The State of the Union: Lies about a Dishonest War

well.. care to think about the major communist nation that was supplied with
large quantities of US produced arms during WWII? USSR, maybe? Enemy of
democracy and all that - but, certainly receptive of the help. My mother
stenciled Cyrillic onto aircraft in Buffalo in 1943.

"Fly Guy" wrote in message ...
DALing wrote:

True, US supplying of Iraq was more the issue of "my enemy's
enemy is my friend" than anything else.

The new rule of thumb:

The enemy of my enemy is just another enemy.

On Mon, 19 Jan 2004 00:56:43 GMT, (Werner J.
Severin) wrote:

Interesting how this thread moved quickly from the contents of the message
to a discussion of the credibility of the communicator.

We don't have time to do a thorough rebuttal of every crackpot idea
that comes along, any idiot can lie faster than they can be refuted.

Social psychologists have for years known that when people are confronted
with a message that challenges their beliefs they suffer dissonance which
causes psychological discomfort.

They laughed at Galileo, they laughed at Einstein; they also laughed
at Bozo the Clown. Just because we are laughing at the messenger
doesn't mean the message is causing us any dissonance, the person
carrying the message may not have the credibility to deliver a message
we can take seriously.

Here is an example; there is a guy over in talk.origins who has been
claiming for years to have found various human bones fossilized in
coal seams, were this true it would mean that humans are tens of
millions of years older than previously believed and would upset much
of known paleontology. This same individual has various pictures of
rocks he claims are human bones, claimed to have had them examined by
an expert (who is conviently deceased) and had them tested in a lab
(which did a kidney stone analysis on them); all these claims and more
have been completely refuted or proved to be without scientific merit
over the years. Despite this he shows up every few weeks, insults
anyone who doesn't agree with him, and repeats his original claims as
if it were his first time.

In short he's your typical net loon without a shred of credibility
about any of his claims. Last year he showed up and claimed to find
dried blood on one of his specimens, in defiance of all known data
about blood existing as blood for tens of millions of years.

Why should we have treated this new claim with anything other than
the disdain that it deserved? Was it because we were worried that he
might be right, or because he is a nutcase who can't be relied upon to
tell the truth when this subject comes up?

Everyone will do this to a greater or lesser extent, if a naked guy
covered in green paint arrived at your door and claimed he was with
the Fire Department and had to immediately search your house to make
sure no fumes from a toxic spill two streets over were building up in
your house or you could be dead within the next 60 seconds; would you
take this request seriously or just call the police to take him into
custody?

--
"The most merciful thing in the world, I think, is the inability
of the human mind to correlate all its contents." - H.P. Lovecraft

On Tue, 20 Jan 2004 13:04:47 +0000, Steven P. McNicoll wrote:


"Fly Guy" wrote in message ...

Ask the Bush administration. They made it an international objective
to force Iraq to prove it did not have WMD. Absurd, yes. Par for the
course for this white house? Yes.


The Iraqis were required to verify the destruction of their WMD by the cease
fire agreement of 1991. Proving that something has been done is not proving
a negative.

So that was the cause of the war, eh? Wonderful reason to go to war, if
you ask me.

If you really believe this was the reason (i.e. not a cheap excuse), I got
a bridge to seel you.

On Tue, 20 Jan 2004 01:58:15 GMT, devil wrote:

In a related subject, today's Wall Street Journal has an interesting
summary of the deficit spending which would result if any of the
Democrat candidates tax and spending plans were enacted. Not
surpisingly it would increase under all of them.

I seem to recall that the last democrat ran a surplus.

You need to look at it again, the Federal Debt increased by 1.4
trillion dollars under Clinton. Not once during his 8 years did the
Federal Debt go down.

I'm not saying that Bush is doing any better, but the claim that
Clinton ran a surplus is a myth. Just as much a myth as if I got an
$800 cash advance on my credit card, payed $600 in bills and then
declared a $200 surplus just because I still had $200 when I was done.

--
"The most merciful thing in the world, I think, is the inability
of the human mind to correlate all its contents." - H.P. Lovecraft

On Mon, 19 Jan 2004 19:35:30 GMT, (Werner J.
Severin) wrote:

Note: "promote the general welfare" And we do live in a country where
majority rules.

So you would be ok with 51% of the people voting to take all the
money from everyone in the country and just distributing it equally to
promote the general welfare?

--
"The most merciful thing in the world, I think, is the inability
of the human mind to correlate all its contents." - H.P. Lovecraft

On Tue, 20 Jan 2004 00:15:57 GMT, devil wrote:

I would go beyond. Close the whole thing down and start from scratch.
This is the worse paper-pushing operation after the INS.

I'd have to say after the INS and IRS.


--
"The most merciful thing in the world, I think, is the inability
of the human mind to correlate all its contents." - H.P. Lovecraft

On Tue, 20 Jan 2004 00:13:57 GMT, devil wrote:

Drop in a bucket. Insignificant. Meanwhile this administration has been
borrowing on future generations like there is no tomorrow.

Clinton didn't do any better in that regard, increasing the size of
the Federal Debt by 31% (1.4 trillion dollars).

--
"The most merciful thing in the world, I think, is the inability
of the human mind to correlate all its contents." - H.P. Lovecraft

"devil" wrote in message
news
On Tue, 20 Jan 2004 13:04:47 +0000, Steven P. McNicoll wrote:


"Fly Guy" wrote in message
...

Ask the Bush administration. They made it an international objective
to force Iraq to prove it did not have WMD. Absurd, yes. Par for the
course for this white house? Yes.


The Iraqis were required to verify the destruction of their WMD by the
cease
fire agreement of 1991. Proving that something has been done is not
proving
a negative.

So that was the cause of the war, eh?


One of them, yes.

"devil" wrote in message
news

Wonderful reason to go to war, if you ask me.


Yes, and I didn't.



If you really believe this was the reason (i.e. not a cheap excuse), I got
a bridge to seel you.


How do you seel a bridge?

On Tue, 20 Jan 2004 15:32:06 +0000, AnotherDeanRampage wrote:


"devil" wrote in message
news
On Tue, 20 Jan 2004 13:04:47 +0000, Steven P. McNicoll wrote:


"Fly Guy" wrote in message
...

Ask the Bush administration. They made it an international objective
to force Iraq to prove it did not have WMD. Absurd, yes. Par for the
course for this white house? Yes.


The Iraqis were required to verify the destruction of their WMD by the
cease
fire agreement of 1991. Proving that something has been done is not
proving
a negative.

So that was the cause of the war, eh?


One of them, yes.

I got a bridge...

BTW, as far as the UN etc. is concerned, that was supposed not to be "one
of" but *the*.

Of course, it's always easy to rewrite history, right?

When the dishoest "one" falls apart, invent another one.

Bottom line is, we all know that this never was anything but a lie. The
White House crowd had been talking about going to war since way before the
elections.

As to *their* reasons, it's also now abundantly clear that they amounted
to nothing better than pure unadulterated wishful thinking. With no
excuse.