🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <a19phvsgr1ljeodekfouge42gnhtje3s2j@4ax.com>,
OrionCA  <orionca@earthlink.net> wrote:
....
>Did he know it was a lie? Does ANYONE know it is a lie?  Remember, the
>British STILL stand by their intelligence reports.  

Our own CIA considered the information dubious, at best.
If our intelligence system is working properly, such
unsupported information is not used nor does it find
itself in major speeches.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0322-04.htm

>.....  The Brits were sure
>Hussein was shopping for nuclear material in Africa, Bush didn't have
>independent confirmation or would have said so.

Exactly. On the face of it, he seems to have preferred an
unvetted British report rather than the analysis of domestic
assets.

-- 
Daniel Packman
NCAR/ACD
pack@ucar.edu

On Mon, 21 Jul 2003 21:41:49 -0000, Gene <Yahoo@nowhere.com> wrote:

>Uncle Samuel <stars@bars> wrote in 
>news:lajohvcmg60ka57clhuclo2sdtiv5ghk4o@4ax.com:
>
>> On Mon, 21 Jul 2003 20:03:53 -0000, Gene <Yahoo@nowhere.com> wrote:
>> 
>>>ac@keech.net (Auld Chiel) wrote in news:114RP4nt50NF1r31219b@keech.net:
>>>
>>>> CNN
>>>> 
>>>> Democrats are launching a television ad that accuses President
>>>> Bush of misleading Americans on the nuclear threat from Iraq.
>>>> 
>>>> The ad says: "In his State of the Union address, George W. Bush
>>>> told us of an imminent threat. ... America took him at his word." 
>>>> 
>>>> The video shows Bush saying, "Saddam Hussein recently sought
>>>> significant quantities of uranium from Africa."
>>>> 
>>>> The ad continues: "But now we find out it wasn't true.
>>>> 
>>>> Republicans claim the ad improperly quotes Bush because his 
>>>> entire statement was: "The British government has learned
>>>> that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of
>>>> uranium from Africa."
>>>> 
>>>> from:
>>>> http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/07/21/democrats.bush.ap/
>>>> 
>>>>             ============================
>>>> 
>>>> So the Democrats are lying by saying Bush lied because they
>>>> want people to be upset about people lying, the opposite of
>>>> their position for previous administration.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>
>>>So repeating a lie you know a lie as if it is true is somehow not 
>lying? 
>> 
>> 
>> He had no idea it was 'lie" you idjit!
>> 
>>>Amazing how unethical you folks are.
>> 
>> Pot/kettle!
>> 
>>> He wanted to say it against the 
>>>advice of others and he did. 
>> 
>> BS, he listed numerous reasons.
>> 
>>>He did it for a reason - to hype a war. 
>> 
>> He did it to stem a threat, a very real one.
>> 
>>>Young Americans were killed in that war.
>> 
>> Yes they have been.
>> 
>>> His lying ways caused their 
>>>deaths.
>> 
>> Did he lie when he said he wanted Soddem out?
>> 
>> Did he lie when he said the guy was teror sponsor?
>> 
>> Did he lie when he said the guy was trying to restart his weapons
>> program?
>> 
>> Did he lie about the UN violations?
>> 
>> No, No, No.No.
>> 
>>> Easy, true, logical. 
>> 
>> Yes it is if liars like you would pay friggin' attention!
>> 
>> 
>>>Liars like mushrooms need the dark. 
>> 
>> So you do.
>> 
>>>The flood lights are on and I can't 
>>>wait to see how you folks explain the soon to be posted 9/11 report. 
>The 
>>>dam has to many hole to plug and the tidal wave is coming.
>>  
>> Go puss up a rope you liberal stink-brain.
>> 
>
>Let's see Your arguement is "No, No, No. No.

Basically given the facts...yes!

Grow a brain liberal, and this time don't pick the scab, 'k?

On Mon, 21 Jul 2003 22:01:21 GMT, "alohacyberian"
<alohacyberian@att.net> wrote:

>"Uncle Samuel" <stars@bars> wrote in message
>news:lajohvcmg60ka57clhuclo2sdtiv5ghk4o@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 21 Jul 2003 20:03:53 -0000, Gene <Yahoo@nowhere.com> wrote:
>> >ac@keech.net (Auld Chiel) wrote in news:114RP4nt50NF1r31219b@keech.net:
>> >
>> >So repeating a lie you know a lie as if it is true is somehow not lying?
>>
>> He had no idea it was 'lie" you idjit!
>>
>
>It wasn't a lie.

None of any of us know that yet conclusively Keith.

But if it was one man took it to his grave.

> The British and Italians are sticking by the report and
>though the French, who brokered the deal are remaining silent, they haven't
>repudiated it.  KM

I agree - it was by no definition a lie at the time the intelligence
was used.

Intelligence changes on an ongoing basis.

On Mon, 21 Jul 2003 18:05:57 -0400, "abracadabra" <abra@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>
>"alohacyberian" <alohacyberian@att.net> wrote in message
>news:RoZSa.65597$3o3.4372381@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>> "Uncle Samuel" <stars@bars> wrote in message
>> news:lajohvcmg60ka57clhuclo2sdtiv5ghk4o@4ax.com...
>> > On Mon, 21 Jul 2003 20:03:53 -0000, Gene <Yahoo@nowhere.com> wrote:
>> > >ac@keech.net (Auld Chiel) wrote in news:114RP4nt50NF1r31219b@keech.net:
>> > >
>> > >So repeating a lie you know a lie as if it is true is somehow not
>lying?
>> >
>> > He had no idea it was 'lie" you idjit!
>> >
>>
>> It wasn't a lie.  The British and Italians are sticking by the report and
>> though the French, who brokered the deal are remaining silent, they
>haven't
>> repudiated it.  KM
>
>Actually the Brits won't reveal where the information comes from.
>The CIA says it's probably false.
>Obviously there was no nuclear threat from Iraq, and Dubya lied

Is that why the Israelis bombed his last nuke facilities?

Get a clue.

On Mon, 21 Jul 2003 22:18:23 -0000, Gene <Yahoo@nowhere.com> wrote:

>"alohacyberian" <alohacyberian@att.net> wrote in
>news:RoZSa.65597$3o3.4372381@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net: 
>
>> "Uncle Samuel" <stars@bars> wrote in message
>> news:lajohvcmg60ka57clhuclo2sdtiv5ghk4o@4ax.com...
>>> On Mon, 21 Jul 2003 20:03:53 -0000, Gene <Yahoo@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>> >ac@keech.net (Auld Chiel) wrote in
>>> >news:114RP4nt50NF1r31219b@keech.net: 
>>> >
>>> >So repeating a lie you know a lie as if it is true is somehow not
>>> >lying? 
>>>
>>> He had no idea it was 'lie" you idjit!
>>>
>> 
>> It wasn't a lie.  The British and Italians are sticking by the report
>> and though the French, who brokered the deal are remaining silent,
>> they haven't repudiated it.  KM
>
>In December 2002, Prime Minister Hama Hamadou told the nation: "Iraq has 
>never bought uranium from Niger, and the Niger Government has never 
>discussed selling uranium to Iraq." 

Oh now there's a reliable person - not!

>Joseph Wilson, a former US diplomat who went to investigate the issue in 
>Niger concluded as much, saying that controls on Niger's uranium mining 
>were far too strict for any deal with Iraq to be credible.


And his expertise and biases are unimpeachable?

On Mon, 21 Jul 2003 22:41:18 +0000 (UTC), pack@eos.ucar.edu (Daniel
Packman) wrote:

>In article <lajohvcmg60ka57clhuclo2sdtiv5ghk4o@4ax.com>,
>Uncle Samuel  <stars@bars> wrote:
>
>>He had no idea it was 'lie" you idjit!
>
>There is an ongoing (over the last 30 years at least)
>problem with intelligence finding its way from the
>field to the top. There is a middle-management syndrome
>that tends to give the president the information he wants,
>not necessarily the information he needs. We saw this
>in action when the Shah was deposed leaving many here
>totally surprised.
>
>It seems that this administration is at least as bad as
>previous ones in creating this poor intelligence environment.

It actually came down to if he read and values the footnotes more than
the full text of the report.

Soddem got what he deserved - regardless of whether they found him in
bed with Arafat with a Chinese bottle rocket up his puckered bathist
butt-hole!

>....
>>Did he lie when he said he wanted Soddem out?
>
>Of course not. He said this before he took office.

Thank you.

>>Did he lie when he said the guy was teror sponsor?
>
>Not a simple answer. The connection to Al Qaida is questionable.

Nope, they were in northern Iraq and he gave them an airliner fuselage
to play terror training with.

>Intelligence answers are often subject to interpretation. In this
>case, one needed a careful analysis of just how much a terror
>sponsor he was. It is difficult to make such an analysis in the
>face of clear administration expectations.

So how much was this payment worth?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,48822,00.html

Saddam Hussein is paying $25,000 to the relatives of Palestinian
suicide bombers  a $15,000 raise much welcomed by the bombers'
families. 

Is that careful enough?

>>Did he lie when he said the guy was trying to restart his weapons
>>program?
>
>Perhaps. Evidence of such programs is limited at best.

I think buried back yard centrifuges are pretty normal...

I think it's normal to buy long range cannons from Krauts, don't you?


>>Did he lie about the UN violations?
>
>Saddam was clearly in violation of the full disclosure
>that was required, but his bluster may have been hiding nothing.

So he's guilty of playing international poker and being called?

Oh well.

Screw him.

http://www.exportcontrols.org/centpart3.html

"In the early 1990s, Karl Heinz Schaab was investigated for violating
export control laws. He was convicted of illegally exporting
centrifuge rotors to Iraq in 1993, a minor conviction at the time. In
late 1995, after receiving new information about Schaab's activities
with Iraq, the German government re-opened its criminal investigation
of him.

Following the defection of Hussein Kamel in August 1995, Iraq decided
to reveal extensive information about its entire nuclear weapons
program. A key new revelation was the extent of assistance by Schaab
and his colleagues. When the senior Iraqi gas centrifuge expert, Adel,
was asked why Iraq decided to reveal so much new information about
Schaab, he explained that he thought Schaab was in jail and already
exposed. Some Germans who knew Adel have questioned his reason,
believing instead that Adel was ordered by top Iraqi leadership to
expose Schaab. Adel and the other members of the Iraqi gas centrifuge
program had been highly committed to protecting their German sources
of assistance....

Iraq acquired, and still possesses, a remarkable amount of classified
and sensitive information about gas centrifuges. It gained
considerable experience in gas centrifuges and has had over a decade
to ponder its weaknesses and strengths.

Iraq poses a risk in that its centrifuge information could pass to
irresponsible agents or other nations, some of which may be seeking
nuclear weapons. Even advanced nations would find Iraq's centrifuge
information useful to their civil nuclear programs. Few countries have
information about 3-meter Urenco centrifuges.

The most frightening risk is that Iraq will reconstitute its
centrifuge program to make highly enriched uranium for nuclear
weapons. It would find reconstitution relatively easy to do, although
its chances of success would depend on foreign procurement and
international intervention."

On 21 Jul 2003 16:54:07 -0600, derecho@strandrix.com wrote:

> Daniel Packman <pack@eos.ucar.edu>
>>Uncle Samuel  <stars@bars> wrote:
>
>>>Did he lie about the UN violations?
>
>>Saddam was clearly in violation of the full disclosure that was required,
>>but his bluster may have been hiding nothing.
>
>This is what puzzles me.
>
>What sort of bluff does one maintain if doing so is guaranteed to result in
>one's own destruction?


Did it?

He's likely still alive, and if we sit there for 5 years playing
sniper dodge who wins?

He knew the regime was toast, now he plays martyr.

And that's a game Islamo-fascists love and venerate!

On Tue, 22 Jul 2003 01:36:29 +0000 (UTC), pack@eos.ucar.edu (Daniel
Packman) wrote:

>In article <3f1c6f0f$1_3@omega.dimensional.com>,
> <derecho@strandrix.com> wrote:
>> Daniel Packman <pack@eos.ucar.edu>
>
>>>Saddam was clearly in violation of the full disclosure that was required,
>>>but his bluster may have been hiding nothing.
>
>>This is what puzzles me.
>
>>What sort of bluff does one maintain if doing so is guaranteed to result in
>>one's own destruction?
>
>It doesn't seem logical, does it? If this is indeed what was
>happening, it might be
>
>  1. stupidity and bluster
>  2. feeling the invasion was inevitable no matter what he did
>  3. brilliant planning to entice us to invade and enter a trap
>
>Personally, I think it was some of number 1 and 2.

If any of this is #3 we are screwed.

On Tue, 22 Jul 2003 03:19:21 +0000 (UTC), pack@eos.ucar.edu (Daniel
Packman) wrote:

>In article <a19phvsgr1ljeodekfouge42gnhtje3s2j@4ax.com>,
>OrionCA  <orionca@earthlink.net> wrote:
>....
>>Did he know it was a lie? Does ANYONE know it is a lie?  Remember, the
>>British STILL stand by their intelligence reports.  
>
>Our own CIA considered the information dubious, at best.
>If our intelligence system is working properly, such
>unsupported information is not used nor does it find
>itself in major speeches.

It was but one component, and he did not say any more than what we and
others  suspected, that Soddem was looking to get some more
yellowcake.

Shoot, the Israelis proved that when they took out his last operating
facility.

>http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0322-04.htm
>
>>.....  The Brits were sure
>>Hussein was shopping for nuclear material in Africa, Bush didn't have
>>independent confirmation or would have said so.
>
>Exactly. On the face of it, he seems to have preferred an
>unvetted British report rather than the analysis of domestic
>assets.

Or he knew that the fact they guy was looking stood historical
perspective.

Well, it did, do you disagree?

Any idea how much unaccounted for nuke material from the former Soviet
republics is still "in play"?

And who was a major contract signator for those Iraqi oil fields?

Who blocked us in the UN vote?

Who are we protecting here?

"Uncle Samuel" <stars@bars> wrote in message
news:l8gphv4i6vkopkgokidf3411n3gedm1srg@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 21 Jul 2003 22:18:23 -0000, Gene <Yahoo@nowhere.com> wrote:
[...]
> >Joseph Wilson, a former US diplomat who went to investigate the issue in
> >Niger concluded as much, saying that controls on Niger's uranium mining
> >were far too strict for any deal with Iraq to be credible.
>
>
> And his expertise and biases are unimpeachable?

Well, yeah, given that the Niger document *itself* turned out to be a
forgery. You're confusing at least two sources of info here: the forged
Niger document, which was the basis for thinking that *Niger* might be
involved, and some *other* document or other evidence, which the Brits won't
show the CIA, which says that some other African country was dealing or
contemplating dealing with Saddam. Of course, we haven't seen that document,
no-one outside the British PM and his intelligence agents has seen that
document, and we don't know ANYTHING about that document except that Blair
is acting very nervous.

-- 
New definition of irony:

'Today's liberal Democrats are like the supporters of the Third Reich of the
'30's and '40's
- they absolutely trusted the government to "make things right". '
-Comment made on the internet by an ardent GW Bush supporter.

OrionCA <orionca@earthlink.net> wrote in
news:a19phvsgr1ljeodekfouge42gnhtje3s2j@4ax.com: 

> On Mon, 21 Jul 2003 20:03:53 -0000, Gene <Yahoo@nowhere.com> wrote:
> 
>>So repeating a lie you know a lie as if it is true is somehow not
>>lying? 
> 
> Did he know it was a lie? Does ANYONE know it is a lie?  Remember, the
> British STILL stand by their intelligence reports.  
> 
> If I tell people, "Gene <Yahoo@nowhere.com has told me that George W
> Bush is a pedophile.", I have not lied.  Neither have I accused GWB of
> being a pedophile.  It goes back to your credibility, not mine.  If I
> know that Gene <Yahoo@nowhere.com is a flaming loser who is still sore
> about the 2000 election and has lied constantly about GWB ever since,
> and didn't point that out as well I would be telling a "half truth",
> but it still wouldn't be a lie.  
> 
> In the current case that wouldn't be a factor:  Unlike Gene
> <Yahoo@nowhere.com the British generally have a lot of credibility.
> When they say their spooks are sure Saddam Hussein is shopping for
> yellowcake all over Africa I tend to believe them.  Tony Blair
> wouldn't wake up one morning and say, "I think I'll tell the Yanks
> that Hussein is shopping for uranium even though I know it's not true:
> It will be quite a giggle watching their faces."  Ethics aside the
> political risk would be inconceivable.
> 
>>Amazing how unethical you folks are. He wanted to say it against the 
>>advice of others and he did. He did it for a reason - to hype a war. 
>>Young Americans were killed in that war. His lying ways caused their 
>>deaths. Easy, true, logical. 
>>Liars like mushrooms need the dark. The flood lights are on and I
>>can't wait to see how you folks explain the soon to be posted 9/11
>>report. The dam has to many hole to plug and the tidal wave is coming.
> 
> There is no "lie" here to hide in the dark.  The Brits were sure
> Hussein was shopping for nuclear material in Africa, Bush didn't have
> independent confirmation or would have said so.  He probably shouldn't
> have included those 16 words in the SotU address - not because "it was
> a lie and he knew it" but because lunatics like you would jump up and
> down and squeal at the top of your lungs.  
> 
> If this was a lie and was the main reason Bush attacked Iraq then you
> should "logically" argue that we should pull our troops out of Iraq,
> apologize to Hussein, and pay reparations.  As you're not doing that
> we can only suppose that you are doing this for political advantage
> rather than moral outrage.  IE;, you want to win the next election and
> you don't care how you do it.  See sig.
> --
> "Iraq was a brilliant campaign fought with minimal 
> casualties, 11 September was a humiliating failure 
> by government to fulfill its primary role of 
> national defence. But Democrats who complained that
> Bush was too slow to act on doubtful intelligence 
> re 9/11 now profess to be horrified that he was too
> quick to act on doubtful intelligence re Iraq. This 
> is not a serious party."
> 
> http://www.spectator.co.uk/article.php3?table=old&section=current&issue
> =2003-07-19&id=3319 

First, thanks for the discussion, rarely does the normal responder reply 
with thought. I can see your point but when I ask myself why do I tend to 
disbelieve Mr. Bush rather than give him the benefit of the doubt, I find 
the totality of the package rather than the single fact leads me to 
believe he is at best misleading or at worst lying. 

I have to catch a plane weds night and don't have the time presently to 
give you the full reasons. I will be back the end of the month. I will 
provide you with the thought process that makes me draw the conclusion I 
did. I think your response deserves that. You know and I know either of 
us could be wrong the unknown in this instance is large. I hope I am the 
wrong one, this country doesn't need another Nixon or Clinton scandal. I 
fear I am right. I look forward to you convincing me I'm not.

"abracadabra" <abra@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:bfho67$ari$1@slb5.atl.mindspring.net...
> "alohacyberian" <alohacyberian@att.net> wrote in message
> news:QoZSa.65596$3o3.4373807@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> > "Auld Chiel" <ac@keech.net> wrote in message
> > news:114RP4nt50NF1r31219b@keech.net...
> > > Republicans claim the ad improperly quotes Bush because his
> > > entire statement was: "The British government has learned
> > > that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of
> > > uranium from Africa."
>
> > If that isn't an illustration of extreme desperation on the part of the
> > Democrats, I don't know what is.  Will it backfire?  KM
>
> Actually it's Democrats growing a backbone and doing to the Republicans
what
> they've been doing for years.
> One difference - the Democrats don't have to lie
>

That was so funny I got ovaltine all over my screen!  Bill Clinton didn't
lie?  Teddy Kennedy didn't lie?  Puhleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeze.  Unless, of course
you were being sarcastic.  KM
-- 
(-:alohacyberian:-)  At my website there are 3000 live cameras or
visit NASA, play games, read jokes, send greeting cards & connect
to CNN news, NBA, the White House, Academy Awards or learn all
about Hawaii, Israel and more: http://keith.martin.home.att.net/

"abracadabra" <abra@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:bfho7s$5v0$1@slb5.atl.mindspring.net...
> "alohacyberian" <alohacyberian@att.net> wrote in message
> news:RoZSa.65597$3o3.4372381@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> > "Uncle Samuel" <stars@bars> wrote in message
> > news:lajohvcmg60ka57clhuclo2sdtiv5ghk4o@4ax.com...
> > > On Mon, 21 Jul 2003 20:03:53 -0000, Gene <Yahoo@nowhere.com> wrote:
> > > >ac@keech.net (Auld Chiel) wrote in
news:114RP4nt50NF1r31219b@keech.net:
> > > >
> > > >So repeating a lie you know a lie as if it is true is somehow not
> lying?
> > >
> > > He had no idea it was 'lie" you idjit!
> >
> > It wasn't a lie.  The British and Italians are sticking by the report and
> > though the French, who brokered the deal are remaining silent, they
> haven't
> > repudiated it.  KM
>
> Actually the Brits won't reveal where the information comes from.
> The CIA says it's probably false.
> Obviously there was no nuclear threat from Iraq, and Dubya lied
>

Bush didn't say there was a nuclear threat from Iraq, he stated that
according to British intelligence Iraq had sought Uranium from Niger.  The
statement is true as it stands and you would have to be lying in order to
claim it's a lie.  KM
-- 
(-:alohacyberian:-)  At my website there are 3000 live cameras or
visit NASA, play games, read jokes, send greeting cards & connect
to CNN news, NBA, the White House, Academy Awards or learn all
about Hawaii, Israel and more: http://keith.martin.home.att.net/

"Uncle Samuel" <stars@bars> wrote in message
news:v6gphvsgl7kqjtug0l7t7s8oafpprvrvmb@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 21 Jul 2003 18:05:57 -0400, "abracadabra" <abra@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"alohacyberian" <alohacyberian@att.net> wrote in message
> >news:RoZSa.65597$3o3.4372381@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> >> "Uncle Samuel" <stars@bars> wrote in message
> >> news:lajohvcmg60ka57clhuclo2sdtiv5ghk4o@4ax.com...
> >> > On Mon, 21 Jul 2003 20:03:53 -0000, Gene <Yahoo@nowhere.com> wrote:
> >> > >ac@keech.net (Auld Chiel) wrote in
news:114RP4nt50NF1r31219b@keech.net:
> >> > >
> >> > >So repeating a lie you know a lie as if it is true is somehow not
> >lying?
> >> >
> >> > He had no idea it was 'lie" you idjit!
> >> >
> >>
> >> It wasn't a lie.  The British and Italians are sticking by the report
and
> >> though the French, who brokered the deal are remaining silent, they
> >haven't
> >> repudiated it.  KM
> >
> >Actually the Brits won't reveal where the information comes from.
> >The CIA says it's probably false.
> >Obviously there was no nuclear threat from Iraq, and Dubya lied
>
> Is that why the Israelis bombed his last nuke facilities?

Do all things happen at the same time for you? FOr most people we have
something called "the passage of time".
The Isrealis bombed the Iraqi facilities back in the early 1980's, some 20
years ago.
We have been in Iraq for months, with 100K+ soldiers, and cound nothing.
There were no nuclear weapons.
Dubya lied.

> Get a clue.

LOL - good one!

"alohacyberian" <alohacyberian@att.net> wrote in message
news:c_7Ta.67272$0v4.4484224@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> "abracadabra" <abra@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:bfho7s$5v0$1@slb5.atl.mindspring.net...
> > "alohacyberian" <alohacyberian@att.net> wrote in message
> > news:RoZSa.65597$3o3.4372381@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> > > "Uncle Samuel" <stars@bars> wrote in message
> > > news:lajohvcmg60ka57clhuclo2sdtiv5ghk4o@4ax.com...
> > > > On Mon, 21 Jul 2003 20:03:53 -0000, Gene <Yahoo@nowhere.com> wrote:
> > > > >ac@keech.net (Auld Chiel) wrote in
> news:114RP4nt50NF1r31219b@keech.net:
> > > > >
> > > > >So repeating a lie you know a lie as if it is true is somehow not
> > lying?
> > > >
> > > > He had no idea it was 'lie" you idjit!
> > >
> > > It wasn't a lie.  The British and Italians are sticking by the report
and
> > > though the French, who brokered the deal are remaining silent, they
> > haven't
> > > repudiated it.  KM
> >
> > Actually the Brits won't reveal where the information comes from.
> > The CIA says it's probably false.
> > Obviously there was no nuclear threat from Iraq, and Dubya lied
> >
>
> Bush didn't say there was a nuclear threat from Iraq, he stated that
> according to British intelligence Iraq had sought Uranium from Niger.  The
> statement is true as it stands and you would have to be lying in order to
> claim it's a lie.

NOPE
Because Dubya knew the information was not true.
That makes it a lie.
Dubya lied.

"alohacyberian" <alohacyberian@att.net> wrote in message
news:b_7Ta.67271$0v4.4483400@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> "abracadabra" <abra@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:bfho67$ari$1@slb5.atl.mindspring.net...
> > "alohacyberian" <alohacyberian@att.net> wrote in message
> > news:QoZSa.65596$3o3.4373807@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> > > "Auld Chiel" <ac@keech.net> wrote in message
> > > news:114RP4nt50NF1r31219b@keech.net...
> > > > Republicans claim the ad improperly quotes Bush because his
> > > > entire statement was: "The British government has learned
> > > > that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of
> > > > uranium from Africa."
> >
> > > If that isn't an illustration of extreme desperation on the part of
the
> > > Democrats, I don't know what is.  Will it backfire?  KM
> >
> > Actually it's Democrats growing a backbone and doing to the Republicans
> what
> > they've been doing for years.
> > One difference - the Democrats don't have to lie
> >
>
> That was so funny I got ovaltine all over my screen!  Bill Clinton didn't
> lie?

Uh, we're talking about the present, not ancient history.
Does the passage of time happen for you or do all things happen at the same
time? Just curious.

"alohacyberian" <alohacyberian@att.net> wrote in message news:<RoZSa.65597$3o3.4372381@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>...
> "Uncle Samuel" <stars@bars> wrote in message
> news:lajohvcmg60ka57clhuclo2sdtiv5ghk4o@4ax.com...
> > On Mon, 21 Jul 2003 20:03:53 -0000, Gene <Yahoo@nowhere.com> wrote:
> > >ac@keech.net (Auld Chiel) wrote in news:114RP4nt50NF1r31219b@keech.net:
> > >
> > >So repeating a lie you know a lie as if it is true is somehow not lying?
> >
> > He had no idea it was 'lie" you idjit!
> >
> 
> It wasn't a lie.  The British and Italians are sticking by the report and
> though the French, who brokered the deal are remaining silent, they haven't
> repudiated it.  KM

The French made their point that they can stand up to the United
States, in my opinion that's all they were trying to do in the first
place to show who the real leaders are for the future of Europe.  I
think that's all they cared about and never actually had anything
personal against the US.  Just politics.

"alohacyberian" <alohacyberian@att.net> wrote in message news:<e_7Ta.67274$0v4.4483966@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>...
> "Fafnir" <fritz@rodent.frell.eu.org> wrote in message
> news:d2ad972ad8ddb21509bf31146a20dcd3@remailer.frell.eu.org...
> > In article <Xns93BFBB546588FDoDahDoDah@216.168.3.44>
> > Gene <Yahoo@nowhere.com> wrote:
> > > "alohacyberian" <alohacyberian@att.net> wrote in
> > > news:RoZSa.65597$3o3.4372381@bgtnsc05-
>  news.ops.worldnet.att.net:
> > > > "Uncle Samuel" <stars@bars> wrote in message
> > > > news:lajohvcmg60ka57clhuclo2sdtiv5ghk4o@4ax.com...
> > > >> On Mon, 21 Jul 2003 20:03:53 -0000, Gene
>  <Yahoo@nowhere.com> wrote:
> > > >> >ac@keech.net (Auld Chiel) wrote in
> > > >> >news:114RP4nt50NF1r31219b@keech.net:
> >
> > I will make a bargain with the Republicans. If they stop telling
> > lies about Democrats, we will stop telling the truth about them.
> > ---Adlai Stevenson, During the 1952 presidential campaign.
> >
> 
> Dunno if you realize it, but, we never had a President Adlai Stevenson,
> probably because Americans knew a lie when they heard it.  How about some
> quotes from Al Gore?  KM


Great.  Here's a another reichwinger that thinks the Cuban Missile
Crisis wasn't real.  I swear to God some of you must need directions
on how to breathe.
  The Earth is flat, too, by the way.  Pray to the tooth fairy.

On Tue, 22 Jul 2003 07:13:18 -0400, "abracadabra" <abra@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>
>"Uncle Samuel" <stars@bars> wrote in message
>news:v6gphvsgl7kqjtug0l7t7s8oafpprvrvmb@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 21 Jul 2003 18:05:57 -0400, "abracadabra" <abra@hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"alohacyberian" <alohacyberian@att.net> wrote in message
>> >news:RoZSa.65597$3o3.4372381@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>> >> "Uncle Samuel" <stars@bars> wrote in message
>> >> news:lajohvcmg60ka57clhuclo2sdtiv5ghk4o@4ax.com...
>> >> > On Mon, 21 Jul 2003 20:03:53 -0000, Gene <Yahoo@nowhere.com> wrote:
>> >> > >ac@keech.net (Auld Chiel) wrote in
>news:114RP4nt50NF1r31219b@keech.net:
>> >> > >
>> >> > >So repeating a lie you know a lie as if it is true is somehow not
>> >lying?
>> >> >
>> >> > He had no idea it was 'lie" you idjit!
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> It wasn't a lie.  The British and Italians are sticking by the report
>and
>> >> though the French, who brokered the deal are remaining silent, they
>> >haven't
>> >> repudiated it.  KM
>> >
>> >Actually the Brits won't reveal where the information comes from.
>> >The CIA says it's probably false.
>> >Obviously there was no nuclear threat from Iraq, and Dubya lied
>>
>> Is that why the Israelis bombed his last nuke facilities?
>
>Do all things happen at the same time for you?

No, they do form a trend line however you dolt!

> FOr most people we have
>something called "the passage of time".
>The Isrealis bombed the Iraqi facilities back in the early 1980's, some 20
>years ago.

And then later in the game...

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iraq/facility/osiraq.htm

After invading Kuwait, Iraq attempted to accelerate its program to
develop a nuclear weapon by using radioactive fuel from the Osiraq
reactor. It made a crash effort in September, 1990 to recover enriched
fuel from this supposedly safe-guarded reactor, with the goal of
produced a nuclear weapon by April, 1991. The program was only halted
after Coalition air raid destroyed key facilities on 17 January 1991. 


>We have been in Iraq for months, with 100K+ soldiers, and cound nothing.

Duh, we haven't looked in Syria or Lebanon yet have we...

>There were no nuclear weapons.

Functional ones...prolly not.

Attempts to construct - certainly.

Buried centrifuges, yup.

>Dubya lied.

Did he?

Where did he say they actually had working nuke weapons?

Come on, where?

>> Get a clue.
>
>LOL - good one!

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/06/01/1054406075181.html

US officials are recovering barrels looted from Iraq's nuclear agency,
buying back containers that may be radioactive from people who were
washing clothes and storing food in them.

Angry local residents said their children had fallen ill after wearing
clothes washed in barrels once used to store processed uranium at the
Iraqi Nuclear Energy Agency and which may still have had traces of
radioactive material.

International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspectors will arrive this
week to investigate how much radioactive material was lost when
looters raided the agency's compound after US-led forces toppled
president Saddam Hussein last month.

The looters made off with the barrels, dumping the so-called "yellow
cake" uranium inside a waste disposal facility at the sprawling
complex south of Baghdad and selling them to unsuspecting residents of
the nearby Madaen district for $US2 ($3.07) each.

http://www.iraqwatch.org/wmd/nuclear.html

In May 1994 the IAEA received information indicating that Iraq had
pursued laser uranium enrichment through both molecular and atomic
vapor isotope separation...

After August 1995, the IAEA learned that Iraq had in fact made two
attempts to build a suitable vacuum chamber for AVLIS experiments, the
second of which succeeded. Moreover, the chamber was equipped with an
electron beam gun for vaporizing uranium metal...

Iraq used its Russian-supplied IRT-5000 research reactor to irradiate
(noncontinuously - to avoid detection during IAEA inspections) three
U-238 fuel elements manufactured from December 1988 to February 1989
at Iraq's Experimental Fuel Fabrication Research Laboratory (known as
ERFFL or EFFRL). Iraq also irradiated one element for 22 days between
February and April 1989, and two additional elements for 50 days
between September 1989 and January 1990...

In 1995, Iraq admitted to the IAEA that it had considered several
implosion-type bomb designs.  




You getting the picture yet brainstem?

On Tue, 22 Jul 2003 07:14:41 -0400, "abracadabra" <abra@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>
>"alohacyberian" <alohacyberian@att.net> wrote in message
>news:c_7Ta.67272$0v4.4484224@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>> "abracadabra" <abra@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:bfho7s$5v0$1@slb5.atl.mindspring.net...
>> > "alohacyberian" <alohacyberian@att.net> wrote in message
>> > news:RoZSa.65597$3o3.4372381@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>> > > "Uncle Samuel" <stars@bars> wrote in message
>> > > news:lajohvcmg60ka57clhuclo2sdtiv5ghk4o@4ax.com...
>> > > > On Mon, 21 Jul 2003 20:03:53 -0000, Gene <Yahoo@nowhere.com> wrote:
>> > > > >ac@keech.net (Auld Chiel) wrote in
>> news:114RP4nt50NF1r31219b@keech.net:
>> > > > >
>> > > > >So repeating a lie you know a lie as if it is true is somehow not
>> > lying?
>> > > >
>> > > > He had no idea it was 'lie" you idjit!
>> > >
>> > > It wasn't a lie.  The British and Italians are sticking by the report
>and
>> > > though the French, who brokered the deal are remaining silent, they
>> > haven't
>> > > repudiated it.  KM
>> >
>> > Actually the Brits won't reveal where the information comes from.
>> > The CIA says it's probably false.
>> > Obviously there was no nuclear threat from Iraq, and Dubya lied
>> >
>>
>> Bush didn't say there was a nuclear threat from Iraq, he stated that
>> according to British intelligence Iraq had sought Uranium from Niger.  The
>> statement is true as it stands and you would have to be lying in order to
>> claim it's a lie.
>
>NOPE
>Because Dubya knew the information was not true.

Prove he knew that.

>That makes it a lie.

Prove it.

>Dubya lied.

Prove it.

On Tue, 22 Jul 2003 08:23:28 -0400, Gogarty <gogarty@dublin.edu>
wrote:

>In article <c_7Ta.67272$0v4.4484224@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>, 
>alohacyberian@att.net says...
>
>>Bush didn't say there was a nuclear threat from Iraq, he stated that
>>according to British intelligence Iraq had sought Uranium from Niger.  The
>>statement is true as it stands and you would have to be lying in order to
>>claim it's a lie.  KM
>
>Would you put up with that kind of slippery crap from your kids? 

That's why we spanked Soddem.

On Mon, 21 Jul 2003 22:21:16 -0700, "Lawson English"
<english7@mindspring.com> wrote:

>
>"Uncle Samuel" <stars@bars> wrote in message
>news:l8gphv4i6vkopkgokidf3411n3gedm1srg@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 21 Jul 2003 22:18:23 -0000, Gene <Yahoo@nowhere.com> wrote:
>[...]
>> >Joseph Wilson, a former US diplomat who went to investigate the issue in
>> >Niger concluded as much, saying that controls on Niger's uranium mining
>> >were far too strict for any deal with Iraq to be credible.
>>
>>
>> And his expertise and biases are unimpeachable?
>
>Well, yeah, given that the Niger document *itself* turned out to be a
>forgery. You're confusing at least two sources of info here: the forged
>Niger document, which was the basis for thinking that *Niger* might be
>involved, and some *other* document or other evidence, which the Brits won't
>show the CIA, which says that some other African country was dealing or
>contemplating dealing with Saddam. Of course, we haven't seen that document,
>no-one outside the British PM and his intelligence agents has seen that
>document, and we don't know ANYTHING about that document except that Blair
>is acting very nervous.

Read the facts and get yer head straight.

http://www.iraqwatch.org/wmd/

On Tue, 22 Jul 2003 08:24:30 -0400, Gogarty <gogarty@dublin.edu>
wrote:

>In article <l8gphv4i6vkopkgokidf3411n3gedm1srg@4ax.com>, stars@bars says...
>>
>
>>
>>And his expertise and biases are unimpeachable?
>
>Yes, in a word.

Prove it.

On Tue, 22 Jul 2003 07:57:00 +0200, Fafnir <fritz@rodent.frell.eu.org>
wrote:

>In article <Xns93BFBB546588FDoDahDoDah@216.168.3.44>
>Gene <Yahoo@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>
>> "alohacyberian" <alohacyberian@att.net> wrote in
>> news:RoZSa.65597$3o3.4372381@bgtnsc05-
>news.ops.worldnet.att.net:
>>
>> > "Uncle Samuel" <stars@bars> wrote in message
>> > news:lajohvcmg60ka57clhuclo2sdtiv5ghk4o@4ax.com...
>> >> On Mon, 21 Jul 2003 20:03:53 -0000, Gene 
><Yahoo@nowhere.com> wrote:
>> >> >ac@keech.net (Auld Chiel) wrote in
>> >> >news:114RP4nt50NF1r31219b@keech.net:
>> >> >
>> >> >So repeating a lie you know a lie as if it is true is 
>somehow not
>> >> >lying?
>> >>
>> >> He had no idea it was 'lie" you idjit!
>> >>
>> >
>> > It wasn't a lie.  The British and Italians are sticking by 
>the report
>> > and though the French, who brokered the deal are remaining 
>silent,
>> > they haven't repudiated it.  KM
>>
>> In December 2002, Prime Minister Hama Hamadou told the nation: 
>"Iraq has
>> never bought uranium from Niger, and the Niger Government has 
>never
>> discussed selling uranium to Iraq."
>>
>> Joseph Wilson, a former US diplomat who went to investigate 
>the issue in
>> Niger concluded as much, saying that controls on Niger's 
>uranium mining
>> were far too strict for any deal with Iraq to be credible.
>
>I will make a bargain with the Republicans. 

That's OK, you'll be irrelevant anyway.

On Tue, 22 Jul 2003 10:03:54 GMT, "alohacyberian"
<alohacyberian@att.net> wrote:

>"Fafnir" <fritz@rodent.frell.eu.org> wrote in message
>news:d2ad972ad8ddb21509bf31146a20dcd3@remailer.frell.eu.org...
>> In article <Xns93BFBB546588FDoDahDoDah@216.168.3.44>
>> Gene <Yahoo@nowhere.com> wrote:
>> > "alohacyberian" <alohacyberian@att.net> wrote in
>> > news:RoZSa.65597$3o3.4372381@bgtnsc05-
>> news.ops.worldnet.att.net:
>> > > "Uncle Samuel" <stars@bars> wrote in message
>> > > news:lajohvcmg60ka57clhuclo2sdtiv5ghk4o@4ax.com...
>> > >> On Mon, 21 Jul 2003 20:03:53 -0000, Gene
>> <Yahoo@nowhere.com> wrote:
>> > >> >ac@keech.net (Auld Chiel) wrote in
>> > >> >news:114RP4nt50NF1r31219b@keech.net:
>>
>> I will make a bargain with the Republicans. If they stop telling
>> lies about Democrats, we will stop telling the truth about them.
>> ---Adlai Stevenson, During the 1952 presidential campaign.
>>
>
>Dunno if you realize it, but, we never had a President Adlai Stevenson,
>probably because Americans knew a lie when they heard it.  How about some
>quotes from Al Gore?  KM
rotflol

On 22 Jul 2003 08:46:23 -0700, eric@elcmedia.com (ELC) wrote:


>Great.  Here's a another reichwinger that thinks the Cuban Missile
>Crisis wasn't real.  

Er, huh?

Git an ear change moron.

On 22 Jul 2003 08:10:32 -0700, eric@elcmedia.com (ELC) wrote:

>"alohacyberian" <alohacyberian@att.net> wrote in message news:<RoZSa.65597$3o3.4372381@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>...
>> "Uncle Samuel" <stars@bars> wrote in message
>> news:lajohvcmg60ka57clhuclo2sdtiv5ghk4o@4ax.com...
>> > On Mon, 21 Jul 2003 20:03:53 -0000, Gene <Yahoo@nowhere.com> wrote:
>> > >ac@keech.net (Auld Chiel) wrote in news:114RP4nt50NF1r31219b@keech.net:
>> > >
>> > >So repeating a lie you know a lie as if it is true is somehow not lying?
>> >
>> > He had no idea it was 'lie" you idjit!
>> >
>> 
>> It wasn't a lie.  The British and Italians are sticking by the report and
>> though the French, who brokered the deal are remaining silent, they haven't
>> repudiated it.  KM
>
>The French made their point that they can stand up to the United
>States, in my opinion that's all they were trying to do in the first
>place to show who the real leaders are for the future of Europe.  I
>think that's all they cared about and never actually had anything
>personal against the US.  Just politics.

The French as "real leaders"???

Oh stop it, you're too funny!

"Uncle Samuel" <stars@bars> wrote in message
news:nr0rhvotbnif32cjd0pm37pc1nqm6k14un@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 21 Jul 2003 22:21:16 -0700, "Lawson English"
> <english7@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Uncle Samuel" <stars@bars> wrote in message
> >news:l8gphv4i6vkopkgokidf3411n3gedm1srg@4ax.com...
> >> On Mon, 21 Jul 2003 22:18:23 -0000, Gene <Yahoo@nowhere.com> wrote:
> >[...]
> >> >Joseph Wilson, a former US diplomat who went to investigate the issue
in
> >> >Niger concluded as much, saying that controls on Niger's uranium
mining
> >> >were far too strict for any deal with Iraq to be credible.
> >>
> >>
> >> And his expertise and biases are unimpeachable?
> >
> >Well, yeah, given that the Niger document *itself* turned out to be a
> >forgery. You're confusing at least two sources of info here: the forged
> >Niger document, which was the basis for thinking that *Niger* might be
> >involved, and some *other* document or other evidence, which the Brits
won't
> >show the CIA, which says that some other African country was dealing or
> >contemplating dealing with Saddam. Of course, we haven't seen that
document,
> >no-one outside the British PM and his intelligence agents has seen that
> >document, and we don't know ANYTHING about that document except that
Blair
> >is acting very nervous.
>
> Read the facts and get yer head straight.
>
> http://www.iraqwatch.org/wmd/

Thanks for the pointer to a dozen documents.

-- 
New definition of irony:

'Today's liberal Democrats are like the supporters of the Third Reich of the
'30's and '40's
- they absolutely trusted the government to "make things right". '
-Comment made on the internet by an ardent GW Bush supporter.

On Tue, 22 Jul 2003 13:07:17 -0700, "Lawson English"
<english7@mindspring.com> wrote:

>
>"Uncle Samuel" <stars@bars> wrote in message
>news:nr0rhvotbnif32cjd0pm37pc1nqm6k14un@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 21 Jul 2003 22:21:16 -0700, "Lawson English"
>> <english7@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Uncle Samuel" <stars@bars> wrote in message
>> >news:l8gphv4i6vkopkgokidf3411n3gedm1srg@4ax.com...
>> >> On Mon, 21 Jul 2003 22:18:23 -0000, Gene <Yahoo@nowhere.com> wrote:
>> >[...]
>> >> >Joseph Wilson, a former US diplomat who went to investigate the issue
>in
>> >> >Niger concluded as much, saying that controls on Niger's uranium
>mining
>> >> >were far too strict for any deal with Iraq to be credible.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> And his expertise and biases are unimpeachable?
>> >
>> >Well, yeah, given that the Niger document *itself* turned out to be a
>> >forgery. You're confusing at least two sources of info here: the forged
>> >Niger document, which was the basis for thinking that *Niger* might be
>> >involved, and some *other* document or other evidence, which the Brits
>won't
>> >show the CIA, which says that some other African country was dealing or
>> >contemplating dealing with Saddam. Of course, we haven't seen that
>document,
>> >no-one outside the British PM and his intelligence agents has seen that
>> >document, and we don't know ANYTHING about that document except that
>Blair
>> >is acting very nervous.
>>
>> Read the facts and get yer head straight.
>>
>> http://www.iraqwatch.org/wmd/
>
>Thanks for the pointer to a dozen documents.

You're welcome - good resource I've found.

"Uncle Samuel" <stars@bars> wrote in message
news:mvvqhv4peq9i2vovjvjmu54cod9hpek8qm@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 22 Jul 2003 07:13:18 -0400, "abracadabra" <abra@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Uncle Samuel" <stars@bars> wrote in message
> >news:v6gphvsgl7kqjtug0l7t7s8oafpprvrvmb@4ax.com...
> >> On Mon, 21 Jul 2003 18:05:57 -0400, "abracadabra" <abra@hotmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >"alohacyberian" <alohacyberian@att.net> wrote in message
> >> >news:RoZSa.65597$3o3.4372381@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> >> >> "Uncle Samuel" <stars@bars> wrote in message
> >> >> news:lajohvcmg60ka57clhuclo2sdtiv5ghk4o@4ax.com...
> >> >> > On Mon, 21 Jul 2003 20:03:53 -0000, Gene <Yahoo@nowhere.com>
wrote:
> >> >> > >ac@keech.net (Auld Chiel) wrote in
> >news:114RP4nt50NF1r31219b@keech.net:
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > >So repeating a lie you know a lie as if it is true is somehow not
> >> >lying?
> >> >> >
> >> >> > He had no idea it was 'lie" you idjit!
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> It wasn't a lie.  The British and Italians are sticking by the
report
> >and
> >> >> though the French, who brokered the deal are remaining silent, they
> >> >haven't
> >> >> repudiated it.  KM
> >> >
> >> >Actually the Brits won't reveal where the information comes from.
> >> >The CIA says it's probably false.
> >> >Obviously there was no nuclear threat from Iraq, and Dubya lied
> >>
> >> Is that why the Israelis bombed his last nuke facilities?
> >
> >Do all things happen at the same time for you?
>
> No, they do form a trend line however you dolt!

Just wondering, as you're talking about things that are over 20 years out of
date. Maybe you're just real, real old, like Grandpa Simpson.

> > FOr most people we have
> >something called "the passage of time".
> >The Isrealis bombed the Iraqi facilities back in the early 1980's, some
20
> >years ago.
>
> And then later in the game...
>
> http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iraq/facility/osiraq.htm
>
> After invading Kuwait, Iraq attempted to accelerate its program to
> develop a nuclear weapon by using radioactive fuel from the Osiraq
> reactor. It made a crash effort in September, 1990 to recover enriched
> fuel from this supposedly safe-guarded reactor, with the goal of
> produced a nuclear weapon by April, 1991. The program was only halted
> after Coalition air raid destroyed key facilities on 17 January 1991.

Still over 10 years ago.

> >We have been in Iraq for months, with 100K+ soldiers, and cound nothing.
>
> Duh, we haven't looked in Syria or Lebanon yet have we...

You advocating invading Syria, Iran, Lebanon, etc.?
And why the HELL would Saddam give his (non existant) nukes to his enemies?
Syria is no friend of Iraq, FFS.

> >There were no nuclear weapons.
>
> Functional ones...prolly not.
>
> Attempts to construct - certainly.

Or not. NO evidence.

> >Dubya lied.
>
> Did he?

Yep.

> Where did he say they actually had working nuke weapons?
>
> Come on, where?

CHeney said that Saddam was months from getting nukes. Dubya said that if we
didn't go to war NYC woiuld be nuked.

"Uncle Samuel" <stars@bars> wrote in message
news:1p0rhvoj984t38og2s6n4agloqulllblck@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 22 Jul 2003 07:14:41 -0400, "abracadabra" <abra@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"alohacyberian" <alohacyberian@att.net> wrote in message
> >news:c_7Ta.67272$0v4.4484224@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> >> "abracadabra" <abra@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >> news:bfho7s$5v0$1@slb5.atl.mindspring.net...
> >> > "alohacyberian" <alohacyberian@att.net> wrote in message
> >> > news:RoZSa.65597$3o3.4372381@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> >> > > "Uncle Samuel" <stars@bars> wrote in message
> >> > > news:lajohvcmg60ka57clhuclo2sdtiv5ghk4o@4ax.com...
> >> > > > On Mon, 21 Jul 2003 20:03:53 -0000, Gene <Yahoo@nowhere.com>
wrote:
> >> > > > >ac@keech.net (Auld Chiel) wrote in
> >> news:114RP4nt50NF1r31219b@keech.net:
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > >So repeating a lie you know a lie as if it is true is somehow
not
> >> > lying?
> >> > > >
> >> > > > He had no idea it was 'lie" you idjit!
> >> > >
> >> > > It wasn't a lie.  The British and Italians are sticking by the
report
> >and
> >> > > though the French, who brokered the deal are remaining silent, they
> >> > haven't
> >> > > repudiated it.  KM
> >> >
> >> > Actually the Brits won't reveal where the information comes from.
> >> > The CIA says it's probably false.
> >> > Obviously there was no nuclear threat from Iraq, and Dubya lied
> >> >
> >>
> >> Bush didn't say there was a nuclear threat from Iraq, he stated that
> >> according to British intelligence Iraq had sought Uranium from Niger.
The
> >> statement is true as it stands and you would have to be lying in order
to
> >> claim it's a lie.
> >
> >NOPE
> >Because Dubya knew the information was not true.
>
> Prove he knew that.

WH was told months ago.

"Gogarty" <gogarty@dublin.edu> wrote in message
news:SmmdnczwwokisYCiU-KYvg@bway.net...
> In article <c_7Ta.67272$0v4.4484224@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
> alohacyberian@att.net says...
>
> >Bush didn't say there was a nuclear threat from Iraq, he stated that
> >according to British intelligence Iraq had sought Uranium from Niger.  The
> >statement is true as it stands and you would have to be lying in order to
> >claim it's a lie.  KM
>
> Would you put up with that kind of slippery crap from your kids? Are you so
> dense you can't see the lie behind the sophistry?
>
I wouldn't subject my kids to totalitarian terror like that;  I'd be afraid
they'd grow up to be Leftwing Liberals.  *shudder*.  That's why we spanked
Saddam and will likely give Bush a lolipop come election time.  KM
-- 
(-:alohacyberian:-)  At my website there are 3000 live cameras or
visit NASA, play games, read jokes, send greeting cards & connect
to CNN news, NBA, the White House, Academy Awards or learn all
about Hawaii, Israel and more: http://keith.martin.home.att.net/

Uncle Samuel <stars@bars> wrote in message news:<s11rhv0fvkkm3uhj872umu6ia1in4mg0mo@4ax.com>...
> On 22 Jul 2003 08:10:32 -0700, eric@elcmedia.com (ELC) wrote:
> 
> >"alohacyberian" <alohacyberian@att.net> wrote in message news:<RoZSa.65597$3o3.4372381@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>...
> >> "Uncle Samuel" <stars@bars> wrote in message
> >> news:lajohvcmg60ka57clhuclo2sdtiv5ghk4o@4ax.com...
> >> > On Mon, 21 Jul 2003 20:03:53 -0000, Gene <Yahoo@nowhere.com> wrote:
> >> > >ac@keech.net (Auld Chiel) wrote in news:114RP4nt50NF1r31219b@keech.net:
> >> > >
> >> > >So repeating a lie you know a lie as if it is true is somehow not lying?
> >> >
> >> > He had no idea it was 'lie" you idjit!
> >> >
> >> 
> >> It wasn't a lie.  The British and Italians are sticking by the report and
> >> though the French, who brokered the deal are remaining silent, they haven't
> >> repudiated it.  KM
> >
> >The French made their point that they can stand up to the United
> >States, in my opinion that's all they were trying to do in the first
> >place to show who the real leaders are for the future of Europe.  I
> >think that's all they cared about and never actually had anything
> >personal against the US.  Just politics.
> 
> The French as "real leaders"???
> 
> Oh stop it, you're too funny!

Yeah keep laughing and keep forgetting they are the ones who helped us
gain independence, you ingrate.  Do you have any clue where the Statue
of Liberty came from?  Show some respect.

"abracadabra" <abra@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<bfho67$ari$1@slb5.atl.mindspring.net>...
> "alohacyberian" <alohacyberian@att.net> wrote in message
> news:QoZSa.65596$3o3.4373807@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> > "Auld Chiel" <ac@keech.net> wrote in message
> > news:114RP4nt50NF1r31219b@keech.net...
> > > CNN
> > >
> > > Democrats are launching a television ad that accuses President
> > > Bush of misleading Americans on the nuclear threat from Iraq.
> > >
> > > The ad says: "In his State of the Union address, George W. Bush
> > > told us of an imminent threat. ... America took him at his word."
> > >
> > > The video shows Bush saying, "Saddam Hussein recently sought
> > > significant quantities of uranium from Africa."
> > >
> > > The ad continues: "But now we find out it wasn't true.
> > >
> > > Republicans claim the ad improperly quotes Bush because his
> > > entire statement was: "The British government has learned
> > > that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of
> > > uranium from Africa."
>  
> > If that isn't an illustration of extreme desperation on the part of the
> > Democrats, I don't know what is.  Will it backfire?  KM
> 

abracadabra" <abra@hotmail.com

> Actually it's Democrats growing a backbone and doing to the Republicans what
> they've been doing for years.
> One difference - the Democrats don't have to lie

  Lies of omission are no different than lies of comission..unless one
is a partisan 'dem

                                                                   
T.Carr

On Tue, 22 Jul 2003 18:15:51 -0400, "abracadabra" <abra@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>
>"Uncle Samuel" <stars@bars> wrote in message
>news:mvvqhv4peq9i2vovjvjmu54cod9hpek8qm@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 22 Jul 2003 07:13:18 -0400, "abracadabra" <abra@hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Uncle Samuel" <stars@bars> wrote in message
>> >news:v6gphvsgl7kqjtug0l7t7s8oafpprvrvmb@4ax.com...
>> >> On Mon, 21 Jul 2003 18:05:57 -0400, "abracadabra" <abra@hotmail.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >"alohacyberian" <alohacyberian@att.net> wrote in message
>> >> >news:RoZSa.65597$3o3.4372381@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>> >> >> "Uncle Samuel" <stars@bars> wrote in message
>> >> >> news:lajohvcmg60ka57clhuclo2sdtiv5ghk4o@4ax.com...
>> >> >> > On Mon, 21 Jul 2003 20:03:53 -0000, Gene <Yahoo@nowhere.com>
>wrote:
>> >> >> > >ac@keech.net (Auld Chiel) wrote in
>> >news:114RP4nt50NF1r31219b@keech.net:
>> >> >> > >
>> >> >> > >So repeating a lie you know a lie as if it is true is somehow not
>> >> >lying?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > He had no idea it was 'lie" you idjit!
>> >> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >> It wasn't a lie.  The British and Italians are sticking by the
>report
>> >and
>> >> >> though the French, who brokered the deal are remaining silent, they
>> >> >haven't
>> >> >> repudiated it.  KM
>> >> >
>> >> >Actually the Brits won't reveal where the information comes from.
>> >> >The CIA says it's probably false.
>> >> >Obviously there was no nuclear threat from Iraq, and Dubya lied
>> >>
>> >> Is that why the Israelis bombed his last nuke facilities?
>> >
>> >Do all things happen at the same time for you?
>>
>> No, they do form a trend line however you dolt!
>
>Just wondering, as you're talking about things that are over 20 years out of
>date. Maybe you're just real, real old, like Grandpa Simpson.
>
>> > FOr most people we have
>> >something called "the passage of time".
>> >The Isrealis bombed the Iraqi facilities back in the early 1980's, some
>20
>> >years ago.
>>
>> And then later in the game...
>>
>> http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iraq/facility/osiraq.htm
>>
>> After invading Kuwait, Iraq attempted to accelerate its program to
>> develop a nuclear weapon by using radioactive fuel from the Osiraq
>> reactor. It made a crash effort in September, 1990 to recover enriched
>> fuel from this supposedly safe-guarded reactor, with the goal of
>> produced a nuclear weapon by April, 1991. The program was only halted
>> after Coalition air raid destroyed key facilities on 17 January 1991.
>
>Still over 10 years ago.
>
>> >We have been in Iraq for months, with 100K+ soldiers, and cound nothing.
>>
>> Duh, we haven't looked in Syria or Lebanon yet have we...
>
>You advocating invading Syria, Iran, Lebanon, etc.?

Maybe...


>And why the HELL would Saddam give his (non existant) nukes to his enemies?
>Syria is no friend of Iraq, FFS.

Money talks you moron!

Ever hear of common enemies?


>> >There were no nuclear weapons.
>>
>> Functional ones...prolly not.
>>
>> Attempts to construct - certainly.
>
>Or not. NO evidence.

Yo - idjit - buried centrifuhe=ges and long range German canons.

Damn yer a stupid fuck stain!

>> >Dubya lied.
>>
>> Did he?
>
>Yep.

Prove it ass munch!

>> Where did he say they actually had working nuke weapons?
>>
>> Come on, where?
>
>CHeney said that Saddam was months from getting nukes. 

I asked where Bush said they had working ones, you choked -.LIAR!

>Dubya said that if we
>didn't go to war NYC woiuld be nuked.

 Bullshit you little ass-burp!

On Tue, 22 Jul 2003 18:16:13 -0400, "abracadabra" <abra@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>
>"Uncle Samuel" <stars@bars> wrote in message
>news:1p0rhvoj984t38og2s6n4agloqulllblck@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 22 Jul 2003 07:14:41 -0400, "abracadabra" <abra@hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"alohacyberian" <alohacyberian@att.net> wrote in message
>> >news:c_7Ta.67272$0v4.4484224@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>> >> "abracadabra" <abra@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> >> news:bfho7s$5v0$1@slb5.atl.mindspring.net...
>> >> > "alohacyberian" <alohacyberian@att.net> wrote in message
>> >> > news:RoZSa.65597$3o3.4372381@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>> >> > > "Uncle Samuel" <stars@bars> wrote in message
>> >> > > news:lajohvcmg60ka57clhuclo2sdtiv5ghk4o@4ax.com...
>> >> > > > On Mon, 21 Jul 2003 20:03:53 -0000, Gene <Yahoo@nowhere.com>
>wrote:
>> >> > > > >ac@keech.net (Auld Chiel) wrote in
>> >> news:114RP4nt50NF1r31219b@keech.net:
>> >> > > > >
>> >> > > > >So repeating a lie you know a lie as if it is true is somehow
>not
>> >> > lying?
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > He had no idea it was 'lie" you idjit!
>> >> > >
>> >> > > It wasn't a lie.  The British and Italians are sticking by the
>report
>> >and
>> >> > > though the French, who brokered the deal are remaining silent, they
>> >> > haven't
>> >> > > repudiated it.  KM
>> >> >
>> >> > Actually the Brits won't reveal where the information comes from.
>> >> > The CIA says it's probably false.
>> >> > Obviously there was no nuclear threat from Iraq, and Dubya lied
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> Bush didn't say there was a nuclear threat from Iraq, he stated that
>> >> according to British intelligence Iraq had sought Uranium from Niger.
>The
>> >> statement is true as it stands and you would have to be lying in order
>to
>> >> claim it's a lie.
>> >
>> >NOPE
>> >Because Dubya knew the information was not true.
>>
>> Prove he knew that.
>
>WH was told months ago.


 P-R-O-V-E IT ASSHOLE!


Come on, do it!

On 22 Jul 2003 18:36:50 -0700, eric@elcmedia.com (ELC) wrote:

>Uncle Samuel <stars@bars> wrote in message news:<s11rhv0fvkkm3uhj872umu6ia1in4mg0mo@4ax.com>...
>> On 22 Jul 2003 08:10:32 -0700, eric@elcmedia.com (ELC) wrote:
>> 
>> >"alohacyberian" <alohacyberian@att.net> wrote in message news:<RoZSa.65597$3o3.4372381@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>...
>> >> "Uncle Samuel" <stars@bars> wrote in message
>> >> news:lajohvcmg60ka57clhuclo2sdtiv5ghk4o@4ax.com...
>> >> > On Mon, 21 Jul 2003 20:03:53 -0000, Gene <Yahoo@nowhere.com> wrote:
>> >> > >ac@keech.net (Auld Chiel) wrote in news:114RP4nt50NF1r31219b@keech.net:
>> >> > >
>> >> > >So repeating a lie you know a lie as if it is true is somehow not lying?
>> >> >
>> >> > He had no idea it was 'lie" you idjit!
>> >> >
>> >> 
>> >> It wasn't a lie.  The British and Italians are sticking by the report and
>> >> though the French, who brokered the deal are remaining silent, they haven't
>> >> repudiated it.  KM
>> >
>> >The French made their point that they can stand up to the United
>> >States, in my opinion that's all they were trying to do in the first
>> >place to show who the real leaders are for the future of Europe.  I
>> >think that's all they cared about and never actually had anything
>> >personal against the US.  Just politics.
>> 
>> The French as "real leaders"???
>> 
>> Oh stop it, you're too funny!
>
>Yeah keep laughing 


lolololloololollol!

All freaking day!

>and keep forgetting they are the ones who helped us
>gain independence, you ingrate.

Eat me vino breath!

That was over a century ago?

How are they on guillotines these days you fuckwit?

> Do you have any clue where the Statue
>of Liberty came from?

Yup, Renaults too!

> Show some respect.

Go hump a truffle you piss ant!

"abracadabra" <abra@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<bfj6d6$psd$1@slb0.atl.mindspring.net>...
> "alohacyberian" <alohacyberian@att.net> wrote in message
> news:b_7Ta.67271$0v4.4483400@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> > "abracadabra" <abra@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:bfho67$ari$1@slb5.atl.mindspring.net...
> > > "alohacyberian" <alohacyberian@att.net> wrote in message
> > > news:QoZSa.65596$3o3.4373807@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> > > > "Auld Chiel" <ac@keech.net> wrote in message
> > > > news:114RP4nt50NF1r31219b@keech.net...
> > > > > Republicans claim the ad improperly quotes Bush because his
> > > > > entire statement was: "The British government has learned
> > > > > that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of
> > > > > uranium from Africa."
>  
> > > > If that isn't an illustration of extreme desperation on the part of
>  the
> > > > Democrats, I don't know what is.  Will it backfire?  KM
> > >
> > > Actually it's Democrats growing a backbone and doing to the Republicans
>  what
> > > they've been doing for years.
> > > One difference - the Democrats don't have to lie
> > >
> >
> > That was so funny I got ovaltine all over my screen!  Bill Clinton didn't
> > lie?
> 
> Uh, we're talking about the present, not ancient history.
> Does the passage of time happen for you or do all things happen at the same
> time? Just curious.

I don't suppose you can read? the posting says: The Republicans have
been lying for years............I supppose the Deomcrats were not to
be included during those years?  Geez!

"abracadabra" <abra@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<bfj6d6$psd$1@slb0.atl.mindspring.net>...
> "alohacyberian" <alohacyberian@att.net> wrote in message
> news:b_7Ta.67271$0v4.4483400@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> > "abracadabra" <abra@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:bfho67$ari$1@slb5.atl.mindspring.net...
> > > "alohacyberian" <alohacyberian@att.net> wrote in message
> > > news:QoZSa.65596$3o3.4373807@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> > > > "Auld Chiel" <ac@keech.net> wrote in message
> > > > news:114RP4nt50NF1r31219b@keech.net...
> > > > > Republicans claim the ad improperly quotes Bush because his
> > > > > entire statement was: "The British government has learned
> > > > > that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of
> > > > > uranium from Africa."
>  
> > > > If that isn't an illustration of extreme desperation on the part of
>  the
> > > > Democrats, I don't know what is.  Will it backfire?  KM
> > >
> > > Actually it's Democrats growing a backbone and doing to the Republicans
>  what
> > > they've been doing for years.
> > > One difference - the Democrats don't have to lie
> > >
> >
> > That was so funny I got ovaltine all over my screen!  Bill Clinton didn't
> > lie?
> 
> Uh, we're talking about the present, not ancient history.
> Does the passage of time happen for you or do all things happen at the same
> time? Just curious.

I don't suppose you can read? the posting says: The Republicans have
been lying for years............I supppose the Deomcrats were not to
be included during those years?  Geez!

Uncle Samuel <stars@bars> wrote in message news:<6d4shvs0njgpe0c3bppdl327bcjomn35i6@4ax.com>...
> On 22 Jul 2003 18:36:50 -0700, eric@elcmedia.com (ELC) wrote:
> 
> >Uncle Samuel <stars@bars> wrote in message news:<s11rhv0fvkkm3uhj872umu6ia1in4mg0mo@4ax.com>...
> >> On 22 Jul 2003 08:10:32 -0700, eric@elcmedia.com (ELC) wrote:
> >> 
> >> >"alohacyberian" <alohacyberian@att.net> wrote in message news:<RoZSa.65597$3o3.4372381@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>...
> >> >> "Uncle Samuel" <stars@bars> wrote in message
> >> >> news:lajohvcmg60ka57clhuclo2sdtiv5ghk4o@4ax.com...
> >> >> > On Mon, 21 Jul 2003 20:03:53 -0000, Gene <Yahoo@nowhere.com> wrote:
> >> >> > >ac@keech.net (Auld Chiel) wrote in news:114RP4nt50NF1r31219b@keech.net:
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > >So repeating a lie you know a lie as if it is true is somehow not lying?
> >> >> >
> >> >> > He had no idea it was 'lie" you idjit!
> >> >> >
> >> >> 
> >> >> It wasn't a lie.  The British and Italians are sticking by the report and
> >> >> though the French, who brokered the deal are remaining silent, they haven't
> >> >> repudiated it.  KM
> >> >
> >> >The French made their point that they can stand up to the United
> >> >States, in my opinion that's all they were trying to do in the first
> >> >place to show who the real leaders are for the future of Europe.  I
> >> >think that's all they cared about and never actually had anything
> >> >personal against the US.  Just politics.
> >> 
> >> The French as "real leaders"???
> >> 
> >> Oh stop it, you're too funny!
> >
> >Yeah keep laughing 
> 
> 
> lolololloololollol!
> 
> All freaking day!
> 
> >and keep forgetting they are the ones who helped us
> >gain independence, you ingrate.
> 
> Eat me vino breath!
> 
> That was over a century ago?


Yes, you got that one right.  I suppose since our independence
happened over a century ago that doesn't matter, either.  Ha ha ha.
> 
> How are they on guillotines these days you fuckwit?
\
Who's laughing now?
> 
> > Do you have any clue where the Statue
> >of Liberty came from?
> 
> Yup, Renaults too!
> 
> > Show some respect.
> 
> Go hump a truffle you piss ant!

My, my, what a big man you are.

"Uncle Samuel" <stars@bars> wrote in message
news:9b4shv8u03lpc4dvpkc8j2do4ane6vhco7@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 22 Jul 2003 18:16:13 -0400, "abracadabra" <abra@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Uncle Samuel" <stars@bars> wrote in message
> >news:1p0rhvoj984t38og2s6n4agloqulllblck@4ax.com...
> >> On Tue, 22 Jul 2003 07:14:41 -0400, "abracadabra" <abra@hotmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >"alohacyberian" <alohacyberian@att.net> wrote in message
> >> >news:c_7Ta.67272$0v4.4484224@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> >> >> "abracadabra" <abra@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >> >> news:bfho7s$5v0$1@slb5.atl.mindspring.net...
> >> >> > "alohacyberian" <alohacyberian@att.net> wrote in message
> >> >> > news:RoZSa.65597$3o3.4372381@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> >> >> > > "Uncle Samuel" <stars@bars> wrote in message
> >> >> > > news:lajohvcmg60ka57clhuclo2sdtiv5ghk4o@4ax.com...
> >> >> > > > On Mon, 21 Jul 2003 20:03:53 -0000, Gene <Yahoo@nowhere.com>
> >wrote:
> >> >> > > > >ac@keech.net (Auld Chiel) wrote in
> >> >> news:114RP4nt50NF1r31219b@keech.net:
> >> >> > > > >
> >> >> > > > >So repeating a lie you know a lie as if it is true is somehow
> >not
> >> >> > lying?
> >> >> > > >
> >> >> > > > He had no idea it was 'lie" you idjit!
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > It wasn't a lie.  The British and Italians are sticking by the
> >report
> >> >and
> >> >> > > though the French, who brokered the deal are remaining silent,
they
> >> >> > haven't
> >> >> > > repudiated it.  KM
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Actually the Brits won't reveal where the information comes from.
> >> >> > The CIA says it's probably false.
> >> >> > Obviously there was no nuclear threat from Iraq, and Dubya lied
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> Bush didn't say there was a nuclear threat from Iraq, he stated that
> >> >> according to British intelligence Iraq had sought Uranium from
Niger.
> >The
> >> >> statement is true as it stands and you would have to be lying in
order
> >to
> >> >> claim it's a lie.
> >> >
> >> >NOPE
> >> >Because Dubya knew the information was not true.
> >>
> >> Prove he knew that.
> >
> >WH was told months ago.
>
>
>  P-R-O-V-E IT ASSHOLE!

Name calling already? It's typical when cons lose they start the name
calling.
However, the WH has already admitted that they lied.
And the WH was informed in October.
Yeeeesh, you ought to keep up with current events "asshole"

LOL

"T.Carr" <TCarr13397@aol.com> wrote in message
news:8c213b2e.0307221613.63f5b5a7@posting.google.com...
> "abracadabra" <abra@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<bfho67$ari$1@slb5.atl.mindspring.net>...
> > "alohacyberian" <alohacyberian@att.net> wrote in message
> > news:QoZSa.65596$3o3.4373807@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> > > "Auld Chiel" <ac@keech.net> wrote in message
> > > news:114RP4nt50NF1r31219b@keech.net...
> > > > CNN
> > > >
> > > > Democrats are launching a television ad that accuses President
> > > > Bush of misleading Americans on the nuclear threat from Iraq.
> > > >
> > > > The ad says: "In his State of the Union address, George W. Bush
> > > > told us of an imminent threat. ... America took him at his word."
> > > >
> > > > The video shows Bush saying, "Saddam Hussein recently sought
> > > > significant quantities of uranium from Africa."
> > > >
> > > > The ad continues: "But now we find out it wasn't true.
> > > >
> > > > Republicans claim the ad improperly quotes Bush because his
> > > > entire statement was: "The British government has learned
> > > > that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of
> > > > uranium from Africa."
> >
> > > If that isn't an illustration of extreme desperation on the part of
the
> > > Democrats, I don't know what is.  Will it backfire?  KM
> >
>
> abracadabra" <abra@hotmail.com
>
> > Actually it's Democrats growing a backbone and doing to the Republicans
what
> > they've been doing for years.
> > One difference - the Democrats don't have to lie
>
>   Lies of omission are no different than lies of comission..unless one
> is a partisan 'dem

A "lie of ommision" in a campaign advertisment is normal in the USA.
Certainly they never bothered you when Republicans have used them in past
campaigns.
However to pretend that the Democrats are being particularly awful for using
this one is just plain silly.
And I'd bet that you'd agree (if nobody were watching) that using Dubya's
quote (most of it at least) is a lot more honest then how Dubya and company
sold the "war"

::
TCarr13397@aol.com (T.Carr) wrote in message news:<8c213b2e.0307221613.63f5b5a7@posting.google.com>...
> "abracadabra" <abra@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<bfho67$ari$1@slb5.atl.mindspring.net>...
> > "alohacyberian" <alohacyberian@att.net> wrote in message
> > news:QoZSa.65596$3o3.4373807@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> > > "Auld Chiel" <ac@keech.net> wrote in message
> > > news:114RP4nt50NF1r31219b@keech.net...
> > > > CNN
> > > >
> > > > Democrats are launching a television ad that accuses President
> > > > Bush of misleading Americans on the nuclear threat from Iraq.
> > > >
> > > > The ad says: "In his State of the Union address, George W. Bush
> > > > told us of an imminent threat. ... America took him at his word."
> > > >
> > > > The video shows Bush saying, "Saddam Hussein recently sought
> > > > significant quantities of uranium from Africa."
> > > >
> > > > The ad continues: "But now we find out it wasn't true.
> > > > al owens
> > > > Republicans claim the ad improperly quotes Bush because his
> > > > entire statement was: "The British government has learned
> > > > that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of
> > > > uranium from Africa."
>  
> > > If that isn't an illustration of extreme desperation on the part of the
> > > Democrats, I don't know what is.  Will it backfire?  KM
> > 
> 
> abracadabra" <abra@hotmail.com
> 
> > Actually it's Democrats growing a backbone and doing to the Republicans what
> > they've been doing for years.
> > One difference - the Democrats don't have to lie
> 
>   Lies of omission are no different than lies of comission..unless one
> is a partisan 'dem
> 
>                                                                    
> T.Carr

"abracadabra" <abra@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<bfmk9n$ncm$1@slb6.atl.mindspring.net>...
> "T.Carr" <TCarr13397@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:8c213b2e.0307221613.63f5b5a7@posting.google.com...
> > "abracadabra" <abra@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>  news:<bfho67$ari$1@slb5.atl.mindspring.net>...
> > > "alohacyberian" <alohacyberian@att.net> wrote in message
> > > news:QoZSa.65596$3o3.4373807@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> > > > "Auld Chiel" <ac@keech.net> wrote in message
> > > > news:114RP4nt50NF1r31219b@keech.net...
> > > > > CNN
> > > > >
> > > > > Democrats are launching a television ad that accuses President
> > > > > Bush of misleading Americans on the nuclear threat from Iraq.
> > > > >
> > > > > The ad says: "In his State of the Union address, George W. Bush
> > > > > told us of an imminent threat. ... America took him at his word."
> > > > >
> > > > > The video shows Bush saying, "Saddam Hussein recently sought
> > > > > significant quantities of uranium from Africa."
> > > > >
> > > > > The ad continues: "But now we find out it wasn't true.
> > > > >
> > > > > Republicans claim the ad improperly quotes Bush because his
> > > > > entire statement was: "The British government has learned
> > > > > that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of
> > > > > uranium from Africa."
>  
> > > > If that isn't an illustration of extreme desperation on the part of
>  the
> > > > Democrats, I don't know what is.  Will it backfire?  KM
> > >
> >
> > abracadabra" <abra@hotmail.com
> >
> > > Actually it's Democrats growing a backbone and doing to the Republicans
>  what
> > > they've been doing for years.
> > > One difference - the Democrats don't have to lie
> >
> >   Lies of omission are no different than lies of comission..unless one
> > is a partisan 'dem
> 

abracadabra" <abra@hotmail.com

> A "lie of ommision" in a campaign advertisment is normal in the USA.

  So you admit the 'dem campaign is a lie?
  Its a good beginning

> Certainly they never bothered you when Republicans have used them in past
> campaigns.

  How would you know? I'm not aware of GOP ads that require the
selective parsing and editing to make their point

> However to pretend that the Democrats are being particularly awful for using
> this one is just plain silly.

  Actually the hypocrisy factor provides a high degree of humor. Your
party defends Clinton to the mat, attacks Bush about "lies" and
prompty goes on the offensive with lies of its own

> And I'd bet that you'd agree (if nobody were watching) that using Dubya's
> quote (most of it at least) is a lot more honest then how Dubya and company
> sold the "war"

  Not in the least. Parsing 16 words out of the totality of the
argument is pretty weak and lame.

  The best case for the war was provided by Thomas Freidman (NY
Times). too bad the Administration has a blind eye to everything
published there

                                                                    
T.Carr

"ELC" <eric@elcmedia.com> wrote in message
news:ebfa4074.0307230538.757646b2@posting.google.com...
> Uncle Samuel <stars@bars> wrote in message
news:<6d4shvs0njgpe0c3bppdl327bcjomn35i6@4ax.com>...
> > On 22 Jul 2003 18:36:50 -0700, eric@elcmedia.com (ELC) wrote:
> > >Uncle Samuel <stars@bars> wrote in message
news:<s11rhv0fvkkm3uhj872umu6ia1in4mg0mo@4ax.com>...
> > >> On 22 Jul 2003 08:10:32 -0700, eric@elcmedia.com (ELC) wrote:
> > >> >"alohacyberian" <alohacyberian@att.net> wrote in message
news:<RoZSa.65597$3o3.4372381@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>...
> > >> >> "Uncle Samuel" <stars@bars> wrote in message
> > >> >> news:lajohvcmg60ka57clhuclo2sdtiv5ghk4o@4ax.com...
> > >> >> > On Mon, 21 Jul 2003 20:03:53 -0000, Gene <Yahoo@nowhere.com>
wrote:
> > >> >> > >ac@keech.net (Auld Chiel) wrote in
news:114RP4nt50NF1r31219b@keech.net:

> Yes, you got that one right.  I suppose since our independence
> happened over a century ago that doesn't matter, either.  Ha ha ha.
>

You may speak for yourself and the Leftwing Liberals, but, not for the
majority.  KM
-- 
(-:alohacyberian:-)  At my website there are 3000 live cameras or
visit NASA, play games, read jokes, send greeting cards & connect
to CNN news, NBA, the White House, Academy Awards or learn all
about Hawaii, Israel and more: http://keith.martin.home.att.net/

"abracadabra" <abra@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:bfmk9n$ncm$1@slb6.atl.mindspring.net...
> "T.Carr" <TCarr13397@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:8c213b2e.0307221613.63f5b5a7@posting.google.com...
> > "abracadabra" <abra@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:<bfho67$ari$1@slb5.atl.mindspring.net>...
> > > "alohacyberian" <alohacyberian@att.net> wrote in message
> > > news:QoZSa.65596$3o3.4373807@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> > > > "Auld Chiel" <ac@keech.net> wrote in message
> > > > news:114RP4nt50NF1r31219b@keech.net...
>
> A "lie of ommision" in a campaign advertisment is normal in the USA.
> Certainly they never bothered you when Republicans have used them in past
> campaigns.
> However to pretend that the Democrats are being particularly awful for
using
> this one is just plain silly.
> And I'd bet that you'd agree (if nobody were watching) that using Dubya's
> quote (most of it at least) is a lot more honest then how Dubya and company
> sold the "war"
>

Uh, Both houses of Congress approved the war by an overwhelming majority.  If
you're suggesting that the members of Congress, who had access to the exact
same intelligence reports the president had, were fooled and were too stupid
to make a rational decision, then your indictment should be of Congress, not
the president.  *Doh!*  The bill authorizing the allied invasion of Iraq was
authored by a Democrat who is presently running for the presidential
nomination.  Double *Doh!*.  KM
-- 
(-:alohacyberian:-)  At my website there are 3000 live cameras or
visit NASA, play games, read jokes, send greeting cards & connect
to CNN news, NBA, the White House, Academy Awards or learn all
about Hawaii, Israel and more: http://keith.martin.home.att.net/

A minor point about this "Congressmen knew what the President knew." That
isn't necessarily the case since Congressmen generally wouldn't be present
at the high-level meetings where the reports were generated under the
influence of Presidential/Vice-Presidential advisors and aides.

For instance, was the "Iraq tried to purchase 550 tons of uranium from
Niger" claim made in the info presented to Congress? We now know that that
claim was deemed implausible months before the State of the Union address or
even the Joint Authorization of Use of Force.

The fact that questionable, dubious or even outright bogus info was still
creeping into Presidential speeches months after the CIA and State
Department had expressed serious or even overwhelming doubts about certain
issues (Powell's famous alleged remark "This is bullsh--" comes to mind)
suggests that the same info was being given to Congress.

Leaving aside questions about whether or not the President knew that the
info had problems, *someone* in the Administration did. The fact that the
President's handlers allowed him to make speeches including questionable
data even after they'd been informed that the data was flawed, certainly
suggests that even less care would be made to ensure that questionable data
didn't reach Congress.

In other words, Congress may have been fooled too. The questions are: Should
Congress have known better? Did someone in the Bush Administration
manipulate the intelligence given to Congress? Should there be an
investigation of this whole process? If the President didn't knowingly lie
to Congress, can we hold Congress OR the President accountable? Should we?
Why or why not?





-- 
New definition of irony:

'Today's liberal Democrats are like the supporters of the Third Reich of the
'30's and '40's
- they absolutely trusted the government to "make things right". '
-Comment made on the internet by an ardent GW Bush supporter.

"alohacyberian" <alohacyberian@att.net> wrote in message
news:4ZOTa.70429$0v4.4699065@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> "abracadabra" <abra@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:bfmk9n$ncm$1@slb6.atl.mindspring.net...
> > "T.Carr" <TCarr13397@aol.com> wrote in message
> > news:8c213b2e.0307221613.63f5b5a7@posting.google.com...
> > > "abracadabra" <abra@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:<bfho67$ari$1@slb5.atl.mindspring.net>...
> > > > "alohacyberian" <alohacyberian@att.net> wrote in message
> > > > news:QoZSa.65596$3o3.4373807@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> > > > > "Auld Chiel" <ac@keech.net> wrote in message
> > > > > news:114RP4nt50NF1r31219b@keech.net...
> >
> > A "lie of ommision" in a campaign advertisment is normal in the USA.
> > Certainly they never bothered you when Republicans have used them in
past
> > campaigns.
> > However to pretend that the Democrats are being particularly awful for
> using
> > this one is just plain silly.
> > And I'd bet that you'd agree (if nobody were watching) that using
Dubya's
> > quote (most of it at least) is a lot more honest then how Dubya and
company
> > sold the "war"
> >
>
> Uh, Both houses of Congress approved the war by an overwhelming majority.
If
> you're suggesting that the members of Congress, who had access to the
exact
> same intelligence reports the president had, were fooled and were too
stupid
> to make a rational decision, then your indictment should be of Congress,
not
> the president.  *Doh!*  The bill authorizing the allied invasion of Iraq
was
> authored by a Democrat who is presently running for the presidential
> nomination.  Double *Doh!*.  KM
> -- 
> (-:alohacyberian:-)  At my website there are 3000 live cameras or
> visit NASA, play games, read jokes, send greeting cards & connect
> to CNN news, NBA, the White House, Academy Awards or learn all
> about Hawaii, Israel and more: http://keith.martin.home.att.net/
>
>

"T.Carr" <TCarr13397@aol.com> wrote in message
> > > > Actually it's Democrats growing a backbone and doing to the
Republicans
> >  what
> > > > they've been doing for years.
> > > > One difference - the Democrats don't have to lie
> > >
> > >   Lies of omission are no different than lies of comission..unless one
> > > is a partisan 'dem
> >
>
> abracadabra" <abra@hotmail.com
>
> > A "lie of ommision" in a campaign advertisment is normal in the USA.
>
>   So you admit the 'dem campaign is a lie?
>   Its a good beginning

Any time people use part of a quote it's not exactly "honest".
However it isn't a LIE because Bush did say the words.
Certainly the IMPRESSION Dubya was trying to create was that WE KNEW that
Saddam was trying to get nuclear materials from Iraq. The FACT is that the
WH carefully choose their words so that what they said was not technicly a
lie, but correct impression. This was no accident - they wanted to mislead
the people.
So the Democrats pointing out that the WH misled the people of the USA in
his SOTU speech is OK by me.

> > Certainly they never bothered you when Republicans have used them in
past
> > campaigns.
>
>   How would you know? I'm not aware of GOP ads that require the
> selective parsing and editing to make their point

LOL
The day I see an honest Republican ad, I'll eat my cats (all four of them).
I'm surprised that you'd even say that one!

> > However to pretend that the Democrats are being particularly awful for
using
> > this one is just plain silly.
>
>   Actually the hypocrisy factor provides a high degree of humor. Your
> party defends Clinton to the mat, attacks Bush about "lies" and
> prompty goes on the offensive with lies of its own

Totally untrue.
I don't recall a single Democrat excusing President Clinton for the "Ah
nevah had mah dick sucked by that woman" lie. Not once. I don't recall
people saying "well, he really meant....." or "he was told this last
October...". President Clinton was roundly (and rightly) dumped on for that
whopper.
Of course, that lie doesn't compare to
"we're winning the Vietnam War"
"we're not trading arms for hostages"
"Tax cuts will not raise deficit spending"
"THomas is the most qualified person we could find for the USSC"
etc.
SOmehow you guys find none of those lies damaging or bad, but lying about a
BJ is the WORST LIE IN HISTORY.

> > And I'd bet that you'd agree (if nobody were watching) that using
Dubya's
> > quote (most of it at least) is a lot more honest then how Dubya and
company
> > sold the "war"
>
>   Not in the least. Parsing 16 words out of the totality of the
> argument is pretty weak and lame.

Well, the rest of Dubya's argument had fallen apart, so "those 16 words" are
important.
And they weren't parsed very much - Dubya was trying to say that Iraq was
getting nuclear materials from Niger, something we KNEW was based on very
questionable information.
Are you saying that the WH was being honest?

>   The best case for the war was provided by Thomas Freidman (NY
> Times).

And that same case can be made for Liberia, Congo, Burma, etc.
You volunteering to go over and save those people? Seems like we can't even
keep the peace in Afganistan and Iraq, and over 1/2 of our army is now
overseas (which is totally against standing US policy).

Later :-)

"alohacyberian" <alohacyberian@att.net> wrote in message
news:4ZOTa.70429$0v4.4699065@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> "abracadabra" <abra@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:bfmk9n$ncm$1@slb6.atl.mindspring.net...
> > "T.Carr" <TCarr13397@aol.com> wrote in message
> > news:8c213b2e.0307221613.63f5b5a7@posting.google.com...
> > > "abracadabra" <abra@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:<bfho67$ari$1@slb5.atl.mindspring.net>...
> > > > "alohacyberian" <alohacyberian@att.net> wrote in message
> > > > news:QoZSa.65596$3o3.4373807@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> > > > > "Auld Chiel" <ac@keech.net> wrote in message
> > > > > news:114RP4nt50NF1r31219b@keech.net...
> >
> > A "lie of ommision" in a campaign advertisment is normal in the USA.
> > Certainly they never bothered you when Republicans have used them in
past
> > campaigns.
> > However to pretend that the Democrats are being particularly awful for
> using
> > this one is just plain silly.
> > And I'd bet that you'd agree (if nobody were watching) that using
Dubya's
> > quote (most of it at least) is a lot more honest then how Dubya and
company
> > sold the "war"
> >
>
> Uh, Both houses of Congress approved the war by an overwhelming majority.

Based on false information.

"abracadabra" <abra@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:bfras7$750$1@slb4.atl.mindspring.net...
> "alohacyberian" <alohacyberian@att.net> wrote in message
> news:oc7Ua.70630$3o3.4746882@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> > So Congress is not responsible for their actions?
>
> Uhm, your "president" is supposed to be the "leader"
> While I believe that COngress mostly knew that Iraq was no threat, and that
> the war was pure politics, they were still given false information.
>
> But, the president who had
> > the same information is responsible for his actions?  Nice try.  KM
>
> It's silly and ignorant of you to assume that the congress and the
> "president" have access to the same levels of information. Certainly
members
> of the "intelligence" committee might have access to some of the same level
> of info
>
Touche.  The members of the Intelligence Committee voted unaminously for the
bill to invade Iraq that was authored by a Democrat who is presently running
for the presidential nomination.  And they're not responsible for their
actions?  Only the president is responsible for his actions.  Tens of
thousands of Iraqis thank their lucky stars daily for the actions of George
W. Bush, Tony Blair and the allied troops.  KM
-- 
(-:alohacyberian:-)  At my website there are 3000 live cameras or
visit NASA, play games, read jokes, send greeting cards & connect
to CNN news, NBA, the White House, Academy Awards or learn all
about Hawaii, Israel and more: http://keith.martin.home.att.net/