NOYB equivocated:

Remember, the key statement in Bush's speech was "the British Government has
learned...". Since MI6 *still* stands by their original intelligence, then
Bush's statement is 100% accurate.

Depends on your definition of "is". Really.

Do you see some sort of major moral difference between simply making a false
statement and repeating a statement (known to you and your advisors to be
false) made by somebody else to achieve the same effect?

You can weasel around and say, "But Bush himself was not informed! He's too
stupid to follow intelligence briefings from the CIA! His staff and cabinet
were able to hide the facts from him!" Fine. If so, should such a man be
POTUS? And even so, the SOTU speech is a speech outlining the positions of the
Bush Administration, was written by the Administration, and Bush is ultimately
responsible for the actions and activities of his underlings.

Where the moral high ground now? You Bush fans ought to be ashamed to defend
this bald faced manipulation.

It means he is sticking by his original statement that Iraq was trying to
buy uranium from Niger "according to British Government intelligence data".

"Trying to buy" (and being told "no') doesn't make a country an imminent
nuclear threat.

(sound of phone ringing)

1: "Hello, President of Nigeria? This is Saddam Hussein. Long time no see. Did
you get that container full of hand woven rugs I sent you for your palace?"

2: "Saddam! How have you been? That golf swing of yours still as bad as ever?
Yeah, I got the carpets, but you need to knock that sort of stuff off. People
might talk."

1:"Well, the main reason I called was to see if you've got any excess uranium
lying around that I could buy sort of under the table."

2: "Oh, hell, Saddam. You know we can't sell you uranium. It's been illegal
since 1991. Let's talk about something else.
Isn't it your birthday soon? I'll have my presidential bakery put together
something nice for you, to show you how much I appreciate the bribe, er I mean
"gift" of carpeting. Do you like chocolate?"

1: "Well, if it's all the same to you, I'd prefer a yellow cake."

.........................

(Next day we'd have the WH announcing absolute proof that yellow cake had been
shipped from Niger to Iraq.) :-)

"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
NOYB equivocated:

Remember, the key statement in Bush's speech was "the British Government
has
learned...". Since MI6 *still* stands by their original intelligence,
then
Bush's statement is 100% accurate.

Depends on your definition of "is". Really.

Do you see some sort of major moral difference between simply making a
false
statement and repeating a statement (known to you and your advisors to be
false) made by somebody else to achieve the same effect?

You can weasel around and say, "But Bush himself was not informed! He's
too
stupid to follow intelligence briefings from the CIA!

Bush *was* informed. Tenet already said it was his fault the line wasn't
pulled from the speech. The CIA reviewed the speech beforehand and didn't
have him pull it.


His staff and cabinet
were able to hide the facts from him!" Fine. If so, should such a man be
POTUS? And even so, the SOTU speech is a speech outlining the positions
of the
Bush Administration, was written by the Administration, and Bush is
ultimately
responsible for the actions and activities of his underlings.

Where the moral high ground now? You Bush fans ought to be ashamed to
defend
this bald faced manipulation.

Hogwash.

FACT: MI6 said Iraq was trying to buy uranium from Niger.

FACT: Tenet and the CIA couldn't confirm nor deny that report.

FACT: Bush stated "the British government has learned that Saddam Hussein
recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

FACT: Even today, MI6 says their original assessment was accurate.

So where's the lie? Where's the "manipulation"? Hmmmmm?

So where's the lie? Where's the "manipulation"? Hmmmmm?

You'll never know. You'd have to open your mind as well as your eyes to see it.
:-)

Gould 0738 wrote:

So where's the lie? Where's the "manipulation"? Hmmmmm?

You'll never know. You'd have to open your mind as well as your eyes to see it.
:-)


Make that your immagination. Because that's all you have to speculate
with right now.

Dave

On Thu, 17 Jul 2003 04:51:01 GMT, "Kathryn Simpson"
wrote:


"ralph" wrote in message
...
but don't forget, clinton lied about a blowjob. therefore it
was all his
fault. that's why bush got elected by such a landslide over
gore.

I'm sorry, I thought we were discussing the Bush Administration
and it's policies. Why bring Clinton into it? Or Gore?

Can't you deal with current events?

You go girl!!

John
On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD

On Thu, 17 Jul 2003 04:29:52 GMT, "Kathryn Simpson"
wrote:


"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Uh...how about Afghanistan and Iraq, for starters, eh?

So you think the Iraqi people are better off with Hussein? Come
on, even the liberals aren't spouting that nonsense!

Texas is a pretty big place, bigger than the area devastated by
a dirty
bomb. Under Bush, Texas devolved into an environmental disaster
zone.

I asked you for an example of where in Texas Bush has created
more humanitarian and environmental damage than a dirty bomb
would create. Do you have an answer for that or just more
rhetoric?
You will find that many of the folks here do nothing more than blow rhetoric.
When logic and reason get them backed into a corner, they start a new thread
with...more rhetoric. Keep up the good words.

John
On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD

JohnH wrote:

On Thu, 17 Jul 2003 04:29:52 GMT, "Kathryn Simpson"
wrote:


"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Uh...how about Afghanistan and Iraq, for starters, eh?

So you think the Iraqi people are better off with Hussein? Come
on, even the liberals aren't spouting that nonsense!

Texas is a pretty big place, bigger than the area devastated by
a dirty
bomb. Under Bush, Texas devolved into an environmental disaster
zone.

I asked you for an example of where in Texas Bush has created
more humanitarian and environmental damage than a dirty bomb
would create.

The entire state of Texas, where Bush softened or did not enforce
environmental standards, especially, but not limited to, Houston. A
dirty bomb tends to "dirty" a limited area. Bush sullied an entire
state, and a big one at that.



Do you have an answer for that or just more
rhetoric?

See the above.


You will find that many of the folks here do nothing more than blow rhetoric.
When logic and reason get them backed into a corner, they start a new thread
with...more rhetoric. Keep up the good words.

Indeed, that is the reich-wing M.O., along with excusing everything
horrific Bush does.




--
* * *
email sent to will *never* get to me.

"JohnH" wrote in message
...
You go girl!!

Thanks, but I didn't realize I was posting here. I noticed the
crossposts to several groups a few minutes ago and just wanted to
come in and apologize for intruding on rec.boats.

If ya'll would like to continue the discussion, try
news:misc.news.internet.discuss .

Thanks and again, sorry for the intrusion.


--


Regards of the NW,
Kathy

"Kathryn Simpson" wrote in message
...
Thanks, but I didn't realize I was posting here. I noticed the
crossposts to several groups a few minutes ago and just wanted to
come in and apologize for intruding on rec.boats.

If ya'll would like to continue the discussion, try
news:misc.news.internet.discuss .

Thanks and again, sorry for the intrusion.


Hmm. Interesting timing. :-)