Leaving the community

And according to NPR this morning they find Sarin in Falluja. Sounds like
a WMD to me.

Yes, I was stunned to hear this announced -- and on NPR, that most liberal
bastion of the Left! (And my favorite news source...)

Of course, the other networks barely mentioned it -- and there is nothing in
my local newspaper at all. Just as there is nothing about the incredibly
huge "Oil for Food" conspiracy scandal with the Russians and the French --
all of whom made billions working with Saddam.

News Flash!: The mainstream media -- members of whom overwhelmingly
identify themselves as "Democrat" -- only report what fits their world view.

Which is why Fox News is so incredibly popular right now.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

"Gig Giacona" wrote


And according to NPR this morning they find Sarin in Falluja. Sounds like
a
WMD to me.

I have been unable to find any reports on the internet, on this subject.
Anyone have any more info?
--
Jim in NC


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.788 / Virus Database: 533 - Release Date: 11/1/2004

On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 19:58:33 -0500, Matt Whiting
wrote:

There is no evidence that the public was lied to

If he declares he has none, then we will know that Saddam Hussein is
once again misleading the world.

Ari Fleischer December 2, 2002

We know for a fact that there are weapons there.

Ari Fleischer January 9, 2003


Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the
materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX
nerve agent.

George W. Bush January 28, 2003


We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized
Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons -- the very weapons the
dictator tells us he does not have.

George Bush February 8, 2003


Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt
that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most
lethal weapons ever devised.

George Bush March 18, 2003


We know where they are. They are in the area around Tikrit and
Baghdad.

Donald Rumsfeld March 30, 2003

No where do you hear them saying: "Well we have some sources of
information that indicate Saddam may have weapons of mass destruction
but there are a number of operatives in the CIA who think that this
information is false." They did not say that, even though they knew
this was the case because they did not want the public to know there
was dissent. They especially did not want the Senate and Congress to
know there was dissent because they wanted them to give the White
House the go ahead for war. They were determined to go to war. They
were, according to a number of revelations from White House insiders,
interested in invading Iraq well before the attacks of Sept 11.

They also did not say that their source of information for WMD was
none other than an expatriot Iraqi group who wanted Saddam removed
from power. It now appears that this group was prepared to say
whatever the neoconservatives wanted to hear to make their case. This
conflict of interest should have made them automatically suspect, and
they were suspect to the CIA, but not to the White House.

This is so close to lying to the American public that it's hard to see
the difference.

Corky Scott

"Corky Scott" wrote

This
conflict of interest should have made them automatically suspect, and
they were suspect to the CIA, but not to the White House.

This is so close to lying to the American public that it's hard to see
the difference.

Corky Scott

Oh, kinda like Clinton telling us under oath, that he did not have sexual
relations with Monica?
--
Jim in NC


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.788 / Virus Database: 533 - Release Date: 11/1/2004

Matt Whiting wrote:

Frank wrote:
snip


Sure, certain things about the invasion and aftermath were bungled, but
you don't fire people for making a mistake or two. If that was the
case, then not a single congressman would survive more than one term.

You do when peoples lives are at stake. In fact, honorable men resign in
such situations.

--
Frank....H

"Frank" wrote in message ...
Peter Duniho wrote:

Very well put Pete.

I'd add that even if the Iraq invasion was justified it was bungled badly.
The administration ignored its own experts and we lost lives because of
it.
For that reason alone they don't merit being returned to office.

How do you explain why the military voted overwhelmingly for Bush?

"C J Campbell" wrote in message
...
How do you explain why the military voted overwhelmingly for Bush?

The military that makes a living going to war for the US? The military that
would be cut back if there weren't any apparent need for it?

Is this a trick question? You might as well ask why a Detroit auto worker
votes for a presidential candidate who promises to increase import tariffs
on cars.

"C J Campbell" wrote in message
...
How do you explain why the military voted overwhelmingly for Bush?

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...


The military that makes a living going to war for the US? The military
that
would be cut back if there weren't any apparent need for it?


Our troops only get paid during war time? Why would anyone ever enlist for
that?

Allen

Comments in text:


"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...
"C J Campbell" wrote in message
...
How do you explain why the military voted overwhelmingly for Bush?

The military that makes a living going to war for the US? The military
that
would be cut back if there weren't any apparent need for it?

The military makes a living by ensuring that no other nation wishes to go to
war against us, not by going to war. Don't you think every nation on earth
would come after us if we had no means of defending ourselves?



Is this a trick question? You might as well ask why a Detroit auto worker
votes for a presidential candidate who promises to increase import tariffs
on cars.

Poor analogy. In the "auto worker" scenario the worker voted for a candidate
that might help him keep his job. In the "military" scenario the soldier
voted for a candidate who had demonstrated that he would use military action
when necessary, and who might put him in a position where he would be
killed.

Peter Duniho wrote:

The military that makes a living going to war for the US?

It doesn't work that way. Sir Arthur Harris (commander of Bomber Command in WWII) put
it very well in his memoirs. During peacetime, soldiers get paid for doing a few
exercises. They have a fair amount of leisure time. When war breaks out, those near
the action have a relatively high casualty rate until things pretty much stabilize.
They are subject to the vagaries of weather, can't bathe, and are poorly fed. Low
ranking officers tend to have a very high casualty rate, though the chances for
promotion are good for the survivors. High ranking officers may be prematurely
retired or, conversely, yanked back out of retirement.

If you win the war, once peace settles in, many of the officers are discharged as
surplus and have their military careers cut short when they would have otherwise
served for decades at somewhat lower ranks. If you lose, many of your officers are
shot.

The last person who wants to go to war is the one who has to fight it.

Paraphrased from "Bomber Command", Sir Arthur Harris.

George Patterson
If a man gets into a fight 3,000 miles away from home, he *had* to have
been looking for it.