GWB has been a good Commander-in-Chief

In , on 08/24/2004
at 01:50 AM, Sharky said:


I suppose that type of language strikes fear in the heart of your
catamite, turdy. All I have to say is yawn

Well it strikes fear into you -- or you would not have snipped my words!
-- Here they are again. Get someone to read them for you this time;

Asshole, you see nothing -- Since I'm the person you are libeling. But
hey it interesting to see you rightwing nuts try and figure out who I
am. It tell me that I'm hitting you little morons dead on with truth --
that has you squirming.

PS: Do you know the statute of limitations for libel? -- I'd find out
if I were you. But then I have a working brain. You rightwingers
don't.

--Pay attention to the last paragraph sharky boy -- least you end up
working to pay me for your stupidity here.





In CuAWc.7784$Nn2.2032@trndny05, wrote:

Asshole, you see nothing

From:
Date: 8/23/2004 11:54 PM Central Daylight Time
Message-id: TRzWc.3446$rT1.284@trndny02



Sorry assholes but you lose. -- You rightwing dumb****s libel when you
have nothing else to say, and you know you're wrong.

I have no dog in this fight, but if you think he's libelling you take him to
court. Don't waste our time, just do it. If he's telling the truth he will win,
if he's not you will.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message ...
"Emmanuel Gustin" wrote in message
...
"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message
...


snip


The Iraqi WMD possesion case is a prime example. It is true
that almost everybody, including myself, considered it likely
that Saddam still possessed the unaccounted for stocks of
WMD, not destroyed after the first war with Iraq. In absence
of evidence to the contrary, that was a rational conclusion.

And that was basically the conclusion forwarded by the US.

Actually quite a few poeple thought that the pre 1991 stocks
exepting perhaps for some mustard shells/bombs had been
destroyed or had become impotent due to age.

The binary sarin shell was quite a surprise. Previously there
had been no (at least not sidely published) claim by anyone
that Iraq had produced chemical weapons other than ustard with
a long shelf life.


But that was /not/ what the US government claimed. Bush
managed to climb the ladder of faulty intelligence and
rethorical distortion from "Iraq probably still has WMD stocks"
up to "Iraq has active WMD programs", which is something
quite different.

You must have missed out reading kay's comments in January before Congress?
Where he indicated that Iraq had indeed continued to work towards creating
and protecting dual-use facilities for the express purpose of being able to
switch them to WMD production? Their continued work on ricin right up until
the last conflict kicked off? Keep in mind this is the same Kay who
ackowedged that yes, he (and most of the intel analysts from around the
world) had indeed gotten the scope of weapons stockpiles completely wrong,
so don't be accusing him of shading the testimony.


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

As you will recall, UNMOVIC and the IAEA reached a similar
conclusions a year earlier.

--

FF