there was 14 resolutions over a 12 year time period.
we know now or think we do that saddam was bluffing on
the wmd and maybe he had not reconstituted it. but,
back then every majoy intelligence anency and most of
the not so major ones thought he had it. documents
declassfied just a couple of weeks ago showed a memo
of understanding between saddam and ubl to train
terrorist. let us say that we gave him 6 more months.
and he had them as everyone thought. and he passed
them off and they got used in baltimore. what would
have been the critisism of bush in that case. would it
not have bbeen "why the hell did he give them time?"
yews it would have been. given that they thought they
had it and had shown he would use it, i can not fault
the president for asking for congress to approve war
and i can not fault the senators of both parties for
giving the approval. i do fault them being two faced
about it by trying to claim they did not know what
they were approving (does anyone think they are that
dumb) and now being so critrical. that is where i'd
fault those senators. yes, it would have been great if
the intelligence agencies worldwide had not been wrong
and the facts were right. it is damn easy to look back
from here and say just exactly what you are saying
now, but, back your self up to after 2001 9-11. think
what you knew then and only what you knew then and put
it in that perspective. tough call and that is not
bulls--t. hindsite is always 20-20 becouse you are not
having to predict the future. its easy to predict
history if you can read and remember.  

--- Anthony Arnold <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> I think that none of us are saying that war is
> wrong, but we would love
> actual facts before going in, and I think the UN was
> trying to get those
> facts but Bush was too antsy to call war.  He might
> say it was a difficult
> decision to reach, bull sh-t. 
> 
> And about Clinton lying, let's say if a friend was
> playing around on his
> wife, I wouldn't broadcast it every night on the
> news.  
> 
> Thanks, 
> Anthony 
> Visit my website at www.anthonyarnold.net
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Cerebral Palsy List
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of
> ken barber
> Sent: Saturday, March 25, 2006 9:50 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: FW: was dental question now iraq war.
> 
> now mag, the definition of a lie is to tell
> something
> that you know is not true at the time you tell it.
> look it up. 
>   you guys who can't come up with anything but "bush
> lied" just do not know how foolish you sound. i love
> you, but, please, get past that tripe. bush as well
> as
> all your derm senators and intelligence around the
> world all said saddam had wmd. you do not say every
> body lied, only "bush lied."
>   the truth is that nobody lied about wmd, becouse
> not
> a one of them knew that he did not have them and
> went
> ahead and said he did. 
>    get past the foolishness and get something
> substantial to say. 
>  
> --- Magenta Raine <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> 
> > Saddam is being tried for the atrocities he
> > perpetrated against the Kurds,
> > and Iranians, as well as murdering some of his own
> > people. 
> > 
> > Bush lying about weapons of mass destruction or
> > Clinton lying about his
> > affair; which  is worse?  I say bush's lies about
> > wmd is worse because
> > after they found no wmd, he made up several other
> > stories about why we are
> > there. 
> > 
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > [log in to unmask]
> > Come visit my new store!
> > http://www.cafepress.com/TamarMag
> > visit my Blog at;
> > http://tamarmag-newsletters.blogspot.com/
> > 
> > 
> > > [Original Message]
> > > From: Anthony Arnold <[log in to unmask]>
> > > To: <[log in to unmask]>
> > > Date: 3/24/2006 5:19:03 PM
> > > Subject: Re: FW: was dental question   now iraq
> > war.
> > >
> > > I don't know what we're currently trying Hussein
> > and his brother for, but
> > > they had no involvement in September 11th, so
> why
> > are we over there
> > besides
> > > to take our frustration out on somebody.  But on
> > the other hand, if I
> > would
> > > become the president tomorrow, I wouldn't pull
> out
> > immediately as some
> > would
> > > like to see, I would personally like to fix what
> > my country has done. 
> > It's
> > > like if I accidentally dropped a cigarette on
> > somebody's carpet and it
> > burns
> > > a hole, I would feel oppogated to replace their
> > carpet, no matter what.  
> > >
> > > Thanks, 
> > > Anthony 
> > > Visit my website at www.anthonyarnold.net
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Cerebral Palsy List
> > [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of
> > > Kendall David Corbett
> > > Sent: Friday, March 24, 2006 6:49 PM
> > > To: [log in to unmask]
> > > Subject: Re: FW: was dental question now iraq
> war.
> > >
> > > Ken,
> > >
> > > Whether the Iraqis are better off is a tough
> call;
> > they may (or may not,
> > > some would argue) have greater civil liberties,
> > but their lives may be
> > > in greater immediate danger than they were under
> > Hussein. =20
> > >
> > > On the opposite side of that coin, many would
> > argue that we in the US
> > > are safer, but have had our civil liberties
> > eroded.  It was said in the
> > > immediate post 9/11 period that the terrorists
> > wanted to destroy the
> > > American (read US) way of life, and they have
> made
> > a start toward that,
> > > IMHO.
> > >
> > > As I read UN Resolution 1441, it doesn't
> > explicitly give member states
> > > of the UN permission to undertake unilateral
> > military action against
> > > Iraq.  That does seem to be permissible under UN
> > resolutions 678 and
> > > 687, which were signed in 1990 and 1991,
> > respectively. =20
> > >
> > > My point is that the armed forces presently
> > engaged as coalition
> > > partners do not wear UN uniforms, and as such
> are
> > not formally
> > > recognized as UN forces.
> > >
> > > Kendall=20
> > >
> > > An unreasonable man (but my wife says that's
> > redundant!)
> > >
> > > The reasonable man adapts himself to the world;
> > the unreasonable one
> > > persists in trying to adapt the world to
> himself.
> > Therefore, all
> > > progress depends on the unreasonable man.
> > >
> > > -George Bernard Shaw 1856-1950
> > >
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: ken barber [mailto:[log in to unmask]]=20
> > > Sent: Friday, March 24, 2006 4:54 PM
> > > To: [log in to unmask]
> > > Subject: Re: FW: was dental question now iraq
> war.
> > >
> > >   actually resolution 1441 passed without
> desent,
> > but,
> > > then when it got time to actually follow
> through,
> > then
> > > the germans, french, and russians backpeddled
> and
> > > would not follow through. 1441 gave any member
> > nation
> > > the right to enforce it. the u.s. and the brits
> > with a
> > > few more did exactly that.=20
> > >   it appears that the intelligence worldwide was
> > wrong
> > > on lagre amounts of weapons of mass destruction
> > unless
> > > you believe that ranking iragi general that says
> > they
> > > flew them to syria. the media is ignoring him.
> i'd
> > > guess some of you have heard nothing about him
> up
> > to
> > > just this email. but, either way i'll ask the
> > > question. do you think iragis are better off now
> > than
> > > before the invasion? your honest answer should
> > pretty
> > > well tell you if the war is right or wrong.
> don't
> > > wealsel out, they are either better off without
> > saddam
> > > or they were better off with him.=20
> 
=== message truncated ===


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com