OT: Exactly WHY are we in IRAQ?

golf-forums.net
Promoting golf discussion.

Main

Date: 25 Sep 2006 11:17:46
From: Frankenshank
Subject: OT: Exactly WHY are we in IRAQ?

I apologize for the off-topic post
Can someone explain the logical reason WHY our fine American soldiers
continue to die in IRAQ?

Im just totally lost now... or maybe I'm dumb but:
1) WHOOOPS! no WMD's... sorry
2) WHOOPS! Saddam wasn't responsible for 9-11
3) We're bringing DEMOCRACY & Freedom... kaBOOOOOOMMM!

I'm sorry to admit I was a registered Republican, voted for Bush
TWICE..

I would like a cogent explanation as to WHY?

FrankenShank

Date: 26 Sep 2006 03:22:09
From: ynaught
Subject: Re: Exactly WHY are we in IRAQ?

Date: 26 Sep 2006 01:51:19
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: OT: Exactly WHY are we in IRAQ?

Because bin Laden wanted us to assist him in creating an army of
terrorists in his goal to overthrow Saudi Arabia.

Date: 25 Sep 2006 18:28:26
From: annika1980
Subject: Re: OT: Exactly WHY are we in IRAQ?

Frankenshank wrote:
> I apologize for the off-topic post
> Can someone explain the logical reason WHY our fine American soldiers
> continue to die in IRAQ?
>
>
> I would like a cogent explanation as to WHY?
>

Halliburton.

$$$,$$$,$$$,$$$,$$$

Date: 25 Sep 2006 22:57:52
From: \R&B\
Subject: Re: OT: Exactly WHY are we in IRAQ?

"annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com > wrote in message
news:1159234106.495531.141630@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
> Frankenshank wrote:
>> I apologize for the off-topic post
>> Can someone explain the logical reason WHY our fine American soldiers
>> continue to die in IRAQ?
>>
>>
>> I would like a cogent explanation as to WHY?
>>
>
> Halliburton.
>
> $$$,$$$,$$$,$$$,$$$

Go rent the movie "Why We Fight" (with Dwight Eisenhower on the cover, at
your local video store).

Then you'll know the real reason why we keep getting involved in these wars.

You pretty much hit the nail on the head: $$$$$$.

Randy

Date: 26 Sep 2006 01:23:38
From: Chuck
Subject: Re: Exactly WHY are we in IRAQ?

Bush and his oil cronies that like $70 a barrel for oil.

If he was serious about protecting this country from terrorism there'd be a
national security policy/project to get this country off it's dependency on
foreign oil.

"Frankenshank" <groovemeister747@aol.com > wrote in message
news:1159208266.821835.164050@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
>I apologize for the off-topic post
> Can someone explain the logical reason WHY our fine American soldiers
> continue to die in IRAQ?
>
> Im just totally lost now... or maybe I'm dumb but:
> 1) WHOOOPS! no WMD's... sorry
> 2) WHOOPS! Saddam wasn't responsible for 9-11
> 3) We're bringing DEMOCRACY & Freedom... kaBOOOOOOMMM!
>
> I'm sorry to admit I was a registered Republican, voted for Bush
> TWICE..
>
> I would like a cogent explanation as to WHY?
>
> FrankenShank
>

Date: 26 Sep 2006 00:21:13
From: Chris Bellomy
Subject: Re: OT: Exactly WHY are we in IRAQ?

I don't know the answer, but I know it isn't here.

--
Chris Bellomy
C-List Charter Member
http://clist.org/

Date: 25 Sep 2006 19:54:19
From: Da Ringer.
Subject: Re: Exactly WHY are we in IRAQ?

King "Dubya" invaded Iraq because Saddam pissed off "Dubya's" daddy back in
1990.

Simple as that.

Da Ringer

"Frankenshank" <groovemeister747@aol.com > wrote in message
news:1159208266.821835.164050@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
>I apologize for the off-topic post
> Can someone explain the logical reason WHY our fine American soldiers
> continue to die in IRAQ?
>
> Im just totally lost now... or maybe I'm dumb but:
> 1) WHOOOPS! no WMD's... sorry
> 2) WHOOPS! Saddam wasn't responsible for 9-11
> 3) We're bringing DEMOCRACY & Freedom... kaBOOOOOOMMM!
>
> I'm sorry to admit I was a registered Republican, voted for Bush
> TWICE..
>
> I would like a cogent explanation as to WHY?
>
> FrankenShank
>

Date: 25 Sep 2006 19:37:44
From: \R&B\
Subject: Re: Exactly WHY are we in IRAQ?

"Frankenshank" <groovemeister747@aol.com > wrote in message
news:1159208266.821835.164050@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
>I apologize for the off-topic post
> Can someone explain the logical reason WHY our fine American soldiers
> continue to die in IRAQ?
>
> Im just totally lost now... or maybe I'm dumb but:
> 1) WHOOOPS! no WMD's... sorry
> 2) WHOOPS! Saddam wasn't responsible for 9-11
> 3) We're bringing DEMOCRACY & Freedom... kaBOOOOOOMMM!
>
> I'm sorry to admit I was a registered Republican, voted for Bush
> TWICE..
>
> I would like a cogent explanation as to WHY?
>
> FrankenShank

I wouldn't worry too much about it. Your President told us today that the
Iraq War will one day be nothing more than a "comma" in history books.

I'm sure all the families of fallen soldiers who died fighting for a comma
just loved hearing that from their leader, the "Compassionate Conservative."

Randy

Date: 25 Sep 2006 16:36:55
From: AKA Gray Asphalt
Subject: Re: Exactly WHY are we in IRAQ?

""R&B"" <noneofyourbusiness@all.com > wrote in message
news:toednVn3DdOr9YXYnZ2dnUVZ_o-dnZ2d@giganews.com...
> "Frankenshank" <groovemeister747@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:1159208266.821835.164050@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
>>I apologize for the off-topic post
>> Can someone explain the logical reason WHY our fine American soldiers
>> continue to die in IRAQ?
>>
>> Im just totally lost now... or maybe I'm dumb but:
>> 1) WHOOOPS! no WMD's... sorry
>> 2) WHOOPS! Saddam wasn't responsible for 9-11
>> 3) We're bringing DEMOCRACY & Freedom... kaBOOOOOOMMM!
>>
>> I'm sorry to admit I was a registered Republican, voted for Bush
>> TWICE..
>>
>> I would like a cogent explanation as to WHY?
>>
>> FrankenShank
>
>
> I wouldn't worry too much about it. Your President told us today that the
> Iraq War will one day be nothing more than a "comma" in history books.
>
> I'm sure all the families of fallen soldiers who died fighting for a comma
> just loved hearing that from their leader, the "Compassionate
> Conservative."
>
> Randy

Where can I find the quote and the context. This sounds like political
suicide for the entire party. And if it's as bad as it sounds ... how can
you spin it? If I were running for congress, it would be on the TV by now
... maybe just the quote without comment. and maybe "I did not approve this
statement". It might work for both sides.

Date: 25 Sep 2006 16:43:15
From: AKA Gray Asphalt
Subject: Re: Exactly WHY are we in IRAQ?

BLITZER: Let's move on and talk a little bit about Iraq. Because this is a
huge, huge issue, as you know, for the American public, a lot of concern
that perhaps they are on the verge of a civil war, if not already a civil
war.... We see these horrible bodies showing up, tortured, mutilation. The
Shia and the Sunni, the Iranians apparently having a negative role. Of
course, al Qaeda in Iraq is still operating.

BUSH: Yes, you see - you see it on TV, and that's the power of an enemy that
is willing to kill innocent people. But there's also an unbelievable will
and resiliency by the Iraqi people.... Admittedly, it seems like a decade
ago. I like to tell people when the final history is written on Iraq, it
will look like just a comma because there is - my point is, there's a strong
will for democracy.

from "The History Channel"
http://boards.historychannel.com/thread.jspa?threadID=700003337&tstart=0&mod=1159126988182
This is a chat room and not an official post of the "History Channel"

Date: 26 Sep 2006 20:54:49
From: \R&B\
Subject: Re: Exactly WHY are we in IRAQ?

>> Your President told us today that the
>> Iraq War will one day be nothing more
>> than a "comma" in history .

> Where can I find the quote and the context.

Here ya go...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nsQTxeIV_Y8

Randy

Date: 25 Sep 2006 14:06:30
From: AKA Gray Asphalt
Subject: Re: Exactly WHY are we in IRAQ?

"Frankenshank" <groovemeister747@aol.com > wrote in message
news:1159208266.821835.164050@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
>I apologize for the off-topic post
> Can someone explain the logical reason WHY our fine American soldiers
> continue to die in IRAQ?
>
> Im just totally lost now... or maybe I'm dumb but:
> 1) WHOOOPS! no WMD's... sorry
> 2) WHOOPS! Saddam wasn't responsible for 9-11
> 3) We're bringing DEMOCRACY & Freedom... kaBOOOOOOMMM!
>
> I'm sorry to admit I was a registered Republican, voted for Bush
> TWICE..
>
> I would like a cogent explanation as to WHY?
>
> FrankenShank

Apparently Don Rumsfield is the only one who knows and he is a space cadet,
no a spaced commander. Maybe Cheney knows but he seems to be in a different
world too, somewhere in space too, with Darth Vader. I don't really know
though. I mean, who do you trust?

Date: 25 Sep 2006 14:13:12
From: John B.
Subject: Re: Exactly WHY are we in IRAQ?

Frank Ketchum wrote:
> "Frankenshank" <groovemeister747@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:1159208266.821835.164050@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
> >I apologize for the off-topic post
> > Can someone explain the logical reason WHY our fine American soldiers
> > continue to die in IRAQ?
>
> Don't apologize, that is why this group exists, for off topic, political
> posts.
>
> > Im just totally lost now... or maybe I'm dumb but:
> > 1) WHOOOPS! no WMD's... sorry
>
> To end the WMD programs as president Bush described prior to going in.
> Nobody denies that Iraq had WMD programs. Well, some do but they are the
> same that say Iran wants nuclear technology to provide power for their
> country, not nuclear weapons.
>
> > 2) WHOOPS! Saddam wasn't responsible for 9-11
> Nobody said he was. Iraq as part of the "axis of evil", one of the largest
> if not the largest state sponsors of terrorism. Who ever claimed Saddam was
> tied to 9-11?
>
> > 3) We're bringing DEMOCRACY & Freedom... kaBOOOOOOMMM!
> You have a problem with spreading democracy and freedom around? Got yours,
> screw the rest huh?

You're not serious are you? This is all tongue-in-cheek, right?

Date: 25 Sep 2006 12:21:22
From: dsc
Subject: Re: OT: Exactly WHY are we in IRAQ?

Bobby Knight wrote:
> On 25 Sep 2006 11:17:46 -0700, "Frankenshank"
> <groovemeister747@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >I apologize for the off-topic post
> >Can someone explain the logical reason WHY our fine American soldiers
> >continue to die in IRAQ?
> >
> >Im just totally lost now... or maybe I'm dumb but:
> >1) WHOOOPS! no WMD's... sorry
> >2) WHOOPS! Saddam wasn't responsible for 9-11
> >3) We're bringing DEMOCRACY & Freedom... kaBOOOOOOMMM!
> >
> >I'm sorry to admit I was a registered Republican, voted for Bush
> >TWICE..
> >
> >I would like a cogent explanation as to WHY?
> >
> >FrankenShank
>
> I'd like a cogent explanation as to why you voted for him the first
> time :-)

Gore... is a four letter word... :) AH... but so is Bush. Just can't
win can Wie (and neither cans she)? :)

Seriously, I wouldn't vote for Gore to be dog catcher... we were just
lucky that Clinton didn't get killed or kicked out of office during
his terms. :)

Date: 25 Sep 2006 15:20:10
From: spring
Subject: Re: Exactly WHY are we in IRAQ?

Ask Johnny Miller

Date: 25 Sep 2006 12:02:16
From: Tex
Subject: Re: OT: Exactly WHY are we in IRAQ?

Date: 26 Sep 2006 01:54:17
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: OT: Exactly WHY are we in IRAQ?

On 25 Sep 2006 12:02:16 -0700, "Tex" <marktexkoenig@gmail.com > wrote:

>Second, explain why 40,000 people are killed each year in auto
>accidents. In the past 4 years, that's 30 TIMES more deaths than in
>Iraq.

So what's that got to do about whether people should be dying in Iraq?
>Yet, who's doing anything about it?

Lots of people.

>Maybe we need to concentrate our efforts where we can do more good.

1. By doing what?
2. Why can't we try to do 2 right things?

Date: 25 Sep 2006 21:46:15
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: Warning - I will be discussing Ryder Cup results real-time.

In article <1159233793.927820.116280@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com >,
"Big_Fan" <bigpufan@aol.com > wrote:

> > > At best it's an outdated expectations of usegroups from the early 90's.
> > > At worst it's an unrealistic expectation. Even as vocal as I have
> > > been on it, even I realize that it's an opinion and a very grey area,
> > > so stating right and wrong definitively on this incorrect. I should
> > > have said "I care more aobut what I believe is right.....".
> >
> > In other words, your personal view of the world trumps everyone else's -
> > even if they are unanimously of a different opinion.
> >
> > How very Generation X.
> >
> > William Clark
>
> Considering it isn't even close to being unanimous (note the people who
> have agreed with me and the people who continue to post Ryder Cup
> results content in their subject headers and in post content without
> spoilers), I'm not saying my view trumps everyone.
>
> Also, I'm from Generation X.

Well, I see about one agreeing with your insistence on being able to
ignore the wishes of the (vast) majority.

The Generation X was blindingly obvious.

William Clark

Date: 25 Sep 2006 15:01:03
From: \R&B\
Subject: Re: Exactly WHY are we in IRAQ?

We're fighting the terrorists over there so we can fight with one another
over here.

Or something like that.

Randy

Date: 25 Sep 2006 13:53:19
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: OT: Exactly WHY are we in IRAQ?

On 25 Sep 2006 11:17:46 -0700, "Frankenshank"
<groovemeister747@aol.com > wrote:

>I apologize for the off-topic post
>Can someone explain the logical reason WHY our fine American soldiers
>continue to die in IRAQ?
>
>Im just totally lost now... or maybe I'm dumb but:
>1) WHOOOPS! no WMD's... sorry
>2) WHOOPS! Saddam wasn't responsible for 9-11
>3) We're bringing DEMOCRACY & Freedom... kaBOOOOOOMMM!
>
>I'm sorry to admit I was a registered Republican, voted for Bush
>TWICE..
>
>I would like a cogent explanation as to WHY?
>
>FrankenShank

I'd like a cogent explanation as to why you voted for him the first
time :-)
___,
\o

Date: 25 Sep 2006 21:26:33
From: Bert Robbins
Subject: Re: OT: Exactly WHY are we in IRAQ?

Bobby Knight wrote:
> On 25 Sep 2006 11:17:46 -0700, "Frankenshank"
> <groovemeister747@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> I apologize for the off-topic post
>> Can someone explain the logical reason WHY our fine American soldiers
>> continue to die in IRAQ?
>>
>> Im just totally lost now... or maybe I'm dumb but:
>> 1) WHOOOPS! no WMD's... sorry
>> 2) WHOOPS! Saddam wasn't responsible for 9-11
>> 3) We're bringing DEMOCRACY & Freedom... kaBOOOOOOMMM!
>>
>> I'm sorry to admit I was a registered Republican, voted for Bush
>> TWICE..
>>
>> I would like a cogent explanation as to WHY?
>>
>> FrankenShank
>
> I'd like a cogent explanation as to why you voted for him the first
> time :-)

Lesser of two evils both times!

Date: 25 Sep 2006 22:17:26
From: A Brick in the Wall
Subject: Re: OT: Exactly WHY are we in IRAQ?

"Bert Robbins" <screw@you.com > wrote in message
news:2ZSdnSHJSMlQHIXYnZ2dnUVZ_rKdnZ2d@comcast.com...
> Bobby Knight wrote:
>> On 25 Sep 2006 11:17:46 -0700, "Frankenshank"
>> <groovemeister747@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I apologize for the off-topic post
>>> Can someone explain the logical reason WHY our fine American soldiers
>>> continue to die in IRAQ?
>>>
>>> Im just totally lost now... or maybe I'm dumb but:
>>> 1) WHOOOPS! no WMD's... sorry
>>> 2) WHOOPS! Saddam wasn't responsible for 9-11
>>> 3) We're bringing DEMOCRACY & Freedom... kaBOOOOOOMMM!
>>>
>>> I'm sorry to admit I was a registered Republican, voted for Bush
>>> TWICE..
>>>
>>> I would like a cogent explanation as to WHY?
>>>
>>> FrankenShank
>>
>> I'd like a cogent explanation as to why you voted for him the first
>> time :-)
>
> Lesser of two evils both times!

But are you happy now?

Date: 25 Sep 2006 22:21:16
From: Bert Robbins
Subject: Re: OT: Exactly WHY are we in IRAQ?

A Brick in the Wall wrote:
> "Bert Robbins" <screw@you.com> wrote in message
> news:2ZSdnSHJSMlQHIXYnZ2dnUVZ_rKdnZ2d@comcast.com...
>> Bobby Knight wrote:
>>> On 25 Sep 2006 11:17:46 -0700, "Frankenshank"
>>> <groovemeister747@aol.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I apologize for the off-topic post
>>>> Can someone explain the logical reason WHY our fine American soldiers
>>>> continue to die in IRAQ?
>>>>
>>>> Im just totally lost now... or maybe I'm dumb but:
>>>> 1) WHOOOPS! no WMD's... sorry
>>>> 2) WHOOPS! Saddam wasn't responsible for 9-11
>>>> 3) We're bringing DEMOCRACY & Freedom... kaBOOOOOOMMM!
>>>>
>>>> I'm sorry to admit I was a registered Republican, voted for Bush
>>>> TWICE..
>>>>
>>>> I would like a cogent explanation as to WHY?
>>>>
>>>> FrankenShank
>>> I'd like a cogent explanation as to why you voted for him the first
>>> time :-)
>> Lesser of two evils both times!
>
> But are you happy now?

Yes, I am more happier now than I was in ober of 2000 and ober of
2004.

Date: 26 Sep 2006 06:21:35
From: A Brick in the Wall
Subject: Re: OT: Exactly WHY are we in IRAQ?

"Bert Robbins" <screw@you.com > wrote in message
news:teydnaX_DNYCE4XYnZ2dnUVZ_rudnZ2d@comcast.com...
>A Brick in the Wall wrote:
>> "Bert Robbins" <screw@you.com> wrote in message
>> news:2ZSdnSHJSMlQHIXYnZ2dnUVZ_rKdnZ2d@comcast.com...
>>> Bobby Knight wrote:
>>>> On 25 Sep 2006 11:17:46 -0700, "Frankenshank"
>>>> <groovemeister747@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I apologize for the off-topic post
>>>>> Can someone explain the logical reason WHY our fine American soldiers
>>>>> continue to die in IRAQ?
>>>>>
>>>>> Im just totally lost now... or maybe I'm dumb but:
>>>>> 1) WHOOOPS! no WMD's... sorry
>>>>> 2) WHOOPS! Saddam wasn't responsible for 9-11
>>>>> 3) We're bringing DEMOCRACY & Freedom... kaBOOOOOOMMM!
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm sorry to admit I was a registered Republican, voted for Bush
>>>>> TWICE..
>>>>>
>>>>> I would like a cogent explanation as to WHY?
>>>>>
>>>>> FrankenShank
>>>> I'd like a cogent explanation as to why you voted for him the first
>>>> time :-)
>>> Lesser of two evils both times!
>>
>> But are you happy now?
>
> Yes, I am more happier now than I was in ober of 2000 and ober of
> 2004.

What drugs are you on?

Date: 26 Sep 2006 07:25:11
From: Bert Robbins
Subject: Re: OT: Exactly WHY are we in IRAQ?

A Brick in the Wall wrote:
> "Bert Robbins" <screw@you.com> wrote in message
> news:teydnaX_DNYCE4XYnZ2dnUVZ_rudnZ2d@comcast.com...
>> A Brick in the Wall wrote:
>>> "Bert Robbins" <screw@you.com> wrote in message
>>> news:2ZSdnSHJSMlQHIXYnZ2dnUVZ_rKdnZ2d@comcast.com...
>>>> Bobby Knight wrote:
>>>>> On 25 Sep 2006 11:17:46 -0700, "Frankenshank"
>>>>> <groovemeister747@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I apologize for the off-topic post
>>>>>> Can someone explain the logical reason WHY our fine American soldiers
>>>>>> continue to die in IRAQ?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Im just totally lost now... or maybe I'm dumb but:
>>>>>> 1) WHOOOPS! no WMD's... sorry
>>>>>> 2) WHOOPS! Saddam wasn't responsible for 9-11
>>>>>> 3) We're bringing DEMOCRACY & Freedom... kaBOOOOOOMMM!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm sorry to admit I was a registered Republican, voted for Bush
>>>>>> TWICE..
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I would like a cogent explanation as to WHY?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> FrankenShank
>>>>> I'd like a cogent explanation as to why you voted for him the first
>>>>> time :-)
>>>> Lesser of two evils both times!
>>> But are you happy now?
>> Yes, I am more happier now than I was in ober of 2000 and ober of
>> 2004.
>
> What drugs are you on?

I've only been on the drugs since March of 2005.

Date: 26 Sep 2006 17:31:16
From: A Brick in the Wall
Subject: Re: OT: Exactly WHY are we in IRAQ?

"Bert Robbins" <screw@you.com > wrote in message
news:6v6dndR1ze6Kk4TYnZ2dnUVZ_rqdnZ2d@comcast.com...
>A Brick in the Wall wrote:
>> "Bert Robbins" <screw@you.com> wrote in message
>> news:teydnaX_DNYCE4XYnZ2dnUVZ_rudnZ2d@comcast.com...
>>> A Brick in the Wall wrote:
>>>> "Bert Robbins" <screw@you.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:2ZSdnSHJSMlQHIXYnZ2dnUVZ_rKdnZ2d@comcast.com...
>>>>> Bobby Knight wrote:
>>>>>> On 25 Sep 2006 11:17:46 -0700, "Frankenshank"
>>>>>> <groovemeister747@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I apologize for the off-topic post
>>>>>>> Can someone explain the logical reason WHY our fine American
>>>>>>> soldiers
>>>>>>> continue to die in IRAQ?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Im just totally lost now... or maybe I'm dumb but:
>>>>>>> 1) WHOOOPS! no WMD's... sorry
>>>>>>> 2) WHOOPS! Saddam wasn't responsible for 9-11
>>>>>>> 3) We're bringing DEMOCRACY & Freedom... kaBOOOOOOMMM!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm sorry to admit I was a registered Republican, voted for Bush
>>>>>>> TWICE..
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I would like a cogent explanation as to WHY?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> FrankenShank
>>>>>> I'd like a cogent explanation as to why you voted for him the first
>>>>>> time :-)
>>>>> Lesser of two evils both times!
>>>> But are you happy now?
>>> Yes, I am more happier now than I was in ober of 2000 and ober of
>>> 2004.
>>
>> What drugs are you on?
>
> I've only been on the drugs since March of 2005.
>
>

They must some kind of powerful happy pill.

Date: 25 Sep 2006 11:42:43
From: Fairway
Subject: Re: OT: Exactly WHY are we in IRAQ?

Frankenshank wrote:
> I apologize for the off-topic post
> Can someone explain the logical reason WHY our fine American soldiers
> continue to die in IRAQ?
Not many fine American soldiers are dying in Iraq. Many more fine
American citizens are murdered in their homes on American soil or
killed in car crashes on the highways. The invasion into Iraq was a
well organized business and Saddam was a SOB. Unfortunately Rumsfeld
didn=B4t think ahead. He is a poor reader of the human soul. Bush is OK
but Rumsfeld bungled it. F

Date: 25 Sep 2006 18:35:11
From: Frank Ketchum
Subject: Re: Exactly WHY are we in IRAQ?

"Frankenshank" <groovemeister747@aol.com > wrote in message
news:1159208266.821835.164050@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
>I apologize for the off-topic post
> Can someone explain the logical reason WHY our fine American soldiers
> continue to die in IRAQ?

Don't apologize, that is why this group exists, for off topic, political
posts.

> Im just totally lost now... or maybe I'm dumb but:
> 1) WHOOOPS! no WMD's... sorry

To end the WMD programs as president Bush described prior to going in.
Nobody denies that Iraq had WMD programs. Well, some do but they are the
same that say Iran wants nuclear technology to provide power for their
country, not nuclear weapons.

> 2) WHOOPS! Saddam wasn't responsible for 9-11
Nobody said he was. Iraq as part of the "axis of evil", one of the largest
if not the largest state sponsors of terrorism. Who ever claimed Saddam was
tied to 9-11?

> 3) We're bringing DEMOCRACY & Freedom... kaBOOOOOOMMM!
You have a problem with spreading democracy and freedom around? Got yours,
screw the rest huh?

Date: 25 Sep 2006 14:59:16
From: multi
Subject: Re: Exactly WHY are we in IRAQ?

On Mon, 25 Sep 2006 18:35:11 GMT, "Frank Ketchum"
<fketchum@earthlinknospaam.net > wrote:
>To end the WMD programs as president Bush described prior to going in.
>Nobody denies that Iraq had WMD programs.

I guess if you can't get through to Rush, posting to RSG is the next
best thing.

Date: 26 Sep 2006 01:08:29
From: Frank Ketchum
Subject: Re: Exactly WHY are we in IRAQ?

"multi" <multi@asm.org > wrote in message
news:53kgh2him9hrlvm1pfv011thn9cn342gpi@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 25 Sep 2006 18:35:11 GMT, "Frank Ketchum"
> <fketchum@earthlinknospaam.net> wrote:
>>To end the WMD programs as president Bush described prior to going in.
>>Nobody denies that Iraq had WMD programs.
>
> I guess if you can't get through to Rush, posting to RSG is the next
> best thing.

My post was a response to a question posted here. I clearly indicated in my
reply that this is a stupid place to have this discussion.

And you think that Iraq had no WMD programs?

Date: 25 Sep 2006 19:01:33
From: multi
Subject: Re: Exactly WHY are we in IRAQ?

On Tue, 26 Sep 2006 01:08:29 GMT, "Frank Ketchum"
<fketchum@earthlinknospaam.net > wrote:

>And you think that Iraq had no WMD programs?

That's what the UN said, and that's what Bush's teams that cost the
taxpayers a billion dollars said. Doesn't matter what I think. But
here's what the chimp in chief thinks:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/08/20060821.html
"Now, look, part of the reason we went into Iraq was -- the main
reason we went into Iraq at the time was we thought he had weapons of
mass destruction. It turns out he didn't, but he had the capacity to
make weapons of mass destruction."

In other words, Iraq had a chemical industry, like almost every other
country in the world. Bush has made the definition of WMD so insipid,
that any house in America qualifies as having the capacity. Just mix
bleach and ammonia, and you'll get a cloud of gas more dangerous than
anything that was in those rusted-out shells that Rick Santorum was
braying about a few weeks ago. But as long as there was a rumor that
Saddam was considering a plan to form a committee to do a feasibility
study on the possibility of developing a project to investigate the
ramifications of budgeting some money to pay a scientist to write a
proposal on the viability of a potential future program, we had to
take him out.

Bonus, from the same source:

Q What did Iraq have to do with that?

THE PRESIDENT: What did Iraq have to do with what?

Q The attack on the World Trade Center?

THE PRESIDENT: Nothing.

Note that I gave a citation for my data. Let's see you back up your
claim that the UN says Saddam was working with al Qaeda. You do
realize, don't you, that recent US intelligence reports have noted
that Saddam was actively opposed to al Qaeda, and that before we
invaded the only al Qaeda presence in Iraq was plotting to overthrow
him, but it was in the northern region that Saddam could not attack
because it was protected by OUR patrolling jets, and that all 16 US
intelligence agencies have concluded that our invasion of Iraq has
made us less safe, and increased the number of terrorists.

Date: 26 Sep 2006 11:53:15
From: Frank Ketchum
Subject: Re: Exactly WHY are we in IRAQ?

"multi" <multi@asm.org > wrote in message
news:851hh2tgp84ips6vk8avccus96okcs3d7u@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 26 Sep 2006 01:08:29 GMT, "Frank Ketchum"
> <fketchum@earthlinknospaam.net> wrote:
>
>>And you think that Iraq had no WMD programs?
>
> That's what the UN said, and that's what Bush's teams that cost the
> taxpayers a billion dollars said. Doesn't matter what I think. But
> here's what the chimp in chief thinks:
>
> http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/08/20060821.html
> "Now, look, part of the reason we went into Iraq was -- the main
> reason we went into Iraq at the time was we thought he had weapons of
> mass destruction. It turns out he didn't, but he had the capacity to
> make weapons of mass destruction."
>

Here are some other folks (including UN weapons inspectors) who also must
have lied about Iraq and the WMDs.
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S.
Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate,
air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to
the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction
programs." -- From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein,
Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on ober 9,
1998

"This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last
visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has
reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological,
chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War
status. In addition, Saddam continues to refine delivery systems and is
doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-
range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." -- From
a December 6, 2001 letter signed by Bob Graham, Joe Lieberman, Harold Ford,
& Tom Lantos among others

"Whereas Iraq has consistently breached its cease-fire agreement between
Iraq and the United States, entered into on March 3, 1991, by failing to
dismantle its weapons of mass destruction program, and refusing to permit
monitoring and verification by United Nations inspections; Whereas Iraq has
developed weapons of mass destruction, including chemical and biological
capabilities, and has made positive progress toward developing nuclear
weapons capabilities" -- From a joint resolution submitted by Tom Harkin and
Arlen Specter on July 18, 2002

"Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while
retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We
cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." -- Madeline Albright,
1998

"(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some
day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he has 10
times since 1983" -- National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, Feb 18, 1998

"Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all
weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its
agreement." -- Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in ober of 1998. We are
confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpiles of chemical and
biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to
build up his chemical and biological warfare capability. Intelligence
reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet
achieved nuclear capability." -- Robert Byrd, ober 2002

"There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat... Yes, he has chemical
and biological weapons. He's had those for a long time. But the United
States right now is on a very much different defensive posture than we were
before September 11th of 2001... He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing
nuclear capabilities, though he doesn't have nuclear warheads yet. If he
were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would
face greatly increased risks as would we." -- Wesley Clark on September 26,
2002

"What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with
the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in
the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past
four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has
continued armament programs." -- Jacques Chirac, ober 16, 2002

"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat
Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use
them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and
all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." --
Bill Clinton in 1998

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that
Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons
stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also
given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members,
though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible
events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked,
Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and
chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he
succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security
landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American
security." -- Hillary Clinton, ober 10, 2002

"I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in
1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a
warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those
trucks out." -- Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of
2003

"Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass
destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them
against his own people." -- Tom Daschle in 1998

"Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our
allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam
Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available
means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already
used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build
more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons,
and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal." -- John
Edwards, 10, 2002

"The debate over Iraq is not about politics. It is about national security.
It should be clear that our national security requires Congress to send a
clear message to Iraq and the world: America is united in its determination
to eliminate forever the threat of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction." --
John Edwards, 10, 2002

"I share the administration's goals in dealing with Iraq and its weapons of
mass destruction." -- Dick Gephardt in September of 2002

"Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we
should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to
weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction
has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will
continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam
Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for
the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." -- Bob Graham,
December 2002

"Saddam Hussein is not the only deranged dictator who is willing to deprive
his people in order to acquire weapons of mass destruction." -- Jim
Jeffords, ober 8, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing
weapons of mass destruction." -- Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002

"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he
is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction
cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed." -- Ted Kennedy, Sept 27, 2002

"I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority
to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe
that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real
and grave threat to our security." -- John F. Kerry, 2002

"The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but
as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and
particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed
to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons.
He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing
the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass
destruction and the issue of proliferation." -- John Kerry, ober 9, 2002

"(W)e need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator,
leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. He
presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone
to miscalculation. ...And now he is miscalculating America's response to his
continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction.
That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has
spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and
disarm. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is
real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian
Gulf War." -- John Kerry, Jan 23, 2003

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a
threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandates
of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the
means of delivering them." -- Carl Levin, Sept 19, 2002

"Every day Saddam remains in power with chemical weapons, biological
weapons, and the development of nuclear weapons is a day of danger for the
United States." -- Joe Lieberman, August, 2002

"Over the years, Iraq has worked to develop nuclear, chemical and biological
weapons. During 1991 - 1994, despite Iraq's denials, U.N. inspectors
discovered and dismantled a large network of nuclear facilities that Iraq
was using to develop nuclear weapons. Various reports indicate that Iraq is
still actively pursuing nuclear weapons capability. There is no reason to
think otherwise. Beyond nuclear weapons, Iraq has actively pursued
biological and chemical weapons.U.N. inspectors have said that Iraq's claims
about biological weapons is neither credible nor verifiable. In 1986, Iraq
used chemical weapons against Iran, and later, against its own Kurdish
population. While weapons inspections have been successful in the past,
there have been no inspections since the end of 1998. There can be no doubt
that Iraq has continued to pursue its goal of obtaining weapons of mass
destruction." -- Patty Murray, ober 9, 2002

"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the
proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave
importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the
development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to
countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection
process." -- Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998

"Even today, Iraq is not nearly disarmed. Based on highly credible
intelligence, UNSCOM [the U.N. weapons inspectors] suspects that Iraq still
has biological agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin, and clostridium
perfringens in sufficient quantity to fill several dozen bombs and ballistic
missile warheads, as well as the means to continue manufacturing these
deadly agents. Iraq probably retains several tons of the highly toxic VX
substance, as well as sarin nerve gas and mustard gas. This agent is stored
in artillery shells, bombs, and ballistic missile warheads. And Iraq retains
significant dual-use industrial infrastructure that can be used to rapidly
reconstitute large-scale chemical weapons production." -- Ex-Un Weapons
Inspector Scott Ritter in 1998

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively
to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the
next five years. And that may happen sooner if he can obtain access to
enriched uranium from foreign sources -- something that is not that
difficult in the current world. We also should remember we have always
underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of
mass destruction." -- John Rockefeller, 10, 2002

"Saddam's existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose a very
real threat to America, now. Saddam has used chemical weapons before, both
against Iraq's enemies and against his own people. He is working to develop
delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring
these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle
East." -- John Rockefeller, 10, 2002

"Whether one agrees or disagrees with the Administration's policy towards
Iraq, I don't think there can be any question about Saddam's conduct. He has
systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every
significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his
chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has
refused to do. He lies and cheats; he snubs the mandate and authority of
international weapons inspectors; and he games the system to keep buying
time against enforcement of the just and legitimate demands of the United
Nations, the Security Council, the United States and our allies. Those are
simply the facts." -- Henry Waxman, 10, 2002

Date: 26 Sep 2006 14:34:34
From: Howard9
Subject: Re: Final thoughts on the Ryder Cup

In article <1159259591.114686.313850@d34g2000cwd.googlegroups.com >,
babblebrook1@eircom.net says...
> Although I enjoyed the tournament a lot this irrational desire of the
> media to equate the Ryder Cup with major sporting events like the
> (soccer) World Cup, Olympic games or Superbowl is just plain silly.
> It's just a golf tournament and not even close to being the most
> important one either. Sadly, the only thing truly 'epic' about Ryder
> Cup 2006 was that it was probably the biggest rip-off in the history of
> sporting events. So a bunch of people who were already very rich got a
> lot richer. And unfortunately this is hardly surprising to anyone that
> lives in modern post-Celtic Tiger rip-off-a-minute Ireland. Here's some
> recommended reading...
> http://www.ireland.com/sports/rydercup2006/features/sheridan.htm

Written by one of the arch begrudging socialist commentators here. He
has an deep hatred of people who are successful and people who are rich.
He cannot stand successful businesses who make big profits from
successfully satisfying customer demand. He wants all sportsmen to be
pure and poor to satisfy his pitiful socialist world view. He cannot
stand 5 million being spent on an event that drew a billion viewers and
will bring hundreds of millions to Ireland in the next ten years. But
that would bring the dirty word of 'success'... how awful !

Thankfully his view is not shared by the vast majority of people here in
Ireland who are enjoying the energy and the wealth of modern Ireland
with satisfaction and joy - and not hankering back to this idiot's 'good
old days' when hundreds of thousands were on the streets and on the dole
and people had no money to spend on pleasures and luxuries but when his
socialist purity was satisfied.

--
Howard

Date: 26 Sep 2006 14:40:33
From: multi
Subject: Re: Exactly WHY are we in IRAQ?

On Tue, 26 Sep 2006 11:53:15 GMT, "Frank Ketchum"
<fketchum@earthlinknospaam.net > wrote:

>"multi" <multi@asm.org> wrote in message
>news:851hh2tgp84ips6vk8avccus96okcs3d7u@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 26 Sep 2006 01:08:29 GMT, "Frank Ketchum"
>> <fketchum@earthlinknospaam.net> wrote:
>>
>>>And you think that Iraq had no WMD programs?
>>
>> That's what the UN said, and that's what Bush's teams that cost the
>> taxpayers a billion dollars said. Doesn't matter what I think. But
>> here's what the chimp in chief thinks:
>>
>> http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/08/20060821.html
>> "Now, look, part of the reason we went into Iraq was -- the main
>> reason we went into Iraq at the time was we thought he had weapons of
>> mass destruction. It turns out he didn't, but he had the capacity to
>> make weapons of mass destruction."
>>
>
>Here are some other folks (including UN weapons inspectors) who also must
>have lied about Iraq and the WMDs.

What an incredible waste of bandwidth. And as usual, no citations,
since it is obviously a cut and paste job from a right wingnut
website.

But at least it has the dates of the quotes, and that's the key.
Most Americans, including Democrats, believed that Saddam had WMDs
before November of 2002, and all but two of your quotes are from
before then. Nobody KNEW whether he had WMDs, because we hadn't had
any inspectors in there since Clinton pulled them out in 1998, just
before he bombed Iraq --- an action that was roundly criticized by the
Republicans at that time as a "wag the dog" stunt to delay his
impeachment proceedings. But according to the conclusions of Bush's
hand-picked, billion-dollar inspection team, that stunt destroyed the
last remnants of Saddam's weapons facilities. Note that even when our
inspectors were there in 1998, they hadn't found any WMDs; they just
said that Saddam hadn't properly accounted for the WMDs we knew he had
in 1980's. Also note that with the exception of mustard gas, the
shelf life of the chemical weapons Saddam had in the 1980's is only a
couple of years.

So we now know that Saddam actually didn't have any stockpiles,
facilities, or programs since 1998 at the latest, and probably more
like 1995. But we didn't know that in ober of 2002, when Congress
voted to authorize force ONLY IF all other remedies failed.

The UN paid attention, and passed a resolution ordering Saddam to
admit inspectors into Iraq, and let them see EVERYTHING, with no
warnings, no exemptions for presidential palaces, etc.

Saddam caved. The UN went in, and looked at every site that the CIA
suspected of being involved in WMD. They found nothing. They
interviewed Saddam's scientists, who all said that the programs had
been abandoned years ago. They even inspected all of Saddam's
conventional weapons, and when they found some missiles that they
thought might be able to fly 113 miles instead of the UN limit of 90
miles, they ordered them destroyed. Saddam allowed the destruction.

So things went exactly as the Democrats hoped. They voted to
authorize force in Iraq ONLY if Saddam didn't meet their conditions of
allowing full inspections by the UN. With this incentive, the UN
passed a tough resolution, and Saddam obeyed it. It appeared that we
had accomplished the goal of disarming Iraq without firing a shot. A
great success for the Dems.

But Bush didn't want a diplomatic success, he wanted to be the War
President. So he invaded anyway.

By the time Bush invaded, in late March of 2003, he didn't have to
guess. He didn't have to assume the worst. He KNEW, without any
doubt, that our intelligence had been wrong, and the defectors had
been lying. He KNEW, without any doubt, that the locations that the
CIA suspected from satellite photos were not WMD factories. He KNEW,
without any doubt, that if Saddam had any WMDs left, they were few,
scattered, and posed no threat to anyone, least of all the US. And he
KNEW, without any doubt, that Saddam had allowed the inspectors in,
had cooperated with them, and had even allowed them to destroy his
most powerful conventional weapons.

Bush still lies about this. He has said on at least four occasions
http://www.unknownnews.net/inspectors.html
that the reason we invaded was because Saddam didn't let the
inspectors in. What contempt he must have for the intelligence of his
supporters. More importantly, he lied to Congress. The bill that
Congress passed in ober of 2002 authorized force against Iraq ONLY
if Bush certified, in writing, that all diplomatic measures had
failed, and that Iraq was an immediate threat to the US. Neither
condition was met --- by March 2003, we knew that Saddam was no
threat, and the latest report from Hans Blix said that Saddam was
actively cooperating with the UN, i.e. the diplomatic measures were
working.

No problem for a pathological liar like Bush. He signed a letter to
Congress saying that diplomatic measures had failed, that Iraq was a
serious threat to the US, was a participant in the 9-11 attacks (no
evidence for this has ever been produced), and that war was the only
option.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030319-1.html

Bottom line --- quoting Dems from before the inspectors went in to
Iraq and found nothing, is like quoting people about the shape of the
world before Columbus returned from his voyage. If the experiment
proves that your hypothesis is wrong, you're not a hypocrite to change
your position. You're stupid if you don't. Bush had five months of
solid intelligence from UN inspectors, saying that Saddam had no
significant quantities of WMDs, before he invaded.

Only two of your quotes are from after the date the inspectors went
into Iraq. One is from a Republican, William Cohen, so it's
irrelevant to your case about what Dems thought. Yes, he was
Clinton's SecDef, but he is still a lifelong Republican, and even as
SecDef, he never even considered invading Iraq. He lobbed a few
missiles, with no loss of US life.

The only relevant quote is the one that Kerry made in January 2003.
By selective editing, you make it sound like he was hot to invade, but
it was actually an ANTI-WAR speech. He said, as any intelligent
person would, that we can't allow Saddam to have WMDs, but he also
said that we needed to disarm him by diplomatic means, and that IF
those failed, then we needed to make sure that we had our NATO allies,
i.e. France and Germany, solidly behind us before we contemplated
military action. He warned, correctly, of the consequences of going
in before diplomatic means failed, or without the support of the
world.

This is from the same speech that you quoted:
http://kerry.senate.gov/low/record.cfm?id=189831
"In U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441, the United Nations has now
affirmed that Saddam Hussein must disarm or face the most serious
consequences. Let me make it clear that the burden is resoundingly on
Saddam Hussein to live up to the ceasefire agreement he signed and
make clear to the world how he disposed of weapons he previously
admitted to possessing.

"But the burden is also clearly on the Bush Administration to do the
hard work of building a broad coalition at the U.N. and the necessary
work of educating America about the rationale for war. As I have said
frequently and repeat here today, the United States should never go to
war because it wants to, the United States should go to war because we
have to. And we don't have to until we have exhausted the remedies
available, built legitimacy and earned the consent of the American
people, absent, of course, an imminent threat requiring urgent action.

"The Administration must pass this test. I believe they must take the
time to do the hard work of diplomacy. They must do a better job of
making their case to the American people and to the world.

"I have no doubt of the outcome of war itself should it be necessary.
We will win. But what matters is not just what we win but what we
lose. We need to make certain that we have not unnecessarily twisted
so many arms, created so many reluctant partners, abused the trust of
Congress, or strained so many relations, that the longer term and more
immediate vital war on terror is made more difficult. And we should be
particularly concerned that we do not go alone or essentially alone if
we can avoid it, because the complications and costs of post-war Iraq
would be far better managed and shared with United Nation's
participation. And, while American security must never be ceded to any
institution or to another institution's decision, I say to the
President, show respect for the process of international diplomacy
because it is not only right, it can make America stronger - and show
the world some appropriate patience in building a genuine coalition.
Mr. President, do not rush to war."

Date: 27 Sep 2006 07:42:41
From: A Brick in the Wall
Subject: Re: Exactly WHY are we in IRAQ?

"multi" <multi@asm.org > wrote in message
news:up2jh2hm5i7ncgeq24hh227jvdvhdjvdgt@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 26 Sep 2006 11:53:15 GMT, "Frank Ketchum"
> <fketchum@earthlinknospaam.net> wrote:
>
>>"multi" <multi@asm.org> wrote in message
>>news:851hh2tgp84ips6vk8avccus96okcs3d7u@4ax.com...
>>> On Tue, 26 Sep 2006 01:08:29 GMT, "Frank Ketchum"
>>> <fketchum@earthlinknospaam.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>And you think that Iraq had no WMD programs?
>>>
>>> That's what the UN said, and that's what Bush's teams that cost the
>>> taxpayers a billion dollars said. Doesn't matter what I think. But
>>> here's what the chimp in chief thinks:
>>>
>>> http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/08/20060821.html
>>> "Now, look, part of the reason we went into Iraq was -- the main
>>> reason we went into Iraq at the time was we thought he had weapons of
>>> mass destruction. It turns out he didn't, but he had the capacity to
>>> make weapons of mass destruction."
>>>
>>
>>Here are some other folks (including UN weapons inspectors) who also must
>>have lied about Iraq and the WMDs.
>
> What an incredible waste of bandwidth. And as usual, no citations,
> since it is obviously a cut and paste job from a right wingnut
> website.
>
> But at least it has the dates of the quotes, and that's the key.
> Most Americans, including Democrats, believed that Saddam had WMDs
> before November of 2002, and all but two of your quotes are from
> before then. Nobody KNEW whether he had WMDs, because we hadn't had
> any inspectors in there since Clinton pulled them out in 1998, just
> before he bombed Iraq --- an action that was roundly criticized by the
> Republicans at that time as a "wag the dog" stunt to delay his
> impeachment proceedings. But according to the conclusions of Bush's
> hand-picked, billion-dollar inspection team, that stunt destroyed the
> last remnants of Saddam's weapons facilities. Note that even when our
> inspectors were there in 1998, they hadn't found any WMDs; they just
> said that Saddam hadn't properly accounted for the WMDs we knew he had
> in 1980's. Also note that with the exception of mustard gas, the
> shelf life of the chemical weapons Saddam had in the 1980's is only a
> couple of years.
>
> So we now know that Saddam actually didn't have any stockpiles,
> facilities, or programs since 1998 at the latest, and probably more
> like 1995. But we didn't know that in ober of 2002, when Congress
> voted to authorize force ONLY IF all other remedies failed.
>
> The UN paid attention, and passed a resolution ordering Saddam to
> admit inspectors into Iraq, and let them see EVERYTHING, with no
> warnings, no exemptions for presidential palaces, etc.
>
> Saddam caved. The UN went in, and looked at every site that the CIA
> suspected of being involved in WMD. They found nothing. They
> interviewed Saddam's scientists, who all said that the programs had
> been abandoned years ago. They even inspected all of Saddam's
> conventional weapons, and when they found some missiles that they
> thought might be able to fly 113 miles instead of the UN limit of 90
> miles, they ordered them destroyed. Saddam allowed the destruction.
>
> So things went exactly as the Democrats hoped. They voted to
> authorize force in Iraq ONLY if Saddam didn't meet their conditions of
> allowing full inspections by the UN. With this incentive, the UN
> passed a tough resolution, and Saddam obeyed it. It appeared that we
> had accomplished the goal of disarming Iraq without firing a shot. A
> great success for the Dems.
>
> But Bush didn't want a diplomatic success, he wanted to be the War
> President. So he invaded anyway.
>
> By the time Bush invaded, in late March of 2003, he didn't have to
> guess. He didn't have to assume the worst. He KNEW, without any
> doubt, that our intelligence had been wrong, and the defectors had
> been lying. He KNEW, without any doubt, that the locations that the
> CIA suspected from satellite photos were not WMD factories. He KNEW,
> without any doubt, that if Saddam had any WMDs left, they were few,
> scattered, and posed no threat to anyone, least of all the US. And he
> KNEW, without any doubt, that Saddam had allowed the inspectors in,
> had cooperated with them, and had even allowed them to destroy his
> most powerful conventional weapons.
>
> Bush still lies about this. He has said on at least four occasions
> http://www.unknownnews.net/inspectors.html
> that the reason we invaded was because Saddam didn't let the
> inspectors in. What contempt he must have for the intelligence of his
> supporters. More importantly, he lied to Congress. The bill that
> Congress passed in ober of 2002 authorized force against Iraq ONLY
> if Bush certified, in writing, that all diplomatic measures had
> failed, and that Iraq was an immediate threat to the US. Neither
> condition was met --- by March 2003, we knew that Saddam was no
> threat, and the latest report from Hans Blix said that Saddam was
> actively cooperating with the UN, i.e. the diplomatic measures were
> working.
>
> No problem for a pathological liar like Bush. He signed a letter to
> Congress saying that diplomatic measures had failed, that Iraq was a
> serious threat to the US, was a participant in the 9-11 attacks (no
> evidence for this has ever been produced), and that war was the only
> option.
> http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030319-1.html
>
> Bottom line --- quoting Dems from before the inspectors went in to
> Iraq and found nothing, is like quoting people about the shape of the
> world before Columbus returned from his voyage. If the experiment
> proves that your hypothesis is wrong, you're not a hypocrite to change
> your position. You're stupid if you don't. Bush had five months of
> solid intelligence from UN inspectors, saying that Saddam had no
> significant quantities of WMDs, before he invaded.
>
> Only two of your quotes are from after the date the inspectors went
> into Iraq. One is from a Republican, William Cohen, so it's
> irrelevant to your case about what Dems thought. Yes, he was
> Clinton's SecDef, but he is still a lifelong Republican, and even as
> SecDef, he never even considered invading Iraq. He lobbed a few
> missiles, with no loss of US life.
>
> The only relevant quote is the one that Kerry made in January 2003.
> By selective editing, you make it sound like he was hot to invade, but
> it was actually an ANTI-WAR speech. He said, as any intelligent
> person would, that we can't allow Saddam to have WMDs, but he also
> said that we needed to disarm him by diplomatic means, and that IF
> those failed, then we needed to make sure that we had our NATO allies,
> i.e. France and Germany, solidly behind us before we contemplated
> military action. He warned, correctly, of the consequences of going
> in before diplomatic means failed, or without the support of the
> world.
>
> This is from the same speech that you quoted:
> http://kerry.senate.gov/low/record.cfm?id=189831
> "In U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441, the United Nations has now
> affirmed that Saddam Hussein must disarm or face the most serious
> consequences. Let me make it clear that the burden is resoundingly on
> Saddam Hussein to live up to the ceasefire agreement he signed and
> make clear to the world how he disposed of weapons he previously
> admitted to possessing.
>
> "But the burden is also clearly on the Bush Administration to do the
> hard work of building a broad coalition at the U.N. and the necessary
> work of educating America about the rationale for war. As I have said
> frequently and repeat here today, the United States should never go to
> war because it wants to, the United States should go to war because we
> have to. And we don't have to until we have exhausted the remedies
> available, built legitimacy and earned the consent of the American
> people, absent, of course, an imminent threat requiring urgent action.
>
> "The Administration must pass this test. I believe they must take the
> time to do the hard work of diplomacy. They must do a better job of
> making their case to the American people and to the world.
>
> "I have no doubt of the outcome of war itself should it be necessary.
> We will win. But what matters is not just what we win but what we
> lose. We need to make certain that we have not unnecessarily twisted
> so many arms, created so many reluctant partners, abused the trust of
> Congress, or strained so many relations, that the longer term and more
> immediate vital war on terror is made more difficult. And we should be
> particularly concerned that we do not go alone or essentially alone if
> we can avoid it, because the complications and costs of post-war Iraq
> would be far better managed and shared with United Nation's
> participation. And, while American security must never be ceded to any
> institution or to another institution's decision, I say to the
> President, show respect for the process of international diplomacy
> because it is not only right, it can make America stronger - and show
> the world some appropriate patience in building a genuine coalition.
> Mr. President, do not rush to war."
>

Bravo --- do you have a blog site? I think it is a place I'd hang out.
I predict you will hear crickets from Frank now -- or you should if has any
sense left.

Date: 28 Sep 2006 01:24:47
From: Frank Ketchum
Subject: Re: Exactly WHY are we in IRAQ?

"A Brick in the Wall" <NoSpam@NoThanks.com > wrote in message
news:451a316a_2@newsfeed.slurp.net...
>
> "multi" <multi@asm.org> wrote in message
>> those failed, then we needed to make sure that we had our NATO allies,
>> i.e. France and Germany, solidly behind us before we contemplated
>> military action. He warned, correctly, of the consequences of going
>> in before diplomatic means failed, or without the support of the
>> world.
>>
>
> Bravo --- do you have a blog site? I think it is a place I'd hang out.
> I predict you will hear crickets from Frank now -- or you should if has
> any sense left.
>

You guys are fantastic entertainment. French and German support required
for military action? Awesome. I hope every democrat bleets this message.

I suppose you could get similar opinions if you asked Condi Rice for swing
tips.

Date: 28 Sep 2006 14:53:14
From: The World Wide Wade
Subject: Re: Exactly WHY are we in IRAQ?

In article
<zvFSg.3417$o71.567@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net >,
"Frank Ketchum" <fketchum@earthlinknospaam.net > wrote:

> "A Brick in the Wall" <NoSpam@NoThanks.com> wrote in message
> news:451a316a_2@newsfeed.slurp.net...
> >
> > "multi" <multi@asm.org> wrote in message
> >> those failed, then we needed to make sure that we had our NATO allies,
> >> i.e. France and Germany, solidly behind us before we contemplated
> >> military action. He warned, correctly, of the consequences of going
> >> in before diplomatic means failed, or without the support of the
> >> world.
> >>
> >
> > Bravo --- do you have a blog site? I think it is a place I'd hang out.
> > I predict you will hear crickets from Frank now -- or you should if has
> > any sense left.
> >
>
> You guys are fantastic entertainment. French and German support required
> for military action?

It's obviously not required, fuckwit. But there are consequences
for violating the UN Charter - and the US Constitution - not that
you care about either.

Date: 29 Sep 2006 01:04:22
From: Frank Ketchum
Subject: Re: Exactly WHY are we in IRAQ?

"The World Wide Wade" <waderameyxiii@comcast.remove13.net > wrote in message
news:waderameyxiii- >

> It's obviously not required, fuckwit. But there are consequences
> for violating the UN Charter - and the US Constitution - not that
> you care about either.

Well, you have certainly shown who is the intelligent one around here.

Date: 28 Sep 2006 22:40:28
From: The World Wide Wade
Subject: Re: Exactly WHY are we in IRAQ?

In article
<qi_Sg.7478$UG4.2997@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net >,
"Frank Ketchum" <fketchum@earthlinknospaam.net > wrote:

> "The World Wide Wade" <waderameyxiii@comcast.remove13.net> wrote in message
> news:waderameyxiii->
>
> > It's obviously not required, fuckwit. But there are consequences
> > for violating the UN Charter - and the US Constitution - not that
> > you care about either.
>
> Well, you have certainly shown who is the intelligent one around here.

No, I've only shown who is more intelligent.

Date: 28 Sep 2006 17:31:10
From: multi
Subject: Re: Exactly WHY are we in IRAQ?

On Wed, 27 Sep 2006 07:42:41 -0400, "A Brick in the Wall"
<NoSpam@NoThanks.com > wrote:
>do you have a blog site? I think it is a place I'd hang out.

You are obviously highly intelligent :-) But no, I don't blog. I used
to make a lot of political posts to a variety of forums back when I
though it mattered, but now I only do it when I'm drunk. As you can
tell from the wingnuts in RSG, the only people who still support Bush
are so deluded that they simply don't care whether Bush lied to us, or
how many people are dead as a result.

Date: 29 Sep 2006 06:49:25
From: A Brick in the Wall
Subject: Re: Exactly WHY are we in IRAQ?

"multi" <multi@asm.org > wrote in message
news:brpoh2tjjtteh5b32426m568moep30lg8r@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 27 Sep 2006 07:42:41 -0400, "A Brick in the Wall"
> <NoSpam@NoThanks.com> wrote:
>>do you have a blog site? I think it is a place I'd hang out.
>
> You are obviously highly intelligent :-) But no, I don't blog. I used
> to make a lot of political posts to a variety of forums back when I
> though it mattered, but now I only do it when I'm drunk. As you can
> tell from the wingnuts in RSG, the only people who still support Bush
> are so deluded that they simply don't care whether Bush lied to us, or
> how many people are dead as a result.

Drinking is the only way to survive this disastrous comma we have for a
pResident.

Date: 03 Oct 2006 17:12:56
From: annika1980
Subject: Re: Exactly WHY are we in IRAQ?

Jack Hollis wrote:
> On Tue, 03 2006 16:03:46 -0700, multi <multi@asm.org> wrote:
>
> > He controls Iraq's oil
>
>
> Really? Exactly how does Bush control Iraqi oil?

By keeping it in the ground.

Date: 25 Sep 2006 20:02:56
From: A Brick in the Wall
Subject: Re: Exactly WHY are we in IRAQ?

Date: 25 Sep 2006 14:51:24
From: multi
Subject: Re: Exactly WHY are we in IRAQ?

On Mon, 25 Sep 2006 18:35:11 GMT, "Frank Ketchum"
<fketchum@earthlinknospaam.net > wrote:
>Got yours, screw the rest

Isn't that the Republican motto?

Date: 25 Sep 2006 16:04:01
From: A Brick in the Wall
Subject: Re: Exactly WHY are we in IRAQ?

"Frank Ketchum" <fketchum@earthlinknospaam.net > wrote in message
news:zjVRg.6151$UG4.4077@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
> "Frankenshank" <groovemeister747@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:1159208266.821835.164050@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
>>I apologize for the off-topic post
>> Can someone explain the logical reason WHY our fine American soldiers
>> continue to die in IRAQ?
>
> Don't apologize, that is why this group exists, for off topic, political
> posts.
>
>> Im just totally lost now... or maybe I'm dumb but:
>> 1) WHOOOPS! no WMD's... sorry
>
> To end the WMD programs as president Bush described prior to going in.
> Nobody denies that Iraq had WMD programs. Well, some do but they are the
> same that say Iran wants nuclear technology to provide power for their
> country, not nuclear weapons.
>
>> 2) WHOOPS! Saddam wasn't responsible for 9-11
> Nobody said he was. Iraq as part of the "axis of evil", one of the
> largest if not the largest state sponsors of terrorism. Who ever claimed
> Saddam was tied to 9-11?
>

==== Here's the smoking gun even you cannot deny.... ======

FACT: President Bush sent a letter to Congress on 3/19/03 saying that the
Iraq war was permitted specifically under legislation that authorized force
against "nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized,
committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11,
2001."

On Thursday in Cincinnati, Ohio, Cheney described Saddam as a "man who
provided safe harbor and sanctuary to terrorists for years" and who
"provided safe harbor and sanctuary as well for al Qaeda."

In Wisconsin on Friday, he said the "al Qaeda organization had a
relationship with the Iraqis."

"The bottom line is that we're [in Iraq] for the safety and security of the
nation, and our friends and allies around the world," Cheney said.

"We didn't do anything to provoke the attack of 9/11. We were attacked by
the terrorists, and we've responded forcefully and aggressively."

==

In September 2003, Cheney said Iraq under Saddam had been "the geographic
base of the terrorists who have had us under assault now for many years, but
most especially on 9/11."

==

RUSSERT: Do you still believe there is no evidence that Iraq was involved in
September 11?
CHENEY: "Well, what we now have that's developed since you and I last
talked, Tim, of course, was that report that-it's been pretty well confirmed
that [9/11 hijacker Mohammed Atta] did go to Prague and he did meet with a
senior official of the Iraqi intelligence service in Czechoslovakia last
April, several months before the attack." [NBC, Meet The Press, 12/9/01]

==

CHENEY: If we're successful in Iraq, . we will have struck a major blow
right at the heart of the base, if you will, the geographic base of the
terrorists who have had us under assault now for many years, but most
especially on 9/11." [NBC, Meet The Press, 9/14/03]

==

CLAIM: There's overwhelming evidence there was a connection between al Qaeda
and the Iraqi government. I am very confident that there was an established
relationship there." - Vice President Cheney, 1/22/04

CLAIM: "The regime of Saddam Hussein cultivated ties to terror while it
built weapons of mass destruction." - President Bush's UN speech, 9/23/03

CLAIM: "Iraq [is] the central front in the war on terror." - President
Bush's UN speech, 9/23/03

CLAIM: "You can't distinguish between al-Qaida and Saddam." - President
Bush, 9/25/02

CLAIM: "There's no question that Saddam Hussein had al Qaeda ties." -
President Bush, 9/17/03

CLAIM: "There was a relationship between Iraq and al-Qaeda." - Vice
President Cheney, 9/14/03

>> 3) We're bringing DEMOCRACY & Freedom... kaBOOOOOOMMM!
> You have a problem with spreading democracy and freedom around? Got
> yours, screw the rest huh?
>
>

Date: 26 Sep 2006 00:45:28
From: Frank Ketchum
Subject: Re: Exactly WHY are we in IRAQ?

"A Brick in the Wall" <NoSpam@NoThanks.com > wrote in message
news:451803e9_3@newsfeed.slurp.net...
>
>
> ==== Here's the smoking gun even you cannot deny.... ======
>

I am quaking with fear.

> FACT: President Bush sent a letter to Congress on 3/19/03 saying that the
> Iraq war was permitted specifically under legislation that authorized
> force against "nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized,
> committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11,
> 2001."
>

Iraq has a long history of aiding terrorists, including al Qaeda. If you
don't believe me, refer to the well respected United Nations.

>
> On Thursday in Cincinnati, Ohio, Cheney described Saddam as a "man who
> provided safe harbor and sanctuary to terrorists for years" and who
> "provided safe harbor and sanctuary as well for al Qaeda."
>

Hmm, I wonder why we found all of those al Qaeda in Iraq when we went in.

> In Wisconsin on Friday, he said the "al Qaeda organization had a
> relationship with the Iraqis."

They were in and continue to be in Iraq. This is not that hard to
understand.

>
> "The bottom line is that we're [in Iraq] for the safety and security of
> the nation, and our friends and allies around the world," Cheney said.
>

And your problem with this would be?

<snip more and more and more of the same >

The government was lambasted after September 11 for not connecting the dots.
The government since September 11 has done a fine job of connecting the dots
and aggressively facing terrorism head on. If you don't like what is
happening, then that is your prerogative. You get one vote just like I do.
I just can't see how some people can be so gullible as to believe what is
put out by the media that can't stand this administration's guts. I suggest
you not let it ruin your life.

Good luck.

Date: 25 Sep 2006 22:15:59
From: A Brick in the Wall
Subject: Re: Exactly WHY are we in IRAQ?

"Frank Ketchum" <fketchum@earthlinknospaam.net > wrote in message
news:IK_Rg.1419$Y24.308@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
> "A Brick in the Wall" <NoSpam@NoThanks.com> wrote in message
> news:451803e9_3@newsfeed.slurp.net...
>>
>>
>> ==== Here's the smoking gun even you cannot deny.... ======
>>
>
> I am quaking with fear.
>
>
>> FACT: President Bush sent a letter to Congress on 3/19/03 saying that the
>> Iraq war was permitted specifically under legislation that authorized
>> force against "nations, organizations, or persons who planned,
>> authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on
>> September 11, 2001."
>>
>
> Iraq has a long history of aiding terrorists, including al Qaeda. If you
> don't believe me, refer to the well respected United Nations.
>

Thank you for showing that you are true right wing fool and that you are too
dumb to hide your ignorance. I mean -- do you expect us all to ignore the
last part of the quote? Are you truly that foolish? If the answer is yes
explains much.

>>
>> On Thursday in Cincinnati, Ohio, Cheney described Saddam as a "man who
>> provided safe harbor and sanctuary to terrorists for years" and who
>> "provided safe harbor and sanctuary as well for al Qaeda."
>>
>
> Hmm, I wonder why we found all of those al Qaeda in Iraq when we went in.
>
>
>> In Wisconsin on Friday, he said the "al Qaeda organization had a
>> relationship with the Iraqis."
>
> They were in and continue to be in Iraq. This is not that hard to
> understand.
>
>>
>> "The bottom line is that we're [in Iraq] for the safety and security of
>> the nation, and our friends and allies around the world," Cheney said.
>>
>
> And your problem with this would be?
>
> <snip more and more and more of the same>
>
> The government was lambasted after September 11 for not connecting the
> dots. The government since September 11 has done a fine job of connecting
> the dots and aggressively facing terrorism head on. If you don't like
> what is happening, then that is your prerogative. You get one vote just
> like I do. I just can't see how some people can be so gullible as to
> believe what is put out by the media that can't stand this
> administration's guts. I suggest you not let it ruin your life.
>
> Good luck.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Date: 25 Sep 2006 19:49:42
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: Exactly WHY are we in IRAQ?

On Tue, 26 Sep 2006 00:45:28 GMT, "Frank Ketchum"
<fketchum@earthlinknospaam.net > wrote:

<clip >
>I just can't see how some people can be so gullible as to believe what is
>put out by the media that can't stand this administration's guts. I suggest
>you not let it ruin your life.
>
>Good luck.
Bush is doing that to thousands of our young troops. If you think,
for a second, that we're doing any good in Iraq you 're sorely misled.
--
___,
\o

Date: 25 Sep 2006 16:06:52
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: Exactly WHY are we in IRAQ?

On Mon, 25 Sep 2006 16:04:01 -0400, "A Brick in the Wall"
<NoSpam@NoThanks.com > wrote:

>==== Here's the smoking gun even you cannot deny.... ======
>
>FACT: President Bush sent a letter to Congress on 3/19/03 saying that the
>Iraq war was permitted specifically under legislation that authorized force
>against "nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized,
>committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11,
>2001."
>
>
>On Thursday in Cincinnati, Ohio, Cheney described Saddam as a "man who
>provided safe harbor and sanctuary to terrorists for years" and who
>"provided safe harbor and sanctuary as well for al Qaeda."
>
>In Wisconsin on Friday, he said the "al Qaeda organization had a
>relationship with the Iraqis."
>
>"The bottom line is that we're [in Iraq] for the safety and security of the
>nation, and our friends and allies around the world," Cheney said.
>
>"We didn't do anything to provoke the attack of 9/11. We were attacked by
>the terrorists, and we've responded forcefully and aggressively."
>
>==
>
>In September 2003, Cheney said Iraq under Saddam had been "the geographic
>base of the terrorists who have had us under assault now for many years, but
>most especially on 9/11."
>
>==
>
>RUSSERT: Do you still believe there is no evidence that Iraq was involved in
>September 11?
>CHENEY: "Well, what we now have that's developed since you and I last
>talked, Tim, of course, was that report that-it's been pretty well confirmed
>that [9/11 hijacker Mohammed Atta] did go to Prague and he did meet with a
>senior official of the Iraqi intelligence service in Czechoslovakia last
>April, several months before the attack." [NBC, Meet The Press, 12/9/01]
>
>==
>
>CHENEY: If we're successful in Iraq, . we will have struck a major blow
>right at the heart of the base, if you will, the geographic base of the
>terrorists who have had us under assault now for many years, but most
>especially on 9/11." [NBC, Meet The Press, 9/14/03]
>
>==
>
>CLAIM: There's overwhelming evidence there was a connection between al Qaeda
>and the Iraqi government. I am very confident that there was an established
>relationship there." - Vice President Cheney, 1/22/04
>
>CLAIM: "The regime of Saddam Hussein cultivated ties to terror while it
>built weapons of mass destruction." - President Bush's UN speech, 9/23/03
>
>CLAIM: "Iraq [is] the central front in the war on terror." - President
>Bush's UN speech, 9/23/03
>
>CLAIM: "You can't distinguish between al-Qaida and Saddam." - President
>Bush, 9/25/02
>
>CLAIM: "There's no question that Saddam Hussein had al Qaeda ties." -
>President Bush, 9/17/03
>
>CLAIM: "There was a relationship between Iraq and al-Qaeda." - Vice
>President Cheney, 9/14/03
>

Quoting the ones who are being held up as liars is a smoking gun?

Date: 25 Sep 2006 20:02:20
From: A Brick in the Wall
Subject: Re: Exactly WHY are we in IRAQ?

"Bobby Knight" <bknight@conramp.net > wrote in message
news:ltggh2hje29i9a8dd7ju6lrduafu0qu5gp@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 25 Sep 2006 16:04:01 -0400, "A Brick in the Wall"
> <NoSpam@NoThanks.com> wrote:
>
>
>>==== Here's the smoking gun even you cannot deny.... ======
>>
>>FACT: President Bush sent a letter to Congress on 3/19/03 saying that the
>>Iraq war was permitted specifically under legislation that authorized
>>force
>>against "nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized,
>>committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11,
>>2001."
>>
>>
>>On Thursday in Cincinnati, Ohio, Cheney described Saddam as a "man who
>>provided safe harbor and sanctuary to terrorists for years" and who
>>"provided safe harbor and sanctuary as well for al Qaeda."
>>
>>In Wisconsin on Friday, he said the "al Qaeda organization had a
>>relationship with the Iraqis."
>>
>>"The bottom line is that we're [in Iraq] for the safety and security of
>>the
>>nation, and our friends and allies around the world," Cheney said.
>>
>>"We didn't do anything to provoke the attack of 9/11. We were attacked by
>>the terrorists, and we've responded forcefully and aggressively."
>>
>>==
>>
>>In September 2003, Cheney said Iraq under Saddam had been "the geographic
>>base of the terrorists who have had us under assault now for many years,
>>but
>>most especially on 9/11."
>>
>>==
>>
>>RUSSERT: Do you still believe there is no evidence that Iraq was involved
>>in
>>September 11?
>>CHENEY: "Well, what we now have that's developed since you and I last
>>talked, Tim, of course, was that report that-it's been pretty well
>>confirmed
>>that [9/11 hijacker Mohammed Atta] did go to Prague and he did meet with a
>>senior official of the Iraqi intelligence service in Czechoslovakia last
>>April, several months before the attack." [NBC, Meet The Press, 12/9/01]
>>
>>==
>>
>>CHENEY: If we're successful in Iraq, . we will have struck a major blow
>>right at the heart of the base, if you will, the geographic base of the
>>terrorists who have had us under assault now for many years, but most
>>especially on 9/11." [NBC, Meet The Press, 9/14/03]
>>
>>==
>>
>>CLAIM: There's overwhelming evidence there was a connection between al
>>Qaeda
>>and the Iraqi government. I am very confident that there was an
>>established
>>relationship there." - Vice President Cheney, 1/22/04
>>
>>CLAIM: "The regime of Saddam Hussein cultivated ties to terror while it
>>built weapons of mass destruction." - President Bush's UN speech, 9/23/03
>>
>>CLAIM: "Iraq [is] the central front in the war on terror." - President
>>Bush's UN speech, 9/23/03
>>
>>CLAIM: "You can't distinguish between al-Qaida and Saddam." - President
>>Bush, 9/25/02
>>
>>CLAIM: "There's no question that Saddam Hussein had al Qaeda ties." -
>>President Bush, 9/17/03
>>
>>CLAIM: "There was a relationship between Iraq and al-Qaeda." - Vice
>>President Cheney, 9/14/03
>>
>
> Quoting the ones who are being held up as liars is a smoking gun?

I would say so -- it shows Bush cannot say he never made a connection
between 9/11 & Iraq. (Like Ketchum says he never did)

The others show Cheney in the same light ---

Of course Ketchum will hide from the post..... which is par for his
course....

Now to something completely different ---

I shot 40 tonight with some of the worst shots possible -- dubbed tee ball
on 10 goes 50 yards --- bogey --- completely smothered 5W in the mud on 11
(560 yard uphill) goes 30 - 40 yards -- followed by an unbelievable 5W then
a PW to 6' -- par

A chunked 5W on 14 followed by a SW to 3'.

A thin 7W on 16 ends up pin high just off the green -- routine par...

Every putt inside of 12' fell.

I don't know if I should feel like I'm ready for our county wide Senior Open
at the end of the week or I should put the clubs up...

Date: 25 Sep 2006 15:24:43
From: A Brick in the Wall
Subject: Re: Exactly WHY are we in IRAQ?

Date: 26 Sep 2006 17:22:05
From: Dene
Subject: Re: Exactly WHY are we in IRAQ?

Chris Bellomy wrote:
> Dene <gdstrue@aol.com> wrote:
>
> : Name the last president you actually liked. LBJ??
>
> I liked Carter quite a lot. If he had been able to make his foreign
> policy stick, this would be a much better world right about now. As
> a politician, though, he was clearly a failure.

He had no resolve. Remember his speech urging Americans to volunarily
control prices. Also...."we just created another 100,000 jobs.

I voted for him....twice.

> LBJ was a flawed giant, a Shakespearean tragedy in real life, at
> the same time one of our greatest and one of our worst presidents.

He inheirited Vietnam from Kennedy. However, his civil rights record
was outstanding and courageous.

> Eisenhower was a good caretaker president, smarter than he let on.

They say he didn't do much....but perhaps there wasn't that much to do.
Unique time in history.

> My enthusiasm for Truman isn't as great as most Dems.

Straight shooting Dems are rare.

> FDR, otoh, truly was great.

Agree.

> Yes, you can read this as a rebuke of Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Bush,
> Clinton and Bush.

Clinton could have been great. Both Bush's are mediocre.
Reagan.....outstanding!! The best president since Roosevelt (Teddy).

-Greg

Date: 26 Sep 2006 15:14:45
From: Dene
Subject: Re: Exactly WHY are we in IRAQ?

Bobby Knight wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Sep 2006 14:14:29 -0500, "MnMikew" <mnmiikkew@aol.com>
> wrote:
>
> >>>
> >> http://video.msn.com/v/us/msnbc.htm?g=9c610738-4147-4473-a432-e779a609bae3
> >
> >Talk about spin, jesus. No agenda or spin here, yaaaaaaa. Olberman is
> >partisan hack, and he rips on Fox News as being partisan, LOL!
> >
>
> He was dead on. Period. George Bush is the worst president since
> Buchanan. Period.

Name the last president you actually liked. LBJ??

-Greg

Date: 26 Sep 2006 23:45:16
From: Chris Bellomy
Subject: Re: Exactly WHY are we in IRAQ?

Dene <gdstrue@aol.com > wrote:

: Name the last president you actually liked. LBJ??

I liked Carter quite a lot. If he had been able to make his foreign
policy stick, this would be a much better world right about now. As
a politician, though, he was clearly a failure.

LBJ was a flawed giant, a Shakespearean tragedy in real life, at
the same time one of our greatest and one of our worst presidents.

Eisenhower was a good caretaker president, smarter than he let on.

My enthusiasm for Truman isn't as great as most Dems.

FDR, otoh, truly was great.

Yes, you can read this as a rebuke of Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Bush,
Clinton and Bush.

--
Chris Bellomy
C-List Charter Member
http://clist.org/

Date: 26 Sep 2006 19:11:09
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: Exactly WHY are we in IRAQ?

On Tue, 26 Sep 2006 23:45:16 GMT, Chris Bellomy
<puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid > wrote:
>
>I liked Carter quite a lot. If he had been able to make his foreign
>policy stick, this would be a much better world right about now. As
>a politician, though, he was clearly a failure.
>
>LBJ was a flawed giant, a Shakespearean tragedy in real life, at
>the same time one of our greatest and one of our worst presidents.
>
>Eisenhower was a good caretaker president, smarter than he let on.
>
>My enthusiasm for Truman isn't as great as most Dems.
>
>FDR, otoh, truly was great.
>
>Yes, you can read this as a rebuke of Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Bush,
>Clinton and Bush.

It really depends on how one judges them. FDR was great, Truman ok,
Eisenhower probably the best since he did nothing...except found the
Interstate system. Kennedy may have been a great one had he lived,
you hit the nail on the head with LBJ, I was wrong about
Buchanan...Nixon was the worst, Carter probably the best man that ever
held the office, but a terrible president. Ford was going to be fine,
but had to shoot himself in the foot with the pardon. Bush #1,
ho-hum, I liked Clinton, and then there is Chimp In Chief. (Thanks
Multi, that's perfect).
___,
\o

Date:
From:
Subject:

Date: 27 Sep 2006 09:03:57
From: John B.
Subject: Re: Exactly WHY are we in IRAQ?

Dene wrote:
> Bobby Knight wrote:
> > On Tue, 26 Sep 2006 14:14:29 -0500, "MnMikew" <mnmiikkew@aol.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >>>
> > >> http://video.msn.com/v/us/msnbc.htm?g=9c610738-4147-4473-a432-e779a609bae3
> > >
> > >Talk about spin, jesus. No agenda or spin here, yaaaaaaa. Olberman is
> > >partisan hack, and he rips on Fox News as being partisan, LOL!
> > >
> >
> > He was dead on. Period. George Bush is the worst president since
> > Buchanan. Period.
>
> Name the last president you actually liked. LBJ??
>
> -Greg

If it weren't for Vietnam, LBJ would be on Mt. Rushmore now.

Date: 27 Sep 2006 22:06:59
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: Exactly WHY are we in IRAQ?

On 27 Sep 2006 09:03:57 -0700, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote:

>
>If it weren't for Vietnam, LBJ would be on Mt. Rushmore now.

His nose would be a feat - good thing they wouldn't need to add his
ears.

Date: 27 Sep 2006 09:01:08
From: John B.
Subject: Re: Exactly WHY are we in IRAQ?

MnMikew wrote:
> "Bobby Knight" <bknight@conramp.net> wrote in message
> news:gn3jh2togoc0n8e6lbr686lgm7o1fgfh6r@4ax.com...
> > On Tue, 26 Sep 2006 14:14:29 -0500, "MnMikew" <mnmiikkew@aol.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >>>>
> >>> http://video.msn.com/v/us/msnbc.htm?g=9c610738-4147-4473-a432-e779a609bae3
> >>
> >>Talk about spin, jesus. No agenda or spin here, yaaaaaaa. Olberman is
> >>partisan hack, and he rips on Fox News as being partisan, LOL!
> >>
> >
> > He was dead on. Period. George Bush is the worst president since
> > Buchanan. Period.
>
> That would be your opinion.

It would be mine, too.

Date: 27 Sep 2006 13:37:42
From: MnMikew
Subject: Re: Exactly WHY are we in IRAQ?

"John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1159372868.365934.26120@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> MnMikew wrote:
>> "Bobby Knight" <bknight@conramp.net> wrote in message
>> news:gn3jh2togoc0n8e6lbr686lgm7o1fgfh6r@4ax.com...
>> > On Tue, 26 Sep 2006 14:14:29 -0500, "MnMikew" <mnmiikkew@aol.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >>>>
>> >>> http://video.msn.com/v/us/msnbc.htm?g=9c610738-4147-4473-a432-e779a609bae3
>> >>
>> >>Talk about spin, jesus. No agenda or spin here, yaaaaaaa. Olberman is
>> >>partisan hack, and he rips on Fox News as being partisan, LOL!
>> >>
>> >
>> > He was dead on. Period. George Bush is the worst president since
>> > Buchanan. Period.
>>
>> That would be your opinion.
>
> It would be mine, too.
>
Not mine. But of course, YOUR opinions are valid and mine are not being the
good liberals you are.

Date: 27 Sep 2006 13:41:47
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: Exactly WHY are we in IRAQ?

On Wed, 27 Sep 2006 13:37:42 -0500, "MnMikew" <mnmiikkew@aol.com >
wrote:

>
>"John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:1159372868.365934.26120@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> MnMikew wrote:
>>> "Bobby Knight" <bknight@conramp.net> wrote in message
>>> news:gn3jh2togoc0n8e6lbr686lgm7o1fgfh6r@4ax.com...
>>> > On Tue, 26 Sep 2006 14:14:29 -0500, "MnMikew" <mnmiikkew@aol.com>
>>> > wrote:
>>> >
>>> >>>>
>>> >>> http://video.msn.com/v/us/msnbc.htm?g=9c610738-4147-4473-a432-e779a609bae3
>>> >>
>>> >>Talk about spin, jesus. No agenda or spin here, yaaaaaaa. Olberman is
>>> >>partisan hack, and he rips on Fox News as being partisan, LOL!
>>> >>
>>> >
>>> > He was dead on. Period. George Bush is the worst president since
>>> > Buchanan. Period.
>>>
>>> That would be your opinion.
>>
>> It would be mine, too.
>>
>Not mine. But of course, YOUR opinions are valid and mine are not being the
>good liberals you are.
>
You're teachable!!!!!

Date: 27 Sep 2006 14:15:23
From: MnMikew
Subject: Re: Exactly WHY are we in IRAQ?

"Bobby Knight" <bknight@conramp.net > wrote in message
news:7ehlh2hel65nmsjo6mi5gms5br9hgbdr0r@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 27 Sep 2006 13:37:42 -0500, "MnMikew" <mnmiikkew@aol.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:1159372868.365934.26120@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>>>
>>> MnMikew wrote:
>>>> "Bobby Knight" <bknight@conramp.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:gn3jh2togoc0n8e6lbr686lgm7o1fgfh6r@4ax.com...
>>>> > On Tue, 26 Sep 2006 14:14:29 -0500, "MnMikew" <mnmiikkew@aol.com>
>>>> > wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>> http://video.msn.com/v/us/msnbc.htm?g=9c610738-4147-4473-a432-e779a609bae3
>>>> >>
>>>> >>Talk about spin, jesus. No agenda or spin here, yaaaaaaa. Olberman is
>>>> >>partisan hack, and he rips on Fox News as being partisan, LOL!
>>>> >>
>>>> >
>>>> > He was dead on. Period. George Bush is the worst president since
>>>> > Buchanan. Period.
>>>>
>>>> That would be your opinion.
>>>
>>> It would be mine, too.
>>>
>>Not mine. But of course, YOUR opinions are valid and mine are not being
>>the
>>good liberals you are.
>>
> You're teachable!!!!!

Yep, baaaaaaaaaaaaaa.

Date: 27 Sep 2006 14:18:31
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: Exactly WHY are we in IRAQ?

On Wed, 27 Sep 2006 14:15:23 -0500, "MnMikew" <mnmiikkew@aol.com >
wrote:

>
>"Bobby Knight" <bknight@conramp.net> wrote in message

>> You're teachable!!!!!
>
>Yep, baaaaaaaaaaaaaa.
>

:-)

--
___,
\o

Date: 28 Sep 2006 08:12:04
From: A Brick in the Wall
Subject: Re: Exactly WHY are we in IRAQ?

"MnMikew" <mnmiikkew@aol.com > wrote in message
news:4nvunnFce6geU1@individual.net...
>
> "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1159372868.365934.26120@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> MnMikew wrote:
>>> "Bobby Knight" <bknight@conramp.net> wrote in message
>>> news:gn3jh2togoc0n8e6lbr686lgm7o1fgfh6r@4ax.com...
>>> > On Tue, 26 Sep 2006 14:14:29 -0500, "MnMikew" <mnmiikkew@aol.com>
>>> > wrote:
>>> >
>>> >>>>
>>> >>> http://video.msn.com/v/us/msnbc.htm?g=9c610738-4147-4473-a432-e779a609bae3
>>> >>
>>> >>Talk about spin, jesus. No agenda or spin here, yaaaaaaa. Olberman is
>>> >>partisan hack, and he rips on Fox News as being partisan, LOL!
>>> >>
>>> >
>>> > He was dead on. Period. George Bush is the worst president since
>>> > Buchanan. Period.
>>>
>>> That would be your opinion.
>>
>> It would be mine, too.
>>
> Not mine. But of course, YOUR opinions are valid and mine are not being
> the good liberals you are.

That seems to remind me of Bush saying 16 Intel agency opinions being
inferior to his...

Date: 27 Sep 2006 13:06:16
From: John B.
Subject: Re: Exactly WHY are we in IRAQ?

MnMikew wrote:
> "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1159372868.365934.26120@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > MnMikew wrote:
> >> "Bobby Knight" <bknight@conramp.net> wrote in message
> >> news:gn3jh2togoc0n8e6lbr686lgm7o1fgfh6r@4ax.com...
> >> > On Tue, 26 Sep 2006 14:14:29 -0500, "MnMikew" <mnmiikkew@aol.com>
> >> > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>>>
> >> >>> http://video.msn.com/v/us/msnbc.htm?g=9c610738-4147-4473-a432-e779a609bae3
> >> >>
> >> >>Talk about spin, jesus. No agenda or spin here, yaaaaaaa. Olberman is
> >> >>partisan hack, and he rips on Fox News as being partisan, LOL!
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > He was dead on. Period. George Bush is the worst president since
> >> > Buchanan. Period.
> >>
> >> That would be your opinion.
> >
> > It would be mine, too.
> >
> Not mine. But of course, YOUR opinions are valid and mine are not being the
> good liberals you are.

Where did I say, or even imply, anything like that?

Date: 28 Sep 2006 09:30:36
From: MnMikew
Subject: Re: Exactly WHY are we in IRAQ?

"John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1159387576.617275.219120@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> MnMikew wrote:
>> "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1159372868.365934.26120@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>> >
>> > MnMikew wrote:
>> >> "Bobby Knight" <bknight@conramp.net> wrote in message
>> >> news:gn3jh2togoc0n8e6lbr686lgm7o1fgfh6r@4ax.com...
>> >> > On Tue, 26 Sep 2006 14:14:29 -0500, "MnMikew" <mnmiikkew@aol.com>
>> >> > wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>> http://video.msn.com/v/us/msnbc.htm?g=9c610738-4147-4473-a432-e779a609bae3
>> >> >>
>> >> >>Talk about spin, jesus. No agenda or spin here, yaaaaaaa. Olberman
>> >> >>is
>> >> >>partisan hack, and he rips on Fox News as being partisan, LOL!
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > He was dead on. Period. George Bush is the worst president since
>> >> > Buchanan. Period.
>> >>
>> >> That would be your opinion.
>> >
>> > It would be mine, too.
>> >
>> Not mine. But of course, YOUR opinions are valid and mine are not being
>> the
>> good liberals you are.
>
>
> Where did I say, or even imply, anything like that?
>
It's a given.

Date: 28 Sep 2006 19:42:33
From: A Brick in the Wall
Subject: Re: Exactly WHY are we in IRAQ?

"MnMikew" <mnmiikkew@aol.com > wrote in message
news:4o24kdFcea1sU1@individual.net...
>
> "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1159387576.617275.219120@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> MnMikew wrote:
>>> "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:1159372868.365934.26120@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>>> >
>>> > MnMikew wrote:
>>> >> "Bobby Knight" <bknight@conramp.net> wrote in message
>>> >> news:gn3jh2togoc0n8e6lbr686lgm7o1fgfh6r@4ax.com...
>>> >> > On Tue, 26 Sep 2006 14:14:29 -0500, "MnMikew" <mnmiikkew@aol.com>
>>> >> > wrote:
>>> >> >
>>> >> >>>>
>>> >> >>> http://video.msn.com/v/us/msnbc.htm?g=9c610738-4147-4473-a432-e779a609bae3
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >>Talk about spin, jesus. No agenda or spin here, yaaaaaaa. Olberman
>>> >> >>is
>>> >> >>partisan hack, and he rips on Fox News as being partisan, LOL!
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >
>>> >> > He was dead on. Period. George Bush is the worst president since
>>> >> > Buchanan. Period.
>>> >>
>>> >> That would be your opinion.
>>> >
>>> > It would be mine, too.
>>> >
>>> Not mine. But of course, YOUR opinions are valid and mine are not being
>>> the
>>> good liberals you are.
>>
>>
>> Where did I say, or even imply, anything like that?
>>
> It's a given.
>

Just like Bush is poor pResident.

Date: 29 Sep 2006 06:38:04
From: John B.
Subject: Re: Exactly WHY are we in IRAQ?

MnMikew wrote:
> "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1159387576.617275.219120@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > MnMikew wrote:
> >> "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >> news:1159372868.365934.26120@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> >> >
> >> > MnMikew wrote:
> >> >> "Bobby Knight" <bknight@conramp.net> wrote in message
> >> >> news:gn3jh2togoc0n8e6lbr686lgm7o1fgfh6r@4ax.com...
> >> >> > On Tue, 26 Sep 2006 14:14:29 -0500, "MnMikew" <mnmiikkew@aol.com>
> >> >> > wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >>>>
> >> >> >>> http://video.msn.com/v/us/msnbc.htm?g=9c610738-4147-4473-a432-e779a609bae3
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>Talk about spin, jesus. No agenda or spin here, yaaaaaaa. Olberman
> >> >> >>is
> >> >> >>partisan hack, and he rips on Fox News as being partisan, LOL!
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> > He was dead on. Period. George Bush is the worst president since
> >> >> > Buchanan. Period.
> >> >>
> >> >> That would be your opinion.
> >> >
> >> > It would be mine, too.
> >> >
> >> Not mine. But of course, YOUR opinions are valid and mine are not being
> >> the
> >> good liberals you are.
> >
> >
> > Where did I say, or even imply, anything like that?
> >
> It's a given.

I like you, Mike. You're a funny guy.

Date: 29 Sep 2006 08:58:26
From: MnMikew
Subject: Re: Exactly WHY are we in IRAQ?

"John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1159537084.202655.137720@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
> MnMikew wrote:
>> "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1159387576.617275.219120@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>> >
>> > MnMikew wrote:
>> >> "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> >> news:1159372868.365934.26120@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>> >> >
>> >> > MnMikew wrote:
>> >> >> "Bobby Knight" <bknight@conramp.net> wrote in message
>> >> >> news:gn3jh2togoc0n8e6lbr686lgm7o1fgfh6r@4ax.com...
>> >> >> > On Tue, 26 Sep 2006 14:14:29 -0500, "MnMikew" <mnmiikkew@aol.com>
>> >> >> > wrote:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >>>>
>> >> >> >>> http://video.msn.com/v/us/msnbc.htm?g=9c610738-4147-4473-a432-e779a609bae3
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>Talk about spin, jesus. No agenda or spin here, yaaaaaaa.
>> >> >> >>Olberman
>> >> >> >>is
>> >> >> >>partisan hack, and he rips on Fox News as being partisan, LOL!
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > He was dead on. Period. George Bush is the worst president
>> >> >> > since
>> >> >> > Buchanan. Period.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> That would be your opinion.
>> >> >
>> >> > It would be mine, too.
>> >> >
>> >> Not mine. But of course, YOUR opinions are valid and mine are not
>> >> being
>> >> the
>> >> good liberals you are.
>> >
>> >
>> > Where did I say, or even imply, anything like that?
>> >
>> It's a given.
>
> I like you, Mike. You're a funny guy.
>
Likewise I'm sure John. :-)

Date: 25 Sep 2006 14:29:14
From: sfb
Subject: Re: Exactly WHY are we in IRAQ?

Exactly why are you bring an OT thread into a golf discussion newsgroup?
Please find another course to play politics.

"Frankenshank" <groovemeister747@aol.com > wrote in message
news:1159208266.821835.164050@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
>I apologize for the off-topic post
> Can someone explain the logical reason WHY our fine American soldiers
> continue to die in IRAQ?
>
> Im just totally lost now... or maybe I'm dumb but:
> 1) WHOOOPS! no WMD's... sorry
> 2) WHOOPS! Saddam wasn't responsible for 9-11
> 3) We're bringing DEMOCRACY & Freedom... kaBOOOOOOMMM!
>
> I'm sorry to admit I was a registered Republican, voted for Bush
> TWICE..
>
> I would like a cogent explanation as to WHY?
>
> FrankenShank
>

Date: 26 Sep 2006 09:03:34
From: John B.
Subject: Re: Exactly WHY are we in IRAQ?

Frank Ketchum wrote:
> "multi" <multi@asm.org> wrote in message
> news:53kgh2him9hrlvm1pfv011thn9cn342gpi@4ax.com...
> > On Mon, 25 Sep 2006 18:35:11 GMT, "Frank Ketchum"
> > <fketchum@earthlinknospaam.net> wrote:
> >>To end the WMD programs as president Bush described prior to going in.
> >>Nobody denies that Iraq had WMD programs.
> >
> > I guess if you can't get through to Rush, posting to RSG is the next
> > best thing.
>
> My post was a response to a question posted here. I clearly indicated in my
> reply that this is a stupid place to have this discussion.
>
> And you think that Iraq had no WMD programs?

I find it astounding that three and a half years into this war, people
still cling to these myths. IRAQ HAD NO WMD when we invaded. Whether
they had a WMD "program" is debatable, depending on how you define
"program." But to say that the existence of a WMD "program" without any
actual WMD is justification for a war that has cost 2,600 American
lives, hundreds of billions of dollars is insane.

Date: 26 Sep 2006 05:14:50
From: dsc
Subject: Re: OT: Exactly WHY are we in IRAQ?

Frankenshank wrote:
> I apologize for the off-topic post
> Can someone explain the logical reason WHY our fine American soldiers
> continue to die in IRAQ?
>
> Im just totally lost now... or maybe I'm dumb but:
> 1) WHOOOPS! no WMD's... sorry
> 2) WHOOPS! Saddam wasn't responsible for 9-11
> 3) We're bringing DEMOCRACY & Freedom... kaBOOOOOOMMM!
>
> I'm sorry to admit I was a registered Republican, voted for Bush
> TWICE..
>
> I would like a cogent explanation as to WHY?

Why are we there now... some contributing factors...

1) because the first Bush didn't finish the job back in 91/92

2) because the UN (corrupt pos) didn't do it's job

3) because Germany, France and Russia sold us out

4) because Amerians in general are soft (on war) and didn't have the
resolve to finish the job in Korea, Vietnam, first gulf conflict, etc.
and are clammorring for us to not finish this job either. That makes us
look weak. When you appear weak you can't just tell Saddam to cease
what he's doing or else.

5) Beacuse or #4, Saddam)though he could just wait us out. Afterall, he
had Germany, France and Russia (and the UN) in his pocket. He would
most likely have been correct if anyone other than a determined hard
headed Texas Cowboy were POTUS.

6) Also because of #4 two half-pint mini-me dictators (Iran and N.
Korea) are stirring up trouble.

Date: 26 Sep 2006 07:49:46
From: Miss Anne Thrope
Subject: Re: OT: Exactly WHY are we in IRAQ?

Your post isn't off topic.

Golf is just as much a pointless waste of time as invading Iraq was.

Date: 26 Sep 2006 08:10:19
From: Alan Murphy
Subject: Re: Exactly WHY are we in IRAQ?

Date: 26 Sep 2006 06:44:44
From: bill-o
Subject: Re: OT: Exactly WHY are we in IRAQ?

On 25-Sep-2006, "Frankenshank" <groovemeister747@aol.com > wrote:

> I would like a cogent explanation as to WHY?

Just to chap your ass you OT putz.

--
bill-o

A "gimme" can best be defined as an agreement between
two golfers neither of whom can putt very well.

Date: 26 Sep 2006 18:55:41
From: Alan Illeman
Subject: Re: Exactly WHY are we in IRAQ?

"Frankenshank" <groovemeister747@aol.com > wrote in message news:1159208266.821835.164050@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
> I apologize for the off-topic post
> Can someone explain the logical reason WHY our fine American soldiers
> continue to die in IRAQ?
>
> Im just totally lost now... or maybe I'm dumb but:
> 1) WHOOOPS! no WMD's... sorry
> 2) WHOOPS! Saddam wasn't responsible for 9-11
> 3) We're bringing DEMOCRACY & Freedom... kaBOOOOOOMMM!
>
> I'm sorry to admit I was a registered Republican, voted for Bush
> TWICE..
>
> I would like a cogent explanation as to WHY?
>
> FrankenShank
>

It's all about the money..
http://www.boston.com/news/local/maine/articles/2006/09/26/house_debates_70_billion_more_for_iraq_afghanistan/

Date: 26 Sep 2006 13:11:39
From: dsc
Subject: Re: Exactly WHY are we in IRAQ?

> WMD was just an excuse, a means
> to seize control of the oil.

Okay, we have to think that is a possibility...

Exactly what is meant by seize control? Is it supposed to be the same
as steal or what?

Date: 27 Sep 2006 09:40:04
From: Ken Meltzer
Subject: Re: Exactly WHY are we in IRAQ?

John B. wrote:
>If you set out to shoot a 99 and after 17 holes
> you're at 98 and the 18th is a par 4, have you not failed?

What if you declare "Mission Accomplished" and walk off the course?
Best,
Ken

Date: 27 Sep 2006 11:52:42
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: Exactly WHY are we in IRAQ?

On 27 Sep 2006 09:40:04 -0700, "Ken Meltzer" <commspkmn@aol.com >
wrote:

>
>John B. wrote:
>>If you set out to shoot a 99 and after 17 holes
>> you're at 98 and the 18th is a par 4, have you not failed?
>
>What if you declare "Mission Accomplished" and walk off the course?
>Best,
>Ken
What if you declare "Mission Accomplished", stay on the course and
hit every shot out of bounds from then on?
--
___,
\o

Date: 27 Sep 2006 09:08:37
From: John B.
Subject: Re: Exactly WHY are we in IRAQ?

Tex wrote:
> bill-o wrote:
> > Why not get the whole thing?
> >
> > http://www.dni.gov/press_releases/Declassified_NIE_Key_Judgments.pdf
>
> Because the whole thing dilutes the argument :)
> And, it can't be true if it wasn't all leaked to the Press....and we
> all know, the Press only reports the truth, not the spin.
>
> <g>
>
> Tex

Well, gosh, now the White House has de-classified the report, and will
wonders never cease? It says exactly what the NY Times said it says!

Date: 27 Sep 2006 08:58:45
From: John B.
Subject: Re: Exactly WHY are we in IRAQ?

multi wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Sep 2006 16:44:52 GMT, "Frank Ketchum"
> <fketchum@earthlinknospaam.net> wrote:
> >So why has the price of oil continued to rise since we went into Iraq and it
> >is just now starting to go down? If we got all of this oil out of Iraq,
> >doesn't the price go down? Supply and demand? ? ? ?
>
> Saying that Bush wanted to control Iraq's oil doesn't mean he wanted
> the price to go down. His buddies, the oil companies, are making
> record profits with the price of oil up. Whether he planned that or
> not, it's not a bad thing to him. I think it's more likely that he
> just wanted to get control of it to keep it from going to China,
> rather than us. Ironically, his bumbling has almost ensured that Iran
> will now turn to China as an ally.

Oil marketing is not an us vs. them proposition. It's hard to imagine
how Bush could bar the sale of Iraqi oil to China, or for that matter
why he would want to.

Date: 27 Sep 2006 08:51:58
From: John B.
Subject: Re: Exactly WHY are we in IRAQ?

bill-o wrote:
> On 26-Sep-2006, Carbon <nobrac@nospam.verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > Obviously they have completely and totally failed at that
>
> One has only failed when they have given up, this is obviously not the case.
>
> --
> bill-o

Oh, horseshit. Bill. If you set out to shoot a 99 and after 17 holes
you're at 98 and the 18th is a par 4, have you not failed?

>
> A "gimme" can best be defined as an agreement between
> two golfers neither of whom can putt very well.

Date: 27 Sep 2006 19:42:15
From: bill-o
Subject: Re: Exactly WHY are we in IRAQ?

On 27-Sep-2006, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote:

> bill-o wrote:
> > On 26-Sep-2006, Carbon <nobrac@nospam.verizon.net> wrote:
> >
> > > Obviously they have completely and totally failed at that
> >
> > One has only failed when they have given up, this is obviously not the
> > case.
> >
> > --
> > bill-o
>
> Oh, horseshit. Bill. If you set out to shoot a 99 and after 17 holes
> you're at 98 and the 18th is a par 4, have you not failed?

I find your definition of failure oh so superficial, golf, unless you are a
professional, is not about setting a score mark for each round, it is about
PLAYING the gemme! While I didn't agree with the way this war started,
leaving now would just confirm to the world what weak babies we are and that
we cannont be trusted to keep our word. We brioke it, it's ours.

--
bill-o

A "gimme" can best be defined as an agreement between
two golfers neither of whom can putt very well.

Date: 27 Sep 2006 06:39:05
From: Tex
Subject: Re: Exactly WHY are we in IRAQ?

A Brick in the Wall wrote:
> "Tex" <marktexkoenig@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1159360429.670287.281720@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > bill-o wrote:
> >> Why not get the whole thing?
> >>
> >> http://www.dni.gov/press_releases/Declassified_NIE_Key_Judgments.pdf
> >
> > Because the whole thing dilutes the argument :)
> > And, it can't be true if it wasn't all leaked to the Press....and we
> > all know, the Press only reports the truth, not the spin.
> >
> > <g>
> >
> > Tex
> >
>
> But are we believe everything we need to make a choice is now included in
> Bush's de-classified version?

You are believe anything you wish.

Tex

Date: 27 Sep 2006 05:33:49
From: Tex
Subject: Re: Exactly WHY are we in IRAQ?

bill-o wrote:
> Why not get the whole thing?
>
> http://www.dni.gov/press_releases/Declassified_NIE_Key_Judgments.pdf

Because the whole thing dilutes the argument :)
And, it can't be true if it wasn't all leaked to the Press....and we
all know, the Press only reports the truth, not the spin.

<g >

Tex

Date: 27 Sep 2006 15:00:45
From: Chris Bellomy
Subject: Re: Exactly WHY are we in IRAQ?

Tex <marktexkoenig@gmail.com > wrote:
:
: bill-o wrote:
: > Why not get the whole thing?
: >
: > http://www.dni.gov/press_releases/Declassified_NIE_Key_Judgments.pdf
:
: Because the whole thing dilutes the argument :)
: And, it can't be true if it wasn't all leaked to the Press....and we
: all know, the Press only reports the truth, not the spin.

You guys realize that the Key Judgments isn't the "whole thing,"
don't you?

--
Chris Bellomy
C-List Charter Member
http://clist.org/

Date: 27 Sep 2006 09:05:15
From: A Brick in the Wall
Subject: Re: Exactly WHY are we in IRAQ?

"Tex" <marktexkoenig@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1159360429.670287.281720@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> bill-o wrote:
>> Why not get the whole thing?
>>
>> http://www.dni.gov/press_releases/Declassified_NIE_Key_Judgments.pdf
>
> Because the whole thing dilutes the argument :)
> And, it can't be true if it wasn't all leaked to the Press....and we
> all know, the Press only reports the truth, not the spin.
>
> <g>
>
> Tex
>

But are we believe everything we need to make a choice is now included in
Bush's de-classified version?

I see 2 sides of a street here.

Date: 27 Sep 2006 02:04:02
From: Fairway
Subject: Re: OT: Exactly WHY are we in IRAQ?

Frankenshank wrote:
> I apologize for the off-topic post
> Can someone explain the logical reason WHY our fine American soldiers
> continue to die in IRAQ?
Whatever people think or say the USA is the leading Western power. Is
it a fact that the wars in Asia have weakened the US economy? If so
it=B4s a great worry to us all, not only Americans. F

Date: 03 Oct 2006 10:04:29
From: Tex
Subject: Re: Exactly WHY are we in IRAQ?

Alan Illeman wrote:
> Imo, price of oil has recently gone down because of the upcoming
> election or haven't you heard, to make the public feel good when
> they fillup and vote. A friend-of-a-friend-of-a-friend... (yeah I
> know it doesn't sound reliable) was working in Iraq driving those
> enormous earthmoving trucks, not for earthmoving, but with the
> power to pull convoys of 20-odd oiltanker trucks brimming with
> free Iraqi oil to waiting ships in Kuwait, along a heavily guarded
> new road built and defended by contractors. With all that oil, that
> nobody knows about, Bush & co can influence the markets at will.

Let's assume you are right...ok, your friend-of-a-friend-of-a-friend is
right.
Oil Tanker trucks hold how many gallons of oil ? 10,000 ?
The claim is they are pulling 20 at a time? so 200,000 gallons per
convoy?
That's 50,000 barrels (or so).
Maybe 10 convoys a day? 500,000 barrels.
And the World demand is ? 80M barrels?

Now if you can come up with a conspiracy that shows they are flooding
the market with 8-10M barrels...you might have something....

Back to your next conspiracy theory...this time do some thinking first.

Tex

Date: 03 Oct 2006 13:33:05
From: AKA Gray Asphalt
Subject: Re: Exactly WHY are we in IRAQ?

"Tex" <marktexkoenig@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1159895069.531134.10540@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> Alan Illeman wrote:
>> Imo, price of oil has recently gone down because of the upcoming
>> election or haven't you heard, to make the public feel good when
>> they fillup and vote. A friend-of-a-friend-of-a-friend... (yeah I
>> know it doesn't sound reliable) was working in Iraq driving those
>> enormous earthmoving trucks, not for earthmoving, but with the
>> power to pull convoys of 20-odd oiltanker trucks brimming with
>> free Iraqi oil to waiting ships in Kuwait, along a heavily guarded
>> new road built and defended by contractors. With all that oil, that
>> nobody knows about, Bush & co can influence the markets at will.
>
> Let's assume you are right...ok, your friend-of-a-friend-of-a-friend is
> right.
> Oil Tanker trucks hold how many gallons of oil ? 10,000 ?
> The claim is they are pulling 20 at a time? so 200,000 gallons per
> convoy?
> That's 50,000 barrels (or so).
> Maybe 10 convoys a day? 500,000 barrels.
> And the World demand is ? 80M barrels?
>
> Now if you can come up with a conspiracy that shows they are flooding
> the market with 8-10M barrels...you might have something....
>
> Back to your next conspiracy theory...this time do some thinking first.
>
> Tex

So anybody who thinks there is a conspiracy is a nut. And the Warren Report
was gospel.

Date: 03 Oct 2006 19:23:35
From: Tex
Subject: Re: Exactly WHY are we in IRAQ?

AKA Gray Asphalt wrote:
> "Tex" <marktexkoenig@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1159895069.531134.10540@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> > Alan Illeman wrote:
> >> Imo, price of oil has recently gone down because of the upcoming
> >> election or haven't you heard, to make the public feel good when
> >> they fillup and vote. A friend-of-a-friend-of-a-friend... (yeah I
> >> know it doesn't sound reliable) was working in Iraq driving those
> >> enormous earthmoving trucks, not for earthmoving, but with the
> >> power to pull convoys of 20-odd oiltanker trucks brimming with
> >> free Iraqi oil to waiting ships in Kuwait, along a heavily guarded
> >> new road built and defended by contractors. With all that oil, that
> >> nobody knows about, Bush & co can influence the markets at will.
> >
> > Let's assume you are right...ok, your friend-of-a-friend-of-a-friend is
> > right.
> > Oil Tanker trucks hold how many gallons of oil ? 10,000 ?
> > The claim is they are pulling 20 at a time? so 200,000 gallons per
> > convoy?
> > That's 50,000 barrels (or so).
> > Maybe 10 convoys a day? 500,000 barrels.
> > And the World demand is ? 80M barrels?
> >
> > Now if you can come up with a conspiracy that shows they are flooding
> > the market with 8-10M barrels...you might have something....
> >
> > Back to your next conspiracy theory...this time do some thinking first.
> >
> > Tex
>
> So anybody who thinks there is a conspiracy is a nut. And the Warren Report
> was gospel.

Spoken like a true propeller head.
Show us all how even 1M extra barrels of oil will "control the
market"....then, explain how you can move 1M barrels with tanker trucks
being pulled by large bulldozers.
(p.s. that's 1M PER DAY...which is just above 1 percent of daily
usage...)

In otherwords, try FACTUAL data, rather than wing nut spin theories
passed along through your drunk frat buddies.

Tex

Date: 03 Oct 2006 22:23:11
From: AKA Gray Asphalt
Subject: Re: Exactly WHY are we in IRAQ?

"Tex" <marktexkoenig@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1159928615.881237.217970@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> AKA Gray Asphalt wrote:
>> "Tex" <marktexkoenig@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1159895069.531134.10540@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>> > Alan Illeman wrote:
>> >> Imo, price of oil has recently gone down because of the upcoming
>> >> election or haven't you heard, to make the public feel good when
>> >> they fillup and vote. A friend-of-a-friend-of-a-friend... (yeah I
>> >> know it doesn't sound reliable) was working in Iraq driving those
>> >> enormous earthmoving trucks, not for earthmoving, but with the
>> >> power to pull convoys of 20-odd oiltanker trucks brimming with
>> >> free Iraqi oil to waiting ships in Kuwait, along a heavily guarded
>> >> new road built and defended by contractors. With all that oil, that
>> >> nobody knows about, Bush & co can influence the markets at will.
>> >
>> > Let's assume you are right...ok, your friend-of-a-friend-of-a-friend is
>> > right.
>> > Oil Tanker trucks hold how many gallons of oil ? 10,000 ?
>> > The claim is they are pulling 20 at a time? so 200,000 gallons per
>> > convoy?
>> > That's 50,000 barrels (or so).
>> > Maybe 10 convoys a day? 500,000 barrels.
>> > And the World demand is ? 80M barrels?
>> >
>> > Now if you can come up with a conspiracy that shows they are flooding
>> > the market with 8-10M barrels...you might have something....
>> >
>> > Back to your next conspiracy theory...this time do some thinking first.
>> >
>> > Tex
>>
>> So anybody who thinks there is a conspiracy is a nut. And the Warren
>> Report
>> was gospel.
>
> Spoken like a true propeller head.

Can you say the word 'conspiracy'? Scary isn't it, my little baby. Boogie
men in black suits with little lights that make you forget. There's
conspiracy in every level of government. Did you see Erin Brokovitch? We
talk about big business being bad but PG&E killed people, murdered them ...
or was it just intentional negligent suicide. Iran Contra wasn't a
conspiracy? There wasnt a conspiracy to keep that pedophile from getting
into the news, from Florida? There wasn't a conspiracy on both sides to
steal the Florida votes for the election before last? Come on.

> Show us all how even 1M extra barrels of oil will "control the
> market"....then, explain how you can move 1M barrels with tanker trucks
> being pulled by large bulldozers.
> (p.s. that's 1M PER DAY...which is just above 1 percent of daily
> usage...)
>
> In otherwords, try FACTUAL data, rather than wing nut spin theories
> passed along through your drunk frat buddies.
>
> Tex

Date: 04 Oct 2006 10:13:31
From: MnMikew
Subject: Re: Exactly WHY are we in IRAQ?

"AKA Gray Asphalt" <goodidea1950@hotmail.spam.com > wrote in message
news:DGHUg.1584$v43.1374@fed1read02...
>
> Can you say the word 'conspiracy'? Scary isn't it, my little baby. Boogie
> men in black suits with little lights that make you forget. There's
> conspiracy in every level of government. Did you see Erin Brokovitch?

BWHAHAHAHAHAHAAHHAAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Man you moonbats are killing me.

Date:
From:
Subject:

Date: 04 Oct 2006 02:39:11
From: Chris Bellomy
Subject: Re: Exactly WHY are we in IRAQ?

Tex <marktexkoenig@gmail.com > wrote:

: In otherwords, try FACTUAL data, rather than wing nut spin theories
: passed along through your drunk frat buddies.

Does the fall of the price of gasoline before any election
when Republicans are in power register a hint of suspicion
with you? It does with me.

It would be interesting to chart the price of gas next
to election cycles and see if this really bears out. If
it does, I think it's a bit much to attribute to coincidence.
Oil companies *do* have a financial interest in seeing
Republicans in power, after all.

--
Chris Bellomy
C-List Charter Member
http://clist.org/

Date: 03 Oct 2006 22:25:30
From: AKA Gray Asphalt
Subject: Re: Exactly WHY are we in IRAQ?

"Chris Bellomy" <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid > wrote in message
news:0T3h1riiIfjcN34@redshark.goodshow.net...
> Tex <marktexkoenig@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> : In otherwords, try FACTUAL data, rather than wing nut spin theories
> : passed along through your drunk frat buddies.
>
> Does the fall of the price of gasoline before any election
> when Republicans are in power register a hint of suspicion
> with you? It does with me.
>
> It would be interesting to chart the price of gas next
> to election cycles and see if this really bears out. If
> it does, I think it's a bit much to attribute to coincidence.
> Oil companies *do* have a financial interest in seeing
> Republicans in power, after all.
>
> --
> Chris Bellomy
> C-List Charter Member
> http://clist.org/

OK, but if the democrats come up with another guy stuck in the 60s, who's
gonna win? Colin Powel, Hillary Clinton, Rudy Guiliani, John McCain, Russ
Feingold, Now there is a race. I had to stretch to find a second democrat.

Date: 04 Oct 2006 13:05:42
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: Exactly WHY are we in IRAQ?

On Tue, 3 2006 22:25:30 -0700, "AKA Gray Asphalt"
<goodidea1950@hotmail.spam.com > wrote:

>OK, but if the democrats come up with another guy stuck in the 60s, who's
>gonna win? Colin Powel, Hillary Clinton, Rudy Guiliani, John McCain, Russ
>Feingold, Now there is a race. I had to stretch to find a second democrat.

Chances are the nominee isn't any of them, if history is to judge.

And the winner of the general election will be the ticket which has
the most "good old boy" image.

Date: 03 Oct 2006 22:44:29
From: Bert Robbins
Subject: Re: Exactly WHY are we in IRAQ?

Date: 04 Oct 2006 11:15:00
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: Exactly WHY are we in IRAQ?

On Wed, 04 2006 02:39:11 GMT, Chris Bellomy
<puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid > wrote:

>Does the fall of the price of gasoline before any election
>when Republicans are in power register a hint of suspicion
>with you? It does with me.
>
>It would be interesting to chart the price of gas next
>to election cycles and see if this really bears out.

So what your saying in the second paragraph is that you don't know if
what you said in the first paragraph is true.

Why don't you chart the price of gasoline next to the election cycle
and get back to us with some facts.

Date: 04 Oct 2006 10:11:24
From: MnMikew
Subject: Re: Exactly WHY are we in IRAQ?

Date: 05 Oct 2006 01:07:04
From: S McFarlane
Subject: Re: Exactly WHY are we in IRAQ?

"Chris Bellomy" <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid > wrote in message
news:0T3h1riiIfjcN34@redshark.goodshow.net...
> Tex <marktexkoenig@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> : In otherwords, try FACTUAL data, rather than wing nut spin theories
> : passed along through your drunk frat buddies.
>
> Does the fall of the price of gasoline before any election
> when Republicans are in power register a hint of suspicion
> with you? It does with me.
>
> It would be interesting to chart the price of gas next
> to election cycles and see if this really bears out. If
> it does, I think it's a bit much to attribute to coincidence.
> Oil companies *do* have a financial interest in seeing
> Republicans in power, after all.
>

Right off the top of my head I'll predict that there is a correlation
between gas prices and election cycles. Looking into my crystal ball, I'll
say they always start to drop within two months of election time each year.
Coincidently, allegedly refineries switch to a cheaper mixture about that
time of year and demand goes down. That's what a defender of oil would say,
at least.

Just looked at a graph, and indeed it goes down every year about this time:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/wrgp/mogas_home_page.html.

So, if this is political manipulation, it doesn't appear to be an invention
of Bush and Co.

Scott

Date: 04 Oct 2006 19:52:06
From: multi
Subject: Re: Exactly WHY are we in IRAQ?

On Thu, 05 2006 01:07:04 GMT, "S McFarlane" <spam@nothanks.com >
wrote:
>So, if this is political manipulation, it doesn't appear to be an invention
>of Bush and Co.

No, the innovation of Bush is getting the spin machine to consider
$2.50 a gallon as "down." Kind of like reporting a $200 billion
deficit as a great improvement. Both are true, but only in comparison
to the worst figures in history, courtesy of the same Bush and Co.

Date: 05 Oct 2006 20:02:35
From: Joe
Subject: Re: Exactly WHY are we in IRAQ?

S McFarlane wrote:
> "Chris Bellomy" <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote in message
> news:0T3h1riiIfjcN34@redshark.goodshow.net...
>
>>Tex <marktexkoenig@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>: In otherwords, try FACTUAL data, rather than wing nut spin theories
>>: passed along through your drunk frat buddies.
>>
>>Does the fall of the price of gasoline before any election
>>when Republicans are in power register a hint of suspicion
>>with you? It does with me.
>>
>>It would be interesting to chart the price of gas next
>>to election cycles and see if this really bears out. If
>>it does, I think it's a bit much to attribute to coincidence.
>>Oil companies *do* have a financial interest in seeing
>>Republicans in power, after all.
>>
>
>
> Right off the top of my head I'll predict that there is a correlation
> between gas prices and election cycles. Looking into my crystal ball, I'll
> say they always start to drop within two months of election time each year.
> Coincidently, allegedly refineries switch to a cheaper mixture about that
> time of year and demand goes down. That's what a defender of oil would say,
> at least.
>
> Just looked at a graph, and indeed it goes down every year about this time:
>
> http://www.eia.doe.gov/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/wrgp/mogas_home_page.html.
>
> So, if this is political manipulation, it doesn't appear to be an invention
> of Bush and Co.
>
> Scott
>
While I agree with your statement that in general there is a drop in
prices during September and ober, you can't arrive at that conclusion
from the chart at that site. It is only 2 years long. Pull the data
going back to 1990 and you will see something similar with minor
adjustments for larger economic issues. It is the result of the end of
the "Summer Driving Season".

Sure there is a drop but it is a return to the pre-June price with some
adjustment to follow the general, up or down , trend.

Joe

Date: 05 Oct 2006 08:14:14
From: FredK
Subject: Re: Exactly WHY are we in IRAQ?

"S McFarlane" <spam@nothanks.com > wrote in message
news:YUYUg.16133$3T2.6815@trnddc06...
>
>
> Right off the top of my head I'll predict that there is a correlation
> between gas prices and election cycles. Looking into my crystal ball,
I'll
> say they always start to drop within two months of election time each
year.
> Coincidently, allegedly refineries switch to a cheaper mixture about that
> time of year and demand goes down. That's what a defender of oil would
say,
> at least.
>
> Just looked at a graph, and indeed it goes down every year about this
time:
>

Unusually early this year, and unusually steep.

Date: 05 Oct 2006 10:58:59
From: larry
Subject: Re: Exactly WHY are we in IRAQ?

On Thu, 05 2006 01:07:04 GMT, "S McFarlane" <spam@nothanks.com >
wrote:

>
>"Chris Bellomy" <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote in message
>news:0T3h1riiIfjcN34@redshark.goodshow.net...
>> Tex <marktexkoenig@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> : In otherwords, try FACTUAL data, rather than wing nut spin theories
>> : passed along through your drunk frat buddies.
>>
>> Does the fall of the price of gasoline before any election
>> when Republicans are in power register a hint of suspicion
>> with you? It does with me.
>>
>> It would be interesting to chart the price of gas next
>> to election cycles and see if this really bears out. If
>> it does, I think it's a bit much to attribute to coincidence.
>> Oil companies *do* have a financial interest in seeing
>> Republicans in power, after all.
>>
>
>Right off the top of my head I'll predict that there is a correlation
>between gas prices and election cycles. Looking into my crystal ball, I'll
>say they always start to drop within two months of election time each year.
>Coincidently, allegedly refineries switch to a cheaper mixture about that
>time of year and demand goes down. That's what a defender of oil would say,
>at least.
>
>Just looked at a graph, and indeed it goes down every year about this time:
>
>http://www.eia.doe.gov/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/wrgp/mogas_home_page.html.
>
>So, if this is political manipulation, it doesn't appear to be an invention
>of Bush and Co.
>
>Scott

Amazing! Now he is among the most brilliant men in history, able to
secretly manipulate the world's energy supply-- able to enlist SECRET
help from thousands of high government officials and company
executives around the world-- and NOBODY ever reveals that this is
really the evil hand of GW Bush behind the scenes.

Its not a paranoid conspiracy, they really ARE out to get you!!!

Larry
>
>

Date: 03 Oct 2006 11:30:06
From: John B.
Subject: Re: Exactly WHY are we in IRAQ?

Alan Illeman wrote:
> "multi" <multi@asm.org> wrote in message news:bj7jh2pkg0phhi6b5e4i2di9i4c3vobps9@4ax.com...
> > On Tue, 26 Sep 2006 16:44:52 GMT, "Frank Ketchum"
> > <fketchum@earthlinknospaam.net> wrote:
> > >So why has the price of oil continued to rise since we went into Iraq and it
> > >is just now starting to go down? If we got all of this oil out of Iraq,
> > >doesn't the price go down? Supply and demand? ? ? ?
> >
> > Saying that Bush wanted to control Iraq's oil doesn't mean he wanted
> > the price to go down. His buddies, the oil companies, are making
> > record profits with the price of oil up. Whether he planned that or
> > not, it's not a bad thing to him. I think it's more likely that he
> > just wanted to get control of it to keep it from going to China,
> > rather than us. Ironically, his bumbling has almost ensured that Iran
> > will now turn to China as an ally.
>
> Imo, price of oil has recently gone down because of the upcoming
> election or haven't you heard, to make the public feel good when
> they fillup and vote. A friend-of-a-friend-of-a-friend... (yeah I
> know it doesn't sound reliable) was working in Iraq driving those
> enormous earthmoving trucks, not for earthmoving, but with the
> power to pull convoys of 20-odd oiltanker trucks brimming with
> free Iraqi oil to waiting ships in Kuwait, along a heavily guarded
> new road built and defended by contractors. With all that oil, that
> nobody knows about, Bush & co can influence the markets at will.
>
> Had a really poor game yesterday, couldn't seem to do anything right.
> Even my putting stunk. Played with three guys all older than me, and
> they didn't play well either. Perfect day weatherwise, in fact it was too
> hot in long pants. I seemed to be coming into the ball too steep and
> either topping the ball or making divots as long as my arm. I'm only
> thankful that winter is just around the corner :-)
>
> Frodo failed. Bush has the ring. (bumper sticker).

I'm as virulent a Bush-hater as you're likely to find, but your
conspiracy theory is ridiculous. You really think he has the power to
dial up or down the price of oil to suit his political whims? And you
base that assertion on the claims of a "friend of a friend of a friend"
who is a truck-driver? Gimme a fuckin' break.

Date: 03 Oct 2006 15:01:03
From: FredK
Subject: Re: Exactly WHY are we in IRAQ?

"John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1159900206.661085.257160@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Alan Illeman wrote:
> > "multi" <multi@asm.org> wrote in message
news:bj7jh2pkg0phhi6b5e4i2di9i4c3vobps9@4ax.com...
> > > On Tue, 26 Sep 2006 16:44:52 GMT, "Frank Ketchum"
> > > <fketchum@earthlinknospaam.net> wrote:
> > > >So why has the price of oil continued to rise since we went into Iraq
and it
> > > >is just now starting to go down? If we got all of this oil out of
Iraq,
> > > >doesn't the price go down? Supply and demand? ? ? ?
> > >
> > > Saying that Bush wanted to control Iraq's oil doesn't mean he wanted
> > > the price to go down. His buddies, the oil companies, are making
> > > record profits with the price of oil up. Whether he planned that or
> > > not, it's not a bad thing to him. I think it's more likely that he
> > > just wanted to get control of it to keep it from going to China,
> > > rather than us. Ironically, his bumbling has almost ensured that Iran
> > > will now turn to China as an ally.
> >
> > Imo, price of oil has recently gone down because of the upcoming
> > election or haven't you heard, to make the public feel good when
> > they fillup and vote. A friend-of-a-friend-of-a-friend... (yeah I
> > know it doesn't sound reliable) was working in Iraq driving those
> > enormous earthmoving trucks, not for earthmoving, but with the
> > power to pull convoys of 20-odd oiltanker trucks brimming with
> > free Iraqi oil to waiting ships in Kuwait, along a heavily guarded
> > new road built and defended by contractors. With all that oil, that
> > nobody knows about, Bush & co can influence the markets at will.
> >
> > Had a really poor game yesterday, couldn't seem to do anything right.
> > Even my putting stunk. Played with three guys all older than me, and
> > they didn't play well either. Perfect day weatherwise, in fact it was
too
> > hot in long pants. I seemed to be coming into the ball too steep and
> > either topping the ball or making divots as long as my arm. I'm only
> > thankful that winter is just around the corner :-)
> >
> > Frodo failed. Bush has the ring. (bumper sticker).
>
> I'm as virulent a Bush-hater as you're likely to find, but your
> conspiracy theory is ridiculous. You really think he has the power to
> dial up or down the price of oil to suit his political whims? And you
> base that assertion on the claims of a "friend of a friend of a friend"
> who is a truck-driver? Gimme a fuckin' break.
>

I dislike GWB as much as any tin-pot dictator. The price of oil has
declined because it is in the best interest of the oil companies that it
decline at this moment in time. Neither GWB or the Penguin needs to ask
Exxon or the rest of the oil industry to "dial down the price". They are in
this boat together, and that is what friends are for.

But to validate things... see how long after November it takes for prices to
rebound and heating oil to set new records.

Date: 04 Oct 2006 10:05:05
From: MnMikew
Subject: Re: Exactly WHY are we in IRAQ?

"FredK" <fred.nospam@nospam.dec.com > wrote in message
news:4522b370@usenet01.boi.hp.com...
>
> I dislike GWB as much as any tin-pot dictator. The price of oil has
> declined because it is in the best interest of the oil companies that it
> decline at this moment in time. Neither GWB or the Penguin needs to ask
> Exxon or the rest of the oil industry to "dial down the price". They are
> in
> this boat together, and that is what friends are for.
>
So is this baloney required reading for moonbats everywhere? So the oil
industry is limited to the US? Ever hear of OPEC?

Date: 04 Oct 2006 09:13:33
From: sfb
Subject: Re: Exactly WHY are we in IRAQ?

Federal and state agencies have made the gasoline and home heating oil
markets the most studied in the history of mankind. Other than a few
isolated incidents, none of these studies found anything in play except
supply and demand since the primary cost is the price of crude.

"FredK" <fred.nospam@nospam.dec.com > wrote in message
news:4522b370@usenet01.boi.hp.com...

>
> I dislike GWB as much as any tin-pot dictator. The price of oil has
> declined because it is in the best interest of the oil companies that it
> decline at this moment in time. Neither GWB or the Penguin needs to ask
> Exxon or the rest of the oil industry to "dial down the price". They are
> in
> this boat together, and that is what friends are for.
>
> But to validate things... see how long after November it takes for prices
> to
> rebound and heating oil to set new records.
>
>
>

Date: 04 Oct 2006 13:06:42
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: Exactly WHY are we in IRAQ?

On Tue, 3 2006 15:01:03 -0400, "FredK"
<fred.nospam@nospam.dec.com > wrote:

>I dislike GWB as much as any tin-pot dictator. The price of oil has
>declined because it is in the best interest of the oil companies that it
>decline at this moment in time. Neither GWB or the Penguin needs to ask
>Exxon or the rest of the oil industry to "dial down the price". They are in
>this boat together, and that is what friends are for.

It's not "low", it is just back to where it was before it went up a
year ago because of Katrina's costs. Nothing to do with the
President.

Date: 03 Oct 2006 16:03:46
From: multi
Subject: Re: Exactly WHY are we in IRAQ?

On 3 2006 11:30:06 -0700, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote:
>I'm as virulent a Bush-hater as you're likely to find, but your
>conspiracy theory is ridiculous. You really think he has the power to
>dial up or down the price of oil to suit his political whims? And you
>base that assertion on the claims of a "friend of a friend of a friend"
>who is a truck-driver? Gimme a fuckin' break.

One of the more effective ways to mislead people is to get stories
going around that tell the truth in an unconvincing way, to make
people think that any report with a similar conclusion is yet another
smear job (see Bush's National Guard record).

Secret trucks in Iraq are very unconvincing, but Bush can definitely
dial oil prices up and down. He controls Iraq's oil, and he is
pushing hard for sanctions on Iran. That leaves Saudi Arabia with
enough of the international market share to dictate the prices, and
they have been in bed with the Bush family for decades. The "free
market" has nothing to do with oil prices --- there are more known
reserves today than when it was $15 a barrel. Venezuela is literally
giving some of its oil away, and it doesn't affect the world price.

Date: 03 Oct 2006 22:29:15
From: AKA Gray Asphalt
Subject: Re: Exactly WHY are we in IRAQ?

"multi" <multi@asm.org > wrote in message
news:oeq5i25c7vpfar5ecj4t2u6s365b22k12l@4ax.com...
> On 3 2006 11:30:06 -0700, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote:
>>I'm as virulent a Bush-hater as you're likely to find, but your
>>conspiracy theory is ridiculous. You really think he has the power to
>>dial up or down the price of oil to suit his political whims? And you
>>base that assertion on the claims of a "friend of a friend of a friend"
>>who is a truck-driver? Gimme a fuckin' break.
>
> One of the more effective ways to mislead people is to get stories
> going around that tell the truth in an unconvincing way, to make
> people think that any report with a similar conclusion is yet another
> smear job (see Bush's National Guard record).
>
> Secret trucks in Iraq are very unconvincing, but Bush can definitely
> dial oil prices up and down. He controls Iraq's oil, and he is
> pushing hard for sanctions on Iran. That leaves Saudi Arabia with
> enough of the international market share to dictate the prices, and
> they have been in bed with the Bush family for decades. The "free
> market" has nothing to do with oil prices --- there are more known
> reserves today than when it was $15 a barrel. Venezuela is literally
> giving some of its oil away, and it doesn't affect the world price.

Shut up. I can't handle the truth.

Date: 03 Oct 2006 19:32:49
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: Exactly WHY are we in IRAQ?

On Tue, 03 2006 16:03:46 -0700, multi <multi@asm.org > wrote:

> He controls Iraq's oil

Really? Exactly how does Bush control Iraqi oil?

Date: 03 Oct 2006 17:05:05
From: multi
Subject: Re: Exactly WHY are we in IRAQ?

On Tue, 03 2006 19:32:49 -0400, Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com >
wrote:
>On Tue, 03 2006 16:03:46 -0700, multi <multi@asm.org> wrote:
>
>> He controls Iraq's oil
>
> Really? Exactly how does Bush control Iraqi oil?

Gosh, what a silly mistake I made. Of course he has no control over
it. Other than Bremer completely rewriting Iraq's economic laws, and
the US drafting most of the Iraqi constitution, picking the candidates
and using every tactic imaginable to get them elected, and keeping
140,000 troops and God knows how many mercs in Iraq, we have no
influence at all. I regret the error.

Date: 04 Oct 2006 10:07:38
From: MnMikew
Subject: Re: Exactly WHY are we in IRAQ?

"multi" <multi@asm.org > wrote in message
news:l4u5i2hc6qgmddl6dg549517rd7pajhrrk@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 03 2006 19:32:49 -0400, Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com>
> wrote:
>>On Tue, 03 2006 16:03:46 -0700, multi <multi@asm.org> wrote:
>>
>>> He controls Iraq's oil
>>
>> Really? Exactly how does Bush control Iraqi oil?
>
> Gosh, what a silly mistake I made. Of course he has no control over
> it. Other than Bremer completely rewriting Iraq's economic laws, and
> the US drafting most of the Iraqi constitution, picking the candidates
> and using every tactic imaginable to get them elected, and keeping
> 140,000 troops and God knows how many mercs in Iraq, we have no
> influence at all. I regret the error.
>
HAHAH. You moonbats are funny.

Date: 04 Oct 2006 11:06:37
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: Exactly WHY are we in IRAQ?

On Tue, 03 2006 17:05:05 -0700, multi <multi@asm.org > wrote:

> I regret the error.

Apology accepted

Date: 03 Oct 2006 22:30:59
From: AKA Gray Asphalt
Subject: Re: Exactly WHY are we in IRAQ?

Date: 04 Oct 2006 13:08:13
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: Exactly WHY are we in IRAQ?

On Tue, 03 2006 16:03:46 -0700, multi <multi@asm.org > wrote:

>One of the more effective ways to mislead people is to get stories
>going around that tell the truth in an unconvincing way, to make
>people think that any report with a similar conclusion is yet another
>smear job (see Bush's National Guard record).

So LBMHBF has a pro-Bush agenda?

Date: 04 Oct 2006 06:21:37
From: multi
Subject: Re: Exactly WHY are we in IRAQ?

On Wed, 04 2006 13:08:13 GMT, Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net >
wrote:

>On Tue, 03 2006 16:03:46 -0700, multi <multi@asm.org> wrote:
>
>>One of the more effective ways to mislead people is to get stories
>>going around that tell the truth in an unconvincing way, to make
>>people think that any report with a similar conclusion is yet another
>>smear job (see Bush's National Guard record).
>
>So LBMHBF has a pro-Bush agenda?

I've often wondered whether the Dems pay Larry as much as the Reps pay
LBMHBF.

Date: 03 Oct 2006 13:13:08
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: Exactly WHY are we in IRAQ?

Date: 03 Oct 2006 13:34:25
From: AKA Gray Asphalt
Subject: Re: Exactly WHY are we in IRAQ?

"Howard Brazee" <howard@brazee.net > wrote in message
news:1bd5i255s28ln0bague6lbcbf56s0ooadl@4ax.com...
> On 3 2006 11:30:06 -0700, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>I'm as virulent a Bush-hater as you're likely to find, but your
>>conspiracy theory is ridiculous. You really think he has the power to
>>dial up or down the price of oil to suit his political whims? And you
>>base that assertion on the claims of a "friend of a friend of a friend"
>>who is a truck-driver? Gimme a fuckin' break.
>
> Conspiracy theories are extremely popular right now. But I'm a huge
> believer in the Peter Principle. I just see way too many cases of
> incompetency to be a True Believer in Competent bad guys.

You don't have to be a competent thief to make a good living. And you don't
have to be able to speak in complete sentences to be president.

Date: 03 Oct 2006 21:52:18
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: Exactly WHY are we in IRAQ?

On Tue, 3 2006 13:34:25 -0700, "AKA Gray Asphalt"
<goodidea1950@hotmail.spam.com > wrote:

>> Conspiracy theories are extremely popular right now. But I'm a huge
>> believer in the Peter Principle. I just see way too many cases of
>> incompetency to be a True Believer in Competent bad guys.
>
>You don't have to be a competent thief to make a good living. And you don't
>have to be able to speak in complete sentences to be president.

But you have to be competent to secretly control conspiracies. And
everybody involved has to believe absolutely that secrecy is good.

Date: 03 Oct 2006 22:28:23
From: AKA Gray Asphalt
Subject: Re: Exactly WHY are we in IRAQ?

"Howard Brazee" <howard@brazee.net > wrote in message
news:kqm5i213d845lb3imibnsbi282ak4q7lvf@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 3 2006 13:34:25 -0700, "AKA Gray Asphalt"
> <goodidea1950@hotmail.spam.com> wrote:
>
>>> Conspiracy theories are extremely popular right now. But I'm a huge
>>> believer in the Peter Principle. I just see way too many cases of
>>> incompetency to be a True Believer in Competent bad guys.
>>
>>You don't have to be a competent thief to make a good living. And you
>>don't
>>have to be able to speak in complete sentences to be president.
>
> But you have to be competent to secretly control conspiracies. And
> everybody involved has to believe absolutely that secrecy is good.

They only have to be scared or corrupted ... or maybe have a warped world
view, imo. When Sandra Day O'Connor voted to end the recount in Florida, I
broke my putter. BTW, did anybody see that guy on the Golf Channel today
talking about compressing the ball? He talks about hitting down on the ball.
Doesn't make sense to me, but I like the hinges ...

Date: 04 Oct 2006 11:37:16
From: Alan Illeman
Subject: OT Re: Exactly WHY are we in IRAQ?

"John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote in message news:1159900206.661085.257160@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Alan Illeman wrote:
> > "multi" <multi@asm.org> wrote in message news:bj7jh2pkg0phhi6b5e4i2di9i4c3vobps9@4ax.com...
> > > On Tue, 26 Sep 2006 16:44:52 GMT, "Frank Ketchum"
> > > <fketchum@earthlinknospaam.net> wrote:
> > > >So why has the price of oil continued to rise since we went into Iraq and it
> > > >is just now starting to go down? If we got all of this oil out of Iraq,
> > > >doesn't the price go down? Supply and demand? ? ? ?
> > >
> > > Saying that Bush wanted to control Iraq's oil doesn't mean he wanted
> > > the price to go down. His buddies, the oil companies, are making
> > > record profits with the price of oil up. Whether he planned that or
> > > not, it's not a bad thing to him. I think it's more likely that he
> > > just wanted to get control of it to keep it from going to China,
> > > rather than us. Ironically, his bumbling has almost ensured that Iran
> > > will now turn to China as an ally.
> >
> > Imo, price of oil has recently gone down because of the upcoming
> > election or haven't you heard, to make the public feel good when
> > they fillup and vote. A friend-of-a-friend-of-a-friend... (yeah I
> > know it doesn't sound reliable) was working in Iraq driving those
> > enormous earthmoving trucks, not for earthmoving, but with the
> > power to pull convoys of 20-odd oiltanker trucks brimming with
> > free Iraqi oil to waiting ships in Kuwait, along a heavily guarded
> > new road built and defended by contractors. With all that oil, that
> > nobody knows about, Bush & co can influence the markets at will.
> >
> > Had a really poor game yesterday, couldn't seem to do anything right.
> > Even my putting stunk. Played with three guys all older than me, and
> > they didn't play well either. Perfect day weatherwise, in fact it was too
> > hot in long pants. I seemed to be coming into the ball too steep and
> > either topping the ball or making divots as long as my arm. I'm only
> > thankful that winter is just around the corner :-)
> >
> > Frodo failed. Bush has the ring. (bumper sticker).
>
> I'm as virulent a Bush-hater as you're likely to find, but your
> conspiracy theory is ridiculous. You really think he has the power to
> dial up or down the price of oil to suit his political whims? And you
> base that assertion on the claims of a "friend of a friend of a friend"
> who is a truck-driver? Gimme a fuckin' break.

I must admit this truck driver tale was a bit weak but I did warn you
with "(yeah I know it doesn't sound reliable)"

http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=7989
In the hours and days before the United States and Britain invaded Iraq,
a team of British Petroleum (BP) engineers in Kuwait taught combat
troops from the 516 Specialist Team Royal Engineers how to run the
oil fields in southern Iraq.
....
BP and Shell will each send one very large tanker every month to Iraq
to pick up their two million barrels.
....
But legally there is not much that the Iraqis or Russians can do to contest
this in the United States because of an executive order signed by president
George Bush in late May. Executive order number 13303 states "any
attachment, judgment, decree, lien, execution, garnishment, or other judicial
process is prohibited, and shall be deemed null and void", with respect to
"all Iraqi petroleum and petroleum products, and interests therein."

With this, Bush granted Iraqi oil a lifetime exemption provided US
companies are involved in the oil's production, transport, or distribution.
....
"Effectively Bush has unilaterally declared Iraqi oil to be the unassailable
province of US oil corporations,"

Date: 04 Oct 2006 09:37:15
From: Tex
Subject: Re: OT Re: Exactly WHY are we in IRAQ?

Alan Illeman wrote:
> "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1159900206.661085.257160@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Alan Illeman wrote:
> > > "multi" <multi@asm.org> wrote in message news:bj7jh2pkg0phhi6b5e4i2di9i4c3vobps9@4ax.com...
> > > > On Tue, 26 Sep 2006 16:44:52 GMT, "Frank Ketchum"
> > > > <fketchum@earthlinknospaam.net> wrote:
> > > > >So why has the price of oil continued to rise since we went into Iraq and it
> > > > >is just now starting to go down? If we got all of this oil out of Iraq,
> > > > >doesn't the price go down? Supply and demand? ? ? ?
> > > >
> > > > Saying that Bush wanted to control Iraq's oil doesn't mean he wanted
> > > > the price to go down. His buddies, the oil companies, are making
> > > > record profits with the price of oil up. Whether he planned that or
> > > > not, it's not a bad thing to him. I think it's more likely that he
> > > > just wanted to get control of it to keep it from going to China,
> > > > rather than us. Ironically, his bumbling has almost ensured that Iran
> > > > will now turn to China as an ally.
> > >
> > > Imo, price of oil has recently gone down because of the upcoming
> > > election or haven't you heard, to make the public feel good when
> > > they fillup and vote. A friend-of-a-friend-of-a-friend... (yeah I
> > > know it doesn't sound reliable) was working in Iraq driving those
> > > enormous earthmoving trucks, not for earthmoving, but with the
> > > power to pull convoys of 20-odd oiltanker trucks brimming with
> > > free Iraqi oil to waiting ships in Kuwait, along a heavily guarded
> > > new road built and defended by contractors. With all that oil, that
> > > nobody knows about, Bush & co can influence the markets at will.
> > >
> > > Had a really poor game yesterday, couldn't seem to do anything right.
> > > Even my putting stunk. Played with three guys all older than me, and
> > > they didn't play well either. Perfect day weatherwise, in fact it was too
> > > hot in long pants. I seemed to be coming into the ball too steep and
> > > either topping the ball or making divots as long as my arm. I'm only
> > > thankful that winter is just around the corner :-)
> > >
> > > Frodo failed. Bush has the ring. (bumper sticker).
> >
> > I'm as virulent a Bush-hater as you're likely to find, but your
> > conspiracy theory is ridiculous. You really think he has the power to
> > dial up or down the price of oil to suit his political whims? And you
> > base that assertion on the claims of a "friend of a friend of a friend"
> > who is a truck-driver? Gimme a fuckin' break.
>
> I must admit this truck driver tale was a bit weak but I did warn you
> with "(yeah I know it doesn't sound reliable)"
>
> http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=7989
> In the hours and days before the United States and Britain invaded Iraq,
> a team of British Petroleum (BP) engineers in Kuwait taught combat
> troops from the 516 Specialist Team Royal Engineers how to run the
> oil fields in southern Iraq.
> ....
> BP and Shell will each send one very large tanker every month to Iraq
> to pick up their two million barrels.
> ....
> But legally there is not much that the Iraqis or Russians can do to contest
> this in the United States because of an executive order signed by president
> George Bush in late May. Executive order number 13303 states "any
> attachment, judgment, decree, lien, execution, garnishment, or other judicial
> process is prohibited, and shall be deemed null and void", with respect to
> "all Iraqi petroleum and petroleum products, and interests therein."
>
> With this, Bush granted Iraqi oil a lifetime exemption provided US
> companies are involved in the oil's production, transport, or distribution.
> ....
> "Effectively Bush has unilaterally declared Iraqi oil to be the unassailable
> province of US oil corporations,"

Ok, finally you show something related to a "fact" :)
The claim is BP and Shell get 4M barrels a MONTH....the US consumes
18M/day...the World is close to 80M/day

Not even a blip on the radar screen.

Put the aluminum foil back on your head and come up with something
else....you've drilled a dry well.

Tex

Date:
From:
Subject:

Date: 04 Oct 2006 14:59:03
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: OT Re: Exactly WHY are we in IRAQ?

On 4 2006 09:37:15 -0700, "Tex" <marktexkoenig@gmail.com > wrote:

>Ok, finally you show something related to a "fact" :)
>The claim is BP and Shell get 4M barrels a MONTH....the US consumes
>18M/day...the World is close to 80M/day
>
>Not even a blip on the radar screen.
>
>Put the aluminum foil back on your head and come up with something
>else....you've drilled a dry well.
>
>Tex

What's more, BP and Shell are not American companies.

This mantra that it's all about oil is for the simple minded.

Date: 04 Oct 2006 23:50:48
From: The World Wide Wade
Subject: Re: OT Re: Exactly WHY are we in IRAQ?

In article <qt08i29tt7qpg59t7o1vpmuk8ir7bc0eeq@4ax.com >,
Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com > wrote:

> On 4 2006 09:37:15 -0700, "Tex" <marktexkoenig@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Ok, finally you show something related to a "fact" :)
> >The claim is BP and Shell get 4M barrels a MONTH....the US consumes
> >18M/day...the World is close to 80M/day
> >
> >Not even a blip on the radar screen.
> >
> >Put the aluminum foil back on your head and come up with something
> >else....you've drilled a dry well.
> >
> >Tex
>
> What's more, BP and Shell are not American companies.
>
> This mantra that it's all about oil is for the simple minded.

There is a level in which it is simple minded and there is a
level in which it explains everything.

Date: 05 Oct 2006 10:20:00
From: Alan Illeman
Subject: Re: OT Re: Exactly WHY are we in IRAQ?

"Tex" <marktexkoenig@gmail.com > wrote in message news:1159979835.624954.25130@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> Alan Illeman wrote:
> > "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1159900206.661085.257160@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > >
> > > Alan Illeman wrote:
> > > > "multi" <multi@asm.org> wrote in message news:bj7jh2pkg0phhi6b5e4i2di9i4c3vobps9@4ax.com...
> > > > > On Tue, 26 Sep 2006 16:44:52 GMT, "Frank Ketchum"
> > > > > <fketchum@earthlinknospaam.net> wrote:
> > > > > >So why has the price of oil continued to rise since we went into Iraq and it
> > > > > >is just now starting to go down? If we got all of this oil out of Iraq,
> > > > > >doesn't the price go down? Supply and demand? ? ? ?
> > > > >
> > > > > Saying that Bush wanted to control Iraq's oil doesn't mean he wanted
> > > > > the price to go down. His buddies, the oil companies, are making
> > > > > record profits with the price of oil up. Whether he planned that or
> > > > > not, it's not a bad thing to him. I think it's more likely that he
> > > > > just wanted to get control of it to keep it from going to China,
> > > > > rather than us. Ironically, his bumbling has almost ensured that Iran
> > > > > will now turn to China as an ally.
> > > >
> > > > Imo, price of oil has recently gone down because of the upcoming
> > > > election or haven't you heard, to make the public feel good when
> > > > they fillup and vote. A friend-of-a-friend-of-a-friend... (yeah I
> > > > know it doesn't sound reliable) was working in Iraq driving those
> > > > enormous earthmoving trucks, not for earthmoving, but with the
> > > > power to pull convoys of 20-odd oiltanker trucks brimming with
> > > > free Iraqi oil to waiting ships in Kuwait, along a heavily guarded
> > > > new road built and defended by contractors. With all that oil, that
> > > > nobody knows about, Bush & co can influence the markets at will.
> > > >
> > > > Had a really poor game yesterday, couldn't seem to do anything right.
> > > > Even my putting stunk. Played with three guys all older than me, and
> > > > they didn't play well either. Perfect day weatherwise, in fact it was too
> > > > hot in long pants. I seemed to be coming into the ball too steep and
> > > > either topping the ball or making divots as long as my arm. I'm only
> > > > thankful that winter is just around the corner :-)
> > > >
> > > > Frodo failed. Bush has the ring. (bumper sticker).
> > >
> > > I'm as virulent a Bush-hater as you're likely to find, but your
> > > conspiracy theory is ridiculous. You really think he has the power to
> > > dial up or down the price of oil to suit his political whims? And you
> > > base that assertion on the claims of a "friend of a friend of a friend"
> > > who is a truck-driver? Gimme a fuckin' break.
> >
> > I must admit this truck driver tale was a bit weak but I did warn you
> > with "(yeah I know it doesn't sound reliable)"
> >
> > http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=7989
> > In the hours and days before the United States and Britain invaded Iraq,
> > a team of British Petroleum (BP) engineers in Kuwait taught combat
> > troops from the 516 Specialist Team Royal Engineers how to run the
> > oil fields in southern Iraq.
> > ....
> > BP and Shell will each send one very large tanker every month to Iraq
> > to pick up their two million barrels.
> > ....
> > But legally there is not much that the Iraqis or Russians can do to contest
> > this in the United States because of an executive order signed by president
> > George Bush in late May. Executive order number 13303 states "any
> > attachment, judgment, decree, lien, execution, garnishment, or other judicial
> > process is prohibited, and shall be deemed null and void", with respect to
> > "all Iraqi petroleum and petroleum products, and interests therein."
> >
> > With this, Bush granted Iraqi oil a lifetime exemption provided US
> > companies are involved in the oil's production, transport, or distribution.
> > ....
> > "Effectively Bush has unilaterally declared Iraqi oil to be the unassailable
> > province of US oil corporations,"
>
> Ok, finally you show something related to a "fact" :)
> The claim is BP and Shell get 4M barrels a MONTH....the US consumes
> 18M/day...the World is close to 80M/day

Yikes, I had no idea you used so much!

Date: 04 Oct 2006 07:59:05
From: Tex
Subject: Re: Exactly WHY are we in IRAQ?

John B. wrote:
> FredK wrote:
> > "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:1159900206.661085.257160@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > >
> > > Alan Illeman wrote:
> > > > "multi" <multi@asm.org> wrote in message
> > news:bj7jh2pkg0phhi6b5e4i2di9i4c3vobps9@4ax.com...
> > > > > On Tue, 26 Sep 2006 16:44:52 GMT, "Frank Ketchum"
> > > > > <fketchum@earthlinknospaam.net> wrote:
> > > > > >So why has the price of oil continued to rise since we went into Iraq
> > and it
> > > > > >is just now starting to go down? If we got all of this oil out of
> > Iraq,
> > > > > >doesn't the price go down? Supply and demand? ? ? ?
> > > > >
> > > > > Saying that Bush wanted to control Iraq's oil doesn't mean he wanted
> > > > > the price to go down. His buddies, the oil companies, are making
> > > > > record profits with the price of oil up. Whether he planned that or
> > > > > not, it's not a bad thing to him. I think it's more likely that he
> > > > > just wanted to get control of it to keep it from going to China,
> > > > > rather than us. Ironically, his bumbling has almost ensured that Iran
> > > > > will now turn to China as an ally.
> > > >
> > > > Imo, price of oil has recently gone down because of the upcoming
> > > > election or haven't you heard, to make the public feel good when
> > > > they fillup and vote. A friend-of-a-friend-of-a-friend... (yeah I
> > > > know it doesn't sound reliable) was working in Iraq driving those
> > > > enormous earthmoving trucks, not for earthmoving, but with the
> > > > power to pull convoys of 20-odd oiltanker trucks brimming with
> > > > free Iraqi oil to waiting ships in Kuwait, along a heavily guarded
> > > > new road built and defended by contractors. With all that oil, that
> > > > nobody knows about, Bush & co can influence the markets at will.
> > > >
> > > > Had a really poor game yesterday, couldn't seem to do anything right.
> > > > Even my putting stunk. Played with three guys all older than me, and
> > > > they didn't play well either. Perfect day weatherwise, in fact it was
> > too
> > > > hot in long pants. I seemed to be coming into the ball too steep and
> > > > either topping the ball or making divots as long as my arm. I'm only
> > > > thankful that winter is just around the corner :-)
> > > >
> > > > Frodo failed. Bush has the ring. (bumper sticker).
> > >
> > > I'm as virulent a Bush-hater as you're likely to find, but your
> > > conspiracy theory is ridiculous. You really think he has the power to
> > > dial up or down the price of oil to suit his political whims? And you
> > > base that assertion on the claims of a "friend of a friend of a friend"
> > > who is a truck-driver? Gimme a fuckin' break.
> > >
> >
> >
> > I dislike GWB as much as any tin-pot dictator. The price of oil has
> > declined because it is in the best interest of the oil companies that it
> > decline at this moment in time. Neither GWB or the Penguin needs to ask
> > Exxon or the rest of the oil industry to "dial down the price". They are in
> > this boat together, and that is what friends are for.
> >
> > But to validate things... see how long after November it takes for prices to
> > rebound and heating oil to set new records.
>
>
> What dark forces were pulling the levers when gasoline prices came down
> in the fall of 2005? and what were they trying to accomplish in a
> non-election year? It seems to me that gasoline prices go up every
> summer, because people are driving more, and come back down every fall.
> Am I being naive?

Yes, you should already know that Bush controls everything...even your
Golf Game.
And that's why you don't score low, he's too stupid to help you play
better.

<g >

Tex

Date: 04 Oct 2006 06:57:08
From: John B.
Subject: Re: Exactly WHY are we in IRAQ?

FredK wrote:
> "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1159900206.661085.257160@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Alan Illeman wrote:
> > > "multi" <multi@asm.org> wrote in message
> news:bj7jh2pkg0phhi6b5e4i2di9i4c3vobps9@4ax.com...
> > > > On Tue, 26 Sep 2006 16:44:52 GMT, "Frank Ketchum"
> > > > <fketchum@earthlinknospaam.net> wrote:
> > > > >So why has the price of oil continued to rise since we went into Iraq
> and it
> > > > >is just now starting to go down? If we got all of this oil out of
> Iraq,
> > > > >doesn't the price go down? Supply and demand? ? ? ?
> > > >
> > > > Saying that Bush wanted to control Iraq's oil doesn't mean he wanted
> > > > the price to go down. His buddies, the oil companies, are making
> > > > record profits with the price of oil up. Whether he planned that or
> > > > not, it's not a bad thing to him. I think it's more likely that he
> > > > just wanted to get control of it to keep it from going to China,
> > > > rather than us. Ironically, his bumbling has almost ensured that Iran
> > > > will now turn to China as an ally.
> > >
> > > Imo, price of oil has recently gone down because of the upcoming
> > > election or haven't you heard, to make the public feel good when
> > > they fillup and vote. A friend-of-a-friend-of-a-friend... (yeah I
> > > know it doesn't sound reliable) was working in Iraq driving those
> > > enormous earthmoving trucks, not for earthmoving, but with the
> > > power to pull convoys of 20-odd oiltanker trucks brimming with
> > > free Iraqi oil to waiting ships in Kuwait, along a heavily guarded
> > > new road built and defended by contractors. With all that oil, that
> > > nobody knows about, Bush & co can influence the markets at will.
> > >
> > > Had a really poor game yesterday, couldn't seem to do anything right.
> > > Even my putting stunk. Played with three guys all older than me, and
> > > they didn't play well either. Perfect day weatherwise, in fact it was
> too
> > > hot in long pants. I seemed to be coming into the ball too steep and
> > > either topping the ball or making divots as long as my arm. I'm only
> > > thankful that winter is just around the corner :-)
> > >
> > > Frodo failed. Bush has the ring. (bumper sticker).
> >
> > I'm as virulent a Bush-hater as you're likely to find, but your
> > conspiracy theory is ridiculous. You really think he has the power to
> > dial up or down the price of oil to suit his political whims? And you
> > base that assertion on the claims of a "friend of a friend of a friend"
> > who is a truck-driver? Gimme a fuckin' break.
> >
>
>
> I dislike GWB as much as any tin-pot dictator. The price of oil has
> declined because it is in the best interest of the oil companies that it
> decline at this moment in time. Neither GWB or the Penguin needs to ask
> Exxon or the rest of the oil industry to "dial down the price". They are in
> this boat together, and that is what friends are for.
>
> But to validate things... see how long after November it takes for prices to
> rebound and heating oil to set new records.

What dark forces were pulling the levers when gasoline prices came down
in the fall of 2005? and what were they trying to accomplish in a
non-election year? It seems to me that gasoline prices go up every
summer, because people are driving more, and come back down every fall.
Am I being naive?

Date: 04 Oct 2006 10:14:32
From: MnMikew
Subject: Re: Exactly WHY are we in IRAQ?

"John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1159970228.803561.324880@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
>
> FredK wrote:
>> "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1159900206.661085.257160@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> >
>> > Alan Illeman wrote:
>> > > "multi" <multi@asm.org> wrote in message
>> news:bj7jh2pkg0phhi6b5e4i2di9i4c3vobps9@4ax.com...
>> > > > On Tue, 26 Sep 2006 16:44:52 GMT, "Frank Ketchum"
>> > > > <fketchum@earthlinknospaam.net> wrote:
>> > > > >So why has the price of oil continued to rise since we went into
>> > > > >Iraq
>> and it
>> > > > >is just now starting to go down? If we got all of this oil out of
>> Iraq,
>> > > > >doesn't the price go down? Supply and demand? ? ? ?
>> > > >
>> > > > Saying that Bush wanted to control Iraq's oil doesn't mean he
>> > > > wanted
>> > > > the price to go down. His buddies, the oil companies, are making
>> > > > record profits with the price of oil up. Whether he planned that
>> > > > or
>> > > > not, it's not a bad thing to him. I think it's more likely that he
>> > > > just wanted to get control of it to keep it from going to China,
>> > > > rather than us. Ironically, his bumbling has almost ensured that
>> > > > Iran
>> > > > will now turn to China as an ally.
>> > >
>> > > Imo, price of oil has recently gone down because of the upcoming
>> > > election or haven't you heard, to make the public feel good when
>> > > they fillup and vote. A friend-of-a-friend-of-a-friend... (yeah I
>> > > know it doesn't sound reliable) was working in Iraq driving those
>> > > enormous earthmoving trucks, not for earthmoving, but with the
>> > > power to pull convoys of 20-odd oiltanker trucks brimming with
>> > > free Iraqi oil to waiting ships in Kuwait, along a heavily guarded
>> > > new road built and defended by contractors. With all that oil, that
>> > > nobody knows about, Bush & co can influence the markets at will.
>> > >
>> > > Had a really poor game yesterday, couldn't seem to do anything right.
>> > > Even my putting stunk. Played with three guys all older than me, and
>> > > they didn't play well either. Perfect day weatherwise, in fact it was
>> too
>> > > hot in long pants. I seemed to be coming into the ball too steep and
>> > > either topping the ball or making divots as long as my arm. I'm only
>> > > thankful that winter is just around the corner :-)
>> > >
>> > > Frodo failed. Bush has the ring. (bumper sticker).
>> >
>> > I'm as virulent a Bush-hater as you're likely to find, but your
>> > conspiracy theory is ridiculous. You really think he has the power to
>> > dial up or down the price of oil to suit his political whims? And you
>> > base that assertion on the claims of a "friend of a friend of a friend"
>> > who is a truck-driver? Gimme a fuckin' break.
>> >
>>
>>
>> I dislike GWB as much as any tin-pot dictator. The price of oil has
>> declined because it is in the best interest of the oil companies that it
>> decline at this moment in time. Neither GWB or the Penguin needs to ask
>> Exxon or the rest of the oil industry to "dial down the price". They are
>> in
>> this boat together, and that is what friends are for.
>>
>> But to validate things... see how long after November it takes for prices
>> to
>> rebound and heating oil to set new records.
>
>
> What dark forces were pulling the levers when gasoline prices came down
> in the fall of 2005? and what were they trying to accomplish in a
> non-election year? It seems to me that gasoline prices go up every
> summer, because people are driving more, and come back down every fall.
> Am I being naive?
>
No, you're using clear rational thinking.

Date: 04 Oct 2006 03:32:58
From: Tex
Subject: Re: Exactly WHY are we in IRAQ?

Chris Bellomy wrote:
> Tex <marktexkoenig@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> : In otherwords, try FACTUAL data, rather than wing nut spin theories
> : passed along through your drunk frat buddies.
>
> Does the fall of the price of gasoline before any election
> when Republicans are in power register a hint of suspicion
> with you? It does with me.
>
> It would be interesting to chart the price of gas next
> to election cycles and see if this really bears out. If
> it does, I think it's a bit much to attribute to coincidence.
> Oil companies *do* have a financial interest in seeing
> Republicans in power, after all.

We'll see if it bears out CB....but, remember, it's the Wall Street
boys that control the price of Oil and Gas....all bought/sold on the
open market. Right now, the money isn't flowing into O&G futures, thus
the selling of contracts and the lower price. And where is that money
flowing?....yup, Wall Street :) Dow at all time highs....

Tex

Date: 04 Oct 2006 16:32:32
From: Tex
Subject: Re: OT Re: Exactly WHY are we in IRAQ?

On 4, 6:03 pm, Carbon <nob...@nospam.verizon.net > wrote:
> On Wed, 04 2006 09:37:15 -0700, Tex wrote:
> > Ok, finally you show something related to a "fact" :) The claim is BP
> > and Shell get 4M barrels a MONTH....the US consumes 18M/day...the World
> > is close to 80M/day
>
> > Not even a blip on the radar screen.
>
> > Put the aluminum foil back on your head and come up with something
> > else....you've drilled a dry well.Tell ya what: multiply 4m times the current price of a barrel of oil.
> Still think it's nothing? Didn't think so.
>
> You've already tried this red herring when you said more Americans die in
> auto accidents than in Iraq, therefore the failed oil war in Iraq doesn't
> matter.
>
> Well it does matter. So does the 4M barrels of oil per month.

Burnt Brain...the discussion was about the "supposed" Oil being used to
manipulate the market...please explains the Economics behind putting 4M
barrels of Oil on a market each month that trades 3.4B barrels each
month. Just how is that supposed to manipulate the price? It can't,
it's barely a drip in the bucket.

Come on, spark one up and give us your best shot.

Tex

Date: 04 Oct 2006 19:16:30
From: The Grand Beckoning
Subject: Re: Oops!

On 04 2006 09:39:49 EDT, Richard Adams <ackthpt@concentric.net >
wrote:
>The Grand Beckoning wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 3 2006 04:02:46 +0100, "Jessica" <wertyuio@ertyuiop.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>"The Grand Beckoning" <the@gr4ndb3ck0n1ng.com> wrote in message
>>>news:evg3i21p63f3qhkstpl21oisch59c6hj0f@4ax.com...
>>>
>>>>
>>>>http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=52256
>>>
>>>"It's just an incredible kind of situation," Scheuer said, "for the American
>>>people over the weekend to hear their former president mislead them."
>>>
>>>Right. As opposed to the current President who has mislead the American
>>>people for the last 5-6 years, and continues to do so almost on a daily
>>>basis? Is Scheuer German for hypocrisy? :-)
>>>
>>
>>
>> Bush has never been proven to have mislead.
>
>
>I think Nixon was ousted for lesser crimes.
>
>Clinton was impeached for getting blown by an intern and lying about it.
>
>Bush? He's lied his entire time in office and continues to mis-lead.

Cite proof of a lie.

>It seems at some point the shear weight of these lies and ineptitude
>would bring about his ouster. Is the USA just waiting for the final straw?

Date: 05 Oct 2006 01:02:50
From: Dave Hazelwood
Subject: Re: Oops!

On Wed, 04 2006 19:16:30 -0400, The Grand Beckoning
<the@gr4ndb3ck0n1ng.com > wrote:

>On 04 2006 09:39:49 EDT, Richard Adams <ackthpt@concentric.net>
>wrote:
>>The Grand Beckoning wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 3 2006 04:02:46 +0100, "Jessica" <wertyuio@ertyuiop.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>"The Grand Beckoning" <the@gr4ndb3ck0n1ng.com> wrote in message
>>>>news:evg3i21p63f3qhkstpl21oisch59c6hj0f@4ax.com...
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=52256
>>>>
>>>>"It's just an incredible kind of situation," Scheuer said, "for the American
>>>>people over the weekend to hear their former president mislead them."
>>>>
>>>>Right. As opposed to the current President who has mislead the American
>>>>people for the last 5-6 years, and continues to do so almost on a daily
>>>>basis? Is Scheuer German for hypocrisy? :-)
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Bush has never been proven to have mislead.
>>
>>
>>I think Nixon was ousted for lesser crimes.
>>
>>Clinton was impeached for getting blown by an intern and lying about it.
>>
>>Bush? He's lied his entire time in office and continues to mis-lead.
>
>Cite proof of a lie.

Here ya go. There is too much to post so you can read it at source.

http://www.google.com

>
>
>>It seems at some point the shear weight of these lies and ineptitude
>>would bring about his ouster. Is the USA just waiting for the final straw?

Date: 05 Oct 2006 01:48:07
From: Richard Adams
Subject: Re: Oops!

The Grand Beckoning wrote:

> On 04 2006 09:39:49 EDT, Richard Adams <ackthpt@concentric.net>
> wrote:
>
>>The Grand Beckoning wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Tue, 3 2006 04:02:46 +0100, "Jessica" <wertyuio@ertyuiop.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>"The Grand Beckoning" <the@gr4ndb3ck0n1ng.com> wrote in message
>>>>news:evg3i21p63f3qhkstpl21oisch59c6hj0f@4ax.com...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=52256
>>>>
>>>>"It's just an incredible kind of situation," Scheuer said, "for the American
>>>>people over the weekend to hear their former president mislead them."
>>>>
>>>>Right. As opposed to the current President who has mislead the American
>>>>people for the last 5-6 years, and continues to do so almost on a daily
>>>>basis? Is Scheuer German for hypocrisy? :-)
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Bush has never been proven to have mislead.
>>
>>
>>I think Nixon was ousted for lesser crimes.
>>
>>Clinton was impeached for getting blown by an intern and lying about it.
>>
>>Bush? He's lied his entire time in office and continues to mis-lead.
>
>
> Cite proof of a lie.

I think the very best one was the one of the first, when Bush compared
his up and coming term would be open, honest and above board compared
with the deceit of his predecessor (the adulterous Clinton.) He's made
so many claims that have proved bollox it would be a staggering task to
list them all. ffs, his rationale for dragging Britain, Italy, Poland
and a lot of Pacific island nations (who offered more moral support than
anything material) into Iraq was because Saddam was alleged to be
harbouring, training and equipping terrorists, when in fact Saddam was
out to apprehend the very same people as a threat to Iraq! Then Bush
goes on to say it was never about terrorism or WMD?!? WTF? Now his own
party, which has denied rights to gays and lesbians is confronted with
one of their own. Oh, how the worm has turned. All this ass-covering,
you couldn't make it up, blaming the victims and all. Gobshite Old Party.

>>It seems at some point the shear weight of these lies and ineptitude
>>would bring about his ouster. Is the USA just waiting for the final straw?

Date: 05 Oct 2006 06:02:25
From: Dave Hazelwood
Subject: Re: Oops!

On 05 2006 01:48:07 EDT, Richard Adams <ackthpt@concentric.net >
wrote:

>The Grand Beckoning wrote:
>
>> On 04 2006 09:39:49 EDT, Richard Adams <ackthpt@concentric.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>The Grand Beckoning wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>On Tue, 3 2006 04:02:46 +0100, "Jessica" <wertyuio@ertyuiop.com>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"The Grand Beckoning" <the@gr4ndb3ck0n1ng.com> wrote in message
>>>>>news:evg3i21p63f3qhkstpl21oisch59c6hj0f@4ax.com...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=52256
>>>>>
>>>>>"It's just an incredible kind of situation," Scheuer said, "for the American
>>>>>people over the weekend to hear their former president mislead them."
>>>>>
>>>>>Right. As opposed to the current President who has mislead the American
>>>>>people for the last 5-6 years, and continues to do so almost on a daily
>>>>>basis? Is Scheuer German for hypocrisy? :-)
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Bush has never been proven to have mislead.
>>>
>>>
>>>I think Nixon was ousted for lesser crimes.
>>>
>>>Clinton was impeached for getting blown by an intern and lying about it.
>>>
>>>Bush? He's lied his entire time in office and continues to mis-lead.
>>
>>
>> Cite proof of a lie.
>
>I think the very best one was the one of the first, when Bush compared
>his up and coming term would be open, honest and above board compared
>with the deceit of his predecessor (the adulterous Clinton.) He's made
>so many claims that have proved bollox it would be a staggering task to
>list them all. ffs, his rationale for dragging Britain, Italy, Poland
>and a lot of Pacific island nations (who offered more moral support than
>anything material) into Iraq was because Saddam was alleged to be
>harbouring, training and equipping terrorists, when in fact Saddam was
>out to apprehend the very same people as a threat to Iraq! Then Bush
>goes on to say it was never about terrorism or WMD?!? WTF? Now his own
>party, which has denied rights to gays and lesbians is confronted with
>one of their own. Oh, how the worm has turned. All this ass-covering,
>you couldn't make it up, blaming the victims and all. Gobshite Old Party.
>
>>>It seems at some point the shear weight of these lies and ineptitude
>>>would bring about his ouster. Is the USA just waiting for the final straw?

Amen bro and now guys like Woodward and Olbermann are telling it like
it is which will force the bought and paid for media to shit or get
off the pot. I expect Bush to be railroaded out of town by his own
party. He is a terminal liability otherwise.

Date: 05 Oct 2006 02:04:23
From: Richard Adams
Subject: Re: Oops!

Dave Hazelwood wrote:

> On 05 2006 01:48:07 EDT, Richard Adams <ackthpt@concentric.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>>The Grand Beckoning wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On 04 2006 09:39:49 EDT, Richard Adams <ackthpt@concentric.net>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>The Grand Beckoning wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>On Tue, 3 2006 04:02:46 +0100, "Jessica" <wertyuio@ertyuiop.com>
>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>"The Grand Beckoning" <the@gr4ndb3ck0n1ng.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>news:evg3i21p63f3qhkstpl21oisch59c6hj0f@4ax.com...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=52256
>>>>>>
>>>>>>"It's just an incredible kind of situation," Scheuer said, "for the American
>>>>>>people over the weekend to hear their former president mislead them."
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Right. As opposed to the current President who has mislead the American
>>>>>>people for the last 5-6 years, and continues to do so almost on a daily
>>>>>>basis? Is Scheuer German for hypocrisy? :-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Bush has never been proven to have mislead.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>I think Nixon was ousted for lesser crimes.
>>>>
>>>>Clinton was impeached for getting blown by an intern and lying about it.
>>>>
>>>>Bush? He's lied his entire time in office and continues to mis-lead.
>>>
>>>
>>>Cite proof of a lie.
>>
>>I think the very best one was the one of the first, when Bush compared
>>his up and coming term would be open, honest and above board compared
>>with the deceit of his predecessor (the adulterous Clinton.) He's made
>>so many claims that have proved bollox it would be a staggering task to
>>list them all. ffs, his rationale for dragging Britain, Italy, Poland
>>and a lot of Pacific island nations (who offered more moral support than
>>anything material) into Iraq was because Saddam was alleged to be
>>harbouring, training and equipping terrorists, when in fact Saddam was
>>out to apprehend the very same people as a threat to Iraq! Then Bush
>>goes on to say it was never about terrorism or WMD?!? WTF? Now his own
>>party, which has denied rights to gays and lesbians is confronted with
>>one of their own. Oh, how the worm has turned. All this ass-covering,
>>you couldn't make it up, blaming the victims and all. Gobshite Old Party.
>>
>>
>>>>It seems at some point the shear weight of these lies and ineptitude
>>>>would bring about his ouster. Is the USA just waiting for the final straw?
>
>
>
> Amen bro and now guys like Woodward and Olbermann are telling it like
> it is which will force the bought and paid for media to shit or get
> off the pot. I expect Bush to be railroaded out of town by his own
> party. He is a terminal liability otherwise.

Oxymoron: Liberal Media. Most media is owned by conservatives. Hell,
Rupert Murdock himself is one of Bush's biggest supporters, not for his
foreign policies, but for his hands-off approach to big media and tax
cuts which will enslave his country to the chinese who are funding its
massive debt.

Date: 06 Oct 2006 23:40:35
From: The Grand Beckoning
Subject: Re: Oops!

On 05 2006 01:48:07 EDT, Richard Adams <ackthpt@concentric.net >
wrote:
>The Grand Beckoning wrote:
>
>> On 04 2006 09:39:49 EDT, Richard Adams <ackthpt@concentric.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>The Grand Beckoning wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>On Tue, 3 2006 04:02:46 +0100, "Jessica" <wertyuio@ertyuiop.com>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"The Grand Beckoning" <the@gr4ndb3ck0n1ng.com> wrote in message
>>>>>news:evg3i21p63f3qhkstpl21oisch59c6hj0f@4ax.com...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=52256
>>>>>
>>>>>"It's just an incredible kind of situation," Scheuer said, "for the American
>>>>>people over the weekend to hear their former president mislead them."
>>>>>
>>>>>Right. As opposed to the current President who has mislead the American
>>>>>people for the last 5-6 years, and continues to do so almost on a daily
>>>>>basis? Is Scheuer German for hypocrisy? :-)
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Bush has never been proven to have mislead.
>>>
>>>
>>>I think Nixon was ousted for lesser crimes.
>>>
>>>Clinton was impeached for getting blown by an intern and lying about it.
>>>
>>>Bush? He's lied his entire time in office and continues to mis-lead.
>>
>>
>> Cite proof of a lie.
>
>I think the very best one was the one of the first, when Bush compared
>his up and coming term would be open, honest and above board compared
>with the deceit of his predecessor (the adulterous Clinton.) He's made
>so many claims that have proved bollox it would be a staggering task to
>list them all. ffs, his rationale for dragging Britain, Italy, Poland
>and a lot of Pacific island nations (who offered more moral support than
>anything material) into Iraq was because Saddam was alleged to be
>harbouring, training and equipping terrorists, when in fact Saddam was
>out to apprehend the very same people as a threat to Iraq! Then Bush

Some of those nations you listed provided corroborating intel that SH
had WMDs.

>goes on to say it was never about terrorism or WMD?!? WTF? Now his own

SH had contacts with Al Qaeda, only as far as we know, nothing
operational.

So this falls way short of proof citation that Bush lied.

Date: 05 Oct 2006 09:42:25
From: Tex
Subject: Re: OT Re: Exactly WHY are we in IRAQ?

Carbon wrote:
> On Wed, 04 2006 16:32:32 -0700, Tex wrote:
> > On 4, 6:03 pm, Carbon <nob...@nospam.verizon.net> wrote:
> >> On Wed, 04 2006 09:37:15 -0700, Tex wrote:
>
> >> > Ok, finally you show something related to a "fact" :) The claim is BP
> >> > and Shell get 4M barrels a MONTH....the US consumes 18M/day...the
> >> > World is close to 80M/day
> >>
> >> > Not even a blip on the radar screen.
> >>
> >> > Put the aluminum foil back on your head and come up with something
> >> > else....you've drilled a dry well.Tell ya what: multiply 4m times the
> >> > current price of a barrel of oil.
> >> Still think it's nothing? Didn't think so.
> >>
> >> You've already tried this red herring when you said more Americans die
> >> in auto accidents than in Iraq, therefore the failed oil war in Iraq
> >> doesn't matter.
> >>
> >> Well it does matter. So does the 4M barrels of oil per month.
> >
> > Burnt Brain...the discussion was about the "supposed" Oil being used to
> > manipulate the market...please explains the Economics behind putting 4M
> > barrels of Oil on a market each month that trades 3.4B barrels each
> > month. Just how is that supposed to manipulate the price? It can't,
> > it's barely a drip in the bucket.
> >
> > Come on, spark one up and give us your best shot.
>
> Tell ya what, Tex. Guzzle a fifth of tequila and tell us how all the
> deaths in Iraq don't matter because more Americans die in auto accidents.
> I'm sure the families of the 2700+ fallen soldiers (to date) will be
> comforted by your thoughts.

Can't stand Tequilla. Seeing how you refuse to debate the topic, I'll
slide you right back to the political hack category, meaning you are a
worthless piece of shit.

Tex