Fire!

The terrorists just love it when assholes like you make posts like that.

Which terrorists?

The ones we CREATED in Iraq?

or

the ones in pakistan that we allow political tiptoesing to keep us
from going fully after?

Chuck

As a mature adult, I am unable to separate the
Flag, the Presidency and the Country from each other......instead they
are bundled up in one package.



Mature? Not so sure. One key sign of growing up and maturing is the
ability to take things apart, look at individual parts and judge
things in more than just an absolute whole. To do otherwise is
simplistic and child like.

I love my country, but I think my president is a tool, and an idiot.
I just wish he had stuck to hanging out off daddys money sniffing coke
and being a cheerleader. He didnt endanger other peoples families
that way.

Chuck

memiki wrote:

You cannot separate the President from the Office of the President.
If you insult the President, you insult the Office of the
Presidency........you are just fooling yourself.......

When you elect an idiot to the office of the President you end up with an
idiot president.

John Wheaton scribed:


wrote in message
ups.com...
On Nov 1, 1:59 am, "John Wheaton" wrote:

Ah but they do. Saddam refused to allow inspectors unfettered access, or
settle the where abouts of "thousands of tonnes" of chemical weapons whne
it
was made quite clear that he would be deposed.

Don't people understand bluffing and grand-standing?
It was pretty obvious to me that in the weeks before
the "war" Saddam had been pushed to the wall and
had no more cards to play. He _had_ given in.

"When I left office, there was a substantial amount of biological and
chemical material unaccounted for. That is, at the end of the first Gulf
War, we knew what he had. We knew what was destroyed in all the inspection
processes and that was a lot. And then we bombed with the British for four
days in 1998. We might have gotten it all; we might have gotten half of it;
we might have gotten none of it. But we didn't know. So I thought it was
prudent for the president to go to the U.N. and for the U.N. to say you got
to let these inspectors in, and this time if you don't cooperate the penalty
could be regime change, not just continued sanctions."
--Bill Clinton, July 22, 2003


FORMER PRESIDENT CLINTON is right about what he and the whole world knew
about Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction programs.

Read what Clinton said again. There is nothing in what he said that states
'he and the whole world' knew anything. There was a lot of stuff that was
unaccounted for. That doesn't mean 'it' existed, or that it was
missing...only that it was unaccounted for. Did we destroy it with bombings,
etc? Clinton said , "We don't know." Please, John!

Here's a little history that seems to have been completely forgotten in the
frenzy of the past few months.

You mean the past five years?

snipped huge "story" culled from the ultra-right wing organ, The Weekly
Standard
--
Ed Jay (remove 'M' to respond by email)

"Dave Smith" wrote in message
...
John Wheaton wrote:


Ah but they do. Saddam refused to allow inspectors unfettered access, or
settle the where abouts of "thousands of tonnes" of chemical weapons whne
it
was made quite clear that he would be deposed.

The same argument applies to North Korea, etc..
Too many war-mongers.


Ah you mention war-mongers so you do remember Saddam invading Iran and
Kuwait.

I am sure we all know about Saddam invading Kuwait. That was what led to
the first Gulf War and his defeat led to that resolution. Saddam was under
international control. You probably also remember the Iran-Iraq War
where
the US provided satellite information on Iranian troops positions so they
could be targeted with WMDs. The US had no problem with WMDs being used by
Iraq in that one.

Please provide some verification that the US had no problem with Iraq using
WMDs.

"Ed Jay" wrote in message
...
John Wheaton scribed:


Read what Clinton said again. There is nothing in what he said that states
'he and the whole world' knew anything. There was a lot of stuff that was
unaccounted for. That doesn't mean 'it' existed, or that it was
missing...only that it was unaccounted for. Did we destroy it with
bombings,
etc? Clinton said , "We don't know." Please, John!

We did know that it did exist at one point and now thousands of tonnes of
WMDs remain accounted for. Period.

Why I jumped in was because of the often told tale of the current
administartion lying about WMDs. If they lied so then did the entire Clinton
Administration as they stated the same things.

John Wheaton wrote:

I am sure we all know about Saddam invading Kuwait. That was what led to
the first Gulf War and his defeat led to that resolution. Saddam was under
international control. You probably also remember the Iran-Iraq War
where
the US provided satellite information on Iranian troops positions so they
could be targeted with WMDs. The US had no problem with WMDs being used by
Iraq in that one.

Please provide some verification that the US had no problem with Iraq using
WMDs.


http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/51/220.html

During the Iran-Iraq war, the United States decided it was imperative that
Iran be thwarted, so it could not overrun the important oil-producing
states in the Persian Gulf. It has long been known that the United States
provided intelligence assistance to Iraq in the form of satellite
photography to help the Iraqis understand how Iranian forces were deployed
against them. But the full nature of the program, as described by former
Defense Intelligence Agency officers, was not previously disclosed.

http://globalpolicy.igc.org/security...sseinindex.htm

US intelligence helped Saddam’s Ba`ath Party seize power for the first time
in 1963. Evidence suggests that Saddam was on the CIA payroll as early as
1959, when he participated in a failed assassination attempt against Iraqi
strongman Abd al-Karim Qassem. In the 1980s, the US and Britain backed
Saddam in the war against Iran, giving Iraq arms, money, satellite
intelligence, and even chemical & bio-weapon precursors. As many as 90 US
military advisors supported Iraqi forces and helped pick targets for Iraqi
air and missile attacks.

"John Wheaton" wrote
"Ed Jay" wrote in message
John Wheaton scribed:
Why I jumped in was because of the often told tale of the current
administartion lying about WMDs. If they lied so then did the entire
Clinton Administration as they stated the same things.

Without in any way being drawn into a he said/he said debate, I'll just
point out the lack of logic in the above statement.

Clinton made his statement some 10 years before. It can be true and not be
supportive of the statement by Bush if conditions changed in the intervening
time, a change in conditions which has been claimed, supported, and appear
to be true. At least, in all these years there's been no evidence to support
the Adminsitraiton's contention that WMDs existed in anything approaching
the numbers claimed.

"memiki" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Oct 31, 11:58 pm, "Jochen Kriegerowski" jochen-kriegerow...@t-
online.de wrote:
"memiki" schrieb
Never forget: *You* are the boss, not the guy you hired!

Jochen -- I appreciate your analogy, but this is no ordinary
"employee" -- he has more power than his "boss"........and the
company for whom he works is no ordinary company

Actually, Miki, _he_ doesn't. The people whom he represents and for whom he
works do. You - "The People" - hold the power in your nation. Not a man, not
even a group of men. The checks and balances in the system aren't perfect
but they do make the presumption again and again that no one man or group
willl ever "rule' the nation. If you think he's more powerful than the those
who employ him for a short time, then you don't see a Presient, you see a
King. And the Founding Fathers would be revolving right now if that were the
case. :-)

"Icono Clast" wrote
That position might not be unique to you but I've never heard of such
a thing. I regard each of them as distinct and separate. I think it
resembles the Catholics' trinity and the separateness thereof by
other Christians.

?????? What a strange statement!
Are you suggesting the Catholic doctrine of the Trinity is not shared by
other Christians? The doctrine of the Trinity is a fundamental Christian
belief. The Catholic Church is a sub-set of "Chrisitan", not distinct and
separate from it, and as such shares that fundamental belief.