The State of the Union: Lies about a Dishonest War

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

On the contrary, I am very well informed;


Actually, you are disinformed. You've bought the propaganda and ignored the
facts.

If it makes you happier to be the pot rather than the kettle, fine. I am
disinformed. The President tells you everything that his people feed you with a
spoon, and you believe every word. Have we got it right? I know
nothing.....you know everything!

Hilarious! Total denial of reality! Too funny for words!!

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

No, would you mind translating the vacant spaces for me?


I said "the following message", not "what appears below."

So, where's "the following message"? There wasn't any....so why were you
referring to it when it obviously didn't exist? You knew it wasn't there.

He was referring to the clarification of his obvious typo. He explained that
to you.


Your attempts at wiggling out of admitting an error are really pathetic
for
someone who's presumably an adult.

No, what is growing increasingly pathetic is your fascination with his typo.
Rather than address what he really said (in clarified form), you instead
cling to this typo as if were a lifering thrown out while you are treading
water in the middle of the ocean.

They don't serve you well, and you ought to
be man enough to admit it when it's as obvious as the nose on your face
that you
misspoke or, as you probably would have said if I had done that, that you
lied.

For cripes sake, he did no such thing. You may be trying to twist his words
into a "lie", but you have done a rather miserable job of it so far. I had
come to the conclusion that you and I just tend to disagree on a lot of
issues, but that you are generally an honorable man--it appears now,
however, that I was wrong in that last bit. You alternatively snarl and
whine about all things allegedly Bush-related, refuse to address the
statistics that question your rants, drop the Nazi card on your opponent for
absolutely no reason, and now you have hung yourself around his admitted
typo and just can't let loose. You just graduated to the exalted level of
Kramer, Tarver, and Vkince--what a team! Hope you are proud of it.

Brooks

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

You were on a roll until you said that rising tax revenues leads to
deficits.


Rising tax revenue does not lead to deficits.



That can only happen if you spend more money than you've taken in, and
the difference between the two is the deficit.


Rising tax revenue never leads to deficits.

"Jarg" wrote in message
om...

"None" wrote in message
hlink.net...

"Jarg" wrote in message
om...

"Werner J. Severin" wrote in message




...
In article
,
Mike1 wrote:


Is anyone in disagreement with the basic *fact* that Saddam
Hussein
used
chemical weapons to murder thousands of Kurds and Iranians in the
course
of slaughtering nearly a million people overall?


Is anyone in disagreement with the basic "fact" that the United
States
provided the chemicals, weapons, intelligence, and tacit agreement
that
allowed Saddam Hussein to murder thousands of Kurds and Iranians?

Even if this were true, what is your point? Are you suggesting that
past
support for Iraq means the US should not have removed the Saddam
regime?

Jarg

Of course not, but neither should anyone have to put up with the
bull****
lies about who built up Iraq's chemical weapons in the first place,
whether
we did it directly or through the cloak of another country. We paid to
build him up, and again, we paid to tear it down, now we get to pay to
rebuild what we tore down.

It's a pathetic and vicious circle we keep jerking in.



But perhaps this will end it.


It depends. If, once the new government is "installed" they decide to sell
their oil to someone other than Uncle Sam, we'll just swoop in and blow the
place up again.

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


But perhaps this will end it.


It depends. If, once the new government is "installed" they decide to
sell
their oil to someone other than Uncle Sam, we'll just swoop in and blow
the
place up again.



I don't believe oil was a factor in Iraq. For one thing that isn't the way
markets work. Whether or not the oil is available to the US, it's sale on
the world market affects the entire supply which lowers prices - basic
economics. Now if Iraq refused to sell any oil to anyone, then you might be
able to make the case. But that wasn't what happened.

The better question would be what would happen if another despot took power
and began sponsoring terrorist, shooting at US aircraft, building weapons
that threatened the region, invaded his neighbors, mass murdered his own
citizens, etc. Then it is likely the US would respond the same way again.

Jarg

Jarg

My tax dollars support the public schools, because somewhere in those
public schools is a future dentist, doctor, policeman or policewoman, or
a future biomedical engineer. I may not need any of them today, but I
sure might need them tomorrow.

My tax money is an investment in *my* future health, happiness, and
well-being as well as being an investment in the children of my country.
Not stolen loot - it's a nest egg.

Your tax dollars are being misused to maintain an educational monopoly.
Interesting that the political left screams loud and long about monopolies,
while selectively ignoring public education. Which should now be more
accurately referred to a public indoctrination.

Seeing as fewer students are leaving public education with the skills
necessary for further study in the jobs you mentioned, I would encourage
you to look elsewhere for these services. And the long-standing response
of throwing more money after a problem has shown not to work. Student in
asia and europe continue to out perform US students, while learning in
educational settings which spend much less per student than the US. And
US students with the highest SAT and ACT test scores are often the product
of home schooling. Or private schooling.

The NEA has a tight grip on the 'nads of the democratic pary. And along
with the trail lawyers association they could play 'make a wish and pull'.
Do not look seriously for either educational or court reform from your
political preference. Although it would not hurt for you to raise your
personal liability insurance and expect much less from public education.

On Wed, 21 Jan 2004 16:33:48 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote:

Nobody has met the challenge.

Now you've done it twice.

None wrote:
Is anyone in disagreement with the basic "fact" that the United States
provided the chemicals, weapons, intelligence, and tacit agreement that
allowed Saddam Hussein to murder thousands of Kurds and Iranians?

It never ceases to amaze me that the republican infidels continue to
conveniently overlook that very important fact!

While it puts things in perspective to accept the fact that the USA's foreign
policy mishaps resulted in far mroe problems than they were supposed to solve,
what is at stake here is not whether Iraq had WMDs or not. There us accepted
and coumented evidence that Iraq had WMDs.

There is also documented evidence that Iraq used WMDs on both Iran and its own citizens.

That in itself should have resulted in Saddam being send an invitation to the
War Crime Trinunal or the ICC.

However, what is really at stake here is the USA fabricating evidence/stories
and knowingly lying to its citizens, knowingly insulting its allies to
discredit them even though US administration knew full well that its allies
were right.

What is really at stake here is a regime which disregarded UN resolutions and
interpreted them to mean what the regime wanted them to mean and proceeded
with an illegitimate invasion of another country which posed absolutely no
threath to the USA.

What is at stake here is the total disregard for due legal process. Both on
the international scene with the UN, as well as on the domestic scene with
police power abuses, concentration camp at Gantanamo Bay, illegal deportations
to a 3rd country when the internationally agreed procedure is to send the
passenger back to country where flight originated and the list goes on and on
and on.


The USA would not grant the UN a couple more weeks for its inspectors to do
their job. In its state of the police-state address, the Bush regime still
pretends that it will find WMDs, although this year's claims were nowehere
near as ludicrous as last year's claims (tons of saren gas for instance).
Remember the claims that Iraq was supposed to be very near to having nuclear
bombs with Condy Rice making statements that they don't want to find out about
nuclear programmes by witnessing a mushroom cloud ?

So, when will the USA admit that there are no WMDs ? If the Bush regime is
re-elected, it would still have to continue the lies otherwise admitting that
they knowingly lied might bring in impeachement proceedings. (can one impeach
a whole cabinet and force an election ?)

In the end, it will be shown that Saddam had deceptively complied with UN
resolutions and that the USA had become the belligerant regime.

France, Germany and Russia tried their best to prevent the USA from
degenerating into the belligerant regime it has become. But in the end, the
world community is also guilty of not taking strong enough actions to prevent
all the excesses that the USA has been allowed to get away with. (for instance Gantanamo).

If the UK weren't such a loyal lapdog, it would then become possible to
isolate the USA in the security council and pass resolution after resolution
condemning the USA's actions, forcing the USA to use its veto over and over
again. The difference being that by being all alone, the USA couldn't claim
some "coalition", and wouldn't be able to focus all its anger on France and
Germany since it would be the whole world against the USA.

The Bush regime would have a much harder time trying to justify its
international policies to ist media/citizens if the UK hadn't bowed to the
Bush regime demands for support.

On Wed, 21 Jan 2004 04:55:54 GMT, "Jarg"
wrote:

"In The Darkness" wrote in message
...
Jarg wrote:
"john" wrote in message
Bush, on numerous occasions, said that these weapons threatened our
national security.
Jarg

And how was that a lie exactly? It hasn't been disproven, and even if
it
were it wouldn't make it a lie. You see, a lie is an INTENTIONAL
untruth,
not a mistaken statement.

"The onus to war was forced upon the Intelligence group from the Top
Down, to a given conclusion..." - According to O'Neil.

And you think he _didn't_ know ?


A little reading in a dictionary might help clear
this concept up for you.

Jarg




s,

Note the remainding members of President Bush's administration have
dismissed these allegations, as well they should. They are the ramblings of
a disguntled ex-e mployee trying to sell some books.

Jarg

Of course, they would. They would be fired if they didn't.


It wasn't O'Neil's book.

I also believe he has made his own evaluation of Bush.

You can't fault O"Neil's credentials:

CEO--ALCOA

in Ford's administration

In Nixon's administration

On Wed, 21 Jan 2004 05:41:38 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote:


"john" wrote in message
news

Bush claimed that Iraq had nuclear,biological,and chemical weapons
hidden away. NO SUCH WEAPONS WERE FOUND! Don't you
read the freaken newspapers?


Little has been found to date, but even if none had been found, how would
that prove Bush's claim to be a lie?


If none have been found so far, there isn't any WMD.

So, in that case, how would you characterize Bush (and Powell)
statements about WMD?

Would they be:

fibs?

little white lies?

a grave misunderstanding?

exaggerations?

Because of Bush's beliefs he has plunged this nation into a war where

about 1000 US troops have been killed so far and many.many. more

maimed and wounded.

Bush has created a $400 billion deficit because of the war.

The chances of Iraq becoming a democracy are slim to none.