[Rhodes22-list] response to Brad(political)

[Cheryl O'Grady]

Brad,
See, this is what I do because I can't go sailing.  I like to kick the anthill, and see what scurries around.

the only one I am blaming is Bush.  He got us into a war we shouldn't have been in.  Yes, the results are great - I am very happy for the Iraqi people, but then end doesn't justify the means.  $300 billion later, money we as a country didn't have just laying around to throw away, we are still involved and will be for years.  I know war isn't perfect, and you can't have everything perfect at the start, but you make excuses for everything that has gone wrong, when much of the problems were predicted in advance - they just didn't listen to people who knew the region.  

That $300 billion would have been far better spent rebuilding our own infrastructure.  


Regarding the Iraqi National Museum, if you go to that site, and read some of the source material, you find your way to a site maintained by an archaeologist that is kind of the "information central" regarding this issue.  I went to her website, and followed some of her links.  The following is a quote from an article dated August, 2005.  There are two more recent articles, but my German is not good enough to read these technical articles.

"An estimated 13,000 pieces are still missing. The many tens of thousands of archaeological sites throughout Iraq have not been so lucky: their looting and destruction has not even begun to abate since 2003. The Sumerian heartland in southern Iraq has been hit the hardest. Whole "tells" or ruin mounds have been reduced to pockmarked moon landscapes due to the frantic digging activities of looters, e.g., Tell Jokha (ancient Umma), Ishan Bakhriyyat (ancient Isin), etc. 

The reaction in the US to the events of 2003 has been mired in controversy. After the intial confusion in the media during which it was feared the National Museum had been robbed bare, a number of conservative, pro-Iraq War political commentators falsely claimed that hardly anything had been taken. In other words, the museum theft story supposedly had been just a ploy by Ba'athists to make the Bush administration look bad. Western archaeologists and scholars had been either willing or naïve participants in this fraud, so it was said. It is hard to believe but this myth is still being repeated every so often. In general, the US academic community reacted with horror and anger. Notwithstanding serious pre-war efforts to educate both the Pentagon and the State Department about their responsibilities toward the heritage of Iraq once the war would begin, it was apparent that the commanders on the battlefield had not been instructed to safeguard archaeological and cultural sites. The one positive effect from the consultations was that Coalition airplanes did manage to avoid bombing sensitive heritage sites."

Regarding the Salon article, it is too old to be valid.  It is based on the assumptions that there have always been and always will be problems with spoiled ballots and other problems, but they wouldn't change the outcome.  But it was written within a week of the election, before there was time to do much real analysis.  Go to this site to see a report compiled by a group of statisticians and mathematicians.  A lot of it is statistics, a subject which I learned only well enough to pass the course then promptly forgot.  But the conclusions are written in English.  I'm sure that to a true Bush believer, this doesn't qualify as evidence, after all, a good statistician can make the numbers say whatever he wants, no?   

http://electionarchive.org/ucvAnalysis/US/Presidential-Election-2004.pdf

Anyway, gotta go rake leaves.  About every two hours, the number of leaves on my lawn doubles....Enjoy the sailing.
Cheryl


----- Original Message -----
From: "brad haslett" <flybrad at yahoo.com>
To: "The Rhodes 22 mail list" <rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org>
Subject: Re: [Rhodes22-list] stirring the hornet's nest.... (political)
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2005 10:45:08 -0800 (PST)

> 
> O' Cheryl,
> 
> My ADD is starting to kick in and I'm very busy but
> here's one more post (oh yeah, the wind is blowing
> this week and I'm going sailing).  Attached is an
> article from Salon.com on the 2004 election.  If you
> don't read Salon, you should.  About 98% of what they
> print is right up your alley (it ain't FOX News).
> This time they got it right.  As Herb pointed out, no
> military goes to war with all the equipment or
> intelligence they want.  Rumsfelt pointed that out and
> was lambasted by the press.  This is common knowledge
> among historians, especially soldiers, and well,
> people with common sense.  Perhaps we declared the
> "Peace Dividend" too early in the 90's and should have
> spent more on equipment and research but we didn't.
> If it really bothers you, here's a website where you
> can make a donation instead of blaming others.
> 
>   http://www.operation-helmet.org/
> 
> Now as to those Iraqi national treasures, that myth
> (and liberal press favorite) has been debunked as
> well.
> 
> 
> http://jarrarsupariver.blogspot.com/2005/01/iraq-antiquities-revisited.html
> 
> OK, I'll go back into my hole now.
> 
> Brad
> 
> -------------------------------------------
> 
> 
> Was the election stolen?
> The system is clearly broken. But there is no evidence
> that Bush won because of voter fraud.
> 
> - - - - - - - - - - - -
> By Farhad Manjoo
> 
> 
> 
> Nov. 10, 2004  |  Did John Kerry actually win the
> presidency? If you've spent any time online this week,
> you've no doubt heard this argument: The election was
> stolen. Corrupt officials, rigged voting machines, a
> sleepy media and a Democratic Party that's been less
> than fully aggressive in its efforts to counter
> Republican dirty tricks came together to subvert the
> true will of the people.
> 
> According to proponents of this theory, proof of
> electoral fraud abounds. The journalist Greg Palast
> argues that in Ohio, there were probably enough
> "spoiled" punch-card ballots -- ballots tossed out by
> counting machines -- to make up Bush's margin over
> Kerry. Keith Olbermann points out that in some voting
> precincts in Cuyahoga County, which includes
> Cleveland, there were more votes cast than registered
> voters -- for instance, in the Fairview Park area,
> 13,342 registered voters cast 18,472 ballots. Isn't
> that odd? Then there's the analysis by a former high
> school math teacher named Kathy Dopp, which seems to
> show that in counties using optical-scan voting
> systems in Florida, people registered as Democrats
> voted for Bush at an usually high rate. Did they
> really mean to do that, or did the voting machines
> corrupt their votes?
> 
> There are dozens of other points of concern. In
> Broward County, Florida, the counting software has
> been counting votes backwards. In Franklin County,
> Ohio, Bush was somehow given 4,000 more votes than
> he'd actually won. Citing vague security concerns,
> officials in Warren County, Ohio, locked down the
> vote-counting building on election night, preventing
> the media from observing the count. And what about
> those exit polls? Could it be that they were correct
> in their prediction of a Kerry win? To judge from the
> tone of the e-mail pouring into our in boxes here at
> Salon, not to mention the panicky posts on lefty sites
> like Democratic Underground, it's clear that many
> online find these arguments quite convincing. For
> many, it's difficult to believe that the election the
> nation held last week was completely on the level.
> 
> In fact, it probably wasn't; Election Day 2004, like
> all national elections, saw its share of glitches,
> ineptitude, fraud and intimidation. The Election
> Incident Reporting System, a national database of
> election irregularities compiled by volunteers working
> with various voting-rights groups, lists 30,000 such
> incidents for 2004. They range from the tragic (a
> voter who "didn't know how to read") to the alarming
> ("Two African-American voters were arrested at the
> polling place before they had the opportunity to
> vote").
> 
> There's little question that the American election
> process is a mess, and needs to be cleaned up. But
> even if this particular election wasn't perfect, it
> was still most likely good enough for us to have faith
> in the results. Salon has examined some of the most
> popular Kerry-actually-won theories currently making
> the rounds online, and none of them hold up under
> rigorous scrutiny. For instance, there's an easy
> explanation for the odd results in Cuyahoga County,
> Ohio, where Olbermann insists there were 93,000 more
> votes than voters. According to Kimberly Bartlett, a
> spokeswoman for the county, the reporting software the
> county uses to display the unofficial summary of
> election results on its Web site is simply buggy. For
> some reason, the software combines absentee ballots
> from several voting precincts into one precinct, and
> therefore makes it appear as if there were more votes
> cast in a particular area than there were registered
> voters there. But this bug does not affect the final
> election results, because the more detailed "canvass"
> of all the votes cast in the county shows the correct
> count, Bartlett told Salon. For example, this canvass
> indicates that in Fairview Park, where Olbermann says
> there were 18,472 ballots cast by 13,342 registered
> voters, there were actually only 8,421 votes cast in
> the presidential race -- fewer than the number of
> registered voters.
> 
> Other theories pointing to a Kerry win are similarly
> brittle. It is extremely unlikely that there are
> enough spoiled punch-card ballots in Ohio to hand
> Kerry a victory there, as Palast asserts. Meanwhile,
> there are reasonable-sounding sociological and
> demographic explanations for the high number of
> registered-Democrat Bush voters in some counties in
> Florida. There is, in other words, simply no
> compelling proof that there were enough irregularities
> in enough areas affecting enough voters to cast doubt
> on Bush's commanding popular vote count lead, or even
> his thinner margins in key swing states such as Ohio
> or Florida.
> 
> "Given my current state of knowledge, it seems
> unlikely there will be enough bogus votes found to
> reverse the election," says David Dill, the Stanford
> computer scientist who's been leading the charge
> against paperless electronic voting machines for the
> past two years. At the same time, though, Dill adds
> that he's making "a highly qualified statement," and
> that he does not want to "declare the election over
> and done with." Odd things did occur last Tuesday, and
> even if the results aren't overturned, "it's extremely
> important that we seize this opportunity to review
> everything we can about this election," Dill says.
> "Having people comb through these results will give us
> more confidence in the legitimacy of this election. We
> shouldn't gain that confidence by resorting to the
> head-in-the-sand method we usually employ in the
> United States."
> 
> The 2000 presidential election prompted officials
> across the nation -- including those in Ohio -- to
> abandon antiquated punch-card voting systems in favor
> of newer voting technology. But late in 2003, after
> activists uncovered alarming security holes in the
> paperless touch-screen electronic voting systems being
> purchased by many jurisdictions, officials in Ohio
> slowed their touch-screen plans. As a result, most
> voters in the state cast their ballots on punch-card
> systems this year, which, as Greg Palast points out,
> was a cause for concern among officials there even
> before Tuesday. J. Kenneth Blackwell, Ohio's
> Republican secretary of state, once declared that "the
> possibility of a close election with punch cards as
> the state's primary voting device invites a
> Florida-like calamity."
> 
> The main reason Blackwell and other elections experts
> worry about punch-card systems is that they lead to a
> high number of "residual ballots" -- ballots that are
> cast but, for various reasons, are not counted.
> Ballots can be tossed out because voters choose too
> many candidates in a certain race (they cast an
> "overvote"), or because counting machines simply
> misread a ballot as an overvote. Votes can also be
> misread because the systems are confused by hanging or
> dimpled chads -- selections that haven't been punched
> through all the way. In 2000, according to a report by
> Harvard University's Civil Rights Project, voting
> systems in Ohio experienced a spoilage rate of 1.96
> percent, meaning that for every 1,000 ballots cast
> then, about 20 were thrown out.
> 
> Since there were about 5.5 million votes cast in Ohio
> this year, Palast estimates that at a 1.96 percent
> error rate, there might be as many 110,000 uncounted
> ballots in the state. On Nov. 4, however, the
> Cleveland Plain Dealer reported that there are only
> about 93,000 spoiled ballots in Ohio. There were also
> about 155,000 provisional ballots cast in the state --
> votes cast as a last resort by people whose names
> could not be found on registration rolls when they
> went to the polls. Bush is currently leading Kerry by
> about 136,000 votes in Ohio. For Kerry to win, then,
> Ohio would have to have a way to count all 248,000
> outstanding discarded and provisional votes -- which
> isn't going to happen -- and then 77 percent of those
> ballots would have to go to Kerry.
> 
> Such an outcome is all but impossible. For one thing,
> an overwhelming number of provisional ballots will
> simply not count. According to Ohio's election rules
> -- which were deemed legal by federal courts prior to
> the election -- only provisional ballots that have
> been cast in a voter's home precinct will be added to
> the count. Nobody expects many provisional votes to
> pass that test.
> 
> But let's say that Kerry stands to gain 50,000 votes
> from the provisional count, and that Bush doesn't get
> any provisional votes -- a fantastical scenario, but
> bear with us. If that occurred, Kerry would need to
> get virtually every single vote from the discarded
> ballots in order to approach Bush's margin.
> Considering that Bush won 4 out of 10 votes even in
> Ohio's most heavily Democratic counties, such margins
> just aren't possible.
> 
> There is an easier way to prove that Kerry couldn't
> have won in Ohio: He conceded. Say what you like about
> John Kerry, he's no shrinking violet. If there was any
> chance that he could have beaten Bush simply by
> calling for a hand count of tossed-out punch-card
> ballots in Ohio, don't you think he would have done
> it? "I think Kerry would have stuck it out if the vote
> difference had been tighter," says Stephen
> Ansolabehere, a political scientist at MIT and a
> member of the CalTech/MIT Project, an electoral-reform
> task force formed in response to the 2000 fiasco. The
> margins, though, were simply too great. As Kerry
> explained in his concession speech, "It is now clear
> that even when all the provisional ballots are
> counted, which they will be, there won't be enough
> outstanding votes for us to be able to win Ohio. And
> therefore, we can not win this election."
> 
> A couple days after Election Day, Kathy Dopp, a
> businesswoman and, more recently, a full-time activist
> working against the widespread introduction of
> paperless touch-screen voting systems in the U.S.,
> began compiling a statistical analysis of the votes
> cast in Florida. She was initially looking for odd
> patterns in counties that use electronic touch-screen
> systems in the state, but when Dopp plotted the data,
> she found the weirdest results in counties that used
> optical scan systems -- on which voters fill out a
> paper ballot that is counted by machine, not unlike
> the process you'd see on a standardized test in
> school.
> 
> Specifically, Dopp noticed that in many optical scan
> counties, there were many more votes for George W.
> Bush than you'd expect from the number of Republicans
> registered in those counties. Although Dopp offered no
> speculation as to why Bush seemed to have won so many
> votes in apparently Democratic counties, her report
> has been cited as proof that something may have been
> amiss with the optical scan systems. Reporting on her
> work in a widely circulated article in
> CommonDreams.org, the journalist Thom Hartmann
> concluded that Dopp's analysis shows that Florida's
> "results seem to contain substantial anomalies."
> 
> Dopp's analysis does give one pause. For instance,
> about 70 percent of the 12,000 registered voters in
> Baker County are Democrats, but of the 10,000 votes
> cast there, more than 7,000 were for Bush. There are
> 11,000 registered voters in Holmes County, and 72
> percent of them are Democrats -- but 77 percent of the
> voters in Holmes chose Bush. Considering that most
> voters across the country voted according to their
> party -- 90 percent of Democrats chose Kerry, and 90
> percent of Republicans chose Bush -- why did so many
> Democrats in Florida's optical-scan counties go with
> Bush? And why was such a startling pattern not seen in
> counties that use touch-screen voting machines?
> 
> For anyone who knows Florida politics, the explanation
> is easy -- "Dixiecrats." Ansolabehere points out that
> in Florida, optical-scan machines are mainly in "rural
> areas or places with low population density, and those
> counties happen to be more Republican," even if voters
> there are registered as Democrats. These voters may
> keep their Democratic registrations alive so that they
> can participate in local Democratic primaries, but
> when it comes to national races they would never vote
> for the Democrat. Walter Mebane, a political scientist
> at Cornell who's long studied Florida politics, echoed
> this thought. In a rebuttal to Dopp's work that has
> also been flying around over e-mail, Mebane -- working
> with Jonathan Wand, another Cornell political
> scientist, and Jasjeet Sekhon, at Harvard -- explains
> that many of the counties Dopp considers curious have
> been voting for Republicans for years. "The pattern in
> which counties that have high Democratic registration
> had high percentage increases in the vote for Bush
> reflects the fact that all those counties have trended
> strongly Republican over the past twelve years," he
> wrote. "The counties are mostly in the Florida
> Panhandle. Given the voting history and registration
> trends, these counties seem to have many old-style
> southern Democrats who have not bothered to change
> their registration."
> 
> Mebane is not one to hastily dismiss the notion that
> voting irregularities affect elections. In 2001, he
> authored one of the main studies explaining how Palm
> Beach County's "butterfly ballot" led to Gore's
> defeat, and just this fall he wrote a paper (PDF)
> titled "The Wrong Man Is President! Overvotes in the
> 2000 Presidential Election in Florida," in which he
> argued that Gore actually beat Bush in 2000. But in an
> interview, Mebane dismissed Dopp's analysis. "If this
> is evidence that they stole this election," he said of
> Republicans, "they've been stealing elections for a
> long time."
> 
> To many Democrats, the most important bit of evidence
> pointing to a Kerry win is the exit polling data on
> Election Day. Although news agencies did not report
> the Election Day polls during the day, and no networks
> used the polls to call the race in close swing states,
> the polls, which were conducted by a consortium of
> news agencies called the National Election Pool, were
> leaked all over the Web. Those leaks seemed to show
> Kerry winning. And how could the polls have been so
> spectacularly wrong? Democrats wonder.
> 
> It's a good question, and at the moment, there's no
> answer, says Joe Lenski, who led the exit polling at
> Edison/Mitofsky Research, the firm that conduced the
> survey for the media. But Lenski says it's absurd to
> conclude from the surveys that the actual count is
> off. An exit poll is a survey, and surveys can fail.
> "The exit polls never said Kerry was going to win," he
> says. "The exit polls might have showed that Kerry was
> up in the national popular vote -- but it's still a
> survey with a margin of error, and every paying client
> knew from us that a 1- or 2-point lead is nothing that
> anybody would go to the bank with." It's worth noting
> that early exit polls in 2000 were also wrong, calling
> the race for Gore or Bush in various states where the
> other eventually won.
> 
> This is not to say that nothing went wrong on Election
> Day. The Election Incident Reporting System shows that
> thousands of voters experienced registration problems
> such as the mysterious disappearance of their names
> from the voting rolls. In addition, David Dill points
> out that all over the country, voting machines broke
> down -- the most frequent mechanical problem seen on
> Election Day. Another frequent complaint: Very often,
> voters would attempt to select one candidate on a
> voting machine and for some mysterious, as yet
> undetermined reason, the candidate's opponent will
> have been selected. These errors, and many more,
> certainly contributed to one of the most pernicious
> problems seen on Election Day, the unconscionably long
> lines at the polls.
> 
> Late last week, a handful of Democratic congressmen
> called on the General Accounting Office to initiate a
> thorough study of all that went wrong on Election Day.
> In their letter to the GAO, the congressmen avoid
> suggesting that the election was stolen. Instead, they
> say, investigating all the irregularities is the only
> way to give the public -- especially the dispirited
> half of the nation that voted for the losing side --
> confidence in the results. "We want to make sure that
> the people who came out in record numbers and took
> time out to vote -- we want to make sure the process
> was fair for them," said Lale Mamaux, a spokeswoman
> for Rep. Robert Wexler, one of the lawmakers calling
> for the study. "We're not saying this election was
> stolen. But people have serious concerns that need to
> be addressed."
> 
> Or, as Cam Kerry, the senator's brother, told
> supporters in a statement this week, "Even if the
> facts don't provide a basis to change the outcome,"
> studying what went wrong in 2004 "will inform the
> continuing effort to protect the integrity of our
> elections."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --- Cheryl O'Grady <cheryl.ogrady at mail.com> wrote:
> 
> > Herb, How about the failure to provide personal armor or
> > armored vehicles for our troops?  How about allowing
> > the looting of national treasures, world treasures,
> > from the national museum?  How about the failure to
> > secure the peace after we took down the regime?  I don't disagree 
> > that getting any kind of a vote is
> > certainly laudable.  I don't disagree that a
> > constitution is also a good thing.  But the total
> > anarchy that reigned in many parts of Iraq because
> > we didn't have enough boots on the ground (as
> > recommended by the people who knew the area) seems
> > to me pretty incompetent.  Despite the efforts of
> > our troops, many areas were allowed to fall into
> > anarchy, because we didn't have enough troops.
> >
> > We have had the successes in Iraq, the election and
> > the constitution, in spite of the incompetency of
> > the administration in running this war, not because
> > they are so terrific.
> >
> > I think the intelligence of the late 1990s was as
> > contradictory as the intelligence of 2002-2003.  I
> > don't know, that has not been the point of the
> > discussions I have been reading.  But if the
> > intelligence was as overwhelming as the
> > administration presented, surely we would have had
> > as much support for this war as we did for the war
> > in Afghanistan. Cheryl
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Herb Parsons" <hparsons at parsonsys.com>
> > To: rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org
> > Subject: Re: [Rhodes22-list] stirring the hornet's
> > nest.... (political)
> > Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2005 11:35:30 -0600
> >
> > > > "intelligence presented to Congress included
> > information that > supported the administration's conclusions..."
> > > > Are you talking about the intelligence presented
> > during the late > 1990's? Keep in mind, many of those statements
> > that Brad alluded to > were made during the previous administration. Of
> > course, there's no > doubt in ANYONE's mind about that man's propensity
> > for lying to the > American people.
> > > > " I don't think there has been a more
> > incompetently, ineptly led war..."
> > > > No doubt you and I will NEVER agree on this
> > comment, but I AM > curious as to what you use as a basis for the
> > opinion? The lower > death toll than your friends predicted? The
> > success in removing > Sadaam? The success in putting in place a new
> > constitution? Do you > have ANYTHING other than your disdain for war or
> > this > administration on which you base your opinion?
> > > > > Herb Parsons
> > > > S/V O'Jure
> > >    1976 O'Day 25
> > >    Lake Grapevine, N TX
> > > > S/V Reve de Papa
> > >    1971 Coronado 35
> > >    Lake Pontchartrain, Louisiana Coast
> > > > >>> cheryl.ogrady at mail.com 11/15/2005 9:04:26 AM
> > >>>
> > > Yes, and I feel these 'leaders' betrayed their
> > constituents with > these statements.  More information is coming out,
> > however, about > how the intelligence presented to Congress
> > included information > that supported the administration's conclusions,
> > and left out > information that contradicted.  are lies of
> > omission really lies?
> > > > Regardless, the decision was made to go to war.  I
> > don't think > there has been a more incompetently, ineptly led
> > war since, oh, > maybe, the British war against colonial insurgents
> > back about 220 > years ago.
> > > > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "brad haslett" <flybrad at yahoo.com>
> > > To: "The Rhodes 22 mail list"
> > <rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org>
> > > Subject: Re: [Rhodes22-list] stirring the hornet's
> > nest....
> > > Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2005 06:13:43 -0800 (PST)
> > > > >
> > > > Cheryl,
> > > >
> > > > I've got just enough time before taking my
> > daughter to
> > > > school to make one poke at the hornet's nest. Have
> > > > you read these quotes from various 'leaders'?
> > > >
> > > > Brad
> > > >
> > > > ------------------------------
> > > >
> > > > "Urges the President to take all necessary and
> > > > appropriate actions to respond to the threat
> > posed by
> > > > Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass
> > destruction
> > > > programs."
> > > > * Text of Senate Concurrent Resolution 71, Jan.
> > 28,
> > > > 1998, co-sponsored by Democrats Tom Daschle,
> > Patrick
> > > > Leahy, Max Cleland, John Kerry and Robert Byrd,
> > among
> > > > others
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > "(Iraq) admitted, among other things, an
> > offensive
> > > > biological warfare capability * notably 5,000
> > gallons
> > > > of botulinum, which causes botulism; 2,000
> > gallons of
> > > > anthrax; 25 biological-filled Scud warheads; and
> > 157
> > > > aerial bombs. And might I say, UNSCOM inspectors
> > > > believe that Iraq has actually greatly
> > understated its
> > > > production."
> > > > * Text of President Clinton's address to Joint
> > Chiefs
> > > > of Staff and Pentagon staff, Feb. 17, 1998
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > As a member of the House Intelligence Committee,
> > I am
> > > > keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical
> > and
> > > > biological weapons is an issue of grave
> > importance to
> > > > all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in
> > the
> > > > development of weapons of mass destruction
> > technology,
> > > > which is a threat to countries in the region,
> > and he
> > > > has made a mockery of the weapons inspection
> > process."
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > * Press release from Rep. Nancy Pelosi,
> > D-Calif., Dec.
> > > > 16, 1998
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction
> > has
> > > > proven impossible to deter and we should assume
> > that
> > > > it will continue for as long as Saddam is in
> > power."
> > > > * From an address by Al Gore to the Commonwealth
> > Club
> > > > of California, Sept. 23, 2002
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > "The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of
> > mass
> > > > destruction is real, but as I said, it is not
> > new. It
> > > > has been with us since the end of that war, and
> > > > particularly in the last four years ... he has
> > > > continued to build those weapons."
> > > > * Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, Oct. 9,
> > 2002
> > > >
> >
> === message truncated ===
> 
> 
> 
> 	
> 		
> __________________________________
> Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005
> http://mail.yahoo.com
> __________________________________________________
> Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list





"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."  Edmund Burke, Irish philosopher