"jps" wrote in message
...
"Calif Bill" wrote in message
...

He fu*ked us all with his quoted. 'Well, I guess I did raise taxes too
much'. Also it was not a lie about a blow job, it was a lie in a
deposition
on sexual harassment suit!
Bill

He shoulda taken the 5th and told whomever was asking the questions that
his
personal life was none of their ****ing business. His problem was pussy
footing around (so to speak).

Bush started out lying, now he's trying to pass the buck to the person
whose
arm he twisted in order to tell the lie in the first place.

They're both liars. Bush's lies have resulted in American deaths.
Clinton's lie just gave the Republicans a chance to derail his agenda.
The
country looses in both cases.

jps


The country LOSES, not LOOSES. It's important that all of us rise above the
level of that skank in the White House.

"Calif Bill" wrote in message
...
Actually what lie? The statement in the State of the Union Message was
"The
British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought
significant quantities of uranium from Africa." The brits believed this.
So where is the lie?
Bill

You must be tired. Your logic if flawed. It doesn't matter who found the
supposed evidence of the uranium purchase. All that matters is that Bush
said he was adding that to his list of reasons for going to war. By doing
so, he granted truth to the flawed intelligence.

"Calif Bill" wrote in message
...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"Calif Bill" wrote in message
...
Actually what lie? The statement in the State of the Union Message
was
"The
British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought
significant quantities of uranium from Africa." The brits believed
this.
So where is the lie?
Bill

You must be tired. Your logic if flawed. It doesn't matter who found the
supposed evidence of the uranium purchase. All that matters is that Bush
said he was adding that to his list of reasons for going to war. By
doing
so, he granted truth to the flawed intelligence.



No flawed logic. Where is the lie? May be that the statement was not
true,
but may have been in error. And this country must be really screwed up,
if
16 words in the State of the Union Address, causes us to go to war.
Nobody
believes half the stuff in the SOTU speech anyway. About like an annual
corporate report. The fluss in the front, does not always jibe with the
numbers in the back.



How do you tell which parts of the SOTU speech NOT to believe? If you assume
we can't believe some of it, then we can't believe ANY of it, except when he
says "me and my wife is happy on being here".

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"jps" wrote in message

The country LOSES, not LOOSES. It's important that all of us rise above
the
level of that skank in the White House.

I try to maintain a minimum one word misspelling in each of my postes. Sort
of like the miswoven rugs from the east that acknowledge the constance of
human error...

"jps" wrote in message
...
"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"jps" wrote in message

The country LOSES, not LOOSES. It's important that all of us rise above
the
level of that skank in the White House.

I try to maintain a minimum one word misspelling in each of my postes.
Sort
of like the miswoven rugs from the east that acknowledge the constance of
human error...



Oh...I see: So we know each one was handmade, right? :-)

"noah" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 15 Jul 2003 11:53:14 -0700, "Calif Bill"
wrote:


"basskisser" wrote in message
. com...
"Calif Bill" wrote in message
...
Actually what lie? The statement in the State of the Union Message
was
"The
British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought
significant quantities of uranium from Africa." The brits believed
this.
So where is the lie?
Bill

The lie comes at the exact moment when, KNOWING FULL WELL, that the
information is fabrication and a forgery, he uses it in the State of
the Union Address, and portrays it as truth.
Did "he" know full well when he gave the speech?

Bill- if he didn't, we have a big problem. If he did, we have a big
problem.

FWIW, the CIA had removed this same reference and language from an
earlier speech, because they had no faith in the sources.

Courtesy of Lee Yeaton,
See the boats of rec.boats
www.TheBayGuide.com/rec.boats

We may have a big problem, actually we do have problems. The after war
planning sucks. But my statement is still: where is the lie? Prove he new
full well that the statement was wrong. I do not think this president is
anywhere as accomplished a liar as the previous president, so he would not
be able to keep up the facade.
Bill

"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
I do not think this president is
anywhere as accomplished a liar as the previous president, so he would
not
be able to keep up the facade.
Bill

He isn't. He hasn't.

"Tell them dumb squats in all the broken down trailer parks out there that
SH's
has got nukes! That will get the public beatin' the war drums!"

Bill, you don't feel just a bit raped when you're so obviously used?

There were about three-dozen drafts of the SOTU speech reviewed before GWB
was
allowed to open his mouth. The same administration had *deleted*
references to
a nuke program in Iraq in previous speeches specifically because they knew
the
intelligence was faulty

You know this for a fact? Please cite your sources.

and the Brits had already denounced the document as a
forgery!

The Brits NEVER backed away from their Sadamm/Niger/Uranium intelligence.
Blair has stated that the forged document is not the basis of the intel and
insists the intel they do have is solid.

Tell us now, with three dozen proof readings and revisions, that the
"Iraq is developing nukes" manipulative pitch was left in as an oversight.

Again, please cite your sources.

Again, please cite your sources.

Pick any mainstream newspaper, Joe. This is headline stuff, not some obscure
paragraph in an underground rag.

The best source for analyzing Bush's sales pitch of the Union is the speech
itself. Hereare a few gems from the speech, according to the version on the
President's own website. (Careful, could be a liberal conspiracy)

I like the part where the cowboy brags about the CIA hit squads we've
dispatched around the world. That ought to win us a lot of friends and support
in the international community.

Cite:

"To date, we've arrested or otherwise dealt with many key commanders of al
Qaeda. They include a man who directed logistics and funding for the September
the 11th attacks; the chief of al Qaeda operations in the Persian Gulf, who
planned the bombings of our embassies in East Africa and the USS Cole; an al
Qaeda operations chief from Southeast Asia; a former director of al Qaeda's
training camps in Afghanistan; a key al Qaeda operative in Europe; a major al
Qaeda leader in Yemen. All told, more than 3,000 suspected terrorists have been
arrested in many countries. Many others have met a different fate. Let's put it
this way -- they are no longer a problem to the United States and our friends
and allies." (Applause.)


Then there are the paragraphs designed to scare us all into believing that a
biological attack was imminent:

Cite:

"As we fight this war, we will remember where it began -- here, in our own
country. This government is taking unprecedented measures to protect our people
and defend our homeland. We've intensified security at the borders and ports of
entry, posted more than 50,000 newly-trained federal screeners in airports,
begun inoculating troops and first responders against smallpox, and are
deploying the nation's first early warning network of sensors to detect
biological attack. And this year, for the first time, we are beginning to field
a defense to protect this nation against ballistic missiles." (Applause.)

thank the Congress for supporting these measures. I ask you tonight to add to
our future security with a major research and production effort to guard our
people against bioterrorism, called Project Bioshield. The budget I send you
will propose almost $6 billion to quickly make available effective vaccines and
treatments against agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin, Ebola, and plague. We
must assume that our enemies would use these diseases as weapons, and we must
act before the dangers are upon us."

Then check out the following, classic, propaganda logic. The majority of people
listening to this paragraph will feel encouraged to believe that an "outlaw"
regime has nuclear weapons. Gee, wonder who Bush could have meant in Jan. 2003?

Cite:

"Today, the gravest danger in the war on terror, the gravest danger facing
America and the world, is outlaw regimes that seek and possess nuclear,
chemical, and biological weapons. These regimes could use such weapons for
blackmail, terror, and mass murder. They could also give or sell those weapons
to terrorist allies, who would use them without the least hesitation."

Then there's this paragraph. Bush doesn't say that "Iraq has nukes", but rather
is seeking to develop the "ultimate weapons of terror" What can a reasonable
person suppose most people thought he meant?

Cite:

"Now, in this century, the ideology of power and domination has appeared again,
and seeks to gain the ultimate weapons of terror. Once again, this nation and
all our friends are all that stand between a world at peace, and a world of
chaos and constant alarm. Once again, we are called to defend the safety of our
people, and the hopes of all mankind. And we accept this responsibility"

The second sentence in the next paragraph is particularly funny, in retrospect.
If I need to explain why, you wouldn't understand the explanation.

Cite:

"America is making a broad and determined effort to confront these dangers. We
have called on the United Nations to fulfill its charter and stand by its
demand that Iraq disarm."

We get to see the birth of the moral argument to invade Iran, )conveniently and
incidentally located between Iraq and Afghanistan)

Cite:

Different threats require different strategies. In Iran, we continue to see a
government that represses its people, pursues weapons of mass destruction, and
supports terror. We also see Iranian citizens risking intimidation and death as
they speak out for liberty and human rights and democracy. Iranians, like all
people, have a right to choose their own government and determine their own
destiny -- and the United States supports their aspirations to live in freedom.
(Applause.)

A little further into the speech, we encounter yet another implication that
Saddam Hussein has gone nuclear.

Cite:

"Twelve years ago, Saddam Hussein faced the prospect of being the last casualty
in a war he had started and lost. To spare himself, he agreed to disarm of all
weapons of mass destruction. For the next 12 years, he systematically violated
that agreement. He pursued chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, even
while inspectors were in his country. Nothing to date has restrained him from
his pursuit of these weapons -- not economic sanctions, not isolation from the
civilized world, not even cruise missile strikes on his military facilities."

We then encounter three curious paragraphs where Bush says, "We estimate and
theorize he could possibly have this stuff, and since we estimate and theorize
he could possibly have it and he hasn't surrendered it, he's in violation"

Cite:

The United Nations concluded in 1999 that Saddam Hussein had biological weapons
sufficient to produce over 25,000 liters of anthrax -- enough doses to kill
several million people. He hasn't accounted for that material. He's given no
evidence that he has destroyed it.

The United Nations concluded that Saddam Hussein had materials sufficient to
produce more than 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin -- enough to subject
millions of people to death by respiratory failure. He hadn't accounted for
that material. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed it.

Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to
produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent. In such
quantities, these chemical agents could also kill untold thousands. He's not
accounted for these materials. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed
them.

Then there's the doozy. What is Bush saying here? He says that we know that
during the 1990's (what, before the first Gulf War?) SH had a plan for a
nuclear bomb. You can get a plan for a nuclear bomb off the internet, or out of
any college nuclear physics text. So?

This paragraph, in conjunction with all the preceding references to Saddam
Hussein and nuclear weapons (or weapons of "ultimate terror") is far more than
just a slip of the lip and a careless proofread. It's part of a plot, obvious
on its face, to convice the American people that SH was a nuclear threat.

Cite:

The International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed in the 1990s that Saddam
Hussein had an advanced nuclear weapons development program, had a design for a
nuclear weapon and was working on five different methods of enriching uranium
for a bomb. The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently
sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Our intelligence sources
tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable
for nuclear weapons production. Saddam Hussein has not credibly explained these
activities. He clearly has much to hide.

Yet another reference to nuclear weapons and SH, this time with an implication
that SH is ready to ship nukes into the US in crates:

Cite:

"With nuclear arms or a full arsenal of chemical and biological weapons, Saddam
Hussein could resume his ambitions of conquest in the Middle East and create
deadly havoc in that region. And this Congress and the America people must
recognize another threat. Evidence from intelligence sources, secret
communications, and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam
Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda. Secretly,
and without fingerprints, he could provide one of his hidden weapons to
terrorists, or help them develop their own.

Before September the 11th, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could
be contained. But chemical agents, lethal viruses and shadowy terrorist
networks are not easily contained. Imagine those 19 hijackers with other
weapons and other plans -- this time armed by Saddam Hussein. It would take one
vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of
horror like none we have ever known. We will do everything in our power to make
sure that that day never comes. (Applause.)"

And last but not least, yet another iplication that SH is a nuclear threat or
nearly so.

Cite:

The dictator who is assembling the world's most dangerous weapons has already
used them on whole villages --


You have to love the rw propaganda piece being shouted around right now. "Why
are you guys on the left trying to make such a big deal about a measly eight
words in a speech?"

But then again, Joe, you might not agree with my source for this information:
George W. Bush. President of the US.

Pick any mainstream newspaper, Joe. This is headline stuff, not some
obscure
paragraph in an underground rag.

Really? Help a fella out and point me at 1 that states the British "had
already denounced the document as a
forgery" prior to the SOTUS.

snip

But then again, Joe, you might not agree with my source for this
information:
George W. Bush. President of the US.

I agree with every one of GW's statements you cite, just not *your* opinions
of them.

"Joe" wrote in message ...
"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
I do not think this president is
anywhere as accomplished a liar as the previous president, so he would
not
be able to keep up the facade.
Bill

He isn't. He hasn't.

"Tell them dumb squats in all the broken down trailer parks out there that
SH's
has got nukes! That will get the public beatin' the war drums!"

Bill, you don't feel just a bit raped when you're so obviously used?

There were about three-dozen drafts of the SOTU speech reviewed before GWB
was
allowed to open his mouth. The same administration had *deleted*
references to
a nuke program in Iraq in previous speeches specifically because they knew
the
intelligence was faulty

You know this for a fact? Please cite your sources.

Some things are just common knowledge. I know, that is a concept you
know nothing about, so I'll try to help. Do you think that the State
of the Union Address isn't proof read? It surely is. As a matter of
fact, before Dumbya ever reads aloud one word of it, it has been in
the hands of many proofreaders, intelligence people, etc.

and the Brits had already denounced the document as a
forgery!

The Brits NEVER backed away from their Sadamm/Niger/Uranium intelligence.
Blair has stated that the forged document is not the basis of the intel and
insists the intel they do have is solid.

Tell us now, with three dozen proof readings and revisions, that the
"Iraq is developing nukes" manipulative pitch was left in as an oversight.

Again, please cite your sources.

The source is the State of the Union Address.