Current issue (Dec). On newsstands now.
snipped-for-privacy@aol.com wrote:
Current issue (Dec). On newsstands now.
snipped-for-privacy@aol.com wrote:
Hell, if you had to live with a wife like mine you'd learn to be tolerent too. Jerry
And in the words of the wise ole occifer Dave "If I wanted her to know I said that, I would tell her myself". Jerry
messagenews:KMS_g.14014$ snipped-for-privacy@bignews7.bellsouth.net...
I almost never jump into these thing but I felt I needed to. Pat, the best tag I ever saw: pro=for,con=against---therefore the opposite of pro-gress is con-gress. never let us forget that the pres has to get the house and senate to go along for the ride.
Hi Karl
Taking it offline. The motive was that the Neo-cons had a long time plan to take down Saddam. We know that from their writings before they came into power. The withheld information not for any security reason, but to keep us in the dark about their plan. It is not a coincidence that all the "bad information" that was put out erred on the side making it look like Saddam had weapons of mass destruction and was meeting with Al Qaeda. All the information that cast major doubts on those premises were kept from us and kept from the congressmen who had security clearances. Also, it is well known that Cheney visited the CIA 10 times in the run up to the war. There can be no other ezplanation for that other than that he was pressuring them to come to the conclusions he wanted. Alex
So much for your "taking it offline".
Lee
My mistake, hit the wrong button .
Advice to future US Presidents:
"Don't believe what once-rich refugees tell you."
Karl
Alex Magdaleno wrote:
MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.