Liar Liar Pants On Fire Dept: Moller

On Sep 8, 6:58 am, Mark Hickey wrote:
Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

Bush is a liar. A chronic habitual liar.

And here I gave you an opportunity to actually back up your assertion
by providing only ONE of the "umpteum" examples that you were
absolutely sure about... yet, you didn't provide a single example to
back up your claim.

Yes I did, and you pretending not to notice or trying to narrow it as
if it were a barroom bet doen't alter that.


and if you expect me to believe any of this crap, so are you.

Throwing in the towel, huh, Bertie?

Moi?

You don't know me very well, do you?

Those who are actually interested
in knowing the facts often thank me for providing the facts and some
perspective, even if they don't align with their political perspective
or agenda.

Guess you're not one of them.

That's right, i'm not going to thank you for provinding me with the
"facts"

as if you'd know one if it bit you in the ass.


I wasn't cvommenting on your poloitical perspective or agenda, just
yuor idiocy.

Mark "willful ignorance is a sad thing" Hickey

I dunno, in your case i find it immensely entertaining.


Bertie

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

On Sep 8, 6:58 am, Mark Hickey wrote:

Those who are actually interested
in knowing the facts often thank me for providing the facts and some
perspective, even if they don't align with their political perspective
or agenda.

Guess you're not one of them.

That's right, i'm not going to thank you for provinding me with the
"facts"

as if you'd know one if it bit you in the ass.

Yeah, it's really subjective posting direct quotes from the UNMOVIC
report. LOL. You're the one who can't back up his claim.

I wasn't cvommenting on your poloitical perspective or agenda, just
yuor idiocy.

Mark "willful ignorance is a sad thing" Hickey

I dunno, in your case i find it immensely entertaining.

Hey, it's giving me the chance to correct some people's misperception
of the events of 2003. You're just the comic relief.

Mark "I know you're not REALLY as dumb as you come off" Hickey

On Sep 9, 4:18 pm, Mark Hickey wrote:
Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

On Sep 8, 6:58 am, Mark Hickey wrote:
Those who are actually interested
in knowing the facts often thank me for providing the facts and some
perspective, even if they don't align with their political perspective
or agenda.

Guess you're not one of them.

That's right, i'm not going to thank you for provinding me with the
"facts"

as if you'd know one if it bit you in the ass.

Yeah, it's really subjective posting direct quotes from the UNMOVIC
report. LOL. You're the one who can't back up his claim.

I wasn't cvommenting on your poloitical perspective or agenda, just
yuor idiocy.

Mark "willful ignorance is a sad thing" Hickey

I dunno, in your case i find it immensely entertaining.

Hey, it's giving me the chance to correct some people's misperception
of the events of 2003. You're just the comic relief.


Yeah, sure liar boi .

Nice snypping BTW, pussy boi.



Bertie

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

On Sep 9, 4:18 pm, Mark Hickey wrote:
Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

On Sep 8, 6:58 am, Mark Hickey wrote:
Those who are actually interested
in knowing the facts often thank me for providing the facts and some
perspective, even if they don't align with their political perspective
or agenda.

Guess you're not one of them.

That's right, i'm not going to thank you for provinding me with the
"facts"

as if you'd know one if it bit you in the ass.

Yeah, it's really subjective posting direct quotes from the UNMOVIC
report. LOL. You're the one who can't back up his claim.

I wasn't cvommenting on your poloitical perspective or agenda, just
yuor idiocy.

Mark "willful ignorance is a sad thing" Hickey

I dunno, in your case i find it immensely entertaining.

Hey, it's giving me the chance to correct some people's misperception
of the events of 2003. You're just the comic relief.


Yeah, sure liar boi .

Nice snypping BTW, pussy boi.

I'm not the one cowering behind a screen name. You are.

And since you've still not been able to refute a single thing I've
said (since they were 100% historical fact from the actual document),
I'll just suggest you're not worth any more effort on my part to
remove your willful ignorance of history.

Carry on.

Mark "you can lead a horse to water" Hickey

Mark Hickey wrote:
[...] willful ignorance of history.

Speaking of history (and ignorance, I suppose), I believe _the_ reason
stated for invading Iraq was to neutralize their WMD. None found. So why
are U.S. forces still occupying that country? Isn't the job done? Shouldn't
we have ended this cosmic tragi-comedy years ago something like this:

"And so the Great Powers and the people of Shanklin, Isle of Wight, drew
their net in ever-tightening circles around the most dangerous threat to
peace the world has ever faced. They bombed Cairo, Bangkok, Cape Town,
Buenos Aires, Harrow, Hammersmith, Stepney, Wandsworth and Enfield... But
always it was the wrong place.

Cut to an area of smoking rubble. A van with the words 'US Air Force' on
the side trundles through the rubble. It has a loudspeaker on the top of
it.

Loudspeaker: Sorry Enfield!... We apologize for any inconvenience caused by
our bombing... sorry..."




....but always it was the wrong place....

In article ,
Jim Logajan wrote:

Mark Hickey wrote:
[...] willful ignorance of history.

Speaking of history (and ignorance, I suppose), I believe _the_ reason
stated for invading Iraq was to neutralize their WMD.

Nope. It was one of a list of a dozen or sixteen items, and not the
first on the list. Mind, the press in general grabbed that one item and
ran with it, pretty much ignoring the rest of the list, including things
like Iraq's open and long-time ongoing support for terrorism all over
the place, having started and fought a couple three wars with neighbors,
and so on.

None found.

Not quite. Actually several bits, here and there, mostly leftovers from
the Iran/Iraq matches of the 80s.

Don't forget that essentially every national (as in various nations in
both hemispheres) intelligence service figured from the evidence they
managed to dig up that if they didn't have WMDs in stock and ready to
use (the majority consensus), they could gin 'em up pretty quickly. Iraq
certainly showed no reluctance to use chemical weapons in particular
against either the Iranians or against various of their own citizens.
Repeatedly.

Heck, Saddam's generals pretty much all believed that he had them; and
the division next to them had the weapons. They were wrong on that, but
he had his own military going there.

This is all open-source information.

So why are U.S. forces still occupying that country?

See below.

Isn't the job done?

Nope.

Wouldn't make much sense to drop things and let some Saddam wannabe
start the whole thing over again.

The last few months, if you talk to those serving on the the ground,
things have been turning around a bit; enough in some used-to-be very
bad areas that the politicians have a chance to get a grip. If progress
continues in this vein, maybe some other of the politicians and
bureaucrats might be able to get their collective thumbs out and get
something done right.

On Sep 10, 8:43 am, Steve Hix
wrote:
In article ,
Jim Logajan wrote:

Mark Hickey wrote:
[...] willful ignorance of history.

Speaking of history (and ignorance, I suppose), I believe _the_ reason
stated for invading Iraq was to neutralize their WMD.

Nope. It was one of a list of a dozen or sixteen items, and not the
first on the list. Mind, the press in general grabbed that one item and
ran with it, pretty much ignoring the rest of the list, including things
like Iraq's open and long-time ongoing support for terrorism all over
the place, having started and fought a couple three wars with neighbors,
and so on.

In that case they should have invaded England first.



Bertie

On Sep 10, 6:43 am, Steve Hix
wrote:
In article ,
Jim Logajan wrote:

Mark Hickey wrote:
[...] willful ignorance of history.

Speaking of history (and ignorance, I suppose), I believe _the_ reason
stated for invading Iraq was to neutralize their WMD.

Nope. It was one of a list of a dozen or sixteen items, and not the
first on the list.

How about if you refer us to that specific list? That way
we can check on how many of those 16 items have been
addressed.

Mind, the press in general grabbed that one item and
ran with it, pretty much ignoring the rest of the list, including things
like Iraq's open and long-time ongoing support for terrorism all over
the place,

"All over the place?" Where, besides Israel?


having started and fought a couple three wars with neighbors,
and so on.

Two, I think, see below.


None found.

Not quite. Actually several bits, here and there, mostly leftovers from
the Iran/Iraq matches of the 80s.

Don't forget that essentially every national (as in various nations in
both hemispheres) intelligence service figured from the evidence they
managed to dig up that if they didn't have WMDs in stock and ready to
use (the majority consensus), they could gin 'em up pretty quickly.

What they said, and what they thought, are not necessarily the
same. Deception is an essential component of intelligence
activities.

Iraq
certainly showed no reluctance to use chemical weapons in particular
against either the Iranians or against various of their own citizens.
Repeatedly.


It is important to note that hte last use of Iraqi WMD was in 1989,
thirteen years prior to the invasion. While he might have been
able to 'gin them up quickly' we were also capable of bombing
the crap out of him, even quicker.

By 2003, Iraq lad lost the capacity to threaten military action
against neighboring states. Saddam Hussein didn't even
control the Northern third of his own country, and couldn't
fly a military aircraft over or turn on a military radar in two
thirds of his country without having it shot down or blown
up.

--

FF

On Sep 10, 6:24 am, Mark Hickey wrote:
Bertie the Bunyip wrote:





On Sep 9, 4:18 pm, Mark Hickey wrote:
Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

On Sep 8, 6:58 am, Mark Hickey wrote:
Those who are actually interested
in knowing the facts often thank me for providing the facts and some
perspective, even if they don't align with their political perspective
or agenda.

Guess you're not one of them.

That's right, i'm not going to thank you for provinding me with the
"facts"

as if you'd know one if it bit you in the ass.

Yeah, it's really subjective posting direct quotes from the UNMOVIC
report. LOL. You're the one who can't back up his claim.

I wasn't cvommenting on your poloitical perspective or agenda, just
yuor idiocy.

Mark "willful ignorance is a sad thing" Hickey

I dunno, in your case i find it immensely entertaining.

Hey, it's giving me the chance to correct some people's misperception
of the events of 2003. You're just the comic relief.

Yeah, sure liar boi .

Nice snypping BTW, pussy boi.

I'm not the one cowering behind a screen name. You are.

Bwaahwahwahwhahwhahwhhawhahwhahwhahwhahwhahwhahwha hwha|!




And since you've still not been able to refute a single thing I've
said (since they were 100% historical fact from the actual document),
I'll just suggest you're not worth any more effort on my part to
remove your willful ignorance of history.


Yeah, i'm sure that's it.






Carry on.

Mark "you can lead a horse to water"

But you can't make him think.



Bertie