In a message dated 8/2/2003 12:46:19 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
Which of course is what
this all about.So many Democrats turned a blind
eye to Clinton's
perjury
But this is where you are precisely wrong John. No democrat
defended
Clinton this. Not one
At 03:35 PM 8/1/2003 -0700 Matt Grimaldi wrote:
So then the President used information that ultimately
came from French Intelligence, a country which his own
administration has all but accused of having a conflict
of interest wrt Iraq? This sounds worse than before.
John D. Giorgis wrote:
Jon Gabriel wrote:
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On
Behalf Of John D. Giorgis
Sent: Saturday, August 02, 2003 12:46 PM
To: Killer Bs Discussion
Subject: Re: Seth Finkelstein on 16 words
At 09:25 PM 7/22/2003 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Which of course
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Don't use it in the SOU. You don't insult the
british by not using the information. But by the way
why is it as is usual? It would seem to me in
something this important the british could share
their specific information. I would suspect that
more often
At 09:25 PM 7/22/2003 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Which of course is what
this all about.So many Democrats turned a blind
eye to Clinton's
perjury
But this is where you are precisely wrong John. No democrat
defended
Clinton this. Not one said he was right
Au contraire a great
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On
Behalf Of John D. Giorgis
Sent: Saturday, August 02, 2003 12:46 PM
To: Killer Bs Discussion
Subject: Re: Seth Finkelstein on 16 words
At 09:25 PM 7/22/2003 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Which of course is what
this all about.So
At 04:34 PM 8/2/2003 -0400 Jon Gabriel wrote:
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On
Behalf Of John D. Giorgis
Sent: Saturday, August 02, 2003 12:46 PM
To: Killer Bs Discussion
Subject: Re: Seth Finkelstein on 16 words
At 09:25 PM 7/22/2003 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
John D. Giorgis wrote:
...
Bob Z. said that no Democrat defended Clinton on this.
In my mind, Bob Z.'s claim is patently absurd. Many Democrats did argue
that any man would lie about adultery, and the only possible reason for
making such a claim was to attempt to mitigate the charges
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On
Behalf Of David Hobby
Sent: Saturday, August 02, 2003 3:52 PM
To: Killer Bs Discussion
Subject: Re: Seth Finkelstein on 16 words
Which of course is what
this all about.So many Democrats turned a blind
eye to Clinton's
perjury
What democrats said that it was acceptable for Clinton to lie under
oath?
I don't know what other Democrats may have said. I never said it was
acceptable for him to lie under oath. I just didn't think it was an impeachable
offense.
I also think he should never have been forced to face
--- Matt Grimaldi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So then the President used information that
ultimately
came from French Intelligence, a country which his
own
administration has all but accused of having a
conflict
of interest wrt Iraq? This sounds worse than
before.
-- Matt
No, he used
- Original Message -
From: Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, August 02, 2003 5:12 PM
Subject: Re: Seth Finkelstein on 16 words
--- Matt Grimaldi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So then the President used information
--- Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How likely is it that the French deliberately set
Bush ?
Dan M.
Ah, now _there_ you have the billion dollar question.
I'm suspicious enough of the French to say it's
possible, but I don't think it's likely. I frankly
don't think that the French
On Tue, Jul 29, 2003 at 08:06:22PM -0700, Gautam Mukunda wrote:
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 12:18:22 -0700 (PDT), Gautam Mukunda wrote:
But that seems to be _your_ argument. If we understand why they
are angry at us and seek to act in such a way as to assuage
On Sat, Aug 02, 2003 at 10:28:49PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Jul 29, 2003 at 08:06:22PM -0700, Gautam Mukunda wrote:
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 12:18:22 -0700 (PDT), Gautam Mukunda wrote:
But that seems to be _your_ argument. If we
Dan Minette wrote:
Given the fact that people in the British
intelligence have indicated that Blair overstated their case and the
fact
that people in the US intelligence have indicated that Bush did; the
most
logical conclusion is that Bush and Blair, together, got more
certainity
out of the
--- Ronn!Blankenship [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
And the problem is that you never know until after
it has happened which
seemingly innocuous detail may be enough to get an
asset (= person)
killed, which not only may be something you as a
human being feel
responsible for, but it cuts off
From: John D. Giorgis [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: When does it end? (RE: Seth Finkelstein on 16 words)
Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2003 22:33:36 -0400
At 08:33 PM 7/29/2003 -0500 Horn, John wrote:
I'm not sure
John D Giorgis wrote:
I disagree with this. Suicide bombings, hijackings, Oklahoma City-style
bombings, etc. all strike me as fairly modern inventions.
At 14:08 2003-07-31 -0400, you wrote:
No, hijackings and truck bombings are modern inventions technologically
but the targeting of civilian
In a message dated 7/30/2003 10:20:41 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
As is usual in the intelligence business, the British said
that they can't
reveal their sources so as to preserve their leads.
Now what?
Don't use it in the SOU. You don't insult the british by
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Don't use it in the SOU. You don't insult the
british by not using the information. But by the way
why is it as is usual? It would seem to me in
something this important the british could share
their specific information. I would suspect that
more often than not
At 09:16 PM 7/31/03 -0700, Gautam Mukunda wrote:
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Don't use it in the SOU. You don't insult the
british by not using the information. But by the way
why is it as is usual? It would seem to me in
something this important the british could share
their specific
John D. Giorgis wrote:
At 03:11 PM 7/24/2003 -0500 Horn, John wrote:
I don't know. It is a scary proposition. We cannot defeat
every terrorist
in the world.
We cannot? Then why is it that suicide bombing is almost unheard of
almost everywhere in the world? It doesn't strike me
On Tue, Jul 29, 2003 at 08:06:22PM -0700, Gautam Mukunda wrote:
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 12:18:22 -0700 (PDT), Gautam Mukunda wrote:
But that seems to be _your_ argument. If we understand why they
are angry at us and seek to act in such a way as to assuage their
[I've been out of town.]
On 25 Jul 2003, John D. Giorgis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
QUESTION 1) The British inform us that they have learned that Iraq has
recently tried to acquire significant quantities of intelligence in Africa.
The Bush Administration naturally tries to verify
[I've been out of town.]
On 25 Jul 2003, Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
... -- intelligence to the president is supposed to be thoroughly
checked, not just for accuracy, but also for spin and such. I
can't say much about who the reviewing parties are, or how many
people
From: John D. Giorgis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
By the way - of the recent developments in the nuclear programs of
the
DPRK, India, Pakistan, Iran, and Iraq over the past 15 years
- how many
occurred with the knowledge of US intelligence sources?
I'll give you a hint - the answer is
John D. Giorgis wrote:
And despite you snide remarks about '''fluffing up, there is nothing
fluffed up about calling Japan and Australia major players in foreign
affairs. two glaring omissions from Bob's list.
Australia a major player in foreign affairs??? Do you perhaps say this
Do we issolate people with the flu or AIDS to prevent these
deseases from spreading? No.
Actually, we sometimes do, although not for AIDS. It is called
`quarantine'.
As far as I know, quarantine has not yet been misused for political
purposes. A legally similar process, incarceration
- Original Message -
From: John D. Giorgis [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2003 7:01 AM
Subject: Re: Seth Finkelstein on 16 words
At 12:18 AM 7/30/2003 -0500 Dan Minette wrote:
Actually, Bush *did* do that, and Britain said
In a message dated 7/29/2003 10:57:56 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
Actually, Bush *did* do that, and Britain said that they completely stand
by their intelligence with the highest degree of confidence.
Oh I get it; it went like this. Bush- Do you guys have
At 10:15 PM 7/30/2003 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There is my shot. Where is the British evidence?
As is usual in the intelligence business, the British said that they can't
reveal their sources so as to preserve their leads.
Now what?
JDG - Choose, Bob.
John D. Giorgis wrote:
I'm not sure what you are getting at here. Terrorism has existed
for recorded history. Don't forget that when they win, terrorists
are called freedom fighters or revolutionaries.
I disagree with this. Suicide bombings, hijackings,
Oklahoma City-style
Gautam Mukunda wrote:
Bush
_used_ the sympathy 9/11 generated to make possible
something that would not have been possible without it
- the removal of Saddam Hussein, something that was
clearly not in the interest of anyone in the region or
in Europe (save England).
I completely agree
At 01:14 AM 7/29/2003 -0400 David Hobby wrote:
John D. Giorgis wrote:
...
You are kidding about this. We had one true ally in this Britain. The
other are either not major players or are
anxious to please us (not a bad thing.
Ahem. ... You have also forgotten Poland,
which is the
On Sunday, July 27, 2003, at 09:07 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Erik wrote-
Really? I have heard many people claim that everybody talks when
tortured. In the movies, the tortures that are applied seem so tame
and unimaginative. Perhaps I have an unusually sadistic imagination,
but I can imagine
On Monday, July 28, 2003, at 09:26 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In a message dated 7/27/2003 6:43:54 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
And its unclear that arrest is even the proper word to describe
what the
Chairman tried to do - since I don't think that even if the
Ronn!Blankenship wrote:
At 09:52 PM 7/28/03 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You are kidding about this. We had one true ally in this Britain. The
other are either not major players or are anxious to please us (not a bad
thing; it is refreshing that countries that owe their freedom to us
John Garcia wrote:
On Monday, July 28, 2003, at 09:26 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In a message dated 7/27/2003 6:43:54 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
And its unclear that arrest is even the proper word to describe
what the
Chairman tried to do - since I
Here is a link to all of the Texas Redistricting Maps you could ever want:
http://www.tlc.state.tx.us/research/redist/redist.htm
I personally have to disagree with Dan's and Julia's characterizations of the
Republicans' plan as being much worse than the judges plan - based on a first look of
At 12:19 PM 7/29/03 -0500, Julia Thompson wrote:
[snip]
(Things can get a little weird in Texas politics)
And Texas is hardly unique in that regard.
--Ronn! :)
I always knew that I would see the first man on the Moon.
I never dreamed that I would see the last.
--Dr. Jerry
John D. Giorgis wrote:
Here is a link to all of the Texas Redistricting Maps you could ever want:
http://www.tlc.state.tx.us/research/redist/redist.htm
I personally have to disagree with Dan's and Julia's characterizations
of the Republicans' plan as being much worse than the judges plan
From: Deborah Harrell [EMAIL PROTECTED]
snip
I didn't see anything about this [the attempt or
whatever to bodily remove some Democrat
Congresspersons from a Congressional library];
do you have an article or two? Thanks.
Kneem and Julia, thanks for the links.
Not adult behavior, and
In a message dated 7/28/2003 9:16:02 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
Ahem. You have forgotten Austalia, who was very much a true ally. You
have also forgotten Japan, the leader of which essentially got his
country's constitution ammended so that Japan could help us out
In a message dated 7/28/2003 9:16:02 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
Ahem. You have forgotten Austalia, who was very much a true ally. You
have also forgotten Japan, the leader of which essentially got his
country's constitution ammended so that Japan could help us out
On Tuesday, July 29, 2003, at 01:19 PM, Julia Thompson wrote:
John Garcia wrote:
On Monday, July 28, 2003, at 09:26 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In a message dated 7/27/2003 6:43:54 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
And its unclear that arrest is even the proper word to
From: John D. Giorgis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
At 03:11 PM 7/24/2003 -0500 Horn, John wrote:
I don't know. It is a scary proposition. We cannot defeat
every terrorist in the world.
We cannot? Then why is it that suicide bombing is almost unheard
of
almost everywhere in the world?
Ahem. ... You have also forgotten Poland,
which is the second-largest country in Europe
O.K., second in what sense, then? Russia, Sweden, Finland,
Norway... are all bigger by area.
...
Sorry, I stand corrected on that one
...
And despite you snide remarks about
On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 12:18:22 -0700 (PDT), Gautam Mukunda wrote:
But that seems to be _your_ argument. If we
understand why they are angry at us and seek to act in
such a way as to assuage their anger, they won't
attack us any more. What you _want_ the US to do
anyways seems to accord precisely
At 09:41 PM 7/28/2003 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You (e) ask the British to provide documenation of their claim. If they do
so you can include it in the SOU.
Actually, Bush *did* do that, and Britain said that they completely stand
by their intelligence with the highest degree of
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 12:18:22 -0700 (PDT), Gautam
Mukunda wrote:
But that seems to be _your_ argument. If we
understand why they are angry at us and seek to act
in
such a way as to assuage their anger, they won't
attack us any more. What you _want_ the US to
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Behalf Of John D. Giorgis
...
Which of course brings us back to a, b, c, or d - all of which would be
consistent with not using it in the State of the Union?Care to give it
one more shot Bob?How about you,
- Original Message -
From: John D. Giorgis [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2003 9:57 PM
Subject: Re: Seth Finkelstein on 16 words
At 09:41 PM 7/28/2003 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You (e) ask the British to provide documenation
John D. Giorgis wrote:
Ritu and Nick make similar points which I will respond to here.
At 12:29 PM 7/25/2003 + Robert J. Chassell wrote:
Robert J. Chassell wrote:
The phrase The British have learned suggests to a
listening
public that the US President had US
John D. Giorgis wrote:
As for your argument that liberation of Afghanistan would
not have been
justified on September 10th, 2001 - well I find it most
peculiar to hear
the logic of retribution coming from you.The liberation
of Afghanistan
was justified because it made the Afghan
Having questioned one side in the debate, let me question the other side.
The discussion over the evidence for WMD that existed before Gulf War II
seems to naturally flow out of what happened. Here's how I see what's
happening.
1) There was general acceptance that Hussein has chemical and
- Original Message -
From: John D. Giorgis [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, July 27, 2003 6:07 PM
Subject: Re: Seth Finkelstein on 16 words
At 06:49 PM 7/27/2003 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
QUESTION 1) The British inform us
---Original Message---
From: Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED]
QUESTION 1) The British inform us that they have learned that Iraq
has
recently tried to acquire significant quantities of intelligence in
Africa.
The Bush Administration naturally tries to verify this claim, but
cannot
- Original Message -
From: John D. Giorgis [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2003 8:50 AM
Subject: Re: Re: Seth Finkelstein on 16 words
---Original Message---
From: Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED]
QUESTION 1) The British
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Killer Bs Discussion)
Subject: Re: Seth Finkelstein on 16 words
Date: Sun, 27 Jul 2003 18:49:28 -0400
QUESTION 1) The British inform us that they have learned that Iraq has
recently tried to acquire
From: Gautam Mukunda [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
already. When Ashcroft's jack-booted thugs come for
you, give me a call - I'll be happy to protect you.
When Ashcroft's jack-booted thugs come for them, they won't be able
to call you. They won't get their one phone call. They won't be
able
From: Gautam Mukunda [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
If John Ashcroft were anyone _but_ an evangelical
Christian (speaking as a non-evangelical
non-Christian) the way he is treated by the Left would
be recognized by everyone for what it is - sheer
religious bigotry of the most unvarnished sort.
In a message dated 7/27/2003 6:43:54 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
And its unclear that arrest is even the proper word to describe what the
Chairman tried to do - since I don't think that even if the Chairman's
request had been carried out that the Democratic
In a message dated 7/27/2003 6:41:06 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
Lastly, if Al Gore had won the 2000 election, would you be bitterly
complaining that he did so thanks to his partisans on the
Florida Supreme
Court?
If a full recount of the florida vote had been
In a message dated 7/27/2003 7:07:34 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
At 06:49 PM 7/27/2003 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
QUESTION 1) The British inform us that they have learned that Iraq has
recently tried to acquire significant quantities of intelligence in
In a message dated 7/27/2003 9:21:05 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
Do you seriously believe that if any person other than
Bush were President we would have taken out Saddam by
now? Really?
I think there was some sentiment to do this amoung Clinton's advisors. I am not
At 09:52 PM 7/28/2003 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Bush _used_ the sympathy 9/11 generated to make possible
something that would not have been possible without it
- the removal of Saddam Hussein, something that was
clearly not in the interest of anyone in the region or
in Europe (save
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You are kidding about this. We had one true ally in
this Britain. The other are either not major players
or are anxious to please us (not a bad thing; it is
refreshing that countries that owe their freedom to
us feel gratitude but they would probably have
agreed
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
...
The State of the Union is irrelevant to this example.
But it is not irrelevant because this is THE major policy speech
that the president makes every year. This speech is worked on
At 09:52 PM 7/28/03 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You are kidding about this. We had one true ally in this Britain. The
other are either not major players or are anxious to please us (not a bad
thing; it is refreshing that countries that owe their freedom to us feel
gratitude but they would
John D. Giorgis wrote:
...
You are kidding about this. We had one true ally in this Britain. The
other are either not major players or are
anxious to please us (not a bad thing.
Ahem. ... You have also forgotten Poland,
which is the second-largest country in Europe
O.K.,
At 03:11 PM 7/24/2003 -0500 Horn, John wrote:
I don't know. It is a scary proposition. We cannot defeat every terrorist
in the world.
We cannot? Then why is it that suicide bombing is almost unheard of
almost everywhere in the world? It doesn't strike me that this problem is
necessarily
At 01:08 AM 7/25/2003 -0400 David Hobby wrote:
Why do you think that Osama bin Laden objects to the
same things about American foreign policy that you do?
That's not a fair tactic in an argument.
Actually, I think that it is the most salient thing that Gautam has had to
say in this
On Thursday, July 24, 2003, at 11:50 AM, The Fool wrote:
From: Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--- Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The left is defunct only if we remain forever in a
state of total war. And
that's precisely why a vaguely defined, open-ended
war on terrorism that
suspends
At 11:22 PM 7/25/03 -0400, John D. Giorgis wrote:
At 08:09 AM 7/21/2003 -0700 Nick Arnett wrote:
Perhaps we are at war, but under that definition, I'm having a very hard
time imagining that we will ever NOT be at war. We are not going to remove
evil from the world, I'm quite sure.
Some likely
At 09:24 AM 7/25/03 -0400, Erik Reuter wrote:
On Fri, Jul 25, 2003 at 01:02:00PM +, Robert J. Chassell wrote:
From what I have heard, US interrogators are contemptuous of old
fashioned torture since almost everyone who knows anything will die
first.
Really? I have heard many people claim
On Sat, Jul 26, 2003 at 06:04:49AM -, pencimen wrote:
How about Dustin Hoffman getting holes drilled in his teeth in
Marathon Man?
I had forgotten about that one. Did he talk? I think he didn't know
anything, right?
--
Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.erikreuter.net/
Arnett
Phone/fax: (408) 904-7198
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Behalf Of John D. Giorgis
Sent: Friday, July 25, 2003 7:28 PM
To: Killer Bs Discussion
Subject: RE: Seth Finkelstein on 16 words
At 07:52 AM 7/24/2003 -0700 Nick
Erik Reuter wrote:
On Sat, Jul 26, 2003 at 06:04:49AM -, pencimen wrote:
How about Dustin Hoffman getting holes drilled in his teeth in
Marathon Man?
I had forgotten about that one. Did he talk? I think he didn't know
anything, right?
No, he was completely in the dark.
Doug
John D. Giorgis wrote:
At 01:08 AM 7/25/2003 -0400 David Hobby wrote:
Why do you think that Osama bin Laden objects to the
same things about American foreign policy that you do?
That's not a fair tactic in an argument.
Actually, I think that it is the most salient thing that
On Sun, Jul 27, 2003 at 03:28:08PM -0400, David Hobby wrote:
If we clean up our act, public opinion there will change. When it
does, most of the support for Al Qaeda will dry up.
That's an interesting fantasy world you are describing.
--
Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Original Message -
From: David Hobby [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, July 27, 2003 2:28 PM
Subject: Re: Seth Finkelstein on 16 words
No. We are dealing with a pathological minority, backed
up by a large sector of public opinion
From: John D. Giorgis [EMAIL PROTECTED]
At 07:52 AM 7/24/2003 -0700 Nick Arnett wrote:
Setting aside sarcasm now... I think that you may be mistake in
*expecting*
the left to come up with a coherent war plan against terrorism.
I think that's Gautam's point. If, as you seem to agree, the
In a message dated 7/24/2003 11:43:18 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
Didn't they used to duel on the floors of Congress?
Sounds like classic ingomious political chicanery to me.
Sounds more like republican arrogance to me. Now the perpetrator (chairman of the
House
In a message dated 7/24/2003 11:47:13 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
If your criticism is that Bush said learned instead of informed us that
they believe, then who is being pedantic and mincing words
here?
The criticsm is that this is a weasally way of saying something
In a message dated 7/25/2003 1:08:42 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
Uh, didja forget? Gore *did* win -- the vote, anyway.
Just not the office
that usually goes with it.
I am not one who thinks that Gore won. The popular vote does not determine the final
result and
John Garcia wrote:
On Thursday, July 24, 2003, at 11:50 AM, The Fool wrote:
Friday browncoat republicans in the house of representatives called the
police to arrest and remove democratic representatives from a library
in
the house of representatives. The future is here and now.
In a message dated 7/25/2003 8:54:11 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
Eh, probably not. I have an almost reflexive need to point out the
truth - and ultimately I consider this growing urban legend that the USSC
somehow changed the outcome of the 2000 election to
In a message dated 7/25/2003 9:09:23 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
The fact that a Committee Chairman in the House is making
that tradeoff in a way that the minority disagrees with is hardly new.
Thus, I know that I am not a hypocrite, as you accuse, because Democratic
In a message dated 7/25/2003 9:28:26 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
I think that's Gautam's point. If, as you seem to agree, the Left is
simply incapable of coming up with a coherent war plan against terrorism,
then the Left is inherently unqualified and unworthy to
In a message dated 7/25/2003 10:22:08 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
1) The establishment of a secure, viable and independent Palestine
alongside Israel.
2) Regime change in Iran, Syria, Lybia, Saudi Arabia,
Egypt, and the DPRK
We would then be at war for at least a
QUESTION 1) The British inform us that they have learned that Iraq has
recently tried to acquire significant quantities of intelligence in Africa.
The Bush Administration naturally tries to verify this claim, but cannot
do so. They tell the British that we can't verify their claim.
QUESTION 1) The British inform us that they have learned that Iraq has
recently tried to acquire significant quantities of intelligence in Africa.
The Bush Administration naturally tries to verify this claim, but cannot
do so. They tell the British that we can't verify their claim.
At 04:48 PM 7/27/2003 -0500 Julia Thompson wrote:
I'd have to agree with John here. There's a definite difference in
degree, if not kind, between trying to have someone arrested and
actually inflicting that kind of bodily damage.
And its unclear that arrest is even the proper word to describe
At 05:43 PM 7/27/2003 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We do not know the result of a popular vote in which every vote would count.
Under those outlandish circumstances (each individual's vote counts the same
regardless of where it was cast) Bush might have gone after votes in
populous
states
At 06:33 PM 7/27/2003 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I wonder if the republicans in congress would have really elected bush
if a recount of the vote in florida showed that Gore had won by a few
thousand
votes.
You can wonder all you want - except that we now know that no such result
would have
At 06:40 PM 7/27/2003 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Uhhh because finding WMD's was considered a very nice way of deterring
criticism of the war?
so in your mind it is ok to use WMD to deter criticsm even if the threat
of WMD (at least nuclear) was unsubstantiated.
Good grief, you
In a message dated 7/27/2003 5:48:11 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
Not to say that the Republicans look all that good in this, but it could
have been worse. (And then the backlash would have been
that much more,
as well.)
Worse in what way in 21st Century USA? Had
At 06:49 PM 7/27/2003 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
QUESTION 1) The British inform us that they have learned that Iraq has
recently tried to acquire significant quantities of intelligence in Africa.
The Bush Administration naturally tries to verify this claim, but cannot
do so. They
At 03:14 PM 7/27/2003 -0600 Michael Harney wrote:
The war on Iraq wasn't about liberating Iraq, it wasn't about weapons of
mass destruction or terrorism. It was entirely politically motivated. The
republicans saw their approval failing after Osama Bin Laden evaded capture,
and, wanting some sort
1 - 100 of 291 matches
Mail list logo
