"John H." wrote in message
news
On Thu, 03 Nov 2005 12:22:21 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:

*JimH* wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
John H. wrote:
On Thu, 03 Nov 2005 08:19:23 -0500, Harry Krause

wrote:


Saddam and many other heads of state are always interested in
obtaining
all sorts of weaponry and components. That doesn't mean they have
them,
can get them, can use them if they get them, et cetera.
Saddam had WMD. If allowed he would have used them, again. Bush didn't
lie about
the WMD.
Right. Saddam's dog ate them.

I guess all these folks lied also.......eh?


You can repeat that list from now until the end of time, and it won't
make a difference. Talking up a problem and invading a country are not
equivalents.

You may recall that John F. Kennedy got the Soviets to remove the
missiles from Cuba with strong talk, threats, a blocade, et cetera, but
basically without firing a shot or invading that little island country.

If Bush lied, then all those folks did to. That's the point.
--
John H

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

HK

If Bush truly lied, why would he be so stupid as to bring us into a war when
he knew no WOMD would be found. And how is it only *he* knew that there
were no WOMD?

You will not change Harry's mind. He is one of the left who has never
gotten over losing 2 elections and truly hates Bush for winning. He will
believe *anything* that detracts from Bush or his accomplishments. His is
in fact living a lie but believing it.

You will NEVER be able to change him, no matter what facts you bring to the
table.