How many links do you need, Dave?

Here are a few more, just to keep you entertained.


From the Times wires:

Before the Iraq invasion, the Bush administration asserted that Iraq
possessed chemical and biological weapons and was developing nuclear
weapons. Officials also allege Iraq was working on prohibited long-range
missiles and drones that could disperse biological agents. The
presidential intelligene commison examined each of the US intelligence
community's prewar assertions on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and
reached these conclusions:


Nuclear Weapons: Wrong
Analysts wrongly interpreted the purpose of some metal tubes Iraq tried
to import, arguing they were for centrifuges to enrich uranium when they
were for conventional artillery rockets. Other imports of materials with
more than one potential use were also similarily misinterpreted.


Biological Weapons: Wrong
Agencies trusted several Iraqi defectors who were lying, ignoring
inconsistencies in their statements and other warning signs that these
defectors were providing false information.


Chemical Weapons: WRONG
The intelligence committe drew its conclusions
from satellite photos of trucks and buildings and other sources that
were suspicious but ultimately ambiguous, and trusted human sources who
made claims that Hussein had accomplished things that are technically
impossiible.


WMD-Armed Drones: Wrong
Analysts concluded the drones were for WMD based on limited information;
Iraq;s drones turned out to be for reconnaissance.


Hussein's Intentions: Wrong
Intelligence agencies did not seriously consider Hussein could have
given up his WMD ambitions and destroyed his stockpiles. Although
several intel sources asserted before the war that Iraq did not have any
WMD, US analysts have regarded this as disinformation.


End of Times wire report.
--
Want more, Dave? The list is endless but these should have you spinning
your wheels a bit more than usual since your first knee-jerk reaction
was to deny any Bush failures, then
beg for examples.

On Tue, 24 May 2005 10:37:09 -0400, (I
AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote:

How many links do you need, Dave?


Just one good and accurate one would be nice, but you haven't posted
any. Just snippets of your own out of context interpretations of some
biased, agenda-driven news report.

Post the whole link, you know, something that begins with "http://",
so we can all read it.

Dave
"Sandbagger"

On Tue, 24 May 2005 13:08:22 -0400, Dave Hall
wrote:

On Tue, 24 May 2005 10:37:09 -0400, (I
AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote:

How many links do you need, Dave?


Just one good and accurate one would be nice, but you haven't posted
any. Just snippets of your own out of context interpretations of some
biased, agenda-driven news report.

Post the whole link, you know, something that begins with "http://",
so we can all read it.

Dave
"Sandbagger"
*********

try this link.

http://www.unmovic.org/

It is gives all the reporrtts to present of the "on goning
inspections"

This is the link to the UN Security Council Working Document as
presented to the UN Security Council on Mach 3 of 2003. Please pay
attention to Annex 2. It is quite revealing. It in fact shows how well
the UNSCOM inpsections were working prior to being booted out in 1998.

http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/new/..._programme.pdf

We may never know how much there really was or how much was destroyed.
But it is now becoming a foregone conclusions that the large
potentials that Colin Powell claimed in his Power Point Presentation
on Feb. 5, 2003 are at best in retrospect worst case analysis. Did
this administration inflate the potentials of WMD? Maybe not, but they
did harp extensively on the worst case potentials. As time has shown
the reality is that either Saddam destroyed alot just before the
invasion or there never were the large stock piles of WMD that Bush
and company had envisioned.

There are more links. You can also start at www.fas.org. Look not for
just what supports ones belief but look at all the facts presented. In
between the two extremes will really lie the truth. IF you start to
dig further into the past, you may starrtt to derive some other
conclusions. I came to an understanding in late 2002 that Iraq and any
invasion was not about WMD or OIL. It is far more deeper. The true
paranoia that this administration has is a great fear of a large
Islamic state existing from Pakistan to Syria. Including Iran, Iraq,
Saudia Arabia and a few others.


Just think what if Radical Islam controled over half the oil
production in the world?

james

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 24 May 2005 10:37:09 -0400, (I
AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote:

How many links do you need, Dave?


Just one good and accurate one would be nice, but you haven't posted
any. Just snippets of your own out of context interpretations of some
biased, agenda-driven news report.

Post the whole link, you know, something that begins with "http://",
so we can all read it.

Dave
"Sandbagger"


Hello, Dave

Since being in contact with a few friends who are so severely on the extreme
right, I have found the best way to get news is *outside* of the United
States. Whatever article is written here, it is dismissed as work of the
demonic liberal left.

I have found the U.K., Canada, and Australia to be pretty nifty places. Of
course, the world is just loaded with the liberal left ... )

Hitler did a pretty good job convincing his people as to what was right and
wrong.

I am not so easily persuaded.


73 from Rochester, NY
Jim

Jim:

You hit on the heart of the matter there, don't count on getting any news
which is accurate, unbiased or of assistance to the American public...
either threats or bribes control the news... but it ain't good...

Warmest regards,
John

"Jim Hampton" wrote in message
...

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 24 May 2005 10:37:09 -0400, (I
AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote:

How many links do you need, Dave?


Just one good and accurate one would be nice, but you haven't posted
any. Just snippets of your own out of context interpretations of some
biased, agenda-driven news report.

Post the whole link, you know, something that begins with "http://",
so we can all read it.

Dave
"Sandbagger"


Hello, Dave

Since being in contact with a few friends who are so severely on the
extreme
right, I have found the best way to get news is *outside* of the United
States. Whatever article is written here, it is dismissed as work of the
demonic liberal left.

I have found the U.K., Canada, and Australia to be pretty nifty places.
Of
course, the world is just loaded with the liberal left ... )

Hitler did a pretty good job convincing his people as to what was right
and
wrong.

I am not so easily persuaded.


73 from Rochester, NY
Jim

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 24 May 2005 10:37:09 -0400, (I
AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote:

How many links do you need, Dave?


Just one good and accurate one would be nice, but you haven't posted
any. Just snippets of your own out of context interpretations of some
biased, agenda-driven news report.

Post the whole link, you know, something that begins with "http://",
so we can all read it.

Dave
"Sandbagger"


Hello, Dave


I ranted a bit about our deficit and economy. We know many jobs went to
Mexico and now to China.

Yep, we are the real technocracy leaders. Guess who launched Direct TV's
new satellite? Perhaps I should send you a link:
http://www.universetoday.com/am/publ...8.html?2352005

Really reassuring, isn't it.


73 from Rochester, NY
Jim

"Jim Hampton" wrote in message
...

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 24 May 2005 10:37:09 -0400, (I
AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote:

How many links do you need, Dave?


Just one good and accurate one would be nice, but you haven't posted
any. Just snippets of your own out of context interpretations of some
biased, agenda-driven news report.

Post the whole link, you know, something that begins with "http://",
so we can all read it.

Dave
"Sandbagger"


Hello, Dave

Since being in contact with a few friends who are so severely on the
extreme
right, I have found the best way to get news is *outside* of the United
States. Whatever article is written here, it is dismissed as work of the
demonic liberal left.

I have found the U.K.

I kind of prefer the BBC, much netter than the slanted
US new networks.

, Canada, and Australia to be pretty nifty places. Of
course, the world is just loaded with the liberal left ... )

Hitler did a pretty good job convincing his people as to what was right
and
wrong.

I am not so easily persuaded.


Agreed, but you are comparing Apples to rotten oranges

Landshark


--
The world is good-natured to people
who are good natured.

73 from Rochester, NY
Jim

On Tue, 24 May 2005 18:30:56 GMT, james wrote:


There are more links. You can also start at www.fas.org. Look not for
just what supports ones belief but look at all the facts presented. In
between the two extremes will really lie the truth. IF you start to
dig further into the past, you may starrtt to derive some other
conclusions. I came to an understanding in late 2002 that Iraq and any
invasion was not about WMD or OIL. It is far more deeper. The true
paranoia that this administration has is a great fear of a large
Islamic state existing from Pakistan to Syria. Including Iran, Iraq,
Saudia Arabia and a few others.

That would not be a good thing, and our efforts in trying to prevent
it from happening is probably a good thing.

Just think what if Radical Islam controlled over half the oil
production in the world?

So if that is the case, are we not justified in trying to prevent it
from happening?

Do we have to wait until the "west" (Which includes more than just the
U.S,) is brought to its knees economically before we act?

How much bloodshed could have been averted if Hitler had been taken
out of the picture in the 1920's?

Does the average citizen need to know, or have the capacity to
understand, the complete truth assuming we can definitively identify
it amongst all the free flowing propaganda?

Dave
"Sandbagger"

On Wed, 25 May 2005 00:12:35 GMT, "Jim Hampton"
wrote:


"Dave Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 24 May 2005 10:37:09 -0400, (I
AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote:

How many links do you need, Dave?


Just one good and accurate one would be nice, but you haven't posted
any. Just snippets of your own out of context interpretations of some
biased, agenda-driven news report.

Post the whole link, you know, something that begins with "http://",
so we can all read it.

Dave
"Sandbagger"


Hello, Dave

Since being in contact with a few friends who are so severely on the extreme
right, I have found the best way to get news is *outside* of the United
States. Whatever article is written here, it is dismissed as work of the
demonic liberal left.

There is a great deal of truth in that. The major news media has been
infiltrated, as have much of academia, with the followers of left
leaning politics. This has been going on in ernest since the 60's and
the Vietnam war, when it was realized that the only way for a small
political minority to win their objective of large scale governmental
reform, was from within through slow, careful indoctrination and
propaganda. The two best places to achieve that goal are in the
agencies which bring us the news, and the institutions which educate
our impressionable young.

It had been working fairly well, until the advent of the internet,
talk radio, and independent news services such as Fox News. The
ability to cross check the news and parse out the spin, essentially
put the spotlight on the mainstream news media, and people like Dan
Rather and Jayson Blair. Exposure of such radical leftists in teaching
roles such as Ward Churchill, and countless others, is slowly
revealing the true intentions of these seemingly unconnected (except
for ideology) people. The rise of conservative groups and watchdog
organizations to balance the prejudice of the left on university
campuses, will hopefully slow and eventually correct much of the
damage that the left has done in the last 30 years.


I have found the U.K., Canada, and Australia to be pretty nifty places. Of
course, the world is just loaded with the liberal left ... )

You have to understand that in much of the world, especially in the
socialist-leaning countries like France and Germany, there is a
decidedly anti-capitalist, anti-US slant. So if you think you will get
an objective news piece from any of them, you are seriously naive. As
for the U.K., Canada, and Australia, they are more balanced but
depending on which factions are backing the "news", you could be
reading either left or right wing slant. It helps to dig deeply into
who backs these groups in order to determine just how "objective" they
may or may not be.

Hitler did a pretty good job convincing his people as to what was right and
wrong.

Yes, and just like Hitler blamed all or most of Germany's problems on
the Jews, so to are the operatives on the left trying to blame most of
America's problems on rich, God respecting, white people.


I am not so easily persuaded.

Neither am I.

Dave
"Sandbagger"

On Wed, 25 May 2005 00:25:28 GMT, "Jim Hampton"
wrote:


"Dave Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 24 May 2005 10:37:09 -0400, (I
AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote:

How many links do you need, Dave?


Just one good and accurate one would be nice, but you haven't posted
any. Just snippets of your own out of context interpretations of some
biased, agenda-driven news report.

Post the whole link, you know, something that begins with "http://",
so we can all read it.

Dave
"Sandbagger"


Hello, Dave


I ranted a bit about our deficit and economy. We know many jobs went to
Mexico and now to China.

Yep, we are the real technocracy leaders. Guess who launched Direct TV's
new satellite? Perhaps I should send you a link:
http://www.universetoday.com/am/publ...8.html?2352005

Really reassuring, isn't it.


Outsourcing is inevitable until the standard of living in the rest of
the world equalizes with our own.

It's not good news for us, but it's an unfortunate reality.

Dave
"Sandbagger"