"The Watcher" wrote in message
...
On 16 Apr 2005 15:54:20 GMT, (Frank White)
wrote:

Might as well. The dumbDemocrats are trying to blame him for everything
anyway.

Doesn't it hurt to have the losing ticket although it won both the
presidency, the house of reps, and the senate? He has his own in complete
control of the federal government and as long as he gets amnesty before
travelling abroad, he should have nothing to worry about. Still, the truth
sometimes rears its ugly head and bites him on the ass.

But hey, it's fun watching you guys try to turn it around for the gipper.

"Willcox" wrote in message
ess.com...
Ed Huntress wrote:

"Willcox" wrote in message
ess.com...
The mainstream media reporded that the 9-11 commission said there were
no ties between Iraq and al Qaeda.

Just read the report above, and see how you would report it. Based on
the
actual words of the Commission report, I'd say there was some talk and
some
wishful thinking, but no "ties."

Tied to defination of "ties" i guess.

Well, if you're going to call an entire institution "liars," you'd better
have your definition down pat. The Commission said there were no ties. The
quotation omitted that, conveniently.


Which is exactly what they said. No evidence of any cooperative action
between them.

And no evidence they weren't cooperating, so what'd your point?

The point is, lack of evidence they WERE cooperating is another excuse for
invading Iraq shot to hell. No WMDs, no evidence of cooperation with Al
Qaeda. . .what's left, that they didn't like us?

Lack of
evidence doesn't prove the opposite.

It doesn't have to, unless you think that guesswork is enough justification
to invade a country that had not attacked us and that had no visible way to
do so if they tried. How about. . .hmm. . .Greece? They don't like us very
much. Shall we invade?

--
Ed Huntress

On Sun, 17 Apr 2005 20:50:01 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"Willcox" wrote in message
ress.com...
Ed Huntress wrote:

"Willcox" wrote in message
ess.com...
The mainstream media reporded that the 9-11 commission said there were
no ties between Iraq and al Qaeda.

Just read the report above, and see how you would report it. Based on
the
actual words of the Commission report, I'd say there was some talk and
some
wishful thinking, but no "ties."

Tied to defination of "ties" i guess.

Well, if you're going to call an entire institution "liars," you'd better
have your definition down pat. The Commission said there were no ties. The
quotation omitted that, conveniently.


Which is exactly what they said. No evidence of any cooperative action
between them.

And no evidence they weren't cooperating, so what'd your point?

The point is, lack of evidence they WERE cooperating is another excuse for
invading Iraq shot to hell. No WMDs, no evidence of cooperation with Al
Qaeda. . .what's left, that they didn't like us?

Lack of
evidence doesn't prove the opposite.

It doesn't have to, unless you think that guesswork is enough justification
to invade a country that had not attacked us and that had no visible way to
do so if they tried. How about. . .hmm. . .Greece? They don't like us very
much. Shall we invade?

So no matter what the intelligence says, you would do nothing until
AFTER the terrorists have actually COMMMITTED the next attack? Because
intelligence is ALL GUESSWORK - ALL THE TIME.

DID YOU HAVE TO WORK HARD TO GET THAT DAMNED DUMB?

"Greylock" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 17 Apr 2005 20:50:01 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"Willcox" wrote in message
ress.com...
Ed Huntress wrote:

"Willcox" wrote in message
ess.com...
The mainstream media reporded that the 9-11 commission said there
were
no ties between Iraq and al Qaeda.

Just read the report above, and see how you would report it. Based on
the
actual words of the Commission report, I'd say there was some talk
and
some
wishful thinking, but no "ties."

Tied to defination of "ties" i guess.

Well, if you're going to call an entire institution "liars," you'd better
have your definition down pat. The Commission said there were no ties.
The
quotation omitted that, conveniently.


Which is exactly what they said. No evidence of any cooperative
action
between them.

And no evidence they weren't cooperating, so what'd your point?

The point is, lack of evidence they WERE cooperating is another excuse
for
invading Iraq shot to hell. No WMDs, no evidence of cooperation with Al
Qaeda. . .what's left, that they didn't like us?

Lack of
evidence doesn't prove the opposite.

It doesn't have to, unless you think that guesswork is enough
justification
to invade a country that had not attacked us and that had no visible way
to
do so if they tried. How about. . .hmm. . .Greece? They don't like us
very
much. Shall we invade?

So no matter what the intelligence says, you would do nothing until
AFTER the terrorists have actually COMMMITTED the next attack? Because
intelligence is ALL GUESSWORK - ALL THE TIME.

DID YOU HAVE TO WORK HARD TO GET THAT DAMNED DUMB?

Tell us, oh wise one, just what makes you think that killing tens of
thousands of Iraqi civilians is going to stop a terrorist attack? And then,
after you've bounced that one around the hollow shell where most people keep
their brains, tell us why Saddam would supply terrorists to attack the
United States, when he knew that doing so would leave his fingerprints over
half the Middle East channels the CIA was watching and that we'd respond by
blasting him out of his socks?

The CIA was skeptical of any connection from day one. Read the references in
the 9-11 Commission Report and you'll see where the Commission got its
information. Furthermore, the CIA was doubtful that Saddam had the
capability to do much of anything outside of his immediate neighborhood.

We attacked Iraq under false pretenses, selected and cooked up to make a
good story. In the end, we're left cooking up more stories to justify our
actions. If I'm keeping up, the current story is that we just attacked a
country, killed thousands of their civilians, and wound up with over 1,000
of our own troops killed so we could bring elections for theocratic
political parties to Iraq. Is that the latest, or have we come up with
something else?

--
Ed Huntress

Halcitron wrote:
Cliff wrote:
On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 17:47:14 -0400, "John"
wrote:

http://mindprod.com/iraq.html#FALLUJAPIX

Go USA
snipped rubbish

The American Soldier, Sailor, Airman and Marine, knows full well what
his/her reasons for volunteering for enlistment/commission are, what
the consequences of military service are, what a contractual
obligation
is, if he/or she will or will not continue, What the benefits of
sticking to your committments are, and where failure can lead you.

Cliff, please tell us about your military servce or lack thereof.

Simply put, unless you have served under the flag, you cannot fathom
the responsibility, pride, and commraderie, of service, and the
customs
and traditions of each branch.

:/


Or can he fathom the malicious, hideous, corrupt, satanic brainwashing
to which young naive recruits are subjected in order for them to move
without questioning the lies fed to them which make them kill anyone
and anything they are ordered to attacked.

Halcitron wrote:
Cliff wrote:

"Quotations about Patriotism."


snipped

Patriotism

Main Entry: pa=B7tri=B7ot=B7ism
Pronunciation: 'pA-trE-&-"ti-z&m, chiefly British 'pa-
Function: noun
: love for or devotion to one's country


ie. The Land and it's borders.

The "government' and it's facsist control are NOT our country.

Main Entry: pa=B7tri=B7ot
Pronunciation: 'pA-trE-&t, -"=E4t, chiefly British 'pa-trE-&t
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French patriote compatriot, from Late Latin
patriota,
from Greek patriOtEs, from patria lineage, from patr-, patEr father
: one who loves his or her country and supports its authority and
interests


Ever researched who defines words and prints the dictionaries?

The same type of "unbiased" corporate whores of the New World Oreder
that bring you Fox "News" and the rest of the propagada controlled
press.

Main Entry: com=B7mu=B7nist
Pronunciation: 'k=E4m-y&-nist
Function: noun
1 : an adherent or advocate of communism
2 capitalized : COMMUNARD
3 a capitalized : a member of a Communist party or movement b often
capitalized : an adherent or advocate of a Communist government,
party,
or movement
4 often capitalized : one held to engage in left-wing, subversive, or
revolutionary activities
- communist adjective, often capitalized
- com=B7mu=B7nis=B7tic /"k=E4m-y&-'nis-tik/ adjective, often capitalized
- com=B7mu=B7nis=B7ti=B7cal=B7ly /-ti-k(&-)lE/ adverb


Cliff, since it is obvious, you are not a patriot, are you a
communist?
anarchist?

:/

It's obvious that you are a scum sucking, **** eating, half brained
troll.

In article , says...

On Sun, 17 Apr 2005 18:07:35 GMT, Gunner
wrote:

snip

Oddly enough..its possible that they did go on ships. Anyone recall
the 3 ships that left harbor in Iraq and sailed around aimlessly for
over 2 months?

Probably on those flying saucers too .... http://tinyurl.com/bafaz

Saddam had flying saucers, too?!?!?!? Whoa, crap, then I guess
it's a good thing we DID invade, after all!!!!

^_^

FW

On Sun, 17 Apr 2005 12:45:30 -0700,
(Willcox) wrote:

Ed Huntress wrote:

"Willcox" wrote in message
The press lied about what the 9-11 commission said:

http://server2.cybertarp.com/~peryno...-ties.lies.jpg

Your reference clips the 9-11 Commission report at an interesting and
probably (for them) a convenient place. Here's what they left out, after
their last sentence, "According to the reporting, Iraqi officials offered
Bin Ladin a safe haven in Iraq..."

"Bin Ladin declined, apparently judging that his circumstances in
Afghanistan remained more favorable than the Iraqi alternative. The reports
describe friendly contacts and indicate some common themes in both sides'
hatred of the United States. But to date we have seen no evidence that these
or the earlier contacts ever developed into a collaborative operational
relationship. Nor have we seen evidence indicating that Iraq cooperated with
al Qaeda in developing or carrying out any attacks against the United
States. [76]"

That's from the Commission Report. It's exactly the way _The New York Times_
reported it, and other print media reported much the same thing.

The mainstream media reporded that the 9-11 commission said there were
no ties between Iraq and al Qaeda.

And your point, if any, is?
--
Cliff

On 18 Apr 2005 04:12:12 GMT, (Frank White)
wrote:

In article , says...

On Sun, 17 Apr 2005 18:07:35 GMT, Gunner
wrote:

snip

Oddly enough..its possible that they did go on ships. Anyone recall
the 3 ships that left harbor in Iraq and sailed around aimlessly for
over 2 months?

Probably on those flying saucers too .... http://tinyurl.com/bafaz

Saddam had flying saucers, too?!?!?!? Whoa, crap, then I guess
it's a good thing we DID invade, after all!!!!

^_^

FW

http://middleeastinfo.net/article1978.html
http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20030...1256-6822r.htm

Shrug....

Gunner



"The Democratic Party is the party of this popular corruption.
The heart of the Democratic Party and its activist core is
made up of government unions, government dependent professions
(teachers, social workers, civil servants); special interest and
special benefits groups (abortion rights, is a good example) that
feed off the government trough; and ethnic constituencies,
African Americans being the most prominent, who are
disproportionately invested in government jobs and
in programs that government provides.

" The Democratic Party credo is 'Take as much of the people's money as politically feasible, and use that money to buy as many of the people's votes as possible'.
Tax cuts are a threat to this Democratic agenda.
Consequently, Democrats loathe and despise them."
-Semi-reformed Leftist David Horowitz

On Sun, 17 Apr 2005 15:49:32 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"Willcox" wrote in message
ress.com...
Ed Huntress wrote:

"Willcox" wrote in message
The press lied about what the 9-11 commission said:

http://server2.cybertarp.com/~peryno...-ties.lies.jpg

Your reference clips the 9-11 Commission report at an interesting and
probably (for them) a convenient place. Here's what they left out, after
their last sentence, "According to the reporting, Iraqi officials
offered
Bin Ladin a safe haven in Iraq..."

"Bin Ladin declined, apparently judging that his circumstances in
Afghanistan remained more favorable than the Iraqi alternative. The
reports
describe friendly contacts and indicate some common themes in both
sides'
hatred of the United States. But to date we have seen no evidence that
these
or the earlier contacts ever developed into a collaborative operational
relationship. Nor have we seen evidence indicating that Iraq cooperated
with
al Qaeda in developing or carrying out any attacks against the United
States. [76]"

That's from the Commission Report. It's exactly the way _The New York
Times_
reported it, and other print media reported much the same thing.

--
Ed Huntress

The mainstream media reporded that the 9-11 commission said there were
no ties between Iraq and al Qaeda.

Just read the report above, and see how you would report it. Based on the
actual words of the Commission report, I'd say there was some talk and some
wishful thinking, but no "ties."

Which is exactly what they said. No evidence of any cooperative action
between them.

No evidence, or no proof?

Gunner

"The Democratic Party is the party of this popular corruption.
The heart of the Democratic Party and its activist core is
made up of government unions, government dependent professions
(teachers, social workers, civil servants); special interest and
special benefits groups (abortion rights, is a good example) that
feed off the government trough; and ethnic constituencies,
African Americans being the most prominent, who are
disproportionately invested in government jobs and
in programs that government provides.

" The Democratic Party credo is 'Take as much of the people's money as politically feasible, and use that money to buy as many of the people's votes as possible'.
Tax cuts are a threat to this Democratic agenda.
Consequently, Democrats loathe and despise them."
-Semi-reformed Leftist David Horowitz

On Sun, 17 Apr 2005 22:19:51 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

We attacked Iraq under false pretenses, selected and cooked up to make a
good story. In the end, we're left cooking up more stories to justify our
actions. If I'm keeping up, the current story is that we just attacked a
country, killed thousands of their civilians, and wound up with over 1,000
of our own troops killed so we could bring elections for theocratic
political parties to Iraq. Is that the latest, or have we come up with
something else?

--
Ed Huntress

Based on the dates in the following quotes, it appears the Democrats
cooked the books, made up the "lies". You should complain to your
handlers in the DNC

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal,
murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a
particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to
miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to
his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass
destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass
destruction is real..."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003 | Source

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the
authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein
because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction
in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002 | Source

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to
develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them.
That is our bottom line."
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998 | Source

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is
clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's
weapons of mass destruction program."
- President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998 | Source

"We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and
security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction."
- Madeline Albright, Feb 1, 1998 | Source

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten
times since 1983."
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998 |
Source

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with
the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including,
if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to
respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its
weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton.
- (D) Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, others, Oct. 9,
1998 | Source

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass
destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region
and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998 | Source

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass
destruction and palaces for his cronies."
- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999 |
Source

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a
threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the
mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass
destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002 | Source

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical
weapons throughout his country."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 | Source

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible
to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as
Saddam is in power."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 | Source

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and
developing weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002 | Source

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are
confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and
biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course
to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities.
Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002 | Source

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working
aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear
weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have
always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of
weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002 | Source

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports
show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and
biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his
nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to
terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that
if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his
capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying
to develop nuclear weapons."
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002 | Source

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that
Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing
capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass
destruction."
- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002 | Source


"The Democratic Party is the party of this popular corruption.
The heart of the Democratic Party and its activist core is
made up of government unions, government dependent professions
(teachers, social workers, civil servants); special interest and
special benefits groups (abortion rights, is a good example) that
feed off the government trough; and ethnic constituencies,
African Americans being the most prominent, who are
disproportionately invested in government jobs and
in programs that government provides.

" The Democratic Party credo is 'Take as much of the people's money as politically feasible, and use that money to buy as many of the people's votes as possible'.
Tax cuts are a threat to this Democratic agenda.
Consequently, Democrats loathe and despise them."
-Semi-reformed Leftist David Horowitz

"J. R. Carroll" wrote in
m:


"D Murphy" wrote in message
...
"J. R. Carroll" wrote in
news:aTz8e.112 :

ftp.machiningsolution.com/SR_wmd_report.pdf
ftp.machiningsolution.com/911_Report.pdf

You should add this one too.
http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/chap1.html



Thanks Dan But -
I would prefer not to end up being a repository for these things. It
would
be a waste of bandwidth. The knuckle draggers can't and won't absorb
anything beyond pabulum anyway. I have obtained and read a bunch of
what our own government has published and the oft stated conclusion
and general sense is that Iraq had not had deliverable capacity for
years and lacked the infrastructure required for even a bad industrial
accident. When Collin Powell testified to that effect in 2001 he was
spot on.


It's still an interesting read. If you read it a couple of times and use
you're imagination, it paints a picture of the real problem a ruthless
dictator will always end up with. Namely everyone is afraid to say no,
disagree or give him bad news, because the penalty is severe. So Saddam
makes a lot of poor choices, particularly with foreign policy.
The big surprises for me were that they used CW's in the first Gulf war,
they didn't go off. And the other surprise was how much money he was
spending on being ready to resume his programs once the UN sanctions were
lifted. I think that he got rid of, dismantled, and hid the parts of his
WMD's and programs. He wanted the sanctions lifted, the inspections over,
and the world to forget about him for a while. Then he would be able to
start his nuclear program again.

--

Dan

On Sun, 17 Apr 2005 20:09:17 -0700, "Jon Danniken"
wrote:

"Greylock" wrote:
"Ed Huntress" wrote:
"Willcox" wrote in message
Ed Huntress wrote:

[snip]

Could you fellas please trim your distribution and limit your "Gunner Spam"
to misc.survivalism please? I would prefer to not have to read it in RCM or
AMC.

Thanks,

Jon

Ask the man holding the pistol in your ear if you really have to read
this thread?
If you ask nicely, Im sure he will let you put an Ignore on the
thread.

Or are you just wanting something to bitch about?

Gunner

"The Democratic Party is the party of this popular corruption.
The heart of the Democratic Party and its activist core is
made up of government unions, government dependent professions
(teachers, social workers, civil servants); special interest and
special benefits groups (abortion rights, is a good example) that
feed off the government trough; and ethnic constituencies,
African Americans being the most prominent, who are
disproportionately invested in government jobs and
in programs that government provides.

" The Democratic Party credo is 'Take as much of the people's money as politically feasible, and use that money to buy as many of the people's votes as possible'.
Tax cuts are a threat to this Democratic agenda.
Consequently, Democrats loathe and despise them."
-Semi-reformed Leftist David Horowitz

On Sun, 17 Apr 2005 11:29:14 -0700, "Dan" wrote:


"The Watcher" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 18:38:14 -0400, Cliff wrote:

So they found all those tons of WKMDs did they?

Notice the lie changed in mid-stream there? When caught in a lie, it's
always
good to TRY to change it and hope nobody notices.

Can you please point out the lie.

The American soldier knows full well there were no WMDs.

That's Version #1 of Cliffie's Lie in this thread.

So they found all those tons of WMDs did they?

That's Version #2 of Cliffie's Lie in this thread.
So far Cliffie hasn't even been able to admit to his Amazing Morphing Lie. You
can go back and read the thread if you want to see where it morphed. Or you can
just continue to watch Cliffie weasel. I won't bother to keep asking. I know
Cliffie will just keep weaseling. He has no more integrity than Bill Clinton.
The ADMINISTRATION claimed there were tons of WMDs (redefined to
include chemical and biological weapons). Where are those tons of WMDs?

WMD's were "redefined" to include chemical and biological weapons?????? What
were WMD's before they were "redefined"? As far as I knew, that was the original
definition of WMD's, before all the lieberal Sadam Hussein apologists came along
and tried to redefine them, once some chemical weapons were found in Iraq. Then
they tried to claim that the "few" chemical weapons found were not WMD's.

On Sun, 17 Apr 2005 11:15:43 -0700, "Dan" wrote:

(snip)
Only if they actually existed, for which there is no [public] evidence. so,
beliving in their existence is what?

The factsthat Hussein acknowledged their existence and that he used some of them
on his own people and against the Iranians. So, believing in their existence is
logical, I'd say.

Imagine what that would do for all you lieberal apologist tail-chasers
spinning
around trying to cover for his lies all these years. :/

Wouldn't do nothing. Belief that lack of evidence is proof is pretty
foolish, don't
you think. Believing that an Administration that promised a reason for war
to
actually produce that reason, if it existed, is not so foolish. So, which
of us
would be "lying" were they proven to be mistaken...

Denying all that evidence is pretty foolish, I'd say. Denial is a strong
motivation, I know, but still no excuse.

I guess somebody wasn't paying attention too well. Don't remember UN
inspectors
being repeatedly denied access and thrown out of Iraq, eh? Some more of
that
selective memory, I suppose.

Yeah, selective on your part. The inspectors weren't "thrown out" of Iraq,
they
were asked to leave by the U.S. (U.N.?) at the start of an air interdiction
campaign
for their own safety. The inspectors that were reporting the LACK of
programs
or materials just before the war were removed by OUR SIDE because their
evidence was embarrassing to a Administration already set on war.

Boy, that memory really is selective, isn't it. You think the inspectors only
left Iraq once? Iraq never interfered with the inspection program?

Do try and get out more.

Yes, you too, and try reading something other than the DU website.

As I've said before, though, I can't blame George II for making
that charge, because Saddam was doing everything possible to
convince the world he DID have WMDs in huge quantities.

And, let's look at reality:

+ Korea was thought to have nukes, it still hasn't been invaded.
+ The Administration KNEW Iraq had no nukes (or other WOTs), and they were
invaded.

As a leader responsible for the safety of his people, would you make it look
like
you had no means of defending yourself to an enemy at your gate, or would
you
leave the invading enemy in doubt, with the attendant inefficiencies
planning for
(or at least showing the audience you were "planning for," for political
reasons)
defense against WOTs or nukes?

No, that's why we have these Incredible Morphing Lies, eh?

Incredible Morphing Lies. Is that a new rock group, or just your feeble
imagination fueled by politicians knowing how dumb you really are.

So, are you trying to deny Cliffie's morphing lies now?

Please state some of these "Incredible Morphing Lies."

Done. Is your Denial strong enough for that one.

can. There were
several distinct Incredible Morphing Lies given to the American public (like
you) by our Foolish Leader, until they found the one that would resonate
with the ignorant masses allowing the invasion of Iraq

No WMD's, uhhh, NO TONS of WMD's, what's it gonna be next? No
POUNDS of WMD's?

Huh?

Hello? That's the morphing Lie I was talking about. If you want to participate
in this thread, do try to keep up. I know you people caught up in Denial like to
defend your Denial, but that's your problem, not ours.

What was found that the public doesn't know about (but to which you,
evidently, are privy)? A couple of experimental binary shells that date
back
to when the U. S. was providing the technology and satellite targeting for
gassing the irascible Iranians?

How many chemical weapons were the Iraqis allowed to keep under the surrender
treaty they signed?

A couple of years ago, an entire TRAIN
load of munitions, dating to WWII was dug up where it was buried
because it was too much trouble to reload or even track the material. The
train had derailed, and rather than reallocate scarce resources, the
materials
were bulldozed over and forgotten for decades, until someone happened to
dig in the right spot.

Nice smokescreen, but what does that have to do with THIS issue?

So, other than programs we KNEW about, any other cases of actual
dangerous stuff in Iraq, other than a couple of weather-balloon-filling
trucks
been found?


Talk about Morphing Lies...

Already did.
That's what Cliffie keeps dodging.

On 17 Apr 2005 21:35:38 GMT, D Murphy wrote:

"J. R. Carroll" wrote in news:aTz8e.112
:

ftp.machiningsolution.com/SR_wmd_report.pdf
ftp.machiningsolution.com/911_Report.pdf

You should add this one too.
http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/chap1.html

"Iraq’s WMD capability—which was essentially destroyed in 1991"

IE No "WMDs".

"The former Regime had no formal written strategy or plan for the
revival of WMD after sanctions. Neither was there an identifiable
group of WMD policy makers or planners separate from Saddam."

IE Nothing even in the works or actually planned for.
--
Cliff

On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 02:01:09 GMT, Greylock
wrote:

Lack of
evidence doesn't prove the opposite.

It doesn't have to, unless you think that guesswork is enough justification
to invade a country that had not attacked us and that had no visible way to
do so if they tried. How about. . .hmm. . .Greece? They don't like us very
much. Shall we invade?

So no matter what the intelligence says, you would do nothing until
AFTER the terrorists have actually COMMMITTED the next attack?

Another idiot winger wanting to invade Mars.

After all, there's no evidence that the little green men are not
after him with their fancy nets .....
--
Cliff

On Sun, 17 Apr 2005 22:19:51 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

The CIA was skeptical of any connection from day one. Read the references in
the 9-11 Commission Report and you'll see where the Commission got its
information. Furthermore, the CIA was doubtful that Saddam had the
capability to do much of anything outside of his immediate neighborhood.

Not even those in the immediate neighborhood had any concerns
and were, in fact, quite opposed to the US attack & invasion.
Though a few got paid I think ... perhaps the costs will be repaid
by the loot .... someday .....
--
Cliff

Ed Huntress wrote:

"Willcox" wrote in message
ess.com...
Ed Huntress wrote:

"Willcox" wrote in message
ess.com...
The mainstream media reporded that the 9-11 commission said there were
no ties between Iraq and al Qaeda.

Just read the report above, and see how you would report it. Based on
the
actual words of the Commission report, I'd say there was some talk and
some
wishful thinking, but no "ties."

Tied to defination of "ties" i guess.

Well, if you're going to call an entire institution "liars," you'd better
have your definition down pat. The Commission said there were no ties. The
quotation omitted that, conveniently.

The Commission DID NOT say there were no ties. Stop making things up.

On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 05:50:14 GMT, Gunner
wrote:

On 18 Apr 2005 04:12:12 GMT, (Frank White)
wrote:

In article , says...

On Sun, 17 Apr 2005 18:07:35 GMT, Gunner
wrote:

snip

Oddly enough..its possible that they did go on ships. Anyone recall
the 3 ships that left harbor in Iraq and sailed around aimlessly for
over 2 months?

Probably on those flying saucers too .... http://tinyurl.com/bafaz

Saddam had flying saucers, too?!?!?!? Whoa, crap, then I guess
it's a good thing we DID invade, after all!!!!

^_^

FW

http://middleeastinfo.net/article1978.html

"By Michael Harrison (The Independent)"

Same idiot?

"19 February 2003"
"Three giant cargo ships are being tracked by US and British
intelligence on suspicion that they might be carrying Iraqi weapons of
mass destruction."
"Uncovering such a deadly cargo on board would give George Bush and
Tony Blair the much sought-after "smoking gun" needed to justify an
attack on Saddam Hussein's regime, in the face of massive public
opposition to war."

Guess what?

BINGO !! No word of any such "WMDs".

Just more wingerlies .... and poor gummer's hardly
up on current evenrts .....

http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20030...1256-6822r.htm

"copyright © 2003"

"Pravda said that an anonymous Russian "military expert" was
predicting that the United States would fabricate finding Iraqi
weapons of mass destruction. "

Nice try, gummer ....

Shrug....

Gunner

snicker
--
Cliff

On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 06:42:32 GMT, (The Watcher)
wrote:

On Sun, 17 Apr 2005 11:29:14 -0700, "Dan" wrote:


"The Watcher" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 18:38:14 -0400, Cliff wrote:

So they found all those tons of WKMDs did they?

Notice the lie changed in mid-stream there? When caught in a lie, it's
always
good to TRY to change it and hope nobody notices.

Can you please point out the lie.

The American soldier knows full well there were no WMDs.

That's Version #1 of Cliffie's Lie in this thread.

Umm .. that was quoted material .....


So they found all those tons of WMDs did they?

That's Version #2 of Cliffie's Lie in this thread.

So you are saying that there was none to be found, just
like the "American soldier"?

So far Cliffie hasn't even been able to admit to his Amazing Morphing Lie. You
can go back and read the thread if you want to see where it morphed. Or you can
just continue to watch Cliffie weasel.

Better yet, watch this crazed loon try to read with more than
5% comprehension.
Clearly he cannot think for himself.

I won't bother to keep asking. I know
Cliffie will just keep weaseling.

??
You seem a bit confused ..... found those "WMDs",
did you? Under the secret decoder ring?

He has no more integrity than Bill Clinton.

Who, after more than US$ 70,000,000 was spent
on investigating in a cosmic witchunt on fabrications
from idiot lying wingers ....

I suspect that this guy's police record is really interesting ....

The ADMINISTRATION claimed there were tons of WMDs (redefined to
include chemical and biological weapons). Where are those tons of WMDs?

WMD's were "redefined" to include chemical and biological weapons?????? What
were WMD's before they were "redefined"? As far as I knew, that was the original
definition of WMD's, before all the lieberal Sadam Hussein apologists came along
and tried to redefine them, once some chemical weapons were found in Iraq.

Back to the moldy sandwich in the bombed-out fridge again,
are you?

I could suggest a place for you to put it .....

Then
they tried to claim that the "few" chemical weapons found were not WMD's.

Where are those tons of WMDs?

Wingers are just so gullible ..
--
Cliff

On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 06:51:32 GMT, (The Watcher)
wrote:

How many chemical weapons were the Iraqis allowed to keep under the surrender
treaty they signed?

How many did they have?
What's that again?
Louder, please !!!
--
Cliff

On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 05:54:13 GMT, Gunner
wrote:

Which is exactly what they said. No evidence of any cooperative action
between them.

No evidence, or no proof?

Language comprehension problems yet again?

http://www.alexross.com/CJ037.html

HTH
--
Cliff

On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 06:01:03 GMT, Gunner
wrote:

Based on the dates in the following quotes, it appears the Democrats
cooked the books, made up the "lies". You should complain to your
handlers in the DNC

Thus Herr shrubbie's stupidity & planned lies are their
fault, right?

Always nice to see gummer going to the dems for
support for his wild claims .....

snort
--
Cliff

On 18 Apr 2005 06:30:18 GMT, D Murphy wrote:

I think that he got rid of, dismantled, and hid the parts of his
WMD's and programs. He wanted the sanctions lifted, the inspections over,
and the world to forget about him for a while. Then he would be able to
start his nuclear program again.

They'd very much like some electrical power.
Someone bombed their reactor as you might recall.

He's old. Time takes it's toll. As noted, there
seemed to be no specific plans or organized
things ....
--
Cliff

On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 01:06:18 -0700,
(Willcox) wrote:

Stop making things up.

Stop making things up. Someone might
confuse you with a winger.

HTH
--
Cliff

"D Murphy" wrote in message
...
"J. R. Carroll" wrote in
m:


"D Murphy" wrote in message
...
"J. R. Carroll" wrote in
news:aTz8e.112 :

ftp.machiningsolution.com/SR_wmd_report.pdf
ftp.machiningsolution.com/911_Report.pdf

You should add this one too.
http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/chap1.html




It's still an interesting read. If you read it a couple of times and use
you're imagination, it paints a picture of the real problem a ruthless
dictator will always end up with. Namely everyone is afraid to say no,
disagree or give him bad news, because the penalty is severe. So Saddam
makes a lot of poor choices, particularly with foreign policy.
The big surprises for me were that they used CW's in the first Gulf war,
they didn't go off. And the other surprise was how much money he was
spending on being ready to resume his programs once the UN sanctions were
lifted. I think that he got rid of, dismantled, and hid the parts of his
WMD's and programs. He wanted the sanctions lifted, the inspections over,
and the world to forget about him for a while. Then he would be able to
start his nuclear program again.


Oh I had read it and you are right it is interesting. I have never made the
case that Sadam could be ignored or that he wouldn't have liked to have gone
back into the mass destruction business. He would not have lived long enough
to have done so, however, and I doubt that he would ever have had the means
to have done much. The ruthless dictator problem combined with his
increasing frailty would have defeated him, and his kids didn't have the old
mans political skills. By 2010 we would have been able to have played a role
in Iraq to cement the change of government a civil war fought by the people
of Iraq would have resulted in without the tremendous outpouring of our
national wealth. It certainly would have been necessary to sent a fighting
force but we would not have been under any illusions either of the purpose
or the exit strategy. They will have their war anyway, in my opinion, and
the sooner the better. The difference is that we will have little influence
over the outcome.
To understand better what is happening in the middle east today you must
review history from about 1850 and in India with the British. Follow events
forward from there. To understand how our policy ended up focused on Iraq,
begin in 1974 in Iran.




--
John R. Carroll
Machining Solution Software, Inc.
Los Angeles San Francisco
www.machiningsolution.com

"Gunner" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 17 Apr 2005 15:49:32 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"Willcox" wrote in message
ress.com...
Ed Huntress wrote:

"Willcox" wrote in message
The press lied about what the 9-11 commission said:

http://server2.cybertarp.com/~peryno...-ties.lies.jpg

Your reference clips the 9-11 Commission report at an interesting and
probably (for them) a convenient place. Here's what they left out,
after
their last sentence, "According to the reporting, Iraqi officials
offered
Bin Ladin a safe haven in Iraq..."

"Bin Ladin declined, apparently judging that his circumstances in
Afghanistan remained more favorable than the Iraqi alternative. The
reports
describe friendly contacts and indicate some common themes in both
sides'
hatred of the United States. But to date we have seen no evidence
that
these
or the earlier contacts ever developed into a collaborative
operational
relationship. Nor have we seen evidence indicating that Iraq
cooperated
with
al Qaeda in developing or carrying out any attacks against the United
States. [76]"

That's from the Commission Report. It's exactly the way _The New York
Times_
reported it, and other print media reported much the same thing.

--
Ed Huntress

The mainstream media reporded that the 9-11 commission said there were
no ties between Iraq and al Qaeda.

Just read the report above, and see how you would report it. Based on the
actual words of the Commission report, I'd say there was some talk and
some
wishful thinking, but no "ties."

Which is exactly what they said. No evidence of any cooperative action
between them.

No evidence, or no proof?

Yeah. No evidence, or proof. Did you actually READ the references in the
9-11 Commission report? Or are you just parroting more crap that you haven't
checked?

--
Ed Huntress

"Gunner" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 17 Apr 2005 22:19:51 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

We attacked Iraq under false pretenses, selected and cooked up to make a
good story. In the end, we're left cooking up more stories to justify our
actions. If I'm keeping up, the current story is that we just attacked a
country, killed thousands of their civilians, and wound up with over
1,000
of our own troops killed so we could bring elections for theocratic
political parties to Iraq. Is that the latest, or have we come up with
something else?

--
Ed Huntress

Based on the dates in the following quotes, it appears the Democrats
cooked the books, made up the "lies". You should complain to your
handlers in the DNC

The quotes you have are people talking about what they knew, or thought they
knew, but which lacked the certainty necessary for going to war. It was
enough for international politics, for sabre-rattling and posturing, but not
enough to send troops to their deaths.

The numbnutz neocons don't seem to know the difference. They took some
flimsy evidence, filled with caveats and uncertainties, and used it to
attack another country and to kill by the thousands -- other people, and our
own troops.

That's the difference. You have politicians, and you have ideologues who
live a fantasy life who think the world stage is a pulp-fiction novel. And
now tens of thousands of people are dead, we're looking around trying to
figure out why, and the most we'll have to show for it is a change of
government (for better or worse will depend on the degree to which theocrats
wind up running it) in a country halfway around the world that never even
laid a hand on us.

Does that make you proud?

--
Ed Huntress

On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 08:30:33 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"Gunner" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 17 Apr 2005 15:49:32 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"Willcox" wrote in message
ress.com...
Ed Huntress wrote:

"Willcox" wrote in message
The press lied about what the 9-11 commission said:

http://server2.cybertarp.com/~peryno...-ties.lies.jpg

Your reference clips the 9-11 Commission report at an interesting and
probably (for them) a convenient place. Here's what they left out,
after
their last sentence, "According to the reporting, Iraqi officials
offered
Bin Ladin a safe haven in Iraq..."

"Bin Ladin declined, apparently judging that his circumstances in
Afghanistan remained more favorable than the Iraqi alternative. The
reports
describe friendly contacts and indicate some common themes in both
sides'
hatred of the United States. But to date we have seen no evidence
that
these
or the earlier contacts ever developed into a collaborative
operational
relationship. Nor have we seen evidence indicating that Iraq
cooperated
with
al Qaeda in developing or carrying out any attacks against the United
States. [76]"

That's from the Commission Report. It's exactly the way _The New York
Times_
reported it, and other print media reported much the same thing.

--
Ed Huntress

The mainstream media reporded that the 9-11 commission said there were
no ties between Iraq and al Qaeda.

Just read the report above, and see how you would report it. Based on the
actual words of the Commission report, I'd say there was some talk and
some
wishful thinking, but no "ties."

Which is exactly what they said. No evidence of any cooperative action
between them.

No evidence, or no proof?

Yeah. No evidence, or proof. Did you actually READ the references in the
9-11 Commission report? Or are you just parroting more crap that you haven't
checked?

Ive read that report backwards and forwards. Likely am far more
familiar with it than you are.

Im fascinated that the chairman of the committee claims that there Was
links.

Gunner

"At the core of liberalism is the spoiled child -
miserable, as all spoiled children are, unsatisfied,
demanding, ill-disciplined, despotic and useless.
Liberalism is a philosphy of sniveling brats." -- P.J. O'Rourke

On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 08:46:18 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"Gunner" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 17 Apr 2005 22:19:51 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

We attacked Iraq under false pretenses, selected and cooked up to make a
good story. In the end, we're left cooking up more stories to justify our
actions. If I'm keeping up, the current story is that we just attacked a
country, killed thousands of their civilians, and wound up with over
1,000
of our own troops killed so we could bring elections for theocratic
political parties to Iraq. Is that the latest, or have we come up with
something else?

--
Ed Huntress

Based on the dates in the following quotes, it appears the Democrats
cooked the books, made up the "lies". You should complain to your
handlers in the DNC

The quotes you have are people talking about what they knew, or thought they
knew, but which lacked the certainty necessary for going to war. It was
enough for international politics, for sabre-rattling and posturing, but not
enough to send troops to their deaths.

The numbnutz neocons don't seem to know the difference. They took some
flimsy evidence, filled with caveats and uncertainties, and used it to
attack another country and to kill by the thousands -- other people, and our
own troops.

That's the difference. You have politicians, and you have ideologues who
live a fantasy life who think the world stage is a pulp-fiction novel. And
now tens of thousands of people are dead, we're looking around trying to
figure out why, and the most we'll have to show for it is a change of
government (for better or worse will depend on the degree to which theocrats
wind up running it) in a country halfway around the world that never even
laid a hand on us.

Does that make you proud?

It makes me proud that Saddam is finally gone, you Libs
notwithstanding.
It makes me proud that they have elections, a government is forming
and things are on the mend in Iraq.
It makes me proud that the middle east is undergoing big changes and
eventually they all will join the 21st century.
It makes me proud that a 12th century culture is coming along so
fast.
It makes me proud of our soldiers.
It makes me proud that the Kurds are prospering and are no longer
hunted like animals
It makes me proud the childrens prisons are empty
It makes me proud the rape camps are gone.
It makes me proud the wood chippers and acid baths are no longer
claiming Saddams enemies
It makes me proud that Qusay and Uday no longer snatch young girls off
the street, rape then kill them.
It makes me proud that Saddam is no longer starving his people
It makes me proud that Iraqis are getting water and utilites they have
not had as Saddam turned them off as punishment.
It makes me proud that hard case Jihadists are dying like flies
It makes me proud that you Libs are ****ed and running scared
It makes me proud that Libs hypocrasy is so well exposed.

And it makes me Proud, to be an American.

I hear France is a haven for writers. Need help packing?

Gunner

"At the core of liberalism is the spoiled child -
miserable, as all spoiled children are, unsatisfied,
demanding, ill-disciplined, despotic and useless.
Liberalism is a philosphy of sniveling brats." -- P.J. O'Rourke

On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 05:06:51 -0400, Cliff wrote:

(snip)
Can you please point out the lie.

The American soldier knows full well there were no WMDs.

That's Version #1 of Cliffie's Lie in this thread.

Umm .. that was quoted material .....

OK, so quoting a lie isn't lying? More from the Bill Clinton Dictionary of
Doublespeak?


So they found all those tons of WMDs did they?

That's Version #2 of Cliffie's Lie in this thread.

So you are saying that there was none to be found, just
like the "American soldier"?

So are you saying those statements are the same? Little Cliffie seems to be
hiding from this question for some reason. He seems to find it uncomfortable.

So far Cliffie hasn't even been able to admit to his Amazing Morphing Lie. You
can go back and read the thread if you want to see where it morphed. Or you can
just continue to watch Cliffie weasel.

Better yet, watch this crazed loon try to read with more than
5% comprehension.
Clearly he cannot think for himself.

He can spot weaseling, though, can't he. Gonna keep hiding, little Cliffie?

I won't bother to keep asking. I know
Cliffie will just keep weaseling.

??
You seem a bit confused ..... found those "WMDs",
did you? Under the secret decoder ring?

Still squirming, eh?

He has no more integrity than Bill Clinton.

Who, after more than US$ 70,000,000 was spent
on investigating in a cosmic witchunt on fabrications
from idiot lying wingers ....

Ah, fabrications? Then he didn't commit perjury in front of that Grand Jury? And
he wasn't impeached? Interesting.

I suspect that this guy's police record is really interesting ....

The ADMINISTRATION claimed there were tons of WMDs (redefined to
include chemical and biological weapons). Where are those tons of WMDs?

WMD's were "redefined" to include chemical and biological weapons?????? What
were WMD's before they were "redefined"? As far as I knew, that was the original
definition of WMD's, before all the lieberal Sadam Hussein apologists came along
and tried to redefine them, once some chemical weapons were found in Iraq.

Back to the moldy sandwich in the bombed-out fridge again,
are you?

I could suggest a place for you to put it .....

Then
they tried to claim that the "few" chemical weapons found were not WMD's.

Where are those tons of WMDs?

In the same place as those NO WMD's.

Wingers are just so gullible ..

Yes, since lieberals are a type of wingers, they are gullible.

On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 05:08:52 -0400, Cliff wrote:

On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 06:51:32 GMT, (The Watcher)
wrote:

How many chemical weapons were the Iraqis allowed to keep under the surrender
treaty they signed?

How many did they have?

Hmmm, the answer to a "How many" question is a question. Yep,
integrity-challenged. Playing Dodge-the-Question still, eh?

What's that again?

Integrity-challenged.

Louder, please !!!

INTEGRITY-CHALLENGED.
--
Cliff

On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 08:46:18 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

handlers in the DNC

The quotes you have are people talking about what they knew, or thought they
knew, but which lacked the certainty necessary for going to war. It was
enough for international politics, for sabre-rattling and posturing, but not
enough to send troops to their deaths.

Not true. The Left, so profoundly represented in those quotes, was
occupied with other matters. But they did have time for Monica
Missiles.

Then of course, there was Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia etc etc etc.....

Still an apologist for the Left I see.....

Gunner

"At the core of liberalism is the spoiled child -
miserable, as all spoiled children are, unsatisfied,
demanding, ill-disciplined, despotic and useless.
Liberalism is a philosphy of sniveling brats." -- P.J. O'Rourke

Cliff wrote:
On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 18:26:21 -0400, "Proto" wrote:

Proto,
Please consider snipping the old post from the bottom ....

Do you mean like this? I need to review a faq page on proper posting.
Sorry..

Just fine & dandy .... but you may wish to also leave that header
bit in .... see the one above .... shows who you responded to ...
usually ...

Thanks.

On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 17:17:11 GMT, Gunner
wrote:

Im fascinated that the chairman of the committee claims that there Was
links.

You seem to be illiterate.
HTH
--
Cliff

On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 08:46:18 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

The numbnutz neocons don't seem to know the difference. They took some
flimsy evidence, filled with caveats and uncertainties, and used it to
attack another country and to kill by the thousands -- other people, and our
own troops.

And they well KNEW what they were doing far in advance
or there would have been no need for their "Office of Special
Projects", for making war plans by their second *WEEK* in
office or for kicking the inspectors out of Iraq JUST BEFORE they
could report that there was nothing to be found.

I still find the carriers headed to Afghanistan's local waters
the week after 9-11 VERY suspect as well.

As are all the new US military bases, rapidly ($$) being
expanded in the area .... there are no plans to ever
shut them down it seems ....

Palaces must be nice to live in though.
--
Cliff

On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 17:22:29 GMT, Gunner
wrote:

And it makes me Proud, to be an American.

snicker
One of our very worst examples.
That had absolutely no such concerns *prior*
to the wars & winger propaganda.
--
Cliff

Gunner wrote:
On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 13:11:56 -0400, "Proto" wrote:

Grady wrote:
I think it would best serve your argument of "mass murder" if you
could post some support factual truth. This does not mean some
drivel from some left wing web site either. I will be the first to
admit that the mistakes of a few have caused some shame for the US,
but I don't see anything that remotely resembles "mass murder".

It is actually very simple. For a nation of the size of the US to
consider bombing a country with over 50% children and to continue an
admitted mistake merely because of the rational that it somehow
would be a mistake to back down now proves it is murder. This is an
issue or morality. A war waged and continued under admitted
falsities is a crime. Plain and simple.
The very best that can be said is that in spite of all the mistakes
that were made is that we must continue?
Sure sounds like an Adolph moment to me.

Proto

Are you claiming that the military targets such as command and control
head quarters, ammo dumps, Republican Guard barracks and so forth,
were filled with 50% children?

Doesnt speak well for Saddam does it?


I consider things like the cluster bombs the US uses along with land mines
in general which in this high tech age are considered by many to be wrong.
Anti personal mines in city combat was never in any book these present day
military leaders ever read. Do you actually believe only military targets
were destroyed and what ever happened along the way is of no consequence?
The families of the 100,000+ dead civilians should be thanking the US for
liberating their country and getting rid of that evil dictator Sadam instead
of wanting an harm to come to their liberators. Let's see that might be a
million if you include relatives. But wait. George said the Iraqis love us
and just have not yet had the chance to throw those flowers yet.

I say we should have stayed home and fixed this county and let those
foreigners fix their own broken government. What the hell is wrong with
that?

Proto

On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 17:38:24 GMT, (The Watcher)
wrote:

On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 05:06:51 -0400, Cliff wrote:

(snip)
Can you please point out the lie.

The American soldier knows full well there were no WMDs.

That's Version #1 of Cliffie's Lie in this thread.

Umm .. that was quoted material .....

OK, so quoting a lie isn't lying?

So you ACTUALLY found all of those claimed "WMDs"?
When & where?

ANY of them? Out of all those TONS that the neocons
KNEW where they were ....

More from the Bill Clinton Dictionary of
Doublespeak?

Your heros got caught lying again?

How long have you been a slow learner?


So they found all those tons of WMDs did they?

That's Version #2 of Cliffie's Lie in this thread.

So you are saying that there was none to be found, just
like the "American soldier"?

So are you saying those statements are the same? Little Cliffie seems to be
hiding from this question for some reason. He seems to find it uncomfortable.

No WMDs == "The Watcher" gets winger medal for abject idiocy.

So far Cliffie hasn't even been able to admit to his Amazing Morphing Lie. You
can go back and read the thread if you want to see where it morphed. Or you can
just continue to watch Cliffie weasel.

Better yet, watch this crazed loon try to read with more than
5% comprehension.
Clearly he cannot think for himself.

He can spot weaseling, though, can't he.

Just like "WMDs", eh?

Gonna keep hiding, little Cliffie?

Better yet, watch this crazed loon try to read with more than
5% comprehension.
Clearly he cannot think for himself.

I won't bother to keep asking. I know
Cliffie will just keep weaseling.

??
You seem a bit confused ..... found those "WMDs",
did you? Under the secret decoder ring?

Still squirming, eh?

You made the claims ..... LOL ....

He has no more integrity than Bill Clinton.

Who, after more than US$ 70,000,000 was spent
on investigating in a cosmic witchunt on fabrications
from idiot lying wingers ....

Ah, fabrications? Then he didn't commit perjury in front of that Grand Jury? And
he wasn't impeached? Interesting.

You seem to think that "impeached" is similar to "convicted
based on winger blogs & lies".

Been this foolish all your life?


I suspect that this guy's police record is really interesting ....

He went mum GG.

The ADMINISTRATION claimed there were tons of WMDs (redefined to
include chemical and biological weapons). Where are those tons of WMDs?

WMD's were "redefined" to include chemical and biological weapons?????? What
were WMD's before they were "redefined"? As far as I knew, that was the original
definition of WMD's, before all the lieberal Sadam Hussein apologists came along
and tried to redefine them, once some chemical weapons were found in Iraq.

Back to the moldy sandwich in the bombed-out fridge again,
are you?

I could suggest a place for you to put it .....

Then
they tried to claim that the "few" chemical weapons found were not WMD's.

Where are those tons of WMDs?

In the same place as those NO WMD's.

AKA The Null Set?


Wingers are just so gullible ..

Yes, since lieberals are a type of wingers, they are gullible.

Learn to spell. You look like a winger.
--
Cliff