> About Gen DeLong - then how does he know for a fact
> they sent WMD out
> of Iraq? That the point, he's lying. If he knew
> for a fact we'd know
> where they were.
He said he knows they went into Syria, he didn't say
he know the where they ended up.
Why is Zinni so right and DeLong and Franks so wrong?
Do you only believe those that suit you?
Your slipping away on me here.
I guess we're done with this.
-sm
> Further, and on your quote from Mr. Bush, I'm
> convinced that Mr. Bush
> is Sir Belvedere as his (and your) logic is similar:
>
> How do we know there are WMDs?
>
> * You can burn WMD.
> * You can also burn wood.
> * WMD must burn because it's made of wood.
> * Wood floats.
> * Ducks float.
>
> If the substance weighs the same as a duck, it must
> be made of wood,
> and is therefore a WMD.
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Sam Morris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2004 13:19:34 -0700 (PDT)
> Subject: Re: The Election and The Economy
> To: CF-Community <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> --- Gruss Gott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Hi Sam, I'll skip the other stuff, but I can't
> > resist this:
> >
> > 1.) If Gen DeLong knows "for a fact" then where
> are
> > they?
> It's no surprise that weapons buried in Iraq have
> yet
> to be uncovered. "Seven-eighths of the country is
> arid
> desert and it's the size of California. You could
> probably bury 100 Empire State Buildings in Iraq
> and
> not find them," the former Marine said.
>
> > If we can invade Iraq why not Syria if he knows
> "for
> > a fact".
> It was more than WMDs and the Saddam problem went
> on
> for years. Syria is on the Axis of Evil list and we
> know they support terrorism, but we're going
> through
> the process of diplomacy. If democracy in Iraq
> works
> out maybe Syria will do what Lybia did and turn
> over
> there WMDs.
>
> > 2.) Since we've never recovered WMD, wasn't the
> war
> > a mistake? We
> > said there were WMD, we went to war because of
> it,
> > but we've never
> > found any.
> No. Here's what Bush said recently in an interview
> with Limbaugh:
>
> Now, Iraq. You see, one of the lessons of September
> the 11th is that we gotta deal with threats before
> they fully materialize, and we saw a threat in
> Iraq. I
> say "we." The Congress saw a threat, I saw a threat
> and the United Nations Security Council saw a
> threat.
> In other words, the world took a look and said,
> "Saddam is a threat," and here's why they thought
> he
> was a threat. One, he used weapons of mass
> destruction, and one of the most dangerous parts of
> this new war is that if the enemy were ever to
> acquire
> the capacity to use a weapon of mass destruction it
> would make September 11th, you know, pale in
> comparison, and so we saw that threat.
>
> Secondly, he had ties to terrorists. Abu Nidal was
> housed in Iraq, his organization. He was the guy
> that
> killed Leon Klinghoffer. He was a known terrorist.
> Zarqawi -- who's now, you know, the person
> beheading
> people in Iraq today -- was in and out of Baghdad
> and
> Iraq, as were members of his organization. So he
> had
> terrorist ties. As a matter of fact, not only did
> he
> have terrorist ties, he used to subsidize families
> of
> these suicide bombers, which is a terrorist act.
>
> Thirdly, he invaded his neighbors. Fourthly, he was
> an
> enemy of this country, and we had been to war with
> him
> once. He had invaded others in the neighborhood. He
> was a source of great instability. So I saw a
> threat,
> and given the lessons of September the 11th, we
> decided to remove him from power, having tried
> diplomacy. See, I think it's very important for
> your
> listeners to know, Rush, that the
> commander-in-chief
> ought to try all avenues of diplomacy prior to
> committing troops and we did that. And so I'm
> sitting
> in the Oval Office, and I've seen a threat. I now
> see
> that he's ignoring the demands of the free world,
> he
> had no intention of disarming, as a matter of fact
> was
> systematically deceiving inspectors, and so I made
> the
> decision, a very difficult decision.
>
> The way forward, which was to remove him from power
> --
> and, by the way, we weren't "alone" going in. As a
> matter of fact, I talked to Tony Blair this
> morning,
> which I do on a regular basis, and Tony Blair saw
> the
> same threat. And so now the way ahead is this. We
> will
> work with Prime Minister Allawi to enable a
> political
> process to develop. In other words, we'll provide
> as
> much security as we can to help a political process
> forward which means elections in January, but more
> importantly we will train Iraqis so that they are
> capable of providing their own security, and that's
> an
> important ingredient about enabling me to say that
> troops will be there as long as necessary, but not
> a
> day longer -- and by that I mean when the Iraqis
> are
> capable of defending themselves and as the
> political
> process emerges, we will then be in a position to
> say
> the mission has been completed, which is a
> democratic
> Iraq, an ally in the war on terror and a source of
> stability in a part of the world that needs
> stability
> and freedom.
>
> - President Bush
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses.
>
>
>
>
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings] [Donations and Support]
