On Thu, 03 Nov 2005 19:10:16 +0000, NOYB wrote:


You said Bush lied us into war, and specifically lied about WMD. The
quotes that JimH posted show that the prevailing belief among *both* sides
of the aisle in Congress was that Saddam had WMD. If Bush was simply
restating what *everybody* was already saying, then exactly how did he
lie?

Hmmmmm?

You are assuming Bush believed that Saddam had WMD. At this point, that
is no longer a given. Regardless, this speech just seems amazingly wrong.

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

On Thu, 03 Nov 2005 14:19:02 -0500, thunder wrote:

On Thu, 03 Nov 2005 19:10:16 +0000, NOYB wrote:


You said Bush lied us into war, and specifically lied about WMD. The
quotes that JimH posted show that the prevailing belief among *both* sides
of the aisle in Congress was that Saddam had WMD. If Bush was simply
restating what *everybody* was already saying, then exactly how did he
lie?

Hmmmmm?

You are assuming Bush believed that Saddam had WMD. At this point, that
is no longer a given. Regardless, this speech just seems amazingly wrong.

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

Are you, on the other hand, assuming that Bush *knew* (unlike the rest of the
world) that Saddam had 'no' WMD?
--
John H

"It's *not* a baby kicking, bride of mine, it's just a fetus!"

HK

The liberals among us don't like the real news from Iraq, besides, you don't
get the real news from CNN or ET anyways. They don't want to admit the
truth about all of the WMD findings that we have found. Over 1.55 Metric
tons of enriched uranium? The Serin Gas? The largest stockpile of
Anthrax in the world? Are these things simply tonka toys to the liberals?
Why is it that you don't find any of these stories on CNN, ABC, NBC, and the
rest of the alphabet???????? Because the truth helps Bush, instead the
concentrate on all of the bad.

If you look up the definition of a "Lie" you will find that a lie is when
you say something you know to be false at the time that you say it.
Everything that Bush has said was thought to be true. If you really think
he lied, than please tell us what the lie is that he said - SPECIFICALLY.

IMHO
"NOYB" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
*JimH* wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
John H. wrote:
On Thu, 03 Nov 2005 08:19:23 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:


Saddam and many other heads of state are always interested in
obtaining all sorts of weaponry and components. That doesn't mean
they have them, can get them, can use them if they get them, et
cetera.
Saddam had WMD. If allowed he would have used them, again. Bush didn't
lie about
the WMD.
Right. Saddam's dog ate them.

I guess all these folks lied also.......eh?


You can repeat that list from now until the end of time, and it won't
make a difference. Talking up a problem and invading a country are not
equivalents.


You said Bush lied us into war, and specifically lied about WMD. The
quotes that JimH posted show that the prevailing belief among *both* sides
of the aisle in Congress was that Saddam had WMD. If Bush was simply
restating what *everybody* was already saying, then exactly how did he
lie?

Hmmmmm?

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Jack wrote:
The liberals among us don't like the real news from Iraq, besides, you
don't get the real news from CNN or ET anyways.

The real news from Iraq is that about 20 more Americans have been killed
so far over there this week in Bush's folly.

Without looking it up....how many Americans were killed in Afghanistan?

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
*JimH* wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Jack wrote:
The liberals among us don't like the real news from Iraq, besides, you
don't get the real news from CNN or ET anyways.
The real news from Iraq is that about 20 more Americans have been killed
so far over there this week in Bush's folly.

Without looking it up....how many Americans were killed in Afghanistan?
Around 250, but I don't recall whether that is before or after Presidummy
announced "mission accomplished."

You didn't know this?

*Around* 250? And you are so precise in announcing the daily death toll in
Iraq.

Were the lives of the US troops not as important to you during the war in
Afghanistan as they are in the war in Iraq?

Me thinks so and the reason is obvious? ;-)

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
*JimH* wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
*JimH* wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Jack wrote:
The liberals among us don't like the real news from Iraq, besides,
you don't get the real news from CNN or ET anyways.
The real news from Iraq is that about 20 more Americans have been
killed so far over there this week in Bush's folly.
Without looking it up....how many Americans were killed in Afghanistan?
Around 250, but I don't recall whether that is before or after
Presidummy announced "mission accomplished."

You didn't know this?

*Around* 250? And you are so precise in announcing the daily death toll
in Iraq.

Were the lives of the US troops not as important to you during the war in
Afghanistan as they are in the war in Iraq?

Me thinks so and the reason is obvious? ;-)
Maybe to you.

No. to most.

The recorded count is 243.

Hey, what is plus or minus 7 US soldier deaths.............eh?

On Thu, 03 Nov 2005 21:57:41 +0000, Jack wrote:


If you look up the definition of a "Lie" you will find that a lie is when
you say something you know to be false at the time that you say it.
Everything that Bush has said was thought to be true. If you really
think he lied, than please tell us what the lie is that he said -
SPECIFICALLY.

If you look up the definition of lie, you will see you are referring only
to one of it's definitions. Another is, "to say or do, that which is
intended to deceive another." That being said, we, including you, do not
know if Bush lied. We do not know his reason for invading Iraq. We know
the given reason, the "bureaucratic" reason, the WMDs Iraq possessed,
*and* the threat they posed to America, but as Wolfowitz said, there were
other reasons. We do not yet know those other reasons.

There were no WMDs. Did Bush lie about them? We don't know. There is
quite a bit of speculation the Ledeen, Rove's bud, may behind the Niger
forgeries. If true, that would tend toward lying, but that, at least at
this point, is just speculation. It is quite clear that the Office of
Special Plans cherry-picked WMD intel. Was it intended to deceive, or
just a bad management decision? We don't know, do we?

Then, even if there were WMDs, Bush's statements could still be a lie, if
they were used to deceive, and divert, the American people from those
other reasons Wolfowitz mentioned. If WMDs were used, when the real
reason for the war was oil or, elimination of Israel's enemies, it would
be a lie. Those of you who say Bush didn't lie, are no more accurate
than if I were to say he did. Without knowing those other reasons for
this war, we just don't know.

I say Bush lied and not about WMD. I'm guessing he truly expected we
would find Iraq's WMD, as most Americans did. I'm saying Bush lied
because I have read the PNAC timelines, and papers. I'm saying Bush lied
because, if you read those papers, there were calls for Saddam's removal
well back into the nineties, and the reasons given then, were not WMDs.
I'm saying Bush lied because the whole issue of WMDs was a lie.

On Fri, 04 Nov 2005 07:54:52 -0500, thunder wrote:

On Thu, 03 Nov 2005 21:57:41 +0000, Jack wrote:


If you look up the definition of a "Lie" you will find that a lie is when
you say something you know to be false at the time that you say it.
Everything that Bush has said was thought to be true. If you really
think he lied, than please tell us what the lie is that he said -
SPECIFICALLY.

If you look up the definition of lie, you will see you are referring only
to one of it's definitions. Another is, "to say or do, that which is
intended to deceive another." That being said, we, including you, do not
know if Bush lied.

*That* is the point. Well said. Now spread it around.
--
John H

"It's *not* a baby kicking, bride of mine, it's just a fetus!"

HK