Even the SCOTUS is fed up with Bush's nonsense.

"ArtKramr" wrote in message
...

I guess Clinton never planned on attacking a nation that never threatened
the
U.S. based on WMD that they never had.

Now Art shows his lack of credibility. Even the UN admits that Iraq had
loads of WMD.

"ArtKramr" wrote in message
...

I guess Clinton never planned on attacking a nation that never threatened
the
U.S. based on WMD that they never had.

Then what was it they dropped on Iran and Halabja?


Ron
PA-31T Cheyenne II
Maharashtra Weather Modification Program
Pune, India

"Ragnar" wrote in message
...

"ArtKramr" wrote in message
...

(Snip)

Now Art shows his lack of credibility. Even the UN admits that Iraq had
loads of WMD.

......in the '80s. The UN never found much of anything after the Gulf War in
spite of their best "on again, off again" search efforts. Even the Bush
administration's own team of expert searchers led by David Kay concluded after
their best unrestricted post-hostilities efforts that there not only wasn't
anything to find but that there hadn't been anything there from the beginning.

Anyone who finds fault with those conclusions is suffering from a huge attack of
gullibility. To this day, almost a year and a half after our "mission
completed" occurred, and with well over 100,000 American troops in the country
going back and forth over that miserable dusty country, none of the weapons we
were supposed to be afraid of has ever been found.

To accuse Art of suffering from lack of credibility is a perfect example of the
pot and the kettle.

George Z.

"George Z. Bush" wrote in message
...

"Ragnar" wrote in message
...

"ArtKramr" wrote in message
...

(Snip)

Now Art shows his lack of credibility. Even the UN admits that Iraq had
loads of WMD.

.....in the '80s.

Nope. 1998. And the chief UN inspector said after the war started that
there was still evidence of ongoing programs prior to the war.

To this day, almost a year and a half after our "mission
completed" occurred, and with well over 100,000 American troops in the
country
going back and forth over that miserable dusty country, none of the
weapons we
were supposed to be afraid of has ever been found.

As far as you know.

To accuse Art of suffering from lack of credibility is a perfect example
of the
pot and the kettle.

Really? How is that? Art said they NEVER had any WMD. I replied
(correctly) that they did. Seems to me that you are wrong.

"Ragnar" wrote in message
...

"George Z. Bush" wrote in message
...

"Ragnar" wrote in message
...

"ArtKramr" wrote in message
...

(Snip)

Now Art shows his lack of credibility. Even the UN admits that Iraq had
loads of WMD.

.....in the '80s.

Nope. 1998. And the chief UN inspector said after the war started that
there was still evidence of ongoing programs prior to the war.

And you still don't know the difference between a program and a weapon. Even
old Muammar Khadafi of Libya, who had pursued an active nuclear weapons program
for many years which he recently gave up in exchange for international
respectability never had anything he could have made go bang. If he had, he'd
have dropped it on Tel Aviv years ago. Lots of countries have programs.....so
what?

To this day, almost a year and a half after our "mission
completed" occurred, and with well over 100,000 American troops in the
country
going back and forth over that miserable dusty country, none of the
weapons we
were supposed to be afraid of has ever been found.

As far as you know.

And as far as the President's personally appointed chief looker, David Kay, and
his entire team of searchers were able to find. If you can't believe the
President's own man, who do you believe?

To accuse Art of suffering from lack of credibility is a perfect example
of the
pot and the kettle.

Really? How is that? Art said they NEVER had any WMD. I replied
(correctly) that they did. Seems to me that you are wrong.

I have no idea what Art said at the beginning of your nit picking snit with him
since I don't normally read his stuff. My statement stands, based upon what I
saw posted....from what I could tell, you were doing exactly what you were
criticizing him for doing and I'm not about to get into defining what time
context "never" is supposed to apply to any more than you'd want to get into a
****ing match over defining what "is" is.

George Z.

"George Z. Bush" wrote:
"Ragnar" wrote in message

..

Nope. 1998. And the chief UN inspector said after the war started that
there was still evidence of ongoing programs prior to the war.

And you still don't know the difference between a program and a weapon.

Which of them was defined as being allowed behaviour under the ceasefire
agreement signed by Iraq?

"George Z. Bush" wrote in message
...

"Ragnar" wrote in message
...

"George Z. Bush" wrote in message
...

snip

To this day, almost a year and a half after our "mission
completed" occurred, and with well over 100,000 American troops in the
country
going back and forth over that miserable dusty country, none of the
weapons we
were supposed to be afraid of has ever been found.

As far as you know.

And as far as the President's personally appointed chief looker, David
Kay, and
his entire team of searchers were able to find. If you can't believe the
President's own man, who do you believe?

LOL! Did you bother to actually read what Kay has said, or just the
approved-pablum-version as reported by CNN and the NYT? Go back and read his
actual words; he claimed the Iraqis were in violation of the UNSC
resolutions in numerous areas, and noted their continuing one specific bio
warfare program until the very outbreak of hostilities, along with their
hiding of equipment and records. Geeze, at least go back and read the man's
actual testimony before you go off and start placing your feet in your
mouth.



To accuse Art of suffering from lack of credibility is a perfect
example
of the
pot and the kettle.

Really? How is that? Art said they NEVER had any WMD. I replied
(correctly) that they did. Seems to me that you are wrong.

I have no idea what Art said at the beginning of your nit picking snit
with him
since I don't normally read his stuff. My statement stands, based upon
what I
saw posted....from what I could tell, you were doing exactly what you were
criticizing him for doing and I'm not about to get into defining what time
context "never" is supposed to apply to any more than you'd want to get
into a
****ing match over defining what "is" is.

Hell, you obviously can't be bothered to even READ the actual testimony you
cite!

Brooks


George Z.

"George Z. Bush" wrote in message
...

And as far as the President's personally appointed chief looker,
David Kay, and his entire team of searchers were able to find. If you
can't believe the President's own man, who do you believe?


As you say...

"In my judgment, based on the work that has been done to this point of the
Iraq Survey Group, and in fact, that I reported to you in October, Iraq was
in clear violation of the terms of [U.N.] Resolution 1441."

"Resolution 1441 required that Iraq report all of its activities -- one last
chance to come clean about what it had."

"We have discovered hundreds of cases, based on both documents, physical
evidence and the testimony of Iraqis, of activities that were prohibited
under the initial U.N. Resolution 687 and that should have been reported
under 1441, with Iraqi testimony that not only did they not tell the U.N.
about this, they were instructed not to do it and they hid material."

--David Kay at Senate hearing, Wednesday, January 28, 2004.

"George Z. Bush" wrote in message
...

"Ragnar" wrote in message
...

"George Z. Bush" wrote in message
...

"Ragnar" wrote in message
...

"ArtKramr" wrote in message
...

(Snip)

Now Art shows his lack of credibility. Even the UN admits that Iraq
had
loads of WMD.

.....in the '80s.

Nope. 1998. And the chief UN inspector said after the war started that
there was still evidence of ongoing programs prior to the war.

And you still don't know the difference between a program and a weapon.

Riiiight. And I suppose Saddam dropped a "program" on the Kurds and
Iranians. Funny, those pictures and medical reports sure looked like nerve
and mustard gas. Guess them "programs" are dangerous after all.


To this day, almost a year and a half after our "mission
completed" occurred, and with well over 100,000 American troops in the
country
going back and forth over that miserable dusty country, none of the
weapons we
were supposed to be afraid of has ever been found.

As far as you know.

And as far as the President's personally appointed chief looker, David
Kay, and
his entire team of searchers were able to find. If you can't believe the
President's own man, who do you believe?

Like I said, "as far as you know".

To accuse Art of suffering from lack of credibility is a perfect
example
of the
pot and the kettle.

Really? How is that? Art said they NEVER had any WMD. I replied
(correctly) that they did. Seems to me that you are wrong.

I have no idea what Art said at the beginning of your nit picking snit
with him
since I don't normally read his stuff.

Oh, so you only look at one side of the conversation. Thats very convenient
for you.

My statement stands, based upon what I
saw posted..

Yes, don't read the whole thing. That way when you're proven wrong you can
deny everything with a BS cover story.

..from what I could tell, you were doing exactly what you were
criticizing him for doing and I'm not about to get into defining what time
context "never" is supposed to apply to any more than you'd want to get
into a
****ing match over defining what "is" is.

Umm, "never" means exactly that - NEVER. Get a decent dictionary.

"Ragnar" wrote in message
...

"George Z. Bush" wrote in message
...

"Ragnar" wrote in message
...

"George Z. Bush" wrote in message
...

"Ragnar" wrote in message
...

"ArtKramr" wrote in message
...

(Snip)

Now Art shows his lack of credibility. Even the UN admits that Iraq
had
loads of WMD.

.....in the '80s.

Nope. 1998. And the chief UN inspector said after the war started that
there was still evidence of ongoing programs prior to the war.

And you still don't know the difference between a program and a weapon.

Riiiight. And I suppose Saddam dropped a "program" on the Kurds and
Iranians. Funny, those pictures and medical reports sure looked like nerve
and mustard gas. Guess them "programs" are dangerous after all.

And when did that happen? March, 1988 during the war against Iran. So, let's
see, is 1988 in the 80s or the 90s? Oh......


To this day, almost a year and a half after our "mission
completed" occurred, and with well over 100,000 American troops in the
country
going back and forth over that miserable dusty country, none of the
weapons we
were supposed to be afraid of has ever been found.

As far as you know.

And as far as the President's personally appointed chief looker, David
Kay, and
his entire team of searchers were able to find. If you can't believe the
President's own man, who do you believe?

Like I said, "as far as you know".

Did you think I didn't hear you the first time? So let me try again......if you
can't believe the President's own man, who do you believe? How about answering
THAT question, if you don't mind.

To accuse Art of suffering from lack of credibility is a perfect
example
of the
pot and the kettle.

Really? How is that? Art said they NEVER had any WMD. I replied
(correctly) that they did. Seems to me that you are wrong.

I have no idea what Art said at the beginning of your nit picking snit
with him
since I don't normally read his stuff.

Oh, so you only look at one side of the conversation. Thats very convenient
for you.

My statement stands, based upon what I
saw posted..

Yes, don't read the whole thing. That way when you're proven wrong you can
deny everything with a BS cover story.

I no longer read what people who I've consigned to my kill file have to say
except possibly when someone responds to their comments. Like I said, I have no
idea what he said initially in this thread.....it doesn't show up on my monitor.
If you think that's some sort of BS story, then you haven't discovered the
beauties of the kill file, and that'd be your loss.

..from what I could tell, you were doing exactly what you were
criticizing him for doing and I'm not about to get into defining what time
context "never" is supposed to apply to any more than you'd want to get
into a
****ing match over defining what "is" is.

Umm, "never" means exactly that - NEVER. Get a decent dictionary.

Well, if I said that you never said that to me last year, does that mean "never
from the beginning of time" or does it mean "never during the last year"?
Surely you can see the difference. If it doesn't register on you, then I might
as well drop it and move on.

George Z.