::nod:: I saw Somalia and a couple of other countries like that
On 11/23/05, Larry C. Lyons <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Saudi Arabia I think and some other slimy dictatorships.
>
> larry
>
> On 11/22/05, Dana <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > thanks. Has anyone NOT signed it besides the US?
> >
> >
Saudi Arabia I think and some other slimy dictatorships.
larry
On 11/22/05, Dana <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> thanks. Has anyone NOT signed it besides the US?
>
> On 11/22/05, Larry C. Lyons <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > most of the NATO countries, possibly the then Warsaw Pact, I forget
> > wha
I dunno, personally I am in favor of banning the playing of Christina
Aguilera... yes I am kidding. I didn't know that I was arguing in
favor of *banning* such strategies, am I? That's unlikely to be
fruitful because given enough lawyers there will always be something
deplorable that is arguably le
> Dana wrote:
> hehe. Clever answer but it evades my point. All students have been
> sleep deprived at some point and yes it may get the information in but
> when it is applied to prisoners does it get any useful information
> out?
>
Yeah, I dunno, but my point is that it's not "torture" and there
hehe. Clever answer but it evades my point. All students have been
sleep deprived at some point and yes it may get the information in but
when it is applied to prisoners does it get any useful information
out?
On 11/22/05, Gruss Gott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Dana wrote:
> > welp. Does it wor
> Dana wrote:
> welp. Does it work?
>
Yes, especially in courts of law, engineering school, and advanced
military training.
~|
Purchase Flash MX Pro from House of Fusion, a Macromedia Authorized Affiliate
and support the CF comm
looks like there are a few. Tuvalu and Somalia, Afghanistan... hmmm
On 11/22/05, Dana <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> thanks. Has anyone NOT signed it besides the US?
>
> On 11/22/05, Larry C. Lyons <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > most of the NATO countries, possibly the then Warsaw Pact, I forget
> >
thanks. Has anyone NOT signed it besides the US?
On 11/22/05, Larry C. Lyons <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> most of the NATO countries, possibly the then Warsaw Pact, I forget
> what other countries, but from what I understand most nations have
> signed it.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Co
maybe we will. But fair enough.
On 11/22/05, Sam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> That we'll never know
>
> On 11/22/05, Dana wrote:
> > ok some. I question (very much) whether it is all.
~|
This list and all House of Fusion resource
most of the NATO countries, possibly the then Warsaw Pact, I forget
what other countries, but from what I understand most nations have
signed it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Conventions for general info, and
http://www.icrc.org/Web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/html/party_gc for the
countries that have
That we'll never know
On 11/22/05, Dana wrote:
> ok some. I question (very much) whether it is all.
>
~|
Discover CFTicket - The leading ColdFusion Help Desk and Trouble
Ticket application
http://www.houseoffusion.com/banners/v
welp. Does it work?
no torture expert, but my guess is that the goal of the soft stuff
> is to mentally destabilize you - basically throw you off your game and
> hope you slip up.
~|
Find out how CFTicket can increase your compan
ok some. I question (very much) whether it is all.
Dana
On 11/22/05, Sam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Well... some people are getting punished :)
>
> On 11/22/05, Dana wrote:
> > hehe. The people responsible are not being punished :)
> >
>
>
~
> Dana wrote:
> But what about the contention that just because you use torture (hard
> or soft) does not mean you are getting the truth. That people say just
> anything to make it stop?
>
I'm no torture expert, but my guess is that the goal of the soft stuff
is to mentally destabilize you - basic
I missed it.
On 11/22/05, Dana wrote:
> yeah, he backpedaled pretty quick. Check out the news the day before.
~|
Find out how CFTicket can increase your company's customer support
efficiency by 100%
http://www.houseoffusion.com/
Well... some people are getting punished :)
On 11/22/05, Dana wrote:
> hehe. The people responsible are not being punished :)
>
~|
Discover CFTicket - The leading ColdFusion Help Desk and Trouble
Ticket application
http://www.h
It depends on what you mean by civilian targets.
Do you mean non uniformed fighters?
Do you mean non-combatants?
Do you mean houses, hospitals, mosques, infrastructure? What if that
infrastructure is currently held and being used for fighting/storing
munitions?
If you mean school girls at a weddi
yeah, he backpedaled pretty quick. Check out the news the day before.
On 11/22/05, Sam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I didn't hear that, I heard he called him a good friend and true hero.
>
~|
Find out how CFTicket can increase yo
But what about the contention that just because you use torture (hard
or soft) does not mean you are getting the truth. That people say just
anything to make it stop?
On 11/22/05, Gruss Gott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Dana wrote:
> > The US and British admitted it so it's not bs.
oh yeah, legally sure. That's like Libby probably not getting
convicted because of the definition of the crime, is what I am saying.
Do you think incendiary weapons should be used against civilian targets?
Dana
On 11/22/05, Larry C. Lyons <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The use of WP in Falluja is
hehe. The people responsible are not being punished :)
On 11/22/05, Sam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> By minor story I meant panties on the head, men in underwear stacked
> in a pyramid, turning the heat way down ect. That's not physical
> torture like chopping off toes or bamboo up the fingernails
thank you, those are the details I was struggling for. How may other
countries *did* sign those protocols do you know?
On 11/22/05, Larry C. Lyons <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> No the US has signed no treaties banning the use of WP on civilians.
> Protocol III or IV of the Geneva Conventions specif
ya and there's a fairly technical definition of torture from what I hear.
On 11/22/05, Sam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> We never use toture but the threat of it being left on the table might
> help with the difficult cases.
>
>
> On 11/21/05, Dana wrote:
> > My friend, I don't know what to say. Is
Let's assume that I am asking. It is standard practive to use the
stuff as flares, right? But to shoot it at people? And yes, I realize
that there are quite a few people here who know more about military
practice than I do.
On 11/22/05, Kevin Graeme <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Do you have any exp
We never use toture but the threat of it being left on the table might
help with the difficult cases.
On 11/21/05, Dana wrote:
> My friend, I don't know what to say. Is it a minor story that Cheney
> wants to exempt the CIA from restrictions on torture?
~~
I didn't hear that, I heard he called him a good friend and true hero.
On 11/21/05, Dana wrote:
> However the administration is not making it. Cheney of the five
> deferments is calling veterans with combat experience and decorations
> for bravery vile names because they dare question his strategy
By minor story I meant panties on the head, men in underwear stacked
in a pyramid, turning the heat way down ect. That's not physical
torture like chopping off toes or bamboo up the fingernails. It was
humiliating and inappropriate and the people responsible are being
punished.
Yet it's used as pro
MAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: Monday, November 21, 2005 10:37 PM
> > To: CF-Community
> > Subject: Re: [politics] just look at the headlines
> >
> >
> > a minor story??
> >
> > My friend, I don't know what to say. Is it a min
s and flares. No more no less. We have no treaties banning
> > it's use.
> >
> > Tim
> >
> > > -----Original Message-
> > > From: Dana [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > Sent: Monday, November 21, 2005 10:37 PM
> > > To: CF-Community
>
> Dana wrote:
> The US and British admitted it so it's not bs.
>
On the white phosphorus thing - not WMD, not a chemical weapon,
perfectly fine to use in combat. We've got lots of weapons that'll do
lots of bad things to the human body, but that's what combat is all
about. If it's water, fire, o
Do you have any experience with or knowledge of standard military
equipment and procedures outside of what you read in the press? I
recommend asking military personnel how common incendiary grenades are
before deciding whether using them is unusual and improper. We have a
few vets on the list you c
> I am aware that sometimes bad things need to be done and I might
> actually be in favor of doing them to save lives *if* and here is the
> key phrase, if they were effective.
>
> So far not one story has surfaced abuot how we slapped some bad
> terrorist around and he gave us the info to prevent
t; > Sent: Monday, November 21, 2005 10:37 PM
> > To: CF-Community
> > Subject: Re: [politics] just look at the headlines
> >
> >
> > a minor story??
> >
> > My friend, I don't know what to say. Is it a minor story that Chene
hosphorous.
>
> It's crap.
>
> That's fire bombs and flares. No more no less. We have no treaties banning
> it's use.
>
> Tim
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Dana [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: Monday, November 21, 2005 10
by a guy in a uniform.
Not once.
Tim
> -Original Message-
> From: Dana [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, November 21, 2005 10:37 PM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: Re: [politics] just look at the headlines
>
>
> a minor story??
>
>
; Sent: Monday, November 21, 2005 10:37 PM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: Re: [politics] just look at the headlines
>
>
> a minor story??
>
> My friend, I don't know what to say. Is it a minor story that Cheney
> wants to exempt the CIA from rest
Insanity is doing the same thing and expecting different results.
I could actually respect an honest debate. It seems possible that if
sufficient forces were committed, the country could be secured. Of
course you have to wonder if enough forces are physically and
politically available, but there M
a minor story??
My friend, I don't know what to say. Is it a minor story that Cheney
wants to exempt the CIA from restrictions on torture? What about the
use of chemical weapons in Fallujah, is that a minor story? When
Saddam used chemical weapons, was that a minor story?
> Sam wrote:
> movement. Seems like the press is helping us lose. I'm not saying
> ignore what happened but it was a minor story spun into a major abuse
> story.
>
Policy is not about right and wrong, it's about speculation and debate.
The Bush policy has been to stay the course, do nothing diffe
I didn't hear Cheney call him a coward. The one congresswoman that did
was speaking for a marine, which was a terrible thing to do. Speak for
your self or have the Marine stand there and make his comment but to
call a hero a coward and say "well they're not my words" is shameful.
As for the other R
Saw that, that was absolutely horrible.
>
> Speaking of spin/anti-spin I had to, again, be appalled by Republicans
> this weekend, but it could've been Democrats too.
>
> You had Cheney, Hastert, and that new Ohio congresswoman call John
> Murtha a "coward". This is a Vietnam combat veteran wit
> Maureen wrote:
> I don't spin. I am the anti-spin.
>
Speaking of spin/anti-spin I had to, again, be appalled by Republicans
this weekend, but it could've been Democrats too.
You had Cheney, Hastert, and that new Ohio congresswoman call John
Murtha a "coward". This is a Vietnam combat veteran
I don't spin. I am the anti-spin.
On 11/21/05, G <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Which school of spin did you graduate from?
>
> > Yep. That's my Sam. Can't count, can't handle homonyms. Can't attack the
> > message, has to attack the messenger. Happy graduate of the Karl Rove
> > School
> > of Spin
Which school of spin did you graduate from?
> Yep. That's my Sam. Can't count, can't handle homonyms. Can't attack the
> message, has to attack the messenger. Happy graduate of the Karl Rove
> School
> of Spin.
>
~|
Discover C
you keep on believing that Sam.
On 11/19/05, Sam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Here's a tip: while pointing out personal attacks aren't a good thing,
> don't do it yourself three times in that message.
>
> As for the message, there's no disputing the fact that Bush won the
> election and is actuall
Here's a tip: while pointing out personal attacks aren't a good thing,
don't do it yourself three times in that message.
As for the message, there's no disputing the fact that Bush won the
election and is actually the sitting President. So your message is
irrelevant. It's the people that tricked y
Yep. That's my Sam. Can't count, can't handle homonyms. Can't attack the
message, has to attack the messenger. Happy graduate of the Karl Rove School
of Spin.
On 11/18/05, Sam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> You living in a bunker where they all dress in black? I here the
> Kool-Aid is delicious :)
::major eyeroll::
no Sam, I deliberately ignored it because of my personal vendetta
against the man. I read several stories hurriedly, in between other
things. Pretty much like I am doing now. I did see a story that said
Cheney's office had declined comment. I also saw this one, come to
think of
> So I guess all the likely players have denied it?
Sounds like you're doubting it.
Did you really forget what you heard last night?
On 11/18/05, Dana wrote:
> I didn't apologize; I did say whoops, that's right, I stand corrected.
> I didn't think it called for one. But since you were saying I
I didn't apologize; I did say whoops, that's right, I stand corrected.
I didn't think it called for one. But since you were saying I never
admit I am wrong, conceivably you owe me one now ;) not that I am
holding my breath.
Dana
On 11/18/05, Sam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You call that an apolo
You call that an apology?
It's weak but I'll accept it.
On 11/18/05, Dana wrote:
> By the way, I saw your post on Cheney before this one. Read my answer.
> Now let's have that apology ;)
>
> Dana
>
~|
Discover CFTicket - The le
Isn't that how we got into this war?
Original>>>
You're starting with a conclusion and building facts around it.
Confidentiality Notice: This message including any
attachments is for the sole use of the intended
recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged
information. Any unauthori
ummm I didn't say I was right, just that events haven't proved me
wrong yet. I sort of wish they would. The world would definitely be a
safer and more comfortable place.
By the way, I saw your post on Cheney before this one. Read my answer.
Now let's have that apology ;)
Dana
On 11/18/05, Sam <[
See that's the difference between thinkers and Kool-Aid drinkers.
When I'm wrong I admit it and if I insult I apologize. Usually.
You two never admit your wrong and never apologize. On the contrary
you change the subject and insult.
You always fall back on "I don't need no stinkin proof, I know I c
the facts are there. The cognitive dissonace will be gone as they will
no longer be clashing with your irrational beliefs ;)
On 11/18/05, Sam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So if I just assume the worst I won't need any facts? Got it.
>
> On 11/18/05, Dana wrote:
> > the reason it does not make sens
so that's just fine according to you?
On 11/18/05, Sam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> That's the Kool-Aid talking :)
>
> On 11/18/05, Dana wrote:
> > Way back when I said that I was working on the assumption that this
> > administration always lies and that everything it does it does from
> > corru
> Sam wrote:
> So if I just assume the worst I won't need any facts? Got it.
>
You're starting with a conclusion and building facts around it.
Further those facts are hearsay from some random website that has a
leaked document from an unknown, but speculated, source.
Get a spine and make a polic
So if I just assume the worst I won't need any facts? Got it.
On 11/18/05, Dana wrote:
> the reason it does not make sense is that you keep assuming the good
> faith of this administration. Let go of that and it all makes perfect,
> if chilling, sense.
>
~~
That's the Kool-Aid talking :)
On 11/18/05, Dana wrote:
> Way back when I said that I was working on the assumption that this
> administration always lies and that everything it does it does from
> corrupt motives. It has yet to disappoint me. It has many times
> horrified me, even when I was sta
the reason it does not make sense is that you keep assuming the good
faith of this administration. Let go of that and it all makes perfect,
if chilling, sense.
Dana
On 11/18/05, Sam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> That brings us back to start.
> The CIA under Tenet failed. Did Bush tell Tenet to jaz
Way back when I said that I was working on the assumption that this
administration always lies and that everything it does it does from
corrupt motives. It has yet to disappoint me. It has many times
horrified me, even when I was starting from that assumption. How can
you defend using something tha
people did actually believe it. A large number of the people on this
list believed it. There was widespread condemnation as I recall
against anyone who questioned the need to go to war.
And according to Woodward, the invasion was a forgone conclusion in
October 2001.
On 11/18/05, Sam <[EMAIL PROT
there is of course politics involved. This is politics. Nonetheless,
we have on the one hand Cheney of the five deferrments calling people
liars and unpatriotic and on the other people who have come to realize
that they are not the only ones made uneasy by the sitation in
Iraq I am sure that th
you mean the footnote?
On 11/18/05, Sam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Dude do you just delete stuff that proves you wrong and pretend it
> never happened?
>
> Explain away this:
> http://homepage.ntlworld.com/jksonc/docs/nie-iraq-wmd.html#inr-n1
>
> On 11/18/05, Gruss Gott wrote:
> >
> > Further, t
That brings us back to start.
The CIA under Tenet failed. Did Bush tell Tenet to jazz the info so he
could go to war or is Tenet actually incompetent?
The Medal of Honor or freedom whatever suggests Tenet cooked the
evidence for Bush or that Tenet has something over Bush. Probably
something he foun
With this administration:
If you are on the right, to support your cause:
Possibility = hard fact evidence
If you are on the right and being accused nothing short of written
evidence with pictures and video is acceptable as evidence. And then
only if there is no plausible deniability.
As a life
I don't knowif the Bush admin was so blinded by their desired path
that they missed obvious signs of sketchy intelligenceis that "lying" by
omission? Might be. Isn't that what the right is accusing Dan Rather of
doing?
>I agree. But the Dems are now saying the President lied about t
I agree. But the Dems are now saying the President lied about the info
they had and people actually believe it.
You would think the press would clear it up but with the exception of
Fox News they've suddenly lost their tongues.
On 11/18/05, G wrote:
> I think many democrats voted for the authori
I think many democrats voted for the authorization of force because it was
the right political move at the time. Now that the war is horrible
unpopular, the right political move is to try and distance themselves from
it.
When you aren't the party in power, all you do is try to regain that power
That's nice.
Please answer the question.
You said:
Further, the intelligence they received was product put together by
> the administration which didn't include dissenting opinions
> proportional to the size and facts of the dissent. That's a fact
> admitted to by the Whitehouse and the CIA.
An
administration, rather than the actual facts.
-Original Message-
From: Gruss Gott [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, November 18, 2005 9:29 AM
To: CF-Community
Subject: Re: [politics] just look at the headlines
> Sam wrote:
> Dude do you just delete stuff that proves you wrong and p
> Sam wrote:
> Dude do you just delete stuff that proves you wrong and pretend it
> never happened?
>
I'm not sure what you think I'm saying so I'll to be very precise:
Where I agree with the Administration
1.) A stable democratic Middle East
You living in a bunker where they all dress in black? I here the
Kool-Aid is delicious :)
On 11/18/05, Maureen wrote:
> This is a myth. He didn't win, and no matter how many times you say it, it
> won't make it true.
~|
Discover
Dude do you just delete stuff that proves you wrong and pretend it
never happened?
Explain away this:
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/jksonc/docs/nie-iraq-wmd.html#inr-n1
On 11/18/05, Gruss Gott wrote:
>
> Further, the intelligence they received was product put together by
> the administration which
> Sam wrote:
> Do you now agree the House and the Senate had the same or better
> information doubting the WMDs?
>
Of course not, because they don't, didn't, never have, never will.
I'm shocked anyone would even make that charge as it's so obviously
false.
As I've pointed out numerous times, it
This is a myth. He didn't win, and no matter how many times you say it, it
won't make it true.
On 11/17/05, Sam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> We tried to help the Dems get in office by putting up a lightweight
> like Bush and he still won. What more can we do? Appoint them? :)
>
>
~
um why would he do that? You feed him some koolaid?
On 11/17/05, Sam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I'll answer your silly questions but first address the thread
> You seem to like to change the subject when the facts become inconvenient.
> Do you now agree the House and the Senate had the sam
I'll answer your silly questions but first address the thread
You seem to like to change the subject when the facts become inconvenient.
Do you now agree the House and the Senate had the same or better
information doubting the WMDs?
On 11/17/05, Gruss Gott wrote:
>
> So what's your policy point?
> Dana wrote:
> yeah, they forgot to check the supplies for the shake and bake missions :\
Shake-n-bake baby! BOO YAH! Toast 'em to the bone!
~|
Find out how CFTicket can increase your company's customer support
efficiency by
> Sam wrote:
> No, I still think it was the right thing to do.
>
So what's your policy point? You seem to be so lost in minutia you
can't see the policy through the trees.
If your point is that Mr. Bush acted on faulty intelligence then it
follows that the CIA (and the NSA etc) should be severe
On 11/17/05, Kevin Graeme wrote:
> Thanks. Obviously the intel leading to the judgement of that document
> should be understood better, as well as how the judgment itself was
> formed. And the "authorship/responsibility unknown" would be nice to
> know too.
Well Stu Cohen claims to be one of I thi
yeah, they forgot to check the supplies for the shake and bake missions :\
Dana
On 11/17/05, Sam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> No, I still think it was the right thing to do.
>
> I never said the WMDs didn't exist, just that we didn't find them.
>
> On 11/17/05, Gruss Gott wrote:
>
> > I've go
No, I still think it was the right thing to do.
I never said the WMDs didn't exist, just that we didn't find them.
On 11/17/05, Gruss Gott wrote:
> I've got a question for you, there, Dr. Minutia:
>
> If things are as you claim (that the WMD intelligence was so far off
> base that EVERYBODY got
You mean this?
Some of the specialized but dual-use items being sought are, by all
indications, bound for Iraq's missile program. Other cases are ambiguous,
such as that of a planned magnet-production line whose suitability for
centrifuge operations remains unknown. Some efforts involve non-contro
Thanks. Obviously the intel leading to the judgement of that document
should be understood better, as well as how the judgment itself was
formed. And the "authorship/responsibility unknown" would be nice to
know too.
The crux of the issue is that information we now know to have been
erroneous led
> Sam wrote:
> You left out the most important part of the very first paragraph of a
> 70 odd page report:
I've got a question for you, there, Dr. Minutia:
If things are as you claim (that the WMD intelligence was so far off
base that EVERYBODY got it wrong) are you then saying that invading
Iraq
You left out the most important part of the very first paragraph of a
70 odd page report:
(See INR alternative view at the end of these Key Judgments.)
It has a link :)
On 11/17/05, Dana wrote:
> it's the second paragraph. The first one says:
> We *judge* that Iraq has continued its weapons of ma
I guess you didn't get to this post yet :)
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/jksonc/docs/nie-iraq-wmd.html
On 11/17/05, Dana wrote:
> of course they do.
> >
> > brief. Do you know the briefings had more info then were available to
> > Congress?
~~
it's the second paragraph. The first one says:
We *judge* that Iraq has continued its weapons of mass destruction (WMD)
programs in defiance of UN resolutions and restrictions. Baghdad
*has*chemical and biological weapons
On 11/17/05, Sam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I'll put it into context:
key aspects like there might not be one? You have to admit that that is not
the way the average reader would construe that sentence
the Key Judgments to know that as we said: "We lacked specific
> information on many key aspects of Iraq's WMD program."
>
>
~~
of course they do.
On 11/17/05, Sam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> They did.
> Only a handful read the NIE fast page five according to the Washington
> Post. They also have the power to ask question and get answers. They
> did have the same access they just had to request it.
> To say they didn't
:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2005 11:51 PM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: Re: [politics] just look at the headlines
>
> What Mr. Cheney, Mr. Bush and Mr. Rumsfeld left out was that the
> administration had access to far more extensive intelligence than
same intelligence that the
> President does.
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Dana [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2005 11:46 PM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: Re: [politics] just look at the headlines
>
> ya, they believed nobody let alone the
The folks that voted in the Republican Primaries.
_ _
(c)¿(c)¬
\ O /
On 11/17/05, Gruss Gott wrote:
> > Sam wrote:
> > We tried to help the Dems get in office by putting up a lightweight
>
> Who's "we"?
>
~|
Purc
> Sam wrote:
> We tried to help the Dems get in office by putting up a lightweight
Who's "we"?
~|
Get the mailserver that powers this list at
http://www.houseoffusion.com/banners/view.cfm?bannerid=17
Message: http://www.houseof
I'll put it into context:
We judge that we are seeing only a portion of Iraq's WMD efforts,
owing to Baghdad's vigorous denial and deception efforts. Revelations
after the Gulf war starkly demonstrate the extensive efforts
undertaken by Iraq to deny information. We lack specific information
on man
We tried to help the Dems get in office by putting up a lightweight
like Bush and he still won. What more can we do? Appoint them? :)
On 11/17/05, Gruss Gott wrote:
>
> Well, I don't think I've been shy about my policy disagreement with both ;-)
>
> As I've said, in the Whitehouse we've got a fisc
I'm not forming an opinion on any of this, but that sentence is pretty
ambiguous.
It could mean something as big as "We doubt even the existence of WMD"
or it could be as small as "We don't know the exactl location of WMD"
with an implied "but we're sure it's there".
I don't know which was the re
> Sam wrote:
> Are you saying what happened to Anderson should happen to the House
> and the Senate?
>
Well, I don't think I've been shy about my policy disagreement with both ;-)
As I've said, in the Whitehouse we've got a fiscally liberal social
conservative. That's opposite of me so I'm agai
I heard the NIE report was more doubtful then the info the President
was given. If only they read it
http://www.cia.gov/cia/public_affairs/press_release/2003/pr11282003.html
Myth #4: We buried divergent views and concealed uncertainties:
Diverse agency views, particularly on whether Baghdad was
1 - 100 of 111 matches
Mail list logo
