134a Refrigerant
#871
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Iraq Was :R134a Refrigerant
"Earle Horton" <earle-NOSPAM-horton@msn.com> wrote in message news:1118505901.7e9cff131bef54e59823c73fd7c428db@t eranews...
>
> "Stephen Cowell" <scowell@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:0jrqe.2460$751.1458@newssvr30.news.prodigy.co m...
> ...
> > I don't believe in selling the troops short... they're
> > our kids, and deserve our support.
>
> They're not my kids.
I'm childless, myself... what point, exactly,
do you hope to make here? Those poor
folks over there are missing life, getting
wounded, *dying*... because they've been
misled. We've all been misled... and the
*most* tragic thing is, the big reason they're
over there is because they think they're helping
*you*... if you can't respect *that*, then FOAD...
soon.
> > But I'm *not* going to let all this distract me
> > from the big problem...
> > the US people were lied to in a systematic way.
>
> "There's an old saying in Tennessee - I know it's in Texas, probably in
> Tennessee - that says, fool me once, shame on - shame on you. Fool me - you
> can't get fooled again." -George W. Bush, Nashville, Tenn., Sept. 17, 2002
> You can find the video here.
> http://politicalhumor.about.com/libr...a/foolbush.mov
Yes, Bush funny. But evil... bad, bad Bush.
Remember when laughing.
BTW, I didn't believe all the admin hype when it came out...
even if there was uranium involved, there was no way a
unilateral invasion of Iraq was going to help the 'War On
Terror'... in fact, not only did it distract from cracking
down on al Qaeda, it actually helped their recruiting.
Muslims in the street all over the world hate US now...
and believe it or not, there are forces at work that want
it that way. Remember when Bush used the 'crusade'
word? What an incredible nincompoop... Bush invading
Iraq was like Fox suing Franken.... you can imagine
bin Laden in his hole, chanting 'yes, yes, Bush... invade
Iraq!'.
> Unfortunately, it appears that most of my compatriots can "get fooled
> again", and again, and again. Another Republican said, "You can fool some
> of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but
> you can not fool all of the people all of the time."
Blah, blah, blah.... make a point, or suck eggs.
> "The big problem" is that most of the people, most of the time, in my
> country prefer to allow those in authority to think for them. It's not your
> fault if you're lied to, but it is your fault, in this world, if you insist
> on believing everything you hear.
It's not exactly clear which country you belong
to... although you did mention 'my compatriots'...
Are you trying to make the point that the USA
populace, as a whole, deserves Bush? That's
pretty hard to argue with... but it's not a point
that helps any discussion I care to participate in.
> > Blindly following Bush is getting us in deeper...
> > the truth about the occupation has to come out.
> > I'm sorry if returning troops don't like what they
> > read... but it's not lies.
>
> The other side lies too...
So we should blindly follow Bush? Are you
trying to make a point, or do you just like seeing
your byline on the NG?
__
Steve
..
#872
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Iraq Was :R134a Refrigerant
"Earle Horton" <earle-NOSPAM-horton@msn.com> wrote in message news:1118505901.7e9cff131bef54e59823c73fd7c428db@t eranews...
>
> "Stephen Cowell" <scowell@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:0jrqe.2460$751.1458@newssvr30.news.prodigy.co m...
> ...
> > I don't believe in selling the troops short... they're
> > our kids, and deserve our support.
>
> They're not my kids.
I'm childless, myself... what point, exactly,
do you hope to make here? Those poor
folks over there are missing life, getting
wounded, *dying*... because they've been
misled. We've all been misled... and the
*most* tragic thing is, the big reason they're
over there is because they think they're helping
*you*... if you can't respect *that*, then FOAD...
soon.
> > But I'm *not* going to let all this distract me
> > from the big problem...
> > the US people were lied to in a systematic way.
>
> "There's an old saying in Tennessee - I know it's in Texas, probably in
> Tennessee - that says, fool me once, shame on - shame on you. Fool me - you
> can't get fooled again." -George W. Bush, Nashville, Tenn., Sept. 17, 2002
> You can find the video here.
> http://politicalhumor.about.com/libr...a/foolbush.mov
Yes, Bush funny. But evil... bad, bad Bush.
Remember when laughing.
BTW, I didn't believe all the admin hype when it came out...
even if there was uranium involved, there was no way a
unilateral invasion of Iraq was going to help the 'War On
Terror'... in fact, not only did it distract from cracking
down on al Qaeda, it actually helped their recruiting.
Muslims in the street all over the world hate US now...
and believe it or not, there are forces at work that want
it that way. Remember when Bush used the 'crusade'
word? What an incredible nincompoop... Bush invading
Iraq was like Fox suing Franken.... you can imagine
bin Laden in his hole, chanting 'yes, yes, Bush... invade
Iraq!'.
> Unfortunately, it appears that most of my compatriots can "get fooled
> again", and again, and again. Another Republican said, "You can fool some
> of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but
> you can not fool all of the people all of the time."
Blah, blah, blah.... make a point, or suck eggs.
> "The big problem" is that most of the people, most of the time, in my
> country prefer to allow those in authority to think for them. It's not your
> fault if you're lied to, but it is your fault, in this world, if you insist
> on believing everything you hear.
It's not exactly clear which country you belong
to... although you did mention 'my compatriots'...
Are you trying to make the point that the USA
populace, as a whole, deserves Bush? That's
pretty hard to argue with... but it's not a point
that helps any discussion I care to participate in.
> > Blindly following Bush is getting us in deeper...
> > the truth about the occupation has to come out.
> > I'm sorry if returning troops don't like what they
> > read... but it's not lies.
>
> The other side lies too...
So we should blindly follow Bush? Are you
trying to make a point, or do you just like seeing
your byline on the NG?
__
Steve
..
#873
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Iraq Was :R134a Refrigerant
"Earle Horton" <earle-NOSPAM-horton@msn.com> wrote in message news:1118505901.7e9cff131bef54e59823c73fd7c428db@t eranews...
>
> "Stephen Cowell" <scowell@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:0jrqe.2460$751.1458@newssvr30.news.prodigy.co m...
> ...
> > I don't believe in selling the troops short... they're
> > our kids, and deserve our support.
>
> They're not my kids.
I'm childless, myself... what point, exactly,
do you hope to make here? Those poor
folks over there are missing life, getting
wounded, *dying*... because they've been
misled. We've all been misled... and the
*most* tragic thing is, the big reason they're
over there is because they think they're helping
*you*... if you can't respect *that*, then FOAD...
soon.
> > But I'm *not* going to let all this distract me
> > from the big problem...
> > the US people were lied to in a systematic way.
>
> "There's an old saying in Tennessee - I know it's in Texas, probably in
> Tennessee - that says, fool me once, shame on - shame on you. Fool me - you
> can't get fooled again." -George W. Bush, Nashville, Tenn., Sept. 17, 2002
> You can find the video here.
> http://politicalhumor.about.com/libr...a/foolbush.mov
Yes, Bush funny. But evil... bad, bad Bush.
Remember when laughing.
BTW, I didn't believe all the admin hype when it came out...
even if there was uranium involved, there was no way a
unilateral invasion of Iraq was going to help the 'War On
Terror'... in fact, not only did it distract from cracking
down on al Qaeda, it actually helped their recruiting.
Muslims in the street all over the world hate US now...
and believe it or not, there are forces at work that want
it that way. Remember when Bush used the 'crusade'
word? What an incredible nincompoop... Bush invading
Iraq was like Fox suing Franken.... you can imagine
bin Laden in his hole, chanting 'yes, yes, Bush... invade
Iraq!'.
> Unfortunately, it appears that most of my compatriots can "get fooled
> again", and again, and again. Another Republican said, "You can fool some
> of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but
> you can not fool all of the people all of the time."
Blah, blah, blah.... make a point, or suck eggs.
> "The big problem" is that most of the people, most of the time, in my
> country prefer to allow those in authority to think for them. It's not your
> fault if you're lied to, but it is your fault, in this world, if you insist
> on believing everything you hear.
It's not exactly clear which country you belong
to... although you did mention 'my compatriots'...
Are you trying to make the point that the USA
populace, as a whole, deserves Bush? That's
pretty hard to argue with... but it's not a point
that helps any discussion I care to participate in.
> > Blindly following Bush is getting us in deeper...
> > the truth about the occupation has to come out.
> > I'm sorry if returning troops don't like what they
> > read... but it's not lies.
>
> The other side lies too...
So we should blindly follow Bush? Are you
trying to make a point, or do you just like seeing
your byline on the NG?
__
Steve
..
#874
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 134a Refrigerant
"Nathan W. Collier" <MontanaJeeper@aol.com> wrote in message news:11al2n93osch7be@corp.supernews.com...
> "Stephen Cowell" <scowell@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:RDvqe.2519$751.1794@newssvr30.news.prodigy.co m...
> > Go ahead, try and impugn my integrity
>
> i dont need to. youve done that one all on your own.
Oh, 'integrity' == 'sheeple'.
> >... am *I*
> > the one that asserts we went into Iraq to 'liberate
> > their women'?
>
> thats NOT what i said. get it right.
"TRANSLATION --> "i cannot give bush credit for
liberating the women of iraq. "
> > The whole frickin' population needed
> > liberation
>
> indeed.
> 1) we arent trying to police world. we removed
> a threat. were it up to me we would simply nuke
> the entire arab world.
Which is it, Nate? Liberation, or nukedom?
Can you see why I think your brain is a mess?
> > We're all glad Saddam is gone... but the price paid
> > was too high
>
> and what price was that? what would have been an "acceptable" price?
We'll never know... the Space Cowboy rode
in from Dodge City and shot the place up.
Iraq was not even a priority... unless you're
a Bush, or Cheney, or Wolfowitz... the point
is, it could have been done much easier
and cheaper... there was no hurry, unless
you look at an upcoming re-election as
a reason. We could have had real multilateral
clout, instead of the 'Coalition of the Arm-Twisted'.
> > don't forget
> > that the price included lying to the American people.
> > Treason
>
> what typical seminar liberal --------! bush never
> "lied" to the american
> people.
> 1) WMD's have not been found but we know they exist. going into the whole
> iraq issue your boy kerry acknowledged them. your boy clinton acknowledged
> them just before he bombed iraq in '98.
Proof for existence? Everyone knows that they *did*
exist... Saddam ditched 'em, right before we invaded.
Remember when he finally said "OK, inspectors come
in"? We invaded anyway... and found nothing. If
Bush had stopped there and sent the inspectors back,
it would have been brilliant, and I'd be singing his
praises now. But no....
> 2) even if they no longer existed there is a great difference in being wrong
> about something and in lying about it. bush acted on the best intelligence
> he was given and right or wrong, that doesnt make him a liar.
Indeed, there is a big difference... but Bush was not
wrong, he *lied*. Downing Street Memo, Nate...
hell, there's probably a www.bushlies.com somewhere...
oh hell yeah, you bet! Read some:
<>
There might be some wiggle room here for the Bushies. But the true impact of the DSM--which Chavez and Graham danced around--is that it shows that Bush was not being straight with the American public. At that point in time--the summer of 2002- Bush and his advisers were claiming that Bush had not yet decided to go to war, that he saw it as a last option, that he would try other alternatives--even diplomacy!--first. The obvious goal was to persuade the public that he was a reasonable fellow who would not rush to such a momentous decision. Yet the DSM, as many readers of this blog already know, discloses that C came back from Washington with quite a different impression:
"C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action."
</>
That last quoted part, BTW, is a direct quote from the DSM.
Here's some more good stuff:
http://www.proudliberal.thinkingpeac...ell-the-truth/
<>
When Bush signed the congressional resolution authorizing the use of military force against Iraq on Oct. 16, 2002 - three months after the Downing Street memorandum - he didn't say that military action was "inevitable." Instead, the president assured Americans and the world that he still hoped war could be avoided.
"I have not ordered the use of force. I hope the use of force will not become necessary," he said at a press conference. "Hopefully this can be done peacefully. Hopefully we can do this without any military action." He promised that he had "carefully weighed the human cost of every option before us" and that if the United States went into battle, it would be "as a last resort."
</>
Big, big lies.
> > Bush committed High Crimes.
>
> and what crimes were those? BE SPECIFIC.
>)
http://rawstory.com/exclusives/alexa...e_offenses_526
<>
In his book Worse Than Watergate (Little, Brown and Company-NY, 2004), John W. Dean writes that "the evidence is overwhelming, certainly sufficient for a prima facie case, that George W. Bush and Richard B. Cheney have engaged in deceit and deception over going to war in Iraq. This is an impeachable offense." Id. at 155. Dean focuses, in particular, on a formal letter and report which the President submitted to the United States Congress within forty-eight hours after having launched the invasion of Iraq. In the letter, dated March 18, 2003, the President makes a formal determination, as required by the Joint Resolution on Iraq passed by the U.S. Congress in October 2002, that military action against Iraq was necessary to "protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq..." Dean states that the report accompanying the letter "is closer to a blatant fraud than to a fulfillment of the president's constitutional responsibility to faithfully execute the law." Worse Than Watergate at 148.
If the evidence revealed by the Downing Street Memo is true, then the President's submission of his March 18, 2003 letter and report to the United States Congress would violate federal criminal law, including: the federal anti-conspiracy statute, 18 U.S.C. § 371, which makes it a felony "to commit any offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose..."; and The False Statements Accountability Act of 1996, 18 U.S.C. § 1001, which makes it a felony to issue knowingly and willfully false statements to the United States Congress.
</>
I think "federal anti-conspiracy statute, 18 U.S.C. § 371" and
"False Statements Accountability Act of 1996, 18 U.S.C. § 1001"
get's pretty specific, don't you think? Chew on that, Bushie...
> > No, it's a red herring, used to try and save face.
>
> lol what pitiful (and most ironic!) horse ----. :-)
Is that the same smiley I told you to cram?
> > And you can stick that smiley up your ***.
>
> i know you liberal celebrate diversity and all that crap but ill thank you
> in advance to get off the topic of my ***. :-)
*You're* the one talking out of it...
__
Steve
..
#875
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 134a Refrigerant
"Nathan W. Collier" <MontanaJeeper@aol.com> wrote in message news:11al2n93osch7be@corp.supernews.com...
> "Stephen Cowell" <scowell@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:RDvqe.2519$751.1794@newssvr30.news.prodigy.co m...
> > Go ahead, try and impugn my integrity
>
> i dont need to. youve done that one all on your own.
Oh, 'integrity' == 'sheeple'.
> >... am *I*
> > the one that asserts we went into Iraq to 'liberate
> > their women'?
>
> thats NOT what i said. get it right.
"TRANSLATION --> "i cannot give bush credit for
liberating the women of iraq. "
> > The whole frickin' population needed
> > liberation
>
> indeed.
> 1) we arent trying to police world. we removed
> a threat. were it up to me we would simply nuke
> the entire arab world.
Which is it, Nate? Liberation, or nukedom?
Can you see why I think your brain is a mess?
> > We're all glad Saddam is gone... but the price paid
> > was too high
>
> and what price was that? what would have been an "acceptable" price?
We'll never know... the Space Cowboy rode
in from Dodge City and shot the place up.
Iraq was not even a priority... unless you're
a Bush, or Cheney, or Wolfowitz... the point
is, it could have been done much easier
and cheaper... there was no hurry, unless
you look at an upcoming re-election as
a reason. We could have had real multilateral
clout, instead of the 'Coalition of the Arm-Twisted'.
> > don't forget
> > that the price included lying to the American people.
> > Treason
>
> what typical seminar liberal --------! bush never
> "lied" to the american
> people.
> 1) WMD's have not been found but we know they exist. going into the whole
> iraq issue your boy kerry acknowledged them. your boy clinton acknowledged
> them just before he bombed iraq in '98.
Proof for existence? Everyone knows that they *did*
exist... Saddam ditched 'em, right before we invaded.
Remember when he finally said "OK, inspectors come
in"? We invaded anyway... and found nothing. If
Bush had stopped there and sent the inspectors back,
it would have been brilliant, and I'd be singing his
praises now. But no....
> 2) even if they no longer existed there is a great difference in being wrong
> about something and in lying about it. bush acted on the best intelligence
> he was given and right or wrong, that doesnt make him a liar.
Indeed, there is a big difference... but Bush was not
wrong, he *lied*. Downing Street Memo, Nate...
hell, there's probably a www.bushlies.com somewhere...
oh hell yeah, you bet! Read some:
<>
There might be some wiggle room here for the Bushies. But the true impact of the DSM--which Chavez and Graham danced around--is that it shows that Bush was not being straight with the American public. At that point in time--the summer of 2002- Bush and his advisers were claiming that Bush had not yet decided to go to war, that he saw it as a last option, that he would try other alternatives--even diplomacy!--first. The obvious goal was to persuade the public that he was a reasonable fellow who would not rush to such a momentous decision. Yet the DSM, as many readers of this blog already know, discloses that C came back from Washington with quite a different impression:
"C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action."
</>
That last quoted part, BTW, is a direct quote from the DSM.
Here's some more good stuff:
http://www.proudliberal.thinkingpeac...ell-the-truth/
<>
When Bush signed the congressional resolution authorizing the use of military force against Iraq on Oct. 16, 2002 - three months after the Downing Street memorandum - he didn't say that military action was "inevitable." Instead, the president assured Americans and the world that he still hoped war could be avoided.
"I have not ordered the use of force. I hope the use of force will not become necessary," he said at a press conference. "Hopefully this can be done peacefully. Hopefully we can do this without any military action." He promised that he had "carefully weighed the human cost of every option before us" and that if the United States went into battle, it would be "as a last resort."
</>
Big, big lies.
> > Bush committed High Crimes.
>
> and what crimes were those? BE SPECIFIC.
>)
http://rawstory.com/exclusives/alexa...e_offenses_526
<>
In his book Worse Than Watergate (Little, Brown and Company-NY, 2004), John W. Dean writes that "the evidence is overwhelming, certainly sufficient for a prima facie case, that George W. Bush and Richard B. Cheney have engaged in deceit and deception over going to war in Iraq. This is an impeachable offense." Id. at 155. Dean focuses, in particular, on a formal letter and report which the President submitted to the United States Congress within forty-eight hours after having launched the invasion of Iraq. In the letter, dated March 18, 2003, the President makes a formal determination, as required by the Joint Resolution on Iraq passed by the U.S. Congress in October 2002, that military action against Iraq was necessary to "protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq..." Dean states that the report accompanying the letter "is closer to a blatant fraud than to a fulfillment of the president's constitutional responsibility to faithfully execute the law." Worse Than Watergate at 148.
If the evidence revealed by the Downing Street Memo is true, then the President's submission of his March 18, 2003 letter and report to the United States Congress would violate federal criminal law, including: the federal anti-conspiracy statute, 18 U.S.C. § 371, which makes it a felony "to commit any offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose..."; and The False Statements Accountability Act of 1996, 18 U.S.C. § 1001, which makes it a felony to issue knowingly and willfully false statements to the United States Congress.
</>
I think "federal anti-conspiracy statute, 18 U.S.C. § 371" and
"False Statements Accountability Act of 1996, 18 U.S.C. § 1001"
get's pretty specific, don't you think? Chew on that, Bushie...
> > No, it's a red herring, used to try and save face.
>
> lol what pitiful (and most ironic!) horse ----. :-)
Is that the same smiley I told you to cram?
> > And you can stick that smiley up your ***.
>
> i know you liberal celebrate diversity and all that crap but ill thank you
> in advance to get off the topic of my ***. :-)
*You're* the one talking out of it...
__
Steve
..
#876
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 134a Refrigerant
"Nathan W. Collier" <MontanaJeeper@aol.com> wrote in message news:11al2n93osch7be@corp.supernews.com...
> "Stephen Cowell" <scowell@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:RDvqe.2519$751.1794@newssvr30.news.prodigy.co m...
> > Go ahead, try and impugn my integrity
>
> i dont need to. youve done that one all on your own.
Oh, 'integrity' == 'sheeple'.
> >... am *I*
> > the one that asserts we went into Iraq to 'liberate
> > their women'?
>
> thats NOT what i said. get it right.
"TRANSLATION --> "i cannot give bush credit for
liberating the women of iraq. "
> > The whole frickin' population needed
> > liberation
>
> indeed.
> 1) we arent trying to police world. we removed
> a threat. were it up to me we would simply nuke
> the entire arab world.
Which is it, Nate? Liberation, or nukedom?
Can you see why I think your brain is a mess?
> > We're all glad Saddam is gone... but the price paid
> > was too high
>
> and what price was that? what would have been an "acceptable" price?
We'll never know... the Space Cowboy rode
in from Dodge City and shot the place up.
Iraq was not even a priority... unless you're
a Bush, or Cheney, or Wolfowitz... the point
is, it could have been done much easier
and cheaper... there was no hurry, unless
you look at an upcoming re-election as
a reason. We could have had real multilateral
clout, instead of the 'Coalition of the Arm-Twisted'.
> > don't forget
> > that the price included lying to the American people.
> > Treason
>
> what typical seminar liberal --------! bush never
> "lied" to the american
> people.
> 1) WMD's have not been found but we know they exist. going into the whole
> iraq issue your boy kerry acknowledged them. your boy clinton acknowledged
> them just before he bombed iraq in '98.
Proof for existence? Everyone knows that they *did*
exist... Saddam ditched 'em, right before we invaded.
Remember when he finally said "OK, inspectors come
in"? We invaded anyway... and found nothing. If
Bush had stopped there and sent the inspectors back,
it would have been brilliant, and I'd be singing his
praises now. But no....
> 2) even if they no longer existed there is a great difference in being wrong
> about something and in lying about it. bush acted on the best intelligence
> he was given and right or wrong, that doesnt make him a liar.
Indeed, there is a big difference... but Bush was not
wrong, he *lied*. Downing Street Memo, Nate...
hell, there's probably a www.bushlies.com somewhere...
oh hell yeah, you bet! Read some:
<>
There might be some wiggle room here for the Bushies. But the true impact of the DSM--which Chavez and Graham danced around--is that it shows that Bush was not being straight with the American public. At that point in time--the summer of 2002- Bush and his advisers were claiming that Bush had not yet decided to go to war, that he saw it as a last option, that he would try other alternatives--even diplomacy!--first. The obvious goal was to persuade the public that he was a reasonable fellow who would not rush to such a momentous decision. Yet the DSM, as many readers of this blog already know, discloses that C came back from Washington with quite a different impression:
"C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action."
</>
That last quoted part, BTW, is a direct quote from the DSM.
Here's some more good stuff:
http://www.proudliberal.thinkingpeac...ell-the-truth/
<>
When Bush signed the congressional resolution authorizing the use of military force against Iraq on Oct. 16, 2002 - three months after the Downing Street memorandum - he didn't say that military action was "inevitable." Instead, the president assured Americans and the world that he still hoped war could be avoided.
"I have not ordered the use of force. I hope the use of force will not become necessary," he said at a press conference. "Hopefully this can be done peacefully. Hopefully we can do this without any military action." He promised that he had "carefully weighed the human cost of every option before us" and that if the United States went into battle, it would be "as a last resort."
</>
Big, big lies.
> > Bush committed High Crimes.
>
> and what crimes were those? BE SPECIFIC.
>)
http://rawstory.com/exclusives/alexa...e_offenses_526
<>
In his book Worse Than Watergate (Little, Brown and Company-NY, 2004), John W. Dean writes that "the evidence is overwhelming, certainly sufficient for a prima facie case, that George W. Bush and Richard B. Cheney have engaged in deceit and deception over going to war in Iraq. This is an impeachable offense." Id. at 155. Dean focuses, in particular, on a formal letter and report which the President submitted to the United States Congress within forty-eight hours after having launched the invasion of Iraq. In the letter, dated March 18, 2003, the President makes a formal determination, as required by the Joint Resolution on Iraq passed by the U.S. Congress in October 2002, that military action against Iraq was necessary to "protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq..." Dean states that the report accompanying the letter "is closer to a blatant fraud than to a fulfillment of the president's constitutional responsibility to faithfully execute the law." Worse Than Watergate at 148.
If the evidence revealed by the Downing Street Memo is true, then the President's submission of his March 18, 2003 letter and report to the United States Congress would violate federal criminal law, including: the federal anti-conspiracy statute, 18 U.S.C. § 371, which makes it a felony "to commit any offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose..."; and The False Statements Accountability Act of 1996, 18 U.S.C. § 1001, which makes it a felony to issue knowingly and willfully false statements to the United States Congress.
</>
I think "federal anti-conspiracy statute, 18 U.S.C. § 371" and
"False Statements Accountability Act of 1996, 18 U.S.C. § 1001"
get's pretty specific, don't you think? Chew on that, Bushie...
> > No, it's a red herring, used to try and save face.
>
> lol what pitiful (and most ironic!) horse ----. :-)
Is that the same smiley I told you to cram?
> > And you can stick that smiley up your ***.
>
> i know you liberal celebrate diversity and all that crap but ill thank you
> in advance to get off the topic of my ***. :-)
*You're* the one talking out of it...
__
Steve
..
#877
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 134a Refrigerant
"Nathan W. Collier" <MontanaJeeper@aol.com> wrote in message news:11al2n93osch7be@corp.supernews.com...
> "Stephen Cowell" <scowell@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:RDvqe.2519$751.1794@newssvr30.news.prodigy.co m...
> > Go ahead, try and impugn my integrity
>
> i dont need to. youve done that one all on your own.
Oh, 'integrity' == 'sheeple'.
> >... am *I*
> > the one that asserts we went into Iraq to 'liberate
> > their women'?
>
> thats NOT what i said. get it right.
"TRANSLATION --> "i cannot give bush credit for
liberating the women of iraq. "
> > The whole frickin' population needed
> > liberation
>
> indeed.
> 1) we arent trying to police world. we removed
> a threat. were it up to me we would simply nuke
> the entire arab world.
Which is it, Nate? Liberation, or nukedom?
Can you see why I think your brain is a mess?
> > We're all glad Saddam is gone... but the price paid
> > was too high
>
> and what price was that? what would have been an "acceptable" price?
We'll never know... the Space Cowboy rode
in from Dodge City and shot the place up.
Iraq was not even a priority... unless you're
a Bush, or Cheney, or Wolfowitz... the point
is, it could have been done much easier
and cheaper... there was no hurry, unless
you look at an upcoming re-election as
a reason. We could have had real multilateral
clout, instead of the 'Coalition of the Arm-Twisted'.
> > don't forget
> > that the price included lying to the American people.
> > Treason
>
> what typical seminar liberal --------! bush never
> "lied" to the american
> people.
> 1) WMD's have not been found but we know they exist. going into the whole
> iraq issue your boy kerry acknowledged them. your boy clinton acknowledged
> them just before he bombed iraq in '98.
Proof for existence? Everyone knows that they *did*
exist... Saddam ditched 'em, right before we invaded.
Remember when he finally said "OK, inspectors come
in"? We invaded anyway... and found nothing. If
Bush had stopped there and sent the inspectors back,
it would have been brilliant, and I'd be singing his
praises now. But no....
> 2) even if they no longer existed there is a great difference in being wrong
> about something and in lying about it. bush acted on the best intelligence
> he was given and right or wrong, that doesnt make him a liar.
Indeed, there is a big difference... but Bush was not
wrong, he *lied*. Downing Street Memo, Nate...
hell, there's probably a www.bushlies.com somewhere...
oh hell yeah, you bet! Read some:
<>
There might be some wiggle room here for the Bushies. But the true impact of the DSM--which Chavez and Graham danced around--is that it shows that Bush was not being straight with the American public. At that point in time--the summer of 2002- Bush and his advisers were claiming that Bush had not yet decided to go to war, that he saw it as a last option, that he would try other alternatives--even diplomacy!--first. The obvious goal was to persuade the public that he was a reasonable fellow who would not rush to such a momentous decision. Yet the DSM, as many readers of this blog already know, discloses that C came back from Washington with quite a different impression:
"C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action."
</>
That last quoted part, BTW, is a direct quote from the DSM.
Here's some more good stuff:
http://www.proudliberal.thinkingpeac...ell-the-truth/
<>
When Bush signed the congressional resolution authorizing the use of military force against Iraq on Oct. 16, 2002 - three months after the Downing Street memorandum - he didn't say that military action was "inevitable." Instead, the president assured Americans and the world that he still hoped war could be avoided.
"I have not ordered the use of force. I hope the use of force will not become necessary," he said at a press conference. "Hopefully this can be done peacefully. Hopefully we can do this without any military action." He promised that he had "carefully weighed the human cost of every option before us" and that if the United States went into battle, it would be "as a last resort."
</>
Big, big lies.
> > Bush committed High Crimes.
>
> and what crimes were those? BE SPECIFIC.
>)
http://rawstory.com/exclusives/alexa...e_offenses_526
<>
In his book Worse Than Watergate (Little, Brown and Company-NY, 2004), John W. Dean writes that "the evidence is overwhelming, certainly sufficient for a prima facie case, that George W. Bush and Richard B. Cheney have engaged in deceit and deception over going to war in Iraq. This is an impeachable offense." Id. at 155. Dean focuses, in particular, on a formal letter and report which the President submitted to the United States Congress within forty-eight hours after having launched the invasion of Iraq. In the letter, dated March 18, 2003, the President makes a formal determination, as required by the Joint Resolution on Iraq passed by the U.S. Congress in October 2002, that military action against Iraq was necessary to "protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq..." Dean states that the report accompanying the letter "is closer to a blatant fraud than to a fulfillment of the president's constitutional responsibility to faithfully execute the law." Worse Than Watergate at 148.
If the evidence revealed by the Downing Street Memo is true, then the President's submission of his March 18, 2003 letter and report to the United States Congress would violate federal criminal law, including: the federal anti-conspiracy statute, 18 U.S.C. § 371, which makes it a felony "to commit any offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose..."; and The False Statements Accountability Act of 1996, 18 U.S.C. § 1001, which makes it a felony to issue knowingly and willfully false statements to the United States Congress.
</>
I think "federal anti-conspiracy statute, 18 U.S.C. § 371" and
"False Statements Accountability Act of 1996, 18 U.S.C. § 1001"
get's pretty specific, don't you think? Chew on that, Bushie...
> > No, it's a red herring, used to try and save face.
>
> lol what pitiful (and most ironic!) horse ----. :-)
Is that the same smiley I told you to cram?
> > And you can stick that smiley up your ***.
>
> i know you liberal celebrate diversity and all that crap but ill thank you
> in advance to get off the topic of my ***. :-)
*You're* the one talking out of it...
__
Steve
..
#878
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Iraq Was :R134a Refrigerant
Bill,
The Administration desperately wanted an excuse to invade Iraq, so much so
that on Sept 12, 2001, Bush asked Richard Clarke to double and triple check
to see if Hussein was behind the 9/11 attacks, even though everyone else was
convinced it was Al Qaida. He then took dubious third-hand intelligence and
formulated a "clear and present danger to the security of the United States"
scenario, without even trying to verify it. Remember the yellowcake uranium
that Bush brought up in his SOTU address of 2002? It was shown to be
completely false.
The brilliance here is that Bush and his people pull a Clintonesque legal
technicality excuse and say they never "lied," only that the intelligence
was faulty, and blame Goerge Tenent (who was later decorated by Bush) and
the CIA. But the concern should be that the CIA freely admitted that much of
that intelligence was at best questionable and shouldn't be used to make
policy without firsthand verification; instead the Administration called it
"irrefutable evidence" and based the whole invasion on it. Of course now,
they downplay the clear and present danger issue and say they were trying to
liberate Iraq all along.
The high treason that Steve alluded to was that the person who refuted the
yellowcake/Niger story was politically avenged by outing his wife, a veteran
NOC operative at the CIA. The identity of the person or persons in the
Adminsitration haven't been discovered because the Bush Administration has
been stonewalling, and the Republicans in Congress will never allow a
Congressional investigation of this treason, so the special prosecutor
investigating is forced to hold second-rate journalists in contempt by not
revealing their sources, while the guy the broke the whole story, a die-hard
conservative columnist, remains footloose and fancy free.
The media doesn't cover it because they make more money by covering the
Michael Jackson circus/trial and the Runaway Bride story.
Anyway, anyone who thinks that any president has never lied to his country
to further his political agenda is a naive fool.
That said, I think Bush has a great idea in turning the about-to-be-closed
military bases into nuclear power plants. It will help us reduce our
dependence on foreign oil, and then when the price of oil falls, Saudi
Arabia won't be able to finance its --------- activities and the world will
be safer. But I fear that Bush's plan is just talk and he will continue to
do the bidding of his masters in Big Oil.
"L.W. ("ßill") ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote in message
news:42AB0907.DCF125AC@***.net...
> Who lied to us?
> God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
> mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
>
>
> Matt Macchiarolo wrote:
>>
>> Can't argue with that. See, we agree occasionally...
The Administration desperately wanted an excuse to invade Iraq, so much so
that on Sept 12, 2001, Bush asked Richard Clarke to double and triple check
to see if Hussein was behind the 9/11 attacks, even though everyone else was
convinced it was Al Qaida. He then took dubious third-hand intelligence and
formulated a "clear and present danger to the security of the United States"
scenario, without even trying to verify it. Remember the yellowcake uranium
that Bush brought up in his SOTU address of 2002? It was shown to be
completely false.
The brilliance here is that Bush and his people pull a Clintonesque legal
technicality excuse and say they never "lied," only that the intelligence
was faulty, and blame Goerge Tenent (who was later decorated by Bush) and
the CIA. But the concern should be that the CIA freely admitted that much of
that intelligence was at best questionable and shouldn't be used to make
policy without firsthand verification; instead the Administration called it
"irrefutable evidence" and based the whole invasion on it. Of course now,
they downplay the clear and present danger issue and say they were trying to
liberate Iraq all along.
The high treason that Steve alluded to was that the person who refuted the
yellowcake/Niger story was politically avenged by outing his wife, a veteran
NOC operative at the CIA. The identity of the person or persons in the
Adminsitration haven't been discovered because the Bush Administration has
been stonewalling, and the Republicans in Congress will never allow a
Congressional investigation of this treason, so the special prosecutor
investigating is forced to hold second-rate journalists in contempt by not
revealing their sources, while the guy the broke the whole story, a die-hard
conservative columnist, remains footloose and fancy free.
The media doesn't cover it because they make more money by covering the
Michael Jackson circus/trial and the Runaway Bride story.
Anyway, anyone who thinks that any president has never lied to his country
to further his political agenda is a naive fool.
That said, I think Bush has a great idea in turning the about-to-be-closed
military bases into nuclear power plants. It will help us reduce our
dependence on foreign oil, and then when the price of oil falls, Saudi
Arabia won't be able to finance its --------- activities and the world will
be safer. But I fear that Bush's plan is just talk and he will continue to
do the bidding of his masters in Big Oil.
"L.W. ("ßill") ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote in message
news:42AB0907.DCF125AC@***.net...
> Who lied to us?
> God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
> mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
>
>
> Matt Macchiarolo wrote:
>>
>> Can't argue with that. See, we agree occasionally...
#879
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Iraq Was :R134a Refrigerant
Bill,
The Administration desperately wanted an excuse to invade Iraq, so much so
that on Sept 12, 2001, Bush asked Richard Clarke to double and triple check
to see if Hussein was behind the 9/11 attacks, even though everyone else was
convinced it was Al Qaida. He then took dubious third-hand intelligence and
formulated a "clear and present danger to the security of the United States"
scenario, without even trying to verify it. Remember the yellowcake uranium
that Bush brought up in his SOTU address of 2002? It was shown to be
completely false.
The brilliance here is that Bush and his people pull a Clintonesque legal
technicality excuse and say they never "lied," only that the intelligence
was faulty, and blame Goerge Tenent (who was later decorated by Bush) and
the CIA. But the concern should be that the CIA freely admitted that much of
that intelligence was at best questionable and shouldn't be used to make
policy without firsthand verification; instead the Administration called it
"irrefutable evidence" and based the whole invasion on it. Of course now,
they downplay the clear and present danger issue and say they were trying to
liberate Iraq all along.
The high treason that Steve alluded to was that the person who refuted the
yellowcake/Niger story was politically avenged by outing his wife, a veteran
NOC operative at the CIA. The identity of the person or persons in the
Adminsitration haven't been discovered because the Bush Administration has
been stonewalling, and the Republicans in Congress will never allow a
Congressional investigation of this treason, so the special prosecutor
investigating is forced to hold second-rate journalists in contempt by not
revealing their sources, while the guy the broke the whole story, a die-hard
conservative columnist, remains footloose and fancy free.
The media doesn't cover it because they make more money by covering the
Michael Jackson circus/trial and the Runaway Bride story.
Anyway, anyone who thinks that any president has never lied to his country
to further his political agenda is a naive fool.
That said, I think Bush has a great idea in turning the about-to-be-closed
military bases into nuclear power plants. It will help us reduce our
dependence on foreign oil, and then when the price of oil falls, Saudi
Arabia won't be able to finance its --------- activities and the world will
be safer. But I fear that Bush's plan is just talk and he will continue to
do the bidding of his masters in Big Oil.
"L.W. ("ßill") ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote in message
news:42AB0907.DCF125AC@***.net...
> Who lied to us?
> God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
> mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
>
>
> Matt Macchiarolo wrote:
>>
>> Can't argue with that. See, we agree occasionally...
The Administration desperately wanted an excuse to invade Iraq, so much so
that on Sept 12, 2001, Bush asked Richard Clarke to double and triple check
to see if Hussein was behind the 9/11 attacks, even though everyone else was
convinced it was Al Qaida. He then took dubious third-hand intelligence and
formulated a "clear and present danger to the security of the United States"
scenario, without even trying to verify it. Remember the yellowcake uranium
that Bush brought up in his SOTU address of 2002? It was shown to be
completely false.
The brilliance here is that Bush and his people pull a Clintonesque legal
technicality excuse and say they never "lied," only that the intelligence
was faulty, and blame Goerge Tenent (who was later decorated by Bush) and
the CIA. But the concern should be that the CIA freely admitted that much of
that intelligence was at best questionable and shouldn't be used to make
policy without firsthand verification; instead the Administration called it
"irrefutable evidence" and based the whole invasion on it. Of course now,
they downplay the clear and present danger issue and say they were trying to
liberate Iraq all along.
The high treason that Steve alluded to was that the person who refuted the
yellowcake/Niger story was politically avenged by outing his wife, a veteran
NOC operative at the CIA. The identity of the person or persons in the
Adminsitration haven't been discovered because the Bush Administration has
been stonewalling, and the Republicans in Congress will never allow a
Congressional investigation of this treason, so the special prosecutor
investigating is forced to hold second-rate journalists in contempt by not
revealing their sources, while the guy the broke the whole story, a die-hard
conservative columnist, remains footloose and fancy free.
The media doesn't cover it because they make more money by covering the
Michael Jackson circus/trial and the Runaway Bride story.
Anyway, anyone who thinks that any president has never lied to his country
to further his political agenda is a naive fool.
That said, I think Bush has a great idea in turning the about-to-be-closed
military bases into nuclear power plants. It will help us reduce our
dependence on foreign oil, and then when the price of oil falls, Saudi
Arabia won't be able to finance its --------- activities and the world will
be safer. But I fear that Bush's plan is just talk and he will continue to
do the bidding of his masters in Big Oil.
"L.W. ("ßill") ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote in message
news:42AB0907.DCF125AC@***.net...
> Who lied to us?
> God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
> mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
>
>
> Matt Macchiarolo wrote:
>>
>> Can't argue with that. See, we agree occasionally...
#880
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Iraq Was :R134a Refrigerant
Bill,
The Administration desperately wanted an excuse to invade Iraq, so much so
that on Sept 12, 2001, Bush asked Richard Clarke to double and triple check
to see if Hussein was behind the 9/11 attacks, even though everyone else was
convinced it was Al Qaida. He then took dubious third-hand intelligence and
formulated a "clear and present danger to the security of the United States"
scenario, without even trying to verify it. Remember the yellowcake uranium
that Bush brought up in his SOTU address of 2002? It was shown to be
completely false.
The brilliance here is that Bush and his people pull a Clintonesque legal
technicality excuse and say they never "lied," only that the intelligence
was faulty, and blame Goerge Tenent (who was later decorated by Bush) and
the CIA. But the concern should be that the CIA freely admitted that much of
that intelligence was at best questionable and shouldn't be used to make
policy without firsthand verification; instead the Administration called it
"irrefutable evidence" and based the whole invasion on it. Of course now,
they downplay the clear and present danger issue and say they were trying to
liberate Iraq all along.
The high treason that Steve alluded to was that the person who refuted the
yellowcake/Niger story was politically avenged by outing his wife, a veteran
NOC operative at the CIA. The identity of the person or persons in the
Adminsitration haven't been discovered because the Bush Administration has
been stonewalling, and the Republicans in Congress will never allow a
Congressional investigation of this treason, so the special prosecutor
investigating is forced to hold second-rate journalists in contempt by not
revealing their sources, while the guy the broke the whole story, a die-hard
conservative columnist, remains footloose and fancy free.
The media doesn't cover it because they make more money by covering the
Michael Jackson circus/trial and the Runaway Bride story.
Anyway, anyone who thinks that any president has never lied to his country
to further his political agenda is a naive fool.
That said, I think Bush has a great idea in turning the about-to-be-closed
military bases into nuclear power plants. It will help us reduce our
dependence on foreign oil, and then when the price of oil falls, Saudi
Arabia won't be able to finance its --------- activities and the world will
be safer. But I fear that Bush's plan is just talk and he will continue to
do the bidding of his masters in Big Oil.
"L.W. ("ßill") ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote in message
news:42AB0907.DCF125AC@***.net...
> Who lied to us?
> God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
> mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
>
>
> Matt Macchiarolo wrote:
>>
>> Can't argue with that. See, we agree occasionally...
The Administration desperately wanted an excuse to invade Iraq, so much so
that on Sept 12, 2001, Bush asked Richard Clarke to double and triple check
to see if Hussein was behind the 9/11 attacks, even though everyone else was
convinced it was Al Qaida. He then took dubious third-hand intelligence and
formulated a "clear and present danger to the security of the United States"
scenario, without even trying to verify it. Remember the yellowcake uranium
that Bush brought up in his SOTU address of 2002? It was shown to be
completely false.
The brilliance here is that Bush and his people pull a Clintonesque legal
technicality excuse and say they never "lied," only that the intelligence
was faulty, and blame Goerge Tenent (who was later decorated by Bush) and
the CIA. But the concern should be that the CIA freely admitted that much of
that intelligence was at best questionable and shouldn't be used to make
policy without firsthand verification; instead the Administration called it
"irrefutable evidence" and based the whole invasion on it. Of course now,
they downplay the clear and present danger issue and say they were trying to
liberate Iraq all along.
The high treason that Steve alluded to was that the person who refuted the
yellowcake/Niger story was politically avenged by outing his wife, a veteran
NOC operative at the CIA. The identity of the person or persons in the
Adminsitration haven't been discovered because the Bush Administration has
been stonewalling, and the Republicans in Congress will never allow a
Congressional investigation of this treason, so the special prosecutor
investigating is forced to hold second-rate journalists in contempt by not
revealing their sources, while the guy the broke the whole story, a die-hard
conservative columnist, remains footloose and fancy free.
The media doesn't cover it because they make more money by covering the
Michael Jackson circus/trial and the Runaway Bride story.
Anyway, anyone who thinks that any president has never lied to his country
to further his political agenda is a naive fool.
That said, I think Bush has a great idea in turning the about-to-be-closed
military bases into nuclear power plants. It will help us reduce our
dependence on foreign oil, and then when the price of oil falls, Saudi
Arabia won't be able to finance its --------- activities and the world will
be safer. But I fear that Bush's plan is just talk and he will continue to
do the bidding of his masters in Big Oil.
"L.W. ("ßill") ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote in message
news:42AB0907.DCF125AC@***.net...
> Who lied to us?
> God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
> mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
>
>
> Matt Macchiarolo wrote:
>>
>> Can't argue with that. See, we agree occasionally...