In article , "Doug Kanter" wrote:

Great! Now we're getting somewhere. A few million investors, including quite
a few pros (institutional investors) violated the rules of stock evaluation,
thereby inflating the prices of many stocks. This eventually fell apart, as
it always does, and because investors are skittish, perfectly healthy stocks
were dragged down along with the trash ones whose prices deserved to
plummet.

Agreed.

During this time, Clinton was president. He was connected with the bad
decisions made by private citizens.....exacty how? Did you expect him to
give investment advice on television every so often?

I never said that he had any connection with it at all. My only purpose was
refuting the lie that the economy was just fine, with no problems, under
Clinton.


--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

"Doug Kanter" wrote in
:


Based on these last responses of yours, I need to either know your
age, or end this discussion.




I'm 53.

How old are you?

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

"Doug Kanter" wrote in
:


Here's some more good reading for you;

http://nationalreview.com/hanson/hanson200507150804.asp
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/m...20050715.shtml



--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

Good Points on the cafe standards wiping-out wagons and such....

J

"Jim Yanik" . wrote in message
.. .
"Doug Kanter" wrote in
:


Based on these last responses of yours, I need to either know your
age, or end this discussion.




I'm 53.

How old are you?

I'm 52. You've shocked me. I'm surprised you were an adult in the period
between the REAL Bush's presidency and now, and somehow managed not to
notice some contradictions to what YOU have said in the past day or two. For
instance, we OWNED the borders of Iraq in almost total safety during those
years. And now, we have troops there, many of whom spend their days doing
nothing but searching vehicles. Controlling the smuggling of weapons would
have been quite a bit easier if we'd done it BEFORE your president turned
the place into a free-for-all.

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
m...
In article , "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

Great! Now we're getting somewhere. A few million investors, including
quite
a few pros (institutional investors) violated the rules of stock
evaluation,
thereby inflating the prices of many stocks. This eventually fell apart,
as
it always does, and because investors are skittish, perfectly healthy
stocks
were dragged down along with the trash ones whose prices deserved to
plummet.

Agreed.

During this time, Clinton was president. He was connected with the bad
decisions made by private citizens.....exacty how? Did you expect him to
give investment advice on television every so often?

I never said that he had any connection with it at all. My only purpose
was
refuting the lie that the economy was just fine, with no problems, under
Clinton.

Now you're being silly. You said "Agreed", which means you see how erroneous
it is to combine the aforementioned ideas/factors in the same breath. Then,
you do it again. Jeez..... :-)

In article , "Doug Kanter" wrote:

"Jim Yanik" . wrote in message
. ..
"Doug Kanter" wrote in
:


Based on these last responses of yours, I need to either know your
age, or end this discussion.




I'm 53.

How old are you?

I'm 52. You've shocked me. I'm surprised you were an adult in the period
between the REAL Bush's presidency and now, and somehow managed not to
notice some contradictions to what YOU have said in the past day or two. For
instance, we OWNED the borders of Iraq in almost total safety during those
years.

What on earth are you talking about, "we owned the borders of Iraq" (during
the Clinton years)? We had exactly NO troops on the ground there at that time,
and exactly NO control over its borders.

And now, we have troops there, many of whom spend their days doing
nothing but searching vehicles. Controlling the smuggling of weapons would
have been quite a bit easier if we'd done it BEFORE your president turned
the place into a free-for-all.

Reality-check time... we didn't have ANY control over it when Saddam was in
power.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

In article , "Doug Kanter" wrote:

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
om...
In article , "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

Great! Now we're getting somewhere. A few million investors, including
quite
a few pros (institutional investors) violated the rules of stock
evaluation,
thereby inflating the prices of many stocks. This eventually fell apart,
as
it always does, and because investors are skittish, perfectly healthy
stocks
were dragged down along with the trash ones whose prices deserved to
plummet.

Agreed.

During this time, Clinton was president. He was connected with the bad
decisions made by private citizens.....exacty how? Did you expect him to
give investment advice on television every so often?

I never said that he had any connection with it at all. My only purpose
was
refuting the lie that the economy was just fine, with no problems, under
Clinton.

Now you're being silly. You said "Agreed", which means you see how erroneous
it is to combine the aforementioned ideas/factors in the same breath. Then,
you do it again. Jeez..... :-)

No, it means I agree with your statement concering investor behavior.

Perhaps if you'd like to try reading my comments again, and read *only* what I
actually wrote and no more - instead of insisting on reading things that I did
not write - you'll understand a little better.

I did not in any fashion connect Clinton to the stock market crash, other than
to note that he was President when it occurred. My only purpose in making that
observation was to refute the claim that the economy "did just wonderfully"
while he was President. That statement is a lie.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
m...
In article , "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"Jim Yanik" . wrote in message
...
"Doug Kanter" wrote in
:


Based on these last responses of yours, I need to either know your
age, or end this discussion.




I'm 53.

How old are you?

I'm 52. You've shocked me. I'm surprised you were an adult in the period
between the REAL Bush's presidency and now, and somehow managed not to
notice some contradictions to what YOU have said in the past day or two.
For
instance, we OWNED the borders of Iraq in almost total safety during those
years.

What on earth are you talking about, "we owned the borders of Iraq"
(during
the Clinton years)? We had exactly NO troops on the ground there at that
time,
and exactly NO control over its borders.

And now, we have troops there, many of whom spend their days doing
nothing but searching vehicles. Controlling the smuggling of weapons would
have been quite a bit easier if we'd done it BEFORE your president turned
the place into a free-for-all.

Reality-check time... we didn't have ANY control over it when Saddam was
in
power.

No control over it? What?

Do you recall the no-fly zone that was described more than once by military
spokesmen as an unbelievable asset for testing our airborne weapons systems?
Once established, much of it ceased to be of any use to Iraq. I'm not
talking about troops on the ground (yet).

Now...move West on the map to the area adjacent to Syria. It is described
(again by military sources in the news) as a fairly barren place. Not a rain
forest or large urban environment (which soldiers hate dealing with). I
think that if we had wanted to exercise at least SOME control over that
area, we could have done so, using air & ground forces.

But, as government officials and political commentators love to point out
NOW, the weapons already passed through the area. If you think that anyone
in Rove's cabinet did not see this risk, you're basically stating that
incompetence is just fine with you. Or, if you're stating that the risk WAS
known, and nothing was done.....same thing. Incompetence.

Or, intent. Do you actually believe that seasoned diplomats and military
people could not have predicted where the weapons would vanish to? If you
believe they did, then they were ignored or silenced. Why?

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
...
In article , "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
. com...
In article , "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

Great! Now we're getting somewhere. A few million investors, including
quite
a few pros (institutional investors) violated the rules of stock
evaluation,
thereby inflating the prices of many stocks. This eventually fell apart,
as
it always does, and because investors are skittish, perfectly healthy
stocks
were dragged down along with the trash ones whose prices deserved to
plummet.

Agreed.

During this time, Clinton was president. He was connected with the bad
decisions made by private citizens.....exacty how? Did you expect him to
give investment advice on television every so often?

I never said that he had any connection with it at all. My only purpose
was
refuting the lie that the economy was just fine, with no problems, under
Clinton.

Now you're being silly. You said "Agreed", which means you see how
erroneous
it is to combine the aforementioned ideas/factors in the same breath.
Then,
you do it again. Jeez..... :-)

No, it means I agree with your statement concering investor behavior.

Perhaps if you'd like to try reading my comments again, and read *only*
what I
actually wrote and no more - instead of insisting on reading things that I
did
not write - you'll understand a little better.

I did not in any fashion connect Clinton to the stock market crash, other
than
to note that he was President when it occurred. My only purpose in making
that
observation was to refute the claim that the economy "did just
wonderfully"
while he was President. That statement is a lie.

Yes, but by stating it so simply, you perpetuate a theory which simpletons
cling to and turn into a mantra. Very bad. Don't even say it. It makes them
comfortable, they go to sleep, and wake up only for an hour to vote every 4
years. Look at the results.

(Doug Miller) wrote in
m:

In article , "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"Jim Yanik" . wrote in message
...
"Doug Kanter" wrote in
:


Based on these last responses of yours, I need to either know your
age, or end this discussion.




I'm 53.

How old are you?

I'm 52. You've shocked me. I'm surprised you were an adult in the
period between the REAL Bush's presidency and now, and somehow managed
not to notice some contradictions to what YOU have said in the past
day or two. For instance, we OWNED the borders of Iraq in almost total
safety during those years.

What on earth are you talking about, "we owned the borders of Iraq"
(during the Clinton years)? We had exactly NO troops on the ground
there at that time, and exactly NO control over its borders.

Yes,Saddam was running trucks of petro products to Syria so that they could
sell the oil and the money would go back to Saddam,avolding the UN
sanctions.
Heck,the US does not even "own" it's own borders.

And now, we have troops there, many of whom spend their days doing
nothing but searching vehicles. Controlling the smuggling of weapons
would have been quite a bit easier if we'd done it BEFORE your
president turned the place into a free-for-all.

Reality-check time... we didn't have ANY control over it when Saddam
was in power.




--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

In article , "Doug Kanter" wrote:

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
m...
In article , "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
.com...
In article , "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

Great! Now we're getting somewhere. A few million investors, including
quite
a few pros (institutional investors) violated the rules of stock
evaluation,
thereby inflating the prices of many stocks. This eventually fell apart,
as
it always does, and because investors are skittish, perfectly healthy
stocks
were dragged down along with the trash ones whose prices deserved to
plummet.

Agreed.

During this time, Clinton was president. He was connected with the bad
decisions made by private citizens.....exacty how? Did you expect him to
give investment advice on television every so often?

I never said that he had any connection with it at all. My only purpose
was
refuting the lie that the economy was just fine, with no problems, under
Clinton.

Now you're being silly. You said "Agreed", which means you see how
erroneous
it is to combine the aforementioned ideas/factors in the same breath.
Then,
you do it again. Jeez..... :-)

No, it means I agree with your statement concering investor behavior.

Perhaps if you'd like to try reading my comments again, and read *only*
what I
actually wrote and no more - instead of insisting on reading things that I
did
not write - you'll understand a little better.

I did not in any fashion connect Clinton to the stock market crash, other
than
to note that he was President when it occurred. My only purpose in making
that
observation was to refute the claim that the economy "did just
wonderfully"
while he was President. That statement is a lie.

Yes,

I'm glad you finally managed to read what I wrote, and not read things which I
did not write.

but by stating it so simply, you perpetuate a theory which simpletons
cling to and turn into a mantra.

What? All I did was point out that the claim that the economy "did
wonderfully" under Clinton is a falsehood. Then you jump off the deep end
again.

Very bad. Don't even say it. It makes them
comfortable, they go to sleep, and wake up only for an hour to vote every 4
years. Look at the results.

Yes, indeed - the results were that a lying, pot-smoking, womanizing draft
dodger got elected in 1992, and reelected in 1996.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

"I'm 52. You've shocked me. I'm surprised you were an adult in the
period
between the REAL Bush's presidency and now, and somehow managed not to
notice some contradictions to what YOU have said in the past day or
two. For
instance, we OWNED the borders of Iraq in almost total safety during
those
years. "


LOL And once again it's Doug Kanter doesn't have a clue as to what
he's talking about. He seems to equate age with knowledge, yet at 52 he
doesn't even know geography. The two borders that are the biggest
problem in Iraq are the borders with Syria and Iran. The US never had
any control over those.

"Jim Yanik" . wrote in message
.. .

Yes,Saddam was running trucks of petro products to Syria so that they
could
sell the oil and the money would go back to Saddam,avolding the UN
sanctions.
Heck,the US does not even "own" it's own borders.

If I'm hearing you correctly, you're saying it's OK that although there HAD
to be people from state, military & intelligence departments telling Rove
that weapons would be moved to Syria, you're fine with him doing nothing
about it.

And, you're also saying that even if he had ordered such operations, it
would have been hopeless, so it's better that we did not try.

Correct?

wrote in message
oups.com...
"I'm 52. You've shocked me. I'm surprised you were an adult in the
period
between the REAL Bush's presidency and now, and somehow managed not to
notice some contradictions to what YOU have said in the past day or
two. For
instance, we OWNED the borders of Iraq in almost total safety during
those
years. "


LOL And once again it's Doug Kanter doesn't have a clue as to what
he's talking about. He seems to equate age with knowledge, yet at 52 he
doesn't even know geography. The two borders that are the biggest
problem in Iraq are the borders with Syria and Iran. The US never had
any control over those.


Age is relevant. If he'd said he was 22, then it would be possible he was
still in the teenage stage of being oblivious during the first half of the
1990s.

Get it now?

In article , "Doug Kanter" wrote:

wrote in message
roups.com...
"I'm 52. You've shocked me. I'm surprised you were an adult in the
period
between the REAL Bush's presidency and now, and somehow managed not to
notice some contradictions to what YOU have said in the past day or
two. For
instance, we OWNED the borders of Iraq in almost total safety during
those
years. "


LOL And once again it's Doug Kanter doesn't have a clue as to what
he's talking about. He seems to equate age with knowledge, yet at 52 he
doesn't even know geography. The two borders that are the biggest
problem in Iraq are the borders with Syria and Iran. The US never had
any control over those.


Age is relevant. If he'd said he was 22, then it would be possible he was
still in the teenage stage of being oblivious during the first half of the
1990s.

So what's *your* excuse for being so ignorant?

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

In article , "Doug Kanter" wrote:
"Jim Yanik" . wrote in message
. ..

Yes,Saddam was running trucks of petro products to Syria so that they
could
sell the oil and the money would go back to Saddam,avolding the UN
sanctions.
Heck,the US does not even "own" it's own borders.

If I'm hearing you correctly, you're saying it's OK that although there HAD
to be people from state, military & intelligence departments telling Rove
that weapons would be moved to Syria, you're fine with him doing nothing
about it.

And, you're also saying that even if he had ordered such operations, it
would have been hopeless, so it's better that we did not try.

Correct?

You have an amazing talent for reading things that simply are not there.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

"Age is relevant. If he'd said he was 22, then it would be possible he
was
still in the teenage stage of being oblivious during the first half of
the
1990s.

Get it now? "

Yes, I get it. At age 52, you haven't got a clue about geography or
history or you wouldn't have made the silly claim that the US owned the
borders of Iraq during Sadam's regime. Yet, somehow you think age is
relevant to every discussion. Is that because you never learned
anything other than what you personally lived through?

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
m...


I'm glad you finally managed to read what I wrote, and not read things
which I
did not write.

but by stating it so simply, you perpetuate a theory which simpletons
cling to and turn into a mantra.

What? All I did was point out that the claim that the economy "did
wonderfully" under Clinton is a falsehood. Then you jump off the deep end
again.

The problem is that some people draw a connection between the president and
the behavior of a group of investors. Not good. Don't feed that stupidity.


Very bad. Don't even say it. It makes them
comfortable, they go to sleep, and wake up only for an hour to vote every
4
years. Look at the results.

Yes, indeed - the results were that a lying, pot-smoking, womanizing draft
dodger got elected in 1992, and reelected in 1996.

Well, I guess we value different things. My personal icons are great
managers from the corporate world, like Lee Iacocca or Jack Welch, so I
focus on intelligence.

As far as pot smoking, that's just plain silly. I'm sure President Rove has
a few cocktails now and then, as does his little pet, George.

And...draft dodging? By the time Clinton was of age to serve, the suits who
cooked up the reasons for the Vietnam war were already disowning those
reasons as absurd. It was everyone's patriotic choice to refuse to serve,
and it sent a clear message to Nixon who, lunatic that he was, realized that
to continue was going to divide the country.

wrote in message
ups.com...
"Age is relevant. If he'd said he was 22, then it would be possible he
was
still in the teenage stage of being oblivious during the first half of
the
1990s.

Get it now? "

Yes, I get it. At age 52, you haven't got a clue about geography or
history or you wouldn't have made the silly claim that the US owned the
borders of Iraq during Sadam's regime. Yet, somehow you think age is
relevant to every discussion. Is that because you never learned
anything other than what you personally lived through?


Well, YOU obviously have not absorbed a damned thing about the chemicals you
think everyone should use. An entire era of history has escaped you, hasn't
it?

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
m...
In article , "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

wrote in message
groups.com...
"I'm 52. You've shocked me. I'm surprised you were an adult in the
period
between the REAL Bush's presidency and now, and somehow managed not to
notice some contradictions to what YOU have said in the past day or
two. For
instance, we OWNED the borders of Iraq in almost total safety during
those
years. "


LOL And once again it's Doug Kanter doesn't have a clue as to what
he's talking about. He seems to equate age with knowledge, yet at 52 he
doesn't even know geography. The two borders that are the biggest
problem in Iraq are the borders with Syria and Iran. The US never had
any control over those.


Age is relevant. If he'd said he was 22, then it would be possible he was
still in the teenage stage of being oblivious during the first half of the
1990s.

So what's *your* excuse for being so ignorant?

I take it you do not work in a profession which involves trying new things,
or you wouldn't have such doubts about what's possible and what's not. You
simply choose not to entertain the ideas to start with. Stop some weapons
from moving to the exact place we knew they'd go? Not possible.

It might've saved quite a few lives, by the way. Since WMDs were high on
president Rove's list of things to deal with, it would've been nice to
actually find them, rather than allow them to leave.

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
m...
In article , "Doug Kanter"
wrote:
"Jim Yanik" . wrote in message
...

Yes,Saddam was running trucks of petro products to Syria so that they
could
sell the oil and the money would go back to Saddam,avolding the UN
sanctions.
Heck,the US does not even "own" it's own borders.

If I'm hearing you correctly, you're saying it's OK that although there
HAD
to be people from state, military & intelligence departments telling Rove
that weapons would be moved to Syria, you're fine with him doing nothing
about it.

And, you're also saying that even if he had ordered such operations, it
would have been hopeless, so it's better that we did not try.

Correct?

You have an amazing talent for reading things that simply are not there.

Well, you seem to be trashing an entire universe of ideas. But, let's review
again:

Colin Powell brought satellite images to the United Nations and said they
showed that the WMD problem was real. Let's assume for the moment that this
was correct, rather than get into a quagmire about whether or not they
existed.

Right now, many of our troops spend their days slowing down traffic to check
vehicles for bombs or bad people or whatever. Some of them are being killed
when these vehicles turn out to be booby trapped.

If, with the help of airborne reconaissance, they did the exact same thing a
year earlier in a more open environment where it's difficult for snipers to
hide, do you think it would've been better, worse, or the same? If worse,
explain why.

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
m...
In article , "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
om...
In article , "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
y.com...
In article , "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

Great! Now we're getting somewhere. A few million investors, including
quite
a few pros (institutional investors) violated the rules of stock
evaluation,
thereby inflating the prices of many stocks. This eventually fell
apart,
as
it always does, and because investors are skittish, perfectly healthy
stocks
were dragged down along with the trash ones whose prices deserved to
plummet.

Agreed.

During this time, Clinton was president. He was connected with the bad
decisions made by private citizens.....exacty how? Did you expect him
to
give investment advice on television every so often?

I never said that he had any connection with it at all. My only
purpose
was
refuting the lie that the economy was just fine, with no problems,
under
Clinton.

Now you're being silly. You said "Agreed", which means you see how
erroneous
it is to combine the aforementioned ideas/factors in the same breath.
Then,
you do it again. Jeez..... :-)

No, it means I agree with your statement concering investor behavior.

Perhaps if you'd like to try reading my comments again, and read *only*
what I
actually wrote and no more - instead of insisting on reading things that
I
did
not write - you'll understand a little better.

I did not in any fashion connect Clinton to the stock market crash,
other
than
to note that he was President when it occurred. My only purpose in
making
that
observation was to refute the claim that the economy "did just
wonderfully"
while he was President. That statement is a lie.

Yes,

I'm glad you finally managed to read what I wrote, and not read things
which I
did not write.

but by stating it so simply, you perpetuate a theory which simpletons
cling to and turn into a mantra.

What? All I did was point out that the claim that the economy "did
wonderfully" under Clinton is a falsehood. Then you jump off the deep end
again.

Very bad. Don't even say it. It makes them
comfortable, they go to sleep, and wake up only for an hour to vote every
4
years. Look at the results.

Yes, indeed - the results were that a lying, pot-smoking, womanizing draft
dodger got elected in 1992, and reelected in 1996.

As opposed to the cocaine head, drunk, lying AWOL we have in office now?


--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

Yes, indeed - the results were that a lying, pot-smoking, womanizing draft
dodger got elected in 1992, and reelected in 1996.

Well, I guess we value different things. My personal icons are great
managers from the corporate world, like Lee Iacocca or Jack Welch, so I

focus on intelligence.


Another classic. Doug focuses on intelligence. Morality and legality
doesn't matter? By that standard some of the best criminals would be
heros. And it's funny he brings up Jack Welch and Lee Iacocca. What
do you think would have happened to either of them or any other fortune
500 CEO if it were found out that while they were CEO, they were
getting oral sex from a 20 year old intern in their office at corporate
headquarters?

wrote in message
oups.com...
Yes, indeed - the results were that a lying, pot-smoking, womanizing
draft
dodger got elected in 1992, and reelected in 1996.

Well, I guess we value different things. My personal icons are great
managers from the corporate world, like Lee Iacocca or Jack Welch, so I

focus on intelligence.


Another classic. Doug focuses on intelligence. Morality and legality
doesn't matter? By that standard some of the best criminals would be
heros. And it's funny he brings up Jack Welch and Lee Iacocca. What
do you think would have happened to either of them or any other fortune
500 CEO if it were found out that while they were CEO, they were
getting oral sex from a 20 year old intern in their office at corporate
headquarters?


Legal: No mature, intelligent person is unaware of why liquor is legal but
marijuana is not. Even many cops think it's absurd.

Blowjob: Either of those two guys may have been fired or reprimanded. Or
not. But, I'm sure you feel that Clinton's sex life was a bigger problem
than sending our soldiers to their deaths for reasons whose validity keeps
evaporating.

Blowjob.....dead soldiers.....hmmmm.

"Legal: No mature, intelligent person is unaware of why liquor is legal
but
marijuana is not. Even many cops think it's absurd.
I'm sure you feel that Clinton's sex life was a bigger problem
than sending our soldiers to their deaths for reasons whose validity
keeps
evaporating. "


How about perjury? What do mature, intelligent persons think about a
president who is sworn to uphold the Constitution and enforce the laws
of the US committing perjury? Is that OK too, as long as they are
intelligent? Is it OK if we all do it as long as we're intelligent and
feel it's justified?

And last time I checked, the House and Senate approved the war in Iraq,
though many of them, for political purposes, would like to have you
believe otherwise. Did you complain when US troops lost their lives in
Bosnia, Kosovo, Somalia or the US Cole? Or was that OK, because it was
a different president?

wrote in message
oups.com...
"Legal: No mature, intelligent person is unaware of why liquor is legal
but
marijuana is not. Even many cops think it's absurd.
I'm sure you feel that Clinton's sex life was a bigger problem
than sending our soldiers to their deaths for reasons whose validity
keeps
evaporating. "


How about perjury? What do mature, intelligent persons think about a
president who is sworn to uphold the Constitution and enforce the laws
of the US committing perjury? Is that OK too, as long as they are
intelligent? Is it OK if we all do it as long as we're intelligent and
feel it's justified?

When lies are told in court, it's perjury. When lies are told on television
over and over again, it's not perjury. Lies are lies and the label you apply
does not matter. I don't think Clinton's lies were OK. I think Bush's are
worse for two reasons. First, they're costing the lives of our soldiers and
that is inexcusable. Second, he claims to be deeply religious, and yet he
still lies to this country.

So, apply some scale to the two situations. They are quite different.



And last time I checked, the House and Senate approved the war in Iraq,
though many of them, for political purposes, would like to have you
believe otherwise. Did you complain when US troops lost their lives in
Bosnia, Kosovo, Somalia or the US Cole? Or was that OK, because it was
a different president?


Bosnia, Kosovo, Somalia: Only a lunatic likes to see soldiers die. But, the
intent of these campaigns was purportedly to save people from bad things, to
use a simplified reason. Your president said the same thing about Iraq -
save Iraqis from a leader who killed his own people. Remember? So, let's not
assign relative value to wars, OK?

As far as the Cole, do you think I should write to my legislators and your
president and complain about the bombings in London?

"When lies are told in court, it's perjury. When lies are told on
television
over and over again, it's not perjury. Lies are lies and the label you
apply
does not matter. I don't think Clinton's lies were OK. I think Bush's
are
worse for two reasons. "

A lie doesn;t have to be told in court for it to be perjury. Simply
being under oath, as Clinton was at the time he lied during his
deposition is sufficient for perjury.

As to Iraq, was it a lie when Clinton, Madeleine Albright, Joe Biden,
Sandy Berger, John Kerry and a long list of other Democrats said the
exact same things about Iraq? Was it a lie when Israeli, British,
French and Russian intelligence all came to similar conclusions, that
Iraq had WMDs and WMD programs? Or is it only a lie when President
Bush said it and you seek to divide a country, diminish a president,
and help encourage our enemies in a time of war?


"Bosnia, Kosovo, Somalia: Only a lunatic likes to see soldiers die.
But, the
intent of these campaigns was purportedly to save people from bad
things, to
use a simplified reason. Your president said the same thing about Iraq
-
save Iraqis from a leader who killed his own people. Remember? So,
let's not
assign relative value to wars, OK? "

What the hell does that mean? That is was OK when troops died under
Clinton, but not Bush? Or that when a war isn't going as well as one
would like, being a monday morning quarterback, that you just now want
to switch sides?

wrote in message oups.com...
"When lies are told in court, it's perjury. When lies are told on
television
over and over again, it's not perjury. Lies are lies and the label you
apply
does not matter. I don't think Clinton's lies were OK. I think Bush's
are
worse for two reasons. "

A lie doesn;t have to be told in court for it to be perjury. Simply
being under oath, as Clinton was at the time he lied during his
deposition is sufficient for perjury.

How many Americans were killed as a result of Clinton's lie?
How many hundreds of billions of dollars did it cost us?

As to Iraq, was it a lie when Clinton, Madeleine Albright, Joe Biden,
Sandy Berger, John Kerry and a long list of other Democrats said the
exact same things about Iraq? Was it a lie when Israeli, British,
French and Russian intelligence all came to similar conclusions, that
Iraq had WMDs and WMD programs? Or is it only a lie when President
Bush said it and you seek to divide a country, diminish a president,
and help encourage our enemies in a time of war?

No one but Bush committed our troops to fight and die for
"bad intelligence". No one but Bush is guilty of mass murder
of 1800 Americans and 30,000 Iraqi civilians.

And it wasn't even "bad intelligence", it was intentionally false
intelligence that was molded to fit a specific policy.

You can spin it any way you want. History books will forever
record Mr. Bush going before the American people two days
before his invasion and claiming:

"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves
no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal
some of the most lethal weapons ever devised."

He lied. There never was "no doubt" about his claim. And he
knew it perfectly well. He (or rather, his speech writer -- guess
who that was) chose these words carefully. He could have
said "little doubt" or "virtually no doubt" or a thousand other
phrases. But he (and they) chose to lie to support his inane
policy of "preventive" invasion.

"He lied. There never was "no doubt" about his claim. And he
knew it perfectly well. He (or rather, his speech writer -- guess
who that was) chose these words carefully. He could have
said "little doubt" or "virtually no doubt" or a thousand other
phrases. But he (and they) chose to lie to support his inane
policy of "preventive" invasion. "

And so you conveniently avoided the direct question. Was it a lie when
Clinton, Kerry, Albright, Biden, Liberman and a whole long list of
Democrats said exactly the same thing? Was it a lie when British,
Russian, and Israeli intelligence came to the same conclusion? Or is
it just a lie when you want to divide a country, undermine our troups,
and encourage our enemies that seek to destroy us in a time of war?

And the fact remains, it was not up to the US or anyone else to play
guessing games and come to a 100% certain conclusion what Iraq was
doing. We know for a fact that they had WMDs. They used them on their
own people. They launched them at Israel and they used them against
Iran. The UN spent over a decade playing games and trying to destroy
or account for them all. It was up to Iraq to fully comply with
inspections, which they never did, right up till the end.

And of course, had President Bush done nothing, if a WMD was someday
used against the US, killing 1,000 people, jerks like you would be the
first to call for Bush's impeachment because it was all President
Bush's fault, because everyone (read that endless list of names) all
believed he had WMD's, yet Bush did nothing. Nice monday morning
quarterbacking job!

Doug Kanter wrote:
"Doug Miller" wrote in message
m...

In article , "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

wrote in message
egroups.com...

"I'm 52. You've shocked me. I'm surprised you were an adult in the
period
between the REAL Bush's presidency and now, and somehow managed not to
notice some contradictions to what YOU have said in the past day or
two. For
instance, we OWNED the borders of Iraq in almost total safety during
those
years. "


LOL And once again it's Doug Kanter doesn't have a clue as to what
he's talking about. He seems to equate age with knowledge, yet at 52 he
doesn't even know geography. The two borders that are the biggest
problem in Iraq are the borders with Syria and Iran. The US never had
any control over those.


Age is relevant. If he'd said he was 22, then it would be possible he was
still in the teenage stage of being oblivious during the first half of the
1990s.

So what's *your* excuse for being so ignorant?


I take it you do not work in a profession which involves trying new things,
or you wouldn't have such doubts about what's possible and what's not. You
simply choose not to entertain the ideas to start with. Stop some weapons
from moving to the exact place we knew they'd go? Not possible.


I'm curious as to what your Politically Correct justification for
interfering with trade between two sovereign nations would be.
The job of enforcing U.N. sanctions is the responsibility of the U.N. ,
not the U.S. They had, at least fleetingly, access.
That they failed to do anything at all is obvious.




--
If you find a posting or message from myself offensive,
inappropriate, or disruptive, please ignore it. If you don't know
how to ignore a posting,complain to me and I will demonstrate.

"Doug Kanter" wrote in
:

"Jim Yanik" . wrote in message
.. .

Yes,Saddam was running trucks of petro products to Syria so that they
could
sell the oil and the money would go back to Saddam,avolding the UN
sanctions.
Heck,the US does not even "own" it's own borders.

If I'm hearing you correctly, you're saying it's OK that although
there HAD to be people from state, military & intelligence departments
telling Rove that weapons would be moved to Syria, you're fine with
him doing nothing about it.

And, you're also saying that even if he had ordered such operations,
it would have been hopeless, so it's better that we did not try.

Correct?



There was so much traffic moving between Baghdad and Syria,much of it
civilians fleeing the war.
Not to mention that they were worried that Saddam would USE his WMD instead
of trying to relocate it to another country.

IMO,you have a pre-existing hatred for Bush,and just listen to what fits
your hatred of him,and ignore everything else.
It seems to be one big conspiracy theory you have.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

"Doug Kanter" wrote in
:


wrote in message
oups.com...
Yes, indeed - the results were that a lying, pot-smoking, womanizing
draft
dodger got elected in 1992, and reelected in 1996.

Well, I guess we value different things. My personal icons are great
managers from the corporate world, like Lee Iacocca or Jack Welch, so
I

focus on intelligence.


Another classic. Doug focuses on intelligence. Morality and
legality doesn't matter? By that standard some of the best
criminals would be heros. And it's funny he brings up Jack Welch and
Lee Iacocca. What do you think would have happened to either of them
or any other fortune 500 CEO if it were found out that while they
were CEO, they were getting oral sex from a 20 year old intern in
their office at corporate headquarters?


Legal: No mature, intelligent person is unaware of why liquor is legal
but marijuana is not. Even many cops think it's absurd.

Then the law should be revised,not disobeyed.

Blowjob: Either of those two guys may have been fired or reprimanded.
Or not. But, I'm sure you feel that Clinton's sex life was a bigger
problem than sending our soldiers to their deaths for reasons whose
validity keeps evaporating.

Blowjob.....dead soldiers.....hmmmm.




Soliciting BJs from an EMPLOYEE in your chain of command (WH intern)is
*wrong*,illegal,and sexual harassment,even if it's voluntary on the woman's
part.
Then LYING about it to the American people and Congress was the act that
got him disbarred.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

"Doug Kanter" wrote in
:


As far as the Cole, do you think I should write to my legislators and
your president and complain about the bombings in London?



Uh,the USS Cole IS US territory.

Same for the US embassies abroad.

When are you going to grow up and say "the President" instead of "your
President",because despite your beliefs and "disowning him",he IS your Prez
as well as the country's.

I disliked Carter and Clinton,but he still was OUR President.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

wrote in message oups.com...
"He lied. There never was "no doubt" about his claim. And he
knew it perfectly well. He (or rather, his speech writer -- guess
who that was) chose these words carefully. He could have
said "little doubt" or "virtually no doubt" or a thousand other
phrases. But he (and they) chose to lie to support his inane
policy of "preventive" invasion. "

And so you conveniently avoided the direct question. Was it a lie when
Clinton, Kerry, Albright, Biden, Liberman and a whole long list of
Democrats said exactly the same thing? Was it a lie when British,
Russian, and Israeli intelligence came to the same conclusion? Or is
it just a lie when you want to divide a country, undermine our troups,
and encourage our enemies that seek to destroy us in a time of war?

And you so conveniently trimmed my reponse to your point.

None of those other people committed our troops to go fight
and die for "bad intelligence". None of those other people
are mass murderers.

And the fact remains, it was not up to the US or anyone else to play
guessing games and come to a 100% certain conclusion what Iraq was
doing.

It is up to the President of the United States to not commit
treason by committing our armed forces under false pretense
and "bad intelligence".

We know for a fact that they had WMDs. They used them on their
own people.

"Had" and "continue to possess" are two entirely different things.
Most of the quotes you pulled from other politicians (undoubtedly
from right-wing shill websites) were made prior to 1998, when
Iraq still had a few remnants of WMD. They destroyed the last
of them in 1998, which is exactly what they told both the UN and
the U.S. government.

They launched them at Israel and they used them against
Iran. The UN spent over a decade playing games and trying to destroy
or account for them all. It was up to Iraq to fully comply with
inspections, which they never did, right up till the end.

To the contrary, there's not been a single shred of evidence Iraq
lied about their WMD capability, or rather their lack of it. The
simple fact is, Bush couldn't allow UN inspections to be
completed, because they would have shown no evidence of
WMD, which then would have destroyed any justification for
an invasion.

And of course, had President Bush done nothing, if a WMD was someday
used against the US, killing 1,000 people, jerks like you would be the
first to call for Bush's impeachment because it was all President
Bush's fault, because everyone (read that endless list of names) all
believed he had WMD's, yet Bush did nothing. Nice monday morning
quarterbacking job!

Woulda coulda mighta, it's the same braindead mentality as
"preventive invasion". Maybe I'll come over to your house and
put a bullet through your head, not because you're threatening
me, but just because you might, maybe, someday pose a threat.
Just brilliant.

"Jim Yanik" . wrote in message .. .
"Doug Kanter" wrote in
:


As far as the Cole, do you think I should write to my legislators and
your president and complain about the bombings in London?



Uh,the USS Cole IS US territory.

Same for the US embassies abroad.

When are you going to grow up and say "the President" instead of "your
President",because despite your beliefs and "disowning him",he IS your Prez
as well as the country's.

He's not my president. Therefore I call him Mr. Bush. I don't
endorse the results of either the 2000 or 2004 election. Both
were rigged.

"None of those other people committed our troops to go fight
and die for "bad intelligence". None of those other people
are mass murderers. "

Look in the dictionary and see if under the defintion of a lie it says
anything about it involving the commitment of troops. The fact that
you would refer to President Bush as a mass murder, tells us what you
really are about. By your perverted logic, Roosevelt, Churchill and
Truman were mass murders too because a lot of innocent people died in
WWII.

"It is up to the President of the United States to not commit
treason by committing our armed forces under false pretense
and "bad intelligence". "

Yeah, right and intelligence is always perfect in your little world.
And everyone of the liberal dreamers you just love, did everything they
could to gut the US intelligence community for decades. The
intelligence community couldn't even see the collapse of the Soviet
Union coming, yet you expect them to have 100% knowledge of exactly
what Iraq is up to? LOL

"To the contrary, there's not been a single shred of evidence Iraq
lied about their WMD capability, or rather their lack of it. The
simple fact is, Bush couldn't allow UN inspections to be
completed, because they would have shown no evidence of
WMD, which then would have destroyed any justification for
an invasion"

Yeah right. Couldn't let them be completed? How long were we supposed
to wait? Iraq through the inspectors out in the Clinton
administration. Forget about that? Then, even with 100,000 US troops
on Iraqs borders, they still were not fully cooperating with the UN
inspectors. Had we listened to you and France, the troops would have
come home, only to have Sadam start his games all over again. But he
can;t do that now, can he?

Here, for the record are excerpts from Hans Blix report to the UN, in
Jan 2003, on the eve of war. And it took 100,000 troops and the
promise of war to get this level of cooperation. Read it and tell me a
reasonable persons would not conclude that Ithere was plenty of
evidence Iraq still had not complied with the UN disarmanemt demands
and was very likely hiding much mo

Hans Blix:
I begin by recalling that inspections as a part of a disarmament
process in Iraq started in 1991, immediately after the Gulf War. They
went on for eight years, until 1998 when inspectors were withdrawn.

Therefore, for nearly four years, there were no inspectors. They were
resumed only at the end of November last year.
Resolution 687 in 1991, like the subsequent resolutions I shall refer
to, required cooperation by Iraq, but such was often withheld or given
grudgingly.

Unlike South Africa, which decided on its own to eliminate its nuclear
weapons and welcomed the inspection as a means of creating confidence
in its disarmament, Iraq appears not to have come to a genuine
acceptance, not even today, of the disarmament which was demanded of it
and which it needs to carry out to win the confidence of the world and
to live in peace.

As we know, the twin operation declare and verify, which was prescribed
in Resolution 687, too often turned into a game of hide and seek.
While Iraq claims, with little evidence, that it destroyed all
biological weapons unilaterally in 1991, it is certain that UNSCOM
destroyed large biological weapons production facilities in 1996.

One of three important questions before us today is, How much might
remain undeclared and intact from before 1991 and possibly thereafter?
The second question is, What, if anything, was illegally produced or
procured after 1998 when the inspectors left. And the third question
is, How it can be prevented that any weapons of mass destruction be
produced or procured in the future?

For nearly three years, Iraq refused to accept any inspections by
UNMOVIC. It was only after appeals by the secretary-general and Arab
states and pressure by the United States and other member states that
Iraq declared on 16 September last year that it would again accept
inspections without conditions.

Resolution 1441 was adopted on 8 November last year and emphatically
reaffirmed the demand on Iraq to cooperate. It required this
cooperation to be immediate, unconditional and active. The resolution
contained many provisions which we welcome as enhancing and
strengthening the inspection regime. The unanimity by which it was
adopted sent a powerful signal that the council was of one mind in
creating a last opportunity for peaceful disarmament in Iraq through
inspection.

In this updating, I'm bound, however, to register some problems. The
first are related to two kinds of air operations. While we now have the
technical capability to send a U-2 plane placed at our disposal for
aerial imagery and for surveillance during inspections and have
informed Iraq that we plan to do so, Iraq has refused to guarantee its
safety unless a number of conditions are fulfilled.

As these conditions went beyond what is stipulated in Resolution 1441
and what was practiced by UNSCOM and Iraq in the past, we note that
Iraq is not so far complying with our requests. I hope this attitude
will change.

I'm obliged to note some recent disturbing incidents and harassment.
For instance, for some time farfetched allegations have been made
publicly that questions posed by inspectors were of an intelligence
character. While I might not defend every question that inspectors
might have asked, Iraq knows that they do not serve intelligence
purposes and Iraq should not say so.

Demonstrations and outbursts of this kind are unlikely to occur in Iraq
with initiative or encouragement from the authorities. We must ask
ourselves what the motives may be for these events. They do not
facilitate an already difficult job, in which we try to be effective,
professional, and at the same time correct. Where our Iraqi
counterparts have some complaint, they can take it up in a calmer and
less unpleasant manner.

Paragraph 9 of Resolution 1441 states that this cooperation shall be
"active." It is not enough to open doors. Inspection is not a game of
catch as catch can. Rather, as I noted, it is a process of verification
for the purpose of creating confidence. It is not built upon the
premise of trust. Rather, it is designed to lead to trust, if there is
both openness to the inspectors and action to present them with items
to destroy or credible evidence about the absence of any such items.

These reports do not contend that weapons of mass destruction remain in
Iraq, but nor do they exclude that possibility. They point to a lack of
evidence and inconsistencies which raise question marks which must be
straightened out if weapons dossiers are to be closed and confidence is
to arise. They deserve to be taken seriously by Iraq, rather than being
brushed aside as evil machinations of UNSCOM.

Regrettably, the 12,000-page declaration, most of which is a reprint of
earlier documents, does not seem to contain any new evidence that will
eliminate the questions or reduce their number.

Even Iraq's letter sent in response to our recent discussions in
Baghdad to the president of the Security Council on 24th of January
does not lead us to the resolution of these issues.

I shall only give some examples of issues and questions that need to be
answered, and I turn first to the sector of chemical weapons.

The nerve agent VX is one of the most toxic ever developed. Iraq has
declared that it only produced VX on a pilot scale, just a few tons,
and that the quality was poor and the product unstable.

Consequently, it was said that the agent was never weaponized.

Iraq said that the small quantity of [the] agent remaining after the
Gulf War was unilaterally destroyed in the summer of 1991.

UNMOVIC, however, has information that conflicts with this account.
There are indications that Iraq had worked on the problem of purity and
stabilization and that more had been achieved than has been declared.
Indeed, even one of the documents provided by Iraq indicates that the
purity of the agent, at least in laboratory production, was higher than
declared.

There are also indications that the agent was weaponized. In addition,
there are questions to be answered concerning the fate of the VX
precursor chemicals, which Iraq states were lost during bombing in the
Gulf War or were unilaterally destroyed by Iraq.

The discovery of a number of 122 mm chemical rocket warheads in a
bunker at the storage depot, 170 kilometers southwest of Baghdad, was
much publicized. This was a relatively new bunker, and therefore the
rockets must have been moved here in the past few years at a time when
Iraq should not have had such munitions. The investigation of these
rockets is still proceeding.

Iraq states that they were overlooked from 1991 from a batch of some
2,000 that were stored there during the Gulf War. This could be the
case. They could also be the tip of a submerged iceberg. The discovery
of a few rockets does not resolve, but rather points to the issue of
several thousand of chemical rockets that are unaccounted for. The
finding of the rockets shows that Iraq needs to make more effort to
ensure that its declaration is currently accurate.

I turn to biological weapons. I mention the issue of anthrax to the
council on previous occasions, and I come back to it as it is an
important one. Iraq has declared that it produced about 8,500 liters of
this biological warfare agent, which it states it unilaterally
destroyed in the summer of 1991.

Iraq has provided little evidence for this production and no convincing
evidence for its destruction
Either it should be found and be destroyed under UNMOVIC supervision or
else convincing evidence should be produced to show that it was indeed
destroyed in 1991.

Also associated with these missiles and related developments is the
import which has been taking place during the last two years of a
number of items despite the sanctions, including as late as December
2002. Foremost among these is import of 300 rockets engines which may
be used for the Al-Samud II.

Iraq has also declared the recent import of chemicals used in
propellants, test instrumentation and guidance and control system.
These items may well be for proscribed purposes; that is yet to be
determined.

In response to a recent UNMOVIC request for a number of specific
documents, the only new documents Iraq provided was a ledger of 1,093
pages which Iraq stated included all imports from 1983 to 1990 by the
Technical and Scientific Importation Division, the importing authority
for the biological weapons programs. Potentially, it might help to
clear some open issues.

The recent inspection find in the private home of a scientist of a box
of some 3,000 pages of documents, much of it relating to the lacing
enrichment of uranium, support a concern that has long existed that
documents might be distributed to the homes of private individuals.
This interpretation is refuted by the Iraqi side which claims that
research staff sometimes may bring papers from their work places.

On our side, we cannot help but think that the case might not be
isolated and that such placements of documents is deliberate to make
discovery difficult and to seek to shield documents by placing them in
private homes.

"He's not my president. Therefore I call him Mr. Bush. I don't
endorse the results of either the 2000 or 2004 election. Both
were rigged. "

See, that's the really sad part. There are jerks like you with this
attitude, that want to divide the country for political purposes, while
the US is facing enemies that are trying to destroy us and everything
we stand for. I didn't agree with a lot of what Clinton did either.
But I would never say he was not my president. As for the elections
being rigged, no rational person believes that. There is absolutely no
question that Bush won an decisive victory in 2004. And numerous
respected major papers later went over the Florida ballots and
determined that with every counting system and method they tried, Bush
still would have won.

Here in NJ, we had a real election stolen. Under NJ law, parties
cannot change candidates past a certain date, about a month before
election. Seems a perfectly valid and reasonable law. After all, we
want time for people to figure out who's running, what they stand for,
etc. Well, the Democrats chose to run Bob Toricelli for re-election,
despite the fact that he was mired in scandal. Weeks before the
election, with his poll numbers in the tank, he decided to quit the
race. So, the Democrats brought a case that went to the NJ supreme
court, which is full of liberal Democrats. They proceeded to set aside
the law, saying it was more important that people in NJ have an
election choice. Apparently, the fact that there were still several
candidates running wasn't enough. So, the allowed Lautenberg to show
up at the last minute and win the election.

But, here's the difference between us. I think what was done was
wrong and illegal. But I still acknowledge that Lautenburg is now one
of MY senators.

But in the end, it's guys like you that have destroyed the Democratic
party and allowed the Reublicans to rise. Only one Democrat has one
national office in 29 years. And during that period, the Democrats
have lost control of both the Senate and House. No one is going to
elect people from a party that has been taken over by kooks like you,
Michael Moore and Howard Dean. Democrats like Kennedy, Truman, and
Roosevelt would be revolted by what the party has become.

In article , "FDR" wrote:

As opposed to the cocaine head, drunk, lying AWOL we have in office now?

Not one of those charges has ever been substantiated.

And you know it.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

"Gort" wrote in message
...
Doug Kanter wrote:
"Doug Miller" wrote in message
m...

In article , "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

wrote in message
legroups.com...

"I'm 52. You've shocked me. I'm surprised you were an adult in the
period
between the REAL Bush's presidency and now, and somehow managed not to
notice some contradictions to what YOU have said in the past day or
two. For
instance, we OWNED the borders of Iraq in almost total safety during
those
years. "


LOL And once again it's Doug Kanter doesn't have a clue as to what
he's talking about. He seems to equate age with knowledge, yet at 52 he
doesn't even know geography. The two borders that are the biggest
problem in Iraq are the borders with Syria and Iran. The US never had
any control over those.


Age is relevant. If he'd said he was 22, then it would be possible he
was
still in the teenage stage of being oblivious during the first half of
the
1990s.

So what's *your* excuse for being so ignorant?


I take it you do not work in a profession which involves trying new
things, or you wouldn't have such doubts about what's possible and what's
not. You simply choose not to entertain the ideas to start with. Stop
some weapons from moving to the exact place we knew they'd go? Not
possible.


I'm curious as to what your Politically Correct justification for
interfering with trade between two sovereign nations would be.
The job of enforcing U.N. sanctions is the responsibility of the U.N. ,
not the U.S. They had, at least fleetingly, access.
That they failed to do anything at all is obvious.

You must've been busy or sleeping when we were flying missions into Iraqi
territory to enforce the no-fly zone. That was YEARS before the invasion.
Once we went that far, do you think the idea of "sovereign nation" meant
jack **** to anyone in Washington?

And, if we'd occupied a chunk of desert, stopped vehicles, and actually
found some with weapons which violated U.N. sanctions, we probably would've
looked golden to the rest of the world.