The State of the Union: Lies about a Dishonest War

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
"George Z. Bush" wrote in message
...

Why don't you show your numbers to prove your point before you ask
someone else to show theirs? Hell, if you can prove your point with
your numbers, they won't have to bother showing theirs, unless you've
been cooking the books.


I showed the numbers in my previous message, Georgie.

I don't know how I missed it.....I usually hang on your every word.

Anyway, if you proved your point, why don't you just move on instead on
mince-meating the subject? If you're satisfied that you've got it right, why is
it so important to you to make the other guy out to be wrong? Isn't being right
in your own mind good enough for you? Maybe you're not that sure of yourself.
Is that it?

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

Anyway, if you proved your point, why don't you just move on instead on
mince-meating the subject?


Devil asked a follow-up question. Take it up with him.



If you're satisfied that you've got it right, why is
it so important to you to make the other guy out to be wrong?


I should ignore follow-up questions asked of me? Why?



Isn't being right in your own mind good enough for you?


I feel the need to help my fellow man understand.



Maybe you're not that sure of yourself.
Is that it?


Nope.

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

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

Anyway, if you proved your point, why don't you just move on instead on
mince-meating the subject?


Devil asked a follow-up question. Take it up with him.

I must have missed it, so I'm taking it up with you. Any good reason for the
Texas two step?



If you're satisfied that you've got it right, why is
it so important to you to make the other guy out to be wrong?


I should ignore follow-up questions asked of me? Why?

Why not?



Isn't being right in your own mind good enough for you?


I feel the need to help my fellow man understand.

All together now and not too loud: bulllllllllllshiiiiiiiiit!!



Maybe you're not that sure of yourself.
Is that it?


Nope.

Then what is it?

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

"Jenn" wrote in message
...

and in spite of Bush's recent lies on the subject -- inspectors were in
Iraq helping to enforce that policy when the US decided a war would be
more fun and more politically expedient


What are Bush's recent lies on the subject?

How about today's goody: We weren't threatened by Sadaam's WMDs, it was his
plans to have them that drove us to war. Being threatened by weapons that
didn't exist was at least credible, but being threatened by plans to get those
weapons?

When will you give up and stop swallowing every bit of pap they put in your
mouth? It's not unpatriotic to question him.....it's unpatriotic not to
question him when he has so much trouble coming up with a believable answer.

And we're not talking about a blow job now; this is a lot more important!!!

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

When will you give up and stop swallowing every bit of pap they put in
your
mouth?


I'm by nature quite skeptical, especially when it comes to government. The
fact remains nobody has demonstrated any Bush statement to be a lie.

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
"George Z. Bush" wrote in message
...

When will you give up and stop swallowing every bit of pap they put in your
mouth?


I'm by nature quite skeptical, especially when it comes to government. The
fact remains nobody has demonstrated any Bush statement to be a lie.

That is exactly the opposite of what you are. You accept every statement issued
by the government as the truth and I don't remember you ever questioning any of
it. I don't see how you can watch the government present the public with one
reason for going to war after another without wondering why any of that should
be necessary. I don't understand why it doesn't occur to you that they are
going through that exercise in the vain hope that they'll find something,
however far fetched, that the public will buy. Every time somebody drills holes
through one reason, they say they didn't really mean that, or it wasn't
important anyway, and here's another reason we hope you'll buy.

Don't you recognize a scam when it's held so close to your nose?

You may think blind acceptance is a facet of skepticism, but I certainly don't.

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

That is exactly the opposite of what you are. You accept every statement
issued
by the government as the truth and I don't remember you ever questioning
any of
it.


You're a poor judge of character.



Don't you recognize a scam when it's held so close to your nose?


Always.



You may think blind acceptance is a facet of skepticism, but I certainly
don't.


Nobody accused you of thinking.

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
"George Z. Bush" wrote in message
...

That is exactly the opposite of what you are. You accept every statement
issued by the government as the truth and I don't remember you ever
questioning any of it.


You're a poor judge of character.

So are you.



Don't you recognize a scam when it's held so close to your nose?


Always.

Then why don't you recognize the constantly changing reasons given by our
government for going to war as the scam it is? They'll keep on doing it until
everybody says, "ah, that was it", all the while forgetting that each and every
one of the replaced reasons was phony and was floated only to see if it would be
accepted.

Gen. Wesley Clark stated during the debate in S. C. that he attended a Pentagon
briefing some two weeks after 9-11, during which they were told that our primary
target since day one was Iraq, whether or not they had anything to do with 9-11.
That's the same story that former Treas. Secy. Paul O'Neil said in his biography
that he heard during the first cabinet meeting he attended. Since it appears to
be true, coming from two disparate sources, why was Sadaam's alleged
relationship with OBL and Al Qaeda given as one of those abandoned reasons for
going to war?

Your government lies to you and you persist in denying it. If I am such a poor
judge of character in that I'd suggest that anyone who believes that
government-floated fairy tale might be naive or gullible, I don't mind resting
my case and letting anybody else reading this exchange decide how bad a judge of
character I might be.

And before you say it, your denial is noted. Anybody else out there?



You may think blind acceptance is a facet of skepticism, but I certainly
don't.


Nobody accused you of thinking.

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
"George Z. Bush" wrote in message
...

Don't you recognize a scam when it's held so close to your nose?


Always.

Except when your eyes are closed, which is whenever the government feeds you its
poop.



You may think blind acceptance is a facet of skepticism, but I certainly
don't.


Nobody accused you of thinking.

Your repartee is dazzling! I am smitten. I haven't heard such good stuff since
I graduated the fifth grade.

Mitchell Holman wrote:
devil wrote in newsan.2004.01.31.06.22.28.721037
@attglobal.net:

Like conservatives care a whit about deficits.......

Why should they? They'll leave their money to their kids, carefully protected
by the tax loopholes they put into the tax code, while the average guy's kids
pay off the bank loans.
Pretty good deal, wouldn't you say?

George Z.