Some good news finally
 

On Tue, 22 Jul 2003 16:49:29 -0400, Dave Stallard
wrote:

http://www.centcom.mil/CENTCOMNews/n...e=20030768.txt

They died too easily, though.

RIP*, boys.

(Did they have any WMD on them?)

bw
* Rest in PAIN

Some good news finally
 

Dave Stallard wrote:
http://www.centcom.mil/CENTCOMNews/n...e=20030768.txt

They died too easily, though.

John Donne said something pertinent ...

Some good news finally
 

On 7/22/03 5:27 PM, in article ,
"lal_truckee" wrote:

Dave Stallard wrote:
http://www.centcom.mil/CENTCOMNews/n...e=20030768.txt

They died too easily, though.

John Donne said something pertinent ...



Their chicken **** old man will either commit suicide (ala Schickelgruber)
or surrender, how much ya wanna bet.

Some good news finally
 

"bdubya" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 22 Jul 2003 16:49:29 -0400, Dave Stallard
wrote:


http://www.centcom.mil/CENTCOMNews/n...elease=2003076
8.txt

They died too easily, though.

RIP*, boys.

(Did they have any WMD on them?)

If you were consistant you'd doubt their existance.

Some good news finally
 

So, how long before we can buy pieces of Qusay and Uday on eBay?

(Jay Leno)

Mike...

--
See my ski photography at: http://PowderDay.us
Carpe powder-diem

Some good news finally
 

On Tue, 22 Jul 2003 17:50:32 -0600, "pigo"
wrote:


"bdubya" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 22 Jul 2003 16:49:29 -0400, Dave Stallard
wrote:


http://www.centcom.mil/CENTCOMNews/n...elease=2003076
8.txt

They died too easily, though.

RIP*, boys.

(Did they have any WMD on them?)

If you were consistant you'd doubt their existance.

??? Are you referring to the late sons, or to the imminently
threatening WMD? If it's the WMD, I hope they do turn up, and as I've
said before, I'm willing to allow a good long while for the search to
go on. If it's the sons, well, I have a whole helluva lot more than
just the prezdet's say-so to go on, don't I?

bw

Some good news finally
 

"bdubya" wrote in message
...


??? Are you referring to the late sons, or to the imminently
threatening WMD? If it's the WMD, I hope they do turn up, and as I've
said before, I'm willing to allow a good long while for the search to
go on. If it's the sons, well, I have a whole helluva lot more than
just the prezdet's say-so to go on, don't I?

You mean like clinton saying he had them (he was telling the truth that
time). Like the UN saying he had them? Like Saddam saying he had them?
Like him using them? Like the pictures of the people he gassed?

Some good news finally
 

bdubya wrote in
:

Like maybe you'd actually READ the post? Did you miss that weasely
"imminently threatening" bit?

Did you ACTUALLY read Bush's words?? He did not say naything like
imminently threatening. Here's the actual text...

"Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when
have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting
us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and
suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would
come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is
not a strategy, and it is not an option."

Note the first sentence.

--
Sven Golly
Trolling as usual
Remove the _ to reply

Some good news finally
 

On 23 Jul 2003 16:33:48 GMT, Sven Golly
wrote:

bdubya wrote in
:

Like maybe you'd actually READ the post? Did you miss that weasely
"imminently threatening" bit?

Did you ACTUALLY read Bush's words?? He did not say naything like
imminently threatening. Here's the actual text...

"Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when
have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting
us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and
suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would
come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is
not a strategy, and it is not an option."

Note the first sentence.

Good point. But did you ACTUALLY read the thread? You're saying that
Bush never used the word "imminent", so it would be inconsistent for
me to believe Saddam had sons, or to applaud their deaths? Hey, that
makes perfect sense.

Just to resume where we are, I have long questioned whether the threat
was so "serious" (if you insist on a word the Prez used) that we had
to invade, with all that entails. Apparently Pigo feels that that's
inconsistent with believing that Saddam had sons and that their deaths
are a good thing.

bw

Some good news finally
 

Sven Golly wrote:
bdubya wrote in

Like maybe you'd actually READ the post? Did you miss that weasely
"imminently threatening" bit?

Did you ACTUALLY read Bush's words?? He did not say naything like
imminently threatening. Here's the actual text...

snip

"The larger point is, and the fundamental question is, did Saddam
Hussein have a weapons program? And the answer is, absolutely.
And we gave him a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn't
let them in. And, therefore, after a reasonable request, we decided
to remove him from power..." *

There you have it - the reason that we went to war is that Hussein
wouldn't allow the UN weapons inspectors in. Bush said so, so it must
be true.


*Real Quote - see
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/...wmds.question/

--
//-Walt
//
// "...the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders.
// That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being
// attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and
// exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country."
// - Herman Goering