Liar Liar Pants On Fire Dept: Moller

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

)removes cross post to alt.politics)


Be fair, I started off namecalling and never deviated once.

Bertie

I guess the I'm the same. "Liberalism is mental disorder."

Hover I don't bother joining in on ****ing contests. This my first and
last post on this subject...

Jim Logajan wrote:

Mark Hickey wrote:
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.

"Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces
Against Iraq"

...
"Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for
attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the
attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;

Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist
organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety
of American citizens;"

From:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0021002-2.html

That resolution was sought by the administration. The tie-in between Iraq
and the 9-11 attacks is repeated in Bush's letter to congress on the eve of
the attack on Iraq:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0030319-1.html

Ergo the Bush administration at a minimum agreed with the connection, and
other statements and actions indicates they had a clear intent to create a
psychological connection between Iraq and the 9-11 attacks. There is no
question in any reasonable reading that the resolution authorizing the
attack on Iraq makes it clear that Iraq's actions made it partly
responsible for the 9-11 attacks.

Not at all. The thing 9/11 changed was our ability to wait and see
what would happen... it no longer seemed (nor does it now) a prudent
thing to do.

The time for disengenuous word games is long past.

Apparently not - see above.

A lot of good people are
now dead who should not have died for motivations by others that were
shallow and self-delusional. When you can bring those people back to life,
then maybe we can discuss your word games.

No reasonable person would read the administration quote above and
conclude that it implies that Iraq was involved in the 9/11 attack.
It says what it says - that Iraq has been known to support and harbor
known terrorist organizations that have killed Americans (not all of
which ended up being true, but enough was to satisfy me that we
couldn't let Saddam go unchecked).

If I were to find out that you had been supporting the IRA in the
'70s, and mentioned that the IRA had killed X number of Americans in a
particular attack, would I *really* be accusing you of participating
in that particular attack? Not in my world.

Mark "sorry, no cigar" Hickey

On Sep 11, 3:12 am, Mark Hickey wrote:
Jim Logajan wrote:
Mark Hickey wrote:
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.

"Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces
Against Iraq"

...
"Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for
attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the
attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;

Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist
organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety
of American citizens;"

From:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0021002-2.html

That resolution was sought by the administration. The tie-in between Iraq
and the 9-11 attacks is repeated in Bush's letter to congress on the eve of
the attack on Iraq:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0030319-1.html

Ergo the Bush administration at a minimum agreed with the connection, and
other statements and actions indicates they had a clear intent to create a
psychological connection between Iraq and the 9-11 attacks. There is no
question in any reasonable reading that the resolution authorizing the
attack on Iraq makes it clear that Iraq's actions made it partly
responsible for the 9-11 attacks.

Not at all. The thing 9/11 changed was our ability to wait and see
what would happen... it no longer seemed (nor does it now) a prudent
thing to do.

The time for disengenuous word games is long past.

Apparently not - see above.

A lot of good people are
now dead who should not have died for motivations by others that were
shallow and self-delusional. When you can bring those people back to life,
then maybe we can discuss your word games.

No reasonable person would read the administration quote above and
conclude that it implies that Iraq was involved in the 9/11 attack.
It says what it says - that Iraq has been known to support and harbor
known terrorist organizations that have killed Americans (not all of
which ended up being true, but enough was to satisfy me that we
couldn't let Saddam go unchecked).

Bull****. You're molding the facts to justify your buddy bush's
private little war.

If I were to find out that you had been supporting the IRA in the
'70s, and mentioned that the IRA had killed X number of Americans in a
particular attack, would I *really* be accusing you of participating
in that particular attack? Not in my world.

Mark "sorry, no cigar" Hickey- Hide quoted text -

Bwawhawhhahwhahwhawhhahwhahwhahwhahwhahwhahwhahwah hwhawhhawhhahwahwhahwhahhwhawhhahw!


God I love usenet.


Bertie

On Sep 10, 6:43 am, Steve Hix
wrote:
In article ,
Jim Logajan wrote:

Mark Hickey wrote:
[...] willful ignorance of history.

Speaking of history (and ignorance, I suppose), I believe _the_ reason
stated for invading Iraq was to neutralize their WMD.

Nope. It was one of a list of a dozen or sixteen items, and not the
first on the list.

How about if you refer us to that specific list? That way
we can check on how many of those 16 items have been
addressed.

Mind, the press in general grabbed that one item and
ran with it, pretty much ignoring the rest of the list, including things
like Iraq's open and long-time ongoing support for terrorism all over
the place,

"All over the place?" Where, besides Israel?


having started and fought a couple three wars with neighbors,
and so on.

Two, I think, see below.


None found.

Not quite. Actually several bits, here and there, mostly leftovers from
the Iran/Iraq matches of the 80s.

Don't forget that essentially every national (as in various nations in
both hemispheres) intelligence service figured from the evidence they
managed to dig up that if they didn't have WMDs in stock and ready to
use (the majority consensus), they could gin 'em up pretty quickly.

What they said, and what they thought, are not necessarily the
same. Deception is an essential component of intelligence
activities.

Iraq
certainly showed no reluctance to use chemical weapons in particular
against either the Iranians or against various of their own citizens.
Repeatedly.


It is important to note that hte last use of Iraqi WMD was in 1989,
thirteen years prior to the invasion. While he might have been
able to 'gin them up quickly' we were also capable of bombing
the crap out of him, even quicker.

By 2003, Iraq lad lost the capacity to threaten military action
against neighboring states. Saddam Hussein didn't even
control the Northern third of his own country, and couldn't
fly a military aircraft over or turn on a military radar in two
thirds of his country without having it shot down or blown
up.

--

FF

Mark Hickey wrote in
:



"voter fraud" chicago - this search yields 186,000 hits.

Mark "not an apostle yet, apparently" Hickey


Well, here's another lefty that's seen the light...


http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle2461214.ece



Bertie

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

On Sep 8, 5:56 am, Mark Hickey wrote:
Bertie the Bunyip wrote:





On 7 sep, 07:35, Mark Hickey wrote:
Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

On Sep 6, 2:36 pm, Mark Hickey wrote:
Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
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 it a reading comprehension problem, or do you think "WMD" is an
acronym that has something to do with flying airplanes into buildings?

Nope, I read jjust fine.

What WMDs, btw?

The ones that the link you referenced above was talking about (rather
than the 9/11 attack, which is the subject of the question).

No, it isn't. It's what you're trying to make the question.

Ummm... look above. I am asking for a SINGLE quote to prove your
assertion that Iraq was directly involved in the 9/11 attacks.

Ask away. I didn't make thaqt assertation, fjukkwit.

You really are as dumm as dishwater, aintcha?


You reply with a geocities.com link above that has not a thing to do
with the 9/11 attack.

Didn't say it did, fjukkktard.

Then you deny it and accuse ME of "trying to make (it) the question.

I'm trying to figure out if you're being disingenuous or just trying
to ignore the fact you couldn't come up with a single quote out of the
"umpteum" examples out there...

I'm being Bertie the Bunyip.

I'm always being Bertie the Bunyip.


It's a pure and noble calling.

Almost as good as being a fake air safety guru! Or splap regulator.

Craig

Craig wrote in :



Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

On Sep 8, 5:56 am, Mark Hickey wrote:
Bertie the Bunyip wrote:





On 7 sep, 07:35, Mark Hickey wrote:
Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

On Sep 6, 2:36 pm, Mark Hickey wrote:
Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
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 it a reading comprehension problem, or do you think "WMD"
is an acronym that has something to do with flying airplanes
into buildings?

Nope, I read jjust fine.

What WMDs, btw?

The ones that the link you referenced above was talking about
(rather than the 9/11 attack, which is the subject of the
question).

No, it isn't. It's what you're trying to make the question.

Ummm... look above. I am asking for a SINGLE quote to prove your
assertion that Iraq was directly involved in the 9/11 attacks.

Ask away. I didn't make thaqt assertation, fjukkwit.

You really are as dumm as dishwater, aintcha?


You reply with a geocities.com link above that has not a thing to
do with the 9/11 attack.

Didn't say it did, fjukkktard.

Then you deny it and accuse ME of "trying to make (it) the
question.

I'm trying to figure out if you're being disingenuous or just
trying to ignore the fact you couldn't come up with a single quote
out of the "umpteum" examples out there...

I'm being Bertie the Bunyip.

I'm always being Bertie the Bunyip.


It's a pure and noble calling.

Almost as good as being a fake air safety guru! Or splap regulator.



I wish!


Bertie

Mark Hickey wrote in
:

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

On 7 sep, 07:35, Mark Hickey wrote:
Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

On Sep 6, 2:36 pm, Mark Hickey wrote:
Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
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 it a reading comprehension problem, or do you think "WMD" is
an acronym that has something to do with flying airplanes into
buildings?

Nope, I read jjust fine.

What WMDs, btw?

The ones that the link you referenced above was talking about
(rather than the 9/11 attack, which is the subject of the question).

No, it isn't. It's what you're trying to make the question.

Ummm... look above. I am asking for a SINGLE quote to prove your
assertion that Iraq was directly involved in the 9/11 attacks.


Here you go,

If you deny this you're as big an idiot or bigger than Bush



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-vefD3WSiis



Bertie

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

Mark Hickey wrote in
:

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

On 7 sep, 07:35, Mark Hickey wrote:
Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

On Sep 6, 2:36 pm, Mark Hickey wrote:
Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
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 it a reading comprehension problem, or do you think "WMD" is
an acronym that has something to do with flying airplanes into
buildings?

Nope, I read jjust fine.

What WMDs, btw?

The ones that the link you referenced above was talking about
(rather than the 9/11 attack, which is the subject of the question).

No, it isn't. It's what you're trying to make the question.

Ummm... look above. I am asking for a SINGLE quote to prove your
assertion that Iraq was directly involved in the 9/11 attacks.

Here you go,

If you deny this you're as big an idiot or bigger than Bush

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-vefD3WSiis

While I'm sure that virtually everyone in the US watched and was
influenced by an 11 minute interview on Irish television (LOL), you're
only proving my point by not being able to produce a single quote.

C'mon Bertie... it can't be THAT hard to actually type out the actual
WORDS that prove your point, now can it? Even W could do that with
ease. Errrr, if they actually existed. I know you're hoping that we
won't have the time to watch a boring 11 minute interview (I don't) to
see that you're STILL wrong.

Mark "antiobfuscation" Hickey

Mark Hickey wrote in
:

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

Mark Hickey wrote in
m:

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

On 7 sep, 07:35, Mark Hickey wrote:
Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

On Sep 6, 2:36 pm, Mark Hickey wrote:
Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
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 it a reading comprehension problem, or do you think "WMD" is
an acronym that has something to do with flying airplanes into
buildings?

Nope, I read jjust fine.

What WMDs, btw?

The ones that the link you referenced above was talking about
(rather than the 9/11 attack, which is the subject of the
question).

No, it isn't. It's what you're trying to make the question.

Ummm... look above. I am asking for a SINGLE quote to prove your
assertion that Iraq was directly involved in the 9/11 attacks.

Here you go,

If you deny this you're as big an idiot or bigger than Bush

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-vefD3WSiis

While I'm sure that virtually everyone in the US watched and was
influenced by an 11 minute interview on Irish television (LOL), you're
only proving my point by not being able to produce a single quote.


Yeah, right. Figured you would say that.


And, BTW, it was picked up by CNN.
and I'm sure most people didn;t watch it or anything else that might
offer a point of view that might upset the apple cart.
Which would go a long way towards explaining why a dip**** like that got
elected in the first place.



Bertie