So what's the evidence for Bush lying

Post #109,310 by johnu 7/11/03 4:11:52 PM Reply	So what's the evidence for Bush lying So I read the following in [link\|http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york071103.asp\|Democrats\ufffd Iraqi Attack Ad] The ad begins with the words, "In his State of the Union address, George W. Bush told us of an imminent threat \ufffd " It then cuts to a video clip of the president saying, "Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." The ad omits the first words of Bush's statement, which read, in full, "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." The government of British Prime Minister Tony Blair has said it stands behind its intelligence assessment of the African uranium issue. The DNC ad continues, "But now we find out that it wasn't true. Far worse, the administration knew it wasn't true. A year earlier, that claim was already proven to be false. The CIA knew it. The State Department knew it. The White House knew it. But he [the president] told us anyway." National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice has said that she, and other top officials in the White House, did not know that the Iraqi/African uranium allegation was based on forged documents. In Africa Friday morning, Rice said the Central Intelligence Agency has approved Bush's State of the Union address, including the portion that dealt with Africa and uranium. "The CIA cleared the speech in its entirety," Rice said. "If the CIA \ufffd the director of Central Intelligence \ufffd had said, 'Take this out of the speech,' it would have been gone...We wouldn't put anything knowingly in the speech that was false." And I read in [link\|http://www.nationalreview.com/may/may071103.asp\|Scandal!\nBush\ufffds enemies aren't telling the truth about what he said.] The president's critics are lying. Mr. Bush never claimed that Saddam Hussein had purchased uranium from Niger. It is not true \ufffd as USA Today reported on page one Friday morning \ufffd that "tainted evidence made it into the President's State of the Union address." For the record, here's what President Bush actually said in his SOTU: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." Precisely which part of that statement isn't true? The British government did say that it believed Saddam had sought African uranium. Is it possible that the British government was mistaken? Sure. Is it possible that Her Majesty's government came by that belief based on an erroneous American intelligence report about a transaction between Iraq and Niger? Yes \ufffd but British Prime Minister Tony Blair and members of his Cabinet say that's not what happened. So is there any other evidence becides the uranium thing that Bush lied about anything regarding Iraq? Just curious. Regards, John
Post #109,315 by jbrabeck 7/11/03 4:30:13 PM Reply	Couple For starters . . . WMD - where are they if his intelligence was so good? Imminent Threat - what was the imminent theat? When they took the Fourth Amendment, I was quiet because I didn't deal drugs. When they took the Fifth Amendment, I was quiet because I was innocent. When they took the Second Amendment, I was quiet because I didn't own a gun. Now they've taken the First Amendment, and I can't say anything about it.
Post #109,323 by deSitter 7/11/03 5:22:39 PM Reply	Shrub and Condiment Blame CIA [link\|http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/11/international/worldspecial/11CND-WEAPONS.html?hp\|http://www.nytimes.c...D-WEAPONS.html?hp] -drl
Post #109,374 by Simon_Jester 7/12/03 8:06:33 AM Reply	This is the 2nd time that Bush has done something weird.... ``I gave a speech that was cleared by the intelligence services,'' the president said. ``It was a speech that detailed to the American people the dangers posed by the Saddam Hussein regime. And my government took the appropriate response to those dangers.'' Mr. Bush made his comments not long after his national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, said that the Central Intelligence Agency had ``cleared the speech in his entirety.' [link\|http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/11/international/worldspecial/11CND-WEAPONS.html?hp\| NY Times ] Okay...I'm not a President and I don't know how their offices work. And maybe it's just the language thing to me....but Why is the CIA "CLEARING" the speech? The speech shouldn't need CLEARING...it ought to be derived from the CIA intelligence (that is why they're there isn't it?) You'd only say that the CIA cleared something if you put it in the speech and then had to ask the CIA if it was okay. (It reminds he of Bush's comments that we didn't know they were going to fly planes into building. It was okay to hijack planes as long as they didn't fly them into building?)
Post #109,444 by mhuber 7/13/03 1:40:03 AM Reply	Cleared != verified I assume the CIA didn't care if he was lying, as long as he didn't give away any secrets. ---- Sometime you the windshield, sometime you the bug...
Post #109,330 by Ashton 7/11/03 6:14:33 PM Reply	Here's why there cannot ever be any 'evidence': One always has to begin such a query from, Is it possible that a person with President Bush's demonstrated acumen, historical knowledge and overall competence: might draw this conclusion ___ from this __ information? See? - EZ out, whatever the Question. Remember the gentle er quizzing of Reagan re Ollie North and All That Jazz? Then.. it was, "can't recall". And who would have questioned that, then? Same deal. Teflon of Dumbth beats Four Aces every time.
Post #109,337 by tangaroa 7/11/03 8:56:29 PM Reply	the evidence for Bush lying Bush said there were hundreds of thousands of gallons of biological and chemical weapons and the only reason the UN couldn't find them was because the UN is incompetent. Bush has now been there longer than the UN inspectors were and hasn't found a thing. Bush said that he didn't "want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud". There is no evidence that Iraq had any kind of nuclear weapons program when this claim was made. Bush claimed that Iraq bought aluminium tubes which could only be used for producing nuclear weapons. Numerous foreign and domestic intelligence and engineering sources say the tubes not only can be used for producing conventional weapons but actually can not be used for producing nuclear weapons. Bush said that there was a lot of new intelligence about Iraq's WMD programs that made invading now a priority but could not be revealed for reasons of security. Last week, Bush said that Clinton used "the same intelligence" to bomb Iraq back in 1998. Bush claimed that Iraq was behind the September 11 attacks in his letter to Congress seeking a resolution to invade, and there has been no proof of this involvement And Bush's people: Cheney said that "Iraq has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons". There is no evidence of this. Rumsfeld said we not only knew what WMD Iraq had, "we know where they are". Several anonymous White House and Defense Department officials leaked false information to the press accusing France of selling military supplies to Iraq. Most of these reports have since been disproven. Ari Fleischer says "the burden is on those people who think he didn't have weapons of mass destruction to tell the world where they are" that all I can think of off the top of my head Meanwhile, Leaks from the CIA said there was jack squat and Bush was lying Leaks from the Defense Intelligence Agency said there was jack squat and Bush was lying Leaks from the National Security Agency said there was jack squat and Bush was lying Leaks from the Mossad said there was jack squat and Bush was lying but they're not going to complain if he wipes out the PA's funding et cetera et cetera
Post #109,338 by tangaroa 7/11/03 8:57:07 PM Reply	Missed one "Mission Accomplished"
Post #109,348 by ben_tilly 7/11/03 10:41:24 PM Reply	You need to look for evidence? Let's not take the subtle stuff. Let's take his ability to carry through on what he says. If you will recall (google if you missed the news) George Bush addressing the nation and said: "No matter what the whip count is, we're calling for the vote. We want to see people stand up and say what their opinion is about Saddam Hussein and the utility of the United Nations Security Council." He lied. We didn't call that vote. The entire world got to see our President stand up, make specific declarations of what we would and would not do. Later we got to see the value of his word. (Of course those of us who compared declarations on when he stopped drinking with video from years after that of him blasted already knew that he thinks that truth is for others.) Cheers, Ben "good ideas and bad code build communities, the other three combinations do not" - [link\|http://archives.real-time.com/pipermail/cocoon-devel/2000-October/003023.html\|Stefano Mazzocchi]
Post #109,591 by johnu 7/14/03 12:41:17 PM Reply	Not what I'm looking for If he lied about something, he knew when he made the statement that it was untrue. The only one in the responses that comes close is the following: Bush said that there was a lot of new intelligence about Iraq's WMD programs that made invading now a priority but could not be revealed for reasons of security. Last week, Bush said that Clinton used "the same intelligence" to bomb Iraq back in 1998. Any links to the two statements? Did he say he used only "the same intelligence" in the second statement? Thanks, John
Post #109,594 by ben_tilly 7/14/03 1:02:49 PM Reply	Of course it isn't what you are looking for Your mind is made up. You just want to set the goalposts narrowly enough that you will confirm what you already "know" to be the case. Regards, Ben "good ideas and bad code build communities, the other three combinations do not" - [link\|http://archives.real-time.com/pipermail/cocoon-devel/2000-October/003023.html\|Stefano Mazzocchi]
Post #109,596 by johnu 7/14/03 1:14:04 PM Reply	Just can't redefine lying that way Your mind is made up. You just want to set the goalposts narrowly enough that you will confirm what you already "know" to be the case. Everything I've seen to backup the claims that Bush lied have been statements made that were either incorrect or we don't have proof either way yet. I was always under the impression lying means you make a statement you know is untrue. Being wrong about something doesn't make you a lier. Of course if you redefine what lying is... Regards, John
Post #109,601 by deSitter 7/14/03 1:25:57 PM Reply	Re: Just can't redefine lying that way Why did 9/11 happen? Bad intelligence. What is most needed to combat terrorism? Good intelligence. Who is responsible for seeing to it that good intelligence is what we get? The Executive Branch. So, if Bush DIDN'T lie, it's even worse for him and his pals than if he DID lie. It means intelligence is out of control. The current administration is probably the worst in American history. -drl
Post #109,672 by deSitter 7/14/03 11:30:54 PM Reply	It escalates The current Residentiation is willing to destroy the ONE thing we need more than any other to fight terrorists - the intel community, sharp and motivated. How stupid is it possible for one person to be? Is there any bottom to being a moron? Has there EVER been such a constellation of mean-spirited morons in office? Does the simpering cowardice of the Democrats have a parallel? Given how we treat our old people and our workers - do we DESERVE this? -drl
Post #109,749 by mmoffitt 7/15/03 11:47:11 AM Reply	That bugs me. Why did 9/11 happen? Bad intelligence. I don't think anybody has ever satisfactorily looked into the the claims Deputy Director O'Neil made in his resignation letter. And likely, no one will ever look into what was the basis of his complaint: that investigating terrorist activity was being hampered by oil interests. Unfortunately, we can't ask him, he died on 9/11. Everybody I know says, "Yeah, that was a failure of intelligence." And, to be sure, it was. But why? No one seems to give a damn about why that might have been. Even after the publication of O'Neil's resignation letter in which he almost foretells us of 9/11. I don't know for sure if O'Neil's claims that his anti-terror group was being told to "back off the Saudis" in the months leading up to 9/11 are true, but I damned sure think that possibility exists and that it ought to be thoroughly investigated. bcnu, Mikem The soul and substance of what customarily ranks as patriotism is moral cowardice and always has been...We have thrown away the most valuable asset we had-- the individual's right to oppose both flag and country when he (just he, by himself) believed them to be in the wrong. We have thrown it away; and with it all that was really respectable about that grotesque and laughable word, Patriotism. - Mark Twain, "Monarchical and Republican Patriotism"
Post #109,602 by ben_tilly 7/14/03 1:30:24 PM Reply	Who is redefining lying? Everything I've seen to backup the claims that Bush lied have been statements made that were either incorrect or we don't have proof either way yet. Did you read [link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=109348\|http://z.iwethey.org...?contentid=109348] or not? Your original request was to demonstrate that Bush lied about Iraq. Well Bush stood up in front of the nation, addressed the nation, and said, these are the steps that we will take before going to war in Iraq. Less than a month later we went to war without one of those steps (the second UN vote) happening because Bush knew he would lose, and didn't want to lose the (admittedly incredibly weak) claim of UN legitimacy for his actions. I claim that my demonstration that Bush lied about Iraq is verifiable from a plethora of news sources, and post invasion there is no difficulty proving the lie. If you disagree that this is a lie, then please clarify your definition of what a lie is. Ben "good ideas and bad code build communities, the other three combinations do not" - [link\|http://archives.real-time.com/pipermail/cocoon-devel/2000-October/003023.html\|Stefano Mazzocchi]
Post #109,644 by Ashton 7/14/03 8:09:54 PM Reply	Mean.. next you'll remind us of his campaign promise of No Nation Building! (and the Neoconmen will reply.. yabut ya see: 9/11 CHANGED EVERYTHING!) Including any possible onus to ever again speak remotely truthfully - for National Security Reasons. I mean.. if we revealed why we're doing Anything - well, you can see where that would lead. and so it goes
Post #109,710 by johnu 7/15/03 8:20:06 AM Reply	Re: Mean.. next you'll remind us of his campaign promise of So, if I promise to do something and I have every intention of doing that at the time I make the promise, then things change making the promise impractical to carry out so I don't fulfill my promise, did I lie when I made the promise? Regards, John
Post #109,716 by jbrabeck 7/15/03 9:22:23 AM Reply	Define the promise Detail the reasons (verifiable) that make the promise impossible to keep. Otherwise, yes, he lied... When they took the Fourth Amendment, I was quiet because I didn't deal drugs. When they took the Fifth Amendment, I was quiet because I was innocent. When they took the Second Amendment, I was quiet because I didn't own a gun. Now they've taken the First Amendment, and I can't say anything about it.
Post #109,765 by ben_tilly 7/15/03 1:07:48 PM Reply	You would show lack of integrity at least in that scenario At least in my books. Of course if you cared what I think, then you would acknowledge my [link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=109602\|post] which demonstrates that [link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=109596\|your claim] about it not having been proven that Bush lied on Iraq was incorrect. Note that I do not claim that you intentionally lied. After all it is possible that my point was not clear to you the first time around. However continuing to make up excuses for your hero while ignoring the missing clothing is getting to be a bit much. Regards, Ben "good ideas and bad code build communities, the other three combinations do not" - [link\|http://archives.real-time.com/pipermail/cocoon-devel/2000-October/003023.html\|Stefano Mazzocchi]
Post #109,772 by johnu 7/15/03 1:39:29 PM Reply	Re: You would show lack of integrity... Of course if you cared what I think, then you would acknowledge my post [] which demonstrates that your claim [] about it not having been proven that Bush lied on Iraq was incorrect. Note that I do not claim that you intentionally lied. After all it is possible that my point was not clear to you the first time around. However continuing to make up excuses for your hero while ignoring the missing clothing is getting to be a bit much. I think that not following thru with something you say you're going to do and lying are two different things. Maybe I'm wrong in expecting intent to decieve to be a condition when considering a statement a lie. Oh well. Regards, John
Post #109,778 by Silverlock 7/15/03 1:59:06 PM Reply	Intent to deceive? Do you even read what you write? Read a newspaper in the last 2 years? Seen a tv news show? Any press conference? SOTU address? You truly don't see any "intent to deceive"? Iraq/Al Qaeda connection implied since 9/11. No evidence. Iraq to supply WMD to Al Qaeda. No evidence. Tax cut for the rich is defined as a "jobs creation program". Opening up national forests for logging is defined as a forest fire prevention program. We were sold a war with Iraq as thinly veiled vengeance for 9/11 even though Iraq was not involved. Get a clue. ----------------------------------------- [link\|http://www.talion.com/questionw.html\|?W] Where were you in 72?
Post #109,784 by Simon_Jester 7/15/03 2:12:56 PM Reply	Intent to deceive - ability to lie without lying... Personally, I thought that the intent was the key element with regards to lying. I also thought it was possible to "lie by omission" - telling the truth but leave out key important details. But that's just my opinion. YMMV.
Post #109,787 by Silverlock 7/15/03 2:28:51 PM Reply	I'm confused I thought what I was pointing out was the intent of the Bush admin to deceive. ----------------------------------------- [link\|http://www.talion.com/questionw.html\|?W] Where were you in 72?
Post #109,816 by Ashton 7/15/03 6:07:47 PM Reply	In a milieu shouting, Ignorance is Truth!__War is Peace! I deem that your confusion is not merely normal but Healthy, or as one sage observed re much larger matters.. Confusion is a High state (IIRC - this in connection with its being a prelude to a certain breakthrough over lengthy efforts to dissemble..) Aaauuummmm
Post #109,838 by Simon_Jester 7/15/03 8:18:52 PM Reply	I'm sorry - I was agreeing with you... and pointing that it was possible for Bush to tell completely true statement and still lie by omission. The galloping revisionists (how's that for a Marlowe phrase...) are trying desperately to argue that if it Bush said it, it wasn't a lie because technically it was true. But the fact of the matter (as you pointed out) is that Bush, by ever conceivable record, argued strong that WMD (in particular Nukes) were a clear and present danger to the US. Stating that Britain thought Iraq was trying to buy nukes becomes a lie of omission - because he didn't tell us that our own intelligence organization throught the documents were bogus.
Post #109,908 by Silverlock 7/16/03 9:06:39 AM Reply	OK My bad. I should have read closer. ----------------------------------------- [link\|http://www.talion.com/questionw.html\|?W] Where were you in 72?
Post #109,946 by Simon_Jester 7/16/03 1:50:08 PM Reply	Nice followup by the Washington Post.... But a review of speeches and reports, plus interviews with present and former administration officials and intelligence analysts, suggests that between Oct. 7, when President Bush made a speech laying out the case for military action against Hussein, and Jan. 28, when he gave his State of the Union address, almost all the other evidence had either been undercut or disproved by U.N. inspectors in Iraq. By Jan. 28, in fact, the intelligence report concerning Iraqi attempts to buy uranium from Africa -- although now almost entirely disproved -- was the only publicly unchallenged element of the administration's case that Iraq had restarted its nuclear program. That may explain why the administration strived to keep the information in the speech and attribute it to the British, even though the CIA had challenged it earlier. [link\|http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A61622-2003Jul15.html?nav=hptop_tb\| Washington Post ] Notice how all the hyperbole regarding the French has died down as well?
Post #109,970 by Silverlock 7/16/03 2:50:57 PM Reply	Re: the French Kind of hard to continually insult an ally and expect them to respond favorably to a request for armed support. ----------------------------------------- [link\|http://www.talion.com/questionw.html\|?W] Where were you in 72?
Post #110,032 by Ashton 7/16/03 7:17:51 PM Reply	Not 'hard' if you think like a Neoconman... :(
Post #110,239 by jake123 7/17/03 8:51:27 PM Reply	Should point out that the "lie of omission" is enshrined in the common law, has been since before the US was founded, and is well understood and well tested in that milieu. The fact that marketers (and the current admin seems to me to be driven by marketing to a degree that makes the Clinton years look like sober debate) skirt around this one all the time doesn't cut it wil lawyers. --\n-------------------------------------------------------------------\n* Jack Troughton jake at consultron.ca \n [link\|http://consultron.ca\|http://consultron.ca] [link\|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca\|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca] \n Kingston Ontario Canada [link\|news://news.consultron.ca\|news://news.consultron.ca] *\n-------------------------------------------------------------------
Post #110,181 by johnu 7/17/03 3:20:31 PM Reply	That explains a lot Tax cut for the rich is defined as a "jobs creation program". Opening up national forests for logging is defined as a forest fire prevention program. I see. Different beliefs == intent to deceive. So had 9/11 never happened and Bush continued to ignore Iraq, he would still be a big old lier around here. Thanks for clearing that up. Regards, JOhn
Post #110,189 by Silverlock 7/17/03 3:55:13 PM Reply	Ignore the inconvenient Twist the rest. You sure you don't work for the RNC? ----------------------------------------- [link\|http://www.talion.com/questionw.html\|?W] Where were you in 72?
Post #110,191 by mmoffitt 7/17/03 3:58:05 PM Reply	I think johnu == krove. bcnu, Mikem The soul and substance of what customarily ranks as patriotism is moral cowardice and always has been...We have thrown away the most valuable asset we had-- the individual's right to oppose both flag and country when he (just he, by himself) believed them to be in the wrong. We have thrown it away; and with it all that was really respectable about that grotesque and laughable word, Patriotism. - Mark Twain, "Monarchical and Republican Patriotism"
Post #110,228 by Ashton 7/17/03 8:18:09 PM Reply	Wrong krove possesses the instincts and dissembling talents of the Sainted Herr G\ufffdbbels - the originator of the Official Ministry of Propaganda. This here's a pup, with Human Events* quips stirred into his pabulum, early on. * He got Shrub his first non- direct-PrescottBushDynasty sinecure: the cushy [we don't give Governors no power here, so they ain't gots much To Do] Texas Governorship. krove has been a limpet on the head of that eel, every day since. How's That! - for parlaying a career in Rush-style dissembling into the Acme of World-Class Dissembling! {applause} {encore} Wait'll ya hear about the emergency Iran invasion .. [never mind those bread lines; this is about Freedom]
Post #110,007 by ben_tilly 7/16/03 5:27:28 PM Reply	Mighty fine gradations of dishonesty there... There is lying, and not carrying through on your word. There is glibly making the promise that you think you will never have to be called on, and there is intent to have your words prove wrong because of decisions that you darned well should have made. And that word intent, what a slippery word is that? No matter how often Bush doesn't do what he says he will, no matter how many facts he gets wrong, no matter how good the evidence is that he knew better, you can always ask about proving intent. After all nobody will ever have more than circumstantial evidence of what Bush intended to do - how dare we claim to be able to read his mind? Nice goalposts there. Nobody can ever reach them. He stands up and shouts that - no matter what the whip count - we will have a second vote. But when the whip count became obvious, we didn't have the vote. What changed? What would have changes his intent? Perhaps his intentions were good, but he got different marching orders from his handlers? So Bush might not be lying, he just says what his handlers say to when they say to do it with no idea what any of it means. Now my definitions tend to be a bit sloppier. From my point of view if someone attempts to project sincerity as they tell me something that proves false, and said person doesn't seem to care that I was mislead, then I say that person lied to me. Because impossible gradations of intent are impossible for me to detect, but clearly there is a lack of basic integrity. And certainly I have every reason to not believe the next thing that that particular jerk tells me. By my definition, Bush has lied to the nation repeatedly, both on Iraq and on other matters. But from yours his intent can become a theological dispute akin to discussions of angels using pins for ballrooms. OK, fine. I don't care to argue theology. Theological nitpicking aside, though, there is no practical difference between what Bush has done and blatant lying, and the whole world knows to not believe anything that Bush says when he is posturing. And no, this does not make me feel proud... Regards, Ben "good ideas and bad code build communities, the other three combinations do not" - [link\|http://archives.real-time.com/pipermail/cocoon-devel/2000-October/003023.html\|Stefano Mazzocchi]
Post #110,820 by jake123 7/22/03 3:19:48 AM Reply	Considering the time difference between the statement and the deeds (a matter of weeks), and the fact that the statement explicitly rejected what they actually eventually did (ie- they didn't go for a second resolution), I'd say that it was a lie. --\n-------------------------------------------------------------------\n* Jack Troughton jake at consultron.ca \n [link\|http://consultron.ca\|http://consultron.ca] [link\|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca\|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca] \n Kingston Ontario Canada [link\|news://news.consultron.ca\|news://news.consultron.ca] *\n-------------------------------------------------------------------
Post #110,821 by deSitter 7/22/03 3:28:11 AM Reply	Re: Considering the time difference Rumsfeld argued for attacking Iraq on 9/12. Clearly they are trying to strong-arm the intelligence people and to intimidate them into silence or complicity. This is horrible. Is the government in real danger? I repeat - is a coup d'etat possible? -drl
Post #110,822 by jake123 7/22/03 3:47:16 AM Reply	I don't know if your government is in real danger. However, I've been watching all the shit going on, and I'd say your freedoms and democracy are. The crap going on at X-Ray in Guantamo Bay is enough on its own for most people to consider that the US is getting its shit ruined by the current regime. The rules surrounding the kangaroo court that the Pentagon guys are setting up is enough to make the US look like a banana republic. A lot of people I've talked to up here are puzzled... how could things be getting this far? It looks like 9/11 has succeeded in driving the US off its rocker... the thing with the forced drinking of breast milk is so over the top as to almost defy belief; more than one person I told about that didn't believe me until I showed them the article. Not only that, you can't pin that on the regime; that's just ordinary folks who've been given a little bit of power getting drunk on it and going gestapo. Like a collective psychosis, where the twin towers has led a lot of people to give themselves permission to behave shamefully because they can excuse it as "national security" and "fighting terrorism". I said a year and a half ago that the US was entering into a dangerous time for its democracy, and I still think that; right now, you're right in the middle of it. This reaches well beyond the McCarthy era in the widespread nastiness that's going on, imho. You guys have to get rid of these people in 2004. They're going to destroy the very things that make your country great, and fulfill the wildest fantasies of the people that did the twin towers by doing so. Terrorism isn't about a war of attrition, or straight military combat, it's about changing people and changing behaviour. Right now, the simple fact of the matter is that looking in from outside, it looks like the 9/11 hijackers and their backing organisation (bin Laden and al-Qaida) have succeeded absolutely and completely in their goals. --\n-------------------------------------------------------------------\n* Jack Troughton jake at consultron.ca \n [link\|http://consultron.ca\|http://consultron.ca] [link\|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca\|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca] \n Kingston Ontario Canada [link\|news://news.consultron.ca\|news://news.consultron.ca] *\n-------------------------------------------------------------------
Post #110,835 by Ashton 7/22/03 6:42:33 AM Reply	Thou sayest: exactly so.
Post #110,240 by jake123 7/17/03 8:54:02 PM Reply	Note: If Bush is presenting as fact something was "not proven either way yet" that constitutes lying in the legal sense. From what I recall about the SotU speech, all of those claims were presented as fact. Is the SotU a marketing spiel, or what? --\n-------------------------------------------------------------------\n* Jack Troughton jake at consultron.ca \n [link\|http://consultron.ca\|http://consultron.ca] [link\|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca\|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca] \n Kingston Ontario Canada [link\|news://news.consultron.ca\|news://news.consultron.ca] *\n-------------------------------------------------------------------
Post #110,251 by Silverlock 7/17/03 10:17:34 PM Reply	State of the Union Many are saying that the State of the Union address is, becuase of it's being required by the constitution, a "testimony to congress" and therefore considered to be under oath. He lied under oath. C'mon boys, all you who said, "it's not the sex, it's the lying" line up and denounce him. /listening to the sounds of silence. ----------------------------------------- [link\|http://www.talion.com/questionw.html\|?W] Where were you in 72?
Post #110,255 by jake123 7/17/03 10:27:24 PM Reply	Looks to me like SotU is certainly being treated as marketing spiel these days. Saw some guy from PNAC on Hard Talk on BBC saying something about "let's put this into perspective... it's just a little mistake. The basic principles are right." I do agree with him on one thing, though... it's about time people started calling it what it is; empire building. The US is out to create a global empire is his point of view, ushering in an era of Imperial America. C'mon, say it... "Imperial America". Doesn't it make you feel better to say the truth? --\n-------------------------------------------------------------------\n* Jack Troughton jake at consultron.ca \n [link\|http://consultron.ca\|http://consultron.ca] [link\|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca\|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca] \n Kingston Ontario Canada [link\|news://news.consultron.ca\|news://news.consultron.ca] *\n-------------------------------------------------------------------
Post #110,266 by Silverlock 7/17/03 11:24:14 PM Reply	EEuuww. That's nasty. I've got to keep some hope that my fellow Americans will not let these fascists (I use the word in a very exact sense) control the dialog. They will be exposed and brought down. The evidence is all to clear. PNAC. Anyone with any sense can see that our drive to conquer Iraq was driven by the PNAC crowd. I can only hope that our "official" media will wake up from their decade long snooze. Chasing Clinton's cock was a whole lot easier than real investigative reporting. They might have to actually find a confirming source! Gasp! No more Scaife funded witch hunts! Gasp! ----------------------------------------- [link\|http://www.talion.com/questionw.html\|?W] Where were you in 72?
Post #110,423 by jb4 7/18/03 7:10:45 PM Reply	Re: "Imperial Amreica" Some of us have been saying that since...oh, 1968 or so. Unlike wine, 35 years does not age that phrase well. jb4 "We continue to live in a world where all our know-how is locked into binary files in an unknown format. If our documents are our corporate memory, Microsoft still has us all condemned to Alzheimer's." Simon Phipps, SUN Microsystems
Post #109,669 by tangaroa 7/14/03 11:10:41 PM Reply	Speaking of redefining lying Everything I've seen to backup the claims that Bush lied have been statements made that were either incorrect or we don't have proof either way yet. Where I'm from, if you accuse someone of doing something inappropriate (like sleeping with their sister or building WMD) and turn out to be "incorrect" and to have had nothing to base the claim on in the first place, that's called a lie.
Post #109,746 by mmoffitt 7/15/03 11:41:08 AM Reply	And you flamed Clinton over the meaning of "is"? Repohypocrite. bcnu, Mikem The soul and substance of what customarily ranks as patriotism is moral cowardice and always has been...We have thrown away the most valuable asset we had-- the individual's right to oppose both flag and country when he (just he, by himself) believed them to be in the wrong. We have thrown it away; and with it all that was really respectable about that grotesque and laughable word, Patriotism. - Mark Twain, "Monarchical and Republican Patriotism"
Post #109,817 by Ashton 7/15/03 6:10:25 PM Reply	Brevity Award over Ashcroftian-pallid breast-skin background
Post #109,818 by Ashton 7/15/03 6:11:56 PM Reply	johnu: The Literal Mind\ufffd___inaction
Post #110,927 by andread 7/22/03 3:19:14 PM Reply	warning old joke in message his lips are moving Play I Some Music w/ Papa Andy Saturday 8 PM - 11 PM ET All Night Rewind 11 PM - 5 PM Reggae, African and Caribbean Music [link\|http://wxxe.org\|Tune In]

Welcome to IWETHEY!