From: rrufiange@cfl.rr.com   
      
   "rl"  wrote in message   
   news:i82Eb.57790$cQ.6187@okepread05...   
   > > Funny, the administration didn't elaborate on that when they condemned   
   > > Saddam and his troops the first time.  I wonder why?   
   >   
   > Maybe they thought anyone who possessed $0.02 worth of common sense would   
   > know the difference?   
      
   Are you saying that they'd actually trust the public to draw it's own   
   conclusions so close to the re-election?  I doubt it.   
      
   > I guess they could have not shown him at all, too, and just announced to   
   > everyone that they had him.  Or they could have pulled out some old   
   archive   
   > stuff from back when he was in power and said, "This is the guy we   
   caught!"   
   >   
   > There are an infinite number of other possibilities they "could" have   
   done.   
   >   
   > But the bottom line is they chose to prove to the world, and more   
   > importantly, the Iraqi people that we had, indeed caught him, and that he   
   > was being afforded basic, humane health care.   
      
   And they couldn't have proven they caught him without showing him being   
   picked at for headlice?  I'd love to get paid afew grand for a candid shot   
   of some celebrity in an inopportune moment, but I'd not be following them to   
   a doctor's office to catch them being swabbed for a throat culture.   
      
   They could have waited till afterwards, or filmed the guy when they caught   
   him.  They did have a CNN reporter along for the ride, or so it's been said.   
   Why not film Saddam at any other time?  Why was it so damned important to   
   show him being treated like a pet at the veterinary clinic?   
      
   > > > But then, I'm sure that there are some out there who would choose to   
   > > > question any/every step we take as a nation.   
   > >   
   > > It's a right we have under the Constitution.  The right to question our   
   > > government's actions and choices.  You should look into that sometime.   
   >   
   > I was wondering when the discussion would begin to slant into a personal   
   > attack.  It never seems to be a long wait when you're talking with one of   
   > the Bush-Bashers.   
      
   You start talking about people questioning what we do as a nation, I explain   
   it's a right,   
   and that becomes a "personal attack" from me?  Explain.   
      
   > Funny how quick you are to shield yourself behind the same Constitution   
   that   
   > was followed to place President Bush in Office.   
      
   That's assuming he was voted in legally.  That has not been categorically   
   proven.  In fact, the recount, which would have verified it one way or the   
   other, was cancelled.   
      
   I'm not saying he didn't get into his position legally, just pointing out   
   the facts of the matter.  I'm not shielding myself behind the Constitution.   
   I merely mentioned the right to question our government's actions is   
   guaranteed.  What's wrong?   
      
   > > > Some of them still can't get over the Florida thing.  They just can't   
   > > figure   
   > > > out why we followed the guidelines set forth by the Constitution.   
   > >   
   > > Any special reason why you brought up Florida?  I sure didn't.   
   >   
   > It's my Right under the Constitution to talk about anything I like.   
   > Remember?   
   > Or do you have a special, secret, Constitution On/Off switch attached to   
   > your keyboard so that you can make sure it is always "on" for you and   
   "off"   
   > for me?   
      
   Again, what's so damn special about Florida?  You claim it's your right to   
   talk about anything you like, so talk.  I'm listening.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)