The State of the Union: Lies about a Dishonest War

"devil" wrote in message
news
On Tue, 20 Jan 2004 15:32:06 +0000, AnotherDeanRampage wrote:


"devil" wrote in message
news
On Tue, 20 Jan 2004 13:04:47 +0000, Steven P. McNicoll wrote:


"Fly Guy" wrote in message
...

Ask the Bush administration. They made it an international
objective
to force Iraq to prove it did not have WMD. Absurd, yes. Par for
the
course for this white house? Yes.


The Iraqis were required to verify the destruction of their WMD by
the
cease
fire agreement of 1991. Proving that something has been done is not
proving
a negative.

So that was the cause of the war, eh?


One of them, yes.

I got a bridge...

Well, if you're a Democrat, get ready to jump off of it then.


BTW, as far as the UN etc. is concerned, that was supposed not to be "one
of" but *the*.

Of course, it's always easy to rewrite history, right?

When the dishoest "one" falls apart, invent another one.

Bottom line is, we all know that this never was anything but a lie.

You're referring to Dean's campaign, I assume?


The
White House crowd had been talking about going to war since way before the
elections.

Nope. Not at all.


As to *their* reasons, it's also now abundantly clear that they amounted
to nothing better than pure unadulterated wishful thinking. With no
excuse.

You're referring to Dean's supporters here, I assume?

On Tue, 20 Jan 2004 15:52:12 +0000, AnotherDeanRampage wrote:


"devil" wrote in message
news
On Tue, 20 Jan 2004 15:32:06 +0000, AnotherDeanRampage wrote:


"devil" wrote in message
news On Tue, 20 Jan 2004 13:04:47 +0000, Steven P. McNicoll wrote:


"Fly Guy" wrote in message
...

Ask the Bush administration. They made it an international
objective
to force Iraq to prove it did not have WMD. Absurd, yes. Par for
the
course for this white house? Yes.


The Iraqis were required to verify the destruction of their WMD by
the
cease
fire agreement of 1991. Proving that something has been done is not
proving
a negative.

So that was the cause of the war, eh?


One of them, yes.

I got a bridge...

Well, if you're a Democrat, get ready to jump off of it then.

Changing the topic, eh? No excuse left to serve us on the war thing?


BTW, as far as the UN etc. is concerned, that was supposed not to be "one
of" but *the*.

Of course, it's always easy to rewrite history, right?

When the dishoest "one" falls apart, invent another one.

Bottom line is, we all know that this never was anything but a lie.

You're referring to Dean's campaign, I assume?

Right. He went to war and served BS to the world as an excuse, sure.

The
White House crowd had been talking about going to war since way before the
elections.

Nope. Not at all.

Care to check?

As to *their* reasons, it's also now abundantly clear that they amounted
to nothing better than pure unadulterated wishful thinking. With no
excuse.

You're referring to Dean's supporters here, I assume?

Right. They served all sorts of excuses for attacking Iraq, as we know.

Anyway, sounds like you are really running out of anything meanful to
anser?

"devil" wrote in message
news
On Tue, 20 Jan 2004 15:52:12 +0000, AnotherDeanRampage wrote:


"devil" wrote in message
news
On Tue, 20 Jan 2004 15:32:06 +0000, AnotherDeanRampage wrote:


"devil" wrote in message
news On Tue, 20 Jan 2004 13:04:47 +0000, Steven P. McNicoll wrote:


"Fly Guy" wrote in message
...

Ask the Bush administration. They made it an international
objective
to force Iraq to prove it did not have WMD. Absurd, yes. Par
for
the
course for this white house? Yes.


The Iraqis were required to verify the destruction of their WMD by
the
cease
fire agreement of 1991. Proving that something has been done is
not
proving
a negative.

So that was the cause of the war, eh?


One of them, yes.

I got a bridge...

Well, if you're a Democrat, get ready to jump off of it then.

Changing the topic, eh?


No, because the topic was "I got a bridge".