Activism Change

OT: Hey, Igor!

Question:

Empress writes:

(snip) > So you must believe that Bush is completely unsurprised that no WMD > were found in Iraq…

I don’t know what Igor believes.  It is clear that Bush _wanted_ to believe that there were WMDs in Iraq, and that Hussein’s behavior seems to have been calculuated to support that belief. Nevertheless, at this point it is also clear that the "intelligence" supporting that belief was of poor quality, and was produced to supply a demand from the administration, not for _intelligence_ but for _intelligence supporting the WMD case_. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Look, even this article in Aljazeera doesn’t claim to know that Bush > lied, although most of it wants to point that way… > ****** > http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/8585B9E8-0EDF-44FC-A1E4-68A2FF… > The article ends with the following: > <warnings to the administration about false claims on Iraq WMD were > ignored> > ‘ Lest we forget, theirs were not the only warnings the Bush > administration has apparently ignored, however. In July 2001, US > intelligence produced the following alert: > "We believe that UBL [Usama bin Ladin] will launch a significant > terrorist attack against US and/or Israeli interests in the coming > weeks. The attack will be spectacular and designed to inflict mass > casualties against US facilities or interests." ‘ > ****** > Funny; it’s a ‘can’t win’ situation, one way or the other.  What to > believe, what to ignore?  If you get it wrong, for two terms, because > you’re too busy getting BJs in the Oval Office, you get a pass?  But > if you overdo it, you’re up for war crimes?

What do you think Clinton got wrong?  He underestimated Al Qaeda, though not by as much as Bush.  His administration pursued a successful policy of containment of Iraq.  So successful in fact that in spite of Hussein’s evident desire to have WMDs, he had none, and he had an insignificant military capability as well. I think Clinton did a pretty good job on Iraq.  Maybe those BJs helped.

Response:

On Sun, 01 Aug 2004 22:14:30 GMT, Doug Anderson <ethelthelogremovet…@yahoo.com> wrote: >I don’t know what Igor believes.  It is clear that Bush _wanted_ to >believe that there were WMDs in Iraq, and that Hussein’s behavior >seems to have been calculuated to support that belief.

There you go.  I can agree with that, I guess. >Nevertheless, at this point it is also clear that the "intelligence" >supporting that belief was of poor quality, and was produced to supply >a demand from the administration, not for _intelligence_ but for >_intelligence supporting the WMD case_.

Right.  So?  This, again, doesn’t equate to deliberate lies, does it? There are other possible explanations.  Even if you believe that Bush is a megalomaniacal imperialist, a neo-Napoleon, rather than a pissed-off, paranoid president of a superpower, can you prove that he deliberately told lies? – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->> Look, even this article in Aljazeera doesn’t claim to know that Bush >> lied, although most of it wants to point that way… >> ****** >> http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/8585B9E8-0EDF-44FC-A1E4-68A2FF… >> The article ends with the following: >> <warnings to the administration about false claims on Iraq WMD were >> ignored> >> ‘ Lest we forget, theirs were not the only warnings the Bush >> administration has apparently ignored, however. In July 2001, US >> intelligence produced the following alert: >> "We believe that UBL [Usama bin Ladin] will launch a significant >> terrorist attack against US and/or Israeli interests in the coming >> weeks. The attack will be spectacular and designed to inflict mass >> casualties against US facilities or interests." ‘ >> ****** >> Funny; it’s a ‘can’t win’ situation, one way or the other.  What to >> believe, what to ignore?  If you get it wrong, for two terms, because >> you’re too busy getting BJs in the Oval Office, you get a pass?  But >> if you overdo it, you’re up for war crimes? >What do you think Clinton got wrong?  He underestimated Al Qaeda, >though not by as much as Bush.  His administration pursued a >successful policy of containment of Iraq.  So successful in fact that >in spite of Hussein’s evident desire to have WMDs, he had none, and he >had an insignificant military capability as well. >I think Clinton did a pretty good job on Iraq.  Maybe those BJs helped.

Yeah, well, he had 8 years of warnings about Bin Laden.  Maybe if Bin Laden had some BJs, though… ~Empress, Thinking maybe he should have appointed Monica as ambassador to Afghanistan…

Response:

"Ignoramus24751" <ignoramus24…@NOSPAM.24751.invalid> wrote in message

news:cejqr9$i2r$2@pita.alt.net… > We have to go shopping for a standalone chest freezer, but I read

Don’t get a chest freezer, get a vertical one. Food gets lost for years in the bottom of a chest freezer! Tai (trying to change the subject)

Response:

Empress wrote in message <news:jq1lg050ss67uvm7a8l5f74epm5st1e6jp@4ax.com>… > On 30 Jul 2004 07:38:48 -0700, bottlerocket0…@yahoo.com > (BottleRocket) wrote: > >         > >     I missed you!   > Aw, gee.  Thanks! > ~Empress, wondering who bottlerocket is…  kewl name though.

tommyj twofive JingleBells I’ve probably made a few posts under some others. Half the fun of changing your name is seeing how people will shorten it.  "Bottle" is one of my favorites.

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -bottlerocket0…@yahoo.com (BottleRocket) writes: > Empress wrote in message <news:jq1lg050ss67uvm7a8l5f74epm5st1e6jp@4ax.com>… > > On 30 Jul 2004 07:38:48 -0700, bottlerocket0…@yahoo.com > > (BottleRocket) wrote: > > >         > > >     I missed you!   > > Aw, gee.  Thanks! > > ~Empress, wondering who bottlerocket is…  kewl name though. > tommyj > twofive > JingleBells

Oh!  Why didn’t I figure that out.  It makes sense now.

Response:

Nice to see your name again. E.O.T.K.W. <Empress> wrote in message

news:9h1lg0d80i66lf4v70698v3es2i1486q20@4ax.com… – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> On Fri, 30 Jul 2004 05:26:41 GMT, "JWB" <bigtommbtyjwb…@servo.com > actually, my e-mail is jwb3333 at excite dot com> wrote: > >Oh, I think it would be interesting. Welcome back Empress > Thanks, JWB.  Still ecstatically married, are you? > ~Empress, who recently survived a long road trip with DH and is > considering divorce.  Or at least separate vacations from now on…

Response:

On 1 Aug 2004 02:52:46 GMT, Ignoramus11294 <ignoramus11…@NOSPAM.11294.invalid> wrote: >You are confused because the government circles intentionally want to >confuse this issue, which is in fact very simple.

So you agree with this Socialist article? http://www.wsws.org/articles/2004/jan2004/wmd-j15.shtml <Criticizing a New York Times editorial> "It

Filed under: Human Rights

Related Posts

• Atrocities in Africa Not on Bush's Radar. by Arianna Huffington
• Wall Is Wrecking Peace, ICJ Told At End Of Hearings
• Drug cheating speculations re Irish and others
• OT but please read and sign
• Molly Ivins Apologizes!
• U.S. Asked Saudis To Stop Printing Qur
• Update on Deploying.
• Death Sentence for Illicit Sex
• If Communism Was/Is so Oppressive to Jews then Why Don't Jews Treat it the Same as They Do Nazism? V3,0c S_0507
• French Parliament Adopts Anti-Hijab Bill