The State of the Union: Lies about a Dishonest War

On Tue, 20 Jan 2004 22:26:31 -0800, Go Fig wrote:

In article , devil
wrote:

Bottom line remains that the place is just too much of a mess to get
involved.

And so is my garage... but its not gonna go away till I clean it up and
at some point that day must come.

You rightly preach for a very sound fiscal policy, one that does not
mortgage the efforts of future generations.

Is ignoring the mess of middle east not the same as mortgaging future
generations right to security and indeed prosperity ?


It's just that it's not terribly smart to get into fights one
obviously cannot win. Especially if for the wrong reasons, on top of that.

You are not going to "clean up" the Middle East with substantial cultural
changes. This don't happen overnight, or on command. What's happening is
the opposite, really.

On Wed, 21 Jan 2004 05:40:11 +0000, Steven P. McNicoll wrote:


"john" wrote in message
...

How about the Bush lie about Iraq posing an immediate threat to our
national security?


What lie about Iraq posing an immediate threat to our national security?

Uh?

On Wed, 21 Jan 2004 23:37:50 GMT, john
wrote:

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.

Would you have been saying the same thing a few weeks ago? Would it
also have been true of Saddam Hussein?

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

What was Clinton's excuse? He increased the federal debt by 1.4
trillion dollars in 8 years of pre-9/11 peacetime.

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

In article , Eagle Eye
] wrote:


Iraq did obtain anthrax from a US company.

A general comment: the smoking guns for a BW program are not the
cultures themselves. Anthrax is endemic to the area and it would be
trivial to get cultures. I was looking at one of the Riegle Committee's
list of imported microorganisms -- with the implication that these were
all going into BW -- and one order was headed by something very potent
-- Saccharomyces cervesiae -- if you plan to brew Belgian-style ale.

Equipment, and large quantities of certain supplies, are more the key.
The Australia Group and the Militarily Critical Technology Lists point
to some of these, such as large-capacity (e.g., 200 liter plus)
fermenters, low-temperature centrifuges, dryers and mills, etc.

Phyl wrote:

Mike1 wrote:

Sara wrote:

James Martinez wrote:

One of the biggest objection to vouchers has been that public taxes
should not be used to send children to private or parochial schools.
Sorry, but I think public taxes should go to public school systems....




Seeing as "taxes" is a euphemism for "stolen loot", it "should" go
nowhere save straight back to the people who were ripped off, while
those who think they should have a school that I have no use for (in
the same way that I think I should have a new La Crosse
weather-station that you would have no use for) should go out and buy
it with their own money. Oh, and the thieves responsible tarred and
feathered and set alight.



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.




You're directing this logic at someone who advocates having no public
school system--do you really think he will grasp the concept of
investing in society?

After an exhausting session with Victoria's Secret Police, Eagle Eye
blurted out:

Why would Ted Kopple call George H. W. Bush, "George Bush Sr." in 1992?

Perhaps the quote meant to have George Bush [Sr] as a reference to the
elder, albeit not Senior per se.

The History Channel this evening was running an episode on Sadam
Hussein, it covered Reagan's support in Iraq's war with Iran.

Juvat

Sara wrote:
Mike1 wrote:

In article ,
Stark Raven wrote:



In article , Paul
Middlestat wrote:



Ted is a primary example of the need for congressional term limits.
Someone
who has been in elected office too long, and is detached from those in the
trenches. And you are aware that he has never received a pay check which
was
not from the government - right? At no time has he worked in the public
sector. Has he ever looked at this check book at the end of the month and
wondered how he could find the money to send his 8th grader on the spring
trip? I'm guessing probably not.


A Kennedy needing to work? I don't think so. I'm sure he's dedicated
his life to public service and probably gives his congressional salary
to charity.




What a *sweet* pickled-nosed old man! -- He gives away the stolen loot
that comprises his salary to charity. (Or at least you imagine so.)




Also it wouldn't surprise me if some of GWB's many successful business
endeavors hadn't cornered some of your hard-earned money. That is
where publically-earned money comes from, you know.



...in contrast to the horrid Bush, who *earned* his like a scummy
merchant, selling oil to people who *wanted it*.



Which Bush are you talking about? GW failed miserably in the oil
business. He did do well, though, with the help of Poppy's friends and
their money and some nice Saudi gentlemen, flipping a baseball team.

You betcha! They got rid of Sammy Sosa on his watch! The man sure had a nose
for baseball talent, didn't he!

George Z.

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

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.


It's still there.



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


I pointed out the error myself.

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

I am disinformed.


You've taken the first step.

"john" wrote in message
...

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


Why? Because the entire country has been searched?