I will ignore your tasteless attempts to gtt out from under your tasteless statements, and go right to yey another attempt on your part to address the real issue at hand - the war, not anyones spelling, schoolyard slurs, or truthfulness concerning impairments. In an effort to whip up support for his war, George Bush has put forth at least two false statements, and one embarrassing absurdity. He referenced a UN Atomic Commission report as proof that Iraq was on the verge of developing a bomb. No such report was ever issued. He flatly stated that Iraq had imported aluminum tubes used in building a bomb. The tubes in question were not suitable for such a purpose, and their use had already been accounted for, and verified. And the last point is laughable, his attempt to terrify the American public by saying that Iraq could launch remotely piloted planes from off shore and spray chemical or biological agents. The first time I mentioned these three issues I asked if he was stupid, or deliberately lying. I'll ask again, because I simply cannot believe in or trust a man so ill informed, or so devious as to deliberately mislead this nation. I suspect that you will sidestep this post, as you did the earlier one - the issues raised are troubling, and certainly do not help your predetermined lust to free the Iraqi people from a leader who, among other things, lies to his people. BTW - your disgusting reference to a pity party was uncalled fot, deeply offensive, and indicative of your callus regard for anyone other than yourself, and your own kind.
How clever of you to follow that statement with the next one: Insults? Lies? Back to the wall? Talk about the pot calling the kettle black! And why should I feel you give a damn about our service men and women when you could care less about the citizens they're sworn to defend? Be honest now - is this just because I caught your spelling mistakes? Man, you must have been a hellraiser in grammar school! Teachers were probably scared to death of correcting you!
Was my reply crude and obscene? I certainly was - and it was meant to be. It was directed toward an individual who without any foundation questioned my truthfulness concerning a disability, my loyalty toward my country and it's men and women. You are a crude and obscene individual, who when he runs out of "he might haves", "he might do", what ifs", and "how would you feel ifs" resorts to insults, name calling, and intimidation. I addressed you in a fitting way. Your attempt to claim the high ground is a tad too late.
Oh, okay, so calling me a piece iof s**t and saying f**k you was not uncalled for nor deeply offensive. And what do you mean my "own kind"? Please explain that one. You are not deserving of any further dialogue with me, especially after your profanity-laced diatribe. BUT, because I will not sink to your level and feel immense pity on you, I shall allow you the following in reference to your last post: The problem with you tampa, other than the obvious ones, are that you seek to find a nugget of controversial data in an ocean of damning evidence. The bottom line is that for some reason you believe it is up to Bush and the inspectors to find a smoking gun, when in fact it is up to Saddam to account for his WMD, WHICH HE HAS NOT DONE! FOR 12 YEARS! How do you explain the missing bio and chem agents? If they truly were destroyed, where are the records? Why aren't tons of the stuff even listed in their documentation? Why are Iraqi scientists so afraid to talk to the weapons inspectors? And what about Powell's presentation? PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE inform this board about your thoughts on that one? Was it all made up? Try and calm down before you blow a gasket, and whatever is left of your mind.
Good grief, no sooner do I respond to one of your posts then I find a fresh one waiting! Well, tampa, you can write (misspell) anything you want, but the truth of the matter is that you totally lost it, and this whole board saw it. You can try to bait me into using similar profanity against you, but it isn't going to work. I feel no need to debase myself to the extent you have. Chew on that, ya fine American you!
Would you care to point out any of my lies? Would you care to address any issues I raised? I have REPEATEDLY attempted to talk about actual issues concerning a war. You and your kind have uttered a few well worn phrases, and quickly moved on to anything but the topic at hand - that is a definition of having one's back to the wall. You are a waste of time, as are all of your like minded kind. And yet again you attempt to intimidate me with the spelling mistakes remark - do you think that it will make me slink away? So how about it, big boy - would you care to explain away Bush's two blatant lies, and his absurd claim of attack from unmanned planes? Or can we expect more unfounded charges and petty remarks about spelling?
I didn't lose it - it was deliberate, and intended. As for the whole board seeing it, well I'll just have to live with that for the rest of my life - you pompous ass. Oh my gosh, I did it again You know a Supreme Court Justice once said that he couldn't explain what obscenity was, but he sure knew it when he saw it. Sack of shit is crude, but not really obscene. The scurrilous charges you so freely toss about are truly obscene. So why don't YOU go chew on that one now...
My Dearest Sir, Pardon me if perchance I inferred that it was necessarily to find a "smoking gun". In fact, having searched my recollect, I truly believe that no such utterance was ever forthcoming. Having further searched the crevices of my mind, I do not recall ever having said that the said Dictator of Iraq did not have what are commonly called weapons of mass destruction. Between you and I, as the gentlemen we are, I fully suspect that he does indeed have such, and I further suspect that he has deliberately hid them, in clear violation of UN 1441. I sincerely beg your pardon if by chance it appeared otherwise. If I may address some of your other concerns. admittedly, I am at a loss to explain the reluctance of Iraqi scientists to meet alone with the UN inspectors. Perhaps it is because of intimidation and threats. Perhaps it is because they love their nation, and resent the intrusion, and fear the intentions of the outsiders. Surely it is one or the other, and I am not worthy of discerning between the two. As for Secretary Powell's impressive presentation before the United Nations, as compelling as it appeared to be, it was but circumstantial evidence. I would be less than forthright if I did not register my alarm at your caviler dismissal of the President's misinformation, and ludicrous expectation pertaining to unmanned air craft from Iraq attacking American cities. I have reviewed your most recent communication, and trust that I have addressed all of your questions and concerns. My position is, and has been that our focus should be, and yes, must be on our true enemy - International Terrorism. An attack on Iraq sadly will do nothing to diminish that threat. In fact I believe that I have said, in more common language , that it would fail to even put a dent in it. I have also questioned the wisdom of tieing down our forces in what surely will be a protracted occupation, and the wisdom of spending treasure we lack. It has truly been my pleasure to address these matters for your consideration. I trust that this post finds you and yours in the best of health. May God bless America, and of course, our men and women in uniform.
I've refrained from participating in this forum for a couple of days, tampa, ever since you decided to make it your personal platform, and especially as I do not feel you've shown any convincing interest in a civil and rational discussion. In my observation, you've consistently employed tactics that you now claim to deplore when used by others - ridicule, mockery, and direct insults, and so on. Your protests on this score suggest either the rankest hypocrisy or deficient mental faculties. As for the rest of this bitter, multi-page tear you've been on, I've seen little reason to respond to your confusing mix of empty assertions, manipulative exaggerations, and false distinctions. Since you now claim, however, to be ready to undertake a real discussion, and are insisting on the importance of certain "issues," I'll offer my take, mainly because I hate to see false or extreme claims left unchallenged in a public forum. I also think that your handling of these issues illustrates to some small extent what I was describing above, though, frankly, I think the truth of the matter is too obvious to require additional proof. Your posts speak for themselves. As for the first of your three "issues," you again bring up Bush's misstatements regarding an inspections report on nuclear weapons development in Iraq. You've never provided any details, but I believe you're referring to a statement that was made on the occasion of Blair's most recent US visit, when Bush confused a '98 report with a '91 report. The White House immediately acknowledged the error. It appears to me that only you and a few others who make a custom of drawing paranoiac inferences from incidents of no intrinsic meaning have chosen to make anything of it. Then, echoing unhinged accusations that came from observers like Katrina vanden Heuvel of THE NATION, you then turn to the famous "aluminum tubes," and claim that the Bush Administration deliberately misrepresented their actual or potential utility in nuclear weapons development. Typically, you write as though you possess certain knowledge of the truth of the matter, stating that these tubes are "not suitable" for use in nuclear weapons development. I don't know where you obtained qualification as a nuclear expert, but, if indeed you possess such qualifications, you should know that many of your colleagues disagree with you. Powell spent some time on the issue at the UN, both acknowledging the controversy and outlining the Administration's position in some detail. You may choose to disagree with the analysis, or to favor the analysis of someone else who may support your position, but you have given no basis whatsoever for your further charges of dishonesty. Finally, you suggest that the launching of remotely piloted planes carrying chemical or biological agents is "laughable." I share your opinion in part, in that I find it difficult, though not impossible, to imagine a scenario under which such a direct attack on US territory would be in Iraqi interests. I can't pretend, however, to possess certain knowledge of Iraqi strategy and tactics, or to be able to predict the circumstances that might obtain five years from now if Hussein and his regime were allowed to continue weapons development and a military build-up unhindered. In any event, I consider the issue a minor one at most, as I believe the larger issue of direct and indirect threats to the American populace, and inarguably to American and allied interests, to have been amply demonstrated on many other scores. I also suspect that many uninformed observers would have considered the whole 9/11 scenario to have been laughable if it had been presented to them ahead of time. Get real - fanatical zealots in separate cities boarding planes, hijacking them with box cutters, and flying them into the WTC and the Pentagon?