The State of the Union: Lies about a Dishonest War

"Hugh Gibbons" wrote in message
...

The burden of proof is on those who say that such a thing exists,
despite efforts which to date have found nothing.


Agree. But not finding significant WMD to date does not mean they don't
exist, though many insist that it does.

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:
Agree. But not finding significant WMD to date does not mean they don't
exist, though many insist that it does.

Prior to the illegal invasion of Iraq. the Bush regime claimed to have
specific evidence of WMDs and nuclear programme. So much so that it was an
immediate threath, with Hussein capable of launching such weapons within 45 minutes.

Prior to the illegal invasion of Iraq, the USA was systematically discrediting
Hans Blix and the UN inspectors stating that they were incompetent and
couldn't find anything. Yet Blix has stated that every piece of evidence that
was handed to him by the USA turned out to be a total waste of time because
there were no signs of any illicit activity.

So it would seem that the USA didn't have any real evidence and just
fabricated stuff to make it appear to be a real threath. This was well known
outside the USA. Media outside the USA were quick to provide complelling
reasons why the Februiary 5th 2003 evidence prsented by Powel at the UN was
not credible. Yet in the USA, the media took Powel's speech as a bible and
never questioned the validity of the presented evidence.

When a few weeks later, ElBaradei, in front of the security council, announced
that they had obtained proof that the so called evidence on nuclear weapons
had been ***fabricated*** , neither the USA media nor the democrats pounced on
the Bush regime. That alone should have started impeachement process with a
Ken Star to investigate the activities of the Bush regime.

Finding out who fabricated the evidence should be been the top stories in the
USA media until it was resolved.

And now that it is evident that there are no WMDs left in Iraq and that 9
months of inspectiosn by thousands of americans have yielded nothing, don't
you think that the regime which made all those claims to justify its
unprovoked invasion of Iraq should be held accountable for its lies ?

This isn't some financial fraud that caused shareholders to lose money. This
is the destruction of a country's infrastructure and the loss of about 10,000
lives, 3 times more than were lost on Sept 11.

You say Bin Laden is a terrible butcher. Well, Bush killed 3 times as many for
no reason. He should be labeled a terrorrist too. His motives were just as
false as Bin Laden's motives were.

And consider this: Americans despise Bin Laden for what he has done to the
USA. Arabs despise the USA just as much as Americans despise Bin laden. And
guess what that means: more arabs will be motivated to join terrorist
organisation to fight back.

What is needed in the world now is some military balance. Either the USA's
military must be crippled, or other countries must mount a military that can
stop the americans from abusing their military power.

Why do you think Rumsfeld was ****ting in his pants when he heard thaty the EU
wants to build its own military that is separate from NATO and thus not
controlled by the USA ?

"nobody" wrote in message
...

Prior to the illegal invasion of Iraq. the Bush regime claimed to have
specific evidence of WMDs and nuclear programme. So much so that
it was an immediate threath, with Hussein capable of launching such
weapons within 45 minutes.


How was this invasion illegal? What law was violated?



Prior to the illegal invasion of Iraq, the USA was systematically
discrediting Hans Blix and the UN inspectors stating that they were
incompetent and couldn't find anything. Yet Blix has stated that every
piece of evidence that was handed to him by the USA turned out to be
a total waste of time because there were no signs of any illicit activity.

So it would seem that the USA didn't have any real evidence and just
fabricated stuff to make it appear to be a real threath.


What is your evidence that the USA fabricated evidence?



This was well known outside the USA. Media outside the USA were
quick to provide complelling reasons why the Februiary 5th 2003
evidence prsented by Powel at the UN was not credible. Yet in the
USA, the media took Powel's speech as a bible and never questioned
the validity of the presented evidence.

When a few weeks later, ElBaradei, in front of the security council,
announced that they had obtained proof that the so called evidence
on nuclear weapons had been ***fabricated*** , neither the USA
media nor the democrats pounced on the Bush regime. That alone
should have started impeachement process with a Ken Star to
investigate the activities of the Bush regime.


Well, knowing the Democrats and the USA media as I do, if this announcement
had any credibility at all they WOULD have pounced on the Bush
administration.



And now that it is evident that there are no WMDs left in Iraq


How is that evident?



and that 9 months of inspectiosn by thousands of americans have yielded
nothing,


They have yielded little, but not nothing.



don't
you think that the regime which made all those claims to justify its
unprovoked invasion of Iraq should be held accountable for its lies ?


While it is becoming clear that they were probably wrong, it is also clear
they were not lies.

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
ink.net...

Good lawdy, you can easily tell you're a republican. An excuse for
everything, and someone else to blame!

"None" wrote in message
ink.net...

Good lawdy, you can easily tell you're a republican.


It appears you can't, as I am not now and have never been a Republican.

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
ink.net...

"None" wrote in message
ink.net...

Good lawdy, you can easily tell you're a republican.


It appears you can't, as I am not now and have never been a Republican.

But you quack like one......what else could you be? (^-^)))

"George Z. Bush" wrote in message
...

But you quack like one......what else could you be? (^-^)))


I'm a classic liberal.

"None" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
ink.net...

Good lawdy, you can easily tell you're a republican. An excuse for
everything, and someone else to blame!

You've noticed! And not just once in a while, but always. (^-^)))

George Z.

From: "None"
Date: 1/30/2004 1:21 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id: . net


"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
link.net...

Good lawdy, you can easily tell you're a republican. An excuse for
everything, and someone else to blame!

The Democrats, Libertarians and all the other parties do it too.

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

Agree. But not finding significant WMD to date does not mean they don't
exist, though many insist that it does.

How do you feel about fairies dancing on your front lawn?

What I don't understand is why the US has not planted WMD in Iraq so
that they could find them.

They have been lying all alone. What is one more?

--
Stephen

I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians
are so unlike your Christ.
Mohandas Gandhi