basskisser wrote:

"Jim--" wrote in message ...
I do not recall Tripp getting on national tv, pointing her finger at us and
telling us an outright lie.

That's right, Bush should be evicted from the White House for lying to us like that.


And when you can provide factual evidence which proves this to be the
case, I'll lead the charge. Otherwise, go back to reading the propaganda
like a good mindless toady.

Dave

That's right, Bush should be evicted from the White House for lying to us
like that.


And when you can provide factual evidence which proves this to be the
case, I'll lead the charge. Otherwise, go back to reading the propaganda
like a good mindless toady.

Dave

"The aircraft carrier is too far offshore. The President *must* fly out to the
carrier in a Navy jet, as the Marine 1 helicopter doesn't have sufficient
range."

(The carrier was circling, just off San Diego, with the entire crew delayed a
day or so returning home after a long deployment so Bush could strut around in
a bomber jacket). :-(

Proven lie.

We could get into all the claims about Iraq, but there's a tiny amount of
possibility he was just stupidly mistaken. I'd insist on the benefit of the
doubt for anybody else, so I won't get into the WMD, Saddam & 9-11, and other
claims the administration has since backed down from or events have proven
false. Tossed up, the right wing says "There's a shred of possiblity he wasn't
lying, so you can't *prove* he was." The right wing is technically correct on
this issue.

Gould 0738 wrote:

That's right, Bush should be evicted from the White House for lying to us
like that.


And when you can provide factual evidence which proves this to be the
case, I'll lead the charge. Otherwise, go back to reading the propaganda
like a good mindless toady.

Dave

"The aircraft carrier is too far offshore. The President *must* fly out to the
carrier in a Navy jet, as the Marine 1 helicopter doesn't have sufficient
range."

(The carrier was circling, just off San Diego, with the entire crew delayed a
day or so returning home after a long deployment so Bush could strut around in
a bomber jacket). :-(

Proven lie.

Proven by who or what? Nowhere have I seen anything other than it was
perhaps a waste of time, and that the president could have waited
another day. I'm sure that this was orchestrated by Bush's PR committee.
So who lied?


We could get into all the claims about Iraq, but there's a tiny amount of
possibility he was just stupidly mistaken.


And that possibility is very real, so accusing him of deliberately lying
or misleading without removing that possibility is intellectually
irresponsible.


I'd insist on the benefit of the
doubt for anybody else, so I won't get into the WMD, Saddam & 9-11, and other
claims the administration has since backed down from or events have proven
false. Tossed up, the right wing says "There's a shred of possiblity he wasn't
lying, so you can't *prove* he was." The right wing is technically correct on
this issue.

We base our decisions on our intelligence agencies and past performance
and the psych profile of Saddam. It was very likely that he was hiding/
building WMD. Otherwise why act so belligerent, and evasive, when the
weapon's inspectors were there. If he had nothing to hide, why not allow
full unfettered access?


Dave

On Thu, 06 Nov 2003 14:20:29 +0000, Dave Hall wrote:

If he had nothing to hide, why not allow
full unfettered access?

Perhaps, Saddam was willing to allow full unfettered access, but the Bush
administration still wanted war.

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/WNT/W...e031105-1.html