; splatter egg on the face of the President?
>
> Or am I missing something here?
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: dana tierney [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, October 21, 2004 2:54 PM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: Re: Alleged RE: Dying for the United Nat
21, 2004 2:54 PM
To: CF-Community
Subject: Re: Alleged RE: Dying for the United Nations
I dont think WMD in Iraq are even alleged any more. It's considered
impolite and generally "mean" to bring them up :)
Dana
On Thu, 21 Oct 2004 13:57:38 -0700, Ken Ketsdever
<[EMAIL PROTECTED
WMD, WMD, WMD
-Original Message-
From: dana tierney [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, October 21, 2004 4:54 PM
To: CF-Community
Subject: Re: Alleged RE: Dying for the United Nations
I dont think WMD in Iraq are even alleged any more. It's considered
impolite and gene
I dont think WMD in Iraq are even alleged any more. It's considered
impolite and generally "mean" to bring them up :)
Dana
On Thu, 21 Oct 2004 13:57:38 -0700, Ken Ketsdever
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It is especially important when going to war. What about goign to war in Iraq?
> Where is th
It is especially important when going to war. What about goign to war in Iraq? Where
is the proof?
If they were detected, then they're not alleged. Physical proof is required
to move something from alleged to actual. It's semantics, but important.
> Much like the alleged tests in South Africa
