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

"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.

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

"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......

Yes, oh. Lots of the chems were never accounted for after the Gulf War.
And some keeps coming back even today, like in artillery shells used as
IEDs.



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?

"hear" me? Umm, this is the internet, not a telephone.

In any event, I repeated it because you already admitted to not reading
everything in the thread. Just thought I'd make sure.

Based on previous posts, its obvious to me that you never read the offical
report from Kay. Perhaps you could look up the part where he said the
Iraqis weren't in compliance with UN resolutions and had programs still
running even after the inspections.


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.

I DO believe Mr Kay. Iraq DID have illegal programs in place despite UN
resolutions. Now, why do YOU not believe Mr Kay? It seems your position is
at odds with his now.


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.

Yes, excellent cover when you're caught out.

Like I said, I have no
idea what he said initially in this thread...

Yet you reply anyway and get caught with your head up your ass. Nice.

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.

The BS story is where you try to use the killfile excuse to plead ignorance
when you could easily read the non-killfiled responses or simply remove the
killfile if you really cared about the subject. Like I said, a nice BS
cover story for when you're caught.


..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.

Oh, puhlease.

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

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......

Yes, oh. Lots of the chems were never accounted for after the Gulf War.

Assuming that you're right, so what happened to them? Where are they? Why
weren't they used against us when we invaded their country if they had them?
And since they obviously didn't have them, what in hell were we supposed to be
afraid of?

And some keeps coming back even today, like in artillery shells used as
IEDs.

And do you know why those artillery shells were and are still available to the
insurgents in Iraq? I know you won't want to believe it or accept it as truth,
but the reason is that we didn't have enough troops committed to the operation
to be able to secure the ammo dumps and prevent them from being looted.
Remember what Army C/S Gen. Eric Shinseki said before the shooting started? He
told Rummy that he thought we needed something over 300,000 troops to be able to
win the war, secure the country, and seal its borders against infiltration. He
got fired for daring to speak his mind, and Rummy set forth to do it on the
cheap. We are now (and will continue indefinitely) to pay the price for that
horrible error in judgement by the administration.

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?

"hear" me? Umm, this is the internet, not a telephone.

Do I have to explain to you what a figure of speech is?

In any event, I repeated it because you already admitted to not reading
everything in the thread. Just thought I'd make sure.

Based on previous posts, its obvious to me that you never read the offical
report from Kay. Perhaps you could look up the part where he said the
Iraqis weren't in compliance with UN resolutions and had programs still
running even after the inspections.

Well, what was obvious to you was, in fact, erroneous. I did in fact read the
Kay report right after it was published. Why are you ignoring the part of it
where it said that while they may have had weapons research programs operating,
his team was unable to locate any weapons produced by those programs? If our
nation's going to spend all of its days shaking in our boots because other
countries (including unfriendly ones) are doing weapons research, we're going to
need a rubber padded room in which to feel safe because, like it or not,
everybody does it and they're not going to quit just to please us and allow us
to not feel threatened.

(Snip)

George Z.

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

Remember what Army C/S Gen. Eric Shinseki said before the shooting
started? He
told Rummy that he thought we needed something over 300,000 troops to be
able to
win the war, secure the country, and seal its borders against
infiltration. He
got fired for daring to speak his mind,

Gen Shinseki didn't get "fired":

Under Public Law 90-22 approved 5 June 1967 which amended Section 3034(a) of
Title 10, US Code) the Chief of Staff, US Army, is appointed by the
President with the advice and consent of the Senate for a four-year term
and, in time of war, is eligible for reappointment for a term of not more
than four years.


Gen Shinseki's term as Chief of Staff USA started on 22 Jun 1999 and ended
on 11 Jun 2003. Thats the statutory 4-year term, which NO Chief of Staff
since 1964 has exceeded. Gen Shinseki served his normal term of office and
retired, which is exactly what every other Chief of Staff has done in the
past.


"hear" me? Umm, this is the internet, not a telephone.

Do I have to explain to you what a figure of speech is?

Do I have to explain to you the definition of "never"? Its in the
dictionary.

"Ragnar" wrote in message
...

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

Remember what Army C/S Gen. Eric Shinseki said before the shooting
started? He
told Rummy that he thought we needed something over 300,000 troops to be
able to
win the war, secure the country, and seal its borders against
infiltration. He
got fired for daring to speak his mind,

Gen Shinseki didn't get "fired":

Under Public Law 90-22 approved 5 June 1967 which amended Section 3034(a) of
Title 10, US Code) the Chief of Staff, US Army, is appointed by the
President with the advice and consent of the Senate for a four-year term
and, in time of war, is eligible for reappointment for a term of not more
than four years.


Gen Shinseki's term as Chief of Staff USA started on 22 Jun 1999 and ended
on 11 Jun 2003. Thats the statutory 4-year term, which NO Chief of Staff
since 1964 has exceeded. Gen Shinseki served his normal term of office and
retired, which is exactly what every other Chief of Staff has done in the
past.

We were clearly at war in June 2003 and extension of Gen. Shinseki's term of
office as Army C/S was available to the government and provided for under PL
90-22. Our government chose to ignore our tradition of not changing horses in
midstream and replaced him with someone who wouldn't buck their preconceived
notions of how to run a war. The way I see it, he most certainly did get fired,
and he got his retirement papers processed instead of having them placed in the
pending file simply because he differed with his civilian bosses about what
winning the war was going to take. It turns out with perfect 20-20 hindsight
that he knew what he was talking about and they (the civilians involved) did
not.

George Z.

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

"Ragnar" wrote in message
...

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

Remember what Army C/S Gen. Eric Shinseki said before the shooting
started? He
told Rummy that he thought we needed something over 300,000 troops to
be
able to
win the war, secure the country, and seal its borders against
infiltration. He
got fired for daring to speak his mind,

Gen Shinseki didn't get "fired":

Under Public Law 90-22 approved 5 June 1967 which amended Section
3034(a) of
Title 10, US Code) the Chief of Staff, US Army, is appointed by the
President with the advice and consent of the Senate for a four-year term
and, in time of war, is eligible for reappointment for a term of not
more
than four years.


Gen Shinseki's term as Chief of Staff USA started on 22 Jun 1999 and
ended
on 11 Jun 2003. Thats the statutory 4-year term, which NO Chief of
Staff
since 1964 has exceeded. Gen Shinseki served his normal term of office
and
retired, which is exactly what every other Chief of Staff has done in
the
past.

We were clearly at war in June 2003

Congress didn't declare "war", so we were not "clearly" at war.

and extension of Gen. Shinseki's term of
office as Army C/S was available to the government and provided for under
PL
90-22.

Available, yes. However, extension wasn't used during Vietnam either,
making your point less valid.

Our government chose to ignore our tradition of not changing horses in
midstream

Umm, the "tradition" seems to have been ignored for the most part when it
comes to JCS members.

and replaced him with someone who wouldn't buck their preconceived
notions of how to run a war.

The way I see it, he most certainly did get fired,

Nope, fired people have to clean out their desks and get the hell out of the
building. Shinseki served his entire appointment as Chief of Staff.

and he got his retirement papers processed instead of having them placed
in the
pending file simply because he differed with his civilian bosses about
what
winning the war was going to take. It turns out with perfect 20-20
hindsight
that he knew what he was talking about and they (the civilians involved)
did
not.

George Z.

"Ragnar" wrote in message
...

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

We were clearly at war in June 2003

Congress didn't declare "war", so we were not "clearly" at war.

Does PL 90-22 say that extensions are available whenever Congress has declared
war? I believe it just says "in time of war", which means that it does not
require a Congressional declaration. I don't know about you, but if somebody
tells me that we're at war at times while enemies are shooting our troops, I'm
not inclined to nitpick the definition of what constitutes being at war.

(Snip)

The way I see it, he most certainly did get fired,

Nope, fired people have to clean out their desks and get the hell out of the
building. Shinseki served his entire appointment as Chief of Staff.

You obviously don't have a clue how things work at the flag level. Try asking
any flag officer you know if I'm wrong.....I've already done that and am
satisfied that I didn't get a bum steer. I wouldn't be trying to BS the public
if I didn't know that I had it right.

Insist if you want to.....I still say he got canned for disagreeing with his
civilian bosses.
And I still say that he was right and that they were wrong. Professionals often
have a far more sanguine and realistic view of things in their areas of
expertise than do ideologues. How to secure Iraq was a perfect example of that,
and we continue to pay the price in blood and heartache every day for having
picked the wrong options.

George Z.

Ragnar wrote:
Congress didn't declare "war", so we were not "clearly" at war.

They came close enough for most purposes. The 18 September 2001 Joint
Resolution is effectively a declaration of war. It certainly activates the
various "in time of war" clauses in other legislation, such as the recall of
troops and so forth (though a good lawyer might argue out of a treason
charge on the technicality).

Note that Admiral Clark, the current Chief of Naval Operations, has had his
appointment extended by an additional two years (for a total of six).

Regarding Shinseki, I agree he was not fired. But he was clearly
marginalized by OSD. Rumsfeld named his preferred successor (the serving
Vice COS) over a year in advance, an unprecendented announcement. (General
Keane then declined the post, also unprecedented, IME. Then General Franks
also turned it down when offered.) Notably, no senior OSD officials
attended Shinsiki's retirement ceremony, which is rather unusual for an
outgoing service chief.

--
Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
"Our country, right or wrong. When right, to be kept right, when
wrong to be put right." - Senator Carl Schurz, 1872

"Ragnar" wrote in message ...

Yes, oh. Lots of the chems were never accounted for after the Gulf War.
And some keeps coming back even today, like in artillery shells used as
IEDs.


According to the UN, 500 mustard gas shells remained unaccounted for.
Not 'lots' in a military sense.

What is your justification in your use of the plural in 'artillery s
hells used as IEDs.'? Willful exaggeration or wistful thinking
since the one Arain trap used was ineffective.


Based on previous posts, its obvious to me that you never read the offical
report from Kay. Perhaps you could look up the part where he said the
Iraqis weren't in compliance with UN resolutions and had programs still
running even after the inspections.


Perhaps you should read again what he cited as 'evidence'.


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.

I DO believe Mr Kay. Iraq DID have illegal programs in place despite UN
resolutions. Now, why do YOU not believe Mr Kay? It seems your position is
at odds with his now.


....

Let me begin by saying, we were almost all wrong,
and I certainly include myself here.

Sen. [Edward] Kennedy knows very directly. Senator
Kennedy and I talked on several occasions prior to
the war that my view was that the best evidence that
I had seen was that Iraq indeed had weapons of mass
destruction.

I would also point out that many governments that
chose not to support this war -- certainly, the
French president, [Jacques] Chirac, as I recall
in April of last year, referred to Iraq's possession
of WMD.

The Germans certainly -- the intelligence service
believed that there were WMD.

It turns out that we were all wrong, probably in
my judgment, and that is most disturbing.

....

Former top U.S. weapons inspector David Kay in testimony
Wednesday, January 28, 2004 before the Senate Armed
Services Committee

--

FF