Liar Liar Pants On Fire Dept: Moller

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

Frank Stutzman wrote in news:fbk548$2v43$1
:

Paul Tomblin wrote:

[much snippage citing some very credible press sources]

What do I win?

Got me.

But humor me and reconcile your above snipped cites with the
following exchange that happend at a white house press conferance
held January 31, 2003 with the president and Tony Blair:

Q: One question for both of you. Do you believe that there
is a link between Saddam Hussein, a direct link,
and the men who attached on September the 11th?

THE PRESIDENT: I can't make that claim.

THE PRIME MINISTER: That answers your question.

This after he was caught lying for the umpteumpth time.

OK, just show us the quote where he's "caught lying" about Iraq's
direct connection to the 9/11 attacks. So far, no one's been able to
show a single quote. I'm guessing you won't do any better (though you
seem to be VERY certain of your position - I'm not sure how big a
number "umpteum" is, but all you need is one quote - should be a piece
of cake, right?).

Is there anyone left that still thinks any part of this was a good idea?

We'll know in 20-40 years. If we lose a major city to state-sponsored
terrorism suddenly it's going to be a race to blame whoever is in
power for not doing MORE preemptive strikes to stop it.

Mark "I really, really hope I'm wrong" Hickey

Bertie

Mark Hickey wrote in
:

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

Frank Stutzman wrote in news:fbk548$2v43
$1
:

Paul Tomblin wrote:

[much snippage citing some very credible press sources]

What do I win?

Got me.

But humor me and reconcile your above snipped cites with the
following exchange that happend at a white house press conferance
held January 31, 2003 with the president and Tony Blair:

Q: One question for both of you. Do you believe that there
is a link between Saddam Hussein, a direct link,
and the men who attached on September the 11th?

THE PRESIDENT: I can't make that claim.

THE PRIME MINISTER: That answers your question.

This after he was caught lying for the umpteumpth time.

OK, just show us the quote where he's "caught lying" about Iraq's
direct connection to the 9/11 attacks.



He didn't , that was he clever bit.

He insinuated, he superimposed, he obfuscated, and dickheads like you
believed him.




So far, no one's been able to
show a single quote. I'm guessing you won't do any better (though you
seem to be VERY certain of your position - I'm not sure how big a
number "umpteum" is, but all you need is one quote - should be a piece
of cake, right?).


Yep

http://www.geocities.com/jacksonthor/lieswmd.html



Is there anyone left that still thinks any part of this was a good
idea?

We'll know in 20-40 years.


What, 20 -40 years after the brits tried the same ****?

that ship has sailed..

If we lose a major city to state-sponsored
terrorism suddenly it's going to be a race to blame whoever is in
power for not doing MORE preemptive strikes to stop it.

Mark "I really, really hope I'm wrong" Hickey


Rest asssured.



Bertie

Bertie

I posted my reply some time ago to flush people like you out. Glad it
worked. Trapping liberals is too easy. Hope I never have the opportunity to
meet you at a fly-in.

Dale Alexander


"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote in message
.. .
Mark Hickey wrote in
:

Snip




He didn't , that was he clever bit.

He insinuated, he superimposed, he obfuscated, and dickheads like you
believed him.

On Sep 3, 10:49 pm, "Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe" The Sea Hawk at wow way
d0t com wrote:
"Richard Isakson" wrote in message

om...



...
There is no valid comparison between the Wrights and Moller so your
argument
is meaningless. Now, if you'd like to compare Moller with Jim Bede ...

Some of Jim Bede's designs turned out to be pretty good. So Moller comes up
short on that one...


Yes.

But they both make exaggerated performance claims.

AFAIK the Wright brothers did not.

--

FF

On Sep 4, 1:24 pm, Mark Hickey wrote:
"Robert Barker" wrote:
"Dale Alexander" wrote in message
...
No...liberals can be duped by just about anybody or anything...just look
at all of their "religious beliefs".

Dale Alexander

And conservatives can be duped by anyone with a smile. As evidence, look at
the people who voted for the Shrub and still think that Iraq was part or
9/11.

Thanks to the media, not the administration.

I've bet dozens of people that they couldn't find ONE quote from the
Bush administration claiming Iraq was involved in the 9/11 attacks.
There are plenty of quotes from the Bush administration clearly
stating that there's no reason to believe that Iraq was involved, but
don't let that influence your "relligion".


FWIW I heard John Edwards , in his televised debate with Dick
Cheney, attribute the attacks to Saddam Hussein. It was clearly
a slip of the tongue as he said it immediately after accusing
Cheney of deliberately confusing the two.

Other persons have noted Rumsfeld and Condoleesa Rice making
similar slips.

See also:

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.f...b4ff1505b47563


Mr Limbaugh can deny claiming Saddam Hussein was responsible since
it was a statement by someone else that he played on his show. But
it is clear WHY he played it and also WHY he played it in the manner
that he did.

--

FF

On Sep 4, 5:37 pm, Frank Stutzman wrote:
Paul Tomblin wrote:

[much snippage citing some very credible press sources]

What do I win?

Got me.

But humor me and reconcile your above snipped cites with the
following exchange that happend at a white house press conferance
held January 31, 2003 with the president and Tony Blair:

Q: One question for both of you. Do you believe that there
is a link between Saddam Hussein, a direct link,
and the men who attached on September the 11th?

THE PRESIDENT: I can't make that claim.

THE PRIME MINISTER: That answers your question.

For the full context seehttp://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030131-23.html



So?

That they sometimes denied that there is a connection does not
disprove that they also sometimes claimed that there was one.

I've seen the tape of Cheney denying that he ever said the
alleged meeting between Atta and Iraqi intelligence in Prague
was "pretty well confirmed", and I have also seen the tape
in which he says it was"pretty well confirmed".

--


FF

On Sep 5, 1:16 am, Jim Logajan wrote:
Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

Jim Logajan wrote:
....

I did mean di anyone think the invasion if Iraq was a good idea at this
juncture?

I knew what you meant - sorry, was just playing games with your post.

Sadly, some people do still think it was a good idea. Mostly those
who want to see a worldwide religious war between supposed Christians
and supposed Muslims. Osama bin Laden, for instance, is no doubt
pleased a punch.


All I remember is that when the Iraq invasion was started I thought our
military would have no problem winning (but worried a great deal about a
good friend who was serving in the military at the time) - but I had this
gut feel that what was planned to happen afterword was clear as mud.

I believed they'd find WMD. My thinking was: "No way would this
administration launch a war without absolute certainty they would turn up
WMD. I mean really - if they didn't they'd be absolute toast, finished, and
kaput politically."

But no WMD were found and yet they weren't fried politically. There's a
lesson in there somewhere.

I figured that they would NOT find WMD.

First of all, I read an analysis of the evidence and agreed
with the authors that is was not persuasive.

Secondly, UNMOVIC, using helicopters, arrived at alleged WMD
sites within hours of receiving the latest US intel but found nothing.
No weapon, no factories, no residues. Many of the sites the US
claimed to be active were in the same deserted bombed out
non functional condition that they were when UNSCOM last
visited.

Third, we were caught submitting forged documents to the IAEA.
something that would plainly not have been done had there been'
real evidence.

Fourth, if Saddam Hussein really had fearsome chemical and
biological weapons the Bush administration would not have risked
massive US casualties by invading.

Any lingering doubt was gone by the time Baghdad fell. If Saddam
Hussein had any WMD, surely he would have used them by then.
What would he save them for, the next US invasion?

--

FF

On Sep 5, 4:07 am, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Jim Logajan wrote :



Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Jim Logajan wrote:
Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Is there anyone left that still thinks any part of this was a good
idea?

Nope; it is never a good idea to quote the "late Prof. Revilo
Oliver" and expect anyone on Usenet to "overlook the political
specifics."

:-)

Very true,

I did mean di anyone think the invasion if Iraq was a good idea at
this juncture?

I knew what you meant - sorry, was just playing games with your post.

All I remember is that when the Iraq invasion was started I thought
our military would have no problem winning (but worried a great deal
about a good friend who was serving in the military at the time) - but
I had this gut feel that what was planned to happen afterword was
clear as mud.

I believed they'd find WMD. My thinking was: "No way would this
administration launch a war without absolute certainty they would turn
up WMD. I mean really - if they didn't they'd be absolute toast,
finished, and kaput politically."

But no WMD were found and yet they weren't fried politically. There's
a lesson in there somewhere.

I suppose it's "make your lie big enough and popular enough and it won't
matter"

I too thought they'd find weapons of mass destruction, but even if they
found chemical weapons, it'd be in a fine old traditon. Winston
Churchill authorised thier use in Iraq in the thirties.

His rationale? (i'm too lazy to look it up so I'll paraphrase) It#s not
like we're gassing people who matter.....

actually, IIRC what he actually said is evn more shocking.


IIRC he advocated using mustard gas against 'savages' in Africa.
His rationale was that it was less lethal, but caused more suffering
than other weapons so that the population could be subjugated
with fewer casualties. Dunno about WMD elsewhere in the world.

I'm not inclined to defend his argument.

--

FF

On Sep 5, 4:37 am, Mark Hickey wrote:
(Paul Tomblin) wrote:
In a previous article, said:
I've bet dozens of people that they couldn't find ONE quote from the
Bush administration claiming Iraq was involved in the 9/11 attacks.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2004Jun16.html
Along with the contention that Saddam Hussein was stockpiling weapons
of mass destruction, President Bush, Vice President Cheney and other
top administration officials have often asserted that there were
extensive ties between Hussein's government and Osama bin Laden's
terrorist network; earlier this year, Cheney said evidence of a link
was "overwhelming."
...
In late 2001, Cheney said it was "pretty well confirmed" that Sept. 11
mastermind Mohamed Atta met with a senior Iraqi intelligence official
before the attacks, in April 2000 in Prague; Cheney later said the
meeting could not be proved or disproved.

Atta met with a lot of people who weren't intimately involved in
carrying out the 9/11 attacks.

Such as?


Bush, in his speech aboard an aircraft carrier on May 1, 2003, asserted:
"The liberation of Iraq is a crucial advance in the campaign against
terror. We've removed an ally of al Qaeda and cut off a source of
terrorist funding."

Sorry, I missed the reference to being involved in the 9/11 attacks in
that reference. And I hope you don't have doubts about Iraq's funding
of other terrorist organizations... state sponsorship of terrorism is
the biggest security risk to the civilized world today. I hope that
doesn't become clearer than it already is.

I hope you understand that Iraq was NOT (yet) an ally of al Queda


In September, Cheney said on NBC's "Meet the Press": "If we're successful
in Iraq . . . then we will have struck a major blow right at the heart of
the base, if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists who had us
under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11."

Funny thing - I've had more than a few people throw that quote up as
the best proof of their position. Funny thing is, they all leave out
the rest of the exchange, immediately following:

"MR. RUSSERT: So the resistance in Iraq is coming from those who
were responsible for 9/11?"

"VICE PRES. CHENEY: No, I was careful not to say that. With respect
to 9/11, 9/11, as I said at the beginning of the show, changed
everything. And one of the things it changed is we recognized that
time was not on our side, that in this part of the world, in
particular, given the problems we've encountered in Afghanistan,
which forced us to go in and take action there, as well as in
Iraq, that we, in fact, had to move on it. The relevance for 9/11
is that what 9/11 marked was the beginning of a struggle in which
the terrorists come at us and strike us here on our home
territory. And it's a global operation.

THAT explains the "connection", but those who traffic in sound bites
to get their political opinions tend to miss the nuance.

My explanation is duplicity. He wants people to THINK there
Iraq was an ally of al Queda and so he plainly says so in a
simple, easy to understand, concise statement. . Then, he
gives a vague rambling dishevling 'claificiation' that contradicts
his earlier unambiguous statement so that he and his apologists
can deny that he made the claim which preceded it.

OTOH, the
vast majority of links on the 'net that include the Cheney quote you
included do NOT include the following clarification. You'd almost
think the press and the bloggers were trying to change the meaning of
the interview, huh? Check out Wikipedia, for example - the first half
is there ("proving" the point you're trying to make), but they
conveniently leave out the second half of the story.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/ar...heney_link_of_...
But Cheney left that possibility wide open in a nationally televised
interview two days ago, claiming that the administration is learning
"more and more" about connections between Al Qaeda and Iraq before the
Sept. 11 attacks. The statement surprised some analysts and officials
who have reviewed intelligence reports from Iraq.

Critics aren't the only people who ignore the second part. Some
(probably by now, most) of those who continue to support the
administration ALSO ignore the second part and uncritically accept
the first part as true.

I would wager that the percentage of Americans who think that
Saddam Hussein was responsible, at least in part, for the attacks
of September 11, 2001 is as high or higher than the percentage
who give GWB a favorable rating. Further, I daresay there is
a very large intersection between the two sets.


To quote VP Cheney in that very article:

"We've never been able to develop any more of that yet, either in
terms of confirming it or discrediting it. We just don't know."

Besides, the article makes no claim that Cheney claims a direct
involvement in the 9/11 attacks by Iraq, only that they had reason to
believe that Al Qaeda operatives met wtih Iraqi officials.

Why did he make the claim, in the context of justification for
the invasion of Iraq?

--

FF

On Sep 5, 4:41 am, Mark Hickey wrote:
Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

...


This after he was caught lying for the umpteumpth time.

OK, just show us the quote where he's "caught lying" about Iraq's
direct connection to the 9/11 attacks. So far, no one's been able to
show a single quote. I'm guessing you won't do any better (though you
seem to be VERY certain of your position - I'm not sure how big a
number "umpteum" is, but all you need is one quote - should be a piece
of cake, right?).

Is there anyone left that still thinks any part of this was a good idea?

We'll know in 20-40 years. If we lose a major city to state-sponsored
terrorism suddenly it's going to be a race to blame whoever is in
power for not doing MORE preemptive strikes to stop it.


An invasion is only a pre-emptive strike if the invaded country was or
harbored a threat. Iraq was not and did not.

The invasion of Iraq was NOT a pre-emptive strike.

--

FF