Year of Death or Declaration of Death Number of
Records
1956-1960 9
1961 16
1962 52
1963 118
1964 206
1965 1,863
1966 6,143
1967 11,153
1968 16,592
1969 11,616
1970 6,081
1971 2,357
1972 641
1973 168
1974 178
1975 161
1976 77
1977 96
1978 447
1979 148
1980 26
1981-1990 34
1991-1998 11
Total ` 58,193
1980 26
1981-1990 34
1991-1998 11
Total 58,193
Tom Watson - WoodDorker
tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet (email)
http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1/ (website)
Dave Hinz wrote:
> On Mon, 24 Oct 2005 19:44:28 GMT, Patrick Conroy <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > In retrospect, I don't think Vietnam was one of those times.
> > I'm having a damned hard time figuring out why Iraq is.
>
> The stated purpose was to keep Iraq from giving WMDs to Al Queda. To
> date, that has not happened (that we know of, and I think we'd know...)
The stated purpose was to prvent Iraq from using WMDs, which Iraq did
not have. Hard to use, or give, what you don't have.
Larry Blanchard wrote:
> Dave Hinz wrote:
...
> > The stated purpose was to keep Iraq from giving WMDs to Al Queda. To
> > date, that has not happened (that we know of, and I think we'd know...)
> >
>
> On the assumption that the above was not a sarcastic comment:
>
> And if I keep throwing peanuts on the floor, it'll keep away the pink
> elephants.
>
> Hard to give what you don't have - and even the shrub has admitted Iraq
> didn't have any.
Has he? Because I don't recall that and a fair number of his
supporters do not seem to have gotten the word.
--
FF
[email protected] wrote:
> Larry Blanchard wrote:
> > Dave Hinz wrote:
> ...
> > > The stated purpose was to keep Iraq from giving WMDs to Al Queda. To
> > > date, that has not happened (that we know of, and I think we'd know...)
> > >
> >
> > On the assumption that the above was not a sarcastic comment:
> >
> > And if I keep throwing peanuts on the floor, it'll keep away the pink
> > elephants.
> >
> > Hard to give what you don't have - and even the shrub has admitted Iraq
> > didn't have any.
>
> Has he? Because I don't recall that and a fair number of his
> supporters do not seem to have gotten the word.
>
Somehow, somewhere, I also heard him say that, or read that he said
that in a speech. I can't remember when or where, but I'm pretty sure
it happened. Once. It's a lot like the old Indian and Cowboy movies,
though, with the line: "White man speak with forked tongue." Here,
they'd have to add that the forked tongue was also twisted, so it's
possible neither the speaker nor the listener knows what is really
being said.
Note followups
Charles Bull wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 09:37:22 -0700, Larry Blanchard <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >[email protected] wrote:
> >> Larry Blanchard wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>>Hard to give what you don't have - and even the shrub has admitted Iraq
> >>>didn't have any.
> >>
> >> Has he? Because I don't recall that and a fair number of his
> >> supporters do not seem to have gotten the word.
> >>
> >
> >And a fair number of his supporters still believe that Iraqis were
> >flying the 9/11 planes :-).
>
> These fair numbers of die-hard neo cons will be sick for years to
> come as their leaders will soon be Indicted for lying and other
> deplorable acts. BTW do you think Cheney will be also indicted?
No. I think Libby will stonewall and stall as long as possible
before trial, stall the trial as long as possible, stall sentencing
as long as possible, then try to remain free pending appeal and
stall the appeal(s) as long as possible. In all likelihood, no
matter if or on how many counts he is convicted, he will not serve
a day in jail and be pardoned in the last days of GWB's administration.
Even if Fitzgerald and the trial judge have the same dedication to
truth and Justice as Jaworski and Sirica, defendants are better
able to slow the process than they were thirty years ago.
Plus, unlike the Watergate defendants, Libby is acutely aware that
if he flips on anyone else his family is not safe. I expect he'll
do hard if he has to.
On the plus side, each count of obstruction of justice carries
a potential sentence of 5 years, served consequetively and each
false statement made to the investigators is a separate count.
then there is perjury.
--
FF
Do you want to remove this from rec.woodworking where it is
off-topic?
Dave Hinz wrote:
> On 24 Oct 2005 16:22:27 -0700, Charlie Self <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > Dave Hinz wrote:
>
> >> The stated purpose was to keep Iraq from giving WMDs to Al Queda. To
> >> date, that has not happened (that we know of, and I think we'd know...)
>
> > The stated purpose was to prvent Iraq from using WMDs, which Iraq did
> > not have. Hard to use, or give, what you don't have.
>
> Tell that to these folks:
> "If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear.
> We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass
> destruction program."- President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998
He already knows it.
>
> "He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten
> times since 1983." - Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser,
> Feb, 18, 1998
>
Here are couple of questions dishonest Bush supporters,
such as yourself, refuse to answer:
When was the last time Saddam Hussein used Chemical Weapons?
What was the estimated shelf life of Iraqi WMD?
If the US had real evidence of a resumption of the Iraqi nuclear
program, why did the US deliver forged documents to the IEA?
Why did the US misrepresent the Medusa Missle tubes to the
United Nations?
> "[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."- Letter to President Clinton, signed by
> Sens. Carl Levin (D-MI), Joe Lieberman (D-CT), Frank R. Lautenberg
> (D-NJ), Richard Lugar (R-IN), Kit Bond (R-MO), Jon Kyl (R-AZ), Chris
> Dodd (D-CT), John McCain (R-AZ), Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX), Alfonse
> D'Amato (R-NY, now retired), Bob Kerrey (D-NE, now retired), Pete V.
> Domenici (R-NM), Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), Barbara A. Mikulski (D-MD),
> Thomas Daschle (D-SD), John Breaux (D-LA), Tim Johnson (D-SD), Daniel K.
> Inouye (D-HI), Arlen Specter (R-PA), James Inhofe (R-OK), Strom Thurmond
> (R-SC, now deceased), Mary L. Landrieu (D-LA), Wendell Ford (D-KY, now
> retired), John F. Kerry (D-MA), Chuck Grassley (R-IA), Jesse Helms
> (R-NC, now retired), and Rick Santorum (R-PA).
> , Oct. 9, 1998
>
Here is another question you don't want to answer:
Did Clinton, in fact, proceed with air and missle strikes against
those targets?
When?
Were those strikes effective at destroying the targetted facilities?
> Oh, I could go on and on, but here's the link:
> http://www.thiefsden.net/archives/000073.html
>
> If you have any evidence to show any of these quotes are bogus, I would
> be most interested. Nobody has ever sent me evidence of that nature,
> though.
There is now a fourth kind of lie. We now have lies, damned lies,
statistics, and quote mining.
How come you didn't quote anyone who was actually involved
in the search for Iraqi WMD?
>
> SH had an awful lot of people, on both sides of the aisle, convinced
> that he had WMD. I'm not convinced that he didn't.
Did you ever actually read ANY of the UNSCOM, UNMOVIC, IAEA, or
ISG reports?
Here is a summary of the best intelligence available IRT Iraqi
Weapons of Mass destruction, on the eve of the invasion:
http://traprockpeace.org/iraqweapons.html
>
> Oh, here's one closing one:
>
> "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 redefine
> 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." - Letter to President Bush, signed by Sen. Bob
> Graham (D-FL) and others, Dec, 5, 2001.
On what 'reports', exactly, was this statement based and why did
you falsly attribute it to Senator Graham? On what 'reports' is
it based? Please be specific.
BTW, the actual text of the letter appears here:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/nation/specials/attacked/transcripts/iraqletter_120701.html
But what is particualry telling, are some protions of the letter
you declined to present to us:
... begin quote
If we have learned one thing from the
ongoing battle in Afghanistan, it is
that working effectively in coordination
with locals on the ground can significantly
leverage our own use of military force.
While we have no doubt that in the long
run, the United States will always prevail
in battle with the likes of the Taliban
(not to speak of Saddam Hussein), we also
know that we can minimize casualties and
shorten conflict by cooperating with opposition
forces. That has been a key element of US
strategy for several decades.
Since the passage of the Iraq Liberation Act
three years ago, we have fought to provide
support for Iraqis inside Iraq. The Iraqi
National Congress (INC), an umbrella group
of all the significant anti-Saddam forces
inside Iraq, has consistently requested
Administration assistance for operations on
the ground in Iraq ranging from the delivery
of humanitarian assistance and information-gathering
to military and technical training and lethal
military drawdown.
Despite the express wishes of the Congress,
the INC has been denied U.S. assistance for
any operations inside any part of Iraq,
including liberated Kurdish areas. Instead,
successive Administrations have funded
conferences, offices and other intellectual
exercises that have done little more than
expose the INC to accusations of being "limousine
insurgents" and "armchair guerillas". We note
the troubling similarity of these accusation
to charges made against the Afghan guerillas
now helping us win the war against the Taliban.
... end quote
IOW, he signatories whom you falsely represented as
syupportive of George W. Bush's invasion actuallty
were urging him to take action modeled on the successful
Powell/Tenet Afghanistan plan.
>
> Lot can happen in three years, can't it.
Indeed. Taking into consideration the estimated shelf life of
Iraqi WMD munitions what would they be like after three years
of storage?
>
> You apparently feel that the failure to find WMDs, after giving someone
> years to hide them, shows they were never there in the first place. An
> awful lot of our government officials, on both sides of the party lines,
> disagree.
>
>
I presume you continue to refuse to answer the question:
Taking into consideration the estimated shelf life of
Iraqi WMD munitions what would happen to them if they were to
be stored for three years?
The popularity of bullshit and lies has no influence on their
essential nature.
--
FF
Shall we remove rec.woodworking from the distribution, since it
is off-topic there?
Doug Miller wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] wrote:
> >Dave Hinz wrote:
> >
> >> Then where did they go, Larry? The democrats were howling about SH's
> >> WMDs, Bush does something about it, and now they're all looking off
> >> into space, pretending that it was all his idea. Pathetic.
> >>
> >> So, what about those quotes, Larry?
> >>
> >
> >You got me wrong, Dave. I freely concede that a lot of folks on both
> >sides of the aisle thought Saddam had them. It appears they were wrong.
>
> But only Bush "lied" about it, is that it?
No, Blair plainly was lying too.
Did any administration besides the Bush/Blair administrations
submit forged documents to the IAEA?
Did anybody except for Bush/Blair administration officials claim
the 81 mm Medusa missle tubes were anything but that?
Did anyone else plagiarize materials (including some from ten years
earlier with the dates elided or changed) for a 'white paper'?
> Everyone else was simply mistaken.
Those who took Bush/Blair at their word were mistaken though
'simply' is a bit too charitable. There was plenty of information
available beofre the US/UK invasion that showed the case for
nuclear weapons was nonexistant and for chemical and biological
weapons not much better and growing worse by the day.
> >
> >Do you remember Cheney's statement that not only did Iraq have WMDs, but
> >"we know where they are"?
>
> It appears he was wrong. Or foolish -- I can imagine Saddam hearing that, and
> saying to himself "Oh sh**, I guess I'd better hide them somewhere else."
How about the Bush administrations's statement that WMDs had been
moved to forward postions, a 'red line' and field commanders authorized
to used them? Were you paying attention when US/UK forces crossed that
'red line', that had been abandoned by the fleeing Iraqi military
almost from the moment the bombardment began? Do you recall that
no evidence of WNDs on that 'red line' were found?
Do you remember Rumsfeld saying, post-invasion, 'We know where the
WMD are."????
Do you recall that the ISG found no evidence for WMD manufacturing
facilites? Do you recall David Kay pointing out that "No factories,
no weapons."???
> >
> >Or the hydrogen generators with canvas sides (built in Britain) that
> >were passed off as mobile biological labs? With canvas sides???
> >
> >Surely in all this time, if they had been moved or hidden, we would have
> >found at least one Iraqi willing to lead us to them, or at least to
> >confirming documentation.
>
> "Hasn't happened yet" is not the same thing as "won't ever happen".
>
Can you explain how those WMDs were manufactured, without
factories, without feedstacks, without byproducts, without
leaving any trace evidence in soil or water?
Can you suggest why Saddam Hussein, on the eve of an invasion
aimed squarely at removing him from power, would hide his most
fearsom weapons, the only weapons that could possible be
effective enough to save him, where they would degrade to
uselessness instead of using them?
IOW, were you ever paying attention?
--
FF
On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 09:37:22 -0700, Larry Blanchard <[email protected]> wrote:
>[email protected] wrote:
>> Larry Blanchard wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>Hard to give what you don't have - and even the shrub has admitted Iraq
>>>didn't have any.
>>
>> Has he? Because I don't recall that and a fair number of his
>> supporters do not seem to have gotten the word.
>>
>
>And a fair number of his supporters still believe that Iraqis were
>flying the 9/11 planes :-).
These fair numbers of die-hard neo cons will be sick for years to
come as their leaders will soon be Indicted for lying and other
deplorable acts. BTW do you think Cheney will be also indicted?
On 25 Oct 2005 17:03:44 GMT, Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote:
>Time will tell, I suppose. I don't know where the WMDs went either.
>Maybe he did actually destroy them after all, and then didn't tell
>anyone. Odd that he'd do that, given that it was a condition of the
>cease fire and all to document destruction, but who knows.
Yes, time will tell. However, If you check your garage or basement
you might just find it there.
>However, given that politicians on both sides of the aisle agreed, at
>the time, based on best available evidence, that there were WMDs, then
>the stated goal of keeping those WMDs from getting to AQ was
>appropriate. Yes, they don't like each other all that well, but they
>don't like us a whole lot more.
On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 14:51:01 -0500, "Todd Fatheree" <[email protected]> wrote:
>Who cares if he will be indicted? As the saying goes, a prosecutor can
>indict a ham sandwich if he wants to. The prosecutor gets to go in front of
>a grand jury and tell only his side of the case. The accused gets to go in
>without the aid of counsel. They can bring you in multiple times for hours
>on end, and if they ask the same question enough different ways about events
>that occurred years ago, you can misspeak and then, presto, you've lied to
>the grand jury.
Don't forget the prosecutor was selected by the Republican and he will
convict a ham, turkey sandwich or fruitcakes.
>So, you can take any supposed indictments and flush them. Get back to me
>when there is a conviction.
>todd
You bet I will be back after one or more are convicted, in the mean time
start praying. It may help, but I doubt it.
On Mon, 24 Oct 2005 19:44:28 GMT, Patrick Conroy <[email protected]> wrote:
> In retrospect, I don't think Vietnam was one of those times.
> I'm having a damned hard time figuring out why Iraq is.
The stated purpose was to keep Iraq from giving WMDs to Al Queda. To
date, that has not happened (that we know of, and I think we'd know...)
On 24 Oct 2005 16:22:27 -0700, Charlie Self <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Dave Hinz wrote:
>> The stated purpose was to keep Iraq from giving WMDs to Al Queda. To
>> date, that has not happened (that we know of, and I think we'd know...)
> The stated purpose was to prvent Iraq from using WMDs, which Iraq did
> not have. Hard to use, or give, what you don't have.
Tell that to these folks:
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear.
We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass
destruction program."- President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten
times since 1983." - Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser,
Feb, 18, 1998
"[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."- Letter to President Clinton, signed by
Sens. Carl Levin (D-MI), Joe Lieberman (D-CT), Frank R. Lautenberg
(D-NJ), Richard Lugar (R-IN), Kit Bond (R-MO), Jon Kyl (R-AZ), Chris
Dodd (D-CT), John McCain (R-AZ), Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX), Alfonse
D'Amato (R-NY, now retired), Bob Kerrey (D-NE, now retired), Pete V.
Domenici (R-NM), Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), Barbara A. Mikulski (D-MD),
Thomas Daschle (D-SD), John Breaux (D-LA), Tim Johnson (D-SD), Daniel K.
Inouye (D-HI), Arlen Specter (R-PA), James Inhofe (R-OK), Strom Thurmond
(R-SC, now deceased), Mary L. Landrieu (D-LA), Wendell Ford (D-KY, now
retired), John F. Kerry (D-MA), Chuck Grassley (R-IA), Jesse Helms
(R-NC, now retired), and Rick Santorum (R-PA).
, Oct. 9, 1998
Oh, I could go on and on, but here's the link:
http://www.thiefsden.net/archives/000073.html
If you have any evidence to show any of these quotes are bogus, I would
be most interested. Nobody has ever sent me evidence of that nature,
though.
SH had an awful lot of people, on both sides of the aisle, convinced
that he had WMD. I'm not convinced that he didn't.
Oh, here's one closing one:
"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 redefine
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." - Letter to President Bush, signed by Sen. Bob
Graham (D-FL) and others, Dec, 5, 2001
Lot can happen in three years, can't it.
You apparently feel that the failure to find WMDs, after giving someone
years to hide them, shows they were never there in the first place. An
awful lot of our government officials, on both sides of the party lines,
disagree.
Dave Hinz
On Mon, 24 Oct 2005 16:46:24 -0700, Larry Blanchard <[email protected]> wrote:
> Dave Hinz wrote:
>> The stated purpose was to keep Iraq from giving WMDs to Al Queda. To
>> date, that has not happened (that we know of, and I think we'd know...)
> On the assumption that the above was not a sarcastic comment:
It wasn't.
> And if I keep throwing peanuts on the floor, it'll keep away the pink
> elephants.
Yeah, we've been through this before. Which of these quotes is bogus,
Larry?
http://www.thiefsden.net/archives/000073.html
> Hard to give what you don't have - and even the shrub has admitted Iraq
> didn't have any.
Then where did they go, Larry? The democrats were howling about SH's
WMDs, Bush does something about it, and now they're all looking off into
space, pretending that it was all his idea. Pathetic.
So, what about those quotes, Larry?
Dave Hinz
On 25 Oct 2005 01:58:46 -0700, Charlie Self <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> [email protected] wrote:
>> Has he? Because I don't recall that and a fair number of his
>> supporters do not seem to have gotten the word.
(Hm, wasn't fred one of those people bitching about off-topic threads?)
> Somehow, somewhere, I also heard him say that, or read that he said
> that in a speech. I can't remember when or where, but I'm pretty sure
> it happened. Once.
That's a hell of a cite there, Charlie.
On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 09:44:28 -0700, Larry Blanchard <[email protected]> wrote:
> Dave Hinz wrote:
>
>> Then where did they go, Larry? The democrats were howling about SH's
>> WMDs, Bush does something about it, and now they're all looking off
>> into space, pretending that it was all his idea. Pathetic.
>>
>> So, what about those quotes, Larry?
>>
>
> You got me wrong, Dave. I freely concede that a lot of folks on both
> sides of the aisle thought Saddam had them. It appears they were wrong.
It appears that they may have been wrong. But we left the fox in the
henhouse for a long time without being checked on, didn't we.
> Surely in all this time, if they had been moved or hidden, we would have
> found at least one Iraqi willing to lead us to them, or at least to
> confirming documentation.
Time will tell, I suppose. I don't know where the WMDs went either.
Maybe he did actually destroy them after all, and then didn't tell
anyone. Odd that he'd do that, given that it was a condition of the
cease fire and all to document destruction, but who knows.
However, given that politicians on both sides of the aisle agreed, at
the time, based on best available evidence, that there were WMDs, then
the stated goal of keeping those WMDs from getting to AQ was
appropriate. Yes, they don't like each other all that well, but they
don't like us a whole lot more.
Dave Hinz wrote:
> On Mon, 24 Oct 2005 19:44:28 GMT, Patrick Conroy <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>In retrospect, I don't think Vietnam was one of those times.
>>I'm having a damned hard time figuring out why Iraq is.
>
>
> The stated purpose was to keep Iraq from giving WMDs to Al Queda. To
> date, that has not happened (that we know of, and I think we'd know...)
>
On the assumption that the above was not a sarcastic comment:
And if I keep throwing peanuts on the floor, it'll keep away the pink
elephants.
Hard to give what you don't have - and even the shrub has admitted Iraq
didn't have any.
[email protected] wrote:
> Larry Blanchard wrote:
>
>>
>>Hard to give what you don't have - and even the shrub has admitted Iraq
>>didn't have any.
>
> Has he? Because I don't recall that and a fair number of his
> supporters do not seem to have gotten the word.
>
And a fair number of his supporters still believe that Iraqis were
flying the 9/11 planes :-).
Dave Hinz wrote:
> Then where did they go, Larry? The democrats were howling about SH's
> WMDs, Bush does something about it, and now they're all looking off
> into space, pretending that it was all his idea. Pathetic.
>
> So, what about those quotes, Larry?
>
You got me wrong, Dave. I freely concede that a lot of folks on both
sides of the aisle thought Saddam had them. It appears they were wrong.
Do you remember Cheney's statement that not only did Iraq have WMDs, but
"we know where they are"?
Or the hydrogen generators with canvas sides (built in Britain) that
were passed off as mobile biological labs? With canvas sides???
Surely in all this time, if they had been moved or hidden, we would have
found at least one Iraqi willing to lead us to them, or at least to
confirming documentation.
All of those were individuals, Tom.
Why would you post numbers and not names?
Two of those soldiers died right next to me;. Post names, Tom. They deserve
it, Tom.
You never served, Tom. If you did, you would know............
"Tom Watson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Year of Death or Declaration of Death Number of
> Records
> 1956-1960 9
> 1961 16
> 1962 52
> 1963 118
> 1964 206
> 1965 1,863
> 1966 6,143
> 1967 11,153
> 1968 16,592
> 1969 11,616
> 1970 6,081
> 1971 2,357
> 1972 641
> 1973 168
> 1974 178
> 1975 161
> 1976 77
> 1977 96
> 1978 447
> 1979 148
> 1980 26
> 1981-1990 34
> 1991-1998 11
> Total ` 58,193
>
> 1980 26
> 1981-1990 34
> 1991-1998 11
> Total 58,193
>
> Tom Watson - WoodDorker
> tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet (email)
> http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1/ (website)
"Charles Bull" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 09:37:22 -0700, Larry Blanchard <[email protected]>
wrote:
>
> >[email protected] wrote:
> >> Larry Blanchard wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>>Hard to give what you don't have - and even the shrub has admitted Iraq
> >>>didn't have any.
> >>
> >> Has he? Because I don't recall that and a fair number of his
> >> supporters do not seem to have gotten the word.
> >>
> >
> >And a fair number of his supporters still believe that Iraqis were
> >flying the 9/11 planes :-).
>
> These fair numbers of die-hard neo cons will be sick for years to
> come as their leaders will soon be Indicted for lying and other
> deplorable acts. BTW do you think Cheney will be also indicted?
Who cares if he will be indicted? As the saying goes, a prosecutor can
indict a ham sandwich if he wants to. The prosecutor gets to go in front of
a grand jury and tell only his side of the case. The accused gets to go in
without the aid of counsel. They can bring you in multiple times for hours
on end, and if they ask the same question enough different ways about events
that occurred years ago, you can misspeak and then, presto, you've lied to
the grand jury.
So, you can take any supposed indictments and flush them. Get back to me
when there is a conviction.
todd
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] wrote:
>Dave Hinz wrote:
>
>> Then where did they go, Larry? The democrats were howling about SH's
>> WMDs, Bush does something about it, and now they're all looking off
>> into space, pretending that it was all his idea. Pathetic.
>>
>> So, what about those quotes, Larry?
>>
>
>You got me wrong, Dave. I freely concede that a lot of folks on both
>sides of the aisle thought Saddam had them. It appears they were wrong.
But only Bush "lied" about it, is that it? Everyone else was simply mistaken.
>
>Do you remember Cheney's statement that not only did Iraq have WMDs, but
>"we know where they are"?
It appears he was wrong. Or foolish -- I can imagine Saddam hearing that, and
saying to himself "Oh sh**, I guess I'd better hide them somewhere else."
>
>Or the hydrogen generators with canvas sides (built in Britain) that
>were passed off as mobile biological labs? With canvas sides???
>
>Surely in all this time, if they had been moved or hidden, we would have
>found at least one Iraqi willing to lead us to them, or at least to
>confirming documentation.
"Hasn't happened yet" is not the same thing as "won't ever happen".
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
"Charles Bull" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 14:51:01 -0500, "Todd Fatheree" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>
> >Who cares if he will be indicted? As the saying goes, a prosecutor can
> >indict a ham sandwich if he wants to. The prosecutor gets to go in front
of
> >a grand jury and tell only his side of the case. The accused gets to go
in
> >without the aid of counsel. They can bring you in multiple times for
hours
> >on end, and if they ask the same question enough different ways about
events
> >that occurred years ago, you can misspeak and then, presto, you've lied
to
> >the grand jury.
>
> Don't forget the prosecutor was selected by the Republican and he will
> convict a ham, turkey sandwich or fruitcakes.
Please...can we leave Barney Frank out of this?
> >So, you can take any supposed indictments and flush them. Get back to me
> >when there is a conviction.
>
> >todd
>
> You bet I will be back after one or more are convicted, in the mean time
> start praying. It may help, but I doubt it.
I won't hold my breath.
Patrick Conroy <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
>
> I'm having a damned hard time figuring out why Iraq is.
Seems to me if you dig a hole in the sidewalk, and watch 100 folks fall
in, you'll soon find they belong to one of two groups:
1) Those who's first thought is "who's to blame for putting this hole
here?"
B) Those who's first thought is "how the hell do I get out?"
I'm in the second group - frankly don't give a rats-toot about how the
hell we got into Iraq - I just want to know how the hell we're getting
out before anymore sons/daughters/fathers/mothers die. On both sides.
Knock yourself out about WMDs.
Who said what. Who lied. Who misinformed.
Right now, I don't give a damn.
I only want to know our plan for getting the hell out.
Worrying about who to blame is something this country does very well,
after the fact.
"Schuster" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
>
> Two of those soldiers died right next to me;. Post names, Tom. They
> deserve it, Tom.
Yes they do.
>
> You never served, Tom. If you did, you would know............
>
Nor did I.
And I am deeply grateful to you and those who did.
But please allow me, as a father, and as a citizen, to strive to find a way
to make sure those numbers stay as low as possible.
There are times when a fight is unavoidable.
There are times when it's right to ask our young men and women to risk
their lives. To sacrafice themselves.
In retrospect, I don't think Vietnam was one of those times.
I'm having a damned hard time figuring out why Iraq is.