[xzins]

I just listened to O'Reilly's last segment with Stephen Hayes, author of a book about the Connection between Al Qaeda and Iraq. He did an excellent, rational job of presenting the case. Tons of evidence that the media glitterati ignore or demean.

O'Reilly seemed perplexed as to why the Bush Administration isn't pushing this Terrorism angle.

He also stated that there'd be a major story in this area breaking tomorrow. (I don't know if he's just building up his show, or if something's afoot. Perhaps this very story of this very thread is what he's going to put front and center.)

The racetrack is where I spent a lot of my youth with my dad, a Baptist who was also a great lover of horses. (He wasn't much of a gambler....if he spent $12 in a day, that was a lot....to include parking and entrance.)

In any case, if you bet a horse to place or to show and it wins, then you get paid. If you bet it to win, and it doesn't, then you start looking at the Racing Form to the horses in the next race.

Bush boxed his bets, but, in my opinion, his WIN money was INITIALLY & ALWAYS placed on those who aided/abetted/harbored terrorists. WMDs was his show horse. It's fighting its way down the stretch, but it looks like, with the sarin bomb, precurser chemicals, and wmd programs, that it's gonna come in at least in the show position.

Bush wins on both bets.

Not bad for a dyslexic Texic Cowboy.

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

In any case, if you bet a horse to place or to show and it wins, then you get paid. If you bet it to win, and it doesn't, then you start looking at the Racing Form to the horses in the next race. Bush boxed his bets, but, in my opinion, his WIN money was INITIALLY & ALWAYS placed on those who aided/abetted/harbored terrorists. WMDs was his show horse. It's fighting its way down the stretch, but it looks like, with the sarin bomb, precurser chemicals, and wmd programs, that it's gonna come in at least in the show position. Bush wins on both bets. Not bad for a dyslexic Texic Cowboy.

Interpretations, interpretations.

Which Horse was bet to win?

Answer me this: in Speeches to the American Public, the UN, the "International Community" -- how many times did Bush and his Administration Officials mention the words "Weapons of Mass Destruction", and how many times did they mention the words "Salman Pak"? Feel free to run a Lexus-Nexus search, and get back to me... I'm pretty sure I'm right.

"WMD"s were fronted as the Big, Scary "War Admiral" which was intended to Win the day -- and the Big Horse barely even Showed.

Fortunately, the almost-forgotten "Sea Biscuit" Nag -- the barely-mentioned "Anti-Terrorism" Case -- not only paid back it's status as a "hedged bet", it's proving Day after Day to be the one, legitimate, incontestable FACT of this whole operation which is First Across the Finish Line.

It's a very American story, really -- always bet on the Underdog.

The Neo-Cons played their "War Admiral" WMD Case to the Brink ("Smoking Gun a Mushroom Cloud"? "Thousands of Barrels of Poison Gas"? "Able to strike in 45 minutes"? don't make me laugh!), and frankly -- they failed Our President, and they look like fools...

But coming down the home-stretch, here comes "SeaBiscuit" -- the oft-neglected "Anti-Terrorist" Case -- and it's all true. Salman Pak, Abu Nidal, Mohammed Atta... it's all true, and SeaBiscuit clears the Finish Line!!

Which just goes to prove... SeaBiscuit should've always been our first bet -- Simple, Anti-Terrorist Justice before any UN complications and Messianic Nation-Building -- and after Abu Ghraib, the Neo-Cons should be retired to pasture.

best, OP