Re: Bush to troops "You are defending america from danger"

Bob wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Nov 2003 09:31:37 GMT, Eddy_Down
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> > Bob wrote:
> >
> >
> > > On Thu, 27 Nov 2003 18:07:53 -0700, Laura Bush-Murderess in our WH <>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > > What danger is the chicken-in-chief talking about??  Iraq has never
> > > > done anything to america.  And as the WMD search proved, they didn't
> > > > even have the capability.
> > >
> > >
> > > iraq did have relations with terrorists (abu abbas was arrested in
> > > baghdad after it was liberated)
> >
> > So a relation with 1 terrorist then.
>
>
> i suggest you point your search engine to 'douglas feith', a state
> dept employee who listed more than 50.
>
> oh...you've never heard of his memo??
>
> no surprise.

http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/content/2003/20030310_american_dreamers/int_feith.htm
DOUG FEITH: Well I'm not endorsing that notion, I do know that 
immediately after September 11th, it occurred to a number of us that for 
years we had been thinking about the problem of terrorism and recognised 
that it was a danger and for years we had been thinking about the 
problem of the spread of chemical and biological and nuclear weapons and 
missile technology around the world and what September 11th did was it 
made people think about those two things together because it was clear 
that there are terrorist groups who would be happy to kill absolutely as 
many people as they could and a group that was willing to knock down 
office buildings in which 30,000 people worked would clearly have no 
compunction against using biological weapons or nuclear weapons and 
killing hundreds of thousands or millions of people and so the entire 
problem of terrorism became graver and the entire problem of the 
proliferation of weapons of mass destruction became graver when you 
considered how those two things connected and so right after the war, 
the idea that we had to pay attention to the major state sponsors of 
terrorism, who by coincidence, obviously not a coincidence were also the 
countries that were of greatest concern as having ambitions to develop 
weapons of mass destruction, I mean that's what forced people to think 
about this new strategic danger of the connection of weapons of mass 
destruction, terrorist supporting states and terrorist organisations.

So not only has he accused terroists of having no compuction of 
"biological weapons or nuclear weapons and killing hundreds of thousands 
or millions of people" (from Iraq, presumably even though now of these 
were ever found) he can't use the English language either.

> > > and, should we wait UNTIL iraq developed WMD's? why? as to the
> > > capability, they had PROGRAMS to develop them which would have been
> > > pursued as soon as the international coalition stopped looking for
> > > them
> >
> > Why not? Al Queda waited until you developed WMDs.
>
>
> gee. we never used them against al qaida, did we?

Nor did anyone from Afghanistan terrorise your citizens. They were all 
Saudis, remember?

> OOHHH...i get it... you're doing the 'moral equivalency' thing...you
> know....there's no difference between a democracy and a fascist
> theocratic dictatorship...

Now that Bush is in charge, no there isn't.

> no wonder you're so confused.

Keep reading your propaganda like a good little sheeple, Bob.