Bush aides admit failure of bin Laden strategy
Corky K
letting Bin Laden get away? Expect crickets.
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/world/4976684.html
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
SMITH29
> Ok, neoturds, are you balanced enough to blame Bush like you blame Clinton for
> letting Bin Laden get away? Expect crickets.
>
> http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/world/4976684.html
>
We didn't start up the draft. Should Bush take the heat for that? It
never should have been closed.
Now our volunteer troops are tired and we have no replacements and no
program to alleviate the problem.
The American majority if polls are correct want to bring the troops home.
That will happen and Americans wont forget about Osama or Al Qaeda
because they still have their basic goal which is to kill Americans.
So, who do you want to blame for what?
When the Qaeda kills again in America who will you blame ?
You worry about Osama now? And assignment of blame won't help the coming
carnage one bit now will it?
The American citizens who want the troops home NOW will wonder if that
was such a good idea.
And what about planning for tomorrows military needs. You hear Nancy
Pelosi urging the start up of military draft?
Are we letting contracts for military needs in a build up?
29
Bill Shatzer
> Corky K wrote:
>
>> Ok, neoturds, are you balanced enough to blame Bush like you blame
>> Clinton for
>> letting Bin Laden get away? Expect crickets.
>>
>> http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/world/4976684.html
>>
> xxxx
> We didn't start up the draft. Should Bush take the heat for that? It
> never should have been closed.
> Now our volunteer troops are tired and we have no replacements and no
> program to alleviate the problem.
>
> The American majority if polls are correct want to bring the troops home.
> That will happen and Americans wont forget about Osama or Al Qaeda
> because they still have their basic goal which is to kill Americans.
>
> So, who do you want to blame for what?
>
> When the Qaeda kills again in America who will you blame ?
When al Qaida kills in Iraq (3,640 to date) I've no problem figuring out
who to blame.
There WAS no al Qaida in Iraq before the dubya commenced his ill-advised
adventure.
Peace and justice,
SMITH29
> SMITH29 wrote:
>
>> Corky K wrote:
>>
>>> Ok, neoturds, are you balanced enough to blame Bush like you blame
>>> Clinton for
>>> letting Bin Laden get away? Expect crickets.
>>>
>>> http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/world/4976684.html
>>>
>> xxxx
>> We didn't start up the draft. Should Bush take the heat for that? It
>> never should have been closed.
>> Now our volunteer troops are tired and we have no replacements and no
>> program to alleviate the problem.
>>
>> The American majority if polls are correct want to bring the troops home.
>> That will happen and Americans wont forget about Osama or Al Qaeda
>> because they still have their basic goal which is to kill Americans.
>>
>> So, who do you want to blame for what?
>>
>> When the Qaeda kills again in America who will you blame ?
>
> When al Qaida kills in Iraq (3,640 to date) I've no problem figuring out
> who to blame.
Well, Are you going to tell us?
>
> There WAS no al Qaida in Iraq before the dubya commenced his ill-advised
> adventure.
xxxx
You have Qaeda intel I never heard of.
Where did you get it?
And if true, what does that have to do with the Baath party Saddam was
running?
We went there to put his reign down. 1441 was the document. Remember that?
>
> Peace and justice,
>
>
Corky K
>Corky K wrote:
>> Ok, neoturds, are you balanced enough to blame Bush like you blame Clinton for
>> letting Bin Laden get away? Expect crickets.
>>
>> http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/world/4976684.html
>>
>xxxx
>We didn't start up the draft. Should Bush take the heat for that? It
>never should have been closed.
>Now our volunteer troops are tired and we have no replacements and no
>program to alleviate the problem.
So the draft is the problem? Explain. King George has been trying to put a
bandaid on a bad plan in Iraq for several years now. Perhaps a better plan at
the beginning would have made more sense than Shock and Awe? But that's not the
subject of this thread. His failure on the bin Laden strategy is. Can you admit
it, Schmiddy?
>
>The American majority if polls are correct want to bring the troops home.
>That will happen and Americans wont forget about Osama or Al Qaeda
>because they still have their basic goal which is to kill Americans.
Apparantly King George has forgotten bin Laden. He even said once that bin Laden
wasn't a priority. But still crickets from you Righturds. So do the American
people know more than the King? Hint: Rhetorical question.
>So, who do you want to blame for what?
Here, Schmiddy, for the politically impaired. I'll go slowly. Bush admits
failure in his strategy on bin Laden. The Righturds have blamed Clinton for his
failure on the bin Laden policy. Will the Righturds step up to the plate and be
balanced?
>When the Qaeda kills again in America who will you blame ?
Bush of course. The 911 attack happened during his administration. He attacked
Afghanistan as a harborer of Al Qaeda and bin Laden. Through poor planning, bin
Laden escaped into Pakistan. Bush turned his attention to Iraq and decided to
not rock the boat with Pakistan and treat them as an ally, even though there is
overwhelming evidence that they too are harboring terrorists from the Al Qaeda
organization, including perhaps bin Laden. Who would you blame for this serious
mistake? Bush admits failure.
>You worry about Osama now? And assignment of blame won't help the coming
>carnage one bit now will it?
The assigment of blame to Clinton falls also in that category, doesn't it? What
ultimately does blame accomplish? But someone should be answerable for the
failures thus far of this administration to eliminate bin Laden and his infinite
monetary funding of Al Qaeda. That someone is the man at the top. Virtually
everyone else has been replaced along the way with little or no results.
>The American citizens who want the troops home NOW will wonder if that
>was such a good idea.
It is a great idea. They never should have been in Iraq in the first place. If
the money spent making that the catastrophe it has become had only been spent on
finding and eliminating bin Laden and the funding for the greater part of Al
Qaeda, Iraq could have been better planned as a follow up. The Righturds rant
about quitting a strategy in the middle, well it has already been done, by King
George. Quitting on the hunt for bin Laden has proven a grave error. Rather than
turning our heads toward Iraq, we should have followed bin Laden right into
Pakistan and got the job done. The quitting has alread happened, Scmiddy. The
Dems understand this and are trying to first cut the losses in Iraq and then
focus on what should have been the strategy in the first place. Eliminating the
cash cow from Al Qaeda.
>And what about planning for tomorrows military needs. You hear Nancy
>Pelosi urging the start up of military draft?
Do you hear anyone doing such, partisan politics aside? Nope. The catastrophe in
Iraq has soured the youths who might have stepped forward to serve their
country. What do you want to bet the enlistment numbers would have been had the
US continued to root out bin Laden in Pakistan instead of lying about WOMD and
how powerful Hussein had become during the middle of an act of war by Al Qaeda?
>Are we letting contracts for military needs in a build up?
Opening contracts to bidding would also be a start here. Giving no bid contracts
to inside companies just has served to pad the pockets of those in this
administration. America was built on competition. If that is taken away, expect
more than a crash.
>
>29
Don Homuth
wrote:
>Bill Shatzer wrote:
>> There WAS no al Qaida in Iraq before the dubya commenced his ill-advised
>> adventure.
>xxxx
>You have Qaeda intel I never heard of.]
Apparently he does.
>Where did you get it?
It's been reported and known for more than a year.
>And if true, what does that have to do with the Baath party Saddam was
>running?
Nothing at all. the Baath Party was not al Qaeda. If anything, al
Qaeda was opposed to the Baathists.
>We went there to put his reign down. 1441 was the document. Remember that?
We did.
At that point, we shoulda gone home and let Them have their
bloodletting.
But no....
SMITH29
> On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 23:58:30 -0700, SMITH29 <smi...@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
>> Bill Shatzer wrote:
>
>>> There WAS no al Qaida in Iraq before the dubya commenced his ill-advised
>>> adventure.
>> xxxx
>> You have Qaeda intel I never heard of.]
>
> Apparently he does.
>
>> Where did you get it?
>
> It's been reported and known for more than a year.
>
>> And if true, what does that have to do with the Baath party Saddam was
>> running?
>
> Nothing at all. the Baath Party was not al Qaeda. If anything, al
> Qaeda was opposed to the Baathists.
That's what I heard too but we have Al Qaeda all over the place now.
>
>> We went there to put his reign down. 1441 was the document. Remember that?
>
> We did.
>
> At that point, we shoulda gone home and let Them have their
> bloodletting.
>
> But no....
xxxx
We need to eliminate Qaeda but Nancy doesn't agree so if we leave we did
nothing worthwhile other than putting Saddam down and proving that Qaeda
has a greater resolve than we do. And they won't leave us alone either.
29
Caddys...@gmail.com
> SMITH29 wrote:
> > Corky K wrote:
>
> >> Ok, neoturds, are you balanced enough to blame Bush like you blame
> >> Clinton for
> >> letting Bin Laden get away? Expect crickets.
>
> >>http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/world/4976684.html
>
> > xxxx
> > We didn't start up the draft. Should Bush take the heat for that? It
> > never should have been closed.
> > Now our volunteer troops are tired and we have no replacements and no
> > program to alleviate the problem.
>
> > The American majority if polls are correct want to bring the troops home.
> > That will happen and Americans wont forget about Osama or Al Qaeda
> > because they still have their basic goal which is to kill Americans.
>
> > So, who do you want to blame for what?
>
> > When the Qaeda kills again in America who will you blame ?
>
> When al Qaida kills in Iraq (3,640 to date) I've no problem figuring out
> who to blame.
I'm pretty sure that not all of those are al Qaida's responsibility.
Actually, I'm pretty sure the vast majority are the responsiblity of
leftover Sunnis and Iran Shia terrorists.
> There WAS no al Qaida in Iraq before the dubya commenced his ill-advised
> adventure.
For the record, you think it's a bad idea of for al Quida, who
previously languished in Pakistan, Syria and Saudi Arabia, to go to
Iraq to die?
Bill Shatzer
> Bill Shatzer wrote:
-snip-
>> There WAS no al Qaida in Iraq before the dubya commenced his
>> ill-advised adventure.
> You have Qaeda intel I never heard of.
> Where did you get it?
From the Iraq Study Group report and publically released CIA
intellegence estimates.
Next question?
> And if true, what does that have to do with the Baath party Saddam was
> running?
The Baathist party was a group of genuine nasties.
It also posed no threat at all to the United States or United States'
national interests.
> We went there to put his reign down.
Well, we certainly did that. That made things ever so much better, eh?
> 1441 was the document. Remember that?
1441 in no way authorized anyone to "put his reign down".
The dubya just decided to do that pretty much by his lonesome. Just one
in a series of blunders.
Incidently, ya' don't hear much 'bout the Coalition of the Willing as of
late, do ya'?
Peace and justice,
Corky K
If it were those Al Qaeda from Pakistan, no. But most of these are new recruits.
People pissed off enough by this administrations actions to join up. The
Pakistan Al Qaeda is busy planning other actions, sort of the über organization.
Don Homuth
wrote:
>Don Homuth wrote:
>> On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 23:58:30 -0700, SMITH29 <smi...@comcast.net>
>> wrote:
>> what does that have to do with the Baath party Saddam was
>>> running?
>>
>> Nothing at all. the Baath Party was not al Qaeda. If anything, al
>> Qaeda was opposed to the Baathists.
>xxxx
>That's what I heard too but we have Al Qaeda all over the place now.
Having some trouble keeping the players apart?
There was no al Qaeda within Iraq until sometime in 2004, when a
previous group renamed itself al Qaeda In Iraq and asserted that it
had form a Very informal relationship with ObL.
You certainly do Hear about al Qaeda all over the place, but that's
just something the administration spokesdroids do to try to play on
your ongoing gullibility and convince you that al Qaeda In Iraq is the
same group as the al Qaeda of ObL in Pakistan and Afghanistan.
It is not.
>We need to eliminate Qaeda
Indeed -- and had we remained in Afghanistan to do a better job and
perhaps even finish it properly, we might well have done that.
But Dubya's ADD problem got us over into Iraq, where the was no al
Qaeda at the time, and wouldn't be for several years.
>... but Nancy doesn't agree
Pelosi has always been reasonably supportive of the Afghanistan
mission, even from the start. Maybe not as gung-ho as you might have
preferred, but certainly never got all het up about it.
Again -- keep the original al Qaeda separate from the later-formed
group al Qaeda In Iraq. Those are Not the same groups, and the latter
is a formal title, not just a descriptor.
>... so if we leave we did
>nothing worthwhile other than putting Saddam down
Which was, if you recall, the initial mission. That part was always
going to be essentially a walkover. The world's only hyperpower plus
two second-rate powers and a hired class of several thousand was
Always going to knock over a military that is no better than third,
and arguably fourth class at the time.
>... and proving that Qaeda has a greater resolve than we do.
I suspect you've bought Far too much into the administration's
assertion that we are mostly fighting al Qaeda.
We re not.
>... And they won't leave us alone either.
They were never going to, Iraq or no Iraq. But for a while there in
Afghanistan, we could and came Very close to taking them down entirely
and destroying their organization Before we decided to train them in
asymmetric warfare in Iraq.
That part was always Dubya's decision to take. It was and remains
dubya's war entirely.
Bill Shatzer
> Don Homuth wrote:
>> On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 23:58:30 -0700, SMITH29 <smi...@comcast.net>
>> wrote:
>>> Bill Shatzer wrote:
>>>> There WAS no al Qaida in Iraq before the dubya commenced his
>>>> ill-advised adventure.
>>> You have Qaeda intel I never heard of.]
>> Apparently he does.
>>> Where did you get it?
>> It's been reported and known for more than a year.
>>> And if true, what does that have to do with the Baath party Saddam
>>> was running?
>> Nothing at all. the Baath Party was not al Qaeda. If anything, al
>> Qaeda was opposed to the Baathists.
> That's what I heard too but we have Al Qaeda all over the place now.
Another outcome which can be largely laid at the feet of the dubya
regime and its band of merry Rovers.
We had al Qaeda very much on the ropes in Tora Bora - 'til the dubya
took his eye off the ball and decided to withdraw the special forces for
his Iraq invasion rather than using them to polish off what remained of
al Qaeda and the Taliban.
> We need to eliminate Qaeda but Nancy doesn't agree so if we leave we did
> nothing worthwhile other than putting Saddam down and proving that Qaeda
> has a greater resolve than we do.
Resolve to persist in a failed strategy is not resolve, it is stupidity.
Which is more or less what we've come to expect from the dubya regime.
And they won't leave us alone either.
Perhaps. But invading and occupying Iraq did nothing to lessen that
probability. Indeed, it only increased it.
I mean, the "we're fighting 'em there so we won't have to fight 'em
here" approach didn't seem to be work all that well for the Brits. Or
the Spainiard's either, for that matter.
There's no reason to think the results will ultimately prove better for
us. And, in the meantime, we've plunked 150,000 americans down in a
place where they don't speak the language, don't know the culture, 30%
of the population hates 'em, and three or four a day are getting blown
up by IEDs.
Withdrawing from Iraq won't make 'em leave us alone. But it'll mean a
hundred or so Americans aren't getting blown to smithereens every four
weeks or so.
Peace and justice,
Caddys...@gmail.com
> Suddenly, Caddyshack...@gmail.com, blurted out the following:
How do you know that? What are you are saying is that Iraqi domestics,
most of whom have an established affiliation with the Sunni's, Kurds
or Shia are foregoing that existing affiliation to join a foreign
organization which is mostly Sunni yet wants to create a caliphate
antithetical to the government the Sunni's had under Saddam.
That isn't realistic. However, we do know that Iranians, Syrians,
Jordanians, Saudis, Pakistanis, Northern Africans, etc. are coming
into Iraq to die under the al Qaeda banner.
SMITH29
> On Fri, 20 Jul 2007 09:46:29 -0700, SMITH29 <smi...@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
>> Don Homuth wrote:
>>> On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 23:58:30 -0700, SMITH29 <smi...@comcast.net>
>>> wrote:
>>> what does that have to do with the Baath party Saddam was
>>>> running?
>>> Nothing at all. the Baath Party was not al Qaeda. If anything, al
>>> Qaeda was opposed to the Baathists.
>> xxxx
>> That's what I heard too but we have Al Qaeda all over the place now.
>
> Having some trouble keeping the players apart?
Not any more than anybody else.
>
> There was no al Qaeda within Iraq until sometime in 2004, when a
> previous group renamed itself al Qaeda In Iraq and asserted that it
> had form a Very informal relationship with ObL.
>
> You certainly do Hear about al Qaeda all over the place, but that's
> just something the administration spokesdroids do to try to play on
> your ongoing gullibility and convince you that al Qaeda In Iraq is the
> same group as the al Qaeda of ObL in Pakistan and Afghanistan.
>
> It is not.
>
>> We need to eliminate Qaeda
>
> Indeed -- and had we remained in Afghanistan to do a better job and
> perhaps even finish it properly, we might well have done that.
Was manpower the reason we left?
Do we have a manpower problem now?
>
> But Dubya's ADD problem got us over into Iraq, where the was no al
> Qaeda at the time, and wouldn't be for several years.
>
>> ... but Nancy doesn't agree
>
> Pelosi has always been reasonably supportive of the Afghanistan
> mission, even from the start. Maybe not as gung-ho as you might have
> preferred, but certainly never got all het up about it.
>
> Again -- keep the original al Qaeda separate from the later-formed
> group al Qaeda In Iraq. Those are Not the same groups, and the latter
> is a formal title, not just a descriptor.
And the point of this is?
SMITH29
> Suddenly, SMITH29 <smi...@comcast.net>, blurted out the following:
>
>> Corky K wrote:
>>> Ok, neoturds, are you balanced enough to blame Bush like you blame Clinton for
>>> letting Bin Laden get away? Expect crickets.
>>>
>>> http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/world/4976684.html
>>>
>> xxxx
>> We didn't start up the draft. Should Bush take the heat for that? It
>> never should have been closed.
>> Now our volunteer troops are tired and we have no replacements and no
>> program to alleviate the problem.
>
> So the draft is the problem? Explain.
DROP DEAD !!!
29
Don Homuth
wrote:
>Don Homuth wrote:
>> On Fri, 20 Jul 2007 09:46:29 -0700, SMITH29 <smi...@comcast.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> We need to eliminate Qaeda
>>
>> Indeed -- and had we remained in Afghanistan to do a better job and
>> perhaps even finish it properly, we might well have done that.
>xxxx
>Was manpower the reason we left?
Nope. We had all Sorts of personnel to deploy to Afghanistan. Then.
>Do we have a manpower problem now?
Depends on whom you ask. Dubya doesn't have one. He can just snap
his fingers and deploy troops in any strength he requires, and then
keep them there longer than he said they would be there.
>>> ... but Nancy doesn't agree
>>
>> Pelosi has always been reasonably supportive of the Afghanistan
>> mission, even from the start. Maybe not as gung-ho as you might have
>> preferred, but certainly never got all het up about it.
>>
>> Again -- keep the original al Qaeda separate from the later-formed
>> group al Qaeda In Iraq. Those are Not the same groups, and the latter
>> is a formal title, not just a descriptor.
>xxxx
>And the point of this is?
That the real al Qaeda is different from the al Qaeda In Iraq. The
latter poses no real threat to the US at all from Iraq. The real al
Qaeda is still out there, just not where we are trying to do the
fighting.
You really and truly Don't understand the situation and Can't
differentiate the key players, can you?
Lobby Dosser
> That the real al Qaeda is different from the al Qaeda In Iraq. The
> latter poses no real threat to the US at all from Iraq. The real al
> Qaeda is still out there, just not where we are trying to do the
> fighting.
Do you understand that al Qaeda in Iraq is primarily composed of foreigners
who will eventually be killed by Iraqis (assuming we leave) or go home?
Where do you suppose they came from? What do you suppose they will do when
they get home? Can you Define "the real al Qaeda"?
SMITH29
I differentiate adult conversation from "Dubya"...
29
Don Homuth
Explain that to Smith29. He doesn't seem to get it.
Corky K
How do you know that all of these Syrians, Jordanians, Saudis, Pakistanis, N
Africans, etc. are all dying under the Al Qaeda banner? Are they found with Al
Qaeda discount cards in their wallets? They are simply insurgents who are
fighting for their Muslim brothers. It is real easy to put all insurgency under
the Al Qaeda banner, but it simply isn't so. There was virtually no presence
from Al Qaeda pre-invasion. The latest is that we are told that the leader of Al
Qaeda in Iraq never even existed. Surprised? I'm not. Al Qaeda has become the
rebel yell to frighten us 'mericans. It works with many, too many in fact. But
not this one.
Lobby Dosser
And they Will pose a threat to us. Assuming the Iraqis don't kill them
all.
SMITH29
http://tinyurl.com/227kj8
The Real Al Qaeda is " different " than the Al Qaeda in Iraq?
Please tell us about it......
Any Mesopotamian terrorist should have the same destiny as an Afghan
terrorist.
Al Qaeda means " the base " and it's function is to kill you and me and
the Jews.> http://www.answers.com/topic/al-qaeda
29
Pork Pie Hat
"SMITH29" <smi...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:13a39hi...@news.supernews.com...
> I differentiate adult conversation from "Dubya"...
>
You wouldn't know an adult
if Gee DUHbya
shat on your upper lip.
SMITH29
> SMITH29 wrote:
>
>> Bill Shatzer wrote:
>
> -snip-
>
>>> There WAS no al Qaida in Iraq before the dubya commenced his
>>> ill-advised adventure.
>
>> You have Qaeda intel I never heard of.
>> Where did you get it?
>
> From the Iraq Study Group report and publically released CIA
> intellegence estimates.
>
> Next question?
Yes,
You don't believe Saddam had WMD.
Our intel said they did.
Now you believe CIA?
Selective belief when it helps ?
>
>> And if true, what does that have to do with the Baath party Saddam was
>> running?
>
> The Baathist party was a group of genuine nasties.
>
> It also posed no threat at all to the United States or United States'
> national interests.
xxxx
That's a crock of shit. Saddam hated and tried to kill Israeli citizens
with skuds. Ring a bell there? HHmmmmmm??
>
>> We went there to put his reign down.
>
> Well, we certainly did that. That made things ever so much better, eh?
xxxx
He and his kids are dead. That's a LOT better and he isn't killing
anybody anymore. That's also good.
>
>> 1441 was the document. Remember that?
>
> 1441 in no way authorized anyone to "put his reign down".
xxxx
Yeah it did.
>
> The dubya just decided to do that pretty much by his lonesome. Just one
> in a series of blunders.
xxxx
Taking the Saddam gang out is a blunder?
>
> Incidently, ya' don't hear much 'bout the Coalition of the Willing as of
> late, do ya'?
xxxx
So?
29
>
> Peace and justice,
>
SMITH29
> SMITH29 wrote:
>
>> Don Homuth wrote:
>
>>> On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 23:58:30 -0700, SMITH29 <smi...@comcast.net>
>>> wrote:
>
>>>> Bill Shatzer wrote:
>
>>>>> There WAS no al Qaida in Iraq before the dubya commenced his
>>>>> ill-advised adventure.
>
>>>> You have Qaeda intel I never heard of.]
>
>>> Apparently he does.
>
>>>> Where did you get it?
>
>>> It's been reported and known for more than a year.
>
>>>> And if true, what does that have to do with the Baath party Saddam
>>>> was running?
>
>>> Nothing at all. the Baath Party was not al Qaeda. If anything, al
>>> Qaeda was opposed to the Baathists.
>
>> That's what I heard too but we have Al Qaeda all over the place now.
>
> Another outcome which can be largely laid at the feet of the dubya
> regime and its band of merry Rovers.
>
> We had al Qaeda very much on the ropes in Tora Bora - 'til the dubya
> took his eye off the ball and decided to withdraw the special forces for
> his Iraq invasion rather than using them to polish off what remained of
> al Qaeda and the Taliban.
You were there? How exactly do you arrive at this?
>
>> We need to eliminate Qaeda but Nancy doesn't agree so if we leave we
>> did nothing worthwhile other than putting Saddam down and proving that
>> Qaeda has a greater resolve than we do.
>
> Resolve to persist in a failed strategy is not resolve, it is stupidity.
Qaeda is stupid?
>
> Which is more or less what we've come to expect from the dubya regime.
>
> And they won't leave us alone either.
>
> Perhaps. But invading and occupying Iraq did nothing to lessen that
> probability. Indeed, it only increased it.
>
> I mean, the "we're fighting 'em there so we won't have to fight 'em
> here" approach didn't seem to be work all that well for the Brits. Or
> the Spainiard's either, for that matter.
xxxx
When it happens here again you will believe?
>
> There's no reason to think the results will ultimately prove better for
> us. And, in the meantime, we've plunked 150,000 americans down in a
> place where they don't speak the language, don't know the culture, 30%
> of the population hates 'em, and three or four a day are getting blown
> up by IEDs.
xxxx
WWII all over again eh?
>
> Withdrawing from Iraq won't make 'em leave us alone. But it'll mean a
> hundred or so Americans aren't getting blown to smithereens every four
> weeks or so.
xxxx
Come home tail between our legs......
Looks like you are right.
>
> Peace and justice,
>
>
Don Homuth
wrote:
> You don't believe Saddam had WMD.
During the runup to the war, we had No Actual Evidence that he did.
>Our intel said they did.
Well no -- it did not. We had folks Saying our Intel said they did.
But our intel did Not make any confirmable case that they did.
>Now you believe CIA?
The CIA now has some Actual Evidence, and no one looking over its
shoulder as the neocon Chickenhawks were doing at the time.
>Selective belief when it helps ?
Have you stopped believing the CIA's intial story.
>> The Baathist party was a group of genuine nasties.
>>
>> It also posed no threat at all to the United States or United States'
>> national interests.
>xxxx
>That's a crock of shit. Saddam hated and tried to kill Israeli citizens
>with skuds. Ring a bell there? HHmmmmmm??
Explain how firing some inaccurate missiles at Israel was a threat to
the United States or its national interests.
>>> We went there to put his reign down.
>>
>> Well, we certainly did that. That made things ever so much better, eh?
>xxxx
>He and his kids are dead. That's a LOT better and he isn't killing
>anybody anymore. That's also good.
Is it worth >3500 dead and nearly a trillion dollars?
Lobby Dosser
> On Sun, 22 Jul 2007 19:46:07 -0700, SMITH29 <smi...@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>> You don't believe Saddam had WMD.
>
> During the runup to the war, we had No Actual Evidence that he did.
He had them and used them prior to that. What "Actual Evidence" did we have
that he no longer had them?
Don Homuth
<lobby.dos...@verizon.net> wrote:
>Don Homuth <dhomuthoneatcomcast.net> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 22 Jul 2007 19:46:07 -0700, SMITH29 <smi...@comcast.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> You don't believe Saddam had WMD.
>>
>> During the runup to the war, we had No Actual Evidence that he did.
>
>He had them and used them prior to that.
W-a-y prior to that.
I had chicken pox when I was a kid. I don't have it now.
>..What "Actual Evidence" did we have
>that he no longer had them?
Har! The idea is that we Should have had Actual Evidence that he Did
have them. As I said -- we had precisely No such evidence.
SMITH29
> On Sun, 22 Jul 2007 19:46:07 -0700, SMITH29 <smi...@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>> You don't believe Saddam had WMD.
>
> During the runup to the war, we had No Actual Evidence that he did.
>
>> Our intel said they did.
>
> Well no -- it did not. We had folks Saying our Intel said they did.
> But our intel did Not make any confirmable case that they did.
https://www.cia.gov/library/reports/general-reports-1/iraq_wmd/Iraq_Oct_2002.pdf
http://www.slate.com/id/2083736/
You think we are stupid or are you a troll?
http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/03/31/intel.report/index.html
>
>> Now you believe CIA?
>
> The CIA now has some Actual Evidence, and no one looking over its
> shoulder as the neocon Chickenhawks were doing at the time.
>
>> Selective belief when it helps ?
>
> Have you stopped believing the CIA's intial story.
>
>>> The Baathist party was a group of genuine nasties.
>>>
>>> It also posed no threat at all to the United States or United States'
>>> national interests.
>> xxxx
>> That's a crock of shit. Saddam hated and tried to kill Israeli citizens
>> with skuds. Ring a bell there? HHmmmmmm??
>
> Explain how firing some inaccurate missiles at Israel was a threat to
> the United States or its national interests.
OH!! I was wrong, we don't care about Israel. My mistake.
>
>>>> We went there to put his reign down.
>>> Well, we certainly did that. That made things ever so much better, eh?
>> xxxx
>> He and his kids are dead. That's a LOT better and he isn't killing
>> anybody anymore. That's also good.
>
> Is it worth >3500 dead and nearly a trillion dollars?
Wait till Pakistan goes tits up and Iran plus Syria get into it.
We haven't EVEN started spending and dying over there.
The crap has yet to hit the fan.
The Army might want you back to train up recruits over there in Baghdad.
I feel a draft.
29
Don Homuth
wrote:
>Don Homuth wrote:
>> On Sun, 22 Jul 2007 19:46:07 -0700, SMITH29 <smi...@comcast.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>> The Baathist party was a group of genuine nasties.
>>>>
>>>> It also posed no threat at all to the United States or United States'
>>>> national interests.
>>> xxxx
>>> That's a crock of shit. Saddam hated and tried to kill Israeli citizens
>>> with skuds. Ring a bell there? HHmmmmmm??
>>
>> Explain how firing some inaccurate missiles at Israel was a threat to
>> the United States or its national interests.
>xxxx
>OH!! I was wrong, we don't care about Israel. My mistake.
Caring about Israel and Caring about the US National Interests are two
different things, seems to me.
Israel is a nuclear power. It means to be.
Are we in Iraq because we Care about Israel?
>>>>> We went there to put his reign down.
>>>> Well, we certainly did that. That made things ever so much better, eh?
>>> xxxx
>>> He and his kids are dead. That's a LOT better and he isn't killing
>>> anybody anymore. That's also good.
>>
>> Is it worth >3500 dead and nearly a trillion dollars?
>xxxx
>Wait till Pakistan goes tits up and Iran plus Syria get into it.
Sidestep two, and-a three and Backstep-anda two-anda-three.
You don't dance very well.
Is it worth >3500 Murken Dead and nearly a trillion dollars?
>We haven't EVEN started spending and dying over there.
How much spending and dying should we do?
>The crap has yet to hit the fan.
So this is all just a walk in the park to you?
Child -- I talk with folks who have been there several times over.
You might want to revisit that statement, because If it's true, then
the Chickenhawk Children are about to become Terminall Fromaged with
their parents.
>The Army might want you back to train up recruits over there in Baghdad.
Nah. It no longer has the right to ask.
>I feel a draft.
Then pull your trousers up.
SMITH29
> On Sun, 22 Jul 2007 20:54:41 -0700, SMITH29 <smi...@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
>> Don Homuth wrote:
>>> On Sun, 22 Jul 2007 19:46:07 -0700, SMITH29 <smi...@comcast.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>
>
>
> During the runup to the war, we had No Actual Evidence that he did.
>
>> Our intel said they did.
>
> Well no -- it did not. We had folks Saying our Intel said they did.
> But our intel did Not make any confirmable case that they did.
xxxx
https://www.cia.gov/library/reports/general-reports-1/iraq_wmd/Iraq_Oct_2002.pdf
http://www.slate.com/id/2083736/
You think we are stupid or are you a troll?
http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/03/31/intel.report/index.html
29
Scratch
> Don Homuth wrote:
>> On Sun, 22 Jul 2007 20:54:41 -0700, SMITH29 <smi...@comcast.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Don Homuth wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 22 Jul 2007 19:46:07 -0700, SMITH29 <smi...@comcast.net>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
> >
> >
> >> You don't believe Saddam had WMD.
> >
> > During the runup to the war, we had No Actual Evidence that he did.
> >
> >> Our intel said they did.
> >
> > Well no -- it did not. We had folks Saying our Intel said they did.
> > But our intel did Not make any confirmable case that they did.
> xxxx
> https://www.cia.gov/library/reports/general-reports-1/iraq_wmd/Iraq_Oct_2002.pdf
>
> http://www.slate.com/id/2083736/
> You think we are stupid or are you a troll?
> http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/03/31/intel.report/index.html
>
> 29
hey we're suppose to believe the cut and run bunch over the CIA didn't
ya know?
LOL
Lobby Dosser
> On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 03:20:42 GMT, Lobby Dosser
> <lobby.dos...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>>Don Homuth <dhomuthoneatcomcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, 22 Jul 2007 19:46:07 -0700, SMITH29 <smi...@comcast.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> You don't believe Saddam had WMD.
>>>
>>> During the runup to the war, we had No Actual Evidence that he did.
>>
>>He had them and used them prior to that.
>
> W-a-y prior to that.
So what.
>
> I had chicken pox when I was a kid. I don't have it now.
Non sequitor of the week.
>
>>..What "Actual Evidence" did we have
>>that he no longer had them?
>
> Har! The idea is that we Should have had Actual Evidence that he Did
That's Your idea. Nobody GAF what you think.
> have them. As I said -- we had precisely No such evidence.
>
What "Actual Evidence" did we have that he no longer had them?
Lobby Dosser
> The Army might want you back to train up recruits over there in Baghdad.
> I feel a draft.
Run and Hide?
Lobby Dosser
> Child -- I talk with folks who have been there several times over.
>
Over to the end of your garden.
SMITH29
> On Sun, 22 Jul 2007 20:54:41 -0700, SMITH29 <smi...@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
>> Don Homuth wrote:
>>> On Sun, 22 Jul 2007 19:46:07 -0700, SMITH29 <smi...@comcast.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>> The Baathist party was a group of genuine nasties.
>>>>>
>>>>> It also posed no threat at all to the United States or United States'
>>>>> national interests.
>>>> xxxx
>>>> That's a crock of shit. Saddam hated and tried to kill Israeli citizens
>>>> with skuds. Ring a bell there? HHmmmmmm??
>>> Explain how firing some inaccurate missiles at Israel was a threat to
>>> the United States or its national interests.
>> xxxx
>> OH!! I was wrong, we don't care about Israel. My mistake.
>
> Caring about Israel and Caring about the US National Interests are two
> different things, seems to me.
Yer right.
>
> Israel is a nuclear power. It means to be.
>
> Are we in Iraq because we Care about Israel?
The loaded question of the week!!!
>
>>>>>> We went there to put his reign down.
>>>>> Well, we certainly did that. That made things ever so much better, eh?
>>>> xxxx
>>>> He and his kids are dead. That's a LOT better and he isn't killing
>>>> anybody anymore. That's also good.
>>> Is it worth >3500 dead and nearly a trillion dollars?
>> xxxx
>> Wait till Pakistan goes tits up and Iran plus Syria get into it.
>
> Sidestep two, and-a three and Backstep-anda two-anda-three.
Quit deleting stuff.
>
> You don't dance very well.
>
> Is it worth >3500 Murken Dead and nearly a trillion dollars?
>
>> We haven't EVEN started spending and dying over there.
>
> How much spending and dying should we do?
>
>> The crap has yet to hit the fan.
>
> So this is all just a walk in the park to you?
Your words not mine so go ahead and jump to all the conclusions you
want. It's yer keyboard.
>
> Child -- Don't patronize a 67 year old man, punk.
>
>> The Army might want you back to train up recruits over there in Baghdad.
>
> Nah. It no longer has the right to ask.
If the King wants you you are his.
>
>> I feel a draft.
>
> Then pull your trousers up.
snicker....
29
Scratch
He probably would jump at it. He is trained in the fine are of
dispatching nutria ya know.
Scratch
> Don Homuth <dhomuthoneatcomcast.net> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 03:20:42 GMT, Lobby Dosser
>> <lobby.dos...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Don Homuth <dhomuthoneatcomcast.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sun, 22 Jul 2007 19:46:07 -0700, SMITH29 <smi...@comcast.net>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> You don't believe Saddam had WMD.
>>>> During the runup to the war, we had No Actual Evidence that he did.
>>> He had them and used them prior to that.
>> W-a-y prior to that.
>
> So what.
>
>> I had chicken pox when I was a kid. I don't have it now.
>
> Non sequitor of the week.
but could explain why no kids.
SMITH29
Illegal in Oregon to shoot them so how did he do it?
http://www.dfw.state.or.us/springfield/Nutria.html
29
Lobby Dosser
> Lobby Dosser wrote:
>> Don Homuth <dhomuthoneatcomcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 03:20:42 GMT, Lobby Dosser
>>> <lobby.dos...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Don Homuth <dhomuthoneatcomcast.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Sun, 22 Jul 2007 19:46:07 -0700, SMITH29 <smi...@comcast.net>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> You don't believe Saddam had WMD.
>>>>> During the runup to the war, we had No Actual Evidence that he
>>>>> did.
>>>> He had them and used them prior to that.
>>> W-a-y prior to that.
>>
>> So what.
>>
>>> I had chicken pox when I was a kid. I don't have it now.
>>
>> Non sequitor of the week.
>
> but could explain why no kids.
Depends on the age, physical maturity, and the length of fever over about
105F.
Don Homuth
wrote:
>Don Homuth wrote:
>> On Sun, 22 Jul 2007 20:54:41 -0700, SMITH29 <smi...@comcast.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Don Homuth wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 22 Jul 2007 19:46:07 -0700, SMITH29 <smi...@comcast.net>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
> >
> >
> >> You don't believe Saddam had WMD.
> >
> > During the runup to the war, we had No Actual Evidence that he did.
> >
> >> Our intel said they did.
> >
> > Well no -- it did not. We had folks Saying our Intel said they did.
> > But our intel did Not make any confirmable case that they did.
>xxxx
>https://www.cia.gov/library/reports/general-reports-1/iraq_wmd/Iraq_Oct_2002.pdf
> http://www.slate.com/id/2083736/
And you actually believed that?
>You think we are stupid or are you a troll?
>http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/03/31/intel.report/index.html
Heh! And you put credence in such nonsense!
Yes -- I think you are stupid. Stupid enough to believe Dubya when he
says that the Failure was not His and his administration's. Oh no --
it was Their failure -- the CIA's et al.
And Tenet got the Medal of Freedom from him.
Go figure.
Now -- here's the Inside Scoop, from things like the Iraq Study Group
and the post-invasion search for the WMDs (which had twenty times the
personnel the UN inspectors had, a lot longer, untrammeled acces to
All Iraqi Personnel not to mention the $25 Million reward for someone
who could lead us to Even One Actual WMD -- even a little one.)
It was, all of it, Dead Wrong.
Every.Single.Bit.
Requoting stuff endlessly, suggesting that Maybe it went to Syria or
some other fanciful destination -- All of that. Dead Wrong.
Right across the board.
We had No Actual Evidence that Iraq had Any WMDs during the runup to
the war.
We had and still have No Actual Evidence that WMDs were transported
anywhere else.
(The Iraqi National Congress, controlled by Wolfowitz;s good friend
and confidante Ahmed Chalabi doesn't count. Chalabi said, after the
war, that it really didn't matter if his Paid Informers told the truth
or not. His objective was to get the US to attack Iraq, so that later
he could take power. Now he's a good friend of Iran.)
Even poor ol' Collin Powell has likewise recanted his UNSC speech.
It's you Wingnuts who don't twig to what really happened.
Scratch
I believe he said he shot them at his neighbors request.
Don Homuth
wrote:
>Don Homuth wrote:
>> On Sun, 22 Jul 2007 20:54:41 -0700, SMITH29 <smi...@comcast.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Don Homuth wrote:
>>>> Explain how firing some inaccurate missiles at Israel was a threat to
>>>> the United States or its national interests.
>>> xxxx
>>> OH!! I was wrong, we don't care about Israel. My mistake.
>>
>> Caring about Israel and Caring about the US National Interests are two
>> different things, seems to me.
>xxxx
>Yer right.
Then why the answer?
>> Israel is a nuclear power. It means to be.
>>
>> Are we in Iraq because we Care about Israel?
>xxxx
>The loaded question of the week!!!
Nice descriptor, but doesn't answer the question does it?
>>> Wait till Pakistan goes tits up and Iran plus Syria get into it.
>>
>> Sidestep two, and-a three and Backstep-anda two-anda-three.
>xxxx
>Quit deleting stuff.
No.
>> You don't dance very well.
>>
>> Is it worth >3500 Murken Dead and nearly a trillion dollars?
>>
>>> We haven't EVEN started spending and dying over there.
>>
>> How much spending and dying should we do?
>>
>>> The crap has yet to hit the fan.
>>
>> So this is all just a walk in the park to you?
>xxx
>Your words not mine so go ahead and jump to all the conclusions you
>want. It's yer keyboard.
Then explicate what you are Really saying?
>> Child -- Don't patronize a 67 year old man, punk.
It's not about chronological age -- it's about Mental age.
Child.
>>> The Army might want you back to train up recruits over there in Baghdad.
>>
>> Nah. It no longer has the right to ask.
>xxxx
>If the King wants you you are his.
Nope. Not the case. I've done my bit.
Don Homuth
It doesn't seem to be the case that there are any nutria in Iraq.
OTOH, the basic skills to dispatch nutria have a lot of applications.
However -- I'm not going. They aren't going to ask.
Lobby Dosser
Clave
news:tuWoi.4129$Gs4.1043@trndny05...
> Don Homuth <dhomuthoneatcomcast.net> wrote:
<...>
>> It was, all of it, Dead Wrong.
>>
>> Every.Single.Bit.
>>
>> Requoting stuff endlessly, suggesting that Maybe it went to Syria or
>> some other fanciful destination -- All of that. Dead Wrong.
>>
>> Right across the board.
>>
>> We had No Actual Evidence that Iraq had Any WMDs during the runup to
>> the war.
>
> And none that they didn't!
You really don't have any idea why that's a stupid argument, do you?
Jim
Scratch
> Scratch <Larry_...@lefites.aretraitors.nut> wrote:
>
>> Lobby Dosser wrote:
>>> Don Homuth <dhomuthoneatcomcast.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 03:20:42 GMT, Lobby Dosser
>>>> <lobby.dos...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Don Homuth <dhomuthoneatcomcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sun, 22 Jul 2007 19:46:07 -0700, SMITH29 <smi...@comcast.net>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You don't believe Saddam had WMD.
>>>>>> During the runup to the war, we had No Actual Evidence that he
>>>>>> did.
>>>>> He had them and used them prior to that.
>>>> W-a-y prior to that.
>>> So what.
>>>
>>>> I had chicken pox when I was a kid. I don't have it now.
>>> Non sequitor of the week.
>> but could explain why no kids.
>
> Depends on the age, physical maturity, and the length of fever over about
> 105F.
Yep. Doesn't effect everyone but it will do the job. Only thing I ever
had was measles and scarlet Tina (ST was in the service when everyone
else was getting scarlet fever). That was it. Been pretty lucky.
SMITH29
> On Sun, 22 Jul 2007 21:16:51 -0700, SMITH29 <smi...@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
>> Don Homuth wrote:
>>> On Sun, 22 Jul 2007 20:54:41 -0700, SMITH29 <smi...@comcast.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Don Homuth wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 22 Jul 2007 19:46:07 -0700, SMITH29 <smi...@comcast.net>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>
>>>> You don't believe Saddam had WMD.
>>> During the runup to the war, we had No Actual Evidence that he did.
>>>
>>>> Our intel said they did.
>>> Well no -- it did not. We had folks Saying our Intel said they did.
>>> But our intel did Not make any confirmable case that they did.
>> xxxx
>> https://www.cia.gov/library/reports/general-reports-1/iraq_wmd/Iraq_Oct_2002.pdf
>> http://www.slate.com/id/2083736/
>
> And you actually believed that?
Caught you bullshitting is what I did.
>
>> You think we are stupid or are you a troll?
>> http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/03/31/intel.report/index.html
>
> Heh! And you put credence in such nonsense!
The point is you denied such information.
>
> Yes -- I think you are stupid.
Stupid enough to nail your ass to the wall :-)
Stupid enough to believe Dubya when he
> says that the Failure was not His and his administration's. Oh no --
> it was Their failure -- the CIA's et al.
xxxx
Rave on with the Dubya stuff :-)
You been had.
Admit it!!
29
Lobby Dosser
The nutria in the wetland near me are not at all 'wary'. The buggers can
be seen any evening grazing on the lawns of the office buildings
bordering the wetland. Along with the canada geese.
And it is legal to shoot them. Just not in areas where discharging a
firearm is not legal, such as within city limits.
SMITH29
Legal Status
In Oregon, nutria are classified as unprotected Nongame Wildlife (OAR
635-044-0132). As unprotected wildlife nutria may be trapped (cannot be
relocated) or shot. No license is needed for a landowner to control
nutria on his/her own property. Most cities have restrictions on
leg-hold trapping or the discharge of firearms within their city
limits--live trapping is usually the main population control measure
inside the city limits.
FYI
29
Lobby Dosser
Had 'em all. German measles twice. NTM pneumonia and pitariasis rosea at
age 20 - got photographed for a journal paper with that one as it was
supposed to be something only kids got.
Lobby Dosser
Don Homuth
<lobby.dos...@verizon.net> wrote:
>Don Homuth <dhomuthoneatcomcast.net> wrote:
>
>> We had No Actual Evidence that Iraq had Any WMDs during the runup to
>> the war.
>
>And none that they didn't!
You really are ignorant, and believe that a Negative can be proven.
It was Our burden to prove that there were WMDs during the runup to
the war. We never had One Piece of Actual Evidence to confirm that
there were.
Not.Even.One.
We had interpretations and satellite photos and paid informants from
the Iraqi National Congress and all the prognostications of the
Chickenhawks in the administration, right up to and including Dubya
himself.
Hence, We will defeat Saddam "and take his weapons of mass destruction
from him."
He didn't have any to take.
Not.even.one.
Not even just a Little one.
Lobby Dosser
"or shot"
He claims to shoot them on a farm. I've shot a few on a farm. He shoots
his sitting on his ass while they graze. I shot mine while hunting them.
He leaves the carcass to rot. I gave my kills to the farm owner for dog
feed.
Lobby Dosser
Don Homuth
wrote:
>Don Homuth wrote:
>> On Sun, 22 Jul 2007 21:16:51 -0700, SMITH29 <smi...@comcast.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Don Homuth wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 22 Jul 2007 20:54:41 -0700, SMITH29 <smi...@comcast.net>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Don Homuth wrote:
>>>>>> On Sun, 22 Jul 2007 19:46:07 -0700, SMITH29 <smi...@comcast.net>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> You don't believe Saddam had WMD.
>>>> During the runup to the war, we had No Actual Evidence that he did.
>>>>
>>>>> Our intel said they did.
>>>> Well no -- it did not. We had folks Saying our Intel said they did.
>>>> But our intel did Not make any confirmable case that they did.
>>> xxxx
>>> https://www.cia.gov/library/reports/general-reports-1/iraq_wmd/Iraq_Oct_2002.pdf
>>> http://www.slate.com/id/2083736/
>>
>> And you actually believed that?
>xxxx
>Caught you bullshitting is what I did.
You caught precisely Nothing of the sort.
There was never any Actual Evidence in our hands that there were WMDs
in Iraq during the runup to the war.
We had guesses, hopes, surmises, predictions, possibilities -- the
whole megillah.
Just no Actual Evidence.
It was, all of it, Dead Wrong.
The ones bullshitting were the Chickenhawks in the administration.
The gullible were those who believed it at the time.
>>> You think we are stupid or are you a troll?
>>> http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/03/31/intel.report/index.html
>>
>> Heh! And you put credence in such nonsense!
>xxxx
>The point is you denied such information.
I did, because it wasn't Actual Evidence at the time. There were
those even in the administration who knew that it wasn't, including
those within the various sorts of intelligence agencies.
They were told to sit still, shut up and go with the Party Line.
Those who voiced the Least bit of reticence about all the WMD Promises
found themselves in early retirement.
Didn't change anything, though, did it? Who ended up correct and who
did not?
>> Yes -- I think you are stupid.
>xxxx
>Stupid enough to nail your ass to the wall :-)
Stupid enough to fool yourself into believing that such a thing
actually happened on your watch, additionally.
How did all that Actual Evidence work out? Did we find all those WMDs
in their thousands of rounds and hundreds of tons, loaded and ready to
fire within 45 minutes? Did we find those missiles with the
prohibited range? Did we find those pilotless aircraft drones that
could threaten the US? Did we find those Weapons Trailers that poor
ol' Powell talked so convincingly about in front of the UNSC?
Where were they?
> Stupid enough to believe Dubya when he
>> says that the Failure was not His and his administration's. Oh no --
>> it was Their failure -- the CIA's et al.
>xxxx
>Rave on with the Dubya stuff :-)
>You been had.
>Admit it!!
Those who were Had were those who believed all that pre-war stuff.
I never did, and said so -- right here.
Who ended up correct?
Clave
Look, Lobby -- there are kids on your lawn!!!
Jim
Don Homuth
wrote:
Can you Read what's written, child? Did anyone Ever teach you how to
look at a sentence with a parenthetical phrase in it and grasp its
correct meaning.
The sentence reads:
>As unprotected wildlife nutria may be trapped (cannot be
>relocated) or shot.
It does Not read:
> As unprotected wildlife nutria may be trapped (cannot be
>relocated or shot.)
So, if you take out the original parenthetical phrase, it simply
reads:
> As unprotected wildlife nutria may be trapped... or shot.
Which modifies What?
Sheesh! No wonder you can't comprehend what goes on even in these
little discussions. You simply don't know How to interpret the
written word that's right there in front of you!
FYI
Don Homuth
<Larry_...@lefites.aretraitors.nut> wrote:
>SMITH29 wrote:
>> Scratch wrote:
>>> Lobby Dosser wrote:
>>>> SMITH29 <smi...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> The Army might want you back to train up recruits over there in
>>>>> Baghdad.
>>>>> I feel a draft.
>>>>
>>>> Run and Hide?
>>>
>>>
>>> He probably would jump at it. He is trained in the fine are of
>>> dispatching nutria ya know.
>>>
>> xxxx
>> Illegal in Oregon to shoot them so how did he do it?
>> http://www.dfw.state.or.us/springfield/Nutria.html
>>
>I believe he said he shot them at his neighbors request.
That is correct. But it's not really a Neighbor -- more like a friend
who farms about 7-8 miles up the road near a wetland.
His eyesight isn't so good. Mine is. So I do him a service when/if
he asks, and he seems to appreciate it.
SMITH29
>
>> As unprotected wildlife nutria may be trapped... or shot.
>
> Which modifies What?
>
> Sheesh! No wonder you can't comprehend what goes on even in these
> little discussions. You simply don't know How to interpret the
> written word that's right there in front of you!
>
> FYI
Do ya ever get buck fever drawing down on one of them vicious critters?
What kind of stopping rifle do you use on the ones that charge?
You don't pot the kill? A Cheap ass as like you I figure you would skin
them out for the pelts and cook them up.
29
Lobby Dosser
>
> I never did, and said so -- right here.
>
> Who ended up correct?
>
>
Not you.
SMITH29
xxxx
Sits in a car and shoots.
29
Lobby Dosser
Caddys...@gmail.com
>
> >>Don Homuth <dhomuthoneatcomcast.net> wrote:
>
> >>> On Sun, 22 Jul 2007 19:46:07 -0700, SMITH29 <smit...@comcast.net>
> >>> wrote:
>
> >>>> You don't believe Saddam had WMD.
>
>
> >>He had them and used them prior to that.
>
> > W-a-y prior to that.
>
> So what.
>
>
>
> > I had chicken pox when I was a kid. I don't have it now.
>
> Non sequitor of the week.
Also it's a lie. He will have recurrent severe outbreaks of shingles
later in life.
> >>..What "Actual Evidence" did we have
> >>that he no longer had them?
>
> > Har! The idea is that we Should have had Actual Evidence that he Did
>
> That's Your idea. Nobody GAF what you think.
>
> > have them. As I said -- we had precisely No such evidence.
>
> What "Actual Evidence" did we have that he no longer had them?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Lobby Dosser
> On Jul 22, 9:22 pm, Lobby Dosser <lobby.dosser.map...@verizon.net>
> wrote:
>> Don Homuth <dhomuthoneatcomcast.net> wrote:
>> > On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 03:20:42 GMT, Lobby Dosser
>> > <lobby.dosser.map...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>
>> >>Don Homuth <dhomuthoneatcomcast.net> wrote:
>>
>> >>> On Sun, 22 Jul 2007 19:46:07 -0700, SMITH29 <smit...@comcast.net>
>> >>> wrote:
>>
>> >>>> You don't believe Saddam had WMD.
>>
>> >>> During the runup to the war, we had No Actual Evidence that he
>> >>> did.
>>
>> >>He had them and used them prior to that.
>>
>> > W-a-y prior to that.
>>
>> So what.
>>
>>
>>
>> > I had chicken pox when I was a kid. I don't have it now.
>>
>> Non sequitor of the week.
>
> Also it's a lie. He will have recurrent severe outbreaks of shingles
> later in life.
He does. I had chicken pox and I don't.
Bokonon
>> We had No Actual Evidence that Iraq had Any WMDs during the runup to
>> the war.
>
> And none that they didn't!
Actually there was a lot of evidence that they didn't have WMD's. There
were a couple of hundred UN inspectors on the ground providing it.
More evidence in fact that they didn't have WMD's than any evidence that YOU
don't have WMD's.
--
"History! Read it and weep!"
-Bokonon
_______________________________________________
When your only tool is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
SMITH29
Pontiac Chieftain.
29
Bill Shatzer
> Lobby Dosser wrote:
>
>> SMITH29 <smi...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>> The Army might want you back to train up recruits over there in Baghdad.
>>> I feel a draft.
>> Run and Hide?
> He probably would jump at it. He is trained in the fine are of
> dispatching nutria ya know.
That's lien, the mighty nutria hunter who organizes nutria safaris in
the dead of winter.
To give 'em a sporting chance, dontcha know?
Peace and justice,
Bill Shatzer
> SMITH29 wrote:
>> Scratch wrote:
>>> Lobby Dosser wrote:
>>>> SMITH29 <smi...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>> The Army might want you back to train up recruits over there in
>>>>> Baghdad.
>>>>> I feel a draft.
>>>> Run and Hide?
>>> He probably would jump at it. He is trained in the fine are of
>>> dispatching nutria ya know.
>> Illegal in Oregon to shoot them so how did he do it?
>> http://www.dfw.state.or.us/springfield/Nutria.html
> I believe he said he shot them at his neighbors request.
Ya' gotta wonder if Smith even reads the shit he posts.
In point of fact, the referenced URL
(http://www.dfw.state.or.us/springfield/Nutria.html) sez:
"Legal Status
In Oregon, nutria are classified as unprotected Nongame Wildlife (OAR
635-044-0132). As unprotected wildlife nutria may be trapped (cannot be
relocated) or shot. No license is needed for a landowner to control
nutria on his/her own property."
"AS UNPROTECTED WILDLIFE NUTRIA MAY BE ... SHOT."
Which would be the exact antithesis to Smith's claim that it is "illegal
in Oregon to shoot them".
Sigh! So many idiots, so little time.
Peace and justice,
Paul Mitchum
> "Lobby Dosser" <lobby.dos...@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:tuWoi.4129$Gs4.1043@trndny05...
>
> >> We had No Actual Evidence that Iraq had Any WMDs during the runup to
> >> the war.
> >
> > And none that they didn't!
>
> Actually there was a lot of evidence that they didn't have WMD's. There
> were a couple of hundred UN inspectors on the ground providing it.
>
> More evidence in fact that they didn't have WMD's than any evidence that
> YOU don't have WMD's.
Lobby's smoking gun could be a mushroom cloud! 1-2-3-4 I declare a thumb
war!
--
http://www.xoverboard.com/cartoons/2007/070416_argument.html
Paul Mitchum
> Don Homuth <dhomuthoneatcomcast.net> wrote:
> > On Sun, 22 Jul 2007 19:46:07 -0700, SMITH29 <smi...@comcast.net>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> You don't believe Saddam had WMD.
> >
> > During the runup to the war, we had No Actual Evidence that he did.
>
> He had them and used them prior to that.
But during the runup to the war, as Don said, there was no actual
evidence that Hussein had such weapons.
> What "Actual Evidence" did we have that he no longer had them?
<http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/03/07/sprj.irq.un.transcript.elbaradei/>
[..]
Since the resumption of inspection a little over three months ago, and
particularly during the three weeks since my last ordered report to the
council, the IAEA has made important progress in identifying what
nuclear-related capabilities remain in Iraq and in its assessment of
whether Iraq has made any effort to revive its past nuclear program
during the intervening four years since inspections were brought to a
halt.
At this stage, the following can be stated:
One, there is no indication of resumed nuclear activities in those
buildings that were identified through the use of satellite imagery as
being reconstructed or newly erected since 1998, nor any indication of
nuclear-related prohibited activities at any inspected sites.
Second, there is no indication that Iraq has attempted to import uranium
since 1990.
Three, there is no indication that Iraq has attempted to import aluminum
tubes for use in centrifuge enrichment. Moreover, even had Iraq pursued
such a plan, it would have encountered practical difficulties in
manufacturing centrifuge out of the aluminum tubes in question.
Fourth, although we are still reviewing issues related to magnets and
magnet-production, there is no indication to date that Iraq imported
magnets for use in centrifuge enrichment program.
[..]
--
http://www.xoverboard.com/cartoons/2007/070416_argument.html
Paul Mitchum
> On Sun, 22 Jul 2007 21:29:21 -0700, Scratch
> <Larry_...@lefites.aretraitors.nut> wrote:
>
> >Lobby Dosser wrote:
> >> SMITH29 <smi...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>
> >>> The Army might want you back to train up recruits over there in
> >>> Baghdad. I feel a draft.
> >>
> >> Run and Hide?
> >
> >He probably would jump at it. He is trained in the fine are of
> >dispatching nutria ya know.
>
> It doesn't seem to be the case that there are any nutria in Iraq.
>
> OTOH, the basic skills to dispatch nutria have a lot of applications.
>
> However -- I'm not going. They aren't going to ask.
It's quite amazing, isn't it, how all the guys who have been dead
fucking wrong about everything for six long, destructive, death-dealing
years now want to talk about nutria.
Shame is one thing, but... nutria?
--
http://www.xoverboard.com/cartoons/2007/070416_argument.html
Ockham's Razor
use...@mile23.c0m (Paul Mitchum) wrote:
> Don Homuth <dhomuthoneatcomcast.net> wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 22 Jul 2007 21:29:21 -0700, Scratch
> > <Larry_...@lefites.aretraitors.nut> wrote:
> >
> > >Lobby Dosser wrote:
> > >> SMITH29 <smi...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> The Army might want you back to train up recruits over there in
> > >>> Baghdad. I feel a draft.
> > >>
> > >> Run and Hide?
> > >
> > >He probably would jump at it. He is trained in the fine are of
> > >dispatching nutria ya know.
> >
> > It doesn't seem to be the case that there are any nutria in Iraq.
> >
> > OTOH, the basic skills to dispatch nutria have a lot of applications.
> >
> > However -- I'm not going. They aren't going to ask.
>
> It's quite amazing, isn't it, how all the guys who have been dead
> fucking wrong about everything for six long, destructive, death-dealing
> years now want to talk about nutria.
They thought that Iraq would be like slucing Nutria. It is the same
thing to them.
the horror is that such mentalities vote.
--
"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and
carrying a cross."
Sinclair Lewis
Ockham's Razor
use...@mile23.c0m (Paul Mitchum) wrote:
> Lobby Dosser <lobby.dos...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > Don Homuth <dhomuthoneatcomcast.net> wrote:
> > > On Sun, 22 Jul 2007 19:46:07 -0700, SMITH29 <smi...@comcast.net>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > >> You don't believe Saddam had WMD.
> > >
> > > During the runup to the war, we had No Actual Evidence that he did.
> >
> > He had them and used them prior to that.
>
> But during the runup to the war, as Don said, there was no actual
> evidence that Hussein had such weapons.
>
>
> > What "Actual Evidence" did we have that he no longer had them?
Do not argue with these ass holes. They want you to prove a negative.
They hope that finally under some long overlooked road side rock a WMD
will be found. It wont, but it is all they have to hope for.
SMITH29
You have never had the thrill of having the porter hand you a charged
.700 Nitro Express Holland and Holland Double Barrel stopping rifle to
put down a charging wounded raging nutria.>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.700_Nitro_Express
Being too old to kill Qaeda/Taliban thugs in Mesopotamia we are keeping
our skills sharp by hunting here in the states.
You should join us on a hunt.......
29
Scratch
> Paul Mitchum wrote:
>>
>> It's quite amazing, isn't it, how all the guys who have been dead
>> fucking wrong about everything for six long, destructive, death-dealing
>> years now want to talk about nutria.
>>
>> Shame is one thing, but... nutria?
>>
> xxxx
> You have never had the thrill of having the porter hand you a charged
> .700 Nitro Express Holland and Holland Double Barrel stopping rifle to
> put down a charging wounded raging nutria.>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.700_Nitro_Express
> Being too old to kill Qaeda/Taliban thugs in Mesopotamia we are keeping
> our skills sharp by hunting here in the states.
> You should join us on a hunt.......
>
> 29
Tee Hee :)
SMITH29
One thing for sure, I'm having more fun than you are you old sourpuss.
You should smile up and go for a walk.
29 :-)
SMITH29
> In article <1i1pksj.a8ag1kphlzpcN%use...@mile23.c0m>,
> use...@mile23.c0m (Paul Mitchum) wrote:
>
>> Lobby Dosser <lobby.dos...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Don Homuth <dhomuthoneatcomcast.net> wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 22 Jul 2007 19:46:07 -0700, SMITH29 <smi...@comcast.net>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> You don't believe Saddam had WMD.
>>>> During the runup to the war, we had No Actual Evidence that he did.
>>> He had them and used them prior to that.
>> But during the runup to the war, as Don said, there was no actual
>> evidence that Hussein had such weapons.
>>
>>
>>> What "Actual Evidence" did we have that he no longer had them?
>
> Do not argue with these ass holes. They want you to prove a negative.
> They hope that finally under some long overlooked road side rock a WMD
> will be found. It wont, but it is all they have to hope for.
>
You must enjoy whipping a dead horse.
29 :-)
Bill Shatzer
> Bill Shatter wrote:
> One thing for sure, I'm having more fun than you are you old sourpuss.
> You should smile up and go for a walk.
Walk? Shit child, I've got a motorcycle.
And there's only one thing more fun than a motorcycle!
Peace and justice,
SMITH29
That's why yer such a sourpuss. Grin and you have yellow jackets in your
teeth.
29 :-)
>
> Peace and justice,
>
SMITH29
> SMITH29 wrote:
>
>> Bill Shatter wrote:
>
>> One thing for sure, I'm having more fun than you are you old sourpuss.
>> You should smile up and go for a walk.
>
> Walk? Shit child, I've got a motorcycle.
A kick start Cushman with centrifical clutch.
Bill Shatzer
> Bill Shatzer wrote:
>> SMITH29 wrote:
>>> Bill Shatter wrote:
>>> One thing for sure, I'm having more fun than you are you old sourpuss.
>>> You should smile up and go for a walk.
>> Walk? Shit child, I've got a motorcycle.
>> And there's only one thing more fun than a motorcycle!
> That's why yer such a sourpuss. Grin and you have yellow jackets in your
> teeth.
Helmet face shields are quite effective in preventing that particular
hazard.
Not riding a Harley chopper, I feel no need to score style points by
going forth protected only by a "beanie" helmet and sun glasses.
And just nobody can be a sourpuss while straddling a motorbike. They're
too damn much fun.
Peace and justice,
Bill Shatzer
> Bill Shatzer wrote:
>> SMITH29 wrote:
>>> Bill Shatter wrote:
>>> One thing for sure, I'm having more fun than you are you old sourpuss.
>>> You should smile up and go for a walk.
>> Walk? Shit child, I've got a motorcycle.
> A kick start Cushman with centrifical clutch.
A bit more oomph than that. Though not a Harley or Hayabusa either.
Though I wouldn't mind getting one of those Cushmans - they're currently
selling for eight grand and up.
I'd sell it off on ebay and and and use the profits pick up a brand new
Honda 919 or Shadow.
(decisions, decisions - sport bike or cruiser?)
Peace and justice,
Lobby Dosser
> Lobby Dosser <lobby.dos...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>> Don Homuth <dhomuthoneatcomcast.net> wrote:
>> > On Sun, 22 Jul 2007 19:46:07 -0700, SMITH29 <smi...@comcast.net>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >> You don't believe Saddam had WMD.
>> >
>> > During the runup to the war, we had No Actual Evidence that he did.
>>
>> He had them and used them prior to that.
>
> But during the runup to the war, as Don said, there was no actual
> evidence that Hussein had such weapons.
Nor was there evidence he didn't.
Lobby Dosser
>
> "Lobby Dosser" <lobby.dos...@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:tuWoi.4129$Gs4.1043@trndny05...
>
>>> We had No Actual Evidence that Iraq had Any WMDs during the runup to
>>> the war.
>>
>> And none that they didn't!
>
> Actually there was a lot of evidence that they didn't have WMD's.
> There were a couple of hundred UN inspectors on the ground providing
> it.
In an area the size of California.
>
> More evidence in fact that they didn't have WMD's than any evidence
> that YOU don't have WMD's.
Other than the fact that I haven't used any. Yet. Saddam Had.
>
Lobby Dosser
Lobby Dosser
Used to have a recurring dream where I was getting run down by a 56 - red
and black.
Lobby Dosser
Lot of hunting accidents when you get too many inexperienced people. Of
course, that could be a plus.
Bokonon
>> Actually there was a lot of evidence that they didn't have WMD's.
>> There were a couple of hundred UN inspectors on the ground providing
>> it.
>
> In an area the size of California.
Uh-huh, with a fraction of the population.
And?
>> More evidence in fact that they didn't have WMD's than any evidence
>> that YOU don't have WMD's.
>
> Other than the fact that I haven't used any.
I don't know that.
Lobby Dosser
Bugger's got Alzheimer's and he's out riding a motorcycle?! I suppose we
could get lucky and one day he won't find his way back.
Clave
Holy shit -- you really expect that no one else thinks any deeper about
things than that.
You *still* don't know why that's a stupid argument.
Jim
Caddys...@gmail.com
> Paul Mitchum wrote:
> > Don Homuth <dhomuthoneatcomcast.net> wrote:
>
> >> On Sun, 22 Jul 2007 21:29:21 -0700, Scratch
> >> <Larry_Tig...@lefites.aretraitors.nut> wrote:
>
> >>> Lobby Dosser wrote:
>
> >>>>> The Army might want you back to train up recruits over there in
> >>>>> Baghdad. I feel a draft.
> >>>> Run and Hide?
> >>> He probably would jump at it. He is trained in the fine are of
> >>> dispatching nutria ya know.
> >> It doesn't seem to be the case that there are any nutria in Iraq.
>
> >> OTOH, the basic skills to dispatch nutria have a lot of applications.
>
> >> However -- I'm not going. They aren't going to ask.
>
> > It's quite amazing, isn't it, how all the guys who have been dead
> > fucking wrong about everything for six long, destructive, death-dealing
> > years now want to talk about nutria.
>
> > Shame is one thing, but... nutria?
>
> xxxx
> You have never had the thrill of having the porter hand you a charged
> .700 Nitro Express Holland and Holland Double Barrel stopping rifle to
> put down a charging wounded raging nutria.>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.700_Nitro_Express
> Being too old to kill Qaeda/Taliban thugs in Mesopotamia we are keeping
> our skills sharp by hunting here in the states.
> You should join us on a hunt.......
LEIN:
There he is!
SMITH29:
Where?
LEIN:
There!
SMITH29:
What, behind the nutria?
LEIN:
It is the nutria.
SMITH29:
You silly sod!
LEIN:
What?
SMITH29:
You got us all worked up!
LEIN:
Well, that's no ordinary nutria!
SMITH29:
Ohh.
LEIN:
That's the most foul, cruel, and bad-tempered rodent you ever set eyes
on!
SCRATCH:
You tit! I soiled my armour I was so scared!
LEIN:
Look, that nutria's got a vicious streak a mile wide! It's a killer!
PAUL:
Get stuffed!
LEIN:
He'll do you up a treat, mate.
PAUL:
Oh, yeah?
SCRATCH:
You mangy Scots git!
LEIN:
I'm warning you!
SCRATCH:
What's he do, nibble your bum?
LEIN:
He's got huge, sharp-- eh-- he can leap about-- look at the bones!
SMITH29:
Go on, Shatzer. Chop his head off!
SHATZER:
Right! Silly little bleeder. One nutria stew comin' right up!
Paul Mitchum
Paul Mitchum
Don't get your hopes up. I'd never shoot Smitty by accident *or* on
purpose.
You keep skirting around this violence-against-Paul thing. Why is that?
Do I threaten you *that* much?
--
http://www.xoverboard.com/cartoons/2007/070416_argument.html
Lobby Dosser
>
> Lobby Dosser <lobby.dos...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>> use...@mile23.c0m (Paul Mitchum) wrote:
>>
>> > Lobby Dosser <lobby.dos...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Don Homuth <dhomuthoneatcomcast.net> wrote:
>> >> > On Sun, 22 Jul 2007 19:46:07 -0700, SMITH29
>> >> > <smi...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> You don't believe Saddam had WMD.
>> >> >
>> >> > During the runup to the war, we had No Actual Evidence that he
>> >> > did.
>> >>
>> >> He had them and used them prior to that.
>> >
>> > But during the runup to the war, as Don said, there was no actual
>> > evidence that Hussein had such weapons.
>>
>> Nor was there evidence he didn't.
>
> Other than the evidence that he didn't, of course.
Nope. None. Nada.
Lobby Dosser
> "Lobby Dosser" <lobby.dos...@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:rQhpi.1090$Ok5.720@trndny02...
>
>>> Actually there was a lot of evidence that they didn't have WMD's.
>>> There were a couple of hundred UN inspectors on the ground providing
>>> it.
>>
>> In an area the size of California.
>
> Uh-huh, with a fraction of the population.
>
> And?
A lot of empty space to hide shit and no one to see you do it.
Lobby Dosser
> "Lobby Dosser" <lobby.dos...@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:rQhpi.1090$Ok5.720@trndny02...
>> "Bokonon" <seattled...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> "Lobby Dosser" <lobby.dos...@verizon.net> wrote in message
>>> news:tuWoi.4129$Gs4.1043@trndny05...
>>>
>>>>> We had No Actual Evidence that Iraq had Any WMDs during the runup
>>>>> to the war.
>>>>
>>>> And none that they didn't!
>>>
>>> Actually there was a lot of evidence that they didn't have WMD's.
>>> There were a couple of hundred UN inspectors on the ground providing
>>> it.
>>
>> In an area the size of California.
>>
>>>
>>> More evidence in fact that they didn't have WMD's than any evidence
>>> that YOU don't have WMD's.
>>
>> Other than the fact that I haven't used any. Yet. Saddam Had.
>
> Holy shit -- you really expect that no one else thinks any deeper
> about things than that.
>
> You *still* don't know why that's a stupid argument.
Your Stupidity is Your Problem.
Lobby Dosser
You are terribly insecure and paranoid. You should seek help. I've got
absolutely no interest in "violence-against-Paul".
Clave
> "Clave" <ClaviusNo...@cablespeed.com> wrote:
<...Lobby still wants a negative proven...>
>> You *still* don't know why that's a stupid argument.
>
> Your Stupidity is Your Problem.
No one does IKYABWAI better than you, Shmoopie.
I mean, shit -- there are people like Al who are misinformed and hang onto
their ignorance like grim death, but still can perhaps be talked to like
adults, even misinformed as they are.
But then there are people like you and Smit-head, who for some reason really
have small children's senses of adult discussion. No attention to
knowledge, logic, decorum, or even some small ability to recognize shame --
just pure desire for attention from those you consider your betters.
Holy shit, WTF happened to you?
Jim
Scratch
Traveling to different places in a Motor Home?