The reality based community

[Botnst]

Originally Posted by cmac2012

All of those guys believed that Saddam haddam but the IAEA did not concurr with that opinion and they turned out to be correct. So what was Bush's regard for the IAEA?

On Sept. 7, 2002, he appeared with Blair at a shirt sleeves news conference up at Camp David and said, approximately, "We have a new report from the IAEA saying that Saddam is 6 months away from have a nukular weapon."

Turns out the report was from '98 (new report?) and they had said he was 6 months to 2 years away from having a weapon before the inspectors found and confiscated his equipment in '91 or '92.

http://www.celticguitarmusic.com/MlandCampDavid.htm

This is the same IAEA whose help is crucial in helping to prevent nookear proliferation. Oh Dubya-dubs, we shore do love ya'all.

Only atomics are considered by IAEA. If one uses the acronym, "WMD," there are other munitions included in the list that are not atomic.

But OTOH, who GAS? Everybody's mind is made-up anyway. No matter what anybody says we've all heard the arguments and counterarguments.

What's the point in shouting the same things at each otehr ad nauseum?

Make sure your side gets out and votes in the mid-term elections next year.

B

[Honus]

Originally Posted by cmac2012

All of those guys believed that Saddam haddam but the IAEA did not concurr with that opinion and they turned out to be correct. So what was Bush's regard for the IAEA?

On Sept. 7, 2002, he appeared with Blair at a shirt sleeves news conference up at Camp David and said, approximately, "We have a new report from the IAEA saying that Saddam is 6 months away from have a nukular weapon."

Turns out the report was from '98 (new report?) and they had said he was 6 months to 2 years away from having a weapon before the inspectors found and confiscated his equipment in '91 or '92.

Actually, the report wasn't from 1998. The report doesn't exist.

Not trying to open this issue back up, just clarifying the record.

[Honus]

Originally Posted by peragro

"George Bush is the biggest terrorist there is..."

I asked for an example of a lie from Cindy Sheehan, not a statement of her opinion. Is there any evidence that she didn't believe that statement when she made it? That's the only way I could see how a statement of opinion can be considered a lie.

[luvrpgrl]

Originally Posted by cmac2012

And that is wrong because....?

Because she is also publicly claiming that is not what she wants.

[luvrpgrl]

Originally Posted by cmac2012

It is an exageration, no doubt about it.

OTOH, let's look at a facet of Operation Iraqi Liberation (OIL) that is seldom referenced. We spent 10, 11 years insisting that Iraq disarm. We had inspectors find large stockpiles and destroy them. Turns out they had shed a lot of their war-making ability.

So what do we do? Invade them with shocking and awful burning death from the sky. Again, after we, with help from the rest of the world, had insisted they disarm. It's a little like a cop insisting that a perp drop his weapon, and then shooting him after he does.

You might say, we didn't know for sure he had dropped his gun. A lot of other people thought he had (they were mostly right), and we heaped scorn on them.

Woo-EEE! Tha's a baaaddd m*********** Jack!

Even if everything you say is true, its still NOT TERRORISM.

[luvrpgrl]

Originally Posted by dculkin

I asked for an example of a lie from Cindy Sheehan, not a statement of her opinion. Is there any evidence that she didn't believe that statement when she made it? That's the only way I could see how a statement of opinion can be considered a lie.

An opinion can be a lie also. Just try publicly calling someone who is a public figure a pedophile and see how fast you get sued.

[H2O2]

Originally Posted by Botnst

Make sure your side gets out and votes in the mid-term elections next year.

B

That's a non sequitur. In the context of this subject, what exactly does voting for a "side" accomplish here in Merka? Both...uh, "sides" opted to get us into this fiasco--equally culpable and equally shamed. Neither "side" has the guts to admit the obvious; we f@#ked up and need to get the hell out ASAP.

[Botnst]

Originally Posted by H2O2

That's a non sequitur. In the context of this subject, what exactly does voting for a "side" accomplish here in Merka? Both...uh, "sides" opted to get us into this fiasco--equally culpable and equally shamed. Neither "side" has the guts to admit the obvious; we f@#ked up and need to get the hell out ASAP.

Did I say either side? One side? Two sides? A dozen sides?

Nope, I said, "Your side." You define it in whatever way tickles your fancy.

I define it in the way that I think maximizes my longterm self interest.

Bot

[luvrpgrl]

All great achievements meet great resistence.

The more and louder the anti war idiots scream, the greater it will make Bush's achievement when history looks back on it.

Those who claim (the liberals mostly) that we cannot create a fundamental shift in the philosophy or the mindset of arabs/muslims, are the biggest racists in existence (yet they want to call us conservatives the racists.)

Fear not, liberty is blowing in the wind, when the sweet smell of freedom reaches those who hunger for it , the lengths to which they will strive for it will make homicide murderers look like children crying for their bottle.

[luvrpgrl]

A good reason to fight for democracy in a region that fertilizes terrorism, violence and hatred for things that are good.

""Somebody yelled something was falling. We didn't know if it was desks coming out. It turned out it was people coming out, and they started coming out one after the other ... we saw the jumpers coming. We didn't know what it was at first, but then the first body hit and then we knew what it was. And they were just like constant ... I was getting sick. I felt like I was intruding on a sacrament. They were choosing to die and I was watching them and shouldn't have been. So me and another guy turned away and looked at a wall and we could still hear them hit."
Firefighter Maureen McArdle-Schulman
All the interviews are available here.

We know very well, from our many years of clinical experience, that human nature will employ the mental defense mechanism of denial to avoid knowledge of the worst, to explain it away and recapture the sense of safety and security that existed before the horror. However, there are times when denial can cost too heavily. Neville Chamberlain learned that shortly before he died, but too late for Western Europe and the world. Let us hope we can stay the course, despite the childishness of the utopians in the media, universities and Democratic party.
Posted at 11:33 AM by Stephen "

[cmac2012]

Originally Posted by peragro

Your point would be...?

That maybe we are not automatically the wonderful savior of oppressed people that we like to think we are, and that maybe such delusion leads to glorious visions of heroic warfare in the minds of the likes of "W" and friends with the attendant fallout and blowback that goes with the mis-use of force.

[H2O2]

Originally Posted by Botnst

Did I say either side? One side? Two sides? A dozen sides?

Nope, I said, "Your side." You define it in whatever way tickles your fancy.

I define it in the way that I think maximizes my longterm self interest.

Bot

We both know there is a defacto stranglehold by the duopoly that does not allow alternative "sides" or POV. My "side" has no side, hence voting is irrelevant with regard to the subject at hand.

Not sure if I've ever voted based upon my self-interest...except if supporting what's best for my community, region or nation is a self-interested sort of thang.

[cmac2012]

Originally Posted by Botnst

Only atomics are considered by IAEA. If one uses the acronym, "WMD," there are other munitions included in the list that are not atomic.

But OTOH, who GAS? Everybody's mind is made-up anyway. No matter what anybody says we've all heard the arguments and counterarguments.

What's the point in shouting the same things at each otehr ad nauseum?

Make sure your side gets out and votes in the mid-term elections next year.

Yeah, you're right, it has been beat up pretty badly. I am a little miffed that the so-called liberal media has mostly ignored the 9/7/02 prevarication by "W" and Blair, a mis-statement that put false words in the mouth of a respected UN subsidiary, the IAEA, for the purpose of bolstering Bush's case.

And then we are told over and over that Bush didn't lie. I saw it on video. It was a falsity. Sorry.

[Honus]

Originally Posted by luvrpgrl

An opinion can be a lie also.

You didn't say that she might be a liar. You said she is a liar. Give us a quote from Cindy Sheehan that is a lie. If you are relying on her opinion that George Bush is a terrorist, then I don't think you've made your case, unless you have evidence that she does not believe that he is a terrorist.

Just try publicly calling someone who is a public figure a pedophile and see how fast you get sued.

Calling someone a pedophile is a statement of fact, not opinion.

Whether we like it or not those anti-war idiots are the ones that turn up the heat which forces our leaders to do something other than more of the same. If it wasn't for the anti war idiots we would have no plan or time frame to get the troops home. I'm for the war but against the way that its being fought, what does that make me. I also think that those anti war idiots helped get troops the armor they needed. I do think that the MM and Sheenan have subversive motives but for the most part what those people really want is our troops to stop being sitting ducks while our punk sec. of defense sits is squirming around like a headshot woodchuck.

I know what its like to be shot at while inept leaders try to think of a plan and its not a bunch of fun.