Renata wrote:
And SH was planning on putting all those shells on a boat to the US
when? Or, was it that he was planning on putting them on all those
drones he had, lying in wait to attack the USA?


All which shells, the 150 that were test fired or the other 20 that
were otherwise accounted for?

--

FF

R

On 25 Feb 2005 16:20:15 GMT, Dave Hinz wrote:

On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 08:01:58 -0500, Renata
wrote:
You mean as opposed to GBush's target of a country w/no WMD?

"no WMD" is an absolute, and is absolutely wrong. Even Fred doesn't
deny the Sarin shell that injured a couple of our guys, and says
there
are 149 or 169 more of 'em unaccounted for out there.

Dave Hinz wrote:
On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 10:12:16 -0700, Charles Spitzer
wrote:

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
news

I suppose the case could be made that spreading freedom
"promote[s] the
common
defence". There's room for an interesting discussion on that
subject, to
be
sure. The Constitution does specify that the President is
Commander-in-Chief
of the nation's military, and it places little restriction on his
exercise
of
that role.

except for declaring war, which congress has to do.

Had the Gulf War I ever technically ended?

It ended with a cease-fire, subsequently violated by
the US and the UK by the establishment of no-fly zones
over Iraqi territory where the cease fire agreement
guaranteed that Iraq would be allowed to fly military
aircraft. Lest the reader misunderstand, that violation
was preferable, IHMO to the alternative of allowing the
Shiites and Kurds to be slaughtered.

Of course the Congress did not DECLARE the 1991 war either.
Once the Congress authorized the use of military force in 1990
(or was it 1991 when the Congress voted?)
and in 2002 subsequent military action by President Bush and
President Bush respectively, was legal by US law.

AFAIK, the only US president to commit an apparant violation
of the War Powers Act since it was adopted, is Clinton
who never sought explicit Congressional approval in
advance of or during the extended military action in
Bosnia or Kosovo. As I recall, when the Kosovo issue
went to the courts the court decided that Congressional
approval of the military budget for any part of the
Kosovo campaign satisfied the requirements of the
War Powers Act. Just one of the many examples of
how Clinton got away with incredibly arrogant flouting
of the law with nary a peep from the press.

--

FF

On 25 Feb 2005 11:53:10 -0800, wrote:

Dave Hinz wrote:
On 25 Feb 2005 08:43:20 -0800,
wrote:

...
And,
you miss the point of my post which is that even by your
standards of what is acceptable or not, that one sarin shell
is direct evidence that "no WMDs" is not an accurate statement.

Can you at least agree to that point,

Agreed. Can we also agree that when a person writes:
"No WMD in Iraq" that is shorthand for "No substantive
violations of the UN resolutions on Iraqi WMD."?

Not by any means. "No WMD" is an absolute, "We haven't found
much, and what we did find was test-fired so it's OK" are two
different things, Fred.

On 25 Feb 2005 12:10:12 -0800, wrote:

Dave Hinz wrote:

Had the Gulf War I ever technically ended?

It ended with a cease-fire,

Is a cease-fire a formal end to a war? Has that become a peace treaty
now, or is it a "we'll stop shooting if you do"?

And, you forgot to play your followup games again, Fred. Sloppy, sloppy.

Of course the Congress did not DECLARE the 1991 war either.
Once the Congress authorized the use of military force in 1990
(or was it 1991 when the Congress voted?)
and in 2002 subsequent military action by President Bush and
President Bush respectively, was legal by US law.

So then, what's the problem?

AFAIK, the only US president to commit an apparant violation
of the War Powers Act since it was adopted, is Clinton
who never sought explicit Congressional approval in
advance of or during the extended military action in
Bosnia or Kosovo.

How unexpected.

As I recall, when the Kosovo issue
went to the courts the court decided that Congressional
approval of the military budget for any part of the
Kosovo campaign satisfied the requirements of the
War Powers Act. Just one of the many examples of
how Clinton got away with incredibly arrogant flouting
of the law with nary a peep from the press.

Suddenly you're making sense. I wonder if this post was forged.

Dave Hinz wrote:
On 25 Feb 2005 10:56:57 -0800,
wrote:
Dave Hinz wrote:
On 24 Feb 2005 17:39:34 -0800,
wrote:

Dave Hinz wrote:
On 24 Feb 2005 13:55:25 -0800,

Yes, there's a real danger that he did just that. Clear now,
Fred?

Given that the binary sarin shell in question was not suitable
for
use as an IED, which is how it was used, the notion that it was
given by Saddam Hussein to the insurgents to be used by them
is without credibility.

There were more WMD there than that one binary sarin shell, Fred.
Nice try, though.

There was also an equally old mustard shell found by a roadside
evidently as part of an abandoned attempt at setting an IED.

Yes, there was.

Please post a reference for any other biological or chemical
weapons that you think have fallen into the hands of the
insurgents.

Perhaps "there's a real danger that..." means "I have absolute
evidence of" in _your_ world, Fred?

No, it does not. Perhaps

"Please post a reference for any other biological or chemical
weapons that you think have fallen into the hands of the
insurgents."

Means the same thign to you as:

"I have absolute evidence of"

to you. It does not to me.

....
Agreed. Some were probably lost during the 1991 war when
munitions were removed from bunkers and distributed in
hastily fabricated caches. See the Duelfer report.

And nooooobody remembers where those caches are. Riiiight.

HAVE you read the Duelfer report?

...

You might also throw a hissy fit if anyone would suggest
posting the articles where they are on-topic.

I already explained this to you, Fred. You complain about that
which you go out of your way to see. Your choice.

Now you lie again. Aside from the fact that my participation
in this, er discussion, IS absolute proof of my interest I
have also told you in plain English that I want to see this
discussion. Not only do I want to see it, but I also want
to see it in a newsgroup where it is on-topic so that other
persons who are ALSO interested in topic, can find it even
if they are not interested in woodworking.

You know all these things because I made these points quite
clear to you in our offline communications.

...

If I was designing something like this, I'd have some sort of port
for transferring things out of the tank. Are you proposing that
there is no type of port on these vessels or associated plumbing?
If that's the case, Fred, how do you propose that your
hypothetical
hydrogen gets removed from those same tanks?

Do you understand the difference gas and liquid?

Yes.

Ok, If you were making anthrax, would it come out of the top
of the tank as a gas, the same as hydrogen?




I used your article. You just won't see what it says.

It is not MY article. It is a CIA webpage. I see what it says,
and I dispute what it says. One could determine the difference
between a hydrogen generator and a fermentor by such things
as whether or not there was nickel plating in the gas cylinders,
the capacity of the refrigeration system the precense of absence
of a means for securely removing liquid from the vessel and so
on. The simple fact that the CIA never addresses any of the
facotrs that could definitively establish the use for these
trailers is evidence the webpage is disengenuous.

Also no comparison is made between these trailers and the ones
Iraq used in the Iran Iraq war.


There is no need to presume malice because you prove your malice
everytime you post.

Dislike and disrespect of you and your lies doesn't make me a liar,
Fred.

Your near continuous steram of insulting remarks in lieu of
discussion is evidence of malice.


How is a hydrogen generator a military asset?

Trolled and answered above.

You had no answer above. How about this time?

All equipment used by the military is a military asset. How
is that not obvious to you? The Migs Iraq buried during the
1991 war were also a military asset, right? Tnaks are a military
asset right? Artillery pieces are military assets right?
If all of these are military assets, why aren't mobile
hydrogen generators?

Are they a MILITARY asset?

Of course they are a MILITARY asset. What other sort of
asset would they be? Crimony, do you have a point?



Thanks for the correction.

Translation: Dave caught Fred in a direct lie.

A mistake.


Been looted eh? Must not have been very
well hidden.

Red herring.

As you will recall you were making the claims about the significance
of the other trailer allegedly being hidden. BTW, can you
substantiate your claim that any of the trailers were hidden?

Nothing on the webpage I cited says there were hidden.


That's the idea. Quote some text and tell us where you got it.
Put some substance into your articles.

It's your ****ing cite, Fred, I didn't think I had to read and
explain it to you. Will you be wanting milk and cookies next?

IOW you went back and found that you were wrong, there is no
comparison on that page between the trailers that were found
and trailers that are 'real' hydrogen generators. Maybe this
time you did note that even the CIA concedes that this use
for the trailers in question is "plausible".



Sure, your exact words he

You consistently use the plural in reference to items for
which but a single example has been found. Yet you accuse
me of 'word games'.

Thank you. I was mistaken as to the number of trailers the CIA
claims have been found. You were correct, they are claiming
more than one. Your use of the plural in this instance was
correct. Sorry about that.

See? If you give me something to work with, I can figure
out WTF you are writing about.



Do you deny that Iraq was permitted many sorts of mobile
laboratory
type trailers such as are used elsewhere in the world? If not,
where
is the doublespeak?

Iraq isn't supposed to have biological warfare labs, mobile or
otherwise. Elsewhere in the world doesn't enter into it.

Non sequitor. Mobile biological labs are not all
biological WARFARE labs.

And yet, these apparently are.

These aparently are mobile hydrogen generators similar to
those used in the Iran-Iraq war.


For example, on the CIA webpage
I cited, there is some discussion of non-warfare related
mobile biological labs of the sort Iraq was permittted.

Of which, these are not. That's the comparison and contrast section,
Fred. Try reading that page.

That is a comparison and contrast with legitimate biological
laboratory trailers, not, as you previously asserted, with
legitimate hydrogen generating trailers. The fact that they
are disimilar to real biological trailers, while not dispositive
as to their true intended function, supports the conclusion
that they are not biological trailers, does it not?

Here's what you wrote:

"No ****. The hydrogen generating trailers are shown
on the bottom of your CIA link. "

and later:

"On the CIA page that YOU CITED, Fred, they show the
weapons trailers,_AND_ the hydrogen trailers. They compare
and contrast the two. Maybe you should go revisit your
cite and see. "

Now you are saying that the disputed trailers are inconsistent
with legitimate biological trailers. On that we agree, though
for different reasons. What happened to your claim that the
disputed trailers were compared and contrasted to 'hydrogen
trailers' on the CIA webpage?

Surely you will not claim that distinguishing between hydrogen
and biological is playing word games.

The only mention on the webpages to any other hydrogen generators
at all is farther up the page and it makes no reference to
"legitimate hydrogen generating trailers". It simply says that

Compact, transportable hydrogen generation
systems are commercially available, safe,
and reliable.

Which is neither a comparison nor a contrast with the trailers
in dispute. Nor are there any illustrations 'showing'
anything about them.

However I will compare and contrast them now.
The hydrogen generating trailers appear to be capable of
generating hydrogen much faster than commercial electrolysis
units. Since time is of the essence on the battlefield a
unit with the 'excess capacity' of the Iraqi trailers would
be highly advantageous. They also have the advantage
of simplicity when compared to commercial electrolysis
units.


Pot. Kettle. Black.

Precisely, though since the middle 1960's calling somone or
something 'black' ceased to be an insult.

It's not being used as a racial insult, Fred. ...

Oh no worries, I did not suppose it was. Just an aside
on the possible etymology.

Care to comment on any of the references I provided earlier
in this thread on the issues you've snipped?

http://msnbc.msn.com/ID/5403731

http://traprockpeace.org/iraqweapons.html

--

FF

Dave Hinz wrote:
On 25 Feb 2005 12:10:12 -0800,
wrote:

Dave Hinz wrote:

Had the Gulf War I ever technically ended?

It ended with a cease-fire,

Is a cease-fire a formal end to a war?

Arguable but the armistice agreement negotiated between
General Schwartzkoff his Iraqi counterpart, who were
authorized agents of their respective commanders-in-chief,
were as formal as anything on the part of either Saddam
Hussein or GHB that preceded the initiation of hostilites
between the US and Iraq.

Has that become a peace treaty
now, or is it a "we'll stop shooting if you do"?

It is somewhere in-between the two I should think.

Was the question rhetorical? Socratic?


Of course the Congress did not DECLARE the 1991 war either.
Once the Congress authorized the use of military force in 1990
(or was it 1991 when the Congress voted?)
and in 2002 subsequent military action by President Bush and
President Bush respectively, was legal by US law.

So then, what's the problem?

Could you be a little more specific? Better yet, you take a
turn and see if you can say what the problem is, calmly,
rationally, without insults or derisive comments.


AFAIK, the only US president to commit an apparant violation
of the War Powers Act since it was adopted, is Clinton
who never sought explicit Congressional approval in
advance of or during the extended military action in
Bosnia or Kosovo.

How unexpected.

I expected better of Clinton. I wasn't at all sure how
the court case woudl play out, though I was pretty sure it
woudl not end with the USSC ordering the troops back home.
(AFAIK the cae never got to the USSC, probably they declined
to review the lower court ruling.)

--

FF

In article , "Charles Spitzer" wrote:

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
news
In article , Renata
wrote:
Where in the Constitution does it say one of the jobs of our military
is to bring freedom and democracy to the rest of the world?

I suppose the case could be made that spreading freedom "promote[s] the
common
defence". There's room for an interesting discussion on that subject, to
be
sure. The Constitution does specify that the President is
Commander-in-Chief
of the nation's military, and it places little restriction on his exercise
of
that role.


except for declaring war, which congress has to do.

And did, in this case. Unless there's a substantive difference between
"declaring war" and passing a joint resolution authorizing an act of war.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

Nobody ever left footprints in the sands of time by sitting on his butt.
And who wants to leave buttprints in the sands of time?

"Charlie Self" wrote in message
oups.com...
Fredfigh notes:
"All equipment used by the military is a military asset. How
is that not obvious to you? The Migs Iraq buried during the
1991 war were also a military asset, right? "

I'd be damned happy to NOT be the pilot of something buried in the
sands for over a decade, especially with the level of technological
sophistication that is showing up all over the Arab world.


All the competent ones are over here teaching engineering to other foreign
students.

My big kid had his first course from a native speaker of English in his
junior year.

In article , Renata wrote:
I see. Promoting general welfare is heavily restricted, but promoting
common defense can be stretched any which way.

No, you don't see.

The first and most important duty of any government is ensuring the security
of its citizens; that is, providing for the common defense. If government does
not attend to that, and we don't see to it ourselves, there won't be any
general welfare left to promote.

Almost _anything_ the government does is heavily restricted by the
Constitution. Unfortunately, Amendment X is often ignored, but it's still the
law of the land.

The Constitution is, in most cases, quite specific about the things that the
government may, or may not, do. Amendment X makes it clear that anything the
government is not specifically authorized to do, it is prohibited from doing.
This would include, for example, taking money from the pocket of one citizen
and giving it to another, or ordering states to care for indigents within
their borders while not providing the funds with which to do so.

The Constitution specifically authorizes the establishment and maintenance of
armed forces, specifically institutes the President as Commander-in-Chief
thereof - and places remarkably few restrictions on those forces in general,
or on the President's authority as Commander-in-Chief in particular.




--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

Nobody ever left footprints in the sands of time by sitting on his butt.
And who wants to leave buttprints in the sands of time?

Doug Miller wrote:
In article , "Charles Spitzer"
wrote:

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
news
In article , Renata
wrote:
Where in the Constitution does it say one of the jobs of our
military
is to bring freedom and democracy to the rest of the world?

I suppose the case could be made that spreading freedom
"promote[s] the
common
defence". There's room for an interesting discussion on that
subject, to
be
sure. The Constitution does specify that the President is
Commander-in-Chief
of the nation's military, and it places little restriction on his
exercise
of
that role.


except for declaring war, which congress has to do.

And did, in this case. Unless there's a substantive difference
between
"declaring war" and passing a joint resolution authorizing an act of
war.


There is. The former compels the President to make war, the latter
merely permits him to do so. Perhaps more importantly (though I
confess to knowing very little about this) there are supposedly
a number of economic issue like insurance rate changes that
are triggered by a formal declaration of war but are not by
the outbreak of undeclared war. A formal declaration of war
evidently is more expensive. A better discussion of this might
be had over on misc.legal.moderated.

As you will recall, when the 2002 resolution was being debated
there was much debate as to whether the wording should be
conditional.

The resolution that passed, was not conditional leaving it
to Bush to decide to go to war or not. IMHO, though I disagree
with Bush's decision, the Congress was right to make the
resolution unconditional. The purpose of the resolution
was to force Iraqi compliance with the UN mandates, to be
effective it had to be as threatening to Saddam Hussein
as possible.

Ironically, the very wording needed to optimise the resolution
for the pupose of making war avoidable, by forcing Iraqi compliance
with the UN mandates, was the same wording that made it legal
for Bush to go to war despite that compliance.

Regarding some of that Iraqi compliance:

http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/News/...q20040202.html

--

FF

On 25 Feb 2005 13:27:20 -0800, wrote:

Dave Hinz wrote:

I already explained this to you, Fred. You complain about that
which you go out of your way to see. Your choice.

Now you lie again. Aside from the fact that my participation
in this, er discussion, IS absolute proof of my interest I
have also told you in plain English that I want to see this
discussion. Not only do I want to see it, but I also want
to see it in a newsgroup where it is on-topic so that other
persons who are ALSO interested in topic, can find it even
if they are not interested in woodworking.

You know all these things because I made these points quite
clear to you in our offline communications.

All of our communication has been online, Fred.

If I was designing something like this, I'd have some sort of port
for transferring things out of the tank. Are you proposing that
there is no type of port on these vessels or associated plumbing?
If that's the case, Fred, how do you propose that your
hypothetical
hydrogen gets removed from those same tanks?

Do you understand the difference gas and liquid?

Yes.

Ok, If you were making anthrax, would it come out of the top
of the tank as a gas, the same as hydrogen?

I wasn't aware that gravity was needed to get something out of
a pressurized tank.

I used your article. You just won't see what it says.

It is not MY article. It is a CIA webpage. I see what it says,
and I dispute what it says. One could determine the difference
between a hydrogen generator and a fermentor by such things
as whether or not there was nickel plating in the gas cylinders,
the capacity of the refrigeration system the precense of absence
of a means for securely removing liquid from the vessel and so
on. The simple fact that the CIA never addresses any of the
facotrs that could definitively establish the use for these
trailers is evidence the webpage is disengenuous.

Or, it could be that it's a 2-page summary that can't possibly go
into the details you're interested in.

There is no need to presume malice because you prove your malice
everytime you post.

Dislike and disrespect of you and your lies doesn't make me a liar,
Fred.

Your near continuous steram of insulting remarks in lieu of
discussion is evidence of malice.

I don't agree with you. I don't like you. I don't respect you,
nor do I believe you. It doesn't mean I'm lying about you, I
honestly hold you in very low regard. Clearer now?

How is a hydrogen generator a military asset?

Trolled and answered above.

You had no answer above. How about this time?

All equipment used by the military is a military asset. How
is that not obvious to you? The Migs Iraq buried during the
1991 war were also a military asset, right? Tnaks are a military
asset right? Artillery pieces are military assets right?
If all of these are military assets, why aren't mobile
hydrogen generators?

Are they a MILITARY asset?

Of course they are a MILITARY asset. What other sort of
asset would they be? Crimony, do you have a point?

What evidence do you have to show that these trailers, if they are
allegedly hydrogen generators, are a military asset?

Thanks for the correction.

Translation: Dave caught Fred in a direct lie.

A mistake.

A lie. A lie repeated several times.

Been looted eh? Must not have been very
well hidden.

Red herring.

As you will recall you were making the claims about the significance
of the other trailer allegedly being hidden. BTW, can you
substantiate your claim that any of the trailers were hidden?
Nothing on the webpage I cited says there were hidden.

If they weren't explicitly turned over, by definition then they
were hidden. "...was found" rather than "was turned over to
inspectors", for instance.

Sure, your exact words he

You consistently use the plural in reference to items for
which but a single example has been found. Yet you accuse
me of 'word games'.

Thank you. I was mistaken

Imagine that.

as to the number of trailers the CIA
claims have been found. You were correct, they are claiming
more than one. Your use of the plural in this instance was
correct. Sorry about that.

Great.

See? If you give me something to work with, I can figure
out WTF you are writing about.

See, and you were doing so good there for a whole paragraph.

Non sequitor. Mobile biological labs are not all
biological WARFARE labs.

And yet, these apparently are.

These aparently are mobile hydrogen generators similar to
those used in the Iran-Iraq war.

In your opinion.

Pot. Kettle. Black.

Precisely, though since the middle 1960's calling somone or
something 'black' ceased to be an insult.

It's not being used as a racial insult, Fred. ...

Oh no worries, I did not suppose it was. Just an aside
on the possible etymology.

Riiiight. Once again Fred pulls a statement out of his ass and
then backs off.

Care to comment on any of the references I provided earlier
in this thread on the issues you've snipped?

Nope, I'd rather do something useful. In fact, you know what, Fred?
You win. I'm done. Feel free to have the last words.

In article ,
says...
These aparently are mobile hydrogen generators similar to
those used in the Iran-Iraq war.

In your opinion.

Dave, I hate to enter this discussion but, IIRC, we not only know they
were hydrogen generators, we found the British firm that made them and
sold them to Saddam. Take a look at:

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/iraq/...973195,00.html

--
Homo sapiens is a goal, not a description

And SH was planning on putting all those shells on a boat to the US
when? Or, was it that he was planning on putting them on all those
drones he had, lying in wait to attack the USA?

Those balsa wood and gaffer tape "drones" didn't have anywhere near the
payload capacity for those shells.

Doug Miller wrote in
. com:

In article . 201,
Nate Perkins wrote:
(Doug Miller) wrote in
y.com:

In article . 201,
Nate Perkins wrote:
(Doug Miller) wrote in
.com:

In article . 201,
Nate Perkins wrote:


You know as well as I do that the two primary reasons given were
that Saddam had WMDs and that he had links to the 9/11 attacks.

Nate, that's just a lie.

Well, it may not be a lie that you know it as well as I do.

I certainly don't "know" things that aren't true. It's sad that you
think you do.

But the fact that those were the primary reasons is certainly true.
Read the President's own words (Cincinnati speech):
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0021007-8.html

Maybe you should read them yourself. He didn't say what you claim he
said.

Sure it does. See below.

No, it does not. You claimed that those were the "primary reasons".
The reasons included WMDs, among numerous other reasons, but the
President never identified that as the "primary" reason, as you
falsely claim. Nor did he identify _anything_ as a primary reason. The
case for war against Iraq was build on the _totality_ of _many_
reasons, WMDs among them.

Of course they were the primary reason. Do you think Bush and most of
his cabinet members were trotting around the country talking about
nuclear mushroom clouds, nerve gas, biological agents, Niger uranium,
drones, mobile weapons labs, etc etc just for the hell of it?

Now you apparently want to pretend that WMD and terror links weren't
really the primary reason. You want to split hairs about whether or not
Bush used the word "primary" and talk about totalities.

Well, that's just nonsense. The country and Congress would never have
gone to war without the compelling stated (false) reasons of WMD and
Iraqi links to Al Qaeda (oh, I better say "substantial Iraqi links to Al
Qaeda" because you'll want to split that hair too).

You also falsely claim that "links to the 9/11 attacks" was one of the
"primary reasons" for going to war. The President did not say that.

More hairsplitting. I could look up multiple occasions where Iraqi-Al
Qaeda links are alleged, implied or stated ... so much so that in Sept
2003, 70% of the people polled thought that Saddam was personally
involved in the 9/11 attacks:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washing...oll-iraq_x.htm

You would have us believe that all those people are just mistaken, that
they misunderstood what Bush said.

Bullhockey. Those people thought there was a Saddam-9/11 link because
the administration repeatedly and consistently created the impression
that it was true.

Now is it a direct lie? No. But it's a hell of a prevarication.



There's a lot of talk about WMDs, terrorism, and 9/11 ... but not a
peep about spreading freedom and democracy in the whole thing.

Either you didn't read it, Nate, or you're deliberately lying.
(quotes emphasizing freedom and ignoring WMD snipped)

Quote which, incidentally, prove conclusively the complete and utter
falsehood of your "not a peep" claim. Could that be why you snipped
them?

Yeah, I see now why you posted them. You weren't arguing the claim that
Bush's primary reasons were WMD and terror at all. Instead you
preferred to focus on whether or not Bush "peeped" about freedom and
democracy.

I'll grant you that he did. Of course every politician for the last
hundred years in this country uses boilerplate phrases like freedom and
democracy. Bush is the only one that retrospectively uses them to
justify preemptive war.


Fortunately, Google makes it easy to restore them, so that anyone can
read them and see that you are not telling the truth:

(snipped all the quotes again)

Hey, Doug, if I had wanted to obscure the fact that I snipped the
quotes, why would I have explicitly said that they were snipped (twice
now)? Sheesh, I snipped them because otherwise the post gets to be
hundreds of lines long.

(snipped all the others too)

Nothing in those about primary reasons. Nothing in those about 9/11.
Did you have a point somewhere?

They are all quotes regarding Iraqi WMDs. There are also quotes from
the same speech citing Iraqi-Al Qaeda links going back at least a
decade. Now all debunked by various governmental investigations (all
commissioned by the President himself).

Obviously the point (stated previously) is that Bush is using the
Cincinatti speech to outline a case for the threat of Iraq due to WMD
and terror.


Do you think he spent months travelling around the country talking
about Iraqi WMDs and Iraq/Al Qaeda/terrorism links just to confuse
us "Liberals?" Or do you just want to quibble about some
technicality?

No, I think you're either completely blind to the facts, or a liar
-- as the quotes above demonstrate quite clearly.

Please refrain from the insults. I haven't called you a liar, and I
expect you to extend the same courtesy to me.

If you don't enjoy being called a liar, one obvious suggestion for you
would be that you refrain from making posts that contain clearly
obvious and readily demonstrable falsehoods, such as claiming that a
speech says that which it manifestly does not, or that it does not say
that which it manifestly does.

And of course I didn't quite call you a liar: I said that you're
either completely blind to the facts, or a liar -- which does leave
you some benefit of the doubt.

Oh, come on. This one made me laugh out loud. Now you are
hairsplitting and equivocating on whether or not you called me a liar.
It makes for a pretty dull discussion when all you ever do is hairsplit,
equivocate, and focus on trivial sidepoints.


But since you object to the word, I'll try to be more delicate in the
future when pointing out the falsehoods in your posts.

Another suggestion for you: if you would actually _read_ the articles
you post links to, before you post them (instead of after), it might
help you to avoid making false statements about what they do and do
not contain - statements such as "not a peep about spreading freedom
and democracy in the whole thing."

Anyone can do what you apparently did not: follow the link, and read
the article, and see that the speech certainly did talk about exactly
that, in language so clear as to make any claim of having
misunderstood it completely inadmissible. The conclusion is obvious:
either you didn't read it, or else you're deliberately misrepresenting
its contents.

Anyone who reads the Cincinatti speech and can see that its central
theme is "a grave threat to peace" posed by Iraq "possess[ing] chemical
and biological weapons [and is] seeking nuclear weapons," and that Iraq
"has given shelter and support to terrorism."

In fact this is the thesis that is spelled out, in those terms, right in
the beginning. This is a speech that is primarily about Iraqi WMDs and
terror -- which is the point you claim I lied about. (oh, gee, I used
that word "primarily" again)

Doug Miller wrote in
:

In article . 201,
says...
[...]

Anyone reading the Cincinatti speech reasonably would
come to the conclusion that WMDs and terror links are the main theme
of the speech.

Anyone reading the Cincinnati speech reasonably would come to the
conclusion that the President *did*, in fact, talk about bringing
freedom and democracy to Iraq.

But you claimed that he didn't.


You are right. The president did mention freedom and democracy in the
Cincinatti speech. I was engaging in hyperbole when I said he didn't "make
a peep" about that. There is a peep there.

But the point of that speech is not that Iraq needs to be invaded in order
to spread freedom and democracy. The point of that speech is that the
President is alleging (in fairly strong language) that Iraq has WMDs and
that Iraq has significant terror links, including links to Al Qaeda.

The "spreading freedom and democracy" thing is just a postjustification by
the right -- because all of their "grave threat" reasons that were given at
the time have since been debunked.

wrote in news:1109274401.444030.33650
@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:


Doug Miller wrote:
In article . 201,
says...
[...]

Anyone reading the Cincinatti speech...

Got a link?


http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0021007-8.html

"Fletis Humplebacker" ! wrote in :


"Ned"
Are we really better off today than before Bush took office?


You bet. The liberals are even more livid and hysterical,
proving that something good must have happened.


Heh heh. I bet you have a pinup of Ann Coulter on your wall, too.

Nate Perkins notes:

Lotsa snipping going on here.

"In fact this is the thesis that is spelled out, in those terms, right
in
the beginning. This is a speech that is primarily about Iraqi WMDs and

terror -- which is the point you claim I lied about. (oh, gee, I used
that word "primarily" again) "

Well, someone lied, that's for su I was one of the 70% or so that
believed that little rooster, Bush. It was the last time. The old "Fool
me once" syndrome.

Dave Hinz wrote:
Gimme a break.. A bunch of fruitcakes in japan made sarin. It
ain't difficult, and it proved, in the end, to be a less serious
threat than the scaremongers would have you think.

Only because they dispersed it inefficiently.


ummm....hate to weigh in here so late, but this one caught my eye.
The Sarin in the Tokyo subway stations was distributed almost
perfectly. Large group of people, in a crowded station(if you've never
been on a train/subway in Asia, the word "crowd" might mislead you into
thinking that there was a scene something like Grand Central or Penn
Stations. Think more of the crowd at the Super Bowl all crammed into
one stadium bathroom-men, women, children, animals, vendors,
employees), no wind, optimal temperature and environmental conditions.
11 out of 5,500 killed. (http://www.sma.org/smj/97june3.htm)

..2%, if my math works out right.

In article . 201, Nate Perkins wrote:
Doug Miller wrote in
.com:

In article . 201,
Nate Perkins wrote:
(Doug Miller) wrote in
gy.com:

In article . 201,
Nate Perkins wrote:
(Doug Miller) wrote in
y.com:

In article . 201,
Nate Perkins wrote:


You know as well as I do that the two primary reasons given were
that Saddam had WMDs and that he had links to the 9/11 attacks.

Nate, that's just a lie.

Well, it may not be a lie that you know it as well as I do.

I certainly don't "know" things that aren't true. It's sad that you
think you do.

But the fact that those were the primary reasons is certainly true.
Read the President's own words (Cincinnati speech):
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0021007-8.html

Maybe you should read them yourself. He didn't say what you claim he
said.

Sure it does. See below.

No, it does not. You claimed that those were the "primary reasons".
The reasons included WMDs, among numerous other reasons, but the
President never identified that as the "primary" reason, as you
falsely claim. Nor did he identify _anything_ as a primary reason. The
case for war against Iraq was build on the _totality_ of _many_
reasons, WMDs among them.

Of course they were the primary reason. Do you think Bush and most of
his cabinet members were trotting around the country talking about
nuclear mushroom clouds, nerve gas, biological agents, Niger uranium,
drones, mobile weapons labs, etc etc just for the hell of it?

They were two reasons among many.
[snip]
You also falsely claim that "links to the 9/11 attacks" was one of the
"primary reasons" for going to war. The President did not say that.

More hairsplitting.

No, not hair-splitting: pointing out another one of your direct falsehoods.

I could look up multiple occasions where Iraqi-Al
Qaeda links are alleged, implied or stated ... so much so that in Sept
2003, 70% of the people polled thought that Saddam was personally
involved in the 9/11 attacks:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washing...oll-iraq_x.htm

"70% of the people polled" is not the same as "the President making that
claim." I suspect that at least part of the reason that so many people
believed that is the constant repetition in the legacy media of the same
falsehood that you're claiming, to wit, that the President had made a claim of
a direct link between Saddam and 9/11. Which he never did.

You would have us believe that all those people are just mistaken, that
they misunderstood what Bush said.

See above paragraph.

Bullhockey. Those people thought there was a Saddam-9/11 link because
the administration repeatedly and consistently created the impression
that it was true.

Another falsehood from Nate.

Now is it a direct lie? No. But it's a hell of a prevarication.

Whatever that's supposed to mean.



There's a lot of talk about WMDs, terrorism, and 9/11 ... but not a
peep about spreading freedom and democracy in the whole thing.

Either you didn't read it, Nate, or you're deliberately lying.
(quotes emphasizing freedom and ignoring WMD snipped)

Quote which, incidentally, prove conclusively the complete and utter
falsehood of your "not a peep" claim. Could that be why you snipped
them?

Yeah, I see now why you posted them. You weren't arguing the claim that
Bush's primary reasons were WMD and terror at all. Instead you
preferred to focus on whether or not Bush "peeped" about freedom and
democracy.

No, Nate, I posted them to prove that you can't be trusted to write the truth.

I'll grant you that he did. Of course every politician for the last
hundred years in this country uses boilerplate phrases like freedom and
democracy. Bush is the only one that retrospectively uses them to
justify preemptive war.

Thank you for finally admitting, even if only once, that at least some of what
you write is the opposite of the truth.


Fortunately, Google makes it easy to restore them, so that anyone can
read them and see that you are not telling the truth:

(snipped all the quotes again)

Hey, Doug, if I had wanted to obscure the fact that I snipped the
quotes, why would I have explicitly said that they were snipped (twice
now)? Sheesh, I snipped them because otherwise the post gets to be
hundreds of lines long.

No, I think you snipped them because you were embarrassed at having your
falsehoods so clearly demonstrated. Since you've now admitted that it was a
falsehood, the demonstration is no longer necessary, and I won't bother
restoring them a second time.

(snipped all the others too)

Nothing in those about primary reasons. Nothing in those about 9/11.
Did you have a point somewhere?

They are all quotes regarding Iraqi WMDs. There are also quotes from
the same speech citing Iraqi-Al Qaeda links going back at least a
decade. Now all debunked by various governmental investigations (all
commissioned by the President himself).

Obviously the point (stated previously) is that Bush is using the
Cincinatti speech to outline a case for the threat of Iraq due to WMD
and terror.

Not *only* those factors, Nate...


Do you think he spent months travelling around the country talking
about Iraqi WMDs and Iraq/Al Qaeda/terrorism links just to confuse
us "Liberals?" Or do you just want to quibble about some
technicality?

No, I think you're either completely blind to the facts, or a liar
-- as the quotes above demonstrate quite clearly.

Please refrain from the insults. I haven't called you a liar, and I
expect you to extend the same courtesy to me.

If you don't enjoy being called a liar, one obvious suggestion for you
would be that you refrain from making posts that contain clearly
obvious and readily demonstrable falsehoods, such as claiming that a
speech says that which it manifestly does not, or that it does not say
that which it manifestly does.

And of course I didn't quite call you a liar: I said that you're
either completely blind to the facts, or a liar -- which does leave
you some benefit of the doubt.

Oh, come on. This one made me laugh out loud. Now you are
hairsplitting and equivocating on whether or not you called me a liar.

What I wrote is very plain to anyone with a normal degree of reading
comprehension.

It makes for a pretty dull discussion when all you ever do is hairsplit,
equivocate, and focus on trivial sidepoints.

"Trivial sidepoints" like you claiming that the President said things he did
not say, and did not say things that he did?

I caught you in multiple, direct FALSEHOODS, Nate. That's not hairsplitting.
That's not equivocation. That's not "trivial sidepoints".

But since you object to the word, I'll try to be more delicate in the
future when pointing out the falsehoods in your posts.

Another suggestion for you: if you would actually _read_ the articles
you post links to, before you post them (instead of after), it might
help you to avoid making false statements about what they do and do
not contain - statements such as "not a peep about spreading freedom
and democracy in the whole thing."

Anyone can do what you apparently did not: follow the link, and read
the article, and see that the speech certainly did talk about exactly
that, in language so clear as to make any claim of having
misunderstood it completely inadmissible. The conclusion is obvious:
either you didn't read it, or else you're deliberately misrepresenting
its contents.

Anyone who reads the Cincinatti speech and can see that its central
theme is "a grave threat to peace" posed by Iraq "possess[ing] chemical
and biological weapons [and is] seeking nuclear weapons," and that Iraq
"has given shelter and support to terrorism."

Anybody can read the speech and see that those are *among* the reasons that
the President gave.

In fact this is the thesis that is spelled out, in those terms, right in
the beginning. This is a speech that is primarily about Iraqi WMDs and
terror -- which is the point you claim I lied about. (oh, gee, I used
that word "primarily" again)

Anyone can read the speech and determine for himself what the truth is.

I don't really see any point in prolonging this discussion. You've already
demonstrated repeatedly that you cannot or will not see or speak the truth.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

Nobody ever left footprints in the sands of time by sitting on his butt.
And who wants to leave buttprints in the sands of time?

In article .com, "Charlie Self" wrote:
Nate Perkins notes:

Lotsa snipping going on here.

"In fact this is the thesis that is spelled out, in those terms, right
in
the beginning. This is a speech that is primarily about Iraqi WMDs and

terror -- which is the point you claim I lied about. (oh, gee, I used
that word "primarily" again) "

Well, someone lied, that's for su I was one of the 70% or so that
believed that little rooster, Bush. It was the last time. The old "Fool
me once" syndrome.

Your reality check bounced, Charlie. Bush *never* claimed that Saddam Hussein
was linked to the 9/11 attacks.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

Nobody ever left footprints in the sands of time by sitting on his butt.
And who wants to leave buttprints in the sands of time?

In article . 201, Nate Perkins wrote:
Doug Miller wrote in
m:

In article . 201,
says...
[...]

Anyone reading the Cincinatti speech reasonably would
come to the conclusion that WMDs and terror links are the main theme
of the speech.

Anyone reading the Cincinnati speech reasonably would come to the
conclusion that the President *did*, in fact, talk about bringing
freedom and democracy to Iraq.

But you claimed that he didn't.


You are right. The president did mention freedom and democracy in the
Cincinatti speech. I was engaging in hyperbole when I said he didn't "make
a peep" about that. There is a peep there.

No, you were not "engaging in hyperbole" and you know it. You were lying.

And you're lying now: there's more than "a peep" there, as anyone who reads
the speech can see, and you know it.

As I said befo if you don't appreciate being called a liar, refrain from
making posts that contain clearly obvious and readily demonstrable falsehoods.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

Nobody ever left footprints in the sands of time by sitting on his butt.
And who wants to leave buttprints in the sands of time?

In article ,
says...
What I wrote is very plain to anyone with a normal degree of reading
comprehension.

Yep. Very plain and very wrong :-).

Clarity does not equal correctness.

--
Homo sapiens is a goal, not a description

Nate Perkins wrote:
"Fletis Humplebacker" ! wrote in
:


"Ned"
Are we really better off today than before Bush took office?


You bet. The liberals are even more livid and hysterical,
proving that something good must have happened.


Heh heh. I bet you have a pinup of Ann Coulter on your wall, too.

Eeeeewwwwww!

--

FF

"I'd rather see Hillery, OR even Bill nekkid."

Doug Miller wrote:
...

Your reality check bounced, Charlie. Bush *never* claimed that Saddam
Hussein
was linked to the 9/11 attacks.


I think you are correct. The strategy employed in his speeches
was to rapidly shift back and forth between the two to create
that impression in people who weren't paying attention.

OTOH, sometimes others in his administration did _literaly_
refer to Saddam Hussein bieng responsible for the attacks
under circumstances that appear to have been a slip of the
tongue. ISTR CHeney doing that once during the debate,
and my brother watched a RUmsfeld news conference in
which he consistently said 'Saddam' when the context of
his statements made it clear that he was taling about
Al Queda or bin Laden. As we get older, our brains tend
to flip bits and produce errors of that sort in our
speech. Then again, it may also provide some clue about
the mindset of the speaker.

Then there was the person who said that on September 12,
2001 Bush told him to find (not just look for, but _find_)
evidence linking Saddam Hussein to the attacks.

--

FF

wrote:
Doug Miller wrote:

...

Your reality check bounced, Charlie. Bush *never* claimed that Saddam

Hussein

was linked to the 9/11 attacks.



I think you are correct. The strategy employed in his speeches
was to rapidly shift back and forth between the two to create
that impression in people who weren't paying attention.

OTOH, sometimes others in his administration did _literaly_
refer to Saddam Hussein bieng responsible for the attacks
under circumstances that appear to have been a slip of the
tongue. ISTR CHeney doing that once during the debate,
and my brother watched a RUmsfeld news conference in
which he consistently said 'Saddam' when the context of
his statements made it clear that he was taling about
Al Queda or bin Laden. As we get older, our brains tend
to flip bits and produce errors of that sort in our
speech. Then again, it may also provide some clue about
the mindset of the speaker.

Then there was the person who said that on September 12,
2001 Bush told him to find (not just look for, but _find_)
evidence linking Saddam Hussein to the attacks.

We were told many times that Al Qaeda had bases in Iraq. This was one of
the justifications for the war.

Charlie Self wrote:
Nate Perkins notes:

Lotsa snipping going on here.

"In fact this is the thesis that is spelled out, in those terms,
right
in
the beginning. This is a speech that is primarily about Iraqi WMDs
and

terror -- which is the point you claim I lied about. (oh, gee, I
used
that word "primarily" again) "

Well, someone lied, that's for su I was one of the 70% or so that
believed that little rooster, Bush. It was the last time. The old
"Fool
me once" syndrome.

.... and we won't be fooled again.

All the way up until the fall of Baghdad I was very concerned
that there would be a chemical weapons attack on our troops.
I wondered, had Saddam Hussein successfully hidden weapons
from UNMOVIC until the weather forced the US to invade based
on better intel the Bush Administration had, for security
reasons, been unwilling to reveal even to UNMOVIC?

But after that I had to consider, if Saddam Hussein had not
yet used chemical weapons, why not? Surely he wasn't saving
them for the next war.

Fat lot of good they'd do him in Syria, too.

--

FF

Dave Hinz wrote:
On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 14:07:08 -0500, Renata
wrote:
...
And SH was planning on putting all those shells on a boat to the US
when? Or, was it that he was planning on putting them on all those
drones he had, lying in wait to attack the USA?

If it doesn't affect us directly, it doesn't matter? Is that your
point?

I especially like the suggestion that Saddam Husein was going to
equip his URV's with 155 mm howitzers and launch them from
Iraqi aircraft carriers.

--

FF

Dave Hinz wrote:
On 25 Feb 2005 13:27:20 -0800,
wrote:

...

Care to comment on any of the references I provided earlier
in this thread on the issues you've snipped?

Nope, I'd rather do something useful. In fact, you know what, Fred?
You win. I'm done. Feel free to have the last words.

Here they a

Now that I have reminded the reader that I have asked you to
provide something to back up the points you make, and also
asked for your commnet on the references I provided, which
incidently, you typically snipped from your reply without the
customary use of ellipses or 'snip' to alert the reader to
your editing, you quit.

The conclusion is left as an exercise for the reader.

--

FF

(NOT posted to alt.politics.bush because this is ON-TOPIC!, somebody
musta goofed!)

mp wrote:
And SH was planning on putting all those shells on a boat to the US
when? Or, was it that he was planning on putting them on all those
drones he had, lying in wait to attack the USA?

Those balsa wood and gaffer tape "drones" didn't have anywhere near
the
payload capacity for those shells.

Oh, but let's not forget that balsa has the highest strength to
weight ratio than almost any other hardwood, and higher than
most or all softwoods too, making it an excellent choice for
many aviation applications.

I have read that blue catalpa actually has a higher strength to
weight ratio. Might prove useful as due to its extreme low
density balsa components of adequate strength may prove to
be excessivley bulky for such things as wing spars.

--

FF

David Sizemore wrote:
Dave Hinz wrote:
Gimme a break.. A bunch of fruitcakes in japan made sarin. It
ain't difficult, and it proved, in the end, to be a less serious
threat than the scaremongers would have you think.

Only because they dispersed it inefficiently.


ummm....hate to weigh in here so late, but this one caught my eye.
The Sarin in the Tokyo subway stations was distributed almost
perfectly. Large group of people, in a crowded station(if you've
never
been on a train/subway in Asia, the word "crowd" might mislead you
into
thinking that there was a scene something like Grand Central or Penn
Stations.

Not quite waht he was writing about. The target was close to
optimal NOT the distribution method. Like most nerve 'gasses'
sarin is a liquid at room temperature, though it has a relatively
high vapor pressure meaning that like many solvents used in
wood finishes it evaporates rapidly. (VX, by contrast has a very
low vapor pressure and is more like motor oil. The accepted
method for disposal is simply to pour it onto a concrete pad
esposed to the open air where UV from sunlight and oxidation
will destroy it over a period of several hours or a couple of
days.)

Sarin has the advantage of being easier to deploy than
most chemical warfare agents but also the property that
dispersion and diffusion in the open air will reduce it
an ineffective concentration relatively quickly in
tactical terms. That may be advantages should the
attacker wish to rapidly seize the area of deployment,
but a disadvantage if the object is to deny an area to
the enemy, a more typical approach to tactical use of
chemical weapons. VX on the other hand while being
much harder to deploy will settle onto the ground and
remain hazardous for at least several hours and up to
a couple of day depending on conditions.


Anyhow, in the Tokyo attack the sarin was in plastic bags that
were perforated by jabbing them with an umbrella and left
to evaporate. That is a very sub-optimal way to disperse it
even on a near optimal target population, though it did make
it easy for the perpetrators to get away without being ex-
posed themselves.

Some sort of sprayers might have been more effective so
if you see someone boarding the subway wearing a chemical
hazard suit and carrying an insecticide sprayer I suggest
you wait for the text train.

--

FF

wrote:

.... and we won't be fooled again.

All the way up until the fall of Baghdad I was very concerned
that there would be a chemical weapons attack on our troops. I
wondered, had Saddam Hussein successfully hidden weapons from
UNMOVIC until the weather forced the US to invade based on
better intel the Bush Administration had, for security
reasons, been unwilling to reveal even to UNMOVIC?

But after that I had to consider, if Saddam Hussein had not
yet used chemical weapons, why not? Surely he wasn't saving
them for the next war.

Fat lot of good they'd do him in Syria, too.

I recall the President standing in front of the TV cameras to
address the American people at the smoking ruins of the World
Trade Center making the strongest possible promise to bring those
responsible to justice - then more recently saying that the man
/most/ responsible (and still at large) wasn't all that significant.

Fooled me once.

I also recall McNeil/Lehrer NewsHour video footage of a press
conference before the invasion in which the Secretary of Defense
(referring to Iraqi chemical, biological, /and/ nuclear weapons)
stated "...and we know where they are."

Fooled me twice (shame on me?)

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto, Iowa USA

Doug Miller spouts:
"Your reality check bounced, Charlie. Bush *never* claimed that Saddam
Hussein
was linked to the 9/11 attacks."

He didn't, but he sure edged into. People in his adminstration did. We
attacked Iraq to protect the US from WMDs. That was, to be less polite
about it, a flat out ****ing lie that has cost us almost 1500 young
people's lives, many more thousands mained and crippled (not to mention
the cost to the Iraqis) and uncounted billions of dollars. Then that
little "bring 'em on" barroom turd reduces the benefits the surviving
veterans will be eligible for, because cuts have to be made somewhere
(aid to veterans, fuel assistance programs for the elderly poor...ah,
yes. A true neocon all the way through).

In article .com, "Charlie Self" wrote:
Doug Miller spouts:
"Your reality check bounced, Charlie. Bush *never* claimed that Saddam
Hussein
was linked to the 9/11 attacks."

He didn't

Thank you.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

Nobody ever left footprints in the sands of time by sitting on his butt.
And who wants to leave buttprints in the sands of time?

Oh, but let's not forget that balsa has the highest strength to
weight ratio than almost any other hardwood, and higher than
most or all softwoods too, making it an excellent choice for
many aviation applications.

True. But still, even if SH quadrupled or octupled up on the weedwhacker
motors to increase the payload capacity, they still wouldn't cut it for
transatlantic bombing runs. Not to mention the hobby-class radio remote
controls only have an effective range of just a few thousand feet.

I have read that blue catalpa actually has a higher strength to
weight ratio. Might prove useful as due to its extreme low
density balsa components of adequate strength may prove to
be excessivley bulky for such things as wing spars.

A few extra wraps of gaffers tape does wonders for strength to weight
ratios.

Doug MIller slips one by, he thinks, with:

wrote:
Doug Miller spouts:
"Your reality check bounced, Charlie. Bush *never* claimed that Saddam

Hussein
was linked to the 9/11 attacks."

He didn't



Thank you.


Oh, you're welcome. You do a wonderful job of editing others' words to
fit your concept of reality. Let's look at my entire statement, as you
might wish to look at Bush's bull****:

" Your reality check bounced, Charlie. Bush *never* claimed that Saddam

Hussein
was linked to the 9/11 attacks


" He didn't, but he sure edged into. People in his adminstration did.
We
attacked Iraq to protect the US from WMDs. That was, to be less polite
about it, a flat out ****ing lie that has cost us almost 1500 young
people's lives, many more thousands mained and crippled (not to mention

the cost to the Iraqis) and uncounted billions of dollars. Then that
little "bring 'em on" barroom turd reduces the benefits the surviving
veterans will be eligible for, because cuts have to be made somewhere
(aid to veterans, fuel assistance programs for the elderly poor...ah,
yes. A true neocon all the way through)."

There ya go. You really don't need to thank me for telling the truth,
even though you're unable to recognize it as such.

On Sat, 26 Feb 2005 16:32:45 -0800, Charlie Self wrote:



Oh, you're welcome. You do a wonderful job of editing others' words to fit
your concept of reality. Let's look at my entire statement, as you might
wish to look at Bush's bull****:

" Your reality check bounced, Charlie. Bush *never* claimed that Saddam

Hussein
was linked to the 9/11 attacks


" He didn't, but he sure edged into. People in his adminstration did. We
attacked Iraq to protect the US from WMDs. That was, to be less polite
about it, a flat out ****ing lie that has cost us almost 1500 young
people's lives, many more thousands mained and crippled (not to mention

the cost to the Iraqis) and uncounted billions of dollars. Then that
little "bring 'em on" barroom turd reduces the benefits the surviving
veterans will be eligible for, because cuts have to be made somewhere (aid
to veterans, fuel assistance programs for the elderly poor...ah, yes. A
true neocon all the way through)."

There ya go. You really don't need to thank me for telling the truth, even
though you're unable to recognize it as such.

Well, now that Charlie's positive contributions have been outweighed by
his negative Michael Moore neo-lib bull****, I am going to bow out of this
group as it has become too putrid to take any longer.

Thanks folks for the good info you've provided over the years and have a
good time. As for me, there are better things to do.

- Doug

--

To escape criticism--do nothing, say nothing, be nothing." (Elbert Hubbard)

(Doug Miller) wrote in
:

In article .com,
"Charlie Self" wrote:
Doug Miller spouts:
"Your reality check bounced, Charlie. Bush *never* claimed that Saddam
Hussein
was linked to the 9/11 attacks."

He didn't

Thank you.

Slim consolation, isn't it, Doug? I mean, when the best defense that the
Bush supporters can offer is the technical difference between an outright
lie and a repeated prevarication.

(Doug Miller) wrote in
m:

In article . 201,
Nate Perkins wrote:
Doug Miller wrote in
om:

In article . 201,
says...
[...]

Anyone reading the Cincinatti speech reasonably would
come to the conclusion that WMDs and terror links are the main
theme of the speech.

Anyone reading the Cincinnati speech reasonably would come to the
conclusion that the President *did*, in fact, talk about bringing
freedom and democracy to Iraq.

But you claimed that he didn't.


You are right. The president did mention freedom and democracy in the
Cincinatti speech. I was engaging in hyperbole when I said he didn't
"make a peep" about that. There is a peep there.

No, you were not "engaging in hyperbole" and you know it. You were
lying.

Why do I have the impression that anyone who sees things differently
than you must by "lying?"

What hubris.

And you're lying now: there's more than "a peep" there, as anyone who
reads the speech can see, and you know it.

Criminy. If the shoe were on the other foot you'd be whining at me
about the definition of "peep" so we could quantify whether or not
there's a "peep" there.

The thesis is clearly not the spread of freedom and democracy. The
thesis is the danger of Iraqi WMDs and Iraqi terror links. You do know
how to spot a thesis? It comes at the beginning of the speech (not in
paragraph 42).

As I said befo if you don't appreciate being called a liar, refrain
from making posts that contain clearly obvious and readily
demonstrable falsehoods.

Yet another insult. Not surprising.

Doug Winterburn states:
"Well, now that Charlie's positive contributions have been outweighed
by
his negative Michael Moore neo-lib bull****, I am going to bow out of
this
group as it has become too putrid to take any longer."

Nothing neo about my liberalism, Doug. I voted Republican my first
couple of elections, than began to listen more closely to what was
being said. I came close to voiting Republican again, but there was
always an edge that turned my stomach.

So my liberalism is of a fairly old vintage, since my first
Presidential election was '60, when I was in the Marines and had to use
an absentee ballot.

It must be really reassuing to categorize people as Michale Moore
liberals, etc. Since I've never seen any of the guy's work, I can't
really comment. He may be following my lead, or not, but I'm sure as
hell not following his, as I've been there and done that for 20 years
more than he has.