Off Topic Messages
Thu Sep 01, 2005 10:09 pm
With all due respect and until further notice on this thread:
Fri Sep 02, 2005 12:12 am
genesim wrote:As far as Bush lying...I am still waiting. What was the lie?
It's not a "lie" but many, many lies.
Here's a book that you may enjoy "skimming":
The Five Biggest Lies Bush Told Us About Iraq
by Christopher Scheer, Robert Scheer and Lakshmi Chaudhry
Note the key word in the title is "biggest."
Let us know what you read and learn!
Fri Sep 02, 2005 12:48 am
How about saving me the trouble and acually naming one? JUST ONE!
Though I love challenges, and I just may read this one. I always enjoy a good laugh.
The five supposed lies:
1. Al Qaeda had terrorist links to Iraq
2. Iraq had chemical and biological weapons
3. Iraq had nuclear weapons
4. The war and the occupation would be easy
5. Iraq is primed to become a model of democracy in the Middle East
I have covered all of these in great detail, over and over again.
I like this review instead:
It is unfortunate that the authors failed to read David Kay's report where it was documented that there was ongoing WMD programs but that would conflict with with the political views of the authors who are committed leftists.
An al queda link was was never used by Bush as justification for the war but was used by the clinton administration to justify the bombing of an "asprin" factory during the Monica scandal. Who said there was a link of Iraqi WMD and terrorist, none other than Richard Clarke (clinton terrorism expert) and national security adviser Sandy Berger. (See Newsweek and Time)
The authors did get something right, we have not found stockpiles of WMDs. If you follow the authors twisted thinking that means Bush lied. A more reasonable conclusion is that the British, French, German and American inteligence was incorrect. Read Bob Woodward's new book wherein CIA Director Tenet (clinton appointee) told Bush WMD's were a "slamdunk".
It appears that this book (like so many others) calling Bush a lier is in retaliation for clinton perjuring himself and getting impeached.
If Bush was so devious that he knew there were no WMDs would he not have planted them to be "found". This book starts out with a false premise, and then twists facts to make something false appear true. I think thats called lying. Its obvious why scheer writes sceenplays for oliver stone, this book is about as accurate a portaiture of history as stones' movies JFK and Nixon.
Fri Sep 02, 2005 6:46 am
As Bill O' Reilly infamously might say, "we gotta go, but
we'll give you the last word, Genesim"
Fri Sep 02, 2005 7:23 am
Fri Sep 02, 2005 8:30 am
genesim wrote:I just may read this one ... I like this review instead ...
I had a feeling reading a book might be a bit beyond your capabilities.
Fri Sep 02, 2005 8:30 am
LOLOLOL What did I tell you Mr. Nolan! he he
Fri Sep 02, 2005 6:55 pm
Doc being that I have two scientific degrees, your statement is idiotic at best. Not only have I read a number of books, but I was required to.
Think before you write and you will better yourself.
I stated that I might read it for a laugh though. The information is old news, but to discredit another author could be fun. Sometimes the path they take can be just as fun to rip apart.
Fri Sep 02, 2005 7:39 pm
As I said before, I feel very badly for Mrs. Sheehan's loss. It is unimaginable to me as a parent of two small boys. But, her comment this week about how she was "glad" that George Bush refused to see her was a foolish thing to say. After all she and her supporters went through to make their point, to say what she did comes off sounding immature.
It is reminiscent of those days as a kid in which I tried to wrestle a football away from my brother, only to lose out. I would say, "I didn't really want it anyway."
I fully support her right to protest in a peaceful manner, and hope she finds peace for herself and her family.
Fri Sep 02, 2005 7:55 pm
That is why those people get it taken away. You must tackle that punk if you believe in it enough.
The problem is that it wasn't her ball to take in the first place. Her son made his own stand, and she should support him for it. He did join twice as people like to conveniently ignore.
But I would far from take that right away from her. She can protest all she wants, and hell she can do like Martin Luther King and break a few civil laws and spend the night in jail as protest. Its all good.
Though right now, I doubt anyone gives a crap. We have bigger fish to fry. The sad part is that we are wide open for a huge attack! While everyone is pointing fingers at George Bush, we could be bombed!!
Fri Sep 02, 2005 8:15 pm
Anyone else think she's hot??
P.S. Sorry, but I thought one more idiotic comment couldn't hurt this thread.
Fri Sep 02, 2005 9:21 pm
Hey Tom...but that was two.
Sat Sep 03, 2005 7:47 am
You are the very incarnation of hypocrisy......no need to look beyond the living (yet insentient) example you provide.
Scatter wrote:What the hell are you talking about??
You should use this line for nearly all of your posts, as your comprehension is usually suspect.
You may find the definition of "hypocrite" on line.
Read and learn!
As usual......you provide nothing but comic relief