BS: Colin Powell finds the 'Smoking Gun'

Subject: RE: BS: Colin Powell finds the 'Smoking Gun'
From: CarolC
Date: 07 Feb 03 - 01:07 PM

I think you know that I have a tremendous amount of respect for you Steve, but I feel compelled to make this distinction for you:

I further believe that anyone who believes America had that cheap shot coming needs some serious psychiatric evaluation work done. No one deserved that.

I seriously doubt that anyone here in the US thinks we deserved that. But I know there are many here who are pretty convinced that we helped to cause it to happen. There is a very, very big difference between those two things. As a mental health professional, you know that in order for a person to stop a self-destructive behavior, the person must first admit that he or she is engaging in that behavior.

Now, I'll understand if you don't agree with the idea that the US government has any culpability in this regard. But I hope you will understand that for those who do think the US government is culpable, what is needed is simply for the US government to clean up its act. It has nothing to do with any ideas about innocent Americans deserving to die.

Subject: RE: BS: Colin Powell finds the 'Smoking Gun'
From: DougR
Date: 07 Feb 03 - 01:35 PM

Excellent post, Steve.

TTR: I'm sure you must be aware that Secretary Powell WAS making his presentation to the UN Security Council.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Colin Powell finds the 'Smoking Gun'
From: Don Firth
Date: 07 Feb 03 - 01:49 PM

Not so ridiculous, Teribus. When a country is under attack (i.e., 9/11) by an amorphous enemy with no fixed base and no way of guaranteeing safety from future attacks, that is a very difficult problem indeed. It can't be alleviated by deliberately antagonizing three countries with no established connection to our attackers (Bush's "axis of evil" speech on Jan. 29, 2002). That was, to say the very least, counterproductive. Then Bush zeroes in on Iraq, and then tries to convince everybody that all of our problems come from there. It doesn't take much imagination to figure out why he picked Iraq: oil for one, his father's unfinished business for another, and Iraq's strategic geo-political location for a third. With his obvious cobbling of the truth and his blatant war-mongering, he's managed to antagonize several countries who, were we concentrating on neutralizing terrorism as we rationally should be doing, would be our staunchest allies. I would sooner have a rabid pit-bull in charge of our foreign policy.

About North Korea, I don't share your faith in their taking a rational course if they really feel threatened. And Bush's attitude toward them, of late, is anything but conciliatory.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Colin Powell finds the 'Smoking Gun'
From: Thomas the Rhymer
Date: 07 Feb 03 - 02:03 PM

Right Doug. The 'information' that he shared was needlessly public and ambiguous. If we are full time participants in the world monitoring system represented by the UN, the world stands a much better chance of remaining peaceful, and Bush could bolster the US economy by focusing his energy on domestic issues and the economy. Saddam is doing exactly what everyone thought he would do under the circumstances... Nothing new. Bush's behavior is reprehensible. He is cashing in the US economy, and our credibility as 'Peaceful mediator', and worst of all, he is angering terrorist types (precisely the people who would be most likely to venture forth into acts of terror against the US). My point is, by insisting that we 'go it alone', we become the target for vengence. Is this supposed to make us feel safer? He is spoiling for a fight, and he's putting our country on the line. Loch, stock and barrel.

Standing aloof from the UN, seems like a precurser to a self fulfilling prophesy to me. If we just take our proper place in the world as a very prominent member of the world's consentual community... THEN, we can claim the moral high ground we have a responsibility to attain. IMHO, of course! Peace.ttr

Subject: RE: BS: Colin Powell finds the 'Smoking Gun'
From: Beccy
Date: 07 Feb 03 - 02:12 PM

I'm going to hazard a guess that quite a few of you reading this probably dislike Bush and his administration so much that there is very little they could say or do to please you. Please correct me if this is an incorrect observation.

Subject: RE: BS: Colin Powell finds the 'Smoking Gun'
From: CarolC
Date: 07 Feb 03 - 02:15 PM

In my case, Beccy, your assumption is incorrect.

Subject: RE: BS: Colin Powell finds the 'Smoking Gun'
From: Thomas the Rhymer
Date: 07 Feb 03 - 02:21 PM

Beccy, darlin... I would do a one eighty in about one second flat if ol' George did something in the international arena that inspired my respect. Like Clinton said, "give him a chance"... Soooooooo, Beccy, what is this remarkable attraction you have for GWB? Could'st he ever offend'st thee? ttr

Subject: RE: BS: Colin Powell finds the 'Smoking Gun'
From: Beccy
Date: 07 Feb 03 - 02:29 PM

ttr- as a matter of fact, I've been powerfully angry at the man several times. I am just getting the impression from this thread that most people are content to make personal insults toward GWB rather than a calm, rational discussion of why they agree or disagree with policy decisions from Bush 43's administration.


... And defending someone does not equal attraction.

I'm pregnant, hungry and crabby- my anger is equal opp.

Subject: RE: BS: Colin Powell finds the 'Smoking Gun'
From: Don Firth
Date: 07 Feb 03 - 02:33 PM

Beccy, it would go a long way if Bush and his administration were to tell the verifiable truth.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Colin Powell finds the 'Smoking Gun'
From: Bobert
Date: 07 Feb 03 - 03:08 PM

T:

T's point 1: UN is "sitting back" doing nothing. Well, that is not accurate. In this Morning's Washington Post (Scientist Interviewd in Private, A-1) there is a report that "U.N. weapons experts" interviewing one of Iraq's "scientist linked to the country's arms program".

T's Point 2: " No weapons inpectors in Iraq". While technically true this is partly because of the way the inpestions were set up and partly because of the report that Hans Blix made and the waiting period for the Bush administration to make a decision as to weather or not it was going to attack Iraq now or giev the process more time. The team, headed by Hans Blix, has been in constant communication with the Iraqis and will be back in Bagdad this weekend and "has been led to believe that Prtesident Saddam Hussein's will soon relent on two other key issues: a guarentee that Iraq will not try to shoot down U-2 (as if they could) reconnaissance aircraft ... and a commitment to enact legislation permitting a long-term presence of inspectors." (ibid)

T's Point 3: "Stonewalling". This is a matter of opinion. The inspectors have had access to everything they have asked to look at. Their *intellegence* has come from the US as to where to look and what to look for and have so far come up empty. With the two provisions mentioned in the previous response, it is apparent that Iraq is making major progress in cooperating. Bush's all out PR effort to paint Iraq as totally uncooperative is just thar. PR and politics. One must keep in mind that Iraq is a country that fully expects to be attacked when Bush has his military in place to do so and given that reality if one were to put themselves in Saddam's shoes for one moment, one might come away with a different perspective on howdifficult it is to prepare one's armies to defend one's country while having one's every trip to the men's room monitored. Give that just a moment's thought.

Now, T-Bird, you become very dismissive in sayiny that "we have discussed a propasl for an Emergency Summit" where, unless my feeble mind has erased something, we have spent very little time disussing anything that resembles what I have proposed. Instead, the discussion has been war/no war but the "Summit" has had very little *stage time*. Very little. People just say, "Oh, that won't work" and go back to pounding the drum.

Then, Ter, you make misquote me in saying I "couldn't be botheredeading the posts. If you will find *those* words on any of my posts I will kiss yer rosey reb butt in the middle of Muscat Square. What I have said, is that I pass over posts where people a *scraming*. There is a world of difference.

Then you again twist what I have said "I couldn't be bothered to investigate the complexities involved". Again, the same offer. What I have said is that I refuse to accept *"homework"* assignment for you or any one else. This was in reponse to an assignment you once tried me to complete for you that would have taken days and days of reading your sources and then write reems and reems of responses. Hey, I have a life and a business to run and don't have time to take on your homework assignments, but hey, you have things that you think I should read in order to qualify me to post here... did you ever think that I could do the same to you. No you wouldn't like it if I said, ""Here, T, read this Greg Palists book "The Best Democracy Money Can Buy" and then answer the following 20 questions.

So, no, I'm sure with all that is posted here that spending a week of two doing you homework assignments is not going to *enlighten* me to see the world the way you see it... or vic versa. And, yes, I read a lot of stuff here but, like you, I don't read every single word of every single post. I don't reasd every word of every newspsper article. Or book. But that doesn't change my beliefs that I understand what is going on around me in the world otthat I don't have a positon which is pro-human and in harmony with my core values as a Follower of Christ.

Peace.

Bobert

p.s. You suckered me into this homework assignment. Please don't do it again for a while. Like I said. I have a life and I still have to work 6 days a week to keep a roof over my head and the taxes paid.

Subject: RE: BS: Colin Powell finds the 'Smoking Gun'
From: Steve in Idaho
Date: 07 Feb 03 - 05:04 PM

CarolC - That is a point I will concede. We have not always been the very best of folks. We are human and have made mistakes. Were we to go to the root of why Iraq is where it is one would have to return to England and the Crusades.

But we cannot assist the citizenry of Iraq when we are not permitted to and to do so in any name other than Muhamed is a death sentence. Makes it a no-win situation. I'm not a supporter of Christian outreach as I believe they are great at saving souls but crappy at saving people. But even our Peace Corps has been denied entry to assist the local people with labor to meet local needs.

I think in more recent times we have made a couple of mistakes. We should have not acquiesced to the UN's "request" that we stop destroying Iraq's Army in the first war. And we should have gone on in and assisted in setting up a more amiable government. Not just to us but to the world. Iraq is not a bad country. It's leadership in harmony with the world has made it a high risk administration to cope with. And when people get scared there is no predicting what they will do.

America has a wonderful record of winning the war - it's the peace that continues to elude us. We did well in Europe with the Marshall Plan and in Japan with McArthur's work post WW-II. Since then we've been in a hurry (I believe reflective of our societal trends) and not given the time and patience to really follow through.

I'm a supporter of the UN and its support in our concerns with Iraq (How's that for politically correct?) and the probability of Iraq's support for other terrorists who are not going to care one whit about whether or not we go to war to continue their Jihad against us. The more the merrier in this process I think! I believe President Bush made a statement the other day and I really liked it. He said that Saddam Hussein is not America's problem. He is the world's problem.

Can we do more? Yes. Should we do more? Yes. I believe that every option we can use prior to war is a good one. But I am not a peace at any price on this one. I firmly believe that if we do not get this settled this time, and in a good way (let that read with the world's support - especially the Muslim world), we may have another short term success with long term problems that will ultimately end life as we know it.

I'm hoping for the long term success. But Mr. Hussein has got to go. And Thank You for the nice compliment CarolC -

No simple answers - never is -

Steve

Subject: RE: BS: Colin Powell finds the 'Smoking Gun'
From: CarolC
Date: 07 Feb 03 - 06:02 PM

;-)

All I can say Steve, in response to your 07 Feb 03 - 05:04 PM post is that I would be a lot more comfortable with whatever we do in Iraq if you were the one making the decisions rather than our current administration.

Subject: RE: BS: Colin Powell finds the 'Smoking Gun'
From: Steve in Idaho
Date: 07 Feb 03 - 06:11 PM

And I can only say I am glad I am not making it. Way too scary for me. Maybe if we took the far left and right of Mudcat, put them in a room, and when they agree do whatever it is they agree to do - do it.

Keepin the faith Boss - :-)

How are you and your Honey doing Carol??

Steve

Subject: RE: BS: Colin Powell finds the 'Smoking Gun'
From: CarolC
Date: 07 Feb 03 - 06:17 PM

Doing good, Steve. Thanks for asking.

;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Colin Powell finds the 'Smoking Gun'
From: GUEST,herc
Date: 07 Feb 03 - 06:25 PM

Wolfgang's input is exemplary in making this forum worth revisiting. His comments were not "playful," but bobert neither seeks nor deserves sugar coating. In fact, wolfgang's comment may have been served up with a generous helping of diplomacy. Bobert's volume is a little high, at the expense of accuracy. A reasonable request to improve the flow of information around here, and spelling is not the issue.

(I don't know anything about dyslexia, but I've heard its good exercise to keep a dairy.)

Dan, guest

Subject: RE: BS: Colin Powell finds the 'Smoking Gun'
From: DougR
Date: 07 Feb 03 - 07:22 PM

TTR: I don't understand your comments about Bush not going to the UN! He made a speech before the Security Council last month, and Colin Powell and others got a unanamous vote of the Security Council to send the inspectors back into Iraq. Bush said today that he would be in favor of another resolution at the UN provided it did not weaken 1441. He is under the impression (and I think most thinking people agree)that if the Security Council finds Iraq in material breach of 1441 it will face serious consequencies. What's not clear about that?

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Colin Powell finds the 'Smoking Gun'
From: DougR
Date: 07 Feb 03 - 07:35 PM

Beccy, I suspect your appraisal regarding attitudes toward GWB or more correct than incorrect. If Bush withdrew all the armed forces from the Mid-East (which isn't going to happen) the proverbial complainers here on the Mudcat would still find something about it to bitch about.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Colin Powell finds the 'Smoking Gun'
From: Bobert
Date: 07 Feb 03 - 08:06 PM

Yo, Guest, Dan:

Not too sure what you're trying to say there, my friend. My post was in response to Teribis's and not much more than that. The observations I have made are not new to this joint, being the resident peacenic. Sorry about the dexlexia but I can't help it. Believe me, it's a pain. I know in my head how to spell most word but don't type very well and then the dexlexia kicks in and when I reread the posts the words look just fine. So if I get them right the first time then fine. If not, my chances of finding the errors are not too good unless I want to sit here with a dictionary and look each one up. It's ahrd to explain but if you understand cubism in art maybe you 'll understand what dexlexics see with printed words. Hey, most of us do learn to read and I somehow got two college degrees but it wasn't easy.

Now as fir my beliefs, there are lots of folks who argue war/no war but not ebought to have a vision of a world were war is not the tried and true meathod of dealing with differences between people. It is very possible for mankind to get to that point and mankind, as it becomes more *tribalized* will one day figure out there are no alternatives. We are not far from that point it God's little experiement is to carry on. The world has become way to dangerous for the *luxary* (for a lack of a better term)of war. Way topo dangerous. Mankind does not have too manym opportunities here. This is not doomsday stuff. Just reality.

So, yeah, we need very much to start communicating and quit the hating.

Peace

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Colin Powell finds the 'Smoking Gun'
From: Ebbie
Date: 07 Feb 03 - 08:06 PM

"I don't know anything about dyslexia, but I've heard its good exercise to keep a dairy.)" LOL, great timing. Guest/Dan, you may know more about dyslexia than you realize. Unless you're advocating getting a bunch of cows?

Subject: RE: BS: Colin Powell finds the 'Smoking Gun'
From: GUEST,Dan
Date: 07 Feb 03 - 08:24 PM

No complaints here, bobert. Just stepping unnecessarily into the third party criticisms of wolfgang which in my opinion were unjustified. I appreciate your tenacity and sincerity. However, if wolfgang might have been implying that beauty is in brevity, then I'd agree with that as well. Spelling is a non-issue.

Subject: RE: BS: Colin Powell finds the 'Smoking Gun'
From: GUEST
Date: 07 Feb 03 - 08:27 PM

yesitwasjustalittlejokethereEb

Dan

Subject: RE: BS: Colin Powell finds the 'Smoking Gun'
From: Bobert
Date: 07 Feb 03 - 09:08 PM

Well, I like that loyalty thing, Dan, but all I did was to thank wolfer for intervening for me with Teribus when I inadvertantly posted "Patriots" instead of "Tomahwaks". Next thing ya know I was being told that maybe I should just go away and not post. Hmmmmmm? I may have a learning disability, but I do have two degrees and have accomplished a lot in my life, am an acomplished artist and musican so to be told that I should just "go away" because of it... just don't cut it my book. Now if it was a joke, then fine. Didn't sound like one...

End of story...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Colin Powell finds the 'Smoking Gun'
From: GUEST,Dan
Date: 09 Feb 03 - 04:09 PM

Whoa, yikes, what's this here. I thought that you DIDN'T have a thin skin so there' no harm in constructive criticism about proofreading. We ALL need to do it. When I do it, I delete words, sentences, and reaarange sentences by cut and pasting. The process, mainly making it shorter, has a consequence of improving accuracy. That's the whole point, and nothing more. The "go away" interpretation is unjustified.

I assume you post because you want to be persuasive. You have many interesting points and opinions (I'm embarrassed I hadn't even heard of the depleted uranium issue until you brought it up.) But if you (ANY OF US) fall prey to longwindedness, the message is diluted. Communication is impaired.

I really regret having bothered to go blabbing into this. My apologies. Back to mostly lurking. (And the joke was the dairy joke, sheesh.)

Subject: RE: BS: Colin Powell finds the 'Smoking Gun'
From: GUEST
Date: 09 Feb 03 - 04:50 PM

I went looking up above to see what went wrong here (beats working.) Muliple levels of miscommunication. Wolfgang suggested "if you are to busy to proofread, don't post." Carol jumps in to the defense of dyslexia sufferers everywhere, implying that the issue is spelling. Bobert slides into the same assumption. Several apparently assume that the intended message was "never post, since you never proofread." I read it to say proofread before posting to avoid miscommunication. Ebbie jumps all over a joke as if she'd discovered it. Bobert thinks the joke is on him. . . . . YAAHH

Yes, gentlemen, what we have here is a failure to communicate.

Danny boy

Subject: RE: BS: Colin Powell finds the 'Smoking Gun'
From: CarolC
Date: 09 Feb 03 - 05:08 PM

Hey Dan. No misunderstanding on my part. The issue for people with dyslexia and proofreading, is that for someone with dyslexia (unlike someone without dyslexia), proofreading can become so time prohibitive that it would become impossible to post at all. Kind of like asking someone who can't walk to try to get around without a wheelchair. Very cumbersome and time consuming.

Personally, I can't see the harm in asking someone who has made a mistake such as the one about patriot missles vs tomahawk missles which one they meant, and just go on from there.

As to your point about brevity, I'm partial to brevity myself, but Bobert is hardly the most long-winded poster to this forum. I'd hate for anyone to stop posting just because I don't like the way they write. Although I do appreciate it when people break up their posts into short paragraphs because of one of my learning disabilities (ADHD) which makes it difficult to distinguish individual characters in a field with a lot of visual stimuli.

Anyway, I can understand where you're coming from. But I think an understanding of the problems that people with learning disabilities face is a good thing when discussing these kinds of situations.

Subject: RE: BS: Colin Powell finds the 'Smoking Gun'
From: Teribus
Date: 10 Feb 03 - 02:30 AM

Bobert,

My post that you answered above was in response to one of your own when you asked what the "Huff and Puff" had achieved after 12 months.

Point 1 - In February 2002 the UN was sitting back and doing nothing

Point 2 - In February 2002 there were no UN weapons inspectors in Iraq

Point 3 - The lack of Iraqi co-operation was and has been a constant complaint of both Hans Blix and Mohammed AlBaradei - it was not something that Bush, or Blair, invented and threw into the equation.

Your proposed "Emergency Middle East Peace Summit" was discussed at great length. Two of the main conditions you outlined (that America should convene it and that all parties were to attend and not be allowed to leave until all points of difference were sorted out) are totally unrealistic, very well intentioned but still totally unrealistic. When a case was put forward as to the why's and wherefores, that was when you came back complaining that you did not have time to dispute the points. The message put across was "It's my idea, my solution, it's brilliant and insightful and I refuse to acknowledge that there are any problems associated with its implimentation." Well Bobert, quite a large number of problems exist, and were very clearly pointed out to you. In short concerning your two main cornerstones, the United States would never be viewed by any participant on the Arab side as an "honest broker", and, you would never succeed in getting all necessary parties to attend under the conditions you laid down. Nobody can leave until it is sorted - How are you going to achieve that Bobert? What sanction could be used to compell and impose this condition?

Subject: RE: BS: Colin Powell finds the 'Smoking Gun'
From: Greg F.
Date: 10 Feb 03 - 08:20 AM

And now, Powell turns his smokinng gun on:

New York Times
Monday, February 10, 2003

A leading Israeli newspaper reported Sunday that Israel and
Washington have reached a secret agreement on conditions for ousting
Palestinian leader Yasir Arafat after the U.S. topples Saddam.

Reached by Knight Ridder Newspapers, spokesmen for both Prime
Minister Ariel Sharon and the U.S. Embassy in Tel Aviv declined to
either confirm or deny the report carried in the tabloid Yediot Aharanot under the headline, "After Saddam: It is Going
to be Arafat's Turn."

And whose "turn" after that? We're back to the bad old days of the unapologetic imperialism of the '50s and '60's.

Subject: RE: BS: Colin Powell finds the 'Smoking Gun'
From: Bobert
Date: 10 Feb 03 - 10:52 AM

Well, T. The Summit Proposal was just that. A "proposal". I understand the "proposals". I am on two town committees and have had many of my "proposals" move forward to the bettermnet of the town. Was the finished product exactly as I "proposed". No, but had I not made them then those ideas would not have been a srpingboard for the progress that came from the "proposal".

Now, what I have said about the Summit is a proposal. It isn't too far removed from what Senator Mitchell was proposing. It wasn't too far from what our allie, Sadi Arabia was proposing. But the big bug-aboo was the Bush administration's complete rejection of the proposal. See, that's where you and I differ. You think why peaceful solutions can't work and I think quite the opposite. Hey, Bush didn't give it one moment's thought before dismissing it.

If you will recall, these proposals were being floated before the massive resistence movement started. This was in thew days when Powell and Rice were being kept out of the loop by Rumsfeld and Cheney and Bush was not even talking or thinking of the UN.

So I'm sticking with my premise that a Summit would do a lot more good than a War and I'm sticking to my observation that the Bush administartion has no interest in a foriegne policy where it has to listen, rather than threaten and bully.

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Colin Powell finds the 'Smoking Gun'
From: Teribus
Date: 10 Feb 03 - 11:00 AM

The big bug-a-boo as you call it to the Saudi Plan was that the Palestinians (Yasser Arafat) rejected it, Hamas rejected it totally and the Israeli's rejected it conditionally.

Subject: RE: BS: Colin Powell finds the 'Smoking Gun'
From: Bobert
Date: 10 Feb 03 - 11:18 AM

Well, Isreal's rejection shpould come as no surprise at all since Sharon and Bush are in lockstep. Yasser Arafat, had the US gotten behind it, would have come on board.

Like I said, T, you're looking for excuses on why peaceful solutions don't work. And so was and is the Bush administartion. They are only interested in being *the boss* and carving out what they perceive to be a new world order where the US calls all the shots.

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Colin Powell finds the 'Smoking Gun'
From: Teribus
Date: 11 Feb 03 - 04:09 AM

Bobert,

In your post you say that I am:

"....looking for excuses on why peaceful solutions don't work."

There is of course another way of viewing that. I am looking at the realities that affect the situation, the real problems.

I mentioned three participants PLO, Hamas and Israel - the first two rejected the proposal outright the Israeli's rejection was conditional. Now out of those three responses which one appears most likely to negotiate? - The Israeli response, i.e. we will talk about this provided certain conditions are met. Of the other two, the PLO could possibly have been talked round - The Hamas position is clear and intransigent - their goal is the destruction of the state of Israel. Where is the basis for negotiation?

The simple truth is that no one can impose a peace settlement on the Israeli/Palestinian conflict - the parties immediately involved have to arrive at a compromise solution. The reality of the situation, Bobert, is that at present the situation and circumstances required to get these people talking just does not exist. That is an explanation, not an excuse.

Subject: RE: BS: Colin Powell finds the 'Smoking Gun'
From: Wolfgang
Date: 11 Feb 03 - 09:03 AM

Coming back after a weekend and finding this...

I don't think that people with learning disabilities like dyslexia should be kept from participating in public debate just because of their disability, do you Wolfgang? (Carol)

No, I don't, and I thought I had never posted anything remotely similar to that. I do a lot of proofreading and I know what is expected from me: First, and foremost, to check a last time all the facts and, second, to eliminate minor errors like spelling.

In the context of my previous posts, I would have thought it was clear that spelling was not in my mind at all when tackling Bobert. Spelling only bothers me when it interferes with the understanding or with the finding of information and Bobert has done nothing wrong in this respect in his posts here in this thread. What bothers me is the wrong information and not how it is spelt.

But Bobert has for instance written 'Bagdad' instead of 'Iraq'. This is not a spelling error.

I admit it has made me angry that Bobert has in no way acknowledged the correction. I would have expected a simple three-word sentence like 'I have erred' or 'I stand corrected' but there was nothing of that kind. When I asked him again he posted that he has a busy life.

I rephrase the central sentence of my last post and avoid the word 'proofread' that may have led some of you to read something into my sentence that I had never meant:

If you are too busy to check your facts, don't post that particular post. No implications involved about (a) spelling and (b) other posts.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Colin Powell finds the 'Smoking Gun'
From: Richie
Date: 11 Feb 03 - 09:47 AM

Wolfgang,

I misunderstood your comment about Bobert's spelling. Ater all, if I took the time to spell check every post my spelling would improve.

Thanks for explaning what you meant, which I agree with.

-Richie

Subject: RE: BS: Colin Powell finds the 'Smoking Gun'
From: CarolC
Date: 11 Feb 03 - 12:03 PM

Thanks Wolfgang.

Subject: RE: BS: Colin Powell finds the 'Smoking Gun'
From: Bobert
Date: 11 Feb 03 - 12:37 PM

Now, you even got me confused as to which piece of infomation is in question. I *thought* this all started because I had referred to a "Tomahawk" as a "Patriot".

And I did make that correction.

So what else does anyone *think* needs correcting?

And, no, Teribus, I'm not asking forf a lengthy homework assignment from you unless you want one from me, thank you. And I agree with you that under the current situation is is impossibl;e to get the Isrealis and Palestinians to talk. But the operative part of your assetion is "current situation". That's waht I'm saying.

Einstein said, "One cannot solve a problem with the same consciousness that created it." Thats exactly what I have been saying and thats what the millions of people who this weekend will be marching around the world this weekend are saying. That's what Martin Luther King, Jr. was saying In Birmingham and Selma.

Bobert