to the people of the United States. The oath of office
states:

"I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of
the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, that I will
bear true faith and allegiance to the same, that I take this obligation
freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion, and I will
well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am
about to enter. So help me God."

There isn't one word in there about loyalty to the President or the
necessity of lying for a President.

You skipped civics, eh?

He's a soldier first and foremost. His loyalty is to the
CiC...particularly in time of war.




No, you're absolutely, completely wrong. Reread the oath. The first
loyalty of the Secretary of State is to the people of the United States.
There is NO oath of loyalty to the President.

This is an important point, and you don't get it.

In actuality, he stopped being a soldier when he became Sec. of State. But
in practicality, he was a lifelong soldier.

He presented the evidence that was given to him by intel...just as Bush did.
Since it's your opinion that Bush lied, do you believe that Powell lied too?

"OlBlueEyes" wrote in message
...
"NOYB" wrote in
nk.net:


"OlBlueEyes" wrote in message
...
" *JimH*" wrote in
:


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


So any President who "starts" a war is wrong?

If the war is based on falsehood or illegality.

So which wars were based on falsehood and illegality? And
*specifically* what were the falsehoods and illegalities?

Any that aren't declared by Congress are illegal. Read your
Constitution. As far as falsehoods, the Colin Powell report to the
UN is a good start...

Holy crap........and I thought this all ended after Bush
overwhelmingly won re-election.

It was also investigated by a bipartisan committee.

The left now wants to do it all over again.

Sort of like the movie Groundhog Day.........waking up every day to
the same old crap and BS coming from the left.

1. I'm not on the left. If you'd been paying attention, you'd
realize that I know Krause is just as stupid as you are.

2. Why do you think Powell left?

Because his beliefs lie more in line with the lying pacifists at the
CIA and State Dept.

Colin Powell a pacifist? I'd like to see a quote from one member of the
armed forces with a rank higher than "Latrine" making THAT charge.

Post it right here, he who demands attribution:

You don't need a quote. A quote is nothing more than someone else's
opinion (of which, I can find plenty calling Powell a pacifist if you
insist).

Instead, I'll give you facts:
Remember the 1983 bombings of the US Embassy and US Marine barracks in
Beirut by Hezbollah?

The senior military assistant to Defense Secretary Weinberger was none
other than Colin Powell...who lobbied Reagan *not* to retaliate. Was
Hezbollah ever punished for that?

Fast forward to 1990, when US forces were gathering in the Middle East to
protect the Saudi Oil fields and toss Saddam out of Kuwait. Do you remember
who was pleading with the President for "economic sanctions to have a chance
to work"? I do. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff... Colin Powell.

But since you were asking for the name of a member of the armed forces who
might consider Powell a pacifist, how about Schwarzkopf? He called Powell
a "political general", and pretty much stated that is was Powell who
convinced Bush 41 to not completely destroy the Iraqi military (specifically
the Republican Guard) as it retreated.

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:
2. Why do you think Powell left?
Because his beliefs lie more in line with the lying pacifists at
the CIA and State Dept. But as a loyal soldier, he was torn
between his loyalty to the CiC, and his own personal beliefs
against war no matter the circumstances.
Wrong. Powell quit because he was tired of lying for the
Bush-shippers.
He was tired of the lying alright. Tired of getting caught between
the lies coming from State and CIA, and his allegiance to the
President.

Not to worry though. With Rice cleaning up State, and Goss cleaning
up the CIA, things should be running a whole lot smoother in the
future.



You really are delusional.

By the way, Powell's loyalty is to the Constitution of the United
States and therefore to the people of the United States. The oath of
office states:

"I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution
of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, that I
will bear true faith and allegiance to the same, that I take this
obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of
evasion, and I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the
office on which I am about to enter. So help me God."

There isn't one word in there about loyalty to the President or the
necessity of lying for a President.

You skipped civics, eh?
He's a soldier first and foremost. His loyalty is to the
CiC...particularly in time of war.



No, you're absolutely, completely wrong. Reread the oath. The first
loyalty of the Secretary of State is to the people of the United States.
There is NO oath of loyalty to the President.

This is an important point, and you don't get it.

In actuality, he stopped being a soldier when he became Sec. of State.
But in practicality, he was a lifelong soldier.

He presented the evidence that was given to him by intel...just as Bush
did. Since it's your opinion that Bush lied, do you believe that Powell
lied too?



Powell has apologized for misleading statements.

I thought he apologized for being a woman.

On Fri, 04 Nov 2005 10:16:17 -0500, Harry Krause wrote:

NOYB wrote:


2. Why do you think Powell left?

Because his beliefs lie more in line with the lying pacifists at the CIA and
State Dept. But as a loyal soldier, he was torn between his loyalty to the
CiC, and his own personal beliefs against war no matter the circumstances.

Wrong. Powell quit because he was tired of lying for the Bush-shippers.

He had too much integrity to lie for Bush, so he wasn't tired of doing so.

Maybe he was just tired of politics.
--
John H

"It's *not* a baby kicking, bride of mine, it's just a fetus!"

HK

On Fri, 04 Nov 2005 12:25:13 -0500, Harry Krause wrote:

NOYB wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:
2. Why do you think Powell left?
Because his beliefs lie more in line with the lying pacifists at the
CIA and State Dept. But as a loyal soldier, he was torn between his
loyalty to the CiC, and his own personal beliefs against war no
matter the circumstances.
Wrong. Powell quit because he was tired of lying for the
Bush-shippers.
He was tired of the lying alright. Tired of getting caught between the
lies coming from State and CIA, and his allegiance to the President.

Not to worry though. With Rice cleaning up State, and Goss cleaning up
the CIA, things should be running a whole lot smoother in the future.



You really are delusional.

By the way, Powell's loyalty is to the Constitution of the United States
and therefore to the people of the United States. The oath of office
states:

"I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of
the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, that I will
bear true faith and allegiance to the same, that I take this obligation
freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion, and I will
well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am
about to enter. So help me God."

There isn't one word in there about loyalty to the President or the
necessity of lying for a President.

You skipped civics, eh?
He's a soldier first and foremost. His loyalty is to the
CiC...particularly in time of war.



No, you're absolutely, completely wrong. Reread the oath. The first
loyalty of the Secretary of State is to the people of the United States.
There is NO oath of loyalty to the President.

This is an important point, and you don't get it.

In actuality, he stopped being a soldier when he became Sec. of State. But
in practicality, he was a lifelong soldier.

He presented the evidence that was given to him by intel...just as Bush did.
Since it's your opinion that Bush lied, do you believe that Powell lied too?



Powell has apologized for misleading statements.

He apologized because the statements he made turned out to be unfounded.
--
John H

"It's *not* a baby kicking, bride of mine, it's just a fetus!"

HK

On Thu, 03 Nov 2005 12:29:57 GMT, OlBlueEyes wrote:

John H. wrote in
:

On Thu, 03 Nov 2005 03:24:18 GMT, OlBlueEyes
wrote:

Harry Krause wrote in
:

Well, I suppose the depositions will be coming up soon, but I have
my doubts there will be a trial. There's little doubt remaining that
Libby and Rove were engaged in their favorite game of political
assassination, and if we're lucky, Cheney will be testifying, too.

Have you READ the indictment? Rove and Cheney are irrelevant to the
charges filed.

This is an example of Harry adding his embellishment to a story. Even
Libby was not indicted for 'political assassination', but Harry would
like you to believe he was.

It is good to see you're noticing this. And good to see you can make a
response without the gutter mouth.

Too bad the Bush apologists can't refute the actual article with any
facts.

Well, it's because they CAN'T refute the actual article with any facts.
Because the facts are in the article.

Apparently you missed this post from NOYB.

"Refute a statement? It's completely he said/she said and conjecture. In
fact, the author even uses the words " a plausible scenario" and states " At
this point, any American connection to the actual forgeries remains
unsubstantiated ".

Michael Ledeen denies any connection with the Niger documents, but Giraldi
makes his entire speculative case on a leap of faith that Ledeen helped to
forge the document:

"Ledeen...would have been a logical intermediary in co-ordinating the
falsification of the documents and their surfacing, as he was both a
Pentagon contractor and was frequently in Italy. He could have easily been
assisted by ex-CIA friends from Iran-Contra days "


Of course, Giraldi has no proof. In fact, in the very last paragraph he
calls the document a *possible* forgery by Defense Department employees.

So as I said, this article is nothing more than expelled dead wood from the
CIA attacking their long-time nemeses over at Defense. It's trash."
--
John H

"It's *not* a baby kicking, bride of mine, it's just a fetus!"

HK

On Wed, 02 Nov 2005 22:03:53 -0500, Harry Krause wrote:

Bert Robbins wrote:
"OlBlueEyes" wrote in message
...
"Bill McKee" wrote in
k.net:

"bb" wrote in message
news On Wed, 2 Nov 2005 20:14:15 -0500, " *JimH*" wrote:

As you did not provide a link to the article it carries no weight.
BS.

bb

BS to you. Harry is famous for rewriting articles and posting them as
fact, and of creative editing of content.
Do a search for the principals named (including the Iran-Contra era arms
dealer and Israel sycophant Michael Ledeen) and you will find the article
is quite factual.

The real article and not Harry's interpretation?




Yummy.

Harry, what is 'yummy' about the inference that your integrity is on the far
left of the bell curve?
--
John H

"It's *not* a baby kicking, bride of mine, it's just a fetus!"

HK